substituted a House Tax for the Window Duty. He had been charged with having withdrawn a boon he had offered to the agricultural interest; but the repeal of the duty upon seeds had been denounced, and the relief in the matter of pauper lunatics was less than the gain by the commutation of the Window Duty. In conclusion, he insisted that the proposal of Mr. Herries was really the first step in the policy of Lord Stanley, who had therein shadowed forth a duty upon corn; and he called upon the House to vote, not a permanent Income Tax, but a tax for three years, for objects conducive to the best interests of the country.

Mr. Prinsep observed that the Government, whether there was a surplus or a deficiency, were always in difficulty, because they had to deal with taxation, and, as they had not any fixed principles, they were like a ship at sea without compass. He denied that the budget was founded upon the principle professed by the Government -the benefit of the mass of the population; on the contrary, it was class relief. He disputed the economical theory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was not, he contended, fairly carried into practice. He condemned upon principle a tax upon property; and, objecting altogether to the propositions of the Government, he should vote for the motion of Mr. Herries.

Mr. F. Peel said the conclusion he had brought his mind to obliged him to dissent from the amendment of Mr. Herries, while he was unable to express his unqualified approval of the financial policy of Her Majesty's Government. The statement of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer showed a net deficiency, laying aside the Income Tax, of about 847,000l. for the present year, and of about 3,500,000l. in future years; and it was to cover this deficiency he invited the House to reimpose the Income Tax for three years. He (Mr. Peel) was favourable to the principle of an Income Tax, which combined the principle of indirect and direct taxation, making the wealthy classes pay their due proportion towards the public expenditure.

He was aware of the immense advantages which the labouring classes had derived from our late commercial and financial system, and of the stimulus given to industry by the removal of duties which weighed upon the sources of employment. In nine years, taxes upon home manufactures, raw materials, and food, to the amount of 10,500,000l. had been remitted; while the great branches of the revenue remained as large as in 1842; and the declared value of British exports, which had been nearly stationary from 1835 to 1842, had rapidly increased from 52,250,000l. in 1843, to more than 71,000,0002. in 1850.

There still remained a large amount of indirect taxation which pressed upon the productive classes; and the inference was, that if 5,000,000l. were not raised by direct taxation, the Legislature must in effect revert to the system of protection, which had so long obstructed the development of our resources. Mr. Herries had alleged that the faith of Parliament was pledged to discontinue this tax after a limited period; but he (Mr. Peel) took a preliminary objection to Parliament entering into a compact of this kind. The policy of 1841, under which the Income Tax

had been imposed, was to remove duties more vexatious than that tax; this policy had not been brought to a conclusion, and he could not, therefore, vote for the removal of the tax. The induceThe induce ments which the Government held

out for its continuance were, that it would enable them to repair a deficit, retain a surplus, and remove taxation. Mr. Peel examined these several reasons, and with respect to the removal of the Window Tax, which would not directly benefit the working classes, he could not, he said, approve the abandonment of that duty, which was a direct tax paid in the proportion of expenditure, the very point sought to be arrived at by a modification of the Income Tax. Regarding this tax as a great lever to elevate the moral and social condition of the country, he should be most reluctant to relinquish an implement by which so much good had been and might be effected.

Mr. T. Baring justified the remarks he had made on a former occasion, and with respect to the Income Tax expressed his belief that its reduction would be better even for the masses than the removal of the Window Duty. The evidence of the returns under schedule D showed that it was the honest men who paid the tax, while the dishonest escaped. Considering the partial character of the tax, he should vote for the amendment, because he believed of the two it was better to reduce the Income Tax than to remove the Window Duty.

Mr. J. Wilson considered, with Mr. Peel, that the true question was, whether the House would consent to reverse the policy of the last ten years. He showed,

from a mass of statistical details, what had been the financial and commercial results of that policy; contrasting the condition of the country before 1842 with its present tranquillity and prosperity. The population depending upon land, he argued, was diminishing; the surplus population depended upon our manufactures. It was, therefore, the interest of the country to remove impediments from that part of the national industry; while a duty of 5s. upon corn, either for protection or for revenue, was open to objection.

