Sitting of 28 April 1851

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Leith, James Moncreiff, Esq.; for Boston, James William Freshfield, Esq.; for Cork, Francis Stack Murphy, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Customs; Inhabited House Duty.
3° Stamp Duties Assimilation; Exchequer Bills (17,756,600 l.; Indemnity.

PROPERTY TAX BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to explain why he could not give his consent to the second reading of the measure. This tax was called a tax upon property. If it were so, some of the objections he entertained to it might be removed; but it was
288
a tax upon income, pressing most unequally upon many of the great interests of the country. In 1842 the late Sir Robert Peel, in proposing the tax, said he trusted that by its imposition, and the relaxation of other taxes, general prosperity would be so restored that they would be enabled at the end of three years to do without the property tax; and throughout the whole of the debate on that occasion the idea of its being a permanent tax was scouted by every class and party in that House. It was true that Sir Robert Peel, though he only asked the House to grant the tax for three years, said it might possibly be necessary to extend it for two or three years beyond that time. That necessity did arise; in 1845 the revenue was not in a state which would justify the withdrawal of the tax, and, under the same limitations, and with the same declarations against its permanency, the tax was granted for three years more, expiring in 1848. In that year they had the Irish famine, and the distress occasioned by that commercial policy which in his humble opinion had been most injurious, and the House again consented that the property tax should be imposed for another term of three years, under the repeated and almost universal declaration that it was not to be a permanent tax. He asked the House whether any of those circumstances existed now under which the renewal of the tax was then requested? Was there any great emergency existing at this moment—any large deficiency in income, or any great pressure upon the Exchequer, which made it necessary that the tax should be reimposed? If they did again consent to the property tax, except under such emergency, would they not virtually declare that the tax should be permanent? The House had denied its assent to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), which merely declared that the tax when first imposed was not meant to be permanent, and called upon the House to recognise that pledge, and to provide that a reduction should take place in the property tax, with a view to its ultimate repeal. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had also reminded them that there was one important interest, upon the prosperity of which the Government had admitted that they could not congratulate that House and the country. The Government could tender condolence; but when asked to give this subject consideration with a view to some practical relief to this

289
suffering class, the Motion was negatived. To sanction the second reading of this Bill under such circumstances as those above stated, would be putting a seal to the permanence of the tax. What was the nature of this tax? He (Mr. Spooner) would not ask the House to take his representation of it, but would furnish the opinions of others. What said the late Francis Horner in 1815?—and the name of that talented man would doubtless have great weight with Gentlemen opposite. He said—
"He regarded the property tax as not more injurious to the commercial than to all the other great interests in which the safety and stability of the State were involved. … … The opinions of the House had not long since been divided upon a measure intended for the relief of the agricultural interest; but there was then no dispute as to the fact of the distress which existed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was now about to establish, without any modification, an imposition which in their flourishing condition was found grievous and oppressive, and which, therefore, in their present circumstances of embarrassment must prove odious and intolerable. … … If rent was in some years a fair criterion of farming profits, it could not be fair in a year during which there were no profits. … … The Chancellor of the Exchequer might turn a deaf ear to the complaints against a measure not more injurious to individuals than dangerous to the true interests of the State; but he would venture to predict that those complaints would soon reach him in a far different tone, and in a tone far less desirable with a view to the general advantage of the country."—[1 Hansard, xxxi. 161.]
The same must be said now; there was a spirit of opposition to this tax rising in the country that would be carried much farther than the Government contemplated, and might involve consequences greatly to be deprecated. What said the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in 1845? He said then that he had always been accustomed to consider the income tax as a tax necessary for the carrying on an arduous and costly war, but a tax subject to some of the strongest objections that could be urged against any tax; and he added, "I have always been of opinion that inequality, vexation, and fraud were inherent in such a tax." The noble Lord stated some of the inequalities:—
"No man could say that a person who had an income drawn from a landed estate, or from the funds, which he could leave to his children entire, was in the same position as a surgeon, or an artist, whose bread depended upon his health, and who, by the loss of a limb or a defect of sight, might be deprived in a moment of the means of earning any income at all. …. Great vexation was inseparable from this tax; a person engaged in
290
trade must either submit to the payment demanded of him, or show all his accounts to the parties appointed by the Government."
