The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-26 00:00:00

man refused to make that distinction ; ho proposed to re-
new and 'extend the tax, and to leave the popular objection
against it altogether untouched. (Hear.) It wasprecisehliey
because he agreed with the right hon. gentleman in
two fundamental propositions
Ile agreed with
compelled led
right.t
dissent from his conclusions. iethomt
resourcea ought at all times.
hon. gentleman that this mighty,
to be available in case need; and he agreed next that it
regular and habitual part of our taxa-
ought not to form
tion. Precisely. foar these reasons he (Sir E. B. Lytton)
contended that in order to make the use of this great in-
strument available hereafter, if required, they should begin
by removing the. most obnoxious part of its machinery ; and
cnexthin if was inconvenient or unwise to correct the ma-
ery, tit
he more reason there was that they ought to con-
sole those who were ground down to the
hour longerutmost, by assur-
ing them it would not be continued a single .
than could be helped. But the right hon. gentleman did
exactly the reverse of all this. He proposed to retain the
tax, and to render it most difficult to reconcile the public
to its renewal, if it should be hereafter required, and he
withheld the promised suspension till the
in the history
furthest possible
period. Seven years might be a short period
of a people, but it occupied adlairt n large space
the end of the
seventh the life of a
single generation. (Hear-)
seventh ear the right hon. gentleman
had given no guar-
santee that it would be abolished.
(Hear.) The right hon.
gentleman candidly
said—and his incredulity could not be
wondered at, remembering all the promises of his predeces-
sors—"you the resources which I cake-
' I will place before
11 enable you to remove the income tax in 1860, and
llats7al enable the public to exercise their discretion." Then
he luminously summed up his expectations, and his rever-
sionary profits, and lie showed that in 1860 there might be
a balance out of which to make up the loss of 6 years in-
come tax. Bat the right hon. gentleman forgot that all this
while the House of Commons was forestalling his balance
every year. Even his own friends the other night would not
wait four days, for they voted for the repeal of the adver-
tisement duty, though they knew it might embarrass his
budget. (Hear, and oh.) How then could he be assured
that independent members would wait patiently for seven
years before they interfered with any tax which was to
pay off the income tax in 1860 ? Every class had sortie
particular interest against some particular tax, stronger
than its general interests against the income tax, and just
in proportion as time advanced, or as the succession duties
might be most productive, or as the long and other termin-
able annuities fell in, any member might press forward
motions for the repeal of particular-taxes such as those of
paper, malt, and others, so that he feared when the time
came to encounter the giant there would not be a pebble
in the brook to put into the sling to slay him with. (Hear.)
Grant that there was no tax taken off in the interval,
so as to anticipate the balance which the right honour-
able gentleman reasoned upon, still the light honour-
able gentleman was compelled to base all his calcula-
tions upon one bold assumption, namely, that his remis-
sions of indirect taxation would replace thdmselves in
1860, and that, according to analogous experiment, Most of
those taxes would then be of the same amount as they were
at present. He assumed that, according to the commercial
law of reproduction, the revenue would replace itself in
1860, and then there would be an available surplus of
5,959;0001. to devote to the surrender of the income tax. n
Everything would depend upon that. He (Sir E. B. Ly )
agreed that reduction of duty upon articles of customs
which were largely consumed, did ultimately replace their
loss to the revenue. But this applied to duties that were
reduced, and not to duties repealed altogether. The right
hon. gentleman proposed to abolish altogether the soap
duties, which amounted to 1,126,00/., and also on certain
articles of customs amounting to 53,0001., making alto-
gether 1,179,0001. These duties, as they were alogether
abolished, were not subject to the law of reproduction, be-
cause they did not exist. Among the items to which they
were to look for restoring the revenue was colonial postage,
40,0001. ; but he thought the law of reproduction was not
fully applic :blo to articles of luxury, such as servants,
and carriages.
