HC Deb 26 May 1848 vol 98 cc1422-3

On the Motion that the House should go into Committee of Supply,

MR. EWART rose to move— That the present system of disproportionate indirect taxation is injurious to the commerce and manufactures and unjust to the working classes of this country. That the establishment of a more direct system of taxation on realised property would relieve trade and manufactures, and be eventually beneficial to all classes of the community. He felt deep disappointment that, during the course of last year, Her Majesty's Government had not thought proper to consider the question, which claimed their full consideration, as much as any that could be brought before them. The example of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who had made such useful and extensive alteration, should stimulate them to follow it up; but he regretted to say they had not done so, while it was evident the public were fully alive to the importance of the subject. In Manchester and Liverpool societies were organised for the express purpose of reforming the present system of taxation; and the Committees of the House, who had considered the question, had reported in favour of direct taxation, more particularly those which had been appointed to inquire into the tobacco and tea trade, and that which reported on our relations with China last year. The general feeling of the country was against the excise duties; and the people thought the time must soon come when the oppressive effects they exercised on the manufactures of the country should be fully and fairly considered. Many of those duties had been abolished; and he trusted to hear from Her Majesty's Government that they were about to take off the shoulders of the people such a strong cause of discontent as those which yet remained. It was from a deep conviction that the Government would bring in no measure to benefit the people, so much as that which would prove a practical reform of a practical grievance, that he had placed this Motion on the Votes of the House, and thus called the attention of the Government to this most important subject.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER must do the hon. Member the justice to say, that he had been uniformly the advocate of his present opinions; for himself, he agreed with the hon. Member in thinking it highly desirable to obtain a practical result from any measure which might be introduced, rather than an empty discussion; hut the hon. Gentleman would remember that during the last two years very large reductions in indirect taxation had been effected, and that the measures which had since been passed on this subject had been in the shape of direct taxation. It was hardly necessary to say the measures of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had relieved this country from many kinds of indirect taxation; but he could not say that the plan of direct taxation he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed had been so fortunate as to secure the approbation of the House, nor had he, on that occasion, such a prospect of success as could induce him to bring in any large measure of a similar character. He preferred the reduction of duties to their total abolition; but, in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member, he could only say it was not in his power to hold out any expectation of a reduction in the amount of direct or of indirect taxation. He was not prepared to make a retrograde step, for he did not approve of it, but at the same time, he could not go forward.

Question not put.