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

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

system of taxation, to raise what the State required di-
rectly, than resorting to en 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 he 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 income-tax so long as his
12,000/. a year lasted.
Mr. M. MILNES, after giving the best consideration
I to the subject, had come to the conclusion, and to which
conclusion he hope d to adhere, that the operation of
direct taxes was the best, and at the same time the most
economical way of raising tke 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 ca-tain propositions, which he might
or might not believe, he (Mr. Milnes) adopted that large
assumption upon which the greeter 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 Lord 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 divided Hon. 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 West
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 he 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. He thought it would not be difficult
to establish a satisfactory distinction, for the country
would not look at very nice points of gradation. Sup-
pose there were a per tentage 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 Hoc. and Learned
Member for Liskeard was not in his place, as he wished
to ask who would vote with him (Mr. C. Buller) ? The
lion. 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. Milties) 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. Ile 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 psipably
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 be best secured by a combination
of direct and indirect taxation.
Mr. HAAV ES 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 ne-
cessity for continuing the tax, which should be repealed
in three 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 Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R.
Peel) stated that the revenue of the year ending sth of
April, 1846, 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,
acc3rding to Sir R. Peel's showing, there would be an
increase of 300,0001. As to corn, the Right ion. 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 500,000/. for next

year.

Mr. HAWES said that he would be content to deal
with the surplus of 1,400,0001. And he thought that
with that balance in hand the reduction on articles of

:rade 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
Hon. Baronet 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., and now

he 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 Membei for Kent 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, 30,000,0001. ; and if to the direct taxa-

tion the 5,000,060/. 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 year 3, and,

herefore, he thought the Honourable Alember 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 endure 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 he was, therefore, perfectly consistent in voting for
the motion of his lion. and Learned Friend. Unless a
case was made 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 nuw 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. He agreed with the
llon 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
rested 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.—(bear, hear.) He also thought with the
Hon. Baronet, that persons should be taxed only for the
amount of their income above 150/.; that a person, for
instance, having 155 t, should be taxed only on the 5/.
above the 1501—(Hear, hear.) He likewise agreed
with him, that a distinction should be made 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 bp 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 consent. He thought
that the effect of the budget of the Right Honourable
Baronet would be to extend the industry of the country.
He had no doubt it would be found exceedingly bene-
itaitd to many large branches of manufacture. He would
not egret, with that part of the motion which had refer-
' ence to the inquisitorial pp.tpre of the tax, for if those
words meant anything, they meant that the manafactur-
.ng, commercial, and trading interests should be 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 whieli 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, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought that the financial statement made
by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ought not to be
mixed up with the present motion, for the Right
Hon. Baronet told them be 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. Ho 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,e,00,0001. were raised by indire.A taxation. He (Mr.
Ilume) could not find anything like that out of the
ordinary revenue of the country, which was about
50,000,0001. No less than 191 millions were derived
from the Customs, certainly not a direct tax; 131 millions
from the Excise, not a direct tax. The Stamps duty
was not a direct tax. The only direct taxes were the
land and the assessed taxes, amounting to 4i millions.
Including the income-tax there would be 9i millions
of direct taxes, but leaving out the income-tax there
were only .q millions raised from direct taxation in-
stead of 20,000,0001. One of his great complaints since
he had the honour of a seat in that House was that the
taxes were levied from articles used by the poorer classes,
and that property was almost entirely exempt from
taxation. In France and in Belgium the great bulk of
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. lie did not 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 Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford
said, that the spiritual destitution of the people might be
provided for ; but he (Mr. Hume) thought there were
sufficient funds to provide for that, if they were pro-
perly applied.—(Hear, hear.) But lie would also tell
his Hon. Friend, that when the physical destitution of
the poorer classes was provided for, they would be 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 Ft iend, the Member for Lem-
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 he was
satisfit d that tax would benefit the country, ho 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 Hon. 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 he (Sir R. Peel) had msde there would re-
main a surplus. The Hon. 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
he (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 609,0001 to be received on account of China ;
but that supposing Parliament did not grant the conti-
mutation of the income-tax, that then they must deduct
2,600,000/. from that amount, but they would be entitled
to acid to the ordinary permanent revenue 2,600,000/.,
because a half year's income-tax would be received, and
then they 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/. Now
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth seemed
to be bewildered about the balance in the Exchequer in
April, 1845. He said that at that period the Govern-
ment would have a balance in the Exchequer of upwards
of 5,000,000/. Now the Hon. Gentleman could hardly be
aware of the manner in which that amount would
have to be applied, or he certainly would not have made
the observations that he 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-
vernment were in a more favourable position than in
former years, but that surplus could not be considered
fairly applicable to the services of the current year. On
the whole, therefore, he thought that the Hon. Gentle-
man's calculations and his reasons for opposing the in-
come-tax were altogether without foundation. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward
the amendment had made a speech condemning the
policy of the Government, instead of concluding with one
against 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. Now
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 4/. 10s. The meaning of that was, that
he should be enabled to require from the Exchequer a
deduction of 41. 10s. He (Sir R. Peel) had not 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., that
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, hero to be in-
troduced. Now before the House adopted such a
proposition, he hoped they would seriously con-
sider the course which they really ought to
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
Ives 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. lie 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 Id. He did not
-think any past
experience could induce them to put a tax of 51. 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 mode. 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 lose of 1,300,000/. next year in the sugar duties, still
there would be a surplus of 2,000,0001., 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
duty on glass, to abolish restrictions on manufactures
which prevented the application of skill, to remove the
duty upon auctions, and upon 350 or 360 other articles,
altogether making a reduction in taxation of 2,000,000/.
and upwards. He (Sir Robert Peel) still remained of
opinion that it would be difficult to apply the remaining
surplus of 2,000,000/. to time revival of industry in
stay other manner than by the remission of the
taxes which was proposed by the Government. lie saw
some Gentlemen opposite, wile shared in the waggery of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, when lie 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 3Ad. in twelve
months.—(A laugh.) On this ground it was that the
lion. Member for Lislseard 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 introdection 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, &c., was little or nothing, while that upon
raw cotton was immense. In the United States there
was no duty on raw cotton, neither was there in Ger-
many or Switzerland ; in France there was a duty, but
thou there was a Osawback Chat made up the equivalent.

