The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-19 00:00:00

think it far better-far more in accordance with our own
Obligations, and far more likely to advance the interests of
the country-that we should present to you what we
think-and I will tell why we think it by and by-a real
substantive plan-(hear, hear),-under which the income
al, if Parliament should think fif, be got rid of, than
that weY should come with some paltry proposal to shirk
the difficulty by re-enactinc, it for two years, or re-enacting
itfor one year, and thereby prolonging the uncertainty
and dissatisfaction, and giving rise not only to doubts as
to the position of the tax, but as to the perfect good faith
of Parliament in dealing with the country. (Hear, hear.)
have, embOdied in the proposal for the renewal of the tax
:will tend to show_ Parliament and th„ country that our in-
tention to part with it, or, at all events, our intention to
Put Parliament in 1860 in a condition to part with it, is a
luta bona fide intention. (Hear, hear.) But you will say
\--ma say justly-that that intention does not of itself put
Parliament in a condition to part with the tax,-that it is
*l3l-5' well to say that it shall, for two years, remain at 7d.
411 the pound,-that for two years more it shall be 6d., and
for three years more sd. ; but that when it comes to sd.
.I°,,,6e4°rnay find that there is still a deficiency, and that you
;1,1 want the 7d., or that when you come to the end of
Period for sd. in the pound you may find you cannot
rt with it. (Hear, hear.) With respect to this objection
have to say, that before the close of my present state-
Meat I :hall endeavour to give you full satisfaction on that
Point ; and I will further venture to s:•-y that, whatever
-13‘1 may think of the plan I have to propose, no gontlem n
114_ the committee will think that the Government are pal-
tering with the House of Commons, or that I am not pre-
senting a proposal which is at any rate substantive and
Intelligible. (Hear, hear.) I say, Sir, that our principles
witll respect to the income tax (which is the corner stone
our whole financial plan), our principles with respect to
the
e income tam required of us these things :-In the first
Place,- to mark it effectually as a temporary tax ; in the
lieenml place, to mect, in a way which we think good and
effectual, the public feeling with respect to the inequality
of the tax ; and I will explain how we mean to do this by
and 03'. But, beyond this, I wish to ask-and this is the
Portant question to which I wish to call the attention
7tPaiiiament-if you determine to renew the income tax
~711_...Y0u make early extinction your first and sole object,
t.,-; will you, in order to bring to completion the noble work
eoMmercial reform which is far advanced, associate the
eelne tax once more with a remission of duties, exten-
"'Ve in itself and beneficial to the community ? We have
considered fay these two questions; and we have
deliberately in favour of the second. (Hear.)
1." une we propose to renew the income tax, we pro-
'"se to associate it during the years which it has still to
tan with a great and beneficial remission of taxes. (Hear,
rear.) But the statement which I have already made with
tr,Pect to the surplus is one not a:together promising in
Lehs respect. He would be an ingenious minister of finance
k„,_° should found an extensive remission of taxation on a
re-
gards of 800,0001., 200,0001. or 300,0001., of which he re-
il,7B as uncertain. If we are to propose a remission of
-es we must have funds out of which to make the remis-
Zen. This is of course an elementary truth, but I am sorry
ri say that it is not wholly useless to impress it upon the
tase (Laughter.) We have, therefore, to consider-and
4 , Sir, is the invidious part of my task, upon which I
thek now about to enter-we have now to consider what are
means open to us, in consistency with justice, for
ol'th,_'-aing a fund which, in conjunction with our present
Itt-P„...1118, we can apply to an extensive and beneficial re-
Thrn of taxes. Now, the first question which is raised
tll.7-1.8----if the income tax is to be continued, shall it also be
)3;`,mled? (Hear, hear.) And the view of of the Govern-
in-In' is this- that the late Administration were right
th stating that, if the income tax was to be continued,
1: exemptions under it should be narrowly considered-
th:r, hear)--and therefore we are prepared to deal with
• nnestion of exemptions. (Hear, hear.) What, in the
• Place, let me ask, is the case of persons enjoying in.
telt," immediately below 1501. per annum ? There may
;.`nse who say that it is dangerous to attempt to levy
tbeteilicome tax on incomes below 150/.; butt is my opinion
the safety of the measure depends in a great degree-
it kay •
i mainly-on its justice ; and if you can show that
bead{required by justice to other classes, and that it would
selves to the country, and even to the parties them-
af,lB who would be immediately affected by it, I am not
4°,7'1 with the confidence I entertain in the feelings of
-lAiglish people, that there would be any danger attach-
• Lto such a measure. (Hear.) There were apprehensions,
know, entertained in 1842 that the imposition of the
the tax in any shape would be found unpopular ; but
appreciating
Sense of justice and enlightened prudence of the people,
igreciating as they did the great benefit achieved by its
runientality, divested it, if not of the unpopularity,
certainly of the odious character, which it was thought
Zight generally have attached to it. (Hear, hear.) Well,
what is the case of persons enjoying incomes below
" ? It is well known that persons of that class have
417 largely benefitted by the
.measures consequent on the
~,....ebree tax up to the present time. (Hear, hear.) Twelve
',Wiens of taxes have been remitted, and they have
: .
