The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-24 00:00:00

TiE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING', MARCH 24, 1842,

sions in obstructing and impeding those binks bu
commercial reforms ? What were all the interferences
with the Navigation Laws but commercial reforms? What were
the wars in India and in China but the consequences of commercial
reforms ? (Hear.) A statesman, whose sagacity never was sur-
passed, laid it down as a maxim; that the moment we opened the
trade with China, we should remove the foundations of our hod ien
empire.—(Hear.) The Slight Hon. Baronet told the House that
he expected a period of prosperity to follow the distress which now
prevailed, and that he expected it from the experience of past alter-
nations of prosperity and distress. But he (Mr. A.) called on the
Hon. Baronet to say Whether he expected the prosperity about
to conic to be followed by another period of distress—such as that
avWch had just been passed through ?—and If the prosperity was
not to be permanent, was it not the first duty of Govet nment, and
of her Majesty, to avoid accelerating the years of prosperity which
were to be followed with a recurrence of disaster and distress, and
the ruin of thousands, arid to consider in what way a remedy
was to be applied to the present disordered state of society,
from which those fluctuations were inseparobte. In his judg-
ment they were hound In honesty, and by every dictate of wisdom,
to adopt one of two courses—either to maintain the present value
of money and to rise equally the value of commodities is to Ire re-
duce tha standard of value that was the only alternative. He
(Mr. A.) could not in this debate point out the means by which
either side of the alteration was practicable ; but he would
demonstrate to any committee, or to any select body net men, that
Parliament had the power of preserving the value of money at one
standard—(Cheers)—and that every measure which they adopted
without reference to the prevention of prices from rising and fall.
ing, bring the country into further difficulties.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that the Right lion. Baronet had not
received the due meed of appiobation from friends or opponents
which his conduct merited. —( Hear, hear, from the Tory benches.)
He (Mr. Roebuck) was disappointed when he saw the Right Hon.
Baronet opposed by those of his own rankp, who ought to have
been foremost in his support, and when the opposition was joined in
by those on the opposition side, who ought, in consistency with
their former professions to have been still more ready with their
support of the scheme.—(Hear, and laughter) The Right Hon.
Baronet had proposed a measure which, at least to him (Mr. Roe..
buck), appeared plain, easy of comprehension, straightforward, and
honest.—(Tory cheers, responded to by cheers and laughter from
the Opposition.) It could deceive nobody. The House could un.
derstand what it meant. The country could understand it. It
meant that if you desire to raise the revenue the country should
know distinctly and directly what they had to pay.—(Hear, hear.)
The beople were not to be juggled and deceived into paying the sum
of money which it was necessary to raise. That sum was stated in
both sides to be necessary ; and for the raising of it there were be-
fore the House two distinct plans--the one to raise the money di-
rectly from the community—and the other to raise it indirectly by
way of tax on comn-odities of general consumption. Although one
was the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet, and the other that of the
lute Government. Taking the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet as
a whole, and looking it as one comprehensive scheme, he gave him
the full meed of his approbation for his honest and sttaightforward
eourse.—(Tory cheers.) The revenue was deficient, and neither on
the Ministerial or on the Opposition s.de of the House, could any
blame be attached to the Right Hon. Baronet for that deficiency.
It was not occasioned by this side or by that-=by the Whig or by,
the Tory-but by the House of Commons.—(Much cherringe They
might talk of the wars in Syria, and the wars in China and in India;
but the wars were as much the wars of the Ministerial as of the Op.
position side of the House. They might talk of the increase of
the 'expenditure ; but the fault was as much on one side as the
oaten—(lcer.) They were all for spending and none for saving.—
(Hear and laughter.) The whole fault was to he laid at the door
of the House, and one side was as much tor blalnte as the other.—
(Hear, hear.) But lie must tell the Right Hlin. Baronet that the
whole ground of his approbation was that the people had been made
to feel at whose door the blame was to be laid. Hitherto they
(the House) had been tampering with the finances. But the Right
Hon. Baronet came forward to say that he will not be a party to
paltry artifices—(hear, hear)—that he wilt not going to resort to
loans, or to taxes on posterity—he said to them plainly—" I will
tax you."—(Laughter.) No one could say that the Right Hon.
Baronet had exaggerated the deficiency, and no one had asked for
any reduction of expenditure. The deficiency being admitted,
the Right Honourable Baronet asked the country if it was
prepared to adopt the prompt and immediate increase
to meet the deticiency.—(ldear, hear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) thought
that was by far the most honest course to meet the difficulty in the
face, and to tell the people that the money is due, and that they
must pay it. His Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield said that
the measure would drive capitalists out of the country.' His Noble
Friend aspired to the character of a political economist, and he
would ask his Noble Friend could it make tine least difference—if
the people must pay the deficiency—whether it was made by a di- .
rect tax, or by a round-about process ?—(Hear, hear.) But his
Noble Friend went further, and said there was danger in letting
the people know what they had to pay.—( Hear, and a laugh,)
Why the Hon. Member for Sheffield was an advocate for the peo-
ple governing themselves—and was he now going to take the
whole of their affairs into his own hands, and keep them in igno-
raise, of what money they paid, and how it was applied ?—(Hear.)
Was that the course now to be pursued I' He believed that that
course of proceeding would bring its own remedy. The Right
Hon. Baronet had come to the conclusion, though he had been
slow in corning to it, of asking them to pay by a direct taxation,
and a direct taxation which would not be fair to the middle class
of the community. Such was the effect of the tax according to
the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and he agreed with the proposition ;
he would even add one more item to its strength, which was, that
it showed the disposition of the aristncratie class of this country in
a more su iking and salient light than any other mode of taxation;
and that was the reason he liked it.—(Hear, hear.) They
taxed the community not for the benefit of the public,
not for supplying the expenditure of the country, but fur the
interests of the landowners. The Corn-laws put a large sum into
the pockets of the landholders ; but then to supply the expenditure
of the rate, they say what shall we do ? Why, we will meet it by a
tax spread over land and funded property, and over what he could
scarcely call income. What was the consequence ? Why, having
first taken a large portian for themselves out of the pockets of the
people, when they came to pay the portion of the tax to the State
that fell upon them, they in fact paid nothing at all.—(Cries of
" Oh, Oh.") That was his first charge against the aristocracy
of this 'country. W hat did they do ? The Right Honourable
Baronet, he believed, had done the best thing he could do ;
he had done far better than those on this side of the House had I
proposed to do ;he was prepared to accept the plan—to admire it—
to receive it; he could tlo no otherwise. Put what did the aris-
tocracy do ? They said, we must be careful in our generation; we
cannot tax the people exclusively; we will tax ourselves, and there.
by have the appearance of great moderation and regard to the work-
ing classes. This was an exceedingly happy stroke of party politics,
for by it they robbed the Liberal party of all the power that might
be derived from the prevalence of discontent among the
poor. They had got the middle classes in their power,
and they said, let us tax the Finnilholder. Why this
had been done in old times, it had been done in France
on the same actual principle, though differing in degree. There
the landowner was relieved from any portion of the expense of '
the Government, and it was cast entirely on the monied and in.
tellectual resources of the country. When they came to look at it
fairly and honestly, they would find that the land was exempted
from any portion of this tax...—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and laugh-
ter.) They tnight laugh if they liked, but it was the fact. But
to pass on. What was done by the plan ? They taxed the fundholder,
and then they came down to what, he must say, was the depth
of injustice committed by this tax. That injustice was committted
themselves. He thought that the Hon. Baronet felt that injustice
himself, and was only prevented from repairing it by the jealousy
of the landed interest. The injustice of the thin had been put
in twenty thousand shapes; the injustice was so flagrant, and it was
impossible to increase the enormity of the picture. The man
making tSOO/. a-year by the hard toil of his body and mind, that
man paid as much as him, who though living its mere idleness, saw
his means increase, and received his income. of 300/. though doing
nothing. Of one man, his very existence, and thitt of his
family depended on the merest accident; by any unfor-
tunate occurrence affecting his health or his intellect
his means of gaining bread for his family were gone ; he was dead
while he lived, robbed of the power of his intellect, robbed of the
power of his body, and the consequence is, that his children must
starve. But let the other man die, no such consequence fol-
lowed. Why, the difference was perceptible—palpable. if the
Right Hon. Baronet told him that he could not snake the distinc-
tion, he would tell him, that he must make it.—(Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Baronet knew, as well as he did, that thedifierence
was perceptible, and appreciable in the market; he knew that he could
.go into the market stud tell it. He could take one man of 3001. a-year
in funded property, and 3001. a-year derived from intellectual ex.
ertion, and the difference between those two men was the difference
between the value of their respective lives and perpetuity. He
could go into the market, and ask what would be the charge for
insuring his life to the amount of the principal that would return
3001. a-year, and any insurance office would tell him that charge.
If the Right Hon. Baronet then would proceed fairly he must strike
olf that amount from the man of limited income, and tax him un the
remainder, and he would then have a plan perfectly fair and
just. Why could not that be done? Why could not a table he
made of the value of different lives, from 9.0, 30, 40, to 50 years.
A young man paid less to an insurancesollice, because the value of
his life was greater ; he would, therefore, conifer more on the
state. The value was the exact run of time difference between two
teen's lives against perpetuity; such tables were in the possession of
Government, and the necessary rules might be laid down' in half an
hour. If it was not adopted then,a gratuitous injustice would be done
by the landed interest to all the other classes of the community.
He should like to hear that answered; he wanted the people of
this country to be told why it could not be done. They wanted
somebody here bold enough to declare the injustice of the tax, and
astute enough to prove that it was not an injustice to tax equally
the man of unequal means arid 'immanent property, fOr by this
plan they prevented that care and precaution which enabled men
to secure to their families those provident resources which should
supply them with the. means of living hereafter. He admitted
that it would be a cruel injustice to the people of this country,
if it should be carried, no matter how" grave might be the neces.
sity. II there was a grave necessity for taxing the people, did the
gravity of the necessity excuse tee unjust means of meeting it?—
(Hear, hear.) Does robbing me do the community a benefit?—
(Hear, hear.) If there was a necessity of levying this ruin, let
Mein cut it off him, and lay it on those who could afford to pay it.
He would furnish what he could, and the poor man would furnish
what he could.—(Hear, hear.) The reason they taxed him was
because he did not possess land; for if he possessed land,
they would not dare to tax hrn.— (Oh, oh.) The people of
the country had a right to know and understand that this was the
real case. lie did not lay the blame to the door of the Right Hon.
Baronet ; he begged to reiterate that he laid the charge of jujus-
lice upon the majority of that House—a majority which the Right
Hon. Baronet could not contrl, and who were bringing into Olsen
daylight, so that he who ran might read, the injustice of
the scheme to the people of this country. Pursuing this
subject, he asked the Right Hon. Baronet to answer him and
explain why it was difficult to make the calculations
of the value of the uncertain incomes he had spoken
of; he did nut ask lire value of every man's means, because the
Right Hon. Baronet must know that, oven under his own syss
tern he got but a rough, thongh practical estimate of eaeh,nian's
wealih, but he 'wanted the same thing in another shape. He
wanted a practical estimate of each man's power of paying.--taking
the value of his life, and the value of his net income, and striking
off from that the amount necessary to insure his life to the atnount
necessary to produce his income. That was a fair way
of estimating it, without reference to the individual's
health is strength. If they made the tax equal to all, this would be
fair and just ; if they wanted more money, increase the tax ; if
they reqnired fifty millions, or whatever the sum might be, if they
could not levy it in any other way whatever, let them add more to
the per ceneage of tire tax ; let them add the penny or twoyence,
but still keep up the difference between the two classes of income;
then they would fairly tax the community, and have the money they
required.. It had been urged as an objections to the proposal
of 'tire Right Honouaable Baronet, that it was a " vulgar
pia'kee A vulgar plan! He wished there was more of such vul.
garity, at least as to statesmanship. He could not see any vulgarity
in endeavouring to pay their debts. If they were honest in private
life, would make their expenditure equal to their income; if
siie they
dishonest, they would go on day by day making their
expenditure larger than their income, but they would clime at
length to the natural ; there would be a stand still, a bank-
' ruptcy, or, if there was no actual bankruptcy for amp one but the
trader, yet there was a bankruptcy of hunouf and honesty, and they
were ruined. And what was honesty in !private life might be
extended also to nations. )Loud cheers.) He could . not
conceive in what sense it could be thought vulgar to
ivuiga moretiut formidable
i war
pay their debts.—(Cheers.) .But there was another objection
made, which
ey
mwiasghtst.taetewd!lltiongbte.
meetof
a its far
vulgarity, b
saida't that the tax was an inquisitorial one, and that there would
be great danger to the commercial interests if the exact amount of
whet each man made was ascertain d. That always seemed to
him a matter beyond his comprehension. He knew that in this
country there was a great dill ke to let it be known how much each
ma, was wor h. He thought this teaser vulgar prejudice—(War,
het
what ; heif calledtie y vulgarity.were Mich
there were plenty who
If they were poor let
them honestly say
would find it out.—(Laughter.) He could not understand by what
process it could be that what was called credit increased the
zr)thatwas s
o

