The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-16 00:00:00

THE INCOME-TAX COMMITTEE.

Mote the Daily Newa.)
THE deeeendants of Hotspur s fop have multiplied
lint* a numerous clan, and are now to be found in all
grades and professions of society. Some of them,
" God save the mark !" have taken to politics. They
dare easily detected ; they have but one teat for every
political doctrine or movement—its gentility or
decorum.

As we anticipated, the whole fraternity are
shocked with such a breach of decorum as is in-
volved in the publication of the evidence taken by
the Committee on the Income Tax, after a Prime
Minister had expressed his desire to have it kept
back from the public. They prate about breach of
confidence, and hint at the propriety of sending to
Coventry such as have been guilty of it.
i Now n the first place we deny that there is any
'breach of confidence. Tho able and experienced
gentlemen whose views of the practical wonting of
the income and property tax we are communicating
to the public, have no wish to keep them concealed.
They were called before the committee because it
was generally known that they entertained and had
openly avowed these opinions. Deeming it of the
utmost consequence that publicity should be given
to their views, it would have been easy for us to
have obtained and printed them in another form.
But as elicited by the examination in chief of ae
unbiassed chairman, and by the cross-examination of
intelligent committeemen of the most varied opi-
nions, it appeared to us that these views were
necessarily presented with more fulness, more
of illustration and explanation, than could be
had in any other form. The witnesses have
no wish to keep their views secret ; the committee
did not receive them, and had no right to receive
them, in confidence, and for their own private satis-
faction. We have, therefore, published nothing that
any man wishes to keep a secret who has any right
to keep it a secret.
Again, we have not violated any decorum by
transgressing an injunction of the House of Com-
mons. The house has not forbidden the publication
of the evidence; it has only voted that it would not
allow it to be laid on the table.

But in truth we care little whether we are vio-
lating any minor decorum in the matter or not.
There arc emergencies when " nice customs courtesy"
not only to great kings, but to the greater people.
We would have published the evidence even though
the vote on Mr. WAKLEY'S motion had declared
that it ought not to be printed. And for this rea-
son. About the middle of the session, in a very full
house, it was decided that a committee should be
appointed to inquire into the operation and inci-
dence of the income and property tax. At the close
of the session,' in a very thin house, it was decided
that the evidence should not be allowed to be laid on
the table of the house. We hold, therefore, that in
publishing the evidence we arc merely giving effect
to the resolution of the House of Commons, which a
few convenient friends of ministers have endea
voured to defeat, at the fag-end of the session,
after the great body of the members had left
town.

The evidence which we have already published is
in fact the best vindication of what we have done,
and that portion which is to follow will be found
equally valuable. It contains the matured opinions
of cautious, sensible, practical men who have closely
watched the working of the income tax law, while
taking part in its administration. It contains im-
portant suggestions for modifications and im-
provements of the tax that will render it bearable in
perrtuity.
thanks to the evidence which we have already
published and have yet to publish, members of par-
liament may next session resume the discussion of
the tax with some knowledge of the subject. But
for this they might have come to the discussion with
as little knowledge of the matter as Sir CHARLES
WOOD himself.