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

three years, and makes r o provision is the meantime for its
terniiaation, might as well make up his mind to its per-
petuity. (Cheers.) For you c.n't part with six millions of
taxation at a moment's notice. (Hear, hear.) Ile who
proposes an income tax fur three years is rot ib earnest in
the uoderstendiog that it shell tertainete at the end of that
time, taxless die lays the ground for • substitutive
system. (Hear, hear.) That is what we have done
The tax may be continued beyond 1860, but at
any rate we have laid the ground fur parliament if
itso pleases dealing with it in IPSO. (Cheers.) These,
then, were the eircuinstancet in Dexmlier last with your
own budget—an unmitigated schedule A ; the principle of
differentiation against you in schedule 1); prima ally the per.
petuity of the iuceitne tax; and a promise of a leg :cduty
again-t the land. Such was the situation last Decem-
ber; what was the situation this night week? The
amendment then before us, that the continuance of the
income tag for seven years and its extension to classes here•
tofore exempt from its operation without any modification
Bits inequalities or of its assessment+, would be alike an
unjust and impolitic measure. To that motion 253 members
of this house gave their assent ; end it will be a matter of
no smell interest to the cenotry to see how those 252 mem-
bers will dispose of their votes this evening. (Laughter.)
11. Without any modification of the inequalities of its assess-
ments ;" what was the meaning of these words ? to what
inequalities did they refer ? You know the meaning they
bore in the public mind, did you entertain the same, or
did you not ? (Hear, hear.) Observe, that there arc two
different inequalities in the income tax. The bulk of the
property under schedule A does actually pay a somewhat
higher rate than under the rest of the schedules. Was that
the inequality pointed out for correction by the amend-
ment of the hon. baronet (Sir E. Lytton) ? lam most
anxious, the committee must be moat anxious, for • distinct
answer upon that point. (Cheers.) Or were you going to
relieve schedule A, and impose new burdens upon the
trading and professional classes, in comparison with the
owners of land ? If that was your idea, I must say it was
extremely unfortunate that you adopted that form of words
which conveyed to the understanding of mankind at large,
an interpretation totally opposite and contradictory ; and
it was also infelicitous that you should have chosen, as your
exponent on the occasion, an hon. member, undoubtedly of
great ability, but one who, in the speech in which
he introduced the motion to the house, expended all his
aloes of rhetoric in setting forth the hardship. What ?
Of the land, because no deduction was made for insurances
and repairs? No; but the hardship of those in whose
enterprise, intelligence, and skill consists, as he well ob-
served, their only property, their health being the only
guarantee for the continuance of their property. (Loud
cheers.) Well, then, I say there is confusion on this point
as to the views of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do trust
that we shall not close this discussion without having some
light thrown upon the exact meaning of the vote
of Monday night last. (Cheery.) Let us, however, take
the amendment. If we were to look at the immediate e fleet
of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Palmer's) plan, we should
and that it would deprive the ;Exchequer of about
450,0001. But who imagines that we could stop at
schedule A ? Adopt the hon. gentleman's principle at
s:hedule A, and he must catty it through the tax.
(Cheers.) The hon. member for Manchester pointed this
out, and suggested that we must go on repairing the inequa-
lities of the tax throughout all the schedules, and hon.
gentlemen opposite cheered him as much as to say, " Yes,
that is what we want." It is therefore • question of
the loss of 16 per cent. on the whole tax. (Cheers.)
Take schedule A and admit this principle, and you must
do the same with schedule B and all the other schedules;
and when you came to cast up the whole of the deductions,
you will find the tax deficient by a million, and then what
becomes of the whole financial measure and the remission of
duties which we propose? You will begin by reducing the
tax oar land from 9tl. to i'd., and by taking a similar course
with the other sehedules you will hare to begin to recon-
struct the tax, and return again to the assessment of Id. on
land. lam not prepared to begin that process. By the
vote :of to-night you would introduce a principle which
would render the management of the income tax hopeless.
Yoe yourselves have admitted • principle which must be
extended to other schedules, for after that will
schedule Dbe contented with 16 per cent.? Do you suppose
that when you begin breaking up the income tax that you
can put any limit to your reconstruction? We cannot afford
to enter on such a process of reconstruction as is proposed
by this motion, either at regards our arithmetical calculi-
aces or the principle on which we proceed. It will break
up the imams tax, and with it the whole financial measure
at the pverament; and it is impossible for us to attempt
to resessernet the tax, and at the same time to persevere in
the peopled for an extensive reduction if duties which
has received and is receiving the approbation of
the country. We do not pretend to interfere with
the right of honourable ormbers to propose amend-
ments, but we trust the house will pause before it gives
a vote which will deprive the country of the benefits
which,we believe,will flow from the plans we have proposed.
I believe that gentlemen who voted last Monday for a
motion which would have relieved skill and intelligence,
will pause before they vote for the present motion. Here
are words which arc not unworthy the attention of those
who considered how they then voted. "Nothing in life, and
in public life especially, is so important as to have a principle
to guide you. (Opposition cheers and coaster sheers.)
