The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-11 00:00:00

MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 11, 1851.

TO TieE SECRETALtY OF THE BltAliFektD
REFORM ASSOCIATION.
(EVERY DioNDAY AND WEDNESDAY.)
Sir,-0a Wednesday the 6:11, the much perplexed
Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No.
2) Bill was read a third time with amendments, and
passed.
On Thursday the Ireuse in Committee made some
arrangements for the securing of order •when the
Speaker and Members proceed to the House of Lords
as summoned. A thing certainly not done before it
was needed.
On the same evening Mr. Hume moved for laying
before the House the minutes of the evidence taken
before the Select Committee on Income and Property
Tax; the Select Committee itself having determined
by a majority of 7 to 4 that the evidence was in too
imperfect a state to produce.
This whole subject presents the easiest opportunity
that can be desired, for any man to shut his eyes and
run into the wrong. Scarcely any body is concerned
in it, who is not acting under some degree of mysti-
fication, either in the way of keeping back something
that is true, or advancing something that is not.
The key to the whole is to bear in mind, that the
question of the Income Tux is the struggle between
the rich and poor, to prevent the rich trom paying
their share, and throw es much as possible upon the
poor and the Working Classes, who are paying in some
cases at eleven times the rate of the rich already.
Besides which, there is a lurking hope, that if the
Government can be prevented from raising money by
an Income Tax, there may be an increased chance for
raising it by a duty on foreign corn, in other words
the restoration of the Corn Laws. If the Working
and smaller Middle Classes cannot or will not see into
this, they must take their own way, and may do any-
thing they like, except expect me to go along with
them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the
side of the Working Classes ; but for reasons known
doubtless to himself; he does not seem disposed to say
so. When the question of prolonging the Income
Tax for three years was before the House, there were
evidences of a growing conviction, that in justice to
the Working and Middle Classes, it ought to be per-
petual. At this moment, by one of the strangest
acts of inconsequence producible in parliamentary,
history, the Member for Montrose, who himself pro-
fesses to be a supporter of a perpetual Income Tax,
rose and proposed that the tax should be prolonged
for one year instead of three, with a view, as he said,
to see if it was possible to correct its inequalities.
Of course all the representatives of the rich man's
purse which is not to pay, chimed in with him full
joyously, and the restriction to one year was carried
against the Government with a majority of 14, by
the union of the friends of the restoration of the
Corn Laws, the high Tories, and what called them-
selves the Reformers.
Do what they can to conceal it, the party here
termed Reformers, are fighting under a fallacy,
known or unknown. And that fallacy is, the asserted
unfairness of taxing temporary incomes. If the
Working Classes have not the time, or the genius, to
look into this and understand it, they must be pre-
pared with their purses, and make up their minds to
" fork out" at eleven times the rate of their rich neigh-
bours to the end of time. The case is simply this.
Suppose I have 1001. a-year coming to me for life
only. Am Ito set up a cry, that because it is for
my life only, therefore I ought not to pay during my
life, at the same rate that would have been paid for
ever if it had been eternal to my heirs? Calculate
the value of the two properties,—the life property
and the perpetual. Take them into the market and
see what will be bid for them; and then see whether
the amount of taxes to be ultimately paid for each, is
not to the fraction of a farthing in the same pro-
portion. You would all see this clearly enough,
if you had not a notion that somehow or other
the other side was to help you. No man is ever
permanently helped except by the truth ; and the
truth is not come at, till it can be winnowed from
the chaff that is thrown about it. Get rid of this
Temporary Income fallacy, and then there will be a
possibility of fairly trying the other question, which
is whether property acquired by present industry
ought to be taxed at a different rate. So long as the
question is tried under false colours, it cannot succeed
if it is right. The result of present proceedings is to
hash up this question with the other, and so keep up
a cloud which only plays into the hands of the rich
men who do not want to pay. And to such a length
is it carried, that you will even find among these pro-
fessed Reformers some earnestly begging, that there
may be no exception in the Income Tax for the incomes
under 1501. a-year. " What can be plainer," says
one of these managers of the popular interest, " than
that if a tax is to he just, it must extend to every-
body ?" Yes, 0 most fit to be fed, according to the
popular idiom, tenderly with a spoon this tax is
the only tax which anybody pays; but how if' the holders
of the lower incomes are paying eleven times their
share already under some other ? Would you put
reasoners of this kind, into a " manager's " place at
Bradford ? I doubt. What is clear however is, that