nibyed their full share of this without the charge of one
farthing. (Hear, hear.) I don't propose that we should
ears the tax down to the regions where it would trench
on labour. To my view it is a right and expedient
Principle-taking in connexion with it all the circum-
ttances of the case-that we should not trench upon what
.1- would call the territory of labour. That territory will
kobably be defined sufficiently for my purpose by the
Lilure of 1001. a-year ; and what lam saying now has
"14,,erence to the case of incomes between 1001. and 1501.
V4,_eir ease is, that they have enjoyed up to the present
Ztoe the full benefit of the remission of the 12,000,0001. of
Laxes to which I have referred. But that is not all. If
were going to continue the income tax for a short
it ed without any compensating advantage then, indeed,
it !bight not be expedient that I should ask' you to extend
forrio lower amount than at present ; but lam going, be-
ll% a!, conclude, to ask you to support the Government in
na;e'lng a great and beneficial remission of taxes ; and I
eon's:aefore you confer that great additional benefit, let us
f3q,,,T," whether the results of our plan can be distributed
vrilj aulY among the various classes of the community. I
aide present to the committee what I think they will con-
°Parajanie interesting results with respect to the past
view ion of our recent legislative remissions. With a
ope,h, to the decision of the question which I am now
eolf;Z, it appeared to me a matter of extreme interest to
the e, e 'lumber of bona fide cases of the distribution of
tate,lengiture of particular families receiving different
each (),,' income, making the proportion in which they had
head
by the adoption of the income tax and the
'Fe s, connected with it. My right hon. friend the
:04,-;ue Poor-law Board (Mr. Baines), kindly lent me
;nit effective aid, and we have collected a body of in
pence of the kind which I am now about to present to
inenelMittee. I shall not trouble you with the details, but
notnai give the general results of a few bona fide cases of
Cases IXPeU diture, and I believe they are fair average
been which will exhibit the actual savings
below
hlhze
n'ad, IF,-„ateed by persons whose incomes are elow
aeL by "hose- hose incomes are above 1501., cense-
teieliaaje's of the adoption of the income tax, and of the re-
Nthio,o of taxes and changes in our commercial system
!ill X, Were brought about through its medium. But it
haw be reelected that, in estimating the savings, I
trot; Laken credit for the further remissions which I have ,
"kl,l%;.'ed as well as for those which have alreadytaken place.
iqot'e Collected six cases of incomes varying from 1751., to
44(1 fa7ear ; and, after taking credit for all their savings,
kslt.'"'-rIY putting down the various items which go to
a•konbll4.P their incomes, I find that their gross incomes
leakii; to 1,359/. and their gross savings to 63/. is. 3d.,
tsaving of 5 per cent. on the gross amount
rhiebitsulcoines • and even if you deduct the income tax
,-`OY" paid will still remain a saving of 221.165.
nicl nearly 2 per cent. upon their incomes. This, I
is not an unsatisfactory result which I have pre-
tlt tile committee. (Cheers.) But I have likewise
ce env cases of the actual expenditure of persons with
shoulliies between 1001. and 1501., and these, the committee
Per the understand, are not cases which have been selected
%sea ;Purpose of arriving at a particular result, but are
tnrpo; 'jell have been fairly and honestly collected for the
"tire "e of showing the actual distribution of the expendi-
ll*,two classes to which I have refed. Oe is
liecoucaße of a country tradesman with 1201. pe annum; the
14i.1 the case of a retired Liverpool tradesman
~°f 4 Zeren) with 1201. per annum ; the third is the case
501 ‘‘uow in the country with an income of from 1201. to
'arkl'LY 1351. per annum) ; and the fourth is the case of a
country to with 1001. per annum ; making
41a Income of 4751., and their gain has been 29/. 6s.
