The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

another, they would never be able to maintain snyprinciple.
. s proposal
eque
Be thought the Chancellor of the Exc n
considered fairly all classes ; and as it was necessary to r'
ex-
tend the tax to Ireland, and upon incomes
he could not, as being connected
withland,fo ask for any
I°l.
a year,
exception. (Hear.) With regard to the legacy tax, upon
any opinion, he
which he did not now wish to pronounce m
ust be
would observe that a large and liberal allowance
7d. or 9d. but
made in assessing it. They must have no
• tvalue. It must be remembered that land
when it
strict
came into possession was very often least able to bear an
the
y
burden—and while the successor to a sum of money in
funds brought an immediate income, he had known a case
when a person succeeding to an estate had
t not touched
rent for twelve months. Then, again, the transfer of land
the transfer of
was subjected to heavy stamp duties which _
to
sop _
money was not. Again, land was subjected a Fa-Ge
be lieved Inas-
tax of its own, from which it could not re ..,
to locai taxa-
mach as it had been bought in. Withtrietrd
ed to More consi-
tion, he thought that the land was en
tit
as the landed proprie-
deration than it had received ; an
tors had, in this question, a common interest with the
en
fact, with all
tithe-owner and the railway
companies—ince was tangible, and
those the exact amount of whose income
view of their case ought
could be at once ascertained—a revs
the the budget as a whole,
no longer to be delayed. But, g
rehensive symmetrisation,
and as a step towards the_ come,any
Chancellor of the Ex-
he thought it the bestwhien
during the whole of his parliamen-
chequer had proposed
which extended over 40 years.
tars experience,
_FE
could see nothing in this budget but
Sir . JOLLIF
a proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the
the Chancellor of
expense of the land, which the
Ex-
chequer admitted would be subjected to a legacy duty of
two miMons sterling
and he thou various other classes were to be re-
lieved ; iht the least the house was bound to
do was to consent to such a modification of schedule A as
had been proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for
Berkshire. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR: of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, be-
for the committee proceeds to a divison upon this most im-
portant question, I am very anxious to state the views
which my colleagues and myself entertain in regard
,to it.
The hon. member for Berkshire who made the motion now
before us, commenced his very temperate speech by dis-
claiming, on his part, everything like factious or party
motives. Sir, I give the honourable gentleman the most
entire credit in that respect. lam convinced there is no
man less likely to make a motion of such a character, and
above all there is no man in this house less likely, if he
did make a motion of such a character, to fix upon that
motion any other character than that of truth. (Hear,
hear.) I shall not endeavour to entangle hon. gentlemen
by the discussion of details. It would be very easy l'or me
to enter upon many matters of that description, and to
that by the adoption of this motion you would be in-
volved in many great anomalies, and you would introduce
difficulties amounting to confusion into the working of a
tax which, unless you fix its detail within certain boUnds,
would become absolutely unmanageable. (Hear.) A •great
deal might be said on subjects like that, but there is more
important matter before us. There is a stronger, at all
events a much higher and broader ground, on which it is
my duty to object to the motion of the honourable gentle-
man. It is not because his motion is devoid of plausibi-
lity, or even is devoid of equity, if it stood as a naked ab-
stract proposition. It is when we view it in conjunction
with other provisions of the tax, of which it forms a part
---when we view it in conjunction with the present group
of circumstances which bear on the renewal of the opera-
tion of the tax, in conjunction with the pledge given at
former periods and on recent occasions—that her Majesty's
Government feel that it would be deserting the very first
principles of their duty were they either to consent to the
motion of the hon. gentleman or to give it anything less
than the most resolute and unqualified opposition. (Cheers.)
