The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-06 00:00:00

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer I ad drawn too
largely on their good nature when he asked them to bear
it with hilarity and cheerfulws.—(Hear, and laughter.)
He believed the remission ot'duty on glass would give a
great stimulus to the industry of the country, and he
entirely approved of the remission of the auction duty,
which was evaded by the wealthy, and imposed only on
the needy. He hoped, however, that the income-tax
would not be perpetual, as some expected, but flattered
himself that the improving resources of the country
would enable them to dispense with it in a few years.
Mr. MUNTZ explained.
Mr. HAWES would give the most unmitigated oppo-
sition in his power to the continuance of the income-tax,
and did not think its removal would endanger the credit
of the country. Ile did not think the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had made out a case for its continuance. If there
were any truth in the predictions of prosperity and in-
creased revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
so confidently mentioned to the House, then he (Mr.
Hawes) thought there were so many additional reasons
for abandoning this odious tax. It was a great burden
on the country, and he did not think the reduction of
the other taxes was of a nature which would enable
the country to bear up against this heavy tax upon
profits and upon industry.—(Hear, hear.) This mode of
taxing capital was, in reality, more mischievous than a
tax on the great articles of consumption. There was
another objection to the income-tax, inasmuch as it re-
lieved Ministers from the necessity of making those eco-
nomical reforms which were so desirable. The Minister
had never yet voluntarily advanced towards com-
mercial reform. Public opinion had always been
the propelling motive. He considered the in-
come-tax as the most formidable barrier to com-
mercial reform. Now, if Ministers found the revenue
declining, they had only to add one or two per cent. to
the income-tax, and bring it up to the former stan-
dard. If they had not this resource then they must
make those commercial changes which had hitherto been
so advantageous to the country at large, The Hon.
:llember then quoted Deacon Hume's evidence before the
Committee on import duties. Mr. Hume had been very
much pressed by the Tilos. Member for Coventry as to
whether certain branches of manufactures might fail
or be deeply affected by the removal of protection. He
replied that if protection were abolished, the revenue
might momentarily suffer ; and ho added digt, if all
duty were levied for revenue, and revenue alone, there
was nothing to prevent the rise in the revenue of the
country to the full extent of one-third, without the
proposition of any one duty whatever. The revenue
would speedily rise if revenue were alone considered.
In taxation it was class interests which so materially in-
terfered with it. They had not acted on a right principle
in the recent change in the sugar duties ; they had con-
sulted colonial interests, and driven certain classes of
siege,'" entirely out et the market. The income-tax was
capable of producing much more than at present, as
would be easily seen if they compared the respective
periods of 1815 and 1844, and took into account the
altered circumstances of the country. In some places it
pressed very severely, and he could not understand what
Hon. Gentlemen meant when they said it was collected
in a lenient manner. In many cases it was not imposed
when it ought to be imposed, whilst others were obliged
to pay more than in justice they were entitled to pay.
Mr. Fielden, the Member for Oldham, had been returned
for 12,0001. a year ; he remonstrated against it, and
offered to prodnce his books to show that his income
was not so great, but the Commissioners persevered in
assessing him for 350/., although he appealed to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and
although that Right Honourable Gentleman took
a warm interest in his behalf. Unless a case
of overwhelming necessity were shown, such as
war, or some other calamity, he would not vote for the
continuance of so obnoxious an impost. He wanted to
know what Ministers intended to do with all this sur-
plus they talked about. The Right Hou. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, on the sth of
April, 1846, they would have a surplus of 5,000,0001.;
how was that to be appropriated?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
2,000,0001. would be paid to the Bank of England, due
for an advance for the opium compensation, and the re-
maining 3,000,0001. would be carried from one quarter
to another until the end of the year.
Mr. HAWES said the people would derive very
little benefit, in the end, from this so-called surplus.
With regard to the statement made by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that credit was due to the Government for
removing the taxes on industry and opening a new de or
to commercial prosperity—when the present Govern-
ment came into office, they were aided both with a crisis
in the commercial and natural world ; for he believed
that the favourable state of the country was owing to
the return of good harvests, the amicable settlement of
their relations with America, and the opening of the
trade with China. He gave the Right Hon. Gentleman
great credit for his measures, but their influence was not
yet felt ; but he thought that the income-tax and the
Bank measure were more calculated to retard than to ad-
vance that prosperity. He did not see that there was
any adequate necessity for the imposition of the income-
tax, and he believed that if the Government only acted
upon those principles, which the Right Hon. Gentlemen
opposite said were the principles of common sense, there
would be a still greater revenue than was now obtained
from the income-tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 23
Against it

