The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-09 00:00:00

4:
UAL

LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1851.

When Mr. HUME'S amendment, limiting the dura-
on of the property and income-tax to a single year
was carried by a majority of 14 in a crowded and
overflowing House, we heartily congratulated the
community in general, and the fiscal and financial
reformers in pe.rticuler, on that auspicious result.
The object of the motion was clearly and unequivo-
cally expressed. There could he no doubt or mis-
apprehension on the subject. The term was abridged
" with the view of instituting an inquiry by a Select
Committee into the mode of assessing end collecing
the tax," and of ascertaining " whether the injustice
of levylog the :wile rate of char upon terminable
and perpetual annuities, and upon fluctuating and
varsinie incomes from trades 413/1 professions, as upon
fixed incomes from real property, could not be
greatly modified or altogether removed." All parties
accepted that decision ; Lord JOHN RUSSELL used the
most emphatic language in speaking of the good faith
of Ministers. He declared that "the Government
was prepared to agree that there should be a
fair and full inquiry upon the subject ;" and
" that it would be neither fair nor wise to attempt to
refuse or evade that inquiry." At the same time the
Noble Lord made an urgent appeal to those Hon.
Gentlemen who bad given notices of various amend-
ments against any alterations being insisted on
until the promised and anxiously looked-for investi-
gation had taken place, and the report was published
and in the hands of the public.
Confiding in the unequivocal promise of the Noble
Lord, we unwillingly assented to the continuance of
the existing system for twelve months more.
We felt the gross absurdity of placing the income of
the merchant, manufacturer, or trader, of the artist,
author, legal or medical practitioner, in the same
Class with that of the fundholder or landowner—of
making one party contribute to the liquidation of the
public liabilities, and the mainteinance of the national
establishments twenty or thirty times as much, in
proportion to his actual means and resources, as
was demanded from his more fortunate neighbour—
of so palpably favouring the drones in the national
hive at the expense of the industrious bees. Although
the matter might require some time and consideration
before a final arrangement could be entered into, under
which each man should bear his exact proportion of
the public burdens, it seemed easy enough to improve
the present system, which appeared about the very,
worst thst could have been devised. Having sub-
mitted to it, albeit with a bad grace, for nine tedious
years, we made up our minds to bear it
for a tenth, lest our slippery opponent might en-
deavour to make the temporary enactments that
might be sanctioned the basis of permanent legisla-
tion, under which the industrious classes would still
have many well. grounded causes of complaint.
We confers, however, that we entertained some
misgivings when we saw the Bill going through its
various stages sub silentio, without discussion or con-
test, while there was no attempt made to
Ruminate the Committee from whose labours
so much was expected. Sir CHARLES WOOD
had enunciated strange views in reference to
such Committees on former oeceeions. The Right
Honourable Baronet seemed to think that the nature
of the decision should be known, the verdict deter-
iniaed on, before any portion of the evidence on
which that verdict should be founded had been de-
livered. So far as he was concerned, we would not
abate a particle of our rights, and would
not have suffered the Bill to make any-
progress until the constitution of the Se-
lect Committee bad been known and ap-
proved of. The solemn pledge of the PREMIER,
however, disarmed our suspicions, as we conceived it
utterly impossible that any subordinate would ven-
ture to bring the character and honour of his leader
into disrepute, by resorting to any tricks or evasions
after such solemn pledges had been given to, and ac-
cepted by, the majority.

Unfortunately, however, we reckoned without our
host. Henceforward we shall place no faith
in Prime Ministers. We must say that we
are deeply and bitterly disappointed at the conduct of
Lord Jonsi RUSSELL in reference to this transaction.
Five weeks of the busiest and most active part of the
session have elapsed since, after full time for delibe-
ration, he made those promises to which we have re-
ferred, and WHERE IS THE COMMITTEE? THa
s ise uu
Whitsuntide holidays have commenced and the in-
quiry has not been entered on. The tribunal has not
even been before which it is to take place,
and
it
Member pretty evident that unless the
who,Honour-
able according to the usual etiquette is
entitled to nominate the Members to serve upon that
Committee, should surrender his privilege into the
hands of the Minister of Finance, and content to a
no ignva susftit,arldioany wevheautisnoge vieur
referencew i) l take
importantitY subject are positively
,rh:loatstchhteiiels.e,aTpn:
alha.rjetopi rer proceedings
disgraceful
concerned.din Well might the veteran
Member for Montrose complain of thei„emm obdesereisrnv of,which
d
public appointed.Cominitteteaspapreears,b
e m
coThe
l
bodies cannot, it
they may, therefore, set the wishes of the House at
Mr. HUME tells us that the Peelite see-
dtieanceofinp.usitively
refused to serve, the leading
finnacier of the Protectionists has adopted a similar
Wood, Chancellor of
the Exchequer—the person whose fluty, above all
h t
course, and now Sir CuatinEs
oibers, it is to investigate such u attars, withholds his
ment of the Committee
assistance unless the appoint-- -
be tranderred to his hands. We recollect tbat
r
Mr. SMITH. O'BRIEN was sent i custody of the
refusal.
Sergeant-at-Arms to the cellar fey F jar
„ding
But now hi, exam is followed hy the ,
J:dembers of the Bowie, and they are permll'"
uE!
afovrotiudntahtee pueris.tist,,tent and deris.ku to wi'i":ls ;hr u
was subjected. .tu weuse name we have mentioned

Mr. Hurst has , sow abandoned the matter in dis-