The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-19 00:00:00

gti .Snit.

LONDON
TUESDAY MORNING. APRIL 19, 1842.

The House of Commons last night agreed, by a majo-
rity of 97, the numbers being 285 and 188, to give a first
reading to the Income-tax Bill. Lord J. P trssELL opposed
the measure, and Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. Fox MAITLE, Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE, in an excellent speech, the details of which
we recommend to our readers' consideration, and Mr.
COBDEN, took the same side; but we regret to say that
other gentlemen, sitting opposite to Sir ROBERT PEEL,
both spoke, and said they would vote, in favour of
his measure. Scarcely content with giving their reasons
for thus being parties to inflicting an intolerable grievance
bn their constituents, two of them, Mr. RAIKES CURRIE
and Mr. ROEBUCK, pronounced, each envying, perhaps,
the eloquence of the other, a warm panegyric on the
measure and character of Sir ROBERT PEEL. His
conduct was described as straightforward, manly,
honest, bold, and suited to the exigencies of the
country. It is unpleasant not to share in
.such
admiration ; but, differing entirely from Mr. ROE-
BUCK and Mr. RAIKES CURRIE, we must repeat our opi-
nion, that a more Machiavellian course—a course more
certainly intended to obtain an end, which Sir H. PEEL
himself dare not avow, an end which it was the burden

of Mr. ROEBUCK'S speech to condemn, the preservation
of his own power, by sowing sordid divisions
amongst the people—a more Machiavellian course
than that of Sir Hoarder PEEL never fell under our
notice. Differing entirely from Mr. lloEnucx in his
appreciation of Sir RommT PEEL'S conduct—for
barefaced impudence does not impose on us for courago—
we differ entirely also from the conclusions to which
Mr. IloEttucx came. We inquire not into his motives
—for his conduct he must answer to his constituents; but
we shall state one or two objections to his reasoning.

It is Mr. ROEBUCK'S opinion, and in this we
agree, that the Government is too extravagant,
and that its extravagance is a great injury to
the community. Moreover, Mr. ROEBUCK agrees
with us in condemning the present constitution of the
House of Commons. Sir R. PEEL approves of this, and
demands more money. To two fundamental artieles
of Mr. ROEBUCK'S political creed'Sir R. PEEL is de-
cidedly opposed ; yet Mr. ROEBUCK votes with the
Right Hon. Baronet, and says that his scheme of
policy is suited to the exigencies of the country. We
cannot comprehend that, and it seems to us either that
Mr. ROEBUCK is ignorant of 'the force of his ow•n pro-
positions, or he is insincere in urging them.

Again, being an avowed economist and arguing
strongly in favour of retrenchment, knowing, as he
must, that no Government ever retrenches that can help
it, he voted to place in the hands of the Government a
new tax, amounting at least to 3,700,0002 We cannot
understand the logic of Mr. RoEnucx's argument and
his vote. Mr. ROEBUCK is a popular champion, and he
arms ;he Government with new and extensive powers.
Sir R. PEEL, by his new scheme of taxation, proposes to
levy 600,000/. more from the people than he wants.
In fact, including the income, he will derive from the
alterations in the tariff, and from not losing the timber
duties for more than half the year, he will levy nearly
1,000,000/. more than he wants; yet for this increased
and unnecessary burden on the people did the economy-
loving and freedom-loving Mr. ROEBUCK vote.
Mr. ROEBUCK pleaded, that the constituencies had
formed a bad House of Commons, and heseemed pleased,
rather than otherwise, that the constituencies should feel
the goad of an Income-tax. But the electors of Bath
did not send him to Parliament to vote for such a tax.
If it be proper to punish in that manner the electors of
Liverpool, who returned Lord SANDON and Mr. CRESS_
WELL, the electors of Bath, who erected Lord DUNCAN
and Mr. ROEBUCK, do not- deserve such a visitation.
Their own Member, however, has voted to inflict an
Income-tax on them.

We agree as little with Mr. ROEBUCK'S political
economy, as with his policy. That he did not vote for
Lord Joux RUSSELL'S resolution, we could justify ; but