The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-22 00:00:00

14. OUTPORTS.

My lords are deeply impressed with the great change which
has taken place of late years in the relative importance of
London and some of the other ports in the kingdom, especially
Liverpool, where the magnitude of the business is now such
as to entitle it to the greatest consideration, and more espe-
cially as, from its situation, it is obvious that its importance
must more and more increase from year to year ; and my
lords therefore entirely concur in the scope of the recom-
mendations of the committee in this respect. They are, more-
over, gratified to find that the Commissioners of Customs, par-
ticipating in these views, have already taken some important
steps in order to carry into effect the recommendations of the
committee so far. But my lords view this matter as so
closely connected with the consideration which they propose
p
to enter upon separately in relation to the general constitu-
tion of the Board of Customs, that they must defer their de-
cision thereon till then. In the meantime, my lords must
yentleinCopmmursuisasnioeue ell
tehsipsrie.esscotinhmehe•narttijoovnal
of otfhethceomstmepitste!,akb
of Customs.
My lords are, however, of opinion that, at least so far as
regards the port of Liverpool, an immediate arrangement may
bo made, by which, as recommended by the committee, cases
not involving more than 1001. of revenue shall be
uoet
to
the spot, but subject to the qualification tqhmatiiifineaatlilo cases,inn-
whatever the amount may be, where the circumstances are of i
an unusual or difficult character, reiee.fosgeumeresutnteraiemeleshtoaltlhbnec
br made
atoms ;and my lords are
Loudon,in-
structions, ue tion sapn subjectadd dire
e ti too
directions
as
I:
sohall.:o7,l:f.
Liverpool shall, from
pleasedb yfn y lords
to
o o
direct r the
thatthe
a
week to week, make a Commissionersreportfulluth of all cases which they
wintphtraactviiceewto maintain in every place
may . as
enableis
tphoessmibtloe .
judge
shall have so decided,
Ily
as to
tahsignik•eatth
aatthis uniformityexper
imo of
principle to other
the propriety of extendino• th
But so far as under this° heead it is suggested. that the credit
upon post entries should be extended at the discretion of the
landing officers,
my lords are of opinion that thi is f.'
which on every account should be discountenanced as mile
With regard to the subject of classify n
ports, m
ia
gs a syps,mhy
as possible.
lords are of opinion that the altered and constantly alter-
ing state of the commerce of the country renders the
regulations in respect to this subject no longer applicable,
respects they operate very prejudicially.
, therefore, to direct that the present
mode of classifyin
g pops shall be entirely abolished, and that
be treated, in respect to its establishment
of officers and thee' salaries, in a way having reference only

