Commons Sitting of 27 May 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Copies of Specifications Repeal; Battersea Park.
2° Registration of Assurances.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
MR. SPEAKERhaving requested that Members of Election Committees who had not been sworn should come to the table for that purpose.
MR. TATTON EGERTONcalled the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. George Duncan, one of the Members of the Durham Committee, was also a Member of a Committee on a group of railways which was still sitting, and had attended its meetings so closely from the commencement that, were he withdrawn, it would be like taking away the right hand of the Chairman. He begged to move, therefore, that

707
the Committee appointed to try and determine the petition against the return of the election for the City of Durham be discharged, and the said petition be referred again to the General Committee of Elections.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEdid not intend to oppose the Motion, but he protested against its being made a precedent, because it was calculated to create delay and expense. The General Committee on Elections in every instance where previous intimation had been given that it would be inconvenient for Members to serve upon Election Committees, had attended to those representations. Scarcely a day had passed, indeed, in which he had not received a vast number of such applications, both verbal and written; and he thought that the Members who had made these applications would acknowledge that they had always met with courtesy and consideration at his hands. It would, he repeated, be attended with great public inconvenience if Members, after they had been chosen to serve upon Election Committees, were to be discharged from attending to that duty; but considering the peculiar urgency of the present case, it was not his intention to oppose the Motion which had been made.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGregretted that no communication had been made to the Chairman of the General Committee on Elections, with respect to the inability of the hon. Member for Dundee to serve upon the Durham Committee, for in that case the General Committee could have selected another Member, and so not have interfered with the transaction of other business. The question now before the House was one of considerable importance, and in a case of contending duties the House should decide at once which was the first and more important. If they would read the Act of Parliament, they would see that the first duty of the House was, by means of Special Committees, to ascertain who were really Members of the House, and that all other duties were subordinate to that one. On the whole, he thought the House should pause before it resolved to interfere with the selections made by the General Committee on Elections.
MR. EVELYN DENISONagreed with the last speaker in regard to the importance of Election Committees; but in the present instance he thought the House would exercise a wise discretion by assenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cheshire (Mr. T. Egerton).
MR. LABOUCHEREwas inclined to think that the House could not do better than listen to the advice of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth. It was unquestionably the first and most paramount duty of the House to attend to the business of Election Committees, and, considering the spirit of all their legislation and practice with respect to that subject, he thought they would do wrong in releasing any Member from the duty of serving upon an Election Committee, no matter how he might otherwise be engaged.
MR. BROTHERTONurged the importance of allowing Members serving upon private Committees to give their undivided attention to the business brought before them in those Committees.
MR. SOTHERONthought the House would establish a good precedent if it now declared its opinion that the fact of a Member serving upon a private Committee should be held as a sufficient reason why he should not be appointed to serve upon an Election Committee.
MR. DUNCANregretted that his name should be mixed up with a discussion in that House; but the present question arose from no wish of his to shirk his fair share of public duty. He was willing to serve cither upon an Election Committee or upon a private Committee, and he would cheer-fully abide by the decision of the House, only reminding them that he could not be in two places at once.
Ordered—That the attendance of George Duncan, Esq., on the said Committee, be dispensed with.

BURY ST. EDMUND'S ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. STRUTTsaid, that one of the Members appointed to serve upon this Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin), was in precisely the same position as the hon. Member for Dundee, being at present engaged upon a private Committee. He therefore moved—"That the attendance of Mr. Martin on the Bury St. Edmund's Election Committee be dispensed with."
MR. E. ELLICEseconded the Motion.
MR. THORNELYthought that as hon. Members were well aware that their names were placed upon panels to serve upon Election Committees, they ought, if they were engaged on railway or other private Committees, to apprise the General Committee of Elections of the fact, and they would then probably be exempted from

709
serving on Election Committees. He must say, however, that he thought Election Committees had paramount claims to the service of Members beyond railway or any private Committees.
Ordered—That the attendance of John Martin, Esq., on the said Committee, be dispensed with.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.
MR. J. WILSONthen moved that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next.
MR. DISRAELI: I am very unwilling, Sir, at any time to take advantage of this Motion for the purpose of entering into any general discussion; and nothing but a sense of public duty could induce me to touch upon the topic to which I am about to refer. And even with that sense of duty, I shall now endeavour to confine myself as much as possible to making an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government, making only one or two observations for the purpose of making that inquiry perfectly clear. The subject to which I wish to call the attention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government is, the state of our relations with the Ottoman Porte. The House will recollect that very early in the spring considerable alarm was created, not only in this country, but also in other States of Europe, by the arrival of an Extraordinary Ambassador from the Court of Russia at the Court of Constantinople; but that alarm was allayed by the confident declarations which were made by persons in authority, that this mission, though apparently commenced with circumstances of great pomp and urgency, really did not refer to any subject of general interest or importance, but merely to the relations which ought to subsist between the members of the Greek Church, who were subjects of the Ottoman Porte, and the members of other Christian Churches at the Holy Places in Jerusalem. With that general impression, which obtained currency, I think I may say that the public mind assumed an aspect of tranquillity. However, it so happened, Sir, that about six weeks or more ago, Colonel Rose, who in the absence of Lord Stratford, Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte, was really the British Minister at Constantinople, and of whom I am bound to say, as all who have been brought into connexion with him, will bear witness, that he is a man of very great ability, and of considerable knowledge with respect to the coun-
710
try in which he has been placed in a very responsible position—Colonel Rose, I say, was announced to have suddenly communicated with our Admiral at Malta, and requested the instant presence of the British fleet; it being also announced that, in concert with Colonel Rose, the French Ambassador had communicated with the French Admiral at Toulon, and requested his immediate presence, with the fleet, at Constantinople. Well, of course, circumstances of this kind immediately revived that alarm which had been prevalent at the preceding period, and to which I have referred. These circumstances were of course duly considered by Her Majesty's Government; and it was generally understood that the Government had arrived at the opinion that there was no necessity for the appeal which was made by Colonel Rose to the British Admiral. The British Admiral, according to his instructions, could not depart from Malta without previous communication with the authorities at home, and he did not leave Malta. The French fleet left Toulon, and arrived in the vicinity of Constantinople. Well, Sir, the country, placing, I think, a wise confidence in those who hold the responsible office of Her Majesty's advisers on such subjects, from whatever party that Ministry might be formed, did not in any way press the Government for disclosures, and seemed inclined to believe that the view taken by Colonel Rose had been of a precipitate character. Shortly afterwards, Lord Stratford, Her Majesty's Ambassador, arrived at Constantinople; and although at the same time the Russian Ambassador Extraordinary did not quit the Turkish capital, still the question of the Holy Places was said to be a matter of negotiation; and there were still circumstances which caused disquietude among those who gave attention to these questions, and were familiar with some of the details of these transactions. Very recently, however, it appears that the question at Constantinople, which absorbed the interest of the representatives of the great Powers, and occupied the attention of the Porte, has assumed an altogether different character; and instead of its being a limited and local question, connected with the Holy Places of Jerusalem, and the relations which the subjects of the Porte who profess the Greek religion necessarily bear to those places, it was announced, without circumlocution, that the Ambassador Extrordinary of Russia had called upon the

711
Porte to enter into a convention which—not to weary the attention of the House with details—may be briefly described as a convention which, if agreed to and carried into execution, would transfer the allegiance of a vast majority of the subjects of the Porte in European Turkey from the Sultan to the Emperor of Russia. When this became known, there was, no doubt, considerable alarm, which has not been in any way allayed by the announcement which has been made—I know not with what authority, but which has been made and credited—that Her Majesty's Government did feel that Colonel Rose, when he applied at a previous period for the presence of the British fleet, was justified in the policy he recommended, and the course which he proposed, and that we have sent ships to Constantinople. Now, Sir, I have mentioned these circumstances that I may put before the House as clearly as I can, without presuming to give an opinion on the subject, what has transpired; and having made that statement, which I have endeavoured to make as briefly as possible, offering no opinion whatever on these transactions, I wish to ask these two questions of Her Majesty's Government:—I wish to know whether the English and French Ambassadors at Constantinople are at this moment acting in concert together; and if that be the case, then I should wish to know further whether there is any difficulty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in communicating to the House the general scope and tendency of the instructions which they are now fulfilling in concert? These are the two questions which I feel it my duty to put to the Government, and to which I ask a reply from the noble Lord.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In reply to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman I will communicate to the House as much as it is possible to communicate at present on this subject without injury to the public service. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement with regard to certain facts which requires some, though not material, correction, on my part. The English Government were informed by the Government of Russia that the Emperor had thought necessary to despatch a special mission, under charge of an Ambassador, to Constantinople, in order to obtain a confirmation of those concessions which had been made at former times to the members of the Greek Church at the Holy Places of Jerusalem. We were informed at the
712
same time the Ambassador of Russia—as there was occasion to complain that former concessions had been either withdrawn or materially modified by certain orders given by the Sultan in February of last year—was instructed to say that it would be necessary to have some security that the concessions which were again to be confirmed should not be again withdrawn or modified; but what the nature of that security was to be, the Russian Government, as is usual in diplomatic transactions, did not state specifically to any other Government. The Russian Ambassador arrived at Constantinople; and certain circumstances which then occurred, induced the Grand Vizier to feel very considerable apprehensions as to what was about to take place, and he applied to Colonel Rose to ask for the presence of the English fleet near the Dardanelles. Colonel Rose did not communicate the message to Malta by telegraph, but he sent a steamer to Malta with despatches, and with a request to the Admiral at that place that he would proceed, as the Grand Vizier had desired, to the neighbourhood of Constantinople. Admiral Dundas forwarded those despatches to London, and stated that he should wait for orders from the Government before he left Malta. Her Majesty's Government entirely approved of the discretion which Admiral Dundas had exercised, and Colonel Rose was himself informed by the Grand Vizier, I think it not more than two or three days afterwards, that there was no necessity for the English fleet leaving Malta; and accordingly he again despatched a special messenger by steamboat to Malta with a request to Admiral Dundas that he would not change any movements he was instructed to make, and that he would not prosecute his voyage to the neighbourhood of Constantinople. I believe both that Admiral Dundas exercised a wise discretion, and that Colonel Rose was perfectly justified in that second order which he sent—namely, that the English fleet should not be despatched from Malta. The negotiation proceeded; and it appeared that after the arrival of Lord Stratford at Constantinople, his Lordship—as the House will well believe from his ability, from his long experience in Turkish affairs, and from the weight which his opinions and advice have with those who hold responsible positions at the Porte—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was able to materially assist these negotiations, and enabled Prince Menschikoff to obtain those declarations and acts which

