The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

THE

for ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer who administered
the affairs of the country when Lord Melbourne was in
office. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to thief
very lightly of the unfortunate events which preceded
the adveat of Sir R. Peel to office, and disposed to
throw something like ridicule upon those who had
the administration of financial affairs previous to 1842,
when meat fortunately Sir R. Peel came to the rescue
and saved the country from the state of ruin into
which the Whig Administration had thrown it.
Another point the Right Honourable Gentleman had
referred to which he woudered he was not afraid to
touch. The Right Honourable Gentleman adverted to
1848, when the income-tax was renewed, and it would
seem as if he thought that all that passed upon that oc-
casion had been forgotten.—(Hear, hear.) It would
seem as if he thought they had forgotten the proposition
for a double income-tax—(`leer, hear)—and that when
the House refused that, the Government found the means
(a salutary lesson, indeed, to the House of Commons) of
reducing the exp,nditure so as to render sufficient that
which the House of Commons would give.—(Hear, hear.)
What was it that had occasioned the difficulties and em
barrassinents in which the Right Hon. Geutlemen at that
time found himself—what but that unwarrantable aug-
meatetion of expenditure which had taken place under that
Government when the navy, army, and ordnance were
increased 3,000,0001. above what they had stood at for
some years, aided by the dissolation and ruin that had
been scattered over the .hole mercantile community by the
uefortunate Curreecy Act? That was the case in 1848,
when the income-tax was last renewed. He (Mr. Hurries)
voted for that renewal, and he did so most consien-
tiowly, for, such was the condition to which the finances
of the country had been reduced by the then Adminis-
tration, that he felt he could not. at that time, resist the
terrible proposition of renewing the income-tax. But
the country was now prospering—we had a surplus—all
things were smiling; and now, if they renewed the in-
come-tax, the people of England never would be freed
from it. Ile hoped that on Monday next they would
make a beginning of the end of that tux.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR had never joined his friends
in their opposition to the income-tax, for he bad always
considered i: desirable :hue we should have more direct
taxation than we had.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing would
give him ;re ater satisfection than to see it permanently
imposed upon the country provided it could be equitably
assessed. He congratulated his Right Hon. Friend upon
the statement he had made that evening, and upon his
having adhered to the principle of his former Budget,
which he had regarded as a perfectly honest and prac-
tical Budget—framed, not to catch the public eye, per-
haps, but to relieve as much as possible the springs of
industry by removing those taxes which rendered articles
of prime necessity dear to the people.—(Hear, hear.)
He was carteinly much surprised at the outburst of in-
dignation teem the metropolis when the Right Honour-
able Gentleman spoke of a house-tax in place of the
windovv•tax, because he believed it to be a very proper

substitute. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that
1501. per annum was not a large sum for a man with
5,000 a year to pay for the enjoyment of that fortune
in peace and security. He quite concurred in that view,
and he could not forget that the we:king classes did not
pay ne farthing of that tax. He thought it was quite
remarkable that, since the enactment of the property-tax,
political agitation had, with the single exception of the
year 1848, greatly subsided, until he believed at the
present moment be might almost say it was entirely
extinct.—Gear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
had entreated the House to aid him in withstanding
any attempt to reduce the duties upon small articles.
That appeared to be tantamount to declaring that,
however unjust the duty upon small articles, it ought
to be retained. There was one which he (Lord H.
Grosvenor) should certainly oppose—he meant the at-
torney's annual certificate duty; and he gave notice
that, upon the earliest day, he should move for its
repeal.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that when the former Budget was
proposed he had objected to paying 1,000,000/. per an-
num off the funded debt while heavy excise duties yet
remained. He was surprised, therefore, that upon this
occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman had not stated
whether he intended to apply a penny or a million to that
purpose. He saw from an official document that the
surplus was 2,500,0031., although the Right Honourable
Gentleman bad stated it to be only 1,800,0001. What be-
came of the difference? Was he going to apply any
portion of it to pay off the capital of the national debt?
He should like to know from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, before he proceeded further, what he proposed

