The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

INCOME TAX.

Mr. PACKE wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, having his assurance that the income tax
shall cease at the end of seven years, whether be will
have any objection to give an option to. compound for
the future payment of the tax, by a payment in one sum,
or by instalments.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
quite willing to take the matter into consideration, but,
at the same time, looking at the long period the tax
would have to run, there would be considerable diffi-
culty in meeting such a proposal, and therefore his an-
swer must not be viewed in the light of a pledge.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Mr. SPOONER wished to know if it was intended
to take the miscellaneous estimates before the budget
was disposed of.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the negative.
Sir W. CLAY would be glad to know if it was the
intention of the noble lord to carry out his original pro-
mise of granting Thursday evening to the hon. member
who wished to submit a motion to the house on the sub-
ject of church rates ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was.
LEGACY DUTY.

In reply to Lord A. VANE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no
distinction would be made in extending the legacy duties
between property under settlement and property under
trust. Property under settlement would nave no pre-
ference whatever. (Hear.)
THE BUDGET—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The house then went into committee of ways and means,
and the adjourned debate on the budget was resumed by
Sir W. CLAY, who said that the financial mea-
sures of the Government had his entire and
hearty approval. He believed that their rejec-
tion by the house would occasion disappointment
not only in the metropolis, but throughout all the great
towns in the kingdom. In his opinion they were wise
and prudent, as well as bold and comprehensive,
and in addition to giving an important and im-
mediate relief in regard to taxation, they held out the
prospect of laying a safe and solid foundation for our
fiscal system. The Government financial scheme was
built mainly on the propositions of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer as to the income and property tax, and if
they were rejected, that scheme must be altogether aban-
doned. The hon. hart. entered into the discussion of the
various arguments used against the extension of the in-
come tax to Ireland, contending that those arguments
had wholly failed in convincing him that the extension
of the tax combined with the remission of the Consoli-
dated Annuities was unjust to the people of that coun-
try. The main feature of the G'overnment plan
connected with the income tax was its gradual and final
extinction. He considered it was impossible to expect
that the tax could at once be totally repealed. That
could only be done in two ways—either by the gra-
dual accumulation of the surplus revenue until
it exceeded the expenditure by the amount of the in-
come tax, or by substituting another tax ; and while he
believed the country would not assent to the first plan,
he considered that no minister would be found who
would venture to propose another tax as a substitute.
But by the gradual diminution of the tax, and by fixing
a period for its final extinction, the house had it within
its power to get rid of the tax altogether. He
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite
right in the course which he had taken, both in a
social and economical point of view. On the whole, he
thought that the budget was entitled to the approbation
of the country, and he should give it his cordial support.
S house
anoxdot
ei
oF o.n
intolerablelKtr
heEleaL ngLdrbo,Yun
burdens
without
:nth!
ooaoustnet
they
heat
yenh eaf
ol
already
nre e s
eo
dl u
parttio resolutions
ofbeforea
scheme
infteraexsatt;ionb,ecwahuisceh
twheays psoreuggnhatnttowietyxhtepnnpedrwe, enlarged,
thesse d
income
unprecedentedjustificationbadecaand on ee t
hey o or e anyrgi
ob
political or other necessity ;
period
to perpetuate, or continue for the
of 7 years the income tax, with all those intolerable ine-
qualities which had brought diseodfittohnetpheeoLpleerihsaladture
and under which so many classes.
suf-
fered.

Sir FITZROY KELLY opposed the resolutions, be
cause they formed part, of a scheme of taxation pregnant
with au enlarged and intolerable burden upon the already
oppressed landed interest ; because the income tax was,
without justification or political necessity, extended to
Ireland in time of peace, and with a financial surplus in
hand ; because, without any ground, it was proposed to

continue the income tax unmitigated an& Anchanged • and
because—and this was his main objection—the resolutions
sought to perpetuate the injustice and inequidity which
had brought discredit on the Legislature, and under which,
so many persons suffered severely. In the course of 'a pro-
longed speech in support of these views, he expressed his
hope that so•lne one connected with Ireland would move
for a committee to report on the ability of that country to
bear addiiional burdens, and entered into a comparison of
the last and present budget as regarded the taxation of the
fundholder. Introducing animadversion on the way in
which, be said ministers had recently evaded a guarantee
they could not violate, he deduced an argument that there
v'i'i no ground for confidence that any words which could
be, introduced into the bill would bind-a ministry to ter-
minate the tax in 1860.
' Mr. LOWE, remarking that Sir F. Kelly's speech had
not been addressed to the amendment, proceeded to deal
with his arguments, amusing the committee by showing
to what they led, and describing the deduction of Sir
F. Kelly really to be that every person in every schedule
of the income tax was entitled to a large reduction.
Ho admitted that any tax was unjust per se; and in
answer to the demand for graduation, contended that
what Mill had laid down as the abstract justice of
taxation, namely, the requiring equal sacrifices
from all parties, was impossible. He confessed that
some of the flagrant errors might be corrected, and
schedule D might, for instance, be dealt with ; but we
should thereby introduce a new element into the system,
and no longer ask what income a man had, but how he
obtained it, and we should immediately have a revolution
and social war in each of the schedules. He, for example,
had a small property in Australia, which he would not ex-
change for one of the same value in London, and it would
become a matter of complaint that his income was acci-
dentally derived under more favourable circumstances
than an English one. Such a principle would ler d to the
subdivision of classes until all the alphabet would be
pressed into the schedules, and the tax be frittered away.
As regarded Ireland, he said that the fact shortly was,
that the service for the year was inexorable, and if Ireland
did not pay the 460,0001. some one must, and that must
bo Great Britain. What claim had Ireland to make Great
Britain her tributary ? The Government scheme was
founded on the principle of free trade, which was more
valuable even than free trade itself—namely, social and
financial equality, and the doctrine that no portion of the
people ought to be taxed for the benefit of another. As
regarded the Consolidated Annuities, some parts of Ireland
were charged with them, others not. The former surely
received ample advantage ; and as for the latter, instead
of their complaining of the hardship that an undistressed
part of the country, which had been advancing in pros-
perity, was taxed like the rest, as they ought to have been
long F.go, they ought to be thankful that they were not
charged with arrears. He sarcastically remarked upon
the hardship of taking a burden off a poor cottier to put it
upon a man with at least 100/. a year. Denying that this
was a "rate-in-aid," and declaring that it was an Imperial
tax for Imperial purposes, he demanded whether the word
Union was a meaningless formula ; and urged that we
were not entering into a convention with a foreign country.
He observed that it would have been easy for Mr. Glad-
stone to have got rid of three-fourths of the speeches in
this debate, if he had chosen to deal with the income tax
as the late Government had proposed to do, and had stooped
to mean truckling to gain a temPorary popularity.
Mr. ISAAC BUTT contended that the tax was unjust
as an Imperial one, and especially unjust as regarded Ire-
land, and that no reasonable prospect was held out of its
terminrAtion at the end of seven years. He urged that by
the budget carriages and attorneyswere relieved from taxa-
tion., that the struggling class of artisan and trader might
be burdened. As to Ireland, he thought it would be well
worth while to relieve her representatives from such taunts
as Mr. Cobden's, but then her whole financial condition
must be examined, and it must be shown that she was to
be fairly dealt with. He denied the unwillingness of the
Irish to pay their debts, and hoped he had shown that
Irish gentlemen might oppose the budget for other reasons
than those which had been imputed to them, lavishly, if
not liberally. Referring once more to Mr. Cobden's allu-
siontomthainh;
efigahmtT head
e challengedby shn
himmbe to makersforthe ‘g`jooob a
jobbery
of Kilhis
words.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY contended that it was clear from
the disposition of the English Parliament, that an income
tax for Ireland was inevitable ; and, therefore, that it was
better to take it at the hands of those who would also give
good government than from those in whom he had less con-
fidence. There was a reasonable guarantee for its extinc-
tion in 1860. The remission of the consolidated annuities
was a very important boon, and he would only look at the
question as one affecting the whole of Ireland. He also
remarked upon the advantage Ireland had derived from
free trade, while paying no tax.
Mr. CONOLLY argued that the imposition of this tax
upon Ireland was unjust, and denied the right of Govern-
ment to treat the consolidated annuities as a just debt.
Mr. ROCHE did not think the income tax the most un-
just tax existing, and pointed out the equal injustice of
the incidence of many indirect taxes; and he believed that
in 1860 the balance on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
plan would be in favour of Ireland. Insisting on the value
of obtaining equality, even at a sacrifice, he expressed his
opinion that the budget was beneficial to the best interests
of Ireland.

