The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-01 00:00:00

T S N) LONDON,

I form that opinion upon this sole, and to me perfectly satis-
factory, ground, that I cannot believe that a financier so
able and so experienced, if he had contemplated that his
law should be a permanent law, would have frllmed it
upon a principle which I hope I may induce the House
to believe is one so much to be deprecated. I am not
about to entrap the house into a barren discussion as to thecomparative merits of direct and indirect taxation. In
these days we are too apt perhaps to indulge in snch dis-
cwsions. I feel persuaded myself that it you have to nth °
in a country like England a revenue of the amount which
we Iva at present do raise, it would be quite impossible to i
ob-
tain such results by adhering strictly to any particular mode
the
greater raising our public revenue. I feel convinced that
greater the number, the more vaiious the means of supply,
the greater will be the facility of raising the reverue ; and
far from laying down any pedantic rule to be adhered t
that
o as_
at
one mode of raising taxes in Preference to another, all _
I would uphold as the golden rule of all Chancellors of
the Exchequer is, to beware that no tax, whatever form
it may take, whether that of a customs duty, an excise
duty, or a direct impost, should in its nature be excessive. But although I will not enter into a discussion as to the
comparative merits of direct or indirect taxation, of this I
feel persuaded, and I can hardly doubt that a majority of
this House will sanction the proposition, that if
direct taxation is to form a considerable part, or
even the more considerable part, of our financial
principleempi it it of the utmost importance that the
u of that direct taxation should be a right
.-oar.) Now, I cannot for a moment agree that
the principle of direct taxation should be other than the
trineiPle of indirect taxation. I am of opinion, as I think
the highest authorities are of opinion, that direct taxation
should be as general, not to say as universal, as indirect
taxation.-(Hear.) And, believing that that must have
been the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, the very fact that he
established his tax upon income on so narrow a basis, that
he established exemptions on so considerable a scale, con-
vinces me that in his use of that impost he had no other
than a temporary object-that he had no other object
than that which he expressed in this House, and that
in its original proposition, and in the renewal for which,
at its original proposition, ho prepared the House and the
country, he was perfectly justified in adopting it with that
temporary object in view. I hardly know whether it is ne-
cessary, or whether on this occasion I am justified in even
touching upon the consequences of adopting any other
principle in the application of direct taxation. In fact, if
you come forward and tell us that the essence of direct taxa-
tion is that it should be limited to a class, that it should be
founded upon large exemptions, your impost is not so much
a direct tax as a " forced contribution."- (Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") It is a tax upon capital. It is a con-
stant invasion upon the fund which is employing labour,
and if carried to any excess, or continued for any length
of time, its inevitable consequences must, in my opinion, be
the impoverishment and misery of the community.-
(Cheers.) I look then upon the policy which was pursued
by Sir Robert Peel with respect to the income-tax, when
he introduced it, and when, in accordance with the first
speech he made on the subject, he three years after conti-
nued it, to have been perfectly justifiable, because his object
being a temporary object, he had then only to consider the
Policy and the expediency and the mode of attaining his
temporary purpose in a manner the most easy and the most
feasible. But I must call he attention of the House to the
fact that the present Ministry, in making a tax upon in-
come the basis of their finance, were not actuated by the
same principles as Sir R. Peel, and did not contemplate the
tame use of the instrument which they introduce to our no-
ee% With a candour which I cannot too much praise, and
which I fully acknowledge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
"en he asked for a continuance of the income tax for three
pars, never for a moment intimated that his view of that
Topthssas that it was a temporary one. Had the Chancellor
the tax
Exchequer come forward and proposed the renewal of
irheri he
etax for three years for the fourth time, I still doubt
whether
would have been justified in framing a great
d
lard! e r in est, which had continued for a term much
duration than was contemplated by its originator,
which was again to be continued for a considerable,
thsee'gh a definite, term-I doubt the policy of the Chancellor
the Exchequer, even under these circumstances, in
treardpg his tax upon income on the limited basis on which
...did frame it. But when the Minister of Finance tells us-
Ask you to renew the tax upon income for the fourth
Fave for another three years," and with_a frankness which I
acknowledged informs us at the same time that we
cant of contemplate the term when we shall be able to carry
on tear financial arrangements without the aid of such an
'rowar% at, and framed in such a manner, then I say that that
the period when the Minister should have come forward,
and if it had been his conviction that a large direct tax upon
hethe
.lincome of the country was permanently necessary, that
should have laid down the just principle upon which such
p, d
anam,onnt of direct taxation could alone justifiably be ap-
_ to the property and the industry of this country.-
linen
ce ear
hear.)t I may be told, as I have been told
pa et of that day,
that there was no acknowledgment on
the
the Government that in their financial con-
teeriplation the income-tax
Bu:: I speak in the memory
B •- was
cf G e
attol
emb be
nee
ap perpetual tax.
