HC Deb 23 March 1842 vol 61 cc1118-219
Sir R. Peel

moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a committee of Ways and Means to consider the resolution for a property and Income-tax.

Order of the Day was read, on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

Mr. Blewitt

said, he thought as he did on Monday night, that the proposal for an income-tax was pressed forward with indecent haste, and that the right hon. Baronet relied upon the charity of the House for enabling him to carry the tax upon which the people of the country had had no opportunity of expressing their opinion. He thought that the right hon. Baronet was not acting in accordance with constitutional principles. He under stood that the object of a committee of Ways and Means was to raise money to provide for the supplies; but the right hon. Baronet proposed an Income-tax in order to enable him to take off other taxes. That was not providing for supply to be granted to her Majesty. Being of opinion that the proposal for an Income-tax was pressed forward with indecent haste, he would move then that another order of the day should be proceeded with. He accordingly moved that the Public Works Bill should be read a third time.

The Speaker

said, the hon. Member could not make that motion, because the order for the House resolving itself into a committee of supply had already been read, and the question now before the House was, that the Speaker leave the chair.

Mr. Blewitt

said, that he would move that the new tariff should be taken into consideration before the Income-tax.

The Speaker

said, that that motion also was irregular and out of time.

Mr. Blewitt

wished to know in what; respect the motion was irregular.

The Speaker

said, that the tariff must be considered in a committee of the whole House; but the order of the day had been read for a committee of Ways and Means.

House in committee.

Lord R. Grosvenor

was well aware how little entitled he was to address the House upon the all important and difficult subject which now occupied its attention, and he should not have ventured to intrude himself upon its notice had it not been that he believed he entertained opinions differing from those of any of the speakers who had preceded him in the debate, and it was under that impression that he would ask the kind indulgence of the House whilst he endeavoured, as briefly as possible, to state the reasons which would influence his vote upon the present occasion. The outline of the arguments on both sides of the House upon this question, be apprehended to be this; the right hon. Baronet, on the part of her Majesty's Government, he understood to say that, in consequence of the continued deficiency in the revenue as compared with the expenditure, it was absolutely necessary to devise some means of raising the revenues to the annual requirements of the State; that, on account of the disturbed state of our affairs in India, our relations with China, and especially as Government had it in contemplation to make great changes in the tariff, the results of which could not with certainty be predicted, it would be expedient not only to restore the income of the country to a level with the expenditure, but also to widen the margin, in order to meet possible expenses on the one hand, and to guard against deficiency on the other. To effect this, new taxes must be imposed; that as it was impracticable to place further burdens upon articles of consumption, recourse must be had to direct taxation, and that the best method under the circumstances would be the levy of a tax of 7d. in the pound upon all incomes whatsoever, be they perpetual, or be they casual, above 150l. a-year, for a limited period. This he understood to be the case of her Majesty's Government, with the exception of the imposition of certain other duties upon stamps and spirits in Ireland, as an equivalent to the share of the property-tax which Ireland might be expected to pay, and an export duty upon coals of 4s. a ton; but those did not materially affect the question now before the House, which he took to be, whether we shall consent to the imposition of the Income-tax upon the terms proposed by the right hon. Baronet? On the other hand, it had been urged by Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, that the tax was an odious one; inquisitorial, unjust, and intolerable in its nature, in whatever shape it might be put forward; that it had always hitherto, and ought still to be, considered as the ultimo ratio œrarii. That in order to distract public attention from the deformity of his scheme, the right hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the difficulties of his position; and to prove the truth of the allegation, a list of taxes, producing many millions, which had been repealed since the peace, had been pointed out to him, upon which he was told he ought to have exercised his financial ingenuity before having recourse to so reprehensible a proposition as his Income-tax. The right hon. Baronet, as he understood, differing widely from the other side as to their view of the exigencies of the moment, concurred nevertheless in this, that the tax was one which should not be resorted to, except in a case of urgent necessity; and it was just on account of this agreement between the two parties, and because he ventured with great diffidence and humility to dissent from both, that he was anxious not to give a silent vote upon the present occasion. He had considered this subject, not now for the first time, and had not concealed his opinions, that although no doubt many objections could be urged against this tax, in whatever shape it might come, still that much more serious exceptions could be taken to many other taxes, which still remained un repealed upon our statute book; and when he heard the right hon. Baronet, in the course of his financial statement, inform the House that it was his intention to propose the Income-tax, he cheered the announcement, because he had hoped that, warned by past experience, the right hon. Baronet would have propounded it upon just principles, and would have continued to levy it, not merely till he had had time to revise the tariff, but also till he had been enabled to review the whole system of our taxation, in order to the repeal of some of those imposts to which he had alluded, and which press so heavily upon the springs of our national industry. The right hon. Baronet doomed him, in common with those who entertained similar opinions, to a severe disappointment, in the first place, in giving them little hope of any intention to deal with the oppressive monopoly of sugar duties; secondly, by the production of a tariff replete with vicious principles; lastly and mainly, by the explanation of the manner in which he intended to apportion his tax, and which would, in addition to its already sufficiently unattractive features, render it a measure of the most cruel injustice. It might be all very well in former times, when the proposition was novel, and the danger imminent, to overlook the unequal and inequitable pressure of a tax so levied; but now, when all these things were better understood, and the differences were susceptible of calculation, he was at a loss to conceive what excuse a Minister of the Crown could have, after mature deliberation, for coming down and proposing to this House that the owner of property in land or the funds, subject to no condition whatsoever, should pay no more in proportion than the annuitant, the professional man, and the trader. And he would go further; he had given the subject all the consideration in his power; he had listened to all that had been advanced in the debate, and he declared, that unless more cogent reasons could be adduced than had been put forward hitherto, he would never give his vote, whatever might be the circumstances of the country, to an Income-tax levied in the manner now proposed by her Majesty's Government. He would not so far abuse the patience of the House as to advert to the wanton sacrifice of a large revenue in the face of this deficiency, and the irreconcileable difference between the claims put forth by the right hon. Baronet on the part of the Government to be the friends of the consumer and the promoters of sound principles of commercial legislation, and the facts of their proposed laws with regard to the importation of corn, the continuance of the sugar monopoly, as they are, and the differential duties of their so-called revised tariff. It was not that he was not fully alive to the circumstances, but they had already been so ably and so unanswerably stated by the noble Lord and right hon. Gentlemen who sat around him, that further comment was superfluous: doubtless, they would give this House and the country additional reasons of dissatisfaction at the proposed impost, although they did not include the main objections he entertained towards it. He had endeavoured to state, what were his convictions on this subject, without unnecessarily alluding to any topics of irritation; but before he sat down, he might, perhaps, be allowed to state, that he deeply regretted that the right hon. Baronet, the principal Minister of the Crown, and the leader of that House, should have been the first to introduce an acrimonious tone into this debate, and that upon a subject which was one requiring the calmest and most dispassionate consideration, he should have thought fit to cast imputations upon the noble Lord, the Member for London, and those who acted with him, imputations which he could with safety say it was out of the right hon. Baronet's power to substantiate. And, however little credit he feared the right hon. Gentlemen opposite might be inclined to attach to the assertion, he assured the House he had endeavoured to arrive at his opinions unbiassed by party considerations; but honestly and sincerely entertaining them, he felt himself compelled to vote against the resolution now in the hands of the Chair.

Mr. C. Buller

could not avoid commencing his remarks upon this important subject by expressing his coincidence with the noble Lord who had preceded him, in censuring the tone of acrimony and party feeling which had been given to the debate by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. [Interruption.] He was going to explain the grounds on which he said this, for he was not in the habit of making charges without explanation. If ever there was a question which deserved to be discussed without reference to party feeling, it was this; and if there was any per son who should be especially anxious to pre vent such considerations entering into the discussion, it was the Minister whose duty it was to introduce so great and important a measure. In this respect, the conduct of the right hon. Baronet, with reference to this subject, had disappointed him; it was different from what he must, in justice say, was the moderation and fairness which usually characterised the right hon. Baronet's course of proceedings in that House. In the first place, he could not help thinking that the measure was pressed forward with some degree of unnecessary haste. In the second place, he thought that the Minister in bringing it forward should have held himself open to the reception of any alterations which might be suggested during the progress of the discussion; and ought not, in the first instance, to have declared, peremptorily, that he would not listen to amendments, and that the plan should be taken as a whole. [Sir R. Peel was not unwilling to attend to suggestions.] He certainly understood the right hon. Baronet to have expressed the opinion which he had attributed to him when he stated his intentions with respect to terminable annuities. He had heard with astonishment the right hon. Baronet declare, with reference to such a question as that, that he would not admit of any alteration, and he subsequently used the significant phrase, that Government would stand or fall by the measure. The right hon. Baronet had, in his opinion, carried this fault still further by the tone of recrimination which he had adopted towards that (the Opposition) side of the House, and by constant appeals to party feelings on his own side of the House—by the assertion, over and over again, that his measure had been rendered necessary by some great misconduct on the part of his predecessors. [Cheers.] Now, that cheer which now greeted him from the other side was just one of those violent party cheers which, he con tended, ought not to have been heard in the course of this discussion, but which the right hon. Baronet seemed to him to have taken the utmost pains to elicit; and he must say, with all respect, that the right hon. Baronet's conduct in the debate had given too much reason for believing, that he did not venture to rest his plan upon the mere claims of justice and good policy, and had therefore endeavoured to carry it by rousing party feeling in support of it. The right hon. Baronet must have observed the ominous silence with which his announcement of an In come-tax was received on his own side of the House, and the still more ominous silence with which the details of his new tariff were received in the same quarter; and, therefore, the right hon. Baronet had felt it expedient to appeal to party feeling in order to excite his followers to support him in measures which were unpalatable to them, for the mere purpose of giving him another triumph over their political opponents. It was with great reluctance he said this, be cause he was aware it would be considered unbecoming in him to appear as the censor of the right hon. Baronet. He could assure the House, that he would not have said so much if he had not sincerely deplored the tone which such high authority had introduced into the debate. He would not say another word upon those topics, but proceed at once to the question imme- diately under the consideration of the House. He thought he would not be accused of dealing in that solemn exaggeration to which they were all in that House somewhat too much given, when he expressed an opinion that the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet was a measure which concerned not merely the budget, not merely the finances of the year, but which must inevitably exercise great influence on the future financial policy of the country. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet to impose an Income-tax, in time of peace, appeared to him to be the most important innovation ever at tempted in the financial history of the country. He was not versed in the language of praise — he very seldom used it; and the right hon. Baronet might therefore rely on his sincerity, when he gave him credit for having shown great boldness in the scope and magnitude of the measure which he had brought forward. It was not a measure which a timid or narrowminded man would have ever dreamed of proposing. He must also give the right hon. Baronet—and here, too, he spoke with all sincerity—credit for perfect honesty. His was not a proposition which would have been brought forward by a man who was anxious to tide over the difficulties of the moment, and to avoid collision with men's interests. Further than that, however, he could not go in the way of praise. Great, honest, and bold as the measure was, to him it seemed nothing but a great mischief; and the most rash, unwise, and pernicious scheme ever proposed in the financial history of the country. This was no question of how the Government was to obtain the supplies for a single year. The right hon. Baronet proposed that the Income-tax should endure for three years; but was there a man in the House who supposed that if the right hon. Baronet should succeed in carrying his measure the experiment would stop at that period? No; it was far too convenient a mode of raising supplies to allow of any one entertaining the hope, that it would he abandoned at the termination of the period now assigned for its existence. It was a far easier mode of making up a budget to propose an addition of one-half or I per cent, to the Income-tax than to impose fresh taxes to raise the amount of revenue required. He could not, therefore, help regarding this measure as likely, if successful, to effect a great change in the financial system of the country, by commancing the substitution of direct for indirect taxation. Now, to such a change he objected so strongly, that he hoped he should be excused for going fully into the grounds of his opposition to it, though in so doing he might perhaps fall into the error of repeating much which had been said by hon. Members on his side of the House. The objections which he should now state would apply exclusively to the Income-tax—the tax upon fluctuating and uncertain incomes. He believed, indeed, that no one had objected to the property-tax, that was, to the tax, upon realised property. There was only one remark he would make upon the subject of a property-tax as disconnected from a tax upon income, If the Members pf the two Houses of Parliament, who were almost entirely owners of fixed property, landed or funded, chose to impose a tax upon themselves, he would say. that it was a public-spirited and noble measure. To any proposal of such a tax he could only reply in the language of the old story of King James 1st and the bishops. King James, as the story went, once asked Bishop Williams, who was a notoriously servile man, whether he had a right to take money from his subjects in order to raise a sum he wanted To which the bishop replied, that his Majesty had a right to take what he pleased. The king then turned to another bishop, who was a man of more independent character, and asked him his opinion on the point. He replied that his Majesty had an undoubted right. to take Bishop Williams's money, because he had assented to it. In the same way, if the owners of property in Parliament should think proper to take on themselves alone the burden pf supplying the wants of the State, he had no doubt the professional and trading classes would allow them to follow their inclination in that respect. He himself, however, did not see how these two kinds of taxes could be disconnected, and he must frankly say, that when he opposed the Income-tax he was conscious he was also opposing a property - tax, because he could not place such reliance on the magnanimity of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament as would lead him to suppose that they would grant a tax upon property unless it were accompanied by a tax upon income- However lucid and full were the explanations which the right hon. Baronet had given of his scheme, yet with respect to the objections which had been made to it on the score of its bearing on the possessors of fluctuating incomes, nothing had been done towards clearing them away. The first objection was, that the measure was very unjust by taxing realised property only at the same rate as incomes for life or a more uncertain period. They would tax the man whose property was funded or in land, his own as long as he lived, and which would then descend unimpaired to his family, at the same rate as the man whose income was for life or for a shorter period, dependent perhaps for his gains from year to year upon health or professional success. That portion of his annual gains which a professional man was compelled to put by, was to be taxed at the same rate as that which he could afford to spend. This was, in truth, taxing the capital of the professional man, while you only taxed the income derived from realised property. He would give what appeared to him a striking illustration of the injustice of this, —Suppose a man in a profession to make 5,000l. to lay by besides what was necessary for his expenses for the year; another man got a legacy of 5,000l. in the same year; yet what a different course was taken towards the two! The professional gain of 5,000l, a year, though laid, by, and turned into capital, was regarded, for that year, as income, and the tax would be levied on the whole 5,000l.; but the legacy of the same amount was immediately to be considered as capital property, and, the tax would be assessed., in that year, not on the whole 5,000l., but merely on the income arising from it. That appeared to him a cruel injustice. It was a cruel thing to levy upon professional gains of men whose families were dependent on their gains the same tax as they took from a man whose property descended unimpaired to his family, He would not take the case of lawyers, whose incomes were sometimes imagined to be so large, but which were often very little, nor would he take the case of physicians, although the tax was peculiarly hard upon them, on account of the short period during which they made any large income. He had been told, on the authority of one of the first physicians in this country, that the gaining period of a physician's life was not above fifteen years, and there was no other profession which enjoyed so short a period of gain. But take the case of a small trader, the captain of a ship, or any person who was making his small gains by any precarious and hard-working employment. The inequality of this measure as it affected such persons was a cruel injustice. The second objection to this tax— its inquisitorial nature—had been admitted by the right hon. Baronet, but admitted by him in a very easy manner, as if it could have no weight. Throwing all other objections overboard, he had very coolly told them that, barring the inquisitorial nature of the tax, he had not heard any other objection made to it. In 1816 the inquisitorial nature of the tax, which was now treated so lightly, was what was most complained of, and, more than any other cause, led to that public excitement among the people of this country, which exceeded that created by any other measure, except perhaps the Queen's trial and the Reform Bill. It then occasioned a greater disturbance of the usual arrangements of parties, and a more signal defeat of Ministers than had ever been recorded since the commencement of the present century. The right hon. Baronet had materially modified none of the old machinery. He had contented himself with saying, that the machinery would be that of Lord Henry Petty's former bill, hoping, probably, that the esteem felt for the Marquess of Lansdowne on the Opposition side would neutralize any objections. Why, that was the very bill, and the very machinery, against which the country had formerly revolted. That was the very bill, the inquisitorial nature of which had excited so much opposition. But the right hon. Baronet had not adverted to what he should specify as the next objection to the tax, most justly made the subject of serious comment, and that was, its demoralizing nature; for the tax was one which, of necessity, more than any other, gave all sorts of encouragement to fraud, enabling men to deceive, giving some the opportunity of returning them selves as more prosperous than they really were, and inducing others to return them selves at less than they actually were worth. This had been found to be the case much more than was generally known. The exact statistics of fraud it was difficult to get at, except when it happens to be exemplified at assizes; therefore, to tell the exact extent to which this species of fraud had been carried during the last Income-tax was impossible. But one fact he might mention, illustrating very strongly the truth of what he was urging. In the debates of 1816 it was stated that the great manufacturing interests of Manchester were assessed at only 300,000l. per annum, while at the same time Glasgow, the manufactures of which were not half so extensive as those of Manchester, was rated at 600,000l., making it clear, that if Glasgow had been fairly rated, Manchester had paid not one quarter of what was fairly due. Now no doubt could be entertained that similar frauds would be attempted again; his firm belief was, that evasions of the tax would be extensively attempted. A great deal had been said about the merit of the tax in enabling them to avoid taxes on consumption, and thereby not pressing on the working classes. But this was a tax, if not directly on the working classes, at any rate, on the fund which employed them. The objection he made to the tax was, that it fell on the capital by which labour was employed. They should take into consideration the remarks made by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland (Viscount Howick) the other night, respecting the great redundancy of capital in this country, and the consequent reduction of profits. The noble Lord stated that even at present the profits were so small in several branches of industry, that they had been abandoned by many capitalists, and the workmen consequently thrown out of employ; and if the right hon. Baronet should impose a tax of 3 per cent, on these profits, certainly it would be no inducement to them to make larger investments of their capital. He believed it would lead to a still greater number of the working classes being thrown out of employment. Another objection to this Income-tax, which seemed to him to be of great moment, was, that it had never been tried before in time of peace. On former occasions it had been tried in time of war, when the Continent was closed to us, and people were unable to go abroad. But now they were going to apply an Income-tax at a time when any man of fluctuating capital could remove with it to any portion of the world. What must be the tendency of such a tax as this? Must it not be to drive capital out of the country, and transfer it to other countries? Did the right hon. Baronet not know that this was a result which the present circumstances of the country are already tending to produce? Did the right hon. Baronet know the history of the manufactures on the Continent for the last few years, and how they were carried on by British capital; and was he going to add further inducements to its transfer by imposing a tax of 3 per cent. on the capital of this country? It seemed to him (Mr. C. Buller) that there never could have been a time in which these general objections to an Income-tax in time of peace applied so strongly as at the present moment, and above all applied so strongly to the present proposal. His first special objection to the present proposal of an Income-tax, was its extremely small amount. He could conceive that there might be sound policy in an Income-tax when they desired to raise a large amount of revenue. If they entertained such a project as that of Mr. Ricardo, and proposed to make the capital of the country contribute towards paying off the national debt, that might be worth making an effort for; but the right hon. Baronet proposed to raise only 3,500,0001. by means of an Income-tax. Its inquisitorial machinery, the injustice of its assessment, its immoral tendency, was as great for 3,000,0001. as for 100,000,0001.; and he thought it a great objection that all the evils of the tax which existed not in the amount taken from the people, but in the mode of taking it, were now to be incurred for a comparatively small amount. His next objection to it was, that it was for so comparatively short a period. This put the injustice of the tax on fluctuating incomes in an extremely strong light. Mr. Pitt's argument was, that the Income-tax weighed not more heavily on fluctuating than on permanent incomes; because each income was to pay as long only as it lasted, and the fluctuating income expiring before the other, would also cease to be taxed before the other. He could, by no means, admit the force of' this justification for taxing realised property and fluctuating incomes to the same extent; but it was clear, that at any rate, Mr. Pitt's argument applied only to an Income-tax of an indefinite duration. How would it apply to an Income-tax imposed for a limited period of three years? If one man was taxed to a certain amount on his income derived from a lease of three years, or the precarious professional gains of three years, and another man on an' estate in fee which brought him in the same income for the same period, the right hon. Baronet could not, like Mr. Pitt, tell the first, that as his estate was of less duration, so he would be taxed for a shorter period, because, in fact, both would be alike taxed for three years; the leasehold and professional income would pay the tax during the three years of their existence; the estate in fee would pay no more, for at the end of the three years, the tax was to cease. He must also say, that he believed the present to be an ill chosen period for the imposition of an Income-tax on account of the great and extreme distress which now prevailed in the country. Whatever it might have been in former periods, it must be certain, that where the employment of capital was not profitable, that where there was great distress and great commercial embarrassment, this inquisition, injurious as it was in prosperous times, must be productive of more than usual inconvenience; while it must also be productive of more than usual mischief at such a period to tax the employment of capital. There was another argument which struck him as very forcible when applied to the present period—namely, that the machinery of this tax, always objectionable, must be more especially objectionable at the present period on account of the violence of party feeling, so much greater now than in the time of war, when this tax was formerly in operation. Who would be employed to carry this tax into operation? a man's neighbours: and those neighbours chosen by the Government of the day. It was perfectly possible that great injustice might be perpetrated by violent party men, and consequently great terror would be engendered in a small community by the knowledge of the fact, that every man's circumstances were to be exposed to some violent political partisan, who might be appointed a commissioner. His last objection to this particular period for the imposition of the tax was grounded on one of the very considerations which had been urged for putting it on—namely, the distressing news just received from India, and the state of our affairs there. He thought the right hon. Baronet, in the speech which introduced his budget, did right in undervaluing the argument of what foreign powers might think of us. We were rather apt, in general, to think too much of their opinion; but, at the same time, in matters of finance, it did appear to him that the opinion of foreign powers was of importance, and that it was unwise to do that which, in their eyes, might appear an act of alarm. This tax had always been considered in this country as the last resource in the most arduous war, and had never been imposed but during the most arduous periods, such as in 1798, the period of the mutiny at the Nore, and the treaty of Campo Formio, and again at the renewal of the war with France after the short peace of Amiens. It seemed to him (Mr. C. Buller), therefore, that this period was ill chosen for putting on this tax, because, from our having recourse to the same remedy, the world would infer that we were in the same strait as on those occasions; and that thus instead of being a proof of vigour, it would be regarded as a proof of alarm. But his main objection to an Income-tax was founded upon the mere fact of its unpopularity—an unpopularity which it must be obvious went on increasing the more that it was felt, and the inquisitorial nature of its machinery experienced. It was well known that this tax was most unpopular in former times, and there was not the slightest chance of its being more popular at present; for though, as a matter of course, there was not now the same expression of feeling against it as in 1816, when the people had had experience of it, it could not come into operation without that feeling being again excited; and it should be remembered that one cause which would minister to those feelings was, that a great proportion of the people would look on it as imposed upon them, not as a legitimate source of revenue, but in order to prevent a revenue being raised from more legitimate sources. They would look upon this tax as one imposed to keep up monopoly; and every feeling of aversion to its pressure would be consequently aggravated by one of deep and just resentment against its origin. This argument, derived from the mere fact of general unpopularity, applied to all direct taxation; but it applied above all to this tax, the machinery of which was so peculiarly odious. It appeared to him unwise, in a country which took so large a portion of a man's income for the public service, to let each individual see too clearly the exact amount he paid. [Sir G. Clerk: Your party advocates direct taxation.] He was not surprised at the hon, Baronet's observation. Many Gentlemen on his side did advocate direct taxation; he himself did not, however; and it did a little surprise him, that he (Mr. C. Buller) Should be taking so conservative a course against so revolutionary a project proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He repeated, that it seemed to him unwise to let each individual see the exact amount of taxation which he paid, and more especially when so large a portion of the amount taken from the subject was employed, not to support public establishments, but to pay the national debt. It might be said that they did not pay the less by indirect taxation, and that if they did not pay taxes to the collector, it was charged for in their tradesmen's bills; and so they might, but they blamed their butcher or their baker for it, and did not complain of the Government for the amount thus taken from them. Direct taxation might, in consequence, perhaps, have one advantage— it might tend to check the extravagance of our public expenditure, which, under all administrations, was, he thought, too large; but might it not also lead to something still more formidable? Suppose the people, aggrieved as they would be by this tax, should say, that their only hope of relief must be a reduction of the national debt? Some hon. Gentlemen might look upon this as a thing of which there was not the most remote apprehension; but his experience led him to feel less confident on the subject. He had heard outcries against the national debt in that House, and he had heard them too strongly responded to from both sides to feel quite secure on this point. With so large a debt and with the consequent necessity of raising so large a revenue, he felt convinced that it was wise to raise as large a revenue as possible from indirect taxation. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had dwelt very ably the other night on this topic. Up to the Revolution there had been a direct tax imposed on the people of this country, the hearth tax, which was got rid of on account of its inquisitorial character, and which the country assuredly would not bear now. After the Revolution another direct tax, the land-tax, was shuffled off. What was the history of the property-tax? During the whole of the war the people bore it without a murmur. At the conclusion of the war they were suffering from a variety of most oppressive taxes— the tax on salt, the tax on leather, and a multitude of others, yet against none of these did the people at the conclusion of the war raise their voices, but they turned round on the property-tax, and the Government of the day was compelled to abandon it. The assessed taxes next became an object of popular hostility. In proportion as the people had obtained more influence in that House their hostility had been more and more directed against whatever direct taxation existed. In the first instance it had manifested itself against the assessed taxes, and Lord Althorp was obliged to take off the house-tax and half the window-tax. A curious illustration of this extreme dislike to direct taxation was afforded last year by the exemption of stock in trade from being assessed to the Poor-rates. According to the law of Queen Elizabeth there could not be a doubt that stock in trade was quite as liable as any other description of property; but, owing to the odium of such a rating, it had never been collected; and when, in consequence of a decision of the Queen's Bench, stock in trade was found to be liable, that House enacted in a law to prevent the further continuance of that liability. Thus, in one year they proclaimed that they could not assess any stock in trade; and the very next year they came in and imposed a tax on every description of stock in trade. It ought to be mentioned that the right hon. Baronet appeared to him greatly to have under-estimated the amount of revenue that might be looked for from this tax, even without taking into consideration the great increase that had taken place since the war in the wealth of the country. The income of Great Britain as assessed in 1815 was 170,000,000i. The whole amount of income exempted from the tax was 28,850,000l. leaving a remainder of 141,150,000i., and supposing the income of the country to be the same now as in 1815, a revenue of 4,100,000i. might be anticipated, being 400,000i. more than the right hon. Baronet had calculated. But was the income of the country now the same as in 1815? It might not be easy to say what was now the amount of personal property, but he held in his hand a return that was accessible to every hon. Member, and from which some approximation to a correct judgment might be formed. The legacy duty formed a very fair criterion from which to judge of the increase in the value of the personal property of the country, for the number of persons who died, and the amount of property that was bequeathed, were not likely to vary very much from one year to another in the same period. During the four years ending in 1815, the annual average of the property which paid the legacy duty amounted to 26,000,000i. and during the four years ending in 1839, it was 42,935,000i. It might, therefore, be fairly assumed that during that interval the value of personal property had increased to a proportionate extent. This argument which appeared to him perfectly sound, was supported by others, resting on other statistical data. He found these data in the increased consumption of different articles. Since the war, taxes had been repealed to the amount of 25,000,000i. a year, without including the property-tax, and yet the falling-off in the revenue, in consequence of the repeal of so many taxes, did not amount to more than 10,000,000i. This great increase in the consumption of various articles must have been owing to the increased incomes of the country, whereby the people were enabled to consume so much more than formerly. It seemed, therefore, to him, that the right hon. Baronet was asking for much more money than he wanted, and this was a point to which those hon. Gentlemen ought particularly to look who expected that direct taxation would lead to greater economy; for if the Government was extravagant now, it would certainly not be less so when it had four or five hundred thousand pounds more than was at all necessary to the service of the country. What was the necessity of the imposition of such a tax? If a necessity existed, no one doubted the tax would cheerfully be submitted to. In the excitement of war, the country would be sure to submit. The inquisitorial character of the tax, people would say was very bad, but an inquisitorial tax was better than submission to an enemy, the demoralisation arising from the tax, and the inequality of its imposition, they would say were very bad indeed, but to be overrun by foreign soldiers would be still worse. At present, however, no such necessity existed for the imposition of the tax. The right hon. Baronet had prefaced his proposal for imposing it with a statement in which he had taken a most extravagant view of the exigencies of the present state of affairs, as well as made a most extravagant depreciation of the resources of the nation. The right hon. Baronet had also referred, in terms of the greatest despondency, to the disorder exhibited by the finances of the nation, and he had made the most of all these exaggerated statements for the sole purpose of inducing the House to consent to the imposition of an Income-tax. True it was, that the House bad repealed several of the old taxes too soon, and equally true it was, that the abstraction of those taxes had caused the deficiencies in the revenue of which the right hon. Baronet had made so much complaint. Amongst those taxes that were repealed, however, there was one which had been often discussed, and to which frequent reference had been made, as if the reduction of it were a measure to be censured and deplored. He referred to the Post-office reform, and he felt no hesitation in saying that if an opportunity could be given him of voting on that subject, with the advantage of all the experience and consideration for which he had had an opportunity since he voted in 1839, he would repeat the vote, which he then gave, and now, as then, strain every nerve to repeal the tax upon the carriage of letters; for he felt no scruple in asserting that if he looked back to the advantages which had been already conferred upon the nation by the Reform Bill, more general benefit had been conferred by that one measure of penny postage than by any other act which Parliament had sanctioned since the year 1832. It was the measure of all the legislation of reformed Parliaments, that had shewn the most sincere and enlightened regard for the working people: a regard which went further than the mere material wants and com forts of the people, and made some pro vision for their moral condition. The reduction of the former enormous rate of postage to its present uniform amount, showed that the Government had had regard for the moral wants of the lower classes, had given them credit for possessing hearts and intellects, and had by means of the free communication now permitted to them by means of the Post-office reform, given them an inter change of affection and opinion. [Cheers.] Those cheers, which sounded somewhat like a taunt, came with a very bad grace from the same hon. Members who had deserted their party in order to vote in favour of the repeal of the tax on letters; and they proceeded with a still worse grace from the supporters of a Government which would not venture to re-impose the tax, which they insinuated ought not to have been abolished. To return, however, to the consideration of those financial difficulties by stating which the Government had endeavoured to justify an Income-tax. The right hon. Baronet had observed, that it was quite notorious to every one, that the indirect taxes had reached their utmost limit. He grounded this on the fact, that when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed the additional percentage on customs duties, the revenue had not been proportionably increased. This shewed certainly, that the mass of the articles now paying customs duties could bear no further taxation. But did the right hon. Baronet mean to say, that because taxation had reached its utmost limits on certain articles of consumption, there were not others to be found? Did he suppose, that if any of the taxes producing 25,000,0002. annually, which had been repealed since the war, were re-imposed, they would produce less than formerly? Could not those who preferred raising a revenue by way of direct taxation have recourse again to the assessed taxes, and levy it in the shape of the three or four millions of that class of imposts which had been repealed since the war? Those would suffice for all the wants of the Exchequer, without having recourse to the direct mode of taxation of income. But when the right hon. Baronet asserted that the taxes on articles of consumption had reached their utmost limits, he had also stated, that no reduction which the Government could make on the articles of consumption subjected to high excise and customs duties, would immediately increase the revenue by increasing consumption. The increase of the revenue derived from lowering excessive imposts, is, as he says, a matter of time; and as we want an increased revenue at once, we cannot trust to this source for it. But the right hon. Baronet had not alluded to the resources which would be afforded to the state by the diminution of the differential duties on various articles of consumption imported into this country, and which were highly productive duties. When you lower other duties, you of course lose a certain amount of duty on each article which pays it; but when you lower a protecting duty, you are sure to gain instead of losing revenue, because the article which never entered the country before will then enter it and pay duty. No argument had been brought forward to show that the budget of last year was fallacious. That budget was based on a modification of the differential duties on sugar, timber, and corn; but the whole of that had been thrown over to raise the required revenue by direct taxation; not out of regard to the people, but from a fear of touching certain powerful interests. It was true indeed that the alteration of the Corn-law in the present Session was calculated to bring in some additional revenue; but the right hon. Baronet said, he would calculate on no revenue from this source, because it had generally been observed that whenever there was an increase in the customs in consequence of a large amount paid in duty on corn, there was always a corresponding falling-off in the excise. Under the present Corn-law that was likely enough. A large importation of corn, in the present state of the law, was always a sign of a high price of corn—was always a sign of a bad harvest. Of course, if a man spent so much more on corn, he had so much the less to spend on excisable articles. If, however, the proposed Corn-law were a relaxation, the importation of corn would not in future be a sign of such distress. The right hon. Baronet said, that under the proposed law wheat might be imported when the average was at 60s. a quarter, instead of 70s. or more, to which the price must now rise, before importation takes place. And it did not, therefore, at all follow now, that if there was a large importation of corn, there need necessarily be a decreased consumption of other articles paying duty. He had now stated his objections to the Income-tax; and he wished to ask Gentlemen opposite, what they expected to gain in exchange for submitting to so disagreeable and onerous a burden as the Income-tax? It was perfectly obvious, that they submitted to it in order to keep up the great monopolies, in which they were interested. Now, before submitting to a very bad tax with this view, he would advise them to consider whether they were likely to maintain the privileges to which they were making so great a sacrifice. It seemed to him, that the probable result would be, that ere long, they would lose their present pro- tection, but remain saddled with the tax. Let them look at the measures of the right hon. Baronet as a whole; and couple with his Corn Bill, and his Income-tax the free-trade principle of his tariff. In that he introduces the principle of free-trade, and applies it to the destruction of all the petty monopolies of the country. How long then could they hope to keep up the corn and sugar monopolies, which were such sacred objects of attachment in that House? These two monopolies alone the right hon. Baronet left untouched. All the smaller monopolies he fearlessly attacked; but how would corn and sugar be able to maintain their ground when all the smaller monopolies were struck down? How long would they remain when un propped by their kindred interests? On the subject of corn, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, had carefully guarded themselves against its being supposed that they laid down the principle of finality. With regard to sugar, the language held had been yet more ominous, and he did not see what the West-India interests were to expect but that their fate would be put off for a year. That indeed appeared to be the general understanding. Did hon. Gentlemen on the other side think these great monopolies could stand by themselves, great and powerful though they were? Formerly there was a most beautiful system of brotherhood among these monopolies, the one lending its aid and support to the other; there was a monopoly of corn, and of sugar, for the benefit of powerful people, there were powerful people interested in such monopolies as those of timber and copper, and numbers of smaller people dependent on such monopolies as those of shoes, and gloves, and straw-plat-making; turn on which side one would there was a group of little monopolies which surrounded the greater ones, and sheltered them from universal observation. Then comes the right hon. Baronet, the Augustus of his age, who is bent on erecting a fair city of free-trade, where a mass of monopolies formerly existed. At one blow he has swept away all these minor monopolies of timber and copper, and straw-plat and shoes, and exposed the producers of these articles to the competition of foreigners; and how long did they think that the corn and sugar monopolies would be permitted to stand like Gothic deformities of hideous dimensions, in the midst of the open space created by the sweeping reform of the right hon. Baronet 1 Tile monopolists of those two articles were hot so wise as the humble shoe-makers, and straw-plat workers, who had rallied round the Corn-laws at the last election; they did not see that whilst their neighbour's house was burning their own was in danger from the fire, and that their turn would come soon. He would not give them this warning of what awaited them if he thought it Would put them up to mischief. Be only said what he did because he was of opinion that a free-trade in corn and sugar was in the womb of time, and Would soon be brought to light. The monopolists must swallow the alteration that the right hon. Baronet proposed to make in the duties, and they had better at once open their mouths a little wider and swallow a little more; and it would be well for the country as for the Government if the right hon. Baronet were to consent, instead of an Income-tax, to give the people a free-trade in corn and sugar. He looked upon the scheme of the right hon. Baronet as one of the most important steps that had ever been taken in finance; he knew of nothing that could be pregnant with more momentous consequences. It involved an entire change of character in our financial system. He had endeavoured to show, that that change would be of a prejudicial nature; he had stated his opinions in perfect good faith, and he trusted he had set out his 'arguments so as to convince the House that he had not taken up his opinions Upon light or party grounds. If he had acted on his opinions strongly, he held them also sincerely.

