The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-12 00:00:00

commonly called the Income and Property-tax. In
doing so he did not wish to • engage the House
in auy premature discussion with regard to the me-
rits of the property. tax rpon the contrary, he
would confine himseic,s4l4ly. 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 7
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 Incometax 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 is 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
his lot, in concert -with the Government with which
he was connected, to propose an alteration and modi-
fication of the Property-tax so introduced ; but
it never occurred to those with whom he had
acted, that it would either be expedient
or just to extend the Act to foreigners possessed of
property in the funds. I.le 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 they received at the Bank
that portion of the fund which was sub, 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 en 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, ander the operation of
the tax, But he (i,ord L.) recollected that the sug-
gestion was resisted with the very general concur-
rence of 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. Ile (Lord L.) entirely differed on that
point, and he referred to .the . report of Mr. Fox's
opinions, the words of which he had 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 foreigners
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 mortgager. They said if these foreigners who were
their creditors were disatisfied 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 Nnglish 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 lie entertained so strong an
opinion as to the injustice of the proceeding, he also
entertained a strong opinion on its inexpediency, be-
cause he could not see that the adding- of some
10,0001. or .20,000/. or 30,0001. a-year to a tax of
many millions, was to be in the least compared with
that reputation and established credit for . which
so long distinguished in
thisal countryparts
of thelaad
ibveoernl d
A case might occur
at some distant period,
.when they might be called
upon to uphold the security of the British in
other countries ; and then they might employ, if
they could, the argument that .they Thad in the
midst of all their distresses they carefully guarded
themselves 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 cause 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 he moved could be produced ; he knew it was
very likely that a great part of them had been involved
in that sort of auto da f e which had caused such de-
struction amongst the papers. If, however, they
were not destroyed, they might, perhaps, be obtatned
from some returns which had been moved for in the other
House. The. Noble Marquis, by moving for a re-
turn of the exemptions given to foreigners from the
Income-tat 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 tha 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
. was imposed this country was
Property-taxbjeeted
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 ruining the credit of the
country, in order to give increased facility for raising
that Mr.
dMill•
0.
tF
seeox shewewm
circumstances
public loans. The same remark applied to the
taxes were imposed ; although he was ready to admit
under which subsequent Property-
egsonapep7 on the prin-
ciples'of abstract justice. He confessed, however, that
etdietoprliinacvie;
1" • ' • 1 .• .d 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
a Englishman 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) coutd; 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 I.lonteagle)
would admit, for argument sake, and for argument
sake alone, that foreigners had ).een exempted upon
selfish grounds, for the mere purpose of keeping up the.
fund. Assuming this, the foreigner would expect
that he would be protected by the Legislation,
as he had been previously with respect to a
case of expediency, the expediency was now felt more
than ever. This course must effect British invest-
ments in foreign stocks. Let the Noble Earl
compare the list of the funds in 1797 or 1798 to
1803, or 4 in 1814, or 15, 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. .I.intorior Governments had
been scrupulous on this point, and he thought the
present Government ought to be equally semi—!,
and what was the sum to be raised by this muse ?

The Noble Earl estimated it at from 10,0001. to
30,0001. a year, but it Wonld certainly be below the
mean of that sum. He thought this' course would
endanger British cipital abroad.
Lord BROUGHAM said he did not wish to pro-
long the discussion which
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 ,
be highly inexpedient for the sake of the trilling
sum which could be obtained from foreigners
by means of this- tax, to give a pretext to
other countries to deal in a similar way with funds of
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 his motion would be acceded to
If the matter was delayed until' the Bill came up ibr
discussion, it would be too late for his Noble Friend's
purpose.
The Earl of WICKLOW could not see any in-
justice in taxing the foreigner who had money in our
funds ; and he thought, if foreigners were exempted, a
door would be opened to fraud, inasmuch as E nglishmen
residing abroad would put money into the English
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 countries,
he thought they would not hesitate if they imposed a
property-tax, in making 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 the would resort
to another still more unjust, and quote our own injus-
tice as the precedent.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE objected to the im-
J 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-iti-- -He-thought they could do without
it, and although he was glad to give his support
to the Government, he objected to to the Property-
tax and the Tariff.

Lord MELBOURNE rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

We have reason to believe that her Majesty's Mi-
nisters are in possession of a late dispatch, forwarded by Alajor
Pottinger to the authorities at Calcutta. The dispatch in
question. we understand, adds nothing to what was previously
known of the state of affairs in Affghanistan ; but it completely
exonerates General Elphinstone, assigning the blame of the
late disaster to a different quarter, or rather to different quarters
—for the council of war comes in for a share.—Evening Paper.
A Gentleman in passing through a village in De-
vonshire, asked a boy if he had been taught the Church Ca-
techism, he replied, " Yes, Sir." " Do you know what is meant
by your ghostly enemy ?" " Yes, Sir, my mother says that
our jack-ass is my ghostly enemy, for he is always trying to
kick me." The village schoolmaster is, indeed abroad.

AUPEhIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMO S, May 11.
POOR-LAWS.

