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

you need entertain no apprehensions ; the prices of pro-
visions will not be lowered ; you have nothing to fear,
and the consumer has nothing to hope." When the
Corn Bill tit as under consideration the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet said he was constantly placed between the fire
of two parties. Those on his (Mr. C. Buller's) side
of that House told him (Sir R. Peel) that his measure
would not admit an atom of foreign corn ; and if he re-
plied to it, up got an agricultural Member, and said—
" Oh, you are going to ruin us by deluging us with fo-
reign corn." In th present discussions the Right Hon.
Baronet leant 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
Han. Baronet had not stated the fact so broadly as he
(Mr. C. Buller) had put it—(Ministerial cheers)—but
he would apeal to any Gentleman who had heard the de-
bates, it' that were not the purport and intention
of the argument which the Right Eon. Baronet had
urged, according to whether it was a free trade Govern-
ment en 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
Si ene Honourable Gentlemen on his (the Oppo-
sition) side of the Bouse, who voted for the
present Bill, not because they liked an Income-tax,
het because they had a great fancy for direct taxation.
They liked a Propert e- 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.
lead 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thought that the tax on incomes would be repealed, and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 ou property retained. Those who thought so
only deceived themselves very much. His Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Member for Bath, (Mr. Roebuck)
had a notice of motion on the paper to the ell'ect 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
Plum Gentlemen opposite would consent to a tax on
property without a tax on incomes. He (Mr. B.) con-
curred in the proposal of his lion and Learned Friend
from mere motives of humanity. It 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 lion. and Learned Gentleman's proposition was foun-
ded on justice, for if they would exempt the professional
man, why hot also exempt the holder of a life estate ?
The amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Bath was glaringly unjust. When they exempted any
kind of income from the tax they only left the remainder
more unjust. 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
musteejectit altogether or take it in all its injustice. He
must confess that the more he dwelt on the subject
the more strong were his objections to the tax alto-
gether, and the more strong was his conviction of the
utter fallacy of the opinion in favour of the policy of a
direct taxation—direct taxation on income. All taxation
takes equally from the means of every man's enjoyment;
tin income was no measure of that enjoyment. A young
-vprefessional man had one income, the man more ad-
towed in life had a much larger one. The man
with a large family saved one proportion, the
man without a family saved another. He
would defy theirs to meet these differences
with direct taxation. Different classes lived in different
styles ; but on all these, they came with their rough
and barbarous direct taxation, which he agreed was a
direct taxation of a barbarous period, by that they swept
away all distinctions, and what came light upon one class,
-weighed with a heavy pressure on another. He did
nut 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 ; fur he thought they were quite just in men-
tioning the amount of assessed taxes that had
tetn repealed since the sear, no less than 4,000,000/.; they
might have recourse to that system of taxation again,
.and raise the revenue by indirect taxation. He
thought from the history of the world that they might
get arguments against taxation. It had always
been a badge of slavery, and the only :instance
he knew of a direct tax in time 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 getting
rid of it from the time of the Revolution, so that the
present moment it was not half the amount which it
was in the time of George 11. The history of
that tax showed the tendency of freemen
to get rid of direct taxation. Yet there was nothing in-
qeisitorial in the land-tax. It was a tax of so
much per acre, not entering into value—a tax
upon the visible means of visible property. Now take
the history of the United States of America.
They „ere accustomed to consider those States
as affhrdinme a specimen of' democratic government, and
therefore of' what the people would do if tbey had their
own way in laying on taxation. Now the history
of the United States was this, that the whole revenue
of the Central Government had always been raised by
indirect taxation, and in the history of all the sepa-
rate States of which the Union was composed,
he knew of only one instance, that of Ohio,in which there
had been a tax upon income and property, except during
the late war.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared that this
tax was to be discussed upon 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
-tanguage used iu the House, which appealed not to the
welfare and interest, but to the bad feeling of those
armies, and he knew not by what other term he
could characterise the language which had been
held on the other side, by gentlemen high in office,
who had attempted to support the tax by refe-
reitee to the fact that the working classes would
escape from it. He knew not how else to
aleseribe the hope expressed by the Right Honourable
ma-onet, that the meetings held on this subject would be
astencLel by persons who had less than 150/. a year.
He conteeded that that was dangerous language, far
more danger ens than any which was used last night. Ile
held that it woui'd be far more wise to concede the Charter
at once, than to tali in aid of this measure the freedom
of the working classes from its operation, He was very
glad to find that that language, inflammatory as it was,
hail produced no effect whatever. By the bye,
he must admit that it had produced no effect.
The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham)
had sncceedsd that evening in presenting a petition froM
2,500 working people in Carlisle, rejoicing in the In-
come-tax. lie did not complain much of this, because
the] a was at least a kind of oscillatory consistency in
in the Right Hon. Baronet's language.—(Hear, hear,
from the Cpposition.) In the inflammatory language
which he held now he recognised the language
which he held in 183 G, wherein he points out
to time execration of the people those whom he then repre-
.sented as fattening upon the spoils of the people by means
.a their, aristocratic influence in legislation, and whom
the denounced as the birds of prey that preyed upon
the people.—(Cheers.) But :he (Mr. C. B.) was happy
to find that, beyond the demagogues of the Treasury
benches, the appeal had not been successful—
the. t no meetings of electors had been disturbed by per-
sons intruding their opinions upon a tax which they
were not to pay. The Chartist press was not conciliated—
the lireehlg Dispatch opposed the tax, so that the
Eight Hon. Gentleman had not secured that approbation
.of that great writer, Publicola."—(A laugh.) He
=would. read to the House a passage from the National
Association Gazette and he must say that a fairer indi-
cation of all the intellect and' good feeling, which there was
aunonee, the Chartists, could not be found than that which
preeeeded from the pen of Lovett. The following
was tae passage to which he referred :—" Sir Robert
Peel loudly boasted that he would not tax the
jabourt:r, and the boast was still more loudly cheered
by the ignorant boobies who thronged the seats of the
Souse at Commons." The Hon. Member continued to
Teed the extract, which stated thatein effect, the Income-
tax would eventually fall upon the industrious classes.