Sill,—And So this is the reply to all your arguments
Gladstoner.
nlb
but
tasf determined esteevremni nyeecla
years
oconntthineuienciottmneottax. theM year o
for
This is bold legislation, certainly. No one can accuse it
of timidity; but are we tamely to submit to such daring
dictation ? Having submitted to it for ten long years—
alias seventy years—for who, after having been deceived
from year to year as to its repeal, can rely upon its
being now repealed at the expiration of another seven
years ? No one, certainly. But suppose we could rely
upon its abolition at that period (which we cannot pos-
sibly do), are we to submit in the intermediate time to a
seven years' purgatory ? I trow not. Is there no
remedy ? Yes. Let your London representatives com-
bine, and act as they did before on the subject of
the house tax ; this will alter the resolution of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer if nothing else will,
for further argument is useless. If you, by good argu-
ment and good reasoning, could convince them of the
justice of the repeal of Schedule D of the income tax,
Mr. Gladstone would contrive to find some substitute.
Mark if it is not the amount of the tax which. makes it
so hateful. Be that tax 7d. or id. the principle is the
same, which principle is the inquisitorial nature of the
tax—its prying into the private circumstances of men and
their families, compelling them to reveal those secrets
which no other man, except a Government officer would
dare to investigate. One of the original causes for the im-
position of this tax was its apparent justice. I say
apparent, for in reality it is most unfair and unequal.
The officers levy it by guess—at haphazard—according
to a man's appearance, his mode of living, &c. ;
and the name of Justice is thus desecrated
by calling this a just tax. It is impossible that
it can be a just tax, for no tax-gatherer can arrive at
a commercial man's precise state of circumstances.
But the real cause of the imposition of the income tax
is, that the parties who invent and who continue to levy
this tax have no knowledge or intimate acquaintance
with that class of men who are to pay this tax. The
members of Parliament, as well as the Lords, know
nothing of the private circumstances of mercantile men.
They know a few of our great merchants, who have
incomes as large as most noblemen—hence they form an
opinion of the great wealth of the commercial body—
never dreaming of the thousands, tens of thousands, and
perhaps millions, whose expenses have exceeded their
income ; who, therefore, have no income, and yet will
sooner pay the income tax than reveal their losses to
any commissioner of income tax. This is cruel as well
as 'unjust, and yet it is true—and, perhaps, there
are still some members of the House of Com-
mons who may ratify the truth of this assertion by
reference to former days. And could legislators now
know and believe this statement, they would not vote
in favour of the continuance of the tax ; but they are
all men of property, who, at ease, know nothing of com-
mercial vicissitude, and who, sitting comfortably by their
firesides, hear the howling of the tempest on the outside
of the house, but neither know nor care who may suffer
from the storm. Something of this kind must have
nappeneu When the commercial men connected with
America lost above five millions sterling in one year, not
many years since, by the fall in produce. These are evils
of which the law makers know nothing, and, of course,
feel nothing ; hence their ready consent to such an im-
post on the commercial community. Schedule D,
however, comprehends professions as well as trades, and
the relief would be as great ai to mercantile men. The
repeal of this Schedule would involve a serious dimi-
nution in the amount of the tax, no doubt ; but
wave the repeal of the soap duty and the difference
would be trifling. And if we must submit to the ex-
penditure of a penny per week to our washerwoman,
we perhaps shall not be ruined by it. Really the con-
tinuance of the income tax for the purpose of saving
one penny per week, more or less, in washing, does seem
so ludicrous that one can scarcely believe Mr. Gladstone
to be serious. The property tax is of course to be con-
tinued. No one objects to that ; and perhaps the mer-
cantile and manufacturing bodies contribute as much
towards the payment of that tax as the landed aristo-
cracy, and you do not hear them make the least objec-
tion to the continuance of that portion of the income
tax, so that it is not the evasion of all taxation which
they seek. Much, however, will depend upon the view
which your omnipotent fellow-editor of the Times may
take of this appeal to the London members. Should he
coincide in your views, and give his irresistible aid, Mr.
Gladstone will probably be compelled to remodel his
Budget, and instead of there inserting all the details of
schedule D, leave as a substitute a mighty chasm.

A NGLICUS.

It may not be amiss to suggest that, should schedule
D be repealed, the families who receive some relief by
the non-payment of the tax would probably spend that
saving in some taxable commodities, so that Government
might lose very little by tho repeal.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN.

SIR, —Allow me to offer you a few remarks upon Mr.
Gladotone's Budget.

