The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-11 00:00:00

men, poor curates, shopkeepers, and even working men,
who made up the amount which rendered thorn liable by
working over time. The hon. gentleman referred to the
case of the poor man who was imprisoned for not paying
income tax, in respect to which he had been surcharged,
the particulars of which have so frequently been before
the public. He felt convinced that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer could make the reduction ho bad suggested
without any injury to the finances of the country.
Mr. PELLATT mentioned the case of a widow whose
furniture was seized for income tax twelve months after
her husband, who was supposed to be liable to it, was
dead. It was a most cruel case, and the poor woman, who
had a large family, could obtain no redress from the com-
missioners, nor could she obtain any answer to her letters.
Mr. SMITH CHILD said that the cashier of Messrs.
Minton, the eminent manufacturers of Stoke-upon-Trent,
had been called upon to make a return of all the .persons
in their employ who bad 801. a year and upwards. As this
was a large firm, and the return would have entailed great
trouble, the cashier demurred, but the commissioners said
they had the power to enforce it, and would do so. Under
these circumstances all the men who had BW. a year were
assessed, and lost two or three days in appealing. This
was attempted a second time, when Messrs. Minton in-
structed their cashier not to make the return, and informed
the commissioners that they were prepared to take the
consequences of the refusal. The application was not re-
newed. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
agree with the hon. member for Lambeth in thinking that
the class of persons whom he had described as being so
greatly oppressed would meet with no compassion from
that house. Wires the income tax was first imposed sd.
per pound was charged on incomes between 1001. and 1501.
a year, being 2/. ls. Bd. per cent. As the tax now stood at
this moment under the increase it was 11d. in the pound
on that class of persons, or 41. 15s. 101 per cent. If such
a man were called upon each half-year for V. Bs., that was
no doubt a heavy impost; but the fact must not be lost
sight of that the bill before the house reduced the amount
from Hid. to sd. in the pound. The total amount in
question was 350,0001., and that was a larger sum than he
should feel justified in calling upon the house to surrender.
The other gentleman said he had inquired into the case of
the poor man who had been imprisoned ; and he believed
the commissioners bad given him some relief. With
respect to the case mentioned by the hon. member for
Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), he would inquire into it if the
hon. gentleman would favour him with the particulars.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he wished to withdraw his
amendment, and to substitute another. He proposed that
after the word " gains" in the proviso, to add, he shall
not be chargeable for the year commencing as aforesaid, of
any tax upon incomes under 1501. a year." (Hear.)
Mr. SMITH CHILD said the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had not taken any notice of the case he had men-
tioned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the ma-
nagement and collection of the income tax to offer any
opinion. He presumed that the local commissioners bad
returns on which they acted, and the persons thus charged
had means of income from other sources. The local com-
missioners were not Government officers, but if the hon.
gent'eusan would give him the particulars he would cause
inquiries to be made.
Mr. WILKINSON opposed the amendment of his hon.
colleague (Mr. Williams). If they excused persons who
had incomes under 15J1. a year from the payment of the
income tax, he did not see why they should make people
with 1511. a year pay. He thought that taxes should be
adjusted as equally as possible ; and if one class were re-
lieved, it must be done at the expense of another equally
poor.
Lord H. VANE opposed the amendMent.
The committee divided, and the numbers were--
For the amendment 7
Against it 53
Majority
The amendment was consequently lost.
On the question that clause 1 be part of the bill,
Sir H. WILLLOUGHBY observed that the word "pro-
perty " was left out of the proviso.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
not aware that there was any reason for a change in the
phraseology. Profits from gains and property were meant.
Mr. BARROW wanted more distinct explanations as to
the clause. It was not sufficiently definite ; and for that
purpose he moved the insertion of the word " property."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the best course would be to recommit the bill, when the
word "property," to which he had no objection, could be
introduced.
The clause was then agreed to.
The preamble of the bill was agreed to.
Mr. THORNELY complained of the trouble and loss of
time to which poor persons were put in appealing under
the bill. They were obliged to leave their homes, which
caused both expense and waste of time. He thought that
some remedy ought to be provided.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he would consider provisions to obviate this inconvenience.
The bill was then reported.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
it be committed.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that this was a novel proceed-
ing, consequent, he supposed, upon the new modes they
had adopted. Some explanation ought to be given to the
house. Amendments used to be proposed, not by recom-
mitment, but at a future stage of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
there 14 as a doubt whether more than verbal amendments
could be introduced at that stage of the bill, and it was
better to recommit it.
The SPEAKER explained that this was the course
adopted when errors were discovered which it was neces-
sary to rectify.
The motion for the recommitment was then agreed to,
and the bill passed through committee pro forms.
SUPPLY—THE-NAVAL ESTIMATES.
On bringing-up the report of supply,
Mr. GLADSTONE rose to move the following resolu-
tion : That in order to insure to the country that relief
from taxation which it justly expected, it is necessary in
the judgment of the house to revise and further reduce the
expenditure of the State. He said that the First Lord of
the Admiralty was guilty of an act of impolicy the night
before in taking advantage of the forms of the house, and
compelling him to postpone his speech. Speeches of mem-
bers did not waste during an interval like spirits in bond.
It was the better- policy to let them speak at the moment.
However, it was not his intention to trespass at any length.
