| 1835 | £16,844,000 |
| 1836 | 18,366,000 |
| 1837 | 16,620,000 |
| 1838 | £16,658,000 |
| 1839 | 17,341,000 |
| 1840 | 16,290,000 |
§ Here, then, it was established that the revenue of this country was necessarily connected with the cheapness and abundance of corn—and what was the remedy? —to secure a constant, regular, abundant supply, with the view to plenty and cheapness—thus to improve the ability of the consumer, to consume the articles on which you expect your tax? Do the Ministers come forward with a full and ample admission that the law which has made food dear and scarce, and has given monopoly in other articles of general use, was at the bottom of our commercial embarrassment and financial difficulties, and that preparation must be made for a total change of a system so fraught with evil, and though some inconvenience might be expected at first, yet that a permanent advantage being in view, reason and good sense called for the endurance of the evil for a while? No such thing. They brought forward a Corn-bill, not professing to relieve distress, not admitting the evil it had produced, asserting the advantage of such a law, and denying the injustice of our present system of indirect taxation, pledging themselves to its continuance, and proposing to diminish every man's means of expenditure by a certain proportion that taken from his income, with the view, as they say, of maintaining public credit, call upon people to support it, because it is a tax upon property, which is a just tax. Why this does not raise any question of a property-tax, such as many men would wish to see, and that many here would support to-night—a property-tax, in lieu of taxes pressing upon industry, upon the poor and on the productive capital of the country, and that fairly 672 placed the burdens of the Slate on those best able to bear them. The present was a plan for providing for one of the consequences of a constant cause of evil, thereby endeavouring to relieve those who profited by the system of their only difficulty in its continuance, and which, while it continued, made the necessity as constant for the continuance, if not augmentation of this tax now imposed, in addition to every other. The people of this country are now increasing; no provision is made for the increase of the food which they must consume; each year their difficulty to consume other articles will increase, and by the imposition of this tax, the other taxes will become less productive. The people wanted more food, more trade, and fewer taxes, and what has been done for them? You have preserved a Corn-bill, which will make food scarce; you have done nothing to extend trade with the two best customers which England now possesses, namely, the United States, and Brazil. You refuse to take the slave produce of one, and you will only take the slave produce of the other, and thus you leave this country seeking fresh markets for her industry, her people unemployed, without any improvement of her foreign trade; and you impose a tax on income, which must embarrass the trade at home. He said this to show that there was no reason for any man to expect any immediate advantage from this change, which, at present, he could look at as little more than a fanciful disturbance of an old system, and a very capricious application of a better principle; if he did not despair of any advantage from the change, it chiefly arose from the hope that the right hon. Baronet would see the importance of going forward and making such further changes next year which he had repudiated this year, as he had recognised principles this year which he had hitherto resisted.
§ Mr. Hardysaid, that he had hoped that the House would have come to an early decision upon the question then under consideration. The noble Lord had, however, thought it necessary to enter generally into the subject of the Income-tax, and all the points incidentally associated with it, and thus the measure had been obstructed in its progress. He would ask hon. Members who were now so loud in their opposition to this measure of the Government, why they did not oppose the resolutions when they were first pro- 673 pounded to the House by the right hon. Baronet? On the first night of the introduction of the measure nothing was advanced against it. If the Income-tax was so odious, unjust, and oppressive as was represented by hon. Members, surely the perspicacity of hon. Gentlemen ought to have enabled them to have perceived this immediately after the right hon. Baronet had developed his plan to the House. But it was not until after the Opposition saw that the country was disposed to adopt the measure of the Government—yes, it was not until they saw the country disposed to support the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, that a meeting was called at the Reform Club, with a view of organizing a factious opposition to the bill—it was not until then that hon. Members opposite rose, one after another, to stigmatize the proposal of an Income-tax as a most monstrous, odious, and unjust proposition. The principal object which hon. Members appeared anxious to demonstrate was, that the Income-tax would press heavily upon particular classes, upon those who came within schedule D. What tax, he would ask, was not unequal in its operation? It was not fair that this tax in particular should be selected and denounced on the ground of its probable inequality. All other taxes were open to the same objection. Look at the condition of the poor man with regard to the tax upon an article of almost general consumption, upon what might also be considered a necessary of life; he alluded to tea. If a poor man paid 4s. a pound for his tea, 2s. of that was duty. He therefore was taxed with respect to tea to the amount of 100 per cent. The rich man, who paid 8s. per pound for the same article, paid only 33 per cent. Here was a great inequality. What was true with respect to tea was equally so with regard to other articles of subsistence which he could mention. It did certainly appear strange that whilst the hon. Member opposite objected to the Income-tax, he at the same time urged upon the right hon. Baronet the necessity of a tax upon sugar, with the view of increasing the revenue. It had, again, been said that the Income-tax would be inquisitorial in its character. He thought that the right hon. Baronet, had satisfactorily answered that objection. He did not think that the objection was well-founded. If a man made an honest return of his income, he would escape all 674 the inconveniences of the inquisitorial nature of the tax. But the same objection might be urged against all other taxes. Any person by paying a shilling could go to Doctor's-commons, and thus acquaint himself with the private affairs of his neighbour. Again, by paying the same sum any one might go to the register-office, and inform himself of the mode in which estates had been conveyed. Yet to this no objection had been urged. Hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Dungarvon, had objected to the Income-tax on the ground of the immorality which it was asserted it would give rise to. The same objection was applicable to all proceedings in law, not only in this House, but in courts of justice, and in cases of adjudication between one party and another. Frauds and perjury will be committed under circumstances the least favourable for the perpetration of such moral offences. Men, to maintain their own interest, will misrepresent the facts of the case. Such proceedings are of frequent occurrence in courts of law, where the evidence of the parties themselves is admitted as is provided in all the acts establishing Courts, in the nature of Courts of Request. They could not altogether guard against the commission of immorality; but he did not think that the Income-tax would be productive of more immorality with reference to fraud and perjury than other proceedings of a public nature were liable to. With reference to the alleged injustice of the tax with regard to particular individuals and particular interests, he would ask, did not the House pass private acts of Parliament which gave rise to complaints of injustice, and yet law after law of the same character was constantly enacted? He did not think that the House ought to consider the measure on such grounds. It should be recollected that a financial necessity had arisen, which rendered the adoption of an Income-tax indispensable. It had been maintained that the tax was a war tax, and ought only to be had recourse to under such circumstances. If an Income-tax were as cruel, oppressive, and unjust as it was represented to be, then, indeed, it would be oppressive and cruel to add such a tax to the calamities of war. He would rather see such a tax adopted in a time of peace. It would then be in their power to see how the tax would operate with 675 respect to individuals, and its inequalities, if there were any, could be easily obviated. It was not just to designate it a war tax. It had been urged that the right hon. Baronet had brought forward his measure with the view of benefitting the landed interest. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had adopted a strange mode of pleasing the landed interest, by proposing a tax which they could not by any possibility avoid. Hon. Gentlemen opposite also affirmed that the measure of the Government would eventually bring disgrace and discredit upon the right hon. Baronet at its head. He should have thought that such a consummation was the very thing desired by hon. Members opposite. He thought that the country was in favour of the measure of the Government. He had presented to the right hon. Baronet a memorial, signed by all the respectable inhabitants of Rochdale and its neighbourhood, in support of the plan of the Government; and in that petition the right hon. Baronet was urged to go on with the measure, as the memorialists thought that it would not only conduce to increase the revenue, but to permanently benefit all the interests of the country. As he thought that such would be the effect of the measure, it was his intention to give it his unqualified support.
§ Mr. E. R. Ricefelt it his duty to state why, after the vote that had been come to upon the resolutions previously proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, he could not throw any obstruction in the way of the first reading of the bill. He did not hesitate to say that he should much prefer the then measures proposed by the late Government for the reduction of the duties Upon corn, sugar, and timber, to the propositions of the right hon. Baronet. But these measures had been rejected, and the alternative was now, whether they should have recourse to direct taxation, or to other taxes that would press more heavily upon the industry of the country. He objected to that part of the plan which placed the same amount of tax upon incomes derived from trade and professions, and incomes derived from real estates; and if the right hon. Baronet did not amend this part of his proposal, he should, at a proper time, namely—on the third reading—express his opinions upon the subject. Another of his reasons for not offering any opposition to the first 676 reading was, that there would be no more likely means to maintain peace than by showing that the resources of the country were amply sufficient to meet any struggle, whether warlike or otherwise, which, under certain circumstances, might become necessary to the assertion of our power and dignity, and by showing, further, that the more opulent classes were willing to refrain from throwing burdens upon the poorer and industrious classes. Upon these grounds he should not by his vote offer any opposition to the first reading of the bill. If the measure was amended in the manner he had suggested, he should then support it; otherwise he would oppose it upon the third reading.
