The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-09 00:00:00

*tronbiWbition

SUN OFFICE, Three o'clock

The more the question of an income tax is debated
n Parliament, and discussed out of doors, the more the
people of England must detest and abhor it. Well did
Mr. SHIEL describe it in his eloquent speech last night
in the House of Commons, when he said that it was a
tax which the Tories themselves had admitted was un-
just, " inasmuch as it pressed lightly upon the affluent,
but fell with withering effect upon the industrious classes
—which established an inquisition into the circumstances
of every person in this country, almost as abhorrent as the
religious inquisition of Spain in the palmy days of the
auto da fe brotherhood of Sr. DONlNlC—which, by the
imposition of oaths, turned the Gospel itself into an im-
plement of taxation—which held out a premium to false-
hood, and inflicted a penalty upon truth—a tax, from
which honesty could not escape, and in which fraud
could not be caught—which held out a direct in-
ducement to perjury, and was therefore of all im-
posts the most immoral—which most vulgarized the
fe,2lings—which •was most 'abhorrent to the reli-
gious sentiments—and the most revolting to the
moral sense of the English people." Never was there
better description of this tax than is embodied in this
extract from the speech of the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman. No tax ever was proposed more obnoxious
to the genius of the British people, and should it be car-
ried in the shape in which it is now proposed, it will
seal the doom of the Tory. Cabinet. We well know that
Sir R. PEEL intends that it shall be perpetual. Upon
this point it is important that the country should be
correctly informed. But will the nation tolerate it ? It
will not, and could not, even if it would; for its opera-
tion would inevitably have the effect of deranging and
ruining the commercial credit, and consequently the
trade of Great Britain. It is proposed as a temporary
measure—it is intended to be a permanent one. As was
well observed by Lord J. RUSSELL is the debate last
night, once the tax is on, the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER will be in no hurry to take it off." " The
Tax," said the Noble Lord, " is certain for three years
—it is probable for five years—and it is probable for
five or ten years after that." The Noble Lord might
with great truth have added, that instead of being
probable for twenty years, Sir ROBERT PEEL would,
with the utmost self-complacency and self-assurance,
take a loan upon it for three hundred years. For the
very reasons for which it is so unequal,
so partially oppressive, so unjust, and so inquisitorial, is it
intended to be permanent. In vain did Mr. SHIEL array
the good sense of the toil-nurtured Sir ROBERT PEEL, the
father, against the aristocracy-patted, arrogant quackery
of Sir ROBERT I'EEL, the son, with a view to expose
the fallacy that the poor were benefited by an in-
come tax. The wisdom of his ancestor was folly in
the eyes of the' Tory Premier. He rather appeared
to resent the gathering wisdom from a family tree, of
which the stem was so very green. The speeches of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. SHIEL made, never-
Cieless, a very strong impression upon the House—
so much so, indeed, that Sir ROBERT obtained a hearing
with the utmost difficulty, and was listened to with
much impatience even by his friends. In vain
did he appeal to the agriculturists, by assur-
ing them that his tariff would not injure
them —by attempting to prove to them that
before reducing the duty on beef, there was no beef for
importation—and that, in fact, he had been humbugging
the mercantile and trading classes. They evidently had
taken fright at the true picture of the income tax drawn
by Mr. SHIEL.

But if, without any actual necessity for so tyrannical
and inquisitorial a measure, the country must suc-
c.unb for the present to the Tory yoke of an income
tax, let the amendment proposed by Sir R. INouts,
and which we were the first to suggest, be adopted. In
order that the tax may operate with some degree of
fairness upon struggling men, with incomes varying from
1501. to 5001. a year, let only the surplus over 1501. be
taxed. At whatever sum the tax commences, it ought
only to fall upon the surplus over and above that sum.
The injustice of_ taxing an income of 1511. a year, de-
rived from manual toil, and earned for the support of
a helpless young family, at the same rate as an in-
come of 10,0001. from land ; and relieving from taxa•
tion altogether an income from the same source of 149/.
for the-maintenance of an indivinual, is so monstrous
that all common sense and right feeling revolts at it.
Here it is that the sliding-scale is required, and not in
the Corn Bill. But if we cannot obtain the sliding-
scale, let us insist that only the surplus revenue over the
150/. a-year shall be subject to this mDst tyrannical
impost.