Mr. DISRAELI—There are several hon. members con-
nected with Ireland who wish to address the committee;
who will no doubt answer the observations of the hon.
gentleman who has just sat down, but, as this debate has
not passed over a whole week—(hear, hear)--I think it
may not perhaps be presumptuous if I take some part in
it to express the opinions of some English members upon
the question before us. (Cheers.) Whether we divide
to-night or not, and I hope we may divide to-night—
(hear, and cheers)— hon. gentlemen on the other side will
clearly understand that, in all probability, many occasions
will occur on which they may offer their opinions upon
the interesting subject under discussion, for at present
we are only upon the threshold of the debate. (Hear,
hear.) Under these circumstance, then, I shall take
the liberty of offering some observations] to the com-
mittee. I am bound to say that, in considering the
budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all
that attention which so important a proposition de-
serves, to the general principles upon which his financial
policy is framed, I must give my entire apProbation.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say that in no sphit of
affected candour, or to obtain credit for a magnanimity
which is really not required by the occasion, but I say it
because I find in the principles upon which he has framed
his policy the identical principles which, only four months
ago, I endeavoured on two occasions, on the other side of
the table, to impress upon the consideration of this house.
(Cheers.) I said then, as the organ of the Government, that
I thought the time had arrived when it was necessary to
assimilate our financial policy to our new commercial sys-
tem. (Some hon. member—we believe Lord J. Russell—
exclaimed, " Hear, hear." I don't know who said
" Hear, hear." I think it 'was the noble lord opposite,
but I recollect when I made that statement four months
ago the noble lord, instead of saying "Hear, hear," rose
and, in a spirit certainly of incredulity, if not of ridi-
cule, spoke of the idea of assimilating our financial
policy to our new commercial system as a wild con-
ception, which had nothing to do with the practical
affairs of life. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) I said then,
Sir, in order to assimilate our financial policy to our new
commercial system, we must make up our minds to com-
mence and to carry out a complete revision of our taxation.
Will the noble lord say " Hear, hear," to that ? I remem-
ber that when I made that observation before—and recol-
lect it is only four short months ago—the noble lord said
it was most ridiculous to enforce a complete revision of
our taxation ; that our taxation had been revised more
than once ; that anything like a formal revision of taxa-
tion was quite unnecessary, and out of the question ; that
all wa could do was to let the principles which had been
established with respect to our finance operate in a natu-
ral manner, and that any proposal to have a formal or
complete revision of taxation was one of those phrases
which could never influence the affairs of the world. I am,
however, extremely glad to find that the noble lord is so
ready to encourage me at the commencement of my obser-
vations. (A laugh.) But it was not merely the noble
lord who entertained this opinion. We had a speech de-
livered to-night—a very able speech, delivered, unfortu-
nately, in a thinner house than it deserved—by a member
of the Administration, the secretary of a board, and, I be-
lieve, the secretary of a board because he made a speech
against the last budget. (Hear, and laughter.) What did
that hon. gentleman say on the same subject? The hon.
gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr.
Lowe), in the month of December last, saw no case made
out for any revision of taxation. "All that they had to
do," he said, " was to continue going on as they had gone
on hitherto." (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) We
shall have several more of these assenting cheers—(laugh-
ter)—and I can assure hon. gentlemen they are very agree-
able to me to listen to. (Hear, and a laugh.) The hon.
Secretary to the Board of Control continued :
" When the surplus shall be disposed of by their making
further remissions of taxation, on the same
principle as former
remissions had been made, which led to the wonderful exten-
sion of trade, commerce, and increasing revenue, which all
acknowledged, they would then have done all that a wise Go-
vernmentad a prudent Legislature could do under the cir-
cumstances."

I Hh
the ar.
hon.) Now,meinbleert hon.
for gentlemen
Kidderminster,
for
I m theseay
ewtrroo
recur
words
rahs
order
to them. That hon. gentleman has spoken to-night,
liinstetnhieng
taobsmeneee,nowun,
afonrtduinnateslvye,ry odfiffimianwntyhisephwirlliitofroarine
that which he manifested on the occasion to which I have
just referred. It must be remembered that I said that,
while it was absolutely necessary to assimilate our financial
policy to our new commercial system, and that that object
could only be effected by a complete revision of our taxa-
tion, I said also that there were two thin
Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer should not, under the circumstances
rthefirsagrinefartoomb
jceloeitnego,nladndnowit
btehoautttohinaevidn.g recourse to
things ? One of them was, that the Chancellor of the Ex-
wchasequteor
bmeusstnianpolit
esdhribnyktfhreompromposkssinigofanedwefitcaixenescyin
to carry out his system • and the other was, that it was
absolutely necessary that he should not bound his opera-
tions by the horizon of the financial year, but that he
might even presume to attempt to regulate financial
operations for a longer term. Now, how wsueprpolythtehse
propositionse
received by the noble lord and his colleagues ?
Why,
hy
language can express the reprobation—(cheers
ifrom:sthe Opposition)—with which the heretical idea was
received, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel
vacuum by duty
the
t create
sZodefieiency and to
new tax. (Cheers and
laughter.) That indignation was not confined to the
Secretary of the Board of Control, who was then for
standing upon the ancient ways. (A laugh.) What said
that high authority the right hon. member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge ? (Hear, hear.) That right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Goulburn) was particularly alarmed upon the
subject, and described to the house the very unorthodox
manner in which it was then proposed that the finances of
this country should be administered. He said—
" But mark how different was the bis on which this and
former Governments proceeded. They proceeded on the
basis of having first secured by a skilful management of the
receipts and expenditure of the country a largo available
balance, out of which they could afford to make reductions.
They did not in the first place create a deficiency, and then
call upon Parliament to make it up by fresh taxation."
(Cheers.) Well, what were the feelings of the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject? I don't
know whether the right hon. gentleman , is present, but I
shall bo sorry to make any comments upon what he has
said in his absence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
seemed to be struck with some horror at the proposition—
(a laugh)—and he said, speaking of me almost iu a tone of
derision,—" He is going to impose ono tax in order to re-
peal another tax. (Hear, and laughter.) Now, that is a,

most uncommo:Ei proceeding on the part of a Chancellor of
the Exchequer. ' But, great as was the Indignation of
rho
members of the present Government, because I had recourse
to the first method which was necessary to carry out my
policy---:namely that I should ~reatL4 dpfisii6ncy— - 4
Atipply it by hew taxation, their indignation vas
still
grO'Ettut that I should presume to antieirmte the manage-
ment of our finances for a period more advanced than
the
termination of the impending financial year. (Hear, hear.)
I may quote upon this subject again the words of the hon.
member for Kidderminster, because, as ho has shown to-
night ho is not only an lietletitable inhinber but a very
high-minded Member. (Laughter.) He has told us to-
night, that he is one of those gentlemen who never will
sacrifice anything for ephemeral popularity—(Hear, and a
laugh)— that ho is a man who would not to-clay say one
thing and to-morrow say another to gain temporary ends.
(Hear, hear,) Listen, then, to the words of the hon. mem-
ber for Kidderminster, and I quote hiss speech, for it was
a single speech, and one that received a memorable reward.
(Cheers and laughter.) Mark, that in order to carry into
effect a complete revision of our financial system, it was
necessary to have recourse to two proceedings—the first
was to create a deficiency by the remission of taxes, which
could only be supplied by the proposition of others ; and
the second was that a Chancellor of the Exchequer engaged
in such an enterprise must not shrink from attempting to
control the financial management of more than the financial
year. That, however, was not the opinion of the Secre-
tary of the Board of Control. He said,—
" The right hon. gentleman" (my humble self) " had given
them two budgets to consider; one for 1853, the other for
1854. The wisest man would have enough to do in attempt-
ing to arrive at a correct view of the financial condition of a
great country, even for a single year."

(Cheers from the Opposition). But now we have a budget
for seven years—(prolonged cheering from the Opposition
benches)—and, not content with this—not content with
regulating the commercial arrangements of the country
for seven years—the Government accompany that measure
with financial propositions that fix the rate of interest for
nearly half a century. (Cheers.) Really I think this is
rather a remarkable contrast to have occurred within the
space of four months in the opinions of a statesman who
would not say one thing to-day and another to-morrow for
mere ephemeral popularity, the only difference being that
the economic gentleman who was the member for Kidder-
minster four months ago is now Secretary to the Board of
Control. (Laughter.) Hon. gentlemen will doubtless ex-
cuse these frank comments. I make not these quotations
by way of taunt. ("Oh !" from the Ministerial, and cheers
from the Opposition.) I have a perfect right to make the
quotations, and I am justified in making them, to vindi-
cate the course I took on the occasion to which they refer,
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, having given my approbation
to the general principles on which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's financial scheme is founded, because, I have
before observed, it is, in fact, the identical process by
which I myself attemptedi to operate (" No, no' " from the
Ministerial, and "Hear, hear," from the Opposition
benches)—the process is the same, though the application
is different—(hear, hear)—l have now to see whether I can
bestow the same approbation upon the application of the
principle as I give to the principle itself. I come first to
the consideration of the first resolution before the com-
mittee, to which an amendment has been proposed by my
hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, by this resolution, proposes to
continuo the income tax for a term of seven years. It is a
tax which has never, in our time, been proposed for a
period of that duration. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of
the Exchequer objects to provisional budgets—he objects
to our finances being in a condition which is mot esta-
blished and confirmed—he thinks that no arm of our
finance should be of a temporary or doubtful character.
