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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28.
PETITIONS.

Mr. HASTIE presented a petition
,against Papal
agaree don.
Mr. G. BERKELEY presented petitions from Glou-
cestershire teethe same E ffect.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a large number of
petitions from places in Lincolnshire complaining of agri-
cultural distress.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition praying for a
more equal adjustment of the income-tax.
Mr. COWAN presented several petitions from places
in Scotland against Papal aggression.
PROPERTY AND INCOAIE TAX.
(Continued from our Third Edition cf last night.)
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the amendment, and in doing
so begged to say that he concurred generally in what
bad fallen from his Hon. Friend who had just spoken.
His Hon. Friend and himself were in the position of
being better able to judge of the iniquitous working of
the income-tax than most of the Members of that House.
They were both placed in a part of the country where a
large proportion of the manufacturers were small men,
and they were able to see that on those small men the
tax fell most unjustly.—(Hear, hear.) Next to the
tenant-farmers, indeed--(Hear, hear)—who were obliged
to pay whether they made any profits or not, the small
manufacturera were more oppressed by the tax than any
other portion of the community.—(Hear.) These men
were notoriously surcharged, often more than once.
They were surcharged on their first returns, and, not
being able to show their books, were obliged to pay.
The thing went on, and he had known
.instances where
parsons had been surcharged three or four times over.
Could anything be more unjust than that?—(Hear.) It
was a common practice for them to come to him and
ask what they should do; but all he could say to them
was, that they should produce their books, show what
their profits were, and so get off. Their reply to
this was, that they could not do so without letting
their neighbours into a knowledge of their business, and
that they would rather pay the tax than show their
books under such circumstehrices.—(Hear, hear.) For
himself, he must say he would rather pay double the
amount of the property-tax than such an inquisitorial,
unjust income-tax, as the present. The great difficulty
with him was, how they were to get rid of such a tax.
He saw no end to it. It was a tax for ever. He asked
the House, if the principle was to be recognised, how
were they to get rid of the tax?—(Hear, hear.) Could
they get quit of it as they got quit or the duty on bricks
or coffee? It was clearly impossible. His Hon. Friend
(Mr. Spooner) was wrong when ho denied that any re-
duction had taken place in the price of bricks. He
(Mr. Muntz) paid from Bs. 6d. to 9s. the thousand
less for bricks than formerly. At the same time the
abolition of that tax only gave partial relief, fur it
was a tax that operated very partially in many parts
of the country where nothing but stone was used for
building. Instead of the brick-tax, therefore, they
should have taken off the income-tax, and if necessary
imposed an increased property-tax. He remembered after
the first year's collection of the income-tax having occa-
sion to wait upon Sir Robert Peel on business, when he
referred to his (Mr. Muntz's) having voted for the tax,
and then said it was the prettiest way of adding five
million pounds to the revenue. He (Mr. Muntz) said he
had voted for the tax because he did not think any tax
could be imposed on the working classes, and he saw no
prospect that any other could be paid. By the way in
which it was levied, however, he had no hesitation in
saying that it was the means of making men rob them-
selves in the most iniquitous manner.—(Hear, hear.) It
was said that the window-tax was to be repealed; but it
was the middle class who paid the window-tax, and he
contended that they ought first to take off those taxes
that pressed most heavily on those least able to bear
them. There were a vast number or his constitu nts
who paid the income-tax who never paid one shilling of
window duty. Tney talked about taking off the taxes
on articles of consumption. Was the window-tax an
article of consumption? Yet they had repealed it, taking
care, however, to put it all on again in the shape of a
house-tax.—(Bear, hear.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD, having had no opportunity of
joining in the previous deliberations of the House on this
question, and as this was the stage at which the prin-
ciple of the Bill would be determined, was anxious, on
personal grounds, to guard against any misconstruction
that might arise from the course he might take with re-
gard to voting on that occasion. The question was,
whether the income-tax, with all the objections that had
been stated against it, as being a war-tax now proposed
in time of peace, was to be continued, or whether they
were prepared with some other provisions by which the
expenditure of the country could be so met as to war-
rant them in rejecting the Bill? Were they to agree to
the second reading of the Bill that night, with the dis-
tinct understanding that it would be so modified in
Committee as to free it from many of the objections
urged against it, though not to the principle itself ?
