Page images
PDF
EPUB

answer, no doubt, thought he best performed his duty as a Minister of the Crown; the public, however must judge as to the propriety of the course adopted. Sir R. Peel begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that he, too, had received communications from Scotland on the subject of the imposition of an Incometax, and he must say the feeling of the people of Scotland had been most satisfactory upon the point.

Mr. C. Wood wished to know what was the intention of the right hon. Baronet about going on with the committee on the Corn Bill?

bringing forward the Corn Bill to-night, instead of the Income-tax. The right hon. Baronet's conduct on this subject was very inconsistent. Ten days ago the right hon. Baronet told them the people were all agog with respect to the Corn Bill, and the trade was at a perfect stand still. But now the right hon. Baronet brought forward the Income-tax to the exclusion of the Corn Bill, and called upon the House for an immediate decision upon it. Really, after all, he did not think anybody was in such a confounded hurry to have the Income-tax imposed. The only anxiety seemed to be that of the right hon. Baronet to prevent any expression of feel

Sir R. Peel thought he should rather ask what were the intentions of Gentle-ing in the country upon this subject. He men opposite upon that subject? He was most anxious to bring the discussions on the Corn Importation Bill to a close. He had been accused of pressing important matters forward with undue haste; but he could assure the House, that personally it was a matter of entire indifference to him which question was taken first; but the communications he daily received, led him, upon public grounds, to urge, that as little delay as possible should intervene. His proceeding with the Corn Bill would entirely depend on hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they thought that the sense of the House had been sufficiently indicated upon that question, he should be most happy to bring the discussion at once to a close. He had put it on the paper every night, so that if business was over between nine and ten o'clock, no impediment should exist to their proceeding with it. If the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. Napier), who had a motion on the paper for tomorrow, would give him precedence, he would be most happy to bring the Corn Bill on then. He had exhausted every means in his power to bring it forward, in order, as speedily as possible, to terminate the discussion.

Mr. C. Wood begged the right hon. Baronet to remember, that he had expressed no impatience whatever, or the reverse. He was anxious, that the bill should be got through that House, and that the great interests now kept in suspense should be set at rest. But, in fact, he asked the question more with reference to getting out of town, than anything else.

Mr. C. Buller suggested to the right hon. Baronet the very simple device of

was trying the plan he had tried beforemost unfairly endeavouring to coerce their conduct on one measure by appealing to the impatience of the country with reference to another-forcing them to come to a precipitate decision on the Income-tax, in order to overtake the Corn Bill. The right hon. Baronet said, that the Cor ill had been discussed a great deal too much. [No, no!] The right hon. Baronet said, at all events, the other night, that there had been fourteen nights'discussion on the Corn Bill, and that certainly seemed to imply, that it was too much; but, looking at the state of the Corn Bill, there was a question of the greatest practical importance to the country which required to be minutely sifted he meant the system of averages-which had never been discussed at all. He hoped the House would not hurry to any decision on the Income-tax. If the right hon. Baronet wished, in consideration of the state of trade, and the anxiety which prevailed on the subject, to come to a speedy decision on the corn question, he had the remedy in his own hands, by making it the first Order of the Day.

Sir R. Peel said, he had mentioned, not fourteen, but sixteen nights' discussion. He did not presume to say that was too long, but he certainly thought there had been a tolerably long discussion on the Corn-bill. He did not say too long, because the result had been to cause great satisfaction throughout the country with the measure. He did not in the slightest degree deprecate the discussion which had taken place. He had given notice, and he thought it had caused the greatest dissatisfaction, that as soon as he got the resolution on the Corn-bill as a

foundation of the measure, he would explain and take the sense of the House on his financial measure. The course he had pursued was exactly in concurrence with his original declaration, and most certainly he thought it would be well that the opinion of the House should be pronounced at the earliest period with respect to an Income-tax, or what should be the foundation on which the new system of taxation should rest. He repeated his anxiety to bring forward the Corn-bill tomorrow, if he could get precedence, his desire being that it should pass as soon as possible; but at the same time he begged most respectfully to say, that upon those days appropriated to public business he meant to press the preliminary resolution relative to the Income-tax before anything else.