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 lion. Gentleman
admitted that the reduction of the duty on 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-
taining it. it was one of the strongest arguments
which could be alleged for its abolition.—(Hear, hear.)
lie ventured to predict that after the sth of April they
would find a very extensive competition in the glass
manufacture. It was quite a mistake to suppose that
immense capital and enormous edifict-s were required for
the manufacture of glass. lie 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 400.000/. By
removing the duty altogether, he believed they would
establish a manufacture, less important indeed than that
of woollen, hut still a manufacture which would be the
source of increased industry, of increased profit, and of
increased commerce with other countries.— (Hear, hear.)
The lion. 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
what 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
brought 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
lion. Gentleman said they permitted alum to be im-
ported free of duty, in order that bread might 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 for 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-
ance to the manufacturers of this country.
The total amount of duty remitted was about
350,000/. They were about to establish a traffic in these arti•
cles 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 had 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
i 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 cotton-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 71 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 be able to compete with Ame-
rica and other countries." Was it, then, any test of this be-
nefit 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, with 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, in 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
reasons might be urged fur the repeal or reduction of many
duties, which it was not in their power at present to remove.—
(Hear, hear.) If the lion. 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, hut he entreated the House to bear in mini the
manupro-
bable effect of taxes bearing upon Use industry of the country.
For several years the poor-rate had increased ; last year, how-
ever, a favourable change had taken place, the increased em-
ployment
reduction of duty
g
population having re-
dp lhocyemd e nt tfe
bu rh
might be less in the case of cotton or glass at first,
than in the case of soap and other articles.
Yet, it they were ensuring great branches of manufactures
against vicissitudes, and against such distress as that which
tdheen . The manufacturing
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 461 mil-
lions in 1843 to 50 millions in 1844, he thought they had reason
to hope that the effect would bo 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 unwillingness to disturb the efficiency
of this great instrument. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that
ne petitions had been presented against this tax ; and there
was ne rational way o faccounting for that, except by admitting
that the burden would be felt to be less onerous than was ex-
pected, and that the inquisition which hadbeen conducted through
the officers of the stamp department had 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. lie 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 equity, would be ten times
more oppressive than the existing inquisition was alleged to
have been found.—( Hear, hear.) lie 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 circumstances he hoped the House would affirm
this 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, bad asked what substitute they
would provide in lieu of the income-tax. He should for his
partm sayore
fairthat
income
-tax.
It
tostaba tax so founded in
possibly be imposed would
he
manifest injustice that he (Mr. Sheil) conceived that of all
the evidence of odious iniquity in the imposition of taxation
than any
the i impost
n e
this was the most glaring and unjustifiable. They had disre-
garded the weights which had been imposed on those who
realized incomes from 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 !oak to in case of
deficiency in the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Shell) 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. He repeated that if the Right Hon. 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 income-tax to him. He ( Mr. Shell) had 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., tfpon which he understood there was
a duty payable, as legacy duty, of 14,0001. Now, if
there
was a legacy of 14,0001. upon a sum like this,
what might
not be the amount arising from the whole of the property
on which this tax might he levied ? To this tax there could
not be the slightest objection ; for between this tax and the
ineeme-tax there was the strictest analogy. This was a tax
Which wotild in no way pets Wert the Right Hqn. Efsweilet'a
opposing friends--the agriculturists. it would in no way
affect rents—it would in ne 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 schedule D

