The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

except by increased taxation, the question naturally
aro:e what :hould be '.he nature of that taxation? And
he felt compelled to say on entering upon that part of
the subject, that the various budgets which they had at
different time; to consider, did not tend to simplify the
difficulties which they had to encounter. The Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, in his speech on the
budget, stated that the vicissitudes of commerce bid
been very great ; now he was of opinion that the vicis-
situdes of the plans by which they proposed a remedy
were of equal magnitude. His proposal was for the
renewel of the income tax for three years. Now, he
thought all parties in the house were agreed as to the
injustice and impeliey of that measure. The first objec-
tion to the tax consisted in finding what was the nature
of the income to be taxed, and discovering upon what
principle incomes could be taxed which were derived
from so many various sources. An Hon. Member had
told them that income derived from professions should
not be taxed to the same amount as incomes derived
from realised property; but he thought that, so far
from improving the tax by the proposition which he
had submitted to the House, that it would aggravate the
barbarity and increase the injustice of the measure.
They could not, by the principle which the Hon.
Member had laid down, find a just remedy for a partial
system. They had been told that the income-tax was
to take the place of assessed and other taxes; if
such was the case, why should professional men be
exempted from paying for the protection which they
derived from the State?—because, if that principle was
carried out, it might next be contended that professional
men should not be taxed at all. He would put a case to
them of two men, each deriving 5001. a year from pro-
fessional incomes; one might be provident and invest
halt his income in the funds, while the other pursued a
contrary course. Now, he asked, would they tax the
provident man for the property which he had thus
realised, and allow the other to escape altogether? He
would take another case, of property which was entailed
on the male heir; the testator, whose whole property
goes to a distant relation, has five daughters, on each of
whom he settles an annuity. He asked, in that case, ,
was it just that the heir should be taxed for the whole
of that real property of which he only enjoyed a part?
He would take the case of two estates, each afford-
ing a rent of 5001. a year; in one, the income should
be derived from the natural fertility of the soil,
while the other should be derived from prudent ma-
nagement and capital expended on it. He askrd, in that
case, would they tax those two estates equally ? If they
really set to work fairly to adjust the tax, the end of
their endeavours would be that they would not derive
enough from it to pay the expenses of the state. Mr.
Macculloch had said of the income tax that it was to
subversive to impose it equally on all incomes, without
reference to their origin, that there was no alternative
left but to reject the tax altogether. He believed in the
application of this opinion with regard to property. He
believed that such a tax was a tax upon honesty, and that
it was hateful on that account to Englishmen. He felt
himself compelled to remind the House and the country
that the party with whieh he had the honour to act bad
not been the cause of the extravagance which had been
committed. That party had told them (the Government)
that the consequence of their removing 1,000,0001. of
taxation would be, that they never could get rid of
the income-tax. When the duties were taken off
timber and corn, that party had told them of the
consequences which would ensue. Lord Stanley in
another place, and Lord George Bentinck in the House
of Commons, had told them that they would be
obliged to have recourse to direct taxation. They
were told by the Government that the people of this '
country would effect a great saving by means of the in-
come tax--so great a saving, in fact, that they would be
able to pay the tax completely out of it; but what bad
been the result?—a deficiency of sone millions in the
revenue, and a proposal for an increase in the income-
tax and an extension of the present tax for three years.
He maintained that the tax was only used as a means to
enable the Government to carry out free-trade prin-
ciples; and he would venture to assert that the experi•
went had proved a complete failure. The evil that it
had entailed on the country had been real, while the
benefits which had been anticipated from it had proved
unreal and fallacious. The evil had been real, ins..
much as the labour of the foreigner had still
an advantage over the labour of this country;
the benefits had been unreal, because the re•
deletion in prices had not penetrated into the lower
depths of society—to the homes of the labouring
classes. Those classes paid the same for their sugar
as before. It was true that the wholesale dealer might
have benefited somewhat, but he had not benefited is
any way commensurate with the evils which had been
inflicted on other classes. He assured them that pro-
tection was not dead—that it was a living principle....
and that the country was still suffering from the want of
it. [The Noble Lord proceeded amidst cries of" divide."]
After reading some extracts from the Economist in sup-
port of his views, the Noble Lord concluded by stating
that the Hon Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) who was not
then in his place, had frequently declared that, be the
circumstances of the country what they might, he and
those with whom he had been associated were determined
that no alteration should take place in the free-trade
system. However, he (the Marquis of Granby) sin-
cerely hoped the time would come, and that it was not
far distant, when the people of this country would con-
sider the question of free-trade independently—that
they would apply their free and unbiassed judgment to
it, and pronounce their opinions as to whether the fres•
trade principle had been for the interest of this country
or not.—(hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
he should best consult the interests of the House by not
attempting to follow some of the Hon. Gentlemen who
preceded him, and the various topics to which they ad- •
verted. He hoped the Noble Lord and the Hon. Mow.
ber for Montrose would excuse him for declining to
follow them through the different statements which they
had made. But, before he approached the aubject of
debate, he could not avoid expressing his astonishment
ut the allegations made respecting himself individually
arid the Government of which h had the honour of
being a member, with reference to the imposition of the
income- tax. He had opposed the income. tax upon its
into election by the Right Hon. Gentleman in 1842,
because he thought it would operate unequally.—(Hear,
hear.) That, he conceived, was a good ground of op-
, position to the tax, but, as it was to be submitted to, be
thought it best in the shape in which it stands. The
, Noble Lord opposite (Lord Granby), and especially
Lord Stanley, then a member of that House, and A
member of the then Ministry, warned them of the
consequences of voting against or resisting the ineotne-
tax. Both the Noble Lords voted for its imposition ;
• and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), both upon
the introduction of the measure and its renewal.