Mr. Booker urged upon the House the deep responsibility it would incur by giving to the Government the means of pursuing a suicidal policy, in the reimposition of an iniquitous tax, which bore with peculiar severity upon the middle classes. He protested against the doctrine that the greatness of England depended solely upon her commerce. While emigration was going on to a vast extent, production was increasing, which must not be put down to human labour, but to the enormous increase of mechanical power.

Mr. Slaney, on the other hand, was deeply convinced that it was for the benefit of agriculture that the present liberal system of policy should be upheld, which had relieved the masses of many millions of taxes, and had, in 35 years, doubled the value of the property of the country.

Mr. Spooner called upon Lord J. Russell and Sir C. Wood to explain why they now proposed to continue a tax which in 1845 they denounced as full of inequality, vexation, and fraud, and as pressing upon the labouring population by diminishing the means of giving employment.

Mr. Reynolds supported the amendment. He saw no relief in the budget for the poor, the shopkeeper, or the professional man. He complained of other omissions; for instance, the duties on paper and soap, the repeal of which would increase the means of employment.

Lord C. Hamilton said the real question at issue was, whether this tax was to be permanent. He believed that, under the guise of a renewal for three years, it was intended to be perpetuated. If so, it should be avowed, and the tax should be made equitable.

Mr. S. Crawford, though a friend to a tax upon property, did not feel justified in voting for this tax with all its objections.

Sir R. Inglis said the objections to the inquisitorial character of an Income Tax were the same, whether it was 7d. or 2d. in the pound. The question therefore was, whether public credit required the tax; and, considering that an immense amount of taxation might be relieved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan, he reluctantly supported it.

Upon a division, the amendment was negatived by 278 against 230.

The second reading of the Income Tax Bill was moved on the 28th of April, when an opposition to the tax in toto was offered by Mr. Spooner, who moved the postponement of the motion till that day six months. Mr. Spooner quoted equally from the great men of all parties who have dilated upon the oppressiveness and injustice of this tax, including Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley himself. Towards the end of his speech he diverged to objections which he entertained to the repeal

He

of the brick duties and the timber duties; alleging, in respect to the former, that bricks were now within a shilling of the price paid for them before the repeal. Mr. Muntz seconded the motion, grounding his objections to the measure on his experience of its especial effects among the small manufacturers, who were numerous among his constituents: he had known some of these surcharged three and four times without hope of remedy, because an exposure of their books would be an injurious exposure of their concerns. corrected Mr. Spooner as to bricks, saying he had himself paid 8s. less than he did before. Mr. Freshfield delivered his first remarks in the House upon this measure; his objections seemed to have chief reference to the unfair operation of the tax on tenant farmers. Sir Charles Wood replied, taking advantage of the discrepancy between Mr. Spooner and Mr. Muntz on the price of bricks; putting aside Mr. Freshfield's detailed objections as fitter for the stage of Committee; and reminding the House that, if the Bill were thrown out, there would be a deficiency of one million this year and of three and a half millions next year. The House seemed willing to get rid of the motion easily. On the suggestion, complimentarily conveyed by Mr. Disraeli to the mover, that it was scarcely necessary to divide, Mr. Spooner for a moment consented to withdraw his motion; but, after a pause, said he would prefer to have it negatived, which was done accordingly.

A more important discussion arose on the committal of the Bill on the 2nd of May, which was attended with a material result on

the financial policy of the Government. A motion made by Mr. Freshfield for making the tax more equitable in its pressure on annuities being first disposed of by a negative, then, on the motion that the several rates and duties be continued for three years, Mr. Hume moved his amendment for limiting the grant to one year, with the object of having the whole question deliberately considered in a Select Committee.

