The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-13 00:00:00

there was much to be said in favour of the
motion of the Hon. Member for Birmingham, and
there was certainly much plausibility on the face of
it, yet he felt compelled to divide against him on the
present occasion.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. SPOONER said he would say but one word
in reply to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth. He must say that for the sake of
showing how fallacious was the supposition that if an
insurance were discontinued the office would return
the premium. The office would, it is true, return
something, but on most lives, and especially in young
lives, the whole amount returned would not be more
than two per cent. There was, therefore, nothing in
that. He thought that the House was bound to act
conscientiously, and if they could not do all the good
they desired, they at least might do some good. There
was a peculiarity about the income-tax. It interfered
with the whole arrangement of a man's expenditure.
He would suppose the case of a man enjoying a cer-
tain amount of income by which he ranged all his ex-
penses. Among other portions of his expenditure he
had insured his life; then comes the property-tax—this
was a charge which he could not avoid, and there was
the danger of losing, if not the actual loss, of the only
provision which he was able to make for his family,
and, therefore, he thought that a difference ought to
be made to meet the case.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment...
Against it -
Majority against the Amendment. —6l
Mr. WAKLEY said, that in bringing forward the
motion of which he had given notice, he thought it
necessary to explain that his object was not to inter-
fere in any way with the collection cf the tax upon
property and income. The Bill before the House
was entitled, "A Bill for Levying a Tax uprn Pro-
perty and Income," but unless the clause of which
he had given notice was introduced, it might be
called " A Bill for levying a Tax on Losses. His
(Mr. Wakley's) object was to relieve those parties
who were assessed to the whole amount of their
nominal income, and who yet suffered serious losses
from the insolvency or bankruptcy of tenants, or, as
in many cases, from their absconding, and he thought
that he might, with great reason, ask the House to
remit the charge for income-tax on the amount of
those losses, when they had been fully proved be-
fore the official parties whose duty it was to make
the assessment. Many parties complained that this
tax was a great evil, and he (Mr. Wakley) was ready
to allow that it was so, but still he thought that any
evil was endurable which was to continue only a
limited period. And when two parties who were
complaining to him of its oppression, how peculiarly
it fell upon their cases, he was in the habit of telling
them that it would not hurt them much, as it was to
continue only for .three years. He would therefore
tell the Right Hon. Baronet that the public expected
this tax to cease at the end of three years. He
had voted for the imposition of this tax, and under
the circumstances he thought that it was a wise pro-
position, but he did not believe that tax could be con-
tinued in its present shape at the end of that time.
There was already great discontent out of doors in
consequence of it, and if the same disposition to reject ,
any modification of the tax remained that had already
been witnessed, he would say that it would be impos-
sible to continue the tax at the end of the time for
which it was now voted ; but he believed that the
amendment which he had to submit was necessary to
render the tax palatable. He was ready to grant that
they could not tax property without taxing income,
but he at the same time conceived that in order to
avoid the dishonest influence of the tax it was neces-
sary to introduce a clause to save the imposition upon
losses. He did not wish rnetely to avoid the tax
upon assumed losses, but on those which were capable
of proof. He didlnot ask that the Commissioners
should have power—he did not say that they should
at once remit—but that they should have the power
of remitting the tax in all cases when it was proved
that losses had been incurred by the causes which he
had assigned. He would, therefore, beg to move that a
clause be inserted in the Bill to the following effect :
" And whereas doubts have arisen whether the
landlord for the time being of premises charged under
Schedule (A) is liable to the duty charged on the
said premises under the said last-mentioned Schedule,
whether the said landlord shall or shall not have re •
ce:ved the rent in respect of the said premises ; be it
enacted, and it is hereby enacted, that it shall and
may he lawful for the Commissioners for General
Purposes, acting for the district in which the said
premises are situated, on appeal to them made for that
purpose by the said landlord or his agent, to dis-
charge the said assessment, or such portion thereof,
at the rate of seven pence in the pound, on such
amount of rent as the said landlord shall prove to
their sat'sfaction he has wholly lost, and has not been
able and is not likely to recover in respect of the said
premises, and on which he would have been liable to
pay the said duty, by way of deduction, in case the
occupier for the time being or any other person for
him had paid the said rent."