Dr. Bowring

said, as he intended to tote against the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, he wished to address a few observations to the House in explanation of that vote. In the first place, he was desirous of stating, that he was in favour of direct taxation, which in spite of its inconvenience was recommended as a great balance of advantage to the Treasury and to the public. No other System could be So equally apportioned to the means of the taxpayer, none was so fair in its demands upon all classes, none would bring so large an amount to the Treasury at so small a cost to the community. He meant of course that the tax should be equitably adjusted which case no final measure would be more calculated to afford the population of the country that relief which, under pressing circumstances, they had a right to expect. Indirect taxation was, to a very great extent, in the hands of the individual who was taxed. It depended upon the amount of consumption, and he who chose to abstain from the consumption of taxed articles might, to the extent of his abstaining, escape, however opulent, from the public burden. Direct taxation, however, had this evil—it put in the hands of the Executive Government a most despotic power, and created an instrument that could be but imperfectly controlled by public opinion when the tax was once set on foot. It invested the functionaries who collected it with an overbearing authority and influence, and before he vested the Executive with that authority he must see that the direct tax was levied in a fair ratio upon the property it attacked. He must have more security than he could discover in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet againt vexatious inquisition. That proposal contained a principle than which nothing could be more unfair or unequal, for the tax was to press with the same exaction upon transitory property or income as upon that which was permanent and ascertained; it demanded the same amount from the man who enjoyed the revenue of his estate, or of his funded property, as from the man who Was dependent upon his own exertions for all he possessed; it took no more from a perpetual than it took from a terminable interest, and made the accidental or hardly earned gains of intellectual labour contribute equally With the revenues derived from a constantly enduring source. The hon. Member for Liskeard Was right when he said, that the right hon. Baronet had under-rated the produce to be derived from this tax, in an age like the present, so remarkable for the extension of its commerce, and the improvement of its science. The House of Commons, by affirming the proposed resolution, was about to place in the hands of the right hon. Baronet a far greater sum than he had calculated upon, a circum stance which he feared would lead to in creased expenditure. He, for one, had seen with some satisfaction the Exchequer embarrassed by short receipts, and deficits, in so far as they led to care and economy in disbursements. Now, in the present case, he feared that the Exchequer would be replenished to such an ample extent, that all hopes of economy in the disposition of the surplus revenue would be destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman would find himself endowed with the means of doing a vast amount of mischief in his increased means for keeping up and perpetuating abuses, and checking the progress of reform. In the shape in which it was brought forward, connected in the public opinion with unfairness and in justice, it would hare to struggle against a vast mass of unpopularity. Such a tax as the Income-tax might be borne in the excitement of war, but in a period of tranquillity it would be met with a greater amount of resistance than the right hon. Gentleman calculated upon. Yet when once this tax was imposed, this power created, he greatly feared that hereafter the proposal of making 1d. or 2d. in the pound addition to the direct taxation, would be found so simple and unembarrassing, that a property-tax might become a permanent measure. Nothing, when the machinery of collection was created, could be more attractive to a Finance Minister, than to strain the cord a little tighter, and so to add to the Treasury receipts. When they recollected how the impôt foncier in France had been increased by the addition of an occasional centime once now and then, he thought the House ought to pause before they sanctioned the resolution proposed by the right hob. Baronet. There was another feature of the proposal upon which he looked with considerable alarm. The right hon. Baronet was about to open the flood-gates of immorality upon the country. There was such a general conviction that the tax in its present shape was most unfair and unjust, that every means would he used to evade it. False statements and declarations would be made, perjury would be committed, and this vice would be greatly increased by the feeling that all dishonesty was excusable which enabled the aggrieved to get rid of a part of their grievance. But were there no other, and more fitting subjects of taxation? He wished to know, why a legacy duty had not been imposed upon real property? That would have been a just and equitable measure. With respect to the other part of the financial scheme, he acknowledged that the tariff of the right hon. Baronet was an admirable step forward in the way of commercial liberty. There certainly were some parts with which he did not concur; but, on the whole, he felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having removed many se- rious impediments that had stood in. the way of the commercial prosperity of the country. He had, however, seen with regret that some of the articles of interchange between this country and France, had been left untouched, and he wished the plain advice of Mr. Deacon Hume had been followed out, that we should do what was right in itself, and what our own interests demanded, without reference to what foreign nations might think or do. The duties on brandies and silks from France ought to be reduced, not for the benefit of France, but for the benefit of our own people; that on silk should not be permitted to exceed what the act of Parliament intended, which was 30 per cent, while, in reality, it frequently amounted to 60 per cent, in consequence of the very unfair valuation which had been attached to the foreign manufacture, by the reduction of the ad valorem duty to a specific charge per pound weight. But he was glad to see that we had acted in a mutual spirit towards Tuscany, to whom we owed much, and which had set the example of free-trade within her limited sphere. But we ought not to continue the import duty on cotton. It was an error to tax any raw material, and especially one so important to our manufactures as cotton wool. The proposed duty on the export of coals, he anticipated, would be a failure, and that it would be injurious to a great extent to the shipping interest. The competition in which we were engaged with Belgium was very severe, and he feared the proposed tax would destroy a great part of our trade in coals. He thought, also, that the right hon. Baronet might remove the duty on clay exported. This was a new and a pernicious experiment. He rejoiced, that the right hon. Baronet had relieved from burdens many articles of great importance to the labouring classes, but the right hon. Baronet still most injudiciously retained the duties unaltered on butter and cheese. In conclusion, he admitted the advantages of the tariff; but accompanied as it was with an Income-tax, which was encompassed with so many evils and difficulties, he could not reconcile his mind to the financial scheme as a whole, and should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. S. O'Brien

