Rice, E. R. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. a tax upon income, pressing most unequally upon many of the great interests of the country. In 1842 the late Sir Robert Peel, in proposing the tax, said he trusted that by its imposition, and the relaxation. of other taxes, general prosperity would be so restored that they would be enabled at the end of three years to do without the property tax; and throughout the whole of the debate on that occasion the idea of its being a permanent tax was scouted by every class and party in that House. It was true that Sir Robert Peel, though he only asked the House to grant the tax for three years, said it might possibly be necessary to extend it for two or three years beyond that time. That necessity did arise; in 1845 the revenue was not in a state which would justify the withdrawal of the tax, and, under the same limitations, and with the same declarations against its permanency, the tax was granted for three years more, expiring in 1848. In that year they had the Irish famine, and the distress occasioned by that comamend-mercial policy which in his humble opinion had been most injurious, and the House again consented that the property tax should be imposed for another term of three years, under the repeated and almost universal declaration that it was not to be a permanent tax. He asked the House whether any of those circumstances existed now under which the renewal of the tax was then requested? Was there any great emergency existing at this moment-any large deficiency in income, or any great pressure upon the Exchequer, which made it necessary that the tax should be reimposed? If they did again consent to the property tax, except under such emergency, would they not virtually declare that the tax should be permanent? TELLERS. Hayter, W. G. Words added; Main Question, as ed, put. The House divided :-Ayes 128; Noes 60: Majority 68. Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the relations between this country and the Kaffir and other tribes on our South African frontier." The House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday, 28th April. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, April 28, 1851. MINUTES. NEW MEMBERS SWORN.-For Leith, PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Customs; Inhabited House 3° Stamp Duties Assimilation; Exchequer Bills PROPERTY TAX BILL. The House had denied its assent to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), which merely declared that the tax when first imposed was not meant to be permanent, and called upon the House to recognise that pledge, and to provide that a reduction should take place in the property tax, with a view to its ultimate repeal. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Motion made, and Question proposed, Disraeli) had also reminded them that there "That the Bill be now read a Second Time.' was one important interest, upon the prosMR. SPOONER said, he wished to ex-perity of which the Government had adplain why he could not give his consent to mitted that they could not congratulate the second reading of the measure. This that House and the country. The Governtax was called a tax upon property. If it ment could tender condolence; but when were so, some of the objections he enter- asked to give this subject consideration tained to it might be removed; but it was with a view to some practical relief to this suffering class, the Motion was negatived. | trade must either submit to the payment de To sanction the second reading of this Bill manded of him, or show all his accounts to the under such circums ances as those above parties appointed by the Government." stated, would be putting a scal to the With regard to the fraud and evasion pracpermanence of the tax. What was the tised, the noble Lord said no one concerned nature of this tax? He (Mr. Spooner) or connected with this tax could deny it. would not ask the House to take his representation of it, but would furnish the opinions of others. What said the late Francis Horner in 1815?—and the name of that talented man world doubtless have great weight with Gentlemen opposite. He said "He regarded the property tax as not more injurious to the commercial than to all the other great interests in which the safety and stability of the State were involved. . The opinions of the House had not long since been divided upon a measure intended for the relief of the agricultural interest; but there was then no dispute as to the fact of the distress which existed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was now about to establish, without any modification, an imposition which in their flourishing condition was found grievous and oppressive, and which, therefore, in their present circumstances of embarrassment must prove odious and intolerable. rent was in some years a fair criterion of farming profits, it could not be fair in a year during which there were no profits. . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer might turn a deaf car to the complaints against a measure not more injurious to individuals than dangerous to the true interests of the State; but he would venture to predict that those complaints would soon reach him in a far different tone, and in a tone far less desirable with a view to the general advantage of the country." -[1 Hansard, xxxi. 161.] If "The man of the most integrity, who gave his returns fairly, was subject to the greatest imposition; while those who wished to evade it, either found the means of doing so, or entangled themselves and the Government in the most expensive proceedings."-[ 3 Hansard, lxxvii. 