land to violate the sanctuaries of private | of the Income-tax had been discussed in life. What a glorious opportunity has been the House. In 1835, he (Mr. C. Wood) afforded to the right hon. Gentleman of supported the right hon. Gentleman against earning the gratitude of his contempora- the proposition of his own friends, for the ries, and the reverence of posterity-of repeal of the malt-tax, and on that occaimmortalizing his Administration and his sion the right hon. Gentleman argued most name by identifying them with the creation strongly against an Income-tax, he (Mr. of a new commercial code-with the re- C. Wood) humbly following in the same vival of British industry, the resuscitation train of argument as the right hon. Baronet. of British commerce, and its extension to In the course of last year when the finanthe remotest quarters of the habitable cial proposals of the then Government globe. He might have blended them with were under discussion, he (Mr. C. Wood) the establishment of absolute freedom in in like manner opposed an Income-tax. trade, and the utter extirpation of the last Why, then, was he to be charged with a remnants of monopoly. But he has lost factious and vexatious opposition to the the opportunity of enrolling his name tax when he was pursuing the very same among the regenerators of his country and course now which he had formerly taken the benefactors of mankind. Never was a along with the right hon. Baronet. He British Minister placed in so advantageous thought he was acting in perfect accorda position. He is armed with power far ance with the recorded opinions of the exceeding that of any British Minister right hon. Baronet himself, for if any one since the commencement of the century. Member in that House more than another He is backed and surrounded by supporters had succeeded in pointing out the evils of who seemed to consider themselves placed the Income-tax, that Member was the there for the sole purpose of yielding im- right hon. Baronet. But did he (Mr. plicit submission to his decrees. He had Wood) blame the right hon. Baronet for only to advance, and he would have added changing his opinion? Far from it. Cirthe universal national support to his par- cumstances were, no doubt, changed, and liamentary majority. Why has the right he would not make any imputation against hon. Gentleman lost such splendid advan- the right hon. Baronet for now proposing tages? Because he has adopted a bold a Property-tax, but in doing so he trusted policy with a timid hand. Never was a the right hon. Baronet would give to those nobler career opened to a British Minister, who still persisted in their former opposinever did a British Minister so fling away tion to that tax credit for consistency and the chances of fortune. sincerity. In common with his noble Friend who spoke last, and all those who had spoken from that (the Opposition) side of the House, he entirely agreed in the necessity of supporting the honour and maintaining the dignity of the country They had not quarrelled nor had they any disposition to quarrel, with the estimates laid before the House-estimates, he believed, necessary to enable the country to maintain the position which it ought to occupy in the eyes of the world. Neither did he think it would be right to have recourse to a loan, or to allow the deficiency to go on from year to year, but although perfectly prepared to vote the necessary taxes for this purpose, he did not see that such a determination was in any way inconsistent with his opposition to the particular tax which the Government had thought fit to propose. He was not prepared to deny that direct taxes were necessary in the present state of the country

Mr. C. Wood said, that the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk) had claimed for her Majesty's Government credit at least for the boldness of the measure which they had proposed, and a full tribute of praise had been bestowed on them by his noble Friend who had just sat down; nor was he (Mr. C. Wood) disposed to withhold from them any praise which was due to them upon that ground; but he must say that the sweeping censure passed upon Gentlemen on his side of the House by the right hon. Baronet was most unmerited and unjust. He (Mr. C. Wood) should like to know what right the right hon. Baronet had to say that he had no reason to anticipate anything else than an undiscriminating opposition from his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) and those who acted with him to whatever tax he might propose. Had that been the first time he (Mr. C. Wood) had opposed an Income-tax, he might have been open to the censure of the right hon. Baronet. This was not the first time this question

he would even go the length of saying that, objectionable as he thought this tax on income, still if a necessity could be

