The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-29 00:00:00

regard to the exclusive burdens which the land bore, which
proposition, if it had been carried, would have increased
those burdens. On that occasion they, on his side of the
house, saved the agricultural interest in spite of themselves.
It was said that they did not admit there were any exclu-
sive burdens on land. Why, it was on the ground of the
exclusive burdens on land that he defended the justice of
the income tax, as at present levied. He would now de-
monstrate to any clear-minded man that the proposition of
his right hon. friend was more favourable to the landed in-
terest than the proposition of the right hon. gentleman op-
posite. The right hon. gentleman opposite proposed to im-
pose a tax of only 51d. on trades and professions, and 7d.
on land. His right hon. friend proposed to levy an equal tax
of 7d. on both trades and land. That was a statement of
fact which must be clear enough to the landed interest.
(Hear, hear.) Then his right hon. friend proposed the in-
come tax with the hope of its being taken off at the end of
seven years; and he pointed out the means of bringing
about this result. The right hon. gentleman proposed his
income tax for three years without the slightest prospect
of its being taken off at the end of that period, unless he
put on the tax on successions. (Hear.) Then the right
non. gentleman proposed to extend the tax between 501.
and 1501. to the owners of land at a rate of 7d. His hon.
friend proposed to exte id it to incomes between 1001. mid
1501. at a rate of 5d., whereby those incomes between 501.
tnd 1001. would escape altogether from the tax, and those
with incomes between 1001. and 1501. would have its pres-
sure diminished by 2d. in the pound. Which of the two
propositions, he would now ask, was the most favourable to
he owners of land and to the small freeholders? (Hear.)
3ut he was told that he must take the income tax in con-
aexion with the tax on successions. He admitted the fair-
'less of that. Now, if the owners of land and real property
thought that it was better for them that there should be a
ti &renal of rate in the income tax, instead of a tax on
ruccessions, they were labouring und.,r the greatest mis-
take possible. (Hear.) He was firmly convinced that it
was for their interest that a distinct tax should be levied
rather than they should pay a different rate of income tax.
(Hear, hear.) For what other mode of proceeding could
bo adopted ? He believed that the scheme of the actuaries
was utterly unfair and impracticable. If they now
began to make a distinction, they could not stop with the
distinction between real and personal property, for
there was as much difference between the combined skill
and capital of the trader, and the skill alone of the
professional man, as there was between real and personal
property. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the exemption of
real property from the tax on successions, he thought it
was an anomaly that could not be maintained much longer
in favour of the landed interest. (Hear, hear.) He, there-
fore, held that the proposition of his right hon. friend was
more favourable to the landed interest than that of the
right hon. gentleman, and he would advise the landed
gentry to close with the bargain at once. (Hear, hear.)
But the landed interest was threatened with the tax on
successions by the right hon. gentleman opposite, for in
proposing his scheme to the house, he said that "he
thought it not impossible to reconcile conflicting interests
by levying a duty on successions." (Heir, hear.) The only
meaning the right hon. gentleman's words could bear was
that he thought the per;onalty and the realty ought to be
placed on the same footing. Omitting, therefore, from
consideration all view of the interests of the general com-
munity, and looking to the landed interest alone, the pro-.
position of his right hon. friend was far more in favour of
that interest than the budget of the right hon. gentleman.