Sir J. GRAHAM rose to move for leave to bring in
the Poor-law Continuance Bill. He said, since the
commencement of the session, the attention of
the House - had - been - directed to various sub-
jects, involving the interests of large Asses
of the community, and in expressing opinions
on those topics much animosity and angry feeling
had been excited. But with respect to the
important subject which it was now his duty
to bring under the consideration of the House,
though it involved the interests of a very numerous class
of society, yet it was the class of the pour and needy,
and destitute, and no angry passions need be excited in
the discussion to which he then invited them. On the con-
trary,
the subject appealed to the compassion, and kinder
feelings, of every gentleman he addressed, and he hoped
the House would entertain it in the genuine spirit
-of charity, benevolence, and good-will. He need
not enter into a history of the Poor-laws ; it had
always been a distinguished boast of their policy that
throughout England and Wales the law had made pro-
visions for the poor and needy, and had taken precautions
that none should perish of want, or that the sick, the
aged and infirm, should be deprived of proper care.
From an early period of the reign of Elizabeth up to
within the last fifteen years, no material alteration had
taken place in the machinery for affording relief. There
had been an annual appointment by the Magis-
trates of an overseer, to whom the care of
the poor had been entrusted—the power of con-
trol over those overseers being vested in the
Magistrates. Until the year 1819 this machinery
had continued unaltered ; under that system the annual
sum required for the relief of the poor rapidly increased,
and although the attention of the Legislature had
been frequently directed to the subject, little of
a remedial nature had been suggested—(Hear)—
until the year 1819, when Mr. Sturges Bourne, 'whose
name he could not mention without offering a passing
tribute of respect to him, as a Man who had made an
effort to remedy a great public grievance, when, as lie
had said Mr. Sturges Bourne introduced a. Bill vesting,
instead of in the hands of the overseers, in the_ hands of
a select body appointed by the . magistracy, the
power of granting relief. That power, however,
was still continued under the control of the ma-
gistracy. That • measure, however, bad been only
partly adopted, and some remedy. was required
for the increasing evil. This increase in the charge for
the maintenance of the poor was but a small portion of
the evil. Coincident with that increase, there had arisen
a frightful system, utterly destructive of the independ-
ence of the lahourer—(Hear, hear)—a system of
affording relief in aid of wages, by which the employer
shifted the burden of paying the labourer to the shoulders
of others who did not derive any profit from his labour.
So matters stood until 1831. In that year, by the Go•
vernment of Lord Grey, a Commission was appointed spe-
cially to inquire into the subject of the relief of the poor ;
and when he considered the abuses which were pointed
out in the Report of the Commission, he thought all
'gentlemen whom he had the honour of addressing
would agree with him, when he stated that
he was not exaggerating the importance of
that Report in the least, that no public document
had ever exposed a system of snore alarming evil,. or
of greater abuse, than had been exposed in that Report.
At the time when it was presented, it commanded great
attention, and a direct remedy for such evils threaten-
ing property and the peace of the country, was
generally demanded. That Government, upon con-
sidering the Report, did not hesitate to endeavour
to apply a remedy. They brought forward,
on their responsibility as a Government, a mea-
sure founded on that Report. After ample
discussion, much 'debate, and full consideration, the
measure, with seine modifications, was passed
into a law. That law was now upon our
statute-book; that was
.the law which, at the pre-
sent time, regulated the relief of the poorin England.
and Wales. With the exception of one portion of the
statute, the enactments were of a permanent character.
It was thought expedient at the time when that statute
passed into a law to limit the duration of the Commission
to the period of five years, and the end of the next
session, after the expiration of five years. Two years
ago, a Bill was introduced by the then Government
for the prolongation of the term, which passed into
a law. Last year a similar course was purued, and
the Commission was prolonged until the 31st of July
in the present year, when its powers a ould expire. The
first question, therefore, to which it was his duty to direct
the attention of the House was, the question whether it
would be expedient to prolong the duration of the Corn-
mission, and if it were expedient, for what length of
time. Now it was, upon mature reflection, the
intention of her Majesty's servants to propose to
the House that the Commission should be renewed
for a period of five years, and also until the expiration
of next Session of Parliament, after the expiration of the
five years.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) That
was the time for which it was originally appointed, and no
circumstr.nces which had since intervened, had shaken
his belief in the slightest degree that the existence and
the full authority of that Commission was as, requisite at
the present time, as when the original measure first
became law.—( Hear, hear," and ironical cheers
from Mr. Wakley.) As the Hon. Member for Finsbury
cheered, perhaps he would allow him very shortly to
state the reasons why he entertained that opinion. It
had been said that the professed object and intention of
the appointment of the Commission was to secure
uniformity in the mode of administering the law.
He must be permitted to say that that was an entire
misrepresentation of the motives fur which the Commis-
sio a had been formed. If the House would permit him—
for he could not so well express his views of the reasons
which led to the original appointment of the Commission,
and which in his opinion made its continuance neces-
sary, he could not so well express those 'reasons as in the
words of one who was then his colleague, and who, at
the time this measure was introduced, was the first
law officer of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor of Eng-
land—if the House would give him leave he
would read his opinion, which was remarkable
fhr its perspicuity and accuracy.. He (Sir
James Graham) did not know if he held the same
opinion now as the Noble Lord, but the reasons then
given for the appointment of this Commission he (Sir
J. Graham) confessed were good reasons for the re-ap-
pointment of the Commission now. The Noble Lord then
said, " one part of the country recnires one mode of treat-
meat, and another the application of a different mode. The
.agricultural districts require very different treatment to
that employed in the manufacturing and commercial
neighbourhoods." The circumstances of an agricultural
parish being different from another, rendered one course
inapplicable to both. Now, if it was necessary to have dif-
ferent modes applied to various cases, it must be
presumed that a discretionary power should be lodged
somewhere. That hand which possessed this power,
felt its way, and formed its course according to the
obstacles which might come. This was his opinion why
this discretionary power should be given; which" was
ills() given in the grap!lie de!eription of t: • Com-
mission given in- the speech froui which he had
quoted, and it was for
_these reasons and others