The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-24 00:00:00

the working classes ?_(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Hero Sir R. Peel made an obser ..ation across the table, which
did not reach us.] lle hoped he would be favour-d with an
answer to that. Could it be denied that that tax would fall
upon the capital by which the labourers were maintained?
—(Hear, hear.) A struggle was now going on between
capitalists, and the wages of profit were reduced to the lowest
amount. In the present state of things profits were extremely
small, and the means of employing the working classes greatly
diminished, and it was not likely that a tax of 3 per cent, would
be any augmentation of those profits, or afford any inducement
to employ capital in the various branches of manufactures.
The fifth objection, and which appeared to him to be of great
moment was, that an income tax bad never before been proposed
in time of peace.—( Hear, hear.) The last income tax was
proposed in time of war, when the capitalists could not go
abroad. They were now about to try it at a time when any
man of fluctuating capital could remove to any portion of the
world he liked.—(Hear, hear.) The measure had a direct ten-
dency to drive capital out of the country, by inducing the mer-
chant to transfer his capital to other countries wirer e it would
not be so severely taxed.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman must be aware that such an effect had already been
produced in some degree. The Right Hon. Gentleman could
net be unaware that, during the last 10 or 12 years, British
capital to a large amount had been transferred to Germany,
to Belgium, and to France ; and the -Right Hon. Gentleman
was now, by the imposition of this tax of 3 per cent. on income,
actually adding to the motives for the withdrawal of capital from
the country. It appeared to hint that all the objections which
could be urged against art income tax we e of tenfold force as
against the present proposition. '1 he first objection to the
income tax was its exceedingly small amount. There might be
some argument for an income tax where it was attempted to
raise a great portion of the revenue by it. There might be
some argument for an income tax, where, as was the case with
Mr. Riorardo's proposed property tax. Some great national effort
was to be made to raise a revenue for the capital of the country
to attempt to pay off a considerable portion of the national
debt. That was worth an effort; but when the Right Hon.
Baronet proposed to impose this tax merely to raise a suns of
3,000,000/., all the objections against such a tax were of ten-
fold force. The evils of an income tax did not consist in the
amount of revenue raised from it, but in the inequality, the
injustice, and the inquisitorial nature of the machinery,
and the same objectionable machinery must be used, whe-
ther the amount raised by the tax was ,one million, or
one hundred millions. An additional objection to the pre-
sent proposition was the shortness of fhe period for which
it was proposed. That did away with the only argu-
ment that could be adduced for imposing a tax on income
derived from profits, as well as an ,income derived from pro-
perty. Mr. Pitt's argument was, that the man who derived
an income from profits ceased to pay when he ceased to re-
ceive his income, while the man who derived a permanent in-
come from invested property still continued to pay. Now, if
the tax was continued for three years, this argument was :com-
pletely done away with.—( Hear, hear.) A man whose in-
come was derived from an annuity, terminable at the end of
three years, would pay precisely the same amount to this tax
as a roan deriving an income from an invested property, which
would last for the whole of his life, and descend to his children
after him.—( Hear.) He thought this, als r, a most ill-chosen
period for proposing an income tax, on account of the great and
acknowledged distress of the country. The inquisitorial ma-
chinery for collecting this tax, which might be tolerated in a
period of prosperity, must, in times of distress, be productive
of extensive ruin. It must also be productive of extensive
mischief, that in a period of distress there should be a tax on
the employment of capital. There was another point which
struck him as of importance connected with the present pe-
riod. The machinery of this tax, always objectionable, was
particularly coat present, when party feeling was so much more
violent than it had been in the time of the war.—( Hear.)
Who would be the pet sons' to ascertain, a man's property?
Why, his neighbour, chosen by the Government of the day.—
(Hear, hear.) He conceived that great injustice would be
done through the influence of party.spirit amongst those persons
in small communities. The last objection which he had to make
was rested upon the ground'og the motives for which it was put
on—the disastrous news from India, and the reverses which
our troops had lately suffered in that part of the world. Ile
thought the Right Hon. Baronet underrated the effect of this
tax upon the oninions of foreign Powers.—( Hear, bear.)
