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

EJECTNIENTS IN GALWAY.

Mr. P. SCROPB asked whether the Government had
yet taken any steps against the parties implicated in the
case which he had brought before the House on Friday*
last ?

Sir G. GREY mid his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary for Ireland had stated that, when a fortnight
ago the facts of this case came under his notice, he at
once laid the matter before the Government in Ireland.
Further information of what had been done was now
awaited; he (Sir G. Grey) again communicated with
the Solicitor-General fcr Ireland, who was now here,
but he could hold out no hope, in consequence of any-
thing he had heard from him, that a criminal prosecu-
tion would be instituted by the Government. The
subject, he could assure the Hon. Gentleman, was under
attentive consideration.

Sir R. PEEL begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was not the duty
of the police in the county of Galway to have made a
report of the circumstances which had recently been
brought under the notice of the House by the Hon.
Member for Stroud ?—(Hear, hear.) It appeared, from
the papers of which the House was now in possession,
that the police were aware of all the facts of the case,
and had yet made no report whatever to the Govern-
ment. Had they not been guilty of a dereliction of duty
in this matter?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was not now able to tell the
Right Hon. Baronet why the police had not made the
proper report, but he would take caro that a careful in-
quiry should be instituted.

- Sir R. PEEL called the attention of the Right Hon.
Gentleman to the fact, that the first intimation received
by the Government was not through the Galway news-
paper, but through a Poor•law Commissioner, who had
since unfortunately died.—(Hear, hear.)
Dr. POWER gave notice that he should, on an early
day, ask the Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Blake, the
party implicated in this transaction, still continued in the
commission of the peace.
In answer to a question from an HON. MEMBER,
Sir G. GREY stated, that some facts connected with
the alleged illegal removal of Irish paupers from Scot-
land had been reported to the Home-office, and the
subject was now engaging the attention of the Lord-
Advocate.

THE MILITIA.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government when the Bill re-
lating to the proposed regulation of the militia would be
brought in, and when the statement of the general details
of that Bill would be made ?

Sir G. GREY said the Bill would certainly not be
ready before Easter.
ELECTION RECOGNISANCES BILL.

Mr. S. WORTLEY, with reference 'to the Election
Recognisances Bill, which stood for the second reading,
had intended to bring it on before the other business, as
a matter of privilege. He found, however, that he could
not do so ,but it was extremely desirable that the question
should be disposed of ; and, if not strictly a matter of
privilege, it would still be very convenient if it could be
taken before the other business to-night.
Sir R. INGLIS said it would be unusual to give such
a question precedence. It was not a matter of privilege
Lord J. RUS:,ELL said, if it could not come on to-
night, the second reading might be fixed for to-morrow.
Mr. S. WORTLEY ultimately fixed the second read-
ing of the Bill for to-morrow (this day).
MOTIONS FOR NEW WRITS.
Mr. HUME moved, " that in all cases where the seat
of any Member has been declared void by an Election
Committee on the ground of bribery or treating, no
motion for the issuing of a new writ shall be made with-
out previous notice being given in the votes. The Hon.
Member said the object of his motion was to prevent
the House being taken by surprise by a motion for a
new writ being made at twelve o'clock at night, or with-
out members being aware of the motion. He hoped the
House would have no objection to adopt the resolution.
Sir R. INGLIS said it was the right of the House to
issue a new writ upon a seat becoming vacant, and it was
the right of the constituency to have the writ issued.
Suppose a case, in which a Member might be unseated
for one instance of treating, that was no reason why the
borough should be disfranchised, as it would be for every
day that the writ was withheld. He objected to the mo-
tion on general principles, as well as on the ground of
privilege.

MCAGLIONBY supported the motion. The Hon.
Baronet objected to the delay of the writ, but it would be
only for a single day. The object of the resolution was
to guard against suddenness.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better not
to press the motion tonight, but, whenever the Hon.
Member for Montrose thought proper to make it, it
should certainly receive his (Lord J. Russell's) cordial
support.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME would postpone tha motion until tomor-
row (this day), after the orders of the day. •
CASE OF MR. C. FOLLETT.

