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

1/44Ysician the lawyer, the banker to escape, in his opinion they
'ald be 'doing the greatest injustice.-(Hear," heir.) If trade
1L:111d be unsuccessful the tax to be received would not be so
rat ; if during the last three years the employment of capital
fad been accompanied with no returns, an exemption to the
41
ameunt would be &lowed, for the imposition was to be
l'un the rate of orofit derived for the three preceding years.
ite
crwances were made in the case of trade where there was
ft:corresponding allowance with respect to landed property.
i, a case of a professional man, in the case of a physician earn-
-o[l
two. ur three, or fciur thousand pounds a year ; in the ease
!.°4%, surely they had as great an interest in the
takintenincc of tranquillity and in the support of
,l'ublic ' credit as many of those who would be sub-
-4" to this tax .; so the trader had as •great an inte-
'est in - the maintenance of quiet as a naval or military
n.er, or other classes who were included in this
.tax.
lie, therefore, contended that the Hon. Gentleman was
.no!
Al'eptioi that broad principle which ought to, be adopted. The
-t"Posal of tb e Hon. and Learned Gentleman mer,,ly selected
tto classes, the trader and the professional r....an; and said that
!'eY should only pay one half. He did no think such a propo-
tion would. be founded on a broad principle. If they were to
t" an Inaame=tax at all, it did appear to him that it was
'tanifestly just that all classes of income should be subject
i': it; en?, whether it were in time of war or peace it made no
d
stinctirm. If the professional income, cr the income in trade,
relit -f o contribute less to the State than the income derived
,"11?-nd, why should not that rule be as good in the time of
IL° e's in peace? and if they permitted that exemption now.
~"eY 'were about to establish a principle which they must admit
l, tt . ,
t, ae time of war.—(Hear, hear.) They must admit that
l'f'e•
that
of the assessed tax in 1803 and 1806 was unjust.
:tided property to 12 per cent., and on professional income to
' ; 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-
real income 10 or 12. The principle they established now
xv73' must maintain in time of war. He could rather show
oPY . such a distinction should be made in time
2 war than in peace.. The tendency of war
.was to increase the value of landed property, 'and to depress
:54emercial enterprise. And it it were just to make this dis-
:llll:time in the time of peace, it appeared to him equally just,
and it might be argued a fortiori, that the same distinction
uhught to exist, in time of war. They were not diseus,ing a
principle that, was good for all times, mid he must say, that it
tv,PPeated to, , him that the 'propotition of the Hon. Gentleman
as liable, to very great objections.—( Hear, hear.) When he
s"lered the whole circumstances of this case, he thought
then "effect of the commercial tariff would be. to benefit those
. ~earned their incomes from trade.—( Hear, hear.) 'lhere
...‘,,czkld be no person, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion,
.70 would derive more advantage from the commercial tariff
a 4 . those who were confined to a residence in '
',is country, and who had not the opportunity which the man
gof wealth had. He 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
ether countries and our own, would make an ample
eompensatiou, for a great part of the burden im-
Posed upon him by asking him to pay FL per annum
*tat of an income of 300 t. a year. On these grounds he must
rhere to the proposition which he originally made. He be-
loved it to be mush more just than the amendment which the
11°11- 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.
• 1, Mr. 14HOUCHERE explained what he had stated as to
the .time at which the Income-tax 'was imposed, and which the
Right Hera, Baronet seemed to have slightly misunderstood.
K'.l perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman; that no
rire distinction could be made as to the resources of income
Ilkag a time of war, than during peace.
-.Lord HOWICK said, with all the ability which the Hon.
esitleman had brought to bear on the question, still he
thettg.. ht he had rested his case on an argument
ZPech the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had answered
syl7-44ticipation. The clear result of his argument seemed to
0111 to be that there would still remain many aes of injustice
4rnithe application of the tax. He had certainly been success-
-44.-in showing the House that this would be the case. The
lean having only a life estate, and another holding the fee-
' 44.1 e, the circumstances under which they held their property
),,reire so utterly at variance that it would be impossible for the
awye to deal with these cases according to the real value
.e.,.‘f the respective incomes. In proving this to be the case, the
night Hon. Getnleman had certainly strengthened him (Lord
uowick) in the opinion he had always held, that the Income-
ttlA was essentially a bad and an unjust tax.—(Hear, hear. )
the whole result of the debate had been to bring back more
.orcibly to his mind the conclusion, that do what they would,
the tax must remain an unjust one, and he was corn-
Felled to differ with the Right Honourable Gentleman,
,lo his opinion that a tax on income would fall, on the whole,
itess unjustly than any other. The Chancellor of tbe Exchequer
nad urged a similar argument; he had said, that if this tax
Pressed unequally, those that could alone be substituted
kr it Would press quite as unequally, and that
rages on coniumption 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,
aid in whatever proportion the articles assessed were eon-
turned, the tax-gatherer stepped in andtook his share. The
tenor al system of taxation, therefore, that they had hitherto
Adopted, had been to levy a tax upon what each person
torisidered his available income. It left each individual
as determine what he. would spend, for himself.
