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

tion, on the mid,
discussed afterwt
bers on that side
The CHA_NC
that hon. mem',
simply voting materials for a
fectly open for any hon. gentleman making objections to
the future details of that bill.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution
was put from the chair.
Sir A. COCKBURN said there was not a single mem-
ber but must deplore what had been going on for the
last hour. (Hear, hear.) No one could assert that the
scene which had just been witnessed was other than dis-
creditable to the character of their proceedings. They
had resumed a discussion which had already occupied
three Long nights, and were now at a loss to determine
what was the question they were discussing. Whence
did that arise? From the shifting and vacillating policy
pursued by her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.)
What were the facts? It was now almost a fortnight
since the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before the
house the financial scheme of the Government. In a
speech commensurate with the importance and gravity
of the occasion, he brought before the house the great
features of his financial scheme, which, as he showed,
consisted mainly of two parts. He proposed, first, to
remit taxes which he conceived to be impolitic or unjust;
and, secondly, inasmuch as the surplus he had at his dis-
posal was not sufficient to cover the deficiency of re-
venue occasioned by such remissions, he proposed to
supply that deficiency by the imposition of new taxes,
to be raised partly from increasing the area of
taxation with reference to the house and income taxes ;
and, further, by providing that persons who had
not hitherto been contributors, should pay. Nothing
could be more clear or explicit than the statement of the
right hbn. gentleman. At the same time, he invited the
louse to consider the statement, not in parts, but as a
whole. He laid on the table certain resolutions on
which, though limited to the house duty, he called on
the house to consider the whole financial scheme. So
the debate continued for two nights, during which period
the budget of the right hon. gentleman had to sustain a
series of assaults. It had to encounter the criticism of
the right hon. member for Halifax, in a speech of which
-he should only express. the opinion of every one who
heard it, when he said that it was one of the most mas•
terly ever delivered in that house. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer had next to encounter the close and ad-
mirable logic of the hon. member for the West Riding
of Yorkshire, and then to pass the ordeal of examination
by the matured judgment of the right hon. member for ,
the University of Cambridge. Without assuming a tone
of arrogance, it might be said that, as the result of
those two nights' discussion, her Majesty's Government
had not acquired any accession of strength. On the
contrary, rumours and whispers went abroad that the
Government were placed in a difficult position. Mem-
bers disposed to support the Government were not dis-
posed to offend their constituents. It was then sought
on the area of taxation to reduce the area of discus-
sion. The manoeuvre succeeded to a certain extent.
It was intimated that hon. members would now be in
a condition to vote for the Government, and even
old birds came into the net. The hon. member for
Montrose was taken by the proposal of the Chancellor
•of the Exchequer to limit the question to the area of
taxation, and while he said that he found much more
matter to reprove than to praise, and objected to in-
creased taxation, he ended by declaring that he should
vote for the budget. Matters went on smoothly and
pleasantly till the right hon. member for Carlisle rose.
That right hon. gentleman repeated an inquiry put in
an earlier part of the evening by the hon. member for
Middlesex, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer
intended to limit the question to the area of taxation ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he did not
intend to take the sense of the house on anything further
than the area of taxation ; twice in the same evening
the right hon. gentleman declared expressly and expli-
citly that he limited the resolution to that one branch.
What was the course pursued by the right hon. member
for Carlisle ? He proceeded to prove that, on the show-
ing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second year
of his financial existence, if that lasted so long, would
leave no great€r surplus than tie first year, and appealed
to the right hon. member for Stamford, who had been
described as the Nestor of Finance, whether he sanctioned
with his authority a budget remitting so much of the
malt tax, without having secured the double • house
duty, the want of which involved a deficiency. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the difficulty ; and the
same evening in which he declared that he would take
the opinion of the committee on the area of taxation only,
the right hon. gentleman said he should not limit the
question to the area of taxation, but would include also
the question of the whole budget. Was that a course
of proceeding which reflected credit on the Government?
When hon. gentlemen said that they could not vote for
the Government, though anxious to support it if pos-
sible, but that they would excite the wrath of their con-
stituents by increasing the area of taxation, or at least
by doubling the tax, it might well be asked whether, to
meet the exigency of the hour, and for the sake of catch-
ing a few stray votes, it was a worthy course for the
Government to change the whole tenour of their con-
duct ? The wholq difficulty in which the committee had
been placed was the result of the course pursued by the
right hon. gentleman ; but there could be no longer any
doubt that the committee were to express their opinion
by their votes, not only on the question whether the
area of taxation should be increased with reference to

the house duty, but on the question whether that duty
should be doubled. Unless the committee assented to
that twofold proposition it would be impossible to remit
duties. That was the keystone of the whole financial
fabric which the right hon. gentleman had constructed.
