The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

„-


stead, they would, in nine cases out of ten, prefer the first
alternative. Take the hardest case that could be cited—
that of the professional man struggling into practice, who
was obliged to make a certain appearance without actually
earning anything. At present, as those men had no income
but were consuming their own capital, they were excused;
but if they had to pay a heavy house tax, for instance,
they would be made to contribute as much as if they were
in the receipt of large earnings. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Laing) believed that the income tax was really a very
popular tax. (Hear, hear, and. cries of "Oh !")
Mr. G. BANKS admitted Mr. Laing's estimate of the
prosperity of the different classes of agriculturists to be
true; but it was precisely because the middling farmers
were being destroyed that he wished to give them the
small relief that would be afforded by the clause.
The committee then divided :
For the clause 3l
Against it 144
ajoritv
The clause was therefore lost. - 413
Sir F. KELLY then moved another clause, namely, "to
deduct 5 per cent. from the amount of the tax paid upon
all incomes under 4001. a-year in respect of each child of
the party paying, born in wedlock, and under 21 years of
age and unmarried."
The clause was negatived without a division.
Sir A. CAMPBELL moved the following new clause :
"In charging the duty under schedule A of this act, in
respect of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages,
in Scotland, an allowance or deduction shall be male for
the amount of all parochial and county rates, taxes, and
assessments which by law or custom are paid by the owner
thereof." This clause was similar to one that had been
previously moved and negatived, but as a similar relief had
since been granted to persons in Ireland, he could not
see how the right hon. gentleman could now resist it.
In Scotland many rates and assessments were paid by the
landlord, who, in consequence, received a higher rent.
In England the same taxes were paid by the occupier, and
consequently did not come under the operation of the in-
come tax. These included half the poor rates, the assess•
ment for the repair of churches, manses, and schoolmasters
houses ; the county rates, for the maintenance of prisons,
cost of prosecutions, constabulary, bridges, &c., and the
highway rates in some counties. Taking the average poor
rate at 18.4 d. in the pound, and the county rate at 4d., and
adding a proportion for the others, it made a difference of
6 per cent. in favour of the English landlord, through
whose hands these rates did not pass. It had been argued
that as the rate of assessment under schedule B in Scotland,
was different from that in England, the allowance was sub-
stantially made. But on the greater number of farms in
Scotland, the tenants paid no income tax, by reason of the
smallness of their holdings; therefore the assessment under
schedule B could make no difference to the landlords of
that property. Then it was said that the system of repairs
in Scotland was different from that in England ; but the
Scotch members, to the number of 30, who had a meeting
about the time the budget was proposed, had expressed the
opinion that such difference did not exist, in answer to its
allegation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Probably
the right hon. gentleman had been misled by the usual
form of Scotch leases, which bound the landlord to put the
premises in proper and tenantable repair, and the tenant to
keep them so; and it was added, "ordinary wear and tear
exeopted." But the usual practice was that, on the begin-
ning of a 15 or 18 years' lease, the landlord spent about a
year's rent in putting the walls and woodwork of the farm
in proper order, and the tenant was bound to keep them
to, though not liable for what were legally called repairs.
Great differences, no doubt, prevailed in different parts of
the country—houses requiring more repairs than farms,
and one kind of farms more than another. This was not
a case without precedent ; for in the Income Tax Act of
IM2, allowances were made for parochial rates, taxes, and
assessments charged under the act for the commutation of
tithes ; also for rates paid by the landlord which were
legally payable by the tenant. Landlords in Scotland
were precluded from taking advantage of this allowance by
a subsequent clause. It might be asked why they had
sot come before Parliament sooner; but it should be re-
membered that they were now imposing the income tax
for the first time for seven years. The claim he now urged
was to be granted to Ireland, though there was less ground,
from the smaller amount of assessment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 'aid the
hon. gentleman had founded himself partly on the general
argument, and partly on the ground of a special concession
which he supposed was to be made to Ireland. The gene-
ral ground had been discussed on a former evening ; he
had opposed a olause more limited than this, and it had
been rejected by a very large majority of the house on the
ground that it would be impossible to make the concession
without unsettling the whole structure of the income tax.
Upon that ground he was prepared again to oppose it. The
hon. gentleman had said nothing which tended in the
slightest degree to show that that argument was not ap-
plicable to the proposal he now made. It was not a mere
question whether the Scotch landlord paid 6 or 7 per cent.
of public burdens and charges more than was paid by the
English landlord. This income tax must stand as a sys-
tem of compensations. The hon. gentleman said they
ought not to re-enact it until all the inequalities were
removed. He should make the hon. gentleman an ill
wish were he to wish that the duty was imposed upon
him of removing all those inequalities. Probably, in a
few months, he would rise from his task " a sadder and a
wiser man.' (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The honour-
aisle gentleman had little conception of the difficulty
of the task when he talked of removing all the Me- i
qualities. The question for the house to consider was,
whether the Scotch landlord was not as well off on the
whole? Did the amount of tax paid by the Scotch
landlord represent a greater proportion of his income than
the tax paid by the English landlord? That was a very
doubtful question, and was by no means determined by
the insulated point raised by the hon. gentleman. But
when they began to make concessions to landlords, what
had they to say to house-owners ? (Hear, hear.) The
Scotch landlord paid perhaps five per cent. for repairs; the
house-owner had to spend, in England, and not in Scot-
land, 15 to 20 per cent. for repairs. Did not the hon.
gentleman think that that question ought to be raised too ?
