There might be a surplus in the year ensuing after the year 1848, but that would be occasioned by half-a-year's receipt of the incometax. In the next year afterwards there might be no surplus at all. If that were so, then the year after that there would be a still greater deficiency of revenue. As men of common sense they were therefore bound to provide against that deficiency. He thought it was better in such a case to continue the incometax than to impose new taxes. Though such was his opinion, he was not to be considered favourable to any plan for placing this tax on a permanent footing.

Colonel Conolly thought that the advantages which had arisen out of the income-tax during the last three years were a sufficient justification for continuing it for three years longer. One advantage of it was that it had reduced the interest on money so much as to enable the minister to reduce the interest on the national debt. It had also greatly benefited the agricultural interest in Ireland, by enabling them to relieve their estates from pecuniary embarrassment, and to employ upon them a greater amount of capital and labour.

Mr. G. Bankes complained that Sir Robert Peel, in his financial statement, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his specch of that night, had made no allusion whatever to the distress of the agricultural interest, though that distress had been formally communicated to them. In Sir Robert Peel's plan every thing had been given to the mercantile, and nothing to the agricultural interest. Why was the establishment of our army so great? To

protect our colonies, and our com merce with them. Why were the navy estimates to be increased to the amount of 1,000,000l.? Because both in China and the Pacific new naval stations were necessary to defend the interests of our merchants in their vicinity. Did the agricultural interest object to this? No such thing. Then let not that interest, if it were so powerful and predominant, as was stated, be taunted in future as selfish and ungenerous. As to the vote then before the House those who represented distressed districts could only act as circumstances permitted. He saw that both sides of the House were prepared to vote for the continuance of the income-tax. He had, therefore, no choice, and must accommodate his vote to his situation. The farmers were at present ill able to bear this or any other burden.

Mr. Warburton thought that if the Government were prepared to act with energy, and to lay open all the great branches of trade, which could be laid open by the destruction of gigantic monopolies, the revenue might be made equal to the expenditure without the income-tax. He differed from the resolution, which not only continued but also increased the differential duties on sugar. His belief was that the prosperity of the country would be increased, if, instead of an indirect, we adopted a direct system of taxation. sum which would then reach the exchequer would be much larger than that which reached it under the present system. He repeated his opinion that, if the income-tax were rendered permanent, all the objections to it would vanish; but, as it was not to be render

The

ed permanent, he considered it to be most unequal and unjust, and should certainly not give it his support.

Mr. Robert Palmer thought that, if Government were unable to apply any relaxation of taxation to the agricultural interest, it might have avoided the slight of passing over that interest with total silence. He hoped that the reduction of taxation proposed by Sir Robert Peel might be beneficial to the commercial classes; but he could not conceal from the House that the agricultural interest was much disappointed that it had no share in that reduction. He agreed that the income-tax, as a permanent tax, would be a grievous and intolerable evil; and he recollected that some years ago, when the present Duke of Buckingham, then Marquis of Chandos, brought forward in that House a motion for the repeal of the malttax, Sir Robert Peel met that motion successfully by stating that there was no substitute for

it except the property-tax, almost in as strong terms as any that had been used that evening.

Mr. M. Gibson, in reply to the complaint of Mr. Bankes and Mr. Palmer, that the agricultural interest had been unjustly neglected by the Government, parodied the observation of Sir J. Graham on the Irish question, and declared "that concession to the agricultural interest had at last reached its utmost limit." He showed that a graduated scale of duties had been applied to the income of all persons engaged in trade and commerce, under the Income-tax Act which passed the House of Commons in 1792; and he thought

that a select committee ought now to be appointed, to inquire what amount of duty should be applied to the incomes of those who had capital engaged in commerce, and whether a better mode could not be devised of raising the incometax on persons engaged in trades and professions. He should vote for the amendment of Mr. Roebuck, though he should have been better pleased had his learned friend reserved his resistance to the income-tax till the bill imposing it was brought in.

