The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1853,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES.

The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from
Kilmarnock in favour of the inspection of nunneries.
RUSSIA AND TURKEY,

Lord LYNDHURST wished to know whether the
Government would have any objection to lay on the
table a copy of the dispatch, recently published, which
purported to be signed by Count Nesselrode, and related
to the conduct of Russia in reference to the affairs in the
East. If that document was correct, he would venture
to say—and he thought he might do so without causing
any embarrassment to the State—that it was one of the
most fallacious, illogical, offensive, and. insulting docu-
ments he had ever had the misfortune to read.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was understood to say
that the document would be laid on the table in a few
days, but that it would be inconvenient to produce it at
the present moment.
CASE OF THE COUNTESS DE ROLLAT.

Lord ABINGER presented a petition from the
Countess De Roulet (from Conway), claiming indemnity
under treaty, for property of her mother, Countess
Conway, confiscated by the French Government in 1793.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said if their lordships
entertained this petition he did not see why every disap-
pointed suitor in every court throughout the kingdom
might not, 20 years after the termination of a suit, and
after it had been forgotten, come forward and ask to be
compensated out of the public funds. But this lady ad-
mitted that she was not a British subject, and, therefore,
she had not a particle of right from the beginning. She
was a French maiden, married to an Irishman, who had
taken service with the King of France. In 1793 the
National Convention confiscated the property, under the
impression that she was a British subject. When, after
the peace, a convention was made that the French Go-
vernment should compensate British subjects for the loss
of their property, this lady's claims were investigated
before the commissioners, and rejected. She appealed to
the Privy Council, and in 1834 they decided against her.
Under these circumstances he did not think this petition
could be entertained. _ _

_
After a few words from Lord ABINGER in reply, the
subject dropped.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE postponed his
motion on this subject, which stood for Thursday, until
Friday week.
THE IMPORTATION OF BRITISH SALT INTO

better framed to carry out its object, at another stage of
the bill.
The clauses with the exception of 11, were agreed to,
and the house resumed.
BARNSTAPLE ELECTIONS.
The Earl of ABERDEEN moved their lordships to
agree with the Commons in an address to her Majesty
for a commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at
the Barnstaple elections.
Lord BROUGHAM said, lie and his noble friend
(Lord Truro) had gone through the evidence in this case,
and they had come to the conclusion that the decision of
the committee was perfectly sound and just. To show
the extent of the bribery carried on at the recent election,
he need only mention that two voters who knew perfectly
well what was going on from past experience, travelled
from Swansea to Barnstaple, a distance of more than
two hundred miles, without being solicited by any one,
and when they reached Barnstaple, they offered their
votes for the usual price, namely, 151. for a plumper and
71. 10s. for a single vote, which was immediately paid
to them. The parties professed to pay the money for
travelling expenses, but the expenses were exceedingly
insignificant, and the balance went into the pockets of
the electors as a bribe for their votes.
The motion was then agreed to.
TYNEMOUTH ELECTION.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved their lordships to
agree to the address of the Commons in this case.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had read part of the evi-
dence in this case, and although it was not so strong as
in the former, it was yet quite sufficient to justify the
opinion which the committee had arrived at.
Lord CAMPBELL had no hesitation in giving it as
his opinion that a peer in Parliament had no right to
vote for a representative in the Commons House of Par-
liament.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers
were :
Contents
Non-contents

