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

to individual consistency, surely it cannot be entirely
without cause. (Hear, hear.) The tone which the right hon.
gentleman opposite takes is rather curious ; everything, he
thinks, is to be carried because it is a united Government.
Sir, the Government may be united in hostility to the land
—(hear, hear)—in a determination not to do justice to the
proprietors of the soil, whose claims the First Lord of the
Admiralty has told us could not be resisted ; the Govern-
ment may be united in a determination not to do
justice to the farmer, in the mode which the First
Lord of the Admiralty declared to be irresistible ;
but I should think this is the only subject on which
the Government are united—(hear}—and that probably be-
fore long, to-morrow perhaps, we shall have occasion to
see whether this union on the question of land, which we
are told is so complete and admirable, applies to other sub-
jects, or whether it is only when the interests of the soil
are concerned that the Government shows an impenetrable
front and unanimous feeling. (Hear.) It is impossible to
defeat the justice of this case by splitting hairs, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. The farmer who
has to pay his tax will not enter into a discussion as to
what was the nature of the vote on Friday or Monday—he
will ask for justice ; and when the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer asks me how he who voted on Monday can also vote
to-night, although I can give with a clear conscience what
I believe to be a satisfactory answer to that question, I say,
there is something more to be asked. (Hear.) The coun-
try which is interested in this question will ask itself,
" Can any one bring forward a valid reason why we should
be assessed unjustly?" We, when in office, acknowledged
we could not attempt a perfectly just assessment ; we of-
fered a plan for an income tax, in which we made a cer-
tain difference and gradation ; we placed before the coun-
try the motives of our policy, and we endeavoured to sup-
port that policy. No taunt shall for the future prevent us
from doing justice to the farmers and proprietors of the
soil, and while pursuing this course, we shall found our
justification upon the arguments of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and upon the recommendations of the First
Lord of the Admiralty. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the committeesvill observe the
difference between the position now occupied by the right
hon. gentleman opposite and that taken by him both in
last December and no longer ago than Monday last. The
principle of the right hon. gentleman in December last,
was this, with respect to that immediate measure :
He stated that he recognised a difference between per-
manent and precarious incomes, and he expressed an
opinion that that difference ought to, be recognised by
the Legislature. That, sir, was a very intelligible princi-
ple ; and no man could doubt that amongst permanent in-
comes land was to be included, and amongst precarious
incomes trades and professions, and that an advantage
was to be given by his income tax to trades and profes-
sions over land and houses, which are contained in
schedule A. But now the right hon. gentleman comes
forward to advocate a totally different principle. If the
hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire comprehended
trades and professions by his motion, why did he not so
shape his motion as to comprehend an allowance for re-
pairs, and at the same time to include trades and profes-
sions ? The case is exactly this. Last Monday the stick
was bent in one direction, and we refused to comply in
that case ; and now the stick is bent in another direction,
and the proposition with which the house is called upon to
deal has assumed a totally opposite course. It was said
by hon. gentlemen opposite that one side bore too much
weight—the house refused its sanction to that proposition,
and now it is said that the burden is all in the other scale.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) What, I ask you, is the
meaning of this? I regret to find that the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) meets this question—this
great question of the income tax, immediately connected
as it is with the financial system of the country—merely
as a party question. (Loud cheers.) The right. hon.
gentleman says that in December he proposed the reduc-
tion of the malt tax. Yes, he did propose the reduction of
that tax' but he proposed it on the ground that it would
confer a benefit on the consumer—(hear, hear)—and now
the right hon. gentleman, having failed in that proposal—
s proposal which I cannot but consider as most dangerous
to the finance of the country, as tending to deprive it of a
tax amounting to two millions sterling, a tax most easily
collected—having failed in that proposal, I say, the
right hon. gentleman now says he will break in upon the
system of the income tax. (Cheers,) If we are now to
make
kxeistesudchfraomehrge
up to
as has never before existed—then must we go into the
tahechparnegseenitn
time
h—ezdulweewahirechtohams
ae
other schedule, and we must consider the question of
precarious incomes, and that which I regard as presenting
the greatest inequalities—namely, professions. (Hear.)
But the right hon. gentleman says that he wonders how
those who formerly objected to the inequalities of the tax
could now support the proposition of the Government.
