The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

You khow the meaning they bore, and V still bear, in the.
public mind. Do you attach the same meaning to them,
or do you not? There are two quite different kinds of
inequalities in the income tax. First, there are those of
which we have heard so much to-night. We have been
told that the property 'assessed in schedule A is taxed at a
somewhat higher rate than the property comprised in the
rest of the schedules. Was that the inequality which was
meant to be pointed out for correction by the motion of
the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire ? Now, sir,
I am most anxious that we should have a distinct answer
to that question. (Hear, hear.) Was that, I repeat, the
idea, which hon. gentlemen had in their minds when they
voted for the motion of the hon. baronet the member for
Hertfordshire ? Did you think that he was going to reduce
the rate paid under schedule A, and consequently to im-
pose a new burden upon the trading and professional
classes, in comparison with the owners of landed and real
property ? If that was your idea, I can only say that you
were most unfortunate in having adopted words which con-
veyed to the understandings of the community at large a
meaning totally opposite and contradictory, and in having
chosen for your organ and exponent upon the occasion an
hon. gentleman of great ability, but one who in the speech
with which he iii,aptieduced his motion to the house,
exhausted all the st:ores.nf his rhetoric in setting forth the
hardships -what.hardships ?—the hardships of the landed
interests ? No; bu't the hardships of those whose enterprise,
whose intelligence, and whose skill constitute, as the
honourable baronet had said, their only property, and
whose continued good health is their only guarantee.
(Hear.) Now, I want to show what was the meaning of
the vote of last Monday. It was meant to alter the rela-
tive position of the schedules. Of that there can be no
doubt ; but what I want to know is, did it mean to alter
the position of schedule A at the expense of schedules D
and E, or did it mean to alter the position of schedules D
and Eat the expense of schedule A ? (Hear, hear.) If you
had in view anything analogous to the motion of to-night,
then you must intend, I will not say to delude or deceive,
but to mislead the country ; but if, on the other hand, you
meant, what it was plain the honourable baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire meant, and what all the speakers who
followed him meant, namely, the reduction of the rates
charged on trade and professions, then I say you did that
which my noble friend who closed the discussion last
Monday told you you were about to do—you cheered
and supported, and voted for a motion diametrically
opposite and contradictory to the motion of to-night.
(Cheers.) Sir, I must here allude for a moment to what
fell from the honourable baronet who spoke last. I
would ask him what meaning he attaches to the motion
last Monday night. Was the meaning of it—" We want
to relieve schedule A?" or was the meaning of it—" We
want to relieve schedule D ?" or was the meaning of it a
latent meaning, wisely and conveniently kept back, not
expressed—" We do not wish to obtain a legacy duty ?"
(Hear, and a laugh.) Now, the hon. baronet says he can
see nothing in this budget except taxation laid upon the
land, and in proof of his assertion he says, " Why, you
state yourself that you are going to lay 2,000,0001. of taxa-
tion upon land by exacting a legacy duty." Sir, Ido not
wonder that the hon. baronet can see nothing in this budget
except taxation upon land, if that is the process by which
he arrives at his conclusion. The hon. baronet says I have
myself stated that I am going to lay 2,000,0001. of additional
taxation upon land. Why, sir, I never made such a state-
ment. (Hear.) I stated the very reverse, and I chal-
lenge the honourable baronet to show that the charge of
the legacy duty will be 2,000,0001. upon land. What I
stated, and what I will repeat until the honourable baronet
understands me (a laugh), was, that we are going to amend
the basis of the legacy duty altogether ; that we think the
distinctions which now exist are unjust—especially that
which exempts all settled and real property ; that we are
going to take away the exemption which attaces to all
settled and real property as such ; and that we are going
to make the legacy duty applicable to all kinds of property
whatever, not draw such a distinction in regard to the
mode of levying the duty as we think would operate to the
injury of property which at present bears a heavy burden
of taxation. And here I venture to tell the honourable
baronet the member for Devonshire, who has applied his
mind with so much fairness to that portion of the sub-
ject, that when he sees the provisions of the bill we
shall introduce for the purpose of altering the legacy duty,
he will find them not unworthy of his approbation. (Hear,
bear.) Now, sir, if we wore to look at the immediate
financial effect of the proposition of the hon. member for
Berkshire, we would see that it would deprive the Exchequer
of a sum of about 450,0001. The hon. gentleman shakes
his head, and of course I speak in some degree from con-
jecture, but am persuaded that, if the hon. gentleman is
permitted to carry his motion, the deductions which will
be made from the gross amount of the tax now levied
under schedule A will be to the extent of about 16 per
Cent.

