The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-13 00:00:00

[PRICE SD•

attack before a small section of his least intelligent
constituents, on Mr. Disraeli—a man of universally
recognised genius—suggests the image of a dog mis-
behaving itself at the pedestal of a lofty statue ' • and
there we leave Sir Benjamin, with the eye of the
literary police upon him, and the assurance of sum-
mary treatment if he dare to repeat. the nuisance.
We sincerely recommend the unthinking occupiers
of houses between 201. and 101. to ponder well the
serious consequences of what they are being per-
.suaded to attempt to refuse to bear their reason-
able and moderate share of the national burdens.
They would open wide the eyes of the immense
classes beneath them to the irintolerable selfishness ;
and let once that feeling get abroad, and who shall
allay the revolutionar;tempest it would raise? Who
could then resist the clamour for universal suffrage
to counteract the selfishness of some nine hundred
thousand electors ? The masses—the labouring
classes—have been placed by Providence in a posi-
tion which makes taxation of them at once cruel,
absurd, and wicked. They cannot bear it, and
they will not bear it ; yet the unreasoning class
immediately above them are to be supposed to
have clothed themselves with the franchise for the
purpose of saying, "We will reap the benefit of
that franchise, for we will take care not to allow
our representatives to subject us to any tax ! No,
we will tax those above us, both directly and in-
directly ; and those beneath us indirectly, in a way
which they shall feel, without any means of re-
dressing the injustice !" The shopkeepers's returns
are quick and sure ' • he is well cared for every way ;
modern legislation has been indeed all in his favour
and yet he is ungrateful enough and short-sighted
enough not to see that he is trying to gain a shame-
ful advantage and. immunity at the expense .of his
humbler customers, already ground down into the
earth, and scarce able to pay their little way as it
is ! We say shame on you ! You bind heavy bur-
dens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on
men's shoulders ; but you yourselves will not move
them with one of your fingers. But we rejoice in
being able conscientiously to express our opinion,
that good sense and honourable feeling among
the great majority of this class of our fellow-
subjects are likely to render nugatory the
spasmodic efforts of a few parochial and Parlia-
mentary leaders of faction. We peremptorily
insist upon it, that the sober feeling of the
country is settled already into an approval and
acceptance of the very best budget that has been
offered to it for many a long year; and if so, the
opponents of that budget might as well try to
whistle against thunder. Had the budget proved.
so outrageously absurd as fools hoped to have seen
—that is, framed on the model of that of Sir
Charles Wood, a similar fate would have awaited
it. A real and irresistible opposition would have
displayed itself in a trice—the big heart of the
country, the city of London, would have beat in-
dignantly, and sent its hot streams of excitement
bounding through the provinces. But it is not so
with the Earl of Derby and Mr. Disraeli, as their
enthusiastic reception at the Guildhall, on Wed-
nesday last, testified pretty conclusively. Under
these circumstances, what can equal the calm as-
surance of that broken-down financier, Sir Charles
Wood, who advises his successor to " take back his
budget !" naively adding, " You need not be
ashamed to take back your budget !" That is, " I
did so with mine, and felt no hesitation; so be it
with you!" Well might the house cheer and laugh
at this unexpected sally. Thus concluded the im-
penetrable baronet:—" Nothing can be so bad as
the budget now proposed, by which you sacrifice
our revenue without benefiting any one, and at the
same time imperil our direct taxation, tamper
with the credit of the country, and tarnish
your fame as statesmen with the country !"