resources of the country,—(Hear.) A man wi h credit might
have a great deal of trade, but it was maintained at another man's
expense.—(Hear, hear.) Credit did not multiply wealth, it only
enabled one man to work with the wealth of another man,
and t
was honest and proper the other believed he could give it, but
if by any side wind, a man pretended to be rieh, it was dishonest,
i
and it was no benefit to morality or society. He should not care a
farthing if the amount of his means was known to-morrow,
nor should he think himself the worse in any man's opi.
nian for its being known that his gains were loss.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member for Lambeth said he should like to know how
a banker would like to have his income told P Now, this was the
very class of persons who should have the least objection, for on
the last day of the year a banker knew exactly how much he had
made during the twelve months, and he (Mr. it.; did not see why
a banker should be ashamed, or afraid, or consider it inconsistent
with his character as a good man, that people, who supposed that
he was making 10,0001- a year should find out that he made but
s,oool.—(Cheers.) But if such exposures were to be dreaded as
too inquisitorial, he wautct ask the Right Hon. Baronet was it not
easy to hit upon some other mode of making a pretty accurate esti-
mate of the incomes of persons; whether as regarded the past year,
or a long series of years preceding ?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. IL)
thought it would not be difficult to suggest the other tests. For
instance, the income of a man might be tolerably well estimated I,y
kdowing what rent lie paid for his lodging, or, at least, it might be
calculated how much he ought to pay to the State.—(Laughtes, and
Hear, hear, hear.) No doubt this test would be as much objected
gotherCuhiirayn bc it
tl
taxation—withoutts
Chancellor
ueolfd parties;btie ie a butmpEri
i lsey .1,
icewnolunuaegptree:vt,
to usurp
dangerteteii(euilubrrpy.
tthßhe.
functions
uoielind,acesttalitiontft inucscollifil toayfsdoiatif
the
inquiry
ti
Roebuck) would, when the Will. came on for consideration,
undertake to prove that great benefit would result to the revenue,
and the cominut.ity by a different adjustment of the duties on Um.
ber. He would show that it was not for the interests of the colonies
or for the interests of the Canadian people, that that tax shou Id be
continued as it was ; but that it merely contributed to fill the
pockets of a small body in ails country, who owned rotten ships :
that the interest of that class was very much overrated, and, in
short, speaking what he knew from having had the honour to be
the delegate of the Canadian people, they wished that the perma.
neat protection on timber shovld. be abolished, as of no benefit
either to them or to the mother country. His plan would be
diff,rent hem that of the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Mr. R.)
would lower the duty on Baltic timher one half, and raise it as
much on Canadian. The difference now between the two was
455. This step would produce a /air revenue, would do injustice
to no one, and wyuld give the community better cheaper timber.
As respected the importation of sugar, the tariff of the Hight Hon.
Baronet appeared to him quite untenable. lie was sorry to see
that the Right Hon. Baronet should be deterred by that talk about
slavery which was the bug-bear of .this country, when ang good was
to be done. Great mischief had been done alreody bytheinterferance
that had taken place in this matter; for even according to the ad-
mission of those who had been most active, and had gained most
glory by their efforts in the cause, they had effected no good what.
ever. Instead of mitigating the evil they would allow they had ag.
gravated it; and now, when the people of England asked for some
relief, you say they cannot have it on.account Of the slave trade. But
why now add to the mischief; when it was unquestionable that we
could not prevent the slave trade?—(Hoar, hear.) With those
.remarks he would now close his obServations with' what he should
:Call the moral of his tale. The Gentlemen on'lii:S side of the House
had made two attempts during the present SessiMiteviiti for them.
selves popularity.—( Laughter.) First, by theli opposition to the
Corn-law they had got up the steam`, but they failett.-.--(Laughter,
and great cheering from the Ministerial Benches.) They failed,
because the working people had no confidence in ;hex--(Cheers
from the Ministerialists)—possessing power granted to them by the
people, the middle classes arrayed themselves agaitist the people
when they asked for their rights. But when' the 'Middle classes
wanted to get rid of a burthen phiced on tfiernselres, the people
stood aloof, seeing hoW the promises' made them in 1631
and 1632 were forgotten ; and thus - the' first attempt
of the Gentlemen near him at popularity hunting
had grievously failed.—(Cheers.) Now they • Made' their second
attempt, but the people clearly understoed'ithentanti being re-
lieved by the artifice of the other side, and‘l!y the political saga.
city of the Right Hon. Baronet. If they Were;nof jwrsonally in-
terested, and seeing that little regard had beeh"had ror their pro-
perty, their labour, by the middle classes, they.:Weolcflx!iok at the at-
tack now made on the property of the middle classes With equani-
mity. They said they would not trust the working 'man with
power, because they would attack property. The working classes,
remembering how their property, the labour of their hands
and their heads, had been disreg3tded, would not now interfere
on the funded and personal property of the middle classes. It was
all the better that the working classes should hear, from time to
time, that the middle classes alone were not able to cope with the
other side of the House. There were ritJans, however, by which
the middle classes could lint them down. Therliad put them down
before—try again. Let the middle classes tell the people we have
found out our mistake. We find we cannot obtain justice for our-
selves unless we obtain justice for you._:(Hear.) Now we wil
agree to do you justice, mai then we will obtain justice fur all—and
this was the moral of his tale.

