The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. E. BALL presented a petition from Cambridge-
shire—one in favour of legalising marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister, and the other praying for the repeal
of the malt and hop duties.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition in fa-
vour of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister
from the town of Macclesfield, signed by a clergyman,
dissenting ministers, solicitors, surgeons, manufacturers,
tradesmen, and others, to the number of 1,280, 225 of
those being married women.

that the house at its rising should adjourn until Thurs.
day next.

SEPTENNIAL ACT.
Lord DUDLEY STUART gave notice that on this
day month he would move for leave to bring in a bill to
repeal the Septennial Act.

EDUCATION BILL.
Mr. MIALL gave notice of his intent'on to add a
proviso to clause 25 of Lord J. Russell's Education Bill,
to the effect that the assessment on persons under the
bill should be reduced by the amount which they volun-
tarily contributed to schools in the town or borough in
which they resided.

DOCKYARD PATRONAGE-REPORT OF
COMMITTEE.

Lord SEYMOUR brought up the report of the com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the patronage of the
Admiralty in regard to dockyards.
The report was read by the chief clerk (Sir D. Le
Marchant) on the motion of Sir G. Pechell. It was a
very voluminous document, and occupied an hour in
reading. The committee divided their inquiry into four
distinct questions, on each of which they proceeded to
offer their observations in detail. The first was the cir-
cumstances under which the circular sent to the sur-
veyors of dockyards on the 26th of September, 1849,
was cancelled on the 19th
,of April, 1852, with-
out any order or minute of the Board of -Admiralty.
After detailing at great length the main facts
proved before them, and which are already familiar to
the public, they stated it was their opinion that the
circular was undoubtedly cancelled with the consent of the
First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Northumberland,
who seemed to have acted under the belief that the power
to cancel it remained properly with the Secretary of the
Admiralty, Mr. StaffOrd. The First Lord, they added,
therefore, sanctioned the cancelling, in ignorance of all
those forms of the Admiralty which it was essential for
him to know. The committee had not been able
to ascertain any facts which could justify Mr. Stafford
in cancelling the circular, and it was evident to them
that he had adopted that proceeding for the purpose of
satisfying his political friends. The committee stated,
in justice to Sir B. Walker, the Surveyor of the Navy,
that they had heard nothing which cast the least shadow
of suspicion on the integrity of his conduct in the per-
formance of his duty. (Cheers.)
The report was ordered to be printed.
REFUGEES IN TURKEY.
Lord D. STUART said it had been stated in the pub-
lic papers that a demand had been made by Russia
and Austria upon the Porte, requiring the Go-
vernment of Turkey to expel political refugees
from Turkey. The demand to which he referred did not
require that refugees should be removed into the interior
of Turkey, but that they should be entirely expelled the
country, which was an unjust interference with the
rights of the Turkish empire, and he wished, therefore,
to ask if the Government had received any information
of such a demand.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, having received notice of
this question, he had consulted with the noble earl the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject.
He had ascertained from the noble lord that no such in-
formation had been received at the Foreign-office.

Mr. G. lIIIDSON presented a petition from shipown
Drs at Sunderland, in favour of certain amendments in the
Pilotage Bill. _

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from Brad-
ford, Huddersfield, and the metropolis, against the oc-
cupation of Rome by the French troops.
Mr. ALEX. HASTIE presented a petition from a
place in Scotland in favour of the inspection of nunneries.
Mr. MAGUIRE presented a petition from Dublin
against the extension of the income tax to Ireland.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, against the proposed alteration in the stamp
duty on articles of clerkship.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE presented a petition from Kil-
kenny, against the extension of the income tax to Ire-
land.
Lord J. MANNERS presented a petition from Col-
chester against the opening of the Crystal Palace on
Sundays.
FEES ON COMMISSIONS IN THE MILITIA.
In reply to Sir DE LACY EVANS,
Lord PALMERSTON said that man y representations
on the subject of the high charges mad,, by the clerks of
the Lieutenantcy, fur the issue of comm issions in the mi-
litia. Officially he had no power in the matter ;it rested
very much between the Lord-Lieuten ants of counties
and their clerks ; but, finding that irt some counties,
especially in Staffordshire and Wary ickshire, there
was an uniform fee chraged of 1/. Is. for commis-
sions below the rank of captain, and 2/. 2s. for corn-
missions for officers of a superior rank —he had
written to the Lord Lieutenants of I :ounties, recom-
mending to their consideration whet her they could
not make some arrangement with the Clerks of Lieu-
tenalitcy of their respective counties, of establishing
generally that moderate amount of fees.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
On the motion of Lord PAL=

greed

e r dequitable share of taxation, but they thought they
had Bright to ask that that fair, just, and equitable taxation
snould first be decided by a competent tribunal.' This was
itt
not the first time they had asked for an inqui te hoW
the accounts between the two countries really s a. When
a motion of this kind was brought forward s k seal•B
ago by the hon. member for Kilkenny, the Governinba*f,,,,:„ •.,.e.-'
that day did not condescend to answer him, and, probabTre.'''--
the present Government intended to follow a similar course •
on the present occasion, and to content themselves with
strangling the question by votes. (Hear, hear.) He did
not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the ques-
tion further than by saying, that the English Government
having entered into certain engagements with Ireland at
the time of the union, the Irish representatives only asked
that those engagements should be fairly carried out. They
only asked that a competent tribunal should be appointed
to decide on the mode by which Ireland, considering her
relative capability, should be called upon to contribute to
the support of the State ; and, if that tribunal should de-
cide that increased taxation should be laid upon Ireland,
they would willingly and cheerfully submit to it. But if,
op the other hand, it should decide that no additional
taxation should be levied upon that country, they hoped
the Government would also be ready to abide by that
decision. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACARTNEY had always thought that if there
was a fair account taken as between the two countries
Ireland could afford to pay the income tax ; but until that
account was gone into the did not think it would be fair to
impose that tax upon her.
Mr. CONOLLY said, he should. not onlje lie inconsistent
with his own profesiions in that house, but untrue to those
who sent him theree if he did not take the earliest oppor-
tunitye of impressing on the Government the absolute ueces-
Li txy
lovfhigerheLweteinn,, went to
toanviitniquuteiryoube
of the
Pllaeettinlaing noonlreland'artieleeof th
ae
union. and which he considered as
eminentlynj uust. He
thought he was also entitled to insist that the Government
grounds should distinctly place before them the '
upon which
they asked the house to extend the income tax to Ireland,
for he must say that he felt it was a personal indignity
to
the Irish members to have all their
reclaznationsagainst
this impost treated with silent contempt by the right hon.
gentlemen on the other side, and that they should be over)borne by a majority, and a majority alone. (Hear, hear.)
He maintained that on • the principle of self-interest, if
upon no higher grounds, it was the business of the house
and the solemn duty of the Government, as the guardians
of the State, to grant the inquity which was now sought.
