By exempting from taxation all incomes below £150, a glaring act of injustice is committed. There is no reason whatever why that amount should be fixed upon as the lowest point--why the tradesman, clerk, or rising professional man, who barely clears that amount of profit, should be made to pay permanently for the others who are not so industrious or so fortunate. It is not, however, difficult to understand why Sir Robert Peel, in proposing the tax as a mere temporary relief, should have been cautious to avoid any agitation of the masses on a question so vitally important to their well-being, had justice been the foundation of his plan. He probably thought that, by exempting that portion of the middle classes whose incomes did not reach the above amount, he would at all events secure their neutrality, and perhaps purchase their support in any subsequent attempt to render the tax perpetual. This view is fortified by the exposition contained in the famous Elbing letter, and though we may admire the ingenuity of the scheme, we cannot commend it for morality. If this tax is to be continued and augmented, we are in justice entitled to demand that it shall be carried down to the very lowest point at which the amount of revenue drawn may exceed the cost of collection. In 1798, according to Mr Porter, "an income tax was imposed at the rate of ten per cent upon all incomes amounting to £200 and upwards, with diminishing rates upon smaller incomes, down to £60 per annum, below which rate the tax was not to apply." If we are to persevere in this unwholesome style of taxation, there is no reason whatever why some such arrangement as the above should not be adopted. It is contrary to the constitution of a free country, that any class should be selected as the subjects of isolated taxation, and doubly so when the selection is made for the almost avowed purpose of relieving some other class from the impost. Equal laws and equal rights can only be maintained where there is a proper equality of burdens; and if it be difficult to arrange the scale, as it undoubtedly is, the difficulty must be met by those who propose to substitute this unconstitutional mode of taxation for that which applied equally to all classes of the community. Why should each and all of us, who subsist by our own industry, and who are ready to pay our own share of the national expenditure, be forced in addition to pay the quota of others whose incomes do not amount to £150? Surely, there is less difference in position between the man who clears £140 a-year by his trade, and another whose gross profits amount to £155, than between the latter and the possessor of a revenue of £10,000 per annum? And yet, the two last are to be charged five per cent on their incomes, whilst the other, who has the sense to moderate his industry, is to be entitled to escape scot-free!