Cuckoo! cuckoo! Only to listen to Lord John
and Sir Charles! But people don't and won't; and
we look upon it that the budget, subject to any
such modification as the Government may think
reasonable and consistent with their honour and
responsibility as Ministers to adopt, is already the
law of the land. The debate on Friday showed
the merest imbecility and cross-purpose work on
the part of the Opposition that ever was seen ; not
a true point was made against the budget through-
out the night, and the temper and spirit of the
house indicated that the thing was really, to use a
military phrase, disposed of. We protest that we
did not see an argument used on Friday that was
worthy of serious attention, as against the general
policy and equity of the budget ; but we will say
what we are hourly perceiving indications of the
country's satisfaction. All parties see that all
parties have been honestly and prudently cared
for, as far as was consistent with the safety of our
financial system, and that the policy of the Go-
vernment is just and enlightened, and in strict
accordance with the spirit of the age. More and
more plainly are seen now the hollow and worthless
characters and professions of those who have been
loudest in their clamour of what they called free
trade ; and in the success of the Conservative
budget will assuredly ere long be seen the igno-
minious extinction of that little knot of political
vipers which has so long been writhing before the
apprehensive eyes of the public. Conscious, how-
ever, of their own honesty and strength, Lord
Derby's Government is proceeding steadily and
rapidly in the right direction, and already grap-
pling with administrative difficulties which have
daunted'all their predecessors. This has been fairly
admitted both in and out of Parliament by the
most frank and independent opponents of the Go-
vernment ; and we feel satisfied that the factious
opponents of the Government already feel them-
selves compromised and embarrassed by the extent
to which they disclosed. at once their wish and
their inability to trip up the heels of an able and
united Government, without the faintest chance of
any Ministry being found to fill their places. But
we warn these gentry not to reckon without their
host. There is a point beyond which the country
will not tolerate ; and its eyes are wide open to the
comineseanics
infinitwn.
This
was the
profligacy of attempting to precipitate a crisis, in
order that, amid the sudden " confusion worse
confounded" which may be contemplated, the re-
volutionary party may steal an advance, attended
with irreparable disasters to the country, and a
Cobden and a Bright be seen grinning at the gen-
tleven. of England from the Treasury benches !
But there would be no grinning on 'Change, be-
lieve us !
TIMES.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer ap-
pears to have achieved the equivocal success of
making a debate upon his proposals very difficult
and agreement almost impracticable. His finan-
cial statement was confessedly effective, his prin-
ciples apparently popular, and his declarations
adjusted to the most liberal axioms of political
economy. Yet he seems to have puzzled every-
bodyt
t obliged
and put everything out of joint. He hasgo
much more
taxation.
to
o solicita-
tion,etaosurplus,kffbeeuroffers
andbc aoe nngwds i i
hvdy
gives
str
at
sohhh he
considerable
suggestsaukc
ehs
tareductionsiplap tappears
rsewissiadditionaltoahtolwithout
last
than What he gives, that people ask him to give
nothing at all, and to leave matters as they were.
As the taxes stood when Mr. Disraeli came down
to the house they were sufficient to satisfy all
national obligations and leave a handsome surplus
into the bargain. He volunteered reductions until
this surplus became a deficiency, and was then
compelled to increase taxation again. As it hap-
pens, too, his reductions are not believed in, while
his additions, though defensible enough on prin-
ciple, are disagreeable in the eyes of some classes
and gratuitous in the eyes of others. Meantime
it is difficult to see where to begin, for if there is
no taking off there need be no putting on, and
people are clearly of opinion that the putting on
will more than counter-balance the taking off. Let
us see if we can simplify the question. The great
reduction is that of half the malt tax ; the
great addition, that of a double house duty ;
and this duty is rendered peculiarly obnoxious;
we think. i
for the moment the rest of the budget,
ipnersoananneumclu,artheerrsetobfyoritesexexemtepnts.ionNtoow,
all defensible
its dupliceation, and its extension,. are all
of taxation.
on the best and soundest
prine for its
Of the duty itself we will
say
nothing,There is no pro-
prietyfinan-
cial is admitted on all sides.
tat a
man should be
perfectly demonstrable that the house duty itself,
maxim more just than I
taxed according to his
certain than that these means a
generallyhouse in which
com-
mensurate with the character of
the the
question'reandnoruleomf more
ee
houses
setting o f. asidei-0. t
he
doubling. It certainly does no . follow that be-
causemented to any amount ; otherwise the house duty
t
point seized by the speakers at Marylebone, on
a tax is defensible in itself it may be aug-
mented
Thursday evening, and it was the only point, in-
deed, which could be made. Does the rate of
is. 6d. in the pound on dwelling-houses, and is. in
the pound on shops, represent an unjust or exor-
ghlitvebse dßouubtletdheand
exor-
bitant contribution to the revenue from this par-
ticular species of taxable property ? Is this
item made by such figures to carry too much ?
We think we can settle this point incontestably.