On the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moving the order of the day, that the House do resolve
itself into a Committee on the Property-tax Bill,
Mr. B. COCIIRANE rose to call the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to a case
of great oppression. It was the case of Mr. Charles
Pollett, a clerk to the Brighton Railway, who had been
summoned in the Whitechapel County Court for a debt
of 21, and, being unable to pay, was committed under
an execution to the House of Correction. In the state-
ment which he had laid before him (Mr. Cochrane) he
represented that, on reaching the prison, he was placed
in a lock-up and searched ; that two hours after the go-
vernor came round and asked him what he was there for?
he replied that he was sent there because he had been
unable to pay a debt by the Whitechapel Court; that the
governor said, " Nonsense, you are here for contempt
of court ; you are here for correction, and correction
you shall have;" that he (Pollett) was about to speak,
when the governor said " Silence, you are not allowed to
speak here;" and he pointed to a board; he (Pollett)
said he was not a felon, but he was locked up, served
with a dinner of gruel, like the other prisoners, and at
night he was conveyed to a cell, in which was an iron
bedstead and a bed of straw, where he was locked up
until six o'clock next morning, when he was put with the
other prisoners in the yard; that he was then put into
a bath, and received a prison dress, and ordered to pick
oakum; that he had his hair and whiskers cut close, and
his chin shaved against his will; that he underwent the
treatment of a felon for three days, when he became ill,
and a surgeon was sent to him, to whom he mentioned
his case, and on the fifth morning he was taken
before the governor and discharged, the governor
say, " 41, you may go;" that he inquired of the
governor the reason why he had been treated in so
degrading a manner, which had ruined his character;
the governor said he had been committed for contempt;
that he (Follett) had asked for a copy of the commit-
ment, which was promised, but he had not received it.
Mr. Pollett was respectably connected, but he had lost
his employment, and, with this stigma upon his charac-
ter, he would have some difficulty in procuring another
situation. He (Mr. Cochrane) had inquired into the
case, and into the character of Mr. Pollett, which was
excellent, and it was inexplicable to him how a person
could be treated in such a manner for non-payment of a
debt of 21.

Sir G. GREY said he had received no complainefrom
Mr. Follett, but, having seen the statement which the
Hon. Member had read in a morning paper of the 17th
of March, he had written to the justice of the prison,
directing them to inquire into the allegations contained
in that statement. Not having received any reply 011
Friday, when the Hon. Member mentioned to him his
intention of bringing the subject before the House, he
had written another letter, calling for an immediate
report.
INCOME TAX.
On the order of the day being read for the House going
into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. OSBORNE presented a petition, signed by 970
persons, against it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appealed
to the Honourable Member for Montrose not to persist
in his motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee.
He believed that there was no instance in which a taxed
Bill of this kind had been referred to a Select Committee.
His Honourable Friend would see that he could not at-
tain his object by referring the Bill to a Committee.
His object was to obtain a graduated scale; but the
Committee was bound by the resolution of the House,
and could not change the amount of the schedule. It
was quite true that he might reduce the amount of tax-
ation, but that would be telking away money which he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not spare.
Under the forms of the House the Hon. Member could
not obtain the object he had in view.
Mr. lIUME said that it might be true that there were
difficulties in the way of obtaining the object ; but the
Right Hon. Gentleman would allow him to say that the
proceedings under this Bill were most unusual and un-
constitutional ; and it was on that ground that he was
anxious to appeal once more to the House, and to ask
them, when there was almost a certainty that this tax
would become perpetual, whether it was not better that
they should endeavour, if possible, to obtain some modi-
fication of it, in order to remove the objections which
existed to many of its clauses. if the House had agreed
to the proposition which he had ventured to submit to
them—if they had agreed to pass the Bill for one year,
there would have been time before the second year, for
the Government to have made sufficient and ample
inquiry ; for he held that it was the duty of Govern-
ment to have made that inquiry. The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamwortb, stated distinctly
when he introduced the Bill, that he was aware of its
intricacies, but as it was only to exist for a short time,
he trusted the House would agree to it without modifica-
tion. He (Mr. Hume) had supported the Bill under that
assurance, viz., that it ss as to be for a limited time, and
that there was to be a large margin for alterations; but
now matters were in a different situation; Government