tsr.' "I' between 6 and 7 per cent. Deducting income
keo at the rate of sd. in the pound, the savings would
Yonallt to 191. 95., or more than 4 per cent. So that
econesBte clearly rom this that the persons with in-
,Y th etween 100/. and 150/. have apparently profited
4841,1 change in our legislation to a greater extent
in "'lose with incomes above 1501. (Hear, hear.) I ought
k:aY that in estimatinc, the savings I have endeavoured to
he'vP strictly within theabounds of moderation, and that I
swell:, 0. doubt that the results could easily have been
the, " we had chosen. Now, Sir, it appears to us that
tvbe.Lf acts offer a rather strong reason for considering
cue. 14...er, when we propose to renew the income tax in the
zeae,°f arsons with incomes above 1501., it is not de-
ll) 'ed by justice that we should expect that persons with
thc..otnes below 1501. should moderately become sharers in
burden. (Hear,- hear.) Her Majesty's Government
'wkak that in justice we ought to do so. (Hear, hear.)
teat wepropose is this-we propose so far to complicate
io; tax as to introduce a provision that incomes between
/, and 1501. shall La liable at the rate of sd. in the
15°, for the whole time during which the tax is levied,
that, for the first two years, incomes above 1501. will
taY 7d. in the pound, and incomes below 1501. sd. ; for
.4e next two years, the one will pay 6d. and the other 5d.,
'n4 for the following three years both classes will alike pay
„,
the rate of 5d in the pound. I estimate that this tax
.1;4„,5d. on incomes from 1001. to 1501. will produce 250,0001.,
v" as it will not be levied till the latter half of the present
ear, the sum of 125,0001. only will come to credit in the
,tiancial year of 1852-54. (Hear.) I now come to another
Gea,it question-the exemption of Ireland. (Hear.) Ire-
ta,,lll like manner, has received the benefit of the income
sa,4- through the changes in our fiscal system but at the
time the equivalent which was intended to be taken
ti;s not been exacted. That equivalent was twofold. In
gall, place it consisted of a duty upon spirits of ls. a
ena°,a; Which was abandoned almost as soon as it was
tie 'ln the second place it consisted of an augmenta-
le; 1)f the stamp duties-which augmentation was indeed
e(1 for two years • but in 1850 my right hon. friend the
[Paident of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) made a
,tilep reduction in the stamp duties loth of this country
ei,oe_uf Ireland, and in that reduction disappeared the in
Which was enacted in Ireland as an equivalent for
eikiolacorue tax. lam not able to speak with absolute pre-
tit,tn.2 but as nearly as we can make out, it would appear
trap
'ne rate at ashich Ireland pays stamp duties on her
ktell_tactions is nearly as possible, on an average, the
t"' as it was in 1842. (Hear, hear.) It is, indeed, true
1: sine the •
has e first enactment of the income tax Ireland
seotireen visited with an awful calamity, and although that
still ~,ge has been mercifully withdrawn yet traces of it
hearemain in many!iocial and economical forms-(hear,
nenß,„7-Lu_especially in the form of a very heavy and bur-
of the debt. (Hear.) That is but a fraction, indeed,
th"e e_nerous aid accorded by the Imperial Parliament
:6)0 detir_eesioettsities of Ireland, but at the same time it cannot
Ireland. at it is a very heavy and enduring burden, not
Brit tho_ generally, but on its most distressed parts.
by the lie who look at Ireland cannot avoid being struck
ue-! Met that all Ireland is not alike-that there are
f„;a111 districts that '".l tax ti at do not need to shrink from their
aoff_oll-,, and which have no reasonable claim or
~,I:4Pa to
VIM the ur exemption. (Hear, hear.) Let me committeere-
what exemption means. (Hear, hear.)
di we have not got a bottomless purse, and that
inert", nnot
exemptions to one man without in-
tr;g anotherP•ertat the exemption of one man means the
the - taxation f another-and exemption of one country
4.,.,,extra taxi);
ion of another. (Hear, hear.) And as this
I,(ll4l:lBaet7.tchangs in the income tax generally, so it applies
're : relatively to England. What we think, there-
'id 44' that the '
111 erati6u''in CA,O of Ireland demands very special col:
pc,e4
her, with the burdens that have bet,
_ttabye, with• respect to which I will-say more by
:411 iii,jeekV) sequel or corollary to the present branch of
won bid, in the 11 meantime, I have to say that we see
/17 the 14' QOM° taxa oliould not be levied WA

land, as she has received a great portion of the benefit at-
tending the remission of taxes up to the present time, and
is likely also to profit largely by the remissions I have to
propose to the house. The produce of the income tax which
will be laid on Ireland ender precisely the same conditions
and for the same term as in England and in Scotland—the
produce of the income tax in Ireland I estimate at 460,0001.
a year ; but as the tax will not he levied till June next,
there will be only 230,000/. to come to credit in 1853-54.
I will now give the committee an account of how my esti-
mate stands, as a whole, with respect to the income tax.
