The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, May 2.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

Lord STANLEY gave notice that he should, on
Monday, present a petition from Liverpool, and another
from Shields, on the subject of the Mercantile Marine
Act.

The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
,heir Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to Four
o'clock.

are present, and the holders of the proxies of those who
are absent. This would be best secured by electing each
separately.
" The clergy of every deanery may send their opinions
on the different questions to be proposed through
their representatives, who will, however, be free to give
their own judgment on those questions in the synod.
"We may humbly hope that this and future similar
meetings may be a means of giving, both to the bishop and
to the clergy at large, the benefit of mutual consultation on
various matters which shall from time to time arise of im-
portant consequence to our ministerial usefulness, and there-
fore to the edification of our people.
" I am, dear Mr. Archdeacon, your affectionate
. .

conversation, said he felt aggrieved at the language
which the Bishop of Exeter had used in his letter, and
he considered every man, woman, and child belonging
to the Church of Englend would do so. Now
as it was a maxim of our law that
no wrong could be committed without a remedy, he
should be glad to know from the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government whether he was prepared to
apply a remedy to this case?
The SPEAKER reminded the Hon. Member that the
question before the House was, that the House at its rising
do adjourn till Monday, and yet a variety of subjects
had been discussed, which had no reference
whatever to that motion. That course was
most inconvenient and exceedingly irregular. The
Noble Lord at the bead of the Government had already
spoken once on this motion, and it would be contrary to
order for him to speak again.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know then upon what occasions
Members of the House could bring forward the grie-
vances of the people.—(" Oh," and cries of " Order.")
Here the matter dropped.
HOUSE DUTY.

