The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

After the usual preliminary business, the house went into
committee on the Income Tax bill, and schedule D was pro-
posed, when
Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved as an amendment the omission
of the words in schedule D relative to a tax on industrial in-
come.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought the amendment would interfere
with one which he was about to propose—namely, that
" for and in respect of the annual profits or gains from any
profession, trade, or vocation there shall be levied annually
for every twenty shillings three-pence halfpenny."
After some conversation, Mr. Roebuck's amendment, was
allowed to take precedence.
The hon. and learned member for Bath then argued that it
was unjust to the last degree that the same amount of tax
should be laid on industrial income as on landed property,
and that if his amendment was rejected the sole odium of the
injustice would rest (as being the most powerful man of the
day) on Sir Robert Peel.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the mo-
tion, on the ground that all taxes were unequal.
Mr. WARD thought the amendment would in a great de-
gree be the means of mitigating the injustice of the income
tax, and was of opinion that the argument used by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer of the general inequality of taxation
was not a reply to a case such as the present, which ought
to receive the greatest attention from the house.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY contended that the rent-roll of a
landed proprietor ought not to be taken as his actual income,
as property in land would often turn out to be as uncertain
a source of income as that obtained by commerce. Enter-
taining this opinion, he could not agree to the. amendment.
Mr. HAWES supported the amendment.
Mr. P. Boirt.Tuwtex was of opinion that, instead of recti-
fying it, it would have the effect of committing injustice, and
should, therefore, vote against the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could not support the amendment, for
if it was necessary to impose such a tax it ought to be uni-
versal, for to admit exceptions would afford dangerous pre-
cedents. According to the amendment of the hon. member
for Bath, if it was carried, a clerk with a small salary would
be taxed, while the thriving merchant would escape.
Sir R. INGnis was of opinion that the tax ought to be le-
vied only on those who were in possession of £l5O per annum
and upwards, and thus it would be a great relief to persons
moving hi a respectable sphere of life, and diniinish the un-
popularity of the measure.

- Mr. V. SMITH was opposed to the tax, as it was obviously
unjust to levy the same amount from uncertain and fluctua-
ting as from permanent incomes.

Sir R. PEEL said that some inequality applied to all kinds
of taxes, while the income tax had this advantage—that if
the wealthy man went abroad he would not be exempted
from this tax as he would from others by remaining there.
The present measure was proposed in connection with others
which would have the effect of enabling persons of all classes
to live at a much cheaper rate. The tax was to be levied on
all farmers holding at the will of the landlords, and whose
incomes, depending on the vicissitudes of the seasons, were
more precarious than those of the surgeon and the commer-
cial man. Fur instance, if the wealthy physician, the thri-
ving lawyer, or the prosperous banker, were taxed at a lower
rate than a clergyman, whose income though permanent was
still variable, or the clerk in a public house, the naval or
military man, or the widow with a small jointure, then he
(Sir R. Peel) should say that .a great injustice would be com-
mitted. If he was to have an income-tax at all, it would be
absolutely necessary that all descriptions of incomes should
be taxed alike. He therefore supported the government.
measure, undeterred by any fear of responsibility.
Lord Howtoc thought that all that had fallen from the
right hon. baronet only went to show that the tax was a bad
one. He (Lord Howick) agreed with Sir Robt. Peel that it
was a most vexatious impost to levy for so small an amount,
and most unfortunate when the present intense competition
in every trade and profession was taken into consideration.
He should therefore vote for the amendment.
Mr. EDWARD Bu LLER opposed the amendment.

Mr. WALLACE supported the amendment.
Mr. JAMES thought the members of the late government
wished this tax to go forth to the country with all its odious
defects, in order to help them to regain the reigns of govern-
ment, but not having himself any such object in view he
should vote for the amendment of the honourable member
for Bath.

Mr. LEADER had listened attentively to the arguments
during the evening from both sides of the house, and he must
say that though the majority would be against the amend-
ment, yet not one speaker had met or answered the argu-
ments of the hon. member for Bath.
Lord J. RUSSELL was opposed to the adoption of the
amendment, as, for instance, where a rich banker would

only have to pay 31d. in the pound, a person only having a
hfe interest would have to pay sevenpence. It would be no
justification to say that they belonged to different classes and
various schedules. He should therefore, without any inten-
tion of rendering the present measure more unpopular, vote
with the hon. baronet opposite against the amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL supported the amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK replied; and on a division the amendment
was lost by 258 against 112.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD then proposed his amendment, which
was lost by 259 to 50.
Schedule D was then agreed to, and on schedule E being

proposed,
Sir C. NAPIER called the attention of the house to the si-
tuation it would place all naval and military officers under
the rank of general and flag officers, if such a tax was im-
posed upon them. The gallant officer then concluded by
moving that all officers under the rank of general and flag
officers be exempted.
After a short discussion the house divided, when the mo-
tion was lost by 205 to 32. _

Schedule E was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
Mr. Gibbons, who had been committed by the Great Mar-
low election committee, was brought up to the bar of the
house, severely reprimanded, and discharged.
Sir R. PEEL moved that the reprimand of the Speaker be
entered upon the journals of the house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE made some observations respecting the
severity of the reprimand, and stated that he did not believe
Mr. Gibbons had been guilty of perjury.
Sir R. PEEL was of opinion that the speaker had discharged
the duty laid upon him in a fit and proper manner.
After a short discussion the motion was agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

mtbie tted b
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—SATURDAY.
The House of Commons met to
seare ohf Mr. considerMab-
a motion made
the
use on the
sboyhM. ri,Thihsewsiigtenre,sws
hi tandahveieenwcotmo
report of the Southampton election eommyittee, (f)or not pro-
ducingare
his
attendance certain documents ut
hmee
naturent s required
o f of f
subpoena) h i m
wbyhic a warrant
;;aad nthh
for
e
wi s shueet
hd e
r in
wtihoei porteec etde igtnuni easosoi onn
0;f atnhde ths
ees
sqiuoens ttiloi
en
onhol
iwg
awoaosh,
of the process terminated likewise.
Mr. THESIGER contended that the force of the warrant
had wholly ceased, and that therefore the witness could not
lawfully be detained for not having obeyed it.
In this opinion he was seconded by Mr. C. W. WYNN.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred, to the extent of
considering the legality of the warrant to be at all events too
questionable to allow the further imprisonment of the wit-
ness.
without admitting the warrant to be
Sir GEORGE GREY,
illegal, was content that under the circumstances the witness
should be discharged ; but as the question was one affecting
also the process under which other witnesses were attending
upon other committees, he notified his intention of moving
on Monday for a select committee to inquire into the general
question of legality.
Sir T. WILDE coincided in that view, declaring in favour
of the witness's discharge, who, he thought, could not pro-
perly be detained pending the inquiry.
A good deal of time was consumed in certain effervescences
of Mr. Hutt, which were at length got under by the Speaker'
authority ; and the house, without dividing, directed the dis-
s
charge of the witness.

The voluntary contributions to fever hospitals and dispen-
saries ill Ireland average 41,000 a year.