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

L N NIN G, APRIL 19, 1853.

necessity arise—which may God 'in His mercy avert (hear, portions of the payments to be made by different classes,
hear)—with it judiciously employed you mayagain; if need and' where they are to end. (Hear, hear.) If it be de-
he, defy the world- (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") This, sired to settle the question according to the views which
then is the purpose which the. income tax has served— have pressed themselves on the minds of many moderate
-that in the time of vital struggle, it enabled you to raise and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the
the income of the country above 'its expenditure of war right hon. gentleman opposite, and by my hon. friend the
-and civil goyernment (hear), and that service so performed member for Wiltshire in committee—namely, by making
was Performed at atime when. men do net minutely in- land Eay about 4cl. and precarious income about 3d., then I
quire into the incidence of - taxation ; they do not then • say that object is accomplished, for the payments of the two
indulge themselves in the adjustment of details ; but are classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment.
afraidsleaitathey should lose
.the mass and the substance. But let us go further in the 'consideration of this vastly im-
Altersaaalteare) Rat times when the hand of violence is let. portant, question. ' I protest against the doctrine of those
loose, and when whole plains are heitheared with carnage, who" propose fa do justice between the two kinds of income
are the times when it is desirable that you shoUld have the by establishing average classes in each kind. That is the
power of resort to this mighty engine, to ,make it again course. advocated by hon. member for Montrose. The
available for the defence and *salvation of the country. hon. Member is always con-siatenta and always manful ;
(Hew', hear.) Well, sir, the income tax dropped along and when he sees a difficulty he takes no pains to avoid it.
with the purpose of the income tax in 1816. But it was (Laughter.) His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of
aleatined to be revived. Sir R. Peel, in 1842, called forth artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income
from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war, tax, into difficulties which . a nian acting as a tactician
to 'come-and assist- our industrious toils in peace (hear, would' avoid. The common notion was that incomes
hear) ; and if the first income tax produced enduring and should be classed in averages. In the name of reason and
memorable results, so lam free to say, at less expenditure common sense I ask, how these who demand equality can
'by far in money, and without those painful accompani- obtain it by averaging classes of income ? Look at an-
ments of havoc, war, and bloodshed (hear, hear)—so has 'unities. -The tables give the value of female life at 15
the second income tax. The second income tax has been years of age at 25 years' purchase, but go upwards to 70
the instrument you have introduced, and which, I hope, or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only five
ere long you may perfect, the reform—the effective reform years' purchase. Yet 'you propose to average these dissi-
of your commercial and fiscal system (hear, hear) ' • and I, miler classes—to bring up the value of five years' purchase
. for one, am bold enough to
,hope and to expect that, in and bring down 'the value of the 25 years' purchase.
' reforming your own fiscal and commercial system, you What possiblaaaatesrage- can-these--interests admit of? A
have laid the foundations of similar reforms—slow per- life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of
' haps, but certain in their progress—through every country five years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life
'of the civilised world. (Cheers.) I say therefore, sir, of five years' purchase, when called on to pay three times
: that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with •as much as he ought that the life of 25 years' purchase pays
it we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and . only half as much as he should do ? (Hear, hear.) Still
for(C thehe
er
s ih a.a) ni immediatelyn
iLoiye
has
ona r
use
England,
me now
egnieltona
wnnt
d-ih a,
attemptey and
means h aveu le
ttnei
ofi :
fsmoaf
uyao
nrnteydh
aat thb tradessai absurd r
manydt the
aeme wouldwattret
ear
icrbi
hee thetrades
ryee
closely
asaretelt,yem
better, attempt
n purchase.to
the
investigatedaveragelwhviotelnetrades.w:iirltleh
ahineo
Inimay
tailed,aatyeiey console
nbt
achievingyso 13
greati tmeh
ae recollectionginoourselves(eid.
interests,ttht leeicnh
present to the committee a closer analysis of this duty. I perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords oppor-
: shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the tunities for providing for children 'and relations such as no
aer charges
dispenseitsstha that are
composition.wa rite
b theor
brought
Letgihn t-
, Government, that we cannot at the present moment, with other pursuit presents. (Hear, hear.) Let us, however,
theth2asn casefi five,
years' m,
four,
odue purchaserr
,a.t
oe
rly three
h;
re andthere
es
raey
years'
at
rh.
are others
0 purchase,ish
, eiwatoaorterteh
' a due regard
Let
ii the public
lookst
iinvestigate
tea h
am not one of those who make light of those are you to average the' interest of a trade worth three
- a ray
_own individual opinion, it is and another worth .25 years' purchase ? I must enter my
againstuceehs
amregelx_i.. attempt(
HtLloe a r .
)eem rse nt trades
dews worth
perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax protest against this averaging of classes. There is another
was put an end to at the termination of the war, that it topic of a painful nature connected with this branch of the
is not well adapted fora permanent portion of your finan- subject,' to which I must briefly allude. We have seen
cial system. (Hear.) Whether it is so or not, on which that land pays 7d. in the, pound according to a stardard
there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on of value which does not depend on the will or testimony
all hands agreed—that it is not adapted for a permanent of its owner. (Hear,, hear.) Trade, on the other hand,
portion of your,fiscal system, unless you can, by recon- pays 7d. in the poundassessed by each trader himself.
struction, remove its inequalities. (Hear.) Even if you (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that, in the majority of
could remove its inequalities, into which we will patiently instances the returns of the traders are fairly and honour-
examine, there would still remain in my mind objections ably made. There, are many cases, in trade, in which it
of thasgetivestscharacter. - (Hear, hear.) The reconstruc- is a matter 'of extreme difficulty to know what return to
tion of your income tax•would, I think, under any circum- make, and I belie-Ve ' that in these eases the doubt is
stances, be found to Open up social questions of the most solved by the honourable trader 'against himself, and that
serious import ; and the machinery of the income tax, in- he returns his piofits greater than they really are. Let
volving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the
objectionable principle of self assessment, in my opinion, trading classes of England generally the conduct which
can never be satisfactory to. the country. (Hear, hear.) is pursued by some individuals. I am .going to state an
First, because self assessment leads to grievous frauds extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been '
upon-the revenue, and renders the real inequality of the generally done, but of what can be and has occasionally'
tax more trying than any of.those inequalities which im- been done. I will mention no names—l will 'violate no
mediatelY strike the 'eye and feelings ; and, secondly, be- confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town
cause ofthe tendencyto, immorality, which is, I fear, essen- where a new street was built. The persons who lived and
tially inherent in the nature of the operation. But now let carried on business in the old street, which was pulled
us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let down to make. way for the new one, had been charged a
me observe that we are too much in the habit of speaking of certain amount to the income tax. They had, also, of
this impost as merely a simple tax ;it is rather a code or course, made returns to a certain amount under the income'
system of taxation. In mere bulk it is a volume ;it has tax. When the new street came to be built they claimed,
been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive, compensation for the loss of their business. The amount'
years ; it combines a large mass of precedents: and in short had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the corn-
it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which mittee with details, I will, state the amount of compensa-
we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,000/. a tion which these persons—in 'number 28—claimed ; the
year. One-twenty-eighth part of this sum is 200,0001. Now, amount awarded 'them_ byathe jury, which may be taken'
if you investigate the composition of schedule A, you will as, on thewholea an approximation to the real value.; and
find that land and houses—which I take together, because the amount at which they returned their profits under the
their position is substantially-analogous—including the in- income tax. 'Were I to descend to individual cases, it
comes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and set- would be almost impossible adequately to describe the
tlements, pay no less than 12.28ths of the tax, or about partly ludicrous and partly shameful aspect which they
2,400,0001. Now, let us look at the other great element of assume. I will,'thereforo, deal with the matter generally,
this tax, namely, the payment that proceeds from trades. and say that! the 28 persons claimed the sum of 48,1591. as
In order to get at this payment accurately, we must de- compensation for their profits for a single year. The
scend a little deeper than the mere classification of the amount of Compensation awarded by the jury was 26,9731.,
schedules. There are in sehedule A some considerable or a little more than half what was claimed ; but what was
classes of property which pay duty along with land and the amount at which they returned their profits for assess-
houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 27,0001. a ment to 'the income tax,? They claimed 48,0001. ; they got
year, which are essentially trading concerns. For the imp. from the jury nearly,27,ooo/. ; but the return of profits for
pose which I have in view I must likewise take out of ache- assessment to the income tax 'which they 'separately made
dole B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place amounted only to'' 9,000/. (Much laughter.) I deeply
it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous regret that the great body of honourable men who have
in character. This gives me 330,0001. more, and then I made the name of British commerce famous throughout
come td' what I may call trades proper—namely, those the earth; even more for its truthfulness than for its energy,
which appear in schedule D, and which pay a sum of should be degraded by association with persons who could
something like 1,200,000/. These three branches of trades perpetrate frauds like these. (Hear, hear.) But at the
in schedules A; B, and D, contribute an income of no less same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do
than 1,800,0001., or 9-28ths of the whole tax; and the two exist; they are inseparable from the character of the im-
togethera-that is to says land and houses and trades,
21-28ths of the whole tax. There remain when you are called upon parr post,-human,nature remainin_gas it is; and it is impossible.
