The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-21 00:00:00

TORY INCOME TAX.

, FROM TUE MORNING PAPERS OF FRIDAY.
TIMES.—No, small number of letters will be observed in
another part of cur paper bearing on the subject of the pro-
posed income-tax ; but we can assure our readers that these
form but a very small fra•stion of that flood of communica-
tions by which we find ourselves overwhelmed on that most
touching subject; nor can we expect any diminution of the
torrent. Sir R. Peel complains of the applications for Con-
sulships, and suggestions of-financial panaceas, by which his
time is occupied; but we suspect even his composure would be
startled into some dismay at the mass of letter-paper with
which the flattering energy of our correspondents has piled our
table. Additional attention willto-day be drawn to the subject
by Lord Brougham's able, though somewhat over-comprehen-
sive speech in the House of Lords last night, and the important
opinions which were elicittel, or rather urged, at the meeting of
the Bank of England Proprietors which took place yester-
day. The point which was there discussed was that
which occupied the most imp: taut practical place in the
speech of Lord Brougham—viz., the injustice of applying the
same rate of taxation to permanent as to temporary and per-
haps uncertain inet nies—to annuities—leases at well—profits
of trade—professional income, and full property in fee. It
will be Seen by our City article that the meeting above alluded
to, with scarcely a dissentient voice, determined to memoria-
lize Sir Rohert Prel on the propriety of making a distinction
in his assessment between terminable and permanent annuities.
And this is obviously but one in:,tence, and that an inadequate
ore, of the general principle which was ably enforced by
Lord Brougham. That Noble Lord most emphatically dis-
claimed coy intention of .vithdriviing temporary incomes
from the operation of the tax. He denounced as not only
unjust, but merciless, any dishonest endeavour to saddle
its, exa 7tions on the holders of lard or funds alone ;
he urged most strongly the principle that those, and all
those, should eentribuie who have the ability—and ac-
cording to that ability. But he, like tee Bank proprietors—
like ourselves—like every sensible man—strongly protested
against measuring that ability by the mere annual profit which
each year preduce.., Without, reference to the sources of that
profit. And this is the point against which Sir R. Peel will
find that the popular voice will be raised invincibly, because
with justice. The inquisitorial nature of the tax is a grievous,
most gr evous evil—an evil in itself even greater than any un-
fairness in the actual assessment of the imposts. But people
must be aware that if there is to be soy tax of this nature at
all, inquisitorial it meet Le. Whether a man's ieteieit is tsi be
measured by his actual receipts dui big the current year, or by
a general average of several years, or by a calculation of the
gross value of the business which he is carrying on, a certain
extent of exposure. he cannot avoid It may be made more
or less cecpcsssive by a more er less well-arranged sys-
tem of inquiry, but exist it. must A man must disclose that by
which alone the arecunt of his payment can be regula-eci ; and
the Government, will probaley think it necessary to demand,
not only his general assert Lai, but some of those more detailed
elements which may check or corroborate it. All this, we
repeat, may be done with more or less offence and oppression.
llo.v it wid be done remains to be seen, anti we reserve our
judgment on that matter till the details cf the Ministerial plan
are before the :public ; but something like it must be done
somehow'. It is necessary, and it is en account of that ac-
knowledged necessity, that the present tax must be ever stig•
matized as an odious impost—not to be borne, as Lord
Brougham truly contended, one year, one month, one day,
or one hour, beyond what the pr, seine necessities of the
State compel. INot so, however, this additional unfeirne a.
which, fiorn the first, and to this la,t, it has been, and will
be, our business to expose. It cannot be necessary_
it would be a redactio ad absurdum of the whole tax
if it were necessary—that the Government or Parliament. atter
its investigation into all the indivi •ual incomes of the nation in
their minute details, should resolutely shut- their eyes to every
difference but that of the current yearly receipts—should per-
sist in confounding produce at labour with produce of property,
repayment of outlay with mere profits of investment, the
limited interest of au annuitant, and still more the precarious
income of a professien, with the steady and certain receipts of a
capitalist. It is nonsense to talk of the difficulty of calculating
all these varying interests—the mistakes, the.deceit, or the un-
fairness, which would result from the attempt to do so. The
calculations would be found made to their hands for the most
Part in the books of an Insurance Company ; and giving
them the utmost allowance of mistakes that the most
blundering commissioner could perpetrate, we would
defy them to equal the unfairness which would be
the necessary, and, in such casts, universal consequence of the
proposition as it now steeds. It would be waste of words to
enforce here what we have already urged—what every ens
around us is feeling, and what is in itself so obvious. fordo
we expect that it will be necessary. The proposed memorial
of so influential a body as the Proprietors of the Bank of
England—a body not standing alone in the grievance of which
they eomp'ain, but &du being the first to protest against what
is the subject of discontent to a whole host of interests and in-
dividuals, able, active, and influential—is of most unusual im-
portance ; and we are inclined to think that the ice being
broken, this feature of the intended Bill will be met by a mass
of remonstrance which we cannot doubt will be effectual.