There is a great authority, I am told, just published,
which seems to express the same opinion. This is the lead-
ins, article of the Economist newspaper. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) It is headed " The Budget, its Great Poli-
tical Feature ;" and it informs its readers that " Nothing
can be more disgraceful to a great nation, or injurious to
its best interests, than to permit its financial Icondition to be exposed to serious uncertainty, which has pre-
vailed in this couttry, at least since the expiry of the in-
come tax in 1851. Since then more than 5,000,0001. of
the necessary income of the country have been subject to
an annual vote." This, then, is the great political feature
of the budget, to terminate the dangerous and pernicious
oystem by which so large a portion of our income as
5,000,0001. is dependent on an annual vote of this house.
What new lights break upon us ! Perhaps I may remind
' the committee—although I confess that until I heard the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and road this authority, I
should have thought it unnecessary to do so—that at no
very remote period—no longer, indeed, than when I first
entered this assembly, a large amount of the annual re-
venue was always under the control of Parliament, and
subject to an annual vote. (Hear.) But what is more ei-
traordinary still, this state of things was held by high
constitutional authorities to be one of the securities of the
rights and liberties of the people. (Cheers.) The system
was then highly valued by all gentlemen professing liberal
opinions, not only as the safeguard of popular rights and
liberties, but also as the best security for an economical
administration of the finances. (Hear, hear.) The sugar
duties were voted annually in order that Parliament
might have a control over the annual revenue of the
country. (Hoar, hear.) In amount, too, the sugar duties
were little less than the income tax, which we are now dis-
cussing. (Cheers.) Why, it was only, at a very recent
period that the Minister of the day, having to deal with
the sugar duties, took the opportunity of appealing to the
house, on account of the question of slavery to concede that
those duties should no longer be dependent on an annual
vote and entered into a compact with the house to substi-
tute for the amount secured by those duties an equal sum
to be subject to an annual vote of the house. (Cheers.)
Who was that minister? The committee shall hear. On the
20th of July, 1846, the house resolved itself into a Commit-
tee of Ways and Means, like the present, and Lord John
Russell spoke in these words :—" I do not propose to vary
in any respect the constitutional practice of leaving a large
a considerable amount of revenue, dependent on a yearly
vote of this house, as hitherto has been the case, I shall
therefore propose some other source of revenue, which I
will state before these resolutions are formed into the
shape of a bill, to be yearly income, and for which, pre-
vious to the sth of July, the minister of the Crown shall
every year be obliged to ask the consent of parliament. I
think that it would be unfortunate that the duties on sugar
should be made the annual subject of debate, and, without
departing from a constitutional practice, I shall endeavour
to find some other duty, which it will be less objectionable
to take as an annual vote." (Cheers.) The noble lord,
who will probably follow me in debate, will, perhaps avail
himself of the opportunity to inform us what is the branch
of public revenue which, in conformity with the promise
then given, lie has provided for the annual decision of Par-
liament. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord, however,
on a point of constitutional practice, speaks with the au-
thority of a master, and ho is bound, before the committee
shall come to a vote on the resolution submitted to it, to
explain upon what grounds be supports a proposition ad-
vanced for the express purpose, as was avowed, of setting
aside the " constitutional practice of having a considerable
amount of revenue dependent on a yearly vote of this
House." (Cheers.) We have been expecting every year
that the noble lord would produce the tax over which Par-
liament should exorcise the control declared to be so valu-
able in a constitutional as well as in an economic point of
view ; but we certainly did not expect to be told that
the enjoyment of this great constitutional privilege was a
fiscal enormity—(cheers and laughter)—we did not expect
to be 'told that when, by accident, an opportunity oc-
curred of dealing with a branch of revenue, equal
in amount to, but not greater than the sugar duties, if we
exercised our power in this respect wo should endanger the
finances and expose the country to danger. (Cheers.) So
much, then, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first
proposition to renew the income tax for seven years on the
ground that it was desirable a large branch of the national
revenue shOuld not be dependent on an annual vote of Par-
liament. I differ from Le right hon, gentleman on that
point. The late Government having to propose the con-
tinuance Of the income tax, indicated that the period
should be .three years, in deference to the precedent which
had always prevailed ; but, if we had to chose between a
period of seven years and a period of ono year, I should
vote forthe latter. (Hear.) What I wish to impress-on
the cominittee is, the error of these new fangled doctrines
—that it is dangerous to have a large amount of revenue
dependent on the annual vote of Parliament ; for I believe
that if we regained the exercise of the ancient constitu-
tional privilege from which we have been too long de-
barred, it, would be in the power of this house to ensure a
better and more economical control over the finances.
I come now to the second part of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer/a proposition respecting the income tax, and that
is with regard to its assessment. The right hon. gentleman
proposes.not only to continue the tax for seven years, but
also that no difference shall be made in the mode of its
assessments. Perhaps the house will not think it imperti-
nent in ..me if I take the opportunity of explaining the
reasons why the late Government fixed on the rate of as-
sessmentswhich they recommended the House of Commons
to adopts Remember, I have never had an opportunity
of expressing my opinions on this matter. Our vote for
the income tax never came before the house. In deference
to the feeling of the house, I placed the whole financial
propositions of the late Government before it, and the
income tax resolution was included among the others, but
I said, at the time, that t not intend to ask for the
opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means on the
question until after Chrifitmas, and that all I then de-
sired was, that the house should be in possession of the
principle on which wo proceeded. The noble lord the
member for London, when a candidate for a scat in Parlia-
ment lately, said I had declared I had not had time to look
over the schedules of the income tax. I suppose men may
say anything when they are on the hustings. (Cheers and
laughter.) Great license, wo know, is permitted under
such circumstances, and therefore I should have made
no remark on that statement of the noble lord, had I not
heard it stated on Friday last, in sentences of solemn pro-
priety, that the debate on my proposition respecting the
income tax had confessedly broken down. Why, there
never was,any discussion on the subject. I never said that
I had not looked over the schedules of the income tax ;
and perhaps those who make these assertions are not as
well acquainted with them as myself. (Hear, hear.) What
I said was, that between the time when I publicly an-
nounced the rate of difference we proposed in the schedules,
and the end of a week following, I had not had time to
refer to the practical authorities to make an adjustment in
harmony with the settlement we proposed, but that no
alteration,that could be made would materially affect the
financial results which I had laid before the house. Let
me remind the committee of the circumstances under which
we undertook the revision of the taxation of the country,
the first steps towards which was the proposition I sub-
mitted to„ the house ; for I stated, at the time, that it was
,
not a conglete system. It was our opinion that the taxa-
tion of, is country unduly pressed on the interests con-
nected of_
the land. (Hear, hear.) That opinion we
expressed' openly ; we had no wish to conceal it. It was
our opinion that after the abrogation of a protective policy,
the best Diode of assisting a class subjected to unrestricted
competition was to lessen the cost of production, and we
thought that that could not be done without is general
1 revision of the system of taxation. (hear.) This policywas openly announced ; nothing was hidden ; our object
was avowed, and the mean by which we intended to attain
that object were publicly.: announced. (Hear, hear.) If
we could convince the country that our policy was as justl we
did not despair of attaining our object ; but
fornlsesd
in
Could convince the country that ourpolicy ns
nor did we
justice, we know that it would not be accepted,
I desire that it should be. The principle of unrestricted com-
I petition having been recognized, it became my duty
the
avowed
'commence the revision of our financial system with
view of removing its undue pressure on land. It
was impossible for us to carry those measures into effect;
it was impossible for us to sustain the operations which we
contemplated without the aid of the income tax—that tax
1
against wbich so much odium had been excited, and in our
opinion, in a great degree, so unjustly excited. It was our
opinion, having to revise the whole system of our taxation,
with the avowed purpose of relieving the land from an
undue pressure, that it was absolutely necessary we should
conic to the commercial classes with some exposition of
1 what we really believed was the undue pressure of one par-
-1 ticular thx upon them, and of our willingness to remove the
injustice of that tax with respect to the trading, tho coin-

mercial, and manufacturing classes. I make no contrasts
hew-- cnir time is too precious—between income derived
from realized property and incomes the result of intelli-
gence and skill. We have no time for rhetoric now; but
there is not a man in this house who has not contemplated
the question, end rho is not ashamed by the contrast,
whatever his opinion nie,l be on the ,general financial ques-
tion,—and I appeal alike to the brain and to the heart of
every man to come to a verdict of that kind. But I will
meet the question of the trading and the commercial
classes—those classes connected with terminable annuities.
I shall put before the committee in a brief and succinct
formula a contrast that brought conviction to my mind,
and it is necessary to my argument, end in vindication of
the course I am now detailing, that I should place before
you briefly and clearly the considerations which led to our
determination. There is a man with 20,0001. which he in-
vests in realised property. Well, I will suppose that he
obtains 8001. a year for it, being at the rate of 4 per cent.
There is another man who hag the same amount of capital,
who invests it in property perishable at the end of 20
years--Tin silks, in machinery, or in annuities terminable at
that time, The one man who receives for his 20,0001.
_6O
of
e72_ s3oali:
years,baemi
no gu
entrth ieint
interest,
st
ett
eerrde
Ins Int la:
bet
ei4s hpaebrl
Annuity,eperno tp: e,e r tx
tayhe
tviested in real property 8001. yearly ; the other receives for
aatlttytalltefethi
Ide.
end of twenty years will supply the capital which has
perished. (Hear, hear.) Take that case—it takes in all.
