The productiveness of this duty, he observed, was expected to result from the check which the universality of the duty would offer to evasions. He believed that the greatest portion of the duty would be paid by personalty. He then discussed the case of Ireland, which, if an integral part of the empire, could not, he contended, upon general principles, complain of being subjected to the same taxation as other portions of the empire. He had never argued, upon principle, that Ireland should be exempt from this tax; but that there were temporary reasons for its non-imposition, which no longer existed, and the remissions would make the total gain to Ireland upon the whole scheme, up to 1860, upwards of 5,000,000l. In proof of the large relief the Budget would afford to Ireland, he read statements of the payments on account of the Consolidated Annuities due from various unions which showed a large excess over the expected product of the In

come-tax.

the

The debate, having been again adjourned, was opened on 29th by Mr. G. H. Moore, who contended that the Budget, as applied to Ireland, must be justified upon one of two separate and distinct grounds, either that Ireland was not sufficiently taxed, or that she would not be more taxed by the proposed Budget than at present, and that neither ground had been established.

Mr. J. M. M'Gregor defended the main features of the Budget, and regretted the opposition made by the Irish Members, to the application of the Income-tax to their country.

Colonel Harcourt was sorry that he could not vote with his party

in support of the amendment. He approved of the continuance of the Income-tax, which he hoped would facilitate the remission of the malt-tax to the relief of the depressed landed interest.

Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. C. Forster, and Mr. Pollard Urquhart, supported the Budget; Mr. C. R. Morgan and Lord A. Vane opposed it, as did Lord Jocelyn, who objected to the continuance of the Incometax for seven years, and to its extension, without any attempt to remedy its vices, to classes hitherto exempt from it. He had always held that it was just to tax land higher than other property; but he agreed with the late Sir R. Peel that if the legacy duty was to be laid upon real property, Parliament must be prepared to deal with the unequal burdens upon land.

Mr. Cardwell said, that the reason assigned by Lord Jocelyn for resisting the continuance of the Income-tax, namely, that the reproductive process of the remis sions of taxation would be more rapid, only showed that the prospects of the Budget were better than Mr. Gladstone had prudently assumed. As to the extension of the Income-tax to Ireland, it was consistent with an object which ought to be dear to all classes in the United Kingdom, that of uniting all its population in one bond of common interest. The question was, whether we were so satisfied with past experience of the Income-tax-upon the happy results of which, in effecting financial improvements, he dwelt with much force, that we were willing to make another great experiment. The inequalities of the assessment had been pressed into the discussion, but no plan had been offered by which those inequalities could

be redressed.

The benefits conferred by this great instrument had been enjoyed by the whole United Kingdom; this was another attempt to confer similar advantages, and, unless there was a manifest injustice in it, he called upon the House to give a cordial assent to a measure replete with comfort and happiness to the people.

Mr. Henley observed, that the real issue was, whether the Incometax should be granted for seven years, without any attempt to mitigate its inequalities. The objection was, that because full justice could not be done there should be none at all. He could not see the justice of applying this tax to Ireland. He had always advocated equal laws and equal taxation for all parts of the United Kingdom; but equal taxation did not mean the same taxes. Mr. Henley then subjected the general scheme of the Budget to a minute critical examination, observing that it did not hold out any particular charm for the landed interest, and that the continuance of the Income-tax for seven years would, in effect, exempt our whole taxation from the constitutional control which Parliament had always exercised over a certain portion of our

revenue.

Mr. Cairns supported the amendment upon grounds which concerned England as well as Ireland, namely, the unfairness and inequality of the Income-tax; and that the Committee had not before it the data upon which the amount of the duty on successions had been calculated a novel untried tax, which would operate upon a vast amount of property, including settlements of personal as well as of real property. The most skil

ful and competent judges said it was perfectly idle to suppose that the amount would be limited to 2,000,000l.-that it would produce at least twice that sum. With respect to Ireland, if the Income-tax was really to be temporary, was it worth while to create a machinery for such a tax, which had never yet been introduced into that country, and which it would be unfair to introduce then? The argument that the remission of the Consolidated Annuities was an equivalent for the Income-tax, rested, among other fallacies, upon the assumption that the annuities would have been paid.