HERALlli—lf Government cannot so far modify their
proposal as to introduce a graduated scale of ditties, the next
most palatable- alteration would be to adopt the distinction
urged by Lord Brougham, between income derived from pro-
perty and income resulting from labour. Should this alter-
native be also rc fused, it wid then become the duty of the
"not rich" to combine in self- defence and demand that the
minimum amount of income to be liable to the proposed tax be
raised from 150/. to 3001. a year; or that the principle to he
applied t.) income derived from the occupation of the sill be ex,
tended to all whose revenues are beneath 300/. a year. We
reiterate what we yesterday established, that Sir Robert Peel
has the means, in his reserve fund of 500000/., of removing
all reasonable opposition to his financial plan, and to unite all
who are moderate in politics and patriotic in intention in sup-
port of his Government, from the well-organised attack of which
he will this evening expericace the commencement.
This evening it is the intention of Sir Robert Peel, in con-
formity with a notice which stands upon the house of Com-
mons' paper, to tale the op:nion of that assembly upon his re-
solution authorising the imposition of a tax of 7d. in the pound,
or 2/. 18s. 4d. per cent'. on all the incomes of the country,
above 1501. per annum, derived fr,,m property, personal or real,
trades. and profession'. It was on Friday, the 11th inst., that
this proposition was first broached to the blouse by the 11;ght
Hon, Baronet in a sperch of surpat,sing ability, distill, ui:hrd
also by great boldness of political conception anti a manly
frantncss of statement. To this extent, at least, even the
political adversaries of the Premier have net withheld the full
measure of their praise of his financial address. It is obvious,
however (whatever ml be our own impressions upon the
merits or deficier.ciet of the scheme propounded by the Right
Hon. Baronet), that it is a scheme which, as affecting the in-
come of every claw in the community aboie a certain standard
(settled at a very low figure), is calculated in all its political,
social, and constitutional relations to awaken the most jealous
investigation. We declare unhesitatingly, for our own parts,
that we can imagine no subject more likely, or more legiti-
mately calculated, to arouse into full operation, in every corner
of the United Kingdom, the right of petitioning- Parliament.
CHRONICLE.—But admitting that in a ease of extreme
necessity the country might be induced to submit to a tax, in
its very nature the most unjust and unequal that can be con-
ceived, and which can only he raised by the most inquisitorial
and oppressive means, the country is no, in such a situation of
difficulty as to render it necessary to have recourse to it. The
late Ministry undertook to raise the money necessary for the
exigencies of the country, by means which would have at the
same time afforded relief to the peop P. We are engaged in no
great struggle for our existence, like the war with France, which
at last became a war with nearly the whole continent. We
have fitted cut an expedition against China, which, in all pro-
bability, will soon effect its object. The affair in Affghanstan
can never be construed into anything tike a war. Wisat, then,
is there in the state of the country which requires that we
should have recourse to a tax which can only' be justified by
extreme necessity ? Admitting that the deficit may at the end
of this year be ten millions, there is nothing in this surely to
drive us into a tax on income.