But how do you tax the two men ? You tax the
man who
owns the realised property at the rate of 241. a year, and
you tax the 1,4731., which is virtually also realised pro-
perty, at the rate of 441. a year. And this is the system
pwilli.ofcehssytooubaertal3elegcutriasrurPrprrtes—(entcaliteievrses) --f s-
theis i c
commercial
you, w ho
presently show you, mos
body, are now going to establish for a term of seven years,
as you say, but, as I shall
pro-
bably for ever. (Hear, hear.) You aro taxing the pro-
perty of those classes whom you are sent here to represent
nearly double the amount, and you do this while at the
same time you continuo to tell us that you are doing so in
the interest of the trading and commercial classes. (Cheers.)
With these facts before us, with a conviction that the as-
sessment was unjust, we feel that it was absolutely neces-
sary in order to put the case to the commercial classes when
asking them to agree to the continuance of the income tax
that we might carry out a revision of our financial system,
with the avowed purpose of relieving the land from an un-
due pressure —it was necessary, I say, that we should ac-
knowledge the existence of inequalities in the system of
assessment of the income tax. We never proposed the
difference of 4 and of per cent. as a financial arrange-
ment. Wo offered it only as the acknowledgment of a
principle. (Hear, hear.) the right honourable gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that land is not
taxed more than any other property under the schedule,
in which land and all real property is included ; and the
right hon. gentleman further says, that when you take
into consideration the burdens on land you ought to in-
clude all the local taxation. Strong phrases these from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer ! (Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) Significant acknowledgments from that side of
the house, when I remember the five years during which I
endeavoured to press upon the house an acknowledgment
that there were burdens peculiar to land. (Hear, hear.)
When I remember;,that I was told, night after night, and
by no one more earnestly, more continuously, or more
consistently than by the members of the present Govern-
ment, that the idea of local taxation was a burden upon
land was a more illusion, I say it is satisfactory to me to
have lived to find on acknowledgment of its being true in
the basis, to a certain degree, of the financial arrangement
before the committee. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is a dif-
ference of 2d. in the pound in the schedules between the
assessment of real property and the assessment of other
kinds of property. Well, sir, I will not stop to analyse
the data upon which the right hon. gentleman has ar-
rived at his conclusion, but he may be sure that he will
be reminded of this conclusion before these debates are
over. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I say that it was not
as a complete financial arrangement, but as the ac-
knowledgment of a principle made in the spirit of con-
ciliation, that I made that difference in the schedules.
We have now the income tax at a particular rate of assess-
ment, but no certainty that that assessment shall not be
changed. We have a Government that professes to deal
more largely with the income tax than any other Govern-
ment in our experience, and deals with it for a period of
seven years. This is an age of great financial operations.
Suppose next year a Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes
to modify the rate of assessment—suppose that happens,
which happened half a century ago, when we are also
governed by " All the talents"—(laughter)—supposing the
Ministry come down to the house, and propose to extend
the income tax to 10 per cent., what answer would it be to
the artist, the artisan, the merchant, and the tradesman,
that the land was 2s. or 21d. in the pound more than.they
were? If our arrangement had been established, they
would at least have felt that if at a future time the impost
assumed a severer and more burdensome character gene-
rally, they, at least, must find considerable relief in the
change in the assessment. And, sir, I still maintain that
in coming forward to ask the commercial classes to grant
us the income tax, in order that we might carry into effect
a complete revision of our taxation, the object of which
was to relieve land from an undue pressure of taxation,
according to our opinions, we were taking a prudent, a
wise, and a comprehensive course, which, carried out to its
full extent, was one which would not have been fruitless.
We were told by those who had a right to speak with au-
thority on such subjects that the plan we proposed would
not diminish the revenue, while it would most certainty
give satisfaction to the commercial classes. We believed
in the inequality of the assessment as respected the com-
mercial, trading, and professional classes, and we deemed
it our duty to endeavour to adjust the inequality, because
we were not asking them to grant the income tax for the
avowed purpose of relieving the undue pressure of taxation
on the land of the united kingdom. (Loud cheers.) Well,
sir, the right hon. gentleman opposit s, now proposes to
continue the tax, without any difference in the assessment,
for a further period of seven years. I may, perhaps, be
allowed briefly to state the reasons why I do not think
that at the end of seven years the incidence of the tax will
terminate. The first reason why I am incredulous is, be-
cause I see that the spirit of the times in which we live is
hostile to the abrogation of that tax. (Hear, hear.) I beg
the house to recollect the various aspects which the income
tax has assumed since it was first brought under our
notice by the late Sir Robert Peel. It was first brought
forward to supply a deficiency, and in order that it might
assist in the creation of a surplus out of which the indi-
rect taxation of the country might be dealt with. It
was continued again for the same purpose of creating a
surplus, which should allow you still further to deal with
the indirect taxes. Well, what is the case at the present
moment ? It is no longer proposed, in order to create a
surplus, to enable you to deal with the system of direct
taxation ; but you are so far advanced that you must grant
the income tax to support your revenue as at present
established ; and to provide for your necessary expendi-
ture ; and you ask us not only to grant the income tax,
but to lay on other taxes to the amount of nearly
3,000,000/., for the purpose of dealing with the indirect
taxation—(loud cheers)—and, considering the circum-
stances which have occurred during the last 10 years, a
man must shut his eyes to all that passes around him, and
be incapable of perceiving the temper and the signs of the
times, the thoughts and habits of his fellow-men, if he can
suppose that the income tax, having so well fulfilled the
purposes for which it was established, will be abandoned—
he must be the most credulous of men if ho can believe
that we aro standing still or retrograding. How can any
man suppose that the arguments which prevail with re-
spect to taxation will not be generally applied ? What ar-
gument in favour of remitting the tea duty does not apply
to the wino duty ? What argument is there that is
brought forward in favour of a remission of the Excise
duty on soap that does not equally apply to the Excise
duty on paper? (Hear.) Cheap sugar is one of the bless-
ings of the age. Why should you not have cheaper
sugar? (Cheers.) We have had the article of tobacco
brought under our notice lately, and we have been re-
minded that English smugglers have always made large
fortunes so long as we retained the immense impost on
tobacco. (Hear.) Well, I have also a second reason why
I think the income tax will not terminate at the end of 7
years, and that second reason I find in the whole scope of
the financial policy of the right hon. gentleman—in all his
antecedents—in the whole of his conduct and career. If
the arguments of the right hon. gentleman upon this and
upon former occasions mean anything, they mean that we
should find the means of supplying the whole of the re-
venue raised from the Customs' duties in direct taxes.
That is the natural and inevitable consequence of the right
hon. gentleman's arguments. I am perfectly willing to
concee, that when the sight hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) held out the prospect, which he did the other night,
that at the end of 7 years the income tax would cease to
exist, he was speaking with perfect conscientiousness. I
have not the slightest doubt that the sight hon. gentle-
man is sanguine in his hopes and anxious to effect a suc-
cessful arrangement, and I am ready to admit that, should
the year 1860 find him in the position of Chancellor of the
Exchequer but bring with it circumstances totally adverse
to his commercial policy, the right hon. gentleman
is so conscientious a man that it is quite likely he would
resign the office sooner than propose the continuance of
the tax for a further period. (Hear.) We shall see him,
as we did in the case of the Maynooth—(hoar)---resign his
office and retire beneath the gangway, whence the right
hon. gentleman would again rise and recommend the re-
newel of the tax ; he would sacrifice himself to save his
country. (Cheers and laughter.) I have given at least
two reasons, ono being the character and feeling of the age,
and the other the character of the right hon. gentleman,
by which I am induced to believe that the income tax will
become a permanent tax if we consent to its retention for
a period of 7 years. If that be so, it appears to me that
wo have arrived at this dilemma :—if this is to be a per-
manent tax, we are authorised, with the inequalities, the
injustice, and the odious qualities that it possesses—
are we authorised to extend it to new classes and coun-
tries without any attempt being made to mitigate these
odious qualities and to adjust those inequalities? If
it be, as I believe it avowedly is, the basis of the
Government proposition that this is to bo only a tem-
porary tax, for seven years, is it wise—is it politic, I
ask again, to introduce an impost so essentially unjust and
,hear.)
odious to new classes and new countries . 9
But that is the dilemma of the right hon. gentleman. .at
it,•
opinion is, that our proper policy would be to renew
and for a very limited time, as was proposed by the late
Government, with as much of a mitigatory character
asof the late
we could contrive. That was the proposition
hon. friend
Government, and it is the proposition of my
L ton), although
the member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. yt_
hon. friend does not
the adoption of that proposition of my
bind any gentleman who may support it to the specific
proposal of the late Govornmeitt But if this tax is not to
and its injustice are to
be mitigated, and if its inequalities
baffle both Minister and Legislature, the best thing to do
s and accruing income as you re-
ceiveis to apply your surplus
which M. •
it to the reduction of an impost no mister
can manage and no people can long endure. (Cheers.) In
the
whole of this question, in considering this important
arm of our
national finance, which the right lion. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer described with so
much power, but which I think ho described in
a manner
that conveyed an erroneous impression to hon. memb
who are not experienced in financial matter • ers
s—in consider-
ing this tax, we should always endeavour, as accurately as
we can, to ascertain whether the objects w
its perpetuation are worth the cost. (Hoar,
eare to gain by
tax upon soap is a bad tax, the tax hear.) The
and, as we obtain a surplus, these taut)" paper is bad ;
early command the attention of the Minister
I admit, should
But, when you are asked to makeet of Finance.
manent portion of our finance, you the income tax a per-
the taxes upon soap and tea are in are asked, not whether
they are—but whether it is worth
or not—of course
yourself from the incidence of ti', your while to relieve
the incothe tax. You. must follow se taxes by perpetuating
Frank-
lin, and see whether the whistle is the advice of Dr.
description of the income
is worth its price. The
right hon. gentleman gave
us
a. tax and its great achievement
West Biding (Mr. Coixien) s• The hon. member for the
it
was somewhat declamatory
but that not quarrel His
I do .
