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

COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to put a question to Lord
Palmerston. Numerous deputations had waited upon the
noble lord respecting the management of the Commissioners
of Sewers. He wished to know whether it was the inters.

tion of the Government to appoint new commissioners to
carry out the plans which had been designed.
Lord PALMERSTON admitted that complaints had
been made of the management of the present Commis-
sioners of Sewers. Those complaints principally arose
from the circumstance of a want of drainage required by
the metropolis. That want was chiefly, if not entirely,
owing to the fact that the funds at the disposal of the
commissioners were insufficient. Therefore, much that
ought, perhaps, to be done, was necessarily left undone,
The commissioners would do their best to make the
drains where most required, as far as the means at,
their disposal would enable them to do it. The com-
mission would expire in the course of this year, and it
would therefore be necessary this session to introduce a
bill on the subject. It was not, however, intended to
make any new arrangement. What would be proposed
was that the present arrangement should be continued until
better grounds were afforded for bringing forward a now
system. _

Lord GALWAY, on behalf of Lord A. VANE, azked
the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there were
any returns, or• other official documents, on which his
statement of the expected amounts to be derived from
the succession duty (as proposed) was formed ; and if
so, whether he would have any objection to state those
sources of information, and to lay any documents froni
which they were derived on the table of the house?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
there were no documents whatever such as the noble lord
referred to in the possession of the Government.

THE BUDGET.
RESUMED DEBATE.

The house then went into Committee of Ways and
Means.

The first resolution as proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer having been read,

Mr. PALMER moved the following amendment :
" After the words for every 20s. of the annual value or
amount thereof,' to insert 'such annual value of any lands,
tenements, or hereditaments, being the net annual value
thereof, after due allowance made for repairs, insurance,
and management."

He assured the committee that it was not his intention to
raise a new debate upon the general subject of the income
tax, but to confine himself to making the few observations
that were necessary in support of his own proposition.
Considering that they were now called upon to sanction an
income tax for a much longer period than was ever pro-
posed before, it was necessary they should endeavour to
mitigate its inequalities. With respect to the permanency
of the tax, he entertained considerable doubts whether
when the year 1860 arrived they would find it likely to
terminate. He must be a bold man who would venture to
prophecy that the tax would cease in 1860. It appeared to
him that in the budget there was one class to whom very
little relief was afforded—he alluded to the class in sche-
dule A. It was to that class that his amendment applied.
He thought his proposal was but an act of justice to the
persons included in schedule A ; and he assured the Chan.
eellor of the Exchequer that he would not have proposed
it unless he believed that it was a proposition that could
bs borne out in argument. He need not waste time in at-
tempting to prove that the nominal value of an estate or of
houses was any criterion of the income which the proprie-
tor received. Very considerable reductions must be made
from the gross receipts. It was the income of the indivi-
dual they ought to tax, and his proposal was, that in order
to arrive at that income they should deduct certain eharges
such as repairs, insurance, and cost of management. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that real property
was now paying 9d. in the pound instead of 7d., a fact
which he had adduced as an argument why the taxpayers
under schedule D ought not to complain, but which was
also an argument why the taxpayers under schedule A
should be considered in the manner now proposed. (Hear.)
Previously to this admission of the right hon. gentleman,
the landed interest had innocently supposed they were
under the operation of an act of Parliament requiring them
to pay 7d. in the pound and no more. (Hear, hear.) The
tradesman, under schedule D, was allowed a:deduction of
income tax in respect of repairs of his premises occupied for
the purposes of his trade on an average of three years. If
the right hon. gentleman would make the same allowance
in favour of the landowner and land occupier, whose claim
to that allowance was precisely analogous in this respect
to that of the trader, he should be quite satisfied. (Hear,
hear.) He was not prepared with any clause to carry out
the principle for which he contended; if the right hon.
gentleman would admit the principle, there was no man
more competent than he to carry it into effect. Ho did
not conceive there could be any difficulty as to the mode
of effecting it. There might be an objection on the ground
of practical inequalities to the allowance of a uniform
percentage of deduction, but he thought it would be quite
practicable—the Chancellor of the Exchequer having con-
sented to make an allowance to landowners and occupiers
under the heads which he had himself specified—to permit
all such persons to go before the commissioners, claim such
deductions as they could fairly demand under those heads,
and have those claims allowed. (Hear, hear.) If it were
suggested that be had no precedent for this proposition, he
would refer to the Parochial Assessment Act as affording
a precedent perfectly in point ; under that act, the assess-
ment to the poor-rate was made on the net annual value
that the land or house assessed might be reasonably ex-
pected to let for, deducting the cost of repairs, of insurance,
and—an expression, certainly, of very wide and somewhat
vague import—of other expenses necessary to maintain the
propertyrei in
_state
r, *nwhiach this t;rowvinisimonanwdasa practicallyrent. way,Tleca dhinnwtO
practice was, that there were two columns in every paro-
chial ratebook, the one exhibiting the gross, the other the
rateable value of each property to be assessed, and the rate
was made upon the rateable value so set forth. (Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that precisely the same prin-
ciple might be carried into effect with regard to the assess-
ment of the income-tax under schedule A. In making
this proposition, he was actuated not so much by a desire
to relieve the larger landowners, though the largeness of a
man's property afforded no season why he should be un-
fairly taxed—(hear, hear,)—as with a view to relieve the
small owners of land, and the owners of houses oil a small
scale. He had been informed that as to the latter class,
one-third of their rental was swallowed up by repairs,
Insurance, bad debts.—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—The de-
falcations of absconding tenants are allowed for.
efMr. PALMER was glad to hear that, but he hoped the
number of absconding tenants was limited. Still, there
was no doubt that the inevitable deductions from the gross
rental of those persons were very material, and he trusted
the right hon. gentleman would take those deductions into
his favourable consideration. The noble lord opposite had
the other night, be believed, expressed an opinion that the
amendment which he (Mr. Palmer) had announced, and
which he was now submitting to the committee, was at
direct variance with the proposition of the late Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and had expressed thereupon his wonder
that such an amendment should proceed from any gentle-
man on that side of the house. He did not propose to
discuss the alleged direct variance—the right honourable
gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could, no
doubt, settle that point with the noble lord—but at the
same time he would beg the noble lord to bear in mind
that at the period to which he referred there was no such
thing in existence or in proposal as the legacy duty on land
now before the house, and which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had brought forward as a kind of compensation
to schedule D. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
would hardly contend that schedule A could, in fairness,
be called upon still to pay 9d. in the pound instead of 7d.,
having in addition the legacy duty imposed upon it by
way of a satisfaction to scheule A. He trusted the right
hoe. gentleman would give his proposition a serious and
favourable consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ALCOCK, though he had voted generally in favour
of the budget, was not prepared to say that. he was quite
satisfied with the income tax portion of it. Not that he
complained of it, so far as it went ; his objection was that
it did not go far enough. He had, before the Christmas
recess, given notice of a motion to extend the income tax,
at 7d. in the pound, to all incomes in Great Britain and
Ireland, wages—even the wages of the labouring classes—
being included. At present but 1 in 65 of the population
of the country contributed to its taxation, that 65th man
paying on an average 13/. ; whereas, carry his principle
down to the labourer at 12s. a week, and 5,000;000 of per-
sons would contribute to the taxation beyond those who
now contributed, each of those 5,000,000 contributing,
as his data taught him, 30s. per annum on the average.
In other words, whereas of the 440,000,0001., which
were the estimated property of the country, 250,000,0001.
now escaped taxation, his proposal was to make those
250,000,0001. contribute their fair share. (Hear.) Effect
this object, and instead of the present income tax of
5,500,0001., you would realise 13,000,0001., per annum, and
the 7,500,001. beyond the present amount would at once
enable the Chancellor of. the Exchequer to repeal the en-
tire duty on malt and hops, to repeal the soap duties, to
reduce the tea duties as now proposed, and to reduce the
tobacco duty to ls. It was said sometimes that this would
be all very well if the money could be raised from the
labouring classes. He believed that there would be no
difficulty in this, because—first, it would be a just mea-
sure, and one to which lie was convinced, therefore, they
would not object; and because, secondly, it would prove
of the greatest benefit to those classes, inasmuch as they
contributed at present an infinitely greater amount to the
revenue, in proportion to their incomes, than any other
class. To show by ono instance the amount to which they
would be benefitted by the measures which he proposed,
he would take the case of an ordinary labouring man, with
a wife and three or four children, receiving, say, 12s. a-
week. Supposing, then, such a person to consume 101 b.
of tea in a year, he would save upon that article 12s. ;
upon soap he would save 4s. a-year ; on beer, supposing he ,
only expended 455. at present upon that beverage, he
would save 15s. ; and if he consumed 51b. of tobacco he
would save upon that Ils., making altogether 21. 2s. saved.
His income tax, supposing him to be charged at the pre-
sent rate, would be 18s., and he would therefore have a
clear annual money gain of 11. 45., in addition to getting
his articles infinitely purer and less adulterated than at
present. He certainly was astonished that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had not taken this opportunity of re-
pealing the duties upon malt, hops, and tobacco. The
former the people never would carry until they made
strong demand for it, but then they would; and as to
itto
to-
bacco, it was notorious that the high duty occasioned
be the staple of the contraband trade of the country. lt
was said that smoking was a dirty and unwholesome n
prac-
tice. Was it ? Then why had they a smokingiviodin ithat house and in all their clubs? (A laughs.)
general re-
spect o
feelingth e q
uoefstthioenpaetoli,slesuoef htheiswrounsatrtyiwells itnhafatvotuhre
tohfetlhieonb.uidngeemt,baenr(floorfßneorkpeahrtireofnoitwsosoungi
Mr. MILES thought that the budget
t 1 t4)amify
of stht°dheaGowv.hieernh-
Nuviaesn tivtilmeailttt
ehda r db lyy
twhiet h r tglh, et ownersbon. geonf
tiem reala
nproelp,epreteyi
t. e
fit;
1849 that real propertyooooo
jo 1., nboutrodneenefdarlvhiitehg leorwlhtiaexheshat(oi
the amount of
been taken off since then. The proposition of his hon.
friend the member for Berkshire was a fair and moderate
proposition, and he trusted that it would meet with the
support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was sup-
posed that the owners of real, property were possessed of
groat wealth and large estates, but according totoheautohros-
iity of Mr. M‘Cullagh,the 34,000,0001. of real property
They wn
ere
he
this country was divided amon proprietors,
which 200,000
which gave an average of only 1701, to each,circumstances
now to subjected to the leenguatnictdyleerd duty tuyeh
ask in additionthe
to
local
Chancellor of
and
th
ee u
gB oxht
ethhet
erh e by u
wrt
el er
en s
f, a
tt
quer to assarelnnydt to the proposition of his hon.
n reply
mill other chtharMg
friend. (Hear.)
amountCOß EefLLpoeorbsreartveed •
thCatapthtaeinScharges on
M Miles,
land had considerably diminished since 1849, and there
prosper. He
tha teatmhee landed interest would con-
twinasuenvteoryp
make a difference between fixed and the house disposed to
incomes—
between the arm-chair incomes aanndd tphir working-by-hand
incomes incomes as they were called--
(Hear hear, from the ut he was of a pliable mind.
Opposition.). He would tell them
why he had changed his mind and voted for the proposi-