He (Sir A. Cockburn) wished to meet that proposition
by a clear and decided negative. The Government must
prove the necessity and justice of increasing the area of
taxation and doubling the tax, as they must also prove
the necessity and justice of' extending the income tax to
incomes hitherto exempted. The favourite argument was
expressed in the question, why should persons possessing
incomes or household property below a certain amount
be exempted from contributing their fair share ? When
the question was put in that naked and abstract way it
was extremely difficult to make a satisfactory answer ;
but an answer might be given by contending, with the
hon. member for Middlesex, that before that question
could be answered, there must be imported into the con-
sideration of the subject, as an essential element, the
surrounding circumstances of the complicated system of
taxation which existed.. Until the startling inequalities
—he had almost said iniquities—of thepresent system of
taxation, as pressing on the poorer classes, were adjusted
and rectified, Parliament had no right to include them
in the direct taxation of the country. The right hon.
member for Carlisle pointed out the other evening that
35,000,0001. were paid by the great mass of the con-
sumers in this country through indirect taxation. (Hear.)
The mass of the consumers spent almost all their in-
comes, if not all, on the indispensable necessaries of life ;
and the committee, if it were put in possession of the
figures, would, he believed, be satisfied with respect
to the grievous injustice of imposing more taxation
on those classes. What did the working man
pay on tobacco, which was his comfort and solace
when his labours for the day were concluded? On to-
bacco, which varied in value from 31d. per pound to is. 4d.
per pound, there was a uniform tax of 3s. per pound.
amounting, on the lowest figure, to 1,125 per cent., and.
on the highest to 225 per cent.—a difference of not less
than 900 per cent. between the price which the poor man
paid and that which the rich man paid. The lowest class
of cigars were imported at 6s. 6d. per pound, the highest
at 19s. per pound, and the duty was 9s. per pound, being
120 per cent, on the poor man's cigar, and only 47 on
the rich man's. On wines the difference was enormous,
being 676 per cent. on the low priced, and 22 per cent.
on the high priced wines. On brandy the percentage
was 310 upon inferior, and 108 upon superior qualities.
As a general proposition he should say, that on the whole
of those articles consumed by the great mass of the com-
munity the difference was enormous between the per-
centage in the shape of taxation taken from the poor man,
as compared with the rich. That consideration afforded
a strong argument against the proposed exwt.eevnsrionigrf
direct taxation. Thera waa one tning, t
which the industrial classes ought to be most grateful
eful
to the right honourable gentleman,
whichan and tthhaet was
the recognition of a principle as tocom-
monnse of mankind had long been opposed to
thee
subtles and perverse logic of economists, and
that was, that an income derived by daily labour,
and by the exercise of professional or industrial
skill on the part of individuals, which owed its
continuance to their exertions, and ceased on their
deaths, which was subject to deductions for the future
provisions of their families, and which was precarious
and uncertain, differed from incomes derived from land,
which were fixed and permanent. So far the right hon.
gentleman had done well ; but, looking at the budget as
a whole, he saw nothing but mischief and evil in the
otaoxrraetsio n
po
uhde prop i
ugosed t
benefit
oro layad on thevantage cionuthn ter yt a
x, wieethheouinte,7nyt
to take off. Whether it was in reality class legislation
people,or not, tahne budge
ou ldt w
stir u lud be p
strife receivedand h
ein r
tthhuar
ut
ilightngs among
them. The Government would set class against class,
they would excite ill will and jealousies throughout the
country, and they would do all this without any addition
to the prosperity and comfort of the great mass of the
people. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said the sth George IV. assimi-
lated in substance and effect the funds in Ireland to the
funds in England, and provided that they might be trans-
ferred and the dividends paid in the same way, without
cost or expense. The sth and 6th Victoria, which must
be right, as it was passed by Sir Robert Peel, who was
the great authority quoted in the house on all matters of
finance, and to which the right hon. member for Cam-
bridge was a party, exempted the land of Ireland, but it
taxed—not the funds, but the dividends arising from
funded property, whether in Ireland or in England.
It exempted persons who 'resided in Ireland, and by
section 90 it explained what residence in Ireland was,
and provided that any one who could endure exist-
ence in that country for six months was within the
exemption, and would escape any reduction of his divi-
dends. By section 25 the governors and directors of the
Bank of Ireland were appointed to act as commissioners
for adjusting the assessments on annuities and dividends
to persons not resident in Ireland. What was the prac-
tical result of that legislation ? An English gentleman
having property in the funds in England and in Ireland
was taxed on the dividends received in each country.
A person holding funds in Ireland received the same
dividends on the same day, and with all the same advan-
tages, as the English holder, but he was not taxed if