No doubt he has displayed, in many parts, great
knowledge and ability. I shall confine my m arks
chiefly to the income and property tax—a
taxr that,
viewed superficially, may appear based on justice, but
when tested by its application has always appeared to
me the very reverse, nor do I believe it possible by any
ingenuity to make it otherwise than unequal (therefore
unjust) and inquisitorial. lam old enough to remember
the income tax when it was 10 per cent., and I fearlessly
assert, that no tax was considered by the public, includ-
ing the most zealous Tories, so onerous and irritating.
What surprises me is, that a man who can point out its
inequalities, and the insuperable difficulties to its being
otherwise, can, in the same speech, have spoken of it in
such laudatory terms. I refer you to the part where he
eulogises Mr. Pitt, gives a quotation from a French
author, and then proceeds to make the astounding and,
I hesitate not to say, incorrect assertion, that if the in-
come tax had been submitted to sooner, there would have
been no occasion for the existence of the National Debt, or
lie might mean its increase after 1793. He says that for
may
yroi
haze tb
be e
ev: rloy.outprtf,
alaelgrci 9'
six years previous to its imposition our expenses ex-
ceeded our income by 15,400,0001. Now, Sir, I have
no statistics by me, but I think my memory will not
prove treacherous, when I aver that at the end of the
war, when the income tax was 10 per cent., and that
was taken on a National Debt of more than 800,000,0001.
et
asdnMnuurs.mtG:loausdprs teeonxpnde
e;lnifasoser;
(instead of 300,000,0001. in 1793), besides the land and
to the imposition of
trade, its total annual amount never exceeded 12,0000001.
that tax that our debt did increase to its present enormous
BstauttedB,irthlatairme
Mr. Gladstone says that afterwards, although our
revenue i • 00it0,0e0n0c
increased 11,000,000/. He does not tell you h
amount,
.inncarsei.isnuecdhl3a s,
how much
of that 13,000,0001. increase was derived
from the in-
come tax. I expect not half. It appears, therefore,
monstrous to say that we might have avoided our debt
by submitting sooner to the income tax. isT
—O, Sir, de-
pend on it we should have spent. more.
expenses increased greatly Have not our
And for why ? We are stillsince its re-imposition I
not follow that because at peace. I know it does
should spend it, but I wale have a good revenue we
jus-
tify my belief that it daoppe to past experience to
es encourage extravagance, If
Parliament world be firm, abandon the income tax, and
subject real, as well as personal, property to probate
and legacy duty, the country might do well enough, and
Ministers be
obliged to reduce expenditure.
all,
After
no doubt the war was the cause of our
debt. The income tax assisted us in carrying it on. I
thick both were evils that might have been avoided,
but the country was to blame for permitting, aye, en-
couraging it, and if what we call glory. tickles our na-
tional vanity, we ought to pay for it, and not leave the
burthen on our posterity.
No doubt, as a nation, we are rather pugnacious than
pusillanimous, but it is well to remember that
" They who in quarrels interpose,
Must often wipe a bloody nose."

Not that I admire courage less, but that I love justice
more, than some may do.
I remain, Sir, yours obediently,

J. H. G. H

Tunbridge, 21st Api;l, 1853.

•
A deputation from the Rotherhithe Commissioners of
Pavements, consisting of the Rev. Edward Nick, Mr.
Hackwood, Mr. Ravenhill, and Mr. R. S. Hawks
(clerk), had an interview with Sir 'William Moles-
worth yesterday, at the office of Works and Public
'Buildings in Whitehall-place.

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1853.

The contomplo.tcd ronowal of tho Ineonin Tn,r,
without revision cr modification, appears to be
the exciting topic of the day. Whatever may be
thought of the other details of the financial
scheme, there is but one opinion respecting the
grievous mistake into which the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER has fallen, as to its chief feature.
As to the probable abolition of the impost in

1860—which he rather hints at than direct"

promises—it is completely eliminated from the
calculation. We are subjected to so many con-

tingences during the interval, that even setting
aside the impropriety of attempting to legislate
for another Parliament, or to bind a new Finan-

cial Minister, it would be totally impossible for
Mr. GLADSTONE, even if in office in 1860, to bind
himself as to his fiscal policy at that time. All,
then, that can now be taken into eonsideration is,
that he asks for a renewal for seven, in place of for
three years, and that he attempts to cajole the
people by a possible reduction of the tax from 7d.
to 6d. in the pound after 1855, and from 6d. to
sd. after 1857. Now, we do not accept that as
a favour. On the contrary, we believe it to be
the most injudicious course that could be adopted.
We have repeatedly asserted that it is not to the
amount of the charge that there is any objection.
Far from it. It is its gross and palpable injus-
tine that excites the disgust and indignation of
the defrauded victims.

The excellent letter of our correspondent An-
glinus, which will be found in another part of
this day's impression, corroborates and strengthens
this view of the case. It shows that the inquisi-
torial and 'an-English powers given to the collectors
are even more objectionable than the amount of the
charge. Another letter from an esteemed
correspondent, "J. H. G. II," will also
be found well worthy of perusal. He complains
of the entire impost—believe that it encouraged
extravagance and led to the large amount of
debt then incurred, as without it we should
not have had the credit. This is so far true, but
it only, proves the wonderful efficacy of the tax as
a fiscal instrument, and proves the valuable results
that might be obtained, not only from its continu-
ance, but extension under a more equitable system
than that now in operation.