pert of the plot is to make the holders of incomes
under 150/. pay like the rest ; they being already
among the people who pay at eleven times the rate of
the rich on things which they consume. Surely
there would be no harm in holding up one of this
kind of popular Reformers and saying, " These be
your gods, 0 Israel !" And all the time, observe,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is struggling to his
utmost for your rights, and your men will not let him-
And hero it may be as well to say to you at once,
that I do nct think the claim for a different rate on
what is called Industrial Property, will finally be
found tenable. Suppose that at Bradford you were
settling a rate for watching against fires by night,—
what chance would there be, for the owners of Indus-
trial Property to carry a demand for paying at a less
rate than the rest ? They would immediately be
told, that if anybody was particularly concerned, it
was themselves. But it will be urged, that taxes are
not all paid for such clear and definite objects as
guarding against fire. That this is true, the more is
the pity ; but what security the industrious have, is
through the taxes, and the way to go about to amend
is to aim at a sounder system of expenditure, and not
at paying a smaller portion of an unsound. Besides
this infirmity in principle, there are all the difficulties
in execution. Who are to be allowed to claim ? Is
the manufacturer in the West Riding who, we are all
glad to hear, is making his twenty or thirty thousand
a-year since the revival of industry by the removal of
the Corn Laws,—is he to claim the lower rate, while
the widow of one of his old managers who thinks
herself fortunate in having been left a couple of
hundreds a-year, is to pay at the full ? The
difficulties on this ground alone will add seriously to
the mass.
But whatever may be the strength or weakness of
the claim for industrial property, it can never be
fairly tested and debated till it is separated from
the claim for being temporary. What I want the
Working Classes to be aware of, and will not cease
from endeavouring to impress upon them whether
they thank me for it or not, is that the war is being
carried on against them, with knowledge or without
knowledge, under cover of the fallacy of Temporary
Incomes. It is on this point a hue-and-cry is easiest
raised ; and as long as it goes on, it will make the best
of fences for those whose real object is to throw taxa•
tion on the Working and Middle Classes.
But the great cry on the present occasion was,
" Why will you not vote for reporting the evidence ?
What possible objection can there be to reporting the
evidence ?" This is one of the movements in parlia-
mentary fence, which you would be better able to
judge of if you had nothing else to think of. The
objections are two. First, that the voters on the two
sides on this occasion will necessarily be set down as
showing the strength of those who are for and against
making the rich pay their share; and as well the two
sides know it. And secondly, that there is room for
the strongest apprehension, that the demand for pub-
lishing the evidence on this occasion, is neither more
nor less than a demand for publishing evidence in-
vited and collected with a view to everything but
the point my clients want to see established. I wouldventure a wager, that no question was ever asked
in
this Select Committee tending to bring out a precise
and closely-worded opinion upon the point in which
what I call my clients are mainly interested. Lead-
ing questions may have been asked like "Do not you
~
think the taxing of temporary incomes very unfair?
to which the witness of course answers " Veryin-
deed." But I will risk a guess, that nobody put the
question to any witness whose answer would be of
authority, whether it was not as just that a property
held for seven years should pay for seven years, as
that a property held for ever, should pay for ever.
This I know, that I did all in my power to get put
on the Committee, and asked the leaders first on one
side and then the other to do it, urging the point that
I was the only man who had spoken in the House for
the interest of the Working Classes, and that it was
fair they should have one representative in the Com-
mittee ; but it appears they knew better.
In all this, you will see that my assumption is, that
the Income Tax in some shape or other, is to be, as it
ought, perpetual. The fraud is in attempting to
make it for limited periods ; so making the man who
has only three years' tenure of his property, pay as
much in the whole as where the property is perpetual.
Or to put it in another shape, the fraud is in trying
to let off the holders of perpetual property, with pay-
ing three years' taxes ; paying, in short, no more on a
property worth thirty years' purchase, than on a pro-
perty vs orth three. Seine people cannot understand
this ; and lam afraid, between those who shut their
eyes and those who have none, they are a strong party
for the present.
The result on division was a remarkable one; 15
each way. This not amounting to the legal number
for "a 'louse," the division went for nothing, and the
question was tried again next day, when it was car-
ried against reporting the evidence, by 62 to 50.
On Friday the House was prorogued, with the
usual formalities, The effort to secure au orderly

