parties who had never had it. This was what the Government was about to do. They were about to extend the differential duty on tobacco, which was at present a cypher on the books of the Custom-house, to India, where it would make a practical difference, because a considerable quantity of the article would be imported from that country. the strong objection which he had always felt to the tax proposed by the right hon. Baronet, to consent to its imposition? The opinion he now held on the subject of an Income-tax he had always entertained. It might be urged against him that he had not made any public declaration of his opinion upon that point; but What would be the differ-it should be remembered that he had held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it was said to be to talk as long as was necessary without expressing a decided opinion upon anything, until his budget should come out. He saw the right hon. Gentleman opposite was looking at one of his speeches, but he would find nothing in it in favour of an Income-tax. He remembered, on one occasion, making a speech of half an hour's length, and he was told, at the conclusion of it, by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that he had made a good-humoured speech, without saying anything; and this he certainly considered one of the greatest compliments that could be paid to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other opportunities would occur for discussing the question of the Income-tax; but he could not allow that occasion to pass without asking the House and the country at large to calmly consider what was the nature of the impost to which it proposed to subject them, and to deliberate as to whether there was no other less objectionable mode of supplying the deficiency of the revenue. When he came down to the House on the evening when the right hon. Baronet made his financial statement, he had not the slightest notion that it was the intention of the Government to propose any such measure. He had expected that, on that occasion, it might be necessary for himself and his late colleagues to enter into a discussion respecting the measures which they proposed last year, to vindicate the accuracy of the statements they had made, and the principles they had laid down. At the same time speaking for himself and his late Colleagues, he could state they had resolved that they would not, for any mere party purpose, object to the imposition of any fit and proper taxes that might be necessary to raise the sum required for the service of the country. The tax now proposed, however, was one to which he could not consent. Was it a just tax. Was it an equal tax? Those were questions for the country to determine. Was it fair that those who were in ence to the consumer? Would it reduce the price of tobacco a single farthing? It would not, and the result of the arrangement would be merely to deprive the English Exchequer of the differential 3d., and to place it in the pockets of the Indian speculator. In the present state of our relations with China he would not say much of the favour shown to Assam tea. He only hoped the right hon. Baronet would not compel him to drink it. To those who might object that the points to which he was adverting were of small importance, he would reply by asking what effect the new principle introduced into our tariff would have when we came to negotiate commercial treaties with other countries? It had been the object of wise men, in latter times, to liberalise the tariff, and reduce the distinctive and differential duties by which it was deformed, but now it was proposed to impose a differential duty upon every article which could be found. Was it not probable that foreign states would turn round upon us, and say "Your principle is a differential one, and the principle which you act on we will carry out also; we are persuaded your principle must be a valuable one, because you even incur the risk of making yourself appear ridiculous from the manner in which you carry it into practice." Ought we not to look to the future? The interests to be protected by the imposition of differential duties might be small in themselves, but those interests, when united, would be as difficult to break as the bundle of sticks, and they would hereafter oppose a firm resistance to measures having for their object the benefit of the consumer. Was it wise to increase the opposition which obstructs every Minister who endeavoured to take a single step in a liberal course of policy? The question now was, whether the country was willing to undergo an Income-tax for a tariff founded on such principles. Was the advantage to be gained by the adoption of the new tariff sufficiently great to induce even those who did not entertain many sources of revenue for the means of en- the revenue. Looking at the enormous the permanent occupation of propertythat those whose property descended from father to son, and who might dispose of it as they pleased, should pay in the same proportion as those who obtained their annual incomes by their own exertionsincomes which would be immediately cut off by sume of those casual accidents to which humanity was liable, leaving the families dependent upon them wholly un-gested to supply the large deficiency of provided for. The right hon. Baronet had already learned what that large and influential body, the Bank of England, thought of a scheme which affected equally permanent and annual funded securities. For his own part he could conceive nothing more unfair than such a mode of taxation. He was aware that persons believed that the scheme proposed by the right hon. Baronet was the fairest and most equal mode of raising a revenue, but his own opinion was that no tax could be devised which would operate more unequally, more unjustly, and more oppressively. When he was in