The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-28 00:00:00

'3E!

at state, that we should have been spared
sion.—(Hear, hear.) I:ow,:ver, I am very
its debate affords me an opportu/dty to rebut
lion of the Hon. Member for MJntrose, that
imant have not paid any attention to this
otherwise they would not rej. ct a modified
'cation. Nov I am quite prepared to admit
first blush the proposition of a modified
xa:ion bears a very plausible appearance.

from its being the fact that I have not consi-
mbject with the gravest attention, I must as-
ous,? that the dceper I went into it, the more
did 1 tind it to make any material alteration
present system, s ithout making it more
are iiiquisitori,l, and more objPetionable
at the present time. The Honourable
Montrose referred to the period of 1806,
is tax was proposed by Mr. Pitt,
le Honourable Gentleman is not aware of its

was first proposed by Mr. Pitt as a tax upon
e, then as a t.ix upon realised property, and
ax upon income. Exemptions were made in
cliff:rent classes. Men having large families,
trdens, were exempted ; but it was found that
:emptions led to so much fraud that it was put
nt chap, in which it has been continued by
donne, Mr. Addison, and Mr. Percival. It was
d by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
firth in 1842, who stated to the House his belief
Lost equitable and just state in which it could
was that in which it at present stands. lam
ed to deny that there are not inequalities in
; but I do believe that if it is imposed, it must
I in this shape; and that if the people are pre-
lopt it, in order to enable the Government to
country from more objectionable taxes, this
) only one in which they ought to do so, and
he only one to which I can give my consent.—
r.) The Hon. Gentleman (sir. Hume) has re-
he system of the Hon. Member for Cocker-
r. Horsman). Now I know it is a difficult
-int; forward a plan not open to some objee.
I look upon it as a very great argument in
the present plan that it has been the one
opted heretofore by Parliament when they
impose an income-tax, and one against which
)jecti ,ns can be urged which are not equally
to all others which can be devised. But the
nber for Cockermouth brings down his plan,
thstanding its having had the advantage of
e consideration, his able statement, and his
masterly explanation, the objections to it are
lat the Right Hon. Member for the University
Lige was enabled to point out three or four
.e fatal to its success. Surely it is not an
rence to draw, when I say that the failure of
er for Cockermouth shows that it is not quite
matter to find out another plan less objection-
,he present. I stated to the House that another
ss adopted this system; it is adopted in one
hilted States of America, where it can-
id there is any great feeling in favour of
interests. There it is imposed upon
on incomes arising from professions, or any
pupation, or employment, upon all law costs,
)sts of suits, as far as lam aware. Sir, there
itry where an income-tax has been proposed
than as an equal rate upon all income, without
of the sources from whence it is derived. I
,ng argument in favour of this tax in the con-
s Hon. Member for Montrose himself. When,
renewal of this tax was proposed for three
Roebuck made a motion for the exclusion of
al incomes, in order to subject them to a lower
cation, the Hon. Member for Montrose objected
Then came the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
)er for Liskeard, which was very similar to the
The Hon. Member for Montrose opposed that
not only opposed it, but spoke against it. He
D for one would not allow of the alteration; it
ovements which had been suggested were
a, why then let them not bother their heads
''—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Now, I
he will follow this advice. Do not let him
; let him give us the benefit of his support;
ate for this measure, as the alternative of many
es which have been taken ,off. Now, I will
e two or three rlasons which induce me to be-

