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

the rich. I believe the benefit would be much more ex-
tended ; for by the heavy tax on servants, by the heal
tax on carriages and the like, you do restrict very much
the employment of those who labour and are in some trades.
This is a brief summary of some of the advantages. On
the other hand an objection in the eyes of many is, that
there is no difference in the rates proposed for the income
tax. An objection in the eyes of many is, that tt. tax is
dto be imposed on legacies. Various duties have
t=oposed, and different persons have raisedvoriou
objections. It is with those objections that I wish
imme-
diately to deal ; but, first, I must say that the spirit in
which the proposition of the Government has been made
and the terms of the amendment do seem to me singularly
irreconcilable. The language of the honourable anddleeausrnserde
member for Suffolk is that new and enlarged bur
placed on land ; the right hon. gentleman whasthrsatttsahte
down complains of new taxes on land, and states
a.
What is
budget is framed in a spirit hostile to the lan
this proposition before the house ?
which it is proposed to throw down this voss
it
What is the
fiencegiwnhie bey
proposed to
my right hon. friend proposes to raise ? I
tax land less ? Is it proposed to take off. burdens on land,
or impose new taxes on trade ?
(Hear, hear.) The proposition maaeQ by .
te the contrary
the hon. member
for Hertfordshire is this, that whereas land is now taxed
7d. and trade 7d., land shall
same rate, and trade and manufacturesinntue to be taxed at the
shall be taxed at a
lower rate. (Hear, hear.) Has there ever been anything
ao contradictory ? And yet some hon. member—l believe
the right hon. gentleman the (member for Oxfordshire—
stated that he was gratified on hearing my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that the in-
come tax of 7d. was in fact 9d., owing to the expense of
rep&irs: One would have thought that he would have
voted in favour of some proposition to reduce the tax on
land ; instead of which the proposition was really that 9d.
should be the tax on laud, and sd. on other sources of
income. (Hear, hear.) That those who for seven years
have been declaring that land was illtreated by the com-
mercial legislation of those, seven years—that they should
come, at the end of those years, with a proposition to assist
trade-and manufactures, of whose predominance and unfair
influence they have been cot nplaining all this time, is cer-
tainly one of the most wonderful anomalies which this
house has ever presented. Ever since Marshal Marmont
conducted hie division of tlhe army, which expected to be
led into the ranks of Napc Aeon' into the hostile army of
Austrians and Prussians, t! ere has been no such military
move ; and, therefore, I did wonder that the right hon.
gentleman the member fo: r Oxfordshire, who is generally
so clear in his views, who fixes so shrewdly his aim, should,
instead of being pointed, bo obscure in his argument. But
what is the case ? The right hon. gentleman hardly
touched and hardly repress nted fairly what was the case
with respect to this equal mte in all the schedules. The
real difficulty is making at ty alteration which would not
expose you to further alters lion; and that further altera-
tion would expose you at 1( asst to break down and finally
abandon the tax. Nothing was more plausible than to say
that, at least, let the profes Bien of those who by the energy
of their minds and the difficulty of their toils which depend
on their physical wellbeing be rated accordingly. There
are other persons who are engaged in trade, and say, let
us be placed in the sam in position. Then follows the
question of salaries of , üblic officers, likewise gained
by mental exertion and a continuance of the capt.city for
working. Then comes the • question of land, which has a
claim of its own, of an 3 allowance for repairs. You
arrive at this, that every s chedale is altered except that
which relates to the public : funds ; and that question is
one which I hope never wi ll be dealt with in this house
in the manner in whin h it has been treated by
the hon. and learned mein: her for East Suffolk. (Hear,
hear.) One principle was ) leave the income tax derived
from the funds ; but, if you: did not take that course, there
was no limit to which sepE.Tately you might not tax in-
come arising from the fun ds. That is a principle which
would put an end at once to public faith—(hear, hear.)—
to all confidence on the pai -t of the holders of the funds ;
because here are two prind pies—one theoretical, and the
other is a practical princi l ale—contained in the present
rating of the public funds. The theoretical principle is
that laid down by Mr. Pitt, and it is just ; but I must say
it goes as far as justice will permit in the taxation of a
country. It is this princi de --we tax income, and not
any particular income. We take( all incomes, from what-
ever, source they are derived.. In that case the funds seem
to form some security ; but when you say to them, "We
tax you 7d. and others because the source of your
income is more permanent; than theirs," the fundholder
will say, " If you come to ta h e sources of income you have
no right to place any tax at n 11 upon us—you must abandon
your tax on funded propert y altogether." (Hear.) But
there is besides this a praci ical principle, and it is this—
the fundholder's security is , that if you lay a tax upon
income equally, his tax will not be excessive, because he is
guarded by the taxation of ' the rest of the - community ;
but if you say he shall be 13,xed at 10 per cent. you are
are not very likely to go to c2O or 30 or 40 per cent.—but if
you tax the funds alone a rid separate them from other
classes, there is no reason w by you should not have 5 per
cent. on all other classes 2 Ind 50 per cent. on the funds.
