The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

better framed to carry out its object, at another stage of
the bill.

The clauses with the exception of 11, were agreed to,
and the house resumed.
BARNSTAPLE ELECTIONS.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved their lordships to
agree with the Commons in an address to her Majesty
for a commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at
the Barnstaple elections.
Lord BROUGHAM said, he and his noble friend
(Lord Truro) had gone through the evidence in this case,
and they had come to the conclusion that the decision of
the committee was perfectly sound and just. To show
the extent of the bribery carried on at the recent election,
he need only mention that two voters who knew perfectly
well what was going on from past experience, travelled
from Swansea to Barnstaple, a distance of more than
two hundred miles, without being solicited by any one,
and when they reached Barnstaple, they offered their
votes for the usual price, namely, 151. for a plumper and
7/. 10s. for a single vote, which was immediately paid
to them. The parties professed to pay the money for
travelling expenses, but the expenses were exceedingly
insignificant, and the balance went into the pockets of
the electors as a bribe for their votes.

The motion was then agreed to.
TYNEMOUTH ELECTION.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved their lordships to
agree to the address of the Commons in this case.

Lord BROUGHAM said he had read part of the evi-
dence in this case, and although it was not so strong as
in the former, it was yet quite sufficient to justify the
opinion which the committee had arrived at.
Lord CAMPBELL had no hesitation in giving it as
his opinion that a peer in Parliament had no right to
vote for a representative in the Commons House of Par-
liament.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers
were :

Contents
Non•contents

-.33
_l3

Majority in favour of the address 20
INCOME TAX BILL.
The Earl of ABERDEEN moved the third reading
of this bill.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the tax, because it
was a tax on capital, on out-going expenditure—a capital
used by manufacturers, merchants, and agriculturalists,
invested by them in improvements. It was a tax upon
improvements more than upon income. With all the
inequalities of the tax, the more it was examined into
the more mischievous it was found to be. There were
such varieties of income—the tax upon the professional
man was as great as upon the landed proprietor, and
the sums he could lay by for a future day were taxed.
This was a great evil. The framers of the measure had
influenced—he would not say bribed—various interests
to support it. There was a set-off in the case of Ire-
land ; and then persons with incomes below certain
sums were exempted. He did not complain of extend-
ing the tax to Ireland—he thought that but fair. He
considered, moreover, that the tax should not be so re-
duced as to become a tax upon labour. The landed
property of the country was subjected to local taxation
from which personal property was free. This was a
most unpopular doctrine out of doors, and that was the
reason why he referred to it there, because it was but
right that the fact should be stated. It was true that
millowners paid the tax as landowners for the land on
which their buildings stood ; but they did not pay it in
proportion to the value of the buildings and the ma-
chinery which they contained. Then there was another
sort of manufactory going on in those places—the
manufacture of paupers, which entailed a great expense
upon the landowners. He objected most strongly to
the inquisitorial character of the tax. Every relation
or acquaintance, and even the banker of a person
in trade might be examined. It was odd enough
that [the person who made a false return, which he
might not know to be false, was fined 20/., while his ac-
cessory was fined 501. And there were other anomalies
of a similar character in the bill which he might single
out. One great objection to this tax was the facility
with which they were enabled by it to raise the most
enormous sums. It was like the elephant, which, by
its trunk, could pick up a nut or tear up a great tree—
like a steam engine, which could pump out a river, or
make lace. By the machinery of this bill they could
raise hundreds of thousands or millions. To no govern-
ment, if he could avoid it, would he commit so power-
ful a machine as that given to Government by this bill.
Sir Robert Peel, in 1842, estimated the annual produce
at 3 millions ; in a few years it had produced little short
of double that amount annually. In 1816, when he
had the satisfaction of assisting to repeal the then exist-
ing income tax, it yielded 15 millions. If it was at the
same rate now it would produce 25 millions, and that
without extending the area from 1501. to 1001.' And
25 millions with the currency of 1816 would be 28 or
29 millions with the present currency. Again, he
wished to see this tax wedded to war for two reasons ;

first, that it might keep up in this country a horror of
war ; and secondly, that other countries might be aware
of the prodigious resources of this country. All the
world should know that we can, with the utmost pos-
sible ease, if need be, increase our present large in-
come by 20 million a year more, and that without
pledging one single tax, without borrowing one shilling,
and merely by one turn of that screw. Such had been
the astonishing progress of this country. But this was
an additional reason for keeping this as a war tax.
Nevertheless, he still felt that they could not now dis-
pense with it. Then they were told it was to be tempo-
rary. The act said it should last till 1860 and no longer.
In the old Income-tax Act were the words " till the end
of the war and no longer." The war was at end in 1814,
but it rose again, but there was continued peace from
1815, but it was not till 1816 that they could abolish the
tax. The campaign of 1816 could not be fought again
after 1860. And how was it fought then ? By petitions
night after night, and each petition debated for five or
six weeks. In 1860, unless a change in the mode of
procedure took place in the House of Commons, they
could not fight that campaign over again in the same
manner. He could not allow this last stage of the bill
to pass without again entering his protest against it.
Lord MONTEAGLE viewed the tax with greater

