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

THE SUN, LONDON, MON DAY EVENING, APRIL 4, 1842.

" RULES.

be directed by the said commissioners ; and such
statement and computation shall be made to the best
of the knowledge and belief of the person or persons
in receipt of the same, or entitled thereto."

PEEL'S EQUAL INCOME TAX.
(From the Examiner.)
According to the rude arrangement of Pitt's income
tax, which six and twenty years ago was thought too
bad, even•by the unreformed Parliament, the assessable
revenue of the nation was classed under five heads or
schedules ; and Sir Robert Peel's follows the same ar-
rangement. Schedule A, or the first class, comprises no
less than five descriptions of property, viz., land yielding
animal or vegetable products, tithes, house property,
mines and quarries, with canals and railways. From the
income derived from these mostly distinct sources, Sir
Robert expects an annual revenue of 1,600,000/. It is no
doubt very convenient, for purposes of mystification, to
blend these incongruous subjects into one lumping sum,
but the exposnre, which truth demands, requires that
we should consider them one by one.
Sir Robert takes the amount of the first-named item,
or the land yielding animal and vegetable products—that
is, of the property, par excellence, of the great food mo-
nopolists at what it was in 1814, or 39,400,000/. If Sir
Robert be correct or honest, this shows that the land
rent of England has been stationary for eight-and-twenty
years, and that three successive stringent Corn-laws have,
not only done no good to the landlords, but positive
mischief ; for, as will be presently seen, it is the only
description of property that has not, within the same
time, advanced. The contribution of the lords of
the broad acres to the income tax, on the sum now
named, will be about 865,9001.—1itt1e more than half of
the produce of Schedule A, and between a fourth and
fifth part of the aggregate sum which Sir R. Peel expects
to raise—viz., 3,700,000/. To save twelve millions, Lord
John Russell's very moderate estimate of the value of
the corn monopoly, they will pay the moderate fine of
865,900/., and the remainder of the tax, approaching to
three millions, must be paid by those who already pay
these twelve millions.
The next item we shall inquire into is the tithe. This,
in 1814, amounted to 2,732,6901., and Sir R. Peel, on the
report of the Tithe Commissioners, takes the present
assessable amount at 3,500,000/. While, then, the rent
of land has for twenty years been stationary, the tithes,
which depend for their amount on the same cause, have
increased by above. .27 per cent. To account for this
there are but two alternatives—either the clergy of
1814 made dishonest returns for themselves, or Sir R.
Peel now makes a dishonest return for the landlords.
Let Sir Robert and the Church settle the affair between
them. Out of the 1,600,000/. ef schedule A the tithes will
contribute about 78,2961., or about one fbrty-eighth part
of the sum to be levied.
The next head of schedule A is—Mines and Quar-
ries. These were estimated in 1814 at 1,386,8501., and
the best judges are of opinion that, since that time,
their value has increased by full 50 per cent., which
would make them at present worth above two millions.
But Sir R. Peel's assessment is taken only at 1,500,0001.,
and the produce of the tax will be only 32,9601. It
ought to be at least 58,000/, but Mines and Quarries
are, for the most part, the property of the aristocracy
(their whole rental value being derived from the skill
and capital' of the undertakers and adventurers that
work them), and so they must be spared.
• The next heading is " Railways and Canals," in
technical language called " Shares," valued by Sir R.
Peel at 3,429,0001, and yielding to his proposed income
tax 75,36C1. In the assessment of 1814 there is no
heading of this kind at all, and although portions of it
were no doubt included under other heads, a large
amount must be considered as a clear accession to the
national income made during the last 28 years. Canals
and railways have no more relation to the land protected
by the corn monopoly, economically speaking, than
steam vessels or cotton factories have, and therefore they
are absurdly included under the head of land. They are
purely of a mantifacturing and commercial character.
House rent is estimated at 25,000,0001, to which
sum it has risen from its estimated value in 1814 of
16,260,00 C/ This house rent has nothing to do with
manor-houses, or with farm-houses, or farm-buildings,
included under other heads. In fact, they are, with tim
~.xceptions, the rents of houses in towns, either the pro-
perty of, or occupied by, the commercial and manufac-
uring population, on whose prosperity their value and
increase wholly depend. During the Vlast twenty-eight
years this descriptiGn of property has not only enjoyed
no protection, but for the better part of the time has
borne nt arly the whole brunt of the house and window
amounting to upwards of two millions and a half per
.innum. With all this, while the rents of the privileged
property have continued, by Sir Robert Peel's own
Statement, stationary, house rents have increased by up-
yards of 50 per cent, and consequently. .contribute pro-
?yrtionalle one half more to the public revenue than the
petted, holstered, and swaddled inheritance. The actual
~um which it will contribute to the income tax will be
about 549,4501. And so much for what Sir R. Peel and
schedule A call "Land."
Schedule B is confined to one subject, the profits of
farmers, and the amount ' assessed under this head in
1814 was 38,396.000/. Now there is no one part of the
scheme in which Sir Rohert Peel's jugglery is more con-
