The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

loser by the budget, if not by design, at least by accident.
First, the abolition of the soap duties could confer no
benefit upon Ireland, for it paid no soap duties. And
there was no concealing the fact, for it was notorious that
the chief soap dealers had been applying for the remission
of the soap duty, because they were unable to compete
with the Irish manufacturers in the foreign and colonial
markets. If the Chancellor had been anxious to confer a
boon upon Irish manufacture, he would have done some-
thing to protect Ireland's only manufacture, that of beet-
root sugar, which in the English market next year would
stand in no better position than slave-grown sugar. (Hear,
hear, hear.) English manufacturers were very fond
of crying up free trade, yet what was the fact ?
Why there was not a single manufacture of Man-
chester, York, or Leeds, which, though relieved from
Excise restrictions, was not still protected. He maintained,
therefore, that if the Chancellor had been anxious to have
favoured Ireland, he would not have dealt with her as he
had done. Again, let him point to another restriction—
that upon the growth of tobacco. (Mr. Sergeant Murphy
here made an observation in reference to the hon. and
learned member havine* again taken up his papers to quote
some statistics.) Let him inform the hon. and learned
member for the city. of Cork that he would not be so full
of his imperial doctrines if the Septennial Act were not in
force, and if his constituents in Ireland could hold over the
hon. gentleman the same threat of dissolution that had
been held out by the Government to those who refused to
support their budget. (Hear, hear.) He could only say,
in conclusion, that no member of that house was more
anxious than he was that Ireland should be treated as an
English county. He wished to see the two countries ab-
solutely incorporated, to all intents and purposes, Ireland
being no longer subject to peddling and exceptional legisla-
lation, but governed by the same system of statute and
common law. If that were done—if they would but con-
fer on Ireland the same local institutions which were en-
joyed by England, they would be able to economise their
local expenditure, and reduce their highway rates from the
resent amount of 1,100,000/. a-year to half that sum.
p (Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY wished merely to bring two points
under the notice of the right hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; to which he would refer later at some length.
His first suggestion was that the right hon. gentleman
would be able very larg,ely to increase the amount of revenue
derived from the proposed tax on successions, by including
within his arrangements a very large class of property—
that was held in mortmain by corporate bodies The next
point had reference to the mode in which the income tax
was collected. He alluded to copyhold tenants, who paid
double—first of all they paid upon the value of their land,
and then they paid fines which were levied upon every new
admittance.
Sir T. O'BRIEN was not going to annoy the house with
quoting figures which were often calculated to confuse
rather than to inform. Ho rose merely to say, that if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to make any
changes in the Irish part of the budget, he must not
take it for granted that the tenant-farmers of that country
would derive all the advantages from his scheme which had
been described. He must say that he was perfectly amazed
at the picture drawn by his excellent friend the member
for Tipperary of the advantage to accrue to that class.
Mr. F. SCULLY—I said that the remission of the con-
solidated annuities would confer a great boon upon the
farming classes of Ireland.
Sir T. O'BRIEN would like to know if the hon. gentle-
man bad ever taken a walk from Cashel to Tipperary, from
Cashel to Clonmel, or Cashel to Thurles, for if he had he
would have seen nothing but ruins of the dwellings of
tenant-farmers. It was all very well to talk of the tenant-
farmers being benefited by the remission of the annuities,
but they had never paid them—the only rates paid by Irish
farmers were on account of writs. The fact was, the re-
mission was no sufficient equivalent for the sacrifice they
were called upon to make. He had never given a selfish
vote—he' came there neither 'for nor against the Govern-
ment. But he must protest against the system pursued by
Irish members—a system calculated to do the greatest in-
jury to the country. They formed themselves into cliques
of 16 or a dozen, held meetings, and came forth to dictate
as to the government of Ireland. (Hear.) He believed
that those who opposed the budget of the LGovernment
held quite as great a stake in the country as those who
favoured it. In its every feature, with the single excep-
tion of the repeal of the tea duties, the budget was adverse
t. Ireland ; and let him warn the Chancellor of the Ex-
'chequer that the repeal of those duties would lead to little
or no increased consumption of that beverage as far as that
country was concerned. He begged, therefore, to say that
his vote on Monday was given conscientiously and unfac-
tiously ; nor had he heard anything since to make him ro-
gret the course he had taken. (Hear.)
Sir G. GOODMAN could assure the hon. gentleman the
member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), who, •he believed, he
might rank amongst his constituents, that the manufac-
turers of Leeds were by no means unwilling to see the
income tax extended to Ireland. On the contrary, they
believed that its imposition on that country was a move
altogether in the right direction, and that a very great
benefit would be thereby conferred upon the public of both
countries.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL must protest against the term
clique being applied to Irish members by the hon. baronet
the member for Cashel. He had assisted at the meeting
alluded to by the hon. gentleman, but it was only in a mi-
nisterial capacity as chairman. It was equally open to the
hon. member for Cashel to attend the meeting, but he had
managed to absent himself in Dublin on his own private
business. (Laughter.)
Mr. R. M. FOX hoped, when the amendment was with-
drawn, the acerbity would also be withdrawn which had
characterised the debate. He believed they would always
find strong feelings in Ireland ; that these feelings would
be expressed in an energetic manner. He hoped they would
come to the consideration of the remainder of the budget
without any acerbity of feeling and with an honest deter-
mination to render full justice to Ireland.
Mr. MAGAN believed the hon. gentleman's motion was
a perfectly sincere motion. The hon. gentleman was en-
gaged in the same task as he was—namely, to avoid the
imposition of the income tax on Ireland (as was understood).