Mr. GLADSTONE may attempt to show that those
who are really injured crnstitute but a small propor-
tion of the payers. If they were in a decided majority
the robbery could not have been perpetrated. It is
because they are onlyable to protest againstbeingso
grossly victimised that the infamous swindle has
been so long continued. It is not because pro-
fessional incomes only produce 1.-22 d part of the
entire proceeds of the impost that the injured
parties will submit to the plunder without resist-
ance or remonstrance. He may go on the doe-
trice—just as convenient for a financial Minister
as for " a black-mail collector " for Mr. GLAD-
STONE as it formerly was for Ron ROY, that
" That they should take who have the power—
That they should keep who can."
He may, however, be well assured that the disgust
of the victims will be increased in the inverse
ratio of their means of resistance, that the in-
tensity of their fee.,li,,gs will be aggravated by the
knowledge of their weakness, and the impossibility
of offering; an ffheetive opposition. to the project.
But, although
be weak' they may individually or collec-
tivelyavailable—the intrinsicli.tve still a powerful weapon
ope justice. of their demands
—and4hat will
and
menli'Lth powerful effect on
English hearts
may
Profit
consciences. Al-
though they
by the wrong, they
will refuse to sanction or support the wrong
doer, or to receive theiri' of the
booty. Even fundholders themselves,
down with contemptuous compassion ,onwthhe o look
con-
dition of the unfortunate labourer for his daily
bread, may feel justly indignant. at the undue fa-
vouritism that has placed the despised toiler i.l
the same category with themselves, and would re-
fuse to profit by the palpable partiality exhibited.
. _ _

-This will be the first point on which the attack
will be made, and on the result of which the sta-
bility of the Goveriiment must, if not altogether,
depend. Mr. DISRAELI, in his Budget, recog-
nised the distinction between precarious and per-
manent income, and, of course, the entire strength
of the powerful and influential party by which he
is supp)rted will divide against the Ministry.
But, in addition, there is the Manchester School,
as it is termed, the members whereof have spoken)

clearly, distinctly, and -unequivocally on the point,
and who are not likely to abandon their former
views without a sufficient cause. We cannot con-
ceive how Mr. HuME, Mr. COBDEN', or Mr. BRIGHT
could now support the system which they have so
frequently, so eloquently, and so truthfully de-
nounced, or that the contemplated cessation of the
chief element in the direct taxation of the country
would prove any recommendation iniheir sight. We
have, then, not only the Derbyites and the Liberals
unequivocally opposed to the plan; but we may
assume that the great body of the Irish Members
will also resist the injustice, which as the system
is about to be extended to Ireland with all its
defects they may now do with a better grace than,
heretofore. Here, then, we find at least two-
thirds of the Home against Ministers, while
their own supporters, at best a miserable mino-
rity, are divided. Lord ABERDEMN has fol-
lowers. He promised an equitable adjustment
of the impost. Lord JOHN RUSSELL is not
without influence—he held out similar hopes.
Mr. GLADSTONE, though unable to number a dozen
followers, has succeeded so far as to be permitted
to bring forward his plan ; but the dissentients
who barely sanctioned its introduction, will not
combat a Foutrance on its behalf, or relinquish
their hopes of place and emoluments to gratify
the crotchets of Mr. GLADSTONE.

