The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-28 00:00:00

powers for levying the income tax, which expired on the
sth April. The Income Tax Act was very much consi-
dered in 1842, all the clauses were gone through, and it
was stated by Sir R. Peel at that time that he had taken
into consideration the provisions of Mr. Pitt's Income Tax
Act, and the Income Tax Act of 1806, as framed by Lord
Grenville and Lord Lansdowne. Now Lord Grenville and
Lord Lansdowne were not such bunglers as to make the
thing confused. Parliament had repeatedly considered
the question of the income tax ; and on these
Tarim.* occasions they had contented themssives with
re-enacting without much alteration the provisions of
the act of 1842. Taking the whole number of clauses in
the act of 1842, and re-enacting them with regard to Ire-
land did not seem a very cumbrous and unnecessary provi-
sion. (Hear, hear.) If there were special provisions re-
quired in the case of Ireland, let amendments be proposed
and considered, but that did not seem to him to affect the
general question, that the most convenient way of extend-
ing this tax to Ireland was to make the general provision,
and then to make any alteration which the necessities of
the case and the difference of the circumstances required.
Mr. MA.GUIRE considered that if the bill were extended
to Ireland, Irish members ought to have every facility for
understanding what it was they were enacting, which they
had not at present.
Mr. KIRK was one of the Irish members who had
voted for extending this tax to Ireland, which he did under
the full conviction that it was intended to take off the
consolidated annuities and direct taxation from the Irish
tenant farmers. By the 13th clause the tax would be levied
on the tenants, and, as he read it, they would bo able to
deduct from the landlord only according to the rent they
paid, whereas they might have made improvements, and
be assessessed in the poor-law valuation at a higher sum.
He thought the tax ought to be levied on the landlord, and
he suggested that by means of the police they could
easily ascertain who were the landlords and agents of the
property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
the importance of the question, but suggested that it
should be discussed when they arrived at the 13th clause.
Mr. LUCAS suggested that all mention of Ireland
should be withdrawn from the bill, and that a new bill
should be brought in for that country. Certainly he could
not consent to enact at one step the whole 190 clauses of
the bill as regarded Ireland, and therefore he should move
that the present clause be omitted.
The committee thereupon divided—
For the clause
Against it

Majority

On clause 7,
Colonel DUNNE asked whether the owners of property
in Ireland who were under the present law liable to the tax
if they resided in England would be taxed according to the
place of their residence, or according to the locality of their
property ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if the incomes were derived from land in Ireland it
would of course be taxed in Ireland ; and with respect
to other descriptions of property, they would be assessed
according to residence. The effect of the bill would be
to restore simplicity to what was now somewhat com-
plicated.
In answer to Mr. HAMILTON,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a
separate account would be kept of the Irish income tax.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 12,
Lord NAAS asked whether the right hon. gentleman
was prepared to lay before the committee any calculations
with respect to the probable amount that would accrue to
the Exchequer from the extension of the income tax to Ire-
land ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had fre-
quently stated with respect to the amount to be realised
from this tax, that every man was free to form his own
opinion, and iere was a peculiar latitude in the case of
Ireland. Certainly, he bad no means of information which
would enable him to arrive at such a conclusion as the
house might receive upon the authority of Government.
It was anticipated that the proceeds of the rate-in-aid
would be 421,0001. The law was passed, the tax was levied,
and when the accounts came to be finally adjusted it was
found that the sum of 420,0001. had been brought into the
Treasury. (Hear, hear.) He must confess that he thought
they would come as near the estimate they formed of the
income tax. (Cheers.) The right honourable gentleman
then announced that he would propose the 13th and 14th
clauses. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BALL recommended the postponement of all the
clauses relating to Ireland—namely, those up to the 25th.
(Oh, oh.) He had supported the introduction of the bill
because he really thought that, so far from adding to the
taxation of Ireland, it would be a remission of taxation.
Since then he had made a calculation of the effect of the
financial scheme, and ho found that, though it would lead
to an increase in Irish taxation for the first three years,
it would be followed by a greater diminution. He calcu-
lated that the increase the first year would be, not half a
million as hon. members had said, but 37,800/. ; the second
year, 144,009/. ; and the third, 40,000/. • but the dimi-
nution in the remaining four years would leas e a balance
of 170,0001. in favour of Ireland, but as half
a year's tax would then be due, the result would
be a balance on neither side. At the same time, however,
the effect would be to remove burdens from the labouring
classes to the possessors of property, and therefore he had
given the measure his cordial support. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAi4TNEY disputed the accuracy of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's statement respecting the rate in
aid. In point of fact the rate in aid was stopped from the
poor's rate.
After a short discussion the question was withdrawn,
and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 were postponed.
_ _

_
Clause 15,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
proposed an addition to this clause, giving an appeal to the
parties assessed.
Lord NAAS objected to the clause as giving the Inland
Revenue Commissioners the same powers as the Commis-
sionors of Poor-law.
Mr. SCULLY supported the clause.
Sir A. BROOKE suggested that if a new valuation was
found to be necessary, it should take place at the expense
of the Government.
Mr. CAIRNS observed that the clause as amended would

only give the appeal in the one case—that was where the
valuation was below the correct amount. _ _ _

