The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-10 00:00:00

Mr. MURPHY said that it would be improper, as far as
regarded the Hon. Member for Lewes himself, who se-
conded the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath, and who challenged a most searching inquiry
into the facts, if the borough of Lewes were excluded.
In fairness to him it could not be excluded, more parti-
cularly as his Hon. and Learned colleague (Mr. Elphin-
store) stated in the House that to his knowledge bribery
had been committed at the election for that place.
After a few words from Sir T. D. ACLAND,
Sir J. WALSH said, that he understood the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was proceeding, not upon specific
information, but upon general report, and that he dis-
claimed all party vie‘%s.—(Cheers.) He, therefore,
begged to bring to the recollection of the House, a case
which had excited considerable attention at the close of
last year, and with regard to which it had been
surmised that a compromise had taken place.
He meant the case of Bridport.--(Hear, hear.) Those
who knew him were aware that he did not bring forward
this case from any hostile feelings, but he thought the
case of Bridport ought to be taken into consideration.

Mr. C. BULLER thought that the inquiries would be
incomplete if a case so notorious as that of Bridport was
excluded from the operation of the Committee. EHe
begged, therefore. to move that Bridport should be in-
cluded in the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that inquiries of this
nature ought not to be instituted without notice. The
Honourable and Learned Member for Bath
had given notice of his motion ; if the course now pro-
posed was to be adopted, the names of places might be
added ad libitum, and the Committee would be over-
loaded with business. He still retained the objection he
had stated to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, as he thought it ought to appear distinctly on
the Journals, that the House had been informed that in
certain places corrupt practices appeared. As the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had adopted a suggestion he
had thrown out, he was ready to accede to the motion,
but at the same time he must express a wish that a little
more time had been taken to place it in a more definite
way upon the Journals of the House.
After a few observations froni Sir R. INGLIS and
Mr. C. WOOD

The SPEAKER put the motion, which was carried
without a division.

INCOME TAX.

The Order of the Day for the further consideration of
the Report on the Property-tax Bill being read,
The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
in consequence of a suggestion from the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, he had prepared a clause to protect Parlia-
mentary electors from being charged upon their qualifi-
cation beyond the Assessed Taxes.

The chiuse was read and agreed to without discussion.
Mr. B. WOOD proposed the addition of a clause for
the purpose of protecting " persons from a charge of in-
come-tax upon a larger sum than the net amount of real
income, and to provide that the account of such income
shall be made out and ascertained on the following plan,
as the case may apply, viz.:—
Income derived ut.der Schedule—

A. on lands, &c., ascertained and confirmed by Commis-
sioners
B. on occupation of lands, ditto
C. on Annuities, &c., ditto
E. on Public-office, &c., ditto

£4OO
Deduct lon sustained under Schedule—
D. on trade, &c., ascertained and confirmed by Commis-
sioners

Real income £3oo
And further, to provide that in case all ofthe said duties
on Schedules A. B. C. and E. shall have been paid, the
Commissioners shall certify to the proper parties the
amount overpaid, who, on production of such certificate
shall repay the same." If it was the object of the Go-
vernment to tax income and not loss, he could not see
why they should object to this clause, in which he had
taken every possible precaution against fraud.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
oppose the clause, because he apprehended that the
adoption of it in the Bill would require that all the pro-
visions of the Bill should be altered ; and it would
moreover entirely defeat the object of the Bill, by ren-
dering it impossible to raise the revenue required, to be
raised under the Act. Notwithstanding what had fallen
from the Hon. Gentleman, he would contend that it
would open a door to fraud. Mr. Pitt's first Bill, in
1798, was founded on the principle embodied in the
clause of the Hon. Gentleman ; and in 1801, with
a duty of 10 per cent.., a revenue of 4,600,000/. only
had been raised. The present principle Lad been
adopted in 1803, and in the following year, with a duty
of 5 per cent., a revenue of 3;600,000/. had been raised.
The proposition of the Hon. Gentleman wouldealso re-
quire a full development of the actual income of each
individual, which would be avoided by the adoption of
the Government plan of taxing property at its source.
Mr. WARD said it was perfectly natural for the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get as much
money as he possibly could, but he ought likewise to
consider whether he would receive the money justly.
If a man proved that he sustained a loss, and still paid
the Income-tax, he paid that tax upon a nominal income.
Now this appeared to him (Mr. Ward) a great injustice.
If the man said he had sustained a loss, he had to un-
dergo a most searching investigation before the Com-
missioners, and no man would attempt that unless he
had good grounds to go upon.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
still repeat his objection that it woulti open a door to
fraud, as it was impossible to ascertain the exact amount
of profit and loss of any person.
Mr. B. WOOD said the clause he had proposed did
not interfere in any way with the Bill. If the person
sustained loss under ope schedule, he merely wished it
set off against the profits of another; and, in doing this,
lie must submit his affairs to the investigation of the
Commissioners. Where then could there be any fraud
committed? It was impossible, as he courted inquiry.
He (Mr. B. Wood) thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
could not have read the clause.

