The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-24 00:00:00

civil service of £350,000; he should like to know whether
that would be a real or only an apparent reduction. They
were justified in being critical in asking questions, bechse
the budget had been brought forward in a shape which
threw a larger amount of burdens on the people than they
could see at first. The Chancellor of the Exchequer anti-
cipated the income of the next year by taking up the large
sum of £1,400,000 of malt and hop eredits. He proposed,
besides, to collect three-quarters of the increased income-
tax within the year, which would, in fact, be equivalent
to a tax of 15d., instead of the nominal amount of
10d. The practice hitherto had been to collect a half-year's
income tax within the year, which would have taken from
the taxeayer sd. this year, whereas he would have to pay
7d. if ihreo-quarters were collected. In addition to thus
imposing heavier burdens on the taxpayers, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was collecting, for the purposes of this
year, money, which, according to the practice hitherto, be-
longed to the next, and that would necessitate a repetition
of the same course. (Hear, hear.) Another subject on
which he would like to hear some explanation from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, was as to the amount paid by
tenant-farmers under schedules A and B. He certainly
could not reconcile the statements he had made with the
facts in the returns, which returns showed that this class
of taxpayers had contributed of late a much larger increase
in proportion than those under schedules D and E. It
might be owing to the fact that the class was larger and
richer, but an explanation was required. There was another
consideration of a painful character connected with the con-
tinuance of the income tax, and that was the frauds com-
mitted by those who assessed themselves. The higher the
tax was made the greater would those frauds become. It
should also be berm in mind that we had not by any means
arrived at the limit of expenditure on our army and navy.
With the great improvements almost hourly brought to
light in materials both of naval and military warfare, where
the limit of is vention was beyond the possibility of con-
ception, they could not draw the line, and to stop in the
career of expense was, he feared, impossible. It had been
laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and was
assented to by the hon. member for Rochdale, that the
strength of our navy should be in proportion to the strength
of the navies of France and Russia. If circumstances ad-
mitted, the war duties on tea and sugar should be removed
next year. They had•been told, however, that the next re-
formed Parliament would be of an economical character, and
that they would not put.up with extravagance. Upon what
ground was that expectation formed ? The large expenditure
for the maintenance of our army and navy raised wages and
benefited the population. The labsuring classes were in a
mare comforfable and better position than before. Was it
reasonable then to suppose that a Parliament elected by the
extended suffrage given to the working classes would be
anxious to cut down expenditure as some supposed ? His
fear was that they would throw more of the burthen on the
upper classes and realised property. The danger was con-
siderably aggravated by voting the income tax from year
to year. Ho was anxious to maintain the credit of the
ceuntiss as well as the balance of revenue and expenditure.
He was ready to vote the sum called for that night by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he sincerely hoped it was
the last year that they would be called upon to vote the in-
come tax for one year only.
Is Sir M. PETO said that his constituents did not object so
much to the amount of the income tax as to the mode in
which it was levied. There ought to be a thorough and
sifting inquiry with a view to an equalisation of the impost,
and although they might not succeed in doing perfect jus-
tice, yet they could accomplish that which he called rough
justice. In his opinion there ought to be three gradations
—fixed property, those trades in which capital was em-
ployed, and incomes where no capital whatever was em-
ployed. The house was bound, in his opinion, to press on
the Government the importance of looking at question
carefully and fully, and then they would have the satisfac-
tion of knowing that they had effected the largest amount
of justice before they consented to another renewal sl the
tax. The hon. baronet the member for Stamford had de-
scribed the budget as a peculiar budget. The measure was
universally acceptable to the country. Inlividual com-
plaints were urged against some of the details, but still the
financial scheme met with- approval as a whole. He would
not be prepared next year to assent to the imposition of the
income tax without the fullest consideration being given as
to the mode in which it was to be levied. As a whole he
accepted the budget, and he should vote for the income tax
this year with very great pleasure. "
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he had given notice
of an amendment, namely, to reduce the proposed amount
of income tax from 10d. to 9d., and in order that the dis-
cussion might take a practical orm he intended taking the
sense of the committee on his amendment. They had two
propositions to consider. Were £70,000,000 necessary to
defray the expenditure-of the country, and then, if such an
amount of income must be raised, was that income to be
made up by a tenpenny income tax ? Let the committee con-
sider that they had no question of a war or great public crisis
that required the imposition of an additional income tax.
The deficit was artificially or intentionally created by her
Majesty's Government. He had not opposed the repeal of
the taxes proposed by the Government, though he thought
that some of those taxes, as sources of revenue, were thrown
away. We had thrown away revenue upon high class wines,
and he did not think it was wise to rest the revenue upon a
few articles. He admitted that the house having agreed to
the budget, it was bound to find a substitute for the defi-
ciency created in the revenue by it. But he must say that
the income tax was a most unjust equivalent to meet that
deficiency ; for the tax was a most inquisitorial one. In
1842, when Sir Robert Peel had great difficulties to con-
tend with to adjust the finances of the country, the noble
lord the member foe the City of London expressed his de-
termination to oppose the proposal for the imposition of an
income tax, because he considered it to be an inquisitorial
tax, and ought not to be had recourse to except in a
time of war, and the noble lord moved a resolution to that
effect, in which he was supported by the whole Whig
party. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir H. Willoughby) could not
assent to the principle that the expenditure of the country
ought necessarily to be £70,000,000. Why should we
imitate the expenditure of Franco in our dockyards, and
such like establishments. Indeed, he thought the expen-
diture of the country was too great. But of all the modes
of :meeting this expenditure the most objectionable was
the income tax. It was an unequal and odious tax, and
those who proposed it were bound to make out a case for
its imposition. He begged, in conclusion, to move an
amendment that the: income tax for the year be 9d. instead
of 10d. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
noble lord who had commenced the discussion said it was a
delusion to ask them to vote the income tax for one year
only. The reason why they had asked for the tax for one
year was, that they might preserve to Parliament the pre-
sent control over the expenditure of the country. There was
no delusion in that. An hon. gentleman said he had voted
for the income tax because he thought the tax would wholly
cease next year. The gallant admiral, the member for
Southwark, had corrected what had been wrong in that too
sanguine expectation. According to him, they had nothing
to look forward to, if his prophecies were to be trusted, but
the addition of several millions every year to the navy esti-
mates, and every year they were to be told that their provi-
sion was totally insufficient for the navy estimates of the
country. tie thought it would be better not to accede to
either of those views. The gallant admiral ought to bear in
mind that there were limits to the endurance of taxation,
and that men had not been created for the sole purpose of
the navy. The hon. member for Stamford said that they had
given every source of revenue, but the hon. gentleman
ought to recollect that revenue and expenditure ought to go
together. His hon. friend the member for Finsbury asked
if they would go into a committee of the house to con-
sider whether the income tax could not be so constructed
as to press less heavily on the productive classes. The sub-
ject was a proper one to consider, but ho could not give his
hon. friend any hope that the inquiry would be successful
for the purpose intended. It was his opinion that if the
income tax was to be continued as a right for several years,
that it would bo a fair subject of consideration how far it
could be made to press less burdensome upon the lower
classes. This occurred in the time of Pitt, when
a modification of the tax was made in reference
to incomes of £2OO a year. The hon. baronet
had already seen the views and temper of the
house. He knew that the army and navy estimates
had been before the house, and that the number of men in
the army and navy had been agreed to. Passing to the
civil list, it was proposed to make a reduction in the mis-
cellaneous estimates • but upon that point he could not
how,
by further explanations, and he could not perceive yw ,
by means of committees, any very important reductions
could be made. It was by means of the public feeling thathat
reductions could be effected. The prevailing tone
night had been that as regarded the war with China the
estimates had been insufficient, and in that opinion the late
Secretary for War (General Peel) had said that he coin-
cided. Now, that fact appeared to him (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) to be a sufficient answer to certain objec-
tions which had been made. Now, it was tho duty of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the estimates he
proposed were sufficient estimates, and when they had for-
tunate years, when the revenue exceeded the. expenditure,
it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take
cute to have a surplus, so as to reduce the debt to some ex-
tent. (Hoar, hear.) If the house were to decide in favour
of the motion of the hon. baronet it would be departing
from the prudent policy which should be pursued. The ex-
pense of law reforms had been complained of, and it was
possible that the ahangea proposed by the Attorney-General
would entail an expense for some time of £20,000 a year.
Now that plan had been received by the country with a due
regard to the distinguished powers of the man by whom it
was proposed • but that was no reason why the hon. gen-
tleman should seek to cut away from them resources to the
amount of £7,000 or £B,OOO a year. The hon. baronet
had shown no ground why his amendment should bo
agreed to. Ho said why throw away one million and a
half of the paper duty ? His (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's) answer was, that if the hon. baronet had taken
the trouble to examine the returns he would have seen
that tho drawback was included on paper that was ex-
ported, besides the expense of collecting and the ex-
pense for paper used in the public service. It was cer-
tainly a large revenue, but it must be recollected that the
h H oeu speu had ad i
t t do e
ttehremih no
ne
sde t
to
psaaryt
wwhi teht h ietr bt
they ap
rl ao rrgi
sei
omna oinr it thye.
greosothlurtoiuonghwtahsensoetrvaicperoovif
tshioeu
ywe ah c.
h (wHo
eu la dr e
hn
ea
ab
rl
.e) them
A s
tt
oo
the war with China, it was impossible to propose a very ac •
curate sum. The change which had been made in the In-
dian Government threw upon this country an amount
which would have been pros ided for by the Indian Exche-
quer, and taking into account that the operation of the war
might be avoided, he did not think they would have been
warranted in coming to Parliament for a larger sum than
they had asked. (Hear hear.)
Mr. VANSITTART said he had looked forward this
year, in common with the public in general, to find that the
income tax would have been abolished, and he could not
approve of the rashness of creating a deficit of nearly four
millions in order that certain parties who were favourable
to the Government might be conciliated. Upwards of two
millions would soon fall in of terminable annuities, which
world have enabled the right hun. gentleman to apply one-
half to the reduction of the income tax, and the other half
to the reduction of the war duties upon tea and sugar. Al-
ready the people were protesting against the policy of the
Government.
Mr. E. ELLICE, sen., said he should vote with the hon.
baronet, because he believed that the income tax was one
of the worst taxes that could he imposed, and because he
was of opinion that, as compared with other taxes, the
choice lay decidedly in favour of the repeal of the income
tax. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—.

For tho amendment
Against it
Majority -55
_ _

Mr. W. E. DUNCOMBE said the right hon. gentleman
hal failed to show any reason for changing the entire
coarse of policy which he had adopted in 1853. He had
not given a single valid reason why he had come down to
ralitunent to zativke this eztrmamary claim upon their