Sivut kuvina

propose to act in regard to the income tax a purpose. I am confident the sense of than the case quoted by the right hon. Ba- the majority of this House will sanction a 'ronet the Member for Carlisle this evening, principle which, in argument, hon. Menbut with the most opposite intention-I al- bers have been unable to contravene. If lude to the case of the bishop and the they should go a step further, they will judge. The right hon. Baronet said, that find such a combination held together by a the bishop may draw 5,0001. a year, and rope of sand. If they prove successful in the judge may draw 5,0001. a year as the their combination they must deal with the salaries of their respective offices, and finances of the country. The income tax that we propose to call upon the bishop to is one of the indispensable parts of the pay 7d. in the pound of his income, while public income at this moment. Whether we only ask the judge to pay at the rate permanent or not, I hope it will not be so of 5{d. in the pound. Why, then, the —they cannot dispense with it at this time. right hon. Baronet asks, should there be How, in their proposed combination, do this difference? Why, simply because be- they propose to deal with the income tax? tween the bishop and the judge there exists The hon. Member for the West Riding, that very principle of difference which in the hon. Member for Montrose, a large justice we propose to recognise. The bi- portion of this House, consisting of Memshop is the holder of an estate, and has bers who sit on the other side, had declared really his income for life. But the judge that the re-enactment of the income tax is the holder of a salary which he may not on any other principle than that which possess for his life. [An Hon. MEMBER: the Government advocates will be unjust. The bishop may be deposed.] Whatever Such is the voice of the country. The arguments may be directed against the right hon. Member for the Uuiversity of view of the Government upon this subject, Cambridge, the right hon. Member for the that now suggested by an hon. Member is University of Oxford, and the noble Lord the last I should expect to have heard. A the Member for the City of London, say bishop may be deposed ! Why, it was pos- that what their friends behind them called sible that he might; but I can only say that justice, they call spoliation and breach I am not at all driven by that argument of faith. I should like to know how from the position which I have taken up, such a combined party mean to settle that the distinction between a bishop and the income tax. I believe the majority a judge is, that the one holds an estate for of the House of Commons will feel that, life, the other a salary—which the visita- while the Government have no desire to tion of Providence any day may, if not dictate to the House arbitrarily with altogether take away, very seriously re- respect to details, they call on it, and duce; and in the supposed case of a de- successfully, to support the principles on posed bishop, I doubt whether the House which the measure of the Government is of Commons or the country would trouble founded. These principles are principles themselves much about the amount of to be acted on in strict justice ; they are income tax which such a bishop should founded on a regard to the comfort and pay. Sir, Her Majesty's Government welfare of all classes. There are those have deeply considered this most important who have endeavoured to excite dissatisfacquestion; and, in their opinion justice tion and discontent in the country against requires that the distinction to which I have the propositions made by the Government. adverted should be drawn. I believe too, I believe they have signally failed. I beit is a distinction which will be supported by lieve that even in those populous towns an immense majority of the country, and where such arguments might appear most by a very large proportion of the House of likely to meet success they have failed. Commons. The views entertained on the They had failed to excite the public other side with respect to this question feeling; and I do not believe that any large evidently are extremely various. The class can be found who will be prepared Government are now threatened by a com- to uphold any principle, such as that of bination of parties on the other side. having an exempted class in the country, Four different parties, having little in a principle which I consider most dangerous. common of agreement, seem to think they The very class which hon. Gentlemen are may combine together to assail this Gov- seeking to exempt is that which have been ernment. I doubt the success of the most benefited by the commercial legislacombination. I do not believe the public tion of the country. I believe, Sir, that will approve of such a combination for such such will be the general feeling of the

was Sie


country. I shall await with perfect satis- good. He was himself a living proof of faction and content the decision of the what of what he had been stating. For Committee. Whatever it may be, the six years he had not tasted malt or any Government will at all events have the other kind of intoxicating drink, and he satisfaction of having submitted to Parlia- was not the worse for it—at least if he was, ment a plan having for its object to pro- he did not know it. He thought, theremote the welfare of all classes, and which fore, the malt tax was the very last that will be approved by the calm judgment of should be taken off. His hon, and learned a reflecting people.

