The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAYA EVENING-. APRIL 26, 1842.

Mr. WALLACE rose and said that his object was to endea-
vour to suggest to the House some plan by whiclsehe-adoptien
of the pi oposal of an income tax might be obviated. _lt was
the gensral opinion out of doers that the Right Hon. Baronet,
of,
if hae
n!d i a
that
abeen h
the
twaari
ff }I
re of
at ldi enoty
presentet bplentiful
oilasteedo, fhteh et
iithought
u g moneyht
market, would never have submitted this proposition to the
House. Now that the Corn-law question had been disposed
the time had come for him to propose some measure by which
the necessity for an Income-tax might be obviated. The Bill
had only recently been placed in their hands. He had
thought it hie duty to go through the Bill with all the 'atten-
tion in his power, and he could not have believed it possible
that any enactment containing clauses so repugnant to
the feelings of the Inhabitants of Great Britain could
have been proposed by any set of men whatever.
It hadbeen said that these enactments were founded on the Acts
of 1793 and of 1806, but he was also aware that at that pe-
el d there had not been such a rigid construction placed upon
the enactment of laws of this description. The Assessed-tax
laws had been administered in a more neld manner than they
had been since. Since that period the Assessed-tax acts had
in Eugland and Scotland been year after year enforced in a
more rigid manner, and it was only last year the Right Hon.
the Chaucellor of the Exchequer had intimated to the House
that he expected to raise a considerable addi'ional sum under
the head ut Assessed taxes, not only by the proposition of an in-
crease in the taxes themselves, but by e more stringent enforce-
ment of the enactments of the existing laws. That was stated
by him not for the purpose of extending them in any new way,
but to make them more stringent, and they were made so
stringent that they were not much less odious than the Bill
which he now held in his ha'rel. There was a strong opinion
prevailing out of doors that at this stage they were entitled
to receive communications from the Rtght lion. Bart. and
the Government as to their intentions with respect to the tariff,
and there was an opinion that his own supporters were so op-
posed to the Bill that it could not be in his power to support it.
Therefore it became apparent that a means of stopping the
Income-tax should be brought before the country. Various
means had been suggested, and lie would not say what might
be done in the way of reducing the expenditure of the country.
He thought that, by means of temporary advances, by loans on
Exchequer bills, or some other way, they could obtain a year to
look about them, and that, if it was necessary, the Right lion.
Baronet should take a higher amount than 3 per cent. and give
them freedom from more taxes. If it were necessary
it would be the bounden duty of the Right Hon. Baronet to
take ten or twelve per cent. by an Income-tax, that he might be
the better able to relieve them from other taxes, arid take
another step in the right direction, as he was now Being. The
Right Hon. B ironet might take a year to consider that. Such
a proposition would be listened to with satisfaction by the
country, if it believed that a larger amount of taxation would
be removed, as the timber duties and others, which
had been mentioned in the tariff. Whether that was
a right application of the money to be raised by the Income-
tax was a question, but his own conviction was, that an issue
of Exchequer bills to the amount of 4,000,000/., the sum
proposed to be raised by an Income-tax, would not be refused
by the country, and he was satisfied, from what he endeavoured
to ascertain in the City, that such was the plenty of money,
that even this very day it could be procured at two per cent.
If that were true, and it was the opinion of well-informed men
that the sum required could be procured fur between two and
three per cent, interest, he considered, and his opinion was con-
firmed by the judgment of others well acquainted with the sub-
ject, that it would be a vast dial better to get the money by
Exchequer bills, rather than to inflict on the country the
machinery of the present Bill. He could not find a word to
apply to the nature of the Bill, it was in its provisions so
horrid. Crimes of the deepest dye were guarded in the most
careful manner in the Bill. Was it, he would ask,
fair, at the end of four Yeats of continual distress, to ask
the tradesmen of the country to disclose their affairs?
He believed that the tariff was a proceeding in the right di-
rection, but it was equally clear that there were other means
of raising the money necessary to meet the deficiency in the
revenue without resorting to Exchequer bills, or direct taxa-
tion.' There had been a strong expression of feeling that the
course he had proposed before would be his wisest course that
night. He had given notice that he would bring the subject of
the tariff before the House, but in consequence of an accident,
that notice was not on the table of the House. He would not .
to-night hineler the resolution which was on the paper of that
evening, because lie would be strongly pressed by several par-
ties not to do so. He should, however, take another opportu-
nity of bringing the subject forward.
Sir Re PEEL said, that after the long discussion that had
taken place upon this subject, he was. surprised and almost
alarmed at seeing the notice placed in the paper by the Hon.
Member opposite, which was calculated to renew the debate
that haillaken place upon the principle of the Bill. He was
in hopes that they would have been enabled to go into Com-
mittee ; yet, still; at the same time, the assurance given by the
Hon. Member that he would not resort to any improper
course to delay the proceeding on the B 11, was some
consolation to him. The Honourable Member proposed
that, instead of resorting to any vigorous measures, the
Government
should have recourse to a loan. Now, consider-
tug the commercial state of the country, what, he asked,
would have been its opinion, and that of the House, if
after the period given him by the House to consider what
measures he should propose, he had brought fcrward
such a proposition as that suggested by the Hoe. Member.
When he recollected how he had been urged not to take so
much time for the deliberation of his plans, he could fancy
easily what the disappointment of the House of Co:melons
would be, if, after a lapse of five months, he had brought for-
ward such a proposition as that suggested by the Hon.
Member opposite. The Hon. Member referred to the state
of the money market It appeared to him (Sir 11. Peel)
that so far from the state of the money market being an en-
couragement to engage in fresh loans, it pointed out the
course which he had adopted to equalise the revenue with the
expenses of the country by direct taxation. The Noble Lord
- opposite had last year expressly declared himself opposed to
the system of loans.—( Hear.) With respect to the tariff
he had already stated on the part of the Govern-
ment what was the principle upon which it was
founded, and he believed that what be had stated had given
general confidence on the subject. lie had stated that one of
his main reasons for imposing the Income-tax was to make that
• temporary reduction of the duties which are' included in the
tariff. He proposed to make a sacrifice of 1,200,000/. They
could not seek to maintain the Income-tax unle's th s measure