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said, one great evil in Ireland
was the number of valuations. Ho thought it would bo
better to adopt the poor law valuation, or the valuation of
the commissioners for the income tax, and omit the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
concur in that suggestion, believing that the clause was
necessary for the protection of the revenue. With regard
to the repeal, it was reasonable to suppose that as regarded
the parties themselves, the present valuation was fair, but
it was necessary to give a power of appeal to the commis-
sioners, in order that the valuation should not be unduly
depressed. Where, however, in consequence of such ap•
peal a new valuation was made, an appeal was given also
to the parties.
Colonel DUNNE asked by whom the expense of the

re-valuation was to be borne :ow
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
that the object of the present clause was merely to fix the
principle ; a special provision would be afterwards intro-
duced to provide for the expense.
After a lengthened but desultory conversation, the
clause was agreed to as amended.
Clause 16 was also passed, with some amendments.
Clause 17 was postponed.
Clauses 18, 19,
Mr. MAGUIRE wanted to know on what principle trade
and professions were to be valued in Ireland?
The CHANCELLLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
the same rules would apply in Ireland as existed in Eng-
land for valuing incomes under Schedule D. At the same
time he did not preclude himself from adopting any im-
provement or alteration which might be suggested, or which
the peculiar circumstances of Ireland might render neces-
sary, preserving, however, the same standard which the law
fixed as to the amount.
After some further desultory discussion on this subject,
which related to a clause that had already been passed,
Mr. I BUTT moved an amendment to the effect, that
persons assessed under schedule D should be assessed by
special commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if
he understood the amendment it involved the necessity of
appointing and distributing over Ireland a high class of
officers, with high pay, to perform duties which in England
were discharged by a different class of officers with lower
pay. The assessment was not made in England by special
commissioners. In Ireland it was proposed to give an ap-
peal to the assistant barristers.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 21, 22, 23, and 24 were agreed to.
On clause 25,
Mr. BROCKLEHURST moved as amendments, in line
14, after the words " commissioners for," to insert the
words " general or." In line 21, to strike out the word
" so ;" and after the word " assessed," to insert the words
" and paid for the last year, or on the average of the last
three years, as such commissioners as aforesaid may de-
cide;" and in line 32, afier the word "for," to insert the
words " general or."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not

see the necessity for the amendment, and thought it was
extending the powers of local commissioners, whose au-
thority now caused dissatisfaction. It also altered the
assessment under Schedule D.
After further conversation, the amendment was with-
drawn, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 26,
Mr. BUTT proposed amendments to exempt incomes
under 1501. from income tax, specially in reference to
clergymen. This portion of the income tax would only
produce 100,0c101. a year ; and such a sum was not worth
the unpopularity which would attend such an extension.
Why not give up this, and forego some of those remissions
of taxes on luxuries which would benefit the rich simply ?
The hon. and learned gentleman referred to the speech of
Sir J. Graham on Mr. Disraeli's budget in support of his
proposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted
that the honourable and learned gentleman should attempt
to re-raise the whole question of the various claims of
different classes to exemption. With regard to clergy-
men, ho did not see why they should be exempted, and
he assuredly did not think it would bo for their interest
to be exempted. If the honourable and learned gentleman
was moved by compassion, why did ho not propose an
exemption in the case of life annuities, and in the case of
widows with small annuities ? This was the proper answer
to such a proposal; for in attempting to make one invi-
dious distinction, the honourable and learned gentleman
provoked half-a-dozen more. With regard to the
general proposal, ho (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
condemned it altogether. The hon. and learned gentleman
condemned this extension downwards of the income tax,
but he did not seem sensible that his argument went to
this extent, that it was inexpedient to tax any persons ex-
cent those of easy incomes ; and whatever the " dangers of
deinocinty," none of them could be regarded as greater
t hal: the encouragement of a principle such as that. (Hear,
Bear.,` He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was satisfied
that tho classes to whom the income tax was to be ex-
tended, a: id whio were aware of the intentions of the house,
acquiesced in that policy, finding their account in the relief
they would gdin by the remissions on necessities and in the
new policy involved in the duties on succession.
After a few words from Mr. SPOONER,
Mr. BUTT wishod. to set himself right. This amend-
ment was in no way connected with the other amendment.
When the right hon. Gentleman charged him with seeking
to obstruct the income tax by proposing graduations be-
tween dilThrent classes of income, it was he himself, that
had done that by proposing that incomes between 1001. and
1501. should pay only Sd. in the pound. His (Mr. Butt's)
amendment did not touch real property.
The Marquis of GRANBY said he supposed that his
object was identical with that of the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, and that they were both of them in favour of indi-
rect taxation, 21, nil that they were both of them desirous of
getting rid of the income tax. But he (the Marquis of
Granby) thought that the best' mode of doing so was
to make all feel its inequality, its pressure, and its
injustice. Upon these grounds' be felt himself bound