office, and sitting on the other side of the House, he put a question to the right hon. Baronet to which he was not fortunate enough to obtain an answer. He asked the right hon. Baronet what, in the event of the House rejecting the measure which he then proposed, he would himself propose. He believed, that the right hon. Baronet would not now put a similar question to him. On the 14th of May last year, he made use of the following language in that House : "I ask from hon. Gentlemen opposite not that kind of information which was wrung from me last year, to the inconvenience of the public service-not particular details, but the general course which they are prepared to adopt. It is the duty of the House to provide for the public service, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite in what mode they would perform that duty. I do not call on them to specify the actual taxes they would propose, but the general course of policy. Are they prepared to have recourse to additional direct taxation to make up the public revenue if they reject my motion? I have proposed to raise the means for the public service without laying additional burdens on the people of this country-if you oppose me, are you prepared to assert a further taxation." He was not prepared to offer a budget to the right hon. Baronet. Nothing could be more indecorous and improper than such a proceeding; but he should not feel justified in opposing even the proposed Income-tax unless he could point to other In the customs there had been £7,500,000 12,000,000 866,000 4,800,000 The right hon. Baronet did not rely upon the Income-tax alone for raising the money he wanted-he resorted to other sources of revenue. The right hon. Baronet expected to obtain 400,000l. from Ireland by the addition he proposed to the stamp and spirit duties affecting that country. Would any man venture to assert that if 400,000Z. could be drawn from Ireland, means could not be found of restoring public credit, and raising the income to a par with the expenditure, without resorting to a tax which had hitherto been considered the last resource of the Treasury, and to be applied to only in cases of the greatest difficulty? When Mr. Vansittart had been compelled to give up the property-tax, he levied three millions of other taxes in 1819, and that the imposition of those imposts did not injuriously effect the public welfare was evident from the fact that in 1822, 1823, and 1824, the Government was enabled to repeal a considerable amount of taxation in consequence of the increased revenue derived from articles of consumption, and the general improveinent of trade. As the right hon. Baronet had not explained the nature of the machinery which he intended to employ in the collection of the Income-tax, he would not dwell upon that point; but he could not help calling the attention of the House to as important a document as he ever read, namely, a petition of the merchants of London, presented to the House of Commons when the last Income-tax was | tax, and to promote efficient measures forthin operation. The meeting at which the with for the diminution of the public expendipetition was agreed to, was stated to have ture." represented all the property and respectability of the City of London. It was stated in the House, at the time the petition was presented, that an attempt had been made to get up a counter-petition in favour of a modified income-tax, for which only twenty-three signatures could be obtained; and the original petition, therefore, came to the House, expressing the experience and feelings of the whole mercantile class of London. It was worthy of remark, that that petition was moved by the very gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) who was the author of the income-tax, and suggested it to Mr. Pitt. He would take the liberty of reading the petition to the House. It stated: relieved from those contributions at least which The petition which he had read was received by the House with a shout of unanimous applause. It was presented on the 18th of March, 1816, and, by a singular coincidence, the right hon. Baronet had selected the anniversary of that day to call upon the House to re-impose the tax which the petition was mainly instrumental in causing to be repealed. He trusted, that in what he had said, he had avoided any thing like recriminatory language, but he felt the deepest and sincerest objection to the tax proposed by the right hon. Baronet, and if he were to stand alone he would record his dissent from it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it was perfectly natural, that the right hon. "That in the judgment of the petitioners, Gentleman opposite should take the the property or income-tax is in its principle earliest opportunity of expressing his senarbitrary, at variance with the spirit and gene-timents with respect to the financial mearal practice of our constitution, and that it sure of her Majesty's Government, and he, ought only to be submitted to in cases of ur- for one, had nothing to complain of in the gent necessity that inasmuch as it operated tone in which the right hon. Gentleman indiscriminately npon all casual as well as had expressed them; nor was he himself permanent incomes, it is not equitable; and disposed to take a different course than that, in its application to trade and commerce, it has been found inquisitorial and oppressive; to abstain from that recrimination which that during the long and arduous struggle in the right hon. Gentleman had avoided, which this country has been engaged, the peti- and confine himself to the arguments tioners have patiently submitted to taxes, how-which the right hon. Gentleman had used ever burdensome, and even to this imposition, on that occasion. He must, however, be however vexatious, in the confident reliance allowed to express