etsaxe
f.
the House, and I am sure they will justify my statement,
what n I recall to their recollection the catalogue of fiscal
act;ievements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in-
d_u le :ed in, which he enumerated to an amazed audience, and
Ithe• completion of which alone was indicated by him as the
nerct
_when this country could be free from this impost.-
(Hear, hear .)v I have great confidence in the vitality of
tlat
3xisting. Government.-(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The
gers which they have successfully encountered, the ea-
ch they
lash( tropnes
have evaded, and. the. crises which
me ly have baffled - all indicate the possession, if not o
Yet of enduring qualities.-(Laughter, and cheers.)
I assure the Noble Lord and his colleagues, though
that, nnyonuty to sit on this side of the table-(A laugh) -
the,fully recognise their personal claims to the post which
"'cuPY.--(Laughter ) Sanguine as may be their own
Iva as to the term oft their administration, I do not think
ttelatra',:peiaoteedn the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have con •
prolonged as may be his tenure of office-that it
wet ild ever be his fortune to achieve all those objects, the ac-
71111(Plislaraent of which he has laid down and announced to
ecountry as the condition of terminating the tax on property
and income as it is now framed. Well, Sir, I think I may
fairly conclude that the tax, as now framed, is a permanent
(feature in the financial schemes of her Alajesty's Ministers.-
Hear.) sow, I beg the House to observe that in anything I
have said I am making no objection to a tax on property
and income. What I am directing the attention of the
House to is this-and I think it of the utmost importance-
that this proposition of direct taxation is to form a more
considerable portion of our financial system for the future
tb an it has heretofore done, that direct taxation should be
founded upon the true principle, and not upon the false one;
ul Jon the principle which, in the long run, will be advan-
tageous to the community, and not upon one which, if it suc-
ceed, will in my opinion be most pernicious; that the prin-
ciple which we apply to direct taxation shall virtually be
the same as that which we apply to indirect, and that in its
application we should attempt to make it general, not to
say universal. - (Hear, hear.) That is the only point that I
am now enforcing upon the attention, and, I hope, the con-
viction of the House. It will be observed, then, as far as
the financial statement of the Minister this year is con-
cerned, as far as we have it yet submitted to our
analysis, that it was founded upon a false basis,
'that it assumed that the income-tax, as at pre-
sent framed, should be permanent ; and upon the
assumption of its permanence, or of its continuance, the
surplus estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
depended. I shall now consider the measures which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward, and which
were to be dealt with by the disposition of this assumed
surplus-a surplus assumed upon the continuance of a tax,
false, dangerous, and pernicious in its principle, as every tax
intending direct impost to a large amount, and the principle
of which is not of general application, I maintain is. -
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
three measures of considerable importance, and one or two of
minor importance. The first in rank was, no doubt, a propo-
sition for the repeal of the window nax. It is unnecessary
for me to dwell much upon this point. The objections to the
window duty as it then existed were financial, or they were
social, or, as it has been the fashion to call them, sanitary.
I must stop to say that if the financial oppression of the
window-tax was the great reason for Ps remission, it is to be
regretted that the Minister should have attempted only par-
tially to remit it. It would have been more advantageous,
had it been possible, that the tax should be simply and com-
pletely remitted. The fashion has always subsisted, and
the present Government have followed it, in the division of
a surplus, very often to fritter away its virtue by apportion-
ing a part to various interests of the community. -(Hear,
hear.) Nov, in my °Pinion, as a general principle, it is
much wiser, if you have a surplus, to do something that is
efficient-(Hear, hear,-to discover what interest is most
Buffering, what tax is most oppressive, and the remission of
what duty would give the most elasticity to trade, or add
most to the comfort and the happiness of the community,
than to think that as a matter of course the commercial
class, the agricultural class, the inhabitants of the town, and
the shipbuilder should each have a share ; when it is very
possible that of these four classes three may require no aid,
and when it is very possible also that h
Y.
