The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-15 00:00:00

in the next Parliament, to prevent the reimposition of this
tax on the same footing on which it was levied now.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—This

subject is of so much importance, that it would not be re-

spectful to my hon. friend or to the house if I were to allow
you to leave the chair without saying one word with regard
to what has fallen from him. There is one consideration
that ought always to he borne in mind in the discussion of
the mode of assessing the income-tax that is not always so
vividly present to the minds of those who enter upon the
discussion as it might be. lam far from mentioning it as
decisive of the question, but it certainly is material to it,
and it is this, that when we talk of assessing the income-
tax and affording a great relief to particular persons on
whom we think it bears too heavily, we do not always re-
member that the relief of one is, in point of fact, the impo-
sition of additional burdens upon another. I know the case

of a member of Parliament who went to his constituents.
He had been assailed in some town which he canvassed
on the burden of schedule D, and he said nothing
could be clearer thLn the claims for relief of those
who were assessed under schedule D. Ho became a
county member, and he was assailed with complaints of the
injustice and the unequal pressure of the tax in schedule A.
He replied in like manner that nothing in his judgment
could be clearer than that relief should be given to those
who were assessed under schedule A. He was afterwards
pressed with the claims of the fundholders (those who re-
ceived salaries from the Government he considered as be-
' longing to schedule D), and when he was pressed with the
case of the fund holders ho said he thought nothing could
be more invidious than to make them an exception. Well,
that was a most agreeable method of handling a very
thorny question, and most conciliatory to the feelings of
those various classes who have been addressed in honeyed
accents by those who have a happy knack of dealing with
unpleasant subjec s. Of course the end of this is that if all
get relief from the existing standard the existing standard
must be raised. Now, with regard to the fault of the in-
come-tax and its inequalities, there are certain parts of them
that are common to other taxes levied in this country,
though they may be mare prominent in the case of the in-
come-tax. There are other inequalities, some disadvan-
tages and evils which I myself have always strongly felt,
and perhaps not more strongly than many members of this
house. There is a peculiar sense, a belief of the inequality
attaching to the imposition of this tax. Now I gather from
what has been said by gentlemen in this debate that my
hon. friend has no intention at present of moving for a
Parliamentary inquiry into the subject, and I confess I
think that in so doing he exercises a wise discretion. lam
far from saying that it would be the duty of the Govern-
ment to oppose the further prosecution of the inquiry into
the assessment of the income-tax, if at any time it should
be the general desire of the house to institute that inquiry,
and not only to institute the inquiry, but to prosecute it
with an earnestness, an intention, and an exertion adequate
to the extreme difficulty of the subject. But in saying that
I do not feel authorised to shut the door against a general
inquiry by the house. I must confess, as an individual,
and I believe on the part of my colleagues, that in
saying this we have done all that is in our power.
The hon. baronet who appeals to me in the office I hold
has said he hopes that the question will receive at the
hands of the Government—and especially at the hands of
the Finance Minister before he proposes another budget—
an attentive sod careful consideration. Now it does happen
that at a former period it became my duty, on my behalf,
in the same office I have now the honour to fill, and like-
wise on behalf of my colleagues, to examine the question.
Nor was I alone in that examination, because several mem-
bers of the Aberdeen Cabinet—including those who had
paid the greatest attention to the subject of finance—were
good enough to associate themselves with me in that in-
quiry for the purpose of testing and sifting it to the best of
our power. (Hear.) At that period nothing could be
more obvious than that it was the intention of Government
if possible to come to some arrangement for the adjustment
of this tax. A strong disposition had been shown by those
who then formed, as now, the Opposition party, to give as-
sistance to the reconstruction of the tax, which I now
mention, not as a matter of praise or blame, but simply as
an historical fact. And while that was the case with the
Conservative party generally, a very large proportion of
the Liberal party were in the abstract favourable to the
same opinions, therefore there was the clearest intention on
the part of the Government to have proposed some p'.an, if
we had found ourselves able to construct such a plan con •
sistently with justice. It is very difficult to assert with
confidence a negative on most subjects, and particularly on
a subject of politics—most of all on the subject of taxa-
tion—but we did come to the conclusion that it was not
practicable to forts any system for the general adjust-
ment of the income tax with reference to the distinction
between permanent and terminable incomes without in-
flicting a greater amount of injustice than it would cure.
I am bound to remind those who have taken part in this
debate, because it is a material part of the case, that,
in commencing ' the examination of it we found our-
selves confronted by this fact, that whereas, on the
whole, those who are assessed on schedule D pay on
less than their real income—l do not speak of cases of
fraud, but I speak of arrangements made by the
law which I think legitimatelyhave that effect—while those
who are assessed on schedule D pay on the whole less than
their income in almost every case, those who pay on sche-
dule A pay on more than their real income. And therefore
I think if you were to institute a severe critical analysis,
and pursue it to its furthest stage, you would find that the
tax really at this moment is a heavier tax on schedule A
than it is on schedule D. And that is true in reference to
all the property assessed on schedule A, except one de-
scription of property, with regard to which I am not quite
certain, I mean with regard to the return on mines. But
speaking generally on the great branches of income under

