PROPERTY TAX BILL.

HL Deb 04 April 1845 vol 79 cc124-67

The Earl of Ripon

rose to propose the Third Reading of the Property Tax Bill, and said, that when he had introduced the same Bill to the House in the year 1842, he had then felt it to be his duty to explain the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government had proposed that measure to Parliament; and the measure was altogether so important in itself, that at that time he had thought it necessary to make a very lengthened statement with reference to it. On the present occasion he should have to request their Lordships' indulgence whilst he stated to them the reasons which warranted the Government in calling upon Parliament to give to this Act a further continuance. On that former occasion he had stated that this measure had been introduced for the purpose of remedying the acknowledged evil of a deficiency in the Revenue of the State. The remission of a great number of taxes subsequent to the passing of that Bill, had rendered some such measure as the present necessary; otherwise it would be inconsistent with the Revenue and the interests of this country to remit so large an amount of taxation as had been taken off. He did not think that he was called upon to enlarge upon the importance of preventing as much as possible the dangerous practice of having a continued deficiency of Revenue; neither did he deem it necessary to state to them the importance of reviewing their fiscal regulations, which had grown in the course of years into such a state as to be neither beneficial to the Revenue nor advantageous to the country; nor did he deem himself on the present occasion called upon to state the reasons why he believed nothing but an Income Tax could enable them to meet the deficiency in the Revenue. In 1842 that House passed the measure, and he believed that they would not have passed it if they had not regarded it as the only certain and efficient mode of overcoming the evil with which they had to contend. He should state to their Lordships, however, why the Government felt called upon to propose a continuance of this tax; and he must, therefore, put their Lordships in possession of the present state of the Revenue, as compared with its condition at the time when the tax was originally proposed, and compared also with what they must expect it to be if their Lordships should not concur in its temporary continuance. The Act was proposed in 1842, and was to last for three years. At that period the state of the Revenue and Expenditure was as follows, viz.:—On the 5th of April, 1842, there was a deficiency of 2,139,000l., and it was against that deficiency that they had asked Parliament to provide by consenting to the Income Tax; and at that time alterations were contemplated in our fiscal system, which it was calculated would further reduce the Revenue by between 1,400,000l. and 1,500,000l. The consequence of these alterations was, for the moment, still further to aggravate the diminution of income as compared with the expenditure. It was obvious that for the first year the full benefit of the Income Tax could not be experienced, while by the repeal of these duties the income for the year would be still further reduced. Accordingly, on the 5th of April, 1843, in consequence of the whole of the Income Tax not having been received, the great object of attaining a surplus had not been obtained, and there was on that day a deficiency of Income as compared with Expenditure of 2,421,000l. In the year ending April the 5th, 1844, however, the picture was reversed, for the Property Tax had then been collected during four full quarters, and it had produced considerably more than the estimate of the Government; for whereas the Government had estimated it at 3,750,000l., it did actually produce 5,356,000l., and that gave them a surplus of 2,950,000l. In the course of last year it was thought advisable, proceeding on the principle of diminishing duties, to apply it to the various important articles of trade, amounting to between 200,000l. and 300,000l., so far presuming upon the success that had attended the scheme of 1842. On the best information which he had been able to gain, founded upon the expenditure and receipts up to the latest moment, he believed he was warranted in stating that the surplus on the 5th of April, 1845, would, including everything, considerably exceed the sum of 5,000,000l. It would, he believed, exceed the amount of 5,800,000l., including 5,200,000l. from the Property Tax, and 600,000l. from the China indemnity. Their Lordships would see, then, that they had secured that surplus of revenue over expenditure which it was the object of the Bill of 1842 to effect. They had at the same time been able to reduce taxation to a considerable amount—to the amount, he believed, of between 1,400,000l. and 1,500,000l.; and he should, notwithstanding, be able to show to their Lordships, that during these two last years the Revenue had been in a state of progressive, and he might say, of remarkable improvement. It would be necessary, however, to state what would be the condition of the country if the Property Tax were not renewed. For the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, the estimate of the expenditure of the country was 49,645,000l., including the Debt and all the Supplies voted. The ordinary receipts of the country would amount to 47,900,000l., so that there would be a deficiency in the year ending the 5th of April of 1,745,000l. There were, however, two quarters of Property Tax to be received in that year, and there would be 600,000l. from China; so that they would find, that in the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, there would be a surplus of 1,457,000l. But that surplus would be entirely owing to what remained over uncollected from the Property Tax, aided by the 600,000l. from China. In the following year, therefore, supposing the Property Tax expired, they would have no further source except the same 600,000l. from China; and the consequence would be, that they would have in 1847 to contend against the very same species of deficiency, with all its evils, which in 1842 had induced Parliament to impose this tax upon the country. It appeared to him, then, necessary that they should take this opportunity, by a renewal of the tax, of maintaining a surplus of revenue over expenditure. He was quite sure that it would be impossible to meet the evil by a diminution of expenditure, for he was certain that the present Government had endeavoured, and had succeeded, in curtailing the expenditure of the country to the very lowest point. In almost every branch reductions had been made, though there were some branches in which it was felt that at present reductions could not with safety be effected. It was felt, for example, that in the present position of affairs our Navy should not be neglected; and it was clearly the interest of this country not to allow other States to outstrip her in steam navigation; an increase had, therefore, been proposed in the number of seamen to man our Navy. Her Majesty's Ministers, then, proposed to renew the tax upon Property and Income for a period of three years — the same period for which it had originally been imposed. Should Parliament accede to this proposition, the effect would be, that, in the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, there would be a surplus of 4,056,000l., which would be a great means of realizing the object they had in view, that of equalizing the Revenue to the Expenditure of the country. But they had thought (and he confessed he had never had the slightest doubt on the subject) it would be wise, and he would go further and say it was necessary, to combine, as had been done in 1842, with the Income Tax, a further attempt to rectify the anomalies existing in our import duties, and to apply a portion of that surplus revenue to the relief of other duties that were onerous and objectionable in every point of view; and, accordingly, they had proposed to Parliament—and the measure was in the course of discussion in the other House—to make a very considerable reduction in the duties upon a great variety of articles, some of the greatest importance. In the first place, it was proposed to repeal absolutely almost all the duties (with only one or two exceptions) chargeable upon the raw materials of our manufactures of every kind. The total amount of relief on a very great number of articles, too minute to detail, would be 320,000l. Their object was to enable us successfully to compete with foreign markets, by cheapening the cost of production—that was the principle upon which they (the Ministers) proposed to proceed. Amongst the articles the duty on which was reduced was glass, a most important manufacture, the duty on which was of large amount, though a great quantity was lost in the way of drawback. The amount was 680,000l., but the real amount of the Excise duty collected on glass was far beyond that. The public had to pay double the amount, besides the nuisance of an Excise officer attending the manufacture, which was necessary if any duty existed. Some said, "Why take off the duty on glass; why not remove the duty on soap?" But equally good reasons might be given why the duties on other articles should be removed; and with respect to soap, he should be very glad to get rid of it. The next item he would notice was cotton wool, the duty on which was very productive, yielding 650,000l.; but no doubt it was a duty which sinned against every principle; it amounted in effect to from 5 to 7 per cent. upon the price of the raw material of an immense manufacture, and nothing but necessity could justify the keeping up of that tax. The next article he should touch upon was sugar. He was not going upon this occasion to renew the controversy of last year as to whether the policy of the Ministers with regard to sugar was wise or not; that was a fair subject for argument and discussion. But he was entitled to say that the reduction they proposed to make in the duty on sugar was in itself an immense benefit to the consumers of the article, amounting at the very least to 12s. or 13s. per cwt.; and this would make such a reduction in the price of sugar as to bring it within the power of consumption of a number of poor people who at present, in consequence of the high price of sugar, were deprived of what some called a luxury, but which was in fact a necessary of life. Therefore, whether their policy in dealing with sugar was right or wrong on principle, a great and substantial benefit would be conferred on the people of this country, and, as he understood, had been already felt. It was calculated that the loss to the Revenue from this item would be not less than 1,300,000l. Another article was the duty on auctions, 300,000l. Much had been said about this duty, and it was a fair matter for discussion. The difference, therefore, between 4,056,000l. and 3,020,000l. would be a surplus in April, 1846, of 836,000l. Now, that was their scheme in figures. But he had some observations to make before he concluded. It might be said, in objection to this scheme, that by reducing so much of our indirect taxation, they would be compelled again to apply to Parliament to prolong the Income Tax. That was the argument used, and it was a very plausible one; and whether used with a view of recommending or of depreciating the scheme proposed, he was not surprised that it had been used. But he hoped that the financial condition of the country at the end of the term for which the continuance of the Income Tax was proposed, would be such as to enable us to dispense with the Income Tax; and the general aspect of our commercial affairs led him to think that there were very auspicious circumstances connected with them which should not be kept out of sight in forming any speculative conclusions. In the first place, he would request their Lordships' attention to the condition of the Public Debt. Every one knew that the charge for the Public Debt constituted one-half of our annual expenditure; its diminution, therefore, was an object of immense importance, though of great difficulty. The state of the Debt as it stood now (or would stand in 1846), as compared with the year 1842, was as follows: — In 1842, the charge for the Public Debt, funded and unfunded, permanent as well as temporary, or terminable, was 29,452,000l.; and the amount of the charge for the Debt which will be incurred (including the same items) in the year ending April, 1846, will not be more than 28,365,000l., showing a reduction of charge, between April, 1842, and April, 1846, of no less than 1,087,000l. This was a permanent diminution of charge. Another circumstance, equally satisfactory, was this, that the balances in the Exchequer, which on the 5th of April, 1842, were 8,857,000l.; on the 5th of April, 1844, had increased 2,235,000l. He could not tell what would be the amount of balances on the 5th of April, 1845; but he had shown that the amount had increased in April, 1844; and they were a great resource at periods of sudden difficulties, charges, and embarrassment. He would next call their Lordships' attention to the great improvement which had taken place in the trade and commerce of the country, and the state of some of the principal branches of our exports as compared with what they were in former periods. He had an account which had been laid before Parliament of the real value of the exports of the principal articles of British produce and manufactures for three years, 1842, 1843, and 1844. The principal articles of export were coals, cotton manufacture, earthenware, glass, linen manufacture, lead, tin, salt, yarn, &c. &c. In the year 1842, the real value of all these articles exported amounted to 40,785,000l.; in 1843 they were 44,720,000l.; and in the year ending January, 1845, they amounted to no less than 50,614,000l., being an excess beyond the year 1842 of no less than 9,829,000l., and over the second year no less than 5,894,000l. He would for a moment advert to certain articles of import, in order to show the increased power of consumption on the part of the people of this country. First, he would mention coffee. The duty on coffee was greatly reduced in 1842, and had been further reduced in 1844. What had been the result? He had an account of the quantity of coffee which had paid duty for home consumption in the last five years. In 1840, the quantity was 28,664,000lb.; in 1841, 28,307,000lb.; in 1842, 28,519,000lb.; in 1843, 29,979,000lb.; and in 1844, 31,394,000lb. The quantity of chicory had increased in the same proportion. It might be said that the increase in the consumption of coffee had been at the expense of the consumption of tea; but that was not the fact. The quantity of tea which had paid duty for consumption was, in 1840, 32,852,000lb.; in 1841, 36,725,000lb.; in 1842, 37,353,000lb.; in 1843, 40,293,000lb.; and in 1844, 41,366,000lb., being an increase of 4,722,000lb. in 1844 above the average of the first three years, and above the year 1840 of more than one-fourth. With regard to sugar, there was one advantage attending the reduction of duty which he had not mentioned; it would have the effect of putting an end to the adulteration of sugar by means of an article which he should not have thought of being employed for that purpose—namely, the flour of sago. One circumstance connected with this prosperous condition of the country—for he considered it was manifest, from the facts he had stated, that the country was in a prosperous condition—he had never heard it denied as a general proposition—one circumstance connected with it was, that it had not arisen in any degree whatever from an undue extension of the currency. Not only was it clear that this improved condition of the country had taken place without any increase of the currency, but that the practical effect of the improvement of the trade and commerce of the country had been to render such an increase next to impossible. He would, therefore, venture to say, at the hazard of being charged with taking too sanguine a view of the financial affairs of the country, that it by no means followed that those apprehensions which other persons entertained, that at the end of the next three years the Property Tax would be proposed to be made a permanent tax, were correct. On the contrary, he believed if Parliament would keep steadily in view the objects which the Government had been aiming at in their general plan of finance, at the termination of the three years, there would be no necessity again to impose upon the country this painful, he must call it, and in some respects ungracious, sacrifice; for so, even now, he would designate it, if the object for which it was made were not worthy of the sacrifice. If they persevered in the system they had adopted, he trusted to Providence to keep us out of the situation in which circumstances (for he would cast blame on nobody) had involved us; and a perseverance in it would confer a great benefit upon all classes of the community. There was a remark which he could not refrain from making before he sat down; and that was, with reference to the complaints that had been made of agricultural distress. Now, though he did not mean to deny that, owing to causes which he would not then enter into, a considerable degree of distress existed amongst the agriculturists in some districts, he must beg to state that this complaint was not general throughout the kingdom, for there was no distress in the parts of the country with which he was connected, and which he knew best. But what he wanted to know was, the species of relief which it was expected the Government could afford the agricultural interests, or what scheme they themselves would propose to be adopted for having their distress mitigated, with reference to the fiscal revenue? With respect to the agricultural interest, he wished to know by what scheme, connected with our fiscal system, particular benefit or relief could be given to that body? But it was said, that the Government ought to have expressed some sympathy for the distress under which a great part of that class was labouring. If such sympathy had been expressed, and not accompanied with any practical scheme to give effect to the words, he suspected the Government would have been accused of insult and mockery. Feel for the distress of the agricultural interest! Of course they did. Who were the Members of that House? Were they not connected with the agricultural interest? Who were the Members of Her Majesty's Government? He believed all, both in that and the other House, were connected with that interest. How could any one suppose, then, that even in regard to their own interests — their selfish interests — they could be insensible to the distress of the very class to which they were especially attached? But it was of no use to make a parade of sympathy; and he thought the Government had performed their duty best to that very interest by abstaining from that which would have been useless, and doing at the same time their utmost, by proposing to Parliament that which would be useful to all interests. His Lordship concluded by moving the third reading of the Property Tax Bill.