- concentrating your
resources upon one subject of assistance, You may afford sub-
stantial relief and succour.-( Hear, hear.) But I do not
dwell upon that point-nor will I dwell upon the social reason
which might have been and was urged in favour of a remis-
fheary ase
beense eitaatrtyainedsion of the window duly, except thatas
ob-
jects were concerned, I think they might
without any loss of revenue. The reason that I do not dwell
upon the subject at all is, that I do not intend, as I
said
on
the 11th of April, when it was my duty to solicit the atten-
tion of the House to subjects of
similar to the present-thatle
do not intend at all to dispute the policy of the repeal th
window-tax. I accept that as a realised result. I think
after all that has passed, considering the unpopularity. of the
tax, considering its injurious character, and considering all
that has occurred in this House upon the topic, that nothing
could be more injurious, more inexpedient, or more impolitic
than to disturb that remission ; and as far as the revenue
derived from the tax upon windows is concerned, I con-
fider it blotted out from the Exchequer.-(Hear, hear.)
I now proceed to a measure of the Ministers' of a novel
nnaracter, in some degree connected with the tax which
I.:onsider as en'irely abrogated, and that is the proposi•
ti embodied in the Bill before us-namely, a tax upon
houses, -Fa
w, I ask the House to apply that sound prin-
ciple of finance which, in my opinion, ought to be one of our
cardinal principles of finance-namely, that direct taxation
should be as general as indirect taxation, to the measure
which is now before the consideration of the House. I ask
them to apply that searching principle to the Bill which has
been introduced by the Government for imposing a tax upon
houses. Sir, that fatal characteristic of the income-tax,
which was perfectly justifiable when it was introduced for a
temporary purpose by Sir Robert Peel, but infinitely to be
deprecated when revived for a permanent purpose by the
present Government - namely, direct taxation, established
on the most limited basis, and partaking in no way of a
general character, without the excuse of the Government
having received it from their predecessors. I find that feature
in an aggravated form in the house-tax.- (Hear, hear.) The
Government had a suplus at their command with which they
might have completely and efficiently dealt with the
window-tax. They had a surplus which would have allowed
them to remit the window-tax, if they considered the re-
mission of that tax to be of paramount necessity, and I do
not dispute the position. But they do not remit the window-
tax. It is a commutation-not a remission - (Hear, hear)-
and it has this fatal fault, that the commutation is a partial
commutation---( Hear, hear.) Complete remission, or com-
plete commutation-these are the two principles which a
financial Minister should pursue, But the Chancellor of the
Exchequer not having the moral courage I will not say, but
the financial courage, completely to remit the tax on win-
dows, which he ought to have done if he felt the necessity
of doing it, takes out from the armoury of the financial
minister one of the most incs.imable weapons land uses it for
the most meagre and the meanest purposes.-(Cheers.) He
brings forward the instrument which is to impose a tax upon
houses-as just a tax in its principle as can well be con-
ceived, and which every person who reflects upon the pre-
sent position of our financial resources must have always
looked to as a most valuable aid. He brings it forward, and
he does-what ? He does not. even effect a complete remis-
sion of the window duties. He gives you imperfect remis-
sion and imperfect commutation, and he wastes those great
resources which are offered him by a house-tax for a most
limited and, comparatively speaking, contemptible result.
And in doing this he not only does not obtain a complete
QmPoubstio, thixgh he tIOWI obtain phial one; but be

violates that important principle which at no period more
than the present ought to be cherished by the House of
Commons—the right principle upon which direct taxation
should be applied.—(hear.) There were other measures
brought forward by the Minister on that occasion. A dimi-
nution was proposZesl of the tax upon timber, which we have
recently been discussing in Committee, and also of the duty
upon coffee. With the permission of the House I will
address myself briefly to these subjects. I am not one of
those who think that there is any abstract excellence in a
Customs duty—l am not one of those who think that, as a
rigid rule, or even as a general rule, you should remit an
Excise fury in preference to a Customs duty. All that I
would do when the subject of the remission of taxation was
concerned would be, to ascertain which duty is most op-
pressive to the people and most injurious to their comfort
and their industry ; and whether I found that to be a Cus-
toms duty or an Excise duty, that is the impoet upon which
I would lay my finger. Therefore I do not object to these
propositions of remission on the part of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer because they are Customs duties. Assuming
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could prove to me
that the remission of these Customs duties would more bene-
fit the subject, would give a greater impulse to trade, would
more tend to the advantage of the community than the re-
mission of an Excise duty, or any direct tax, I should prefer
remitting the Customs duties; but nay great objecti n to
the remission at present of these two duties—though I shall
not now dwell upon this head - is that I do not think we are
justified by the state of our revenue to remit any tax, what-
ever form it may take, and whether it is a Customs duty or
an Excise duty ; because I imagine that our ability to do that
depends upon the fact of the existence of a surplus or not.—
(Hear.) But I must notice the phia upon which the remis-
sion of the timber duty has been put forward by the Right
Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman says we owe
the remission of the timber duty mainly and principally to
the builders of ships in this country. Well, I think that no
one will dispute the hardships to which the British ship-
builder is now subjected—(Hear, hear) —but a partial re-
mission of the duty
.cn timber does not at all compensate
the builder of ships in this country fur the competition to
which you now exposed him. You are giving up revenue
in this case without obtaining the result whin you ought
to achieve.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if you were to allow the
builder of ships in these isles to build in bond, as has before
been proposed ; if you permitted him to use freely all the
articles that are necessary to the construction of a ship in
England, and pay no duty upon them, then you would put
him in fair competition with the foreigner who brings a ship
duty-free to this country, whilst the British builder is build-
ing his ship subject to a variety of duties.—(Hear, hear.)