Jiehad thought it right to read that pas-
gaage to time House, to vindicate the body of
ti'ie working men from the suspicion that they
yielded to the arguments which had been
held by Gentlemen opposite, and that they wished for
the hesposition of an Income-tax, because it would fall
only on the rich. The working classes felt that
the-tax ,would press heavily on themselves, and they op-
posed it a.( an encroachment on the comforts of every man
in England. lie apologised to the House for detaining
them so long, but the opposition to the measure
assumed now a different form.—(Cheers.) They were
discussing the details and principles of the Bill, and he
was anxious to take the first proper oppor-
tunity of expressing his opposition to the
e was not sanguine enough to
imagine that he should succeed on the present occasion ;
kme as One who had taken a stroll.. part in opposition to
the Bill, he felt anxious to strong
himself from

the 'lniNropresentations to -which —it appeared all
those wise opposfd either the Bill or the tiovernment
were to bp subjected.—(Loud cheers.) If a Gentle-
man 01T,Ired the slightest opposition to the immediate
progress of the measure, he was told that his
conduct ism factious, and that if he chose to
tal“, an opportunity or 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 Gb..
-ternment to set up Gentleman:after Gentleman to say,
"Oh! von are stopping the tariff; which it is most im-
portant to the best interests of the country should be im.
mediately considered."—(Loud cheers) They had
right fully, freely, and fairly . to discuss, not
'only the had principle of this Measure, but
its still Worse details—(Loud cheers)---and if by so doing
they 'delayeo the tariff, that was not their fault, but
the fault 'of the Government.—(Loud cheers.) If the.
'Governinent chose to press forward thelncome-tax before
the tariff,,tlie responsibility of the delay must rest with
.the Govvrnment and not with them. He knew that he
'vas fighting against a majority—he knew that it
vita s an uphill fight, but he knew that the op-
p osition to the income tax was grounded on reason
an It *Argument, and that when the tax was in operation

when the Englishman should find all his circumstances
exposed to the inquiries of the tax-gatherer, then
would the odium attached to this inquisitorifl,,
impost tall upon the Government.—(Great cheering,:
and every year that it should he kept up the stronger,
the more determined, and ultimately the more successful
would be the Opposition.—(Cheers.)
The question having been put,
Mr. EWART said that with some parts of the speech
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just
sat down he concurred ; from others he differed.
He (Mr. E) wished to draw a distinction between
property and income, but he confessed that be was
one of those, whether they were called Radicals or
Liberals, who were in favour of that system
of direct taxation so much deprecated by the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman. In America, so
far as he understood, taxation, though indirect, was made
to fall more on the rich than on the poor. In that coun-
try there was an approximation to the ad valorem
system of taxation, which must apply to the rich
more than to the poor. It was consequently a
species of indirect Property-tax. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had alluded to the case of France.
He had told them of what was done in France
of ald, but he had not told them what the
system of taxation was in modern France since the
revolution. Was not the land-tax in that country a
system of direct taxation. Was there not also a per-
sonal property-tax in existence in France. With respect
to the Property-tax now proposed, he must confess
that he did not regard it in the same light, as many did
oil that (the Opposition) side of the House ; inure especi
ally the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who considered it
only as a war tax. The question appeared to him to be,
what was the best tax to impose ? Whether
a Property-tax was the best suited to the circumstances
of the country or not, he (Mr. E.) abjured the distinc-
tion between a war-tax and a peace-tax. Whatever was
the best tax to be applied to the circumstances of the
country, that was the tax which they ought to impose.
He agreed with what had been stated during this debate,
that commerce had contests as formidable, if not
more formidable, than those of war. They
were now engaged in a commercial contest,
more formidable than a military contest. They had to
compete with all the nations of the world. They
had now all the disadvantages of competition
with foreign nations. The consequence would be
that some great effort must be made. The
' burden of taxation must be removed from labour and from com-
merce and put upon property. These were the contests they
had to endure, far more formidable than any military or naval
contest that had yet taken place. They had to compete with
the people of the United States, whose energy and whose ma-
nufactures were constantly increasing. He was sorry to find
from a return he had received from that part he had once re-
presented, Liverpool, that emigration had increased nearly ten-
fold. Many of those emigrants were persons connected with
capital in this country, and many of them were manufacturers,
who left behind them a large mass of industrious men to be
supported by the remaining population. He said, therefore, that
a Property-tax was a tax for a time of peace as well as war, be-
cause it was a tax calculated to relieve the labour of the country.
He did not see how they could cheapen consumable articles
without removing taxation from labour and placing it on pro-
perty. They were removing taxation from consumable articles,
any they had no alternative but to impose it on income. With
respect to the tariff of the Right Hon. Baronet, he partook of
the character of an inverted pyramid ; and instead of beginning
at the foundation, he appeared to be beginning at what appearod
to be the apex. He approved of the sound principles of freedom
of trade, recognising and reducing the duty on consumable
articles. When once such sound principles ,were in-
troduced, they worked their way through, they
were sure to work their way through—still they
must prevail. But he objected to that part of the plan im-
posing a duty on coals exported. In that the Right Hon.