The estimated produce of the tax—supposing there to be
no change in the existing system—is 5,550,0001. Deduct
life assurances (120,0001.), of which one-half only comes to
charge this year, viz., 60,000,, there will be left 5,390,0001.
The extension below 1501. we reckon at 125,000/. ; and
the extension to Ireland at 230,0001. ; making the total for
the year 1853-54 according to the proposed plan, 5,845,0001.
(Hear, hear.) I now come to another proposal for the aug-
mentation of taxation to which I invite the special atten-
tion of the committee. _lt is one of great importance. It
involves both economical and social considerations of the
highest nature. I have stated to the committee that we
propose to enlarge our means by new taxation with a view
to further beneficial changes in our fiscal system. That is
one object we have in view. Another object is—and it is
likewise an important object—to meet the public feeling,
which we recognise and share, that the operation of the
income tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared
with property. I frankly own my total inability to meet
the feeling which has been excited upon the subject of the
income tax, and that I think I should be guilty of a high
political offence if I attempted it. But let me now point
out to you that if you think that intelligence and skill un-
der our system of taxation pay too much, and property too
little, there are means of equalising the burdens of the
two classes in a manner which would be on the whole safe,
honourable, and efficacious. Sir, I refer to the question
of the legacy duty—(loud cheers)—a question which it is
perfectly plain cannot be dismissed from the consideration
of the house. In my opinion it is a question of which the
earliest settlement will likewise be the best. It requires
settlement. The tax is not just as it stands. And how is
it unjust? I frankly confess that I have always thought
the view of the case, as stated by the hon. member for
Lambeth (Mr. Williams)—who has exerted himself effec-
tively on this subject—(hear, hear)—l have always thought
that his view, if I may say so without offence—was a
most inadequate view of the state of the case. (Hear,
hear.) The tax is supposed to favour landed property,
which I do not deny; but it also favours property which
has not that claim to favour which landed property
and household property might perhaps' fairly urge
as a ground of exemption firm taxation. (Hear, hear,
from Mr. Williams). lam glad to hear the hon. member
echoing that sentiment. I wish to set aside the impression
that the question bears on its front the odious aspect of a
question of class. It does no such thing (Hear, hear.)
We propose to alter it, and, subject to conditions which I
will state, to extend the legacy duty to all successions
whatever. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the probate
duty, at the present moment we do not venture to deal
with it. The probate duty itself, I grant you, calls for re-
form, and if the Government had the means of carrying
out that reform in the present year it would have been
satisfactory to have done so. As it is, we are obliged at
present to postpone it, but we hope that in a future and
early year it will come under consideration. It is said that
the legacy duty is in the nature of a tax upon property.
It is a tax upon property, and beause it is a tax upon pro-
perty it meets the views which have been so much favoured
by a large portion of this house and by public opinion—
namely, that if the income tax is to bear unequally upon
intelligence and skill as compared with property, then that
inequality ought to be redressed in some way or other.
I think this is a safe mode in which to redress that inequ-
ality, and if this is a tax upon property it is divested of
the danger that attends the taxation of property generally.
The mischief of taxes upon property is the liability of a
constant recurrence of those struggles of classes. But in
carrying into effect this increase in the legacy duty you
have this great advantage, that the liability to pay occurs
only within the limitation which the laws of a higher
power have ordained ; that it only occurs once, on the
death of a man ; and that no man can die more than once.
(A. laugh.) I may be wrong. (A laugh.) But I assure
the committee that it appears to me that this is a most
weighty consideration for those whose duty it is to inquire
how they can best neutralise the social dangers incident to
all questions connected with the taxation of property. You
find the principle of this tax recognised in ow. law ; you
find its operation so limited by the very conditions under
which it exists that there is no reason to apprehend the
disturbing of a fair settlement of these duties, if once
made ; and you will, I think, be of opinion that this is a
fair and right tax to adopt for itself, and that it is one
which in other respects meets, in the best, safest, and
most effective manner, the feeling which is I know is pre-
valent in this house—that the present operation of the in-
come tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared
with property. (Hear, hear.) I propose to retain the
present scale of consanguinity, with one change. (Oh, oh.)
We cannot go into that now, because the emotion of the
hon. member might produce a duellum between him and
me that would inconveniently cross the course of my gene-
ral statement, and we must adjourn the consideration of
that to another time. (Hear, hear.) We propose to re-
tain the present scale with one mitigation. Under that
scale relations of affinity are treated as strangers—a son-
in-law and a daughter-in-law pay a duty of 10 per cent.
