The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-24 00:00:00

JANUARY 24, 1857. poses, so that the material for the employment of convicts would not be wanting; and if the shipping . statistics sent home by Governor RENNIE h imself tO Sir JOHN PAKINGTON are of any weight, we may conclude that a very con siderable amount of labour would be required before the islands were rendered as commo dious a station for shipping as they are capa ble of being made. In 1851, we learn from the document, the shipping which entered the harbour of Port Stanley amounted to 17,638 tons ; in 1852 to 22,024 tons; so that there is every prospect that the convicts would for many years have plenty to do in the way of providing docks, harbours, and other naval necessaries. In addition to this, it is to be observed that these islands are infinitely the cheapest spot for refitting and repairing ships on the voyage from the Pacific to this country. And it is calculated that by the construction of proper docks, each vessel requiring repair would save from a fortnight to three weeks in the performance cf the passage. We do not know when Mr. RENNIE ceased to be Governor of the Falkland Islands. He might certainly have seen reason to change his opinion since the publication of the despatch we have alluded to. But it is a curious fact that he there gives a totally different account of the capabilities of these islands from that which he has recently put forward. He con siders them excellently adapted for the abode of free emigrants, and speaks of their produc tive qualities in most hopeful and decided language. That which is good enough for the emigrant is, it need not be observed, good enough for the convict ; and we should cer tainly be glad to know what it is that has occasioned him to alter his views in regard to the life-sustaining capabilities of the Falk lands. In respect to the military pensioners, he tells us in the same despatch, that, though they were discontented at first, they were per. fectly satisfied when assured they would be taken home if they wished it, and that not one of them ever availed himself of the offer. Thus much of the climate, soil, and situa tion of these islands. But when the late Governor comes to consider their safety as a penal prison his objections strike us as rather those of a man who was bent upon finding some, than of a perfectly impartial witness. Shall we ever discover a country to which some such drawbacks will not be attributable? Granted that a certain number of prisoners succeed in making their escape, has not this always been so? Was this considered a valid abjection to any of our old penal colonies? And should we neglect to secure an outlet for our criminal population, so superior in other respects, simply because, in this one point, it is only on an equality with former ones ? The Falkland Islands seem to fulfil so many of the conditions demanded in a penal settle ment, that we moat sincerely hope the subject will be warmly taken up. It is probable that if we strike the balance between Captain Fazaoit's account and Governor RENNIE s. we shall arrive at something like the truth. That would give us a region in which hard labour would be able to sustain life, but which would present no attractions, at least for a very long time, to large bodies of free emigrants; where, however, sufficient public works would be required to ensure the existence of a certain amount of free population, with whom the convicts would gradually amalgamate, and thus answer the great end of transportation the removal of criminals from amongst us without either injustice to the honest poor, or positive barbarity to the convicts themselves. THE INCOME TAX. IT is satisfactory to find that the whole ques tion of the Income Tax is assuming a practical shape, and that our journals are beginning to discuss it with reference to figures. It is true their tone is timil, and that either through want of knowledge of the actual facts of the case, or through reluctance to reveal them, a veil of obscurity is thrown over their disser tations. They fail to make distinctly known the real points at issue ; and as it is of the utmost importance that the facts should be known in order that the public may decide for THE PRESS. themselves, previous to the meeting of Par liament, on the financial measures they wish to see adopted, we think it may be useful to show how far the Legislature itself is cow. witted to the total repeal of the Income Tax within a definite period. At the present moment there are two ques tions connected with the Income Tax before the country. The first is—Whether the extra ninepence in the pound imposed to meet the necessities of the war should terminate, as the public expected, a year after the termination of the war? And second]}--Whether the ordinary Income Tax of sevenpence in the pound should decline, according to the Act of 1853, until its proposed final expiration in 1800? As regards the first of these questions, the mind of the public appears to be thoroughly made up. Members of the Ministry have declared that they cannot believe that the Government will take advantage of what they term a " quibble," to prolong the extra Income Tax for two years after the conclusion of a treaty of peace, when it was the plain intent of the Act imposing the extraordinary duty to give the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER the benefit of one clear year, and no more, that he might make arrangements for dispensing with the extraordinary aid. Whatever financial arrangements the Government may propose to Parliament in the ensuing ses,don, it is generally felt that they cannot be so ungracious as to stand on the letter of the Act imposing the extra ninepence duty, (instead of being guided by its spirit), and insist that it shall, by the existing statute, be prolonged for another year. If that war duty be abolished, the loss to the Revenue will be 9,000,000/. Then comes, secondly, the question whether the Income•tax Act carried by Mr. GLADSTONE in 1853, providing for the reduction of the Income Tax from sevenpence in the pound to fivepence in the pound from April, 1857, to April, 1860, and for its complete and final extinction at that last-named date, should now, with the establishment of peace, be carried into effect. In considering this point, we must look back