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

lishment ? How, then, do we stand? I merely speak of tion? I think the right ,hon. gentleman has acted quite
our military and naval expenditure, and will wisely in including incomes of 1001. As an advocate of
not go back
now to 1835. I only go two years back—to 1851. Since direct taxation, I would, as
tax an abstract principle, levy it
upon everybody where the could be collected with a
185rwe have added to the expenditure for our naval and profit. lam assuming that no other tax existed. But
military establishments, including militia, commissariat, when you have laid so much taxation on the working peo-
, and other outgoings, 1,875,0001. This expenditure, pie in an indirect way—when they pay more than the
15,555,000/. in 1851, was 16,431,0001. in 1852, and upper classes in proportion to their means—ycu are wider
17,400,000 for 1853. Now what I want to call the atten- this necessity, you must endeavour to compensaotse e the nby
levying a direct tax upon the property of th who ive
tion of the house to—and particularly of the member for richer and above them in station, and who do not pay as
North Warwickshire, who said the Manchester school much in proportion in direct taxes as they ought to pay.
wore going to ruin the aristocracy—is this, that if you (Hear.) Ido not propose that the income tax should be
had made no such increase since 1851 you would have had levied on all wages,. and I think the right hon. gentleman
a surplus now large enough to cover al' these remissions has acted wisely in drawing the line at 1001. (Hear.)
I have said that the working people pay a large amount of
without the necessity of one farthing additional taxation. indirect taxation. We sometimes hear that a large amount
(Hear, hear.) If you had had this amount of money left of Customs and Excise duties have been remitted, and it
in your coffers, instead of having it wasted as you have, it
would have been now in hand to provide for the remissions is supposed that by reducing them you have diminished the
pressure of these taxes on the working people. But you
proposals • and therefore the lion. gentleman who presentyth
and changes which come into operation under thehave done nothing. You have only been ingeniously shift-
is to ruin 'the aristocracy must not charge the Manchester t this ing ing the burden ever since the time of Mr. Huskisson. You
schoolw with the responsibility of that expenditure, for
none in the ,haff-e. tried it in a variety of ways so as to make it gall the
least, but the burden still remains. I will give you an illue'hatever blame other parties may take, I takeof this. T 1 , amount of Customs and Excise duties •
matter.
spend nothing for your armaments. Nobody who is honest
.Do not say, then, that I come hero to tell you to si.a.sion
paid in 1831 was 35,6'30,000/. The estimate for the coin-
can say that. Many years ago lin this house proposed my- ing year is 35,320,0001., so that there is only 360,0001. less
ta
.mrhoaft 110,n0.90w, 00eot.pshlaoiuuldofbei4,
self that a sum paid now in indirect taxes than in the year IS3I, al-
though during that time you have reduced your Cus-
i appliedpfrogressive
or our ar-
matnentoms and Excise duties some 12,000,0001. or 15,000,0301.
increase from
15,555,0001.,
the expenditur • ISSI per annum. There has, of course, been an increase in the
e in . , to
17,400,000!., the expenditure in - - population, but the same amount is now paid as was paid
icons sum not been thus expended, the Chancellor in 1831, notwithstanding the great remissionswhich have
of
the Exchequer might have hatts'it now at his disposal taken place. (Hear, hear.) I now come to deal with the
and might have met it with those remissions which he question of the application of the income tax to Ireland,
proposes to make. Would not this have been a • and that seems to be the •• t difficulty of the Government
pea
enviable position for the Chancellor of the Exchequerlel
on the present occasion.members on the other
The Irish .
and was it not natural that the right honourableg side ' the
o. house will not suppose that lam anxious to
tle man should speak in pathetic terms of the houseen" them impose upon any unjust burdens. lam the advocate
having voted away the surplus income ? The most la- a religious and fiscal equalityto ie t t extent.
