The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

country. He would appeal to any Hon. Member in that
House—always excepting the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, and the Hon. Member for Coventry—whether they
believed that 'it would be safe to have the Navy in the
same state in the year 1844, as it was in the
year ' 1792 ? if' they were blind enough
to overlook the efforts other countries were making to
lay the foundations of immense'territory, and the large
preparations they were makin. for any hostile event—
if the House chose to subject their marine commerce to
the chances of being attacked by powerful nations--Lif
they remained inert, and took no corresponding or
counteracting measures, he, for one, should tell them
that they were acting quite inconsistently with rational
views. He would ask them would they go back to the
year 1790, so much boasted of ' by the Honour-
able MeMber opposite ? If they were over-
taken suddenly by any calamity for which
they were unprepared, and found their commercial
marine swept away, what consolation would it be
that the navy of this day was equal to that of 1791?
He would venture to say that the Government of the
day would be called arrant dolts. But he had great
confidence in the House of COmmons, which was always
aware that. Government must have cognizance of certain
facts which must necessarily be unknown to them. He
thought no one could deny the necessity and justice of
affording those soldiers who had been s6thanyyears abroad
an opportunity of once again seeing their native country.
Therefore he could not lead the House to hope for any
great saving in the large branches of the public service,
but this he would say, that there was not in those esti-
mates a thousand pounds that had been lightly asked for,
or that would be uselessly spent. Allusion had been
particularly made, in the course of the evening, to the
coal trade. As there was no distinct proposition before
the House upon that subject, he was not inclined to
' follow his Hon. Friend in hiS calculations, bat he must be
allowed to say that the amount of coal exported did not
show that extremity of pressure which had been foretold.
The amount ofcoal exported in 1843, includingcinders and
ashes was 1,866,000 tons. If they compared the amount
'of coal exported last year with 1842, there certainly was
a diminution ; but it must be recollected that in the
course of that year it became known that the duty was
coming into operation, and in one quarter of that year
there had 'been great increased exertion. But last year
the total amount of coal exported exceeded that of 1841.
Of course he (Sir R. Peel) included small coal as well as
large. In the year 1841 1,848,000 tons had been ex-
ported, and in 1843 1,866,000 tons ; so that, in fact,
there had been an absolute increase, notwithstanding the
operation of the duty. He did not say that he vindicated
this tax as 'good in principle, but he did say that
when new taxation became necessary, it was a justifiable
one, and the extent of the evil which had been foretold,
and which he had denied at the time was not such as to
cause any serious injury or inconvenience to the public
interest. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Baring) complained that the Government made no pro-
posal with respect to the renewal or the discontinuance
of the income-tax. The income-tax would not expire
till next year ; and he (Sir IL Peel) must say, that it
appeared to him much more conformable to common
sense to wait until. the period when it was about to
expire, when they would have an opportunity of knowing
the real state of the country, its means and its necessities,
than to decide upon the matter now, when they must
do it under comparative disadvantage.—(Hear.) Most
certainly the probabilities were that, in the coming year,
Parliament would be muchhetter able to discuss and to
decide that question than now. The House and the
country lost nothing by abstaining from the question
—they gained nothing by a premature discussion, and
why then should they enter upon one?—(Hear, hear.)
When his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) had stated
in the course of his address to the House, that the in-
come-tax had been originally proposed not for three, but
for five years, he was met by rather that sort of incre-
dulous murmur, which indicated a feeling of disbelief.
Therefore he (Sir R. Peel) wished to re-state to the
House that which had fallen from him in March, 1842,
on the occasion of bringing forward this measure.
Upon that occasion he said—" He would now state to
the House what were the views of the Government with
respect to the duration' of this tax. He trusted Parlia-
matt would confirm' the duration he was about to pro-
pose, and that Parliament would not be unwilling, in
case of necessity, to continue the duration of the tax, for
, . period of five years ; but still there might be, as there
ad been' before, those revivals of prosperity
which might induce Parliament to consider the sub-
ject with a view to recalling the tax in a less period
than that he had stated. Therefore he thought it

just in the first instance, to limit the experiment Of the
income-tax to three years, in erder that Parliament
might, at that time, have the power of rescinding it at
once, or of continuing it for the further period of the
two years." That was what he had said when proposing
the tax ; and if now, at the end of two years from its
imposition, the Government had invited the House to
the discussion whether it should cease next year, or be
carried on to the full period of five years, would not
the passage he had just quoted have bean thrown
out at him, and deservedly thrown out, by
way of taunt, and that by the very men
who now supported Ministers, for not speaking defini-
tively and positively upon the -subject?—(Hear, hear.)
