The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-21 00:00:00

his income at less than it really was. (Hear, hear.)
But he contended that under present circumstances
they did not get at the real amount of a man's income,
and that at the present moment deception was prac-
tised to an extent of which the Govarnment was en-
tirely unaware, and no possible combination of checks
could ever prevent the fraudulent man from . cheat-
ing the Government in matters of that kind. The
question was not how to treat the fraudulent, but the
great mass of the community, who were, he believed,
beyond the reach of such an example. He was not on
the moment to say whether any means could be devised
to put an end to the inquisitorial system now existing,
but they would ascertain the proposed means from the
speech of the excellent chairman of the association—the
son of their valued friend Thomas Attwood. The sug-
gestion of Mr. Attwood that a taxpayer should send in
his statement, which should be confirmed by a witness,
was worthy of their consideration. Rather than continue
the present oppressive and despotic system he (the speaker)
would vote heart and hand for the proposal of the In-
come Tax Association—that every man's income should
be that which he declared by a declaration on oath to bel
the full value of the income. It had been urged upon
him by the association that Mr. Muntz and himself
should divide the house upon the question. Without
finding fault with the recommendation, he and Mr.
Muntz, whose feelings he thought he was expressing,
could not pledge themselves to a course of this descrip-
tion, for discussions in the house take such turns, and
become so changed in their ultimate ends, that to divide
would perhaps be very improper, for it was very possible
it might be used as a party manoeuvre ; and he would
not pledge himself. He never had and never would start
a subject merely for the purpose of discussion and no-
thing more. His object was to arrive at a decision.
With the single qualification he had named he should
fully abide by the recommendation of the committee, and
unless something extraordinary arose, he should support
his hon. friend Mr. Muntz in dividing the house, and
ascertaining who was for and who against them.
Mr. Councillor TURNER supported the resolution. He
said that Sir R. Peel never intended the income tax to
continue, and he believed if Sir R. Peel had been now
alive an adjustment of it would have taken place long
ago. He was decidedly of opinion that if 9-10ths of the
public were put upon their oath as regarded the amount
of their income, they would return it to the full amount.
(Cheers.) He hoped other towns would follow in the
wake of Birmingham, and the pressure from without
would then very soon produce a favourable result. He
heartily supported the resolution.
Mr. FORGHAM also seconded the resolution, and re-
ferred to the great hardships indicted on the owners of
small house property in Birmingham—(cheers)—by the
present system. They were more unjustly dealt with by
the assessor of property tax than any other property in
existence. He was a member of the Landlords' Asso-
ciation, and might speak on their behalf generally ; and
they repea,tgdly complained that instead of paying a pro-
perty tax of six-and three-quarters per cent., they were
actually paying ten or fifteen per cent. in consequence of
void houses, runaway tenants, and many other contin•
gencies to which they were exposed. Small houses in
Birmingham were assessed at the full amount of their
rack rental ; there were certain incidental expenses, such
as water, rent, and insurance, and although the incur-
flocs office paid 200 per cent, to the taxes, yet 10 per
cent, in addition had to be paid upon small house pro-
perty, nothing being allowed by the assessors. Members
of the House of Commons being great land proprietors
escaped this small house tax, and did not feel it ; but it
was never intended by law that the owners of small
houses should pay for more than their profits, and yet
they were rated on the rack rental. (Beir.)
The resolution was then put to the meeting, and was
carried unanimously amid loud cheering.
Mr. Taos. AURELIUS ATTWOOD was the next speaker,
and was received with applause. After some preliminary
observations, he said that when the bill was introduced
by Sir Robert Peel in 1842 all the errors that were now
found to exist in it were known ; they were all stated ;
they were all urged, and they were all neglected and
despised. In fact, if they had a notion that the majority
of the House of Commons had troubled themselves about
the justice of the matter, be would tell them they
troubled themselves about no such thing. They never
took the word jestiee into their consideration. They
wanted money, and money they must have. (Hear.)
After quoting the opinions of Lord J. Russell, the late
Mr. Hume, and Mr. Sotheron, M.P. for Wiltshire, as
to the injustice of Sir R. Peel's measure, Mr. Attwood
read the memorial, which was received with considerable
applause. He, therefore, proposed "that the memorial
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had been read
to the meeting, be adopted, and that the mayor, the
members for the borough, and chairman and honorary
secretary of the Income Tax Reform Association, with
Mr. F. Wills, be appointed a deputation from this meet-
ing to present the same." (Cheers.)
Mr. J. PARTRIDGE seconded the adoption of the me-
morial. He referred to the case of some friends of
manufacturers, who, carrying on a business which hap-
pened to be unremunerative for a given time, appealed
against the surcharge made in respect of the profits which
it was presumed by the Income Tax Surveyor must have
accrued in that period. The principal went hetore the
c commissioners, took his foreman with him, and produced
is books ; but one of the board said, " Don't tell
us that anybody would, carry on a large trade at a loss,"
and the words, "You must pay," settled the question.
This was net in Birmingham, but it was only what
so many of them had experienced : it was the Surveyor
who was the Board of Commissioners. A case in point
lie mentioned. A townsman of theirs took to a business
in May, 1855, and in October he found himself assessed
at 0001. in respect of this business. He prepared a state-
ment to prove that his profits had not been equal to his
expenses, and after th;e had heen read Ca Ch. Commis-
sioners, Mr. Lea said to them, " You can do nothing ;
he must pay." He (Mr. Partridge) did not know the
names of the Commissioners who were present, but who-
ever they were it was wrong that they should suffer
themselves to be dictated to by a government agent.
(" Turn him out," &c.) The Commissioners actually told
the gentleman appealing that if he would send in a
balance sheet, and a statement of the profit he had on
each article he manufactured, so as to prove that he had
paid too much, they might return him part, of the assess-
ment. A return from the income tax collector ! Why,
to use a vulgar saying, it was like getting butter out of
a dog's mouth. (Laughter.) After some other remarks
by Mr, Partridge, the motion was put to the meeting by
the chairman and unanimously passel.
Mr. Councillor LLOYD, after a brief address, moved
the adoption of a petition to the House of Commons,
which was seconded by Mr. T. C. SALT, and adopted.
Mr. H. H. HORTON asked the chairman's permission
to obtain the opinion of the meeting upon the following
resolution, intrusted to his care by the Landlords' Pro-
tection Society :—" That it is the opinion of this meet-
ing that the system adopted in Birmingham of assessing
house property to the property tax upon the gross in-
stead of the profit rental, and only allowing for voids, is
most oppressive and unjust, and contrary to the act of
parliament, which professes to charge income upon pro-
perty at the rate of ls. -Id. in the pound, while by
making no allowance for repairs or losses, the owners
aro paying upwards of 2s. in the pound of real income."
This was seconded by Mr. FORGHAM, and passed
nem. Con. _