march of the Uommons, was in the main succoi7;tul ;
but would have been improved if the head of the
column had been halted till the rear could close up.
I am, Sir, yours very sincerely,
AN OLD REFORMER.
London, Aug. 11, 1851.

THE INCOME-TAX COMMITTEE.
(From the Daily News.)
The following is believed to be a correct summary
of the evidence given by Mr. C. Pressly, Commis-
sioner of Inland Revenue, before this Committee, on
the 19th of June, the first day that it sat to examine
witnesses :
Charles Pressly, Esq., called in, and examined.
CHAIRMAN—What office do you hold in the public
service in the Inland Revenue, and how long have you
been in that office?—At present I hold the office of a
Commissioner of Inland Revenue, to which I was ap-
pointed in January, 1849. Prior to that I was Secre-
tary to the Board of Stamps and Taxes, and previously
to that Secretary of Stamps; I came into the public ser-
vice i❑ 1818.
And you have been on continued service since that?—
I have.
Did you hold en office when the present income-tax,
the sth and 6th of Victoria, in 1842, come into law?—
I then held the office of Secretary to the Board of Taxes
and Stamps.
Were you employed in preparing and assisting the
Government in forwarding that Bill?—I assisted in
carrying out the measure.
Will you state to the Committee the history of the
incJme-tax, as succinctly as possible, from its com-
mencement under Mr. Pitt, in 1798, down to the sth
and 6th of Vict,, the one which is now in force?—l will
endeavour to do so. The Act which first imposed a tax
with reference to income was the 38th of George 111.,
chapter 16, in 1798. Mr. Pitt was then the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. By that Act rates were fixed ac-
cording to the amount which a party paid for assessed
taxes, and total exemption was granted to those whose
incomes were less than 601. a year; reduced rates, how-
ever, were imposed on those whose incomes ranged be-
tween 60/. and 2001. a year. The rates were as follows:
60/. and under 651., a sum not exceeding one hundred
and twentieth part of the same; 100/. but under 1051.,
a sum not exceeding one-fortieth; 1401. but under 1451.
a sum not exceeding one-twenty-fourth part of the same;
1701. but under 1751, a sum not exceeding one-sixteenth
part of the same; 1951. but under 2001., a sum not ex-
ceeding one-eleventh; and on 200/. and upwards a sum
not exceeding one-tenth.
By section 14 of that Act is it not stated that persons
having more than four children, maintained by them,
were entitled to an abatement from all these rates?—lt
is; an abatement was allowed by that Act.
There were additional duties where male servants,
carriages, and horses were kept; will you state what was
the charge when rated at 251. and under 301. to the as-
sessed taxes?—They are as follows, by a graduated tax
of which the following are illustrations: where the
amount of the said duties were under 251., a duty equal
to three times the amount thereof; where the amount of
the said duties were 251. and under 301., a duty equal to
three times the amount and one-half the amoutt thereof;
where the amount of the said duties were 301. and under
40/., a duty equal to four times the amount thereof;
where the amount of the said duties were 40/. and under
50/., a duty equal to four times the amount and one-half
the amount thereof; and where the amount of the said
duties were 504 or upwards, a duty equal to five times
the amount thereof. There it stops.
That was the arrangement under that Act as regards
these additional duties?—lt was; in the Act of 1798.
Under section 2, will you state what was the law as
regarded assessment of houses, windows, dogs, clocks,
and watches?—" Where the amount of the said duties

