The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

thing about the absolute necessity of the scale being alteredt
(Hear, hear.) • 1/nt-if rumour is true even the plan itself is
•to be abandoned. Now, Mark the" difference when a parti-
cular class of the population of the towns is concerned in
matters of taxation, and when you deal with those 'who are
connected with the land.' (Cheers.) There is not the slight-
est doubt—l take it for granted—that the C:: ancellor of
the Exchequer would never have proposed the licences un-.
less he believed them to be last and proper, and not only
Just but politic. But he changes his opinion in 24 hours
when the trades rise and tell him they will not endure it.
The farmer must bear his income tax, the proprietor of the
soil must bear his increased burden of direct taxation, the
cultivator must find his burden of indirect taxation unne-
cessarily aggravated, while he has fresh rivals in the field
in the articles he produces. (Hear, hear.) He murmurs,
but he is to get no relief. (Loud cheers.) But the instant
a particular class in the country are touched by the Mini-
ster of Finance, orders are given—the delegates wait—and
the Minister trembles. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I have ad-
verted to this subject before, and think it by much the
most serious of our political condition. If it be the fact
that certain classes in this country, because they have a
certain portion of electoral power, are exercising that
electoral power systematically to exempt themselves from
just taxation—(cheers)--I cannot conceive any feature in
our state as a nation more to be deprecated, and more
perilous, and more to be arrested. (Cheers.) Why, what
has been the cause of the disturbances of nations and of the
fall even of thrones ? It has been the existence of classes
exempted from taxation. I see no difference been a pri-
vileged noble and a privileged tobacconist. (Cheers and
laughter.) In matters of finance it is equally important,
whether it is the wealthy man with thousands who calls on
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and abjures him not• to
touch him with an impost or the tradesmen with a 101.
note. The circumstances are equally grave—equally full
of political disorders. Nor can I doubt that what have
been the consequences in one case will be the same in the
other, for I feel it is the privileged which will be the class
that will suffer in the end, though it may now reap an
undue and unholy harvest. Nor can the electoral system last
:which will permit such scenes which we now almost yearly
see in the House of Commons in consequence of this state
of things. But when these great scandals take place, and
when the owners of the soil and the cultivators of the soil
complain that in the subject of the finance Minister they are
not justly treated,• and claim from him nothing but justice
—when not only injured by his project, but irritated by
those unwise concessions; they come to him by their repre-
sentatives, how are they met? By taunts and by jeers.
What said the President of the Board of Control to some
one who had made comments on the scheme of the Govern-
ment? He said, "You had better take my advice—(a
laugh)—you had better take this measure or you will get
worse." " Now, Sir," said: the President of the Board of
Control, " remember the eight shilling fixed duty. You
did not take that ; you see what not taking the measure
we brought forward led to." (A laugh.) Well, that is a
very favourite topic on the other side. (Hear, hear.) The
cheer of the right hon. gentleinan will allow-me to dwell
on it a little longer. It is not merely the President of the
Board of Control that takes this course. The President of
the Board of Control is rather of an notive and vigorous
than an originalmind. (Laughter.) The precedent of the
Board of Control has followed the conduct of one—l say it
without offence, fer he is a person for whom I have a very
great regard—he has followed, in this, the example of more
eminent persons. The noble lord is very fond of giving his
advice on this subject. At the beginning of the year I
brought forward a motion respecting our foreign relations
with. France, and it fell to the noble lord to answer the
observations I made. The noble lord, on that occasion—
the subject being our relations with France—delivered
himself of an oration in favour of free trade. (Laughter,
and cheers from the Opposition.) Not a very uncommon
habit with the • noble lord. (Cheers.) And he said then
that if I had followed his advice I might have been one of
her Majesty's Ministers at that time. (Cheers • and
laughter.) As far as that was concerned, I believe
it did not depend upon my following his advice,
provided I had only followed his example. - (Loud cheers
from the Opposition.) I dare say if we had submitted to
what I see Ministers submit that probably I might have
been sitting on those (the Ministerial) benches. (Hear.)