Mr. EWART wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, whether buildings subdivided into different
dwellings (like model lodging-houses, and houses occu-
pied is flats or portions of flats, as in Scotland)—such
dwellings being valued under 201. a-year and rated
separately—will be subject to the house-duty?
The CtIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would bo very difficult to draw a 'distinction between
houses so occupied in order to exempt them from house
duty.
The motion for the adjournment of the House till
Mondey was then agreed to.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Pro-
perty-tax Bill,
Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS moved that the pro-
visions of the said Bill, as far as regarded the
imposition of that tax on the interest of the pub-
lic debt, salaries, and emoluments of public offi-
cers, pensions, and sinecures be extended to Ireland.
The Hon. Member said nothing tended more
to sever the union which ought to exist between
England and Ireland than the adoption of a
different system of law and taxation in the
two countries. On all the occasions when the in-
come-tax was discussed in the House he had never heard
one efficient reason given why it should not be ex-
tended to Ireland as well as England. The only
reason of any value assigned was that Ireland was too
poor, but he considered that a man in Ireland is the
receipt of 1501. a year was as capable of paying the tax
as a man receiving the same sum' annually in England.
He consequently ought to be made to pay the tax.
The interest of the debt paid in Ireland amounted to
1,417,0001. a year, which was wholly exempted from the
income-tax. The debt owing by the Government to the
Bank of Ireland was 2,630,000/., upon which they paid 3(4
per cent. This was also exempted from the income-tax;
while the debt due to the Bank of England, 11,000,0001.,
upon which they paid 3 per cent., was subject to the income-
tax. This was a most unjust and anomalous state of things.
There was altogether paid to public officers in Ireland sala-
ries amounting to 300,0001. a year, including those of the
Lord-Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, which were wholly free
from deductions on account of the income-tax. If they
added to this amount the salaries paid to the officers of
Customs, Excise, Stamp-office, Post-office, and other public
establishments, he had not the least doubt but that the
amount paid on the whole fell very little short of 2,000,000/.
annually, which was entirely exempted from the income-
tax. And yet a poor half-pay officer was compelled to pay
out of his wretched allowance the income-tax. Since the
imposition of this tax. the people of England had paid about
50,000,000!., while the people of Ireland had not paid a far-
thing. According to the return for which he had moved the
people of Great Britain were paying 13,500,000/. in the shape
of taxes from which Ireland was exempt. Although the re-
presentatives from Ireland were in the habit of complaining
of the heavy pressure of taxation upon that country, the fact
was that they had only paid on an average one-thirteenth
part of the taxation of the United Kingdom. He did not
think, therefore, that the gentlemen from Ireland had a right
to complain of any injustice being done to them on this head.
He hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, as a matter of justice towards England, would
propose the extension of the tax to Ireland. Having called
the attention of the House to this subject he felt that he had
discharged his duty.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that he had no objection to enter
upon this subject if it were proposed at a proper time. He,
however, trusted that the House would not discuss a subject
which did not properly arise at that moment.
The House then went into Committee upon the Bill.
On Clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. FRESHFIELD rose to bring forward the amendment
of which he had given notice. His main propositions were
in reference to the Schedules B, C, D ; but, in order to render
them effective, it was necessary to alter the language of the
first clause. He would first propose to insert atter the word
" granted," in page 2. line 7, the following words :—" So
far as the same are expressed in the sche,ules to this Act an-
nexed and subject to the provisions therein contained." The
question to which he wished to draw the attention of the
Committee would not be really raised until they came to
Schedule C, which was the most material clause. His pro-
position was—" The same as in Schedule C of said Act, ex-
cept that the duty shall be assessed in cases of annuities con-
tingent upon life upon the annual amount of such annuity
after deducting one-third of such amount as the premium
of insurance payable to provide for the contingency; and as
to annuities for terms of years, the assessment to be made
upon the dividend which would be payable upon the amount
of Three per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities which
might be purchased with the produce of such annuity for
terms of years, if sold, such value to be ascertained on the
sth of April in each year, according to the Government
tables." It was obvious that they taxed the whole
of an annuity contingent upon life. A prudent man,
however, would reserve a portion of that for the support a
his family after his death, either in the shape of a life
assurance, or in some other mode. The annuity would be
thus considerably lessened in its amount, for calculating the
amount it would cost him for the life assurance from the
period at which he commenced the payment of it, together
with other expenses incidental to the attainment of that
object, he thought that the annuity actually received t‘y him
did not amount to much more than the one-half of what
it nominally was. He should therefore be taxed only upon
the amount which he actually received. This kind of pro-
perty differed widely from that which was realized, and
should be taxed differently. The next part of his propo-
sition referred to annuities for terms of years. Nothing
could be more unjust than to say that the whole of that