of commercial relief was simultaneously accorded-with it.
When the Income. tax Bill had pasSed the Committee, and he
hid reason to believe that the measure respecting the tariff was
assn about to proceed, he had no objection to interpose some
slight delay between the report on the income-tax
and the consideration of the leading portion of the
tariff. Considering that the tariff included 1,100 arti-
cles, each of which it was impossible could become subject to
discussion, he hoped that lion. Gentlemen would give notice'
of those portions of the tariff which were likely to become
subject of discussion. It was desirable that they should pro-
ceed as rapidly as possible with the general principle of the
tariff. He did not speak merely of derails, and he gave an
assurance that it was not intended by Government to pass this
Income-tax Bill and then disregard the me sure respecting the
tariff. Some alterations had been made respecting articles, the
duties on which he lowered still further, at the susgestion of
parteee who had brought the matter under the notice of Go-
vernment; but no alarm need be felt that it was intended, in
any essential thing, to vary the general proposal of the Go-
vernment respecting the commercial system of the country.
Mr. HUMli' said, as this was the first opportunity that he
had had of addressing the House on the Bill under considera-
tion, he was anxious to make a few observations. Though he
was opposed to many of • the propositions of the Right Hon.
Baronet, he was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the situa-
tion in which he was pieced as the Minister of this country.
The Right lion. Baronet had undertaken a most arduous task,
and one which he (Mr. Hume) had little expected to sae him
undertake. Opposing, as he had done, all the principles
which he ( Mr. Hume) had maintained in reference to free
trade, he had not expected to see him take part in advancing
those p: inciples. He was bound to state his approbation of
die manner in which the Right Honourable Baronet
had grappled with the prohibitions and restrictions
which fettered the commerce of the country. —( Hear.) If
he understood the Right Hon. Baronet rightly, what he pro-
posed wa=g that no prohibition on commerce would any longer
exist. He understood the Right lion. Baronet to declare that
he would apply to commerce the same principle which in 1826
had been applied by Mr. If uskisson to manufactures, and he
could not but cordially approve of such a course. He regretted
that the Right Hon. Baronet had not grappled with that giant
monopoly, the Corn-laws. The effect of allowing the system
to remain in force would be this, that in consequence of their
gain by the monopoly in corn, the agricultutists would not pay
one farthing to the revenue. The Right Hen. Baronet
seemed determined to proceed yet further in the reform
of the tariff; .it was quite evident that having commenced
the work it would be impossible for him to stop until
the whole system had undergone a thorough change.
He could not but regret that the Right Hon. Baronet had left
tea and sugar untouched ; he thought, however, that the
Right lion. Gentleman had not received sufficient cre.lit for
his proposed alteration in the timber duties; and he thought if
he could a'together do away with discriminating duties on foreign
timber, it would be of great. advantage. No one could read
Mr. Lane's account of Norway, without perceiving the im-
mense importance that an alteraeion in the timber duties would
be to the country. He must say, that as a landed proprietor,
he expected to save a large proportion of what he should have
to pay for the Property-tax in the reduced price of timber to
be used in farm buildings.—(Cheers.) He thought great
credit was due to the Right Hon. Baronet for the reduction
which he had effected of the various heads heads of the tariff
from 1,100 or 1,200 to 220 or 230; and he hoped that a still
further reduction would he effected. In the tariff of the
Rhenish Union all the articles named in our tariff wore classed
under 78 heads. He thought it would have been better if the
Hight Ilan. Baronet had brought the tariff forward first. It had
been calculated that 1;200,000/. would be lost in consequence
of the proposed alterations in the tariff; now, if it could be
shown that such would not be the ease, a question might arise
tes to whether there was any necessity for an Income-tax at all.
There hail been some difference of opinion as to whether
direct taxation was better than indirect; for his part, he should
prefer raising the whole of the revenue by direct taxation, if it
could be done.—(Cheers.) Let any man trace tin indirect tax
from the time it was levied at the Custom-House, and it would
be found that it had nearly doubled in amount by the time it
was paid by the consumer. The system of indirect taxation
was the one of all others most ealcglated to enceerage a, waste,
ful expenditure. In the ereeent distressed state of the anon,
try, he thought they were called on to reduce the public estab-
lishments before they had recourse to the imposition of fresh
taxes. ' The taxes raised during the last year amounted to
52,000,0001. In 1836, 1837, and 1838, the amount raised by
taxes was 48,000,0001., 49,000,000/., and 50,000,0001. All that
time the profits upon capital were front 10 to 15 per cent., and
now the profits upon capital were not more than 5 per cent., it
was propusee to raise taxes to the amount of
57,000.0001., which would be as burdensome as a taxa-
tion of 72,000,00.1. would have] been four years ago,
in consequence of the diminished profits dm capital.
Under theses circumstances it was the duty of the Right lion.
Baronet to introduce a rigid economy into every department of
the public service, from the highest to the lowest. Let him
begin With the Civil List. It was supposed that the Queen
had the whole of the income voted by Parliameot. It was
no such thing. The Queen's own income was about 60,000/.
a-year, all the rest was absorbed by the Civil List, by the
Lord Steward and Lord Chambeeleire god sgueridered away
upon lords and ladies, and Court finery, and all Binds qf ex
travagance. Whets he heard of the distress of Paisley, Bolton,
and Stockport—he could scarcely believe the evil spread so far
as was represented ; but there were tens of thousands steeped
in the greatest misery—families who were working from 6
o'clock in the snorpieg till 8 at night, and could not even
thns obtain an adeheete promieze-was it possible
that the country could be contented to remain in such a. state,
while the Court was rioting in extravagance, and public officers
were enjoying the money of the people ?—( Hear, hear.) He
would not propose that the income of her Majesty should be
taxed, because he did not think that what she received was too
much to support her station.—( Hear, hear.) But a great
deal might be saved out of the salaries of public officers. Her
Majesty had only 60,004 which being' deducted from
335,0001. would leave 12,000/. one half tiif which might be
saved to the country. Ile was stiff het! MajOey, who had
shown so much anxiety for the welfare of her people, would
rather give up the gilding and gandy 'appearaece of a Court
which rivalled that of Louis XI V.—(Laughter. ) Hon. Mem-
bers might laugh, bht if one qf the courtiers qf than time 'were to
appal., he would say the frippery and gold laceof thetourt ex-
ceeded that of Louis XI V.—(Laughter.) Before the country
was called on to pay an Income-tax, these large salaries
ought to be reduced. The people were already burdened with

