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

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 tho course which Sir R. Peel
had taken with regard to Ireland. (Hear.) In 1842, when
the income tax was proposed, it was naturally desired by
English members that Ireland should bear her onion 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,
lookinc, 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the income tax to be repealed, he found that the further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
which, as an English member, be 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
120,0001. 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 ls. 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 teas and poor rates
in Ireland would obtain none. 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
the 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 47,0001.
But the right hon. gentleman had based that calculation on
the assumption that in England there would be a remission
of the income tax, amounting to 5,500,000/., while in Ireland
he 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
most important omission. He supposed it had been made
inadvertently at the time, but he wondered the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), after a calm consi-
deration of the question, should have repeated and adopted
that statement. He (Mr. Scully) calculated that in 1860,
if the income tax were remitted in both countries, Ireland
would be a great gainer ; but that if it were continued in
England, it clearly must be extended to Ireland. Upon
that he believed there could be no two opinions. If it were
continued in England, it must sooner or later be extended.
to Ireland. (Hear, hear.) There were numerous objec-
tions to the details of the income tax which he thought
might with advantage be discussed in the committee ; but,
at all events, let them have an inquiry similar to that now
moved for by the hon. and gallant officer, because he was
convinced, if it should result in a report that Ireland was
unfairly taxed at present, that the impost of the income
tax would be removed in the succeeding year. Under ex-_
isting circumstances he feared, however, that the motion
would be regarded as a factious one, and he did not ap-
prove of a factious opposition to the Government. He had
seen too much of it already to like it. He preferredto take
a common-sense, intelligible view of these matters, and he
begged, therefore, to suggest to his hon. and gallant friend
that he should strike out from his resolution the words,
" before additional taxation bo extended to Ireland."
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE thought the hon. member for Tipperary
(Mr. F Scully) was altogether wrong in imputing factious
motives to the hon. and gallant mover of the motion, and
deemed it his duty, as an Irish member, to take every pos-
sible opportunity of opposing what he must consider an
injustice to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman, in one of
the jauntiest speeches for a Chancellor of the Exchequer
he had ever heard, had stated that the taxes now to be im-
posed on Ireland were just, and were acknowledged to be
so by the greater portion of the people of Ireland ; but he
had 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 were allowed
to mention a secret, he might also tell the house that the
hon. member for Mayo narrowly escaped being chairM at
a fair in Galway the other day 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. Tho attempt to gull the people of Ireland, by say-
ing that they should pay 460,0001. a-year in return for a
gift of 245,000/., was something more than a mere financial
juggle ; it was an Exchequer swindle. (Oh, oh ! and laugh 7
ter.) Me 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 hon, 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, hear.) 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 the 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 460,000/. The late Sir R. Peel had
refused to impose the income tax on Ireland in 1842, when
the poor rates were not more than 280,0001. What were
they now ? Not less than 900,0001., while they were nearly
1,200,000/. 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.") Ile thmight 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. Niue millions of property had changed hands, and
a similar 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
one million of additional taxation upon Ireland, and to
remit at the same time about 459,0001., so that the gross
income would be 541,0001. The hon. gentleman than
entered into an elaborate calculation for the purpose of
establishing the' assertion that the local burdens paid
'by Ireland areeunted to nearly 8,000,0001. The right
hon. gentleman had spoken of free trade. He did
not 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
hoard 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 would ask whether he
had not a right to expect that the consolidated annuities
should be remitted ? (No, no.) He 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 ho could in support of his own budget. But was he
(Mr. Maguire) to be told that ho sued in fornut pauperia
when he resisted the imposition of an income tax on Ire-
land ? Did Sir It. 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 inconsistent on the part of hon. mem-
bers 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 spirits. He believed that
the people of Ireland were as remarkable as the
people of England for temperance, but, let that
be as it might, they (lid not oppose the additional duty
on spirits from any selfish considerations. The distillers
of Ireland did not in their resolutions condemn the increase
in duty of Bd. a gallon, but they condemned the arbitrary
restrictions wnich were imposed upon the trade, and they
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to carry out the
resolution of imposing an additional duty of 8(1. a gallon,
and thereby expose them to an additional burden. He
considered that the _ considered it his duty to resist the present Ministerial
budget.
Sir
Looking at all these things, and considering that
precedent.
not only unjust,
de:.yflbei t Peel would not tax Ireland, he really
oliooTatif •
occasion
Was
.0 proposition of the Government on this
erest, but altogether without
ast spoke had expressed with that
whom this -
could not help rising injuredit the gratifying sympathy which the
agriculturists of England,
tho
own sympathy with
the people of Ireland to express h.
injury. Leols at the " budget menaced with such
Position of Ireland ; as one risen .