4,200,0001., le r to consider -the question of the
the fund& in schedule C,-which pay 750,0001., or I.7th of yeadjustment of the tax wholly to dismiss them from con-
the whole tax, and salaries in schedule E, which pay about eideratiene . Now sir; I leave 'this part of the question
1-17th of the tax. Professions in schedule D, after striking with this proposition, which I think will hardly be contro-
out those which partake rather of the character of trades, . verted—that as regards the state of the case between: land
pay 250,0001.; or -about 1-22 d -of the tax. Thus, we see, and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration,
the funds, salaries, and professions make up tl e remaining there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction
4th. 'of the' tax--three-fourths being paid by lands and of the income tax: (Hear.). I have three other cases still
houses and by trades. It is said that gross inequality is to consider. • and first I will take the case of schedule E,
.the characteristic of the tax, and that it ought not to be which contains the paymeets that are derived from the in-
levied—that it is unjust' to tax precarious and realised in-.. comes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that
conic alike. What income is precarious, and what income no class of persons is included in schedule E, with the ex-
is realised? Income-derived from trade would, I presume, - eeption of persons connected with the Bank of England;
be called precarious ; and, without wishing to anticipate 'who may not be called, in one sense or another, public ser-
the ' judgment of the committee, I may probably assume vents. - - Some of them may be servants- of local or separate
that this is their Opinion. Observe that, after all, the main authorities, as for instance the 'East India Company, but
question is between lanct and trade. - Everything else, in they are generally. .servants of her Majesty's Government.
reaped of bulk and magnitude, forma but a mere outline pf Now, with respect to the case of ' these public salaries, I
-this, the main question. Land and houses, we find, pay think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such
an income tax of 2,400,0001., and trade pays 1,800,000 e ; incomes and life incomes. As they are usually held almost
betareba them they pay' three-fourths of the whole tax. It for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is
is, therefore, evident that the justice of the 'present rela- little inferior to that of life incomes ; and their inferiority,
Lions between land and trade must go a considerable—l do in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by
noh,say the whole—way towards the solution of the great this—that they are usually progressiye incomes, while life
Aueition,..whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not. incomes are fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dis-
Let us, then, look at the tax as it stands between land and passionate man to draw a distinction between the case of
houses and trade, and if the committee will do me the fa- salaried and life incomes. With regard to remissions upon
your' to follow me in the estimate lam about to enter upon, salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways.
it shall be ray endeavour to place the matter before them At present there is a movement among the civil servants of
in as clear a, light as, possible. My first object is to show the Crown for a change, in regard ao their superannuation
the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The
that realised and precarious incomes ought to pay different tide has but lately turned, for it is not very long since the
rates, and that therefore the tax ought to be reconstructed, right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) made a
they forget to inquire whether at the present moment rea- motion in this house—and, unleas lam much mistaken, he
lised and precarious incomes, as represented by land and all but carried it—for reducing salaries of this description
houses on the one hand, ant-I:by trades on the other, do not 10 per cent. Now, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that
pay different rates. Let .us, in the first place, see at what such salaries ought' to be reduced by 10 per cent., I would
rate land and houses pay.
_Land pays in the gross 7d. in the suggest that it would. be better to reduce them by a little
pound upon an income nor, assessed by the possessors, of less than,lo per cent. rather than break up the income tax
the property, but by strangers independent of them, and on this account:; but it would be much better to deal
this snail is paid without any, the smallest, deduction' in with public salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a
respect of the difference between gross and net inmate. separate ; arrangement, than to make them the occasion
(H-ear, hear.) •It is obvious that, in order to estimate aan attempt to perform an 'opeiation which,' up to this
how much land and houses really , pay, we must dedlet time, a those who have been aespOnsible have unani-
the:Whale of the diffeience between the gross and the mously declared to be impossible and absurd. Now, sir,
net income. • Nay, we must do more than this, because I come to what is supaosed to be the sore place of the in-
the; owners of land and houses are not the only come taia-schedule C ; and :when the committee have
perieni beneficially interested in this description -of heard what I have to say,,l will appeal to their love of
property ; ' for instance, a large body of mortgage's justice, and put it to them whether schedule C, even if it
encumbrancers, and life-renters, who, although they pay 7d. stood alone, is not rather a reason why they should not
in the pound on their share of the proceeds of land and break up the income tax than why they should do so. I
houSes, do not Make Up the difference between gross and net know this 'is a bold challenge, but see whether I don't
.•
receipts. , In. the estimate I am about to submit to the maintain my position. In the first instance I will read to
committee I have been guided by inquiries which every the committee a testimony that has come from across the
member is as capable of making as I am. I can only *ay_ Atlantic, in order to impress upon them the conviction that
that the estimate has been framed in a spirit of modera- when we approach schedule Cwe begin to tread upon very
tion, andlested, as well as the case admitted, by refereace -delicate ground. We wrote to the United States, to aseer-
-to , persons most familiar . with the subject. About_ tarn what was done in that country, where taxes of this
. 80,000,000.., the gross income of land and housee, pay ahe• nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds,
tax. At 7cl. in the ponied, this gives, in round 'numbers, . and I have- here a short letter, signed by MreEverett,
.2,333,000/. ' What are the deductions which ought to be, dated " Department of State, Washington, 10th of Februa
:allowed for the difference between gross and net income,— ary, 1853," in which he says •
. I will not say, according to an arbitrary standard of equity " Sir,—l have the -honour .to acknowledge the receipt of
—but if we ehould break up the present scheme and eon- your note of the 9th instant, inquiring, by direction of her
•,etruct a new one, what should we be called on, and of_ Majesty's principal Secretary of State tan' Foreign Affairs,
course I must say, what. should we in justice be compelled, whether the public debt of the United States is subject to pro-
to allow on this seers ?, In Scotland the difference allowed .perty or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock,
between geese amid net income from land is known by the and also whether, in. the acts authorising the contracting of
designation of ". Public .burdens." We have no analogous the debts, any provision was made, exempting' them from
phrase in England ; hut.we have the burdens. The first taxation.
the Governments of
d States, or in the
gi
•greatitem-is the large charge for repairs, and under this - "In reply, I have the honour to informr_ you that there is'
head I include hedng, ditching, and draining. Repairs nothing in the constitution of the 'Unite •
constitute a large claarge upon land, but as regards houses laws creating the public debt, which. prohibits this Govern-
it is still larger. (Hear.) You must allow for insurance, . ment from levying a tax on that debt ,
and also for law charges, without which it is impossible to the respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this
conduct business connected with landed: property and would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which
houses. (" Hear," frena• the Opposition.) You must ,is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution."
allow—l wallet say all the cost of management, but as (Hear, hear.) Now, it appears to me, upon a fair review
.
le of it as you allow to a merchant under schedule D of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admit-
aille
must allow for clerks, sub-agents, ground-bailiffs, nd b liff
you
. assacese stationery, receipts, and so forth. You must allow .construction to . . those words in the loan acts which provide
ou -ai ea tad. on all hencla-ethaetnwdes
sahreallbobuenpdaitdo
frgeieveofsoamlletar_xateisoannadl
for arrears' of rent, and you must likewise allow for what is that the public dividends
called abatement of rent which is a real deduction from. charge.sewhatsoever • I think we are bound to give them a
income. (`,. Hears" from the Opposition.) How much rational
mconstruction._ (Hear,' hear.)- Mr. Pitt thought the
shall e allow under, these heads ? What is the gross de- rational construction to give them was, that you should not
duction we most 'make from the income of 80,000,0001. _look at all to the nature of the obligation, but that you
supposed to be received by the owners of land and houses ? should consider the' dividends simply in relation to the re-
I take it .at 16-per cent. Ido not think this is an unfair . ceiver as so much income. lam bound to say that I think
~estimate ;. lam certain that it is, in some instancea, a very ,Mr. Pitt's propeaal was the safest and the wisest. It has,
low one. (".Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If 16 per
at any rate, been acted upon for more than 50 years, and
cent. be a .fair deduction, it is evident we should reduce under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been
the 80,000,0001. subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by borrowed or reborrowed. (Hear, hear:) Ido nat mean now
. the sum of 12,800,000/, which is actually expended before to urge the difficulties you might have in the case of these
.the income.reaches the pocket of the owner; and, there- acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construe-
fore, we have arrived at this point, that we have got, in- tion, but what Ido beg you to acknowledge is, that there is
stead of 80,000,000/. Of income, only 67,200,0001., and this only one other construction, in any sense rational, that
reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,0001. could be given to the words its the loan acts, and it is this'
(Cheers.) Then I .come to another question_upon which I
mast again resort to conjectural 'estimate. What is a fair mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of
—that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the'
estimate, to. Make of the total amount of charges on laud the income, as tested by the price of stock when it is
should
. . .
:and houses all over the kingdom', in respect not only of I will suppose then the propc!sition now is, that we
mortgages, but of settlements and all other arrangements reconstruct' the income tax, in order that we may levythe
of that kind,? I estimate that one-fourth part of lithe gross tax upon something like the capitalised value of theie in-
income - derived from land and houses goes into the pockets come. Considering the circumstances under which
_n-
I never
can believe
not, of persons beneficially interested in them, properly come tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under
-speaking; but into those of mortgagees and others who re- which. that change is now suggested,.
ceive under settlements. If that be so,. then it appears that that it would, be adopted by a British Parliament. Observe
the owners of land and houses do not receive 67,200,000/. ; the effect which it would hive upon the interest of the
but from that
reduces their income to 47,200,0001, said to those persons, "We have
you Must deduct the fourth part of fundholders. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax he
nothing to do with the
80,
to nothing but
This- sum 01147,200,000/: is, then, the net receipt of those capitalised valve or with price ;
we
can
lookthat time, when
At
beneficially interested in land and houses. (" Hear," from what you receive from year to year."
income from year to
the.Oppesatieria But you will' say the encumbrancers, the fundholder was taxed upon .his
e ? Sixteen
000,9001.
whsuicmh.
who receive the 20,000,0001., pay the income tax. Well, year, what was the capitalised value of his iacom
value of
as see What their quota amounts to. Sevenpence in the years' purchase. That was the average capitalised
he income tax, until
20 MO 000/ gives 583,000/. • Deduct this sum the fundholder's income for 17 years of t
pound on , , •
.front. the 2,333,000/. paid by-the_ owners of land and the conclusion of peace. ' Suppose your doctrines had
new
houses, and.t sum he su of 1,750,0001, will be left, and this is been in vogue then, ,the fundholder would have paid only
the amount actually paid on an income of 47,200,0001, one-half of -what he did pay ; and shall Ibe told that,
If honourable members will take the trouble to apply the. after adopting one construction unfavourable at the moment
'
figures I have stated, they will find the result to be this, to the fundholder, and after taxing him the full value
o n
that the ,income deeived from land and houses is taxed of his income for 17 years, when h
he could onlyave got 16.
at the rate, not of 7d., but 9d. in the pound. (Cheers years' purchase for his property
on the market, England
turn round upon that
from the Opposition benches.) Then, what I want to and the English Parliament will l
now
1 value o f his r
e
know is -this—supposing there be a primil facie case for man, in the manner suggested, when the
'
pro-
breaking up the income tax on 'the ground of inequality perty has risen to 33 ye ps
value of the fundholder'surchase ? If you now
between the two classes of payers, namely, the owners of determine that the capitalised I
say thatyou inflicted
whole, and houses and those engaged in trades, do you on the income ought to be taxed,
whole, think that a
if
difference ought to be made between the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he
,
the two classes, the difference ought to be greater than that then consented to
confidence that peace would be .
s
pay 10 per cent. upon the value of his
which restored,
which now exists ? (Hear.) Ido not raise the question who. income he had b
ence whatever between the that his income wouldbecome more valuable, that faith
ther there ought to be any ditver
two classes ; I pass the question y ,
b • but I show you that, would be observed
with him—l mean faith according
to the
n principles of equity and justice—and that nor d-
according to a rational estimate, land at this moment common principles
be taken of that rise in value
pays W., and trade 7d. in the pound, and I ask any mode- vantage would But if the
laParliament sets the example of sate man whether, if we were now about to establish a Britis
funds low, the establishing in time
,when are doctrine that have
would rate of payment between the two classes, he .of
with capitalised income, you
would think of making the difference greater than exists at nothing todo
the funds are high, sets and then in time of
this moment?.