543.] That was the language in which the noble Lord had spoken in the year 1845 of a tax which he himself at that moment proposed for the adoption of the House. He (Mr. Spooner) asked the House to pause before they gave their consent to a scheme which the noble Lord had so powerfully and so justly denounced. He had himself acted for many years as an Income Tax Commissioner, and he could tell the noble Lord that he had not exaggerated the evils of which that tax was productive. He knew many persons who had submitted to pay more than their fair share of the burthen, rather than allow the real state of their incomes to become known; and he felt persuaded that if the House knew as much of the operation of the system as the Commissioners necessarily knew, they would pause before they voted for its continuance. All the leading Members of the party opposite had at various times proclaimed their hostility to the tax. In the year 1845 the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in the course of a very short but a very able speech, had spoken as follows: The same must be said now; there was a spirit of opposition to this tax rising in the country that would be carried much farther than the Government contemplated, and might involve consequences greatly to be If they had the melancholy prospect of its deprecated. What said the noble Lord being a permanent tax, it would be their duty to (Lord John Russell) in 1845? He said endeavour to diminish the inequalities; but he, then that he had always been accustomed for being sincere in what he had announced as to hoping the right hon. Gentleman had some grounds to consider the income tax as a tax neces-duration, should not be disposed to remove the sary for the carrying on an arduous and vexations; for the more they were felt the more costly war, but a tax subject to some of likely would they be to get rid of the tax altothe strongest objections that could be urged gether."-[3 Hansard, lxxvii. 572.] against any tax; and he added, "I have He (Mr. Spooner) should like to know always been of opinion that inequality, whether the right hon. Baronet still revexation, and fraud were inherent in such tained the same opinions upon that subject a tax." The noble Lord stated some of which he had expressed in the year 1845? the inequalities:He should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet still thought it advisable that they should leave the tax unchanged, with all its imperfections, in order that they might the sooner get rid of it altogether? The next testimony he should quote upon the subject was that of a distinguished Member of the present Government, who now filled the office of Secretary of State L "No man could say that a person who had an income drawn from a landed estate, or from the funds, which he could leave to his children entire, was in the same position as a surgeon, or an artist, whose bread depended upon his health, and who, by the loss of a limb or a defect of sight, might be deprived in a moment of the means of earning any income at all. Great vexation was in separable from this tax; a person engaged in VOL. CXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] 66 This, according to the arguments that were used, ought to be the object of altering the mode of levying the tax; but he believed the best mode of arriving, in fact, at this result was by adopting a well-considered system of taxation upon expenditure and upon articles of consumption. He did not believe that they could so well apportion the amount of burthen which ought to fall on each member of the community in any other way, Each man knew what he could fairly expend, and upon income, they would be much nearer arriving at a correct result than by any other means. This he conceived to be the proper theory of taxation; and that to impose a tax upon income or property was obviously unjust. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the income tax should be confined to if they placed the taxes on expenditure, and not the greatest emergencies-that was, to a time of war, or to a state of things equivalent to war in time of peace. It was the duty of that House so to frame the taxation of the country that it should fall on the expenditure, and in such a manner that all classes, from the highest to the lowest, should contribute in just proportion."[3 Hansard, lxxviii. 558.] for the Colonies. That noble Earl, while oc- | that he believed the tax pressed exclusively cupying a seat in the House of Commons on the rich; and if he did believe that it as Lord Howick, had spoken of the tax as so pressed, why should he exempt Ireland follows:from its operation? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly to the House his opinions upon that matter. He (Mr. Spooner) would warn the Irish Members that this country would not much longer submit to the exemption of Ireland from the tax; because, although there was much poverty and distress in many districts of that country, he had no hesitation in saying that in many districts of England distress was greatly increasing, and threatened at no distant time to equal that of Ireland. He could tell the House that hundreds of acres in this country were at present without tenants; and in making that statement he referred more particularly to the county of Sussex. He apther it was not a fact that there were at pealed to Gentlemen from that county whepresent large districts there out of cultivation, because they could no longer be cultivated with a profit? There were many districts in this country where the poorrates were confiscating the produce of the soil; and he said that although the poverty of Ireland had been hitherto urged as a good excuse for exempting that country from the tax, the poverty of England would soon neutralise that excuse if the state of this country should continue long unchanged. He should next read an extract from a speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes). He was then in the cold regions of opposition, not dazzled by place, nor with the comforts he now enjoyed, with a fellowfeeling for those on whom the income tax pressed. He was glad to find that in the extracts he was about to adduce, his hon. Friend agreed with him not only in his objections to the income tax, but also in assure him that it was calculated to conhis disapproval of the Bank Bill of 1844. tribute very much to his edification. His hon. Friend had used the following The right hon. Gentleman had used the follow-language in the year 1845:ing language in the year 1845: He (Mr. Spooner) should be glad to be informed whether the noble Earl and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government had changed their views upon that question; and if so, what were the reasons they had to give for that change? It should be remembered that they had at present no war, and that they had a surplus income at their disposal. But the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies had gone still further, and had asked "whether any one ought to be required to submit to the tax with that unsatisfactory state of things before him?" He had next a quotation to make from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to that quotation he should beg to call the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman, for he could "So far from its pressing exclusively on the rich, it pressed on the labouring classes, diminishing the means of employment. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could think that it bore exclusively on the rich; because, if so, why did he not impose it on Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was only to be imposed in time of great necessity; and if imposed it would be unjust if not imposed on Ireland as well as on England."-[3 Hansard, lxxvii. 583.] After that former statement of the right hon. Gentleman, could he say at present Mr. Spooner "He believed the income tax-and, if he might be permitted to add, the measure of the right hon. Baronet with regard to banking-were calculated to injure rather than to increase the prosperity of the country; and while he admitted that other measures of the right hon. Baronet were calculated to produce advantages hereafter, he should again repeat that he did not think they had been as yet productive of any perceptible benefit to the revenue, while he considered the income tax to be an impost which must of necessity cause material injury to the country, as well contribute to it. He concluded by expressing his to the labouring classes as to those who had to intention to vote in favour of the Amendment." His hon. Friend had on the same occasion | estate for repairs which is to be deducted from the rent. The result of my own experience, corspoken as follows:roborated by the information which I have received, leads me to believe that I shall not over&c., borne by the landlord, at 20 per cent on the state the amount deducted from rent for repairs, whole. If that be correct, it is evident that a man who pays 301. income tax for a nominal rent of 1,000l., puts in his pocket only 7701." [3 Hansard, xcvii. 1032.] "There was nothing produced such injurious consequences to industry as a tax upon capital. He considered that any over-taxation of capital was infinitely more mischievous in its results than the taxation of any of the great articles of consumption. It was productive of serious injury to the commercial prosperity of the country." [3 Hansard, lxxviii. 348.] He knew not whether his hon. Friend had since changed his opinions upon that subject; but if he had, he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that his hon. Friend would enlighten the House with respect to the reasons for that great change. Under that tax honest men frequently paid too much, and those whose consciences were less nice escaped payment altogether. It often happened, too, that men whose credit was rather tottering and uncertain, paid the tax, although they really did not possess the necessary income, in order to avoid the possible danger of making known their real condition. Then, again, he believed that the present mode of assessing the tax on farmers was peculiarly unjust and unreasonable. Farmers were assessed to the tax in proportion to their rents; but the rents which they paid afforded no criterion of their profits. A farmer, cultivating inferior land and paying a low rent, might reasonably be supposed to enjoy as large a profit as a farmer cultivating better land and paying a higher rent; for, in a country like this, he who paid the high rent did so because from the productive nature of the soil he had less to pay for labour and for artificial manure; he who paid the lower rent did so because, from the unproductive nature of the soil, his expenses in labour and in artificial manure were greatly enhanced, thus equalising profits and destroying rent as a criterion of profit. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had shown in the year 1848 how severely the tax pressed on the landowner, while replying to the statement of some hon. Gentlemen who had contended that it fell with excessive severity on the manufacturer. The right hon. Gentleman had said "The gentleman in Schedule A derives his income from the land, and the tax is taken from his tenants by the collector in the first instance. No deduction is made on account of expenditure on the estate. It is immaterial whether the landlord gets his rent or not, the tax must be paid. There are many Gentlemen in this House who are able 'to state what per centage should be put upon an Thus said the Chancellor of the Exche quer in 1848. But he (Mr. Spooner) asked, how stands the case with the fundholder or mortgagee? Upon 1,000l. a year he pays 301. a year to Government, and puts into his pocket, clear of all deduction 9701. Now, he (Mr. Spooner) would ask, will the country Gentlemen permit this inequality to remain? He could not think it possible that they would so accept it; and, in addition, the tax paid by the farmer in reality fell on the landlord, at least in the case of the tenant naturally deducted from the all lands let since its imposition; because value of those lands the amount of the tax he was bound to pay. In the 1833 budget of Lord Althorp, had used the folthe late Sir R. Peel, in speaking of the lowing language : year "It hardly could be contended that, if a property tax were established, Ireland ought to be exempted from its operation, He wished to see with justice; but to impose a tax on England and Ireland as much favoured as possible consistently Scotland, and to exempt Ireland, would in his opinion, however unpopular that opinion might be, be extremely unjust." [3 Hansard, xvii. 344.] There was one more authority he should quote, that of Lord Stanley-a statesman whose opinions the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, he was sure, respect, however