The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-20 00:00:00

less than a gross and palpable delusion—a trap to
catch the veriest tyros. And, even if it were
practicable, would it be wise or political so to do ?
No stronger arguments need be adduced than those
put forward by the Right Honourable Gentleman
himself in the course of his elaborate statement.

•
The second ground assumed was no less incon-
sistent. Mr. GLADSTONE declared that "itis on
all hands agreed, that the Income Tax is not
adapted for a permanent portion of the fiscal sys-
tem, unless we can by reconstruction remove its
inequalities." But that attempt he will not even
make. He relinquishes this useful and efficient finan-
cial instrument rather than encounter difficulties
from which any merchant's clerk in the City worth
1001. a-year would not shrink. Like Tom THUMB,
he " raised the giants first," but unfortunately
not for a similar purpose. It was not "to kill
them," but to fly dismayed before the shadows he
himself had conjured up. Indeed, after the une-
quivocal admission just referred to, he goes on to
show that there is really no inequality to be com-
plained. of. We trust, then, that Fiscal Reform-
ers—men who have already pledged themselves in
the most solemn manner against the renewal of
the Income Tax in its present form—will be true
to themselves, and reject the proposition made,
unless accompanied with a pledge for an equitable
adjustment of the impost.

Anothei Dragon of Abuse has been assailed by
the St. GEORGE of Marylebone. Sir BENJAMIN
HALL last evening took occasion to direct the at-
tention of the House of Commons to the evil in-
fluences too often directing the system
of naval promotions and of appointments in
our Dockyards. Although the Hon. Baronet
rose ostensibly for the simple purpose of
condemning the course pursued in this matter by
the late Secretary to the Admiralty, acting under
the auspices of his Grace the Duke of NORTHUM-
BERLAND, his weapon of attack proved in reality
a two-edged sword, directed with impartial
severity, now against the Tory-Reformers and
now against the Whig-Conservatives. His accu-
sations were thrown yesterday with even-handed
justice alternately against the Ministry and
against the Opposition. He balanced his argument
delightfully by adducing evidence of gross culpa-
bility on the part of the DERBY Administration,
after insisting upon the heinous guilt of its
predecessor, the RUSSELL Government. There
is something wonderfully winning in the
uncompromising pertinacity with which the
Honourable Baronet insists upon the necessity
of innovation under every emergency of this
character, whether the affairs of the nation hap-
pen to be presided over at Downing-street by
gentlemen in buff or white waistcoats. It matters
nothing if the majority of the Ministers of State
be the result of a coalition, or the consequence of
a selection from available chairmen of quarter-
sessions. He has carefully stored up against them
all proof positive tending to their official condem-
nation. To a considerable extent, indeed, he
occupies his leisure hours by ingeniously enacting
the part of a sort of political SATTILLFUNGUS. From
Dan to Bersheba all is barren—or rather, with
him, from Chesham-place to St. James's-square.
He finds in the demerits of our rival administra-
tors that the proportions run to about six of one
and half-a-dozen of the other—yielding, in fact,
a highly satisfactory equipoise of demerit. His
obvious rdle in criticism would be rather
that, we take it, of Mr. SNARL than of
Sir FRETFUL PLAGIARY. He has a marvellous
eye for shortcomings. Happily, the House of

Commons possesses in him a pilot-fish for those
voracious sharks, the Reformers. Other Repre-
sentatives may pin down their hopes to the cause
of some particular and favourite achievement.
Mr. HENRY BERKELEY may pine solely for the
Ballot. Mr. EDWARD HORSMAN if he could only
get " in" again—for just now his position and
lamentation seem to be the very converse of those
of the Starling would content himself with
yearning only for ecclesiastical improvements.
Sir JosHuA WALMSLEY may satisfy his longings
with regard, merely, to the one great scheme of
financial retrenchment. The Hon. HENRY FITZ-
ROY may aspire after legal reforms exclusively.
These and others may restrict their efforts re
spectively to their one chosen department. But
, it is not so by any means with the Hon. Baronet
the Member for the borough of Marylebone.