,(Cheers-) In December last the right hoa. peace, when
Iwillnot merely that 11)
the opposite doe-
gentleinan opposite (Mr. Disraeli) proposed that realised . .
notstand as in of this
income thould pay &tax of 7d., and precarious income one nation will
tood, but I warn you that you
of 54d. • Now, if any one will have the kindness to compare s
taking the lead among all theb muet abandon the idea of
my figures with the right, hon. gentleman's proposal, it will orrowers of the world, and
that yoti must prepare for a change 'be forindthatewithin a fraction of a farthing, the rates pail"
those who have hitherto
by the two classes' of -income are at present equivalent to
persons who say, We
Wetrusted you. (Hear, hear.) There
7d. and sad. (Hear, hear.) .If we break up the present
be ~areent rates, accordingyl, as ought to tax incomes at differ-
income tax it must be for some object. If that objectrose .
skill." In f t ythey proceed from property or from
to selieve trade at ,the expense of land and houses,
one side ac ,they would place industrious incomes on
thatune the de, and lazy incomes on the other. Now, in m
well that those who may be about to sanction t
y
should'consider where they are to begin in flaco4 t pri-olopinion, a great deal may be said in favour of that doc-

—........._,,,_ '."---I
(I
Well • tain to see these inequalities of the income tax, w.ll P°
not deny; removed by a reconstruction,. but I .vris
,e, il
out the kind your fficulty in which youifind
volved when y set about that work, for I can tran;efari
fairly say—and I think if I do not command .ere ,easrae
as an individual, yet that the characters of my Coll fiol
will demand full credit for them—l can trulY.,!'n e coal'
say that it has been our most earnest desire, 11,,w teem
your
with justice attain that object, to consult the publiboo
in regard to the proposition which we might inaK_enouit
the income tax. (Cheers.) We have therefore studio
and laboriously turned over the question again airT,,-,fi it i
sc.
and have put it, I believe, in every light in ' ou o
capable of being viewed ; and now I will just glue
specimen of the way in which, when you set about lirs-,,i1
struction of this tax, you find yourselves involved. _i; rj.i
suppose that, if the income tax be differentiated, you'
extend the favour to what are called terminable anon o in'
rd
The terminable annuitants expire in 1860, and the
a favourable case for those who wish to break ul? Ythe
Ttel
come tax. Of course, they will get the benefit of ".d yoil
are worth so many years' purchase, and no more, and
*in tell exactly how much represents interest and ho.t"9a
capital. You proceed, then, by exempting the ternlvf n,;;40
annuitants. Is that all? By no means. What do iveopi
with Government life annuitants ? Must you not e. wit)
them also ? Is not their case substantially the salute), bitthe others? A man lays out money on an annuitYl.,„niti
life. Although the term of life is uncertain, such an el the
has just as fixed a price in London as an annuitY.fjpie,
expiry of which you fix the date. On the same pr".`,totg
therefore, you must exempt the Government life enrol,
as you do the terminable annuitants ; but, if you d° c, ijr
you cannot think of anything so monstrous as tarn
tie*
torests for life, or for a term upon leasehold preP80:100
How will you be able to tax a man who has suppose e is.,,
on which he has paid a heavy fine, and of which theb'aii, ~t
term--of five or -ten years unexpired?_- The great nortfo,
the interest in the property is not his, but the Lail' ere
there
the reversioner's, and you must evidently give hi0,..„,0id
fote, a share of the exemption. Then I must again '' you
you of the class holding life interests in the funds folt
can't draw a distinction between life interests in the of
and life interests in leaseholds. -They must help t° of
the goodly company of exemptions. After thew toil,
those who hold jointures and other annuities upoo..'vd o
Certainly, a life annuity in the funds is one thing, et of
life annuity upon land is another ; but the life inter!. el
the individual is alike in both cases. When you 11:%:e tothose in, what do you do with life renters, and with
vljii.
successor of entailed estates, who may be a second e'v7fef
living in the East Indies, whom his predecessor may obi
have seen, and in whom he has no interest ? This
tedious to the committee, but these are practical clues tioe
(Hear, hear.) Ido not say that there are no distineso
between each of them. But, what .I say is this, thet, tilet
you come to define those distinctions, and to treat 0,
on the broad ground upon which you take your stanuco
say, "Here you-will be exempt—there you will Ptioce
exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes „tiat
mentioned with respect to which arguments for excel,
might not easily be applied. The tendency of al etioi
exemptions, however, is the breaking up and, destine if
of the tax. I do not say " relinquishment," be05',7034
linquishment is one thing and breaking up is st'',' 0
Relinquish it for a time, and when emergencies arri' efo
may do as your fathers did—take down the pa' weapoe. .
the shelf, and make it serve you again for the ends ore it
(Cheers.) To relinquish it is altogether safe, became
altogether honourable. But to break it up is to elovV
the House of Commons to venture upon schemes etY
may look well on paper, and may serve the purpose
jj-e0
Moment, but which will end in the destruction of t 0.
by the absurdities and iniquities which they involve..oe
if that is to be done it must be by those whose cooler' 0'
enable them to take a different view of the charsc' ,ici
of the destiny of this great country. It will not by
by men who believe that, although you may enter no
that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you Int° 'io
mires, will throw the whole finances of the erolittill
confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and eV
resort to which hitherto you have been able in allt1,4011!
look as a course open to you in circumstances of on'',.,
and trouble. (Cheers.) Sir, the general views of b..pe,o
jesty's Government with respect to the income tax 3') pi
it is an engine of gigantic power for. great nationV
poses, but at the same time that there are circulioe_Aer
attending its operation which make it difficult; r".„ 000
impossible, in our opinion-not desirable, to maintewof le;
a portion of the permanent and ordinary finances nsl.o:
country. (Cheers.) The public feeling of its ineql ef
is a fact most important in itself. The inquisitiongld, it
tails is a most serious disadvantage. And the to
which it leads are evils which it is not possiblee-to tetid,A
tense in -terms too strong. (Hear, hear.) - 011,_em, 07/
hope this house will never do and that is nio''-100.`',
great public questions. Don't let them adopt thedif t.,
reconstructing the income tax to-day, and saying, • toef,
does not work well, we'll try our hands at it again, c,
row." That is not the way in which the relations %di?)
are to be treated. Depend upon it when you cora° p
~,.
quarters with this subject, when you come to inessato or
see the respective relations of intelligence and lab 810
10°1°
property, and when you come to represent those re 00,
in arithmetical results, you are undertaking an ol'e el,
which I should say it was beyond the power of nine or,,
duct with satisfaction, but which, at any rate, is e'fA
tion to which you ought not constantlyto recur; for if'iill
hon. friend once said very properly, this country °oat,
bear a revolution once a-year, I will venture to set ogee,
could not bear a reconstruction of the income ts! told
year. (Cheers, and a laugh.) Whatever you o'tilt;/
gard to the income tax, you must be bold, you 'l. elt
intelligible, you must be decisive. You must w, vt 0140
with it. If you do, I have striven at least to Fo. ?dill,
well as my feeble powers will permit, the altno7 /o,l',
tion I would say, certainly the gross breach of ::: it;
your country, of which you will be guilty,. '- te4
jeopardising one of the most valuable among all its;beti
resources. I believe it to be of vital importance, j,;ot ri,
you keep this tax or whether you part with it, t,,0,
should either keep it or leave it in a state in which 4,3 9',
be fit for service on an emergency, and that it will Of;
possible to do if you break up the basis of your ino°l4.ol,
(Hear, hear.) Then.you will ask me, "On what P 01,;
do you mean to proceed ?—you have made an arguT be,roi
far as you have gone, to show that the tax canee.,3ol..
constructed or amended." What we wish to do, s'.,,pSe
we shall aim at doing by the measure which I shall lis A.,,
is this :—We wish, in the first place, t'PutAcg).„ 16
uncertainty respecting the income ti". ' he"
think it unfortunate that political circumstances
the last two or three years lea to a state of doubt in i`e;
to the continuance of the tax, and have even begot
degrees a feeling on the part of the public that the_noN
is about to be entrapped unawares into its Perr_..„.9)
(Hear, hear.) My belief is, that much of the uneM' 04
ing that prevails is traceable to that source, and 11"-iiiii,"
far from thinking that the mere asking of the cony
to renew this tax for a given term, in opposition t° it,
you to make it perpetual, would be sufficient to alill al
anxiety or to remove that doubt. There are a cert!,.l I,
of transactions with regard to which the uncertailli'thely
the income tax tends most unfavourably—such
.113ble
,1
minable annuities, for example. It is very desire f tli7l
certainty should be restored to these transactions.,A
it also most desirable that effectual measures so'cp I',
But I Iff
taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. oso much mean to commit the Government to °Ali °1
opinion to be acted upon in future years.
to !1
opinion is decidedly against the peipetuity of the illypr
permanent ordinary portion 'of our finances. B. w:,O ti•pi
state the wish of the Government
',to propose iertoNor
porary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their worn° All j
them or yourselves as to what you will do under
cumstances at the expirntion of the term Which w r
e 4t30
to fix for its continuance now. I propose hi- riot' t
enactment, by 'the measures which I shall invite op
adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament.,_ t, y
position that at a given period it may, if it thins-to tAi
withithat tax. (Cheers.) We are most anxi°,ft
what can be done, in order to meet the public feel 1,7011)
the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling i 00,0
not only respect, but sympathy, while we do tle,joc!,!
