able in six annual instalments, and the assessments were made on the basis of annual income, except that in the case of incomes from professions, either the year closing, or the average of three years, might be taken. Moreover, traders who so preferred might make their returns to so-called Commercial Commissioners in the locality, rather than to the General Commissioners, and were permitted to send in sealed statements of their income. These Commercial Commissioners were in each place two in number, and were supposed to be experts in the particular matter. Every official connected with the tax was pledged to secrecy.

It will be seen, therefore, that from the very outset the administrative machinery of the income tax was designed to reduce to a minimum the immixture of the central government and the danger of inquisitorial procedure. The General Commissioners and the assessors were, in a certain sense, representatives of the taxpayers, and might naturally be supposed to defend their legitimate interests against the treasury; while on the other hand the necessary degree of government control was represented by the surveyors and inspectors who were responsible to the central government. This ingenious combination of local representatives and of government officials is found, with some modifications, in the present income tax.1

§ 5. The Public Attitude toward the Income Tax The passage of the Income Tax Act was followed by a veritable flood of pamphlets. The question of abatements

1 The act was amended in two unimportant particulars in May and July of the same year, by 39 George III, c. 42, and 39 George III, c. 49. The exact points may be found in the publication entitled Income. The New Schedule, as Corrected and Altered by the Amended Act for Taxing Income. Together with an Abstract of the Clauses of the Original Act, that relate to the mode of Estimating Income, and a Brief Notice of the Provisions of the Amended Act; with a Variety of Examples calculated to shew the Mode of Estimating the different Descriptions of Income, and making the Deductions according to the Cases in the Schedule. London, n. d. [1799]. The second part of this was also separately published under the title: Observations, etc. upon the Amended Act for taxing Income. London, n.d. [1799].

was discussed by several writers. A clergyman by the name of Beeke praised the "humane and benevolent spirit" which suggested them, but stated that he entertained considerable doubts "whether in their present form they have not created discontent and jealousy of one another, even among the persons most relieved by them; whether they apply in anything like a due proportion to the equitable reasons for abatement; and whether the present . . . scale . . . has any conveniences which can compensate for the immense diminution of the tax." 1 Rose, on the other hand, defended the principle on the ground of its "proportioning public assessments to the ability of different classes. . The small earnings of laborious industry are spared altogether; the progressive rise of the tax saves, in a proportional degree, the moderate incomes. of the classes of all the orders below competency; and the burden of children, which always falls heaviest on the middling ranks, is considered in an abatement of the contribution of their parents."2 But Rose urged that great care should be taken not to allow this principle to degenerate into general progressive taxation. Other writers, like Lauderdale, opposed the income tax on the somewhat inconsistent grounds that it was inherently unequal, that it would discourage industry, and that it would be shifted from the tradesman to his customers and from the farmer to his landlord. Lauder

1 Observations on the Produce of the Income Tax, and on its Proportion to the whole Income of Great Britain: including important Facts respecting the Extent, Wealth and Population of this Kingdom. Part the First. By the Rev. H. Beeke. London, 1799, pp. 62–63.

2 A Brief Examination into the Increase of the Revenue, Commerce and Manufactures, of Great Britain, from 1792 to 1799. By George Rose. London, 1799, p. 33 of the 4th ed.

3 "It should always be considered, that the excessive rise of a progression of this sort is, in effect, an arbitrary levelling of situations; and that an inordinate tax on the wealthy would take from the lower classes, whom the superfluity of wealth employs, that subsistence and comfort which are bestowed by it."

Op. cit., p. 34.

* Plan for altering the Manner of collecting a large Part of the Public Revenue, with a short Statement of the Advantages to be derived from it. By Lord Lauderdale. n. p., n. d. [1799], pp. 57-60.

dale suggested in its stead an inheritance tax. Others, again, called attention to the inquisitorial nature of the tax, and one ingenious author, under the nom de plume of Hourglass, published an amusing pamphlet supposed to be written in the year 2000, in which he recounted the exactions of the "merciless mercenaries" and the "brutes at the head of the inquisitional band, or banditti, with all the rudeness that insolence and self-important ignorance could suggest, either to distress the feelings of the indigent, or glut the bloated importance of a jack in office," to which the unhappy citizens of an earlier century had been subject.1

The most comprehensive discussions of the act, however, are found in two anonymous publications of the same year. One of these declared that not only consumption, but even property, is far inferior to income as a criterion of equality in taxation. It would always be difficult, the writer thought, to find means to ascertain the value of property, and furthermore, property "may be possessed without being productive; in which state it could not, with propriety, be assessed."2 The best criterion, he held, is that of "clear income," which, he said, was the principle followed by the assessors of the local stent in Scotland. He favored official valuation rather than self-assessment, and advocated rigid measures, like forfeiture, as a punishment for fraud. He had, however, doubts as to the wisdom of exemptions, although he leaned on the whole to the idea of making a discrimination in the rates. In the main, he was optimistic about the scheme, and concluded that "the taxation of income seems not only to possess many

The Mouse-Trap Maker and the Income Tax; a Tale, supposed, by Anticipation, to be written in the Year 2000; with an Introductory Allegory addressed to a Man in Office. By Humphrey Hourglass. London, n. d. [1799], p. 12.