horses,
The right hon. gentleman, there-
fore, could not be sure he would be able to replace in seven
years the 344,C7,0/., which he proposed to take off under
these heads. As to another item, he would ask what be-
came of the law of reproduction ? The right hon. gentle-
man calculated not upon the duty diminishing, but upon
the duty increasing, with regard to spirits, to the amount
of 436,0001. This was by increasing the duty now pay-
able. Judging from all analagous experience, he feared
that the effect of the increased duty might lead only to illi-
cit distillation, and that the smuggler and not the revenue
would derive the advantage. The taxes upon which the
right hon. gentleman proposed to operate amounted to
nearly 2,000,0001., one portion of which 'was not suliject to
the commercial law of reproduction, whilst the other -was
abolished altogether ; yet it was by this, which amounted
to actually one-third of the visionary Surplus of 1860,
that the income tax was to be repealed. (Hear.) He ob-
jected, however, to the continuance of the income tax for
seven years, because there was no guarantee that it would
abolishedbe at the end of that time. If he had any cause
to doubt the assurances of the right hon. gentleman—
assurances, perhaps, he could hardly call them—but if he
had any reason to entertain' some doubt of 'the right hon.
gentleman's own hopes upon the subject, he should find
them in a letter which appeared in the journals of this
morning. (Hear, hear.) That letter was a sufficient con-
lirniation of his doubts. The Birmingham clerk complained
very much that he was to be subjected to the extension of
the income tax ; and he (Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton) corn-.
mended the considerate kindness which dictated the reply
of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) With con-
siderate kindness, then, he informed this respectable clerk
that the tax collector would call upon him in themonth
of January for 11. Os. 10d., and that ho would call upon
him again probably in July for the same amount, and
that this process would go on for seven years " an-
less"—let the house mark that—" unless Parliament, in
consideration of other public benefits or necessities not
yet foreseen, should prolong the tax." (Hear, hear.)
After such timid and qualified assurances on the part
' of the right hon, gentleman, he objected to bind Parlia-
ment and the conntry to a continuance of this tax for.
seven years ; and he objected to -continuing it for this
period, further, bccaUse it would have a demoralising effect.
The rig it hon. gentleman had himself objected to the tax
on account of the fraud and falsehood practised by 'Men
eneeSged in buainess in making their returns. .That, lie
said, constitute 1 a plain reason why the income tax should
not be adopted. Now he contended that these effects
weald be multiplied if the tax was continued for sc
lengthened a period. When men considered a law unjust
or unfair, they evaded it. So it would be in this case.
But all the objections which he had stated to the duration
of the tax applied to its proposed extension. The late
Govern meet proposed to extend it to incomes of 1005
a year, but they did so by placing it upon an equitable
footing, as was required by the great body of the
people. \ But the proposed extension extended only its
injustice. It was propoSed to inflict it upon men in
humble circumstances—and he asked what reason there
wag to suppose they would not resort to subterfuge and
evasion, seeing that the law had already cm euptecl those
who were in better circumstances? He contended, there-
fore, that this extension would necessarily produce a demo-
ralising effect. But it was proposed to extend the tax to
Ireland. He would not argue the question whether it was
expedient at this time to inflict another burden upon that
countiy, which it might scarcely be able to bear ; but he
could not conceive a greater affront to the common sense of
the country, than to offer the release of a partial debt as
compensation for a general tax. (Hear.) The discharge from
the Consolidated Annuities relieved only various parishes,
but this tax was to be general throughout the country, so
that one could be no c ompensation for the other. To a
gentleman in Clare who was called upon to pay income tax
it was no compensation to say that a debt incurred by a
parish in Limerick had been wiped away. So that, in point
of fact, the tax, instead of being rendered Lore fair, its
extension to Ireland onlyrendered it more unequal. He did
not think it would be necessary for him to follow the right
hon. gentleman into all the special instances and examples
by which he had vindicated his views to the house ; for if
he were to grant ho had made out his case a stubborn pre-
judice would rebel against him. Was it just to tax the
funded income, the assured capital that a man could leave
to his heirs, at the same rate as that which a man might
lose by a stroke of paralysis, which might make him a
bankrupt, (r a beggar, and consign his children to the
workhouse? (Hear.) It had been said bythegreatestautho-
rities, that itwas neverenough to provide that a tax should
be just in its object—bet that it was much more important
to the commonwealth that it should be just in its applica-
tion. Now he (Sir E. B. Lytton) denied altogether the ac-
curacy of the deductions of the right hon. gentleman from
the special instances which he cited. He said that, taking
all the deductions for which allowance ought to be made.