If that question were raised, and a deduction of 15 to 20
per °out. made on house property under schedule A, the
only effect of succeeding in that motion would be to let in
a host of far more formidable claims under schedule D and
E. Those claims, now resisted and in abeyance, would be
revived ; and the landlord would lose more upon what
might be conceded to them than he now lost by paying
upon his gross, instead of upon his net income. This was,
in fact, a small corner of a very great question. (Hear,
hear.) It was whether they should have the income tax
or not, in a shape, he granted, full of inequalities, but
which in some degree compensated each other, but the
very attempt to remove which would unsettle the whole.
(Hear, hear) The hon. gentleman hail referred to a spe-
cial case, and said that by virtue of a concession which he
supposed was to be made to Irish landlords, the same
ought to be made to Scotch landlords. He assured the
house that no concession of any principle was going to be
made to Irish landlords. (Hear, hear.) From the first
introduction of the bill, the Government had founded
themselves on a basis which did exempt, and was intended
to exempt, Irish landlords from the payment of poor rates.
As the bill was first introduced, the proposal was that the
tax should be assessed on the poor law valuation. But the
poor law valuation in Ireland was formed, by law, upon a
principle which absolutely excluded poor rate from the
calculation. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, from the first, they
had bound themselves that Irish landlords should not be
assessed upon a basis which included the poor rate. Per-
haps it might be asked why they had done so ? He could
not answer that in the abstract; he must answer it as part
of the whole case. They must look at the measure as a
measure of policy and prudence, and one about to ho ap-
plied for the first time to Ireland—a country, be it re-
membered, which had not the same facilities for collection
as existed in England, and where the relations of landlord
and tenant, and of nominal to real rent, wore quite different
to what they were in England and Scotland. (Hear, hear.)
What had they done since ? They had made a great
change in the law, but against the Irish landlord—(hear,
hear)—for, instead of going against the occupier for the
tax, they were now to go against the landlord. It might
be thought that in England and Scotland it signified very
little whether they went against the occupier, or against
the landlord at once. He was sure that signiefid a good
deal in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) A state of things existed
there with regard to rental and the relations of landlord
and tenant, which really would bring about this—that if
they attempted to push too far their argument for absolute
equality between England and Ireland, founded on ap-
parent resemblances, they would end in only aggravating
the injustice. But the fact was there had been no
change whatever in the principle on which they were
proceeding. The bill of the Government hid been
founded from first to last on this —that the general
basis of the tax should be the poor law valuation ; and the
poor law valuation, in the majority of cases, was under
the rent. It was natural that it should be so, because the
rent included a portion of the poor rate. But, the valua-
tion being under the rent, it was provided that the valua-
tion should be the basis. The valuation had been always
held out, from first to last, as the general basis of the
assessment in Ireland, and that entirely excluded the poor
rate. The clause proposed by the hon. member for
Youghal, was simply intended to apply a principle already
recognised in general terms to particular and exceptional
cases, whore the rent happened to be below the poor law
valuation. That was the course the Government proposed
to pursue with respect to Ireland. With regard to the
general case of Scotland, as compared with that of Eng-
land, they must leave it to stand as it stood on a former
night, and must abide by the decision of the house. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. C. BRUCE said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had risen from his labours on the income tax, if not a
wiser, infinitely a more unjust man. (Hear, and a laugh.)
How stood the case ? In England and Ireland a landlord
had a chance of being assessed on what he received ; in
Scotland, he would be assessed for what lie never received.
(Hear, hear.) This injustice was so monstrous that he was
surprised the right hon. gentleman should seek to main-
tain it. The repairs of houses were quite a different thing ;
they were necessary for the maintenance of the property.
In one year he had paid for the rebuilding of a church as
much as his whole rental, 1,200/. ; and yet he was assessed
on the whole amount. (Hear, hear.) In another year he
had paid 3001. for schools, besides other sums for charitable
purposes • and yet he was charged in respect of those
sums. Was not this a monstrous injustice ? The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer appeared to have lost all feeling—
(laughter)—but he would appeal to the sense of justice of
the house. The Scotch were a long-suffering people with
regard to taxation. They paid much and complained
little ; but he would divide the house, if no one else did.
Mr. SMOLLETT said ho should not have supported this
motion, but for the principle having been conceded to
Ireland. The fact ho believed to be this ; the Irish were
disloyal and turbulent ; the Scotch were quiet and peace-
able. (Laughter.) In return for this, not only was the
inequality which had existed all along in the income tax
iu their case to be continued, but it was to be extended.
Mr. DUNLOP said if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had stood on broad general principles he would have sup-
ported him, and not sought for an exception in the case of
Scotland. But as he had allowed a reduction in Ireland
the claim of Scotland ought to be insisted on. In England
the same question did not arise, the rates referred to being
laid on the occupiers. Hence, for a farm of the same
value an English landlord would be assessed on a rental of
9001., and aSicNotNchAliiD said h
antdlordonaefeltrentalcompelled to
oflo,oo /.
Mr. A. KINNAIRD
support
theBUTT said ho should do the same, but he did
ne
Mr. I.clause.
not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the
concession to Ireland, departed in the least from
st fromthe g e ncearpatl
.psr principle
LoLf the bill.
thought that as a certain relief was to
be given to Ireland, it would be injustice to refuse it to
Scotland, and he should support the new claim.
Mr. WILKINSON appealed to the Scotch
members to