The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-04 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY

sure, nor all the means, but much of that which
really tends to make men happy, as it is possessed by
1 those in apparently a happier and more fortunate con-
, dition of society. The Hon. Member strongly advo-
cated the reduetion of the taxes on knowledge, and
concluded.
The Rev. Dr. VAUGLIAN--I have had, perhaps,
more than nny other person, to do with selecting the
books that constitute here what we call British his-
to-y. Of course that is a department in which lam
supposed to have some peculiar knowledge or judg-
ment. Now, I conceive there are youths present
who are not without an interest in history, and in
that department especially I would just say to them,
it you would make a wise use of the volumes there
placed within your reach, try to do it upon some system.
Endeavour to group it, as it were, into different sec-
tions—the various parts that go to make up the
whole of what we call history. Have a plan ;no one
of our English histories will do for you, taken alone ;
not even these of them that are most nearly descrip-
tive of what my views are as to what English history
is would I advise you to read, to the exclusion of the
rest. It seems to have been allotted to us, as the re-
sult of the various conflicts out of which our system
in policy and in religion has taken its complexion,
that history shall be everywhere written, more or
1e53, under a party bias. Well, then, trust to no one
implicitly. Ccropare those that are known to
write under different influences ; and try to
get your impressions from a fair comparison.
But that is an extended labour. I have
spoken of history as having parts. "Divide and con-
quer" is the maxim, ascertain what the parts are.
There is what is called military history, there is what
is called civil history, there is the history of arts and
science, there is the history of manufactures. Break
up all these into these distinct sections, learn what
the history gives you in relation to these civil matters
separately, question yourself when you have read cer-
tain portions,—" What have I learned from this re-
lative to the great questions of government, the con-
dition of the people, legislation, and how the laws are
administered, and manufactures, and commerce, and
learning ?" Except you do this, my fear is that you
may read a large space, and feel that, for want of
some plan of this kind, you have not gathered the
result that is necessary to the encouragement of your
efforts. Now, we have histories that are written con-
siderably upon this plan—Mr. Hallam's " History of
the Middle Ages," for instance—where you have the
different parts broken up, each part complete in itself,
and all the parts going to constitute the entire of the
history. I could mention others ; I could mention
the productions of one now present withus, in which we
find this idea carried out, and the various phases of
French history presented in our own language as
never before—l mean the lectures recently published
by the Professor of History in the University of
Cambridge—(Cheers)—than which, I think, no
reading snore interesting can be found for the thought-
ful young men of Manchester. I make those sugges-
tions, having once had some experience as a Professor
of History, though so obscure were my doings in
that way, that you may not be aware of the fact. I
have ascertained how important it is, in order to
enable youths to feel that they are making actual pro-
gress, that they should proceed on some such plan.
Mr. J. BHOTHERTON said, it had often occurred to
him, with reference to those libraries, that they should
be further extended, if possible, than this was. One
of the witnesses before the Committee of the House of
Commons said that not only were lending libraries a
benefit, but that an itinerating library might be still
more useful in some parts of the country. In
Scotland, and also in Cumberland, libraries of this
kind had been found to work beneficially; and he
(Mr. Brotherton) could conceive that in districts
around Manchester, when these libraries should have
been more extended, that such a system might be
resorted to. There were many large villages where
the people were much at a loss for books, and where
they would have to wait long before any institution
of their own was likely, to be established which
would lend them ; but, supposing that zealous and in-
telligent librarians could be found, and supposing that
there were 10 districts of the kind he had mentioned
marked out round Manchester, and 1,000 volumes
were divided among them, that would be 100 each,
but by these districts exchanging one with another
again, they might, in reality, each have the benefit of
the whole thousand.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
much good might result from such a plan. He
congratulated them on the prospect of success which
was before them, and concluded by seconding the re-
solution, which was then carried unanimously.
Mr. R. M. MILNEs, M.P., then moved the next
resolution :
" That this meeting decides to express its gratification
at the triumphant result of the late poll for a library
rate, and to recognise the importance of the rate in
principle, as a guarantee for the permanence of institu-
tutions thus supported.