713
were to be considered sufficient, and to which the French Ambassador on his part interposed no material difficulty. It was to be hoped, then, and it was hoped both in London and in the other Courts of Europe, that this affair would occasion no difference between the Courts of Europe, and that this matter of the Holy Places, which had been a source of considerable disquietude, had been settled, and having been settled, the mission of Prince Menschikoff would terminate there. But it appeared that further proposals which Prince Menschikoff made—it is to be presumed in accordance with his instructions, and which in the opinion of the Russian Government were no more than were necessary in order to secure the fulfilment of those declarations which the Porte had made in regard to the Holy Places—were, in the opinion of the Turkish Government, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and in the opinion of the Ambassador of the Emperor of the French, of a nature which could not but be considered to be dangerous to the independence of the Ottoman Porte, and as infringing in some degree those stipulations which all the great Powers of Europe agreed to twenty years ago. With respect to the present slate of affairs, no official information has been received more recent than the 9th instant, which is the date of the last despatch received from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. However, in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I can slate that there has been the most perfect concert and accordance of views between Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and the Ambassador of the Emperor of the French; and that both have taken the same view of the terms of the Convention which were proposed by the Ambassador of the Emperor of Russia. I should say, further, that in the present state of the negotiations it would not be consistent with due discretion or the good of the public service that Her Majesty's Government should produce the instructions under which Lord Stratford has been acting. I will only say that they may be generally described as instructions leaving much to his discretion, but at the same time, pressing upon him, that it is the fixed policy of Her Majesty's Government to abide by and maintain inviolate the faith of treaties, and to support the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and the rights of the Sultan as an independent Sovereign, I may, per-
714
haps, be permitted to say, that although we have received no official intimation, there is reason to believe that no rupture of the relations between Russia and Turkey has at the present moment taken place; and I trust that the Russian Government will finally ask no other securities from Turkey than are compatible with the full and independent authority of the Sultan as the Sovereign of Turkey, and with the maintenance of the peace of Europe.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question with regard to the Registration of Assurances Bill. He had received on Thursday night, and again that evening, a message by telegraph from persons at Manchester who were concerned in the land and building societies there. Whole streets, in fact some of the suburbs of Manchester, had been built by building societies, and the anxiety there with regard to this Bill appeared to be extreme. He understood that not less than 6,000 or 7,000 of the electors of Manchester were concerned in those societies, and what they desired was this—to be informed whether the Bill was to be read a second time pro formâ, and referred to a Select Committee; and, if so, whether they would be permitted to give evidence with regard to its operation upon those particular societies and other societies that were concerned in small transactions in land and building?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Bill referred to had been introduced in the House of Lords, and was founded on the reports of several Commissions that had been appointed to inquire into this subject. Those inquiries had been made by persons most competent to deal with the matter. What he now proposed was, that the Bill should be read a second time that evening, and then referred to a Select Committee, who would go through every clause, as the hon. Gentleman was aware; and it would be necessary that the Bill should come back to the House, and be submitted to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it would be very inconvenient, after so much evidence had been already taken on the subject, to take any further evidence before the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman would suggest to those who had communicated with him on this subject the

715
desirableness of presenting their views to the House in the shape of a petition, he (Lord J. Russell) would have no objection to such petition being referred to the consideration of the Select Committee.
MR. BRIGHTbelieved that a deputation from the Manchester building societies was already on its way to London, and he thought they ought to be permitted to be examined before the Select Committee.
SIR FITZROY KELLYasked whether the noble Lord intended to move the Select Committee before the discussion took place on the Income Tax Bill? Was there to be any discussion on that Motion, or was the matter to be proceeded with simply pro formâ?
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had presented five petitions from parties whose interests in land and building societies amounted to 850,000 l; and these parties thought it was of great importance that their evidence should be received by the Committee.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: What I propose is not to enter upon any discussion on the Bill, but simply to move the second reading of the Bill, in order that it may be referred to a Select Committee. The whole question will, of course, in that case, be considered by the Committee.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
MR. HUMEsaid, the House would recollect that, some time ago, a very important subject—namely, that of reforming the ecclesiastical courts—was brought before the House. They were then promised by the Government that a Bill would be brought in upon the subject. He therefore wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government what prospect there was of such a Bill being brought forward?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have already stated to the House on a former occasion that a Commission had been appointed by the late Government on the subject; that they had made up their minds with regard to the general outline of the measure to be proposed, but not as to its details, which would require very great consideration. I then said that it would take not less than three or four months to go through all the details of the measure. Under these circumstances it had been determined not to bring in a Bill on the subject at present.
Motion for the adjournment to Monday next was then agreed to.

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 3.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to allow occupiers of land to have their land valued by competent persons appointed by the commissioners in case they thought themselves overcharged. At present it was left to the discretion of the commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad never had this point stated to him by any one, and he was not aware that the occupiers of land felt themselves aggrieved in this respect. He would rather not give a positive answer without inquiry, but he would consider the matter, and give the hon. Gentleman an answer. The commissioners alluded to were not officers of the Government, but local commissioners.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
Clause 5 (Duties to be assessed and raised under the provisions of Acts recited 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35).
MR. BRIGHTsaid, this clause was of a nature which, he thought, the House would be generally of opinion was objectionable. It professed to tell the House and the public many things which were not contained in it, and which would require that any man who had a chance of discovering what it meant should be not only very laborious, but also have a good deal of practice in construing Acts of Parliament. The clause stated—
"The said duties hereby granted shall be assessed, raised, levied, and collected under the regulations and provisions of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the 5th and 6th years of Her Majesty, c. 35, and of the several Acts therein mentioned or referred to, and also of any Act or Acts subsequently passed explaining, altering, amending, or continuing the said first-mentioned Act; and for this purpose all the said several Acts shall be revived, and shall be deemed to have been and to be continued in force from the day of, 1853."
Now, all the Acts which were thus referred to were absolutely not in existence as law at this period, because they had run their terms, and were positively dead. Not less than eight Acts were referred to in this clause, beginning with the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35; and then several others followed, which were amending Acts and continuing Acts for three years and one year. He believed it altogether impossible for more than one in ten, perhaps for

717
more than one in fifty, of all the income-tax payers in the country to ascertain what was really the law under which they were called upon to pay the income tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, no doubt, shown a great deal of acuteness, but he had not evinced his accustomed habits of business and administrative ability in proposing such a clause as this. He (Mr. Bright) was of opinion that every new Act of Parliament should be substantially a complete measure in itself, so that any person wishing to know what the law was he had to obey, might be able to do so by referring to that one Act only. The Chairman of Committees in the other House had laid down such a rule with regard to private Bills; and last year, in the case of the Rochdale Improvement Bills which had passed this House, when it got to the other, the Chairman insisted that the Bill should be withdrawn, because it stated repealed Acts, and re-enacted parts of other Acts, and gave as a reason, that the people of the town which was to be taxed ought to know what the law under which they were taxed was, and he insisted that the Bill should be made complete in itself. His (Mr. Bright's) right hon. Colleague and himself had insisted last year on this point with regard to the Militia Bill; and as they were now passing a Bill imposing a tax for seven years (if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said for seventeen or seventy years, he would have been quite safe), they had a right to have the Bill complete. Appeals and other questions might arise, which gave on every page of the income tax a right to have a law with a distinct meaning, and a very little labour would effect that. He had another objection to the Bill—namely, that this clause re-enacted the machinery of the tax. He objected strongly to the machinery so far as the local commissioners were concerned; and he had stated on a former occasion a plan which would, he knew, be satisfactory to the commercial classes in the north. The local commissioners were chosen from the land-tax commissioners, who were appointed in some hocus-pocus manner at the end of every Session by certain Members, to whom some names of persons were sent. In his district that mode of appointment caused great dissatisfaction, and there were some suspicions entertained as to the impartiality of the commissioners. He had proposed that the local commissioners should be appointed by the payers of income tax; and that the surveyor of a dis-
718
trict should send a list to all the persons who paid income tax in the previous year, with a request that each person should place his initials opposite any number of names of persons whom he wished to be appointed commissioners; and that list having been sent back to the surveyor, he should count the votes and publish in the Gazette, or the local papers, the commissioners so chosen for the ensuing year or two years. He (Mr. Bright) was in favour of the income tax, and disagreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to its being abolished in 1860. He should prefer its remaining so long as there was a single indirect tax; and what he proposed was proposed in good faith towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, and he proposed it because he knew what was the feeling now in his own neighbourhood; while if the local commissioners were appointed in the manner he suggested, there would be a feeling in favour of the justice and impartiality of the commissioners, which was impossible under the present system. He believed also that the right hon. Gentleman would find that under commissioners so selected the management would be better, and the revenue greater. If there was any objection to his plan, he should be glad to hear it from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. He did not wish to move that the Chairman report progress, for it was his desire that this measure should pass speedily; but still he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give an assurance that if the Bill was allowed to pass in its present shape, he would undertake to give them a consolidated Bill at an early period, and also that he would fairly consider the subject of the appointment of the local commissioners. By this Bill there was practically no appeal to special commissioners if a return was sent in to the local commissioners; and there ought not to be any restriction on appeals to the special commissioners. He should not make any Motion, but he felt it to be his duty to appeal strongly and earnestly, but in no feeling of hostility, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to explain the views he held, and to give a pledge that he would effect a consolidation of the measure, and consider the question of a better mode of appointments of the local commissioners. He (Mr. Bright) had brought the subject forward, because he was anxious to make this measure as little irritating to the public, and as advantageous to the revenue as possible.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not for a moment question the motives with which the hon. Gentleman had made his statement to the Committee; and was satisfied that when he had heard the explanations which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was about to offer, that he would see that his criticisms upon this Bill were not well founded, although the objects which he had in view might be perfectly rational, and, he fully granted, quite open to consideration. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman was entirely in error if he supposed that because this was a supplemental and amendment Bill, therefore he was precluded from introducing improvements into its provisions. The Bill certainly revived several old Acts, but it revived them subject to any provisions or alterations which the Committee might choose to introduce into the present measure; and so far from precluding the making of amendments, the bulk of the Bill which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had introduced consisted of amendments of the existing law; and it was perfectly competent for any person to propose still further amendments. With regard to the proposal for a consolidated Bill, such a Bill must be considered in two ways: first, with respect to the convenience of hon. Members, as well as of persons out of doors, so as to present a clear intelligence as to what was to be done; and, next, with reference to whet was still more important, namely, the functions which this Bill had to perform as a Ways and Means Act for the services of the year, and the limitation of time, which on account of those functions must necessarily be confined. On the first ground, he thought it more for the convenience of the House that they should see the new enactments standing by themselves. If he had introduced a consolidation Bill, with about 250 old and 50 new clauses, how many hon. Members would have been able to make themselves masters of such a document? And would be not have been told that by bringing the whole of the law before the House, instead of the parts upon which he proposed new enactments, the new and old had been inextricably mixed and confounded together? But then as to the other consideration. It would have been impossible to introduce such a Bill, looking to it as a means of levying revenue to be brought into the Exchequer by a certain period, so as to have it passed in time. The present Go-
720
vernment, when they came into office in January last, had to investigate the very foundation of the tax, and to examine at large into all the considerations connected with its structure. It was impossible for them to come to a conclusion on all these questions without taking time; and they could not in justice to the House, after they had arrived at their conclusion, have delayed the announcement of it for a period of two or three months, until a consolidation Bill had been drawn. He did not think the hon. Gentleman himself would have approved of the course of the Government if, after coming to a conclusion as to the substance of the measure they meant to propose, they had sent to the Solicitor of the Board of Inland Revenue instructions to go to work and draw a consolidating Bill. Why, such a Bill could hardly have been ready in the course of the month of June. [Mr. BRIGHT was understood to say that all that might have been done before.] Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that they might have drawn the Bill before they knew what they were going to propose? It would have been most unwise, impracticable, and absurd for the Government, having determined on the substance of a measure upon which the whole finance of the year depended, to have taken three months in preparing its form. The hon. Gentleman also said that the machinery for levying the tax ought to be changed—and certainly the demand which he made for improvements in this respect was to a considerable degree reasonable. A great part of the discontent with the present machinery, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, arose from its not, being so extensively known as it ought to be that parties liable to be assessed had the power of referring their cases to the special commissioners, instead of going before the local commissioners. But, irrespective of that, it was quite open to any one to urge that great improvement might be made in the machinery as far as concerned the local commissioners. The hon. Gentleman asked why not choose the local commissioners from lists of all those who had paid the tax in the previous year, and by allowing all those assessed for the coming year to vote? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not come to any conclusion on the subject; but he would just point out certain difficulties that did not appear to have occurred to the hon. Gentleman in his statement of the case. It was perfectly possible to tell who paid income tax under Schedule D in the

