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

He would now avail himself of the luxury which the hon.
member for Surrey had said any one might enjoy, namely,
that of picking a solitary hole in the budget. He objected
to the increase of the spirit duties. (Hear, hear.) These
duties had been called a tax on drunkards ; but without
stopping to inquire whether a dissipated man had ever
been reformed, or a sober man ever kept from dissolute
habits by a tax, he would remind the right hon. gentle-
man that by his own doctrine the increased duty might
injure the revenue. They ought never to forget the
aphorism of Canning, that in financial arithmetic two and
two did not make four, brit one. (Laughter.) However,
he (Mr. Urquhart) should heartily support the budget.
Lord JOCELYN observed that the right hon. gentleman
the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) had
divided the opponents of the budget into two classes—the
landed interest, and the people of Ireland. There was,
however, a third class—namely, those who dissented from
details of the measure, and who, especially, thought that
the imposition of the income tax for seven years, without
revision or reform, would be impolitic and injurious to the
character and commerce of the country. (Hear, hear.) The
abolition of the soap duties, the reduction of the tea duties,
and the alteration in the assessed taxes would, he had no
doubt, be most grateful to the middle classes ; but the re-
imposition of the income tax would be regarded with very
different feelings. The right hon. gentleman had declined
to meddle with that impost on the ground that it was inca-
pable of amendment; but how was perfection to be at-
tained if they never attempted to improve. (Hear, hear.)
He contended that, without some remedy or alteration, the
tax ought not to have been extended to other classes. Sir
R. Peel, in the zenith of his power, had never proposed
this tax for longer than three years; and there was no rea-
son why this should be done now. (Hear.) It was a tax
which ought frequently to be brought under the conside-
ration of Parliament. As to Ireland, he contended that no
sufficient equivalent was given ; it would be an additional
taxation of about 400,000/. (Hear, hear.) While he was an
advocate for Ireland bearing its fair share of the national
burdens, he contended that it would be unjust to make her
pay the income tax. He was unconnected with any party
in that house, since he had lost his friends (the Peelites)
who used to sit on his side of the house—(loud cheers
from the Opposition)—but he endeavoured to take a fair
view of every question as it came before the house. It was
proposed to raise the spirit duties in Ireland. The late Sir
R. Peel had failed in a similar attempt ; and the only re- '
ault would be to demoralise the people, and to throw addi-
tional duties on the constabulary. (Hear.) He was favoura-
ble to the taxes on succession being extended to real
property, but if this were done they must be prepared to
deal with the burden of land.. (Hear.) What paid the poor
rate, the highway rate, and the county rate? These rates
amounted to at least 15 per cent. on the annual value of
the land, so that a man investing 100,0001. in land, and
another investing 100,0001. in the funds, were very diffe-
rently taxed. (Hear.) Before extending the succession tax
to real property, they must deal with the transfer of pro-
perty and the system of entail. Hear.) The effect of the
income tax on the yeoman class, once considered the most
loyal subjects—(hear hear)—would be utterly to destroy
that class. It had been complained that the tax was in-
quisitorial ; it would now be rendered ten times more so.
He was sorry to oppose his respected friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, but he felt that, this tax would be
neither just nor equitable. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARD WELL believed that in the year 1842, when
his right hon. friend Sir R. Peel had proposed the income
tax upon its present basis, he had the advantage of the
support of his noble friend who had just sat down. (Hear.)
When he (Mr. Cardwell had the honour of holding a sub-
ordinate position in the Treasury, under Sir It. Peel, he
had an opportunity of ascertaining that his right hon. friend
had weighed most carefully the possibility of extending to
the professional classes those alterations in the income tax
for which his noble friend had just been contending. When
the hon. member for Sheffield had brought forward that
subject before the House of Commons his noble friend had
voted against the hon. member for Sheffield, and in favour
of the income tax. (Hear. hear.) Well, his noble friend
had done something for the Government that night, for
although it appeared that they could not have the advan.
tage of his vote, yet there were many portions of his speech
which were very much in their favour. His noble friend
had objected to the continuance of the income tax for seven
ears, but so great was the confidence he had in many of the
propositions of the Government, that he believed the remis-
sions of indirect taxation now proposed by his right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be so rapidly
productive of advantage to the country as to enable the
Government to do away with the income tax altogether
before even seven years had expired. The argument of his
(Mr. Cardwell's) noble friend amounted to the admission
that the budget was so excellent a financial scheme that he
would not repeat the vote which he had given upon a for-
mer occasion. Now, the Chancellor, having taken a pru-
dential review of the position of the country, asked them
to continue the income tax for a period of seven years; but
if at an earlier period his right hon. friend should find him-
self justified, in consequence of the improved condition of
the country, in remitting that tax, his noble friend would
be at liberty to make a motion to the effect that the tax
should be abolished, and he (Mr. Cardwell) had no doubt
that under such circumstances the House of Commons
would be found ready to accede to his wishes upon the
subject. But his noble friend had alluded to the case of
the poor artisan, and had stated that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had proposed to subject him for the first time
to the operation of the income tax. The noble lord had
voted in December last for reducing the income tax to 1001.,
but if he would just refer to the case of the artisan he
would find that the 51. or 61. a week which he earned
amounted in the year to more than that sum. He (Mr.
Cardwell) thought, therefore, that he was justified in say-
ing that the Government had some claim to the speech of
his noble friend, although they were to be deprived of his
vote. But the noble lord. had exclaimed against the exten-
sion of the income tax to Ireland. He had, however, stated
that that country ought to bear its proportion of the na-
tional burdens, although he objected to have that principle
carried into effect in the present instance. Now he (Mr.