had not taken any steps to make inquiries and to remov
bjections. Ile telt Lo strongly the objections to ais
Bill, that he was anxious to give the Government u
opportunity, once more, of showing to the public a desire
to meet their wishes, for from one end of the country to
the other there was a general cry against the inequality
and injustice of the Act, and a demand that if the
law were carried out, it should be made more equal.
The objection was not to this as a direct tax, but
to its inequality and injustice. If direct taxes were
the best for the country, was it not desirable
to make them palatable to the community? TLis
Act was not framed like any other Act, except that of
the assessed taxes. It was an act carried out by offisf r 3
appointed by parties over whom the Chancellor of tat?
Exchequer and the officers of the Government bad no
control whatever. Honourable Members would be sur-
prised to learn that the agents who carried out this Act
were political agents, men elected by political influence,
because elected by the Assessed Taxes Commissioners;
and these persons' names were put into the Bills passing
through the House just as the Member for the county
thought fit; and it was well known that the Member fur
the county put in the name of a person having the colour
of his own politics. When he (Mr. Hume) was Member
for Middlesex, he took care to put in a large infusion of
Liberals. He found that no Reformers bad been ad-
mitted for the previous ten years, and lie put in the
names of all Reformers whom he believed to be re-
spectable and capable of doing the duty. In that
point of view he considered this Bill most objectionable,
because the Commissioners to execute the Bill were
appointed by the Land Tax Commissioners. The conse-
quence was, that the majority of those who were ap-
pointed under this Act were what are called Conserva-
tives, and it was a part of their duties to call upon
every person—they might be those of the same profes-
sion—to send in an account of their incomes. They
called on them to state the trade or profession in which
they were engaged, with the number of partners, the
capital in the concern, and other matters. Hence all
these matters were known to persons directly under the
influence of the Government. Was not this an invidious
situation for any man to be placed in? Now, if the Bill
went into Committee, all these objections could be
removed. In 1842, Mr. Senior, a gentleman of con-
siderable experience, said, in reference to this Bill,
" The objection made to reconsidering this Bill is,
that it will occasion trouble. Can anything be
more monstrous than that injustice is to be perpe-
trated to save time and trouble ? Admitting all tbe
evils, we are to refuse inquiry because it would
cost trouble ; to refuse redress because it would cost
money. To commit wholesale injustice because it would
cause annoyance to investigate, is conduct to which the
word revolutionary in the most hateful sense of the word
ought to be applied." He objected also to this Bill, be-
cause it was a tax upon capital instead of a tax upon the
income of capital. In 1806, when the Act was first
passed, it was declared to be against all previous example-
It did not appear that previous to that period any tuxes
had ever been raised on personal property. A Committee
which sat three years ago had round that an Act gave
a power over real property in 1892, but the principle on
which that Act went was that real property was to pay
out of the interest arising from real property. Every
1001. was taken as the capital, and the tax was only
charged on the 61. interest. That continued till 1712,
when the interest of money fell to 51. per cent. There
was no instance of the yearly progress of industry
being taxed until Pitt's Bill of 1796. During the time
of the Commonwealth there were several instances of
one-tenth and one-fifteenth of capital being called fcr,
but at this time we were not warranted in adopting the
principles of those times. He was not surprised at the
opposition to this tax, considering that the bulk of taxa-
tion fell upon the industrious classes. Even those with
incomes under 150/. considered the Act to have done
great injustice. The House ought not to persevere too
long in this act of aggression, because the voice of in-
dustry would be heard. The Government ought to brat
in mind that it was by the productive classes that the
revenue of the country was to be maintained. Any one
who looked at the value of land now, and what it was s
century ago, must be convinced that the increased value
of land was owing to the great increased wealth of
manufactures and commerce. It was evident that mall
estates which were formerly worth 100/. a year, were
now worth 2001. a year, not by the application of one
shilling to lafaled property, but owing to the increased
value of competition arising from wealth. He would
tax all realised property. There was ono class
of persons whom he considered were most unjustly
treated by this tax —he meant the purchasers of Go-
vernment terminable unnuities, who were called on to
pay, not only the interest, but the capital twice over.
It was the grossest act of injustice that could possibly
be. He was surprised that any man who had the power
could allow such acts of injustice to exist, without con-
sidering that the time might come when they would be
told that such acts of injustice would no longer be al-
lowed. He recollected Mr. Attwood, in 1842, stating
that he and his colleagues in the bank had purchased
30,000/ in the terminable annuities, and had only ob-
tained 22,0001. or 23,0001. Several persons had written
to him, complaining of the hardship of their cases ;
but he recollected that Mr. Goulburn, when Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, on being informed of gross
abuses having taken place in the Tower Hamlets,
where individuals were treated in the harshest way.
said he was sorry for it, but he had no power to
act ; that rested with the Commissioners. He re-
membered the case of the late Member for Oldham, who
was obliged to pay 15,000/. when he had lost 70,000/.
If a man sunk 3,0001. in land, and received 1501. in
rent, 41. 7s. 6d. was all he had to pay for tax, and his