With regard to the fraud and evasion practised, the noble Lord said no one concerned or connected with this tax could deny it.
"The man of the most integrity, who gave his returns fairly, was subject to the greatest imposition; while those who wished to evade it, either found the means of doing so, or entangled themselves and the Government in the most expensive proceedings."—[3 Hansard, lxxvii. 543.]
That was the language in which the noble Lord had spoken in the year 1845 of a tax which he himself at that moment proposed for the adoption of the House. He (Mr. Spooner) asked the House to pause before they gave their consent to a scheme which the noble Lord had so powerfully and so justly denounced. He had himself acted for many years as an Income Tax Commissioner, and he could tell the noble Lord that he had not exaggerated the evils of which that tax was productive. He knew many persons who bad submitted to pay more than their fair share of the burthen, rather than allow the real state of their incomes to become known; and he felt persuaded that if the House knew as much of the operation of the system as the Commissioners necessarily knew, they would pause before they voted for its continuance. All the leading Members of the party opposite had at various times proclaimed their hostility to the tax. In the year 1845 the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in the course of a very short but a very able speech, had spoken as follows:—
"If they had the melancholy prospect of its being a permanent tax, it would be their duty to endeavour to diminish the inequalities; but he, hoping the right hon. Gentleman had some grounds for being sincere in what he had announced as to duration, should not be disposed to remove the vexations; for the more they were felt the more likely would they be to get rid of the tax altogether."—[3 Hansard, lxxvii. 572.]
He (Mr. Spooner) should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet still retained the same opinions upon that subject which he had expressed in the year 1845? He should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet still thought it advisable that they should leave the tax unchanged, with all its imperfections, in order that they might the sooner get rid of it altogether? The next testimony he should quote upon the subject was that of a distinguished Member of the present Government, who now filled the office of Secretary of State

291
for the Colonies. That noble Earl, while occupying a seat in the House of Commons as Lord Howick, had spoken of the tax as follows:—
"This, according to the arguments that were used, ought to be the object of altering the mode of levying the tax; but he believed the best mode of arriving, in fact, at this result was by adopting a well-considered system of taxation upon expenditure and upon articles of consumption. He did not believe that they could so well apportion the amount of burthen which ought to Fall on each member of the community in any other way. Each man knew what he could fairly expend, and if they placed the taxes on expenditure, and not upon income, they would be much nearer arriving at a correct result than by any other means. This he conceived to be the proper theory of taxation; and that to impose a tax upon income or property was obviously unjust. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the income tax should be confined to the greatest emergencies—that was, to a time of war, or to a state of things equivalent to war in time of peace. It was the duty of that House so to frame the taxation of the country that it should fall on the expenditure, and in such a manner that all classes, from the highest to the lowest, should contribute in just proportion."—[3 Hansard, lxxviii. 558.]
He (Mr. Spooner) should be glad to be informed whether the noble Earl and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government had changed their views upon that question; and if so, what were the reasons they had to give for that change? It should be remembered that they had at present no war, and that they had a surplus income at their disposal. But the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies had gone still further, and had asked "whether any one ought to be required to submit to the tax with that unsatisfactory state of things before him?" He had next a quotation to make from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to that quotation he should beg to call the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman, for he could assure him that it was calculated to contribute very much to his edification. The right hon. Gentleman had used the following language in the year 1845:—
"So far from its pressing exclusively on the rich, it pressed on the labouring classes, diminishing the means of employment. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could think that it bore exclusively on the rich; because, if so, why did he not impose it on Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was only to be imposed in time of great necessity; and if imposed it would be unjust if not imposed on Ireland as well as on England.".—[3 Hansard, lxxvii. 583.]