Baronet had deserted the principle that prevailed in other por-
tions. of the plan. It was a blemish, unless removed this year,
must be expunged from it at a future time. It would act as a
discouragement to the commercial steam navigation, and
consequently to their naval steam force. He rested all his sup-
port of the principles of commercial freedom on the assurance
it gave that this country would become the great depot of the
world. Sir Robert Walpole, who, except Pitt and Huskisson,
was the greatest commercial Minister the country ever had,
said, in his famous excise scheme, that they ought to divide
articles of import into two sorts, those which were to be taxed
and those which were not to be taxed ; they oughtito impose
duty on few articles, and to emancipate all articles as much as
possible. So far as he has introduced his changes into the tariff,
so far he was always moving in the right direction. He should
wish him to cut out from the Income-tax all the obnoxious
clauses, and to extend the amelioration of the tariff.
Sir JOHN WALSH said, it was evident that the Gentle-
men opposite who had approved the measure were widely sepa-
rated with one another as to the most important principles in-
volved in it. Much had beers said about the inequality of thepro-
posed tax, but, to use a pithy passage that he had lately met with
in a periodical—" A perfectly equal and just tax would indeed be
a verydesirable tax to find, but it was a tax that would require
Omniscience to discover, and Omnipotence to levy." In all
taxation the principle of inequality met them at every step.
lion. Gentlemen opposite contended that the tax would be
more just if applied solely and exclusively to the fixed property
of the country, so that its operation would not extend over in-
comes derived from trades and professions. He very much
doubted the justness of that observation. He did not deny
that many inequalities might be adduced in the operation of
this tax by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he thought he could
adduce many necessary inequalities in the operation of this tax
as applied to fixed property. But, before he adverted to that
point, he would shortly address himself to the propositions of
some of the Hon. Gentlemen apposite,who defended a Property-
tax, provided it were applied to fixed property only. Those
Gentlemen ought to be reminded, that in all the Auts
creating the funded securities the State guaranteed the
tundholder against any special taxation, and many persons,
when Mr. Pitt first proposed his Income-tax, said that his
proposition would be a violation of that promise ; and Mr. Pitt
urged that that promise could never be held to apply to a
measure of so sweeping a nature as the one he had proposed,
and which embraced all the incomes of the country. Mr. Pitt
was right, and the Right Hon. Baronet was right in following
his example ; but by the adoption of the partial scheme of taxa-
tion advocated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, although the
fundholcler would have a twin brother in affliction in the land-
holder, the measure would no longer be of that general and
comprehensive nature, which alone could justify the imposition
of a tax on the funds without a breach of engagement—
( Cheers.) He would now proceed to notice the inequalities to
which he had before alluded. He understood that the Right
Hon. Baronet proposed to assess all incomes derived from
trades and professions on the net average returns of the last
three years ; but with regard to the landholder the Income-tax
was to be collected from the tenant, and the tax-gatherer having
given him a receipt for the amount, he passed that
to his landlord for rent as so much money.
Every Gentleman who was at all familiar with the management
of landed property would be aware that 20 per cent. was not
more than the average amount of out-goings for landed es-
tates.—( Hear.) This being admitted, the landed proprietor
would have to pay 21. 17s. Bd. on 801., whilst trades and pro-
fessions would only pay the same amount on 100/. There was
another consideration which ought not to be lost sight of,
namely, that capital invested in trades and professions yielded
a much larger return than capital invested in land. He would
suppose that three brothers each started life with a capital of
20,000/. One brother purchased an estate in land which
yielded him a gross return of 600/. a year, reduced to 550/. by
the outgoings incidental to landed property. Another invested
in the funds, and received 660/. clear. The third engaged in
mercantile operations, and if at all successful in his plans, he
would realise 2,000/. a year. He really did not see upon what
principles of equity, when the country was assessed in a case
of emergency like the present, the 2,0001. was to be entirely
free, whilst the smaller incomes were taxed. There was
another point which had been urged by Hon. Gentlemen
orposite as to the instability and insecurity of property invested
in trade, as compared with property invested in the funds, or in
land. Now, he thought this argument had been pushed a great
deal too far by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was assumed that
property invested in trade could not be considered equal to
landed property, and that it could not be inherited. Now,
although he did not deny that landed and funded property was
more secure than capital invested in trade, he said that it
was quite as secure in transmitting fortunes as landed property.
Landed property was not altogether free from those chances
which were attendant on all human affairs. Of late years, they
had seen great fluctuations in the value of anded property.
There had been such depression in the value of land, that many
persons who had come into the possession of encumbered
property had been reduced to the greatest state of destitution.
He would ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether, at this time,
an income of 10,000/. a-year derivable from a great establish-
ment in the metropolis—a brewery, for instance—was not as
certain a source of income as 10,600/. derived from a landed
estate ? Great changes and revolution might occur in property.
Legislation might affect property, but he thought the taste of
the British public for porter was proof against all revolution.