Mr. Miles objected to the permanence of the income-tax, although he believed that Sir R. Peel had introduced it for the three years with the very best intentions. He found that the commerce and manufactures of the country were now flourishing, but that agriculture was in a state of the deepest depression. No attempt was made to relieve agriculture from any part of its burdens. He could not ask the right honourable baronet for the repeal of the malt-tax, because the surplus would not allow the right honourable baronet to repeal that tax; and, even if it would, he would not ask that the whole relief from taxation should be given to the agricultural interest. But when taxes to the amount of 3,400,000l. were taken off, he thought that the agriculturists should have some share in the remission. He would give the House a future opportunity of deciding whether, in this great remission of taxation, the agricultural interest should not have some share in its benefit.

Mr. Vernon Smith thought that the House was now going to saddle itself and the country with a permanent income-tax; but he

could not vote for the amendment of the learned member for Bath, because circumstances might arise within the next three years, to induce the right honourable baronet to make some modifications and alterations in the income-tax which he now proposed. He should certainly vote, if such a resolution were proposed, for the extension of that tax to Ireland. He ob

served that the right honourable baronet had swept from the tariff 430 articles, by which a revenue of 320,000l. was lost to the country. Would the right honourable baronet have any objection to state what were the principal articles so removed from the tariff, and what amount of revenue was lost on each? Sir R. Peel defended himself from the charge of being insensible to the distress of the agricultural interest, and reminded the House that if he had not alluded to that subject in his speech of Friday night, it was simply because he had entered upon it at some length in a speech which he had made two or three evenings before. He had the firmest conviction, that if the agricultural interest would agree to the continuance of the income-tax, and to take their share in the general prosperity which he believed would be derived from it, they would be more benefited by it than if he were to relieve them from some local taxation, and to burden the consolidated fund with a grant of 500,000l., for their benefit. He pointed out the advantage which the agricultural labourer would derive from the repeal of the duty on cotton wool, in the diminished price of his clothing, and which the farmer would find in the ease of transferring his property, from the repeal of the

auction duty, which, though the noble lord thought it of little value, appeared a very injudicious tax to his late colleague, Sir H. Parnell. Considering that the noble lord had described the income-tax as a tax which was the most unequal, inquisitorial, and onerous that could be devised, he was somewhat surprised at the compliment which the noble lord had paid him, in stating that he would give him the support of his vote if a division were pressed against it. He knew not what the cause of the noble lord's vote might be, but he could assure him, that if he should be restored to office, he would find this surplus of 500,000l. a very comfortable addition to the public income. In reply to the question put to him by Sir G. Grey, he observed, that three years was but a short period for the restoration of the revenue which he was about to remit; and that, if he could have carried out his own views, he should have preferred to prolong the continuance of the income-tax to five years. He thought, how

ever, that there was a rational expectation that the revenue would be restored to its present amount at the end of three years. He saw the population increasing, capital accumulating, and the means of conveyance greatly improved. Now, if they facilitated the application of that capital to new branches of industry, it would increase the demand for labour; with an increased demand for labour, an increased consumption of articles subject to duty would take place, and with that increase of consumption the amount of the revenue would unquestionably be augmented. He showed that, as the income-tax, if his plan were adopted, would not

expire till the 5th of April, 1848, and as he would have a right to extend a credit of 2,600,000l. over the year 1849, on account of half a year's income-tax then to be received, and the benefit to be derived from the income-tax would thus extend over four years, he could not foresee what events might occur in that period. The public, at the expiration of that time, might, from the experience of its benefits, be of opinion that the income-tax should be further continued; and if so, he ought not to be bound by any guarantee given at present to allow it to expire. All he should say further was, that he made this experiment with a perfect confidence that, whatever happened, the House would maintain public credit. The tax was admitted to be much less onerous in its collection now than it was in the year 1842, and he did not believe that there would be any urgent demand for the repeal of it during the period for which he proposed to reimpose it.

