The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-14 00:00:00

• from those who are curious enough to inquire
after it. Secondly, it is said that an income tax
ought to be reserved for a time of war. It might
be answer enough to this objection to say that the
empire is at war, unhappily plunged into two most
expensive wars by the late Government ; but we
take leave to deny the principle. We say that
a tax which is proper in war cannot, when
the wants of the country demand new taxes,
be improper in peace. True, you have not the
whole of your available income tax with which to
menace the enemy ; but what of that ? Neither
have you the whole of your available revenue; but
you have all your reserved resources, of whatsver
kind, and the shape of them does not make the slight-
est difference. Call the available income tax 1.5 per
cent. (more was paid during the late war), will
you employ 3 per cent. of this in time of peace, in
preference to taxes which cripple the industry and
retard the progress of the country ? Are you the
worse, because, with resources vastly improved
by the preference, you face your enemy with
three per cent. in appearance less of your income
tax, but really with a greater revenue—meet him,
too, with all the machinery necessary for drawing
forth your reserved 12 per cent. in complete order,
and in constant action? The pretence of a distinc-
' tion between war taxes and peace taxes belonged to
times when it was necessary to cheat men into the
payment of taxes by artificial pretexts, because taxes
were neither impartially levied nor always honestly
applied. We repeat, that Sir Robert Peel's propo-
sition is the opening of a new and a happy era in
financial Government—and the measure with which
he opens it, is the measure of a true Statesman—
bold, just, safe, and, efficient.
COURIER.—With the 3 per cent. tax on pro-
perty, we cry content ; with the tax on income we
cry content also; but in respect of the supplementary
house tax we must confess that our conviction of its
judiciousness and impartiality is not so strong, al-
though we may take leave to say, that in comparison
with the other burdens referred to its pressure can
be of inferior concern only. We object to the
house tax because, if borne by the tenant, it
will be an oppressive tax, except in the case
of great fortunes and large establishments, whilst if
cast on the landlord, with the peculiar uncertainty of
returns from that sort of property, it will be a no
less oppressive, besides being a supplementary, tax
on property. The only momentarily good object
which, as it seems to us, it will achieve, will be to
discourage the inordinate rage for building specula-
tions which has pievailed for many years, and which
has generally ended in the ruin of projectors and
traders, of all, in fact, but the owners of the land co-
vered. But whilst this good will be achieved, and
the population left to overtake the means provided
for their house accommodation, on the other hand
labour employed in that way will be thrown out of
action, and the effect also may be to crowd families in
the same dwelling by increasing rents, and for the
labouring classes this would lead to the evil of

depriving them of small houses of their own, the
happiest result of industrial independence, unless,
which does not clearly appear, a proper exemption
should be made in respect of such sort of property.
The exemptions from taxation of income and property
under 150/. per annum are humane and judicious, so
far as they go, although we think that 2001., as a round
sum, and as freeing a larger class not able to bear
burdens, would have been a preferable limit. Upon in-
comes at the point stated it will form a heavy deduction.
We cannot exactly comprehend the utility of some of
Sir Robert's reductions of duty upon commodities
exported. The separate amounts are so insignificant
that they appear to us to be levied almost solely
for the purposes of statistical information ; and the
total amount of the remissions is quite inconsiderable.
We can perfectly appreciate the policy of abolish-
ing or reducing the duties on the imports of raw
produce indispensable for manufactures, as well as
the export duty proposed to be levied on coal. But
what will the free trader say to this ? Is it part of
the system of Russia—that land of exclusive protec-
tion, and intolerance of free trade ?