mentable part of the matter is this, that although there (Hear, So far as regards religious greatest
what-
was equality,
a very great panic about the French invasion a few ever odium I may incur by
the declaration, I will say that
months ago, yet now there is not a rational being who will nothing could induce me to place a fetter on the consciences
say he is under the apprehension of an invasion. Not of the Roman Catholics. If I
could make you so, you
only do I find nobody who believes there will be a French should be as free in the practice and observanceof your
invasion, but I cannot find anybody who will admit that faith as if you were across the Atlantic. (Cheers.) I
lie ever had any fears on the subject. (Hear, hear.) But would do the same with regard to fiscal questions. There
the mischief has been done—the addition has been made must be perfect equality between the two countries, and
to our establishments ; and what I call the attention of everyta.x_paid by this country must be paid by Ireland.
the public to is the fact, that having made this addition of (Hear.)is Ido not want to lay heavy burdens on either the
1,500,0001. or 1,800,0001. to our establishment, you cannot English
both or the Irish people. If I had my will they should
bring them back again in a day. None but those who,pay less taxes, but you can have no safety for the
like my honourable friend the member for Montrose, preogersfor working of the legislature if you have amongst you
having been engaged in the work of retrenchment know m
than the otherne part of the kingdom which pays less taxes
how difficult it is to reduce expenditure when once yon
working of this larL (Hear, hear.) I have noticed the
system for a long time, and I will tell
have incurred it. You cannot reduce it in a day. You
honourable gentlemen
have probably laid out your money in the construction of
which I haveg observned
from Ireland one of the symptoms
works, which you must keep up by an annual charge, and
taxation. I have seen arin from that discrepancy of
I have no hesitation in saying that this generation will .
n the Imperial expenditure, gentlemen take velittle interest
not live to see the whole expense die out which has been 1
the transfer -of the
e taxesunless on semen estion involve
paid in England to some
caused by the additions made to our establishments within mg . • Ireland,and
locality in hence you fight for
that bauble
the last two years. (Hear, hear.) Now just show how we
—your (h ear, hear, and laughter), and
find ourselves obstructed in our efforts at fiscal reform by lord-lieutenancy—
hence you fight for your Kilmainham Hospital—(cheers and
these establishments— I will turn to other items in the
laughter), although it is a mere nest of jobbery—(hear,
budget since 1851, and state all that comes under the head
hear, and " oh, oh.") I have had the opportunity of in-
of civil expenditure, and you will then 'see how little has
quinng into that subject, and, as a member of the commit-
been the increase. In 1851 the expense other than
tee, I speak from a knowledge of the circumstances of the
military, and naval was 34,692,000/. ; in 1852, the amount
case. (Hear, hear.) Now, what is the reason that no
was 34,732,000/. ; and in 1853, it was 34,783,000/. so that
statesman has thought of proposing that our colonies
the whole increase of our expenditure, except that occa-
should unite with the mother country in one common le-
erily about ioned by our
80,000/., taory an amount of nearly and naval deparrly 35,000,000/ ,tments has been
gislature ? What renders it impossible? Not space. No,
n
it is because the colonies, not paying our Imperial taxation,
whilst the increase for the army and navy, on an expen-
diture of 15,000,0001., has been 1,845,0001. (Hear.) Now and not being liable for our debt, could not sit here, with
I think it will not be said by any one that this is an safety to us or with propriety to themselves, to legislate on
matters of taxation in which they are not concerned.