Lord Howick expressed his great disappointment that Sir R. Peel had not given a more satisfactory answer to the admirable speech of Lord J. Russell. From that speech he saw that the period for the continuance of the income-tax was perpetually moving onwards. First, it was to be three years, now they heard that Sir Robert thought five years better. The number of years, like the horizon, was ever flying before them. He called the attention of the House to the fact, that the minister had not a surplus of 90,000l. left him after his taxes were remitted, and that he made up that surplus by an increased consumption of sugar, which he (Lord Howick) considered to be very problematical,

and which was calculated as likely to produce a million of revenue. If the right honourable baronet were disappointed in that calculation, there would be a deficiency and not a surplus in the revenue. He then dwelt for some time on the impolicy of levying a differential duty between foreign freegrown and foreign slave-grown sugar, for the purpose of showing that if that differential duty were abolished, a great stimulus would be given to the commerce and manufactures of the country. He thought that if the minister had dealt with the duties on the importation of cheese and butter, of foreign spirits, and more particularly of tea, he would have promoted the interests of the middling and the lower classes more than he was likely to do by many of the modifications of taxation which he had to propose. With regard to his vote on the present evening, he had only to say, that he did not see how the income-tax could be dispensed with at present, and, therefore, he should vote for it as a temporary, but not as a permanent measure.

Sir John Tyrell thought that justice had not been done to the agricultural interest, either by Lord John Russell or Sir Robert Peel, in their capacity as ministers. He taunted them both with the inconsistency in their declarations towards the agricultural interests, and endeavoured to convince Sir Robert Peel of it, by quoting a speech which the latter had made on Lord Althorp's budget, on the 14th of February, 1834. It was

very difficult to put salt upon the tail of so shy a bird as Sir Robert Peel; but he thought that he had done it now, when he produced an opinion of his, that the minister

ought to keep his ears open to the complaints of the agriculturists, and to give them a share in any relief which he was enabled to dispense to the community. He gave notice that, on a future day, he should propose to extend the income and property-tax to Ireland. The Marquis of Granby thought that the manufacturers would not feel satisfied if the same answer were returned to them which Sir Robert Peel had jnst returned to the agriculturists. Would they think themselves well treated, if they were told that their distress would be alleviated in consequence of the general prosperity which would overflow the country when the remission of the taxes on agriculture came into full operation? After a few words from Mr. Collett,

Mr. Roebuck called the attention of the country to this fact, that every member on his side of the House had condemned the income and property tax-had deprecated it as a permanent taxand had expressed his expectation that it would be permanent; and that, nevertheless, every one of them had come to the conclusion that he would vote for the tax.

Mr. C. Buller said, that this tax must now be regarded as a permanent tax; and seeing that it must be so regarded, he felt himself at liberty to oppose it. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared For the amendment Against it

55 263

Majority against it 208

The discussion of the income-tax was renewed on the motion for going into committee, on the 5th of March. Several amendments

were proposed, the committal of the bill on that day three months having been first moved by Mr. Bernal Osborne. He drew a wide distinction between a property-tax and an income-tax, and declared his determination to divide the House against the proposed measure, if he were supported by only

ten members.

Mr. F. T. Baring gave the discussion a wider scope, by attacking the general financial scheme of the Minister. Sir Robert Peel, he said, had originally demanded the income-tax for three years, as a means of recovering the revenue, the income-tax to be then remitted; but what was the state of the finances now? On the face of Sir Robert Peel's estimate, the income for the ensuing year, without the Chinese money or the income tax, would be 47,900,0007.; the expenditure, 49,700,000Z.; leaving a deficiency of 1,800,0007. Therefore the income-tax could not be got rid of without imposing additional taxes to the amount of 2,000,000l.; for he was not disposed again to place the country in a state of large deficiency. After completing the whole of his operations, Sir Robert Peel calculated the surplus at only 90,000l., or 100,000l.: even that surplus rested upon the sugar-duties; they again rested upon the calculation that the consumption would increase by nearly one-fifth beyond the largest consumption yet attained, and that sugars would come in at the higher rate of duties; while it was not yet certain what scale the right honourable gentleman would be obliged to fall back upon. It might be admitted that the poor would derive some benefit from the remission of duties upon other articles, but they would not touch his