But that is not the point to which I wish to call attention
to the noble lord. The noble lord has said, and he has
now been followed up by the President of the Board of
Control," " You never take our advice. I advised you to
take an Bs. duty on corn, but you would not take it." The
noble lord has reminded us of that several times. I should
not, however have noticed it if the President of the Board
of Control had not said it. (Laughter and cheers from the
Opposition.) If the taunt had come from the right hon.
baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who
was Chancellor at the time, I might have allowed it to
pass, because he might have been Justified in making it ;
but the taunt has been so often repeated and stereotyped
that I think it is time it should cease, I have, therefore,
thus noticed it, in order, if possible, to prevent its repeti-
tion. I think it would only have been decent of the noble
lord to have stated under whose advice, and. at whose ur
gent advice, we did refuse the Bs. fixed ,duty on corn. It
is not for me to depreciate the, comprehensive idea of a fixed
duty of 8s; on corn. I give. the not lord all the credit
that is due to him in that respect. Brit at the same time,
when the noble lord remembers under whose advice and at
whose instance that proposal was refused—when he re-
members who are those by whom he is now surrounded—
(Opposition cheers)—when the noble lord remembers that
he has thrown away the Whig party, and that he has ac-
cepted a subordinate office under the subordinate officers
of Sir Robert Peel, I think •he might have felt that the
time has come when these scoffs and sneers should cease.
The hon. member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) said,
other night, that his (Mr. Disraeli's) hon. and much-re-
spected friend, the hon. member for Warwickshire, had
stated that this budget was a great triumph to Manchester.
I had hoped that the old feud between town and country
had ceased for ever; There exists no difference of mate-
rial interests any longer between town and country. The
very motion which my hon.. friend the member for Hert-
fordshiro has proposed to-night is somewhat significant of
that, and is evidently conceived in a spirit of honourable
conciliation. I could therefore have hoped, however, that
you might have voted that you would have accepted that
amendment in the same spirit. (Opposition cheers.) The
hon. member for Manchester, when addressing his consti-
tuents some time ago, expressed his amazement that the
country gentlemen should have made such a proposition,
and added, that they were entitled to the kindly feelings of
the working classes of the country. That was the way in
which the hon. member for. Manchester had spoken of the
proposition which has been treated so differently by the
Secretary of the Board of Control. That right hon. gen-
tleman had spoken of our proposition in terms—l will not
say offensive, for if they had been offensive I should have
called in the Attorney-General to have taken a message to
the right hon. gentleman, because I recollect—it is still
ringing in my ears—the glowing eulogium made by the
first Crown officer upon that very suject The hon.
member for Manchester spoke in a manner honour-
able to himself, and worthy of the occasion ; and I tell
him that no class values more highly than the country gen-
tlemen the rights and liberties of the people ; no class has
less interest in the corrupt administration of the affairs of
the country; and no class has a greater interest in an
economical administration of those affairs. (Cheers.)
Gentlemen are very apt to tell us of the great weight and
importance of the great towns, and that this budget was
supported by the members of those great towns. Bat I
have already said that I think there is no great difference
in material interests between the people of great towns and
the country gentlemen. But I am told that there are
moral and poitical differences—l mean by moral, social
differences. lam very loath to believe it. (Hear.) I
cannot but believe that it will be remembered that these
great towns are situate in a country of no considerable ex-
tent, with no excessive population, and with a commerce,
however great, which has been impaired, and with manu-
factures, however sueeessful, which have been surpassed.
What makes this country great ? The national character
of the country—(hear)—the national character of the
country which has been created by its institutions and by
its traditional influences impressed upon those institutions.
Those institutions are deeply and broadly planted in the
soil, and that soil is not the possession of any exclusive
class. The manufacturer may deposit within it his accu-
mulated capital, and he may enjoy those privileges which
his possessions entitle him to, at the same time that he
discharges those duties which his possessions also impose.
(Cheers.) Then, why this hostility to land ? Every man
in this country is deeply interested in maintaining the
stability of the possession of the land of this country. I
therefore adjure those gentlemen who are the representa-
tives of large towns to condescend to ponder over these
observations, and not to be led away by prejudices and by,
the influence of the present debates ; remembering that we
are all alike interested in maintaining the greatness of this
country, not only in its material possessions, but in the
existence of its institutions. Should, however, the repre-
sentatives of towns take another course, which I trust not,
then of this I feel convinced, that if they are still alienated
from us —if they still proceed in their illusory progress,
they may arrive at the goal which they contemplate, they
may achieve the object they have set before them, but I
believe they will be greatly disappointed in the result,
and will find only a change from a first-rate kingdom into
a second-rate republic. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—After four nights' debate I shall
attempt to do little more than set before the committee as
clearly as I can the question upon which they are now about
to divide. They have a budget before them comprising pro-

positions of very great importance to the finances of the

I country; and the question they have to decide is whether
the advantages held out by those propositions are such as to
be greater than the burdens it may impose, and whether or
not it is for theinterest of the country to adopt that budget.