Friend the Member for Kidderminster MR. CROSSLEY said, he could assure (Mr. Lowe) said last night that not a the Committee that he would not detain single meeting throughout the country had them on that the first time he had had the been held by the consumers of beer to honour of addressing them, further than petition against the tax; and yet hon. to express bis opinion in accordance with Gentlemen on the Ministeral side of the the statements he made on the hustings House had said that it was for the benefit before he was elected representative for of the consumer that they wished to repeal his native borough of Halifax. He would that tax. not oppose the Budget because it was

ALEXANDER COCKBURN brought forward by any particular Chan- moved that the debate be adjourned. cellor of the Exchequer, but because he LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, before did not approve of the principle of it. the debate was adjourned, he wished to Show him a good case and he would vote ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman for the imposition of any one of the taxes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he that was proposed; but he maintained thought to be of the utmost improtance to that the proposition now before them was enable the Committee to arrive at a connot fair and just to the people. For clusion of the debate. He wished to know instance, if a person in business chose to what was really the proposition which leave his friend 100,0001., the Government the Government wished to take a division took 10,0001. of it as a legacy duty ; but of the Committee. He thought the Comif a landowner left to a friend the same mittee was at least entitled to know what amount in land, the Government took the proposition was to be. He had cernothing at all. Was that fair ? If a tainly had supposed that the proposal of tradesman wished to insure his property the Government was, that the existing from the risk of fire, he was charged a house tax should be doubled, and be exduty of 200 per cent; but if a landowner tended to houses of the value of 101. a year. or a farmer wanted to insure his farming But he had heard in the course of the stock, he paid nothing at all. Was that evening certain expressions which seemed just? If à manufacturer sent his horse to imply that the part of the proposition and cart to the coal-pit, he was charged which went to double the house tax, was 16s. 8d.; but if he sold that same horse to be abandoned, and that the only proand cart to a farmer, and that farmer took position to he put was one for extending them to the coal pit, he had nothing at all the area of the tax. If that was the case

Was that just ? He was as much it materially altered the proposition, not in favour of direct taxation as any man, only with regard to the house tax, but even but he could not agree with what was an with regard to the whole of the Budget. inconsistency. He must first know that in the first place, he believed that in point the direct tax was a just and an equal one; of form the proposition should be different and, secondly, that it was needed by a real from what was contained in the Resolution deficiency in the revenue. And if they before the Committee, which ran in these were going to create a need by taking off terms :some indirect tax, he must also know that That from and after the 5th day of April, that was the best indirect tax that could 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman the Act 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 36, upon Inhabited the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the annual value thereof, shall cease and deter

Dwelling Houses in Great Britain, according to malt liquor was a prime necessity of life. mine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted But there was a large class of persons in and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses this country-hard-working men, too, the following Duties (that is to say)—” who never tasted malt or any other kind If it were merely intended to extend the of intoxicating liquors. Instead of doing area of the tax, it would not be necessary them barm, they found that this did them nor right in form to resolve that the duty

to pay

should cease and determine. It would only the whole of the first Resolution, there be necessary to propose additionally that would not have existed the slightest diffithe tax should be extended to houses of culty. But it was most important that 101. value. But, in the next place, it the Committee should know whether they appeared to him that the whole plan of the were really going to vote on the whole Government depended upon the existence matter contained in the first Resolution, of a surplus of 2,500,0001., to enable them although, in point of form, the words of to take off one half of the malt tax. Now, the Preamble only were put to the Comhe understood the right hon. Gentleman to mittee. If they were going to vote for state that 150,0001. would be gained by the first Resolution in its entirety, the extending the house tax to houses of 101. Committee then knew perfectly well what a year ; and that the remaining sum re- they were about; but if they were only quired to make up the 2,500,0001. would going to vote for the Preamble, he thought be gained by doubling the amount of the that no Gentleman could possibly know house tax. That sum was absolutely what he was about. A person who wished necessary to be provided for in order to to diminish the house tax might, with perenable the Government to carry their fect consistency, vote for the Motion; and other propositions for the reduction of a person who thought that any improvetaxes into effect. The words he had ment might be made in the house tax heard fall from different Members of the might also vote for it. That was a most Government, especially from the right hon. awkward position for hon. Members to ocGentleman the Secretary of State for the cupy. He wished, therefore to ask wheColonial Department, would induce him ther a vote on the Preamble was to touch to think either that some alteration had the substance of the Resolution or not? been made in the proposition of the If not, then, as far as the Preamble was Government, or that hon. Members on his concerned, it might be allowed to pass (Lord J. Russell's) side of the House had sub silentio, and the vote be afterwards not rightly understood the proposition ; so taken on the substance of the Resolution. that the whole Budget seemed to be left in MR. MILES said, he hoped the right a state of considerable uncertainty. hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- chequer would not be driven from his ob. QUER said, he wished the vote to be ject. The country would fully understand taken on the first Resolution, and he should the meaning of the opposition to it. The consider the result of that vote of the question really was, were not the principles Committee to be conclusive on the whole laid down in the Budget acceptable, just, Budget-on the whole of the propositions and useful to the country? He would not he had submitted to the Committee. even pledge himself to every single detail

