The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-01 00:00:00

position to Russell. It was but the other day that Sir John
Pakington, in answer to a question respecting the sugar
duties, declared his officially confirmed persuasion that the
gradual progress towards assimilation between foreign and
colonial produce was working calamitously for our West In-
dian dependencies, and his unchanged determination to re-
store in their behalf a differential system. But now Mr.
Disraeli comes forward as leader of the party in the Lower
House, and exultingly demonstrates the sound and
beneficial working of the Sugar Bill of 1818, and
positively repudiates all idea of resorting, even for
revenue, to an augmentation of our Custom du-
ties. Still more marvellous and edifying are the con-
fessions of the new convert on the subject of the Excise.
With a coolness and effrontery unparalleled, Mr. Disraeli re-
curs to the varied assaults which he and his followers were
accustomed to make during the existence of the late Govern-
ment upon each and all of the items from which this great
branch of our national revenue is derived. Nobody can
have forgotten the successive motions and divisions for the
abolition of the tax on malt, on hops, on paper, &c., in all
of which the new Chancellor of the Exchequer figured. Yet
he now confesses with inimitable sang froid that all that was
utterly unreasonable and absurd; concluding his analysis of
the state of our Excise revenue with the casual expression of
his former coincidence in opinion with Lord George Ben-
tinck, who sincerely desired to abrogate all such internal
taxes—and his own present resolution to maintain every
one of them. The third great branch of national
income Mr. Disraeli carefully reserved for the last; al-
though by a sort of Quixotic temerity he chose to lavish upon
it in the earlier portion of his speech a peculiarly emphatic
meed of reprobation. We allude to the income-tax. Anti-
cipating the report of the Select Committee which he said it
would be presumptuous in him to anticipate, he declared
that the result of their laborious investigations was to prove
that any alterations in the schedules would be to render the
system, if possible, more intolerable than it is at present.
No modification, in his opinion, was at all likely to mend it;
and as fur the tax as it stood, it was, he thought, deservedly
most unpopular, and, by reason of the large exemptions it
contained, utterly unjust in principle, and eminently dan-
gerous to the future welfare of the state. And therefore
Mr. Disraeli sums up his whole statement by the naked
proposal to continue it unmodified for another year.
So this, then, is the upshot of all the pompous pro-
mises of a new system of taxation, which should relieve
agriculture without oppresssng commerce, and equalise bur-
thens without endangering the income of the nation. The
bubble has suddenly burst, and nothing is left but the gaping
fools who have for six long years been running after the poli-
tical wizard, and the laughing spectators who were deceived
by his mystical talk and conjuror's tricks. The whole thing
turns out to be a miserable, shabby, and coarsely executed
delusion—at the end of which the dupes find themselves or-
dered home, as there is no more to be seen, and the lights
must be put out directly. In dumb and dogged despair, the
unhappy country gentlemen listened last night to the funeral
service extemporised by the great high priest over the
corpse of Protection. As each new round of scornful cheers
broke from the crowded benches of the Opposition, they no
doubt still consoled themselves with the fond expectation
that something was reserved for them at the end
which might at all events serve as a decent pretence for ac-
quiescing in the open apostacy of their chief—something for
themselves, if not for the farmers, of whom they have been
such very dear friends. But when, having rapidly uttered
the sentence wherein he proposed to renew the income-tax
for another year, the great necromancer suddenly sat down,
the sense of their forlorn condition was too heavy tt?be borne, ,

and rushing from the House they left the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to receive, almost alone, the overwhelming ac-

knowledgments of Sir Charles Wood for the justice he had
tardily rendered to the free-trade financial policy. But whi-
ther will the hapless Newdegates and Youngs, Tyrells and

Thompsons fly? They =wed Peel of having betrayed them
six years ago; at Disraeli's bidding they hunted him to
death ; yet now they find themselves " sold " again, and by
the very person who led them out against the illustrious

statesman we have lost. For ourselves, we can hardly affect
to sympathise in their surprise, and still less in their chagrin.
We have frequently expressed our belief that six months
of office would dissipate the dream of returning to protec-
tion. We own, indeed, that we did not anticipate so rapid
and complete an annihilation of the phantom-hopes they
obstinately cherished, or that six weeks would have been
sufficient to accomplish the end. Neither could we have
supposed that, in addition to a solemn recantation of his
errors concerning free trade, Mr. Disraeli would have
volunteered sach confessions as his speech of last night con-
tains on the general subject of taxation; or that he should
have abstained from sprinkling with some species of fiscal
confectionery the dry and bitter potion he laid before his
adherents. But so it is. The spell is broken, and the
matchless farce is ever.