That is an arrangement which you ought to have made
when you repealed the navigation laws.—(Cheers.) When
you did that you ought to have permitted the British ship-
builder to build in bond; then he would have been placed
in a position which I deny that the proposal of the Minis-
ter, as far as the British ship-builder is concerned, will tend
to place him.—( Hear, hear.) There were other proposi-
tions in this budget. There were propositions which were
intended for the relief of the distressed agricultural interest,
and I shall not dwell upon them. They are already
familiar to the House. Whatever was their value it
is unnecessary for me to calculate them, because no sooner
were they offered than they were withdrawn.—( Hear, hear.)
But perhaps the House will permit me to make one observa-
tion upon the position of the agricultural interest with refer-
ence to the remission of taxation. I ventured to say just
now that in the remission of a tax, whatever form it might
assume, all that I recognised as the valid reason for ire repeal
or remission was, that it should be the one which the Minister
of Finance thought, on the whole, to be the most injurious
to the community. That, I think, ought to be the rule
which should guide him in the selection of taxes for remis-
sion —(Hear, hear.) Sir, I think there is another rule
which ought also to guide a Minister of Finance, who is in
the happy possession of a surplus. I think, if there be a
particular interest in the country which is subject to great
difficulty, is experiencing great distress, and incurring a long
and continued depression, that it is the duty of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to consider the state of that interest,
and to see whether the remission of any tax would tend to
relieve it. Now, the House will recollect that at the com-
mencement of the year we were informed, by the Speech from
the Throne, that a very important interest was in a state of
great depression, and of continued depression. The House
will recollect that, shortly after, the minister proposed mea-
sures, the tendency of which was announced by him to relieve
that distressed interest; and without requesting the House
to give an opinion now upon a question, to which I
refer only in illustration of the financial course taken by the
Government this year, and not with any view to obtain an
opinion upon the subject from either side of the House, I ask
the House to consider the position of the agricultural interest
now with reference to the question of remission of taxation.
By certain laws—the policy or impolicy of which form no
part of our discussion to-night—we have agreed to place the
cultivation of the soil in this country in complete competition
with the cultivators of the soils of another countries. Now,
is it not obvious that it is the first duty of the Government
in remitting taxation to ascertain whether they cannot dimi-
nish the cost of production to the British farmer so situated?