But it appeared to sue to b
an idea of the results of the
be inaccurate, or rather to convey
income tax, to which I may
be pardoned if I advert. This
is a new house, and I am
happy to say there are many young members in it, some of

____..
I whom weal born since some of the great events occurre_ dof
which we are treating. To Clem the right hon. gentleman
may have conveyed an imp-, -,ssion that with the income
equal
slight surplus surolus of expenditure—the
1 the expenses of the war,
in
tax, in addition to the ordira.zy sources of revenue, we
andy
producedet
revenue being 65,000,0001., and tin a expenditure 67,000,000/.
—or the reverse, I forget whicii way the balance was.
waithreso'eunlyile a
Now, if that were so, unqu,sstionably the income tax
would be that colossal weapon It iiich he so justly described
it. But between 1806 and 1816,. the year of the peace, the
right hon. gentleman forgot to soy that although we had a
revenue of 65,000,0001., meeting an expenditure of
67,000,0001., yet that there was simultaneously created a
vast addition to the public debt, and that between 1806
and 1816 that public debt had incresed from 600,000,0001.
to about 840,000,0001. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen
insist remember this, when they h ear of the efficacy of this
colossal instrument, that there was a deficit in 1814, 1815,
and
.1816, of 91,000,000/. That was the state of our
finances. We had an increase of our deficit simultaneously
with the use of this charmed weaposi, whose qualities the
Chancellor of the Exchequer so ably dilated on. There is
one other point the
in
income tax to which I must advert,
and that is its extension. Assuming, as I do, the perma-
nent feature of this tax, I think that no class or
country should have been exposed to it without
a mitigation of its injustice. But I must argue as if
this tax will cease. And now I have to consider its
extension to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) said that I
had proposed the extension of the income tax to Ireland,
and that I did not propose a measure to deal with the con-
solidated annuities. I must say, sir, that I see no
connexion between the income tax and the consolidated
annuities. (Cheers.) I see no connexion between the
incidence of imperial taxation and the results of local ar-
rangement, and I think it most impolitic, indiscreet, and
unwise ever to mix them together. (Hear.) Sir, I have
heard, not in the course of this debate, but of conversa-
tions within this house, of something like a compact rela-
tive to the income tax and the Irish members. (Cheers.)
Now, of all the men in this house, I am one who, perhaps,
needed less than any other to have a compact with any
Irish member as to the policy which I felt it my duty to
recommend with regard to the income tax and the conso-
lidated annuities. Four months ago I had to consider in
the responsible situation in which I was then placed, the
extension of the income tax to Ireland, and, after a ma-
tureo consideration of the subject, we unanimously came
t
the
conclusion that it would be unwise
and
inexpedient
to extend it to Ireland. We not only thought it unwise
to extend it to Ireland at the present moment, but for the
considerable period which we proposed to Parliament to
intrust us with this tax we had no immediate intention of
changing our policy in this respect. It was our opinion,
for reasons which I need not give, but it was arrived at
after ample and anxious consideration by the late Govern-
ment, that it was quite out of the question to extend the
income tax to Ireland. Sir, I fall prepared to support
the same policy now that I advocated on the other side of
the table. (Hear.) It is not true that I was not prepared
to make a proposition upon the Consolidated Annuities. I
say that these two subjects ought not to be mixed up with
each other, and that they have no necessary connexion.
On the contrary, I said that I would take the earliest day
to submit a resolution to the house ou the • Golisolidated
Annuities. I said that, after I st tted that the Got ernment
did not intend to extend the income tax to Ireland. The
proposal I was prepared to bring forward with regard to
the Consolidated Annuities was certainly not that which
the right hon. gentleman has made, but it was one founded
upon equity, which would, I think, have 4:wen complete
satisfaction to all those who were interested in the affair.
I have now touched upon the principal points of the first
resolution of the right hon. gentleman. I might stop here,
but I beg the permission of the committee—and I will not
abuse their indulgence—to allow me to expresiolimart oral
opinion which I entertain with respect to the -financial
policy recommended by the 'Chancellor of the Exchequer..
Sir, I have one great objection to that policy. Itiitiyho,p
to me that the whole of the financial policy. of tVO rights.
hon. gentleman is conceived in a spirit of injustice
skid
land. (Loud cheers.) Now, sir, that is a subject on
I have no wish to indulge in declamation, as the hon.
' member for the West Riding said of the Chancellor of the
Ezell* pier. lam ready, with the permission of the com-
mittee, to establish the truth of my opinion by reasoning
and by facts. And, as I plead for an interest which is
now surrounded for no artificial legislation—as I give yon
credit for sincerely wishing that all classes of the commu-
nity should, so far as it is possible, receive from the Legis-
turo, especially upon financia :subjects, justice,—l trust
you will listen to me with temper and toleration, and that
you will not permit the memory of ancient feuds to divert
your minds from the facts which I shall lay before you.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I would ask the committee to
view for a moment the state of our revenue in its amount.
If you look to the last returns you will find that the ordi-
nary sources of our revenue, deducting that income tax
which was only proposed as a temporary tax, and which as
a temporary tax is the basis of the financial scheme of the
Ministry—deducting that temporary tax from the ordinary
sources of revenue, the revenue amounts to about
46,000,0001. starling per annum. This great country, with
the most extensive commerce of modern times,—the most
admirable manufactures, governed by the great towns,--
this country of progress raises an imperial revenue to the
amount of 46,000,0001. sterling per annum from its ordi-
nary sources. Now, let the house observe that one-fourth
of that revenue is raised by a duty upon a single crop of
the British farmer. (Cheers.) The average of the united
duties that you levy, directly or indirectly, upon barley
is upwards of 230 per cent. (Hear, hear.) Now, let mo
show you how this system operates—how it must operate
under the financial policy recommended by her Majesty's
Government. (Hear, hear.) You are called upon in
thiS scheme to deal with the tea duties. It is unneces-
sary for me to say that that is a proposition which I can
view with no repugnance ; I have always considered that
the tea duties, per se, were a most unwise impost, and
one which a Minister of Finance, at a favourable oppor-
tunity, and in a proper spirit, ought to deal with ; and I
proved the sincerity of my views by dealing with, them.
(Hear, hear.) I make no comment to-night upon the pro-
position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect
to the tea duties : I believe that the supply is illimitable
which China can afford us of tea, and therefore, though
I should have preferred my more prudent arrangement, I
am not terrified by the arrangement of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. But if I were of the same opinion as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, that the supply was limited, then I
confess, if I wore Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should
not feel as easy as ho seems to be. (Laughter, and cries of
" Hear, bear.") But underslaad what you are going to
do. You aro going to reduce the duties upon tea more
than 100 per cent. ; you aro going to bring tea into in-
creased competition with those beverages that are prepared
from the productions of the British farmer. (Hear, hear.)
It will probably become a substitute for spirits and beer
produced from barley. (Hear.) Many gentlemen opposite
say that they have no objection to tea or to wine becoming
a substitute for spirits—for whisky, for gin, or for beer.
Well, if that is the natural course of human affairs—if
that change resulted from a concomitant change of habits
and feelings and tastes in the people, he would be a very
unwise man who should set his face against the change.