spicuous tha-i this. Under the old tax farmers' profits
were estimated in England at three-fourths of the rent,
and in Scotland at one-halt: Sir R. Peel now reduces
the amount assessed on, to half a, rent, and by this means
brings the amount liable to taxation down to about
26,000,c(04 "Then," .ays he, " I must apply another
exemption, ni mely, all tenants who derive profits less
than 1501. a) tar ; on that amount I must make a fur-
iher reduction, so that, upon the whole, I cannot calcu-
late upon a greater amount of duty than 150,000/." !
After striking off one-fourth for all tenants making
profits under 150/. a-year, according to the rule observed
in every other case, the sum available for taxation
would be 19,500,0001., which, at 7d. to the pound, ought
to have produced, not 150,0004, but 568,750/. The
actual sum which our juggler has assessed upon, turns
out to be no more than 5,142,8504 But how he arrives
at such a conclusion he does not say, nor can any earthly
creature, unless a landlord or two in his secret, conjec-
ture. Thus, therefore, he strikes off, not one-fourth
part, as in all other cases, but four-fifths of the
whole and so he makes a present to the tenants, but
virtually to the landlords, and at the cost of their fellow-
citizens, of the net sum of 418,750/. !
It turns,out, then, that four-fifths of the tenants of the
kingdom, as estimated according to rental, and probably
99 out of 100 according to numbers, will not, by Sir R.
Peel's scheme be touched by the tax at all. But let us
give an example. No tenant paying less than 300/. a-
year is subject to the tax. His Grace the Duke of Beau-
fort has, in the'counties of Monmouth and Brecon, a rent-
roll of 30,0004 a-year, and not a tenant paying (for land
only) as much as 3001. a-year.' His Grace's tenants,
therefore, will not contribute one farthing to the income
tax. Earl Grey, has, perhaps, a similar rent-roll in
Northumberland and Durham, and probably not a tenant
paying so little as 3001. a-year. The tenantry of Earl
Grey will, therefore, all contribute to the income tax. All
Earl Grey's tenantry have leases, and farm with spirit
and intelligence. Ihe Duke of Beaufort's are poor, de-
pendent, tenants-at-will, who farm much as their ances-
tors of the reign of Henry the Eighth did before them.
Earl Grey's tenants will contribute to Sir Robert Peel's
exigency the sum of 425/. a year—his
Beaufort nil! But to counterbalance this,
Gtrraumedepeo-fußp
the latter are good at a poll—for returning three or four
members to swell Sir R. Peel's Corn-law majority. It
will appear from this that theincome tax is, so far, a
penalty on large farms and good farming, and a premium
on small farms—on tenantry-at-wilt—on bad farming—
and on cringing political slavery. It is at the same time
may put every farthing of Sir R. Peel's 7d.
a boon to the proprietor of the ill-farmed land, who, if
he pleases,
in the pound into his Pocket, and who, to a certainty.
will do so if the tax should last for any length of time.
Under the old income tax, as it stood in 1814, the
tenants of land, after many exemptions, still contributed
2,734,4501., or approaching to one-sixth part of the
whole produce of the tax. The tax was then 10 per
cent., and, therefore, they ought now to contribute in
the proportion of about three to ten. This would give
above 800,000/, but they are to contribute only
150,000/., being, instead of one-sixth of the whole sum
to be raised, scarcely one twenty-fourth part. The
farmers friends favour the farmers, but, in truth, favour
their own pockets ; and the conclusion is inevitable, that
since the year 1798, they have greatly grown in impu-
dence and rapacity.
But how ought the farmer to be assessed to the
income tax ? We are decidedly of opinion that he
ought not, in justice or expediency, to be subjected tot
the tax et all,. any more than -a-merchant or 'manufac-
turer. But as these are to pay it, the point we have to
consider is, how the capitalist, engaged in the cultivation
of the land, ought to be assessed equally and fairly, in.
common with all other capitalists. -
When a farm is skilfully cultivated, the capital ought
to equal ten times the rent, and the gross annual produce
ought to equal five rents in value. The. i ent, in such a
case, is usually estimated at one-fifth of the gross pro-
duce, and the farmer's profit, besides interest of capi-
tal, at three-tenths, the remaining foueLtenths going for
all expenses. Let those data be applied to a farm of a
farthing less than 300/. a year, and it will be found that
the profits are 225/, and interest at 5 per cent. 150/.,
making the farmer's income 3751. Under Sir R. Peel's
scheme this capitalist pays nothing, but the shopkeeper,
with the same income, an impost of 11/. 15s. sd. ! !
would, no doubt, be unjust and impolitic to assume such
a rule as this for the assessment of the whole farming in-
terest of England, but then it is ten times worse to tax
trades, professions, and annuities, where it is totally im -
possible to frame any fair rule at all.
The rent of land, according to Sir R. Peel's-own
showing, has, as we have already seen, been stationary
for twenty-eight long years but if we are to credit the
same gr( at and impartial authority, it has fared still
worse with the farmers. Instead of their capital having
increased, as he represents all other capital to have
done, it has, under the happy auspices of Corn-laws,
positively fallen off from
38,396,000/. to 26,000,0004, or
by near one-third part of its whole amount, while, in his
need, it can give him but a poor 150,000/, or less than a
fifth part of what it gave his predecessors ! As a
placerrian he is tinder great obligations to the farming
interest, but as a financier it is clear that lie is under