indifferent view of the question—that you must grapple
(
with the expense of our naval and military establish-
Hear, hear.) What happened on the last occasion on
meats if you would enable the Minister to effect such
which I addressed myself to the subject of the budget ? I
modifications in the tariff as are inevitable, without followed the hon. member for Belfast, who rose to support
constantly seeking for an increase of direct taxation. I the proposition for doubling the house tax and laying the
ask the house to consider how these remissions of taxa-
income tax on my constituents in Barnsley and Leeds. The
tion are inevitable. You may get them by savings, people of these towns are largely engaged in the manufac-
and by the growth of your surplus revenue, but if you tore of linens. Belfast is engaged in the same trade. The
hon. member who represents that town voted for taxing
eat up the surplus by constant additions to our mili-
my constituents at Barnsley and Leeds. (Hear, hear,
tart' establishments, you must have a fund necessary for
this remission of taxation out of property or income. hear.) And how is he going to vote now ? If he votes
(Hear, hear.) And I care not whoever may be in power, now against the extension of the income tax to his own
whether the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the constituents at Belfast, then I want no other proof. There
late Chancellor of the Exchequer may have the handling of it is complete. (Hear, hear.) It would never do to allow
the figures, they will be inevitably driven to a policy which men to sit in the same house of representatives represent-
shall aim at reductions in the Excise and Customs duties, ing different interests, because they could help a Minister
even at the expense of direct taxation. (Hear, hear.) The to impose a tax upon their neighbours on condition that
right hon. gentleman opposite proposed
a partial remission he should exempt themselves. (Hear, hear.) How would
of the maletax, thus dealing with indirect, taxation, and the case be if we allowed representatives from our colonies
proposed to put on an increased house tax, which is a to sit in this house? An ambitious and unscrupulous
direct tax. (Hear.) The present Chancellor of the Ex- Minister-could make use of these men, supposing they had
chequer proposes to lay a legacy tax on real estate, with not the virtues which ordinary men possess—(a laugh)—for
the view of effecting large remissions of indirect taxation. the purpose of oppressing the English people. He might
The late Government fell solely in their attempt to find a say to them, "Help me in this extremity, and I will help
substitute for the deficiency to be created by the remission you to prevent the English people putting a tax upon the
of the malt tax, and they might have been in power now colonies." (Hear, hear.) The consequence might be that 0
but for that insuperable obstacle. (Hear, hear.) If the you woald have an irresponsible Government, a constant
present Chancellor of the Exchequer is in danger at this succession of coups d'etat, until the people of this country
moment, it is only on account of the difficulty of finding a would rise and demand a separation from the colonies—
direct tax which will enable him to make the necessary re- (Loud cries of " hear' hear, ' from a portion of the Irish
missions. (Hear, hear.) I wish gentlemen to consider that members, followed by laughter in all parts of the
we are now come to a time when, if you will be extrava- house.) Now, on the present occasion our Government,
true to the invariable system in this country of comps°.
gent, you must be extravagant at the expense of property.
(Hear, hear.) The remission of indirect taxation must go misos, have proposed to grant to the honourable gentle-
on. It is not merely the interest of humanity—but that man opposite—that is, to Ireland—a very large boon in-
has something to do with it—but you cannot, in these deed, if they will accept their quota of the income tax
days, when every one professes at least an interest and re-
(Hear, hear.) If I could whisper to them, knowing what
gard for the poor, levy a larger amount than is levied in
I do of the temper out of doors with regard to the squall-
other countries upon articles which are consumed by the
sation of taxation, I would say to them, close the bargain
at once—take theincome tax—get rid of the Consolidated
great majority of the population. And there is another
Annuities. (Hear, hear.) Why, if I understand it right,
reason why you must diminish the amount of taxation,
t
and that is because you find that the peace and prosperity the proposal that is made is almost in money amount equal
of the country depend upon the constantly increasing em-
to the charge that is to be remitted. (Mi. Fagan—No.)
ployment of the masses of the people, and you cannot
My hon. friend behind me surely does not expect that Ire-
secure that employment except by constantly removing land is going to pay us between 4,000,0001. and 5,000,0001.,
the impediments which stand in the way of industry, even with the income tax extended to that country. I say
and that will grow greater in proportion as our corn-
you are going to get almost au equivalent for the income
merce and our population increase. (Hear, hear.) Take,
tax. But look at the charge that is to be remitted, and
see how it puts you out of court as advocates of the poor in
for instance, the case of the Customs regulations.
A.great, and I think a just alarm, has been
Ireland. (Hear, hear.) As I understand the principle
felt by our merchants on account of the obstacles
upon which the Consolidated Annuities tax is levied, it is
resented to commerce b the Customs regulations. Those paid by
Teo
very poorest class of farmers in Ireland. (Hear,
ylations were bad en ough when you had to deal with
hear.) Is it so ? (Cries of "no, no," from the Irish mem-
only 30,000,0001. or 40,000,0001. of exports and imoorts, hers, and cheers from other parts of the house.) I believe
but they are grievous and insupportable in dealing with an the fact is as I have stated it. (An Hon. Member—Only
import of 70,000,000/. or 80,000,000'. But that is not all. half of the tax is paid by tenants.) Of course, one-half is
rho velocity of transactions of all kinds has increased- - paid by the landlord, and the other half by time tenant.
