The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

when the Englishman should find all his circumstances
exposed to the inquiries of the tax-gatherer, then
would the odium attached to this inquisitorial
impost fall upon the Government.—(Great cheering.)
and every year that it should he kept up the stronger,
the more determined, and ultimately the more successful
would be the Opposition.—(Cheers.)
The question having been put,
Mr. EWART said that with some parts of the speech
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just
sat flown he concurred ; from others he differed.
He (Mr. E) wished to draw a distinction between
property and income, but he confessed that he was
one of those, whether they were called Radicals or
Liberals, who were in favour of that system
of • direct taxation so much deprecated by the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman. In America, so
far as he understoo3, taxation, though indirect, was made
to fall more on the rich than on the poor. In that coun-
try there was an approximation to the ad valorem
system of taxation, which must apply to the rich
more than to the poor. It was consequently a
species of indirect Property-fax. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had alluded to the case of France.
He had told them of what 1% as done in France
of old, - but he had not told them • what the
system of taxation was in modern France since the
revolution. Was not the land-tax in that country a
system.of direct. taxation. Was there not also a per-
. sonal property-tax in existence in France. With respect
to the Property-tax now proposed, he must confess
that he did nut regard it ill the same light, as many did
on that (the Opposition) sib: of the House ; more especi.
ally the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who considered it
only as a war tax. The question appeared to him to be,
what was the best tax to impose ? Whether
a Property-tax was the best suited to the circumstances
of the country or not, he (Mr. E.) abjured the distinc-
tion between a war-tax and a peace-tax. Whatever was
the best tax to be applied to the circumstances of the
country, that was the tax which they ought to impose.
He agreed with what had been stated during this debate,
that commerce had mtests "lable, if ,t

contests as tormit...._ nth
more formidable, than those of war. They
were now engaged in a commercial contest,
more formidable than a military contest. They had to
compete with all the nations of the world. They
had now all the disadvantages of competition
with foreign nations. The consequence would be
that some grel.tt effort must be made. The
burden of taxation must be removed from labour and from com-
merce and put upon property. These were the contests they
had to endure, far more formidable than any military or naval
contest that had yet taken place. They had to compete with
the people of the United States, whose energy and whose ma-
nufactures were constantly increasing. He was sorry to find
from a return he had received from that part he had once re-
presented, Liverpool, that emigration had increased nearly ten-
fold. Many of those emigrants were persons connected with
capital in this country, and many of them were manufacturers,
who left behind them a large mass of industrious men to be
supported by the remaining population. He said, therefore, that
a Property-tax was a tax fora time of peace as well as war, be-
cause it was a tax 'calculated to relieve the labour of the country.
He did not see how they could cheapen consumable articles
without removing taxation from labour and placing it on pro-
perty. They were removing taxation from consumable articles,
any they had no alternative but to impose it on income. With
respect to the tariff of the Right Hon. Baronet, he partook of
the character of an inverted pyramid; and instead of beginning
at the foundation, he appeared to be beginning at what appeared
to be the apex. He approved of the sound principles of freedom
of trade, recognising and reducing the duty on consumable
articles. When once such sound principles were in-
troduced, they worked their way through. they
were sure to work their way through—still they
must prevail. But lie objected to that part of the plan im-
posing a silty on coals exported. In that the Right Hon.
Baronet had deserted the principle that prevailed in other por-
tions of the plan. It was a blemish, unless removed this year,
must he expunged from it at a future time. It would act as a
discouragement to the commercial steam navigation, and
consequentlysto their naval steam force. He rested all his sup-
port of the principles of commercial freedom on the assurance
it gave that this country would become the great depot of the
world. Sir Hobert Walpole, who, except Pitt and Huskisson,
was the greatest commercial Minister the country ever had,
said, in his famous excise scheme, that they ought to divide
articles of import into two sorts, those which were to be taxed
and those which were not to be taxed ; they ought:to impose
duty on few articles, ant to emancipate all articles as much as
possible. So far as he has introduced his changes into the tariff,
so far he was always moving in the right rirection. He should
wish him to cut out from the Income-tax all the obnoxious
clauses, and to extend the amelioration of the tariff.
Sir JOHN WALSH said, it was evident that the Gentle-
men opposite who had approved the measure were widely sepa-
rated with one another as to the most important principles in-
volved in it. Much had been said about the inequality of thepro-
posedtax, but, to use a pithy passage that he had lately met with
in a periodical—" A perfectly equal anti just tax would indeed be
avery desirable tax to find, but it was a tax that would require
Omniscience to discover, and Omnipotence to levy." In all
taxation the principle of inequality met them at every step.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite contended that the tax would be
more just if applied solely and exclusively to the fixed property
of the country, so that its operation wou'd not extend over in-
comes derived from trades and professions. He very much
doubted the justness of that observation. He did not deny
that many inequaliles might be adduced in the operation of
this tax by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, hut he thought lie could
adduce many necessary inequalities in the operation of this tax
as applied to flied property. But, before he adverted to that
point, he would shortly address himself to the propositions of
some of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite,who defended a Property-
tax, provided it were applied to fixed property only. Those
Gentlemen ought to be reminded, that in al the Acts
creating the funded securities the State guaranteed the
fuadhoider against any special taxation, and many persons,
when Mr. Pitt tirst proposed his Income-tax, said that his
proposition would be a violation of that promise ; and Mr. Pitt
urged that that promise could never be held to apply to a
measure of so sweeping a nature as the one lie had proposed,
and which embraced alt the incomes of the country. Mr. Pitt

wa,, right, and the flight Hon. Baronet was-right in following
his example ; but by the adoption of the partial scheme of taxa-
tion advocated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, although the
fundholder would have a twin brother in affliation in the land-