721
previous year, but no one could know who had paid under Schedules A or C; and would the hon. Gentleman have one set of commissioners with their officers attached to deal with Schedule D, and other sets to deal with the other schedules; thus doubling, or in fact trebling, the organisation, and causing great increase of expense? Again, in other respects how would the hon. Gentleman's plan operate? Those who had met with severe losses last year, and had not paid the tax at all, would be known to the world as not having been in the receipt of 150 l. that year. That he did not think would be very acceptable in such cases. Again, there was another large class of persons who claimed exemption as receiving under 150 l. a year; and he was not quite sure that lists being publicly circulated, the non-appearance upon which of any person's name would be a proof to his neighbours and rivals that his income did not reach 150 l., would be very agreeable to that class. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say they had no right to object to publicity. That was an abstract proposition, which might or might not be maintained; but during the many years that this tax had existed, it had proceeded on the principle of secrecy, and of not disclosing private affairs beyond what was strictly demanded by public necessity. The plan of the hon. Gentleman, however, looking at what appeared upon the surface of it, was objectionable, because it would expose the circumstances of parties to their neighbours, which might not at all be agreeable. Again, there was an objection to the introduction of a new machinery much the same as the objection to a consolidating Act, namely, that whereas by the existing system they could go to work and proceed to make the assessment at once, if they dispensed with the present organisation a considerable interval must elapse before the new boards could be put into operation, and there would be a corresponding delay in levying the tax. Again, he had already made his financial calculations as to the amount which the income tax would yield to the public Exchequer by the beginning of April next, and he had gone upon the assumption that the House would agree to an Act upon which they could proceed to work at once; but if the Committee insisted upon the machinery being changed before the Bill was passed, he would not be able to balance the revenue and the expenditure of the country and they would have entered into the
722
month of July before anything could be done. He admitted that the existing machinery did require considerable attention, and he had in this Bill proposed certain improvements, which could be effected without delay. One improvement that he proposed had reference to the filling up of vacancies which occurred in the number of Commissioners who were originally appointed in the year 1842. At the same time, he believed, there was elected a long list of persons to fill up from time to time the successive vacancies as they occurred in the list. It appeared to him, that there was no reason at all for retaining those lists for filling up vacancies, which of course merely showed the opinion of the board at the time, and that a better way would be for the Land-tax Commissioners to provide the lists. He wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for Manchester to another difficulty in the case: the whole question of the local machinery of the income tax must be considered in reference to the local machinery for the collection of the other taxes. It was very questionable whether the machinery under which commissioners were now appointed by the name of Land-tax Commissioners, for discharging a great number of important functions, should not be submitted to modifications, as well as the more limited machinery applied for collecting the income tax, which also depended on that of the land tax. This was a very grave and complicated question, which could not be settled without considerable delay; he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it required serious consideration, and whenever he should be in a position to give it that consideration, he should be happy to find himself able to propose a plan adequate for its purpose, and such, also, as would give satisfaction to the House. He did not like to be required to give any pledge on the subject of the consolidation of the various statutes bearing on the subject of the income tax. He was afraid the demand made was one which he should not be able to satisfy, for the hon. Gentleman said that laws of this kind ought to be made intelligible to all persons who had not received a legal education. To bring the construction of these laws within the reach of such persons, was no doubt extremely desirable, but very far from being easy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say that they were mere taxing Acts, and easy of comprehension. Customs Acts, indeed, were as intelligible to a layman as

723
to a lawyer; but he was afraid the subject of the income tax was not so easily dealt with. The nature of property in this country, and its very complicated forms, rendered it almost impossible to deal with it for the purpose of the income tax in a very simple manner; but he concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that whatever could be done should be done; and also that when the House had determined what change it would make in the law, they should then proceed as soon as possible to get a consolidated law, not to be passed in a hurry, but to be deliberately considered, so that everything might be brought into the clearest and most connected form.
MR. BRIGHTdenied that he had passed any censure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not altering the machinery of the income tax, because that subject bad probably not been brought before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. He still, however, must consider him faulty in not having endeavoured to consolidate these Acts, because he maintained there were many persons who, within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, would have produced a complete Bill upon the subject. With regard to the secrecy necessary, it was well known that at present there was little or no practical secrecy, the returns made by persons under the income tax constantly turning up in the most unexpected places; and he had not asked that very man's assessment should be printed, but that there should be such lists as would suffice for guidance as to voting purposes. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to attempt something in the way of consolidation and of the amendment of the machinery by next Session. The opinions of the Judges had been given that this was not framed as an Act of Parliament should be; and it was unquestionably unconstitutional to tax men by Acts which they could not comprehend. As to the alteration of the machinery, he did not say the matter would not require consideration to put it in its best possible form, but he certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something with regard both to the machinery of the Act and to consolidation in the course of the next Session.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONfelt bound to confirm in the strongest manner, as regarded Ireland, the objections which the hon. Member for Manchester had brought, as regarded England, to the manner in
724
which the Act was framed. Since the Bill had been laid on the table, he had devoted much time in endeavouring to ascertain its bearings on Ireland, and he had come to the conclusion that it would be found in practice that an amount of confusion, litigation, and difficulty would be created in reference to the application of this Act to Ireland which Her Majesty's Government did not at present contemplate. By the Income Tax Act the owner of land in England was given the power of deducting income tax for interest paid to mortgagees; and he wished to know whether it was contemplated by the Bill that the same power should be given to the landowner in Ireland of deducting the tax from those who held the ordinary securities of bonds and judgments? This was one source of embarrassment that struck him, and many others were likely to occur.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no doubt it was intended that the same power should be given to landlords in Ireland of deducting the tax on the interest of mortgages and bonds, as existed in England. In regard to the objections brought against the construction of the Act, the hon. Member did not say what other course could be pursued. Did he think that the matter would have been simplified and consolidated if they had attempted to construct a totally new system of income tax for Ireland? The opinion of those whom they had consulted was in favour of an opposite course, and they were recommended to take such provisions of the existing law as might be applicable to the circumstances of Ireland, and to apply any other special provisions which might be necessary.
MR. J. PHILLIMOREcould not help bearing his testimony to the loose and slovenly way in which this clause had been drawn. It was certainly quite contrary to the spirit and letter of the constitution that the people should be called upon to pay taxes under such an authority as this. The tax was to be assessed and collected under the provisions of the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, and of the several Acts therein referred to, "and also of any Act or Acts subsequently passed explaining, altering, amending, or continuing" that Act, for which purpose all these Acts were to be revived; and then followed this extraordinary provision:—
"And all powers, authorities, rules, regulations, directions, penalties, clauses, matters, and things

725
contained in or enacted by the said several Acts before recited or referred to, or any of them, shall, notwithstanding that the same may have expired, severally and respectively be and become in full force and effect with respect to the duties hereby granted, and shall in all cases not expressly provided for by this Act, and so far as the same are not superseded by and are consistent with the express provisions of this Act, severally and respectively be duly observed, applied, practised, and put in execution throughout the respective parts of the United Kingdom."
What evil could be worse than that a man who wanted to know what his rights were was to be referred to such a clause as this? The answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the hon. Member for Manchester, did not appear to him perfectly satisfactory, because he believed it was perfectly possible for any three lawyers, with far less administrative ability than was possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with the Attorney and Solicitor General, within forty-eight hours to have made this Act quite intelligible, and to have put it before the House in a less disgraceful shape than that in which it now appeared. If this Act had been prepared by a Hindoo, he believed it would have been urged as a proof of the incapacity of the Hindoo mind. If it was important that any Act should be intelligible, it was so in the case of one affecting the interests of five or six millions of British subjects. It was perfectly possible to have embodied in this clause the sense of the Acts referred to; therefore the House had great reason to complain of being called upon to pass an Act drawn in so slovenly and disgraceful a manner.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that as regarded that portion of the Act which applied to England, he would be rather disposed to trust to the alterations which might probably be effected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer hereafter, than to have the measure delayed, as the right hon. Gentleman said would have been necessary if he had sought to introduce a consolidated Bill; but, with regard to Ireland, the case was altogether different. He would submit to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not even now introduce into this Bill a few clauses which would be quite sufficient to place the case of Ireland upon a separate and distinct footing with regard to the operation and practical working of this tax. The right hon. Gentleman had not, he thought, an-
726
swered the question put by the hon. Member near him (Mr. Hamilton). Securities on land in Ireland were on an entirely different footing from similar securities in England; and the hon. Member had asked whether, by the provisions of this Bill, or any other measure, the Government proposed to enable the owners of land in Ireland to deduct the interest paid, not upon mortgages, but upon other encumbrances on land which were of a nature unknown in England. One evil arising from the course of legislation of which the hon. Member opposite had complained was, that by this 5th clause the Act of the 5 & 6 Vict., and all the other Acts referred to or incorporated in that Bill, were also incorporated and made part of the present measure, and that not only as far as related to England, but to Ireland. Now, among the 190 odd clauses contained in the 5 & 6 Vict., was a clause referring to four or five earlier Acts of Parliament relating to assessed taxes or land tax, and applying the machinery and regulations contained therein to the present renewal of the income tax. Of course, there was no difficulty in applying this to England; but, what was to be done in the case of Ireland, where there were no assessed taxes and no land tax? Before it was too late, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would confer with the legal Members of the Government, and see whether it would not be preferable to insert a series of clauses in the Bill applying distinctly to Ireland, and showing by what machinery the income tax was to be raised there. Unless this course was adopted, he believed a degree of confusion, difficulty, and uncertainty would be created which the Government at this moment could scarcely anticipate.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would find, by the wording of the Bill, that the Acts to which he referred were not revived at all with reference to Ireland; but, even supposing they were, nothing could be more barren of effect, inasmuch as no assessed taxes or land tax existed in that country. If they were revived, which he denied was the case, they would, therefore, merely be revived in an abstract manner, and no difficulty whatever could arise. With reference to the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Hamilton), and repeated by the hon. and learned Gen-

