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

tas
at- Pitt,
eT
: 4tria-„,,N. Ant
(is
:; - -

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1853.

A. more complete and decisive victory has se
dom been achieved by any Government than tha
obtained on Monday night, or rather Tuesday
morning, on the first division on Mr. GLADSTONE'S
Budget. Ifever have there been so many instances
of unblushing tergiversation as were exhibited on
the occasion by men whom we have hitherto been
accustomed to regard as consistent politicians.
The division list, indeed, affords a deplorable illus-
tration of the subserviency of many popular mem-
bers, who, for once, voted for " men not mea-
sures," and sacrificed the interests of the indus-
trious classes to the indefensible crotchets of the
Financial Minister. These men have hitherto
been accustomed to condemn, in the strongest and
most unequivocal terms, the gross and pal-
pable injustice of levying the same rate on
every kind of income, -without reference to
the source from whence it might be derived.
They have clearly explained the nature of the
inequity, objecting to Mr. DISRAELI'S project,
which recognised a distinction between the con-
tributors under Schedule A and C, and B, D, and
E,—that it did not go far enough,—that the
actual difference in value was far beyond the
allowance which he was prepared to make. And
yet these very men have, with a few honourable
exceptions, combined to negative the amendment
of the Hon. Bart. the Member for Herts, which
embodied the great principle they had so frequently
and so eloquently advocated, and to continue the
iniquitous system for seven years longer without
change or modification of any kind.
Let us for a moment consider the substantial
effect and meaning of that amendment. It was,
that the continuance and extension of the tax,
" without any mitigation of the inequalities of its
assessment, are alike unjust and impolitic."
There was nothing factious in this no-
thing calculated to obstruct the Government,
or embarrass the finances of the country. It did
not pledge the House to oppose a renewal of the
impost after a due discrimination between the dif-
ferent descriptions of income. All that it con-
veyed was, that the tax was objectionable in its
present form, anti that its renewal for so long a
term as seven years, without some attempt to in-
vestigate its inequalities, was contrary to equity
and expediency. We venture to assert that nine-
tenths of those who obeyed the Ministerial
Whippers-in, who followed Mr. GLADSTONH into
the Government lobby on the division, were in
their hearts and souls convinced of the truth and
accuracy of the proposition against which they
were voting, and had at some time or other, in
public or private, given distinct expression to their
views on the subject ; and yet they voted against
it, and thereby affirmed the justice and propriety
of the impost.
What faith can henceforth bo placed in the
professions of public men when we find them so
strikingly at variance with their, practice, and
that on an occasion of such vital and paramount
importance as that of Monday last, when the
effect of their extraordinary conduct may be the
Perpetuation of a system in every respect as
iniquitous as that which they then sustained with
their suffrages.
There is yet, however, a locus penitentice, a
chance still remains for the partial redemption of
the characters that have been already so seriously
damaged. The amendment of Mr. MICHELL, ex-
tending only to details, and not aimed at the
principle of the measure, will be brought forward
this evening, by which it is proposed that no duty
shall be levied in the first hundred pounds of in-
come arising from the exercise of any profession
trade, or vocation, and that a difference of 2d. in'
the pound shall be made in favour of all such in-
wines above the yearly profits of 100 i., and less
than 5001.
This is a material improvement on Mr.
DISRAILI'S proposition, not merely because it is
a nearer approximation to justice by a farthing in
the pound, the contemplated charge for the first
two years—we do not expect to see the reduction
".1:3V)". ever carried into practical operation—being
offsedrs.
in place of sid.
an exemption to;
thbleutfi,rfsatrlinooolie,ofbecaallusp
precarious
ingoraes not exceeding 500/. per annum. This
appear almost
claim is so equitable, that it would
ivork of supereroptio4 to offer Amy argument in