On the Question being put,

The Marquess of Lansdowne

justified his having moved that their Lordships be summoned for this evening by the deep importance which attached to the subject. Familiarised as they had unfortunately been with an Income and Property Tax, the present proposition was essentially new to the House and to the public. They knew the various reasons by which a Property and Income Tax had been recommended to favour. Such a tax might be proposed, as it had been formerly, under the pressure of a formidable war, or of domestic disturbances, as indispensable for the safety and best interests of the country. It had been proposed by Lord Liverpool, at the end of a war, to wind up the finances of that war, but refused, because not called for by urgent necessity. A second ground upon which an Income Tax might be proposed was, that of providing for the public faith; and at a time when no other means presented themselves for that purpose, he should be prepared to give his assent to such a proposal. Upon such a ground he conceived Sir R. Peel to have proposed the Income Tax in 1842. But that proposal had now arrived at another stage, which brought him to the consideration of the third ground upon which an Income Tax might be proposed. That was a distinct preference for that mode of taxation over others. Notwithstanding what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite, looking at this tax, and coupling it with the other measures with which it was accompanied, however desirable he might consider the repeal of any tax to be—however judicious he might think the selection of those to be repealed—it was impossible not to observe the omission of any measure calculated to increase the revenue within the next three years, and the inevitable consequence of such an omission in the shape of the greater difficulty in parting with this tax. That which he regarded with the greatest anxiety, but to which the smallest part of the argument of his noble Friend had been directed, was the means by which the Go- vernment, not professing to prolong this tax beyond three years, expected the revenue was to be increased during that time, so as to enable them to fulfil their expressed wish of dispensing with the tax. There had been an increase in the Naval Estimates, and there had been an increase in other Estimates, small indeed in amount, but great in principle, and of the highest importance as regarded its remote consequences, and its effects in future ages—an increase to which he not only gave his unqualified assent, but which he had long thought it the duty of Government and of Parliament to adopt, as essential to the peace of the country—an increase now made at a cost to the public of not more than 20,000l. or 30,000l., for the purpose of making better provision for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He had merely alluded to this in passing; but what he wished to say was, that with increased Estimates the chance of ultimately getting rid of the Income Tax seemed to be indefinitely diminished. Supposing the Estimates to be retained as before, and that there was no increase of taxation, the deficiency would not, according to the Papers he held in his hand, be more than 600,000l. or 700,000l.—a deficiency which it obviously would be most easy for Parliament to grapple with without the imposition of a Property Tax. When he saw the Government increasing the Estimates, though in a manner the propriety of which he might admit in some instances, and although he might admit the prudence of relieving production and industry from the pressure upon them, he had a right to call upon the Government to show, by the taxes they removed, that it was their intention to provide the means of reducing and parting with the Property Tax at a future period. His noble Friend had utterly failed to show that any one of his measures was calculated to effect that object. If it were a matter of choice and wish to keep the Income Tax in preference to other taxes, the Government were at liberty to select the taxes they would repeal; but if their first object were, as he contended it ought to be, to get rid of the Income Tax, then they ought to frame every one of their measures with reference to that object. He saw no evidence of any such intention, although he might claim the existence of it from the speeches both of the right hon. Baronet and almost every other Member of the Government. The noble Duke had stated that an Income Tax ought to be reserved for cases of urgent necessity; and no one had expressed the same opinion with greater authority than the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who now proposed an Income Tax, and expressed it too under very similar circumstances to the present. In 1833, when it was proposed that the malt tax should be taken off, what was the ground of opposition taken by the right hon. Gentleman who had then occupied the highest official situations in the country? He said that it might lead to the imposition of a Property Tax in time of peace, and that they would be encountering inconveniences by imposing a tax unequal in itself, and afterwards by the introduction of modifications which would disturb its efficiency, and that, above all, it would be necessary to impose the tax upon Ireland, which could not be done. That was the opinion of Sir Robert Peel in 1833. Afterwards, in 1840, the right hon. Baronet, being then on the threshold of power, commanding, or at least influencing, one of the greatest parties in this country, having had seven years for reflection, and there being then a deficiency of 2,500,000l.—a deficiency far greater than now—said that he did not consider it would be justifiable to attempt to raise that sum by a Property Tax. If the right hon. Baronet had been induced to take a new view of this subject, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not, therefore, be deprived of the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman's name and authority, and he cordially agreed with the opinions of Sir R. Peel in 1833 and 1840, and to which no less weight and importance were to be attached than the authority of the right hon. Baronet now, in allowing the measure to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman could only have introduced the measure in consequence of his having adopted that principle which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) deprecated—namely, the preference of the Income Tax to other sources of revenue, and he could now only argue that tax with reference to those considerations which applied to it as a permanent duty. He understood that there were persons calling themselves philosophers—persons wiser than other men—who preferred this tax, and avowed that they not only wished it to be perpetual, but desired it to be carried out further on account of what they called its justice and simplicity. What were the justice and simplicity of this tax as imposed upon the various classes of society? First, it was imposed upon persons of all professions. If there was one thing more uncertain than another, it was a profession; and if any tax more unequal than another, it was a tax imposed upon all professions, without reference to the nature of any. Some professional incomes were derived from sources certain to continue during life; others arose from casual sources, which might at any time cease; others were only practised at particular seasons; others were dependent upon contingencies; some might be practised without injury to health and vigour during a whole life; others were destructive or injurious to them. Was a tax just and equal, therefore, that was indifferently applicable to all? But the philosophers had a remedy for that inconvenience. They would exempt professional incomes altogether, and provide for the deficiency so arising in another way. Then came the tax falling upon the manufacturers. But what was more unequal than the sources of income arising from different descriptions of manufactures? In some the expenses were greatly and frequently increased by the additions to or alterations of machinery rendered necessary by the improvements in science, while in others no such expenses might be required. Some were dependent upon fashion, caprice, or taste; others were not. Could that be a just or equal tax which applied to all alike? But leave out the manufacturers, and consider the annuitants on the public funds. Could there be a greater difference than that existing between the state of a person having a terminable annuity, and one enjoying the stipend for life?—or than the difference between a person whose funds had been made the subject of settlements, and one free to enjoy them without limitation? Could that, therefore, be a just and equal tax which called upon all these parties for a like contribution? Then some persons said, "Leave out the fundholders altogether; come to the landed interest, and make them pay." He objected to that exceedingly. He thought the landed proprietors ought not to be made the sole contributors to that or any other tax. But if you confined the tax to them, you would not find that it pressed upon the landed proprietors with equality, simplicity, and justice. The condition of a landed proprietor could not be determined by the amount of his income in any given year; but many considerations must be taken into the account, such as the degree to which his property was tied up in settlements. Where, then, was the simplicity and justice of the Income Tax as applied to any one class who had to pay it? It was an equality that would never be discovered. When a carriage was invented which would travel with equal ease and facility in all countries, whatever the obstacles of the ground—when a coat was made which should be equally adapted for all variations of climate—or a medicine which should be equally salutary to all constitutions—then, and not till then, the simplicity, justice, and equality of the Income Tax would be discovered. He knew of no inconvenience attending indirect taxation, except that it took a somewhat larger amount from the pockets of the contributors. But what had been the inestimable boons in return? The privilege almost of taxing himself—of determining what was the amount it suited his convenience to contribute in any given year to the public Revenue. He had the power of diminishing or increasing his contribution to accommodate it to the state of his circumstances; and surely there was no man in his senses who would not pay a somewhat larger amount to secure these privileges and advantages, while at the same time he avoided those inquisitorial annoyances which ought never to be adopted, save in the last extremity, and which particularly belonged to a Property Tax. He was not about to ask the House to reject this tax altogether. It would be useless to make the attempt; but he contended that their Lordships were bound to give their serious attention to the means of fulfilling the hope—for his noble Friend would most likely not allow him to call it a condition—that the tax would be dispensed with, and not renewed at the expiration of three years. If the Income Tax had been proposed only as an experiment, accompanied by measures having a direct tendency to get rid of it altogether, such as as a large change in the sugar and tea duties, causing a great increase of consumption, in place of that narrow increase adverted to by his noble Friend—if the Government had said, "The measures we recommend are somewhat doubtful in their nature, and give us, during the time of the experiment, an Income Tax, to secure the public creditor," he would have given his assent to the measure; but as he saw no measures proposed which gave a fair prospect of the removal of the tax, he called upon the House to give their attention to the subject, and in every act submitted for their approval, to have in view the importance of providing other and better means than were now provided for getting rid of the tax at the end of the three years. It was said that this had become a popular tax. No doubt you might purchase popularity for any tax by exempting people from paying it; and it might be perfectly true that this was a popular tax for those who had not to pay it. The resident proprietors of Ireland could have no great objection to the tax, for they were not called upon to bear the burden; and this was a very natural view for them to take. All persons under 150l. a year were no doubt also inclined to think it just and equitable, not being sufficiently aware, and many of them not aware at all, that it would cramp the means of giving them employment, and cut off the source and fund of that capital which supplied them with the means of existence. Again, the manufacturer, who saw the repeal of the tax on cotton tendered to him in the shape of a bribe, was not likely to become clamorous against the instrument by which alone, he was told, that relief could be obtained for him. A pseudo popularity could be obtained at any moment by measures of this sort; but that the thinking and enlightened portion of the public could be reconciled to it was what he did not expect; and, therefore, he hoped that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament would exert their power to induce Her Majesty's Government, in the course of the next three years, to take measures which would have the effect of relieving the country from the burden of this unjust and onerous impost.

