The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-27 00:00:00

help contrai3ting the present position of the. Chancellor df
the Exchequer with the position he took in the end of 1852.
He still remembered the fierce denunciations of the right
hon. gentleman against the Government of that day, on ac-
count of :heir policy with regard to this particular tax and
their financial propositions on that•occasion. The right hon.

gentleman then called on the house to crush the budget of
1852, on the ground that it was immoral and dangerous to
appropriate to the service of the year £400,000 that had not
been furnished by the revenue of the year. But what was the
position of the right hon. gentleman now ? The right hon.
gentleman proposed that there should be appropriated to

the service of the year not £400,000, but £1,500,000, which
was not furnished by the revenue of the year. (Hear.) With
regard to the income tax, tilt, right hon. gentleman said no
Minister was justified in proposing a continuance of that
impost without providing for its final termination. (Hear,

hear.) What was the position in which they now found

themselves ? The income tax was double the amount at

which it stood in 1852, and was there any one who could
say that provision was made for its final termination ? The
right hon. gentleman next charged the then Government
with proposing to make a difference in the assessment of
uhedules A and D. But he learned with surprise and asto-
nishment that the right hon. gentleman promised when
this important financial proposition was taken into consi-

deration next year, that he would consider the policy o
greatly increasing the whole scale of exceptions, and reduc.

ing the scale of assessment in the different classes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, here made
a remark across the table which did not reach us.