727
tleman, that subject had been considered, and it was now provided for in the Bill as it at present stood.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSobjected to this Bill being made to depend upon other Bills. If it were necessary to introduce the income tax into Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken the trouble to form a measure which should be in itself an entire one, and not dependent upon other Acts. English gentlemen now were accustomed to pay the income tax, and did not care much about it; but Irish gentlemen were different, and he doubted if it would be expedient to press the income tax upon that country. The tax would fall with great severity upon the tenantry, who were too poor to pay it, so that they would actually have to advance the amount from their capital, and in some cases a tenant would be compelled to pay the entire income tax due upon 100 l. upon a very much less sum.
COLONEL DUNNEconsidered that the complaint urged against the Bill—namely, that it was unintelligible, was a very reasonable one. There was one clause in it which no one could possibly understand; and the reason which had been given for not explaining the obscurity in which it was involved was, that the difficulties were so great that very few were capable of understanding them. Would he be told that the Government were unable to set forward in a clear manner the machinery employed in working this tax? In his opinion the operation and execution of this tax were as had as the principle of it. He would call upon the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation on this point, although it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman, who was a great master of language, had used his power in this Bill on the principle of the diplomatist who declared that the use of language was to conceal and not to express our ideas.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he thought that the verbal and technical arrangements of the present Bill, faulty as it was as regards this country, appeared to him to be still more so as regards Ireland. He acknowledged the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had referred to the observations which he had addressed to the House; and he had listened to his speech with great attention at the beginning, and great surprise at the close. He must confess himself at a loss to conceive how the right
728
hon. Gentleman, with his statesmanship, with a large and well-disciplined majority, could have foregone the opportunity of reaping a rich harvest of popular favour, as he certainly would have gained from the mercantile classes if he had made any attempt to grapple with the machinery of this odious tax. The plea of want of time was about the last he should have expected them to put forward, because, when he remembered that the Government had undertaken to bring forward a scheme of a most gigantic character during the next week—that of introducing a Bill for the government of India—they must, in his opinion, possess a large surplus of energy and of time. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope that next year he might be in a position to consolidate the statutes relating to this tax, and deal with its machinery. Nothing could be further from his intention than to throw any doubt upon the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman; but before the House consented to the change proposed, it should consider how the income tax stood at present, and whether there was a probability of ever having a better opportunity or a more favourable time for its modification. At the time when this measure was first passed, it was under circumstances which afforded some excuse for its defective machinery—at a time when there was a great deficiency in the public revenue, and when no one had had any experience of the working of a tax of this description. The question of the income tax must have occupied a prominent place in the deliberations both of the late and of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this tax the keystone of his policy, and proposed to renew it for a term of years so long as to be almost equivalent to renewing it for a perpetuity. In his opinion, if they let slip the present opportunity, the consideration of the working of this tax might be deferred till the Greek kalends, and certainly there would never be a better opportunity than the present for remodelling the machinery of this tax. There was one thing he wished to press upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that, although there might be objections to the amendments of the hon. Member for Manchester, not one of the amendments introduced a new principle, or interfered with a single penny which was to be gathered under this Act. He complained, therefore,

729
that they should be called upon at once to pass a clause sanctioning the renewal of the whole of that machinery by which the mercantile classes had been irritated and harassed for the last ten years. For instance, the present manner in which commissioners of the income tax were appointed gave great annoyance and dissatisfaction to those classes. They wished to have those commissioners appointed in a more satisfactory manner. This Bill attempted, in a very clumsy manner, to define what allowances were to be made for losses in trades: that ought to be more satisfactorily dealt with. It was also desirable that a better arrangement should be made with reference to the provision of a court for the hearing of appeals against assessments under Schedule D. Almost all Members connected with commercial constituencies had come to that House pledged up to their necks to do their best to procure a graduated scale of assessment. From that pledge their constituents had practically released them, and had agreed to accept the income tax with a uniform pressure, severely as that pressure had in many cases been felt, and unjustly as it operated; but the greater the liberality that their constituents had shown towards them, and the more ample the concessions that they had allowed them to make for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the more had they a right to demand that their representatives should use their utmost exertions to sweep away all unnecessary defects in this Bill, and to mitigate, as much as possible, the working of this odious tax.
MR. MICHELLwas understood to suggest that the clause should be altogether expunged, in order that other and more simple and perfect provisions might be introduced. As for secrecy under the present machinery of the tax, it was out of the question. The returns men made were often found in the butter shop, and cheese had been sent to his own house wrapped up in his own return. He agreed, for the most part, in the observations of the hon. Member with respect to the machinery of the tax, which he thought most objectionable.
MR. CAYLEYwished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a case of a somewhat singular character, and one which he hoped might excite his sympathy. The Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. R. Palmer) was to the effect
730
that the tax should be levied upon net, not upon gross income; and if it were so levied, the case which he was about to mention could not occur. It was that of a small holder living upon his own land, who had for eight years received nothing, and yet had been paying income tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in the case to which the hon. Member alluded, although the person referred to made nothing but his rent, he had at the same time paid the expenses of his living. If the small occupiers of land were so extremely poor, he was sorry for them; but although the case which the hon. Member had brought forth might excite his sympathy, yet it would badly be enough to guide him in forming an opinion upon rules of State.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONrose for the purpose of putting a question of great importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—one which was viewed with deep interest by a large number of persons. His question related to the 41st clause. But though it related to so late a clause in the Bill, he thought it desirable to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman before they arrived at it. The 41st clause empowered persons before they paid the income tax to deduct the amount of any premium upon life assurance from the income upon which they were taxed. The question was, to what incomes did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to confine or limit the power of making the deduction? The clause did not in this respect appear to him to be very clear. His conviction was that the clause, as the right hon. Gentleman had framed it, was meant only to extend exemptions to incomes under Schedules D and E; but the words of the latter part of the clause seemed to have a different meaning, and to imply that all persons paying premiums on life assurance were to be allowed to make the deduction. An impression prevailed in the country that the owners and occupiers of real property were to have no such exemption. It was upon this head, particularly, that he wished to be informed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I need not now enter into details, but briefly reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet, that there cannot be the least doubt but that the exemption in question is applicable to all the schedules of the Bill.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that he doubted whether there was a single hon. Gentle-

731
man who knew precisely what he was going to vote upon; and he was strongly opposed to legislation upon matters of great importance, not directly, but by implication. This was what they were asked to do now; for if they agreed to the clause now before the House, they would by that simple vote re-enact a Bill of 194 clauses, with the provisions of which he was sure not a single Member of that House was acquainted. Nay, more, they were to re-enact "all Acts subsequently passed, explaining, altering, amending, or continuing the said first-mentioned Act;" therefore Members must actually have recourse to an index of the statutes to ascertain what was re-enacted by this clause, which further provided that the provisions of these various Acts were only to be of force so far as they were consistent with those of this Act. So that it would be necessary that Members should be minutely acquainted with the whole of the various provisions of these several Acts of Parliament, that they might know which of them were or were not inconsistent with the provisions of the present Bill, and therefore were or were not re-enacted by this clause. But the power of this Bill had reserved for Ireland "confusion worse confounded," for it declared that the provisions of the various Acts passed previously were to be applicable to that country in all cases not provided for by this Act, and so far as they were consistent with its express provisions. It really seemed as if the draughtsman was anxious to furnish a practical proof of the necessity for the measure introduced by the Government for the consolidation of the statutes. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really made up his mind as to what clauses in the various Acts that had been passed on this subject he wished to repeal and what to retain, there would have been no difficulty in preparing a Bill which should have clearly set forth what was re-enacted and what was not. Feeling the importance of not legislating on such important matters by implication, he would, if it were consistent with the rules of the House, and would not impede public business, move that the consideration of this clause should be postponed.
MR. BOUVERIE(the Chairman of the Committee) said, that it was not competent for the hon. Member to move that the clause be postponed. That could only be done by order of the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he
732
understood the hon. and learned Member to say, that if it would not impede the progress of public business, he would move that this clause be postponed; but since he could not move the postponement of the clause, he must therefore move that the clause be negatived. But that would in fact be to negative the whole Bill, for the purport of the clause was to re-enact the powers and authorities of the Income Tax Act which had already expired. The Income Tax Act was very much considered in 1842. All its clauses were gone through in the shape of a Bill, and it was then stated by Sir Robert Peel, that in framing the Bill he had considered the provisions both of Mr. Pitt's Income Tax Act, and of that introduced in 1806 by Earl Grenville and the Marquess of Lansdowne, who were not persons likely to frame measures in every way clumsy and absurd, and it was not therefore to be presumed that every clause in these Acts was a mistake and a blunder. Since 1842, the House had repeatedly considered the question of the income tax; and upon these various occasions they had contented themselves with re-enacting the provisions of the Act of 1842, without much alteration. The question now was—whether it was desirable at the present time to go over the whole of the provisions of the Act of 1842, to re-enact certain portions of it, to reconsider and alter other parts, and in fact to have new machinery altogether. In his opinion that course would lead to great public inconvenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not well have brought forward the Budget for the year until towards the end of April; the Income Tax Act expired on the 5th of April, and he had heard it stated in 1848, 1851, and in other years, that everybody concerned in the collection of the revenue concurred in representing the great importance of having the Income Tax Act passed before the 5th July; because, if it were not, the greatest difficulty would arise in making up the books, and collecting the outstanding tax. He therefore thought it was the best course to revive the Act as it at present stood on the Statute-book, to renew and confirm that Act, and to take all the powers and authorities under it. He did not say that the hon. Member for Manchester might not be right in the proposition which he had made; but it was a subject which required very great consideration, and was one which should certainly be separated from the mere question of the renewal of the

733
income tax. He begged the House to observe, that in the first enactment of the Act, that which was the foundation of it was the Act for imposing the assessed taxes. Those who prepared that Act thought it of great importance that the persons concerned in the collection of those taxes should not be persons immediately depending upon or in any way connected with the Government. Whether that was wise or not, was a fair subject for consideration; but he thought it was rather too large a question to be considered on the present occasion. He was far from saying, however, that it was not a fair question to bring before the House on another occasion. The question of the extension of the tax to Ireland was also quite a separate question from the re-enactment of the powers of the old Act. With respect to that point, he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have taken a more convenient course than to say that, with such alterations as appeared obviously to be necessary, the general powers and authorities given by that Act should be extended to Ireland. It would, he thought, have been cumbrous and unnecessary to have gone through all the clauses of the Act of 1842, and to have re-enacted them for Ireland. If special provisions were required for that country, let them be considered; but that did not seem to be opposed to the general view, that the most convenient way to extend the tax to Ireland, was to re-enact that general measure, and then to make any alterations which the different circumstances of Ireland might render necessary.
MR. MAGUIREthought that when the House was imposing the income tax on Ireland for the first time, it was not too much for the Irish Members to ask that they should be enabled to understand it. Now he defied any Irish Member to know what he was voting for when he assented to this clause. For himself, he declared solemnly that he did not understand a single word of what he was going to vote for, and he was therefore desirous for some further explanation of what would be its effect.
MR. KIRKsaid, that he had as an Irish Member voted for the imposition of the tax upon Ireland, under the belief that he would thus relieve the tenant farmers from the burden of the consolidated annuities, and of the other direct taxes under which they were labouring. He still retained full confidence that the expressed intention
734
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do this would be carried out in the details of the Bill. He found, however, that by the 13th clause of the present Bill the tax was to be assessed on rateable hereditaments, according to the valuations under the Poor Relief Act; and that the assessment was to be made on the occupier or other person rated to the relief of the poor. Now, in order really to effect what he understood to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention, it would be absolutely necessary to release the tenant from the direct payment of the landlord's income tax, which might be done by substituting the word "owner" for that of "occupier," in the 13th clause. Any attempt to collect income tax from the small occupiers of land in Ireland, would entail great hardship upon them, while it would be attended with so much expense, that the tax would hardly pay the cost of collection. The only objection which he had heard to this was, that it would be impossible to ascertain the owners of the soil; but he believed that this might be done without any difficulty through the medium of the police.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that this question would be much more conveniently discussed when they arrived at the 13th clause. He was quite alive to the importance of this question, and to the weight of the considerations which might be urged in favour of that view of it which was taken by the hon. Member. The only object of the Government was to provide the best, fairest, and simplest mode of collecting the income tax in Ireland; and there were no doubt a great many points in connexion with the operation of the clause which had been referred to, upon which they were most desirous to have the aid of Irish Members. That, however, was not the question immediately before the House. The clause they were then discussing went to the root and framework of the Bill, and was decisive as to the time at which this tax would be levied, and as to when it would be available for the purposes of the State. It therefore formed the very base of the financial propositions of Government. It was, however, quite open to the Government, or to the Committee, to levy the tax in Ireland either upon the owner or occupier without interfering with the progress of the Bill; and he therefore thought that the discussion of this point might very well stand over.
MR. LUCASgave the right hon. Gen-

735
tleman full credit for a desire to pass this Bill in a way most suitable to the circumstances of Ireland. In order to do this, he (Mr. Lucas) would propose that the clauses relative to Ireland should be withdrawn from the present measure, and that a separate Bill with regard to Ireland should be introduced. This would meet the greater part of the practical difficulties which had been referred to. Here they had a Bill by which a new tax was to be applied to Ireland, and which, if drawn out at length, would consist of 190 or 200 clauses, and those clauses were not, in fact, to pass through Committee at all. They were not to have an opportunity of considering those clauses in detail, and therefore, without having any wish to offer an unfair obstruction to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had brought before him a proposal to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give his consent. If this proposition were assented to, he would not oppose the clause; but otherwise he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the question.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 26: Majority 70.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 6.
Clause 7.
COLONEL DUNNEmade an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the tax was to be charged according to the residence of the person, or the locality of the property.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that with regard to real property, it would be placed in the same position as real property was in England under the present Act. Property derived from the profits of land in Ireland would be charged in Ireland. The taxation of other species of property would depend upon the residence of the possessor.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that if the property were charged according to the residence of a person, when that person was resident in England no credit would be given to Ireland for the tax. In the Excise and Customs a great deal was in that way credited to England, and not credited to Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that the persons who now, under Schedule A, pay the income tax in England in respect to land in Ireland, will, of course, continue so to pay it;
736
but that which now wrongly appears as an English tax would hereafter appear as an Irish tax.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONapprehended that what his gallant Friend wished to ascertain was, whether there should not be a distinct separation in the accounts of in-income tax paid in England and Ireland; that there should be a Schedule A for Ireland as well as for England, and so on, in order that each country might be exactly credited with the amount it paid. He believed, however, that the object of his hon. and gallant Friend could be attained without the insertion of a specific clause, as arrangements might be entered into by the Treasury for the purpose.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no doubt as to the propriety of putting all returns under the income tax from Ireland in the same account, and he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his suggestion would not be lost sight of.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive.
Clause 12.
LORD NAASsaid, that as this was the first clause which raised the question of how far the existing machinery in Ireland would enable them to collect the income tax, he proposed to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, upon which some explanation was requisite, in order to satisfy the people of Ireland. When the proposal to extend the income tax to Ireland was on a former occasion discussed, it was urged over and over again by the highest financial authorities in the country that, laying aside the policy or the impolicy of that measure, if the House were to decide upon such an extension, it would be found in the end to be wholly unproductive to the revenue. It was, therefore, before proceeding further, not an unwise question to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to lay before the Committee some estimate or some calculation which would enable it to form an idea as to the actual amount that would accrue to the Exchequer in consequence of the extension of the income tax to Ireland. Now the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee whether the expense of collection, under the clauses before the House, would not be likely to swallow up a great portion of the sums derivable from the tax. In 1845, when the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) brought forward his Amendment to extend the tax to Ireland,

737
the greatest financial authorities gave it as their decided opinion that such an imposition would not in any such way increase the resources of the Treasury as would at all counterbalance the evils attendant upon its collection. And the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) spoke on the subject in the most explicit manner. He stated, that he had gone into the inquiry, and that he found the imposition of the income tax upon that part of the United Kingdom might indeed lay upon the people of Ireland a heavy burden: but that, looking to the Exchequer, the amount that would be available would be indeed very small:—
"That, unlike the indirect taxes that were collected in that country, it would be got in at such an enormous expense in proportion to the amount, that the ultimate payment into the Exchequer would not by any means be equal to the burden imposed on the people. They had had some experience as to the collection of such taxes in Ireland already. They had had the assessed taxes in Ireland already at a former period, and the result was that they imposed a heavy burden on the people, and got nothing whatever into the Exchequer. If they had imposed a property tax on Ireland, having to create anew the whole of the machinery necessary for its collection, what would be the result? Why, they would have oppressed the people, and got nothing for the Government."—[3 Mansard, lxxvii. 790.]
What he wanted the right hon. Gentleman opposite, therefore, to show was, that the altered circumstances of Ireland were such as to justify him in throwing overboard those high financial authorities who had spoken in 1845, and in coming to the conclusion that beneficial effects would accrue to the Treasury from the extension of the tax to Ireland. His (Lord Naas's) opinion was, that, so far from having better grounds to adopt the proposal, it was actually the reverse; for though the improvements which had taken place within the last two years were undoubtedly great, still the country was by no means in as rich or prosperous a condition as it was in 1845. He believed that the taxpaying capability of Ireland was much greater then than it was at present, and, therefore, the objections of those high financial authorities would prevail and apply with far greater force now; and to show this, it was only necessary to remind the Committee that the circulation of Ireland was one-third less than it was in 1845; that the exportation of cattle and corn was also nearly one-third less, and that whereas in 1845, 3,000,000 quarters of grain and malt had been exported, only 1,324,000 quarters had been exported last year. So
738
that, in point of fact, it was impossible to make out the case, that the taxpaying capacity of Ireland had been enlarged since 1845. He was justified, therefore, in asking what were the causes which had enabled the Government to come to a different conclusion from that of the Government of 1845; and also what was the amount expected to be realised from an Irish income tax?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with respect to the question of the amount that was to be levied from the income tax in Ireland, he had frankly avowed that which was upon the surface of the case, namely, that on all these questions generally every man must entertain and form his own opinion. They were all on an equality in respect of their power of judging what would be the probable produce of the income tax in Ireland, and he did not enjoy from his official position any advantage that would enable him to arrive at a conclusion such as the House ought to receive on his authority and on the authority of the Government. He had already stated that there was but a meagre list of documents and of documentary evidence to which he could refer; and he need not now repeat it, because the noble Lord, he had no doubt, must be perfectly aware of it. The noble Lord had quoted the authority of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), and the sentiments he had expressed on the question in 1845. His right hon. Friend was then simply recommending to the House to pass a continuing and reviving Act; there was nothing in the nature of reconstruction or extension contemplated by his proposition; there was no man who would give a more conscientious judgment; but the bias of his mind was to view strongly and favourably those reasons that would discourage an alteration in the income tax at that time. With respect to the condition of Ireland, and the change it had undergone since that period, and with respect to their means generally of forming a judgment of the practicability of levying the income tax in Ireland, he did think there was something to be said over and above what could be said in 1845. Various changes had taken place since 1845, all of which tended very much in the direction of facilitating the imposition of the income tax at present, and amongst the deplorable consequences of the famine, there were consequences also that were not deplorable. For exam-