I ask the House to concede no more. That was the first
duty of a financial Minister, who had counselled his Sove-
reign to announce from the throne that there was only one
interest in the country, and that a most important one, in a
state of continued distress. I am not now asking the House
to decide whether it was in the power of the Minister or not,
but I say it was the duty of the Minister to consider whe-
ther, in the reduction of duty he was about to propose, it
was in his power to reduce the cost of production to the
British cultivator of the soil. It was the opinion of myself
and of my friends who supported me that it was in the
power of the Government to diminish the cost of
production. It was our belief that there was a
pressure of taxation upon the cultivator of the soil
which was not shared by the community, and though
there might be a difference of opinion as to the degree
of that pressure, no gentleman in the House will
deny the fact that the eultivatioq of the soil belongs to a
class in this country which pays taxes to which the commu-
nity at large is not subject.—(Hear, hear.) Following the
seconu rule which I think should guide the Minister of Fi-
nance into the appropriation of his surplus—the first being
that he should reinit the taxes:most oppressive to the commu-
nity; and the second, that he should remit that tax which
presses most upon any suffering class—l called upon the
Ministry to consider whether it was not in their power to
accomplish that result. In doing to, as I do tonight, I in-
terfered in no manner with that complete remission of the
window duty, which I consider to be a realised result, and
one which no Government can disturb. I merely urged that
it
should be borne in mind that the cost of production should
be diminished to the cultivator of the soil, and believing that
adwise appropriation of the resources of the Minister
suggested to mthieg
place.trainsuut
the
nmmeanttersiaelvlyeraalssipstreodpotsoittiaoknes
might
tovbere
which in a less or greater degree would, in my opinion, have
effected that object. In doing so, I with
vice of my friends, the course I had
previously ureud, h he te
adopted,
aand. d
I confessed I had otter objects in so doing than merely
introducing an element which tended to diminish the cost
of production to the British farmer. I knew that
in matters of finance it is not merely pounds,
shillings, and pence that aro always to be calculated, but
that the feelings and opinions of the people, or of a great
class of the community must be considered in the distribu-
tion of taxation ; and I was profoundly convinced that it
was at that time, as now, equally desirable that any demon-
stration on the part of this House of sympathy with the cul-
tivator of the soil —any expression of a desire to assist him
in his terrible struggle—any resolution for a vote by this
House to assist him (as I considered it to be the duty of the
House to do) in his effort to lessen the cost of production,
was a course the most politic, and tending, whether a large
or small measure were adopted—tending to allay asperities,
to soften animosities, and terminate that conflict between the
rival industries of the country which are so much to be de-
precated, and which so en -anger the institutions of the
country. I am not at all prepared to say that that would
not have been a wise and politic measure. On the other
hand, he might have taken his surplus, and, dealing with
that portion of' the poor-law funds which is not subject to
the control of local administration, the Minister might have
brought forward extensive measures of relief, which might
have contributed to ail the finances of the farmer, and would
have produced an impression on his mind that this House
sympathised with his sufferings—that they were disposed to
adapt his position to the al,ered circumstances in which
their legislation had placed him.—(llear, bear.) That
course was not pursued by the Government. I felt it to be
my duty to invite their attention to what I considered their
duty, and, though I was supported by nearly a moiety of
the House, I was unsuccessful. And now I have brought the
financial career of the Government down to the commence-
ment of the month of April. There was one observation
which I wish to make with respect to the motion which 1
introduced to the House with the object of assisting the
British farmer to meet his severe trial. The object I had
always acknowledged to be twofold—namely, not only to ob-
tain for him some relief from the pressure of taxation, but
also to show him that there was in this House a salutary
sympathy with his distressed position. The Hon. Member
for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey) has lately made some observations
—(Hear, hear)—upon my Parliamentary career, which cer-
tainly would have been less inconvenient, and might have
been more ingenuous in him, if they had been made here in my
presence.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman is of opinion
that the motions which I have brought forward were futile
motions ; and secondly, that in bringing them forward the
mover of them is insincere. These are very harsh senti-
ments. It is very probable that the motions which I have
brought forward with the twofold object I have mentioned
may have been futile, but at any rate motions that have been
supported by a large party in the House of Commons have
upon their surface prima facie symptoms of not being consi-
dered altogether insincere. It may be possible that a man
who brings forward a motion in the House of Commons
may be insincere, but it is difficult to penetrate the bosom of
any: man. We should rather give credit for motives more
Ratural, more charitable, and more obvious. I may have
been mistaken and not insincere • my reason may have
been
misled; my
have been a fojudgment may have been misguided; I may
o man or a very vain man ; it is better to
think that than foolish
I should be an insincere man; at least, it
must always be a question of controversy whether our mo-
tives are insincere.
But what are we to say of a Member of
Parliament who, when
he believes to be futile,
ii)iyioationesntitere brouflato bfeorwa is erd whiche
is insincere, omits no opportunity gentleman
Iftolroeling himoinhytointehde
same lobby—Wear, hear
)—and supporting
by his
suffrage.— (Dear, hear.) Why
I • ht mig turn round on the
Hon. Member for Berkshire, and say there is scarce an epi-
thet of vituperation—
_ s
seame a phrase of invective, that, under
such circumstances, I houtel not be justified in lavishing
upon him.— (Hear, bear.) fiut it is more agreeable to me
as it is to most of us, not to think too harshly of human na-
ture ; 'we all know that men actuated, not only by
mixed motives, but often by cont. are
used ones, that it is very
possible for a man to be in the possession of very
considerable ability, to have received a remarkable
culture, to be in the possession of many reputable
and some amiable qualities, and yet to be gifted with such
an uncouth and blundering organization, that he is perpe-
tually doing that which he did not intend, and saying and
writing that which he did not mean - (Hear, bear)
and that is the charitable view which I tyke of the Hon.