annuity should be taxed. He had taken the price of Long
Annuities, as they were stated in 1842, and tee prices of
Consols at that time. If a man had 100/, a year in April,
842, and sold it then, it would produce him 1,320/. If he
invested that sum in the purchase of Three per
Cents. at that period, it would be equal to a sum of
1,440/. The value of this, converted into money, as shown
afterwards, by investing it in Consols, would give him
an income of 431. -snot yet they took from him a tax
upon 100/. It was clear that he had only this income for a
period, and the effect produced by lapse of time upon the
value of his property was very serious. In respect to Sche-
dule D, he would propose the same as in Schedule Dof the
said Act, except that the duty should be 31d. for each 20s.
This related to trades and professional incomes. He knew
how difficult it was to deal with that subject. He was, how-
ever, of opinion that it was unjust and impolitic to tax those
incomes in the way they had hitherto done. It was most
unjust to compare incomes from such sources with those re-
sulting from well-ascertained property. The profits in trade
were obtained with difficulty and risk. They were generally
usefully employed in the education of children and the en-
couragemeht of labour. He would also attempt to extend
the same justice to Schedule B. The words which he pro-
posed to introduce would enable them to make the schedules
what they pleased. It therefore appeared to him that he
ought to have the rote of every Hon. Gentleman who de-
sired in any way to amend the Bill. He did not ask that
the whole of the tax should be given up, but, considering
the hardship of the tax and the period in which they were
living, he thought it would be just if halt the tax were given
up in the case of professional incomes, as well as on the profits
of trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER protested
against the course adopted by the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man as very inconvenient. It would be far more desirable
to discuss a matter involving a question of principle, in the
shape of a substantive motion, than on the proposition on the
insertion of a few words. The Hon. and Learned Member
sought to leave Schedule A at its present rate of 7d. in the
pound, and Schedule B also at its present rate, which
was equivalent to 7d. in the pound, while ho proposed ex-
emptions in the case of life annuities, which he did not pro-
pose to give to annuities charged on land or on life estates ;
and on Schedule D, which included profits made in trade,
which certainly at this moment was not suffering under much
depression, he proposed a reduction of one-half. It would be
far more convenient to discuss the whole question in a sub-
stantive form.
Mr. SPOONER reminded the Committee that the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman only asked them to consent to such
an alteration as would enable them to alter the schedules
hereafter.
Mr. HENLEY, without pronouncing any opinion as to the
schedules themselves, thought that some such words ought
to be introduced, in order to enable them to raise the question
as to the duties. If they passed the clause without them
they would deprive themselves of the power to alter the du-
ties. This the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite aware
of, and he would tell them afterwards that they had voted
the tax and could not help going on with it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thanked the
Hon. Member for the estimate he had formed of his cha-
racter, but he should be unworthy of the position he held if
he could be guilty of the conduct of which the. Hon. Member
supposed him capable.
Mr. HENLEY disclaimed any intention to give offence to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he thought they might be
precluded from altering the schedule, unless some such ge-
neral words were introduced.
'1 he CHAIRMAN said the instruction already moved was
general to amend the Bill in ease of necessity.
Mr. TRELAWNY protested against the amendment as
calculated to endanger the whole measure.
Mr. SPOONER asked whether, by passing Clause 1, with-
out the insertion of the words proposed by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield), they would not
be precluded from making any alteration except those con-
tained in the motion of his Hon. and Gallant Friend the
Member for Lincoln ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the
Hon. Gentleman that he would not turn round upon him, or
recede in any way from any understanding into which he had
entered.
Mr. FRESHFIELD asked if they would be able to go
back and amend the first clause, if they passed it now without
introducing the words he had proposed ?
paTsshede CaeH.yAclialteArNe
psuagi da a intt wt
to
s iiut e
ncileeaanri hgat
or isfptihr
iety,
thheayd
could not go back, but they might strike out the clause.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped the amendment would not be
pressed, as it would cause great inconvenience.amendmentThe
efthe whole
merits of the case would be raised on
Hon. Member for Montrose, and for that he would reserve
himself.
The amendments were then negatived without a division.
Mr. IIUME then moved to limit the duration of the tax
to one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry by a Se-
lect Committee into the mode of assessing and collecting the
tax; and whether the injustice of levying the same rate of
charge upon terminable as upon perpetual annuities, and
upon filuctuating and varying incomes from trades and pro-
fessions as upon fixed incomes from real property, cannot be
greatly modified or altogether removed. He was not pre-
pared to support any alteration of the Bill for the present
year, because it would be impossible to do so without inter-
fering with the measures before Parliament, and his propo-
sition, therefore, was to limit its duration to one year, but
to leave it untouched. The whole question required deli-
berate consideration, and it would be impolitic to legislate
with reference to one class, leaving out the others. All the
objections which had been urged Against it on the present