tion of the Government. He did so because the sight 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 hon. gentleman imposed
a legacy duty on land. The legacy duty was 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 was a budget of equivalents, and must
be taken as a whole. He could not, therefore, support
the proposition of the honourable member for Berkshine.
(Chem.)
Mr. PHILIPPS said that his own feeling was in favour
of a graduated income tax, but he felt there were ;vest
difficulties in the way of carrying out smelt 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 cored not, therefore, refuse
theM, on this 6,round, the means of carrying on the Ge-
-1 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 lad. or
2d. in the pound. The injury done to the laud 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.
mEibwtuexebtrcc leehti equitablehueft
forgotten
orcryueoaooroputfnt
eigt
nhrtnt remitting mtetr
regard
watge
consider
betterg
Mr. L. HEYWORTH reminded the house that the im-
stialt,eootho,llooitl.,waansdprsetvililoulselayv.ingThtlii,ye
position of a tax of 5,000,0001. per annum had been the
whole
en.% tdthlheesera:t taethhiene
whetherd
iooatnr
es ci
tt
directot affectedanxcaerntoewnda.individuals,sonuno
rortorshouldfi morev 0
millions. After such great beneret 2f
hundred persons, presseds upon twenty-
five
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 the
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). Hera
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 morn 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 50,00 to 50,000 per
annum ; and lettsrs which he had received skewed 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 ware 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, Ls
would still be open to there to take it with its evils. He
thought nothing could be more fairand reasonable than the
proposition of the hon. member for Berkshire. (Hear,
hear from the Opposition.) The amendment was that the
tax should 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 equivalents ;" 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 he 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 HARCOURT having voted for the proposal of
the late Chancellor of the 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 houses, throw a heavier tax on
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. DRUMMOND 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 riglit
hon. gentlemai (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed
to allow certain qualifications in imposing the tax on land,
one 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 land 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 he felt to be the strand
principle. But the right hon. gentleman appeared to be in
somewhat of a difficulty in this matter. When he brought
forward his budget be stated that land paid on the gross,
instead of on the set 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 land, 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
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had committed a slight
mistake. He seemed to look only at the mode in which
land was charged, forgetting to take into account the mode
in which other property was charged. If the right hon.
gentleman would turn his attention to trades he was quite
sure he would find that they required an equal de-
duction to land. Take for instance the manufacturing
traders. Tho 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 masrafacturer 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
nd
manufacturer paid 4001. or 5001. a year for insurance, nteiele, and
of this 100/. would go to the Exchequer.
regarded it all as prot, and upon e
the income tax was charged. Again, machinery pound thus paid
was seldom
did not
last for ever. After 15 years' wear, machinery
worth more than the metal ofhen which
, as to bad debts, it was
was composed, yet
no allowance was made.
T
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 -
the commercial classes, he had alwaysb:indofopinionththat
the great grievance was in the disputes 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
which the assessment might be made much less irritating
than it was at present. IllEeke especially of the neigh-
bourhood in which he lived
when he said that nobody
was satisfied with the local commissioners of income tax,
and he was quite satisfied that from that locality the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had received more complaints
upon that ;gonna than as to the amount of the tax.
The arrangement he would propose was this : —There
was, he believed, a surveyor of taxes in every district..
Ho would suggest that this surveyor should make a
list of all the persons who had paid income tax in
his district during the previous three-years—and should
send round this printed list to the parties liable to the
tax—that they should be required to make their initials
against 20 or 25 of these names, and that from the names
that in this way had the greatest number of votes a com-
m's3ioner 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
against the amendment of the hon. member for Berks,
which, if carried, would entail upon him the necessity of
submitting another amendment having reference to trades
—and if they went on in this way deducting something
revenue would
from lands, something from trades, and something from
all other sources of income, the loss to the
iny instead
of a
soon render it necessary to have a
sevenpenny tax throughout-
Sir T. D. ACLAND argued that if they were to go on
the principle of taking a little frees one and a little from

