The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1845.

wax, or perhaps emergencies equal to war in a time of
peace ; and it was the duty of that House to form a scale
~f taxation that might fall on expenditure, and fall on it
in such a manner that all might contribute their just

proportion. He would include in the tax on expenditure
assessed taxes, land-taxes, taxes on houses, and so
on. Ile would put as large a proportion of it as he could
on the luxuries of the rich, but that must also be kept
within due limits. His limit would be the point of
greatest production.—(Hear, hear.) He would not ad-
vance beyond the point at which individuals would
rather submit to certain privations than retain luxuries
which they might otherwise enjoy. He thought the tax
on luxuries should reach that point which they would
find by experience to be the point of greatest production.
They could not avoid a tax on articles of general con-
sumption, because when they wished to raise a revenue
they must tax those articles which were the most largely
consumed, and therefore they taxed the articles most
generally consumed by the lower classes. But if they
availed themselves of that opportunity—if they availed
themselves of the large surplus in the revenue—if they
revised this tax, and based it on sound principles—
they might raise a tax for the service of the State with-
out any extraordinary pressure on the lower classes, and
with a full assurance ..hat at the end of three years they
would get rid of that most oppressive and most unjust
tax. They might have done this, if, in the filet place,
they had dealt with protective duties. On the night of
Friday the Hon. Member for Stockport asked a ques-
tion, to which he got no reply. He asked the Right
lion. the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the
amount of 'taxes, not for the benefit of the Exchequer,
but for the real and not merely nominal benefit of co-
lonial planters, charged to the people of this country by
the protective duties. He (Lord flowick) did not won-
der that the members of the Government shrank from
answering that question, because it was impossible that
hey could make any calculation of the burden which would
not be revolting to the public feeling. But though they
dil not learn what the Ministry calculated the amount
of that tax to be, they learned this by the universal con-
fession of every Gentleman on the other side of the
House, that all protective taxes, or, in the language of
the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, " all pro-
tection involved a tax on the community." They learned
from the Right Hon. Gentleman the late President of
the Board of Trade, and lie could not give the actual
amount of the tax upon sugar, but he said this—that
245,000 L was the maximum thus obtained—that it might
rise to this, but that he did not think it would. The
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of
the Treasury, had been afraid to state the actual
amount for the information of the country ; but if the
calculations of the Hon. Member for Stockport were ex -
a,g,gerated, why did they not submit their own calcula
tions to the House ? They did not think proper to do
so, and for a very good reason they did not think proper
to take that course, and they, therefore, tacitly ad-
mitted—that a tax was levied upon the people, beyond
what went into the Exchequer, upon the article of sugar.
On the same principle they levied a tax on coffee, on
cheese, on tobacco, on butter, and above all, on corn.
They knew this to be the fact—they knew it to be so,
and he (Lord Howick) did not hesitate to avow his firm
conviction, that if they had been prepared on a careful
reflection of the amount of the burden so imposed,
and levied not for the public service, but for
the special benefit of a particular class—if they had been
prepared to look on the amount of this burden, and to
remove it, they might have given relief to the consumer,
and, above all, to the industrious classes of this country-,
at the same time leaving the finance a of the empire in
such a state as to give every reason for a well grounded
confidence that, before the expiration of the three years,
the deficiency in the revenue:would be fully covered. He
was persuaded that this result would follow ; and he
hoped that, before the next general-election, the electors
of England would well consider this—whether this
odious tax—ta tax for the purpose of maintaining the
system of protection, because, disguise it how they
might, they came to that at last—whether the
income-tax should be taken on their shoulders
for the purpose of bolstering up, for a few years
longer, that system of protection which even the
members of the Government were fain to admit
was contrary to the principles of reason and of common
sense. To this principle of common sense 'they must
come at last, instead of as at present attempting to cor-
rect and improve the income-tax, which, after all they
could do, would still remain oppressive and obnoxious.
He did trust that the time was not far distant when they
would see the common-sense necessity of relieving the
country by taking of a tax which produced nothing to
the Exchequer and was roost obnoxious to the feelings of
the people.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the speech of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Liskeard was not so satisfac-
tory as might have been expected from him. He asked
the House to record their opinion of the income-tax.
fie characterized it as odious and unjust, but he did not
try to render that more tolerable which was to be per-
petual. He (Sir R. 11. Inglis) believed that there was
not ono in that House but who thought that the property
tax was not to be a tax renewable for three years but a
tax for ever. If they thought that were a tax merely
for three years, they would bear it as an inevitable
necessity ; but the case was wholly different, for in the
course of the last four weeks, not one individual had
got up to state his own personal opinion that the tax
ould be removed at the end of that period. Let it be
fairly in the power of Parliament to do so—let them
have the power of removing it at that period, but let
them not take the dicta of the Treasury benches on that
subject. They ought not to be contented with the
statement of any Minister. They should, under these
circumstances, make the Bill as little oppressive and ob-
noxious as possible. He did not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Sunderland that it was im-
possible to make a tax on proper.), either efficient or
valuable. He did acknowledge, that a tax on property
was more difficult than a tax on income. But when the
Noble Lord asked his Right Hon. Friend the First
Lord of the Treasury, " How will you measure the in-
terest of an annuitant ?" He (Sir R. H. Inglis)
would reply,—lf the heir apparent derived a life
interest from a freehold, or from the funds,
it mattered little to him, for the mere purposes of taxa-
tion, from which of them he derived it, as he paid the
tax equally upon both. The Right Hon. Baronet then
contended that the tax should be levied upon incomes
ranging above 1501., and that some improved system of
ascertaining the incomes of the individuals so taxed
ought to be adopted in order to do away with the Go-
vernment temptation to fraud. He did not believe that
the proposed reductions on the 420 articles named by
the Right lion. Baronet would so materially benefit the
poor man as some Hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate.
Certainly the le duction would be of some service to the
poor, but still he thought there were higher considera-
tions than those which actuated the Right Hon. Baronet
in the disposal of this surplus. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet could not deny that he might have made other re-
ductions which might have proved of more value to the
country. The Right Honourable Baronet had a
larger surplus than was ever possessed by any
other Minister—indeed he believed at no period
within the present generation had a Minister been able
to come down to that House, and state that he was in
possession of a clear surplus of 3,500,0001. Now he
could not but think that a certain portion of that sum
might have been thrown back up m the country in a
manner which would have :tended more to the general
interest of the community. He could have wished that
something might have been done to relieve the spiritual
destitution of the country, which, he contended, was as
directly connected with the social ill feeling which at
present existed, as any two of the propositions which
had been brought forward by Gentlemen sitting on the
other side of the House. But there was another consi-
deration of a pecuniary nature which induced him to
make this suggestion. An impediment some thirty or
forty years ago was thrown in the way of spiritual
charity, and this impediment had been continued down to
the present day,notw: thstanding it went indirect opposition
to the religious principles of the country. The House
was probably not aware of the amount of money
withdrawn from eharitable sources by the operation of
the legacy duty. The sum raised by this tax was
small indeed in a national point of view, but-still suffi-
cient to restrict the channel of spiritual charity. In
the case of the british and Foreign Bible Society, the
amount paid in duty upon legacies bequeathed in the
last three years, was 2,900/ But perhaps, in the case
of the Church Missionary Society, the interference had
restricted the direction of spiritual charity. The amount
paid by that Society in the last three years had been
1,5951., or an average of 500/. Now, lie slid not think
there was any political economist who would object to
relieving these charities from, in a tuitional point of
view, th exceedingly low duty imposed on them. No
man could say that the amount was sufficient in the ag-
gregate to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in con-
tinuing this impost, while, on the other hand, did not the
insignificance of the amount justify its being withdrawn?
The whole amount did not, he believed, exceed 50,0001,
but for the sake of argument he would say 75,0001. per
annum. It was an exceedingly small sum, in a national
point of view, but when applied to purposes of spiritual
charity the amount became of some importance. He wa
not aware that he had any further suggestion to make to
the House, but he could not conclude without stating
that unless he heard very different arguments than those
which had been adduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he shoukl feel it his
duty to support the amendment.
Mr. WARI3UItTON said if the income-tax could be
adjusted without diminishing the receipts of the Exche-
glee-, it would, no doubt, be an improvement in principle
of an income-tax. But ho thought the arguments of the

