Punch (42.1862)

INTRODUCTION.

i"January to Dune, 1862.

PAOB

Yol. XLIL]

England in the affairs of America, would only serve to aggra-
vate the sufferings of those now enduring privations in con-
sequence of the war in their country.

But there were some Members who did not agree with Loed
Palmerston, and on the 18th July the subject of mediation
in the American quarrel was introduced by Me. Lindsay,
although several Members endeavoured to dissuade him from
doing so, considering the time was inexpedient for the purpose.
The opposition was triumphant, and no division was taken.

As there appeared to be no signs of an early termination of
the American Civil War, and as the season was drawing to a
close, the probable condition of the operative classes, owing to
the want of cotton, became a subject of increasing anxiety.

The attention of Ministers was directed from all quarters to
the certainty that unless a supply of the raw material could
be obtained, nothing could prevent the stoppage of the mills
in the cotton districts in the coming autumn.

Public sympathy declared itself on all sides for the nume-
rous and industrious population which was threatened with
the coming calamity, but the difficulty appeared of such mag-
nitude that it was thought to be out of the power of any
Government to meet it. After much debate a Bill was brought
in by Me. Villiebs, the President of the Poor Law Board to
enable—

“ The Boards of Guardians in certain counties in England to meet any ex-
traordinary demands for relief. He said that he did not mean to imply
by this motion that the law was not adequate to meet the case, or that any
further powers were necessary to enforce the law ; but the measure he pro-
posed was only a precautionary one during the recess, and he proceeded to
state facts that appeared to him to justify it. He showed from returns the
amount of distress that existed in the principal towns in Lancashire in
consequence of the want of employment, and the expenditure for the relief
of the poor, remarking that the number of persons dependent upon the
rates was no criterion of the number destitute of employment. The de-
posits in the savings-banks were now, however, nearly exhausted;
the distress was increasing rapidly and extending, and there was no prospect
.of its diminution but by the revival of trade. Looking to these circum-
stances and to the principle of the existinglaw, which sanctioned a rate-in-aid,
he proposed by the Bill to give vitality to that principle, so that any parish
or parishes, overburdened by extraordinary local distress and pauperism,
might claim a contribution from the common fund of the Union, or under
certain circumstances, one Union might call for a contribution from the
other Unions in the county. He explained the principal enactments of the
Bill, which he proposed to continue for a limited term, till the 1st of March,
1863.”

Certain amendments were proposed of more or less value.

‘1 Ultimately, however the House decided that the liability to
a rate-in-aid of the other parishes of an Union should arise as
soon as the expenditure of a parish exceeded 3*. in the pound,

and that a power to borrow on security of the rates should be
conferred on the Guardians, subject to the sanotion of the
Poor Law Board, whenever the aggregate expenditure of the
Union exceeded 3s. in the pound on the rateable property of
the whole Union.”

The Standing Orders were suspended in the Lords, the Bill
went through Committee, and was read a third time and
passed, so urgent had beoome the necessity for its application.

An attempt, made by Mr. Sheridan, to reduce the duty
on Fire Assurances failed, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer brought in his Budget, and one of its principal
features was the revision of the Hop Duties and a re-adjust-
ment of Brewers’ Licences. The financial scheme of the
Government occasioned much debate and opposition, but
after the withdrawal of the proposed reduction and re-adjust-
ment the Bill was read a third time.

Two financial debates attracted much public attention. One
a motion by Me. Hubbabd, directed against the mode of
levying the Income-Tax, and another (which threatened to
compromise the stability of the Government) by Me. Stans-
feld, affirming the possibility of reducing the expenditure of
the nation.

The terms of Mr. Hubbard’s motion were so much in
accordance with Mr. Punch's own views that we insert them
and some of his observations :—

“ That the incidence of an Income-Tax should not fall upon capital or pro-
perty, and, when applied to the annual products of invested property, should
fall only upon the net income arising therefrom ; and that the net profits,
gains, or salaries of persona and partnerships (not being public companies)
engaged in any trade, farm, manufacture, profession, or salaried employment,
should be subject, previous to assessment, to such an abatement as may
equitably adjust the burden thrown upon intelligence and skill as compared
with property.” Premising that it was the duty of the Government to
collect the national revenue in such a way as not to interfere with the
prosperity of the country, or to sow jealousy among classes, he proceeded to
show what, in his opinion, was the right principle of an Income-Tax ; that the
present tax violated that principle ; and that our vicious legislation could be
easily amended by the adoption of the true principle of an Income-Tax, as
enunciated in the Resolution. His object was, he said, to induce the House
by affirming this principle, to give expression to an opinion which the
Government would feel it their duty to make the basis of their financial
arrangements for another year. He discussed very fully the modes of apply-
ing his principle to the various sources whence income was derived, suggesting
the necessary distinctions, especially between companies and partnerships.
Having anticipated and replied to objections to his motion, he dwelt upon
the grievances suffered by the operation of the tax, under which none were
truthfully treated, and upon the merit as well as fiscal advantage attending
the removal of a temptation to fraud and dishonesty, practised in order to
evade what was considered an unjust imposition.”

The House, however, rejected the motion by 99 to 62.