to the circumstances under which the Income-tax Act was carried in 1853, to the pledges given by the Government—substan tially the Government of this day—that the provisions of the Act should be faithfully ob served, and to the measures passed by the Legislature on the distinct understanding that the Act should be truly observed. Mr. GLADSTONE, in his financial statement of April, 1853, had to review the state of the finances during the year in which Mr. DISRAELI had held office as Chancellor of the Ex chequer. The Right Hon. Member for Bucks had, on the 30th April, 1852, estimated the revenue for the year ensuing, at 51,625,0001., and the expenditure of the year at 51,163,000/. When Mr. GLADSTONE looked at the actual results, he found that his predecessor had cautiously allowed for a margin on both bides the account The revenue was one million and a half more than Mr. DISRAELI had thought it safe to count upon. The expen diture was 400,0001. less than he had deemed it wise to provide for. He had counted on a surplus of 460,000/. ; the actual surplus of the year was 2,462,0001. It was impossible for Mr. GLADSTONE to do otherwise than compliment the prudent reserve of his predecessor in office, or to refrain from an expression of satisfaction at that ptosperous condition of the country in the past year which had placed such a surplus at his disposal. It is not necessary to refer to the details of Mr. GLADSTONE'S Budget further than as they affect the Income Tax and the prospective reduction of the tea duty. On the Income Tax he expressed himself with the greatest force and clearness . The general views of her Majesty's Government with respect to the Income Tax are, that it is an engine of gigantic power for great national purposes; but at the sane time that there are circumstances attending its operation which will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, at any rate, in our opinion, not desirable, to maintain it as a portion of the ordinary and permanent finances of the country. The public feeling of its inequality is a fact most important in itself. The inquisition it entails is a most serious disadvantage. And the frauds to which it 75 leads are an evil which it is not possible to characterise in terms too strong. He proposed, as the best decision at which the Government could arrive, to re-enact the Income Tax for two years, from April, 1853, to April, 1815, at the rate of 7d. in the pound ; to continue it from April, 1855, to April, 1857, at the rate of 61 in the pound; and to con tinue it for three years longer, from April, 1857, to April, 1960, at sd. in the pound ; the tax finally expiring at the latter date, when the 2,146,000/. of Annuities would fall in. This plan was proposed by Mr. GLADSTONE, with the full sanction of her Majesty's Go vernment, as a complete settlement of the Income Tax; and on the faith of this settle ment he introduced and carried his scheme of succession duty, by which a sum of 2,000,000/. yearly was added to the direct taxa tion of the country on real property. The Opposition objected to Mr. GLAnsroNE's financial plan, that it continued the Income Tax for seven years with little modification, and that it afforded no absolute security that its aboli tion would then take place. On those grounds Sir E. B. Lvrrox moved an amendment. " Seven years," he said, " might be a short " period in the history of a nation, but it was a " long period in the life of a generation ; and " at the end of seven years, what security was " there that the tax would be abolished ?" The answer to this question was remarkable. Mr. GLADSTONE had most distinctly stated that his opinion was against the tax as a permanent ordinary portion of our finances. Sir CHARLES WOOD contended that the assurance of the total abolition of the tax was firm, and the plan for its extinction perfectly practicable. Lord JOHN RUSSELL insisted on the definite nature of the plan, and Mr. GLADSTONE him self, in reply to all objections, insisted that his scheme was a real substantive one by which the Income Tax might be got rid of. " We have," he said, "put the question in' o " such a manageable form as will enable Prr• " liament, when the time arrives, to part u .th " the tax." In reply to Mr. PAcKE, acutely inquired whether the tax might be compounded for, or redeemed, for the seven years it had to run, Mr. GLADSTONE said that he regarded the idea favourably, and promised to consider it. An Income-tax Act, embodying Mr. GLAD* STONE'S resolution, was introduced and passed through all its stages, the Succession Duty Act being allowed to pass on the understand• ing that the Income and Property Tax Act would expire at the period fixed, April, 1860. The operation of this Income-tax Act was suspended by the War. Tho question is, whether, with the return of peace, its pro visions are to be resumed? In that case, the Income Tax (supposing the war ninepence to be given up) would drop on the Ist of April next to sd. in the pound, would remain at that rate for three years, and would then expire altogether. In our opinion the Legislature is bound to insist on faith being kept with the Triblie. The whole scheme of taxation in 1853, especially as regards the additional taxes imposed, was based on the assumption that the Income-tax Abolition Act was a reality, and that its stipulations would be observed. Whatever may be the financial schemes of the Administration in the coming session, the Opposition is, in our opinion, bound to insist on faith being kept with the public, on the conditions of the sta tute of 1853 being complied with, and on the reduction of the Income Tax to sd. in the pound from the Ist of April next, with its entire extinction three years subsequently. We have in a previous article anticipated the question how this immediate reduction and eventual abolition can take place. The net revenue for the year ending 31st of March next, will, we believe, exceed 68,000,000/. The expenditure in time of peace has, for the twelve years previous to 1854, averaged from 50,000,0001. to 51,000,000/ A sinking fund of 1,500,0001. has been established to provide for the liquidation of the recent loans ; the terest on them may be set down at 1,000,000/. more Add this 2,500,0001. to the extreme a our ordinary peace expenditure, and a total sum of 54,000,0001. is attained. According to