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

any error at all. The case was, therefore, not
without a remedy—(llear, hear)—and he begged
leave to point out that as the best remedy to which
Mr. Fielden could have recourse to rectify the error
of which he complained. There was an independent
authority in Commissioners in London to inquire into
the circumstances, and to apply a remedy.
Mr. WAKLEY, in explanation, said that Mr.
Fielden stated that he had appealed against this 24,0001.
surcharge. He made no general accusation against the
commissioners, as ho knew, in the metropolis,
that they behaved with great forbearance, and between
70 and 80 per cent. of the appeals were allowed.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to call the attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to a circumstance which
created great dissatisfaction in his district. The Com-
missioners were chosen from the Commissioners of
Land-tax, who were all of one political party,
and there was a general impression that they
did not deal impartial justice. It was be-
lieved that it was of no use for persons of the
opposite party to appeal to them ; and he knew a
gentleman of undoubted veracity who preferred to
put up with a surcharge, because he had found that
his statements would not be listened to.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Gentleman last mentioned by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Durham might have appealed at once to the
Commissioners at Somerset House if he did not
choose to apply to the local Commissioners.
Mr. HAWES said it was important to be gene-1
rally known that the Act gave the power of appeal
to the Commissioners at Somerset House, in the first
instance.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re..
ferred the Hon. Gentleman to the 131st clause of the
Act.

Mr. BERNAL said the Honourable Member for
Finsiiury had not complained of the absence of
appeal from the local Commissioners ; but the me
of the Hon. Member for Oldham was, that these
Commissioners postponed a case till after Easter, but
in the meantime sent another demand for the tax.

Sir R. PEEL said that the Lords of the Treasury
were exceedingly desirous to obviate any inconve-
nience or unpleasantry to which those who had to
pay this tax' were exposed. On the demand for the
money, and there being sufficient grounds for
oljection, the party on whom the demand was
made might apply to two tribunals. If he under-
stood the question of the Hon. Member for Durham
(Mr. Bright). aright he conceived that the Act gave
no option of appeal. Now, he (Sir Robert Peel)
thought that this was very important, and he
would take the opportunity of saying that the
Government were exceedingly anxious to avoid
the unpleasantry which all felt in having their private
circumstances investigated by their neighbours, and
had therefore felt an objection to appointing local
Commissioners. And though they had every dis-
position to avoid the appointment of Government
assessors without absolute necessity, yet in this
ease it was conceived that their appointment
would be less objectionable than the institu-
tion of local assessors ; and they had an additional
inducement to this course, from the supposition that
fraud against the Government, on the one hand, and
extortionate charge on the other, would both be ob-
viated. The Hon. Gentleman was in error in sup-
posing that there was no appeal, and if any one felt
that te assessors were likely to be actuated by local
prejudice, he was at liberty to appeal to the Special
Commissioners, so that if he suspected injuryfrom one
tribunal he was at liberty to appeal to another.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he was quite conscious
that there was this power of appeal, for he had himself
applied to the Special Commissioners. He had not
liked to be under the finger and thumb of the local
Commissioners, as he well ktiew some of his neigh-
bours had been, and he had consequently applied to
the Special Commissioners, but the Special Commis-
sioners had surcharged him, and he did believe that
the evil which had been complained of existed to a
great extent.

