The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

physician, the lawyer, the hanker to escape, in his opinion they
eould be doing the greatest injustice.—(Hear, hear.) If trade
should be unsuccessful the tax to be received would not be so
great ; if during the last three years the employment of capital
lad been accompanied with no returns, an exemption to the
lull amount would be allowed, for the imposition was to be
ipon the rate of profit derived for the three preceding years.
.allowances were made in the case of trade where there was
eo corresponding allowance with respect to landed property.
In a ease of a professional man, in the case of a physician earn-
ing two or Once, or four thousand pounds a year ; in the ease
el a lawyer deriving an income from his profession or exer-
;ions, surely they had as great an interest it. the
maintenance of tranquillity and in the support of
public credit as many of those who would be sub-
ject to this tax ; so the trader had as great an inte-
rest in the maintenance of quiet as a naval or military
,'firer, or other classes who were included in this tax.
lie, therefore, contended that the Hon. Gentleman was not
sdoeting that broad principle which ought to be adopted. The
eroposal of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman mutely selected
;ter) classes, the trader and the professional man, and said that
z'ney should only pay one half. He did not think such a propo-
sition eouid be founded on a broad principle. If they were to
nave an Income-tax at all, it del appear to hiin that it was
nanifestly just that all classes of income should be subject
to it; and whether it were in time of war or peace it made nn
iistincoon. If he professional imenne, or the income in trade,
,ught to coetribute less to the State than the income derive.{
rom land, why should not that rule be as good in the time of
war as in peace? and if they permitted that exemption now,
•hey were about to establish a principle which they must admit
in the time of war.—( Hear, hear.) They must admit that
the equality of the assessed tax in 1503 and lemi was unjust.
If that principle were admitted, they might raise the duty on
landed property to 12 per cent., and on professional income to
ti ; and if that were not enough in the time of war, they might
raise the duty on landed property 20 per cent., and on profes-
sional income 10 or 12. The principle they established now
they must maintain in time of war. He could rather shoe
why such a distinction should be made in time
of war than in peace. The tendency of war
was to increase the value of landed property, and to depress
mimes-Mal entrrprise. And if it were just to make this dis-
tinction in the time of peace, it appeared to him equally just,
and it might be argued a fortiori, that the same distinction
ought to exist in time of war. They were not discussing a
principle that was good for all times, and he must say, that it
appeared to him that the propotition of the Hon. Gentleman
was liable to very great objections.—(Hear, hear.) When he
considered the whole circumstances of this case, he thought
the effect of the commercial tariff would be. to benefit those
who earned their incomes from trade.--( Hear, hear. ) '1 here
would be no person, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion,
who would derive more advantage from the commercial tariff
than those who were confined to a residence in
this country, and who had not the opportunity which the mar.
of wealth had. Ile hoped that the professional man, in the
diminished cost of living from the general reduction of the
tariff, with respect to the cost of the manufactures both of
other countries and our own, would make an ample
compensation, for a great part of the burden un-
posed upon him by asking him to pay el. per annum
out of an income of 3001. a year. On these grounds he must
adhere to the proposition which he originally made. He be-
lieved it to be mush more just than the amendment which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had proposed ; and he was not
deterred, by any fear of responsibility, from adhering to that
which appeared to be most consonant with justice, and best cal-
culated for the public advantage.
Mr. LABOUCHERE explained what he had stated as to
the time at which the Income-tax was imposed, and which the
Right Hon. Baronet seemed to have slightly misunderstood.
He perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that no
more distinction could be made as to the resources of income
during a time of war, than during peace.
Lord HOWICK said, with all the ability which the Hon.
