The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

COLLIER'S SHAKESPEARE.

On the Ist of April will be ready, to be continued every other
month, Vol. 111. of

HAM: SPEARE'S WORKS.
IN. Y (Comprising the Plays and Poems).
'1 he Text formed from an entirely new Collation of the Old
Editions, with their various readings, Notes, a Life of the Poet,
and a History of the Early English Drama. By J. PAYNE
COLLIER, Esq., F.S. A., Author of " The History of Eng-
lish Dramatic Poetry, and the Stage," &c.
To be completed in eight volumes, tivo., in a large handsome
type, price 12s. per volume, being 4/. 16s. for the entire work,
including the Biography, History, &c.
Whittaker and Co., Ave Maria-lane.

PROFESSIONAL RECORDS, price 55., sent post. free,
Gs. Gd. By a PHYSICIAN.
IMARRIAGE, (a Medical Work): a series of
interesting, original, and important papers, for the
closet perusal of those desirous, yet denied or diffitlent of se-
curing social happiness, marital attributes, and healthy per-
petuity ;
Also, Companion to the same, called " PORNEIAPA-
THOLOGY, a voluminous medico-chirurgical, and forensic
review of the contingencies alluded to, with upwards of 100
engravings, &c., price 10s., by post 12s. Gd.
Sherwood, 23, Paternoster-row ; Carvalho, 147, Fleet-
street ; Hannay, 63, Oxford-street; Mann, 39, Coinhill ; and
all Booksellers.

THE MARKETS.-( YESTERDAY).
COLONIAL MARKET.
A fair business transacted, and prices were fully sustained.
Raw sugar met a fair sale at firm rates. Refined goods sold
freely, standard lumps, tits. per cwt. ; good ordinary Ceylon
Coffee, 775. per cwt. ; tine Jamaica scarce.
TEA MARKET.
Little business was transacted, but prices were sustained.
Company's Congou, ls. I Id. cash.

_
TALLOW MARKET.
Prices firm, but the market was quiet. P. Y. Candle,
48s. 3d. on the spot, and 495. 3d. for delivery.
WHITECHAPEL.
The supply was pretty good, and the demand brisk at the
present quotations. Clover, 2/. His, to fd. As. ; Hay, 2/. to
5/. 15s. ; Straw, I/. 16s. to 2/.

CORN AVERAGEN.
OENEItAI, AVERAGE PRICES OF BRIM!! CORN,
Forlihe Weekended March 11, 1842, made up from the Returns s 1
the Inspectors in the ditlerent Cities and 'Amin in England and
Wiles, per Imperial Quarter,
Wheat... ...... 593. lid.l Oats
Barley 27s. Ild. 1 Rya . ........ 33i. lid 1 realm %Is. Ild.
AVERAGES OF TUE LAST ..,IX WEEKS.
Week ending WREAT.IIIARLEY. OATS. 1 RYE. ' ; BEANS. I -
Feb. 4 6O ft 28 5 2.0 I
11
18 6O 0 28 5 19 8
25 CO 10 28 h 19 e
March 4 CO 9 28 3 19 1
11
IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGE
Wheat......... 60s. 41. 1 Oats ......... 194.
Barley. 2,31. 3d,1 ltye

PRiSR

36 1; 33 4 34 11
36 01 32 9 33 0
r 1 39. 5 33 11
31 10; 31 31 33 1
3. 3; 32 9 32 6
33 11 1 31 10 33 11
i UP Tole SIX wittics
84.1 Beans ...... 4d.
101.1 6d
CORN.

DUTIZS ON FORNIGN
Wheat.... .. . . 26t. ad. Oats
liarley l9s. UAL I Aye

3d.1 Beans 211., 3d.
NIA 'ease 194 9d,

GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY.
Traffic returns for the week, ending March 12, 1842:
Passengers
Merchandise

Darlington, March 16.

£1,236 12 2
W. O'BRIEN, Secretar

---:---
DEAFNESS.—Sound Magnifiers, and Invisible
Operative Voice Conductors, to enable persons at an advanced
age, and of old standing extreme deafness, to join in general
conversation, and to catch the sound of a distant low speaker
at a publie assembly; they are the size of a very small gold
seven shilling piece, and when in the cavity of the ears, they
are not in the least perceptible nor more uncomfortable than
having a small piece of fine wool in its place ; they are composed
of a metal to collect sound, peculiar to the Messrs. S. and B.
Solomons themselves ; and although they are so extremely smal
yet they enable those afflicted with extreme deafness, and
those who are only slightly dull of hearing to hear in every
respect equal to those of most acute bearing. Messrs. S. and
B. Solomons, 39, Albemarie.street, Piccadilly, opposite the
York Hotel, and 76, King William-street, City. Newly-Invented
Spectacles, immediately they are placed before imperfect vision,
either by day or candlelight, that mist and dullness which
appears before the eyes is at once removed, every object becc ming
clear and distinct, so that the most aged defective eye.sight be.
comes bright and brilliant, and is brought to its youthful, natural
and original state. Those valuable inventions have gained the
patronage of the Royal Family, and the unqualified approbation of
above 400 of the principal members of the medical profession, and
numerous individuals of high distinction, who have been greatly
benefited by their use. To be had only at 39, Albemarle.streot,
Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel, and 76, King willism.itrew
City.--No connexion with persons o f the same name.