I will not dwell upon the many details which . have
been referred to in the course of the debate. But
with respect to the honourable member for Devonehire,
whose sympathy has been greatly excited on behalf of the
small
freeholder; I may be allowed to say that we are pro-
posing an income tax that will leave every freehold :r un-
der 1001. scot free ; whilst he supported a budget that pro-
posed to tax every 40s. freeholder—a budget which, if I
recollect right, taxedall real property, irrespective of the
amount of income of its possessor, and going down to a
very low limit—l believe it was 501. But I will not dwell
on these things. In order to understand what are the just
expectations of the country with respect to the question,
we must travel a little backwards. We must consider
what was the situation of affairs in December last. At
that Li:no the right hon. gentleman the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer—the champion, the chosen champion of a
large portion at least of those whose interests are connected
with the laud—proposed his financial plan, and I was
asked to-night why it was that I had said nothing On be-
half of the land with regard to local taxation, and why I
had proposed no reduction of its burdens. Why, sir, if I
bad proposed a reduction of those burdens, I should not
only have been met and confronted, but overwhelmed with
quotations from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire. (Cheers.) He, as you
know—he, in your hearing—he, as your leader, your organ,
your champion consigned your claims to perpetual obli-
vion. (Cheers.) And yet you make it matter of accusa-
tion against me that I have not proposed your relief from
local taxation. (Cheers.) But was that all that wan done
by the right hon. gentleman's budget 2 No ; you had then
the proposal of an income tax—you had then a resolution
laid upon the table, under which that income tax was to
be levied ; and the resolution laid on the table with regard
to schedule A corresponded exactly with that which I now
ask you to support. I know not what course the right
hon. e;entlernan is going to take—l know not whether he
means to adhere to his own propositions of last, December.
I will nut sp,alate on that matter at this moment, for an
hour or two will eolve the question. (Hear.) But this I
know, that the right hon. gentleman suede this proposal,
with your support, xi your leader and your organ—he
made this proposal with regard to schedule A which her
Majesty's G wernment now make, and upon which you are
screed to daida. Was that all that he did ? With an un-
mitigatee schedule A, what kind of schedule D did the right
honourable eentleman give you ? Whilst land paid tid.—
I will not now go into any detail as to whether that is too
little or too much, but Igo to the point that at this mo-
men ', land and houses, including other buildings such as
man actiutories, payins a higher rate than other property—
whilst that inequality was left unmitigated, the right hon.
gentleman laid another inequality upon the back of it,
for he proposed to reduce schedule D to 5f d., and that
• with your approbation and your support. (Cheers.) ' But
then, save the hon. member for Berkshire, there was no
legacy duty in the case. Now, there was no legacy duty
in the case ? There was no legacy duty in the present case,
but there was a legacy duty very legible in the future
case. (Hear, and laughter.) lam sure the hon. member
for Berkshire must have heard these ominous words, "At
the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine
the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties."
I believe the word "legacy" does not appear, but there is
no doubt about the meaning of the words—" We have not
neglected carefully to examine the question of the Stamp
duties and the probate duties, and we think it not impos-
sible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on sue-
cessions—(cheers)—that will reconcile contending interests,
and terminate the system now so much complained of."
(Continued cheering.) Now, I want to know whether
these words have a meaning or not. To me they are clear
enough. What is "the system now so much complained
of ?" The system which taxes unsettled personalty, and
which exempts settled personalty. (Hear.) That is the
"system so much complained of"—that is the system
which the right hon. gentleman, your organ, your sham-
pion, your leader, proposed and promised in the name of
his Government to terminate. (Cheers.) Now, sir, that
was the combination of events—that was the combination
of circumstances as they stood in December last. Bnt
there is yet one other. You say that, although we talk
' about the termination of the income tax, it will not end in
1860. (Opposition cheers.) Neither I nor you are the '
masters to determine that question. (Renewed cheering.)
But every prophet and every seer who rises on that side of
the house and says the income tax will not terminate in
1860 adds to the difficulties of bringing it to a termination.
I will not talk about its termination in 1860. I have given
my own opinion that it ought to be considered as a tem-
porary tax, and ought not to fall upon our permanent
and ordinary system of finance. But while we have not
talked much about its termination, we have done this—
we have endeavoured to place circumstances in such a
train—(cheers)—we have ondeavoured, by deeds and not by
words--(hear, hear)—by 'bringing into play additional re-
sources of taxation, and by introducing the principle of
gradual descent into the income tax—we have endeavoured
to show by figures that we have put the question into
such a manageable form as will enable Parliament
When the time arrives :to part with the income tax.