§ Mr. Fox Maule,after having heard the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Rice), must say, that there appeared to him to be no necessity for his hon. Friend to reserve his vote to the third reading of the bill, because the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had already distinctly declared, that he would not make those modifications which his hon. Friend required. His hon. Friend might as well, therefore, vote against the hill now as on the third reading. He was anxious to say a few words before the question should be put, because his course respecting this tax had been much misrepresented. It had been stated in that House, but he could not find upon what authority, that in having voted in the minority for postponing the decision upon the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet till after Easter, he had followed a course founded solely upon a factious opposition to her Majesty's Government. Now, he would appeal to the recollection of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the House, as to the course which he took upon those resolutions. He stated distinctly, when they were first brought forward, that he considered sufficient time had not been given to the people of Scotland to consider their nature and bearing; and that, in voting in the minority, it was his distinct object to gain further time to enable them to do so. And when he was taxed by the hon. Member for Lincoln with voting for delay, his answer was, that he believed that that vote had been given agreeably to the opinions and wishes of his constituents; that he should soon meet those constituents, and hear from them whether they objected to his vote or not. Now, how did the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) deal with and turn about those simple facts? The right hon. Baronet stated that he had ap- 677 peared among his constituents, and had sounded them upon the propriety of holding a public meeting, in order to discuss the resolutions of the Government; but that he had been induced not to call a public meeting, because he knew that if he had done so, those resolutions would have been approved of; and therefore he left the town and those whom he represented in Parliament without having the courage to call a public meeting on the subject. [Sir J. Graham: I did not say anything about it.] He understood the right hon. Baronet's words to convey exactly that meaning to the House, and he stated at the time that the right hon. Baronet entirely misrepresented him. Now he had since found that the only source whence the right hon. Baronet derived his information was an anonymous letter in a newspaper. On comparing that letter with the speech of the right hon. Baronet, no one could be at a loss to see that the right hon. Baronet had trusted entirely to the information there given. He wished to state to the House that he never went among his constituents with the slightest intention to call a public meeting; he never meant to convene a meeting on the subject. But he learned sufficient while among his constituents to know that those shopkeepers and merchants who would be affected by the bill of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) most entirely disapproved of it. They complained of its inquisitorial character, and he should have to say a few words upon that point presently. They complained of its injustice and inequality; and not one of those with whom he conversed had a word to say in favour of an Income-tax. He was quite ready to admit, that in the town of Perth, and in all other towns, there was a class of persons whom the right hon. Baronet had captivated by his measures; and no doubt the right hon. Baronet had obtained their approbation to a very considerable extent. But, let me tell him (continued the right hon. Gentleman) that the day may come when he may find that those classes on whom he now trusts for the support of this measure, will have their eyes opened, and the veil that at present obscures their vision removed. Let me remind him that not many weeks since the agricultural interest thought they could confide in him for the protection of their interests; but are those who belong to the agricultural interest now confiding for protection in the right hon. Baronet? I will not use a hard word which has been objected to in 678 another place, but I will say, that the right hon. Baronet has disappointed the expectations of the agricultural interest, that the country has, from one end of it to the other, expressed that disappointment at the manner in which he has treated them by the measures he has brought forward. Let me warn the right hon. Baronet, that although he may experience much inconvenience from this discovery on the part of the agricultural interest, yet it is nothing to that which he and the country will experience when it shall be the case, as I think it will be soon, that the masses shall discover that this imposition of an Income-tax, coupled with the assertion that they were not to be affected by it, was a deception. The re-action which will follow from that discovery will be dangerous, not simply to the Government, for that would not concern me so much, but dangerous to the stability and peace of this country. My opinion is, that it is utterly impossible to inflict a tax of the nature of this tax without, in a very great degree, affecting the working classes. You affect all who have an income down to 150l. a year; and in doing so, you affect those upon whom the working classes depend for employment. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has stated that already, in anticipation of the effect which this tax would have upon commercial transactions, many of the manufacturers in the north of England have declared, that they shall be compelled to turn away a great number of their workmen. I have no doubt, that this will be the case, however much you may deceive the working classes at this moment by persuading them now to come to your aid for the purpose of upholding this tax. You may rely upon it, that when they shall discover that they have been cheated into giving you their support, the reaction will be dangerous to the peace of this country. But why do they come to your aid? why do these working classes whom you invite to attend public meetings to consider the Income-tax, give you their assistance; and why does that great body appear at and disturb the proceedings of other public meetings called to consider other questions — the Corn-laws, and the various other monopolies in this country? Why do the classes I have named do this? It is that they may get the blow struck at the middle classes who, they imagine, stand between you and them as a hindrance to their gaining the great object they have long been aiming at—Universal Suffrage. 679 The lower classes may for a time appear satisfied with the scheme of the right hon. Baronet, because the effect of it will be to bring down the middle classes to their own level; but the result will be the injury and depression of both, and in time the combination of both will be irresistible. He thanked his noble Friend for giving him this opportunity of recording his opinion; the hon. Member further said, that opportunity had not, in fact, until now been afforded, and although it had been said, that the course was unusual, it was to be recollected, that the occasion was, at least, as unusual as the course. He should give his vote against the Income-tax upon the very grounds stated by the right hon. Baronet in 1833, for he could not concur in the explanation attempted by the right hon. Baronet this night, that his words were to he construed with reference to a conditional Income-tax in times not at all like the present. The right hon. Baronet had asserted, that
The effect of an Income-tax must be, if it were properly collected, to expose men's businesses to a rigorous inquisition. It was a tax which would encourage immorality, fraud, and perjury, and it would discourage industry, which, in a country like this, was highly inexpedient."Such had been the opinion of the right hon. Baronet some years ago, and such was his opinion at the present moment. Upon that plain and simple ground, he should rest and record his vote, and it was a ground which the country would understand more clearly from the distinct terms of the right hon. Baronet, than if he were to talk for months. The right hon. Baronet had alleged, that he was supported by a great many commercial bodies in the three kingdoms. He knew only of one corn-commercial body which had supported the right hon. Baronet—the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow. He had heard this fact with some surprise, because not more than twelve months ago, the same Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow had passed a resolution approving of the resolution of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) for a fixed duty on corn. Of whom, then, did the Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow consist? Of about 400 individuals, represented by thirty-six directors, of whom six retired annually. These directors, on their own responsibility, without concert or consultation, passed a resolution supporting the financial measures of the present Government. Of whom did these directors consist? The great majority were men 680 deeply involved in East and West Indian monopolies—men whose interest it was to maintain the duty on sugar. Therefore he must take leave to doubt the impartiality of the decision of the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow. He did not find that the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh had come to any such resolution, and some other bodies of the same kind had recorded their disapprobation of the scheme. He should most cheerfully record his vote against, the first reading of the bill, because he was satisfied that this was not a season for imposing a tax upon the country, which ought to be reserved for a greater emergency, and because he was convinced also, that the lower orders would find ere long, that the pretence that it did not touch them and affect their interests was a mere delusion.
§ Mr. M. Milnesapprehended that the right hon. Member who had just sat down was the only man in the House, and would be the only man in the country, who was not convinced by the explanation of the right hon. Baronet with respect to the passage from a former speech which had been read by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell.) The right hon. Member had omitted the important point of the altered circumstances of the times out of which the present measure in fact grew. As Cicero had remarked of a law in his time, " est invidiosa lex, veruntamen habet excusationem, non enim videtur hominis lex esse sed temporis." This Income-tax was not the law of the right hon. Baronet, but of the times upon which he was thrown. He objected to the practice of raking supposed jewels out of the rubbish of by-gone debates: mere recrimation could never convince, and he should rejoice to see this practice disused on either side of the House. He denied that the right hon. Baronet had uttered one word of despair or even of despondency when he introduced his plan; he had taken a just view of the state of the country, and had wisely adapted his measures to the emergency, but he had never uttered a syllable to unnerve the hand or dispirit the heart of a single Englishman. Allusion had been made on a former night to the testamentary disposition of the late Government, and it reminded him of the will of a celebrated literary man, who, having three sons, left to one of them his faith, to another his patience, and to the third his courage, but not a single shilling in money to any of them. So the late Go- 681 vernment at its decease left behind them many virtues, many good intentions, but not a single shilling in money. As to the late disaster in India, he hoped that nothing would be said or done at present to expose the circumstances which led to it; for if they were injudiciously disclosed, the effect might be to derange, confuse, and complicate our diplomatic relations with some of the great powers of Europe; yet, he must own, that to him the troops on the west of the Indus were as much objects of public interest as on the banks of the Douro or the Garonne, and the fleet in the Chinese seas as the fleet in the British Channel. In reference to the present posture of the country, it became the House to consider what was the condition of our connections with France and America. The full consequences of the unhappy treaty of the 15th of July, 1840, were only now beginning to make themselves apparent. The anti-English feeling in France was rather increasing than diminishing; France looked with suspicion at every act and intention of this country, and seemed almost to distrust her honour. Whatever we did we seemed to be inevitably misunderstood. Thus situated, it became the right hon. Baronet to take care that he had such a command of the purse of Great Britain as would enable him, should the occasion arise, at a moment's warning, to rouse the energies and apply the resources of the empire. He doubted whether he should have risen tonight, if he had not wished to express his unwilling dissent from one portion of the measure before the House. The right hon. Baronet had given such a large exemption to the labouring classes, that it required more than all the ingenuity of his opponents to pervert and misrepresent his intentions; but what he wished was, that the right hon. Baronet should afford an exemption to the labours of the head as well as to the labours of the hand. Trades and professions ought not to be taxed in the same proportion as funded and landed property, and he thought that some modification might yet be introduced into the bill which would make a distinction of I or 1½ per cent, in favour of skill, learning, and intellect. He pleaded for some distinction between labour and ease, between the fruits of toil and the enjoyment of superfluities. But whether this concession were made or not, he was well persuaded that if this bill were passed, the 682 right hon. Baronet would, ere long, be able to come down to the House and declare, that the difficulties with which he had contended had been overcome, and that the country was in the enviable condition of being able to enjoy peace, if Providence so granted, or to undertake war, if forced upon her, and to accomplish all the great objects which lay within the reach of this great country, directed by a strong, and honest, and enlightened administration.