T,Srhhi r
ee ,Gs PvfEar..TiirA.
yt hsraeeiadGd
that
ter nmo r
thisine
uf
was
ehases
ofßo nat
the
keo,
lfiasn
thet thec o
ue h
half-yearlyr
t,a whichir.
were confirmed.
OR
General Courts of Proprietors, which was held in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, for the
purpose of declaring the dividend. The Court of Di-
ie,,ors had great satisfaction in being able to state that
they could recommend a dividend of 31 per cent.
upon the profits of the half year ending the sth of April next.
It was with great pleasure that he was enabled to inform the
Court, and he stated so most distinctly, that the dividend was
wholly taken out of the profits of the current half year;
and
that in addition there would be a sum of upwards of 7,000/.
added to the rest, out of the profits of the current half year.
A PROPRIETOR wished to know the present amount of the
rest.

The Govmson--2,869,2841.
A PROPRIETOR—What is the addition to the rest wade this
half year.
The CHAIRMAN-7,2001. Is it the pleasure of the Court
to declare a dividend of 34 per cent. upon the current half year ?
Mr. YOUNG thought that he would not be out of
order if he were to offer a few observations on
what. in his opinion, was a subject affecting the per.
manent prosperity of the country. During the three last ses-
sions a Committee had sat to consider questions of
finance, affecting materially the interests of the Bank. They
had not brought their labours to a conclusion, and, consequent-
ly, had not made a Report; but the Minister had pledged him-
self to take the subject into his consideration. He trusted the
Court of Dies( tors would press the consideration of this im-
portant subject upon the Government, because on the sati:fae-
tory settlement of that question depended the future stability of
the currency of the country. There was another important
point. Two years since a law had passed, partially repealing
emj subject.
y
the Usury Laws. At the suggestion of the Duke of Welling:.
etrreudite, din thec on Courtse consequence
fee Directors
of
the
relaxation would be
ton, that law was enacted oney for two years as an experitivsnt.
That law was about to expire, and as he thought it worild be
most advisable to have recourse again to the old usury ISiws, he
oafihtehosto b
The relaxation of those laws had tended to produce much harm
in the country. In consequence of the facility of obtaining,
speculations had taken place which ought not to /saver
taken place. There were few men who cosel be
trusted with such an unlimited power of raising money.,
Frdm having been long connected with trade, he was cove-
vinced that, as a. general rule, five per cent. was as much
interest as any tradesman could afford to pay. Ho hoped the
Directors would pay attention to this subject, which wan;
one deeply connected with the prosperity of the country.
Mr. FIELD EN said, that there were various opinions at, to
the policy of the Usury Laws, and he thought it would, be bad
policy in the Directors to interfere. lie thought tbsee might
advantageously endeavour to enlarge the sphere of, their bass_
ness ; they had an immense establisement, and co aid do so with
great facility.
The Goys:axon would remind the Co" rt
that the law par-
tially repealing the Usury Laws would 4vs . j
expire until arm-
ary, 1814.
Mr. Coors wished to draw the 'attention of the Directors to
the subject of the compensation • •
eor t s were
into with them in 16"
entitled for the breach of th-
to which the Proprietors
e contract which had been entered
value of their prop: d. It was their duty to see, that the
nating from
erty should not be lessened by any act ema-
stock fla-* '• ."
iiie Government itself. With respect to Joint-
...as, they stood in a false position ; they had no title to
f;ere with the rights of the Proprietors of this Bank. This
was a question which the Proprietors ought to take up. Would
they, he wanted to know, allow their rights to be taken from
them? Would they even go so far as they seemed likely to
do, namely, prevent any individual from saying one word
against the ev.l caused by se immense and powerful an engine
as thue Joint-stuck Banks were? if they did, they would
have reason to regret it. Ile had a right to brine this matter
before the Directors and Proprietors. He had% sufficient
interest in the Bank to do so. He had embarked a valuable
cargo on board this vessel, arid he had a right, by the laws
of nature and of nations, to protect that cargo.--( Laughter. )
Mr. MARIOT thought, however, that this question might
be now thrown overboard.--(Laughter.)
Mr. BURNES HAMMOND rose to order. He did not think
the Hon. Proprietor was justified in bringing forward the
question of Joint-stock Banks, when a different subject was
before the Court.
The GOVERNOR said the Hon. Proprietor was not speaking
to the question of dividends, which was the one before the
Court. He was addressing himself to the question of the
rights of this Corporation, and in so doing lie certainly was
not in order.
Mr. COOK conceived that he was in order. This was a
subject of vast impel tanee to the Proprietors. The United
States Bank was stripped of the influence which it had fore.
merly possessed, and what was the consequence? Why the
English Shareholders were swindled out of their shares. Similar
fatal consequences would result to this Bank if the rights of
the Corporation were not held up. He certainly would feel it
his duty to lay before Ministers a memorandum on the subject.
Whether any Hon. Proprietor would be inclined to second
him in his efforts, or riot, he was not aware ; but even if alone
and unsupported, he should bring the consideration of this
subject before Government.
Mr. Coos strongly recommended the Hon. Proprietor to
address his memorial, if he resolved on one, to the Governor,
who lie was sure would receive with pleasure every hint calcu-
lated to be of service, instead of to the Ministry or Parliament.
A PROPMETOR asked if the business during the last month
had been prosperous or not ?
The GOVERNOR—Yes.
A Pitornirron. asked whether any fraudulent Exchequer
bills, the property of the Bank, had been impounded by the
Exchequer, and to what amount?
The Govsexoe. slated that there were such kills impounded
to the amount •f 8,000/.
Mr. Witsratirs expressed himself as not satisfied that
their capital had been employed in the most profitable manner.
He believed that their expenses were too large ; he should not,
however, offer any objection to the declared dividend of three
and a half per cent. ,since it appeared their profits did not allow
more.

