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

you need entertain no appnhensions ; the prices of pro-
visions Will not be lowered ; you have nothing to fear,
and the'-consumer ha's nothing to hope." When the
Corralill. was under -consideration the Right Ilon. 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.
Baronetleant over the table and told the Opposition, " Oh,
you 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
Hon: Baronet had not stated ,the fact so broadly as he
(Mr.' C. Buller) had put it— ( Ministerial cheers)—but
he would upeal•to any Gentleman who had heard the de-
bates,: if that were not the purport and intention
of the—arg-uinent which the light Bon. 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-
ition) side of the 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. lie 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thought that the tax on incomes would be repealed, and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)
bad 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
Mon. Gentlemen opposite would consent to a tax on
property without a tax on incomes. He (Mr. B.) con-
mural in 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 proposition was foun-
ded on justice, for if they would exempt the professional
man, why not 'also exempt the holder of a life estate ?
The amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for
33ath was glaringly unjust. When they exempted any
:.'find of income from the tax they only left the remainder
more unjust. He then came to the proposition of the
Noble Lord the Member for London, and he fully agreed
with him, that they could 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. He
mast 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 sated another. He
would defy them to meet these differences
'with direcataxation. Different classes lived in different
styles ; but on all these, they come with their rough
and barbarous direct -taxation, which he agreed was a
direct taxation of a barbarous period, by that they swept
away 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 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 4,000,0001.; 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 budge of slavery, and the only ;instance
he knew of a direct tax in time of 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 at the
classes who paid it had been gradually gettiea
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 se'
much per nere, not entering into value-41 tax'
upon thdrvisible, means of visible property. Now- take
the ,historyoof the. United States of Americ!..
They. ;Werft,, accustomed to -consider those States
as affording a specimen of ..democratic government,. and
therefore of. what the people would do -it' they had their
own wax in laying on taxation. Now the history
of the tinted 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 • these 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 those
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 held on this subject would be
attended by persons who had less than 150/. 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 theaverking classes from its operation, He was very
glad to find that that language, inflammatory as it was,
had produced' no effect whatever. By the bye,
be malt, admit that it had produced no effect.
The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham)
bad succeedkl that evening in presenting a petition from
2,500 • working reople in Carlisle, re icing in the In-
come-tax. Ile did not complain much of this, because
there was at least a kind of oscillatory consistency in
in the Right Hon. Baronet's language.—(Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) In the inflammatory language
which. he he'd now he recognised the language
whiete he held in 1830, wherein he points out
to the execration of the people those whom he then repre-
sented 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. 13.) was happy
to rind 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. 'lime Chartist press was not conciliated—
the 'Weekly Dispatch opposed the tax, so that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not secured that approbation
of that great writer, " Publicola."—(A laugh.) He
saamld read to the House a passage from the National
Association Gazette and lie must say that a, fairer indi-
cation of all the intellect and good feeling, which there was
gatong-the Chartists, could not be found than that which
proceetled from the pan of Lovett., ' The following
wits 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 thelignorant boobies who thronged the seats of .the
House .of Commons." The lion. Member continued to
read the extract. which stated that; in effectsthe locome-
tax would eventually full upon the industrious classes.
He had thought it right to read that pas-
sage to the House, to vindicate the body of
the working' melt from the suspicion that they
had yielded to the arguments which had been
held by Gentlemen opposite, and that they wished for
the impositiAU ()fain Income-tax, because it would fall
only ow the rich. • , The working classes. felt that
the tax would press heavily on themselves, and they op-
posed it as an encroachment on the comforts of every man
in England. Ile, Applogised to the House for detaining
then, in
long, but the opposition to the measure.
assumed now a different form.—(Cheers.) They :were.
discussing the details. and principles of ahe Bill, and he
Wm anxious to take the first proper oppor-
tunity of expressing his opposition to the
Bill. lie was not sanguine enough to
imagine that he should succeed on the present occasion ;
but as one who had taken a strong part in opposition to
the BA felt anxious to defend himself from
the misr.epreFmnta.tions to which it appeared all
those w4P• opposed either -the Bill or the Government
were to be• subjected....„(Leud clieers.)• It. a Gentle-
man offered the slightest oppaatio
n to the; immediate
progress,' of the measure; he was told that his
conduct was factious, and that if he chose to
take art Dppqrtunity of discussing the question—
and there were many Hon. Members around him, repre-
sentatives of large constituencies, who had a perfect
right to do so—it seemed to be the tactics of the Go-
vernment to set up Gentleman:after Gentleman to say,
*" Ohl you are stopping the taritf, which it is most im-
portant to the best interests of the country should be im-
mediately considered."—(Loud cheers) They had a
right , - fully, freely, and fairly to discuss, not
only the bad principle of this measure, but
its still worse details—(Loud cheers.)—and if by so doing
they delayed the tariff, that was not their fault, but
the fault of the Government.—(Loud cheers.) If the
Government chase to press forward the Income-tax before
the tariff, the responsibility of the delay must rest with
the Government and not with them. lie knew that he
was fighting against a majority—he knew that it
was an uphill fight, but be knew that the op-
position to the income tax was grounded on reason
and argument, and that when the tax was in operation