Lord J. Russell believed the right hon. Baronet was under a slight mistake in supposing that the House was anxious to pronounce an opinion immediately on the Income-tax; what the House undoubtedly desired was, that the right hon. Baronet should have an opportunity of stating generally his financial plans, and the commercial alterations he intended to propose. For his own part, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend, that if the public interest was the sole consideration, it would be most desirable to proceed with the Corn-bill, when the question of the averages and other details, which could only be discussed in committee, might be settled. With regard to the new tariff, many parties would, no doubt, be anxious to know the precise duties that would be imposed; but the amount of Income-tax each would have to pay, all must pretty well know that already; so that whether the resolution upon that subject were taken earlier or later seemed to be a matter of very little importance. The right hon. Baronet would, no doubt, take his own course. He could only say, that he should certainly divide the committee upon the resolution, and afterwards on the report, as well as upon the first, second, and third reading of the bill.

Sir R. Peel said, he had heard with some regret that the noble Lord proposed to take that course; at the same time that feeling was somewhat qualified by the announcement which the noble Lord had made, that the proposition was so reasonable and so necessary for the public interests that every man, without waiting

for the decision of the House, was prepared as to the amount he should have to pay.

House in a committee of Ways and Means.

THE INCOME TAX.] Mr. Hawes said, that the announcement which the noble Lord the Member for London had just made, of his determination to offer every parliamentary opposition to the imposition of the proposed odious and unjust system of taxation, was one which, he firmly believed, would be received with satisfaction by thousands out of doors. If the right hon. Baronet had really made out a case for resorting to the Income-tax,-if he had shown that the national honour absolutely demanded it, or that the national faith would be at stake without it, then he readily conceived that no opposition would be offered to any proposition of the kind; but it was precisely because he thought that a case had not been made out that he for one should oppose the proposition of the Government. For, though in one year there was an additional deficiency of revenue, yet it owed its origin to the course pursued by the party opposite last year. Had a different course been pursuedhad a fair consideration been given to the corn duties, the sugar duties, and the timber duties, he firmly believed that at the present moment they would not be wanting the aid of an Income-tax to carry on the Government of the country. But what course was taken on these subjects? The party opposite refused to discuss them, and the right hon. Baronet having determined to prevent any real alteration of the corn and sugar duties, for the purpose of maintaining the consistency of party, and nothing else, now found himself reduced to the necessity, unless the right hon. Baronet chose to follow more closely the commercial policy of his predecessors, to resort to an Income-tax, which he did not hesitate to describe as of the most odious and unjust character. He believed that a truer remark had never been made than was uttered by the noble Viscount, the' Member for Sunderland, who said nothing could be more injudicious or unwise than placing the national credit on an impost so odious as this. Let the system but once come into operation-let the secret inquisition be sitting, and bankers and others called on to disclose their private affairs, and he was

Conse

returns from every individual.
quently the tax was not only unjust in its
nature, but it must become as unpopular
as it was unjust. But the Opposition
were taunted by the right hon. Gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with
unnecessarily advocating, because they re-
ferred to the repeal of 22,000,000%. of
taxes, a recourse to taxes on the necessa-

firmly of opinion that so loud an expression of the public dissatisfaction would reach that House, that it would become a question whether any Government, however strong, could resist it. The right hon. Baronet, in order to make his proposition more acceptable, had told the House that he intended to introduce some few alterations into the provisions of the act of 1806; but when in 1816 the ques-ries of life; and the right hon. Gentletion of a property-tax came before Par- man was the only person, forsooth, who liament, and Lord Bexley proposed to re- thought of the interests of the poor. The duce the amount from 10 per cent. to 5 Income-tax was to be taken as an indicaper cent., and introduce various modifica- tion on the part of the Government to tions, did he succeed in conciliating public uphold the rights of the poor, as if an Infeeling? The Ministry then had a large come-tax could be levied on the profits majority, but day by day, in consequence and capital of trade without its effects of discussions in that House, the popular falling on the poor. An accusation, therefeeling rose to such a point, that at length fore, more shallow or flimsy could not the tax was refused, and one of the most have been brought, than that those who eloquent Members of the House de- opposed the imposition of an Income-tax, nounced it by declaring that " its rem- slighted the wants and necessities of the nants and records were only fit to be de- poor. When the right hon. Gentleman stroyed by the hands of the common hang- made this accusation, one might have man." The City of London teemed with imagined that the Government were going complaints, not only against the principle to fix the taxation of the country on a of the tax, but against the mode in which broad and permanent foundation, and that it was carried into effect. If individuals they contemplated relieving the poorer were to be authorised to inquire into the classes from the pressure under which income of others, a large amount of in- they laboured; and yet, after all the quisitorial power must be given them; grandiloquent pretensions which had been and he trusted, that the good sense of the laid claim to, it appeared that they only people of England would never endure to contemplated the continuance of the Insee inquisitions scattered through the come-tax for three years. The scheme of country, and that it would prevent the the Government resolved itself into the Income-tax disgracing the statute-book. imposition of a miserable inquisitorial tax On the occasion to which he had alluded, for three years; and then the whole countwo petitions from the city of London try was to relapse into the old system of were presented against the continuance of taxation. The right hon. Baronet oppothe Income-tax, one from the corpora- site was not justified in imputing motives tion, and the other from the liverymen. to parties in that House for opposing this He wished to call the attention of the tax. The whole history of taxation, and House to a passage in the petition from the progress of opinion, fully justified the Lord Mayor and corporation of Lon- every Member in offering the most deterdon. It was there stated, that mined opposition to the odious impost. He conceived it to be his duty, as the representative of a large constituency, to give every oppositon to the proposed tax, believing it to be brought forward without adequate cause. How was the case made out? The right hon. Baronet said, that all the resources of taxation on the great articles of consumption were exhausted. He denied this. The right hon. Baronet had refused to consider an effective alteration of the duties on some articles of great consumption. Before the right hon. Baronet proposed an Income-tax, why did he shut out the House from consider