We propose to place them on the footing of relations by
blood. (Hear, hear.) We propose that the exemption of
real property should no longer exist, subject to the condi-
tions lam about to mention. The Government propose
that the exemption of settled personalty should no longer
exist, and as we abolish the exemption, I now come
to the question— a most grave one for the Govern-
ment to consider, and which they have carefully con-
sidered—would it be just that all descriptions of pro-
perty, personalty and real property, should be charged
at the same rate_of _duty to the legacy duty ? Our
opinion is that it ought not, and we think that a dis-
tinction ought to be taken, but not taken exactly as here
tofore. It is obvious, when we regard the burdens upon
property in this country, that there is a great mass of tax-
ation that attaches to property which may be roughly
called—l do not know whether the term is legal—rateable

property, which includes along with real property a great
amount of leasehold, copyhold, and so forth, which is not
real property, but which is subject to the burdens of real
property, which is subject to taxation by the income tax,
which is subject to the land tax, though in a less degree,
which is subject to the extra charges on the transfer of pro-
perty, and which is subject generally to all the charges that
affect visible property as contrasted with invisible property,
and which is liable to the great weight of local taxation.
There is between these items a sum of 14,000,0001. or
15,000,0001. of taxes laid entirely on rateable property,
to which not real property only, not land only, but
leashold and copyhold property also are subjected. This
property is now subject in both ways to the legacy and
probate duties, and to all the burdens incident to real
property. The Government propose to amend the whole
foundation of the law, by striking a new distinction, and
by saying that whatever exemption or partial advantage
shall be given to real property shall be given in conjunction
to other property which is now subjected to special bur-
dens. We propose, therefore, to abolish the effect of set-
tlement, so that the person who succeeds to personal
property will pay according to his interest. He will pay
upon the capital, if he succeeds to the capital, and if he
succeeds to a less interest he will pay on the value of that
less interest. The Government, then, thinking it just that
a less amount shall be taken from rateable property than
from property that does not pay these special burdens, have
to ask in what way that distinction can best be struck. It
has long been` the policy of this country—the result of a
measure accidentally taken, but not the less beneficial—
that visible and rateable property should be in a manner
taxed in the form of an annual charge. Now it would be
obviously highly inconsistent, while you are relieving the
average annual burden, to make up for it by laying a heavy
charge upon the capital. For the Government would then
force and accelerate by the pressure of fiscal enactments
changes in the tenure of this property, and that acceleration
would be, in my opinion. not only unjust, but most cruel
and mischievous in a social point of view. We think that
if anything in the nature of a distinction is taken in the
legacy duties in favour of rateable property as against the
other descriptions of property, the fairest mode in the case
of an estate would be found to be this—that the successor
to real property should be in all cases taxed upon the life
interest only, and on a minor interest if he has only a minor
interest. It is difficult for me to enter upon a full discus-
sion of all the reasons that have led us to that conclusion.
The question is very much connected with the great diffi-
culty of any attempt to ascertain the capital values of
real property. As a matter of fact, under the social
arrangements of this country, our great estates are
settled estates. Leaving this subject, however, for future
discussion, it is our view that our proposal ought to include
the legacy duties, and that some remission ought to be
granted to property which is now subject to a great weight
of peculiar and exceptional taxation ; and we think that
the best mode of framing that provision would be to charge
the succession of rateable property upon the life interest
after the deduction of incumbrances. We propose that
the duty should be leviable, as was proposed by Mr. Pitt,
in eight half-yearly instalments. In cases where there is a
succession to a life interest, our proposal would be that the
tax should drop in the case of a new successor before the
new instalment is payable ; but in the case of a succession
in fee the whole will be paid, and if death occurs before
the remaining instalment is paid the duty will be a debt to
the Crown against the estate. That is our proposal with
regard to the legacy duty. I now come to the results
which we anticipate. The produce in the first year will
be small. We do nct propose to charge the new duty. upon
any succession anterior to the period when the committee
shall adopt the resolution. The law allows 12 months for
the payment of the legacy duties, and it will be impossible
to fix the payment of the duty upon rateable property, if
the committee should adopt it, until after me of the ordi-
nary periods of rent day. The duty in personalty cases
will come in more quickly, but I cannot- reokon upon a
larger receipt from the alteration of the legacy duties for
theu r yeare 1853-54 than 500,000/. additional duty from this
_ _ subsequent years the amount will be greatly
enlarged. I have no objection, as far as I am able, to state
the results of my investigation as to future years, and I
think I do not exaggerate when I say, that this tax, if it
is adopted by the committee, while it will add 500,0001.
to the income of the present year
18534addan •
crease of 700,0001. to the year 1854-5, 400: will
0001. more to the
year 1.855-6. and 400,0001. more to the year 1856-7, making
a total addition to the permanent taxation of the country
of not less than 2,000,0001. per annum. (Cheers.) And
this I must remind the committee is a tax which will leave
wholly untouched the intelligence and skill of the country.