A conversation took place between the Governor and several
Hon. Proprietors, as to whether the excess of interest was or was
not added to their capital, during which the Governor explained
that if it was lent on other securities, it bore interest on those
securities, and went to create capital ; no part of their capital
was sunk.
Mr. [Warm) wislred to know if any remonstrance had
been addressed to the Government against the proposition for
taxing terminable annuities.
The GOVERNOR said that questions had been put to Sir
Robert Peel in the House of Commons, on the subject, and he
had stated that to-morrow he would go into the details. They
did not yet know what the details were. The Premier intended
to lay a tax of seven-pence in the pound on all incomes, but
the details had not been explained, and he thought they ought
not to present any remonstrance till they knew how far they
should be aggrieved.
Mr. RICARDO said that during the three years for which the
tax was imposed, the Bank Proprietors woull lose at least
20,0001. on paitl up capital. He believed the Bank held other
securities, and in consequence the Proprietors would lose a very
large sum, if the tax should be persisted in.
The GOVERNOR said that the Directory was quite alive to
the subject, and of what was supposed should he the case, it
would be their duty to remonstrate with the Government on
the subject. But as Sir R. Peel had not thought proper to
explain his intentions in detail to the House of Commons, it
would be premature to say they were injured till they had
heard them.
A PROVRIETOR begged to differ with Mr. Ricardo, because
he thought the subject should be left in the hands of the Di-
rectors.

A PROPRIETOR wished to know, before 111r.Ricardo's motion
was put, what was the amount of the long annuit es.
The GOVERNO it could not answer at present.
A Paorairroit said, that he calculated the amount of the in-
come tax, on the dead weight alone, would amount to 17,0001.,
and the amount on the annuities, supposing them to be 500,00 W.
would be 15,0001., making 32,000/. And if there was only an
addition of 2,0001. he was afraid there would be a reduction
in the dividends. The tax, instead of 32,0001., ought
to be only 9,0,101. or 10,0001. ; and instead of being only id.
in the pounch'it would be really is. sd. in the pound.
The GOVERNOR suggested it would be better, in the first
place, to consider Alr. Ricardo's motion.
A PROPRIETOR wished to know, in the first place, whether
the allegation, tFat certain of the Exchequer-bills which had
had been repudiated, were received by the officers of
the Bank, was correct? He was the more anxious on the sub-
ject, because it had excited surprise that the Bank of England
had not moved in the matter, but had left the holders of the
bills to fight their own battles.
The GOVERNOR said that he believed if the Bank of Englano
petitioned Parliament on the subject their petition could nett be
received, as being contrary to the rules of the House of Com-
mons ; hut it was competent for individuals to petition on the
subject.
A PROPRIETOR suggested, that as an inquiry was proceed-
ing before Parliament it would be better to say nothin on the
subject.
Ihe GOVERNOR said he would first the questio ofthe
dividend That the Court order a dividend of 3% per cent.
for the year ending the sth of April."
The motion was then put and carried.
Mr. CARDOE then moved his resolution, to the effect that a
remonstrance should be made to the Govermnont with ?epid
to the injustice of taxing terminable annuities to the same
amount as permanent ones.
An lion. PaneatEroaseconded the motion, he did so
because he thought it was right that Sir R. Peel should he
made acquainted with the sentiments of the Court before he
submit'ed the particulars of his plan to Parliament.
An Hos. Pal:milk:volt said, that Sir R. Peel's plan of
taxing terminable annuities to the same amount as permanent
ones would be nothing less than a robbery.
A PaocitiErtoit said that in 1829, whenlllr. Goulbarrn was
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir R. Peel Secretary for the
Home Department, they did not mean to charge the same
amount on terminable and permanent annuities.
The GOVERNOR said that the Court were only waiting to
know the details of the Government measure.
A PROPRIETOR said, as it appeared to be the wish of the
Proprietors to send a remonstrance to the Government, there
was no choice for the Court.

A PROPRIETOR said that he did not. wish to oppose Mr.
Ricardo's motion, but he thought it assumed that the Govern-
ment intended to propose that plan.
A Pitornieiroa said the sooner the remonstrance was sent
up the better. It was far more difficult to break shackles, if
once imposed, than to prevent thcirbeing imposed. He thought
there should be no dela).
Mr. FIELDEN was
.afraid the motion would be considered as
interfering in favour of the proprietors of short annuities, with
whom they had nothing to do. They had no business to fight
the battle of the proprietors of the short annuities.
A PROPRIETOR would suggest that the word repreaentation
should be substituted for the word remonstrance.
Mr. RICARDO had no objection to make the proposixl altera-
tion.

Mr COOK rose, but was met with loud cries of " Question,
question," in the midst of which the I!on, Proprietor sat down.
A PROPRIETOR urged the necessity of sending up the repre-
sentation as soon as possible, and he felt convinced that Sir
Robert Peel would give attention to it.
The GOVERNOR had amended the resolution by sub-
stituting the word Court for the word Meeting. He
would now read the resolution amended, and put it to the
meeting. The Governor then read the resolution as follows :
That this Court, considering it most unjust to tax a terminable
annuity the same as a permanent one, by which means the
Bank Stock Proprietors will have to pay on the dead annuity •
alone upwards of 20,0001. on the capital, in addition to thskt
on the income, reckoning interest on the capital at 4 per cent.,
during the three years that tax is to continue, request the
Governor and Directors to take steps to send up directions
and repreienta.ions to Sir Robert Peel, pointing out the in-
justice of the case."
The re elution was carried by an immense
majority, telly
.three hands being held up against it.
A PROPRIETOR thought that as the resolution Ind been
ffect ; he
,
carried no time ought to be lost in carrying it into e
should therefore, in order to expedite the business, r.10V6 that
the Court do now adjourn.
the minus es.
put, that the Secretary should read
read, the Court adr urned shortly
The Govaexou said it was necessary, before that tnotion
was
The minutes having been
after one o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 17.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'Clock.
CORN-LAWS.