that it is our duty, as persons charged with the o°lo Ty
public affairs, to shape our measures according,. 0.101
feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have exab,,4
practical form which they are to take, and triedl"rori
,„ light of our understanding. (Hear, hear.) 1%" reel
sir, to introduce certain mitigations into the opeci °
the income tax. We propose to extend the. Prw i tj?
tr
commutations, which is now applicable only to
at Pr'
-professions also. (Hear, hear.) A more importeore 'ili
gation which we propose to make is this :--"IP00,)
general feeling that a man ought to have, at any 1,0 iv)
opportunity of investing the savings he may in,5,114
his income without being liable to the imbrue '',."001:4)
them. We do not think it possible to make Pa, 41
of that kind applicable to savings simply as o_,ll of'iy
we can do is to say, "If you choose to invest yow co,
ill
ain the form of a deferred annuity or life. assur; or.;
premium which you may. pay upon that deferreuo
or life assurance up to one-seventh of your inceA-00
not be chargeable to your income tax, but may be ; hei;;
from your income tax before it is charged." (Hearst 41''
I am not at all prepared to say that we would stel),:ge,
if it were possible to do more. At the same t,'„-,19
plan has considerable recommendations. Ido neLci" S
it will meet the case of persons who being aftlietsV
sickness cannot, except limier peculiar °iron': ef
insure their lives, because, unfortunately, eaee'to t'V
sort it is beyond the power of the Legislature ,g 2,91
But what Ido say is this—that it is a relief wwi,"ool'4,,
admit of very extensive application. I cannot rec.;;ore,
the reduction from the receipts of the tax in e°l3,isit.s%
of it will be less—though, of course, it is an unc-„ it
when we look to the total amount of life assurane4co,',4!
country—than 120,000 i. a year. It establishes, ,e it'
no invidious distinctions between one class and gi,
It is open to all those who choose to avail theinso" et; /
but while it is open to them all, we know that Plifei o'
the classes who are in the habit of assuringWiz:et °,4
just those very clasies whom it is your main ob)e; old
Hove by the reconstruction of the tax—namely, the
of , professional men and of persons who are' 209
upon their own exertions. I think it will be nee",ool
propose that Government should itself become i.,0,:0i
of life. If it is to undertake that charge, as will I' "
be the case, it will assure on the same principle
s,t 04
on which it is now a vendor of life annuities. Po to,,'
I say that our object is to meet the public feeling 004)!
inequality of the tax, and while I specify these to,
goin4 some way to effect that object, I have in°2100,1,11
before you upon this subject. And pray enders At
Do not let me through my neglect be misundT
fail to state clearly the position of the Governmell,W,
we understand to be the sez.timents of the o°'''-- F ii"
di ey what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are --,911 „r-
-share in, is, that the income tax bears upon the ;:411.1,
hard upon intelligence and skill, and not -hard.
_„eo° P
ce‘ift?
property as compared: with intelligence and sXif;,oll,,o i
hear.) I hope that I state with accuracy, not rob 91,1,!
measures that_ we propose, but the object Nvhl IfrA
constructors of the income tax have in view' sentsti
that be their object—if they think that at Pret re
and intelligence are too severely pressed, and th_„ne • d ~,i)
under the income tax pays too little, let me row-00'4
that they must not form their judgment of the4agleo4
of classes from one single tax, or from another 1.,.b, A
but that they must look to the general effect of Zopilr'
system of taxation. (Hear, hear.) And all 1 j",,, c'eVi
them in that respect at this moment is, that they V fro',
serve their decision upon the question whether tli:yr-' llitf:
ment proposition sufficiently -meets, the case
,°;f i the
intelligence, as compared with property, un"ioit ,‘
hoard me throughout, if their kindness will Per jo it':l,
to do so. (Hear, hear.) Our proposition, thoTeireo4l
to the income tax is •this :—We propose to
two years from April, 1853, at the rate of 7d. in 04 ii.,
The committee will recollect that I said rult9,olo
our duty to look the whole breadth of this dtw" clerbigo
face—not to endeavour to escape it, not tolcriel' •
attenuate, but to settle, if the committee wowhear'iii.„ol
the whole question of the incomntax. (Hoer' iron', r 1
propose, then, to re-enact,' it ft/ two Y
ears, ~a.,
etl4
1853, to April, 1855, at the rate of 7d. in the P°5(1.1 t,,
April, 1855, to enact it for two more years s,jorYli
pound—(slight murmurs)—and then, for thqoa 11 cl'ij,
--(laughter and murmurs from the Oprosl 0)--- got
which prevented the conclusion of the sentellfron_i,j
wonder at the laughter—for three more yearr:rer. cif,
1857, at sd. (Hear, hear.) Under this. h' 0, '-
income tax will expire on the sth of April,l+°""
3

trim , —"Er but' observe the effect it must have with regard to
the public revenue. The landholder must exert himself
with respect to his land, the hot, seholder as to his house,
and the mortgagee must either look out himself, or pay his
lawyer for looking out after his money,—and I do not be-
lieve there is any income which is perfectly and entirely a
lazy income, except the income of the fundholder. (Hoar,
and a laugh.) If that were so, the fundholder would enjoy
an entire pre-eminence in taxation, and the degree of that
pre-eminent it would rest with you to fix. I honour the
sense of justice of the hon. member fdr Montrose, and so I
honour the sense of justice of those gentlemen—the ac-
tuaries—who have recommended the fundamental kecon-
struction of this tax, and who 'do look at the durability of
incomes. If they had made their proposals in 1798, Ido
not know that the fundholders would have had much
reason to complain; but, on the contrary, I believe
that, upon the whole, they would have been gainers. I
think, however, that. the proposal of the actuaries is un-
sound in principle. I conceive that it is unsound in prin-
ciple to levy the income of the country in substance by a
tax upon its property, for I think that income is the
Proper basis of taxation. I do , not mean, however, to
hold that as an extreme doctrine, but, if we have a pro-
perty tax at all, let us have, in substitution for the income
tax, a good and honest property tax, such as the actuaries
propose. Unfortunately the actuaries have the plan which
they recommend entirely to themselves, for no one has
ever been found to propose it in this house. In fact, no
body will propose that plan, for every one knows that it
is a mathematical speculation upon paper. It is not a
project to be submitted to an assembly of men whose
bounden duty it is to provide by practicable means for the
constantly recurring wants and services of the country.
The project of the actuaries I pass by, because, while it is
of all others the most self-consistent, it is also, I will not
say the most difficult, but it is placed the farthest beyond
the reach even of imagination as a possible measure. Now,
I will request the committee to go yet further with me
upon one more point with regard to the funds, which I
think to be highly practical in its character, and which I
beg to commend to their particular attention. I have used
every means in my power to analyse the means in which
the funds are held. In old times there was a very
general belief in the existence of hobgoblins. [An hon.
member exclaimed, in a tone of 'earnestness, which
occasioned much laughter "Of what ?"] Of hobgob-
lins (the Chancellor of the. Exchequer replied, amid
renewed laughter), and now- throughout the country you
may here and there find those who have a somewhat
analogous conception of an awful being they call the fund-
holder; whom they picture as rolling in wealth, and living
in worthless indolence upon the toil and sweat of his
country—(Hear, and a laugh)—but it is very difficult to
find out whether the existence of this monster is a' fact or
a fiction. I cannot obtain a complete analysis of the man-
ner-in which the funds are held. The State, as we know,
has no knowledge upon the subject. The Bank of Eng-
land, which pays the dividends, knows only one circum-
stance, and that is whether the dividend is paid to a joint
account or a sole account. A very remarkable change has
been taking place of late years in the manner in which the
funds are held. About 1.5 years ago the funds were chiefly
held in sole accounts by individuals, and I think you may,
upon the whole, take it nearly for granted 'that the sole
accounts indicate—and I speak in the presence of practical
authorities—absolute property, with some few exceptions.
So lately as 15 years ago much-more -than-one-half of the
stocks were held in sole accounts,' and therefore represented
absolute property ; but mark the change Nat has taken
place: At present it is otherwise. The whole amount of
stock held in sole accounts is at the present moment
280,000,0001., and out ofthat about 60,000,0001. represents
the incomes of persons who are exempt from the income
tax by reason of their incomes being under 1501. a-year.
