The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-31 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

In reply to Mr. GROGAN,
Lord J. RUSSELL said be
would certainly nt
be the first order on that day.
INCOME TAX.
- -

--- -
The House then went into committee upon the Income
Tax Bill.
On clause 26,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said. the
hon. member opposite (Mr. Barrow) had an amendment
on the paper for the purpose of making an allowanaa to
tenant farmers in respect of interest on borrowed money.
He thought the hon. member had proposed the amc.nd-
nient under a misapprehension, for under schedule B
tenant farmers were entitled to such an allowance in the
same way as a trader under schedule D.
Mr. BARROW was glad to hear the Chancellor of
the Exchequer make that declaration, but be though,t it
would do uo harm to insert the words he proposed in

the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. ob-
jected to that course.
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY and Mr.
BRIGHT,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,

though the Government entertained no doubt as to
tenant farmers being entitled to this allowance. by the
bill, they intended to propose a clause after the bill had
gone through committee, to place the matter beyond
dispute.
Mr. BARROW said he was satisfied with the expla-
nations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
would not propose the amendment.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also 27, 23, 29,
and 30.

On clause 31,
Mr. SPOONER moved the addition of the following
proviso at the end of the clause :—" Provided neverthe-
less, that nothing in this act shall be construed to com-
pel any occupier, being a tenant for the time being, to
pay the arrears f income tax due by any former tenant
or occupier of the same lands, tenements, or heredita-
ments, or to deductand retain from his landlord out ofany
subsequent payment of rent such arrears, unless the
landlord shall have received his rent for the period for
which the arrear is duo." He contended that nothing
could be more unjust than to make either the landlord
or tenant pay arrears due by a former .tenant.
The CHANCELLOR or the EXCHEQUER opposed
the clause. It was a just principle that the landowner
should be held liable, and the reason was that he had a
special law for his benefit (whether fairly or not was not
now the question) whereby he had powers and security
in regard to the recovery of rent which no other creditor
was possessed of.
Mr. SPOONER referred to special cases in which the
clause would operate injuriously.
Colonel DUNNE thought if this clause inflicted an
injustice in England, that injustice would be four-fold in
Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
even if that were the case, that the Irish landlords had a
great advantage over the English landlords. Land in
Ireland was free from the charges operating in England.
This proviso was, for other reasons, objectionable, be-
cause it was calculated to shake and open up the whole
law of recovery for rent.
After a few words from Mr. FRESHFIELD arid Mr.
FRENCH,
Mr. LUCAS asked when the committee would be in-
formed as to the fate of the three clauses dealing with
this point, which had been postponed the other night at
the request of Irish members.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that these clauses had been remodelled. It was pro-
posed to retain the power of resort to occupiers in re-
spect to towns. In levying the tax on land the resort
would, in the first instance, be on the immediate lessor.
After a further conversation, in, which Sir J. SHELLEY
and Colonel DUNNE took part,
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the proviso 69
Against 145

Majority
On our return to the gallery we found a conversation in
progress, Lord NAAS and Mr. H. HERBERT speaking, re-
specting the three clauses alluded to above.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he was not asking the committee to pledge themselves to
the clauses that evening. He would have them printed
immediately.
Mr. FREWEN said that on the coast between Sussex
and Kent there were large tracts of land which were con-
siderably below the level of the sea at high water, and the
water was prevented from inundating the land by means of
sluices, which were open when the tide was out, and closed
when the tide was coming in, and which drained the land.
The expense of the works was defrayed by scots levied
under an act of Parliament. He asked whether a deduc-
tion would be allowed for these scots ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think that allowance could be made for the expense of
draining the laud. The clause provided for deductions for
sea walls and embankments. He did not think it would
be possible to go into all these matters, At present the
law allowed charges of this kind, but it limited them to
charges made by rate.
Mr. FREWEN said in the case to which he referred the
soots were levied under act of Parliament ; and, if it were
not for these sluices, the sea would cover that part of the
eountry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said then
the case was provided for already.
Mr. LOCKHART moved an addition to clause 83, pro-
viding that a deduction shall be made for the amount of
parochial rates, taxes, or assessments in Scotland, which
by statute or custom are payable by the landlord.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman had directed their attention no doubt to
an inequality, but the question must be treated in refer-
ence to its general bearings, and it would be found that
this inequality was one of a multitude which to a great
degree balanced one another. If they were to allow this
claim the English landholders would think their own case
a very hard one. Did not the hon. gentleman think that
the charge for public burdens was a more reasonable one
than the charge for repairs ? He thought that the charge
for repairs was one which they would naturally have
allowed before they allowed the charge for public burdens.
He believed that the charge for repair in Scotland was very
little as compared with England, because in Scotland the
system of granting leases was so much more general, and
the tenant did the repairs. Well, he knew something of
Scotch leases, and he never knew of a Scotch lease in which
the tenant did not do the repairs. He should say that
practically the position of the landlord in Scotland was no
worse than that of the landlord in England, but the main
question at issue had been already decided by the House
of Commons, namely, whether the landlord under schedule
A should pay on the gross rental or on the net rental, and
a large majority had decided that he should pay on the
gross rental. The motion of the hon. gentleman pointed
to breaking up the framework of the tax. It would lead
to a claim on the part of the English landlords, to claims
on the part of the owner of houses, the repairs of which
cost from 10 to 20 per cent. of the rental ! and it would
also lead to claims on behalf of the mercantile and profes-
sional classes.

