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

BRAZILS.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to make fin inquiry
of the Right Mon. Gentleman at the head of her
Majesty's Government. on -a question regarding our
relations with the Braziis. The Right Hon. 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 felt 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
effbrts that her Majesty's Government were making to
restrain slavery. Now he wished to ask the
Right Honourable Baronet whether, at the pre-
sent moment, he was making any decided
effort to restrain slavery in the Brazils, and inasmuch
as 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 had come to any uuderstand-
ine• 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-
, ment 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 Loyd 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.
and that was the view entertained by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. The Government of Brazils were of a
different opinion, and contended that the treaty would
expire in November of the present year. Communica-
tions had taken place un the subject, but ho was not able
to say that the Government- of the Brazils acquiesced
in the construction placed by her Majesty's Government
on that treaty. With respect to the subject of the restrain-
ing more effectually the slave•trade in the Brazils, com-
munications had passed. between the two Governments,
but as yet this had led to no result.
Lord PALMERSTON wished to put a question to
the Right Hon. Baronet, which he hoped it would be in
his 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
in discussion between the Government of Great Britain
and a foreign Government, and therefore inquiry upon
such sub.;ects 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
of negotiations entered into from time to time
with other countries, with a view to the more effectually
completing the suppression of tile slave trade. He did
not know whether the Right Hon. Baronet would feel
equally at liberty to give him (Lord.P.) the information
which be 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-
pression of the slave-trade ; and whether they would
give Great Britain increased powers of action, or
whether they were merely engagements entered into by
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.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.

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-
vided that the Committee in making their Report should
state' whether or not the sitting Member had been
guilty of bribery. As caws of bribery might occur in
which the sitting Member would not be liable,
and. as Committees were 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 VIi;RNER 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 he (Colonel Verner) had the
honour to be 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. He
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 bereft% the Itouiei
Colonel VERNER would like to kn'ow when the
Right Hon, and Learned Gentleman intended to bring it
forward.

Mr. O'CONNELL said at the earliest convenient
period loossibl'4l
Mr, itA.SPERMA.N wished to know whether any
despatches had been feeeiVed from Jamaica regarding
theirregularity of the conveyariee of letters cut to that
place by the Steam-packet Conipanyls vessels.
Lord STAXLEYS as We understood, said that no com-
plWititS had Wen received on the stitOct,
i3USINESS OF THE HOUSit:
Sir ROBERT, • PEEL said that, before Mt:lying
tthb Oceiei Of tile Day that the House go into
~oinmittee on the Income-tax Bill, be should at-
tempt to ascertain the wishes and sentiments of the
House respecting the consideration of that portion
of the business which originated with her Majesty's
q,i ove,mevt: 14.4 (Sir It: Peel) had proposed to take
the TuesdaYS foljOwint the ittli of May; ftlf. the
bpOnlicith•ittibil Of this Bill. He (Sir Robert Peel)
should not interfere in such a matter as this,
unless ho ascertained the feeling of the House
upon it. An Hon. Gentleman had given notice respect-
ing the grievances of Catholics in the navy. Another
Hon. Gentleman had given notice of a motion relative to
Thtt two succeeding Tuesdays would be in
ethise4lien6e taken up With these sullied& He should
her6fefe 116 grotit hti €Ohlti uettlay; the
Ritli or May, - ibr 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
of the House.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL did not wish to interfere
with the business of the House, but the motion of which
ph:rbsolind!tiovnettionfote
doors.
icwa o
The
hneemtht was
oationh pressed
ehado upon
n thepahpiemr
fboyr•
the 9th of May, related to interference with the religious
feelings of Catholics. Perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet
would name Thursday instead of Tuesday.
Sir R. PEEL said he had no objections if those who
fbi: that day Babe up their claim.
ill r. HUME said he had a motion on the paper for
Thursday, and
had
nifo
oithimeo-etrioenatlhloawt•ehde by the
nßamigehTt-rnorna:
day_.—(Laugliter.)