His practical security is in .equal taxation, and therefore
it is that I viewed with alai 7 n and apprehension the pro-
posal made by the right hom . gentleman opposite, when he
stood in his place as Chancel for of the Exchequer, that in
Ireland funds and salaries a lone should be taxed—(hear,
hear) ;—because that was thu beginning - and a very serious
beginning—the commencemet it of a plan by which funds
should be taxed alone—by wl tich the interest of the fund-
holder should be separated Si -om the whole of the rest of
the community, and which w mild have afforded a prece-
dent, by which that large at im which we have to pay to
the public creditors of this 4 ountry should be diminished
to any extent that Parliament , in its want of discretion and
honesty, should think proper, . (Hear.) These appear to me
to be the general principles 1 )3, which my right hon. friend
and the Government have be wn guided with respect to- the
income tax. We have studi ed the question, and although
the right hon. gentleman opi >osite now denies that he ever
said he had not time to lock into the schedules, he has
almost confirmed that rem ark by what he has said to-
night ; because he has said that he did not go into the
question of the way in which the variation of the tam was
to be effected, and reserved to 3 himself the power of going
into those particulars during the recess that was to follow
Christmas. (Hear, hear.) 'The right hon. gentleman did
not tell us then—and he has not told us now—how he was
to make that just distinction which ho proposed as to the
income tax ; therefore I must believe—l am sorry to believe
—that having the authority o.7Mr. Pitt, of Lord Lansdowne
in 1806, and of Sir Robert Peel in 1842, all opposed
to his own he did not think incumbent upon him in er-
gard to his duty as Chancelle) r of the Exchequer, or worth
his while, to go into every p articular of every change he
should propose in the rating )f the income tax before he
came down to the house and 1 iroclaimed a mode of levying
the tax from which, as I think, evil results would come.
(Cheers.) There are other questions affecting the income
tax as now proposed. One is the extension of the tax to
incomes of 1001., upon which the right hon. gentleman
himself made a proposal, that with regard even to trade it
should be levied to that amount. But here I must remark
that an observation made liy my right hon. friend the
member for Portsmouth that seemed to have a great deal
of force in it is really not applicable to the proposal of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right honourable friend
said, if you propose a termination to this income tax, and
see the end of it before you, i t is not a fitting occasion to
extend it to classes by whom it is not paid now. It is
like a man owing 151., and borrowing 51. more in order
that he may have 201. to pay.. But my right honourable
friend omitted from his oalculation the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer —that although there is an
increased amount to be derii..ed from the income tax at
present, there is a dimunition from it before it comes to a
termination ; and at the end of six years, instead of
6,000,0001. or 5,500,0001., the ;sum with which the house of
Commons will have to deal will be only 4,500,000/. ; so that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in fact, taken the
precaution that the sum with which the house will have to
deal will be smaller than would be the case if it were now
proposed at once to abrogate: this tax. There is another
question on which my right he m. friend likewise touched,
and which was commented on with great force by the hon.
gentleman opposite, the hon . member for Belfast. The
hon. gentleman said you ought not to extend this tax to
Ireland, and he gave this reason for it. He said, " You
propose to give up the consolidated annuities, which is due
in justice to those who now pay it, and then you propose to
lay an income tax upon the I,vhole community iu Ireland
in order to make up the dleficiency." I should have
stated the case in precisely the opposite way. (Hear,
hear.) I should have said, in the first place there was no
injustice whatever in the proposition of taking off the
Consolidated Annuities and laying on the income tax. But
he should state the case thus :I—You have a tax upon this
country which you propose to continue in order to obtain
a remission of other duties, many of which have been
already taken off, and several of which are going to be
taken' off, pressing upon the whole of the community.
