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

THE SUN. i3ONDON, 'SATURDAY, EVENING, APRIL 30, 1842.

4 ..-f

r; >

motion of the Hon. and Learned Member fur Bath. In the
present circumstances of the events it was running a great rist. •
of shutting out the Government from resources which could be
resorted to, in times of danger. In a time of diffi-
culty and danger, a tax like this would be a
last resort. If they now had recourse to it, whst would be tbei:
means of raising revenue in a tune of real difficulty. In 1-03,
Mr. Adtfington proporsi, exemptions of trades and professions.
similar to those procosed by his lion. and Learned Friend
the Member for Bath. . On, that -occasion Mr. Pitt said that
the House ought not to encourage one mode of employing ea
pital in preference to another. Men employed capital in v..-
rieus pursuits, according to their various tastes. I'he object
of the exemption at that time proimsed was not so large as that
which his Hon Friend, the Member for Bath, recommended.
Those principles were held by both sides of the House, by Mr.
Fox, as well as by Mr. Pitt ; both contended that however
just and leg al it might be to tax the funds in common with all
all lime-lie, the instant any exceptions were permitted, it
became illegal and unjust. He did not deny that there were
hardships, but it was wrong to suppose that the fundholder was
always an opulent man. They might as well attempt to wash
a blackamoo r white. as to make an income-tax a fair and
equal tax, and that was the reason he had opposed it ; hut the
House having sanctioned the principle, he could not, for one
sanction any exemption, convinced as he was that if any
exemption were admitted, they must end by giving it le,
altoget her.
Sir ROFIF:ItT INGLIS, anxious as he was that the Right
Hon. Gentleman should review one portion of his measure.
could not concur in the principle on which the Hun. and
Learned Member for Bath advocated his motion. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman's motion went to relieve one class only.
His (Sir R. Inglis's) proposition went to the relief of the
poor of all classes. He was desirous to begin with
the sum of 1501., as the amount at which taxation should com-
mence. If he were to bring forward his proposition as a sub-
stantial motion, he felt he should do so with some prospect oft
success. He was not desirous of embarrassing she Right
Hon. Baronet; but he felt that it would take away a large
portion of the unpopularity from this tax, if his Right Hon.
Friend would accede to his proposition. One of the letters to ;
which he had already adverted, stated that the income of the
writer was 1551. a year ; that he had a family of thirteen chil-
dren; that he was seventy-eight years of age; that five of his
children were dependent upon him ; but he seated that he thought
the reduction in the tariff would compensate him for his charge
to the Incotne•tax. The pressure of taxation was most severely
felt by those who seldom tasted butcher's meat. There were
individuals who had no luxur:es • there were persons whom the
butlers of Hon. Gentlemen would consider had not necessaries.
It was to the poorer classes that the boon of the tariff would
more immediately apply. Notwithstanding that this country
was more aristocratica4 than any other, yet there was a great
) subdivision of property. He considered that the Income-tax
would press heavily on the snan of 200/.;, and lie hoped his
Right Hon. Friend would take the subject into his considera-
tion. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) thought that the man of 200/.
should be only charged upon the surplus 501., anti 250/. of the
surplus 1001. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would adopt
this course, as he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed it would relieve
the tax from any unpopularity it might otherwise gain. Ile
would not make a substantive motion, as he did not wish to
embarrass his Right Hon. Friend. He merely threw out
out as a,suggestion, and if it were adopted by the Right Hon.
Baronet, he should feel extremely grateful to him.
Mr. V. SMITH would not enter into the question the Hon.
Baronet had introduced. If he made a substantive motion, he
(Mr. Smiths) should have an opportunity of considering the
subject, and perhaps of giving it his support, if he was at all
willing to accept it. He (Mr. Smith) rejoiced ex-
tremely that this question had been raised by the Hon.
Member for Bath on that occasion ; first, because he
thought that of all the debates that had taken place on that
subject this one was the most damaging to the Income-tax,
and, secondly, because he could not agree with Honourable
Gentlemen, who said that they were not to consider the mea-
sure in detail, but consider it as a whole. He (Mr. Smith)
considered it to be their duty to endeavour, as much as possible,
to mitigate the evils of the Bill. He must sa" that
it appeared to him to be no answer whatever to the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Bath, that because there were other
injustices in the Bill, that therefore they were not to consider
that one. The Hon. Member for Bath had proposed an easy
remedy to this evil, and if any other Hon. Member could
propose as easy a remedy for another evil, he (Mr.
Smith) was prepared to give him his support. Ile
(Mr. Smith) could not agree with the Hon. Member for
Taunton, that this was entirely a war tax. He (Mr. Smith)
believed that if this country were engaged in an European war,
that the country would find other resources, even for that, than
an Income-tax. The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said that the injustice complained of by the Hon.
Member for Bath, would apply equally to fixed income. To
this, he (Mr. Smith) now purposed to give a distinct denial.
The Right Hon. Member for Taunton had quoted the language
of Mr. Pitt as his argument, but he (Mr. Smith) did
not think the argument applicable to the present case. Mr.
Pitt told them that there was no excuse of a violation of public
faith in taxing the funds, but that of taxing all income equally.
But this was at a time when there was thegreatest need of the
tax. In conclusion, he must say that when the Hon. Member
for Bath said that this was a bold and a comprehensive Inca-
sure that he (\lr. Smith) did not see the boldness of it, as it
proposed to exempt a third portion of the British Isles, and lie
did not see that it was comprehensive, as, according to the
showing of the Hon. Member for Bath, a very small sum was
raised by_ an immense inconvenience to the whole natien.