After that former statement of the right hon. Gentleman, could he say at present
292
that he believed the tax pressed exclusively on the rich; and if he did believe that it so pressed, why should he exempt Ireland from its operation? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly to the House his opinions upon that matter. He (Mr. Spooner) would warn the Irish Members that this country would not much longer submit to the exemption of Ireland from the tax; because, although there was much poverty and distress in many districts of that country, he had no hesitation in saying that in many districts of England distress was greatly increasing, and threatened at no distant time to equal that of Ireland. He could tell the House that hundreds of acres in this country were at present without tenants; and in making that statement he referred more particularly to the county of Sussex. He appealed to Gentlemen from that county whether it was not a fact that there were at present large districts there out of cultivation, because they could no longer be cultivated with a profit? There were many districts in this country where the poor-rates were confiscating the produce of the soil; and he said that although the poverty of Ireland bad been hitherto urged as a good excuse for exempting that country from the tax, the poverty of England would soon neutralise that excuse if the state of this country should continue long unchanged, he should next read an extract from a speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes). He was then in the cold regions of opposition, not dazzled by place, nor with the comforts he now enjoyed, with a fellow-feeling for those on whom the income tax pressed. He was glad to find that in the extracts he was about to adduce, his hon. Friend agreed with him not only in his objections to the income tax, but also in his disapproval of the Bank Bill of 1844. His hon. Friend had used the following language in the year 1845:—
"He believed the income tax—and, if he might be permitted to add, the measure of the right hon. Baronet with regard to banking—were calculated to injure rather than to increase the prosperity of the country; and while he admitted that other measures of the right hon. Baronet were calculated to produce advantages hereafter, he should again repeat that he did not think they had been as yet productive of any perceptible benefit to 'the revenue, while he considered the income tax to be an impost which must of necessity cause material injury to the country, as well to the labouring classes as to those who had to contribute to it. He concluded by expressing his intention to vote in favour of the Amendment."

293
His hon. Friend had on the same occasion spoken as follows:—
"There was nothing produced such injurious consequences to industry as a tax upon capital. He considered that any over-taxation of capital was infinitely more mischievous in its results than the taxation of any of the great articles of consumption. It was productive of serious injury to the commercial prosperity of the country." [3 Hansard, lxxviii. 348.]
He knew not whether his hon. Friend had since changed his opinions upon that subject; but if he had, he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that his hon. Friend would enlighten the House with respect to the reasons for that great change. Under that tax honest men frequently paid too much, and those whose consciences were less nice escaped payment altogether. It often happened, too, that men whose credit was rather tottering and uncertain, paid the tax, although they really did not possess the necessary income, in order to avoid the possible danger of making known their real condition. Then, again, he believed that the present mode of assessing the tax on farmers was peculiarly unjust and unreasonable. Farmers were assessed to the tax in proportion to their rents; but the rents which they paid afforded no criterion of their profits. A farmer, cultivating inferior land and paying a low rent, might reasonably be supposed to enjoy as large a profit as a farmer cultivating better land and paying a higher rent; for, in a country like this, he who paid the high rent did so because from the productive nature of the soil he had less to pay for labour and for artificial manure; he who paid the lower rent did so because, from the unproductive nature of the soil, his expenses in labour and in artificial manure were greatly enhanced, thus equalising profits and destroying rent as a criterion of profit. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had shown in the year 1848 how severely the tax pressed on the landowner, while replying to the statement of some hon. Gentlemen who had contended that it fell with excessive severity on the manufacturer. The right hon. Gentleman had said—
"The gentleman in Schedule A derives his income from the land, and the tax is taken from his tenants by the collector in the first instance. No deduction is made on account of expenditure on the estate. It is immaterial whether the landlord gets his rent or not, the tax must be paid. There are many Gentlemen in this House who are able to state what per centage should be put upon an
294
estate for repairs which is to be deducted from the rent. The result of my own experience, corroborated by the information which I have received, leads me to believe that I shall not overstate the amount deducted from rent for repairs, &c., borne by the landlord, at 20 per cent on the whole. If that be correct, it is evident that a man who pays 30 l. income tax for a nominal rent of 1,000 l., puts in his pocket only 170 l." [3 Hansard, xcvii. 1032.]
Thus said the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1848. But he (Mr. Spooner) asked, how stands the case with the fundholder or mortgagee? Upon 1,000 l. a year he pays 30 l. a year to Government, and puts into his pocket, clear of all deduction 970 l. Now, he (Mr. Spooner) would ask, will the country Gentlemen permit this inequality to remain? He could not think it possible that they would so accept it; and, in addition, the tax paid by the farmer in reality fell on the landlord, at least in the case of all lands let since its imposition; because the tenant naturally deducted from the value of those lands the amount of the tax he was bound to pay. In the year 1833 the late Sir R. Peel, in speaking of the budget of Lord Althorp, had used the following language:—
"It hardly could be contended that, if a property tax were established, Ireland ought to be exempted from its operation, He wished to see Ireland as much favoured as possible consistently with justice; but to impose a tax on England and Scotland, and to exempt Ireland, would in his opinion, however unpopular that opinion might be, be extremely unjust." [3 Hansard, xvii. 344.]