MR. GLADSTONE said, nothing could of the Budget, therefore he thought every be more clear and intelligible than what Member of that House had every right, had been stated by the right hon. Gentle when he voted for the principle, to say he man, but he apprehended it did not cor- did not pledge himself to all the details of respond with what was stated in the Reso- the Budget. Therefore he hoped that the lution. The right hon. Gentleman wished House and the country would clearly unthe vote to be taken upon the whole Bud- derstand how this vote would be takenget, but he apprehended that the Chairman that was, whether the principle of the of the Committee, no doubt in conformity right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of with the rules and customs of the Commit- the Exchequer was right or wrong. He tees of that House, had not put the ques. himself thought that those who voted for tion upon the first Resolution, but merely it would not be expected to agree to all its upon the preamble of the Resolution-details. namely

Sir CHARLES WOOD said, the part “ That from and after the 5th day of April, of the Resolution put by the Chairman 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the simply repealed the existing house tax, for Act 14 & 15 Vic. cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwell- the purpose of substituting other duties. ing Houses in Great Britain, according to the an. That was stated in the former part of the nual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made Resolution, and was the first substantive payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the follow-enactment, and stated that ls. 6d, should ing Duties (that is to say)-"

be imposed on every house, and ls, on a sentence which was in itself incom- every shop, and the proposition was, that plete. If the question had been put upon the extension should take place to every 101. house. The question was, whether he had frankly stated it was the intention the Committee would agree to double the of Government to propose an extension of house tax or not. [Cries of No!”] That the area and an increase of the house tax, was substantially the enactment. Had he reserved to himself and to the Commit. hon. Gentlemen read the Resolution ? That tee the right of moving any Amendment proposition was an extension of the house they thought fit upon it. duty to houses of 101. and upwards. That COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he felt that was practically the proposition. The hon. the observations of his right hon. Friend Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) the Chancellor of the Exchequer were had moved a Resolution to substitute pro- worthy of the very deepest consideration. perty paying Probate and Legacy Duty, He would support the views of the Governand the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. ment, which he believed to have been most Hume) urged him to withdraw that Motion, frankly expressed, reserving to himself the in order that a vote might be taken, aye right of hereafter giving his opinion upon or no, for doubling the house tax. Up to their various propositions in detail. He this night they had argued the question, was entirely opposed to the attempt which that however necessary it might be to con- was being made to overthrow Her Masider the other portions of the Budget—as jesty's Ministers by hon. Gentlemen opthe malt tax and tea duties—it was a clear posite, who were so ready to take their understanding that the first vote was to be places-an ebullition of party feeling which taken, aye or no, for doubling the house would meet with no sympathy from him. tax. To-night, however, it seemed there He would give no countenance to the enwas a doubt thrown out whether that was deavours of hon. Gentlemen, who had no the question on which they ought to divide. principles of their own, to climb into the If the mere proposition was for an exten- places of the right hon. Gentlemen below sion of the house tax to houses of 201. and him—an effort, let him tell them, in which upwards, it would be utterly unnecessary they would not succeed. to repeal the existing duty, and conse- LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he was quently this Resolution ought to be with entirely satisfied with the declarations of drawn. If they intended to alter the duty, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor well and good; but if they did not, they of the Exchequer. Whether or not it should withdraw this Resolution altogether. would be more convenient to take the diviAll they (the Opposition) asked was, thatsion on the preamble, or, as had been sugthe Government would tell them what they gested, to postpone the preamble, and take meant; if they meant to say they aban- the division on the substantive part of the doned the notion of doubling the house tax, Resolution, was a matter which he thought let them say so—and tell them what they well deserved consideration ; but as to the intended. Of course, that would involve explanation of the intentions of Governthe abandonment of some portion of the ment he was entirely satisfied. He supBudget-the remission of the duty on tea posed the adjournment would be to Thursor the malt tax. If that was so, why did day, and he hoped the House might be able they not say so, and say what they really to come to some understanding that the intended ?

