The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-16 00:00:00

tqlg a§ara,

LONDON
MONDAY MORNING, MAY 16, 1842.

In common with many others, we have felt much
surprise at the little opposition the Income-tax has
encountered out of doors. However that may be ex-
plained, it certainly is a fact, that less real opposition
has been given by 'the public to this imposition than
is given to the proposed alteration of the duties on
coals and -timber, Aware of that fact, we have not
considered it our duty to dwell on an imposition to
which those whom it affectS, are inclined to submit.
Whe,l the whole is looked on with so much
epar*lll.Fts of it, howeverglaKing- may be
kt few cases of individual injustice, cease to be proper
objects of public discussion. It was of no use, therefore,
and is no w ofno use to say anything moreof the gross inc•
qualities of the measure. As S'Ar R. PEEL brought it into
the !Louse, so it will become the law of the land. Never,
pe..haps, was so large and bold a measure passed with
les; opposition, and never was the opposition antici-

pitted so much overrated.
In looking about for the causes of this, it seems to
us that the principal one is that the tax falls mainly
on those who are much interested, or suppose them-
selves interested in the maintenance of the Govern-
ment. They know that the revenue is deficient.
They believe that, unless the revenue be increased,
the Government will probably be unable to fulfill
those duties which they. expect, of it ; and hence
they all-milt, with tinexampied patknce, to an im-
position to. which our ancestors, who depended
less on the Goverenient, and cared much,
le s-, to uphold it, vcoulil have spnracd. It is a tribute
th'..-;y willingly pay to maintain and preserve the
inirtr.nent from which they expect protection. • With
the ChartiA daily; fresh in our recollee

tion, and the

reiitance made by the House of Commons even to
112oring, these claims, we cannot doubt for one mo-
ment, that the opulent classes unhappily now dread
the lower cli,sses, and they accept the Income-tax as
a means of ena'aling the Government to protect them
against their poorer fellow-subjects.

Sir Rota= PEEL has shown his cleverness for his
own immediate purpose, by limiting the tax to in-
comes of less than 1501. a-year. That cuts off an
immense portion of the public from contributing to it,
and leaves the number of complainants too small, scat-
tered as they are through the community, and
having, as many of them have, a direct and fin-
mediate interest in upholding the Government, to
make impression en the public. In a debate
on the I.2th ult., Colonel WOOD estimated the whole
number of persons who would contribute to the tax
at only :200,000. That was probably an under esti-
mate, hut that number of persons, paying an average
of 201. a year each on their income, would yield Sir
R08ER7.7 P. Er, the full amount of his tax. If we
double the number, and suppose that 400,000 persons
contribute, an average tax of 101. levied on each
would g;ve Sir ROBERT PEEL 4,000,0001. Every
income of something less than 350/. will pay 10/.
a-year, winence we may infer, that in this great,
rich, and powerful country, there are not more than
400,000 persons, according to Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
calculations, with average incomes of 3501. a-year.
Some few thousand persons will contribute a much
larger sum than 101., a still larger number will con-
tribute something more than 10/., and a consider-
able number will be taxed—all who have incomes
between 150/. and 3501.—at less than • 10/. a-year.
But the notorious fact, that there are many persons
with incomes of 1,000/., 2,000/., 3,000/., 4,000/.,
5,000/. a,vear, and even greater sums, while Sir
R. PEEL expects to obtain less than 4,000,000/. from
taxing all incomes above 150/. at sevenpence in the
pound, demonstrates, that the number of persons who
will contribute to the tax will be only a small
section of the community. Whether we adopt
Colonel WooD's calculation of 200,000 persons, or
seek to infer the number of contributors from Sir
ROBERT PEEL'S estimate of the account of the tax,
we are equally surprised at the small number sup-
posed by him to be directly interested in the support
of the present order of things, and able and willing to
contribute to uphold it by submitting to additional
burdens. In such a comparatively small number, all
of.the educated classes too, there are no materials for
a demagogue to work with, and hence the little
clamour against passing the tax, and hence the little
opposition it has encountered out of doors.
The small number of persons on whom the tax falls
suggests. another remark. It taxes, exclusively, a
few rich. This is what levellers, in all ages, have
&mantled. This is what Lord BROUGHAM, and se-
veral other speakers and writers, vehemently con-
demned when it was proposed to levy an increasing
per tentage on incomes as they increase in amount.
Sir R. PEEL'S Income-tax, levied' on a few per-
sons, iss-a practical commencement here in England of
that system of equalising incomes, or levelling pro-
peep, which has been so much blamed abroad. At pre-