Member for Berkshire's conduct.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir,
about this time a considerable event occurred. I have
analysed the measures brought forward by the Government
under their various heeds, founded upon an assumed surplus
which was to sustain a large measure of direct taxation,
founded upon a fallacious and injurious principle. I have
shown you how the window duty, under any circumstances,
was repealed, and nobody wishes to disturb that repeal. I
have shown you how few measure were brought forward to
diminish your import duties. I have reminded you of the
measures that were brought forward to relieve the distressed
agriculturists. I have reminded you that when Ministers,
after an agitated epoch to which I do not wish to allude, re-
constructed their Budget, and discarded, in a manner not re-
markable for courtesy or kindness, the claims of the agricul-
tural body. I called upon the House to declare their opinion
upon that subject; that though I was supported by nearly a
moiety of its members, I was not successful in obtaining the
object of my desires; and, Sir, I made no further objection to
the Budget of the Minister. I was satisfied with fulfilling
what I considered a public duty, and from that moment I was
resolved, as far as I was concerned, that the measures
which the Minister brought forward under such circum-
stances, and of which I questioned and challenged the pro-
priety, under those circumstances should not receive our op-
position. But what disturbed the serenity of the financial
firmament Nothing 49121 014 lido of the Limo, Win

Hon. Gentleman opposite--a great crnament of this House,
one of its most valued Members, the lather of the House
fir I believe he is looked upon in a paternal light—a gentle-
man whom I may fairly describe us being the most constant
and consistent supporter of the Whig Government—who,
though he assumes to chide them, chides them in a friendly
spirit, and though he assumes to castigate them, castigates
them with the most affectionate remarks—(Laughter)—a
gentleman who, if you take a comprehensive view of his ca-
reer, has always stepped forward at the right moment to ex-
tricate a not sufficiently strong Government from the im-
pending catastrophe—this most distinguished supporter of
the Whig Government (Mr. Hume) was the gentleman who
brought forward the motion to limit the income-tax, which
was to have been continued for an assured term of three
years, to one year only; and intimated, in a manner which
has necessarily bound the House, that his object in so doing
was to submit that tax to Parliamentary investigation of the
most searching character, wirh the view of terminating those
inequalities— those circumstances that lead to fraud in it—
and that inquisitorial proceeding which it seemed to have been
acknowledged by almost everybody were believed to be ir-
removable. What happened? That motion was carried.
Tne basis upon which the surplus of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was raised fell from under the superstructure;
the fairy palace vanished in the night. That was no ordi-
nary loss ,o the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that was not
merely a loss of income- tax for three years, though that was
a result which the finance Minister must deeply deplore, but
it was, regarding the schemes of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
a loss of a permanent income-t ix. It wasnot merely a three
years' tenure of the tax that was constructed and formed
in the brief agitated epoch of the fraction of the present Par-
liamentary session, the ensuing recess, and the meeting of
Parliament again ; but it was the permanent future of the
financial Minister that was taken from him—it was the
foundation on which was raise-1, not merely the present
superstrtipture, but on which, year after year, he was to
build up all those elevations which were to have formed the
great future of our renovated and reconstructed financial sys-
tem.— (Hear, hear.) It is impossible to over-rate the im-
portance of that vote—impossible to deny that from it the
financial position of this country has become an uncertain
and precarious one. Ido not blame the Noble Lord or his
colleagues for accepting that vote, with its consequences.