some surprise, that that upon the return of peace they should be while the right hon. Gentleman had natuwere professedly raised for the purpose of de rally taken an early opportunity of exfraying within each year a considerable portion pressing his opinion upon this subject, he of the extraordinary and unavoidable expenses had taken it in such a form as not to call of the war; that the faith of Parliament had upon the House to give any opinion on been expressly pledged for the cessation of the the principle which he had advocated-he income-tax with the war, which alone could had made a speech, but had offered no justify such establishments and expenditure as rendered that galling burden necessary; and proposition upon which the House was that in the petitioners understanding and be called on to divide; and although he bad lief, it had never been continued nor renewed heard the right hon. Gentleman throughwithout its being accompanied by the same out his speech, yet he could give no opinpledge; that no modification of its details, or ion as to the course which the right hon. abatement in the rate of its immediate exac- Gentleman intended to take with respect to tions, can in the opinion of the petitioners re- the measure then under their consideration. move the obnoxious principle of this tax, or He understood the right hon. Gentleman compensate for the alarming precedent of its enactment during peace; that to anticipate in intended to vote against the resolution in time of peace those extraordinary resources committee. He thought it was more con. which should be reserved for the defence of formable to ordinary usage, more conformthe national interest, honour, and independ-able to the fair discussion of the subject, ence, when either are endangered by foreign if the arguments had been introduced at a aggression, appears to the petitioners to be in-period when the House might have had jurious, not only to the domestic comfort and an opportunity of bringing conflicting and influence abroad; that the petitioners, opinions to a test. He proposed, as the therefore, earnestly entreat the House not to right hon. Gentleman had gone back to a permit the renewal of the income and property-considerable period, and had travelled over prosperity of the country, but to its reputation a large field of taxation, to address himself, in order, to the several topics which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by referring to that period of the management of the finances of the country when that deficiency first commenced for which they were now called on to provide-not, indeed, a deficiency alone, but the accumulation of deficiency which the system adopted in 1838 and 1839 had led to, and which had now entailed upon the country, even according to the confession of the right hon. Gentleman, the absolute necessity of providing by fresh taxation for the exigencies of the State. The right hon. Gentleman told them, that the Ministry was justified in the course which they took in 1838, in not providing for the large deficiency which was then permitted to remain at the end of the year; and that there were no extraordinary occurrences on that occasion which obliged the Government to call forth the energies of the people. He further eulogised that system of borrowing and temporary arrangement which now proved to be the great misfortune of the country, and rendered it necessary for the Government to tax the people for the purpose of repairing past errors. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to that period of 1838 and 1839 as if it were a period promising such perfect tranquillity, that no provision was then necessary to be made for the exigencies of the State; but he had forgotten, that in those two years, there were circumstances sufficiently threatening to have pointed out to a Government with ordinary prudence, that the state of the finances of the country ought not to be permitted to fall into dilapidation. In the year 1838, they had had a manifestation of revolt in the Canadas, originating in circumstances to which it was then unnecessary to advert, but which immediately entailed upon the country a considerable expenditure, and threatened an increase of it even in that year. There were circumstances, then, in the commencement of that deficiency to warn the Government that it ought not to be permitted to continue; and if they took not that early warning, at least to induce them, at a subsequent period, to combine with an united effort to prevent the consequences. Nor was the whole evil of that want of energy in not providing by taxation for the wants of the country, shewn by the actual deficiency of the year. Unwilling to face the difficulty of imposing fresh burdens on the people, the Government had recourse to a system of reducing the balances in the Exchequer to a hazardous extent. The House, perhaps, was not aware what was the balance in the Exchequer at a period just previous to that to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. On the 5th of January, 1837, it was 6,049,000l. On the 5th of January last, that balance was reduced to about 3,500,0007.; let not the House suppose that that was an inconsiderable evil, or one which they were to put out of their consideration in dealing with the finances of the country; or that, though not called upon to provide for that deficiency of balance, but only to make up the deficiency of the annual receipts to meet the annual expenditure, there was anything but danger in leaving the balances in that condition. The present proposition was to provide for the moment, for the debt that was due; but in proportion as that balance in the Exchequer was reduced, so were they obliged to depend upon the Bank of England for a larger supply, and were making the country more and more dependent on that great establishment, and