holder, the measure would nn longer be of that general and
comprehensive n&ture, which alone Could justify the imposition
of a tax on the funds without a breach of engagement.—
( Cheers.) He wou.d now proceed to notice the inequalities Io
whieh. he had before alluded. He understood that the Right
Hon. Baronet proposed to a sees all incomes derived from
trades and profesSions on the net average returns of the last
three years ; but with regard to the landholder the Income-tax
was to becollected from the tenant, and the tax-gatherer having
given him a receipt for the amount, he passed that
to his landlord for rent as so much money.
Every Gentleman who was at all familiar with the management
of landed property would be aware that 20 per cent. was not
more than the average amount of out-goings for landed es-
tates. —( Hear.) This being admitted, the landed proprietor
would have to pay 2/. I7s. Bd. on 80/., whilst trades and pro-
fessions would only pay the same amount on 1001. There was
another consideration which ought not to be lost sight of,
namely, that capital invested in trades and professions yielded
a much larger return than capital invested in land. He would
suppose that three brothers each started life with a capital of
20,000/. One brother purchased an estate in land which
yielded him a gross return of 6001. a year, reduced to 550/. by
the outgoings incidental to landed property. Another invested
in the funds, and received 6601. clear. The third engaged in
mercantile operations, and if at all successful in his plans, he
would realise 2,000/. a year. He really did not see upon what
principles of equity, when the country was assessed in a case
of emergency like the present, the 2,000/. was to be entirely
free,• whilst the smaller incomes were taxed. There was
another point which had been urged by Hon. Gentlemen
opposite as to the instability and insecurity of property invested
in trade, as compared with property invested in the funds, or in
land. Now, he thought this argument had been pushed a great
deal too far by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was assumed that
property invested in trade could not be considered equal to
landed property, and that it could not be inherited. Now,
although he did not deny that landed and funded.property was
more secure than capital invested in trade, he said that it

was quite as secure in transmitting fortunes as landed property.
Landed property was not altogether free from those chances
which were attendant on all human affairs. Of late years, they
had seen great fluctuations in the value of anded property.
There had been such depression in the value of land, that many
persons who had come into the possession of encumbered
property had been reduced to the greatest state of destitution.
He would ask lion. Gentlemen opposite, whether, at this time,
an income of 10,0001. a-year derivable from a great establish-
ment in the metropolis—a brewery, for instance—was not as
certain a source of income as 10,0001. derived from a landed

estate? Great changes and revolution might occur in property.
Legislation might affect property, but he thought the taste of
the British public for porter was proof against all revolution.
Laughter.) Even the Hon. Member for Wigan allowed
that the tariff now proposed was a great boon. It remitted
taxes to which those must have made up their minds who en-
tered into business seven or eight years ago. Why not give
credit to the Government for this benefit? Consider what placed
t he. Government in the want of so large a sum of money? The ex-
penses of the Chinese war were amongst the chief. How was that
war produced? Why, in defence of British trade and com-
merce. At the expiration of the East India Company's
chatter the trade with China was thrown open to the British
mercantile world. Collisions with the Government and laws of
Chin s were the unavoidable consequences. Tne East India
Company would have conformed to the Chinese laws ; the new
traders, perhaps, did not so well understand them, but, at all
events, they quarrelled with the Chinese authorities. It must
be acknowledged that the custom of 300,000,000 of people which
ice sought is worth quarrelling for, and should those for whose
benefit we were plunged into this war—should the merchants
of the country, refuse to support the Government in the un-
avoidable expenses of that war, which, in its motives, was quite
different from our quarrel with the Affgharis ? With respect
to the war in Affghanistan, Hon. Gentlemen had long accused
them of exaggerating its effect and importance. He thought
if they looked back there were times when the affairs in India
were in as critical a state as at present. Looting at the subject
in a financial point of view, he would say that there had been
wars more dangerous, but there could not be ar y more expensive.
But it was necessary that the effort should be commensurate
with the occasion, and the Right Hon. Baronet was bound to
carry on the war. Many Gentlemen had alluded to the state
of the foreign relations of this country, and the Noble Lord had
admitted that hostile feelings existed in other countries. In

his opinion the subject of the relations of this country
was an extremely delicate one, and required to be treated most
carefully by a Minister ; hut he, as a private individual, might
use language %Lich a Minister could not. He lamented that
in France there existed a certain national jealousy and hostility
of feeling towards this country which he hoped the temper and
diScretion of the Right Hon. Baronet would enable him to allay.
However, it was a f eling %Odell, under irritating circum-
stances, it would be very difficult for even the wisest
ant most moderate Government to restrain, and which
no Government could be wholly justified in overlooking. The
French people would respect them when they saw them taking
the most direct means of meeting the present emergency. lie
would conclude by stating his determination to support the pro-
position of the Right lion. Baronet. He hoped the necessity
would soon pass away, that trade would revive, and that those
clouds which hung over their relations would be dissipated
in a few wears. Then it would be politic to reduce the tax.
He was not prepared to continue a tax from motives cf conve-
nience, the imposition of which he justified on the ground of its
necessity. When the necessity ceased, he trusted it would be
the first object and care of the Right Hon. Baronet to remove
the tax, which he (Sir John Walsh) must consider onerous,
but which he was sure would be willingly borne as long as the
necessity required it. He had confidence that he would only
continue the tax as long as necessity rendered it imperative.
Sir W. CLAY said, that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down had endeavoured to show that there may be as great in•
justice in a Property-tax as in an Income-tax, and that this
tax could only be justified on the ground of the emergency of
the circumstances. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Dum-
fries, on the Contrary, endeavoured to prove that the tax on
property rested on sound principles, and that it was much better
than a tax on consumption. He considered that the arguments
on the general question were exhausted, or nearly so, but he
wished to point out to the night Hon. Baronet one portion of