as he was about to give a vote differing from that which many around him were prepared to give, felt he was called upon to state the reasons which had induced him to give a vote upon this occasion in opposition to those with whom he had usually acted. He had been long enough in that House to hear Members on both sides of the House state that nothing could be more just in principle than a property-tax if properly arranged and enforced. On the present occasion, though the proposition was for a tax upon income and not on property, the principle of the tax was not arraigned as unjust, yet he had heard many express an intention to oppose the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. He was at a loss how to account for this opposition, more especially as Sir Henry Parnell, a Member of a Whig Ministry, and a gentleman who had written ably upon financial subjects, had stated distinctly that in a time of war there should be a property-tax imposed, and in a time of peace it should be reduced to a small tax proportioned to the wants of the Exchequer and the emergency of the times. It had been stated upon his side of the House as well as on the Ministerial side, that an Income-tax should be reserved for great occasions only. The question now seemed to him to be this, between the parties—had the exigency arrived? He confessed that he could not say that it had not arisen. The deficiency, taken at nearly three millions by the right hon. Baronet in our Exchequer and means for the service of the year was not controverted. It notoriously did exist. How was the deficit in the revenue to be made up? The Government of the noble Lord had proposed that it should be sought for in the reduction of the duties on the import of corn, of sugar, and of timber, and the increase of consumption occasioned thereby. With respect to the first the House would recollect that if they were to rely upon that part of the plan of finance they would be exposed to disappointment as to duties on corn, whenever there happened to be a good harvest in this country, for when the price of corn was low there would not be a penny levied in the shape of duties upon the import of corn. It was not likely in respect to the duties expected to be raised upon the increased consumption of sugar and of timber,—he saw no reason to believe any such increase would or could afford a revenue equal to the purposes of the right hon. Baronet. If the price of sugar were lowered, it might and would increase the consumption of it; but the article was already so much lowered by means of the competition in the market of sugar from foreign growers, that there was little chance of any material increase of revenue from that source. Nearly the same objection would apply to the expected increase of the revenue from the reduction of the duty on timber; although it must be acknowledged that reduction was highly desirable for the sake of the consumers here. It had been said, that within the last twenty-five years not less than 26,000,000l. of taxes had been remitted; and it might have been added that it would be hard to find one out of that great amount which the public would suffer to be re-imposed without strong complaint. But confining himself to the admitted deficiency in the revenue, amounting to 3,000,000l., he would ask what was to be the tax which any hon. Member would revive to repair the deficiency of the revenue? Would they revive the postage duty, and give up a boon so valuable in the eyes of a great portion of the public? Would they suffer the house duty to be revived? Nothing could be more unpopular than that impost, and a rebellion might almost be expected to follow upon the revival of that or of the beer-tax. The latter was a tax directly affecting the poor, who, as far as election influence went, was the party unrepresented in that House. The right hon. Baronet knew the difficulty of his situation, and he had entitled himself to credit for his conduct in generously resolving rather to incur the odium of a renewal of the Income-tax, leviable on persons of property, than impose a tax upon the poor. The right hon. Baronet had not attended to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Lambeth, to throw all the burden upon the land; and although surrounded by temptations, including the project to raise a revenue by a duty upon all heirs of property on their accession to such property, he had thrown them all aside, and proposed a tax which was just, and could be hardly objected to even by those whom it affected. He trusted, however, that in carrying out his principle the right hon. Baronet would take into consideration the sound objection made to the scale and to the mode of enforcing and collecting the tax. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not insist on taxing the profits of trade or professional incomes in the same proportion as incomes permanent or derivable from land. The measure was cer- tainly improvable in its details, and taking it as a whole finance measure it should have his support. In the most ample manner he begged to return his acknowledgments on the part of the Irish nation for the proposition to take a proportionate duty upon the amount of their property who being large proprietors in Ireland chose to reside in another country. From absentees of this class it was but fit and right that the deficiencies in the yearly revenue should be replenished. They ought to be forced to return and reside on their estates, or pay for their indulgence in residing at a distance from the proper spheres of their usefulness. He thought the right hon. Baronet had acted wisely in resolving not to apply the Income-tax to Ireland. He believed the tax, whilst it would be extremely unpopular there, would yield a revenue very little exceeding the expenses attendant upon its collection. With respect to the taxes on stamps in Ireland, they had not the details of the right hon. Baronet's plan before them, and upon that part of the scheme he would not now give any opinion. To the proposition of the increased shilling a gallon upon Irish spirits he saw no objection. He thought of all other articles spirits were perhaps the most fit for taxation. There was, however, a danger that the addition to the duty would have the effect of increasing smuggling, and thereby defeating the right hon. Baronet's intention of raising an addition to the revenue by this means; but of that the right hon. Baronet would be the best judge. If any parties had a right to complain of this part of the scheme, he thought it was the Irish distillers. They, however, obtained some advantage by the abolition of the drawback on Scotch spirits, which relieved them in some measure from the competition they had now to contend with from the Scotch distillers. There was another part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme which he did not consider was equally free from objection—he referred to that in which it was attempted to raise a duty of 4s. per ton on the export of coals. Such a duty, he conceived, would injure the trade in that article to a great extent. It had been objected by several of his friends around him that the right hon. Baronet had introduced a new and erroneous principle into his commercial tariff—viz., that of affording protection to our colonies. In that objection, he, for one, could not concur. He thought our colonies should be treated as other parts of our empire—as counties of England. Acting on this principle, it might be said that no duties ought to be levied upon colonial produce at all, but inasmuch as they exempted the colonies from taxation for the purposes of the mother country, it was but far that a moderate amount of duty should be placed upon their produce imported into this country, but that duty should be fixed at the lowest rate, and most certainly below that levied upon foreign productions. In the case of sugar, however, as he had already said, he thought the differential duty was too high. It was with great pain that he felt compelled, in the present instance, to separate himself from those political friends with whom he usually acted: but he should hold himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he rejected a proposition which he considered good in itself merely because he differed in opinion from those who brought it forward. Reserving, therefore, to himself the power of voting for any amendment which might be proposed in respect to the tax upon incomes arising from trade, professions, and terminable annuities, he must say, that he felt unable to concur in the negative which had been moved.

Mr. R. Palmer

said, that the speech which had just been made showed that the hon. Member for Limerick had fairly considered the subject without reference to party views, and he had come to the conclusion that, as a man of honour, he could not, under the existing circumstances of the country, do other than support the Government proposition. No one could entertain a greater dislike to the principle of an Income-tax than he had. He felt the whole inconvenience of such a tax, and that it was open to many of the objections which had been stated against it by the other side; but the necessity for some great exertion on the part of the country had arisen, and he thought the plan brought forward by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was, under all circumstances, of all others the most likely to relieve the country from the difficulties under which it laboured. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had expressed surprise that the right hon. Baronet, on introducing his plan, should have thought it necessary to allude to the misconduct of the late Government in having produced the present financial embarrassments. He should have been much surprised if the right hon. Baronet had not alluded to that which was in everybody's mouth. On every side it was asked how it was that the late Government, having been in office ten years or more, having had a surplus in hand to commence with, should have permitted that surplus to decline from year to year until it had wholly disappeared; and not only this, but that they should have gone on in the same course until they found themselves, in a deficiency of seven millions and a half at the end of last year, and which they were assured would he increased to ten millions by the end of the present financial year. This growing deficiency the late Ministers while in office had not had the spirit to meet, and now they contended that no case of necessity had been shown for the measure of the right hon. Baronet, Why, was not the fact that that deficiency would have amounted to ten millions by the end of the present year a sufficient case of necessity? If this was not a case in which the country at large were called upon to make a great exertion to relieve themselves from these difficulties and embarrassments he knew not what was. He was quite aware that there was no tax more unpopular than an In come tax. The inquisitorial mode by which it must be assessed was most objectionable; but the right hon Baronet had stated, if he had understood him correctly that it was his intention to afford an opportunity to those persons who might think fit to avail themselves of it to com pound for the tax for the whole period for which it was to be imposed. This would be a material alleviation in the hardship of the tax upon those who would have to pay it. It had been urged that the tax would bear unequally, and that it was not just that persons deriving their incomes from fixed annuities, or from the profits of trade or professional labour, should be taxed at an equal rate per cent, with those whose incomes arose from funded property or from landed estates. He might in this respect differ from many hon, Gentlemen near him, but he must confess that he was himself inclined to that opinion. He agreed generally in a statement that had been made in another place upon this point, and he thought it would be more fair that those who possessed real property, or property in the funds, should pay a larger percentage than others. He believed that such an amendment, if consistent with; the views of the right hop. Baronet, would remove much of the unpopularity which must otherwise attach to the measure. He could pot pretend to set up any opinion of his as worthy of attention upon matters of finance; but he would venture to make a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet with all deference, He believed the right hon. Baronet calculated upon obtaining 1,200,000l. from the tax upon incomes arising from professions and trades. Now, supposing that the right hon. Gentleman should consider it fair to tax the class pf contributors from whom he calculated to obtain that amount of revenue, 2 instead of 3 per cent, upon their incomes, he did not think it would be impossible to make up the difference thus occasioned in some other way. There were some items of reduction in the proposed commercial tariff which need not, he thought, be followed out, For instance, he did not see that so much advantage could result from the proposed alteration in the timber duties as some persons expected from it. The right hon, Baronet proposed to give up upon that item alone (600,000l. of revenue, which sum would more than compensate for the difference of one-third in the Income-tax upon professions and trades—viz., 400,000l. An amendment had been given notice of to exempt the. class of contributors to which he alluded altogether from the tax; that would, in, his opinion, be most unfair, for he saw no reason why large incomes arising from trades and professions should pot bear their proper share of the burdens, Ad milting the objections to an Income tax, he did not consider that it had been shown how the amount of revenue necessary to meet the deficiency could be obtained in any other way. The late Government had proposed a fixed duty of 8s. upon the introduction of foreign corn, as a means of adding to the revenue. The fallacy of that plan as a means of meeting the difficulty had, he thought, been already sufficiently shown, Both Parliament and the country had expressed their opinion decidedly against its adoption. Under the circumstances, he saw no alternative but to adopt the principle now proposed by the Government, and he was quite sure that the country would be willing to submit to such an imposition for a time only, for he had strong hopes that at the end of the three years stated by the right hon. Baronet we should find the finances of the country in such a situation as would justify the removal of the tax. He would only further express his opinion, that whatever amount of unpopularity might attach to the measure it ought to fall upon those who had occasioned the deficiency, and who, he was sorry to perceive, by the course they were now taking, were not prepared to assist their opponents in their attempts to remove those difficulties which they had thereby created.

Mr. T. D'Eyncourt,

objected to the proposed measure, as operating with gross partiality against the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said, there was no other resource by which to meet the present financial difficulties, but had the measures of the late Government been adopted, those difficulties would, ere this, have been overcome. He objected to the measure also as conveying the impression to foreign nations that the resources of the country were exhausted. If the resolution should pass, he should take the opportunity of moving that a considerable reduction be made in the rate at which it was proposed to assess incomes arising from trades and professions. What he proposed was that, instead of a duty of 7d. in the pound, a duty of 2d- in the pound should be levied on the income of those engaged in trades and professions. He thought that this arrangement would more nearly meet the justice of the ease than the proposition of the hon. Gentlemen who had just ad dressed the House. Had they adopted the scheme proposed by the late Government, or had they, out of the 26,000,000 of taxes repealed since the war, had recourse to some other tax which might have sufficed to supply the deficiency in the revenue, without resorting to this impost, which pressed chiefly on the manufacturing and trading interests of the kingdom, no income-tax would have been necessary. He had received letters from some of his constituents, expressing fear that they would be subjected, on account of their political opinions, to vexation and annoyance, if this tax should be finally adopted; for the effect of it would undoubtedly be to bring them to a greater extent under the control of the Government. Of this he did not entertain the slightest doubt. The right hon. Baronet had not given sufficient time for the consideration of this question. The forms of the House did not permit an appeal to the country to come forward and state their own views, and therefore more time should have been given in order to enable the country to hold meetings for the consider- ation of this subject. The right hon. Baronet said, that ample opportunities would be given for the discussion of this question when the resolution now under consideration of the House should have been passed. That was perfectly true; but the right hon. Baronet knew, as well or better than he did, that after the House had come to a division on this question, and hon. Gentlemen had given votes affirmatory of the present resolution, it would be found very inconsistent with public duty to act in opposition to votes so recorded. On the contrary, he feared that hon. Members would rather feel inclined to justify that vote, whatever might be the remonstrances urged upon them by their constituents. For that reason he wished that more time should be given. He asked the right hoe. Baronet, considering the great secrecy which he had observed with respect to his scheme, and for which he did not in the slightest degree blame him—considering the very peculiar nature of this tax, whether he would not be charged by the country with having acted with haste—'he would not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in calling it in decent haste—in not allowing a little time before taking the first vote; for there was an impression, it would include the question. Having thus stated his opinion, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would give a little further time for discussion. At all events he hoped that hon. Gentle men who might be induced to vote in favour of this resolution would not be deterred by any fears that they might be open to the charge of inconsistency from changing their course, when they found the country opposed to the scheme, Considering the inequality with which this tax pressed on industry, although he was not without hopes of some relaxations in favour of the mercantile interest considering the effect which it would produce in foreign countries, considering its inquisitorial nature, and all those disadvantages to which he bad adverted, together with the impolicy of resorting to a tax of this nature unless in the case of war or some emergency of an extraordinary nature, he should give his most decided opposition to the passing of the present resolution.

Sir J. R. Reid,

did not hesitate to declare that the business of the country was impeded in consequence of the delay of that House in coining to a decision upon the proposition now before it. Entertaining that view, he should net follow the example set him by the Gentlemen opposite of going into a tedious discussion of the question. At the same time he might be permitted to say that, although he disliked the paying of taxes as much as any man, he yet thought that under the existing circumstances in which this country was placed, a measure of the nature now proposed had become absolutely necessary, and with that opinion upon the subject he should reluctantly give his vote in favour of the right hon. Baronet's proposition. He begged to avail himself of that opportunity of paying, what he thought, only a just compliment to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. W. S. 0'Brien)for the honest and manly manner in which he had spoken on that occasion, and he must add that it would be peculiarly gratifying to him if the example set by the hon. Member for Limerick were followed by many others of the Gentlemen who sat on the opposite side of the House. That he was a party man to a certain extent he did not deny; but, at the same time, he was as independent of the right hon. Baronet (the First Lord of the Treasury) as any hon. Member who sat on the opposite benches. He was connected with the commercial interests, and although he could enumerate certain objections to the right hon. Baronet's plan, he did not hesitate to declare it was the opinion of the great majority of the commercial interest that the course which the right hon. Baronet had adopted was one which would carry him triumphantly through the difficulties in which he found the finances of the country involved. He might be set down as a sanguine man, but he had no hesitation in declaring that his firm conviction and belief were that if the right hon. Baronet did not flinch, which he trusted from his heart he would not, in the course of three years, or perhaps before that time, it would be found hardly necessary to continue the tax which they were then discussing. Having expressed that opinion, he would not detain the House at greater length. He was a man of business, and, therefore, came to the point. With the right hon. Baronet he would vote, be the consequence what it might. He hoped they would put the question to the test that night. He felt that they had lost a deal of time unnecessarily. The question had been discussed over and over again. The trade of the country had been languishing whilst the House had been discussing. Let the question be finished that night, and he would stake his existence that all those connected with the trade of the country would have no reason to regret it.

Mr. Ward

said, that the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had made two most important admissions—first, that he, representing a large body of commercial men, would pay the proposed tax with great reluctance; and secondly, that there was a reasonable probability of the tax being continued beyond the term proposed. The hon. Baronet said three or four years.

Sir J. R. Reid

said, that he had stated, that it would probably end within the term proposed,—namely, three years.

Mr. Ward

thought the hon. Baronet had said three or four years, but since he had not, of course he would make no use of what he conceived to have been an important admission. But the hon. Baronet said, that under any circumstances the Government might count upon his support, and that of the whole Conservative and electoral body, upon this question. He (Mr. Ward) much doubted it. A great many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would tell them that they believed they would have made a much better bargain if they had taken the Whig budget of last year with the fixed duty of 8*., instead of being obliged to take a modification of the sliding-scale, with an Income-tax on the top of it. He had recently heard it admitted by many of his political opponents in his own county, that there existed throughout the country a general conviction that the Whig scheme was a better mode of arriving at the same results, and making up the deficiency, than the proposed tax on income. There were, however, a great many of the arguments employed against the Income-tax, with which he could not agree. It was said to be a War-tax, and this was used as an argument against its adoption in time of peace. He did not consider it to be a War-tax at all. In his opinion it was a tax arising out of necessity, whether that necessity arose out of war or not. And as to the idea of an Income-tax lowering the character of this country in the eyes of foreign nations, such an argument was not worthy of their consideration for a single moment. Foreign countries were much more familiar with the system of direct taxation than this country was. They did not know all the mysteries of the indirect taxation of this country—what they did know they did not approve of, and preferred, as being more just, a system of direct taxation. It had been argued by the hon. Member for Liskeard, that if they taxed property they would tax the labour employed by it; while they taxed nothing but a man's luxuries, when they taxed his expenditure. But in this country they did not tax a man's luxuries only— they taxed his wants and necessaries by indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Ashton had, last year, made a calculation of the amount which the working classes paid in indirect taxation. He had the calculation in his hand, and with the permission of the House he would remind them of what the hon. Member then stated. The hon. Member had made his calculations on data obtained from a practical person engaged in the retail trade in the city—on two ounces of tea, such as that used by the working classes the purchaser paid a duty of 3½d., the price being 6d.; on one pound of sugar he paid of duty 2½d., and a price of 6d.; on two ounces of coffee 2½d. of price, and 1d. of duty. On other articles in general use among the working classes he found an amount of duty out of a purchase amounting to 1s. 1d. of 8d., while out of a similar purchase amounting to 16s., of articles used by the more opulent classes, the duty paid was only 3s. 8d. The duty paid by the better classes in articles purchased by them, was only 23 per cent., while the poor man paid 2½d of duty to the Government out of every 6½d. he expended. On almost every other necessary of the poor man— on beer, spirits, soap, tallow, butter, and cheese—the same amount of indirect taxation was laid, and all this the labouring man had to provide for out of wages which competition was constantly cutting down. Had he to choose between a property-tax of 3 per cent., or even 5 per cent., and such a system of indirect taxation as this, he would prefer the property-tax; but the proposed Income-tax was not a tax on realised property, on profits derived from stocks, and funds, and land. It was a tax on the mind, the hand, and the head; and it could only be enforced by a process at once so inquisitorial, partial, and unjust, that he could not bring himself to vote for the resolution before the House, while there was another mode equally effectual, and infinitely more beneficial to all classes, of providing for the public exigencies. Admitting, too, as he did, that the tax was not a War-tax, still it was a change in their financial system, which ought to be purchased by the Government, that asked for it by very large concessions in the way of commercial reform. He acknowledged, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite, in introducing the resolution was one of great merit, one which made clear to their comprehensions a subject of the most complicated nature; but when he compared the principles laid down in that speech with the details of the tariff, he very soon discovered, that those principles were not at all fairly worked out. Almost every one had been struck at the omission in that tariff of any alteration of the duty on two great articles of consumption, Sugar and Corn, and even up to that moment he had not been able to discover the concessions which the right hon. Baronet stated would enable the consumer to pay the amount of the Income-tax out of the saving made by the tariff in certain articles of common consumption. The duty on all the prime necessaries of life was left untouched, and no effort had been made to reduce the duty on any of those articles used by that class whom hon. Gentlemen opposite professed themselves anxious to relieve. He doubted whether the reduction of the duty on the importation of foreign cattle would prove of any material or immediate benefit to the working classes. Where was the supply to come from? In no country was meat so scarce, or of so bad a quality as in France, and the only country now exporting cattle I was Holstein. The cattle to be imported on a large scale were, he believed, yet to be bred, so where was the saving in meat | so confidently anticipated? As he had already said, the Income-tax would press heavily not only on the different trades, but on all those who were struggling to keep up the appearances necessary to reach professional distinction. When he looked to the state of trade in Sheffield, where not a firm had made anything like positive profits for the last two years— where all that they had been able to do was to keep things together—he thought that to saddle those people with an Income-tax on imaginary profits, or on profits based on false returns, with all the inquisitorial grievances connected with the tax—to do this without giving them some corresponding and immediate relief in the shape of reduction of the duty on general articles of consumption, was an act of great injustice, to which he could never give his consent. In its new financial plans, Government ought to have held the scales with an equal and unflinching hand —they ought not to have sacrificed one interest because it happened to be weak, or have dealt tenderly with another interest because it was strong. Had the right lion. Baronet opposite dealt fairly with all classes he should have had his cordial support. The right hon. Baronet had not done this, he had truckled to those interests which he did not dare to face, and he had done so with a perfect consciousness in the injustice which he was committing. The only passage in his speech introducing the financial measures for the year, in which the right hon. Baronet flinched, in which he showed that he felt himself in the wrong, was when he referred to the sugar duties, and stated his determination of retaining that monopoly for another year. The right hon. Baronet had talked of the encouragement which would be given to slavery by the admission into this country of foreign sugar, hut in almost the same breath he told the House that* he was prepared to remove the restrictions on the slate-grown coffee of the Brazils. This was an anomaly which could not be justified, and which fully bore him out in saying, that the scales had not been held with an unflinching hand, and that the community had been deprived of great benefits by the tender regard which the Government had shown for the powerful class interests in the state. Had they dealt fairly with the duty on the food of the country—had they shown that free trade was for the interest of every one—liad they revised and altered the tariff equally throughout, and then proposed an Income-tax—he felt sure that there was not a Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House who would not have submitted to the inconvenience of such an impost on such conditions. He, for one, would have assented to it on these terms; but he could not agree to it now, because he considered that they had no equivalent offered to them. They had a right, therefore, to look back to the harsh and intolerable accompaniments of the tax, and to point out, and dwell at length on, the grievous burdens which it would impose on every person in trade. He should continue to do so as long as the bill was before the House in its present shape, and unless the Government came forward and expressed its readiness to concur in the attempt to remove the inequalities of the bill, he did not think that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had any right to complain of the time devoted to this most important discussion, or of the opposition made to it from both sides of the House. He trusted, that that opposition would be confined within Parliamentary limits; because he did not think any benefit could arise from their carrying resistance beyond those bounds which it was the interest of all parties to respect. For the reasons he had stated, he would vote against the resolution, and, should it be carried, he would feel it his duty to support the amendments which would be made in committee to amend the objectionable parts of the measure, and he was only sorry to understand that certain Gentlemen opposite were determined to support the propositions of the Government without discrimination, and to carry them by sheer numbers, without taking the trouble to enquire whether what they did carry was founded on justice or not.

