The Press. — London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

Vrotetings in Varlimnt. TEE BIIDOZT. The adjourned debate upon the first series of the budgetary propositions submitted by the Government ---those, namely, relating to the income tax---was re sumed on Monday evening by Sir W. CLAY, who, in the name of a large section of the trading classes in the metropolis, pronounced the Ministerial scheme to be " wise and beneficial as well as bold and com prehensive." It would be a great misfortune if the whole budget were not adopted. The complaints of Irish members against the imposition of a new tax upon their much-wronged country he met by remark ing that the wrongs of Ireland had never been finan cial wrongs, and did not justify exemption from financial burdens. Sir F. KELLY referred to Mr. Gladstone's " gigan tic oration" for the admission that, under the income tax, landowners paid at the rate of OLI. in the pound, while their just and equal proportion was but 7d. Yet alter this tuhnission the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, so far from °Hering them any equivalent, actually designed to inflict upon them a new burden, the tax on successions, amounting to at least two millions a year. He therefore opposed the resolu tions, because they were "part of a scheme of taxa tion pregnant with new, enlarged, and intolerable burdens on the already oppressed landed interest; because they sought to extend the income tax to Ire land without justification, without political necessity, without any necessity at all ; and because they pro. posed to continue the tax to this country, unmitigated and unchanged, for the unexampled period of seven years." Upon the first of those heads he contended that the fiscal changes introduced by Sir R. Peel (from which the country generally had confessedly profited) were dearly paid JOe by the owners and oc cupiers of land. Two and a half millions more of remission were now proposed, from which, also, the country might very probably secure considerable be nefit, but for which, as before, the same overburdened classes were again to be called upon to pay. Respect ing Ireland, he remarked that at no time had that country been included in the incidence of the income tax. Even while England was struggling under the weight of war expenditure, when the tax was first imposed, the Irish were never called upon to ennui bate to it. When it was again revived in 184,1 a similar exemption was mantle in favour of the sister isle. Yet what neither Pitt nor Peel had done during periods of intense pressure and heavy finan cial deficit, the present Government were attempting to do, and proposed to extend the tax to Ireland without inquiry, and in the absence of anything in the circumstances of that country which would justify the measure :--- " It was said that Inland ought now to hear her share of the burden of the income tax, bemuse she had hitherto participated in the advantages which had accrued to this ►xanmy from that inapant. Would nut that aroment have been equally valid in the year ? Considering the un doubted fact that the land of Ireland was labouring under heavy burdens, he did not hesitate to say thud, before the resolutions which they were occupied iu discussing sl Id have passed, it was the duty of s► o ne hon. member imme diately connected with Inland to move for u committee to inquire into the capability of Ireland to Islay a harslen now ter the first time sought to be imposed upon her." sir F. Kelly then adverted to a multitude of injustices and inequalities which existed under the present in come tax, and which justified his third position—that it, was unwise and unfair to continue the impost mi mitigated and unchanged ti►r the long period of seven years. The chief argument for the maintenance of these inequalities rested upon the alleged impossi bility of rectifying them. This lie denied; and at all events contended for the propriety of making some attempt in that direction:•-- " lb: did nut deny that the task would be a difficult one ; hut he did not think the difficulty was of a character which should deter the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the tiovennitent from attempting to deal with it. ‘ltlsaigh it would be impossible to do absolute justice to the different panics intennitud. they might at least make a nearer ale ptosintatiou to i justice than that which was at present obtained. lie (id not say that perfect justiee would be obtained ; but he said that a more equitable system than the present could unquestionably be established.'' Adverting finally to the farmer's position with regard to the tax. as enacted in Schedule 11, he declared— " That it woul l be hardly possible to adopt u more falla cious criterion of income than that which was laid down in that schedule. The criterion in question was the amount of a farmer's rent, which it was supposed was double the amount of his profits. Now, there were perhaps some wenpiers of land possessed of large capital, whose profits were equal to the entire amount of their rent ; but as a good many fanueno-and he was afraid that during the last few years the greater number of farmeni—matle no profits whatever, that schedule decidedly required alteration : and some provision ought to be introduced into future income tax bills for taxing the fanner, not wording to hi. assessed profits, but according to his real profit*. In arguing fur a reform of these schedules, he believedthe represented the sentiments of the constituencies which sent them to that bones; and he should feel it his duty to offer every oppo. THE