1851.

occasion he had urged when Sir R. Peel introduced the tax,
and a great many more besides. His object was not to get
rid of the tax, but to make it. permanent, and at the same
time equitable and just. The Hon. and Learned Member op-
posite passed by Schedule A, with respect to which those who
came under its operation had, perhaps, as much cause to com-
plain as others, the tax being leVied on the gross nominal
income, when it was perfectly well known that a large pro-
portion went for repairs. No permanent renewal of the tax
could take place without modifying that.—(Protectionist
cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer of Sir R. Peel's
Government told them at the time that it would be impos•
siblc to remove the inconveniences and injustice of the tax,
and his successor under the present Government, by his con-
duct, seemed to be of the same opinion. The tax had been
conceded to serve a temporary purpose, and afford an oppor-
tunity to try a great experiment. In 1818, when he made a
similar motion to the present for limiting its duration to one
year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out hopes that
before the time for its renewal arrived her Majesty's Go-
vernment would have taken the trouble to inquire how the
injustice might be remedied.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I did not so
understand it.

Mr. HUME continued to observe that he had no desire to
interfere with the arrangements already made or to paralyse
the operations of the Government. He could not understand
why the Government should refuse to examine the tax in
all its bearings, when the injustice of the present plan had
been so universally admitted, especially as an inquiry could
be conducted with so much greater effect by a Government
than by any individual. He proposed to continue the
tax for one year, and then to appoint a Comm ttee to
inquire into the operation of the tax upon the
various classes of the community. He was not
one who wished to see the income-tax removed,
because he was against the system of indirect taxation, upon
two grounds—first, because it increased the charge of every
article on which a duty was paid, in some cases to the
amount of 30 per cent. ; and next because he desired to have
excise duties remove on such articles as paper, soap, hops,
and even malt—and upon the latter article especially,
because he desired to put down habits of intoxication in
this country, as those habits were to be attributed to the use
of ardent spirits. He said that particularly with regard to
his own country, where the people, instead of being remark-
able, as they had been formerly, for their sobriety, had be-
come drunkards.— (Laughter.) Now he believed that the
general use of a wholesome beverage, such as might be pro-
duced from malt, would tend to correct those habits. He
wished them to put an end to a system of indirect taxation,
which promoted such an evil, and to have in place of it a
property-tax—that is, a tax which would include every spe-
cies of pr perty. (Hear, hear.) He would make no excep-
tion—he would go down to the lowest fraction, because the
making exceptions was inducing large classes in the com-
munity to be indiffeient to taxation ; and it was giving to
whomsoever might be Chancellor of the Exchequer for the
day an undue advantage. Now he did not wish any vote
to be given under the idea that he wished to get rid of the
property and income-tax. He had no such desire; but he
said that their taxation was enormous, because their expen-
diture in a great degree was very useless and very unne-
cessary, and the large masses of the working classes were
compelled to pay a great deal more than they ought to pay.
(Hear.) Some said that England was better able now to
pay taxes than she had ever been ; that her capital had trebled
since 1793. Let them look to the taxation in 1793. It
amounted to 16,000,000/. ; the expenditure was 15,000,0001.,
and 1,000,000/. was appropriated by Mr. Pitt as a sinking
fund to pay off the national debt, which was then only
93,000,000/. Their military proceedings against France
had led to an addition of 600 00J,000/. to the national debt.
New he wantec: no such thing as a robbery of the public
creditor, although their debt amounted at present to between
700,000,0001. and 800,000,0001. Their capital had increased
in a large ratio; it had increased from 60,000,0001. to
105,000,0001. His belief was that it had increased twofold
during that period. But did that capital pay more than it
did before? He believed that it did not with the exception
of that which was produced by the income-tax. They raised
now in taxes from 34,000, 001. to 35,000,000/. from the work-

