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

pressure and competition that prevailed in every trade and em-
ployment. And it wai at that- moment that they were suffer-
ing under that competition, with a diminished rate of profit, in
every business, that the people were to.be subjeetetl to the un-
fair and cruel pressure of a tax levied itt Hl's manner. tierorb

he concluded, he would only obserVe, thgt .if the Hoii36 WO
prepared to adopt the principle ef his Honokirb.ble rrlenil
the Member for Bath, that the detAils Were cipa.ble of
being subsequently modified, he th'clAgilt. it well de-
serving of their consider:4ton 4.l."Aner, in applying this
diminished rate of taxatimu 02;4 could not niake some distinc-
tion bet Ween the meta profits on capital, and that which arises
from industry and personal exertions. The principle for which
A
the House should generally contend was, that they ought to
apply the diminish
on capital as rate of taxation not so much to the profiis
own in: t
jusry,
'4,13 the income raised by the application of a man's
the personal reward of his personal ser-
v'....-es.' 'He perfectly agreed with the Right Honourable
Baronet that the amendment, in the shape proposed, would not
carry out these views. But it embodied their principle,
and if it should appear by that division that the House was in
favour of the principle, they could modify the details so as to
carry into effect what was intended by it. It was for the prin-
ciple only that he should now vote in giving his support to the
proposition of the Hon and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. E. BULLER rose amidst cries of Divide." He said if
he believed that the amendment wou!d mitigate the injustice of
the tax he would vote for it ; but so far from mitigating it, it

only aggravated its injustice by increasing the inequalities that
already existed, and he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
He could not- support the proposal of the Hon. Member for
Bath. Although voting agens taint, he begged it to be under-
st•e.l that he did not, in the slightest degree; show any dimi-
nution, in his opinion against a tax which he considered im-
moral and unjust.
Mr. WALLACE rose to address the House amid cries of
"Oh, oh," and "divide, divide." He had littened with

great attention to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for
Bath, and he must confess, that he had not heard one word that

in any way controverted his statements. He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet, and those v, ho had spoken from the other side

of the House, had totally failed to upset any of the arguments

of his Honourable and Learned Friend. He wished to
know from • the Right Honourable Baronet on what
ground he required the mercantile interests to pay the tax upon
the calculation of their income for three years, instead of one ?

. -
For his Dorn part he could not see why they should not pay upon
the last year as. well as other people. He thought that those
sho had a fixed income ought to be placed in a different satia-
tion to those adverted to by the Honourable Member for Bath.
He did not belie,,e it was justice to exact from the trading in-
terest a tax based upon any other principle than the last year's
income, and he should put a notice on the paper to that effect.
He should most cheerfully vote in favour of the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Bath, and when he had done that, he
would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale.

Mr. JANIES thought it great injustice to tax premiums on
insurances. He thought, upon consideration, that the Right
Honourable Gentleman would exempt such parties from the
operation of the Act. If he did not, he thought he would
commit a most gross injustice. He would give his vote to the
Honourable Member for Bath.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax
would be upon the profit or gains, and not upon the premiums.
Mr. LEADER had listened to the speeches made in favour
of his Friend's motion and aga nst it, and he must say, though
he was afraid the majority would be against them, the weight
of the argument was on his side of the House. The arguments
of his Hon. Friend had not been met or answered. As to the
course pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman lately in the
Government, and by the Member fcr Stafford, he believed they
had adopted that course for the purpose of rendering
the Bill unpopular ; they cotsidered the tax odious, and
likely to make the Government unpopula-, and there-
fore they would not be a party to any course
that was calculated to improve it. In the speech from the
Throne, at the commencement of the present session, her Ma-
jesty stated, that she viewed, with great concern, the distress
of the manufacturing districts. Now, for his own part, he
could not conceive any thine. more calculated to prove a dis-
couragement to trade than this schedule in the Income-tax
Bill. There was a feeling abroad, that the dominant party in
that House, being the representatives of the agricultural
interest, favoured that interest, and acted unjustly towards the
commercial and trading classes.—(Cries of " No, no.") The
Hon. Member for Knaresborough might say "No," but he
(Mr. L.) kne kv that such an impression prevailed in the
country ; and an instance of the truth was given the other
day, in the way in which the Honourable Member
for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone's) motion on the probate and
legacy duties was disposed. On the present occasion, too, they
would no doubt give another proof of how willing they were
to do anything to remove the burden from their own
shoulders.

