The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-23 00:00:00

~~~~

LONDON, MONDAY, MAY 23, 1853.

On Saturday we pointed out some of the
numerous and unanswerable objections to the pro-
posed duration of the renewed. Income Tax, and
explained that even if the great inequalities, the
flagrant injustice by which it is so painfully dis-
tinguished, were removed, and the entire system
placed on a sound and politic foundation, it would
still be unwise and impolitic for the Representa-
tives of the people to divest themselves of the
power constitutionally placed in their hands, or to
give so great an accession of strength to the Go-
vernment for the time being, no matter to what
party, or clique, or patch-work Coalition they
might belong. The power of stopping the sup-
plies, though unquestionably very great, is not
alone sufficient to establish the sovereignty of the
people on a secure and unassailable basis. If,
unfortunately, a collision should occur between
the executive and legislative authorities, and such
untoward events have taken place, and similar
contests may again be excited, the refusal to sanc-
tion the application of the money would be of but
trivial importance. If it could be collected, and
the Exchequer thus replenished, there would
be
but little hesitation on the part of the Minister
ashe might to appropriating the funds to such purposes as
think proper, and trusting, when his
la'nowaec:
owfaisnacompletely re
-established, to obtaining
He y for the illegal application of the
i
public money. would thus have at his dis-
posal a potent instrument wherewith to crush the
national liberties,
and
of popular indignation. ~natioo uppress the demonstra-
tions The people would
be defeated by the weapon with which they had
themselves armed the oppressor, and would only
have to thank the disgraceful subservienceu of their
u
Representatives for the evils der which they
might be suffering.
Such a state of affairs is unquestionably
very
improbable, and under our present beloved So
AVON, all but impossible. But, unhappily, the
fervent lov• and enthusiastic affection of her peo-
ple cannot insure longevity to the Monarch, and
the adoption of, and strict adherence to, every
constitutional precaution, cannot for a moment be
tortured into anything remotely approaching to a
feeling of distrust against the mild. rule of QUEEN
VICTORIA. Besides, it is not against the SOVE-
REIGN; but the Minister, that the safeguard is

required. Circumstances might arise from illness,
infancy, or other causes that would render the
Monarch but little better than a puppet in the
hands of the Premier—and it may be of vital im-
portance to the welfare of the OITEREIGN, and
the preservation of the reigning dynasty, that an
adequate check should be maintained over an un-
scrupulous and unconscientious Minister. That
very control may cause a constitutional settlement
of disputes, averting internecine strife, and pre-
venting the soil of England from being polluted
with the blood of her best and bravest, shed,
not in defence of their native land, or in repelling
invasion from its shores, but in civil contention,
when brother was arrayed against brother, and
father against child, and the members of the same
household were enlisted under hostile banners.

These views may appear to be too far-fetched.
It may be said that we are conjuring up bugbears
to " fright the isle from its propriety ;" but five
years since, when the spirit of revolution stalked
with giant steps over the entire Continent—when
the tranquillity of the sister kingdom was endan-
gered, and myriads of loyal subjects deemed it
expedient to enrol themselves as special constables
to preserve the peace of the metropolis, and the
military skill of the hero now departed was put in
requisition for the same purpose—such appre-
hensions of civil war might not have appeared
totally unwarranted, and it is impossible to pre-
dict in what quarter or what manner may again
arise

"Civil dissension, with its vip'rous tooth,

That gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth."
The best way of averting the danger, however, is
by maintaining the legitimate control of the
independent Members, and that can only be
accomplished by placing not only the control of
the supplies, but also of a moderate proportion of
"the ways and means," at their disposal ; and,
as we have already shown, the Income or Pro-
perty Tax is the only one suitable for the pur-
pose.

We can easily conceive the anxiety of a Chan•
cellor of the Exchequer—more especially of one
determined so far as in him lies to preserve the
odious inequalities of the impost, without change
or modification—to avoid frequent discussion on
the disagreeable, subject. It would, indeed, be an
important coup to get the tax renewed for seven
years in place of three ; but that could only be
accomplished by exciting an expectation of its
ultimate abolition. We do not wish to impute to
Mr. GLADSTONE any unfair intention of practising
a gross deception on Parliament and the country.
