The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-15 00:00:00

PEEL'S NEW TAXES.

A Northern Correspondent informs us that the news
of Sir Robert Peel's scheme of additional taxation, has
been received on the Tyne and the Wear by men of all
parties, Whig, Tory, and Radical, with astonish-
ment and indignation. The income tax, which is
to send a legal inquisitor into the very heart of
every man's business, will be evaded by all the
" ingenious devices " that so hateful a measure
can call into action. It is felt to be monstrous to lay
an equal tax on the comfortable owner of real property,
worth, say 2001. per ,annum, and on the shopkeeper
and merchant's clerk, who have but the same income,
and that precarious, wherewith to keep up a decent
appearance in society, and make provision for
the wants of old age, and it may be, for the future de-
mands of their children. The shipowners are uttering
curses loud and deep against the author of the
proposed tax on export coal. Already cramped
in the field of enterprise, and pushed to the
verge of destruction by our abominable Corn-laws,
they look with utter dismay on this last blow to their
expiring interests. Were our gracious Queen to dis-
solve Parliament, the duped manufacturer, the cheated
shipowner, and the " humbugged" farmer, would com-
bine to return a House of Commons very different from
the present one. Those that cried out against the rule
of the Whip, as the reign of King Log, are now feeling
the tender mercies of the Tory King Stork. They are
rightly served for placing him where he is.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

PROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—While we think the financial scheme of the
Government open to such objectitms as we have
stated elsewhere, and may put forward more fully on
future occasions, we cannot subscribe to some of the
strictures of the Times (while it professes, on the
whole, concurrence with the policy of the measure)
and of the Chronicle. The latter compares it to Mr.
Addington's Property Tax; and says, " Those who ex-
perienced the Property tax can testify at once to the
justice, as well as the universality, of this feeling
[against it.] " The tax was odious, because it was
direct. Direct taxes are always those which the sub-
ject pays most unwillingly; because the whole amount
is taken from him by the tax-gatherer at once, and with-
out disguise; and the people of England entertain this
objection to direct taxation itiore strongly than those of
any other country, because they have been the least accus-
tomed to it." The Chronicle, however, had stated that the
:people contributed, without murmunnina, not much less than
15,000,000/. a year under this tax. This is admitting
too much in its favour, in extraordinary public emer-
gencies, to allow. of summarily condemning it, on ac-
count of the odiousness of direct taxation. Its sanc-
tion, or condemnation, must depend on the neces-
sity of the case ; and'such, on the Chronicle's showing,
was the public feeling, while it was necessary. There
can be no doubt of the ordinary feeling against direct
taxation ; the question is, in a case of emergency,
whether the force of that feeling, or the care for public
credit, and for the public service, has the predominance.
Whenever there is a clear case of necessity, the public
have shown themselves willing to submit to a much
larger amount of direct taxation than is now called for,
and one of much more unmitigated incidence on men of
small means. We repeat what we said on Saturday, that
our final judgment of the Government plan must depend,
not on its general principle of direct taxation, but on the
manner in which that mode of taxation is applied in the
present instance. There may be good reasons for con-
demning an income tax, to which a property tax would
not he liable.
STANDARD.—No taxes—we may generalise the
proposition—no payments are in the abstract objects of
love, but men reconcile themselves to rent and rates aaue-
cessary evils,, and habit will reconcile them as easily to
an income tax; The tax has been heretofore unpopular,
chiefly because it was unusual ; and not without reason,
for a payment for which men have made no pro-
vision in arranging their affairs and adjusting their
style of living, must be more or less oppressive.
beyond the actual amount paid. Usage and reason will,
however, at length reconcile all men who are not entirely
selfish to that form of taxation which, if not perfectly
just, is the most just that the mind can conceive, and
which is absolutely the most economical and efficient.
We have already avowed that we value Sir Peel's pro-
position 'chiefly as the auspicious opening of a rational
and just system of finance. We find that we. have
not allowed ourselves room to take up Lord John
Russell's objection to the parallel of 1797-1798 with 1842.
Rut putting out of the question the mutiny at the Nore,'
which could not affect the financial question in one way
or the other, AS it cost nothing to suppress it, we con-
tend that the British empire demands far larger
provisions for its defence now than it required at
the epochs referred to. Look to 1798, when you had
all the military division of Europe, that is, Prussia,
Austria, and Russia; if not actually leagued with
you, anxiously wishing for your safety and success—
France, your only enemy, betrayed into bankruptcy
And torn by anarchy. True, enough was not done in
1797, 1795, to make advantage 'of these circum-
stances, und, therefore, a worse state of affairs fol-
lowed. Compare this state of affairs with the pre-
sent. Look to rraned, firm and consolidated—look to
the feelings and policy of Russia—look to the United
States—look to your wars in Asia—and to the state not
less to be regarded than a state of actual rebellion in
which the 'Whig-Radicals left Ireland—look to these
things. and then say that our present condition does not
' require as ample preparation and as " wary walking" as
1797 or 1798.

