The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-13 00:00:00

møithig nm

LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCEL 13, 1345.

The House of Commons met at Four o'clock.
After the transaction of private business Mr. E.
EL.I.IcE complained that the income-tax was charged
upon the funds of Benevolent Societies where the in-
come was under 1501.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised to
make inquiries with a view of providing a remedy for
the evil. The Right llon. Gentleman, in answer to
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, stated that no copy of the Divi-
dend Book of the Bank of England had been sent to
the office of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to Mr. T. DUNCOMBE,
expressed that after Easter he mitht be able to in-
troduce a satisfactory Bill for guarding against the
recurrence of explosions in collieries.
The second reading of tl e Smoke Nuisance Pre-
vention Bill was, after a short conversation, deferred
until the 2d April.

On the order of the day for the third reading o;
the Property-tax Bill being read,

Mr. WAKLEY drew the attention of the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER to the unjust surcharge, to the
amount of 24,0001., which had been made upon Mr.
FIELDEN.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not been
aware of the circumstance until that moment, but he
would advise Mr. FIELDEN to appeal from the deci-
sion of the local Commissioners to the Commissioners
of Stamps and Taxes.

A short discussion ensued on the subject of the ap-
pointment of local Commissioners, and on the motion
for the third reading of the Bill being put,
Mr. SPOONER moved the insertion of a clause for
the purpose of enabling persons engaged in business,
and employing members of their family in that buli-
nesf, to deduct the value of such labour from his pro-
fits before being assessed to the income-tax.
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion.
Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt bound
to oppose It, for he believed that at present every re-
lief was afforded to parties engaged in trade, except
such as would operate injuriously on other classes
With respect to the other amendment of which the
Hon. Gentleman had given notice, to enable a trader
to deduct local and ether rates, he had no hesitation
in saying that a trader under the present law was
justified in deducting local rates levied on those por-
tions of his premises which were employed in trade.
Mr. SPOONER replied, and the House divided, when
there appeared—For the, clause, 39 ; Against it, 151;
Majority against the claue, 112.

Mr. SPOONEE then moved the insertion of the fol-
lowing clause :
"And be it further enacted that from and after the
pasaißg of this Act it shall be lawf4l for all persons

chargeable under schedules D and E, who may have
effected, or may hereafter effect, any insurance or in-
surances on their respective life or lives, to claim deduc-
tion from the amount of the annual premium paid for
such insurance or insurances ; and whenever such de-
duction so claimed shall reduce the net annual income
below the annual sum of 150/., the parties so claiming
shall be entitled to exemption from payment of duty."

Lord JOHN MARNERs seconded the motion.

Mr. IVARnuaToN opposed the proposition of the
Hon. Gentleman, because it would be impossible to
carry it out.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
the scheme to be impracticable.

After a few words from Mr. HAWES and Mr.
AGLIONBY, the House divided, when there appeared
—For the amendment, 26 ; Against it, 87; Majority
against the amendment, 61.
Mr. lITAKLEy, in moving the amendment of which
he had given notice, would tell the Government that
the country expected that the pledge given should be
redeemed, and that the tax should cease at the
end of three years. He believed that the amend-
ment which he was about to submit was necessary to
render the tax palatable even for that time, and he
would, therefore, move the insertion of the following
clause :
" And whereas doubts have arisen whether the
landlord fur the time being of premises charged
under Schedule (A) is liable to the duty charged
on the said premises under the said last-mentioned
schedule, whether the said landlord shall or shall not
have received the rent in respect of the said premises ;
be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted, that it shall
and may be lawful for the Commissioners for General
Purposes, acting for the district in which the said pre-
mises are situated, on appeal to them made fur that pur-
pose by the said landlord or his agent, to discharge the
assessment, or such portion thereo, at the rate of seven
pence in the pound on such amount of rent as the said
landlord shall prcve to their satisfaction lie has wholly
lost, and has not been able and is rot bk. ly to recover in
respect of the said premises, and on which he would
have been liable to pay the said duty, by way of deduc-
tion, in case the occupier for the time being, or any other
person for him, had paid the said rent."

- The CHANCELLOi of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
clause as unnecessary. The landlord had by law ex-
traordinary remedies for the recovery of his rent, so
that vrith common prudence he could not suffer loss.
If he did not exercise common prudence in the choice
of his tenants he must take the consequences.
Mr. \VARLET bitterly regretted the opposition made
by the Government to all attempts at modifying this
odious tax ; but, with the example of the fate of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham before him, he would
withdraw his amendment.

Mr. FOSTER then proposed the introduction of the
following clause :
" And whereas all persons, corporations, and compa-
nies carrying on any mines of lead, tin, coal, copper,
iron, or other undertakings, of the like nature, are now
chargeable ur.der schedule (A), be it enacted, that from
and after the passing of this Act the said persons, cor-
porations, or companies so chargeable in respect of all
such undertakings, shall be assessed for the same under
schedule (D), in like manner, and with the same option
of privacy, as other persons, corporations, or companies
chargeable under that schedule."
After a short conversation the clause was agreed to.
Sir R. H. INGLIS then moved the following
clause :

" Provided always, that the said rates and duties shall
not be assessed or taken upon any income whatever, ex-
cepting with respect to the sum by which such income
shall exceed 1501."

lie knew what the result of a division would be, but
to avoid being taunted by any future Chancellor of
the Exchequer that the measure in its present form
had been fully sanctioned by the house, he felt
called upon to put it to the vote.

