The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-29 00:00:00

INCOME-TAX.

Colonel, SIBTHOItP gave notice that when the House
went jut° Ci,mmittee on the Property and Income-tax
Bill he should move amendments to the effect that tenant
farmers and occupiers of land, as well as officers in the
army and navy, should be exempted from the tax.
REPEAL OF THE MALT-TAX.
Mr. PACKE gave notice that when the Hon. Member
(Mr. Cayley) brought forward his motion for the repeal
of the malt-tax, he should move an amendment to the
effect that half the tax be repealed.
AMENDMENTS ON ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES

BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that perhaps it might be con-
venient if. he were to state now, agreeably to his pro-
mise before the recev, the view which the Government
took with regard to the amendments which were pro-
posed to be inserted in the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in
Committee, end more particularly those which had been
propsed by the Honourable Member for Midhurst. With
respect to the first clause in those amendments, her
Mjesty's:Ministers would have no objection to it in
brinciple, but they thought that it would be carried into
effec; more completely by the terms of the preamble of
their own Bid. With regard to the other clauses which
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had given notice of, her
majesty's. Ministers had found, aster full consideration,
that they ecull not agree in them. With respect to the
preleab!e of the Bill he (the Noble Lord) wished to re-
serve any opinion until the ilouse should have gone
through the clauses and settled what form the enactment
vv,.uid take.

CEYLON.
Mr. BAILLIE wished to know, a 3 the Hon. Member
for Montrose but expressed some opinions on this sub-
ject, Ord had given notice of a motion which might ma-
teridly affect the state of the question, whether there
was any intention or the part of Government to carry
the recommendations which had been made into effect?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the recommendations had
been so vague that ha bad not presumed to act upon
thzm, and that he waitni for further advices before he
cc,aid express any opinion whatever.
PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX.

