ePub 版

the duration of the Bill to one mons was incapable to discharge
year, by moving that it should be its functions.
in force till the 6th of April, 1843, Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hume
which was negatived by 174 to supported the Motion ; Lord John
52: and another Amendment, Russell opposed it. It was re-
moved by the same Member, that jected by 156 to 51.
the profits of trade should be cal- Mr. Hume took the opportunity
culated on the last year only, in- of stating his opinion, that instead
stead of the average of three years, of attempting to relieve the dis-
shared the same fate.

tress of the country, by imposing Mr. Benjamin Wood moved four millions of additional taxathe clause before referred to, for tion, Sir Robert Peel should have enabling persons to set off losses reduced the expenditure; much of under one schedule of income, that excessive outlay was caused against profits under another ; but by Lord Palmerston, the evil geSir Robert Peel declared himself nius of the country, who had led against this Amendment, saying, it into war after war: “In 1792, that the admission of such a prin- the entire marine of this country ciple would totally change the Bill, numbered 16,000 seamen, boys, and require a material enlargement and marines. The amount of the of its provisions. It was conse- Navy in 1817, after the war, was quently rejected by 110 to 66. 19,000; the Army in that year

On the third reading being numbered 22,000. In 1822, the moved on the 30th May, Mr. Shar- number of our forces, Army, Navy, man Crawford moved the follow- and Artillery, was increased to ing Amendment:

97,000; and now the number is “ That as by the existing laws a 146,000. The sending out 15,000 large proportion of the people of troops to Canada has cost 5,000,0001. this realm are excluded from voting The fleet on the coast of Syria used for Members of Parliament; and to cost 120,0001. ; now it costs as it also appears, by the reports of 1,000,0001. ; and the employment different Election Committees, that of so greatly-increased a force there corrupt practices have been used to had altogether cost not less than an extraordinary extent in pro. 7,000,0001. or 8,000,0001. He curing the return of Members to objected to the needless and lavish this present House of Commons; promotion, unequalled in France, and as from both these causes, this or Prussia, or any other country of House cannot be considered a fair a decidedly military character. The representation of the people, it is amount of our taxation in 1830 therefore unfit that any system of was 52,018,0001. Lord Grey's increased taxation should be imposed Government made a net reduction by Parliament, until all just causes of 7,220,0001. ; but, instead of the of complaint with regard to the revenue falling off in proportion, mode of electing the Members of it only fell to forty-nine milthis House shall be first redressed." lions and a quarter, the reduction

Sir Robert Peel trusted that he having given a great relief to comshould not be charged with dis

In 1837, the taxation berespect, if he declined to discuss gan to increase, till in 1841 it was the Motion. It amounted to a de- 54,000,0001.; and the distress of claration, that the House of Com- the country has grown so great,

[ocr errors]


that that amount will press as against the Bill had been insig, heavily as 70,000,0001. would have nificant. done in 1833. To send round a After some further discussion, begging letter was not the way to the House divided on the third meet it, but to reduce the military reading, when there appeared for expenditure.”

the Motion, 199; against it, 69 : Mr. Hume added, that it was majority for the third reading, 130. true he had given a vote of confi- The Bill then passed. dence to the Whigs, but he now In the House of Lords it was thought it would have been wiser subjected little discussion. It to have turned the Whigs out passed a second reading sub silenthree years earlier.

tio, and went through committee Mr. F. T. Baring opposed the without alteration ; and it was not Motion with a recapitulation of till the third reading, that any the oft-repeated arguments against debate on the measure took place. the nature of the tax.

