The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

BRAZILS.

. Mr...MILNER GIBSON wished to make an inquiry
of the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of her
iajesty's Government. on a question regarding our
relations with the Bruziis. The Right lion. Gentleman
had given the country to understand that his chief, if not
his only objection, to a reduction of the duty on sugar;
was the fear that he should by so doing encourage the
slave-trade in the *Brazils, and he had understood the
.Right .Hon. Baronet to say, that if he had not telt em-
barrassed by the slave-trade question, he should have
fet it his duty to propose a considerable reduction in the
duty on sugar immediately; but that he had not done so,
because he thought it might tend to render abortive the
efforts that her Majesty's Government were making to
restrain slavery. • Now he wished to ask the
ltight Honourable Baronet -whether, at the pre-
bent moment, he was making any decided
effort to restrain slavery in the 'Brazils, and inasmuch
tts there was at present existing a treaty between this
country and the Brazils, making the slave-trade illegal,
and declaring it piracy, and binding the Brazilian Go-
vernment to discourage the importation of slaves into the
Brazils, he was desirous of knowing if the Right Hon.
baronet were prepared to enforce that treaty. He was
also desirous of knowing:if the British Government and
the Brazilian Government bad come to any uuderstand-
ing respecting the period of the termination of the treaty
of commerce now subsisting between the two countries.
Sir R. PEEL said, that her Majesty's Government were
always prepared to fulfil their engagements with foreign
nations, and to require that other nations should fulfil their
engagements with this country. Her Majesty's Govern-
inent could not come to any understanding with the Go-
vernment of the Brazils respecting the period of the ex-
piration of the present treaty. The Noble Lord the late
Secretary for the Foreign Department had always con-
tended, and he (Sir R. Peel) thought justly contended,
that the treaty would not expire until November, 1844.
sad that was the view entertained by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. The Government of Brazils were of a
Fditterent opinion, and contended that the treaty would
,expire in November of the present year. Communica-
tions had taken place on the subject, but he was not able
to say 'that the Government of the Brazils acquiesced
in the construction placed by her Majesty's Government
{nethut treaty. With respect to the subject of the restrain-
ihg_more .effectually the slave-trade in the Brazils, com-
munications had passed between the two Governments,
hut es.yet this had; led to no result.
Lord PALMERSTON• wished to put a question to
the Right lion. Baronet, which he hoped it would be in
power, to answer: .He' (Lord Palmerston) was well
aware that it was objectionable to ask, and improper
to state, the .nature —of propositions which were
an discussion between the Government of Great Britain
,and a foreign Government, and therefore inquiry upon
such subjects ought in general to be met with a refusal. But
questions relating to slave-trade treaties were not subject
to the general rule :in that respect. He had himself
-never made any difficulty in stating the nature
Atf. negotiations entered . into from time to time
with other countries, with a view to the more effectually
completing the suppressiOn of the slave trade. He did
tot know whether the: Bight Hon. Baronet would feel
equally ut liberty to give him (Lord P.) the information
n'hiehle.was about to ask on that occasion. He wished
to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what the nature was of
those further stipulations which had been proposed to
the Government of the Brazils with a view to the sup-
Preasiutfinf _the slave-trade; and whether they would
give cieeo,lßritain increased powers of action, or
whether?they were merely engagements entered into 1,?.y
the Brazilian' Government. He should be glad to find
that increased powers were given to our cruisers engaged
in the suppression of the slave trade ; but he was sorry
to say that .he should not attach much importance to
any additional engagements into which the Brazilian
Government might enter, relative to the question of
slavery and the slave-trade.
Sir 'ROBERT PEEL said, that he very much
doubted whether the Noble Lord would have answered
such a question as he himself had put.—(A laugh.)
The British Government was engaged in communica-
tions with the Government of the Brazils on the
subject of slavery, to which no answer had yet been re-
ceived. He was sure that under those circumstances
the Noble Lord would not press his question.
r • ,.ELECTION COM MI ['TEES.