Lord Ashburton

believed there was no disposition in Parliament to object to the passing of the Bill for the renewal of the tax on this occasion; but the present seemed the only opportunity which their Lordships, in the common course of financial measures, were likely to have, to pass in review, as the noble Lords who had spoken before him had done, the general state of the finances of the country, and the measures which should be adopted for their improvement. On this subject he had the misfortune, he feared, to differ from both parties in that House. It had been his misfortune to differ upon it from almost every Government he had seen in place; and he must say that the financial condition of the country was one which, to him, had always been exceedingly alarming. He would take the liberty of shortly stating to their Lordships his views of the case. With respect to the tax which formed the subject of the Bill now before them, he had to say that he almost wholly concurred with his noble Friend who had just sat down in objecting to it as a permanent impost. Although, setting aside the popularity which it naturally had with those who did not pay it, it had every appearance of plausibility at first sight, yet it was full of the grossest partiality, in every form of its application; and, as was remarked by Mr. M'Culloch, in his book upon taxation—which their Lordships could not do better than read for the purpose of procuring information—it was the worst which could be imposed, and only to be justified in cases of the greatest emergency. Speaking of its effects on land, Mr. M'Culloch said: "We doubt, indeed, whether it be possible to suggest any impost more at variance with sound principles, or more adverse to the progress of improvement." His noble Friend opposite had well stated the great inequality of the tax in all cases. In addition to those specified by his noble Friend, he might instance the body of the clergy in this country, many of whom did not come into their incomes until an advanced age, and who were almost under an obligation to contribute to the support of the various schools and charities around them; their interest in their incomes might cease by any momentary contingency; and yet they were taxed as heavily as those possessing the most permanent species of property: perhaps they were the class, of all others in the community on whom the tax fell most heavily. It fell with particular severity on the land, inasmuch as it was imposed on the gross income, without the slightest reference to repairs or improvements, and on the supposition that the rent was always regularly paid. There was a further objection, that it sinned against one of the first principles of taxation, in taking what was a raw material. Of all the materials of industry of every description, capital was the first; and it mattered not whether the tax was laid on the whole sum or on the income. Applying as it did to the industry of the country in all cases, it was impossible to conceive a tax more fatal to progressive improvement, or to the accumulation of capital. It made no difference to a manufacturer whether you placed a tax on his capital or on the raw material; and the burden of it was aggravated by the exposure of the secrets of his business. In fact, under a continuance of the tax, it stood to reason that any country, however rich, would sink. Such a tax as this oper- ated on the principle known to and acted upon by gamblers; that in the long run the odds in favour of the table would draw all the money into the pocket of the banker. So much upon the question of this tax. His objection to the whole system of finance on which this country had since the war been proceeding was, that it left wholly untouched the heavy Debt which pressed upon us. It was now thirty years from the termination of the war, and we had made hardly any progress—in truth no progress—in lessening or diminishing the National Debt. Though his noble Friend near him had stated that there was a diminution of the Debt, he admitted at the same time that it proceeded almost wholly from a reduction of the charge arising from the lowering of the rate of interest — a very desirable thing, but one which had not originated in any effort whatever on the part of this country to pay off any portion of its obligations. By operation of this, the debt might be said to be reduced between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l. per annum. At the end of the war the charge on the Public Debt was about 32,500,000l.; it was now somewhat above 29,000,000l. [The Earl of Ripon: 28,000,000l.] This was in truth the incubus which weighed down the whole country. There were 28,000,000l. or 29,000,000l. to raise for the purpose of paying the interest, against 17,000,000l. or 18,000,000l., or at farthest 20,000,000l., for the supply of the wants of the Public Service. There was a time when it was thought to be the duty of Parliament to do something towards the extinction of the Debt; but of late years Chancellors of the Exchequer took the more popular course of caring nothing for the Debt, and relieving the immediate burdens on the people by taking off taxes. In his opinion, however, their real duty to the country would have been best shown by exertions to reduce this Debt, and thus relieve the country permanently from its embarrassments. The whole question, which now seemed to engage their attention, was the question of surplus or no surplus, and this was allowed to turn on a sum of 80,000l. or 100,000l. in an income of 50,000,000l. The moment any difficulty came upon us, what were we to do? What was to happen to this country in the event of a serious alarm from a foreign war, or any other cause rendering necessary a large increase of expenditure? What course was to be followed but to borrow? He saw no other resource, particularly if we had already anticipated the Income Tax, which might to a certain extent obviate the necessity. But we could not go on for ever borrowing; this resource must have its limits. The man of the shortest sight possible must see that one day the system would be brought to an end; though, like children, they might build up their house of cards, and pride themselves on its apparent strength and beauty, it would assuredly tumble down with disgrace. So strongly was he impressed with the alarming condition of the country, that he could derive no comfort from a contemplation of our finances, unless he were to see—what, at his period of life, he was afraid he should never see—some decided effort on the part of the Government to grapple with the difficulty that pressed upon us. True it was that predictions of bankruptcy had been often made when the Debt was not one-fourth of its present amount, which had not been fulfilled; but whatever the fate of their predictions, no one could pretend to say that this system could go on for ever, or that it would not come to an end some time or other. He could not understand by what chain of reasoning any honest or sober-minded men could think themselves justified in going on in the present course from year to year. Now, it was true, the country was in a state of admitted prosperity. He did not know that at any period of his long life he had seen the country in a state of more perfect quiet and satisfaction, or greater prosperity. Not a cloud was to be seen in the horizon except that small one of Oregon, which would soon, by the exercise of common fairness and discretion, be dispersed. There was perfect tranquillity in Europe; yet, under circumstances of such unexampled prosperity, not the slighest effort was made to effect any reduction of the Public Debt. Yet the only objection brought against it was the supposed reluctance of the people, and the difficulty of reconciling them to the maintenance of taxation for that purpose. But this, with the prospect that they might be called on at any time indefinitely to augment the Debt, was as much chargeable with dishonesty as any pretext that could be alleged. He did not see in this matter any such difficulty as was generally alleged. He would recommend that a surplus of 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. should be maintained, for the purpose, first, of operating on the Debt, and next, of providing for any contingency that might arise. We had no right to expect that peace would last for ever; but now our surplus was entirely disposed of, and we were completely at the mercy of events. An attempt to create a surplus had first been made by Sir R. Walpole; it was for a short time maintained, and in 1732 or 1733 abandoned. Walpole said, either submit to have the land tax doubled, or give up the Sinking Fund; and the Parliament of the day, of course, as other Parliaments would do, said, you must take the Sinking Fund. Then came the attempt of Mr. Pitt, in 1786. That Minister alleged that the plan had failed for want of proper persons to give a surety that this Sinking Fund would never be touched, and he proposed to secure it for ever. But after the peace, one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another, finding it a much more agreeable task to be constantly repealing taxes than to be making provision for the future, declared his intention to keep no surplus at all. But so far from the Sinking Fund being an abuse, if rightly administered, he (Lord Asburton) contended that it was the most rational purpose to which a surplus could be applied. In the event of war, what was the natural course for a country to pursue, in order to raise funds for carrying it on? Undoubtedly, in a state of prosperity you might have recourse to an Income Tax; but the most expedient plan was to borrow, and upon the return of peace, to pay off the debt contracted during war. Otherwise, if we reverted to the plan of raising within the year the funds required for a war, its duration being uncertain, we might find it at an end in one or two years; and thus the country would be tormented by raising an immense amount of taxation, the arrangements for which would be rendered entirely useless by the return of peace. To borrow a fixed sum, with provision for the redemption of the loan in a certain number of years, was the preferable course. But he should wish to know, could any person venture to say what would be the final result of the present system? Was it wise to calculate on a continuance of sunshine and prosperity for ever? Did they expect to have no more wars, no more commercial panics? This tax had been imposed for the support of public credit, after various experiments with that object had been tried and failed, and might therefore be looked upon as in one sense necessary; but what he objected to was throwing away by a remission of taxes the revenue which would have ren- dered the imposition of an Income Tax unnecessary. If it was to be continued, he (Lord Ashburton) could see no prospect of future security.

