The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

152 of Lord Clarendon in the Conference at Paris, necessitating the keeping of a great fleet in the Black Sea, and other measures of the kind. (" Hear," and a laugh.) It could be ascertained—and the information would be very instructive--what have been the consequences of the want of a good geographical knowledge on the part of a principal negotiator. (Renewed laught-r.) But our position is wry different from that which justifies a finance committee in time of peace for war taxation. We have war taxation, and though it is a time of peace, we have war objects and ends aimed at, which only war can approve. k Hear, hear.) In my opinion the time has arrived when it would be well to curb and control the power of the Minister to pursue that policy which I have touched on tonight, and which I believe to be dangerous to the interests of this country. (Hear, hear.) Bat we have before us a question far graver than the question whether we shall intrust to the present Government a certain additional number of millions sterling arising from the income tax. The agitation of that point has led to the agitation of other points of far greater and more enduring importance. The very tax from which this extraordinary supply is drawn—the principles on which it is founded, the consequences of its provisions on our industry and property—all these are topics of controversy which we thought settled in 1853, and now, I observe, are reopened. (Hear, hear.) This is a very danger. ous condition, and ought to be gravely considered. (Hear, hear.) Whether there should be adifference in the rate of assessment between permanent and precarious incomes,—whether there should be ex emptions in levying the income tax, and to what degree those exceptions should mount,—these are questions we thought had been settled for ever; and no one can deny that it would be a great advantage to the country that they should be settled for ever. Remember the peculiar circumstances under which the right bon. gentleman the member for Oxford University introduced the act of 1853 to our notice. We are too apt to forget these circumstances in the hurry of public life, and when the interval has been occupied by events so exciting as those created by the late war. When the right hon. gentlemen intro duced his measure in 1853, not as a transitory or insulated financial measure standing by itself, for it was a most considerable pelt of the financial scheme which he brought forward,—remember in what position he was placed. There were two parties in this house who held opinicns on the measure he was about to introduce, each sufficiently powerful greatly to embarrass the passage of a measure, but who, if they had united their forces, could have detested any Ministry. The first party consisted of those who thought there ought to be a difference in the assessment between precarious and permanent in comes, and those who thought there could not be any satisfactory solution of the question. It was then said by the Government that that was a ques tion which had been argued and reargued over and over again ; and "whatever may be my views," the right hon. gentleman said, " I will bring forward a measure which will terminate this method of taxation for ever, except under circumstances which will justify any anomaly in taxation—namely, when the country should be engaged in a great struggle." The opposition which was felt in many quarters in this house to the propositions of the right lion. gentle. man was silenced by the terms which he offered ; and I consider that a compact was entered into between the supporters of that opposition and the right hon. gentleman on that occasion. (Hear, hear.) And so far as I was concerned I offered as little opposition to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman as was possible. But there was also another party in this house—a very powerful party, representing very different ideas, and whose interest and honour ought ever to be dear to the House of Commons. Those who are the possessors of real property were placed in a very peculiar position by the financial proposif on of the Minister of that day. A part of his scheme was to impose a succession duty upon real property. I do not wish at this moment to enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of that measure ; but I will at once admit that he brought forward his measure fairly, and was ever ready to defend it, and I am sure that if it should be necessary he will be ready to vindicate his course to those who on this side may impugn it. But allow me to say that his proposition as to suc cession duty was intimately connected with the settlement of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) Some of the provisions of his measure respecting the suc cession duty were defeated, and some were carried by a narrow majority. But they were carried by gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the house deeply intere'ted in real property, who did not ap• prove of his measure, but who took it as part of a ;eneral scheme, accepting his declaration that the income tax was to terminate in 1860. That was the equivalent and consideration upon which they sup ported the succession duty. (Hear, hear.) Now, if the scheme of