Mf. J. O'CONNEtt said that as lay as he WaS con:-
eereeth he Would not stand in the way of the business
of the HO,tt.sOl fdiotild therefore withdraw the mo,
tleti of by had even notice forU9tulaii tha nth
of May.
Sir R. PEEL then moved " That after Monday, the
•
;;:n or Dixt,i.tsixt 04,40 Of the Day Shall have Wee.
4n4:01.11,0'4404 *troll, bit utiiiiitiN yit3g es
anti shall recartiii unaer consillefaz
cediLuoi Lord
!tt RUSSELL
nSwEtkLd
car tditligititotthoeit.
,pl.liiaprrio
jet(ti.b,afaaiet-1
Vt-"-11;7.1 It Zulu oe inticn tor tne puone
was ready to arii 'i,tl4,l*PQo
He was
man whoglandad-
the likoiiikiez,
nwitste tkA•o4lrh d ury. it stow
to
afindmotthioant anfor ritheenottrolatblile
4h' 14% _ra'f, tut he hoped there would be no
object on on the Dart of the House to give leave to bring
in the Bill. With respect
,to this subject; he only
wished to refer for a moment to the iMpUtations
which had been thrown .Mitt, that eat dblay
had taken place in %fro coitsh rati'i bl the.
Income tax and the taritt trie course
that had been pursued by Members on that side
of the House, and a similiar accusation had beth Made
with respect to the Corn Bill. Now whale, ho Weald
ask had taken place with respect 1-..0 that measure ?
Why the Bill had been read a third time in the House of
Lords last Friday ; and it was not until that day
it had received the Royal Assent. That circumstance,
lA, showed what little ground there 'was
fhe or thteiingputation.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
tariff it could not but be right that every consideration
should be given to the interest of the party affected by it.
The motion was then agreed to. _
upon
ranle g ins
arising or accruing to any person i.e, INCOME TAX.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee
n
on the Income.tax Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
whCiorthAapitztvaiNdedpu,,ttthinagt
upthone
thequestionanneal pro-
fits fi
an
a that
Schedule
resid-
ing in Great Britain, for any kind of pro-
perty whatever, whether situate in Great Bri-
tein or elsewhere, or from
a rude% h
mei
ladi piljoirme
sepneto, t
nolry
aNr• or
iceadti 001,, a ni:wGlir
c,ePtahrtee
iirfersistitaohiene.
t
c
or-elsewhere, there should be charged yearly for every
20s. of the amount of such profits and gains, the sum
0f..741.,". • '

Mr.- S. CRAWZORD rose to more the omission of the

words, " profession, trade, 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 ai 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 which 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 bear the burden
of the Income-tax. He knew it would be said that these
proposed exceptions would creat_ a aefieieney,.but that he
thought would be amply made up by extending 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 incomcs derived from
manufactures from taxation, but he thought the fair
proportion of taxation might be levied on them in
another way. If an Juni:woe-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 D which imposed a tax upon
industrial incomes.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in explaining the diffrence between
his proposal and that of his Hon. 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 Comniittee 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 150/. 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 was 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 year!, it was evident that he would re-
ceive the first year 5/. interest on the 100/., that was in ten
years he would receive 100/. with his capital; but if he pail 10
per cent. his capital was taxed, and at the end 0120 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 or:ly ought to be taxed, and that was the prin-
ciple they acted.on for many years. He should therefore sup-
port the restion.
The CHAIRMAN having put the question,

Mr. ROEBUCK wishedtc; 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 urn
the profits or gains at ising 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 vocation"—there he was puzzled. The motion
of his Hon. Friend only went to industrial income, and eon
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 ear), 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 aulendment
merely went to the exception of industrial income ; now 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 might 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 al er-
wards the question might be put, that upon the annual profits or
gains arisinc, from any profession, trade, employment, or voca-
tion, whether the same shall be respectively carried on in Gi eat
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. CRAWFORD 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 none. . .