Mr. WYNN, who was heard very indistinctly in the
gallery, said, he wished to call the attention of the House
to an Act which was passed in the last session of Parlia-
ment, in reference to Election Committes. That Act pro-
tided that the Committee in making their Report should
state whether.. or not the sitting Member had been
guilty of bribery: As cases of bribery might occur in
which .. the sitting Member would not be
*liable,
and.; :Committees wero still engaged in in-
vestigating, such matters, he had certainly thought
it necessary to call the attention of the House to the
provisions :of•the Act.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel VERNER said the Honourable and Learned
Member for Cork, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, had a
few days ago presented a petition from certain persons
in the county of which ho (Colonel Verner) had the
honour to he one of the representatives. The Hon. and
Learned Member having also given notice of his inten-
tion to move that that petition should be printed with the
Votes, he (Colonel .Verner) had attended in his place
for the purpose of meeting the allegations set
forth by the petitioners, but the Hon. and Learned
Member declined to bring forward his motion. lie
wished to know whether it was his intention to renew
the notice of motion ?
Mr. O'CONNELL said if it was any satisfaction to
the, Gallant Officer to know it, he (Mr. O'Connell) was
happy to tell him that it was his fixed intention to' bring
the question before the House.
Colonel VERNER would like to know when the
'tight Hon. and Learned Gentleman intended to bring it
for ward.
Mr, O'CONNELL said at the earliest convenient
Period possible.
Mr. MASTERMAN wished to know whether any
des,-nuches had. been received from Jamaica regarding
the ir:egularity of the conveyance of letters out to that
plane by •4.lie Steam-packet Company's vessels.
4.ord ST,I. NLEY, as we understood, said that no corn-
plaiats had heed received on the subject.
BUSISTESS OF THE HOUSE.

bir ROBERT PEEL said that, before moving
tllb Order of the Day that the House go into ,
(::urtunittee on the Income-tax Bill, he should at-
,tensiat.:to ascertain the wishes and sentiments of the
lipase • respecting the consideration of that portion
of•iht. business which originated with her Majesty's
Cloverninent. He (Sir R. Peel) had proposed to take
the Tuesdays following the 9th of May, for the
eensideration of this Bill. He (Sir Robert Peel)
should not interfere in such a matter as this,
unless he ascertained the feeling of the House
Upon it. An Hon. Gentleman had given notice respect-
ing the grievances of Catholics in the navy. Another
lion. Gentleman had given notice of a motion relative to
Sudbury. The two succeeding Tuesdays would be in
consequence taken up with these subjects. He should
therefore be glad if he could fix Tuesday, the
lOth of May, for the consideration of the Bill.
Of course he only threw out his suggestion in the hope
That it would meet with the concurrence of both sides
(4. the House.
dIr...JOHN O'CONNELL did not wish to interfere
with the business of the House, but the motion of which
lie had given notice was one that was pressed upon him by
Perhoits out of doors. The motion he had on the paper for
tite.9th or May, related to interference with the religious
-feelings of Catholics. Perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet
Iwcatld3name Thursday instead of Tuesday.
Siv.H. PEEL said he had no objection, if those who
Lattlioticert for that day-gave up their claim.
Me, HUME said he had a motion on the paper for
Thurs,lay,• and if it were allowed by the Right Hon.
titronet lie had no objection that he should name Thurs-
day,(Laughter.)
J. OVONNELL said that as far as he was con-
cerned, he would not stand-in the way of the business
of the House. Ile should therefore withdraw the mo-
tion. of which he had given notice for Monday, the 9th
,of May
SirJL PEEL then moved " That after Monday, the
9th .of May next, Orders of the Day shall have prece•
clews. over Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, so long as
the Income-tax and Tariff shall remain under considers-
tionr. ' •
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the propriety of ac-
ceding, to the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet, as he
thought it would be much for the public convenience.
lie wa; glad to find that an Honourable Gentle-
Wan who had a motion for the 10th of May
Was ready to abandon his precedence. With respect to
the motion regarding the borough of Sudbury. it stood
tor the 10th of May, but he hoped there would be no
cbjection on the Dart of the House to give leave to bring
in ate Bill. With respect to this subject, lie only
washed to refer for a moment to the imputations
which had been thrown out, that great delay
lead taken place in the consideration of the
Income tax and the tariff, through the course
that had been pursued by Members on that side
of the House, and a similiar accusation had been made
With respect to the Corn Bill. Now what, he would
auk had taken place with respect to that measure ?