Mr. PALMER : The deductions will be much less than
,hat.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am sure
Ido not see how they can be less. The xpense of repairs,
of management, and various other items—why the honour-
able gentleman will find it difficult to estimate the deduc-
tions at less than 16 per cent. Moreover the honourable
gentleman proposes to make his plan applicable to house
property, and he must be aware that in a great many in-
stances the bond fide repairs on house property amount to
15 per cent. without any other charge. {Bear, hear.) My
belief is that his deductions would deprive the Exche-
quer of the sum of 450,0001. Now, air, I have a very sim-
ple answer to make—we cannot afford to part with the
money. I would return this reply even if I were to sup-
pose that the measure which the hon gentleman proposes
was to stop at schedule A. But who imagines that it could
stop at schedule A ? Who conceives it possible to vote for
the motion Of the hon. gentleman with regard to schedule
A, and not to carry the:principle through the whole of the
schedules.? When the hon. member for Manchester said
that deductions were likewise necessary under the other
schedules, he was greeted with enthusiastic cheers from
both sides of the house. Well, then, these deductions are
to run through the whole of the schedules ; in other words,
16 per cent. is to be taken off the whole tax. Speaking in '
round numbers, that is a deduction of 1,000,0001. from
the present produce of the tax. Now, that is a most
agreeable process, and doubtless we would all like
to indulge a feeling of enlarged generosity, to strike off
one item after another, to go home to-night after agreeing
to this motion with those sentiments with which philan-
thropy and benevolence always distend the heart, to re-
peat the process to-morrow night in the case of schedule
A, and so to go on with schedule after schedule, until you
reduce the tax to a mere skeleton of its former self. But
if you make these deductions upon the whole of the sche-
dules, what becomes of the financial measure ? (Hear,
hear.) What becomes of the remissions of duty? (Hear,
hear.) lam afraid you will be obliged to commence a
counter process, and having begun by reducing land from
9d. to 7d., and effecting an equivalent deduction upon the
other schedules, you will require to retrace your steps, and
raise the land from 7d. to 9d., and so on with the rest f the
schedules. lam not prepared to enter upon that course.
I am convinced you ntver could carry through such a pro-
cess, and that the adoption of this motion would introduce
utter and hopeless confusion into the assessment and collec-
tion of the tax. If you deduct 16 per cent. under schedule
A, you must allow as much for schedule D. You will have
admitted a principle of such a character, that it will be im-
po,sible for schedule D to be content even withl6 per cent.