Sir iZOBER'Is PEEL said he was rather surprised to find
the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last intended to vote
with the Hon. Member for Bath. The Hon. Gentleman
argued that there was a difference between trade and pro-
fessions, and that there :was an injustice with respect to pro-
fessions and trade in being taxed in the same rate as real eros
perty. The Hon. Gentleman had founded his argument on
the difficulty attending this tax. Difficulty there would be
its any case, therefore it was quite clear that the Hon.
Gentleman could not support the Hon. Member for Bath. He
(Sir Robert Peel) thought it was highly desirable to con-
flee themselves simply to the matter before the House,
viz., whether it was just—assuming the principle upon which
the House had determined to act, viz., to raise the deficiency
in the revenue by a tax or income—whether it was fitting to
make a distinction according to the sources of income. He
would make one or two observations on the vote the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) intended to give on this
questian. He (Mr. Labouchere) assumed for the sake of ar-
gument, that it was right, in imposing an Income-tax, that
you ought to make a difference in the sources .of income—( as we
understood). He (Sir R. Neel) retained his opinion that if they
had to raise three millions and a half, or four millions, under the
present circumstances of the country, that there was no istea-
burn by which that sum ~stuld-lad raised with hiss iuconveni-
enco and embarrassment to the community than by a Pro-
per:y-tax, and so far from the discussions which had taken
place ha v log affected the conclusion which he had previously
drawn, he believed that no measure would be attended with
less injustice than that wouP. The Right HOn. Gentleman
hail quoted from a work writ ten by Adam Smith,
This motian referred to those propositions to which the Hon.
Gentleman referred, fur the purpose of showing that a tax upon
income was more just to all classes, and more particularly to
the consuming classes of the country, than taxes on expendi-
ture or any ether tax; and he (Sir R. Peel) must say that if
he had attempted to increase the window-tax, or the house-
tax, or the assessed taxes, the peculiar class which would have
been mainly subject to the burdens of those taxes would be
those who derived their income from professional pursuits; and
he would say that this tax was preferable to those because the
wealthy man, who could withdraw himself from the country, could
escape those taxes, but with regard to an Income-tax, whether
he retired or no he could not escape from its operation. With
that single exception, he ( Sir R. Peel) expressed his concur-
' rence in the opinions of the Hon. Gentleman, and he was stye,
whether the lion. Gentleman took the popular or the unpo-
pular course,:there was no man its that House who adopted any
course with more conscientious motives. Such conduct had,
marked the whole of the Hon. Gentleman's
hear.) He would now address himself to the argument of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He spoke very warmly of the
great responsibility which was to devolve upon him ( Sir Robert
reel) personally for the decision to which the House should
come. He (Sir R. Peel) could assure him that when he
had come to a conclusion on any particular course
he was perfectly prepared to bear all the responsibility.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman agreed with him that an
lnconse-tax, subject to modifications, was on the whole the
most just tax that could be imposed. The Hots. and Learned
Gentleman made a proposition fur the exemption of certain
classes, but he did not propose to remedy any one of the evils
to which this tax was subject in consequence of its inquisitorial
character. The inquisition into incomes derived from profes-
sions or trades must be the same, whether they levied Zfid. or
7d. in the pound. For the purpose of levying small sums the
inquisition would be just die same as for levying large- sums,
and no part of the objection to this tax in that respect was
remedied by his proposal. His proposal simply was that co:-
tain incomes derived in a certain way should be an part exempt
from the Income-tax. He (Sir R. Peel) objected to this pro-
