66

bread, his cheese, butter, soap, tea, tobacco, or his coffee. Sir Robert said that his selection was made with reference to one great point-that at the end of three years he might be able to take off the income-tax; and in his anticipations for the future, the Chancellor of the Exchequer borrowed the too sanguine pencil of his colleague, Prosperity Robinson:" he took off taxes to the amount of three or four millions, and expected to increase the revenue in three years by five millions; saying that in 1816 three millions of taxes were taken off, and in 1819 the revenue had righted itself. The facts did not justify that calculation. Mr. Goulburn forgot that in 1816 the income-tax was taken off. In 1816, the ordinary revenue was 71,900,000l.; taxes were taken off to the amount of 17,500,000l.; in 1819, the revenue was 52,155,000l.; being a loss of 19,745,000l. In the five years ending 1826, the taxes remitted were 13,000,000l.; and the revenue was not restored by about 4,000,000l. In the three years ending 1829, the taxes taken off were 9,600,000; but by 1839 the revenue had not recovered, the loss being 4,600,000l. From 1815 to 1830, the taxes taken off were 33,000,000l.; the loss to the revenue was 22,000,0007. Mr. Baring concluded with a taunt, that after all the reproaches at public meetings and on the hustings, of mismanagement,' and 'jobbing,' and Whig-meddling,' the wise and pacific result of the right honourable gentleman's policy was an increase of about half a million in certain votes over what the expenditure was in the last year of Whig-mismanage

ment.'

Mr. Goulburn replied to Mr. Baring's allegations. He declined to enter again into the statement of figures, but he remarked that Mr. Baring had substantially confirmed his argument, that remission of taxation leads to increase of revenue. He insisted that the alteration of duties would benefit the poorer classes, if not by a direct diminution of price in the articles consumed by them, at least by giving an impulse to trade and increasing employment. If the poor, for example, do not use much glass, the reduction of the duty would create new employment; but the reduction of the cotton duty directly tends to cheapen fustians and other articles of clothing used by the poor. As to the remission of other taxes than those selected, the question was, how to dispose of the sum of 250,000l. Now, the income derived from tea is 3,000,000l., between 3,000,000l. and 4,000,0007. from tobacco, and above 1,000,0007. from soap; so then, if the reduction to be made would extend no further than 250,000l., not more than a mere fraction of any of those duties could be taken off; and the advantage of such a small reduction would never be felt by the public, for it would go into the pockets of the trader or retailer only; and thus, as far as the general benefit of the community was concerned, that sum of 250,000l. would be entirely thrown away. The increase of expenditure had arisen solely from the introduction of a new element in warfare, steam; and from the necessity of placing the navy of this country at least upon an equal footing with that of other nations, and not from any disposition on the part of Government to aban

don principles of economy which they had professed.

Mr. Muntz supported the amendment, though he had voted originally for the tax as a temporary means of removing other taxes; he now voted to remove it, because it was proved to press unfairly on several classes of the community. Mr. Hawes also opposed the income-tax, as pressing hard upon the industrial resources of the country, and not at all necessary to maintain its credit. It appeared that by the 5th of April next, the surplus would be 5,000,000l., about the amount of the income-tax; but to that ought to be added the future revenue derivable from corn, and the Chinese ransom-money, in all about 2,000,000l. He considered the income-tax as the great obstacle to free trade, since, without it, the Government would be obliged to modify the taxes bearing upon articles of large consumption, in order to restore the energies of the country, and by that means its revenue. He asked how the Government meant to dispose of the 5,000,000l. surplus?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, that without going into the exact figures, 5,000,0001. being the surplus, 2,000,000l. were applied to repay the Bank the exchequer bills advanced on account of opium compensation, and the remaining 3,000,0001. would either be added to augment the balance at the end of the year, or applied in the reduction of the national debt.

Mr. Ewart gave a more qualified opposition to the income-tax. He recommended direct taxation as opposed to taxes upon imports; but advocated a tax upon property rather than upon income.

Mr.Osborne's amendment having been negatived by 96 to 23, it was then proposed by Mr. Curteis to make the duration of the tax two years instead of three. This was rejected by 69 to 17.