were under 24 a duty equal to one-fourth the amount
thereof;" " where the amount of the said duties were
71. 10s. and under 101., a duty equal to the amount, and
one-half the amount thereof;" " where the amount of
the said duties were 304 and under 40/., a duty equal to
four times the amount thereof;" and " where the amount
of the said duties were 50/. or upwards, a duty equal to
five times the amount thereof."
Was there not, by section 3, on lodging-houses, or
shops a graduated duty in the same manner?—Exactly
in the same manner. " Where the amount of the duties
were 31. and under 51., a duty equal to one-tenth of the
amount thereof;" "where the amount of the duties were
101. and under 121. 10s., a duty equal to one-half the
amount thereof;" "where the amount of the duties were
201. and under 251., a duty equal to the amount and one-
fourth the amount thereof:" " where the amount of the
duties were 25/. and under 304, a duty equal to the
amount and one-half the amount thereof;" and "where
the amount of the duties were 301. or upwards, a duty
equal to twice the amount thereof."
When was the first alteration in that Act?—ln 1799;
that Act was found inoperative from its being a tax upon
expenditure and not upon income; that was the reason
assigned at that time, and from its being paid by persons
who were not chargeable to the assessed taxes.
You understand that the first Act was intended to be
applied to expenditure?—Undoubtedly.
And this is an Act, finding that Act inoperative, to
apply the tax to income?—lt is.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—What was the

produce of that tax?—We have been able to discover it
for the years 1798, and 1799, and 1800, but by a note
which the comptroller has made at the foot of the ac-
count, he reports that in consequence of the destruction
of the books and papers relating to the property-tax, by
order of the Treasury, the years 1801 and 1802 are not
in the office. In the year 1798 the produce of the tax
was 1,855,996/. ; that is the amount of the gross afoess-
' merit. In the year 1799 Mr. Pitt passed the Act of
39th of Geo. 3d, c. 13; by that Act a duty was imposed
upon all incomes amounting to 604 a year and upwards,
upon the same graduated scale as in the Act of the 38th
of Geo. 3d; abatements were also allowed by that Act
to persons having families. But by that Act a very
material alteration was made in the principle. The
Guide Book of 1799 states—" The reasons given by the
Legislature for that substitution are, the sundry in-
stances of evasion experienced i❑ the execution of the
former Act, and the inadequacy of its provisions in pro-
portioning the assessments upon each person to his
means of contributing to the public service. These
reasons evince the intention of the Legislature to es-
tablish an Equality of taxation, as far as it is practicable
by human means, and to keep in view in the provisions
of the present Act the leading object of the former;
namely, the ascertainment, by just and fair rules, of
each person's income, in order to a proportionate assess-
ment." That Act required all persons to make a return
of the whole of their incomes, from whatever source the
same arose.

CHAIRMAN—Whether arising from lands, personal
property, professions, trades, offices, or any other source?
—Yes, and an annual assessment was made upon them,
subject, of course, to appeal in the usual way. I have
the form of the return in which the income was re-
quired to be stated; on the one side it gives the descrip-
tion of property, from whatever sources of income it
arose, with its annual value, viz., land occupied as
owner; houses and lands in the occupation of tenants;
and then it goes on to professions, offices, pensions,
stipends, employments, and trades; annuities; interest
of money; foreign possessions; money arising from fo-
reign securities, and any other income not falling under
these particular heads. On the other side of the return
were all the outgoings, and among others, of course, in-
terest of money.

What are the outgoings which are included?—The
outgoings are land tax; fines paid upon an average of
years; that must be upon the renewal of leases; fee-farm
rents, quit rents, ground rents, tenths, procurations, and
payments upon ecclesiastical appointments; repairs of
farm, farm-buildings, draining lands, embankments,
houses and buildings not occupied with farms; repairs
of chancels, in churches by rectors; expenses of collect-
ing tithes; annual interest payable for debts, both per-
sonal and charged on real estate; allowances to children;
assessed taxes under the 31th George III.; annuities;
land tax on personal estate, and premiums of insurance
on life.

Are we to understand that where a person paid as-
sessed taxes, under that Act, he was to set that off as

an abatement from the amount or his income?—No

doubt. It then gave the total amount of the deductions;
and, I presume, upon that return the assessment was
made. That was in 1799.