The Dukc of RICHMOND presented a petition from
certain owners and occupiers of land, praying their
Lordships not to consent to the proposed Ministerial al-
teration in the Corn-laws, unless a higher duty were
imposed on beans, peas, barley, and oats.
PRESBYTERIAN MIgED MARRIAGES.
The NOBLE DuKE then presented a petition from
some place in the county of Donegal, praying for the
legalization of Presbyterian mixed marriages.
The Earl of YARBOROUGH presented petitions
from Leinster and other places against the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition
from the minister and parishioners of a place in the
county of Down, praying that Parliament would extend
its support to the Church Education Society in Ireland.
The Noble Marquis presented other petitions from
places in the same county. for an alteration of the law
affecting the marriages of Presbyterians in Ireland.
A messenger from the Commons brought up the Bris-
tol Boundary Bill.
Earl FORTESCUE wished to put one or
two questions to the Noble Duke , opposite.,
An impression had gone forth to the public,
that great and fundamental changes were about
to be made in the Poor-laws, and although
what had passed in another place tended to remove the
expectation, still, parties were found who were induced
by it to dispute the authority of the Poor-law , Commis-
sioners. He wished to ask the Noble Duke first; whe-
ther, in any measure which would be introduced by Go-
vernment, they. would adhere to the general principles
and leading provisions of the present Poor-law; and. se
condly, whether they proposed to continue the adminis-
tration of the law in England and Ireland under the di-
reetioii- of the' Poor-law Commissioners.
Duke of WELLINGTON said, it had certainly
been announced by his tight I lon. Friend, the Secretary
of State for the Dime Department, that it was the inten-
tion of Government to propose to Parliament a measure
for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission. But
as the Bill would be introduced 4 the earliest convenient
opportunity, he thought no advantage could be derived
from a premature discussion on the subject.
THE INCOME TAX..

RESOLUTIONS OF LORD BROUGHAM.
Lord BROUGHAM rose and addressed the House as
follows :—My Lords, in rising to introduce the subject—
the important subject—of the resolutions which I took
leave to lay upon the table of the House on a former
evening, I hardly know whether I would be justi-
fied in this House, certainly I feel that I am not called
upon before your Lordships to vindicate the course
which I have thought it my duty to pursue—none
but the most superficial and ignorant persons—
none but persons most superficially acquainted—if ac-
quaintance it can be called—with the history of Parlia-
mentary proceedings, and with the undoubled privileges
of your Lordship's House can entertain the shadow of a
doubt of the entire competency of your Lordships to
consider this question, and of the regularity of this
proceeding. It is a vain imagination to suppose that
the Upper House of Parliament is, by the constitution
of this country, excluded from the consideration of such
a subject as the present, or that it should leave
the discussion of financial measures solely to the other
and lower House of Parliament. It is a mere imagina-
tion, to fancy that we have not the same right
which they have to entertain all questions touching the
revenue, touching taxation, as well as questions touching
the other interests of the subject. It is a right
which we have constantly exercised—it is a right which
we have never abandoned—it is a right which, when we
are pleased not to insist upon exercising, we volun-
tarily abstain from insisting on ; but the right
is ours undeniably, by the law of the land. My Lords,
this is, no doubt, incapable of dispute or controversy ;
but it may be said that in practice we have seldom
ftvailed ourselves of it. In general, we wait
unti' measures have been elsewhere matured, or
brought up to us in the form of Bills. We, gene-
rally speaking, give that precedence to the other
Rouse of Parliament. But, nevertheless, the right un-
questionably exists, anal we are habitually called upon
both by speeches from the Throne and by Royal messages,
to consider subjects of grants of money, and to consider
them at the same time that the other House of Parlia •
meat is called upon to take them into consideration.
'here never was an instance in which a message has
been sent to one House of Parliament, in which it has
not been accompanied by a message to the other
House, calling on Parliament to make proVisiou
for certain branches of the . public service. So
. lately even as the beginning of this session, in the
speech from the Throne at the opening of our assembly
in the commencement of last month, not merely the Com-
nionS, lift bdth Lords and Commons arc alike and in the
._same Nw.A,,6.4qoxfr,Fd of a deficiency in the public revenue,
mid called on speedilyt..o take into* ititit-considera-
/ion; the best'means.of shinnying Lords, I fear
glia,e.itrsc has been taken snore or less formally—more
.or less substantially in. thelieSOittirnes, and by the best
Hof Statesmen; by those most experienced in the practiced
'=dui•riis,
alftl'lnost tenacious of those forms too, of both
Hawses:, of Parliament.. My Lord, when I name the
late Lord Grenville, I pronounce the name of one, who
to all, his great qualities added this, that a more
accurate student of the Constitution in all its
branches, and a more careful observer of all their
forms never appeared in either blouse of Parliament.
Having sat for some time in the Chair of the House of
Commons before he ceased to be one of its most distin-
guished Members, and afterwards having given the most
unremitting attention to the forms of proceeding in this
• Rouse when he became one of its brightest ornaments.
I find Lord Grenville again and again bringing forward
questions of finance and questions relating to the revenue
or taxation before this House, independently of any pro-
ceedings that might have taken place in the other House
of Parliament. On one occasion, proceeding on what,
strictly speaking, he had a right to go by, and not
confining himself merely to what appeared on the votes
of the House of Commons, I recollect that,
just thirty years ago, in the spring of 1812,
when a late Right lion. person then at the head of the
Government had made a financial statement in that
House, Lord Grenville complained of that statement,
though it had not appeared on any paper, much
less in the form of. a Bill. He complained of the
inaccuracy of the statement, and charged that
'Minister with having deceived himself, and being a party
•to deluding the country by his statement. In order to
show the truth of that proposition, and sup-
port the charge, he moved for the produc-
' tion of certain accounts, which he afterwards made
tho subject of an elaborate discussion in your Lordship's
• • House. And as if he had anticipated the objection that
might be brought against such a course ; and as if he
Was determined, by his great authority, that those
objections should be precluded—for even the time
he chose to bring forward the financial discussion was on
the papers he had moved for—and not when
the bill should have reached that House from the
House of Commons, when some might say he
might have more regularly and more usually have
introduced the discussion—Lord Grenville pre-
ferred taking the discussion on the papers moved
• for, and before the Bill came up. The conse-
quence of this was, that the debate was taken the
;vim
t very same night before the debate was taken in the
other House. Nor was it only when Lord Grenville
mz,f„. Was in opposition that he held such opinions, 'for
rbe held the very same when he was in office ;
and in the early part of 1807, when that great plan
we finance, which had been digested by him and my
Noble- Friend near me (the Marquis of Lansdowne)
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was introduced in the
""rq'other'llouse of Parliament, and when my Noble Friend
near use introduced a plan as a substitute to the plan of
my Noble Friend, and that of Lord Grenville, he (Lord
Grenville) did not make any objection to the appointment
of a Committee on that occasion, but considering that the
plan was not embodied in any resolution, and that there
were no papers, upon that ground, and that ground
alone, he objected to the motion. He did not refuse
eJ discus sion ;on the contrary, he entered largely into
discuy.sion, and met the objections made to his own
' plan of finance. He objected to the motion ' which
lial
titv , was made, on the ground to which I have
- alluded, but upon the competency of the proceeding, or
, upon the ground of its being a motion of an unusual ra-
; to re, or upon that of its being an irregular proceeding
from the beginning to the end, he uttered not one word.
Ititt there is more authority for what I say. There was
unother person whose loss, because it was more recent,
makesl, a reference to him more painful—l mean the late
Holland, of whom it is not in the language of mere
friendship that I say, that a man more amiable
in private
life, more wonderful for the ex-
-tent of
his information and capacity, or one'
more revered and respected for his true, gnuine, ad
honest patriotism and devotion to the interests of his
country—(Hear, hear)--never has been, among all the
great public losses we have sustained, taken
sway from the publie
service
careful observer of the orderst.r)feMy Lords, he was a
yourk Lordships' House,
in which, perhaps, he Was snore
prac-
ticed than almost any man o f
to
y,
callr
skilled and more
and to which
o
he was more prone than anythe attention
of those who most wish to deviate fromio thwose, orders. I
find him in the year 1810, bringing forward
for an address to the Crown, to appoint aCommissionmotion.ion,
to value the tithes and tenths andfirstfruits
of Ecclesiastical benefices, to subject them to a
new
valuation, for the purpose of inquiring into the funds
d iS.
called Queen Anne's bounty, for maintaining the poorer
F. dety,y, and upon this occasion he brought forward a motion
Lord Holland brought fe.;zward that motion in come-
(penile of a vote announced in the other House of Par-
t, • liament—announced hilt not passed—for the payment of
7 loo,oad from the Consolidated Fund, to aid Queen
kt' Anne'ta Bounty. On 11th May Lord Holland made that
motion. in this House for an Address to find some` substitute
for du a vote in the House of Commons, that is to say,
to mad to an assessment of ecclesiastical benefices, and it
was n ct until three weeks afterwards—not until the 2d
`lll3OO. that the return in question passed the Committee