'fhe Right Hon. -Baronet admitted that it was unwise to do °hat,
which in the eyes of foreign Powers would seem to be a ma-
nifestation of alarm. But this tax was never imposed but when
the country had suffered some disaster, as in 1798, and when it
was subsequently re-imposed upon the breaking out of another
war, with the same motive; and, therefore, he would not
doubt that patting on this tax now would appear to be an act of
alarm.—( Hear, hear.) On all these grounds he thought he
might fairly come to the conclusion, that however unpopular the
tax might have been in former times, it would be much more
so now; and if the same feeling had not yet been ex-
hibited against it as in 1816, when its operation was
fresh in men's minds and experience, he still felt that
it would not come into operation without exciting as much op-
position—( Hear.) A great portion of the people would look
upon the tax as imposed, not merely for the purpose of recruit-
ing the revenue, but effecting that
_without having recourse to
other and more legitimate modes of taxation, and to the reduc-
tion of monopolies. His (Mr. C. Buller's) greatest objection was
foentled on the mere circumstance of its unpopularity, an unpo-
pularity which experience hail shown would go on increasing
while it continued to be levied, in consequence of the inquisito-
rial nature of its machinery. That was an argument which
might, in some degree, apply to all direct taxation, and
certainly it did to a great extent ; but, above all,
it applied to a taxation of . which the machinery
was so peculiarly odious. He must say it appeared to him an
unwise thing, in a Government which took so large a portion
of a man's income from him for public purposes, to let him
see the exact amount which he paid.—( Ministerial cheers.)
That doctrine elicited a cheer from the Right Hon. Baronet,
who seemed surprised at what he (Mr. C. Buller) stated, but
the only cause of surprise was, that in taking a Conservative
course, he ( Mr. C. Buller) should And himself opposed to a
revolutionary course, on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet.
*slut it did certainly scent to him (Mr. C. Buller) very unwise
in the Government to take so large a portion of every roan's
income f,om him for public purposes, and at the same time let
each individual see the exact amount which he paid; but more
especially it appeared to him exceedingly unwise, when so
large a portion of income thus taken from the subjects
of the realm went not to support the public estab-
lishments, but to pay the national debt. (The
lion. Gentleman here turned his back on the gallery,
which, together with the indistinctness of the tone in which he
at the moment spoke, rendered him very imperfectly heard. )
We underdool him to say that if dire-st taxation were imposed
to any considerable extent, and people saw that they could not
get rid of it, they would turn front direct taxation and look to
being freed from the 'rational debt as an only means of relief.
It might be said that that was out of the question, but he must
confess that he had apprehensions that such would be the case.
Those were the arguments which the Right Hon. Baronet was
obliged to use when he defended the malt tax, and. he (Mr.
C. Bulier) thought that the whole history of English taxation
showed whether it was a wise thing to draw it from
indirect taxation. Since the Revolution the land tax had
been got rid of—one of the next taxes that were given
up were the assessed taxes. These were given up since the
people were better represented in that House. The house tax
and half the window taxes were taken off since. There was ano-
ther matter which he ( fir. C. Buller) wished to mention to the
House, that was the state of the law with respect to the taxa.
tion of stock in trade. Under the Act of Elizabeth there was
no doubt that " stock in trade" was as liable to the payment of
rates for the poor as any other descriptiori of property, but owing
to the difficulty of collecting the tax, an application was made
to the Court of Queen's Bench, to asceriain whether " stock in
trade" was liable for poor-rates, and when it was decided by that
Court that it gas as liable to the payment of those rates
as any other visible property, the very next Session an
Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of ex-
empting that description of property altogether.—(Hear. )
His opinion was, that if the income tax were now imposed it
would be made permanent, and increased from year to year,
and that instead of being an improvement in the finances of the
country, it would place the national debt on a most precarious
basis. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to have greatly un-
dercalculated the revenue he would derive from the income tax.
He had also miscalculated thetemount derivable from the old
property tax, without considering the increase of wealth of the
country since. In 1815 there were assessed 170,000,0001.
of property, from which 28,8.50,000/. were exempted, leaving
a clear remainder of 141,150,000/., which, at Mein the pound,
would produce, instead of 3,500,000!., 4,100,000/., beteg at
least 400,0001. more than the Right Hon. Baronet calculated.
