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

cent., but for the sake of argument, and to show the
absurdity of this graduated scale I will suppose it
to be 10 per cent., which was the old pro-

perty-tax. Supposing the tax, then, 10 per cent.,
and that the man with 1,0001. a year pays 10 per cent.,
instead of the man of 2,0001. paying 10 per cent., just
double the amount of tax paid by the man of I,OOCI. a
year which is his fair proportion, the man of 2,0001. a
year, under the graduated scale, would be called
upon to pay 20 per cent., the man of 3,0001.
a year 30 per cent. ; and that is what the
advocates for a graduated scale call a fair
proportion. Now, my Lords, can such an assess-
ment as that be considered just or fair ? to what
must it lead ? I beg your Lordships to carry out
the principle to every case, and to recollect that it
ceases to be just, unless you follow out that pro-
portion, and go as far as that proportion will lead you.
The rate is increased in proportion to the income. Very
well ; suppose that to be just. The man of 1,0001. a
year income will have to pay 10 per cent. on his in-
come. The man of 2,0001. a year, that is double the
former income, what is he to pay ? Why, not a double
tax at the same rate, but he must pay a double rate. That
is, the man of 1,000/. a year pays 10 per cent. ; the man
of 2,000/. a year pays 20 per cent.; and the man pos-
sessed of 5,000/. a year must pay 50 per cent. The
greater each man's income, the greater criminal he is
considered—the more he is to be punished. The man
of large income is the greater prey, and therefore the
more to be hunted down. Then, of course the man of
10,0001. is to pay at a tenfold rate, because he has
ten times a greater income than the man of 1,000/. a year.
And what would be the consequence of this plan ? Why,
that you take the whole income together. The whole
10,000/. is gone at once. There is no escaping from this
condition ; because you do not escape from this by say-
ing that you do not intend to go on exactly at the same
proportion. Well, at what proportion do you mean to
proceed. After all, it was only postponing the evil hour.
It is only postponing the point to which you must come
sooner or later. The man with 4,0001. a year will be
made to pay, by the rule which you mean to apply, not
3 per cent., but 6 per cent. more than he would other-
wise have to pay. The man with 4,0001. a year
is to pay 16 per cent. of his income, and the
man worth 8,000/. a year is only to pay 12 per cent.
and so on. When at this rate you get up to the amount
of 50,0001. or 60,0001. a-year, the man possessed of such
an income will have to pay half of it, and the man
possessed of 100,0001. a-year will have to pay even one-
fourth of his income. That is the inevitable consequence.
But why make a rate stop at a particular point and go
no further ? If the man of 2,000/. a-year pays 20 per
cent. while the man of 1,000/. a-year pays. only 10 per
cent., has not the man of 2,000 L a-year a right to com-
plain if the man of 6,000/. a year,does not pay four times
as much as he does, he having paid twice as much as the
man of 1,0001. a-year ? And has he not a right
to complain, if the man of 10,000/. a-year does not pay
ten times as much, because he pays twice as much as
he that has 1,0001. a-year, for no reason whatever but
because his income is double that of the
fatter ? Now, I hope you see the absurdities
of this plan, when it comes to be consi-
dered—for surely if the principle of proportion
be any recommendation at all the increase of the
income ought to be the measure of the rate, and the rate
should increase in proportion to the income. Why stop
short with the man of 2,0001., or 3,000/, or 4,000/.
a-year ? Why not carry the principle to its extremity ?
For one reason—because you find that you cannot
in point of practice, and for another reason, because
you cannot in point of argument; because the effect
of argument would be to expose the absurdities, the
gross and revolting absurdities, of the whole scheme.