IN 1816.

Lone at all. Enough for the present ; but we shall
soon resume our examination of Sir R. Peel's Equal
Income Tax.

THE INQUISITION OF THE INCOME. Roe-
buckTAß.—Air. aid not fairly try the question_
ion by trying it
by the standard of his own feelings. Mr. Roe-
buck's consideration in the world does not depend on his
being rich or poor, The possessions on which his repu •
tation rests are talent and knowledge ; they are to him
what credit for wealth is to a commercial or trading
man. The tradesman would say, " I care not who
knows that I am not a man of knowledge or talent,"
just as Mr. Roebuck says that he cares not who knows
that he is not a man of wealth.
But let us suppose for a moment that there were a
professional inquisition to examine into the acquire-

ments and abilities of professional men, and to pro-
nounce judgment upon their superiority, sufficiency, or
insufficiency, would Mr. Roebuck be the man to be care-
less of, or indifferent to disparagement ? Would he see
nothing objectionable in the whisper abroad that he had
been tried and found wanting, or, as it is termed,plucked?
Would he not say, " This touches me in my reputation"?
ld as we have before marked, what Mr. Roebuck's
reputation for knowledge and ability is to him, the
tradesman's and merchant's repute for wealth or prospe-
rous business is to them.

REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX

In the introduction to a speech delivered in the year
1816, and contained in his collected speeches, Lord
Brougham gives an account of the mighty efforts which
were made by the people to throw off their shoulders
the load of the old income tax of ten per cent. Terrible,
indeed, must have been the pressure which roused
them to make such efforts ; a pressure of which few of
the present generation have any conception, but of
which they will have a very lively one ere they get quit
of the burden about to be laid on their shoulders of
three per cent. only, Which, when once laid on, will not
be easily shaken off.
" The Session 1816 offered an example yet more re-
markable of the -same tactics being attended with
equally signal success. On the termination of the war
the Government were determined, instead of repealing
the whole income tax, which the Act enforcing it
declared to be for and during the continuance of the
war and no longer to retain one-half of it —that is
to reduce it from ten to five per cent., and thus keep
up a revenue raised. from this source of between
seven and eight millions, instead of fifteen. As
soon as this intention was announced, several
meetings were held, and two or three petitions
were presented. The Ministers perceived the risk they
ran, if the former policy should be pursued, of con-
tinued discussion for a length of time ; and they saw the
vast importance of despatch. Accordingly the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Vansittart), gave notice,
on the Tuesday; for his motion on the Thursday, im-
mediately. following. The Opposition took the alarm,
and Mr. Brougham declared, on presenting a petition
numerously signed, from one of the London parishes,
that, if the hurry now indicated should be persevered in,
he should avail himself of all the means of delay afforded
by the forms of the House. Lord Folkestone (now
Edrl of Radnor), one of the most strenuous, and, in those
days, one of .the most active and powerful supporters
of the popular cause, vigorously:seconded this menace, in
which he entirely joined. On the next day more pe-
titions were flung in, more discussions took place, and
the Government postponed for a week the introduction
of the Bill. That week proved quite decisive ; for so
many meetings were held, and so many petitions sent