ing classes. That, he said, was a gross injustice to those
class,s. They ought to apply a property tax to the capital
of the country—that which would make capital pay for the
protection it received in proportion to the amount of property
that was to be protected.—(Hear, hear.) The poor in ,n who
received Bs. a week in wages—what capital had he? And
yet that man paid five times in proportion to his means as
compared with the person who had a large property.—
(Hear, hear.) Let them look to their taxation at the present
moment. He had their revenue returns from 1762 to 1851,
and he found that by their system of taxation 67 per cent.
of the whole of the revenue was raised upon the necessaries
of life which were used by every working man. The stamps
made 11 per cent. of the revenue, the assessed taxes only 8
per cent., the property tax 10 per cent., the Post-office 11- per
cent., whilst 3 per cent. upon pensions and other small
articles made up the rest. Such was the division of taxa-
tion which thus pressed so heavily upon the working
classes, a d that tended at the same time to raise the price
of the articles they consumed. Then of the 15,000,0001.
raised by direct taxation, including the income-tax, he found
that these were the proportions in which it was paid : —the
land-tax, 11 per cent. ; windows, 17 per cent. ; servants, 14
per cent. ; carriages, 34 per cent. ; horses, 2 per cent. Let them
see, then, how paltry these contributions were as compared
with the amount of indirect taxation. One would suppose,
from the complaints they had heard on the other side, that
the land paid the income-tax altogether, whereas it paid
only 40 per cent. A very large proportion was paid by fac-
tories and messuages. This tax paid by farmers was gra-
dually decreasing—(" Hear, hear," from the Protectionist
Members)—whilst the assessment on factories and mes-
suages were every year increasing. The income-tax bore
at first as much as 64 per cent. on land, and now it was only
40 per cent.— (Hear.) He was anxious to keep taxes below
their present rate, and he thought that House was not aware
of the injury it was doing by the large portion of money it
took out of the pockets of the people for unnecessary expen-
diture. This, he believed would not occur if they had direct
instead of indirect taxation. He maintained that the whole
of the income-tax might have been saved if the whole of
their useless military establishments had been dispensed
with. The amount paid for their military establishments,
from 1833 to 1837, was 60,000,0001.—that was an average of
12,163,0001.: whilst in the three years from 1848 the aver-
age of the expenditure was 21,000,0001., and, deducting
from that the expenses of the Kafir war, and
80 ,0301. to relieve Irish distress, there was 8 956,000/.
more paid in each of the lime last years than
at the fo-mer period. For ten years before the
income-tax had been levied the whole of their
military expenditure was 131,000,0011, and the average was
13,116,0001. ; in the eight years since the income-tax had
been paid the military expenditure was 144,866,01'01—that
is, the average was 18,60.),000/. instead of 13,000,0001. The
total amount of the income-tax from 1842 to January last
was X 9,709,0001, and the extravagant expenditure upon
their military establishments during the same period was
39,901,0001.—(11ear, hear.) Thus the whole of the income-
tax went to the maintenance of unnecessary establishments.
—(Cheers.) He hoped, then, that the House would support
him in the proposition he made for restricting the collection
of the income-tax to one year—(Hear, hear)—so that when
it was next proposed taxation might be made palatable to
the people, by showing that it was just, and' that it was
necessary.—(Hear, hear) He objected altogether to the
present mode of collecting the tax. Toe Commissioners were
appointed on political grounds, and the collectors were not
responsible to the Government. He had a plan which would
remove all difficulties of that kind. By his plan he would
employ the officers of the Excise, who were tried men ;
300,000,000/. were collected by them without any defalca-
tion. The Customs appointments were filled up in a dif-
ferent manner from that pursued in the Excise, and hence
the misfortunes that had occurred. The collectors in the
Excise were paid very moderate salaries. Some with no
more than WO/. a year collected millions. He, then, had
perfeet confidence that in that department he oould find the
materials for carrying out the plan that he had in view. He
now moved that the words "one year" be inserted in the
clause in place of " three years."