There is, therefore, a sum of about 220,000,0001. held by
persons who may be considered as holding perpetuities in
the funds, and whom the reformers of the income tax would
regard as entitled to the distinction of exemption from
that tax. Now, the amount held in joint accounts was in
February, 1852, 427,000,0001.—(hear, hear)—and I have
no doubt that it is at this time much 'more. One-third of
the funds, upon the whole, are held in sole accounts, and
two-thirds in joint accounts. Now, what do these joint
accounts mean ? I will tell you very nearly what they
mean. These joint accounts may be divided, I believe,
into five classes, one or other of which may be taken as in-
cluding very nearly the whole. In the first place, the joint
accounts include a large class of charities, comprehending
the great account of the Commissioners of the National
Debt for savings' banks, amounting to 33,000,0001. These
sums are all by law exempt from income tax. Then, in
the second place, we have the Chancery and Bankruptcy
accounts, amounting to between 50,000,000/. and
60,000,0001. I don't imagine that it is the desire of this
committee, or of the reformers of the income tax, to lay
upon the moneys locked up in Chancery and Bankruptcy
an exceptional tax. A third class which enters into the
joint accounts is made up of those cases in which English
firms—particularly banking firms also—hold large sums of
money on account of foreigners. I imagine that, although
Englishmen who have investments in the funds very com-
monly hold them in their own names, it is very common
for foreigners to have stock held in the names of their
banking or mercantile correspondents. It has been a po-
pular doctrine to tax the foreigner, but I think that no
person in this house would wish to tax the foreigner in
this particular form. It has been a long-contested ques-
tion with respect to income tax in England whether the
foreigner is not entitled to exemption altogether. The late
Sir R. Peel subjected him to taxation in 1842, but the pro-
posal was strongly opposed, and I think every member of
this house will agree that it would be very impolitic to lay
an exceptional tax of this kind upon the foreigner. The
fourth class interested in joint accounts, and a very large
class too, is the class indicated by life interests less than
perpetuity. When Mr. Horsman made a proposal with'
reference to the income tax in 1848, one of his main argu-
ments was founded on the absurdity of taxing life interests
at the same rate at which perpetuities are taxed. Of late
the income tax reformers have had much less compassion
for the life-interest men, and few of them have seemed to
regard their case at all. My opinion is that, if the
income tax were reconstructed it would be very diffi-
cult to shut out the life-interest men ; but surely it
would be very hard to raise the tax upon the funds as far
as regards that large portion of holders who have a mere
life interest. The fifth class interested in joint accounts
consists of trading cotnpanies and associations holding funded
property. Now, are you to lay an exceptional tax upon the
capital of persons so engaged in trade ? I should say that
it is very much better to leave English trade where it is,
paying 7d. in the pound, in the place of the 9d. paid
by land and houses, and with the power of invest-
ing money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes
of banking, or for other trades, without the fear of excep-
tional taxation, than to break up the whole system, and
ensconce the trader in schedule 0, that you may reimburse
him by exceptions in schedule D. Now, the strongest case
urged for the reconstruction of the tax is the case of sche--
dule C ; but in schedule C, against 220,000,0001. held by
persons in their own right, you have 430,000,0001. not held
by persons in their own right as mere individual property,
and when you have established your exceptional tax against
the funds, your very next step must be to exempt the
whole of this 430,000,0001. Well, that is what I have to
Say upon schedule C. I shall now touch very briefly upon
the remaining case of schedule D—that is to say, of sche-
dule D as respects the professions. I have made it my
business, Sir, to ascertain what proportion of the whole
payment under schedule C proceeds from professional per-
sons, and I find that, including certain amphibious classes,
it is above 300,000/., or rather more than one-twentieth
I part of the whole income tax ; but there are several per-
sons who are returned as professional persons who, for the
purpose of a new classification of the income tax, must be
considered as traders, such as auctioneers, house-agents,
and farm-agents. The country surgeon frequently com-
bines with his profession the trade and capital of a drug-
gist and apothecary. Solicitors, again, in many places
are, to no small extent, considerable capitalists ; their ca-
pital is invested in their trade, and the income tax must
be paid upon it as it would upon capital invested in any
other trade. Taking these mixed cases out, the net sum
that may be said to be paid by the professions is about
250,000,0001., which is about 1-22 d part of the whole in-
come tax. Now, Sir, Ido not at all deny that the case of
Trofessional men appeals to the sympathies. In my opinion
it is one of the reasons which indicates that the tax ought
to ,be a temporary tax ' • but I hope the committee will
pause before it rushes to the conclusion that upon account
of the case of professional 'men (for I think I have in some
degree disposed of the other cases) they will proceed to
such a labour. I Will not call it an Herculean labour, be-
cause an Herculean labour means a labour that Hercules
could accomplish, and this I am persuaded he could not;
but to such a labour as that of breaking up and reconstruct-
'ing the income tax. (Hear, and a laugh.) It would be a
pity to find yourselves compelled to break up the income
tax on account of those whose case is so limited in com-
parison to the whole range of the tax that they only pay
1-22 d part of the amount. But then you may say, " Why,
not exempt them altogether • why not give them a fa-
voUr ?" And there is a great deal in point of feeling to re-
commend that ; but there is a great deal in point of feeling
to recommend many things in this world of ours, upon
examination of which you find insuperable obstacles in the
way of giving scope to that feeling. (Hear, hear.) Now,
I will tell you why you cannot 'exempt professional in-
comes without breaking up the scheme of the tax. In the
first place there are the auctioneers, house-agents, farm.
agents, and others I have referred to, now nestling within
the professions, with whom there would be considerable
difficulty if there were an attempt to exclude them from
benefits to which persons in the position of professional
men were' to be entitled. Again, you would have great
difficulty in knowing what to do with the clergy. Your
feeling would tend with equal force both ways. You would
think it extremely offensive to reconstruct the income tax
on behalf of professional men, and yet to make the clergy-
man with 150/. or 2001. a year pay the higher rate. (Hear,
hear.) But, if you let him in, lam not so sure that you
would be pleased to extend the same favour to the dean
and the bishop. (Hear.) You will find the same difficulty
there ; but there are other and more serious difficulties
than those. Many persons holding salaried offices--not
public servants—now charged in schedule D, have certainly
a much worse tenure, and an inferior interest in their in-
comes than professional men. Above all, there is what I
warned you of in respect to averaging classes. A large
class of retail traders have an interest in their trades
much
inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and
trades, and businesses change hands much quicker. They
are creatures of to-day, gone to-morrow • and professional
men, as a class, putting aside the exceptional case of sick-
ness, are permanence itself compared
with a certain de-
scription of the smaller class of traders. (Hear.) I must
warn the committee likewise that they will find the greatest
difficulty when they cow to consider, in the midst of their
breaking up of the income tax, the ea' se of the life annui-
tants. Let me for a moment put it to you who these
people are. Professional persons, at all events, are men
charged by the Almighty with the care of wives and chil-
dren, and, generally, with a capacity to discharge that
duty. But when you come to life annuitants, you then
deal with the desolate widow, with the orphaned daughter,
with the defenceless woman, whose right it is to expect at
your hands justice, tenderness, and protection. Are their
incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady
who has been brain the lap of luxury, and who then upon
the death of her parent finds herself with the interest of
5,0001. or 6,0001. to live upon for the remainder of her
days. I want to know whether that is to be subjected to
the higher tax as an income from realised property? Will
you then tell me that upon the daughter and the widow
you will lay that exceptional tax, and yet speak of doing
justice, because you put the higher tax upon her in order
that you may put the lower tax upon bankers and brewers,
and physicians and lawyers ? (Hear.) I appeal to you as
men upon this point. lam convinced, whether the views
of the present Government be right or wrong, whether our
propositions meet your approbation or whether they do
not, that you never will consent to draw that distinction
in favour of the great and energetic commerce of this
country, and against the pittances on which the great por-
tion of these women subsist. (Hear.) Sir, the unparal-
leled indulgence of the committee—(cheers)—has brought
me nearly to the close of this portion of the subject, and
there is but one more point that I need refer to. It is
commonly supposed that it is either some crotchet of an
individual, or the general laziness and inattention of offi-
cial persons to their duties, that prevents them giving
effect to the wishes which many gentlemen laudably enter.

:sat . „

03'
cl?!.

I

think it far better-far more in accordance with our own
iieligaticms, and far-more likely to advancetheinterests of.
$ tbia,e'llttl7:--that •we should present to you what we
icand I will tell Why we think it by and by-a real
substantive plan-(hear, hear),-under which the income
thatill way, if Parliament should think fit, be got rid of, than
tb should wine with some paltry proposal to shirk
unneulty • •
fo Y re-enacting it for two years, or re-enacting
and °neTeaand thereby prolonging the uncertainty
to dissatisfaction and giving rise not only to doubts as
position of the tax, but as to the perfect good faith
v•er_.t;a:_lia• meet in dealing with the country. (Hear, hear.)
have
embodied
we think that the descending rates which we
;am mbodied in the proposal for the renewal of the tax
teed to *show Parliament and the country that our in-
tentionto
Put part with it, or, at all events, our intention to
real Parliament in 1860 in a condition to' part with it, is a
bona
-and say
fide intention. (Hear, hear.) But you will say
Parliament
saY justly-that that intention does not of itself put
11"•ment in a condition to part with the tax,-that it is
in .rtYliewell to say that it shall, for two years, remain at 7d.
fort hrixnuld,-that for two years more it shall be 6t1., and
We
may ee_years more sd. ; but that when it comes to sd.
again want
that there is still a deficiency, and that you
the . the 7d., or that when you come to the end of '
.Per:iod for sd. in the pound you may find you cannot
a,rta with it. (Hear, hear.) With respect to this objection
meat "I t, hallotiay, that before the close of ray present state-
Point ;_and, endeavour to give you full satisfaction on that
I will further venture to soy that, whatever
iu 70q may think of the plan I have to propose, no gentlem n
the, committee will think that the Government are pal-
"'mil; with the House of Commons, or that I am not pre-
sentin„ a
proposal which is at any rate substantive and
(Hear hear.) I ray Sir, that our principles
With respect to the (Hear;
tax
.5 our whole financial
the income
mark
kx (Which, is the corner stone
plan), our principles with respect to
gulled of us these things :-In the first
Place, to
second ton
effectual,effectually as a temporary tax ; in the
the Place publiclme
e t'
with in a way which we think good and
ute tax and feelingrespect to the inequality
and by
will explain how we mean to do"this by
ita,s___T But, bey( nd this, I wish to ask-and this is the
of PO ant question to which I wish to call the attention
Parliament-if' you determine to renew the income tax
or"J„11 make its early extinction your first and sole object,
of
commawuu, in order to bring to completion the noble work
ie,•_etrcial reform4hich is far advanced, associate the
ti;,'„°all3 • ax once. more with a remission of duties, eaten-
ce"ne4 itself and beneficial to the community ? We ,have
tlecid erect fully these • two questions ; and we have
ed deliberately in favour of the second. (Hear.)
el' we
propose to renew
the income tax, we pro-
te associate it during the years which it has still to
ith,a great and beneficial •taxes. (Hear,
ea uT
remission of r.) But the statement which I have already made with
Chit to the sun:4ns is
ne not altogether promising in
xesPeet. H
• who should' f e would be an ingenious minister of finance
surplus of °Lind an extensive remi • moon of taxation on a
garda a 8°°;000/., 200,0001. or 300,0001., of which he re-
. taxes s uncertain. If we are to propose a remission of
• we must ha
• two This • have 'ands out of which to make the remis-
to of course an elementary truth, but I am sorry
Rouse" that it is not wholly useless to impress it upon the
; . (Laughter.)
