The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-08 00:00:00

preceding years; and if he were right in that calculation
Ireland would, in nine years, have contributed to the revenue,
in increased stamp duties, to the extent of 1.000,000/. stertilio,
That increase in stamp duties Lad fallen aim )st entirety 0
the poor of Ireland. He might be told that Scoesaud
had been similarly treated, but a reference to figures
would prove the reverse. He might be told that it was
not income-tax, but he maintained it was income-tax..
Ireland in four years, in consequence of the destruc-
tion of her crops, had lost 100,000,000/. sterling, and
this, too, in a country put under the high pressure of
poor rates—a country from which 2,000,0001. a-year for
the last two years-had been drawn by the aid of poor-
rates. And thie, too, with those human slaughter-
houses, the Kilrush and Ennistymon Unions, where seventy
died weekly, and 1 te-d. was the average charge per head
for the support of the poor, and `4-d. a week for clothing.
They in this country would not attempt to feed, or
rather starve poor men in England for 11 end. per IN eek,
nor would they for 21/2 d. per week attempt to clothe a dog
—( Loud laughter) - that is, if dogs were clothed in Eng-
land. lie vas told this tax concerned the poor—he
a.nuld be glad to know how the poor were to be benefited by
the removal or the continuance of the tax. He objected
to the tax, on account of its inequality. The Honour-
able Member then quoted two passages from a former
speech of Lord John Russell one condemnatory of
the inequality of the tax, arid another advocating a
tax on the succession to real property. He was for the
letter proposition. Ile was for saddling real property as
heavily as personal property was now taxed. He had prin-
cipally risen to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer of his sins of omission. lie referred
to the paper duty. He did not object to the repeal of the
window-tax ; but if the tax were repealed, would it set even
one Englishman or one Irishman to work? But take off the
tax on paper, and you would set at work double the number
of persons now employed. He also wished to see the soap
duty repealed. But he could find that nothing was done
by the Budget to set the people to work. As an Irish Mem-
ber, he complained that the Budget did nothing for his
country—lreland. (Oh.) He complained that the dety on
articles of necessity was not reduced; such, for instance, as
the duty on tea.- (Hear, hear.) He might be asked what
did Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House propose?
Ile was not aware of any proposition that was to be made by
that party. They objected to the income-tax—he did not:—
(Laughter.) He was favourable to the continuation of the
income-tax on principle—(Loud langhter)— but he was
iop-
pose I to its inequality and ts unjust operation on the pro-
fessional man and trader. Having satisfactorily given his
reasons for voting for the amendment of the Right Hon.
Member for Stamford—(Laughter)—he was addressing
Irish Members, and he would ask them if there was anything
in the Budget that ought to engage their suppoey He
could find nothing of the sort, and therefore he was justified
in voting with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Stamford.
Lord C. HAMILTON thought the House bad been very
much engaged in matters extraneous to the real question.—
(Hear, hear.) The subject had nothing to do, as was pre-
tended, with the retrograde movement of free trade. He
wished to asked the well-drilled benches opposite whether
they meant by their vote to-night to sanction the perma-
nence of the tax, and whether they did not believe that if
they voted it to-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would thee years hence call upon them to vote it again?—
(Hear,
r, hear.) That was the real question they had to de-
termine in considering whether they would rc-impose a tax
which had been more eloquently denouncee by those who
now proposed it than by any other people in the House.—
(Hear.) If they were going to do a thing at all, let them do
it openly, fairly, and professedly, but don't let the Govern-
ment impose, under the guise ot a temporary tax, what they
in their hearts felt must be permanent. He rejoiced that the
window-tax was condemned. If the majority should deter-
mine the division in favour of the Government, then let the
Government come forward and say that what was to be per-
manent should be equitable.—(Hear, hear.) The injustice
of the tax might he passed over when it was levied for a
temporary emergency, but now, when the House were asked
to vote it for the fourth time, it was a mockery and a trifling
with the country to go on holding out the pretext that the
tax was a temporary one. - (Hear.) He called upon Hon.
Gentlemen opposite not to allow the income-tax to be riveted
upon the country unless they were prepared to make it just
to all classes.—(Cheers.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who rose amid a loud cry of " Oh I
oh !") said the real question he had to consider was whether
he should vote fcr the re-imposition of this tax for three years
with all its objections. Now, he did not feel himself justi-
fiedin voting for the income-tax with all its inequalities.—
(Cheers.) He was the representative of a manufacturing
constituency, who felt most grievously the burden of that
tax, awl who declared that it ought not to be continued in
its present state. Ile was friendly to a tax upon real pro-
perty, but lie was not friendly to the arbitrary, oppressive,
and inquisitorial proceedings which that tax necessitated.
As a Radical and supporter of reform, he would not con-
sent to assn the Government with this tax for a period of
three years, more especially as he believed that by judicious
retrenchments it might readily be dispensed
Sir R. INGLI said, the greeter part ot the discussion of
that evening had been upon the merits of Budgets, No. 1 and
2, and not upon the real issue as beta ten the. propositions
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Stamford. He confessed that his
objections were as strong against one plan as the other,
because if it were inquisitorial, unequal, and unjust, to
levy one sum, it was equally so to levy a smaller sum.
The point, therefore, to be considered was whether the public
credit of the country did or did not require the amount of
income- taxiproposed to be raised by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Those who knew him knew that he objected to
the income-tax on account of the way in which it pressed
upon particular interests, and they also knew how desirous
he had been that the first charge should commence at 15' 1.
as a unit. Ile had no alternative now, however, but to take
the tax as he found it proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, or to take the mitigated form proposed by his Right
lion. Friend, and, believing that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would be enabled, if he carried his proposition, to re-
lieve an immense amount of taxation, he thought that, under
all the circumstances, it was the most preferable of the two.