On that occasion, the Marquess of Mr.Goulburn, having made some Lansdowne, recapitulating some of reply to Mr. Baring, stated that the arguments against the Incomethe expense of collecting the Pro- tax which had been urged by its perty-tax of 1815 was 300,0001. opponents in the House of ComHe thought that under the present mons, and which have already

been Bill the expense would not exceed noticed in our summary of the half that sum. Under the old Act, proceedings there, moved a resothe expense of the establishments lution in the following terms :was 117,9981. ; it was now in- 66 That while this House is unended to employ the Com ission willing to obstruct the progress of ers of Assessed Taxes, which would measures calculated to supply the increase the expenditure of that present deficiencies of the public department by only 30,0001. He income, and make it fully adequate had considered Sir R. Inglis's pro- to meet the public charges, it canposition to make 1501. the starting- not refrain from recording its opipoint, exempting incomes of that nion, that a judicious alteration of amount, and also the same amount the duties affecting corn, sugar and in larger incomes, by taxing only timber, would have greatly dithe surplus above 1501. He found, minished the amount of additional however, on calculation, that such taxation required by the exigena modification would affect in- cies of the State ; and would, at comes to the aggregate amount of the same time, from its effect in 33,500,0001. ; and to exempt so increasing the comforts of all large an amount, would materially classes, and lessening the privaaffect the calculations on which tions of the great body of the peothe measure was based. The de- ple, together with such additions lay in passing this measure had as might have been obtained from elicited the proof, that the peo- some other sources, have been preple sympathised with the Go- ferable to a tax on income in the vernment in their endeavours to present circumstances of the counmeet the exigencies of the country, try;" without laying a burthen on the Lord Brougham condemned the industrious classes. The number Income-tax with all his powers of of signatures to the petitions invective, but said he could find no


substitute for it in the unsubstan- On the 21st June the Martial proposals of the late Ministry, quess of Clanricarde moved, as an and so he accepted it perforce. Amendment to the adjourned MoHe pointed out some oversights in tion for the third reading of the the framing of the Bill, which, Bill, that it be read a third time according to his interpretation, on that day three months. would lead to endless confusion in The Earl of Wicklow expressed the working

his regret, that Ireland had not Lord Melbourne attacked the been included in the operation of Bill in a tone of good-humoured the measure. sarcasm. Admitting that the fi- He was followed at great length nancial Government

of the country by Earl Stanhope, who supported not conducted by the Ad. the Amendment. ministration of Earl Grey and Lord Beaumont said, that he that which succeeded it, accord would vote, though somewhat uning to strict principles ; that they willingly, for the Bill. had laid the burthen too much on Lord Fitzgerald strenuously asthe Consolidated Fund without serted its necessity, in consequence imposing fresh taxes; yet, he said, of the state in which the existing circumstances might sometimes Government had found the narequire a departure from strict tional finances on entering office. principles.

Lord Monteagle entered into an After a debate of some length, elaborate defence of his own finanin which the Duke of Wellington, cial administration, and contended the Earl of Clanricarde, and other that no necessity had been made Peers took part, the resolution out to justify the proposed meawas negatived by 112 to 52. sure. A contest then took place against

The Earl of Ripon replied on the immediate reading of the Bill behalf of the Government ; and, for the third time, which, after on a division, the Bill was read a two divisions, terminated in an third time, and passed by a maadjournment.

jority of 71.


