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

tion of the Government. He did so because the right hon.
gentleman convinced him that the land did not pay more
than precarious incomes to the income tax. The right
hon. gentleman made it out that the land paid 9d. in the
pound. He (Captain Scobell) thought that Bd. was
nearer the mark. Then the right lion. gentleman imposed
a legacy duty on land. The legacy duty sr as not imposed
for the sake of equalising the scale of taxation under the
income tax, and the landed interest ought rather to re-
joice that they had so long escaped from the payment of
that duty than complain that it was now imposed. He
thought that Ireland ought to pay her fair share of the
taxation of the empire, and that it would be unjust to
throw on the people of England the burden which Ireland
ought to bear. The object of all parties ought to be to
make a fair and equitable budget. Such a subject he
believed the present to be, and such also was the opinion
of the country. It waz a budget of equivalents, and must
be taken as a whole. He could not, therefore, support
the proposition of the honourable member for Berkshire.
(Cheete.)

Mr. PAILIPPS said that his own feeling was in favour
of a graduated income tax, but he felt there were great
difficulties in the way of carrying out suck a graduation.
The various innumerable plans suggested by those who
said that the matter was easy of accomplishment, were no
at all calculated to remove the difficulties he felt on the
subject. The Government, however, had declared that it'
was impracticable, and he could not, therefore' refuse
them, on this ground, the means of carrying on the Go-
vernment. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the proposition
immediately before the house, he confessed he entertained
doubts whether a small concession of this kind would at
all benefit the landed interest. (Hear, hear.) The true
conservative policy was, he conceived, to allay irritation ;
and on that ground he could not vote for the amendment.
He still entertained hopes of relief to the landed interest,
and he was not prepared to sell its grievances for lid. or
2d. in the pound. The injury done, to the land by the
Court of Chancery and by the laws affecting real property
in general exceeded, in his opinion, that which it has re-
ceived from the income tax. Looking at the budget as a
whole, he was prepared to accept it as a choice between
something and nothing— between a distinct scheme of tax-
ation and no scheme at all.

Mr. L. HEYWORTH reminded the house that the im-
position of a tax of 5,000,0001. per annum had been the
medium of remitting 11,033,G00/., and still leaving the
Exchequer in a better state than it was previously. They
were too apt to regard the tax as it affected individuals,
but they ought to consider whether direct was not more
equitable on the whole than indirect taxation ; nor should
it be forgotten that while the one concerned four or five
hundred thousand persons, the other pressed upon twenty-
five millions. After such great benefits had been realised,
he trusted they would never stultify themselves in the
eyes of the country by abandoning the income tax. He
did not see why at the end of seven years it should not -be
raised to 10 per cent. (Laughter from the Opposition.)
At all events he could not imagine that the House
of Commons of that day would be so unwise as entirely
to remit it, knowing, as they must do, how much
good it had been the means of effecting. The country,
was every day becoming more and more enlightened
on the subject ; and having heard 'it stated' that thd
working classes strongly objected to the lowering of the
tax so as to make it apply to them, he was happy to say
that he had attended meetings at which, after hearing the
matter put fairly before them, they had not expressed any
opposition.
Mr. BUCK wished hon. gentlemen opposite would, in
connection with this subject, consider the case of one of
the most industrious classes in this country—he meant the
small freeholders of whom there were not less than 4,000
in the county which he represented (Devonshire). Here
were persons who for the most part had acquired land by
their own industry, and upon whom the burdens of land
fell very heavily. It was said that such persons, like all
who were connected with the soil, had received great be-
nefit from the recent changes in our commercial system.
Now, he happened that morning to be looking over a valu-
able return made to the house last year, which specified
for a number of years the amount of the poor rate, as well
as the quantity of corn required to pay the rate. In 1845,
when the corn laws were repealed, the poor rate was
6,765,4451., which at that period required only 2,762,433
quarters of corn to pay it. In 1851 the poor rate was
6,070,0001., requiring 3,396,533 quarters of corn, or nearly
one-third more than the amount before the corn laws were
repealed. He did not think, therefore, that the farmers
had been much benefited by free trade in corn. The diffi-
culties of the agricultural interest were much increased by
emigration, which had risen from 50,030 to 50,000 per
annum ; and letters which he had received showed that
the pressure upon the small farmers from the scarcity of
labour was extremely severe, and likely to prove injurious
to the country.
Mr. AGLIONBY said they were told that they must
take this measure as a whole ; but admitting that, he had
never heard, in the course of his experience, that because
they accepted a measure as a whole, they were not to en-
deavour to amend any of its parts. (Cheers from the Op-
position.) If they failed in their efforts to amend it,
would still be open to them to take it with its evils. He
thought nothing could be more fair and reasonable than the
proposition of the hon. member for Berkshire. (Hear,
hear from the Opposition.) The amendment was that the
taxshould be paid upon certain property, including all real
property, lands as well as houses, according to the annual
value. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to say, that there was to be some distinction between
house property and land ; but it appeared to him that that
would only increase the present injustice. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and gallent member for Bath (Capt. Scobell) said
the measure was to be taken as a whole on the principle of
equivalents. He (Mr. Aglionby) was not quite sure that
he understood the phrase "principle of eqiuvalents ;" but
if the meaning were that parties were to get something in
return for what they lost, he must say that the proposition
rather appeared to be that, because they were compelled
to do injustice to one class they ought also to do injustice
to another. (Hear, hear.) He had always been anxious
that there should be a graduated scale for fluctuating and
fixed incomes, and ho had only yielded to the necessity of
the case when consenting to the renewal of the income tax
without any alteration in the mode of assessment. He
could not view the tax as a temporary one, and should
hesitate to vote for it if he thought it could be temporary
—(hear, hear)—but considering it a good tax, and believing
it would be permanent, he thought they should do their best
to remedy whatever was unjust about it.
Colonel HARCOUItT having voted for the proposal of
the late Chancellor of tho Exchequer, for continuing the
income tax for three years, with precisely the same provi-
sions as to land and houses as the present measure con-
tained, he could not reconcile it to his sense of justice to
vote for an amendment which would, by taking a portion
of the tax from land and houies, throw a heavier tax ou
trades and professions. If the proposal were however
brought forward as a substantive measure, he should sup-
port its principle as one of justice.
Mr. SPOONER was not aware the house came to any
distinct vote on the income tax as proposed in the budget
of his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli)—and had the ques-
tion been brought directly under discussion he should have
voted, as he had always done, against a property tax in
time of peace. The tax was peculiarly severe as against
land—for, while there was a deduction on account of houses
for loss of rent when tenants ran away, in the case of land
no deduction was allowed.