Like RICHARD 111. in his " great revenge," he,
in his great horror of abuses, " has stomach
for them all." Among those abuses may now be
numbered the monster evil discernable in the
manner of canducting naval promotions and ap-
pointments in the Dockyards.
It is impossible for the Derbyites to deny that
Mr. AUGUSTUS STAFFORD came out of the cursory
discussion of last evening, not by any means so
satisfactorily as could have been expected, we
fancy, • by the supporters of the late Administra-
tion.
Although the Hon. Gentleman distinctly
contradicted the assertion made by Sir BENJAMIN
HALL, that a change had been made by the. Board
of Admiralty under the Duke of NORTHUMBER-
LAND, in that memorable circular issued, in 1847,
to the heads of the departments by Mr. (now Sir
HENRY) WARD, the then Secretary, during the
naval administration of Lord AUCKLAND, there
can be little- question, we fear, that that minute
had, even earlier than 1852, become virtually
forgotten. That circular can scarcely be forgotten
directing, in 1847, that the vicious practice on the
subject of promotions should thenceforth be regu-
lated by the merits of the candidates. Would it

not be preposterous to pretend for one moment
that this recommendation was scrupulously carried
out, either under the RUSSELL or under the DERBY
Administration ? Political sympathies, of course,
under both, biassed too many of the maritime as
well as of the other appointments. Family sym-
pathies and friendly predilections directed too
many of the naval promotions, not less, we are
bold to aver, under Sir FRANCIS BARING than

under the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND. With the
latter, in.truth, it came by a species of natural or
inevitable reaction. Mr. STAFFORD, indeed, can-

didly acknowledged as much last night, when he
said that the cancelling of the order of 1849 in
1852 was attributable to the recognition of the
abuses prevailing in the exercise of patronage,
and in the favouritism shown in the
distribution of work to artisans who enter-

tained liberal opinions. There is something
really admirable in the simple honesty of the de-

elaration. The Liberals under Lord JOHN Rus-
SELL had enjoyed too many promotions in the
Royal Navy, and too many appointments tin the

Dockyards. So thought the Earl of DERBY and
his colleagues, and so thinking, they determined

that the bias should be reversed, and that, as M.
DE LAMARTINE once said of Russia, that its
" slope" was towards the East, so in justice under

the late Cabinet the slope of the Dockyards should
be towards Derbyism, or, perhaps it should be

said vice versa, of Derbyism to the Dockyard. In
order to render this change the more feasible the
circular of 1849—the circular directing that all ap-

plications for promotion should be sent through
the Surveyor to the Navy—was cancelled, in order

hat they might be forwarded at once to the

Secretor; of the Admiralty, to be laid by him

before the Lords Commissioners. In extenuation

of this course it must be remembered that, as

Mr. STAFFORD observed yesterday, not one appoint-
ment in the dockyards was made during the ex-
istence of the DERBY Ministry without having pre-
viously obtained the sanction of the Commodore

Superintendent. Besides which, as
Gentleman very reasonably and the Hon.
remarked, the transfer of the guidance of the ap-
pointments from the Surveyor of the Navy to the
Secretary of the Admiralty made them more
amenable to the judgment of the House of Com-
mons, or, in other words, brought them more
directly under the surveillance of Parliament. Of
that there can be no doubt whatever. Neverthe-
less the whole of the proceedings explained last
evening by Sir BENJAMIN HALL cannot be
justified by that solitary consideration. It were
needless to enter into details in reference -to the
letter inopportunely burnt by Sir WILLIAM.
PARKER, or to recapitulate the different circum-
stances mentioned in regard to Sir BALDWIN
WALKER'S resignation. It is sufficient to note
the satisfactory upshot of the discussion provoked
yesterday in the Lower House by the dashing