The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-22 00:00:00

( as we undetatood). At the same time, if this is to be a he-
neral and permanent tax, I cannot object to the landed
property of Ireland bearing its share. It seems that there
is to be a remission of 4,060,0001. out of the consolidated
annuities. Now that is one of the oddest compensations
that has ever been made. There are districts in Ireland
subject to burdens which it is impossible they can ever
bear, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, " I will
relieve you from these burdens which you cannot bear,and
that is to be a compensation for the new burdens which I
am about to impose on new districts and individuals never
before subject to them." The right hon. gentleman com-
pensates one person by taking something out of another
person's pocket. The noble earl has taken great credit for
the system introduced by Sir R. Peel, the constant reduc-
tion of duties, the revision of taxation, and the inestimablev
advantages to be derived from it ; but he does not obser
that he thereby destroys his whole case. If in the coursee
. of seven years you go on reducing taxation, although at the
expiration of seven years the country may have recovered
-the revenue which she now sacrifices, yet if you go on
making further reductions, and taking off other
taxes, and
' using your surplus in carrying out the principles of free
trade as fast as you make it—and in the present feelings of
Parliament there seems to be an intention of pursuing that
course—it is quite clear that, instead of having 51 millions,
the noble earl will not have one shilling more in the exche-
quer, which he calculates upon for the purpose at the end of
years of getting rid of theincome tax—(hear)—and I
notCroven i
believe that Parliament will submit for the next 7
years to see accumulated a surplus which will amount in 5
or 6 years to an annual surplus of 5,000,0001., without be-
ing disposed to avail itself of that surplus as it arises, and,
consequently, revenue and expenditure will be brought
nearer together, and the object you profess to have in view
will be defeated. I submit to this income tax—l believe
4t to be inevitable, and I am not prepared to ask your lord
ships to refuse that which is necessary for the credit of the
country. But lam not deluded by the suggestion on the
part of the Government that this is intended to be a merely
temporary tax, nor by the credit which theyhave taken to
themselves for the sincerity of their intentions to get rid
of it within a limited period. I believe that there will be
continual renewals of this tax, and that in submitting to
it, with all its injustice and all its inequalities, we are sub-
mitting to a tax—nominally indeed for 7 years—but of
which neither the noble earl nor I will ever see the end.
Lord PORTMAN wished to say a few words on this
subject, as he felt that he should not be doing his duty to
their lordships, who had entrusted him with the chair
of the committee appointed by the house to consider the
question of the income tax, if he did not inform their lord-
ships that there was a clause in this bill directly opposed to
the unanimous recommendation of that coinmittee, and
which, as it seemed to him, inserted the narrow end of the
wedge, and would cause, at no distant time, a larger fis-
sure. He alluded to the clause which, for the first time in
legislation, provided that the fees and emoluments of the
clergy were to be deemed as fair subjects for remission of
taxation, so far as such charges were necessary to the per-
formance of their duties as clergymen. This was a subject
which the committee had inquired into with the greatest
possible attention, and the Bishop of Oxford had taken
every pains to induce the committee to come to a resolution
that, in all. assessments of charges for the clergy, a certain
remission should be made in their favour. This remission
was now for the first time admitted into the bill, and if he
were to allow the matter to pass in silence, he felt that he
should be neglecting his duty to the committee and totheir
lordships. He must say that, when all the charities of the
country were about to be taxed, he did not think it quite
a wise antagonism on the part of the clergy to come before
Parliament in this fashion. With respect to the general
merits of the measure' he would observe that, in his opinion
they were extending too widely direct taxation. Direct
taxation was constraint, but indirect taxation was consent.
The income tax and the succession tax were alike con-
straint—the money must be paid on a given day. But the
tax on beer and on tobacco was not felt, because it was
paid only when parties chose to have the commodities.
Direct taxation was very expensive to individuals, and it
was equally true that indirect taxation was very expensive
to the country • but he did not see why both one and the
other species cdtaxation might not be made less expensive
than they were. But they were told that some of the in-
equalities of the income tax would be removed by another
direct tax. Now, with respect to that tax—the succes-
sion duty—he believed it would be a considerable boon to
those who held land in fee, but it would confer no benefit
whatever upon those who possessed only a life interest in
land. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons he objected to the
continuance of the income tax in its present shape.
Lord BERNERS (who was very indistinctly heard) was
understood to object to the income tax generally as An.
bust and inquisitorial, and complained especially of this
ill, by which nominally a tax of 7d. in the pound was
imposed on land, when in fact it amounted to 9d. ; and he
denied that any one could defend the incidents of a tax of
this description.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the noble lord who had
just sat down with regard to the great evils of the tax
which ho had pointed out ; but there were also many
others besides those which the noble lord had noticed.
For example, money invested in improvements or in trade,
with a view to its being replaced by profits at a future
time, but not immediately, and from which the most
provident man never expected any real income for two or
three years, was dealt with at the very instant it yielded
any return, and was pounced upon and made subject to
this tax. This was-in fact making it a tax not on income
but on capital. That was one of many objections to the
tax, butit was liable to one observation, namely that it
was un.equal, and not modification of the tax could ever
remove t atinequality. Therefore, when his noble friend
' complained of the peculiar position in which the house was
placed in consequence of what he (Lord Brougham) would
call thenonflict between the two houses, on a point of
privilege, -which be did not admit to belong solely to the
other homes. ,but 'which their lordships yielded, and by
reason of which taxes were received from the other house
as they came, he would say that there was no means of
getting rid of that inerahty by altering the bill in their
lordships' house. Again, income derived from land, in fee
simple was dealt with in the same way as that derived from
settled property, and the tenant for life treated in the
same manner as the possessor in fee. But there was
great difficulty in making any difference between the two.
