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

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1853.

The contemplated renewal of the Income Tax,
without revision or 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 directly
promises—it is completely eliminated from the
calculation. l'Ve 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 consideration 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-
gUnils, 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 un-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. H," 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 way attempt to show that those
who are really injured cmistitute 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 against being so
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 doc-
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 thy should take who have the power--
That they should keep who can."
lie may, however, be well assured that the disgust
of the victims will be increased in the inverse
t'afio of their means of resistance, that the in-
tensity of their feelings will be aggravated by the
knowledge of thel •
effective opposition
and the impossibility
of offering an
effve opposition to the project.
the
But, although
may individually or collec-
tively
be weak, they have still a powerful weapo
available—the intrinsic justice of their demands
—and that will operate with powerful effect on
English hearts
and English consciences.
the
COnsciences. Al-
though they may profit by
wrong, they
will refuse to sanction or support the wrong
doer, or to receive their share
e of the
booty. Even fundholders themselves, who look
down with contemptuous compassion on the 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 in
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 ma4e, and on the result of which the sta-
bility of the Government must, if not altogether,
depend. Mr. DISRA
ELI 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 i,?s' the Ministry.
supi»riel will (1 :vide
Bat, is vd,litiun, there is the M 7iclie4er School,
as it is termed, the memhers whereof lwxe spoken

clearly, distinctly, and unequivocally on the point,
y L. a,1,,..a5i0n 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 in their 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 House against Ministers, while
their own supporters, at best a miserable minor
rity, are divided. Lord ABERDEEN 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 being forward his plan ; but the dissentients
who barely sanctioned its introduction, will not
combat a l'outrance on its behalf, or relinquish
their hopes of place and emoluments to gratify
the crotchet.; of Mr. GLADSTONE.

Yesterday Lord MALxtEsnunx extorted from his
antagonists something like an apology—a sort of
shuffling and indirect amende honorable—for the
party feeling with which his foreign policy had
been maligned 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 ainount 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 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 (a I'OW/ranee) 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 movere
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-
sion of the Elective 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 difhcul-

' ties ? It was simple -- and, more than that,
we think it was honest. 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
um 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
HussissoN. 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 cou-

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 countryas 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 1852, when 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 OLIVER 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 but was instantly pronounced to lie the most
odious abomination that could have been perpe-
trated under the circumstances. Partisanship in
this way descended so low as to quibble about the
style of his 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 euterprize of

Great Britain, through the hitherto blockaded
channel of the Silver itiver, 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 MALINIESEURY'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. The 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 men sure
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. Gentlem.an 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, the 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 MAJESTY'S Government.

COURT CIRCULAR.

It is understood that the Levee to be held on Wed-
nesday, the 27th instant, will be the last this season.
Her Majesty will hold several Drawing-rooms during

Le month of June.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited her
Majesty yesterday afternoon, at Buckingham Palace.
His Royal Higness Prince Albert, attended by Lieu-
tenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour, visited the National
Gallery yesterday morning. In the afternoon his Royal
Highness, attended byLieutenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour,
went to the Zoological Society in Hanover-square.
Sir Henry Holland was presented at the levee on
Wednesday by the Earl of Aberdeen, upon being created
a baronet.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, accompa-
nied by her Serene Highness the Princess of Hohenlohe,
and attended by Lady Anna Maria Dawson and Sir
George Couper, dined with the Duke and Duchess
D'Aumale, at Orleans House, Twickenham, on Wednes-
dayevening._

Her Roy-al Highness the Duchess of Kent, accom-
panied by her Serene Highness the Princess Adelaide of
Hohenlohe, honoured the Royal Italian Opera with her
presence last evening. Her Royal Highness was
attended by Lady Anna Maria Dawson and Sir George
Couper.

A-deputation from Salisbury and Warminster, on the
subject of the completion of the Wilts and Somerset
Railway, as regards the line between Salisbury and
Warminster, had an interview with the Right Honour-
able E. Cardwell, on Wednesday, at the Board of Trade.
The deputation consisted of the Right Hon. S. Herbert,
Mr. Sotherton, M.P., Mr. Wyndham, M.P., Mr. C. B.
Wall, M.P., Mr. C. H. B. A'Court, M.P., Mr. D.
Seymour, M.P., the Mayor of Salisbury ; the Rev. A.
Fane, Vicar of Warminster ; the Rev. Bladney,
Major-General Buckley, Mr. J. Ravenhill (Warminster),
Mr. R. Hetley (Salisbury), Mr. J. H. Jacob, Mr. N.
V. Squares, Mr. J. Pothecary, and Mr. G. Smith.
The residents of Belfast and Galway Queen's Colleges
had an interview yesterday with the Earl of Aberdeen,
at his official residence in Downing-street.
A deputation of the watermen acting as pilots on the
Thames, had an interview with the Right Hon. E. Card-
well, on Wednesday, at the Board of Trade. The depu-
tation was introduced by Mr. Rolt and Mr. Chambers,
and consisted of Mr. Shoebridge (chairman), Mr. Muson,
Messrs. Watkins, Todhunter, Hone, Blain, Langman,
Parkinson, Wood, Randall, Forrest, Hinton, Carter,
Andrews, and Rodway.
Dispatches were received at the Colonial-office yester-
day, from the governor of Ceylon, from the governor of
Hong Kong, the Lord High Commissioner of the lonian
Islands, and the governor of Malta.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DAY.

MAIDSTONE

The committee appointed to enquire into the petition
against the return of G. Dod, Esq., sat this morning, at
twelve o'clock, for the first time. Mr. Hutt in the
chair.

Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. E. Jones appeared
on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Bodkin and Mr.
Clarke for the sitting member.
Mr. Sergeant King!ake proceeded to open the case
for the petitioner, who, he stated, alleged undoubted
bribery and treating. The sitting member however,
Mr. Dod, having satisfied himself that there had been
without doubt an amount of corrupt treating sufficient
to void his election, had wisely determined not to perse-
vere in any opposition to the petition. He would there-
fore resign his seat. This was not the result of any ar-
rangement or compromise between the parties.
The usual resolution was then passed declaring Mr.
Dod not duly elected, and the election to be a void
election.