Gentleman had brought to bear on the question, still he
thought he had rested his case on an argument
which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had answered
by anticipation. The clear result of his argument seemed to
him to be that there would still remain many cases of injustice
in the application of the tax. He had certainly been success-
ful in showing the House that this would be the case. The
man having only a life estate, and another holding the fee-
simple, the circumstances under which they held their property
were so utterly at variance that it would be impossible for the
law to deal with these cases according to the real value
of the respective incomes. In proving this to be the case, the
Right Hon. Getnleman had certainly strengthened him (Lord
Howick) in the opinion he had always held, that the Income-
tax was essentially a bad and an unjust tax. —( Hear, hear. )
The whole result of the debate had been to bring back more
forcibly to his mind the conclusion, that do what they would,
the tax must remain an unjust one, and he was com-
pelled to differ with the Right Honourable Gentleman,
in his opinion that a tax on income would fall, on the whole,
less unjustly than any other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had urged a simi'ar argument; he had said, that if this tax
pressed unequally, those that could alone be substituted
fur it would press quite as unequally, and that
taxes on consumption would fall heavy on particular
persons, and not on others. Now, he did not believe
that this was the effect of their system of taxation taken
altogether. He believed that the effect of their present system
of taxation was to make it fall on the available income of each
different person, because it taxed necessaries, it taxed luxuries,
and in whatever proportion the articles assessed were con-
sumed, the tax-gatherer stepped in and took his share. The
general system of taxation, therefore, that they had hitherto
adopted, had been to levy a tax upon what each person
considered his available income. It left each individual
to determine what he would spend, for himself.
What he considered his available income, upon that he paid
his proportion ; that was the effect of their existing system
taken altogether. What was the consequence? Why, that
the professional man, whose income, though large, was un-
certain at the best, and could not be of long continuance, con-
sidered that income as only a small one, and spent part and
and saved part. The man of a more permanent income,
spent a larger proportion ; precisely as earls man found
he could prudently expend a large or small proportion of his
resources, in that proportion he contributed to the wants of the
State. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that this was not
the case, but that other taxes would fall on the professional
man, while other persons could go and live abroad. He
( Lord Howick) believed, that if they arranged their
taxation in a proper manner, not unnecessarily increasing
the burdens of the people, and giving up those taxes, in
the shape of protective duties, which produced nothing to the
Treasury—if they could so arrange their taxes, he was firmly
persuaded that there was no country in Europe in which, on the
whole, a person could live more advantageously than in Eng-
land.—( Hear.) He, therefore, could not believe that this tax
was such a just one as the Right Hon. Baronet supposed it to
be. It was perfectly true that this was a point which the
House had decided, and he certainly did not intend to argue it
more than was necessary in noticing the observations that had
fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was willing to
assume that the tax was to be imposed, a tax which he contend-
ed was inherently unjust, and one that, attempt whatever
they would, they could never make apply with fairness
to all classes of the community. But though it coull not be
made entirely just, the House had decided on imposing it, and
he considered that they should be best discha: ging their duty
in endeavouring to get rid of the objections to which it was
liable—( Hear, hear)---and to make it fall with the least pos-
sible amount of injustice on the classes that were subji cted to
it. Clearly, the question they had to consider was, not whether
there would be many cases of injustice, but whether, upon the
whole, and taking the broad results, there would be less injus-
tice, or a smaller degree of hardship, under ore system than
under the other. If they took professional incomes in tha
mass, and the incomes derived from real property and fixed
capital also in the mass, which was the most certain,
the most durable, and the best able to bear taxation ?
He could point out individual ca,es of persons deriv-
ing income from land, which could only continue a
short time, on whom it would be hard and unjust to impose
the same amount of tax as that laid on persons of incomes of a
mere durable kind. In the case of a dowager of a great age,
it might be cruel indeed to impose the same tax as on income
from land in perpetuity. It was perfectly true that the Hon.