another, they would never bemntain anYPnn •
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, ask for any
and upon inctohmlaesaad, 1001. a year,
he could not, as being
exception. (Hear.) Withwun
reeegartedd to the legacy tax, upon
which he did not now wish to pronounce any opinion, he
would observe that a large and liberal allowance must be
made in assessing it. They must have no 7d. or 9d., but
strict value. It must be remembered that and when it
came into possession was very often least able tobear any
burden—and while the successor to a sum of money in the
funds brought an immediate income, he
hadkn
not touched
when a person succeeding to an estatethe
transfer of land
rent for twelve months. Then, again,
was subjected to heavy stamp duties
money was not. Again, land was hich the transfer of
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-
deraion than it had received ; and as the landed proprie-
tors had, in this question, a common interest with the
tithe-owner and the railway companies —in fact, with all
those the exact amount of whose income wastan tangible, and
o
could beat once ascertained—a review theirf carigle ought
no longer to be delayed. But, taking the budget as a. whole,
v
and as a step towards the comprehensive sipmetrisa ion,
hior of the e he thought thought it the best which any Chance
chequer had proposed during the whole of s parliamen-
perience, which extended over 40 years.
tardiee. JOLLIFFE could see nothing in this budget but
a proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the
expense of the land, which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer admitted would be subjected to a legacy duty of
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 the honourable gentleman the most
entire credit in that respect. I am 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 anorssrlies, 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 tb e tax, of which it forms a part
--when we 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 recast occasions—that her Majesty's
Government 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. scot free ; whilst 7he supported a budget that pro-
posed to tax every 40s. freeholder—a budget which, if I
recollect right, taxed all red property, irrespective of the
amount of income of its possessor, and going down to a
very low limit—l believe t was 501. But I will not dwell
on these thineu. In order to understand what are the just
expectations of the countr7 with respect to the question,
we must travel a little Ix ickwards. We must consider
what was the situation of affairs in December last. At
that time the right hon. g ustleman the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer—the chain] ion, 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
had proposed a reduction of those burdens, I should not
only have been met and co: sfronted, but overwhelmed with
quotations from the speed see of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghi .mshire. (Cheers.) He, as you
know—he, in your hearing —he, as your leader, your organ,
your champion, consigns I your claims to perpetual oli-
vion. (Cheers.) And yes., 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. gentleircs,n's budget? No ; you had then
the proposal of an income tax—you 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 correspondei I exactly with that which I now
ask you to support. I kr ow not what course the right
hon. gentleman is going to take—l know not whether he
means to adhere to his owl r propositions of last December.
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 he did ? With an un-
mitigated schedule A, what, kind of schedule D did the right
honourable g entloman 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 I ;c:1 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 D 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.) I am 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 sue-
cessions—(cheers)—that will reconcile contending interests,
and terminate the system now so much complained of."
(Continued cheering.) ITow, I want to know whether
these words have a meanin g or not. To me they are clear
enough. What is "the system now so much complained
of ?" The system which taxes unsettled personalty, and
which exempts settled personalty. (Hear.) That is the
system so much comp] ained of"—that is the system
which the right hon. gentleman, your organ, your cham-
pion, your leader, propos' id and promised in the name of
his Government to terminate. (Cheers.) Now, sir, that
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 tle 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 evory seer who rises on that side of
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 t srmination in 1860. I have given
my own opinion that it (eight to be considered as a tem-
porary tax, and ought n of 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 e ndeavoured, 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
such a manageable fors n as will enable Parliament
when the time arrives io part with the income tax.
(Cheers.) You now complain of the income tax, in con-
junction with the legacy duties, as it stands in our pro-
posal, and yet you supported the tax as it stood in the
proposal of last Docember. I think the proposal then was
to renew the income tax fc ir a period of three years. What
did that mean ? You all know wt it meant. It meant
the tax in perpetuity. (Hear, hear.) I do 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 ;night 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 eel nest to get quit of the tax, you
must make provision and. prepare the ground. We have
done so. You say that yesx are afraid the income tax may
exist after 1860. That is I rossible—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. (Hear,
hear.) Here, then, was the combination of events in
December last. You had. an unmitigated schedule A—
you had the principle of differentialisin established against
you in schedule D—you had no prospect of the abolition of
the tax—and you had the promise or a legacy duty. (Hear,
hear.) Well, now, it is sup posed 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 deali • with the income tax unjust.
That was my convictionill3
at the. time. I thought
that the mode of
which was then proposed dealing with the income tax
that impression has would lead to confusion, and
bnalls_gengthened since I heard the
right honourable gentlem
his
euimember for Buckingham-
shire say the other night th:Lt
but proposalt of last December
was not a financial measure,
opinion
acknowledgment of a
principle. I still remain .jf op that the mode then
proposed of dealing with the tax wouldn.
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 M an
with regard to my change of opinion, that I thought
the
hester
plan of the right honourable gentleman the member
Buckinghamshire most unjust in its ultimate bearings uponfer
those who are connected with landed property. (Hear.)
What has been the result of the proposals then made.
The proposal to relieve the other schedules at the expense
of schedule A did not die with the expiring Ministry.
We heard of it last week. (Hear.) I want to know, if
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 willbe rater of no small in
soteresst
to the country to see how. these 252 gentlemen, who (Li-
-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 7
I want to know to what inequalities those words referred.