If, next year, it should be the opinion of the House that
the income-tax should be taken off—that the circum-
stances of the country permitted it—or that the interests
of the country required it—well and good ; but it would
not be right to propose - any great reductions in taxation
until the state of the country, in reference to the conti-
nuance or discontinuance of this tax, could be fully
gone into, and fairly decided upon.—(Hear, hear.)
When that time came, it might be that there would
desireP Parliament
f atety t
be shown such an increase in the productiveness
of the country that iauln
with the evil.
At the same time, it must be
recollected that there were certain burdens which
pressed so heavily on• the springs of industry that it
must ever be aleading
could do aw ay
Governmentiiat
whentore
duce or to do away with them. He In
the deputations from Yorkshire Waited upon Ministers
must say that
he listened to their statements with the deepest atten-
tion, though he had maintained throughout a respectful
silence. But after what he and his colleagues had heard
from these deputations of the state of affairs in the
woollen districts the h
n4,'...trm :Y a made ug their minds, quietly
tiVso sebirai'ver''tho7 Mate of tlierevepue
alloW-'f it, 'Vitt Abrlanclr'of-our inArinfacttt::re,s
Olen*, le relfe-reclfrPilk
the burthen of, tile tax on the
raw material.—(lfear, istew, in the reduetibn
proposed in Our niarine'inafans; he (Sir R.- Peel) be-
lieved there would ultimately be no 'loss to the revenue
or the country. It was, infect, a reduction of the cost
price of the eleinents of our manufactures--(Hear, hear)
—and he hoped it would also have the effect of drawing
to this country insurances now effected abroad. The
Right Hon. Alemher for Portsmouth (Mr. Baring) had
had,done them the justice to state that; seeing they
wnuld only act upon a sum of 400,0001., it .was not pos-
sible they could have selected better articles to make
reductions on. The amount which the Government
had put aside for reductions might be small,
but the House would observe that those reductions
were made in conformity with those general principles
which had been laid down at the time of the introduc-
tion of the tariff. He said those reductions were made
in conformity with the general principles he (Sir R.
Peel) had then enunciated, and they had been made in a
manner to relieve the industry and enterprise of the
eountry. Above all, though he admitted the reductions
were light and trivial in amount, they were such as were
most likely to increase the comforts and luxuries of that
class of her Majesty's subjects who depended on their
manual labour for their subsistence, and therefore he
trusted they would meet with the general concurrence of
the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that with regard to the
income-tax no man in that House had more strenuously
opposed it when first proposed than he had done, but
the House having agreed to its imposition, the ques-
tion did not now stand in precisely the same position as
it then did. And certainly he had come down to the
House that evening rather expecting (inasmuch as
there was no reasonable.chance of. the repeal of the in-
come-tax) that the Right Hon. .Baronet (sir R. Peel)
would propose its continuance for the two years longer,
accompanying that prOpositiOn with some large, wise,
and liberal measures for the relief of our commerce—and
had he done so then for one he (Mr. Labouchere)should
have: been prepared ,to _give a ready consent to such
suggestion. Had the Right Hon. Baronet for instance
been prepared to deal in a large and liberal spirit with
sugar, and other great articles of consumption, in which
there might, and .no doubt would have been, an imme-
diate loss of revenue, but which might . have recovered
before the expiration of three years, he (Mr. La-
bouchere) should have considered it to be wise on the
part of the House and the country, to have acquiesced
in the lengthened continuance to the five years originally
mentioned of the income-tax, evil though it was. With
regard to the articles selected for a reduction of duty
he certainly approved of them, but more especially the
articles of wool and coffee. He anticipated great ad-
vantage to the trade of the country from these reduc-
tions; and having only this sum of 06,0001. to deal
with he was not prepared to say the Government had
not made as wise a selection as they well could do. He
did not, however, see why they were not to deal with
other articles which, when the tariff had been intro-
-dtieed, had been postponed on the ground that negotia-
tions were going on with -.foreign countries in
reference to them. With France, as well as
with Brazil, our efforts at negotiation had -failed,
and he did not see why they were longer to
postpone dealing with articles— such-, for instance, as
..silks and brandies (wine lie would not allude to)—from
a.re-arrangement of the duties upon which there would
be no loss to the revenue, whilst smuggling would be put
an encl.to. Btit there was one announcement by the
•
Chancellor of- the Exchequer of such infinitely greater