circumstance of a landlord not having °vexed his rents
forms no ground for the remiss;on k the duty, such
rents having become a debt wLich he may afterwards
recover." Was there any chance of his recovering them
from the absconded tenants? " The landlord would, in
that case, be profiting by that amount at the expense
of the revenue." This was a hard and a grievous rase,
and he certainly thought it was the policy of the Right
Hon. Baronet to make the tax as little obnoxious as
possible. No doubt the income-tax, if somewhat im-
proved in its mode of operation, might be borne with,
without much complaint, for he must say that its evils
did not press so hard upon the community as he bad
at first anticipated. When the income-tax was first pro-
posed in that House, it might be remembered that the
Right Hon. Baronet had himself stated that nothing but
the most pressing necessity justified the Government in
asking for such a measure. Now, inasmuch as the tax
on property was a most desirable tax,—none other, in-
deed, could be more desired in this country.—he
thought that the tax on professions and incomes
not being so justifiable, ought at least to be made as
little obnoxious as possible. In the preamble to the
Bill it was stated that the tax was to be raised from
private as well as from professional property, but here was
a case where the landlord received no rent, and yet the
landlord was called upon to pay for rents he had never
received. He did not wish to open the discussion then.
He had no desire to take the sense of the House upon it ;
but he would merely give noticc that, in bringing up the
report, he should move an amendment, giving powers
to the local Commissioners to absolve the landlords,
under the circumstances he had stated, and to remove
the duties in such cases where the rents were not likely
to be received.

In reply to some observations from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Mr. WAKLEY said the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth wished to give more power to the Board of Stamps
and Taxes, whereas he (Mr. Wakley) wished to extend
the powers of the local Commissioners.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the cases referred to by
the Hon. Member for Finsbury did not impute harsh-
ness to the Board cf Stamps and Taxes, so much as they
furnished an argument against the law itself.
Sir R. PEEL wished Hon. Members to confider
whether it would not be better to allow the tax to go on
as it was for the three years it was to continue, more
especially as there were so many different opinions as to
its operation ; and under these circumstances he would
ask whether it was advisable to make so many minute
alterations in it ? But, independently of that considera-
tioa, he would just point out to Hon. Members that in
remedying certain grievances thoy migkt make an
opening for the existence of greater. No doubt the
Hon. Member had brought forward a hard case, but he
(Sir R. Peel) hoped that the general opinion of the
House would be against those minute alterations, and
he trusted, therefore, that Hon. Members would not
bring forward their threatened amendments.
Mr. WAKLEY said that if he might infer from the
words of the Right Hon. Baronet that there would be
a positive end to the tax at the expiration of the three
years he would be the very last in that House to move
an amendment, because he thought the Right Hon.
Baronet's scheme based on an anxious desire to better
the condition or the people. He felt confident that it
was his intention to benefit the working classes, and
feeling that, he should be the last to move an amend-
ment upon the subject. But were they to be assured
that at the end of the three years such a final
settlement would be made ? He much doubted it, and he
would ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it were the
positive intentions of Government to put an end to this
tax ? If the Right Hon. Gentleman answered in the
affirmative, he (Mr. Wakley) would sit down quite satis-
fied that it would be quite useless to resist the Govern-
ment on the subject. But if the tax were to be continued
he did not think that any one would object to the reform-
ing it as soon as possible ; and he did think the House
would not be doing its duty if those changes were not
effected at the earliest opportunity.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be impossible for
him to say what Parliament would do at the expiration
of the three years. Hon. Members might recollect that
he had proposed the continuance of this tax for five years;
but that had met with considerable opposition from the
House. If the Hon. Member for Finsbury would concede
the existence of the tax for that time—(Laughter, and
" Hear, hear")--he (Sir Robert Peel) would be most
happy to support his amendment.—(Laughter.)
Mr. R. SPOONER had also some amendments to
propose upon this measure,,but after what had fallen from
the Speaker, he would move them,not on that night, but
when the report was brought up. Those amendments
he believed would be of great benefit to a considerable
portion of the public, and he was only induced to bring
them before the notice of the House, in consequence of
the great dissatisfaction which the part of the measure
they were intended to remedy had occasioned. He be-
lieved that their adoption would remove a very great
objection to the tax, without in any way affecting the
revenue of the country. The first clause he meant to
propose would enable persons assessed under schedule
(D) to deduct from the profits of their trade such sum