From this side no taunt has arisen which would intimate to
the Noble Lord that he ought to have resigned after the most
decided manner in which that vote was carried. . I think the
Nob!e Lord and his colleagues acted in a much more hooour-
able manner in not resigning office then. Nay more, that
they acted in a dutiful'and loyal manner in the peculiar cir-
cumstances ; and after the events of this year it was their
duty to retain their offices. They fulfilled that duty, and not
in an ungracious manner. But whilst lam willing to make
that concession to her Majesty's Ministers, I cannot agree
that their conduct was equally to be lauded in retaining nct
only their places, but the financial measures which they had
brought forward under circumstances so different, with
prospects so different, from those in which they now found
themselves. My opinion is that Ministers, feeling they were
not so justified in retiring from office, but that it was their
duty to retain their responsible position, should at the same
time have announced to their eminent supporters who pro-
posed that motion, that he and his friends must take the
consequences of that withdrawal of the financial propo- ,
sitions which had been founded on the assumed conti-
nuance of the tax, and which were to be furnished by
the surplus which had now only an imaginary ex-
istence. Ido not think lam taking an extravagant or
irrational view of the duty of the Government under such
circumstances. But it appeared to me, as far as I could
observe the human nature opposite me, that the Noble Lord
was animated at the same time by feelings of a very similar
character. There was a species of delay in the adyance-
ment of the financial measures of the Government; they
never appeared in the paper—or, if they did, they were never
noticed ; not a single stage did they ever make of progress ;
and it was generally understood—l do no not speak of ru-
mours out of doors, or of those confidential communications
which are made in-doors—but it was generally understood—
perhaps it was a public conviction arising from such views of
the situation of Ministers and of their duty to the country
—but there was a general impression that the financial
measures of the Government were withdrawn. How many
Cabinet Councils were held I would not venture to
state; but this I know, a remarkable scene occurred
in this House. One of the most distinguished metropolitan
Members, who seemed to share in this conviction, arose in
his place and demanded some information from the Noble
Lord as to the intentions of the Government. He wanted to
know whether the window-tax was really to be repealed or
not, and the answer of the Noble Lord was extremely un-
satisfactory. The inquiry was again repeated another
night, and in a tone of menance, and the Noble Lord, turning
his back upon us, made a confidential communication
which appeared to be of a deprecatory character. The
effect was as if the Noble Lord was hustled by a Finsbury
mob in Saffron-hill, or some place of that character, where
the pocket of the Minister was relieved of his financial sur-
plus. After a fortnight's friendly interpellations the Noble
Lord at last screwed up his courage to proceed with his
measures of remission, which are to be supplied from a
moon-shine surplus—from a still imaginary surplus.—(Hear,
hear.) I ant now arrived at that point at which I would
ask the House what is the most prudent course that, under
these circumstances, we should pursue? The fund from
which the surplus was derived that was to be distributed
virtually no longer existed. I would ask the House calmly
and dispassionately to consider this point. What is the
prospect or probability of the income-tax being renewed at
the next meeting of Parliament? It is a disagreeable ques-
tion. But it is a question which I must beg this House
calmly, to consider to-night. I am a member of the Com-
mittee which is to inquire into the income-tax. I am a member
of it in deference to the feelings of the House, add against
my own inclination. I would rather have seen a more effi-
cient member on it than:myself. Being a member, how-
ever, of the Committee,_ let it not be supposed that I am giv-
ing the opinion of that Committee in what I now state. We
are sedulously pursuing the course of inquiry, but that has
not led us to consider the circumstances which would at all
influence my opinion on the topics to which I allude. I speak
just the eaine as if I was not a member of that Committee, or
as if that Committee had not been appointed. There is one
reason among many which 1 confess weighs much with me,
and convinces me that the tax upon income as at present
formed will not be renewed by the House. I will tell you
why. I find a universal admission that as at present framed
that tax is an unequal tax and leads to fraud that it is
rife with vexatious and inquisitorial proceedings—and that
it is stamped by features repugnant to the habits and feel-
ings of Englishmen. Everybody agrees to that. Tory,
Whig, Liberal, Conservative, or Radical, will admit those
are the features of the income-tax. But there is also another
opinion rife. Every man of any authority upon financial
subjects, all competent to form an opinion on the topic, uni-
versally and without exception agree to another point, and
that is, that those odious features of the tax cannot by any
means be removed or modified. The man, then, must be
short-sighted indeed who can hesitate as to the consequences
of such en opinion upon human action--who can believe that
a tax with such odious qualities, which the highest authori-
ties tell you can never be removed, can be renewed. That,
though a sufficient, is not the only reason. I see among the
great lights or science—among those whose writings will ul-
timately guide public opinion on the jubjezt, an opinion
gaining ground every day that ir the principle of
direct taxation, cannot be different from the principle of
indirect taxation—that they must both be perma-
nent and equally general; of course I speak only
of permanent taxes, and not of those imposed
merely to meet an emergency, like the income-tax of Sir R.
