The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-27 00:00:00

tfb

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1853,

There was a remarkable unanimity, on one
point, perceptible during the debate of Monday
evening, on the renewal of the Property and In-
come Tax in its present form, without change or
alteration, in which the friends and opponents o
the measure fully and completely coincided. Al]
(with the single exception of Mr. EVELYN DENI-
SON, whose advocacy we freely and willingly re-
linquish) agreed in recognising a distinction be-
tween precarious and permanent income, and de-
ploring the unbending resolution of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, which based a finan-
cial scheme, good in many respects, on a
gross and palpable injustice. The strongest
speech in favour of the amendment--next to
that of its distinguished proposer—was de-
livered by Mr. HUME, who, however, at the same
time announced his intention of voting in favour
of the proposition which he had so clearly and
unequivocally condemned, and against the amend-
ment, in every word and portion whereof he en-
tirely coincided. Others, with greater consistency,
refused to support that which in their souls and
consciences they believed to be wrong, however
highly they might approve of other portions of
the scheme, and felt themselves bound to refuse
becoming in any degree participators in the infa-
mous swindle, which, having been suffered to
expire, is now attempted to be resuscitated with-
out modification or amelioration. A revision of
the schedules producing anything like an approxi-
mation to justice would at once be accepted on
every side, and would, notwithstanding other ob-
jections, insure the adoption of the Budget, with
comparatively trivial alterations. The Right
Hon. Gentleman has, however, determined to
stand or fall with his crochet. He apparently mis-
takes a perverse obstinacy for a laudable firmness,
and neutralises the value of the boonshe is willing to
concede by the nauseous and unwelcome addition
which he is endeavouring to force on the unwilling
recipients.
What, then, will be the duty of Fiscal Reformers
on this critical emergency ? Should they, like
Mr. Huirs, surrender at the first summons and
swallow the unpalatable dose, or should they
rather, like Mr. MUNTZ, refuse to identify them-
selves with such unjustifiable proceedings, and
give their votes according to the merits of the pro-
position under consideration at the moment, and
without reference to the quarter from whence it
has emanated ? Shall men of intellect and ability
surrender themselves as the slaves of the Minister
for the time being, succumbing to his imperious
dictates without venturing on a remonstrance, or,
if, with " bated breath and deep humility," they
should hint their objections ; at the same
time, professing their readiness to vote black
white, in order to gratify the unrelenting task-
master. Surely, even SIMON LEOREE never ex-
acted from his miserable serfs a more despicable
and humiliating submission.
The principle is, however, so objectionable in
every particular, the precedent established
and that on high authority —so danger-
ous—that, notwithstanding our high respect
for the 'veteran Member for Montrose, we
must enter our earnest protest against it. No-
thing can possibly be more dangerous, more sub-
versive of that due control which independen
Members should exercise over the Government
than the notion that they must adopt any crotches
however absurd or indefensible, of one of its lead

ing Members. It is a complete recognition of
the nearly-exploded doctrine of "men not mea-
sures," calculated to create a Ministerial despot-
ism, rendering the official, for the time being,
indifferent to the remonstrances that may be ad-
dressed to him, because, however urgent may be
the complaints, the Minister can afford to despise
them, when assured that his so doing will

be attended with no untoward result in the

shape of votes alienated, or supporters changed

into vigorous opponents. It encourages, too, the
injudicious and unconstitutional threat of " resig-

nation " whenever the high behests of the would-

be Autocrats are called in question.

It should,

therefore, be strenuously and energetically re=
sisted whenever it should be put forward. Even
the high character of Mr. Huiu cannot justify
so great a dereliction of duty.
On another point of the Budget there will also
be a determined contest. Mr. MILNER GlnsoN