(Cheers.) You now coral dein of the income tax, in con-
junction with the legacy duties, as it stands in our pro-
posal, and yet you supported the tax as it stood in the
proposal of last December. I think the proposal then was
to renew the income tax ft rr a period of three years. What
did that mean ? You all know what it meant. It meant
the tax in perpetuity. (near, hear.) Ido not mean to
say that it implied a foreg one conclusion to that effect on
the part of those who prof ,osed the renewal of the tax for
three years ; but what ev as done was this—the tax was
proposed for three years, n o provision was made for its ex-
tinction at the end of that period, and, indeed, the right
hon. gentleman opposite n light just as well have made up
his mind for its perpetuit y. (Hear, hear.) You cannot
afford to part with 6,000„000 of revenue at a moment's
notice. If you are in ear nest to get quit of the tax, you
must make provision and prepare the ground. We have
done so. Yon say that yora are afraid the income tax may
exist after 1860. That is possible—the tax may exist after
1860 ; but we have prepared the ground for its extinction,
and have made such provfision that Parliament will be in
a condition, in 1860, to abolish the tax if it pleases. (Hear,
hoar.) Here, then, was ' the combination of events in
December last. You had an unmitigated schedule A—
you had the principle of di fferentialism established against
you in schedule D—you h ad no prospect of the abolition of
the tax—and you had the promise of a legacy duty. (Hear,
hear.) Well, now, it is s apposed that party and factious
motives alone could hav e determined me to resist the
scheme of December last. It was not so. I opposed the
scheme of December last because,
thought its
That wa,, mode of dealing with the income tax unjust.
that the
modey e, onvicti on at the time. I thought
whieh was then of tie ding with the income tax
that impression proposed would lead to confusion, and
right honourable gesntPeeZ, strengthened since I heard the
say the other night thatmember for Buckingham-
shirewas not a financial measure, ' his proposal of last December
principle. I still remain of .out the acknowledgment of a
proposed of dealing with the opinion-t that the mode then
finan-
cial confusion, would hex() openexdwould have led to
ticable questions, anal would'
havettp difficult and imprac-
ticable
I am not ashamed to sav produced a war of
compliments of the honourable memni(!,etrwithstanding the
with regard to my change of opinion,
that
Manchester
den of the right honourable gentleman the thought the
- :, • hamshire most unjust in its ultimate memberb for
Optiroli'.. i . connected with landed propel-I;ring, tiP°a 1
le , ,‘ e . n tho result of the proposals then (Hear.) 1
made 9
, ,
,i , . .• , to relieve the other schedules at the expense• '
73
X . ,i• . 'l4' ,' ,5,... 04 did not die with the expiring Ministry.
fi I ..", :' ,jWI of last week. (Hear.) I want to know, i
`,64 :frta:edeF, situation of last December, what was the
:-.2 e* ' itotti
drgst Monday night'. We had then the follow-
t
. % en •
scented to us :—" That the continuance of
• ~, tio, ,
' ree• • seven years, and its extension to classes
ir113.9M18 tic for
• '
f from its operation withoutany naitiga-
heretefeo6 exenr,
i;+'of its assessment, are alike unjust
xp- t*woh,screqua..,„ie3 .
N. Tunpolitr - For that motion 252 members of this house
, 4•11 c• be matter of no small interest
eeparetheir votes, and it will
who
so
to the county to see how these 252 gentlemen,_.
dispose of their votes
dis-
posed of their votes last Monday', shall
to night. " Without any mitigation of the inequalities _ f
its assessment." What was the meaning of those words 7
I want to know to what inequalities those words referred.

Frj ` ,

You know the meaning they bore, and still bear, in the
public mind. Do you attach the same meaning to them,
or do you not ? There are two quite different kinds of
inequalities in the income tax. First, there are those of
which we have heard so much to-night. We have been
told that the property assessed in schedule A is taxed at a
somewhat higher rate than the property comprised in the
rest of the schedules. Was that the inequality which was
meant to be pointed out for correction by the motion of
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire? Now, sir,
I am most anxious that we should have a distinct answer
to that question. (Hear, hear.) Was that, I repeat, the
idea, which hon. gentlemen had in their minds when they
voted for the motion of the hon. baronet the member for
Hertfordshire ? Did you think that he was going to reduce
the rate paid under schedule A, and consequently to im-
pose a new burden upon the trading and professional
classes, in comparison with the owners of landed and real
property ? If that was your idea, I can only say that you
were most unfortunate in having adopted words which con-
veyed to the understandings of the community at large a
meaning totally opposite and contradictory, and in having
chosen for your organ and exponent upon the occasion an
hon. gentleman of great ability, but one who in the speech
with which he introduced motion to the house,
exhausted all the stores of his itetoric in setting forth the
hardships--what hardships ?—the hardships of the landed
interests ? No, but the hardships of those whose enterprise,
whose intelligence, and whose skill constitute, as the
honourable baronet had said, their only property, and
whose continued good health is their only guarantee.
