The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

-PART I

PROGRAMME

' Mr. Templeton and
. < Mayer•.

Italian Duet—" Cedi al destin, Medea,
Miss Delcy
" My Sister dear," Mr. Templeton
" Thou bast stolen my heart away,

Song—
Ballad—

Auber.
Miss Delcy....
Lindpaintner.

Fantasia, Piano-forte—Mr. E. F. Smith.
Song—" I love her, how I love her !" Mr. Templeton.. Aube,
(As originally sung by him in the Opera of " Gustavus.")
Song—" Friend of the Brave," Mr. Prince ....
Recitative—" Qual mi circonda,"
Aria—" Dolenti e care imagini," }Miss Delcy Bonfichi
Cavatina—" Se ancor to m' ami,"
Song—" My Nannie. 0," Mr. Templeton Scotch
Duet j "Take now this Ring," 2d movemeut,
,
Oh, I cannot give expression,"
Mr. Templeton and Miss Delcy .
(From the Opera of La Sonnambula.")
PART 11.
Duet—" When thy bosom," Mr. Templeton and Miss Delcy,

Brahatiz.
Song—" Oh, gentle Love," Mr. Templeton.. Auber.
Air—" My heart is sair for somebody," Miss Delcy Scotch
Ballad—" There lives a young Lassie," Mr. Templeton....

. ...
De Pinna.
Duetto Concertante, Piano-forte and Violin—Miss Delcy
and Mr. Rophino Lacy Herz and Lafont.
Song—" The Wolf," Mr. Prince Shield.
Ballad---(by desire)—" Last May a braw wooer," Miss Delcy

Scotch-.
Finale—Trio—" Zitti, Zitti," Miss Delcy, Mr. Prince, and
Mr. Templeton Rossini.
Doors to be opened at Half-past Seven, and the Concert
to commence at Eight o'clock.
Tickets, 4s. each, or a Family Ticket to admit Three, 10s.
Tickets to be had at the principal Music-sellers in Liver-
pool; in Birkenhead, at WlLLououßY's, PooLes, and
the Albion Hotels, and of Mr. EASTWOOD and Mr. SMITH,
Druggists.

CONCERT AT MR. LASSELL'S ROOM,
GT. RICHMOND-STREET, ST. ANN'S.
yrR. WEISS takes the liberty to inform his Friends and
the Public that he intends giving a CONCERT at the
above elegant Room on THURSDAY, the sth of May next, in
order to Introduce his SON, just arrived from Paris, to a
Liverpool Audience.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY WEISS will be assisted by Madame
BALFE, and his Preceptor, Mr. BALFE, Mr. DODD, and
Mrs. Sr. ALBIN.
Mr. WEiss will feel particularly obliged by an early ap-
plication for Tickets, as no more will be issued than the Room
can comfortably accommodate.
Tickets, Five Shillings each, to be had at the principal
Music Warehouses.

EXTRAORDINARY EXHIBITION.
NOW OPEN EVERY AFTERNOON AND EVENING,

AT THE
ROYAL LIVER THEA77?E, CHURCH-STREET,
AGRAND CENTRIFUGAL RAILWAY,
200 feet long, with a vertical Circle upwards of 40
feet in circumference, round which a Carriage 200 pounds
in weight, containing a Lady or Gentleman, will revolve
at the rate of ONE HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR, with
perfect safety ; also, immense Iron Weights and Buckets of
Water will be placed in the Carriage, and, although the whole
will be completely inverted, not a weight or a drop of water
will be displaced. Also, a brilliant Display of the OXY-
HYDROGEN LIGHT, with other interesting Scientific
Experiments.

Open from Three to Five in the Afternoon, and from Six
to Nine in the Evening. _

Admission—Boxes, ls.; Pit, 6d

rlit 7Lthtrpoot attanbarb.

FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 29, 1842

We are compelled, although fully aware of the diffi-
culties attendant upon the collection of an income
tax, to enter our protest against that part of the
machinery of Sir Robert Peel's measure, which
was developed during the debate on Monday even-
ing. We are quite prepared to defend, in such a crisis
as the present, the stringent imposition of the tax upon
every description of income, properly so termed, and
from whatever source derived. We are prepared even
to overlook—and the public, we think, are similarly
disposed—any trifling inequalities in its pressure upon
individuals, or classes, rendered necessary in order to
facilitate the collection of the tax. But we cannot
carry this acquiescence so far as to admit that a man is
to pay upon an income which he does not possess; and
that, merely, in order to adhere to a uniformity of plan
which we can see no imaginable difficulty in breaking
through, in every case in which an adherence to its re-
quirements would involve injustice to the taxpayer.
To enable our readers to arrive at a perfect under-
standing of tl.e question before us, we shall give a
short extract from the speech of Sir Robert Peel on
Monday night, in reply to objections urged against the
injustice of the mode of collection upon a particular
class of incomes :
" The bill followed the description of property as it was
estimated in the act of 1806. It classed property under five
different heads—under five different schedules—and it did so
very properly, because the tax on property under each of
those schedules was to be levied in a different mode. In re-
spect of the property of landlords, the tax was levyable from
the tenants; in respect of the property of the tenants, it was
to be taken on a calculation of half the rent ; in respect of
property in the funds, the duty was to be stopped on pay-
ment of the dividends ; in respect of the incomes of public
men, it was to be stopped on payment of their salaries ; and
in respect of professional men's incomes, it was to be taken
on an estimate of annual receipts. He apprehended, there-
fore, that for the purpose of levying the tax, it would he de-
cidedly necessary to retain the schedules, and he did hope
that in coming to the consideration of this subject the house
would bear in mind that they were not merely determining
how the tax should be levied at the present time, and in a
period of peace, but that they were determining the principles
it might be necessary to have recourse to hereafter, and in a
time of war. (Ironical cries of " hear, hear.") What he meant
to convey was, that it was particularly desirable to take care
that in every attempt to meet the justice of a particular case
they did not admit frauds which it might be difficult to cor-
rect, and also that they ought to bear in mind that the dan-
gers arising from those frauds were to be estimated not merely
from the effects resulting from this temporary inconvenience,
but from the precedent which they might establish for future
occasions. (Hear, hear.) Now, the proposal of the hon.
gentleman opposite was, that supposing a certain party de-
rived income from one source and sustained loss in another
line of business, they ought to set the profit against the losst
and estimate his income by the balance. Seemingly this pro-
position was a just one, but at the same time they ought to
consider whether, if it were just in a particular case, there
were not other cases in which it might not be productive of
great frauds." (Hear.)
Upon this principle it will be seen that if a man is
possessed of property, landed or household, to the
amount of £5OO a-year, and has, in addition, a business
by which he loses that amount or four times that
amount, he will be called upon to pay the income tax
upon £5OO a-year, although in reality he possesses no
income at all (!) and this for no other reason, appa-
rently, than because his real property is in Schedule A,
and his professional or business income in Schedule D.
If the same individual exercises two different trades or
professions coming under the same schedule, from one
of which he has gained £5OO a-year, and from the
other sustained a loss to a like or to any amount, in
that case he is allowed to set the loss against the gain,
and is chargeable upon net income alone. Again, we
will suppose the case of a banker receiving deposits at
a low rate of interest and deriving his profit from the
employment of that capital at a higher rate. In the

course of his business, and as a part of his business,
he invests in exchequer bills, annuities, or consols a
large portion of his capital,—as affording the best cur-
rent interest, and, at the same time, leaving that capi-
tal readily available for any emergency. In this case
the difference, only, between interest received for in-
vestments and interest paid for deposits, deducting ex-
penses of management, cost of establishment, bad
debts, &c., constitutes the income to be taxed. But
because dividends derived from the public securities
are taxed under Schedule C, the income tax (as we un-
derstand the operation of the measure) will be collect-
ed upon the gross yearly or quarterly proceeds of the
capital invested, instead of, as, we contend, would be
the justice of the case, upon the actual profit derived !
By such an application of the measure, it is manifest
that, during the continuance of the income tax at
least, no banker or merchant can ever dream of invest-
ing his surplus funds, even temporarily and for safety
in any tangible property or upon government security.
It is argued, however, by Sir Robert Peel, in vindi-
cation of the necessity of adhering to the strict appli-
cation of the measure as first introduced, and to the
machinery of the act of 1806,
" Suppose a gentleman possessed of landed property, the
deductions on account of which would be made from his te-
nants—but supposing that gentleman to enter into extensive
and unsuccessful schemes on property of his own, for increas-
ing the value of his land—was a person so situated to have
deductions made on account of his losses? (Hear, hear.)
Or, supposing a large landowner to possess a West Indian
estate, which proved very unprofitable, was there to be a de-
duction on such an account as that ?"

With respect to the first of these suppositions it is
somewhat surprising to us to see it urged, in the way
we have it here, by Sir Robert Peel. If a gentleman
enters into extensive speculations for the purpose of
advancing the value of his land, whether successfully
applied or not, the money so expended will be
treated, we imagine, upon the same principle as
money laid out in alterations in Schedule D, and will

not be deducted from income. If, again, a land-
owner chooses to farm his own land and loses money
by unskilful management, the claim for exemption
from being taxed under Schedule A for losses sustained
under Schedule B is not so great as in other cases which
might be mentioned. Such an exemption, however,
would scarcely tempt any man to become his own
farmer; and we would certainly allow it, in the first
instance, because the claim for such losses could very
rarely be maintained,—(nine-tenths of the unprofitable
cultivation of gentlemen farmers being, we are satis-
fied, to be attributed to the outlay in making improve-
ments,)—and, in the second place, because we cannot
see the justice of taxing a man of this class more
severely than we would an unskilful tradesman, who—
provided he has no real property, in which case he is
taxed in the same way as the landowner—pays only upon
his nett income. With respect to the case of a land-
owner who is also the proprietor of an unprofitable su-
gar estate, we cannot see why there should not be a
deduction—why such a man should not pay upon his