Those being, in your opinion, the regulations that
rendered the net income of the individual liable to taxa-
tion?—Yes. The produce of the tax in that year 1799
upon that altaration, was 6,046,6241.

. ,
When did that Act come into operation?-0n the sth
of April, 1799.

Dia not that Act repeal the Aid and Contribution
Act, giving certain duties in lieu thereof?—lt did.
I understand that the 33 Geo. 3, c. 16, is the Aid and
Contribution Act to which allusion is made?—lt is.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Act of 39
Geo. 3, c. 13, repealed the Act of the preceding year?—
It did.

Aud substituted the provisions of the Act of 39
Geo. 3, for those of 38 Geo. 37—It did, making that
great alteration of requiring persons to return their in-
comes upon the form which I have read.
In fact, it substituted a duty upon income for a duty
calculated some way or other upon the expenditure of
the party ?—lt did.
CHAIRMAN—And the produce having been 1,800,0001.
in 1798, was 6,000,0004 in 1799? Yes; that was, I un-
derstand, the gross assessment. We have not the ac-
counts for 1801 or 1802.
Will you look to pages 181, 182, and 183, and state
what the general deductions are which are contained in
that Act? I have read the deductions. I stated them
from the return paper; they are the same as the clause
in the Bill.

CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Are there not, in
a schedule to the Act, the rules for making the general
deductions from income?—Yes.

Aro they all contained in that schedule?—They ar©.
CHAIRMAN—Have you any other observations on that
Act ?—None.

Mr. T. BAKING—Were there any exemptions from
the operation of that Act?—The exemptions under that
Act were granted, as in the former Act, on incomes under
604 a year, and there was a graduated scale up to 2001.;
it granted the exemptions exactly as under the Act
of 1798,
Were foreigners exempted who received dividends on
the public funds?—They were, provided they did not

reside in this kingdom. -
CHAIRMAN—They were exempted for a considerable
time ? —Y es.
Mr. J. WlLsoN—Did that apply only to the foreigners
who held funds at the time the Act was passed, or had
it a prospective effect in exempting foreigners who might
afterwards hold funds?—lt exempted all foreigners
holding funds, then, or thereafter, provided they did not
reside in the kingdom.
In the first instance, when the dividends were paid,
as a matter of course the income-tax would be deducted,
and it must have been claimed as an exemption?—Not
under the old law. In 1799 Iho outlet returned divi-