—( Laughter.) Even the Hon. Member for Wigan allowed
that the tariff now proposed was a great boon. It remitted
taxes to which those must have made up their minds who ca-
tered into business seven or eight years ago. Why not give
credit to the Government for this benefit? Consider what placed
the Government in the want of so large a sum of money ? The ex-
penses of the Chinese war were amongst the chief. How was that
war produced? \%hy, in defence of British trade and com-
merce. At the expiration of the East India Company's
charter the trade with China was thrown open to the British
mercantile world. Collisions with the Government and laws of
China were the unavoidable consequences. The East India
Company would have conformed to the Chinese laws; the new
trailers, perhaps, did not so well understand them, but, at all
events, they quarrelled with the Chinese authorities. It must
be acknowledged that the custom of 300,000,000 of people which
we sought are worth quarrelling for, and should those for whose
benefit we were plunged into this war—should the merchants
of the country, refuse to support the Government in the un-
avoidable expenses of that war, which, in its motives, was quite
different from our quarrel with the Affghans ? With respect
to the war in Affghanistan, Hon. Gentlemen had long accused
them of exaggerating its effect and importance. He thought
if they looked back there were times when the affairs in India
were in as critical a state as at present. Looking at the subject
in a financial point of view, he would say that there had been
wars more dangerous, but there could not be ary more expensive.
But it was necessary that the effort should be commensurate
with the occasion, and the Right Hon. Baronet was bound to
carry on the war. Many Gentlemen had alluded to the state
of the foreign relations of this country, and the Noble Lord had
admitted that hostile feelings existed in other countries. In
his opinion the subject of the foreign relations of this country
was au extremely delicate one, and required to be treated most
carefully by a Minister ; but he, as a private individual, might
us.; language which a Minister could not. He lamented that
in France there existed a certain national jealousy and hostility
of feeling towards this country which he hoped the temper and
discretion of the Right Hon. Baronet would enable him to allay.
However, it was a f cling which, under irritating circum-
stsnces, it would be very difficult for even the wisest
an ; most moderate Government to restrain, and which
Government ss ould be wholls justified in overlooking. The
French people would respect them when they saw them taking
the most direct meal's of meeting the present emergency. lie
would conclude by stating his determination to support the pro
position of the Right Hon. Baronet. He hoped the necessity
would semi pass away, that trade would revive, and that those
cl;uds which hung over their relations would be dissipated
in a few years. Then it would be politic to reduce the tax.
lie was not prepared to continue a tax from motives of conve-
nience, the imposition of which he justified on the ground of its
necessity. When the necessity ceased, he trusted it would be
the first object and care of the Right Hon. Baronet to remove
the tax, which he (Sir John Walsh) must consider onerous,
but which he was sure would be willingly borne as long as the
necessity required it. He had confidence that he would only
continue the tax as long as necessity rendered it imperative.
Sir W. CLAY said, that the Hen. Gentleman who had just sat
down had endeavoured to show that there may be as great in-
justice in a Property-tax as in an Income-tax, and that this
the
on
the Cont
contrary, tax could only be justified on the ground of the emergency of
circumstances. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Dum-
fries,3', endeavoured to prove that the tax on
property rested on sound principles, and that it was much better
than a tax on consumption. He considered that the arguments
on the general question were exhausted, or nearly so, but he
wished to point out to the night Hon. Baronet one portion of

his plan which had hitherto been but little commented upon,
but which he thought well worthy the attention of the House--
he meant the regulations as to the mode in which the tax was
levied on the agriculturist.—( Hear.) He lowed distinctly to
state, that he did not, for one moment, imagine that the object
of the Right Hon. Baronet, in levying the tax to only half the
amount on persons employed in agriculture, was to give any
unfair advantage to the agricultural interest. He believed the
object of the Right Hon. Baronet was to get at the profits of the
farmer. The Right Hon. Baronet took the rent, and assumed the
farmers' profits as one half the; rent. He assumed that there
were some given relation between the profits of the farmer and
the rent which he paid. He (Sir W. Clay) denied that any
such relation existed. What was rent ? He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet would admit that the usually received definition
of rent was the right one. Rent consisted of the surplus pro-
fits derived from the employment of capital in agricultural pur-
suits, over and above the usual rate of interest upon such capital.
For instance, if the rate of interest were 5 per cent., and money
employed in agricultural pursuits produced 15 per cent., the
rent would be the surplus 10 per cent. It could be nothing
else; and as the general rate of farming profits must be equal,
whether a farmer rents fertile land or poor land, it is clear that
he car.not pay the same amount of rent. If it be true that the
rate of farming profit is three times larger than the profits of
any other pursuit, then the proposition of the Right Hon. Baro-
net was just, and he would not ask the exact measure of profit;
but that could only be true in a small number of instances,
and in by far the greater number of instances it would be too
high or too low. The subject was an abstruse one, and to
make his meaning intelligible, he would suppose a case. Let
them take the case of a farmer renting 300 acres of land. If
153. an acre, then it would be 275/., and the tenant would
escape the tax altogether, inasmuch 83 the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman proposed to tax fauns only of 3001. a year ; but if the
land was let at 31. an acre, that would be a rental of 9001.,
and upon one-half of that 450/. the tenant would be taxed
three per cept., or 131. 10s. Now, was it at all clear that he
made a profit of 4501 , or that the other tenant made only
1351. ? On the contrary, there was not the slightest, ground
for supposing that the capital employed on the land paying 31.
an acre realised more profit to the tenant than the capital
employed on the land at 15s. per acre. The surplus
profit went to the landlord. Therefore the Right
Honourable Gentleman committed great injustice, be-
cause he charged on the farm, which might not per-
haps yield more profit than a farm of less value, a tax of 13/.
or 14/. What was the result of the principle laid down by the
Right Hon. Gentleman ? He (Sir W. C.) was quite aware
that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not answerable for that
principle. The principle was this, it exempted all incomes
under 150!. a year, but the tax was not levied on the real pro-
fits of the farmer. He believed he was justified in saying, at
least he had taken some pains to inquire, that out of the whole
of the farmers of Great Britain, Ireland, and Wales, there
were not less than two-thirds under 300/. a year—therefore
i hey exempted from taxation two-thirds of the farming capita:
of the country. It was difficult to say what that capital was,
as statistical information on the subject was very defective; but,
he believed, if ho said that capital was from three to four hun-
dred millions, he should not overstate it ; so that two.
thirds of that large amount they exempted from taxation,
and, by so doing, they committed an injustice upon
one class of the conntry at the expense of another.