Mr. M. Attwood

said, this was a measure which had never been proposed except during the pressure and the prosperity which accompanied the period of the French war. He did not think that they ought to hurry this question forward, but that it ought to be considered in al its bearings if. the most deliberate manner. He thought that time ought to be given, enough and more than enough, to the people themselves, that they might have the opportunity of considering the bearing of the question upon their interests, and communicating their feeling to their representatives and to that House. He thought that more consideration than this measure had received would be beneficial to her Majesty's Ministers themselves. He could not but think that on more mature deliberation, a modification might be made in the application of a most unjust principle as it was proposed by this measure. To apply to the doubtful profits of trade—to the precarious incomes of professions—to annuities which terminated with lives, or in a short period, the same rate of taxation which was imposed on the owners of fixed property and of permanent annuities was manifestly unjust. He confessed he had heard with surprise from the right hon. Baronet that it was the intention of the Government to impose on short annuities the same amount of taxation that was to be imposed on permanent annuities. He would not enter into details, but would state one particular case which he thought the right hon. Ba- ronet would not hear without perceiving that it was necessary to consider deliberately whether that principle was to be carried out to its full extent. He was himself a partner in a trading concern, (he referred to the case not for that trivial object, but because he could state the case with perfect accuracy), and he and his partners were the purchasers of an annuity from the Government in 1835 for ten years. The amount of that annuity was, in round numbers, 21,700/. a year, and it would expire in January, 1845, having somewhat less than three years yet to run. Did he and his partners carry that 21,700/. a year to their account as permanent income? No, they accurately discriminated what was capital and what was income; 6,000i. was the annual sum they divided amongst themselves; the balance, 15,700/., they carried to the account of capital. Was it just then that they should be taxed on more than the 6,000i.? And yet by the proposed measure they were taxed for the capital as well as for profit. Unless they (the Government) meant to tax the capital of the country, they (Mr. Attwood and his partners) objected to having their capital taxed. Would they tax the purchase money, for which an estate had been sold, as well as the annual rent? He would put the case of a man who had a mortgage of 20,000i. on an estate, and he received the principal in the course of the present year, and 1,000i. interest with it, would they tax the principal with the interest or the interest alone? He was at a loss to understand the principle on which they (the Government) taxed both interest and capital in terminable annuities such as he had described. His belief was, that if the Government should proceed to impose this tax not only on the 6,000i. income, but on the 15,700/. of capital, that he would have a right to call on the Government to reimburse them the 3 per cent, paid on the capital. They had purchased the annuity from the Government on the authority of a condition of sale which explained what the Government had to sell. The consideration given to the Government was 200,000i. of perpetual Bank annuities for this terminable annuity. The conditions on which they had sold the property was, "that it would not, nor should not be liable to any other imposition than what the Bank annuities should or would be liable to." This was one of those cases which showed the ne- cessity for mature consideration. He believed, that they should have a claim on the Government as sellers of this property, under these conditions, to indemnify them for the imposition which Parliament imposed on them to the extent of 3 per cent, on their capital so laid out. If they had still held their Bank annuities which they had transferred, they would have been liable to the duty of 3 per cent, on the interest, which was 6,000i. a year; and their conditions of purchase were that they were to be free from all taxes and charges except such as devolved on Bank annuities. He thought if the hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-general) were present, they should not hear from him there a different opinion to that which he (Mr. Attwood) expected to hear from him when he should lay his case before that learned Gentleman for his opinion. He did not expect to hear other than this, that he had a claim on the Government for indemnity under these conditions of sale, and might probably succeed. He had referred to this case in order to show the necessity of considering in every way all the bearings of this question. But while he urged these matters for the consideration of her Majesty's Government, he was prepared to say this, that whatever course her Majesty's Government should adopt, if they should adhere to the present measure as proposed, on the ground that they could not draw a line to exclude a particular class of interest without rendering the tax unproductive, he should give these resolutions his support, and yield to the necessity of supporting his political party. He should yield to the appalling necessity imposed by the distressed and almost bankrupt condition of the country. But when he said that, he felt himself bound to say, that there were other parts of the scheme of taxation brought forward to the support of which he would give no such pledge. He would not give any pledge to support either the imposition of the duty on the exportation of coal, or the reduction of duty on the importation of timber. On both these measures he should wait for further information to guide his conduct; and with regard to the timber duties, he was at once prepared to say, that if in the judgment of the Canadian Colonists themselves, and of the ship owners engaged in the Canadian trade, the operation of the proposed change would be, to transfer the supply of timber from Canada to the Baltic ports, to sacrifice the capital embarked in the Canadian timber trade, to throw out of employment that fleet of 1,000 merchant vessels now occupied in this trade, and the 16,000 seamen by whom they were navigated; no considerations of party attachment, would induce him to support that measure; nor any measure, at any time, or by whomsoever proposed, the aim or effect of which would be, the destruction of a great branch of British industry, in favour of foreign competition, and in pursuit of vague speculation and doubtful advantages. In supporting the income duty, he yielded to that necessity on which the right hon. Baronet rested the measure. He had heard with painful attention that appalling description of the condition of the country and its resources, which as the result of his long and anxious examination the right hon. Baronet had given. He heard with alarm that averment, made then for the first time to a British Parliament by any Minister standing in the position the right hon. Baronet occupied; that taxation in this country had reached its limits, in the consumption of the people; that the power of consumption was exhausted; the information, then for the first time given, that an attempt to raise 1,900,000i. by the Excise and Customs had yielded no more than 200,000l. to the Exchequer, affirming, in other words, that increased taxation on articles of necessity and comfort, failed to replenish the Exchequer, and was successful only in carrying destitution, retrenchment, penury and want, into the dwellings of the people. This was the condition to which the country had arrived; for if 1,900,000l. of taxes on general consumption yielded but 200,000i., the necessary inference was, that the people had been driven to meet the attempt to raise 1,900,000i. on the articles they consumed, by a reduction of consumption to the full extent of the defalcation. But after the right hon. Baronet had thus described the condition of the country, a description, which he (Mr. Attwood) had never expected to hear from his lips, he confessed that no words which ever fell on his ear had excited deeper feelings of apprehension and alarm, none more disastrous in his judgment to the prospects and fortunes of the country, than when the right hon. Baronet proceeded to say, that in this condition, he intended to propose new and great measures of commercial reform. Commercial reform ! He (Mr. Attwood) could not hear these words without carrying back his mind, and he called on the House to carry back their attention, to the period when the career of power of the right hon. Baronet commenced, and that of his immediate predecessors, all commercial reformers, in whose steps he professed to tread. What was the whole amount of taxes paid by the country at the present moment when they were told that the powers of taxation are exhausted? 48,000,000i.: 50,400,000l.in expenditure; 2,400,000i. deficient. 48,000,000i. was the whole amount, the levy of which has exhausted the resources of the country. But in what condition did the authors of commercial reform find the country at the period when their schemes began? Not 48,000,000l. only, 80,000,000i. was the amount of annual taxes the people then paid, and the limits of taxation were not reached, 20,000,000 more if wanted could have been then raised. What had the late Chancellor of the Exchequer lately told the House, that 19,500,000i. had been since the war repealed, of Excise and Customs duties, (this authority he referred to futurity). There was a time then, and that recent, when 48,000,000i. was not the limit of taxation in this country, when the power of the people to consume was not exhausted, when not 1,900,000i., but 19,500,000i. could be raised, and was raised, on the consumption of the people. He (Mr. Attwood) had indeed expected, from a great statesman taking on himself the power and the destiny of the country in this crisis of her affairs, acting up to the difficulties of that crisis, and looking the dangers of his situation fairly in the face, that after explaining to Parliament the existing condition in which he found the resources of the empire, he would have proceeded to contrast this weakened condition of all but frustrate power, with that high state of all but boundless resources, from which we have sunk; that he would have explained to Parliament step by step the history of this decadence of national strength, have traced the hidden causes to which he ascribed this fearful change, and have founded the measures of his future policy on this experience. That would have been to look dangers fairly in the face, the course now proposed was, to shut their eyes and turn aside from those dangers, and to occupy the House with every other question rather than that, to propose a further course of commercial reform under such circumstances, was to proceed in the hackneyed footsteps of every successive administration which had governed the country for the last twenty years, and that without inquiry. The whole period which had witnessed this decay of national resources was one long period of commercial reforms, all introduced with vaunting promises, all terminating in the miserable disappointments now experienced. The breaking down the navigation laws was commercial reform, the reciprocity treaties were commercial re form, the sacrifice of the Portuguese market in the vain hope of finding a substitute in France had been commercial reform. The silk trade had been subjected to, and been ruined by, commercial reform, a measure which he undertook to say had belied all the promises held out by its authors. The Currency Bill of the right hon. Baronet him self was a great measure of commercial reform. He found a currency, adapted indeed to the exigencies of the people, a currency, in which without difficulty eighty millions had been paid annually into the Exchequer, but it was faulty, it admitted of great fluctuations which it was necessary to prevent; a reformed currency took its place, and the fluctuations had been doubled in severity and in frequency. The law for framing joint-stock banks was commercial reform. The existing banks had grown up with the growth of the commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of the country, but they required reform, a better description of banks was necessary; and what were those committees, which for two successive sessions had afterwards sat with no other object than to protect the country from dangers feared from those joint-stock banks themselves, but further movements in commercial reform? All these measures had been introduced with boastful contrasts between the science of their authors and the ignorance of former legislation; and with sanguine and confident anticipations of unexampled prosperity and wealth. English industry, said a noble Lord in introducing one of these measures, they had found cramped and fettered by the trammels of a dark and barbarous legislation; his task it was to cut the cords which bound British commerce to the earth, and to cause it to soar aloft with an elevation and power of which till his time the nation had entertained no conception. He (Mr. Attwood) doubted if their Indian deficiency was not one of the fruits of commercial reform. If they had never interfered with the Company's charter, if they had left India under the control of that system by which our power in the East had been established, he doubted if there had been any Chinese war, probably no Affghan war, or any Indian deficiency. But charters of every kind were unsuited to the era of commercial reform. He recalled the attention of the House to that letter, signed by Mr. Huskisson, by the late Lord Liverpool, and by the Earl of Ripon, which told the country that the time had arrived when charters were out of fashion, that was the expression; they were, in sooth, the product of a dark and ignorant period, opprobrious to the enlightened science of existing legislation: the holders could not expect them to be renewed. Those recollections, he said, threw alarm into his mind, when he heard of further progress in commercial reform, in conjunction with the avowal they had heard of the distressed condition of the people and of the Exchequer. But it was just to say, that the right hon. Baronet who had described in such striking terms the distress in which, on his advent to power, he found the country, had expressed also that he anticipated a revival of national prosperity and power; his holding out the prospect of the proposed Income-duty being to terminate in three years must have been founded on that anticipation; the country, he said, had been subjected in recent years to violent alter nations of prosperity and distress; he (the right hon. Baronet) had witnessed distress as severe and extensive as the present followed by a rapid and extensive prosperity. To this view of the subject he (Mr. Attwood) desired to call the earnest attention of her Majesty's Government and of the committee; he could have wished that the right hon. Baronet, who, guided by previous experience, predicted returning prosperity, had proceeded one step further under the direction of the same sure guide, and have told the House how long, still judging from former experience, he expected the coming prosperity to endure. Did he or did he not anticipate that the prosperity he predicted would be itself speedily superseded by another period of convulsive calamity and distress? The right hon. Baronet had not done justice to his own character or to the House in stopping short of this explanation; his whole scheme turned on it. Why hold out an Income-duty but for three years? Why, but that the restored power of consumption which prosperity would give to the people, would itself replenish the Exchequer, and enable the Income-tax to be dispensed with. But for how long? till the next alternation of distress. If this were the best prospect her Majesty's Government could hold out to the country, sure he was of this, that the first duty of Government and of Parliament was to direct their attention, not to the culling out a false delusion, and short-lived prosperity, which would terminate in the ruin of the productive classes, who relied and founded their undertakings upon it, but to consider what means they possessed of giving permanence to the existing condition of the people. What was meant by the terms distress and prosperity, as applied to the existing and recent condition of the country? Distress was neither more nor less, than the existence of a low rate of prices for the productions of industry; in other words, a high value of money. A scale of prices which allowed of no profit to the trader, no adequate wages to the labourer, and which, by taking away the power of consumption from both, impoverished the Exchequer; that was distress, and the degree of distress was accurately measured by the rate to which prices fell, to which money advanced in value. What was meant by the terms national prosperity? A high rate of prices, in other words a low value of money, a scale of prices adapted to ! the exigencies and engagements of the State and of the people, which yielded profit, and wages, and carried into the Exchequer a tide of resources, flowing from the increased power and wealth of the community; that prosperity would* be measured accurately in its degree by the extent to which prices advanced, to which money was reduced in value. If these propositions were undeniable, as he did not expect to have them denied, then it followed that when men spoke of alternations of prosperity and distress rapidly succeeding one another, the thing meant was, neither more nor less than rapid, sudden, violent fluctuations in the value of money; the standard of value, the measure of contracts, the medium of circulation and exchanges,— these fluctuations carrying disorder into all pecuniary arrangements, violating all contracts, introducing injustice into all engagements of mercantile credit; into all leases, mortgages, and settlements. No curse so great could be inflicted on a civilized community, as the continuance of these fluctuations, or alternations as they were called, would prove. The first duty of Parliament, was to correct those fluctuations, to check those alternations; it was not looking the difficulties in the face, it was turning aside and shutting their eyes to these difficulties, to found measures of finance, on the anticipation of changes such as these. Why was a change to anticipated prosperity desirable? the existing value of money, though high, was no higher here, than in the countries around them, nor the prices of commodities lower; the existing value of money was that which corresponded with all their monetary laws; all interests were in danger, it was felt; but their standard, their monetary laws, the act of 1819, were safe; there was no danger to the Bank, no drain of gold from the country; the prosperity of the right hon. Baronet would put all these in danger, and would be inconsistent with the safe existence of their present monetary laws. Two courses, and two only were in his judgment open to them; one of which they were bound in honesty and in policy to adopt; the first was to maintain the value of money at its present existing rate, along with the existing scale of prices; to prevent the value of money from sinking again, and the general scale of prices from again advancing; to found their financial measures on the permanence of the present existing state of things; to call on the people also to consider their present condition as permanent; to bear, rather than to struggle against, or sink under their difficulties, as they were able; but requiring them to found all their arrangements on the certain permanence of existing prices, and value of money. Did they fear the issue of such an experiment? Another course remained open. Let the value of money take its predicted change, fall in value, prices of commodities advance, and anticipated prosperity take effect; but give permanence to that lowered value of money; to that higher scale of prices, and to the condition of prosperity, these would bring with them. Was he asked how are these to be done? Into that explanation the present was not the time to enter, but the means were ready and facile; he undertook to demonstrate to any man or set of men, where attention had been given to such subjects; to any committee or any commission; that they possessed the ready and facile power of maintaining permanently the existing value of money, and scale of prices; and further, that permitting prices to advance, and money to fall in value; they possessed the ready and facile means of fixing permanently such low value of money, such high scale of prices; and of preventing that prices should even again fall to their present scale, or to any thing approaching to such a scale in this country. Those courses were open, and one of the two was Parliament bound by every principle of integrity, and every dictate of wisdom and sound policy to adopt. Any other measure, founded as it must be on false motives, dictated by a temporising expediency, could do no more than procrastinate the period when the real difficulties of their situation must be ultimately met.

Mr. Roebuck

observed, that the right hon. Baronet had not received that meed of approbation, either from friends or enemies to which he was entitled; he had been criticised by his own ranks, and those among his general opponents from whom support might have been expected had not realised expectation. He had brought forward a plan which to him appeared straight-forward, honest, and easy of comprehension; it could deceive nobody, and the country would understand it. It was intended to raise a certain revenue, and that the people should distinctly know in what manner they were to pay it; they were not to be cajoled or deceived, in order to obtain the large sum required. The deficiency was great, and was admitted, and two plans of supplying it had been stated. One was, that of raising the money directly from the community—the other was, that of levying it indirectly as a tax upon commodities. The first was the plan of the right hon. Baronet; the second was the budget of the late Administration. It was but justice to the right hon. Baronet to take this pro- ject as a whole, and he was not now going to fix upon any portion which he might approve or dislike, but to consider it as one comprehensive scheme. He would presently criticise it on various particulars, but in the outset he was bound to admit, that it was clear, straightforward, and honest. He did not think, that it lay in the mouths of those who felt with the right hon. Baronet regarding the deficiency, to criticise him for endeavouring to supply it. The deficiency existed, and neither side of the House was to be separately blamed: the fault was on both sides: it was not a Whig, nor a Tory, but a House of Commons deficiency. People might talk of the expensive war in Syria; but it was the war of both parties; for the increased expenditure both sides of the House were responsible. All were intent on spending, and nobody thought of saving; expenditure was the rule, and saving the exception. He would tell the House, the country, and the right hon. Baronet, that his chief reason for applauding the present frank scheme of financial reform was, that it could not fail to make people feel and understand at whose door to lay the blame. Hitherto the finances of the empire had only been tampered with, attempts had been made to botch the business, and to put a temporary end to the difficulties by artifices, that ought to have deceived nobody. He, therefore, thanked the right hon. Baronet for saying that he would no longer be a party to this paltry chicanery, for he told the people plainly, "I am not going to create a loan, or to resort to any other expedient by which your prosperity will be taxed, but I am going to tax you." The crime of deficiency belonged to the House—no man had denied its existence—no man had exaggerated its amount—no man had disputed that the money was wanted—and no man had asked for a reduction of expenditure. At the door of the House, therefore, lay the blame of expenditure and consequent deficiency. Then came the question, how it was to be met? Was the country prepared to pay the money in a direct straightforward manner, or was it willing to resort again to old contrivances, to tinker the difficulty, and, under the pretence of relieving commercial distress, add new taxes and increase prevailing embarrassments? By far the preferable course was that which was the boldest—to tell the people that the money must be raised, and to use only the short intelligible phrase "pay it." The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) had said, that the tax was likely to drive capital out of the country. He thought) that his hon. Friend had aspired to the character of a political economist. What could be the difference as regarded capital, whether the money were taken in one way or in another, directly or indirectly? The effect must be the same, if the people had to pay the money, no matter in what way. If taxation would drive capital from the country, the evil would not be diminished by making taxation indirect. But his hon. Friend had added, that it was dangerous to let the people know how much they paid. Did this sentiment come from a representative of the people? from a Member sitting on the Liberal side of the House? Did it come from one who professed to have great faith in the fitness of the people to govern themselves? Was he to erect himself into a sort of high priest of finance—to appropriate all the good things, and say to the people— "Be blind, but have faith?" Was that the course which ought to be pursued? No: he thanked the right hon. Baronet for stepping forward with a plan which could not fail to let the people know exactly what they had to pay. He now came to the charge against the right hon. Baronet, that the mode in which he required the people to pay was an unfair one—that though a direct tax was certainly the best, the mode in which he intended to impose it was most unfair to the middle classes. He agreed in that accusation, and he would add another item to the force of it. The charge he brought against the House was made more obvious, was shown in broader daylight, and rendered more salient, by the present proposition than by any plan of taxation. First, the House of Commons had commenced by preventing an alteration of the Corn-laws. That was a tax upon the community for the benefit of the landowner; it put a large sum into the pocket of the land-owner; and then came down the right hon. Baronet to tell the House that there was a large deficiency which must be met, and that he would meet it by a tax which spread over landed property, funded property, and what, for the sake of shortness, he would call income. Having first taxed the people for the benefit of the landowner, and thereby having put a considerable sum into his pocket, the next process was merely to call upon him to pay back again the money he had received. Thus, in fact, land-owners paid nothing, and the whole burden of the tax fell upon the rest of the community. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet for this course; he had done all he dared, and had done better than his political adversaries would have done. But the present Ministers were wise in their generation. "We will not tax the people (said they)—we have great regard for the poorer classes;" and so they robbed what was considered the Liberal side of the House of the grace it might have gotten by a pretended considerateness for the necessities and sufferings of the poor. But even the poor had been taxed indirectly in their corn. The land-owner was, in fact, relieved from all payment, and the fund holder and the intellect of the country was additionally oppressed in order to make up the deficiency. When the subject was looked at fairly and impartially, it would be seen that the land-owner was wholly exempted from bearing any portion of the weight of public burdens. Dismissing the tax upon the fund holder, he (Mr. Roebuck) came to what he must consider the deep injustice of the scheme, an injustice which the right hon. Baronet must himself feel, and which he was only prevented from admitting by the sort of Friends he had about him. What was the proposition? To tax fluctuating income in the same proportion as that which was permanent. The injustice was so flagrant, so out staring, that it was impossible to exaggerate its deformity. A man might earn 300l. a year by hard labour, either of body or mind, and was required to pay just as much as a man who literally did nothing for the same income. He who toiled for his bread, and whose family depended upon his toil, who might be deprived of health, and thus be deprived of food, he might die and his family might starve, and yet he was to produce just the same sum as a man who was the owner of landed and permanent property to the extent of 300/. a year. The difference was palpable and appreciable, yet the right hon. Baronet said that he could make no distinction. He must know better; he must know that he could make a distinction, and that in the market it was well understood. The difference between the owner of funded property, and of a man who gained as large an income by toil of any kind was just the difference between a life interest and perpetuity. He might go into the market and ask, "What premium do you require for the insurance of my life, so that my family shall have 300/. a year at my death?" The exact amount of that premium was what the right hon. Baronet ought to strike off from the man of variable income, and then to tax him upon the remainder would be perfectly fair and just. Why could not that be done? Where was the difficulty? Could not tables be prepared, or rather did they not already exist, of the value of life at different ages, from twenty to thirty, from thirty to forty, from forty to fifty, and so on? The young man who paid less for the insurance of his life ought to pay more to the State than the older man, from whom a higher premium was required. As this was a known principle, and one of every day's application, he asserted that to fly in the face of it was a gratuitous infliction for the advantage of the landed interest. The people ought to be told why this could not be done, and he wanted to see somebody get up in his place bold enough to maintain the injustice, or astute enough to show that it was none. The injustice was to tax men equally whose means were most unequal—rendering a whole life wretched, and preventing the possibility of that caution and providence which might enable an industrious and capable man with a fluctuating income to leave something behind him for his family. This, he insisted, was a gross and a cruel injustice, the cry of which must and would, ere long, reach the House, and compel redress. If the necessity were great, did the gravity of the need make it necessary to be unjust? No; if the whole sum were requisite, let it be obtained in fair proportions, and no man would complain; the poor man ought to furnish what he could, and the rich man ought to be called upon to give no more than his share. It was grievous to lay a heavier load upon one man than upon another, merely because the poor and powerless were unable to resist. The reason why the man of fluctuating income was severely taxed was, that the man of landed property might escape taxation. The right hon. Baronet did not dare to tax the landowner, and therefore he revenged himself upon the unhappy wretch who owned nothing but the faculty of honestly earning his livelihood. He did not lay this injustice at the door of the right hon. Baronet; he charged it upon the majority of the House, which the right hon. Baronet was unable to control, and he thanked him for bringing it into open daylight, so that all who ran could read the frightful cruelty and gross inequality of the imposition. Following up this part of the subject, he might call upon the right hon. Baronet to explain the difficulty of rendering the tax equal: he did not require him to make it equal in minute detail, but in the rough — upon a general estimate of the value of life, and the amount of net income, and striking off the sum which a man was obliged to pay for insurance. If this mode of levying the tax did not produce sufficient money, let him increase it; and what was equally imposed to supply the necessity of the State, would be cheerfully contributed by the whole mass of the community. If a penny were not sufficient, let the right hon. Baronet require two-pence; and if he observed the fair distinction between the parties who were to pay, he would soon have all the money he could require. It had been said—and he was much struck with the phrase—it had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the right hon. Baronet's plan was a vulgar method. If by vulgar were meant common, he wished that there was much more of such vulgarity, at least in Slate affairs; but if by vulgar were meant that it was not done in private life, he must say, that men in private life did pay their own debts: they did not, in common terms, outrun the constable. If men were honest they did pay their debts, and did not endeavour, by a side-wind, to get rid of their fair debts. They did make their expenditure and their income equal. If they were honest men they did that, but if they were dishonest, and if they went on from day to day making their expenditure larger than their income, they would inevitably come to the last result— it would be a stand-still; it would be a bankruptcy if they were traders, and, if not, there would be a moral bankruptcy— they would be ruined. The morality of private life might be extended to nations. He could not understand in what sense it could be vulgar to pay one's debts. But, then, it was said, that the tax was of an inquisitorial nature, and that there would be great danger to the commercial interests of this country in learning exactly how much each man makes. To him this appeared a matter beyond comprehension. He knew that with our feelings there was a great dislike to let the world know what we are worth; he thought that one of the vulgar prejudices. That he called vulgar. They ought honestly and fairly to say if they were poor that they were poor, and if they were rich the world would very soon find it out. Neither could he understand how it could be made out that what was called credit could multiply the resources of the country. It might be said that he who had credit, but had not money, could make use of other people's money; but if he did so, he only carried on his business at another man's expense. If a man had credit, and with the consent of another man worked with his credit, it might be well; but all other credit was not honest, and could not benefit the country. Therefore he said, as to the inquisitorial nature of the tax, that he cared very little about stating what his means were, and he cared very little more for any one who entertained such a feeling. In his argument the hon. Member for Lambeth had selected a case in which he thought great discredit would be brought upon an important class The hon. Member said, "He would like to know how a banker's income was to be known?" He had chosen peculiarly that class which knew precisely on the last day of the year how much they made during the year. The bankers knew with a certainty how much they had made; and how they could be ashamed or afraid to own it, or to wish people to believe that they made 10,000l. when they only made 5,000l., he could not understand. Therefore he believed that if they made only the lesser sum, they would say that they made but 5,000l. If, however, the inquisitorial nature of the tax. were objected to, was there not some rough but fair method of ascertaining the income? Were there not some means of investigating what any man really made, not in one year, but in a series of two, three, four, or five years? He should think that the rent, or what any man paid for his lodgings, would form a close approximation to his capacity to pay. ["Oh!"] He heard those cries of "oh! oh !" more loudly on that (the Oppo- sition) side of the House than the other. There were surely some means of making a rough estimate of a man's capacity to pay, but if there were none, they must have the inquisitorial mode, and he thought that the evil of such a method was more than compensated by the direct method of taxation. Having trespassed so long upon the attention of the House, he would trespass only a few moments longer, for the purpose of pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the mode by which he might compensate himself—by indirect taxation if they would, as indirect taxation was in such favour—for the loss occasioned by cutting off the tax upon mutable incomes, or reducing them to the sum equal to the insurance on a man's life. By and by they would have to consider what was one of the great errors of the tariff, on a subject that had been often mentioned that evening—the duty on timber. He was prepared to show when this subject should be considered by the House, that it was not for the colonial interests, nor indeed the Canadian interests, that the law should be left as it was; it was no more nor less than the interests of a small body in this country who were the owners of rotten ships, and whose interests had been much over-rated. Knowing well the interests of Canada, and having had the honour in a former year to appear before the House for two-thirds of the Canadian population, he could slate, that it was the desire of the people of Canada that this protection should be taken from them; they begged the mother country to resume it. If the right hon. Baronet would lower the duty on Baltic timber one half, and raise the duty on Canada timber one half, he would by these means obtain for this country better and cheaper timber, and at the same time improve the revenue. He would then be able to grant relief to that portion of the people of this country who had only mutable incomes, and would do no injury to any one. This great alteration could be made by the right hon. Baronet, and he was prepared to show that it would cause no loss to Canada; that it would confer a great benefit on the community; that it would inflict loss only on a few owners of mills; but it would give us cheaper and better timber. He would be prepared when the tariff was discussed to meet any one interested, and show that the additional revenue could be raised by this legitimate mode of taxation —indirect taxation, if they would—but taxation far more just and easy than that proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He would not trouble the House by entering upon the other measures. He would only say, in passing, with respect to the importation of sugar, that the ground on which that was placed by the right hon. Baronet was wholly untenable. The right hon. Baronet talked of encouraging the slave trade. That was the bugbear which was always set up when any thing was proposed to be done. The mischiefs of that trade were unmitigated; the evils had rather been increased by what we had tried; we had done no good, according to their own statements. Those who were most interested on the subject—those who had expended the most labour, said that the mischief was unmitigated; yet when the people of England asked for relief they were told that they could not have it; and it was said, forsooth, that we should do mischief when we could not now prevent the slave trade. With these observations let him close his case with what he would term the moral of his tale. Hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had made two attempts during the present Session to render themselves popular. They had shown, in the first place, an opposition to the Corn-laws, they had tried to get up, as they called it, the steam. They had failed, because in them the people had no confidence. Too many found, when they possessed power, granted to them by the efforts of the people, that they did not employ that power for the benefit of the working classes. It was found that the working classes were arrayed against them, and asked and demanded their rights. When, therefore, the middle classes complained of the load upon their own shoulders, which was a burden unfairly placed upon them, the working class saw the part they had taken —they saw that they had forgotten the promises made to them in 1830, in 1831, and 1832; the working classes stood aloof; they made an effort to obtain popularity in the country and they failed. Now they were making a second attempt, and the people, clearly understanding the attempt, and being relieved by the wise artifice of the other side—being relieved by the political sagacity of the right hon. Baronet, were not personally interested in the question; he was glad of it, and would not assist the middle classes, or make any attempt to raise their popularity. Oh ! said the middle classes, but we cannot trust the working classes because they will tax property. He would ask if there was no attack upon property on the other side? He supposed that long labour and deep thought was not property in the estimate of those who looked upon land and the funds alone as property. He said, that to take income derived from the labour of his head or of his arm, and to place upon it burdens which other property did not bear, was as much an attack upon property as if the working men compelled the owners of land or of the funds to pay taxes, and paid none themselves. He therefore said to the middle classes, "Here you have had from time to time striking evidence that you alone cannot cope with the other side. There are means of coping with them; there are means of putting them down, as you have put them down. Try once again. Tell the people once more that you cannot do justice to yourselves without doing justice to them. Do justice to them, and you will obtain justice for all;" and so he pointed the moral of his tale.

