The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-10 00:00:00

WHAT WILL LORD DERBY DO ?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—l think I may now fairly enough shift my
ground, and pass from the great question of
Reform to that of Finance, and inquire what will
the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli do?
The Reform Bill has now reached a certain stage ;
either it must pass into law, as its great and illustri-
ous author did 35 years ago, or else Lord Derby must
follow the precedent of Earl Grey in 1831—i.e.,
appeal to the country, which is a course I consider
he is bound to adopt in honour to England as well
as to himself and his Government. So much for the
great et vexata questio of Reform. I now pass to
finance. I have said, in the course of my corre-
spondence with you, that I myself belong to no
party, political or religious, and that I should be
first and foremost to turn against the present or
any other Government if I thought it was not act-
ing in all respects for the benefit of dear old Eng-
land. Albeit there is much, very much, to admire
in Mr. Disraeli's budget ; nevertheless, on the
other hand, there is much I cannot approve of. The
income-tax is to be continued—the odious income-
tax, which we were assured (when it was first im-
posAl a quarter of a century ago by the late
Sir Robert Peel after it had been enjoy-
ing a peaceful slumber of another quarter
of a century) was only for a time and an
emergency, and that it should not remain on our
statute-book one hour longer than it was absolutely
necessary. This, we were assured as long ago as
1842, and yet here we are in 1867, and this ini-
quitous impost still disgraces our statute-book.
Now, I have not one word to say against a system
of direct taxation if it were only fairly levied.
Those who have fixed property in land, houses, and
money in the funds, have the largest stake in the
. country, and are therefore in duty bound to con-
tribute largely to the exigencies of the State.
I would gladly see such a tax levied'at £lO or even
£l5 per cent., nor would the holders of fixed pro-
perty really be as much injured by this impost as
might be imagined, for by this means the assessed
taxes and many other modes of indirect taxation
might be abolished. It is not to be denied that the
plan of the late Sir R. Peel in 1842, whereby
many millions of most obnoxious indirect taxa-
tion was sent to the winds, and we had
for the first time since the old French war to endure
an income-tax, which, as I remarked in my letter to
you the other day, had been until the last-named
year always looked upon as part and parcel of the
horrors of war. In this same year, 1842, a com-
pletely new era began in our financial arrangements,
and 1842 was as great an era of change and reform
in our financial representation as 1832, ten years
previously, had been in our political. How com-
pletely this proves what I said to you in my letter
the other day, that we live, and have always lived,
in a constant and continual change, and that no
Government, whether Whig, Liberal, Tory, Con-
servative, or Radical, ever can for any length of
time resist change. Here I may, perhaps, be
allowed to digress a little, and show how change
during the last half century has come in
round numbers regarding years. In 1822, it
was seven years after the ever-memorable and
decisive battle of Waterloo, that the Tory Govern-
ment of Lords Liverpool, lildon, &c., effected an
immense saving to the country, by paying off the
Old £5 per Cent. Annuities, and thereby reducing
the interest of those people who chose to keep their
money there after the Ist of January, 1823, to £4
per cent.; this was when the late Lord Bexley
(at that time Vansittart) was Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Again, in 1830, the same
thing was done by the Administration of the late
Duke of Wellington, when the late Mr. Goulburn
was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the holders
of the old £4 per Cent. Annuities had the option of
either being paid off at par, or else those persons
who chose to keep their money there after
the Ist of January, 1831, were only to re-
ceive £3i per cent., and so matters con-
tinued until 1844, when the Government of
the late immortal Sir. R. Peel, and Goulburn was
again Chancellor of the Exchequer, the holders (the
precedents of 1822 and 1830 being strictly followed)
of the £3l per Cents. were either to be paid off at
par, or else those people who chose to retain their
money in the funds after January 1, 1845, were
only to receive £3l per cent, until January 1855,
ten years later, when they were only to receive £3
per cent., which is now the amount of interest paid.
Thus in half a century has £2 per cent.
interest been saved on the funded debt, or great
part of the funded debt of the nation, and, moreover,
all too by Tory Governments. When, I should be
glad to know, did the Whigs ever effect, or attempt
to effect, a reduction in the interest of the funded
debt of the nation. To return, however, to the
thread of my argument, what financial change
does the Chancellor propose to make in
the income tax ? Absolutely none. Mr.
Gladstone has over and again told us that
it is a simple and absolute impossibility to
make any difference in taxing incomes derivable
from land, houses, and money in the funds, and
incomes derivable from trades and professions.
Both those two great men, the late Sir R. Peel, and
his predecessor, William Pitt, have over and over
again said the same thing. Now a man must be
bold who dares to go against either of those two
great illustrious departed statesmen. The cleverest
man, however, who ever lived is by no means in-
fallible, and I will in a future letter point out to
you and your readers how our present unjust, un-
fair, and odious income-tax might safely be con -
verted into a fair, just, and equitable direct
property-tax. William Pitt, in 1796, when he
first imposed the legacy duty, said it was
an utter impossibility to levy legacy and
succession duty on land ; in 1853, however, Mr.
Gladstone found it quite practicable. And albeit
in 1798 and 1812 William Pitt and Sir R. Peel de-
clared it to be an impossibility to make any dif-
ference with regard to taxing fixed and precarious

