The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-17 00:00:00

bernin

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1851.

It is now certain that Ministers will endeavour to
retain tile. income-tax in its present shape, without
change or alteration, for a further term of years.
The Chancellor of the .Exchequer bas given notice
that he will this evening move (in Committee of
Ways and Means), " That towards raising the supply
granted to her MAJESTY, the respective duties in
Great Britain on profits arising from property, pro-
fessions, trades, and offices, shall be further con-
tinued for a time to be limited." There is, there-
fore, to be no modification of this infamous im-
post. The same per-tentage is to be levied for
a further indefinite period on the precarious earnings
arising from the exercise of skill or labour in different
vocations, oti the fluctuating gains of the merchant,
the manufacturer, and the wholesale or retail dealer,
as on the rents of real estates, or dividends from the
funds, or shares in public companies, or interest
on mortgages, and that whether the nominal be also
the absolute owner, with full power to charge or
alienate at his mere will and pleasure, or be only
entitled to a limited estate or interest therein. Sir
CHARLEB WOOD is thus desirous of rendering the
chosen representatives of the people the par-
ticipators in a flagrant act of political injustice
and , political dishonesty. We use the term
advisedly for can there be greater political
dishonesty and turpitude than to extract from the
pockets of needy
.men sums which they are barely
enabled to satisfy, and which are far beyond their
fair proportion of the national liabilities ? We do not
suppose that Sir Cmantas WOOD would defraud
his poor neighbours for his own private advantage
-- that he would wilfully and deliberately
appropriate money or property to which he
had no moral claim. He would repudiate with
scorn and indignation so gross an accusation; nor
would he treat with greater leniency an imputation
that he would pronounce an unfair or prejudiced deci-
sion in a case where he had 'been selected as arbi-
trator, or lean to the side of the rich and influential,
to the detriment of the poor and friendless.
But the integrity of his private life affords but
little compensation for the vice and turpitude of his
public career. He would not defraud one indivi-
dual for the benefit of another, but he is quite willing
to defraud a numerous class, or rather classes, com-
prising thousands and tens of thousands of hard-
working and meritorious persons, for the advantage of
the drones in the national hive. Isle would deprive
industry of its legitimate rewards, and prevent the

young professional man, or tbe struggling trader,
who embarks in a doubtful speculation, from extri-
cating himself from his difficulties, and achieving a
more elevated position in the social scale.. Such a per-
son does far more mischief, and bas more to answer
for, than the most accomplished swindler that ever
breathed. If such a raraavis should arise as a Chancellor
of the Exchequer anxious to do justice to all men,
how would the columns of public journals be
crowded with acknowledgments of "restitution," or
" conscience money" from those who had been plun-
dered by his predecessor. No such luck, however, is
in store for the country ; we may be well contented if
we can avoid future injustice, without seeking a re-
compense for past injuries.

The equal taxation of every descriptipn of income is
so manifestly unequal• in its operation, so unsound in
its principle, that if it had not already received
the Legislative sanction on three separate, oecasions,
and if it were not again about to be brought forward
by a Cabinet Minister, we should consider it an act of
supererogation, an insult to the common sense of the
country, to offer any arguments in support of our
views. It really appears like an attempt to prove
that two is not equal to twenty-five, to argue that
6001. a year gained by a barrister or solicitor,
physician or surgeon, is not equivalent to the
dividends on 20,0001. in the Three per Cent. Consols,
or that the profits of the merchant, manufacturer, or
trader, which may be exchanged for losses the follow-
ing year, are not equivalent to ground rents arising
from well-circumstanced lands or houses. The pro-
fessional or commercial man, who has no accumulated
and realized capital to fall back upon in the event of
any unforeseen losses, who has seldom even a single
half-year's income on hand, at the same time is re-
quired to pay three per cent.on all that he is worth in the
world, while the fundholder does not contribute at the
same time more than one two-thousandth part of his
capital, or, in other words, he gets off for less than the
one sixty-sixth part of what his lees fortunate neigh-
bours are required to contribute in proportion to their
respective means. Bat even this does not illustrate

the full extent of the grievance. Many of those
persons whose occupations had for many years been
unproductive, who had necessarily incurred debts
while struggling to maintain their position, in the hope
that it would eventually become remunerative, are
charged on their entire profits, without any allowance
being made, or drawback sanctioned for payments
made on account of former incumbrances. The
fundholder sells out a portion of bis stock, and thus
liquidates his liabilities—the landowner transfers or
mortgages some of his acres : in either case payment
is only made on the surplus applicable to the private
purposes of the owner; but the medical or legal
practitioner, who can give no security that will be

recognized in the money-market, who has to pay

enormous interest on his outstanding : liabili-
ties, if he would avoid a visit to Portugal-

street, the full half or two-thirds of his profits, being
thus distributed, receives no allowance. He must pay

on his gross nominal income, although he
may not consider himself justified in appro-
priating the one-fourth part thereof to his private
expenditure. But why multiply examples ? the
whole system is inequitable and must be completely
altered ; and we call earnestly and emphatically on
every man of honour and honesty, on every one who
hopes again to meet his constituency without a
blush, to oppose its renewal in its present form
with all his energies. We trust, then, that the motion
of Sir CHARLES WOOD this evening, on which he is
"prepared to take a vote if the House will give it,"
may be rejected, and that it be referred to a Select
Committee to inquire and report on the best and
most equitable mode of raising the revenue necessary