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

Captain MANGLES said that at this moment the Indian go-
vernment had a loan open to it at five per cent., which was
about equivalent to three per cent. in this country, whereas
on former occasions they had borrowed at nine, at ten, and
even at twelve and a half per cent. How then could it be
said that the revenue of India was in such a 'state as to call
upon this country to saddle itself with an income tax to re-
lieve it? The hon. and gallant captain concluded by stating
that as yet there were no sufficient circumstances before the
house to justify it in agreeing to an income tax, and he must
therefore oppose its adoption.
Mr. G. VERNON, in supporting the income tax, said he did
so because he thought that two millions taken from the
people by indirect taxation, was much more than two mil-
lions taken by an income tax. This was not with him a new
opinion, for in 1816, he had voted in the minority against
abolishing the income tax of that day. He had then but one
constituent—the Duke of Newcastle—and that noble lord
was desirous of abolishing the tax. He told the duke that
he thought the tax a fair and just one, and offered, as their
opinions differed, to accept the Chiltern Hundreds. " No,"
said the duke, " you may vote according to your opinions,
for I have spoken to all my members. and one half are going
to vote for, and the other half against, the tax." (A laugh.)
_Mr. C. BULLER said that some observations which had
dropped from Sir R. Peel appeared to him to be particularly
ominous, as respected the duration of this income tax. He
first proposed that it should continue for three years only ; a
few days subsequently he talked of five years as the extreme
period ; and since then he had intimated that at the close of
five years it would be seriously taken into consideration
whether the circumstances of the country would not enable
them to do without it altogether. The hon. and learned
gentleman said it was common for hon. members who were
pleased to be facetious—after the manner of country mem-
bers—to charge upon the whigs every difficulty which now
existed. Thus, an hon. member on the previous evening had
said that the late government had left the Canadian expendi-
ture and the boundary question as a legacy to their succes-
sors, forgetting that in all the policy pursued respecting
Canada the late government majorities had been swelled by
all the members of the present government, while he (Ilr.
C. Buller) bad all through disapproved of, and voted against
that policy. And, again, on the case of the boundary ques-
tion, if blame was to be attributed anywhere it was to the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who nad a share in the
treaty at Ghent long before the whigs came into power. He
denied that the conservatives had any claim to the practice
of economy, for he never remembered more than two in-
stances in which any of them had voted for a curtailment of
expenditure—one was in saving £20,000 to the country by
voting for the reduction of the proposed income to Prince
Albert from £50,000 to £30,000 a year, and the other in
voting against the very restricted grant to the College of
Maynooth. The hon. and learned gentleman then contended
that if the rival budgets (that of the right han. baronet, in-
cluding the new tariff and the income tax) were once more
placed before the country on the hustings, the people would
readily accept that of Lord J. Russell to the budget of the
present government.
Mr. BORTHWICK supported the proposition of the govern-
ment, but the noise in the body of the house was so great that
the hon. member at length moved the adjournment of the
debote. The gallery was cleared, but no division took place,
and on our return we found Mr. Borthwick still speaking
and attacking the ministerial side of the house for their share
in the interruption he had received, for upon their gratitude
he had some claims, whereas he had none upon the other side.
On the motion of another hon. member the debate was ad-
journed as soon as Mr. Borthwick sat down, Sir R. Peel ex-
pressing a hope that to-morrow night the house would come
to a divisio❑ with respect to the income tax, as until its
opinion was expressed on that proposition it would be incon-
venient to bring the alterations of the tariff under the con-
sideration of the house.
• Mr. MASTERMAN regretted that the house had not come
to a decision that night, and said that the commercial inte-
rests in the city he had the honour to represent were most
anxious that no delay should take place in coming to a de-
cision upon the important questions submitted to its conside-
ration. _ _ _

Sir W. JAMES spoke of the inconvenience of delay in not
coming to a decision.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the debate would close to-mor-
row, but as there were many hon. members who hacLnot ex-
pressed their opinions, and who were desirous of so doing,
he thought it impossible to prevent them, if they deemed it
a duty to their constituents to address the house.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.