the right hon. gentleman had not been disturbed by the war two years ago we should THE PRESS. have been paying a reduced assessment upon our incomes. Those who are int3rested in real property have not hail that reduced assessment. You may say that those who are not interested in real pro. perty have been in t'te same position, but remember that the possessors of real property pay a sum of :2,000,000/. a year without receiving that equivalent on which they had a right to count—(Hear)—and if you disturb the settlement of 1853 you raise up a 110,4 of dangerous and embarrassing financial ques tions which I had hoped had been settled for ever. First of all, you raise the question as to the differ• ence between permanent and precarious incomes. Secondly, you revive a system of exemption *hick I myself attempted entirely to extirpate, and which the right hon. gentleman considerably diminished. I see by the newspapers that it is laid down as a principle that small incomes should not be taxed, as if any person could define what is a small income— (Hear, hear)—as if small incomes did not depend on the circumstances of the family who possessed them. (Hear.) You will have a revival of the old bitter quarrel as to the peculiar burdens of taxation upon the holders of real property. These are questions which will embarrass any Minister, and their solution will be found to be diffi cult, perhaps impossible. My opinion is that you ought to adhere to the settlement of 1853. (Cheers.) Do not attempt to deal with the income tax without dealing with the whole question in a frank and unequivocal manner. Any other course I cannot approve, and shall never support. (Cheers.) I believe that the policy which her Majesty's Government are at present pursuing is a dangerous policy, that that policy is owing in some degree to the sources which are derived from the income tax, and I therefore think that those sources ought not to be granted to them for another year. (Hear, hear.) I understand, from the declarations that we had from those officially connected with her Majesty's Government—some in v..ry high office, and some in insufficiently high office—(laughter)—that it is not the intention of the Government to insist upon levy ing this revenue. But I think that upon that suu ject there ought to be no doubt—(cheersl—and I highly object to any settlement of it being post poned. I think it most impolitic that we should wait for a month, or for two months, until her Majesty's Ministers give us their financial statement. Some may think that it is unnecessarily hostile to the Government to take an early opportunity in the session of eliciting the opinion of the house upon questions of finance. I can assure the house that they will find ample precedents of the best and wisest of our ancestors for taking that course, which, in fact, is the proper and constitutional course. Our supply precedes our ways and means. We are not to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country fashions his demands according to what he may fancy will be received by the Exchequer. He fashions his demands upon the House of Commons by one test, and one test only—the wants and proved requirements of the country. (Hear, hear.) If the Minister lays before the house a scheme of finance and estimates which we believe are justified, who will tell me that there is ever a House of Commons that refuses such Minister the ways and means that are necessary? But I protest on our part against our being placed in the position of, as it were, stopping the supplies for expressing our opinons upon the taxation of the country before the Chancellor of the Exchequer submits to us his financial statement. In asking the house to give an opinion upon the income tax I do not mean to imply that the ways and means which the Government may require shall be stinted. All that I ask is, that the sources of supply shall not be tampered with until the opinion of the house shall have been pronounced respecting the taxation of the country. I believe that it is of the utmost importance in the present state of the public mind— and I am the last who will defer to anything like illegitimate agitation—that we should upcn this sub ject come to an early decision. (Hear, hear.) It is due to the country, to ourselves, and still more to the Ministry. Let the Ministry know what the opinion of the House of Commons is upon this great subject, and they may then take that course which they in their wisdom may think proper. I understand—for I was nut in the house at the time—that some notices have been given by some gentlemen upon this subject. Ido not wish to speak of any gentle man in the usual exercise of his parliamentary privi lege in any other than a most unfeignedly respectful manner ; but I think that it is of importance that if the opinion of the house is taken the question should be brought forward by some one who undoubtedly speaks the feelings of a large party in this house. (Hear, hear.) I think the question ought to be brought forward early. I am totally opposed to tacking upon the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne any opinions of the house on this subject. I think that would he an unworthy and unsatisfactory mode of dealing with this subject. I think that it is due o the house, to