He believed the late Sir Robert Peel was perfectly right
in the opinion he had expressed that the income tax, if
spplied to Ireland, would not pay the expenses of its col.
lection. He could only toll the house that, by extending
the income-tax to Ireland, they would be flying in the face
of a whole nation, and treating the Irish people with a
contempt they would feel most poignantly. The Exche-
quer of England, he was satisfied, would not receive the
slightest advantage from such an outrage. From motives
sf high policy, the late Sir Robert Peel refused, in 1845,
to extend the income tax to Ireland, but the state of Ire-
land at the present time was not nearly so prosperous as it
was then. (Hear, hear.) If it could be shown that Ire-
land had unjustly evaded her fair share of the imperial
taxation, he (Mr. Conolly) would at once assent to the ex-
tension of the income tax to that country. The people of
Ireland were not to be led away by theories that 1001. in
one place was as
good as 1001. in another. They suffered
enough from the burdens, local and imperial, which were
thrown upon them, and they felt that any addition to
those burdens was peculiarly unjust at the present time.
Mr. WILKINSON said he thought, whatever Ireland
might complain of, she certainly could not complain of the
want of a fair attention on the part of that house. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) He could only say, that since he had
been a member of that house one-half of its time had been
occupied in the discussion of Irish affairs. He supposed .
the object of the proposed committee would be to inquire
what would be a fair share of taxation to be borne by Ire-
land. Now, he would put it to hon. representatives of Ireland
whether they thought they were pursuing the course by
which they were most likely to obtain their object ? He
wondered they did not feel some sense of humiliation in
coming forward and suing, as it were in forma pauperis,
asking exemption from one tax and another. For his own
part, he was quite ready to give his support to the budget,
which, he believed, would tend to promote the general
advantage and prosperity of the country.
Lord C. HAMILTON observed, that he might remind
the hon. member for Lambeth that, but for the union, it
would have been unnecessary for any Irish representatives
to trouble that house on the subject of the fiscal arrange-
ments of their country. He understood that the object of
the motion was to obtain the appointment of a committee
who might inquire whether the terms upon which the
union was established, and which brought Irish members
into the house, had been strictly and fairly carried out
with respect to the burdens of taxation borne by the two
countries. He hoped the hon. member would not consider
that, in doing his duty to his constituents, he was pleading
for them in for mei pauperis. He (Lord C. Hamilton)
thought it might be shown that the bargain made at the
anion had not been quite fairly observed. In order to
induce the Irish Parliament to waive its separate rights,
Lord Castlereagh lad distinctly declared that Ireland
should not be called upon to pay towards debts and liabi-
lities incurred by Great Britain before the union, but that
as to future expenses the two countries were to be taxed
on a strict measure of relative ability. He (Lord C.
Hamilton) thought, then, that Irish members had a
MANNING THE NAVY. . right to ask whether, in this new framework of financial
Sir G. TYLER asked the First Lord of the Admiralty legislation, not only the letter but the qeirit of that
whether he would place upon the table of the house the contract had been strictly considered. (Hear, hear.)
evidence upon which the report of naval officers on man- He had long thought that Ireland must have an in-
ning the navy was founded ? come tax, if such a tax was to be permanent in England—
Sir J. GRAHAM said, it was true officers naval certain
(hear, hear)—but he wished. it to be ascertained what dif-
were appointed by the Board of Admiralty to make certain foram there was between the resources of Ireland in 1845
that'
inquiries, but those officers had no power to compel the and at the present time, which now rendered..
.country
attendance of witnesses. The evidence was given in pre. so
• much more capable of bearing additional taxation with-
vate, and the parties were not subject to cross-oxamina- out injury to her interests. He would ask whether, when
tion. Under then© circumstances, it was not the intention
• • Ireland had just passed through a period of great difficulty,
of her Majesty's Government (as wo understood) to act it would be wise for the Imperial Treasury to seize upon
upon the report,
the first fruits of her returning prosperity? The tendency
of such a proceeding would be, he believed, be to retard, if
FISCAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
IRELAND. not to destroy that prosperity, and to paralyse the efforts
by which, during the last few years, so much had boon
Colonel DUN said, before the house went into coin- accomplished. The remissions now contemplated as inittee on the income tax, he felt it his duty to call the at- only Great Britain amounted to 1,470 but the
re-
tention of the house to the necessity of instituting a pre- remission for Ireland was that of the consolidated an-
Great inquiry as to the fiscal and political relations of nuities, which, be contended, ought not to enter into the
Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to ascertain whether balance at all. He would not enter at any length into
Ireland did not at the present moment bear her fair share fi,nree ; but, allowing 250,0001. for the consolidated an-
of imperial taxation. There were various reasons why the '
nuities, that left a surplus in favour of Great Britain of
house should grant the inquiry. First, there was very 1,220,0001. Was that in the spirit of the Act of Union
little knowledge among members of the house and in this Ile did not wish to complain of or to deny their power to
country of the actual condition of Ireland, and he re- impose additional taxation. All the supporters of this
gretted to say that it would be found that she had not motion wanted was inquiry, and that inquiry he hoped the
prospered to the same same extent as England since the house would give.
union. Secondly, no previous Chancellor of the Exche- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
quer had even attempted to extend to Ireland such an well commence his observations upon this discussion with-
enormous additional weight of taxatioa. Thirdly, the pro- out adverting to the remarks of the hon. member for Ros-
position was a direct bi•each of the articles of union be- common (Mr. F. French) on what he had been pleased to
tween the two countries. He did not ask the house not term the inattention of the Government during the speech
to extend her fair share of taxation to Ireland, but he of the hon. and gallant gentleman who had brought for-
asked them to extend it only in the legal and proper way, ward this motion. For his own part, he (the Chancellor of
and not to proceed in a manner quite contrary to the the Exchequer) entirely disclaimed that charge. (Hear.)
Act of Union because they had a majority of the house He was in the house, endeavouring to attend to the hon.
with them. (Hear, hear.) By the act, or, as it was termed and gallant gentlema (h n— ear)--when some persons who
in the statute itself, " the treaty between the two coon- were now sarcastically cheering him were not in the house
tries," it was settled that its provisions should be per- at all. (A laugh.) He did his best to hear the
gallant
petual, and they bound the house now as much as when colonel, but there was so much noise during his speech
the act was passed. The first article, relating to the fiscal that it was heard most imperfectly,and •
it appeared to
arrangements of the two countries, declared that the pro- him that .a large share of that disturbance came from the
portion of taxation to be borne by Ireland should be neighbourhood of the gallant colonel himself. (No, no,
2-17ths of that of England, and a subsequent clause set and a laugh.) The hon. member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly)
forth several modes in which the revenue of the country had stated that it was in no spirit of evasion that this mo-
might be assessed—such as the relative value of exports tion was made—that there was no desire to escape from the
and imports, and the consumption of spirits, malt, sugar, question or evade a fair share of taxation as regarded Ire-
and such exciseable articles, Sic. It was well known the land. Now, he accepted implicitly the assertion of the
treaty was extremely injurious to Ireland, and the burdens hon. member, without assenting, however, to the proofs
since laid on Ireland were much heavier than she could or upon which that assertion rested; for he thought the asser-
ought to bear. The requirements of England and the wars tion would have stood better without those proofs than
in which she engaged, raised the taxation of Ireland year with them. (A laugh.) It did not appear to him (the
after year to an enormous amount. Nor had the expectations Chancellor of the Exchequer) that this motion had at all
been realised of an increased colonial trade for the latter
country, which many had indulged in at the time of the the effect of demonstrating to the house or to the country
that there was no disposition to evade the question. Ho
union. The whole debt of Ireland at the time of the union
was quite sure such a motion would not be made the rule
was 25,000,000?. In 1815 it had increased to (as we under- of proceeding in another place. He remembered, in 1833,
stood) 125,000,000/. The revision of taxation and revenue when there had been a long discussion upon the question
provided for by the Act of Union at the end of every seven of negro emancipation, and when the discussion had been
years never took place ; and in 1815 a motion was made ended, and a bill had been brought in and read a second
for the consolidation of the two Exchequers of Ireland and
time, the hon. member for Montrose made a motion very
England. Many persons imagined that act abrogated the similar to this—namely, that in lieu of going into cons-
' Treaty of Union, but he denied that it did. It was a mere mittee on the bill, a select committee of inquiry should be
fiscal arrangement. He asserted, then, that according to appointed. The hon. member for Montrose was followed
the Act of Union at any time Ireland chose to call for the on that occasion by the Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley,
consideration of the taxation of the two countries she had a who administered such a reproof as it was not in Iris (the
right to have her request granted, and that was never more Chancellor of the Exchequer's) power to give to the hon.