Or sums of money as would have been a fair remunera-
tion to persons not members of their family for services
perfermed by any member of their respective families.
The second amendment would be to enable parties as-
sessed under schedule (D) to deduct poor rates and other
parochial rates paid in respect of premises used by them
for the purposes of trade. Another of his amendments
was to enable persons to deduct from the profits of their
trade the sums they might have paid for insurances upon
their lives. If they could conceive the great hardship
that pressed upon the small trader, who derived his
2002 per annum from his trade, as compared with
the possession of real property to the same amount.
When the latter died the property still survived, but
with the death was valueless. Was it not fair, then—
was it not reasonable—that he should deduct the pre-
mium paid for an insurance upon his life when making
up his amount for the property-taxi His last amend-
ment was a clause to authorise deduction on account of
certain articles kept for the purposes of trade, though
such articles may occasionally be used for other pur -
poses. Let them take a professional man, or a servant
who was obliged to travel greatly, and who, in conse-
quence, was under the necessity of keeping a horse to
carry on his business. He was certainly allowed
to do so for the purposes of trade ; but if
it so happened that he went out to dinner
with a friend, and rode his horse, unless he could
make a declaration that he had never used the horse for
other purposes than those which were essentially neces-
sary far his trade ; if he acknowledged that the horse
had been ridden for his own pleasure, then he would be
brought under the operation of this tax. For this pur-
pose, he wished to introduce that clause, and he was
certain that, while it relieved many of her Majesty's
subjects, it would not in any way injuriously affect the
revenue of the country.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged not to he included in the