...33
...13

Majority in favour of the address 20
INCOME TAX BILL.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved the third reading
of this bill.
Lord BROUGHAM objected to the tax, because it
was a tax on capital, on out-going expenditure—a capital
used by manufacturers, merchants, and agriculturalists,
invested by them in improvements. It was a tax upon
improvements more than upon income. With all the
inequalities of the tax, the more it was examined into
the more mischievous it was found to be. There were
such varieties of income—the tax upon the professional
man was as great as upon the landed proprietor, and
the sums he could lay by for a future day were taxed.
This was a great evil. The framers of the measure had
influenced—he would not say bribed—various interests
to support it. There was a set-off in the case of Ire-
land ; and then persons with incomes below certain
sums were exempted. He did not complain of extend-
ing the tax to Ireland—he thought that but fair. He
considered, moreover, that the tax should not be so re-
duced as to became a tax upon labour. The landed
property of the country was subjected to local taxation
from which personal property was free. This was a
most unpopular doctrine out of doors, and that was the
reason why he referred to it there, because it was but
right that the fact should be stated. It was true that
millowners paid the tax as landowners for the land on
which their buildings stood ; but they did not pay it in
proportion to the value of the buildings and the ma-
chinery which they conthined. Then there was another
sort of manufactory going on in those places—the
manufacture of paupers, which entailed a great expense
upon the landowners. He objected most strongly to
the inquisitorial character of the tax. Every relation
or acquaintance, and even the banker of a person
in trade might be examined. It was odd enough
that [the person who made a false return, which he
might not know to be false, was fined 20/., while his ac-
cessory was fined 501. And there were other anomalies
of a similar character in the bill which he might single
out. One great objection to this tax was the facility
with which they were enabled by it to raise the most
enormous sums. It was like the elephant, which, by
its trunk, could pick up a nut or tear up a great tree—
like a steam engine, which could pump out a river, or
make lace. By the machinery of this bill they could
raise hundreds of thousands or millions. To no govern-
ment, if he could avoid it, would he commit so power-
ful a machine as that riven to Government by this bill.
Sir Robert Peel, in 1842, estimated the annual produce
at 3 millions ; in a few years it had produced little short
of double that amount annually. In 1816, when he
had the satisfaction of assisting to repeal the then exist-
ing income tax, it yielded 15 millions. If it was at the
same rate now it would produce 25 millions, and that
without extending the area from 1501. to 1001. And
25 millions with the currency of 1816 would be 28 or
29 millions with the present currency. Again, he
wished to see this tax wedded to war for two reasons ;
first, that it might keep up in this country a horror of
war ; and secondly, that other countries might be aware
of the prodigious resources of this country. All the
world should know that we can, with the utmost pos-
sible ease, if need le, increase our present large in-
come by 20 million a year more, and that without
pledging one single tax, without borrowing one shilling,
and merely by one turn of that screw. Such had been
the astonishing progress of this country. But this was
an additional reason for keeping this as a war tax.
he still felt that they c•ald not now dis-
pense with it. Th.— they were told it was to be tempo-
rary. The act said it should last till 1860 and no lenzer,
In the old Income-tax Act wore tike ..oras •` till the end
of the war and no longer." The war was at end in 1814,
but it rose again, but there was continued peace from
1815, but it was not till 1816 that they could abolish the
tax. The campaign of IEI6 could not be fought again
after 1860. And how was it fought then ? By petitions
night after night, and each petition debated for five or
six weeks. In 1860, unless a change in the mode of
procedure took place in the House of Commons, they
could not fight that campaign over again in the same
manner. He could not allow this last stage of the bill
to pass without again entering his protest against it.
Lord MONTEAGLE viewed the tax with greater
hope of its termination at the period specified than the
noble and learned lord. He thought they had now a
better security than the words "no longer," in former
bills. When they took it for a short period, there was
necessarily great danger of its continuance. He did
not look on the income tax as a tax for war alone, but
as one which might be applied in a financial crisis. In
1842, it was justifiable on that exigency, but for that
exigency only. But did Parliament keep it for that
exigency ? They did not. It was a great temptation to
Parliament to continue such a tax. What was the great
contest now ? It was to replace indirect by direct taxa-
tion ; and if they did replace indirect by direct taxation,
the credit of this country would be in danger. The
noble lord proceeded at great length to develop these
arguments, and concluded by observing that he would
not ask for any postponement of the bill.
The third reading was then agreed to. •