The House then proceeded to the orders of the day,
and the motion for the secoad, reading of the Property
and Income-tax Bill having been put,
Mr. SPOONER said that he rose to move an amend-
ment that this motion should be postponed till this day
six months.ln 1842 Sir R. Peel proposed the imposition of
an income-tax because he found an empty exchequer; but
with that imposition, to which Parliament had con-
sentee, there was also a condition annexed—that it
should not be continued for more than three years. It
wen a tax upon income; and that tax was manifestly
imposed for a peculiar purpose, and for a particular
tele-. In 1846 the deficiency in the Exchequer had
bees supplied, but then came forward the grand financial
projec-s oi Sir Robert Peel. He had determined to do
featly with most of our indirect taxes, and then the
inc ene- ex eau continued for three years. This carried
the matter un until 1848, when the aspect of Europe
was sech that it was not difliault to get an Act to carry on
the tax far three years longer. Bat a time had now
arisen in which there was no cennplaint of want in the
exchequer, when, in fact, the Chancellor had a surplus,
and no necessity existed for tee ccntinuance of this tax.
It was unnecessary to go into any arguments against
this tax, because nothing het the greatest emergency
coald justify it. The late Mr. Francis Horner, as far
back as 1315, stigmatized it as an unjust tax, and called
upon the then Cbencelior of the Exchequer to abandon
t, while the Noble Lord himself, who was at
the head of the present Government when this
tax was first introduced, denounced it as not only unequal
in its operation, but also liable to lead to much fraud and
deception. Now that was the character of the tax as
given by those who now proposed its continuance; and
he put it to the House whether it was prudent,
in the existing state of agriculture, to persevere
with this measure? If Government did, all he could
say was, that they would find themselves mistaken
if they thought it would lead to no opposition or resist-
ance out of doors. No tax, in fact, was more obnoxious
to and he, therefore,us
to the great mass of the
implored the House not to sanction its continuance.
He knew instances in which persons rather than thew
their b coks, and let their affairs be known to the world,
had submitted to pay extortionate sums under this tax;
and he was quite sure if the House knew how unequal
this iniquitous tax pressed on the people, it would pause
before it gave its sanction to the second reading
oft •e, Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department, in a very short, but very power-
ful end able speech, said on a former occasion, if he had
the melancholy prospect before him of this becoming a
Perrneeeent tax, he •would endeavour to diminish
its inequelhy ; but, looking to its probable dura-
tion, lie should not object to it then, thinking
that if its ieequali:Le remained, they might
on a future occasion resist the tax with more effect.
lilt the Right Hoc. Gentleman, who entertained that
opinion when he Wi3 out of offic, now came and asked
the lloule ,
whol ters alteration whatever. to agree to the Vt-XitiOU3 tax without any
a
whatever.
hatever. `Then, again, Viscount
theinfluential Go-
vernment, said to impose a tax on income and
on property ems obviously
that the income tax
unjust, and he agreed
tax should be confined to periods
of the greatest
c',untry was invotenb
passible emergency, such as when the
war or suffering under serious
difficulties. That la_ Lord was high in office,
was a . clever and able , man,
lik ly to adopt and was not
remark
hastily, and he
hoped that when this
exit.. went to the Noble Lord
in another place, he would
and say how he came 1
toP " his opinions on taxa-
tion.ahtis support to the
Chancellor of the exchequer, Chanc a time when
the country was involved in no war and wh
there was a surplus revenue. He .._ " , en
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
hicet came to the
that all the Right Hon. Gentleman said mademust confess
on his mind, and that he heard a strong
impression all that came
from him with groat delight. He said that .` so far from
this tax pressing exclusively on the rich, it
pressed
on the labouring cLtsses, and diminished the means
'Of
employment, and that he did not believe that the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) could think that
it pressed more exclusively on the rich, b 3.
cause, if he did, . why had he not imposed
the tax on the people of Ireland?" It was a well-
known fad, which Honoureble Gentlemen on the
other side would have difficulty in denying, that ever
since the year 1819 poverty bad been increasing in the
country meet rapidly, that poor-rates were consuming
the whole produce of the land, and that farmers could
not contitmene occupy, even if they had no rent to pay.
The Hon. Gentleman 'to the Under-Secretary for
the Colonies, ' man opposl ,
lu 1844, was ono of the most vehement
opposers of the tax, and had made a most decided speech
against it.—(tesar.) Red he
his opinion?
ti as another class he now altered
Bet there .
._ ass to which he wished to call
the attention of the House and
that was the tenant
farmers of England, No eltuS was more oppressed by
this tax than that, and so ha
when the tax was first pr told the House years ago,
were assessed upon aotunded. Tenant farmers
erroneous basis, and if the untajxust and grossly
tinued, it would bet nothing but right tat some change
must be con-
should be made in this part of it. There
were other in-
equelities in the tax which he could point out, but as
they must long ago have become familiar to the House
and the country, be should abstain from doing 50. The
distinction, however, that was made between the l
holder and the fendholder was meet unjust and i znd-
litic, inasmuch as the manner in which the tax was leviedf'°-
mado the former pay almost twice as much as the latter.
The tax, in a word, was grossly unequal and vexatious;
it also held out a premium to commit fraud, and
gave rise to a good deal of deception which
would be well avoided at the expense of the tax.
That, in fact, was the effect or these taxes, and nothing
could possibly remedy the evil. What, therefore, he
naked 01.0/IbUse was, that they should take all these
ntWs‘ilktp-con4ideration. The principle bad been de-
rll'- erare-yreatkags,Nhen Lord Stanley made his celebrated
1-411___Li6tiun-fwPOl6l4 the income-tax, and then it was de-
/<
imeo tit.terms;:' tbqugh not in words, that at the
,4!.-41piptio*--Otlie, • seal time the tax would be
it f; Artlttede SOttie A/ topte had been made to increase the
jz
f\ ;.(icae,',but4Usitint to a certain extent signally failed.
desirable e:.> Ney-ertstreiM t ' ekoeeditigly le t the ex-
t q
~.- - .
N 1, whiclS tko public had conceived ebOtild
1.1 A