of Supply in the other House, and no other knowledge !
whatever on that subject had been obtained by your I
Lordships' House. Your Lordships had not re-
ceived the slightest intimation at all in , re-
gard to that subject, save an announcement in
, the Speech from the Throne at the beginning
of the Session, in words nearly the same as
the announcement which I have just read to your Lord-
ships from her Majesty s Speech at the beginning
of this Session. My Lords, I think I have said
enough, both on the question of principle and on the
question of precedent, to justify the course which
I am now pursuing. I stated to your Lordships,
when I addressed you on a former occasion, that
on the Whole it appeared to me to be pro-
ductive of the greatest possible inconvenience,
that your Lordships should not among yourselves
, be enabled to enter into all the considerations
of this question until it should have passed the
L other House of Parliaments If indeed my opinion were
clearly and decidedly against the income tax ; if I saw
no reason whatever for advocating the necessity of
this important measure ; if I had determined, under
all circumstances to wage an implacable war against
this impost, which, in another place, and on a former
occasion, I strongly, and not unsuccessfully opposed
and, indeed, I might wait until I had seen
what amendments had been made in the measure until
the measure were regularly
.before your Lordships,
'in order to give vent to my feelings of
implacable hostility against it, and in order to
try wholly and entirely to defeat it. But, my
Lords, that is not the position which I intend to
occupy, and that is not the position, I venture -to- take
'upon me to say, as at present advised, that your
Lordships believe I intend to occupy. I maintain
the same opinion as to the nature of that tax that I have
always' had, but I will not go so far as to say that Clrr
circumstanced as we now are, after the measure having
been passed to which I and others have been, made
parties, regard being had to the finances of the country,
that we are bound altogether to refuse to have re-
course to this means of raising supplies. I was a party
with my Noble Friend to the great measure for giving
freedom to upwards of one million of our fellow-subjects,
who were kept in a state of slavery. I was a party to
the payment of that enormous, but, in my humble opi-
nion, and, with my strongly-cherished feelings, I
feel bound to say not too high a price for that
great measure of justice, of humanity, and of true policy.
But I know well that from the payment of that large sum
of money has resulted a charge upon the revenue of this
country, which forms a considerable portion of the
deficit of which we complain. Front 700,0001, to
800,000/., the interest on these 20,000,0001., undoubt-
edly form a considerable porticn of the defi-
ciency. I was a party—a deeply interested party
to another measure of the late Government—a measure
in my opinion most properly passed by the late Go-
vernment, I mean that by which duties upon communica-
tions, postage duties generally, have been reduced to so far
moderate a compass, compared to the former bulk, that
I believe you may say a suns nearer to a million
than 800,000/. have been lost to the revenue from that
source. Here ends my responsibility as an individual
for the deficit complained of. Whatever has arisen from
other causes—l will not now stop to estimate the amount,
or inquire the origin of them—but I wish to submit on
the present occasion, in addressing your Lordships, that
no party view, no personal bias, could direct
me, and I would fain avoid every topic whatever, that
can for a moment distract your attention from the im-
portant question which I have undertaken to bring before
your Lordships—above all every thing that would give
rise to unseemly party or personal animosity upon a
subject of such great and rast importance. -But the
fact was undeniable that the detic,:4 arising from these
two causes, to which I have shortly adcet.:ed, is large and
considerable, and remains to be supplied ; and .Ilso that
we are bound to make up that deficiency—seve'2
millions and a half, in five years ; above two millions
and a half estimated as the least possible deficiency
for the next year, making ten millions upon these six
years, when there is but too great probability that in va-
rious parts of our empire circumstances will add to the
amount of necessary expenditure to be discharged, then,
my Lords, does not the public credit demand—does
not the security of the empire demand—that a
great exaction should at length be made by the
Government and Parliament of the country, and that we
supply that lamentable deficit in our financial resources,
so as to make expenditure no -longer exceed our
revenue. That question can only be answered
in one way-an affirmative answer, being, I
I believe, by universal consent of all men, both
in and out of Parliament. But one other question
remains before we feel ourselves driven to look in reality
to this most objectionable tax—that other question is,
have we any other means of making up thiS deficiency?
My Lords, I have heard of some rumours—l have
heard of some vague and general assertions, that you
may by reducing the duties on consumable commodities,
by lowering the customs and Excise imposts, you
may by these means so increase the consumption
as to increase the taxes, and so , make the
deficiency good. But, ma, Lords, all experience is
against such expectation.. Don't imagine for one
moment that I wish to underate the advantages
of lowering duties. Don't suppose that, contrary
to all-the opinions of all the able men
•who haVe uni-
formly considered this subject, I hold the least doubt
that the revenue would ultimately be greatly increased.
;rom a judicious lowering of the duties thatnow press on
the consumer ; but the difficulty-is here, that this result
will come too late'' and that-ifyou lower -those duties as
much .as you dare„ankt-el4er to judiciously choos-