(Hear.) Now, I want to shew what was the meaning of
the vote of last Monday. It was meant to alter the rela-
tive position of the schedules. Of that there can be no
doubt; but what I want to know is, did it mean to alter
the position of schedule A at the expense of schedules D
and E, or did it mean to alter the position of schedules D
and E at the expense of schedule A ? (Hear, hear.) If you
had in view anything analogous to the motion of to-night,
then you must intend, I will not say to delude or deceive,
but to mislead the country ; but if, on the other hand, you
meant, what it was plain the honourable baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire meant, and what all the speakers who
followed him meant, namely, the reduction of the rates
charged on trade and professions, then I say you did that
which my noble friend who closed the discussion last
Monday told you you were about to do—you cheered
and supported, and voted for a motion diametrically
opposite and contradictory to the motion of to-night.
(Cheers.) Sir, I must here allude for a moment to what
fell from the honourable baronet who spoke last. I
would ask him what meaning he attaches to the motion
last Monday night. Was the meaning of it—" We want
to relieve schedule A ?" or was the meaning of it—" We
want to relieve schedule D ?" or was the meaning of it a
latent meaning, wisely and conveniently kept back, not
expressed—" We do not wish to obtain a legacy duty ?'
(Hear, and a laugh.) Now, the hon. baronet says he can
see nothing in this budget except taxation laid upon the
land, and in proof of his assertion he says, " Why, you
state yourself that you are going to lay 2,000,0001. of taxa-
tion upon land by exacting a legacy duty." . Sir, I do not
wonder that the hon. baronet can see nothing in this budget
except taxation upon land, if that is the process by which
he arrives at his conclusion. The hon. baronet says I have
myself stated that I am going to lay 2,000,0001. of additional
taxation upon land. Why, sir, I never made such a state-
ment. (Hear.) I stated the very reverse, and I chal-
lenge the honourable baronet to show that the charge of
the legacy duty will be 2,000,0001. upon land. What I
stated, and what I will repeat until the honourable baronet
understands me (a laugh), was, that we are going to amend
the basis of the legacy duty altogether ; that we think the
distinctions which now exist are unjust—especially that
which exempts all settled and real property ; that we are
going to take away the exemption which attaces to all
settled and real property as such ; and that we are going
to make the legacy duty applicable to all kinds of property
whatever, not to draw such a distinction in regard to the
mode of levying the duty as we think would operate to the
injury of property which at present bears a heavy burden
of taxation. .And here I venture to tell the honourable
baronet the member for Devonshire, who has applied his
mind with so much fairness to that portion of the sub-
ject, that when he sees the provisions of the bill we
shall introduce for the purpose of altering the legacy duty,
he will find them not unworthy of his approbation. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, if we were to look at the immediate
financial effect of the proposition of the hon. member for
Berkshire, we would see that it would deprive the Exchequer
of a sum of about 450,0001. The hon. gentleman shakes
his head, and of course I speak in some degree from con-
jecture, but I am persuaded that, if the hon. gentleman is
permitted to carry his motion, the deductions which will
be made from the gross amount of the tax now levied
under schedule A will be to the extent of about 16 per
cent.
Mr. PALMER : The deductions will he much less than
that.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am sure
I do not see how they can be less. The xpense of repairs,
of management, and various other items—why the honour-
able gentleman will fintl it difficult to estimate the deduc-
tions at less than 16 per cent. Moreover the honourable
gentleman proposes to make his plan applicable to house
property, and he must be aware that in a great many in-
stances the bond fide repairs on house property amount to
13 per cent. without any other charge. (Hear, hear.) My
belief is that his deductions would deprive the Exche-
quer of the sum of 450,0001. Now, sir, I have a very sim-
ple answer to make—we cannot afford to part with the
money. I would return this reply even if I were to sup-
pose that the measure which the hon gentleman proposes
was to stop at schedule A. But who imagines that it could
stop at schedule A ? Who conceives it possible to vote for
the motion of the hon. gentleman with regard to schedule
A, and not to carry the principle through the whole of the
schedules ? When the hon. member for Manchester said
that deductions were likewise necessary under the other
schedules, he was greeted with enthusiastic cheers from
both sides of the house. Well, then, these deductions are
to run through the whole of the schedules ; in other words,
16 per cent. is to be taken off the whole tax. Speaking in
round numbers, that is a deduction of 1,000,0001. from
the present produce of the tax. Now, that is a most
agreeable process, and doubtless we would all like
to indulge a feeling of enlarged generosity, to strike off
one item after another, to go home to-night after agreeing
to this motion with those sentiments with which philan-
thropy and benevolence always distend the heart, to re-
peat the process to-morrow night in the case of schedule
A, and so to go on with schedule after schedule, until you
reduce the tax to a mere skeleton of its former self. But
it you make these deductions upon the whole of the sche-
dules, what becomes of the financial measure ? (Hear,
hear.) What becomes of the remissions of duty? (Hear,
hoar.) I am afraid you will be obliged to commence a.
