The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 26, 1853.

this might have been done consistently with maintaining
the other portions of the budget. (Hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND assured his hon. friend the
member for Pontefract that he never rose to address the
house in a mood less humorous in all his life. There
seemed to be nothing particularly lively in the income
tax. And although the powers of his honourable
friend (Mr. Milnes) might have produced a poetic bud-
get, yet neither the right honourable gentleman who
was last Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the right hon.
gentleman who now filled the office, had ever been able
to lay before the house 'really more than that the common
sum of twenty pence made ls. Bd. ; and he was sadly afraid
they would not be able to get beyond the matter of fact
dullness of pounds, shillings, and pence. (Hear.) But he
had risen principally to make an observation in conse-
quence of the observations of the hon. baronet the member
for Hertfordshire respecting the'successionlof real property.
It was said that the tax was a total dismemberment of the
aristocracy, and a breaking up of all landed property. The
fact was it was a tax not upon property, but upon elder
brothers and nothing more. The elder brother ho had no
doubt was generally the best and most distinguished of the
family—he was willing to believe so, but he must remind
the house that ever since he could remember the exemption
had been felt as a very serious evil by the younger brothers.
The hon. baronet talked of the subject being likely to
break up the aristocracy. Now he paid very little attEn-
tion to the honourable baronet's expectations, but he did
pay some respect to historical facts. 'Whatt was it, and
who were the persons, that broke up the whole of the
landed aristocracy in Franco ? It was the younger
brothers in the National Convention ; it was the jealousy
they felt that when their fathen made a will, they left
the land to their elder brothers, who paid no tax, while if
they left 2,001. to the younger brothers they had all to
pay the tax. (Hear, hear.) Then it was said this was a
new thing in the country. He did not know where those
who made this assertion could have derived their historical
knowledge, for everybody must know it was the oldest tax
in the country. It lasted from the Conquest down to the
reign Henry VIII. It was, therefore, anything but a new
tax. But it had been said, "If you go to a dissolution,
you will present this budget in contrast to the last." Now,
what was the thing that beat the last budget ? A most un-
fair run upon the house tax—a most unfair advantage taken
to excite clamour in the towns. It was by that the former
,budget was known ; and if they went before the country, it
would be to save the elder sons from being taxed on succes-
sions to land and putting it upon the house tax. This was
the way in which it would be presented at the hustings.
The landed interest might rest assured that the enormous
influx of gold was tending immensely to their interest, and
immensely to the detriment of the stockholder. (Hear.)
He was aware there were gentlemen who expected to see
the income tax taken off. When he first read the speech
of Sir Robert Peel in introducing the property tax, when.
he talked about its being for three years he thought it a
gross piece of imposture. He never believed:that Sir Ro-
bert Peel had the most distant intention of so passing it ;
and when the present house passed it, whether it was for
one year or not, no•man now alive within its walls would
ever see it repealed. (Hear, hear.) It was all very well
to talk of seven or five years. It would go on to everlast:
,ing. But the hon. baronet opposite said, and the right
honourable gentleman did not deny it, that the income tax
was a very immoral tax, and that it wa§ the tendency of
the law to make men immoral. He denied it. Did our
law allow men to adulterate bread, butter, wine, and
milk? Only the other day he passed the shop of a manu-
facturer of pickled cabbage, and in the window, .under-
neath a number of bottles, he saw several carboys of oil
of vitriol. (Hear, hear.) This was not ithrough the law.
The law did not make men immoral. The cry was all very
well for the hustings, but it was not true that the shop-
keepers of London were made immoral by the law. Now,
with regard to the income tax, it was not fair to object
that the budget might be retained with the income tax as
it was, for the income tax had been declared to be the sub-
stratum by which the national debt might ultimately be
paid off; and it was the first time that any such machi-
nery had ever been proposed for such a purpose. It was
not fair either to object to the tax because it was unpopu-
lar, unless some other means of raisirg the necessary funds
could be obtained. Under all the circumstances, his belief
was that the landed interest would do wisely not to object
to the tax. It was perfectly clear, by the fate of the last
budget, it was in the power of parties in that house, who
chose to make a run against any budget, so to adapt their
policy as to overthrow every budget that could be drawn.
Well, if they were determined that wo never again should
have a budget, then ha would say, let the house be ad-
journed sine die.

