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

another, they would never be able to maintain auyprinciple.
1 He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal
considered fairly all classes; and as it was necessary to ex-
tend the tax to Ireland, and upon incomes of 1001. a year,
he could not, as being connected with land, ask for any
exception. (Hear.) With regard to the legacy tax, upon
which he did not now wish to pronounce any opinion, he
would observe that a largo and liberal allowance must be
made in assessing it. They must have no 7d. or 9d., but
strict value. It must be remembered that land when it
came into possession was very often least able to bear any
burden—and while the successor to a sum of money in the
funds brought an immediate income, he had known a case
when a person succeeding to an estate had not touched
rent for twelve months. Then, again, the transfer of land
was subjected to heavy stamp duties which the transfer of
money was not. Again, land was subjected to a separate
tax of its own, from which it could not be relieved, inas-
much as it had been bought in. With regard to local taxa-
tion, he thought that the land was entitled to more consi-
deration than it had received ; and as the landed proprie-
tors had, in this question, a common interest with the
thosetithe-owner
the
exactan d
amountt he r a i
ol railway awyh coos with all
could be at once ascertained—a
no longer to be delayed. But, taking the budget as a whole,
ea
—in
and as a step towards the comprehensive symmetrisation,
he thought it the best which any Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had proposed during the whole of his parliamen-
tary experience, which extended over 40 years.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE could see nothing in this budget but
a proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the
eehgepgennesre
modfnitihttee
dlanwdo, which the
eldheenhjeetCehdantocelo
ellr of the E
egeeydntyoxf-
two millions sterling, various other classes were to be re-
lieved ; and he thought the least the house was bound to
do was to consent to such a modification of. schedule A as
had been proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for
Berkshire. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, be-
for the committee proceeds to a divison upon this most im-
portant question, I am very anxious to state the views
which my colleagues and myself entertain in regard to it.
The hon. member for Berkshire who made the motion now
before us, commenced his very temperate speech by dis-
claiming, on his part, everything like factious or, party
motives. Sir, I give tho honourable gentleman the most
entire credit in that respect. lam convinced there is no
man less likely to make a motion of such a character, and
above all there is no man in this house less likely, if he
did make a motion of such a character, to fix upon that
motion any other character than that of truth. (Hear,
hear.) I shall not endeavour to entangle hon. gentlemen
by the discussion of details. It would be very easy for me
to enter upon many matters of that description, and to
that by the adoption of this motion you would be in-
volved in many great anomalies, and you would introduce
difficulties amounting to confusion into the working of a
tax which, unless you fix its detail within certain bounds,
would become absolutely unmanageable. (Hear.) A great
deal might be said on subjects like that, but there is more
important matter before us. There is a stronger, at all
events a much higher and broader ground, on which it is
my duty to object to the motion of the honourable gentle.
man. It is not because his motion is devoid of plausibi-
lity, or even is devoid of equity, if it stood as a naked ab-
stract prOposition. It is when we view it in conjunction
with other provisions of the tax, of which it forms a part
-- -when wo view it in conjunction with the present group
of circumstances which bear on the renewal of the opera-
tion of the tax, in conjunction with the pledge given at
former periods and on recent occasions—that her Majesty's
Goernment feel that it would be deserting.the very -first
principles of their duty were they either to consent to the
motion of the hon. gentleman or to give it anything less
than the most resolute and unqualified opposition. (Cheers.)
I will not dwell upon the many details which have
been referred to in the course of the debate. But
with respect to the honourable member for Devonshire,
whose sympathy has been greatly excited on behalf of the
small freeholders, I may be allowed to say that we are pro-
posing an income tax that will leave every freeholder un-
der 1001. soot free ; whilst he supported a budget that pro-
posed to tax every 40s. freeholder—a budget which, if I
recollect right, taxed all real property, irrespective of the
amount of income of its possessor, and going down to a
very low limit—l believe it was 501. But I will not dwell
on those things. In order to understand what are the just
expectations of the country with respect to the question,
we must travel a little backwards. We must consider
what was the situation of affairs in December last. At
that time the right hon. gentleman the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer—the champion, the chosen champion of a
large portion at least of those whose interests are connected
with the land—proposed his financial plan, and I was
asked to-night why it was that I had said nothing on be-
half of the land with regard to local taxation, and why I
had proposed no reduction of its burdens. Why, sir, if I
bad proposed a reduction of those burdens, I should not
only have been met and confronted, but overwhelmed with
quotations from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire. (Cheers.) He, as you
know—he, in your heanng—he, as your leader, your organ,
your champion, consigned your claims to perpetual obli-
vion. (Cheers.) And yet you make it matter of accusa-
tion against me that I have not proposed your relief from
local taxation. (Cheers.) But was that all that was done
by the right hon. gentleman's budget? No ; you had then
the proposal of an income tax—yon had then a resolution
laid upon the table, under which that income tax was to
be levied ; and the resolution laid on the table with regard
to schedule A corresponded exactly with that which I now
ask you to support. I know not what course the right
hon. gentleman is going to take—l know not whether he
means to adhere to his own propositions of last Deceinber.