Right Hon. Baronet were tatiacious. The principle he
laid down upon which they ought to levy the income-
tax, he understood to he this :—lf a person possessed an
income for three years, he was to be taxed to the same
extent as if he had an income for life. But if the sug-
gei,tion of the Right Hon. Baronet were adopted, they
would tax the perpeusnt at the time when he had
transferred his interest to a third party—a man who
possessed an annuity for three years was to be
taxed at the same rate as a person who possessed the re-
ver,ion of that annuity for twenty, or, in fact, at a time
when the person entitled to the reversionary interest,
ought to bear some portion of the burden. Now they
must recollect that the reversionary interest constituted
one seventeen twentieths of the whole value of the per-
petuitants. They, therefore, could not proceed with a
property-tax upon the principle of capitalisation. They
could not, for instance, impose the tax upon the party en-
titled to the reversion, because he would very reasonably
turn round and say he had no property whatever in pos-
session —(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the laying
on the income-tax or not, if he thought they could get
rid of those abominable taxes, such as the protective
duties on the West India interest, or the protective duties
afforded to that ir4erest, which Hon. Gentlemen who sat
on the opposite benches particularly represented, by re-
moving the income-tax, he would gladly do so. But still
he thought it much better to continue a property-tax be-
cause it did not require those expensive establishments
which were inseparable from the taxes imposed on to-
bacco, soap, or other articles. It was a much better

system of taxation, to raise what the State required di-
rectly, than resorting to an indirect method which was
attended with so much expense ; and he thought
that when the matter was fully and clearly
explained to the great body of the people, direct
taxation would be more popular than any other.
He was sincere in the expression of this opinion, and
although, in his own town, the largest portion of the
population were shopkeepers and tradesmen, he would
sooner lose Lis election than mis-state the matter to

them. With regard to his vote on that occasion—
(Laughter)—he certainly could not support the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, because be did
not tell us in what it was the inequality of the property-
tax consisted. According to his conception the prin-
ciple of an income-tax ought to be to make every person
who possessed the means to contribute to it, and while
they possessed large incomes let them pay the tax. He
would deal the same with the professional man of 12,000/.
a year. Let him pay his incomo•tax so keg as his
12,0001. a year lasted.
Mr. M. MILNES, after giving the best consideration
to the subject, had come to the conclusion, and to which
conclusion he hoped to adhere, that the operation of
direct taxes was the best, and at the same time the most
economical way of raising the revenue of this country. He
came to this conclusion, because he believed that by di-
rect taxation they could get larger sums from the rich
classes than they could by indirect taxation from the poor.
With respect to the Noble Lord the Member for Sunder-
land laying down certain propositions, which he might
or might not believe, he (Mr. Milnes) adopted that large
assumption upon which the greater portion of the Noble
Lord's speech was founded, that it was impossible to
raise the necessary revenue of this country simply by
taxing what the Noble. Lard called expenditure, and
without any income-tax, but he differed with the Noble
Lord, and he believed other Members would do so with
him, when the Noble Lord anticipated that an income-
tax would relieve the country from the burden of protec-
tive duties. The question of protective duties was the
one now in dispute. It was the question which at pre-
sent diiided lion. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches
from the Noble Lord, and those who supported. him. It
was the great and prominent question, as to whether or
not it is better, in the present complication of the
national interests, to support what were called
the protective duties on the land of England
and other protective duties on the colonies of the IV eat
Indies. He believed upon that principle the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government came
into that position which he now occupied, and he be
lieved it was a proposition which he had adhered to,
and a proposition to which ho would still adhere. It
was not agreeable to the common sense of the country,
that the income derived from trades and professions,
and under uncertain sources, should be taxed as much
as permanent property, which was enjoyed without toil
and without risk. Ile thought it would not be difficult
to establish a satisfactory distinction, for the country
would not look at very nice pc:ints of gradation. Sup-
pose there were a per centage of three or four per cent.
on trade, professions and annuities, and a higher tax
upon fixed property, the country would be satisfied. The
Right Hon. Baronet had formerly said that nothing but
the greatest emergency would justify the imposition of
the income-tax. - He had since changed his mind
on that point, and now thought it a good
tax to continue three years longer without
an absolute necessity. Perhaps, then, if he should come
to change his mind again, and to think it a tax that
ought to be continued, he would also think it would be
well to modify the imposition, and to regulate it by the
principle of equity. He was sorry the Hoe. and Learned
Member for Liskeard was not in his place, as he wished
to ask who would vote with him (Mr. C. Buller) ? Tho
Hon. Member for Kendal could not vote with him, as he
was against direct taxation ; and other Members were
in an equally difficult position. He (Mr. Manes) thought
there was no use in the discussion. The time had gone
by for it, and that was when the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir R. Peel) intimated his intention of renewing the
tax. It was at that time the House should have insisted
on modifications of the tax, to adapt it to the circum-
stances of the country. He, therefore, regarded the
present debate as a useful preface to the future conside-
ration, of the question. It was remarkable how few
words had been uttered in the House against the tax ;
and notwithstanding what had been said of its ob-
noxious and inquisitorial character, if the manufacturing
classes thought it so much more obnoxious and inquisi-
torial than the excise laws, the House would have heard
a few more practical objections, and would have received
a few more petitions. He thought the assent of the public
had been given to a certain amount of direct taxation.
Still he did not think it would be wise to carry the
principle too far, or to place the taxation of the coun-
try in such a position that every man should palpably
feel every accession to taxation. That would place our
relations with foreign nations in a hazardous position,
and he therefore thought that the honour and prosperity
of the country would b, best secured by a combination
of direct and indirect taxation.