He said,—Don't think that it is such a very easy
thing for a man to sit down and read in this library.
It has taken a great deal of time to make the world
learn how to read. Some 400 years ago the art of
printing was invented ; not such a great marvel, after
all, because it would always have been there if
wanted; the only thing was the invention of the
moveable types. In some 20 years after that time
the art had got to what you call perfection. If you
go to the library of an antiquary, he will show you
books printed 20 years after the invention of printing,
got up in a most beautiful style of execution, equal
to anything which the art of printing could pro•
duce; yet, how much progress have books made
since that time in the world ! It is 400 years
since this art was invented, and yet how small a
proportion of the human race know anything
about books ; and how much smaller the propor-
tion who ever read them; and how much smaller
the proportion who ever remember what they read,—
(Hear, bear, and laughter.) There are some countries
in Europa—Prussia for instance—where there is
what is called a popular system of education. Scarcely
a child of eight years old is there but can read straight
ahead ; but possibly if you see that child at thirty
tarsyhdaode
does
noto booksallow;
year
d altogether.old, you i IAI
nfidn
vde trhya t
naturally as forgotten; hhoewh
at os
rea
hcoeunh
the political constitutionieof his ns
gone into other
—(Hear, hear.) The ci
is utterly useless.
him newspapers ; and so all this primary in.strucrculation
tion
of books has already occupied 400 years, yet it has
he use of tobacco to o
only taken fifty
from one end of the world to the other.—(Laughter.)
Dr. WATTS and several other speakers afterwards
addressed then,eetg which terminated at about
years for t
halftpast eleve all the resolutions being carried
unanimously.

THE INCOME TAX.

We are very much misteken if the tenacious obduracy
of certain parties on the question of a rectified income-
tax does not ultimately prove productive of similar re-
sults to those experienced by landed proprietors in re-
spect of the corn-duties. Year after year, when the gross
injustice of the actual tax was demonstrated, and vari-
ous expedients suggested for mitigating the pressure
upon the general consumer, a resolute and succes4ul op-
position was organised against all proposals. Sliding
scales were sneered at, colonial relaxations complained of,
and fixed duties repudiated with abhorrence. The end
of it was, that the country secured absolute freedom of
trade, and Protectionists were left so hopelessly stranded
that even accession to office could do nothing towards
setting them afloat again. Exactly in the same course
have matters been proceeding on the subject of direct
t heir t financierstraditional
wouldonal hear
principles,of rao di fica-
n wand
tt iaoxa ti
whatever-of veo
Official
r f
.have
persisted to this moment in declaring, before the faco of
a sober and mercantile people that 1,000/. a year derived
from land was precisely the same as 1,000/. a year made
across a counter, end worth nothing more. The conse-
sequence is, that the question has now been stirred and
discussed to its very uttermost depths, and the public
mind, instead of being restricted in its views to the dif-
ference between 1001. and interest and the interest of
1001, is now directed towards a discriminating survey of
every species of property and possession.
In another part of our columns will be found evidence
of the advanced stage at which the inquiry has already
arrived, and many readers, we doubt not, will wonder to
iwt
sheal a b slvt rue s
de
oc
no mo
tput
propose,a t ions Aolnr. Fthettprrr'a ecelnotttoer aecadsdiorne,ssteos
enter minutely into the dispute referred to. It will be
quite clear to those who have kept pace with the discus-
sion that Mr. Farr maintains his ground against his op-
ponents, but he descends from his " approximative to
assessable values" to the expression of a simple truth,
which will come home to the feelings of every man in
the country. " Every person," says he, "of common
sense I meet, knows perfectly well that the income from
trade is worth less than an equivalent income from laud,
and, feels that the wan with a life interest ought to be taxed
less" Or coulee he ought. Tl° tax professes to be a
tee upon property, the difference between various species
of property being recognized by the addition of the
term " income." One man has a certain description of
property producing 1001. a year, which he could turn
readily into the sum of 3,000/ ; another has a like yearly
income, bat his property in it could not be turned into
5001. Yet, in a country where the "value of a thing" is
proverbially recognized as "what it will bring" these
two species of property are assessed alike.