hat 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 profeitienal 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 each 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, hut that other taxes would fall on the professional
blau, while other persons could go and live abroad. He
(Lord Howick) believed, that if they arranged ' their
‘ltation 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
llTreasury—if they could so arrange their taxes, he was firmly
Isersuaded that there was no country in Europe in which, en the
Whop,, a person could live more advantageously than in Eng-
le:4-e( Hear.) • He, therefore, could not believe that this tax

,seas such a just one as the Right Hon. Baronet supposed it to
51.. e. It was perfectly true that this was a point which the
,louse bad 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
'the' would, they could never .make apply with fairness
4-re all , classes of the community. But though it could not be
'ieade 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-
a,itile amount Of injustice on the classes that were subjected to
Lt. Clearly, the question they had to consider was, not whether
mere would be many cases of injustice, hut whether, upon the
'lchole, and taking the broad results, there would be less injus-
lice, or a smaller degree of hardship, under one system than
blister the other. If they took professional incomes in tha
hiass, 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 ?
Pe could point out individual cases of persons deriv-
mg income from land, which could only continue a
!inset 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
!nose durable kind. In the ease 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
tile whole amount of professional incomes, and the whole
lteOunt of income from more permanent sources, let them ask
,as 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-
' Idised propertry. But this argument had already been
- ably, stated by the Honourable and Learned Member for
= bath, that it would be unnecessary for him to dwell
farther on it. But there was another point, to which he must
ta.ll 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. lie 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
• sAftlassos. But the Right Hon. Baronet had not quite perfectly
represented the case of the firmer,. He 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
It, though dispossessed of his estate, he might find
other means of applying it. But further than that
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
tight to be considered, because he could nut 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
t.„(illy uncertain. determine riot yet come to that part of the
13,1 l when they were to whether those sources of in-
:. come wereto be included in the schedule or not; that ques-
' s.tice 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
leariifest difference between such means and those derived from
Personal exertion. The exercise of a masi's own labour, in-
dustry, and talents in those various professions, which were
the modes of obtaining income which were necessarily uncer-
lain, depended not merely on the duration of life,
but a man's health, his popularity, and a thou-
s- sand other causes of uncertainty, which, applied to these
Causes, and not to others. A professional man, having an in-
;l. 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-
s
4 posed to exempt income entirely; it was perfectly just that all
Incomes should be subjected to it. But with respect to in-
s. comes of this particular nature, it was fair and just to subject
.„*..:-theos to a diminished rate of taxation. There' was another
description of intermediate taxation—the salaries of officers in
air the public service; and to these they ought, in the future pros
f. Vess of the Bill, to apply intermediate rates of taxation. The
.:night Hon. Gentleman observed that by adopting the amend-
Trent they would still retain the inquisition of the tax, and
Would retain it for the purpose of raising a smaller amount.
Re 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 for a sum of three or four millions it was not worth while to
'repose an income tax. That was the opinion he had obtained
from him, and he had not changed it. Why not meet this
- objection by carrying a well regulated Income-tax from them,
and relieve the community of other taxes which still press,
rnore heavily? It had been said that the principle laid down
Pas equally applicable in peace and war, and it was because he
s' could not help thinking that the Income-tsx would last longer
,than had :been expected that he was extremely anxious it
.should be very carefully considered; and that they should endea-
,'4 your to make it as just as theypossibly could. The Right Hon.
taronet urged, as a strong presumption in favour of this tax,
that it had before been adopted, and he believed there was
ss complaint against it. The Right Hon. Baronet also said
that its alleged injustice was greater if possible in the time of
''; War than in the time of peace, because the circumstances of
War tend to raise the value of landed property. But there
.Were circumstances which account for its not being FO
Jectionable in time of peace. They had a currency always be-
s coining more depreciated, there was a continual accumula-
s tion of debt, for the country was thus anticipating its resources
kt
~and living on posterity. While this process was going on
there was a kind of artificial prosperity which prevented any
4, Particular class from feeling the evil of that tax as much as
they otherwise would. Then the demands of the war, and
;the necessity of supplying the army and nave, carried away a
treat 'number of persons, so that during tie war there wan;
hot' that over crowded state of all professions, nor the difficulty
of finding employment in every rank' of business and pursuit of
lifcs nnw Tlys tr.te i. f things isrsseossd the
-thc:stax -being felt. But fill this wils, now altered.
141,,z:N0 man could look around him without perceiving the great
-t• z,