• Sir R. PEEL—Sir, after the comments that have been made in
the course of this debate on the proposal I: have made
for relieving the country from its firsaheiel difficulties,
I must, very naturally, feel some anxiety to reply to
some of the observations which have been directed against
my propositions..—(Hear, hears)" And I must first remark on
the objections taken to the course I have pursued by the Hon.
Member for Liskcard. I was told, in the couese of this night, by
him, that having no confidence in the abstract merits of the measure
I brought frrward, and being unable to support it by arguments, I
resorted to topics calculated to excite party feelings, and that I was
desirous to derive that aid from party excitement which I could not
hope to draw from reason and argument.—(Hear, hear,) Sir, I
refer for my vindication against that charge to all those who heard
me make my financial statement.—(Cheers from the Minis.
terialists.) 1 ask whether, when I steted to the House the causes of
the present difficulties, and proposed my remedy for them—whether
it was possible that any man could have more studiously avoided all
topics of an irritating nature ?—(Cheers.) It was necessary for me
to refer, amongst other causes of expense, to the war in China, and
to the war to the West of the Indus ; but in referring to those
causes of increased expense, did I not studiously abstain from every
political subject which could be considered likely to provoke a dis-
cussion of a party nature ?—(Cheers.) But, Sirewhen on a follow-
ing night 1 vindicated the course I had pursued, I was placed in a
different position. On the first night I was told my proposal should be
considered as a whole, that there was an admission of great financial
embarrassment—that it should be discussed without any party
feeling, but entirely on its abstract merits ; and now I appeal to
those who recollect the second night's debate, whether any plea-
sure coved have been discussed with mere party spirit?—(Cheers.)
Not that I complaiu of this, on the contrary, I foresaw It. But
when I came to vindicate my measure so opposed, was it
not natural, that I should remind those who attacked
my measure, that they and their policy had been the chief-
causes of the present difficulties ?—(Great cheering.) I must say
now—not wishing to speak in a temper different from that in which
I began, that a speech of greater bitterness I neyer heard than that
front the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Cheers and counter
cheers.) Why, Sir, was it not said that I.maintained the sugar
duties, not because I wets convinced of ite'policy of maintaining
them, but because they would help tne to annoy my predecessors ?
Was it not said that I would not prefer any measure that would
effect my own political interest and position? Was it not said
that the tax against which not one word wes said when I first pro-
posed it, but which I had an assurance should be calmly and deli.
betrately considered—was it trot said by the Noble Lerd and the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that after having given the subject the
most mature attention, they
could come to no other con.
elusion, but that a mere unjust inquisitorial and oppres-
sive measure was never proposed ?—,(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
I must say that I hod spcsere on that night rather under the im.
pression, not that my measure had not endergone the considera.
tion which I was promised it should do by philosophers in the
closet, but, I thought that the spirit which actuated the opposition
to it, partook much more of the character of a meeting at the" Re-
form Club—(Loud cheers on the Ministerial benches)—and, there.
fore, after the assurances which I had received, after the manlier in
which I had opened the suejects and after the manner in which I
and the measure were subsequently assailed, then, indeed, I slid
that which I always shall do, I vindicatee to the best of my power
the measure which I had proposed, and the motives which had in.
fluenced me in submitting it to the consideration of the House. • I
certainly was serprised that the proposal of an eiscome tax should
be now. denounced by the leaders of the party oppo.
site, without any reference to the public exigencies
or the . difficulties of our position. I was surprised
to have it denounced as au Odious and unjust measure, which no
Minister ought to propose, because I recollect perfectly well that
among those which have been connected wills the party opposite,
and whose attention has been directed chiefly to matters of finance.
I have heard their declarations, and their opinions are left on re-
Cord, that looking at the nature of our taxation, and seeing its
tendency to press upon labour, and upon those articles which, form
the necessary, consumption of the great masses of the• people—l
have heard them declare that a property tax might be resorted to
with advantage during time of peace. I have heard Lord Atthorp
give that opinion, and Sir Henrp Parnell'has left on tecord a similar
opinion, formed at a time when the country %vat 'Placed in no such
financial difficulties as at present; .and formed for the sole
purpose of relieving the main articles orsconsuriilptiodand the pro-
ductive industry of the countey from the eilstihrandbuilt of texation
Mr. Pewlett Thompson, Lord Althorp.,-Mr. Hume, and Sir Henry
Parnell, all declared in favour of a,peoperty taxesind therefore a
property tax ought not to be depoutteed" by yoe, acting as philo-
sophers, and not as party-men. The principle of a property tax
ought not to be denounced with quite so much of bitterness as has
been displayed upon the subject.—(Hear, hear.) But lam told
that I have not estahlished any efficient 'necessity for a property
tax. I wish to pass in review the objections which have been
urged against the measure which I have introduced. I have been
told that I have established no suffieient necessity for imposing a
property tax its time cf peace. I fairly everrehat in now making
an appeal, not so much to the Gentlemed cipeesife as to the de.
liberate judgment of tee'cotintry, upon *litchi' rely fbr eupport-H.
(Cries of " Hear, heir.") sir ask all"thoses4bo are capable
of forming a just judgment' tiponiadreethenclid difficultfees
and of the inevitable colisequeneeil. which' must fp'fow if
during a time Of peace you perthit these diffieulties to increase.
without attempting to cheek 'the progiess. • I ask of them ma.
turely to consider whether 1 do not establish such a finan-
cial necessity, calling at least for some vigorous mid decisive
course.—(Hear.) I prove that there has been a deficit during the
last six years, which has gone on rapidly increasing for the last
four years. I have shown that in the Year ending sth April,
1840, there had been a deficit of income as compared with ex.
1,851,000; in 1842 amounted to 2,334,000/. ; and in 1843 it will
amount to 2,573,0001. I have proved that during the last sly
penditure, of 1,487,0001. ; in 1841 the''deficit amounted to
years you have accumelated a. debt amounting to 0,000,0001.
have shown that there will be a deficiency in the estimates of the
the year
by 1836, you began a
large deficit.
with aeg
present year, which I take at 2,5000,0001.. It cannot, 1 believe,
be less, after you shall have passed the estimates for rein.
forcing our troops in India, and after defraying the
expenses of the Chinese expedition cling the approaching year.
Why, that alone seems to roe to m
establish the necessity of placing
your finances upon a new basis. I ask you,
_ too, the state of Indian
finance. I have told you that Indian finances have followed the
c
You found in 1836 a surplus of at least 1,500,0001,; you ended in
1840 with a deficit of 2,300;000e ; and in 'lB4l you had a deficit
ocoursers
large
of r the
e surplus;finances
in at t
bey home.e
184
of 2,400,000/. He had said that the Indian Government was resort.
ing to loans; they had at first tried a boats of 4 per cent, ; they have
since resorted to a loan of '1,000,900 l
at 5 per cent. He told them
that under those circumstances they might find it necessary to come
al4l you
ended y
to the support of the credit of India. I thought it wise you should
abstain from incurring' any additional debt, and that you should
maintain the public credit as you have maintained it, by showing
your determination to raise a supply adequate to your expenditure.
These were the proofs *tech he gave for the purpose of showing
that there existed finacial necessities—necessities which should not
deter us or dismay us; amid if l'had not a full confidence-in the re-
sources of this country, I must have shrunk from developing the
' truth, but it was because I knew that the country 'would have the
manliness and the energy to meet its difficulties that I would not
condescend to conceal a knowledge of • these difficulties from the
public.—(Hear, hear.) I must here observe that I take no de.
sponding view of our affairs in India, I have just the same con-
fidence as ever that the energ? of the British people that has been
already so gloriously displayed in that great field of exertion—l
cannot but think that those energies when properly exerted, will
enable us to repair any caaual and temporary disasters which' we .
may suffered.—(Hear,,hear.) But I must say I think the
Honouralee Gentleman the Member' for Lambeth (Mr.
Hawes) was rather too hasty in refusing to adopt any measure
to which it may be found necessary to have recourse for the pur-
pose of repairing those disasters. " Not one shilling of this in.
n
lema,
come tax," arid thr Hon. Gen. " with my consent shall be
applied to the war in Affehanistan." Noir 1 shell not
enter into
discussion of the Indian policy ; but I think the House will sus.
pend its judgment upon that subject until they have full informa-
tion with regard to it laid Ltrae them. I shall not offer any opinion
as to the policy welch we mese), ultimately find it necessary to pre;
eery, in India; but' I trust the House will suspend its judgment as
to the course which' it may adqpt if it should be found that British
lives had been sacrificed in consequence of grass Perfidy, and a vio-

