The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

principles of freedom, and all the principles of constitu-
tional liberty. When they voted for the second read-
ing of such a tax, 'they were voting for its inquisito-
rial process. He said that before they passed
the second reading of such a Bill, they should consider
the necessity existing for such a tax. (Here the Hon.
Gentleman turned his back to the Reporters' Gallery
and became very indistinct.) He was. not going
into the various topics with respect to this
question, which had been hitherto discussed. He had
beard a great deal about the penny pc.stage—a great
deal about Affghanistan—a great deal about China, and
divers other matters from the Government. Now,
none of these subjects did he propose to
enter into. His simple argument would be
against the necessity of the tax. It was an unfair
tax in itself, it was unfair to the nation. Individuals
were to be charged three per cent. upon there incomes to
raise only 4,000,0001. It was not of a large amount but for a
a comparatively small amount of revenue. He confessed
that he was surprised to find that there were supporters
of this tax on that (the Opposition) side of the House ;
but he did not think the Right Bon. Baronet could be
very well satisfied with his supporters on his own side of
the House. Every Gentleman on that side she
House bbjected to some of the details of the Bill.
Many of those Gentlemen wished a modification
of the Bill, but hey certainly did not support it with the
same view as those on his (Mr. B. Buller's) side of the
House, viz. a desire to see the tariff brought into operation.
The Right Hon. Baronet had been the only expounder
of the tariff they had yet heard, and a most inconsistent
expounder the Right Hon. Baronet. When it suited his
purpose to shape his speech to gratify Gentlemen on his
(M:. C. Buller's) side of the House, then cheap-
ness was cried up, but when he wished to allay
the fears of the other side of the House, then
he said that there would be no cheap things at all.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said, on one occasion, that
a man worth 3001. a-year, who had to pay 9/. a year
to the Income-tax, would save 101. or 121. a year by the
operation of the tariff. Now what could he save it in
except in the price of meat or provisions. Then
the Right Hon. Bart. and the Noble Lord the Member
for Cornwall, turn round to their agricultural supporters
and say, " Oh, there will not be any cheap provisions ;
you need entertain no apprehensions, the prices of pro-
visions will not be lowered ; you have nothing to fear,
and the consumer has nothing to hope." When the
Corn. Bill 's as under consideration the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet said he was constantly placed between the fire
of two parties. Those on his (Mr. C, Buller's) side
of that House told him (Sir R. Peel) that his measure
would not admit an atom of foreign corn ; and if he re-
plied to it, up got an agricultural Member, and said—
" Oh, you are going to ruin us by deluging us with fo-
reign corn." In the present discussions the Right Hon.
Baronet leant over the table and told he Opposition, "Oh,
yoti will have provisions cheaper," and the next moment
he turned round and addressing his (Sir R. Peel's) own
supporters said—" there will be no reduction in the
price whatever."—(Cheers and laughter.) The Right
Hen. Baronet had noy stated the fact so broadly as he
(Mr. C. Buller) had put it—(Ministerial cheers)—but
he would apeal to any Gentleman who had heard the de-
bates, if that wese not the purport and intention
of the argument which the Right Hon. Baronet had
urged, according to whether it was a free trade Govern-
ment on that (the Opposition) side of the House, or an
agricultural Government on the other side that was to be
conciliated.—(Cheers and laughter.) Then there was
some Honourable Gentlemen on his (the Oppo-
sition), side ofthe House, who voted for the
present Bill, not because they liked an Income-tax,
but because they had a great fancy for direct taxation.
They liked a property. tax so much that they would even
take it with an Income-tax if they could not get it
without. An Honourable Gentleman on the other
side cheered Honourable Members when they said
this. He would ask Honourable Members on the
other side, • if they had considered • what would
really be the effect of a Property -tax. Every time
a Gentleman said, " I do not like an Income-tax, as an
Income-tax, but I like a Property-tax," they cheered.
Had they really considered the consequence of this ?
Did they suppose that an Income-tax would be popular?
Did they suppose that when the people would have, to
submit to the proposed inquiries, and make those returns
of their revenue, and make the consequent payments, that
the Income-tax would be popular that their
constituents would not move against it. Some
thought that the tax on incomes would be repealed, and
that on property retained. Those who thought so
only deceived themselves very much. His Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Member for Bath, (Mr. Roebuck)
had a notice of motion on the paper to the effect that
in Committee he would propose that, instead of
sevenpence in the pound, threepence-halfpenny only be
levied on persons deriving. incomes from trades and
professions. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman might
depend on it he would not have many at the other
side to join him in taking off a part of the Income-tax.
They would have an Income-tax as well as a Property-
tax, or none at all. Let it not be supposed that
non. Gentlemen opposite would consent to a tax on
property without a tax on incomes. He (Mr. B.) con-
curred iu the. proposal of his Hon and Learned Friend
from mere motives of humanity. If he could
save any human-being from the Income-tax by
means, no matter whether just or • unjust, he
would endeavour to do so. Not that he thought
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's prOpesition was foun-
ded on justice, for if they would exempt the professional
mnn, why not also exempt the holder of a life estate ?