screw vessels are taking the place of sailing vessels, and a kAn Hon. Member—Tenants under 51. do not pay any por-
voyage to America, which formerly occupied from 30 to 40 tion of the tax.) Just so. That shows into what small
days, is now performed in 10 or 12. If you are economising portions the land is divided in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) It
time on the voyage, will not the grievance be greater than is almost inconceivable to the English agriculturists that you
ever if our merchants are subjected to the same delays and should have rentals under Si. ; but that is just the class that
impediments at the Custom-house as those to which they is going to bo benefited and relieved, because the proposal of
have hitherto been subjected. These barriers must ulti- the Government is to abolish a tax of which one-half is paid
mately give way; but hoW ? You cannot alter your tariff by the poorer tenantry down to rentals of 51., and to extend
So as to allow free goods to come in without rigid examina- to Ireland, instead, a property and in • tax.upon all
tion, unless by a total revolution in your fiscal system, so persons with incomes of lOW.' a year and upwards.eo -Wear,
far as regards import duties. You cannnot allow bales of bear.) Now, how many farmers are there in Ireland at the
cotton to be landed in Liverpool without thrusting a wire present moment who pay a rental of about 2001. a-year ?
through them in order to ascertain that they are not con- Perhaps I should explain to the hon. gentlemen opposite that
vested into bales of tobacco. If you retain a duty of 3s. a it is only the farmer who pays 2001. a year rental that will
pound ontobacco, and allow goods to come in without search be required to pay income tax upon an income of 1001. per
they will soon be converted into packages of tobacco. But annum. I ask you, therefore, how many farmers are there
you could not effect any change in that respect except by in Ireland who pay 2001. a year for their land? Surely you
reducing the duty to 3d. or 6d. per pound. You must re- will suffer the income tax to be imposed upon the rich, in
duce it to that extent, or you will fail altogether. I hope order that you may relieve the multitude of small tenanrs
there would not be such an increase of smoking as to en- down to 51. rentals. (Hear, hear.) Why, it is the most
able the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain as large a beneficent boon that has ever been offered to the class
revenue at 3d. per pound as he does at 3s. That would be whose interests you have 1 a ways professed to support.
a loss of some 2,000,000'. or 3,000,009/. at least. And how (Cheers.) Take the case of au income 1 of 100 . a-year. He
would that have to be made up? Why, by direct taxation. is a very genteel person in Ireland who has an income of
And that is the case a ith respect to other articles. You 1001. (A laugh.) You live much than
must cheaper in Ireland ,th n
must make up your minds that you will to make constant we can do in England. You have no assessed taxes, and
remissions. Every year since 1842 has witnessed a constant your provisions are cheaper. An income of 1001. a; ear,
remission of indirect taxes. The right hon. gentleman oppo- therefore, is quite as well able to pay income tax in Ire-
site did not propose a remission of the Customs of Excise land as in England. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, lam disposed
duties, but there was a self-acting process in the sugar duties to say, considering that the standard of living is higher
effecting that change. Time reduction of indirect taxation here, and the cost of living rather more, that 1001. a-year
must go on, and the question is, how are the means to be is a larger income in Ireland than it is in England. (Hear,
raised to carry that object into effect. I come now to the hear.) But take ties large case of your merchants—some
practical question before us. Here is virtually a deficiency, of them are now competing with our English merchants
because I look on the remission of taxation as inevitable. and shipowners. I could name largo capitalists sitting in
Although the right hon. gentleman has a surplus of counting-houses in Dublin, who have ships sailing from
500,000/. or 600,0001., he was obliged to lay on fresh taxes Liverpool and other ports in this country, and I ask, is it
in order to meet the inevitable demand for remission. fair that the vessels of rich Dublin merchants, who pay no
(Hear.) Then how are we to meet that which is a deficit ? income tax, should come in rivalry with ships belonging
The right hon. gentleman has proposed an income and to the merchants of Lancashire who have to pay income
property tax. He has proposed it with arguments very tax ? Is that common sense, or is it not ? (Hear, hear.)