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 vocations ;
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 motion 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 he
had given notice. His proposition was that there should be '
levied upon professions, trades, employments, or vocations, a
tax of 3%d. instead of 7d., otherwise it would be an unequal
tax. He had suggested to the Right Hon. Baronet, that softie
means should be adopted to remedy, the proposed inequality
in the different species of income. He was met by a statement
on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet, that it would be im-
possible to obviate the ; while the Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber fof Londdii, took advantage of that position, saying thit he
perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was ut-
terly impossible to remedy tre 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
tat could not be rendered equal, and that he should, therefore,
oppose it. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) came forward and took a
middle cbtirst ; he clieptited the premises, and he consequently
disputed the conclusion which the Noble Lord had adduced
from those premises. He had three propoaitions 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
&ten by the highest authority ; and, thirdly, he had to press
ripen 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, Honotitable Baronet to adopt. He
thought he would have little difficulty in proving that this tax
was an unequal one. A tax which laid the same sum upon the
fee simple of land which returned 1001. a-year, and upon pro-
fessional income of 1001. 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 sum.
He could go into the money market, and a portion of land
that returned to Witt 100/: a year; he could sell for thirty years'
purchase. If at the age of 30, in a good state of health, he
' wanted to purchase 3001. a year, the ptirchase money would be
9,000/. ; that was the ordinary price at an insuretice office. He
had taken the argument at its lowest point. Something roust
be added for age; and it must be recollected that the gains of
trade depended net 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 00, The seasons, tempests, money.panies, the
folly of a neighbour, all rendered the profits of trade uncertain.
When all these things Were taken into account, he thought it
%mild be apparent that one=half was not too great a difference.
He would, with-the permission of the Committee, draw at-
tention td font propositions which marked what ought to be
incidental to tact ion s 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 Hoff. Baronet to them. He would give these four maxims
ifi the Werile In whitit they were laid down by that great
authority, leeeadstl ttitj so much better expressed than he
could that to Which he wished to call the attention of the Com•
iflftiee; The first proposition was, that the subjects of each
Oligltit apntribute to the support of the Government as
nearly as possible Ifi ffepottion to their respective abilities.
Secondly, 'that the tax which each individual paid aught to be
certain and not arbitrary. Thirdly, that the tax should be
talseit at the thee, and in the made most convenient to the con-
trltiuidt!? tin* Fourthly, that each tax ought to he so con-
tributed as both to take and to keep out of the pockets of the
people at little as possible, over and. above
_wtaheat
4, Mould bring into the Treasury
tot the-
These titre pritellples of morality which ought o
govern them
all, party men, though th.ey. were ; and one of the first and
',fanciest principles was, that every man who took the reins of
teeernMent, ought to see that taxation upon all should be
.1 seiterdtnik to their means. Suppose that the tax must be
equh, - • twwould say for the sate of round num-
levied upon revenues. • -'..rived 1' 01. from land
bers, 1001., was the man who as much
and fee-simale, capable of contributing to the
ss the Mate iihB had 1.001. income from a profession r
LOPS% he indki 4 Etery man had a knowledge 9'
that it oticb, 'The lattad pi4rietBr rocs least by one half
flaa,tyi s 9; 410 6 e+ him iii 614 thP into s§ot
the profe:siehal Man? That wai l.i Nl a iHit Tiff the lii `i
pvtveti wotitel they tart in the satne amount illtilthli
"hied . PropPetlar the than ..rll9 tierved hit income
kola his owh a(irtioLic slio 4q14; and
body in the most arduous 0t,.,,,0.4.10,t1Ynti,iii pi4seel
dean by the responsibilities of .a wife surf amt
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 kotts a fixed arid 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 tram land? Were they who toiled for bread in the
game eenditienk and were they possessed of the same ability, to
contribute in the same degree to the necelsitivs of the State?
If so, let' them go dantvards, anti they seLuld at last come to
the labuttrer, who they all allowed was not able to contribute.
