The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-13 00:00:00

INCOME-TAX.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE Said he rose in
conformity with:the notice which he had put upon the
paper, to move for certain returns relating to the ex-
emption of foreigners from the operation of the tax,
commonly called the Income and Property-tax. In
doing so he did not wish to engage the House
in any premature discussion with regard to the me-
rits of the property-tax. ITpon the contrary, he
would confine himself strictly to the point to which
these returns related ; and if he deemed it his
duty to make some observations in moving for
such returns, his justification must be the
great importance of the subject. The rea-
son why he called their attention to this sub-
ject was, that unquestionably this was the first
time the income enjoyed by foreigners in other parts
of the world, arising from property in this country,
had been made the subject of taxation. There
was, he believed, soon after the Revolution, an at-
tempt made to place a duty on income, but early
in the course of the first French war, Mr. Pitt intro-
duced an Income-tax upon all incomes enjoyed by
parties in England, but it never occurred to
Mr. Pitt that it was just, equitable, or expedient,
to include foreigners in the operation of that
tax. Subsequently that tax was determined
with the war with which it originated ; afterwards
Lord Sidmouth proposed what was called a
Property-tax, but which did not materially differ
from the other tax, and that imposition was not ex-
tended to foreigners. Two years afterwards it fell to

:ot,
was connect .d., ta, V. .
:cation ot' :•-•*-1,4`: 50 :It
it never occuiTed to those Lim
acted, that it .would either be expedient
or jilist to extend the Act to foreigners possessed of
property in the funds. He 'might here say that a
very natural change did take place in the measure,
which so far altered its form and appearance with re-
spect to the funds, as to suggest the idea of
fo-
reigners being taxed. By the consent of all parties,
and the Bank Directors, they were enabled
to act as Commissioners, and hey received at the Bank
that portion of the fund which was subject to taxation,
and subject also to go into the public purse.
But they did so as Commissioners. It was a deduction
made from the tax on incomes, which they would
find was gradually and carefully provided for in a
clause of that Act, constituting the Directors to act as
Commissioners under the Income-tax, showing that it
was not a tax on the funds, but a tax on incomes, for
which purposes they were made Commissioners. It was
then suggested for the first time that it would be ex-
pedient to include foreigners in other countries, not
being subjects of his Majesty, under the operation of
the tax. But he (Lord L.) recollected that the sug-
gestion was resisted with the very general concur-
rence of the House, and in the.course of what had passed
very strong opinions were given that it would be both
unjust and inexpedient to subject that species of
property to the tax. He adverted to this, because
he heard that Mr. Fox, whose opinion was naturally
considered to be of great importance, had objected
to the inclusion of foreigners in the tax as a matter
of expediency only, and not as a matter of
justice. He (Lord L.) entirely differed on that
point, and he referred to the report of Mr. Fox's
opinions, the words of which he would read to their
Lordships, and he would leave them to judge
whether they would consider Mr. Fox's opinion
to be one founded on expediency. Mr. Fox said,
" that he differed from the opinion expressed
by the Honourable Gentleman (Sir P. Francis)
on the subject. For his part, he considered a tax
such as he recommended a shameful confiscation.
The Bill under the consideration of the Committee
was not one for taxing foreigners, but British sub-
jects. He thought such a measure was a flagrant
breach of faith, and that if the revenue was to cease,
yet he thought it :his duty to reject it." Now
whether right or wrong, he apprehended that the
opinion of Mr. Fox was opposed to the injustice, and
not alone to the inexpediency of the tax ; and let it
be recollected that Mr. Fox was giving his
opinion conformably with the course of conduct
pursued by Mr. Pitt, and again by Mr. Addington,
and which, when Mr. Fox unhappily ceased to exist,
was pursued by Mr. Percival when the question was
brought under the consideration of Parliament. He
affirmed that there was here a mass of authority against
the inexpediency and injustice of including foreigner,
in the tax ; and when the Bill for taxing the property
of England was first introduced, the declarations
successively made in Parliament were calculated to
give foreigners an inducement to become creditors
to this country, and that the property which they
placed in the funds would be free from taxation.
These foreigners should be treated in the same way
as a mortgagee in this country should be treated by
his mortgagee. They said, if these foreigners who were
their creditors were dissatisfied they must sell out. That
was an argument which might be carried a great
deal too far, because, it might be applied some day
to the English creditors, and it might be said to them,
if they were dissatisfied, that they might sell out.
It all those cases, however, where the English creditor
should be hurt it would be his own fault, because he
was represented in Parliament, but the foreigner had
no means of being represented in Parliament ; he
had lent them money on the promise that he
should receive the dividend free, and without de-
duction. That was the opinion he entertained
as to the justice, or rather the injustice of this
proceeding ; and if he entertained so strong an
opinion as to the- injustice of the proceeding, he also
entertained a strong opinion of its inexpediency, be-
cause he could not see that the adding of some
10,0001. or 20,0001. or 30,000/. a-year to a tax of
many millions, was to be in the least compared with
that reputation and established credit for which
this country had been so long distinguished in
all parts of the world. A case might occur
at some distant period, when they might he called
upon to uphold the security of British capital in
other countries ; and then they might employ, if
they could, the argument that they had, in the
midst of all their distresses, carefully guarded them-
selves against the slightest deduction of that in-
terest which they had to pay to the foreign creditor. He,
had seen with great sorrow any attempted deviation
from that course which had been adopted for so many
years in this country, and which had the sanction of
so many Parliaments. He had taken the opportunity ,
of stating his opinion on this matter, in moving for
these returns. He did not know whether the papers for
which lie moved could be produce -1 ; be knew it was
verylikely that a great part of them had been involved
in that sort of auto as fts; which had caused such de-
struction amongst the papers. 11; however, they
were not destroyed, they might, perhaps, be obtained
from some returns which had been moved for in the other
House. The Noble Marquis, concluded by moving
for a return of the exemptions given to foreigners
from the Income-tax on former occasions.