§ Mr. Raikes CurrieI ask for a few moments of that indulgence, which I believe the House never refuses to one who addresses it with reluctance and with sincerity. I may be supposed to address it with reluctance, because having had the honour of a seat here for five years, I have scarcely troubled it with as many sentences; with sincerity, because I fear that my sentiments will find little acceptation in this focus of party spirit. I feel it my duty, after the best consideration I can give the subject, to support the propositions of the right hon. Baronet. I am by no means insensible to the serious objections to an Income-tax; — I am by no means blind to the defects and short comings of the tariff: but, taking the Government propositions as a whole (and as a whole I think we are called on to consider them), they appear to me bold, honest, comprehensive; required by the circumstances which they are brought forward to meet; and, at all events, not more objectionable than any substitute equally effective which could be carried in the existing constitution of Parliament. I think this measure a bold measure, because, in the tariff some powerful and protected interests are boldly dealt with, because in the discharge of public duty the right hon. Baronet braves the odium of imposing a tax which, whatever it may seem to be at present, will become doubtless peculiarly unpopular with that middle class who form the bulk of your constituencies; its inquisitorial attributes will secure for it their extreme aversion. I think it an honest measure, because, while we impose no direct burden on the working classes, on the great body of the people, we severely tax ourselves. No other impost would hit so hard, the class to which I belong. You take 3 per cent from funded capital, and 3 per cent from profits—no small inroad, let me tell you, on a large commercial and banking business, 683 I think this is a comprehensive measure, because, while you take money from the public, you do something at least, something in the right direction, to unfetter commerce, and to invigorate and expand trade, the source of all revenue. I believe, that those who most strenuously oppose the measure, acknowledge that it will be effective for the purpose it professes. But then it is not required by the exigencies of the public service. This, indeed, is a most weighty argument; for, if this be true, your tax is downright spoliation and injustice. I cannot come to this conclusion. When I see our expenditure annually exceeding our income, till a deficit of ten millions stares us in the face— when I see the miserable expedients to which we have resorted—when I remember the paramount duty, I will not say of upholding public credit, for that no one will deny, but of placing all your financial provisions above the shadow of suspicion, I can-not think that you have made too great an effort. When I look across the Atlantic, and see the shameless course which men who spring from our race, speak our language, and suppose that they have improved on our institutions, have pursued. I feel more than ever that this country is called on to exercise her high vocation as a teacher of all nations, and that the best teacher is example. Then I turn from financial to political considerations, and I confess I do not think that you have overstated the emergency. Your Indian wars would not alarm me if we had a righteous cause; but based, as they seem to me to be, on the most horrible injustice, I tremble at the wonderful arrangement of retributive justice which all history shows us does overtake the proudest and the mightiest, who become unprincipled oppressors. But there is enough in Europe to call on us to set our house in order. War appears to most of us such folly and such monstrous wickedness, that we can hardly conceive that a civilized nation would wantonly engage in it; but those who are acquainted with the irritation which exists in France, who know what a fearful part the effects of wounded vanity have played in the drama of the world, may well wish this country to be prepared for all contingencies. Thus, Sir, for the maintenance of credit, for the maintenance of European peace, for the vigorous termination of those struggles in which you are unfortunately engaged, I believe that an increase of re- 684 venue is necessary—and granting this, I own I have listened with respect and attention to the substitutes rather hinted at than propounded by the noble Lord, without any conviction of their adequacy. But, say some of my hon. Friends to me, will you vote for an Income-tax in order to maintain abuses? Will you lay fresh burdens on the people, when you see that by freeing trade and maintaining duties, not for purposes of protection, but for purposes of revenue only, you might replenish the Exchequer and absolutely relieve the people? I reply to them, God forbid, if this were the real alternative before us; but while I cordially acknowledge that all this is theoretically possible, that it is undoubtedly the course of abstract justice, is it possible at the present moment, with the present distribution of political leaders, that it can be accomplished by any man with the instrumentalities with which he has to work? There seems to me a strange hiatus in all Whig argumentation on this subject—you conveniently forget that the instrument of legislation is a monopolist Parliament, the legitimate product of that distribution of political power on which you have stamped your approbation. The hon. Member continued to say, that he had looked forward to protecting and enlarging the suffrage as the means of righteous legislation when he first came into Parliament in 1837. How had his hopes been met? By a manly and candid declaration from the noble Member for London, that the Reform Act, advisedly and with premeditation, gave the preponderance of power to the landowners of the kingdom, and that if any changes were to be made in it, he could be ho party to them, as he considered the measure a final settlement of the question. But then all history shows that no dominant class ever voluntarily surrendered that which they deemed profitable to their own class-interests. Thus the friends of liberal principles and of free-trade were placed in a complete dilemma. After four years, not very well spent, the noble Lord came forward with his attack upon monopoly in a parliament of monopolists, and however chivalrous his self-devotion, the crusade was hopeless. He repudiated the only agencies which could win the victory, and then rushed into the battle. The noble Lord, in his lighter moments, was wont to smile at the impracticabilities of specu- 685 lative radicals and abstract politicians; men who would be great statesmen if the world were a chess-board and human beings pawns, and all this might be very just, but did they ever undertake anything more visionary, more chimerical? One of his political friends had said of the noble Lord, that he was a man ready, at five minutes' notice, to take the command of the Channel fleet, or to build St. Peter's. The noble Lord under took —a far more arduous task—to build the temple of free trade out of the hewn stones of monopoly; and the result was that the building tumbled down, and the noble Lord and his friends remained struggling and mutilated under the scaffolding and fragments, Here we are a helpless, hopeless opposition; not so for want of leaders, for the noble Lord has the character and ability to lead any party and to conduct any Government,—but because we present the miserable spectacle of a soi-disant popular party, without a solitary puff of popular sympathy to fill our sails. What, then, remains for me, who most sincerely think that free-trade, the gradual abandonment, not of prohibition only, but protection, is absolutely essential to the welfare of your population, and, therefore, to the security of property, and to the safety of the state? What ought to be the course of the opposition? I will tell you what it ought not to be. It ought not to give a factious resistance to measures which they had advocated when sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. How could Liberal Members advance their views? By Whig instrumentality? He thought not. Were they to organise an agitation for Universal Suffrage? He was not prepared to do so. How then was the chasm to be bridged which the noble Lord had created, when he slammed the door of the constitution in the face of the unrepresented? What should they do? They ought to make the best use of any measures which showed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired to do justice to the people. And upon all these measures he would take the liberty of judging for himself. He had not been an inattentive ob-observer of what had taken place during the last five years. He had seen the right hon. Baronet conduct an opposition with great ability, and he believed, on the whole, with fairness. He found him now charged by hon. Gentlemen on that (the 686 Opposition) side of the House with errors the most opposite, and labouring under accusations the most contradictory. At one time it was said that he had betrayed the aristocracy; and, at another, that he had pleged himself to uphold all monopolies; and we looked at the right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, through the smoked glass of faction, and so fancy him as black as we wish. But the right hon. Gentleman two years ago, had made a pregnant declaration. "I consider the manufacturing interests of the country of more importance to you the agricultural interest, than any protecting law." The right hon. Baronet had said also, "I will never be a Minister to carry out other men's opinions." Coupling, therefore, these two opinions together, he (Mr. Currie) was sanguine enough to see in them the germs of a better system. He was sanguine enough to believe, that through his instrumentality, if, instead of hounding him on to take up with those who were ultra-protectionists, they (the Opposition) pursued an impartial course, viewing, if they pleased, his proceedings with suspicion, but still doing him justice, they would gain some good. He knew of no other agency by which they could do justice to the people. He told the right hon. Baronet, that he must do this justice, and that he must unfetter trade—that the days of legislation for class interests were numbered. It remained for the right hon. Gentleman to choose whether justice and mercy should issue forth in peace from the portals of our ancient monarchy, or whether they should be enthroned hereafter, at some doubtful, distant period, upon the wreck of all our institutions—under those institutions, he confessed, that he would wish to live and die. He would say to the right hon. Baronet in the words which he himself used the other night.—" Elevate your vision"— look beyond the sordid and party interests by which you are surrounded— look forth on the suffering, starving, but patient millions. In an old and densely - peopled country, where your chiefest care should be to make food cheap and plentiful, your party desire to maintain arrangements to render it scarce and dear. You cannot be the dupe of the shallow sophistry to which you sometimes condescend; follow your own free will. You know—you must know —that expanding trade offers the only 687 hope for the existence of your increasing population, and for the safety of the state. You cannot be frightened by the childish bugbear of national dependence. You know that this country never can be wholly independent. You know, that while casual and occasional dependence is a perilous thing, full of danger to our monetary system, constant dependence is the handmaid of commerce, and the only sure cement of peace. If you say that protection is a political and social question, you cannot forget that the despair of starving millions may merge all politics and all society in one overwhelming ruin. You have the power to do justice to all classes. What a fearful responsibility that fact announces! Will you not, by timely concessions to the claims of justice and humanity, avert that fearful union of the starving workmen and their ruined masters, when they shall merge their mutual animosities in one fell cry for vengeance, and bury you and your monopolies under the ruins of the constitution? He would say to the right hon. Gentleman—and he spoke with all sincerity and respect—he would say to him once more, in his own emphatic language—" Elevate your vision"—look forth beyond a few feverish evanescent years, beyond the tiny segment of time with which we are personally conversant— when all the familiar faces which haunt these precincts have departed— when every pulse which beats within these walls shall have ceased for ever—when my name and the names of nine-tenths of those who hear me shall be utterly forgotten, or remembered only as household words, cherished by children and descendants—you will then be spoken of—for you there is no oblivion—you belong to history. You will be spoken of as an astute and able Minister—as a statesman fertile in expedients—as a debater perhaps unrivalled—as one who achieved pre-eminence in a field of the intensest competition. All this your enemies and detractors must admit. Will you not claim a higher and more enduring eulogy? Will you not enter among a far scantier and more glorious band, among those master spirits who have achieved supreme power, and used it like gods, to do justice to mankind —who have stamped their impress on the age in which they lived, and given an impulse, large, continuous, and abiding, to human happiness and human virtue? You stand on the loftiest summit of ambition; 688 as you look forth from that dizzy height upon the millions of this mighty empire on that multitude, of all people, nations, and languages will not your heart be stirred within you—will you not acknowledge a constraining and diviner influence, enlightening and controlling you, like the Chaldean seer, to bless and not to curse them.