_ .
to do with the national debt?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
surprised that so old a Member of Parliament as the
Hon. Gentleman should not know that it was provided
under an Act of Parliament that, fur the purpose of
paying off the national debt, one foarth part of tee sur-
plus of any one year must he appropriated to the reduc-
tion of that thbt.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME was aware of that, and for that very rea-
son he would exhaust the surplus by reducing taxation.
—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted
that Government was established for the benefit of the
many, and that taxes should be taken off which would
relieve the working-classes. Did applying 1,000,0004
a year towards paying off the national debt relieve the
poor man? [An Hun. MEMBER—Yes, by reducing the
interest.] If he would remove the soap-tax be would
benefit the working man ten times more.—(Hear, hear.)
While there was a tax on soap, on paper, on ad-
vertisments, on newspapers, he was prepared to advo-
cate their repeal in preference to paying off the capital
of the debt. He was prepared to maintain the income-
tax with the view of reducing other taxes which pressed
upon the poor, but not in order to keep up large and un-
necessary establishments. He was sorry that the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had left his place (Mr. Hurries),
and who had adverted to this subject, had not assisted
him in his attempt at reducing the estimates, for the
Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly said to them,
that having passed the estimates, they bad no right to
complain. tie contended that the estimates were now
4,000,0001. more than they ought to be. It; then, the
' estimates were reduced they might get rid of the
income-tax altogether, or take off every excise duty
that now existed, the ordinary revenue of
the country being fully capable of maintaining
every legitimate establishment. He would not agree to
renew the house-tax while so large an amount was to
go towards paying off the capital of the national debt.
He would rather pay 7 per cent. income-tax than see an
excise duty on tea, malt, soap, paper, and such articles;
and it was a hardship that people could not advertise
what they wanted without paying a heavy duty, when
so many as ten thousand advertisements might be seen
in an American paper. The removal of the window-tax,
in a sanitary point of view, was praiseworthy. He could
not oppose the income-tax; and be should conclude by
repeattng his conviction that, in the financial arrange-
ments of the country, the object to be kept in view
was giving the greatest possible relief to the mass of

the people.
Mr. TRELA.WNY reminded the House that he had
proposed to appropriated 2,000,0001. towards the extinc-
tion of the national debt. Many would think the prosi-
tioa Quixotic; but ho believed that to be the fairest mode
of removing the pressure of taxation. The metropolitan
Members asked the repeal of the window-tax, others
asked the repeal of the attorney-tax. These were demeeds
made for particular classes. What he wanted was a re-
duction that should be spread over as large a surface as
possible. The working classes perfectly understood the
attempts to get rid of those taxes which pressed on the
middle classes in the first instance. If he had to plant a
colony, he would see that each person paid his fair pro-
portion to the general expenses of the community. He
was not against the proposal of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the window-tax, but he thought the an-
nual appropriation of a sum for the reduction of the
national debt oughttobe made. Was it the ohject of Hon.
Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to impose perpe-
tual duties on corn, as the Right Hon. Member for Stam-
ford seemed to signify? Such a measure, he ventured to
say, would be most unpopular with the country.
Mr. BAILLIE observed, that he had heard the first
financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with some regret. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
said it was not intended to alter or and modify the income-
tax, that he had been adverse to it, but had changed his
opinion, observing, the great advantage it gave to Sir
Robert Peel in the reduction of import duties by the
substitution of direct taxation; and he stated that the
Opposition had supported bim on the ground that it was
his intention to follow in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel. Sir
R. Peel had not recommended the income-tax in any
such terms. When he first proposed it there was a
great deficit in the Exchequer, and there had been a de-
ficit for successive years; and he called on the House to
support the public revenue when he proposed the in-
come tax for a limited period, because he thought the
necessities of the country would not render it necessary
for more than three years. What did Sir R. Peel state
when he proposed to renew the tax in 1845?—" I don't
wish to say ono word in favour of a continuance of this
taxation beyond the three years; I don't think the House
will agree that the income and property tax, as now im-
posed, ought to be permanent."—(Hear, hear.) What
was the statement of Sir R. Peel in 1848?—" That one
of his reasons for consenting to allow the income-tax
to be continued for three years was that only last
year, in time of peace, you were obliged to add
10,000,000/. of debt, and on that account increased efforts
ought to be made to meet an increased expenditure of
the country." But the Right Honourable Gentleman
asked the House to allow the tax to remain, that he
might reduce import and other duties. They must hold
it, then, to be a permanent burden. If so, could there
not be modifications of the great injustice it worked to
particular classes ? It operated most unjustly on pro-
fessional incomes. A graduatel scale might be intro-
dhs uieeedbo.annskßtieturuste,litshe wished rather to call attention to the
op eration of the tax on the owners and occupiers of land.
Why should they not have the privilege of returning the
like annual net produce of their receipts, and paying on that,
m:Techwannetrs,
ofanda
large
eufaecsttuarte on manufacturers
the One
we ofa
coast of Scotland, had, for the last four or five years,
Paid income tax on a'rental of not less than 4,0001. or
that he had notlraecaeiraveedmrdi.aol
5,000/. a-year.
emt
ehei swhieh private ft o the i
ne
e mTer efarsourar y
pro-
perty, but that he hadt hh
ea
statedheat p r o -
advanced for the support of the
peoplerhatwl3,3ooaonLief
injustice
s erreesloyu
mightr ces . (He
be
er ,mheedaire.d)
if the tax was to be permanent. The Lords of the Trea-
sury, in reply, admitted that it was a case of great hard-
ship, but added, that the law was imperative, and that
they could give him no redress, He had no objection
that the tax should be permanent, or even increased, but
it ought to he properly adjusted.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had Row placed the house-tax on a rational
principle. There was, however, no necessity for im-
posing a house-tax at all, and he should give it his most
decided opposition. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
based his calculations on an erroneous principle when
he assumed a falling off equivalent to the reduction of
taxation. Experience poin:el to a different conclusion.
Taking the five years from 1822 to 1826, during which
a large amount of taxation was removed, the falling off