This was under the old property tax. But had the nation
made no progress in wealth since, admitting that the rental of
land was not higher now than in 1815 ? He (Mr. B.)
had returns to show that the gains and profits arising from pro.,
fessional and mercantile pursuits had greatly increased since
that time. In the four years ending 1815 the legacy duty was
paid on 26,000,000/. of personal property. In four the years
ending 1839 it was paid on 42,935,0001.—( Hear, hear.)
There was no reason to suppose that the legacy duty bore any
undue proportion to the amount of property ; and he thought,
therefore, they should take it for granted that both equally in-
crersed. He did not, however, rest upon that alone ; and
there were other data to corroborate his statement. They had
repealed, since the war, 25,000,000/. of taxes, besides the pro-
perty tax; and the revenue now derived from the 'diminished
sources was only 10,000,0001. less ; 'so that the increased con-
sumption of the country had enabled us, lo a certain extent, to
make up for diminished taxation. It seemed to him, there-
fore, that the Right Hon, Baronet was asking fur a good deal
more money than he would want. He would particu,arly im-
press that upon the House, because if a Government were dis-
posed to be extravagant, they would no' be the less extrava-
gant if they had 40 ',COOL or 500.000/. more than they had cal-
culated on for meeting their expenditure. What, he would
ask, was the necessity for an income tax at the present mo-
ment? He had no doubt that, if the necessities of the nation
required it, if we were engaged in an expensive war, for any
great object, the country would submit to such a burden.
They would say it was unjust, but that they should bear its
injustice—that it was inquisitorial, but that they should
submit to that inconvenience—that it was burdensome,
but that it was better to endure that burden than
to be overrun by a foreign army. But he shOuld say in the
first place, that the Right Hon. Baronet, in attempting to jus-
tify his proposal, had extravagantly exaggerated the necessities
of the country ; and that he had, in the second place, fallen into
an equally extravagant depreciation of its resources He saw
nothing in the state of our finances which could give rise to the
language held by the Right Hon. Baronet, as if the country
were placed in difficulties from which it could only be extricated
by an income tax. The history of our financial embarrass-
ments was perfectly obvious. Those embarrassments had arisen
from the excessive love of economy which had prevailed in that
House since the passing of the Reform Bill. He would, how-
ever, take that opportunity of expressing his approval of one re-
duction at least in our taxation, which had been a con-
stant subject of taunt, . to. Honourable Gentlemen eppa,
site—he meant the reduction in the Post-office revenue.
He had no hesitation in saying that if he looked hack to the Re-
form Bill' for the one great benefit which it had done to the
common people of the country—to the great masses which were
unrepresented in that House—it appeared to him that the Post-
office Reform was the one measure which had done more good
to the people than all the others put together. Not to speak
of the direct comforts arid advantages which were conferred by
that measure, lie valued it because it treated the people as
moral beings, having intellects and having hearts, having ideas
to communicate, and affectiens to interchange, and enabled the
poor man to gratify his feelings to the greatest extent —( Hear,
hear.) That taunt came with a very had grace from those who
had quitted the party that originated the Act, and who did not
propose its repeal, because they knew that the great body of the
the people of this country were so strongly in favour of it that
no Government could safely take such a course.—( Hear. hear.)
The revenue had indeed fallen off ; but could it be con-
tended that an income tax was inevitable. They were
told that the old system of raising the revenue was to-
tally inadequate. The Right Honourable Baronet came
down and told them it was perfectly notorious that the
taxes on articles of consumption had reached their level.
Because texts on particular articles had reached their level,
because they could not resort to those articles with advantage
to the revenue, therefore it was contended there remained no
articles to be taxed. That argument had been met on that
sise cf the House by the simple statement that since the last war
there 'had been taken off 25 millions of taxes. If gentlemen
e anted direct taxation, let them resume the 3 or 4 millions of
assessel taxes which had been taken off since the war. Those
were taxes which would not interfere with trade and
of
would
return a certain revenue without any of the odious resultsaiso told
an income tax. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
them that there was no remedy to be found
by
taxes —that the produce would not be sufficientlygreat for the
open, to
lowering the
necessary urgency. But there was a third course