• taxation to the amount of 52,000,00J1., and if 4,000.0001. ad-
ditional were levied, the burden would fall on those who were
already suffering.---L( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that
a part of :he yependiture of the country consisted of 4,200,000/.
which was paid to officers for collecting a part of the revenue
which might be essily reduced to half, by consolidating the
present system of collection, and doing away with those persona
who were appointed to kee,. up the present system of absurd
restrictions. Ile had no doubt of the good Intentions of the
Right Hon. Baronet, and he admired the boldness with which
he met the extreme opposition of the ae,riceltu-ists and monepo •
lists, and he hoped he would cont Mire to folow in the same track.
They ought to make a reduction in the expenditure, before any
vote for an Income-tax was takers. He (Mr. flume) would
venture to make more reductions in the establishment. of the
country, than would be gained from the Income-tax. The
Right Ron. Baronet would nbtain but a small amount after
all ; but what an oppression it would be on the people, for
nothing could be more terrible to the country than the inflic-
tion of snch an inquisition as that attendant upon an Income •
tax. He (Mr. Hume) considered that every man employed in
making money ought to be unfettered. The tax ought to be
oa land and houses, and if the Right Hon. Baronet would do
this, he (Mr. Hume) was not, only prepared to vote for
Prop rty-tax, but also for the reduction of sevea or eight mil-
lions of indirect taxation, to be mule up by a direct tax. Ther e
av•s 7,030,000/. employed in the collection of the revenue, the
' civil Hsi, and pensions. Why not reduce these? The parties build-
ing them were more interested in the welfare of the Sia!e, than
the working in n. Re hoped, the Right Hon. Baronet would
take all these, circumstances into his consideration. Then the
Right Hon. B aronet ought to.tax real property by descent, espe-
cially as the Right Hon. Baronet talked about protecting no
particular interest. He (%Ir. Hume) had been hammering at
this principle for. ten years —( Laughter )—but he was afraid it
had been with very little effect. When the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer was in office, and proposed to inerease the re-
venue five millions. he (Mr. Hume) told him that with respect
to his mode of taxation, two end two did not make four. He
(Mr. Hume) was aware that only 39 Members voted for the
proposition he had submitted, but the Noble Lord (John Rus-
sell) was at last convinced of its policy, and if he came into
office to-morrow lie would be obliged to adopt it immediately.
He (Mr. Hume) objected to this Income-tax, but so far as he
could, he would support the Rieht Finn. Baronet. There were
good points in the proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet. but why
not have the good without the bad? Why not have a Property,
and not an Income.tax ? Let them reduce the expenditure.
The expenditure up to the 21s: July, was 2,200,0001. Why
not then reduce this expenditure in the Civil List, and then I.y
a tax on real property, which would realise about b 00,090/. a
year, taxed in the same proportion as real property ? Could
any man deny that this was practicable? Let them have
recourse to this, and there would be no necessity
for an Income-tax.—( Near, hear.) It was on these
grounds that he considered the Right Hon. Gentleman was
bringing on himself troubles, and adding distress and misery
to the people. Every million of taxation deprived a number
of industrious men of employment, and thus accumulated misery
was sure that if the
aßnidotwureotnch. eßdanreosns.et
sHawe
tHheumligeh)t
this in that he (Mr. Hume)
did—(Loud laughter)—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he
had no doubt the Right Hon.. Baronet was labnuring under a
delusion—( Hear )—no doubt the Honourable Gentlemen
surrounding the Right Hon. Baronet, prevented him doing as
he liked.—( Laughter.) He was confide* that if the Right
Hon. Baronet had adopted the course suggested by :Hon.
Members on his (Mr. Humes) side of the House, there would
have been no need of the Income-tax. If the Right Hon.
Baronet had admitted sugar at the duty proposed last session—
if he had admitted corn at a fixed duty, as an article of revenue
—although he considered it would be a fixed injustice on the
ceuntry, still it would be a better mode of providing for the de-
ficiency in the finances of the country—the Right Hon. Bart.
would have perceived the moral effect such a step would have
produced upon the rest of the world. But now they would
not think the Rigl.t Hon. Baronet was sincere. Take Ame-
rica as an example. They were adding all in their power
to the duties on Britisti articles, and why ? The Right Hon.
Baronet would not consent to remove our Corn-laws. He
knew that taxation fell immediately on the working men mare
than any other class, those who were suffering so much from
the effect of taxation. He had stated his views to the House.;
they Might, in the opinion of Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite be erroneous ; but he could assure them they
were. i ncere. He was aware that much time had
been occupied on this subject ; but he considered it to
be his duty to state his opinions to the House. He could
assure the Right Hon. Baronet that, elthough liegenemlly dif-
fered froin him, he should give his best assistance in forwarding
the tariff, and he wished he could say he could give him a
vote for the Income-tax.

The question having been put, the House resolved itself
into a Committee on the Income-tax Bill.