New Tarif-Preliminary Statement of Sir Robert Peel, before going

into Committee-Speeches of Messrs. Labouchere, D'Ísraeli, Hume, Gladstone, E. B. Roche, and G. Palmer - Motion of Major Vivian, respecting alleged Suppression of Information by GovernmentDebate, and Division thereon-Motion of Lord Howick against extension of differential DutiesIt is opposed by Mr. Gladstone and other Members, and rejected by 281 to 108- The House goes into Committee on the Bill-Debate on Reduction of Duties on Agricul. tural Produce~Mr. P. Miles moves an Amendment respecting Duty on live Cattle-He is supported by Mr. R. Palmer, Earl of March, and Mr. G. Heathcote Opposed by Mr. Gladstone, Lord Norreys, Mr. Gally Knight, and othersSpeeches of Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel --Mr. Miles's Amendment lost by a Majority of 267-Other Amendments moved by Major Vivian and Mr. VilliersRejected— The Committee discuss the Items of the Bill seriatin-Various Amendments relating to Butter, Potatoes, Timber, CottonWool, and other Articles, withdrawn or negatived— The Bill goes through Committee-Read a third time on 28th June - Remarks of Lord John Russell on that occasion - Declarations of Sir R. Peel respecting Commercial Measures of Foreign States-Debates on Customs-Duties Bill in the House of Lords-It is introduced by a Speech of Lord Ripon-Earl Stanhope moves its rejection- The Duke of Richmond supports the Amendment-Lords Clanricarde and Monteagle speak in favour of the BillThe second Reading carried by 59 to 4-In Committee, Amendments moved by Earl Stankope are rejected ; and third Reading carried by 52 to 5 Debate in the House of Commons on Sugar DutiesThe Chancellor of the Exchequer moves to continue existing Duties for one year-Mr. Roebuck moves an Amendment to equalise Foreign and Colonial DutiesIt is defeated by 59 to 18–Another Amendment for reduction of Duties, proposed by Mr. LabouchereSpeeches of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Hume, Lord John Russell, Mr. Roebuck, and Sir Robert PeelMr. Goulburn's Resolution is carried by 245 to 164.

VHE question of the Income, which had been propounded in the

posed of, the exertions of the Go- alterations in the Tariff or Cusvernment were next directed to toms-duties. A complete table of carrying into effect the other great the changes proposed, had been branch of their financial scheme, printed and circulated very shortly after the intentions of Govern- Committee of the House had perment had been announced; but formed an important service, by further consideration, and the re- directing general attention to the presentations of parties concerned, state of the Tariff and the Importhaving subsequently induced them duties.” to concede certain modifications in The general object of the preparticular items, an amended copy sent Government was to simplify of the Tariff was afterwards placed the existing law :in the hands of Members, pre- “We have applied ourselves to viously to the 5th of May, on the simplification of the Tariff-to which day it was announced that make it clear, intelligible, and as it would be moved to go into far as possible, consistent; and that Committee on this important sub- alone, without reference to the ject.

amount of duty is, I apprehend, On that day the proceedings in a great public object. We have the House of Commons were com- also attempted, speaking generally, menced by an elaborate prelimi- to remove all absolute prohibitions nary statement on the part of the upon the import of foreign artiPrime Minister. The delay in cles, and to reduce duties which bringing forward the Tariff, he are so high as to be prohibitory said, had been unavoidable, from to such a scale as may admit of a the nature of the propositions fair competition with domestic prothemselves; for it was the duty of duce. There are instances in which Government, in first considering that principle has been departed the subject, to avoid communica- from, and where prohibitions are tion with parties personally in- maintained, and in those cases, we terested; but the proposal having justify departure from the rule been once made, parties had a fair upon special circumstances; but right to be heard with reference to the general rule has been, to abothe important commercial changes lish prohibitions, and reduce proaffecting their interests. To the hibitory duties within the range amended copy of the Tariff he of fair competition. Our object appealed for proof, that the Mi- has been, speaking generally, to nisters had been swayed by no un- reduce the duties on raw materials, worthy motive; that they had which constitute the elements of neither deferred to powerful ina manufactures, to an almost nominal terests suggesting alterations with amount; to reduce the duties on out reason, nor neglected weaker half-manufactured articles, which interests. He cast a glance re- enter almost as much as raw matetrospectively upon the legislation rials into domestic manufactures, relating to this subject :

to a nominal amount; and with “ In 1787, Mr. Pitt consoli- reference to articles completely dated the Customs-laws. During manufactured, our object has been the war, it was the practice under to remove prohibitions and reduce financial pressure, to raise the prohibitory duties, so as to enable Customs-duties indiscriminately; the foreign producer to compete and many of the present anomalies fairly with the domestic manufacarose from that practice. In 1825, turer; and I still entertain that Mr. Huskisson made important confident belief and expectation, changes; and in 1839 a Select which I expressed on first inti

« 上一頁繼續 »