Gentleman might point to these cases of injustice ; but taking
the whole amount of professional incomes, and the whole
amount of income from more permanent sources, let them ask
was it not fair to make a difference in favour of those whose
incomes were derived from their own labours and exertions,
the industry of the men themselves, and not from re-
alised propertry. But this argument had already been
so ably stated by the Honourable and Learned Member for
Bath, that it would be unnecessary for him to dwell
f:rther on it. But there was another point, to which he must
call the attention of the House for a few moments. The Right
Hon. Baronet said if they did not apply the tax to professional
incomes, there were many other cases to which they would be
bound to extend the same rule. Ile had pointed out the cases
of farmers who might be dispossessed of their estates by a short
notice; but notwithstanding this uncertain tenure, they im-
posed on him taxes, even to a larger amount than on other
classes. But the Right Hon. Baronet had not quite perfectly
represented the case of the farmers. fie apprehended that a
farmer did not quite lose his income if he was dispossessed of
his farm ; his income was derived from his capital, and
though dispossessed of his estate, he might find
other means of applying it. But further than that
he would say that if the rule was to hold good in a future stage
of the Bill, the case of the farmers would have an indisputable
right to be considered, because he could not apply one rule to
trade and another to the farmer. With respect to incomes de-
rived from mines and other sources, it might be said to be
equally uncertain. They had riot yet come to that part of the
Bill when they were to determine whether those sources of in-
come
were to be included in the schedule or not; that ques-
tion might arise on different clauses of the Bill. With regard
to the pay of the army and navy, and all those sources of in-
come, they might deal with them hereafter as they thought
proper ; but before they did so, they must see that there was a
manifest difference between such means and those derived from
personal exertion. The exercise of a man's own labour, in-
dustry, and talents in those various professions, which were
the modes of obtaining income which were neces'arily uncer-
tain, depended not merely on the duration of life,
but a man's health, his popularity, and a thou-
sand other causes of uncertaiuty, which, applied to these
causes, and not to others. A protessional.man, having an in-
come subject to all these causes of uncertainty, he thought,
with respect to the uncertainty, that it was only fair and just
to make a deduction from his rate of taxation. It was not pro-
posed to exempt income entirely; it was perfectly just that all
incomes should be subjected to it. But with respect to in-
comes of this particular nature, it was fair and just to subject
them to a diminished rate of taxation. There was another
description of intermediate taxation—the salaries of officers in
the public service; and to these they ought, in the future pro-
gress of the Bill, to apply intermediate rates of taxation. The,
Right Hon. Gentleman observed that by adopting the amend-
ment they would still retain the inquisition of the tax, and
would retain it for the purpose of raising a smaller amount.
He considered the argument an objection to the whole mea-
sure. The opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet in
1833 had great weight with him ( Lord Howick). He had said
that fora sumof three or four millions it was not worth while to
impose an income tax. That was the opinion he had obtained
from him, and he had not changed Why not meet this
objection by carrying a well regulated Income-tax from them,
and relieve the community of other taxes which still press
more heavily ? It had been said that the principle laid down
was equally applicable in peace and war, and it was because he
could not help thinking that the Income-tax would last longer
than had :been expected that he was extremely anxious it
should be very eat elully considered; and that they should endea-
vour to make it as just as theypossibly could. The Right Hon.
Baronet urged, as a strong presumption in favour of this tax,
that it had before been adopted, and lie believed there was
no complaint against it. The Right. Hon. Baronet also said
that its alleged injustice was greater if possible in the time of
war than ie the time of peace, because the circumstance* of
war tend to raise the value of landed property. But there
were circumstances which account for its not being so ob-
jectionable in time of peace. They had a currency always be-
coming more depreciated, there was a continual accumula-
tion of debt, for the country was thus anticipating its resources
and living on posterity. While this process was going on
there was a kind of artificial prosperity which prevented any
particular class from feeling the evil of that tax as much as
they otherwise would. Thee the demands of the war, and
the necessity of supplying the army and navy, carried away a
great number of persons, so that during the war there was
not that over crowded state of all professions, nor the difficulty
of finding employment in every rank of business and pursuit of
life which now prevailed. This state of things prevented the
evil of the:tax being felt. But all this was now altered.
No man could look around him without perceiving the great