Bat then permit me to say that you have no right to
pick and choose, or to lay down a principle, and
recommend a plan, unless you are prepared to follow
it out, and its consequences. You must not go so far
as is convenient, and stop short when you find your-
self coming towards the absurdities. You may as well
allow a person, who reasons illogically, to escape from
the conclusion of his argument—such a person may
say I never said that 2 and 2 make 5; but your answer
would be, but tken you have said that from
which it follows—now it clearly follows that 2
and 2 make 5 from the tenor of your argument, and
I will not allow you to reject the conclusion,
for I mean to show by that that your premises have
been incorrect. But, my Lords, is this mode of taxation
is this graduated scale adopted in other de-
partments of our finances ? Are people made,
under these departments, to pay a greater rate be-
cause they happen to be rich, than others who have
moderate incomes ? No ; the rule proceeds on a
totally opposite foundation. The rich and the poor pay
the same rates of duty ; true they do not pay the same
amount, and they are in effect differently rated, and
legitimately. FO; but the rate is the same. Then those
ho maintain that there ought to be a graduated scale
for making an income tax, mean neither more nor less
than that the public income shall be raised from cer-
tain classes of the community, not from the community
at large. It being very fundamentally, and as I have
always supposed, the generally admitted doctrine on
taxation, that all classes ought to bear their proportion
of the public burdens, according to the respective ability
of each class ; that a large share ought to be borne by
the rich, a moderate share by the middle class; and a very
small share by the poor; but that the poorest class, those
living by their daily labour, ought to pay no tax except
as a matter of choice—a tax that compels the people to pay
for necessaries, being, by all experience, found contrary
to every principle of justice and sound policy.—(Hear,
hear.) My Lords, speaking in the presence in which
have the honour to stand, when I talk of the universality
of the admission, as the deduction from all preceding
experience, that a tax on the necessaries of life is a cruel
injustice, and a gross absurdity.—(Cheers from the Earl
of Radnor.) I ought. perhaps, to make one exception,
being reminded by the cheers of my Noble Friend near
me, of a tax on a certain commodity which shall
now be nameles.— (Laughter, and hear, hear.)
And now, my Lords, there being no doubt that the tax
should affect all income more or less, but income in pro-
portion to its amount, and not by any graduating scale,
the rate of tax Varying with the income, let us just for
a moment consider what the inevitable consequences of
such an income are; how deeply interested the community
is in shaking itself loose from it at the earliest possible mo-
ment after necessity has required the Government and the
Legislature to impose it; and, above all—and it is with
a practical view that I call your Lordships' attention to
this now—above all, how much it is the interests of the
community, and how greatly it is the duty of the Go-
vernment, if it be possible to modify that tax, so as to
vary its rate, not according to the amount of income,
of which I have already spoken, and which leads to the
most monstrous absurdities, as well as being it-
self only confiscation in disguise not to
vary the rate in proportion to the rate
of income, but to vary the rate according to the
kind, which is manifestly a proposition of a totally dif-
ferent nature. I took the hberty of observing a little
while ago, that many of those who are much enamoured
with the graduated scale, rest their predilection for it
upon its supposed firmness. They assume, like the
Abbe, the thing to be proved ;. they assume that they
can tax income equally. They next assume, like
the Abbe, certain supposi,ions, and then they draw
from those suppositions certain inferences which are as
fanciful and suppositious as themselves ; for they say,
having got a means of obtaining the incomes of indi-
viduals, and having levied a tax for all those incomes,
you have got an equal distribution tax on incomes, and
all classes bear the burden according to their power of
paying it. Now, I believe, there never was a greater
fallacy than this. I believe it to be fallacious—to be as-
sumption—to be supposition—to be fancy from
beginning to end ; I believe it to be contrary
to all experience ; I know that the experience of
the former property tax was quite different.
It is always most important to keep this in view, with
the object of preventing this most odious, this most
hateful tax, to which every part of the community, the
more they bring their minds to consider it, must
always feel the greatest antipathy. The more the
necessity, therefore, of making up your minds
not to let it continue one year, one' day, or one hour
longer than the said necessity which now justifies its im-
position. But it is also necessary to keep in view the
different objections which exist against this impest
with respect to its inequality upon different
kinds of income, with a view to prevent, by all
possible means' in your power, that inequality.
But if I am told to wait until the measure
is framed, and-until it is framed and digested in a bill,
and having passed the other House of Parliament, has
reached your Lordships, my answer is this,
" That it will be too late. They who are
against any tax at all—and who do not see; as clearly
as I see—the necessity, in the present state of the coun-
try, for any new tax—they would say, " Wait until the
Bill comes up, and then throw - it out." But my
firm belief• is that the tax is necessary. More s
the pity. My firm belief is, that there aro no means of
avoiding it. The existence of the country demands the
filling up of the lamentable deficiency which now exists.