up, that the Bill was put off from time to time and did
not finally make its appearance till the 17th of March.
About six weeks were almost entirely spent by the,
House of Commons in receiving the numberless petitions
poured in from all quarters against the tax. For it
was speedily seen, that the campaign of 1812 was re-
newed, and that the same leaders, Messrs. Brougham
and Baring, had the management of the operations.
"At first the Ministers pursued the course of obstinate
silence. The Opposition debated each petition in vain :
every Minister and Ministerial Member held Hs peace.
No arguments, no facts, no sarcasms, no taunts could
rouse them; no expression of the feelings of the country,
no reference to the anxiety of particular constituencies
could draw a word from the Ministers and their sup-
porters. At length it was perceived, that their antago-
nists did not the less debate, and that, consequently, the
scheme had failed in its purpose of stifling discussion.
The only effect of it, then, was, that all the debating was
on one side, and this both became hurtful to the Govern-
ment in the House and more hurtful still in the country.
They were forced into discussion, therefor e ; and then
began a scene of unexampled interest, which lasted until
the second reading of the Bill. Each night, at a little
after four, commenced the series of debates which lasted
until past midnight. These were of infinite variety. Ar-
guments urged by different speakers; instances of op-
pression and hardship recounted; anecdotes of local suf-
fering and personal inconvenience; accounts of the re•
markable passages at different meetings; personal alter•
cetions interspersed with more general matter—all filled
up the measure of the night's bill of fare ; and all were
so blended and so variegated that no one ever per-
ceived any hour thus spent to pass tediously away. Those
not immediately concerned, Peers, or persons belonging
to neither House, flocked to the spectacle which each
day presented. The interest excited out of doors kept
pace with that of the spectators, and those who carried
on these active operations showed a vigour and con-
stancy of purpose, an unwearied readiness for the corn-'
at, which astonished while it animated all beholders.
It is recounted of this remarkable struggle, that one
night, towards the latter end of the period in question,
when, at a late hour, the House having been in debate
from four o'clock, one speaker had resumed his seat, the
whole Members sitting upon one entire bench rose at
once and addressd the Chair—a testimony of unabated
spirit and unquenchable animation, which drew forth
the loudest cheersfrom all side's of the House.

" At length came thel7th of March, the day appointed
for the decision ; but it was soon found that this had

been, with the debate, wholl3 anticipated. The usual
number of petitions, and even more, were poured thickly
in duribg some hours ; little or no debatinc, took place
upon them ; unusual anxiety for the result of such long
continued labour, and such lengthened excitement, kept
all silent and in suspense ; when, about eleven o'clock,
Sir W. Curtis, representing the City of London, pro-
ceeded up the House, bearing in his arms the
.petition,
which he presented without any remark, of the great
meeting of the bankers and merchants, holden in the
Egyptian Hall, and signed by twelve thousand persons.
The division took place after a debate that did not last
half an hour ; no one could, indeed, be heard in an as-
sembly so impatient for the decision ; and, by a majority
of thirty-seven voices, the tax was defeated for ever, and
the wholesome principle, as Mr. Wilberforce well ob-
served, was laid down, that war and income tax are
wedded together."