The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

434 with France and have in these times with France an alliance ; that we have married a Princess of England to a Prince of Prussia ; and that only a narrow channel crossed by a steamer in a couple of hours separates us from our neighbours—cir cumstances to which we owe our military, naval, and civil expenditure. These objections were severally stated by Sir CORNEWALL Lxwis in a speech unexpected, 'long, and prosy, and by Mr. BRIGHT in that forcible language and emphatic manner with which he is so remarkably gifted, and which so often to many makes the worse appear the better reason. Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS has advanced a proposition that we were certainly extremely surprised to hear maintained by a statesman and a financier in the year 1858. He contends that the maintenance, the present satisfaction indeed, of his Sinking Fund is a matter of more importance and an obligation more binding than the engagements undertaken by Parliament in respect of the In come-tax. The nation is bound, says Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS, to levy superabundant taxa tion—that is, a surplus of taxation over ordinary expenditure—so long as the War Loan of 1855 or any part of it remains unliquidated ; and, as the Income-tax is the only impost by which this surplus can be created, Parliament is debarred from abolishing or reducing it. Now, what were the conditions and pretences upon which the Income-tax was first created in the present century ? What were the grounds upon which it was asked for and accorded ? Upon what foundation, also, was the Sinking Fund established which Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS clings to with such paternal affection ? The origin and purpose of the Income-tax was perfectly set forth in the Resolution in which Mr. HERRIEq, in April, 18.51, raised the question of its continuance. That Resolution, pro pounded at a period when, as now, we had a rising revenue, stated that " the Income and " Property Tax and the Stamp Duties in Ireland " were granted for limited periods and to meet " temporary exigencies, and that it was expedient " to adhere to the declared intentions of Parlia " went, and in order to insure their speedy " cessation to limit the renewal of any portion of " those taxes to such an amount as may suffice " to provide for the expenditure sanctioned by " Parliament and for the maintenance of public " credit." That was a sound and, as has since been generally admitted, an incontrovertible re presentation of the character of the Income-tax. It had its origin in the maladministration of the Whig Government for the five years prior to 1840. It was proposed and maintained by Sir ROBERT PEEL expressly for special and tempo rary purposes, and its continuance in 1848 was only granted to Lord JOHN RUSSELL in con sideration "of the unparalleled difficulties of the crisis." This interpretation was afterwards not only acknowledged but acted upon by Mr. GLADSTONE ; and when Sir C. LEWIS, in 1855, instituted, as far as a bald Act of Parliament could institute it, his Sinking Fund, he did so in the face of an engagement entered into two years previously by Parliament that the Income -tax should fall to sd. in the present year. He had no right, therefore, to calculate upon any receipts from that impost beyond the amount which the sd. would create for the maintenance of his Sinking Fund. It is evident from the speech which he made upon propounding his scheme on the 20th of April, 1855, which want of space only prevents us from verbally quoting, that not only did he not calculate upon the Income-tax, but that, in fact, he had not any distinct idea, still less any positive knowledge, of the source from which his Sinking Fund was to be yearly supplied. It was proposed then simply as a sort of satisfaction to the popular financial fallacies of the hour, and it is insisted upon now solely with a view to putting a thorn in the side of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. There is nothing identical, there is nothing homogeneous in the grounds upon which the engagements to reduce the Income-tax and to liquidate the War Loan respectively rest. In policy, in equity, and in good faith Parliament is bound in the highest degree to postpone the latter to the former obligation ; and we rejoice that Mr. DISRAELI has had the sagacity to see the truth, and the firmness to stand by his decision. Mr. BRIGHT, representing a most persevering school of politicians, takes a widely different view of our present financial position, of its origin • TH E PRESS, MAY 8,.1858. and of its future treatment. Large expenditure is created, he says, by an erroneous foreign policy, which has rendered necessary the forma tion of large armies and powerful fleets. Repu diate all alliances, eschew all foreign relations except those which are purely trading; secure perfect political isolation, and you will have light taxation and abundant income. Be very civil to every one, but give neither advice nor aid, and you will go on your ways with prosperity and rejoicing, caring for nobody and nobody caring for you. A very charming state of things, but realizable only by means which we think Mr. BRIGHT and his friends would be the very first to kick against. Why, what must the first step be? Unquestionably, the abrogation of those trading and commercial relations which Mr. BRIGHT desires to maintain. For what purpose have we warred, from the time when first we had a foreign policy, but to preserve trade ? For what did we go to war with Russia ? For what were and are England and France, once tradi tional rivals and enemies, in that close alliance which Mr. BRIGHT denounces as the source of all expense? and why did they exercise in favour of Turkey that intervention which Mr. BRIGHT abhors as the origin of all evil ? For what but to keep from the grasp of Russia the commerce of the East, to preserve to England one of her best customers, to keep her from being shut out of the Black Sea, and to maintain those trading rela tions which Mr. BRIGIIT so highly values ? We are certainly not advocates for meddling, but it is absurd to imagine that a nation situated as we are geographically—within twenty miles of the Continent of Europe, mixed up in all our com mercial relations and our military transactions with every one of her nations ; connected by treaties and by marriages with most of her Empires and States—can isolate ourselves. Mr. BRIGHT surely forgets that the territory which is insulated by the seas that wash the shores of Great Britain proper, constitutes the smallest part of our