it is not pcssible to modify this tax to meet
sof the Hon. Gentleman. I will not go into
ion whether income on capital should be taxed,
irding to the plan of the Hon. Gentleman, the
f being examined by an assurance company into
tut of your capital, and by the officer of the
into the state of your health, should be gone
svery year of your life before you could arrive
posed of capitalizing by income. The chances
ration of your life would vary, and thus the lie-
f being surveyed, as they termed it in the navy,
ered imperative ; and this was applicable to all
iossessed of life estates.—(Hear, hear.) I will
repeat the arguments through which I have
red to convince the House that, as a matter of
to the fundholder, it is but just to tax all
at an equal rate ; neither will I go into the
which has been referred to upon a former
and the sum of which has been ably stated in a
I hold in my hand, from a clergyman in
3omplaining of the oppressions inflicted upon the
er under schedule A. He states, upon a rent
14501., the poor-rates and other assessed taxes
1041. And he complains that all the local
of the country is paid by persons classed under
A. Schedules C and E are not rateable.
D is exempted by an annual Act, and cense-
von schedules A and B falls the great burden
on. Take the case of two gentlemen, each pay-
come-tax of 301., and each enjoying an income
. a year, one from professional, and ono from
state; there was no reduction made for repairs
duction for the expenditure—the income-tax
perfectly irrespective whether the tenant paid
or not, and to such an extent was this system
that where land had remained unoccupied,
me-tax was paid by the incoming tenant. I
ke to know what return the landlord classes
et upon their expenditure upon their estates.
heard it stated at about ten per cent., and by
have heard it put as high as thirty per cent. As
Iy experience goes I have not the least doubt
would be as high as twenty per cent. Under
D the tradesman is entitled to make a reduc-
all repairs, and a very liberal allowance is made
Now I freely admit that a higher per tentage
be paid upon realised property than upon pro-
f income, but if such is done, is it not quite clear
se paying under schedule A would have a right
nd that those under D should pay the full rate,
any deductions, in the same manner as those
le rated under schedule A were compelled to pay ?
t point of view in which I think Hon. Gentlemen
) consider the subject. Ido not think that any
coking at these returns will consider that schedule
any proportion to the amount of the professional
of the country. It appears, under this return,
the whole of Great Britain there are ouly
persons who receive 150/. per annum. Does
ly believe that there are not more than 111,000?
r.) Does any person believei that there is not
this great metropolis a greater number? Why
nber hearing one gentleman say that he knew an
2inent in the City where there were seventy
who were each receiving the sum of 1501. a year.
emen would take the trouble of examining a little
they would find that according to these returns
se thousand persons were deriving from trade an
only of 1,0001. a year. Does anybody believe it?
r, hear.) It is said that this tax presses very
upon the small traders. The whole number of
paying under schedule D is sixteen hundred
id, the whole amount they pay is seven hundred
y thousand pounds; and the whole amount paid
nine thousand persons deriving 1,000/. a year is
11. This appears to me, to the complaints of
'ho say they are overburdened and overtaxed, a
A answer, that if these inequalities are removed—
Lass is made to pay fairly with the other—you will
render the tax more inquisitorial, and I do not
doing so you will render it more palatable. If you
these inequalities you will render this tax inqui-
to such a degree that the people of the country
lot stand it for a year.—(Hear, hear.) I am
ixious that the tax upon schedule D should be
ightly. I think that it is quite fair that it should
The great objection to this tax is its inquisi•
ature. Now, Sir, you may attempt to make it
ist, but by doing so you will make it more in-
rial; and by making it more inquisitorial you will
t more odious. I have heard of no plan, and I
rise no plan, by which it can be levied in a more
'le manner than at present. When I opposed it
irat instance I stated what were the conditions
hich I would support it. I said that if the corn
ee sugar duty, and the timber duty were removed,
en I a (1141 vote for it; so I do not think I am in•
ent in the course which I have adopted. Sir, the
es of Adam Smith have been quoted, but the
Lien who have done so have quite forgotten to
to sentence succeeding that which they did read,
entirely alters the view which the first would
to convey. I remember the Right Honourable
tr for Tamworth saying, that in his opinion this
s snore consistent with the four canons laid down
am Smith than any other, one of which is, that
ought to contribute something according to his
. But I will read the words of Adam Smith.
's, " The:subjects of every state ought to contri-
, the support of the state in proportion to their
;h and ability."—(Hear, hear.) Yes, there they
but let me read the next sentence :—" that is in
tion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy
the protection of the state."—(Hear, hear.) Now
operty of landed gentlemen is every bit as safe as
property of those persons who have embarked it
le. Sir, upon a careful consideration of the sub-
have come to the conclusion, that whether you
he classes individually or together, you will find
o injustice, done to persons paying under schedule
I not be increased by modifying the scale of taxa-
-(llear, hear.) For these reasons I must object
motion of my Hon. Friend, or to any other mo-
ist has for its object the alteration of the scale.
J. CLAY was anxious to explain why upon this
t lie had already voted, and why he should again
n opposition to an Administration in whose gene
!icy he concurred. He had great confidence in the
t Ministry, particularly with regard to the foreign
ment; but it there was a point on which they
very generally distrusted, it was in matters of
e, retrenchment, and commercial government.—
, hear.) He was convinced, however, that the
7 was determined to have a complete revision of
üblic expenditure, and that that revision could
long delayed. As a general principle he was it.
. of directetaxatior, and he thought that a tax o'
nd they were discussing ought to be made perma-
His objection referred to the form of the pro
mposition—to its inequalities, and its injustice.
,ar, hear.) Much had, no doubt, been said of
fficulties in the way of calculating the due pro-
fs which people of different amounts of income