The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

in,...nor tee was churls Again, machisery did not
lag
1", deer. Attu r yews wear, us ichinery was seldom
wor.s 'ban the metal of which it was compoied, yet
go sit...fie, was made. Then, as to bee debts, It was
gimeset it not impuesthle to &stain any allowance on that
weed. And turnstile again to ineurancs, the charge for
„, „ding s rang° of cotton from New Orleans to Liverpool I
isaet ailowed as •deduction in estimating the profit for
thee n
se cm
tas. Them were all cases as regarded trade I
amen to those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
Kt forth in reference to land when he endeavoured to show
eb it the wieners/Ts pay sal. instead of Id. in the postal
•
r tear) Ile (Mr. Bright) had neves been one of .
,
111:*0.he had endued about the necessity of diecriminatieg
borers the different clawed of income ; but with reg iril to
the commercial classes he load always been of opiaion that
tee ,mart grievance was in the disputes and irritation conse-
nt spun the mode in whiea the returns were made and
fixed. It the tea was now to be continued
her seven years longer he thought the Chancellor of the Ex-
cl. iusr might coed, make arrangements by which the ae-
...meet might be made much less irritating than it was at
ge,cnt. Ila .tanks especially of the neighbourhood in
;the he bard when he said that nobody was satisfied with
the- local commissieners of income tax, and he was satisfied
threatens tied locality the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad
are.eed more compl dots upon that ground than as to the
tie •got otter tax. The arrtnetern• nt he would propose
was dn.. 'I here was, ho believed, a surveyor of taxes
"never( dis•riet. Ile would suggest that this surveyor
o,..aldinake a list of all the pettier.' who had paid income
US is hm district during the previous three years—and
5e...a..1 heel round this list printed to the parties liable to
ttee tee-0c they should be required to make their initials
as etnet Lit or 2.'s of them names, and that from the names
tad in this way had the greatest number of vetes a com-
erioioner dwelt' be chosen. Such au arrangement would
give cuali.lerice in the tax payers, and obviate much of the
annoyance that now existed. Ile should of course vote for
the preposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
artannt the ami ailment of the hon. member for &As,
'hob, it carried, would entail upon him the necessity of
„emoting another amendment having reference to trades—
and it thiy went on in this way deducting something
arm I Inds, something from trades, and smelting from
ali etior ...Juices of income the loss to the revenue would
soon render it necessary to h
avea a ninepeany instead of a
seveapeney tax throughout. w, hear.)
Sir T. U. ACLAND argued that it they were to go on
the principle of taking a little from one and a little from
&wittier, they would never be able-to maintain any principle
lie thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer s proposal
emelered fairly all chews; and as it was necessary to re-
tied the taste Ireland, and up m incomes of 1001. a year,
becoehl not, as being connected with lan I, le for any
eseerem. (Hear, bear.) With regard to the legacy tax,
spoil which he did not now wish to pronounce any
opinion, he would observe that a large and liberal allow-
ance must be made in awning it. They most
Imes esi7d. or 'AI., but strict value. It must be remem-
bered that land when it came into possession was very
moon least able to bear any burden—and while the sue-
cereor to a sum of money in the funds brought en irame-
dia•e income, he had known a case:when a person succeed-
Mg to an estate hail not touched rent for twelve months.
Then, again, the transfer of land wee subjected to heavy
stamp duties which the transfer of money was
mot. Again land was subjected to a separate
tax of its own from which it could not be
relieved inasmuch as it had been bought in.
With regard to local taxation he thought that the land was
entitled to more consideration than it had received; and as
the landed proprietors had, in this question, a common in-
terest with the tithe-owner and the railway companies—in
fact, with sill those the exact amount of whose income was
tangihle and could be at once ascertained—• review of their
case ought tin longer to be delayed. But, taking the budget
as a whole, and as a step towards the comprehensive sym-
m, trio iti in. he thought it the best which any Chancellor of
the Exchequer bad proposed during the whole of his par-
liamentary experience, which extended over 40 years.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE could see nothing in this budget but
s proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the
expense of the land, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted would be subjected to a legacy duty of two mil-
lions sterling, various other classes were to be relieved;
and he thought the least the house was bound to do was to
consent to such a modification of schedule A as had been
proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire.
(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXC 11EQUER--Sir, before
the committee proceeds to a division upon this most im-
portant question, I am very anxious to state the views
which I and my colleagues entertain in regard to it. Tlie
hoe. gentleman who made the motion which is now Wise
us, commenced his very temperate speech by disclaiming
his own part everything like factious or party motives. I
give the hoe. gentleman entire credit for that disclaimer. I
am convinced there is no man less likely to make a motion
of such a character ; and, above all, I ma convinced
there iv no man in this house less likely, if he
did make such a motion, to fix on that motion
any other character than the true one. But, with respect
to the importance of this motino, the hon. gentleman, I
think, greatly undervalues it. I shall not endeavour to
entangle the hon. gentleman in the discussion of details.
