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

On the motion for the house going into committee on
this bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY called the attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to the necessity of the Go-
vernment making provision in this bill to prevent per-
sons from having to pay income and property tax twice
over in consequence of the deficiencies arising from the
defalcations of the collector.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
tbere was such a provision already provided in the act of
1854, with reference to the collectors of the land tax,
assessed taxes, and income tax. By a clause in that act
any parish might appoint its own collector with seem i-
ties, or petition the Inland Revenue Department to un-
dertake the collection of the income tax.
Mr. ALCOCK thought it would be much better if the
Government would make it compulsory, and not permis-
sive, for the Inland Revenue officers to collect the in-
come tax.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the working of the act
referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been
beneficial to the metropolitan parishes.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
On clause 1, authorising the reduction of the income
tax from Is. 41. to 7d., commencing on the sth of April
next,
Sir F. KFLLY said that, in moving the adoption of
the amendment of which be had given notice, he bad no
motive or desire to obstruct her Majesty's Government in
raising the necessary supplies. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on several occasions that session had stated that
he was not proposing an increase, but a reduction in the
amount of income tax. His chief if not his sole motive in
pressing his amendment was to record his protest against
that their first departure from the act of 1853. He knew
it had been stated that the act of 1853 was at an end by
the imposition of the war tax, and that the house had
now only to deal with the latter, but to such reasoning
he could not subscribe. He would not say that in pass-
ing the act of 1853 a compact was entered into, or that
a pledge was made between the Government and the
people, but that it was emphatically and expressly de-
clared that by it there should be a settlement of the
question. It was now said that that act was at an end,
but he could not subscribe to that statement, because,
although be and the country had considered that the act
•f 1853 was a complete settlement of the income tax,
though it was not a compact, but what might be called
elsewhere a contract between the public and Parliament,
because when the income tax was voted it was for seven
years, and any arrangement since come to in consequence
of the war was only a suspension and not an abolition of
that act. There had been a contention between the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. member for
the University of Oxford as to the term reduction—one
speaking of a war, and the other of a peace income ; but
in speaking of the reduction in a time of peace he (Sir
F. K•1Iy) considered it an increase from sd. to 7d. After
referring to the fact of the house being called on to vote
the income tax without knowing the estimates, especi-
ally as the 23 increase on the income tax gave an increase
of two millions, he concluded by moving the substitution
of sd. for 73. on the amount of the income tax for the
ensuing year.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS considered that a sufficient re-
duction might be made in the estimate to admit of the
reduction of the income t:tx to sd. If the Government
had to provide for two wars ire could understand how
it was that there was en increase of four millions over
the estimates of 1854.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the act of 1855, providing for the levying of the
161. income tax, was as much the authority of that
house as the act of 1853 ; and if it were nut to be re-
pealed the high rate of duty must be collected after the
sth of April next. He did not believe that any advan-
tage arose in continuing the discussion whether the duty
of 16d. in the pound were higher than the duty of 7d.,
a reduction.
ndthe n e x
and whether the bill be now proposed was or was not a
reduction of the existing duties. Taking the law as it
stood, and without going into the question of what the
law ought to have been, it
grounds,it was
a
That being so, he thought that the hon. member (Sir F.
Kelly) had failed on(Hear,)
aeration was the moral grounds on which he had based
his motion. The hon. and learned gentleman had referred
to the contract entered into in 1853, and he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) quite agreed with him that had
there been uninterrupted peace from that time to the pre-
sent, and had the Government then come forward and
proposed an increase in this tax, that then there worild
have been some weight in his argument ; but 'the state
of things with which they had to deal was totally diffe-
rent. The foundation of the settlement referred to had
been altered and subverted by the way, which rendered
it necessary not only to increase the tax during past
years, but to make provision for debts which would be-
come due in subsequent years. In May next they would
have to meet 2,000,0001. bonds according to the terms
of the act of Parliament, and which debt was contracted
for the purpose of the war, and 250,0601. as a sinking
fund, therefore there was to be provided this year under
the existing laws a sum of 2,250,000/. created by the
war which broke out in 1854. It had been said that the
Government asked for this money without showing a
sefficient reason, but he could only say that ho stated at
great length one former night his grounds for the pro-
bable expenditure of the present year—(hear, hear)—
and the way the Government proposed to meet it. The
estimates of the army and the navy had been laid on
the table of the house ; and, though they had not dis-
cussed their details, the details had been exhibited to the
house. The hon. and learned member had expressed
Its ignorance of the estimates, whilst the honour-
able member for Lambeth considered them too high;
but, of course, the Government was not to be open to
such opposite charges, of first not having produced tlei n,
and then that they were too high. The hon. member
fur Lambeth said that the Government, to justify an in-
crease of four millions over the estimates of 1854, must
show that they were engaged in two wars • but he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be unablel to estab-
lish that fact. Now, with respect to Persia, peace had
been negotiated with the plenipotentiary at Parts, and
there was no reason to suppose that there would be any
further differences. At all events it was a great step
that the treaty had been signed, and that there was no
reason to suppose that the war with Persia bad been ex-
tended. As to the expenses of the war, this country
would have to pay one-half of the extraordinary expenses.
Mr. WILLIAMS.—What is the amount
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be impossible for him to tell until the accounts came
in from the East India Company. At all events, whatever
it might be, the East India Company would have to pay
all the ordinary expenses' and only half the extraordinary
expenses would come out of the Exchequer. With regard
to the debts arising out of the hostilities at Canton, it
would be impossible for him or any other member to speak
with confidence. All he could say was, that as far as her
Majesty's Government were at present informed, they saw
no•reason to anticipate that the ordinary naval and mili-
tary expenses of the year would be materially increased,
while sufficient protection would be afforded to the lives
and property of British subjects at Canton. He therefore
could not claim his hon. friend's vote upon any grounds of
increased charges arising out of the two wars referred to-
There were many difficulties in the way of reductions after
a great war; and if hon. members would look to the de-
bates of 1816, they would find that those difficulties were
distinctly pointed out by the Government of that day, and
recognised by the house. (Hear.) When the estimates were
examined by the committee, he thought it would be found
that they had been framed upon reasonable principles. Ile
trusted, therefore, that the committee would see that the
proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir Fitzroy
Kelly) to reduce the income tax to sd. in the pound would
derange the finances of the year, and would either lead to
a deficiency or sender the Government unable to discharge
debts which ought to be paid off. Before he sat down he
might call the attention of the committee to the fact that
since the income tax was imposed by Sir Robert Peel in a
time of peace, it had never been reduced below 7d. in the
pound. It was renewed for several years at that rate until
1853, after which it was to be continued two years at 7d.,
two years at 63., and two years at sd. But before it fell
to 6d. it was doubled, in consequence of the war, and in
short it had never been below 7d. in the pound.
The CHAIRMAN put the amendment, which was ne-
gatived without a division.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he should move, as an amend
ment, that the proviso should be struck out imposing a tax
of sd. in the pound on incomes between 1001. and 1501. a
year. The effect of his amendment would be to take off
the income tax from incomes below 1501. a year. He was
quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware
of the grievances which existed amongst persons with small
incomes, and of the oppression which they were subjected
to. At the same time, he did not think they would meet
with much compassion in that house. Persons with small
incomes who had to pay the tax were deprived of mazy
comforts, and were hindered in many cases from educating
their children. Amongst this class of persons wore literary