counter process, and having begun by reducing land from
9d. to 7d., and effecting an equivalent deduction upon the
other schedules, you will require to retrace your steps, and
raise the land from 7d. to 9d., and so on with the rest of the
schedules. I am not prepared to enter upon that course.
I am convinced you never could carry through such a pro-
cess, and,that the adoption of this motion would introduce
utter and hopeless confusion into the assessment and collec-
tion of the tax. If you deduct 16 per cent. under schedule
A, you must allow as much for schedule D. You will have
admitted a principle of such a character, that it will be im-
possible for schedule D to be content even withl6 per cent.
After the plans of last December, which were offered as a
step in the right direction, it is impossible for you to im-
pose upon that process such limits as may appear to suit
your particular inclinations. Indeed I could not wish you
a more fatal gift than the success of this motion. We can-
not afford to enter upon any such process. We cannot afford
it as far as regards the mere arithmetical effects upon our
calculations; we cannot afford it as far as regards the prin-
ciple that is involved. The motion of the hon. gentleman,
if adopted, breaks up the whole income tax ; and, breaking
up the whole tax, it necessarily breaks up that which rests
upon the tax. It breaks up the financial measures and pro-
posals of the Government. It is impossible for us to un-
dertake the reconstruction of the tax. If we meddle with
it we peril that very extensive remission of taxation which
we have laid before parliament, and which I think I may say,
without presumption has received and is receiving the appro-
bation of the country. Sir, we will not take the first step
in such a course. What has been our position ? When
we were first called upon to view the financial state
of the country we found the question of the
income tax under these circumstances—the right hon-
ourable gentleman had pledged himself to the principle
of its reconstruction, many gentlemen on this side of the
house, had expressed opinions more or less favourable to
the same course ; but upon examining the question we
found that it was impossible to reconstruct the tax, or to
bring the attempt to any satisfactory conclusion, and that
by undertaking it we would introduce confusion into our
finances, injure the public credit, set class against class,
and produce mischief infinitely greater than any good
which the most sanguine could anticipate. We did not
conceal these convictions ; we stated them ; but we said,
" While sympathising with you in the feeling that the tax
presses too hard upon intelligence and skill as compared with
property, we cannot encourage you to adopt a mode of
giving effect to that feeling which will be productive of far
more harm than good." Well, we were generously met by
the house, and last Monday night we obtained a vote in fa-
vour of the general principles upon which we were proceed-
ing. The first of these general principles was to take the
income tax as it stands. It is in vain you endeavour to taunt
me by saying I have argued for an equal tax, and now you
ask me to make it so. I you 1 never argued theoretically
for an equal tax, and I do not believe it is possible. What
we said was, " We find the income tax defective in some
points, but we find also it has achieved great things for the
country ; we find it accepted to a certain extent by the
nation, no doubt calling for amendment in some parts, but
on the whole productive of good far beyond the hard-
ships and grievances that attend it!' (Hear, hear.) We
consequently asked you to consider the income tax as a
whole. Now I ask if that was at all compatible with any
intention or any willingness on our part to be pressed into
tampering with the reconstruction of the tax ? Sir, the
motion of the hon. gentleman invites us to tamper with the
tax ; but we cannot do so without destroying its efficiency.