Sir R. PEEL said that.- supposing a person had
10,000/. a year, received from his tenants, and that he
had a farm that would bring him in 1,0001. a year, but
that he kept it in his own hands, and farmed it himself,
but being a bad farmer, he lost 3,0001, they would not
set that against the amount received from his tenants,
therefore, the principle upon which they went they did
not carry out. They:all recollected that, under the old
tax, great frauds were committed, and he hoped the lion.
Gentleman would again take the subject into his consi-
deration, and that the House would hesitate before they
adopted this proposition.
Lord lICIIITICK said that the principle of the propo-
sition was in some degree recognised by the Bill, as all
incomes under 1501. were exempt. He agreed with the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the
wording of the clause needed some correction, but he
fully agreed in the principle. It was perfectly true that
it was difficult to ascertain the amount of profit or loss,
but the Bill already proceeded on the principle that they
were to ascertain the amount of profit and loss.—(Hear,
hear.) If a man had two manufactories, he could set
the loss from one against the profit of another, but if a
man had a mine and a manufactory, he could not set the
loss of one against the profit of another. Now this was
not just. He- should therefore support the proposition
without hesitation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took the
case of a man possessed of a mine in Mexico and a ma-
nufactory in England; it would not be fair to set the loss
of one against the profit of another.
Lord HOWICK said the proposition would not ex-
tend to property out of the country.
Mr. Ald. ReMPHERY thought the principle of ex-
empting tho man who sustained a loss from trade, but
had a 1501. a-year in the funds, should be fully carried out.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN said that seldom as he differed
from the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
must support the proposition of the lion. Member for
Southwark, as he believed it to be founded in justice.
After a short conversation, strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 66
Against the clause
Majority against the clause ..

Mr. GILL then rose to move the amendments and
new clauses of which he had given notice, having
for their object to capitalise all incomes not derived from
landed or funded property, and to charge five per cent.
on such capital as the ground-work of the Property-tax.
Having explained the object of the amendments, he
stated he should take the sense of the House on the
first one, that it might decide the acceptation or rejec-
tion of the others. The amendment was as follows :
ND. 1. Schedule (A), Rule 2, page 33, line 17, after the
word " limited," to insert—" Provided always, that in
every case where the party to be assessed has a life in-
terest only in such profits, the value of such life interest
shall be ascertained, and the amount thereof be deemed
to be so much capital :—And for the purposes of this
forwardhis amendments thought
rather with a view to make his opinions public than to
EXCHEQUER
Act the profits to be assessed shall be computed at the
rate of five pounds for every hundred pounds of such
capital."
The
‘CHANCELLOReerhad brought
roofu theh t
the Hon. mb
embody them in the Act. He must oppose the amend-
ments.
Mr. HUME thought the Right Hon. Gentleman,
when imposing a tax on the whole community, ought
not to give such an answer.. if he was not prepared to
go into an examination of the Propositions. If the
Hon. Member divided the House, he would certainly
divide with him, in order to mark his sense of the injus-
tice of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman Humphery,
Lord Ebrington, and Mr. Gill in reply, the House
divided, when there appeared—

For the Amendment ..................... 36
Against it ................................ 183
Majority against the Amendment... --147
The other amendments, of which the'Hon. Gentle-
man had given notice, were next severally put and ne-
gatived without a division.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a
hird time on Friday next.
In answer to a question from Mr. HUME,
Sir R. PEEL said, that if there was any objection to
the third reading of the Bill, before the tariff went
through Committee, he had no ohiPction to its postpone-
ment. POOR-LAWS.

In reply to a question from Captain PECHELL,
Sir J. 4RAHAM said, that he would state to-morrow
what was his intention with regard to the Poor-law Bill.
WHITSUN HOLIDAYS—ADJOURNMENT 4:A"