« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
scribed the Budget as being the quess of Clanricarde also feared for foundation of a solid system of its discontinuance in 1860. finance, and destined, if the coun The Marquess of Lansdowne said try continued to enjoy the bless- that the Ministers were perfectly ings of peace, to secure many sincere in their provision for the years of happiness and pros- cessation of the tax. They did perity.
not contemplate extending it beThe Earl of Derby would not yond 1860. He had always opoffer any opposition to the second posed it as a permanent tax, and reading, because the tax was in- his opinion had not changed. Mi. evitable, and the state of the nisters had now put it in the finances such, that it was im- power of Parliament to disconpossible for the present or any tinue the tax, and that was all Government to dispense with the they could do. large sum it brought into the Ex The Earl of Wicklow defended chequer; but he objected to its the Bill, and its extension to Ireprinciple, and he entered into an land. elaborate criticism of the Budget, The second reading then passed to show that the calculations were without a division. vague and illusory, and the con On the 27th of June, on the clusion a contradiction to the pre- motion for the third reading of misses. He questioned the proba- the Bill, the discussion was rebility of the cessation of the tax newed by Lord Brougham, who in 1860, and referred Mr. Glad- spoke at considerable length stone's success to the counter-at- against the principles of the tax, traction of a heavy tax on landed which he said fell directly upon property, rather than to his pow- capital, inasmuch as it fell upon erful reasoning. He protested the profits of the investments made against the hasty conclusion of for improvements in agriculture, Lord Aberdeen as to the inten- commerce, and manufactures. This tions of the late Government with was an evil incidental to the tax, regard to the renewal of the tax, and irremovable, for no allowance and maintained it was an erro
could be made for those years neous supposition that Mr. Dis- where there were no profits at all. raeli had not matured plans for He urged at great length the arcarrying out his policy, the fact guments so often repeated, that being, no time was given him to the tax is unequal and inquisitodevelope them.
rial, and the machinery by which Lord Portman and Lord Ber- it is raised so dreadful, that he ners adversely criticised the In- would not, if he could avoid doing come-tax Bill and the Budget. so, intrust it to any Government. Lord Brougham put several cases But he felt that with all its evils to show the injustice the present the tax was a matter of necessity, Income-tax inflicts on capitalists, and could not be spared. He did professional men, and traders. He not expect that it would expire in also strongly objected to the prin- 1860. He recalled the circumciple, but despaired of the discon stances under which the old Intinuance of this execrable tax at come-tax was repealed in defiance the end of the next, or the next of the Government of the day, following, seven years. The Mar- through the instrumentality of
nightly discussions on petitions— every point of view consideration & popular privilege no longer had been shown for proprietors. allowed to the House of Com. In the debate that followed
Lord Beaumont vehemently sup. Lord Monteagle felt great diffi- ported Lord Wicklow's proposiculty in agreeing to the reimposi- tion; and denounced the Bill as a tion of the tax as a substitute for "lie,” for placing a tax as an In. a number of assessed taxes and come-tax on property that may not customs duties bearing upon the produce any income at all. wealthier classes. But Govern The Duke of Newcastle rebuked ment had certainly promised that Lord Beaumont for the warmth the tax should terminate in 1860; of his attack, and vindicated the and he thought greater securities justness of the measure. In the for the performance of that pro course of his speech the Duke mise were contained in the Bill, gave some statistical information and in the accompanying financial as to the number of tenants in measures, than in the Act of 1806 Ireland. referred to by Lord Brougham; He had that morning received and he hoped Government would some most important statistical take measures to secure that result information which had been pubas far as it was in their power. lished as to the state of the occu
The Bill was then read a third piers of land. The total number time.
of the occupiers in Ireland valued On the question that the Bill at 61. and under was 564,144. do now pass, the Earl of Wicklow The number of occupiers rated moved an alteration of the 13th over 61. and under 2001. was clause, whereby the mode of as 397,575. Adding those under 61., sessment in Ireland would be it made the number of tenants assimilated to that in England. It valued under 2001., 961,719, very was unfair, he said, that the land- nearly 1,000,000. This showed lord should have to pay the tax on the number of persons rated un. rents he never received. The mode der 2001. in Ireland. Now, what of assessment in the Bill was was the number of persons rated exceptional; and the clause drawn at 3001.? The number was 3716 to remedy the grievance would not —that was the total number of do so, for in Ireland rent was not landlords in Ireland rated at 3001. lost from insolvent, bankrupt, or The number of persons rated over absconding tenants, but from ten 3001. could not be more than ants who would neither pay nor 1500. abscond.
The Marquess of Clanricarde The Earl of Aberdeen defended appealed to the fears of the Gothe mode of assessment laid down vernment. If they would not rein the Bill. The Income-tax was consider the point, they would extended to Ireland under favour- hear of it again; for it affected the able circumstances. The valua- most loyal, the most intelligent tion of the poor-law-below the - not disloyal agitators, but rental—was the basis of the tax; the very class who ought to be and where the rental was lower than conciliated. Lord Campbell fol. the valuation, the landlord could lowed on the same side. The tax pay on the amount of the rent. In would be levied on the owner;
but in some parts of Ireland rent The Earl of Lucan objected to was paid, in some it was not paid. the 42nd clause, which provided In England the occupier had to that a reduction of one-third should pay the tax—why should a differ be allowed on payment of rentent system be adopted in Ireland? charges under the Drainage Acts. Then the remedy was a mockery, He thought that the whole should except in cases of bankruptcy, or be deducted instead of one-third. insolvency, or absconding. Lord Some discussion ensued; but this Monteagle and the Earl of Clan- amendment also was rejected by carty also supported the amend- 21 to 10; and the Bill passed. ment: but it was rejected, by 34 to 18.
