The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

Tilt SUN, tonON, SA_TURDAV EVENING,
_APRIL 30, 1853.

Then he (Mr. Cardwell) said that that was a Protectionist
amendment in disguise. (Cries of " oh," and hear, hear.)
An lion. member on the same side of the house, who had
followed the hon. baronet, had told them that the power-
ful argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
shown him that the agricultural interest paid 9d. in the
pound to the income tax, while trade paid but 7d. ; and
the hon. gentleman had added that he was indebted to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for having opened his eyes
upon that subject. He had afterwards gone on to say
that the agricultural interest had paid 6,000,0001. too
much in the shape of income tax, during the last ten
years ; and if that tax were continued during the next
seven years. in the mode proposed by her Majesty's
Government, they would pay 3,000,0001. more in excess
of the charge to which they were liable. But
did honourable gentlemen mean to reduce that in-
equality? If they did, let them openly ,avow their
intention ; but let them not imagine that the tradesmen
and the professional men of this country were so simple,
that, under the guise of a general proposition for removing
the inequalities of the tax, they would consent to allow
the agricultural interest to escape from the payment of
3,000,000/. of taxation. His noble friend who had last
addressed the house had said, that if they carried that
budget they should deal with the burdens on land ; and he
had particularly instanced the case of a yeoman with an
income of 601. or 701., on whom the financial proposals of
the Government, would, he said, press with special severity.
But his noble friend had himself voted in December last
for a proposition which would impose a heavier income
tax on the owner of a property worth only 501. a year,
while to that charge was to be added the burden of a
doubled house-tax. (Hear, hear.) But how would hon.
gentlemen opposite redress the inequalities of the income
tax ? They had not told the house the mode in which they
would accomplish that object. It was true that a scheme
for its attainment had been embodied in the financial pro-
posals of the late Government ; but he believed that it was
at present universally acknowledged that that scheme bad
evinced an imperfect a,cquaintance with the schedules.
The hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had
told them, and had told them truly, that it was not so
much the inequality of the income tax that was objec-
tionable as the inquisition which it entailed. The
honourable gentleman was supported in that view of
the case by high authority ; for Adam Smith had de-
clared that "an inquisition which would extend to every
man's fortune would be a grievance such as no country
would submit to." (Hear.) His right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Droitwich (Sir 3.. Pakington) cheered that state-
ment as if it were an argument against the income tax, as
if he had himself never voted for the income tax—(loud
cries of " hear, hear " from the Ministerial side of the
house)—and as if the budget of December last had not con-
tained an income tax. (Renewed cries of " hear, hoar.")
But let them consider what they would have to do if they
attempted to remove the grievance under which one man
was taxed on his capital while another was taxed on his
income. In many cases the capital account and the income
account were almost inextricably mingled together ; and
their connection could only be unravelled in that case by
having a particular income tax for each particular indivi-
dual. The fact was, that in the evidence taken before the
committee, that was the remedy proposed for the griev-
ances of the present system. Bat they might depend upon
it, that in proportion as they endeavoured to approach to
greater justice in levying the income tax, in the same pro-
portion they would add to its inquisitorial character,
which was its greatest evil. What was the question they
had to consider ? The question was, whether they should
call on all parts of the United Kingdom to contribute to a
tax from which they had derived, during the last ten years,
the most inestimable advantages, and from which, if they
were to continue it for seven years more, they would de-
rive still further advantages, which, according to his noble
friend who had last addressed the house, had been under-
estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were
told, however, that they ought not to extend to an impove-
rished and a depressed country a tax which was only fitfor a
rich and a prosperous country. But the tax, it should be
remembered, would only extend to incomes beyond a cer-
tain amount ' • and to object to an income tax on the ground
that people had no income would be a most extraordinary
proceeding. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon. mem-
ber for Mayo (Mr. 0. H. Moore) had opposed the exten-
sion of the income tax to Ireland ; but he (Mr. Cardwell)
could quote to the hon. gentleman, in favour of such a pro-
posal, a very high authority—namely, the hon. gentleman
himself. On the 17th of March, 1848, the hon. gentleman
had addressed the house as follows :—" He agreed with
the hon. member for Marylebone in thinking that property
in Ireland ought to be amenable to income tax. (Cries of
" hear, hear," from the ministerial side of the house.)
He thought it was just to the people of this country,
and necessary for the people of Ireland that every man
and every description of property should be made to bear
his share of the national burdens. (Hear, hear.) Whilst
the tradesman of England was contributing to the neces-
sities of Ireland, and whilst the former was endeavouring
to bear up against an impossible experiment, was it not
monstrous that the man who received twenty times the
income of either should be allowed to sneak out of the
difficulty and escape free ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) So
far from thinking that the present circumstances of Ire-
land exonerated her people from the payment of an income
tax, he was of opinion that the present condition of the
country was the very reason why they should be taxed."