A DVERTISEII. BUTt'Ue fact is, a calm investigation of
the commercial relaxations contemplated by the Government,
most clearly serves to prove that it is a mete mockery of eon-
cession, foi the sake of seizing upon real results to its own
poster. If anything at ad is gained by it to the nation, it is
just the dawn it supposes of the recognition of a just principle
in commerce. Beyond this, however, the Peel measure for
newly arranging the nati,mal commercial interests does not ex-
tend. But the fact only proves thzt what the Government
fails to do for the people, the people must do for themselves.
And now is the moment to enforce their claims. A people
ratty be very well disposed to consent to new burdens when they
sue that all measures have been taken to avert them, or that
while they consent to them, they are not victims to others,
which, independently of any wants of a Government, should
never have existed. But let the people continue their efforts
for the abolition of the Corn-laws, and there can be no doubt
of their success. Then, indeed, all may contribute equally to
the public responsibilities ; hut till these are swept away. it is
not the people, but the monopolists, which should be liable to
an income tax.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
WEYAIOUTLI AND MELCOMBE REGIS.
The proceedings went on in the same style on Friday as on
Saturday, three voters having been struck off the side of the pe-
titioners, and two off that of the sitting Members. The last
argumetr was on the vote of George Newton ; he, a Tory
voter, having been objected to on the ground that the only
" occupation" he had of the house, out of which he voted, was
the permission of the landlord to keep a bedstead, value 35., in it.
The vote of Newton was decided to be a bad one. The
Committee then adjourned till Monday, having struck off three
from each side.

GREAT HARLOW.
The Committee met again on ,aturday,-at eleven o'clock.
The room was immediately cleared, and the Committee, after
some deliberation, came to the following dec,sicn:—" The
Committee call upon the Counsel 'for the sitting -Alember to
proceed with their objection to the vote of Joseph Harper."
After the examination of several witnesses was concluded,
Mr. JAMES replied, and strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The Committee decided against the vote, and it was there-
fore struck off the list.

The next vote taken wag that of Michael Redmond, objected
to on the same ground as the last vote.
Frar.cis examined—Deposed that he appeared before
the Revising Ba7rister to object to this vote. it was objected
to on the ground that the v, ter had no residence, but was a
servant to Mr.

Mr. Sergeant Alf. IiEWETHER. took an objection on the
ground that there was no proof of the name of the voter having
been placed on the list of objections.
The Committee took time to consider the objection, and
adjourned till eleven o'clock on Monday.

CLITHERUE.
The inquiry was brought to a conclusion on Saturday.
On Mr. Austin announcing that it. would not be pruiient on
the part of his client to proceed further with the investigation,
The CHAIRMAN then read the ;taming resolution:--
" That ilatthew Wilton, Esq., was not duly elected a burgess
to serve in Parliament for the borough o litheroe, and that
Edward Cardwell, Esq., was wily elected a burgess to serve in
Parliament, tor the said borough, and ,hat he ought in have
been returned at the ia.t the Chan man then pro-
ccetie.l to say that :he caurse das fcr the Comieittee to
dectire that. the pe:itmo was not '• r.volous or vextuioa,," but
under the now Act of Parliament he thought that was un-
necessa, y.
The Committee then separated.

WIGAN ELECTION.
The Committee choseit to try the validity of the petition
against the sitti: g Alernbcrs for Wigan, T. B. Cross and P.
(iieerall, Es,irs., met oil Saturday at Committee-room, No. 7,
at eleven o'clock.

The Committee was composed of the Chairman, Benjamin
Hawes, the Earl of Lincoln, H. Tufnell, H. Kemble, R. Scott,
lion. James R. Howard, and F. A. Al'Ueachy.
.Alcssrs. Hililyard. Talbot, and Clerk appeared as counsel for
the sitting Members ; for the petitioners, 3lessrs. Austin,
Cockburn, and Slade.

Mr. ificnywno, on the part of the sitting Members, took a
preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Committee.
The ground of objection was an inf,rmality committed by the
petitioners. Ilecogn:zances titre entered into on the 26th of
August, and the jurat of Pobirts, ore of the recognizances,
not having been made till the '27th, it was contended that the
informality contraverwd the sth section of the Act of Parlia-
ment, which 'quires the jurist to he made at the time the re-
cognizances were entered into, and that being so lbat the peti.
tion was not regularly presented, and that,thepetition being the

foundation of the Committee it had no legal jurisdiction to try
the merits of the petition. The Learned Gentleman cited
several decisicais on the point.
Mr. AUSTIN did not reply.
The room was cleared, and the Committee decided against
the validity of the objection.
After the examination of seveal witnesses, John Austen was
struck off.

Edward Beesley, No. b 3, was next struck off the roll.
It being four o'clock, the Committee adjourned to eleven
o'clock on Aloi day.
The result of the day's sitting left Mr.4Cross, the sitting
Member, in a majority of too, and air. Greenall in a majority
of seven.