§ The profits of a married woman living with her husband shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section forty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, not be deemed the profits of her husband, neither shall he 1608 be chargeable therewith, but every married woman shall be chargeable to Income Tax in respect of her separate property in all respects as though she were a femme sole.
§ I do not want to waste time on this, but I should just like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his heart has been softened in this case. It is a very hard one indeed that if a man lives with a woman who happens to be his wife they should be in a worse position than if she was not his wife. The short effect of this Section of the Income Tax Act is a penalty upon marriage. There seems to be a new mind in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will reconsider this with a view of remedying the grievance. It surely is a monstrous injustice that you should tax a married couple on their joint incomes, but it has been so often argued in this House that I shall not take up any more time.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is a very old grievance that comes up every year—indeed, it is a hardy annual—but it is rather a serious alteration of the general law for me to contemplate, and I think it would mean a serious diminution of the revenue, because there are many cases in which, if it is passed, exemptions may be claimed. In many cases the income is brought up to £700 by taking the two. I do not think, however, that there is any real hardship, as the provision does not apply to any people who cannot afford a contribution to the Income Tax; and, after all, these married people do live together, as they ought to do, and they have a joint duty in regard to the expenses of the household. Therefore, I do not think there is a real case of hardship, and the grievance is a sentimental one. As they live together the expenses of the wife are considerably less, and she has an income of her own. I think when we make an alteration of the general law it ought to be in cases of real hardship and suffering, and not in cases of this kind. I do not think there is any claim which would justify me in making the Amendment.
§ Sir E. CARSONI am not going to argue the general question. I have not any sympathy with anybody who marries a woman with money, but there is a question which I wish to ask. Certain abatements were given to persons living abroad, and who happened to be there in the service of the country, and to others. I have a letter in regard to a missionary abroad who really has little or no money, but his 1609 wife, who is with him, has under £160 a year, and I have been asked whether, in that case, an abatement will be allowed. The lady is carrying out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says she ought to do, and is with her husband. She is not a missionary, she is not the person who comes under the exemption, but between them they would, as there is a common fund.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIn that case, I understand the lady has accompanied her husband in his capacity as a missionary. I should think a case of that kind should come within the exception which I promised to insert. I will consider it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not accepting the Clause was that it would cost too much money to the State. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has changed from the good example he set the House yesterday, when he said the question which the Committee should consider was whether or not the tax was just, and not whether or not it would cost the State money. I was lost in admiration at the excellent sentiment which he gave vent to yesterday. Now I find all these good instincts have left him, and he has reverted to his own bad self again.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not admit the grievance.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe rest of the Committee, I think, do. I will put this case. The right hon. Gentleman says if husband and wife are living together their joint income goes to the household expenses. A brother and sister live together, both enjoying incomes of their own. They pool their incomes, and they go to the household expenses in exactly the same way as a husband and wife, but their incomes are not aggregated together for the purpose of Income Tax, though, of course, the house is equally dear to them as to the husband and wife. But there is another point where a grievance comes in. For the purpose of Death Duties husband and wife are not taken as being one, but as being two. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If the husband and wife are to be taken as being one person for the purpose of Income Tax they must be treated as one person for the Death Duties. That seems to be absolutely unanswerable.
§ Question put, "That this Clause be now read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 119.
1611| Division No. 752.] | AYES. | [3.10 p.m. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gretton, John | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Haddock, George B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renwick, George |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Snowden, P. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, George |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Arthur, Charles | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hills and Sir F. Banbury. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Armitage, R. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gulland, John W. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Beale, W. P. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Rowerman, C. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Branch, James | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Essex, R. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Everett, R. Lacey | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Clough, William | Ferens, T. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Higham, John Sharp |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morse, L. L. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Sioan, Thomas Henry |
| Hodge, John | Nicholls, George | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Nuttall, Harry | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Parker, James (Halifax) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Paulton, James Mellor | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lamont, Norman | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Toulmin, George |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Vivian, Henry |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Roe, Sir Thomas | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Massie, J. | Seddon, J. | |
| Mond, A. | Seely, Colonel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller. |
| Mooney, J. J. | Shackleton, David James |
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved to insert the following:—