He was

substituted a House Tax for the of the Exchequer showed a net Window Duty. He had been deficiency, laying aside the Incharged with having withdrawn a come Tax, of about 817,0001. for boon he had offered to the agri- the present year, and of about cultural interest; but the repeal 3,500,0001. in future years; and it of the duty upon seeds had been was to cover this deficiency he denounced, and the relief in the invited the House to reimpose matter of pauper lunatics was less the Income Tax for three years. than the gain by the commutation He(Mr. Peel) was favourable to the of the Window Duty. In conclu- principle of an Income Tax, which sion, he insisted that the proposal combined the principle of indirect of Mr. Herries was really the first and direct taxation, making the step in the policy of Lord Stanley, wealthy classes pay their due prowho had therein shadowed forth a portion towards the public expenduty upon corn ; and be called diture.

aware of the upon the House to vote, not a immense advantages which the permanent Income Tax, but a tax labouring classes had derived from for three years, for objects con- our late commercial and financial ducive to the best interests of the system, and of the stimulus given country.

to industry by the removal of Mr. Prinsep observed that the duties which weighed upon the Government, whether there was sources of employment. In nine a surplus or a deficiency, were years, taxes upon home manufacalways in difficulty, because they tures, raw materials, and food, to had to deal with taxation, and, as the amount of 10,500,0001. had they had not any fixed principles, been remitted ; while the great they were like a ship at sea with branches of the revenue remained out compass.

He denied that the as large as in 1842 ; and the debudget was founded upon the prin- clared value of British exports, ciple professed by the Government which had been nearly stationary

- the benefit of the mass of the from 1835 to 1842, had rapidly population; on the contrary, it was increased from 52,250,0001. in class relief. He disputed the eco- 1843, to more than 71,000,0001. nomical theory of the Chancellor in 1850. There still remained a of the Exehequer, which was not, large amount of indirect taxation he contended, fairly carried into which pressed upon the productive practice. He condemned upon classes ; and the inference was, principle a tax upon property; that if 5,000,0001. were not raised and, objecting altogether to the by direct taxation, the Legislature propositions of the Government, must in effect revert to the system he should vote for the motion of of protection, which had so long Mr. Herries.

obstructed the development of our Mr. F. Peel said the conclusion resources. Mr. Herries had alleged he had brought his mind to obliged that the faith of Parliament was him to dissent from the amend- pledged to discontinue this tas ment of Mr. Herries, while he after a limited period; but he (Mr. was unable to express his unquali Peel) took a preliminary objection fied approval of the financial po- to Parliament entering into a comlicy of Her Majesty's Government. pact of this kind. The policy of The statement of the Chancellor 1841, under which the Income Tax had been imposed, was to remove from a mass of statistical details, duties more vexatious than that what had been the financial and tax; this policy had not been commercial results of that policy; brought to a conclusion, and he contrasting the condition of the could not, therefore, vote for the country before 1842 with its preremoval of the tax. The induce sent tranquillity and prosperity. ments which the Government held The population depending upon out for its continuance were, that land, he argued, was diminishing ; it would enable them to repair a the surplus population depended deficit, retain a surplus, and re- upon our manufactures. It was, move taxation. Mr. Peel examined therefore, the interest of the these several reasons, and with country to remove impediments respect to the removal of the from that part of the national inWindow Tax, which would not di- dustry; while a duty of 58. upon rectly benefit the working classes, corn, either for protection or for he could not, he said, approve revenue, was open to objection. the abandonment of that duty, Mr. Booker urged upon the which was a direct tax paid in the House the deep responsibility it proportion of expenditure, the very would incur by giving to the Gopoint sought to be arrived at by a vernment the means of pursuing modification of the Income Tax. a suicidal policy, in the reimposiRegarding this tax as a great lever tion of an iniquitous tax, which to elevate the moral and social bore with peculiar severity upon condition of the country, he should the middle classes. He protested be most reluctant to relinquish against the doctrine that the an implement by which so much greatness of England depended good had been and might be solely upon her commerce. While effected.