On the question that it do pass,
The Earl of WICKLOW rose to state that, at this
stage, he had an amendment to move embodying his
views that this tax would affect unfairly the land of
Ireland ; but he confessed he now despaired of their
lordships agreeing to any alteration in the bill. The
noble earl then expressed his opinion in reference to the
compensation for the extension of the income tax to
Ireland, alleged to be found in the remittance of the
Consolidated Annuities ; and he then proceeded to state
his amendment, which was that the 13th clause be so
altered as that the assessment on Ireland may be assimi-
lated to that in England. He concluded by saying that
as his amendment (the effect of which would be to make
the tax payable by the occupier instead of by the land-
lord) would but put the bill in the form in which it
stood when introduced, he hoped the Government would ,
not oppose him.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the noble earl
was mistaken in supposing that the change made in the
bill was owing to the influence of any particular class of
members in the House of Commons. The change was
the result of a conviction on the part of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that the plan deprecated by the nobly
earl was the only just one. The subject had been much
considered by the Government, and it was with much
doubt and hesitation that they had introduced the mode
of levying the tax referred to by his noble friend, and it
was only in consequence of further reflection and discus-
sion that the present form was adopted. The principal
reason of the Government for adopting that form was,
that in the first place the extension of the income tax to
Ireland was made under very favourable circumstances
in consequence of the poor law valuation being made the
basis of the tax, for that valuation was generally highly
favourable to ie possessors of land, being generally be-
low the rental. When it was not the landlord was en-
titled to pay on the valuation and not on the rental.
Therefore, in every point d view, consideration had been
shown towards the landlorls. As the law now stood the
English landlord was liable for all holdings up to 101.,
and they were equally as 1 aole as the landlords of Ire-
land were for a large prop)rtion of their tenantry, and
the objection of his noble :riend applied equally to Eng-
lish landlords. :But it wasmanifest that if the occupiers
were liable, many of whoa paid 41. rent, the multitude
of persons from whom the `ax was to be collected would
be so great as to resider it scarcely possible to be ac-
complished. If the tenant was called on to pay the tax
without a hope, or prospect, or claim on the landlord
for reimbursement, then anong such a description of
persons the most serious ?.onsequences would be pro-
duced ; and great alarm and discontent would be
raised ; for it would be impssible to persuade those per-
sons that the income tax wgi not intended to be laid on
them ; and, in fact, it woull often be laid on those who
were utterly unable to pay t, and if they did, without
the most distant prospect of its being repaid. The object
was to lay the tax not on tle landlord but on the lessor,
the person who received the rent. If not, there would
be a difficulty in saying where the tax was to be sought.
There was a provision in he clause now in question
which enabled the Coimnissoners to come on the occu-
pier for the tax if they thoufht fit. He could only say
that the change in the bib of which his noble friend
complained had been solely from a conviction that it was
necessary for the peace andwelfare of Ireland and from
no other motive, and he didtrust that although the tax
was not raised by the same mode as in England, yet
that there was nothing in it vhichcould be characterised
as the application of a diffe'ent law to Ireland to that
which was applied to Engand. The burden was the
same, and the only difference was in the mode of levy-
ing the tax. He could not >ee any good reason for the
change proposed by his nobe friend. His noble friend
said that landlords in Ireland do not get their rents ;
but the same objection might, and, indeed, did exist in
England and Scotland, but it was no objection to the
principle of the tax, nor was it a peculiarity applicable
only to Ireland. His nob:a friend had grossly exagge-
rated the difficulty of the case, although there might be
some difficulty. He did not think it consistent with the

duty of the Government to give any sanction to the pro-
position of his noble friend.

