The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-29 00:00:00

In 1796 Mr. Pitt first laid a legacy duty
perty, and he also brought in a second bill
real property. He carried the first bill, hi-
, to give up the other, for when it was read
ayes and noes were equal, and it was on,
casting vote of the Speaker. After that
nor any other minister had dared to grapp
tion, and the right hon. gentleman the
Exchequer was much to be commended
so. He (Mr. Sanders) should support
although there were parts of it to whi
he thought, as a whole financial '
bold, comprehensive, and statesmanlike.
Much had been said about the extension of the income tax
to Ireland ; and he would ask why should not a manufac-
turer or merchant, who was making a handsome income at
Belfast or Londonderry, contribute to that impost as well
as one at Liverpool or Manchester? (Hear, hear.) Or
why should not the Irish landowner, a person who had
perhaps recently purchased an incumbered estate at tbn or
twelve years' purchase, be just as able to pay as nine-tenths
of the landowners of this country? He might ask the
same question with respect to the Dublin shopkeeper.
Provisions were cheaper in Ireland than in England.
Why, they might buy a fowl for sixpefice—(a'laugh)—and
most of the expenses of living were less than they were in
this country. At all events they had no assessed taxes,
and they were free from a large amount of burdens to
which Englishmen were subject. They were always talk-
ing about equal rights—let them have equality of laws, and
equality of taxation. (Hear, hear.) He thought, in con-
clusion, that the budget was a most statesman-like mea-
sure, and would tend to preserve, if not to increase, the
prosperityjestrs
which
kingdom.
happily existed in all parts of her 3114*
(Cheers.)
S!r F. BARING was very glad that an amendment had
been moved such as that which had been proposed, because
it did not put the question upon any particular point, but
went against the whole principle of the budget. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated very frankly that
the corner stone of his financial statement was the income
tax ; because if that were rejected, the budget was of course
at an end. Now he (Sir F. Baring) had expressed hi, great
and
dcoamgafion in
discomfort both
hwBhen the income tax was first introduced,.
ileo satisfactionupatnconclusion
ginguosiroindpnetioahtt
fe
peace;
at the large amount of revenue which
iataint
her
etwrh
Majesty'saesr enfoortet
fitted
had(do vef
onhriema
permanentre heard n
ah t
comehues
greatest,
the
time
wasm.ea nsn?rteosnefowr
huolthimadateanlyy
particular love either for direct or indirect taxation ; but
experience had shown that a large direct impost in the time
of peace was not a very easy thing to keep, and to his mind
one of the most important qualties of a tax was that it
could be kept. There were several gentlemen below the
gangway who had expressed themselves strongly in favour
of direct taxation ; but unfortunately whenever any par-
ticular plan for carrying these theories into practice was
proposed they somehow were always found voting
against it. (Hear, hear.) Ho therefore thought his right
hon. friend had done very wisely in taking steps for the
abolition of the income tax ; and he thought, too, that he
had done well not to make any attempt to effect that im-
mediately. No doubt it would have been easy to have
framed a scheme on paper • for the repeal of the tax at
once, but it was very doubtful indeed whether the house
and the country would have accepted the scheme ; and it
was the duty of a finance minister not to imperil the good
features of its budget by mixing with them unpopular, and
therefore impracticable, proposals. He repeated, however,
that he was glad the right hon. gentleman did not contem.
plate the continuance of the income tax, because he (Sir P.
Baring) did not believe they could ever make it approxi-
mate either to justice or perfection. (Hear, hear.) And
he had one very striking proof of this. A committee had
sat for two years on the subject with the " Nestor of
Finance" in the chair ; and yet after two years' incubation,
it had been unable to devise any plan to obviate the objec-
tion to the tax. [Mr. Hume here made gesture. of dis-
sent.] It was quite true that the committee had taken a
great deal of evidence, but they had made no report. In
this state of things the right hon. gentleman had done what
he thought any sensible man would do in such a case ; and.
they had the positive pledge of the government, that at
the termination of seven years the income tax should be
taken off. (Laughter.) It was quite true, that if the
opinions of the country should undergo a great change,
the tax might still be retained ; but, on the other hand,
they could not prevent the country in such a case from
reimposing it, if it were abolished now. His own opinion
was, that it would be more difficult to retain the
tax at the end of the seven years than to re-establish
it, if now repealed. (Hear, hear.) But it was
said that the budget gave a boon to Ireland in the
abandonment of the consolidated annuities. Now, he
(Sir F. Baring) did not argue on the strict justice of the
case • but, after the report of the Lords' committee--(hear,
hear)—he was bound to say he could not look upon the re-
mission of a part of these annuities as any compensation
to Ireland for the income tax, because she had to a certain
extent a right to that remission without being subjected to
any additional taxation. (Cheers from the Irish members.)