Mr. DISRAELI said it was a pity the right hon. gentleman
had been represented to have so spoken ; he was not in the
house at the time himself. The right hon. gentleman, how•
ever, must have stated something, and if such was his policy
the proposition of 1852 shrinks into entire insignificance in
comparison with that of the right hon. gentleman. It was
very true, as was pointed out by the hen member for Kent,
that the Chanbellor of the Exchequer had embarked in as
important an enterprise as could be. Heshad, he was afraid,
succeeded in substituting direct for indirect taxation to a
great extent, and he laid down principles which, if followed,
would lead to measures of greater imr ortance. He plated
on the Minister who would have to deal with the finances
of the country next year the task of meeting a deficiency of
from £12,000,000 to £15,000,000; and the manner in which
the finances of the country were to be re-established was to
be reserved, to use the right hon. gentleman's own phrase,
for the representatives of the masses.
Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
that he had not used such an expression.
Mr. DISRAELI—Did the right hon. gentleman mean to
deny that he had used the word " masses ?"
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I contra-
dict you entirely as to the phrase.
Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman said that
the masses were about to become possessed of the franchise,
and he should be sorry if their representatives were to be
deprived of an opportunity of deciding on the principles on
which the taxation of the country ought to be levied. That
is a very serious state of affairs when you were promised a
system which was mainly to depend on direct taxation and
at the same time were informed by the same minister that
a new constituent body was about to be formed who were
themselves no payers of direct taxes. (Hear, hear.) A
position more dangerous to the country could not be con-
templated. They had discussions in that house whether
the Emperor of the French was influenced in his policy by
what was stated in the House of Commons, and whether
he might not be irritated and offended by what was said of
him there. But he did not think the Emperor of the
French had any cause to complain of the House of Com-
mons, for it appeared to him that the House of Commons
was doing his work as expeditiously and as completely as
any minister of his own could do it. (Hear, hear.) A'
system of direct taxation, which was not to be paid by the
great majority of the constituent body, appeared to be a
policy which, if anything could break down this country,
would break down its free spirit and that salutary influence
of ancient property which so often exercised a great and
powerful weight in the vindication of their rights and liber-
ties. With such a policy pursued by the Government, and
supported by the House of Commons, the Emperor of the
French could not feel offended at anything which was ex-
pressed in that house. (Hear, hear.) When such was the
financial policy avowed:and pursued by the right hon. gen-
tleman, and such was the political policy working in unison
with it, Necker himself, in all his glory, could not contem-
plate anything so enduring for the monarchy, and so advan-
tageous for the people, (Cheers.)
Mr. LAING said that all the visionary pictures which
had been for some time in circulation had been brought to
a climax by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down. They had been told that they were throwing away
all that annual taxation which formed the mainstay of our
revenue, and substituting direct taxation to the extent of
confiscation of the rich as against the poor. But in speaking
on matters of finance there was only one sort of figures al-
lowable, and those were figures of arithmetic. (Hear, hear.)
They ware told that they were throwing away an immense
amount of indirect taxation in their budget, but the fact
was that the amount of indirect taxation next year would be
greater than ever it had been before. (Hear, hear.) Let
them for example go back to the year 1856-57, when the
Russian war was at its height. In that year the amount
raised from the Excise and Customs was £41,486,000, and
in the same year the income-tax was £16,089,000. Now, in
the budget as prepared this year the amount of indirect
taxation would be £42,970,000, being a million and a half
more than in the great year of the Russian war—(hear)—
whilst the amount of direct taxation, which had been de-
scribed as something so extraordinary, would be £10,900,000
against £16,000,000. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, comparing
the indirect taxes with 1856 they were a million and a half
less, and the income tax a reduction of something in the
shape of £5,000,000. He put it to the house and the coun-
try whether this was a wholesale abandonment of indirect
taxation. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the object of
the present budget was to increase the fruitfulness of indi-
rect taxation; because experience had shown that by reduc-
ing the duty on an article of direct consumption, and by
similar reductions on raw. materials so as to lighten the
springs of industry, your indirect taxation would go on in-
creasing until it far surpassed the amount it had returned
before reduction. In 1842, £12,000,000 of indirect taxes were
repealed, and the result was that they now produced
£5,300,000 more than when we began. Therefore, if the last
20 years showed such a result, it was only reasonable to ex-
pect something similar as a consequence of the reductions
that were now proposed, whilst they started now with a
larger amount of indirect taxation than at the former
period.
Mr. MALINS complained that, after the emphatic decla-
rations of former years against the income tax, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer should now be found, in 1860, the
year in which be promised it should come to an end, about
to reimpose the burden. Last half-year he levied 13d. in
the pound, and now he reimposed it without giving them
any prospect of its abandonment. The right hon. gentle-
man forgot, perhaps, that the weight of this tax would fall
on Schedule D, comprising 260,000 persons, of whom
200,000 had incomes of less than £3OO a-year. These were
the people upon whom the tax fell heaviest, and to whom
the reductions on French wines, or the abolition of the
paper duties, were matters of not the slightest consequence.
In tits paper duty the right hon. gentleman was sacrificing
£1,200,000, of which nobody had ever felt the burden, and
all the alleged difficulties of collection had been cleared
away by the evidence that had been taken, whilst the ad-
vantages which the French Emperor had promised us in
the import of rags turned out to mean an export duty of
100 per cent. He hoped that as hereafter the taxes were to
be levied by the classes who did not pay them, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, if he should be in office next year,
would remember his promises of 1853, and endeavour to
do something for the income tax payers, who would then
be no longer able to protect themselves.
Mr. PIGOTT was anxious to get some intimation from
the right hon. gentleman respecting a future re-adjustment
of the tax which, while it pressed but lightly on the wealthy
men of Manchester, was heavily felt by the members of
small trading communities. In towns such as that one
which he had the honour to represent the amount of the
tax was a matter of very great importance.
Mr. BARROW said it was most desirable the mode of
assessing the income tax should be considered as early as
possible, and he thought a great improvement might be
made in assessing small incomes.
Mr. PEASE lutist unite with other hon. gentlemen in
disliking the income tax, but he thought, failing other
sources of revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
hound to levy the only tax which he had at his command.
The charge against the right hon. gentleman at the pre-
sent moment wasp that he was levying 3d. in the pound
more than was necessary on the income tax for the sake of
taking the duty off paper.
Mr. It. HANB URI' thought an income tax was about the
best tat that could be inflicted, but he wished to urge upon
the Chancellor of the Exchequer that If he had any desire to
obtain a majority of the house in favour of the tax next
yeats lie must take tneans to levy it more justly.
Mr, N E wpm-lA.I'E thought that if the house had made
up its mind to an income tax, it wits absolutely necessary
something should be done to remedy its inequalities. Ile
confessed that having studied the question, he had not been
able to surmount the difficulties which defeated Mr. Pitt
and Sir It: Peel. He believed it would be impossible to
establish a just system of gradation. They would not be
able to define strictly between the accumulation which
created capital and Income Itself, and for his own part, he
thought the Goternment were launching into a system of
taxation which Was fraught Willi injustice. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer had undertaken the task of adjusting the
income tali, a task which defeated Mr. Pitt and Sir P. Peel,
and he (Mis eirtlegate) only hoped the house would exact
from the right hon. gentleman the fulfilment of that task.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I
just Wish to explain, after what the hon. gentleman said
who had just sat down, that I was certainly not aware that
any person was under the impression that I had undertaken
to re-adjust the schedules of the income tax. That is a task
far beyond my strength, and the utmost I said was, that if
there Wets a disposition on the part of the house to institute
an intlitiry ob. the subject, It would not be my duty to oppose
it. (Hear.)
Mt. S. LOCIIFI thought that the income tax was carried
a Vast deal tut, low ih lreinp levied upon incomes of £lOO
a-year. lie considered it ought to be limited to incomes of
£l5O a-Year. Taxation should be made as equal as it could
be oft ei'ery class of the community, but under the present
systetti the itseottis fat fell much more heavily upon the
small trader than upon the large one.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS begged to say that when the bill
went into Committee, he should take the opportunity of
Meting that the charge of sevenpenee on incomes from £lOO
to £l5O should be altogether abolished. (Hear.)
Mr. HUBBARD thought it must be obvious to every
one, that if they cut off the means of indirect taxation they
would have nothing left but to resort to such a scheme as
that entertained by the Government. They would cer-
tainly have been justified in levying a tax upon the export
of coal. What we had omitted to do for our exchequer the
Emperor of the French had taken care to do for his, for he
had imposed an import duty of ls. 2d. per ton on coals.
(Hear.) If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed an
export duty of that amount on coals, it would have pro-
duced a comfortable sum of £lO,OOO, and enabled him to
get rid of a great mass of aggravating taxes which now in-
terfered with the operations of trade. With regard to the
income tax, he thought we were bound by no antecedents