The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-15 00:00:00

has been no religious persecution on the part of
the Government. Local maltreatment of Chris-
tians by their Mahometan masters there may have
been, parallel with the parish squire bigotry,
which even in the last few years has busted of
driving all Dissenters out of an English parish ;
but the chief persecution has been entirely
that of the Greek and Armenian clergy,
who have certain civil powers entrusted to them,
according to the corporate system of Turkey.
Recently, however, at the instance of Lord
STRATFORD, the Protestant seceders have been
authorised to choose their own agent, who is to
stand in the same civil relations to the general
Government as the heads of the Greek Church, and
to whom alone the Protestants are to be responsible.
There can be nodoubt that it isjust all this religious
freedom, and the consequent growing popularity
of the SULTAN'S Government, which is so hateful
to the intolerant and ambitious CzAR. Nothing
could be more dangerous to his nefarious schemes
than that the Greek Church in Turkey, and all
other Christians, should find under its
Government a liberty which they saw
denied in Russia. And they do find it.
And for honourable, just, and noble dealing
with the various Christian communions under
its power, the last two reigns in Turkey have been
in most happy contrast with the selfishness, mean-
ness, and cruelty of the CZAR. As Lord SHA.FTE';-
BURY, followed by Lord CLARENDON, justly ob-
served, though we are not going to war for the
liberties of the Turkish Christians, yet it is most
consolatory to know, that so far from entering
on a war for Mahometans against Christians,
we are going to war for a government which
does equal justice to all, a government of
justice, order, and right, against one which
is the shameless oppressor of every class of
Christians, except the one which it uses for poli-
tical purposes. NICHOLAS has no more claim on
Christian than he has on civilised Europe. The
Turks have deserved well of both. The CzAR
can only point to the Bible Society and Protes-
tant missions suppressed, and to Catholic Nuns
flogged. The SULTAN can point to the Bible printed
and circulated actively throughout his empire,
to Protestant and Catholic Missions alike pro-
tected, and to firman after firman extending
religious liberty. Which has the better title to
the sympathy of Englishmen, and we may add,
with reverence, to the aid of HEAVEN, no Eng-
lishm an. can doubt for a moment. Any one of us,
Protestant or Catholic, would infinitely rather
live beneath the Government of the SULTAN than
that of the CZAR. The SULTAN is certainly one
of the moss honourable and tolerant monarchs of
Europe—the CZAR one of the meanest and most
intolerant.

We hear of but one reply to Lord SELAFTE3-
BURY, and that is, that all Christians are but dogs
in the eyes of the Turk, and he cares not what
they do. Seeing what sort of a dog his northern
neighbour has proved, and what dog-like quarrels
the rival churches in his own dominions are ever
engaged in, such a notion would not be very
marvellous in the mind of a Turk. We suppose,
however, any Christian, not orthodox Greek,
would rather be the SerraAN's dog than the
CZAR'S ; since the former lets us eat the crumbs
which fall from his table, but the latter kicks us
out of his house.

If—as we proved in our impression of Friday
—the income tax be the most cheaply and the
most easily collected of any fiscal charge ; if, after
providing for the primary expenses of the esta-
blishment and the various collectors, every shil-
ling levied upon the parties ultimately liable finds
its way into the national Exchequer, and that,
as stated by Mr. GLADSTONE, " we could collect
the larger amount at the same cost as the smaller"
—it follows, almost as a matter of course, that it
must be the most beneficial impost for the com-
munity in general. We might, indeed, rest the
case on the simple fact, that the mere saving, easily
attainable by the substitution of direct for indirect
taxation, would amount, on the bare expense of
collection and the amountof profit on that expense,
to four millions sterling. But that indicates but
a _small portion of the actual benefit ; for we
-must also take into our consideration the fact
that the original importer or manufacturer looks
for gain on every farthing he has been obliged to
advance. He calculates his percentage not only
on the first cost of the commodity, but also on the
duties which he must pay. The tax, then, is at
once enhanced to the wholesale dealer by some 10
or 15 per cent. on its amount, while he is also
charged for the trouble and expense occasioned by
the Customs or Excise regulations that, although
exceedingly vexatious, must be enforced in order
to prevent fraud on the revenue. Another whole-
sale house, of less wealth and more limited deal-
ings, providing for the wants of a district in place
of the entire kingdom, deals with the first pur-
chaser, and repays him not merely the 10 or 15 per
cent., which he himself has paid, but also a profit
of ten or fifteen per cent. thereon. Thus the circle
spreads. Etch of the six or seven intermediate
hands through which the article finds its way, until
disposed of by the retailer, gaining a profit on the
duty and on the profit on the duty paid to his imme-
diate predecessor. The aggregate of these charges
eventually falls on the consumer, and it is by no
means an exaggeration to state that, by means of
these several additions, the price of the article is
enhanced not only by the tax payable to Govern-
ment, but by some 30 or 40 per cent. on the
amount of that tax.

Some conception may be formed of the magni-
tude of this item when wa consider that the Cus-
toms and Excise, on which it chiefly falls,
produced during the past year no less than
35,770,0001., and estimating the loss thereon
at the lowest amount, or 30 per cent.--it would
amount to no less than 10,731,0001., which,
added to the 4,000,0001. to be saved in the mere
expense of collection, gives 14,731,0001. as the
actual saving to the nation, or rather to the par-
ties ultimately liable, by the substitution of direct
for indirect imposts. It is surely worth while to
make some effort to retain nearly fifteen millions
in the pockets of the people, to say nothing of the
stimulus which it would give our foreign trade,
when it was, indeed, rendered free by the removal
of every charge and every restriction, and the im-
provements that might be effected in our manufac-
tures, when the experiments ou a large scale, by which
the value of suggestions may be tested and ascertained
would no longer be prohibited or retarded by the
Excise regulations. However onerous the direct
charges might be considered in the first instance,
the burden would speedily be disregarded when
the extraordinary general prosperity arising from
the change was perceptible, and increased comforts
were combined with greatly diminished expendi-
ture. It would indeed be impossible within the
limits necessarily assigned to a public journalist
to set forth even a tithe of the advantages that
would speedily be brought to light.
There is, however, one serious obstacle—one
impediment—that prevents the attainment of these
blessings. The present system of assessment, the
equal taxation of all incomes, without reference
to the source from whence they may be derived,
or their permanency or certainty, so deeply taints
the entire impost with gross and palpable injus-
tice, that what would otherwise be hailed as the
most eligible tax is that which the most strenu-
ous exertions are making to get rid of. It is not
from an " ignorant impatience of taxation" that
the middle classes complain of the charge—it is
not because they are unwilling to contribute their
due proportion to the liquidation of the national
liabilities, or the maintenance of the national
establishments, that they object to the burden,
and that curses both loud and deep attend the
collectors in their progress. Far from it. It is
because they perceive but too clearly the unfair-
ness and actual "inequality" of the charge—that
they feel themselves to be victimised by legisla-
tion, exceedingly unfair to them as a distinct
class.

This unfairness Wag acknowledged by almost
every public man. The Ministerial leaders in
both Houses of Parliament, Lords ABERDEEN and
JOHN Russzu., more than hinted at the propriety
of obtaining an equitable adjustment of the dis-
pute. The financial Minister of the Opposition had
not merely recognised the distinction, but brought
forward propositions for its amelioration—.which,