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

....—...—„,
............ t7t
traders on the Ministerial side of the Hou e, and
,tb 43 ekie---,\
enable them to continue the existence of moiiitspneyesl,
What did Mr. Macgregor say of the amount of revenue they"' ''''.-e'se",),"'_.,\
might obtain from sugar? Since Friday last, he (Mr. Cob. eset-e4:l-'eee. -h‘
....)\\
den) had asked two gentlemen more likely to be acquaintedk; f.*I.S:-..1 j,.._
with the subject than any men in London. He bad asked, ''' -neseieesj4
them this question. "If you wished to get the largest amount' ee s se,
of revenue from sugar, giving sugar at the same price as the
..eeel-
Government intend the people to have it, how much revenue lag
would you get, and still give the sugar at that price ?" '- ..Sis AS
millions sterling," was the answer. He believed that if they
were to put a duty on all foreign and colonial sugar of 235. per
cwt. they would get more than six millions, and the people
would get their sugar at the same price as under the proposed
law, in addition to which they would be opening a channel for
increased trade. A good deal had been said out of compli-
ment to the Right Hon. Gentleman from his measures having
a tendency towards free trade. He (Mr. Cobden) could not
see the wisdom of the Right Hon. Baronet's policy since he
had been in power, for instead of opening new markets, he had
shut up two of the greatest markets of the world—North and
South America. The one by imposing a duty on corn, ab-
solutely prohibiting and shutting them out by an unstatesman-
like scheme in the markets of Brazil. How a Government
could have the courage under such circumstances to put them-
selves forward as free traders passed his imagination altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to say a few words to
justify his own vote on this question, especially as the Right
Hon. Gentleman had alluded to en observation which he had
made in one of the debates which had taken place on this sub-
ject. This tax might be imposed on various occasions, and
for various reasons. One case was exigency of war, when the
country was in great danger. Now he ( Lord J. Russell)
readily admitted that that was a fair occasion for the imposi-
tion of this tax; and he conceived that that was a fair reason
for not attempting any modification in it. Ho thought it rea-
sonable to say to the farmer, " You must supply your horsei
for the army, because that is the way the demands of the army
are supplied throughout the country." Another mode of
using the income-tax was that which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had proposed in ISI2, when he said, " There are taxes
which press very much on the industry of the country, that
we hope by imposing an income-tax for three years the in-
dustry of the country will be so far recovered that the revenue
will be equal to what it has been in any former year." But
neither of these modes was that upon which the income-tax
was now proposed. The ground now taken of imposing the
tax was the commutation of other taxes. He (Lord J. Rug.
sell) thought they were bound to consider whether this tax
was as just, as equal, and as little vexatious as they could me ke
it. They could no longer say that they had a great public
exigency ; they could no longer say t' at they were imposing it
only far a short time, and that all the inconveniences would
depart with the tax itself. They were imposing it on grounds
which made it almost impcesible for them to take it off
at the end of three years, and on grounds upon which
it must be renewed again and again. He (Lord John Russell)
thought especially, after hearing the statements of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stockport—those forcible state-
ments of the inequality of the tax—that it would be but fair for
that House, before they finally agreed upon it, to examine into
all the conditions of the tax, and attempt to remove some of
those objections which were applicable to it in its present
state. He could not understand for a moment the objections
of his Hon. Friend the Member fur Kendall, who said that
when the income-tax ceased the inequality of the tax also
ceased. Why if a man who obtained his income from a pro-
fession were to be completely paralysed by disease, no doubt
his source of income would fail, and there would be no income-
tax; but they had already received the tax from him at the
same rate as that from a person who had an estate from
which he would receive his income although he might be in
such a state of health as not to be able to leave his bedroom.
It was impossible by any sophistry to show that there was
equality in that mode of using the tax. But then the Hon.