an immense result, and also that we were growing into a
state in which we were more and more obliged to con-
sider trade and manufactures, by which alone a great
and growing population could be supported—(Cheers)—
he considered direct taxation more and more desirable,
and he would be sorry to pledge himself to get rid of
the tax.—(Hear, hear.) But it was obvious to common
sense that fleeting property ought not to be taxed at the
same rate as fixed property; although, on the other
hand, it must be admitted that permanent property was
subject to changes, from which fleeting property was
exempt.—(Hear, hear.) He had perceived, in the course
of his observations, from the cheers of Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, that they wished to infer that he was favourable
to a repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
But he assured them, that by repealing the corn-laws
they would check industry and diminish the employ-
ment of labour.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FOSTER was gratified to hear such sound prin-
ciples.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He himself was
friendly to the Bill on two grounds—first, on that of di-
rect taxation; and, secondly, because without it they
should not have got so largo a remission of indirect
taxation. He (Mr, Poster) found, from what had fallen
from the Chairman, that he could not now make the
motion of which he had given notice, but ho would take
the first opportunity of moving—" That the owners or
lessees of mineral works, quarries, lime works, and
ether similar undertakings, now assessed under Sche-
dules A and B, be allowed to make their returns in the
same manner, and with the same option of privacy, as
other trading companies under Schedule 1)."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made
some observation across the table, which was not heard
in the gallery.
Lord EBRINGTON was happy to concur with much
that had fallen from some of the previous speakers, and
was convinced that it was not direct taxation which
drove capital from the countrj, but taxes in favour of
individual monopolists, and .monopolist communities,
such as the West India interest.—(Cheers.) He did not
agree with the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the
Right Hon. Baronet had benefited the labouring classes.
They asked for bread and the necessaries of life, but
instead of relieving them, the Right Hon. Baronet, in
his first tariff, took off the duties upon articles of luxury
rather than upon the necessaries of life.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Lord Ebrington) confessed that he was not more
surprised than delighted at the speech of his Noble Re-
lative (Lord Sandon.) —(Cheers.) He was delighted
that Liverpool was added to the towns which spoke in
favour of free-trade.--(Cheers.) He was sorry, how-
ever, that the latter part of the speech damped
the expectations which were raised by the be-
ginning ; and that the Noble Lord who opposed
free trade in sugar the other night denounced free trade
in corn that night.--(Hear.) He would only detain the
House now by repeating, that direct taxation was most
equitable and most easily collected, whilst indirect
taxation was vexatious, expensive, and prejudicial to
industry.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DARBY originally supported the income-tax,
believing that the necessities of the country called for
it ; and upon the same principle he should give his sup-
port to the present measure. He hoped, however, at the
end of three or four years the revenue would be placed
in that state as to put the government in a position to
dispense with its continuance. All attempts to raise or
perpetuate either the property or the income-tax they
might depend upon it would result in a failure.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to ask the Chairman to
state in what form any amendments to the Bill could be
moved. Whether they could be moved substantially on
the report, or whether they could be moved on again
going into Committee?
Mr. GREENE was understood to reply that the
amendment could be moved on bringing up the report.
Mr. WAKLEY asked, after what the Noble Lord the
Member for Liverpool had said, whether it would not be
better for the Right Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of
the Treasury to state if it was his intention to resist
all the amendments or not? If it was his fixed deter-
mination to resist any alteration in the Bill as it at pre-
sent stood, it would be most inconvenient for the House
to agree to it. That there ought to be amendments
there could be no question, but if it was distinctly under-
stood by the House that the tax was not to be con-
tinued beyond three years, he believed the Bill might be
endured in its present form. There was an under
current going forward which would swell into thunder
if an impression should arise that the law was to be con-
tinued after three years.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, under existing circum-
stances, he thought it advisable that the Bill should be
continued in its present form; but still he would not
venture to say what amendment he should oppose, or
which he should agree to. Some of them, however,
certainly were objectionable—net in one respect only,
but in many. For instance, the Honourable Member
for Birmingham was going to make an amendment
to insert a clause to enable parties charged under sche-
dules (D) and (E) to deduct from the profits of their
trade the amount of premiums paid for insurance upon
their lives. Now why was this to be confined to profits
upon trade ? Why was the clergyman not to have the
same privilege ? Again, the Hon. Member for Norfolk
was going to move an amendment with respect to tenant-
farmers. Tenant-farmers who had unfavourable bargains
were to be charged at a lower rate than others. But the
Hon. Gentleman did not give them the benefit of an in-
creased levy upon tenant farmers who had favourable
ones. If these amendments were to be agreed to, they
would have those persons whose incomes were derived
from temporary sources all at once come and claim to
have the same allowances made to them. Thus it would
be seen, if they sanctioned one, they would have no end
to the number of these amendments. He, therefore, en-
' tertained a strong opinion in favour of the existence of
the present law as it now stood. With respect to the
other question, as to whether the measure would be con-
tinued beyond three years, the time for considering it
would be when the three ye had
toexpciorendsiderAstmtahlel
alterations, and certainly he must say that he enter-
tained
theyht
tchoanttiinfutehde tßhielllwiilelreatenallyl,
p r eLord
t a period
J.
trße Ilugs itos opinion,
:jai
lase
nt, only
h if
o thought
g
tattolhne that it
to any proposal which seemed
shouldwascarried,presentfurthercould
question likely to lessen the
the Honourable Gen-
would arise, as to whether the same allowances should
not be given to other parties. He certainly must say
that this principle was a juet and fair one, and he hoped
on a future day the Government would declare their
intention so to modify the Bill as to make it less objec-
tionable than it was at present.

Majority against the motion —73
The House then went into a Committee, Mr. Greene
in the Chair.

On clause 1 being put, which proposed that the blank
be filled up with the word " three,"
Mr. CURTEIS moved that the blank bo filled up with
the word " two," instead of " three." He called on
those free traders around him to support him, as he in-
tended to press his motion to a division. He would
wish, in fact, that the Minister should be obliged to
come every year to propose this tax, but he abstained
from making a motion to that effect, because it might
be considered factious. He thought that many persons
in the House might, with great fairness, support
the present proposition. He did not believe
that the country willingly submitted to the
income-tax, though ho was surprised that the
City of London, which had, on a former occa-
sion, about thirty years ago, sent in a petition to that
House, when Mr. Vansittart was the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, against the property-tax, had not shown
more spirit on the present occasion, and, as far as the
City of London was concerned, he thought the Right
Hon. Baronet would be justified in doubling the tax. If
he had been a supporter of the Government he would
act in the same way that he was now acting; and be
called on the young Members opposite to support him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
speak, but was met with cries of " Oh, oh." He said,
that as it appeared the wish of the House that he should
not argue the proposition of the Hon. Member, he hoped
the Hon. Member would not think it any discourtesy to
him if he abstained from doing so.
Mr. GREENE asked the Hon. Member if he would
divide?