What were the comparative benefits to Ireland and Eng-
land from the present proposal ? (Hear, hear.) Without
attempting to capitalise the different funds, he would take
the advantages and disadvantages to each from the whole
budget, and also after 1860. What were we paving now
He would put out of sight the taxes to be paid by Ireland
and England equally, and the advantages given to both—
the legacy duties and the remission of the tea duties, for
instance. Independent of the reductions common to both,
the relief to Ireland would be 245,0301. from the Consoli-
dated Annuities, while the additional taxation would be
668,0001.—a balance of 423,0001. to be paid more by Ire-
land. In Great Britain the new taxes imposed would be
403,000/. ; the immediate relief in soap, assessed taxes,
post-horse duty, 1,442,000/. ; being a relief of upwards of
one million. (Cheers from the Irish members.) Under
these circumstances, was it quite fair to place the income
tax on Ireland, and thus make it pay 426,0001. additional
taxation? (Hear, hear.) At the end of 1860, the ultimate
relief to Ireland would only be 46,0001. a year ; to Great
Britain it would be 5i millions from the income tax alone,
and in the whole, 6,993,00/. ; while the additional taxa-
tion would only be about 200,0001. for the spirit duties in
Scotland, or a net relief of 6,715,0001. (Hear, hear.) This
being so, he should have no hesitation in refusing by hie
vote to extend the income tax to Ireland. (Cheers.) He
would make that country pay its fair share of taxation,
but nothing more ; and he hoped they should be able to
remit a part, at least, of the consolidated annuities, with-
out imposing any additional taxes. (Hear.)
Lord LOVAINE said the measure was too extensive to

be considered as a whole, especially as it was to extend
to seven years. The guarantee for the abolition of the
income tax must depend entirely on the tone of the next
Parliament ; at present it was wee di little more than the
paper it was printed on. He believed that the surplus would
be ai.sorbed, before 1860, in the remission of indirect taxa-
tion now so popular. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
himself admitted that the realisation of the surplus was
dependent on circumstances over wb4ch we had no control.
Burdens had been paid. He listened with considerable in-
terest to the speech of the Inn. member for the West Rid-
ing, which he conceived tff be unanswerable. The hon.
member's sympathies had always been with the liberal
party, and his appeal to them was worthy their most seri-
ous consideration. It should be remembered that the in-
come tax would only be on the amount actually received,
that it would not touch farmers whose rents were under
2001. a year. The new taxation was laid on those shoulders
which had suffered least from the famine, and had gained
most by the general cheapening of the necessaries of life
which had been the effect of that direct taxation which
England had hitherto borne alone. He should be glad. to
raise his voice in favour of equal rights and privileges to
his fellow-countrymen, but on the other hand he thought
they ought to bear an equal share of the imperial burdens.
The Marquis of GRANBY had always his opinion that
the income tax was an unequal and an unjust tax, and that
opinion had been rather confirmed than otherwise by this
debate. He had the authority of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer for the soundness of that opinion. He agreed
in all the facts and statements of the right hon. gentleman,
but he dissented from his conclusion. He agreed with him
that it was a tax they could not make fair or equal or just,
and the conclusion he (the Marquis of Granby) came to
was that they ought, as soon as they possibly could, to get
rid of so odious and oppressive a tax. But instead of that
the right hon. gentleman proposed to extend it for a longer
period than it had ever been extended to before. It was
true the right hon. gentleman said at the end of seven
years it would expire, but looking at the changes which had.
taken place, notwithstanding the right hon. gentleman's
talents, he thought his being in office at the end of that
time was exceedingly problematical. If it was continued.