The reason is a very simple one. They see so much to ap-
prove of in the budget—(cries of " oh, oh," and cheers)—
they see that by it so much indirect taxation is taken off,
that it is based on such piinciples of justice, that it is so
much progresses towards furthering and extending free
trade that they are willing to undergo one of its disadvan-
tages and to adopt the budget, preferring to accept it as a
whole, rather than fail in carrying its propositions.
(Cheers.) This, sir, appears to me to be the course not
unusually adopted in this house by men who have at heart
the public good. (Cheers.) On the other hand, what may
we expect from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) ?
In December last he advocated a distinction in the impo-
sition of the income tax in favour of trades and professions,
and now he seeks to make a new inequality as regards
land. This must show the house and the country that
these interests—these great and mighty interests —are
treated by the right hon. gentleman, if not for party pur-
poses, at least with such levity and caprice—(cries of "oh,
oh," from the Opposition and cheers from the Ministerial
side)—with such levity and caprice, I say, that it is utterly
, impossible for this house or the country to rely on any
financial plan of which the right hon. gentleman may be
the originator. (Cheers.) Last week trades and profes-
sions deserved compassion, this week our solicitude is in-
vited on behalf of the laud, and if I may venture to use a
vulgar phrase—lately, however, ennobled by a high autho-
rity—l would ask "under which thimble is the pea ?"
(Loud laughter and cheers.) No one can possibly say what
may be the proposition next week, but I trust this house
will feel, as the country already feels, that as a whole this
great measure will benefit the country, and that, if it im-
poses some sacrifices, the great body of the people will find
themselves possessed of greater means of enjoyment; and
if this be the case, that you will not adopt the wavering
and uncertain line now proposed, but will adhere to the
scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am con-
fident that if you do so the country and the people at large
will approve of and admire you. (Loud cheers.)
Lord JOHN MANNERS then rose to address the house,
but was received with such vociferous cries of " divide "
that his opening sentences were totally inaudible. When
silence was restored, he said : So enamoured is the noble
lord (Lord John Russell) with the height of financial in-
justice that he cannot even comprehend how honourable
gentlemen should be anxious to render an income tax more
consonant with justice on one Monday night in one re-
spect, because on another Monday night they attempted to
render it more consonant with justice in another respect.
The noble lord asks us to inform the country how it is that
in one week we could invite the House of Commons to
rectify some of the injustice of the income tax, which
presses upon trades and professions, and how, in another,
we can ask it to do something like justice to the landed in-
interest of this country. (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, I say
for myself that it is because I was most anxious and ready
to afford all the relief which equity and justice can demand
for trades and professions in one week that I now feel per-
fectly justified in endeavouring to render justice to the
land on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive
or comprehend how the noble lord thinks he can answer
the claim of justice which has been put forward by my
honourable friend, the member for Berkshire, by saying
that he himself and the Government, and honourable gen-
tlemen who voted with them last Monday, managed to
defeat the claim of justice which he put forward for trades
and professions. The noble lord would visit upon us the
wrong he himself was the party to perpetrate, and would
charge us with betraying the principles and the cause
which we advocated on Monday, because, believing that
there is an equally just and equitable claim on our side,
we call upon him to carry into practice the declarations his
his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why, sir, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, using the argument so often
wielded with more or less of success in this house, and
pointing out how difficult it frequently is to do justice in
this world, asked my hon. friend the member for Berkshire
whether it would be possible to do this justice to schedule
A without going through all the other 'schedules and doing
justice to them '? The right honourable gentleman answered
that question himself when he introduced his budget.
It was he who showed that the justice which my
hon. friend now asks you to do to schedule A was already
done in the case of the other schedules. And it was my
hon. friend the member for Berkshire who took even a more
moderate view than the right hon. gentleman himself did,
and told you that he did not think the right hon. gentle-
man's view was quite consistent with the facts of the case.
But, be that as it may, it is upon the admissio,ns of the
right hon. gentleman himself that this amendanent is now
proposed. We have it admitted by every 'gentleman who
has spoken in the course of this debate that abstractedly
the proposition of my hon. friend is just and equitable,
and• I leave it with confidence to the house and the coun-
try whether the arguments of the noble lord ought to be
permitted to prevail against the admission of justice which
we have had from every hon. gentleman who has spoken.
The house then divided, and there appeared—
For Mr. Palmer's amendment—Ayes 2Ol
Against it Noes. 276