(Cheers.) It is a tax that gives the relief, and
of theand more than
the relief that you aim at by the re-construction
income tax, but does it without the dangerhrs
(Cheers.)
would
necessarily attend that re-construction.e
Mr. DISRA_ELL—Does that apply to the three.) king-
doms?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—It is a
general change of the law in the present legacy and probate
duties, and one which takes no cognizance at all of one
kingdom or the other. One great object of our financial
policy would be the equalisation of the spirit duties be-
tween the three countries. It is, however, a very difficult
problem. It is very doubtful whether it will ever be en-
tirely attained, but such an approximation to it as would
stop smuggling might, perhaps, be reached. It is quite
plain that such an equalisation cannot be obtained at pre-
sent by a reduction of the spirit duties in England. You
must take the English duties as the ruling point to which
the other must be raised. In the present year we do not
propose to make any change iu the English spirit duties,
for that question is so much mixed up with the licensing
system, and would involve so great a change in the princi-
ple of licenses in populous districts, that for the
present the English spirit duties must stand over. But
the Government are of opinion, after a careful con-
13ideration with respect to Scotland, that there is no
reason why, in the case of Scotland, there should not be
moderate there in the duty upon spirits. I believe
hat an increase of the duty, confined within clue
i.oundg, would not be opposed' to public opinion in Scot-
land, or unaccetitable in Scotland. (Hear.) An increase
on the duty upon home-made spirits would render neces-
sary an adjustment of the duty upon colonial spirits,
Which I only mention now without going into details.

Our proposal will be that a duty of ls. be added to the
3s. Bd. a-gallon upon Scotch spirits—the malt drawback to
remain as at present. The consumption in Scotland is
7,170,000 gallons. The actual revenue is 1,315,0001. The
expected revenue is 1,633,000/., which is a gain of 318,0001.
I may here stop to congratulate a noble lord opposite (Lord
Naas) on having attained a triumph. I ought to have re-
served this until I came to Ireland, but his victory is at
length achieved. We propose to relieve the distiller,
and likewise the time of this house—(a laugh)—by making
an allowance for waste upon spirits in bond. (Hear,
h ear.) That allowance for waste will be in Scotland
40,0001., which will give the net increase of revenue from
the increase of the duty upon spirits in Scotland 278,0001.
The Government have also anxiously considered this ques-
tion as it regards Ireland. It is quite plain, I am
afraid, that an allowance for waste upon spirits in
bond will entail a dimunition of revenue; in fact, that
will amount to a considerable proportion of the revenue
arising from the duty upon spirits. At present the
spirit duty in Ireland is extremely low in comparison with
the duty in the two other countries. There has been
found to be a great difficulty as to the means of levying the
tax, and we think it would not be safe to levy an
additional tax of ls. a-gallon upon home-made spirits in
Ireland. But we have looked carefully t o the means at
our command for enforcing the levying of this tax. In
Ireland there is a revenue police, which has hitherto had
the exclusive charge of enforcing this duty. But there
is also maintained in that country at the public cost a large
force, the constabulary, which has had no share what-
ever iu giving information to those who have been
engaged in levying the spirit duties. We contemplate
a change in the relation of these two forces. I cannot
say whether it will be by an absorption of the one force
into the other, or in what way it will be done, but the
constabulary will in some manner give their assistance in
the levying of the duty upon spirits. We think we may
fairly propose an increase of duty of Bd. per gallon on
Irish spirits—namely, from 2s. Bd. to 3s. 4d., subject to
the deduction of 40,0001., the allowance for waste, spirits
in bond. This will give us a gross gain of 238,0001. upon
the consumption of Irish spirits, but, deducting the allow-
ance for waste of 40,0001., we have a net gain of 198,0001.