Sir R. Peel

said, after the comments that have been made in the course of three nights' debate upon the proposal which I made for relieving the country from its financial difficulties, I must naturally feel some anxiety to reply to some of the observations that have been directed against it; and I must first remark on the objection taken to the course I have pursued by the hon. Member for Liskeard. I was told by him in the course of this evening, that having no confidence in the abstract merits of the measure I had brought forward, and being unable to support it by argument, I had resorted to topics calculated to excite party feeling, and had sought that aid from party excitement which I could not hope to find in reason and in argument. Sir, I refer for my vindication against that charge to all those hon. Gentlemen who heard me make my financial statement. I ask whether, when I detailed to the House the causes of the present difficulties, and proposed my remedy For them, it was possible for any man more studiously to abstain from every topic of a party nature. It was necessary for me to refer, among other causes of expenditure, to the China war, and to the war west of the Indus, but in referring to those causes of increased expense, did I not abstain from entering into any political subject that could be considered likely to provoke discussion of a party nature? But, Sir, when on a following night, I had to vindicate the course which I had pursued, I stood in a very different position. On the first night I had been told that my proposition should be considered as a whole; there was an admission of the great financial embarrassment, and I was told that my proposition should be regarded with no party feeling, that it should be discussed altogether on its abstract merits, and I appeal to those who recollect the second night's debate, whether any measure could be attacked in a manner more partaking of party spirit? As I said on a former occasion, I had foreseen much opposition, and I expected to be called upon to vindicate my measure, and when I did vindicate it, having been thus provoked, was it not natural that I should remind those who attacked my measure that they and their policy had been the chief cause of the difficulties in which the country was placed? And really, Sir, wishing, though I do not, to discuss the subject in the temper in which it has been begun, I must say, that a speech of greater bitterness I never heard than that which fell from the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why, Sir, was it not said that I had maintained the sugar duties, not because I was convinced of the policy of maintaining them, but because I wished to preserve my consistency—that I would not propose any measure that could unfavourably affect my own political position. Is it not true that not one word was said against the present measure when it was first proposed? Was it not a measure in respect to which I received the assurance that it should be calmly and deliberately considered? Did not the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman stale that the subject was one to which they had given great consideration—that it was one which had necessarily occupied their attention? And yet they can now come to no other conclusion than that a more unjust, a more inquisitorial, a more oppressive measure, could never have been proposed by any Minister. Why could they not arrive at that conclusion on the first night? Of course, in reviewing their financial difficulties, the subject of a tax upon income must have come under their notice and consideration, and they might have been as well prepared on the first night as on the second to declare their, conviction that a tax upon income was an unjust, inquisitorial, and oppressive measure. I must say, therefore, that I spoke on the second evening rather under the impression, that the attack on my measure was not dictated by that spirit of calm enquiry in which the noble Lord had promised that it should be examined, such as guides philosophers in the closet, but partook much more of the character of a meeting at the Reform Club. Therefore, whatever might have been my wishes on first proposing the measure, yet, after the assurance I then received, after the manner in which I opened the proposal, and after the manner in which I and the measure were assailed, then, indeed, I did that which I always will do—I vindicated to the best of my power the measure which I had introduced and the motives which had influenced me in introducing it- Sir, I must say I was surprised that this measure of the Income-tax should have been denounced by the leaders of the party opposite without reference to the public exigency or necessity. I was surprised to hear it denounced as an odious and unjust measure—one which no Minister ought ever to have proposed. Because I remember perfectly well, that among those who have been connected with the party opposite, those whose attention has been chiefly directed to matters of finance, direct declarations have been left upon record, that seeing the nature of our taxation, seeing its tendency to press upon labour and upon the articles which form the necessary consumption of the great masses of the people, a property-tax might be resorted to with advantage during a peace. I have heard them with my own ears deliver that opinion. I heard Lord Althorp give that opinion distinctly. Sir Henry Parnel left it on record, and at a period when no such financial difficulty existed as now exists, for the sole purpose of relieving the articles of general consumption in the country and the productive industry of the country from the pressure of taxation, Mr. P. Thomson, Lord Althorp, Mr. Hume, Sir H. Parnel, all declared in favour of a property-tax. The principle, therefore, of a property-tax during peace, were hon. Gentlemen opposite acting from philosophical and not from party views, would not be denounced with quite so much sternness as has been evinced on the other side. Then, Sir, I am told that I have not established any necessity for a property-tax. Let me pass in review the chief objec- tions that have been urged against my course and against the measure. I am told, first, that I have established no sufficient financial necessity for the imposition of a property-tax in time of peace and here I must fairly own that I am now making an appeal, not so much to Gentlemen opposite as to the deliberate judgment of the country, on which I rely for ultimate support—that deliberating class who are enabled to form a just judgment of the financial difficulties in which we are now placed, and of the inevitable consequences that must attend our permitting them during peace to proceed without making any attempt to check their progress, and I ask them maturely to consider, whether I did not establish such a financial necessity as calls, at least, for some very decisive measure. It is proved, that there has been an increasing deficit during the last six years, and that during the last four years that deficit has been rapidly increasing. I include in my calculation the year ending the 5th of April, 1843, because there has been no complaint of my estimate for the year, and I am therefore entitled to assume that it is correct. It is shown that on the 5th of April, 1840, there was a deficit of income as compared with the expenditure of 1,487,0002.; that in 1841 there was a deficit of 1,851,000i.; that in 1842 there was a deficit of 2,334,000l.; and that on the year ending the 5th of April, 1843, there will be a deficit of 2,573,000l. It. is proved that up to the 5th of April, 1843, on a comparison of your income with your expenditure, and including the deficiencies of the year, you will, in the twenty-sixth year of peace, have accumulated during six years a fresh debt of 10,000,000i. It is proved that, for the present year, your expenditure will exceed your income by 2,500,000i., taking the expenditure as voted upon the estimates, but it will be found that the deficit cannot be less than 8,500,000i., for I shall have to submit an estimate for a reinforcement of our troops in India, and we shall have to pay the expenses of the China expedition for the current year. Why, that fact alone is enough to establish a case of considerable financial difficulty. I, at the same time, reminded you of the position of a great branch of your empire in another hemisphere. I asked you to remember the position of Indian finance. I reminded you that Indian finance had followed the course of the finances at home; that in 1836 you began with a great surplus; that in 1841 you had ended with a great deficit; that in 1836 you found a surplus of 1,500,000i. at least; that by 1840 you found a deficit of 2,300,000i., and by 1841 a deficit of 2,400,000i.; that the Indian Government were now raising 2,000,000i. at 5 per cent. I asked you to remember that ere long your credit might be required to be brought in aid of Indian credit, should any great reverses or difficulties arise and 1 said also that I thought it would be a wise course to abstain from incurring doubt, and to maintain the public credit here by showing a determination to raise the necessary supplies immediately. Those were the proofs I adduced in order to show that there existed a financial necessity. Sir, if I had not felt a full confidence in the spirit and in the resources of this country, I might have shrunk from developing the truth; but it is because I do know the country has within itself energy and resources sufficient to overcome all its difficulties that I at once met the difficulty, and on that ground I would not conceal the truth from the public. I say nothing whatever as to the prospects in India. I have received no provocation to-night to enter into that subject, and I wish to adhere to the example set me by the other side, and say nothing as to our policy and prospects on the Western side of the Indus. I must however say, that I take no desponding view of the state of affairs in India. I have just the same confidence that I have always had in the valour and energy of England, already so gloriously displayed in that great field of exertion; and I hope and trust that those exertions will be great in proportion to the difficulty, and will soon repair our temporary disasters. But I think the hon. Member for Lambeth the other night was rather too hasty in saying that he should refuse his assent to any measure whatever that might be necessary to adopt for the reparation of those disasters. "Not one shilling of the Income-tax," said the hon. Member, "shall, with my consent, be applied to the war in Affghanistan." I shall not, as I have said, on the present occasion enter into any inquiry into the causes of the present state of things there, but I do trust the House will suspend their decision until there has been a full investigation, and that they will not only consider the policy that undertook that war, but that they will also suspend their judgment upon the policy which Ministers think it necessary to adopt, as British life has been sacrificed to a great extent, and sacrificed by gross perfidy and violation of solemn engagements. The hon. Gentleman says the Affghans are engaged in a battle for their independence, and, he adds, that he holds me responsible for the Affghanistan expedition. Sir, I beg leave to say, that when I first heard of the expedition across the Indus, I had the greatest doubts of its good policy or the extension of our empire in India. 1 acquiesced in the views of that gallant and distinguished officer, Sir Alexander Burnes; who has fallen a victim to his zeal for the service of his country, and who has left on record his opinion, that "to attempt to restore Shah Soojah to the throne from whence he had been expelled in 1809, was a measure the failure of which would entail upon us disgrace and disaster." I read that passage, and I said at the time that the attempt to force Shah Soojah on the throne of Affghanistan very much resembled what our policy would have been had we attempted to force Charles X. upon the throne of France. Shah Soojah had been expelled from the throne, and his personal character was held in the utmost contempt by those over whom we had compulsorily placed him to rule. Sir, it appears to me that at a period when the policy of the country is determined on, and when ten thousand men may be required to assert our power in India, the hon. Gentleman should not presume that we were unwilling, powerful as we are, to carry out the military policy of the country. The position of affairs is now very different to what it was before the Affghan expedition; you might at the outset remonstrate but it is not now wise to damp the spirit and ardour of the troops by such observations. At the same time, however, I must disclaim for myself, and for those with whom I act, all responsibility for the expedition beyond the Indus. Whatever we may think of the original policy which dictated that expedition, we will take such steps as we conceive British honour now requires, with as much good faith and energy as if the expedition had originally been a part of our own policy. To revert, however, to our financial position. I have shown that a deficit of 10,000,000l. has been incurred during the last six years; the deficit of India is nearly 5.000.000l. on the expenditure of the two last years alone; and I submit it to the deliberate judgment and decision of those who hear me whether it be not absolutely necessary to make some great exertion to rescue ourselves from such a financial difficulty? But the next question is, what shall be the nature of that exertion? I think the great majority of the House admits that we have made out the existence of the necessity for the exertion. It is a mere delusion to say that this is not the time for such a measure. I do not say I propose the Income-tax because of the war in Affghanistan, or because there is a war in China, but I say that we should review our financial position regarding those two wars, as causes of increased expenditure, which certainly of themselves would not justify the course proposed, but which combined with other causes of increasing expenditure do concurrently contribute with them to form such a cause as justifies some great exertion or other. Then, what shall that exertion be? I am told that the budget of last year was sufficient to relieve it. I am convinced, however, that if the budget of last year had been carried by the assent of the House of Commons, there would still have arisen a necessity for some such exertion as I now propose. The budget of last year calculated an increase upon the sugar duties of 700,000l. to arise from the proposed admission of foreign sugar. That amount has been realized by the unexpected importation of sugar from the East Indies and a reduction in the price of the article. As nearly as possible the sum which the right hon. Gentleman calculated upon by the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar has by these means been obtained. With respect to the duty on corn, it is, of course, very difficult to form any estimate of what it might produce. The noble Lord calculated that the same number of quarters would be admitted at an 8.;. fixed duty as had been admitted at 6s. 8d and at 1s. On this subject it is very difficult to form an opinion, but I cannot conceive on what grounds the noble Lord argues that the same quantity would be brought in at an 8s. duty as has been imported at a duty of 1s. But, now, with respect to timber. I am quite prepared to admit, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to timber would, had it been adopted, have produced a larger amount to the revenue than that which I submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the discriminating duty on Baltic timber by 5s., keeping the duty at 56s., and to continue the discriminating duty between foreign and colonial timber to the extent of 30s., by imposing a new duty of 10s. on timber the growth of the Canadas, thus leaving the duty on colonial timber at 20s., and that on foreign timber to 50s. Now, I admit, that this alteration would have produced a larger amount of revenue, but, at the same time, I am prepared to contend, if the country can make any remission of taxation, that there is not a single article in the tariff upon which a reduction of the duty would tell with greater effect in encouraging the industry of the country than the article of timber. I say, therefore, that I am surprised at the hostility which has been shown to my proposition by the other side of the House. Gentlemen opposite profess a great respect for the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume. Now, what does Mr. Deacon Hume say on the subject of a reduction of the timber duties. He tells you that— If the country could afford to give up the whole amount of the timber duty, there is not one other article to which I would sooner give perfect freedom from duty in this country than wood. We possess iron and coal, and we have not got wood, and our case would be complete with the three. We act towards wood, as France acts towards iron. Sir, the ancient policy of this country was to encourage the importation of timber, at a nominal or a very small duty, as was recommended by Mr. Deacon Hume. Up to 1795, in the midst of war, the whole duty on foreign timber was only 6s. 8d. the load of cubic feet, the Governments of that day considering wood in the light of a raw material entering into almost every species of manufactures, and consequently deeming it expedient that a low duty should be imposed. It was not, therefore, until the hottest of the war that wood was subjected to increased taxation. Why then, Sir, is not my proposal in accordance with the ancient principles of our taxation. At the same time, that it is calculated to benefit the consumer; and confer a greater benefit on him than he could obtain from the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I again, then, repeat my conviction that if I can secure a tax on the property of the country, and reduce the timber duty, I shall do more; to restore activity in our trade and commerce, and to benefit the population of the country generally, than by any single measure that I could propose to Parliament. And before hon. Gentlemen decide on this point, I wish they would read the evidence given before a committee of this House with respect to fisheries. They will find, by reference to the reports of the committees on Import Duties in 1805 and in 1840, that our fishermen are represented to be subject to very great disadvantages in consequence of the existence of this timber duty. I would refer Gentlemen especially to the evidence given by Mr. John Mitchell. Let them attentively consider what he says as to the superiority of the dwellings of the humbler classes of Norway to those of our own country, arising solely from the cheapness of wood. Then, again, I would ask Gentlemen to read the evidence as to ship-building. They will find it stated, under that head, that the timber duties are acting most injuriously to the interests of our ship-builders, and that even the trade of the country in shipbuilding is leaving us on account of the existence of these duties. Therefore, I say, that although under my proposition, so much may not be got for the revenue, yet the reduction of the duty on colonial timber to a nominal amount, and the reduction of the duty on foreign timber from 55s. to 30s., is one of the best measures for the consumer, the shipbuilder, and the country generally, that it would almost be possible for me to propose. But, Sir, it is said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I take a gloomy view of the state of our finances, and that I hold to the opinion that there is no mode of redeeming lost ground but by the imposition of an Income-tax. Now, I say no such thing. I have all along said that I believed the energies of the country are not exhausted, and that they only require time to revive. I could, had I so pleased, have gone back to articles from which the taxes have been removed, or have imposed additional taxes on what is already taxed. But I do not think it would be desirable to add to the extra 5 per cent, imposed last year upon articles of customs and excise. The right hon. Gentleman opposite dwelt at some length upon the question of revenue to be derived from a duty on corn. He also adopted a very triumphant tone in referring to the amount received from sugar. Now, Sir, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can be permitted to take credit to himself for the additional amount derived from sugar. That additional duty was received from sources which were quite unexpected, and which certainly do not bear out the position that any credit attaches to the right hon gentleman there from. Sir, I will take the revenue of last year, and strike off the sums received upon corn and sugar. The right hon. Gentleman levied an additional duty of 5 per cent, on articles of customs and excise. Now, deducting the amounts received on corn and sugar, I find that the revenue from these sources in 1840 was 17,532,000. In 1842, after the imposition of the additional duty of 5 per cent., the revenue was 17,906,000; but the sum ought to have been 18,409,000, if the right hon. Gentleman's expectations of the proceeds from his additional 5 per cent, had been satisfactorily realised. From this I infer, that with respect to customs and excise duties, we have almost arrived at the limits of taxation, and that it would not be wise to lay on any further duties. Well, then, Sir, if I go back to other articles on which duty is or was received, I have no doubt but that I might have obtained the consent of the House of Commons to an additional duty, or to the re-imposition of a duty not now existing. But I think, that it is more just at once to resort to a Property-tax than to seek to reimpose such burdens. 1 take the case of salt and leather. Now, I have no doubt a large revenue might be derived from either of these sources, and I have no doubt, also, that a large revenue might have been derived from a duty upon beer. But I do say, that I consider it more just and more politic to meet the difficulty at once by proposing a tax upon incomes, than by reviving indirect taxes, which entail a heavy expense in collecting, and which cannot be imposed without greatly disturbing the trade and manufactures of the country. The scheme I propose is certainly liable to neither of these objections. I solve the difficulty by the Income-tax at the same time that I relieve the consumer by reducing the taxation upon articles of general consumption. Now, the chief objections to my scheme have been enumerated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Liskeard. The first objection of that hon. Gentleman was a curious one. He objected to the tax because the people would be enabled to see what was taken out of their pockets. Now, this is exactly so. An Income-tax is very sensibly felt in its operation. Taxes on articles do not come home so directly— a tax on salt or beer, for instance, would by no means be felt so sensibly. But then I am certainly surprised to hear this sort of argument urged on the other side, where it has always hitherto, I believe, been held, that the people ought to know exactly what they were called upon to pay. But then, Sir, it is said, that public credit is shaken by my proposition. Now, certainly I see no such effect. I look at the state of the public funds, and I find that since my proposal was made, nothing has at all occurred presenting any indication that the public credit of the country is shaken. Then the next objection is, that a tax upon incomes has a great tendency to drive people from England. Why, has not the present system of taxation a tendency to drive people out of the country quite as great as the Income-tax? What is there at present to prevent the great landed proprietors of this country from living abroad and from thereby escaping the effects of both direct and indirect taxation. But what I propose is, that those classes should be subjected to a direct contribution to the revenue, and from that contribution I apprehend they cannot possibly escape. At least, then, my scheme has this advantage, that I call on him who chooses either for his amusement or pleasure to travel abroad and evade taxation on consumption at home, to contribute his fair proportion towards the revenue of this country. But I do even more, I offer an inducement for the absentees to return. I propose by the amended tariff to reduce the cost of living in this country, which has hitherto, with a certain class at least, been the reason for residence abroad. I expect, that the result of the new tariff will be to reduce the cost of articles of consumption in this country, and let me ask, will not this have a tendency to induce absentees to return? I say it will. If by removing prohibitory duties, and reducing the scale of duties generally, I reduce the cost of living, I contend, that instead of driving capital out of the country, the general tendency of my measure will be to induce absentees to return, and insuring their remaining when once they come back. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bath, and also the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Liskeard, have addressed themselves to what they style the gross injustice of this tax. They say they are content, that tax should be imposed on property, but they object to its imposition on incomes—that is to say, to its being derived from parties whose receipts arise from professions or trades. [Mr. Roebuck: I objected to the rate being the same on the two species of income.] That ob- jection cannot, I am afraid, be removed. The hon. Gentleman did not object to the inquisition, and he made no objections to the disclosure of the amount of an income. The hon. Gentleman was singular in that opinion, for every one else who spoke on the same side with the hon. Gentleman have contended that, with regard to incomes derived from trade or professions, the tax is most objectionable, and that not, be it remembered, so much on account of the amount of the tax itself, as on account of the inquisition it establishes. The objection, therefore, of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Bath, is not that which has been urged by the great body of those who have addressed the House upon the subject. Now, Sir, when I really look at the object of this tax, I cannot admit the force of that objection against it. And I cannot bring myself to think that it would be fair or just to impose the whole, or, at all events, the greater portion of this tax upon incomes derived from land alone. And, Sir, I am not, singular in entertaining that opinion. Lord Althorp also held the same opinion, and expressed it in the following terms:— Much had been said about a property-tax, and he believed that on that point he differed considerably from his friends about him. Still he had no hesitation in saying, that to grant relief to the productive population by a reduction of taxes, and to impose a property-tax to meet the deficiency thus occasioned, would be a very good measure. That was his own individual opinion. The gallant General (General Gascoyne) might perhaps say, that his present opinions were inconsistent with his former opinions, and he would admit that it might seem to many that he was inconsistent. But the country was now in a situation very different from that in which it was formerly placed, and he would say to the landowner, that if a property-tax of 10 per cent, were imposed, he would be the gainer, because he thought that the landowner, in consequence of the existing distress and the large sums which he was obliged to advance for the maintenance of the poor, lost considerably more than 10 per cent, on his rents. Such, then, was the opinion of Lord Althorp upon the subject of a property-tax. But now, Sir, what again is the object of this tax which I propose? It is simply to call upon all persons of a certain income to make, for a limited period, out of that income, a contribution for the public good. It is contended that it is unjust to tax all incomes at the same rate, and that there ought to be a distinction made between the kind of income and the source from which it is derived. But, Sir, it appears to me that if the exemptions which have been suggested were to be carried into effect, this tax would be altogether inefficient. I think a tax so assessed had better not be imposed at all. And let me ask the House what tax ever was imposed that was not objected to, on account of its inequality? What was the beer-tax—the house-tax—the window-tax—what were the assessed taxes, when first imposed? Are all these taxes just in every one's eyes? Must not all taxes—direct or indirect—bear unequally upon those who pay them? Take the case of the professional man. I think the professional man might urge good arguments against the justice of the assessed taxes. I show you that the owner of what you call permanent capital has the greatest facilities for evading the tax. He can remove to the continent, and draw his income as he requires it; but the professional man—the lawyer for instance, or the medical man—is compelled to remain in this country, and to submit to the indirect taxation which prevails. All indirect taxation has a natural tendency to produce injustice, and I have ever thought that the chief argument relied on in opposition to the taxation of articles of consumption was, that if beer, or any other such article, were exposed to it, the tax always operated unjustly. You say that income derived from fixed property ought to be made subject to the tax I propose, but that income, drawn from professional exertion and the operations of trade, ought not to be taxed, partly owing to the inquisitorial nature of the tax it self, and partly from the nature of such property. But is it meant that the officer on half-pay should contribute to the tax, and that the physician of 9,000i. or 10,000l. a-year should not? You say that terminable annuitants ought not to pay the same rate as landed proprietors; but would you say that a widow, who has a jointure—a fixed sum per annum—which terminates with her life—would you say that she should pay the same amount? Again, with regard to life interests in estates, is there to be no difference between an estate in fee-simple and a life interest in a landed estate? If I have a life interest in an estate that has to pass to a distant relative who feels no particular interest in me, is it to be calculated what my interest in such estate may be? If I compare my position with that of a man holding his property in fee-simple, and who can charge it as he pleases, surely there is a vast difference in the comparative value of our interests, and I say again, that, looking to the Income-tax as a measure that would have to be resorted to in time of war, and looking at the necessity of imposing perhaps a 10 per cent, tax rather than resorting to a system of borrowing and funding, it would be much better to abandon it altogether, rather than make a large number of exemptions. Or suppose I am endeavouring to make a provision for my wife and children out of my life interest, do you say that I am to be equally taxed in that case? Then what will you do with the clergy? If your principle is to be adopted, the clergy must all be exempt from taxation. It is quite clear that they must. How is a clergyman differently situated from an annuitant for a term of years? He has a certain income, which he holds for his life with certain onerous duties to perform. The property is an enduring one, but his interest in it is only a life interest. Take the case of two brothers. Suppose one brother invests 5,000i. in the funds, and receives his 3½per cent., and that the other purchases a living, making a higher interest for his money, am I to make a reduction in this case? [A Voice, "Yes."] The hon. Member says, yes; then I say if I am to make that calculation in every case, I had much better abandon the system altogether. For to do so would be virtually abandoning the principle of making every man contribute in accordance with his means. Suppose I buy an annuity from an insurance-office, or suppose the case of a single man, who, wishing to enjoy a large income, sinks the whole of his money in the purchase of ah annuity, am I to deal with him in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman? [Mr. Roebuck assented.] Well, then, I must say, that, after these admissions of the hon. and learned Member, which I have been anxious to draw from him, and as to which I knew he was far too logical a reasoner not to acknowledge the connection of each of these cases with the other —if you are to proceed upon the principle he lays down, then I say that the inquisition under his plan will be ten times worse than that I propose under the present system. I do hope that 1 have now stated all the grounds on which I am of opinion that, if you establish this tax, you ought not to make any exemptions. Upon these grounds 1 have proposed this plan. I never said I should make no modification in the details; on the contrary, I have stated the modifications with respect to the mode of collection which I was willing to adopt; but I do again declare, that with respect to the main principle— namely the levying of 7d. per pound on incomes above 150l., I must urge it upon the adoption of the House, fearing exceedingly the consequences of abatements and exemptions of the nature that have been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then, Sir, I am told another great objection to this tax is, that it encourages perjury and fraud; but I should like to know what is the tendency of indirect taxation. I should like to know what is the tendency of excise duties. I should like to know what is the tendency of all the excise regulations as to distilleries. Taxation, I take it, is inevitable. Taxes we must have. Sir, I perfectly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that nothing can be more frivolous or absurd than the extreme sensitiveness as to what a man's income may be. I believe that a very good estimate is usually formed of the state of men's circumstances by those who care about inquiring into other men's property, and the state of their credit. There is a keen and quick instinct in such parties, which enables them to ascertain, without much difficulty, what their neighbours, or those with whom they may happen to have dealings, are worth, and as to the terrors of the inquisition, which I propose, into men's private affairs, it is mere folly, if men will only act honestly, and make bond fide returns. Sir, I do not believe that the tremendous consequences apprehended by the hon. Gentleman opposite will follow the disclosure which will be required to be made, and I cannot suppose that any one will subject himself to inconvenience or embarrassment by being guilty of a fraud of this kind for the sake of 3/. or 4l. For my own part, I entertain a higher opinion of the integrity and fair dealing of the people of this country, than to suppose that an advantage of such an amount as 2l. 18s. in the 100/. could operate as a temptation to perjury or fraud; but, at all events, as I said before, whatever may be the inconvenience attending direct taxation, depend upon it that it is better than resorting to that description of indirect taxation which leads to smuggling, and affords equal, if not greater, temptation, for fraud and perjury. Sir, 1 say, as I have already stated, that 1 do not propose an Income-lax for the mere and single purpose of making good the deficiency, but that I propose it concurrently with meeting the deficit in the revenue, to enable me to make extensive alterations in our tariff. There has been a disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to undervalue the changes I propose making in our tariff; but I am happy to say that the hon. Member for Bolton—and no one is better informed on the subject than that hon. Gentleman—does not join with those who have evinced such a disposition; for he says, candidly and fairly, that the alterations in the duties which I propose, are not only extensive, but important. He undoubtedly says I have omitted corn and sugar; but, in every other respect, he admits that the changes I propose are calculated to encourage the industry, the trade, and commerce of the country; and on these grounds bears his testimony to the value of these changes. Now, what are the changes which I propose, and what is the exact position in which I stand? I am met by conflicting statements from all sides; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield says, that, though I remove prohibitions with respect to the import of cattle, that such a change will be of no advantage, because cattle cannot be bought on the Continent. But it is, I think it will be acknowledged, impossible for me to proceed on such a supposition. Well, but what is it I do? Why, I permit both salt and fresh meat to come in; but what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is, that even though I do so, it will be of no advantage to the consumer in this country, because no foreign cattle can be obtained, and that the calves are not yet born. Sir, I hope that hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House, who have expressed some alarm on this part of the subject, have attended to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the demand for cattle on the Continent absorbing the supply. From the hon. and learned Gentleman's showing, it is clear that these apprehensions are groundless, and it must, I think, be admitted, that, as far as I am concerned, I can do no more than I have done—that is, to increase the facilities for the importation of foreign cattle. It is, Sir, I think unnecessary to look at the demand for cattle in France or any other country, but if we merely advert to the number of cattle sold in Smithfield alone during the last year, and if we found that as many as 167,000 oxen were sold in Smithfield in a single year, I think the impossibility of bringing foreign cattle into competition with the superior animals of this country, must be admitted; and, with such a fact before them, I must say that I consider the apprehensions of my hon. Friends altogether groundless. Now, with respect to salt meat, will not the admission of salt meat afford great facilities to commerce, at least, as regards the fitting out of ships. Great frauds have been practised with respect to the provisioning of ships. The uniform practice was to take the salted foreign meat out of bond, giving a sort of guarantee that it should be landed in a foreign port, but it, nevertheless, is applied to provisioning the ship. The danger of a serious interference with fresh meat is very absurd. I do not over-rate the benefits to be derived in the cheapening of provisions; but I do think those persons in Scotland and Ireland who entertain apprehensions on this subject, greatly overrate the evil consequences that may result from permitting foreign meat to be brought into the London market. I propose to remove every prohibition, then, on articles of provision. Look, again, at what I propose on the article of foreign wood. I have reduced to almost nominal amounts the duties on foreign woods. I believe, that the consequence will be, that new establishments will grow up in this country for the manufacture of articles of furniture. We labour at present under very great disadvantages, in competing with foreigners in this respect. It will, therefore, be a very great advantage to have the duty on foreign woods so materially reduced. I reduce the duty on every article of foreign wood, with one exception; and I trust, that by a treaty with Brazil, I shall be enabled to reduce the duty on that article also—I mean the article of rosewood. But then I am told, you should not proceed on this principle — you should proceed on the principle of remitting the duty upon articles of foreign production in every case, entirely regardless of what a foreign country may do. I am not altogether prepared to say, that it may not be good policy to buy at the cheapest market, without refer- ence to the conduct of other nations. But, at the same time, it cannot be denied, that it would be a great advantage to us if we could get, when we make a reduction in our own duties, a corresponding advantage in return. We have every right to ask for it. For instance, it would be a great advantage to this country to receive the brandy of France at a much cheaper rate. I think its consumption would be very great. I believe France would derive great advantages from a remission of the duty; but it is quite clear, that France would derive as great advantage by permitting the introduction, at a moderate duty, of the manufactures of Sheffield, and I hope the people of France will feel that to buy cheap goods at Sheffield, would it self be of great advantage; but to act conjointly with reciprocal advantages would be better still. Then, with respect to the remission of the duty on timber, I do not mean to say, that abstractedly, it would not be a good thing to buy cheap timber in the Baltic, but I am sure there will be a greater demand for our goods in Norway and Sweden; and I do hope, that those countries which are concerned in the Prussian League will be convinced of the benefit of the mutual interchange of commodities, and that Sardinia, Brazil, Portugal, and Spain, will see the advantage of a great reduction of duties. That a reduction of duty should take place in foreign countries, cannot be denied; that to give every access to the manufactures of this country would be a great advantage to them, I am ready to prove, and therefore I object to precipitate reductions of duty here, without attempting to obtain an equivalent corresponding reduction of duty on our own articles. That is the ground upon which I proceed. Look, again, at the reduction of the duty on oils, on drugs, on resin, on all those articles which constitute the raw material of manufactures. Who will be injured by that reduction? Look, again, at the reduction in skins and furs. I remit the duty. What is the effect of maintaining it so high as at present? It sounds like a prohibitory duty; but it does not act so. What is the use of maintaining a 30 per cent prohibition, when the smuggler will undertake to deliver the article at an increase on its cost price of 10 per cent? The advantage of the high duty goes into the pocket of the smuggler. Consequently, the moderate reduction of these prohibitory duties will be a positive advantage to the manufacturer, for it will enable him to know exactly and at once what he has to compete with. Take, again, the article of gloves; it is quite impossible to prevent the foreign import 6( such an article, because the smuggler, while the prohibitory duty exists, will find the means of evading the law. I also repeal the duty on manufactured leather,—on shoes and boots. In short, look through the whole of this tariff, and I venture to say it must, if the House sanctions it, tend greatly to reduce the cost of consumption. An hon. Friend of mine has, within these few days, informed me that the union, of which he is one of the guardians, have entered into a contract for the supply of the workhouse 20 per cent cheaper this year, than the contract of last year, in consequence of the reduction of prices anticipated from the new tariff. On the other hand, it seems that those who have hitherto produced those articles in this country will be injured by the alteration; but if you make a great reduction, not, I would say, in the amount of the poor-rates, but in the cost of living, on account of which the poor-rates have been kept high, those parties will derive considerable assistance from that reduction. I may observe, here, that there has been a tendency of late years to increase the poor-rates on account of the high prices of provisions. With respect to the colonial question, an hon. Gentleman taunted me with the determination to urge all these propositions, without alteration merely because I have a majority. But because I am in possession of a majority, I am inclined to listen to any reasonable propositions of amendment. In propounding an extensive commercial tariff of this kind, embracing 1,200 articles, I do not deny that some improvements may be suggested; and if on reviewing the proposals I have made I shall be convinced that I have laboured under an error, no sense of shame shall deter me from at once consenting to modify the proposition. This, however, I must say, 1 have paid great attention to what has been said during these debates, and I have not heard anything which has convinced me that what I have proposed is not a very great advantage. If the reduction of duties on the raw material, and on articles half-manufactured, and speaking generally, if the great principle of the tariff be adopted, I have a very confident hope that it will tend to the improvement of trade. [Viscount Howick : You retain the principle of differential duties.] If the noble Viscount will allow me, I will explain that in due time. I cannot say that there ought to be no differential duties between the produce of the colonies and foreign countries. Nay, more, I must say, that if you look properly at the relations between yourselves and the colonies, you must consider your colonies entitled to be put on a different footing from foreign countries, and that it is only perfectly fair to give to articles of colonial production a preference in your markets over articles the produce of foreign countries. I am disposed to think even that you ought to carry the principle of assimilation, if you can, so far as to consider the colonies an integral part of the empire for all commercial purposes. I think the application of a discriminating duty on colonial articles as compared with foreign to be founded on sound principles. The arguments which have seemed to make a great impression against this doctrine have not convinced me. This, I say, that where a colonial and foreign article enters into competition when the article is not produced in this country, there the differential duty tells in favour of the consumer. Suppose there are only two producers, the foreigner and the colony, and that the article is not at present one of colonial produce, such as that on which the right hon. Gentleman has been so facetious, Eau de Cologne. There the differential duty may introduce fraud —that is a fair subject for consideration— but in respect to the preference of the colonial to the foreign article, the establishment of the differential duty will tell in favour of the consumer here. That is a principle upon we have been long acting. That was the principle on which we have been long acting. That was the principle on which you admitted rough rice from the west coast of Africa on more favourable terms than from America, and brought us into difficulty. The equalisation of the previously discriminating duties on East and West-India rum and sugar, proceeded on this principle; the differential duty on timber, on corn, on sugar, proceeded on this principle, and I will undertake to show you that, so far from this being a new principle, there are at this moment, sixty or seventy articles and more, on which this principle is acted upon. In reference to those articles which are bonâ fide the produce of our colonies, I will admit that a differential duty ought to be maintained, considering the disadvantages under which our colonies labour, as to the introduction of our manufactures— but, as to the application of a differential duty in every case to the colonies, I shall reserve to myself the full opportunity of considering the question, and if I shall think the reasons assigned for an alteration of the tariff in this respect valid, I shall have no difficulty in making that alteration. With respect to the duty on tobacco, the produce of the East Indies, I should wish also to reserve to myself a full opportunity of considering the objections that have been urged to my proposition, and I shall not have the slightest difficulty, if I see reason to make any alteration. Sir, I am not aware that there is any other point on which it is necessary for me to make any observations. I am quite conscious of the difficulty of the task which I and those with whom I act have undertaken; there are many of these, and not merely in reference to the tariff. It is impossible to deny that on our accession to office, we found many difficulties before us. We found war in the north-west of India—we found the Chinese excited to hostilities against this country—we found —I deeply regret to say it—a spirit, I will not call it hostility but of jealousy existing between France and this country,—a spirit which has arisen of late years, and which is deeply to be deprecated. It is of the utmost importance that the good-will which had previously for some years existed between this country and France should be revived—a good understanding—an amicable relation between this country and France, and the increased commercial intercourse between them, is obviously of the utmost importance, but, at the same time, it is felt that no concessions inconsistent with the honour or welfare of this country ought at any time to be made, even for the purpose of obtaining so desirable an end. As the causes of disunion are now removed, as the Five Powers, in respect to the Eastern question, or acting in concert, with united councils, I earnestly hope that the good feeling which before existed between us and France will be completely revived. I think it impossible to deny that we found our relations with the United States in an unsatisfactory state, there having been for a long series of years unsettled causes of disunion, which we are doing our best to bring to a satisfactory determination. Above all, I think it cannot be denied, that we found the finances of this country in an unsatisfactory condition; and it has been our duty to apply ourselves to the proposal of those measures which we conceived to be the best calculated to replace those finances on a sound and proper basis. It has been made a charge against me, that I declared that the measure for the imposition of the Income-tax is not only proposed with the whole authority of the Government, but that it is a measure in which the fate of the Government is involved. On this point I might have thought it almost unnecessary to have made any declaration. Is it to be supposed possible that I could, in the present state of the affairs of this country, propose such a measure as that which I have proposed, without considering the fate of the Government involved in the decision of the House of Commons upon it? To have made such a declaration appears to me to be scarcely necessary. I do propose it—I speak not of minor details, but of the measure itself, as the basis of the financial and commercial policy of the country; and as a measure which I never could have consented to propose if I did not manifest my conviction of its necessity by risking my fate as a Minister on it. The more I consider the subject, the more deeply am I convinced that this measure, and the measures which accompany it, are necessary for the welfare of this country. I relinquished office in 1835, because I could not consistently acquiesce in a principle which I felt to be not founded in justice. I propose now a great measure, and if the House of Commons should overrule my proposal, I shall retire with perfect content and with the consciousness that I have discharged the duty I owe to my country, by proposing a measure which has been characterized by one of my opponents as a bold, as a direct, as an honest measure. If these be the characteristics of it, it is suited to the exigencies of the present time. This is a period in which you do require that the measures proposed should be bold, direct, and honest. The measure may be rejected now. The attempts which are made to dissatisfy those interests whom I am supposed to have affected—to unite them in opposition to this Income-tax, may possi- bly prevail. 1 doubt it. I doubt whether there will not be on the part of the country a conviction that the time is come when a vigorous exertion must be made— that the time is come when it is for the interest of property that property should bear the burden. My opinions may be overruled, and yet I have a confident belief that what occurred in 1835 may occur again; and that after the lapse of a short time—after making ineffectual attempts to repair the deficiency by other means— by resorting to indirect taxation, it will be ultimately acknowledged that the measure which I now propose is founded on reason and justice, and, though once rejected, ought to be adopted. But my conviction is that you, acting in consonance with the prevailing feeling of the country, will now adopt the measure, and that you will thereby give a proof to foreign countries—not that our resources are exhausted—but that you will not draw delusive distinctions between times of war and times of peace, but construe the times according to their necessities; and, disregarding plausible statements, you will, in a great financial exigency, adopt a bold, a direct, and an honest measure, which, so far from being misconstrued by foreign countries, will be hailed by them as a proof that the ancient vigour and energy of this people are yet alive, and that, whatever the difficulties they may be placed in, they are ready to triumph over them by the power of that vigour and that energy.