till that time he thought a majority of the house would
become paupers. (Laughter.) The hon. member for the
West Riding asked why the income tax was to be kept
solely for a war tax, while customs and excise were to be
kept on in war and peace, and that the income tax was as
good a tax as customs and excise. He was not the person
to defend the excise duties, and he should be happy to see
the hon. gentleman voting for the repeal of the malt duty
the next time it was propeaed. With regard to the cus-
toms duties, numbers of these duties were repealed every
year. The hon. gentleman ss.id he knew a mode of getting
rid of one objection to the tax, and he alluded to the
practise in America. where tradesmen did not return
their own income, but they were assessed by the as-
, they might
in England.thusth
they could
Soon f
not
afterwards, ho
cheat the reve:ovueema
inigh
r,
he said the great objection to the tax was that per-
sons did not like to have their affairs overlooked, but the
very plan which the hon. gentleman recommended necessi-
tated the opening of their books to the assessor. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had shown clearly that the taxation
on professional incomes and on real estate was about omneses
pay 7d.
payingailnptrhoepeportuynd,nwhheileproprofessslozi: taxl inland
the proposed
hon. gentle-
mantwo millions a-year in addition.
but 9thde.
basis,twnasa fair and just tax,
independently of the income tax,iw
took the legacy duty on its
it
point, and show that
he was ready to meet him on that _
and said that,
that of late years
f th landed wet
en in favour o e eresu,
es fde rt
hole
the local burdens that were im.
luengtra t existingn
h wi circumstances, seeing
but of othor classes, seeing
land, and that they had
rerflem
whether it was fair and just to Im-
pose on land, and theb
e i.
lb
iti
ougr dpaealni
these
eesland regarded
ndfacts,t9,
x thehe insteadtaras
kn
of
the
legacy duty;
gentleman with the •
pose this tax, concurrently income tax, upon
them
right hon.
Sir C. WOOD said two parties were opposed to
the
budget. The noble lord who had just sat down f • l
presented one class of opponents, namel the l air
y l'e‘
y,landowners The other opponents were represented
land. The latter objected altogether to
b members for Ire.
income tax to Ireland. But did the am the extensiond of the
the extension of the income tax to Irelal ,ment object to
the amendment say that %eye was nyt: ' (Hear.)Did
land, that greater consideration oh an
hill-
unfair
to
in the budget ? Why, the amendment tto be shown to land
verse. The amendment said,,,DO
said directly the re.
tax either to people having bet ° not
extend
the
income
unless you make a distinction •
wefen 150/. and 100/. a-yearp
fessions." Well, then, if the inblevolir of
trades
end
Pr°.
near him representing the landednl!rd and those who sat
amendment proposed by the h interest voted for the
they voted for this, that a furtheror:tnember for Hertfordshire,
trades and professions, which boon should be given to
would make it more unfair.
He was not surprised then,
should feel astonished at
that the member for Malden
the speech by which 'it wan •
faced. The representatives of the landed pre
this e interest both in
country and in Ireland, would do well to consider
what was the real purport and scope of the amendment
before they voted for it. (Hear, hear.) He maintained that
the amendment was more adverse to the landed interest
than the proposition of his right hon. friend, because it
proposed to give trades and professions an advantage which
land would not enjoy. That might be wise and politic in
itself, but at all events it was not for the benefit of the
landed interest. (Hear, hear.) As a landowner, he would
say now what he had often said before, that the interests
of all were bound up together, and that the trade and
manufactures of the country could not flourish without
e
land. participating in their prosperity. (Cheers.). _TI
landed interest had before now neglected thee.govrs :vi!._in.
had been given them from his side of the 11rop:sed'uan'
what was the consequence ? Hie nobliseefdn; a P
and a few years
Bs. duty on corn, which had been
ta refused
off. (Cheers.) The
afterwards the whole duty
Disraeli) ii) made a proposal Trigg
right hon. gentleman (MI. in

ty on personal pro:
bill to extend it-to u
but he was bb
ad a third-Gm&
nly •
t neithet.a,_ 4• a ;
pie 104>%,„
ChaneM:
I for ha ;1+ 71"1"b
the bud: • f-----
hick he df-
scheme, it rfsmav
ce. (Hear, hear.)