(lends as they aid auy other property; they were not as-
sessed by the Bank of England as at present.
CHANCELL'at of the EXCUEQUER—Be good enough to
refer to the 2d section of the Act 39 Geo. 111., c. 13;
does that coatnin the enactment by which all these duties
were raised2—lt does.
Are not the persons there rendered liable to pay the
tax, all subjects of his Majesty, whether resident in
Great Britain er not, and all persons residing in Great
Britain, whether subjects of his Majesty or not?
—Certainly.
Is there not in the Bth section an exception in favour
of persons whose residence is only temporary?—There is.
CHAIRMAN—Then the result of that Act was to free
all foreigners residing abroad and having property here?
—That would be the effect of it, certainly.
After that Act, was there not another passed in the
same year, chapter 22, the 21st March, 17992—Yes,
" for extending the time for returning statements under
an Act passed in the present session of Parliament, in-
tituled `An Act to repeal the Duties imposed by an
Act made in the last Session of Parliament, granting
an Aid and Contribution.'"
Does that give you a scale of deductions, with a table I
of various new forms and declurations of income?—l:
does; there is no important alteration by this Act of the
Act of 39 Geo. 111., c. 13.
Only in the forms?—Only in the forms.
There was auuther Act passed in the same year, the
39 Geo. lIL, c. 42, 10th of May, 1799; I wish you to
look at that, and see whether the only alteration made
in it was to extend the time for returns and exemptions?
—That was the only alteration.
There is another on the 12th of July, 1799, 39 Geo.
111., c. 72; will you state whether there is anything im-
portant there ?—That is " so tar as relates to the assess-
meut
smade upon trustees, agents, receivers, and guar-
dians." And that is the only alteration?—That is the only
alteration.
Will you refer to the next Act, namely, the 39 and
40 Geo. 111., c. 49, passed on the 20th of June, 1800;
will you state what that provides?—lt is "an Act for
the better ascertaining and collecting the duties granted
by several Acts passed in the last session of Parliament,
relating to the duties on income, and to explain and
amend the said Acts."
Not varying the amounts?—Not at all varying the
amounts.
But extending the regulations?—Yes.
Are you aware what is the next Act?—" An Act for
explaining and amending so much of an Act passed in
the present session of Parliament, relating to the duties
on income, as respects the delivery of the statements to
the Commercial Commissioners of London, under the
amount of 201."
That is the 39 and 40 Geo. 111., c. 96?—Yes.
Principally applying to the city of London 2—lt is.
The city of London almost only ?—Yes.
And the object is merely to confine it to commercial
statements?—lt is.
The next Act is the 42 Geo. 111., c. 422—Yes; that is
" An Act for repealing the duties on income, for the ef-
fectual collection of arrears of the said duties, and ac-
counting for the same, and for charging the annuities
specifically charged thereon upon the Consolidated Fund
of Great Britain."
Were there then any additional duties imposed?—
There were not.
Was it only with regard to regulations?—Only regu-
lations.
That passed on the 4th of May, 1802?—It did.
Will you state what was the next Act?—The next
Act was 43 Geo. 111., c. 122, passed the 11th of August,
1803.
Will you state the effect of that Act?—That Act
made a very material alteration in the principle of the
former Acts as regards the returns to be made by per-
sons of their incomes for assessment. By that Act the
principle was first introduced of charging income upon
realised property at its first source.
The title of the Act is " For granting to his Majesty
until the 6th day of May next after the ratification of a
definitive treaty of peace, a contribution OH the profits
arising; from property, professions,;trades' and offices?"—
Yes. This was the first Act that charged property at its
first source, the date of it being 1803.
Are not the general powers and provisions of this
Act nearly similar to those of the present Act?—
They are.

Will you state what is the great change in the prin-
ciple of levying the duty made by this Act?—ln some
observations upon that Act, published in 1803, which
I have before me, and which I have no doubt were
issued by the Board of Taxes at that time, it is stated
—" That as the former duty was imposed on the ge-
neral account of income derived from all the sources,
the present duty is imposed on each source by itself,
in the hand of the first possessor, at the same time
permitting and authorising its diffusion through every
natural channel in its course to the hand of the ultimate
proprietor. The present measure, then, must be consi-
dered as a tax on the first produce, gradually subsiding
itself into a tax upon the income of the ultimate proprie-
tor; affecting in its immediate object the hand that ac-
quires, but extending by direct motion to the hand which
converts the income so acquired. Instead of the land-
lord, and the numerous claimants upon him in succession,
it looks to the occupier of lands only. Instead of the
creditor, it looks to the fund from which the debt is an-
swered. In the place of a complicated account collected
from the various sources from which the income of an
individual may be derived, it applies to the source itself to
anse er for its increase. By these means its object is at-
tained with more facility and certainty, and with less in-
tricacy and disclosure, diminishieg tho occasions of
evasion by the means of execution. Pursuing these
`principles, the charm() in respect of real property
is imposed on the occupier, both as to his own
profits, and as to the profits that may ultimately
belong to each proprietor according to his in-
terest. Whatever claims may rest on that property
as a lien on the profits, are left to be adjusted be-
tween the contracting parties, under an established rule,
founded on the same principles by which the tax itself is
imposed. The occupier, charged with the whole duty,
deducts from his landlord a portion of the tax propor-
tionate to his share of the profits. The superior pro-
prietor, the mortgagee, the annuitant, the creditor by
personal contract, and any other legitimate participant
of the profits, is subject to the like proportionate de-
duction, without other interference from the powers
created by the Act than for the purpose of settling in a
summary way any dispute that may arise between them.
Another original source of annual profit is that which is
derived from the funds composing the national debt. The
charge is imposed on the person entitled to the di-
vidend on shares of those public annuities, as being the
first possessor, not, as has been falsely conceived on
the funds themselves, that charge being in the same
manner distributable amongst the several persons who
may have a legal claim thereon, to be satisfied out of
the profits so charged. So property acquired by the
employment of capital in trade, with its increase by
the application of industry, and property acquired
by industry alone, are chargeable in the hands of the
first possessor,)vithout regard to the claims that may rest
upon it. In the same manner all salaries and emoluments
under appointments of a public or private nature, are
subject to be charged to their full extent, without deduc-
tion on account of the mode of their subsequent applica-
tion. In each of these instances provisions are made
authorising the apportionment of the original charge
amongst those who have a legal claim on the profits
charged; and as by these means the whole of the pro-
duce of property is originally brought into charge, and
as all claims must orginate in some or other of these
sources, the distinction between real and personal obli-
gations is not necessarily preserved. Whatever annual
payments are to be made by virtue of any con-
tract, whether it forms a specific charge or not, as
they must be defrayed from some or other of these
sources, are, without distinction of their origin, liable to
the same proportionate deduction. Thus the charge is
gradually diffused from the first possessor to the ultimate
proprietor; and ono of the greatest causes of defalcation
arising from the necessity of protecting private transac-
tions from exposure experienced under the Income Act
is avoided, at the same time protecting the private trans-
actions of life from the public eye, whilst the revenue is
more effectually guarded."
That was published at the time, as you believe, as
giving the reasons assigned for the alteration in the Act?
—lt was. No change was made with respect to the di-
vidends arising from the public funds under this Act,
which were required to be returned for assessment as
under the former Act. Under the former Act you ob-
serve all incomes were returned, whether from land or
property of any description. This Act charged every-
thing at its first source except the public funds.

