The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

utt _Sulk.

LONDON:
FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 18, 1842.

We grieve very much to announce that Lord
BROUGHAM, last night, declared his firm conviction that
it was now necessary to impose an income tax, in order
to provide for the wants of the State and preserve publie
credit. The Noble Lord came, it is true, to this con-
clusion with painful reluctance, but still, the conclu-
sion was more than once avowed, and was not dissented
from, as far as we could hear, by any one Peer. We are
much disappointed, we admit, in our hopes of finding in
Lord BROUGHAM a leader who, on this occasion, would
place himself at the head of the suffering people, battling
for economy and freedom of trade. He gave up our
cause, and, if the bulk of the people be of his opinion,
nothing remains for them but to submit with the best
grace they can, to the burdensome yoke which the land-
lords have prepared for their necks. But, notwithstand-
ing our high respect for Lord 'BROUGHAM., we cannot,
adopt his conclusion, nor can we feel any despair of the
ultimate success of our principles, though we are not at
present to be guided in our struggles by his great talents.
It is admitted on all hands that the income tax is the
most unequal, unjust, vexatious, and inquisitorial tax
that was ever devised. To assert that it is necessary
implies that no less obnoxious tax can be had recourse
to which will yield sufficient to supply the wants of the
State. We positively and emphatically deny this. To
quote but one example, the house tax, which involves
nothing inquisitorial or vexatious, might be renewed
without those partialities which made it deservedly un-
popular. The old house tax was essentially unjust,
because it spared the mansions of the opulent, and fell
pith -a heavy hand on the habitation of the humble.
But a ltouse tax could be framed_ so as to be just, and
to yield a sum which would give the State all that it
requires. While a tax in no wise inquisitorial and sa
much less objectionable than an income tax can easily be
had recourse to, it is an abuse of terms to say that the
income tax is necessary.
We object to Lord BROUGHAM'S doctrine in toto. The
only necessity for an income tax grows out of the deter-
mination of the monopolists to resist all attempts to give
commercial freedom to the nation, and preserve the
Corn-laws at all hazards. Sir ROBERT PEEL justified
his proposition on the assumed fact, that diminishing
the rate of taxation had failed, and will fail, to augment
the revenue. Lord BROUGHAM took the same view last
night, and used nearly the same illustrations as Sir R.
PEEL. The examples selected by both seem to us not
Conclusive, because wine, rum, and tobacco are to a con-
siderable extent luxuries, the consumption of which h
more dependent on opinion and fashion than on those
everlasting wants and appetites which, existing in each
individual, increase with the population. Moreover,
they were drawn from a period when Corn-laws were
in existence, which prevented both the increase of po-
pulation and the increase of the means of consumption,
on which the increase of revenue from .a low duty on
luxuries must arise.
The duty on wine, to deal with only one case, was re-
duced in 1325, but the price after the reduction was still
so high that none below the more opulent of the middle
classes could consume wine, and their number, and con-
sequently the consumption of wine, could not be very
rapidly augmented. At the same time the account
which Sir ROBERT PEEL gave of the reduction of the
duty on wine does not correspond with that stated by
Mr. M'Cum.ocir, and we must leave these gentlemen—
the one great as a party leader, and the other a great sta-
tistician—to settle the difference betwixt them. In the
Times, Sir B. PEEL is reported to have said on this day
week—

" In 1825 the revenue derived from wine was 2,153,0001.
The duty was reduce.i from 9e. lid. to 4s. 2id. per gallon,
and in the next year after the reduction of the duty there was
a falling off the duty from 2,100,000/. to 1,400,0001. In the
next year the duty amounted to 1,600,0001., in the subsequent
years to 1,700,000/.,1,400,000/., 1,500,000/., and the duty his
never realized its former amount.
Mr. M'Cum.ocit's statement is this—

" Mr. Robinson took, in 1825, nearly 50 per cert. from the
previously existing duties, arid, notwithstanding the spirit duties
were• at the same time reduced in a still greater degree, the
consumption of wine in Great Britain has been increased from
little more than 5,000,000 gallons to 6,000,500 gallons, while
the lop to the revenue has been considerable. We are, there-
fore, j&tified in affirming that the measure has been signally
successful, and that it is a most valuable example of the inferior
productiveness of low duties. The duties as reduced by
Mr. Robinson were from 115.50. to 7s. 3d. per imperial
gallon on French wine', 4s. 10t1. per gallon on all other foreign
wines, and 2s. sd. on those of the Cape of Geed Hope. They
continued on this footing till the late equalization Act (1 and 2
Will. IV., c. 30), which imposes a duty of ss. 6d. per imperial
gallon on all foreign wines, and 2s. 9th on those of the Cape of
Goal Elope."
Now, although this statement confirms Sir R. PEEL's