Lord Stanley

said, he could not but think that his noble Friend who had just sat down had hardly done justice to the course pursued—the general and systematic policy pursued—not only by the present but by former Governments. Certainly his noble Friend had exaggerated the state of the case when he told their Lordships that no efforts had been made, no progress effected in the reduction of the burden of the Debt, since the period of the termination of the war in 1815. It might be quite true that as much progress had not been made in the reduction of the Debt as his noble Friend would have thought desirable; but it was no less true that in 1815 or 1816, when the interest of the Debt was at the highest, it exceeded 32,000,000l. It was no less true also, that the interest for last year little exceeded the sum of 28,000,000l., being a reduction of 4,000,000l. a year—equivalent to a reduction of more than 100,000,000l. in the capital. If, then, from 1815 to 1845, the present and former Governments had succeeded in reducing the interest of the Debt by 4,000,000l., he thought his noble Friend could hardly state, with fairness, that no success had attended their efforts for the alleviation of the burden of the Debt. He was, however, stating his own case unfairly. He had stated the entire reduction in the interest as compared with the year 1815; but measures had also been taken for the purpose of increasing the temporary interest with the view of reducing the ultimate amount of the charge. By arrangements heretofore made, and followed out by the present Government, the amount of interest had been for a time increased by the substitution of a terminable annuity for an interminable debt. In the year 1854, in consequence of the saving effected by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the reduction of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., there would be a further reduction in the annual charge of 600,000l. In 1860, there would be a still further annual reduction, to the amount of 1,200,000l., by the falling in of the Long Annuities. In 1865, or 1866, there would be a still further annual reduction of 600,000l. He had not any statement of the figures, because he did not expect that this discussion would have arisen; but, notwithstanding what his nobly Friend had said, he thought he had shown their Lordships that they had largely reduced the charge on account of the interest now payable, and provided for a still further reduction in future. These were equivalent to a great reduction in the capital of the Debt; and, so far from adding to the burden, they had really taken measures to ensure the cessation of a considerable proportion of the amount. He regarded the speech of his noble Friend as directed, not against the Property Tax, but against that reduction of duties which was, in fact, to be considered as the compensation obtained by the country for paying that impost. His noble Friend said he did not object to a surplus of three or four millions. But the fact was, we had not got the surplus: and to get it, you must impose the Property Tax. Now, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had proved that in 1846, supposing everything to remain as at present — the Revenue unaltered, and the Expenditure continued as it now stood—there would be a surplus of two millions, indeed, in consequence of the receipt of the half-year's Income Tax; but if the tax should expire in 1846, so far from there being a surplus, there would be a deficiency of 700,000l. Then his noble Friend got up and said that he did not object to the maintenance of a surplus, but to the taking off taxation. But the very means that enabled them to take off taxation, or to obtain a surplus, and the only possible means of compassing that end, was, the imposition of a Property Tax. He took, therefore, his noble Friend's speech as a defence of the Property Tax; and his objections to taking off other taxes might be considered at a future opportunity. His noble Friend could not show any other source from which a surplus could arise but the Income Tax. ["Hear, hear."] He did not know whether his noble Friend meant that cheer as an expression of doubt or assent; but all he could say was, that no method had been pointed out by any noble Lord or any Member of Parliament, so far as he knew, by which a permanent surplus could be obtained—no mode by which a permanent deficiency could be avoided, except through the agency of the Income Tax. The noble Marquess also said, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government objected, in 1833, to taking off the malt tax, because that would necessarily lead to the imposition of a Property Tax. He (Lord Stanley) was not there to advocate a Property Tax as the most desirable that, under any circumstances, could be proposed. Nobody was there to contend for it in the abstract: what they contended for was, that in the present state of the Revenue, and in the present circumstances of the country, the imposition of the tax was necessary—first, to prevent deficiency; and, secondly, because it enabled them to afford great and substantial relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country. The noble Marquess did not deny that a Property Tax might be beneficial and justifiable, as in time of war—of which, fortunately, no danger was now to be apprehended—or in any great deficit of the Revenue. The noble Marquess seemed rather to pride himself on the fact that the deficiency at the present moment was not so great as in 1840 or 1841, when he was a Member of the Administration, because at that time Sir Robert Peel did not admit that a deficiency of 2,500,000l. formed an adequate ground for the imposition of a Property Tax. He could perfectly understand that his right hon. Friend might have stated that he did not consider that such a deficiency was large enough to justify, in this great commercial country, the imposition of an Income Tax. But if, subsequently, other modes had been tried and failed—if a permanent deficiency had to be provided for, even though it might not be so great as the noble Marquess boasted that he had left to the present Administration, there might still be reason for the imposition of the Income Tax. They contended for it, not on the principle to which the noble Marquess had alluded, of "Score up, hostess;" for the score which the noble Marquess and his Colleagues left behind them when they went out of office had been wiped out, short of about 700,000l., this year. The noble Marquess had admitted that, supposing the present state of expenditure to continue, there would be an excess of expenditure over revenue in the next year of 700,000l. But the noble Marquess had made another admission; for he stated, "I don't blame your increased Estimates, in the circumstances of the country, I don't complain of your adding to the Naval Establishments. I don't complain of your introducing Estimates which may lead this year to an increase of 1,500,000l., and for several years to a sum approaching that amount." Yet the noble Marquess condemns them for introducing for three years more a Property Tax; though, on his own showing, we had a sum of over 2,000,000l. to provide for, which could be met in no other way. It might be, and it was true, that with the Income Tax, which brought in somewhere about 5,200,000l. a year, the revenue would be more than adequate to meet the estimated deficiency, which was somewhere about 2,000,000l. or 1,800,000l.—he meant, the deficiency after the year 1845, after the casual sources of the Revenue should have ceased. The only proposal apart from the Income Tax for meeting that deficiency, was that submitted by the noble Marquess—namely, a large reduction of taxation, thereby insuring a great increase of consumption. Now, he must be allowed to call the attention of their Lordships to the facts of the case, as illustrated by the two articles to which the noble Marquess particularly referred. He said, we should make a large reduction of duty on tea and tobacco; and that by so doing we had a reasonable prospect of so increasing consumption as to defeat the smuggler and bring the Revenue up to its present amount. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: Not quite; but in a short time you would.] But we had to deal with a deficiency which must be at once met, and, if it could not be provided for by taxation, left no alternative but the imposition of an Income Tax. The noble Marquess would increase the deficiency, and trust to enlarged consumption for more than counterbalancing the diminution caused by the withdrawal of the Income Tax. Now, with regard to tea, it did not appear that the tax, heavy as he admitted it was, had had the effect of diminishing consumption; on the contrary, it had increased considerably. He was not going into the probable effect of the reduction of duty, but he very much doubted whether the reduction of duty would so far diminish the price here as to increase consumption. He very much doubted whether the reduced duty would go into the pockets of the consumer, and he was rather inclined to think that it would find its way into the coffers of that not very numerous class which supplied the tea market. The consumption, at all events, had not been checked by the duty; for in the course of five years it had increased from 32,000,000lbs. to 41,360,000lbs. Here was an increase of nearly one-fourth with a tax, the effect of which was complained of as restricting consumption. Well, take tobacco—a very different article. He was not going to say that there was not a great deal of smuggling in that article; but it should be observed, that the tax on that article was many hundred-fold more than the prime cost, and no reduction of duty could have the effect of checking the smuggler, which did not enable the importer to bring it in at so cheap a rate that the smuggler would have no interest in introducing it. This tax yielded 4,000,000l. a year; and, consequently, unless they were prepared to make a sacrifice of 3,000,000l., they could not be sure of shutting out the tobacco of the smuggler. Did the noble Marquess suppose that the increased consumption could compensate such a deficiency? But, as it was, the consumption of this article, instead of declining, was increasing. It had increased from 3,488,000l. in 1842, to 3,607,000l. in 1843, and 3,863,000l. in 1844. Here was a steady increase of 200,000l. a year. However strongly he might be inclined to anticipate, from the operation of the reduction of the duty on these articles, that a considerable reduction would increase the consumption, and ultimately bring up the Revenue to where it was, he could not think that on either of these articles (there were others which rested on different principles, and were to be determined by political considerations) the reduction of duty would have the effect, within a limited time, of raising the Revenue to its present amount. Well, then, if the Estimates were to be increased, and if the present amount of Expenditure in other respects were to be kept up, (for though the noble Marquess had hinted at the possibility of some reduction, he had not stated what,) he could not see how, without the imposition of a Property Tax, there was a means of meeting what was acknowledged to be a permanent deficiency. His noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) complained, however, that, by means of imposing a tax which they acknowledged to be very vexatious, the Government having realized a surplus of 3,000,000l., had applied it in relieving the industry of the country. They had proposed a remission of duties to the amount of 3,400,000l. He had not heard from a single quarter—he had not seen it mentioned in the newspapers, still less in their Lordships' House—that there were any of those taxes which it was proposed to reduce, of which the reduction was not essential to the commercial prosperity of the country. The noble Marquess had admitted that, if taxes were to be selected for reduction, a more judicious choice could not have been made. The Government had proposed a sacrifice of 1,300,000l. on sugar; but our present experience, short as it was, contradicted the prophecies indulged in, that the consumer would not derive advantage from the reduction to the full extent of the amount remitted; for in the recent sales, it was shown that the consumers had the full benefit of the change; and those consumers, mind you, were of the poorest class, and those to whom a low price was of essential advantage. This measure had the effect already of reducing the price 1¼d. or 1½d. a lb.; whereas, if he recollected rightly, the plan of the friends of the noble Lords opposite, which was not accepted by Parliament, did not propose a reduction of more than ¾d. in the lb. We, then, had effected a much larger reduction on a prime necessary than was contemplated by the much-vaunted scheme of noble Lords opposite, on which the sense of the country was declared against them. He did not mean to enter into a discussion of the reductions proposed, for no one found fault with them, not even his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton), as he was against any reduction at all; but there was not one of those articles on which restrictions were proposed to be taken off, that the proposed change would not have the effect of assisting the manufactures of the country, and in some cases were essential to their revival. There was the duty on glass, the abolition of which must not only be a great relief to trade, but must prove a great stimulus also to the home manufacture of the article. Nobody could deny that if it had not been taken off, the manufacture, which was leaving you year after year, must pass into the hands of foreigners. Year after year your vexatious restrictions—your Excise—your impediments and obstructions, not to mention the direct loss imposed on your own manufacturer—were giving a premium to foreign competitors, and year after year you were importing into this country more and more of foreign glass to be re-exported in successful competition with your own manufacture. We made a change, not desired, perhaps, by the few manufacturers who withstood all the disadvantages of their position, and who had acquired a practical monopoly; but which gave a great relief to trade generally, afforded a stimulus to the introduction of capital into this branch of manufacture, and thereby supplied the means of its improvement. There was another very important tax taken off—that on raw cotton. It amounted to 600,000l. But could there be a duty more objectionable in principle? It was a duty on the raw material—pressed most heavily on the coarsest articles—was levied inversely to the value—and consequently amerced most heavily the classes least able to bear it. It was quite clear that without the imposition of a Property Tax, to meet the deficiency of the revenue, it would be absolutely impossible to make such reductions as those he had referred to, which must stimulate the manufacturing and commercial industry of the country. The noble Marquess said this was a very popular tax — "very popular with those who did not pay it." That might be. But he did not contend for its popularity; he only said that its imposition was necessary; and that this impression was generally participated in was proved by nothing more strongly than by the fact that such a tax had not created a greater feeling of unpopularity and objection throughout the community than it had done. But the question was, not whether it was popular or not, but whether it was a relief to those who were unable to bear taxation in another shape. It exempted, undoubtedly, incomes under 150l. a year. There was no question that the tendency in this—and it was probably so in all great commercial countries—was a great accumulation of property in comparatively few hands; and this involved an inequality in the weight of the burdens to be borne by the community. We had had some striking proofs that the pressure of your taxation, according to the principles on which it had been hitherto imposed, had reached its maximum; and that the class on which it fell were unable to bear the pressure which they already sustained, still less any further, while the wealthier classes were not taxed in proportion to their ability to sustain the burdens of the State; and he did not deny that in consequence of the exemption of the poorer classes, the charge of the Income Tax in a great measure fell upon the wealthier. In 1840, or 1841, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, as a means of recruiting the finances of the country, an addition of five per cent. on the taxes levied on all articles of consumption, and ten per cent. on the assessed taxes. Mark the result. The tax of fire per cent. produced such a diminution in consumption that it brought one instead of five per cent. But the ten per cent. falling on the easier classes realized the full amount of ten per cent. Could there be a stronger proof that the taxation of the great class of consumers had reached its limit, while that on the easier classes was capable of being augmented without diminishing their enjoyments, or causing them to diminish their establishments? There was another most important fact in illustration of this position. It might naturally be supposed that a compulsory deduction, such as that enforced by the Income Tax, might have the effect of reducing expenditure. But, although the tax fell on the wealthier classes, and although they had the power of reducing their establishments, the fact was, that there had not only been no reduction in the production of the assessed taxes, but establishments had increased since its imposition, and the assessed taxes had been more productive under its operation. He was not stating this as an argument in favour of the imposition of a Property Tax; but he did state it to show that if there was a necessity, under the circumstances of the country, and for temporary purposes, to raise a revenue adequate, and something more, to our current expenditure, it was impossible to do so by increased taxes on consumption; and that there was no alternative but that proposed—a Property Tax. The noble Marquess objected to the tax as not only unjust in principle, but unequal in its pressure on different classes. The noble Marquess said it was unequal in its pressure on temporary as compared with permanent interests; and yet he was compelled to admit that if the tax was imposed at all, it must, if it were not absolutely frittered away, be applied to professional incomes and life interests of every description, without regard to the capital of each individual. He should like to know what other tax of a similar amount there was which did not bear unequally on incomes, if estimated yearly, or according to amount in point of capital. He would not argue the question of taxes on professional income. He could understand the charge of inequality, if there was not a compensation given during the period of the Income Tax in the cheapness of articles which one, so charged, must necessarily consume. If it was proposed to pay a million of debt by taxing the person who had a permanent interest, and him who was only an annuitant equally, he could see the distribution was unfair; but he could not see, and he had never been able to see, that there was injustice in raising a tax on the current income of the year, without calculating its amount in point of capital, particularly when those so charged had a large compensation in articles which they must necessarily consume. He sat down, once more saying that considering there was deficiency to be immediately met, there was no mode of taxation so little objectionable as that which Government had selected, and that, in the reduction of duties which they had effected, they had increased not only the manufacturing and commercial industry, but benefited, through them, the agricultural interest, and thereby secured the general welfare and prosperity of the country.