Mr. Alderman THOMPSCLN seconded the amendment;
but, in doilyg so, he could not 'upport the argument of the
Hon. Member for Montrose. He did not agree in the policy
of his Hon. Friend; for he was one of those who thought
that it was most convenient to raise a proportion of the re-
venue of this country by a moderate duty upon foreign pro-
ductions.—( Cheers.) He supported the amendment of the
Hon. Gentleman because he did not think that House had
kept faith with the public with respect to the income tax.
They had renewed it twice, and were now asked to renew it
a third time; each time upon different grounds. He did not
wish to enter into any detailed account of the partial and u•:-
just way in which the tax operated; but he must say that
he did not approve generally of the Budged of the present
Ministers. He thought the Budget was capable of very
great improvement, for he had the same objection to a
house•tax as to an income-tax. He had been long enough a
member of that House to know what pressure had been
placed upon Ministers to repeal a house tax on account of
its injustice.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on the first night of his Budget gave them to
understand that he had something good in reserve for them
for the year 1854. He told them that he would then be
enabled to repeal a considerable amount of taxation. Now,
though the Right Honourable Gentleman did not tell them
what he meant, he could guess that he alluded to the
terminable annuities. In the year 1822, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—the late Lord Bexley—had raised a considerable
sum by terminable annuities. The object was to relieve the
heavy pressure then felt, occasioned by taxation for the
military and navy half-pay list. Lord Bexley then raised
the sum by annuities for forty-five years, and thus diminished
the then existing burden. Experience has since proved that
was a wise course adopted by her Majesty's Government.—
(11,ar.) If it were true, and he was not disposed to deny the
truth of the allegation, that this country was year by year
better able to bear the burden of taxation, he would ask,
would it not be sound policy to give the present generation
sorn• relief, and not to refuse doing so for the benefit of those
who might be living in the year 1867? He would now
call the atten:ioa of the House to the amount of terminable
annuities

Present Decrease
per Annum.
Diminished rate of interest} £
on Three-and-a Quarter per 510,000
Cents. ...• .. - ----------- _
Terms of years ............... ... 29a,118
Ditto ... ......... ......... 191,960
Long Annuities .....• . ... .. 1,230,000
Irish Ditto .. 51,000
26 years' Annuity . .... 212,780
Dead weight ditto

When
Ending,

£3,206,598
In 1860 the reduction will be
The conversion of permanent into terminable annuities is
at the rate of from 700,0001. to 800,0001. per annum,
Unredeemed debt
Annual charge thereof ... . .... 27,620,447
Per Annum.

Present annual decrease by treating these an-
nuities as if they were expired, is... .. ......... £3,206,598
But by borrowing in Consuls at 96 to pay the
dividends as they become due on the above
annuities so cancelled, the permanent annual
charges on Consols will be...

169,108

So that the above immediate decrease per annum
of 3,206,598/. will be gradually lessened year by
year, until sth of April, 1867, when it will re-
main permanent at
The present annual decrease, by treating these annuities
as it' they were expired, was 3,206,598/. per annum.
If capitalised it would amount to one-eighth of the
whole of the national debt. He had made a cal-
culation at that time, that if they were to convert
these payments into permanent annuities—that was to
say, capitalised them—the amount of charge per annum,
with Consols at 96, would be 869, LO-/. ; so that the before-
mentioned decrease of 3,206,`981. per annum would be gra-
dually lessened year by year, until the sth of April, 1867,
when it would remain at 2,337,4901. Had the Chancellor of
the Exchequer taken these matters into consideration, he
(Alderman Thompson) thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
would have found that his position was such that it was
not absolutely necessary for him to continue an income-tax,
which was subject to all those objections and heart-burnings
of which they had heard so much, both in and out of the
House. In his opinion it was impossible to frame any in-