Then I have no other choice, for, let it come up from the
other House in whatever objectionable shape, I must
take it altogether, or reject it altogether. We cannot
make the slightest alteration in it. We cannot alter an
" and " or an " or. " If an income tax
reaches us from the other House, and is
framed on anything like the same model as
that upon which the former income tax was framed,
then will it contain not only many money clauses, but
many clauses besides of another description, affecting not
only the pecuniary interests, but the rights of the people.
Everything relating to the machinery of the tax—all
that relates to the punishments and penalties connected
with it—all that relates to the duties of those engaged in
levying it—all that regards the judicial or quasi-judicial
part of the Act, will form part and parcel of the mea-
sure ; and upon all these portions of the Bill we
should be incapable of offering any amendment unless
we chose to reject the Bill atogether. Is it fitting that
we should be placed in that position ? Is it reasonable
that this House should not have the power of exercising
its discretion upon matters eminently affecting the ju-
dicial functions of this very House itself ? I
do not think we shall be placed in such a
situation. The public service requires an imme-
diate supply, and, however objectionable the
course taken in raising it may be considered; however
contrary it may be to all law; however subversive of all
right and of all law, the provisions of the Bill may be, at
your peril reject it—at your peril alter it--at
your peril, amend it—and at your peril remove
any one blunder, however gross and however ob-
vious on the face of it—any one of those clauses,
however important the clause may be, at your peril,
touch it. And for why ? Because the public credit is
at stake ; because the revenue of the country is at stake,
and because delay may be fatal. We knox:, not, we can-
not tell, how many important interests such a step might
affect ; and therefore we cannot touch those clauses.
My Lords, from hence I would draw this practical
conclusion, to which I beseech the attention
of her Majesty's Government, and particularly that of
my Noble Friend on the Woolsack, who I am sure must

feel as I do, the nocessity 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 shoul
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 us, 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 two, 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 saiil:3 answer,
nave ' to the present Bill, that Lord GrenvGrenvillewith regard
to Earl
Grey, in the year 1809, when he otserv,:fl
that
in the vote of the other House of Parliamei..
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 imposing the
same rate on all incomes, justice is done to
those who possess incomes of a different class.
Yoa take 10 per cent. or three per cent. from the land-
lord, and the same from the person who is only a
tenant, but 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
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 6001. rent, he has a profit of 300/. ?
You are in search of profit—you intend to tax profit,
nut 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 1,000/. 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 he 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 he 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,
you step in, and with your income tax you make him
pay precisely 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.
idly Lords, if this is a hard case as respects the farmer
—if this is a hard case as respects the trader—it is an
infinitely harder case as respects the life annuitant. You
are taxing the life annuitant as if he was possessed of
the capital from which his whole annuity was raised,
although he has no power of escaping from em-
barrassment by encroaching on the capital, but
must be confined for his support solely to
the annuity, which he receives. I know there
is a great difficulty in apportioning the rate
to meet the interests of these different parties. A man
has an estate in fee simple of 5,0001. a-year ; he has the
unlimited enjoyment of the produce of it, and may, if he
deems it expedient, pay the income tax out of the capital.
if he cannot do it out of the interest. Another man is
only tenant for life ; he is tied up and cannot make his
settlement ; he cannot place a charge upon the
land beyond the period of his own incumbency,
beyond your own dwelling ; and yet by the in-
' come tax of 1816, which I had the good fortune to help
to defeat, and which my Noble Friend opposite at
that period defended, the man having the tee simple
estate was called upon to pay no more than
the tenant fur life, although, the first had a permanent
interest in the estate, and could do with it just as he
pleased, and the latter merely received an annuity for life
out of it. Now I cannot help thinking that some
middle course might be adopted. I do
not wish that the life annuitant should escape
free, far from 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 applies
a thousand times stronger in the case of the professional
man. I cannot conceive anything more deplorable than
the situation of a professional person reduced to neces-
sity by the weight of such a tax as this—a tax
which he cannot, if he is an honest man, es-
cape from—a tax which no honourable man would
endeavour to escape from, but which he must
be utterly incapable of paying, without being reduced to
extremities, which it is painful to contemplate. Here is
a person with nothing to support him, whose whole sub-
sistence and the means of providing subsistence for his
family depends upon his own exertions. When illness,
altered circumstances, and various other causes,
without any fault of his own, may come to
overwhelm—here is a person who cannot be so cer-
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 one side,—l set them off against the chances
of the trader who trades upon capital ; I set off the ha-
zards of the professional man, whether belonging to
my own profession, or that of medicine, or the profession
of the Church, were judgment or favour may operate
in promoting a man ; 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 net
the comparison I shall make. But the professional man
is differently situated from the trader with regard to
continuance of health, weakness of mind, following from
a debilitated frame in the excessive exercise of profes-
sional duties ; disease coming upon him which 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, be taken into the
account' before the decree finally goes forth which shall
subject him to the same rate of tax to which the
land, the funds, and the trade of the country, is about to
be, I must say justly, because necessarily, subjected.