:. ,~.

The Earl of RIPON did not apprehend that there
could be any objection to the motion of the Noble Mar-
quis, or any difficulty in complying with it. The sub-
ject was undoubtedly one of great importance ; and the
Noble Marquis was perfectly entitled in forming with
respect to it the opinion to which he had come. He
(the Earl of Ripon) confessed, however, that he had
not been satisfied by the reasoning of the
Noble Marquis, that the proposal to subject
the property of foreigners to the same impost
as other property was an unjust proposal. He did
not think that there would be any violation of the
principles of justice in calling upon all parties
who had an interest in the maintenance of
the public credit of this country to contribute
to the public burdens. Mr. Pitt had no doubt ex-
empted the property of foreigners from the
Income-tax ; but it appeared to him (the Earl
of Ripon) that in doing so he had been
influenced, not so much by considerations of
abstract justice, as by considerations of policy and
public expediency. At the time when Mr. Pitt's
Property-tax was imposed this country was
subjected to great and unusual burdens ; and
it was thought admissible, under those cir-
cumstances, that every possible means should be
resorted to for the purpose of raising the credit of the
country, in order to give increased facility for raising
public loans. The same remark 'applied to the
circumstances under which subsequent Property-
taxes were imposed. Although he was ready to admit
that Mr. Fox seemed to have gone upon the prin-
ciples of abstract justice, he confessed, however, that
he did not see how the principles applied in the case.
The Property-tax was imposed for the purpose of avoid-
ing perpetual borrowing, consequently in that point
of view the foreigner had the same interest in
any measure that might have the effect of avoid-
ing that necessity in the holders of that property,
as Englishmen had ? He had the same interest in the
welfare of the public credit, as any other person who
had property in the public funds. He (the Earl of
Ripon) could, therefore, see no grounds of abstract
injustice, in calling on the foreigner to contribute his
share to the tax.
Lord MONTEAGLE would take that opportunity
of saying a few words on the subject. The Noble
Earl who had just sat down had made no answer to
the observation of the Noble Marquis behind him (the
Marquis of Lansdowne) in respect to the altered cir-
cumstances of the country since the time of the first
enactment of the Property-tax. He (Lord Monteagle)
would admit, for argument sake, and for argument
sake alone, that foreigners had been exempted upon
selfish grounds, for the mere purpose of keeping up the
funds. Assuming this, the foreigner would expect
that he would be protected by the Legislature,
as he had been previously. With respect to a
case of expediency, the expediency was now felt more
than ever. This course must affect British invest-
ments in foreign stocks. Let the Noble Earl
compare the list of the funds in 1797 or 1798 to

