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

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 3p. in
the pound, and upon incomes between 2001. and 3001. a
year to 51d. 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. He 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 made. It was well known that in 1806, when the in-
come tax was raised from 63 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 Milst—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 51d. 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 200/. 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 he 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. The princi-
ple that the hon. and learned gentleman would intro-
duce was really a most dangerous one. He would not
say that his arguments were radical, for they really went a
great deal further than Radicalism. (Hear, hear.) The
reason why the Government proposed to stop at 1501. was
because that was already the law, and a little experience in
such a matter was worth a grent 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-
ever, this general principle in selecting 1501.—0 r rather
100/.—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 lived in lodgings, so that it would be exceedingly
difficult to collect the tax. (Hear, hear.) 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 4001. 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 150/. ; and he should sapport
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 cotton 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 ho now confessed that he had been agreeably disap-
pointed, for they had never been so well off before. (Hear,
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, hoar.) The
prin-
cipleevuelri nroetv
atopl u-
of the proposed clause was really of a
revolu-
tionary character. If it were admitted they
short of constituting every Board of Income
sioners a Court of Equity to assess each man'sataxCealecctts?-
ing to his supposed ability to pay ; and if they did that,
confiscation must follow. These amendments 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
stored, havingthe income tax, and of
oarneven pequivalent amount of indiriet taxation re-
CPI having other direct taxes imposed in its