extreme methods of taxing the rich. Passing over the merely socialistic pamphlets, it may suffice to call attention to the works of Hébert, Lefebvre, Guigard, and Nabos, the last writer advocating a single tax on incomes.1 On the other hand, a single tax on property rather than on income was enthusiastically supported by Girardin, who based his project on the insurance theory of the state.2

The radical party was represented in the legislature by Barbès and Proudhon. Barbès proposed, amid almost universal stupefaction, as we are told, a tax of one thousand million francs to be assessed exclusively on the rich. Proudhon, in order to secure the large funds required for his scheme of People's Banks, suggested an income tax, going as high as 33 per cent on some incomes and even reaching 50 per cent on others.8 Such propositions, however, were entirely too extreme, and after a report by Thiers, they were incontinently turned down by the legislature, which declared that they savored of revolution. The same fate befell the project of Joseph Lempereur, who had suggested a ten-per-cent income tax.5

That the sentiment of the time was not wholly unfavorable

1 De l'Impôt sur les Créances Hypothécaires de l'Income Tax ou Impôt Progressif admis en Principe par le Citoyen Garnier Pagès, Ministre des Finances, etc. Par J. B. Hébert, Notaire Honoraire. Paris, 1848; De l'Impôt sur le Revenu Mobilier, etc. Par Thibault Lefebvre, Avocat. Paris, 1849; De l'Impôt sur le Revenu, le Capital, la Propriété, l'Industrie, le Commerce, etc. Par J.-A. Guigard. Paris, 1850; Impôt Unique et Proportionnel sur le Revenu. A Messieurs les Membres de l'Assemblée Nationale. Par Henri Nabos, Maire de la Ville de

Marciac. Auch, 1851.

2 Le Socialisme et l'Impôt. Par Émile de Girardin. Paris, 1849. The scheme is repeated in the same author's 'Impôt, Paris, 1852, and was reprinted two decades later, in 1872, under the title, L'Impôt Inique et l'Impôt Unique.

8 Proposition relative à l'Impôt sur le Revenu présentée le 11 Juillet 1848, par le Citoyen Proudhon. By Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Paris, 1848.

4 "Rapport du Citoyen Thiers, fait au nom du Comité des Finances sur la Proposition du Cit. Proudhon, le 26 Juillet, 1848."- Le Moniteur, p. 1831. This report, together with the scheme and the speech of Proudhon, was published in a volume entitled Rapport du Citoyen Thiers, précédé de la Proposition du Citoyen Proudhon relative à l'Impôt sur le Revenu et suivi de son Discours prononcé à l'Assemblée Nationale le 31 Juillet, 1848. Paris, 1848. 5 Cf. Renault, p. 7.

to the income tax scheme is shown by the fact that Thiers himself, who was subsequently to prove so implacable an enemy to the project, now declared himself as by no means indisposed to accept the principle. When the government a little later presented a plan for a tax on mortgages, Thiers, who had been named head of the committee to which the proposition was referred, counselled its rejection, saying, on August 2: "If the project had been one for an income tax, we should have examined it, without, indeed, binding ourselves. . . . Among all the taxes that have been suggested the income tax is the one which deserves to be the most

seriously examined, and even tried. When the government brings in such a plan I shall discuss it in good faith, for it merits serious consideration.” 1 He went on to state that the income tax was not an arbitrary thing (une chose arbitraire), but that although the English tax had been received with disfavor and had been frowned upon, yet the good sense of England had finally accepted it as necessary.2

Following the good advice here given to the government, the new Minister of Finance, Goudchaux, submitted on August 23 the draft of an income tax, which was, however, to be levied only on the income from personal property, and which was designed to raise sixty million francs. The scheme was referred to a committee of which Parieu was chairman, and which brought in an adverse report, basing its opposition chiefly on the ground of the inquisitorial character of the tax.3 Every one, said the committee, approved

1 "Si c'était un impôt sur le revenu qu'on eût la prétention de nous apporter, nous l'examinerions sans toutefois nous engager. Car sous un gouvernement nouveau tout impôt nouveau a de grandes difficultés et celui-là en présente de singulièrement grandes. Cependant j'ai déclaré devant le comité des finances que parmi tous les impôts nouveaux, c'était celui que méritait d'être le plus serieusement examiné et même essayé. Lorsqu'il sera apporté ici, pour ma part je le discuterai en toute bonne foi, car je reconnais que c'est un impôt qui mérite d'être pris en sérieuse considération." Philippe, p. 52; Chailley, pp. 487-488.

2 Cf. the notes on this speech by Wolowski in 1872, on pp. xxxv-xxxvi of the book mentioned below on page 285.

The draft will be found in Chailley, pp. 489-490. It is also discussed in Guyot, pp. 19 et seq.; in Gaston-Gros, p. 511; and in Philippe, pp. 53-55.

of the principle of the tax; but in Parieu's words: "What a frightful inquisition is that of which the result will be to compel a rich man to reveal a fortune which it perhaps pleases him to surround with mystery, and to condemn the financially unfortunate citizen to choose between the hard alternative of throwing on his situation a light fatal to his credit, or of purchasing by a mendacious tax the preservation of the prestige of comfort by which he is still surrounded."1 Goudchaux's project was also savagely attacked by the noted economist and former Minister of the Interior, Léon Faucher, who declared that the income tax would necessarily lead to a progressive tax, which was to him the climax of absurdity. "Blind is he who does not see it; bereft of sense is he who dissembles it." 2

As a result of this unfavorable report, Goudchaux resigned and was succeeded by the well-known economist and statesman, Hippolyte Passy. Passy, however, made another attempt, on slightly different lines, with a scheme resting on a self-declaration of income.3 But scarcely had the project been introduced when Passy was for other reasons forced to resign, and was succeeded by M. Fould, an inveterate opponent of the tax. Fould stated, on November 14, 1849, in withdrawing Passy's project, that "this tax, the last resource of hard-pressed governments, is in its nature arbitrary and inquisitorial. The general discontent which would result from its application would soon lead to a lamentable loss

1 "Quelle inquisition redoutable que celle dont le résultat sera d'obliger le riche à révéler une fortune qu'il se plaft peut-être à entourer de mystère, et de condamner le citoyen pecuniairement malheureux à cette dure alternative de répandre sur sa situation une lumière fatale à son credit, ou d'acheter par un impôt mensonger la conservation du prestige d'aisance dont il est encore environné." - Chailley, p. 492.