If you make the per centage less upon those professions
then in the case of the tenant in fee, even 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 centage to two,
though you should increase it on others who have capital
to deal with, and are able -to draw upon other
resources or have other expedients to resort to,
which the professional man has not—even though
you were 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 \sill 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 have 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 will 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 proposition—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 teat 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 average, 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-

tax,
as we all did. We considered it the very worse
si Meet '-'cP
chinery of the property tax in 1802. I detested the 1;1-evl's:Lai
had been imposed until then, and we utterly e
the necessity of imposing it, contending that it out;ht
te bra
be discontinued at the end of the war. Feeling this s
all admired the ingenuity by which all incomes
1,70. L. lis
made to pay, by levying the tax from those sti!
had no interest in concealment. Thus P.' s 7.
tenantst 1;
levied the income of the landlord from the s
and he deducted it from the rent, having no intere hiso
by is
concealment, until you added a couns,er-interest
taking his own profits to be measured by rent. -15
that also was checked by other modes which enablest ,
to get at his rents and profits, with which h'e Pay' 'eJss
landlord. And, so the debtor had uo interest, and phut
bably no very great feeling for the credi.tore,
,sfit
he made him pay the tax, and deduct it
I
that
the creditor. This was the first time the
a real income tax began to be levied ? What was rs
consequence of that ? The consequence was that was`
at'
soon you raised 10 or 11 millions. In the course •
few years it rose to 16 millions. But take the taxes
the two first schedules A and B ; that ia thed
landlord and farmer's tax, and the bus on trades an
professions, and these alone increased in GeV"
yeaar d
as
halt.
1807 to 1814—no less than three martolls nod
half. 1,-("s:lv, I am putting aside the Wilde ...I.",
the tax on official Sstlariee. But taking only those ts:rokeiltur's
and deducting one ten.!.l for the depreciation of Olii.c:tr,
rency, therewas a clear increase ofmore than three mi, °Los
There was ah increase of somewhere about 2,000,
during the last year. Now, observe, Ido not say tsf:t
was an increase equally upon trade and land. There,Ph,.,,
been on the whole an increase of nearly 7,000,00 a ityi
two years ; there had been an increase in one yearsst,
3,440,000/., and in the other year of 3,447,000/. But
increase arose from the fact, that the preceding f°ltlrret.°)s'
•
five years were unfavourable years ; and in the
lisp
next year—in the year 1814—there had been au
crease of upwards of 400,000/. in the tax .o', tes •
upon trades and professions, which was nearly eqnai
or
the increase in the tax upon the property of land'
stn` it
and tenants. There had at the same time been ja: tilts '
provement in the commerce of the country; aiss Tip
years 1811, 1812, and 1813, the comme.rmal,s you
tress being then at an end. Now, my Lords, "ie,
find that there was this constant increase, not o°'-',floa
the income tax levied upon land, but also in the i•
after
tax levied upon trade, it follows of necessity that
11,0 rb
the termination of the war there must have been s 9he
increase at least going on in the taxable income of tot';,
country ; and even supposing you Were
assume that all the improvements made in 2.05; '4
culture were to go for nothing—even supposing
ulti-
were to assume that all the new land brought intolto,
r
vation could only be set off against the loweringwere to.