Lord BEAUMONT, with great warmth, denied that
this was simply an Irish question, but one in which
the principle of the tax was involved. The bill came
with a he on the face of it, for, according to its provi-
sions, it professed to tax property producing income ;
but when you came to the machinery, it was found that
a tax was imposed on that property which produced
nothing. In England such an attempt to tax capital
would not be borne, and he felt the more warmly on the
subject when he saw an attempt made, which should be
resisted to the utmost, to take advantage of the weak-
ness of the injured party. (Heal., hear.) The noble
lord then oharaoterised the speech of Lord Aberdeen as
the weakest answer to arguments he had ever heard ;
and proceeded to contend that the principle on which all
rates and taxes were considered was, that they were in
reduction of rent, and that only the residue went to the
landlord. The income which was produced by land
came first to the occupier, and his rent was diminished
by so much as he paid out on it ; but here you do not
go to the land and tax the income produced by it ; but,
on the contrary, you went to the man who ought to re-
ceive the residue, and put the tax on him, without
going to the property out of which you professed to raise
the tax ; and, after that, not a fraction came from the
land which you professed to tax. That system was an
encouragement to the nonpayment of rent, and would
introduce new elements of discord into Ireland, while it
was adding to the many wrongs which landlords in Ire-
land had received from Governments and Parliaments,
as if the object was to crush them.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE was glad that noble lords
connected with Ireland, and especially the noble lord
who moved the amendment, had treated the subject in
a more calm and rational spirit than the noble lord who
had just sat down had. He appealed to the calm judg-
ment of the house as to whether there was any principle
of injustice in the proposed plan. The noble lord (Beau-
mont) had talked of their not daring to levy the tax in
this way in England or in Scotland ; but he (the Duke
of Newcastle) denied that there was any departure from
established principle in the plan, for in England every
landlord was liable for every tenant whose rent was
under 101. ; but if they had proposed to assimilate the
law in Ireland to that now in force in England, its ope-
ration would have been that the landlord would have
had almost universally to pay the tax and not the tenant,
for the great majority of the tenants held at far lower
rents than those in England. As regarded Scotland,
the whole of the taxation was levied on the landlords ;
and so far from landlords in England and Scotland
thinking it a hardship a great many of them voluntarily
took the course now proposed for Ireland. An Eng-
lish landlord, a noble friend of his, possessing property
in a northern and a midland county, had stated to
him that he paid the tax on his rental in all cases. In
Ireland to compel the occupier to pay would, in the
majority of cases, be calling on men to pay the tax who
were not liable to it, whereas in most instances in Eng-
land it was exactly the reverse. He had that morning
received a return printed for the House of Commons,
containing statistics showing the state of the occupiers '
of land in Ireland at the present time. It appeared that
the total number of occupiers valued at 61. and under was
564,144 ; the number of those rated above 61. but under
2001. was 397,575, which added to those under 61. made
the number of tenants valued under 2001. not less than
961,719, or nearly one million. The number of occupiers
rated over 2001. was only 3,716; and there was no doubt
that if those who were rated over 3001. were estimated,
they would be found not to more than 1,000 or 1,500,
That showed that the adoption of any other principle of
levying the tax than had been adopted would have been
was
England;an othe r
cases ex-
ceeded
namely,sa
ttatet
en doef
things
htwihni
that
ths
tignhr
eelartve
lai
anl
nuc
dao
tnwi
ovi
neni ihoe
didfn cl
ae
n.
ndo There
nh e
existmr eainny
the rent. What inconvenience would be caused by li
the tenant being called on to pay the tax according to
the valuation, for in that case he would pay a larger
sum than he could recover from the landlord. In Ire-
land
the tenant did not hold directly from the landlord
as they did in England and in Scotland, and unless the
plan proposed was adopted, the levying of the tax might
be made an instrument of great oppression by the mid-
dlemen. In Ireland also it was the practice for rents
never to be paid for twelve or eighteen months after
they were due, and if the occupiers were made to pay
the tax, they ought to be called on to pay it on a rent
which in fact was not payable till twelve months after-
wards. That would be introducing a new element of
confusion in the relations between landlord and tenant,
which no man who wished well to Ireland would wish
to see introduced. He could admit of no analogy be-
tween England and Ireland, because in the one the in-
terests of the landlord and the tenant were identical,
while the payment of the tax by the tenant, which would
ultimately fall upon the landlord, was easy and unobjec-
tionable. (Hear, hear.)