CHRONICLE.---The Budget of 1852 has been more elo-
quently introduced and more favourably received than that
of 1851; yet, word for word and figure for figure, the two
will be found in every respect identicaL The Government
proposes no change, great or small, in the financial system of
the country. For another year the income-tax is protected
from reduction, and the indirect duties from any attempt to in-
crease them. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted
precisely the course which we have often indicated as incum-
bent on a Government opposed by a majority of the House
of Commons, we can have no disposition to withhold the
credit which is due to a prudent appreciation of existing
political circumstances. We may even conjecture that, if
the Minister's hands had been free, he would still have been
inclined to pursue a nearly similar course ; for, after carefully
attending to all the hints and general axioms contained in his
speech, we have been unable to discover any theory which
could become the foundation of a re-adjustment of taxa-
tion. It would be illiberal to deny the merit of Mr.
Disraeli's speech in point of language and manner. His
statement was sufficiently lucid and vigorous to command
the attention of the House for more than two hours; and
and the only rhetorical defect which it exhibited was inse-
parable from the position of a speaker who knew beforehand
that his laboured premises would necessarily lead to nothing.
If he had had any novelty to introduce in
practice, or to
suggest in argument,!he would probably have contented him-
self with a simpler preamble, and would have reserved his
strength for his final disclosures. It is remarkable that the
most successful, and perhaps the most sincere, portions of his
speech were those passages in which the brilliant results et
a liberal commercial policy were set forth in gratulatory
language for the admiration of the House. The repeal of
more than ten millions of taxation in ten years, with
but a trifling loss to the revenue, is, indeed, a fact
which can scarcely be too often dwelt upon. Mr.
Disraeli must, however, have felt himself in a singular
position when be was dilating so cordially on
the success of a policy to which he has not even yet openly
adhered. His colleague of the Colonial-office can scarcely
have welcomed the cheering which followed the announce-
_ _

