The Press. — London, England, 1853-05-28 00:00:00

70 CiUNCELLOR of the EUHEQUNR. We have yet to hear what reason is offered by Lord JOHN RUSSELL for bringing forward or abandoning his Dockyard Disfranchisement Bill. All we know at present is, that he has himself stated he did not. originate it because of the Dock yard Appointments Committee, but because of the Chatham Report, which declares that a large number of the elect►►rs were employed in her Majesty's dockyard and other public de partments at Chatham, and that they are under the influence of the Government for the time being. The fact that there is am instance ofa candi date elected for this borough who has not had the support of the then Goveriunent, whatever weight it may have with Lord JOHN in any course he may propose, is sufficiently illustra tive of the value of the present Committee's Report, and, to all plain Englishmen who know how it was constituted, will account for the inquiries it has made and the inquiries it has abstained from making. The Committee were instructed by the House of Commons to in quire generally into the exercise of the in fluence and patronage of the Admiralty, and they have done so in a sense more particularly unjust than was even to be expected from their party constitution. The motion of which Mr. KEATINU gave notice last evening, if fairly framed, may elicit more than the mover re quires, more than the Committee dared to in vestigate, and more than will be sufficient to demonstrate to the public the party animus and exparte proceedings which have degraded a grave tribunal to the subsidiary functions of a Hue and Cry, and converted a purely legis lative machinery to an instrument of petty vengeance and a means of defiunation. How gratefully we suspend our further re marks upon this subject to recal the noble ►ontrast of Sir CHARLES NAPIER, who at the dinner of the Fishmongers Company on Wednesday last, while confessing himself no friend of the late Government, selected for his honest praise —THElß NAVAL. ADMINISTRATION. TO TUE EDITOR lit' " THE PRESS." Sir,— Your correspondent " E. G." refers most appropriately, in connection with the " Dockyard inquiry," to Sir Robert Peel's denunciation of the use made for party purposes of Mr. Saurin's confi dential letter to Lord Norbury. Permit me, however, to remind you of a much more recent disquisition, from the mouth of an eminent Whig, upon the pub lication of confidential correspondence. Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, says, in refer ence to the production, before the Ceylon committee, of a private letter from Lord Torrington : " Bow the gentleman to whom that. letter was addressed could have disclosed it—still i tttttttt how the committee 00/1 not onlyhave allowed, but I may almost say requiresl, Si publication of that letter • • •, I tint, for one, utterly at a lON to understand. " 1 can only say that those who did so M AI4I/4111 totally different , notions from those 1 have been always taught to hold with respect to the sacredness of private confidence, and the minister in which the intercourse of private life he. t l it wits gentleman and another should be t arried on. t tan this I will not say."Thrsvard, vol. I VI, sec. 11, IL • F 9• It is to be hoped that the noble earl will have much " more " to " say " in the same strain, if the far more flagrant violation of confidence which is now exciting such general disgust should ever become the subject of debate in the House of Lords.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, t'• EDIToIt OF " THE PREss." correspondent E. 6." in your last eloquently denounced the inquisitorial dragging private letters before a public ' well recollect a near and valued relative describing to me the lofty seorn with which resisted the eonduet of Slr. Burke, to prove the Rohilla charges against by producing his private" papers. to that debate, and I tind :1I r. Pitt if used hi compel front an individual against himself, would be as eensnrable. to justice. as personal torture to tAtort • • • • On the supposition of their papers, it would be highly unconstitutional irtt in any manner." attempted to combat this iiew, but the A England, though they were unfriendly to decided in that question for Mr. Pitt's values his only title to address you, Your obedient servant, AN ENOLLtili lisoutmaN. May '_4th. nur, yuus wary10b5...... 1 May 23, 18511. TO THE Sir,—Your col number eloquei tyranny of dram:, tribunal. I well of mine deseribn Mr. Pitt in 1780 in endeavouring 1 Warren Hastings 1 have referred saying : i Such modes, written evidence i and as repugnant verbal eonfession 0 being private pape to call for them in 1 Mr. Fox atten gentlemen of Eni Ha =tinge, decide opinioD. One who still Hs/ley-street, ,: - i k N, It \. & „..•. 