The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman had founded himself partly on the general
argument, and partly on the ground of a special concession
which he supposed was to be made to Ireland. The gene-
ral ground had been discussed on a former evening ; he
had opposed a clause more limited than this, and it had
been rejected by a very large majority of the house on the
ground that it would be impossible to make the concession
without unsettling the whole structure of the income tax.
Upon that ground ho was prepared again to oppose it. The
hon. gentleman had said nothing which tended in the
slightest degree to show that that argument was not ap-
plicable to the proposal he now made. It was not a more
question whether the Scotch landlord paid 6 or 7 per cent.
of public burdens and charges more than was paid by the
English landlord. This income tax must stand as a sys-
tem of compensations. The hon. gentleman said they
ought not to re•enact it until all the inequalities were
removed. He should make the hon. gentleman an ill
wish were he to wish that the duty was imposed upon
him of removing all those inequalities. Probably, in a
few months, he would rise from his task "a sadder and a
wiser man.' (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The honour-
aisle gentleman had little conception of the difficulty
of the task when he talked of removing all the ine-
qualities. The question for the house to consider was,
whether the Scotch landlord was not as well off on the
whole? Did the amount of tax paid by the Scotch
landlord represent a greater proportion of his income than
the tax paid by the English landlord? That was a very
doubtful question, and was by no means determined by
the insulated point raised by the hon. gentleman. But
when they began to make concessions to landlords, what
had they to say to house-owners? (Hear, hear.) The
Scotch landlord paid perhaps five per cont. for repairs • the
house-owner had to spend. in England, and not in Scot-
land, 15 to 20 per cent. for repairs. Did .not the hon.
gentleman think that thaquestioif might to be raised too?
If that question were raised, and a deduction of 15 to 20
per cent. made on house property under schedule A, the
only effect of succeeding in that motion would be to let in
a host of far more formidable claims under schedule D and
E. Those claims, now resisted and in abeyance, would be
revived ' • and the landlord would lose more upon what
might be conceded to them than he now lost by paying
upon his gross, instead of upon his net income. This was,
in fact, a small corner of a very great question. (Hear,
hear.) It was whether they should have the income tax
or not, in a shape, he granted, full of inequalities, but
which in some degree compensated each other, but the
very attempt to remove which would unsettle the whole.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had referred to a spe-
cial case, and said that by virtue of a concession which he
supposed was to be made to Irish landlords, the same
ought to be made to Scotch landlords. He assured the
house that no concession of any principle was going to be
made to Irish landlords. (Hear, hear.) From the first
introduction of the bill, the Government had founded
themselves on a basis which did exempt, awl was intended
to exempt, Irish landlords from the payment of poor rates.
As the bill was first introduced, the proposal was that the
tax should be assessed on the poor law valuation. But the
poor law valuation in Ireland was formed, by law, upon a
principle which absolutely excluded poor rate from the
calculation. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, from the first, they
had bound themselves that Irish lanAlorcls should not be
assessed upon a basis which included the poor rate. Per-
haps it might be asked why they had done so ? He could
not answer that in the abstract ; he must answer it as part
of the whole case. They must look at the measure as a
measure of policy and prudence, and one about to be ap-
plied for the first time to Ireland—a country, be it re-
membered, which had not the same facilities for collection
as existed in England, and where the relations of landlord
and tenant, and of nominal to real rent, were quite different
to what they were in England and Scotland. (Hear, hear.)
What had they done since ? They had made a great
change in the law, but against the Irish landlord—(hear,
hear)—for, instead of going against the occupier for the
tax, they were now to go against the landlord. It might
be thought that in England and Scotland it signified very
little whether they went against the occupier, or against
the landlord at once. He was sure that signiefid a good
deal in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) A state of things existed
there with regard to rental and the relations of landlord
and tenant, which really would bring about this—that if
they attempted to push too far their argument for absolute
equality between England and Ireland, founded on ap-
parent resemblances, they would end in only aggravating
the injustice. But the fact was there had been no
change whatever in the principle on which they were
proceeding. The bill of the Government had been
founded from first to last on this —that the general
basis of the tax should be the poor law valuation ; and the
poor law valuation, in the majority of cases, was under
tho rent. It was natural that it should be so, because the
rent included a portion of the poor rate. But, the valua-
tion being under the rent, it was provided that the valua-
tion should be the basis. The valuation had been always
held out, from first to last, as the general basis of the
assessment in Ireland, and that entirely excluded the poor
rate. The clause proposed by the hon. member for
Youghal, was simply intended to apply a principle already
recognised iu general terms to particular and exceptional
cases, where the rent happened to be below the poor law
valuation. That was the course the Government proposed
to pursue with respect to Ireland. With regard to the
general case of Scotland, as compared with that of Eng-
land, they must leave it to stand as it stood on a former
night, and must abide by the decision of the house. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. C. BRUCE said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had risen from his labours on the income tax, if not a
wiser, infinitely a more unjust man. (Hear, and a laugh.)
How stood the case? In England and Ireland a landlord
ia.essed
had a chance of being assessed on what he received ; in
Scotland, he would be assessed for what he never received.
(Hear, hear.) This injustice was so monstrous that he was
surprised the right hon. gentleman should seek to main-
tain it. The repairs of houses were quite a different thing ;
they were necessary for the maintenance of the property.
a.hfmooloreusrental,
H, Ib4:ooidh/e.e
as;
oraihn)
edr
iyanuetmahnseoftowhrasecrhaii
charitable
purposes; In one year he had paid for the rebuilding of a church as
homnaudtc Ihpi eaaisd h3iws whole
and yet he was charged in respect of those
sums. Was not this a monstrous injustice / The Chan•
cellor of the Exchequer appeared to have lost
(laughter)—but he would appeal to the all feeling—.
the house. The Scotc were a sense of justice of
regard to taxation. They paidlong-suffering people with
little ; but he would divide the housemuch and complained
Mr. SMOLLETT said he should not if no one else did.
motion, but for the principle not have supported this
Ireland. The fact he believed having been conceded to
disloyal and turbulent , the to be this ; the Irish were
Scotch
able. (Laughter.) In ;et were quiet and peace.
able.
which hadurn for this, not, only was the
in their case to be existed all along in the income tax
continued, but it
was
to
be
extended.
Mr. DUNLOP said if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had stood on broad _ general principles he would have sup-
ported him,
and not sought for an exception in the case of
Scotland. But as he had allowed a reduction in Ireland
the claim of Scotland ought to be insisted on. In England
the same question did not arise, the rates referred to being
laid on the occupiers. Hence, for a farm of the same
value an English landlord would be assessed on a rental of
9001., and a Scotch landlord on a rental of 1,0001.
Mr. A. KINNAIRD said he felt compelled to support
the new clause.
Mr. I. BUTT said he should do the same, but he did
not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the
concession to Ireland, departed in the least from the
general.principle of the bill.
Capt. SCOBELL thought that as a certain relief was to
twould b to
o injustice refuse it to
be given to Ireland, I
id
l '
the new-e ann.
Scotlandi .and he shou support__.
Mr. WILKINSON appealed to the Scotch members t•