ing those very artiet4 Oliit:lvpiets; most' on the con-
sumer, and of which COnStimption would be
most largely irigtreasgd„.ol4,lif make also the
strongest effbrts, and use them with ever so much judg-.
meat, that it Will be,,too -Jong before", those reductions
will yield the revenue required, and that consequently,
those expectations give no answer to the question
which ought now to ' be- answered in order to
escape from the sad necessity 'in which the
country is now placed: I need only remind you of those
attempts which have already been made, most properly
and beneficially, with a view to an immediate increase of
the revenue, but which turned out to be quite
vain. Let us, for example, take the case of the
lowering •of - the duty on wines. This reduc-
tion was made by my Noble Friend opposite,
in the year 1823 or 1824 to the amount of 54 per cent.
What became of the consumption ? It was very materi-
ally increased ; but what became of the revenue? It was
lowered by one-third immediately, having fallen from
2,100,000/. to 1,400,0001. By degrees the revenue
recovered, so that the loss was one-fifth in-
tend of one-third, but to this very hour, and after
twenty years have elapsed since the lowering of the duty
by 54 per cent., wine has never recovered its former
amount, the loss to the revenue still remaining one-
fifth. So it was with the duty on tobacco, which was
lowered 25 per cent., or from 4s. to 3s. Ido not mean to
say that the consumption did notincrease in consequence,
It did increase very materially, but a deficiency
on the revenue still remained, the loss being
about one-seventh. Again, sugar was reduced
11 per cent., the duty having been lowered
from 275. to 245. In, consequence the revenue
from sugar fell off ; the consumptionswas increased; the
subject was relieved ; the comforts of the people
were increased; a most excellent -proceeding took
place from the admirable act of lowering the duty
on sugar admirable, I say, for all purposes
except that of revenue, and the revenue from sugar is
now one-third lower than it was before.
The case of kelp is still stronger. The duty on that
commodity, which is largely used in manufacture, was
reduced—and very properly reduced one half—for there.
duction was a great relief to manufacturers. But what
has been the case with the revenue ? The revenue at
once fell off one half, and it has never since reco-
vered to more than one half of its former amount.
The same thing is true of all other reductions, ex-
cept the reduction of one or two articles. In the case
of runt and coffee, there has been an increase of the
revenue, consequent upon the reduction of duty. My
Lords, I believe no one can produce one other instance,
in which the lowering of duty was not attended with
loss to the revenue. Coffee, indeed, is a strong instance,
and one, where a great lowering of the duty was at-
tended with a great increase of revenue ; and in the
course of a few weeks the consumption began to
increase over what it had been before. But three
years elapsed before the revenue' regained its for-
rner, station._ I think this shows the necessity
for a time of resorting to* other means, when
the difficulty that presseS you requires to be immediately
met, whether you do so by an income tax or a property
tax ; for I think no more need be said to show that
lowering the duties will not give that immediate'
crease, although it may. probably, nay certainly will
in the course of a few years yield an increase. But for
the year's supplies, and to proceed for the publieservice,
that mode of proceeding is not open to Parliament. But
now that Parliament is compelled to consider to what.
measures it shall have recourse, it becomes my duty to state
what my objections are to the duties which it is,- in-
tended to propose. My wish is to lay before
you the considerations which may guide -you
in the course -you are to pursue, for the purpose, on
the one hand, of taking. every security that the duty
shall continue only to be levied while the peculiar ne-
cessity that, alone can justify it. shall continue to exist;
and, on the other hand, to see that it shall-be stripped of
all those portions which render it, and have in past times
rendered it, odious to the people of this country.
My Lords, ,
,a very great delusion appears to me
to prevail on the subject of an income tax
—and to prevail especially amongst those classes of the
people, for whom I feel, and always have felt, the deepest
interest—l mean the labouring people of this country,
as to the operation of an income tax upon their interest.
It is very common for them to say and for those
who undertake to instruct them, and ought to know
better—to say that they bear a portion of that
tax. But they ought to know that the labourers
had no interest in income, and that an in- ,
come tax or a property tax never can affect them.
My Lords, there cannot be a greater delusion. The la-
bourer is at once directly and largely interested in every-
thing that diminishes the fund; and as that fund is the
growing capital of the country, the capital aeon
mulating from year to year, or the income of
the country, whatever breaks in upon that ca-
pital, and prevents that accumulation, goes directly to
diminish the fund out of which alone the labourer can
be paid. The manner in which our income tax operates
upon those who pay it, if your Lordships will only
for a moment attend to it, will clearly show how
directly the levying of such a tax must affect the
interests of those whose labour that income tends to
employ. You levy so much , per cent. from those
possessed of income. All that is withdrawn, if
they are persons who employ it in a lucratiye market,
all that is withdrawn from that employment. If they
were either farmers, or manufacturers, or -traders of any
description, whatever they had to pay, that tax was
either a portion of their income which they were accu-
mulating, or it was a portion of their income which
they were expending in the course of the year.