There was one more authority he should quote, that of Lord Stanley—a statesman whose opinions the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, he was sure, respect, however he might differ from them. In the year 1848, Lord Stanley had spoken as follows:—
"If the House of Commons was not determined to keep up the revenue beyond the expenditure, and consented on the first appearance of surplus to take of other taxes, it would be idle and useless to say this was a temporary tax, for the country would find, in the absence of a surplus, that it would be permanently saddled with that which he felt to be a most dangerous thing to the public interests, namely, a permanent amount of direct taxation. It was not because he saw nothing objectionable in the principle of this measure that he assented to it, but because he thought that under no other circumstances could the country be placed in a position of national security, and because there were no other means by which the national credit could be maintained. He gave, therefore, his unhesitating support to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for the renewal of this tax; but at the same time he felt it his duty to enter his protest against any permanent system

295
of direct taxation, which ought to be reserved for occasions of extreme necessity. He felt very confident that the time was not far distant when we should find that we had advanced too far and too rapidly in the course of a reduction of those taxes which, while they largely contributed to the revenue of the country, were not materially felt by those who paid them, because they were spread over a larger mass of the population. His belief was, that without oppressing commerce, or injuriously affecting the country, a sufficient amount of revenue might be raised by retracing some of those steps which he thought had been injudiciously taken; so that by resorting again to indirect taxation, we might, at the expiration of three years, be enabled to dispense with this tax, which, though he admitted it to be necessary at the present moment, he considered as objectionable in principle as it was obnoxious to the public."
These were all the authorities with which he would trouble the House. He would now offer a very few words on the principle of commutation proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did very well in commuting the window tax, but he should have carried his scheme much further. He had exempted a great deal of property which at the present moment paid the window tax. He had given relief to those who were not in want of it, but had neglected altogether the claims of the farmers, whom he had acknowledged to be in great distress, and to whom he extended his condolence, but no relief. Seeing that the Government proposed to renew the income tax with all its hideous characteristics, he, for one, could not give his consent to its renewal; but should it pass the second reading, he hoped that an effort would be made at least to remodel it in Committee. He invoked the aid of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in support of some species of relief on the Strength of the assistance which the noble Lord had rendered him on a former occasion in 1845, in reference to the same class of persons, stating in a manner most gratifying to him (Mr. Spooner) that he had made out a very strong case. The class to which he referred were those who had insured their lives, and managed to screw just enough out of their expenditure to pay the premiums. He asked the House on the occasion to which he had referred, to allow the amount of these premiums to be deducted from the income before it was assessed to the tax; and the noble Lord on that occasion acknowledged that he had made out a very strong case, and gave him his support. A strong case in 1845 was equally a strong case now; and he hoped, therefore, to receive from the noble Lord
296
the assurance that he would again support a proposition, in favour of which he had already spoken. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Herries), who, he thought, did not quite go with him on the subject. Government annuities were annually repaying the principal. The income tax was not laid on the interest only, but on the repaid part of the capital. Suppose he purchased a Government annuity; the country, after paying him four or five per cent, in a certain number of years, were repaying him his capital. He received so much by way of interest; so much by way of redemption of the capital. But, under what was called the income tax, people were compelled to pay for income and for capital returned; yet that, he was told, was only fair and just, and no one, it was said, ought to be exempted. The truth was, the tax was a shifting one. When it suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with it as a tax on property, he dealt with it as a tax on property; when it suited the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it as a tax on income, he dealt with it as a tax on income. Another part of the budget on which he wished to say a few words, was that which related to the timber duties. He held in his hand a letter from one of the largest timber dealers in the north, who said that he had been applied to the other day by a man who, having taken a large contract, wrote to ask whether the removal of the duty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lessen the price? What was the answer? "Not a bit." The circumstances of the trade were such, that the foreigner would put as much upon the price as Parliament would take off from the duty. So with regard to bricks, he was informed that in the very same neighbourhood bricks were now within about 1s. of the price at which they were before the duty was taken off. The principle of taxation which they were called upon to support was ruinous in its principle, dangerous in its tendency, and sooner or later would involve this country in ruin. What were they doing? They were taxing the labour of the country, and exposing it to competition with the untaxed labour of foreign countries. This might, perhaps, have the effect of swelling the exports for c short time, but the balance of trade had been some time against this country. The drain of bullion proved that such was the fact, and however they might, by cooking the exchanges,