Lord J. RUSSELL could not reconcile it to himself to give
a silent vote on this question. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who had brought forward the question had stated
with his usual clearness the arguments in its favour, and had
endeavoured to answer that which was the ,chief argument
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had used on a former occa-
sion, and which he had again used to-night. The Right Hon.
Gentleman said that if they adopted a principle of this kind,
they ought to see that they applied it in all similar cases of in-
come, whether they were persons deriving that income from
land, or whether they were officers in the army or navy, or
clerks in the public offices, so as they had an income for
life or for a less term, no distinction aught to be
made in one case without its being made in the others. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to that argu-
ment, that it was worthy an answer—that if they did not do
perfect justice, that was no reason that they ought to do complete
injustice. He (Lent J. Russell) thought, if they adopted the
present proposition, they would create more injustice than
effect any remedy. There were many classes of persons with
life incomes, for whom no alleviation was sought. "lhey would
have a just right of complaining to this House, and any person
who should bring forward a case of that kind, would have a
right to claim the votes of all those who voted in favour of the
present pro'position—claiMing an equal exemption to the
amount of half their income as that which the Hon. Gentleman
proposed. If that was the Hon. Gentleman's principles, he
(Lord J. Russell) thought that the Hon. Gentleman was bound
not only to propose this particular proposition, but to bring
forward a whole series of propositions for carrying into effect
the principle which he had propounded. With respect to
distinctions between incomes durableand temporary, he (Lord
J. Russell) felt himself unable to carry such distinctions into
•effect throughout their full extent. He did not say that the
proposition was impracticable, but having neither from the
Government nor from the Hon. Gentleman who made the
amendment, any scheme which proposed to carry into effect a
principle by which the law could be made more just, he (Lord
J. Russell) avowed that he could not vote in favour of the
particular amendment now before the Committee. There was
still another answer, namely, that although the distinction
existed, that persons enjoying income from land, and the funds,
had permanent incomes, and those from trades and professions,
only temporary incomes, yet let them take the case of an in-
dividual (for it was not just to take classes merely)—
let them take the case of an individual who had WO/.
a year fiom land or out of the funds for life, and whose
portion would go at death to some distant relation,
with whom he had had little or no connexion, if that person
were to instance to them the case of a rich banker
having a large income of b.OOO/. or 10,0001. a year, and only
charged on that income aid. in the pound while he was
charged id., what answer would it be to that person to say
that it was true that his income was only for
life, but that he belonged to a class which had generally
a permanent income, and that though he had not that advantage,
yet that as he belonged to a class which was put in Schedule
A., he mutt be taxed to the amount of 7d. in the 11., though
the other persons who possessed many advantages over him
were only charged 3id: They must also take into considera-
tion what had been done on former occasions respecting this
tax. He was not now speaking of the question of emergency,
nor that the 'former emergency was war. The House had de-
cided for the present, as far as the second reading of the Bill
was concerned, that there was an emergency which called for
the tax now proposed; and therefore he oust take the case to
be so, whatever might be his opinron in that respect.
What then had been the manner in which this tax had been
proposed? It had been proposed by Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Fox
was in opposition, afterwards by Mr. Addington, and subse-
quently by Lords Grenville and Lansdowne, when Mr. Can-
ning and Lord Castlereagh were in opposition. On all those
different occasions the Income-tax had been debated, and per-
sons had proposed a different rate for the members of the
Bench and professions, but at no time had any of the chief
authorities on the subject--neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. Fox,
nor Lords Grenville and Lansdowne, nor Alr. Canning nor
Lord Castlereagh, who had taken the lead in the debates on