(Loud cries of " hear," and laughter.)
Mr. MOORE said he wished to explain. The proposi-
tion which he had supported on the occasion to which the
right hon. gentleman had referred, but which he hid not
been able to bring formally before the house, was that the
income tax should be imposed on Ireland for the mainte-
nance of the people during the famine. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition side of the house.)
Mr. CARDWELL resumed :—lt was at present pro-
pose& that the income tax should be extended to Ireland,
and at the same time that that country should be relieved
from the charge incurred during the famine. He certainly
felt indebted to the hon. gentleman for the very effective
mode in which ho had given expression to views which he
(Mr. Cardwell) could only have stated in far less vigorous
language. He had troubled the house with a very concise
summary of the benefits which consumers had derived from
the financial reforms which under the shelter of the income
tax they had been enabled to carry into effect. Ho had
further to observe, that when they had first imposed that
tax, they had had a debt of 791,000,0001., and that at pre-
sent at the expiration of 10 years, during which the tax
had been levied, they had paid off the Irish debt of
9,000,0001., and they had reduced the original capital of
the national debt by 12,009,0001.—that was to say, they
had paid off 21,000,0001. of debt. But that was not all.
Their balances in the Exchequer had been little over
1.000,0001., and they were at present nearly 9,000,0001; so
that they had increased by 7,500,0001. It was the same
great instrument which had enabled his right hon. friend
the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goul-
burn) to remove from the annual charge of the debt a sum
of 1,200,0001. (Hear, hear.) These were benefits to the
whole of the United Kingdom ; and they were at present
called upon to renew for seven years longer that great ex-
periment—(hear)—that they might confer on the com-
munity during the time to come similar advantages—
that as they had already removed the duties on light
and air, they might at present reduce the duty on clean-
liness—(hear, hear)—that as in times past they had
diminished the duty on sugar, they might at present dimi-
nish the duty on tea—(hear, hear)—and that they might
extend the comforts of the people while they stimulated
trade and increased the sources of the national prosperity.
(Hear.) From the year 1798 to the year 1816, the income
tax had carried them through eighteen years of revolution-
ary wars. From the year 1842 to the year 1860, eighteen
years more would elapse, and the income tax would carry
them during those eighteen years through a different spe-
cies of conquests. They had entered, as had been truly
said that evening, on a new kind of conflict—on the peace-
ful rivalry of commercial enterprise—(hear, hear)—and un-
less they unfettered industry, it would be impossible for
them to succeed to the fullest extent in that rivalry. The
late Sir Robert Peel had found them labouring under
many disadvantages ; he had found them the most highly-
taxed people perhaps in the world ' • but how greatly had
their condition since been altered. (Hear.) Let them
continue that tax until the year 1860, and to them the
commerce of the world must gravitate under circumstances
of the greatest advantage. No longer need the subjects of
this realm retire to foreign countries for the purpose of
economy, for this country would be the cheapest in Europe.
(Hear.) Let them not debate that great question upon the
mere consideration which part of the United Kingdom
would derive from the measures proposed by her Majesty's
Government the greatest amount of advantage. (Hear.)
They hoped to confer inestimable advantages on the whole
people of the United Kingdom and unless hon. gentlemen
could show that some positive injustice would be inflicted
by the system of taxation by which that great national
benefit was to be conferred, it was their duty to give their
cordial assent to a proposal which was replete with happi-
ness and comfort to the great mass of the people. (Cheers.)

Mr. HENLEY said that the right hon. gentleman had
drawn a flattering picture of the results whith that tax
had accomplished. But it should be remembered that
those results, however they might have been owing to a
system of direct taxation, might have been obtained with-
out the inconvenience and the injustice entailed by the
present income tax. The question they had to consider
was not whether they had derived great advantages from
the imposition of 5,500,000/: of income tax, but whether
they ought to amend the mode of levying the tax, and to
raise the money in a more equitable manner. (Hear.)