Lord Monteagle

said, his noble Friend on the opposite benches (Lord Ashburton) had very consistently dwelt on the necessity of maintaining a Sinking Fund, as essential to the security of the national creditor. His noble Friend therefore concluded, very logically, that by the abandonment of the Sinking Fund, the national creditor had sustained some loss and injury. On this question, however, Parliament—and he believed the public likewise—had differed widely from his noble Friend. He (Lord Monteagle) thought that, in reference to the facts connected with the question now under discussion—the Property Tax, it could be proved by distinct evidence, that although the Sinking Fund had been abandoned, the real interests of the national creditor had not been sacrificed. The real question was, whether Parliament had really lessened the security which was pledged to him in maintenance of the public faith? The noble Lord said, that if Parliament had adhered perseveringly in a steady application of a Sinking Fund according to the doctrines propounded by Mr. Pitt, the public creditor would have possessed better security, and the country would have been freed from a vast amount of debt. [Lord Ashburton: Nearly the whole.] But it should be remembered that there were two ways of augmenting the security of the public creditor; first, by paying off a certain amount of debt; and, secondly, by increasing the amount of the security possessed by the creditor for that debt, by promoting the increase of the national capital. He contended that the latter course had been resorted to most successfully; for if any person would compare the property of this country in 1815, at the expiration of the last Property Tax, with the property assessed to the present Income Tax, it would be seen that the remission of taxation which had taken place since the period to which he referred, and which was complained of by his noble Friend, had given a stimulus to the industry of the country, and had led to an accumulation of capital, which gave to the public creditor an infinitely greater and more permanent security for his debt than he could have obtained by the continued application of a Sinking Fund. The increased capital of the country exceeded the most sanguine anticipations. He believed the present Government were acting in good faith when, at the time the Property Tax was imposed, they estimated that its amount would not exceed 3,700,000l. It had, however, produced 5,100,000l. That was its net amount; the gross amount was still more considerable. He found that the property in England assessed to the Income Tax in 181 did not exceed 74,000,000l.; and that amount included 18,000,000l. calculated on the property of persons whose incomes did not exceed 150l. a year; so that the proportion of English property liable to the present rate of Income Tax would in 1801 have only been 56,000,000l. sterling; but the value of the same property assessed to the present Income Tax was no less than 181,000,000l. sterling. He was aware that a considerable proportion of that increase was, in fair reasoning, to be traced to other sources besides the remission of taxation; but he was satisfied that it would not be contended that the property of the country could have accumulated in such a ratio, if that property had remained subject to the pressure of taxation necessary for an efficient Sinking Fund. Some of the strongest early advocates of a Sinking Fund had abandoned their first impressions; among them was included the honoured name of Lord Grenville. His latest work was devoted to this argument, and was published at a period when his experience was most matured, and his intellectual powers were at their very highest. It was then that he had given the strongest testimony to the necessity of abandoning the Sinking Fund system. When he heard from his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) such desponding language as to the National Debt, and the resources of this country in war and in peace, he must remind their Lordships that, upon the best estimate that could be formed of the amount of property in this country assessed to the Property Tax, it amounted to no less than 243,000,000l. per annum, or between one-third or one-fourth of the whole capital of the Debt. Some corrections might doubtless be necessary in that statement, as property might be assessed under both Schedules A and B; but, after making all reasonable reduction, it must still be evident that the resources of this country, in war or in peace, were never greater, or more adequate to meet any exigency, than at the present time. But he was now compelled to refer to the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley); and he must say, he was rather surprised that a debate which had been carried on with perfect calmness and with an entire absence of all party feeling, should have been made the occasion by that noble Lord of a gratuitous and unprovoked attack on his political opponents on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The noble Lord had been pleased to charge his predecessors in office with "scoring up" debt upon debt; and he thought, therefore, he might call upon them to wipe off these old scores; but he (Lord Monteagle) would recall to the recollection of the House the scores run up by the noble Lord and his Colleagues on the opposite benches. The noble Lords from whom that charge proceeded, or on whose behalf it was made, were, in fact, the parties who had contracted, and were now contracting, an amount of debt which posterity would be called upon to discharge, by the reimposition of the Property Tax. It was perfectly true, that during the years from 1837 to 1841 there had been a deficiency of public revenue; but in the antecedent years, from 1830 to 1836, there was a considerable excess of revenue over expenditure; and so far from the Public Debt of this country having been increased under the administration of those against whom the noble Lord's sneer was directed, it had, during their continuance in office, been diminished by no less a sum than 2,340,000l. If noble Lords would take the trouble of investigating the subject, they would find that, by what some persons might consider an inconceivable and mysterious coincidence, the years when there had been a deficiency of revenue were those in which bread had been at a high price; while the years of redundant revenue were those in which the price of bread had been low. Was this an accident, or was it cause and consequence? If the latter, as he believed, for a succession of bad harvests, producing high prices, no Government could be held responsible; nor did he think that a Government could justly claim credit for the consequences of a succession of good harvests. In some respects, the present circumstances of the country reminded him of 1825—a period of prosperous finance—a time, too, of unlimited speculation; but the time came when the pendulum took another swing, and the oscillation, both with respect to trade and revenue, was in the opposite direction. Undoubtedly, the trade of this country was at present in a prosperous state; and that prosperity he was ready to admit was, to a certain extent, attributable to the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He thought their former Tariff was—with some exceptions to which he would hereafter call the attention of their Lordships — well considered. He would also say, that he considered the selection now made by Her Majesty's Ministers for the reduction of taxation was, for the most part, a great boon and incentive to the industry of the country. He was the last person either at liberty or disposed to controvert this. On two former occasions he (Lord Monteagle) had pressed upon their Lordships' attention the importance of repealing the duties on wool and cotton. Both those duties were now repealed, and he believed that no greater boon could have been conferred on the manufacturers of this country. They now said to the manufacturers of cotton and wool, as they had long said to some other manufacturers, "The law leaves you free; the Legislature is not so weak or presumptuous as to believe they have the means of protecting you from distress under all possible circumstances; you must yourselves guard against the recurrence of such distress—not by coming to Parliament for protection, but by the exertion of your own industry, the exercise of your own reason, and the frugal administration of the resources at your command." He also considered that the Government had acted most judiciously, not only in removing the duty on glass, but in doing so in a manner to free that important article from all Excise regulations. He believed that, under these favourable circumstances, glass would eventually become one of the great staple manufactures of this country. The proposed reductions, regarded in a commercial point of view, evinced the sound judgment of the Government; but they were bound to consider these questions financially. The question was not whether the proposed changes were in themselves beneficial, but whether the country could afford to make them. This, he feared, was not the case. If he had entertained any doubts on this point, they had nearly been satisfied by the speech of the noble Lord opposite. No individual who heard that speech could have failed to perceive that all the noble Lord's arguments tended not only to the present temporary enactment, but to the perpetuation of the Property Tax; and that perpetuation was advocated on grounds which he considered contrary to all principles of sound legislation, and more likely to lead to mischievous results out of doors than any arguments he had ever heard in the other House of Parliament. In reply to a statement of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that the Tax was popular with those who did not pay it, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) replied that the question they had to ask themselves was not whether there were any complaints against the tax or not, but whether the exemption of the lesser properties was not a great relief; and he then went on to say that the danger of the present times was a great accumulation of property leading to inequalities of condition which it should be the object of Parliament to redress by the exemptions of the Property Tax. If that doctrine were good now, it would be good for the extension of the Property Tax to an indefinite period and to an indefinite amount, till it should swallow up and supersede all the taxes upon consumption. The argument proceeded upon what the noble Lord must admit, if he considered it, to be the most monstrous doctrine. It assumed that the accumulation of capital by the rich was an injury to the working classes; but this was a mischievous fallacy. Did the rich man either lock up or eat and drink and consume his gold? Rather, did not the accumulation of wealth in the one class represent the employment of capital and the wages of labour of another? Was it not new and dangerous to hear a Minister of England representing that those who possessed property stood in such a relation to the poor as to require some remedy to conduce towards equality? A more fatal doctrine to the prosperity and the peace of any country he had never heard advanced. He had already shown that, in referring to former times, the noble Lord, in stating the deficiency which he imputed to the late Government, had excluded from his view the fact, that though there had been deficiencies in some years, there was a surplus in other years, and that the surpluses exceeded the deficiencies. What had happened since? How had the present Treasury squared its accounts? The noble Lords appealed to a Parliament in which they exercised unlimited authority, to make up that deficiency of which they complained; the Parliament acquiesced in every one of their suggestions—let them see with what effect. The utmost calculation of deficiency which his political opponents had ever made was 10,000,000l., and that was made up of the accumulation of successive deficiencies in successive years, refusing at the same time to give credit for surplus revenue. Assuming the facts as stated, that deficiency had been more than wiped off. He would ask what extraordinary