297
postpone the evil day, a crisis was inevitable—a crisis which would test not only the Act of 1844, but that of 1819 also; and all for the purpose of bolstering up what he believed to be a most impolitic and unjust system. Fearing lest the evil day should come, and trade and commerce should be equally found with agriculture in a depressed state—fearing that they were in danger of sacrificing the best interests of the country to a mere ephemeral commercial prosperity—of reducing the capital of the nation—of robbing landowners and tenantry, and destroying the productiveness of the soil—he should take great blame to himself if he did not warn them to consider well before it was too late. He therefore called upon them to resist the reimposition of a tax bad in itself, and worse still in its application, and begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. MUNTZseconded the Amendment, and, in doing so, begged to express his general concurrence in all that had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who, like himself, was in a situation which enabled him to judge of the iniquitous working of the tax better than most men. Both of them lived in a district where a large proportion of the manufacturers were what were called "small men," and upon these small men the tax fell the most unjustly and unequally, next to the tenant-farmers, who were now made to pay whether they gained or not. Many of these small manufacturers came just within reach of the income tax, making a return of from 160 l. to 200 l. per annum; and how were these manufacturers served? They were very frequently surcharged on their first return, and not being able to show their books, were compelled to pay the amount at which they were assessed. He knew instances in which this happened to individuals three or four times. It was, in fact, making men rob themselves; and if anything could be more unjust than that, he should like to hear it stated, for he had never met with anything more iniquitous. His constituents often came and asked him what to do. "Show your books," was the advice which he gave; "show them that you bays not got anything, and you will be let off." This, however, he was told they could not do,
298
because they would be exposing their condition to a neighbour, and possibly a rival in trade, and it was better, therefore, to pay the tax. There was no tax which inflicted so much injustice. He had much rather pay any amount in the shape of a genuine property tax himself, than submit to so unjust an income tax upon others who had no means of redress; and he, therefore, opposed its renewal, first, because it was a breach of faith, and next, because he saw no end to it. How, he asked the House, could the income tax ever be got rid of if the present system was continued? If every little surplus were to be frittered away on bricks and such like things, how were they ever to get rid of it? His hon. Friend had, however, been led astray as to bricks; some one must have misinformed him, for he was sure that his hon. Friend would not have mis-stated the facts knowingly. The fact was that bricks had been reduced in price in consequence of the reduction of duty. He spoke from his own experience, for he was paying from 8s. 6d. to 9s. a thousand less than before the duty was removed. But that tax was a very partial one, and the benefit conferred by its removal was very partial also, for in many parts of the country bricks were not used at all, the buildings being all of stone. He confessed that for his own part he was a great gainer by the change, which saved him 150 l. a year; but he had much rather see the tax retained and the surplus nursed for the reduction of the income tax. He could not see his way out of it, and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way out of it, and really did not wish to see the income tax repealed. He believed that the light hon. Gentleman was as fond of it as Sir Robert Peel himself. He remembered once when he was with Sir Robert Peel on other matters, the right hon. Baronet observed to him, with reference to his vote on the Income Tax Bill, that it was the prettiest way of adding 5,000,000 l. to the revenue. He told him, however, that he had not voted for it with any such intention. He had voted for it because he saw that no taxes could be imposed then on the working classes, because they were unable to pay those already imposed. But he would always oppose the tax, because it was a way of making a man rob himself. As to the window tax, the best commentary on it was to be seen in Punch, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was repre-

299
sented as administering it in the shape of, others; and when he was asked whether chloroform to John Bull, while the noble Lord picked his pocket of the 5,000,000 l. income tax. It was not the poor who paid the window tax; it was almost entirely paid by the middle and upper classes. A vast many of his constituents who paid the income never paid one shilling of window tax. How then were these indemnified? He warned hon. Gentlemen to recollect that if they now continued this tax, they would never get rid of it. They might say what they pleased about taking taxes off articles of consumption: that might be all very well, and might be a sound principle; but were windows articles of consumption? He had once voted for the income tax, but he never would again; he never would sit down quietly and allow his poor constituents to remain subject to a tax which it would be impossible to get rid of, and under which they could not protect themselves from fraud and extortion. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.