He had no great difficulty in making up his mind upon this
question, but he felt compelled reluctantly to give his vote to
the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.— (Hear.)
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the original resolution ... ... 278
For Mr. Ilerries's amendment ... 230
Majority ... 48
Mr. DISRAELI said he had given notice of an amend-
ment upon the question now before the House, and he
wished to know from the Right lion. Gentleman opposite
whether it would not be more convenient to him to take the
debate and division on his amendment at a future stage of
the proceedings rather than at present, probably on Friday
next, assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pro-
posed on that day to go into Committee on the window-tax;
he thought it might be more agreeable to the Right Hon.
Gentleman to take his (Mr. Disraeli's) amendment on that
day than go on with it now.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the course proposed would be
convenient. He understood the Hon. Gentleman to agree
that the report on the resolution then before House should
be received, provided his Right Hon. Friend assented to the
debate and division on the Hen. Gentleman's motion being
taken on Friday, which would be a convenient course.
Mr. "'ISRAELI said, he did this on the distinct under-
standing that the Government would bring forward their re-
solution on Friday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that
the course which he intended to take was this :—He should
propose
.that the resolution be reported now, so as to enable
him to bring in a Bill for carrying out the proposition which
the House had just affirmed. At future stages of the pro-
ceedings upon this subject there would doubtless be several
discussions, and on Friday the Hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire would have an opportunity of submitting his
amendment to the House, as he (the Chancellor of the
.E-
-chi.quer) proposed that on that day the House should sit in
Committee on the house and window-tax. On Fnda.y the
Hon. Gentleman would have a full and fair oppertu ofo
y
moving his amendment on the question that the Speakermt
leave the chair, and then the Hon. GentlGentleman6 111 if
he
v.iehed, move the adoption of his proposition instead of the
hossa and window-tax.
to
proceed with his amendment
dnadye r s
nexttoo d he
dud was
now,
with the permission of the Clouse, Mr. DISRAELI repeated that heui
.e °ll Friday
would state the precise
terms of that proposition. which ere as follows :
w
~ in any relief to be hicw,
granted by the remission or ad-
justment of taxation, due regard should in the first instance
be paid to the distressed condition of the owners and occupiers
of land in the United Kingdom.
Mr. GOULI3qhN—
Did the Right Hon. Gentleman in-
tend to move his
proposition in a Committee of Ways and
means, or did he mean to propose a Committee of the whole
House to consTol,er. a repeal of the window-tax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
yMeat was called a Window-tax was a house-tax levied on
inhabited houses, according to the number of windows or
lights that they contained. The resolution which he intended
to propose to the House was, that the tax, instead of being
levied according to the number of lights, should be levied ac-
cortlimg to the annual value of the house.
Colonel SIBTHORP stated to the House that it was not
his intention to abandon his motion, of which he had given
notice, of the exemption of tenant-farmers and officers of
the army and navy from the income-tax, but to persist in
it, although the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had
mbsequently introduced a motion of almost similar character.
Mr. HERMES asked whether it was the intention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to push forward the Bill to
continue the income and property-tax so as to have it in
Committee before Easter ? it was in the Committee on the
Bill that his lion. and Gallant Friend would have the beat
opportunity of proposing his motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE suggested to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to put on the votes the terms of the motion
which he proposed to make on Friday respecting the win-
dow-tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) was right in
suggesting to the Hon. and Gallant Colonel to make his pro-
position on sonic stage of the Property-tax Bill. He was
of aid that the Bill for the renewal of the income-tax cou'd
not be committed before Easter, as there were only two days
before Easter of which the Government had the command
for a purpose of this description. The house and window-
tax would be taken on Friday, and he trusted that the de-
bate would be concluded on the same day. He should be
prepared before Friday to communicate, for the convenience
of the House, the precise terms of the resolution that he
intended to move.
Mr. HUME said that the House having now resolved to
renew the income-tax for a time to be limited, he should,
in Committee on the Bill, propose that the limitation
should be for one year, with a view of having a Committee
appointed to inquire whether it was not possible to remove
some of the grounds of complaint now felt with regard
to it.
Mr. COBDEN understood the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose was not opposed to direct taxation, but only wished the
income-tax to be so framed that it might be made a perma-
nent tax. The Hon. Member, however, must be well aware
that a large portien of the Members of that House were op-
posed to the income-tax as a tax, and they would vote with
the Hon. Member for limiting it to one year from very dif-
ferent motives from those which actuated him. Now, he
took it for granted that his Hcfla. Friend would like to test
the house as to the propriety of levying the tax in a more
equitable manner, so as to give more satisfaction to the
country ; and, therefore, be (Mr. Cobden) suggested that his
licn. Friend, before taking a vote as to the limitation of the
tax to one year, should give the House an opportunity of
expressing its opinion as to the propriety of assessing the tax
in:s more equitable manner.
Toe report of the original resolution was then agreed to,
and leave given to bring in a Bill founded thereon..
The Designs Act Extension Bill was read a third time,
clauses were added, and the Bill passed.
The Apprentices to Sea Service(lreland) Bill went through
Committee.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER (IRELAND.)
The House then went into Committee on the Exchequer
Chamber (Ireland), and on a resolution being handed to the
Chairman by the Attorney-General for Ireland,
Mr. KEOGH inquired what was the object of the re-
solution ?
Mr. HATCHELL replied that it was a resolution with re-
spect to the compensation to be given to certain officers of
the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, for the abolition of their
„tikes under the Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill.