The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

N
:-----_-
An HON. MEMBER presented a petitiotrfeoM BeVerler
against the Income-tax.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from the So-
licitors of York, against the Income-tax;
Mr. GROGAN presented two petitions from the 7`
tanners and paper-stainers of Dublin agaiki,t7oe-titriff.----
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a pelitibmif)sr,l**l
trade, and for a reform of Parliament.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from the
solicitors of Lincoln against the certificate duty.
Lord MARSHAM presented a petition from a place
in Kent, against the tariff.
Sir V. BLAKE presented a petition from the shoe-
makers of Galway, against the tariff.
Sir H. DOUGLAS presented petitions from the inha-
bitants of St. John's, New Brunswick, and from the
Chamber of Commerce of St. Andrew's, in the same
province, against any alteration of the timber duties.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that on the reading
of the Order of the Day for the House resolving
itself into Committee on the Income-tax Bill, he
should move a resolution to the effect that it is more ex-
pedient to have recourse to the issue of Exchequer bills,
than to an Income-tax. The Honourable Member
also gave notice that he • should move for cer-
tain returns relating to the Courts of Session. The
next matter concerning which he had to give a notice
was a matter in which the Ilouse itself took an interest
There had been returns laid on the table two days ago,
which he intended to move should be printed, but which
returns, the printing Committee had refused to print.
They ordered what he (Mr. Wallace) considered to be
a component part of that return to be printed, and he
believed it would be wasting the money of the House to
print one without the other.
Dr. BOWLING gave notice that when the House
went into Committee on the tariff, he would move that
the duty on foreign spirits be reduced to 15s. per gallon;
the duty on wine to 2s. 6d. per gallon ; and that on fo-
reign manufactures to an ad valorenz duty of 20 per cent.
Mr. EWART gave notice that in Committee on the
Income-tax he would move that the persons included in
schedule 1), namely, those who derived their incomes
from trades and prefessions, should have so much of
their incomes exempt from the tax as should be applied
to the purpose of ensuring their lives.
INCOME TAX.

Sir J. GIL presented a petition, signed by
:3,100 of the working classes of Yarmouth, principally
c teigae 0.11 in the cotton-manufacture, in favour of the
income and property tax ; also another petition, signed
by a considerable number of persons with incomes above
1001 a year, to the same effect.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of
the Income-tax Bill being read,
Mr. CHARLES BULLER said he rose for the pur•
pose of moving that the Bill be read a second time that
day six morells. Ile believed he owed the House an
apology fur again interrupting them.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile should not have done so were it not that the Bill had
arrived at a stage at which it was not necessary to
trench on the topics that had previously engaged the
attention of the !louse. They had formerly discussed
the necessity of any taxation at all ; they had
discussed the general principles of the tax, and
they had now to discuss its principles -as explained
in the details of the Bill now before the House. They
had got the papers, and he must confess, that whatevea
had been his former objections to the Income-tax—what-
ever forebodings he might have had as to its operation, all
these objections, and all these forebodings, were greatly
enhanced by a perusal of the Bill before them. It had been
said that the tax was inquisitorial, that it was unjust, that
it was arbitrary ; and every detail of the Bill only
placed, in a strung, r light, how rightly and justly
those terms had been applied to it.—(Bear, hear.)
Hu did nut intend, un the present occasion,
having only received the Bill of 10 clauses on the pre-
vious day, to enter into such a thorough examination' as
would give anything like a just appreciation of it.
He was merely going to explain to the House the
grounds of Ins most prominent objections to it.
IViten he read this Bill, and saw the provision; by which
the tax was to be carried into effect, he did not wonder
at the hostility which it excited in former times. lie
did not wonder at the eagerness with- which its repeal
was demanded, and die joy with which it was hailed;
he only wondered that in a free country a tax
which so trenched on the comforts and rights
of 13ritisli subjects could ever have been tole-
rated, and he thought that nothing but the
peril of the late war and nothing but the strong feeling
which it excited, could have induced Englishmen to
tolerate a law so contrary to all their habits and to all
the principles of the Constitution.—(blear, hear.) He
did nut complain of the Bill as introducing any unne-
cessary vexation ; it was but the necessary vexation
which must be inflicted upon the subject in order
to carry out a tax upon the country; but he did say that
the provisions of this Bill gave an amount of arbritrary
power which, as he believed, had never been given by
any other legislature since the revolution. Why, the mere
inquisition which was requisite for this tax was bad in
itsclf.—(licar, hear.) It was a very bad or very op-
pressive thing, that the commercial trading and manu-
facturing people of England should be obliged to come
before an officer of the Government and detail to him the
exact state of their trade anti the position of their affairs.
He (Mr. C.Buller) could not agree with the lion. Member
fur Bath, that that was an objection which would only
be felt by an over-timid, or, rather, a dishonest mind.
lie would recommend the lion. Gentleman to pay some ree
spect to the feelings which had been evinced by the people
of England through a long period of their history, that
people who had always showe themselves ready to bear-
a fair share of the public burdens. The mere fact that
the people of England had always felt this objection
ought c.f itself to be sufficient ; they ought
to respect a feeling so general, they ought
to believe that the dislike which had alway s been felt to
an Income-tax was not totally without foundation.