receipts had there been at the disposal of the present Government? They had received actual remittances of bullion from China, to the amount of 2,600,000l.; they had also received in borrowed money, 2,477,000l., so that they had received during the three years 5,077,000l. wholly beyond their own estimate of the Property Tax and the ordinary Revenue of those years. This was more than sufficient to have extinguished the imputed, though not justly imputed, deficiency. If there were still a deficiency at the conclusion of the first three years of the Property Tax, the late Government were not responsible for it; but other noble Lords who now brought forward this charge were much more responsible. [The Earl of Ripon: I did not make the charge.] No; the noble Earl did not. He was too prudent to make it—he left it to his more impetuous Colleague. This charge was reserved for the light troops—it did not come from the heavy company; but he was not taken by surprise, as his ear was familiar to the click of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley's) rifle, and he knew the kindness with which that weapon was used. But to return—the present Government had received 15,300,000l. from the Property Tax; so that the extraordinary sources, wholly independent of the ordinary revenue, had yielded 20,377,000l. in those three years. He might also add 3,000,000l. for the corn duties, which he was entitled to charge as extraordinary revenue against the noble Lords, because such was their aversion to corn as an article of revenue, that, though they received 3,000,000l., they disclaimed all wish so to deal with the food of the people. Yet, even omitting those duties, there was left for the payment of what had been called the "old score" of 10,000,000l. a sum of 20,000,000l. which had been received by the noble Lords in three years as extraordinary revenue. How, then, had the present debt and difficulty accumulated? It was clearly not from those old scores. Why then was it? It was because their budgets had failed, because their calculations had not been realized. When the revenue had been productive, and had saved them, their success was contrary to all their calculations. They calculated a receipt of 3,000,000l. from the Property Tax; they had received 5,100,000l. What, however, had become of their other articles of revenue? What had become of their Timber duties? What had become of their Coal tax? What had become of their Irish Spirit duties? They were obliged to repeal them. [The Earl of Ripon: What then?] What then? — why, merely that they were entirely a failure. They had filled the gaols of Ireland with smugglers, though they had failed to recruit the Excise. What had become of their coal tax, which was defended on the highest possible grounds of geological science, as well as on somewhat novel economical and financial reasons, as well as from a love of home protection? The coal fields of England, it was said, required protection; and it was added that in our coal exports, experience had shown that we were creating a manufacturing competition against ourselves; yet notwithstanding these excellent arguments there was a Bill now on their Lordships' Table to repeal this very tax, and this tax was repealed by the very men who had improved it. What had become of other taxes of a somewhat similar nature? If there were a deficiency now existing, it could be clearly traced to the financial operations of the Government itself. The future deficiency of ordinary revenue was also their work. On the present occasion what did they propose to do? They repealed taxes, which, he admitted, were honestly and well chosen, if the country could afford to repeal them; and if he saw a chance that the Revenue could be made good at the end of the three years for which the Property Tax was now re-enacted, so as to allow its repeal at the end of that time, he would give his hearty concurrence to the measure before the House; but he foresaw such a repeal to be impossible. By the actual calculation of the Government, the surplus did not amount to 100,000l. Such was the miserable surplus to which they looked after taking credit for the full amount of the Property Tax; but a right hon. Gentleman of high experience, the late President of the Board of Trade, had given a comment on the Ministerial Estimates; and he distinctly stated that the loss on sugar, which the Government estimated at 1,300,000l., would, in his judgment, produce a loss of a million and a half at the least. What then became of their surplus? Here it was converted into a deficiency by the admission of one of their late Colleagues. But the Government in their rashness went further; by way of making the deficiency still more certain, they gratuitously threw away 300,000l. a year of an increasing duty—the duty on auctions. Was there ever such a needless sacrifice of revenue? — and if the Revenue were sacrificed, it was done for the very reason that nobody had complained; he did think this one of the most extraordinary financial proposals ever submitted to Parliament. They were thus voluntarily creating a deficiency which, at the end of three years, must render the removal of the Income Tax inevitable. No financier, under such circumstances, could imagine it within the range of possibilities that the ordinary Revenue of the country within three years could be augmented by increased consumption to the extent of 5,000,000l. Unless there were a reduction of expenditure, which the noble Lord said was impossible, they must be prepared in 1848 to re-enact the Property Tax. But this is not all. He would ask would the Government have been enabled this year to carry the Property Tax with such facility if the proposal were not accompanied by a large concession of duties on articles of consumption? They knew very well that the popularity of the repeal of the duties on glass and cotton wool had given them Parliamentary strength for carrying the Property Tax. They would at the end of the three years be called upon for the same reason to make further concessions. Did the Government think that the people of 1848 would be so much more enduring and so much more enamoured of a Property Tax — that they would then consent to its reimposition without any equivalent, when those who preceded them have obtained those popular remissions? Let them be assured that there would be new demands in 1848, and that the tendency of the sys- tem they were adopting would be to bring upon Parliament a pressure for the transfer to direct, of much of what was now paid in indirect taxation. He might go a step further. He might suppose that there might supervene a time of financial pressure; combined with political excitement and irritation, and that the doctrines of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) for setting right the inequalities of property by a Property Tax, should then be in favour. A Property Tax of 7d. in the pound yields 5,000,000l. A Property Tax of 12d. in the pound would yield 4,000,000l. more. That sum it would be urged would enable them to repeal the window tax, and other taxes which pressed upon the people. The people of 1848, if they resembled the people of 1845, would turn to good use the arguments which had been adduced that night; and the Government of that day, to carry the Income Tax, would be called on to repeal these more unpopular taxes. He believed a calculation had been made, that 500,000 people only paid the Property Tax; and it was a very dangerous principle to lay down, that so small a proportion out of the millions of population in this country, could with justice or safety, under any system of legislation, be made the peculiar victims of taxation. If this should be done, it would be the poorer classes and the industrious classes who would fall the ultimate sacrifice to a false system; that was the great danger of converting indirect into direct taxation, and of turning taxation upon consumption into taxation upon property. In following this course we strike at industry itself by diminishing the fund which pays the wages of labour. The rich suffer, but the poor are ruined! Now, had or had not the Government wasted our resources? He did not speak then of the yearly Estimates; though, if he did, he must go beyond the limits of the noble Marquess on the subject of a reduction of expenditure; for when he compared the Estimates of the present year with those which the First Lord of the Treasury proposed in 1835, and found an excess of 4,000,000l. on the year's supplies amounting to 14,000,000l., he could not but suppose that something might be done to give relief in that direction. Suppose, however, that there would be no such reduction, he said that there had been a wasting of our resources in the system of the proposed taxation. Could any one defend the Sugar Duties of the present year? Would the noble Lords themselves defend them next year? Must they not be abandoned next year? The Government were now gracefully abandoning their coal duties; they had previously abandoned their spirit duties, and this would give them a little practice on a small scale, preparatory to the abandonment of the Sugar Duties next year. By their own admission, they sacrificed a revenue of 1,300,000l. He was gratified to hear from the Ministers that the consumer got the whole benefit; but to what a singular conclusion had the noble Lord come, when he declared that tea and sugar, usually talked of together, were governed by different financial laws! He said, with regard to sugar, that all the benefit of the reduction of duty was received by the consumer; but that with respect to tea, some one or other in China or elsewhere, would reap the advantage should a reduction take place. Why the same law should not have the same operation with regard to sugar coming from foreign countries and to tea, he was at a loss to conceive; the political economy of the Treasury was not very consistent. The Revenue would lose 1,300,000l. by the Sugar Duties, according to the calculation of the noble Lord; it would lose 1,500,000l. according to the late President of the Board of Trade. Now, there was a very good authority, the late Mr. Deacon Hume, who, with Mr. M'Gregor, made declarations—one with respect to sugar, and the other with respect to timber. Mr. Deacon Hume said, he "could obtain a good million from sugar, without increasing the price to the consumer;" and the opinion of the present Secretary of the Board of Trade was, that he could increase the produce of the timber duties by 2,000,000l., and this with benefit both to commerce and the consumer. The Government lost 600,000l. or 700,000l. by the arrangement of the timber duties in 1842, and they now lost 1,500,000l. by their Sugar Duties; so that they lost 2,000,000l. where, by the opinions of two very competent men, they might have made a profit of 3,000,000l., instead of a loss. There was a difference of 4,000,000l. or 5,000,000l., which of itself would be an indemnity for the Property Tax. The Government had now, made out or rather had produced, he admitted, a necessity for the Income Tax; and the way in which they dealt with sugar, timber, and corn, had diminished the national resources, so that they would not have the power of allowing that tax to expire in 1848. With respect to the three articles of corn, timber, and sugar, there seemed a fatality about them; and yet dangerous as these subjects were rendered to the Government, they were not left alone. In the pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, the duties on corn, timber, and sugar, were said to have been reduced one-half by the measures of Her Majesty's Government. It certainly was not expected by the friends of the Government that those duties would have been so touched and dealt with; but there had been this loss to the Revenue without giving any commensurate benefit to the public. He was sorry that anything like contention should have entered into that discussion. He had been prepared to discuss it as a simple question of finance and of economical science; but he had been compelled to take arms in defence of his friends and his principles: his noble Friend, Lord Stanley, must be aware that if stones were thrown, there must be a little compliment given in return.