necessary to be done than at the present moment, when she and gallant colonel, but which, if it were in his power to
was threatened with this new (axe (Hear, hear.) Lord administer, he was sure would prove a great discourage-
Fitzgerald showed in 1815 that Ireland had lost enormously ment to the hon. and gallant member. (Hear, and a
up to that time by the union. If they refused the coin- laugh.) He did think the present
th
motion was
form wasa
and
an e..
mate() of inquiry for which he sought, they would abrogate trem ely unfortunate one, both in respect to
the articles of the union, and give cause for fresh (flacon- the time at which it was made. In the first
place,it
tent in Ireland. For years hon. gentlemen opposite had was interposed as an absolute bar to their progress with been speaking against the agitation for the repeal of the this bill. (Hear.) It was an amendment to the Speaker's
union. That agitation no Luger existed. Did they wish leaving the chair. Now, what was this bill? It was
to see an agitation to enforce the observance of the union ? something else than applying the income tax to Ireland.
Let them have equal taxation when Ireland was in the (Hear, hear.) It was a bill for repairing a deficiency
same state as England. She was worse off now than in of 5,000.0001. in the national revenue and for
tharrys
past years—much worse off than at the time of the union. ing on the service of the year, being so far irressiffwevleeno!
The loss caused by the terrible calamity which had occurred Ireland. The way to draw attention tor
_the
d separate of
motion
there in the last few years had been estimated at from would have been to either bring forward aos
pation of the
30,000,0001. to 33,000,000/. By a measure which was said or to move to exempt Irelandronrt
attempted to bar the
to have produced great benefits to this country Ireland had tax in committee. Butunowhieh they
ep
r aired a deficiency of
lost upwards of 6,000,0001. more in the difference in the further progress of ah
1 revenue,w and upon which hinged
price of corn. Whatever advantage might have accrued 5,000,0001. in the public neements of the year ;and all these
to those who paid the poor rate, he maintained the loss was the whole financial arra e
England and Scotland were to be
still to that extent so far as Ireland was concerned. In arrangements as regardedthey
had got the report of a select coins
many respects Ireland was infinitely worse off than she suspended.
the relative taxation of England and Ireland.
' he had lost her manufactures, mittee upon ,
was before the union. S
There would have been far more propriety in such
and she had suffered much from the absenteeism createds (Hoar.)
n if it had been made at the first step taken in this
by the attendance of Irish members of both houses in tit,.
matter
t motion
it ought at any rate to have come at a far earlier
country. Her surplus revenue was not spent
12. 000 000/.period. than this. Why was the question of equal taxation
own shores, but, on the contrary, on an average of „
0.
between the two countries revived now, after it had been
was remitted to the exchequer of this country. The
• 1 ra- debated for nights together, and after divisions had been
venues of the Woods and Forests amounted to 61,000
sent o'ver taken upon it, in which the sense of the house had beenn
year, which, with a very small exception, were
which had unequivocally expressed. (No, no !) No ? Wh -
to this country. It appeared by the returns
i
of forma- main motion the debates bad chiefly turned y, on the
been laid before the house, and by other means
.0 n .
000/ of Ireland—the question of al)
dying
th upon the case
Lion, that within the last 35 years no less than 28, etax to Ireland
putting was separately discussed and Aecigl
had 'been transmitted front Ireland to England,
, ; and) having been
abseil- separately decided, and the com
together the surplus amount spent bynF
revenue, the • • Pete yof the house to
' Woods and Forests. Hero decide upon it having been thus admitted,
tees, and the proceeds of the . .
committee of in- llant gentleman now d the hon. and
full reasons for granting this ga came own •
there were
they could condescend to give stage, and asked the house for a
, at a very much later
quiry. The only answer t
select committee . of
was, that they had a majority
English people than to Chancellor of the Exche‘*
at appeared to him (the
he had a better opinion of the
afairdemand. _
.quer) a bast Parliamentary think they would rely on such a reply to
_upon which to stand, and one of aco • ground
He asked nothing more than justice—nothing but a rector as reseted the order and inconvenient cha-
• before they called on Ireland to hear ceedings, consistency of public pro-
fair inquiry (Hear, hear.)
With
I taxation. It was said that Ireland would he had not, in takinc, • regard to this committee,
pro-
increased
equivalent for the income tax in the re- sition to avoid or these objections, the slightest dispo-
'ecel." consolidated annuities. This was to him itself. 11 esca from the merits. of the question
mission of the
e admiredthe •
absurd argument, for what did the consolidated ainini- (Lord C. natant ) Judgment of his noble friend
taines consist id'? They consisted of advances to Ireland . into the figures. on , who had said he would not go fully which were administered by the English Government, and eures. (A laugh.) He admired the judgment of
men
so ill administered that Ireland received no benefit from wh ,
on. and gallant 1 I tl
e . co one le judgment and skill of
them. The Irish proprietors appealed to the highest tri- l gave an historical character to their speeches,
who burial in the country, viz., to a committee of the House of c went back to the epoch of the union, but who leaped
Lords, who reported that those annuities were open to Be- 4 wer everything which had occurred between that period
rious objection. It was absurd, therefore, to Kay that the andr. the present time. (Hear.) They had spoken its if the
remission of that burden was a proper equivalent for the tth article of the Act of the Union were departed from,
income tax. But, besides, ho thought that Considering
referencehad 1 ceedings which had taken place since the union upon that
hands since those annuities were imposed, and whichc anged 1 7th article. This was a very inconvenient topic. It was
been purchased at a reduced price in sense
imposition, there would, in his opinion beuence of their I Act of Union, which had occurred in the interva, skirled
nett' in now remitting them at all. je great iinpro • I have been allowed to drop entirely omit of sight. _ They
he begged to move " That it' is or all base reasons ; were told it was a very hard case that Ireland should pay
ex ()client
; • ' Als the general revenue of
tional taxation be extended to Ireland , before add:- i 4,000,000/. or 5,000,0001.
tr
ton be a very hard case, and
mittee be appointed to inquire into andn that a select corn- 1 the country.
added,That
twas
s'hillhave been much better off in
and political relations and relative consider the fiscal i Ireland, it was
• / would
Treciitien if she had kept separate
fain and Ireland, and to reporttaxation of Great Bri- I regard to
(Hear,her financial
hear. froth the Opposition benches.)
dog does not bear her fair share whetherof. the latter king- 1 frizawßoungl_a_nd ~
ht 7 Well, he was glad now to have got a per-
Mr. FRENCH complained ofe the
iTipyial taxation." . S
I h fectly distinct statement. There was a fair challenge to
had been paid to the speech of the hon,t e attentionii,t woaleilici.
him,
and he accepted it. The hon. gentleman said, then,
her for Portarlingtoa occupants oalfiltffear;i'Li4erial ! that it would have been better for Ireland—that she would
I bench, who had not th by
the
•quiet even ill ap- I have been at far less cost than she was at present—if, e grace to remain
in-
pearance (lair ng its delivery. (Hear, 'leer.) (air. stead of having her finances consolidated with those of EHe
- land, she had beenallowed
.