Why the Bill had been read a third time in the House of
)..ords last Friday ; and it was not until that day
it had yeceived the Royal Assent. That circumstance,
lie , thought, showed what little ground there was
fOr the imputation.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
tariff it could not but be right that every consideration
tthoaid be given to the interest of the party affecttd by it.
The motion was. then agreed to.
INCOME TAX.
Oa the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHE,QUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee
On the Income. tax Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
Upon the CHAIRMAN putting the question that
schedule
D., which provided " that upon the annual pro-
ts gains arising or accruing to any person resid-
ing in Great Britain, for any kind of pro-
perty whatever, whether situate in Great Bri-
tain or elsewhere, or from any profession.
trade, employment, or vocation, whether the
'tame should be respectively carried on in Great Britain
,)r elsewhere, there should be charged yearly for every
•20R. of the amount of such profits and gains, the sum-
of 7d.,"
Mr. B. CRAWFORD rose to more the omission of the

words, " profession, track, employment, or vocation."
He did not say that trades and professions ought to be
exempt from this tax if it were a permanent one, but it
was proposed only as - a temporary tax, and
it ought to be accommodated to circumstances.
Manufacturers and tradesmen ought, he thought,
to be• exempt from the tax, first on account of the extra-
ordinary state of distress under I•hich they were
labouring, and, secondly, because-the House had recently
passed a Bill for keeping .up the prices of -corn.
Now there could be no doubt that the distress at
present prevailing in the manufacturing districts had been
occasioned in great measure by the corn duties, which had
been imposed for the benefit of a particular class, namely,
the landed interest, and as long as that special benefit
was conferred upon them they ought to hear the burden
of the Income-tax., He knew it would be said that theSe
proposed exceptions would creata a ueticiency, but that he
thought would be amply made up by ex tending the probate
duty to all kinds of property indiscriminately. his
great objection to the present Bill was, the inquisitorial
nature of its enactments. He did not contend for
the entire exemption of income s derived from
manufactures from taxation, but he thought the fair
proportion- of taxation might be levied on them in
another way. If an Income-tax were imposed upon
the landed proprietor, -it would be 'equitable to tax
the houses and buildings of the manufacturers; that he
thought would be infinitely preferable to making a scru-
tiny into the accounts of manufacturers and•tradesmen.
The Ho Member concluded by moving the omission
of the words in schedule 1) which imposed a tax upon
industrial incomes.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in explaining the difference between
his proposal and that of his lion. Friend the Member for
Rochdale, stated that his Hon. Friend proposed to go
farther than he contemplated by his amendment.
Mr. HUME said, he wished to call the attention of
the Committee to the principle on which the
original Income-tax proceeded, and which, ,in
his opinion; was the principle that ought now
to be adopted. When the Income-tax of 1682
.was
improved, the principle adopted was to tax the
interest of the profits, and not the profits themselves.
They had no more right to tax the capital of the pro-
fessional man, whether it were 3,000/. or 5,0001., or
any other sum; than they had to tax the
capital of the same amount of the landed proprietor.
In the case of the landed proprietor at five per cent.
the land produced 1501. a year. That was the sum
they would tax, and the same principle ought to
apply in taxing the produce of the - capital' of
a physician. The law, which was founded upon
that principle, continued till 1806, when a new prin-
ciple was adopted. a principle of the robbery of •ca-
pital to a great extent. They admitted that the produce of
capital wet to be taxed; but he would put a case to show that
the interest only ought to be taxed. Suppose he purchased an
annuity of 100/. for 20 years, it was evident that he would re-
ceive the first year 5/. interest on the 100/., that was in ten
years he would receive 1001. with his capital; but if he paid 10
per cent. his capital was taxed, and at the end of 20 years he
was deprived of all his capital. Surely that could not be the
intention, and he hoped it never would be enforced. The in-
terest of capital only ought to be taxed, and that was the prin-
ciple they acted on for many years. He should therefore sup-
port the motion.