Mr. Aglionby recommended an increase in the powers given to the Board of Stamps and Taxes, as more satisfactory than the decisions of the local commissioners, which were often conflicting.

Mr. Wakley, on the other hand, advocated giving more power to the local commissioners. He urged that it was the policy of the Government to make such alterations as would render the tax less onerous to the working classes; if this were done, it was one of the best taxes for them that could be imposed. He said, that if the tax were only to last for three years, he would willingly accede to it; but if it were to be permanent, the House could not too soon begin the work of reformation.

This view was enforced by Lord John Russell, Dr. Bowring, and other members; and Mr. Spooner gave notice of several deductions from the payment of the tax, which he should propose in the form of amendments.

It

Sir Robert Peel made a half-jocular answer to the question implied by Mr. Wakley. The honourable gentleman must see that it would be quite impossible for him to give any reply in this case. would be perfectly open to the House, at the end of three years, to say whether the income-tax should be continued or not. If the House should then be so enamoured of the tax as to renew it, they could amend it as might seem best. He did not at all despair of being able to part with the incometax at the end of the three years.

However, if the House would give him the tax for five years, on condition of his agreeing to the honourable gentleman's amendment, he would certainly agree to that amendment.

In the course of the discussion, Lord Sandon made a forcible declaration in favour of direct taxation. It had long struck his mind most strongly, that the time was approaching when they must look more to direct and less to indirect taxation. The property of the country was increasing to an enormous extent, and a very small per centage upon that capital would produce a large positive amount. One great objection urged against the income-tax had been the danger of driving away capital from the country by imposing so large a weight of taxation upon it: but when a tax of 3 per cent. raised 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l., there was not much danger of capital being driven away; and a tax of this nature enabled the House to dispense with a large amount of indirect taxation. It was our duty to endeavour to provide occupation and employment for the labouring classes, and how was this to be effected? By promoting the industry of the country in every possible way. But what was the great obstruction to the progress of industry? The taxes imposed upon every description of manufacture through the Customs and Excise. Direct taxation, therefore, was becoming more and more advisable; and he should be extremely sorry if the House pledged itself to abandon the income-tax at any given period. At the same time, there was no doubt that if the property tax were made a permanent source of revenue, some alterations would be necessary.

Sir Robert Peel, being afterwards asked by Mr. Wakley, who said that there was an under-current of opinion rising against the income-tax, which would soon burst into thunder, whether he meant to resist every amendment, said, "Without saying, in an arrogant manner, that I shall resist every motion, I will say as courteously as I can, consistently with my sense of duty, that I think it right to adhere to the present Bill; and I think that by saying this, I may perhaps prevent an immense consumption of time at present. When the under-current' shall have greatly swelled, which the honourable gentleman does not think will be till the end of three years, then will be the time to consider whether or not the principle of the Bill shall be altered. ("Hear!" and a laugh.) I hope that the noble lord opposite will consider this question,-whether, as the Act is admitted for three years, this is the time either for the admission or the discussion of small alterations? I think it is not."

After some further debate, the Bill passed through committee.

A discussion of considerable length and importance was renewed on the 10th of March, by Mr. Charles Buller, who, on the motion that the amendments to the Income-tax Bill be read a second time, proposed the following amendment,- "That the circumstances under which the renewal of the income-tax is at present proposed, are such as to render it exceedingly improbable that Parliament will have the power of dispensing with its continuance at the end of three years; and that it is therefore the duty of this House to take care that the tax be

imposed in a form in which its operation shall be less unequal and inquisitorial than it now is." He commenced by stating his objections to the general financial scheme of Sir Robert Peel, and observed, that though it had been called the poor man's budget, he did not know how any budget less beneficial to the poor man could have been devised. The poor man could get no benefit from the reduction of the sugar-duties, or the auction-duties; nor yet could he obtain any relief from the reduction of the export-duties, as they were usually paid by foreigners. Of the 430 articles which were to be struck out of the tariff, there was not one which entered materially into the common consumption of the poorer classes. Corn and butter were left in the tariff as before, but the poor man was now allowed, as a great boon, to get duty-free alum to adulterate his bread, and lard to adulterate his butter. The reduction of the duties on glass might indeed obtain for him a cheaper and better window; but that was not, he thought, an article of prime necessity. The duty on cotton was reduced, it was said, to give him cheap clothing; but, supposing the poor man to wear one fustian suit himself, and his wife to wear two cotton gowns, in the year, the whole amount of the reduction of the duty on cotton on such garments would not amount to more than 3d. in the year, and it was open to doubt whether the poor man would get even that much benefit. He then showed that by the scheme of the sugarduties now proposed by Sir Robert Peel, the poor man would have to pay more than 3d. a month, in the shape of protection, to the West India proprietor. He complained