MR. FRESHFIELDhoped the House would extend its indulgence to him for a short time, as he had not had an opportunity of joining in any of the previous deliberations of the House upon the present question. He was anxious on personal grounds, as this was the stage at which the principle of the Bill would be determined, to state the reasons which would govern his vote on the present occasion. The question he asked was, whether the income tax was to be reimposed with all the objections which had been stated against it—one of which was, that it was a war tax maintained in time of peace, with all its objectionable features; or whether they should not have a distinct understanding that it should be so modified in Committee as to free it from many objections in point of detail, though not in point of principle? He could not forget that in 1842, when the late Sir Robert Peel was so strongly opposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was then urged to be essentially a war tax. But Sir Robert Peel then had the excuse of a deficiency to the amount of 4,800,000 l.; and it could scarcely have been called a time of peace when there was fighting on the Indus and in China. Then, in 1845, when Sir Robert Peel had a considerable surplus in hand, he proposed the renewal of the tax for the purpose, whether right or wrong, of making considerable remissions of taxation. He remitted many taxes in toto, and reduced
300
others; and when he was asked whether three years would be the extreme period for which it would be required, he said very fairly he thought three years might answer the purpose, but he should have been more confident if he could have asked the House to continue it for five years. He attached some importance to that answer, because if he had obtained the five years they would have expired in 1850, and the tax was still in existence in 1851—a year beyond that time. In 1848 the measure was again introduced, but not by Sir Robert Peel; and then it was stated, though he (Mr. Freshfield) did not admit it to have been any justification, that they had passed the mischievous measures of 1846, and in 1849 there would be an end of the revenue derived from the importation of corn. With all these considerations, with these excuses of trying an experiment, which had been tried and had signally failed, if it were a question now of taking the measure at all, or throwing on the Government the necessity of providing some other system of taxation, it might be a serious question whether they ought to suffer the experiment to be carried further. That, however, was not the question. He believed the noble Lord opposite, or some of his Colleagues, in 1842, said that if the House had given them the commercial measures they asked for, and adopted their commercial code, there would have been no necessity for such a tax. What was the commercial measure of the noble Lord? An 8s. duty instead of the sliding scale. And now that the measure was before the House, and in the hands of the noble Lord, might they not hope when they should go into Committee to consider what qualifications should take place, that the commercial measures desired by the noble Lord in 1840 would be taken into consideration. He would vote for the second reading, because he was not prepared to say that such an amount of revenue could be given up suddenly without a substitute; but still he supported it in the hope that it would undergo considerable modifications and important alterations, both in point of duration, the mode of assessment, and amount of taxation. He hoped that the noble Lord would find some substitute for the schedule which taxed the tenant-farmer without allowing him to prove that he had sustained a loss. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up one direct tax, and substitute another in

301
its place, he drew from it the inference that there was to be a reconsideration of the whole subject of taxation, and that a more just system would be the result. In conclusion, he would vote for a renewal of the income tax, but for a limited time only, in order to give the Government time to consider what more befitting mode of taxation ought to be adopted.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the mover and seconder of the Amendment were agreed in the conclusion to which they had come, there was not a single point but this in which they did not differ toto cœlo. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) stated his grievance against the income tax to he, that it was an exceedingly unjust tax on landed property. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), on the other hand, said, that he was perfectly willing that double the pressure should be imposed upon land, but he thought it exceedingly unjust that the same rate should be put on trade. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire blamed him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) for taking off the duty on bricks, because he said that the price of bricks had not been reduced in the slightest degree by the repeal; but the hon. Member for Birmingham said, that he had bought bricks at 8s. 6d. less per thousand since than before the repeal. He certainly proved to his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) satisfaction, and he hoped to that of the House, that a considerable benefit had been conferred by the repeal of this tax upon a large portion of the community. The reason which the hon. Member for Birmingham gave why the tax, nevertheless, should not have been repealed', was indeed one of the oddest be had ever heard, for the hon. Member said that it should not have been repealed because it was so very partial in its operation. The hon. Member (Mr. Muntz) also blamed him exceedingly for taking off the window tax. Now, that hon. Member was one of those who had on former occasions urged the House to repeal the window tax, and he was actually one of those who last Session voted with the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) for the total repeal of this tax, when the Government were run within two of being beaten. Why he should now object to a partial repeal—a repeal of the objectionable parts—of the tax, he thought it would puzzle even his hon. Friend (who was not always very con-