He could not conceive that the reason for thispeculiarity as
regarded the mode of reckoning the rents of farming capital,
could be justified by anything in the peculiar position of the
farmer. On the contrary, he could see why it should be
far less objectionable to apply the inquisitorial process to the
farmer than the ordinary trader. A farmer was in a very slight
degree subject to credit, or a supposition of wealth. He was
not subject to the bankrupt laws ; his principal creditor must
be his landlord, and his principal debtors his labourers ; and on
the whole it must be easier to arrive at his profits than those of
the ordinary trader. He (Sir W. Clay) considered this pro-
cess, as regarded the farmer, was based on principles which were
false ; he held that the effect of it would be, to exempt a large
portion of the capital of this country employed in agriculture
from the payment of this tax, and that he held to be unfair.
He was quite disposed to give the Right Hon. Baronet full
credit for a large portion of his commercial tariff, and in the
discussion of it the Right Hon. Baronet should have whatever
humble support it was in his power to give.—( Hear, hear.)
In some portions of it, however, he thought that Gentlemen had
been ready to give credit for that which he thought did not
deserve it. He should only allude now to one special point,
because the loss of revenue which that position occasioned was
one justification for the imposition of the Income-tax—he
alluded to the alteration of the tax on timber. That measure was
approved of by the Honourable and Gallant Commodore the
Member for Marylebone, by his Honourable Friend the
Member for Dumfries, and the Member far Wolverhampton.
Those Gentlemen justified the plan on the ground that it
would be of great advantage to the shipping interest. He
(Sir W. Clay) did not think that that was true. He did not
believe that Canadian timber was used to any great extent in
English commercial ship-building. To whatever extent it
might be useful to build inferior class of merchant vessels of
Canadian timber, to that extent there was a sufficient supply in
those colonies. Those ships were very useful, and were built
to a great extent in those places, and it would be quite out of
the question to enter into competition with them. He did not
think the reduction in the duty upon Canadian timber was
large enough to insure any considerable increase in its use
among the poorer classes; and the Right Hon. Baronet had
not, in his opinion, any sufficient motive for throwing away so
large an amount of duty. Of the Income-tax he entirely dis-
approved, under the existing circumstances of the country.
He did not think it was justified by necessity, and he should
I herefore vote for the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Liskeard.
Mr. EWART explained.
Mr. WAKLEY said that, notwithstanding all he had heard
in the course of these debates, he was still disposed to believe
that a Property-tax was the best that could be imposed ; and
lie exceedingly regretted to find that the present Bill was so
framed that he could not give it his support. lithe Right
lion. Baronet had proposed even a graduated Income-tax, he
would sincerely support him, because be believed that no tax
could operate so justly in this country as a tax which fell
directly on the working-classes of the community. The Right
Hon. Baronet, in the different speeches he had made, had em-
phatically denounced any taxation of the poor. He denounced
;axes upon industry. But the Right Hon. Baronet was about
to tax industry ; he was about to tax incomes derived from
labour, when they exceeded 1501. a year. Now, he (Mr,
Wakley) thought that they should not, at all events, tax to the
same amount incomes derived from professional exertions and
incomes derived from fixed capital. That was felt by the public
to be an intolerable grievance, and, he was perfectly
satisfied it would not be endured.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Gent. then read a letter from an individual who stated
that with a capital of 5,000/. he employed 34 clerks and la-
bourers, besides horses ; that the gross returns were 25,000/.,
and that he paid various taxes to the amount of 100/., and
asked, was it fair to tax the profits of his industry, while, if
he had the same in the funds, only the interest of it would be
taxed? But, said the Hon. Gentleman, the Right Hon. Baronet
makes the investigation into his means a secret one. Now he
(Mr. Wakley) thought it ought to be made public. He con-
sidered it desirable that publicity should be a check upon the
proceedings of the Commissioners.
Sir R. PEEL —The party will have the option of going
before the local Commissioners or the special Commissioners
appointed by the Government.
Mr. WAKLEY (in continuation)—What he wished was
that the party might have the power, if:he wished, of a public
investigation before the local Commissioners. He thought it
very unjust that they had not. The Commissioners would, in
point of fact, decide judicially, and, in such a case, every
judge out to decide publicly. The case he alluded to was one
out of many thousands. He thought the present tax would end
in a graduated one. He was sure such a demand would arise.
He was ready to acknowledge that there was no strong feeling
against the Income-tax out of doors.—(Loud Ministerial
cheers.) His impression, was that the opinion out
of doors was that the tax was the most just
that could be imposed. He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet had made a gigantic effort to meet the present
difficulties.—(Cheers.) It would be unfair, and unmanly,
and ungenerous to deny that.—( Cheers.) It might make him
unpopular, but he was there to do his duty, and he was bound
to state that he considered no system of taxation so fair and
just as a direct tax on the property of the country. The Hon.