French) following precisely in the course of his honourable. to continue un her own
and gallant friend, had to state, of his consti- • ground. (Au Hon. Member—lf the debts
on the past
fair, , v 1
had not been
tuents and hima.lf tint they did not shrink fromtheir '
come .1( nisul 1 xxr_al 11_ ,

stood. A committee had sat upon this subject at an early
date, and when they reported that the debts and the
finances of the two countries should be consolidated, with
what view did they .make that report? Did they make
that report in the sense of imposing a burden upon Ireland
for the relief of England, or of imposing a burden upon
England for the relief of Ireland ? They imposed
heavy burden upon England for the relief of Ireland,
and that statement rested upon figures which were upon
the table of that house. They 'had been told it was
a great hardship that Ireland, paying- 4,900,000/. or
5,000,0001. a-year, should pay anything more into the
subject
Exchequer. Why, en 1815, just before this
was examined, and before the debt of Ireland consoli-
datedwasheof
with the debt of this country, the annual c_
charges
for upon Ireland, irrespective of one farthing f
for military or civil government,—the mere chareogaeteodf risaelses
debt was 5,900,0001. (Hear, hear.) This,
he
retreated,
this sum
the simple charge of her debt ; and, having3a
of 5,900,0001., expenses of a civil and militaryti)f-
had still to be met. Such was the state thinegshawrahcithchr
was put an end to by the Act of Union, and after._thatit
was that this motion was made for a committee. Hear,
("
did
not from the Opposition benches.) Hon. gentlemen
not seem to think this demonstrative enough.lrish
nation They a P
of.
peered to believe that the payment i
bythe
nearly 6,000,0001., besides all charges of government, before
the Act of Union, was an ample proof that to expect them
to pay more than 4,000,0001. or 5,000,00 01. now was a
gross injustice ;—that was to say, Ireland was called upon
now to contribute to the annual payment upon her debt
and to the expenses of her government together a great deal
less than she had been before paying—or rather than she
had been bound to pay for debt alone ; and that, they
thought, was no demonstration at all ! Well, then, there
was another return upon the table of this house. It was
moved for by the hon. member for Glasgow in 1849, and in
this return they would seethe revenue and the expenditure
of Ireland in every year from 1817 to 1848. The expenditure
On account of Ireland in 1817, including civil and military
charges, was 10,241,000/. ; and the total payments into the
Irish Exchequer, as against that expenditure, were
4,384,000/. ; so that the amount provided from the British
Exchequer to make good the deficiency was 5,856,000/. in
that single year. This was one of the proofs which the hon.
and gallant colonel wanted a committee to show. He would
not weary the house by giving all the figures of this
return, but there was a column showing the payments
made by the Exchequer from 1817 to 1848, and the very
lowest payment made in any one year for Irish expendi-
ture and Irish debt out of the British Exchequer,—that
was to say, to make up the deficiency of Irish debt and
expenditure, was 1,977,000/. but, generally speaking, it
was from 5,000,0001. to 6,000,000 L during the early part
of the period, and from 2,000,000/. to 3,000,000/. during
the latter part. If this was the case no committee was
wanted to inquire whether Ireland was paying more than
her fair proportion of taxation. (Hear, hear.) The figures
he had quoted showed that she had not been paying at any
period the charges immediately applicable to her in. re-
spect to her debt and government, and that was, he ap-
prehended, without charging Ireland with any portion of
our colonial expenditure. The hon. and gallant gentle-
man (Colonel Dunne) had not, he believed, adverted to the
terms of the Act of Union, nor to the fact that it contem-
plated or provided for the principle of consolidated finances
and equal taxation ; and that that principle was to become
applicable when the debt of Ireland had reached a certain
proportion of the debt of England ; it reached a much
higher proportion than the debt of England at the end of
the war, and was precisely the case which was provided for
by the act. The debt of Ireland reached an annual charge
of nearly 6,000,0001. a-year, when the annual charge of the
English debt was by no means in that proportion ; and
then committees of this house sat, and recommended the
abolition of the separate system. On the 19th of June,
1815, a committee of this house reported that, on the
whole, with a view to the equal advantage of all parts of
the empire, and of relieving Ireland from a burden which
experience had proved to be too great, and at the same.
time with the hope of rendering her resources more pro-
ductive, it was expedient to consider the propriety
of declaring that all future national expenditure
should be defrayed indiscriminately by taxes raised
from the same articles in each country ; and so en. Whe-
ther these facts appeared material to the hon. and frallani
colonel he did not know, but be thought his noble friend
(Lord C. Hamilton) must be convinced that the Act of
Union had been strictly and punctually carried into execu-
tion, and not for the oppression, but for the relief, of Ire-
land from burdens too great for her to bear, and to make the
comparative power and resources of England available in
order to meet those burdens. In this way from 2,000,000/.
to 6,000,000/. had been annually paid out of the British
Exchequer for the purpose of meeting charges created by
expenditure on account of Ireland, which would have con-
tinued due, and which would have, had to be borne by
Ireland if she had continued separate from England.
(Hear, hear.) He ventured to hope after this that the
house wool! consider there was no occasion for a commit-
tee of inquiry into a matter which was as clear as daylight
at this moment. (Hear, hear.) Free trade, forsooth, had
had to bear its part in this discussion, as if nobody in Ire-
land had gained by free trade ! (Hear, hear.) As if no-
body in England had lost by it ! Had the fall of prices
been confined to Ireland? Had there been no full of tho
prices of agricultural produce in this country ? Ireland,
speaking generally, was a country in which oats were the
principal cereal produce, while wheat was the principal
pr.sdnre of England. On which, he should like to know,
did free trade and foreign competition bear most ? (Hear,
hoar.) Why, upon wheat. (Hear, hear.) Then they had
Leen toll about the destruction of Irish manufactures.
Now, What was gained by the use of the language of
hyperbole in the debates in that house ? (Hear from
Colonel Dunne, and laughter.) The hon. and gallant
gentleman clieercA that sentiment. Ho (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) bad thought that Belfast was in Ire-
land. (Hear.) He had been under the impression that
there wore manufactures in Belfast, and that they were
not in a retrograde condition. lI o had heard somo
people so audacious as to say that the manufactures of
Belfast were advancing faster than tho manufactures of
almost any other part of the United Kingdom. (Hear.)