with the
come-tax which would be free from objection; and
views he had expressed he should give
amendment or the Hon. Member for Montrose.
exhibited
Mr. MO WATT said that though the alacrity's,
I of the
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite to support the pro Pol. before
Hon. Member for Montrose should make bin per_ lege
he did anything which was calculated to affect pucka %ever,
amount of taxation as was involved in that proPoone jAetatioe
vets air -be,
theless he had no alternative, after the fullest c t
he had been able to give to the question, but tofvs
a greater
amendment.—(Hear,) And he thought he ST quo
his vote for the
it were V
1 wge
f)raiernAdlatle) sttyh'eGporNo-pete•nrtmyent,-,and if theta
a solecism he might say that he was a better friend Tes
than they were to themselves.— (Hear, and a leieg: 'foe
Government appeared to have determined eeei_ who,
xinboypptaoksiinngg
it;h at course 0t
ing in the steps of the late Sir Robert Tst'eto
had made up his mind to substitute t"'dily as Pet;
direct for indirect taxation with as much rapist depart
sible ; but he (Mr. Mowatt) believed that if al Icirbace
ave see
statesman were now alive and in povrer, be would
solved this question ;orif he had not, that he woo, ton)
cause to retrace his steps in this direction.--H they
It was absurd, on the face of it, to say, that, .b oPersi
could not make the income-tax perfectly equal Mr
_etaerice
lion on all classes, therefore it would be altogethe.
ace' eiletioe
to attempt to improve or modify it. He denied tn 'Ol7lll real
in toto, and would say that 6d. or Is. in the polled arising
and funded property, and half that amount on Pre 000
from trade and industry, would be a fair arran..f.‘teeieoddr
compared with the existing system. At all eveneteeaie 1;
vidual, who would suffer from the unjust pressor obese
fication like that would be much less numerous:ooo
who complained of the pressure now. It was a 01.0 and
palpable injustice to take from the professional Toole
tradesman the same amount of taxation as was observed to
real and funded property.—(Hear.) When he tootle°
course which the Government had taken with r.. the tot.
their Budget in the present year, ho was drivtle%te"ss of
el:
elusion that they had no confidence in the soil ,e to reee.D.olo
any other.piet:.
principles of direct taxation. It was impossible 5
__fan
or
the inconsistencies of their conduct by
unless their aim was to tide it over some time eseetce O.ee
his part he believed it would be impossible to relsee if '
ing amount of revenue, and spend it as they did
resorted to the system of direct taxation. an it
Mr. BUCK said that as a representative of was esae'
tural county, he did not think that that elalie,stellee
fairly with, particularly as that class, more especialat reP;t
labouring under the greatest distress, and forgo00111:4
he thought that the present measure of the u"seeceit',De
was as unjust as it was unequal against
class; and also that it was invested with an of theTt,
character towards the same class who, as Mani at Pre
grow hops, are subject to at least 100 per cehn'tel sql°lloll'
the inecititeto,
while the foreigner is exempted from any such - The. of
therefore defeat them in their own market. derfta,
Gentleman then entered into a detail of the ! end tee
the agriculturist of Exeter through this tabut tbs Der.
tended that it was not only confined to theln,:e eisltee
retailers in small towns, particularly Appledore, to ebie tee
ledge, had also suffered materially by it; throttg tetese
able-bodied labourers were obliged either to stoop 00
workhouse, or to emigrate to a foreign land, w`eotre-ele
he feared, would one day be the ruin of this c°,lo,so PTO'
assured the Government that the long sufferingii..noe
cb s
were labouring under would sooner or later wtiopt eeDest
fier, indignation, and hoped that they would tines,
dead
line of policy as would revive their former hal* f treu
it would also tend to increase the
commerce. (Hear, hear.)o6o 0
ed
Mr. M'GREGOR thought it would have been true the
part of the Government either to have at OnCerr befOreol
renewal of the income-tax for only one yeareto'pele°ooos
meeting of Parliament, to have made some A.- opotleer
which the schedules should have been Place'. it Inice•
equitahe princip'e. He knew it was said tlelo,oofjeeeet
possible to arrange those schedules on a prineiP` solotiso
He believed it would be very difficult to urge 'of3,ool'
Prosperity 0
which would carry along with it an equal neettsbat he-ee et
towards all her Majesty's tax-paying subjects; ed so sbe
tamed that the schedules might be easily arreoge tbeetest
least to approximate to justice. He did net_seletteoeclty
amendments of which he had given notice efee"sae bertetk
degree of equality which was to be desired--(ree lesseie;
but he believed that the rates he h .d put dove "'toed ''ol
ments were such as Sir R. Peel would have eV esell
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It had frequentiletterifeetr
that both Mr. Pitt and Sir R. Peel considered it pe
possible to make any difference between the,ratefimittee:r
esd
rent and temporary income. He disputed th)e,:petellJ'ethe
statement. Both of those Mitisters saw the "e-0'003:00
injustice of taxing temporary and permanent tures ;011
same rate; but they were placed in drew:lle teeleee
rendered it impossible for them to impose tlettle,,,
other form than that which they adopted. `red fe
According to his (Mr. M'Gregor's) view, temp but or,"
should be charged, not upon their gross smut "-yielo;
amount of profit which they were supposed t° eof 'er#
example, a gentleman had a professional incorne 0 hotel
a year. Now, that was exactly the same elee itce°
invested on land, or in the funds. But the 1,0 00 re ter
in land or in the funds was at present taxed SP,
yielded in the shape of interest, viz., 30/. Wberels Phil°
1,0001, earned by the professional gentleman eest.•eeeio.
upon the whole amount, which was evidently elikessne ;eV
hear.) If there were no taxes on articles of neelb theoees,
sumption, he would deal in A different manner "le the/
perty and income-tax. He would levy exaece
per centage in the pound for every 20s. el 2"" boweicr
50/. per annum from real and permanent sours eel 00$,0
ing to the high taxation which was still fairlyinics°'eo,l„
of consumption. he would be dealing very e ee:tildir
comes under 3001. per annum, and he would "woo,'
more unfairly if he imposed the same rates on woo
toveee
comes. After illustrating this point by referees e,itete
the Hon. Member concluded by saying that the one,
the tax as at present levied was felt everywebefele ieoretog
that House, and that, if the tax were impose" reted
one year, the discontent which it excited W" r
•
increase.—( Hear, hear.) deg° of 011
The Marquis of GRAN BY said, that the (1-
the House was now called upon to decide was wejeellrfer
they would continue the present income-tax, es'''-
or leie/e
malies, injustice, and inconsistencies for one le
years; in other words, whether they should 1311,100 p;
