The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-09 00:00:00

~~i

LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1852,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER on Monday
evening, in speaking of the resolutions about to
be submitted for the consideration of the House
of Commons, declared, that "as far as the Go-
vernment is concerned and their measures, they
all stand forward for the decision of the House
on any point ;"—and again, that he had "no
other wish than to obtain the general verdict of
the House upon the whole of the financial scheme
brought forward." Now this appears to us to be
raising an issue exceedingly unfavourable to Mi-
nisters, and by no means fair either to Parliament
or to the country. There are many excellent
points in the new Budget to which we would ren-
der our most strenuous support. There are
others—or at least one portion---to which we
would offer an equally strenuous opposition.
Must we, then, accept all, or lose all? We freely
aamit that " the financial scheme," taken as a
whole, is very much superior to anything that
has been brought forward for many years ; but we
would surrender all the proffered advantages rather
than consent to the increase of the Inhabited House-
tax—believing that it is unjust and oppressive to
ifnpose an onerous burden on one class of real
property, and that by no means the most eligible,
from which others are exempted. Like the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself, we object to exemptions
of any description. And the most odious of all
exemptions, would be that which would exempt
land from a tax imposed on buildings, or vice
versa. The impost, whatever it might be, should
bear equally on both, according to the actual
value, and (as we conceive) should include per-
sonal property of every kind within its operation.
Again, we cordially concur in the principle for
the first time brought forward under Ministerial
auspices, that there is a distinction between per-
manent and precarious income which it is the
(lay of Parliament to recognise. But we dif-
fer toto ado on the details. The principle
being once admitted, a nearer approximation
to the actual value should be made than that be-
tween 54d. and 7d. A professional income ter-
minating not merely with the death of the party,
but on a failure of health, or even a change of
POperty, cannot be considered as in any degree
7ipproaching to one-half, or even one-quarter, of
t
value of a perpetual charge arising from the
'4euds in the public funds, or the ground-
rent,
rat oI w ell-circumstanced real estates. The
andeBalitollld, necessarily be materially modified ;
not be ch- gn. still convinced that industry should
-Lai. is stab in any respect save so far as capi-
%uggestion, that inf its operations, we shall offer a
thartthe present---and pending the
fiscal revision
hi:: inevitable, and that has
been more than
leader of the Rome
of hinted at by the Ministerial
Before, however, We enintem°llB-
-
would
ask, Will rtohn6 this part of the
gubject,
revenue of
indeed, be a
necessity for the additional
0:11,000,0001.,
at which the CHANCELLOR of the Pli-xorlEiQfuEn calcu-
lates the additional House duties?
so, cannot
that sum be obtained a manner less
Objection_
able than that proposed. In the first
we are prepared to prove, from the data furnished
by Mr. DISRAELI himself, that the new Income_
tax, if accepted by the country, will considerably
exceed the estimate of 5,421,0001., and that more
than 900,000/. will be available from that excess.
The produce of schedule A, as at present levied,
is 2,649,000/., and of schedule C 746,0001.,
making together 3,395,0001. It must, however,
borne in mind that a new class of contributors
will be included—those having permanent in-
comes, arising from
realised property,
producing
between 50/.
and 150/ per annum. The Right
Honourable Gentleman has estimated the increase
-wader this head at 4301,000/. • but this is palpably
an under estimate. Mr. MACGREGOR, the re-
spected and indefatigable Representative for Glas-