did not believe that any modification could | countries, yet it was this one advantage be introduced which would tend to miti- which the measure of Government would gate its character. He believed they must have a tendency to destroy. No one could take it as it was proposed; but he con- say that it would not have the effect of sidered the injustice which it would work forcing capital abroad; and if this was an objection-and in his opinion it was admitted, how could it be mainought to be a fatal objection-to the im- tained that the working classes would position of the tax at all. Hon. Gentle- not be affected by the measure? For men opposite put forward one argument in these reasons, then-first, because he favour of the measure and of themselves. believed that the universal feeling of They say they are the friends of the people the country would be opposed to such a in proposing this tax, and that it would tax-in the second place, because he befall principally on the rich. He confessed, lieved it would drive capital abroad-he that if that were a just and true represent- felt bound to give the tax his determined ation of the tax, it would remove one of opposition. He had always considered the his greatest objections to it; but he would Income-tax as one reserved for time of war like to know whether, in maintaining that -for a time when the circumstances of the argument they had taken into considera- country were such as to prevent the transtion the effect to be produced by the pro-fer of capital; when the people would subposed tax upon the capital of the country. According to the opinion which the right hon. Baronet held in 1833, the effect of such a tax would be to induce capitalists to seek foreign investments. Again, how many of our artisans were employed in producing not the necessaries, not the comforts, but the luxuries of the rich. Would not the demand for those luxuries be diminished by this tax? And would not the employment of such artisans be taken away from them. But he chiefly referred to the investment of British capital in foreign countries. With the present facilities of intercourse, and in time of peace, British merchants would naturally endeavour to remove their capital from the operation of the tax. They would remove it to other countries. Would not this materially affect the employment of our labourers? They already knew the amount of English money sunk in foreign loans. They also knew that a large portion of the capital employed in foreign manufactures was furnished by English capitalists-that our own capital was employed to rival us in neutral markets by foreign manufactures. The Germans, and even the Swiss, manufactured goods similar to ours their labour was cheaper,-in fact, the only advantage we had over them was the greater capital in this country. Our machinery went abroad, and we could not prevent it. Our artisans went abroad, and we could not prevent it. We were rivalled in cheapness of labour, and in skill, by our foreign competitors. The one advantage, however, which this country possessed above her rivals, was her greater amount of capital. It was this that enabled her successfully to compete with other

mit to the tax, obnoxious as it was, because they knew that the existence of the country might almost wholly depend on it. He (Mr. Wood) considered the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) founded on the war in China and in Cabool, and treating it as a war, in the sense in which that argument was applied to the property-tax, and justifying his proposed Income-tax as a war tax on that ground, as little better than a verbal quibble. It reminded him only of the grounds on which an hon. predecessor of his (Mr. C. Wood) at the Admiralty, claimed his war salary, because England was at war with Algiers. The meaning of a war, as thus used, was a war in which the whole feelings of the country were enlisted. He believed, therefore, that an objection to such a tax, in time of peace, was a valid objection. If they looked to history, it would be seen that taxes maintained, in a time of peace, had always been selected in deference to the feelings of the people. All direct taxes were obnoxious, and had been removed as soon as the pressing necessity for continuing them ceased. The property-tax was taken off in 1815, the house-tax was repealed in 1833, and the only direct taxes remaining in this country were the assessed taxes. They doubtless were a direct tax, but as to which there was a very obvious reason which reconciled people to them, because any person might, if he chose, relieve himself from their pressure. If there was such a war as that in which we were engaged at the time when the property-tax was imposed, and when, believing that the existence of this country depended upon her financial exertions, the people willingly

submitted to such a tax, he doubted not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had exthey would submit again as cheerfully to a pressed his surprise that this fact had not similar necessity. But although an In- struck the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. come-tax might now be passed by persons Baring) last year. Why, it was stated by ignorant of the effect it had produced, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) last when it existed before, yet his firm con- year, and also by himself in the debate on viction was, that it would be impossible to the sugar duties. He (Mr. C. Wood) maintain it. Would it not, then, be a most himself stated the probable amount at mischievous course to place the credit of near 1,000,0007., and he undertook to the country upon a basis that could not be point out the ground upon which the estpermanently maintained? He came now mate was founded; but while he was to the arguments for the necessity of such stating it, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. a tax. Had that necessity been proved? Goulburn) interrupted him, and said, I He thought the case of necessity which admit it: you will get the money." The had been attempted to be made out had en- precise amount which he stated, as the tirely failed. The ground on which they probable income from sugar was 937,0001. were called upon to impose this tax was, His right hon. Friend had also estifirst, that there was a deficiency of two mated an increase of 600,000l. from his millions and a half, which, with a margin proposed change in the timber duties, not at all unnecessarily large, of 500,000, and whatever objections had been stated made a total deficit of three millions. This to that change, no one had even ques was the sum to be provided. Now, had it tioned the estimated increase of revenue. been proved, that it was impossible, with- Upon the proposals, therefore, of his out having recourse to an Income-tax, to right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) an addifind means to raise a revenue of three tional sum of about 1,500,000l. would millions in this country? He did not have accrued to the revenue last year. wish to fight over again the budget of last He was ready to admit that an income year; but he might remind the House, to be derived from a duty on corn was that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) one upon which it was impossible to calhad demonstrated, not as a theory, but as culate with precision. So long as the a matter of fact, from experience of the principle of a sliding-scale was maintained, past year, that if his propositions had been it was impossible to calculate with cer adopted, a considerable increase of revenue tainty what the effect of the scale might would have necessarily accrued. There be. But if 1,500,0007. or 1,000,000L could be no doubt, for instance, that upon could have been raised by the measures corn-he (Mr. C. Wood) did not mean to proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. enter into a discussion of the Corn-laws, Baring), and if 400,000l. could be raised but there could be no doubt, that if an in Ireland by the proposal of the right 8s. duty had been imposed upon all the hon. Baronet, surely nobody could believe corn imported last year, 500,000l. more that it was impossible to raise from the than had been received would have been whole of Great Britain one million, or realised. It was a matter of fact, and not even two millions, additional taxation. of estimate; and he was surprised, when After the good-natured lecture which the the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had Goulburn) endeavoured to take from the given to amateur Chancellors of the Exforce of this argument, by saying, that in chequer, it would be impertinent for him all probability the same quantity of corn (Mr. C. Wood) to venture to suggest any would not, with such a duty, have been new tax to the right hon. Gentleman; but imported. He apprehended, that there even the right hon. Gentleman had himwas nobody in the House, or out of it, but self admitted that the proposal respecting the right hon. Gentleman himself who an increase on the assessed taxes by his would have made such an assertion; or right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) was perwho would not, on the contrary, have said, fectly successful. Now if the 10 per cent. that a much greater quantity would have on the assessed taxes were made 20 per been imported. So, with regard to the cent., that would give 250,000l. at once. estimate upon sugar. His right hon. It had been stated the other day that the Friend, (Mr. Baring) had stated, that if remission of the leather-tax produced no his proposal had been adopted, not less benefit to the consumer. That tax prothan one million would have been rea-duced between 300,000 and 400,0007. lised. Again, the right hon. Gentleman, But without going into detail, when has

