The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

INCOME TAX BILL.

On the motion for the third reading,
Col. HARCOURT called upon the Government to
make some exception in the bill in favour of pilots.
Mr. HUME said he should not move any amendment
to the bill, but it must not be supposed from this that
he abated one jot in his opposition to the present inequa-
lities of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) He thought
time would show that this country would not stand it,
and, with the expression of that opinion, he should al-
low the bill to pass under protest. (Hear.)
Mr. L. HEYWORTH argued that an income tax
was a very proper tax, but it ought to be relieved of the
inequalities which disfigured the present measure.
Mr. GROGAN, Captain KENNEDY, and Colonel DUNNE
took the last opportunity which would most likely be
afforded them of protesting against the extension of the
income tax to Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reminded
the house that Ireland would be compensated for the
burden of this measure by having the annuity tax re-
pealed.
Mr. MAGUIRE said it had been stated by an ex-
Chancellor of the Exchequer that this measure would
impose upon Ireland an additional taxation of 413,0001.
a year.
After a few words from Sir A. BROOK, the house
divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading lB9
Against it 55

Majority
On the question that the bill do pass,
Sir F. KELLY moved a clause to reduce the tax upon
incomes between 1001. and 2001. a year from 7 to 3id. in
the pound, and upon incomes between 2001. and 3001. a

.. 134

year to Sid. in the pound. The first class on whose behalf
he asked the house to agree to this clause was that of the
poorer clergymen and curates who had to support them-
selves in a respectable position of life on very slender
means. lie also asked them to agree to it on behalf of the
smaller and poorer class of tradesmen and small farmers,
the latter of whom had had their incomes reduced one-half by

recent legislation. He had a precedent in the appeal that
he mule. It was well known that in 1806, when the in-
come tax was raised from 6j to 10 per cent., a distinction
was made in favour of various classes of persons identical
with those on whose behalf he was now addressing the
house ; and on whom the tax was then fixed at only 5 per
cent. If in the midst of the longest and most expensive
war this country was ever engaged in, this distinction was
made, on what ground should it be refused now ? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceded the principle to
some extent, as he had provided that the tax on incomes
under 1501. should be 54d. in the pound. He trusted that
Government would take the matter into consideration.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was very sorry it was quite impossible for him to accede to
the request of the right hon. gentleman, that Government
should take this clause into consideration, and for reasons
which were obvious. All persons felt that one great dan-
ger respecting the income tax was the exemptions that it
involved ; that there was a serious danger in the principle
involved in these exemptions. The consideration on which

the exemptions had been chiefly justified was, that there
was a certain point in direct taxation in the progress down-
wards, at which the sum they to levy became so small in

proportion to the cost and difficulty and vexation of col-
lecting it that it was not wise to impose the tax upon
them. Mr. Pitt, in imposing the income tax, fixed the
limit at 601., and he proposed a variety of graduations be-
tween 601. and 2001. He likewise introduced exemptions
of the nature of those proposed by the hon. and learned
gentleman in his second clause—namely, in favour of mar-
ried persons having a number of children ; and others in
favour, for instance, of the clergy. In practice it was

found unwise to continue these exemptions. It was found
desirable, in the first place, to simplify the tax by getting
rid of the gradations ; in the second place, to remove all
questions of a dangerous tendency by abolishing privileges
in favour of particular classes, and in favour of persons
having families, large families as compared with those who
had small families or none, and to fix a single exemption
point. Sir Robert Peel, when ho fixed the exemption
point at 1501., was very much censured for fixing it at so
high a point. The course, therefore, that experience
pointed out was this—that when the income tax was first
imposed it was on a complex basis, with a variety of ex-
emptions for different classes, that as the tax had gone on
in its working they should get rid of those exemptions and
simplify it as much as possible, and that the distinctions
should be as few and as broad as possible. Tho princi-
ple that the hon. and learned gentleman would intro-
duce was really a most dangerous one. He would not
say that his arguments wore radical, for they really went a
great deal further than Radicalism. (Hear, hear.) Tho
reason why the Goverr aunt proposed to stop at 1501. was
because that was already the law, and a little experience in
such a matter was worth a great deal more than much ab-
stract reasoning. Indeed, if he (Mr. Gladstone) had to
give an abstract reason for stopping at that sum, he should
perhaps have great difficulty in doing so. There was, how-
-1 ever, this general principle in selecting 1501.—0 r rather
1001.—it was, speaking generally, just outside the wages of
the labouring classes, so that the law would practically
exempt the working man, or nearly so. There was this great
reason why working men should be exempted, namely,
that they received their wages weekly, and in large towns
mostly hved in lodgings, so that it would be exceedingly
difficult to collect the tax. (Hear, hoar.) If, however,
they accepted the principle of the hon. and learned gentle-
man, they would be embarking upon a much wider field
than perhaps he was aware of. How, for instance, could
we fix 400/. as the mark above which everybody was rich,
and below which everybody was poor ? If they once opened
the door, they would find a vast number of parties whom
the hon. gentleman did not contemplate attempting to rush
through it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said the right hon. gentleman had al-
ready adopted the principle of the clause in making a dif-
ference between incomes of 1001. and 1501. Did the right
hon. gentleman mean to say that he would tax a clerk who
had a salary of 1001. a year, and excuse a workman who re-
ceived two guineas a week ? He (Mr. Spooner) certainly
could not recollect that Sir Robert Peel had been blamed
for taking so high a figure as 1501. ; and he should support
the clause, not only as being just, but as calculated to afford
great relief to large and struggling classes, and to remove
some of the aversion with which the tax was regarded.
Sir G;GOODMAN was afraid the hon. and learned gen-
tleman did not go so much amongst his constituents as he
ought, or he would have known that the farmers were ex-
ceedingly well satisfied with their present position, and
that they would hardly thank him for his motion.
Mr. E. BALL, on the contrary, affirmed that the far-
mers generally were never more dissatisfied than at present,
although he would admit that the large farmers who could
breed extensively received a remunerative return upon their
capital. (Cheers.) The small farmers, however, were not
partakers in the advantage, and would be grateful for the
relief that would be afforded them by the clause.
Mr. LAING had great experience with respect to small
farmers in Scotland, namely, men with rents of 101. or 151.,
and up to 501. a year. The prosperity of that class might be
measured by the circulars of the Manchester cotten manufac-
turers, for the welfare of the two classes fluctuated together.
He happened to have received that very morning a letter
from a friend who had supposed that the recent commercial
legislation would have been ruinous to the small farmers,
but he now confessed that he had been agreeably disap-
pointed, for they bad never been so well off before. (Hoar,
hear.) If any class had suffered at all, it was not the large
nor the small, but the middling agriculturists—the posi-
tion of whom had become analogous to that of the small
manufacturers who were unable to compete with men of
more capital and intelligence. (Hear, hear.) The prin-
ciple of the proposed clause was really of a very revolu-
tionary character. Ifit were admitted they could not stop
short of constituting every Board of Income Tax Commis-
sioners a Court of Equity to assess each man's tax accord-
ing to his supposed ability to pay ; and if they did that,
confiscation must follow. These amendments were
grounded upon a mistaken account of the supposed un-
popularity of the income tax with those who paid it under
schedule D. He believed that if those persons were
offered the option of continuing the income tax, and of
having an equivalent amount of indirect taxation re-
stored, or even of having other direot taxes imposed in its