The Bill was ordered to be read paragraph by paragraph.
On Clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. WOOD rose and sail, he wished to put a question to
the Right Hon. Baronet. He wished to know whether the
Right lion. Baronet intended to set the lees sustained under
one schedule against the profit derived from another. Sup-
posing he gained a profit under Schedule A, and sustained loss
undo.- Schedule B, would he be allowed to strike the balance ?
Suppo ing a farmer gained money by lii4.fartn, and at the
same time, being engaged in trade, lost money under that de-
partment, vas it fair that he should be bound to pay
the Income-tax under that schedule in which he hap-
pened to make a profit? Again, take any person
holding landed property, he might gain 1,000/ a-year
by his landed property, and lose 2,000/. a-year by trade, he
therefore lost 1,0001. a-year, still he was chargeable for the
profit made upon the land. Many other ins' ances might be
giv'n. With regard to incomes of 150/ a-year, under which
sum no person was to be chargeable ; suppose a person made
20/. by land, 201. by dividends, 30/. by trade, and something
by profession, they would take all those different amounts for
the purpose of making up the 150/. a-year. They would not
allow the 201. in dividends to be deducted from the whole
income, but every item would be taken to make up the 150/. ,
let it be from whatever source it might ; and although that per-
son might lose by trade, he would have to pay the Income-
tax on the 1501. He therefore wished to know whether the
Right Hon. Baronet intended to provide a clause whereby a
person might be allowed to set the profit under one schedule
against the loss under another ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the pro-
per time for petting the question was when the Bill was under
discussion. The 11,m. Gentleman wished the profit of one trade
set. against the loss of another. The Hon. Gentleman had
adverted to property as he'ng now of the hardships to which
he had referred. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
put to the Hon. Gentleman, supposing a gentleman owned an
estate, and farmed it himself. as many gentlemen did. and he
lost in farming what he would have gained had he let his estate,
woul.l the Hon. Gentleman wish that person to be exempt
from the tax ? He (the Chancellor of the Fre:Wegner) must in-
fern the Hon. Gentleman that a clause of the na'ure the,
Hon. Member had referred to, was not intended to be intro-
duced into the Bill. With respect to the incomes of 150/. of
course the whole income would be brought. together, and
charged with the Income-tax, and in that case a less would
not be set against a profit.
Mr. B. WOOD could not at all agree with the Right Hon.
Gentleman with respect to a man farming his own land, if he
lost upon that it ought to be set azairist any other plat.
Mr. WARD made some remarks, which were inaudible in
the gallery.
Mr. WOOD said, the Hon. Member might say it was non-
sense, for it was nonsense to him, who, perhaps, was a good
fWood) must say, that if a man lost
money 3 r
in but h
eonsee lq(u consequence B. farming his own land, although if it
had been let to an industrious and skilful farmer it might
have produced a profit, still that man ought not to be taxed on his
loss. So in the case Gf ship-owners. They might, possess
strip!, and navigate them themselves, but they. could not do it
so well as a skillful se mien, and loss would be t:,3 result. They
would not charge the Income.. tax upon the profit that ought to have
been made. So with the man who famed his nwn land, if he sus-
tained a loss, he ought not to be made chargable to the Income-tax
There could be no right to charge a man with a tax upon in-
come, from a property which yields him none whatever. He
once knew a man who in one year gained 25,0001., but the
next year he lost 49,0001., and that year, he (air. Wood)
had to pay the '2,500/. Income-tax for him. If the tax was an
'the CHAIRMAN said that the question before the House
was whether the words—from the sth of April, 1842—should
tllniecs Income-tax
not e-tax
mostw h
uarijt e necessityst? was there for schedules ? Were
stand part of the Hill.
Mr. I3LEWIT 1' could see no reason why the tax should
commence from the sth of April, 1842-4 flear, hear, and a
laugh)—and he saw no reason either why the question
should not he debated upon that clause.
Mr. HUME asked When was it intendedto take off the duty
upon imported cattle and the other articles in the tariff?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said. that
the Income-tax was to last only for three years, and it was
indifferent whether it commenced from the sth of April or
the 10th of May. The tariff was to be a permanent impo•t,
and it would not commence until after the passing of the Bill.
Dr. BOWIUNG thought the tariff and the Income-tax
ought to be brought into operation at the same time.
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. WARD,
the question was put, and the blank was filled up as proposed,
and the preamble as amended wat agreed to.
On the question that in Schedule A, which was " For all
lands, tenements, and hereditanaents or heritages, in Great
oinwl.andwasaltyaiattr:t;hvi:i:
Britain, there shall bo charged yearly, in respect of the
property thereof, for every 20s. of the annual value thereof,"
the blank should be filled up with the words, '‘ the sum of 7d."
Mr. B. WOOD said, as he had not received an answer tee
his question, he would move as an amendment that this Sche-
dule be rejected, and he. would divide the House upon it.
Mr, GEORG 4 PA I,AI ER did not yet understand whether
it was the intention of the Government that any man should be
taxed more than 3i per cent, upon his. real income ?—( Hear,
II tar. ) If it was not, then no man ought to be taxed upon
nominal income.—( Hear.)
Mr. F. BARING thought the question of the Hon. Gen-
tleman (allr. Wool) most reasonable, and on, that ought. to be
answered. It. ought to be known how his lams in one sche-
dule were to be set eff against his profits in another. If this
were not provided for the greatest injustice would be done, and
a man really not receiving 100/, of clear interheiuight be taxed
upon 30/.—( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that, in the present measure,
tihnecroemwe-atsaax,grileledterrelricalitionrot
koifndot)thloeoefoaTnfli
--. -v-'4ll's of the former
Ihniotneclhi',oe'imnbi
jsoeewoodt,ro4l.llacraospsearitdy ,
thoowb
be
small, was exempted, Here no Income- tax was intended
under 1301., and, except upon public officers, fundholders, and
some others, who received their incomes quarterly, the tax
comeee u l d
innot6t boep ceroallteioenteadsbseofoonrea
sOpheott
stbii
ibeeire,
oa:vfjtheeicil.
ts
the
ort hthee passingt
measure,
'btshyr(lewUal2h„,h be lost 300/ a Year,
income was, and to tax him
mightac-
' ta tAai snrh ni ti
ffosiwwf
rowarosttt hhhuhtaaali odsttt
hisco rdaientgulayl;
income
nbcuotmae
Im,
lasnnwehmoohraedtll72.
ascertainh
eillra .s
ertnOwg aEhgaßet dU"Ci ne ROEBUCK
trademb aahad
gain from one
losses
oiteshsdeoesnreii
flys tea—dnto
trhotemarx?ohliet(nstc)Ouerarcrte,h;,aowanrdh.
to ascertain what • he really received from all his occupations,
another.sli show _ where
dhiemoiungishhte
dt obbyethaell olows,sedfrotmo