739
ple, there was a great diminution in small holdings in Ireland: the better defining of title, and the simplifying of possession in Ireland, was advantageous: and the progress that had been made in the construction of a trustworthy valuation in that country was of advantage. The improved and strengthened machinery of the poor-law was in operation; but, above all, they had, with respect to Ireland, that which he ventured to say was better than the opinion even of such men as his right hon. Friend and of Sir Robert Peel, when the opinion was merely anterior to experience, namely, the example of what bad occurred with respect to the consolidated annuities, which they were now going to remit. He did not hesitate to say that the mode in which the consolidated annuities were collected under the authority of the law, offered a strong presumption, and he would almost say a demonstration, of the probability of levying the income tax in Ireland, and threw a light on the question that was quite sufficient to enable them to judge that no ruinous or excessive costs would attend its collection. He did not now speak of the effect of the removal of the consolidated annuities, but referred to the subject as affording most valuable and conclusive evidence, which, in 1845, was wanting, as to the practicability of levying such a tax. Another instance to which he might refer was the collection of the rate in aid. The result of attempting to levy a rate in aid was a result arising from an attempt that was made under circumstances infinitely more unfavourable than the circumstances under which they proposed the present law for imposing the income tax. The distress at the time was greater, and the public opinion with respect to the rate in aid was not of a nature to facilitate the levying of it. He would only now refer to the working of the rate in aid. He believed he was correct in stating that the calculation was, that the proceeds of the rate in aid would be about 421,000 l. That was the calculation formed before the rate in aid was imposed. The Act passed, the rate was levied, and when the account came finally to be rendered, it was found that 420,000 l. had been brought into the Treasury. He must confess that he would be perfectly satisfied if the production of the income tax came as near to the estimate.
MR. J. BALLwished to offer a suggestion in reference to the next clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERbegged to interpose for a moment, to offer a suggestion. As the Government were anxious to derive all the advantage they could from the representations of the best-informed persons, he would propose to postpone the 13th clause.
MR. J. BALLthought it would be better to pass over that evening the whole of the clauses referring to Ireland. He denied that the measure involved any increase of taxation in Ireland; on the contrary, he was quite certain that it involved a remission of taxation in Ireland. He sat down with pen and paper to calculate, half-year by half-year, the result of the various financial changes that had been proposed. In the first year he found the increase would be 37,800 l.; in the next year, 144,000 l.; and in the next, 40,000 l. During the remaining four years, ending in 1860, there would be a continual diminution of taxes in Ireland, leaving, at the end of the time, a balance of about 170,000 l. But as there would be at that period an arrear of income tax due, the final result would be to leave no balance whatever on either side. But they should recollect that the proposition would produce the important effect of removing taxation from the industrial classes, and placing it on the owners of property.
MR. MACARTNEYbegged to explain that the rate in aid was levied so effectively, because a stoppage was made for it out of the rates collected under the poor law, and the amount thus obtained was placed before Parliament to show that Ireland was able to pay a rate in aid.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSwished to know if a tenant occupied a farm worth 30 l. a year, which was about the average value of farms in Ireland, and paid, as he supposed he must, according to the proposed system, thirty sevenpences for the landlord, how was he to recover the money; and further, what would be have to pay for the value of his occupation?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no tenant whose property was valued to the poor-law at less than 100 l. a year would be charged with profits of occupation. As to the mode in which the tenant was to recover what he paid on the value of the land itself, that would of course be deducted from the rent, and was not so serious a question as the hon. Gentleman proposed: though, of course, it had a serious bearing on the question whether the tax ought to be paid in the first instance by the landlord or the tenant. It was with

741
a view to the more full consideration of this question that he proposed to postpone the clauses.
MR. I. BUTTasked a question in reference to an Amendment of which he had given notice, in the 13th clause. It was a great hardship for a tenant to have to pay income tax according to a rating that was beyond the actual rent which he paid. No doubt that in the case of a tenant being charged for income tax, whose income was below 100 l. a year, he had the power of recovering the money which he had paid as income tax back again. The fact, however, of compelling him to pay this tax in the first instance was a hardship. He (Mr. Butt) proposed that such person might be allowed to come in the first instance before the assessor, and to claim exemption from the tax by showing that his income was below 100 l. a year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that he had read the Amendment, and that he would consider it in connexion with the general subject.
MR. MAGUIREasked what was the minimum amount of rate to which an occupier would be liable?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that point would be determined by the poor-law rating, which fixed the minimum at 4l. 10 s.
LORD NAASproposed at the end of Clause 12 to add these words:—
"Provided always, that as soon as the valuation of any poor-law union in Ireland shall have been completed, under the provisions of an Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the 15th and 16th years of Her Majesty, chapter 63, in order to the assessing of the duties chargeable under schedules (A and B) of this Act in Ireland, the commissioners of valuation in Ireland shall, instead of the clerk of the union as aforesaid, between the 1st day of April and the first day of June in every succeeding year, transmit to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, at the head office in Dublin, true copies of the last final list of all the tenements and rateable hereditaments comprised within the said poor-law union, which the said commissioner of valuation had transmitted to the clerk of such poor-law union, in conformity with the provisions of the afore-mentioned Act."
The noble Lord said, he had great objections to the employment of any of the poor-law officials, except for purposes of the poor-law. That principle, which he considered objectionable, was now, he believed, for the first time to be introduced into an Act of Parliament. There was a Bill passed last year for a general valuation of all the land of Ireland to be rated for county
742
and poor-law purposes. It was therein enacted that the commissioners of valuation, after having duly valued the land, should transmit to the boards of guardians a final list of all the property in the several unions rated for the relief of the poor. He thought that the same mode of obtaining information for the purposes of the present Bill ought to be adopted.
LORD NAASconsented, at the suggestion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, to allow the Amendment to stand over for further consideration.
MR. MAGUIREwas anxious to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a grievance which would arise to the occupiers of small tenements under the latter portion of the 13th clause. The clause said that the tax should be paid by the occupier. Now, suppose a man had property yielding 90 l. a year. In that case he would not be liable to pay any income tax; but, further, suppose that he let his land to several tenants, say at 10 l. a year each, these tenants, by this clause, would be liable to pay the income tax on their several holdings. Now, inasmuch as the landlord would not be liable to pay the income tax, the question he wished to ask was, whether these tenants could legally deduct from their rent the money they had paid on account of that tax? If not, in what manner were they to obtain redress?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was not the least doubt about the question, supposing the Bill should pass as it now stood; for in that case the occupier would be liable to have the tax levied on him irrespective of the question whether the landlord was or was not liable. It was the same thing in England. If the tenant, paid 7d. in the pound on his 20 l. rent, he would make a deduction of what he so paid from his rent, and the landlord not being liable, because his income was under 100 l., would, of course, get the money back from the commissioners. It was a hardship, no doubt; but still the evil was not so great as one might suppose, as such a case could only happen but once. Persons having once been exempted from the tax were seldom charged again. At the same time it was a very serious question, whether they should adopt the 13th clause, which, however, was not then before the Committee, or whether they should enact the non-liability of tenants in respect to the occupation of their farms.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 were postponed.
Clause 15 (The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may direct revaluations where existing valuations are incorrect).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed to add a proviso, empowering the parties to make an appeal from the valuation of the commissioner of valuation to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with a view to a revaluation of the property.
LORD NAASsaid, although the proviso just proposed in some degree lessened his objection to the clause, still he thought there were good grounds for opposing it. He did not think it right to give power to persons to do that in respect to the income tax which the parochial ratepayers had not a right to do in respect to parochial rates. He should move that the clause be omitted.
MR. F. SCULLYsupported the clause as it stood. At present a man had no appeal, but was bound for fourteen years. He considered the clause as a fair one, and believed it to be in perfect unison with the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) of last year.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEwished to know whether the expense of the revaluation was to be paid by the Government?
MR. KIRKasked if the right of appeal was to be given when parties were rated too low, as well as when they were rated too high? By lowering the rate in boroughs from 8l. to 7l. 15 s., it might be the means of virtually disfranchising the parties.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, the objection to the clause was this. If the commissioners thought that a particular property was valued too low, they had a right to direct its revaluation, and then the Government proposed to give the owner a right of appeal against the revaluation. But suppose the owner was of opinion that his property was valued too high, where was his right of appeal? The Amendment of the Government did not give it; it was only where the commissioners directed a revaluation that he had it; but if there was no revaluation, then there was no right of appeal. But if it was right to give the commissioners power to order a revaluation, in the event of their being of opinion that the former valuation was too low, surely it was equally just that a similar power should be given to the taxpayer, in the event of his thinking that the former valuation was too high. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to give a right of appeal in the one case, but to refuse it in
744
the other, and was therefore so far defective.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was not very clear whether the clause under consideration was intended to apply to valuations made by poor-law guardians, or to those made by the commissioner of valuations in Ireland. There was a great difference between the two classes of valuations; and if the clause was intended to apply only to the valuations made by poor-law guardians, there might be no grounds for objecting to it; but if it was intended to apply to the valuations made by the commissioner, then he hoped the House would not adopt it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERtrusted the Committee would not act upon the advice of the hon. Gentleman opposite, for it was plain that the clause was necessary as a protection to the revenue. If they were dealing with the case of Ireland after the whole of Ireland had been valued by the commissioners of valuations, then all parties might join together and say that they should accept the valuation of the commissioner as being impartial and sufficient; but the Committee had to consider that over a considerable part of Ireland there was no valuation at all by the commissioner, though there was one by the poor-law guardians. Now, he thought it would be absurd to subject the levying of the income tax to the standard of the poor-law valuation, or, in other words, to leave the fixing of the valuation for the income tax simply and purely in the hands of local authorities. There could be nothing in his opinion more fair than to say that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, where they thought that the valuation was too low, should be entitled to step in and demand that a revaluation should be made by that authority which Parliament had already recognised and established as a proper authority for making valuations in Ireland. In reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Hamilton), he had to state, that the clause was not intended to apply to valuations made by the commissioners of valuations; but it was plain that if they were not to give power to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to order a revaluation in the case of a poor-law valuation being too low, they would place the revenue in a most disadvantageous position. The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) complained that they did not intend to give the taxpayer

