in war, and you were adding every year to the amount of your debt; borrowing money on very disad vantageous terms, and increasing every year, therefore, the interest of the Public Debt. In the year. before the Income-tax was proposed, a loan of 15,000,000l. was raised for the service of the year. In that year the Assessed Taxes were, I think, trebled; but there was this addition with respect to them, that every person who was obliged by those Assessed Taxes to pay more than one-tenth of his income should declare that such was the fact, and be thereby exempted from the payment of any overplus beyond that amount. In the following year, notwithstanding the imposition of those Assessed Taxes, which then produced more than 4,000,000l., it was found that there was a deficiency of 10,000,000l. for the service of the year. The pressure of the war required a very great effort to be made; and the Minister of that day, having the House and the country with him in favour of the prosecution of the war, then thought it necessary, and I think rightly, not to go on increasing the debt in such an immense ratio, but to ask for a still further effort from the country in order to make the revenue more nearly equal to the expenditure of the war. As soon as the war was over, the succeeding Minister, Mr. Addington, came down to the House and proposed at once that the Income-tax should be discontinued. When the country was again engaged in war, that tax was revived, in order that an immense accumulation of debt might not be produced. In 1806, when that subject was often referred to, the tax was raised to 10 per cent. It was afterwards

stated by Lord Lansdowne, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, that he found that the loans, which in some years were 10,000,000l., had in the previous year increased to 20,000,000l. and it was in order to avoid, if possible, such a growing accumulation of debt, that the Government of that day proposed an increase of the Income-tax. As soon as peace arrived, it was proposed, indeed, to continue the tax for two years, I think, for the purpose of paying off part of the debt; but that was resisted by Members on both sides of the House: it was resisted generally by independent Members of the House, who then supported the Government; and after several weeks' discussion, the proposition was defeated; and I think it is stated by Lord Brougham in the Introduction to one of his Speeches, that it was considered to be thereby established that an Income-tax should be reserved for war, and war only. For many years afterwards such was considered to be the case; and when there was very great pressure on our finances, and a great deficiency in our resources, yet this tax was not made a matter of discussion in this House during the times of peace. It was not only not discussed as a direct proposition, to which I shall not further refer, but in the course of the year 1833, a motion having been carried for a reduction of the Malt-tax to 10s., and a motion being before the House for a further reduction of the House and Window tax, Lord Althorp proposed a resolution to the House that a reduction of the Malt-tax to 10s., with the repeal of the House and Window tax, would occasion so great a deficiency of the revenue, that it could only be

supplied by an Income-tax, which at that time was not expedient. Lord Althorp said he thought it not prudent to have a very small Property-tax: if it were adopted at all it should be as a system, that some 10,000,000l. or 12,000,000l. should be raised by an Incometax; but then he went on to say, that he never knew any tax so unpopular as was the Income-tax, and that during the time it was in operation it was detested."

Thus it appeared that the Income-tax was imposed to meet a deficiency within the year of some 10,000,000l. or 20,000,000l. ; and in 1798 the Government was borrowing at a high rate of interest :"Let me ask, is there any resemblance in that to the present situation of the country? Your deficiency is about 2,500,000l., about one-twentieth of your whole income. Although there has been a deficiency for some years, the credit of the country is unimpaired. During that time you have had your 3 per cents. at 89 and 90, and have been able to borrow at ess than 37. 10s. for the 100l., while other nations, and I believe even now Austria, Russia, and Holland, are raising that money at 5 per cent. There is, therefore, nothing in the state of the public credit that requires an extraordinary effort-nothing in the amount of the public deficiency that requires it nothing to make you contradict the assertion of former Parliaments, the general assertion of politicians, that this is a tax which ought to be reserved either for times of war, or difficulties with great Powers in times of peace making them equal to times of war." He recommended the Budget of last year as supplying the means to meet a great portion of the defi

ciency. If new taxes must be resorted to, he recommended a tax on the succession to real property, or the revival of some of the Assessed Taxes which had been repealed. He warmly vindicated himself from the charge of being the bitter enemy of the agriculturists, as some who were made of the same heavy clay as their own acres had called him; and he asked if he had ever brought forward measures for deceiving the farmer? The tax indeed was supported in order to keep a Ministry in office; but though that motive might prevail, it would not be long before the country would say, that the House of Commons, elected in other hopes, had betrayed the trust so generously confided to them.