2 Three Essays on Taxation of Income, with Remarks on the late Act of Par liament on that Subject. On the national Debt; the Public Funds; on the prob able Consequences of the Law for the Sale of the Land Tax; and on the Present State of Agriculture in Great Britain. With a Scheme for the Improvement

of every Branch of it, and Remarks on the Difference between National Produce and Consumption. [By Benjamin Bell.] London, 1799, p. 33.

3 Op. cit., p. 51.

4 Op. cit., pp. 45, 53.

5

Op. cit, pp. 59, 61.

important advantages over every other plan of raising money that has yet been proposed, but may be easily carried into effect, without the risk of the income of individuals being disclosed, and with scarcely a possibility of its being evaded.”1

Another warm defender of the act, after adverting to the shortcomings of expenditure as a test of taxation, considered that a "tax upon all capital" was "absolutely impracticable."2 "Under these circumstances," he continued, "a tax upon all income has appeared to the parliament of the country to be the most equal and practicable mode of raising the necessary supplies that it is practicable, no person has denied; that it is equal, has indeed, by a few persons, been disputed."3 Our author vigorously denied the "injustice of taxing different sorts of income in the same proportion, and by the same rule," and repudiated with equal vigor the contention that there ought to be a "rising scale applied to incomes of different amounts." He tells us that "an unfortunate prejudice prevailed in the country against anything which could lead to an investigation of the property of individuals"; but he adds that not only "a very large proportion of the landed proprietors," but also "the merchants of London, Liverpool, Norwich, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Paisley, have come forward earnestly in its support. That which in former times," he concludes, "would have been thought an intolerable calamity, is now considered as a great national advantage."5

After the first flood of comment, the discussion became less vigorous. A few writers, indeed, objected to the injunction of secrecy imposed on the officials. Thus Rickman

1 Op. cit., p. 55.

2 Review of the Arguments advanced in the House of Commons in Support of the Bill for Granting an Aid and Contribution for the Prosecution of the War, by imposing certain Duties upon Income. London, 1799, p. 12.

8 Op. cit., p. 13.

4 "The object of this bill is not to regulate incomes, but to tax them; and if you take from different incomes the same proportion, you leave them of course exactly in the relative state in which you find them." He agreed with Pitt that any other principle would be "destructive of all idea of property." — Op. cit., p. 18. 5 Op. cit., p. 28.

said, "I do not see why the exact state of a man's pecuniary affairs should not be known, as well as the colour of his coat, or the complexion of his countenance." Rickman was a warm advocate of the taxation of what he calls superflux, or the wealth of those "who acquire improperly great property; who have infinitely more than is necessary for the elegancies and superfluities, as well as the comforts, of life; who wickedly hoard, or wickedly misapply the riches they have, and who make their exorbitant wealth the constant engine of public and private misery."2 In the same way Newbery, who made an interesting attempt to distinguish sharply between capital and income,3 contended that the oath of secrecy imposed upon the officials "might have answered the end of quieting alarm, and of qualifying the apparent harshness of the measure, when first introduced "; but, asks he, "Is it not a prudish delicacy, and a solecism in finance?" And he adds: "Notoriety is the antidote to subterfuge and evasion."4

Other more prominent writers contented themselves with general censure or promiscuous praise. Thus Morgan, in 1801, attacked Pitt for continuing the tax,5 while Wakefield declared that Morgan was entirely wrong. "Our opinions," said Wakefield, in reply to Morgan, "on the policy of that measure and of its effects are directly opposite. He singles it out as an object for censure, while I feel inclined to bring

1 Mr. Pitt's Democracy manifested; in a Letter to him, containing Praises of, and Strictures on, the Income Tax. By Thomas Clio Rickman. London, 1800, pp. 9-10. Cf. p. 28: "It would be well if every iota of every man's income, whether in or out of business, could be known. If it could be ascertained, what property every man hath, and how he gets and applies it; it would be, like a correct chart to a mariner, a guide over the rocks, and through the mazes of society." 2 Ibid., p. 12.

3 "Capital is a deposit for the purpose of carrying on any business or speculation; income is the emolument which arises from it."-Observations on the Income Act; particularly as it relates to the Occupiers of Land: with some Proposals of Amendment. To which is added a Short Scheme for Meliorating the Condition of the Labouring Man. By Francis Newbery. London, 1801, p. 13. 4 Op. cit., p. 35.

A Comparative View of the Public Finances, from the Beginning to the Close of the late Administration. By William Morgan. London, 1801, p. 36.