ant improvements in some military departments-especially in regard to enlistments. Mr. Francis Baring approved of the course Government had now taken; but insisted that reductions should be made, not by the Committees, but by Government. Mr. Cobden joined in the protest against the present shape of the tax on precarious income. He found no outlet from the difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, save through reductions of our establishments,-effective as well as non-effective. Mr. Cobden confessed that, when he had lately spoken against the probability of any but the most peaceful aspect of affairs in France, he was unprepared for the political revolution which has occurred-for such insanity in a Minister, or such madness in a Monarch. Let them mark him: if it were the policy of the Government of this country to avoid a collision with France, it was perfectly easy for England to avoid it. He ventured to say that England was the last country that France was likely to attack as a nation, inasmuch as we were inacessible. But, unless the people of this country took the question into their own hands, there was a danger of war with France; if it were left with the Foreign Secretary-if it were left to the clubs and coteries of the Metropolis, or to the spirit he had seen evinced that night in reference to the state of France he feared we might be involved in a war; and he took that opportunity of calling upon the country to beware of what would be impending if they did not take the matter into their own hands.

Lord John Russell, after some

observations on the unsatisfactory and fruitless turn which the discussion had taken, proceeded to advert to some remarks which had fallen from Mr. Cobden.“ That honourable gentleman, after what I remarked to-night-and I believe he must admit that his prophecy was not a very successful one-(Laughter)-has tried to excite a suspicion, and to-induce those in this House, and perhaps those out of doors, to think that I was not sincere in the declaration I made, and that, when I intimated we did not mean to interfere with any disposal of her own institutions which France might choose to make, I still meant we were to be led by some coteries and clubs' to go to war with that nation, because she had adopted some particular form of government. Now, I can only reiterate what I said before, that it is not the intention of the Government to interfere, in any way whatever, with whatever settlement France may think proper to make with respect to her own government. (Cheers.) Our only interest in that settlement is the interest of neighbours and friends; and all we wish is that the institutions France may adopt shall tend as much as possible to her own prosperity. (Cheers.) I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that of course I do not believe England would refuse to perform any of those sacred duties of hospitality which she has performed at all times to the vanquished, whoever they were, whether of extreme royalist opinions, of moderate opinions, or of extreme liberal opinions. Those duties of hospitality have made this country the asylum for the unfortunate; and I for one will

never consent that we should neglect them." (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Disraeli subscribed to the rule that observations should be reserved till the measures they concerned were fairly before the House. He proceeded, however, to criticize the proposition of Government in a speech of some length. Several other Members also censured the Ministerial plans, insisting on reductions and economy.

Sir Robert H. Inglis suggested stamp duties on foreign bills of exchange, and a tax on gas. He also urged an old suggestion of his own, that the taxation on incomes should begin at 150l., such incomes to be rated only on the excess above 150l.

The question of the Income Tax having been once stirred by the unlucky proposition of the Government for augmenting it, the popular feeling against the tax, even in its original shape, revived, and the objections so often urged against it were forcibly represented both in Parliament and out of doors. The possibility of remodelling it, so as to place it upon a more equitable basis in regard to different classes of incomes, was much agitated, and several debates took place in the House of Commons upon motions introduced by private Members. One of the most plausible of the plans proposed was embodied in an amendment moved by Mr. Horsman on the 3rd of March, to the following effect :

:

"That, if the Income Tax be continued, it is expedient to amend the Act, and not to impose the same charge on incomes arising from professional and precarious sources as on those derived from realized property."

Mr. Horsman dwelt on the excessively unequal incidence of the

tax; an evil pardoned in a temporary impost, but intolerable in one that has evidently become permanent. He illustrated this position by quotations from former speeches, in which Lord John Russell had borne testimony to the inherent "inequality, vexation, and fraud " of the tax. Mr. Horsman suggested a different plan, of which we need only mention the main features. He showed that incomes derived from different kinds of property are of different values; that the just way to ascertain a common value was to capitalize the incomes, and then to calculate the tax on each kind of yearly income according to a ratio determined by its capitalized value. To apply this, and rearrange the tax so as to produce at least the present amount by a different scale, he took as his basis the returns obtained by Mr. Moffatt, for the year ending 6th of April, 1846; and, instead of a uni form rate of 7d. in the pound, he proposed the following rates,-8d. in the pound on incomes arising from realized property; 6d. on trade, commerce, and manufactures; 4d. on professional and other precarious sources. This would yield 300,000l. more than the present revenue.