it)at trimuno chase to engage
did ncl.tbink that would be a ground
ososfeshsei,sl
if
rrroadmerei,vwinags
tlosoSili.er
atGiyxEeeaodr.lrGolmfgalCaninLa: RoproKsf
srueosnra.sdi
noirghs
et of ou thatiml
s, or
r everyot
he
of. the. tax ?—( Oh, oh.)
ronell, laV
instance,lgainb leitawaaygaelatlregme
I.,nirlo,iseiridgii
apnarPt
10,005/. a year, chose to
come at Newmarket, was that to be admitted as a ground for
exempting him from the payment
Lord HOWICK wished to convince the House of the irro.,
sistible justice of the claim set ep on tiv,t (the GAiii;sition )
side of the Hoye. The pi-.inc.iplil was, that every man should
pay upon hls income. But if a man derived from some fixed
source, an income not sufficient fur the wants of his family,
and engaged in trade to make up the deficiency, was it just to
charge him upon his losses as if they were actual income ? He
would not trifle with the Houie by arguing upon the manifest
injustice of comparing such a man to the istlez. an mho. Cost
his 10,000/., or any other airfiuent fortnne; bY gambling at
Nevfnorkett, or el;ewhere.-4Hear, hear.) it was upon a
=Ws available income he was to be taxed, and all should be
iiiii tOgethet and balanced, to see upon what amount he was in
justice to be charged.—( Hear, hear.) Of the Bill itself, 14
innst here say that it was unusually inntelligible, elow kik/
Act of Parliament.--( Hear, hear 1 Au . 4:0 like 44, as
IT,Nrtilno4 fink; tomplicMkt'd in iis provisions, ought to have
appenclid to it an abstract which w.onld lay its main provisions
clearly wrote-those who had (Tome's to consult it, but neither
time nor ability to wade thi ough all its details.
The CHANC.MLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he bad