Yesterday Lord MALMESBURY extorted from his
antagonists something like an apology—a sort of
shuffling and indirect amends honorable—for the
party feeling with which his foreign policy had
been malign-ed and obstructed by certain of her
MAJESTY'S Ministers when in Opposition. Per-
haps, among all the important members of the
DERBY Government, the Foreign Secretary -was
the one who experienced, during his tenure of
office, the least amount of honest and manly con-
sideration. Everything he did was depreciated,
and many of his proceedings were distorted by
really flagrant misrepresentation. We said as
much at the time the Noble Earl was in power,
and now that he has fallen from it with his I
col-
leagues, we reiterate our assertion. Fair play
impelled us to adopt the course in spite of every
imaginable sneer implying charges of tergiversa-
tion. It was altogether too monstrous to witness,
without giving utterance to one word expressive
of disdain, the extravagant partisanship revealed
towards their opponents by the future members
and supporters (d l'outrance) of the Coalition,
throughout the whole period of the DERBY-
DISRAELI Administration. For ourselves, we were
naturally, and, as it were, instinctively inimical to
almOst every one of the principal views entertained
by that Administration. It was impossible not
to recognise at once that there could be no bonds
of sympathy between the majority of the opinions
entertained byourselves and by the Toryadvisers of
the SOVEREIGN. Whereas they were Tories—we
were Liberals. We were Free Traders—they
were advocates of Protection. We were for an
extension of the franchise—they were against any
enlargement of the area of representation. Our
predilections were (speaking in a general and com-
prehensive sense) for Reform—theirs were, on the
other hand, based upon the quieta non movers
principle, they were for letting what they called
" well" alone ; or, in other terms, were for an
exaggerated species of ultra-Conservatism. BUT
—they were hurried unexpectedly into office.
By the gratification of the momentary pique of
their antagonists they were suddenly invested—at
a period when they least expected it—with the
solemn and supreme responsibilities of Govern-
ment. They perceived at a glance the be-
wildering difficulty of their position, and
resolved bravely enough on the instant to
make one vigorous effort to release them-
selves from the pains and perils of that state of
embarrassment. They appealed to the country,
and the electors, of course, placed them in a
minority. "Of course," we say, because the vast
bulk - of the community --was in favour of Free
-Trade, of Financial Retrenchment, of an exten-
bio. of 1,11.0 Elootive Franchise, and (generally) of
Reform. Whereas—to reiterate for the sake of
lucidity—Lord DERBY and his colleagues were
notoriously against Financial Retrenchment,
against an extension of the Elective Franchise,
and (generally) against Reform. They were, in
fact, Tories and Protectionists. There was the
dilemma. Well, and now let us ask what was the
mode adopted by the DERBY-DISRAELI Cabinet to
extricate themselves from this maze of difficul-
ties ? It was simple and, more than that,
we think it was honbst. They determined,
without eating their own words, or directly
abjuring their own principles, to concede to the
obvious necessity of the times, and to the mani-
fest want of the population. They accepted as
un, fait accompli the system of Free Trade, estab-
lished by their former leader, the illustrious real-
iser of the dreams of ADAM SMITH and WILLIAM
HUSKISSON. They bowed to the no longer dubit-
able stability of the new system under the modu-
lated title of unrestricted competition. In a word,
they broke from the torpor of Toryism, and came
forth—as we were the first to call them—Tory
Reformers.

During the whole period of the Whigs' last con-
tinuance in power as a Government, scarcely any-
thing whatever was accomplished in the way of
real legislative improvement. The RUSSELL
Cabinet, indeed, was notoriously spoken of through-
out the country as the Do-Nothing Administration.
Its leaders were nominally Reformers—but they
only talked of Reform—Reform itself they gave
the go-by, coolly enough, by a series of Parliamen-
tary procrastinations. Immediately after the
general election of 185, *hen the Derbyites
boldly came before the people as Tory Reformers,
they gave ample assurance of the sincerity of their
political conversion. Insomuch that upon several
points they effected more beneficial changes in four
or five months than had been accomplished during
the five or six preceding years by a so-called
Liberal Government. They undertook—in itself
a herculean labour—the Reform of Chancery.
They prepared to abolish that rotteu old-portion
of the State fabric, the Ecclesiastical Courts—
hitherto allowed to remain untouched, although
polluting and cumbering the land with their cor-
ruption and dilapidation. These were among a
variety of comprehensive innovations upon which
the Derby-Disraeli-ites, or, in other words, the
Tory Reformers, gallantly adventured.
Nevertheless, scarcely any movement could be
made by the members of the late Ministry, but it
immediately became subject to the abuse or ridi-
cule of the future Coalition—the then hetero-
geneous Opposition. Considering the nature and
tendency of the innovations attempted by Lord
DERBY and his Ministerial colleagues, this was
manifestly, on the very face of it, unfair. It was
unfair, and not only unfair, but absurd and pre-
posterous, to obstruct new and enlarged measures
of Reform, simply because those measures ema-
nated from the Tory Reformers, from the mem- •
bers of the Earl of DERBY'S Government. It
was about as silly a reason for the course pursued
in this matter, both in the Lords and Commons,
as well as by the majority of the Fourth Estate,
as it would have been for our forefathers to re-
ject the benefits accruing to the nation from the
Commonwealth, simply because of the redness of
the nose of OLlvfla CROMWELL. It was against
the folly and indecorum of these proceedings that
we protested, again and again, in terms of honest
and impartial indignation.
If testimony were required to prove that this
indignation was not altogether uncalled for, it
would most certainly be discoverable in the con-
duct displayed towards the ex-Foreign Secretary
by the more infatuated upholders of the late Op-
position. Nothing that Lord MALMESBURY Could
do
odious
was instantly pronounced to be the most
lo u
way fiuseended
so
low abomination
the
inaitiozetustahmatcould have been perpe-
trated
style of hisde anscetso.
quibble
eisaabnosluilt the
style this
diplomatic communications. States-
men dwindled down into hypercritics. Journalists
collapsed into pedants--very captious, very casuis-
tical, and very splenetic. And yet the Earl of
MALMESBURY contrived, while at the head of the
Foreign Department, to maintain amicable rela-
tions between our own and all the other Courts of
Christendom; and while effecting thus much in one
or two cases under circumstances of some diffi-
culty, opened up to the commercial enterprize of