Nothing but the conviction that we were entering upon a
mischievous course, and that before long we should see the
consequences would have induced him in the present state
of the benches [there were about 45 members prssent], to
enter upon such a vast But jut as the finances of the coun-
try. He should move a re:olution to the effect that it wai
expedient to review and reduce the expenditure of the
country. He did not intend to enter upon any subjects
that had been already disposed of by the house in previous
debates. For instance, the house had determined not to
take up any operation for the cessation of the income tax.
It had determined not to abide by the resolution of 1853
respecting the tea duties. Again, the house was voting that
the income tax should be kept up for the purpose of providing
for the ways and means of the country, and did not consider
the connection between the tax and further reforms in our
legislation. There seemed to heve been an extra chaise's, in
the spirit of the house. When the house agreed in 1853 tothe
issue of Exchequer Bonds, it was understood.to be merely in
anticipation of revenue then due but not paid. If it had been
possible he might have solicited the house to apply these
sums to the reduction of war obligations ; but this did not
appeesr to be the wish of the House of Commons, and he
should cease to urge it. The position of the house was
peculiar and inexact. Great objections were taken in the
early part of the session, Sey members from every quarter,
to the amount of the estimates now on the table. The
sntorbelneg
el
so
tr d t
etrhme s
ae
timbd ewr
hf
lr
eLondonhe
eeehexpressed
tthhdi sr
aiwn thehis
support from the budget, expressed in some detail his ob-
jection to the amount of the estimates. If the house had
not been affected by the dissolution, it would have agreed
to the principle of further reductions in the estimates.
Their position was thus a peculiar one. In 1811 they had
passed votes on account, to enable ministers to dissolve
Parliament with the view of taking the opinion of the
country as to confidence in the Government. But these were
estimates which the house had a general disposition to agree
to. At present there was a disposition to question the esti-
mates. Parliament was about to vote for four months' esti-
mates to which it objected, because the Government was
under a vote of censure. The'effect of his motion would be
not to upset abstract principles or interfere with supply,
but to refer the estimates to the Government for considera-
tion by expressing in particular terms the opinion that it was
the duty of Government in the interval of the recess to apply
themselves to the estimates with the view of reduction in
public expenditure. Ho had no objection to votes on ac-
count, except when they were in contradiction to the opi-
nions of the house. He would ask the house to agree to his
motion on the two grounds—first, that there was not an ade-
quate provision madefor the necessities of the year ; and se-
cendg, which was the mostimportant, that the expenditured
the country was not kept under due control—that it had in-
creased to the point which was embarrassing, and even
threatened to become alarming. It had been seen that there
was a deficiency in 1858-9 of five millions and a half, am
the deficiency had been increased to eight or nine millions
by the weans of the severalchanges which had taken place
in the proposals of the Government The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had made and abandoned a proposal for the in-
crease of tea and sugar, and there was a diminution in the
amount which he had set down for the income tax, so that
in addition to the old deficiency there was the deficiency
and that of the failure in the provision respecting tea and
sugar. Their last deficiency amounted to 1,400,000/. and
the deficiency in the income tax was about two millions,
making a sum of 3,400,0001. to be a idea to the deficiency
of the permanent provision of 1858-9. It was startling to
in the addition to the four or five millions formerly shown
deficient, making a deficiency of between 8 and 9 millions.
In this he did not take into account any improvement in
revenue which might take place, and hesupposed that the
Government would fulfil their pledge with regard to the
sinking fund. His right hon. friend had opened a retreat
in saying that the sinking fund might perhaps be post-
poned. Neither had he taken into account any reduction
in expenditure. His object was to show how urgent it was
that Parliament should consider seriously the expenditure
of the country. The only of her alternative was either
making loans or imposing new taxes. He called their se-
rious attention to what was required for the next year ;
but even for the present year the position was not Eatisfac.
tory. The estimates of his right hon. friend had originally
shown a surplus of 900,000/., which was reduced to
800,0001. shortly after. He would not inquire into the
consequences of the war with China or Persia. His right
hon. friend had said that he did not anticipate any charge
on account of China. Ho (Mr. Gladstone) thought this
too good to be true, but if there was to be a charge on
the war with China, as there certainly must be on the war
with Persia, a surplus of 500,1.00/. was not a satisfactory
balance between income and expenditure for the current
year. It was the duty of the house, before it dissolved, to
make known its views on the subject of the expenditure of
the country, so that the Government might consider the
expediency of reduction before submitting the estimates to
the new Parliament. They had done a popular act in
giving up the war ninopence. This was not done under
the necessities of public business. The bill which they
were then passing for the reduction of the income tax
tfoorpalancee new
theirParliamentviews
ot
noswruheci
case
ohve
rose
dsdi,consideredsuccession
o since s
a tle reductionthe subject.
o f
from sixteen-pence to sevenponce would not take effect till
the first of July next—so that there might have been time
the balance was unsatisfactory, it was incumbent on them
ex-
penditurelf was the only plan on a fair basis for giving satis-
retvilheeenue which might be capable of in-
faction to the country when a deficiency of revenue stared
n
LoLnolyaa somfaltlhaemot
in-
crease. arheienams itemse. i T thihener eftawhceae say
duty. a f e few
tw
tohr
ed s
porno
timesceeurt-
Th e tcproducedA Nc E
million, EXCHEQUER: Half a

Mr. GLADSTONE—There had been promises, which
would have given great increase to the tax, but even when
it arrived at its maximum, which would be in 1863, it
would not produce more than 1,300,0001.. Now the
Government had not yet introduced the supplement to
the tax, that on succession of corporations. Why did