The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-17 00:00:00

•
residing in' Ireland, and yet there was no other differ-
ence between the two, for the Irish fundholder could
transfer his stocks to the English funds when he pleased.
and the owner of English funds could do the same with
regard to the Irish funds. The rule laid down by Sir R.
Peel was, that no deduction was to be made to the Irish
fundholder when in Ireland, but when the fund crossed
the Channel a deduction was to be made. It was with
that exemption the Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed
to deal. Then came the interesting and constitutional
question of whether they ought or ought not to subject the
101. householders to the tax paid by the 201. house-
holders, and he had been unable to discover a shadow of
argument during this debate to justify the Parliament of
this country in exempting that class from the operation
of a tax which was admitted to be a just one, which was
..-t:ablished because it was a wise mode of obtaining re-
venue, admitted of no evasion, and was easily collected.
(Hear.) No clear or satisfactory argument had been
off :rad to show that it was a constitutional thing that
some 350,000 electors, holding political power, should
not contribute to the direct taxation of the country.
(Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir A.
Cockburn) had said that they contributed something to
indirect taxation. Well, but so did the 201. house-
holders ; and upon what principle were the 101. house-
holders to possess the franchise, and outvote the former,
when they did nob pay direct taxes ? Upon what prin-
ciple was a large body of men holding supreme political
power enabling them to tax other people—why were they
not to be equally taxed themselves ? Mr. M'Culloch had
been quoted upon this subject, and this writer, in the
eonrse of his observations upon the house tax, made a
reflection bearing upon the very point before the commit-
tee, recording an opinion, from which no unprejudiced
man in this country would dissent, that he was unable
bo apprehend why or wherefore the political fran-
chise was to be given to the 101. householders, while they
were at the same time to be exempt from contributing to
the house tax. (Cheers.) No authority could be quoted
against this opinion, and if this, as he believed, were the
great question now before them, why should 0% hon.
and learned gentleman imagine that he would argue the
committee out of their convictions by telling them that
the 101. householders were so averse to the proposition,
and certain boroughs so objected to it, that the members
for those places would be afraid to look their constituents
in the face if they voted for the increase of the tax ? This
p; inciple, if carried out, would be a deadly blow to Par-
liamentary representation ; but he trusted that such re.
presentations would not influence the committee, and
that, if they were of opinion that the tax was a just one,
they would vote for extending it, and would not be af-
fected by other considerations than by a sense of what
Ava 3 due to their own judgment, their own self-respect,
a4nl to the good of their country. (Cheers.)
Lord DRUMLANRIG reminded the committee that
the Scotch agriculturists, at least, had not been in the
habit of publicly asking for relief in consequence of legis-
lative changes, and he would appeal to hon. members
whether Scotland deserved to be singled out in order
to be victimised by this budget, for the purpose of al-
lowing the right hon. gentleman to extend to some few
and favoured localities remission of the malt tax ? (Oh,
oh !) Yes, but he objected to an extension of the
house tax to enable the Government reduce half the
duty upon malt. Up to the present moment few
farmers in Scotland paid the house tax, but now very
few would escape either that or the income tax. The
budget seemed to him open to great objection, and it
should have his opposition. (Hear.)
• Colonel BLAIR believed the budget as a whole had
been favourably received in Scotland—at least it had
been so in the county he represented, which was not
one of the smallest in that country. (Hear.) He de-
nied that there was anything like compensation in the
scheme beyond what the farmers had a right, in any re-
adjustment of taxation, to expect—(" hear, hear," from
the opposition)—and he was by no means sure they
would be satisfied with that. (Loud cries of " hear,
hear," from the same side.) But this he could say, that
the farmers would not begin the agitation. (Cheers.)
Mr. G. H. MOORE said with regard to the consoli-
dated annuities a great fraud had been exercised some-
where, and the charge rested between the Irish
candidates and her Majesty's Government. The gentle-
men of Ireland were indignant at this matter, while the
landlords and farmers of Ireland mainly concurred with
hint in the expression of opinion he was now uttering,
and he had no hesitation in telling Irish members oppo-
site that if they succeeded in extending the income tax
to Ireland they should never contest an Irish constitu-
ency again. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto they had suc-
ceeded in contesting the constituencies of the sister
kingdom under false pretences and in canvassing Irish
gentlemen under false promises, but he had this conso-
lation, that if they should be instrumental in carrying
this budget it would be universally said in Ireland, and
truly said too, that they had deserted the interest of
their country for the purposes of faction.
Mr. PEACOCK concurred with the spirit of' the
resolution, but he reserved to himself the right of here-
after resisting its details if they were not amended.
With regard to the extension of the income tax to Ire-
land, it was manifestly unjust to confine ib to incomes
derivable from the funds ; it should be extended alike
to land and property as well as the funds,
He should oppose the repeal of half the malt tax, be-
cause it would injure the revenue without in any way
benefiting the consumer. In fact, he agreed with the
hon. member for Cambridgeshire, who the other day
chanted the dirge of protection—and no more appropri-
ate mourner could have been found—and who, while
doing so, took occasion to observe that any benefit the
tai n era might derive from this part of the budget would
be more than counterbalanced by the diminution in the
import duties upon foreign malt. (Hear, hear.) So far
as the house tax was concerned, he had no objection
whatever to extending it to 101. householders. Taxa-
tion and representation should be made, as far as pos-
sible, co-existent ; and while the 101. householder was
invested with the franchise, lie could see no reason why
he should not be called upon to contribute to the house
tax like his neighbour, whose rent was 201. a year.
(Hear, hear.) There was an analogy between the posi-
tion of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and that
of Sir Robert Peel in 1842. Both proposed to reduce
taxation upon articles of consumption at once, and to
leave it for the future to impose a tax like. the income
tax or the house tax to make up the deficiency in the
revenue. The plan was successful in 1842, and he firmly
believed it would succeed in the present instance. (Hear,
hear.)