elaborate, very able, and I might say, very subtle. But I hear a great deal said about the amount that England is
to my mind, that part of the speech of the right hon. gen- indebted to Ireland and Ireland to England. The hon.
tleman in which he dealt with the income tax was the member for South Lancashire, who ought to be accepted
least satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) It was the most decla- as a good authority by hon. gentlemen opposite, inasmuch
matory, and appeared to me to be the least conclusive. He as hers an Irishman like themselves, makes it out that you
began by alluding to Mr. Pitt, and stated that this tax are in our debt to the amount of 300,000,000/. (Hear, and
having served our purpose during the war ought not to be laughter.) Then the hon. member for Glasgow, who, to
used in a time of peace. Now, is it not time to have done judge by his name, must have Celtic blood' in his veins,
with such an argument as this? Is there not this answer Puts down your indebtedness at the sum of 160,000,0001.
to it, that other taxes also did their work during the war ? (Hear.) I believe the late Mr. O'Connell turned the figures
The customs and excise duties did their work during the the other way, and the result he brought out was that we
war, and it would be just as reasonable to say that we ought were indebted to you in the sum of 60,000,0001. (A laugh.)
to put the giant customs by and allow him to repose until My advice is, get the Statute of Limitations applied to
both sides—balance the ono amount against the other—pay
intrinsically war breaks out. And why not ? Is there anything
time same taxes as England—and unite with us in
eandvicsaty
intrinsically worse in the income tax than in the taxes on
tea and on wine? In that way is it worse? Does it give ing retrenchment and economy(Ch (Cheers.) h
who are generally
rise to greater oppression in its incidence ? See how large a " us," I refer to that section of the house
advocate economy in the management
portion of the income of a poOr man with a family is spent understood
athmirs,
who always vote with you when-
on the half-ounces of tea that he is under the necessity of
of
t ;ounawlant freedom, who are the constant and energetic
purchasing. What is paid for the duty on that tea ? 'The
over
supporters of the principles of civil and religious liberty,
same duty is paid on his tea, which you can purchase inidvho sympathise with yon in your demands for equal
the bonded warehouse at 10 d. per lb., as on the finest ,'
ial dits and equal justice to Ireland. Unite with its, then,
flowery pekoe or gunpowder which costs ss. or 6s. ;can you
not only upon fiscal questions, but upon all other ques-
show anything in the income tax more unequal in its ope-
tions that affect the happiness anti well-being of time people.
ration than that ? (Hear.) Take, again, the case of the wine
Accept the income tax ; for be assured that public opinion,
duties. You put a duty on the wine which is purchased
will not much longer tolerate any inequality in our taxa-
at ss. a bottle. You put the same duty on the /sin ordi-
tion ; and after you have done this there will be nothing
naire, which might be bought by a poor man in the south
left exclusively to the people of England but the less/
of France for twopence. Is there anything more unequal
taxes. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer
assessed
.yell d
in the income tax than that ? (Hear.) I might go through . .
*ustace in
that matter also, not by putting the
the whole system, and
the whole list of taxes, and although you would not faces upon you, but by abolishing .
property and income tax.
,find the same inequalities in all cases, yet, when you bear
adding instead a fraction to th©
in'te will reconsider the
in mind that when you lay a tax on consumable articles of
l I trust the hon. gontlemevriitaoilos
b dissolution
tell you didl and.
every day comfort, you may be sure the mass of thetpeaonp.e
subject. The thing
is
inebe a dissolution upon this yue
pay afar larger sum in proportion to their incomes than is
frankly that there may n
t of taxation. (Loud cricies 13-
paid by the rich. (Hear, hear.) Where, then, are you to tion of the equa. rsa io . of
with thehear, from from the Irish members.) I have no doubt
make exceptions for the income tax as compared
" Hear,
gentlemen who represent
during Irish constitu-
other great taxes which served Mr. Pitt so usefully
,:
1. that the ho
will ont. like to vote for the
the war? Is it that it offends more against the laws
the encies fonni which she has hitherto extension of a tax to
Ireland s been exempt ; but I
political economy in taking a greater portiondestination
in
the
Ex.
