The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

Then he (Mr. Cardwell) said that that was a Protectionist
amendment in disguise. (Cries of " oh," and hear, hear.)
An hon. member on the same side of the house, who had
followed the hon. baronet, had told them that the power-
ful argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
shown him that the agricultural interest paid 9d. in the
pound to the income tax, while trade paid bat 7d. ; and
the hon. gentleman had added that he was indebted to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for having opened his eyes
upon that subject. He had afterwards gone on to say
that the agricultural interest had paid 6,000,0001. too
much in the shape of income tax, during the last ten
years; and if that tax were continued during the next
seven years. in the mode proposed by her Majesty's
Government, they would pay 3,000,000/. more in excess
of the charge to which they were liable. But
did honourable gentlemen mean to reduce that in-
equality ? If they did, let them openly avow their
intention ; but let them not imagine that the tradesmen
and the professional men of this country were so simple,
that, under the guise of a general proposition for removing
the inequalities of the tax, they would consent to allow
the agricultural interest to escape from the payment of
3,000,0001. of taxation. His noble friend who had last
addressed the house had said, that if they carried that
budget they should deal with the burdens on land ; and he
had particularly instanced the case of a yeoman with an
income of 601. or 701., on whom the financial proposals of
the Government, would, he said, press with special severity.
But his noble friend had himself voted in December last
for a proposition which would impose a heavier ineome
tax on the owner of a property worth only 501. a year,
while to that charge was to be added the burden of a
doubled house-tax. (Hear, hear.) But how would hon.
gentlemen opposite redress the inequalities of the income
tax ? They had not told the house the mode in which they
would accomplish that object. It was true that a scheme
for its attainment had been embodied in the financial pro-
posals of the late Government ; but he believed that it was
at present universally acknowledged that that scheme had
evinced an imperfect acquaintance with the schedules.
The hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had
told them, and had told them truly, that it was not so
much the inequality of the income tax that was objec-
tionable as the inquisition which it entailed. The
honourable gentleman was supported in that view of
the case by high authority; for Adam Smith had de-
clared that "an inquisition which would extend to every
man's fortune would be a grievance such as no country
would submit to." (Hear.) His right hon. friend the mem-
ber for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) cheered that state-
ment as if it were an argument against the income tax, as
if he had himself never voted for the income tax—(loud
cries of " hear, hear " from the Ministerial side of the
house)—and as if the budget of December last had not con-
tained an income tax. (Renewed cries of " hear, hear.")
But let them consider what they would have to do if they
attempted to remove the grievance under which one man
was taxed on his capital while another was taxed on his
income. In many cases the capital account and the income
account were almost inextricably mingled together ; and
their connection could only be unravelled in that case by
having a particular income tax for each particular indivi-
dual. The fact was, that in the evidence taken before the
committee, that was the remedy proposed for the griev-
ances of the present system. But they might depend upon
it, that in proportion as they endeavoured to approach to
greater justice in levying the income tax, in the same pro-
portion they would add to its inquisitorial character,
which was its greatest evil. What was the question they
had to consider ? The question was, whether they should
call on all parts of the United Kingdom to contribute to a
tax from which they had derived, during the last ten years,
the most inestimable advantages, and from which, if they
were to continue it for seven years more, they would de-
rive still further advantages, which, according to his noble
friend who had last addressed the house, had been under-
estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were
told, however, that they ought not to extend to an impove-
rished and a depressed country a tax which was only fitfor a
rich and a prosperous country. But the tax, it should be
remembered, would only extend to incomes beyond a cer-
tain amount • and to object to an income tax on the ground
that people had no income would be a most extraordinary,
proceeding. (Hear, hear, and laughter.), The hon. mem-
ber for Mayo (Mr. 41-. H. Moore) had opposed the exten-
sion of the income tax to Ireland ; but he (Mr. Cardwell)
could quote to the hon. gentleman, in favour of such a pro-
posal, a very high authority—namely, the hon. gentleman
himself. On the 17th of March, 1848, the hon. gentleman
had addressed the house as follows :—" He agreed with
the hon. member for Marylebone in thinking that property
in Ireland ought to be amenable to income tax. (Cries of
" hear, hear," from the ministerial side of the house.)
He thought it was just to the people of this country,
and necessary for the people of Ireland that every man
and every description of property should be made to bear
his share of the national burdens. (Hear, hear.) Whilst
the tradesman of England was contributing to the neces-
sities of Ireland, and whilst the former was endeavouring
to bear up against an impossible experiment, was it not
monstrous that the man who received twenty times the
income of either should be allowed to sneak out of the
difficulty and escape free ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) So
far from thinking that the present circumstances of Ire-
land exonerated her people from the payment of an income
tax, he was of opinion that the present condition of the
country was the very reason why they should be taxed."
(Loud cries of " hear," and laughter.)
Mr. MOORE said he wished to explain. The proposi-
tion which he had supported on the occasion to which the
right hon. gentleman had referred, but which lie had not
been able to bring formally before the house, was that the
income tax should be imposed on Ireland for the mainte-
nance of the people during the famine. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition side of the house.)
Mr. CARDWELL resumed :—lt was at present pro-
posed that the income tax should be extended to Ireland,
and at the same time that that country should be relieved
from the charge incurred during the famine. He certainly
felt indebted to the hon. gentleman for the very effective
mode in which he had given expression to views which he
(Mr. Cardwell) could only have stated in far less vigorous
language. He had troubled the house with a very concise
summary of the benefits which consumers had derived from
