The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-22 00:00:00

ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) CON-
TINUANCE ACT BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, entered into a brief explanation of the
nature and extent of its provisions.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE and the Earl
of CLANCARTY, the bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed.

BURGH HARBOURS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was road a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

Their lordships then adjourned at twenty minutes to nine
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. )
EPISCOPAL AND CAPITTJLAR PROPERTY.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a petition
from 800 incumbents of district parishes, stating that there
were many church endowments which did not exceed 131.
a-year, the remainder of the clergyman's income being pro-
vided out of pew rents, and that there were upwards of
4,000 incumbents whose incomes did not exceed 1501.
a-year, and praying that the house would provide a remedy.
The noble lord then said, in rising to move for leave to in-
troduce a bill to make better provision for the management
of episcopal and capitular property, he must ask the indul-
gence of the house while he entered upon a subject wide in
its range and almost incalculable in its results. He wished
first to allude to what had been previously done as re-
garded Church legislation, tending as it had done to place
the Church in its present position. The first great public
act was the 58th and 59th Geo. lII.' commonly called the
Church Building Act, under which 1,300,0001. was raised
for building purposes. Then came the important act of
1840, the 3d and 4th of Victoria, constituting the ecclesias-
tical commission. Then they had the 6th and 7th of Vie-
toria, commonly called Sir Robert Peel's Act, in which
was first adopted the principle of providing, in the sub-
division of parishes, for the creation of a permanent en-
dowment. Then there was an act passed in 1850, recon-
stituting the Ecclesiastical Commission, and appointing a
most important body, called the estates commissioners ;
and, laitly, there was an act passed in 1851, permitting the
voluntary enfranchisement of the property of the Church—
an act which had gone far to set at rest the long vexed
question between the Church and its lessees. To all these
acts the bill which he now proposed had more or less im-
mediate reference. There were, however, other acts which
had a very important bearing on the present position of
the Estr.blished Church. One of these was the act for the
commutation of tithes ; another was the act for preventing
plurality and non-residence ; and then, again, there was
the important order in council of 1851, limiting the income
of bishops and fixing their future amount. In addition to
all this, efforts
had been
which it would not be right for him to passin
over. In
made by private
1847 Mr- Horsman drinew the attention of the house to the
subject of episcopal
the same question, ad:pin:ll In 1848 he again broached
ved an address for an quiry with regard to
in-
with the view of ascertain' collegiate revenues,
agrtolvanhether they might not
be rendered more conducivine
Baratehe spiritual instruc-
to the full Year
tion of the people. In the
Mr. Ilorsman
sarnvealue of all Church
moved for an, inquiry in
praying too that
property undei lease. In the
Majesty
iri t nal
house voted an address to her Majesty,
to take into her most gracious consideraUgPher
destitution of England and Wales, with the view oefBl3
means for its remedy; and her Majesty returned an "'sing
of compliance. In the following year, he (the Marquis
Blandfori) was able to introduce a bill, having for its
ob-
ject the remedy of some of the abuses existing in chapter,,
together with the increase, where necessary, of the episco-
pateother provisions somewhat simi-
lar to, and also containing
those of the bill which he had now the honour to
propose. The result
was that the measure was withdrawn,
but a commission was appointed to inquire with regard to
.'tho two first branches—the chapters and the episcopate,
and
namely, that connected with the
property of the Church, that he now proposed to deal. All
theo.things had their oeparate value ; all had a bearing on

