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

feel us I do, the necessity of taking some precautions in
respect to this important matter. Why should not the
Bill be divided into two parts ? Why should not those
parts which form a ' money Bill ? why should
not those clauses—those provisions which come
within the immediate consideration of the other
House. of Parliament, and upon which they
have no account to give ut, as we have ex-
perienced this very session—why should not these parts
of the Bill which could not come under notice without
appearing to deviate from that principle which regulates
the proceedings of the other House upon money Bills, be
reserved exclusively for the consideration of that House?
And why should not they, consistently with their privi-
leges, divide the Bill into, and send us one Bill as a
money Bill, and another Bill not a money Bill with which
we may deal as we do with all other Bills ? I can con-
ceive no objection to such a course, and I am certain
that it would be attended with the most advantageous
results, and that it would give very great satisfaction.
I wish to speak respectfully of the other' House of Par-
liament. I wish to give the same answer, with regard
to the present Bill, that Lord Grenville gave to Earl
Grey, in the year 1809, when he observed that
in the vote of the other House of Parliament
he perceived clauses of the greatest absurdity ;
to which Lord Grenville answered, that there was
a great pressure of business in the other House. That
is the answer I give for many of the oversights in the
Bill of the other House of Parliament, and which we, as
far as we are able, ought to remedy. I say next, that it
is a very great fallacy that by improving the
same rate on all incomes, justice is done to
those who possess incomes of a different class.
You take 10 per cent. or three per cent. from the land-
lord, and the same from the person who is only a
tenant, bat how do you estimate his profit ? •If the
ground and framework of the measure is the same with
that from which a great amount of revenue had been I
before obtained, I believe between 15 and 16
millions, net, and between 17 and 171 million gross ;
if the groundwork of both measures be the same and
are founded on the same principle, I say the inequality
which exists is the greatest absurdity. The tenant's
income is taken at a certain proportion of his
rent, and it is assumed that because • he pays
so much rent he must make so much profit.
The rate imposed by the former measure was, in Eng-
land, three-fourths, and in Scotland one-half ; and I
will suppose that, by the present measure, it is intended
to take one fourth from the rate paid by the English
farmer ; but supposing that the tenant pays 1,0001. rent,
does it follow that he has a clear profit of 5001.,
or that if he pays 600/. rent, he has a profit of 300/. ?
You are in search of profit—you intend to tax profit,
not capital ; but it is much easier to say this than do
it. You will find that while you are thinking you are
taxing profit you are taxing capital. I will suppose
the case of money laid out in improvement.
If the money is laid out by a tenant, he
gets a higher profit in consequence ; but suppose a per-
son is in possession of his own land, and is his own land-
lord, if he lays out so much money this year, and will
lay out so much next, that is so much capital invested
in land, and he hopes from the speculation, with
a just hope and prudent speculation, benefical
to himself, and beneficial to the community, to obtain a

profit in proportion to the money he has laid out in
those two years. He continues either to hold it in his
own hands, and so deriving a greater emolument, or by
letting it receives a larger rent for it ; but, then,
the tax-gatherer steps in between the outlay and
the return, and says this is not capital—this is
income this is profit ! But is this profit —is
this income ? No such thing. In taxing it, you
are taxing expenditure,
.you are taxing capital; you grasp
at profit, and you seize hold of capital ; you look
for fruit, and you cut down the tree. You have
meant to take only that which is really profit
and income, and you have taken that which
is really capital and expenditure. In order to
see this clearly, it is only necessary to support the tax
levied at the beginning of the process instead of the end
of it. Suppose the tax is introduced before the outlay
is completed ; you can get no tax at all, unless you tax
that expenditure. The owner expends 1,0001.
this year, and 1,0001. next, in hopes within
a reasonable time to receive a profit. This
is supposing it to be taken only from the farmer, but
suppose it taken from the manufacturer. He has en-
countered a large expenditure, and lie has not
sunk his capital for a mere annuity—that

is not the way money is laid out in
trade ; capital and trade is laid out, that, within a rea-
sonable time, it may be returned with a profit.
In what shape does he seek for a return for this outlay
of his capital ? He looks for a return in the shape of
income, why not in the shape of an increase of 5 per cent.
merely-on the capital ho has laid out? No man in his senses
would embark his capital in trade upon such terms, but
looks for a. return of 10, or 15, or 20 per cent. for a
series of years, until he has replaced the capital which
he has embarked, and yet between the period of in-
vesting this capital and receiving this -return for it,
voll sic, in, and with your income tax you make him
pay praakely the same as if he was deriving his
Income from- a landed estate, or any established
business requiring no outlay whatever, except
the ordinary outlay for wear and tear, &c.
My Lords, if this is a hard case as respects the farmer
this is a hard case as respects the trader—it is an
ingniftoty harder case as respects the life annuitant, You
are taxi 14te life annuitant as if he was possessed of
the capital frofr, which his whola annuity was raised,
although he has tot power of escaping from cm-.
barrassment by encroaching oit the capital, but
must be coutinci for his support solely .
the annuity which he .reeeives. I know . there
is a great difficulty in apportioning the rate.
tp Ineet the interests of these different parties... A mart
has iitt. otate in fee simple of 5,0001. a-year ; he has the
unlimited enjoy wig Of the produce' of it, and may, if be
deems it expedient, pay liw 4;go*tax out of the capital.
if he cannot do it out of the hitepo;it, Anothpr man is
only tenant for life ; he ioied up awl el,unot make his
gettlement ; he cannot. -..place a charge -upon the
land beyond the period. of his own incumbency,
beyond your Awn dwelling; and yet by the in-
come tax of 1816, -tvliiot .had the good fortune to help,