LORD ABERDEEN and M. GUIZOT.
The following is M. Gdzot's speech in the debate on the
secret funds :

M. Guizot began by %iv ing he would not open a debate
upon questions already treated of and exhausted. The Cham-
ber was nst a place for idle chat about public affairs. He never
refused discussion, when it was required, or the subject new.
lint every orator had already had the opportunity of speaking
on every subject, and there was 110 use in renewing debates on
these. He would reestablish the truth respecting one circum-
stance, viz., the exequatur of foreign Consuls residing at Al-
giers. It was the custom in changes of Government for Con-

sills to continue to act by virtue of the exequatur obtained un-
der the old Government. This rule has been observed at
Algiers, not only with regard to the British, but other
Consuls. The English Consul was in Algiers previous to
I S3O, and the post not having since become vacant, there
has been no ground for the renewal of the exequatur
which he bad already received. This Consul having de-
manded for a Vice-Consul the right of installing him-
self in another part of our territory, he was informed
that, in order to obtain his right, a new exequatur was requi-
site. The exequatur was not applied for—( Ah, a',, flora the
left)—but the translation which' was requested has not taken
place, and it will not be permitted until the exequatur shall
have been applied for and granted. I will add, that when the
' post of the English Consul at Algiers shall become vacant, the
new Consul will be compelled to apply for the exequatur; but,
until then, there will be no motive for renewing tho exequatur
of the English Consul in our colony. I have now to allude to
the subject of the despatch relative to our conquest in Algeria,
which I communicated some time since to the Chamber. In
the first place I mast be allowed to rectify an asaertion which is
completely false. It is not true that it ever entered into my
mind to ask for, or that the French Ambassador in London
ever said a word which could justify such a supposition, the
adhesion of England on the subject of our conquest. It is not
tree that I, at any period, or under any circumstances, would
even permit any step which could admit the right on the part of
England of raising a difficulty on this question.
M. Durand here observed that he had not said anything of
this kind.

M. Guizot—lt has been said, however, that we applied for
the approbation of England on the subject of our possessions
in Africa. I deny the fact. The real slate of things is as fol-
Liws :—ln a conversation with the French Ambassador, Lord
Aberdeen said spontaneously, that in 1830, he had made,
against our occupation of Algeria. protests and lively inces-
sant remonstrances, but now he did not resume that position,
that his attitude was different, that ten years' posses.,ion was in
his ekes a serious circumstance, an event accomplished, and
that on this subject he had not objections or observations to
make. The different between the two words does not seem
to me important (me touehe peu). 'this conversation was not
provoked. The words were spontaneous. What, thinks Lord
Aberdeen, was the sanction of time, the conquest becoming pro-
gressively a fait accamplt? Lord Aberdeen spoke simply and
sensibly. The fact. was simple and evident, and need not give
rise to such a discussion. Ten years ago, I was the first to
say, " France has conquered Algeria, and will keep her con-
quest." Every one now repeats these words. But let us not be
astonished that time WAS necessary to bring things to this pass.
thorna
Conquestssamocutsitoobe a
oconsolidated h
obryi
tyt.i me.T eT
words ealoonfe gives
Aberdeen were nithing else than a recognition of the sanction
sgiteinenprof
good part,
timeword words of
ourpeace, A lgaebrainnd abandoning old
; words
old cavils of
ten years back. These expressions, spontaneously given, were
correctly transmitted by the Kings ambassador in London.