The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-14 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1853.

On Monday evening the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER will bring forward his financial scheme.
It is by no means improbable that the Ministry
will stand or fall by the propositions then sub-
mitted for legislative consideration. The chopping
and changing about of Sir CHARLES WOOD-the
introduction of a second, a third, or, haply, a
fourth Budget during the same session, must have
thoroughly disgusted the colleagues of that unfor-
tunate financier, and induced them to consider a
strict adhesion to the original fiscal project as a
virtue of no ordinary magnitude, so that the new
Minister of Finance will be encouraged and sus-
tained in making a firm and uncompromising
stand on at least the leading principles of his
Budget.

What the nature of that Budget may be as
yet appears to be au impenetrable mystery, or, at
least, a well-kept Cabinet secret, of which
not the slightest inkling can be obtained until
the appointed time. Mr. GLADSTONE himself
has refused to give any clue as to his inten-
tions. He will not let fall the most trifling
hint calculated to appease, or; perhaps, to excite
more strongly the public curiosity. Some persons
assert that there is a sound reason for ti is myste-
rious silence—that the Right Hon. Gentleman
has not as yet made up his mind between the
numerous conflicting claims—that he is still
tossed upon a sea of doubt and uncertainty, and
that all he could say (if disposed to say any-
thing) was, that, as yet, nothing has been de-
cided. It is, therefore, incumbent on all
Fiscal Reformers to bring forward the griev-
ances which have obtained their peculiar ad-
vocacy—to explain the chief objections to each
impost, and, above all, to elicit the opinions of
influential Members as to its impolicy. Lord
ROBERT GROSVENOR has obtained an additonal vic-
tory, has added another laurel to those he had
previously acquired, in behalf of the Attorney's
duties. Mr. Hum has exposed the serious evils
arising from the petty Customs Duties. Mr.
FREWEN has pointed out the injurious results of
the practical confiscation of the property of the
British hop-grower. Sir DE LACY EVANS, the
strong claims of the coachbuilders. Many other
matters have been brought forward, and invari-
ably with benefit to the subject submitted for
general discussion. Indeed, a good cause
must always be promoted by the most ample
inquiry, the most stringent investigation. We
rejoice, then, to find that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Manchester is about to fol-
low the excellent example set by so many Fiscal
1-I,'-forniers, and once more to bring the injustice
and. impolicy of the taxes on knowledge under
the consideration
t
of the popular branch of the
Lecrislature
iat lie will, this evening, bring for-
ward three distinctreo'lliton'''
on each of which
he will take the sense
of the House separately.
The first of thesere
re
relates, to the Advertisement
Duties, which
are, perhaps, the most inequltable
and inexpedient, while 7hy
are unquestionably
the least productive, of these obnoxious im-
posts. On these points the Right nooura
Gentleman adopts the mort aumairinrble
decisive course. He offers the broadest Issuaentdo
his opponents. The resolution of which he has
given notice is—" That the Advertisement Duty
ought to be repealed." There is no paltry com-
promise offered no halting between two
opinions. No hint that a reduction to one-half
the present scale would be acceptable. We do
not dwell on the gross and palpable injustice of
charging the same rate, on the pompous announce-
ment of the intended sale of a property worth
tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of
pounds sterling, where the efficient and eloquent
agent of the noble proprietor is desirous of setting
forth the advantages that must accrue to

the fortunate purchaser of the princely and
truly enviable domain, and the modest application
for employment of the man able and willing to
work—to whom the duty may involve the neces-
sity of honouring the Duke HUMPHREY with his
company for three successive days—or, in other
words, of abstaining altogether during that period,
or contenting himself merely with a dry crust.
A Joint-Stock Company in course of forma-
tion requiring a column or two of a public
journal may think nothing of the addition of is.
6d. to the charge, but it will act as a practical
prohibition to the over-toiled sempstress, who is
compelled to work some eighteen or twenty hours
a-day for an exlgeante mistress, simply, be-
cause, by this most impolitic tax she is prevented
from bringing her qualifications under the con-
sideration of those who are, in consequence, corn-
polled to pay exorbitant prices to exacting task-
mistresses.

It is not merely, then, on the gross inequality
I of these duties that we found our chief objections.
They are bad enough, and would afford unanswer-
able grounds for the modification of the tax ; but
there is a radical objection to the impost that
can never be removed. We are proud to say
that we are "a nation of shopkeepers." That which
was intended as a sneer we accept as a high
honour. It is to the commercial character of the
country that Great Britain is indebted for the
high position which she has long occupied and now
holds in the scale of nations. Anything, then, that
cripples or impedes trade, that interposes an ob-
stacle between vendor and purchaser, is wholly
indefensible. It strikes at the very root of " the
unrestricted competition," the advantages whereof
have been written, said, aye, and sung, in every
form and in every tone. For a paltry 160,0001. per
annum, we inflict injuries on dealers amounting
to far more than ten times that amount ; and not
merely to deale or tradesmen, but to the revenue
itself. It is indeed the " penny wise and pound
foolish" policy which wise men deplore, but
Financial Ministers are partial to—the sys-
tem of getting money in any way, no matter
how objectionable in other -Aspects. The Adver-
tikment Duties have been long marked—the
brand has been placed upon them ; they must no
longer be permitted " to cumber the earth."
The other resolutions relating to the Stamp and
Paper Duties, are as follows

"2. That the policy of restraining the cheap periodi-
cal press from narrating current events, by rendering it
liable to stamp duties, and other restrictions, if "any
public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks
or observations thereon," be contained therein, is inex-
pedient, and at variance with the desire now generally
expressed in favour of the diffusion of knowledge amongst
all classes. And it appears also to this house, that the
laW relative to taxes on newspapers, and other regula-
tions affecting public prints, is in an unsatisfactory state,
and demands the attention of Parliament.