After the plans of last December, which were offered as a
step in the right direction, it is impossible for you to im-
pose upon that process such limits as may appear to suit
your particular inclinations. Indeed I could not wish you
a more fatal gift than the success of this motion. We can-
not afford to enter upon any such process. We cannot afford
it as far as regards the mere arithmetical effects upon our
calculations; we cannot afford it as far as regards the prin-
ciple that is involved. The motion of the hon. gentleman,
if adopted, breaks up the whole income tax ; and; breaking
up the whole tax, it necessarily breaks up that which rests
upon the tax. It breaks up the financial measures and pro-
posals of the Government. It is impossible for us to un-
dertake the reconstruction of the tax. If we meddle with
it we peril that very extensive remission of taxation which
we have laid before parliament, and which I think I may say
without presumption has received and is receiving the appro-
bation of the country. Sir, we will not take the first step
in such a course. What has been our position ? When
we were first called upon to view the financial state
of the country we found the question of the
income tax under these circumstances—the right hon-
ourable gentleman had pledged himself to the *inciple
of its reconstruction, many gentlemen on this side of the
house, had expressed opinions more or less favourable to
the same course ; but upon examining the question we
found that it was impossible to reconstruct the tax, or to
bring the attempt to any satisfactory conclusion, and that
by undertaking it we would' introduce confusion into our
finances, injure the public credit, set class against class,
and produce mischief infinitely greater than any good
which the most sanguine could anticipate. We did not
conceal these convictions ; we stated them ; but we said,
" While sympathising with you in the feeling that the tax
presses too hard upon intelligence and skill as compared with

property, we cannot encourage you to adopt -a
mode of
giving effect to that feeling which will be productive of far
more harm than good." Well, we were generously met by

the house, and last Monday night we obtained a vac) in fa-
vour of the general principles upon which we wore proceed-
ing. The first of these general principles was to take the
income tax as it stands. It is in vain you endeavour to taunt
me by saying I have argued for an equal tax, and now you
ask me to make it so. I tell you I never argued theoretically
for an equal tax, and I do not believe it is possible. What
we said was, "We find the income tax defective in some
points, but we find also it has achieved great things for the
country ; we find it accepted to a certain extent by the
nation, no doubt calling for amendment in some parts, but
on the whole productive of good far beyond the hard-
ships and grievances that attend it." (Hear, hear.) We
consequently asked you to consider the income tax as a
whole. Now I ask if that was at all compatible with any
intention or any willingness on our part to be pressed into
tampering with the reconstruction of the tax ? Sir, the
motion of the hon. gentleman invites us to tamper with the
tax ; but we cannot do so without destroying its efficiency.
We must keep faith Niith those who have supported us. We
must refuse to commence this process. We are bound not
to commence it, because itwould prove our first step in a path
that must lead us upon grOnnd so insecure that we should be
obliged to abandon the whole substance of the proposals
we have made. From many hon. members in this house
we have received support in asserting these principles. We
have received that support, I believe, not simply because
they recognised the impossibility of reconstructing the tax,
but because in our general proposal we hold out something
like the outline of a definite policy—(cheers)—tending to
place the finances of the country upon a footing of security,
to maintain the public credit, and to do justice between
the different classes of the community. (Cheers.) Sir,
having received that support, we are not going to shrink
from the conduct by which it was earned. We intend to
adhere to the measures we have proposed. We do not
pretend to interfere with the discretion of members of Par-
liament in bringing forward this or that amendment; but
we do ask the house to pause and consider well before it
gives a vote that will deprive the country of the benefit
proposed to it through the medium of our plans. I cannot
help entreating those gentlemen who voted on Monday last
for the relief of intelligence and skill, to pause to-night
before they give a vote of a totally opposite and contradic-
tory character. (Cheers.) Here are words which are not
unworthy the attention of the committee :—"Thereis
nothing in life, especially in public life, more important
than to have a principle." Sir, these words were recently
addressed by tho right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire to his constituents. I admit that the
neotion of last Monday distinctly expressed
though au erroneous one • but the motion
ir)orfinescsiipoln e.
s a principle,
of to-night
p
embodies a totally opposite and on
The motion of last Monday relieved trades
at the expense of the land ; the motion of to-night relieves
the land at tht expense of trades and professions. These
things are perfectly distinct and intelligible to the country.
They cannot be concealed or placed beyond the reach of
public opinion. We have declared that, looking at the
Income tax as a whole, we believe that it is capable of pro-
t.n.cing great benefits to the community. To that doctrine
w e adhere. We are prepared for those who think that
pr ecarious incomes ought tole relieved at the expense of
pei 'in anent incomes.
We
an opi, ortunity of bringing ourselvespricotose a plan forplacing
a givater burden upon propertwhich
the cowe,dsheraalltiosonoonfh
the. e
under