The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-14 00:00:00

verninent, •and therefore he did not think it right to
,give
up his place and go back to his constituents ; but he did
pa to his most influential constituents, and said if they
though t that he had deceived thuna he was ready to give
up his sYac in Parliament.—(Rear, hear.) They one and
all replied, that he had not been guilty of any deceit ;
they all approved of his 'having supported the Right
13aronet. With regard to the tariff he confessed

he was not at that time able to give an opinion
on 'the subject, but ha would say now that
many of his constituents had expressed great alarm
at entain parts of it, which he thought was
entirely without foundation ; more particularly with
r,,gard to the importation of cattle and meat. He
thought their fdars were quite ungrounded, he did not
believe that the importation for mauy years to come
would be such as to influence the markets of this king-
dom. With regard to the income tax, lie thought it was
not necessary to say much on that question, ho thought
it would he better for Hon. Gentlemen, who had all ad-
mitted that some tax was necessary, should have pointed
oat what tax was biter--(Year, hoar.) They had
pointed out the assessed taxes ; bat ho thought they
ben shown by his li. n. Friend to pre.:s more
unoqnally than the income tax on the pour,lr classes ;

but as the lutist objeetiou to this tax was
that it was inquisitorial, he thought it would have been
better that they should have waited till they were ac-
quainted with its machinery. He believed that the pro-
position had given great and general satisfaction.
Mr:HANES said it afforded him a great deal of sa-
tisfaction that the Noble Lord who had just sat down,
and who answered the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man, who spoke so well and so pertinently to the
question, should have given so little of kis speech to that
important subject. His speech was purposely occupied
in defending himself from some charge which had been
made against him relative to the Corn Bill. But though
the Corn Bill was not the question they were now dis-
cussing he (Mr. Hawes) should not follow him through
that part of his speech. He would beg to point oat a
strange ';inconsistency. ';between the Noble Lord and
tho Right Honourable Baronet. The Noble Lord
said to his constituents that he did not expect
that there would be so large an importation of cattle as
to affect the prices at home. He (Mr. Hawes) should be
glad to know how the saving then was to be obtained
which the Right Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the
Treasury, held out as the inducement to accept this part
of the tariff.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle-
man said that he thought there would be a saying equal
to the tax imposed—the Noble Lord, a Member of the
Government, having access to the same information as
the Right Hon. Gentleman, said he expected no
such thing.-7(Hear.). But with reference to the agricul-
tural part of the question, the Noble Lord had forgotten
what he said on the hustings. Ho said there that this
was a landlord's question, and that would justify all that
had been said—that this was a party question—a Corn-
law ought not t 3 be a party question, but one affectinceb
thA whole community.—(hear, hear.) He -.might be
permitted to state that when the llon. and Learned Gen,
tleman pointed out the injustice, arbitrary character,
and inequality of the income tax, the Noble Lord gave
no sort of answer to that ; and this brought hint to the
question now before the House—Was it necessary to
resort to an income tax ? Was the expenditure of the
country such as to justify their referring to this tax—
the most odious and unpopular, and which Could 'only be
called for -:rithe time of great necessity, and when na-
tional.da,nFser was to 'he apprehended. • He thought it
was most insecure to place the finance of the country at
a time of peace upon such an unsafe foundation. There
were now two distinct plans under the consideration of
the House—that which comprehended such a reduction
of the duty on the great articles of consumption as would
increase our trade and revenue; and if that should be un-
successful, other sources were open ; there would be no diffi-
culty in finding taxes which should not press on the pour.
He contended that they diminished the productive
capital of the country by the tax, and that the labourer
had, on that account, an interest in the question.—
(Hear, hear.) The opinion of Mr. Huskisson had been
alluded to, who, in 1830, said that he was adverse to an
income tax, while he was in favour of a property tax.
And many others drew a clear distinction between them
both. In the year 1798, when Mr. Pitt proposed his tax,
Sir Francis Baring drew the distinction between an
income and property tax, and contended that no in-
spector ought to interfere with those who lived by their
talents and professions. The whole course of the pre-
sent debate showed that they ought not to have recourse
to an income tax, except on some great and pressing
necessity. The plan of the Right Hon. Baronet was
utterly at variance with the plan of the late Govern-
meat, and was very different from what they had laid
down previously to the late dissolution.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, stated,
last June, what he considered to be the grounds of
the dissolution, and what were the expectations he
raised ? That Noble Lord said the question
for the country was, whether the corn monopoly was to
be done away. They certainly declined to touch sugar
and the other great monopolies, and that was the dis-
tinguishing characteristic- between the plans of the
Right Hon. Baronet and the plan of the late Govern-
ment. Let them first seek to obtain • the necessary
amount of revenue, by means of the removal of restric-
tions on trade, and let them seek to do so by doing
away with the great 'monopolies. The Corn-laws and
the sugar monopoly were retained, and though the pro-
vision laws were altered they had the adMiSsion of the
Noble Lord (Eliot) that the alterations would not
Much benefit the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) But at the
same tithe they exposed the labourer of this country to
the competition of the foreigner. He acknowledged that
the alterations would be beneficial, but he regretted that
the weals, and not the powerful, monopolies 'were at-
tacked. Those great monopolies were the 'cause of
the national distress, and therefore it was these that
should be attacked. The Noble Lord' (Stanley)
said that the Corn-law of the Noble Lord, the Member
for London, was scouted ; but ,by whom was it scouted ?
By those counties which returned Members favourable
to the Corn-law monopoly, and they had not forgot
what was the representation of the Noble Lord respect.
inn county constituencies.—(Hear, hear.) But the
country he believed was beginning to open its 'eyesto the
real nature of the question, and at a late meeting, held
at Ralston, the farmers said they preferred a fixed duty
to the plan of the Government, and carried a resolution
to that effect. The Noble Lord proposedlast yearby a fixed.
duty of Bs.on corn, and by a reduction of the duties on timber
and sugar, to meet the exigencies of the country ;
and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
that he -believed by those means he should receive
money enough to supply the deficiencies of the
country, and that he did not think he would be
compelled to have recourse to an issue of Exchequer •
bills.—(Hear.) And if the Right Hon. Baronet made a
reduction in the tariff, let it be recollected that he re-
quired money in hand to supply the deficiency it would
occasion. Balt the Noble Lord did not content himself
with opposing the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet, but
he showed there were other sources from which an aug-
mentation of the revenue could be made without having
recourse to an income tax. He (Ntr. Hawes) believed
there was no necessity for resorting to such a tax because
they were paying off at that moment 2,000,0001. of the
national debt.