lation of the laws of nations. The Hon. Member for Lambeth g Mr. ROEBUCK—Certainly.
ti
has said that the Affehans are engaged in a war for their inde. i Sir R. PEEL proceeded—A clergyman has a certain income, and
pendence ; and he added that he would hold me responsible for the ' he holds it only for his life; am Ito calculate, then, in this case,
1 war in Affghanistan ; but I musi say that when I first heard of the the balance of his life interest ? If I thus deal with all cases of
war across the Indus, I expressed great doubt as to its policy. this kind I must take away entirely Schedule A.
I did not forget the language used by a Gallant Officer, who has ' Again, take the case of two brothers, each having 5,0001.,
fallen a victim to his zeal in the public service—l mean Sir Alex- one vests his sum in the funds, and receives 21 per cent.
ander Burnes, who said that the attempt to restore Shah Soojah to for his mouey ; the other purchases a living and insures his
the throne from which.he was expelled in 1800, would be a mea- life. Shall I make a deduction in the case of the one so as to ren.
sure in which failure might be attended with the worst couse. tier his position similar to that of the other ? I have put all those
quences. I said at the time that the attempt to restore Shah cases to show that if lam to act on the principle of making such. Soojah to the throne of Aftghanistan would very much resemble the valuations and allowances, I had better abandon the tax altogether.
policy of attempting to force Charles X. upon the throne of France- 1 say again, that this income tax is a necessary measure in time
It appeared that the character of Shah Soojah was held in the of war, and when great exertions are to be made,
greatest contempt by those who were called upon to submit to his looking at the necessity that may arise of imposing a tax of 10 per
rule. I must disclaim most decidedly, for myself and those with cent., and if the pressure be great of imposing even a greater amount
whom I act, all responsibility for the expedition beyond the Indus ; than 10 per cent, rather than have recourse to the system of bor.
but I shall, nevertheless, take such means as British rowing money and funding; that it would he better to have no income
honour and British interests may require in India, tax at ail than to establish such a state of things as would necessarily
with as much alacrity, and as riilach good faith and earnestness as arise from the operation of the principle advocated 'on the other
if I had been a party to the original movement in Affghanistan. side. If I have to take the case of an annuitant, and grant her an
But to return to our financial condition, I find a deficit in this exemption, then I must abandon the principle upon which
country which has amounted within the last six years to the tax is founded, namely, that every man
10,000,000/. ; while there has been a deficit in India to the should conti ibate a certain sum according to his means.amount of nearly 5,000,0001., for the last two years alone. Ido I hope that I have sufficiently stated the grounds upon which I are
submit to the deliberate judgment of this House. and of those who of opinion that, if we did resort to a tax upon income, we ought to
have sent us here, whether, under those circumstances, it is not. call upon all incomes to contribute equally with those abatements
incumbent on-ats to make some great exertion for the purpose of and reductions only, which were specified in the Act, and that
Irescuing ourselves from such a tenalitien. I think it would be nothing could be more unwise than to attempt to change the income
mere delusion to suppose that our diffieulties would be removed by tax into a tax upon capital or property. With respect to the
any ordinars means. Ido not say that you should impose an details I have not the sliglgest objection to give my attentive con.
income tax because there was :a war in Affghanistan, and a war sideration to any moditications*hich may be suggested, but with
in China, but I tell you to review the whole of your respect to the main principle of the proposal—namely, the levying
financial position, and I think you will find that thos two of a duty of 7d. per pound upon income—that is the proposal which
causes, concurrently with others, call for some great I have made to the House, add that is the proposal which I mean to
exertion on your parts, of some kind or another, urge as far as I can upon their acceptance, clearly foreseeing the
I have been told that the adaption of the Budget prepared by the consequences of abatements and exemptions of such a nature as
late Ministry would have enabled us teemed our financial difficul- .those which had been urged by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.._
ties ; but I entirely dissent from' that opinion. The last Chan. lam told that another great objection to this tax is, that it en.
cellor of the Exchequer contemplated an increase in the sugar duty couraged perjury and fraud. Now, as such is stated to
of 7,00,00e1., in consequence of the admission of foreign sugar, but be the effect of direct taxation. I should like to know what is the
that increase has been realized as nearly as possible without effect- effect of indirect taxation.—(Hear, hear.) I should like to know
ing any change in the duty which existed at the time. With re. what is the tendency of the Excise duties, and of all the regulations
spect to the duly on corn it is difficult to form an estimate of what with respect to distilleries.—(Hear, hear.) Taxation of some kind
the duty on it tnay produce. The Noble Lord calculated that the or other is inevitable'. I quite agree with the Hon. and Learned
same number of quarters would be introduced under Gentleman that nothing can be more frivolous or more absurd than
his duty as under the (wile of one shilling ; but I cannot extreme sensitivencs as to what people are worth. I believe there
see how he could assume that-would be the case. With is generally a very good estimate fortned amongst those who care
respect to timber, I admit that the duty proposed by the party about other people's property, or the state of their credit.—(Hear,
opposite would produce a latter amount of revenue than mine. hear.) There is a keen instinctive sense of what a man is worth ;
that proposition was to reduce the duty on foreign timber by 55., either his looks, or his gestures, or something or other, appear to
and to continue the discriminating duties between Canadian and betray it to others.—(Laughter.) And, with respect to this terrible
foreign timber, that in placing a duty of 20s. on Canadian timber, inquisition into men's affairs, and the disclosures which must
and 50s. on foreign timber. I admit that would realise more titan follow, Ido really believe that if a man is disposed to make a bona
my plan could do, but this I contend for; that if you can afford it tide return of his income to the office, there would be no such tre.
there is no single article in the whole range of custom articles, in mendous consequences as some Hon. Gentlemen have seemed to
which a reduction of duty will tell with a greater effect in encourag. imagine. If there be a disposition to practise fraud and perjury
ing the industry of the country, than the reduction in Canadian for the sake ofsaving 3/. or 4!., there may be some difficulty, but I
timber.—(Hear, hear.) I must express my surprise at hearing the have too high an opinion of the people of this country to suppose that
duty attacked so much by the Honourable gentleman opposite. a tax of 21. 18s. 4d. in the 1001. would supply this temptation to
Hon. Gentlemen opposite had the greatest respect for the audio- perjury. But as I have already said, whatever may be tne inconve.
rity of Mr. Deacon Hume, but what was his opinion ? He says, niences of direct taxation, depend upon it you cannot resort to in.
"If the country can afford to give up the whole amount of the direct taxation, without, as it appears to me, affording, at least in an
limber duties, there is no other article to which it should give a equal degree, a temptation to perjury and fraud.—(Hear, hear.)
freer importation than that of wood. We possess iron and coal, Sir, as I have before stated, Ido not merely propose the income tax
but we' have not wood, and if they could get that article our case for thepurpose of meeting tho deficiency in the public revenue.
would be complete." The ancient policy of the country was to en- Concurrently with meeting that deficiency I propose to make ex-
courage the importation of Wood, and up to the year 1795 the tensive alterations in the tariff. Sir, there has been a dig.
whole amount of duty was only 6s. Sri. Considering wood to be a position entirely to underate and undervalue the changes
raw material, and that it entered largely into all manufactures, the which I propose to make, a disposition in which I must
duty was low for the benefit of the consumers, and it was cot made say that the Honourable Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring)
an article of revenue until theltottest -feria' of the war in 1705. does not participate; for he, who probably knows as much as any
The proposal which I make with respect to the duty on woos, man on the subject, says he cannot deny that the alterations which
is infinitely more favourable tit the consumer than that which I protease in the tariff, are very extensive and most important.—
was made by the Right Hon.' Gentleman opposite, and this I (Hear, hear.) He says I omit two most important articles, namely,
Must repeat, that if I could get a tax on property to the corn and sugar, and he blames me for that omission ; but with
amount of 600,0001. or 700,0001, and could thereby relieve the respect generally to the changes which I propose in the tariff, the
Consumer &dm the weight of the tax on timber, I believe would do Hon. Member thinks they will tend to encourage industry, enter-
more to encourage industry and to restore trade and manufac. prise, and commerce, and therefore hears his valuable testimony in
tures, and to benefit generally all classes of society, than by adopt. their favour.—(Hear, hear.) Now, what were those changes ? In
Mg any ohter means.—(Hear, hear.) I wish lion. Gentlemen the first place, I will notice the removal of the prohibitory duties.
would read tha evidence given on the subject. They would find On this subject an Hon. Gentleman makes a singular charge against
in the Report of the Timber Committee of 1535, and in the Re. me. He says, though I remove the prohibition upon the importa.
port of the Import. Duties Committee of 1840, the most satisfactory
.Lion of foreign cattle, I do nothing, for that the cattle are not yet
evidense that our fisheries were subject to great disadvantage on ac. born.—(Laughter.) I remove the prohibition upon the importa.
count of the timber duties. He wished they would read the evidence tion of foreign cattle, and I permit salt and fresh beef to
of Mr. Mitchell- on the subject, and also as to the effect which come in at a small duty; but it is saltil, that the first
they had on the ship building interest, where it was com- of these changes will confer no benefit at present, because
pletely proved to the House that the shipbuilding was withdrawn the calves are not yet born. lam afraid that I cannot provide for
on account of the timber duties.—(Hear, hear.) And though I that difficulty,—(Laughter.) Some apprehensions have been en.
cannot compare my plan with that of the Right Hon. Gentleman teitained as to the effect of the removal of the prohibition upon the
opposite, as a means of raising a revenue, yet so tar as the benefit of importation Isf fresh meat. I think there is no ground far appre.
the consumer is concerned, the reduction of the duty on colonial hension. The effect will, undoubtedly be, to cheapen provisions ;
timber to a nominal amount, and on Baltic timber from 555. to 30s. but I think those in England and Scotland who entertain appre-
appears to ms one of the most advantageous measures which it is 'tensions on this subject greatly overrate the danger to the ;eh,