(as we understood). At the same time, if this is to be a he-
neral and permanent tax, I cannot object to the landed
property of Ireland bearing its share. It seems that there
is to be a remission of 4,000,0001. out of the consolidated
annuities. Now that is one of the oddest compensations
that has ever been made. There are districts in Ireland
subject to burdens which it is impossible they can over
bear, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, " I will
relieve you from these burdens which you cannot bear,and
that is to be a compensation for the new burdens which I
am about to impose on new districts and individuals never
before subject to them." The right hon. gentleman com-
pensates one person by taking something out of another
person's pocket. The noble earl has taken great credit for
the system introduced by Sir R. Peel, the constant reduc-
tion of duties, the revision of taxation, and the inestimable
advantages to be derived from it ; but he does not observe
that he thereby destroys his whole case. If in the course
of seven years you go on reducing taxation, although at the
expiration of seven years the country may have recovered
the revenue which she now sacrifices, yet if you go on
making further reductions, and taking off other taxes, and
using your surplus in carrying out the principles of free
trade as fast as you make it—and in the present feelings o
Parliament there seems to be an intention of pursuing that
course—it is quite clear that, instead of having 5i millions,
the noble earl will not have one shilling more in the exche-
quer, which he calculates upon for the purpose at the end of
seven years of getting rid of the income tax—(hear)—and I
do not believe that Parliament will submit for the next 7
years to see accumulated a surplus which will amount in 5
or 6 years to an annual surplus of 5,000,0001., without be-
ing disposed to avail itself of that surplus as it arises, and,
consequently, revenue and expenditure will be brought
nearer together, and the object you profess to have in view
will be defeated. I submit to this income tax—l believe
it to be inevitable, and I am not prepared to ask your lord
ships to refuse that which is necessary for the credit of the
country. But lam not deluded by the suggestion on the
part of the Government that this is intended to be a merely
temporary tax, nor by the credit which theyhave taken to
themselves for the sincerity of their intentions to get rid
of it within a limited period. I believe that there will be
continual renewals of this tax, and that in submitting to
it, with all its injustice and all its inequalities, we are sub-
mitting to a tax—nominally indeed for 7 years—but of
which neither the noble earl nor I will ever see the end.
Lord PORTMAN wished to say a few words on this
subject, as he felt that he should not be doing his duty to
their lordships, who had entrusted him with the chair
of the committee appointed by the house to consider the
question of the income tax, if he did not inform their lord-
ships that there was a clause in this bill directly opposed to
the unanimous recommendation of that committee, and
which, as it seemed to him, inserted the narrow end of the
wedge, and would cause, at no distant time, a larger fis-
sure. He alluded to the clause which, for the first time in
legislation, provided that the fees and emoluments of the
clergy were to be deemed as fair subjects for remission of
taxation, so far as such charges were necessary to the per-
formance of their duties as clergymen. This was a subject
which the committee had inquired into with the greatest
possible attention, and the Bishop of Oxford had taken
every pains to induce the committee to come to a resolution
that, in all assessments of charges for the clergy, a certain
remission should be made in their favour. This remission
was now for the first time admitted into the bill, and if he
were to allow the matter to pass in silence, he felt that he
should be neglecting his duty to the committee and totheir
lordships. He must say that, when all the charities of the
country were about to be taxed, he did not think it quite
a wise antagonism on the part of the clergy to come before
Parliament in this fashion. With respect to the general
merits of the measure, he would observe that, in his opinion
they were extending too widely direct taxation. Direct
taxation was constraint, but indirect taxation was consent.
The income tax and the succession tax were alike con-
straint--the money must be paid on a given day. But the
tax on beer and on tobacco was not felt, because it was
paid only when parties chose to have the commodities.
Direct taxation was very expensive to individuals, and it
Was equally true that indirect taxation was very expensive
to the country ' • but he did not see why both one and the
other species of taxation might not be made less expensive
than they were. But they were told that some of the in-
equalities of the income tax would be removed by another
direct tax. Now, with respect to that tax—the succes-
sion duty—he believed it would be a considerable boon to
those who held land in fee, but it would confer no benefit
whatever upon those who possessed only a life interest in
land. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons he objected to the
continuance of the income tax in its present shape
indistinctly .
Lord BERNERS (who was very heard) was
understood to object to the income tax generally as un-
just and inquisitorial, and complained especially of this
bill, by which nominally a tax of 71 in the pound was
imposed on land, when in fact it amounted to 9d. ; and he
denied that any one could defend the incidents of a tax of
this description.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the noble lord who had
just sat down with regard to the great evils of the tax
which he had pointed out ; but there were also many
others besides those which the noble lord had noticed.
For example, money invested in improvements or in trade,
with a view to its being replaced by profits at a future
time, but not immediately, and from which the must
provident man never expected any real income for two or
three years, was dealt with at the very instant it yielded
any return, and was pounced upon and made subject to
this tax. This was in fact making it a tax not on income
but on capital. That was one of many objections to the
tax, but it was liable to one observation, namely that it
was unequal, and not modification of the tax could ever
remove that inequality. Therefore, when his noble friend
complained of the peculiar position in which the house was
placed in consequence of what he (Lord Brougham) would
call the conflict between the two houses, on a point of
privilege, which he did not admit to belong solely to the
other house, but which their lordships yielded, and by
reason of which taxes were received from the other house
as they came, he would say that there was no means of
getting rid of that inequality by altering the bill in their
lordships' house. Again, income derived from land in fee
simple was dealt with in the same way as that derived from
settled property, and the tenant for life treated in the
same manner as the possessor in fee. But there was
great difficulty in snaking any difference between the two.
Income derived from land or personalty was also dealt
with in the same way as that derived from labour. Never-
theless, the difficulty of adjusting those inequalities had
been found insuperable, and that caused his late lamented
friend Lord Melbourne to say of this tax, that "he was
aware of the hardship and pressure it brought on every
class, and in his view that was its great recommendation,
for no property escaped, and every one was compelled to
pay it." That was true, but it was asked, could it not be
so smiled, as that while every one paid it, the inequality
could-be lessened. But every one who had had to deal
with it had found, when it was examined, that partly from
the difficulty of adjusting a scale, and partly from the
danger of evasion, it was impossible so to construct the
tax. Those were not all the objections to the tax. He
had stated in 1842 and 1851 other objections. There was
no doubt that one of those objections could not be removed
by any modification, and that was the inquisitorial nature
of the tax. That objection did not apply so much to in-
comes derived from land, which were generally tolerably
notorious, but the system pressed heavily on traders, and
operated injuriously on the most pradent and justifiable
speculation, by the disclosures which were necessary and
might be not merely prejudicial but fatal to a man's credit.
The inquisitorial part of the tax might not be so prejudi-
cial to professional persons as to traders, but still it was
galling, annoying, and distressing. That,e however, was
one of the evils inherent in the income tax, and which no
modification could remove. For these reasons he had great
dislike to the tax, and had tried to repeal it when it ex-
isted, and to discontinue it when it was about to expire.
It was now 37 years ago since he had the satisfaction, in
the other house, of putting an end to the income tax which
then existed, and during the six weeks which the debates
lasted, he was sure that no argument was brought for-
ward in its favour that was not instantly disposed of.
Afterwards, in 1842, he opposed the imposition of the tax
in their lordships' house, and he stated then that it ought
not to be imposed, except as a great resource—a resource
which should be wedded to war, and only to be used in
case of serious pressure in the finances of the country,
which could not be removed by any other means.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.