We have, therefore to consider-and
thi , Sir, the invidiouseve,
which I
am now about part of my task, upon
the means to enter-we have now to consider what are
ereatin, „ fund to us, in .consistency with justice, for
• Plus' which, in conjunction with our present
' we can apply to an extensive and beneficial re-
ison a taxes N
?on
s-if the Now, the first question which is raised
extended 9 income tax is to be continued, shall it also be
nioat • (Hear, hear.) And the view of of the Govern-
in ata,`? .this-that the late AdMinistration were right
the tang that, if the income tax was to be continued,
„ exemptions-under it should be narrowly considered-
hear)-and therefore we are prepared to deal with
".0 of on qUesti
exemptions. (Hear, hear.) What, in the
first place let me ask, is the case of persons enjoying in.
comes be immediately below 1501. per annum ? There may
the those Who say that it is dangerous to attempt to levy
income tax on incomes below 150/4 but it is my opinion
ti,_,
the safety of the measure depends in a great degree-
it TaY say mainly.-on its justice ; and if you can show that
be adsrectuired by justice to other classes, and that it would
vanta.geous to the country, and even to the parties them-
ei who would be immediately affected by it, lam not
afraid,t with the confidence I entertain in the feelings of
t
.4"e-Englieh people, that there would be any danger attach-
dig to-such a measure: (Hear.) There were apprehensions,
we know, . entertained in 1842 that the imposition of the
tree me tax in any shape would be. found unpopular ; but
sense of justice and enlightened prudence of the people,
!iPpreciatino• as they did the great benefit achieved by its
instrumentality, divested it, if not of the unpopularity,
certainly of the odious character, which it was thought
night generally have attached to it. (Hear, hear.) Well,
iew, what is the case of persons enjoying incomes below
450/. ? It Well known that persons of that class have
-very largely benefitted by the measures consequent on the
income tax up to the present time. (Hear, hear.) Twelve
millions of..taxes have been remitted, and they have
enjoyed their full share of this without the charge of one
farthing. (Hear, hear.) I don't propose that we should
carry 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-
stances of the case-that we should not trench upon what
I would call the territory of labour. That territory will
probably' be defined sufficiently for my purpose by the
figure of 1001. a-year ; and what lam saying now has
reference 'to the
-case of incomes between 1001. and 1501.
Their case is, that they have enjoyed up to the present
time the full benefit of the remission of the 12,000,0001. of
taxes to which I have referred, But that is not all. If
we were going .to continue the income tax for a short
Period without any compensating advantage, then, indeed,
it might not be expedient that I should ask you to extend
it to a letter amount than at present ; but.l am going, be-
fore I conclude, to ask you to support the Government in
enacting a great and beneficial remission of taxes ; and I
say, before you confer that groat additional benefit, let us
consider whether the results of our plan can be distributed
.S_Vtablye xenon the various classes of the community. I
will,present to the committee what I think they will con-
Sider-.some interesting results with respect to the past
°Peration of our recent legislative remissions. With a
view---to_tha.. decision of the question which I am now
OPening, it appeared to me a matter oreitiiinieifiterest to
• collect a number of bona fide cases of the distribution of
the expenditure of particular families receiving different
_ rates of income, making the proportion in which they had
each profited by the adoption of the income tax and the
measures connected with it. My right hon. friend the
head of the Poor-law Board (Mr. Baines), kindly lent me
• his most effective aid, and we have collected a body of in-
telligence of the kind which I am now about to present to
the committee. I shall not trouble you with the details, but
merely give the general results of a few bona fide cases of
actual expenditure, and I believe they are fair average
cases, which will exhibit the actual savings which have
been realised by persons whose incomes are below 1501.,
and also by those whose incomes are above 1501., in cease-
im tax, and of the re-
ge° of the adoption of the income o
Mission of taxes and changes in our commercial system
But it
ht about throughits medium.
Which were
,brought
should be recollected that, in estimating
the savings, I
have taken credit for the further remissions which I have
promised as well as for those which
have alreadytaken place.
- have collected six cases of incomes varying from 175/ to
their savings,
credit for all
a•year ;. and, after taking
to
make
and . fairly piitting down the various items which go
up their incomes, I find that their gross incomes
amount t0.•1,359/. and their gross savings to 63/. Is. 3d.,
making a saving dabove 5 per cent. on 'the gross amount
14 their Incomes • and even if you dedtiet the income tax
Which they paid there 1 still remain a saving of g2/.165.
• 60. or nearly 2 per cent. upon their incomes. This, I
think, is not an unsatisfactory result' which I have pre-
sented to the committee. (Cheers.) But I have likewise
put four-cases of the actual expenditure of persons with,
Incomes between 1001. and 1501., and these, the committee
should understand, are not cases which have been selected
for the purpose of- arriving at a particular result, but are
cases which have been fairly and honestly, collected for the
Purpose of showing the actual distribution of the expendi-
ture of the two classes to which I have referred. One is
the case of a country tradesman with 1201. per annum ; the
second, is the case of a retired Liverpool tradesman
lSix children) with 1201. per annum ; the third is the case
of a widow in the country with an income of from 1201. to
-.. 1501. (say 135/, 'per annum) ; and the fourth is the ease of a
clerk in a country town with 1001. per annum ; making
a total income of 4751., and their gain has been 29/. 6s.
11d., or between 6 and 7 per cent. Deducting income
tax at the rate of sd. in the Pound, the savings would
• amount to .191. 95., or more than 4 per cent. So that
You see clearly' from this' that 'the persons with in-
comes between 1001. and 1501. have apparently profited
by the change in our legislation to a greater extent
than those with incomes above 1501. (Hear, hear.) I ought
to say that in estimating the savings I have endeavoured to
keep strictly within the bounds of moderation, and that I
have no doubt that the results 'could easily have been
swelled if we had chosen. Now, Sir, it appears to us that
these facts offer a rather strong reason for considering
whether, when we propose to renew the income tax in the
case of persons with incomes above 1501., it is not de-
manded by justice that we should expect that persons with
, incomes below 1501. should moderately become sharers in
the burden. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government
think that in justice we ought to do so. (Hear, hear.)
. What we propose is this-we propose so far to complicate
the tax as to introduce a provision that incomes between
100/: and 1501. shall be liable at the rate of sd. in the
pound for the whole time during which the tax is levied,
so that,- for the first two years, incomes above 1501. will
. pay 7d. in the pound, and incomes below 1501. sd. ; for
the next two years, the one will pay 6d, and the other 5d.,
and for the following three years both classes will alike pay
at the rate of sd. in the pound. I estimate that this tax
of 5d.. on incomes from 1001. to 1501. will produce 250,0001_
but as it will not be levied till the latter half of the present
• year, the sum of 125,000/. only will come to credit in the
financial year of 1852-54. (Hear.) I now come to another
great question-the exemption of Ireland. (He„..)
land, in like manner, has received the benefit of the income
tax through the changes in our fiscal system but at the
same time the equivalent which was intended to be taken
has not been exacted. That equivalent was twofold. In
the first place it consisted of a duty upon spirits of ls. a
gallon, which was abandoned almost as soon as it was
enacted. In the second place it consisted of an augmenta-
tion of the stamp duties-which augmentation was indeed
levied for two years • but in 1850 my right hon. friend the
President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) made a
great reduction in the stamp ditties both of this country
and of Ireland, and in that reduction disappeared the in-
crease which was enacted in Ireland as an equivalent for
the income tax. lam not able to speak with absolute pre-
cision, but as nearly as we can make out, it would appear
that the rate at which Ireland pays stamp duties on her
transactions is as nearly as possible, on an average, the
' -nanie_as it was in 1812. (Hear, hear.) It is, indeed, true
that since the first enactment Of the-income tax Ireland
has been visited with an awful calamity, and although that
scourge has been mercifully withdrawn, yet traces of it
still remain in many social and economical forms-(hear,
hear), and especially in the form of. a very heavy and bur-
densome debt. (Hear.) That is but a fraction, indeed,
of the generous aid accorded by the Imperial Parliament
to the necessities of Ireland, but at the same time it cannot
be denied that it is a very heavy and enduring burden, not
on Ireland generally, but on its most distressed parts.
But those who look at Ireland cannot avoid being struck
by the fact that all Ireland is not alike-that there are
• Certain districts that 410 not need to shrink from their
full taxation-and which have no reasonable claim or
plea to offer for exemption. (Hear, bear.) Let me re-
mind the committee what exemption means. (Hear, hear.)
-Itmeans that we have not got a bottoreless purse, and that
weu
•ncannot dispense exemptions to one man without in-
g another ; that the exemption of one man means the
extra taxation of a th no er-and exemption of one country
the extra taxation of another.
(Hear, hear.) And as this
applies tochanges in the •
income tax generally, so it applies
to Ireland relatively to England. What we think, there
fore, is, that the.
case of Ireland demands
sideration in very special CO]]
unposedon
her, with respect to which I will say more le.
connection with the burdens that have bee,
d bye,
as a sequel or corollary to the present branch of
the meantime,
110 reason why the in I have to say that we see
come tax should not be levied on Ire-
.

-T .` "" .- ••.•••••••••••••••••.,•,--•
land, as she has received a great portion of the benefit at- Our .mposal wll.l.be that..a 4nty pf.l.s. be added to .the
tending the remission of taxes up to the present time, and 3s. Bth -a-gallon Aion Scotch s irits—the Alan drawback to
is likely also to profit largely by the rendsdons I have to rerasin_as_ a...pretwint, The -Consumption in Scotland_ is
propose to the house. The produce of the income tax which 7,170,000 gallons. The actual revenue is 1,315,0001. The
will be laid on Ireland under precisely the same conditions expected revenue is 1,633,000/., which is a gain of 318,000/•
and for the same term as in England and in Scotland—the I m here stop to congratulate a noble lord opposite (Lord
produce of the income tax in Ireland I estimate at 460,0001. Naas on having attained a triumph. I ought to have re-
a year ; but as the tax will not be levied till June next, served this until I came to Ireland, but his victory is at
there will be only 230,0001. to come to credit in 1853-54. length achieved. We propose to relieve the distiller,
I will now give the committee an account of how my esti- and likewise the time of this house—(a laugh)—by making
mate stands, as a whole, with respect to the income tax. an allowance for waste upon spirits in bond. (Hear,
The estimated produce of the tax—supposing there to be hear.) That allowance for waste will be in Scotland
no change in the existing system—is 5,550,0001. Deduct 40,000/., which will give the net increase of revenue from
life assurances (120,0001.), of which one-half only comes to the increase of the duty upon spirits in Scotland 278,0001.