emigration was going on to a vast Mr. T. Baring justified the re- extent, production was increasing, marks he had made on a former which must not be put down to occasion, and with respect to the human labour, but to the enormous Income Tax expressed his belief increase of mechanical power. that its reduction would be better Mr. Slaney, on the other hand, even for the masses than the re- was deeply convinced that it was moval of the Window Duty. The for the benefit of agriculture that evidence of the returns under the present liberal system of policy schedule D showed that it was should be upheld, which had rethe honest men who paid the tax, lieved the masses of many millions while the dishonest escaped. Con- of taxes, and had, in 35 years, sidering the partial character of

doubled the value of the property the tax, he should vote for the

of the country. amendment, because he believed Mr. Spooner called upon Lord of the two it was better to reduce J. Russell and Sir C. Wood to the Income Tax than to remove the explain why they now proposed to Window Duty.

continue a tax which in 1845 they Mr. J. Wilson considered, with denounced as full of inequality, Mr. Peel, that the true question vexation, and fraud, and as presswas, whether the House would ing upon the labouring population consent to reverse the policy of by diminishing the means of giving the last ten years. He showed, employment.

Mr. Reynolds supported the of the brick duties and the timber amendment. He saw no relief in duties; alleging, in respect to the the budget for the poor, the shop- former, that bricks were now within keeper, or the professional man. a shilling of the price paid for them He complained of other omissions; before the repeal. Mr. Muntz for instance, the duties on paper seconded the motion, grounding and soap, the repeal of which his objections to the measure on would increase the means of em- his experience of its especial ployment.

effects among the small manufacLord C. Hamilton said the real turers, who were numerous among question at issue was, whether this his constituents: he had known tax was to be permanent. He some of these surcharged three believed that, under the guise of a and four times without hope of renewal for three years, it was in- remedy, because an exposure of tended to be perpetuated. If so, their books would be an injurious it should be avowed, and the tax exposure of their concerns. He should be made equitable. corrected Mr. Spooner as to bricks,

Mr. S. Crawford, though a friend saying he had himself paid 8s. less to a tax upon property, did not feel than he did before. Mr. Freshfield justified in voting for this tax with delivered his first remarks in the all its objections.

House upon this measure; his Sir R. Inglis said the objections objections seemed to have chief to the inquisitorial character of an reference to the unfair operation Income Tax were the same, whe- of the tax on tenant farmers. Sir ther it was 7d. or 2d. in the pound. Charles Wood replied, taking adThe question therefore was, whether vantage of the discrepancy bepublic credit required the tax; tween Mr. Spooner and Mr. Muntz and, considering that an immense on the price of bricks; putting amount of taxation might be re- aside Mr. Freshfield's detailed lieved by the Chancellor of the objections as fitter for the stage Exchequer's plan, he reluctantly of Committee; and reminding the supported it.

House that, if the Bill were thrown Upon a division, the amend- out, there would be a deficiency of ment was negatived by 278 against one million this year and of three 230.

and a half millions next year. The second reading of the In The House seemed willing to get come Tax Bill was moved on the rid of the motion easily. On the 28th of April, when an opposition suggestion, complimentarily conto the tax in toto was offered by veyed by Mr. Disraeli to the Mr. Spooner, who moved the post- mover, that it was scarcely necesponement of the motion till that sary to divide, Mr. Spooner for a day six months. Mr. Spooner moment consented to withdraw quoted equally from the great men his motion; but, after a pause, of all parties who have dilated said he would prefer to have it upon the oppressiveness and in- negatived, which was done accordjustice of this tax, including Sir ingly. Robert Peel and Lord Stanley A more important discussion himself. Towards the end of his arose on the committal of the Bill speech he diverged to objections on the 2nd of May, which was which he entertained to the repeal attended with a material result on

[ocr errors]

the financial policy of the Govern- not disapprove of indirect taxation, ment. A motion made by Mr. but approved of raising part of Freshfield for making the tax the revenue by “a moderate duty more equitable in its pressure on on foreign productions," on the annuities being first disposed of by ground that he thought the House a negative, then, on the motion had not kept good faith with the that the several rates and duties public in respect of the Income Tax. be continued for three years, Mr. Mr. Mowatt supported it, thinking Hume moved his amendment for that Ministers seemed unwilling to limiting the grant to one year, carry out the great policy of Sir with the object of having the whole Robert Peel which they professed question deliberately considered in to adopt. Mr. Buck supported it a Select Committee.

