The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1854.

The British Parliament is not—so the phrase
runs—to be un-Christianised. After all that has
been said about liberty of conscience and freedom
of opinion—it was so decided last night in the
House of Commons by a remarkable division.
That division betokened a contest so close, a vic-
tory so valuable because so nearly lost, a defeat
so severe because so nearly avoided-247 for, and
251 against, the second reading of the Oaths Bill,
introduced to the Legislature by an administrator
no less important than Lord JOHN RUSSELL—that
we cannot wonder how it came to pass, the an-
nouncement of a majority of " four," in a House
of all but "five hundred" members, was received
with enthusiastic cheers by the winning side, at
almost two o'clock in the morning, welcomed by
them not unreasonably as a somewhat notable
triumph over the Government. And yet, after
all, it is only the old story over again. Not
quite such an " old, old story"as Love in that ex-
quisite picture of FRANK SToNE's. Not quite
that
"old, old story," either as Death in
wonderful novel of CHARLES DICKENS.
13'it Very nearly. As old as the hills—almost.
Certainly as Old
reu as that mountainous region of
g'°us jealousy and fanatical prejudice, where
of Switzerland
as in the verse of the
poet, or as along the fron-
tiers" Hills peer o'er hills and Alps on Alps arise !"
Coming down from the rern
where the history of inan---"e ages of antiquity
according to the expres-
sion of Mr. MA.CA.ULAY,
" lost in the
own epoch,
twilight of fable," coming down lost
to the present century, to a time our-
thealrali immedi-
ately contemporary—we find the se,m, tale re-
peated again and again within
s of per-
sonal remembrance, under different names it may
be, but under exactly similar, or precisely any
logous, circumstances. It was the same with Mr.
PEASE in reference to the Quakers. It was the-•
same with Yfr. O'CoNNELL in refertnce to the
Roman Catholics. It was the same, we repeat,
with regard to them and their co-religionists,
as it is nowadays in reference to the Jews—
with the Baron LION EL DE ROTHSCHILD as their
representative. Tlie House of Commons had to
be stormed again and again before the Reformers
were enabled to overcome the obstructions raised
by a powerful, a dominant, and, let us add, too,
a thoroughly conscientious opposition. And yet,
JosEall PEASZ was resolutely returned by the
Liberal electors of South Durham, and was en-
abled, in defiance of every impediment, some of
them at the outset apparently insurmountable, to
sit for that division cf an Eaglish county in
three successive Parliaments. And DANIEL
O'Coiontrn: triumphed at last, still more memo-
rably, over ev cry imaginable difficulty—the world
has not yet al together forgotten the Clare election
of July 1228, and its marvellous consequences.
It is not yOtt43lltl/013, lost to the popular recol-

lection, we opine, how, in the very next year, the
triumph of reason and justice was signalised in
the passing of the famous Act of Catholic
Emancipation. Well, before 1829, when Mr.
O'CONNELL entered the House of Commons, be-
fore 1832, when Mr. PEASE took his seat below
the gangway—there had been no few or trivial
indications of an obdurate disinclination on the
part of those already in the House to keep out of
it both the Catholics and the oath-repudiating
Nonconformists. Baron LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD
is not necessarily doomed to a permanent exclu-
sion from the Legislature, because the advocates
of the admission of the Jews into the Legislature
have been defeated once or twice, or a dozen times
in rapid succession. Veritas temporis filia. Jus-
tice may be retarded ; but ultimately its victory
is assured. Truth may be chained down under
the stream of events for ten years, or for twenty,
or for a thousand, but its buoyancy is uncon-
querable ; sooner or later it must inevit-
ably float up to the surface, and shine
in the light of day. Hence the old threadbare
scrap of sententious wisdom " magna est," &c.--
familiar to every schoolboy. It is the consolation
of the reformer under his most bitter discomfiture
and most severe disappointment. It is the solace
brought by to-day's reflection to the Liberal
electors of the city of London and to their Hebrew
representative. A solace, however, difficult to be
appreciated by any but those who are truly philo-
sophic. As for the Noble Lord the author of the
defeated Oaths Bill—he is in a manner, we should
conjecture, case-hardened, or capable, if not of
calm endurance, at any rate of affected indiffe-
rence. The bitter and recent pangs consequent
upon the withdrawal of his cherished measure for
the additional reform of Parliament, must, more-
over, have empowered him to look upon this sum-
mary rejection of his favourite Oaths Bill as a
defeat, comparatively speaking, of slight, or at
least of really secondary, consideration. However
this may be—there is the latter measure, not
withdrawn but thrown out, forcibly and abruptly
thrown out, in defiance of all the strenuous exer-
tions made to the contrary by the Government.
Regretting the obduracy of the prejudice, and the
narrowness of the views expressed by those who
have aided the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
member for Abingdon in defeating the Oaths Bill
on its second reading, we cannot but hesitate
in our own minds as to the propriety of
Reforms as large and important as those proposed
to be made at Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S instigation,
being complicated instead of simplified—being
ingeniously interwoven together, instead of being
manfully submitted, each of them separately, to
the conscience and the judgment of the Imperial
Legislature. It was an error of policy,
we conceive, but one which may yet,
sooner or later, be readily rectified. As with
the Titan in the myth, the Reformers gain
new strength with every overthrow. Wherefore,
learning this truth from history and from obser-
vation, we still continue, of course, to look for-
ward with implicit confidence to the ultimate
triumph of those liberal views which have been
again unsuccessfully advocated by the members of
her Britannic MAJESTY'S Government.