he might differ from them. In the year 1848, Lord Stanley had spoken as follows:— "If the House of Commons was not determined to keep up the revenue beyond the expenditure, and consented on the first appearance of surplus to take off other taxes, it would be idle and useless to say this was a temporary tax, for the country would find, in the absence of a surplus, that it would be permanently saddled with that which he felt to be a most dangerous thing to the public intaxation. It was not because he saw nothing obterests, namely, a permanent amount of direct jectionable in the principle of this measure that he assented to it, but because he thought that under no other circumstances could the country be placed in a position of national security, and because there were no other means by which the national credit could be maintained. He gave, therefore, his unhesitating support to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for the renewal of this tax; but at the same time he felt it his duty to enter his protest against any permanent system of direct taxation, which ought to be reserved for occasions of extreme necessity. Ile felt very confident that the time was not far distant when we should find that we had advanced too far and too rapidly in the course of a reduction of those taxes which, while they largely contributed to the revenue of the country, were not materially felt by those who paid them, because they were spread over a larger mass of the population. His belief was, that without oppressing commerce, or injuriously affecting the country, a sufficient amount of revenue might be raised by retracing some of those steps which he thought had been injudiciously taken; so that by resorting again to indirect taxation, we might, at the expiration of three years, be enabled to dispense with this tax, which, though he admitted it to be necessary at the present moment, he considered as objectionable in principle as it was obnoxious to the public." These were all the authorities with which he would trouble the House. He would now offer a very few words on the principle of commutation proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did very well in commuting the window tax, but he should have carried his scheme much further. He had exempted a great deal of property which at the present moment paid the window tax. He had given relief to those who were not in want of it, but had neglected altogether the claims of the farmers, whom he had acknowledged to be in great distress, and to whom he extended his condolence, but no relief. Seeing that the Government proposed to renew the income tax with all its hideous characteristics, he, for one, could not give his consent to its renewal; but should it pass the second reading, he hoped that an effort would be made at least to remodel it in Committee. He invoked the aid of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in support of some species of relief on the strength of the assistance which the noble Lord had rendered him on a former occasion in 1845, in reference to the same class of persons, stating in a manner most gratifying to him (Mr. Spooner) that he had made out a very strong case. The class to which he referred were those who had insured their lives, and managed to screw just enough ont of their expenditure to pay the premiums. He asked the House on the occasion to which he had referred, to allow the amount of these premiums to be deducted from the income before it was assessed to the tax; and the noble Lord on that occasion acknowledged that he had made out a very strong case, and gave him his support. A strong case in 1845 was equally a strong case now; and he hoped, therefore, to receive from the noble Lord Mr. Spooner the assurance that he would again support a proposition, in favour of which he had already spoken. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Herries), who, he thought, did not quite go with him on the subject. Government annuities were annually repaying the principal. The income tax was not laid on the interest only, but on the repaid part of the capital. Suppose he purchased a Government annuity; the country, after paying him four or five per cent, in a certain number of years, were repaying him his capital. He received so much by way of interest; so much by way of redemption of the capital. But, under what was called the income tax, people were compelled to pay for income and for capital returned; yet that, he was told, was only fair and just, and no one, it was said, ought to be exempted. The truth was, the tax was a shifting one. When it suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with it as a tax on property, he dealt with it as a tax on property; when it suited the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it as a tax on income, he dealt with it as a tax on income. Another part of the budget on which he wished to say a few words, was that which related to the timber duties. He held in his hand a letter from one of the largest timber dealers in the north, who said that he had been applied to the other day by a man who, having taken a large contract, wrote to ask whether the removal of the duty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lessen the price? What was the answer?" Not a bit.' The circumstances of the trade were such, that the foreigner would put as much upon the price as Parliament would take off from the duty. So with regard to bricks, he was informed that in the very same neighbourhood bricks were now within about 1s. of the price at which they were before the duty was taken off. The principle of taxation which they were called upon to support was ruinous in its principle, dangerous in its tendency, and sooner or later would involve this country in ruin. What were they doing? They were taxing the labour of the country, and exposing it to competition with the untaxed labour of foreign countries. This might, perhaps, have the effect of swelling the exports for e short time, but the balance of trade had been some time against this country. The drain of bullion proved that such was the fact, and however they might, by cooking the exchanges, |