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the argument
of the noble duke who had just sat down seemed to be
this, viz., that the plan proposed by the bill was the
most convenient for the collection of the tax, but though
it might be the most convenient to the Government, it
would be exceedingly inconvenient to Ireland. He was,
therefore, well convinced that this was not the last time
the question would be brought forward the more so be-
cause the bill as it now stood was directed against that
class whom the Government should be the most anxious
to conciliate, while the result would prove that the
money which the tax might yield would be considerably
disproportionate to the opposition which it would raise
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
. . .

Lord CAMPBELL felt it to be his duty to vote for
the amendment, as he had often heard it proclaimed in
eh, hew of the Iwo countries
ought to be assimilated as much as possible. It was on
that account that he was not rising when he heard that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the
income tax to Ireland. Such a proposal, he thought, was
both just and expedient ; but in proposing that the tax
should be levied in the manner pointed out by the bill,
the Government had fallen into the mistake of not only
extending the tax to capital as well as income, but
of drawing an invidious distinction between two parts
of the kingdom. He need only remind their lord-
ships that as the bill now stood the owner of a fee
simple not in his own occupation, or in ithe receipt of
any rent from the tenant in possession, would still have
to pay the tax upon the poor law valuation of the estate.
Now in England no such rule as this prevailed, since
the landlord was only taxed upon the amount of rent
which he actually received, and ho could see no reason
or just motive why a different mode of collection should
be applied to Ireland. It was a notorious fact that in
some parts of Irelandithe rents were only half paid,
while in others they were not paid at all ; and yet the
bill as it now stood would enforce the tax upon the full
amount of the rent. This was a downright mockery,
because if a tenant absconded, or became bankrupt, the
landlord would still have to pay the tax, nay it might so
happen that the tenant, to spite his landlord, would
neither abscond nor become insolvent or bankrupt,
though the landlord might want him to do so—(a laugh)
—but would persist in retaining possession of the pro-
perty and paying no rent, so that the landlord should
be forced to pay an income tax upon income which he
had never received. Now this was both unjust and in-
convenient truly, and thoroughly realising the idea of a
heredidatus dainnosor, and so far from being an act of
justice, it was an act of gross injustice to Ireland. (Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said the difficulty which always
surrounded the extension of the income tax was the
want of an equitable mode of collection, and he was sure
unless some alteration was made in this clause the ex-
periment which was now for the first time to be tried
would prove a failure, Only let the house consider the
injustice of giving the collector of the tax the option of
singling out one of three individuals to pay the tax, viz.,
the landlord, the lessor, or middleman, and the tenant
in possession ? Could anything be more monstrous or
unjust than that ? And yet their lordships were told
that the bill had been framed upon equitable principles.
' The Duke of ARGYLL said the practice of collect-
ing the income tax from the landlord prevailed in the
Western Highlands of Scotland, where the land was
held upon a similar tenure to that of the greater part of
the property in Ireland. The landlords there had con-
sented to pay the tax themselves, because experience
had shown that if it was collected in any other way it
would be exceedingly oppressive to the tenant.
The Earl of CLANCARTY supported the amend-
ment, and for this reason—be apprehended that the tax
would ultimately be made permanent, and it was for
that reason that he wished to see it based upon the
most equitable principles that could possibly be devised.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment lB
Against it 34-16
On our re-admission into the gallery,

The Earl of LUCAN was addressing the house, com-
plaining of the 42d clause, which allows the deduction
of one-third in respect of terminable annuities payable by
landlords in repayment of loans. He moved the omis-
sion of the clause.

After some discussion, in which the Duke of ARGYLL
and the LORD CHANCELLOR supported the clause, and the
Earl of WicKLow and the Marquis of CLANnicAnDE op-
posed it, their lordships divided.

For the amendment lO
Against it 2l-11
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill was read
a third time and passed.