The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-06 00:00:00

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn too
largely on their good nature when he asked them to bear
it with hilarity and cheerfulness.—(Hear, a id laughter.)
He believed the remission of-duty on glass would give a
great stimulus to the industry of the country, and he
entirely approved of the remission of the auction duty,
which was evaded by the wealthy, and imposed only on
the needy. He hoped, however, that the income-tax
would not be perpetual, as some expected, but flattered
himself that the improving resources of the country
would enable them to dispense with it in a few years.
Mr. MUNTZ explained.
Mr. HAWES would give the most unmitigated oppo-
sition in his power to the continuance of the income-tax,
and did not think its removal would endanger the credit
of the country. He did not think the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had made out a case for its continuance. If there
were any truth in the predictions of prosperity and in-
creased revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
so confidently mentioned to the House, then he (Mr.
Hawes) thought there were so many additional reasons
for abandoning this odious tax. It was a great burden
on the country, and he did not think the reduction of
the other taxes was of a nature which would enable
the country to bear up against this heavy fax upon
profits and upon industry.—(Hear, hear.) Ihis mode of
taxing capital was, in reality, more mischievous than a
tax on the great articles of consumption. There was
another objection to the income-tax, inasmuch as it re-
lieved Ministers from the necessity of making those eco-
nomical reforms which were so desirable. The Minister

had never yet voluntarily advanced towards com-
mercial reform. Public) opinion had always been
the propelling motive. He considered the in-
come-tax as the most formidable barrier to com-
mercial reform. Now, if Ministers found the revenue
declining, they had only to adel one or two per cent. to
the income-tax, and bring it up to the former stan-
dard. If they had not this resource then they must
make those commercial changes which had hitherto been
so advantageous to the country at large, The Hon.
Member then quoted Deacon Hume's evidence before the
Committee on import duties. Mr. Hume had been very
much pressed by the Hon. Member for Coventry as to
whether certain branches of manufactures might fail
or be deeply affected by the removal of protection. He
replied that if protection were abolished, the revenue
might momentarily suffer ; and he added that if all
duty were levied for revenue, and revenue alone, there
was nothing to prevent the rise in the revenue of the
country to the full extent of one-third, without the
proposition of any one duty whatever. The revenue
would speedily rise if revenue were alone considered.
In taxation it was class interests which so materially in-
terfered with it. They had not acted on a right principle
in the recent change in the allow duties ; they had con-
sulted colonial interests, and driven certain classes of
3ttgar entirely out of the market. The income-tax was
capable of producing much more than at present, as
would be easily seen if they compared the respective
periods of 1815 and 1844, and took into account the
altered circumstances of the country. In some places it
pressed very severely, and he coald not understand what
Hon. Gentlemen meant when they said it was collected
in a lenient manner. In many cases it was not imposed
when it ought to be imposed, whilst others were obliged
to pay more than in justice they were entitled to pay.
Mr. Fielden, the Member for Oldham, had been returned
for 12,0001. a year ; he remonstrated against it, and
offered to produce his books to show that his income
was not so great, but the Commissioners persevered in
assessing him for 3501., although he appealed to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and
although that Right Honourable Gentleman took
a warm interest in his behalf. Unless a case
of overwhelming necessity were shown, such as
war, or some other calamity, he would not vote for the
continuance of so obnoxious an impost. He wanted to
know what Ministers intended to do with all this sur-

....„..
plus they talkod about. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, on the sth of
April, 1846, they would have a surplus of 5,000,0001.;
how was that to be appropriated?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
2,000,0001. would be paid to the Bank of England, duo
for an advance for the opium compensation, and the re-
maining 3,000,0001. would bp carried from one quarter
to another until the end of the year.
Mr. HAWES said the people would derive very
little benefit, in the end, from this so-called surplus.
With regard to the statement made by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that credit was due to the Government for
removing the taxes on industry and opening a new dc or
to commercial prosperity—when the present Govern-
ment came into office, they were aided both with a crisis
in the commercial and natural world ; for he believed
that the favourable state of the country was owing to
the return of good harvests, the amicable settlement of
their relations with America, and the opening of the
trade with China. He gave the Right Hon. Gentleman
great credit for his measures, but their influence was not
yet felt ; but ho thought that the income-tax and the
Bank measure were more calculated to retard than to ad-
vance that prosperity. He did not see that there was
any adequate necessity for the imposition of the income-
tax, and he believed that if the Government only acted
upon those principles, which the Right Hon. Gentlemen
opposite said were the principles of common sense, there
would be a still greater revenue than was now obtained
from the income-tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For the motion 23
Against it
Majority against the motion —73
The House then went into a Committee, Mr. Greene
in the Chair.