Mr. CURTEIS—Yes.—(Oh, oh.)
strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l7
Against it
. .

Majority against it
-ad: - t,hr ‘ll,

in our re-admittance into the gallery
Mr. AGLIONBY was en his legs, addressing the
House. He said the tax, in many instances, pressed
with peculiar force upon the landlord, but perhaps an
illustration would better explain what he meant than
any lengthened argument. They might not be aware
that in many parts of the country standing crops were
sold by what was called public roup. Fields of grass, or
whatever the crop might be, wore knocked down to the
highest bidder—the landlord, be it remembered, paying
the rates and taxes. He very seldom had the
same tenant for a couple of years—frequently not for one
year—but in that case the gross rental was returned
against the landlord. Would it be said, that the land-
lord had not a right in such a case to deduct the rates
and taxes paid for parochial purposes from the gross
amount returned to the Commissioners under the in-
come-tax ? The land assessors;they were aware, played
all sorts of tricks. An appeal had been made, in more
than one instance, to the local authorities, and they had
returned for answer, that they had no authority to deal
with the matter. The Board of Stamps and Taxes in
London had no power to control the local Commissioners
—their province being only to advise. The local as-
sessors and the tax-collectors, in many cases, had totally
mistaken their duties, and the appeals made by parties
to the Board of Local Commissioners had proved un-
satisfactory because they also were in doubt as to the
construction of the Act. Under these circumstances, be
thought that extended powers ought to be given to the
Board of Stamps and Taxes, for the purpose of alleviat-
ing this evil.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he should be ready to remedy, as far as in his
power, the inconveniences arising from the operation of
the tax. He had never had his attention directed to the
circumstances stated by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth (Mr. Aglionby), and, therefore, he could not be
expected, at that time, to be prepared with a remedy.
Had the Hon. Member given notice of his intention to
bring the subject forward, ho (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) would have made himself somewhat better ac-
quainted with the particular evil.
Mr. AGLIONBY apologised for having introduced
the matter without giving notice on a previous day, but
as he had not intended to create any discussion upon it,
he thought such notice was wholly unnecessary.
Sir R. PEEL said that it had been deemed advisable
that the Board of Stamps and Taxes should merely con-
fine themselves to the giving of advice to the local Com-
missioners. They confined themselves generally to
stating their opinion on what was right or what was not.
Possibly some local Commissioners might have acted on
their own peculiar reading of the Act ; but, speaking;
generally, he thought that the conduct of the Commis-
sioners had given satisfaction.
Mr. WAKLEY said the lion. Member for Cocker-
mouth spoke of giving mere power to the Board of
Stamps and Taxes. He (Mr. Wakley) had a proposition
to offer to the House, but it was to extend the powers of
the Commissioners. Their limited powers produced the
greatest inconvenience, as, for instance, in the case of a
landlord whose tenants had absconded. The landlord
was called on to pay the income-tax although he re-
ceived no rent for his land, and the local Commissioners
had no power to absolve him from this liability. The
landlord not only lost his rents, but he was actually
called upon to pay the tax upon rents he had never re-
ceived.
Such was the fact in the borough he repre-
sented,and also in Marylebone. He had received a
copy of a letter from a Mr. Challoner, who lived in the
oc
Edgeware-road, addressed to the Commissionersi under
the income-tax, and as it wasTnhoet
lveraly lconogmmhiessiwoonuelrds
trouble the House with it:—"
of the Treasury have considered your application with
regard to the distress made upon you to recover the pro-
perty-tax, and I am directed to acquaint you that the