The CHAIRMAN having put the question,
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know, if the question were dis-
posed of, in what position he should be placed with regard to
his motion. He did not wish to be deprived of the opportunity
of dividing upon it.
The CHAIRMAN asked the Hon. Member for Bath what
it was that he was desirous of doing ?
Mr. ROEBUCK was desirous of proposing that the sche-
dule should be expunged. The schedule proposed a tax upon
the profits or gains arising from any kind of property whatever,
situate in Great Britain or elsewhere; that he could under-
stand. Then came the words, "or from any profession, trade,
employment, or vo.:ation"—there he was puzzled. The motion
of his Hon. Friend only went to industrial income, and con •
sequently only applied to the latter part of the schedule. Now,
he (Mr. Roebuck) was desirous that his motion should go to
both parts of the schedule, and he wished to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet if the schedule could not be divided.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Roebuck) could put his amendment when the early words
of the clause were proposed, and if it were negatived, that the
other amendment could be put afterwards.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the amendment of his Hon. Friend
did not apply to the former part of the clause. His amendment
merely went to the exception of industL ial income ; uow that
was not profit. It applied merely to the latter part of the
clause, to an income derived from profession, trade, employ-
ment, or vocation. The clause referred to two classes of
property; the one was fixed property, the other was an income
derived from professions, trades, or vocations. Now, he wished
to know if the amendment for exempting income derived from
industrial sources did not apply to the latter only and not to
the former? The Hon. Member wished to exempt one-half
only from the tax, and he wished to exempt all.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the question ►night first be put,
that upon the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to
any person residing in Great Britain, from any kind of property
whatever, whether situate in Great Britain, or elsewhere, there
shall be charged yearly, for every twenty shillings of the amount
of such profit or gain, a sum of seven-pence; and that after-
wards the question might be put, that upon the annual profits or
gains arising from any profession, trade, employment, or voca:-
tion, whether the same shall be respectively carried on ►n Great
Britain or elsewhere, there shall be charged yearly for every
twenty shillings of the amount of such profits or gains, the sum
of seven-pence.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Baronet quite met his view.
Mr. S. CRAW FORD was ready to assent, to any arrange-
ment that would be most convenient.
_

The CHAIRMAN having put the question, that the words
be inserted,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as he
understood it, they were going to agree as to the first part, and
then the two Hon. Members must decide between themselves
whether there should be a half tax or unue.

Lord HOWICK believed, that the course they should
pursue would be this—first, they would agree in charging
seven-pence in the pound on property, and then they would
come to the professions, trades, employments, and vte ;
and with respect to those, they would divide upon the ques-
tion whether the blank should be filled up with seven-pence
or three-pence halfpenny ; and then afterwards the niotioc of
the Hon. Member for Rochdale might be decided.
The question being again put.by the Chairman.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to make the motion of which ho
had given notice. His proposition was that there should be
levied upon professions, trades, employments, or vocations, a
tax of 31,4 d. instead of 7d., otherwise it would be an unequal
tax. He had suggested to the Right Hon. Baronet that some
means should be adopted to remedy the proposed inequality
in the different species of income. He was met. by a statement
on tie part of the Right Hon. Baronet, that it would be im-
possible to obviate the evil ; while the Noble Lord, the Mem,
ber for London, took advantage of that position, saying that he
perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was ut-
terly impossible to remedy tie proposed inequality, by drawing
a line of distinction between the different classes of incomes.