charge this year, viz., 60,000:., there will be left 6,390,030/. The Government have also anxiously considered this ques-
The extension below 1501. we reckon at 125,000/. ; and tion as it regards Ireland. It is quite plain, I am
the extension to Ireland at 230,0001. ; making the total for afraid, that an - allowance for waste upon spirits in
the year 1853-54 according to the proposed plan, 5,845,000/. bond will entail a dimunition of revenue; in fact, that
(Hear, hear.) I now come to another proposal for the aug- will amount to a considerable proportion of the revenue
mentation of taxation to which I invite the special atten- arising from the duty upon spirits. At present the
tion of the committee. It is one of great importance. It spirit duty in Ireland is extremely low in comparison with
involves both economical and social considerations of the the duty in the two other countries. There has been
highest nature. I have stated to the committee that we found to be a great difficulty as to the means of levying the
propose to enlarge our means by new taxation with a view tax, and we think it would not be safe to levy an
to further beneficial changes in our fiscal system. That is additional tax of ls. a-gallon upon home-made spirits in
one object we have in view. Another object is—and it is Ireland. But we have looked carefully t o the means at
likewise an important object—to meet the public feeling, our command for enforcing the levying of this tax. In
which we recognise and share, that the operation of the Ireland there is a revenue police, which has hitherto had
income tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared the exclusive charge of enforcing this duty. But there
with property. I frankly own my total inability to meet is also maintained in that country at the public cost a large
the feeling which has been excited upon the subject of the force, the constabulary, which has had no share what-
income tax, and that I think I should be guilty of a high ever in giving information to those who have been
political offence if I attempted it. But let me now point engaged in levying the spirit duties. We contemplate
out to you that if you think that intelligence and skill un- a change in the relation of these two forces. I cannot
der our system of taxation pay too much, and property too 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
little, there are means of equalising the burdens of the
two classes in a manner which would be on the whole safe, 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
honourable, and efficacious. Sir, I refer to the question
Irish spirits—namely, from 2s. Bd. to 3s. 4d., subject to
of the legacy duty—(loud cheers)—a question which it is
the deduction of 40,0001., the allowance for waste spirits
perfectly plain cannot be dismissed from the consideration
. in bond. This will give us a gross gain of 238,0001. upon
of the house. In my opinion it is a question of which the
earliest settlement will likewise be the best. It requires
the consumption of Irish spirits, but, deductingthe allow-
settlement. The tax is not just as it stands. And how is ante for waste of 40,0001., we have a net gain of 198,0001.
it unjust ? I frankly confess that I have always thought
the view of the case, as stated by the hon. member for That gives from both countries—Scotland and Ireland
—an increase of 476,0001. But it is necessary that I
Lambeth (Mr. Williams)—who has exerted himself effec-
should make an allowance for waste in England, not for
tively on this subject—(hear, hear)—l have always thought
that his view, if I may say so without offence—was a the sake of English distillers, but for the sake of Irish and
most inadequate view of the state of the case. (Hear, Scotch distillers, with whom it is a great object to bond
hear.) The tax is supposed to favour landed property, their spirits here. (Hear, hear.) There will therefore be
which Ido not deny ; but it also favours property which an allowance of 40,000/. for waste in bond in England,
au which will leave a net gain from the increased duty upon
of revenue that I propose, and
has not that claim to favour which landed property
sp
smallirits of 436,000/. a-year. (Hear, hear.) There is one
and household - property might perhaps fairly urge
very
as a ground of exemption from taxation. (Hear, hear,
that is the revenue upon certain classes of licenses. If the
from Mr. Williams). lam glad to hear the hon. me-über
committee examine the present scale of licenses, they will
echoing.that sentiment. I wish to set aside the impression
see that they bear very unequally upon the minor and the
that the question bears on its front the odious aspect of a
question of class. It does no such thing (Hear, hear.) greater tradesmen ; upon some it is uniform, as upon gro-
We propose to alter it, and, subject to conditions which I cers and teadealers, and they pay the same, whether they
will state, to extend the legacT duty to all successions Pay rent to the valxe of W. or 5001. We do not propose
whatever. (Hear, hear.) With respect- to the probate to take up the more important questions as to the licenses
duty, at the present moment we do not venture to deal which are connected with the sale of spirits, wine, and
with,
it. The probate linty itself, I grant you, calls for re- beer, but we propose, in regard to the licenses of brewers,'
dealers in tea and coffee, tobacco, and soap, to make an
form, and if the Government had the means of carrying
out that reform in the present year it would have been additional scale of licenses, raising then at the upper end
satisfactory to have done so. As it is, we are obliged at of the scale to an ad valorem value. The -gross increase of
revenue arising from licenses is 113,0001. The whole
present, to.postpone it, but we hope that in a future and
amount of increased taxes which we propose to levy, and
early year 3t will come under consideration. It is said that
the legacy duty is in the nature of a tax upon property. which will come into the accounts of 1853-4, is—income
It is a tax upon property, and beause leis a tax upon pro- tax, 295,000/. ; legacy duty, 500,000/. ; duty on spirits,
perty it meets the views which have been so much favoured 436,000/. ; licenses, 113,0001., which amount to a total of
by a large portion of this house and by public opinion— 1,344,000/.—(cheers)—which, with the anticipated surplus
namely, that if the income tax is to bear unequally upon of 805,0001., will give a fund of 2,149,0001. available for
intelligence and-skill as compared with property, then that the remission of taxation. (Cheers.) I cannot proceed
inequality ought to be redressed in some way or other. further without stating the nature of our intentions with
I think this is a safe mode in which to redress that inequ- regard to Ireland. The committee have found that we
ality, and if this is a tax upon property it is divested of Propose to make the income tax payable in Ireland for a
the danger that attends the taxation of property generally. moderate term, and at a descending rate, as in England,
The mischief of taxes upon property is the liability of a and that we propose to ler/ an increased tax of Bd. on
constant recurrence of those struggles of classes. But in spirits in Ireland, which may be a net tax of 6d. or 7d. a.
carrying into effect this increase in the legacy duty you But
after allowing for the waste of spirits in bond.
have this great advantage, that the liability to pay occurs But Phase now to refer to that case which I lately men-
only within the limitation which the laws of a higher tioned of rent-charge formed by the consolidated annui-
power have ordained ,• that it only occurs once, on the ties. It was the opinion of the Government that it was
death of a man ;yid that no man can die more than once. impossible for them to arrive at a final decision upon that
(A laugh.) Ima be wrong. (A laugh.) But I assure important subject. They represent a capital of 4,500,0001.
of public money, and in dealing with them the Govern-
the committee that it appears to me that this is a most
ment must have regard to the actual situation of Ireland,
weighty consideration for those whose duty it is to inquire
how they can best neutralise the social dangers incident to recovering as it is from a season of the deepest distress,
and having also regard to the harmony of the relations be-
all questions connected with the taxation of property. You
find the principle of this tax recognised in our law ;you tween the two countries, the Government thought they
find its operation so limited by the very conditions under could not come to a final decision till they had considered
which it exists that there is no reason to apprehend the the general plan of finance which it was their duty to re-
disturbing of a fair settlement of these duties, if once commend, and its bearing upon Ireland. They now re-
made ; and you will, I think, be of opinion that this is a rommend a measure which, if you adopt, as I trust you
fair and right tax to adopt for itself, and that it is one will, will advance us one great step towards establishing
which in other respects meets, in the best, safest, and an equalization of taxation between the three countries.
most effective manner, the feeling which is I know is pre- (Cheers.) It is true that the income tax is of temporary
valent in this house—that the present operation of the in- duration, and that you will show by levying it that there
is a bond fid
come tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared e intention and a rational prospect of equalis-
with property. (Hear, hear.) I propose to retain the ing the taxation. But, at the same time it is important
Rresent scale of consanguinity, with one change. (Oh, oh.)
that you should consider the great time;of a
We cannot go into that now, because the emotion of the Portion of that country, and when you come to consider
hon. member might produce a duellum between him and these things it will be pl • that the am disposition of Parlia
me that would inconveniently cross the course of my gene- went will be to adopt large and generous measures, and-
ral statement; and we must adjourn the consideration of not consider this as a mere ceation of money. Yon will
that to another time. (Hear, hear.) We propose to re- consider this you will consider all that it represents—the
gain the present scale with one mitigation. that
vrisTosfit I the
famine'
cseonT, and of Ireland toa visitation, feeling of England to Ireland,
scale relations of affinity are, treated as strangers—an that awful the peculiar character of
in...law and a daughter-in-law pay a duty of 10 per
tone between the England,two tayhatever made amore kindly
countries, and made this debt less
of a national creditor and d
t of tohle.
We propose to place them on the footing of relations by
blood. (Hear, hear.) We propose that the exemption oi.
mint have determined to make a account. The
The
tofetcrionetsloylidbaelteendgsantneuitthieears
establishment
real property should no longer exist, subject to the condi- The Govern
lam about to mention. The Government propose
of debt that that the exemption of settled personalty should no longer
exist, and as we abolish the exemption, I now come Poor law in Ireland. That was a great social and
Ha-
to the question— a most grave one for the Govern- tional good—a great and vast good to Ireland.a Lae.-
meat to consider, and which they have carefully con- every good to Ireland is also a good to England. (Hear,u
But
sidered—would it be just that all descriptions of pro- hear.) The other 3,000,0001. consist of debts entirely co'
perty, personalty and real property, should be charged netted with the famine. A committee of the other-house
at the same rate of duty to the legacy duty ? Our of Parliament have sat on this subject, and the have recom-
opinion is that it ought not, and we think that a dis- mended a remission of 2,000,0001. of this taxation. Sir, the
tinction ought to be taken, but not taken exactly as here Plan of the Government, after maturely considering the
tofore. It is obvious, when we regard the burdens upon whole question, is to propose to Parliament that, from and
property in this country, that there is a great mass of tax- after the 29th of last September, the consolidated annui-
ation that attaches to property which may be roughly ties shall-be wholly wiped away. (Cheers from the Irish
called—l do not know whether the term is legal—rateable members.) They propose that the whole sum due from Ire-
property, which includes along with real property a great land to England shall be remitted. In remitting these
amount of le uponasehold, copyhold, and so forth, which is not charges, and in proposing an income tax u Ireland, you
real property, but which is subject to the burdens-of real will make a great stride towards that, the advantage of
property, which is subject to taxation by the income tax, which I hardly know how to • appreciate with reference to
which is subject to the land tax, though in a less degree,, bringing the two countries
which is subject to the extra charges on the transfer of pro- the principle of equalisedtowards the establishment of
taxation. On that subject I need
perty, and which is subject generally to all the charges that only add, because am asked what I mean to do with the
affect visible property as contrasted with invisible property, arrears, that a
and which is liable to the great weight of local taxation.' due to the 29tNeret inh respect to consolidated annuities
There is between these items a sum of 14,000,000/. or been if the law hade)
continuedaer will be paid as they would have
15,000,0001. of taxes laid entirely on rateable property, nothing will be collected which
in force. On the other hand,
has become duo since the
to which not real property only, not land only, but 29th of September—andwhich has been so col-
leashold and copyhold property also are subjected. This lected will be returned toa-iros money
who
have paid it, so as to
property is, now subject in both ways to the legacy and take care that the non-paying celass s obtain no advantage
probate duties, and to all the burdens incident to real over those who have paid. (Hoar.) Weclasses
are inviting you to
property. The Government propose to amend the whole remit a capital sum, which was nearly 4,500,0001., and is
foundation of the law, by striking a new distinction, and still above 4,000,000/. and to remit an annual charge of
by saying that whatever exemption or partial advantage 245,0001. Three-fourths of that amount would continue
shall be given to real property shall be given in conjunction for 40 years, and one-fourth for from 10 to 30 years. The
to other property which is now subjected to special bur- taxation we propose for Ireland• would in the first two
dens. We propose, therefore, to abolish the effect of set- years be considerably higher than the taxation we propose
dement, so that the person who succeeds to personal to remove ; but if we look to the time when, as I say, Par-
property will pay according to his interest. He will pay liamen t will be in a position to part with the income tax,
upon the capital, if he succeeds to the capital, and if he Ireland would enjoy, and for a long term of years, a much
succeeds to a less interest he will pay on the value of that larger remission of consolidated annuity than it would be
less interest. The Government, then, thinking it just that subject to additional burthens in the shape of the spirit
a less amount shall be taken from rateable property than duty. So much for the case of Ireland : and now I have
from property that does not pay these special burdens, have done with. that most offensive part of my task, the imposi-
to ask in what way that distinction can best be struck. It
tion of taxation, I feel—as it is said men are wont to feel,
•
has long been the policy of this country—the result of a and as some of us have felt—when they have come an
measure accidentally taken, but not the less beneficial— uP-hilljourney to the top of the Alps. Now I have got to
that visible and rateable property shOuld be in a manner the downward road, and the plains of Italy are before me.