land remained; but if he was in business, and taxed on
1501, he was taxed on the whole amount of his capital.
In no part of Europe was such a tax in force, and be
did not see why it should be retained in England, in-
asmuch as there would not be found the slightest diffi-
culty in establishing a better system. He disapproved
of the course which the Government had adopted with
its eyes open; a course which was unjust, unequal, and
oppressive in its operation; and he therefore believed
that Parliament was imperatively called upon to try
what could be done with a view of adopting a more
equal and equitable system of taxation. The time was
come when some effort ought to be made to remove the
inequality of burden which this tax imposed, and he
would therefore move that the Bill be referred to a
Committee up stairs, in order that it might be reported
upon.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. ROBINSON said that 'the Noble Lord op-
posite had, with great candour, admitted the peculiar
character of the income-tax; but whilst he did so, he at
the same time pressed for its continuance for three
years. He could not see why it should be proposed for
three years, unless that it was the easiest way in which
such an amount of taxation could be raised. For his
part, he (Mr. Robinson) was in favour of taxing the
wealth of the country in a just and fair proportion, and
when they looked to the difficulty of procuring em-
ployment at present, and the low rate of wages to which
they might look forward, in all probability, he thought
they ought to feel the more convinced of the necessity of
causing wealth to pay a fair amount of proportionate
taxation, and of relieving labour from taxation as far as
it was possible.—(Elear, hear.) He thought that, in
the present state of the country, and of politics gene-
rally, the Government ought to be supported; for he
would not wish, in such a case, to see the bands of t :e
Government tied too closely, or the Parliament too
nice in such a matter; but, at the same time. 11.0
thought that the establishment of any system will"
would render it more equal in its operation wa3
very important question.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
that if the income-tax was established upon more just
and equal principles it would produce a larger suns than
at present, in addition to the other advantages that
would be derived from the more equal system. Ile
thought that the question of placing taxation upon
basis of more perfect equality was one which even if it
were now postponed would eventually force itself uron
the m.—(Hea r, hear.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS expressed his hope that the in-
equality of the tax would at length force itself upon th
consideration of the Government. He was of opinion
i
that they might with very great advantage begin at
per annum, and only tax the sum which the
possessed over and above that minimum, whichin thievid r!
vernment had admitted was the lowest at which the
income-tax ought to come into operation. Thus, if a
person bad 1601. per annum, he would, according to that
proposition, pay a tax only upon the; surplus over 150/,
or, in other words, upon 101. If such a proposition were
agreed to it would greatly diminish the temptation to
evasion and fraud, and render the tax more equal.
When they recollected the large number of clergy, half-
pay officers, and others, who with small incomes
were taxed under the present system, they would at
once perceive the inequality of taxing the man with 1511.
per annum upwards of 41. per annum, and of imposing
no tax upon the man of 149/. per annum. There was
one description of tax which might with great advantage
to all parties be placed upon a more equal basis than it at
present occupied—he meant the stamp duty. An equal
amount of per centago upon all stamps would be a much
more just system than that which was at present in
operation. For example, the tax at present upon a
bond of 2001. was 21. per annum, or 11. per cent. ; but
the tax upon a bond of 2,000/. was only 61., or six shil-
lings per annum, an inequality which was the more to be
regretted, as it relieved the rich and did not relieve the
poor. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) was no Radical—
(Laughter)—but,' nevertheless, he wished to see just;ce
done to the poor, and he therefore complained of this
inequality in the stamp duties on the ground that it
pressed more heavily on the poor man than on the rich
man.—(Hear, hear.) He thought, amongst other means
of increasing the revenue, a dnty on gas was well
worthy the attention of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. Upon the whole, he trusted that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would soon see the necessity of in-
quiring into the inequality of the income-tax as at pre•
sent constituted.—(Hear, hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Any
suggestion from the Hon. Baronet who has just sat down
must always command my attention; and although I sin
not inclined to go into all the suggestions on the general
subject •f taxation, when the question of the income-tax
alone is before us, yet I must say that the duty on gas,
the imposition of which the lion. Baronet recommends,
would not bo very just in its operation, for it would press
severely upon the shopkeepers and upon many pen.oLs
engaged in industrial pursuits, in a far greater degree
than upon the more wealthy classes of the commithity
—(hear, hear)—at the same time that it would not, in
my opinion, produce anything near the amount antici-
pated by those who recommend it. We have had
several suggestions as to the imposition of taxes—such
as a tax upon hats, on foreign bills ; and, as the Eng-
lish servants have been driven from France, upon French
servants, with a tax upon French cooks.— (Laughter )
I do not impute any improper motives to any Hon.
Gentleman, but many impediments are placed in the:way-
of the Government, and in the way of many other publio
matters which we are most anxious to enter upon, by
motions of this kind. I had hoped, after the debates
which took place, and the decision of this House by a
majority of two to one, that the tax should be considered