And yet speeches in that house were to he pointed by dole-
ful ditties upon the destruction of Irish manufactures !
(Hear, hear.) Ho agreed with hon. gentlemen that tho
Government were bound to be not only just but conside-
rate towards Ireland. The injustice of this proposition
was shown in the first place by throwing overboard alto-
gether the consideration of the consolidated annuities.
(Hear, hear.) Of course, if in a matter of figures all the
items on one side were struck out, you might come to any
result you desired. But he objected to this plan of striking
out all the items on the other side of the account. This,
however, was not a mere matter of account, and the great
fallacy lay in so considering it. Ireland consisted of pro-
vinces and classes which must be separated in considering
the proposals of the Government, which gave relief to those
who wanted it and laid burdens on those who could bear
the burdens. (Hear, hear.) The fad was, that the rich
parts of Ireland had been hitherto exempted and excused
from paying their debts from their conjunction with the
poor parts. (Hear, hear.) Leinster and Ulster had no
ground for objecting to the imposition of the income tax.
It was said that Ireland was a poor country, but what was
a poor country? It was a country in which money was
scarce. But if Ireland were a poor country, it followed
that a man with 1501. a year was richer in Ireland than a
man of the same income in England. (Hear, hear.) He
thought that the strictest justice demanded the extension
of the income tax to Ireland. The income tax in Munster
would yield from 85,000/. to 87,0001. from real property,
and it would relieve that province from the payment of
about 90,0001. from consolidated annuities. It might be
said that the two amounts were about equal, but that
would be a fallacious method of looking at the question.
Who paid the consolidated annuities ? The landlord and
tenant. Who paid the income tax ? The landlord and
the mortgagee. The gross amount might be the same, but
while the landlord would still pay about half, the mort-
gagee would pay the other half, instead of the tenant.
(Hear, hear.) Did Irish members really suppose that the
people of England would abandon the consolidated an-
nuities, and forego the income tax too ? If, as practical
men, they thought it possible to prevail upon Parliament
to give up the consolidated annuities, and not to impose
theincome tax, ho could understand their conclusions, but
he admired the sanguine temperament which enabled them
to come to such a conclusion. (A laugh.) Tho hon. gen-
tleman the member for Ennis had shown very clearly the
falsity and absurdity of the pretence that the poor parts of
Ireland were going to shift their burdens upon the richer
parts. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) especially
protested against the assumption that Ireland was ag-
grieved by the increase in the spirit duties. If Ireland
were aggrieved by an imposition of a duty of 190,000/.
upon spirits, had not Scotland a right to complain that a
duty of 270,0001. upon spirits was imposed upon her with-
out any gift of consolidated annuities ? (Hear, hear.) Yet,
not a single voice had been heard, either in that house or
out of it, from Scotland saying, " Can't you give us some-
thing by way of compensation for the additional spirit
duties you are going to levy upon us ?" (Cheers.) The
principle was to levy as large a duty upon spirits as you
could collect. He had heard something about the rights
of man but he denied that it was one of the rights of man
that Irishman should get intoxicated upon whisky at
2s. 4d. a-gallon. (A laugh.) He thought it would be a
gross wrong to levy three times as much duty upon spirits
in England in Ireland, and he protested against putting
down this additional spirit duty as a wrong and burden
inflicted upon Ireland. For these reasons he besought the
house not to accede to the motion of tho hon. gentleman.
(Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON was not prepared to say whether
or not the hon, member for Portarlington had taken the
best course in moving for a select committee, but he would
vote for any form of proceeding by which he could express
his opinion that the budget bore hardly and unfairly upon
Ireland. (Cheers.) At all events, no inconvenience could
be sustained from Ireland being exempt from income tax
until the select committee had reported. The right hon.
gentleman had accused his noble friend of passing over
figures, but he had shown the same good judgment in pass-
ing over the speech of the right hon. member for Ports-
mouth (Sir F. Baring). He had not heard any attempt on
the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to answer that speech.
As an English member, unconnected with Ireland, he
thought the great defect of the budget was its want of im-
partiality. The right hon. gentleman said, as a reason for
imposing the income tax, that Ireland was relieved from
the consolidated annuities, but he could not accept this
answer, and he thought it a great mistake on the part of
the Government to put the consolidated annuities in the
Mme
category with regular taxation. What was the origin
and C 9.1180 of the consolidated annuities ? They were the
r...e5.0uv1...t of that awful infliction with which it had pleased
meneo to visit Ireland. A part of this debt was
indeed, ineaerei
He sat up-stairsibrililding workhouses for the unions.
distress of the upon a committee whore the relative
map. The consolid counties was exhibited by a shaded
counatt,..ed annuities had pressed heavily
upon the black les of the west and south, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer
lief, and very important relle was
going
to give them re-
, against which he had not a
word to say,, but which relief adequateno
threetteszo,snt
Parliament Irma to press tlitlwtiatso counties of why
, but with a great addi-
north not only with the income t
and
)rtproin the moment
tional burden of taxation. (11ear,alT,
, the consolidated
the Lords' committee made their i!ellpro.
lly gone. and
einst to collect
annuities must have been considered as •
it became morally impossible for the ilovvicerrftinittisb,,
ho'
id was
them. (Hear, hear.) A great portion
connected with the workhouse loans, which
why the Government should remit at all. Ife did not set
"e
why this portion of the consolidated annuities should nSeet
be pail. (Cheers from the Irish membas.) Th. Chn':l-
- of the Exchequer had, in fact, thrown au-ay fortuit-
, IL considerable portion of a debt
ola:isr are
whielt he might not only have recovered, but which he was
t
bound to recover.
aeie• (Cneers from,_tohoed)last December said
Irish members.) Tlei
gentlemant
(Sir Wood)
not only that lr. land could not bear an income tax, but
that she eoii:rl not bear additional taxation. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer stated thatltahlenert, remission
while h
ionbof thee
consolidated annuities was an equivalent, . • _
abandoned 240,000/.:a year from this s..,ource,c
an income tax of 4G0,000/. : he imposedsecondly,lloi spirit
duties, bringing in 198,0001. a year allds'alifiin etuhle third
place, he imposed a succession tax. It e
to bet
at the amount to be raised from this tax,lv for while the
hon. member for Dungarvan reckoned the amount at

300,0001., the noble lord (J. Russell) and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said it would not exceed 60,0001. Did the
right hon. gentleman call that an equivalent ? It must be
looked at as an Irish kind of equivalent. The right hon.
gentleman professed to be a follower of Sir Robert Peel,
but let him remind him of the course which Sir R. Peel
had taken with regard to Ireland. (Hear.) In 1812, when
the income tax was proposed, it was naturally desired by
English members that Ireland should bear her l ortion of
the burden • but Sirß. Peel said he did not propose to levy
an income tax upon Ireland, and as a substitute, he imposed
a duty upon spirits and some additional stamp duties.