Be it remembered that these very statesmen who ex-
patiate so fluently on the " notorious impossibility" of
distinguishing between income and property, have actu-
ally achieved the impossibility itself in the terms of their
own Act. There are already certain distinct schedules
and a man
rfer tudritfilserneinsttakxinidnsloof receiptsl)operutyndaerndoni enc:rrcio(l'her of these,
according to his position. When it is wished to ascer-
tain our rateable capacities no difficulty is made in pro-
viding distinctions, but when it comes to an adjustment
of the dues fairly payable from each, we are told that
distinctions are beyond the reach of political arithmetic.
A man without a sovereign in the world is not permitted
to say to the collector "I have no pro
perty the col-
lector circumvents him, and says, "Very
.possibly; but
from week to week you may bo getting just as much
profit from your labour as will keep you afloat, and this
profit, under the name of income, it has been thought
fit to tax. A schedule, therefore, is provided expressly
to meet your requirements, and you will find every pos-
sible description of income' included in its clauses." But
here the discrimination stops. The law can clas-
sify property most ingeniously for thesliaskhemeonf,
declaring it taxable, but not at all for the
sake of apportioning taxation. Schedules A.
B. C. and D. are all carefully prepared for
cbauttchtoine a
catching
make the
por tiona tervetreys ofcl speciesass es
contributiono under
s elr-As
7ißsp. odbet nlaag
nr
de
d Englishmen,
pay pro-
portionate be alto-
gether impracticable.
The advocates of this remarkable system of finance
have one reason and one proof. Their reason for so
legislating is, that it is " impossible" to legislate other-
wise, and their proof of the " impossibility" is that Mr.
Pitt thought just the same. Mr. Pitt thought it would
be madness to attempt a discrimination between property
and income. But Lord Melbourne once thought it
would be " madness" to repeal the corn-laws, and the
Duke of Wellington declared it would be " madness" in
him to undertake the office of Prime Minister. Never-
theless, his Grace became Prime Minister to very good
purpose, and the corn-laws were repealed to a purpose
h t
a
that,We
themo most
kingdomprofoundi sn no
nfveiecl
ti
inogn.
notwithstanding the illustrious precedents for obliquity
of vision in this particular, the next three years will not
ewnht ieer everyi
n
in
a
pass over without a very practical refutation of the doc-
trine referred to; and we suspect, indeed, as we have
already observed, that the " possibility" of far more
critical distinctions than that between half-crowns and
half-sovereigns will be demonstrated in the face of day.
" Public opinion," observes Mr. Farr on this matter,
"is now in process of formation." The " opinions" dis-
cussed by our able correspondent have doubtless yet to
be realized and embraced, but on the main point of the
question opinion has been formed long ago. As Mr.
Farr himself acknowledges, there is " not a person of
common sense to be met with" who does not even now
feel that to tax precarious earnings as absolutely equi-
valent to solid property is a monstrous wrong. No
Englishman can ever be persuaded that 100 E. a-year re-
ceived in wages for labour, which depends on all the
variable conditions of health and demand, is as good as
1001. a year derived from capital in the funds or landed
possessions. It is an insult to his judgment to
argue such a point with him. In the sense in which
" property " is to be understood as constituting
its possessor a contributor to the public revenue,
it is obvious that there must:-Ise several descrip-
tions of such goods. Whether these can ever be
so classified as to prevent all risk of injustice may be
doubtful, as it is doubtful also in every other known de-
partment of economical science whether absolute perfec-
tion be attainable. But the difficulty of attaining to
perfection will be no longer accepted as an excuse for
making no improvement at all upon what is incon-
testably:the maximum of imperfection. Already our
statesmen are discovering that they in this, as in many
other matters, are surpassed by private individuals. Mr.
Farr, it will be seen, is ready, for himself end his eel-
leagues, to demonstrate that his rule is, at any rate,
" twice as near perfect accuracy as the system now in
operation," and, if such a rule is to be rejected. it must
obviously be so in favour of one which is nearer still.
The question can no longer be stifled as impracticable
or " closed." It has been opened and handled to very
good purpose, and direct taxation will only be tolerated
in future as a means of raising revenue when based li
upon those principles of equity by which all the
fiscal
transactions of a free country ought to be regulated.—
Times.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE TIMES.
