The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-10 00:00:00

a considerable deficiency. Even without any
such remission, a deficiency far more than
the contemplated increase in the House-tax would
provide for, even if that unjust and impolitic pro-
position should unfortunately be acceded o. It
would therefore be, to say the least of it, difficult,
if not impossible, to come to any determination'
on the other financial questions until the Income-
tax be first disposed of.
We rejoice, then, that issue has been fairly
joined on this vitally important subject. We can
scarcely hesitate as to the verdict that will be re-
turned by the country. Indeed, we should have
thought that it had already spoken out in plain
and unequivocal terms, so that there could be no
mistake or difficulty on the point. One Ministry
has already been sacrificed for its perverse and
obstinate refusal to listen to the voice of public
opinion ; and nothing could prove more beneficial
to the present Government, than that its exist-
ence should be staked on the result.

As to the doctrine laid down by Mr. PITT, and

so strongly relied on by Mr. GLADSTONE, it is
wholly beside the question. We should, if neces-
sary, protest against the proposition that the nation
could be bound by the opinion of any deceased
statesman, however distinguished. We are happy
to find, however, that the point does not arise ;
and that we have not to contend against the high
authority—as we readily admit it to be—of WIL-
LIAM PITT. We shall adopt his very words, as
quoted by Mr. GLADSTONE himself, so that no
dispute or difference can occur with respect to the
premises on which the argument is to be sustained.

He said, " I shall have no hesitation in submitting
to the Committee, that when a general assessment
upon income is to take place, no distinction ought
to be made as the sources from which that income
may arise. Whenever an idea has been started of
imposing upon the stockholder separately and dis-
tinctly any sort of tax, I have reprobated the at-
tempt, as utterly inconsistent with the good faith

of public engagement. But the matter is mate-

rially reversed when a tax is to be levied on the
income of every description of persons in the
realm ; when it is no longer in the power of the
stockholder to say, I could avoid this tax by re-
moving my property from the funds to landed
security or to trade.' I should say to the stock-
holder, as one of the public, If you expect from
the State the protection which is common to us all,
you ought also to make the sacrifice which we are
called upon to make. It is not peculiar to you ;
it does not belong to the quality of your income ;
but it is made general, and required from all.' "
Now the only point here is, that the word " in-
come " should be qualified by the addition of
" arising from property of any description." This
is palpable from the context. If it were appli-

cable to industrial incomes arising from labour—
whether intellectual or physical -- there would
have been no reference to the power of sub-
stituting the security. The fnndholder might
" avoid the tax, by removing his property
from the funds to landed security or to trade ;"
but he could not, by the mere act of voli-
tion, enable himself to acquire income by the
exercise of a profession or trade requiring either
mechanical skill or mental cultivation. That
would clearly be beyond his power ; and the com-
parison, therefore, manifestly relates to anything
in which property can be invested without refer-
ence to the qualifications of the party—that might
be held by a woman, a child, or even a lunatic, as
well as by an educated and competent person.
Money alone would enable a person to receive his
dividends or his rents, or the interest on debts
due to him—anything, in fact, which does not
require a certain degree of skill or labour ; but it
could not make a learned and dexterous barrister,
an experienced physician, an accomplished artisan,
a popular author, a man capable of entering into
well-considered speculations in trade or commerce,
a nice manipulator, or skilful artisan—none of
these come within the line of his observations. It
is to property, and property alone, that they are
applicable ; and therefore the proposition of the
CHANCELLOR of the ExcEEQur.B. does not in any
degree interfere therewith.