The Noble Lord, therefore, after he had laid down these pre-
mises, concluded, very properly, that he could not consent in
any way to the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman, which
he,therefore, opposed altogether. The distinction between
the parties was this, that the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman said that he had admitted that it was im-
possible to render that tax equal, but that he should still
impose the tax, while the Noble Lord said he agreed that the
tax could not be rendered equal, and that he should, therefore
oppose it. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) came forward and took
middle course ; he disputed the premises, and he consequently
disputed the conelusion which the Noble Lord had adduced
from those premises. Ile had three propositions to maintain;
first, that there was an inequality in the mode of taxation
proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet; secondly, that
being unequal it sinned against the great canons of taxation laid
down by the highest authority; and, thirdly, he had to press
upon the Right Honourable Baronet the adoption of a mode of
remedying the inequality in question. That mode he was about
to call upon the Right How urable Baronet to adopt. 110
thought he would have little difficulty in proving that this tax
was an unequal one. A tax which laid the same rum upon the
fee simple of land which returned 100/. a-year, and upon pro-
fessional
income of 100/. -a-year, required little eloquence or
sagacity to show that such a tax was unequal. First,
it was unequal, because, as a mere money specula-
tion in the money market, it cost a different suns.
He could -go into the mimey market, and a portion of land
that returned to him 1001. a year, he could sell for thirty years'
purchase. If at the age of 30, in a good state of ,healttr, he
wanted to purchase 300/. a year, the purchase money would be
9,000/. ; that was the ordinary price at an insurance .office. He
had taken the argument at its lowest point. Something must
be added for age; and it must be recollected that the gains of
trade depended not merely upon the times in which they lived,
but upon fashion. He had known gentlemen in his own pro •
fession, who were making a large fortune at 40, and were not
worth a.penny at 60. The seasons, tempests, money-panics, the
folly of a neighbour, all rendered the profits of trade uncertain.
When all these things were taken into account, he thought it
would be apparent that one-half was not too great a difference.
He would, with the permission of the Committee, draw at-
tention to four propositions which marked what ought to be
incidental to taxation; and when he stated that those proposi-
tions were laid down by Adam Smith, he was sure he would
win the respectful consideration, if not the direct assent, of the
Right Hon. Baronet to them. He would give these four maxims
in the words in which they were laid down by that great
authority, because they so much better. expressed than he
could that to which he wished to call the attention of the Com-
mittee. The first proposition was, that the subjects of each
State ought to contribute to the support of the Government as
nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities.
Secondly, that the tax which each individual paid ought to be
certain and not arbitrary. Thirdly, that the tax should be
taken at the time, and in the mode roost convenient to the con-
tributors. And Fourthly, that each tax ought to be so con-
tributed as both to take and to keep out of the pockets of the
people as little as possible, over and above what
it should bring into the Treasury of the State.
These were principles of morality which ought to govern them
m who took the reins of
all, party men, though they were ; and.one of the first and'
principles
ought
ncipleswt7o'that every an
see that taxation upon all should be
grandest
Government,
that the tax must be
leeqvuiaeldaucpcoonrdrinevg to their means. Supposeenues. he would say for the sake of round num-
bers, 100/., was the man who derived lk 0/. from land
and fee-simple, capable of contributing to the State as much
as the man who had 1001. income from a profession ? Of
coarse, he was far more so. Every man had a knowledge of
that at once. The landed proprietor was at least by one-half
richer; arid if so, would they tax him in only the same sum as
the professional man? That was the question for the Right
Hon. Baronet. Would they tax in the same amount with the
income
from proprietor the man who derived his
from his own exertions, who wore
out his mind and
body in the most arduous occupations in life, pressed
down by the responsibilities of a wife and family.--
would they tax the 100/. derived by such a man from his
labour, to the same extent as they would tax the 1001 derived
by a gentleman from a fixed and a certain sum? Was the
merchant, whose gains were dependent on the seasons and the
winds, to be taxed at the same rate as he whose income was
derived from land ? Were they who toiled for bread ul the
same condition, and were they possessed of the same ability, to
contribute in the same degree to the necessities of the State?
If so, let them go downwards, and they would at last come to
the labourer, who they all allowed was not able to contribute.