All he has done is to show, or endeavour to show,
that it may be practicable to reduce the tax in
1855 and 1857, and to abolish it in 1860. He
does not pledge himself to do so, and it would be
utterly impossible for any man to predict what
might be the circumstances or the exigencies of
the country at any of these periods. For our own
part, we believe that the tax can never be dis-
pensed with, or even materially reduced. We
are convinced that a considerable increase is by
far more probable than a diminution—that the
voice of public opinion will loudly demand the
further extension of the principles of "Free
Trade," or " unrestricted competition," by the re-
moval or modification of many indirect duties
now in operation—a demand which can only be
complied with by means of a large addition to the
Property or Income Tax, whichever it may be. •
But were it otherwise, and that the tax were
really to be first reduced, and subsequently abo-
lished, would either of these operations be in any
degree prejudiced by its renewal for two years
only, in place of seven years, as demanded ? Most
unquestionably not. The only thing that could
be produced would be that the intervention of the
popular branch of the Legislature in 1855 would
be secured, and that we would thus have the cer-
tainty of the subject being again investigated, and
the system possibly improved in that year. It is
by no means impossible that there will be a speedy
revision of the entire fiscal system. If so, it is
possible that even a greater reduction than that
of a penny in the pound proposed by Mr. GLAD-
STONE may be deemed practicable and expedient.
Why, then, should the House of Commons divest it-
self of the constitutional control placed in its hands ?
The greatest admirer of the Budget, as a whole, can
assign no valid reason for voting for the prolonged
term ; and inasmuch as Mr. GLADSTONE cannot
assert that time is the essence of his proposition,
a defeat on that point would not endanger the
stability of the Government, or lead to the much-
dreaded alternative—a speedy dissolution of Par-
liament, an early appeal to the country.
Once more, then, we call upon all professing
Parliamentary and Fiscal Reformers to stand firm
on the question of time, and so far to endeavour
to repair the mischief they have already occasioned.

Farringdon-street is at length, we do really
hope and believe, likely to be turned to some ad-
vantage. Blocked up for years in one part, and
disfigured by an enormous cavity in another, it
has long continued to be a source of anxiety in
the very heart of the metropolis, and not only a
source of anxiety, but a subject for perpetual
wrangling, a provocative of the most frivolous
and irritating speculation. Every adventurer in
the complicated scheme of street improvements
has contrived to render it the main object to-
wards which his proposed alterations were to be
directed. It has grown, in this manner, at last to
a positive nuisance. So that we cannot but feel
grateful to any one who shall be instrumental in
ridding the public of an intolerable, because pro-
tracted and almost uninterrupted, annoyance.
Thoroughly open the northern extremity of Far-
ringdon-street, and adequately fill up the waste
ground left vacant by the removal of the Fleet
Prison, and it will thereafter be impossible to have
the name of that locality continually dinned into
our ears as the suggested arena for every con-
ceivable or inconceivable innovation. Farring-
don-street for Model Washhouses ! Farringdon-
street for a Viaduct ! Farringdon-street for this—
Farringdon-street for that—and Farringdon-street
for the other !—need no longer then be the
cuckoo-cry of every self-sufficient schemer ready,
in turning a penny, to gain a shadowy reputation
for philanthropy.

Deputy HARRISON may now be regarded as the
victorious champion of the project for a Central
Railway Terminus—precisely as Deputy BENNOCH
may he viewed as the advocate (par excellence) of
certain comprehensive propositions in reference to
Bridge accommodation across the river Thames.
They have severally identified their names each
with his respective undertaking.
Saturday witnessed the successful introduction
of this favourite suggestion, made by Mr. CHARLES
PEARSON, for the formation of a grand Central
Terminus in the City—its introduction we mean
into the Court of Common Council for rejection or
acceptance ; perhaps, we should rather have said,
for more immediate consideration, or for still
further postponement. After an agitated discus-
sion of six hours and upwards, the motion pro-
posed by Deputy HARRISON was carried by a ma-
jority of thirty-four in a meeting of just ninety
members of the Corporation. Sixty-four voted in
favour of this motion, and merely twenty-eight
in favour of the opposing amendment. The
motion was simply a proposition for the exami-
nation into the possibility of raising the sum
of 3 8 6, 0 0 01. —th e amount required by the City
Railway Terminus Company to be advanced by
the Corporation for the carrying out of the in-
tended enterprise. The amendment was merely
1:•0 the effect that the Memorial presented to the
Court of Common Council on the part of the Com-
pany should—as usual—be referred to the Im-
provement Committee for deliberate examination.
The same old, slovenly waiving of a difficulty,
against which we have so repeatedly inveighed.
The same scrambling evasion of anecessity, which
the world at large has long ago to the full
recognised. Fortunately, those present at the
discussion on Saturday perceived the folly
of acceding to
the modest request made by
the dissentients
in for the negligent discard-
g °nee again of the great suggested im-
provement.