Member for Liskeard objected to direct taxation. He really
did not know where he could have learned Isis political eco-
nomy. He preferred direct taxation; he liked to see the tax-
gstherer come arid make his demand openly ; then the tax-
payer began to ask what it was applied fur, and thus every
scan gradually became a political Reformer. But the sum
they were about to collect by the tax was inadequate to its in-
quisition ; it was only one-fourteenth of the whole revenue.
Ilad it been one-half, he should have been delighted with it.
He contended that the sliding scale, applied to Income-tax,
was just and inevitable. If ever the sliding scale was justi-
fiable, it was in reference to this tax. He wanted to know
why it could not be applied ? They had the sliding scale ap-
pl ed to horses, carriages, servants, and windows, and
why could not they apply it to income? Those who
advocated the sliding scale applied to corn, ought to be
gratified at seeing their political opinions carried out,
for he was confident, from the general opinion, that the people
would not rest satisfied unless the tax on income was made a
graduated one. The sliding scale was also applied to receipt
stamps, inland and foreign bills of exchange, securities for
money lent, and promissary notes. According to the plan of
the Right Hon. Baronet, a man with 2001. a year would have
6/. withdrawn from his income, while the man with 6,000/.
would have 1801. a year withdrawn from his income. In the
case of the former you deprive the man of the value of a suit
of clothes, but in the case of the latter, what deprivation was
there whatever ? If he could have no pleasures from 6,000/. a
year, minus 180/., he must be a very avaricious fellow, and
the more they taxed him the better for himself and for his
country. A constituent of his (Mr. Wakley), who was a
clerk, had told him that his salary was 1601. ayear, and that last
year, after having observed tl.e strictest economy, he.still found
himself 111. in debt at the close of the year. In consequence,
he and his wife came to the resolution of making some sacrifices
to keep out of debt; but now came the Right Hen. Baronet
with his tax, which would deprive them of 41. 10e. per annum.
Under those circumstances, he had asked him (Mr. \V.) what
he was to do. The operation of the tax would, he said, leave
him quite destitute. His family consisted of a wife and four
children, and a little servant girl. The servant he should be
obliged to discharge, and the 6/. wages which he had paid to
her, would go as his contribution to the tax. There was an
instance of how the poorer classes would be affected by the ope-
ration of the Hon. Baronet's measure ; and the poor servantgirl
whom he would be obliged to discharge, was a member of a
family of 7 children, the father of whom was a cripple. There
was another point to which he would refer. How was the
Right Hon. Baronet to guard against frauds in certain instances
—suppose a man had 40,000/. in the funds, and he divided it
amongst his family into ten parts, how could they guard
against fraud in such a case? The Right Honourable Baronet
hail also laid a great stress upon his plan of taxing the
Irish absentees. Now he (Mr. W.) wanted to know how they
were to tax Irish absentees residing in France, in Italy, or in any
other part of the Continent ?,The farmers in England had often
asked, why it was that they were taxed, and the Irish farmers
were not ? For these reasons, he felt himself bound to vote
against the Hon. Baronet's measure, though reluctantly. He
believed that an Income-tax would, in some circumstances, be
just, and that a Property-tax, in the present circumstances of
the country, was the very best that could be imposed.
Mr. DISRAELI said it was admitted en all hands that new
taxes must be imposed to meet the necessities of the country ;
and in his opinion, therefore, the only question properly was as
to the causes which had rendered new taxes necessary. No-
thing con dbe more the duty of the House of Commons than
to investigate the causes of the present state of things. The
present deficiency was not confined to this country alone; a
great deficiency existed in our Indian empire, and the wars
which had been carried on in India were to be regarded as the
wars, not of the East India Company, but of the English nation.
It was a matter of notoriety that the deficiency in England and
India commenced at the same time. Was it aristocratic legisla-
tion that had caused the revenues of India and England to
vanish ? He would not enter into the policy or impolicy of
Cm n-laws, hut no one could say they had decreased commerce,
because it had not declined. The revenue of the country had
not declined, but its expenditure had increased. The foreign
policy of the late Government had destroyed the surplus, and
produced the present great deficiency. What was that policy ?
Why, it was engaging in a war that had never met with the
sanction of the. Sovereign, had never been developed by the
Minister, or sanctioned by Parliament. That war had brought
disaster, and occasioned ruinous expense—such expenses as 4
had rendered it necessary on the part of the present Ministers
to propose an Income-tax. By that war the surplus of two
great empires had been extinguished, and yet the Ministers that
had occasioned it had been allowed to escape without inquiry.
When a Noble Lord came down to that House, and said he

would divide the House on every opportunity on this subject,
he (Mr. Disraeli) was surprised that no Member on that (the
Opposition 1 side of the House never came down to inquire into
the cause of these deficiencies. The first duty they had to per-
form was to inquire into the causes of these deficiencies, and
to have thrown the responsibilities of those deficiencies on
those who had caused them.
Mr. CHRISTIE, as a young Member, claimed the indul-
gence of the House while he explained his reasons for sup-
porting the Hon. Member for Liskeard. He objected to this
tax for its direct nature. He objected to this tax be-
cause it was the most hurtful of all taxes that could
be imposed. Its inquisitorial nature roust be attended
with the greatest evils if it was calculated to engender
deceit and demoralisation amongst the people. This tax
was unequal, harassing, and mischievous, revolting to the
feelings of individuals, and only to be resorted to in cases of the
last emergency—( Hear, hear)--and even then, when resorted
to, it entailed a most serious responsibility on the party proposing
it. The Right Hon. Gentleman, some years ago, said that it
was most unwise to establish such a disgusting imposition for
the purpose of raising three or four per cent. Now this was
the very per centage the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to raise.