Mr. HAWES could tell the -Hon Gentleman the
Member for Pontefract why it was that he thought the
people had accepted the income-tax. The Hon. Gentle-
man thought it was proved by the fact that no petitions
had been presented against the tax. But, in the first
place, the tax was only three per cent., and it was intro-
duced to make up for a deficiency. Next, the people
were told that other measures, taken at the same time,
would cause trade to spring up, and so remove the nel

cessity for continuing tfio tea, Which should be repealed
in threo years. The tax being again to be imposed was
accompanied with certain remissions of taxation, by
which, as they were again told, the trade of the country
was to receive an additional impulse, and the tax to be
repealed in three more years. These statements in-
duced numbers in the House and out of it to acquiesce
in the tax, who would be otherwise as much opposed to
it as any one else, though he admitted that there were
also many who considered it a good tax. Now, he (Mr.
Hawes) thought that the tax was not necessary, but
that all the important reductions of taxation could be
made without it. The Eight lion. Gentleman, :(Sir
Peel) stated that the revenue of the year ending sth of
April, 1546, would be 55,100,0001., and the expenditure
49,690,0001, leaving a balance of 1,400,000/. The Hon.
Member then read several items of the proposed reduc-
tions of the Customs, to show that in that department,
according to Sir H. Peel's showing, there would be an
increase of 300,000/. As to corn, the Right lion. Baronet
had not taken that into his estimates -

Sir R. PEEL said that the revenue on corn last year
was 1,050,0001„ but in consequence of the good harvest,
he calculated it at a less amount by 500,0001. for next
year.
Mr. HAWES said that he would be content to deal
with the surplus of 1,400,0004 And he thought that
with that balance in hand the reduction on articles of
trade might be effected without the income-tax. The
auction duty seemed to have been unnecessarily re-
pealed, and he did not think the expense of collecting
was a reason for taking off the duty on 430 articles of
customs, for the expense of collecting remained the
same. All the expense of inspection and examination
must be continued the same as before. But really it was
for the sake of the reduction of the sugar duties the in-
come-tax was continued.—(hear, hear.) Although the
lion. Bar net admitted that sugar would be one penny
per lb. the cheaper to the consumer in this country,
no one could estimate the cost of protecting the West
Indian interest at less than 1,000,0001., anti now
the income-tax was continued to benefit that interest

further by the reduction of the duty upon sugar. He did not
think that the abolition of the duty on coal exportation,
on cotton, and glass, justified the continuance of the in-
come-tax, after the positive engagement of the Govern-
ment to give it up, upon the revival from the depression
which rendered its first imposition necessary. He always
paid the utmost respect to what fell from his Honourable
Friend the Member for Ken''al (Mr. Warburton), but he
could not agree with him, nor with those other persons
who thought that the system of direct taxation ought to
be promoted. He (Mr. Hawes) thought that the House
should pause before it assented to the proposition of
making the direct taxation bear a greater proportion to
the whole taxation of the country than it did at present.
The House seemed to him not to be aware of the pro-
portion which the direct taxation bore to the whole taxa-
tion of the country. Why, taking an average of three
years, from 1841 to 1843 inclusive, it appeared that the
amount of direct taxation was 20,000,0001., that of indi-
rect taxation, 30,000,000/. ; and if to tho direct taxa-
tion the 5,000,000/. derived from the property-tax were
added, that would make it 25,000,0001., which was about
half of the whole taxation. It was impossible to say
that this tax would be removed in three years, and,
therefore, he thought the Hormurable Member for
Liskeard had a right to call on the House to
declare generally that the tax was unjust, and
though the country might submit to this tax under
the belief that it would not be permanent, and while
other taxes were removed, they would not endute it if
commerce and trade languished, and profits diminished,
and the means of employing the working classes les-
sened. He believed the tax was unjust, and that it
could not by any means be made just, He was of that
opinion in 1842 ; he was of the same opinion in 1845 ;
and ho was, therefore, perfectly consistent in voting for
the motion of his lion. and Learned Friend. Unless a

case was trade out showing that the income-tax was not
unequal, unjust, or inquisitorial, he could not vote for it;
and believing that it was unjust, unequal, and inquisito-
rial, nothing short of an imperative necessity would in-
duce him to vote for it now or at any future time.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER said he wished in a few words to ex-
plain the reasons why he should vote against the motion
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard. He
thought it would be much better to bring specific and
definite charges against the income-tax than to bring
forward general charges against it. Ho agreed with the
Hon Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir H. Inglis)
that it was unjust to tax a man whose income depended
on his personal exertions, the continuance of which
restul upon his health, in the same degree
as the person who derived the same amount of income
from a permanent property, and which was subject to no
contingencies.—(Hear, hear.) He also thought with the
Llon. Bnanet, that persons should ha taxed only for the
amount of their income above 1504; that a person, for
instance, having 1551, should be taxed only on the 51.
above the 1501.—(Hear, hear.) He likewise agreed
with him, that a distinction should be teed° between
annuities and perpetuities. He could not come to the
conclusion to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who proposed the present motion had come, and on
which he called on the House to agree with him, that
there was no reason to believe that there would be a re-
lief from the tax at the end of three years. With regard
to the principle of taxation, he thought that that of
taxing property was the best, and was one to which the
whole nation was prepared to rJonsent. He thought
that the effect of the budget or the Right Honourable
Baronet would be to extend the ;,ndustry of the country.
He had no doubt it would be found exceedingly bene-
ficial to many large branhes of manufacture. He could
not agree with that part of the motion which had refer-
ence to the inquisitorial nature of the tax, for if those
words meant anything, 'they meant that the manufatire
ing, commercial, and trading interests should by exempt