Mr. Goulburn entered into a long and laborious defence of the Ministerial policy; and maintained that loans were especially a resource which should be reserved for war-time, as it was only in peace that provision could be made for recovering the lost ground. He adduced statements of figures to prove that the large estates were so tied up by settlements that any tax on succession would be unproductive, and would fall on the smaller estates.

Sir Robert Peel vindicated himself from the charge of having overrated difficulties; and contrasted the state of finances which the Melbourne Government found on entering office in 1835 with that which they left on their departure, in the British and Indian empire. "In the year 1836, you, the then Ministry, found the affairs of the two great empires in this state. In this country the surplus of income over expenditure was 1,376,000l.; in India, 1,556.000%. You then entered on the perform

ance of your duties with a net surplus in these two empires of about 3,000,000l. How have you left matters? You say I overrate the difficulties. You found a surplus of 3,000,000l.; you left a deficit of 5,000,000l. There is a deficiency on the 5th April, 1842, in the finances of the United Kingdom of 2,570,000l., in the revenue of India of 2,430,000l.: you, therefore, on quitting office, left a deficit, which it is my duty to attempt to supply, of 5,000,000l. The difference in the finances of the country, from the time you undertook office to the day you quitted it-the difference against this country and against its credit is no less than 8,000,000l. per annum. You do not deny, I apprehend, that the difficulties of India will recoil upon you? If you do, I can convince you that the time is approaching when you will know by experience that position cannot be maintained."

Lord John Russell had spoken of a legacy duty on real property; would the late Government then have supported it? Mr. Baring himself had declared it to be delusive measure. With respect to the reimposition of assessed taxes, most of the arguments which had been urged against an incometax, might with equal justice be made against them. It was quite true that revenue might be raised from those sources, but which plan was most for the advantage of the productive and industrious classes; a tax on income falling principally on what might be designated as the comparative ease of the country, or a revival of taxes falling upon the labour, the productive industry of the country? Adverting to the Tariff, Sir Robert Peel endeavoured to allay the ap

prehensions of some of his agricultural friends on that subject. "I hope that my agricultural friends will suspend their judgment with reference to the probable operation of the new Tariff until I have had an opportunity of laying the case fully and fairly before them. I am very sure that, although I propose to make a great reduction in the duties on articles of subsistence

although I propose to permit the introduction of fresh meat at a very low duty-although I abate the duty on salt meat, and permit live cattle to be introduced for the first time-yet I do not despair of being enabled to show that it will be for the interest of all classes that prohibitory duties should be done away with. I mean to show the progressive rise that has of late years taken place in the price of meat. I mean to attempt to convince my agricultural friends that in this country the production of cattle does not keep pace with the increase of population. I am sure my friends will act on the dictates of their own reason and judgment; and although I am also sure that they will not abandon me on the Property-tax because they may differ from me on certain points of the Tariff, yet I ask them to suspend their judgment until I can state fully the case of that proposed measure. I shall show them that in other countries the same inconvenience has been felt. I shall show them that in France the population has increased more rapidly than cattle could be supplied, and that the most extraordinary rise in the price of cattle was the consequence. I will show them from documents, the authority of which cannot be controverted, that there was also a great diminution in the consumption of meat in

France. I will prove the high prices of cattle in France; I will prove that France is a cattle-importing country; and that that great neighbour of ours, with a population of upwards of 33,000,000, so far from being likely to inundate this country with cattle, will actually be a rival of ourselves in purchasing them from other nations. I shall show my agricultural friends that there are but slight grounds of apprehension from the importation of cattle from Belgium; slight grounds of apprehension from Holland. I will prove that the apprehension must be limited to a narrow district of Europe; and I will also attempt to prove, that if importation of cattle into this country should take place, that that traffic will be for the advantage of the agriculturist as well as the manufacturer." Lastly, he adverted to Lord John Russell's suggestion of a loan, denouncing that proposition with much energy. "If you are afraid to submit to sacrifices-if you paint in glowing colours the miserable condition of those who are to pay taxes-if you say it is better to go on ou the present system, increasing the debt a little more, funding at 91 -(Cries of "Hear, hear!" from the Opposition benches)-why are the Funds at 91? who has made them 91? (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Public credit is high; the Funds have risen, and, say you, You can have a loan easily now.' Oh, you miserable financiers! (Laughter and cheers.) I beg pardon if, in the heat of debate, I have used a word that may give offence: but the Funds are high because you have shown a disposition not to resort to a system of loans in a time of