I will not speculate on that matter at this moment, for an
hour or two will solve the question. (Hear.) But this I
know, that the right hon. gentleman made this proposal,
with your support, as your leader and your organ—he
made this proposal with regard to schedule A which her
Majesty's Government now make, and upon which you are
asked to decide. Was that all that ho did ? With an un-
mitigated schedule A, what kind of schedule D did the right
honourable gentleman give you ? Whilst land paid 9d.—
I will not now go into any detail as to whether that is too
little or too much, but Igo to the point that at this mo-
ment land and houses, including other buildings such as
manufactories, paying a higher rate than other property—
whilst that inequality was left unmitigated, the right hon.
gentleman laid another inequality upon the back of it,
for he proposed to reduce schedule 1) to 54d., and that
with your approbation and your support. (Cheers.) But
then, says the hon. member for Berkshire, there was no
legacy duty in the case. Now, there was no legacy duty
in the case ? There was no legacy duty in the
.present case,
but there was a legacy duty very legible in the future
case. (Hear, and laughter.) lam sure the hon. member
for Berkshire must have heard these ominous words, "At
the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine
the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties."
I believe the word "legacy" does not appear, but there is
no doubt about the meaning of the words—" We have not
neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp
duties and the probate duties, and we think it not impos-
sible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on suc-
cessions—(cheers)—that will reconcile contending interests,
and terminate the system now so much complained of."
(Continued cheering.) Now, I want to know whether
these words have a meaning or not. To me they are clear
enough. What is "the system now so much complained
of ?" The system which taxes unsettled personalty, and
complainedlaetm ae
which exempts settled personalty. (Hear.) That is the
which
ht
0( "systemsproposalhrGovernmenteeen r
s et
wh. es o
right
11
'l3
(Cheers.)f;eur theartg
aiNes, oytwhe,ausrisry,stthema
cham-
pion, your leader, proposed and promised in the name of
ten.
rminate.
t
was the combination of events—that was the combination
of circumstances as they stood in December last. But
there is yet one other. You say that, although we talk
about the termination of the income tax, it will not end in
1860. (Opposition cheers.) Neither I nor you are the
masters to determine that question. (Renewed cheering.)
But every prophet and every seer who rises on that side f
the house and says the income tax will not terminate in
1860 adds to the difficulties of bringing it to a termination.
I will not talk about its termination in 1860. I have given
my own opinion that it ought to ba considered as a tem-
porary tax, and ought not to fall upon our permanent
and ordinary system of finance. But while we have not
talked much about its termination, we have done this—
we have endeavoured to place circumstances in such a
train—(cheers)—we have endeavoured, by deeds and not by
.words—(hear, hear)—by bringing into play additional re-
sources of taxation, and by introducing the principle of
gradual descent into the income tax—we have endeavoured
to show by figures that we have put the question into
) andot
the
Yyel a
aeie
tnut
income
opnmoouwee e
supportedcomplaintmaxbe fro.
;fora
I pt
ehot r
ihfi theneokdt
ato
hfx income tax, in such a manageable form as will enable Parliament
when the time arrives to part with the income tax.
con-
junction with the legacy duties, as it stands in our pro-
posal,etahs r
e proposaliet
y stoodea years.
theniw
What
did tha waste
did that mean.? You all know what it meant. It meant
the tax in perpetuity. (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to
say that it implied a foregone conclusion to that effect on
the part of those who proposed the renewal of the tax for
three years ; but what was done was this—the tax was
proposed for three years, no provision was made for its ex-
tinction at the end of that period, and, indeed, the right
hon. gentleman opposite might just as well have made up
his mind for its perpetuity. (Hear, hear.) You cannot
afford to part with 6,000,000 of revenue at a moment's
notice. If you are in earnest to get quit of the tax, you
must make provision and prepare the ground. Wehave
done se. You say that you are afraid the income tax may
exist after 1860. That is possible—the tax may exist after
1860 ; but we have prepared the ground for its extinction,
and have made such provision that Parliament will be in
a condition, in 1860, to abolish the tax if it pleases. (gear,
hear.) Here, then, was the combination of events in
December last. You had an unmitigated schedule A—
you had the principle of differentialism established against
you in schedule D—you had no prospect of the abolition of
the tax—and you had the promise of a legacy duty. (Hear,
hear.) Well, now, it is supposed that party and factious
motives alone could have determined me to resist the
scheme of December last. It was not so. I opposed the
scheme of December last because, in the first place, I
thought its mode of dealing with 'the income tax unjust.
That was my conviction at the time. I thought
that the mode of dealing with the income tax
which was then proposed would lead to confusion, and
that impression has been strengthened since I heard the
right honourable gentleman the member for Bucldngham-
shire say the other night that his proposal of last December
was not a financial measure, but the acknowledgment of a
principle. I still remain of opinion that the mode then
proposed of dealing with the tax would have led to finan-
cial confusion, would have opened up difficult and imprac-
ticable !questions, and would have, produced a war of
classes. I am not ashamed to say, notwithstanding the
compliments of the honourable member for Manchester
with regard to my change of opinion, that I thoughtplan of the right honourable gentleman the memner thefo for
Buckinghamshire most unjust in its ultimate bearings upon
those who are connected with landed property. (Hear.)
What has been the result of the proposals then made ?
We heard of it last week. (Hear.) I want to know, if
oTe
fheephredoponisal re e
Ato
cndlienvoetthLowtlirieth stheheedue expiring
at
irin the se
gmeixnpieetnry.
such was the situation of last December, what was the
situation of last Monday night ? We had then the follow-
ing motion presented to us :—" That the continuance of
the income tax for seven years, and its extension to classes
heretofore exempt from its operation without any mitiga-
tion of the inequalities of its assessment, are alike unjust
and impolitic. For that motion 252 members of this house
gave their votes, and it will be matter of no small interest
to the country to see how these 252 gentlemen, who so dis-
posed of their votes last Monday, shall dispose of their votes
to night. "'Without any mitigation of the inequalities of
its assessment." What was the meaning of those words ?
I want t% know to what inequalities those words referred.
.