The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

duty of the Government to give any sanction to the pro-
position of his noble friend.
Lord BEAUMONT, with great warmth, denied that
this was simply an Irish question, but one in which
the principle of the tax was involved. The bill came
with a lie on the face of it, for, according to its provi-
sions, it professed to tax property producing income ;
but when you came to the machinery, it was found that
a tax was imposed on that property which produced
nothing. In England such an attempt to tax capital
would not be borne, and he felt the more warmly on the
subject when he saw an attempt made, which should be
resisted to the utmost, to take advantage of the weak-
ness of the injured party. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord then characterised the speech of Lord Aberdeen as
the weakest answer to arguments he had ever heard ;
and proceeded to contend that the principle on which all
rates and taxes were considered was, that they were in
reduction of rent, and that only the residue went to the
landlord. The income which was produced by land
came first to the occupier, and his rent was diminished
by so much as he paid out on it ; but here you do not
go to the land and tax the income produced by it ; but,
on the contrary, you went to the man who ought to re-
ceive the residue, and put the tax on him, without
going to the property out of which you professed to raise
the tax ; and, after that, not a fraction came from the
land which you professed to tax. That system was an
encouragement to the nonpayment of rent, and would
introduce new elements of discord into Ireland, while it
was adding to the many wrongs which landlords in Ire-
land had received from Governments and Parliaments,
as if the object was to crush them.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE was glad that noble lords
connected with Ireland, and especially the noble lord
who moved the amendment, had treated the subject in
a more calm and rational spirit than the noble lord who
had just sat down had. He appealed to the calm judg-
ment of the house as to whether there was any principle
of injustice in the proposed plan. The noble lord (Beau-
mont) had talked of their not daring to levy the tax in
this way in England or in Scotland ; but he (the Duke
of Newcastle) denied that there was any departure from
established principle in the plan, for in England every
landlord was liable for every tenant whoso rent was
under 10/. ; but if they had proposed to assimilate the
law in Ireland to that now in force in England, its ope-
ration would have been that the landlord would have
had almost universally to pay the tax and not the tenant,
for the great majority of the tenants held at far lower
rents than those in England. As regarded Scotland,
the whole of the taxation was levied on the landlords ;
and so far from landlords in England and Scotland
thinking it a hardship a great many of them voluntarily
took the course now proposed for Ireland. An Eng-
lish landlord, a noble friend of his, possessing property
in a northern and a midland county, had stated to
him that he paid the tax on his rental in all cases. In
Ireland to compel the occupier to pay would, in the
majority of cases, be calling on men to pay the tax who
were not liable to it, whereas in most instances in Eng-
land it was exactly the reverse. He had that morning
received a return printed for the House of Commons,
containing statistics showing the state of the occupiers
of land in Ireland at the present time. It appeared that
the total number of occupiers valued at 61. and under was
564,144 ; the number of those rated above 61. but under
2001. was 397,575, which added to those under 61. made
the number of tenants valued under 2001. not less than
961,719, or nearly one million. The number of occupiers
rated over 2001. was only 3,716; and there was no doubt
that if those who were rated over 3001. were estimated,
they would be found not to more than 1,000 or 1,500,
That showed that the adoption of any other principle of
levying the tax than had been adopted would have been
attended with great inconvenience. There was another
state of things in Ireland which did not exist in England ;
namely, that the valuation of land in many cases ex-
ceeded the rent. What inconvenience would be caused by
the tenant being called on to pay the tax according to
the valuation, for in that case he would pay a larger
sum than he could recover from the landlord. In Ire-
land the tenant did not hold directly from the landlord
as they did in England and in Scotland, and unless the
plan proposed was adopted, the levying of the tax might
be made an instrument of great oppression by the mid-
dlemen. In Ireland also it was the practice for rents
never to be paid for twelve or eighteen months after
they were due, and if the occupiers were made to pay
the tax, they ought to be called on to pay it on a rent
which in fact was not payable till twelve months after-
wards. That would be introducing a new element of
confusion in the relations between landlord and tenant,
which no man who wished well to Ireland would wish
to see introduced. He could admit of no analogy be-
tween England and Ireland, because in the one the in-
terests of the landlord and the tenant were identical,
while the payment of the tax by the tenant, which would
ultimately fall upon the landlord, was easy and unobjec-
tionable. (Hear, hear.)

