The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-15 00:00:00

satisfactory. Really these mockeries, imperial
though they be, serve only to bring the high ones
of the earth into merited contempt.

Mr. COLLIER has pledged himself—if no other
M.P. shall anticipate him in so doing—has formally

pledged himself to bring forward next session in
the House of Commons, upon the proposal for the
re-imposition of the Income-Tax, a specific proposi-
tion for an amendment in the shape of a resolution

:o the effect that a distinction shall henceforth be

made between incomes that are permanent and

,hose that are precarious.

It has often been

threatened. Let us hope that this time the gene-

roes intention may be actually realised. If an
amendment like that be forced upon the considera-
tion of the Committee of the whole House in
Supply —if this one beneficent resolution

be but adopted by a just and reason-
able majority of the popular representatives,
the sting will be taken from the Income-tax—the
one great and perpetual objection to its continuance
as a means of revenue will be removed—the grand-

est step of all will at once have been boldly taken
towards the substitution of direct for indirect taxa-

tion, towards the transformation of the Income-tax
into a tax that might be more correctly designated
a tax upon Property.

Than the present mode of levying the Income-tax
nothing could possibly be devised' more detestably
harsh and cruel in its injustice. Its cruelty and
its harshness are matter long since of flagrant no-
toriety. The tax as at present imposed admits
of no word of palliation, of justification, of extenua-
tion. Often as the injustice of the scheme of
imposition has been illustrated, it has perhaps
never yet been illustrated more vividly
and unanswerably than it was a few months back
by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Sheffield. In commenting upon this painful theme
Mr. ROEBUCK, upon the occasion we refer to, spoke
distinctly and avowedly in his capacity as a pro-
fessional man. He spoke from a poignant remem-
brance of his own bitter experience. Stricken
down himself by disease in mid-career, and doomed
to a long interval of severe suffering, during which

it would have been idle to dream of anything like
systematic and persistent attention to the duties of
his learned and laborious profession, Mr. ROEBUCK
had thus forced upon his attention a distressing
opportunity of appreciating the injustice of the
Income Tax, as at present imposed, inflexibly upon
all incomes alike without the shadow of a shade
of a distinction between those which are permanent
and those which are precarious.
A conference, insisting upon the cruelty and in-
justice ofthis uniform, and therefore most unequal,
mode of levying the Income-tax, was held (as will
have been observed doubtless by many through our
impression of yesterday), on Tuesday evening,
at the London Coffee House, by a small num-
ber of the members of the Property and Income-
tax Association. It was during the course of his
remarks, while presiding over this meeting, that
Mr. COLLIER formally pledged himself in the
manner we have elready specified. Thereupon fol-
lowed a discussion on the part of several of the
most conspicuous members among those assembled
—a discussion in every way curiously significant—

and one the peculiar drift of which may be the most
readily, as well as the most briefly and accurately,
indicated by our particularising one after another
three resolutions. Rather, perhaps, we should
say, the one resolution and the two amendments
submitted successively, the original resolution
and the first amendment unsuccessfully, the
third and last (being the second amendment) suc-
cessfully to the consideration of those assembled
together on Tuesday. The original resolution
then (ultimately withdrawn) ran in so many words
as follows : namely, " That this meeting is of
opinion that the present mode of charging one
uniform rate on all classes of income (except under
Schedule B), is manifestly unjust, and hereby
pledges itself, in anticipation of a proposal to re•
impose the tax, to endeavour to obtain such a re-
duction in the charges on trades and professions
that the amount chargeable thereon shall not
exceed one-half the amount levied on property,
especially as the amount charged on occupiers of
land (Schedule B), has been only half the amount
chargeable on the trading portion of the community
ever since the income-tax was first levied in
1842," Unacceptable in this form to the majority
of the meeting, there came next the first of the two
amendments in the manner following—i.e., "That
while it may be advisable, taking into account
the present enormous expenditure of the country,
to levy a property-tax as a permanent source of
revenue, the tax on precarious incomes derived
from trades and professions should not be reim-
posed except under circumstances of great emer-
gency, especially as such incomes are in most
cases essentially contingent upon the health of
the parties on whom the tax is chargeable, and
many other vicissitudes, to which property is not
liable." Rejected no less summarily than the
original resolution, this first amendment was
(hardly we should say upon second thoughts) almost
we might say, at the first blush, negatived. After
a little bewilderment that at one moment boded ill
for the passing of any resolution or amendment at all,
the ensuing amended resolution was eventually,
" with only one dissentient voice," carried, to the
effect—" That this meeting is of opinion that the
present mode of charging one uniform rate on all
classes of income (except under Schedule B) is
manifestly unjust, and hereby pledges itself, in
anticipation of a proposal to reimpose the tax, to
use the most strenuous exertions to secure its re-
adjustment upon the footing of a fair and just dis-
tinction between permanent and precarious in-
comes." Than which, all things considered, no
better resolution could have been proposed,
seconded, and carried under the circumstances.
But few Financial Reformers can have any reason-
able objection to make to it—but few will fail to
look with interest to the time when at the right
moment for his proposal in Committee in the House
of Commons, Mr. COLLIER shall redeem his pledge
o the Property and Income-tax Association.

The Norwich Town Council can hardly imagine I
that their repudiation of their duty will hush up
the whole of their notorious case. An investiga-
tion must be made into the whole business,
electoral and municipal. The latter is a clear
case. It is denied by no one that the Nor-
wich Tories fell into a trap, if trap they
will have it to be ; but had they not been
poaching for votes, lured by' the bait of eight
Tory aldermen dependent on a single vote, they
would not have fallen into the trap. It was, in-
deed, a trap of their own making. They had bribed
in the wards till one doubtful vote was all they
needed. They would give £5OO for it—and the
halves of three £lOO notes, and number of four L3O
mites were placed in the hands of the bribed.
Of this there is no manner of doubt. As little
doubt is there that the strongest suspicion has fallen
on two or three magistrates of Norwich, of being
mixed up, more or less, with this transaction ; cer-
tain it is that one of these magistrates, a highly rc-
spectablo man, declined to give evidence, because
it might tend to criminate himself; and that an-
other, if not more, were more or less directly