Sir Charles Wood and Lord John Russell contended that Mr. Horsman's plan would be more odious than the present, because it would require a more inquisitorial machinery.

Mr. Francis Baring urged the Ministers to attempt the adjustment of the tax on a fairer basis: merely to continue it was only to postpone a difficulty with which they ought to grapple at once; for, if the tax were not rendered more acceptable, the country would compel its abolition. Several

other speakers joined in the debate, the balance of argument going against the tax. But, on a division, the amendment was negatived by 316 to 141.

A financial debate of more importance took place on the 6th of March upon another amendment, which was proposed by Mr. Hume, for altering the period for the renewal of the Income Tax from three years to one year.

Sir Charles Wood opposed the proposition, and appealed to the House to support him in sustaining the national credit. If he entertained any doubt that the revenue would in a certain time not only restore the balances now drawn upon for present deficiencies, but also exhibit a large surplus, he would not make his proposal. If the means of additional taxation were refused by the House, and the only course remaining were also denied to the Government, the repudiation would lie at the door of the House itself. He thought that the aditional Income Tax had better have been acceded to; but, surely, he continued, the House was bound, under the circumstances, to grant the renewal of the tax for such a time as would enable the Government to realize a surplus. If they did not, public credit would undoubtedly suffer; and he must say that, let whoever might undertake the task of carrying on the Government in such circumstances, Her Majesty's present advisers would not consent to so discreditable a course.

Sir Charles reviewed the history of the tax; denied that it was imposed on the country by stealth; and asserted that it was part of the scheme of commercial reform since carried out by the late and the present Governments. The great

natural and commercial calamities that had occurred had deranged all calculation, and brought about the present state of the national finances. He could not say that he saw any early prospect of re vival; because, if there were no other circumstance to interrupt its progress, he feared the state of affairs abroad, and the uncertainty that this would produce in trade and commerce, would prevent a re vival at an early period: but that was a reason for continuing the Income Tax for a longer period than a year.

Mr. Spooner, Captain Townshend, and Mr. G. J. Turner dwelt strongly on the unjust operation of the tax. Sir William Clay supported the measure as proposed by the Government. Mr. Labouchere, taking the same course, pointed to some encouraging facts establishing the financial progress of the country. Sir Robert Peel (having been reflected on by some animadversions of preceding speakers with reference to the mode in which the Income Tax was carried) vindicated his own conduct, and that of the majority who passed it.-When in 1841 he was called to the Ministry, there had been a succession of deficits from the year 1838. The aggregate deficiencies of the years from 1838 to the 5th April 1843, he had estimated at not less than 10,000,000. The House had itself caused a large part of that deficiency by surrendering to the nation a revenue of nearly 1,200,000l. a year from the Post office, and had thought itself bound to make an attempt in support of public credit. What was the source whence to obtain any augmentation of the revenue? Experiments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, in 1841, had

demonstrated that indirect taxation had already been tasked to its full powers; the additional 10 per cent. on Customs and Excise having yielded but 700,000l. in place of the 1,900,000l. looked for. Not so with direct taxation; the 10 per cent. added to the assessed taxes having, in place of the expected 275,000l., given above 800,0001. Such was the financial part of the case; but there was the commercial also. It had been thought desirable to remodel the Customs Duties of the kingdom; to remove all prohibitions, and to simplify the protective tariff to an immense extent, by a far more uniform system of duties. The duties on 700 articles were to be lowered, and on 500 were to be repealed. The advantages to trade were expected to be immense; but they could only be had at the price of 7,000,000l. to the public revenue. How would it have been possible to accomplish such financial objects, and such a commercial revolution, but on the foundation of the Income Tax? In full cog. nizance of these things, the House assented to the scheme of financial policy submitted to it.