302
sistent in his votes) to explain upon the present occasion. It was important, however, for the House well to consider what would be the consequence of agreeing to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner). He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed the renewal of the income tax for a limited period; and upon that proposition the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had moved a very fair and reasonable Amendment, with a view, not of opposing a renewal of the income tax, but merely of renewing it only to a certain extent. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well the state of the finances, and he proposed to renew the tax to such an extent, as to leave, as he thought, an adequate revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had too much regard for the credit or character of the county, to oppose the renewal of so much of the tax as was necessary to maintain the national faith and necessary establishments of the country. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and, the House agreeing with him, he succeeded in carrying the renewal of the income tax at its present amount for a limited time. In consequence of that vote, the House had determined to sacrifice a given amount of the revenue by the repeal of the window tax and the reduction of the duties upon coffee and timber. Now it would have been impossible to do this had the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) succeeded, in his Motion. But if the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) for the total repeal of this tax was carried, not only must the reduction of the duties on coffee and timber, and the repeal of the window tax, be given up, but further taxes must be imposed, for an actual deficiency would thus be created of 1,000,000 l. in the present, and of nearly 3,500,000 l. in the next year. He wished to know whether the House was prepared, after the decisions to which it had come upon other questions of taxation, to reverse these decisions, and to impose new taxes to meet this deficiency. He believed they were not prepared to do so, and he therefore trusted that the House would agree with him, and reject the Amendment of the hon. Member. There were questions with respect to the details of the Bill which were perfectly proper to be raised at a fitting time, when they were in Committee; at present, however, he would

303
not go into any questions respecting Schedules A, B, C, or D; when they were in Committee he should be prepared to argue them fairly and temperately, and he hoped to be able to satisfy the House; but it would be waste of time to enter upon these questions then. The question they had then to consider was, whether they should repeal the income tax at once, and thereby create a deficiency, taking away the relief which he proposed to give by repealing other taxes to that amount. He was not prepared to do that, nor was the House, he believed, and therefore he called upon them to reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was his intention to go into Committee on the Bill on Friday next?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should certainly propose to go into Committee on Friday next. Notice had been given of an Amendment upon the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair; it was therefore impossible for him to say, whether the House would get into Committee, but he should propose it; and if they were not detained by that discussion, they would go into Committee.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, it was his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but, previous to doing so, he wished to make a few observations. He considered that the schedules under which the tax was now levied were in themselves unjust and iniquitous. He would not say a word of those schedules, however, until they went into Committee; but this he must say, that rather than abolish the income tax altogether, he would vote willingly for it as it is, because they could not abolish the income tax altogether, without imposing other taxes of a more oppressive and objectionable nature. If they abolished it altogether, they must impose a tax on the essential food of man, and therefore he would give his vote for the second reading of the Bill.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it appeared to him that the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was a very just one, but he thought it might better be brought under the consideration of the House when they went into Committee. Under these circumstances, and as his hon. Friend had had an opportunity of making a very able statement to the House, he thought it would be advisable that he should not then
304
call upon them to come to a division. For his (Mr. Disraeli's) part, he objected to many of the propositions of the Government; but, at the same time, he was not prepared to vote against the second reading of the Bill, and thus express an opinion that he was entirely opposed to the scheme. He hoped his hon. Friend, having expressed his opinion, and prepared the House for the reception of that opinion on a future occasion by the statement he had made, would not then ask the House to divide.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not wish to press the question to a division against the wish of the House; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intimated that he would make any alteration in his measure, he (Mr. Spooner), instead of withdrawing his Amendment, preferred to have it negatived.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question" put and agreed to:—Alain Question put and agreed to:—Bill read 2°, and committed for Friday.
The House adjourned at Seven o'clock.