from the tax, for to them the inquisitorial part of the tax
applied. Now he thought it would be very unfair to
exempt them from the tax, especially as it was intended
to increase the manufacturing and commercial industry
of the country. He had a motion on the paper which at
the proper time he would bring before the House as
briefly as he could, but for the reasons he had just stated
he felt bound to oppose the motion of the lion. and
Learned Gentleman.—(Hear, h:ar.)
Mr. HUME thought that the financial statement made
by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ought not to he
mixed up with the present motion, for the Right.
Hon. Baronet told them he did not want to impose the
income-tax for financial reasons, and had shown that up
to April, 1846, including the income-tax that would be
due then, he would have a surplus of 1,400,0001., leaving
a margin for the Chinese money; and that included the
large expenditure of one million for the navy, which he,
for one, thought was unnecessary. But the real ques-
tion before the House was, whether they were more
willing to raise 5,000,0001., by direct taxation from pro-
perty and income, than to allow the present system of
indirect taxation to continue. His own opinion was in
favour of direct taxation, and it was upon that ground he
would give his vote on the present occasion. He was, he
confessed, surprised at the calculation of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Lambeth . (Mr. Hawes), respecting the
amount of direct taxation. His Hon. Friend stated that
20,000,0001. were raised by direct taxation, and that
30,000,000/. were raised by indirect taxation. He (Mr.
llume) could riot find anything like that out of the
ordinary revenue of the country, which was about
50,000,000/. No less than 19f millions were derived
from the Customs, certainly not a direct tax; 131 millions
from the Excise, not a direct tax. The Stamp; duty
was not a direct tax. The only direct taxes were the
land and the assessed taxes, amounting to 41 millions.
Including the income-tax there would be 9. millions
of direct taxes, but leaving out •the income-tax there
were only 4} millions raised from direct taxation in-
stead of 20,000,000/. One of his great complaints since
ho had the honour of a seat in that House was that the
taxes were levied from articles used by the poorer classes,
and
taxation. httt plrno pFe rrtayn
cwo aasn
da limn oßs to i
egnittiimreltyheegxreemapt tbulfkroomf
the revenue was raised by direct taxation, but in
this country it was quite different, and the
consequence was that the people were divided
into two classes, rich and poor. He had shown
in 1835, that the amount of indirect taxation was 721 per
cent., that of mixed direct and indirect taxation 10 or
12 per cent., and the rest he would allow to be direct
taxation. He did nut understand that the Right Hon.
Baronet put this as an additional tax, but as a change of.
taxation ; and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
spoke slightingly of the 430 articles which were to be
swept away, he forgot that those articles were generally
useful in manufactures, and though they might not be of
much benefit in themselves, they would be beneficial in
enabling their manufacturers to compete with fo-
reigners. His lion. Friend the Member for Oxford
said, that the spiritual destitution of the people ought to be
provided for ; but he (Mr. Ilume) thought there were
sufficient funds to provide for that, if they were pro-
perly applied.—(Hear, hear.) But he would also tell
his Hon. Friend, that when the physical destitution of
the poorer classes was provided for, they would he much
better disposed to listen to spiritual instruction. The great
point was to secure the foreign markets for their produce.
He thought the taking off the duty on cotton was
most essential to the interests of the country, and
would tend to place it in that position which it ought
to hold with respect to other nations. He was surprised
to think that his Noble Friend, the Member for Lam-
beth, should think that the removal of the duty on the
400 articles that had been alluded to, would be of no im-
portance ; for his own part, he thought the best results
would take place from the removal of the duty on those
articles. Foreigners thought that laws were made in
this country for the interest of its inhabitants, while in
fact their operation had hitherto been to check industry.
The Hon. Member for Lambeth had said that if ho was
satisfied that tax would benefit the country, he would
vote for it. Now to him (Mr. Hume) it appeared to be
the very means of creating capital, and thereby extend-
ing the interests of the. country. He thought that in
this country, and every other, taxation ought to be
direct, and it was upon that ground that he supported
the plan of the Right lion. Gentleman. As a whole, he
objected, however, to the course that had been pursued
by him with respect to corn and sugar.
Sir R. PEEL then rose to address the House. Before
he said anything on the amendment now before the
House, he wished to notice two speeches that had been
made in the course of the present discussion, upon points
not immediately connected with the motion. • He would
first allude to the speech of the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth. It appeared from that speech that the Hon. Mem-
ber did not. very well understand the financial statements
which he had made upon a former occasion. The Hon.
Gentleman objected to the imposition of the income-tax,
upon the ground that he thought there was no necessity
for its imposition, because he thought that by the state-
ment which lie (Sir R. Peel) had :Tiede there would re-
main a surplus. The lion. Gentleman had said that he
(Sir R. Peel) had calculated that on the sth of April,
1846, that there would be a surplus of 1,400,0001., and
the Hon. Gentleman had said that that surplus would
enable the Government to remove the duty on cotton,
glass, and even the duty on coals. Now the statement
ho (Sir R. Peel) made was this, that he apprehended
that on the sth of April, 1846, supposing the income-
tax to be continued, that the net revenue would
amount to 53,700,0001.; but in that sum would be in-
cluded 609,000/ to be received on account of China ;
but that supposing Parliament did not grant the coliti
nuation of the income-tax, that then they must deduct
2,600,000/. from that amount, but they would be entitled
to add to the ordinary permanent revenue 2,600,0001.
because a half year's income-tax would be received, and
then .hey would have a revenue of 51,100,0001.—that
was supposing the property-tax was not continued. If,
however, the House continued the income-tax, then
there would certainly be a surplus of 1,400,000/. NJw
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth seemed
to be bewilder. d about the balance in the Exchequer in
April, 1845. lle said that at that period the Govern
ment would have a balance in the Exchequer of upwards
of 5,000,000/. Now the lion. Gentleman could hardly b.
aware of the manner in which that amount would
have to be applied, or he certainly would not have made
the observations that ho had made. Two millions of
that amount would have to be applied to the payment of
Exchequer Bills issued for opium. Another portion
would go to the reduction of the National Debt, and
another portion would go to the increase of the balance
in the Exchequer, and in that respect certainly the Go-
vcrnment were in a more favourable position than in
former years, but that surplus could not bo considered
fairly applicable to the services of the current year. On
the whole, therefore, he thought that the lion. Gentle-
man's calculations and his reasons for opposing the in-
come-tax were altogether without foundation. Th;
I-lon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward
mofen thdementhad Government,ma dinestaeadsPoefeechoncelUnddinemg nwinitgh othnee
pa thegoal
ciria'st the income-tax. Now he hoped that the House
would not commit itself in details until they heard the
particular proposition,because when they came to the policy
of discussing the Bill, and of making amendments in the
existing law, they would be better able to consider the
matter in its proper light. Now he would consider the
motion of the Hon. Member for Oxford. He proposed
that 150/. a year should be the zero of taxation. Nov,
what was that ? Why the proposal meant this—that
every man that now contributed to the income- tax should
deduct from the payments that he made for the income-
tax the sum of 4L 10e. The meaning of that was, that
he should be enabled to require from the Exchequer
deduction of 4/. 10s. He (Sir R. Peel) had nut the
means exactly of knowing, but he would suppose that
240,000 persons contributed to the income-tax, and sup-
posing that each of them were to deduct 41. 10s., the'
would amount to upwards of 1,000,0001 ; and every man
in that case would be obliged to state what his income
was. A new process would, therefore, hara to be in
troduced. Now before the House adopted such e
proposition, he hoped they would seriously con
sid;•r the course which they really ought tt
pursue. He now came to what he must call the main
question in the case, and that was, whether they should
confirm a resolution in favour of the present Bill. He
was free to admit that it was open to the House to con-
sider whether the proposition should be affirmed or not,
and Hon. Gentlemen opposite were wrong in supposing
that he had ever objected to that question being open for
the consideration of the House. He thought it but fair
that it should be considered open to the House to discuss
the question ; and those who had voted against the in-
come-tax formerly could now fairly vote for it, because
they must at once see it was necessary ; and the question
then was, whether it was not better to continue this tax
than adopt other means. There was no doubt that the
present was certainly the best mode of taxation. It was
possible, certainly, that any deficiency might be raised
by other means ; for instance, they might put a tax of
2d. on letters, instead of ld. He did not
-think any past
experience could induce them to put a tax of 5L per
cent. on income. But still there were means of
taxing and keeping up the credit of the country without
the income-tax ; but the question was whether the in
come-tax was not the best node. He would not revive
that night the question of the sugar duties. The House
had confirmed the course taken by
,the Government.
Many had objected to it, but the sense of the House was
in favour of the Government. But supposing there was
a loss of 1,300,000/. next year in the sugar duties, still
there would be a surplus of 2,000,000/, and it was with
respect to that that the Hon. Gentleman opposite had
declaimed in such eloquent terms. Now, with respect to
that surplus of 2,000,000/, the Government proposed to
remove altogether the duty on raw cotton, the excise
d upon
350 of
or skill,
3 6 0 to o t
her removeartio
articles,
d
duty on glass, to abolish restrictions on manufactures
thewohtiyehopporeavaeunotedtions,a n
application
altogether making a reduction in taxation of 2,000,000/.
an 1 upwards. He (Sir Robert Peel) still remained of
opinion that it would be difficult to apply the remaining
surplus of 2,000,0001. to the revival of industry in
any other manner than by the remission of the
taxes which was proposed by the Government. He saw
some Gentlemen opposite, who shared in the waggery of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, when he was speak-
ing upon the proposition for the reduction of the duty on
cotton,and who laughed when he talked about those who
wore " fustian," and women who " wore two new gowns
in a year," and who, by the reduction of the duty on
cotton, would save the enormous sum of 3id. in twelve
months.—(A laugh.) On this ground it was that the
Hon. Member for Liskeard scouted the notion of the
reduction of the duty on cotton. Now, it was necessary
that he should state the grounds on which it was pro-
posed by the Government to remove the duty on cotton.
It would first facilitate its introduction at the port of
import ; and it had also been stated to the Government,
that there was no tax which was more unequal than the
duty on raw cotton. They had been told that the duty
on muslins, United while
States that
thereupoii
raw cotton was
was no duty on raw cotton, neither was there in Ger-
manycotton
&c. ,
was little
or Switzerland • in France there was a duty, but
immense.orln ntohtheing,
1 *alba() was a drawback that made up the eqqivaleut.