Mr. DRITMMOND observed that it was admitted on all
hands that land bore more burdens than any other class
of property. (" No, no," from Mr. Bright.) One hon.
member dissented from this view • but it was generally
admitted by the house, and it had 'been acknowledged by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed
to allow certain qualifications in imposing the tax on land,
ono of which was a deduction for management. This,
however, could not affect the case of the large proprietor ;
the small freeholder would obtain no benefit from it. He
thought it would be more advantageous to discuss these
details in committee on the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT had heard the statement as to laud being
so heavily taxed ever since he had been in that house, and
the course of legislation had of late years been to diminish
the exclusive privileges of land, and now they found the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to include a large
number of farmers under the income tax, and to impose
the legacy duty on real property. (" Hear, hear," from
the opposition.) He applauded the right hon. gentleman
for so doing ; and that, being convinced the course he took
when a young man was wrong, he was determined to
abandon it, and carry out what ho felt to be the sound
principle. But the right hon. gentleman appeared to be in
somewhat of a difficulty in this matter. When he brought
forward his budget he stated that land paid on the gross,
instead of on the let income, and therefore paid 9d instead
of 7d in the pound to the income tax ; but at the same
time he urged that no discrimination should be made in
the case of la-id, and that all incomes should pay alike,
There was, as it appeared to him (Mr. Bright), great dis-
crepancy in these two statements. He however thought I
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had committed a slight
charged,wethat
hat forgetting.
tliemistake. He seemed to look only at the mode in which
land was torequire
take
into
dcwunt the mode
in which other property was charged. If the right hon.
gentleman would turn his attention to trades he was quite
sure he uid find,
an equal de-
duction t. land. Take for instance the manufacturing
traders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re-
ferred to insurance as a charge upon land. But insurance
was the smallest charge the landowner had to pay. Land
wanted no insurance, and all he had to
pay upon was the
farm-buildings, and even for them he was exempt from the
stamp duty. The manufacturer was equally compelled to
pay insurance, and to a far larger extent, but in levying
the income tax no allowance was made for it, but
he had to pay upon it as profit. In some cases the
manufacturer paid 4001. or 5001. a year for insurance, and
of this 1001. would go to the Exchequer. But the law
regarded it all as profit, and upon every pound thus paid
the income tax was charged. Again, machinery did not
last for ever. After 15 years' wear, machinery was seldom
worth more than the metal of which it was composed, yet
no allowance was made. Then, as to bad debts, it was
difficult if not impossible to obtain any allowance on that
account. And turning again to insurance, the charge for
insuring a cargo of cotton from New Orleans to Liverpoo
was not allowed as a deduction in estimating the profit for
the income tax. These were all cases as regarded trade
similar to those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
set forth in reference to land when he endeavoured to show
that the landowners pay 9d. instead of 7d. in the pound.
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) had never been one of
those who had argued about the necessity of discriminating
between the different classes of income ; but with regard to
the commercial classes, he had always been of opinion that
the great grievance was in the disputes and irritation-con-
sequent upon the mode in which the returns were made
and the assessments fixed. If the tax was now to be con-
tinued for seven years longer he thought the Chancellor
of the Exchequer might easily make arrangements by
this :—There
twhhainc hi
tt the
sa assessment ssm
present.e nt m i
et
sbpeokmadee o
s p
eine
iuscilhy lesso f
the irritating
neigh-
bourhood in which he lived when he said that nobody
everyol district.
u d make a
was satisfied with the local commissioners of income tax,
oaenudor heowf atshriEtexosahteigsfiocord that from frxisitvheadt lmocoaliretoy!oth4Chaulaint;
upon that ground than us to the amount.. the tax.
Twhaes, asherahneglieemveet
ah estohwravtoeuyltodhrisopfrosuPorseee;owrinagsh
paid income tax in
He would suggest
had
years—and should
hislist
district et
during the persons
. the
previous
tax—that they should be required to make their
from initials
t 20 or 25 of these names, and that names
again))
send round this printed list to the parties liable to the
that in this way had the greatest number of votes a com-
missioner should be chosen. Such an arrangement would
give confidence in the tax payers, and obviate much of the
annoyance that now existed. He should of course vote for•,
the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
t of the hon. member for B ks ,
which, if carried, Would entail upon him the necessity of
submittin g another amendment having reference to trades
against the amendment er
4 if they went on in this way deducting something
from
lands, something from trades, and something from
der it necessary to have a ninepenny instead of a
soon yonder
hear,)
sevenpenny tax throughput (Hear,t
all other sources of income, the ion to the revenue would
Sir T. D. ACLAND argued that if they were to go on
the vrieeiO4 ef taking a littlQ trQuA ow) and i a little from