- -
You know the meaning they bore, and still bear, in the 1
public mind. Do yon attach the same meaning to them,
or do you not? There are two quite different kinds of
inequalities in the income tax. First, there are those of '
which we have heard so much to-night. We hav e been
told that the property assessed in schedule A is taxed at a
somewhat higher rate than the property comprised in the
rest of the schedules. Was that the inequality which was
meant to be pointed out for correction by the motion of
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire ? Now, sir,
I am most anxious that we should have a distinct answer
to that question. (Hear, hear.) Was that, I repeat, the
idea which hon. gentlemen had in their minds when they
voted for the motion of the hon. baronet the member for
Hertfordshire ? Did you think that he was going to reduce
the rate paid under schedule A, and consequently to im-
pose a new burden upon the trading and professional
classes,. in comparison with the owners of landed and real
property ? If that was your idea, I can only say that you
were most unfortunate in having adopted words which con-
veyed to the understandings of the community at large a
meaning totally opposite and contradictory, and in having
chosen for your organ and exponent upon the occasion an
hon. gentleman of great ability, but one who in the speech
with which he introduced his motion to the house,
exhausted all the stores of his rhetoric in setting forth the
hardships--what hardships ?—the hardships of the landed
interests ? No, but the hardships of those whose enterprise,
whose intelligence, and whose skill constitute, as the
honourable baronet had said, their only property, and
whose continued good health is their only guarantee.
(Hear.) Now, I want to show what was the meaning of
the vote of last Monday. It was meant to alter the rela-
tive position of the schedules. Of that there can be no
doubt ; but what I want to know is, did it mean to alter
the position of schedule A at the expense of schedules D
and E, or did it mean to alter the position of schedules D
and Eat the expense of schedule A ? (Hear, hear.) If you
had in view anything analogous to the motion of to-night,
then you must intend, I will not say to delude or deceive,
but to mislead the country ; but if, on the other hand, you
meant, what it was plain the honourable baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire meant, and what all the speakers who
followed him meant, namely, the reduction of the rates
charged on trade and professions, then I say you did that
which my noble friend who closed the discussion last
Monday told you you were about to do—you cheered
and supported, and voted for a motion diametrically
opposite and contradictory to the motion of to-night.
(Cheers.) Sir, I must here allude for a moment to what
fell from the honourable baronet who spoke last. I
would ask him what meaning he attaches to the motion
last Monday night. Was the meaning of it—" We want
to relieve schedule A?" or was the meaning of it—" We
, want to relieve schedule D ?" or was the meaning of it a
latent meaning, wisely and conveniently kept back, not
expressed—" We do not wish to obtain a legacy duty ?"
(Hear, and a laugh.) Now, the hon. baronet says he can
see nothing in this budget except taxation laid upon the
land, and in proof of his assertion he says, " Why, you
state yourself that you are going to lay 2,000,0001. of taxa-
tion upon land by exacting a legacy duty." Sir, Ido not
wonder that the hon. baronet can see nothing in this budget
except taxation upon land, if that is the process by which
ho arrives at his conclusion. The hon. baronet says I have
myself stated that lam going to lay 2,000,0001. of additional
taxation upon land. hy, sir, I never made such a state-
ment. (Hear.) I stated the very reverse, and I chal-
lenge the honourable baronet to show that the charge of
the legacy duty will be 2,000,0001. upon land. What I
stated, and what I will repeat until the honourable baronet
understands me. (a laugh), was, that we are going to amend
the basis of the legacy duty altogether ; that we think the
distinctions which now exist are unjust—especially that
which exempts all settled and real property ; that we are
going to take away the exemption which attaces to all
settled and real property as such ; and that we are going
to make the legacy duty applicable to all kinds of property
whatever, not to draw such a distinction in regard to the
mode of levying the duty as we think would operate to the
injury of property which at present bears a heavy burden
of taxation. And here I venture to tell the honourable
baronet the member for Devonshire, who has applied hi:,
mind with so much fairness to that portion of the sub-
ject, that when he sees the provisions of the bill we
shall introduce for the purpose of altering the legacy duty,
ha will find them not unworthy of his approbation. (Hear,
bear.) Now, sir, if we were to look at the immediate
financial effect of the proposition of the hon. member for
Berkshire, we would see that it would deprive the Exchequer
of a sum of about 450,0001. The hon. gentleman shakes
his head, and of course I speak in some degree from con-
jecture, but I am persuaded that, if the hon. gentleman is
permitted to carry his motion, the deductions which will
be made from the gross amount of the tax now levied
under schedule A will be to the extent of about 16 per
cent. _