He thought it wise to reduce a duty that amounted
to eight or twelve per cent. on the raw ma
terial, and which would enable this country to
enter into competition with foreign ones. If the
House thought the remission unwise, they would
propose some other which would come in competition
with it as calling for removal, and if it were proposed to
reduce the duty on tobacco or tea, he felt confident that
the ultimate decision of the House would be in favour of
the proposal of the Government. The Hon. Gentleman
admitted that the reduction of the duty (in glass was
politic. With respect to that article there had been no
clamour ; and he would tell the Hon. Gentleman that
he very much doubted whether the chief manufacturers
in glass rejoiced in the proposed alteration. But, so far
from the fact of the great manufacturers being quite
willing to have the duty retained being a reason for re- I
taining it, it was one of the strongest arguments
which could be alleged for its abolition.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile ventured to predict that after the sth of April they
would find a very extensive competition in tho glass
manufacture. It was quite a mistake to suppose that
immense capital and enormous edifices were required for
the manufacture of glass. He believed that the large
manufacturers would themselves derive advantage from
the change. The total amount of exports in that beau-
tiful manufacture glass did not amount to 400,0001. By
removing the duty altogether, he believed they would
establish a manufacture, less important indeed than that
of woollen, but still a manufacture which would be the
source of increased industry, of increased profit, and of
increased commerce with other countries.— (Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman had been particularly merry on
the subject of the proposed alterations in the tariff. Now
he really thought it was hardly worthy of Hon. Members
to select four or five articles with hard names and inquire
ehat benefit would be-derived from their free importa-
tion. „It was very easy to ask what advantage would the
public expect to obtain from the remission of duty on
divi-divi.—(Laughter.) But in former days the charge
breught against the Government was that they compli-
cated the tariff by leaving upon it 500 articles from
which they derived no revenue, and they were told
that it was merely the love of meddling with
commercial pursuits which induced them to retain
them. Well, they felt that there was force in that
objection ; but now that they proposed the remission
of this duty on a number of articles, Hon. Gentlemen
asked, what was the use of removing the duty ?
(Hear, hear.) Still, on the whole, he thought it was for
the interest of commerce that the alteration should
take place. In the 430 articles were included many of
the raw materials of manufacture.—(Hear. hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman said they permitted alum to be im-
ported free of duty, in order that bread mi.,Tht be
adulterated. He could tell the Honourable Gen
tleman that alum was an article which en-
tered into many important manufactures in this
country, and that there was no article against the duty
on which there had been more urgent representations.
There was a manufacture of alum carried on in China.
' Every one seemed to wish to extend our commercial
relations with that country, and to receive from China
something else besides tea in return for our exports.—
(Hear, hear.) The supply of alum from China and the
Roman States was very limited, and this was another
reason fur the alteration. Well, then, they remitted the
duty on bark, on hides, on skins, on oils, on indigo, and
on staves, articles which were all of great import-
trice to the manufacturers of this country.
['he total amount of duty remitted was about
350,0001. They were about to establish a traffic in these arti•
des perfectly free from Custom-house regulations. If there were
any taxes which the Hon. Gentleman wished to remit in pre-
ference, let him make his proposal ; but after he bad done so,
he did not despair of receiving the sanction of the House to the
alteration proposed by the Government.—( Hear, hear.) Now
quite different doctrines appeared to prevail that night, from
those which were held last year in reference to the duty on
staves. Nothing would be more easy than to show that the
agricultural labourer would receive very little direct benefit
from the remission of the duty on staves; and if the Hon.
Gentleman would calculate the benefit to the labourer and his
family, he would find perhaps that the duty was even less than
the 3d., which he calculated as the probable gain for cott on-wool.
But what was said last year? They were told that by retaining the
duty on staves, they were plucking up by the roots an im-
portant branch of manufacture in this country, and destroy-
ing the trade of the cooper. It was said that they had opened
the West Indies almost to free competition of An.erican
staves, admitting them at a duty of 74 per cent., and that they
were precluding all hopes of a revival of trade in that depart-
ment. ,‘ Remove the duty on staves," said numbers, " and
your cooperage will revive, and he able to compete with Ame-
rica and other countries." Was it, then, any test of this be.
uefit of removing that tax to say that the agricultural labourer
would derive no benefit from it ? Certainly not. By the re-
mission of duty they caused a revival of trade, and enabled
the coopers of this country to compete with those of ether
nations ; and, at the same time, they conferred a benefit which,
taken in conjunction with other similar benefits, would
re-act upon the condition of other classes of the community.
—(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the duty on wool.
They had heard for three or four successive years of the ad-
vantages which would be derived from that change, and
nearly 1,600,0001. of the surplus had been applied under that
head. Then, a ith respect to the auction duty ; while he ad-
mitted that there had been no clamour for the remission, he
thought if ever there was a tax which was unjust in its ope-
ration, it was the duty paid on the transfer of property by
auction; and its chief advantage was to enable persons who
wished to sell their estates to ascertain their value by that
means, ip order that they might afterwards sell them by private
contract.—( Hear.) Talk of the income-tax, why there was no
part of that tax which was so unjust in principle as the auction
duty, as it was at present levied. It was impossible, indeed,
to look at the situation of this country, and not feel that strong
re'sons might be urged for the repeal or reduction of many
duties, which it was not in their power at present to remove.—
( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman could show that there
were other taxes which imposed greater burdens than those
proposed to be remitted, that no doubt would be a good reason
for re-considering their proposals ; but he must say that he
thought the voice of the country was, on the whole, in favour
of the selection which had been made. He could name taxes,
the removal of which would be more sensibly felt by the work-
ing classes, but he entreated the House to bear in mind the pro-
bable effect of taxes bearing upon the industry of the country.
For several years the poor-rate had increased ; last year, how-
ever, a favourable change had taken place, the insreasell em-
ployment of the manufacturing population having re-
iticed the burden. The immediate reduction of duty
night be less in the case of cotton or glass at first,
than in the case of soap End other articles.
Yet, it they were ensuring great branches of manufactures
igainst vicissitudes, and against such distress as that which
visited the country in 1840 and 1841 ; if, by removing the
duty on glass, they were giving new scope for employment,
they were taking effectual means of diminishing the risk on
account of increasing charges for the poor. He would not
then enter into the comparative advantages of direct and in-
direct taxation. They proposed to limit the duration of this
tax to the period of three years ; and his colleagues and him-
self had the strongest impression that the interest of the
country required its imposition for that period. In order that
they might make the experiment fairly, they named articles
which pressed heavily upon the industry of the country; and
remembering that the foreign trade had risen from 464 mil.
lions in 1843 to 50 millions in 1844, bethought they had reason
to hope . that the effect would be not only to extend the
{ internal industry, but also the external commerce of the coun-
try. A tax, on being absolutely removed, ceased to be a di-
rect source of revenue ; but if they increased the manufac-
turing prosperity of the country, it would have, if not a direct,
at least an indirect effect upon the revenue, and it would, on
the whole, be compensated for the loss.—( Hear, hear.) When
they last proposed this tax, the Noble Lord opposite objected to
any alteration, from an tmwillinguess to disturb the efficiency
of this great instrument. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that
tbhyanadmitting
was
ex-
pected,
11• petitions had been presented against this tax ; and there
e ro us
except
and that the inquisition which had been conducted through
twhaast nthoe rationalburden
would
bett c c
feltou n t i
tong be for
leeso
the officers of the stamp department bad been attended with
less of injustice and of the appearance of oppression than many
had seemed to anticipate.—( Hear, hear.) The assessed taxes
had not fallen ; there was no appearance of a transfer of capi-
tal in consequence of the imposition of this tax. He admitted
that the tax was open to great objection, and that the inquisi-
tion which it involved was painful ; but, considering all the
machinery which was in force, and that not a single petition
had been presented against the tax, he earnestly hoped that
the House would consent to continue it unaltered, without mo-
dification. He trusted that the House would affirm the pro-
posal of her Majesty's Government, that they would permit the
income-tax to be continued for the period he had proposed,
making it a tax upon income and not upon property.—( Hear,
hear.) They should not attempt to estimate the relative
value of different sources of income. If they did so it would
be necessary to ascertain the particular disease under
which a man laboured, and the exact reason why
this temporary source of revenue was less valuable
than a permanent one ; and, in order to effect that ob-
ject, instead of getting rid of an inquisition, they would have to
establish one for the purpose of adjusting all these details,
which, if it were carried out with eqnity, would be ten times
more oppressive than the existing inquisition was alleged to
have been found.—( Hear, hear.) He did hope, therefore, that