What is the reason Ireland sh ould not bear such tax ? If
Ireland is, with the rest of the United Kingdom, to receive
a great benefit, although not ha the same proportion, why
is she not to bear her burden The answer was—and it
was a sufficient answer in 18,18, and might have been a
sufficient answer now—" why, there are great burdens
imposed on Ireland in consequence of the calamity of
the famine and the debts contracted to feed the
people ;" but we say we will tatke away that reason by re-
lieving you from the burden of those debts ; and then Bel-
fast, which has had no claim whatever to be exempt from
the income tax, immediately you strike out that reason—
Belfast, a place like Liverpool and Glasgow, comes into
the category of those towns rti son which this tax should
be imposed, and imposed, as I think, in the same degree
and according to the same a mount of means. (Hear,
hear.) I think the objection 11-4) the extension of the tax
to Ireland was very much the I istress of the Southern and
Western parts of Ireland ; but in 1848, when the country
was far more distressed than it is now—when the remains
of the famine still pressed oat Ireland—my honourable
friend the member, for Marylebone made a motion to im-

pose an income tax on Ireland ; he proposed no remission
of those debts which were then heavier than they are now,

and when the country was less IdDle to bear them, and yet
the right hon. gentleman, and the right hon. gentleman
the member for Oxfordshire, s knd many others of their
political friends and followers - voted for the imposition
of the tax on Ireland. (Cheers j.) Well, the right hon.
gentleman has to-night treated us with a dissertation
on the inconsistency which lie finds in some gen-
tlemen sitting on these bend les ; but a more glaring
exam le of inconsistency could 1 tardly be found. (Hear,
l',,ea,. ), With regard to the a fleet of the relief given
-,`" Ireland, and the burdens imposed on her by this budget,
a do , .
den im not find from the figures th at she has so great a bur-
pr her as some ' hon. gentlemen opposite
seem tot hink'''.
the income tax,
takifiund that the increase of taxation from
git for seven years, is 400,0001. a-year,
from the legacy dut
98,0001., in all 558,460,000/., a nd from the stamp duty,
lidated annuities 245,0601; whores s the relief is, the cense-
, the tei I duty 375,000/. and other
smaller items 50 000/
than the burdens, and' ibeninlg a larger amount of relief
frB6o, according to the figures,
Ireland will be relieved
zy duty and spirit duty,
duties imposed will he theor "700/-, and the only
amounting together to 258,000 eat
at the balance of remission to I'l elaenvid.ll4 412,0001. a year
But I must say
have looked
I think that on this subject
getttele:peanrticular figures,
rather o much to the value of.
llreland in rela-
and note nough to the general into 3lresilasev:
tion to finance. (Hear, hear.
that the disadvantage of Ireland in matte Considered
has been the duties on consumpti on, Which,rshaorfdlyfiliantmee
in England, have, in Ireland, totally preventedb°
/gumption. I remember a rem arkable illustre.tionconoi
this, that was stated by any lai ,e lamented friend Lord
Sydenham, in a speech of his on le financial subjects ; he
stated that in the year 1807 the revenue of Ireland
amounted to 4,378,0001. Between that year and the con-
clusion of the war taxes were slice essively imposed which,
according to the calculations of I chancellors of the Ex.
che uer were to
produce 3,400,01301., or to augment the
revenque,to the extent of 7,700,0001- What was the result ?
In the year 1821, when that =wig nt, less about 400,0001.
for taxes afterwards repealed, °ugh t to have been paid into
the Exchequer, the whole reventt e of Ireland amounted
only to 3,844,0001. being 533,0001. It :ss than in 1807. (Hear,
from the Opposition.) Those additional taxes were not
an income tax, were not direct taxes ; they were taxes on
the great articles of consumption, al Id that is the point 011 ,