Mr. MASTERMAN asked when ?
Mr. HAVES would show tl:at it was so from sources
which were equally accessible to the Hon, Member as
to himself. There was a paper laid before Parliament
on the 22d of Juno. 1841, by the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, which showed that between 1831 and 1841 they had
paid 221 millions of the national debt, and they were
going on at the same rate of payment.—(Cheers.) The
amount of the debt in 1831, was 838,549,9031, and in
1841, it was 815,957,93G1., making a difference of
22,591,2671. lie begged to call the, attention of the
Hon. Member to that aatement, and to ask him if they
were not still reducing it at the same rate? He, there-
fore, asked if they had not other resources left them
without going to an income tax ? and While that was the
case he would never consent to such an impO'sition. He
held in his hand another paper which showed the effect
which a reduction in the price of articles in general con-
sumption had in increasing that 6nsumption. He took
the first 13 weeks in every year, from the year 1829 to
1842, and such was the regular indication of a reduction
in consumption when there was a rise in the
price' that if a barometer could be applied, it would
not be more accurate in exhibiting a dependence
of one. upon the other.—(Loud cheers.) In the
year 1829, the quantity of corn sold in thirteen weeks
was 514,407 quarters, and the price I!_ts 745. 11d.; in the
year 1830, the quantity was 905,000 quarters, and the
price 58s. 4d. He would not trouble the House with the
entire statement, but the dependence of increased con-
sumption upon reduction of price, and, vice versa, was
invariable.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore there were other
sources besides that to which the Right Hon. Baronet
went to make up the deficiency of the revenue; but with
regard to the income tax itself, every person who • had
spoken admitted the inequality and injustice of the tax
—(Oh, oh)—why, the person who commenced the de-
bate admitted it. No person could faicly say that the
profits -of a man's skill or talents should be subject to the
same amount of taxation as the same amount of profit de-
rived from land—(Hear, hear)—or that 1001. a year de-
rived from the one was equal to 1001. a year derived
from the other ; but that was only one of its ine-
qualities out of many others. As an illustration
of the mode in which it would operate, he would state an
example of what had occurred under the old law, and the
House might depend on the truth of the statement. Two
individuals in the same, business, and living in the same
street, were called upon by the collectors of the tax, and
one of them paid 400/. of taxation while the other paid
nothing at all. And he explained to the commissioners
the reason why he did not pay the tax. He said that he
was not in the receipt of any profits by his business, but
that being in possession of property elsewhere, ho was so
far independent of public opinion, and did not care that
persons were aware that he was not making anything by
his business, while his neighbour, being possessed
of no property, was obliged, fJr the sako of
his credit, to say that he was making those pro-
fits which he was not. (Hear, hear.) He also
objected to the tax because .he thongllt it would confer
too much power' in the hands of the (10Yerilmetlt,rr
(hear, hear)—and would be likely to induce them to
engage in war and incur expense,—(Hear, hear.) The
late Government, then, as far as was possible, were
determined to raise a revenue by stvikitig at the gFeO
monopolies, and not by attacking the weak, as their
successors had done, and that was the great distinction
bet Ween the plans of both Governments. The people in
!reneral were favourable to the alterations in the tariff, and
they believed that tbe inquisitorial part of the tax would
altered by the louse that it might be berms,
ale wtaild ask vihetlieF. $l4 papel:' in the- Country
ported the income tax in all its proviSimiS It had ii4t
the support of that paper which aid more fur the Tiorty
opposite than.all their speeches, It was not supported
by the Times Newspaper. He believed that the louse
would act unwisely in accepting such a measure as the
income tax, while it rejected other measures which
I would necessarily promote the welfare of the country.
Lord ELIOT said, in explanation, that he had not