The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-15 00:00:00

Mr. MACAULAY said be had been entrusted with a petition
from the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, which he was
unable to present, because he was compelled to bow to an
abuse, which prevented petitions from being presented against
any tax while under the consideration of the house. He could
not bring himself to believe that such an abuse could continue
when it had only a majority of one to support it, and which
had not even the shadow of reason in its favour. The Cham-
ber of Commerce of Edinburgh condemned the income tax ;
and, for his own part, he had no hesitation in saying that a
property tax could be very easily imposed %,ithout allowing it
to become an income tax. The right hon. gentleman then
proceeded to contend that there was nothing in the situation
of the country which called for the imposition of a tax so odi-

ons as the measure now proposed by Sir R. Peel. With re-
spect to the proposition for throwing away the existing tim-
ber duties, he must say that he believed such a loss, .finan-
cially speaking, to be a greater disaster than the recent one
in Affghanistan. Instead of imposing a tax to cover a deficit,
Sir R. Peel was creating a deficit in order to have an excuse
for imposing a tax.

Lord STANLEY said, he concurred, not without reluctance,
but with a strong conviction of the necessity, in the measures
now proposed as being the proper, the fitting, and, in fact,
the only mode by which the government could meet the
difficulties left them as a legacy by their predecessors. It
was admitted there was a deficiency in the revenue—it was
admitted that taxation of some kind was necessary to meet
it—and it was admitted that commerce was labouring under
such depression at present that it was hopeless to look for
immediate revenue from its revival. Under these circum-
stances it was that the income tax was proposed, and he con-
fidently believed the emergency he had stated was sufficiently
urgent to justify the imposition of an income tax, however
disagreeable it might be. It was said to be a war tax, and
he would ask if we were at peace? It was true that we were
at peace with America, and that our differences with that
country might be amicably arranged ; but when before, he
would ask, were we obliged to keep an army of 20,000 British
bayonets in the Canadas ? (Cheers.) Were we at peace with
China ? And to come to Affghanistan, the right honourable
gentleman was glad enough, when speaking of the disasters
there, to disclaim for himself having been a member of the
cabinet at the time the policy regarding that country was
resolved upon. (Loud cheering.) The right hon. gentleman
rated at pounds, shillings, and pence the losses in the dis-
asters at Affghanistan ; he said that disaster was greater than
the disaster at Walcheren, and yet rated it less than the loss
of the timber duties; but when in the same breath he said
that a religious feeling was involved in it, and that the free-
masonry of Islamism extended from Morocco to Coromandel,
he forgot that, even looking at the Affghanistan affair, and
judging of it by the low view of it as a financial question, his
estimate of the comparative importance of the timber duties
shrank into insignificance. The noble lord denied that the
income tax was unjust or unequal. though it was inquisitorial ;
but even its inquisitorial character would be as far as possible
softened down by allowing professional and mercantile men
to pay on an average of their incomes for a series of years.
The measure was one which he believed would be well re-
ceived by the country—a measure so just that it had extorted
from an opponent the praise that it was a bold, a direct, and
an honest proposition. (Cheers.)

Mr. LABOIJCHERE said that the noble lord had addressed
the house with his usual ability, but with less than his usual
fairness, for he had sought to fasten on Mr. Macaulay a
charge of having viewed the recent disaster at Affghanistan
as if the loss of brave men was to be estimated by pounds,
shillings, and pence. The right hon. baronet then contended
that the measures recommended by the late government
would have superseded the necessity for an income tax. He
admitted that many portions of the new tariff were most
valuable, and he only regretted that those were the very
portions which had met with the most strenuous opposition.
Lord STANLEY disclaimed imputing to Mr. Macaulay any
thing like an indifference to the lives lost at Affghanistan.
He only meant to say that, looking at the matter in a financial
point of view, it was a very low and imperfect manner of re-
garding such a greivous disaster.

Lord F. EGERTON said he-had received two petitions—
one from Manchester signed by 2-1,000 persons, and the other
from Bury,—both of them strongly in favour of the financial
measures brought forward by the present government, and
hoped that no delay would he interposed, beyond such as
was required by fair discussion, to those measures, including
the new tariff, becoming law. The noble lord believed the
income tax to be necessary, and should therefore support it
as a vote of confidence in the present government, more
especially because it was aided by the councils of the Duke
of Wellington.
Lord J. RussELL defended his side of the house from any
wish unfairly to delay those measures. Delay was more
fairly attributable to the present government, for had they
thought proper all those questions might have been discussed

last May. The noble lord further stated that he should he
ready, if an inquiry took place into the affairs of India, to
defend the course pursued, and to take his full share of the
responsibility attaching to Lord Auckland, than whom no
man could have shown a greater anxiety to perform his duty
in the station which he had the honour to hold.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE also expressed his readiness to take
his full share of responsibility, and said that Lord Auckland
could have pursued no other course than that he had adopted,
if he consulted the welfare of the whole Indian empire.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said he had received a requisition from
over 3,000 of the electors of Manchester, calling upon him
to oppose the income tax by every fair means in his power.
Sir R. PEEL, in reply to a question from .Mr. LABOU.
CHERE, said be held the new tariff in his hand, and a copy
was in the hands of the printer, so that it would be very
soon in the hands of hon. members.
After a few observations from Mr. C. POWELL, the debate
was adjourned.