The latter, he believed, to some extent, still remained, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only proposed to give
Ireland an income tax, but to levyan additional spirit duty
of an amount equal to two-thirds of that which Sirß.Peel
imposed as a substitute for the income tax. These were,
to his mind, satisfactory proofs that the budget of the right
hon. gentleman bore hardly upon Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
And let it be remembered that Sir R. Peel took the course
he had described in 1842 before the heavy affliction of a
famine had fallen upon Ireland. Parliament was now told
that there was no reason why Belfast should not pay in-
come tax; but Belfast was not all Ireland. Belfast might
be prosperous, but he could not believe that any country
could go through such an ordeal as Ireland, and suffer such
a visitation of Providence without having its means se-
riously crippled. (Hear.) In conclusion, he must repeat
that he had heard no attempt made by any member of' the
Government to answer the clear and able statements of the
right hon. member for Portsmouth,---statements which did
not go back to the Act of Union, which did not dwell upon
one portion only of the budget, which took a compre-
hensive view of the whole subject and its probable bear-
ings, both now and in 1860. The right hon. gentleman
had arrived at the result that the immediate balance in
favour of England by the budget was 1,040,0001., while
there was a balance against Ireland of 413,0001. Then,
looping to the year 1860, and supposing the whole of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's plans to be carried out and
the income tax to be repealed, he found that the further
remission of taxes to England would be 6,715,0001., while
to Ireland it would be only 47,0001. (Hear, hear.) He
thought that these figures fully bore out the opinion
avlaich, as an English member, he had deemed it his duty
to make, that the present budget did bear hardly upon
Ireland, and that it was not conceived in that spirit of
fairness and impartiality to all parts of the empire which
ought to characterise a measure of this nature. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. F. SCULLY said that the Government of which the
right hon. gentleman who had just sat down was a member
had last year collected from poor Ireland no less than
120,000/. under the consolidated annuities. They had pro-
posed, also, the extension of the income tax to Ireland, and
he believed that if they were now in office they would be
discussing the question of the income tax without the abo-
lition of the consolidated annuities. (Hear, hear.) The
present motion of the hon. and gallant member for Port-
arlington had upon the face of it very strong recommenda-
tions. He had always as a speaker supported the principle
of inquiring into the fiscal regulations of the two countries,
and if this question were now per se before the house, he
would say that it should be agreed to. He believed that
there had been exaggerated statements made on both sides
with regard to the amount of debt due by the two coun-
tries, and he thought, therefore, that it was a fair subject
for inquiry. But there were other questions which also
required looking into. Rateable property in Ireland at
present paid 4s. in the pound, while in England it paid
only is. 10d. This ought to be assimilated before both
were placed upon the same footing with regard to taxa-
tion. Under the proposed system, also, the payers of
county rate and poor rate in England would obtain some
relief, while the payers of the county cess and poor rates
in Ireland would obtain nene. Again, there was a large
increase in the burdens upon this description of property
in Ireland. The Medical Charities Bill, the relief of pauper
lunatics in Ireland, criminal prosecutions and gaols, all the
results of recent legislation, or greatly enhanced in amount
within the last few years, would add considerably to the
burdens upon that country ; but as they were outlays for
tho benefit of all, he contended that they should be dis-
charged out of the consolidated fund. At all events, the
extension of the income tax to Ireland would certainly
.compel the consideration of all these questions. (Hear.)
"With reference to the calculations of the right hon. member
for Portsmouth, it struck him that a great fallacy pervaded
them. The right hon. gentleman said that in 1860 England
would gain 6,715,0001., while Ireland gained only 47,000/.
But the right hon. gentleman had based that calculation on
the assumption that in England there would he a remission
•of the income tax, amounting to 5,500,000/., while in Ireland
?re had only calculated the remission of the consolidated
annuities, with the increase of the spirit duties, and had
.left out of view the income tax altogether. That was a
r!noat important omission. He supposed it had been mado
:inadvertently at the time, but he wondered tho right hon.
ontleinan opposite (Sir J. Pakington), after a calm consi-
t !oration of the question, should have repeated and adopted
hat statement. He (Mr. Scully) calculated that in 1860,
i f the income tax were remitted in both countries, Ireland
vould be a great gainer ; but that if it were continued in
I..!]ngland, it clearly must be extended to Ireland. Upon
that he believed there could be no two opinions. If it were
1 ontinued in England, it must sooner or later be extended
t o Ireland. (Hear, hear.) There were numerous objec-
t ions to the details of the income tax which ha thought
n Light with advantage be discussed in the committee ; but,
n t all events, let them have an inquiry similar to that now
'loved for by the hon. and gallant officer, because he was
,convinced, if it should result in a report that Ireland IN as
unfairly taxed at present, that the impost of the income
tx would be removed in the succeeding year. Under ex-
u circumstances he feared. however, that the motion
ould be regarded as a factious one, and he did not ap-
; cove of a factious opposition to the Government. He had
t, ten too much of it already to like it. Ho preferred to take
r. common-sense, intelligible view of these matters, and he
lcgged, therefore, to suggest to his hon. and gallant friend
ti at ho should strike out from his resolution tho words.
" before additional taxation bo extended to Ireland."
(IT ear, hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE thought the hon. member for Tipperary
F Scully) was altogether wrong in imputing factious
nt Alves to the Lon. and gallant mover of the motion, and
3med it his duty, as an Irish member, to take every pos-
sil le opportunity of opposing what he must consider an
injustice to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman, in one of
th..; jauntiest speeches for a Chancellor of tho Exchequer
no had ever heard, had stated that the taxes now to be im-
lxved on Ireland were just, and were acknowledged to be
so by the greater portion of the people of Ireland ; but he
heel seen a protest against the income tax, which proceeded
from gentlemen connected with Tipperary, and he had
heard of others from Mayo and Galway. If he wore allowed
to mention a secret, he might also tell the house that the
hon. member for Mayo narrowly escaped being chaired at
a fair in Galway the other clay on account of his having
opposed it. (Laughter.) There was also a petition signed
by 3,500 inhabitants of the city of Cork against it. He had
communicated with his own constituents, and the result
showed him that the general feeling was strongly against
the tax. The attempt to gull the people of Ireland, by say-
ing that they should pay 460,0001. a-year in return for a
gift of 245,0001., was something more than a mere financial
juggle ;it was an Exchequer swindle. (Oh, oh ! and laugh-
ter.) He did not wonder at Englishmen laughing; but he
was astonished, when the trick was so stale, the juggle so
plain, that an Irish member could be gulled by it. It did,
surprise him that any bon, gentleman could be so simple as
to say that the consolidated annuities would last 40 years,
and that the income tax would last only six. Why, nobody
could doubt that the consolidated annuities were virtually
gone. (Hear, bear.) The late Chancellor of the Exchequer
had intimated an intention on the part of his Government
to deal with them. The hon. member for Tipperary had
the audacity, the hardihood, to assert that the Government
of Lord Derby was pledged, by its organs in the press,
and by its electioneering agents on the hustings, to aban-
don them ; but with regard to that he would remark,
that he was one of those Irish members who were
induced to vote against the budget of the late Government
by the authoritative announcement that if the Opposition
were successful, and the present Government came into
power, they would not impose the income tax on Ireland.
He was one of those Irish members who felt indignant at
the attempt of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to put
in the sharp end of the wedge of taxation. But tho right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had asked only for an addi-
tion of 60,0001. ; that surely was something of a justifica-
tion for his opposition to a
,scheme which demanded the
immoderate sum of 460,0001. The late Sir It. Peel had
refused to impose the income tax on Ireland in 1842, when
the poor rates were not more than 280,000/. What were
they now ? Not less than 900,0001., while they were nearly
1,200,0001. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not
shown much courtesy to the hon. and gallant gentleman
(Colonel Dunne), but he had shown still less sympathy
for the sufferings of the people of Ireland. The right hon.
gentleman seemed to overlook entirely the years of suffer-
ing and famine which Ireland had unhappily experienced.