"3. That the excise duty on paper, whilst impeding ,
the developement of an important manufacture, also
materially obstructs the production of good cheap litera-
ture ; and the maintenance of this tax as a permanent
source of revenue would be impolitic and inconsistent
with the efforts which Parliament is now making to pro-
mote education amongst the great body of the people."
In their propriety and policy we fully and
entirely concur. The doubtful state of the
law on the subject of the Stamp Duties—
the serious differences of opinion between the
legal advisers of the Crown and the majority
of the learned Barons of the Court of Exche-
quer on the interprepation of these Statutes, •
would alone show not merely the propriety, but
the necessity, of some speedy legislation on the
subject. There can be litte doubt that any
change either in the Newspaper Stamp Duties or
in the Paper Tax must end not merely in an al-
teration, but in a total remission. All these imposts
are decidedly bad—the Advertisement Duties un-
questionably the worst. If we must accept jus-
tice to " the Fourth Estate " by instalments, let
that be the first concession. Although we cannot
relinquish our claim to the others—al-
though we believe that the most ob-
noxious taxes now in operation are not
worse than the Pdper Duties .or Newspaper
Stamps, we would willingly accept the evidence
afforded by a total abolition of the Advertisement
Duties as a convincing proof of the Financial
Minister's intention to deal equitably with the
entire grievance as soon as circumstances may
admit. He may be well assured that he cannot
possibly apply 160,0001. of his anticipated sur-
plus to a better purpose than the total repeal of
the Advertisement Duties, which would form a
redeeming feature in an otherwise objectionable
Budget.

There is not an individual in the Cabinet who
more needs the discipline of pressure from with-
out than the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
He, moreover, of all men can with least grace
ask for an indulgent consideration of his forth-
coming Budget, since no speaker last December
was more bitterly, and even haughtily, severe
upon that of his predecessor. If he either blun-
der in his calculations, or sustain to the extent of
his power the two monster cases of class taxation,
he ought to be unceremoniously discarded by these
who profess, at least, to be the representatives of
The People. Chancellors of the Exchequer have
been long indulged both by Hon. Members in the
House, and by deputations to Downing-street, in
replying to applications for remission of particular
taxes with polite evasions and official reserve.
They are allowed, like a coy maiden, to give an
ear without an answer to every suitor, till they
have declared their love in the Budget ; but then,
alas ! their declaration has to be accepted for
final ; they cannot change their choice with
honour, unless, perhaps, such perverse ones as Sir
C. Woo; who having given not only his " nay,"
but something worse, to Income-tax and Stamp-
act suitors, found that those determined
wooers of the Guardian Genius of the Ex-
chequer would take no denial. He pre-
sented them indeed with offers, which they thought
reversing propriety, and therefore gave him no
peace till he accepted theirs. It ought to be im-
pressed on the House and the country, that unless
its two great financial demands be loudly made
before the Budget is brought forward, we shall
get nothing worth having from Mr. GLADSTONE.
We have watched him carefully since he took office,
and with no unkindly feelings, but we have been
unable to detect the slightest symptom of inten-
tion to concede the Financial Rights of the people.
We, of course, as decidedly as Mr. GLADSTONE him-
self, regard a fair balance in the national Exchequer
as one of those rights. We know, as well as he
can tell us, the consequences to all of us when the
Funds decline. There is, and can be, no dispute
between him and the people on that score. No.
What we more than suspect Mr. GLADSTONE of, is
a determination to uphold the present form of two
great taxes, by which the landlords principally are
saved some six or seven millions per annum, and
other classes pillaged, of course, to the same
amount.

The evil animus of Mr. GLADSTONE in regard
to the taxes in question waS mostdistinctly brought
out in his (to himself) most damaging speech on
Mr. WILLIAMS'S motion of the Ist of March for
the equalization of Legacy and Probate Duties on
all kinds of property. In his speech ho said as
plainly as he well could that he would continue
the iniquitous incidence of these taxes, and of
the Inconie Tax too. Although the country is
ringing with the injustice of assessing income from
permanent sources and precarious sources alike,
he coolly came forward and alleged the specially
hard bearing of the Income Tax on real property
as one reason why it should be exempt from
Legacy and Probate Duties ! What can this
mean but that if he had his way he would reduce
the rate of the tax on schedule A rather than on
schedule D ; and certainly that he will never make
a proposition like that of Mr. DISRAELI'S, to con-
cede even
again,eN-en one-fourth to common sense and justice.
Mr. DISRAELI--both in his opening
speech on the Budget and in that reply which
Mr. GLADSTONE attacked with all the bitterness
of one who saw that it had made financial injus-
tice harder for bimself—Mr. DISRAELI distinctly
asserted, that the subject of the Legacy
and Probate Duties could no longer be de-
fended and that it must be taken up by Go-
vernment. Mr. GLADSTONE, on the contrary,
when he might have excused himself with
the current evasion that his Budget was yet
(as we candidly hope) the
in embryo, extemporised