Cardwell) wished to offer a few observations to the house
upon that particular subject. If there were any feeling
which it was desirable that members of that house should
foster more than others, it was the sincere desire that in
matters of taxation, as well as in all other respects, all
parts of the United Kingdom should be looked upon as
forming one great whole. (Hear, hear.) He believed that
hon. members, in occupying themselves in the discussion
of the various details of the budget, and in considering
the comparative advantages which it was likely to confer
upon particular portions of the empire, were corres-
ponding but in a very slight degree with the feelings
with which the public had hailed the announcement of the
budget. Public opinion had not dwelt solely upon the
comparative advantages which Scotland or Ireland was to
derive from the financial scheme of his right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but had viewed it as a
comprehensive whole, the result of whose operation would
be to confer inestimable advantages upon the empire at
large. He deeply regretted to find that the sanction of a
name for which he had the highest respect had been given
to those invidious comparisons between different portions
of the country. He could not help recollecting when he
heard his right hon. friend the member for Portsmouth
draw a comparison between Great Britain and Ireland,
that the last time Parliament had made a great remission
of taxation, in the case of the window tax, it had not been
argued that the United Kingdom should not benefit by
that exemption from the taxes upon light. He did not
understand the arithmetic which laid down that because
Great Britain bore for 10 years the income tax to which
Ireland had not during that period been subjected, that
freedom from taxation afforded any good reason for con-
tinuing the exemption. The question in reference to the
income tax which they ought to consider was, whether past
experience of that tax had been so satisfactory as to en-
courage them to take another step in that direction. Now,
the income tax had been imposed upon this country at a
period when, by successive deficits for several years, we
had incurred a debt of ten millions sterling. It had been
imposed when other expedients had failed to recruit the
national exchequer. What was the first effect of that ex-
periment in taxation? Two millions of taxes had been re-
plated in three years, and what was the position of the
country ? The Customs and Excise had produced
as large an amount after that remission as before.
Nor was that all. Sir Robert Peel having asked the House
of Commons to impose the income tax for three years, had
led them to suppose that at the end of that period it would
be optional with them to decide in favour of its remission
or continuance. Had the pledge given by Sir R. Peel been
fulfilled ? At the period to which he (Mr. Cardwell) refer-
red there was a balance of 6,250,0001. in the Exchequer ;
the sum levied under the income tax having amounted to
5,100,0001., while the net surplus was 1,250,0001. The
House of ommons was then in a position to remit the in-
come tax, there having been a surplus in the national Ex.
chequer ; but so well satisfied had Parliament been with
the experiment which had been made, that they voted for
a renewal of the income tax, and upon a larger scale than
it had at first been based. Now what was the position of
the country in the year 1847 ? Seven millions and a half
had been taken off the Custom and Excise duties in the
years immediately preceding, and in 1847 they again reco-
vered themselves. What was the position in which the
ern:dry was placed at the present moment ? Since 1847
more than 3,000,0001. of taxes had been abolished—nearly
one-third of the duties derived from the Customs and Ex,

else had been remitted, and once more those sources of the
public revenue had regained their former buoyant state.
That was the past history of that tax, which Great Britain
had been bearing, and from which Ireland had been ex-
empted. But had Ireland received no share of its benefits?
Prohibitive duties and protective duties had been repealed ;
the duties on articles of the first necessity had been re-
moved ; the raw elements of industry had been freed from
taxation • trade had been stimulated ; industry had been
promoted; and profits had been increased. Had Ireland
derived no advantage from those operations? (Hear, hear.)
He had heard that evening an Irish member speak f those
abolitions or reductions of duties as if they had entailed a
loss on Ireland. (Hear from a few of the Irish members.)
Hon. gentlemen cheered that statement. But had it been
a loss to the starving millions of Ireland that the duties on
articles of the first necessity had been removed ? And then
let it be remembered that the calamity which had befallen
Ireland was to be rendered by that budget—and he re-
joiced to say it—an Imperial calamity, for he wished to see
the odious relations of debtor and creditor between the two
Portions of the United Kingdom totally abolished. That
calamityhad cost them 9,000,0001., but the income tax had
enabled them to meet that charge. But had the advantages
of our recent commercial policy been confined to Great
Britain He found that since the period of its first adop-
tion tli
found thattfifintlhin
supping of Belfast had been doubled ; and he
railways the last five years the traffic on the Irish
opposite ,17'guedotra than trebled. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen
measures for hat those financial measures were grettt
But had they operatijcountry; and so they were, no doubt.
country—in the case (ofprejudicially in the case of a poor
Ireland?
Whence had come the
capital which had recently been invested in land in Ire-
land ? Whence had come the
,w.hen capital which had made the
railways in Ireland?
lie UM
near,
aatnalected during the last
cial reformations which they h answered, from the finan-
tel years. (Cries of "
the motion then before the house But what was
a great portion of that debate that the
By a one no
on the motion which had been put onYte would think, from
Tieoreabout
b todivide
the Irish representatives, "that the Greatwortsinf
be substituted for the words United
om in line
two of the resolution of the Chancellor a the
But that was not the proposition then before theeliuou
The proposition before the house was, that " the continua-
' of the income tax for seven years, and its extension
to classes heretofore exempted from its operation, without
any mitigation of the inequalities of its assessment, was
alike unjust and
,impolitic." Now, when we found in a
committee of ways and means a general resolution of that
character, one immediately saw that there must be some
peculiar motive for the adoption of that form of resolution.
He had heard the hon. baronet. it, he was guided by
the same principles by who had moved, that
amendment say
.that,
in
proposing
he
_had yreviously 'been
guided in his exertions on be aof the industrious classes.