Member for Montrose, to his great surprise, gave a most
Curious reason why they should not enter into this investiga-
tion. The Prime Minister had been asked if he would cone
sent to any modification of this tax. The Hon. Gentleman
thought that great modifications were required, but as the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not make those modifications, it
was, he said, no use bothering him any more.—(Laughter.)
lie (Lord J. Russell) hod heard the Right lion. Gentleman
described, on the other side of the House, as the Petruchio of
Liberalism, and if that were so, he thought the Honourable
Member for Montrose might be looked upon as the Katharine
—( Laughter) —certainly the Hon. Member had been com-
pletely tamed by the discipline which hod been used. He
(Lord John Russell) agreed very much with the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Stockport, in what he had said with re-
spect to free trade, and, admitting the figures that had been
used the other night, he could not but say that, looking to all
the benefits which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give
to the public on the imposition of the income-tax, he (Lord J.
Russell) thought that this tax might have been imposed with
less severity on precarious incomes, if the tax paid to the West
Indian proprietors had been diminished. The Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Stockport had said that 6,000,000/. might
be obtained for the revenue from sugar, and the price not
raised beyond that which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed
to give it. Now they had given 750,000/. a-year, in per-
petuity to the West India proprietors by giving them
20,000,0001., and if they gave this country, 1,000,0001., they
would still have 5,000,000/. out of the present tax on sugar,
without making the sacrifice of 1,300,000/., which, it was
acknowledged, would not benefit the people, in order to give
2,000,0001. of benefit to the West India planters.
Those who had suffered from the income-tax must justly com-
plain of it as a grievance, when monopoly and restriction were
kept up. He was perfectly satisfied that it was in the power
of the Right lion. Baronet, if he chose, to deal with
those great articles of timber, sugar, and corn, to relieve the
publie, and to give a still greater impetus and vigour to com-
merce, and to make a just and fair modification of the tax.
lie was not at all insensible to the benefits that would be de-
rived from the abolition of the duties on 434) articles. He re-
gretted, however, that the great articles which constituted the
food of the people had not been dealt with. The Hon.
Gentleman who had spoken last had referred to Mr. Deacon
Hums. He (Lord John Russell) thought that Mr. Deacon
Hume had stated that there were two modes of proceeding
with regard to restrictions on commerce, The mode
was that which had been mentioned by the Honourable
Gentleman, the Member for Kendal, and the other
was with regard to those great articles to which he
(Lord John Russell) had alluded. He thought the first
mode of proceeding for a Minister to take would be
to establish a free trade in these articles. That might be the
course the light lion. Gentleman intended to pursue.--
(Laughter.) Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montrose was
in the secret.—(Renewed laughter.) But he (Lord John
Russell) thought that if that was to be the course, the Right
lion. Baronet had better declare it, and get rid of the diffi-
culty at one e For his ( Lord J. Russell's) own part, on the
ground the Right Hon. Gentleman himself had stated more
than once, he was ready to say that he would give his vote
for the property and income-tax for three years, seeing that
great benefits would be derived front taking off duties which
were very oppressive to trade ,• but in voting for it on this
ground, he, at the same time, thought they ought to consider
what modifications could be made, and even if those modifica-
tions should lead to a reduction of the amount of the duty,
if they teok off one million of the five, there would be ample
compensation for adopting the principles of free trade, while
it would place the trade of the country on a sound foundation.
Mr. VILLIERS did not think the lion. Member for Lis-
keard would take the advice of the Hon. Member for Pon-

tefract, and withdraw his motion. He (Mr. Villiers) fully
anticipated that the income-tax would be continued, and for
that reason he thought they were bound to see that the tax
was made as little odious as possible.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought the best recommendation of this tax was, that it was
a direct one. He thought that a direct tax was far better
than an indirect one, as it interfered less with trade, and
less with that activity and enterprise which were the means of
accumulating wealth. Nothing could be sounder than the
opinion which prevailed out of doors, throughout the country,
on the subject of taxation. The people were not at all op-
posed to taxation that was necessary. They did not wish to
repudiate liabiliity. All they required was, that the
taxes that were imposed should be just.—( Hear.)