"Though a reduction should be made in the amount of the tax, yet the principle remaining unchanged, the petitioners were of opinion, that its operation would be still more galling. The reduction from 10 to 5 per cent., so far from making the operation of the tax less vexatious, would produce a contrary effect, and tend to the most degrading and inquisitorial proceedings."

He was decidedly of opinion, that in proportion to the smallness of the tax, the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings would be increased; for the commissioners would more rigidly require accurate

inconsistent with the right hon. Baronet's argument. Let the House consider what was proposed to be done with respect to timber; for he was prepared to contend, that a revenue might be raised from a proper adjustment of the duties, which would supply to a certain extent the deficiency it was now intended to make up by an Income-tax. According to the tariff of the right hon. Baronet, the duty on colonial timber was to be reduced from 10s. to 1s. Compare this proposition with the suggestion of the committee of 1835. They proposed to retain the duty of 10s. on colonial timber, and to reduce the duty on European to 40s., thereby leaving a differential duty of 30s. The effect of the proposed alteration would be a considerable loss of revenue. He, therefore, thought that the timber duties, properly managed, might be a legitimate source of revenue. Before he left the question of the timber duties, he might be allowed to refer to those authorities by which to a certain extent those who pre

ing how much revenue might be raised from a due alteration of the duties on sugar, on the importation of corn, and on timber? The right hon. Baronet had been pleased to say, that he gave up 600,000l. on timber in consideration of advantage to the trade. He believed, that the right hon. Baronet had made a much larger concession than he intended. What did the right hon. Baronet propose to do with regard to timber? All former advocates of an alteration of the duties on timber had endeavoured to show, that whilst they reduced the price to the consumer, they would bring in a large amount of revenue. The right hon. Baronet quoted the authority of Sir H. Parnell; but it so happened, that the only passage of that gentleman's work which the right hon. Gentleman read, exactly preceded that in which he pointed out the fallacy of an alteration like the one now proposed. If the right hon. Baronet had gone one step further, he would have found that Sir H. Parnell, instead of concurring in such a plan, suggested one exceedingly differ-pared the proposed tariff had been guided; ent from it. The passage quoted by the right hon. Baronet was as follows:

[ocr errors]

because it was to be presumed that it was put in a state of great forwardness by the late Government, as there was a tariff in the appendix to the report of the import duties committee, and Mr. Deacon Hume had begun to classify the duties. What did Mr. M'Gregor propose? He proposed a duty of 7s. 6d. on colonial timber, and 22s. 6d. on foreign timber, and he antici

"The duty on timber affects and injures industry in a great variety of ways, in consequence of its being so much used in buildings, ships, machinery, &c. Countries possessing forests in the vicinity of navigable rivers enjoy great advantages in that respect over our ship-builders; and to lay a duty on timber is still further to increase those ad-pated that such an alteration would raise vantages. Instead of doing this, it would appear as if it were an indispensable preliminary to securing a permanently successful competition with foreign ship-builders to admit timber to be imported free of all duty."

The succeeding passage, which the right hon. Baronet did not read, was as follows:

"The present arrangement of the duties, namely, 10s. a load on North American tim ber, and of 21. 15s. a load on European timber, forces, as it were, the use of the former kind, though of inferior quality. It has already been stated, that this arrangement, which has for its object to protect the timber of our North American colonies, costs the public 1,000,000l. a-year,-many competent judges say 1,500,000l. If, in place of these duties, a duty of 11. 15s. a load were imposed on all timber, the prices would be reduced 11. a load, and the revenue would be considerably increased."

