The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-28 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, APRA 28.

motives and arguments by which governing
fans reconcile themselves to the continued im-
position of an ill-adjusted income tax, are not of a
lkind that they like to avow, impugning, as they
would, the very principle of the tax and the probity of
the public. The payers of the tux may be divided
into two eltutves—thooe the amount of whose income
can be easily and surely obtained, and those whose
semi income can only be known to themselves.
The former are in general possessors of real pro-
perty, of land, of money an the public funds,
of annuities secured by law. The other class derives
its income from the returns of floating property, that
eann,,t be ascertained, from the operations of a trade
that cannot be traced in its fur and many ramifica-
tions or from th • gains of a profession. It is opined
that the class who ran evade paying in pro-
portion to their mil income do so, and that conse-
quently, the taxing than in an equal ratio with
thus• who derive income from real and
permanent property, is hut a compensation,
and does, in feet, restore the balance. In this com-
promise there are two interests most shamefully
sacrificed, first, that of the honest earner or trader,
who conwantiowily accounts to the tist fur all
be r t., and that of the life annuitant, who though
denying income from permanent property has but a
vicarious inters st in that property, the permanence
of which remains to others after his death. If
the persons in thc.e two categories were numerous
enough to get an an insurrection against the present
111111111111 tax, there are few who could blame theta fur

prissisling even to such an extreme.
Mr. mama, however, will till these discontented
annuitants that they have no reason to complain,
that the general protium of the land, of the capital,
awl industry of the country is a suns annually forth-
coming; that it is not the duty or the business of
the state to inquire win titer the hoidens and re-
ceivers of this yearly produce have the power to he-
lium:llls it or not ; that the view of the tax-gathering
power doeis not extend beyond the year, and that the
duruhility is Mil affair for individuals themselves to
loath ,not for him to mushier. Now much a fiscal theor y
as this would be all very well, if applied to an
imp r maipar, such as that proposal' by the French
economists, the whole of which was to be raised in
the first instance from the produce of the soil, the
own, r of the* suit being allowed to charge it again
in Me price of the produce, IN they sold or parted
with it. Hut our imp is unfortunately imellepte
not of pique. The taxgutherer tills his bowl
first from wealth, as it gushes from the
source, but this does not prevent him taking bowl-
fulls of the aelfisune wealth as it flows further down.
'lts income-lax man first takes his per tentage front
the lord of an estate on his whole property, and Rid,
th inauds another per ecology on the three hundred a
year he allows to his son, if the latter have a house-
hold that the tax man can get at.
It is nut, therefore, the total amount of the
country's wealth or produte that the Cosset:Lion of
Eximituent looks to for the state-proportion or
it. lie looks to Wichita& ; and that such is his
principle is übsi demonstrated by the exemption
of all illi.olllol under I.)0/. What would become of
)''rush direct taxation, were such its rule? From
three-fourths to boar-fifths of uses, annual contributions
in France to the direct tux are under twenty francs,
yet twelve and thirteen millions are derived from it.
The fear of giving any such extension or universality
In direct taxation in kngland proceeds from the idea
that it would be dangerous. Yet when the Revolu-
tion of Is IS resulted in universal suffrage, nut a word
was said in the National Assembly against direct
taxation ; on •he contrary. the general clamour was
dinned against the salt and drink duties. A fair
property tux, even on the smallest fortunes, is sub-
mitted to from u sense of its justice.
From Sir Ceivue.r... Wool, this evening, however,
we expect to hear of nothing save the demand for the I
renewal of the present propertv tax, with all its
schedules and imperfections. lie is a modest man,
Sir Ciemn ets. and will not attempt what PEEL and
l'irt are said to have shrunk from. This assertion
is, however, a mistake, for Pirr did not shrink front
Ilse endeavour to compensate for many of the injus-
tices of the tax. Ile proptcied, for example, to exempt
that portion of income devoted to illtAlrallCVal. But
the landed interest was too strong to admit of any
exception in favour of the monied It is still too
strong. And any attempt now to alleviate the
harden in schedule D. mould he 'seisms! by it just as
l'irr's adjusting douses were scouted at the com-
ment-dui tit of the century. This was the excuse of
PIT! cud of Pima. for not culjtisting the income tux;
it was the strength of the landed interest in parlia-
ment, never to be sis eremite unless the strongest
ease is matde against it. And this it is. not
any intrinsic difficulty in the theory of the question
itself, that prevents Sir Citaiti e. Womb from apply-
ing his ingenuity to it. And if the CIIANCELLOR
were to explain, he would say that the present time
of all other was the most hopeless for the adjustment
of the schedules. when the honied interest is ut since
so powerful and so sore, as well as flushed with the
proesped of coming victory.
There is the greatest need of a committee to exa-
mine into the question of direct taxation taken alto-
gether. !tut there is little use in exptding any fruit
from that contmittee. until a new reform bill creates
thing like equality uud fairness in the represen-
tation of contlietiug interests in parliament. Reform
and corn law repeal were carried against the landid
aristoerney, however predominant in prliantent,
the interest which tl:e people at large felt in both
questions. But our system of dirt et tax:a' has
left the people so completely unalfoeted and uneou-
tcrited, that there is no popular power or impulse by
which any Imre% eutents eau be foetid. Nye are, in
Cad. at (lac mercy of the ariatocraer ; and in these
tspecially, polititml and financial *reform must go
tugdher.

Now that the relations between the Committee of
Privy Council on Eduction and the National School'
Society :or ratlice. pelhaps, between that committee
as representing the state and the society as repre-
senting the churel4 are about to be reconsidered at
the approaching anniversary meeting of the sovietv;
and that its members ,will'rbe again asked by Mr.
G. A. Dr.xlsox to re-affirm the opinion that
the committee's proceedings are "inimical to the
education of the po in the principles of the i
established church,- or, with Mr. E. Giant f
to resolve that the cause of sound religious instrue•
lion and the intensis of the clerreh demand. at the
pnsent juncture. the friendly fo-operation of the
N411011:11 Society and the Cumulate.: of Council '—
with this prospect of a greet nottrorerse on the
subject of State assistance to church edueutfun again
before us. it will be no.ltd, before entering on it. to
know and fully to tams-elate what the State has of
late years peo uniarily done for the church in this
matter of church education. And this some morns,
just laid before parliament, authuritatively explain.
It was in the year 1.39 that, by means of a com-
mittee of the Pries- Council. the administration of
mute aid to education was confided to a responsible
department of the government, and that. to some ex-
tent at least, the functions of a minister of public

1

II ORA.
NVESS3