Mr. PALMER : The deductions will be much less than
that.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am sure
I do not see how they can be less. The xpense of repairs,
of management, and various other items—why the honour-
able gentleman will find it difficult to estimate the deduc-
tions at less than 16 per cent. Moreover the honourable
gentleman proposes to make his plan applicable to house
property, and he must be aware that in a great many in-
stances the bond fide repairs on house property amount to
15 per cent. without any other charge. (Hear, hear.) My
belief is that his deductions would deprive the Exche-
quer of the sum of 450,0001. Now, sir, I have a very sim-
ple answer to make—we cannot afford to part with the
money. I would return this reply even if I were to sup-
pose that the measure which the hon gentleman proposes
was to stop at schedule A. But who imagines that it could
stop at schedule A ? Who conceives it possible to vote for
the motion of the hon. gentleman with regard to schedule
A, and not to carry the principle through the whole of the
schedules ? When the hon. member for Manchester said
that deductions were likewise necessary under the other
schedules, ho was greeted with enthusiastic cheers from
both sides of the house. Well, then, these deductions are
to run through the whole of the schedules ; in other words,
16 per cent. is to be taken off the whole tax. Speaking in
round numbers, that is a deduction of 1,000,0001. from
the present produce of the tax. Now, that is a most
agreeable process, and doubtless we would all like
to indulge a feeling of enlarged generosity, to strike off
one item after another, to go home to-night after agreeing
to this motion with those sentiments with which philan-
thropy and benevolence always distend the heart, to re-
peat the process to-morrow night in the case of schedule
A, and so to go on with schedule after schedule, until you
reduce the tax to a mere skeleton of its former self. But
if you make these deductions upon the whole of the sche-
dules, what becomes of the financial measure ? (Hear,
hear.) What becomes of the remissions of duty? (Hear,
hear.) I am afraid you will be obliged to commence a
counter process, and having begun by reducing land from
9d. to 7d., and 'effecting an equivalent deduction upon the
other schedules, you will require to retrace your steps, and
raise the land from 7d. to 9d., and so on with the rest of the
schedules. I am not prepared to enter upon that course.
I am convinced you never could carry through such a pro-
cess, and that the adoption of this motion would introduce
utter and hopeless confusion into the assessment and collec-
tion of the tax. If you deduct 16 per cent. under schedule
A, you must allow as much for schedule D. You will have
admitted a principle of such a character, that it will be im-
possible for schedule ]) to be content even withio per cent.
After the plans of last December, which were offered as a
stop in the right direction, it is impossible for you to im-
pose upon that process such limits as may appear to snit
your particular inclinations. Indeed I could not wish you
a more fatal gift than the success of this motion. We can-
not afford to enter upon any such process. We cannot afford
it as far as regards the mere arithmetical effects upon our
calculations; we cannot afford it as far as regards the prin-
ciple that is involved. The motion of the hon. gentleman,
if adopted, breaks up the whole income tax ; and, breaking
up the whole tax, it necessarily breaks up that which rests
upon the tax. It breaks up the financial measures and pro-
posals of the Government. It is impossible for us to un-
dertake the reconstruction of the tax. If we meddle with
it we peril that very extensive remission of taxation which
we have laid before parliament, and which Ithink I may say
without presumption has received and is receiving the appro-
bation of the country. Sir, we will not take the first step
in such a course. What has been our position ? When
we were first called upon to view the financial state
of the country we found the question of the
income tax under these circumstances—the right hon-
ourable gentleman had pledged himself to the principle
of its reconstruction, many gentlemen on this side of the
house, had expressed opinions more or less favourable to
the same course ; but upon examining the question we
found that it was impossible to reconstruct the tax, or to
bring the attempt to any satisfactory conclusion, and that
by undertaking it we would introduce confusion into our
finances, injure the public credit, set clms against class,
and produce mischief infinitely greater than any good
which the most sanguine could. anticipate. We did not
conceal these convictions ~ we stated them ; but we said,
" While sympathising with you in the feeling that the tax
presses too hard upon intelligence and skill as compared with
property, we cannot encourage you to adopt a mode of
giving effect to that feeling which will be productive of far
more harm than good." Well, we were generously met by
the house, and last Monday night we obtained a vote in fa-
vour of the general principles upon which we were proceed-
ing. The first of these general principles was to take the
income tax as it stands. It is in vain you endeavour to taunt
me by saying I have argued for an equal tax, and now you
ask me to make it so. I tell you I never argued theoretically
for an equal tax, and I do not believe it is possible. What
we said was, " We find the income tax defective in some
points, but we find also it has achieved great things for the
country ; we find it accepted to a certain extent by the
nation, no doubt calling for amendment in some parts, but
on the whole productive of good far beyond the hard-
ships and grievances that attend it." (Hear, hear.) We
consequently asked you to consider the income tax as a
whole. Now I ask if that was at all compatible with any
intention or any willingness on our part to be pressed into
tampering with the reconstruction of the tax ? Sir, the
motion of the hon. gentleman invites us to tamper with the
tax ; but we cannot do so without destroying its efficiency.
We must keep faith with those who have supported us. We
must refuse to commence this process. We are bound not
to commence it, because itiwould prove ourfirst step in a path
that must lead us upon ground so insecure that we should be
obliged to abandon the whole substance of the proposals
we have made. From many hon. members in this house
we have received support in asserting these principles. We
have received that support, I believe, not simply because
they recognised the impossibility of reconstructing the tax,
but because in our general proposal we hold out something
like the outline of a definite policy—(cheers)--tending to
place the finances of the country upon a footing of security,
to maintain the public credit, and to do justice between
the different classes of the community. (Cheers.) Sir,
having received that support, we are not going to shrink
from the conduct by which it was earned. We intend to
adhere to the measures we have proposed. We do not
pretend to interfere with the discretion of members of Par-
liament in bringing forward this or that amendment; but
we do ask the house to pause and , consider well before it
gives a vote that will deprive the country of the benefit
proposed to it through the medium of our plans. I cannot
help entreating those gentlemen who voted on Monday last
for the relief of intelligence and skill, to pause to-night
before they give a vote of a totally opposite and contradic-
tory character. (Cheers.) Here are words which are not
unworthy the attention of the committee :—" There is
nothing in life, especially in public life, more important
than to have a principle." Sir, these words were recently
addressed by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire to his constituents. I admit that the
motion of last Monday distinctly expressed a principle,
though an erroneous one ; but the motion of to-night
embodies
peansteotoafllte
totally opposite and contractory principle.
The motion of last Momiely„ relieved trades and professions
things are perfectly of
1
They cannot be concealed the land at the e trades
eoms oatiai,oin of to-night relieves
public opinion. We professions. These
iitiaienact and intelligible to the country.
income tax as a whole, or placed beyond the reach of
Zee leclai-ed that, looking at the
great benefits to the believe i hat it is capable of pro-
ducingwe
precariousadhere.
c\o'irme e ares
ought
ug preparedht
01 n t y.
relieved, , e
aTatoptlhtahenadoec;sr€: doctrine
for t] rose who think that
permanent incomes. We ourselves pro a
greater burden upon property, whicVl(‘ ve shall soon have
an opportunity of bringing under the con.s;ideration of the

house, but I must confess it will be singular indeed if
within the space of seven days the plans of the Govern-
ment are to be assailed by two hostile motions, each of
them supported by a strong party combination, and each
diametrically opposed to the other. (Cheers.)
- -

. . _
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, the right hon. gentleman has de.
scribed the plan which the late Government brought for-
ward for the continuance of the income tax, and has said

that it relieved trades and professions at the expense of the
[and. He has also told the committee that the late Govern-

went intimated their intention of proposing a legacy duty;
for, said the right hon. gentleman, with logic which I could
not follow, did not they refer to the stamp duty, a tax on
conveyances, and the probate duty ? I protest against the
use of single passages in a Ministerial statement. (Hear.)
While the right hon. gentleman declares that our measures
were opposed to the interests of real property, he has the
candour and ingenuousness to forget that at the same time
we made a proposition which wouli have relieved real pro-
perty, especially the land, of indirect taxation to the amount
of 2,000,000/. (Hear.) An hon. member told the house on
Monday last, and the statement has been frequently re-
ferred to by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that there
is no impost so grievous upon the land as the malt tax ;
and he said that the principal fault which he found with

the proposition of the late Government was, that it did not
propose a total repeal of the malt tax. I suppose when that
hon. member fills the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer,

we may hope that he will propose the total repeal of the
malt tax. But let us look at this matter for a moment.