He derived his daily bread front his daily toil j and he was not
able to pay with those who possessed land; and therefore ho
would ask whether they whose labour was more burdensome 1
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 Bill: He would, therefore,
confine himself to the matter in hand, arid he thought he could
illustrate it in twenty thousand ways, at id bring them to bear
in a variety of wavQ. The issue w:s, that the tax was an its
to
equal one, • and,. it it was an.. unequal cue was
°P.Pf° a
some of. the canons laid down by ;be grsift masters o po
. •
• - -" •

cal economy. And now, .he would ask, was there any diffi-
elate, in, apportioning the. tax? Where was the difficulty ?..
Every person woo derived 100/. from any vocation, trade,
or profession, had• to declare ,if he derived it front fixed
property. If -he deriied 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 the income
was derived. He . would suppose a professional man, forty i
years of age, who had laid up 10,000/. in the funds at three '
per cent , New Ccnsols. He has 10,000/. as far as fixed in-
come was concerned. Now the tax-gatherer conies and asks
him what property he has got, and he answers that he has
10,0001 in the funds, and 1,000/. a year by his profession.
" Very well," says the tax-gatherer, " I will takeethree per.
cent. on the return made from your 10,000/., and I will
take one-and-a-half per cent. on your professional gain."
The Right Hon. Baronet had tried to drive him to a corner
when he first propenneed his views; he (Mr. R.) 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 not 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 de some—
that because they could not 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 all 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 unjustly taxed the people of Eng-
land. He hoped and bslieved that the Right lion. Baronet
was desirous to relieve the people Irvin all inequality
in taxation, and he *anted him to show what
there was to prevent him from doing so.—( Hear, hear.)
But it might be said that the matter itself was nut a perfect
approximation to the truth.. The question between him and
the Right Hon Baronet was this : taking the man who ale-
rised his income from a fee simple on lamp, 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 him upon those units ? He
only asked for rough justice to a large class of the cummunity.
He made his proposal on the ground of expediency. :Ilse
Right Hon. Baronet might say that the proposal could not be
carried into effect+ He might say that " tools rushed in where
angels leered to tread." Let the Right Honourable
Baronet show them the there were obstacles Which
could not be surmounted. It 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
point in dispute waso 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. lee would now
move that 3bd. should be substituted for 7d. in the clause.
The amendment having been put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCJEQUER said, he
was sure that, however Hon. Gentlemen might differ from the
Hon. and Learned Member Who had just addressed the House,
no one could find the least fault either with the arguments of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, or with the manner 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.
lie 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 Hon.
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 no 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 rememtser the
inequalities of the taxes for which this tax was proposed as a
substitute. Ti e Hon. and Leained Gentleman hart drawn a
contrast between' a man deriving an income from the exercise
of a profession, 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 1
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.
1 He did not 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 fur 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 the blighting 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 ready 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 advan-
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 ef Snow and Child at 30. in the pound,
whilst landed property was taxed at sevenpence ?—( Hear,
hear.) The public could nut approve of that distinction.
The HEM. Gentleman opposite (Mr. lloebuck) would guide
taktitio*. aceorkling to the maxims laid down by Adam Smith.
Now the noposed tax would be brought into operation ae-
, cording to ttinteenaxims. It would produce more revenue to
the State in proportion to theemount it raised from the poc-
kets of the people than any other tax, and it would be in
proportion to the inetnnes of the parties fi om whatevereources
they Might be derived. ti:
did not agree with the Hon. Gen-
tleman that it tooted be right to ckatge professional incomes
at one half the amount prepOses: to be taken from the
incomes of the other classes at the comMutety. That would
not be, according .to his (the Chanedlew of the Exchequer's)
view, taxing according to the means of the parties. For those
reasons he would vote against the amendment of the tians.
Gentlemen.
Mr. WARD appealed to the Committee to say, whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman,, had in the least degree 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 Hon. 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 prtifeseimes of life, all those which were etrugeling
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 edueation. lie 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.