assertion, that the whole loss to the revenue by reducing-
: the duty 50 percent. has not been made up by the increased
consumption, still that increase warrants the inference that
on articles, regarded as necessaries of life, the increased
consumption would have fully made up the alteration in
t'w duty. It is observed, however, by Mr. M'Cln.Locu,
which may explain why the consumption of wine, even
at the enormous duty, has not been more increased, that
the imposition of the same duty on wine not worth 101•
a hogshead and on the choicest Burgundy and Cham-
pagne, worth 501. or 601., is utterly subversive of all
principle, and excludes all the low priced wines from the
English market. It deprives the middle classes of the
gratification of using them. We are of opinion, there-
fore, that Sir ROBERT PEEL (lid not give a fair view of
the wine duty, and that it does not justify the general
conclusion he quoted it to prove.
The Right lion. Baronet, somewhat after the same
fashion, quoted the effect of the reduction of the duty on
coffee in 1824, but he omitted the more striking effect
of a previous reduction of the duty on that article.
" In 1807," says Mr. M'Culloch, " the duty was Is. Bd.
per lb., anti the quantity entered for home consumption
amounted to 1,170,164 lbs., yielding a revenue of 161,24.5/.
In 1808, the duty was reduced from Is. Bd. to 7d„ and in
1809 there were no fewer than 9,251,837 lbs. entered for
home consumption, yielding, notwishstanding the reduction
of duty, a revenue of 24.5,856/."
Notwithstanding a temporary declension, owing to
an increase of duty in 1819, the quantity consumed has
gone on steadily increasing, and the duty amounted, in
1836, to 691,000 L, or four times as much as the Is. Bd.
duty yielded in 1807. This instance is quite contrary to
the instances quoted by Sir ROBERT PEEL, and leads
to an opposite conclusion.
These remarks apply to Lord BROUGHAM'S observa-
tions as well as Sir ROBERT PEEL'S, but there is
one case quoted by the Noble Lord which the Right
Hon. Baronet did not refer to. The duty on kelp, said
Lord Bnoticrraat, was lowered very nearly one-half; the
revenue at once fell off, and has never since recovered

to more than one-half of its former amount. But con-
temporaneously with the reduction of the duty on kelp,
chemistry suggested a cheap means of obtaining alkali
from common salt; in consequence of which kelp became
less in demand, and the manufacture has gone to decay.
The loss to the revenue in this case was less occasioned
by the reduction of the duty than the substitution of the
soda obtained from salt for the soda obtained from kelp.
But the most important fact in reference to the argu-
ment, that well devised reduction will not tend to in-
creased consumption and augment the revenue, is that
the cases, quoted by both Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord
BROUGHAM, took place while the Corn-laws prevented
an increase of consumption. The people have been com-
pelled to give much for bread, and have consequently
had less to spend on other things. Eighteen hundred
and twenty-five, when the wine duty was reduced, was
a year of prosperity, immediately followed by great
reverses, from which the country did not recover till
1833 or 1834. Then, again, we had abundant harvests ;
and they were then only abundant, because the people
had been kept down and starved down, in the years
of privation, to the level of the supply obtained from
our own soil. To make taxes on wine, on brandy,
or tobacco yield a large increase, it is essential that the
people have plenty of cheap food. Through the whole
of the period since 1825, that was only the case between
1833 and 1837 ; but had there been also a free trade in
corn, and an abundance of food from 1825 to the present
day, there can be no doubt that the revenue raised from
wine and tobacco would have been, like the revenue raised
from coffee, much larger than the reductions which were
made in the duty. We affirm, therefore, that the causes
quoted by Lord BROUGHAM and Sir B. PEEL to prove
the insufficiency of lowering duties to increase the reve-
nue, and to make out a necessity for imposing an in-
come tax are wholly inadequate to justify any such con-
clusion. The abolition of the Corn-laws, stimulating
the increase of population, and a due revision of the
tariff would supply all the wants of the State next year,
if not this; and for this year a loan might make the
revenue equal the expenditure.
We have already made our comments on Lord
BROUGHAM'S opinions respecting an increased rate of
payment on large incomes, and need not at present re-
oditffoeerxpLesms ourL or
red-
peat them. His Lordship pushed his opinions last night
t
to an extreme, and had the approbation of their Lord.
ships. We have only,
Bgraeotu othiraA' est ;wilt hareaving good grounds
imfopor orurtmeotnciviileetstins:
we cannot resign them on this very
compelledinconclusion,
in deference even to his high authority,