But, if that change is produced by the foreign products
entering into competition with the English products, with
the immense advantage of being taxed by half less, then
their substitution for the products of the British farmer is
in fact not the consequence of a change of taste in the pa ,-
ple, but of your fiscal injustice. (Hear, hear.) And that
is what I wish to impress upon you. Rely upon it, you
may crack jokes about reducing the malt duties, and re-
missions of duty going into the pocket of the brewer, and
maudlin philanthropists may denounce dram-drinking, and
say that they will not encourage a legislation that gases
any impetus to such a habit ; but the jests and jokes even
of a President of the Board of Control will be baffled by
the inexorable principles of political economy—(hear)—
and the maudlin philanthropist who denounces dram-
drinking, but is nothing loth to receive the dividends
which dram-drinking supplies, is not a legislator who I
hops will ever influence the decrees of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) 11.000,0001. or 12,000,0001. a-year
can never be raised without being paid by the consumer,
and, if paid by the consumer, they must restrict the in-
dustry and restrain the trade and commerce of the man
that produces. (Hear, hear.) It is of very great impor-
tance, no doubt, that we should deal with the excessive
indirect taxation that attaches to many foreign articles ;
it is of great importance that we should extend our com-
merce with India and China on a sounder basis ; and that
is one of the main reasons why we should deal with the
tea duties. It is of very great importance that we should
increase our commerce with France and the south of
Europe ; and that is a very good reason why we
should deal with the wine and brandy duties. But.
irrespective of political justice, have you considered
the fiscal consequences which must accrue if you persist in
lessening the indirect taxation upon the Chinese tea or the
French wine, and at the same time leave the enormous im-
post that exists upon the malt and the spirits thataremade,t
from British produce? (Hear.) That was the. reason that
induced the late Government to make up their minds.t,
deal with the 11,000,0001. or 12,000,0001. that you rm.:
from a tax upon a single crop of the. British farmer. W.
gentlemen opposite to increase our com-
mercewere as desirous as
with China, and to expand our trade with Franco ;
t we felt that wo had a primary duty to fulfil, and that
we were bound simultaneously to reduce the burden and
mass of indirect taxation that pressed upon the industry of
the British producer. Irrespective of political justice„
ask what must be the fiscal consequences of articless o f fo-
reign product—like tea and wine—coming in atreduced,
and, if the system of the right hon. gentleman be ever con-
summated, perhaps at nominal duties,tebaanrley of
the British
supplanting the
beverages that are produced from th
cultivator of the soil? What_ _will become of your revenue
of 11,000,0001. or 12,000,090 7 (Hoar.) By every conside-
ration of a sound finance, irrespective of political justice—
which
is a higher consu • !oration than sound finance even—
you ought at are bringing
least to take care, when you in
articles which on
tor into competition with articles produced
.
of the soil, that
English cultivator
by the into .
, s is, as you say, an unrestricted compe-
tition.
which he enters
h tis the •
(Hear.) But w a course recommended by her
'' While they majesty's Ministers- are reducing by more
than 100 per cent. the tax upon tea, while they
opportunityare pre-
pared at a favourable. probably to deal also
the same manner with wine, while they are all • in
foreign articles to enter into competition with articles
these
British growth that are subject to ad t w articles of
the only proposition they make with respect y of 200 per cent.,
of indirect taxation is to add 500,000i.espect to this amount
t,oth
is already found so oppressive.(Hear.) c amount
which
justice of the policy of the
Government as to the land with
respect to dealing with indirect tstxation. I am asking no
favour, mind you, for the land.'
shall be glad if any gentian in this behalf. (Hoar.) I
extreme views of the subject gentleman can get up, with the most
of unrestricted competition,
and vindicate theirpolicy.
if we admit foreign products Rear.)
re-
duced duties, to deal also I say we are bound,
im-iethteathand wine at much re-
which we raise from English articles,r whichaftor immense
thesetaxa t i ol
fo-
reign' products will in all probability be a substitute.
(Hear.) I cannot imagine thatthere •
is any one who will
question the policy, or the wisdom, or the justice of that
proposition. (Hear, hear.) Now, if the financial policy
of the right hon. gentleman deals with the indirect taxa-
tion in so unjust a manner as regards the land, what is it
doing at tho same time with our direct taxation ? (Hear,
hear.) Why, we find this—this is the first thing that moots
us :—A farmer finds, in the first place that the duties
upon barley indirectly affect the whole soil of the kingdom,
and that his product with an immense impost is placed in
unrestricted competition with his foreign rivals, who have
, to pay a much reduced rate ; he finds, in addition to this,
I that the indirect taxation upon the article he produces Is
increased ; and what more does ho find when he leaves the
1 domain of indirect taxation? He finds the right hon..nn
gen-
tleman saying, "You will meet this increased een P°""
auditionl to all
with increased indirect imstS and,
iu,iro going to put
this, to sustain you in the contest, 111,0'0 .
Positron of the cul-
. upon you an income-tax." That theissction 0 _ the
f proprietor
, tivator of the soil ; what is the
keeesnoil who has been told to
lof the soil—the proprietor ofint
rovement of his estate?
devote his capital to the p
to 'propose a tax which you call
(Hear.)
You are goingdties to land, whichwillact
extending the legacy u.
tax of a very considerable amount upon all teal pro
direct

perty, and, of course, if upon all real property, in a very
great degree, if not mainly, upon the land. Now, there
seems, as far as I could collect the opinion of the commit-
tee as the debate has proceeded, some little misapprehen-
sion on the subject. An hon. friend of mine, the member
for Wakefield, who has given in his adhesion to the project
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he did so be-
cause the right hon. gentleman was going to fulfil that
which Mr. Pitt failed in doing ' • and another hon. member
opposite eulogised the right hon. gentleman on the same
score, and said that Mr. Pitt had only failed by one vote in
accomplishing that which the right hon. gentleman now
proposed, and which he hoped he would succeed in accom-
plishing. (Hear.) Now, there is a very great error in
this. Mr. Pitt never proposed any tax upon settled pro-
perty of any kind. (Cheers and a laugh.) I have read the
act which Mr. Pitt brought in, and if the gentleman wha
laughs means to express any incredulity on the subject,i I
will refer him to that act. Mr. Pitt introduced two 1 ,
one of which is the origin of our present legacy duties withs
reference to personalty, and the other was a b ill which
would have extended the same system of legacyT dttyhtaos
landed property, which was not settled. (R
been alleged that it was the selfishness of the leaanralords then
in Parliament which threw out that bill. It was
nothing
of the kind. Nine tenths of the landlords in Parliament
were possessors, as gentlemen in this house are at
mr.
presentossessors, of settled estates, and the proposition of
Pitt never touched them. (Hear.) It was thrown out on
different grounds, and it was mainly thrown out from the
influence of Mr. Fox. (Cheers.) It was Mr. Fox whose
opposition threw out that bill, and tw"jciveN;tho opposedls
it on grounds to which I may hereafter advert—grounds
which
were considered sound and scientific, without doubt.un
The bill was thrown out by the selfishness of the land-
lords, and the only persons whose interests were affected
by it were the small proprietors of England, who were not
members 9f Parliament, and whose estates were not settled.
(Hear, hear.) This is a subject of very grave importance.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the President of
the Board of Control said, the other night, that the late
Government were going to propose a tax on successions.
Now I am sure either the memory of the right hon. gentle.
man must have been imperfect, or he must have spoken
from inadvertence when he said this. It was the duty of
the late Government, when they revised the taxation of
the country, not to omit so important a subject as the duty
on successions or the legacy duty ; and certainly it was our
opinion that it was most imprudent to delay dealing with
that question, and that it was a subject which, for a per.
manent settlement, ought, without unnecessary loss of time
to be brought before the house. What I did say on the
subject, within the recollection of right hon. friends near
me—and certainly I could have intended to say nothing
more—was, that we did not think it impossible to make a
proposal upon that subject which would terminate for ever
the controversy in a manner which would be recognised as
perfectly satisfactory by all parties. (Hear.) And that was
not a vague phrase ; that proposition was a matured pro-
position ; and probably in the course of this discussion—
though I will not trouble the house with it now—l may be
a ble to submit it to the consideration of the house. But,
Sir, in considering the question of a tax upon successions,
it is absolutely necessary not to disguise from ourselves
that it is a very important subject, and that there are
many points to be considered before we come to a vote
upon it. (Hear.) We must ask ourselves, in the first
place, is it a just tax ? (Cheers.) Is it abstractedly a just
tax ? (Hear.) Is it a politic, a just tax, a tax that can be
vindicated on principle ? (Hear.) We must ask ourselves
in the second place whether, if it be a tax, sound in prin-
ciple, it is a tax adapted to the country in which it is pro-
posed to be introduced ? Thirdly, wo must ask ourselves
what are the data which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has before him upon which he founds this estimate of its
produce---(cheers)—and, above all, what is the machinery
by which he means that tax to be raised ? (Hear.) These
are three important points which would well deserve con-
sideration. For my own part, Sir—although I think that
if the arrangement of Mr. Pitt had passed it would have
been unwise (unless the state of our finances justified us in
doing so) to disturb that arrangement—(hear)—formy own
part, I believe that all taxes on successions, whatever
shape they may take, are unsound in principle. (Hear.)
They are taxes on capital. (Loud cries of " Hear.") They
are unsound in principle as regards personal property, but
they are more unsound in principle as regards landed pm-
perty, because they lead to partition, which, in my opi-
nion, is a very great evil. (Hear, hear.) But lam not
going to enter into that important subject now. All I say
is that you cannot deny that, by proposing this tax on
successions with reference to landed property, you are
proposing a new tax upon the land. (Cheers.) I have
shown you that in dealing with your direct taxation you
have commenced a system, and you have laid down a
principle, which must immensely aggregate the national
taxation upon the British producer. (Hear, hear.) I
have shown you, in the second place, that while you are
about to pursue that unjust and injurious policy—a
policy the propriety of which no man can vindicate
—while you are abrogating the pressure of ind:ract
taxation upon the British producer, you are inflicting upon
the cultivator of the soil a direct tax in the shape of an in-
come tax, and upon the possessor of the soil a direct tax
in the shape of a tax upon successions. Now, Sir, I say
that the whole scope of the budget of the right hon. gentle-
man is conceived in a spirit of injustice to the land.