possible to adopt, not in a financial point of view, but as far as the
interests of the consumer. are - concerned.—(Hear, hear.) It
is said I am presenting 711—gToomy view of the finances
of the country, and that I have said there was no other mode
of raising the revenue than hrving recourse to an income tax.
I said no such thing. lam certain there are other menus. I think
if I were to reimpose some of the 20 millions of taxes which were
remitted altar the war, 'should be able to procure a revenue,but I do
not think I should, by increasing the taxes on commodities subject
to the present excise and customs. The Right lion. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Baring) when speaking of the five per cent. which
he imposed, thought he was very triumphant on the omission of
duties or. corn, but he did not take any credit fur the duties on
sugar, deducting the duty on corn, and sugar the sum, which
hod been received in 1840, was 17,532,0001. ; the sum which was
received in 1842 with a 5 per cent. addition, was 17,960,000/. but

Age. aernsk.
_
of per.uitting the importation of fresh meat into this country.--
(Hear, hear.) With respect to timber, the proposed duties will be
almost nominal. Foreign ornamental wood I have reduced to the
lowest price. At present we labour under a great disadvantage
in competing with foreigners in the manufacture of furniture;
of the ett...ct of the alteration—fir to remove that disadvantage—
will not that be a benefit.--( Hear, hear.) I have reduced the
duty on every kind of foreign wood except rosewood, and I have
ny doubt when we have concludtxl a treaty with Brazil, that will
be added to the rest. But I am told that we ought to proceed upon
the principle of remitting the duty on every article of foreign pro-
duction, entirely regardless of whst foreign countries may do in
return. Now abstractedly I am not prepared to deny that that
would be good policy.—(Hear, hear.) I am not prepared to deny
that to buy at the best market, without reference to others, would,
in the abstract, be good policy. But at' the same time it cannot be

it ought to have been, if the 5 per cent. adpition had realised the
Hon. Gentleman's expectations, I 8,409,000 L and from that I in-
_

denied, on the other hand, that it would be a great advantage to us
if vie could induce foreign countries.to make a correspond..

fer that with respect to articles of the discrlption on which the
additional 5 per cent: was imposed, we have arrived at the limit of
taxation, and thit it would not, he wise to lay any additional
taxes upon them. But if I go back to other articles in respect of
which taxation has been removed, I shall have no doubt I shall be
able to raise a revenue, and perhaps carry with me the assent of
the majority of the House of Commons, but I thought
that more just towards the great body of the people.
to resort to a property tax.—(Cheers.) I might take leather, and
I have no doubt by imposing a tax on it. I would derive a cunsi.
derable revenue. 1 might also derive a very large revenue from
salt, and also from a tax on beer—but I say it is mote just aad po-
litic to meet the difficulties in which we are placed by imposing as
income tax, than by removing those indirect taxes, which cannot be
imposed without creating thegreatest pressureon industry, without
ing trade and manufactures into which those articles have largely
entered on their repeal, to expose myself to the objection that I laid
a tax on articles of consumption, which would be so much felt by
the labouring classes of the country—(Cheers)--and it is
on that account that I prose a property.tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir, there are other objections to my plan which have been chiefly
urged by the lion. Member for L;skeard, and the first was that
which had been commented on by the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man, that there is a great objection to direct taxation, because it
diminished the fund out of which the labourer was paid. But if
I impose a salt tax would it not have accted as sensibly on the
funds of the working man ? I confess I was greatly surprised at
hearing it urged that there 'was a fatal objection to the tax.—
(Hear, hear.) You cannot adopt any measure more likely to keep
up public credit than by showing a determination to raise the sup-
plies with the yearly direct taxation, and I cannot say,
for .anything I have seen, that 'there is any great indication
of the public funds being affected. The next objection
tax we were driving capitalists
which he put was, that byaninccerie
from the country; and tharft:would have a great tendency to pro-
mote that effect. But though lee went abroad, what was to pre-
vent him from paying the tax, as the landlord paid it ?—(Cheers.)
The direct taxation will subject him to a contribution of the ex.
penditure. From that he could not extricate himself whether he
had property in land or in the funds. The benefit of direct taxa-
tion is that for whatever object lie goes abroad, he will not be able to
relieve himself from contributing to the revenue of the country,
and he will be compelled to, pay his fair share. But I believe the
plan which I propose will have the effect of reducing the cost of
living in this country. I 'expect that will be the
result of the reduction - I propose in the tariff. If
the cheapness of living abroad induce parties to leave the
country I believe that the cost of living at home being rednccd by
the duty on those articles which enter into manufactures, being
lessened and the prohibitroy duties on articles of provision being
lowered so far from an income tax having a tendency to drain cap-
ital out of the country, the general effect of the measure will be
to invite its return and to insure its stay.—(Cheers.) The Hon.
Gentleman says that he has compared the legacy dutiee and person.
al poperty for the last three years with the duty paid in 1816, and