The amendment of his lion. Friend the Member for
Bath was glaringly unjust. When they exempted any
kind of income from the tax they only left the remainder
more unjust. Ile then came to the proposition of the
Noble Lord the Member for London, and he fully agreed
with him, that they cannot deal with the plan by amend-
ments, it must be unjust under any circumstances; they
must reject it altogether or take it in all its injustice. Ile
must confess that the more he dwelt on the subject
the more strong were his objections to the tax alto-
gether, and the more strong was his conviction of the
utter fallacy of the opinion in favour of the policy of a
direct taxation—direct taxation on income. All taxation
takes equally from the means of every man's enjoyment,
an income was no measure of that enjoyment. A young
professional man had one income, the man more ad-
vanced in life had a much larger one, the man
with a large family saved one proportion, the
man without a family saved another ; he
would defy them to meet these differences
with direct taxation. Different glasses lived in different
styles, but with all these, they came with their rough
and barbarous direct taxation, which he agreed was a
direct taxation of a barbarous period, by that they
swept all distinctions, and what came light upon one class,
weighed with a-heavy pressure on another. He did
not say as a consequence that they were obliged to carry
out all the bad principles of base taxation. 'They need
not raise all the revenue by taxation on articles of
necessity, for he thought they were quite just in men-
tioning the amount of assessed taxes that had
been repealed since the war no less than 4,000,000; they
might have recourse to that system of taxation again,
and raise the revenue by indirect taxation. He
thought from the history of the world that they might
get arguments against taxation. It had always
been a badge of slavery, and the only instance
he knew of a direct tax in time in peace during
any considerable time, was the case of a tax
which no one could defend, the Gabelle in France.
The land-tax of this country was so odious that the
classes who paid it had been ' gradually getting
rid of it from the time of the Revolution, so that the
-present moment it was not half the amount which it
was in the time of George 11. The history of
that tax showed the tendency. of freemen
to get rid of direct taxation. Yet there was nothing in-
quisitorial in the land-tax. It was a tax of so
much per acre, not entering into value—a tax
upon the visible means of visible property. Now take
the history of the United States of America.
They were accustomed to . consider those States
as affording a specimen of democratic government, and
therefore of what the people would do if they had their
own way in laying on taxation. Now the history
of the United States was this, that the whole revenue
of the Central Government had always been raised by
indirect taxation, and in the history of all the sepa-
rate States of which the Union was composed,
he knew of only one instance, that of Ohio, in which there
had been a tax upon income and property, except during
the late war.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared that this
tax was to be discussed upon this democratic
grounds. He owned he was not unwilling to discuss the
question on such grounds, appealing to the welfare
and interest of the working classes. But there might be
language used in the House which appealed not to the
welfare and interest but to the bad feeling of these
classes, and he knew not by what other term he
could characterize the language which had been
held on the other side by gentlemen high in office
who had attempted to support the tax by refe-
rence to the fact that the working classes would
escape from it. He knew not how else to
describe the hope expressed by the Right Honourable
Baronet, that the meetings on this subject would ;be
attended by persons who had less than 1501. a year.
He contended that that was dangerous language, far
more dangerous than any which was used last night. He
held that it would be far more wise to concede the Charter
at once, than to call in aid of this measure the freedom
of the working classes from its operation, He was very
glad to find that the language, inflammatory as it was,
had produced no effect whatever. Bye the bye,
he must admit that it had produced no effect.
The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham)
had succeeded that evening in presenting a petition from
2,500 working people in. Carlisle, rejoicing in the In-
come-tax. Be did not complainsmuch of this, because
there was at least a kind of oscillatory consistency in
in the Right Hon. Baronets language:—(Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) In the inflammatory language
which pie held now, he recognised the language
wlB3o,wherein he points out
topeople those whom he thenrepre-
sented,htihmet h
execratione held in
of
the
as fattening upon the spoils of the people by means
of their aristocratic influence in legislation, and whom
he denounced as the birds of prey that preyed upon
the people.—(Cheers.) But
,he (Mr. C. B.) was happy
to find that beyond the demagogues of the Treasury
benches the appeal had not been successful.
that no meetings of electors had been disturbed by per-
sons intruding their opinions upon a tax which they
were not to pay. The Ohartist press was not conciliated,
the Weekly Dispatch opposed the tax, so that that
Right Hon. Gentleman had not secured that approbation
of that great writer, " Publicola."—(A laugh.) He
ould read to the House a passage from the " National
Association Gazette," and he must say that a fairer indi-
cation of all the intellect and good feeling which there was
among the Chartists, could not be found than that which
proceeded from the pan of Lovett. The following
was the passage to which he referred " Sir Robert
Peel loudly boasted that he would not tax the
labourer, and the boast was still more loudly cheered,
by the ignorant boobies who thronged the seats of the
House of Commons." 'The Hon. Member continued to