in some parts of the country—even supposingyou
assume that the lowering of the price of agri",ces
tural produce had made so great a diftee nt,
both in the farmer's profits, and in the landlord's 'teas
and that you must set off these circumstances agalLs-ge
the consequences of the great improvements in
which have been everywhere and constantly b"'
on all over this country . every year during the
years that have elapsed since the end of the 11'"'
then you would still have to calculate upon an inereils°to
in the taxable income derived from the trade,
manufacture, and the commerce of the cottavk
in all its 'branches," and that increase tausissois
necessity have been very considerable. 'iios
Lordships will be pleased to recollect :is 1
25,000,0001. a year of war taxes have been given
during this time. The increase to which I have refe dos
took place while you were raising war taxes t°„ss
amount of 25,000,0001. a year. I am talking of the S',Sol
sum, which amounted to from 24,000,000!. to 25,0
scat 00,0 u ?
that tax was levied during the latter years of the
And notwithstanding all that enormous amount of ear,t,
withdrawn from profitable employment, and t the
withstanding all the enormous expenses 0' not'
war—the lavish expenses of the war-lio
withstanding all that enormous expenditure, ``'' of
did not go to increase our productive capital
Productive resources, and, consequently, the ta:oust,
income of the country ; when you find that, not-
income
withstanding all that, the income of the cona"11
did go on increasing, it necessarily follows, ithsers
appears to me, that on the remission of those taxes t the
must have been some considerable additions made tolis
taxable income of the country. But for my purl:0010y
not necessary to show that there must have been ,ts
enormous increase—it is necessary for me to aPttot
that there must have been an increase to an arltse
which ought to relieve tenants from their share °' Ise
income tax, owners of land from their share, and P.O. 1
fessional incomes from their share. It is only necessarse
me to show that there must have been so great an ieertse 1
of the taxable income of the country, as must raise;ol
estimate of the amount to be derived from a t`.,.5; 0
3 per cent., sufficiently to enable you to sP''''',"tos
little to • the farmer, and to spare a little tocrtse
fessional incomes, whether of the lawyer, °'s,ote
physician, of the' divine, or of the literarY, Zoe
I hope your Lordships will be of opinion that I 'oil
made out a sufficient case, in the first place, t° P!:. de'
on your Lordships to record on your journal's, Yo'.ol
termination that an income tax, it' it be at all nee% by
to be imposed, shall not survive that necessity, e',4"sposle
a fraction of ayear ; and in the next place, that an '"w.seo
tax so imposed shall contain no variation of rate as bets.o,
one amount of income and another amount of bets
but only a reasonable and moderate variation of rate of
between incomes of one description and incollic-itoi'
another description, believing that incomes of life ae:iss
tants and professional men, do not stand upon the t',:tsl,
grounds as those gerived from property and coPitso
I will now say a few words of the Most odious part °ess,
income tax, I mean its inquisitorial character—(hail'
hear)—and as the tax itself falls most unissuallY 0°
ferent classes of the community, as it is roost unequs'its
all its pressure, so it is most unequal olloost
inquisitorial character, and the inquisition falls stsl'
unequally on different classes. What is it to the.Le is
holuer to allow it to be known how much his ine°;oo
the funds is, which it is impossible must not be Its,oo
to all mankind? But at all events, what is it to Pe. .5.0,4
in public offices to have their income known, it bell:stop
well known what their income is as the. thiels
of the officer for the performance of the duties oil rto
they are paid ? What is it even to the landh° creaser
have his income known, in comparison with the trader
the
and the professional man ? The incumbra,nees it 0
property of the one are a secret, and perhaltoes.g,
sufficient pain for him that those incutab'-oe?
exist, but it must be also utter ruin to the trades
his embarrassments became known.—(Cheers.)
not from any feelings of morbid sensibility
pride that makes him shrink from havi° 11tH,
at
circumstances pryed into ; but it reay be t° „es
matter of life and death to have the 100
cular state of his circumstances known. fore
is the consequence ? He is obliged to 10 g,
much larger income than he has—he is oblige
in an account that sinks his losses ; but if he said„ (41/'
no income he would be in the Gazette next week 'e•e'stif.
ing so. But then it is said these things are told to Pony
able persons—they are concealed and privately c0„11,.„00;
cated to a board— the facts will be known only of!„"
sioners— but he did not choose those Commissioner'S'3
it might hap Pen by some one out of all the chaTe-,ell
the world that those Commissioners might be !“„,el-005
persons from whom, of all persons, he might des°.',oS°.t
particularly. to conceal the state of his affairs. The'arel,
the subject is mentioned it strikes every one. Thehi-sod
is thought of, the more it adds to the horror vshic'sooot'f
tax must create—increasing the repugnance all 01'015
feel against it, and only augmenting, if it be ertsvbicta
r augmentation, the reluctance-and bitter pain sys''.