Mr. Hume went into much statistical detail in support of his principle that direct is preferable to indirect taxation, and showed the proportion of these modes which now obtains; 67 per cent. is levied upon the necessaries of life, 11 per cent. is paid for stamps, 8 per cent. for assessed taxes, 10 per cent. for the Property Tax, 1 per cent. for the Post Office, and the rest for smaller matters. Indirect taxation, therefore, presses with unfair weight upon the working classes. There is a general desire to reconsider the whole question of taxation. Mr. Hume declared that he had not the least desire to get rid of the Property Tax-he would retain it as a direct tax; but he did not meet a single person who did not think that an attempt ought to be made to equalize the Income Tax, and remove some of its present injustice; and he thought that the present mode of assessment might be made less irresponsible. By direct taxation between two and three millions might be saved; and such taxes as the Malt Tax, which he sincerely desired to abolish, might be relieved with a view to their removal.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Hume was supported by Alderman Thompson, although he did

not disapprove of indirect taxation, but approved of raising part of the revenue by "a moderate duty on foreign productions," on the ground that he thought the House had not kept good faith with the public in respect of the Income Tax. Mr. Mowatt supported it, thinking that Ministers seemed unwilling to carry out the great policy of Sir Robert Peel which they professed to adopt. Mr. Buck supported it on the principle of relief to agricultural distress; giving details of decline in Devonshire, some time

under protection—the garden of England. Mr. Macgregor blamed the Government for not volunteering the one-year renewal instead of a three-years' renewal of the tax; and disputed the truth of the statement, often made, that Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel considered it utterly impossible to impose the tax in any other form than that which they adopted. The Marquis of Granby, preferring the interests of the people to the convenience of Government, supported the amendment.

Mr. Cobden opposed the amendment at considerable length, mainly on the ground that it was not so shaped as to elicit the decision of the House on the matter really at issue. He thought that the proceedings of the evening must convince Mr. Hume that the terms of his motion would have been much better if different. If he had moved to impose a smaller tax on precarious incomes, the question would have brought on a fair division; but then he would have been beaten by at least two to one; for was there any more likelihood now than before that any concession would be made by the owners of real property in favour of the trading and profes

sional classes? Mr. Hume was, in fact, taking a course in favour of raising public income from the poorer portion of the community; for the opposite side would certainly compensate for the repeal of this tax by others that he had still greater objection to. Upon every ground Mr. Cobden should decline to join his friend Mr. Hume. (Ironical cheers from the Protectionists.) They might laugh, but he looked forward to changes in the representation which would give the great body of the people more power in the House of Commons than they had at present. He would ask every one of his friends who did not wish to see the principle of free trade endangered, to resist this transparent attempt of the other side of the House to undo a system that had been eminently to the advantage of the great mass of the community. (Cheers.)

Mr. Jacob Bell complained of the unpleasant predicament in which the measures of Government placed him in relation to his constituents. He could not face his supporters if he voted for their propositions.

Mr. Sidney Herbert sympathised with Mr. Bell, but felt less than he the necessity of relieving Government from their difficulty. It would be impossible, however, for the Government to make any permanent reductions in the coffee and timber duties if they had only one year's Income Tax before them. The budget would fall to the ground, and there would be a fresh scramble for a surplus, for the maintenance of which there could be no security. He must therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. Miles supported the amend

ment.

Sir Charles Wood commented on the inconsistency of Mr. Hume, who desired the tax to be permanent, yet would limit it to the shortest period; quoted the authority of Sir R. Peel for the present form of the tax; and backed the reason given by Mr. Sidney Herbert for opposing the amendment. It was impossible to propose fiscal reductions with nearly 5,000,0001. dependent on an annual vote, especially at a time when no man could say what events might happen in Europe within any given number of months hence.

Mr. Disraeli combated the inference that protection was concealed under the support given by members of his party to the amendment. He indulged in some sarcastic remarks on Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bell, and warned the House not to be led away by the stale cry, that this was "a reversal of our commercial policy." Let the House be quite sure that our commercial policy, whatever might be its merits or deficiencies, was too vast a creation to be shaken by a chance vote in that House. That was not the way in which the Protectionists meant to assail it, if they should feel that their duty impelled them to take that step; but they would not be deterred from taking a frank course upon all subjects with respect to taxation because a gentleman might say that the Government was embarrassed, or might rise and pretend, for the five hundredth time, that the party with whom he acted were seeking to establish the abrogated Corn Laws. Nothing was more popular at present out of doors than direct taxation; but popular with whom?with those who were not directly taxed. And to what did that lead?