right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) stated | right hon. Baronet come forward with a that 25,000,000l. of taxation had been re- large, efficient, and comprehensive meapealed since the war, exclusive of the sure on the Import duties, no opposiproperty-tax, would any body say that it tion would have been offered to a system was impossible to provide two or three of direct taxation to make up that defimillions of revenue, without at all inter- ciency. But how were the main articles fering with, or raising the price of-for of import to be dealt with by the tariff that was the material thing-the great laid before the House? He remembered articles of general consumption. He be- that before the Import Duties Committee lieved it might be done with far less pres- a table was given in by Mr. Porter, of sure and far less injustice than what must seventeen principal articles, the revenue necessarily result from an Income tax. on which amounted to no less than 944 per The second ground upon which they were cent. of the whole revenue arising from called upon to consent to this tax was in the Customs. How were they dealt with commutation for the general revision of by this tariff? They were literally unthe import duties by which the right touched (except in some trifling degree), hon. Baronet calculated he should lose for the purpose of introducing these perni1,200,000l. The right hon. Baronet pro- cious differential duties with three excep. posed a general revision of the import du- tions. The tariff dealt with three main ties of this country. He (Mr. C. Wood) articles, it was true, but how? It had recollected what ridicule was cast last year dealt with the article of corn, but in a upon those who made the slightest refer- manner which was utterly insufficient for ence to the report from the Import Duties any good purpose to the country; next, it Committee. Whenever that report was had dealt with coffee, and with the prinmentioned, there ran through the opposite ciple upon which the right hon. Baronet side of the House a general titter, and he had dealt with coffee nobody could quarrel, remembered that the hon. Member for but he (Mr. C. Wood) thought, that even Warwick never heard the report men- upon that article the right hon. Baronet tioned without laughter, as if it had been had made an unnecessary sacrifice of ina document too absurd and ridiculous to come. If the course had been adopted allude to. He supposed a reference to which his noble Friend (Viscount Howick) that report would be more tolerated at the had suggested, of leaving the colonial present day. He was perfectly ready to duty as it was, and of reducing the foreign admit that a revision of the import duties duty to 9d., it would have produced a generally was a most desirable object. He great benefit to the consumer by the rebelieved it would be good in itself, and duction of price, and an increased revenue good especially in regard to the working might have been obtained. The next population of this country; while he at article-[Cries of "Question; Order."]the same time believed that such a revi- Does my hon. Friend (addressing an hon. sion might be made most subservient for Gentleman on the Ministerial benches) the purposes of revenue. It was upon really think I am not speaking upon the that ground that he gave his hearty sup- question? Am I not pursuing precisely port to the proposal made by the late the course which the right hon. Baronet Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. In adopted when he endeavoured to show his mind no doubt existed, although the that all existing modes of raising money right hon. Baronet appeared to entertain were exhausted, and that the only source a doubt upon the subject, that a revision available was an Income-tax? If the right of the import duties might be made pro- hon. Leader, whom the hon. Gentleman ductive of an immediate increase of the seemed so ready to follow, referred to these revenue of the country. There could be matters, in order to prove his case, he (Mr. no doubt, if the right hon. Baronet was C. Wood) should like to know whether he prepared to diminish the differential du- was not at liberty to pursue the same ties, that an increased revenue would im-course of argument (however inadequately mediately ensue. This was not true of duties which were not differential to the same degree, and he admitted that, for some three or four years, a loss might accrue upon certain articles on which the duties might be reduced; but he thought he might venture to say that, had the

he might be able to do so) in answer to the conclusion which the right hon. Baronet had arrived at? The next article, then, with which the right hon. Baronet had dealt was that of timber. In respect to that article, he conceived the right hon. Baronet to be making a large, a need