on the principle of relief to agriMr. Hume went into much sta cultural distress; giving details of tistical detail in support of his decline in Devonshire, some time principle that direct is preferable —under protection—the garden of to indirect taxation, and showed England. Mr. Macgregor blamed the proportion of these modes the Government for pot volunteerwhich now obtains ; 67 per cent. ing the one-year renewal instead is levied upon the necessaries of of a three-years' renewal of the tax; life, 11 per cent. is paid for stamps, and disputed the truth of the 8 per cent. for assessed taxes, 10 statement, often made, that Mr. per cent. for the Property Tax, 1} Pitt and Sir Robert Peel consiper cent. for the Post Office, and dered it utterly impossible to imthe rest for smaller matters. In- pose the tax in any other form direct taxation, therefore, presses than that which they adopted. with unfair weight upon the work. The Marquis of Granby, prefering classes. There is a general ring the interests of the people to desire to reconsider the whole the convenience of Government, question of taxation. Mr. Hume supported the amendment. declared that he had not the least Mr. Cobden opposed the amenddesire to get rid of the Propertyment at considerable length, mainly Tax-he would retain it as on the ground that it was not so direct tax; but he did not meet a shaped as to elicit the decision of single person who did not think the House on the matter really at that an attempt ought to be made issue. He thought that the proto equalize the Income Tax, and ceedings of the evening must con

some of its present in- vince Mr. Hume that the terms of justice ; and he thought that the his motion would bave been much present mode of assessment might better if different. If he had be made less irresponsible. By moved to impose a smaller tax on direct taxation between two and precarious incomes, the question three millions might be saved; and would have brought on such taxes as the Malt Tax, which division; but then he would have he sincerely desired to abolish, been beaten by at least two to might be relieved with a view to one; for was there any more their removal.

likelihood now than before that The amendment proposed by any concession would be made Mr. Hume was supported by Alder- by the owners of real property in man Thompson,-although he did favour of the trading and profes



a fair


sional classes ? Mr. Hume was, Sir Charles Wood commented in fact, taking a course in favour on the inconsistency of Mr. Hume, of raising public income from who desired the tax to be permathe poorer portion of the commu- nent, yet would limit it to the nity; for the opposite side would shortest period ; quoted the authocertainly compensate for the re- rity of Sir R. Peel for the present peal of this tax by others that he form of the tax; and backed the bad still greater objection to. reason given by Mr. Sidney HerUpon every ground Mr. Cobden

bert for opposing the amendment. should decline to join his friend It was impossible to propose fiscal Mr. Hume. (Ironical cheers from reductions with nearly 5,000,0001. the Protectionists.) They might dependent on an annual vote, laugh, but he looked forward to especially at a time when no man changes in the representation

the representation could say what events might hapwhich would give the great body pen in Europe within any given of the people more power in the number of months bence. House of Commons than they Mr. Disraeli combated the inhad at present.

He would ask ference that protection was conevery one of his friendse who did

cealed under the support given by not wish to see the principle of members of his party to the free trade endangered, to resist amendment. He indulged in some this transparent attempt of the sarcastic remarks on Mr. Cobden other side of the House to undo a and Mr. Bell, and warned the system that had been eminently to House not to be led away by the the advantage of the great mass stale cry, that this

“a of the community. (Cheers.) reversal of our commercial policy."

Mr. Jacob Bell complained of Let the House be quite sure that the unpleasant predicament in our commercial policy, whatever which the measures of Govern- might be its merits or deficienment placed him in relation to his cies, was too vast a creation to be constituents. He could not face shaken by a chance vote in that his supporters if he voted for their House. That was not the way in propositions.

which the Protectionists meant to Nr. Sidney Herbert sympa- assail it, if they should feel that thised with Mr. Bell, but felt less their duty impelled them to take than he the necessity of relieving that step; but they would not Government from their difficulty. be deterred from taking a frank It would be impossible, however, course upon all subjects with refor the Government to make any spect to taxation because a gentlepermanent reductions in the coffee

man might say that the Governand timber duties if they had . ment was embarrassed, or might only one year's Income Tax before rise and pretend, for the five hunthem. The budget would fall to dredth time, that the party with the ground, and there would be a whom he acted were seeking to fresh scramble for a surplus, for establish the abrogated Corn Laws. the maintenance of which there Nothing was more popular at precould be no security. He must sent out of doors than direct taxtherefore

the amendment. ation ; but popular with whom?Mr. Miles supported the amend- with those who were not directly ment.


taxed. And to what did that lead ?

« ForrigeFortsett »