Great Britain, through the hitherto blockaded
'channel of the Silver River, the virgin wealth of

the great South American Continent. That alone
would be sufficient to cover with glory the record
of his brief but not inoperative Administration.
Yesterday, therefore, it was with something

like remorse that both Earl GRANVILLE and the
Marquis of CLANRICARDE endeavoured, though
in vain, to clear themselves from the charge of
having obstructed Lord MALMESBURY'S foreign
policy by an unseemly and uncalled-for opposi-
tion. However bootless otherwise in its results,
the discussion last night, in the House of Peers
must have solaced the Noble Earl the late
Foreign Secretary for many byegone and bitter
vituperations. It must have appeared, moreover,
to the servile eulogists of the Coalition Cabinet in
the light, or rather darkness, of a retribution.

Nothing could well be more satisfactory than
the decision arrived at in regard to the re-organi-
sation of the Customs by her MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment. Tho nature of that decision was revealed
to the country last evening in the House of Com-
mons during the course of Mr. WILSON'S masterly
explanation. It will now' be perceived how much
advantage has been derived from the Report
of the Commissioners of Customs transmitted
to the Treasury, and from the Minutes of
the Select Committee laid upon the table of
the Lower House of Parliament. In consequence
of the earnest recommendations offered by the
Committee and the Commissioners, the Earl of
ABERDEEN and his colleagues have resolved upon
forthwith submitting to the Legislature a measure
for the better constitution thenceforth of the
whole of the Customs department. The magni-
tude and multiplicity of the evils visible in that
department have long clamoured for some
such resolute interference. The time seems
to have at length arrived. At least it is
promised to the country at the earliest oppor-
tunity. A guarantee that this promise will
speedily be redeemed is discoverable in the reso-
lution announced to the House of Commons
yesterday, by the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Westbury—the resolution formed by Ministers
that no vacancies occurring in the Board of Cus-
toms shall be filled up until after the projected plan
has been submitted to the consideration and
scrutiny of Parliament. This is well as a guarantee
—as a distinct pledge of activity—as a positive or
reliable assurance that the question will not be per-
mitted to die out of the Ministerial remembrance.
For vacancies like these cannot be multiplied with
impunity in so large and complicated a depart-
ment of the public service. A term must ne-
cessarily, therefore, before long be put to this, at
present, unavoidable postponement.
. .

Ultimately,ithe Customs and Warehouses Acts
are to be codified into one solitary and comprehen-
sive statute. That truly will be a wonderful
simplification. Two or three score of fiscal statutes
condensed into one ! An epic in a nutshell.
With changes like these in the way of codifying
the laws of England—now the criminal, now
the Commercial, now the Ecclesiastical—we may
begin at last to have some glimmering of hope
that ours may ultimately vie in compactness with
the Code of NAPOLEON or the Pandects of Jus-
TINIAN. For this gleam of good promise in the
future the country has reason to be grateful to
her IUAJESTY'S Government.