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

1-N,. SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1853.

last year amounted to one-half of the instalments. If Ire-
land, then, backed up in this respect by the report of a
committee of the House of Lords, that that country ought
not to pay two millions of the money, denied the justice
of the claim, how did they expect to get the 600,0001. or
700,000/. they anticipated from her ? He not only thought
it a bad bargain for Ireland, but an unjust one. He bad
always been disposed to deal out equal justice to England,
Ireland, and Scotland; but equal taxation did not mean
the same amount of taxation. (Hear, hear.) In 1800 the
two countries started from a particular point of view,
which ought to be steadily regarded. The present tax
certainly did not keep up the distinction. A great deal
had been said with regard to the benefits of keeping up the
income tax for the next seven years ; but the arguments
for retention were most contradictory. For instance, the
hon. member for the West Riding and the hon. member for
Montrose supported the tax because they wished it to be
permanent. (Hear, hear.) Another class of gentlemen,
the President of the Board of Control amongst the number,
argued in favour of the proposal, not because the tax would
be permanent, but because there was some kind of pros-
pect or pledge given that it would come to an end in seven
years. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addi-
tion to the income tax, proposed to put on 00,000/.
by way of taxation ; and he took off about 2,500,000/.
With very few exceptions the taxes taken off were
altogether abolitions. The budget of that (the Opposi-
tion) side of the house added taxation to the amount
of 1,000,000/., and took off taxes to the amount of
2,700,0001. The taxes, however, taken off were not alto-
gether remissions, but reductions. (Hear, hear.) Sup-
posing the country to be deriving great benefit by keeping
on a certain amount of direct taxation, and that they
thought still further benefits might accrue from other re-
missions, was it to be supposed they would agree to the
remission of the income tax ? (Hear, hear.) He did not
think they would ; and, therefore, he desired to make the
tax more palateable to the great body of the people. There
was another point connected with the amendment before
the house which rather surprised him that hon. gentleman
on the opposite side had not noticed. What they were
going to do now, if they had voted this tax for seven years,
was to part with the control of every single farthing of
taxation for that period. (Hear, hear.) It used to be the
practice of the house to keep in hand a portion of the re-
venue of the country. It was the case with the sugar
duties ; and when these were disposed of, the income tax
remained. (Hear, hear.) They were now about to part
with that tax, which, in his opinion, was not alone incon-
venient, but also unwise, as the house should always
exercise a constitutional control over the taxation of the
country. (Hear, hear.) These were the reasons that in-
duced him to agree to the amendment which had been
proposed to the first resolution of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Regarding the income tax in the aspect he
did, he did not consider it wise or politic to continue it for
a period of seven years. Even though her Majesty's
Ministers should be sincere in their intention to remit the
tax at the end of that period, he did not believe it wise or
politic to continue it till then. (Hear, hear.) He dis-
approzed of the injustice of saddling Ireland. with the
tax. It was not wise to set up a machinery in that
country for seven years, even though it was cntended to
get rid of the tax at the close of that period. (Hear.)
Neither had the machinery for collecting it in that country
been referred to. (Hear, hear.) That there were small
occupiers in Ireland could not be doubted ; and it should
be collected from these small occupiers, whether they paid
rent or not. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel proposed the
income tax for five years, he declined to extend it to Ire-
land ; and nothing had since occurred in the condition of
that country to justify the imposition of the tax. (Hear.)
With these observations, and thanking the committee for
their kind attention, he should conclude by stating his in-
tention to support the amendment. (Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
(No, no, and divide, divide.)
Mr. CAIRNS said, that, as an Irish member, he never
should demand a boon for Ireland unless it were founded
on justice ; and if it ever should be proposed to make the
income tax a perpetual source of revenue, he should say
that, properly adjusted, he would not oppose its extension
to Ireland. (Hear.) The first ground on which he ob-
jected to the re-imposition of the income tax was that of
its inequality according to the present arrangement. (Hear,
hear.) He regretted much the Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not attempt the rectification of these inequalities, as,
in his opinion, he might have done. But so long as these
inequalities existed, so long would he oppose the extension
of the tax to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had cor-
rectly described the income tax when he said it was " a
gigantic engine, which should be resorted to only in cases
of vast emergency." Now, in his (Mr. Cairns') opinion,
that was one of the very best and strongest reasons why
care should be taken to adjust, to amend, and to make it as
efficient as Rossible„. After a war it was not the custom to dis-
miss or disband the troops; on the contrary, the practice was
to reduce the strength of each regiment, retaining still the
nucleus of the army, in case of a recurrence of hostilities.
(Hear, hear.) It also struck him that before being called
lepon to vote for this tax they should, be informed of the
exact amount of the other taxes behind the income tax
which were to be brought forward. (Hear, hear.) The
committee would perceive he alluded to the tax on succes-
sions. It always appeared to him (Mr. Cairns) that the
exclusion of land from the present system of legacy duty
was invidious, and required to be considered and amended..
But, in saying that, he wished it to be understood that all
the other burdens which pressed upon the land should also
be considered. There was the stamp duty, for instance,
and many others to which landed property was subject,
but of the existence of which personal property was alto-
gether ignorant. There was the monstrous system of the
transfer of land, with all its accompaniments and adjuncts;
and provided all these were considered, then he should not
object to see the legacy duty imposed on land. (Hear,
hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial
statement had declared his intention to alter the system of
legacy duty, and to extend it to land, the amount he ex-
Furtod to derivefrom which being some 2,000,000/. annually;
d having said that, the right hon. gentleman left off
ther comment. (Hear, hear.) Bat he (Mr. Cairns) in-
sisted the committee had a right to know on what data
the right hon. gentleman made that calculation. Take
the case of personal property. It had been resolved to
subject to this duty every settlement of personal property
of every description. In case of a couple marrying and
settling 5,0001. upon themselves and children, at the death
of the parents the offspring would be liable to this duty on
inheriting. Then there was the amount standing to joint
accounts, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had set
down at 428,000,0001., which should also pay. There were
50,000,0001. in the hands of the accountant general in the
Court of Chancery; and he wished to know if the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind to inform
the committee how much of that property would be taxed
for the first time, or had been previously taxed. (Hear,
hear.) He wished to be informed on that point before
voting for the income tax. (Cries of "hear, hear.") Then
there were mortgages and policies of insurance ; and;
taking the amount of settled property in the funds at
478,000,0001., the amount lent in mortgages and settle-
ments made, and settlements by marriage, and various
other settlements, all of which were to become, for the first
time, liable to the tax. (Hear, hear.) The annual itt.
come of land in this country was fixed at about
80,000,000/. representing a total corpus or capital of some
200,000,0001., which amount was to be added to personal
property, and all of which was to be operated upon for the
first time. Suppose, however, that even the amount
should be ascertained, it would be necessary to ascertain
the number of successions, and calculate how often deaths
would occur in the revolution of property affected by a
single settlement. All these things, surely, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer must have considered, and then again, it
would be necessary to estimate the average number of cases
on which the duty would first fall on the succession of the
tenant for life, or the absolute owner, for the amount of the
duty would of course be different in these cases. Where
were the statistics on all these questions ? Hear, hear.)
There was a possibility that these duties might vary
from Ito 10 per cent. What was the average ? Would it
be 3 or 4or 5 per cent. ? Out of doors he (Mr. Cairns) had
met with no one acquainted with the subject who did not
say that it was idle to think that the amount of the duty
would be limited to two millions—(hear, hear)—and many
estimated that it would be at least four millions. (Hear,
hear.) Indeed, he had heard that the Government were
actually unwilling to state their estimate for fear the house
should be startled by the amount. (Hear, hear. Well, was
it not fair that before the income tax was renewed, the
house should know about this ? (Hear, hear.) The bud-
get was put forward as a whole. (Hear, hear.) Was it
not fair, then, to know how much it was expected to raise
by means of the legacy duty before the income tax was
continued ? (Hear, hear.) If proper statistics were given
upon the subject, and it turned out that the amount
realized from the legacy duty would nearly equal the
amount of the income tax, the latter tax could be dispensed
with. (Loud cries of "hear, hear.") Then, with respect to
Ireland. It was pretended that the income tax would be
temporary. Then was it worth while to extend it to that
country, and establish for that purpose all the machinery
of inquisition which until now the country had never
seen. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, if the tax were to
be permanent, let it be re-adjusted, and then there would
be no reason why it should not be extended to Ireland.
(Hear.) That was the opinion of the late Sir R. Peel, who
for that very reason had not extended the income tax to
Ireland, imposing, instead of it, duties on spirits and
stamps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
that the stamp duties had since been reduced, but the
truth was they were as heavy in Ireland as they were
before the measure of 1842. And now these duties, which
Sir R. Peel had proposed as equivalent for the income tax,
were to be continued along with the income tax, not as al-
ternatives, but additions. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the
President of the Board of Trade (Sir C. Wood) had taken
pains upon this subject to proselytise the Irish members or
strengthen those who were weak in the faith—(a laugh)—
and had probably feared that they might remember a pro-
mise of his not to urge on the income tax on Ireland.
The right hon. baronet tried to make out that his promise
had only applied to the distressed districts, and that now
matters were altered, because the country was to be re-
lieved from the Consolidated Annuities. This looked as
if the income tax were to be the equivalent for the removal
of these annuities. In this creed there was great inequa-
lity. For, first, it was a fallacy to assume that the annui-
ties would have lasted 40 years, and the income tax only
seven ; for it would certainly last longer; and, next, it was
a fallacy to assume, that if the annuities had not been re

