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

TYNEMOUTH ELECTION.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved their lordships to
agree to the address of the Comnnons 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 thon divided, when the numbers
were :-

Contents ,
Non-contents

.33
..13

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. Ho
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 ithe person who made a false return, which he
might not know to be false, was fined 201., while his a:...-
cessory was fined 50/. 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. Ho 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. He 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 ? 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. Tho
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 amendmeat to move embodying his