At present, in most cases, the solicitors were able to avoid
the legacy duty ; and the result of the proposed measures
would be, that property left by deed would pay succes-
sion tax as well as property left by will. His conviction
was that the largest amount would still be paid by person-
alty and not by land. Leasehold property was at present
in an unfair position, having many exceptional rates and
probate and legacy duties besides. Under the resolutions,
provision would be made for crediting it with three items
in levying the duties proposed ; and, on the whole, he
trusted he had proved that it was quite a misapprehension
to suppose that the whole, or the greater part, of the two
millions would be leviable on the land. Another advan-

tage would be the reduction of the duty on servants and
carriages. As these were kept in the greatest number by
the landed gent-7, they would in the greatest degree be
benefited, while at the same time encouragement would
be given to increased employment of labour. On all those
grounds he recommended gentlemen opposite to accept the
,resent proposals. The time must come when the legacy
duty must be conceded, and they could not possibly do it
with better grace than at the present moment, when they
were offered so many equivalents. (Hear, hear.) The
next class of objectors were the members from Ireland. He
would remind them that. the amendment for which they
were about to vote would by no means prevent the exten-
sion of the income tax to Ireland. The hon. members for
Cork and Roscommon had revived the old calculations
which had been answered in the repeal of union debates,
and the latter had talked of the consolidation of the
exchequer of the two countries as a juggle, whereas
it was a measure undertaken solely for the benefit of
Ireland, and against the remonstrances of the country
gentlemen of England. (Hear, hear.) The honourable
member for Cork asked that Ireland should be treated the
same as Scotland and Wales. He would ask in what

way were these two latter countries exempt from English
taxes ? (Hear.) Again, tho hon. member for Roscommon
reminded him of what he had said in December last, to the
effect that he was not prepared to extend the income tax
to Ireland. He would say the same now, if no compensa-
tion were to be given, and would not be a party to the pro-
posal of his right hon. friend, if his proposal did not con-
tain a full equivalent. That, he could assure the hon.
member for Roscommon, was his recorded opinion before
the proposal was laid on the table of the house. He
thought he could show the hon. member that his (Sir C.
Wood's) course had been perfectly consistent in the mat.
ter. In the first place, the house would remember that in
December there was no question of the remission of the
Consolidated Annuities.

Mr. DISRA_ELI intimated that they had then the reso-
lution of the Lords' committee.
Sir C. WOOD said that the right hon. gentleman did not
consent to be bound by the report of the Lords' committee.
On this point he could appeal to the hon. member for
Mayo, who at the time complained that the Government
ivere not prepared to be guided by the report. He would
now turn to the question of how much Ireland would gain
Jr lose by the proposed changes. The Consolidated An-
nuities would amount in forty years to 7,731,0001., while
the whole of the income tax up to 1860 would be only
2,690,000/. In this view of the case there would be a gain
to Ireland of upwards of five millions, and this, too, dis
tributed over the whole of Ireland. The honourable mem-
eer for the West Riding had truly said that the parties
who now paid the rates would not feel the weight of
the tax, as while the rate went down to holdings of 41.
a year, the income tax would not affect any farmer pay-
ing less than 2001. a year rent, the number of farmers
in that situation in Ireland being exceedingly small.
The tax would thus be paid almost exclusively by the land-
lord, who would have the right to deduct all the charges
on land. To this he must add that all land held by per-
sons resident in England was already liable. Again the
holders of property under 1001. a year in value, would not
be liable, although at present they were liable to the rate.
Now to show how much the tax would be a relief, as com-
pared with the present charges, he would take half a dozen
of the most distressed unions in the west of Ireland and
compare them. Castlebar paid to the Consolidated An-
nuities 2,6511. a year ; for income tax it would pay 9951.
Galway paid, Annuities, 3,293/, ; income tax would be
1,7631. (Hear.) Oughterard paid 1,542/. ; income tax
would be 3361. Scariff, Annuities 2,366/. ; income tax 6351.
Skibbereen, 2,080/. • income tax 1,2001. Scull 9341. ; in-
come tax 3671. (Hear, hear.) In all these cases, too,
it must be recollected that the Annuities were for
forty years, and the income tax only for seven. (Hear.)
Taking, therefore, those portions of Ireland which were
pressed down by the incidence of taxation, he thought
they would make a good bargain by accepting the Budget,
and that generally Ireland would derive an advantage not
merely in the amount remitted, but still more in the fact
that the classes relieved would be the occupiers and the
poorer classes, and that the new tax would be paid by those
undoubtedly able to bear such a burden. Under these cir-
cnmstancess the representatives of the western counties
might find it worth while to pause ere they rejected so con-
siderable a boon. (Cheers and laughter.) With regard to
the north and east of Ireland, the question was clear.