Sir Robert Peel then recapitulated the circumstances in which his Income Tax had originated, as connected with the great experiment of Free Trade. He appealed to his former speeches, and to the famous Elbing letter, to prove that the tax had been intended as the foundation of a commercial policy aimed at the removal of vexatious and onerous restrictions. In proposing the tax, he had had no covert design of perpetuating it, but had felt sanguine hopes that the prosperity of trade, under the policy of relaxation, would have so increased the ordinary revenue that the new imVOL. XC.

post might drop. He rejoiced to believe that the experiment had been greatly successful, though unexampled natural calamities had disappointed his fullest expectations. He exclaimed-"As long as I live I shall never repent that I proposed that alteration in the commercial policy of the country; and that I induced the House of Commons-not by fascination, not by deception, but by a full and explicit statement of the financial affairs of the country-to continue the tax; and that I induced the House, in lieu of the large reduction of duties upon imports, to impose a tax upon the income and property of the country." (Cheers.)

Sir Robert Peel then dealt with the question of the incidence of the tax. "Taking the circumstances of individual cases into consideration, instances of hardship cannot be denied; but I do not assent to the proposition that it is therefore an unjust tax. . . . If you were to attempt to make a distinction such as the honourable Member for Cockermouth has suggested, it would be fallacious, and the same difficulties which are now pointed out in respect to the incomes of professional men and owners of real property would occur. No principle can, in my opinion, be devised which would be more just-or, I would rather say, would be more free from objection than that which you are desirous of seeing removed."

He should give his decided support to the Ministerial proposition to renew the tax for three years. He had himself been alarmed at the great increase of expenditure; and in giving consent to that proposition he said nothing in denial of the necessity for most searching investigations. If the Govern[E]

ment had called more strenuously for the means to relieve their financial wants he would have supported them. Still, he did not blame them for the discretion they had used in retiring from their proposal to increase the tax. The difficulties of their situation were very great. "I am quite aware that it is probable there may be some increase of revenue from the ordinary sources. Some observations have been made with regard to the recovery of the Customs: but I must say that there never was such a combination of circumstances as those by which the trade and commercial energies of the country have for the last two years been affected; and I feel it my duty, in this day of commercial depression, to assert my continued adherence to the principles on which the remissions in the Customs Duties took place. (Cheers.) I have the firmest confidence in the justice of those remissions."

Sir Robert concluded with an allusion to the events abroad. "I must own I shall be influenced in my support of the proposal made by the Government by a reference to the wonderful events which have taken place within a very recent period in a neighbouring country. (Loud cheers.) I think they are an ample justification for this country not consenting to incur any risk of a larger deficit for a period of three years. I conceive it to be utterly inconsistent with sound policy not to make any reference to events which must have filled us all with astonishment. Of this I am perfectly confident, that the true policy of this country dictates the most complete and absolute abstinence from all interference in the internal affairs of that country

in which such a wonderful social revolution has taken place. (Loud cheers.) I hope, however, that we shall not fail to exercise the rights of hospitality. I heard, with great satisfaction, the declaration that our Government has wisely determined to abstain from all interference in the internal concerns of France; and I am convinced that the principle se proclaimed will be acted upon with perfect good faith and scrupulous honour, and that the Government will not only abstain from any such interference on its own part, but will discourage any abuse of our hospitality for the purpose of interference on the part of others." (Cheers.)

Lord George Bentinck endeavoured to reply to Sir Robert Peel's exculpatory speech, urging the usual arguments of the Protectionist party in favour of raising large revenues by taxes on foreign imports. He preferred the restoration of some of the abandoned duties on timber, corn, cotton, &c., as sources of income, which would soon restore the prosperity of the Exchequer. He then referred to the events passing in France; disclaiming, like Sir R. Peel, the desire to interfere with the institutions which the French people might adopt, and expressing his hope that a Republican form of Government might prove as lastingly advantageous to that country as it had proved to our great Transatlantic rivals. At the same time, he said, he could not conceal from himself the possible result from the present changes of the ascendancy of ambitious leaders, who might force the country into measures of teritorial aggrandisement. He, therefore, could not consent for a moment to leave the military