the country, and to her Majesty's [SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1857. Ministers that fair end sufficient, but no more than fair and sufficient, notice should be given. I should have been glad that some gentleman who sits near me should have undertaken the task, but it has been thought by many that I ought not to shrink from it, and on this day fortnight, if it be convenient and agreeable to the house, I will ask their opinion upon this subject. I think my course will be to move for a committee of the whole house in order that I may introduce resolutions. My first resolution will be to express the opinion of this house that taxes which have been granted in time of war for the purpose of carrying on hostilities, by way of income tax, should not be levied in a period of what we are assured by the hon. mover of the Address is one of profound peace. (Hear, hear.) My second resolution—of course I am nct pretending to give the language 1 should lay upon the table of the house—will be that the house should express its opinion that the settle ment of 1853 by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Glad stone) should in spirit be adhered to. (Cheers.) I cannot but believe that if these resolutions are carried we shall witness some beneficial changes in the financial system of this country. I think we shall give a great impetus to salutary economy— ( Hear, hear)—and shall in a most significant manner express our opinion that it is not advisable that England should become what is called a " military nation "—(Hear, hear)—though we are prepared to vote all the ways and means necessary to establish those sources from which an effective army can at all times and in due season be raised. lam not in favour of any new and still mysterious military system—great, I am afraid, beyond proportion, and of which we have had it said that it could in ten days land an army on the Continent. If that is the policy which the Secretary for War has proclaimed, and which is being pursued by her Majesty's Minis ters, we shall, I am afraid, check all that disarma ment which is now taking place on the Continent— (Hear, hear)—and prevent that reduction of warlike establishments which in Austria and France is now occurring, and which is necessary, I will not say to the existence, but to the best interests of those countries. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I am not afraid to express the old-fashioned opinion that a stau•ling army is dangerous to the liberties of this country. (Cheers.; I know that we must have troops. We have had an army of which every man has reason to be proud, and I wish to see that army maintained in its spirit and its effi ciency. What we want are scientific officers, and that the machinery of our militia shall be nurtured and maintained in efficiency. (Hear.) For the rest we may trust to the resources of the country, which will increase in proportion as we reduce its taxation. (Hear, hear.) I have observed with regrit that an eminent person has recently spoken of the absurdity of supposing that an army can at this moment be dangerous to the liberties of this country, saying that it is no longer under the control of the Sovereign, but that Parliament is our safeguard against all possible danger from such an institution. I may be permitted to say that if an army is to be under any authority, I should prefer it to be under the authority of her Majesty rather than under that of the Parliament of England. (Hear, hear.) We have had armies under the control of the Parliament, and we have not found the consequences of that arrangement to be favourable to our liberties. An army must be either a disciplined or an undisciplined body. If undisciplined, the troops of which it is composed are bandits, like the prretorians of Rome and others, and all we can do is to guard our pro perties and lives from them ; but if they are disci plined they must obey one man, and that one man is the master of the State. (Hear, hear.) I care not what may be the form of government—Royal, Im perial, or Republican, when there are 500,000 men in arms, highly disciplined and obeying one man, that man is dictator. I hope, therefore, that the glory of the late war, and the, if possible, greater glories of wars to come, will not induce the people of this country to sanction extravagant military establishments. I will express my opinion that, with due economy and with able administration, the more you reduce the burdens of the people the greater will be your strength when the hour of danger comes. With this conviction I shall on Tuesday, if convenient to the house, and if the day be vacant, introduce the resolutions of which I have given notice. I shall therefore on this occasion not ask the house to express an opinion upon the importaat topics to which those resolutions will refer. It is, sir, with this explanation of my views as to our present position, and guarding myself front any unnecessary agreement with any of the sentiments expressed in it, that I shall support the humble Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne. (Much cheering.) London : Printed and Published by ALFRED lye, at the Office, 110, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, on Saturday, the 7th day of Febreary, 1057.