The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

THE INCOME TAX•

WE conceive that Lord DERBY, in his masterly
exposition of policy on Tuesday, has justly
stated the leading requirements of the public
at the present time. " The financial state-
" went which may be made this year," said the
Noble Earl, " must involve in its conside-
" ration, in its discussion, and in its cense-
" quences, not merely the provision for a
" single year, but a well-considered and ma-
" turgid plan of finance upon which tho country
"is hereafter to rely." The Government have
had one clear year after the conclusion of
peace to reduce those extraordinary ex-
penses into which the war plunged us, and
to place our military and naval establishments
on a sound, permanent, and efficient footing.
If the estimates much exceed those of the
years previous to 185-1, it is morally certain
that they will not be upheld in future. Peace
establishments may for a year or two be
delayed, and an enormous sum be squandered
in postponing that settled system to which we
must come in the end. But the result of such
policy will be rather to diminish the efficiency
of our establishments than to increase them, as
the ultimate reductions may be made to fall
rather on the efficient than the non-efficient
portion of those establishments. We shall
have officers without men, and stores and
material which, when the day of conflict
arrives, will be found useless from lapse of
time and the progress of improvement.
The unanimity of sentiment among leading
men in both Houses of Parliament on tho
expediency of returning to peace establish
ments was remarkable. Earl GREY, Lord
BROUGHAM, and by his vote Lord ABERDEEN,
coincided with Lord DERBY. In tho
Com-
mons, Mr. GLADSTONE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
and Mr. MILNER GIBSON, adopted similar
views to those enunciated by Mr. DISRAELI.
Supposing that the sentiment thus supported
can be defeated in the present session, is it
likely that it can be defeated iu future sessions ?
The longer peace establishments are deferred,
the less likely is it that when adopted they
will be really efficient. The country will get
angry at the extravagance persisted in, and
insist on an extreme opposite to that which it
deprecates.
We do not yet know to what amount the
estimates to be proposed by Government will
reach. Mr. GLADSTONE supposes that the in-
tention previous to the opening of Parliament
was to fix them altogether at about 26,000,000/.
This would be about 9,000,0001. more than was
thought necessary in 1853, when the estimates
were higher than they had been for thirty

FEBRUARY 7, 1857.

years previous, and about 14,000,0001. more
than they were in 1835, when economy was
pushed too far to be judicious or safe. To
suppose that the country will permanently
submit to a burden of 25,000,0001., or any sum
approaching to it, for its armed establish-
ments, is simply ridiculous. From 16,000,000/.
to 17,000,0001. is, we apprehend, the highest
amount at which our peace establishments
can permanently be maintained.
On the supposition that a resolution be
taken to return to peace establishments at
once, no obstacle—at all events no insu-
perable obstacle—would exist to the general
features of the financial settlement of 1853
being observed.
The plain, practical question before the
House of Commons and the public now is,
whether certain broad principles of finance,
conformable to the compact of 1853, shall be
laid down at once, or whether the onus shall
be thrown on the House of Commons of dis-
puting the estimates which the Government
may think proper to propose, and of cutting
them down item by item ? The resolutions of
which Mr. DISRAELI has given notice will, no
doubt, practically fix a limit to the public ex•
penditure, by determining that certain sources
of revenue shall cease; and it is in this man-
ner only that war expenditure in time of peace
can effectually be checked.

By those resolutions a great practical ques•
Lion will be submitted to the Legislature for
decision. Shall the Income Tax, according
to the terms of the Act of 1853, be reduced to
fivepence in the ponnd from the sth of April
next, and totally cease from the sth of April,
1860? Or shall this impost, in violation of the
compact of 1853, remain a burden on the coun-
try, to be either the subject of perpetual agi-
tation on the score of its inequality and injus-
tice, or to fall with peculiar severity on real
property in flagrant violation of the compact
of 1853?

That compact we observe was admitted in
distinct terms by Mr. GLADSTONE in his speech
on Tuesday evening. He said that the Suc-
cession Duty—a tax on real property estimated
to produce two millions yearly—was imposed
on tl►e understanding that the Income Tax
should totally expire in 1860. It was a com-
pact, he said, not made with a section of the
Government supporters, but a compact made
with the people of England at the table of the
House of Commons That compact cannot
now be repudiated without a gross violation
of legislative faith. The resolutions of Mr.
DISRAELI will ask the House to recognise and
affirm the settlement of 1853, and we greatly
doubt whether the Government will be so ill-
Idvised as to oppose them.
If the Income Tax be totally removed, it
will exist, as Lord DERBY urged, as a great and
powerful resource when emergencies arise to
justify resort to it. Future Chancellors of the
Exchequer will know that should war unhap-
pily prove necessary, a revenue of sixteen, of
twenty, or of twenty-four millions may be at
once:made available for the national exigencies.
But if this tax is so modified and adjusted as
to fall mainly on realised property (which
must be the result if it is made a portion of
our permanent revenue), it will be lost as a
resource in periods of urgency.
If it should be objected that the Foreign
Policy of the Government renders a return to
peace establishments impracticable, the ques-
tion returns whether that policy must not be
essentially false and pernicious? The great
Powers of the world, alive to the benefits
which spring from industrial pursuits, are
anxious to reduce their forces. Is England,
by the maintenance of threatening establish-
ments, to prove an obstacle to so desirable an
end ? This consideration should not be with-
out its weight on the minds of the members
when Mr. DISRAELI'S resolutions come on for
discussion. Their practical signification is,—
Efficient Peace Establishments, and Abolition
of the Income Tax.