The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

THE BUDGET-ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The house then went ham committee of ways and means,
and the adjourned debate wee resumed by
Mr. DAVISON, who said that as the representative of
the large commercial city of Belfast, he was unwilling to
give &silent vote :.m this ques'i in. Ho had viewed the
budget as • whole, and wee anxious to come to a conclusion
on it on its own merits, and he had not pinned his faith on
any section of its details. Ile inquired whether it was cal-
culated to promote the general interests of the country, and
whether it leas in ionfe.renity with the principle of unre-
stricted competition, which had been sterna d by the house,
and whether it wan intended to loos-n the fetters which
were placed on the shipping and legitimate commercial
interests. He rejoiced to be able to say that he had
come to the conclusion that he could answer those questions
satisfactorily, and on behalf of hi. constituents and on his
own, he tendered his warme•t acknowledgments to the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) He had considered it attentively, as became
the subject, and he had come to the conclusion. as heal
been well said elsewhere, that it was possible for a man
of punts to be also a man of figures." (Hear.) He and his
colleague had determined to support the government oft
Lord Derby and the policy of unrestricted competition. and
as that latter question bad heca ilkyosed of in the budget,
he supported that m. more. Asian Irish member he supported
a conservative government, because he believed that sudden
changes of government produced great evils to Ireland,
and eyecially to her industrial pursuits. He believed at I
no period had Ireland hens so quiet, and that was 'Wilma-
aide to her havino a firm government; comprising the
most popular Lord Lieutenant that she ever had, es well
as the most able and intelligent Attorney. General and So-
licitor-General, and an excellent and amiable Chief Secre-
tary. He again expn seed on behalf of bis constituents,
their approval of the measure before the house.
Mr. COBDEN said—Jf the hon. gentleman who has just
sat down had offend a it ord of argument in reply to the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Heti-
fee on Friday evening, I should have felt it my duty to
have recurred to the topics he then urged, but as the bun.
gentleman has not ventured to grapple with that speech,
the statements contained in it remain unanswered, and that
relieves me from the nee: sety of touching on the principal
puts of the budget of the right boo. gentleman the Chan •
eellor of the Exchequer. I *Mb. however, to refer to part
of the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down
He represents the city of Belfast, and on a question which
touches the taxation of the people of England, attention is
directed to that ow which I should not have observed if he
had been silent, that the quertioa dues not touch his consti-
tuents. The boa. gentleman is an illustration of the evil
of a united kingdom which is subjected to different modes
of taxation. (Hear, heat.) We are now discussing the
qamtion of the house tax, and the hon. gentleman
cordially concurs in the proposition which his been
made. Now, it is a house tea for England end
for Scotland old the city of Belfast his no interest in the
matter. (Cheers.) We are going to deal with England
(the hon. gentleman has only himself to thank for any re-
marks I may make), and the hon. gentleman is about to
give his support to an income tax which is to be levied in
England, and on my constituents in Yorkshire, at Leeds,
and Barnsley. (Ileac, hear.) I take this to be an illustra-
tion of the absurdity of the system. (Hear, hear.) There
are in Belfast establishments for the manufacture of linen
yarn which enter into competition with establishments for a
similar manufacture possessed by my constituents in Leeds
and in Barnsley. In Belfast li.buur is cheaper, the raw
material is cheamr, and there is little difference in the
price of coal. Now my constituents pay thrve per cent. on
the profits of their manufactures while the constituents of the
boo. gentleman are exe.iipt from that tax. Is it not evideat
that my constituents labour under a great disadvantage in
competing with the constituents of the boa. gentleman, and
since he has entered into this dismission, I pat it to hint
whether he will be ready, by and bye, to egett to a proposal
which is threatened to be made by my hon. friend, the
number for Marythloone, to extend the same income tax to
Ireland as is to be levied iu England. (Hear,
hear.) I leave that question to the consideration
of the honourable gentleman. With reference to the
question which is before the committee, I will observe, that
in some remarks which were made by an honourable gentle-
man on Friday night, who spoke before the right hon.
