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

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 the
Chancellor of the Exchequer diluting her, bleeding her,
purging her--(great laughter)—and when she asked for
bread, giving her a 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 133
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 preient, 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. the 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 It. 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 Ireland had benefitted by the arrangement of
1815, but as to the taxation imposed on her, the n. mem-
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—
ho 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 r) 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 r
The right hon. gentleman had brought forward a new
scheme—not of taxation, but affecting the relations be-
tween the two coantries. 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 wishinc, 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 were 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 he 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 back 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 DUNNE 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 Government
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 nearly so great 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 he asked with what
justice that city could have the income tax imposed upon
it because other places were to be relieved from tho pay-
ment of the consolidated annuities ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord G. 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 to
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 ...
• —l4l
Maj onty 223
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, he
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 he 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 bon. 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. SPOONED. had understood the hon. member for
Bodmin (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
30 this provision was made in the case of all persons who
held chapter and ecclesiastical property. (The Chancellor
,of the Exchequer—" That has always been so.") Yes, but
why should one set of property-holders be allowed to de-
duct all their repairs and not another?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
clause alluded to certainly related to repairs, but they were
of an entirely different character from those made by other
holders of property, and they bore no analogy whatever to
such repairs.
After a few words from Dr. MICHELL,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said it
would be better to adhere to existing forms than to at-
tempt to make modifications in the existing enactment
which would break up the schedules.
Mr. WALPOLE said, that upon introducing his budget
the right hon. 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 land ,