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that if half the compliments which had been just paid to the right hon. Baronet and the Gentlemen opposite were true, every one in that House who had heard them, and every one out of it who read them, must be satisfied that the nation at the present moment was the most favoured nation on the face of the earth— that we had arrived at that point at which our political millennium was certain, and that we ought to bless the hour, and praise the day, when we saw the finances of the country regulated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth— when we saw the forces paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent—and when we saw the magistrates appointed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir James Graham), the Member for the great, and independent, and numerous constituency of Dorchester. These were, indeed, days in which we ought to fall down upon our knees and worship these gods upon earth. The hon. Gentleman had talked about living and dying under the institutions of the country; he would be the last individual who would wish to prevent his hon. Friend's living and dying under any institutions he might think proper. He hoped that he would long live, that the day of his death would be long deferred, and that, at any rate, it would not take place during the existence of the Income-tax, or of the Government that now oppressed the country. He differed, however, from the hon. Gentleman in the opinion he entertained of this measure. The hon. Gentleman said it was a comprehensive, a bold, and an honest measure. He admitted, indeed, that it was a comprehensive measure, for he believed it was a measure that would entail universal distress and every sort of hardship upon the country. But he denied that it was a bold measure or an honest measure. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) had said that nothing but a strong Government could have proposed such a measure. He agreed with him that nothing but a strong Government could have ventured upon a 689 measure so obnoxious, so disgusting, and so repugnant to the feelings of the country. They were a strong Government; but in what consisted their strength? They were strong in numbers here, but were they strong in the public confidence? He knew that the right hon. Baronet was supported by a majority, who avowed that no amount of political inconsistency should prevent their adhesion, who declared that there was no profundity of political dirt they would not submit to be dragged through to support the right hon. Baronet; and then they told him that this was a strong Government. The hon. Member for Pontefract said, that he would like to see a dissolution at that moment; so should be. He should like to see the right hon. Baronet taking the sense of the country upon this question by a dissolution of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet, however, was too good a judge to appeal to the people. Restricted as the franchise was, he dare not appeal to the people. With regard to the question itself, the chief point in the speech of the noble Lord near him (Lord John Russell) had not been answered. The whole measure had been declared to be a juggle, and the noble Lord asked, what had been often asked before in debates of that House, "whom the measure was to benefit?" For they had heard much of the benefit it would afford to the working classes. Directly any hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House complained that the Government were picking their pockets by an Income-tax, hon. Gentlemen opposite got up and said, that with the other hand at all events, the right hon. Baronet presented the people with a great quantity of beef, mutton, and other articles, so that the cost of living will be so cheap, that what was taken out of the pocket would not be felt. These allusions, however, created great uneasiness on the other side of the House, and up would get some greasy grazier, and assure his agricultural friends that there would not be the slightest danger—that there would be no cattle and no sheep imported, and not a foreign beast would appear to alarm the English agriculturist. The same arguments were repeated by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Liddell), who said that a large supply of horned cattle was perfectly visionary; that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in opinion that the alarm was wholly unfounded, that the demand from France was far beyond the supply. And the hon. Member agreed also 690 with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that there would be no beef and no mutton; and that if the cornucopia, of which hon. Members were afraid, existed, he could not find it. Then came the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and he repeated nearly the same words. Now, what did all this mean? Who was right and who was wrong? He said it was a juggle between them, and the longer the debate continued the more perfectly would the film be removed from the eyes of the people. To the House of Commons the Government said, that they would obtain the tariff only at the price of the Income-tax, and to the working classes they said, that they were free from the Income-tax, but they must pay for their freedom by the distress they would experience from the tariff. They would not, however, be able long to hold out this delusion to the working classes of the country, who were beginning to see that the Income-tax would be the cause of that distress which would send thousands upon thousands to the workhouse. Let them look at the trades which would be flung out of employment by the tariff. Let them take the leather trade as an example. There were in the metropolis 30,000 families dependent upon the boot and shoe making and the leather trade of this country; and the tariff reduced the duty to such an extent, that it would be impossible for the English workmen to compete with foreigners; and they said, and said rightly, "If you remove the protection from us, remove also the protection granted to the agriculturists, and relieve us from the bread-tax." And if the argument of the hon. Baronet were true as to the small effect of the tariff upon food, he said that the measure was not an honest measure with regard to them. Then, again, let them take the cork-cutters. The whole trade would be brought to certain ruin by the reduction of duty on manufactured corks, and he did not believe that there was any set of persons who were more deserving the protection of that House, or the respect of the public. In that trade it was the pride that no single individual received support in a workhouse; they supported and they buried their own poor. A few days since, in consequence of the failure of their last hope, the amended tariff of the right hon. Baronet, which, though it raised the duty, did not in fact offer them any better protection, they were in despair. Then there were the straw-plait manufacturers of this country. He believed that there were 691 150,000 females employed in the straw-plait manufactures; and he had received several communications, not only with reference to the straw-plait manufactures, and the boot and shoe manufactures, and the cork makers, but from other trades which would be injured materially by the tariff. He would give a sample of what was going on from a letter of one of the straw-plait manufacturers in Suffolk, whose petition he had lately presented to the House. He said—
I cannot consider the Government proposition otherwise than awfully cruel to our own poor, unless they would first give us free-trade in bread corn. So convinced are the manufacturers in this neighbourhood that the proposed tariff will destroy our home trade, that we are all discharging our hands as fast as we can, and the wailings of the poor women are already heart-rending."How did the right hon. Baronet prove that this measure would benefit the working classes? Only satisfy him that it would benefit the working classes, and as far as his vote went he would give his support to the right hon. Baronet. It was never maintained in the old days of the Income-tax, or of the property-tax, that it could in any way benefit the working classes. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had already quoted part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet in 1833, but he had not read the concluding portion. It was well worthy of especial notice. The right hon. Baronet said:—With respect to a tax upon income without property, I very much doubt whether it would promote the interests of the labouring classes, because it would diminish the funds at present appropriated to the encouragement of industry and the promotion of labour, and it would ultimately be found that the lax did not affect the person who paid it so much as the labourer by diminishing his means of employment;"Again, in 1835, on another discussion for referring the question of the general taxation of the country to a select committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), in answer to the hon. Mover, Mr. Robinson, said, that although it had been agreed, that the property-tax had been opposed principally by the wealthy classes, this was all a mistake. He went on to say—Hon. Members appear to me to have entirely forgotten the circumstances under which the former property-tax was imposed, and afterwards repealed. The hon. Member for Tynemouth has contended, that when the question of the repeal of that tax was under the 692 consideration of Parliament, the repeal was carried solely by the influence of the wealthy portions of the community. Now, is it true, that the opposition to the tax at the time of its repeal proceeded from the aristocracy? Quite the contrary. I well remember, that the agitation of that question did hot originate with those who are usually termed the aristocracy, but with an individual who avowed himself, and was generally acknowledged to be, the warm, perhaps, the extravagant, advocate of popular interests—I mean the late Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Brougham—who took up the question, and opposed the tax expressly on the ground of its tendency to fetter the industry of the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) was not then in Parliament, and of course did not hear as I did the speeches then made by the noble and learned Lord, against this tax, week after week, month after month, in which the consideration of the interest of the rich entered but little, if at all, into the arguments employed. What he insisted on was, the inquisitorial nature of the law—that it threw impediments in the way of trade and commerce, and interfered most injuriously with the industry of the labouring classes. The hon. Member, therefore, is wrong in supposing that the clamour for its removal at that time came from the rich, or that its abolition took place in deference to their wishes. Whether it be right to re-impose it, I do not now say; but I fully concur in what has been observed upon the present occasion, that if imposed again it must apply alike to all parts of the empire—to Ireland as well as to England."What right had the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say that he was now bringing in a measure to benefit the working classes, which in 1833, as well as in 1835, was stated to be a tax of such a nature, that it must fall more heavily on the working classes than on any other? He asked why they did not apply this measure to Ireland? Ireland benefitted as much as any other part of the empire by the measure which was the immediate cause of the present deficiency; of the penny post, had not Ireland as much as England the benefit? But what did they propose to do? They put on a small tax of 200,000l. on spirits, whilst they put an Income-tax of 4,000,000l. upon England. [An hon. Member: "The stamp duties also."] The right hon. Baronet, in truth, admitted a great part of their case. He admitted that it was an inquisitorial tax. Did the public know the consequence of this inquisition? He would just give a few of the questions that were asked by that inquisition, the last year before the property-tax was repealed. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, that the tax was popular with 693 the commercial interests. It certainly was not popular in the city of London in the year 1815. In the last year there were 11,000 surcharges in the city of London alone. What had occurred upon those surcharges? Four thousand had appealed against the surcharges; three thousand of these appellants succeeded, and one thousand surcharges were confirmed. Seven thousand persons submitted to the surcharge without complaint. Well might it be argued from this what was the state of things when seven thousand surcharges were submitted to. Either this large number of a great commercial community were prepared and did absolutely evade the assessment, or they shrunk from exposing their circumstances. It was then said what a pestilential effect such a tax must have upon the morals of the community: yet the right hon. Baronet told the country they must submit to this inquisition. What Were the questions put to the professional men, the tradesmen, and the victuallers? They had been collected and laid before the House: and when it was proposed to keep them as records of the tax, Lord Brougham said that the only course to be taken with respect to these documents was to have them burnt at the hands of the common hangman, and burnt they were by persons appointed for that purpose in every part of the country. And well might they be burnt when such question's as these were asked of the professional men, the merchants, and the traders. Of the traders it was asked:—What is the amount of goods sold or business done in the three years preceeding 1814? Upon what principle do you calculate your gross profits, either by percentage or any other mode, specifying the manner? Are you subject to any deduction for interest of money for capital or money borrowed, and if so state the amount? What is the amount of the salaries or wages of persons employed by you?"Was such an inquisition to be treated as nothing? He would only next turn to the licensed victuallers, and of them it was asked,—What is the amount of money taken in your house in the course of one week, month, or year? State the particulars of your trade, whether beer, wine, spirits, or eating? What is the quantity of beer drawn per month? Is there any interest paid by you to the brewer, or to any other person, for money for the purposes of business, if so, state the amount? Have you, besides your trade, any income from money in the funds or houses, or any other species of profit whatever?694 And not only were they obliged to make these answers, but they were obliged to swear to theft truth. Hon. Gentleman talked of the support the measure obtained, but he confessed he could not find any individual out of the House who was in favour of the tax; and he believed that if the House could possibly be converted— he feared it was almost impracticable— into a Palace of Truth, the right hob. Gentleman would find that the hon. Gentleman sitting behind him, when the question was put, aye or no, would say "no" to this most obnoxious tax; He had, however, another objection to this tax. It was said that it favoured the landowner and oppressed the tradesman. Under the present Reform Act every borough elector was bound to pay, before the 20th of July in every year, all the Queen's taxes, and assessed taxes made previous to the 6th of April before he could be registered. The county electors were hot forced to make any such payment. This, therefore, would give another great and important power, under which the myrmidons and spies of the Government were to be let loose on the country. He had already brought the rate-paying clauses before the House; they would be now giving a further power to the government to intimidate the voters by means of their agents, the tax-collectors, who would no doubt act in perfect harmony with the 364 magistrates for boroughs lately appointed by the right hon. Baronet. He knew that the rate-paying clauses were a convenience to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were the Chancellor of the Exchequer's clauses, and they reversed the true order of things, for they made taxation precede representation, instead of allowing representation to go before taxation. He had no doubt that this would be a most productive tax to the right hon. Baronet. No one disputed that; but he told the right hon. Baronet it was a tax which could only be collected amidst the heart burnings and dissensions of the people. It was possible that the opponents of the measure might be defeated, but at any rate they had the satisfaction of knowing that when this nefarious machinery should be in full operation, they had warned the country of its danger, and although defeated they had done their best to pre-vent the plunder and persecution of the people.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that it appeared, that any hon. Gentleman who chose to act for himself upon his Own sense of what is 695 right, and not to do that which might be pleasing to those shining lights who sat about him, was to be subjected to an ordeal by no means pleasant, nor much, he thought, for the honour of those who practised it. It seemed, that those who sat on the Opposition benches assumed to themselves the right of saying, that if any one among them did what they did not like, he was to be marked out as the enemy of the cause, and, it therefore, became the duty of those who did not share in such views to state fully and energetically what were their real sentiments, and what induced them to depart from the bright lights who sat around them, and follow the small candle of their own intelligence. He should endeavour to do this for himself. A few words which he had addressed to the House on a former occasion had given rise to much observation; but he was glad to have had a defender in one (Mr. R. Currie), who had made a much more eloquent defence than he could have made for himself. That hon. Member also had spoken of the boldness, the honesty, and the straightforwardness of the right hon. Baronet's measure; so that he was not quite alone in his opinion of the bill, and he had the eloquent defence of the hon. Gentleman to fall back upon. In addressing himself to the question he would take all the elements involved in it, and having combined them into one whole, he would compare the two systems— namely, that proposed by the right hon. Baronet, and that proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London. In justice to himself and to the right hon. Baronet, he was bound to lake this course—to consider the whole of his proposition together, not to take any part as a unit, but combining the tax and the tariff, to compare the whole measure with that of the noble Lord. He would also take the whole proposition of the noble Lord, and having stated the exigencies of the time, he would analyze both plans, and then put it to the House to say, which was the best under the peculiar exigencies of the country. If he satisfied the House, that the exigency was such as to require a searching remedy, and if he could show that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was the most complete and effectual, he would assume, that he had made out his whole case. He would first call the attention of the House to those points in which the plan of the right hon. Baronet and that of the noble Lord agreed, and thus the value of each 696 would be more easily appreciated. He should also point out in what degree he differed from both, as to the remedy which the present juncture required, and failing to induce the House to concur in his opinion, he would give reasons for falling back upon the plan of the right hon. Baronet as the better of the other two. The noble Lord admitted, that at the present moment there was a great deficiency of the revenue to meet the expenses. This was equally admitted on the other side. The noble Lord allowed, that the deficiency ought to be provided for out of the current income. Upon this point also both parties were agreed. They further agreed, that the deficiency could not be saved out of the expenditure. There, however, he differed from them both. In his opinion, the proper mode of meeting the present emergency was, not by imposing further burdens upon the people in their present distressed condition, but to reduce the expenditure to the level of the income. The House, however, he was satisfied, would not agree to this course, and if he should press any such proposition to a division, he did not believe more than half-a-dozen Members would go out with him upon it. He did not think it an unfair assumption to say, that any proposal to meet the deficiency by saving from the expenditure would be almost universally resisted by the House. If, as had been threatened, the constituency complained of this tax, he would say, they had no just right to complain. It was they who elected the majority, well knowing that the persons whom they sent to Parliament would vote against any plan for making up a deficiency by saving from the expenditure; and they had no right to complain of that which was the work of their own hands. Those who were entitled to complain were, the persons not represented in that House; and he hoped, that they would complain, not of the right hon. Baronet, but of the noble Lord who spoke of the finality of the Reform Bill. That doctrine was the root from which all the evil sprang. The blame of the present exigency rested on both parties, but on none more than on the noble Lord who moved the amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord had followed out his system for more than eleven years, and the consequence was, that he and his party had fallen from a height of popularity which no Minister had reached for a long time previously, and he was now 697 left in the hopeless condition in which he would find himself at the end of the division. The unrepresented classes were the persons who should feel just indignation at the course which had been pursued, and that indignation ought, properly, to fall to the share of the noble Lord. It was granted, that there was a deficiency, that the deficiency must be provided for, and the question then was, what were the best means of meeting it? It was not to be met by those charges and recriminations too commonly indulged in, which had the effect of making one debate to spring, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of another. It would not do to take up a volume of Hansard at one side and pitch it across the House at the head of an hon. Member on the other, who would retort by pitching another volume of the same work back at his assailant. It would not do, like two angry scolds, to deal in accusations and retort, such as "It was you who did it".— "No, it was not, it was you." Such was the course hitherto pursued. When it was asked who caused the deficiency? the right hon. Baronet said, "We did not. Look to Canada, and see there the smouldering ashes of a smothered war." The right hon. Baronet said this, as if he had no share in the proceeding—as if he had not stood at the back of the noble Lord and hounded him on. If there was to be a war expenditure, both parties must admit their share in the proceedings which led to it. There was no use in idle talk and recrimination; there was no use in flinging Hansard in each other's faces. The people knew the share which each party had in reducing the country to its present exigency, and might justly say with Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses." Both were equally guilty, and both were justly exposed to the indignation of the country. The right hon. Baronet had to raise a sum of from 2,000,000l. to 3,000,000l. to meet and cover the expenditure of the year. This he could not effect by any alteration of the tariff, and here it should be remarked, that the noble Lord in all his propositions never once said, that he could raise the required sum by any of his plans. This was a curious fact. The noble Lord never pointed out as a man of business any plan which would clearly go to provide for the deficiency. There was still another point. The noble Lord had stated, that he could provide for the deficiency, but contented himself by saying, that his plan would produce a cer- 698 tain sum of money. One of the modes was by an 8s. duty on corn, which, it should be remarked, was not simply for the purpose of revenue but for protection also, and on the point of protection the noble Lord again agreed with the right hon. Baronet. The country should understand, that; when there was so much talk of relieving the working classes, and so much indignation expressed at the imposition of an Income- tax, which it was said, would press upon capital and thus prevent the employment of labour,—the country should remember, that notwithstanding this indignation, the Leader of the Opposition united with the Leader of the Government in keeping up the tax upon corn. How, he should like to know, would hon. Gentlemen who professed their desire to remove all restrictions on the importation of food, reconcile their votes for a total abolition of the Corn-laws with the imposition of an 8s. duty? How would they reconcile to themselves and their constituents their support of an 8s. duty on the first article of life, or what excuse could they give when (he hoped he should be pardoned the expression) for party purposes they went in direct opposition to their former votes? With respect to the tariff of the right hon. Baronet, the noble Lord concurred in that also, as far as it went, though he condemned it as not going far enough with respect to certain articles. He also agreed in thinking, that it did not go far enough, for he was desirous of doing away with the whole of the discrimating duties. As far, however, as the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet were concerned, it would not be difficult to bring them into equilibrio upon this point. If the noble Lord went further in the article of sugar, the right hon. Baronet made amends in other articles of provision; and here the measure of the right hon. Baronet was of the utmost importance to the working classes, and it was well for the country to find a Minister who was bold enough to make such a proposition, notwithstanding the opposition which it was calculated to create amongst his own supporters. Protection to the landed interest was the cry usually raised for paltry purposes, whilst it was obvious that the whole lives of parties in that House were spent in a disgraceful scramble for power. [Cheers from the Ministerial benches.]He was glad to hear that cheer, but who, he asked, were those who used the Poor-law for electioneering purposes, 699 professing to be the friends of the poor, and then turning round to the farmers, assured them that they would look to the protection of agriculture? These courses were adopted for party purposes, and night after night that House exhibited disgraceful scrambles for power both on one side and on the other. What was there in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet to quarrel with, when there was so much of agreement between him and the noble Lord? The difference between them was this:—They both agreed that there was a deficiency, which the right hon. Baronet proposed to make up by a direct tax, which the noble Lord never, as it appeared, intended to provide for. ["Oh, oh."] If he was in error, let it be shown. If the noble Lord proposed to make up the deficiency, let it be shown that he had done so. It had not, however, yet been shown. It was true the noble Lord said, that by his plan some monies might be gained from lowering the taxes, but it was not attempted to be shown, that a sum would be realized sufficient to meet the deficiency of revenue. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department adverted to this, and put the question as to what tax could be re-imposed—whether any of the proposed alterations of the noble Lord would make up the required sum, and, if not, how was that sum to be supplied? This question the right hon. Baronet distinctly put, and had any answer been given to it? The question was pertinent and pithy. Why had it not been answered? Simply because it could not. Much had been said of political economy, much sympathy had been expressed for the poor, and complaints had been made that employment would be curtailed by the defalcation of capital. The noble Lord argued that revenue should be raised, not by putting on, but by taking off taxes, which would lead to a larger consumption of the several commodities thus relieved. But out of whose pocket would the larger sum come? Somebody must pay it. [" No, no. "] No, no! If 2,000,000l. were to be raised, somebody must pay it; and would not this be a defalcation of capital? But even then it was admitted that the whole of the deficiency could not be raised in that way. If so, what else remained but direct taxation? There must in any event be 2,000,000l. taken from the means of employment, to meet the exigencies of the State. If done directly the people 700 would know how it was taken; if indirectly, it would amount to the same sum. He defied any political economist to take 2,000,000l. of money from the people without thereby diminishing their means of enjoyment. He could show from the writings of the most eminent political economists that all taxation fell upon capital, wages, rent, and profits. That which fell upon wages was bad, as was also that which fell upon capital. The question for a statesman to consider was whether more was taken in the way of taxation than the people could reproduce annually; for if there was not a reproduction the tax then began to fall upon capital, which would then be reduced. It would then be a statesman's duty to act as one would act in private life, and reduce his expenditure to the amount of his income. Now, if a proposition were made which would have the effect of so altering our fiscal regulation as to give to the people what they ought to have, and if an instrument were provided for carrying such a proposition into effect, would the noble Lord vote for it? No, he would not unless it afforded protection to agriculture. Taking, therefore, the House as it was, and judging between the leaders of both parties, seeing that the total abolition of these duties could not be effected, and that the House was not prepared to make such fiscal alterations as would give the people their rights, opposed as such a proposition would be by the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet, what was to be done? Was the country to be left in the financial state in which it would remain if the noble Lord's resolution were carried— a state in which no man of forethought, honour, or courage would allow it to remain, Under such circumstances every man was called on to make a sacrifice, and he was not to be daunted by the cuckoo note of inquisitorial. All talk of that kind would quickly fade away in the result of actual experience. For his own part he should vote in the way which he thought right, and if his constituents thought he was wrong, they could give an intimation to that effect in the proper way. He should not be frightened from his propriety by the alleged inquisitorial nature of the tax. As to the idle taunt of a war-tax it was beneath an answer. What meant a war-tax? A tax which was to be spent in war. Was not money expended in the war in Affghanistan? Was not 701 money spent in the war in China? This money was raised by taxation, and so much of it as was spent thus was a war-tax. People talked of a reserve in time of need. Was not this a time of need? We wanted more than we had. We had acted like careless spendthrifts for more than ten years, and it was high time that we should make up our accounts and pay over the counter. The money must be had somewhere, and if it pressed upon the industry of the people, they had the remedy in their own hands. It was in the power of the constituency to turn out any man who voted against the imposition of taxes. As regarded the present proposition, he concurred in the opinion that a direct tax was the least expensive, at the same time that it gave to the people the advantage of knowing what they had to pay. He hoped that he should not be ranked as an enemy of the people in taking the course which he considered the best. He might be wrong, but guided by the light he had, and weighing well the two propositions, he was prepared to advocate the plan which let the people know what they had to pay, and imposed the tax in the cheapest manner. He should, therefore, vote for the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped he should be able, hereafter, to persuade him to alter what was crying and unjust in the measure when it went into committee. ["Oh, oh."] Yes, he would oppose in committee whatever he considered unjust in the measure, and, he believed, that means might be adopted for making it press more equally. It was in the power of the House, by votes, by arguments, by addresses to the Crown, to alter what was obnoxious in the measure, and if these failed, not on those who made the endeavour to amend the bill, but on those who resisted it, let the odium fall. He would vote for the right hon. Baronet, because he alone of the two statesmen who had made their several propositions, had really adopted means equal to the exigency. He had fairly met the difficulty in the face, and had stated it to the full extent in which it ought to be exhibited. He had met the case honestly, and had plainly stated it without circumlocution. He had not indulged in any shuffling expediency, and was therefore more worthy the confidence of the people than those who were now his opponents.
§ Mr. Wallacedeclared he never heard a 702 more illogical speech than that which had just been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. It was a speech of cleverness, but in no respect applicable to the matter in hand. The hon. Member proved that he knew nothing about the subject on which he had undertaken to enlighten the House. The hon. Member told the right hon. Baronet he approved of an Income-tax, and assigned various reasons for the support he intended, giving to what most other people considered a most odious imposition, that is, he would give him his support at the present stage, but when it appeared in Committee he was oppose it on the ground of professional income not being a fair subject for taxation, in other words, the hon. and learned Member was prepared to oppose when the shoe pinched himself, but allow it to full with all its weight on others. But the people also felt for themselves, and, if he knew any thing of them, he should say they would not submit to the imposition. At any rate Scotchmen or Irishmen would not. All he could say was, that if any Scotchman tamely submitted to it, he must be one of the few noodles which Scotland produced. He would tell the promoters of this detested Income-tax, that they were bringing an old house about their ears. Distressed as the people were from one end of the kingdom to the other, they were not prepared to let the Government take away still further from them the means of giving employment to the working classes. For his own part, he was resolved to take every opportunity of opposing this Tax, for the purpose of putting it off long enough to allow the whole agricultural population to see whether the promised tariff was likely to be productive to them of good or of evil. And now he felt bound to call upon hon. Members on the other side, who represented agricultural constituencies, to exert themselves, for the purpose of inducing the right hon. Baronet opposite to show in what manner he could 'benefit the consumer without loss to the landed interest. The truth is, the country must get the tariff, or refuse the Income-tax. It was not every hon. Member in that House who could recollect the working of the Income-tax in former times, but he was old enough to possess some acquaintance with that subject. He believed the present generation had not an idea of the oppressive and 703 annoying character of an Income-tax. It was every thing that could be odious and disgraceful to a free country. He should oppose it to the utmost of his power, and give the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London his most cordial support.
§ Mr. Sharman Crawfordhaving heard it stated by the hon. Member for Bradford, that a memorial had been presented to Government from a numerous and respectable body of Rochdale, in favour of the right hon. Baronet's proposal, desired to say, that he had taken pains to inform himself of the feeling in that town by calling a public meeting. At that meeting, which was numerously attended, the opinion expressed, without a dissentient voice, was, that the Income-tax ought to be opposed. He felt bound, therefore, to consider that the opinion of the people of Rochdale was opposed to the plan of the right hon. Baronet. On the last division he had abstained from voting because he would neither give his support to the proposition of the noble Lord, nor that of the right hon. Baronet, but on the present occasion he should feel it his duty to vote against the right hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. Cobdensaid, that there were other taxes quite as unequal in their pressure and as unjust in their operation as any Income tax could be. He did not therefore oppose the Income-tax as an Income-tax. He opposed it as he would oppose any other tax to be laid on under the present circumstances of the country, because, in the first place, when trade was suffering and while every private establishment was compelled to reduce its expenditure, economy ought to be carried into every department of the Government, from the most illustrious person in the land down to the humblest. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Bath that, because he did not see a majority ready to support him, he must therefore go over to the other side and swell a majority already too large. In the second place he opposed an Income-tax, because he believed the country was paying taxes to classes and to individuals which, if repealed, he had the highest authority for stating there would be an abundant revenue accruing to the State. He would say, then, abolish monopolies first; and then, if the expenses of the Government could not be met, would be the time to talk about imposing fresh taxes. The right hon. Baronet and his followers would 704 not admit that the Corn-laws and the restrictions upon trade had anything to do with the distress that prevailed; but when the budget was brought forward they proposed what was called a grand system of tariff reform. Then it was suddenly discovered that commercial restrictions caused the distress of the country, and then the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, who for three years had opposed all the attempts of the free-traders, said it would be a crime of the highest magnitude to delay for an hour measures which were to restore prosperity to the country. There was a new-born zeal for commercial reform, and these raw recruits actually child and snubbed the old veterans in the cause of free-trade, who for years had been vainly knocking at the doors of that House and asking for relief. For three years the manufacturers and traders had been showing what in their own opinion was the remedy for commercial distress. Petitions had been sent up to that House with five million signatures, and a thousand meetings had been held all over the country— all those proceedings tending to one point —the repeal of the Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet had come down with what he called a tariff, but it was not a tariff, for it excluded the most important article of commerce. The right hon. Gentleman excluded corn from his list of marketable commodities. He said emphatically that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the corn that was wanted to come in, for by his new proposal he placed as complete a barrier against a regular trade in corn, as there was under the old system. The traders and manufacturers had applied for one sole remedy for the grievances of which they complained. He did not mean to say that all advocated a total repeal, because a very large section were favourable to a fixed duty, but had any body of merchants, manufacturers, or traders, presented petitions to that House in favour of a sliding-scale? ["Question."] That was the question. They brought forward what they called a tariff, from which they expunged the article, not of corn only, but of sugar also. Those two commodities were essential to the trade of this country to both the New and the Old World. There was now sugar in this country, from the Brazils and Cuba, lying in bond, which might be had for half the price which was obtained for the article imported from our own colonies. What, after all, was this 705 tariff? Take cattle, the most important article it contained. ["Question."] It was the question. Why the right hon. Baronet himself had told them they were to take the two subjects together. The most important change, then, in the tariff was the introduction of live cattle. Now, he admitted the importance of that feature as the concession of a principle. But there could not be a great trade in cattle—it must be principally restricted to the nearest parts of the Continent. Then if there was no great importation, there could be no great export of goods, and no great consequent increase of employment for the people. But if there was a large import of cattle, that would be no deterioration of the revenue, for cattle had hitherto been prohibited, and it was manifestly unfair to put forward as an excuse for an Income-tax that which made no reduction in the revenue; but, on the contrary, increased it. He found no reduction in this tariff upon articles of general consumption—no reduction upon tea, sugar, or butter. There was a reduction of 4s. per cwt., it was true, upon salted meat; but he doubted much whether much salted meat could be consumed by the people of this country without injury to their health. There was no reduction upon the article of cotton, though there was a duty of 5 to 6 per cent, upon the raw material. Much had been done in trifles, but the articles most essential to the trade of the country the right hon. Baronet had passed over. These were the things to cause a defalcation of 1,200,000l., and these were the excuses for the Income-tax. There was a reduction in the article of timber at a time when the people could not afford to build houses, and when the merchants could not build ships. The Government allowed the importation of beef at a time when the people were reduced to a potato diet and wanted bread; they admitted French boots and gloves, to compete with our own artisans at a time when they hindered them from the advantage of a free-trade in corn. He denounced them for thus appearing before the country in the guise of free-traders, and beginning their operations at the wrong end. The Income-tax was not necessary to carry out the principles of free-trade, and as a free-trader he utterly repudiated it. The articles in which they desired free-trade were those which yielded no revenue to 706 the State, but only put money in the pockets of individuals. The free-traders did not wish to touch the Queen's Exchequer at all. A free-trade in corn would be of ten thousand times more importance than all the right hon. Baronet had proposed. Allusion had been made to the petitions that had been presented in favour of the tariff, and he was ashamed to say, that the persons most active in promoting those petitions were the clergy of the establishment. What had been the conduct of the clergy when they were asked to join their dissenting brethren in opposition to the Corn-laws? They refused, on the ground that they could not interfere in party politics. No sooner, however, was the Corn-bill secure, than the clergy had come forward as partisans and supporters of the Government; and so rash and hasty had they been in so doing, that they had actually signed petitions for the whole tariff before the amended tariff had come out, and had prayed that the whole might pass. Thus, then, they had petitioned for the first tariff with all its errors, and now he supposed they would have to petition again for the amendments. [Interruption.] He assured the House that he did not intend to trespass further upon its patience. But, representing as he did a constituency desolate and wretched as the people of Stockport now were, he conceived that he had not intruded their wrongs and sufferings upon the attention of the Legislature more than they deserved. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) brought forward, a proposition which was to be a panacea for all the ills of the country, he thought that as the representative of a large and suffering portion of the community, he occupied a position in that House, which warranted him in expressing an opinion as to what the probable effect of the right hon. Baronet's proposition would be. He was bound to say, that he thought the right hon. Baronet and his supporters were entirely deluded as to the result of the measures now proposed. He believed that under the operation of those measures, the right hon. Baronet would not find such a revival of trade as would give him an opportunity of removing the Income-tax. He could not see from what such a revival was to arise. The remedy had been delayed too long. For years past the right hon. Baronet and his party had resisted all amelioration. 707 For years past trade and commerce had been allowed to languish and decline— no helping hand had been extended to them; and now that a remedy was at length proposed, he feared it came too late. During the last six months there had been a reduction of the wages of the working class, equal to an annual sum of 5,000,000l. sterling. Think how that would act upon the Exchequer, and upon the trade of the country. Think of this mighty reduction in the earnings of the people, and then consider what must be the prospect of a country so situated — a country, the prosperity of whose trade and commerce, nay, whose very greatness in the estimation of the world, depended upon the industry of the working classes of its community. Let the House consider this, and then ask itself whether, having so long delayed the application of remedial measures, it believed that the homœpathic system now proposed would be sufficient to effect a cure. Three years ago, the Gentlemen opposite refused to believe that the manufacturers were in distress. Two years ago they shut the doors of the House against them. Twelve months ago, when the representatives of the manufacturing classes went into statistical detail, and brought forward statements of figures to show that they were in distress, the right hon. Baronet told them that they were not in a state of suffering. All remedy bad been left alone until the symptoms of distress and poverty were felt in the Exchequer. Now the question of trade and commerce was taken up —now the principles before stigmatised as something atrocious and not to be tolerated, were taken into consideration with the view of being acted upon; and now the Government came forward to propose an Income-tax as a remedial measure for the great interests which had been suffered to fall into decay and ruin. He told the right hon. Baronet that he would fail in his policy unless be went further. Hitherto the taxation of the country had been derived from its manufacturing industry. The manufacturers had been the beasts of burden who had sustained the expenses of the country's wars. The right hon. Baronet knew the importance of the manufacturing world to the revenue of the State. The right hon. Baronet had now the remedy in his own hands. He might 708 now relieve the consumers of the country, and give them an opportunity of bearing the expenses of the State, which they could well do, ay, better than the people of any other country on earth, if free scope were given to the exercise of their industry. Let the right hon. Baronet do this, and he might have revenue and prosperity yet. Let him fail to do so, and he would soon find that he had exhausted the energy of the working bee—that the honey was consumed— that there was nothing but the honeycomb to feed on;—let them see how long that would last. Arkwright, when he had finished his invention, said the country need not care for the war which then raged, he would pay the expenses; and he had done so. It was the cotton trade, despised as it was, that had enabled the country to pay the enormous interest of the debt the war had heaped upon her. If they destroyed that trade, as they were trying to do, destruction would come sooner upon them than they were aware of.
§ Mr. MuntzI am as much opposed to the Income-tax as the hon. Member, or any man in England. But the right hon. Baronet dared not to have proposeda property-tax without one upon income also. At the same time I am so anxious to see a tax upon property, that I would rather vote for a tax upon both than lose it. The hon. and learned Member for Bath says the House was about to come to a party vote. I will not give a party vote —I never will—I am going to vote with the right hon. Baronet, because I think it would be for the benefit of the people at large [cheers]—I say to the interests of the people at large—not to the interests of the elector—not to the interests of my supporters—that is no consideration to me [laughter and cheers].If my vote does not please my constituents, they know what to do in the case. I wish them to do as they please; but I am sure I am voting for the interests of the great body of the people, when I place the burden of taxation upon those who are not only competent to bear it, but who are the framers, the regulators, and the directors of the law. Now, I object to the Income-tax. [Laughter.] I don't quite understand that laugh. I said before, that I object to an Income-tax as much as any man in England, and I was going to assign a reason why I object to it. I object to it, 709 because it is exceedingly inquisitorial, because it falls with exceeding weight upon those unfortunate tradesmen, who in times like these, dare not let their circumstances be known to the public, and who for that reason are obliged to declare and pay upon an amount of profits which they do not realise. I mention this, to show that I am well aware of the working of an Income-tax. I remember the last Income-tax, I was then in business and felt the operation of it, but I do not consider that these privations imposed upon the tradesmen constitute a sufficient reason for my objecting to the property-tax, which now appears to me to be necessary. If I believed that the proposals of the former Government, if carried into effect, would render unnecessary the imposition of an income or of a property-tax, I should feel bound to vote against the present proposition of the right hon. Baronet; but I do not believe that those proposals would have realised the views of those who introduced them. I am ' totally at variance with the Members of the late Government upon that point. I believe that their measures would have failed. In the present state of the country some remedial measure is required; and I do not wish for longer delay. I go further than this, and say that I do not believe, that the measures proposed by the right hon. Baronet and his supporters will relieve the distress of the country, and therefore it is that I wish they may be laid on, because they will show the people that other measures are necessary such measures as neither party in this House have yet proposed. The only object I had in rising was to say these few words to justify the vote I am about to give. [Laughter.]I have not the slightest objection to Gentlemen laughing. I feel that the reasons I have assigned are sufficient. I wish to lay the burden upon the Government and upon those who are able to bear it. I have no more to say upon the subject.
§ Mr. Rundlerose amidst loud and general calls for a division, He merely wished to state that he purposed to vote against the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, for the very reason assigned by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as inducing him to vote in favour of it; and that reason was, that he wished to see the burden of taxation laid upon the lawmakers, whom he conceived to be the landed proprietors of the country. He thought that 710 a legacy duty ought to be imposed on the descent of real property. Until measures of that kind had been resorted to, he did not think they would be justified in imposing an Income-tax upon the country.