The whole sum thus proposed to be raised is
only about 1,723,0001.,
whereas the old
house duty repealed
in 1834 and which ex-

isted in m window duty—was
1,198,0004 ; and, as the window duty was
upwards of 1,800,0001., the total direct charge
upon inhabited houses exceeded 3,000,0001., or
nearly double the charge now proposed. But we
can put the case still more clearly. The produce
of the window duty, as we have said before, was
above 1,800,000/. ' • and as this duty, which was
house tax of a bad description, was never objected
to on the score of its arithmetical charge, it is
perfectly evident that no such objection can be
sustained against a house tax of a better descrip-
tion, producing only 1,723,0001., or some 100,0001.
less. The proposed house duty, therefore, would
not be simply as a house duty, compared with
other duties, unfairly or extravagantly assessed.
But is its extension to houses of 101. value a
wise or just proposition ? 'We unhesitatingly say
it is so. If all persons should be taxed according
to their means, there can be no reason why the
means of any person should be exempted. There
is no reason, indeed, why a line should be drawn
at 101. or at 5/_., or even at 50s. except that the
tax would. prove impossible of collection. Of late

years we h-ave had an energetic if not a general
movement in favour of direct as opposed to indi-
rect taxation. A Liverpool association has been
advocating the levy of the entire national revenue
on this principle exclusively. But in so far as the
application of direct taxation is less universal
than that of indirect, it confiscates the means
of those whom it reaches for the benefit of
those whom it does not reach. Everybody can
discern and recognise the cumbersome process and
costly machinery of collection to which indirect
taxation give rise, but they who desire to super-
sede this system cannot possibly do their cause
more damage than by exposing the deficiencies of
the only system which can succeed it. The chief
argument for inclined taxation is, that by no
other process can you raise taxes at all from a large
class of the community, which, like all other classes,
owes a contribution to the State in proportion to
its means. Show that direct taxation can be ex-
tended as widely and as effectually as indirect, and
a case for its substitution is in a great degree made
out ; but if exemptions of such classes as even 101.
householders are contended for, it will be clear that
" direct" taxation, in the mouths of these advocates,
means nothing but taxation of a few for the advan-
tage of the many. As to the particular class in
question, there cannot be a doubt of their amena-
bility to the impost. on all principles of financial
justice and constitutional equity. If taxation with-
out representation is tyranny, what is representa-
tion without taxation ? But though the case is
really thus far without a doubt, and though a house
duty, and especially an extended house duty, con-
stitutes a tax perfectly unexceptionable, its amount
must be ultimately determinable by the exigencies
of the State alone. When the public revenue re-
quires a contribution of only 6d., no person, either
on his house or any other property, need pay ls.
And the public revenue at present does certainly
not require this is. contribution, nor will it, unless
certain alterations are carried into effect, for the 6d.
contribution satisfied all demands and left a surplus.
The question, therefore, is obviously one of profit
and loss. Shall we accept an obligation to gain a
reduction ? Shall we double our house taxation
to get rid of half the malt tax, with a prospective
relief of the same kind in tea 11 It has been very
naturally suggested that a somewhat smaller class
than the whole community have been concerned
both in the proposition and the solution of
this question, and that the Malt tax is
reduced for the sake of the " country," while
the equivalent is exacted from the " town." This
point, however, we need not raise, for Mr. Disraeli
himself propounded his plan susbstantially in the
interest of the " consumer,"—i. e., the public at
large. "By the manner," said he, "in which we
propose to deal with the malt tax, we benefit largely,
as we believe, the consumer ; but in doing that,
we think that incidentally—and that was only a
secondary purpose—we are giving great facilities to
agriculture." If, therefore, the main object—the
satisfaction of the consumer—is not obtained by
the change, it cannot of course be advocated for the
purely "incidental and secondary purpose" of
creating the " facilities" referred to. What, then,
do the consumers say ? They appear to be saying
that, while the new taxation will prove undoubtedly
burthensome, the corresponding relief will be no
relief at all. Unless the whole duty on malt, and
with it all the vexatious and expensive machinery
of the Excise, can be abolished altogether, it seems
to be believed that no advantage will be realised
except by those who are just now thought to be
realising quite enough already—the great brewers.
Moreover, even the " secondary purpose" itself is
treated as little less delusive, for hundreds of agri-
culturists maintain that the removal of the malt
duty will leave them exactly where they are. Un-
der these circumstances, then, what are we to con-
clude ? Apparently this :—That the house tax is
a sound tax ; that the extension of its area is un-
doubtedly defensible ; but that the doubling the
rate, as it is plainly not called for by any present
necessity, can only be justified by a better prospect
of equivalent profit than the halving of the malt
duty would provide.