The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-23 00:00:00

Ot

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 1853.

" The Income Tax, the whole Income Tax, and
nothing but the Income Tax"—"the Income Tax,
unchanged, unmodified, and unamended—the In-
come Tax for seven years longer, extended to all
descriptions of incomes in Ireland, and to incomes
amounting to 1001. a-year and upwards throughout
the whole United Kingdom"! Such is the demand
which the Financial Minister of the Joint-Stock
Administration makes upon the imperial Parlia-
ment—the " cry" on which he threatens to ap-
peal to the country in the event of that demand
being rejected by the chosen representatives of the
people. But will it succeed, 'either at the Impc•
rial Palace of Westminster, or with the independent
constituencies? These are questions of no ordinary
importance to the great Coalitionists of the day,
and to those who pin their faith on the Adminis-
trative abilities of '.AII the Talents." We can, how-
ever, entertain but little, if any, doubt, as to the
results ; and we cannot for a moment suppose,
that the independent Members for independent
constituencies could be so base as to succumb to
a threat so humiliating and so unconstitutional.
if Hon. Gentlemen vote in accordance with their
conscientious opinions—if they refuse to truckle
to an almost unparalleled attempt at Ministerial
despotism--they will decline to affix their seals to
a new lease for seven years—in all human proba-
bility, " renewable for ever"—of the most iniquit-
ous specimen of class legislation that ever disgraced
its concoctors. If they have the slightest regard
for their characters, as public men, they must act
fairly and consistently. They must repudiate the
undue coercion so unjustifiably, and, we will add,
so injudiciously attempted. If a doubt could
exist on the point, the suggested alternative
would be sufficient to turn the scale against
the Government which has resorted to such un-
worthy means of obtaining support.
What course will the men of the Manchester
school, those who have hitherto so strenuously, so
indefatigably, and so consistently denounced the
grievance, take in the question ? Will Mr.
COBDEN or Mr. BRIGHT agree with the propo-
sition that "it is impossible to draw any line
of demarcation between precarious and perma-
nent income" ? We should think not. These
Honourable Gentlemen have well-established
reputations to defend, which they will not be
willing to surrender on light or trivial grounds.
They have the contemptuous neglect of their
urgent claims to avenge. They have no thanks
to return for the sop to the " CERBERIIS of the
fourth Estate," that might induce them to sacri
fice consistency by surrendering at the first sum-
mons, or still worse, by a faint and manifestly
collusive appearance at defence. No. The Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the West Riding,
whose complaint against that part of the DISRAELI
Budget was that it did not sufficiently discrimi-
nate between fluctuating and certain income,
cannot now support a project, the very essence
of which is that there shall be no distinction be-
tween the different descriptions of revenue.
What can Mr. HUME say on this point ? Mr.
HUM; on whose motion the - Select Gommiftee
was appointed to inquire into the subject—
Mr. Hum; whose admirable report points
out the true state of the case more clearly than
any document on record. Even if an occurrence
so very improbable should take place as the ter-
giversation of Messrs. COBDEN and BRIGHT, would
a similar backsliding be possible on the part of
honest, faithful, and consistent JoE HUME ? If
ever we could pledge ourself for, a public man, we
would willingly do so for the veteran Reformer.
There can be no mistake on the point, or indeed
as to any of the Honourable Gentlemen to whom
we have referred, or of their friends and coad-
jutors.

The proposition, then, must be rejected in the
Legislature. The weight of the really Liberal
party, added to the friends and supporters of
Lord DERLY, must prove decisive. It will then remain to be seen whether a It
will
be attempted ; or, if so desperate an ex_
pedient should be resorted to whether it
could possibly prove effectual. 11:e believe that
the answers on both points must be in the nega-
tive, and that Hon. Gentlemen may give their
votes honestly and conscientiously without being
in any degree terrified by a reappearance at the

hustings being the result of their decisive co;

demnation and rejection of "The Times Budget."

We cannot honestly award to Mr. GLADSTONE,
in regard to the Legacy Duties, the credit which
some of our contemporaries give him. We thank
him sincerely for what he does, but we thank him
neither for decribing it as equalising the burdens