He derived his daily bread from his daily toil ; and he was not
able to pay with those who possessed land; and therefore he
would ask whether they whose labour was more burdensome
than the hardest manual work—whose spirit, not whose mus-
cles, was labouring, were to be taxed to the same amount as
those who were better able to pay ?—( Hear.) A great num-
ber of other objections were made—that the tax was a direct
one, and one which the people did not like ; but
he thought it would be improper if he then
entered into the principle of the Bid. He would, therefore,
confine himself to the matter in hand, and he thought he could
illustrate it in twenty thousand ways, and bring them to bear
in a variety of ways. The issue w:s, that the. tax was an un-
equal one, and if it was an unequal one it was opposed to
some of the canons laid down by the great masters of politi-

cal economy. And now, he would ask, was there any diffi-
culty in apportiOning the tax? Where was the difficulty?
Every person who derived 1001. from any vocation, trade,
or profession, had to declare if he dew:od it from fixed
property. if he derived it from land, it was known ;
from the funds, it was known ; from annuities, it was
known ; but if it was derived from any trade, vocation,
'or profession, it was known . also ; therefore he did
not see any difficulty, no matter from what source die it.coine
was derived. He would suppose a professional man, forty
years of age, who had laid up 10,0001. in the funds at three
per cent , New Consols. He has 10,000/. as far as- fixed in.
come was concerned. Now the tax-gatherer comes and asks
hire what property he has got, and he answers that he has
10,000/ in the funds, and 1,000/. a year by his profession.
" Very well," says the tax-gatherer, " I will take.ithree. per
cent. on the return made from your 10,000/., and I will
take one-and-a-half per cent. on your professional gain."
'fhb Right lion. Baronet hail tried to (hive him to a corner
when he first propcuneed his views; he (Mr. It.) had answered
him'as well as he could, but he met him now by saying, It
is true in this case you are right, but there are other people
that I could point out that shall be equally hardly dealt with,
and I will net make any distinction. Now, he would answer
that by saying, that it was; not a worthy answer to say that
because they could not do all justice they should not da some—
that because they could nut do perfect justice they should do
injustice. He wanted to approximate as much as he could
to truth ; the administration of justice was but an approxima-
tion to it, and he was content that it should be so; and
when he showed them a clear way to approximate to
justice, he asserted that on the head of him who would not
adopt that just and clear remedy would rest ail the odium and
responsibility ; and that odium and responsibility would be
greatly increased by the powerful situation in which the Right
Hon. Baronet stood, if he unjnstly taxed the people of Eng-
land. He hoped and b'lieved that the Right Hon. Baronet
was desirous to relieve the people from all inequality
in taxation, and he wanted him to show what
there was to prevent him from doing so.—( Hear, hear. )
But it might be said that the matter itself was not a perfect
approximation to the truth. The question between him and
the Right Hon. Baronet was this : taking the man who de-
rised his income from a fee simple on land, taking him as the
representative of a class, should he do more or less injustice by
bringing all persons up to his unit—make, them pay up to his
unit; or should he do more justice by making others bear one
fraction of that unit, and taxing hint upon those units ? Ile
only asked for rough justice to a large class of the community.
He made his pi oposal on the ground of expediency. 'I he
Right Hon. Baronet might say that the proposal could not be
carried into effect. He might say that " fools rushed in where
angels feared to tread.' Let the Right Honourable
Baronet show them that there were obstacles which
could not be surmounted. If he could not show that
there were such obstacles, would he • be prepared
to take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting a just and
practicable measure? There was nu quarrelling with party
interests, here were no "horned cattle," here were no Corn-
laws to interfere with the principles of justice. The simple
paint in dispute was, whether the House was prepared to tax
equally persons of unequal incomes. Hon. Gentlemen who
opposed him should show either that the proposition of the
Right Hon. Baronet was not unequal, or that although unequal
it was not unjust, or else that, even though unequal and un-
just, it was impossible to amend the measure. He would now
move that 3id. should be substituted for 7d. in the clause.
The amendment having been pit!,
The CHANCELLOR • of the EXCHEQUER said, he
was sure that, however Hon. Gentlemen might differ from the
Hon. and Learned Member who ha I just addressed the House,
no one could find the least fault either with the arguments of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, or with the manlier in
which- he had urged them. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had set an example, by the moderation of his speech,
which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be
happy to find more frequently followed in that House.