If, it was a portion of their income which they
were accumulating, then if accumulating—if laid
by—it produced a profit on capital being added
to their capital, and consequently the additional profit
derived from it was added to their income, and increased
the income which they were to spend the year after.
That income, so increased, which they were to expend
the year after, no longer is expended by them, because
the money in the- capital was taken away from them,
which gave rise to that income. It is taken from them
to be employed by others in another way, in
supporting labour of another description—that labour
which adds nothing to the wealth of the community.
If, again, instead of being hoarded—when I say hoarded
I use an inaccurate expression, for men do not hoard
their earnings, they expend them in such a way as to
yield a profit, an additional profit the next year to what
they had last year ; but if, instead of being accumu-
lated, and so, going to increase their capital, and by in-
creasing their capital to increase their next year's income;
if it was a portion of their income which they did not
accumulate, but expended during the year, then that by
the operation of an income tax, is withdrawn from its
former. occupation. Now, what was that former occu-
pation in the case of money being spent as income ;
and what is that occupation of the profits
of the capital, in the case of its being accumu-
lated, and not spent within the year The
manner in which it is employed will depend, no
doubt, upon the class from which it comes—classes
of mere annuitants, who are not engaged in
business, ' employ their capital not in such IL
way as to be productive of other capital, but to promote
their own comfort, in the purchase of consumable com-
modities, in maintaining servants, and in other matter.i,
which go to make up what is called an establishment.
The other classes of the community are the traders, the
manufacturers, and the farmers. Now, let us take the
first or higher class of society
.to whom the argument
is suppoied less exclusively and immediately to apply. I
allude to those who employ their incomes in consump-
tion; and who retail their revenues. I believe that when
the, pressure of the tax falls upon that class it may be
pretty safely laid down as a general rule that the last
retrenchment they make is in those matters which are
merely for the eye—which go to constitute outward ap-
pearance, and to give a tone and colour, and size to the
circumstances of the parties, and that the first retrench-
ment which they make is not, therefore, a retrench-
ment of their establishments. But, unfortunately, the
first retrenchment which they make—if they do retrench
—is in those articles which put productive labour
into motion—it is in consumption, and by making that
retrenchment in Consumption, even this class of
the community—l do not mean the unindustrious
classes, or the monied classes not engaged in trade
or manufactures—even this class of the community
which lives upon its income; even they, therefore,
diminish the fund, which formerly they used in giving
employment to productive labour, because they diminish
the amount of the articles they consume. But then
as to the other classes of the people, who are em-
pl.iyed in the trade, or the manufacture, or the
agriculture of the.couutry; I need not stop one moment to
remind your Lordships, that whatever is withdrawn from
the expenditure, is withdrawn from the fund out of which
the wages of labour are to be paid to the working
classes of the community. Every thousand pounds
then which is drawn from these persons—from the
farmers, from the manufacturers, and from the traders
*of the country, and which is paid in the form of a tax,
every thousand pounds so paid is permanently withdrawn
and by so much, by that thousand pounds of necessity
is the fund lessened out of which the labour of the com-
munity is to be paid. There is this most material
difference between a tax upon income directly levied and
a tax levied upon consumable commodities, that the in-
come tax taken away is accompanied with no expendi-
ture which supports labour ; whereas a tax expended in
paying a duty upon consumable commodities,
ai the same time that it puts something
in the
something out; 'nr.
..."':-easury, also puts, of necessity,
ductive labour is supplied.-
goes to support
..."2,e fund from which pro-
that the thousand pounds
that is taken by way of an inco:4o tux
any productive labour at all, wheretre every one pound
p
of each thousand that is employed in the roduction
of consumable commodities, and that pays the custom
and excise duties, of necessity, creates an expe.'diture
of another thousand—perhaps of two or three thousa24l
in supporting productive labour—in supporting the
trade, the agriculture, and the commerce of the country.
My Lords, it is impossible to approach the arguments
that have been used, both for and against this tax on in-
come, without being aware that very great mistakes
have prevailed on both sides—that there have been great
mistakes on the part of those who have supported the
tax ; and when I say great mistakes on the part
of those who have opposed it—l should rather say,
great mistakes on the part
.of those who have no great
objection to be taxed, provided you will only let them
modify and mould it according to their own fancies
and speculations. , It is also lately necessary to
keep quite clear of both these errors, and I will
begin with the last, in order to put it out of the way. It
is a very common thing to hear men say, Oh ! I have no
great objection to a tax of this sort—on the cus-
trary I think, under proper limitations it is not
a bad tax ; it has many advantages and fewer draw-
backs than any other, if levied in a proper mode.
If it is asked what that mode is to be, the answer is,
" Oh! let it be a property tax, and not an income tax.
If it only affects property, I do not much care; let those
who have property look to that ; if it only comes
upon the land, and upon the funds, there is no