taxed in the form of an annual charge. Now it would be (Hear, hear.) I come to consider the more agreeable subject
obviously highly inconsistent, while you are relieving the of the remission of taxation—that remission of taxa-
average annual burden, to make up for it by laying a heavy tion which up to this moment, not from obstinacy,
charge upon the capital. For the Government would then and not from petulance, but from a conviction of our pub-
force and accelerate by-the pressure of fiscal enactments lit duty, we have thought it right steadily to decline ac
force
in the tenure of this property,•and that acceleration ceding to. (Hear.) The first remission of taxation I shall
would be, in my opinion. not only unjust, but most cruel Propose has reference to the Excise department. It is im-
and mischievous in a social point of view. We think that the
to deny that there are great evils connected with
if anything in the nature of a distinction is taken in the the soap tax. ((Cries of "hear, hear.") In the first place,
legacy duties in favour of rateable property as against the the system of drawbacks, which is a system incident to
other deicriptions of property, the fairest mode in the case the use of soap in our manufactories, entails an immense
of an estate would be found to be this—that the successor loss. In the second place, this is an article of taxation
to real property should be in cases taxed upon the life which is both injurious to the comfort and to the health of
interest only, and on a minor interest if he has only a minor the people. (Hear.) In the third place, this is an article on
interest. It is difficult for me to enter upon a full discus- which the pressure of the tax is so severe that, notwlth-
sion, of all the reasons that have led- us to that conclusion• standing the general wisdom and fairness with which your
The question is very much connected with the great diffi- Excise laws are administered, notwithstanding the draw-
culty of any attempt to ascertain the capital values of back yon grant on exportation, your productive power is
real property. As a matter of fact, under the social crippled. (Hear, hear.) You cannot compete with the
arrangements of this citantry, our great estates are foreigner—your export trade dwindles day by day—and
settled estates. Leaving this subject, however, for future gentlemen -who have come to me to represent the case
discussion, it is our view that our proposal ought to include with respect to soap well-informed gentlemen have
the legacy duties, and that scime remission ought to be stated that if we only take that bold measure with
granted to property which is' iv subject to a great weight respect to the soap tax which we recommend,
of peculiar and exceptioeal • taxation ; .and we think that over and above the entii e rate of duty the consumer of soap
the best mode of framing that provision would be to charge would benefit to the extent of no less than 25 or 30 per
the succession of rateable property upon the life interest cent. in consequence of the cheapened production. (Hear.)
after ' the deduction of incumbrances. We propose that Therefore for every penny of duty we ask you to surrender
the duty should be leviable, as was proposed by Mr. Pitt, we feel that we are giving you double that advantage.
in eight half.yearlyinstalments. In cases where there is a There is one other point to which I cannot but feel that I
succession to a life interest, our proposal would be that the must advert. The question of the African slave trade is
tax should drop in the case of a new successor before the one which excites different feelings. We have but one
new instalment is payable ; but in the case of a succession feeling with respect to the extinction of the slave trade,
in fee the whole will be paid, and if death occurs before but there is a difference with respect to the measures to be
the remaining instalment is paid the duty will be a debt to taken for that exthiction. Some have thought the means
the 'crown against the estate. That is our proposal with of force used are unavailing, but that the promotion of le-
regard to the legacy duty. I now come to the results gitimate commerce would be the most aatisfactory, the
which we anticipate. The produce in the first year vv, m most effective, and the most desirable of all instruments
be small. We do n•-1 propose to charge the new duty upon you can apply. (Hear, hear.) It may be said there is a
any succession anterior to the period when the committee wide interval between the premises and the conclusion if
shall adopt the resolution. The law allows 12 months for I say, in order to extinguish the slave trade repeal the soap
the payment of the legacy duties, and it will be impossible tax. But a conneation more intimate than this any gen-
to fix the payment of the duty upon rateable property, if tleman cannot well imagi The map would show how
the committee should adopt it, until after one of the ordi- the rivers of Africa might become depots for the trade in
nary periods of rent day. The duty in personalty cases Palm oil. The quantities you may receive from that
will come in more quickly, but I cannot reckon upon a source are almost immeasurable. There are the great ma-
larger receipt from the alteration of the legacy duties for terials for a trade which, if youonly relieve it from checks,
the year 18e3.54 than 500,000/• additional duty from this will show that the energy, the capital, and the intelligence
source. In subsequent years the amount wi'l be greatly of the country are as well entitled to carry away the palm
-nlarged. I have no objection, as far as lam able, to state in this particular—(hear, entail and a laugh)—as they show
the results of my investigation as to future years, and I themselves to be in so many respects. The gross receipt
hink Ido not exaggerate when I east that this tax, if it from the soap duty is 1,397,0001.; the drawback, 1
is adopted by the committee, while it will add 500,0001. the net receipt, 1,126,0301.; the cost of collection, 15,000/
to the income ;
of the present year 1853-4, will add an in- the net loss, 1,111,0001. But with reference to the general.
crease of 700,000/• to the r 1854-5, 400,000/. more to the necessity for fixing a time to commence the remission of
year 1855-6. and. 400,000/ more to
the year 1856-7, making duties, the most convenient time for this purpose in regard
a total addition to th to the soap duty the sthof
was July.
of not less than 2 e permanent taxation of the country But there was al-
this I must remind,Goo,ooo/. per annum. (Cheers.) And ways a power of keeping in bond if it were thought fit to
wholly the committee is tax which will leave do so. There is already a sum due with reference to the
untouched the i tel • a
(Cheers.) It is a tax of 140 030/
n hgence and skill of the country. quarter expired , ~ and before the present
the relief that you.that gives the relief, and more than quarter is out probably 203,0001. will be due. We have to
income tax, but doesail,n at by the re-construction of the credit this year 310,000/., and the net loss for this year
necessarily attend that r
without the danger which would will be 771,0031. I come next to the division of the stamp
e-constru •
Mr. DISRAELL—Does -that re-construction.
(Cheers.) duties. It is not possible for the Government, with all the
dome ? t apply to the three king- means at their set' ice, to deal with all the articles
they
The CHANCELLOR of the E would wish. There are articles —suchas fire insurance and
general change of the law in the XCHEQUER.___It is a marine insurance—on which they would gladly, if they
present legacytikes and probate could, grant remissions of taxation. But they have made
kingdom or the other. One great object
at all of one the best choice in their power. One subject that naturally
policy would be the equalisation of uof our financial presented itself to them, both in connexion with the in-
policy
I ween the three countries. It is, however,
duties be- come tax, and likewise as bearing directly as a tax on pru-
problem. It is very doubtful whether it ,waiTiery difficult dence, and bearing especially on the poorer classes, is the
tirely attained, but such an approximation to
it as
be en- present tax on life assurance. It bears very heavily on the
a! would poorer classes, though not severe in itself. At present it
stop smuggling might, perhaps, be reached. it
plain that such an equalisation cannot be obtained at tquite amounts to 2s. 6d. per cent. We propose to reduce it
sent by a reduction of the spirit duties in England a pre- from 2s. 6d. to 6d. The produce is 40,0001.—the imme-
must takr the English duties as the ruling
point
to
\Zion. diate loss or relief will be 29,0001. We propose next to
the other must be raised. In the present year we do notch deal with an article which in its present state is most un-
propose to make any change in the English spirit duties, satisfactory,wiiie and that is stamps on receipts. This is aduty
for that question is so much mixed up with the licensing' the does not grow as it ought with the transactions of
system, and would involve so great a change in the princi- whierntry, a duty which is evaded wholesale, and a duty
plc of licenses in populous districts, that for the It is Inaust say entails very considerable inconvenience.
present the English spirit duties must stand over. But cessit of
dealinga mere question of charge, but the re-
present Government are of opinion, after a careful con- with particularY in the particular papers, stamped
sideration with respect to Scotland, that there is no and get as amounts, which you have to send
occasion
reason why, in the case of Scotland, there should not be enter very much
a moderate mere in the duty upon spirits. I believe , hear.) What we into the question of inconvenience. (Hear.
m
that an increase of the 'duty, confined within due adopt a system analogouspropose is, to make an entire change, and
ounds, would not be opposed to public opinion in Scot- nient to the public to the system found so conve-
with reference
:and, or unacceptable in Scotland. (Hear.) An increase that of penny stamps, we to postage—namely,
on the duty upon home-made spirits would render neces- . instruments for any pamen ?repose by a penny stamp ,on
in money, as contrasted with
nary an adjustment of the duty upon colonial spirits, I negotiable instruments, to make
which I only mention now without going into details. I Though the first loss o the such .
payment valid.
revenue will not be incon-