But the people wanted to be persuaded that the revenue thus
obtained trom the income-tax was properly applied ; he did not
think this was shown, he did not think this was the case. The
recent discussion on the sugar duties was calculated to create
great dissatisfaction. It was calculated to show that the people
were required to submit to en odious impost, to a tax generally
disliked, without having any advantage from it. Were it pro-
perly applied to a reduction of duties which interfered with
manufactures and commerce, he did not believe it would cause
any dissatisfaction. This was not the ground at present. It
had been pretty clearly established that the tax was imposed
now, because they had to expect a recurrence of those periods,
of which the depression was the cause of its being first im-
posed. There was not the slightest doubt or question, in the
mind of any person, that the cause of the decline of the reve-
nue, during the two or three years before the present Govern-
ment came into power, was occasioned by bad harvests and the
corn-laws. That was a settled conviction in the public mind,
and he did not know that a greater fraud or unposition had ever
been attempted to be palmed upon the people, than to
make them believe it was the existence of the

late Government, and on account of the policy it pursued, that
the revenue had fallen off, and that because the present Gentle-
men had succeeded to power, the revenue had been recovered.
The revenue declined at that time in consequence of the defi-
ciency of food and higher prices; and it recovered simply in
consequence of good harvests, which meant abundance, which
meant cheapness, which meant the power on the part of the
people of consuming the articles that were taxed.—(Hear.)
This could not be repeated too often ; it must be impressed on
the Gentlemen in that corner of the House, they must be told
of it every week of the session, they must be constantly re-
minded that they were the real causes of this additional tax-
ation. This was what the people did not like ; for this tax
was first imposed in addition to all others from a deficiency caused
by the corn-laws and bad harvests. Those Gentlemen, there-
fore, who supported the corn-laws, were strictly responsible for
the continuance of this tax. This would, perhaps, be proved
in 1848, when they should probably have had another set of
bad harvests, when it would be necessary to continue it ; and
these Gentlemen would have to answer to the country for that
continuance. His lion. Friend the Member for Stockport
had alluded to the evidence of Mr. Deacon Hume and
Mr. Macgregor before the Import Duties Committee ;
According to this evidence, if they did not recover the revenue
by reducing their expenditure, they must do it by giving
greater power to the people of consuming taxed articles. if
their Customs and Excise were to produce 75 per cent. of the
revenue, they must increase the consuming power of the people,
and make articles more cheap and accessible to them.
should not trouble the House with many figures on this point—.
( Hear hear)—but he would cite a few in order to illustrate
the evidence given by these gentlemen, and of the justice of
the view of what was really the cause of the deficiency of the
revenue when the harvests were bad, and of what had really
been the cause of the improvement in it since the harvests had
been good. The net produce of the Customs and Excise in
1836 was 36,392,000/. ; in 1840 the net revenue produced
from these sources was 35,536,4691. ; there was a reduction of
upwards of one million. And what occurred between the
years 1836 and 1840? There were 1,400,000 added to the
numbers of the people, and 5 per cent. additional placed on
the Customs and Excise duties ; and yet there was a falling off
of a million in the revenue. Now, he would just ask the atten-
tion of the House to the difference in the amount
paid by the people for food at these periods. In
the three years, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the cost of the wheat
consumed by the people vas 107,135,000/. In the three
years, 1837, 1838, and 1839, the wheat consumed by the
people coat 152,506,465/. In those three years fifty-two
nithons more were paid by the people for the cecessaries of
life than there had been dining the three preceding years
when the harvests were good. They had heard also what was
the correlenaling falling off in that time of that portion of the
revenue that formed 75 per cent. of the whole amount. Would
any one doubt, after the experience not only of these but of
other s eais, that whenever food was dear the revenue fell off ?
II sd not the people a right to ask why they were taxed in this
extraordinary way on the first necessary of life, and then re-
quired to pay a rnoit offensive impost to make up the deficiency
in the revenue caused by it ? He could understand the inten-
tion to keep up the protective system if the Hon. Member for
Somersetshire or Dorsetshire were in power, but after the
speech they had heard that evening from the Hight lion.
Gentleman, he could not understand his persevering
in the system. That speech was a perfect free
trade argument, as good a free trade speech as those
his lionceirable Friends were accustomed to address
to public meetings, arid he could scarcely te!ieve his ears
h when
he heard the Right lion. Gentleman ask whata had
eorw,ev do thatld allr the fearse ofh thoseahoht who n
. Ife thought he Wag every mos
idne ctlh; ed caseth the fEwn
gil:thoaugnadrdiosiesh'i
of the duty wefe