's. s, THE PRESS. litott6ings xn arliament. INCOME TAX EXTENSION TO IRELAND. Before the committee on the new Income-tax Bill was allowed to sit on Monday in the Commons, Colonel Doss,: interposed a motion setting forth the expediency, before Ireland was subjected to new taxation, of appointing a select committee to inquire into " the financial and political relations and rela tive taxation of tireat Britain and Ireland, and to report whether the latter kingdom does not bear her fair share of imperial taxation." In support of his proposition Colonel liunne contended that English members knew at present very little about Ireland; that Ireland did not share in English prosperity; that, even when more prosperous, former Chancellors of the Exchequer haul invariably exonerated her from any share in the income tax ; that the present budget would inflict greater injury on Ireland than any former one within his remembrance; that fiscal burdens should be apportioned to the capability of sustaining them; and that the proposed extension of the income tax to his country violated the terms and belied the promises of the Act of Union. Since that act was passed Ireland had contributed much more extensively than before to imperial taxation, had be come entangled in the imperial debts, had suffered from imperial legislation, and yet had shared but in small proportion in the general advance of the rest of the empire. The conceesion of the Consolidated Annuity debt he scouted as being an utterly inade quate compensation for the new burdens which they were going to impose upon Ireland. Mr. FRENCH, being quite willing that. Ireland should pay her fair share of taxes, demanded, as an act of common justice, to have the amount of that share ascertained and determined by a fair and com petent trammel. Mr. Cosomx coincided in that demand, believing that a fair verdict would relieve Ireland from a good third even of the taxes she already paid. Mr. MACARTNEV saw many practical difiletatiee in the way of their collecting an income tax, even if it were imposed in Ireland. He doubted whether the produce of the tax would defray the inevitable charges, and warned ministers not to plunge into an abyss of crime and peril, not to infringe the articles of the Union and fly in the feet) of a whole country, for the sake of such a delusive prospect of gain. Mr. WILKINSON having signified his general ap proval of the budget, Lord CLAUD HAMILTON insisted upon the tight and duty which appertained to the Irish members in watching over the faithful observance of the Act of Union. Every symptom of intended or possible violation of that act required their vigilance, and justified any opposition they might. raise in that house. Such symptoms he believed to be manifested on the present occasion " The terms by which Lord Castlereagh induced the Irish representatives to surrender their rights as a sepa- rate Legislature were, that Ireland was not to incur any share of liabilities contracted before that time, but that future liabilities were to be borne by both countries in pro. portion to their relative utilities. The Irish represents nye% had therefore a tight to endeavour to secure the fulfilment, not only of the letter, but of the spirit of the conditions of the Act of Union; and to insist, us one element in the question, upon the ability of Ireland to bear any new burden being considered previous to its im position. He had indeed long thought that Ireland ought to pay the income tax if it was rendered permanent in England. But he thought that the house should come to a decision in favour of the finality of the income tax before it was extended to Ireland. By the budget now before the house it was proposed to remit taxes exclusively applying to Great Britain, to the amount of 1,470.000/.; while the only remission exclusively applying to Ireland was that of the Consolidated Annuities, which he thought he could show should not enter into the balance at all. The only additional burden imposed exclusively on Great Britain consisted in the extension of the income tax to incomes between lOW. and 1501. a year, the total amount from which would not exceed '250,000/. On the other hand, the new impositions of taxation upon Ireland exclusively con sisted of the income tax, 400,00111.. and the spirit. duties, Itts.ool., ur It-'04,001U. of HOW taxes imposed on Ireland. lie could not think that this was legislating in the spirit of the Act of Union." The CitiNuEt.Lon of the ExenEtwEn found fault both with the time and the terms of the motion. An exclusively Irish plea was now set up to stop the progress into committee of a bill whose general prin ciples had already received repeated affirmation in the house, and which was intended to make good a deficiency of five millions in the finances, and to provide for the service of the country quite irrespec tively of Ireland. This course of proceeding he contended was, in a parliamentary point of view. had and inconsistent. Nevertheless he would not evade the discussion, and he therefore proceeded to dissect and combat the argument that Ireland had suffered in purse either by time Union or subsequently from the consolidation et' her debt with that of Great Bri tain. On the contrary, lie contended that England had had large stuns to pay . to make up for the defi SATURDAY, ciencies of Ireland, whose revenue did not suffice to defray her own expenditure " The house had been told that it was a great hardship that Ireland should now pay four or five millions ; but yet in the year 1810, just before the debt was consoli dated, the annual change of that debt, irrespective of one farthing for military purposes or civil government, was 0,900,00 W. Ireland was now called upon to contribute to the debt and the expenses of civil government altogether a great deal less than she NAM then paying, or was bound to pay=i laugh )—fur debt alone. There was a return upon the of the house showing the revenue and expenditure of Ireland in every year from 1817 to lent. The total