schedule A, that is true. With regard to one great branch
of that property, namely, house property, I must say with
regard to certain glasses of it I cannot deny, and indeed
must firmly contend, that if there be a special case for relief
which is to be singled out from the rest, the strongest claim
is the claim of the owners of a Certain species of house pro-
perty. I only mention that as another material—not per-
haps a decisive, but a material consideration to be borne in
mind by those who take an interest in this question. It was
my fate, in 1853, I believe, for two mortal hours to occupy
the time of this house, whether fruitfully or fruitlessly I do
not know, in stating in great detail the reasons that had
actuated the Government, and the conclusion to which they
had arrived. lam bound to say that although there was
then, and there is still, a great sense of the inequality of
this tax, as well as with regard to its general severity, yet
on the whole since that time the public have become more
impressed with a sense of the difficulty of any practical re-
construction of the tax than they have been at any former
period, and I am disposed to think that this result is owing
in the main to the labours of the select committee of
this house, which was appointed under the notion that a
reconstruction was practicable and easy. But the general
effect of the evidence was to leave on the minds of the
committee the conviction that on the contrary, if not hope-
less, it was difficult. And there was one, if not more than
one, highly intelligent gentleman, who was a member of
that committee, who entered into the examination with the
firm belief of the practicability of the reconstruction, who
quitted the committee with the firm conviction that such
reconstruction would be wholly impracticable. Therefore,
after what I have said, I am sure it would be paltering with
the house and the country, if I were to pretend on the part
of myself, and I believe I may say on the part of my col-
leagues, to say that we see our way to the proposal of a
plan fcr the reconstruction of the income tax. As I said
before, if that large question which was proposed was not
entirely exhausted by the committee, and there were a gene-
ral desire on the pa-t of the house for inquiry so serious as
to demand and to have a just claim on the differential atten-
tion of the Government—if it did not extend to a recon-
struction—there might be many questions more limited
which might perhaps form the subject of an inquiry, with
regard to which I by po means say that improvement would
not be practicable. But as my hon. friend knows, there are
sanguine ideas abroad on the subject, and to those sanguine
ideas I should not be justified in giving any further encou•
ragement than by saying that while I feel myself unable to
give them any practical effect, I do not wish to stand in the
way of those who, more fortunate than myself, may be able
to devise a plan for the purpose. With these explanations,
and thinking that my hon. friend exercised a wise discre-
tion in not asking the house to enter into an inquiry, I close
the remarks I have to make upon this subject.

Mr. IVHALLEY observed that he did not propose an in-
quiry on schedule D merely, but an inquiry into the whole
of the schedules.

Sir H. IVILLO UGHBY said there were no hopes of the
reconstruction of the income tax. In fact, he believed it to
be impossible, and therefore the house, if it were wise, would
get rid of it as soon as it could, and in the meantime give as
little of it as they could. He thought, however, the right
hon. gentleman ought not to aggravate the difficulties. There
was one class of persons to whom great injustice was done.
He meant the long annuitants, who, by the way in which
the tax was levied, their income being about to be annihi-
lated, were made to pay on a quarter's income which they
never received. He had received numerous applications
from persons who had thus been unjustly charged with the
tax, to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would repay it. (Laughter.)
Thehouse then went into committee of supply on
THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Mr. LAING moved that a vote be taken for £624,000 on
account for the civil service. He said it was by no
means
the wish of the Government to lay down a precedent for
taking sums on account, but it was thought desireablc that
the house should get through the next fortnight with the
remainder of the armybaendmintsavy estimates. The amount
asked. for would only
them over a
month, and enable them to paYensTtahlatoriesca7hich would be-
come due in the meanwhile.
from
eawssoinugld be nothing
therefore to preclude the housebfir, its judgment
answer to what the:hon.
on the details of the vote.
gentleman had said, that these estimates were in a state of
expansion, he might observe that the remaining
7, would not exceed the amount stated by thnegclChancellor,No.
of the Exchequer in February, and consequently the whole
of these estimates would show a diminution of £350,000.
Mr. W. 'WILLIAMShad a great objection to the system
of voting money on account ; but under the circumstances
he did not see how the government could avoid resorting to