The debate was once more adjourned, and on the 2nd of May was resumed by Sir. W. Clay, who supported the Budget, which he described as a financial scheme, at once wise and prudent, bold and comprehensive, combining, with a most important intermediate relief from taxation, the prospect of a safe and solid foundation for our fiscal system.

Sir F. Kelly opposed the Budget resolutions, because pregnant with new and intolerable burdens upon land-because no justification had been shown for extending the Income-tax to Ireland-because they proposed the continuance of that tax for an unexampled period, with all its odious and unjust inequalities. The total relief proposed by the Budget was 2,500,000l., and the whole of that amount was to be levied in the shape of new taxes upon the owners of land. The strong ground, however, upon which he should oppose the continuance of the Income-tax, even for three years, was the gross inequalities to be found in its different schedules. Taking the

schedules seriatim, he showed that the tax bore heavily and unequally upon all the classes on whom it was levied. But although the task of reforming the scheme of the tax was difficult, it was not for the Government to shrink from the attempt, and he was firmly persuaded, that although it might be impossible to do exact and perfect justice, such an approximation might be made as would obviate complaint. He threw out suggestions, with the view of reforming and readjusting the several schedules, and declared, that unless they were reformed, he should oppose the resolutions at every stage. Mr. Lowe ridiculed the speech of Sir F. Kelly, who had proved too much, viz.: that every section in every schedule of the Income-tax was entitled to a large reduction. He then followed out Mr. Gladstone's arguments against the possi bility of adjusting the tax. As to the extension of the tax to Ireland, the public services for the year were inexorable; and if Ireland did not pay the 460,000l. a year, somebody else must; and why should she be exempted and Great Britain burdened, and rendered, in fact, tributary to Ireland? Mr. Cairns had spoken of the injustice of introducing the tax into Ireland, as an equivalent for the remission of the Consolidated Annuities, whereas Ireland never meant to pay them; while, on the other hand, Sir F. Baring deprecated its extension thither because it would demoralise the people. Whatever errors might be charged against the Budget, it was a financial scheme, conceived in no servile spirit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, in order to court a temporary popularity, pledged himself that the Income-tax should be extin

guished in 1860, because one Parliament could not abridge the rights of another; but he had shown that it could be abandoned if Parliament thought fit, and, if ever renewed, it would then be freed from its present defect-the distinction it recognised between England and Ireland.

Mr. Isaac Butt would vote against the Budget. To acknowledge that the Income-tax was unjust and unequal, and then to propose to continue it for seven years, was a startling proposition. He inferred, that the tax would not cease in 1860, from the fact that the only duty likely to be productive was that on tea, the consumption of, which could not increase in so rapid a ratio as to replace the loss by reductions and remissions; so that upon the principles of this Budget there was no rational hope of being relieved from the Incometax in 1860; if the tax was continued, and extended to incomes of 100l. a year, and rendered unpopular, where, if a war should occur, would be our resources for emergencies? If this tax was to be permanent, he should feel difficulty in resisting its extension to Ireland, but he should require a fair examination of the financial relations and local taxation of that country. He would not, however, squander a war resource for a crotchet of political economy, and inflict this inquisitorial tax in her present condition upon Ireland any more than England.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy supported the resolution. He looked upon the application of the Income-tax to Ireland as an inevitable necessity, and saw no reason why by his vote he should turn out the present Government, in whom he had confidence, knowing from the tone

and temper of this country that the tax must, sooner or later, be applied to Ireland. Irish Members were not to look to taxation only, but to the system of Government, and he was convinced that it was essential to the well-being of Ireland that its affairs should be administered by the men now in power. With regard to the Income-tax, Ireland had been enjoying for years the benefits of free trade, resulting from the tax, without paying for it.

Mr. Conolly, restricting his observations to that part of the Budget which related to Ireland, argued against it. Mr. Roche, on the contrary, defended the applica tion of the tax to Ireland; while there were details in the Budget to which he objected, he gave it his support, believing it to be a Budget for the working classes and for the people of Ireland.

Mr. Disraeli said he must give his entire approbation to the general principles upon which the Budget was framed, in no spirit of affected candour or inopportune magnanimity; because the principles were identical with the principles which he had himself endeavoured to impress upon the consideration of the House, when he said, as the organ of the Government, that the time had arrived when it was necessary to assimilate our financial policy to our new commercial system.