. .
the House would consent to affirm the proposition of the Go-
vernment, and affirm it as it stood, without any alteration.
Under these circum dances he hoped the House would affirm

his tax without alteration.

After the Right Hon. Baronet sat down the House was for
some time in a state of considerable excitement, and earnest
and loud conversation was carried on in every part of the
House. At length
Mr. SHEIL, who had for some time been in possession of
the House, rose and said, that the Right Hon. Baronet, the
First Lord of the Treasury, had asked what substitute they
would provide in lieu of the income-tax. He should for his
part say that any impost that could possibly be imposed would
he more fair than the income-tax. It was a tax so founded in
manifest injustice that he (Mr. Shell) conceived that of all
the evidence of odious iniquity in the imposition of taxation
this was the moat glaring am! unjustifiable. They had disre-
garded the weights which had been imposed on those who
realized incomes frwas professions and trades, and had attempted
to realise from them that supply which ought only to be rea-
lised from sources which pressed in no way upon
them. The Right Honourable Baronet thought to
realise an amount by those very means which the
Ministry had hitherto been accustomed to leak to in case of
deficiency in the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Sheil) could not
give the Right Hon. Baronet credit for such stolidity, and if
he would only tax his ingenuity he was satisfied that he would
not find it so difficult a matter as he apprehended to discover
a sub titute. Ho repeated that if the Right lion. Baronet
would only tax his ingenuity, he would find the means of ac-
complishing the object which he had before him, and remov-
ing the obstacle which he had so painfully put before him.
Now, he (Mr. Shell) thought that he would not find this so
difficult as he conceived it to be. He would not hesitate to tell
the Right Hon. Baronet that the whole difficulty might be re-
moved by a tax analogous to the income-tax ; he would im-
pose a tax analogous to the legacy duty on the devolution of
property in land. The Right Hon. Baronet would find in this
a source of income for the State which would have all the
effect of an incurne-tax to him. He (Mr. Sheil) bad heard of
a legacy left to Christ Church Hospital. (The Hon. Gentle-
man was here interrupted by Members on the Opposition
benches suggesting that he was wrong in the name.) Well,
if not to Christ's Hospital, at least to some other great public
hospital for 140,0001., upon which he understood there was
a duty payable, as legacy duty, of 14,000/. Now, if there
was a legacy of 14,0001. upon a stint like this, what might
not be the amount arising from the whole of the property
on which this tax might tie levied ? To this tax there could
not be the slightest objection ; for between this tax and the
income-tax there was the strictest analogy. This was a tax
which would in no way press upon the Right Hon. Baronet's
opposing friends—the agriculturists. It would in no way
affect rents—it would in no way affect wages—it would only
lay a reasonable impost upon the transference of land. For
this tax there was every reason to be found in analogy, rea-
son, and plain common sense. By this means they would
provide a means for utterly avoiding the income-tax. By this
means they might annihilate the whole of sehedule.P from