1803 or 1804, in
1814 or 1815, with the list now
and he would then find the enormous mass of
British capital' which at the present moment was in-
vested in the foreign funds, all attendant upon the fate
of foreign Governments. Anterior Governments had
been scrupulous on this point, and he thought the
present Government ought to he equally scrupulous.
And what was the sum to he raised:by this course ?
The Noble Earl estimated it at from 10,0001. to
30,0001. a year, but it would certainly he below the
mean of that sum. He thought this course would
endanger BritiSh capital abroad.
Lord .BROUGHAM said he did'not wish to pro-
long the discussion which had been so pro-
perly introduced. He entirely agreed with his
Noble Friend that it would be. exceedingly unwise
to extend the Property-tax to foreigners, that it would
he highly inexpedient, for the sake of the trifling
sum which could be obtained from foreigners
IT means of this tax, to give a pretext to
other countries to deal in a similar: way with funds of
I ours which were under their control. He thought
unless the justice of it was so manifest that no
' argument against it could be • adduced, it would be
exceedingly impolitic, especially when he consi-
dered how much larger was the stake of this country
in foreign funds than the stake of foreigners in English
funds. He thought the authorities which his Noble
Friend had cited on the subject—the authority of
Mr. Fox, of Lord Grey, and of Lord Grenville,
entirely established the point, and he hoped that after
what had been stated the motion would be acceded to.
If the matter was delayed until the Bill came up for
discussion, it Would be too late for his Noble Friend's
purpose.
The Earl of WICKLOW could not see any in-

just
fkui,

n nxing the foreigner who had money in our
and tLe thought, it foreigners were exempted, a

i:L'il2l. ?

abroad would put motley into the
funds in the name of foreigners. If they escaped
taxation it must fall heavier on our own subjects; and
with regard to the precedent set to other bountries,
he thought they would not hesitate•if they imposed a
property-tax, in makin,g foreigners contribute to it.
Lord BROUGHAM explained, that he did not
allude to foreigners resorting to a measure of a
precisely similar nature. But human nature
was so unfortunately constituted, that if we did one
unjust act, the probability was that they would resort
to another still more unjust, and quote our own injus-
tice as the precedent.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE objected to the im-
position of the Income-tax. He could not agree with
the Noble and Learned Lord in considering it expe-
dient, and was surprised at his approving of it.
Lord BROUGHAM—I said it was unfortunately
necessary, and that I yielded to the painful necessity.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE could not see the
necessity of it. He thought they could do without
it, and although he was glad to give his support
to the Government, he objected to the Property-
tax and the Tariff.

Lord MELBOURNE owned that he had some
doubts as to the justice of exacting; from fo-
reigners having money in our funds, a tax for the
protection and advantage they received in this invest-
ment of their property. They did not receive the
general protection and advantages which the natives
of the country obtained from the Government, and he
(Lord Melbourne) entertained considerable doubts as
to the wisdom, the policy, and expediency of impos-
ing such a tax upon them. Indeed, in the present
circumstances of the country, he thought it both im-
politic and inexpedient to impose this tax on foreigners.
It was the expectation of foreigners that the same
course should be pursued on the present occasion as
had been hitherto, when foreigners were exempt from
the imposition of the tax. Mr. Rose and Mr.
Huskisson had both doubted the policy and expe-
diency of subjecting foreigners to this tax, and
if he recollected aright, Mr. Long, late Lord
Farnborough, concurred in their opinion. He
thought it was not advisable to discourage the
foreigner from taking advantage of the security that
belonged to the finances of this country. On all
these grounds he regretted the course taken by her
Majesty's Government.
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE said that the imposition
of the tax appeared to have so little effect on the
funds as a discouragement to investment, that they
were at the present moment unusually high. He
considered the advantages that would arise from
taxing the foreign fundholder would outweigh the
objections that might be made to it. With respect to
the general question, the present was not the time to
enter into discussion upon it—they ought to wait till
the measure was fully before the House.
BRIBERY INQUIRY BILL.
. _ _ _