peace. The Funds have risen ; but throw out my Income-tax and ask for a fresh loan to cover your deficiency in the revenue, and you will see the force of the argument that because the Funds are at 91 you may wait a little longer and have a loan. No, that will depress the Funds; that will prove a visionary scheme, and have the effect of sinking the Funds. Funds are high while you maintain public credit, and all our disasters may be repaired while there is a conviction that you are willing to meet your difficulties."

The debate on Lord John Russell's amendment was kept up during four nights. Most of the principal speakers on both sides took part in it. A selection of a few of the principal arguments employed, may suffice as a specimen of the debate.

Mr. Macaulay, who argued strongly that no deficiency existed of sufficient amount to justify the Ministerial proposals, thus summed up his objections against the Income-tax. It had been proved that nothing but the greatest extremity could vindicate the Income-tax; that the country was not in such an extremity as alone could justify it; that the right hon. Baronet had greatly exagge rated the financial difficulties of the country; that he had brought into this discussion matters which had nothing to do with it, when be formed the plan which he had brought forward; that he had brought into it vague and mysterious hints of certain possible expenses which might be hereafter incurred, but of the nature of which he had not given the House the slightest notion; that he had given up the obvious means by which the position of our finances

might have been improved: that he had enlarged the deficit by throwing away a source of revenue which would have materially tended to relieve the country from the difficulties in which it was placed: and, under these circumstances, Mr. Macaulay could only discharge his duty by giving his vote in favour of the motion of his noble Friend. Lord Stanley contended that on no occasion of such importance had there been such a general concurrence in the House on the premises on which the conclusions of Government were founded. "On every side of the House, we have these admissions, that there is a great and growing deficiency; that that deficiency must be met; that no temporary expedient can meet it; that it is impossible you can go on raising loans, and issuing bills, and postponing the evil day; that meet it you must by taxation; and that the commerce of the country, now labouring under distress, must not be subjected to additional burthens for the purpose." The question then came, how were these difficulties to be met? The Opposition by no means agreed in their answer on this point. Here was Mr. Wason with a scheme of his own, for a property-tax; Lord John Russell said that a property-tax and an income-tax must be thrown out together; Mr. Wallace also said that they must go together; while other Gentlemen were for throwing all burthens upon landed and funded property; Mr. William Williams had another scheme of his own; but he approved of the Government scheme in respect of timber, to which Lord John Russell again objected; and Mr. Macaulay declared that the loss of the timberduties was a greater financial disaster

than the melancholy event in Affghanistan. Lord Stanley concluded by quoting the words of Mr. Roebuck, a strong political opponent of the Government, who had described the measure as "honest, direct, and straightforward."

Mr. Labouchere defended the Budget of the late Government, though he believed that under present circumstances direct taxation must have been resorted to. But there was this difference, that had the propositions of the late Government been affirmed, the deficiency to be now made good would have been smaller. He contrasted the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, who had found fault with Mr. Baring's Budget, but refused to state any recommendations of his own, with Lord John Russell's frank declaration of the measures which he advised in preference to those which were now proposed. Now that Sir Robert Peel found it impossible to resist the practical application of the principles advocated by his predecessors, he took advantage of the turning tide, and endeavoured to persuade the public that those principles were indebted to him for their final success.

Sir R. Inglis suggested, that not only incomes under 150l. a year should be exempt from the tax, but that that amount should be deducted from all incomes of a higher value, and the tax fall only on the overplus; so that persons whose income was 2001. a-year should pay only upon 50l. The 60l. a-year tax paid by the man of 2,000l. a-year, or the 600l. a-year tax paid by the man of 20,000l. a-year, would be comparatively lightly felt; but this 6. a-year paid by the individual of 200l. a