It was
the
vain that Mr. H. L.
originator of the motion course pursued by the
TAYLOR insisted that
grievous injustice. It was°degradeiwas in every respect a
n Jain that Mr. BOWER
magnificent plan
endeavoured to
drawn out by Mr. l'EALsozilliuto
what he coaled;

in a truly tradesmanlike manner, " a pounds,
shillings and pence project altogether." It was
even of no avail when Mr. DE JERSEY indulged
his feelings of antagonism by elaborating a passing
sneer into a studied vituperation, following up his
remarks with an extravagant flourish of rhodomon-
tade! It was wholly ineffectualwhen he pronounced
his belief—solemnly—that " the introduction of a
railway into the City would prove to be madness
and a positive curse to the trade and commerce of
the metropolis !" Vainly, too, Mr. LAMBE inter-
polated a motion " that this Court do now
adjourn"—vainly did Mr. MARKLEY second it, for
it was, without any debate whatever, summarily
negatived. Nay, Mr. BARKLEY'S awful " warn-
ing"' went for no avail, and the same may be said
of Mr. HALL'S hinted threat, when he expressed
his conviction that if the Court entertained such
matters as the one before them, they would soon
have plenty of applicants. Everything in the
way of petulant and perverse opposition was alike
useless. The " madness," already spoken of,
infected a majority of the members of the
Corporation. The " curse" hangs even now over
the fated metropolis. For, out of 90 present, as
already intimated, 28 only voted against the mo-
tion, and 62 against the amendment. The result
of that division and disunion must prove, we
take it, definitive. Definitive, that is to say, as to
the ultimate realisation of Mr. CHARLES PEARSON'S
proposition. It is true, of course, that all that
the Common Council have thereby committed
themselves to is, the consideration of the feasi-
bility or not of raising the required sum of
386,0001., as requested by the City Railway Ter-
minus Company from the Metropolitan Corpora-
tion. That we may confidently count upon its
feasibility, cannot, surely, we conceive, require
one moment's reasoning, in the way of se-
rious demonstration. It would be preposter-
ous to suppose for an instant that the wealthiest
capital in the world could find any difficulty in
raising an amount, comparatively speaking, so
paltry and contemptible, for the liquidation of
charges incurred in carrying out so marvellously
noble and splendid an undertaking. We may,
therefore, rest assured that all doubt upon the
matter has at length been set at rest definitively,
and that before much longer the City of London
will be in possession of a Central Railway Terminus
worthy of its commercial pre-eminence, worthy of
its surprising magnitude, and not unworthy of
the skill, the enterprise, and the resolution of its
civilised population.

LORD LONDONDERRY AND LORD JOHN
RUSSELL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Holdernesse House, May 22, 1853.
SIR,—I shall feel extremely obliged if you will have
the kindness to insert a continuation of my correspon-
dence with Lord John Russell in your paper.
I remain, your obliged and obedient servant,
VANE LONDONDERRY.

Chesham-place, May 21, 1853.

My Lord,—l am deeply concerned that the passage to
which your Lordship alludes should have been published
by me.
My first impulse on reading it was to strike it out,
both as extremely improbable in itself and as injurious to
the memory of the late Lord Londonderry. In the
hurry with which the publication was conducted, for a
peculiar purpose, the passage was afterwards overlooked.
I shall, however, expunge it from a new edition which is
now preparing. The anecdote itself I had entirely for-
gotten, nor do I know who mentioned it, in the year
1825, at Mr. Rogers's breakfast-table.
It is certainly inconsistent with the bold and open
character of the late Lord Londonderry.
Your Lordship's denial that there was any foundation
for it is enough to prove its falsehood, nor do I require
for that purpose the additional testimony of Mr. Bid-
well. The story must be placed among those calumnies
which float in the idle gossip of the day, and I must re-
peat to your Lordship my regret that I should have been
instrumental in reviving it.
I have the honour to be, my Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
J. RUSSELL.

The Marquis of Londonderry.
P.S.—I return Mr. Bidwell's letter.

Holdernesse House, May 22, 1853.

My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of your Lordship's letter of yesterday's date, and
to assure you most unfeignedly that were my own hum-
ble character alone concerned, your honourable explana-
tion should here close a correspondence which I opened
with regret and reluctance, and which has ended in a way,
I trust, not less worthy to your Lordship than gratifying
to me. But, my Lord, your Lordship on reflection must
see that the name and fame of a great statesman, and
relative of mine, have been traduced, and your lord-
ship's proposed redress of expunging the passages from
a future edition would go but a short way towards re-
pairing the injury already so extensively done.; and,
therefore, in justice to all parties, I think the public
should be apprised of the result and truth of this affair,
and I really am more decided in this course of proceed-
ing from feeling that your lordship's answer is, if I may
presume to say so, as creditable to your candour as sa-
tisfactory to inyself.
I have the honour to be your.lordship's obedient ser-
vant, VANE LONDONDERRY.

I feel it proper to state here my intention of sending a
copy of this letter and of your lordship's to-morrow to
the Times.

Note—ln the last paragraph but one of my letter "and"
is printed for "but." This dulls the contrast between th•
amusement of the scene, and the more serious appeal I
made to Lord John. " And" confounds them ; but"
places them in contradistinction. IT. L.