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

500 or GOO members could be readily obtained when any
trifling party question arose, the house was almost deserted
whert4tiley came to discuss important questions relating to
the navy ; and unless the house put some pressure upon the
Admiralty the present wretched system would continue,
and the same want of energy would be displayed. By a
false, penny. wise economy they spoilt the effect of all they
did, and this, in fact, was the whole difficulty. Be must
say it was a disgrace to the country that there should be
the slightest delay in procuring sufficient men for the navy;
and he thought the Government ought at oace to say
whether they disagreed with the recommendations of the
Mannl* Commission, and if they did not, whether they
were prepared to carry them out. He concurred entirely
with the gallant admiral that to attempt to defend the
country by fortifications was utter insanity. It would be a
waste of money to construct fortifications, and, as regarded
all practical purposes, the money so spent might be as well
thrown into the Thames. (Hear, hear.) An efficient fleet,
costing half the money, would do more good than all the
brick and mortar and stone-work which they could put
together. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD explained, with reference tea com-
plaint from Sir Charles Napier, that, although there was
no savings bank proper which paid interest upon deposits
on board vessels of the royal navy, the sailors could deposit
their money securely in the "second chest," kept by the
paymaster. Another matter to which he wished to allude
was the qualifications required for the coast guard and the
naval reserve. No doubt it would be easier to obtain men
if the qualification were lowered, but then the efficiency of
the services would be proportionately lessened.

Admiral DUNCOMBE said the Board of Admiralty had
been accused of not making sufficient exertions to procure
men for the navy, but the matter was ono of considerable
difficulty. On that day week he went on board the Great
Eastern, and one of the officers told him that the ship was
then short 78 "A B" seamen, though they expected to sail
in 48 hours, and that they thought they would have to
endeavour to obtain them in America. It was true that the
vessels which were to carry the Prince of Wales and Prince
Alfred hid readily obtained the requisite number of men ;
but those ships were engaged in a favourite service, and
afforded no criterion of what could be done with respect to
others. He was glad to hear that the noble lord intended
to revise the articles of war, for he believed that a judicious
revision of them would do more than anything else to
make the naval service popular with seamen. Discipline
was of the greatest importance, but punishment should be
commensurate with the offence committed, It should also
be certain ; but it was impossible to carry out the extreme
penalties which were awarded by the present articles of
war. The recommendation of the commissioners with re-
gard to the training of boys was a most valuable pa: t of
their repost, because they must look almost exclusively, he
thought, to their educating boys for seamen as the future
means of manning the navy efficiently. (Hear.)
Mr. A. SIMITH contended that by the practice of taking
votes on account for the civil service, the estimates for that
service would never come properly before the house for dis-
cussion. Those estimates had been increasing from year
to year to a very considerable extent. In 1851 they
amounted to £3,900,000, in 1853 to £4,800,000, in 1854 to
£6,600,000, and in 1858 to £7,235,000, and he thought it
was full time for the house to look into that expenditure.
The first item in the present estimates was fir the Trea-
sury, who were themselves the chief sinners iu the matter,
inasmuch as they had not brought forward the estimates at
an early period of the session ; and as they had not pro-
perly per formed their work, they could hardly be entitled
to their pay. (A laugh.) The most important perhaps of
all the votes was, however, that forpublic education, which
had run up in amount in a grzlater degree than any of the
others ; and if they agreed to these votes on account, they
would hear nothing more with regard to the subject of
them until a late period of the session, whon it would be
impossible to bring them under discussion. There was
also the vote for consuls abroad, which was likely to raise
a most important discussion. Under these circumstances
he hoped the house would not agree to the votes on ae-
count. He would not object to going into committee, but
he proposed to take the sense of the committee upon the
first votes in the estimates.

The motion of Mr. LINDSAY was then negatived without
a iivision.

PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX. '
Mr. WIIALLEY rose, pursuant to notice, to call atten •
tion to the present mode of assessing the property and in-
come
tax, with a view to a more equitable adjustment. The
house was aware that, from the first imposition of the tax,
the mode in which it, was assessed and the principle of as-
sessment acted upon had occasioned deep dissatisfaction to
the trading and industrial classes. This grievance had
been repeatedly recognised in Parliament, and in 1852 the
subject was referred to a committee, but so difficult did they
find it to lay down rules for a more equitable mode of levy-
ing the tax that they referred the matter back again to the
house. His object was not on the present occasion to in-
vite the house to discuss the present mode of assessment, or
to inquire whether it could be improved, and if so by what
means, but merely to ask the Government to state what
course they proposed to pursue in respect to it in the next
session of Parliament, when the tax would nave to be re-
imposed in a permanent form. Common sense revolted
against a system of taxation which charged upon precarious
incomes derived from trades and professions equally with
with permanent incomes, derived from real property; nor
was any argument needed to prove its injustice. (Hear.)
Still it might not follow that it was expedient to make any
change; but in that case the onus was upon the Govern-
ment to show that it could not be altered without inconve-
nience and injury to the public service. But he thought
he could demonstrate that they had materials in their hands
for the adjustment of the tax without inconvenience, and
without exciting jealously and ill•feeling between the landed
and the trading interests. In 1853, the present Chancellor
of the Exchequer admitted that the tax bore more hardlyupon
industry and skill than it did upcn property, but added that
a readjustment could not be carried out without the risk of
evils greater than those which arose from its inequality ;
and further stated that it was a temporary tax, and as such
only could be maintained. In 1856,however, another mem-
ber of the Government, Sir G. C. Lewis, contended that
the State, in estimating the capability of individuals to pay
taxis, should look not at the amount of their property, but
to the omount of their income, and that the ability of each
person to pay should be measured by the annual revenue
he possessed, and not by the value of that revenue as if it
were to be sold and capitalised. He (Mr. Whalley) thought
the country should know which of those two opposite views
the Government now adopted, andwhether theycould show
that the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was,
that no adjustment of the tax could take place which would
not produce evils greaterthan those it was sought to remedy.
All the testimony adduced by the committeee of 1852 was
adverse to existing system of levying the tax, and tended to
show not only that it was most unjust towards those with
fluctuatingincomes derivable from the exertions of theirewn
industry, but that it gave rise to immorality and fraud. If
it was possible to devise a remedy, it was most essential to
adopt it now that the property and income tax was about
to be made the permanent source of revenue. In 1840
Parliament passed an act releasing from its liability to the
poor-rate visible property, as stock in trade, amounting to
£16,000,000 a year, and which might be said to be property
of an analogous character to that which came under schedule
Dof the Property Tax Act. It was true that by usage this
class of property was exempt from liability to the poor-
rate; but in the year he had mentioned the exemption was
confirmed by Act •f Parliament, and the burden trans-
ferred to the land. That act was originally 1 assed for two
or three years, he forgot which, but since then it had been
continually renewed without objection on the part of the
owners of real property, by whom its justice had been
previously practically recognised. When the bill of 1840
was under discussion the present Lord Chancellor,
`then a member of the House of Conmons, said it was most
inquisitorial to attempt to tax stock in trade, but how much
more inquisitorial must it be to tax property such as was
assessed under schedule D, and which was not even, as
stock in trade was, " visible" property, but property that
was invisible. (Hear, hear.) He submitted that in the course
taken with regard to the liability of visible personal property
to the poor rate, they might find a means for the satisfac-
tory adjustment of the income tax in respect to incomes de•
uabt hmsueotesintethtsoibi- ,
rived from trades and professions. 'With the permission of
the house he would read a letter upon the subject from Mr.
George Coombe, a gentleman well known to many mem-
bers of the house as having paid great attention to matters
of this kind. The letter stated that materials existed, sasteCiertanain
were in the power of the Government, notfroonml
jt
eheet operationions w h iohofn
now
we t.
aaxgg,rbavuat
tteodseittst
unpopularity,
ujythaPrieyatalllo'li
omoanitemriiatltesec,ooulrdbynineveearhscoomfeaneuytinb:wforrye
ofan
but only by means of an investigation conducted by some
independent tribunals appointed for the purpose. He sug-
gested that such an inquiry should be instituted, and that
they should have an authoritative statement as to whawaa
the true state of the case.

Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART believed that it would
be dangerous longer to trifle with the feelings of the people
with regard to the injustice of this tax as now levied. He
thought the time had come when it would be folly and
madness any longer to trifle with the feelings of the country
by refusing to grapple with this question.
Sir F. GOLD SMID said there was a very strong impres-
.ston 111 various parts of the country that there was unfair-
nessin ?he imposi'ion of this tax. That unfairness had
u3en submitted to because there had been a constant hope
that in two or three years the tax would be taken off. That
hope had now deparLd, and he thought the country
ought now to have an assurance that the Government
would grapple with the subject.
Mr. J. P. WESTHEAD said he represented a city in
which there was a great number of gentlemen of the legal
and clerical profession, and he believed they all considered
that this tax was most unfairly levied. He was sorry to
say that the prospect before us in reference to this tax was
very gloomy, and he feared that the tax would remain a
burden on the industry of the country for some time
come. it appeared to him that a man, who byhisind.r.t7
had attained to a position in which he could nuammtael
raten
family in comfort, ought not to be taxed at
as a man who had property to bequeath.
(Hear.) He should c.ortaiuly use his uteoz tehheis:isihhieldwr children.