On the motion being put that this Bill be read a
,hird time,

Mr. SPOONER said he would beg to bring for-
ward the motion of which he had given notice, and
while doing so, he would beg to ask the indulgence
of the House. The clauses in the Act of Parlia-
ment to which he would refer affected a great
number of individuals, and as the hardship of which he
spoke was great, he trusted that no opposition would
be offered to the object which he had in view. The
clause which he wished to insert was intended to
relieve those individuals who were engaged in busi-
ness—and who were assisted by members of their
family without giving them any regular salary—
from the income-tax, and it was to this effect :
"1. And whereas by the said recited Act, it is pro-
vided in the first rule of Schedule (D), relating to
deductions, that .no sum shall be set against or de-
ducted from the profits or gains arising under that
schedule for any disbursements or expenses of
maintenance of the parties, their families, or
establishments ; Be it Enacted, that from and
after the passing of this Act, whenever the
person or persons so liable to be charged under
the said schedule shall employ any member or mem-
bers of his family in carrying on his trade or profes-
sion, it shall be lawful to deduct such sum or sums of
money as would have been afair remuneration for such
employment if any other person had been so employed."
Now the clause was construed to the following
effect :—That where a master of a family carried on
a small business, whether it was a shop or a manu•
factory, and employed the, members of his own
family, he was not entitled to deduct from
his profits the value of the labour of those
individuals. He admitted that there were exceptions
—that where a person was of adult age, and a
member of the family of the principal, if the prin-
cipal paid him a bona fide salary, he was en-
titled to make a deduction for such salary ; but
he was not entitled to deduct the value of the
maintenance and labour of members of his own
family where no salary was paid. The grievance of
which he complained was this :—he complained that
where the wife and the younger children of a trades-
man, or small manufacturer, were employed
principally in assisting in the conduct
of the business of such tradesman or
manufacturer, he was not entitled to make any de-
duction from his profits on account of their services.
This operated most unjustly, for where a person em-
ployed members of his own family in conducting his
business, he was not permitted to make any
deduction on account of their services,
whereas his neighbour employed in a similar
business, but who had no children, was entitled to
make a deduction from his profits for all persons em-
ployed by him, and to whom he paid wages. It was
a great injustice that a man should be thus placed in
a better situation than his rival. They ought to con-
sider, not who did the labour, but what was the value
of the labour which was done. He proposed to give
the Commissioners power to allow persons so situated
to make such deductions as might be just and reason-
able. The present system created a great injury, to
individuals, and a great objection in the public mind
against the inequality of the tax. He was aware that
objections might be made to his proposal—he would
be met by the common-place objection that a door
would be open to fraud, but he would answer that by
another common-place question, and ask what was
the use of their expensive machinery, if they were not
enabled to do justice and prevent fraud ? Things were
not come to such a pass that the House of Commons
was obliged to commit injustice because there was
danger of fraud. What was the chance of fraud ?
On the one part they would have the appellant anxi-
ous to escape from the assessment—but speaking from
experience, he must say that there were very few
attempts made by tradesmen to escape from their
fair share of the tax—but on the other hand they had
the Government officers who had every means
in their power of making proper inquiries.
Then another check was that of the Commissioners.
They had local knowledge. Having local knowledge
they could come to the consideration of this subject
with full power to check all fraud. He thought that
if they took all these things into consideration, the
House would see that there was no danger of rand
arising out of the clause which he had proposed. The
intention of the Act was that the tax should
be imposed in two different shapes. One was a tax
on profits arising from the use of capital, and
the other upon profits, the produce of the la-
bour of individuals. In order to tax labour the
individual must receive 1501. This tax was
now frequently imposed upon the labour of several
individuals, and if their labour were to be separated
it would be found that not one of them was subject
to the tax. One objection to the remedy which he
proposed was that it would open a doer to innumer-
able applications, to which proper attention could.
The
eo thought s
e therenughwt was nothing
th ns
just.
ninot
this
se
If more time were required to consider this subject
goibvjeenciion ff.
e
Parliament ought to have been called together earlier.
He would pray of the House, then, to give this subject
that due and deliberate consideration which he con-
ceived it was entitled to receive at their hands, and
which the•merits of it called for. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer need have no fear that any real or sub-
stantial inconvenience or injury would result by
the adoption of this proposition ; but all should
admit that the principle was erroneous which,
went to the extent of asserting, that because a
man was in the receipt of 1501. a year, he,
should therefore be compelled to pay this tax. In
conclusion, he would only say he hoped the House
would give him credit for not having brought forward
this subject without good and sufficient grounds for
so doing.—(Hear, hear.) He knew he had been sent
here by a large and respectable constituency,
and it was his duty to defend their interests to
the best of his judgment and ability, and
that he had not shown any feeling but that which he
had stated equated him in bringing,it fprward„
16egged415- lasittre 'Aim- Wit Hon.
Baronet opposite that this would be of the greatest
importance to small manufacturers, such as his con-