emphatically; the thing
pockets of people than arrives at its . say this moat will be done -who-
her you might not collect
th©r you agree to it or not. (Cheers
chequer ? No. I question whet
Does it offond , . I wish
to
.) There is another
point to which refer fora few
a direct tax cheaper than an indirect tax. . ,
t is Pomoments. It is
,that it obs ru with regard to licenses. I believe
the Chancellor of against the laws of political
than an indirect
has said
commerce, that' it impedes industry more.
it may be, I Exchequer that this subject is still
tax ? On the contrary, however oppressive
with the sideration of the Government. Now, under the con-
never heard it said that the income tax interferesoany
way
case of a budget, if we express eurw, of course, in the
adhesion its •
progress of industry or impedes commerceiig_d i
oes it produce Principles, we do not expect to be treated to main
whatever. Well, then, is it demoralising—does ?
The _
right hon. of Assembly in another count like the members
greater evil by demoralising our t
dealabout self assessment. But where a budget is presented, turnedrY,which shall be nameless,
gentleman has said a greatlevying of the Excise duties at in various ways, but upside down, looked
I would ask him does not the
tax? (A- laugh,) ys, must on no
the account be altered.
demoralisation than any direct Talcs,
I have no doubt
produce morethe tobacco trade. I remember Exchequer will be obliged Chancellor of the
for instance, the case of
of Commerce in Manchester when m
being in the Chamber
dealers in tobacco and snuff waited onaay oiler on the details of his financial scheme.riw4l
deputation from the
the adulteration carried regard to licenses, I think he haserred in
the matter
us in order to expose on in their of principle. I
to induce the Chamber of Commerce to • 1• cannot understand upon what grin-
trade, and interfere oip e the right honourable
gentleman proposes to lay a
for the purpose of effecting an alteration of the duty. The tax upon all traders dealers and manufacture who deal in tea, and tobacco. (Hear,
gentlemen who were the la
re-
said to us most frankly, after exposing all the differentrs hear.) I
can understand why the Excise should
was coloured •an d
adult quire that a dealer who soils tea or tobacco, or any
articles with which tobacco
adulterated, other article over which surveillance is thought neces-
such as the beard from malt, peat moss, and things
kind, "There is not a man in this neighbourho 1 of that 10.7, should register himself, and why there should be a
ou the tobacco and snuff trade without illegal,who carries nominal fee • but why a trader who deals in articles which
Mr. Road —a gentleman who was adulteration already pay large taxes to the Government should be re-
exceptwho has since left the trade, and who, then present, but quirerl to pay an ad varorem, duty for carrying on his busi-
than forty years, went to Cambridge, , although not less ness, while other traders are not taxed in the same way, I
orders. (Hear, hear.) Now, ge, and is now in holy confess lam altogether at a loss to conceive. (Hoar, hear.)
worse in the income tax nan
you find any thing If I found that the dealers in tea and tobacco were exempt
pointed out. (Hear, hear.) I than in the case I have from some other tax which was paid by the rest of the
amount of criminality arisen would remark also on the people—as, for instance, in the case of the legacy duty,
g out of these taxes. Let any which is at present a burden upon personal property
man go into any one of our maritime counties—let him go —then I could understand why the proposed impost 1
.1:
yet hear(
ties on the south coast, and
or the gaol in any of the cowl- be levied upon them ; but I confess I have heavy
inquire the number of commit- reason why a class of tradesmen, whode already payboie:i
meats for smugglin
left destitute hy thgei and how many children have been taxes upon the articles in which they al
other classes of tho
r parents bein obliged to nitq the upon to pay a tax not levied upon the
h t the right hon.
country on account ofand I do earnestly hope t a
financial scheme.
smuggling ;nand then let him say community,
this point of iiis h I
whether there is anything gentleman will alter this poi
u____,...c wish
more
come tax ameementthan ' demoralisintl'an:he in-
(en Th is one Other POIIID P" Y "11
• ux the system of in • t two Hear, hear-) ere