Mr. MUNTZ rose with great regret to oppose the budget
of the right hon. gentleman—(Opposition cheers)—for there
was a great deal in the budget of which he approved, and
which would bo of great :service to the country at large.
(Hear, hear.) If ho could have salved over his conscience

et
to the
as easily as the hon. member for Pontefract had done—(a
laugh)—he should have sat still and made no remark ; but
groundhaving ofori gioxnpaeldilyevnooyte,dhfo wonr
othe income
fol-
lowlt
up the opinions which he had at that time held, and
quitee tax
at libertye only
y
had held ever since. He considered the continuation of
the income tax a foul blot in the budget of the right hon.
gentleman, and did not see why he could not withdraw
the budget and amend it, as so many other Chancellors of
the Exchequer had done. If the sight hon. gentleman
would do so, he (Mr. Muntz) would give him his support,
but if ho declined taking that advice, and persisted in re-
taining his measure in its perfection, then he must give it
his opposition. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. STANHOPE said if the income tax was to be
permanent, as ho believed it would be, it was most impor-
tant that its inequalities should be at once removed. It
pressed much more heavily.npou the owner of house pro-
perty than upon the mortgagee ; and as rega-ded land, he
could declare that he had himself for several years spent 30
per cent. in improving an estate which had previously ill-
managed, which he had been assessed upon all he had re-
ceived. As regarded the case of tenant farmers, the con-
versations which he had had with come of the best mem-
bers of the class convinced him that farmers required that
they should be assessed upon one-third of their rental in-
stead of one-half. (Oh.) They ought, like merchants, to
be taxed in proportion to their receipts. (Hear.)
Mr. J. BALL said several members who had spoken on,
that (the Ministerial) side of the house having declared that
they spoke in the name and on behalf of their constituents,
he must protest against that mode of putting the question,
as inconsistent with the gravity and extent of the interests
at stake. He could not ielp suspecting that the new
movement for the abolition of the income tax originated
in a desire to prevent the imposition of the legacy duty.
(Hear. hear.) Representing as he did an Irish constitu-
ency, he had taken the trouble to compare the effects of
the proposed changes upon Ireland. The relief arising from
the measure he estimated at 422,0001., the new taxation at
396,0001. The app,;,rent advantage to this country was
trifling, but they must not forget the benefit of the mass
of consumers. (Hear, hear.) It did not much surprise
him that the hon. member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), repre-
senting a rich mercantile community, should object to his
constituents being called upon for their fair share of bur-
dens ; but that an hon. gentleman, who knew how the
poor cultivator had been ground down by local taxation.
should object to the immediate relief now proffered, did
indeed fill him with astonishment. If Irish members, op-
posed to the budget, had a definite policy, let them state
it. (Hear, hear.) It was rumoured in public prints that
magnificent promises had been made to them ; and, if the
case were so, representing as he did a poor country, he did
not know how far he might be tempted by such consider-
ations. (Ironical cheers.) As an Irish member he scorned
to appear there as a mendicant. He did not want any
favour for his constituency, but simply justice.
Mr. GROGAN felt bound to oppose the resolutions, and
denied that Ireland would derive benefits from the budget
sufficient to compensate for the imposition of the income
tax. The new taxes, income tax, and spirit duties, would
amount to 658,0001., and the remission of the annuities to
245,090/., leaving a balance as against Ireland of 413,00)1.
He could not therefore accept the measure as a fair adjust-
ment of taxation.

Mr. COBDEN and Mr. MACGREGOR rose together, the for-
mer moving the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. HUME hoped the adjournment would be to this
day, as they all knew the fate of debates that were allowed
to lie over.
The CHAIRMAN said that consistently with the stand-
ing order, the debate must be adjourned to Wednesday or
Friday.
Mr. W. S. KNOX protested vehemently against an ad-
journment to Wednesday, and againe, .the proceedings of
the Government generally with respect to this debate. He
had been a member of the house for seven years, and had
never Been such proceedings before. (Laughter.)
A short conversation ensued between Lord J. RUSSELL
and Mr. DISRAELI on the point of order, and it was ulti-
mately arranged that the noble lord should move the sus-
pension of the standing. order this clay, in order that the
adjourned debate might be taken on Thursday.
TIPPERARY ELECTION.
The SPEAKER announced the receipt of a letter, stat-
ing that the petition against the return of Mr. S. Sadleir
would not be proceeded with.
CARLOW BOROUGH.
The SPEAKER also announced that the petition against
the return of Mr. Alexander had been abandoned.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. M`GREGORmoved the adjournment of the house,
at the same time expressing his opinion that liberal mem-
bers had not had sufficient opportunity of speaking on the
financial resolutions. The hon. member made ono or two
further observations, which were lost in the noise of mem-
bers leaving the house.
LONDON AND EDINBURGH GAZETTE BILL.
The second reading of this bill was, after a conversation
between Messrs. Wilson and Cowan, postponed to Thursday
next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (ADVANCES) BILL.
This bill went through committee pro forma.
•
BOROUGH OF TAUNTON.
Mr. MOFFATT postponed until Monday next his mo-
tion for the issue of a new writ for the bcrongh of Taun-
ton, promising at the same time that the evidence should i
be n the hands of members this day.
COAL DUTIES COMMITTEE.

On the motion of Sir J. SHELLEY, Mr. Deecles was
discharged from further attendance on the Coal Duties
(Metropolis) Committee ; and Sir Joshua Walmsley was
added.