expenditure lit 1817, including debt, and civil and military service, was 10,241,f5ee., while the total amounts of the paymeuta into the Irish exchequer were only 4,384,000/., leaving 5,850,000/. to be provided from the British exchequer in one single year to make up the deficiency. The same return gave a statement made year by year, from 1817 to 1848, from the English exchequer to make good the difference between the produce and the charge of the Irish revenue. The lowest payment made in any one year was 1,977,0001. ; but, generally speaking, the payments ran from five to six millions in the early part of the tern, and from two to three millions In the latter part of the period. If that was the case a committee was not now required to inquire whether Ire. laud was paying too much. (Hear.)" Pointing to Belfast as a proof that Irish manufac turers laboured under no insuperable difficulties, and arguing that the remission of the Consolidated An nuities would be a most valuable boon, because its benefits would fall on the districts most im poverished, Mr. Gladstone maintained the justice of the proposed income tax by the argument that its incidence would light chiefly upon the places and the persons best able to pay it. Both must go together, the tax and the remission ; and Ireland, he argued, got much the best of the bar gain : " The fact of a country being poor was no argument prima facie against the application of a tax when that. tax did not attach to the class that were poor in that country, but only attached to a class which, being defined by a certain amount of income, were actually richer as regarded the enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life than the corresponding class who paid the tax in England. ( Hear, hear.) But let them look at the case as regarded the Consolidated Annuities in the poorer parts of Ireland, and see if the change was a matter of indiffirence. On looking to the figures they might on the first view think it was a matter of indifference. If they took the province of Munster, they would find that the income tax on real and rateable property would amount to about 85,001/. or 88,0001. a year, and that the relief from the Consolidated Annuities would be 90,0001. a year, or about equal. That might be their first conclusion, but that con clusion would be fallacious to the last degree. Who paid the Consolidated Annuities ? The landlord and the tenant. (Hear, hear.) Who would pay the income tax? The landlord and the mortgagee. (Hear, hear.) They pro posed to take off the Consolidated Annuities and to put on the income tax ; the gross amount of the income tax would be about the same as the amount of the Consolidated Annuities ; about half would be paid by the landlonl still, but the mortgagee would pay the other half instead of the tenant farmer. (Hear, hear.) As practical Olen they were bound to make the welfare of Ireland their prominent con sideration ; and did they think it was possible to induce the Parliament of the United Kingdom to give tip the Con solidated Annuities, and not impose the income tax upon Ireland? If they did he could not admit their conclusion, though he could admire their sanguine temperament. (Laughter.) If they should succeed in getting rid of the income tax, they would not succeed in getting the repeal of the Consolidated Annuities." Sir J. PAKINOTON, regardless of technical difficul ties or objections, felt justified in voting for any proposition which enunciated the opinion that the Ministerial budget bore hardly and unfairly upon Ire land. Want of impartiality was the crowning de • fect of that budget, whose contriver had been regardless of the different interests and conditions of different classes. With respect to Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed altogether in disproving the assertion of her being unjustly visited : " Mr. Gladstone had met the charge by saving that he relieved Ireland from the Consolidated Auntllties ; but 4_ e (Sir .1. Pakington) could not accept thet answer. It seemed to him to be a very great and serious mistake on the part of the Government to put these annuities into the same category with the regular taxation of the coun try. i Hear, hear.) Those Consolidated Annuities were for the most part the result of that awful infliction with which it pleased Providence to visit "'viand ; and in part they arose from a debt connected with the Irish poor law for the building of workhouses, and which was not in the least degree connected with the regular tssation. (Hear, hear.) The annuiues Feared upon the west and south, and they were going to give them relief, against which he would not say a word ; but it could not be fairly argued that to enable them to do so they should oppress the east and north, not only with the income tax, but with a great additional burden of further taxation. (Hear, hear.) The right honourable member for Halifax had said in December last that Ireland eoudd not bear additional taxation ; but now he said that the remission of the Consolidated Annuities was an equivalent. If so, it was a most Irish equivalent —(a laugh )—because, in return for abandoning 240,0001. a year, or not so much, they imposed, first of all. an income tax of 460,000/. ; secondly, a spirit duty of 198,0001. a year and thirdly, a tax on successions, the amount of which it appeared to 1w difficult to get at. The immediate balance ,~