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

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
thorn 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
land. He has also told the committee that the late Govern-
ment 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 woull have relieved real pro-
perty, especially the land, of indirect taxation to the amount
of 2,000,0001. (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
bon. 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 wore 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 pad(' 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 konourable
gentleman. I say it was inconsistent to show to the house
that real property 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 some 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, yeti
will propose a tax that shall compensate those who pay the
tax upon precarious incomes in the way you desire. (Ffear,
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 bo 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 in 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 we 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.
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-
vour by those againstt, whose interests the right honourable
gentleman says that policy 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 a 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 refer to
Hansard with the view of annoying any honourable gen-
tleman. That period 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 refer to a recent debate which
lam 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 unconscious of having
achieved so grat a feat, and thought that the Government
of the noble lord bad 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
thnater bee's:eon inavidmieomusbaesr to of
tqhueesptrieosneuotf loal
Government—liaxatin—oo will
the most
countrygentleman,tidiestinguisbed
member,
who is a m
butlvi will say
the
say
most in
of
the
epresent b y my dg
Government,ane dangerous s measuresextreme
and ml Free-trader,
e-
t ayd danger-
ous
erwho
was
frightenedpolicy, which he said would disturb the financestat right
of
gth
et
country, and bring on revolutions—why, sir, that
hon. gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, made a
most powerful speech in opposition to me on that occasion,
denyt h
thatthe lsaunbd-
jaencdt , he
ef
landsaisaid,
i s distressed"—and s"Thistr eisss e dnotthe"— a nd whaeydtioddneoatl
ou will upset the who e h
you do not know w at you
wnfatshdeisetorteinszyl--; you must not consider thfienlaonccailatlaaxyasttaiomn
of the country if you do
Ise—ea revolution in the distance,
are going to embark in.
gentleman also
I,tihieurmigphhtwhielnl
.perhaps be the
and the
destructioncon
of
consequence qtuheen
empire."
me
po fi
rye
said, " There
.are moderate means by which you may
attainh.eh itehaeseonbjjencettififoere, ma'nhdi chwhyieohu
policyhave rlecaboomurmeden—dauraannds
in. iwhich you will be supported by the voice of Parlianient
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, hear.") 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
resistother
;c et
hu seens
y;
otuhownillyohuawveiltl hheanveoaueceaosef welt
onnos
ao
iis i
de men
country with you ; and then, when you demand that the
proprietor shall be assessed on his net and not upon his
gross rental, then, indeed, 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
words
oofr
etlho igrudebenchv
inepe
to therethe
now the right hon. gentleman
eielpressing himself in such
proprietorsomember o f
oftheth the present
and
Government, devoted to this great principle of denying
this justice to the land—cloud cheers from the Opposition)
—of resisting this act of justice which he said no House of
Commons could for a moment successfully oppose. But is
that all ? The First Lord of the Admiralty went 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 justice to
the farmer—(hear, hear)—he is assessed on a scale which is
unjust, as his profits are taken at too high a rate ; you
must take care that the scale on which he is assessed is
better adapted to the present times and to the ratefofprofiet
on which he lives." Sir, I recollect all this whnedn
support,std
right hon. gentleman, the greatest ornament,
when
1
h I
and bulwark of the Treasury bench ;
by the right hon. gentlemanof the Exchequer says that
remem-
ber all this, which I have no dit conscientiouslyi.satnd w
this
i ent, be-
lievedand
dwhen I find that the Chanect.l4l:vr
ernment, and that the Go-
he is only the organ of tl2
1 lons, and if I bellow
onthtehiresapreoinattilisfoml
eaamppaeliauttLa ibnecmreaddue-
, vernment is united