It is impossible to estimate too highly the im-
portance of immediate and decided action in fa-
vour of a modification of the Income Tax. If
fiscal and financial reformers, in and out of Par-
liament, enter zealously and energetically on the
contest, speedy and unequivocal success must
attend their exertions. But, on the other hand,
if there be any display of apathy and insouceance
—if they suffer themselves to be diverted from
their purpose by any pretext, however specious,
or desert the standard under which they volun-
tarily enrolled themselves—they may, at once and
for ever, relinquish their affected zeal, and make
up their minds to an unmurmuring acquiescence,
in the most unjust and impolitic enactments that
ever received the legislative sanction. The golden
opportunity, once deliberately sacrificed, may
never return. The impost will be confirmed un-
til the sth April next, after the ratification of a
treaty of peace, and it is beyond human presci-
ence to state when that auspicious event may

occur.
Mr. GLADSTONE candidly acknowledges that the
feeling of the House and the country was decid-
edly in favour of a more equitable adjustment of
the impost. The Right Hon. Gentleman said—
"lt will be well remembered that the wish and
intention of a large majority of the House was,
that we should not renew the Income Tax except
on condition of reconstructing it." We believe
we might go much further, and say that it was
the unequivocal desire of a large majority that the
tax should be reconstructed and rendered permanent.
We shall, however, rest contented with the
admissions of the Financial Minister, as they
are quite sufficient fur the purposes of our
argument. The " large majority" offered the
simple alternative of repeal or reconstruction. The
Right Honourable Gentleman accepted the pro-
position, and said, " I provide for its gradual re-
duction, and final extinction ; nay, more, I sub-
stitute a charge which, falling exclusively on pro-
perty, will ultimately relieve industry from any
portion of the burden, and which, even at this
moment, may be regarded as affording some
species of redress against the inequality so loudly
and so justly complained of." Although these
may not be the exact terms used by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, they were the purport thereof,
and they have been repeated, ratified, and con-
firmed by his very last statement on the Bth
instant.
The compromise offered .was accepted. The
tax was renewed without modification for seven
years ; but it was so on the distinct understanding
that it was then to be abolished. The inducement
thus held forth is, however, withdrawn. There
has been a total failure of consideration. Not
only is there no hope of the removal of the charge,
but it is intended to double it for an indefinite
period—for it is quite absurd to suppose that it
would be suffered to expire, even if the temple
of JANUS were again closed, and peace and tran-
quillity again restored to Europe. We should still
have some painful reminiscences of the war, some
Exchequer Bonds to be liquidated, or deficiency-
bills to be provided for. Or, even if these claims
were not urgent, new conversion schemes might be
concocted to swamp ourbalances, and leave abundant
demands for all our available funds. We know
not what spirit-stirring appeals may be put for-
ward on behalf of posterity by " the GLADSTONE
of the day"—by some embryo Right Honourable
Gentleman, now a child in bib and tucker, if he
has yet entered on this transitory life. Whatever
they may be, we are quite convinced that they
will be sufficient to maintain the impost, and to
continue it en permanence.
Indeed, the evidence in favour of direct
rather than indirect taxation, always very
powerful, has received so much corrobora-
tion from recent events, that we cannot
suppose any Minister would be so insensible
to passing transactions as to attempt to dispute
or controvert the natural deductions. We shall
again found our calculations on the data provided
by the Financial Minister, which he himself, at
least, will be stopped from denying. Mr. GLAD-
STONE tells us "that by increasing the amount of
indirect taxation, you generally increase expense
of collection ; but with respect to direct taxation
the case i_
youuit t re
diminishn
t
asr
the linp percentage t thea gecost amount
of the tag of
collection." He adds—" The reason is obvi-
ous. The assessment
continues
the same—the
tax-payers remain the same, and you collect the
larger amount at the s
It is true that some same expense as the smaller.
portion of the expense of col-
lecting the Income Tax is defrayed by
and in this, of course,will poundage,
there be an
augmenta-
tion ; but, on the whole, there will be noincrease
of expense, and the effect of adding to the Income
Tax in the way I propose will be to •
give me, in
place of 3,137,5001., not less than 3,307,000/."
On the whole, taking the latest statement, ho an-
ticipates an addition to the revenue from doubling
the Income Tax of more than six and a half
millions (6,557,0001.), while the amount ex-
tracted from the pockets of the tai-payers will
cost very little more—certainly not 6,700,0001.
Now let us look to the results of an increasing
indirect tax, of which the Right Ifon. Gentleman ,