2 "Oui, l'impôt progressif est au bout de l'impôt sur le revenu. Il en represente la fatalité. Aveugle qui ne la voit pas, et insensé qui la dissimule." - De 'Impôt sur le Revenu. Par M. Léon Faucher. Paris, 1849, p. 35. This was a reprint with some additions of an article that appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes for October, 1849. See also a similar article by A. Cochut in the same volume.

3 Passy's draft will be found in Chailley, pp. 496–497.

through the concealment and emigration of capital, and through a reduction of individual expenses which would soon reach the public revenues." 1

Nothing daunted, however, the partisans of the tax continued their efforts. Passy declared on the floor of the House: "Sooner or later you will be compelled to do in France what has been done in England." Various bills were introduced by deputies Febvrel, Adelswaerd, Lamarque, Laurent, and De Veauce; 2 but they all met the unrelenting opposition of Minister Fould, and although there was a lively discussion of the projects in the chief economic journals,3 it was, as one of the French writers puts it, "the swan song. The ignorance, the bad faith, the preoccupations of a government whose very origin compelled it to handle gingerly certain classes of taxpayers, finally the awkward exaggerations of the partisans of the tax, all contributed to lead public opinion astray, and to bring about for a long time a policy of silence on this delicate question."

"4

With the advent of the Second Empire the movement for reform died out, and the policy of silence to which we have just referred was inaugurated. Even in scientific circles, with the gradual dominance of the so-called liberal school, devoted to laissez faire and free trade, whatever prepossessions may have existed in favor of the income tax gradually disappeared. Only one important writer, Parieu, the opponent of the scheme under the republican govern

1 "Cet impôt, ressource extrême des gouvernements obérés, est, de sa nature, arbitraire et inquisitorial. . . . L'inquiétude générale, résultant de sa mise en pratique, amènerait bientôt une facheuse compensation par la dissimulation et l'émigration des capitaux, et par une réduction des dépenses des particuliers qui atteindrait les revenus publics."-Chailley, p. 498.

2 For these proposals, see Gaston-Gros, p. 312; Renault, pp. 8-9.

See esp. the article by Joseph Garnier, in the Journal des Économistes, June, 1851. Also the article by Passy in the same journal, June, 1852.

✦ “Ce fut le chant de cygne. L'ignorance, la mauvaise foi, les préoccupations d'un Gouvernement à qui son origine imposait le menagement de certains contribuables, enfin les exagérations maladroites des partisans de cet impôt, tout contribua à égarer l'opinion publique et à organiser pendant longtemps le silence sur cette question délicate.” — Chailley, p. 500.

ment, devoted any attention at all to the subject, and he returned to it repeatedly.1 The entire project of fiscal reform slumbered.

§ 3. The Franco-Prussian War

The next outbreak of reformatory activity was due to the Franco-Prussian War. In fact, even shortly before the downfall of the Empire the unfavorable fiscal outlook in 1870 had led two deputies, Larouche-Joubert and Haentjen, to propose income-tax bills. The first one was a rather fantastic scheme recommending a general income tax and calling upon all the citizens to declare their income, without any supervision on the part of the administration. The only control, we are told, was the conscience of the individual and the only sanction, his remorse. The other proposition was a little more serious; but both, although leading to some discussion, met with the opposition of the Minister of Finance, Segris, and came to naught.2

The unfortunate outcome of the war, however, and the imperious necessity of raising the five milliards, necessarily brought up the entire question of tax reform. Numerous pamphlets appeared on the subject, and when the national assembly met at Bordeaux at the opening of 1871 it was at once flooded with all sorts of projects. Some, like Tellier,3

1 Esquirou de Parieu, "Examen des Avantages et des Inconvénients des Impôts Généraux sur la Propriété ou le Revenu" in the Journal des Économistes, June, 1857, and in his great work, Traité des Impôts considérés sous le Rapport Historique, Économique et Politique. Paris, 1862. 2d ed., 1866, 4 vols.

Cf. also the articles by De Gourgas, "De l'Impôt sur le Revenu" in Journal des Economistes for 1858; and by H. Baudrillart, "L'Impôt sur le Capital et l'Impôt sur le Revenu." - Ibid., 1866.

2 For the two propositions, see Gaston-Gros, p. 512; Philippe, p. 58; Chailley, pp. 503-504.

3 Tellier had suggested this scheme even before the disaster, and now repeated it. Cf. his three monographs: L'Impôt Unique et ses Conséquences. Paris, 1868; L'Impôt Unique et l'Invasion de 1870; La Libération par l'Impôt Proportionnel sur les Factures. Avec Projet de Loi et Commentaires à l'Appui. Paris, 1872. Fifteen years later the same scheme was reintroduced by Alfred Lechopié in a work entitled, L'Impôt Unique et Indirect sur le Revenu par la Taxe Proportionnelle sur les Quittances. Paris, 1886.