not only that, but were also deranging the currency, and preventing the Bank from making those arrangements in respect of it which might be necessary for their own security and the prosperity of the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country. When the right hon. Gentleman told them that he had forborne to impose upon the people fresh taxation, it was no trifling consideration, in dealing with the finances of the country, to remem ber what had been the effect of that abstinence, followed up as it had been by five consecutive years of deficiency, upon the Exchequer of the country. The next attempt of the right hon. Gentleman was to show, in opposition to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on a previous evening, that taxation on articles of consumption had not been unproductive to the degree which his right hon. Friend had stated and here he must say, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed altogether to have misunderstood the argument which his right hon. Friend had used. The right hon. Gentleman supposed that his right hon. Friend had stated that the addition of 5 per cent. imposed on Customs and Excise had not raised any revenue at all to the country. nearly a million, comparing the actual But that was not the argument which his result with what the result ought to have right hon. Friend had used. His right hon. been, had the addition of 5 per cent to Friend wished to show that the consump- the duty, produced the expected increase. tion of the country was so affected at the Now, to come to the corn duty. The corn present moment, that when you attempted duty, in 1840, produced 1,000,000, in to make to it even a small addition, in pro- 1841, only 500,000l. [Mr. Baring: I portion to the total amount, the effort must was speaking of the net amount.] It was necessarily fail. The right hon. Gentle- only by taking the gross amount that they man complained that his right hon. Friend could arrive at the real result. He adhad taken the total amount of the Customs mitted, that no just conclusion could in 1840 and 1841, and had shown from be drawn from the gross amount as to that total amount of revenue the failure the effect which the tax had on the reof his (Mr. Baring's) plan. He further venue of the country, for it might recontended that that view was altogether quire an additional establishment for its erroneous; and that he ought to have collection; and, although the tax might excluded, in considering the question of be productive, yet the deductions from consumption, the amount produced by the it might be very considerable; and, again, 5 per cent duty. He thought that that when they dealt with the net amount was the argument of the right hon. Gen- received by the Exchequer, that might tleman; but he was afraid the right hon. be a fair test for the purposes of reveGentleman would not derive much ad-nue, but for the purposes of testing the vantage as to the main point at issue consumption, it would be of very little between them from the observations which he had made on the statement of his right hon. Friend. The question which the House had to decide was this-could they, with a prospect of raising revenue, impose on articles of consumption a new taxation to the amount of 3,000,000l. or at least without great burden upon the commercial, manufacturing, and trading interests of this country, or whether they should adopt another system of taxation now proposed to them? He had had a paper made out, stating the produce that was derived from certain articles of revenue in 1840, he had added to the produce of those several articles the per centage which the right hon. Gentleman imposed, and had compared the total result that ought to have been derived from it in the year, with the actual result of it in the following year; showing thereby, what was the increase expected from the addition of 5 per cent., and what was the actual result. Now, to take some of the articles with respect to coffee, the amount proposed to be derived from it was 890,000l., the actual amount was only 870,000. That was taking the whole year during which the additional duty was received. In sugar the amount ought to have been 5,017,000l., it was only 4,310,000l. In wine it was to be 1,998,000Z., it was only 1,806,000l. In timber it ought to have been 1,590,0007. it was only 1,540,000l. Upon these few articles alone, there was a deficiency of avail. The right hon. Gentleman next spoke of the inconsistency which had been displayed by himself, and by those who acted with him, with respect to the imposition of a fresh duty on spirits in Ireland. When the impost of 4d. a gallon on spirits in Ireland was proposed in 1840, observed the right hon. Gentleman, the present Administration declared, that they apprehended an injury to the revenue by its operation; yet, that when they were able themselves to choose a tax for the restoration of the finances of the country, they had not only adopted a principle which they had before condemned, but, that they had also carried that principle further than was previously contemplated. Now, he believed, that he should be able to make a satisfactory reply to this objection of the right hon. Gentleman. He found, that in spite of the additional tax imposed on Irish spirits by the right hon. Gentleman, the consumption had increased; therefore, he thought he was justified in changing his opinion, and in thinking, that a tax imposed on that article was advantageous for the revenue, without being prejudicial to the cause of morality. The right hon. Gentleman had then proceeded to review the budget of the previous year. Now, he thought, that the merits of that budget had been so completely discussed, and the opinion of the House respecting its merits had been so decisively expressed, that he might very well have been excused from enter |