The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-03-28 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

sufficient, without the continuance of the Property Tax,
to meet the expenditure. The option, therefore, was
afforded to Parliament, in 1845, of disposing altogether
with the tax. It was, however, reimposed, with the
general. approbation of the country, for a further period
of three. years. The objects of this renewal were to pro-
vide for the change which steam navigation had made in
the position of the country as regarded maritime defence,
and also to remove a still larger amount of duties affect-
ing the prosperity of trade, and the comforts of the work-
ing classes. The annual pressure of indirect taxation
removed by the late government amounted to seven and
a half millions, exclusive of the duties upon corn.
In 1842, and in 1845, the scheme under which the
Income Tax was to be levied was discussed in Parliament,
and on both of these occasions my vote was recorded in
favour of the existing system.
These circumstances were known to the electors of
Liverpool when I had the honour of being chosen to
represent them ; and though in course of the election I
was asked and I answered many questions upon points
of public interest, I do not remember that any objection
was made by any one on this subject.
The present Government, under circumstances with
which you are acquainted, and for which I am not re-
sponsible, have asked the House of Commons for a fur-
ther continuance of the tax, and I have felt it incumbent
upon me, with a view to the maintenance of the public
credit, to accede to their demand. By voting in 1848, as
I voted in 1842 and 1845, I have given, on public grounds,
a perfectly independent support to a ministry with which
T have no relations of party attachment or connection.
Upon the score, then, of consistency, I am not only
free from censure in the course I have actually pursued,
but I might fairly have been expected to furnish cogent
reasons for my change of conduct, if, in the present con-
dition of the Exchequer, I had reversed my former votes.
I should, however, imperfectly explain the reasons by
which I have been guided, if I rested my reply upon the
ground of consistency alone, and failed to enter also upon
the merits of the question itself; for I at once acknow-
ledge that if I had seen sufficient reason for a change of
vote, I should not have been deterred from discharging
my public duty by any timid regard to an appearance of
personal consistency.

- The proposition submitted to the House of Commons
proposed to be an amendment of the mode in which the
Property and Income Tax has been levied under the acts
in force, from 1803 to 1816, and under the act passed in
1842, and continued in 1845. I gave to this proposition
the full consideration which the importance of the Ine,pme
AT), 104 the anxiety Pk3tlft of that consideration con-
firmed my belief that it would have added immeasurably
to the inquisitorial and offensive nature of the tax, and
would have failed to remedy its inequality as regards per-
sons holding their respective incomes by a different tenure.
Such was the experience of Mr. Pitt in 1799, which led,
in 1803, to the adoption of the present system ; and such,
I am persuaded, would have been the practical operation
of the project now submitted to the House of Commons :
I therefore voted against it, and with these convictions
could not honestly have voted for it. I cannot admit that
I have shown any disregard for the demands of justice,
or any disrespect for the interests and feelings of my
constituents.

In answer to that part of your letter in which you say,
that " considerations of a totally different nature from the
relations between a representative and his constituents,
and the identification of interest," are stated by me, in
one of my late speeches, to have been made the founda-
tion of my decisions, I must be permitted in my own vin-
dication to reply, that I think you have wholly misappre-
hended the purport of my argument : and, also to remind
you, that the memorial was proposed by your committee,
and offered to the public for signature, before I had taken
the opportunity of stating to the House of Commons, in
the speech to which you refer, the reasons which influ-
enced my votes.

Under these circumstances, if I were to vacate my seat
in compliance with this requisition, I should infringe an
important principle of this constitution, should forfeit the
honourable engagement I have contracted towards the
constituency of Liverpool, and be guilty of an offence
towards the community at large, for whose general good
it is my duty to consult in parliament.
Instances have occurred in which a member of parlia-
ment has appealed to the judgment of his constituents
under other conditions than those which the rulers of the
constitution prescribe. But these have been exceptional
cases, excused, rather than justified, by an overruling
sense of personal honour, under peculiar circumstances,
when former opinions have been changed, and former
votes reversed. I have no such excuse. I have adhered
in the present to the course I was known to have pursued
in the former parliament, and I have exercised to the best
of my ability a conscientious and a faithful judgment.
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
EDWARD CARDWELL.