Hit Hon. Friend had not been tomehed in anj one ef the
points of the proposition he had propounded. had produced
great efect in that House, and it would no doubt produce a
great effect out of doors. He hoped to see the motion evened.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY diffsred from the ssntiments
of the Hon. Member for Bath and the Hon. !Wernher who had
just sat down. The views taken liy the Hon. Member for
Bath had been grounded on premises altogether false, and if
adopted would lead to great injustice. He would aslt the Hon.
and Learned Member; could the owner of a life ioterest in Nerd
—for after all, under die circumstances in which land estatet
were usually held, there was nothing but a life interest—could
he 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 .Alember 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 hie
rental. With regard to Schedule A, if they lucked to page 33
cf the Bill, he would ask why were they to make a difference
between the assessment of tithes and th-e income of the mer-
chant? He could see no justice in such a distinction. I here
was no portion of the schi dule that illustrated more forcibly
the fallacy of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's 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 ho 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 being equal to the rent roll he admitted it, but it
was always likely to be more than the returns made. But the case
put by the Hon. Member for Bath was not answered. He would put
another case himself. Suppose a person had 10,C00/. in-
vested in land, from which he derived 31,4 per cent., and that
another had 10.0001. invested in trade, from which he ob-
tained 12 per cent. The 10,000/. invested in land gave an
income of 3501:, which at 7d. would give a tax of 101. But
the mon y 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 ho over-
stated or understated the interest, that would riot affect the
principle of his argument. Take another case. Suppose a
physician, with a WO/. a year in the market, derived from his
professional labour, and taking it at the value of the Hon.
Member for Bath, he would receive only 1,50111. for it, wh;le if
the same were derived from land, it would be worth 3,0001.
And 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 otit a temptation to evade the tax; and the greater the
inducement they offered to traud and immorality. The Right
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in oppos-
.,re,
Karl not ing the proposition before the House, took cases 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 train's in
t He begged to say that in his belief this arguments ef his
mode
equally
ofc
n.
tm..... •.: 'he N ember for Bath
ehnadahnostvebreeedi! clioissilestliy:diieeeaohl.rt
Hen. -
out
*3th; end, Mill. me. ' ' and practicableproposal arriog
pieLl gdiedta a. aims.. . .
29 41F4 /01 pet ii 6, Rits-t -1?)- -- - assumed by the lion.
11., s;t tien was, . or by those who
estially jilst 7 1116Jtenel'eker of Voitghitt, unless the
Nlnber for tiff
.s,c ttli.;;rirmited, eh
t, tips.
ed.-minting arouneente than bane. vet
se64e oni‘thi tense 5ide..,...
geleessei k nle hear, , mere, i •
GO .6. tin 6 % r . eut proposal, they woad
been adduced iii fitemAlt• on le
~.,.
( Meo eirde. tHir considdratione
adopt the atnendmen
_.
to care tht ii Oils: Oossible 151 anY
Mr BORTIIs'IC
' u the tax ps with perfect quility) tliibn dif-
scheme to make his ' • •
opinion no class would suffer to iik ell
ferent claeses. In.
~;. . li t ' •r
uriavoidable inequatity ot the tex as the sma at.mc ,
from the
subject to all the changes of climates and ot the
who, while e manentiv rated at ore-half his rent.. The
lement'' "as p- rLearned- . 'would be •
e el
tax the on. and
unequal in its operation
i • • s as the tax he proposed to supplant. It
would make
the man who ;sot 6,0001, a-year from a profession,
1 him who rofession, alike
de: ived only 1501. aeyear from a p . . .
d l
and
41. puss Now, did not tbe former indon ua
PaY. Government and. the
deems more benefit from good i
the
institutions of the country than the latter? a
in an amend-
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had moved
' to be levied at
relent to the effect that the tax should begin
b. .
but at
_mein a year, he (Mr. Borthwick) would support
hieir ,
'ng nearer
'present he would vote for the clause as it wae,ea
h hold era of au-
to justice to small farmers, tradesmen, and t
nuttics? memo.. i en7,'"l 'Th
32F:LATIOUT.litzPE c,i4 CI" .11""r
Lice
question
ljd()'.e
‘l"'
""'''-': • and, having given it the
, importance to the whole country.,
h.
1 tower to votes for the
fullest consideration, it was not in Is 1