Mr. BAILLIE said the right hon. gentleman, by his
argument, only met one injustice by another. The re-
pairs of the Scotch farms practically did not fall on the
tenant, as the buildings were given to him in good repair,
and all he had to do was to leave them in the same state.
Mr. SMOLLETT thought the question of repairs had
nothing to do with the o.mendmant. The Scotch proprie-
tors paid the rate themselves, and they ought to be de-
ducted.

Sir G. GOODMAN opposed the amendment.
Colonel BLAIR supported it, and complained that it
did not receive due attention, which was, he supposed,
because a Scotch grievance was so rare in that house.
Mr. DUNLOP put the case of an estate in England
worth 1,0001. a year. In England the tenant paying the
rates, amounting say, to 1001. a year, would pay 9001. rent
to the landlord, while in Scotland the tenant would pay
a rent of 1,0001. and the landlord would pay the rates,
thus reducing his real rental to 900/. He was, however,
charged with 1,000/. Nevertheless, he (Mr. Dunlop)
thought that the tenants in Scotland had an advantage
over those of England, and he should, therefore, not sup-
port this amendment. This was a rough sort of justice,
he admitted, but in a matter of this kind it was impossible
to strike an exact balance. He had supported the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer all through, and he should not
desert him in 'a case which concerned his own interest
After some further conversation,
The committee divided—
For the amendment
Against it

. 42
. 101

In answer to Mr. CRAUFURD,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the principle of the law was that borough corporations
should pay for the protection afforded to their property as
well as private individuals. With respect to their other
revenues, the law was, that where a duty on articles im-
ported into towns was levied under on act of Parliament,
it was not chargeable with income tax ; but, where it was
imposed by local by-laws, then it was liable to the tax.
Mr. M‘MAHON said there were cases in Ireland in
which the tenant was required by custom to repair a sea
embankment. Surely, in such instances, they ought to be
treated with the same consideration as landlords.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented,
and promised to consider the point. Of course the cir-
cumstances must be inquired into, for where there was
such a custom, an equivalent was most probably allowed
in the rent.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 34,
Mr. FREWEN, who had an amendment on the paper
affecting the hop-growers, said that as most of the hon.
gentlemen who were interested in the subject were at din-
ner, he would not press the subjeot then, further than pro-
test against the injustice done to his constituents. He
would bring on the matter at another stage.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 35, which made an allowance of one-third on
rent charges,
Lord NAAS said that rent charges in respect of Irish
loans ought to be exempt altogether, inasmuch as many of
the loans had been taken for the sole purpose of affording
relief to a starving population, and had not proved of the
slightest benefit to the landowners. Besides, a large por-
tion of the rent charge was repayment of capital, and
money ought not to be taxed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that

the clausellad no exclusive reference to Ireland. By some
oversight in the previous bills rent charges had been omit-
ted, which was of course unjust and a great anomaly. As
for that portion of the rent charge which consisted of re-
payment of capital, surely that ought not to be exempt.
A similar claim had been made on behalf of clergymen
who had borrowed Money from Queen Anne's Bounty
Fund in order to rebuild their parsonages, such loans being
repaid by instalments out of the annual income of their
cures. That he had also resisted, because the employment
of one's income in the payment of a debt was no ground
for exemption. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel BLAIR thought the case of the borrowers of
these loans a very hard one.
Mr. FRENCH, on the other hand, considered that
everything they had a right to demand had been conceded
to them. (Hear, hear.) •
Mr. GEORGE drew the attention of the Government to
the case of tenants for life, who, having accepted these
loans, had borrowed the money to pay off the instalments
at once. He thought that they ought to have the same
allowance as persons 'who were paying off their loan by
instalments.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the case was as broad as it was long. They had no more
right to exempt a payment for a debt than to exempt a
payment to one's butcher or baker. (Hear, hoar.)
Colonel DUNNE considered that two-thirds would be
nearer the justice of the case than one-third ; but these
payments ought to be exempted altogether, because there
were many cases in which the loans had not only been of
no benefit, but had boon quite ruinous.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 37, which provided that the same names might
be continued from year to year,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the sole object was to prevent trouble and annoyance,
but of course the charge would fall on the real owner and
occupier of the property.
The clause was then agreed to.

On clause 38,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (in answer
to Mr. Malins) said that the object of the proposal was to
afford a boon to the proTessional classes, by assimilating
their case with that of tradesmen. By the present law a
tradesman was only chargeable on the average profits of
the last three years, but if in the 4th year he could show
that his profits were below that average, he was allowed
the deduction. He (the right lion. gentleman) would how-
ever make inquiry whether there was any objection to
granting an option of the two modes of assessment.
On clause 39,
, Mr. DUNLO] suggested that ministers should be