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, and 'yet he (Mr.
Sheil) thought that this was no great objection when he re-
fleeted 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-
licy, 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
eonclusion 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 said 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 suffere(l. But in
the endeavour to repair this deficit the Right Hon. Baronet
had determined to rerait 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 cent? 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 1842, 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-
man opposite, had become from a formidable enemy a happy
ally, and had already opened such fresh and extended fields for
our commerce as te cause a new establishment in the Board o

Trade. France, that had assumed all the air and panoply of
war, had already entered into new treaties for amity aad 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 every every country in Europe, had passed 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 Right
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 150/.' 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 30,00/. 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.—( Ironical 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 he 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 Mr. 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 lie ventured 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 understand 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
the 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 incoro e-tax, but, on the con-
trary, he believed a great deal more ha been paid than ought
to have been paid. He had a letter in his pocket from Bir-
mingham
odn. Member
bear him ou t
behindin this statement.hi
(al r.
AiHnen
thz )a4l
consulted ,
and he
which
believed
to e
Hon. Member could bear out 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
with
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 I
know there are thousands in this town who will not expose
their affairs te the Commissioners."—( Hear, hear. )
Now, Hon. 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 Com-
missioners ; and he ventured to say that if Members ;of that or
the other House of Parliament had to go before commissioners
to be scrutinised, in the same way as tradesmen, the income-
tax would not last a month. Why they had lost sight of
.the
most important, the most obnoxious, and the moo..iexatious
part of the income-tax. It was not the athoUnt that the people
complained of—for he would venture to say, if they would
thisthe
th teat,. uponxopuono
tprlye would
hooen
nu
dd dpnuesorttrati :ablen
permanently
only modify the tax so as to inflict only a fair proportion of
submitdle
classes
ie
tofotladtxht. eh—eci
n(o
nu
tnehtaer
ryy,
and
dyto m
it,
B
w ere deceiving themselves, if they fancied that the people of
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 neighbours, his last
balance-sheet. What was the answer the messenger generally
wasthis :—" r• I
got to this application ? Why it have been
afraid to let my wife see it, and, indeed, I never let my
sons see it." Als, 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 Hon. 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 submits
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 subject, but they felt the grievance never-
theless. In London, certainly, they had had very little
surcharge ; but they had heard what had been going on in Bir-
minghara ; 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. Ile 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
*sere put to him :—" How much profit do you get from blue-
stone ? We understand you keep two gigs ?—does 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 te go
before the Commissioners.—( Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen
might laugh, but the hair eiresser 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?—l use it for the purposes of n.y business. How
many people's hair do you cut in the course of the year ?—So
many ladies, and so many gentlemen. What do you charge
them ?—Perhaps a shilling. Then you get tenpence at least of
profit ? Do you not use your public room sometimes for domestic
purposes ?" That was the sort of questioning to which these
people were subjected. But before they could make the appeal,
they were called upon to state their profits, whether they had
more places of business than one, and whether they had more
partners than one, and how many. What was the amount of
capital employed in each house, distinguishing the amount
which belonged to each partner, and detailing the annual in-
terest and the amount of profit due to each. He knew a
gentleman who was surcharged 5,000/. ; notwithstanding he
had honestly made a return of the amount of his profits. lie
consulted a Member of that House on the subject, but nothing
could be done for him, and he was told that he would have to
take his books before the Commissioners. He referred, how-
ever, paying the fine to disclosing the secrets of his trade.
Now he thought this was a grievance which lion. Gentlemen
did not well understand in that House, or they would not have
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty'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
aheers. ) He 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 far as the free,
traders were concerned. They were merely brought forward
to keep up the delusion out el doort, that they were free.