He would, as well as he was able, state to the House the reasons
which had induced him to take a totally different view of the
subject from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hen.
and Learned Gentleman had justly observed that in all their
attempts at legislation, however much they might endeavour
to approximate to perfection, they could never hope to attain
it ; and he ought therefore to recollect that when he called upon
the Government to propose a tax which should press equally
upon all parties, he proposed to them to do that which no
'Government before had ever been able to accomplish. If in
this tax the Hon. and Learned Gentleman discovered inequa-
lities which he could not reconcile, he should remember the
inequalities of the taxes for which this tax was proposed as a
substitute. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn a
contrast between a man deriving an income from the exercise
of a profits: ion, and a man deriving an income of equal amount
from landed property, and had told them that the interest of
the one man in his income was very different from the interest
of the other, and that the professional man ought only to be
taxed on the amount of one half; but they ought to
consider whether the taxation levied on articles of
consumption pressed equally upon these two persons.
The professional man was at least called upon to pay equally
with persons of the same income in the other classes of society.
He did net maintain that the tax was perfectly equal in its
pressure, but he did maintain that on that account the tax was
not unjust, and not one of which the public would have reason
to complain. The tax which they were discussing would draw
from the income of all a certain and limited portion, in ex-
change for other taxes, to which, if the Income-tax were not
imposed, they would necessarily be subject. .The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had drawn a picture of the risks of trade
from the changes of seasons, tempests, and other causes. He
was willing that the cultivator of the soil should pay
the same amount of duty as the owner of the inheritance. He
had not taken into account theblighting effects of tempest upon
the crops —(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to the compa-
rison instituted between landed, and professional, and trading
income ; he was quite teady to admit, that the uncertainty in
the case of trades and professions was much greater than in the
case of land. But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had for.-
gotten to notice that there were instances in commerce in which
men inherited capital, reputation, and habits of business from
those who preceded them, which were equivalent to the advar.-
tages connected with land. If they looked to some of the
banking-houses in the city of London, they would find that they
had descended from generation to generation, bringing to
those who succeeded large profits in addition to those which
were the fruits of their own industry. Would it be fair to tax
such houses as those of Snow and Child at 3d. in the pound,
whilst landed property was taxed at sevenpence ?—t Hear,
hear.) The public could not approve of that distinction.
The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck) would guide
taxation according to the maxims laid down by Adam Smith.
, Now the proposed tax would be brought into operation ac-
cording to those maxims. It would produce more revenue to
the State in proportion to the amount it raised from the poc-
kets of the people than any other tax, and it would be in
proportion to the incomes of the parties f. om whatever sources
they might be derived. He did not agree with the lion. Gen-
tleman that it would be right to c'saige professional incomes
at one half the amount proposed to be taken from.the
incomes of the other classes of the community. That would
not be, according to his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's)
view, taxing according to the means of the parties. For those
reasons he would vote against the amendment of the Hon.
Gentleman.

Mr. WARD appealed to the Committee to say, whether the
Right lion. Gentleman, had in the least degred answered the
speech or shaken the arguments of the Hon. Member for
Bath. There was an injustice in direct taxation, and yet it
was proposed in a new tax to follow this injurious system. 'the
Right Hun. Gentlemen had picked his examples, and had
taken the cases of the best paid professions, and the regular
returns of certain banks ; but why did he not take the cases of
almost all the pi ofessions of life, all those which were struggling
for existence, and on whom the Income-tax would press heavily.
Professions were extremely uncertain; a physician could not
reckon on more than fifteen years of professional existence, to
remunerate him for the outlay of his education. He thought
his Hon. Friend the Member for Bath, had suggested a com-
promise between two conflicting interests, and he was sure
that an acquiesience in the motion would reconcile many per.
sons to the tax. They should expect from the Right Hon.
Baronet a better argument than had been brought forward yet.