We must keep faith with those who ha ve supported us. We
must refuse to commence this process. We are bound not
to commence it, because ittwould prove ourfirst step in a path
that must lead us upon ground so insecure that we should be
obliged to abandon the whole substance of the proposals
we have made. From many hon. members in tuts house
we have received support in asserting these principles. We
have received that support, I believe, not simply becanse
they recognised the impossibility of reconstructing the tax;
but because in our general proposal we hold out something
like the outline of a definite policy—(cheers)—tending to
place the finances of the country upon afooting of security,
to maintain the public credit, and to do justice between
the different classes of the community. (Cheers.) Sir,
having received that support, we are not going to shrink
from the conduct by which it was earned. We intend to
adhere to the measures we have proposed. We do not
pretend to interfere with the discretion of members of Par-
liament in bringing forward this or that amendment; but
we do ask the house to pause and consider well before it
gives a vote that will deprive the country of the benefit
proposed to it through the medium of our plans. I cannot
help entreating those gentlemen who voted on Monday last
for the relief of intelligence and skill, to pause to-night
before they give a vote of a totally opposite and contradic-
tory character. (Cheers.) Here are words which are not
unworthy the attention of the committee :—" There is
nothing in life, especially in public life, more important
than to have a principle." Sir, these words were recently
teh_olughe,ana
addressed by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire to his constituents. I admit that the '
motion of last Monday distinctly expressed a principle,
at the s
erroneous one; but the motion of to-night
„ge"'
motionul of last
opposite and contractory principle.
Monday relieved trades and
things are
perfectly distinct professions
the land ate "
the
land
; te relievesoun ty .
the expense of trades and professions. These
athned
' They cannot ha c motionintellig iobflet°to-ntihghe
public opinion. W
oneceited or placed beyond the reach of
income tax as a Zee telared. that, looking at the
pro-
ducing great benefits whole,to the e that it is capabl of
pacroe,llll.llMty. To that doctrine
we adhere. We are pre
precarious incos nee ought to be ro
errthose who think that
permanent incomes. We ourselves loved at the expense of
propene a plan forplacing
a greater burden upon property, which we h s all soon have
an opportunity of b; ringing under the consideration of the

house, but I must confess it will be singular indeed if
within the space of seven days the plans of the Govern-
ment are to be assailed by two hostile motions, each of
them supported by a strong party combination, and each
diametrically opposed to the other. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAFJ,I—Sir, the right hon. gentleman has de.
scribed the plan which the late Government brought for-
ward for the continuance of the income tax, and has said
that it relieved trades and professions at the expense of the
land. Hs has also told the committee that the late Govern-
ment intimated their intention of proposing a legacy duty;
for, said the right hon. gentleman, with logic which I could
not follow, did not they refer to the stamp duty, a tax on
conveyances, and the probate duty ? I protest against the
use of single passages in a Ministerial statement. (Hear.)
While the right hon. gentleman declares that our measures
were opposed to the interests of real property, he has the
candour and ingenuousness to forget that at the same time
we made a proposition which would have relieved real pro-
perty, especially the land, of indirect taxation to the amount
of 2,000,000/. (Hear.) An hon. member told the house on
Monday last, and the statement has been frequently re-
ferred to by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that there
is no impost so grievous upon the land as the malt tax ;
and he said that the principal fault which he found with
the proposition of the late Government was, that it did not
propose a total repeal of the malt tax. I suppose when that
hon. member fills the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer,
we may hope that he will propose the total repeal of the
malt tax. But let us look at this matter for a moment.
Having called the attention of the committee to this prin-
cipal omission, reminding the committee that the right
hon. gentleman has omitted from the enumeration of his
measures a proposition which would have reduced the indi-
rect taxation upon land to 2i millions —reminding the com-
mittee also that one quarter of the Excise is raised by a tax
upon a crop grown by. the English farmer, let me now advert
to the scheme of the income tax proposed by the right hon.
gentleman. The right hon. gentleman will not sanction any
change in the rate of assessment of the different schedules.
Now remember that the argument with which the right
hon. gentleman vindicated his policy, which he says is his
great principle, and to which the Government is devoted,
proceeded upon the assumption that real property was
actually assessed 2d. in the pound more than the other
schedules. And the right hon. gentleman, after having
established that point—a point which was one of novelty,
although probably it had never been placed before the
house in so popular and convincing a form—(hear, hear,
and laughter)—after having established that point, the
right honourable gentleman, with strange inconsistency,
immediately proceeded to say—" Having shown you in a
manner so satisfactory, that by the scheme of the income
tax, which I am now proposing on the part of the Govern-
ment, real property is assessed at a much greater amount
than any other kind of income which contributes to the
tax, we propose another measure, which is a tax of consi-
derable amount upon real property." (Cheers from the
opposition.) Certainly his two millions were not to be
raised entirely from the land. Did I say that they were ?