That gives from both countries—Scotland and Ireland
—an increase of 476,0001. But it is necessary that I
should make an allowance for waste in England, not for
the sake of English distillers, but for the sake of Irish and
Scotch distillers, with whom it is a great object to bond
their spirits here. (Hear, hear.) There will therefore be
an allowance of 40,0001. for waste in bond in England,
which will leave a net gain from the increased duty upon
spirits of 436,0001. a-year. (Hear, hear.) There is one
very small augmentation of revenue that I propose, and
that is the revenue upon certain classes of licenses. If the
committee examine the present scale of licenses, they will
see that they bear very unequally upon the minor and the
greater tradesmen ; upon some it is uniform, as upon gro-
cers and teadealers, and they pay the same, whether they
pay rent to the vitae of Si. or 5001. We do not propose
to take up the more important questions as to the licenses
which are connected with the sale of spirits, wine, and
beer, but we propose, in regard to the licenses of brewers,
dealers in tea and coffee, tobacco, and soap, to make an
additional scale of licenses, raising them at the upper end
of the scale to an ad valorem, value. The gross increase of
revenue arising from licenses is 113,0001. The whole
amount of increased taxes which we propose to levy, and
which will come into the accounts of 1853-4, is—income
tax, 295,000/. ; legacy duty, 500,000/. ; duty on spirits,
436,000/. ; licenses, 113,0001., which amount to a total of
1,344,000/.—(cheers)—which, with the anticipated surplus
of 805,0001., will give a fund of 2,149,0001. available for
the remission of taxation. (Cheers.) I cannot proceed
further without stating the nature of our intentions with
regard to Ireland. The committee have found that we
propose to make the income tax payable in Ireland for a
moderate term, and at a descending rate, as in England,
and that we propose to levy an increased tax of Bd. on
spirits in Ireland, which may be a net tax of 6d. or 7d. a-
gallon, after allowing for the waste of spirits in bond.
But I have now to refer to that case which I lately men-
tioned of rent-charge formed by the consolidated annui-
ties. It was the opinion of the Government that it was
impossible for them to arrive at a final decision upon that
important subject. They represent a capital of 4,500,0001.
of public money, and in dealing with them the Govern-
ment must have regard to the actual situation of Ireland,
recovering as it is from a season of the deepest distress,
and having also regard to the harmony of the relations be-
tween the two countries, the Government thought they
could not come to a final decision till they had considered
the general plan of finance which it was their duty to re-
commend, and its bearing upon Ireland. They now re-
rommend a measure which, if you adopt, as I trust you
will, will advance us one great step towards establishing
an equalization of taxation between the three countries.
(Cheers.) It is true that the income tax is of temporary
duration, and that you will show by levying it that there
is a bond fide intention and a rational prospect of equalis-
ing the taxation. But, at the same time, it is important
that you should consider the great necessities of a
portion of that country, and when you come to consider
these things it will be plain that the disposition of Parlia-
ment will be to adopt large and generous measures, and
not consider this as a mere question of money. You will
consider this—you will consider all that it represents—the
recollections of the famine, the peculiar character of
that awful visitation, the feeling of England to Ireland,
and of Ireland to England, whatever made a more kindly
tone between the two countries, and made this debt less
of a national creditor and debtor account. The Govern-
ment have determined to make a large proposition. The
4,500,0001. of consolidated annuities represent 1,500,0001.
of debt that strictly belongs to the establishment of the
poor law in Ireland. That was a great social and na-
tional good—a great and vast good to Ireland. But
every good to Ireland is also a good to England. (Hear,
hear.) The other 3,000,0001. consist of debts entirely con-
nected with the famine. A committee of the other house
of Parliament have sat on this subject, and the have recom-
mended a remission of 2,000,0001. of this taxation. Sir, the
plan of the Government, after maturely considering the
whole question, is to propose to Parliament that, from and
after the 29th of last September, the consolidated annui-
ties shall be wilt-dig wiped away. ((boor from tho Irish
members.) They propose that the whole sum due from Ire-
land to England shall be remitted. In remitting these
charges, and in proposing an income tax upon Ireland, you
will make a great stride towards that, the advantage of
which I hardly know how to appreciate with reference to
bringing the two countries towards the establishment of
the principle of equalised taxation. On that subject I need
only add, because I am asked what I mean to do with the
arrears, that arrears in respect to consolidated annuities
due to the 29th September will be paid as they would have
been if the law had continued in force. On the other hand,
nothing will be collected which has become due since the
29th of September—and any money which has been so col-
lected will be returned to those who have paid it, so as to
take care that the non-paying classes obtain no advantage
over those who have paid. (Hear.) We are inviting you to
remit a capital sum, which was nearly 4,500,0001., and is
still above 4,000,000/., and to remit an annual charge of
245,0001. Three-fourths of that amount would continue
for 40 years, and one-fourth for from 10 to 30 years. The
taxation we propose for Ireland would in the first two
years be considerably higher than the taxation we propose
to remove but if we look to the time when, as I say, Par-
liament will be in a position to part with the income tax,
Ireland would enjoy, and for a long term of years, a much
larger remission of consolidated annuity than it would be
subject to additional burthens in the shape of the spirit
duty. So much for the case of Ireland : and now I have
done with that most offensive part of my task, the imposi-
tion of taxation, I feel—as it is said men are wont to feel,
and as some of us have felt—when they have come an
up-hilljourney to the top of the Alps. Now I have got to
the downward road, and the plains of Italy are before me.