The Duke of Richmond

said, he would not at that late hour occupy much of their Lordships' time; but after the speech of his noble Friend who moved this Bill, and the speeches of the other noble Lords who had spoken, he felt himself called upon to express his objection to the way in which it was intended to appropriate the money to be derived from the Income Tax; and also to express his objection to all those items from which his noble Friend took so much credit for removing the duty. He did not include the article of raw cotton; but alluded particularly to those articles which were not enumerated when the measure was first proposed. Of the article of divi-divi his noble Friend admitted that he did not know anything. That was precisely one of his grounds of complaint—that sufficient inquiry had not been made before these Customs' Bills were introduced, and that serious detriment to some of the greatest interests of the country was the consequence. His noble Friend justified the omission from the Queen's Speech of any allusion to the agricultural distress which every one admitted to exist. He said that for that distress he fell the greatest sympathy; and asked whether it was likely that the Members of the Cabinet, who were large landowners, would do anything calculated to injure the agricultural interest of the country with which they were so closely connected. He doubted not the sympathy of his noble Friend; he imputed to him and his Colleagues no motives; he believed they thought they were doing what was best; but he felt that they had not acted towards the agricultural interest with that wisdom which he should have expected, nor did that interest think they had been true to the principles on which they had come into office. It was said that the Income Tax was imposed in order to make taxation more equal, by reducing the taxes on particular articles. If that was the principle, why was the agricultural interest, except, perhaps, in the article of sugar, entirely overlooked? We had heard it said, forsooth, that the agriculturists would be greatly benefited by the reduction of the duly on glass. Did his noble Friend mean to say that he expected to see the day when the farmers could cover their turnip fields with glass frames for the purpose of getting a second crop? for that was the only way in which it appeared to him that they could be benefited by the proposed reduction. Another act of injustice, and which he should certainly make the subject of a motion, was in the application of the Income Tax to the fanner. If he paid 300l. a-year rent, it was immediately concluded that he derived a profit from his farm of 150l., and was taxed accordingly, without even the power of an appeal. Now, everybody knew that the last two years had been most unproductive to the farmer in many parts of the country, and that, instead of profit, they in some instances absolutely sustained a loss. It had been stated in the House of Commons, and he now repeated, that one of a deputation who wailed on Sir R. Peel, stated that if the right hon. Baronet would send a person to look at his farm and his books, he would prove to him that in 1843 he had lost 600l., and in 1844, 700l.; and yet this man was called on to pay the Income Tax out of his supposed profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose business it was to screw as much money as he could out of the pockets of every one, had said, that if they gave to the tenant-farmers the right of appeal, they would lay out an enormous sum of money in manure one year, in order to show the small amount of their profits, and next year reap the benefit, when they were freed from the Income Tax. But the right hon. Gentleman knew little of the state of the farmers of the country when he supposed that they could command the necessary capital for such an outlay. Surely their Lordships would admit that farming was a trade, and if so, why exclude the farmer from the benefit of an appeal? It was not common sense, it was not justice to do so. He should vote for the third reading of this Bill, because he believed it impossible to uphold the public credit without it; but he hoped their Lordships would consent to his intended proposal for giving the power of appeal to the tenant-farmer, whose distressed condition he could not but attribute to the measures which had been passed within the last three years.