the subject, 'ever come forward as the advocates
of a principle by which there should be some certain classes
only taxed half the amount that other classes were. He (Lord
J. Russell), then, could not but come to the conclusion that
they had beets unable to remedy these discrepancies, and he did
not see the remedy in this particular instance. At the same
time he did not say that a remedy was impossible, but that
there might be a tax on property and income, which was more
just than the one now proposed, and which, with the greatest
nicety of calculation, would apply to different incomes, a rule
more in accordance with justice than that which the present
Bill applied. All he could say was, that he had seen no such
scheme—that no such scheme was before him, and therefore
he supposed that such a scheme could not be pro-
posed. There was one case, respecting which he was
not in possession of all the facts, and in which he
was for further explanation. He believed veleen Mr. Pitt had
introduced this subject, he exempted some profession: with
respect to the insurance of lives. He certainly wished to have
some further explanatoin on that point, but having those
opinions, he could not vote in favour of the proposition of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He did not speak thus, of
course,• from any motive as to this tax being more uupo;i-
ar by imposing the same amount upon all classes. be-
cause he believed that the House would not, as it had been
expressed by an Honourable Gentleman, disentangle
itself from the labyrinth by any proceeding of this
kind. It they began by taking off a certain amount in the
present case, then they should listen to another case, and then
to a case similar to that one; and, again, when they refused to
admit the principle, they were more likely, by such means, to
render the tax unpopular, than by pressing cases one after
another to a pitch of absurdity. It was from no wish of
making the tax more unjust and impracticable than it at
present stood, that he voted against the Honourable
Gentleman's proposition; but the House having resolved
to go into Committee on this question, they had only
to discuss the details, and not the principle of the measure.
He felt himself borind to vote against the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MITCHELL considered that the measure proposed by
Ministers was more just than any system of indirect taxation,
still he conceived that the clause as it now stood ought to be
pressed warmly on the consideration of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Air. ROEBUCK replied. He would not trespass at any
great length on the attention of the House, but there were one
or two observations which he could not refrain from making.
The Noble Lord bad seemed to think that he (Mr. Roebuck)
had assumed to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer : as though,
because he had not brought forward a plan of finance in
opposition to :he Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not
to be allowed to state his views on a single point. He could
not at ell understand that principle. Now the Right Hon.
BGli there is not oy
ntlernan'ssrgumentsihad proceeded on this basis. .1 In this
one glaring irjustiee, but sche-
dule A, schedule B, and schedule C. are equally un-
just ; and )ou never pointed out the injustice of those
schedules, but waited for schedule D." Did not the Right
Honourable Baronet recollect that schedule C was
opposed ?—( Hi-ar, hear.) The objection was entirely futile.
It a mcasure were before the House for abolishing capital
punishment in all cases, and he had descanted upon its injus-
tice in the case of forgery, the same objection might be urged
in that case as in the present, but he conceived that in each
ease it was inapplicable.—(Hear, hear.) He could safely say
that there had been no case of difficulty friade out, that no one
had prayed that his proposition was an impracticable one.
Could one say after the speeches which had been made
that it easy mpracticable ?—( Hear, hear. ) Ihe country would
say that be had shown the imposition to be unjust, and that the
only answer which had been attempted was that the Bill was
so bad in all respects, that if they set about remedying one
defect they would be called upon to semedv a dozen.—( Hear. )
He put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would in-
flicttshi
teu
actoiuonnt; country. The Right Hon. Baronet
of his party ; lie.was the party, and he (Mr. Roebuck) wished
occupthieisd ainjruesstpiocnesiobnle he was the maker, the creator
to make him responsible.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—

. ... 112
.Against
Alajority against the motion !rs-146