How were they charged?—They were returned by
the individuals possessing them, as they would have ro-
turned profits of trade or rents of land.
Not as now, deducted from the Bank of England?—
Exactly; a graduated scale of 3d. to 11d. in the pound
was imposed by this Act on incomes varying between
601. and 1501., and five per cent. on 1501. and upwards;
the same exemption, however, was continued to persons
whose total incomes were less than 601. a year as under
the former Acts.

Will you state some of those amennts on the gra-
duated scaleP—lncomes under 601. were exempt; from
COL and less than 70/., 3d.; from 1001. to 1101., 7d.; 1401.
and less than 150/., Ild.; and 1.50/. and upwards, Is., or
five per cent.

That was as regarded property?—That was as re-
garded incomes generally.
Will you refer to section 31 of the Act. What did
farmers pay then?—The sum of 9d. in the pound on the
rent or annual value.

At what amounts; how assessed?-0n three-fourths
of the annual value.

That was in England; what was the rate assessed in
Scotland?—lt was one-half of the annual value.
Can you state any reason assigned at that time why
Scotch farmers should only pay one-half whilst English
farmers wore to pay three-fourths of their profits?--Tho
duty contained in Schedule (B) was charged
cupatiou in respect of the profits which on the oc
was supposed to be able to apply to his own use after
payment of his rent; it was calculated on the presume-
Lion that the tenant atter payment of his rent and
could, in the
ex-
pense of cultivation, and other outgoing', tho occupier
ordinary mode of cultivation, acquire a sum for his own
purposes equivalent in England to three-fourths of the
rack-rent of the farm, and in Scotland an equivalent to
one-half the rack-rent: the duty was therefore imposed
on the rack-rent at three. fourths of the rate of Is., or
9d. in the former instances, and in the latter at one-half
the like rate, or 6d., producing the same result as if the
reason
that I apprehend i
n Scotland duty of la. had been imposed on three-fourths and one-
half of such rack-rent; and the t:aso
why a less rate of duty was charged in Scotland than in
England I
theof taefnaarnmt was,
the UM therefore on
Ethneglaann (di on
e]
aorrd theb o borne
esb profits
ya l l the rates and tees,
which the latter ought to be assessed (if a portion of
the rent is declared to be the profits) should necessarily
be on a higher rate than iu Scotland, where the assess-
ment is on rent and something more, namely, rates and