PRESS. sition in his power to the continuance of the tax without a modification of these schedules. Himself, with friends around him, did upon that question represent, and were identified with, the mtertsts, the feelings, and the judgments of vied numbers of the must useful and must meritorious clams of the whole community. In the names of those parties he told the Uoven►ment that they would ultimately be driven to yield to force that which they refused to jus tice. They would at last be compelled to own that those injurious, those offensive inequalities were a burden no longer to be borne ; that the voice of the people had con demned them, and that the voice of justice demanded that they should cease. ( Hear, hear. )" Mr. LowE dissented from the propositions advanced by Sir F. Kelly, and contended that as their results went to prove that every class, under every schedule, paid too much income tax, this universality of in justice constituted, if not perfect justice, at least the nearest approach to it which would be found practi cable. In one sense only could he admit the income tax to be unjust—in that it showed, with almost all other taxes, the unavoidable character of injustice, if looked at per se. " Taxation was, however, a system ; and a tax, though unequal and unjust by itself', might be both just and equal when it formed part of the general system." Viewed in this light, he believed that the income tax could not be considered unjust. He took credit to the Government for proposing the seven years' renewal of the tax, and for extending it without exception to all classes of Irish incomes. In so doing they had kept the advantage of the country in sight, though at the saeritice of temporary popu larity :--- " This budget had not been framed with any mean, ser vile wish to court popula►ity. It might have 'wen wise to propose a renewal of the tax for only three years, or to limit the tax in its application to Ireland to funds and pro fessional salaries. Rut his right lionintrable friend the climicellpir of the Exchequer had neglected these means of temporary popularity, mid had frankly laidhis own views before the country. For this reason he believed that the Chaneellor of the Exchequer was entitled to the considera tion of the house, and that his conduct ill this respect would do him more credit in the eyes of posteritytiuur even the masterly eloquence with which he laud introduced his measure." Mr. I. BUTT viewed the prospeet of future aboli tion, under which the Finance Minister wished them to accept an unjust and burdensome tax as utterly fal lacious. How were five millions a year of surplus to he derived in 1800? There VMS a million given up on soap; three millions on tea ; 50,000/. from attor neys ; si,oool. remitted in favour of persons who kept more than one carriage; 37,000/. to those who had more servants than one. To secure these remis sions the income tax was brought to bear on the struggling clerks and traders who earned 1001. a year; and in the future there was little just ground to expect that. the burden would ever be removed. For Ireland he declined to sue in foruit pauperis, and was willing even at the cost of an income tax to wipe away the taunt that she did not contribute her fair share of taxation. But, he wished to ask the house to appoint a committee to fairly inquire into the whole question respecting the financial relations of Ireland, especially with regard to local taxation, and was fully persuaded that no man could never come out of such an inquiry without being convinced that she was alreita overtaxed. 31r. Sergeant 31r nett V recollected that tlie late Chaneellor of the Exchequer had proposed also to levy an income tax in Ireland, and that in DilS the member fur Marylebone had submitted a like reso lution, for which Mr. Disraeli had then voted. By the acts of all parties, therefore, and from the gene ral tone and temper of the house, he felt assured that the impositioo of the tax on his country was in evitable. Having come to this conclusion, he fbund several reasons why his countrymen ought to recon cile themselves to it. After all, he remembered that taxation was but one out of a multitude of objects they had to regard. What Ireland wanted was a system of good government, and that he thought they were new likely to obtain from the men who were now in power. Mr. Coxolxv showed from figures that Ireland contributed more than an equal proportion to the imperial revenue already. Her gross income was 20 millions, that of England '2541 millions, being in the proportion of 111 to I. and yet the former paid 4 millions out of 51 millions of taxation. . Mr. Itocni: believed that the amount of income tax to be levied in Ireland would not prow invari ably bean y, would fall on the persons best able to sustain its weight, and would be completely reim bursed by the alleviations they were contem poraneousl to reecho upon articles of consumption. Mr. Disa.vili gave his entire approbation to the principles on which the present financial scheme was founded, geeing that they were identical with those he had himself propounded some months ago from the Treasury bench. He had then contended that the time was come when our financial policy must be assimilated to our new commercial system ; and had urged, as the only means of accomplishing that assimilation, the necessity of completely revising the whole system of taxation. Both of his proposi tions had at the time been met by Lord John SATrRDAY, Russell in a spirit of incredulity if not of ridicule. He rejoiced to perceive that the noble lord had now changed his opinion. Nor