The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-09 00:00:00

*trontiMbttion

SUN OFFICE Three o'Cloch.

If the authors of the Income-tax wish to re-
tain that impost for three years, and force the
people to submit with some degree of patience to
its inquisitorial exactions, they must keep a
watchful eye on the functionaries appointed to
carry it into effect. At Brighton, and
some other places, the Commissioners
have performed their disagreeable labours
with discretion and lenity, and refrained
from extreme measures, except in cases
which left no other alternative. It would appear,
however, that the City Commissioners do not
follow these good examples, if we may judge
from the following statement communicated to
a Contemporary. "lam acommercial traveller,"
says the writer, " my salary is 1401. per annum,
and, being assessed at 1501., I appealed to the
Commissioners in Basing-hall-street. After
answering questions as to my name and salary,
I was told I was fortunate in not being charged
more, and on endeavouring to expostulate
upon what I considered an act of injustice, I
was told no remarks were allowed there.'"
Treatment like this cannot be too much repro-
bated. Judging from expressions which fell from
Sir ROBERT PEEL on introducing the Bill, it
never was his intention to enforce it with such
severity and injustice upon any class, and least
of all upon those who have barely the means
of subsistence. If instances of this kind
are numerous, the Government will find the
public voice too powerffil for them, and be com-
pelled to re move agents who thuscompromise their
measures, and wantonly excite the people to dis-
obey the law. Were it not for the hardship inflicted
on individuals, we. should rejoice to see all the
Commissioners act in this manner, as such inso-
lent conduct would raise general indignation,
and possibly also general resistance to the
obnoxious tax. If the Correspondent who
complains of this treatment, has stated the
case correctly, he is not bound to pay the
tax ; and if he had the means to resist
it in a Court of Law, a Jury of his countrymen
would do him justice. But a commercial tra-
veller, with such a limited income, cannot afford
the means, and besides the disclosure which must
follow such a course, might do him more injury
than he could suffer by paying the tax. This is
only one of the numerous evils attending- this
grievous impost. We would therefore recom-
mend the sufferer, if he finds no other
remedy, to appeal at once to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer; and if that functionary also tells
him " no remarks are allowed," let him appeal
to the public through the Press. One well
authenticated instance of oppression, like this,
would soon bring iforth ialny others, and excite
general sympathy.

We alluded yesterday to a motion which was
made at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation on
Tuesday, to the effect that " the members of this
Council, in congratulating themselves and the
public on an end being put to the horrors of war
in India and China, beg to render the thanks of
this assembly to Lord SALTOUN, Generals Sir
HUGH GouGH, NOTT, and POLLOCK, Sir ROBT.
SALE, Sir HENRY POTTINGER, Unlit. CUDDY,
and Lady SALE, by whose exertions it is hoped
the commerce of these countries will be greatly
increased, and by whom the blessings of
peace have been mainly accomplished; and
that the Town-clerk be directed to convey the
same to these distinguished individuals."
In alluding to this motion, we expressed a confi-
dent hope that " common sense and national
gratitude would prevail," and that it would be
carried by a triumphant majority. We took for
granted that Irishmen, like Scotchmen, would
kel a generous pride in the successes of their coun-
trymen in the East, and that their nationality
would prevail over all petty party consi-
derations. We thought that their hearts
would warm at the mention of such names as
POTTINGER, GOUGH, and KEANE; and that
whether Whigs or Tories, Protestants or
Catholics, Repealers, or Non-Repealers, the
members of the Corporation would vie, each
with the other, in expressing their sense of the
skill, valour, and perseverance of their country-
men. But we were mistaken, it seems. The
motion, instead of being carried, was rejected,
and Irishmen alone have proved that they are
insensible to the merits of Irishmen. What, in
the name of common sense, can be the meaning
of such conduct? What object do the
Dublin Corporators propose to serve by it ?
Are they jealous of the military renown
of their countrymen ? Do they imagine that
members of their own body should have been
selected to crush AKBAR KHAN, and bring the
Imperial NV-HANG-TO and his pig-tailed sub-
jects to their senses? We protest we are ut-
terly in the dark as to the cause of the churlish
behaviourof the Dublin Corporation; and as Irish
logic is apt at times to he very perplexing, we
doubt much whether we should have been enlight-
ened, even had we been present at the discussion.
Since writing the above passage we have seen
the Dublin Pilot, and are no longer at a loss to
account for the conduct of the Dublin municipa-
lity. Our Contemporary is quite in extacies at
the rejection of the vote of thanks, and sets no
bounds to his praises of the Corporation. Ac-
cording to him, it has evinced a wonderful degree
of " spirit; and nationality in having refused to
throw up ito cap, and shout for England." He adds,
there exiots no identity of interests between
Ireland and . the sister country. • Not only none,
but even less than none ! It is not Ireland's in-
terest that England should prosper; England's
prosperity, it has been well insisted, is Ireland's
adversity. Are we then to rejoice in our own
misfortune?" The bitter, malignant spirit of
this passage need not be pointed out. It must
be obvious to the most obtuse capacity. We
are glad, however, that the Repealers are
at length exhibiting. themselves in their
true colours; and commend their frankness,
even while we indignantly denounce the
malevolent spirit by which they are influ-
enced. We may well have been puzzled to ac-

count for the doings of the Dublin Corporation,
for we never should have imagined that a mean
rancorous hatred of England was atthe bottom of

theirstrange proceedinis. So, the polieyofthe Irish
Repealers is to take every opportunity of sowing

dissension between the two countries, and teach

one to hate the other with all the malice of a

fiend.

'Tis well, and furnishes us with anotkei

incontrovertible argument against their crazy
project, Repeal. What, permit Ireland to have
a legislation distinct from England—lreland,
whose Repealers boldly and frankly tell us that
they hate us, as the devil hates holy water?
We should be the veriest set of fools

. _
in Christendom even to dream of such aAthing I