traders on the Ministerial side of the House, and thus
enable them to continue the existence of monopoly.
What did Mr. Macgregor say of the amount of revenue they
might obtain from sugar? Since Friday last, he (Mr. Cob-
den) had asked two gentlemen more likely to be acquainted
with the subject than any men in London. He had asked
them this question. "If you wished to get the largest amount
of revenue from sugar, giving sugar at the same price as the
Government intend the people to have it, how much revenue
would you get, and still give the sugar at that price ?" " Six
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
lion. Gentleman had alluded to an 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 horses
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 1842, when lie 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. lie (Lord J. Rus-
sell) thought they were bound to consider whether this tax
was as just, as equal, and as little vexatious as they could make
it. They could no longer say that they had a great public
exigency ; they could no longer say that they were imposing it
only for a short time, and that all the inconveniences would
depart with the tax itself. They were imposing it on grounds
which made it almost impossible 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 for 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 con-
sent to any modification of this tax. The lion. 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.)
He (Lord J. Russell) had heard the Right Hon. 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 had 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 6,000,0001. 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 5,000,0001. 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
2,000,000/. of benefit to the West India planters.
Those who had suffered from that 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 Hon. Baronet, if he chose, to deal with
those great articles of timber, sugar, and corn, to relieve the
public, and to give a still greater impetus and vigour to com-
merce, and to make a just and fair modification of the tax.
Ho was not at all insensible to the benefits that would be de-
rived from the abolition of the duties on 430 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
Hume. 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 Right Hon. Gentleman intended to pursue.—
( Laughter.) Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montrose was
in die secret.—(Renewed laughter.) But he (Lord John
Russell) thought that if that was to be the course, the Right
Hon. Baronet had better declare it, and get rid of the diffi-
culty at once. 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 from 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 took 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 Hon. Member for Lis-
keard would take the advice of the Llon. 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. lie 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 from 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 an 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
manufactures and commerce, he did not believe it p-' •d
cause any dissatisfaction. This was not the ground
had been pretty clearly established tbs' at present. It
now, because they had to ean,e_:: the tax was imposed
of which the depresaioa , a recurrence of those periods,
se
was the cause of its being first im-
pod• There, 7-ras not the slightest doubt or question, in the
mind 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 imposition 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 cause
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 proposed
in 1848, when they should probably have had soother set of
bad harvests, when it would be necessary to continue it ; and
those Gentlemen would have to answer to the country for that
continuance. His Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport
had alluded to the evidence of Mr. Deacon llume 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. He
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
t
of a million in the revenue. New, he would just ask the atten-
tion of the House to the difference in amountthiemsn
paid by the people for food ,
at h
the three years, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the cost
ce ostpr
ofe
In the three the wheat
consumed by the people was 107,135,0001.
years, 1837, 1838, and 1839, the wheat consumed by the
people coat 152,806,465/. In those three years fifty-two
zillions more were paid by the people for the necessaries of
life than there had been during the three preceding years
when the harvests were good. They had heard also what was
corresponding falling off in that time of that portion of the
therevenue
that formed 75 per cent. of the whole amount. Would
any one doubt, after the experience not only of these but of
other years, that whenever food was dear the revenue fell off ?
Ilad 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 most 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 Right Hon.
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 Honourable Friends were accustomed to address
to public meetings, and he could scarcely believe his ears when
he heard the Right Hon. Gentleman ask what had happened
in the case of wool, and showed that all the fears of those who
declared the English grower would be ruined by the abolition
of the duty were groundless. fle thought he was every Imo.