(Cheers.) I will not touch upon the past.• I will not ask
you was it politic, was it wise, or was it generous to attack
the land, both indirectly and directly, after such an im-
mense revolution had taken place in those laws which re-
gulated the importation of foreign produce. (Loud cries
of " Hear.") I will make no appeal ad misericcrdiam.
What you have done, you have done. We have given our
assent to it. I will not refer to the past, and upon that
ground I refrain from appealing to you. But I will re-
mind you that the Minister who has conceived this budget
—who has conceived it, as I maintain I have proved, in a
spirit of injustice to the land—(hear, hear)—who is aggre-
gating the burden of indirect taxation to the land, andwho
is proposing new direct taxes on the cultivator and the
proprietor of the soil, is the very Minister—the first Mi-
nister—who has come forward, and in his place in Parlia-
ment talked of the vast load of local taxation which real
property endures. The vast load of local taxation which
real property endures ! Well, then, this is an ago of com-
pensation—what is to be our compensation for that ?
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I remember when I made an
appeal to the sense of justice of the House of Commons on
that head, I was met by two kinds of opponents. One
school denied point blank that there were any burden
upon real property which were peculiar to it, or which it
was not bound to bear But there was another class of
opponents who took a different ground. They said—" It
is very true that there is an undue burden of taxation upon
real property, and upon land as the most important portion
of real property, but you forget you have not to pay the
legacy duty." (Hear.) Why, Sir, I have shown over and
over again that the legacy duty as a compensation was no
compensation for the weight, the great weight of local
taxation which your Minister has mentioned. (Cheers.)
But let me remind you now that we are not only to have
this great weight of local taxation acknowledged by the
Government, but it is not to be remedied by the Govern-
ment—nay, more, it is not only not to be remedied by the
Government, but it is to be accompanied by the very tax
an exemption from which they used to say was our com-
pensation for those burdens. (Loud cheers.) Sir, we have
lived to see very strange times. I remember when Sir R.
Peel proposed his first income tax, and I remember the
noble lord the leader of the house, sitting on these (the
Opposition) benches rising, and, with the traditionary
spirit of Mr. Fox, denouncing the impost as Mr. Fox de-
nounced the legacy duties, because the noble lord, as well
as Mr. Fox, had some feeling for the land of the country,
and for the burdens which it had so long borne. (Cheers.)
I remember how the noble lord admonished Sir R. Peel.
The noble lord could not deny there was a deficiency in
the Exchequer ; but he had just left office, and knew pretty
well the state of his treasury. The noble lord said there
were other means of supplying the deficiency—anything
but this odious, this unjust, this inequitable, this inquisi-
torial income tax. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The epi-
thets are the noble lord's, and not my own. Do anything
but this, the noble lord said ; if you have a deficiency, why
don't you supply it by appying the legacy duty to land ?
Well, sir, he has applied the legacy duty to land, but he
has given us the income tax too. (Cheers and laughter.)
That is the fate of England. And now what is the fate of
Ireland ? Sir Robert Peel did not propose an income-tax
for Ireland, though he proposed one for England. Sir
Robert Peel thought that there were constitutional and
local grounds which should forbid him, even if ho wished
it, to apply the income tax to Ireland; but he said, "I
must have some substitute, and that substitute shall be a
duty on spirits. The Irish shall have a duty on spirits
instead of the income tax, just as the English were to have,
if the policy of the noble lord had prevailed, a legacy duty
instead of an income tax ; but now England had got the
legacy duty as well as the income tax, and Ireland is to
have the spirit duty and the income tax too. (Cheers.)
Strange fate that both countries from the Ministry of "all
the talents"—(cheers and laughter)—should receive such
accumulated blessings ! (Cheers repeated.) But, sir, it is
not maiintention—and it would be taxing the patience of
the house, as we shall have so many opportunities of enter-
ing upon the consideration of this great subject—to go
into all the details of the budget, or even into all its main
features. lam confining myself to show to you that the
budget is conceived in a spirit of hostility to the land—
(hear)—and I have endeavoured to substantiate that by
arguments and facts which it is open for all to consider,
and if possible to confute, and without the slightest allu-
sion to any of thole views or considerations which in for-
mer debates may have influenced us on the subject, I have
dwelt upon them with the utmost confidence—the same
respect to hon. gentlemen opposite as to those on this side
of the house—all I ask is, that you will deal with those
great interests as you deal with all interests, great or small,
in the spirit of justice, and that if you cannot accomplish
all that justice requires, you will at least show you are
dealing, as regards them, with a desire to do so ; and that
you will not persist in legislating in a spirit which will
sour the temper and irritate the feelings of a large portion
of the most valuable subjects of the realm. (Cheers.) There
is now another point to which lam obliged to refer. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has a project for the licences
of trades, which I dare say many of his supporters have
heard something about. (A laugh.) Well, air, I have
received between 300 and 400 letters on the subject, and,
at first, many of them being really full of useful sugges-
tions, it was my intention to have sent them to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. But when I found that the right
hon. gentleman, with a devotion to public affairs for which
I had not given him credit, was in the habit of answering
all his letters himself—(laughter)--I thought that he might
have possibly misinterpreted what was really an act of
friendly courteousness—(a laugh)—and that perhaps he
would be rather disembarrassed by them. The general tone
of these letters may be described in this way :—The system
of licences is infinitely worse than your house tax. I should
Ran indeed, that the majority described it as a quadruplis
cation,, of the house tax, and they all say they would much
than''°n the
er--if they must have something—have the house tax
house tax,system of licenses, for it was but an aggravated
the first seant if developed, as it must be developed should
wished i)e conceded, they have got that which they
never obtain,
right hon. gentleman:, and from which they thought the
them. Well, there has had turned me out of office to save
the
been great clamour, there has been
great discontent, in htalcointry on the subject; and, un-
less I misunderstoodsubject,ishopinion of the right hon.
gentleman on the
I should have supposed alreadya2SiroinpoStis
I shaken. (Hear, hear.)
of Finance would not
have taken such a step asopinion
as lic,liences for trades. I
am not now giving any
policy of the mea-
sure, which is unquestionably one of tlei most important
in the province of the Chancellor of thee. . Exchequer, who
could not have brought forward a proposition of such
ture without well weighing its character and cone a na-
ture
Such a plan is not to be taken up hastily • quen"s•
, nor, one aeon
vela
think, is it a plan to be lightly relinquished. It is
grave subject. It touches the retail trade--the raosat vteeri
der, the most irritable, the most lively, and the most sen-
sitive-
to anything like an attack on their finances, of anyportion of the community. The system of licences involves
some of the worst consequences of direct taxation. Some,
indeed, have proposed it to us as a favourable substitute
for the income tax. It appears,
however, we were to have
licences and income tax too, according to the original pro-
ject of the right hon.
gentleman, But there is great mur-
mur of discontent. And at the very first murmur we hear
Quo:llyr of the Exchequer Os and mutts; 013tpags!

thing about the absolute necessity of the scale being altered !
(Hear, hear.) But if rumour is true even the plan itself is
to be abandoned. Now, mark the difference when a parti-
cular class of the population of the towns is concerned in
matters of taxation, and when you deal with those who are
connected with the land. (Cheers.) There is not the slight.
est doubt—l take it for granted—that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would never have proposed the licences un-
less ho believed them to bejust and proper, and not only
just but politic. But ho changes his opinion in 24 hours
when the trades rise and tell him they will not endure it.
The farmer must bear his income tax, the proprietor of the
soil must bear his increased burden of direct taxation, the
cultivator must find his burden of indirect taxation unne-
cessarily aggravated, while he has fresh rivals in the field
in the articles he produces. (Hear, hear.) He murmurs,
but he is to get no relief. (Loud cheers.) But the instant
a particular class in the country are touched by the Mini-
ster of Finance, orders are given—the delegates wait—and
the Minister trembles. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I have ad-
verted to this subject before, and think it by much the
most serious of our political condition. If it be the fact
that certain classes in this country, because they have a
certain portion of electoral power, are exercising that
electoral power systematically to exempt themselves from
just taxation—(cheers)—I cannot conceive any feature in
our state as a nation more to be deprecated, and more
perilous, and more to be arrested. (Cheers.) Why, what
ro r one s ?
taxation. It h
s b
ee e e n n
o t hdei
ffe xe i r
has been the cause of the disturbances of nations and' of the
I
ef;lelmevpeted m
n of f thrones
difference calapssreis-
vileged noble and a privileged tobacconist. (Cheers and
laughter.) In matters of finance it is equally important,
whether itis the wealthy man with thousands who calls on
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and abjures him not to
touch him with an impost or the tradesmen with a 10/.
note. The circumstances are equally grave—equally full
of political disorders. Nor can I doubt that what have
been the consequences in one case will be the same in the
other, for I feel it is the privileged which will be the class
that will suffer in the end, though it may now reap an
undue and unholy harvest. Nor can the electoral system last
which will permit such scenes which we now almost yearly
see in the House of Commons in consequence of this state
of things. But when these great scandals take place, and
when the owners of the soil and the cultivators of the soil
complain that in the subject of the finance Minister they are
not justly treated, and claim from him nothing but justice
—when not only injured by his project, but irritated by
those unwise concessions, they come to him by their repre-
sentatives, how are they met? By taunts and by jeers.