the list, and yet secure the 1,225,0001. which now consti-
tuted the whole of the tax derived especially from the tax on
professional labour. Some reason might be assigned against
such an impost in the assertion that it would so largely affect
great capital. This might be true, end yet he (Mr.
Shen) thosig,ht that this was no great objection when he re-
fected that it might possibly save the whole of the tax which
pressed so heavily on professional labour. Now, what did Mr.
Pitt do under similar circumstances? The Right Hon. Baronet
had accomplished in 1845 that which Mr. Pitt had never at-
tempted to do. He (Mr. Sheil) would not pretend to institute
any comparison between the Right Hon. Baronet and his po-
hey, and that of the great man whom he had named. It was
unquestionable that Mr. Pitt was of a very high, ex-
alted, intellectual grade. But Mr. Pitt had never
dared to impose an income-tax otherwise than as a
war-tax. In the time of peace Mr. Pitt had never dared to
impose a tax of this nature. He had been accustomed to press
towards his end, and when disappointed or thwarted had never
sent in a series of resignations. But then he had had no
incubus of a Russell before his eyes. The income-tax had
been first imposed in the year 1793, and immediately on the
conclusion of the war it was remitted ; and it was only on the
resumption of the war that it had been again imposed. The
Right Hon. Baronet bad raid that he had strong reasons for
imposing a tax which all allowed to be odious in its nature and
unjust in its operation—a tax pressing unequally on every
class of society, for it fell with comparative lightness on those
whose property would pass unaffected by the impost, while it
pressed with a terrible severity on those who were unable to
pay. The Right Hon. Baronet had spoken loudly on the gene-
ral prosperity of the country, but he seemed to have lost sight,
most conveniently, of the good harvests with which the country
had been blessed; but in this unhappy contrast of various cir-
cumstances the Right Honourable Baronet appeared to have
forgotten the bad harvests and the consequent difficulty which had
been endured during the time of his predecessors. Had these
circumstances not occurred, the consumption would never have
been impaired and no deficit would have been suffered. But in
the endeavour to repair this deficit the Right Hon. Baronet
had determined to remit the imports on glass, sugar, and
restore the income-tax. And what assurance had the public
that this tax would not be increased from three to six, and even
ten per cen'.? Could the Right Hon. Baronet say that such
would not be the case ? He well knew that no assurance of his
at the present time would hold, and that none that he gave
' would hold good, if, at the end of the period for which it was
imposed, any circumstances should arise to render its continu-
ance convenient. The income-tax had never been considered
any other than a war-tax. It had been imposed in the midst
of darkness and storms, when the country was threatened on
every side in 1793, and immediately on the peace of Amiens it
was repealed; nor did the Ministry dare, even when the power
of Napoleon was swelling to its highest, to impose the tax on the
recommencement of the war, and it was only at the invocation
of England, he might say of all England, that it was again im-
posed. Yet did the Right Hon. Baronet come down to the
House in the year 1812, when on all hands and in every coun-
try there was nought but peace and quietude, when all was se-
rene, when the sky was light and the breezes of prosperity fanned
the sails of the vessel of the State, the First Lord of the Treasury
came down to that House and proposed a tax which was equi-
valent to a tax for war. The horizon was clear and the air was
still—the darky storms which has gathered in the distance had
passed away—China, to the surprise of the Right Hon. Gentle-
mars opposite, had become from a formidable enemy a happy
ally, and had already opened such fresh and extended fields for
our commerce as to cause a new establishment in the Board of
Trade. France, that had assumed all the air and panoply of ,
war, had already entered into new treaties fur amity and good
will. That dispute respecting the right of search, which at one
time had been likely to bring down the gloom of ruin and dis-
ruption overt' every country in Europe, had pissed by like the
sighings of an autumnal breeze. The Peninsular—that con-
stant source of anxiety—had settled into an apathy under the
Protectorate of France, as submissively as if it had been only an
island in the Pacific. Italy had become the amiable adopter
of Conservative institutions ; and it was under these circum-
stances—these felicitous circumstances—that the Right Hon.
Baronet, with a modesty peculiarly his own, came down to the
House and proposed a war-tax. Was it to be wondered at
that there was complaint and disatisfaction when the night
Hon. Baronet was doing more than ever Lord Castlereagh
had dared to do in the worst period of the war, when there
was such an endeavour to legislate for the privileged classes ?
He (Mr. (Sheil) believed that one of the worst of the oppres-
sions of this odious tax was that which fell upon those who
had the tax to pay on 1501., who vainly endeavoured to veil
their necessities and preserve their grade, through the thin tran-
sparent veil with which they covered their poverty and distress.
What could be more unjust, then, than to impose the same tax
on the product of intellectual toil, on that which might be
called the strength of a man's mind, and on that produce which
came from the land, income which was itself as stable as the earth

it came from.—( Hear, hear.) What could be more unjust
than to impose the same tax on John in the Garret and John
on the Woolsack of the House of Lords ?—(Cheers.) What
could be more unjust than to impose the same tax on the First
Lord of the Treasury with his 30,0001. a year, and the gen-
tleman who reports his speech on the income-tax in the gal-
lery of the House of Commons ?—(Cheers, and counter-cheers,
continued for some seconds.) Those were men of accomplished
minds, minds embellished with all the beauties of literature,
dedicated to that profession in which many of the first men of
the world had, at one time, been engaged. These came within
the influence of the income-tax, but at the expense of great
wear and tear both of mind and body. If one of these men
lost his health, he was perhaps reduced to a si-
tuation most appalling, and yet that man, condemned
to feel the gall of bitterness at home—(the conclusion of the
sentence was lost in the cheering which was re-echoed from all
parts of the House.) This tax—(lronical cries of " Hear,
hear.") He had said nothing to wound the feelings of any
Gentleman upon the Treasury benches. His comparison
might be a feeble but it certainly was a faithful one.— (Hear,
hear.) If the tax were unjust, if it were inquisitorial, if it
were immoral, if it held out a premium to fraud, should it not
at once be done away with ? They would say that these were
the visionary and fallacious suggestions of a factious man, but
if he denounced the income-tax as unjust, if ho de-
nounced it as inquisitorial, if he denounced it as im.
moral, it was denounced as inquisitorial, as immoral,
and as unjust by the very first men of Europe. It
was denounced by I%lr. Baring, the prince of commerce, by
Wilberforce the high-minded, the moral, the kind-hearted,
and the good ; and, though last, not the least worthy
among these, by the late Sir Robert Peel, and they would for-
give him, if he ventnred to say, that they would have reason to
exclaim with him,