the financial reforms which under the shelter of the income
tax they had been enabled to carry into effect. He had
further to observe, that when they had first imposed that
tax, they had had a debt of 791,000,0001., and that at pre-
sent at the expiration of 10 years, during which the tax
had been levied, they had paid off the Irish debt of
9,000,0001., and they had reduced the original capital of
the natioal debt by 12,000,001:W.—that was to say, they
had paid off 21,000,0001. of debt. But that was not all.
Their balances in the Exchequer had been little over
1,000,0001., and they were at present nearly 9,000,0001; so
that they had increased by 7,500,0001. It was the same
great instrument which had enabled his right hon. friend
the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goul-
burn) to remove from the annual charge of the debt a sum
of 1,200,0001. (Hear, hear.) These were benefits to the
whole of the United Kingdom ; and they were at present
called upon to renew for seven years longer that great ex-
periment—(hear)---that they might confer on the com-
munitY during the time to come similar advantages—
that as they had already removed the duties on light
and air, they might at present reduce the duty on clean-
liness—(hear, hear)—that as in times past they had
diminished the duty on sugar, they might at present dimi-
nish the duty on tea—(hear, hear)—and that they might
extend the comforts of the people while they stimulated
trade and increased the sources of the national prosperity.
(Hear.) From the year 1798 to the year 1816, the income
tax had carried them through eighteen years of revolution-
ary wars. From the year 1842 to the year 1860, eighteen
years more would elapse, and the income tax would carry
theni during those eighteen years through a different spe-
cies of conquests. They had entered, as had been truly
said that evening, on a new kind of conflict—on the peace-
ful rivalry of commercial enterprise—(hear, hear)—and un-
less they unfettered industry, it would be impossible for
them to succeed to the fullest extent in that rivalry. The
late Sir Robert Peel had found them labouring under
many disadvantages ; he had found them the most highly-
taxed people perhaps in the world ; but how greatly had
their condition since been altered. (Hear.) Let them
continue that tax until the year 1860, and to them the
commerce of the world must gravitate under circumstances
of the greatest advantage. No longer need the subjects of
this realm retire to foreign countries for the purpose of
economy, for this country would be the cheapest in Europe.
(Hear.) Let them not debate that great question upon the
mere consideration which part of the United Kingdom
would derive from the measures proposed by her Majesty's
Government the greatest amount of advantage. (Hear.)
They hoped to confer inestimable advantages on the whole
people of the United Kingdom ; and unless hon. gentlemen
could show that some positive injustice would be inflicted
by the system of taxation by which that great national
benefit was to be conferred, it was their duty to give their
cordial assent to a proposal which was replete with happi-
ness and comfort to the great mass of the people. (Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY said that the right hon. gentleman had
drawn a flattering picture of the results whith that tax
had accomplished. But it should be remembered that
those results, however they might have been owing to a
system of direct taxation, might have been obtained with-
out the inconvenience and the injustice entailed by the
present income tax. The question they had to consider
was not whether they had derived great advantages from
the imposition of 5,500,0001. of income tax, but whether
they ought to amend the mode of levying the tax, and to
raise the money in a more equitable manner. (Hear.)
That was the real question before the house, and yet the
right hon. gentleman had hardly addressed himself at all
to that question. Upon the subject of the income tax the
hon. member for the West Riding said that the great ob-
jection to it was the inquisition to which it subjected
people, and the President of the Board of Trade said the
same. Now, if this were so, the Government were estab-
lishing
ian additional inquisition as grievous and as inquisi-
torial n their succession duty. (Hear, hear.) The Presi-
dent of the Board of Control had last night taunted those
who sat on his (Mr. Henley's) side of the house for not
taking to Bs. duty when it was offered to them. (Hear,
hear from the ministerial benches.) Now that was rather
an old story to rip up ; but he confessed he had never
heard the Whigs when they used that taunt venture to
say they could have secured the landed interest the Bs.
duty beyond 1846. Unless they had told them that, and
he had believed them—(a laugh)—he thought perhaps they
were as well off as before. (Hear, hear.) But what
was the present offer of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer? (Hear, hear.) The choice between 7d. and
sfd., and the succession tax. How would that work ? It
appeared to him the burden would be very much against
the land. (Hear, hear.) Without entering into details
he was prepared to think that, considering the difference
between these two taxes, a matt when he came to estimate
how much premium he would have to pay, to get the suc-
cession duty would find it a losing bargain for the landed
interest. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said in the
course of the debate with respect to the justice or injustice
of extending this tax to Ireland. Now, every man must
admit that the taxation of the two countries had been
always different. (Hear, hear.) In 1842 Sir Robert Peel
did not impose the income tax on Ireland, but he proposed
other countervailing duties, amounting to about 400,000/.,
or thereabouts. One of those duties had been repealed

equally with regard to the two countries. So far thist was
a gain altogether. But was Ireland now in a better posi-
.

tion than she was in 1842 to bear the 460,0001. income tax,

and a further sum for spirit duties ? (11-ear.) The draw-
hacks upon spirits would also apply equally to the 'United
Kingdom.ln addition to the income tax, Ireland would

,
propo-
sition, therefore, with regard to t
have to pay 350,0001. for succession t
country,
etchoeuydronpoot-
al3dolanricti ofto Control just.trol had r (Hear,ead last hear
night ilahne aPecoresuindieno.tf
soefvetrhael
unions in Ireland, showing what the greatest
hgoaninglynotulled. he in particular parts of Ireland. The right •
man selected those districts most favourable to his case,
but he added that, although 45 of the most distressed
unions in Ireland
would pay 83,000/. a year in con-
t•olidated annuities, they would only pay 42,000/. to the
income tax. This was a material item in the case, In
the first place, the Irish people denied the justice of the
claim. In the next they did not pay the instalments,
which was a more material part of the question. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) It was one thing to owe a debt, and
another to pay it. (Hear, hear.) The aggregate payriients