ing reduction.—(Hear, hear., hear) I have no doubt that it
would be a great advantage to France, to remit the duty upon
brandy. I belly° also that it would be a great advantage to both
countries if France were to admit the manufactures of Sheffield.
I do not see why we should at once resign every advantage, by im-
mediately remitting our duties. I trust that Portugal, Brazil,
Spain, and other countries would see the advantage to be derived
from a reciproeal reduction of duties. That that reduction ought
to be made on the part of foreign countries, as well as on our
own, cannot be denied, and it is upon that ground that I object to
a precipitate reduction of duty here without claiming, as-an equi-
valent, a corresponding reduction in - foreign countries.—(Hear.)
You undertake to say that the reductions I make in the tariff are
not calculated to diminish the cost of living or to increase our
manufactures. Now, look to the reductions which I propose in
the duties on oils—look to- the reuctions which I propose in the
duties on dye stuffs, PII rosins—all articles osed to a considerable
extent in manufactures.—(Cheers.) Look, again, at the articles
of skins and fura.-..(Cileers.) I have greatly lessened the amount
of duty levied on many articles, the manufacture of foreign
countries. Now, what will be the effect of that ? The present
duty sounds like a prohibition, but it is not so in fact. The
smuggler takes care to ensure you a supply of the article, in
spite of your prohibitory duties.—(Laud opposition cheers.)
What, then, is the use of retaining a duty Of 40 per
cent, when the smuggler will ensure you a supply
at a cost of 10 per cent. on the value as a repayment for the risk
he runs. The article is not the less brought into consumption,
but the profit goes into the pocket of the smuggler. Now, by the
reductions which I propose, I shall enable the merchant to know
precisely what he has to contend with, and relieve him from that
uncertainty in making his calculations under which he must neces.
sarily labour in consequence of bang dependent upon the smug-
gler.—(Cheers.) There is the article of gloves, for instance. It is
impossible to prevent the importation of them. The smuggler
will take care that there shall be a sufficent supply. Now I have
remitted a large portion of the, duty on foreign manufactured
leather, and that, in my opinion, will be of great advantage to the
consumer.—(Cheers.) But it has been said that, on the whole,
the reductions which I have proposed in the tariff will tend to in-
crease the consumption—will tend to cheapen time necessaries of life.
When the Hon. Gentleman denied that there would be any advan-
tage in the proposed alterations in the tariff, in cheapening the cost
of living, an Hon. Friend near me whispered to me, that he was a
member of a Board of Guardians—that he had just returned from
attending the Board, and that they had entered into a contract for
furnishing the Union with provisions next year, which contract
was 20 per cent. lower than it had been last year.—(Ministerial
cheers.) Now from that it appears that you will obtain a reduction
in the poor-rates; not in consequence of any encroachment on the
comforts of the poor---not-in consequence of any diminution in the
amount paid fur the solace of the deserving poor—but in conse-
quence of the great reduction in the articles of consumption, by
which the cost of living is so much lessened, that you arc enabled
to maintain your house at much less cost than formerly.—(Cheers.)

be says that he has found an immense increase in it. Why, that

now come to consider the reductions proposed in articles of colo-

argument is rather in favour of the tax. Toe teturns on the sub.
ject show that there is - a tendency to accumulation'.
That is a circumstance that operates in favour of my
measure that property ought to baar the increased burdens

nial produce. Thellon. Gentleman says that in passing this mea.
sure I refuse altogether to listen to any argument, but that I rely
solely upon a majority to support me in carrying whatever measures
' may propose. Now if I felt sure of possessing that majority I car

of the state and not articles of consumption. The Hon. Gentle-
man, as well as the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller)
addrrssed himself to what they considered the gross injustice of this
tax. They are quite content to have a tax on property, but object
to a iax income—that is to a tax derived from the incomes of pro.
fessions and of trades.
Mr. ROEBUCK made an observation across the table, which
was not audible id the gallery.
Sir It. PEEL went on to say, the Hon. Gentleman then does not
object to the inquisitorial nature of the machinery by which this
tax must be levied. He is certainly singular in that opinion
among the Gentlemen who ,spoke from the opposito side of the
House on this subject. They said that the tax upon incomes de-
rived from trade and professsions was objectionable not on ac.
count of the amount to be raised, but on account of the inquisitorial
nature of its machinery, Such was the objection urged
by the great body of the Gentleman who spoke on the opposstc side.
When I look to what objections to this tax are, I cannot admit the
force of the odjection against falling upon the incomes as derived
from professions and from trade, in order to their contributing to
their share to this tax. It would not, in my mind, be fair to entail
the whole burden of the tax upon incomes thrived from land. I
am not singular in that opinion. It was the opinion distinctly
avowed by I)ord Althorp. That Noble Lord said—" I have heard
gentlemen speaking of laying on a property tax ; a tax upon capital,
upon rene, upon interest on money, upon mortgagns, Olson annui-
ties, &c., and that productive capital, say capital vested in manu-
factures, should be exempt. But I ask Honourable Gentlemen
to consider what would be the effect of this—what the num-
ber of persons possessing small Incomes of that descrip-
tion. Let them figure to themselves a small freeholder
living in tf-,e neighbourhood of a great manufacturer—what his
feelings would be at finding his little property heavily taxed, while
his wealthy neighbour was exempt. If the legislature can adopt
such a proposition they will commit a great injustice. The ab-
solute property of all classes must be taked, or none at all." That
was the opinion of Lord Athorp at the time when he was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Now what are the objections against
this tax, which was to be imposed but for a limited period, and in
order to make all parties contribute a portion of their incomes for
the public service. It is contended that it is au act of injustice to
tax all incomes generally and according to the same rule, and that
there ought to be some discrimination on account of the tenure of
incomes, and the sources from which they are derived. I say
if you adopt that principle, you better abandon the
the income tax altogether.—(Opposition cheers.) How is it pus.
sible to apply any direct taxation according to that principle. Does
the beer tax operate equally—does the house tax—does the window
tax operate equally ? Are the assessed taxes equal ? Don't all
taxation, whether direct or indirect, of necessity operate unequally ?
--(Ministerial cheers.) Now take the case of the professional man.
Suppose we are arguing the case of direct taxation against the pro.
fessional man. I will show that the owner of land, &c. can
readily escape indirect taxation. He can remove to any part of the
Continent he pleases, and can still draw his rent. He is not
obliged to live in this country. Whereas the professional
man—the medical man—the lawyer—is necessarily, by his
condition of life, forced to remain in this country.
and consequently obliged to subr it to indirect taxation. But
how am Ito proceed to adopt the principle you suggest ? You
say that incomes derived from real property ought to be subject
to the tax, but that incomes derived front professions and trade
ought itto be free, partly from the inquisitorial nature of the ma_
chinery of the tax, and partly from the fluctuating and changeable
❑ature of that description of property. Is an officer on half-pay
to be taxed, and the physician who is realizing eight thousand or
ten thousand pounds a.year not to be taxed ? You say that an-
nuitants for a term of years ought not to be subjected to the same
amount of taxation as the man who derives hi.; income from capi-
tal. Will you subject the widow, who has only a jointure for
life to depend on for her kuppor t, to this tax
Mr. ROEBUCK—Certainly 'not.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—With respect to life-interests in estates,
is there to be a distinction made between property in ice simple and
property with respect to which there is only a life interest.—
(Hear, hear.) Suppose I have a life interest in an estate which is
to fall to a distant relation, for whom I feel no particular degree of
interest, is it to be calculated what my interest in the estate is,
supposing that I depended entirely on that property for my means
of support—surely in that respect regard must be had to my tenure
of that property.