hope of its termination at the period specified than the
noble and learned lord. He thought they had now a
better security than the words "no longer," in former
bills. When they took it for a short period, there was
necessarily great danger of its continuance. Ho did
not look on the income tax as a tax for war alone, but
as one which might be applied in a financial crisis. In
1842, it was justifiable on that exigency, but for that
exigency only. But did Parliament keep it for that
exigency 1 They did not. It was a great temptation to
Parliament to continue such a tax. What was the great
contest now ? It was to replace indirect by direct taxa-
tion ; and if they did replace indirect by direct taxation,
the credit of this country would be in danger. The
noble lord proceeded at great length to develop these
arguments, and concluded by observing that he would
not ask for any postponement of the bill.
The third reading was then agreed to.
On the question that it do pass,
The Earl of WICKLOW rose to state that, at this
stage, he had an amendment to move embodying his
views that this tax would affect unfairly the land of
Ireland ; but he confessed he now despaired of their
lordships agreeing to any alteration in the bill. The
noble earl then expressed his opinion in reference to the
compensation for the extension of the income tax to
Ireland, alleged to be found in the remittance of the
Consolidated Annuities ; and he then proceeded to state
his amendment, which was that the 13th clause be so
altered as that the assessment on Ireland may be assimi-
lated to that in England. He concluded by saying that
as his amendment (the effect of which would be to make
the tax payable by the occupier instead of by the land-
lord) would but put the bill in the form in which it
stood when introduced, he hoped the Government would
not oppose him.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the noble earl
was mistaken in supposing that the change made in the
bill was owing to the influence of any particular class of
members in the House of Commons. The change was
the result of a conviction on the part of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that the plan deprecated by the noble
earl was the only just one. The subject had been much
considered by the Government, and it was with much
doubt and hesitation that they had introduced the mode
of levying the tax referred to by his noble friend, and it
was only in consequence of further reflection and discus-
sion that the present form was adopted. The principal
reason of the Government for adopting that form was,
that in the first place the extension of the income tax to
Ireland was made under very favourable circumstances
in consequence of the poor law valuation being made the
basis of the tax, for that valuation was generally highly
favourable to the possessors of land, being generally be-
low the rental. When it was not the landlord was en-
titled to pay on the valuation and not on the rental.
Therefore, in every point of vier', consideration had been
shown towards the landlords. As the law now stood the
English landlord was liable for all holdings up to 101.,
and they were equally as liaole as the landlords of Ire-
land were for a large proportion of their tenantry, and
the objection of his noble friend applied equally to Eng-
lish landlords. But it was manifest that if the occupiers
were liable, many of whom paid 41. rent, the multitude
of persons from whom the tax was to be collected would
be so great as to render it scarcely possible to be ac-
complished. If the tenant was called on to pay the tax
without a hope, or prospect, or claim on the landlord
for reimbursement, then among such a description of
persons the most serious consequences would be pro-
duced ; and great alarm and discontent would be
raised ; for it would be impossible to persuade those per-
sons that the income tax was not intended to be laid on
them ; and, in fact, it would often be laid on those who
were utterly unable to pay it, and if they did, without
the most distant prospect of its being repaid. The object
was to lay the tax not on the landlord but on the lessor,
the person who received the rent. If not, there would
be a difficulty in saying where the tax was to be sought.
There was a provision in the clause now in question
which enabled the Commissioners to come on the occu•
pier for the tax if they thought fit. He could only say
that the change in the bill of which his noble friend
complained had been solely from a conviction that it was
necessary for the peace and welfare of Ireland and from
no other motive, and he did trust that although the tax
was not raised by the same mode as in England, yet
that there was nothing in it whichcould be characterised
as the application of a different law to Ireland to that
which was applied to England. The burden was the
same, and the only difference was in the mode of levy-
ing the tax. He could not see any good reason for the
change proposed by his noble friend. His noble friend
said that landlords in Ireland do not get their rents ;
but the same objection might, and, indeed, did exist in
England and Scotland, but it was no objection to the
principle of the tax, nor was it a peculiarity applicable
only to Ireland. His noble friend had grossly exagge-
rated the difficulty of the case, although there might be
some difficulty. He did not think it consistent with the