That was the real question before the house, and yet the
right bon. gentleman had hardly addressed himself at all
to that question. Upon the subject of the income tax the
hon. member for the West Riding said that the great ob-
jection to it was the inquisition to which it subjected
people, and the President of the Board of Trade said the
same. Now, if this were so, the Government were estab-
lishing an additional inquisition as grievous and as inquisi-
torial in their succession duty. (Hear, hear.) Tho Presi-
dent of the Board of Control had last night taunted those
who sat on his (Mr. Henley's) side of the house for not
taking to Bs. duty when it was offered to them. (Hear,
hoar from the ministerial benches.) Now that was rather
an old story to rip up ; but he confessed he had never
hoard the Whigs when they used that taunt venture to
say they could have secured the landed interest the Bs.
duty beyond 1846. Unless they had told them that, and
ho had believed them—(a laugh)--he thought perhaps they
were as well off as before. (Hear, hear.) But what
was the present offer of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer? (Hear, hear.) The choice between 7d. and
54d., and the succession tax. How would that work ? It
appeared to him the burden would be very much against
the land. (Hear, hear.) Without entering into details
ho was prepared to think that, considering the difference
between these two taxes, a man when he came to estimate
how much premium he would have to pay to get the suc-
cession duty would find it a losing bargain for the landed
interest. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said in the
course of the debate with respect to the justice or injustice
of extending this tax to Ireland. Now, every man must
admit that the taxation of the two countries had been
always different. (Hear, hear.) In 1842 Sir Robert Peel
(lid not impose the income tax on Ireland, but he proposed
other countervailing duties, amounting to about 400,000/.,
or thereabouts. One of those duties had been repealed
equally with regard to the two countries. So far that was
a gain altogether. But was Ireland now in a better posi-
tion than she was in 1842 to bear the 460,0001. income tax,
and a further sum for spirit duties? (Hear.) The draw-
backs upon spirits would also apply equally to the United
Kingdom. In addition to the income tax, Ireland would
leave to pay 350,0001. for succession duty, and the propo-
aidtemnit to be (Ha
, therefore, ithreegra,rdhetoar.) The
that couldcounptryree,ihdeentof the
not
Board of Control_had read last night an account of several
unionsviairltlierieillanrd, showing what the greatest gain would
man selected those
but he added that
he in
arts of Ireland. The right hon. gentle•
that, although
most favourable to his case,
unions in Ireland atough 45 of the most distressed
wlrsiseyhaywelld onl
would . pay 83,0001. a year in con-
solidated annuities, t
incomehefirs t tax.
p la e
thhiy 42,000/. to the
material stem in the case. In
claim. In the next they edfdencoletnied the justice of the
which Was a more material part of payg the instalments,
hear, and laughter.) It was one tC,llo'estion.
another to pay it. (Hear, hear.) The we a debt, and
aggregate payments

last year amounted to one-half of the instalments. If Ire-
land, then, backed up in this respect by the report of a
committee of the House of Lords, that that country ought
not to pay two millions of the money, denied the justice
of the claim, how did they expect to get the 600,000/. or
700,0001. they anticipated from her ? He not only thought
it a bad bargain for Ireland, but an unjust one. He had
always been disposed to deal out equal justice to England,
Ireland, and Scotland; but equal taxation did not mean
the same amount of taxation. (Hear, hear.) In 1800 the
two countries started from a particular point of view,
which ought to be steadily regarded. The present tax
certainly did not keep up the distinction. A great deal
had been said with regard to the benefits of keeping up the
income tax for the next seven years ; but the arguments
for retention were most contradictory. For instance, the
hon. member for the West Riding and the hon. member for
Montrose supported the tax because they wished it to be
permanent. (Hear, hear.) Another class of gentlemen,
the President of the Board of Control amongst the number,
argued in favour of the proposal, not because the tax would
permanent,byeearso.rwouldthere
in
uf
sevenpros-
pect
pledgeTh
ep given
ebutseut becausehh au that
citellor of the Exchequer, in addi-
tion to the income tax, proposed to put on 2,300,0001.
by way of taxation ; and he took off about 2,500,0001.
With very few exceptions the taxes taken off were
altogether abolitions. The budget of that (the Opposi-
tion) side of the house added taxation to the amount
of 1,000,0001., and took off taxes to the amount of
2,700,0001. The taxes, however, taken oft were not alto-
gether remissions, but reductions. (Hear, hear.) Sup-
posing the country to be deriving great benefit by keeping
on a certain amount of direct taxation, and that they
thought 'still further benefits might accrue from other re-
missions, was it to he supposed they would agree to the
remission of the income tax ? (Hear, hear.) He did not
think they would ; and, therefore, he desired to make the
tax more palateable to the great body of the people. There
was another point connected with the amendment before
the house which rather surprised him that hon. gentleman
on the opposite side had. not noticed. What they were
going to do now, if they had voted this tax for seven years,
was to part with the control of every single farthing of
taxation for that period. (Hear, hear.) It used to be the
practice of the house to keep in hand a portion of the re-
venue of the country. It was the case with the sugar
duties ; and when these were disposed of, the income tax
remained. (Hear, hear.) They were now about to part,
with that tax, which, in his opinion, was not alone incon-
venient, but also unwise, as the house should always
exercise a constitutional control over the taxation of the
country. (Hear, hear.) Those were the reasons that in-
duced him to agree to the amendment which had been
proposed to the first resolution of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Regarding the income tax in the aspect he
did, he did not consider it wise or politic to continue it for
a period of seven years. Even though her Majesty's
Ministers should be sincere in their intention to remit the
tax at the end of that period, he did not believe it wise or
politic to continue it till then. (Hear, hear.) He dire.