(Ironical cheers.) Well, he had never said that they had
any claim to exemption.. Why should not Belfast pay
income tax as well as Liverpool ? Looking at the matter
generally then, as regarded Ireland, he thought that that
country would, on the whole, obtain a remission, large
and substantial in character, at a very small price. As to
the spirit duties, they stood on quite a different footing ;
and he had always said that if allowance for waste in bond
were conceded, the duties on Irish spirits must at once be
raised. Unless it could be pretended that illicit distillation
was thus encouraged there could be no valid argument
for the low duties on Irish spirits ; and he doubted if
the assertion could be made out that much illicit dis-
tillation really was presented to an extent to justify the
low duties. The hon. member for Roscommon (Mr. F.
French) had said that it would be a breach of faith to em-
ploy the constabulary in Ireland in checking illicit distilla-
tion and in general revenue purposes ; and the hon. mem-
ber for Kilkenny had complained that the Irish constabu-
lary was an expensive body which had nothing to do. Now,
evidently, one gentleman's argument balanced the other ;
for the future the constabulary would be usefully employed,
and the less objection would be offered by the hon. and
learned member for Kilkenny, inasmuch as he was in error
in supposing that Ireland paid for her constabulary, the
fact being that that force was sustained by the imperial
exchequer. Appealing, then, to the whole body of Irish
members, he could not see how they could justify an oppo-
sition to a scheme so eminently favourable to them.
(Cheers and laughter.) But to them and to other hon.
members he would say, with the hon. member for Mon-
trose, that this budget must not be judged, however ex-
amined, in detail, but that it must be taken or rejected as
a whole. (Hear, hear.) There were, doubtless, defects in
detail ; it was impossible but that on a measure so extensive
and so complicated, examination would show points where
there might be amendments and improvements ; and hie-
right hon. friend had already said that various proposals
for modifications were undorlis consideration. But on the
main points there could be nothing to object to. The repeal
of the soap tax would be a great boon to rich and poor, and
all classes. Some hon. member had said, " Why, this is a
sop for Manchester," as if Manchester only washed
its hands. • (Laughter.) The price he believed would be
reduced to the public far below the actual remission ; and
indirect benefits to manufacturers would be as great as the
direct benefit to the trade and it would also tend to the em-
ployment of more people. The export trade in soap was
said to have been recently falling off ; and the improve-
ment
there would, of course, be great and immediate. The
other reductions were all carefully considered, and now few
articles would remain under the restriction of a protective
duty. Hon. gentlemen opposite had solemnly affirmed the
principle of unrestricted competition," and they could,
of course, offer no opposition to this part of the financial
tphoelipcyubolfictmheust present Government.
contentC
overnthmpaenyt;
anFdorthtehseesewrheedupcatyioines.
come tax for the first time would find an equivalent in the
cheaper prices of soap, of tea, and of beer—(laughter)—no,
not beer, he meant provisions generally. Perhaps the
honourable gentlemen opposite were proud of their
proposal about the malt tax • but then they must not
flatter themselves that their budget would have made beer
any cheaper. (Laughter and cheers.) With regard to
the income tax, he agreed in much of the view which his
right hon. friend the member for Portsmouth had taken of
it. (Ironical cheers.) Yes, he was glad that there was a
prospect of its eventual removal. (Ironical cheers.) Bat
he was alive to the advantages which it had conferred. It
-had enabled us to carry free trade—to adopt the principle
of
us unrestrictedtom ake competition—and
grgreat
itri
strides i
when it had done its task the weapon could be put back
iutl it would
into the armoury from which it had been taken. (Cheers.)
the
same
direction continue
;en-
abled an
In taking farther strides in the spirit of the commercial
policy of 1846, the Government were entitled to rely
on the support of all those who had, in the early part
of the session, put on record their adherence to the new
commercial policy. (Loud cheers.) He believed that
the country would sustain the Government in their
efforts to accomplish these further advances ; he believed
that the country had passed its almost unanimous approval
on the budget—(cheers and laughter)— and he could not