Sir R. PEEL said the present surplus of revenue only
amounted to about 100,000/. a year, and now the Noble
Lord was advocating a diminution in the receipts of the
income-tax. Supposing the House should overrule the
income-tax, he hoped they would permit them then to
consider hat taxes which the Government had pro •
posed for remission should be withdrawn.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the Right Hon.
Gentleman might have got the full amount of revenue if
he had had' a more rational and reasonable proposition
with regard to sugar.—(Hear.) Instead of the tax im-
posed on that article going into the Exchequer, it went
into the pockets of the producers.
Mr. SPOONER said he wished, in proposing his
amendments, to make a distinction between real property
and the profits upon labour. Ile did not bring his
amendment forward to reduce the income-tax, but to do
justice to the honest, hard-working trader. The landed
proprietor could leave his property behind him, but the
industrious tradesman was compelled to make provision
for his family after his death, by paying away a small
portion of his profits.—(Hear, hear.)
After some further discussion, the remaining clauses
were agreed to.
The House then resumed, when the Chairman reported
progress, and the report was ordered to be brought up
on Friday.
STAMP DUTIES' ASSIMILATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this
Bill being read,
The Hon. Mr. BOUVERIE rose and said he wished to
draw attention to this Bill, because it contained principles
of a most iniquitous character. The Bill proposed to
renew an Act passed in the present reign for another
three years. That Act imposed the stamp duties as spe-
cified in the 55th of George 111., cap. 180, upon Ire-
land. Before then, the stamp duties of Ireland were com-
paratively of a light character, and it was with a view to
bringing under the notice of the Government the unfair
and unjust operation of these stamp deities, as now
applied by this Act to Ireland, that he now
ventured to trespass upon the time of the House.
One would think that the amount:of tax would be in pro-
portion to the amount of property to be transferred, but
on reference to the schedules affixed to the Act, they
would find that this was not the case. On the contrary,
the amount of duty diminished ins ratio as the value of
the property increased.—(Hear, hear.) On reference to
one schedule, they would see that the stamp duty on
a bond not exceeding 501., was IL, or two per cent. On
a bond above that amount, but not exceeding 1001., the
stamp duty was 11 103., or one-and-a-half per cent. On
a bond above 1002, and not exceeding 1,0001., the duty
was 21., or one per cent., and so it went on until it
reached 20,0001., when the rate of duty did not amount
to more than one-tenth the per tentage on a lesser sum.
—(Hear, hear.) Now, it was evident there was no clear
or justifiable ground upon which this system of taxation
could be maintained. Then, with respect to real pro-
perty,_ the same principle was applied.--(Hear, hear.)
The rate of duty upon mortgages not exceeding 50/.
was two per cent. ; not exceeding 1001, one-and-a-half
per; cent., and so on—the greater the amount the
less the duty. Now he must say that nothing but
inattention or ignorance could justify such a principle as
this. In England the system was bad enough, but with
reference to Ireland the case was peculiarly strong. In
that country there ought to be a great relaxatien or
remission of the stamp duties, because if they considered
the condition of Iceland, their grand object ought to be
to facilitate, by erery possible means, the transfer of
property from one man to another. They ought to use
their best endeavours to enable the inhabitants of that
country to obtain permanent property in land, at as
cheap. a rate as possible ; yet by the present Stamp Act
they imposed a higher rate of duty upon a parson who
bought a small patch of land for 201., than they did upon
a person who possessed large means, and who was pur-
chasing an extensive estate.—(Cheers.) This Stamp
Act, which they were passing sub silentin, had an obvious
tendency to interfere with the prosperity of the country
to which it applied.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who
spoke in such a low tone of voice as to be scarcely
audible in the gallery, said that this subject had very
frequently been under the consideration of the House.
He did not intend to deny that there were many stamp
duties which required revision, but they were not at
present in a position to enter upon that revision. The
House would recollect that the present Bill was intended
as a compensation for the property-tax imposed upon
thill• country not being extended to Ireland. He did
not think it would be advisable to enter into a general
discussion of the Amp duties at the Present moment.