—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Christie) was aware that the cir-
cumstances of the country were different now, but the Right
Hon. Baronet might have adopted the proposition of the Noble
Lord, the Member for London, to place a tax of no importance
to individuals—a small tax upon articles of general consumption
—which would have raised the amount required, or even
have resorted to the house or window tax, which, though in
themselves direct taxes, did not possess the hurtful and inqui-
sitorial character of an Income. tax. The Hon. Member for
Northampton supported the Right Hon. Baronet, on the
ground that the Income-tax was a price paid for important
concessions made by the Right Hon. Baronet. Now, he
( Mr. Christie) did not know what those concessions were. Did
the Hon. Member see them in the Corn Bill, or did he see
them in the tariff, beginning with a differential duty of 100
per cent. on coffee, with a heavy tax of 30s. per load on foreign
timber, and a nominal duty of Is. a load on colonial timber ?
( Hear, hear.) Certainly, if these were the steps taken by
the Right Hon. Baronet towards free trade, the price which
the Hon. Member for Northampton would pay for these con-
cessions, was a very extravagant one indeed.—( Cheers.) The
Hr n. Member for Bath, who was another of the Right
Honourable Baronet's supporters on that (the Opposition)
side of the House, supported the Right Honourable Baro-
net from another consideration. He thought that the
deficiency ought to be made up by economy in the
Government establishments, but the Honourable Member
said there was no possibility, in the present state of the House.
of his view being successful. He (Mr. Christie) thought it
would be a long time before they saw that economy. The
Hon. Member for Bath said, that seeing there was no pro-
bability of his viors being carried out, he should support the
proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, in the hope that he
would ultimately adopt that economy the Hon. Member
wished to see practised ; but he (Mr. Christie) thought it would
be a long time before the Hon. Member wrung from the Right
Hon. Baronet this economy. He confessed that this ground
:or supporting the proposition looked very like inconsistency.
The Bill would go into Committee and would come out of it
with what the Hon. Member for Bath called a gross and
palpable injustice. If the House would bear with him he
would mention one other reason why he opposed the proposi-
tion of the Right 1104. Baronet, and which he thought had
not been mentioned before.—( Hear, hear.) The man who
could command only '2OO/. or 300/. or 40! 1. a year, earned
from some trade and profession, with a large family to
support, would suffer a great deal more than the
single man with 1501. a-year. People whose claims
were under 150/. a year, were those who were probably ac-
customed to humble desires and humble occupations; but go
a little higher and you would find those who, besides having
to pay something for the sake of appearances, had large ex-
penses to pay for the education of their families, from whom,
perhaps, might rise those who might yet be a lustre to the Brit.
tish nation. To allow those whose profits were under 150/.
a year to escape, and to make these men pay the tax was a
gross and palpable injustice. He considered this measure was
the last exigency of a Government. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's agricultural supporters would not allow him to impose
a fixed duty upon corn.—( Hear, hear.) And then with re-
gard to the tariff, no good was done to the manufacturers of this
country by it ; but the colonial producers were allowed to go
unscathed, and in order to do them the least possible harm and
to do the consumers the least possible good, he inflicted a great
loss upon the revenue.—( Hear, hear.) , These were the rea-
sons which should lead him to give his hearty support to the
amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard ; and
he could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the
House fur the attention with which he had been heard.
Mr. SMYTHE said there was one principle in which
he perfectly agreed with the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and
that was, that we were not called upon absolutely, and, in the
abstract, to discuss whether the Income-tax were a good mea-
sure or a bad: one, because, he believed, that Hon. Members
might consider this measure inquisitorial, as it had been called,
and yet vote for the Income-tax. When Mr. Pitt entered
office, he found the country involved to the amount of
4,844,000/., and what did he do ? Why, he issued Exchequer-
bills to the amount of five and a half millions. He considered
this to be entirely a question of confidence.—( Oh. ) Their
opposition he believed to be a mere opposition o f formula and
faction. Hon. Member's on the other side had said, that this
was no question of Caubul or Affghanistan ; the Noble Lord,
the Member for Liverpool, justly asked what would be the effect
of this intelligence when proclaimed in China, and in Nepaul.
They must all remember the overthrow of the British Legions,
and the disgrace of Matthews. The inevitable tendency of affairs
in India would be to create unquiet. If they should lose their
markets in the New World, they might yet have to repair to
the Old World to compensate for their loss. They might have
to repair to India for that sugar which the United States and
the Brazils might withhold. He could not therefore, under-
stand the reason of deprecating our relations in that quarter of
the globe. Ought not this to be a consideration in the eye of
a far-seeing statesman? If he wanted further elements of justi-
fication for the tax proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
would remind the House of what the Right Hon. and Gallant
Commodore. the Member for Marylebone, said that a British
fleet in 1840 meeting a French fleet would not have been vic-
torious, followed up as that was by what he said, that never did
he remember such a crisis as the present, in the course of his
long and renowned career, with the exception of two occasions,
in which he was perhaps biassed by his professional feeling—
the mutiny at therrice, and the mutiny at Portsmouth. For
this reason he supported the tax, though he did not con-
sider it a; a perfect measure—" that faulrless monster
which the world ne'er saw." Admitting that this measure was
repugnant to the spirit of the constitution, and to a large por-
tion of the public, admitting that it partook in the character of
the dictatorship of Rome, he still supported it as a just, a suf-
ficient, and an honourable safeguard.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said he hoped, that when the
tariff came to be discussed, the Right Hon. baronet would be
induced to modify in some degree that portion of the tariff
which related to coals and copper, as he believed the effect of
it would he to throw some hundreds of miners out of work,
and upon the landowners. He did not wish to occupy the
attention of the House any lodger.