ant it is confined to all incomes above 1501., but if the
nan, with a less income than 150/., should not contri-
' rate at ail, surely he who has 1511. should not 'pay as
Arich as the man who has 30,0001. a year.
'.l.' he principle applied in Sir R. PEEL'S exemption
carried out, and the. Tory Premier, who has
Val i by his speeches such a vast impulse to free
ti:att a, will give a still stronger
.impetus, by his acts to:,
tite • practical application in England of the levelling
doc•;:rines which have heretofore been practised in a
nei4hbouring country. Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR
congratulated the Chartists on Sir R. PEEL'S Income-
as the entrance of
.the small end of the wedge,
r d Mr. O'CONNOR seems to have had reason for his
ex)ngratr:lation. Probably Sir R. PEEL supposes
that, having set the ball in motion, he will be able to
tthp it when and Where he pleases. He will he mis-
'taken. His scheme of exclusively taxing the rich
L'ils in too harmoniously with popular prejudices, not
j co derive from them accelerated power, which will
Icarry it away from his control.

Sir ROBERT PEEL stands, according to his own
friends, in a very curious position. He has avowed
that the principles of free trade cannot be disputed.
At the same time he is opposed to the free-traders as a
political party, and he is supported by those who hate
free trade, only because they cannot find, it is said,
'ln anti-free-trader who would undertake to lead any
party. The Prime Minister, then, who is a free-
trader, carries on the Government by means of
a party opposed to free trade. But this is not
the greatest singularity of the case. Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S Corn-law and his short-coming tariff are
both in opposition to his own professed princi-
T:les, and they are adopted out of deference to
the political party which supports him. He advocate:,
buying at the cheapest market, and his measures pre-
sent this remarkable singularity : They do not ac-
cord with the principles of his opponents ; they dit not
agree with the principles of his own supporters ; and
they do not accord with his own professed princi-
ples. They are founded on mere political temporary
convenience. They are a compromise of opinions
between Sir ROBERT PEEL and his friends. They
are based on none of the great interests or wants of
society, and are not framed with any view to its
future condition. Can such laws be permanent".?
Why, a little shifting of parties, would make the free-
trade Premier as ready to repeal them to-morrow,
as he is to-day to pass them. • Legislation founded on
such a basis, is a disgrace to the Legislature. The
nation cannot and will not long endure it.

A well-informed Journalist says, that the Report
of the Commissioners on Mines will appear to the
public like a romance. It obviously makes him ac-
quainted with a feature in society he had before little
or no knowledge of. But he who has been for some
years writing on public affairs is an extremely well
informed man, and when such 13,as his ignorance,
what must be the ignorance of the bulk of the Mem-
bets of both Houses who have again and again made
laws affecting these people. For example all duties
on coals affect them as well as all duties on provisions.
Even now the Legislature is about to make a law
imposing a 4s. duty on coals exported, which will
probably reduce their earnings, A house carpenter
who set to work to make a roof, knowing nothing of
the wood he had to work with, or the tools he was to
use, would not be likely to end in making a good job.
If a smith knew nothing of the properties of iron he
could not very well shoe a horse, and if he had not
some smattering of chemical knowledge, as applied to
his profession, he would be called a very ignorant
fellow. It seems, however, that we have public
writers advocating great systems of national policy,
awl legislators carrying them into effect, who are far
more ignorant of the society they deal with than any
carpenter or any smith is of wood and iron. If igno-
rant artizans make bungling work, can it be otherwise
with law-makers. We think not, and we apprehend
that the present condition of England testifies that
those who have made our laws have never been sur•
passed in bungling by any apprentice that ever took a
tool in hand.

THE CORN-LAWS.—A preliminary meeting was held
an Friday evening last, at the George the Fourth Ta-
varn, NeW North-road, Islington, for the purpose of
farming an Anti-Corn-law Association in the district, to
co-operate with the Metropolitan and Islington Associa-
tions, to procure a total abolition of the obnoxious and
oppressive " Bread-tax." It was attended by Mr. Burts,
Mr. Gregg, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Glover, and other gelid-
men, and after an animated discussion it was agreed to
hold another meeting in the same place on Friday next,
to Carry'int6 execution the intention of forming an Anti-
Corn-law Association.