I did not say that they were to be raised solely from real
property • but in laying this tax upon property which has
not hitherto borne it, who will deny that a much greater
proportion will be paid by real property? (Hear.) Well,
if that be the case, then it appears that the right hon.
gentleman meant to affix a very large amount of a new tax
upon real property. Now I say that there was very great
inconsistency in the course taken by the right honourable
gentleman. I say it was inconsistent to show to the house
that real property was assessed to more than it was equit-
able that it should bear were it not for grave considerations
of State, and then immediately to propose a new tax
which would add to its burdens. (Loud cheers.) But is
that all ? Is that strange inconsistency the only or the
greatest inconsistency in the argument or in the policy of
the right hon. gentleman. Let me call the attention of
the committee to an important consideration which has not
yet been adverted to in the course of these debates. What
was the argument of the right hon. gentleman? He says,
" One of your inducements for accepting my proposal of
the income tax is that you have my personal promise,
and every fair public prospect, that the tax will end at
the termination of seven years from the present time."
Unquestionably there was some difference of opinion about
that point ; but the basis of all the arguments of the
right honourable gentleman has been, and the position
of the Ministry has been, that we are to consider that the
income tax is to terminate at the end of seven years.
What, then, does the right hon. gentleman do ? Having
shown that real property is assessed more than is equitable
under his income tax, he says, with another inconsistency,
" As you have a weakness in favour of precarious incomes,
although I have proved to you that real property pays
more than incomes derived from any other sources, yet I
will propose a tax that shall compensate those who pay the
tax upon precarious incomes in the way you desire. (Hear,
hear.) I will propose a tax upon successions, which will
make the owners of real property contribute to the State,
independent and irrespective of those who enjoy precarious
incomes—it shall be a tax by way of compensation." But
if so, it ought only to be a tax for seven years. (Cheers.)
If the tax is to be a tax by way of compensation, it will
be unjust unless you provide that it shall end at the ter-
mination of seven years. The ground upon which the
right honourable gentleman is convinced that ho ought to
impose a tax upon successions, namely, that a compensa-
tion is needed for those who pay the tax upon precarious
incomes, ought to induce him, according to his own argu-
ment, to propose that this tax upon successions shall be
equally limited in its duration with the income tax itself.
(Cheers.) I will presently show that the motion of to-
),;(4i
Blitmiesrittbe iAaotuiratlimsceavoeleaetofthtehnearuorliaclycoonf
consequence
Go-
of the argument of the right honourable gentleman oneLei.°B
head will be that when we have to consider the tax upon
successions it will be necessary to move that that tax shall
continue only for seven years. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Now I come to the vote on Monday night. I confess that
in deference to the feelings of the supporters of the right
honourable gentleman I should have wished to have
avoided the subject. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
think there was something unnecessarily cruel in the way
in which the right honourable gentleman alluded to it. I
should have thought that a clear announcement of what
was our intention in the vote on Monday night was
exactly a point on which he would have spared the
feelings of those by whose assistance he gained a tri-
umph to which I trust they will continue to look back
with a satisfaction which, however, I hardly think awaits
them. (Laughter). The object of that vote was to assert
a principle which we endeavoured to establish, and which
was frankly and unequivocally announced by my hen:
friend the member for Hertfordshire. We endeavoured to
establish a principle, and we were supported in our endea-
vour by- those against whose interests the right honorrable
gentleman says that policy was directed. Well, sir, there
are then some persons in this house who sacrifice their in-
terests to their principles. (Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) But the right hon. gentleman says, "How can you
reconcile the vote of Monday night with the vote of this
evening ? Why, the very fact that you defeated us on
that occasion is not only our excuse but is our necessity for
considering your measures on this occasion. (Oh, oh, from
the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.)
We have now to consider the measure on its merits. I can
easily understand how hon. gentlemen, especially hon.
gentlemen who were in favour of a difference between the
schedules, may now triumph in a majority which cannot,
indeed, vindicate their conduct, although it may establish
their Government. But let me ask you this—ls there any-
thing in the course which my hon. friend the member for
Berkshire recommends to night, novel, anomalous, or un-
justifiable? We recommended a policy which you rejected.