approzed of the injustice of saddling Ireland. with the
tax. It was not wise to set up a machinery in that
country for seven years, even though it was cntended to
get rid of the tax at the close of that period. (Hear.)
Neither had the machinery for collecting it in that country
been referred to. (Hear, hear.) That there were small
occupiers in Ireland could not be doubted ; and it should
be collected from these small occupiers, whether they paid
rent or not. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel proposed the
income tax for five years, he declined to extend it to Ire-
land ; and nothing had since occurred in the condition of
that country to justify the imposition of the tax. (Hear.)
With these observations, and thanking the committee for
their kind attention, he should conclude by stating his in-
tention to support the amendment. (Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
(No, no, and divide, divide.)
Mr. CAIRNS said, that, as an Irish member, he never
should demand a boon for Ireland unless it were founded
on justice ; and if it ever should be proposed to make the
income tax a perpetual source of revenue, he should say
that, properly adjusted, he would not oppose its extension
to Ireland. (Hear.) The first ground on which he 43b-
jected to the re-imposition of the income tax was that of
its inequality according to the present arrangement. (Hear,
hear.) He regretted much the Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not attempt the rectification of these inequalities, as,
in his opinion, he might have done.. But so long as these
inequalities existed, so long would he oppose the extension
of the tax to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had cor-
rectly described the income tax when he said it was " a
gigantic engine, which should be resorted to only in cases
of vast emergency." Now, in his (Mr. Cairns') opinion,
that was one of the very best and strongest reasons 'why
care should be taken to adjust, to amend, and to make it as
efficient as possible. After a war it was notthe customtodis-
miss or disband the troops; on the contrary, the practice was
to reduce the strength of each regiment, retaining still the
nucleus of the army, in case of a recurrence of hostilities.
(Hear, hear.) It also struck him that before being called
upon to vote for this tax they should be informed of the
exact amount of the other taxes behind the income tax
which were to be brought forward. (Hear, hear.) The
committee would perceive he alluded to the tax on succes-
sions. It always appeared to him (Mr. Cairns) that the
exclusion of land from the present, system of legacy duty
was invidious, and required to be considered and amended.
But, in saying that, he wished it to be understood that all
the other burdens which pressed upon the land should also
be considered. There was the stamp duty, for instance,
and many others to which landed property was subject,
but of the existence of which personal property was alto-
gether ignorant. There was the monstrous system of the
transfer of land, with all its accompaniments and adjuncts;
and provided all these were considered, then he should not
object to see the legacy duty imposed on land. (Hear,
hoar.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial
statement had declared his intention to alter the system of
legacy duty, and to extend it to land, the amount ho ex-
pected to derivofrom which being some 2,000,0001. annually;
bud having said that, the right hon. gentleman left off
further comment. (Hear, hear.) Bat he (Mr. Cairns) in-
sisted the committee had a right to know on what data
the right hon. gentleman made that calculation. Take
• the case of personal property. It had been resolved to
subject to this duty every settlement of personal property
of every description. In case of a couple marrying and
settling 5,0001. upon themselves and children, at the death
of the parents the offspring would be liable to this duty on
inheriting. Then there was the amount standing to joint
accounts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hadtSiet
down at 428,000,0001., which should also pay. There were
50,000,0001. in the hands of the accountant general in the
Court of Chancery; and he wished to know if the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind to inform
the committee how much of that property would be taxed
for the first time, or had been previously taxed. (Hear,
hear.) He wished to be informed on that point before
voting for the income tax. (Cries of "hear, hear.") Then
there were mortgages and policies of insurance ; and,
taking the amount of settled property in the funds at
478,000,0001., the amount lent in mortgages and settle-
ments made, and settlements by marriage, and various
other settlements, all of which were to become, for the first
time, liable to the tax. (Hear, hear.) The annual in-
come of land in this country was fixed at about
80,000,0001., representing a total corpus or capital of some
200,000,0001., which amount was to be added to personal
property, and all of which was to be operated upon for the
first time. Suppose, however, that even the amount
should be ascertained, it would be necessary to ascertain
the number of successions, and calculate how often deaths
would occur in the revolution of property affected by a
single settlement. All these things, surely, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer must have considered, and then again it
would be necessary to estimate the average number of cases
on which the duty would first fall on the succession of the
tenant for life, or the absolute owner, for theamount of the
duty would of course be different in these cases. Where
were the statistics on all these questions? Hear, hear.)