ment of the result of last-year's reduction of the sugar
duties. Sir Charles Wood had estimated the loss at 330,0001.
—the revenue has actually suffered to the formidable amount
of 309/. It is difficult to suppose that the Minister dwelt on
this part of his subject either from an excess of candour or
from an idle desire to call forth the applause which naturally
follows any exposition of national prosperity. The history of
the financial triumphs attending a liberal commercial policy
was doubtless meant for the Ministerial side of the House.
The obstinate sceptics of the back benches were reminded
by their own champion that the success of free trade is not a
fiction of their opponents, but a proof of the soundness of the
principles on which the recent fiscal legislation of the coun-
try has been based. We have no quarrel with Mr. Dis-
raeli's figures, which, indeed, are copied almost literally
from the balance-sheet of 1851. It may be prudent
to make a certain allowance for the temporary sti-
mulus given by the Exhibition to the consumption of
taxable commodities; and although there is reason to hope
that the receipts may somewhat exceed the estimate, there
is at the same time a danger that the Kafir war may lead
to an expenditure beyond the formidable amount at present
announced. The surplus, 'as we stated yesterday, falls
below half a million. Mr. Disraeli omitted to point out in
detail the mode in which the actual excess is absorbed ;
but the particulars may be collected from various portions
of his statement. The loss of half a year's window-tax
amounts to 640,000/., and the Kafir war will require at least
200,000/., in addition to the 460,000/. already voted. The
militia is to cost 350,000/., to which must be added the in-
crease in the army estimates. About 300,000/. are allowed
for:possible diminutions in the sugar duties and in the income-
tax; and a certain per-centage is taken off the extraor-
dinary receipts of the Post-office for 1851. Under these
circumstances the surplus of 2,180,0001. dwindles down! to
the humble amount of 460,000/. Having willingly given
all due credit both to the matter and to the manner of Mr.
Disraeli's financial statement, we can carry our eulogies no fur-
ther: The Members who so loudly cheered him have per-
haps, by this time, discovered that in all his sounding pe-
riods he really told them nothing. Half an hour would have
sufficed to read the tables of receipt and expenditure for 1851,
and to state that, with a few specified exceptions, the same
figures would serve for the ensuing year. Almost every pro-
position contained in the speech, beyond these simple facts,
was either unmeaning, irrelavent, or erroneous. Perhapssel
is not too much to say that the just denunciationc of fiscal
exemptions in general, and especially of those which
theaccooomly-
pany Sir Charles Wood's house-tax, furnishestheE 11
entertains a single sound opinion as
proof we possess that the Chancellorto
showed that the
finance. In his exordium he elaborately
its steps by in-
creasings or the Excise. In the next
of
the prinxcniphleeqsnoerf
come-tax was oppressive
House
woeuitlhdetnotthebecoinatcolimned
.to retrace.
and unpopular, and that ifications suggested by
' would render
place, he alleged that thteheinmod
eminent actuaries Schedules A., 8.,
and C. Schedulecomplain
of
the
icmo np nr
Ile
dx
ei onnt 1
with these ata npopuicshoproceeded a a
to
a w
readiness of the House to tamper aswithwek enough to reiterate
the branches of the
revenue, and Sir Charles Wood
a charge which can only be described as a piece of traditional
cant. The House of Commons is not reckless, nor is it pani-
risk
Chancellorof
monious. The great sources of income have been scrupu-
lously guarded. Mr. Disraeli himself fully showed that the
reduction of duties on consumption has entailed no propor-
income-tax, it has lasted for ten years, and has just been
propor-
tionate loss to the revenue; and as toTthhee
the fact that he was
• elf can only be exonerated t
thehe
Exchequer h.uns
ya:ernicengdedfor the eleventh..h
the revenue nerated from the charge
virtually
spuidag for the constuenereys, 'without having any
theory to propose. The fallacy of representing
definite
respecting taxation as combined
°wood
would
tichdt doctrines
densua
national income is at once far-fetched
reduce the indirect duties; but it is admitted
and transparent. Some politicians denounce the income-tag
on all hands that Parliament must choose between different
opposite attacks
—others
suggestions, and cannot adopt all simultaneously. Mr.
Disraeli and Sir Charles Woodaffect
to think that any doubt
whether the public burdens are '
fairly apportioned is equiva-
lent to a desire prematurely to shake them off. Equally
unfounded was Mr. Disraeli's
between the respective advocates of reductions in the Customs
and in the Excise. It is notorious that the desire to relieve
the community from both classes of imposts has been ex-
pressed, and partly realized, by one and the
. same school of
economists. The country gentlemen will be surprised to hear
that they are the natural enemies of the Excise. It is in-
deed easy to understand why Lord. George
Bentinck may
have
professed a dislike to taxes on domestic industry.
Whenever an Excise duty is imposed on malt, hops, or pa-
per, a corresponding impost is levied on the foreign product,
which might otherwise enter into unfair competition with
the home-made article. It would be
highly convenient to
Protectionists to remove the domestic duty while retaining
the countervailing charge at the Custom-house ; and only a
few days ago such a policy was advocated by the most de-
voted organ of the late Government. But economists who
understand their principles reduce taxes for the benefit of
consumers, and not to confer new monopolies on certain
classes of produers. The supporters of the Ministry, to do
them justice, appeared to be honestly astonished
when their leader reproached them by implication
for their supposed tendency to tamper with the
Excise. The landowners and farmers may perhaps con-
trive to extract from the statement some prospect
of Ware fiscal favours ; but it is difficult to understand by
what method these are to be bestowed. The Minister who
expiates so fully on the success of recent reductions cannot
be in earnest when he announces the intention of his party
to allow no further diminution of indirect duties. Nor is it
clear that Mr. Disraeli is hostile to the income-tax, notwith-
standing theappeals to the prejudices to which that impost
is subject. His assertion that a majority of the House last
year called it in question is scarcely true even in the letter,
upporters
and not at all in the spirit. Alr. Disraeli and his s