There was one mistake made by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, which mischievous minds like his own (Mr. Ma-
gates) would be ready to suspect—he had too long delayed
making an apology for the observations he Jaad made. He
would say no more, as he wished to leave the hon. and
learned gentleman "all alone in his glory." (Oh, oh, and
laughter.)
Mr. BALL sympathised with the feelings of those Eng-
lish members who must think it a great infliction to have to
listen to another night's debate on the income tax. But this
question was calculated to excite much agitation in Ireland
and one on which great difference of opinion prevailed.
(Oh.) It was right, therefore, that the people should know
the facts, and that the truth Of the question shouldbe fairly
placed before them. The question the house had to consi-
der was no small or narrow question ; it comprised the
future taxation of Ireland. (Oh, oh, divide.) Did hon.
members opposite wish to stifle discussion ? He only de-
sired to enter into the matter fairly, and he challenged
them to discuss the question fairly with him. (Oh.) He
had always been of opinion that the act of Union with
Ireland was unjust. Certainly, he could not but
consider that the present proposition was not in unison
with the object of the Act of :Union. He would compare
the revenue and expenditure of Ireland 30 years after the
union with—(divide, divide.) The hon. gentleman here
sat down with the remark that it was evident a desire
existed to put a stop to fair discussion.
Mr. M`CANN knew as much about Ireland as any hon.
member in the house, and it was his belief there was no
difference at all on the question. He believed Ireland was
taxed, in proportion to England, beyond her fair share and
her means. He might be mistaken, but he was will-
ing to have, a committee of English gentlemen chosen to
look into the question, and he would readily abide by
their verdict.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. W. MICHELL moved—" To leave out or from
any profession, trade, or vocation,' in order to add to the
Chancellor of the Fachequer's resolution, ' and for and in
respect of any profession, trade, or vocation, whether the
same shall be respectively exercised in the 'United King-
dom or elsewhere, on the first 100/. of income no duty shall
be charged or chargeable thereon ; for every 205., the an-
nual value or amount thereof, above the yearly profits of
1001., and below that of 500/.—
For two years from April 5, 1853 sd.
For two years from April 5, 1855 4d.
And for three years from April 5, 1857 3d."
He did not bring this amendment forward to damage the
Ministry, but because he thought justice required the al-
temtion should be made. He was not opposed to the bud-
get ; he thought it was a fair budget, and that it would
be impossible to get a budget to please every one. His
constituents rather liked the budget than otherwise. Go-
vernment proposed to remit taxation on the' industrious
classes. The right hon.gentleman'had taken off the taxes
on knowledge, and had placed them on the compositors and
reporters. By this arrangement the man who only earned
it. 18s. a week, perhaps because he was idle, was exempted,
while the industrious, the more honest, and more sober
man, who earned 2/. 2s. per week was to be brought with-
in the operation of the tax. Was this just ?. The
same principle of injustice pervaded the tax as applied to
other industrious classes. He thought it would be advisable
to make the tax operate on the working classes this way—
to take no notice of the 1001., and to commence levying the
tax on all the amount beyond the 1001. This, he believed,
would give far greater satisfaction. What he desired to
effect by his amendment was, to protect the working classes,
and at the same time to do away with the temptation of
endeavouring to find out ingenious ways to evade the im-
post. He was convinced that if they did not make the tax
discriminating it would never work well. The hon. mem-
ber concluded, amid considerable and continued interrup-
tions, by handing to the chairman a motion in manuscript
which he wished to move.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER presumed
that the motion which the hon. member had handed in was
the same as that which stood in the votes.
The motion as it stood on the votes having been read and
put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
motion 'as it at present stood would go to exempt all the
different descriptions of rating in the previous part of the
resolutions. The correction which had been made in it
confined it to trades, professions, or vocations. It was not
necessary for him to state at any length his reasons for not
acceding to the motion. They rested on two grounds. In
the first place, the motion, although intended by the hon.
gentleman in all sincerity to facilitate and improve the
working of the tax, involved principles most inconvenient
and even dangerous. It involved all the difficulties that
arose at a former period, of different rates on different
classes ; and another set of difficulties, viz., those which
related to a graduated income tax. It was quite true, as
the hon. gentleman had stated, that Mr. Pitt proposed
what in some sense might be called a graduated income
tax. He proposed a tax graduated below 2001., and
no doubt, on abstract grounds, that involved the
principle of a gradation applicable to all incomes. But
they stood in this matter not on abstract grounds, but on
prescription. Ever since they had had the income tax they
had had exemptions of some sort ; but they never passed
beyond 2001. Mr. Pitt graduated the tax below that sum
in order to obviate the anomaly that existed. It was
always graduated on a certain"piinciple and with reference
to clerks of limited income. In fixing 1501. as the amount
under which there should be exemptions, Parliament had
adopted a very liberal rule. But whatever the amount
was below which the exemption was fixed, above it there
had always been a uniform rate. The hon. gentleman pro-
pDsed to graduate up to 5001., but if they adopted that
principle, there was no reason why they should not extend
it to t.O 5,0001. In fact the proposal opened the wide question
exttortnhaee wrateeatalti,
awnhaicphovtehrety should tax the rich, as corn-
pared with the poor, through all the gradations between
would not admit so dangeroyus.
pleasure to meet the
a pHrienahipolpee.dmthoeughcoimt committee
ggievnetlhieminangrienatanPyl
It was a great deal
cost little less than 700°00
way he could not consewntishtoeshiosf proposal.
It
Ithemati4isfiothnseyofgtawave utipotwatiaz
expensive, and if adopted would
/. a-year. He need not point out
cilia they must re-adjust the
had been proposed in c,onneo