done all in his power to make the Act intelligible, and he was
ready to give the Noble Lord, or any. other Gentleman, any as-
sisteace to enable them to understand its provisions satisfactorily.
lie would not say that he approved altogether of the sugsest len
made to the House. The subject had its difficulties, but the
Government would take the matter into its further considera-
tion.
I Mr. HAWES said, that the object of the Bill was to tax
income; and it would be contrary to that principle to tax
property from which no income wes derived. Why should not
there be a general provision that each man should return the
net amount of his income, from whatever source it might
come ? That would be the fair way of carrying out the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his
apprehension was, that if they took a statement of the net
amount of each individual's income, without inquiring into the
sources from which it was derived, they would be opening the
door to fraud, and defeating to a certain extent the object of the
measure.
Mr. ROEBUCK insisted on the practical injustice of taxing
incomes which, in reality, were never received.
Sir R. PEEL said that the House would bear in mind that
the Act was drawn up on
.the general principles of the Act of
1806. The Act divided property, as had bean the ca.o with
the former Act, under five different heads,. into five different
schedules. He apprehended such a course was rendered neces-
sary, by the fact that the duties upon different descriptions of
property were levied in different modes. Landed property, for
instance, was made payable by the owners of land, and was
taken from the tenant. A tenant's property was estimated at
one half of the rent; and funded property was taxed by stop-
ping the duty upon the payment of, the dividends. He appre-
hended they would find it absolutely necessary to retain this
schedules. He earnestly hoped the House would bear in mind
that they were not only levying a tax for three years, but
that they were probably now determining the princip:es
which, speaking generally, they, should adhere to, in case it
stiould be necessary to have recourse to such a system of tax-
ation for a larger period.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the
Opposition benches.) What he meant was, that they should
estimate not only the inconvenience of a three per centage upon
property enduring for three years, but that they should bear in
mind that it was possible that this being an instrument re.
sorted to in time of war, they should consider not only the
temporary inconvenience but the precedent they might esta-
blish. He admitted that the Proposal of the Hon. Member
far Southwark carried with it a great appearance of justice,
and that it seemed but fair that a man should set off his losses
in one quarter, against his gains in another. But at the
same time they should consider whether by attempting to
remedy this partial inconvenience they might not open the
doors to frauds and evasions which would defeat to a certain '
extent the purposes of the Bill. He thought the matter de-
serve 1 further consideration, and that consideration was all
that he could promise on the part of the Government. It
• appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Southwark should
himself take charge of the matter; but in any case he hoped
they would reserve their decision for another time.
Lord HO WICK agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that
it would not be convenient to come to an immediate decision
upon a matter involving so many difficulties and so many con-
siderations. He hoped the subject would hereafter be maturely
considered, and that some clause would be devised which, while
it did not interfere with the efficiency of the measure, would
prevent a great practical injustice. He did not think the
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Southwark, should be called
upon to frame a clause upon the subject, but that the Govern-
ment should themselves fairly take ti the matter.
Sir R. PEEL said, that be only wished that the Hon.
Member for Southwark should give the Government some
notice of his opinions as to the course which he would think it
advisable to take; and the Government would afterwards, if
they should approve of his views, take upon themselves the
framing of the clause.
Mr. B. WOOD said, that he would be glad to find the
matter taken up by the Government. His only object was that
income should be taxed fairly, according to its amount, no
matter from what source it might be derived ; and that the
various schedules of the Bill should be so framed, that the
receipts of individuals from different sources might be taken into
account. 'the very importance of the result of the resolution
which they might come to, and the probability that they were
legisliting not only for the present but that they were forming
precedents for future times, should make them more cautious
as to the course which till, ought to pursue. He believed
lie could leave the matter to the GOvernment. He collected
from the manner still more than from the language of the Right
Hon. Baronet, that it would be safe in his hands ; and he
(l%lr. Wood) should therefore withdraw his amendment for the
present.
Sir R. PEEL begged to state that he had never said the
tax was to last more titan three years; he had neither ex-
pressed nor implied any opinion that the tax would extend
beyond that period. If he made any engagements, he always
intended to fulfil them, and he 'was therefore very cautious in
his statements. The Hon. Gentleman could not expect hint
to say more than that the alterations in the Act from the prin-
ciples of that of 1806, hail been carefully considered, and
wherever justice could be done in individual cases, without
giving an opportunity to evasions and frauds, and injustice to
those who paid the t ix. If it was possible to devise any clause
that would meet the 'objection of the Hon. Gentleman, he
mooed give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of its general
imitations.
Sir WALTER JAMES wished to ask if the Government
intended to make any deduction on one schedule for the loss
au individual might have sustained in property classed under
another schedule. He illustrated his objection by referring
to the case of a schoolmaster, alSo engaged in trade,' and
suffering serious loss on his property engaged in commerce,
being obliged to pay the tax on the whole ofahis income from the
moiety of his income derived from his school. If the Go-
vernment could not go the length
.of the Right Honourable
Gentleman, yet they might take care that parties suffering loss
under one schedule, should have an indulgence granted them
on property they might possess in another. On pi inciples of
abstract justice it was impossible not to agree with Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, but there would 'be great difficulty in carry-
ing out their proposition.
Mr. WALLACE could not understand why men should
pay for more than their income. Was it to be said that they
were to pay for more than they really got in a year ? If
it was net, he hoped some member of the Government would ,
getup and say that it was not the case.. There were a great
number of averages in the Bill—then why should they not
have aye ages 01 income? Persons ought not to be debarred
from showing that they had a loss on one schedule, and that
the loss should be set off against the gain on another.
Schedule A was then put, and agreed to without a division,
On the motion that schedule B stand part of the Bill,
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that this schedule enacted that all
laude, tenements, and hereditaments in England, should
be charged yearly in respect of their occupation 31d. for
every 20s. of their annual value. This included every house
in London, and he wished to know why the words of the reso-
lution were not found here.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax
was expected to be lei led under the provisions of the 41 stet,
and referred the Hon. Gentleman to the 014114 speoilying the
nature of the occupation.
Lord HOWICK said that the schedule taxed tenants on the
amount of profit derived from their occupation, but very arbi-
trarily assumed that the farmer's profit was one half the
amount of his rent. This was very arbitrarily laid down% lit:
did not even approach the truth, and in a groat number of
cases it was not only not true, but was very wide of it. He
hoped that Gentlemen from Scotland and the North of Eng-
land in particular, would make a stand on this point, for
this reason, that the vent the tenant pays was
the profit derived from the land after the expense of cultivation.
W hen land was occupied in large farms, a much larger surplus
was made in proportion to the rent than where the land was
farmed in an inferior manner. In the county which lie repre-
sented, the farms were large, and cultivated with skill and in-
telligence, and any gentleman acquainted with the North of
England, would be aware that many farmers paid a larger rent
than that amount. On a farm of this size the surplus would be
greater to the landlord than on three farms in the South of
England of 300/. a year each, yet, in both cases, the profit of
the tenant was supposed to be 450/. That would have a tendency
to throw farms of this description out of cultivation, and he
thought would subject the agricultural interest to great in.
justice. He thought that injustice would be completely removed
by striking out the clause altogether, and including the farmer
among all other traders, —( Hear, hear.) Odious as the inqui-
sition was, he believed the farmers would rather submit to it
than be taxed under this arbitrary rule. To a certain extent,
they had introduced the principle with respect to the growing
of hops. On referring to page 44 of the Act, No. 8, they
would find that the hop farmer was considered a trader, and as-
sessed according to the profits he made . In the other cases
the taxes were levied not from the profits received but from the
rent paid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
provisions of the Act had been copied from the former Bill, and
It had been thought to class farmers as traders would have been
a great grievance. The tax might not act with perfect
equality, but of all parts of the old Income-tax, the least
complained of was the mode in which farming property was
assessed.
lord WORSLEY agreed very much with what had been
stated by his Noble Friend, but he would prefer taking the
amount out of the rental, instead of the inquisitorial system pro-
posed.
Mr. HU3IE thought the system proposed was' fraught with
injustice.
Mr. B. DENNISON would support the schedule in its pre-
sent form.
Mr. WALLACE agreed with the Noble Lord, that the far-
mers of Scotland would rather meter the scrutiny than that the
tax shoOd be taken on the round sum.
Lord HOWICK thought that the manner in which this ob-
jection was made, ,Nas a proof of the injustice of the measure.
The blank was then filled up as proposed.
The CHAIRMAN then proposed that the blank in the re-
maining clause in the schedule should be filled up with the
words " twopenee-halfpenny," the effect of which was that for
all lands, tenements, and heritages in Scotland there should be
charged yearly, in respect of the occupation thereof, the sum
of twopence-halfpenny.
After a few observations from Mr. FOX MAULE it was
agreed to fill up the blank as proposed.
On the question that Schedule B stand part of the Bill,
Mr, BARING wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whe-
ther foreigners holding English stock were to be exempted
from the tax ?
Sir R. PEEL said he did not mean to make any such ex-
ception.
Mr. HUME said, that in taxing the fundholders, they
were violating the public faith which had been pledged' to the
receivers of dividends, who were as.much entitled to be free
from taxation as any Hon. Gentleman in that House was to
enjoy the revenue atisine, from his land.
Colonel SlBTHORP'thought, that not only every foreigner
possessing money hi our fluids should be taxed, but every
gentleman having a foreign servant, should be subject to the