(Hear, hear.) I come to consider the more agreeable subject
of the remission of taxation—that remission of taxa-
tion which up to this moment, not from obstinacy,
and not from petulence, but from a conviction of our pub-
lic duty, we have thought it right steadily to decline ac-
ceding to. (Hear.) The first remission of taxation I shall
propose has reference to the Excise department. It is im-
possible to deny that there are great evils connected with
the soap tax. (Cries of " hear, hear.") In the first place,
the system of drawbacks, which is a system incident to
the use of soap in our manufactories, entails an immense
loss. In the second place, this is an article of taxation
which is both injurious to the comfort and to the health of
the people. (Hear.) In the third place, this is an article on
which the pressure of the tax is so severe that, notwith-
standing the general wisdom and fairness with which your
Excise laws are administered, notwithstanding the draw-
back you grant on exportation, your productive power is
crippled. (Hear, hear.) You cannot compete with the
foreigner—your export trade dwindles day by day—and
gentlemen who have come to me to represent the case
with respect to soap well-informed gentlemen have
stated that if we only take that bold measure with
respect to the soap tax which we recommend,
over and above the entire rate of duty the consumer of soap
would benefit to the extent of no less than 25 or 30 per
cent, in consequence of the cheapened production. (Hear.)
Therefore for every penny of duty we ask you to surrender
we feel that we are giving you double that advantage.
There is one other point to which I cannot but feel that I
must advert. The question of the African slave trade is
one which excites different feelings. We have but one
feeling with respect to the extinction of the slave trade,
but there is a difference with respect to the measures to be
taken for that extinction. Some have thought the means
of force used are unavailing, but that the-promotion of le-
gitimate commerce would be the most satisfactory, the
most effective, and the most desirable of all instruments
you can apply. (Hear, hear.) It may be said there is a
wide interval between the premises and the conclusion if
I say, in order to extinguishthe slave trade repeal the soap
tax. But a connection more intimate than this any gen-
tleman cannot well imagine. The map would show how
the rivers of Africa might become depots for the trade in
palm oil. The quantities you may receive from that
source are almost immeasurable. There are the great ma-
terials for a trade which, if you only relieve it from checks,
will show that the energy, the capital, and the intelligence
of the country are as well entitled to carry away the palm
in this particular—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—as they show
themselves to be in so many respects. The gross receipt
from the soap duty is 1,397,0001.; the drawback, 271,0001.;
the net receipt, 1,126,000/.; the cost of collection, 15,000/4
the net loss, 1,111,0001. But with reference to the general
necessity for fixing a time to commence the remission of
duties, the most convenient time for this purpose in regard
to the soap duty was the sth of July. But there was al-
ways a power of keeping in bond if it were thought fit to
do so. There is already a sum due with reference to the
quarter just expired of 140,0001., and before the present
quarter is out probably 200,0001. will be due. We have to
credit this year 340,0001., and the net loss for this year
will be 771,0001. I come next to the division of the stamp
duties. It is not possible for the Government, with all the
means at their service, to deal with all the articles they
would wish. There are articles—suchas fire insurance and
marine insurance—on which they would gladly, if they
could, grant remissions of taxation. But they have made
the best choice in their power. One subject that naturally
presented itself to them, both in connexion with the in-
come tax, and likewise as bearing directly as a tax on pru-
dence, and bearing especially on the poorer classes, is the
present tax on life assurance. It bears very heavily on the
poorer classes, though not severe in itself. At present it
a with loss or relief
article w i
which be 29i,
nOoiot/s.
amounts to s. 6d. per cent. We propose to reduce it
from 2s. 6d. to 6d. The produce is 40,0001.—the imme-
diatepstraotpeosies
mostei t to
preWsenet
un-
satisfactory, and that is stamps on receipts. This is aduty
which does not grow as it ought with the transactions of
the country, a duty which is evaded wholesale, and a duty
which I must say entails
very considerable inconvenience.
It is not a mere
in i
queston of charge, but the ne-
cessity of dealing the particular papers, stamped
with particular amounts, whichyou have to send
and get as occasion requires, are all little things which
enter very much into the question of inconvenience. (Hear.
hear.) What we propose is, to make an entire
adopt a system analogous to the system found so conve-
nient to the public with reference to postage—namely,
that of penig 'stamps. -We propose by a penny stamp on
rostrum unts for any pament in money, as contrasted with
negotiable instruments, to 'make such payment valid.
Though the first loss to the revenue will not be incon-