Whatever may be the perplexity, :it principle wfifi implify 1
everything." Those aro words used by the right km. pap
tleman, the member for Buckinghamshire, in on Mahe= 61
his constituents. I believe that the motion of Nana" brit
a principle, although an erroneous one, but 1
MS who voted for that motion to say that the
ESRIeI
of to-night contains any such principle. The 1
nation of Monday night proposed to relieve cranes and pro-
fessions, as well as land, but the motion of to-night would
relieve the land at the expense of skill and industry.
(Hear, bear.) This is not what is desired by the country.
We say that taking the income tax as • whole it produces
banefits in a proportion far above the pressure of its ine-
qualities, and to contest that principle we are prepared, and
whatever may be burdens on property which we propose,
it is strange that within seven days we should be assailed
by two hostile motions, each supported by strong party
combinations so opposed in principle to each other.
(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that the question they had now to
decide was, no doubt, one of great importance, mad could
not be settled by the assertion of general propositions. The
right bon. gentleman had entered on a criticism on the
financial statement of last December, and he (Mr. Disraeli)
would not shriek from vindicating the policy he then laid
down, although he hoped that the house would not think
that it was any egotism which caused him to introduce that
subject. The right hon. gentleman had criticised the plan
of the late government for the reconstruction of the income
tax. The right hon. gentleman stated that there was a
difference made in that plan between precarious incomes and
realised property, but that there was a proposition by which
real property of the value of 501. a year was WIMod to the
income tax ; and asked if that was more beneficial to the
landed interest than the proposition of the present budget.
The right hon. gentleman aW said that a proposition was
made for • future measure, which would equalise the tax
on conveyances with the legacy duties, and he asked if that
was not dealing with the legacy duties, he did not know
what dealing with them was. But the right hon. gentleman
forgot the stamp duties on conveyances and the probate
duties, which he had not brought before the notice of the
house. He (Mr. Disraeli) had said that he hoped it would
be in his power to introduce • measure which would termi-
nate the controversy on that question, and he protested
=the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman that if
as not dealing with the legacy duties he knew not
When wee dealing with them. But in all his criticism
ate this Ihmacial plan of December last, and in his argu-
mania to prove that his plan was not more hostile to real
propeety and the land than that of the late government
the right bon. gentleman had the candour and ingenuous-
ness to forget that the measure he (Mr. Disraeli) brought
forward was intended to revise the whole system of taxation
is order to relieve landed property, and that at the same
tine be proposed to reduce iadirect taxation on the land by
NM aillions. If the right hon. gentleman felt justified in
MO circumstance because he disapproved of the
Fe&
Moe SO excuse for the hon. gi ntleman
- shareaftillge far the county of the Isle of Wight.
nee tigas plefillMes who was so careful of his political
lemstigt @Sea ...: F
. . the house on Monday last that
Am was so so grievous on the land as the
MO tax, and t • principal fault he found with
OW late government was that they did not propose
the total repeal of the malt tax. Perhaps when the hon.
gentleman fills the place of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, the total repeal of the tax may be proposed. (" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) Having called attention to the criti•
clam of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the proposition
of the late government, reminding the house that he had
omitted the proposition of a reduction of indirect taxation
I on landed property, and reminding them that one-fourth of
I the revenue was raised on • single crop of the English
farmer, let him refer to the scheme of the income tax as
proposed by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon.
gentleman would not sanction any change in the arrange-
meats of rates in the different schedules. That was the
policy to which, as he said, every member of the govero-
meat was so bigoted. The right hon. gentleman had con-
vinced the house that real property was enamel
twopence in the pound more than property in
any other of the sthedules ; and having established
I that point, one not of novelty, but probably
neser brought before the house in so popular and con-
vincing • form—(hear, hear)—the right hon. gentlemen,
I with strange incontistency, having shown that real pro-
-1 petty was more heavily assessed than any other kind of
' income, proposed another tax of considerable amount en
Iland. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Disraeli) would say, that
when two millions more was imposed on land, who would
deny that the greater portion of taxation was paid by real
I property. There was great inconsistency in the course per-
sued by the right hon. gentleman, in showing to the house
I that real property was assessed at a higher rate than was
equitable, and yet while that was does on grave consider-
ations of state, a now tax was to be imposed which would
fall entirely on that interest. But was that ell? Let him
sail the attention of the house to an important point which
had not been adverted to in lobate. The right hon. gentle-
man said that one of the inducements for the house to agree
to the budget of the government, was that there was every
prospect of the income tax coming to an end Unseen years.
Though some persons might be incredulous IS to NM wank,
yet the basis of ell the arguments which had been used was
that it was to be considered that the income tax would ter-
minate in seven years. What did the right hon. gentleman
then do? Haying shown that real property was more
heavily assessed , than say other property under the in-
come
tax, he said, "as you have a weakness in favour of
incomes derived from precarious sources end mom skill and
industry, although I have shown yen that real property
pays more than any other to the income tax, in
order to compensate the possessors of precarious in-
comes, I will propose a tax on successions—a tax of cam.
penistion." (Hear, bear.) If it was a tax of corapen-