Lord BROUGHAM moved that the House
should go into Committee on the Bribery In-
quiry Bill. He did not intend to go into any
details urn it, but he should propose to
add a clause that would not only embrace the Com-
mittees of general inquiry into bribery at elections,
but the cases in which corrupt compromises had been
made. In these inquiries all parties should cordially
unite. In conducting an inquiry of such immense
importance and interest, everything like party and
personal motives should be sedulously avoided.
Lord WHARNCLIFPE did not rise to object to
proceeding with the Bill, but he doubted very much
its regularity, as the other House of Parliament had
instituted a Bill upon the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM said that no Bill had been
introduced, but a notice had been given. The present
Bill had been introduced before the slightest notice
or intimation had been given on the subject in the
other House.

Lord WIIARNCLIFFE doubted whether the
other House would not think they were interfering
with that which was strictly their privilege.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Earl of WICKOW said that the House of
Commons could not be considered to have their privi-
leges infringed by the present Bill of the Noble
and Learned Lord. It was a Bill showing the House
of Commons the willingness of this House to co-
operate with them in putting down one of the great-
est evils of this country—one that was increasing
every day, and was productive of immorality, perjury,
and bribery.--(Cheers.) He thought the House of
Commons, the country, and the constituency of the
country ought to be grateful to the Noble and
Learned Lord for bringing forward this measure.
Lcrd CAMPBELL would not object to the pro-
gress of the Bill. He would candidly and zealously
promote the object of his Noble and Learned Friend
to put down bribery, which was now so much re-
sorted to. But he confessed he was rather disap-
pointed that his Noble and Learned Friend did not
produce something more effectual. The Bill of the
Noble Lord, however, would produce no harm, and
he would not therefore oppose its progress. Unless
his Noble Friend inserted words which would make
the Bill applicable to the Committees appointed in the
other House, he thought no advantage could be de-
rived from it. Another objection which he enter-
tained to the Bill was, that it did not make it com-
pulsory upon witnesses to give evidence. That omis-
sion arose from a desire to prevent the witness from
criminating himself. But it was a settled point in
Courts of Law, that when a party had been guilty of
contempt, he was bound to answer ; and he appre-
hended that unless it were made compulsory upon the
sitting Members and agents to answer the questions
put to them, the Bill would be little better than waste
paper. It was, in his opinion, the only
way by which bribery could ever be detected.
He was afraid that their Lordships would legislate in
vain if they legislated on this principle. It must be
by rendering the offence unavailable that bribery
only could be stopped ; by asking every one to tell
all he knew, at the same time indemnifying him,
would he the only way to get at the truth of this
matter. The second clause of this Bill he thought
was very unconstitutional, and in many respects ob-
jectionable. On these grounds he thought this Bill
would not answer the expectations of its proposer,
and he thought it would be much better if his Noble
Friend would exert his great talents in the framing of
another Bill on the subject, more general and more
extensive.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that while he admitted
the force of the observations of his Noble Friend, he
could not bring himself to insert a compulsory clause
in the Bill. Such a clause would be opposed to the
general principles of our Legislature; it would be
unjust and oppressive, and would probably only lead
to perjury in self-defence on the part of those who
might be subjected to its operation.

The Bill then went through Committee, and was
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.

Lord CLIFFORD presented six petitions from
Norfolk and other places, complaining of Catholic
grievances.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Lord CLANCARTY presented a petition from a
place in Ireland against the present system of
National Education.

Their Lordships then adjourned at Seven o'Clock

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12.
The SPEAKFR took the Chair at the usual hour,
but there being only 32 Members present, the House
adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 12.
The House sat to-day to hear writs of error. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lordßrougham,
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. The greater part
of the Judges were also in attendance.