gentleman, the member for Halifax, it was stated that
somebody on this aide of the house objec•ed to the budget,
because it created an addition to the taxation of this
country. The hon. baronet, the member for Hertford-
shire, and the boa. gentleman the member for Cam-
bridgeshire, taunted us fret-traders, and said now we will
put you to the test, carryout your own principles--(euinis-
terial cheep)—now that we are all free-traders. (Ministe-
rial cheers.) Now, lem prepared to answer the challenge
thrown out with regard to direct taxation. I my, on the
part of free-traders, that we do not object to direct taxation
when it is shown to us that it is levied equally on all de-
scriptions of property—(hear, hear)—and when it is shown
that a direct tax is one which is beneficial to all the inter. eats
of the country. But we do not recognise the grievances of
gentlemen opposite, or any claim arising out of free trade
which entitles them to come and levy a tax on property in
the towns in order to relieve property in the country from
taxation—(cheers)—for that would be a one-sided, partial,
and unjust system, and just the kind of system which we
have been struggling for the last 14 years to get rid of by
the repeal of the men laws. (Hear, hear.) That
would be adopting the odious principle of compensation.
I mention this in the West, because I *Merv* in the
papers a letter written by a member of the cabinet—(no,
no)—but if ha is net a member of the cabinet he is an ex-
ponent of the 91' the Mamistry—and he states to his
constituents. tint the government do not intend
to propose a Muni es yeeesetices, yet that they do intend
to give compensation, mad that the budget is the first step
towards it, and that the repeal of the malt tax is a mea-
sure of relief to the landed interest. (Hear, hear.) 11
such is the cue, we are entering on the old controversy
between town and country—(" hear,' and cheers) —and yeu
compel as to go into this controversy ia a spirit that I
thought was never to ham been revived. (Cheers.) An
hoe. gentleman opposite says, " Carry out your principles
of direct taxation with regard to the duty on soap and on
paper." I soy that lem ready to carry out direct taxation
if it is levied equitably ; but my objection to the budget is,
that it dors not cam out direct taxation fairly and equit-
ably. The proposal now male with regard to the house
tut is most unjust. What do you propose? You impose a
property tax of 3 per cent. on all land and on all houses. You
next go to Schedule A. You lay on an additional house
tax of ninepenee in the pound, making the tax on houses to
be at the late of Cithipeer cent. additional as against 3
per erne. on land. you say, "We want more money
by direct taxation," end you tame with your scheme of
cionspens dim, or rather, I should cell it spoliation
(sheen)—and you go to Schedule A again, and lay on
another ninerenme in the pound on houses, or another
3) per cent., thee making the tea 10f per cent. on
homeroom 'against 3 per mat. on land. But that is not all,
for we all know that in making an assessment on real
property and on homes, you amens houses at a less
another of years' purchase than you do lead ; foe land is
usually seemed at 90 years' purchase, while houses are
only marred at 13 mere' purchase; and therefore, if you
levy the issue tax on loth of them, yno came a double
pressure of taxation. If you Invest 1,0001. in land and
1,0001 in boon's, while the oats is assessed at 90 years' pur-
chase and the other at 16, if you ley the same tan on both
of them, it is iu fact double on the sum invested, making
actually 10f per cent. more. and that brings the whole
amount you levy on bosses up to 21 per cent., and that is
what you propose to levy on houses a. against 3 per cent.
so land. (Hear, hear.) That is a great injustlee on the
part of the government, and the house will do wrong even
to attempt it ; for eves if it is carried by • majority, do you
think you will ever be able to maintain it? (Hear, hcar.) '
Your notion of Pieties is to say that they shall pay
21 far cent. ou their investment in proportion to the three
per cent., which is all that is paid lay the °moor+ of tee large
krod..d eaten... Look bathe large properties in this metro-
poli.—.ay the Belgrevesquare property—which are owned
by noblemen and let est on buildieg leases. There you
will fled homes built epee land which is let probably for
90 years, at a igrtund rent of at least NV. a year for one
hems. A person emstmets a house on that land, or lie
bop, he house constructed on it and lives in it; and you
acme to the owner of that home and you tax him, to carry
out, ru will soy, your direct taxation. But then you doa't
leech the get. sand landlord at all ; he merits off his 20f., or
301., or 601. a year, and escapes you under this system.
(Hear, hear.) Let me remind you, further, that the house-
h 4ders in town. are subjected to wry heavy charges of
&nattier kind, to Met lOW charges, not only for the sup-