("Divide, divide.") He thought it was a question worthy
of consideration in a committee, whether Ireland was or
was not in a position to bear an additional burden of taxa-
tion. Nine millions of property had changed hands, and
a elmilar amount was about to undergo the same process
through the agency of the Encumbered Estates Court.
Was there no • suffering or misery entailed upon large
classes of people by such a proceeding, or was it to be con-
sidered as a sign of prosperity ? He contended that the
creditors and mortgagees, a very numerous class in the
country, were extensive sufferers by the operation of these
Courts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put
ono million of additional taxation upon Ireland, and to
remit at the same time about 459,0001., so that the gross
income would be 541,000/. The hon. gentleman than
entered into an elaborate calculation for the purpose of
establishing the assertion that the local burdens paid
by Ireland amounted ;-.0 nearly 8,000,0001. The right
hon. gentleman had spoken of free trade. He did
riot object to it abstractedly ; at the same time, he
believed it was working ill to Ireland, There was not a
single class in Ireland which had not suffered by free
trade. The value of all property had been reduced by it.
He never was more impressed with the necessity of Ireland
having full control over her own concerns than when he
heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
other night. It was asked whether they were so sanguine
—" sanguine" was the word, foolish was the meaning--as
to hope that they could wipe out the consolidated annuities
and not have an income tax, He vonld ask whether he
had not a right to expect that the consolidated annuities
should be remitted ? (No, no.) Ho contended that the
people of Ireland had, not only on the grounds of sympathy
and generosity, but on the grounds of justice. Ireland
contributed 5,000,0001. a-year to the consolidated fund ;
did not that entitle them to some claim ? He, however,
meant to impute no blame to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. It was his duty as well as his anxiety to do all
that he could in support of his own budget. But was he
(Mr. Maguire) to be told that he sued in forma pauperis
when he resisted the invosition of an income tax on Ire-
land ? Did Sir R. Peel sue in forma pauperis in 1842 ?
Did the noble lord himself sue in forma pauperis when he
declared that Ireland was not fit to bear an income tax ?

_...._. .
There was nothing inconsWent on the part of lion. mem:
hers on his side of the house supporting the motion of
the hon. and gallant member for Portalington (Colonel
Dunne)—it was not factious. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had alluded to spirjts. lle believed that
the people of Ireland were as remarkable as the
People of England for temperance, but, let that
b° as it might, they did not oppose the additional duty
on spirits from any .selfish considerations. The distillers
of Ireland did not in t heir resolutions condemn: the increat.3 1
i.i.:Litl,nit,y. of Bd. a gallon, but they condemned the arbitrary i
:silk:.tibleir:)enbcsy,wn‘ ich Nir'ereanfuladpots,eitdantit_ponthe trade, and they
cb,un,ii;g4elte.redLiot
re= 1 t' °
expose there
oft 'ie Exchequer not to carry out the
.0 u 1011 Of imposing'•
• T3l duty of 8d r. gallon,
in 1842 Sir Itobeitg
them to an additional burden. He
aLknilernse°Bl duty to resist the present Ministerial
CO
that the atpaelel these th.nE,,s, and considering that
r 1 would. mot tax Ireland, he really
occasion was not proposition of the Government on this
Mr. BALL, after the
precedent.
gratifying sympathy which the
y unjuvt, but altogether without
cessed with that
deeply injured interest, the agrhiicsulefwni tHsymof
hon. member who last spoloi 'hid
)atiVand,
could not help rising to expres, 3
the people of Ireland whom this budget menace ,11 with wsuict
injuiy. Look at the position #pf Ireland; us One risen

from the grave she was reeling with weakness, her sere
clothes scarcely shaken off. At such a moment, he would
ask, ought not the Government to give her strength—to
repair her energies ? Yet, instead of this, here was tho
Chancellor of the Exchequer diluting her, bleeding her,
purging her—(great laughter)—and when she asked for
bread, giving her 'n stone. Unhappy Ireland, barely re-
covering from one plague—the plague of famine—was
now to be subjected to another plague, the plague of
locusts. (Laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL,
The house divided, when the numbers were :
For going into committee
Against it

Majority
On re-entering the gallery, we found
Mr. BLACKETT addressing the house. He suggested
as a means of removing some of the imperfections of the
income tax as it stood at present, that the discretionary
power now lodged in the hands of the commissioners in
respect to deductions to be made for bad debts, and wear
and tear of machinery should be as•far as possible limited
by the establishment of some definite rule, which might be
embodied in a clause of the bill. As matters stood at
present, different sets of commissioners adopted different
practices in respect to these subjects. He also observed
that in disputed cases some general court of appeal, which
should exercise general jurisdiction over the whole of the
kingdom, be beyond suspicion, and which should command
authority by the regularity of the principles actuating its
decisions, was greatly wanted. Such a tribunal might be
composed partly of commercial persons and accountants,
and partly of lawyers. He understood the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in introducing his financial scheme, to say
that it was most inexpedient to trench on the wages of
labour ; but if so, he (Mr. Blackett) knew not how the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could fail to exempt from the
operation of the income tax that class of operatives whose
wages might be taken on the average at two guineas a
week. At any rate, he conceived that that part of the
scheme would either fail from the impossibility of collect-
ing the tax, or that it would create such an amount of
dissatisfaction as to cause its breakdown. If the right
hon. gentleman was able to remove these objections, he
would do a great deal to make this tax, as it was his con-
fessed object to do, an available resource in times of emer-
gency and war.
The house then resolved itself into committee on the bill.
Upon clause 1,
Lord C. HAMILTON moved the omission of the words
" United Kingdom " for the purpose of substituting
" Great Britain."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
amendment raised again the question which they had been
discussing all night, and inquired whether the noble lord
seriously meant to renew that debate ?
Lord C. HAMILTON said, the right hon. tho Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had not answered the question- he
had put to him in the previous part of the evening—
namely, how it was, if Sir R. Peel was right in 1845 in
stating that Ireland was not fit to have the income tax
imposed on it, that Ireland was now in a position to bear
that tax ? The right hon. gentleman had referred to the
arrangement of 1815, and to the report which had been
made to the house, but he had not quoted these words :
" Whereas the taxation of Ireland has increased of late
years greatly out of proportion to that of England." (Hear,
hear.) Was it for Irish purposes that increase of taxa-
tion had taken place? Was it not that the Irish debt
was increased for British purposes—that the Irish debt
had been augmented fourfold, while the English debt
in the same period had been only doubled ? He acknow-
ledged that Irelan4l had benefitted by the arrangement of
1815, but as to the taxation imposed on her, the hon. seem-
for the West Riding, a great historical authority, had told
the country that the war which caused these enormous
debts was carried on for the purposes of the aggressive
policy of England—(hear' hear), and it was not the
bellicose spirit of Ireland which had caused the increase
of her debt. (" Divide !") The spirit of the Act of
Union, whatever the right hon. gentleman might say
of the 7th article, was against his proposition. In 1822
Lord Lansdowne, adverting to the financial condition of
Ireland, said it was a specimen of the endeavours which
had been made to place more taxation on that country
than she could bear. The right hon. gentleman had not
gone into the question of the condition of Ireland at all—
he had resorted to the old story of the consolidated annui-
ties. The right hon. gentleman, after the decision of the
other House of Parliament, could never have expected to
get the whole amount of these annuities • but granting the
whole amount to be remitted, and that 250,0001. was saved
to Ireland, how could he show that Ireland was benefited
by the remission of that sum and the imposition of
650,0001. in place of it. (" Divide !") Let him tell the
house his reasons for coming to that conclusion. If Ireland
was to have a permanent system of taxation, as the hon.
member for the West Riding hoped it would be, under the
guise of temporary taxation, they were entitled to ask for
some proof that she was able to bear it. ("Divide !"