The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and Schedule Bi
was agreed to.
On Schedule C being proposed,
Mr. RICARDO objected to the tax being imposed on
terminable annuities.—( Hear, hear.) It was equally un-
fair in its operation as regarded life annuities.—( Hear. )
He denounced this assessment of the terminable annuities as a
positive breach of contract, justifiable by no precedent, defensi-
-I,le by no argument, and only dependent upon an arbitrary
will, backed by a large majority.—(Cheers.) The Ho-
nourable Member then moved that the following words be
inserted : " Except all such annuities as are payable out
of the public revenues, which arc granted, or may be granted
for a definite period of time.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said he
paid not admit that this was a breach of a contract which
had been entered into with the annuitants. The Honourable
Gentleman had said that the case was entirely without pre-
cedent. There undoubtedly he was wrong; for upon all the
occasions on which an Income-tax ox a Property-tax had been
Previously proposed, there Lad. been no distinction made be-
tween the holtdc.r of a public annuity which was to
erchAre ;or ,aver, and the holder of a public annuity to
en'dure for the shortest period. The course which the lion.
~entleman had submitted to the House was submitted in the first
discussion of an Income-tax, and in no case had the distinction
contended for been allowed. The apparent force of the argu-
meht arose from, the circumstance. that the tax which they
proposed to imposre was for a limited period. The Hon. Gen.
tlen3an could not deny that if the Income-tax were to be per-
petual there would be no injustice in taking the same amount
from the annuitant for a term of years as from the man who
had a permanent income. The annuitant receiving 10 per
cent. for three years would not, in fact, receive so much as the
annuitant receiving 3 per cent for fifty years.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, with respect to the alleged fall in the value of these an-
nuities, he h 4.4 Made iNoiries as to what had been the effect

upon the market price, and he found that the rise in the annui-
ties had been equivalent to the rite which had taken place in
other descriptions of funded property.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought that was a sufficient proof that this species of property
had experienced no serious injury. The Honourabel Gentleman
must be aware that some of the most skilful men in the
monetary concerns of this con .try had, within the
last few days, made large purchases of these very annuities.—
(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend had, on a previous oc-
casion stated the extrema difficulty of attempting. to make dis-
tinctions of this nature. It appeared to him, as he had already
stated, that the great objection rested upon the temporary na -
tur.r of the tax, and he thought that that objection had been
satisfactorily answered.
Mr. RICARDO said the Right •Hon. Gentleman had
omitted to mention one point, name'y, that the price of an-
nuities in the market was equal to something under 701.
Conssk

Mr. GOULBURN said the price of annuities was always
something under the comparative price of the funds. It
would be faund that the rise at the pre.ient time in the price o:
annuities had not fallen in comparison with the rise of other
funds.

Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the knowledge d:splayed
by the Hon. Member who made the present motion, showed
that
,he was worthy of the distinguished name he bore.—
( Hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, to his sur-
prise, was obiiged to apologise to the House for not being
prepared because he did not expect the motion ; but if he
looked at the resolutions, he would find that the Hon. Member
would, in Schedule C, make such a motion. The Right
Honourable Gentleman had only told them throughout
his argument that he was not prepared, and met every question
with the argument that this was the old Bill that existed before.
—( Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman adopted the
argument of the Right Hon. Baronet in admitting that this
was an injustice, but that there were also other cases of injus-
tice, and because he could not remedy all he would not remedy
this. The Right Hon. Gentleman instanced the case of a life
estate in land. That was an hardship, undoubtedly, but it was
no reason why they should not remedy the injustice pointed out
in the present case. There was no doubt, whatever mad be
the technical or legal distinction, that these terminable annuities
would be subject to a greater tax than permanent annuities, and
nothing could be more unjust, considering the circumstances
under which the holders of those annuities were induced to
change them. It was also an objection that the tax was only to
continue for 3 years, and to be paid by those whose annuities
would only continue for that length of time. It appeared to
him that the case was monstrously unjust, and he hoped the
Hon. Member would take the sense of the House on it.—( Hear. )
Lord HO WICK said that he agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet, that it was impossible to satisfy the expectations of
all parties when the tax :vas to be imposed, but he still thought
that the maker of a motion had succeeded in showing that
there were special grounds in the present case to take it out
of that principle. He considered it contrary to their sense of
justice, that the holders of terminable annuities should be
turned round upon, as they were in the present instance.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit-
tee divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Ricardo's amendment ... ll7
Against it
Majority against it 136
On our re-admission to the gallery the House was in con-
siderable contusion,•in which it was impossible to gather any-
thing connected of a conversation which was carried on be-
tween Mr. Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Roebuck. At length, amidst loud cries of " Adjourn,"
" Order," " Go on," &c.,

Sir R. PEEL said, that he thought the measure was of
so great importance, that he would lose no opportunity of
going on with it.—(Hear.)
Mr. LEADER thought that the proposition of his Hon.
and Learned Friend, who asked for an adjournment, was not
at all unreasonable, and if it was pressed to a motion he would
second it. The Hon. Member for Sheffield had a motion for
to-morrow night, and they ought not to go on with the very
next schedule "D," until that motion was disposed of.
Sir R. PEEL was then understood to say that he would
agree to the adjournment, believirr, that it was the general
consent of the House that he should be allowed to go on in the
Committee on the Income-tax at an early hour to-morrow.
Mr. HUME then asked whether it was intended to go on
with the tariff before he proceeded to the third reading of the
Income-tax Bill ?

Sir R. PEEL was understood to answer in the affirmative.
In reply to a question from Mr. WALLACE,
Sir R. PEEL repeated that he should suspend the third
reading of the income-tax Bill until he had taken the sense of
thefflouse on thegeneral principle of the tariff.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress,
and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow (this day).
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee of
Ways and Means. The Report was received.
The Dublin Police Bill went through Committee. Report
to-morrow (th.1:.4.(19!).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
.The Municipal Corporations Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATiI (IRELAND).
The Punishment of Death (Irelind) Bill was read a second
time.

TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
CIVIL DECREES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Civil Decrees (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
The Excise Duties Compounding Rill went through 070 m.
mittee, and ordered to be reported to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON it w
Henry Fisk, and Elizabeth Ann Cull (7.
en ordered that
.10 had petitioned
the House for the discharge of 06491:1-Burnwick Lucas), and
Fr:fa of Newgate, should attend
the surgeon of her Majetty's
the House to-morrow,
The other orders oi the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-put Twelve o'Clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
INURE OF LORDS, April 25.
Tho How sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord 13rougham, Lord Campbell,
Viscount 31aprartl, and Lord St. Germain. •

CHARTER. v. SIR J. 114.1NE1.YA N.
The further arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
to-day, and had not concluded when the Lord Chancellor rose
to attend a Committee., The arguments appear likely to oc-
cupy several days.
VIOE

~-CIIANCELLORS' COURT„lpril 2i.
His Honour the 'Vice-Chancellor of Englaad was occupied
the whole day with cause petition% of no general interest.

COURT OF Q UNEN'S BENCH, April 23.
THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND BURCESNES OF MACCLES

FIELD V. WALKER.
This was an action for selling meat in a private bhop in Mac-
clesfleid, contrary, as was alleged, to the tights of the corpora-
tion, who possessed the privilege of compelling all butchers
in that place to sell their meat in the markk of the corporation,
arid in no other place, upon two days in the week. The Base
having wane on for trial in the country a considerable time ago,
the Jury found a verdict for the defendant, and therefore nega-
tived the custom which was alleged in support of the monopoly.
Upon a former occasion a rule had been obtained for a new
trial upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence,
and the rule was now made absolute. The argument upon the
present occasion was in no other way important except that it
was stated from the bar that the population who were made
subject to so extraordinary a monopoly amounted to more than
than moo, persons.

nOBERTS V. JONES.
This was an action for penalties for three offences committed
against the Reform Bill by the defendant, who is the overseer
of a parish in Wales. The offences imputed to the defendant
were—first, that he inserted in the list of claimants of the Par-
liamentary franchise some names which ought not to be there;
senuadlv, that the list which he caused to be affixed to the
church door was different from that which he presented to the
Revising Barrister ; and thirdly, that he omitted from the
Barrister's list some objections which had been made to the
admission of some of the parties therein mentioned. The case
was tried at Carnarvon before Mr. Justice Williams, and the
Jury found a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that
his conduct, though irregular and illegal, yet was the conse-
quence of his ignorance and incapacity, and that he was not at
all influenced by any corrupt or malicious motives. A rule nisi
was afterwards obtained for a new trial, upon the ground that
the verdict was against evidence, and upon the present occasion
Lord DENMAN said, that there were in the conduct of the
defendant some facts of a very suspicious nature ' • and espe-
cially that of his having suppressed before the Barrister all
notice of the true list of objections which had been made ; nor
was there anything satisfactory in the attempt which he had
made to excuse lus conduct upon the ground of his having
acted by deputy. In the present instance, the Court did not
consider that the ,evidence of misconduct with respect to either
the defendant or the Jury was such as to induce their Lordships
to break in upon the rule of practice ; but his Lordship wasof
opinion thathe ought to take that occasion of intimating that
he should not consider his hands to be tied up from rendering
redress whenever a fit case should arise, without reference
to the rule of practice which had so long prevailed upon the
subject.
The other members of the Court expressed their assent to
the judgment of Lord Denman, and the rule. for a new trial
was therefore discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 25.
JUDGMENT.—DELY V. TIIO3InON.
Mr. Baron PARKE gave judgment in this case, which was
a special action against the defendant, as the Secretary of the
Anti-Dry Rot Company, for not registering the plaintiff, who
claimed to be a registered proprietor of certain shares in that
Company. The list of shares being full, the defendant refused
to register the plaintiff, and at the trial it appeared that a great
number of shares had been fraudulently re-issued by the late
Soeretary and managing Director, the consequence of which
was that the affairs of the Company were involved in almost
inextricable confusion, as many parties who had bought these
shares so re-issued claimed to be registered, Lord Abinger being
of opinion that the plaintiff could not compel the Secretary to
register the plaintiff, inasmuch as the register was already
completed: but the Court, after argument. had conic to a deci-
sion opposed to that of the Learned Chief Baron, and now laid
it down that the Company could not rely on the mere fact of
the register being full, for if it was improperly filled up by their
servant. A bonafide holder of shares had a right to compel them
to register his shares. There ought, therefore, to be a new
trial; but the plaintiff would do well to make out his title to
these shares from the original subscribers, otherwise it would
by no means follow that lie could compel the Company to register
him. Under these circumstances the rule for a new trial must
be made absolute.—Rule absolute accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 25.
BURT V. MASON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 200 guineas
under the following circumstances.
Mr. Serjeant Boinpas and Mr. Currie were for the plaintiff.
Mr. James conducted the defence.

It appeared that the plaintiff sent a horse, called the " Gres-
fir, " to be sold by the defendant, a horse commission•ag,ent
and a celebrated rider of steeple-chases, and the son-in-law of
Mr. Elmore, the livery -stable keeper in Piccadilly, where the
horse was sent to. On the part of the plaintiff it was alleged,
that the horse was bona fide sold to the defendant, who on his
part denied that he had purchased the horse, but had sold him
on commission to Lord Edward Russell; but on his transmission
he was claimed by the assignees of a bankrupt. There was
much conflicting testimony on the case;
And the Jury, after half an hour's consideration, fuund a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

AD 31 II? ALT y COUNT, April 25.
THE DIANA.
The Court directed in this case, on motion, that the costs of
an appearance fur the owners of the cargo should be paid to
them. The principal caue, was decided sometime ago.

ELIZABETII-WAGES.
This was a suit fur the subtraction of wages, brought by a
mariner, for 24/. Is.
The Court pronounced in favour of the prayer of the pro-
tnoter.