Mr. SCOTT said though he had a very she feeling of
the inexpediency Of the measures brought forward by the Go-
vernment. he did not mean to throw any opposition in their
way.—(Hear, hear.) The question before them was, whe-
ther this was the time to impose such a tax? It appeared to
I him that the origin of the tax was to be traced to a wish to
maintain monopoly.—( Hear, hear.) If the measures pro-
posed by the late Government were carried they would have
a far less deficiency to provide for, anti the interests of trade
would be materially benefited. That was his opinion, and he
also thought that those great advantages were set aside for the
sake of the landed interest.—( Hear, hear.) That being his
opinion he thought that a land-tax was the best to be
proposed; and if that were the tax, it would have his
cordial support. If the tax were proposed to relieve
the consumers, it would be another thing; but the Right Hon.
Baronet proposed it for a temporary purpose, not for the sake
of relieving the people from the taxes on consumption. The
tax he proposed was not a tax on property, but it was an In-
come-tax, which was the worst that could be resorted to. If,
instead of taxing trades and professions, the Right Hon. Baro-
net 'axed property, he would give him his cordial support.
With regard to ti e time the tax was to continue, he
th afght that Ile r difficulties and inquisiti-e, which
attended it, would prevent any fear as to its being
borne for any considerable time by the people. In its
own nature the tax was unjust, but in its practical work-
ing out it was rendered ten times more unjust, and, therefore
it was one which the House ought not to press. The measure
gave a temptation to dishonesty which the House ought not to
sanction. Upon those grounds, and believing the Right Hon.
Baronet had not made out a case to justify the imposition o
the tar; he shoul enter his protest against it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
For the amendment

Majority for the second reading
The Bill was then read a second time, and was ordered (as
we understood) to be committed on Monday next.
WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the House resolved
itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. GREENE in
the chair.
Sir G. CLERK having moved a vote of 9,100 0001. to be
raised by Exchequer Bills for the service of the year,
Mr. BLEWITT, who roseamidst the laughter of the Op-
position benches, said he wished to take that opportunity of
asking any Member of her Majesty's Government who might
chose to answer him, whether it was the intention of the present
Government to make any alteration in the law with respect to
Savings 'Banks, which enabled the Government of the time to
do what was called " tamper with the Savings' Banks funds."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
no intention of proposing any alteration in the law. He cer-
tainly did not approve, as he had stated on a former occasion,
of any tampering with the Saving's Banks funds as a perma•
rent resource for the financial service ; but he should add,
at the same time, that the practice had not the slightest ten
dyne}, to impair the interests of the depositors.
The vote was then agreed to ; the resolution was reported
to the House ; and the House having resumed, the report was
ordered to be brought up on Monday next.
EXCISE DUTIES' COMPOUNDS BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, this Bill was read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday next.
ROASTED MALT BILL.

On the motion of the HON. BARONET the Bill was read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday.
SOAP DUTIES' DRAWBACK BILL.
On the motion of the Hose. BARONET the Bill was read a
second time,
and was ordered to be committed on Monday.
RAILWAYS BILL.
On the motion of Mr GLADSTONE the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the whole House for the further
consideration of the Report on the Railways Bill. I
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to take that opportunity of sug-
gesting, that it would be convenient that the House should
know beforehand the course of business to be pursued each
evening. There were many gentlemen who felt an interest in
the Railways Bill, and who %vete absent, because they di.l not
expect that it would be brought on on that occasion.
Sir R. PEEL said that he would take care, as far as he could,
that the orders of the House should be gone through in future,
in a definite order. He would urge as his excuse for not
pursuing that course that evening, that, after the formal an
nouncentent of the Noble Lord with respect to the Income-tax,
he had hardly expected the debate would be over at half-past
nine o'clock, and that only 76 members would have voted upon
the other ode.—(Hear, lit.ar, from the Mini.terial benches.)
He had anticipated that the grt at debate would have taken
place on the principle of the Bill, on the second reading.
After a few woi as from Mr. V. &NUT 11, and Mr. GLAD-
STONE,

Lord J. RUSSELL said,he imagined the closing of the debste
had in some degree arose from Gentlemen opposite preventing
Alembers on this aide of the House from speaking, even those
who would, perhaps,
the Bill. have argued in favour of the principle of

Sir R. PEEL said he certainly had opposed no obstruction
to any Honourable Members speaking, but he was afraid the
House at one time would be counted out. —( Hear, and a laugh.)
The conversation then dropped,
The clauses of the Railway Bill, up to clause 10, were agreed
to without a division.
On clause 11 being proposed,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE proposed that the clause be expunged.
A discussion of some length ensued, in which Mr. Gladstone,
Mr. Russell, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Healy toot part.
Major VIVIAN hoped the Hon. Member would persevere
in his intention of dividing the House on the expunging of
this clause.

Capt. BERKELEY complained of the Bill being brought
on in the way it had been, as many Alembers wished to ad-