On clause 1 being put, which proposed that the blank
be filled up with the word " three,"
Mr. CURTEIS moved that the blank be filled up with
the word " two," instead of " three." He called on
those free traders around him to support him, as he in-
tended to press his motion to a division. He would
wish, in fact, that the Minister should be obliged to
come every year to propose this tax, but he abstained
from making a motion to that effect, because it might
be considered factious. He thought that many persons
in the House might, with great fairness, support
the present proposition. He did not believe
that the country willingly submitted to the
income-tax, though he was surprised that the
City of London, which had, on a former occa-
sion, about thirty years ago, sent in a petition to that
House, when Mr. Vansittart was the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, against the property-tax, had not shown
more spirit on the present occasion, and, as far as the
City of London was concerned, he thought the Right
Hon. Baronet would be justified in doubling the tax. If
he had been a supporter of the Government he would
act in tho same way that he was now acting; and he
called on the young Members opposite to support him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
speak, but was met with cries of " Oh, oh." He said,
that as it appeared the wish of the House that ho should
not argue the proposition of the Hon. Member, he hoped
the Hon. Member would not think it any discourtesy to
him if he abstained from doing: so.
Mr. GREENE asked the Hon. Member if he would
divide?
Mr. CURTEIS—Yes.—(Oh, oh.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it
On our re-admittance into the gallery
Mr. AGLIONBY was en his legs, addressing the
House. He said the tax, in many instances, pressed
with peculiar force upon the landlord, but perhaps an
illustration would better explain what he meant than
any lengthened argument. They might not be aware
that in many parts of the country standing crops were
sold by what was called public roup. Fields of grass, or
whatever the crop might be, were knocked down to the
highest bidder—the landlord, be it remembered, paying
the rates and taxes. He very seldom had the
same tenant for a couple of years—frequently not for one
year—but in that case the gross rental was returned
against the landlord. Would it be said, that the land-
lord bad not a right in such a case to deduct the rates
and taxes paid for parochial purposes from the gross
amount returned to the Commissioners under the in-
come-tax ? The land assessors, they were aware, played
all sorts of tricks. An appeal had been made, in more
than one instance, to the local authorities, and they had
returned for answer, that they had no authority to deal
with the matter. The Board of Stamps and Taxes in
London h .d no power to control the local Commissioners
—their pi wince being only to advise. The local as-
sessors and the tax-collectors, in many cases, had totally
mistaken their duties, and the appeals made by parties
to the Board of Local Commissioners had proved un-
satisfactory because they also were in doubt as to the
construction of the Act. Under these circumstances, he
thought that extended powers ought to be given to the
Board of Stamps and Taxes, for the purpose of alleviat-
ing this evil.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he should be yeady to remedy, as far as in his
power, the inconveniences arising from the operation of
the tax. He had never had his attention directed to the
circumstances stated by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth (Mr. Aglionby), and, therefore, he could not be
expected, at that time, to be prepared with a remedy.
Had the Hon. Member given notice of his intention to
bring the subject forward, ho (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) would have made himself somewhat better ac-
quainted with the particular evil.
Mr. AGLIONBY apologised for having introduced
the matter without giving notice on a previous day, but
as he had not intended to create any discussion upon it,
he thought such notice was wholly unnecessary.
Sir R. PEEL said that it had been deemed advisable
that the Board of Stamps and Taxes should merely eon_
fine themselves to the giving of advice to the local Com-
missioners. They confined themselves generally to
stating their opinion on what was right or what was not.
Possibly some local Commissioners might have acted:on
their own peculiar reading of the Aet ; but, speaking
generally, he thought that the conduct of she Commis-
sioners had given satisfaction.
Mr. WAKLEY said the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth spoke of giving mere power to the Board of
Stamps and Taxes. He (Mr. Wakley) had a proposition
to offer to the House, but it was to extend the powers of
the Commissioners. Their limited powers produced the
greatest inconvenience, as, for instance, in the. case of a
landlord whose tenants had absconded. The landlord
was called on to pay the income-tax although he re-
ceived no rent for his land, and the local Commissioners
had no power to absolve him from this liability. The
landlord not only lost his rents, but he was actually
cuaellveed. toduposnucb was i
pay the taxfaeutpoinu rtehnetsbhoreohugadh nheeverre
repre-
sented, and also in Marylebone. He had received a
copy of a letter from a Mr. Challoner, who lived in the
Edgeware-road, addressed to the Commissioners under
the income-tax, and as it was not very longs he
would
trouble the House with it:7" The local Commissioners
of the Treasury have considered your application with
regard to the distress made upon you to recover the pro.
perty-tax, and I am directed to acquaint you that the

. 69
. -52