Lord Brougham

said, he would not enter into the debate further than to make an observation upon the course it had taken, and the wearisome nature it had assumed, owing to no want of learning or of talent, of which indeed too much was exhibited in the nature of calculations and figures; but owing, in his mind, to the fact, that noble Lords, except his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), seemed to have avoided the subject of debate—that subject being the Income Tax. A noble Lord who at one time had the care of the finances of the country, after spending a great quantity of oil, as well as ink, in the framing of a string of resolutions to be submitted to Parliament, was advised by a friend "to take a high ground and throw over all his calculations." So on this occasion he could have wished that his noble Friends had indulged less in figures, and applied themselves to the subject immediately before the House. His opinions upon the Income Tax were well known. He had voted for it for the first three years under the pressure of necessity, and he would vote for its continuance for three years more for the same reason—viz., that if they did not do so they would not be enabled to give that relief to the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country, external and internal, which the labouring finances and the credit of the country rendered necessary three years ago. He was not prepared to say that an Income or Property Tax was a judicious arrangement to have recourse to as a permanent source of revenue. He was of opinion that countries which had adopted it as a prominent feature in their revenue, even to the extent of the fiftieth of a penny upon capital, ultimately suffered for it. Holland was a remarkable instance of this, and had been reduced by it, not to the verge of national bankruptcy, such as that from the jaws of which France recovered—but to much worse—to the bankruptcy of individual trades, from which it required next to a miracle to recover. The political and economical history of Holland, which continued to feel and labour from the impolicy of such a tax, proved this most prominently. The great difficulty in dealing with an income tax was to force it into the different kinds of labour, from that of the artisan to that of the professional man; and into incomes arising from capital as contradistinguished from labour, as well as the different kinds of capital, such as that employed precariously in trade, and that derived from land. It was easy to say that there ought to be a graduated scale; but those who had most deeply considered the question felt that an attempt at any such step must inevitably fail. He, however, thought if it became necessary to renew the Income Tax at the end of three years, that very considerable improvements might be made in it; and perhaps that alluded to by the noble Duke on the cross-bench might be looked forward to as one; for it was no doubt hard that those who traded in the land should be refused an appeal which was granted to all other traders. On the whole, though he was not prepared to say that the Property Tax should be made a permanent source of revenue, still he was of opinion that if any misfortune should arise whereby any breach of the peace of the world should take place, they should not necessarily be thrown back upon the evils of the funded system, or of borrowing upon Long Annuities; but they should have the power of appealing to the country through the Property Tax. One strong circumstance, as it appeared to him, in favour of this tax, was to be found in the readiness with which it could be applied; it was like the rack and pinion, only requiring that a small screw should be touched to produce as large a sum as was required; and he fully believed, if the honour of the country should be assailed—he cared not from what quarter the assault or menace might come, that every man in the country would screw up cheerfully and willingly, even to the amount of a tenth of his income. He regarded with horror and dismay the mere possibility of the peace of the world being broken by war; but, as he knew that all human affairs were liable to vicissitude, he might contemplate the possibility of such exertions being called for; and if they were, he should look forward with exulting confidence, not only to the capacity of the country to endure, but to the cheerful loyalty and patriotism and magnanimity with which the people of this country would bear the additional burdens. He believed that they would ever be ready so to act as effectually to repel all insults, to preserve their rights, and to maintain the honour of the nation. In a particular quarter of the world he saw an individual raised from the utter darkness of obscurity to most unexpected prominence, who maintained that dishonesty was the best policy—that the payment of debts was only required when it suited the convenience of the parties—and who pandered to the basest passions of the mob who had elevated him. The conduct of such an individual might render the reservation of such a power as the Income Tax of the utmost importance. He had the greatest confidence in the humanity and good sense of the American people; and he could see nothing in their past or present conduct which should lead him to abate the affection with which he had ever regarded them. He trusted that the sentiments which he had seen with disgust, and which he should have seen with dismay, if he thought that they were approved by them, would be repudiated by them; and, he was going to add, that they might be the only things which they would be disposed any longer to repudiate. If it should be found necessary at any future time to re-enact this measure, he trusted that every care would be taken to make it as little inquisitorial and painful as possible in its character; and that it never would be continued without some compensation in the way of a remission of those taxes which pressed most heavily on the industrious classes of the community. In accordance with the part which he had always taken upon this question, and for the reasons which he had just detailed, he was prepared to vote in favour of the Motion then before their Lordships.

The Marquess of Normanby

remarked that it was not much to the credit of the House that the debate of to-night should have been characterized as desultory and wearisome; and certain it was that the noble Lord who had just sat down had not rendered it less rambling, although, perhaps, less tedious; but he could not help remarking, that in his opinion it was not peculiarly to the credit of the House, that on the very first occasion on which this question came on for discussion, involving, on the very moderate calculation of his noble Friend, at least 500,000 individuals, there should be such a profession of weariness. He felt so strong an objection to this tax, with the probability of its perpetuity, that he could not allow this last opportunity to pass without saying a few words upon it. The people, he was confident, had as great a distaste to it as ever they had; and he could only regret that the same spirit did not seem to animate their Lordships as had actuated them thirty years ago, when this subject was discussed. He believed, in spite of what had been stated, that there did exist in the country a strong feeling against this inquisitorial tax. The inequality of it had been acknowledged even by his noble Friend opposite; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) could speak to such cases of grievance suffered under the administration of this law, as ought to induce their Lordships deeply to consider the question before they consented to its renewal. It had been said that the boon granted by the other measures which had been passed in the way of repealing taxes, would compensate the people for the imposition of this tax. This was said when the tax was originally imposed three years ago. But had that been the result? Had the prices of articles of consumption been reduced to a sufficient amount—to compensate the people for the payment of an Income Tax? The great and magnificent boon which the poor man could derive from the reduction of the duty on sugar was only, calculating the amount of his consumption, about 2s. 2d. a-year. But this Income Tax operated in a manner against the poor man that more than equalled any benefit he might derive from the reduction of the price of his sugar. The principle of the Reform Bill was, that representation and taxation should always go together; and upon this principle it was that all persons under 150l. a year were exempted from the Income Tax, because they were not supposed to belong to that class of persons who occupied houses of 10l. a year, which was the sum fixed as the minimum for the elective franchise. But by this impost, not only were persons taxed who did not enjoy the franchise, because they lived in lodgings and were not 10l. householders; but in other ways this tax injured the poor man. It operated to check contributions to charitable institutions; it also compelled persons to reduce their establishments, and those who kept one servant were obliged to dismiss that servant. And how did this operate upon that class of persons who were exempted from the immediate imposition of the Income Tax? Why, by the dismissal of their sons and daughters from service, a greater expense was entailed upon the parents to maintain them, than any saving that could be effected by the reduction of the duty on sugar. The tax was, in its innate character, bad; and nothing but an imperative necessity could justify its imposition. That necessity had not been shown to exist; and therefore, though he should not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the question, he should certainly say "not content."

The Earl of Radnor

would also say "not content." When this tax was proposed, three years ago, he entered his protest against it, as being unjust, inquisitorial, demoralizing, and impolitic. Such was his opinion at that time, and such was his opinion now; and therefore he should say "non-content" to the third reading of this Bill. He was afraid that at the end of three years, instead of the Government being able to take off this tax, it would not only be necessary to continue it, but to increase it. This the Government ought to know; and knowing it, they ought to have taken some measure to make the tax less unequal, less inquisitorial, and less oppressive.

Lord Colborne

perfectly concurred with his two noble Friends who had just spoken, and he also should say "non-content."

Question put, and resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 3^a.

The Duke of Richmond

proposed a clause as an Amendment, to give all persons the right of appeal in case of being over assessed.

Lord Stanley

opposed the clause, and considered that it was not competent for their Lordships to introduce such a clause.

The Marquess of Normanby

considered the refusal to adopt this clause as the crowning act of injustice connected with this measure.

Amendment negatived. Bill passed.

House adjourned.

The following Protest was entered on the Journals.

"Dissentient 1. Because I continue of the opinion respecting taxes on income detailed in a Protest entered on the Journals 21st June, 1842. And though the revival of activity in the manufacturing districts, owing, I believe, to the cheapness of bread, aided by the remission of certain taxes, has caused a return of prosperity which was not then anticipated, I believe this tax must have done much to retard and to repress it.

"2. Because if scarcity shall again enhance the price of bread, and occasion distress during the continuance of this tax, it will greatly aggravate all the evils, and increase the financial difficulties which will then arise.

"3. Because in that case the financial circumstances of the country at the end of three years will probably be such as to render the further continuance of this tax indispensably necessary; and in the other alternative, and at all events, it may be found convenient to the Minister of the day, and may be justified by the same arguments as have been now used.

"4. Because I see no ground to hope that before that period Parliament will be prepared to repeal the duties on the importation of corn, which might render its renewal unnecessary; or to modify it in such a manner as to make it a tax, not on incomes generally, but on incomes arising from fixed realized property only, in which case I should think it altogether unobjectionable.

"RADNOR.

"CLARENDON."