Having called the attention of the committee to this prin-
cipal omission, reminding the committee that the right
hon. gentleman has omitted from the enumeration of his
measures a proposition which would have reduced the indi-
rect taxation upon land to 21 millions—reminding the com-
mittee also that one quarter of the Excise is raised by a tax
upon a crop grown by the English farmer, let me now advert
to the scheme of the income tax proposed by the right hon.
gentleman. The right hon. gentleman will not sanction any
change in the rate of assessment of the different schedules.
Now remember that the argument with which the right
hon. gentleman vindicated his policy, which he says is his
great principle, and to which the Government is devoted,
proceeded upon the assumption that real property was
actually assessed 2d. in the pound more than the other
schedules. And the right hon. gentleman, after having
established that point—a point which was one of novelty,
although probably it had never been placed before the
house in so popular and convincing a form—(hear, hear,
and laughter)—after having established that point, the
right honourable gentleman, with strange inconsistency,
immediately proceeded to say—" Having shown you in a
manner so satisfactory, that by the scheme of the income
tax, which I am now proposing on the part of the Govern-
ment, real property is assessed at a much greater amount
than any other kind of income which contributes to the
tax, we propose another measure, which is a tax of consi-
derable amount upon real property." (Cheers from the
opposition.) Certainly his two millions were not to be
raised entirely from the land. Did I say that they were ?
I did not say that they were to be raised solely from real
property • but in laying this tax upon property which has
not hitherto borne it, who will deny that a much greater
proportion will be paid by real property? (Hear.) Well,
if that be 'the case, then it appears that the right hon.
gentleman meant to affix a very large amount of a new tax
upon real property. Now I say that there was very great
inconsistency in the course taken by the right honourable
gentleman. I say it was inconsistent to show to the house
that real preperty was assessed to more than it was equit-
able that it should bear were it not for grave considerations
of State, and then immediately to propose a new tax
which would add to its burdens. (Loud cheers.) But is
that all ? Is that strange inconsistency the only or the
greatest inconsistency in the argument or in the policy of
the right hon. gentleman. Let me call the attention of
the committee to an important consideration which has not
yet been adverted to in the course of these debates 'What
was the argument of the right hon. gentleman? He says,
" One of your inducements for accepting my proposal of
the income tax is that you have my personal promise,
and every fair public prospect, that the tax will end at
the termination of seven years from the present time."
Unquestionably there was soma difference of opinion about
that point ; but the basis of all the arguments of the
right honourable gentleman has been, and the position
of the Ministry has been, that we are to consider that the
income tax is to terminate at the end of seven years.
What, then, does the right hon. gentleman do? Having
shown that real property is assessed more than is equitable
under his income tax, he says, with another inconsistency,
" As you have a weakness. in favour of precarious incomes,
although I have proved to you that real property pays
more than incomes derived from any other sources, yet I
will propose a tax that shall compensate those who pay the
tax upon precarious incomes in the way you desire. (Hear,
hear.) I will propose a tax upon successions, which will
make the owners of real property contribute to the State,
independent and irrespective of those who enjoy precarious
incomes—it shall be a tax by way of compensation." But
if so, it ought only to be a tax for seven years. (Cheers.)
If the tax is to be a tax by way of compensation, it will
be unjust unless you provide that it shall end at the ter-
mination of seven years. The ground upon which the
right honourable gentleman is convinced that he ought to
impose a tax upon successions, namely, that a compensa-
tion is needed for those who pay the tax upon precarious
Incomes, ought to induce him, according to his own argu-
ment, to propose that this tax upon successions shall be
equally limited is its duration with the income tax itself.
(Cheers.) I will presently show that the motion of to-
night is the natural consequence of the policy of the Go-
vernment. So I think also that the natural consequence
of the argument of the right honourable gentleman on this
head will be that when wo have to consider the tax upon
successions it will be necessary to move that that tax shall
continue only for seven years. (Hear, hear, and laughter.
Now I come to the vote on Monday night. I confess that
in deference to the feelings of the supporters of the right
honourable gentleman I should have wished to have
avoided the subject. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
think there was something unnecessarily cruel in the way
in which the right honourable gentleman alluded to it. I
should have thought that a clear announcement of what
was our intention in the vote on Monday night was
exactly a point on which he would have spared the
feelings of those by whose assistance he gained a tri-
umph to which I trust they will continue to look back
with a satisfaction which, however, I hardly think awaits
them. (Laughter). The object of that vote was to assert
a principle which we endeavoured to establish, and which
was frankly and unequivocally announced by my hon.
friend the member for Hertfordshire. We endeavoured to
establish a principle, and we were supported in our endea-
your by those against whose interests the right honourable
gentleman says that poriey was directed. 'Well, sir, there
are then some persons in this house who sacrifice their in-
terests to their principles. (Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) But the right hon. gentleman says, " How can you
reconcile the vote of Monday night with the vote of this
evening? Why, the very fact that you defeated us on
that occasion is not only our excuse but is our necessity for
considering your measures on this occasion. (Oh, oh, from
the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.)
We have now to consider the measure on its merits. I can
easily understand how hon. gentlemen, especially hon.
gentlemen who were in favour of a difference between the
schedules, may now triumph in a majority which cannot,
indeed, 'vindicate their conduct, although it may establish
their Government. But let me ask you this—ls there any-
thing in the course which my hon. friend the member for
Berkshire recommends to night, novel, anomalous, or un-
justifiable? We recommended a policy which you rejected.
If you reject that policy, surely we have n right to try your
policy on its merits. (Opposition cheers, and Ministerial
laughter.) I should like to see that gentleman who laughs
so loud rise and tell us the reason of his mirth. Is there, I
ask, anything new in the policy which we are recommend-
ing ? According to the right hon. gentleman opposite,
there is something new, startling, and dangerous. The
right hon. gentleman says that my hon. friend invites us
to tamper with the income tax. Well, I know many per-
sons who have invited the House of Commons to tamper
with the income tax, and who have thought that changes
might be made in it on principles of sound policy. Now
I will never refer to any speech made by any hon. gentle-
man in this house by way of taunt—l will never reer to
Hansard with the view of annoying any honourable gen-
tleman. That pei:iod has passed. (Murmurs.) And there-
fore, if I have Hansard before me, I can assure hon.
members that I am not going back five, or ten, or fifteen
years, but I will just alder to a recent debate which
I am to unwilling to quote from memory. The last
motion which I brought forward in this house during the
government of the noble lord opposite, a motion which has
been noticed as that which destroyed the Government of
the noble lord, whereas I was aneoaseious of having
achieved so great a feat, and thought that the Government
of the noble lord had been defeated on the militia ques-
tion—(hear, hear)—but on that very motion:—a motion
which called on the house dispassionately to consider the
question of local taxation—on that occasion a member of
the present Government—l will not be so invidious as to
say the most distinguished member, but I will: say the
most distinguished country gentleman, who is a inember
of the present Government, an extreme Free-trader; who
was frightened by my dangerous measures and my danger-
ous policy, which he said would disturb the finances of the
country, and bring on revolutions—why, sir, that right
hon. gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty,! made a
most powerful speech in opposition to me on that occasion,
and he said, " This is not the way to deal with the sub-
ject, if land is distressed"—and he did not deny that land
was distressed—" you must not consider the local taxation
of the country—you will upset the whole financial system
of the country if you do so—you do not know what you
are going to embark in. I see a revolution in the distance,
and the consequence of your triumph will perhaps be the
destruction of the empire." The right hon. gentleman also
said, " There are moderate means by which you may
attain the object for which you have laboured—means
which reason justifies, and which policy recommends, and
in which you will be supported by the voice of Parliament
and the entire country. Consider the glorious opportunity
which you will enjoy, when the subject of the income tax
shall again be brought under the consideration of Parlia-
ment, (Loud cries of " Hear, hoar.") Then," said the
right hon, gentleman, "you will have an opportunity of
showing how- unjustly landed property is assessed under
schedule A ; then you will call the attention of Parliament
to the expenses 'which the landed proprietor has to undergo
for rates, for management, for insurances, and fora thousand
other causes ; then you will have a case which no one can
resist ; then you will have the House of Commons and the
country with you ; and then, when you demand that the
proprietor shall be aaseased on his net and not upon his
gross rental, then, indead, you will be doing justice to the
landed proprietor." (Hear',. hear.) Why, it is almost only
yesterday that we heard the right hon. gentleman from the
second or third bench up there .expressing himself in such
words of eloquent advice to the prOPrietora of the soil, and
now the right hon. gentleman is a member of the present
Government, devoted to this great larinciple of denying
this justice to the land—(loud cheers fro,n the Opposition)
—of resisting this act of justice which ha said no House of
Commons could for a moment successfully 01Tose. But is
that all ? The First Lord of the Admiralty wa,nt on to say,
" You want justice to the land ; you must not .attempt to
get it by these vile schemes of yours, by dealing with the
local taxation of the country ; you must not stop short at
schedule A ; you must not be content with obtaining for
the landlord a just and equitable assessment under the in-
come tax ; you must go on to schedule B, and do jut tice to
the farmer—(hear, hear)—he is assessed on a scale whi.ch is
unjust, as his profits are taken at too high a rate ' - • vou
must take Care that the scale on which he is assessed
is
better adapted to the present times and to the rate of profit
on which he lives." Sir, I rellbllect all this when I see the
right hon. gentleman, the greatest ornament, and support,.
and bulwark of the Treasury bench ; and when I remem-
ber all this, which I have no doubt is conscientiously be-
lieved by the right hon. gentleman at this moment, and
when I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that
'he is only the organ of the Government, and that the Go-
vernment is united on this point, if I am a little incredu-
lous, and if I believe there aro still some appeals to be made