745
the right to appeal against the existing valuations; but there really did not appear to be any sufficient reason why such a right should be granted. He was entitled to assume that the present valuations were not unjust or unfair to parties, inasmuch as they had been made either by the taxpayers themselves, or under the provisions of the Act recently passed, and which had been carefully framed with the view of enabling the parties to be heard. He assumed, therefore, that the existing valuations were perfectly fair, and that the interests of parties were reasonably secured. But the Government wanted some security for themselves. The clause under consideration gave them that security; though he admitted to the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine (Lord Naas), that, perhaps, it would be well to add a few words to make it clear that the power of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to order a revaluation only applied to valuations made by poor-law guardians, and not to valuations made by the commissioners appointed under the recent Act of Parliament.
LORD NAASthought the plan of Government would distract the commissioners, who were rating Ireland as rapidly as possible.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, it was perfectly clear the clause was framed by some one who had very little knowledge of Ireland. Griffith's valuation was nearly finished. The clause was most impolitic, and he advised the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Secretary for Ireland, who knew something about the question.
MR. J. BALLwas afraid, from the terms in which the clause was expressed, that it would lead many to suppose, what he was sure was not intended, that the commissioners were to have power to order a revaluation of single tenements. He suggested that words should be introduced to the effect that the revaluations ordered by the commissioners should be revaluations of districts.
MR. CAIRNSagreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was fair to assume that parties were satisfied with the existing valuations made inter se for poor-law purposes; but when they came to apply those valuations to a different purpose, such as the imposition of an income tax, it did not follow that they would afford an equal amount of satisfaction to those who had to pay the tax. In the case of a poor-law rate it did not much matter to indi-
746
vidual ratepayers what the valuation might be, provided it was equal over the whole union, for there was there a congeniality of interests; but in the case of an income tax each man stood for himself, and it was therefore important that the valuation should be a sound and just one for individuals.
SIR DENHAM NORREYStaunted the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine with having passed his Valuation Bill of last year in hot haste, and without allowing the Irish representatives an opportunity to discuss it properly. It was too bad for the noble Lord to come forward now and say that his defective legislation should net be corrected; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way to the pressure from the opposite side of the House.
COLONEL DUNNEasked to whom the expense of the contemplated revaluations was to be charged?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that when the House had settled the principle upon which the revaluations were to be conducted, it would then be time enough to make provision for the payment of the expenses.
MR. F. SCULLYrecommended that the clause should be postponed for further consideration.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaw no reason why the clause should be postponed; and, indeed, the Committee were not competent to do it. The truth was, that parties at present had power by law to apply for a revaluation—[Cries of "No, no!"] Why, poor-law guardians might procure a new valuation, and be took them to be adequate representatives of local interests. He, therefore, saw no necessity for making a special provision with the view of granting a right already possessed by parties.
LORD NAASrepeated the expression of his willingness to withdraw his opposition to the clause, on the understanding that it was intended to apply only to the valuations made by poor-law guardians.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in forcing the clause through the Committee, notwithstanding the objections which had been stated, he should feel it to be his duty, when the Report was brought up, to propose an Amendment for giving to parties a power of appeal similar to that conferred upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 16.
Clause 17 was postponed.
Clauses 18 and 19 were agreed to.
Clause 20, providing that appeals in Ireland are to be heard and determined by the Commissioners for Special Purposes,
MR. MAGUIREasked on what principle it was intended to value incomes derived from trades and professions in Ireland?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was probably aware that there were a great variety of provisions which were all set out in the present Income Tax Act for the valuation of incomes derived from trades and professions. The same principle, as appeared upon the face of these provisions regarding England, would apply to Ireland, and he did not know that there was any reason for, or possibility of, having a different set of rules for that country. When they came to the execution of the Act, some differences might arise out of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, and out of the fact that they had not the same means of levying the tax as they had in England; and it might be found necessary to adopt some more summary, though not more stringent, methods of obtaining information. That was a matter for consideration in detail, but he saw no reason for adopting a different standard as regarded trades and professions in Ireland from that which prevailed in this country.
On an Amendment of Mr. I. BUTT, to the effect that assessments should be made in Ireland by special commissioners in certain cases, similar to the provisions of the clause in regard to England,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the effect would be to distribute all over Ireland, officers of a higher class, and receiving higher pay, to perform duties ordinarily performed in England by persons of a different class. It seemed to him more natural that the assessment should be made by the same class of people as in England, and that an appeal should be allowed; that such appeals should be heard by the assistant barrister, who should be bound to hear applications, not in open court, but in private, although he would decide judicially upon them. If, however, any better system could be proposed, he was willing to consider it.
MR. I. BUTTwanted nothing for Ireland that England had not got; but by the English Act, any person might be assessed by a Commissioner for Special Purposes, by sending in a return to him, and passing by the local commissioners. He believed
748
that there was such a provision in the English Act; but if not, his argument failed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that it was intended that Ireland should be on the same footing with England, and he would take care that the words should be introduced into the Irish Bill.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 21.
In answer to Mr. G. A. HAMILTON,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that appeals against assessments, he believed, must be heard at quarter-sessions, and it would be necessary for the assistant banister, before deciding such appeal, to take the oaths or affirmation required to be taken by the Commissioners for Special Purposes.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know if any arrangements as to costs had been made?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered it unnecessary to make any arrangement with regard to costs. They would be, no doubt, arranged as in England.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 22, 23, and 24 were also agreed to.
Clause 25.
MR. BROCKLEHURST MR. BROCKLEHURST moved Amendments, giving power to the General Commissioners to compound with parties. For the last few years the income tax had been allowed to pass for one year; but now, when it was proposed to pass it for seven, he wished to see it in a satisfactory state. If the machinery at present in use were to be applied when the operation of the tax extended to incomes of 100 l. a year, it would cause a great deal of discontent, which might be removed by allowing persons to compound for the last year, according to the decision of the Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered that the proposal of the hon. Member would give a power to the commissioners which they had never enjoyed before. It was a fact that, although the income tax had been in operation for eleven years, there were many people taxed under Schedule D, who did not know that there was a power of appeal to the Special Commissioners; and, while this state of information continued, there might be great misapprehension caused by adopting the proposal of the hon. Member.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
MR. I. BUTT MR. I. BUTT moved an Amendment to exempt income under 150 l. a year derived from precarious sources, and all clerical incomes, from the operation of the tax. The question he proposed to raise was one of very considerable importance; and he would show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had for his proposal authority which he at least must respect. At present all incomes under 150 l. a year were exempt. This had been the limit fixed by Sir Robert Peel, in 1842. He (Mr. Butt) would much prefer that limit had been adhered to in this Bill; but whatever might be said as to the propriety of lowering it in the case of religious property, he felt confident the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown no just reason for his proposal to include those who possessed precarious incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. a year. Clerical incomes, no matter from what source derived, were strictly professional incomes, subject to all the incidents of such; and whatever rule they applied to the incomes of other professional men, it was plainly right to apply to those of clergymen, without reference to the source from which their income was derived. His (Mr. Butt's) Amendment, therefore, was, in substance, to prevent the extension of the income tax from applying to those whose income was derived from precarious sources. He was now dealing, the House would observe, with the imposition of the tax upon new classes; as to some of these classes he was resisting that imposition. He earnestly asked their attention to the circumstances of those whom it was now proposed to subject to this tax for the first time—he meant those having precarious incomes exceeding 100 l. and under 150 l. a year. This was the extension of the tax, if he might use the term, to a great, even a numerous, community. It actually brought more new persons within the operation of the tax than did the extension of it to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman calculated that by extending the tax to this class of incomes, he would increase its amount 250,000 l. But to obtain that sum 100,000 persons must be taxed. The question, therefore, was, whether they could now extend the income tax to these 100,000 persons—persons who were the least able to bear it—and the very class upon whom its imposition would be most unpopular. He (Mr. Butt) said that he had high authority for resisting this proposal. He
750
confidently claimed the vote of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham). He was not about to quote from former volumes of Hansard declamations of an ancient date, which might have been made under different circumstances. The opinions he was about to quote had been uttered, he might say, in the course of this very debate, in the very discussion in which they were now engaged. In November last, the House had resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means. For what purpose? To consider by what means they might raise the supplies for the current year—exactly the declamation in which they were now engaged. This Bill was the first result of the discussions of that Committee. In that Committee, upon the very subject which they were now discussing—in the very proceedings which constituted the early stage of the Bill now before the House, the right hon. Baronet solemnly and emphatically warned them not to impose the income tax upon the class to whom he (Mr. Butt) proposed to continue the exemptions. This was the advice authoritatively given to the House of Commons by the right hon. Baronet, on the subject of raising any of the supplies for 1853 by a tax on incomes below 150 l.:—
"I think there are very good reasons why those exemptions should be maintained. I am of opinion that the class having incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. in this country consists exactly of that class of persons whose position is that of the greatest struggle in maintaining their position. It is exactly the point where skilled labour ends—where, if I may so express myself, the fustian jacket ceases to be worn, and broad cloth comes into use amongst the working classes. It is more or less a class of persons who are driven by the force of circumstances to maintain a position somewhat higher than their means allow. As an instance of what I mean, I will say that clerks in counting-houses, the humbler clerks in public offices, many of the ministers of the Established Church, and nearly all the dissenting ministers, have to maintain a position somewhat higher than their humble means will easily permit."
These were just the classes whom he (Mr. Butt) proposed to exempt. The right hon. Baronet proceeded to point cut to them the evils of unduly increasing direct taxation, and concluded with this warning:—
"Guided by that experience, do not press unduly your direct taxation in time of peace. It is your great resource in time of war. And I entreat yon on these grounds to pause before you consent to the resolution now proposed."
This was the advice to which he (Mr. Butt) had listened with attention when the House was in Committee considering the very sub-

