The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-29 00:00:00

CEYLON.

Mr. BAILLIE wished to know, a 3 the Hon. Member
for Montrose had expressed some opinions on this sub-
ject, 30d had given notice of a motion which might ma-
terially affect the state of the question, whether there
vas any intention on the part of Government to carry
the recommendations which had been made into effect?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the recommendations had
been so vague that he had not presumed to act upon
them, and that he waited for further advices before ho
could express any opinion whatever.
PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX.

The House then proceeded to the orders of the day,
and the motion for the second reading of the Property
and Income-tax Bill having been put,
Mr. SPOONER said that he rose to move an amend-
ment that this motion should be postponed till this day
six months. In 1542 Sir R. Peel proposed the imposition of
an income-tax because he found an empty exchequer; but
with that imposition, to which Parliament had con-
sentel, there was also a condition annexed—that it
should not be continued for more than three years. It
was a tax upon income; and that tax was manifestly
imposed for a peculiar purpose, and for a particular
time. In 1846 the deficiency in the Exchequer had
been supplied, but then cam-, forward the grand financial
prej,,,qe nf Sir Rohort Pool. Ho had duL0r....i....:1 so do
away with most of our indirect taxes, and then the
income-tax was continued for three years. This carried
the matter on until 1848, when the aspect of Europe
was such that it was not difficult to get :in Act to carry on
the tax for three years longer. But a time had now
arisen in which there was no complaint of want in the
exchequer, when, in fact, the Chancellor had a surplus,
and no necessity existed for the continuance of this tax.
It was unnecessary to go into any arguments against
thin tax, because nothing but the greatest emergency
could justify it. The late Mr. Francis Horner, as far
back as 1815, stigmatized it as an unjust tax, and called
upon the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon
t, while the Noble Lord himself, who was at
the head of the present Government when this
tax was first introduced, denounced it as not only unequal
in its operation, but also liable to lead to much fraud and
deception. Now that was the character of the tax as
given by those who now proposed its continuance; and
he put it to the House whether it was prudent,
in the existing state of agriculture, to persevere
with this measure? If Government did, all be could
say was, that they would find themselves mistaken
if they thought it would lead to no opposition or resist-
aece out of doors. No tax, in fact, was more obnoxious
to the great mass of the people; and he, therefore,
implored the Reuse not to sanction its continuance.
He knew instances in which persons rather than show
their books, and let their affairs be known to the world,
had submitted to pay extortionate sums under this tax;
and he was quite care if the House knew how unequal
this iniquitous tax pressed on the people, it would pause
before it gave its sanction to the second reading
of the Bill. The Right lion. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department, in a very short, but very power-
ful and aide sp,ech, said on a termer occasion, if he had
the melancholy prospect before him of this becoming a
permanent tax, he would endeavour to diminish
its inequality ; but, looking to its probable dura-
tion, he should not object to it then, thinking
that if its inequalities romaine:], they might
on a future occasion resist the tax with more effect.
Yet the Right Hon. Gentleman, who entertained that
opinion whoa he was out of office, now came and asked
the house to agree to the vexatious tax without any
alteration whatever. ' Then, again, Viscount Howick,
who was now an influential ruerneer of the Go-
vernment, said to impose a tax on income and
tosl., , Property was obviously unjust, and he agreed
"', the income tax should be confined to periods
of trie grewest possible emergency, such as when the
cluntrY was involved in war or suffering under serious
difficulties. That Noble Lord was high iu office,
a clever and able man, nod was not
liksly p
hoped that
•d opt an opinion hastily, and he
when this remark went to the Noble Lord
in another place, he explain his opinions on taxa-
tion, and say hots he
came to give his support to the
Exchequer,
Chancellor of the
at a time when
the country Was
involved in no war, and when '
there was a surplus
revenue.e He next came to the
Chancellor of the
Exehr, and he must confess
Gentleman
that all the Right Hon. m
he
said made a strong
impression on his mind, and
that eidthat "so far from
heard all that came
from him with great delight. Ile sa
this tax pressing exclusively en the
rich, it pressed
that the Right
he rich, be-
en the labouring classes, and diminished the means of
think that
employment, and that he did not believe
[lon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) could
it pressed more exclusively
exwclhuysivelhyad enh
t.
cause, if be --0 not in, 0 d
the tax ou the people of Ireland?" It was P_se,
well-
known fact, which Honourable Gentlemen
on the
other side would have difficulty in denying, that ever
sine© the year ISI9 poverty
bad been increasing in the
country most rapidly, that poor- rates were consuming
the whole produce of the land, and that farmers could
not continue to occupy, even if they had no rent to pay.
'The lion. Gentleman opposite, the Under-Secretary for
the Culonies,
in 1844, was one of the most vehement
oPlAnees of the tax, and had made a most decided speech
against it..--frr
ki-ortr.) Had he now altered his opinion?
Bit there wished to call
was another class to which ho
the attention
of the House
and that was the tenant
I'
farmers of
England. No class was more oppressed by
this tax than that, and so ha told the House years ago,
when the tax was first Tenant farmers
prcpounded.
were assessed upon an unjust and grossly
erroneous basis, and if
the
tax must be con-
tinued, it would be nothi'ng
ahuuld be made in this par; of
right that some change
equalities in the tax which he could There were other in•
e could point out, but us
they roust burg ago have become familiar
to
the House
and the country, he should ntstain from d
distinction, however, that was read, between the oing so. The
land-
holder and the fundholder was meat unjust
impo-
litic, inasmuch as the manner in which thetax w and
made the former pay almost twice as much a3thaes l.ttter.
evied
The tax, in a word, was grossly unequal and vexatious.
it also held out a premium to comnsit frauda
gave rise to a good deal cf deception which
would be well, avoided at the expense of the tax.
That, in fact, wee the effect of these tars, and nothing
could possibly remedy the evil. What, therefore, he
8,,,,ict4 of the House was, that they should take all these
IN V.". S \pe,tee j. 3 into consideration. The principle had been de-
re,e-ea.,-ieent je CliveAeare ago, when Lord Stanley made his celebrated
/ Ni*:K__J- n. 'lati n 4 especting the income-tax, and then it was de-
r,..., .
a.,17. 1.,7-,-,1 ,,. -, ,;Sat. ltierms, though not in vords, that at the
~, cnse-e.;4,-.sVoitsfils l'efo of the usual time the tax would be
'ln :'
:-"i',l .:.-7-e „Atisiitkid: Some attempts bad been made to increase the
r ''' '' . _>,' initcl they had to a certain extent signally failed.
, .
~..J
\\,,.....,
-t.,- tr eless it was exceedingly desirable that the ex-
s. s apse ono which the public had conceited should