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he ought to thank the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury for having so well answered the lion. Member
for Cambri,lge, but with respect to the amendment
which the lion. Member had submitted to the House
he felt that he must be as hard upon that as he had
been on other cases. He felt that certainly there
was considerable reason, in a prima facie aspect, in
what had fallen from the Hon. Member. But there
was me objection which, in his opinion, was fatal
to it. It should be recollected that the landlord pos-
sessed peculiar powers over the tenant, and if he lost
his rent in the first instance he would very possibly
have the power of recovering it afterwards. It was
not to be supposed that if a tenant were in debt for
rent he could at once remove from the place that he
occupied; and if he did so it was not likely that
he could remove his goods along with him
(Hear, hear.) Were this amendment to he carried,
and were the Commissioners invested with the power
to allow the reduction of the tax, it would lead to
very great inconvenience. If a landlord were, indeed,
to suffer such a loss, which was not, as he before said,
very likely, he would have to blame his own folly in
not having made either a proper agreement with his
tenant, or a proper reference respecting his character.
He thought that under these circumstances the land-
lord should pay the tax in the first instance, and take
his chance of recovering the loss.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he felt the necessity
of this clause very strongly, and was very
sorry that the Act of the last three years,
had been without some such clause as
he had proposed—yet he would not divide
the House upon it, for after the bad success of the
attempts of the Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.
Spooner) he saw that it was fruitless to divide, unless
he had the sanction of the Government, and he was
unwilling to give unnecessary trouble. But he must
say that he bitterly regretted the opposition which
was given by her Majesty's Ministers to any
attempt to alter the income-tax for three years.
He felt boiled to assert that, though this
tax was contrary to the prejudices and en-
tirely opposed to the feelings of the people of
England, they had borne its imposition with an
admirable patience, and they had exhibited a temper
under its infliction beyond all praise.—(Hear.) For
their sakes, therefore, he trusted that the same
opposition would not be continued to altering this
odious tax. Under the circumstances, and with the
example of the fate of the amendments of the Hon.
Member for Birmingham, he begged to withdraw his
motion.
Mr. CURTEIS said that he trusted that the notice
that had just been taken of the feelings of the people,
and of their dislike to this tax, woul not be lost on
her Majesty's Government.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. FOSTER said that he had no hostility to the
tax himself, and, generally speaking, in his opinion
it was a good tax, and he believed that the opposition
was not to the tax itself so much as to its inquisitorial
nature. His amendment, if adopted, would tend to
remove this objection, and he therefore hoped the
Government would net oppcse it. All who were
engaged in trade or manufactures were assessed in
Schedule D ; but if they wished to keep their
affairs private, they were at liberty, on appli-
cation, to make their returns under Schedule
C. his amendment was to this effect :
" And whereas all persons, corporations, and com-
panies carrying on any mines of lead, tin, coal, copper,
non, or other undertakings of the like nature, are
now chargeable under schdule (A); be it enacted,
that from and after the passing of this Act the said
persons, corporations, or companies so chargeable in
respect of all such undertakings shall be assessed for
the same under schedule (D), in like manner, and
with the same option of privacy, as other persc ns,
corporations, or companies chargeable under that
schedule." He could not understand on what grounds
any opposition could be offered to his amendment.
Large mining establishments were generally—he
must say always—situated in remote districts. In
towns a man was not so much under the supervision
of his neighbours, and his return was Not so likely
to be canvassed by those about him. Now, fur min-
ing establishments, the introduction of this amend-
ment would relieve the officers of the establishment
from a great inconvenience, for at present they were
obliged to disclose the whole of their affairs to the
public around them. Those were tailors, shoemakers,
_l4 s . .eople of a similar grade ; and was it right, he
atiltA • .0 ask, that the affairs of companies of this mug.
(Vl—_,..,_ al • should be laid open to such investigation?
''.-----7-i His ain_Odment was necessary to make the Bill con-
- ':-- sisted. The measure ought to be so in all and (very
--I''-
A -eaOtle of Ili part,. As he had said before, he -could l--4- ''''• ' "A'not understand the reasons, if there were any, for
c-4
\"<'k?"- ' .
• osing this amendment, and he therefore hoped he
0\- _,---A-i44).R .
,z---,-.----;_,:should-not have a refte,,al from the Government to
Nee.-.,_ maks the alteration he proposed.
to * The amendment was then put.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
big chief objection to the amendment was that, when
the Bill was introduced in 1842, the miners themselves

i^