In the first place the proposition of the Government is on
the question of the income tax—a tax which has been
selected and subsists as a part of our financial system—
having been for a long time in debate, and having given
rise to questions most perplexing, even to those most con-
versant with the subject—whether the endeavour should be
made to settle that question and enable' Parliament to
come to a final decision. I say this because I think it has
been evident to any persons who have followed the course
of events and the debates on the subject that, though the
miginal proposition of Sir R. Peel in 1842 to impose an in-
come tax for three years might be very wise and well
adapted to the situation of the country, yet it is impossible
now to continue the tax from three years to three years
without exciting at every renewal doubts and differences
with respect to the mode in which that tax should be im-
posed. (Hear, bear.) Such discussions and such differences
could not take place, without disturbing and shaking your
whole financial system—(hear, hear)—and yet no Govern-
ment since 1842 —no House of Commons since 1842

has seriously contemplated the termination of that tax.
Every Chancellor Of the Exchequer in the interval of three
years has proposed various reductions of taxes, and those
he did not make were proposed by members on every side
and of every party. It would appear when those proposi-
tions were urged that the members of the house who did
urge them did not believe that the income tax would ter-
minate at the period at which by law it was fixed to ter-
minate. (Hear, hear.) Such being the case, my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown the
house that continuing the tax for a certain limited time
—I will admit no very short period—will enable the House
of Commons to determine, if it shall think fit to do so, on
parting with this tax. I say there is prima facie a great
advantage in the budget as it stands. In the next place,
it is proposed to take away one of the most injurious du-
ties of Excise. Almost the only tax which remains on
what may properly be called a necessary of life is the tax on
i,:aflill.ther
which interferes with the comforts of the people. It
to ls proposed to reduce the duty on tea from 2s. 2d.
~ the course of three years. It is proposed that the
fystera of dealing with protective duties should be carried
further than it haeen, and that many disputed questions,
such as that relating
I Ilion in the presen, to
y sPirits, should be settled by legis-
proposal to adjust too assesses To these must be added the
that persons
taxes, not on the absurd
sumptuary principle
son are to pay for every in-
creased number on their servantsr horses, but they are to
pay equally for every servant, %ge, or horse they have.
carriage,
effect and great
It has been said to-night, with
emphasis, that this advantage wouici
increase the benelt to 4

the rich. I believe the benefit would be much more ex-
tended ; for by the heavy tax on servants, by the heavy
tax on carriages and the like, you do restrict very much
the employment of those who labour and are in some trades.
Thii is a brief summary of some of the advantages. On
the Other hand an objection in the eyes of many is, that
there is no difference in the rates proposed for the income
tax. An objection in the eyes of many is, that a tax is
proposed to be imposed on legacies. Various duties have
been proposed, and different persons have raised various
'objections. It is with those objections that I wish imme-
diately to deal ; but, first, I must say that the spirit in
which the proposition of the Government has been made
and the terms of the amendment do seem to me singularly
irreconcilable. The language of the honourable and learned
member for Suffolk is that new and. enlarged burdens are
placed on falai the right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down complainWnf,new taxes on land, and states that the
budget is framed in a spirit hostile to the land. What is
this proposition before-AIR, house ? What is the engine by
which it is proposed to tlfrow down this vast edifice which
my right hon. friend propolges 'to raise ? Is it pioposed to
tax land less ? Is it proposed to take off burdens on land,
or impose new taxes on trade?` Quite the contrary.
(Hear, hear.) The proposition made by the hon. member
for Hertfordshire is this, that whereas land is now taxed
7d. and trade 7d., land shall continue to be taxed at the
same rate, and trade and manufactures shall be taxed at a
lower rate. (Hear, hear.) Has there ever been anything
so contradictory ? And yet some hon. member—l believe
the right • hon. gentleman the imember for Oxfordshire—
stated that he was gratified on hearing my right hon.
friend'the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that the in-
come tax of 7d. was in fact 9d., owing to the expense of
repairs. One would have thought that he would have
voted in, favonr of some proposition to reduce the tax on
land ; instead of which the proposition was really that 9d.
should' be the tax on land, and sd. on other sources of j
income. (Hear, hear.) That those who for seven years
have been declaring that land was illtreated by the corn-
•mercial legislation of those seven years—that they should
come, at the end of those years, with a proposition to assist
trade and inanufactures, of whose predominance and unfair
influence they have been complaining all this time is cer-
tainly one of the most wonderful anomalies which this
house-has ever presented. Ever since Marshal Marmont
conducted his division of the army, which expected to be
led into the ranks of Napoleon, into the hostile army of
Austrians and Prussians, there has been no such military
move ; and, therefore, I did wonder that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Oxfordshire, who is generally
so clear in his views, who fixes so shrewdly his aim, should,
instead of being pointed, be obscure in his argument. But
what is the case ? The right hon. gentleman hardly
touched and hardly represented fairly what was the case
with respect to this equal rate in all the schedules. The
real difficulty is making any alteration which would not
expose you to further alteration ; and that further altera-
tion would expose you at least to break down and finally
abandon the tax. Nothing was more plausible than to say
that, at least, let the profession of those who by the energy
of their minds and the difficulty of theirtoils which depend
on their physical wellbeing be rated accordingly. There.