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the argument
of the noble duke who had just sat down seemed to be
this, viz., that the plan proposed by the bill was the
most convenient for the collection of the tax, but though

it might be the most convenient to the Government,it
would be exceedingly inconvenient to Ireland. He was,
therefore, well convinced that this was not the last time
the question would be brought forward the more so be-
cause the bill as it now stood was directed against that
class whom the Government should be the most anxious
to conciliate, while the result would prove that the
money which the tax might yield would be considerably
disproportionate to the opposition which it would raise
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL felt it to be his duty to vote for
the amendment, as he had often heard it proclaimed in
their lordships' house that the law of the two countries
ought to be assimilated as much as possible. It was on
that account that he was not rising when he heard that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the
income tax to Ireland. Such a proposal, he thought, was
both just and expedient ; but in proposing that the tax
should be levied in the manner pointed out by the bill,
the Government had fallen into the mistake of not only
extending the tax to capital as well as income, but
of drawing an invidious distinction between two parts
of the kingdom. He need only remind their lord-
ships that as the bill now stood the owner of a fee
simple not in his own occupation, or in the receipt of
any rent from the tenant in possession, would still have
to pay the tax upon the poor law valuation of the estate.
Now in England no such rule as this prevailed, since
the landlord was only taxed upon the amount of rent
which he actually received, and he could see no reason
or just motive why a different mode of collection should
be applied to Ireland. It was a notorious fact that in
some parts of Ireland 'the rents were only half paid,
while in others they were not paid at all ; and yet the
bill as it now stood would enforce the tax upon the full
amount of the rent. This was a downright mockery,
because if a tenant absconded, or became bankrupt, the
landlord would still have to pay the tax, nay it might so
happen that the tenant, to spite his landlord, would
neither abscond nor become insolvent or bankrupt,
though the landlord might want him to do so—(a laugh)
—but would persist in retaining possession of the pro-
perty and paying no rent, so that the landlord should
be forced to pay an income tax upon income which he
had never received. Now this was both unjust and in-
convenient truly, and thoroughly realising the idea of a
h,eredidatus damnosor, and so far from being an act of
justice, it was an act of gross injustice to Ireland. (Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said the difficulty which always
surrounded the extension of the income tax was the
want of an equitable mode of collection, and he was sure
unless some alteration was made in this clause the ex-
periment which was now for the first time to be tried
would prove a failure, Only let the house consider the
injustice of giving the collector of the tax the option of
singling out one of three individuals to pay the tax, viz.,
the landlord, the lessor, or middleman, and the tenant
in possession ? Could anything be more monstrous or
unjust than that ? And yet their lordships were told
that the bill had been framed upon equitable principles.
The Duke of ARGYLL said the practice of collect-
ing the income tax from the landlord prevailed in the
Western Highlands of Scotland, where the land was
held upon a similar tenure to that of the greater part of
the property in Ireland. The landlords there had con-
sented to pay the tax themselves, because experience
had shown that if it was collected in any other way it
would be exceedingly oppressive to the tenant.
The Earl of CLANCARTY supported the amend-
ment, and for this reason—he apprehended that the tax
would ultimately be made permanent, and it was for
that reason that he wished to see it based upon the
most equitable principles that could possibly be devised.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment lB
Against it 34-16
On our re-admission into the gallery,
The Earl of LUCAN was addressing the house, com-
plaining of the 42d clause, which allows the deduction
of one-third in respect of terminable annuities payable by
landlords in repayment of loans. He moved the omis-
sion of the clause.
After some discussion, in which the Duke of ARGYLL
and the LORD CIIANCELLOR supported the clause, and the
Earl of WicKLow and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE op-
posed it, their lordships divided.
For the amendment lO
Against it
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill was read
a third time and passed.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes past
one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' Amendments to the Ballymena, Ballymo-
ney, Coleraine, and Portrush Junction Railway (No. 2) ;
Bristol Gas and Bristol Clifton Gas Companies Amalga-
mation ; Londonderry, Coleraine, and Belfast Junction
Railway ; North British Railway ; Scottish Midland
Junction Railway ; and South Shields Improvement
Bills were considered and agreed to.
_ .

The Dewsbury, Heckmondwike, and Batley Water
Nantwich and Woore Road ; South Wales Mineral Rail
way ; United Guarantee and Life Assurance Company
Wakefield and Sheffield Road ; an d West Cornwall Rail
way bills were read a, third time aud passed.

WARRINGTON AND ALTR.INCHA.M JUNCTION
RAILWAY (WARRINGTON, &c.) BILL.
The motion for the third reading of this bill having
been discharged,
Mr. T. EGERTON moved tlierecommittal of the bill.
Major-General ANSON moved that it be recommitted
this day six months.
Mr. Greenhall, Mr. C. Legh, Mr. L. Heyworth, Mr.
S. Smith, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. P4ight, and Mr. E. Deni-
son, supported the recommittal.