The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

his return he announced the Bills that had received
the Royal assent (for which see our Lords Rejtort).
PIEL PIER BILL.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN proposed to withdraw the
Piel Pier and Harbour Bill, and stated his intention to
move for leave to bring in another Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET said if his Hon. Friend perse-
vered in withdrawing the present Bill, and moved for
leave to bring in another, he trusted the House would
not give him permission to do so.
Mr. W. PATTEN said, under the circumstances, he
would withdraw the Bill, leaving the parties to
pursue the usual course of presenting a petition for an-
other Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from the tan-
ners of Carlisle, complaining of the proposed alteration
in the duty on foreign manufactured leather.
Sir R. BATESON presented a petition praying for a
system of education in Ireland.
LIVERPOOL PAVING AND SEWERAGE BILL.
The Liverpool Paving and Sewerage Bill was read a
third time and passed.
IFCOME TAX AND TARIFF.
Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER presented a petition
from Devonport against any further support being given
by the Government to Maynooth College. Also a peti-
tion from Sidmouth to the same effect. Also a petition
from Devonport praying for an alteration in the Poor-
law. Also a petition from the shipowners of Devonshire
against the proposed duty on coals ; and a petition from
the attorneys of a place in Devonshire, praying to he
exempt from the operation of the Income-tax.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Dissenters of Worcester against the Corn-laws.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL presented a petition from
Marylehone against the Income-tax.
An Hosf. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches pre-
sented three petitions from Lincoln against the proposed
alteration in the Corn-laws. The petitioners further
prayed that all tithes and taxes should be regulated ac-
cording to the price of agricultural produce, taking the
present money payment as the maximum.
Sir JOHN TYRRELL presented a petition from
Essex, praying the House to reject the tariff unless it was
greatly modified.
An Hosr. MEMBER presented a petition, from Beverley
against the Income-tax.
An Hosr. MEMBER presented a petition from the So-
licitors of York, against the Income-tax.
Mr. GROGAN presented two petitions from the
tanners and paper-stainers of Dublin against the tariff.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE presented a petition for free
trade, and for a reform of Parliament.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from the
solicitors of Lincoln against the certificate duty.
Lord MARSHAM presented a petition from a place
in Kent, against the tariff.
Sir V. BLAKE presented a petition from the shoe-
makers of Galway, against the tariff.
Sir 11. DOUGLAS presented petitions from the inha-
bitants of St. John's, New Brunswick, and from the
Chamber of Commerce of St. Andrew's, in the same
province, against any alteration of the timber duties.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that on the reading
of the Order of the Day for the House resolving
itself into Committee on the Income-tax Bill, he
should move a resolution to the effect that it is more ex-
pedient to have recourse to the issue of Exchequer bills,
than to an Income-tax. The Honourable Member
also gave notice that he should move for cer-
tain returns relating to the Courts of Session. The
next matter concerning which he had to give a notice
was a matter in which the House itself took an interest.
There had been returns laid on the table two days ago,
which he lie intended to move should be printed, but which
returns, the printing Committee had refused to print.
They ordered what he (Mr. Wallace) considered to be
a component part of that return to be printed, and he
believed it would be wasting the money of the House to
print one without the other.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that when the House
went into Committee on the tariff, he would move that
the duty on foreign spirits be reduced to 15s. per gallon;
the duty on wine to 2s. Gd. per gallon ; and that on fo-
reign manufactures to an advalorem duty of 20 per cent.
Mr. EWART gave notice that in Committee on the
Income-tax he would move that the persons included in
schedule D, namely, those who derived their incomes
from trades and professions, should have so much of
their incomes exempt from the tax as should be applied
to the purpose of ensuring their lives.
INCOME TAX.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented 'a petition, signed by
3,100 of the working classes of Yarmouth, principally
engaged in the ,cotton-manufacture, in favour of the
income and property tax ; also another petition, signed
by a considerable number of persons with incomes above
1001. a year, to the same effect.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of
the Income-tax Bill being read,
Mr. CHARLES BULLER said he rose for the pur-
pose of moving that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months. He believed he owed the House an
apology for again interrupting them.—(Hear, hear.)
He should not have done so were it not that the Bill bad
arrived at a stage at which it was not necessary to
trench on the topics that had previously engaged the
attention of the Mouse. They had formerly discussed
the necessity of any taxation at all ; they had
discussed the general principles of the tax, end
they had now to discuss its principles as explained
in the details of the Bill now before the House. They
had got the papers, and he must confess, that whatevea
had been his former objections to the Income-tax—what-
ever forebodings he might have had as to its operation, all
these objections, and all these forebodings, were greatly
enhanced by a perusal of the Bill before them. It had been
said that the tax was inquisitorial, that it was unjust, that
it was arbitrary ; and every detail of the Bill only
placed, in a stronger light, how rightly and justly
those terms had been applied to it.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not intend, on the present occasion,
having only received the Bill of 189 clauses on the pre-
vious day, to enter into such a thorough examination as
would give anything like a just appreciation of it.