are other persons who are engaged in trade, and say, let
us be placed in the same position. Then follows the
question of salaries of public officers, likewise gained
by mental exertion and a continuance of the capacity for
working. Then comes the question of land, which has a
claim of its own, of an allowance for repairs. You
arrive at this,' that every schedule is altered except that
which relates to the public funds ; and that question is
one which I hope never will be dealt with in this house
in the manner in which it has been treated by
the hon. and learned member for East Suffolk. (Hear,
hear.) One principle was to leave the income tax derived
from the funds ; but, if you did not take that course, there
was no limit to which separately you might not tax in-
come arising from the funds. That is a principle which
would. put an end at once to public faith—(hear, hear.)—
to all confidence on the part of the holders of the funds ;
because here are -biro principles—one theoretical, and the
other is a practical principle—contained in the present
rating of the public funds. The theoretical principle is
that laid down by Mr. Pitt, and it is just ; but I must say
it goes as far as justice will permit in the taxation of a
country. It is this principle —we tax income, and not
any particular income. , We takes all incomes, from what-
ever source they are derived. In that case the funds seem
to form some security ; but when you say to them, " We
tax you 7d. and others 50..' because the source of your
income is more permanent than theirs," the fundholder
will say, "If you come to the sources of income you have
no right to place any tax at all upon us—you must abandon
your tax on funded property altogether." (Hear.) But
there is besides this a practical principle, and it is this—
the fundholder's security is, that if you lay a tax upon
income equally, his tax will not be excessive, because he is
guarded by the taxation of the rest of the community ;
but if you say he shall be taxed at 10 per cent. you are
are not very likely to go to 20 or 30 or 40 per cent.—but if
you tax the funds alone and separate them from other
classes, there is no reason why you should not have 5 per
cent. on all other classes and 50 per cent. on the funds.
His practical security is in equal taxation, and therefore
it is that I viewed with alarm and apprehension the pro-
posal made by the right hon. gentleman opposite, when he
stood in his place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in
Ireland funds and salaries alone should be taxed—(hear,
hear) ;—because that was the beginning— and a very serious
beginning—the commencement of a plan by which funds
should be taxed alone—by which the interest of the fund-
holder should be separated from the whole of the rest of
the community, and which would have afforded a prece-
dent, by which that large sum whiCh we have to pay to
the public creditors of this country should be diminished
to any extent that Parliament, in its want of discretion and
honesty, should think proper. (Hear.) These appear to me
to be the general principles by which my right hon. friend
and the Government have been guided with respect to the
income tax. We have studied the question, and although
the right hon. gentleman opposite now denies that he ever
said he had not time to look into the schedules, he has
almost confirmed that remark by what he has said to-
night; because he has said that he did. not go into the
question of the way in which the variation of the tax was
to be effected, and reserved to himself the power of going
into those particulars duringc, the recess that was to follow
Christmas. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman did.
not tell us then—and he has not told us now—how he was
to make that just distinction which he proposed as to the
income tax ; therefore I must believe—l am sorry to believe
—that having the authority of Mr. Pitt, of Lord Lansdowne
in 1806, and of Sir Robert Peel in 1842, all opposed
to his own he did not think it incumbent upon him in er-
gard to his duty as Chanceller of the Exchequer, or worth
his while, to go into every particular of every change he
should propose in the rating of the income tax before he
came down to the house and proclaimed a mode of levying
the tax from which, as I think, evil results would come.
(Cheers.) There are other questions affecting the income
tax as now proposed. One is the extension o the tax to
incomes of 1001., upon which the right hon. gentleman
himself made a proposal, that with regard even to trade it
should be levied to that amount. But here I must remark
that an observation made by my right hon. friend the
member for Portsmouth that seemed to have a great deal
of force in it is really not applicable to the proposal of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right honourable friend
said, if you propose a termination to this income tax, and
see the end. of it before you, it is not a fitting occasion to
extend it to classes by whom it is not paid now. It is
like a man owing 151., and borrowing Si. more in order
that he may have 201.0 pay. But my right honourable
friend omitted from his calculation the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer—that although there is an
increased amount to be derived from the income tax at
present, there is a dimunition from it before it comes to a
termination ; and 'at the end of six years, instead of
6,000,0001. or 5,500,0001., the sum with which the house of
Commons will have to deal will be only 4,500,000/. ' • so that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in fact, taken the
precaution that the sum with which the house will have to
deal will be smaller than would be the case if it were now
proposed at once to abrogate this tax. There is another
question on which my right hon. friend likewise touched,
and which was commented on with great force by the hon.
