entered into an explanation of the reasons which had
dictated the assessment proposed by the late government,
and the revision of taxation, which he said, had been
undertaken with the avowed view of relieving the
land, which was unduly pressed. This could not be
done without the income tax; and he had at the time
explained to the commercial world his views on the
subject of real and precarious income, and he believed
that there was not a man in the house who was not
shocked "at the difference between the two schemes;
and on this he would appeal to every man's brain and
heart. Introducing an illustration, with calculations,
to show the injustice of the system the committee was
now asked to support, he said he had made the difference
of assessment in his schedules not as a complete
arrangement, but as a principle of conciliation. He did
not think the incidence of the tax would terminate with
the seven years, because the spirit of the times, which
demanded remissions of duties, was hostile to its
abolition, and because the character of Mr. Gladstone
induced him to believe that, though so conscientious
that he would certainly resign office, if he held it in
1860, sooner than propose a renewal of the tax,
however necessary, yet that then, as in other cases,
he would rise below the gangway, and recommend its
renewal, sacrificing himself to save his country. His
own opinion was that the tax should be renewed for a
very limited time, with such a mitigatory character as
could be contrived, and that we should apply our
surplus and accruing income, as it was received, to the
reduction of an impost no minister could manage, and
no people could long endure. He then proceeded to the
extension of the tax to Ireland. He saw no connection
between the tax and the annuities, and thought it
most unwise and impolitic to mix up the imperial
and the local imposts. Denying that any "compact"
existed between himself and any Irish members, he
said that the late government had come to the conclusion
that the tax should not be extended to the land of
Ireland, and that he had been prepared with a measure
on the annuities—not that of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—but one which would have given satisfaction.
He then remarked that the whole financial policy of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was conceived in
a spirit of injustice to the land. He argued that a
quarter of the revenue of the kingdom was derived
from a single crop of the British farmer, but now more
than 100 per cent, was to be taken off tea, which was to
be brought into increased competition with articles
of his production which paid 230 per cent. Jokes might
be made about the reduction in the price of beer going
into the brewer's pocket, and maudlin philanthropists
might denounce dram–drinking; but jokes and
philanthropists would be baffled by the principles of political
economy. Twelve millions could not be raised from a
producer without restricting his trade and commerce.
His competition ought to be really unrestricted. But
the government proposed to lay another half million
upon him. The same policy was pursued as regarded
direct taxation. As regards the legacy duty, it would
have to be considered whether it was a just tax, whether
it was adapted to the country, and what were the data
for estimating its produce and the machinery by which
it was to be raised. He believed the whole principle of
succession taxes unsound, especially as to land, because
they led to a partition. At all events, here was a new
burden on land, and another proof of the spirit of
injustice thereto in which this budget was conceived.
Yet the minister who had devised it had been the first
minister who had spoken of the load of taxation under
which real property lay. This was to be acknowledged
hut not relieved, nay, the very tax was to be added, the
absence of which used to be cited as the compensation to
the landowner for his burdens. He reminded Lord J.
Russell of his having denounced Sir R. Peel's income
tax, and having advised him to raise his revenue by a
legacy duty on land. Now he had given them that
duty and an income tax too. After a similar allusion to
Ireland and the spirit duties, he exclaimed, "Strange,
that from a ministry of all the talents, the two countries
should receive such accumulated blessings!" He then
animadverted upon the proposed system of licenses,
declaring that those to be subjected to them would
sooner have had his own proposed house tax. But
these, it was said, were to be given up, in consequence
of certain representations; and enlarging on this statement,
he depicted the minister trembling in the presence
of delegates, and dwelt upon the fearful danger of
allowing certain classes to use their electoral power to
free themselves from taxation. He saw no difference in
matters of finance between a privileged noble and a
privileged tobacconist. But when the representatives
of the land waited upon the government, they were met
with taunts and jeers. Introducing an episodical allusion
to the history of the 8s. duty, as so often referred to by
Lord J. Russell as what should have been accepted by
the land party, he told his lordship that, being now in
a subordinate oftice under a subordinate officer of Sir
R. Peel, it was time his scoffs should cease. Next,
adverting to the contest between town and country as
one he hoped was at an end, he argued that the strength
of the nation arose, not from its manufactures, but from
its character, which sprang from its land; and he asked
why the representatives of large towns should be hostile
to it? He concluded a speech of two hours and a
quarter by counselling those parties not to persevere in
an illusory progress, for it would end in changing a first–
rate kingdom into a second–rate republic.—Lord J.
RUSSELL, adverted to the doubts and difficulties which
accompanied each renewal of the income tax, and which
disturbed and shook our whole financial system. He
then briefly recapitulated the principal advantages of
the government scheme, and remarked upon the
inconsistency between the amendment and the mode in which
the scheme had been met in the debate. The advocates
of the land did not seek to have one tax taken off, or to
resist one new burden, but because land bore a heavier
tax than trade, the former was to bear the same tax as
then, and the latter one somewhat lower. Since
Marmont marched his army, which thought it was going to
fight for the Emperor, into the midst of the Prussian
and Austrian forces, there had been no such military
move as that of Mr. Disraeli. Lord John then applied
himself to the argument for altering the income tax, and
urged the great objection, that of admitting the principle
of alteration, which would finally lead to breaking up
the tax. He adverted to the scheme for separately
taxing the fundholder, whose real security lay in his
being taxed with the rest of the community, a scheme
he had regarded with great apprehension. He remarked
that Mr. Disraeli, when in office, should have respected
the precedent of Mr. Pitt, Lord Lansdowne, and Sir
Robert Peel, and his own position, and have made
himself master of every detail of his own scheme, before he
came down to the house with it. Briefly meeting some
of the other objections, he adverted to the case of
Ireland, and reminded Mr. Disraeli that he had himself
actually voted for imposing the income tax on Ireland
at a time when she was less able to bear it than now—
rather a remarkable case of inconsistency. He showed
that Ireland, under the government scheme, would be
relieved of £670,000 a–year, and charged with £258,000,
so that she would gain £412,000; but he did not look
so much to mere figures, or to the immediate effect on
taxation, as to tlie question of relief to the consumer,
and especially to the poor consumer, who would be
largely benefited. He referred to his own former
course in regard to the income tax and otherwise,
alluded to by Mr. Disraeli, and frankly admitted that
the course parliament had taken had been in his
judgment more beneficial than that he had himself
recommended. In reference to the legacy duty, he
said that great exaggerations had been indulged in, that
instead of £2,000,000 being thrown upon the land, about
£500,000, or at most £700,000, would be imposed, and
by the time that duty came into full play, the income
tax would be largely reduced. Then, in alluding to the
remission of imposts, he urged that the house could not
more worthily do its duty than in attending to the
happiness of the people, by which means a democracy
was rendered conservative. No undue favour should
be shown to any portion of the people, but a just course
should be adopted with regard to all. He concluded by
an eulogium upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
who, he hoped, would find his reward for many laborious
days in the support of the house, and the gratitude of