. an
assure the lion. Gentleman that that would only makesty me the
more desirous of listening to any arguments which might be
offered against my plan.—(Cheers.) And if any suggestion should
heoffered which 1 consider an improvement on the tariff, so far
from feeling the slightest shame at acknowledging that it was an
improvement, I would be the very first to acknowledge my error,
and to adopt the suggestion.—(Loud cheers.) With regard to the
great principle of the tariff, however, when I consider the great re-
duction 1 have proposed, I indulge the confident hope, if the tariff
should be adopted, that it will lead to the great improvement of our
trade and to the increased prosperity of our country. With regard
to the details, as I said before, if any suggestion shall be offered
which I may consider as improvements upon the original proposi-
tion, I shall not hesitate a moment in adopting them.—(Hear,
hear.) With regard to the colonies—
Lord HO WICK—The differential duties.
Sir it. PEEL—I am certainly not prepared to say that there
should be no diff:rential duties in favour of our colonial produc.
tions. The question is a very extensive one. In the first place
you must consider the disadvantages under which the colonies
labour.—(llear, hear.) You compel them to receive their manu-
factured articles from the mother-country.—(Hear, hear,) Is it
unfair, therefore, to give the articles of colonial production a
preference na the home market.--(Loud cheering.) , I am
disposed to this k that the true principle, if it could be
adopted, would be to consider the colonies in precisely
the same light as if they were integral parts of our own empire.
At the same time I am bound to admit that there are exceptions ;
as, for instance, where the article is not exclusively one of colo-
nial produce, but when it is likewise the produce of this country as
of a foreign country. In that case -the consumer ought to have the
advantage; but where there is a competition solely between the
colony and a foreign country, in that case I think that In justice to
the colony a differential duty ought to be imposed. But this prin-
ciple of a differential duty in favour of our own colonial produc-
tions is no new principle. It is a principle which has always been
acted on. It is a principle which you yourselves have
adopted.—(Loud cheers.) On what principle did you im.
pose a different and a lower rate of duty on rough rice
the produce of the coast of Africa than on that of the produce of
America. On what ground did you impose different duties on East.
India sugar and on East India rum.—(Cheers.) I merely mention
this for the purpose of showing that I am introducing no new prin.
ciple in establishing differential duties In favour of our colonial.
productions. There are differential duties already existing on up.
wards of seventy articles in the tariff in favour of colonial produc-
tions. With regard to the details of the tariff, as I stated before, I
am perfectly open to conviction, and if 1 should consider that the
arguments should preponderate in favour of a modification, I shall
have no difficulty whatever in assenting to it.—(Cheers.) I believe
there is not any other part of the plan to which I need now advert
Hon. Gentlemen opposite would themselves I think admit that I
and those with whom I act have undertaken a task of extreme
difficulty.—(Cheers.) They will admit that at the period of our
accession to office we found many difficulties to contend with.—
(Cheers.) We found a war in A ffghanistan.—(Hear, hear.) We
found the Chinese hostilities unsettled—(Cheers)—and we found, I
regret to say, existing between this country and France a
spirit of jealousy —I will not call it hostility—but a
spirit of jealousy, in consequence of the events of
last year, the existence of which we cannot but deeply
deprecate.—(Loud cheers,) I consider it of the utmost import-
ance that those feelings of good-will which of late years we were
old had existed between France and this country should be renewed,
that the ancient relations between this country and France should
emain undisturbed, that the commercial intercourse be.
tween the two countries should be extended.—(Year, hear.)
All these I consider to be of the utmost importance
at the same time I must say that I willl not consent to make any
concessions unsuited to the honour and welfare of the country, be..
cause I consider that by preserving the honour of this country. I
take the best means for preset ving peace.—(Cheers.) But as the
cause of disunion no longer exists as the five Powers are now
acting amicably together as regards the Eastern question, I trust
that the good feeling which did exist between this country
and France will soon be renewed.— ( Loud cheers.)—
We found our relations with the United States in an unsettled
state, the question of the Canada boundary having remained in
that state for a series of years. Above all, we found the finances
of the country in a most unsatisfactory state--(Hear, hear)—and
we felt it our duty to apply ourselves to the proposal of those