What said the President of the Board of Control to some
one who had made comments on the scheme of the Govern-
ment? He said, " You had better take my advice—(a
laugh)—you had better take this measure or you will get
worse." " Now, Sir," said the President of the Board of
Control, "remember the eight shilling fixed duty. You
did not take that ; you see what not taking the measure
we brought forward led to." (A laugh.) Well, that is a
very favourite topic on the other side. (Hear, hear.) The
sheer of the right hon. gentleman will allow me to dwell
on it a little longer. It is not merely the President of the
Board of Control that takes this course. The President of
the Board of Control is rather of an active and vigorous
than an original mind. (Laughter.) The precedent of the
Board of Control has followed the conduct of one—l say it
without offence, for he is a person for whom I have a very
great regard—he has followed, in this, the example of more
eminent persons. The noble lord is very fond of giving his
advice on this subject. At the beginning of the year I
brought forward a motion respecting our foreign relations
with France, and it fell to the noble lord to answer the
observations I made. The noble lord, on that occasion—
the subject being our relations with France—delivered
himself of an oration in favour of free trade. (Laughter,
and cheers from the Opposition.) Not a very uncommon
habit with the noble lord. (Cheers.) And he said then
that if I had followed his advice I might have been one of
her Majesty's Ministers at that time. (Cheers and
laughter.) As far as that was concerned, I believe
it did not depend upon my following his advice,
provided I had only followed his example. (Loud cheers
from the Opposition.) I dare say if we had submitted to
what I see Ministers submit that probably I might have
been sitting on those (the Ministerial) benches. (Hear.)
But that is not the point to which I wish to call attention
to the noble lord. The noble lord has said, and he has
now been followed up by the President of the Board of
Control," " You never take our advice. I advised you to
take an Bs. duty on corn, but you would not take it." The
noble lord has reminded us of that several times. I should
not, however, have noticed it if the President of the Board
of Control had not said it. (Laughter and cheers from the
Opposition.) If the taunt had come from the right hon.
baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who
was Chancellor at the time, I might have allowed it to
pass, because he might have been justified in making it ;
but the taunt has been so often repeated and stereotyped
that I think it is time it should cease. I have, therefore,
thus noticed it, in order, if possible, to prevent its repeti-
tion. I think it would only have been decent of the noble
lord to have stated under whose advice, and at whose ur-
gent advice, we did refuse the Bs. fixed duty on corn. It
is not for me to depreciate the comprehensive idea of a fixed
duty of Bs. on corn. I give the noble lord all the credit
that is due to him in that respect. But at the same time,
when the noble lord remembers under whose advice and at
whose instance that proposal was refused—when he re-
members who are those by whom he is now surrounded—
(Opposition cheers)—when the noble lord remembers that
ho has thrown away the Whig party, and that he has ac-
cepted a subordinate office under the subordinate officers
of Sir Robert Peel, I think he might have felt that the
time has come when these scoffs and sneers should cease.
The hon. member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) said,
other night, that his (Mr. Disraeli's) hon. and much-re-
spected friend, the hon. member for Warwickshire, had
stated that this budget was a great triumph to Manchester.
I had hoped that the old feud between town and country
had ceased for ever. There exists no difference of mate-
rial interests any longer between town and country. The
very motion which my hon. friend the member for Hert-
fordshire has proposed to-night is somewhat significant of
that, and is evidently conceived in a spirit of honourable
conciliation. I could therefore have hoped, however, that
you might have voted that you would have accepted that
amendment in the same spirit. (Opposition cheers.) The
hon. member for Manchester, when addressing his consti-
tuents some time ago, expressed his amazement that the
country gentlemen should have made such a proposition,
and added, that they were entitled to the kindly feelings of
the working classes of the country. That was the way in
which the hon. member for Manchester had spoken of the
proposition which has been treated so differently by the
Secretary of the Board of Control. That right hon. gen-
tleman had spoken of our proposition in terms—l will not
say offensive, for if they had been offensive I should have
called in the Attorney-General to have taken a message to
the right hon. gentleman, because I recollect—it is still
ringing in my ears—the glowing eulogium made by the
first Crown officer upon that very subject The hon.
member for Manchester spoke in a manner honour-
able to himself, and worthy of the occasion ; and I tell
him that no class values more highly than the country gen-
tlemen the rights and liberties of the people; no class has
less interest in the corrupt administration of the affairs of
the country ; and no class has a greater interest in an
economical administration of those affairs. (Cheers.)
Gentlemen are very apt to tell us of the great weight and
importance of the great towns, and that this budget was
supported by the members of those great towns. But I
have already said that I think there is no great difference
in material interests between the people of great towns and
the country gentlemen. But I am told that there are
moral and political differences—l mean by moral, social
differences. lam very loath to believe it. (Hear.) I
cannot but believe that it will be remembered that these
great towns are situate in a country of no considerable ex-
tent, with no excessive population, and with a commerce,
however great, which has been impaired, and with manu-
factures, however suecessful, which have been surpassed.
What makes this country great ? The national character
of the country—(hear)—the national character of the
country which has been created by its institutions and by
its traditional influences impressedupon those institutions.
Those institutions are deeply and broadly planted in the
soil, and that soil is not the possession of any exclusive
class. The manufacturer may deposit within it his accu-
mulated capital, and he may enjoy those privileges which
his possessions entitle him to, at the same time that ho
discharges those duties which his possessions also impo-,e.
(Cheers.) Then, why this hostility to land? Every man
in this country is deeply interested in maintaining the
stability of the possession of the land of this country. I
therefore adjure those gentlemen who are the representa-
tives of large towns to condescend to ponder over these
observations, and not to be led away by prejudices and by
the influence of the present debates ; remembering that we
are all alike interested in maintaining the greatness of this
country, not only in its material possessions, but in the
existence of its institutions. Should, however, the repre-
sentatives of towns take another course, which I trust not,
then of this I feel convinced, that if they are still alienated
from us—if they still proceed in their illusory progress,
they may arrive at the goal which they contemplate, they
may achieve the object they have set before them, but I
believe they will be greatly disappointed in the result,
and will find only a change from a first-rate kingdom into
a second-rate republic. (Cheers.)

Lord J. RUSSELL.—After four nights' debate I shall
attempt to do little more than set before the committee as
clearly as I can the question upon which they are now about
to divide. They have a budget before them comprising pro-
positions of very great importance to the finances of the
country ; and the question they have to decide is whether
the advantages held out by those propositions are such as to
be greater than the burdens it may impose, and whether or
not it is for theinterest of the country to adopt that budget.
In the first place the proposition of the Government is on
the question of the income tax—a tax which has been
selected and subsists as a part of our financial system—
having been for a long time in debate, and having gives
rise to questions most perplexing, even to those most con-
versant with the subject—whether the endeavour should be
made to settle that question and enable Parliament to
come to a final decision. I say this because I think it has
been evident to any persons who have followed the course
of events and the debates on the subject that, though the
original proposition of Sir R. Peel in 1842 to impose an in-
come tax for three years might be very wise and well
adapted to the situation of the country, yet it is impossible
now to continue the tax from three years to three years
without exciting at every renewal doubts and differences
with respect to the mode in which that tax should be im-
posed. (Hear, hear.) Such discussions and such differences
could not take place without disturbing and shaking your
whole financial system—(hear, hear)—and yet no Govern-
ment since 1842 —no House of Commons since 1842
has seriously contemplated the termination of that tax.
Every Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interval of three
years has proposed various reductions of taxes, and those
he did not make were proposed by members on every side
and of every party. It would appear when those proposi-
tions were urged that the members of the house who did
urge them did not believe that the income tax would ter-
minate at the period at which by law it was fixed to ter-
minate. (Hear, hear.) Such being the case, my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown the
house that continuing the tax for a certain limited time
--I will admit no very short period—will enable the House
of Commons to determine, if it shall think fit to do so, on
parting with this tax. I say there is prima facie a great
advantage in the budget as it stands. In the next place,
it is proposed to take away one of the most injurious du-
ties of Excise. Almost the only tax which remains on
what may properly be called a necessary of life is the tax on
soap, which .interferes with the comforts of the people. It
is further proposed to reduce the duty on tea from 2s. 2d.
to ls., in the course of three years. It is proposed that the
system of dealing with protective duties should be carried
further than it has been, and that many disputed questions,
such as that relating to spirits, should be settled by legis-
lation in the present year. To these must be added the
proposal to adjust the assessed taxes, not on the absurd
sumptuary principle that persons are to pay for every in-
raeymedequally numberfor
r everyon their servants
plt has been said to servant,.. carriage, or horse they have.
esphsaiel „_, Pt, :with considerable effect and great
1"111114111 Tantaga
WQ4l4illgrests the beao At to