Peel. I ask then the House to consider, assuming that
when Parliament next meets it will not consent to grant the
income-tax as at present framed, and that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's present remissions of taxation are carried,
and there will be in consequence a deficiency of five or six
millions (I say nothing of the Kaffir war), what are the
prospects of the meeting that probable, or possible, defi-
ciency ? There are only two modes, and though blended
they may produce the effect, analyse those methods, and
they will resolve themselves into those by reduction of ex-
penditure or increase of taxation. Not one word will fall
from mo to depreciate the efforts of any Hon. Gentleman to
diminish taxation, though the results might be but a com-
paratively slight diminution of expenditure amounting,
perhaps, to 100,0001., 200,0001., or 300,000/. only, 1
cannot help remembering that we live in a country which
cauld never find money enough to build a national gallery.
Therefore 1 will not speak with any want of estimation for
those limited savings, but I agree with the Hon. Member for'
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that no reduction of expen-
diture can be effected in this country, unless you touch
the military armaments of the country ; and the
House must therefore consider what probability or
possibility there is of such a course. I will not
say one word to obstruct the progress of the principles in-
volved in the question of the maintenance of a perpetual
peace. I will only make one remark. As long as I find
that the strongest positions are in the possession of the weak-
est powers, that the richest territories in the world owe
their allegiance to authorities less qualified to defend them,
I see the elements of disturbance, which only the most san-
guine can affect to despise, and whether you call the process,
in the enlightened language of the present day, "annexa-
tion," and not conquest, it is a process which I feel must
begin with force, must be repelled by force, and must ulti-
mately be settled by force. But to dismiss those general
principles. I ask the House to consider the general state of
Europe at present, and say whether any Minister of this
country can be asked with any face of reason now, or in the
commencement of next year, to reduce the military arma-
ment of this country ? What is the state of the continent?
You have one of the leading nations of the world, with a
vast population, a most spirited and restless people, in the
heart of Europe, who have acknowledged that they have no
constitution—who, we know, have not in their country any
of the elements of government—who, whatever be their
powers of self-control, no one will for a moment pretend are
not at this moment i i a position the most perilous that
30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of men ever yet found them-
selves. Could even the Honourable Member opposite
(Mr. Hume) tell them that there was less chance of
a disturbance now than for some years back? If he
makes a motion to that effect ho will not be as successful
as when he limited the incomeetat to one year; and you,
whether he be right or wrong, looking at what is most pro-
bable and possible, will not meet a probable deficiency of
revenue by a diminution of military expenditure. Every
man must feel that that is not the mode in which the defi-
ciency will be met. Then it must be met by increased tax-
ation, and in ten months' time they would in all probability
be called on to supply the financial deficiency by increased
taxation. In such circumstances, then, what was there
more unjust, more impolitic, more savouring of folly, than
BOW to be taking off two millions of taxes which no one
pretends presses with any great severity on the subject, of
which the collection is effected with comparitive facility,
and which are more easily borne than any corresponding
amount of taxation which might be granted in their stead.
But I am bound to put another view of our position before
the attentive consideration of the House, if I may still pre-
sume to trespass on their attention.—(Hear.) It is a view
which, I think, deserves our gravest consideration. If you
have a deficiency, and if you are called on—with the views
which I have indicated as to direct taxation—to consider
the principle on which our financial system is established,
is it not of the utmost importance that we should come to
that consideration with plenty of time, in a tranquil mood,
and not urged by matters of pressing public interest?—
(Hear, hear.) But what prospect awaits the House when
it meets next February? What part is the Noble Lord
prepared to take? The Noble Lord is not satisfied
with financial embarrassment—he is not satisfied with a
possible deficiency of 5,000,0001. or 6,000,000/.
—he is not satisfied that we are to be called on to settle the
principle on which the revenue should be raised to supply
that deficiency, but chooses that tranquil and undisturbed
hour to propose a new reform of the House of Commons.—
(Hear.) Shall Ibe told to-night that, like the surplus, the
new Reform Bill is to be conditional on a renewal of the in-
come-tax for three years. I beg the House to observe that
this is the prospect which awaits us. When we meet, we
hl
a probable deficiency of millions in
st
hthe deficiency—we must dis-
cuss
revenue
—w
principle on with
on must
w supplyhichthe financial systeth of the coun-
try is to be established, and at the same time that her Ma-
jesty's Government are pledged—mind you, pledged—to in-
troduce a very extensive measure of Parliamentary reform.
--(Hear.) To such a measare they are pledged in the
most formal manner.—(Hear.) Must I recall to the memory
of the House the language used by a Cabinet Minister and
adopted by his colleagues on the second-reading' of the Bill
introduced by the ILA Member Or East Surrey, whoa