Some Member, understood to be Lord John Russell, exclaimed, "Hear, hear!" and, seizing that recognition, Mr. Disraeli at once launched into the first section of his speech, in which he showed that several Members on the ministerial side, on former occasions, had opposed principles or propositions which they are now support

ing. Lord John Russell, only four months ago, said it was most ridiculous to enforce a complete revision of our taxation. Mr. Lowe was then indignant at the idea of looking beyond the year, and said they could do no more than go on as they had done, disposing of the surplus in further remissions of taxation. "Mr. Lowe, who is a very high-minded member, would not say one thing one day and another to-morrow for mere ephemeral popularity; but the difference which has happened is, that four months ago he was only Member for Kidderminster, and he is now Secretary for the Board of Control. He made a single speech, and that received a memorable reward." In the debate on Mr. Disraeli's Budget, Mr. Goulburn was particularly alarmed at the proposition to create a deficiency, and make it up by fresh taxation. Sir Charles Wood said of Mr. Disraeli, almost in a tone of derision, "he is going to impose one tax in order to repeal another tax." He proceeded to explain the reasons which had induced the late Government to make the Income-tax a part of their scheme, which had recently been brought before the House. It was their opinion that this tax was necessary, in order to carry out a revision of the whole system of our taxation, with the avowed object of relieving the land from an undue pressure, which they thought a wise and politic course. present scheme had no such object, nor that of creating a surplus for the remission of indirect taxation, which was to be relieved by new taxes. The feeling of the country was one reason why he did not expect the incidence of the Incometax to terminate at the end of

The

seven years; another reason was to be discovered in the whole scope of the financial policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then we had arrived at this dilemma-if this was to be a permanent tax, were we authorised to extend it, with all its inequalities, injustice, and odious qualities, to new classes and new countries? A better plan would be to apply the surplus income to the reduction of an impost which no Minister could adjust, and no people long endure. In considering the question of extending the tax to Ireland, he saw no connection between its incidence and the Consolidated Annuities, and he thought it indiscreet to mix them together. While the late Government had exempted the land of Ireland from the Income-tax, they had under consideration a measure on the subject of the annuities.

Mr. Disraeli then addressed himself at great length to showing that the whole of Mr. Gladstone's policy was conceived in a spirit of hostility to the land. One-fourth of our ordinary revenue was raised by a duty upon a single crop of the British farmer, paying 230 per cent.; the duty upon tea was to be reduced 100 per cent., and this foreign product was to be brought into competition with the spirits and beer from British barley. It was doubtless of importance to reduce indirect taxation, and to augment our trade with China; but, irrespective of political justice, what would be the fiscal consequences of persisting in reducing indirect taxation, and leaving the enormous impost upon British malt? If the financial policy of the Government dealt thus with our indirect taxation as respected the land, what were they

doing with the direct taxation ? They added to the Income-tax a new duty upon real property. With respect to this tax upon successions various considerations arose-whether it was abstractedly a just tax; whether it was sound in principle-he held it to be unsound; what were the data upon which the estimate of its produce was founded-and what was the machinery by which it was to be raised? Meanwhile the local burdens upon the land were not only to remain, but to be accompanied by the very tax its exemption from which used to be considered the compensation to the land for local burdens. The proposition on the subject of licences had been denounced as infinitely worse than the house-tax; and, if rumour was true, this part of the plan was to be surrendered to the murmurs of the class affected, while the cultivators of the soil must bear their burdens in silence.

Mr. Disraeli then denounced "this obsequious deference to special interests." "The farmer must bear his Income-tax; the proprietor of the soil must bear his increased burden of direct taxation; the cultivator must find his burden of indirect taxation unneces-. sarily aggravated, while he has fresh rivals in the field in the article he produces. He murmurs, but he is to get no relief. But the instant a particular class in the country are touched by the Minister of Finance, orders are given, the delegates wait, and the Minister trembles. Now, Sir, I have adverted to the subject before, and think it by much the most serious feature of our political condition. If it be the fact that certain classes in this country, because they have a certain portion