milted they would have been paid. (Hear, and a laugh.)
But some of the counties had paid their share, and on
what ground were they to be saddled with the income tax
on the pretence that the question was an imperial one,
though no repayment was proposed to them ? In truth,
the measure amounted to a gigantic rate in aid. On what
principle were the districts which had paid their debts
to be taxed to meet the debts incurred by other
districts of the country? (Hear, hear.) Suppose, in
the South of England, money had been advanced to re-
lieve agricultural distress, how would Liverpool and Man-
chester like to help towards the repayment ? (Hear.) If
the question were, as it was now represented, an imperial
one, then the districts which had paid their share ought
either to be reimbursed, or relieved from the income tax.
(Hear.) It was now contended by the Government that
the advances ought to have been repaid out of the Imperial
funds. That was the very pretext for the remission of the
consolidated annuities and the imposition of the income
tax. (Hear.) Then if that were so, the districts which
paid out of their local funds ought to be reimbursed but
of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet
had flattered the people of the north of Ireland, like the
fox in the fable, but would not be so successful as to re-

concile them to contribution to his budget by means of
the income tax. (Laughter and cheers.)
Sir W. CLAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed a hope that the debate
might close on Monday.
Mr. DISRAELI said, so far as he was concerned, he
saw no reason why it might not.
The debate was then adjourned.