debate should close on Thursday evening. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE. QUER said, he thought he had frankly QUER said, that it was certainly of the answered the question of the noble Lord utmost importance that some such under(Lord John Russell), and it appeared to standing should be arrived at. him that the noble Lord was perfectly satis

Mr. V. SCULLY said, that every Eng. fied. He said that he thought it was per-| lish Member had been patiently listened to, fectly understood they should take the divi- but the moment he got up he was not sion on the first Resolution, and that he heard, because he was an Irish Member. should consider the opinion of the Commit- Ireland was considerably interested in this tee on that proposition conclusive with re- Budget; but, with one exception, none of spect to the general principles of the Bud- the Irish representatives had had an opget. He had no hesitation now in saying, portunity of expressing their opinions upon that it was the intention of Her Majesty's it. Before the debate concluded, he trust. Government not only to extend the area ed that opportunity would be given. of taxation, but to propose an increase The House resumed : Committee report of the house tax. After the whole debate progress. had been taken on the Budget, and after The House adjourned at One o'clock


they came to their knowledge oecasionally

through the reports of the poor-law inWednesday, December 15, 1852.

spectors ; but, if the hon. Gentleman MINUTEs.) New Member Sworn.- For Lisburne, land so employed, the Poor Law Board

wished a return only of the quantity of Roger Johnson Smyth, esq. Public Bill.—2o Tenants Compensation (Ire- were in a condition to furnish the informaland) Bill.

tion on his moving for such a return. LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) MR. WISE begged to ask the President BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE. of the Poor Law Board whether there was Order read, for resuming adjourned Deany intention of altering the law of settle- bate on Question [7th December], " That ment, or of proposing any change in the the Bill be now read a Second Time.” mode of charging the rates for the relief Question again proposed. of the poor? also, whether there was any Debate resumed. information in the Poor Law Office as to MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he the quantity of land which had been hired begged to draw the attention of the House or purchased by Boards of Guardians to certain proceedings that had been taken for the purpose of cultivation by the in- in reference to this subject since the ques. mates of union work houses ? and whether tion was last before them. After the deany statements had been transmitted to bate and division on the subject of adthe Poor Law Board showing the result of journment on the previous occasion, when the employment of the inmates of work- this measure was under discussion, the houses on the land so hired and pur. right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of chased ? and, if any such information and State for the Home Department acceded statements had been given, or existed, to a proposition that was originally made whether the President of the Poor Law by the hon. and learned Member for KilBoard would place a copy of the same on kenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), to have the the table of the House ? The object of Bill at present before the House, and the the second question was to ascertain whe- Bill commonly called Mr. Sharman Crawther the Poor Law Board approved of the ford's Bill, referred to a Select Committee. system of cultivating land by means of The right hon. and learned Gentleman the ablebodied paupers ?

Attorney General for Ireland was present Sir JOIN TROLLOPE said, that on the occasion, and expressed no dissent during the time he had held office he had from that arrangement; and he (Mr. Fitzgiven his best attention and consideration gerald) conceived that when one Member to the very important subject which the of the Government (the Secretary of State hon. Gentleman had brought before the for the Home Department) made that arHouse. So much consideration and care rangement, and when another Member of were required in the preparation of any the Government (the Attorney General for measure on the subject, that he was not in Ireland) was present and did not object to a condition at present to lay a Bill before it, the natural inference to draw was that Parliament; but, feeling that it was a sub- the right hon. and learned Gentleman asject which could not be decided on without sented to it. Although some Members on the concurrence of Her Majesty's Govern. his side of the House apprehended that the ment at large, he had laid before them all Bill introduced by the hon. and learned the papers he had thereupon at the Poor Member for Kilkenny would be strangled Law Board, and for some time past they in the Select Committee, still they abided had been giving their anxious attention to by the proposition that had been agreed the matter. In reply to the second questo. Although he (Mr. Fitzgerald) distion, he begged to say that the Poor Law sented from the principles of the Tenants' Board could furnish the hon. Gentleman Compensation Bill, he felt himself bound, with the information he desired in regard after assenting to what had been done by to the quantity of land either purchased the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny or hired by boards of guardians for culti- not to oppose the second reading; but vation; but the boards of guardians were after that proceeding had taken place in not in the habit of furnishing detailed re-that House, he heard with great surprise ports, either of a financial nature or with an account of what occurred when a noble respect to moral effects. The Poor Law Earl in another place proposed a question Board were acquainted with these only as in reference to this subject to the noble

« EdellinenJatka »