_ -
to defeat, and Mimi my Kulhle 'Friend opposite at
that period defended, the man Uri-off the fee ample
&gate was called upon to pay no more than
the tenant for life, although the first had a permanent
interest in the Witte, and could do with it just as lie
pleased, and the latter merely received an annuity for life
out of it. Now I cannot halo thinking that some
middle course might be atiopted, I do
not wish that the life annuitant should wave
free, far fiOni it ; but I object to the same per centage
being paid by the tenant entail and the tenant for life,
and I contend that a smaller per centage ought to be taken
from the latter than you oblige the former to pay.
If this applies in the case of the tenant for life, it appllea
a thousand times stronger in the case of the professfonal
man. I cannot Conceive anything more deplorable than
the situation of a proffaialiThal person reduced to neces-
sity by the weight of soh a tax as this T-a tax
which he cannot, if lie is an honiait 1111H/1
cs-
cape from—,a tax which no honourable man wouhi
endeavour to escape from, but which he must
be utterly incapable of paying, without being reduced to
extremities, which it is painful itl Poßtmplate. Here-is
it person with nothing to support him, whow whole §4l),
sistertee and the means of providing subsistence tdr his
family deventif upon his own exertions. When illness,
altered circumsfaiwg, and various other causes,
without any fault of Ina PIM may come to
overwhelm—here is a person who canna he 4), per-
tain of his income as the capitalist or the landowner, ex,
posed to all the hazards of his profession, and I put these
hazards on 040 aide,—l set them off against the chances
of the trader who trada4 upon capital.; I set off the ha-
zards of the pyofessional mae, whpther, belonging, to
my own profession,- or that of medicine, or ttie p4444qpn
of the church, were judgment or favour may operate
in promoting a 02,7 n ; I set off those chances against
the chances of failure in trade or any of those
casualties incidental to a man in trade; That is not the
the cprnpari son I shall make. But the professional Nan.
is differeutly Situated from the trader with regard to
continuance of health, weakness of mind, following from
a debilitated frame in the ekr.ggiy? exercise of profes-
sional duties ; disease coming upon km whieh may
cut short his career ; no capital or , revenue
from land to -support his family when so af-
flicted—in all these casualties, the profesSional man is
very differently situated from the trader, and these
casualties, these wants will, I trust, l taken into the
account before the decree finally goes forth whit
subject him to the same rate of tax to which 0,41
land, the funds, and the trade of the' country, is about to,
be, I must say justly, because necessarily,- subjected.
If you male the per centage less upon those professions
then in the case of the tenant in tee, CVelt though you
should increase from 3 to 4 per cent., the amount
levied upon the, one, and diminish' to 2 per cent.
the amount levied upon the other—if in the case of the
professional man, the clergyman, the physician, the law-
yer, the-literary man, you lower the per vantage to two,
though you should increase it on others who have capital
to deal with, and are able to be draw upon other
resources or have other expedients to resort to,
which the professional man has not—even though.
you wore reduced to that necessity I should still

by all means counsel you to make.' the reduction,
But it is my most confident expectation that it will not
be necessary, but that, having three per cent. to be
charged upon the one, and lowering the other to two,
and giving relief to the tenants, occupiers of land, you
will still nave enough to supply the deficiency in the
revenue. My Lords, it is a very dangerous thing to
predict upon the subject of finance, or upon the ex-
pected produce of a tax ; but I verily believe that we
greatly underrate the probable amount to be derived
from this income tax.—(Hear, ;hear.) I have a very
great expectation that it w:11 be more than has been
stated. When I say expectation, perhaps I should
rather say hope, because the more there is raised from
it the sooner will the necessity, the mischievous, hard, and
cruel necessity which alone can justify us even in enter-
taining the preposition—the sooner will that neces-
sity be removed. That is the only comfort which I
I have in foreseeing—as I think I do.-.-that the
sum to be deriVed from the tax will be considerably
greater than has been anticipated. My reason for
imagining that that will be the case is this—l believe
that in the time of Mr. Pitt the income tax of 10 per
cent. realised upon the ai erage, from 1798 to 1802— my
Noble Friend opposite will correct me if I am wrong—
four millions and a half a year.
Lord BEXLEY—Four millions and a half.
Lord BROUGHAM—Lord Sidmouth was at that

time the Finance Minister of the country, and it was
impossible to give too great commendation to the ability
with which the financial arrangements were made, the
boldness and manly courage with which he viewed the
difficulties of the times in which he was called upon to
act, and to the extraordinary vigour of the measures by
which he met those difficulties. He really felt it a debt
justly due to express his admiration of the
great ability which was displayed at that period.
I allude to the skill with which they contrived the ma-