It would be very easy for me to enter on many matters of
that description, and to show that by the adoption of this
motion you would be involved in very great anomalies ;
and that you would introduce difficulty emounting to con-
fusion into the whole of the tax, which, unless you kept its
details within certain bounds, would become absolutely un-
manageable. (Cheers.) There is much that might be said
on suhjects like that; but there is a more important matter
before us—stronger, or at any rate higher and broader,
grounds on which it is my dut7 to object to the motion of
the boa. gentleman. It is not because the motion of the
hon. gentleman is devoid of plausibility, or even that it is
devoid of equity, if it stood as a asked abstract proposition.
It is when we view it in conjunction with other provisieas
of the tea of which it forms a part—when we view it
in conjunction with the present state of the circurn-
staaces that bear on the renewal and operation of this tax,
and in Conjunction with the pledges that have been given
nt former periods and on recent occasions—that her Ma-
jesty's government feel that they would be deserting the
very tat principle of their duty, were they either to con-
sent to the motion of the hon. gentleman or to give it any-
thing less than the most resolute and unqualified opposi-
tion. (Cheers.) For these reasons—because lam anxious
to make a statement on the broadest grounds—l will not
dwell on many details with respect to the remarks that
have been made in the course of the debate. For instance,
the hon. member for Devon (Mr. Buck) appears to have
a very warm sympathy on behalf of the small freeholders
of that county. \Vali, we are proposing an income tax
that will leave every freeholder under 1001. per annum
scot free. (Cheers.) And he, in December Int, supported
a budget that taxed every 40s. freeholder. (Cheers and
laughter.) That budget, if I collected its purport rightly,
taxed all real property irrespective of the amount of the
possessor (no, no) at any rate went down to the
lowest dividend [Lord John Russell here cor-
rected the right honourable gentleman]—well, I beg
pardon, from 1501. to 601. But I will not point out
inconsistencies like these ; we have more important matters
to discuss. In order to uderstand the just expectations of
the country we must travel a little backwards. What was
the state of affairs in December last ? At that time the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and the chosen champion of a
large portion at least of those whose interests are connected
with land, proposed his financial plan. What were the
characteristics of that plan ? I was asked to-night why it
was that I had said nothing on behalf of the land in regard
to local taxation, and why it was that I had proposed no
reduction of its burdens. Why, air, among others, for this
versa—that if I had I should have been not only met and
eacoMelend, but overwhelmed by quotations from the
at tba right hon. gentleman. (Loud cheers
Le your hearing [Mr. Gladstone here ad-
d▪
ressed dm iseneley gentlemen], as your leader, and as
you son wUlk your assent and support, that
right enosigaed those claims to perpetual
oblivion. Cbsomosad impeder.) Strange, then, that after
the Mom of flow somelhe you should come forward and
make it an assomeion @Oast me that I am not prepared
to relieve you Ikea local taxation. (Cheers and
laughter.) Bat we. that ell that was does
in December last? Not at all.* You had then,
too, a proposal about the income tax, you had these resolu-
tions laid upon the table under which the income tax was
to be levied, and the resolution laid upon the table with
respect to schedule A, corresponded precise) y with that
which I ask you now to adopt. (Cheers and laughter.) I
know not what course the right hon. gentleman is 1101Atto
take on this occasion ; I won't speculate as to the
bility of his adhering to the course which he in
December last—an hour or two will dissolve dna lUng
mystery. (Laughter.) But this I know, diellObe slifht
bon. gentleman can only oppose me'isow onINIIIMODIK 11110
luting himself in December last. (Chao* sod lesigkitae.)
Was that all? There was an unmitigated schedule 111)
and what sort of a schedule D-was there ? As I have sail
I won't go into details, but I may say that the land at die
moment—including other dividends, as from manufacturing
Premises and real and visible property generally—is paying
91. in the pound—at all events at a higher rate than other
property. It was so in December, and that inequality—
for it is an inequality—was left unmitigated ; and on
the back of that you set another inequalit ; for
schedule D was to be reduced to hid. in
the pound, and with your approbation, and
with your support. (Cheers arid laughter.) "Lb,
but,' says the hon. member (Mr. Palmer). conceiving that
he has used a conclusive armament, " all that was bearable,
for then there was to be no legacy duty." (Hear, hear.)
Was there really to be no legacy duty ? (Loud cries of
"Hear, hear," from Mr. W. Williams.) No: there was
to be no legacy duty in the present tease, but undoubtedly
there was to be a legacy duty—in the future tense. (Chests.)
The hen. gentleman (Mr. Palmer) cannot have forgotten
thin pregnant words, which w re used by the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)—" At the same time we have not
neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp
duties and the probate duties "—certainly the term legacy
duty does not here occur, but there can be no doabt as to
the meaning—" and we think it not impossible to bring
forward on the right occasion a duty on MONO.
lions "—(cheers and inAgitter)—" that will remise&
contending interesta, and terminate the system new
so much complained of." (Cheers aced laughter.)
(Cheers.) But you, gentlem‘ss you who complain
of the income tax in conjunction with the euccerairso
tax—you who ay that the prospect of parting with the
income tax is not so clear I ask you to remember
what was the prospect in December last ? (Cheers )
The proposal, then, was to renew the income tax for three
rem What did that mean? You knew very well what
it ..neszt ; it meant its perpetuity. (" Oh, ob.") I don't
mean to :ay that there was a foregone coact:lion of that
fact in the oinds of three who were parties to the Proposal ;
bet I my this, OM he who proposes the income tax for