was he the only convert. Mr. Lowe had that night made a speech in be half of the new finance 'scheme, from which Mr. Disraeli proceeded to extract various passages and contrast them with other dicta of the same honour able member, uttered before he took office, con demning the principle of remitting taxes so as to creatc , a deficiency which had afterwards to be sup plied by new imposts, a principle that formed the chief feature in the new scheme which had so won upon his admiration. Detecting and rebuking further inconsistencies in the opinions pronounced then and aforetime on this head by the member for Cambridge University and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, Mr. Disraeli adverted to another point whereon his policy had been impugned by members of the present Government who now were industri ously imitating it. This regarded the prospective character which he had advisedly given to his budget:— „ ,.rent as was the indignation because I had recourse to the first method which watt necessary to carry out my policy—mutably, that 1 should create a:deficiency and sup ply it by new taxation—their indignation was still greater that I should presume to anticipate the management of our finances to a period more advanced than the termina tion of the current financial year. (Cheers and laughter.) 1 must quote on this subject the words of the hon. mem ber for Kidderminster, because, as he shown us to-night, he is not only un honourable member, but a very high minded member; he has shown us that he is one of those who never will sacrifice anything for ephemeral popuhuitv ; that he is not a man who will to-day say one thing and to-morrow just the reverse, to gain a temporary pordatrity. Listen to the words of the honourable member for Kidder. miuster. 1 quote his speech because it was a single speech till to-night, and because it was a speech which re ceived a memorable reward (Cheers and laughter.) He said that the right honourable gentleman (myself) had given them two budgets to eonsider—tme for 11'S13, the other for I st7)-I—and that the wisest man would have enough to do to anive at a correct view of the financial condition of a great country for a single year. (Loud cheers.) And now we have It budget for seven years ; and not content with this, not content with regulating our commercial arrangements and taxes for that time, they are entering upon financial operations that fix the rate of interest for nearly half a century. (Hear, hear, hear.) Really, for statesmen who will not say one thing to-day, and another to-morrow, to win an ephemeral popularity, for men will not sacrifice their opinions for an object of such a character, I think this is rather a troublesome con trast to have occurred within the space of four months, the only difference in the circumstances of the case being that the member for Kidderminster of four months ago is now the Secretary to the Board of Control. (Cheers.)” Having expressed his approbation of the financial scheme now proposed, so far as its fundamental prin ciples were concerned, Mr. Disraeli turned to examine its details. First he alluded to the seven years lease which Mr. (iladstone proposed to take of the income tax. His supporters in Parliament and the press had objected to provisional budgets," and argued that it was disgraceful and injurious to the nation to leave an item of tive millions a year dependent upon the annual vote of Parliament. But of old times, and down to no great while ago, as he reminded the house, this very control was accepted and insisted on as one of the safeguards of our liberties, and by liberal mem bers as the sole hope of securing au economical sys tem of administration. Sc) lately as WU it had been admitted by Lord John Russell himself among the constitutional principles of government that the Minister of the Crown should every year have to come to that house for the great proportion of his supplies. Another detail respected the assessment. Mr. I iladstone proposed to let the tax go forth re newed with all its inequalities upon its head. He Mr. Disraeli ) had designed to assess the income tax according to a graduated scale. The precise details of his scheme had never come before Parliament because he had complied with the wish of the house and taken the vote upon his budget as a whole. The assessment scheme had therefore remained in outline, and was possibly susceptible of improvement upon his first suggestion. But he had sought to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the principle of gradu ation, and this principle he now proceeded, by the citation of many striking and familiar instances, to prove just and expedient. His whole scheme, he remarked, had been based upon the fact that the introduction of unlimited competition hail thrown undue pressure upon the owne a and occupiers of land. This pressure he had hoped to relieve by lessening the cost of production. Starting for this he hail ro pposed to revise the taxation, but had begun by per forming an act of justice to the commercial and pro fessional classes, in trying to equalise the incidence of the income tax, and yet the present Ministry, who stood upon the support of those very classes, now attempted to renew the tax without an effort to remove its injus tice. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer could ever keep his promise of abolishing it he looked upon as impossible, and showed why :--- " The first reason why I am incredulous is, because I see that the spirit of the times in which we live is hostile to the abrogationof the tax. (Rear, bear.) I beg the house