(Hear.) In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel brought for-
ward this tax, and was so strongly opposed by gentle-
men now on the Government side, on the ground that
it was essentially a war-tax, he had this excuse, that
there was a deficiency in the revenue of 4,800,000/.,
while we were engaged in fighting on the Indus
and in China. Then in 1845, though Sir R. Peel
had a surplus, he was enabled to obtain a renewal of the
income-tax, on account of the many taxes which he then
remitted and moderated. In 1848, when the measure was
again introduced, not by Sir R. Peel, but by the present
Government, there was an excuse, if not a justification
of it, found in the mischievous measure of 1846; for the
period was approaching when, in 1649, an end would be
put to the revenue from the importation of corn. In
1842 the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) stated that, had
the commercial measures proposed by him in 1841
been adopted, he believed there would have been no
necessity for the Bill then introduced. What was the
commercial measure of the Noble Lord? It was a
fixed duty of Bs. Now that the present measure was
before the House might they not hope, when they got
into Committee, to have brought under their considera-
tion the commercial measure that was desired by the
Noble Lord in 1541 as some reason why a part of the in-
come-tax should be abandoned? He wished, when he
voted for the second reading of the Bill—for he was
not prepared to give up so much revenue without a sub-
stitute—to guard himself against its being supposed that
anything would induce him to vote for this measure if
he did not believe that there would be important altera-
tions made in Committee—alterations as to extent in
point of time, the objects of the tax, and also the
amount of the tax.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble
Lord would find some substitute for the schedule
affecting the tenant-farmers, and ho concurred in all
that had been said with reference to annuitants by
the Honourable Member (Mr. Spooner). With re-
gard to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to give up one direct tax, and substitute another
in its place, he drew from it the inference that there
was to be a reconsideration of the whole subject of
taxation, and that a more just system would be the
result.—(Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would vote
for a renewal of the income-tax, but for a limited time
only, in order to give the Government time to consider
what more befitting mode of taxation ought to be
adopted.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not congratulate his Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Spooner)
upon any great accordance between him and the lion.
Gentleman who had seconded his amendment; for, though
they agreed on the general point that the Bill ought to
be rejected, there was not a single point in the argument
on which they did not differ.—(Hear, hear.) The lion.
Member for North Warwickshire stated that the great
grievance of the income-tax was the existing unjust
pressure on the landed proprietors included in schedule
A. The Hon. Member for Birmingham, on the contrary,
was perfectly willing to double the pressure on the land
by increasing the property-tax, but thought it unjust
that the same rate should be imposed on trade.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member for North Warwickshire
spoke of the repeal of the duty on bricks as not having
reduced in any way the price of bricks; while the Hon.
Member for Birmingham said ho himself paid Bs. 6d, a
thousand less for bricks than he did before. This was a
proof that considerable benefit had been conferred on a
large portion of the community. The Hon. Gentleman,
however, gave the oddest reason against the repeal of
the tax. He said it was an exceedingly partial
tax, and, therefore, ought not to have been
repealed.—(A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Muntz) blamed him exceedingly for taking off the
window duty and not repealing the income-tax. Now,
the House bad, on former occasions, rejected motions for
the repeal of the window-tax; but he found, on referring
to the division list, that the Hon. Gentleman was one of
those who voted with the Noble Lord the Member for
Bath on his motion for the total repeal of that tax.--
(A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman was one of those who
last year voted for the repeal of the window-tax; and how
he could now object to his (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) repealing that objectionable tax it would puzzle
him, he thought, to explain.—(Bear, hear.) He would
not detain the House long upon this question, as he
thought it would not require many words to prove that
the House ought not to assent to the amendment of the
Hon. Gentleman opposite. He bad proposed the re-
newal of the income-tax for a limited number of years.
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Berries)
thereupon made what was a fair proposition for him to
make. He proposed that the tax should be renewed only►
to a certain extent. The Right Hon. Gentleman knew
well what was the state of the finances, and he proposed
to renew the income-tax to such an extent as would
leave what he thought an adequate revenue. He k❑ew
too well what was due to the credit of this country
and to the maintenance of its establishments not to
propose the continuance of such a portion
of the income-tax at least as was necessary for those im-
portant purposes. It was his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) duty to resist that motion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and a majority of the House concurred
with him in tho opinion he held, and voted the renewal
of the income-tax for a limited time. The House had
determined, in consequence of that vote, that a given
amount of revenue should be sacrificed by the repeal of
the window-tax, and by the reduction of the duties on
coffee and timber. All these things would have been
impossible if the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman
(sir. Herries) had succeeded. But, having determined
on the renewal of the income-tax, the House had deter-
mined that other taxes should be repealed. Now, if the
amendment of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) was
carried, not only must the reduction of the duties on
coffee and timber be given up, but the repeal of the
window duties must be surrendered also; and more then
that, while the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries)
would have left revenue enough to maintain the esta-
blishments of the country, the proposition of the lion.
Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) o❑ the present occasion would,
if carried, render necessary the imposition of further
taxes. He stated, on the first occasion on which he had
brought the subj ct before the House, that it the income-
tax were not to be renewed here would be a deficiency
of 1,000,0004 this year, and of 3,500,000/, next year.—
(Hear, hear.) He wished to know if the lima was