. warned the House of the dangerous consequences of
voting for the income-tax.---(Cries of " Hear,
hear," and laughter.) After Honourable Gentlemen
opposite had supported the Right lion. Gentleman (sir
it. Peel), it was rather hard now for them to say that
they had warned the House and the country against the
; imposition of the tax, and reproach the present Govern-
; went for renewing the measure to which they were
driven by dire necessity. Ile.stiould not, however, pur-
sue that topic longer. He thought the circumstances in
• which the country was at ptt:ibnt placed fully justified
the renewal of the income-tax for three years. and that
it could not be for a shorter period. It was hoped the
general income would be in proportion to the expendi-
ture of the country for the next 'three years; but she
f Government were bound to ask. for..the renewal of the
: income-tax, as, without it, the- 'revenue could not be
I made equal to our expenditure. ' With the exception of
the Right Hon. Gentleman oppoite. (Mr. Goulburn).
, not one individual had even spoken to the question. —•
• (Hear, hear.) No one supported the motion of the
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hemmen). The Honour
able Gentleman the Member for Montrose had very'
properly stated that this was a most inopportune
.
time to submit such a question to the consider-
ation of the House; and that Hon. Gentlemen also eel'
wi=ely said he should be disposed to recommend the
Hon. Mover to withdraw his amendment, and allow the
House to proceed in a business:like manner.—(Hear•
hear.) Those suggestions seemed to have the concur
rence of the souse, and his (the Chancellor of the Ex'
chequer's) own opinion so euterely coincided with that
of the Hon. Member for Montrose that he was unwilling
to refer to the matter further, even in the shortest pos'
sable manner. Now, as to the particular question under
consideration, he believed that any attempt to interfere
with this one tax would be unavailing. Every tan
pressed unequally. How could it be otherwise? It
pressed very unequally upon' a person with a einem
family and one with a large family. That was felt 0
meel when the income-tax was originally imposed, it
was found that attempts to remedy it led to great feaso•
The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) proposed thn
income tax in the most equitable manner, and upon
the most equitable principles it could be proposed—'"
namely, regardless of the circumstances of tb.
property of those from whom it was to be exacted.
He (tee Chancellor of the Exchequer) final/
believed that any attempt to deviate from that spiel*
or make the tax more just, would only lead to inextric-
able confusion--to fraud and waste of time, while al°
imposition of it would be inevitably made doubly odious
The inquisitorial nature of the tax,it should be admitted,
was great; but if it was imposed with reference to Ibo
circumstances of the parties, the inquisition into th°
circumstances should necessarily be more rigid, and
therefore much more objectionable than the present
system. When the tax was originally proposed all theo
circumstances were fully discussed. Mr. Pitt took then'
into his consideration, and distinctly said that no ono
should object to the tax, whether he derived his 5001. •
year from land, from his profession, from his trade, or
any other occupation. Mr. Pitt held it impossible to in'',
pose a different rate upon property derived from anY:;
those sources, and that it would be unjust to the pub";
creditor. If that was so, how could it be just now till',
schedule A (the annual value of lands, tenements, 4e'lf
should be more highly taxed than any other species °.
income ? No deductions whatever were made from till,: ;
taxes to which real property or tenements were io_f
ject—no deductions for repairs, or in consideration
_vi
the lands or tenements having been unoccupied, or the
the rents remained unpaid. Landlords were nu
exempted on any of those grounds, either from the Pot:
tru,nt of general taxes or the three per cent. incorne•tu:
--(Hear, hear.) The property ipcluded in schedult! Jf.
in reality, paid a higher rate of taxes than any othe.,
and it could not justly be subjected to an increase
e_u
amount of taxation now in favour of other loco:
_Lk
Realised property was subject to a variety of taxes
ut-°l7,
which personal property escaped. T, he pressure,,
_re;
the whole, was much more equal than Hon. Gent
allowed ; and, taking every- circumstance into aey,
he believed the most sceptical would be comPeueu_ far
admit that this tax, a; well as taxation generallhivl4or
more equal than it was described. He did not suer' ~
believe that taxation was in every individual ceetho'neXs);,:
but yet he thought no species of propertY But
exempted or privileged in respect of taxation.
in in order to effect that object they must not look
one tax alone ; to do that would be utt4X4 >i•