Sir,—The article in Vie Times on the Income and
Property-tax was as correct and sound in its techeieal
statements as in its general principles. The writer re-
quires no aid to assist him in demolishie such absur-
dities as have appeared in your daily o
but I have just seen the Economist and I beg to call
y
your attention to one or two instances of inconceivable
ignorance in the writer for a commercial paper. Take,
fur instance, this sentence:—" But capitalizing all in-
come at 33 years' purchase, and
taxing it at an
rate, is really to tax the community, not according to
its varying wealth, year by year, equal
but according an
arbitrary average of its wealth through 33 years."
New, when an annuity or an estate is said to bo
worth
33 years' purchase, this has no reference to the average
income through 33 years; what is meant, of course, is,
that all the rents for 30, 60, 100—an unlimited aural)"
of a ears—are worth 33 times the year's rent' Every
surveyor, valuer, and actuary
in the country knows
what " years' purchase" is, and such an error is aiscre-
ditn hie to tho press.
You will notice that we do not propose to capitalize
ze
all incomes at thirty-three years' purchase; three p
cent, is not the basis of the plan proposed in the draught
report. It is only assumed for the sake of illustration.
vvhatever reasoning there is in the Economist staid.e
goes against all valuations whatsoever. It proves—if it
Provesanything—the absurdity of the Government and
all
other valuations of annuities for life, for terms of
years, and for ever.
determined
value of the property of the country cannot bree
"rmined exactl but the values of parts of it a,
determined every day with sufficient exactness for the
purposes of cOrnmeree•and
there is the rent,
for the purposes of taxation
assuredly no difficulty in getting from .
income, or sate value, pproximation
a sufficiently near a
to the assessihle value.certain
Weascertain that in a given year there is a f
possession h
amount of property in the country in the
certain individuals, in
Proportion and we call Upon each to pay
to the amount of that roporty in his po!ses-
sion, because that is the best Pmeasure of his
of the amount of protection which he obtains, of
.the
ability,
loss which he would sustain if the protection of society
were withdrawn. i
something new n
One miht suppose that there was ,
thet Proposal to capitalize incomes or dividends in order
to determine their relative value, whereas it is the basis
The land
of nearly all the transactions of the day.
agent capitalizes the net rents in all his valuations, so
does the
14112. A
.' "-"nilUititS, of life annuities saleable by the Go-
house agent; the ice of the funds, of the
vernlnent, is the capitalized
Propose to treat la' incomes from professions as life an-
ed value of the dividends: We
e
noities, and to '
some give them the same value as such ennui-
ties at
risk—covered by 5 per cent, interest, in-
ate" of 3, which is the rate when there is no risk. By
this.l.lPetheAs which we adopt for the sake of its aim-
P,,uelcY, we overrate the value of such incomes, as com-
pared with incomes derived purely from the interest of
money or the rent of land.
, You will observe that in all valuations—such as in
life annuities.—there is an assumed uniform rate of in-
terest, wish-h may be 50mewhat too high or too low for
the period to which it is applied' But over
Years the interest and the capital bear a pret a series of
ty corhtant
relation to each other; so that in all cases the tax may
he t quitably
e as it is popularly
rated on the value of the property, or on
the net interest—that is, the incon3
a4liA, miaus a deduction tor pre-
-lied,
to insure the ca ital
n at risk. True, if 1,0001,
capital returned, and
a tax
in preect security returns3o/. a year in interest
,
of 11. per 1,0001. on propertY NVOLIId give thesame re-
.
tura as a tax of 1.30 th on the income.
So in life annuities, and short annuities of all kinds,
a tax rated on the interest gives the same produce us a
tax rated on the capital, on on average, provided that
the rate on the : 1 a3d 1.25 th, 1.20 th, &c.,
of - ,
the rate on the interest.
It is one of Mr. Liqbtia,,e's errors that " all income is
atieual,”
and that the "'expenditure" is to be paid out
of Lhe " income of the year. This is a curious paradox
in England, where so much of our actual income for the