empire. Surely, he forgets that with Prussia, with Belgium, and the States of Germany, we are united by blood; that with America we are united by community of origin and of language, and the closest connections in trade, and in commercial enterprise ; and that with France we are closely allied by unity of purpose and identity of policy. In the face of these facts it is foolish and mischievous to preach " isolation " as a means by which we are to at tain economy in expenditure or to give relief in taxation. A wise and temperate management of those foreign relations which we cannot avoid, and a careful abstinence from that propagandism which many of the supporters of Mr. BRIGHT have so often attempted to force upon us at the suggestion of foreign agitators, is far more likely to bring to piss the results which Mr. BRIGHT desires ; and to induce among our neighbours a re duction of armaments by diminishing their ap prehensions of political disturbances. "BIT BY BIT" REFORM. IN the great struggle of 1831-2, Lord BROUGHAM produced great effect by denouncing all projects of "bit by bit Reform ;" and other persons be sides the Liberals echoed the wish that if Reform was to take place it should be finished and made an end of so as to save the State from the risk of perpetual meddling and constant altera tion. The Liberals now-a-days have changed their course, and each section of them is bent on some particular scheme. One wants to lower the county franchise, and another is enthusiastic about secret voting. Others desire to recast the Parliamentary system, and have new electoral districts. To such a mode of action every sound Conservative should be opposed. Re form, if attempted, must be dealt with as " a whole," for our Constitution cannot afford a series of perpetual alterations. In order to do things well in politics the public mind must be concentrated on them ; but popular attention is frittered away by trying to fix it year after year on detached measures. It is not an English course of conduct to be perpetually changing. " Make a change after due delibera " tion, if it is forced upon you, and then adhere " to it," is a sound rule in most things. The difficulties of the Liberals on this question of " Reform" are immense. Lord Jonx RUSSEL! first adhered to, and then broke through the implied compact which existed since the time the First Reformed Parliament, when the Con. servatives frankly accepted the new state things, and relied confidently on the good sense and reasonableness of the people at large. But on this question of " Reform " the Liberals are all at sixes-and-sevens. One of the shrewdest and most independent Members of the House Commons observed, not long since, " Reform "to the Liberals what Protection used to be " the Conservatives ten years ago. It gilt( " them a rallying cry, but it will make their " official position very difficult, if not untenable.' The Liberals, however, are bent on using " Re form," and squeezing it a little further—with what advantage, tune will show. In the meanwhile let us observe what occurred this week in Parliament. Mr. CAiRn brought forward a motion on Thursday night for the assi milation of the English and Scotch County Franchises. The plan was rejected, and very properly. The Conservatives of the towns in Scotland are completely swamped in the present system, and if Mr. CAIRD's proposition was car ried, the balance against the Conservatives would be still further depressed. To all such " bit by bit " propositions we say, that Reform must be dealt with as a whole. We must know the terms which our political system is bound together We do not want to be taking down the stairs the spring, altering the dining-room in the sum• mer, and then changing all the chimneys in the winter, besides going to the expense of a new portico before the hall-door, when we know that in a year or two we are certain to have a new roof, besides new wings to the edifice, and - additional supply of plate-glass windows. Let , have the architect, with his bricks, and mortar, and scaffolding, and then let us make a good piece of work, and have done with it, and live comfortably in the old house improved. There is little doubt that the country is indifferent about Reform. People think that the public will can be abundantly manifested under the present system ; they do not deny that it can be im. proved, but they manage to get on very well it is. Such is the feeling of numbers about "Reform." Mr. EDWARD Ewes. spoke the other day about "the difficulty of carrying out " any reform now-a-days," and stated also that " the House of Commons, apathetic as it way, " was in advance of the feelings of the country.' Significant words from such a quarter ; but we do not forget that in 1827 and 1828 there was great " apathy "on " Reform." What helped ' excite the feeling so powerfully in 1830 and subsequent periods was, that a great portion the Conservative classes had been disgusted the conduct of the Wellington Cabinet in 1829 and the arbitrary way in which the Ministry that time dealt with Parliament, convinced numbers that the time had come when Reform should take place. A large portion of the Protestant interest became temporarily detached from the Conservatives ; and we cannot forget the that afterwards, by means of "Reform," Church was endangered, until the Conservative reaction decisively vindicated the cause of Pro testantism and the Constitution. But, although the Constitution is safe, yet grievous injustice has been done to the Conser vatives in the working of the Parliamentary system ; and it is probable that if the subject " Reform" is fairly brought before the Legis lature, some more favourable adjustment may take place. Hence sonic of the Liberals are disinclined to have the cry of " R eform revived, while others would wish to have the " bit by bit" system—that is to say, a plan action for using the Radical pickaxe and shovel so incessantly that the foundation walls would be undermined gradually, while an appearauce of safety would be preserved. Let Reform honestly proposed, and Conservatives will kno‘ how to deal with it ; but they dislike the pro posal of " bit by bit" Reform, which would keep the public mind in a constant state of uncertainty and detract attention from the social measure ( improvement demanded by the intelligence the age. on LL he of ro- of Ise tut ire est of t is to ves eir e." te- hat red ght ssi- nty tad vns ent ar- uld ealt on ter. 3 un- the tew hat tew an ;us tar, ood ive ent ?rill ent un- as out the mit hat vas, we was to in of by 29 ; of ced rrm the hed get the Live 'ro- yet ter- ary t of ent rats m" the of Ivel uld rice be OW TO- ty. of of