The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

Tfltfli It IL

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1851.

The House of Lords sat for a few minutes last night, but
transacted no business of importance.
In the House of Commons,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, in reply to a question from
Mr. CHILDICRS, that he had consulted the law officers of the
Crown as to the legality of the meeting of the clergy sum-
moned by the Bishop of EXETER, and which he called a
syno.d, and that they had given it as their opinion that the
proposed meeting was no synod at all, and that as it was
distinctly stated that no attempt would be made to enact
canons, it was not illegal.
The House then went into Committee on the Property
Tax Bill, and after several amendments had been proposed
by Mr. FRxSHFLELD and negatived,
Mr. HUME moved that the tax should be continued for
one year only, for the purpose of :affording an opportunity
for the appointment of a Committee to devise some plan for
remedying the inequalities of its assessment.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON supported the amendment with
a view of getting rid of direct taxation, and raising the re-
venue from import duties.
Mr. Mow Arr supported the amendment.
Mr. BUCK declared the tax had been imposed under false
pretences.

Mr. MACGREGOR was convinced that the tax might be as-
sessed more equitably than at present, and should therefore
vote in favour of the amendment.

The Marquis of GRANBY would support the amendment as
a step towards doing away with free trade.
Mr. COBDEN would support the Government, as he consi-
dered that the amendment was supported by the Protec-
tionists solely for the purpose of getting rid of free trade.
Mr. JACOB BELL would vote against the amendment.
Mr. S. HERBERT opposed, and Mr. W. MILES supported
the amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had endea-
voured to form a plan for the modification of the income-tax,
but found it was quite impossible to do so in such a way as
to render it equitable. It was therefore absurd to confine the
operation of the tax to one year, because they could not
thereby render it more equitable; while, on the other hand,
it would prevent the Government from turning its attention
to the reduction of other taxes
Mr. DISRAELI would support the amendment because he was
of opinion that the mode of assessment cf the tax might be
rendered less inequitable than at present. He elicited enor-
mous cheering by retorting upon Mr. COBDEN with a quota-
tion from one of that gentleman's speeches, made in 1645, in
which he described the income-tax as a "fungus upon the
tree of monopoly, and only rendered necessary by the corn-
laws."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was surprised at the conduct of Mr.
HuME, who was playing into the hands of the Protectionists,
of whose views there could be no doubt, notwithstanding
the studious attempt of Mr. DISRAELI to conceal them. The
Noble Lord concluded by arguing the impolicy of exposing
so large a revenue as that derived from the income-tax to
the chances of an annual vote.

Mr. MUNTZ could not see any objection to having the tax
voted only from year to year.
Mr. GEACH opposed the amendment.
Mr. ROZBUCK supported the amendment, and was sur-
prised at the conduct of Mr. COBDEN, who ought to know
that the most effectual manner of enforcing economy was by
keeping the supplies short. The fact was, the Government
intended to make the tax permanent, and dared not avow it.
Mr. liumE shortly replied;
After which the Committee divides], when the numbers
were—

For the amendment ....
Against it
Majority against the Government -14
The House then resumed, and
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would proceed with the Com-
mittee on Monday next, instead of taking the Ecclesiastical
Titles Assumption Bill.

The sanguine anticipations as to the success of Mr.
HUME'S amendment, to which we yesterday gave
expression, have been fully realized. The proposition
for limiting the duration of the tax to a single year
was last night adopted by a majority of 14, not-
withstanding the defection of the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for the West Riding, and others, from
whom we should have looked for a very different
policy. We cordially congratulate the community
in general, and more especially the large and daily
increasing body of fiscal reformers, on this
auspicious result. A more important de-
cision has seldom been arrived at in either
branch of the Legislature. It will prevent the
Minhtry, collectively or individually, from slighting
the voice of public opinion, or disregarding all con-
siderations of equity and expediency. Sir CHARLES
WOOD will no longer be enabled to bestride his finan-
cial hobbies, with a grace so_ easy, an aspect so
debonnaire, as he has hitherto exhibited. His suc-
cessors in o lice—for we cannot for a moment contem-
plate so grievous a calamity as his continuance, for
even another year, at the head of the department
which he now mismanages—must study the popular
feeling, and adapt their measures to the popu-
lar will. Nothing, in fact, could do more to
consolidate and strengthen the power of the people,
or to place more firmly within their rasp the control
of the national purse-strings.
These are no new opinions put forward in conse-
quence of the victory just obtained—we have on

many occasions, for some time past, repeated these views,

and called upon the fiscal and financial reformers to
take advantage of the golden opportunity afforded to
them by the termination of this impost. An in-
strument of tremendous power was placed
in their hands, which it would have been
an act of either madness or treachery to have
relinquished without making it fully available for the
redress of existing grievances. Those grievances are,
unfortunately, so numerous that it is impossible to
hope that they can be remedied in a single year. The
only course, then, was to retain possession of the for-
midable weapon until adequate remedies had been ob-
tained—until our entire fiscal and financial system had
undergone a thorough revision. This could only be
achieved by renewing the property and income-tax
from year to year, and we believe we may claim credit
the following ,
for being the first who recommended an annual vote
with respect to the property and income-tax. The
Slat of Wednesday, the 23d October, 1850, contained
determinedf passages in its leading article :
"The first, and
tempt was made to tinis
made
to the new property-tax is the
perhaps the most important point to be
period
shilling in the pound, to be granted. * * In 1848 an at-
crease the charge from sevenpence to a
eventually abandoned which was strenuously resisted, and
buti the existing tax was renewed in
the same form and for a
ygmeeadrratrlBsl. The attempt will now
term as before, and it was
again granted until the'
, to make it permanent, or ,
five ten years, but that
be made to get it for a lon
at least to continue it in force
jefvromrh
jtoriildzot it be renewed
.0 have to come
must be vigorously resisted.
do
.with re-
for a single year? Why should :ot
and Stock-in-Trade Exemny
before Parliament in each and every session
gard ta.the Mutiny
• ossible to estimate too highly the impogon Bills? It
is map nee of h
course. It would do more to consolidate and strengthenauc a
popular power, to enforce a due respect for the popuco. . the
that could be adopted." stashes,
than any other step
And again two days later, on the 25th October, we
added :
" The great desideratum to be achieved is, as we have
already stated, to limit the duration of the renewed property_
tax, or any substitute that may be granted in lieu thereof,
to a single year. It is the control over the national revenue,
the holding of the national purse-strings that constitutes the
strength. How greatly would that strength be enhanced if
one of the principal items of income should be assented to in
each and every session, as well as the; application of that in-
come, It might not be practicable to do so in matters of
,nutrect taxation. The Customs and Excise duties should
e,.known beforehand, in order that merchants and manu-
fD
acturets might be enabled decide the business they
to on
would be willing to undertake. But there is uo such necea.