every man must regard the absolute necessity whle„ sP
told exists, that he shall pay such a tax. rriliit-oti.„4.
ought to make clear, undeniable, utterly unhe''SetP"S
the resolution of the Government but wA'' 0;
the Government so resolves or not, ti"go thf
care —it ought to make clear and str°s;le
resolution of the Parliament and of the sht
this country, that for one hour after the neccss'"'„ifer'Se,
have ceased, so odious an impost will no longer.be:ris,4,
to endure. My Lords, that it should fall on "tsi°3- •
who can afford to pay their share of the public be 0,
every one must admit ; nor do I mean to throw V.'
a single word in endeavouring to show this oblicrotio:o
but I will say now, that it gives me unspeakable t
cation to have been informed that the senti°l-seell,
only of your Lordships, nor of the country at ltirbls,
that their wishes and our wishes have been 11°
graciously anticipated—(Cheers)—long before We oistf's
opportunity of breathing those wishes—that the res sp oo
has been taken that that • burden which necessitYso
can justify the Government in asking the Parha°high,cif
aLsowr
impose—that that burden shall be borne by the rj ;in
it
ts
has by beenthe a humblestfiction
—calasdsee.—or(oHuea r, h e ''sf wit f
Constitution, that the res.ponsibility of everfiyetPia°,ll;:ffilsliceil
devolves on the Ministers, but that ()Very It f3tl'o°oo
and favour proceeds from the Monarch hilaseh- tiit'tsi
this occasion Is peak not of that fiction of the Cons7o,s
but of the fact of truth, when I say that the ?f,,, tbL
io
Lanoyr-dosthhieprs ocatcaasmioons,tlusnhroeausldonsaa
herself, and not the Minister is to be thalskeuse iiFnr
gracious act.—(Cheers.) My Lords, if it W?„(sif'is,
but 0° is
unreasonable e lthatcn
casion of such moment, and so deeply interests
whole community, I can hardly allow even the r etc lit
gltibla;d (WO- 00 stio
feel for your Lordships to betray me into making a,fle soogie
I know that in the discharge of my duty lihaL sehte
no selfish advantage ; on the contrary, I °a' this
ted my animosity, my implacable objection to / ssoo
to the pressing necessities of my countryeaell"c tsleesicl4
sought no party favour, for I have stated do
dj
the one hand differing from those of my Noble ;siseill
opposite, and on the other, such as my
on this side of the House, are not likely
have setais
have sought no favour out of doors, for I e per,
face alike against an open robbery of tL:ce o' 0
creditor, and against the disguised injustl t 0,,
graduated scale. I have discharged ray dutf, se'to
Member of Parliament in the manner, and on
,1,1
and at the season, which much reflection_ive sc,os
subject, and an anxious attention to the schulbelteo„
of the question, have taught me te oceasi,S,
is the fittest for meeting the exigencies of the ~rsin
and Inow close the remarks I have to make tort" 15
ships with this one additional regret, Oa
which seemed now inevitable, hit' 00_4' $,
ought to be our resource in war, also ...se oes,s,
for time of war, should, unhappily, and from ,
Noblacce
etof
sity, be compelled to be resorted to in time !to r
These have been my opinions ever since th.ire Y.rherfot;;s
when my friend, the late Mr. v.?. 030Ie
said, in these memorable words—"Ley Decree
always be wedded to war, not only. that the
may be relieved from such a burden in tinsels ss refr'i;i9
but that the people—that humanity—may have 'ehancl'de
to dread a time of war, when those in svh°seses's'id
waging of war or the keeping of peacernay l'"fed
and when the people are made aware of the 0;10.d
war may entail upon them." ' This, 1129 esieSio
doubles the regret with which one sees such 'hot
—such a magnificent national resource as tbi: of lltlo,
time of war—anticipated and used in t,.32l"reit
I may add, that the bare knowledge by thy mo-
world that we hare this splendid resource ell

the tax,
;St' tax that.
erly tieniect
it out:,ht to.
ilctr
ing thia we-
omes
those NI
-3,(.1‘t
Thus
the tenant; 21'"?',,,
) interest hi,
1
interest by, ,1
rent, But:: ?'
enabled you. ,a
h'e paid his
t, and pro to
-
redi!Dr, but
at it from ;°,4,1"
time that
the
hat Was „0
is that Verj
course of as
the tales
iat in the
and
!yen year
f'u'nds and
.11';
se wrokinds,
Cie Cur' ~e
1 of
iree nog ,
2,000,000 P
not say thaS
There hid!