There was a possibility that these duties might vary
from Ito 10 per cent. What was the average ? Would it
be 3 or 4 or 5 per cent. ? Out of doors he (Mr. Cairns) had
met with no one acquainted with the subject who did not
say that it was idle to think that the amount of the duty
would be limited to two millions—(hear, hear)—and many
estimated that it would be at least four millions. (Hear,
hear.) Indeed, he haml heard that the Government were
actually unwilling to ste their estimate for fear the house
should be startled by the amount. (Hear, hear. Well, was
it not fair that before the income tax was renewed, the
house should know about this ? (Hear, hear.) The bud-
get was put forward as a whole. (Hear, hear.) Was it
not fair, then, to know how much it was expected to raise
by means of the legacy duty before the income tax was
continued? (Hear, hear.) If proper statistics were given
upon the subject, and it turned out that the amount
realized from the legacy duty would nearly equal the
amount of the income tax, the latter tax could be dispensed
with. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") Then, with respect to
Ireland. It was pretended that the income tax would be
temporary. Then was it worth while to extend it to that
country, and establish for that purpose all the machinery
of inquisition which until now the country had never
seen. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, if the tax were to
be permanent, let it be re-adjusted, and then there would
be no reason why it should not be extended to Ireland.
(Hear.) That was the opinion of the late Sir R. Peel, who
for that very reason had not extended the income tax to
Ireland, imposing, instead of it, duties on spirits and
stamps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
that the stamp duties had since been reduced, but the
truth was they were as heavy in Ireland as they were
before the measure of 1842. And now these duties, which
Sir R. Peel had proposed as equivalent for the income tax,
were to be continued along with the income tax, not as al-
ternatives, but additions. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the
President of the Board of Trade (Sir C. Wood) had taken
pains upon this subject to proselytise the Irish members or
strengthen those who were weak in the faith—(a laugh)—
and had probably feared that they might remember a pro-
mise of his not to urge on theincome tax on Ireland.
The right hon. baronet tried to make out that his promise
had only applied to the distressed districts, and that now
matters were altered, because the country was to be re-
lieved from the Consolidated Annuities. This looked as
if the income tax were to be the equivalent for the removal
of these annuities. In this creed there was great inequa-
lity. For, first, it was a fallacy to assume that the annui-
ties would have lasted 40 years, and the income tax only
seven ; for it would certainly last loner; and, next, it was
a fallacy to assume, that if the annuities had not been re-
mitted they would have been paid. (Hear, and a laugh.)
But some of the counties had paid their share, and on
what ground were they to be saddled with the income tax
on the pretence that the question was an imperial one,
though no repayment was proposed to them ? In truth,
the measure amounted to a gigantic rate in aid: On what
principle were the districts which had paid their debts
to be taxed to meet the debts incurred by other
districts of the country? (Hear, hear.) Suppose, in
the South of England, money had been advanced to re-
lieve agricultural distress, how would Liverpool and Man-
chester like to help towards the repayment ? (Hear.) If
the question were, as it was now represented, an imperial
one, then the districts which had paid their share ought
either to be reimbursed, or relieved from the income tax.
(Hear.) It. was now contended by the Government that
the advances ought to have been repaid out of the Imperial
funds. That was the very pretext for the remission of the
consolidated annuities and the imposition of the income
tax. (Hear.) Then if that were so, the districts which
paid out of their local funds ought to be reimbursed out
of the Exchequer. (Hoer, hear.) The right hon. baronet
had flattered the people of the north of Ireland, like the
fox in the fable, but would not be so successful as to re-
concile them to contribution to his budget by means of
the income tax. (Laughter and cheers.)
Sir W. CLAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed a hope that the debate
might close on Monday.
Mr. DISRAELI said, so far as he was concerned, he
saw no reason why it might not.
The debate was then adjourned.
COMMON LAW BUSINESS (IRELAND) BILL.
The house then went into. committee on tbia bill.
The SPEAKER having reeunied the chair,
The Sales of Bullion Bill told the Entails tScotland) Bill