The measures for enforcing the inquisition served to
make it doubly oppressive. The means by which the In-
come-tax was to be enforced were totally alien from the
feelings of the English people. Ile would not go into the
whole of the plan—it was too complicated to admit of
his doing so ; but he would here mention that there was
such a cloud of Commissioners as would aston-
ish any Weak mind.—(Great laughter.) There
were first the Tax and Stamp Commissioners at
the heed of this hierarchy ; then the Commis-
sioners for general purposes ; then the Commissioners
for special purposes ; then there were additional
Commissioners, and these not being sufficient for
the inquisition, there were Assistant-Commissioners.
One of the benefits from this Commission would be that
what the Chief Commisioner did not eat, the Assistant-
Commissioners would lap up.—(Laughter.) He did not
mean to attempt to throw the Commission into ridicule e
they seemed to him to have all the respectability of a
very fearful instrument of very grinding trlnny.
What was the power invested in these Commissioners ?
They not merely gave them a power of investig-etion—they
were not merely tax-gatherers, but they gave them a
judicial power. He found in this Bill no less than seven
clauses giving a power to the Coremissioners of levying
large fines. They had the • power of levying fines
to the amount of 201.. or 25/. Then added to this
power was a special power given them, that in case of a
false return they should inflict a further penalty of treble
the amount of the tax to be collected. Let them con-
sider what a power this was. He vvould give them an
instance of it. There was clause 55. This clause
empowered the Commissioner to go round and.
call on the people to deliver in a , correct statement
of their income ; and all incomes above 1501 were
to be taxed, and to be recovered in any of her
Majesty's Courts. Any person neglecting to make
such a return, would be liable to forfeit a sum
not exceeding 201., and treble the amount of the
duty to be charged by virtue of this Act. Now, sup-
pose a gentleman had 1,0001, if he neglected to make a
direct return, he was liable to treble 301 besides
the fine. Now he asked whether this tax
could be compared to any other? Why, they gave a
power to the Commissioners under circumstances dis-
tinguished from every other tax, namely, to conduct
the proceedings in secret. In all other matters
if a person was charged with fraud, he had
'ter •submit to the verdict of a Jury in open.
Court, in- under the present Bill everything was
conducted in secret. This was a monstrous violation of
the liberty of the subject. Every tax to be collected by
such means must be a bad tax. He did not mean to
object to the details of the Bill; he did not, when the Bill
went into Committee, intend to .object to the details of the
bill, for if they were to. have an Income-tax, they must
have a systems of inquisition. He called on the House,
as he had done before, to reject this tax if
it was to be enforced by such a system -; enforced
by paid Commissioners of the Crown, whose proceed-
ings were to be conducted in secret. He called
on them to reject this tax, because nothing
but an imperious necessity could ,itistq a
recourse to such a system ; violating, as it did, all the
principles of freedom, and all the principles of constitu-
tional liberty. When they voted for the second read-
ing of such a tax, they were voting for its inquisito-
rial process. lie said that before they passed
the second reading of such a Bill, they should consider
the necessity existing for such a tax. (Here the Hon.
Gentleman turned his back to the Reporters Gallery
and became very indistinct.) He was not going
into the various topics with respect to this
question, which had been hitherto discussed. lie had
heard a great deal about the penny pe.stage—tt great
deal about Affghanistan—a great deal about China, and
divers other matters from the Government. Now,
none of these subjects did he propose to
cutter into. His simple argument would be
against the necessity of the tax. It was an unfair
tax in itself, it was unfair to the nation. Individuals
were to be charged three per cent. upon their incomes to.
raise only 4,000,000/. It was not of a large amount, but for a
a comparatively small amount of revenue. He confessed
that he was surprised to find that there were supporters
of this tax on that (the Opposition) side of the House ;
but he did not think the Right Hon. Baronet could be
very well satisfied with his supporters on his own side of
the House. Every Gentleman on that side the
of
rotuhe selblibitected to some of the details of the Bill.
Many of those Gentlemen wished a modification
same view as those on his (Mn. C. Buller's) side of the
but they certainly did not suPport it with the
'louse, viz, a desire to see the tariff brought into operation..
and a most inconsistent
The Right lion. Baronet had been the only expounder:
ro'net was. When it suited
texf
pthouent(aierirfit.
hteheivtighhatd if•eotmhßearda
his purpose to shape his speech to gratify Gentlemen on
his (Mr. C. Buller's) side of the House, then cheap-
ness was cried up ; but when he wished to allay
the fears of the other side of the House, then
he said that there would be uo cheap things at alle
The Right Hon. Baronet had said, on one occasion, thet-
a man worth 300/. a-year, who hullo pay 81. a year•
to the Income-tax, would save 101, or 12 a year by the•
operation of the tariff. Now what could he save it ire
except in the price of meat or provisions ? Then,
the Right Hon. Bart. and the Noble Lord the Member
for Cornwall, turn round to their agricultural supporters
and say, " Oh, there will not be any cheap provision ar,