incomes, I trust in 1868, or in 1872, some future
Chancellor of the Exchequer, or else our present
Chancellor, will find it quite and perfectly practicable.
Mr Disraeli did, in 1852, propose that incomes de-
rived from trades and professions should pay one
quarter less than those derived from fixed sources.
N o Whig Government, however, has ever proposed

to make the least difference. A reform of the in-
come-tax, as well as a reform .of those antiquated
institutions, the Inns of Court and Chancery, would
to my mind, at any rate, be far more useful reforms
than all the Reform Bills of our Representation
put together. It is quite astonishing to my mind
how people can allow themselves to be so perfectly
humbugged as they are, and have been, for the last
quarter of a century under our present system of
income-tax ; and such a golden tax as it might be
made too if it were only fairly adjusted. I must
say, moreover, I think there is much to be said in
favour of a total repeal of the malt tax. The
attorneys certificate duty is another most iniquitous
tax. This tax was put on by William Pitt, in
1785, not, as is erroneously supposed, in a
time of war, but in a time of profound peace, two
years after the termination of the old American
war in the reign of George 111., and eight years
prior to the old French war. Again, this tax re-
mained at £lO until the general peace in 1815,
when it was augmented to £l2 for town and £8
for country practitioners, and at this amount it
remained until 1853, when it was reduced to £9.
It therefore cannot be called a war tax ; it is a
most unjust poll tax. I am glad to see the dog
tax is to be reduced, and I would gladly see it
abolished altogether ; here, perhaps, I am speaking
selfishly, being passionately fond of dogs.
I have no time to add any more now, but must
reserve all other remarks for a future letter.—l re-
main, sir, your obedient servant,
A FINANCIAL REFORMER AS WELL AS A
LOVER AND OBSERVER OF HISTORICAL
FACTS AND DATES.
April 8, 1867.

SUPPOSED SUICIDE ON THE LONDON AND
BRIGHTON RAILWAY.—A young man who, from docu-
ments found upon him, is supposed to bo named John
Barbiere, was on Sunday evening found lying much muti-
lated upon the down line of the Loudon and Brighton
Railway, near the Spa-road Station. He WAS removed to
Guy's Hospital, where he died in a short time. There is a
suspicion that he caused his MU death.

Cart .1* ;It

HER MAJESTY, do.

WINDSOR CASTLE, April 9.

The Queen drove out yesterday afternoon, ac-
companied by her Royal highness Princess Chris-
tian, and attended by Lady Churchill.
Her Majesty drove out this morning, attended by
the Lady in Waiting.
Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess
Christian went out driving.
Her Royal Ilighness Princess Louise walked in
the grounds, attended by the Hon. Emily Cathcart.
Princess Beatrice also walked out.
Prince Leopold and Prince Henry of Prussia
walked and drove, attended by Mr. Legg.
Princess Louise and Prince Leopold went to
Loudon last evening, and were present at the Phil-
harmonic Concert in Hanover-square.
Their royal highnesses afterwards returned to
Windsor Castle. Lady Caroline Barrington, Lord
Alfred Paget, and Mr. Sahl were in attendance.

Colonel the Hon. A. Liddell has succeeded Lieut.-
Col. W. 11. F. Cavendish as Groom in Waiting.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge,
Prince and Princess Teck, and suite honoured the per-
formances at the New Adelphi Theatre last evening.

DEATH OE THE COUNTESS (DOWAGER) OF RIPON.
—%Ve have to record the death of the Countess
(Dowager) of Ripon, who expired yesterday afternoon at
her villa at Putney-heath, after a very short illness. The
deceased countess was the only child of Robert, fourth
Earl of Buckinghamshire, by Margaretta, daughter and
co-heir of Mr. Edmund Bourke, of Urrey, and widow of
Mr. Thomas Adderley, of lnnishallon, county Cork. The
late countess was born 22d February, 1793, and married,
Ist September, 1814, the late Earl 'of Ripon, who died
in January, 1859, and by whom her ladyship leaves
surviving issue an only sou, the present Earl de Grey and
Ripon.