position, because he believed that the plan proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Goversarnent was much less objectiunable than it.
He (Sir R. Peel) postponed to levy a tax on the whole of
the income of this country to supply the deficiency in the
revenue, but at the same time to make an abatement its the
cost of articles of consumption, in the hope of benefiting all
classes of the ccmmunity, more particularly of benefiting
these of whom the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was the
advocate.—( Hear.) The other night the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman appeared to admit the justice of his (Sir
11. Peel's) proposal; but if any distinction whatever could be
made, it ought to be on account of the permanency of the
tenure ; and when he went on to show the difference of real pro-
perty, with respect to the permanency of the tenure the lion.
Gentleman appeared to agree with hint, but he did nut do so
now ; he would not now look at the permanency of
the tenure, but he said 'now that he would raise
the Income-tax, but he would partially exempt those
who derived their incomes from professions and trades.
The Government proposed to levy 7d. in the pound on all
ula.ansdnlno,rtivt—,ho(
lands, tenements, and hereditaments In Great Britain. The Hon.
Gentleman said, that he would take the proprietor of an estate
infee simple, and he would compare the value of his interest
with the professional man's income ; but the Hon. Gentleman
was not at liberty to do that. He had not said to
simple,
the owners of fee " you can sell your
estate for twice the value for which the owner of a life
dit:dterneostt
apply
yd ; the Hon. Gentleman
" no master what your
interest in landed property, you all shall be subject to a rate-
able and equalised contribution." H
—e (Sk Robert Peel) had
thisi thesist,"butNhoet
pound. He had subjected the tenant, without any reference
Hear, hear)—
taakteanx
theof 7ind .a
who
hhne
subjected sums of estate and fee-simple to
notice, whose incense
uto.htohnettigenhut rbeeotfuhrnisedproonpetrtayt. ;stnxame,ohnetiltisa,d
e
in his property at all—not half such a tenure as the surgeon
dheejlide his
d propertyon l ie a t
th
vicissitudese will
of his
thl
or the lawyer, and he said, " You shall Pay on the assumed
profit—( Hear, hear)—at the rate of 31/2d. in the poutd."
--(Hear, hear.) In the case of the holder of terminable
annuities, they had determined that he should be subject to
had no tenure
pay 7d. in die pound. The House determined, without
question, that a man who had souse 10,0001. in the purchase
of annuity in an assurance office should be :
subject to a tax of
7d. in the pound. If the Hon. Gentleman's test were a good
one, he should have to go into the sr arket stn,l inquire what
was the difference in the value of the various interest?. Then
he was about to subject the holders of office, without exception
—( Hear, hear)—to the payment of 7d. in the pound—all those
holding offices during pleasure he was about to require to pay
7d. in the pound. If the uncertainty of a tenure
were to prevail, he should think,
, judging front the
experience of late years, that those parties at least
should be exempt.—(Cheers and laughter.) All those who
devoted their abilities to the public service and the various
civil departments were called on to pay 7d. in the U. equally
with the holder of property and fee-simple. Take the ease of
all military and naval officers receiving either half-pay or full-
pay, and it was proposed to subject them to the pay ment of 7d.
in I/., on the amount of income they derived from their exer-
tions in the public service. Then be would say that if they
did subject income of this kind so different in its tenure—if they
subjected clergymen with 2001. a-year, who held property no
doubt of a permanent character such as tithes, but
whose tenure was short—if they subjected him also
to a tax of 7d. in the IL, then in reversing all these
different instances in which they subjected parties
to an equal rate of contribution, he contended that there was
more of justice in subjecting with them all the professional
men and him who derived his income from trade, than to say
' they should be exempt. If they subject a widow with a join-
'
ture—if they subject the clergymars—the Admiral—the General,
iand all these classes to an equal amount of duty with the holder
of fee simple, he would say that, if they allowed the great