that Sir Robert Peel had excepted from reduction every article which entered largely into general consumption, and said that if he had dealt frankly with the articles of tea, coffee, tobacco, malt, soap, spirits, and wines, he might have so benefited the revenue, by diminishing the price of those articles, as to make up the amount of the loss at the end of three years by the increase of consumption. He then proceeded to show that the budget was a monopoly budget, and not a free-trade budget, for it interfered with no protected interest, except the West Indian interest, and that it elevated. voting, therefore, for the incometax at present, the House was voting in favour of a system, which would not only bolster up discriminating duties, but would also weaken its resources for assailing other protected interests. showed that three or four bad harvests had caused the deficiency in the revenue whilst the Whigs were in power, and that three or four good harvests had restored the revenue to prosperity. But was the Minister provided with any measure to meet a similar disaster in

In

He

future? If there were in the course of the next three years a bad harvest, or a fall in trade, what would be the budget of 1848? There would be a deficit in it, in spite of the income-tax, and the Minister would then be compelled to come forward and to ask for a larger per centage. It was a downright fraud, then, to say that your revenue would be so far recovered at the end of three years as to enable you to get rid of the income-tax. If that were the case, then it behoved them, as plain, honest men, to make the tax perfect, when they made it

permanent. He did not propose any specific amendments in the Bill; he would lay before them a clear, intelligible, practicable principle, and would not weaken it by entering at present into any disputable details. On a former occasion, he had exposed the unequal, inquisitorial, and odious nature of the property-tax; and though it had been carried into operation in London and the vicinity with greater mildness than had been expected, yet he had received many complaints from the north of England as to the way in which it had been administered there, by local Commissioners, against offensive politicians and rivals in trade.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that Mr. Buller had indulged in a variety of details, which, if not sound in principle, were at any rate lively in recital. The income-tax had been previously debated in that House, and had been carried by an overwhelming majority. That was some proof that it was not very unpopular; but if it were so, why had the honourable member withheld his disapprobation till that moment, when the amendment of the Bill was scarcely within his reach? and why had he come down to the House at last, not with any specific amendments, but with a general resolution which denounced the Bill without attempting to improve it? If he were so convinced that the incometax would be permanent, his motion should not be for its repeal, but for the repeal of other taxes besides those proposed to be repealed in the budget. Mr. Buller had said that the Government ought to have dealt with tea, coffee, tobacco, malt, soap, spi

rits, and wine, instead of with sugar, glass, and cotton; but he seemed to have forgotten that the articles which he mentioned produced a revenue of 16,000,000l. or 17,000,0001. But he was sure that if the Government had proposed to sacrifice a revenue of 3,000,000l., derived from the duties on tobacco and spirits, Mr. Buller would have been one of the first to raise an outcry against Ministers for pandering to the vices, and for neglecting the morals and comforts, of the people. He then proceeded to show that by imposing an income-tax, which did not operate upon the poor at all, and which produced a revenue of 5,000,000l. a year from those classes of society which were in more comfortable circumstances, Ministers were enabled to relieve the poor from many taxes which they now paid. But it was not by the withdrawal of taxation alone that they benefited the poor; you did them as much good when you afforded them increased means of employment, and such means would be afforded to them by the present budget. For instance, in consequence of the remission of the glass-duties, new capital was already embarked in that trade, and new labourers were therefore wanted in the market. He had never limited the benefit which the repeal of the cotton duties would confer upon the poor man to the increased cheapness of his clothing; he had considered the repeal of those duties to be most valuable in this respect, that it would enable the British to meet the foreign manufacturer in every part of the world, and would therefore call into the labour-market an increased number of men to meet the increased demand of the foreign