If you reject that policy, surely we have a right to try your
policy on its merits. (Opposition cheers, and Ministerial
laughter.) I should like to see that gentleman who laughs
so loud rise and tell us the reason of his mirth. Is there, I
ask, anything new in the policy which we are recommend-
ing ? According to the right hon. gentleman opposite,
there is something new, startling, and dangerous. The
right hon. gentleman says that ney_hon. friend invites us
to tamper with the income tax. Well, I know many per-
sons who have invited the House of Commons to tamper
with the income tax, and who have thought that changes
might be made in it on principles of sound policy. Now
I will never refer to any speech made by any hon. gentle-
man in this house by way of taunt—l will never refer to
Hansard with the view of annoying any honourable gen-
tleman. That period has passed. (Murmurs.) And there-
fore, if I have Hansard before me, I can assure hon.
members that I am not going back five, or ten, or fifteen
years, but I will just refer to a recent debate which
I am to unwilling to quote from memory. The last
motion which I brought forward in this house during the
government of the noble lord opposite, a motion which has
been noticed as that which destroyed the Government of
the noble lord, whereas I was unconscious of having
achieved so great a feat, and thought that the Government
of the noble lord had been defeated on the militia ques-
tion—(hear, hear)—but on that very motion—a motion
which called on the house dispassionately to consider the
question of local taxation—on that occasion a member of
the present Government—l will not be so invidious as to
say the most distinguished member, but I will say the
most distinguished country gentleman, who is a member
of the present Government, an extreme Free-trader, who
was frightened by my dangerous measures and my danger-
ous policy, which he said would disturb the finances of the
country, and bring on revolutions—why, sir, that right
hon. gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, made a
most powerful speech in opposition to me on that occasion,
and he said, " This is not the way to deal with the sub-
ject, if land is distressed"—and he did not deny that land
was distressed—" you must not consider the local taxation
of the country—you will upset the whole financial system
.of the country if you do so—you do not know what you
are going to embark in. I see a revolution in the distance,
and the consequence of your triumph will perhaps be the
destruction of the empire." The right hon. gentleman also
said, " There are moderate means by which you may
attain the object for which you have laboured—means
which reason justifies, and which policy recommends, and
in which you will be supported by the voice of Parliament
and the entire country. Consider the glorious opportunity
which you will enjoy, when the subject of the income tax
shall again be brought under the consideration of Parlia-
ment. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Then," said the
right hon. gentleman, " you will have an opportunity of
showing how unjustly landed property is assessed under
schedule A ; then you will call the attention of Parliament
to the expenses which the landed proprietor has to undergo
for ratee,• for management, for insurances, and fora thousand
other causes ; then you will have a case which no one can
resist ; then you will have the House of Commons and the
country with Tou ; and then, when you demand that the
proprietor shall be assessed on his net and not upon his
gross rental, then, indeed, you will be doing justice to the
landed proprietor." (Hear, hear.) Why, it is almost only
yesterday that we heard the right hon. tf4entleman from the
second or third bench up there expressing himself in such
words of eloquent advice to the proprietors of the soil, and
now the right hon. gentleman is a member .of the present
Government, devoted to this groat principle of denying
this justice to the land—(loud cheers from the Opposition)
—of resisting this act of justice -which he said. no House of
Commons could for a moment suceeessfully oppose. But is
that all ? The First Lord of the Admiralty went on to say,
" You want justice to the land ; you must not attempt to
get it by these vile schemes of yours, by dealing with the
local taxation of the country ; you must not stop short at
schedule A ; you must not be content with obtaining for
the landlord a just and equitable assessment under the in-
come tax ; yea must go on to schedule B, and do justice to
the farmer—(near, hear)—he is assessed on a scale which is
unjust, as his profits are taken at too high a rate ; you
must take care that the scale on which ho is assessed is
better adapted to the present times and to the into of profit
on which he lives." Sir I recollect all this when I see the
right hon. gentleman, the greatest ornament, and support,
and bulwark of the Treasury bench ; and when I remem-
ber all this, which I have no doubt is conscientiously be-
lieved by the right hon. gentleman at this moment, and
when I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that
he is only the organ of the Government, and that the Go-
vernment is united on this point, if I am a little incredu-
lous, and if I believe there are still some appeals to be made