The right hon. gentleman had brought forward a new
scheme—not of taxation, but affecting the relations be-
tween tho two countries. The total amount of exclusive
remission for England, after deducting the increase of
taxation, was 1,200,0001. The total amount of remission
for Ireland was 250,0001., and that was met by a new in-
come tax and spirit duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it ap-
peared to him that his noble friend had taken a very un-
usual course. (Hear.) The whole evening, till nearly 11
o'clock, had been occupied in discussing the propriety of
laying the income tax on Ireland. The noble lord addressed
the house at considerable length, and it was his (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to make a large
demand upon the patience of the house in the course of the
debate. In doing so, he made the best answer in his power
to the noble lord, but the noble lord now said his answer
was a bad one, and made another motion to see whether or
not he would make a better. (Hear, hear.) He had no
doubt it was true what his noble friend said, and he had
brought forward many demonstrative arguments to prove
that he had entirely failed in his reply to satisfy him ; but
the house saw the total failure of his arguments, and the
noble lord had the whole advantage of it in the division.
(Laughter.) The question before them really was, whether
they were to start again at the same point at which they
had commenced in the beginning of the evening. (Hear.)
Now, without wishing to be disr.spectful to his noble
friend, he must say that he thought it would be hardly re-
spectful to the house if he wore to start again precisely at
the same point, and detain them with a discussion to which
the house was evidently not disposed to listen. (Hear.)
If his noble friend wished to raise the question again in a
formal debate he would be prepared to meet) him with such
reasons as ho was able to give ; but he would allow him to
say that the question before them was not whether Sir R.
Peel was right in 1845 or not—(hear)—the question was
not what was right in 1845, but what was right in 1853.
(Hear, hear.) If they went hack to 1845, they might also
go back to 1842, to the sime of Lord Sydenham, and so on,
till they reached the time of Mr. Pitt ; but he did not
think that sort of retrogressive motion was likely to be
serviceable in the settlement of this question. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel 15UNNE supported the proposition of the noble
lord, and contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had given no answer whatever to the arguments which had
been brought forward against the imposition of this tax on
Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. M. O'CONNELL,
Mr. ALCOCK pointed out the heavy burdens to which
England was exposed, and from the pressure of which Ire-
land was altogether free, and thanked the Governinent
for the act of justice they had performed in extending the
income tax to that country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. VANCE said it should be borne in mind that there
was a considerable amount of revenue derived from Ireland
that was not collected there. From the discouragements
given to Irish commerce in successive reigns, the amount
of revenue from the customs was not neary so groat as it
ought to be. If an account were gone into they might
fairly add 1,000,0001. to the Customs' revenue of Ireland
which was now paid in London, Liverpool, and other
places. (Hear, hear.) He wished to state, also, that by
the Articles of Union they were explicitly precluded from
imposing direct taxation on Ireland. (Hear.) Then, as
to the relief given by the remission of the consolidated an-
nuities, he represented a city (Dublin) which had now no
consolidated annuities to pay ; and ho asked with what
justice that city could have the income tax imposed upon
it because other places were to be relieved from the pay-
ment of the consolidated annuities? (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. HAMILTON said he would not -give the com-
mittee the trouble of dividing, and
Mr. FREWEN then moved an amendment, the object
of which was to limit the duration of the tax to two years.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
amendment, because, if adopted, it would defeat the two
objects which the Government had in view, the first of
which was to give stability to our system of finance ; the
second, to reduce the income tax by progressive descent te
a point at which Parliament would have it in their power
to part with it, if it should think fit to do so.
The committee divided, and the numbers were,—
For the amendment ... ... 82
Against it ... 223
Majority ... —l4l
Upon clause 2, regulating the duties payable in respect
of subjects described in the schedules,
Dr. MICHELL rose to move in clause 2, line 11, to leave
out the word "property," and insert "profits ;" and in
line 13, to leave out "value," and insert "receipts." He
wanted the bill to be in accordance with its title. Pro-
perty that did not yield profits ought not to be taxed.
Eight years since he had bought two manors, from which
he had since not received one sixpence, and it was a com-
plete confiscation of the property of individuals to make
them pay upon property from which they were receiving
no profits. Without wishing to divide the house, ho
should be satisfied if he succeeded in calling the attention
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if this question were to be considered as a mere change in
the phraseology of the Income Tax Bill, for the purpose
of giving it a greater clearness, he should think it was
undoubtedly wise and safe to adhere to the established
phraseology which had become intelligible, which had
acquired a fixed and known construction, and under
which the tax was actually levied. If, however, he un-
derstood the hon. gentleman aright, he had in view a sub-
stantial object —he wished to change the form of
the tax by providing that in all cases under schedule
A deductions of every kind should be allowed to persons
who were liable to pay under that head. He was sorry to
say ho could not meet the views of the hon. gentleman.
The House had already decided upon a proposal less wide
than that of the hon. gentleman,—he meant the resolution
of the hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Palmer), which
by no means went the length of the motion submitted by
the hon. gentleman. Such a proposal would aggravate the
inquisitorial character of the tax, and would add to what-
ever was offensive in its character to a degree greater in
fact than it would give relief by the mere diminution of
its burden, while it would cripple the tax by diminishing
that burden, and would, moreover, open up a question
already decided by the house.
Mr. SPOONER. had understood the hon. member for
Bodtnin (Dr. Michell) to press for the levy of the tax upon
the net annual value instead of the gross annual value upon
which owners of property were called on to pay. In clause
20 this provision was made in the case of all persons who
hold chapter and ecclesiastical property. (The Chancellor
of the Exchequer —" That has always been so.") Yos, but
why should one set of property-holders be allowed to de-
duct all their repairs mid not another?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
clause alluded to certainly related to repairs, but they were
an entirely different char:Leter from those made by other
ii,,la,srs of property, and they bore no analogy whatever to
sue] rb.pairs.
After a few words from Dr. MICHELL,
The cifit.r.,TCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be better to adhere to existing forms than to at-
tempt
wouldto break up the s
makemotlilicatiox
schedules.
in the existing enactment
which
Mr. WALPOLE said, that upon introducing his budget
the right bon. gentleman said that the object was to keep
this tax as a weapon of emergency, but now, upon every
occasion when a modification was proposed to make the
tax more just, that modification was -refused. If the tax
were equitably adjusted the public might consent to its
renewal hereafter, but if the Government refused all the
modifications proposed, those who were interested in laucl