number of those who were ready to continue this tax
for three years without considering any modification of
it.—(Hear.) He looked at it in two ways—first, as to
whether there was a probability that the tax would be
taken off in three years ; and he thought that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had failed to show that he
would be in a condition to take off the tax at the end of
that period. Certainly,' taking three of the most pros-
perous years, the tax might be calculated upon to yield
five millions and a half. But if you took three average
years, or three of which two were years of depression,
there could be no hope of such a surplus as would enable
the Government to dispense with the tax. There was
another way in which he looked at it, namely, that
if the probability was that the tax must be continued
after the three years, they ought to consider in what way
they might remove the acknowledged hardships of the
tax. Looking to the comprehensive measures adopted
by the Government, he thought they would have done
better if they had sacrificed a part of the produce of this
tax to diminish its inequality and inconvenience. But,
as they had not done so, he thanked the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Spooner) for bringing forward his amendments,
and with respect to the third one, especially, he hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would in some way or other sue-
ceed.—(Hear.) That there would be, practically, diffi-
cult), in carrying out the amendments was certain, but
he thought it might be left to the Government to de-
vise the means ofcarrying them out as far as practicable,
and with that view he would give the Honourable
Gentleman every support in his power.—(Hear,
hear.) And he repeated, that the Government
ought to have proposed some modifications, as it was
now inevitable that the tax must continue for three
years, for he believed that there was great danger in
continuing it with all its objectionable parts. At the
same time it must be admitted that public attention had
bcea directed more to the taking off such taxes as the
assessed and window taxes than to the hardships and
inequality of the property-tax. He could not help
thinking that the Government must foresee that they
would, at the end of three years, have to renew the
tax, and they ought, therefore, to make it as palatable as
possible.—(Hear.)
Dr. BOWRING did not hope or wish that the tax
should be discontinued. He thought that the feeling in
favour of it was increasing, and he wished to see it
extended.—(Hear.) For he thought the greater extent
they gave to the principle of direct taxation thegreatettho
amount of good they conferred upon the public.—(Hear,
hear.) It was delusive to hope that the tax would be
repealed in three years, and the Government had taken
the wisest course in imposing tlia tax, which would be
a great alleviation of public misery and a benefit to
public credit. As to the auction duty, he thought that
sufficient credit had aot been given to the Right Hon.
liiaronet.—(Hear, hear.) It was a most embarrassing
tax, and extremely harassing and expensive in the col-
lection, and the Right Hon. Baronet deserved the more
credit because there had been no clamour for the repeal.
—(Hear, hear.) He only wished the Government would
give him, and those who thought with him, the power of
aiding theta in extending the property-tax, by taking
away the inequality and injustice. He thought that
permanent property ought to be taxed on a different
scale from fluctuating property.—(Hear, hear.) He ,
thought, also, that the tax should be extended to the
sister eountry.—(Hear, hear.) He could not admit the
claims of " that vague abstract, Ireland."—(A laugh.)
But he wished to tax Irish property, not Irish poverty.
Lord SANDON could not resist the temptation of
following in the wake of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man. He thought, the more they approached to direct
taxation—and such was the feeling in the district he re-
presented—the more they were consulting the public
good. The country was daily approaching, more and
more, the condition in which the property-tax could be
most easily and beneficially applied.—(Hear, hear.) The
property of the country was rowing enormously, and a
small per centage would raise a great sum.—(Hear.)
There no longer existed any pretence for the cry that a
property-tax would drive capital out of the country.
Certainly a tax of three-and-a-half per cent. would not
have that effect. There was now an immense and grow-
ing population to be provided for, and how were they to
be provided for but by encouraging industry and taking
away restrictions upon it, especially those arrangements
of Excise and Customs which chiefly interfered with it?
—(Hear, hear.) Looking at the subject in this point of
view, that a small amount of direct taxation would yield

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH s, 1845.

Lord EBRINGTON said the paucity of small free.
holders in Ireland had always appeared to him to be
a source of great difficulty in governing that country,
and he regretted that the Chancellor had not thought
fit to make an alteration of the stamp duties, as appli-
cable to Ireland, so as to facilitate the establishment of
small freeholds in that country.
After a few words from Colonel RAWDON, the Bill
was read a third time.

On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HAWES said, that after what he bad heard that
night, he should feel it his duty, when this subject were
again brought before the House, to take the sense of the
House on the subject of direct taxation in Ireland.—(So
we understobd the Hon. Gentleman.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the report upon the property and income-tax Bill would
be brought up on Friday "text.
The Bill was then passed.
RAILWAYS (IRELAND.)
Mr. B. BALDWIN moved for the report of the Lords
of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade for the
transaction of railway business, on :the following
schemes for extending railway communication to the
West of Ireland, viz., 1. The Great 'Western (Ireland)
Railway (Dublin to Mullingar); 2. The Great Western
(Ireland) Railway (Alternative Line); 3. The Great
Western (Ireland) Railway (Extension Line) ; 4. The
Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway.)
Mr. FFRENCII seconded the motion ; and in so
doing said that he had the most perfect confidence in the
wisdom, justice, and integrity of the Railway Depart-
ment of the Board of Trade.

Sir G. CLERK could have no objection to the pro-
duction of this report, seeing that in the ordinary
course the report would be presented to the House as
soon as it was prepared by the Railway Department of
the Board of Trade.—Motion agreed to.
The House then adjourned at Half-pant Nine o'Clock.