Lord J. Russell

said, if, as I hope, we are now coming to a decision on this question [Cries of "No!"], well if we are not coming to a decision, though I hope we may come, I shall, however unwillingly, claim the attention of the committee for a short time, promising to confine myself to the question of an Income-tax, and reserving whatever I may have to say with respect to the commercial tariff, on which the right hon. Baronet has found it necessary to make some observations, to some future occasion when the tariff shall be proposed. The right hon. Baronet commenced his speech by some remarks on what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, as to the tone in which the right hon. Baronet addressed the House. If the right hon. Baronet's tone had always been in consonance with the speech he made on the first night when this subject was introduced to the House, or with the speech he has made this night, I do not think my hon. Friend would have felt it necessary to comment on the tone in which the right hon. Baronet addressed the House; but I certainly must confess, that on more than one occasion the tone adopted by the right hon. Baronet justified the observations of my hon. Friend. Let me recall to the recollection of the House what has occurred. The right hon. Baronet certainly could not complain of the reception given to his plan when first announced, and he did not complain of it. A few days afterwards my right hon. Friend who held the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who has a right as much as any person in this House to ask questions with respect to financial measures, ventured to inquire what is the machinery by which this proposed measure is to be carried into effect. The right hon. Baronet not only refused an answer but refused it with a sneer. He produced great party cheers in the House at a time when there could be no discussion. It certainly annoyed and surprised me to find the right hon. Baronet so irritated on such a question; and I inferred, that as his difficulties were far less than Mr. Pitt's, he considered his equanimity might be proportionably less. Whatever may be thought of the principles of Mr. Pitt—and I am not one of his admirers—it must be admitted that in times of the greatest difficulty he did preserve an equanimity and serenity in the conduct of public affairs which was admired in his day, and must be admired by all generations to come. On the next night of the debate the right hon. Baronet was pleased to say, that he knew very well that we, on this side of the House, would oppose any measure he brought forward. That accusation is so puerile and trivial that no answer need be made to it; but it shows the tone and temper in which the right hon. Baronet is disposed to discuss this proposition. Having said, thus much in justification of my hon. Friend, I will now proceed to discuss the proposition before the committee. Now, let it be observed, that the right hon. Baronet has to-night clearly told us what the proposition is to be. We have been told by many persons speaking in support of the measure, that there were certain hardships and inequalities connected with it, and they hoped some changes would be made. The hon. Member for Westmoreland, expressed a hope that some modifications would be made, and that the word of a British merchant ought to be taken without an inquisitorial investigation. The hon. Member for Berkshire also expressed a desire for some modifications. Another hon. Gentleman has shown very clearly the inequality of this proposed tax in certain respects; for he proved, that with respect to an income of 21,700?., 15,000?. of which ought properly to be considered as capital, this being a terminable annuity, and only 6,000?. ought to be considered as income, the tax will fall not on the 6,000l. but on the 21,700l. Other hon. Members have brought under the consideration of the committee different points with respects to life interests. There is an obvious difference between a man making 500?. or 600?. a-year by exertions, which perhaps he could only continue for three years, and a person enjoying the same amount of income from a landed estate or from the funds, which he can transmit to his family. These were inequalities not only pointed out by the opponents, but also by the Friends of the proposition. The right hon. Baronet's answer is, that if such modifications were made, it would be better to abandon the tax altogether. For my part, I confess his reasons on this point are sound reasons. I have stated, before, that I should not join in any vote for the purpose of forcing modifications on the right hon. Baronet, for though I do not expect that a direct opposition to this tax could be successful, yet if I modified it, I should become responsible to a certain degree for it. I should be taking it out of the hands of the right hon. Baronet and producing other inequalities, which I should be totally unable to remedy. If I had felt certain, that there was only one species of inequality, terminable annuities, or anything else that could be remedied by a vote in this House, I should not have objected to the measure on account of those inequalities; but as I do feel that the right hon. Baronet is correct in his argument, that you could not attempt to remedy one inequality without leaving many others, which you will find as varied and as oppressive, I shall not be inclined to vote in favour of any of those modifications. The hon. Member for Bath, who has spoken so ably to-night suggested, and I have seen it suggested elsewhere, that you should take a valuation, as they do in life-insurance offices, with regard to each individual of the capital he possesses, the circumstances of his life, the chances to which it is subject, and the income he enjoys. Why, I agree with the right hon. Baronet, that if you are to attempt to do that which may be done as between life offices and individuals, if you are to do that as between the Government and the whole of the community, you will be doing that which will place the fortunes of the whole of the community at the disposal of the Executive, and will lead to more inquisition, more inequality, than you can possibly remedy. Why, then, I concur in that part of the conclusion, that you must take this proposition as it is— that the committee and the House must be prepared to deal with the proposition as it now stand, but taking it as it now stands, it has every kind of inequality attached to it. Those inequalities you cannot remedy; and when the right hon. Baronet says, that you will only get into fresh difficulty if you alter his proposition, that leads me to a conclusion that you must take the proposition as it now stands. That leads me, I say, to the conclusion, that such inequalities are only tolerable in times of extreme danger to the country— in times of extreme necessity; and for no such danger as now exists, for no such necessity as there is now, ought we to establish by law these inequalities in taxation. The question is, whether there is in the public necessities that which would make you agree to such a tax. The right hon. Baronet stated, in referring to authorities, that there were authorities in favour of such a tax as a permanent tax, but there are authorities likewise on the other side of the question. There were at the conclusion of the war statements made with respect to the intentions of that Government whose acts the right hon. Gentleman is about to copy—I mean the Government of 1806, of which Lord Grey and Lord Grenville were the leaders, and the Marquess of Lansdowne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A discussion took place in the House of Lords, in 1816, upon the statement that was made with regard to the intentions of the Ministers to continue the Income-tax in times of peace. The Marquess of Lansdowne took up that question, and showed very conclusively that all the resolutions in that House, and all the speeches that were made came to an opposite conclusion, and he ended with saying:— He had proposed the continuance of the tax in 1807 as a war-tax strictly, without the least idea of continuing it during peace; and he was now decidedly of opinion, that there was nothing in the domestic situation of the country, nothing in the state of Europe, which called for its continuance, nor could he con-sent, even in the event of an insecure peace, that this tax should be continued. It was only called for by the pressing exigencies of war, and with the war it ought to terminate. Lord Grenville spoke afterwards, and if possible, was more emphatic in his language. His Lordship said,— In this situation their Lordships were told by his Majesty's Government that it was fit to continue the Property-tax, which the noble Earl assured them Parliament had entered into no engagement not to continue. But he appealed to their Lordships and to the country whether, when his Majesty's Government last year submitted to Parliament the expediency of once more enduring that odious and inquisitorial measure, the universal impression was not that it was to be continued only for the war. The right hon. Baronet has found fault with us for calling it an inquisitorial and odious tax, and says, that if you think so you ought at once to reject it; but those were the terms in which Lord Grenville designated this tax. The tax may be odious and inquisitorial—it may be unequal—it may be unjust, but it may be preferable to foreign invasion — to the loss of our independence, to evils hanging over our country; in that sense it might be perfectly justifiable. I think it was justifiable both in Mr. Pitt, by whom it was originally created, and in the Government of 1806, to continue and increase it; but that by no means proves that there is now such a public necessity for this tax. It is almost impossible to compare the two situations of the country. At that time there was the mutiny at the Note, rebellion in Ireland, the republic in France, presenting, as described by Mr. Wyndham, sometimes principles for its arms, and sometimes arms for its principles; and sometimes, like chain-shot, presenting both together. Napoleon was extending the government of France over Switzerland. Italy was within her grasp, and she seemed aiming at the dominion of Europe. At that time this country was obliged to go to war to maintain its independence and power. That was the period at which this tax was imposed. In 1806, Napoleon had succeeded by an astonishing victory in his game of con- quest; he had gained the battle of Jena; the monarchy of Prussia was at his feet; and so arrogant had he become, that terms of peace were hardly to be accepted or concluded. At that time this country was called upon for a renewal and increase of the tax; but is there anything of public necessity now in any way to be compared with that period? It would be almost ridiculous if I were to compare the two. Whatever may be the position of our troops in Affghanistan, whatever may be the expense of the war in China, would it not be absolutely ridiculous if I were to institute a comparison between the circumstances I have just mentioned and those in which the country is now placed. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the war in Affghanistan. No question was ever made in that House of the policy of that war. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, gave a notice of motion upon this subject, but he afterwards withdrew that notice. I do not quote that as any approbation of the war. I only say I think there has been no public disapprobation formally expressed by a minority of this House; but even if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had formally disapproved of that war, I quite concur with him that you must now maintain your power, and make every effort that may be necessary for that purpose. But I have the greatest confidence, although I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in making that effort, that before any reinforcement will reach that country, that the immediate disasters may be repaired by British arms and the commander of the forces there. With respect to China likewise, whatever difficulty you have in obliging the government of that country to form a treaty of peace, this, at least, you may rely on, that no efforts which the Chinese government or their army or navy can make, will at all affect the distant possessions of her Majesty. With respect to these occurrences, I observe a great difference in the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches, according to the purpose immediately in view. When the purpose is to throw blame on the late Government on account of the finances, then the state of lament able deficiency during peace is urged in such language as her Majesty was advised to make use of in her speech. But when the purpose is to make out a case for the Income-tax, then this peace immediately becomes hostilities, and very costly hostilities. You cannot take it both ways; if you take the latter part of the proposition and say, there arc hostilities in Canada, in China, and in Afghanistan, don't make it a matter of blame to us that the usual consequences of hostilities in which this country may be engaged should happen, and that their efforts and naval and military expenditure will exceed your revenue. But if you take it on the other hand, and use common parlance, that which is ordinarily used, and apply the term "at peace," to the great powers of Europe and the United States of America, and say nothing as to the state of France, Austria, Prussia, or the United States, which portend hostilities, and therefore you are at peace, don't tell me that it is on account of dangerous hostilities that you ask for an Income-tax. One at least of these two courses must be taken, and I should hope that you may decide by your vote to-night that we are at peace; that the late Ministers may be blameable for this deficiency in the finances, but being at peace that there is no necessity for this tax. But as I cannot think these distant hostilities form a sufficient ground for an Income-tax, I consider the tax really is imposed on account of a deficiency of two millions and a half in the revenue—it comes simply to that. Sir, I will allow, that during this year, and, perhaps, we may say for three or four more, our establishments will be above our ordinary revenue by about two millions and a half. Now, granting that to be the case of our finances, is it a sufficient ground for imposing the tax? Sir, I think my right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed clearly that it was not. I do not wish to go over the same ground, or advert to the points on which he has not received any answer; but I believe he has shown that about 25,000,000l. of taxes have been reduced; even without reckoning taxes on articles of general consumption—such as salt, leather, &c.: I find hundreds of thousands of pounds have been surrendered at various times upon objects which, I think, now might be again taxed with far less of evil and suffering to the country at large, than with your Income-tax. Sir, I find, in one year, as to taxes on male servants, four-wheeled carriages, two-wheeled carriages, and riding-horses, amounting to no less than 700,000i. have at various times been given up, from the assessed taxes; and I do say it would be a far preferable course to reimpose these taxes, than now to inflict this Income-tax. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman found fault with my right hon. Friend for not estimating, in his account of last year, the increase of the sugar duties. But the right hon. Gentleman compared last year with the year before, a year of remarkable difficulty, and of a deficiency in consumption to the extent of not less than 230,000 cwt.; so that it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made his comparison with a year of ordinary consumption, not with one of remarkably diminished consumption. I think my right hon. Friend was quite correct in saying that, with a moderate duty on corn, with a diminution of the prohibitory duty on sugar, and with a readjustment of the timber-tax, you might secure a very great portion of the requisite addition to your revenue. My right hon. Friend stated it as about 1,700,000l. You might take it at less, but even taking it at less, you would very much diminish the amount of deficit; and, taking the deficiency at 2,500,000l., if my right hon. Friend's calculations be correct, you would only have to provide less than half that amount, or about 1,250,000l, to which, indeed, must be added the amount of your tariff reductions, with respect to some of the articles of which, I think they might be postponed, in consequence of the great loss they will occasion to the revenue, rather than you should resort to the measure you suggest. Sir, the hon. Member for Bath was pleased to say, that in opposing this measure we were hunting after popularity. Now, it is easy, with regard to any subject on which there is a popular opinion, to make out an accusation. On this subject I believe that among the working classes there is an impression —a very unfortunate impression, I think —that this is a tax chiefly to be paid by persons of landed or monied property, and that it will not fall upon the masses of the community. I think, Sir, they will find at some time that if you diminish the means of employment—the means by which the working classes may obtain good wages—yon do as greatly injure those classes as if you imposed a direct tax upon them. But I do not think, Sir, that with regard to the measures which we have supported, we can justly be charged with bunting for popularity. Was it for the sake of popularity that we for so many years contended in favour of the Roman Catholics? Nothing could have been more unfortunate at those times than the Catholic cause; for advocating which, many of us were considered as having a design to bring in the Catholic religion. Then again, as to the New Poor-law: was it for the sake of popularity that we introduced and carried that measure? And if we have introduced and are prepared to contend for measures that may have been unpopular at the time, because our principles led us to the assertion of such measures, I will not shrink from the assertion of others which may be more popular, merely because we are told that popularity, not the good of the country, is our object. It has been my part, in the course of public duty, to advocate sometimes measures to which popular odium attached, and at other times measures of which the public approved. In the case of the Reform Bill, great popularity attached to the course which we pursued; but I was not more in favour of the Reform Bill than I have been of other measures to which no such popularity attached. I shall therefore, Sir, pursue my duty in this House. I believe, with the right hon. Gentleman, that our opposition to this tax will be unsuccessful. But I believe that the people of this country are at present not aware of the nature of the tax—not aware of the nature of the evils which it inflicts—of the inquisitorial nature of its operation, and of the unfairness which is inherent in its nature. I believe, if we assented lightly to the enactment of this tax, that, when its evils came to press upon the people, those who have sent us here would have just ground to reproach us that we had not raised our voices against it. They would say, "We might have been mistaken as to the operation of such a tax, but you who have considered these things—you who have been sent to Parliament in order to consult our interests —you, at least, should have raised your voices in opposition to such a tax; we should not then have had to find that we had been deserted." It is in order that I may have no such reproach upon me, and that those who act with me may not have such a reproach against them, that I am determined to oppose this tax. Come great danger!—come a crisis which shall require the enactment of an unequal, unjust oppressive, and inquisitorial tax, and I know that even these evils will be borne rather than suffer any risk to the honour or independence of the country. But, if you call upon the country to make these efforts when they are not necessary —if you do not reserve your energies for the period when they may be imperatively required—in the days when it may be necessary for you to call for such extraordinary aid, the people may be indisposed to listen to your professions, and they may be more inclined to say, not unnaturally, "Why, in former times you asked us to make these efforts, and upon examination found that no public necessity existed for such exertion," I say, therefore, Sir, do not let us abandon this resource as an aid in times of imminent exigency. Be its evils what they may, it is one of the resources of the country. But, in order that you may preserve your power over it— that you may, whenever it is necessary, be enabled to impose it on the country with universal acquiescence—do not now, in times when there is no danger, call for an effort which the people will soon find to be oppressive; and for the evils of which they will justly reproach you, as having imposed it on them.

Mr. Benjamin Wood

rose to complain of the inequality of the operation of the proposed Income-tax, and the various abuses it would be subject to. He instanced a case which occurred in 1814 or] 815, of a gentleman who carried on very extensive mining works in the county of Cornwall, from which in one year he realised a profit of 25,000i. He also carried on an extensive shipping trade, and in the year in which he had gained 25,000i. from his mines, he lost 25,000i. in the other department of his business. Now, common sense would suggest that the loss in this case should be put against the gain, But it was not so with the Income-tax which then existed. The individual in question was made to pay income-tax on the 25,000l., the profit of his mines, and he had actually paid the 25,000i. for him. Such a tax, working on such principles, he thought that not even war could justify. The right hon. Baronet had said, that he could not raise the sum necessary to make good the deficit in the revenue by any other means than those which he proposed. But he would ask him how much he lost by not adopting the 8s. duty on corn in the year 1841? In that year 2,400,000 quarters of corn were entered at 2s. 8d. of duty, and thus nearly a million of money was lost to the nation not more than eight months ago. He thought that under such circumstances, it was to the last degree improper that the right hon. Baronet should come forward and ask the country to submit to such taxation as he now proposed.

Mr. Cobden

said, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, had that night given certain explanations of his reasons for imposing an Income-tax upon the country. The reasons deserved mature consideration, and recollecting that they were then on the eve of an adjournment, when they would have, in many cases, to meet their constituents—when they would have an opportunity of taking their opinions upon the question, and recollecting too, that that question involved the proposed tariff and also the point of the Corn-laws, although, indeed, the latter question had been separated from it by the right hon. Baronet—recollecting those circumstances he did think that it would be the most convenient course for the House — the most convenient course for the constituents of the Members of that House, if they now adjourned the debate until after Easter. The right hon. Baronet had expressed his conviction that the country was with him on this question. Now, if they had the opportunity of consulting their constituents, and found them, upon so doing, to be in favour of the measure, such a course, he believed, would be productive of a great saving of time in the future discussions which might take place on the question. He, therefore, moved that the chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Vernon Smith

said, that he hoped the House would consider his motive for adopting the course which he intended to pursue on the present occasion. On the last occasion, when a vote of this description was before the House, they had heard nothing in defence of the measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet. On the present occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman had made a speech which, if he had made on Monday last, would have prevented him from voting for the adjournment on that evening. He had entered into the discussion and into the defence of his measure. None of his supporters had spoken, but if he (Sir R, Peel) had chosen to take the labour entirely upon himself, it was not the part of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to complain. They had also heard the speeches of three independent Members of the House who generally supported the right hon. Baronet, but who on this occasion, while they declared against his measure in their speeches, yet announced their intention of supporting it by their votes. Thus their (the Opposition's) position was altered, and he did think that after the occurrences of the evening, they could not say, that there had not been a discussion upon the subject. Instead of receiving answers such as they had obtained; instead of being referred to the act of the Marquess of Lansdowne, when they enquired as to the machinery proposed to be employed in levying the Income-tax, they had heard the views of the right hon. Baronet fully developed upon the subject. He, believed, that under all these circumstances, after the adjournment of the previous evening, which had demonstrated that a minority could prevent a Minister, although backed by ever so powerful a majority, from carrying through a measure in the style in which the right hon. Baronet had attempted to pass his. He thought that, under all these circumstances, they stood in a different position from that which they had occupied, and having himself on the previous evening zealously supported the adjournment, he hoped, that on the present occasion his hon. Friend would not press his motion.

Mr. T. Buncombe

said, that he should support every motion in favour of adjournment, for the same reasons which he had given the other evening, and which if they were valid then, were also valid now. They then asked for an adjournment, in order to allow the country to have time to deliberate upon the proposition before the House, and the country had not yet had that time. But the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated, that they were in a different position from that which they had stood in on Monday evening last. And how was that proposition supported? Why, it appeared, that the right hon. Baronet had spoken. Well, so he had on evenings previous to that of Monday; and he hoped that they should also hear him on many future occasions. But another argument of the hon. Gentleman was, that the House should come to a resolution, because the Gentlemen—in- dependent Members, he believed, the hon. Gentleman called them — had expressed their opinion against the right hon. Baronet's measure, but meant to vote in favour of it. If there was any reason that the House should attend either to these hon. Members' votes, or their speeches, he thought that it might be as well to give them the Easter holidays for deliberation, and after that time had elapsed, it was not unlikely that their votes and their opinions would grow rather more consistent. It might be said, that they would not be placed in a worse position by agreeing to the resolution than that which they now occupied. He did not think so. By agreeing to the resolution, the House was committed to a great principle. What had the hon. Member for Dover, the ex-Governor of the Bank of England said that evening? Why, he had called upon the right hon. Baronet not to flinch—to finish the business that night, and he would stake his valuable existence that the commercial interests would be content with his measure. Well, then, what did the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, say in opposition to the assertion of the ex-Governor of the Bank of England. He said, that the people did not understand the nature of this measure, and upon his showing, therefore, the House ought not to come to a division. Another motion had been made, that the old bill imposing the Income-tax should be reprinted, in order that the people might have an opportunity of seeing the machinery with which it was proposed to work the new bill. Such an operation would take some days to execute. Then he would place the reprint in the hands of the country, allow them to study it well, and he was very sure that the people would not come to the conclusion—that the commercial interest would not come to the conclusion, that the adoption of the Income-tax would tend to their benefit. Looking at the proposed measure in every point of view, looking at the hypocritical pretence that it was for the benefit of the working classes, he would tell them, that the working classes in towns were not misled as some of those in the country might be by the measure—the working classes in the great towns, he repeated, knew the measure of relief which was proposed to be meted out to them. They knew that this was what the Government said to them: "We leave you in the position in which we have found you —we admit that you are in very great distress—we shall leave you to bear it—we shall not lay additional burdens upon your shoulders, but we shall relieve you by bringing down to your level those who are immediately above you." That was the consolation offered to the working classes; the bringing down to the same abyss of misery the classes immediately above them. Did hon. Members opposite believe that would be a consolation to the working classes? Hon. Members might deny the correctness of his assertions, but he reiterated that he spoke the truth, and the country would decide between them. The right hon. Baronet had said that he did not regret—that he did not deprecate the course which had on a previous evening been taken with respect to the motion for adjournment. He, therefore, hoped, that the right hon. Baronet could not regret or deprecate that course now— and, therefore, as the right hon. Baronet could not disapprove of his saying so, be most sincerely hoped his hon. Friend would persevere in his motion.