[Sir R. Peel: I read the passage.] If the right hon. Baronet read the passage, it escaped his observation; at any rate, it was

the revenue on timber from 1,600,000. to 2,500,000l. He calculated that there would be such an increased consumption, and consequent benefit to the consumer, that the Treasury would actually get 1,000,000l. more from timber. [Cheers.] He heard those cheers, but he was not necessarily bound to adopt those figures. He would take half a million, instead of a

million, and with other sources he would make up an aggregate sum, which would justify the House in not having recourse to an Income-tax. The right hon. Baronet had put the question to the House, whether it would adopt the Income-tax, or resort to other sources of revenue? This was the question he was arguing— whether other sources of revenue might not be found which, in the aggregate, would furnish a sum sufficient to justify the House in voting against the imposition of an Income-tax. There could not be a higher authority than Mr. Hume. He

was an advocate for a reduction of the | 1,000,000l., and 500,000l. at least might timber duties, and he proposed to obtain be obtained from timber. He had a right at least 2,500,000l. by a new mode of to quote the official servants of the Crown levying the duties. The opinion he ex- as authorities to be relied upon, backed as pressed before the committee in 1834, they were by the experience of various and which he entertained to the last hour practical men, and upon that authority he lived, was, that full a million might be he would state that amount might be obtained by a new adjustment of the derived from timber and sugar, and he duties. He would now advert to the would assert that there was no necessity sugar duties. They were, it appeared, for the proposed Income-tax. The right not to be taken into consideration "at hon. Baronet had never told them what present," if he might quote an expression revenue he expected from corn. It was which was much commented on last year. an extremely difficult subject, said the He should like the country distinctly to right hon. Baronet, and he was unable to understand on what ground resistance to form any opinion, notwithstanding all the an alteration of the sugar duties was intercourse he had had with practical men maintained. Was it intended to uphold and official servants of the Government, the West-Indian monopoly as a monopoly; whether the corn bill would or would not or was the alteration of sugar duties re- be the means of introducing much or little fused on the ground that Parliament ought corn into this country. They must test to give no encouragement to slave produce? the value of the right hon. Baronet's conIf the latter was the reason, then why did cession to the people by that admission. the right hon. Baronet propose to lessen It would be bad, and very bad, if it left the duty on tobacco? [Sir R. Peel: The the corn-trade where it was, and he could reduction only extended to the East- not, therefore, help thinking, that it was Indies.] His argument was untouched not so very difficult to form an opinion by that remark; because no one could be upon it. He found, indeed, that some found to justify the exclusion of slave- who were engaged in the corn-trade thought grown tobacco. He would refer to a few it would raise the revenue-that there facts to show the operation of the sugar would be a higher average duty imposed duties. The consumption of sugar, and on corn-that more corn would be coming the revenue derived from it, were much in at that rate of duty, and therefore, the same in 1841 as in 1828; and yet the there would be a larger revenue. He, population had increased at least in the believed, that from that source 1,200,000l. ratio of 16 per cent. If he should be might be obtained, and therefore from told that the quantity of sugar imported corn and timber he could get 1,700,000%. was now increasing, his answer was that Before they resorted to an Income-tax the population was increasing; and in a they ought to try every other resource. greater ratio; for if the consumption of Now, he denied, that all other sources of sugar for the last ten years were examined, taxation were dried up. All that was rethere would be found a great falling off quisite was a large and comprehensive in the consumption per head. Why, then, review of the tariff, with reference to the should the House be debarred from consi- well-being of the community, and if that dering this source of revenue, when the were done they would derive a revenue alternative offered was an Income-tax? equal to that which they would derive from If, the sugar duties were to be excluded the Income-tax. He hoped that he should from consideration, in order that the West- not be hereafter taunted if he opposed this India monopoly might be maintained, then measure, as he meant to do, with delayit was right that the country should clearly ing a measure of importance to the country. understand how dearly they were paying He denied that he did it for the purpose for this monopoly. I was gradually spread- delay. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial ing through the country a conviction that side had done the same thing last year, free-grown sugar, under a system of free- and they had, therefore, no right to imtrade, might successfully compete with pute to him any intention to cause an slave-grown sugar from any part of the unfair delay in the consideration of the world. But with regard to sugar, no one Income-tax. He fell back on the princidoubted that by a judicious alteration of ples of finance of the late Government. the sugar duties, the revenue obtained from Upon those principles he stood; and he sugar could be increased from 800,000l. to was sure that they would bear him out,

of

« EelmineJätka »