AT
esassa.taavessessam.asa,amrseessasslaramrsaesTrlsmrsrasargrraarsasse-assrasserse ' - AV lllii
:measures which we considered the best suited .ta tea ,qiz.,
replace our finances on a sound and satisfactory bards....jllsar ) a.;-*.i' 44:
Sir, lam charged that this measure—this measure of aVtie-Ome ''''t --. :
. tax—is a measure not only proposed upon the wholo auto •" ''`u- "fti,, lII,'
the Government, but that it is a measure upon which sfiq of '.-t" Ls* :te:%-i ~",
the Government exists. I think, to make any declaratiow, I tch ~.____.;' ' TAT-r...5),4--", a subject, would be entirely uncalled fur; that, supposingAOrt I '.', f.e--7'eaa-'!"i';•:,
tC f ---.
could iu the present state of aflairs, propose such a measuremi.,itiat j/.....;"---;2''‘,..-",c7-ti. v hich I have proposed, without considering the fate of the GOik'rn ," r - '— ,'
' -1----
of the
ment, been involved in the decition, such a declaration appears to ' •'...j/As
me scarcely necessary. I did propose it on the responsibility
Government. I did propose it as the financial and 4;ornmercial
policy of the Government, a measure which I never would have
consented to have proposed if I did not enter tain.a manifest con-
viction of its necessity, end risking my fate as a Minister upon it._
(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The more I consider,
the moredeeply aml convinced of that measure, the measures corn.
trifled with it are neCessari fo:thewelfare tit' the State. I relinquished
office before in 1535, because .1 :Would not consent to an acquies-
enee in a principle which I felt not to be founded on justice. I
propose now air alteration, and if the House of Commons
should overrule that proposal, I shall retire with perfect conttrit,
and with a•ennseioustress that I have discharged the duty which I
owed to the country, by proposing a measure PS characterised by
one of my opponents as a bold, a direct, and honest measure; and
if that is the characteristic of it, It is well stilted to the exigencies
of the present time.—(Cheers.) This is a period in which you re-
quire fiat the measures you propose should he a bold—should be
directjaec
te d. one—Now , shouldthe at
tbeernapttis honestwiiieh areo te
made —(Cheers.) t
h eeo
rests which I am supposed to have affected to unite thent in ncl) It may be re-
e those inte-
rests
oppo-
sition to this income tax. It may possibly prevail-1 doubt it.-.
(Cheers from the Ministelial side.) 1 doui.it whether there
will not be an opinion on the part of the country—a conviction
that the time is come when a vigorouf exertion should be made.
That the time is come when, for the intereA 'of property, that pro-
perty should be tatted. But my opinion may be over-ruled, and yet
I have confidence that what occurred id 1E35 may occur again—
that, after the lapse of a short time after making ineffectual at.
tempts to repair the finances by other means by resorting to indi-
rect taxes, it will be ultimately seen that the measures which I rio w
propose is foundcd in reason and in justice. After the lapse of a
short time, I shall see the House of Commons adopt that measure
which they had rejected, but I believe that, with the prevailing feel-
ing of the country, that they will now adopt that moasure—that
they will not draw delusive distinctions between the times of war
and peace, and that we shall adopt that bold, that honest, that
direct measure which, so far from being misconstrued by foreign
countries, will be held up by them as a proof of the ancient vigour
of the country, that the energies of the people are yet alive to the
difficulties, and will ride triumphantly over them on account of that
energy. (The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst loud
cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and said—Mr. Greene, I hope
weaare coming to a decision upon this question.--(Loud cries of
' " No, no."( I shall confine myself solely to the income tax, and
that with respect to the commercial tariff, upon which the Right
Hon. Baronet naturally found it necessary ,:o make some observe.
tions. I will entirely reserve anything I should have to say to
' some futuae occasion, when this iariff will be before the House.
Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet commenced his speech by making
some remarks upon what had fallen from Hon. Friend the Member
for Liskeard, with respect to the tone in which the Riget Hon. Bart.
had addressed the House. Sir, if his tone was always in consonance
with his speech on the first night of this question—(lcer, hear)__
or. with the speech made to.nigh, 1 do not think the Hon. Gentle-
man )Mr; Buller) would have thought it ncessary to make any ob.
nervation respecting it. But I certainly do think that, upon
more than one occasion, the tone did justify the objections of my
Hon. Friend. With respect to the speech in the recapitulation of tha
plan of the Right Hon. Baronet, we certainly do not complain.
But a few days afterwards, my Right Hon. Friend, who held the
post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a right, as much sa
any person in this House, to ask questions with respect to financial
. measures; he ventured to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what was the
machinery by which his proposal was to be carried into effect.
Why the Right Hon. Baronet not only refused him an answer, bu t
refused it with a sneer—(Hear, hear, and cheers)--for whatever
might be the politics of Mr. Pitt, everybody must admit that no
Matter what measure was brought forward, he had at all times
preserved an unanimity and courtesy towards all parties, which
must be admired, not only by those who were during his time in
Parliament, but by succeeding generations.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Baronet was pleased to say, that we, upon this side of the
, House, would have opposed any measure which might have been
brought forward by him. It was hardly necessary to give any
answer to that statement, but it showed the tone and temper with
which the Right Hon.-Gentleman was disposed to discuss the ques.
tion.--(Loud cheers.) Having said so much, Sir, in justification
of my Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
I will now proceed to diseuss the question before the Committee.
The Right Hon. Gentleman to-night has stated what the proposition
was to be ; we have heard many gentlemen state the great hardships
attending our income tax ; several Hon. Members expressed their
hopes that there should be some modification in the measure pro-
posed by the Right Hon, Gentleman, The Hon. Member for Berk-
shire said that there should be some modification in it; another
Hon. Gentleman showed clearly the injustice of an income :tax par.
ticularly upon annuitants, and instanced a case in which he wes,him.
self concerned, where he shewed that '21,7001. was embarked
in annuities, and where 15,0001. were for terminable ennui.
ties, but only the remaining 6,000/. should be taxed, but
he proved to you that the tax, according to the proposed
measure, would fall upon the whole 21,7001., and not upon the
15,0001. Other Honourable Gentlemen had shown the obvious
difference between incomes, between 500/. or 600/. a year, derived
from property, and the same sum made by persons in professions,
or others whose incomes might not, in all probability. last more
than five or six years, during which this income tax would
conntinue ; these were the inequalities which were pointed
out not only by Honourable Gentlemen upon tnis side
of the House, but also by several lion. Gentlemen also, upon tha
the Ministerial side.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
What was the answer of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? His answer
was, that though these inequalities might exist, it would be im.
1 possible to remove them, and if it was attempted to remove them,
it would be better for hitn to abandon the measure t ltogether.
Sir, I think the Right Hon. Gentleman's reasons upon that point
are sound reasons. I certainly would not force any modification
upon the Right Hon. Gentloinan—and though I did not expect
that the direct opposition to this tax would be caisied, yet if any
modification of it was carried, I should be to some extent respon-
sible for it. I feel I should be taking the measure out of the hands
of the Right Hon. Gentlemen, rail that I would be answerable for
whatever modifications were made. If there was only one objec-
tion to this measure, and that was on the ground of ineque`ity, I
might be ready to join with those who thought it ought to be
modified; but as the ineasoae stands. I feal that the Right Hon.
Gentleman is correct in his argainent. I thiale lie is sight that
you cannot attempt to remely one ineque-ty with.
out meeting others which were just as clef— and as glaring
as that.—(Hear, hear.) Then, Sir, I shall noevote for any mod'.
fication of this measure, as the lion, Member for Bath hes said,
" You must, when imposing this tax, see all the eircenistances of
a man's life." If you do that which could be done between life
assurance companies and individuals, between the Government
and, individuals, you will be doing that which will be leaving the
fate of the Government of the count./ entirely in the hands of
the executive. Besides, you will be sanciioring a system of
partiality, and a most objectionable inquisition. I then concur
in that part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's obse. sations, in which
he stated that you must take this proposition as it is -that the
Committee and the House must be prepared too deal with this pro-
position as it now stands, and therefore in taking it as it now
stands it has every kind of inequality, and its inequality you can.
not remedy.—(Hear, he. ^.) The Right Hon: Gentleman said
that you would ea'y increase the evils if you attempt I it. You
must then take it vs it is. You are to consider whether a measure
like this is to be resorted to only in ,times of danger.
--(Hear.) The question is whether there is that pitb"c necessity
which would make you avec to the imposition of such a tart ?
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gehtleman has said, 1,1 referring to
authorities, that such a tax had been resorted to already in times of
peace; but there are authorities I; kewise to show what the
statements made with respect to the Government were,
whose acts the Right Honourable Gentleman was now fol-
lowing. In 1806, when Lord Grenvile was a member of the
Goveloment, and Lord Lansdowne was Chancellor of the
Exchequer, a discussion took place with respect to the intent:on of
those Ministers to continue the income tax in times of peace, and
Lord Lansdo% de at that time clergy said, that :Al these taxes
should teaminate in times of peace. He concluded by saying
that he had proposed the continuing of that tax in 1807 es a war
, tax, without the slightest idea of continuing it during the time of
peace, and there was nothing in the then state of the country, or in
the state of Europe, which' required it. It was only required
during war and with it it ought to terminate;—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") Lord Grenville spoke afterwards, and he was, If
possible, more emphatic, for he apper'ed to their Lordships and the
Government, saying that when they asked for that odious and in.
quisitorial measure, he thought it was only to be continu-..1 dosing
the time of war.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
finds faolt with us because we call it an inquisitorial measure, and
he says that if it be so he will not presss it, but I have shown that
these are the terms with which Lord Grenville, who we.; a party to
it at first designated it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, a tax may
be odious and inquisitorial, it may be unjust, but still
it may be preferable to bringing the country under the
power of a foreign Government—it may be preferable to the loss
of independence, and to evils threatening our country—then it may
be perfectly justifiable ; rod I think it was in the time when Mr.
Pitt originally carried it, and when the Government of 1806
thought fit to continue and increase it. But I by no means sup-
pose such a measure to be necessary now for the peace of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) It is almost impossible to compare the times
of a mutiny at the Nore, a rebemon in Ireland, and the Republic of
France,.• its principles
sometimesproceeding makingwinaythiberw
its
irasaromf
sa,girt:atarnhisis makingtorian,
way for its
principles; and sometimes like a chain shot, carrying
both together."
When Napoleon was calrying devastation abroadaand this country
found itself obliged to go to we- for the mr'ntenance of its power,
that was the period when this tax was to be imposed. When,
again, Napoleon became successful, and gained several battles,
and brought the Prussian monarchy to his feet, and hal be-
come arrogant in Ills treaties, then this country
was called on for an increased tax. Is there anything in the
public necessities now to be compared with those?—(Cheers.)
Would it not be ridiculous it I were to compare what happened to
our troops in Affghar'sten, and the length end expense of the war
in China ? If • I were to compare them I say, with what
I have just mentioned, would it not be most lidi
culous.—(Hear, hem) lire Right Hon. Gentleman has
spoken of the war in Affghanistan. But no question was ever
raised in this House as to the policy of that War. The Right Hoe.
Member for Dorchester did give a notice of that kind, but he
?flex wards withdrew it.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore say there was
no public disapprobation of the step expressed.—(Cilea of
" Hear, hear.") But even if the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite
had formally e'sapproved•of that ma-, I concur in the determination
which the Right Hun. Gentleman has expressed that you must main-
tain that war. But I have the greatest confidence that before many
despatches shall reach this country, the unfortunate disasters which
have occurred may be repaired by her Majesty's arins.—(Hear.)
With respect to China likewise, whatever difficulty you may have
in defeating them, you may say at least that there are no effints
they can make which will at all affect you, or endager the most
distant possessions of her IT jesty.—(Hear.) With respect to these
occurrences, I observe that there is a great difference iu the words
of the Government according to the object immediately in view;
thus, when the purpose is to make a case against an
income tax, we are told that peace prevails, and that there
is no occasion for it;. but when the purpose Is to make
out a case for an income tax, then this peace becomes hostility.
There arc some very pardonable hostilities. But we cannot take it
both ways.—(Hear, hear.) If there have been hostilities in Ca.
nada, China, and Atfghatisstan, do not then make it a matter of
blame to us that the usual consequences of hostilities should happen
or that, during the time, your revenue.—(hear, hear.) But if you
take it on the other hand, and using common parlance, say,
as in her Majesty's late Speech, that we are at peace
with the great powers of Europe, and the United States of
America, when we do not mention France, Austria, Prussia,
or the United States, and say nothing which portends war—don't
tell me that an income tax is required because of dangerous hostill.
ties.—( Hear, hear.) One of these two courses must be taken, and
I hope we shall decide by a vote to-night that we are at peace, and
that being at peace there is no necessity for the income tax.—
(Hear, hear.) But as I cannot think that these hostilities arc suf-
ficient grounds for the imposition of an income tax, 1 consider the
case is really this, that there is a deficiency in the revenue of :,;,,vao,
millions and a halt: It comes simply to that. I will allow
during this year, and say for three or four years to come, yourrenue
revenue
may will cause an expense above what the ordinary
may be expected to be of three millions and a half. Granting
that to be the state of our finances, is that a sufficient ground for
the imposition of the income tax ? Hear;
Exchequer,
ohowed
hear.) I think my
s
' Right lion: Friend, the late Chancellor pro
over
the ground time took, n th
d not wish to g
clearly that it is not.—(Hear,.hear.
or state the points which think were not
been answered, but he sbowed that twenty-five millions of taxes
have been reduced, and even without going to articles of general
such as salt and leather, yet, I find that hundreds of
tlmud consumption,s
of pounds have been surrendered on articles on which
'they might have been again imposed with fat less injury to the