Income derived from land or personalty was also dealt
with in the same way as that derived from labour. Never-
theless, the difficulty of adjusting those inequalities had
been found insuperable, and that caused his late lamented
friend Lord Melbourne to say of this tax, that "he was
aware of the hardship and pressure it brought on every
class, and in his view that was its great recommendation,
for no property escaped, and every one was compelled to
pay it." That was true, but it was asked, could it not be
so applied, as that while every one paid it, the inequality
could be lessened. But every one who had had to deal
with it had found, when it was examined, that partly from
the difficulty of adjusting a scale, and partly from the
danger of evasion, it was impossible so to construct the
tax. Those were not all the objections to the tax. He
had stated in-1842 and 1851 other objections. There was
no doubt that one of those objections could not be removed
by any modification, and ths was the inquisitorial nature
of the tax. That objection did not apply so much to in-
comes derived from land, which were generally tolerably
notorious, but the system pressed heavily on traders, and
operated injuriously on the most prudent and justifiable
speculation, by the disclosures which were necessary and
might be not merely prejudicial but fatal to a man's credit.
The inquisitorial part of the tax might not be so prejudi-
cial to professional persons as to traders, but still it was
galling, annoying, and distressing. That, however, was
one of the evils inherent in the income tax, and which no
modification could remove. For these reasons he had great
dislike to the tax, and had tried to repeal it when it ex-
isted, and to discontinue it when it was about to expire.
It was now 37 years ago since he had the satisfaction, in
the other house, of putting an end to the income tax which
then existed, and during the six weeks which the debates
lasted, he was sure that no argument was brought for-
ward in its favour that was not instantly disposed of.
Afterwards, in 1842, he opposed the imposition of the tax
in their lordships' house, and he stated then that it ought
not to be imposed, except as a great resource—a resource
which should be wedded to war, and only to be used in
case of serious pressure in the finances of the country,
which could not be removed by any other means.
When he urged those arguments, and moved resolutions
in accordance with them, his late illustrious friend,
the Duke of Wellington, and the noble earl then
President of the Board of Trade, admitted them
all, and said that the necessity for it was its only defence.
His noble friend at the head of the Government held out
the prospect of their seeing the tax taken off in seven
years ; but he (Lord Brougham) could not help fearing that
that seven years, and many other seven years, would
elapse before there was an end of this tax. This tax was
only not worse than a tax on the food of the people„- than
a tax on the knowledge of the people ; and than a tax on
law proceedings • and, looking at it as one of the worst
taxes, ho retained the opinions he expressed, and would
be ready to reiterate the resolutions which he moved in
1842 and 1851, with,the,one exception, that he was more
inclined to listen to the argument against the possibility or
any modification with regard to the sources and different
species of income. Without the hope of the tax ending at
the time his noble friend stated, he yet admitted that the
state of the finances of the country rendered it necessary.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was one of those who
oppcsed the income tax when it was introduced by Sir R.
Peel. They were told then that it was imposed for three
years, but he thought then that it would be permanent,
and ho did not now see any real reason why it should now
terminate in seven years. The tax was at first calculated
to produce three millions, and he (Lord Clanricardo) said
then that it would produce five millions, and he agreed
with the noble earl (Derby) that no minister nor any House
of Commons would give it up in 1860. His objection to
the t -x was that it was dangerous to rely on as a source of
finance ; for, if a government was strong enough to carry
a large amount of taxation, this tax afforded great facility
for imposing high taxes. It also afforded a temptation to
an economical House of Commons to curtail necessary ex-
penditure. He objected to the system in the present bill
of graduated direct taxation. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had laid down excellent principles by which
direct taxation should be guided, and yet in three instances
he introduced a system of graduated direct taxation. Ho
considered it mod unjust to impose upon Ireland, in its
depressed condition, a tax more oppressive than any she
had hitherto borne. The mode in which the tax was to
be collected from the landlord before he got the rent upon
which the tax was charged was most unjust and un-
fair, and involved a principle so monstrous that he could
not think it possible the Government ever in-
tended to press it. • Again, he saw no provision in the
bill to make the necessary allowance to the landlord for
that part of the income which went in payment of rent
charges. He believed the tax would have the effect of pre-
venting that which it ought to be the policy of Parliament
to encourage—viz., the flow of capital into Ireland. The
reason for imposing the tax in Ireland was most extraordi-
nary. Re could understand the proposition being put for-
ward on the ground
but the ground on of
taxing
England and Ireland equally,
was that of
whole
hboainal which it was urged by the Government
rescind the said that as they proposed to
be no reason for not the consolidated annuities there could
reason which ought nTtPesing the income tax. That was a
had been shown before tlioeiweigh with their lordships. It
lordships' committee that part
of those annuities that could not be recovered, and that it
would be unjust to insist recovered, other portions, being
untio advanced for the benefit of
for the repayment of mo
particular localities, ought
To mix up the
two together, and remit the wltolan:Cindbe. rause of such re-
only unwise but
mission to impose the income tax,
unjust. Although the bill was nominally for seven years,
no one could expect that the tax would Lae at the end of
that period. .
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that the
tinuance of the tax would undoubtedly depend upon ca;
decision of future governments and future legislatures •
but on his own
part, and on the
part of the Government,
begged to say, that in concurring in the necessity for Che
con-
tinuing the tax to the date which had been inserted in the
bill (1860), the opinion they meant to convey was not that
it would be permanent, but the very contrary. (Hear.)
If he supposed that the tax would be permanent he should
be the most inconsistent of human beings in supporting it,
having on various occasions expressed bisobhijegctrieonas—utnhoot.
an-his own authority only; but on the much