Ile was merely going to explain to the House the
grounds of his most prominent objections to it.
When he read this Bill, and saw the provisions by which
the tax was to be carried into effect, he did not wonder
at the hostility which it excited in former times. He
did not wonder at the eagerness with which its repeal
was demanded, and the joy with which it was hailed;
lie only wondered that in a free country a tax
which so trenched on the comforts and rights
of British subjects could ever have been tole-
rated, and he thought that nothing but the
peril of the late war and nothing but the strong feeling
which it excited, could have induced Englishmen to
tolerate a law so contrary to all their habits and to all
the principles of the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He
did not complain of the Bill as introdacing any unne-
cessary vexation ; it was bfit
.the necessary vexation
which must be inflicted upon the subject in order
to carry out a tax upon the country; but he did say that
the provisions of this Bill gave an amount of arbritrary
power which, as; lie believed, had never been given by
any other legislature since the revolution. Why, the mere
inquisition which was requisite for this tax was bad in
itself.—(Hear, hear.) It was a very bad or very op-
pressive thing, that the commercial trading and manu-
facturing people of England should be obliged to come
before an officer of the Government and detail to him the
exact state of their trade and the position of their affairs.
Ile (Mr. C.Buller) could not agree with the Hon. Member
for Bath, that that was an objection which would only
be felt by an over-timid, or, rather, a dishonest mind.
He would recommend the Hon. Gentleman to pay some re-
spect to the feelings which had been evinced by the people
of England through a long period of their history, that
people who had always shown themselves ready to bear
a fair share of the public burdens. The mere fact that
the people of England had always felt this objection
ought of itself to be sufficient ; they ought
to respect a feeling so general, they ought
to believe that the dislike which had ab,vas been felt to
an Income-tax was not totally without foundation.
The measures for enforcing the inquisition served to
make it doubly oppressive. The means by which the In-
come-tax was to be enforced were totally alien from the
feelings of the English people. He would not go into the
whole of the plan—it was too complicated to admit of
his doing so ; but he would here mention that there was
such a cloud of Commissioners as would aston-
ish any weak mind.—(Great laughter.) There
were first the Tax and Stamp Commissioners at
the head of this hierarchy ; then the Commis-
sioners for general purposes ; then the Commissioners
for special purposes ; then there were additional
Commissioners, and these not being sufficient for
the inquisition, there were Assistant-Commissioners.
One of the benefits from this Commission would be that
what the Chief Commisioner did not eat, the assistant
Commissioners would lap up.—(Laughter.) He did not
mean to attempt to throw the Commission into ridicule ;
they seemed to him to have all the respectability of a
• very fearful instrument of very grinding tyranny.
What was the power invested in these Commissioners ?
They not merely gave them a power of investigation—they
were not merely tax-gatherers, but they gave them a
judicial power. He found in this Bill no less than seven
clauses giving a power to the Commissioners of levying
large fines. They had the power of levying fines
to the amount of 20/. or 251. Then added to this
power was a special powergiven:them, that in case of a
false return they should inflict a further penalty of treble
the amount of the tax to be collected. Let them con-
sider what a power this was. He would give them an
instance of it. There was clause 55. This clause
empowered the Commissioner to go round and
call on the people to deliver in a correct statement
of their income ; and all incomes above 1501. were
to be taxed, and to be recovered in any of her
Majesty's Courts. Any person neglecting to make
such a return, would be liable to forfeit a sum
not exceeding 201., and treble the amount of the
duty to be charged by virtue of this Act. Now, sup-
pose a gentleman bad 1,0001., if he neglected to make a
direct return, he was liable to treble 301. besides
the fine. Now he asked whether this tax
could be compared to any other? Why, :they gave a
power to the Commissioners under circumstances dis-
tinguished from every other tax, namely, to conduct
the proceedings in secret. In all other matters
if a person was charged with fraud, he had
to submit to the verdict of a Jury in open
Court, but under the present Bill everything was
conducted in secret. This was a monstrous violation of
the liberty of the subject. Every tax to be collected by
such means must be a bad tax. He did, not mean to
object to the details of the bill ; he did not, when the bill
went intocommittee, intend to object to the details of the
bill, for if they were to have an Income-tax, they must
have a system of inquisition. He called on the House,
as he had done before, to reject this tax if
it was to be enforced by such a system ; enforced by
by paid Commissioners of the Crown, whose proceed-
ings were to be conducted in secret. He called
on them to reject this tax, because nothing
but an imperious necessity could justify a
recourse to such a system ; violating, as it did, all. the