amount of deference to the convenience of 6°,. eat
to the interests of the people? The main argeees flogs
the imposition of the tax in 1842, 1845. ands If'etiet)/„
classed under two heads—first, the difficulty or a th'er
the magnitude of people's incomes; and, secooe, be
If
ctity of taxing them equally when dis.covered; the,
spect to the first difficulty, no one would saYt.‘ehaa's ofetllo
sent year it was in the least diminished d ;114
that it had greatly increased, while, if they le-eoe;
dale I/ of the income-tax, what did they findreaed
that since 1842 the assessment under that head "e 10°r
no less than 8,000,0 0/ Now, lie wished t°
ti ithe
opinion of the
oftGoverment on that point. tie; ~,d
know which horn the dilemma they would traeofe'seb
they would say that the incomes of the lelart'f'free'tt otre
trading classes had diminished since the year of eionittilr
that extent, or whether, on the other hand, teb„eliigehe
was owing to fraud and evasion? Perhaps t',olPeet e
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cl'eero
one horn of the dilemma, and the Noble Lord of 'O6
nister upon another, arid make a political seeege's)ee'isr)
them.—(A laugh.) His (the Marquis of tnfrAeo,'"
from all he had heard, was that the incomes frfeeee- trseeteif
professions had materially decreased under nrooticrey
that there had also been many instances e'ebede',ee
and fraud. (Hew., hear.) With respect to ro'
believed it would be generally admitted that the'eesi else
at least a diminution of 20 per cent. upon the drool', of"
land, taking the average throughout the I'll4'ollV,
he would ask his Right _-on. Friend the Chaltf the tbo
Exchequer whether he or the Commissioners e„ la ,c,seeo
tax intended to make a proportionate reduetle'ee be ield
sessmenteunder Schedule A? For, if not, it Nov.„,'"oclet la ttl'
gross injustice. And if a reduction was to he •":, 0h1)
Right Lien Gentleman calculated the differene?l'of bOtloet
in his receipts? According to his (the Marquise Ade.
calculation a reduction of 20 per cent. e°-eoeeelee-fl
would amount to 9,500;000e, and this wouldeelee: rebel
make a reduction in the tax of 500,000/.'";`,-,eeetiteed,
The next difficulty was in fairly taxing the :h, deecreres
ascertained; and, from all he had heard in .hod doge Yoe
this subject, he did not think that difficult)" eetol "e 40 d
either. (Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Fri; the r
(Mr. Herries) had insisted with great feereeferliieare
Schedule B it was a gross injustice to tax t""„0
profits which be was not making. Now, no enettett°3l.ee
that fact ; but there was no remedy for it. ione't it 'hi
class, however, there wan the case of profess" tbseetiee
Hon. Members maintained, with equal jeleticeee'oo,„te
very unfair that a man with an income dePe"-eierfleAstorth
health and activity should be taxed upon th,,,ett," teeee
as a man who possessed real property. .But,"-oetiefeth
this class, what would they do with lifeeoe' or ib;
owners of ships, cot.on-mills, and the like?heeoeleiroOtee"
made all these remissions, what would Og 0,51
Right Hon. Gentleman's tax ?--(" Hear, beelietlielesee
Chancellor of the Exchequer.) He Per eesi" of gt
with the Right Hon. Gentleman nat it was inWitipit or or
remissions could be made. Such was the °P;00 Bf 4r
Pitt and Sir R. Peel. It was also the o
oPeeittifreffee
.CullOch. (Here the Noble Lord quoted die r tee diva
M'Culloch, to the effect that an equal inc°lllebehefif tr
impossibility ) In holding that opinion, he
Mr. M'Uulloch was right, and, upon the $,-091°,10elei
opinion, he called upon the Right lion Gen,t; oeyi,telso
thect u el
capitall e• b y
to support the amendment and loess the fie- reedy 61A
year. He believed that that tale, though ne''
quite as afsroemffe
money out of the pockets of the labourieg etoticedeer
anth
atingdaivreecttipieropcoeosrs,
te01001:101615,
was •
practically taxing him • and as to indiree tut" itiAjtte"
lieved that the were less felt than tiler
any De
,00
paid them. From another passage which ~„011"451/ii'
hand, derived from the same eminent writer viTrectdot Mee,
quoted, it appeared to be his opinion that li3ret,ost,rees'
though unequal, was neither impolitic nor no& l' hoe e.
not fall on any persons unless they indulged 'ltfaolt• ee/e'rer
and when they were taxed it was their 010 aotet'eetooti 0
come-tax, he said, was paid by all alike, bletef weir that
ing that, thought that the worst species esieeteleD'ileoeiel
tion was better than the best adjusted We° tedt,°teelteetir
former night the Right Hon Gentleman attribe and -to of'
60,000,000/. ayear were taken from the fanners', Able 11,1',10,
that, if so, the country was so much the be 1,, ;701
taxation. [The Chancellor of the EXchecleeelt et'', fee:for:
stood to.say—" The rest of the country") to te",0111`1r
lion. Gentleman's observation referred onlY,_;10 to ail re'
the country, then he should have expected p'i parvoy For
ward with a measure of relief for the stlffereVesieg Otlejeet.;
had lost these 60,000,000 e a year,
_tOtallY fer„.aet„poe
position brought forward by the lion. Diera-ron `ltrieje
hamshire; therefore the Right Hon. Gentle • esee.oer
t this $ ett
meant the whole country. He would put 0 or r tire
the whole of that House were called upon httittivg doer
sum, and that by some management or 8" 00°00,4) fori
amount of money was transferred frog' tu° ;t 0P" le
h
Members who sat at one side to those wee bie a t see,
would that render the whole House better $ weuls,? Doh,
to pay the amount demanded of thenl?fe eurdiecteoteeld
consequence of that, be able to bear niot" if it ula 06'40
now it appeared to him that the argonlen 'ound t
in the case of the House, was equally
.050 f yin Do 0.00
the community at large. In every Petnt to Llifecte
favourable to indirect taxation rather thanniendoler.robie Bel a
and he should, therefore, support the 3hof the j.:4.ttet
he sat down, he could not help noticing_et hat disW
opposite had abserved that he fel' sonle".o, the cetraye
the speeches made in that House respect!, 110 des tl'e
rises; tc
the Noble Lord should remember that fee. ,
tree the fruit must necessarily decay' 1100. ti°n
Mr. COBDEN said he regretted that his 01% tee Or
Member for Montrose had not so shaped
111,°t rbefloo
enable him to obtain the decision of the,
..o„be bis Dare
ter which was really at issue ; but be te..`eale'eticekettet oeo.
ceedings of that evening must have
_civ much " 110, gift
Friend that the terms of his motion heue,„ted. th‘
been different from that which be had "`',"
aincoalt%'ar° Per:
Friend wished the House to modify dined trade:4ll'a tfOri
such satisfaction to the professional n retain t eel;
nt to for re
country as would enable Parliame aag tOO pr
had r dien ' 00 t
nuanently. If his Eon. Fiend s o%pe oopt pr
motion in a form declaring that it eeeer elearg...„ooo_,oo)
ing the income-tax, to impose a urie`froet perfbiele:d
carious incomes than upon those deria',o-,..ldivieioVe" deeir
perty, then the House might have h
tion that egaii34
have fairly brought to issue the ques ton
see decided; but the division would have