751
ject upon which they were still engaged. But, independently of any authority, he was prepared to contend that the description he had read of this class of persons was a just one. There was hardly any one possessing an income within the range now proposed to be affected, who was not struggling to mate both ends meet in the effort to maintain a position a little above his means. He confidently asked them, was the clergyman struggling to maintain himself and his family upon 120 l. a year—pinched to support the position of a gentleman—with constant demands of charity open his ill-replenished purse—was he a fit subject for this taxation which they were now about to impose for the first time upon his slender means? These, too, were the classes by whom the inquisitorial character of the tax would be most felt—who would be most reluctant to expose the truth that they were on the verge of competence, and that the appearance which they struggled to keep up was one above the little income on which they lived. Was it worth while, for the sum to be raised, to bring disquiet and the sense of oppression into the homes of the numerous class whom they were about to tax? He must remind hon. Gentlemen that he was not proposing anything inconsistent with the general financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, without disturbing that scheme, would even spare the entire amount to be raised from this class. But, if necessary, there were other reductions which could easily be dispensed with. Revenue was remitted upon articles of luxury—upon the importation of articles never heard of, except at the banquets of the rich, to an amount equal to that which they proposed to raise by grinding the poor clergyman and the humble and hardworking clerk. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up 50,000 l, a year in the tax upon attorneys, 70,000 l. on the assessed taxes, and 40,000 l. on the supplements of the newspapers—give up these reductions, and he did not want the tax upon the 100,000 families living on less than 150 l. a year. He (Mr. Butt) was not proposing anything the adoption of which would subvert the general plan of the Budget—nothing which might not be supported by the most ardent admirers of the Budget as a whole. At this stage of their proceedings he was bound to satisfy the House that the alteration he proposed was not subversive of the general scheme to which the House had assented.
752
He confidently said he had done so. It might be said that he was proposing a principle of "differentialism," as it was termed, when he made a distinction in favour of precarious incomes. But his proposal entailed of necessity no such consequence. He only affirmed that there was a particular class whom it was unjust and oppressive to tax, and therefore he asked that they should not be taxed. If they were determined to maintain the principle of making no difference between fixed and precarious incomes—and if his Amendment was carried—those who thought so would then propose, as a necessary consequence of that vote, to exempt also realised incomes below 150 l. a year. He must, of course, be prepared for that consequence; and he would remind the House that in all his calculations and arguments he had estimated the loss of revenue resulting from his proposal at the full amount of 250,000 l. a year—the loss which would follow if all incomes below 150 l. a year were exempted. He, himself, did not feel called on to propose this exemption of all; but if any hon. Gentleman thought that it followed as a necessary consequence, he was quite content to meet the case in argument with that consequence, and say, "You must give up taxing these precarious incomes—so strong are the arguments of justice and expediency against it—even if you think this will oblige you to give up at the same time the tax upon realised incomes of the same amount." His assertion was, that it was unjust and inexpedient to tax the former with this; and with this only was he concerned, except as he might be called on to answer an objection by proving that even if it should carry with it the other remission, this constituted no valid reason against it. There was still one consideration to which he must earnestly entreat the attention of the House. In lowering the limit of the tax to 100 l. a year, they were, for the first time, applying it to the wages of skilled labour. In Sheffield, and in many other of their manufacturing towns, there were many, very many, artisans receiving regular wages above two pounds a week, principally in occupations attended with great risk, or of so unhealthy a character as to shorten the lives of those engaged in them. The House ought not to shut their eyes to this—that in fixing the line of exemption at 100 l. a year, they were bringing down the taxation to this class. He might be told that there were artisans whose wages were high enough to bring

753
them even within the present line. These, however, were very rare and exceptional cases, and in practice the tax was not attempted to be enforced. But when they fixed the limit at 100 l a year, they included wages which were not of a very rare and, certainly, not an exceptional character; they extended their taxation to a class too numerous to justify them in conniving at this evasion of the law without an attempt to enforce it; and he therefore warned the House that they were now establishing the principle of imposing an income tax upon the wages of skilled labour—a tax which they must either enforce under circumstances of the most grievous oppression, or permit a numerous class to treat their law as a mockery. He now submitted his proposal to the House: as an opponent of the income tax, he ought, perhaps, to wish that it should be rejected, and that the tax should be left in a form as unpopular as possible. Now—retaining, as he owned he did, all his sympathies with what were now termed the obsolete doctrines of protection—he ought not, perhaps, to feel very anxious to prevent the artisan classes from suffering in direct taxation some of the inconveniences of the system of free trade. He would not feel justified in acting on such motives. Once Parliament directed that an income tax was to form a part of our financial system, he believed it his duty as a Member of that House to use every effort in his power to improve its working, and make it as little burdensome and as little unpopular as it could be made. With these convictions he proposed to retain the exemption in the case of precarious incomes at the limit at which it now stood, believing that this would at least mitigate, in the imposition of the tax, the injustice which he admitted it was now in their power altogether to remove.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 14, line 1, to leave out from the words 'shall be' to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words 'continued as therein provided to all such persons in the United Kingdom in respect of any duties chargeable under Schedules (D) and (E):
"It shall also be continued to all such persons in the United Kingdom in respect of any duties chargeable in any manner by this Act upon any income, stipend, or emolument received by any clergyman, minister, or religious teacher of any denomination, from or in right of any ecclesiastical benefice, preferment, or in respect of his occupation as such minister or religious teacher,' instead thereof."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to know what the hon. and
754
learned Gentleman had really moved? In the notice he had given on the paper the hon. and learned Gentleman stated it was his intention to move "the following; clause."
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he meant "clauses," The effect of his Amendments was, that, as regarded precarious incomes of less than 150 l. a year, and as to clerical incomes, the exemptions in the old income tax were continued.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of this in the paper as a single clause, and then, at the moment of proposing his Amendment, he had made a fundamental alteration in it. He should view the Amendment as one complete plan of exemptions which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to apply to the Bill. First, then, as to the exemption of precarious and clerical incomes, he regretted, for the sake of a small object, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had involved the House in all the difficulties from which he thought they had escaped in the reconstruction of the income tax, and in the hopeless task of investigating the taxing different trades and property derived from different sources. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to exempt clerical in comes; but did he consider incomes arising from small ecclesiastical benefices as precarious incomes? Why should these incomes be exempted because they were clerical? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not prepared to accede to the exemption of clerical incomes as such. He believed that such an exemption would neither be wise nor desirable, nor would it before the interest of the clergymen themselves to place them in such a position. If the House were to reconstruct the tax, would it not be mockery to leave out of the exemptions the smaller class of annuitants—widows, for example, with small annuities of 100 l.? He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that where he might lay one invidious claim by his exemptions, he would raise half-a-dozen others. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that the exemption of clergy men having incomes under 150 l. should be absolute?
MR. I. BUTThad framed the clause on purpose so as not to make the exemption absolute. The 150 l. would be the income from all sources. He had only continued the exemption of the old Act.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER: The intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman became more equivocal in the next portion of his Amendment. He proposed an exemption in respect of property chargeable under Schedule A, where the poor-rate was 5s. in the pound and upwards. So that in the case of a parish where the poor-rates were extremely high, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to compensate them for their bad management by exemption from income tax. Then, coming to Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that an exemption should be granted to all clergymen where their income from all ecclesiastical sources did not amount to 250 l. a year. That was, at all events, an absolute exemption. So that if a clergyman in Ireland had a benefice bringing him in 245 l. a year, and a private fortune of 1,000 l. or 2,000 l. besides, he was to be exempted from the payment of all income tax in respect to the proceeds of his benefice. He objected to making these exemptions at all; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, though his objects were humane, had not succeeded in selecting objects which had the greatest claims on their humanity. With regard to the extension of the income-tax down to persons in the receipt of 100 l. a year, it was the duty of the House to consider what was just to those who had an income of 150 l. a year, as well as those who had 100 l. For eleven years persons in the receipt of 150 l. a year had been paying a serious and considerable tax, partly to relieve themselves, but much more to relieve the men of 100 l. a year from taxes upon articles of general consumption. He knew no more dangerous and democratic principle than that taxes should be laid on persons in easy circumstances only. The House must look to the relative ability of men to bear taxation. The class of persons in the receipt of incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. a year were cognisant of the intention of the House to levy a duty of 5d. in the pound upon their incomes, and he believed he might say that the proposal of the Government had met generally with their acquiescence, partly because they believed it to be equitable, and partly because they looked to the great remissions and relief which they enjoyed in return. He believed that those persons, and others in the receipt of small incomes from trades and professions, saw that without raising hopeless questions, the Government were going to give them effective and permanent relief by increasing
756
the charge on the property of the country. A succession tax would impose a charge upon real property, which would in a few years produce 2,000,000 l. a year, more secure and permanent than the income tax. These were the general reasons why it was impossible for the Government to accede to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. SPOONERsupported the Amendment. He urged the hardness of imposing the tax for the first time upon artisans, clerks, and small shopkeepers, with incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. a year—a class which, in his opinion, called rather for the sympathy and protection of the House. This provision of the Bill would be certain to render the tax unpopular, as it certainly would render it oppressive.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that before the Committee divided, he wished to set himself right on one or two points with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had misapprehended the meaning of his Amendment. The Amendment he had just moved was in no way whatever connected with the other Amendments of which he had given notice; it was entirely owing to a misprint that they came to appear in the paper as one Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with asking him to reconstruct the tax by making a distinction and graduation between incomes of different amount. The fact was that it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who had done that, because he proposed that incomes below 150 l. should be taxed at 5d. in the pound, while incomes above 150 l., were to be assessed at 7d. He (Mr. Butt) wished the exemptions to remain as they were.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, that the object of the hon. Gentleman and himself were, he believed, identical. They were both in favour of indirect as opposed to direct taxation, and both of them were anxious as soon as possible to get rid of the income tax. But he owned that, in his opinion, the best method of doing so was to make all classes feel its inequalities, pressure, and injustice. On this ground he should feel himself bound to vote against the Amendment. Before he sat down he wished to explain the vote he gave on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton). He voted in favour of that Motion, although differing from its object, solely because he was opposed to the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, just as the hon.

757
Member for Montrose had voted against the Motion, although agreeing with it, because he was in favour of the Budget.
MR. KIRKmade an appeal to the Committee in favour of the clergymen of all persuasions, who he thought ought not to bear this tax when their incomes did not exceed 150 l.
Question put, "That the words 'limited and restricted under this Act' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 49: Majority 156.
MR. BARROWwas understood to be enforcing on the Government the necessity of introducing a provision into the clause allowing farmers to make deductions from their profits of any interest which they might have had to pay for money borrowed. He thought that the principle of assessing farmers on the rent, rather than by profits, subjected them in this respect to much injustice; and he could not see why, at all events, where money had been raised by them, that they should not be placed in as advantageous a position as landlords under similar circumstances.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to be excused if he did not apprehend very readily the suggestions of the hon. Member. As far as he understood the proposition, the hon. Member stated that a landlord who was charged with income tax on 120 l. a year on rents accruing, would obtain a return of the tax on proving that he was liable to the payment of 25 l. a year for money borrowed, and he asked why the tenant should not have the same privilege? His answer was that the tenant had the same privilege, by means of appeal, when he might show what he really had and what he owed; but if it was desired that the tenant should have an allowances for his debts, irrespective of the amount of his income, that he confessed seemed to him a very unfair principle.
Amendment withdrawn.
MR. W. MICHELLthen proposed—
"To leave out from the word "than," the word "as," in line 11, in order to insert "five hundred pounds a year for the year of the assessment of his profits or gains, shall be entitled to be relieved from all the said duties assessed upon or paid by him on the first hundred pounds, and from so much of the said duties on four hundred pounds a year assessed upon and paid by him."
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to remit duties
758
from such trashy articles as camphor and rose-water, while he imposed taxation upon the poor miserable clerk, who slaved for 100 l. a year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report progress."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 130: Majority 99.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.