• Real property paid 9d. in the ponnd to this tax, while trade
paid only 7d. Now. he (Sir E. B. Lytton) submitted that
if ho were to deal with equal liberality with the deductions
which might be made from trade, such as bad debts and
other matters, he could form a total whichwould more than
make up the difference of 2d. But was there no other pro-
perty to which the tradesman might compare his own ?
What was the case of the fundholder ? He received his in-
come net and clear, with the guarantee of the State. Now,
was it just, whilst the fundholder was free, to tax him who
had no capital except his industry, and no security except
his health ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman was
perfectly well aware that there was the same kind of injus-
tice pervading the whole tax. This was clear, for he had
afterwards said, with singular inconsistency, "he shared in
the feelings of those who considered that it pressed too
hard upon intelligence, intellect, and skill, and not hard
enough upon property ;" and then he proceeded to refer
to the injustice of laying an additional tax upon property.
Now he (Sir B. B. Lytton) objeCted to this roundabout
mode of evading a very simple difficulty. (Hear, hear.)
But the right hon. gentleman said, then, that there were
difficulties in the way of classifying income; there were
incomes deiived from trade and from land, and that there
were incomes derived from land. of only three or four
years' value, whilst there were incomes from the other of
25 years' value. Of course it was hard to deal with these
cases separately. Some disparities must exist, but it was
the business of a statesman to set aside the disparities in
such a way that there would be no injustice. Take the

Case of an insp.-epee company. In proportion as their
leans and premiums increased they entered into business ;
but in making their calculations they did not enter into
minute differences of calling or habits which might render
the life of one man, the same ago as another, of a different
value. If the actuary paused at every discrepancy of thiA
kind, the insurance office would have no business at all.
Suppose a feeble grandfather and his grandson presenting
themselves at SUMO office to insure their lives. According
to rrTeived principles the life of the grandfather would be
worth five years' purchase, but that of the grandson
triweataiiv.eay g toYei i Years but an actuary of the genius of the
what to gayt,---nanine might na,y---.4 Well, Ido not know
twill run such risks—the young man
may hunt, and be killn a fall from his horse-he may
do I do not know whate' batynd, for aught I know, his life
may be the worst ofihe,
would be, the insuranee einwmci).lw(!lrunitairlaviThe neocb%snsienclensesnacte'
all. So it was precisely
might be worth more than others3nc;cnnb-aets.stillointheerienwcoamseas
manifest distinction between those of property and those of
trade. He thought ho had now tou 1 edtupon all the points
of the question. He had enderzi-oon4erietinlowo show that if the
°sett was too
tar Was to be temporary, the
people a
long, but long enough to root in the lieartPsro7
sense of injustice, and lead to inducements tthe
they meant it should be permanent, then thefrfiarn'ti. If
ought to have been to remove those inequalities which step
yoked opposition and caused evasion. Ho had also endea-
voured to show that there was no guarantee that thettsa; would cease in the year 1860. (Year, hear.) The rightz
honourable gentleman would believe him when he said he
was the last to disparage his great power and attainments,
or to doubt his high motives; he would rather hope, it'
he should be defeated in this measure, be would do rs
others had done before him—(hear, hear)—correct his bud-
get and retain his position. (A laugh.) It might be true
that seen on his (Sir E. B. Lytton') side of the house had
vindicated the claims of British industry on behalf of the
and he begged to say it was something of the same
principle which led them
tradesman. (Giles onofw to defend the cause of the
British " oh, oh.") Some vague
threat:i of dissolution had been held out, but the party
with which he had the honour to act were perfectly rceoadlty
to run.the risk of such an event taking place.
not Pretend tejudge how many of the representatives of
towns were prepared to vote for the resolution of the right