great harm done ; but don't let it come upon income.
Only upon land and the funds In reality; when
we come to examine a little more minutely into the
grounds for this predilection for a tax so constituted, by
those who thus argue, we find it is rather the fends than
the land which they have in -their eye. They have
no objection to see a property tax levied, by means
of which a considerable sum may be raised from the
landholder—that is to say, at the expense of public
credit. My Lords, lam sorry to say that this predilec-
tion for a tax on the Funds, is not, confined to persons
of no property at all ; I have heard it not seldom
argued for by those who have property. They may give
us a tax upon land and on the funds, and welcome, pro-
vided, we have no other tax. We may frequently find
men of landed property having so !great a
desire to see a tax on the funds, that they were
ready to waive, or at least suspend their dislike to a
land and property tax, in order that they might
make sure of the other. But they were not the
only persons who so argued, and it is more
strenuously defended, and more loudly proclaimed, by a
very great deal among those who would fain have
lands as well as _ the funds included, but
whose enmity was directed most against the funds.
These men are utterly ignorant of the question they pro-
fess to treat. They are not only ignorant of all
justice of practice, and of all honour in public
dealings, but they are utterly and profoundly
ignorant of what the class consists upon
whom they would be for throwing the burden
of taxation, I remember, nine or ten . years ago,
when myself and my Noble Friend opposite were in
office together, we had occasion to make an inquiry
as to the distribution of the dividends upon
public stock, and I remember we called for
a return of the stock warrants, that is the authority
upon which the dividends of the Public Funds are
paid quarterly. What was the result ? What
was the number of those warrants ? Why, no
less than 280,000, and many, of those warrants
comprehennding hundreds and even thousands of persons
though they appeared as only single warrants being
paid to public companies, to the Bank of England, to dock
compan es, and to assurance offices. These only went as
if they were paid to one receiver, when they were distri-
buted among hundreds and thousands, and if I say that
the numbr of licences is 800,000 I shall not
exaggerate the number by a single cipher.
Why the average is under 1001. a-year. There are
240,000 under 50/. a-year. There ure 600, and no more,
who receive 1,0001. a-year. Is that a tax upon the funds
alone—is that a tax on the holders of stock exclusively ?
If you throw a burden on them that you do not throw
on the rest of the community it will not only be greatly
unjust and vastly dishonest—not only a robbery of the
public creditors, but it would be a harrassing of the
poorer part of the community ; it would be throwing the
burden of the taxation for the State on that class who were
not the best, but the least able, to bear these
burdens. .But it :.aid that property should be taxed
and not income. That there is a great difference between
capital of every kind and income no person is more ready
to admit than I am. That is the bulk of the argument.
I am about to address to your Lordships, and forms
the' ground work of my objection; but that income
should escape altogether—that capital should be sub-
jected to taxes, and not income, is one of the greatestab-
surdities in argument, and one of the grossest acts of
injustice, that any Government could be guilty of;
but, my Lords, it is said, that in order to make the tax
a fair and an equal one; you ought to apply a
graduated scale of taxation; that you ought not to
apply to incomes of every amount the same per centage.
That is a doctrine my Lords which has really seduced a
very great number of persons indeed. I may apply to
both those doctrines the same observation which Montes-
quieu applied to a book, which was a very celebrated work,
in its time, the work of the Abbe Dubois on
the Origin of the French Monarchy. The theory is
one calculated very much to seduce all who read
it, because it takes for granted the matters in dispute;
constantly substitutes plausibilities for facts; is sup-
ported by a series of suppositions which it takes
for granted, and then draws other suppositions from them
as consequences. My Lords, there is the same fault in
the arguments of those who in regard to the question
maintain the two opposite arguments, both those who
say that this is the most equal of all taxes, and
those who say that by the application of a gra-
duated scale it can be made the fairest and
the most just of taxes, are equally open to
these objections; the first class assume that it
is in your power to make an equal tax, and the second
class assume that it would be just that the per
centage should rise in a scale proportionate
to the income. My Lords, there never was a greater
mistake ; in the first place, have you any right to throw
the burden of the whole taxatiou of the country upon
persons who have large incomes ? Why should the tax
not be paid in proportion —in just proportion —in
equal proportion by persons possessing moderate
incomes. They pay a great deal less in proportion as
their incomes are less, and the others pay a greater sum
in proportion as their incomes are greater. Nothing
can be more just, nothing can be more fair than this ;
but this is not,. the kind of justice—this is
not the kind- of fairness that is intended.
under the graduated scale. Taking the income tax at 10
per cent. that a man possessed of 1,000/. a-year, should
pay a tax of 1001. a-year; is just and fair, and that a man
with an income of 10,000/.' a-year, should
pay 1 ,0001. to
the tax, is also
just and fair ; each man pays
in proportion to his -income ; each man is
taxed according to his means, but that is not enough
to satisfy the advocated for a graduated scale. It is re-
ported that the proposed property tax is to be three per