The motion was seconded by Mr. SPOONER, and
opposed by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. On
a division there appeared—For the amendment, 25 ;
against it, 59—Majority against the amendment, 34.
Sir W. CLAY could not allow the Bill to pass with-
out entering his protest against it. The Hon. Baro-
net, in the course of his speech, defended the miser
from the imputations which are generally cast upon
him, and gave it as his opinion that the miser was a
great benefactor of society, and was, therefore, by no
means the fittest person to be taxed.
Sir R. PEEL, in alluding to the parting malediction
of the Hon. Gentleman, declined entering into the
question of the comparative merits of direct and of in-
direct taxation. But he must say that if there were
in any country taxes which pressed upon industry,
and at the same time a palpable tendency to ac-
cumulate, then property might he directly taxed ;
and that if a tax on property were to be imposed, it
should be on income, and not upon accumulated
capital. He would not contemplate the discussion
which was likely to arise when the renewal of the
tax came again before the House. At this the Mem-
bers laughed, as well they might, and the Right
Hon. Baronet went on to observe that the House
would not expect him to say now what course he
might take upon that future occasion. He sail,
already preparations were going on in the glass trade
—suppose then the thousands who were now un-
employed—and other thousands—should find employ-
ment—suppose the glass manufactures of this country
should come into competition with I.3el4ium and
Bohemia—might not this country, on the same
ground as it now a‘cquiesced in the income-tax, be in-
clined to try further the application of direct taxation,
if not exactly in this shape ? Was it therefore to be
expected that he should now pledge himself to the re-
peal of the tax in three years ?
Mr. HAwEs thought they ought not to be called
upon to submit to an income-tax until the burdens on
industry had been removed, and indirect taxation
placed on a sounder basis.
Mr. J. S. WouTLEx supported the Government.
Mr. WARD said that while Sir R. PEEL always did
Ns hat he said, the Hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr.
WAan's) side of the Howe, said a great deal, but did
nothing. He highly approved of the Budget of the
Government, and he came down that night to record
his vote in favour of the Income- tax.

After a few words from Mr. CURTEIS, Mr. DARBY,
Sir C. NAPIER, and Mr. TBELAWNT, the Bill WAS
read a third time and passed.
The Sugar Duties Bill was read a second time, after
a short discussion, and ordered to be committed on
Friday.
The Customs Export Duties Bill was reads second
time and ordered to be committed.

The Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace Bill
was read a second time after a short discussion, and
ordered to be committed on the 14th April.

The House then went into Committee on the Bas-
tardy Bill. All the clauses of the original Bill were
agreed to.

Two additional clauses, proposed by Sir J.
GRAHAM, were also added to the Bill, and the
House resumed. The Bill was ordered to be re-
ported to-morrow (this day).
The House then adjourned.

The debate raised in the House of Commons, on
Monday night, by Mr. CHARLES BULLER'S declaratory
motion—" That the circumstances under which the re-
newal of the income-tax is at present proposed are such
as to render it extremely improbable that Parliament
will have the power of dispensing with its continuance. at
the end of three years ; and that it is therefore eduty
of the House to take care that the tax be irn.ensed in a
form in which its operation shall be les:, unequal and
inquisitorial than it now is "—was ()P.() of the most im-
portant which has yet been taken on this great question.
Thanks to the ability and I:agenuity with which Mr.
BULLER introduced his 'motion, the true statement of
this case between the .t'remier and the pablic was fairly
brought before the House of Commons. The singular
hardihood with which Sir RoDERT PEEL has, over and
again, attempted to persuade the people who are to pay
the income and property-tax that they lose no more by
its imposition than what is made up to them in what
they gain through his tariff, and this year's reductions of
duties, has often excited our astonishment. Mr. BULLER
may claim the merit of having so completely unmasked
and anatomized this pretext, that we suspect it will
scarcely be hazarded again this session. There is, in
truth, no more real equation between the burden of the
income-tax and the benefits of the tariff, than there is
between the total amount of anonymous remittances to
Chancellors of the Exchequer of 501. Beek of England
notes, "like angels' visits, few and far between," and the
stupendous capital of the national debt, towards the re-
duction of whict they are expressly desired to be applied.
This was an absurdity palpable enough, and Mr.
BULLER made the must of it. But there was a better
joke behind. Some gentlemen on the Opposition
benches had designated the scheme, announced by the
Premier on
_the 14th of February, ai the "poor man's
budget." There is nothing like a g,-)od Si.:t name to induce
people who have not closely looked. into a given plan to
concur in your opinion of it. We have already borne
testimony to the intrinsic merits , and they were neither
few nor slight, of that financial 'itatenient. But as to its
being the " pobr man's budgets", Ar
BULLER, whose
views on this point were fra:44sly and g9')ly sustained by