gentleman opposite, the hon. member for Belfast. The
hon. gentleman said you ought not to extend this tax to-
Ireland, and he gave this reason for it. He said, " You
propose to give up the consolidated anuuities, which is due
in justice to those who now pay it, and then you propose to
lay an income tax upon the whole community in Ireland
in order to make up the deficiency." I should have
stated the case in precisely the opposite ways (Hear,
hear.) I should have said, in the first place there was no
injustice whatever in the proposition of taking off the
Consolidated Annuities and laying on the income tax. But
he should state the case thus :—You have a tax upon this
country which you propose to continue in order to obtain
a remission of other duties many of which have been
already taken off, and several of which are going to be
taken off, pressing upon the whole of the community.
What is the reason Ireland should not bear such tax ? If
Ireland is, with the rest of the United Kingdom, to receive
a great benefit, although not in the same proportion, why
is she not to bear her burden? The answer was—and it
Was a sufficient answer in 1848, and might have been a
sufficient answer now—" why, there are great burdens
imposed on Ireland in consequence of the calamity of
the famine and the debts contracted to feed the
people ;" but we say we will take away that reason by re-
lieving you from the burden of those debts ; and then Bel-
fast, which has had no claim whatever to be exempt from
the income tax, immediately you strike out that reason—
Belfast, a place like Liverpool and Glasgow, comes into
the category of those towns upon which this tax should
be imposed, and imposed, as I think, in the same degree
and according to the same amount of means. (Hear,
hear.) I think the objection to the extension of the tax
to Ireland was' very much the distress of the Southern and
Western parts of Ireland • but in 1848, when the country
was far more distressed than it is now—when the remains
of the famine still pressed on Ireland—my honourable
friend the member for Marylebone made a motion to im-
pose an income tax on Ireland. ; he ,proposed no remission
of those debts which were then heavier than they are now,
and when the country was less able to bear them, and yet
the right hon. gentleman, and the right hon. gentleman
the member for Oxfordshire, and many others of their
political friends and folloWers voted for the imposition
of the tax on Ireland. (Cheers.) Well, the right hox.
gentleman has to-night treated us with a dissertation
on the inconsistency which he finds in some gen-
tlemen sitting on these benches ; but a more glaring
example of inconsistency could hardly be found. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the effect of the `relief given
to Ireland, and the burdens imposed on her by this budget,
I do not find from the figures that she has so great a bur-
den imposed upon her as some hon. gentlemen opposite
seem to think. I find that the increase of taxation from
the income tax, taking it for seven years, is 400,0001. a-year,
from the legacy duty, 60,0001., and from the stamp duty,
98,0001., in all 558,000/. ; whereas the relief is, the conso-
lidated annuities 245,0001., the tea duty 375,600/. and other
smaller items 50,000/., being a larger amount of relief
than the burdens, and in 1860, according to the figures,
Ireland will be relieved from 670,0001., and the only
duties imposed will be the legacy duty and spirit duty,
amounting together to 258,0001, leaving 412,0031. a year
at the balance of remission to Ireland. But I must say
I think that on this subject gentlemen have looked
rather too much to the value of these particular figures,
and not enough to the general interests of Ireland in rela-
tion to finance. (Hear, hear.) I have long considered
that the disadvantage of Ireland in matters of finance
has been th& duties on consumption, which, hardly borne
in England, have, in Ireland, totally prevented con-
sumption. I remember a remarkable illustration of
this, that was stated by my late lamented friend Lord
Sydenharn, in a speech of his own financial subjects • he
stated that, in the, year 1807 the revenue of Ireland
amounted to 4,378,0001. Between that year and the con-
clusion of the war taxes were successively imposed which,
according to the calculations of Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer, were to produce 3,400,000/.' o-..• to augment the
revenue to the extent of 7,700,0001. What was the result ?
In the year 1821, when that amount, less about 400,0001.

for taxes afterwards repealed, ought to have been paid into
the Exchequer, the whole revenue of Ireland amounted

only to 3,844,000/. being 533,0001. less than in 1807. (Hear,
from the Opposition.) Those additional taxes were not
an income tax, were not direct taxes • they were taxes on
the great articles a consumption, and that is tho point on