The business terminated with a cordial vote of thanks
to the chairman.

The following is the memorial adopted for presenta-
tion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer :---
"The respectful Memorial of the Inhabitants of the
Borough of Birmingham, in public meeting
assembled,
"Sheweth—

" That your memorialists, in common as they believe
with her Majesty's Government, the Houses of Parlia-
ment, and the people, are convinced that the present
income and property tax laws are inequitable, Unjust,
and inquisitorial.
" That your memorialists consider it to be a truism
that every man should pay towards the expenses of the
state in proportion to the wealth he possesses.
"That the present income and property tax laws have
taken an untrue and arbitrary distinction for levying
taxation between wealth called property and wealth
called income, where no such distinction exists, in fact--
both kinds of property being wealth, of precisely equal
value, according to their amount, and equally requiring
the expenses and protection of Government. Take, for
example, two sums of 5001. each, one invested and called
property, and the other called income, they are both
wealth, both of equal value, both equally beneficted by
Government protection and laws, yet the former pays
no
tax whatever, but only the income or interest of it is
taxed at is. 4d. in the pound, while the latter pays the
income tax of is. 4d. in the pound on the gross amount ;
and thus is one property made to pay about 20 times as
much tax a; another of precisely the same value.
" That the income tax laws do thus virtually exempt
from direct taxation the larger part of the taxable wealth
of the nation, namely, all that is not called income, and
extort an extraordinary war expenditure from the taxed
income alone, which is the smaller portion of the national
wealth ; and, as our Government and legislators are
selected from the classes chiefly interested, either by
themselves or their connections in the property thus vir-
tually exempted, the people are apt to infer that this
favoured exemption is not accidental, and they regard it
as a gross case of class legislation.
" That the evils of this taxation are traceable to the
unjust principles on which it is based. Among other
anomalies it is assumed to be a tax on net income, whilst
the laws realise this assumption in a few cases except on
incomes from salaries and from funded property. Even
the income arising from land pays on its gross amount,
which is relatively unfair, because of the many necessary
deductions in expenses, whilst the income arising from
property in houses is in a still worse condition.
That the injustice of taxing industrial incomes
which are necessarily precarious and uncertain, at the
same rate as incomes from fixod property is so generally
admitted as to require no comment.
"That the unequal pressure of the income tax, and
theinquisitorial un-English mode of its assessment ren-
ders it odious, and tends to goad the industrial com-
munity into a state of hostility to the government.
" That the secret tribunals which aid the local com-
missioners and government agents in the assessment of
the tax on industrial incomes, together with those corn-
rr.l3?ioners and agents, are practically clothed with des-
potic power, so that the amount of taxation of each in-
dividual is in fact at the arbitrary discretion of men who
are amenable to no tribunal, and who are not even re-
sponsible to public opinion.
" That the moral feeling of the community is thus ar-
rayed. against the income tax laws, and evasion of the
tax is regarded merely as the means of self-defence
against extortion.
"That from those various causes a proper collection
of the tax becomes absolutely impracticable, and the
greater the necessities of the Government, and the more
stringent the efforts to collect the tax, the greater is the
oppression practised upon those who are truthful in their