to individual consistency, surely it cannot be entirely
without cause. (Hear, hear.) The tone which the right hon.
gentleman opposite takes is rather curious ; everything, he
thinks, is to be carried because it is a united Government.
Sir, the Government may be united in hostility to the land
—(hear, hear)—in a determination not to do justice to the
proprietors of the soil, whose claims the First Lord of the
Admiralty has told us could not be resisted ; the Govern-
ment may be united in a determination not to do
justice to the farmer, in the mode which the First
Lord of the Admiralty declared to be irresistible ;
but I should think this is the only subject on which
the Government are united—(hear)--and that probably be-
fore long, to-morrow perhaps, we shall have occasion to
see whether this union on the question of land, which we
are told is so complete and admirable, applies to other sub-
jects, or whether it is only when the interests of the soil
are concerned that the Government shows an impenetrable
front and unanimous feeling. (Hear.) It is impossible to
defeat the justice of this case by splitting hairs, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. The farmer who
has to pay his tax will not enter into a discussion as to
what was the nature of the vote on Friday or Monday—he
will ask for justice ; and when the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer asks me how he who voted on Monday can also vote
to-night, although I can give with a clear conscience what
I believe to be a satisfactory answer to that question, I say
there is something more to be asked. (Hear.) The coun-
try which is interested in this question will ask itself,
" Can any one bring forward a valid reason why we should
be assessed unjustly?" We, when in office, acknowledged
we could not attempt a perfectly just assessment ; we of-
fered a plan for an, income tax, in which we made a cer-
tain difference and gradation ; we placed before the coun-
try the motives of our policy, and we endeavoured to sup-
port that policy. No taunt shall for the future prevent us
from doing justice to the farmers and proprietors of the
soil, and while pursuing this course, we shall found our
justification upon the arguments of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and upon the recommendations of the First
Lord of the Admiralty. (Cheers)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the committee will observe the
difference between the position now occupied by the right
hon. gentleman opposite and that taken by him both in
last December and no longer ago than Monday last. The
principle of the right hon. gentleman in December last,
was this, with respect to that immediate measure
He stated that he recognised a difference between per-
manent and precarious incomes, and he expressed an
opinion that that difference ought to be recognised by
the Legislature. That, sir, was a very intelligible princi-
ple ; and no man could doubt that amongst permanent in-
comes land was to be included, and amongst precarious
incomes trades and professions, and that an advantage
was to be given by his income tax to trades and profes-
sions over land and houses, which are contained in
schedule A. But now the right hon. gentleman comes
forward to advocate a totally different principle. If the
hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire comprehended
trades and professions by his motion, why did he not so
shape his motion as to comprehend an allowance for re-
pairs, and at the same time to include trades and profes-
sions ? The case is exactly this. Last Monday the stick
was bent in one direction, and we refused to comply in
that case ; and now the stick is bent in another direction,
and the proposition with which the house is called upon to
deal has assumed a totally opposite course. It was said
by hon. gentlemen opposite that one side bore too much
weight—the house refused its sanction to that proposition,
and now it is said that the burden is all in the other scale.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) What, I ask you, is the
meaning of this? I regret to find that the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) meets this question—this
great question of the income tax, immediately connected
as it is with the financial system of the country—merely
as a party question. (Loud cheers.) The right. hon.
gentleman says that in December he proposed the reduc-
tion of the malt tax. Yes, he did propose the reduction of
that tax, but he proposed it on the ground that it would
confer a benefit on the consumer—(hear, hear)—and DOW
the right hon. gentleman, having failed in that proposal—
s proposal which I cannot but consider as most dangerous
to the finance of the country, as tending to deprive it of a
tax amounting to two millions sterling, a tax most easily
collected—having failed in that proposal, I say, the
right hon. gentleman now says he will break in upon the
system of the income tax. (Cheers,) If we are now to
make a change in a schedule which has existed from 184.2
up to the present time—if we are to make such a change
as has never before existed—then must we go into the
other schedule, and we must consider the question of
precarious incomes, and that which I regard as presenting
the greatest inequalities—namely, professions. (Hear.)
But the right hon. gentleman says that he wonders how
those who formerly objected to the inequalities of the tax
could now support the proposition of the Government.
The reason is a very simple one. They see so much to ap-
prove of in the budget—(cries of " oh, oh," and cheers)—
they see that by it so much indirect taxation is taken off,
that it is based on such principles of justice, that it is so
much progresses towards furthering and extending free
trade that they are willing to undergo one of its disadvan-
tages and to adopt the budget, preferring to accept it as a
whole, rather than fail in carrying its propositions.
(Cheers.) This, sir, appears to me to be the course not
unusually adopted in this house by men who have at heart
the public good. (Cheers.) On the other hand, what may
we expect from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) ?
In December last he advocated a distinction in the impo-
sition of the income tax in favour of trades and professions,
and now he seeks to make a now inequality as regards
land. This must show the house and the country that
these interests—these great and mighty interests —are
treated by the right hon. gentleman, if not for party pur-
poses, at least with such levity and caprice—(cries of oh,
oh," from the Opposition and. cheers from the Ministerial
side)—with such levity and caprice, I say, that it is utterly
impossible for this house or the country to rely on any
financial plan of which the right hon. gentleman may be
the originator. (Cheers.) Last week trades and profes-
sions deserved compassion, this week our solicitude is in-
vited on behalf of the land, and if I may venture to use a
vulgar
phrase—lately, however, ennobled by a high autho-
rity—l; would ask "under which thimble is the pea ?"
(Loud laughter and cheers.) No one can possibly say what
may be the proposition next week, but I trust this house
will feel, as the country already feels, that as a whole this
great measure will benefit the country, and that, if it im-
poses some sacrifices, the great body of the people will find
themselves possessed of greater means of enjoyment; and
if this be the case, that you will not adopt the wavering
and uncertain line now proposed, but will adhere to the
scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am con-
fident that if you do so the country and the people at large
will approve of and admire you. (Loud cheers.)
Lord JOHN MANNERS then rose to address the house,
but was received with such vociferouS cries of " divide "
that his opening sentences were totally inaudible. When
silence was restored, he said : So enamoured is the noble
lord (Lord John Russell) with the height of financial in-
justice that he cannot even comprehend how honourable
gentlemen should be anxious to render an income tax more
consonant with justice on one Monday night in one re-
spect, because on another Monday night they attempted to
render it more consonant with justice in another respect.
The noble lord asks us to inform the country how it is that
in one week we could invite the House of Commons to
rectify some of the injustice of the income tax, which
presses upon trades and professions, and how, in another,
we can ask it to do something like justice to the landed in-
interest of this country. (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, I say
for myself that it is because I was most anxious and ready
to afford all the relief which equity and justice can demand
for trades and professions in one week that I now feel per-
fectly justified in endeavouring to render justice to the
land on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive
or comprehend how the noble lord thinks he can answer
the claim of justice which has been put forward by my
honourable friend, the member for Berkshire, by saying
that he himself and the Government, and honourable gen-
tlemen who voted with them last Monday, managed to
defeat the claim of justice which he put forward for trades
and professions. The noble lord would visit upon us the
wrong he himself was the party to perpetrate, and would
charge us with betraying the principles and the cause
which we advocated on Monday, because, believing that
there is an equally just and equitable claim on our side,
we call upon him to carry into practice the declarations his
his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why, sir, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, using the argument so often
wielded with more or less of success in this house, and
pointing out how difficult it frequently is to do justice in
this world, asked my hon. friend the member for Berkshire
whether it would be possible to do this justice to schedule
A without going through all the other schedules and doing
justice to them ? The right honourable gentleman answered
that question himself when he introduced his budget.
It was he who showed that the justice which my
hon. friend now asks you to do to schedule A was already
done in the case of the other schedules. And it was my
hon. friend the member for Berkshire who took even a more
moderate view than the right hon. gentleman himself did,
and told you that he did not think the right hon. gentle-
man's view was quite consistent with the facts of the case.
But, be that as it may, it is upon the admissions of the
right hon. gentleman himself that this amendment is now
proposed. We have it admitted by every gentleman who
has spoken in the course of this debate that abstractedly
the proposition of my hon. friend is just and equitable,
and I leave it with confidence to the house and the coun-
try whether the arguments of the noble lord ought to be
permitted to prevail against the admission of justice which
we have had from every hon. gentleman who has spoken.
The house then divided, and there appeared—
For Mr. Palmer's amendment—Ayes 2Ol
Against it Noes 276