Viscount Howick

expressed great regret at the course which hon. Members on his side of the House were about to take, for he thought it was not calculated to give effect to the opposition which he in common with them desired to give to the measure. They were told that it was necessary for the country to have time to consider and understand this measure; but, considering that this was only a preliminary resolution, and that the bill was yet to be brought in, the country would have had a much better opportunity of judging of the measure, and the House would have proceeded to the discussion of it with greater advantage had the right hon Baronet been permitted to take a division on a former evening, and to have introduced his bill. He saw no validity, then, in this objection, more especially when he remembered that on a former evening, at the early hour of eleven o'clock, there was a pause in the debate, and no hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to continue it. It was true that the minority might persist in forcing a division upon the question of adjournment; but this was a power which ought to be used cautiously and carefully, and only on very important and necessary occasions. The abuse of this power might lead the House to con- sider the necessity of putting an end to it. Let hon. Gentlemen remember had been done in regard to the presentation of petitions; long and desultory discussions had led to the establishment of a rule for prohibiting discussions on the presentation of petitions. Let hon. Gentlemen consider whether this privilege which the minority possessed ought to be exercised in a manner which might endanger it. If the right hon. Baronet found it necessary to divide against the motion for the adjournment, he should vote with him.

Mr. Wakley

would not attempt to say anything new upon the subject; he was aware that he could not do so. But he rose to speak in support of the adjournment solely on public grounds. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet was one of such enormous magnitude, either for good or for evil to the country, that he really thought the majority ought most willingly to consent to the adjournment, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would accede to it. It was only on Friday se'nnight that the proposition was made, therefore the country could not have had time to consider it. Did hon. Gentlemen believe that it was popular with the working classes? He would read to them a paragraph or two from an address to the working classes published in the Northern. Star newspaper. [" Oh, oh."] Why, that paper was read by thousands of the working classes. What was the language? [" Date, date."] March 19th, and it was written by Mr. Feargus O'Connor. [" Oh, oh.] Why, he was a leader of the millions of the working classes. [Laughter.] Let hon, Gentlemen consider the sort of language which was addressed to the labouring people:— But here is the important point of Sir R. Peel's budget" (says Mr. O'Connor)—"he admits live-stock into this country at a mere nominal duty, 1l. for an ox, 15s. for a cow, and 10s. for a calf, which in Parliamentary language means a young beast. There was a prohibition to this description of stock before, except for breed, at an immense high duty. He also admits salt and cured meat at a duty of 1d. per pound. Now, this is the wedge. The effect of this will be, that cattle both fat and store will be sent from Holland, Belgium, and parts of France, at one-half the present price. A Dutchman or a Frenchman can pay the duty and freight and send cattle into the English market at a much cheaper rate than Scotchmen and Englishmen, living at a great distance from the market, and Irishmen can; and America can send us store provisions for much less than half the present price; in fact, if I were asked to frame a bill for the complete and entire dissolution of society as at present constituted, agricultural, manufacturing, commercial, trading, governmental, fiscal, moral, and physical, I should say, I would not make a single alteration in the budget of the right hon. Baronet. It will sponge the debt; break the landlords; pay off the creditors. Now, seeing that this kind of language was addressed to the labouring people by those who had influence over them, would the right hon. Baronet urge on his measure with such indecent haste?

Mr. Curteis

raised his voice for the purpose, he said, of stating in justification of the vote he should give in favour of the adjournment, that he had received a letter from a gentleman connected with the agricultural interest, Mr. Selmes, a gentleman well known to the hon. Member for East Surrey and to the public as a competitor with Earl Spencer in the show of cattle; that gentleman declared that the measure of the right hon. Baronet had created quite a panic in his neighbourhood, and that he would sooner have a perfectly free-trade in corn than the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. That gentleman went on to state that the people in his locality were preparing to oppose the measure with all their might. If the hon. Member divided the House, he would vote for the adjournment, and he should consider that he was perfectly justified in doing so. He would not give his vote to embarrass the right hon. Baronet; but as his constituents were conferring on the subject of the tariff, he thought it was his duty to obtain as much time as he possibly could for them. If the House would listen to him for a moment, he could show the right hon. Baronet that his propositions had created a panic throughout the agricultural districts respecting the admission of foreign stock. His constituents were deeply interested in the matter, for they were removed only six hours from the port of Boulogne, and in that short time the port of Rye might be filled with foreign beasts. If he could find only ten hon. Members to go out with him, he would remain and divide the House till that time to-morrow.

Mr. M. Gibson

wished merely to correct a misapprehension under which the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland seemed to labour. When the motion was made the other night for the adjournment it was not because there were not plenty of Gentlemen ready to speak to the question before the House—the reason why they did not was because the hon. Member who moved the adjournment first caught the eye of the Chairman, and the others left the House. He really thought the hon. Member for Stockport had made a most reasonable proposition, and he would vote for the adjournment. They were told that they would have other opportunities for debating the question; but when the House had voted upon the resolution, they would have committed themselves, and they ought not to do that without giving the country time to express an opinion upon it.

The committee divided on the question that the Chairman report progress:—Ayes 87; Noes 290: Majority 203.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Humphery, Mr. Aid,
Bannerman, A. Jardine. W.
Barnard, E. G. Johnston, A.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Leader, J. T.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Marjoribanks, S.
Bernal, R. Marshall, W.
Blewitt, R. J. Martin, J.
Bowring, Dr. Maule, right hon. F.
Brocklehurst, J. Morris, D.
Brodie, W. B. Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.
Brotherton, J. Murray, A.
Bryan, G. Napier, Sir C.
Busfeild, W. O'Brien, C.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S. O'Brien, J.
Cave, hon. R. O. O'Connell, M. J.
Colborne, hn.W.N.R. Ogle, S. C. H.
Colebroke, Sir T. E. Paget, Col.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Pechell, Capt.
Craig, W. G. Philips, M.
Curteis, H. B. Pinney, W.
Dalmeny, Lord Plumridge, Capt.
Dalrymple, Capt. Powell, C.
Dashwood, G. H. Power, J.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Pulsford, R.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. Rennie, G.
C.T. Ricardo, J. L.
Duncan, G. Russell, Lord E.
Dundas, Admiral Scott, R.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Scrope, G. P.
Easthope, Sir J. Seale, Sir J. H.
Ellis, W. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Elphinstone. H. Smith, B.
Ferguson, Col. Somers, J. P.
Fitzroy, hon. C. Stuart, W. V.
Gibson, T. M. Strutt, E.
Granger, T. C. Thornely, T.
Hall, Sir B. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Harris, J. Q. Tufnell, H.
Hastie, A. Villiers, hon. C. P.
Hawes, B. Villiers, F.
Howard, hn. J. K. Wakley, T.
Ward, H. G. Wood, G. W.
Wason, R.
Wilde, Sir T. TELLERS.
Williams, W. Cobden, R.
Wood, B. Duncombe, T.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Chetwode, Sir J.
A'Court, Capt. Childers, J. W.
Acton, Col. Cholmondeley, hn. H
Adare, Visct. Christmas, W,
Adderley, C. B. Christopher, R A.
Aldam, W. Chute, W. L. W.
Alford, Visct. Clayton, R. R.
Allix, J. P. Clerk, Sir G.
Antrobus, E. Clive, hon. R. H.
Arbuthnott, hn. H. Cochrane, A.
Archdall, M. Cockburn, rt.hn.SirG
Arkwright, G. Collett, W. R.
Ashley, Lord Compton, H. C
Astell, W. Coote, Sir C. H.
Attwood, M. Copeland, Mr. Ald.
Bagot, hon. W. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Bailey, J. Courtenay, Visct.
Bailey, J., jun. Cripps, W.
Baillie, Col. Crosse, T. B.
Baird, W. Damer, hon. Col.
Balfour, J. M. Darby, G.
Bankes, G. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Barclay, D. Denison, J. E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Dickinson, F. H.
Baring, rt. hon. F.T. Disraeli, B.
Barrington, Visct. Dodd, G.
Beckett, W. Douglas, Sir H.
Benett, J. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Douglas, J. D. S.
Beresford, Major Douro, Marquess of
Bernard, Visct. Duke, Sir J.
Blackburne, J. I. Duncombe, hon. A.
Blackstone, W. S. Duncombe, hon. O.
Bodkin, W. H. Du Pre, C. G.
Boldero, H. G. East, J. B.
Borthwick, P. Eaton, R. J.
Botfield, B. Ebrington, Visct.
Bradshaw, J. Egerton, W. T.
Bramston, T. W. Egerton, Sir P.
Broadley, H. Egerton, Lord F.
Broadwood, H. Eliot, Lord
Browne, hon. W. Emlyn, Visct.
Brownrigg, J. S. Escott, B.
Bruce, Lord E. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bruce, C. L. C. Farnham, E. B.
Buckley, E. Fellowes, E.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Buller, C. Filmer, Sir E.
Buller, E. Fitzroy, Capt.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Bunbury, T. Fleming, J. W.
Burroughes, H.N. Ffolliott, J.
Byng, G. Forester, hn. G. C.W.
Campbell, Sir II. Forster, M.
Cardwell, E. Fuller, A. E.
Carnegie, hon. Capt Gaskell, J. Milnes
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Cavendish, hn.G. H. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Chapman, B. Gore, M.
Chelsea, Visct. Gore, W. O.
Gore, W. R. O. Martin, T. B.
Goring, C. Martyn, C. C.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Master, T. W. C.
Granby, Marquess of Masterman, J.
Greenall, P. Maunsell, T. P.
Gregory, W. H. Meynell, Capt.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Milnes, R. M.
Grimsditch, T. Mitchell, T. A.
Grimston, Visct. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hale, R. B. Morgan, O.
Halford, H. Morison, General
Hamilton, W. J. Morrison, J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Mundy, E. M.
Harcourt, G. G. Murray, C. R. S.
Hardinge.rt.hn.SirH. Neeld, J.
Hardy, J. Neville, R.
Hawkes, T. Nicholl, right hon. J.
Hayes, Sir E. Norreys, Lord
Heathcote, Sir W. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Heneage, G. H. W. Northland, Visct.
Heneage, E. O'Brien, A. S.
Henley, J. W. O'Brien, W. S.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Ossulston, Lord
Herbert, hon. S. Owen, Sir J.
Hobhouse, rt.hn.Sir J. Packe, C. W.
Hodgson. R. Paget, Lord W,
Hogg, J. W. Palmer, R.
Holdsworth, J. Palmerston, Visct.
Houldsworth, T. Patten, J. W.
Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hope, hon. C. Peel, J.
Hope, G. W. Pemberton, T.
Hornby, J. Pigot, Sir R.
Howick, Visct. Polhill, F.
Hutt, W. Pollock, Sir F.
Ingestre, Visct. Ponsonby, hn. C.F.A.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Ponsonby, hn. J. G.
Jermyn, Earl Pringle, A.
Johnson, W. G. Protheroe, E.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Pusey, P.
Jones, Capt. Rashleigh, W.
Kemble, H. Rawdon, Col.
Knatchbull, right hon. Reade, W. M.
Sir E. Reid, Sir J. R.
Knight, H. G. Repton, G. W. J.
Knight, F.W. Richards, R.
Knightley, Sir C. Rose, rt; hon. Sir G.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Round, C. G.
Langston, J.H. Round, J.
Law, hon. C. E. Rushbrooke, Col.
Lawson, A. Russell, Lord J.
Legh, G. C. Russell, C.
Leicester, Earl of Russell, J. D. W.
Lincoln, Earl of Ryder, hon. G. D.
Lockhart, W. Sandon, Visct.
Lowther, J. H. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Lyall,G. Scott, hon. F.
Lygon, hon. General Seymour, Sir H. B.
Macaulay, rt. hn.T.B. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
M'Geachy, F. A. Shirley, E. P.
Mahon, Visct. Sibthorp, Col.
Mainwaring, T. Smith, A.
Mangles, R. D. Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Manners, Lord J. Somerset, Lord G.
March, Earl of Somerton, Visct.
Marsham, Visct. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Martin, C. W. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Stanley, Lord Vernon, G. H.
Stanton, W. H. Villiers, Visct.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Vivian, J. E.
Stewart, J. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Stuart, H. Wilshere, W.
Sturt, H. C. Wodehouse, E.
Sutton, hon.H.M. Wood, C.
Tancred, H.W. Wood, Col.
Taylor, J. A. Wood, Col.
Tennent, J.E. Worsley Lord
Thompson, Mr. Ald. Wortley, hon J. S.
Thornhill, G. Wrightson, W. B.
Tollemache, hn. F J. Wyndham, Col
Tollemache, J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Tomline, G. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Trench, Sir F. W. Young, J.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Young, Sir W.
Trotter, J.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. TELLERS.
Vere, Sir C. B. Fremantle, Sir T.
Verner, Col. Baring, H.

On the question being again put,

Mr. H. Berkeley

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Mr. Curteis

appealed to the right hon. Baronet to know whether they were to remain there, as once on the occasion of the Reform Bill, till the sun shone upon them in the morning? There was no discourtesy meant, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would yield.

The Committee again divided. Ayes 84; Noes 225: Majority 141.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Easthope, Sir J.
Bannerman, A. Ellis, W.
Barnard, E. G. Elphinstone, H.
Bernal, R. Ferguson, Col
Blewitt, R.J. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bowring, Dr. Gibson, T M.
Brocklehurst, J. Granger, T. C.
Brodie, W. B. Hall, Sir B.
Brotherton, J. Harris, J. Q.
Bryan, G. Hastie, A.
Busfeild, W. Hawes, B.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Howard, hon. J. K.
Cave, hon. R. O. Jardine, W.
Chapman, B. Johnstone, A.
Cobden, R. Leader, J. T.
Colborne, hon.W.N.R. Marjoribanks, S.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Marshall, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Martin, J.
Craig, W. G. Maule, right hon. F.
Dalmeny, Lord Morison, Gen.
Dalrymple, Capt. Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.
Dashwood, G. H. Murray, A.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Napier, Sir C.
D'Eyncourt right. hon. C. T O'Brien, C.
O'Brien, J.
Duff, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Duncan, G. Ogle, S. C. H.
Duncombe, T. Pechell, Capt.
Dundas, Admiral Philips, M.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Pinney, W.
Plumridge, Capt. Strutt, E.
Powell, C. Thornely.T.
Power, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pulsford, R. Tufnell, H.
Rennie, G. Villiers, hon. C. P.
Ricardo, J. L. Villiers, F.
Russell, Lord E. Wakley, T.
Scott, R. Wason, R.
Scrope, G. P. Williams, W.
Seale, Sir J. H. Wood, B.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wood, G. W.
Smith, B. TELLERS.
Somers, J. P. Berkeley, hon. H. F.
Stuart, W. V. Curteis, H. B.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Clive, hon. R. H.
Acton, Col. Cockburn, rt.hn.SirG.
Adare, Visct. Collett, W. R.
Adderley, C. B. Compton, H. C.
Aldam, W. Copeland, Mr. Aid.
Alford, Visct. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Allix, J. P. Courtenay, Visct.
Antrobus, E. Cripps, W.
Archdall, M. Crosse, T. B.
Arkwright, G. Damer, hon. Col.
Ashley, Lord Darby, G.
Astell, W. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Bagot, hon. W. Dickinson, F. H.
Bailey, J. Dodd, G.
Bailey, J., jun. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Baillie, Col. Douglas, J. D. S.
Bankes, G. Duke, Sir J.
Baring, hon. W. B. Duncombe, hon. A.
Barrington, Visct. Duncombe, hon. O.
Beckett, W. Du Pre.C.G.
Benett, J. East, J. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Eaton, R. J.
Beresford, Major Egerton, Lord F.
Bernard, Visct. Eliot, Lord
Blackburne, J. I. Emlyn, Visct
Blackstone, W. S. Escott, B.
Bodkin, W. H. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Boldero, H. G. Farnham, E. B.;
Borthwick, P. Fellowes, E.
Botfield, B. Filmer, Sir E.
Bradshaw, J. Fitzroy, Capt.
Broadley, H. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Broad wood, H. Fleming, J. W.
Browne, hon. W. Ffolliott, J.
Brownrigg, J. S. Forester, hn. G. C. W.
Bruce, Lord E. Fuller, A. E.
Bruce, C. L. C. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Buckley, E. Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bunbury, T. Gore, M.
Burroughes, H. N. Gore, W. R. O.
Cardwell, E. Goring, C.
Cavendish, hon.C. C. Graham, rt.hon. SirJ.
Chelsea, Visct. Granby, Marquess of
Chetwode, Sir J. Greenall, P.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Gregory, W. H.
Christmas, W. Grimsditch, T.
Christopher, R. A. Grimston, Visc.
Chute, W. L. W. Hale, R. B.
Clayton, R. R. Halford, H.
Clerk, Sir G. Hamilton, W. J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Packe, C. W.
Hardinge, rt.hn.SirH. Paget, Lord W.
Hardy, J. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hawkes, T. Peel, J.
Hayes, Sir E. Pemberton, T.
Heathcote, Sir W. Pigot, Sir R.
Heneage, G. H. W. Polhill, F.
Heneage, E. Pringle, A.
Henley, J. W. Protheroe, E.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Pusey, P.
Herbert, hon. S. Rashleigh, W.
Hodgson, R. Rawdon, Col.
Houldsworth, T. Reade, W. M.
Holmes, hon. W.A'Ct. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hope, hon. C. Repton, G. W. J.
Hope, G. W. Richards, R.
Hornby, J. Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Ingestre, Visct. Round, C. G.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Round, J.
Jermyn, Earl Rushbrooke, Col.
Johnson, W. G. Russell, C.
Jones, Capt. Russell, J. D. W.
Kemble, H. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E. Scott, hon. F.
Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Knight, H. G. Shirley, E. P.
Knight, F. W. Sibthorp, Col.
Knightley, Sir C. Somerset, Lord G.
Langston, J. H. Somerton, Visct.
Law, hon. C. E. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Lawson, A. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Legh, G. C. Stanley, Lord
Leicester, Earl of Stewart, J.
Lincoln, Earl of Stuart, H.
Lockhart, W. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lowther, J. H. Tancred, H. W.
Lyall, G. Taylor, J. A.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Tennent, J. E.
McGeachy, F. A. Thompson, Mr. Aid.
Mainwaring, T. Thornhill, G.
Manners, Lord J. Tomline, G.
March, Earl of Trevor, hon. G. R.
Marsham, Visct. Trotter, J.
Martin, C. W. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Martin, T. B. Vere, Sir C. B.
Martyn, C. C. Verner, Col.
Master, T. W. C. Vernon, G. H.
Masterman, J. Villiers, Visct.
Maunsell, T. P. Vivian, J. E.
Meynell, Capt. Wilbraham, hon. R.B.
Milnes, R. M. Wilshere, W.
Mitchell, T. A. Wodehouse, E.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Wood, Col.
Morgan, O. Worsley, Lord
Mundy, E. M. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Murray, C. R. S. Wyndham, Col. C.
Neeld, J. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Neville, R. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Young, J.
Norreys, Lord Young, Sir W.
Northland, Visct.
O'Brien, A. S. TELLERS.
O'Brien, W. S. Fremantle, Sir T.
Owen, Sir J. Baring, H.

On the question being again put,

Mr. Bernal moved, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Sir R. Peel

said, there had been two divisions the other night on this question, and he thought the time had arrived when the House might with propriety either affirm or reject the resolutions. The sense of the House had been sufficiently manifested. He must foresee the necessary termination of such a contest, but he protested against such a course of proceeding. He thought he might he allowed to bring in the bill, that the House might see the machinery by which he proposed to move some of the causes of complaint. No inferences could be drawn by reference to the act of 1806, and it would be far better to have the bill before them. Foreseeing, however, as he had stated, how such a contest must inevitably end, he would not trouble the House by pressing another division.

Mr. W. Cowper

was understood to say, that they had at last gained the advantage of allowing their constituents to express their opinion. He, for one, had received from his constituents their impressions upon the subject; and he believed every constituency, when they had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the details of the measure, would unequivocally express their sentiments against it. He, therefore, should vote to give them the utmost time to consider it.

Mr. Cobden

was anxious to prevent the spread of a misapprehension which might possibly go forth upon the statement just made by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet threw upon the Opposition the responsibility of the delay which would be occasioned by their not coming to a division upon the resolution that night. He apprehended that it would not be competent to the right hon. Baronet to bring in his bill, even if the House had allowed the vote upon the main question to be taken. The House at its rising was to adjourn till Monday the 4th of April: the resolution, therefore, if adopted by the House, could not be reported; and for the same reason no bill founded upon it could be introduced. It was only just to the country and to the hon. Gentleman who had voted for the adjournment, to observe, that no real delay was occasioned in the progress of the measure by the course which had been adopted.

Colonel Sibthorp

could entertain no doubt as to what was the real object of he hon. Gentlemen opposite. If he mistook not one of them, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Fox Maule), had had the frankness to declare that his object in protracting the debate on this resolution was delay and not discussion.

Mr. Fox Maule,

having been thus directly alluded to, had no hesitation in declaring that he did, on Monday last, state that delay in this matter was his primary object. He had voted in accordance with that statement, and would not now stultify himself by taking any other course. A majority of the House might assume to itself the office of accusers upon the point of faction. A majority of the House might charge a minority with factious motives. He was quite willing to refer that point to the judgment of his constituents. He hoped to be amongst them in the course of eight-and-forty hours, and he was under no apprehension of receiving a rebuke from them for the votes he had given upon this subject.

The question that the Chairman do report progress, agreed to.

The House resumed: the Chairman reported progress. The Committee to sit again on Monday, the 4th of April.

House adjourned to April 4th.