Sir F. BARING concurred with Sir C. Wood and
Mr- Goulburn in thinking that the reduction of the malt
duty would produce but little benefit ; that the surplus
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very doubtful
one • that the application of the income tax to the Irish
funds was a breach of public faith ; and that the finances
of the country would be left by the budget in a position
not sufficiently secure. He discussed with considerable
fulness the principles and details of the house tax, and
then examined the proposed modifications of the income
tax, pointing at various practical anomalies and incon-
gruities in their application to different species of in-
come, and he contended that, if there was an honest
intention on the part of the Government to carry out
their principles, the resolutions must be withdrawn and
reconstructed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was
received with loud cheering from the Ministerial benches,
said,—After four nights of criticism, conducted by some of
the most considerable reputations in this house, on the
propositions that I have laid on the table of the committee,
I now rise to vindicate those propositions. (Hear, hear.)
IS in the observations, which I will endeavour to condense
as much as I can, I omit any remarks which have been
urged against those propositions, I hope the committee
will ascribe that negligence to inadvertence, and not to
desiign. Having listened with all the respect and attention
naturally due to such words from such lips, I can con-
scientiously say that I have listened to nothing that, in my
opinion, has successfully impugned the policy which I
recommended—(hear, hear)—and I am prepared to meet
the objections which have been urged, and to show to the
committee that those objections are entirely unfounded
and illusory. (Hear, hear.) When, with the great in-
dulgence of the house on Friday week, I attempted to
make a general exposition of the policy of the Government
Toi,m, exhausting, lam conscious, the patience of the
Louie, as well as myself—(hear, hear)—l endeavoured in
the fulfilment of my duty to give, not estimates, but such
information as was necessary as to the effect of the extra-
ordinary expenditure and the extraordinary resources that
I anticipate on the revenue of next year and the year im-
mediately following, I did not enter into these details
-which are necessary to substantiate the accuracy of what I

stated ; I felt that at that moment the house was too
(Aliartsted to listen to those details.; I felt that I should
undergo the scrutiny of persons well competent to in-
Widate that accuracy, if inaccuracy could be proved to
must ; and I felt that I should have the opportunity,
with the permission of the house, of answering such
7titicisms in due time. (lean) I will, therefore, in the
4t Place, address myself to the estimate which I made
te''"allY as to the
ef he effect of these alterations on the revenue
will two years which are under discussion ; and I
taut aittli myself,
in the first instance, to the two impor-
recoratasir :hint: of my course, and of the policy which I
member for nalifnaxwere made principally by the right hon.
that sum ef Acto csio And, first, I will address myself to
ihents, I reeetma'__ which, under the name of repay-
:,,action
as
part
orkotto the committee to adopt and to
yob r. That proposed
cowuays and means of the impending
I.%rias at once denounced by the
ri'.ht hon. member for thele
gw...1:1 and in a tone somewhatviritY, and assailed in lan-
ounusual, certainly not very
Pal !iamentary, by the right •
his
obuserv.mateimanber for Halifax ; for,
liestead of addressing
obsservtoar,'°ll, sir, he ad-
dressed, throughout hiss peech,
hon. observation to myself.
On a subsequent occasion, a right
authority in this house—entered with minutoe great
u:sles7naad with.
the advantage which days of meditation
withube cat
gave him, into the same topic, enlarging upon it
minnteness which was not observed in the attack of the
rig-ilt hon. member for the University, and scorned by the
right hon. member for Halifax. • These three great autho-
rities have combined to influence the opinion of the con,
mittee on the subject. lam not sure whether a third ex-
-Chancellor of the Exchequer has touched on it, for, unfor-
InnatelY, I 'was absent from the house during part of the
time he was addressing the committee. Probably, how-
however, he did not spare 'me any more than his right hon.
friends have done. It is for me to treat the subject—if the
committee will, as I have no doubt after these attacks it
give me its kind and patient attention—L(hear,
hers)—in a manner to show that the proposition I made
brave a very different character and cm nplexion from what
the committee has been taught to belileve. (Hear, hear.)
There are two points in this subject befc.re the house ; first,
.kru I justified in recommending that the ostablishment in
question should be abolished ? Secondly, it,' I was justified