§ The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 285; Noes 188: Majority 97.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Carnegie, hon. Capt. |
| Acland, T. D. | Charteris, hon. F. |
| A'Court, Capt. | Chelsea, Visct. |
| Ackers, J. | Chetwode, Sir J. |
| Acton, Col. | Christmas, W. |
| Adare, Visct. | Christopher, R. A. |
| Adderley, C. B. | Chute, W. L. W. |
| Alford, Visct. | Clayton, R. R. |
| Allix, J. P. | Clements, H. J. |
| Antrobus, E. | Clerk, Sir G. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Clive, hon. R. H. |
| Archdall, Capt. | Cochrane, A. |
| Arkwright, G. | Cockburn,rt.hn.SirG. |
| Ashley, Lord | Codrington, C. W. |
| Astell, W. | Colvile, C. R. |
| Attwood, J. | Conolly, Col. |
| Bagge, W. | Coote, Sir C. H. |
| Bagot, hon.W. | Corry, rt. hon. H. |
| Bailey, J. | Courtenay, Visct. |
| Bailey, J., jun. | Cripps, W. |
| Baillie, Col. | Currie, R. |
| Baird, W. | Damer, hon. Col. |
| Balfour, J. M. | Darby, G. |
| Baring, hon. W. B. | Dawnay, hon. W. H. |
| Barrington, Visct. | Denison, E. B. |
| Baskerville, T. B. M. | Dickinson, F. H. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Douglas, Sir H. |
| Beckett, W. | Douglas, Sir C. E. |
| Bell, M. | Douro, Marquess of |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Dowdeswell, W. |
| Beresford, Capt. | Drummond, H. H. |
| Beresford, Major | Duffield, T. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Duncombe, hon. A. |
| Blackburne, J. I. | Du Pre, C. G. |
| Blakemore, R. | Eaton, R. J. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Egerton, Sir P. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Eliot, Lord |
| Borthwick, P. | Emlyn, Visct. |
| Botfield, B. | Estcourt, T. G. B. |
| Bradshaw, J. | Farnham,E. B. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Feilden, W. |
| Broadley, H. | Fellowes, E. |
| Broad wood, H. | Ferguson, R. A. |
| Brooke, Sir A. B. | Ferrand, W. B. |
| Brownrigg, J. S. | Filmer, Sir E. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Fitzroy, Capt. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Fitzroy, hon. H. |
| Buck, L. W. | Fleming, J. W. |
| Buckley, E. | Follet, Sir W. W. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Forbes, W. |
| Bunbury, T. | Forester, hn. G. C. W. |
| Burroughes, H. N. | Fuller, A. E. |
| Campbell, Sir H. | Gaskell, J. Milnes |
| Campbell, A. | Gladstone, rt.hn.W E. |
| Cardwell, E. | Godson, R, |
| Gordon, hn. Capt. | Lyall, G. |
| Gore, M. | Lygon, hon. General |
| Gore, W. O. | Mackenzie, T. |
| Gore, W. R. O. | Mackenzie, W. F. |
| Goring, C. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. | Maclean, D. |
| Granby, Marquess of | M'Geachy, F. A. |
| Greene, T. | Mahon, Visct. |
| Gregory, W. H. | Mainwaring, T. |
| Grimsditch, T. | Manners, Lord C. S. |
| Grimston, Visct. | Manners, Lord J. |
| Hale, R.B. | Marsham,Visct. |
| Halford, H. | Martin, C. W. |
| Hamilton, W. J. | Martyn, C. C. |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | Marton, G. |
| Hampden, R. | Master, T. W. C. |
| Hanmer, Sir J. | Masterman, J. |
| Harcourt, G. G. | Meynell, Capt. |
| Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H. | Miles, P. W. S, |
| Hardy, J. | Miles, W. |
| Hawkes, T. | Milnes, R. M. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Heathcoate, Sir W. | Mordaunt, Sir J. |
| Heneage, G. H. W. | Morgan, O. |
| Henley, J. W. | Morgan, C. |
| Hepburn, Sir T. B. | Mundy, E. M. |
| Herbert, hon. S. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Hill, Sir R. | Neeld, J. |
| Hillsborough, Earl of | Neeld, J. |
| Hinde,J.H. | Neville, R. |
| Hodgson, F. | Newry, Visct. |
| Hodgson, R. | Nicholl, rt. hn. J. |
| Hogg, J. W. | Norreys, Lord |
| Houldsworth, T. | Northland, Visct. |
| Holmes,hon.W.A'C.t | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Hope, hon. C. | Ossulston, Lord |
| Hope, A. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Hornby, J. | Paget, Lord W. |
| Ingestre, Visct. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Inglis, Sir R. H. | Palmer, R. |
| Irton, S. | Palmer, G. |
| Jackson, J. D. | Patten, J. W. |
| James, Sir W. C. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Jermyn, Earl | Peel, J. |
| Jocelyn, Visct. | Pigot, Sir R. |
| Johnson, W. G. | Planta, rt. hon. J. |
| Johnstone, Sir J. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Johnstone, H. | Polhill, F. |
| Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. | Pollock, Sir F. |
| Jones, Capt. | Praed, W. T. |
| Kelburne, Visct. | Price, R. |
| Kemble, H. | Pringle, A. |
| Kirk, P. | Pusey, P. |
| Knatchbull, right hon. | Rashleigh, W. |
| SirE. | Reade, W. M. |
| Knight, H. G. | Reid, Sir J. R. |
| Knight, F. W. | Repton, G. W. J. |
| Law, hon. C. E. | Rice, E. R. |
| Legh, G. C. | Richards, R. |
| Leicester, Earl of | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Liddell, hon. H. T. | Rolleston, Col. |
| Lincoln, Earl of | Rose rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Lindsay, H. H. | Round,C. G. |
| Lockhart, W. | Round, J. |
| Lopes, Sir R. | Rous, hon. Capt. |
| Lowther, J. H. | Rushbrooke, Col. |
| Lowther, hon. Col. | Russell, C. |
| Russell, J. D. W. | Trench, Sir F. W. |
| Ryder, hon. G. D. | Trevor, hon. G. R. |
| Sanderson, R. | Trollope, Sir J. |
| Sandon, Visct. | Trotter, J. |
| Scott, hon. F. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Seymour, Sir H. B. | Verner, Col. |
| Sheppard, T. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Shirley, E. P. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Sibthorp, Col. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Smith, A. | Welby.G. E. |
| Smollett, A. | Whitmore, T. C. |
| Somerset, Lord G. | Wilbraham, hn. R. B. |
| Somerton, Visct. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Stanley, Lord | Wood, Col. |
| Stuart, H. | Wood, Col. T. |
| Sturt, H. C. | Wortley.hn. J.S. |
| Sutton, hon. H. M. | Wyndham, Col. C. |
| Tennent,J. E. | Young, J. |
| Thesiger, F. | Young, Sir W. |
| Thompson, Mr. Ald. | |
| Thornhill, G. | TELLERS. |
| Tollemache, hon. F. J. | Baring, H. |
| Tomline, G. | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| List of theNOES. | |
| Ainsworth, P. | Cobden, R. |
| Aldam, W | Colebrooke, Sir T. E. |
| Anson, hon. Col. | Craig, W. G. |
| Archbold, R. | Crawford, W. S. |
| Armstrong, Sir A. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Bannerman, A. | Dalrymple, Capt. |
| Barclay, D. | Dashwood, G. H. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Dennistoun, J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Drax, J. S. W. E. |
| Bell, J. | Duff, J. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Duncan, Visct. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | Duncan, G. |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | Duncombe, T. |
| Berkeley, hn. H. F. | Dundas, Admiral |
| Bernal, R. | Dundas, D. |
| Bernal, Capt. | Dundas, hn. J. C. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Easthope, Sir J. |
| Blake, M. | Ebrington, Visct |
| Blewitt, R. J. | Ellice, E. |
| Bodkin, J. J. | Ellis, W. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Elphinstone, H. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Evans, W. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Ferguson, Col. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Fielden, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Fitzroy, Lord C. |
| Browne, R. D. | Forster, M. |
| Browne, hon. W. | Fox, C. R. |
| Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. | Gibson, T. M. |
| Buller, C. | Gill, T. |
| Buller, E. | Gordon, Lord F. |
| Busfeid, W. | Gore, hon. R. |
| Byng, G. | Granger, T. C. |
| Byng, ft. hon. G. S. | Grattan, H. |
| Cave, hon. R. O. | Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. |
| Cavendish, hn. C. C. | Hall, Sir B. |
| Cayley, E. S. | Harris, J. Q. |
| Chapman, B. | Hastie, A. |
| Childers, J. W. | Hatton, Capt. V. |
| Christie, W. D. | Hawes, B. |
| Clay, Sir W. | Hay, Sir A. L. |
| Clements, Visct. | Hayter, W. G. |
| Clive, E. B. | Heathcoat, J. |
| Heneage, E. | Power, J. |
| Hobhouse, rt.hn.SirJ. | Protheroe, E. |
| Holdsworth, J. | Pulsford, R. |
| Howard, hn. C. W. G. | Redington, T. N. |
| Howard, hn. J. K. | Ricardo, J. L. |
| Howard, Lord | Roche, E. B. |
| Howard, hn. E. G. G. | Rundle, J. |
| Howard, P. H. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Howard, hn. H. | Rutherfurd, A. |
| Humphery, Mr. Ald. | Scholefield, J. |
| Hutt, W. | Scott, R. |
| James, W. | Scrope, G. P. |
| Jervis, J. | Seale, Sir J. H. |
| Johnston, A. | Shell, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Labouchere, rt. hn. H. | Shelborne, Earl of |
| Lambton, H. | Smith, B. |
| Langston, J. H. | Smith, rt. hon. R. V. |
| Leader, J.T. | Somers, J. P. |
| Macaulay, rt.hn.T. | Somerville, Sir W. M. |
| M'Taggart, Sir J. | Stanley, hon. W. O. |
| Maher, V. | Stansfield, W. R. C. |
| Mangles, R.D. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Marjoribanks, S. | Stuart, Lord J. |
| Marshall, W. | Stuart, W. V. |
| Marsland, H. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Martin, J. | Strutt, E. |
| Maule, rt. hn. F. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Mitcalfe, H. | Thornely, T. |
| Morris, D. | Towneley, J. |
| Morrison, General | Traill, G. |
| Morrison, J. | Troubridge, Sir E. T. |
| Mostyn, hn. E. M. L. | Tuite, H. M. |
| Murphy, F. S. | Turner, E. |
| Napier, Sir C. | Villiers, hon. C. |
| Norreys, Sir D. J. | Vivian, hon. Major |
| O'Brien, C. | Vivian, J. H. |
| O'Brien, J. | Vivian, hon. Capt. |
| O'Connell, D. | Vyvyian, Sir R. R. |
| O'Connell, M. | Wakley, T. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Walker, R. |
| O'Connell, J. | Wall, C. B. |
| Ogle, S. C. H. | Wallace, a. |
| Ord, W. | Wason, R. |
| Oswald, J. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Paget, Col. | Williams, W. |
| Palmerston, Visct. | Winnington, Sir T. E. |
| Parker, J. | Wood, B. |
| Pechell, Capt. | Wood, C. |
| Pendarves, E. W. W. | Wood, G. W. |
| Philips, M. | Worsley, Lord |
| Plumridge, Capt. | |
| Ponsonby, hn.C.F.A.C. | TELLERS. |
| Ponsonby, hn. J. G. | Hill, Lord M. |
| Powell, C. | Tufnell, H. |
§ Bill read a first time; to be read a second time.