The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1852.

The discussion on the Budget has fairly com-
menced. The fate of the Ministry will probably
be decided within the ensuing week. We could
have wished that the first issue raised had been
on the Income-tax. It is admitted that the im-
post must be renewed in some form—that it must
henceforward constitute a permanent and import-
ant branch of the national revenue. But the
verdict of the popular branch of the Legislature
must determine on principle on which it is to
be levied—whether there is to be an equal charge
on all kinds of income, irrespective of the source
from whence it is derived ?—whether, in fact,
fluctuating and precarious income is to be placed
on the same footing with fixed and permanent ?
h--or whether a wise and equitable distinction is to
be taken between the two ? The decision on that
principle--the details being matter for future
arrangement—will form the foundation on which
the whole financial superstructure must rest. It
should be at once ascertained whether the Repre-
sentatives of the people take the same views as
the great majority of their constituents—the
views that have been so ably advocated by HUME
and DISRAELI, and by the all but unanimous voice
of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into
and report on the subject ; or whether they will beinfluenced by the absurd crotchets of GLAD-
STONE and GOULBURN, of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and
Sir CHARLES WOOD. In place of this judicious
course being adopted, the issue most adverse to
Ministers has obtained a priority, which, though
it may be favourable to party interests on either
side of the House, is decidedly adverse to the
welfare of the community, and which may
very probably be totally unnecessary. We
can easily conceive that the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER may hope to carry his
unpalatable proposition for an increased House-tax
in consequence of the notion that the
is modifica-
tion of the Property and Income-tax involved
in the result—or that if defeated thereon, and
changed from the Ministerial to the Opposition
leader in the House of Commons, he will retain
a formidable rod in pickle for his successors. We
can conceive that the ex-Ministers, in their intense
anxiety for place and power, may be willing to
accept office under any circumstances, or with any
disadvantages, provided that desirable period could
be in any degree accelerated,—but it is not for
the benefit of the people,—of those who have little
to expect from the predominance of either side—
that this vitally important question should remain
in abeyance, or the fate of the Ministry be de-
cided on a collateral issue.

We are happy to find from the answer elicited
from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, by the
persevering and searching interrogatories of the
honourable Gentlemen the Members for Finsbury
and Middlesex—that the Government are not pre-
pared to stand or fall on every item of the Budget
that a single hostile vote would ensure their
resignation. It is not, then, to be " the Budget
—the whole Budget and nothing but the
Midget." That notion had, unquestionably, been
extensively received ; and had caused deep regret
aluougst those, who, while they found much to
approve of in the financial scheme, were yet de-
terinjue'l to resist to the very uttermost that
which they believed to be at once unjust and im-
P°litic—neither more nor less than an act of rob-
bery and co"fiscation—the large addition to the
already too onerous inhabited House Duties. No
matter what might be the consequences, that most
injudicious proposition should —and we have
no doubt will be—rejected`
by—
a large ma-
jority. It is the very subject that will
unite all the sections into which the Opposition
is divided into one compact body,
tips have had
enough of class-legislation ; and
anything that
creates an incessant hostility--,, a
war to the
knife "—between town and country, 'mist be
conceive
steadfastly and energetically oppoe se
cannot If
nce there 1S
to be a direct tax on property, we
why there should be a distinction between houses
and lands, or why the person who invested his
capital in green fields—by far the most valuable
description of property—should escape for 7d. in
the Pound, or 3 per cent. on his income, while
the proprietor of dwelling-houses paid 2s. ld., or
nearly 11 per cent. The I2,tter would practically
pay nearly seven times as much in proportion to
his capital as the forme-. Let us, for instance, sup-
pose that a father has bequeathed 10,000/. each to
two of his children. The one, having a taste for
agricultural Pursuits, purchases land in the country,
for which he pays at a very moderate rate 25
years' purchase—thus obtaining 4001. per annum
for his 10,0001. from a secure and permanent