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS—Succession-Duty-The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explains his plan with reference to the liabilities of Corporate Bodies to the Tax—On the Motion for going into Committee, Sir J. Pakington moves that the Bill be committed that day six months—His SpeechThe Bill is opposed by Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Mullings, Sir J. Trollope, Mr. W. E. Duncombe, and Sir E. Dering, and supported by Mr. Headlam, Mr. R. Phillimore, Mr. W. Williams, Mr. A. Pellatt, and Lord J. Russell—The Amendment is negatived by 268 against 185 — The Bill is much opposed in Committee, and its merits are further discussed by Sir W. Jolliffe, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Mullings, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Malins, and Lord Galway–Various Amendments are proposed and rejected, but one relative to the 21st Clause, on the motion of Sir J. Trollope, is carried against the Government by 153 to 150. The motion for the Third Reading is opposed by Mr. Liddell, but after several Amendments have been moved and negatived, the Bill passes the House of Commons by 176 to 102--In the House of Lords the Earl of Malmesbury, on the 27th of May, moves for a Select Committee to inquire into the probable effect of the Bill His Speech-The motion is opposed by the Earls of Aberdeen and Granville, the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Argyll, and supported by the Earls of Derby and Fitzwilliam, and Lord St. Leonards—It is rejected by 159 to 126-On the 22nd of July the Earl of Aberdeen moves the Second Reading of the Bill— After Speeches from the Earls of Derby, Malmesbury, Granville and Harrowby, the Duke of Argyll and Lord St. Leonards, it is read a second time without a division-In Committee Lord St. Leonards renews his opposition-His Speech—He is answered by the Lord Chancellor, and supported by the Earl of Winchilsea-The Earl of Derby moves an Amendment to the Second Clause-His Speech-In the debate which follows, the principal speakers are the Earls of Aberdeen and Granville, the Duke of Argyll and the Marquess of Lansdowne — The Amendment is rejected by 102 to 68---On the motion for the Third Reading Lord St. Leonards proposes clauses, but they are not adopted, and the Bill is passed—In the House of Commons Mr. M. Gibson, on the 8th of April, moves three Resolutions on the subject of Taxes on Knowledge - His Speech - The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, Lord J. Russell, and others oppose the motion, which is supported by Mr. Ewart, Mr. Bright, Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Sir J. Pakington, and several other members—Upon divisions on the three Resolutions, the first is carried by 200 to 169, and the second and third are negatived - On the 1st of July, the House being in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
moves that the Duty on Advertisements should be reduced to SirpenceMr. M. Gibson moves as an Amendment for their total repeal his first Resolution of the 14th of April—The Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies the Sixpenny Duty, and Mr. Cobden supports the A mendment, and it is negatived by 109 to 99 – Upon the motion of Mr. M. Gibson, Pamphlets are exempted from the tax-After considerable debate upon the original Resolutions, the Committee divided upon an Amendment by Mr. Craufurd to substitute the cypher 0 for 6d. which is carried against the Government upon a division by 68 to 63 - The Chancellor of the Exchequer then divides upon the amended Resolution, and is again defeated by 61 to 70.
N the 10th of June the second riod of seven years from the pre
Bill having been moved in the rate of 6d. in the pound. With House of Commons, Sir John regard to municipal corporations, Pakington said he had intended it was proposed to adopt the same to meet the motion with an amend- rate as in the case of the incomement that the Bill be read a se tax, namely, to regard as liable to cond time that day six months, the duty their realised property, but finding his friends were exempting such of their revenues not then prepared to go on with as were derived from any rate or the discussion, he should allow tax levied upon the community. the Bill to be now read a second Trading corporations did not lie time, and reserve his opposition within the purview of a tax of this until the next stage.
kind. Charitable and eleemosyThe Chancellor of the Exche- nary corporations, including ecclequer assented to this suggestion, siastical corporations aggregate, and proposed to take the discus- would be dealt with under the rate sion on the 13th. He then pro- he had before mentioned, paying ceeded to explain the propositions 3d. in the pound upon their aggreof the Government with reference gate revenue for the first seven to the liability of corporate bodies years, and 6d. in the pound thenceto the succession duty. They were forward, as an equivalent or a of opinion, he said, that while, on commutation for the succession the one hand, it was just that if a tax. There was a limited class succession tax were imposed upon of corporations aggregate-namely, the general mass of property in religious and benevolent corporathe hands of private individuals, tions, and others supported in the it would not be just that the pro- main by annual donations or subperty of corporations should be scriptions, or by the proceeds of exempted from some payment, it invested property, which it was would be most convenient that, not proposed to subject to the tax, instead of laying the duty upon except with respect to such of such property in a lump, it should their property as should be derived be imposed in the shape of an from bequests, or as they had been annual tax upon corporate pro- in possession of anterior to the perty, speaking generally, which commencement of the present it was proposed should be at the century. A question of considerrate of 3d. in the pound for a pe.. able difficulty, he observed, arose