in order to allow the - Majority in favour of the Government 75
chairman apnlStoltAreEpoLAl
paroskgrinegss,the Government to allow the
On our admission into the gallery, we found
amend-
ment of the hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart)
to undergo a full discussion.
Lord J. RUSSELL seemed to think such a course would
be unnecessary.
Mr. DISRAELI must really press his suggestion. The
amendnient of the hon. member for Berks was a -very in-
teresting on, and it would be quite impossible to take a
discussion upon it after so long a debate. (Opposition
cheers.) He felt, therefore, called upon to move that the
chairman report progress.
After an observation from Mr. VANKTTART, which was
inaudible,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the question was not one as to his noble friend's accom-
modation or otherwise—it was a question which concerned
the trading interests of the country. (Cheers from the
Ministerial benches.) He could assure the right hon.
gentleman opposite that he could have no conception of the
amount of inconvenience to which the whole community
was put by this very protracted discussion, the serious in-
convenience—perhaps he might say the serious loss—which
was caused in numberless cases by uncertainty as to the
amount of duties to be charged at the Custom-house.
Now the answer which he had to make on the part of the
iovernmont with regard to the case of the farmer was
simply—that if the farmers did not like the rate on which
they were assessed under schedule B, that they had already,
by law, the right of going into schedule D. (Oh, oh, from
the Opposition benches.) It was, therefore, entirely a
question affecting the suspension of the trading interests of
the country, if they agreed to postponement.
Mr. DISRAELI—Perhaps the right hon. gentleman
would have no objection to leave out the schedule alto-
gether? But really the question was not so simple as
what the right hon. gentleman would make it—a fact which
discussion might serve to demonstrate. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD said that when he was Chancellor of the
Exchequer he had given the farmers the power of appeal
against the tax.
Mr. DISRAELI observed that if the noble lord perse-
vered in continuing the debate, ho should be under the
disagreeable necessity, although ho might stand alone, of
moving that the chairman report progress. They had been
all night discussing a schedule interesting to the landlords;
they had ow come to a schedule interesting to the farmers.