His Hon. Friend had not been touched in any one of the
points of the proposition he had propounded. had produced
great effect its that House, and it would no doubt produce a
great effect out of doors. He hoped to see the motion carried.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY differed from the sentiments
of the Hon. Member for Bath and the Hon. Member who had
just sat down. The views taken by the lion. Member for
Bath had been grounded on premises altogether false, and if
adopted would lead to great injustice. He would ask the Hon.
and Learned Member, could the owner of a life interest in land
—for after all, under the circumstances in which land estates
were usually held, there was nothing but a life interest—could
be go into the market and sell it for the same price as he could
a terminable annuity derived from other sources ?—( Hear. )
Had the Hon. and Learned Member so little knowledge of
landed property as to suppose that the rental of the landlord was
entirely profit? There was no landed proprietor in this
country who was not obliged to abandon a large portion of his
rental. With regard to Schedule A, if they looked to page 33
of the Bill, he would ask why were they to make a difference
between the assessment of tithes and the income of the mer-
chant? He could see no justice in such a distinction. There
was no portion of the soh. dule that illustrated more forcibly,
the fallacy of the Hon. and Learned GentlemanYs argument
than that which followed immediately after, which imposed the
tax upon owners of mines, canals, &c., &c. It was for these
reasons that he felt justified in opposing the proposition of the
Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HAWES said that he thought the answer to the Hon.
Gentleman who just sat down was, that the tax was in itself
unjust and impracticable. With regard to the income of the
landlord not bring equal to the rent roll he admitted it, but it
was always likely to be more than tKe return made. But tae case
put by the Hon. Member for Bath was not answered. Ile would put
another case himself. Suppose a person had 10,000!. in-
vested in land, from which he derived 312 per cent., and that
another had 10,0001. invested in trade, from which he ob-
tained 12 per cent. The 10,0001. invested in land gave an
income of &XL, which at 7d. would give a tax of 101. But
the money invested in trade gave an income of 1,2001., the
tax on which ought to be only 2d., if it was intended to make
both contribute equal sums. If it were said that he over-
stated or understated the interest, that would not affect the
principle of his argument. Take another case. Suppose a
physician, with a 1001. a year in the market, derived from his
professional labour, and taking it at the value of the lion.
Member for Bath, he would receive only 1,5001. for it., while if
the same were derived from land, it would be worth 3,0001.
Arid was it fair to tax property so essentially diffe-
rent to the same amount?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Just in proportion as they made their tax unjust, they would
hold out a temptation to evade the tax ; and the greater the
inducement they offered to fraud and immorality. The Right
Hod. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in oppos-
ing the proposition before the House, took eases of a merely
exceptional character, and did not look at the general principles
of trade. The general trader was subject to the same fluctua-
tions of circumstances and climate which affected the trade its
corn. He begged to say that in his belief the arguments of his
Hon. friend the Member for Bath had not been closely dealt
with, and, still more, had not been answered. His lion.
Friend suggested a simple and practicable mode of carrying out
his views ; and was he met by any proposal equally simple or
equally just? No such position was assumed by the Hon.
Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, or by those who
spoke on the same side. He trusted, therefore, that unless the
House should hear more convincing arguments than had yet
been adduced in favour of the Government proposal, they would
adopt the amendment then under their consideration.
Mr. BORTHWICK said that it was impossible by any
scheme to make the tax press with perfect equality upon dif-
ferent classes. In his opinion no cl.,ss would suffer so much
from the unavoidable inequality of the tax as the small farmer,
who, while subject to all the changes of climates and of the
elements, was permanently rated at one-half his rent. The
tax the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed would be as
unequal in its operation as the tax he proposed to supplant. It
would make the man who gut 6,0001. a-year from a profession,
and him who derived only 1501. a-year from a profession, alike
pay 41. 10s. Now, did not the former individual
derive more benefit from good Government and the
institutions of the country than the latter? if the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had moved an amend-
ment to the effect that the tax should begin to be levied at
2006 a year, he (Mr. Borthwick) would support him; but at
present he would vote for the clause as it was, as being nearer
to justice to small farmers, tradesmen, and the holders of an-
: nuities?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the principle involved in
the question before the Muse involved principles of the highest
importance to the whole es.untry ; and, having given it the
fullest consideration, it was not in his power to vote for the