" Patris dictum sapientis temeritas filii comprobavit."
Mr. COBDEN, who spoke from the lower end of the House,
and was in the opening indistinctly heard, said the income-tax
was not understood. The most intelligent portion of the public
were, up to this moment, unable to under stand the real nature
of the income-tax ; and the Members of that House had been
themselves unable to obtain the information for them. It was
this question of the income-tax that had brought up the sugar
duties, and this measure was as incomprehensible as the sub-
ject they were discussing. They had tried extremely hard to
get information from the Government, but neither he nor any
other Hon. Member could induce them to give it. Now he
ventured to say that the sugar duties were as bad as the in-
come-tax itself, and when the people properly understood the
question, they would entertain a widely different feeling than
tho Government said they did now. The Government had
been asked a question, but they refused to answer it ;
but he could tell the House and the country, that
at the end of the year the public would find
that the measure now brought forward would not have
cheapened their sugar. It appeared to him that there was a
great misapprehension prevailing in that House with regard to
the operation or tendency of the income-tax. He was not one
of those who agreed with Hon. Members who said there had
been a vast deal of evasion of the incom c-tax, but, on the con-
trary, he believed a great deal more ha been paid than ought
to have been paid. lie had a letter in his pocket from Bir-
mingham which would bear him out in this statement. He had
consu'ted with the lion. Member behind him ('Jr. Muntz),
and he believed the lion. Member could bear ont the correct-
ness of the extract he was about to read to them. The writer
said—" I know from my own knowledge that in this town
many individuals were made to pay' the income-tax although
they were insolvent at the time. They went time after time
to the Commissioners to endeavour to get it taken off, but the
only answer they could get was—you must pay the whole. The
income-tax has sent many persons to a premature grave, and 1
know there are thousands in this town who will not expose
their affairs to the Commissioners."—( Hear, hear. )
Now, lion. Gentlemen could gather from this the feeling
which prevailed in Birmingham with regard to the income-
tax. But the House had lost sight of an important fact.
Those persons who were charged under schedule D are sub-
ject to the scrutiny and the catechisation of a Board of Corn-
mis.ioners ; and he ventured to say that if Members :of that or
the other House of Parliament had to go before comini.sioners
to be scrutinised, in the same way as tradesmen, the income-
tax would not last a month. Why they had lost sight of the
moat important, the most obnoxious, and the most vexatious
part of the income-tax. It was not the amount that the people
complained of—for he would venture to say, if they would
only modify the tax so as to inflict only a fair proportion of
the tax upon the industrious and middle classes of the country
—the people would not object to it. But he told them they
were deceiving themselves, if they fancied that the people of
this country would permanently submit to the tax.—( Hear,
hear.) They went under the provisions of this Act
to a tradesman in Cheapside, or a banker, and asked
him to submit, at the London Tavern, to the scrutiny
of a body of gentlemen, who were his aeighbours, his last
balance-sheet. What was the answer the messenger generally
got to this application? Why it was this :—" I have been
afraid to let nay wife see it, and, indeed, I never let my
sons see it." Ah, but the law, said the messenger, had power
to compel the tradesman or banker to submit for inspection
his balance-sheet or accounts ; and if he refused, what did
they do? Why they levied a fine of 501.—and the tradesman
paid it, in preference to exposing his affairs. The Noble Lord
the lion. Member for Sunderland need not give his warning,

for they might depend upon it that, at the next election, they
would find that both Whigs and Tories were averse to submit.
ting to this tax. They might depend upon this, although no
outbreaks or tumults had taken place out of doors. Men could
not petition against this law, because the tendency of the Bill
itself was to prevent the people getting together and talking the
matter over. Nay, a man absolutely did not like to consult his
neighbour upon this subjeet, but they felt the grievance never-
theless. In London, certainly, they had had very little
surcharge ; but they had heard what had been ping on in Bir-
mingham ; and he could speak of the North of England, where
there certainly had been a good deal of surcharge. In some
part of England parties who had been surcharged had been
subject to insults which were becoming in no men, much less
public Commissioners. He knew a case himself, in which a
surgeon was surcharged, and had to go before the Corn•
missioners to be examined, when such questions as the following
were put to him :—" How much profit do you get from Blue-
stone? We understand you keep two gigs ?—docs your wife
sometimes use one of them? You keep two horses too, and
sometimes ride them with the saddle?—does your wife some-
times use one of them?" Then again a hair-dresser had to go
before the Commissioners.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen
might laugh, but the hair 'dresser had a vote. Well, he went
before the body of Commissioners, and was examined some-
thing in this style You have a room ? What use do you
make of it ?—1 use it fur the purposes of n.y business. Ilosao.
many people's hair do you cut in the course of the year .2
many ladies, and so many gentlemen. What do you charge
of
:
them ?--Perhaps a shilling. Then you get tenpeneeat least
profit ? Do you not use your public room somet,imteohich these
sometimes for domestic
purpose; ?" That was the sort of questiounin
' e
people were subjected. But beforetheyoe
Pits whether they had
',d the appeal,
mak
they were celled upon to state their ,
more places of business than one, and 'whether they had more
3
partners than one, and how
hmoatir'is'. What was the amount of
distinguishing the amount
which belonged to each
capital employed in eac
partner,s ;lid detailing the annual in-
terest and the amount of profit due to each. Ile knew a
gentleman who was surcharged 5,000/. ; notwithstanding he
had honestly made a return of the amount of his profits. lle
consulted a Member of that House on tie subject, but nothing
could be done for him, and be was told that he would have to
take his I..aoks before the Commiesioners. He ref, rred, bow-
e, paying the fine to disclosing the secrets of his trade.
NvToewr• he thought this was a grievance which Hon. Gentlemen
did not well understand in that House, or they would not have
the Right Hon. Baronet at the he; d of her Nlajesty's Govern-
ment making merry on this subject, and asking whether the
people would not be so enamoured of this tax as to require its
continuance for a further length of time.—(Laughter and
sheers.) Ile wished as a free •trader on that occasion to state
that as far as the Right Hon. Baronet's measures of this ses-
sion went, he totally repudiated them as tar as the free-
traders were concerned. They were merely brought forward
to keep up the delusion out of doors, that they were free-