,000,0061
one e
y f
But that:
ding four or
in the very 4
been an in
leciedi
;arly equal tee
of landlords.
been an -
stry . in thee
ne?ena
.Ords, if yll 00-4
not only i d
n the i.qcolil
ity that after
e been s
ncorae of the
to
were
Ide agp--
os
pposing
;ht into eulti--
.Ting of rents,
gou were to' ,
Of Agricill."
a difference
idlords ret
es a,gainst
is in aal
ge,
ina
tautly
tring the
;iv
A. the war'"
I an increase
lie tra e:
• Cdolle, thtart
▪ IrittSt of
~,
able.
collect that'
een given
have referl'
taxes to the
g of the grol
25,000,00. .
of the war ?
omit of caPits,l
it, and not
~
tes of the,`'
war--I°,l
liture, 01)11,
capital tz,
the taxalo'
id that, not-
the countri,
follows, as °'
se taxes there
is made to tke.
Purrse it„i;
ave been
me to s_diliert;
to an arnew-,
it share of VP"
prt,;
iare, and
neces.setr. ;
Y ed
,at an
must raise of
'rout a raise`
1 to - spare -
little to 131‘:,:
wyer, of
man'literary
,nthat I belt
ace, to pre°
mall, y-oor de'
t all necess4
' ,en
2ssay,
that an ineosi..
rate as betw•eeP
int of toss
ion of rote Poi'
id incomes
of life annal:
Van the a;
• and c4q)ailkii;
,ous part oT !-,
racter---(110.'„f
efinally en ti';',t
est. rtineqdIts
'equal in
on falls DO
it to theluoc,l;
his ineorle
not he 1i001,4
is it to pers:;„s
wn, it bell
is the
[titles of o'hic,
landholder tr
ith the trsdme
brances on
perhaps aiteei:
incurnbra
a tradesnAn
sheers.)
)ility )
a 10
IlLtVing
Y be to
e the Pw
ASV
flown.
for
to pal ford
to
oblige Ilto
he said 1 )/40y,
t week Of • 0.•
told to hell°,oi,
ttely conna'air
tly by Coaa;01
nissionerSo
;he chancc!ed
ht be the
;ht desire °too
rs. Ore it
ie. The 010,1,
which lot
a-
e all of
be car 'hicti
say ▪
whiCD'oiio
ax. Thie i„p
y unhesl'he'4
do itste;
• but
pot
ue
0%.
1 stroligio
the peel/:1011
necessit);crei
tgebe a,P0.4.4
on all cO,
r'
public bao,o)
to throw '.opi
his obligsiltiti,
3akable
Iltirnell
SC
ry at gar,
been no Y
fore 'OO
it the res
lecessitY a
a't
ParliarnfAlot,
)y the 11,*
J., hear.) , ibe
ry paifictio
oe'doce
:act 6tot
inself•
le Coustite;ro
t the 3100,0
latticed f°l.o'lloo
it warel ~yst
ci. detain. cc,
but on all, tile
teresting euect,f
I the resfoot?'
king all ',40
I have slpiir
have so to
ni to thi•s
1 1)"
yawn.
4 doctrin
Noble 0,13
Noble Frlet.
y to sled, of
I have
)f the rofl 0
0
ijustice ,
y dutf
e
id on Ol evy ;
ection 00
Le whole
hehe
3 to jofl,
of the 0cci."5,01
:e to Your P-1,10
t, that :bid,
but
re6eeces'
anti
7oin dire
time of Pei:Of
ynf ,e,
t he e
Airilberi°s.4
." Let opla
tamese rAce,
iof r,OO
have less rde.'"ilio
'hose bail '110,4
Y be, arc
he Cost,
my 14°1115't,
Itch a res°peili
; this iliellice'
time of 001
:he rest ei tolY