The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-21 00:00:00

-,/
.7%.
:_.• • ,7"" __,, ,
- r‘- -7r,r,.7:::,-ri: - $-- •.,r, If • rr': V' . "r,:,t`it"'r,' • -.- S''''s
...fe,
.. i.... 1-..,...i-o _
r ,4, ' - ' -;:,, . __ A d '.-* • •
.: . - ::.1 ~.'"'' t. ' -. , -"4.'Z' C-- r , -...-
-e,
1;;ItS.1 .
,'l_..‘l.:E.:Z\f.e.l.fi, lb" ''
- .'
•41. \ !-. N , •_•,-`,,i'-' ' - '
i\, -,tx,. A• - - \---. -- - , ,:i *--.,' ~ , -- - • -,_. _
~,:
) ~- - , `'fib , f!mie fr s'. :.7''. -, t, W.,;..A.- -----z A ,-: • , i;, • \ ~:-i-
s., ;;‘,.' 7 - '. '...'*4l4.grr---7-:',
~,/ '7 1
cr*C_'. \'', r..-FAt. ..!*, ~,,,--"..;-,--•
__,. ilt '"+Vr,, Airjr'l . "'"'
"‘' -
-...5k,,,-- t ,
~,---/--/
: .''. bz
._,,.. 'a- 10 )" " s
... '
_.....,A 7
___,......-'-'-' -'''' ..:* - ,1,,Ti4-.'i 'DI 'i:l,-,) 1,1, c.(0:',.°,1 Z __. ~,,, wyc1,...ni.,..i-s 011 ),,..-4- ~.. pia
---, .,.., 4'
-, ---...m..7„; Ppq,7*.jltri - ~...-. ~- - ..,...Z...)-Itorr * . - -71 --." *
~:- .

[PRICE SD.

who have to pay turnpikes too, while in towns one
horse will do the work. We doubt also the policy
of imposing a premium on ponies by halving the
tax on them. Dogs come in here, and about them
one word may be said. Henceforth every dog,
except greyhounds (about which there never
could be a mistake of character), is to be charged
at 12s. This will be, therefore, a practical
increase of taxation. The shepherd, who wants
Towler for real work, is to pay an extra impost
for his dog, and so also with the do wager Lady
Tom Noddy, and the spinster Miss Spinks, for their
respective King Chark Fidos, poodles, and
pugs,*to say nothing of all the black-and-tan won-
derful Billys, who kill their forty rats in thirty
minutes. On all these the tax will be raised to an
even 125., and instead of losing the 10,0001. a year
that he talks about under this heading, Mr. Glad-
stone will make money by the change, if his collec-
tors are not negligent. After dogs, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer deals with the heraldic wares,
putting the respective taxes of 2/. 12s. 9d., V. 6s.
4d., an 13s. 2d. respectively, as the rates at which
the gentle vanity of or and argent, gules and azure,
in all their various ingenuities of shield or ensign,
quarterings and elaborations, may be alone legally
" called, used or worn by any person."
The long list winds up with the weightiest of its
contents—land tax redemption and the stamp
duties. Under the latter we have the concession
to Lord Robert Grosvenor and the attorneys—a
seeming rather than a real concession to life
assurers—the new and good plan for using penny
postage heads as the only needful and legal receipt
stamps upon payment of money—and another valu-
able proposition that a cheque may be legally drawn
at any place distant more than fifteen miles from
the place where such cheque is made payable to
bearer on demand, provided the cheque bears„;
a penny label stamp. Heretofore such documents
were illegal, unless stamped as bills ;—hereafter a
man may in the country write and date cheques
payable to bearer by his town banker, if he first
affixes a penny Queen's-head stamp on the paper
used—writing across it.
Mr. Gladstone tells us he shall lose 155,0001. a
year by this reform of receipt stamps. Instead of
this, it would be a safe wager that he gains money,
instead of losing it, by the change. The reduction
of stamp tax on policies of life assurance is more
nominal than real. On small policies—that is,
policies up to 5001.—the charge is to be Gd. for
every 501. insured. At present the lowest stamp
is half-a-crown. So that if a man now insures a
hundred pounds on his life he pays—say premium
31. 35., and duty 2s. 6d. ; making 3/. ss. Gd. By
Mr. Gladstone's plan he pays exactly two shillings
less, or 31. 3s. 6d. This is all the relief he would
get, for on life policies the tax is paid only once.
On the whole, however, the part of the new scheme
which relates to assessed taxes, like that which
deals with Customs, is good. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer calculates to lose 87,000/. on ser-
vants, and 95,0001. on private carriages. We
doubt if he will lose a single penny in the course
of two years. The difficulty of the right hon.
gentleman will be the Income and Property Tax.
Upon that his opponents found all their hopes.

(From the Morning Adver'i^er.)
We yesterday stated, that the Budget of the
Coalition Cabinet would be strenuously opposed in
some of its more important parts. We especially
mentioned two grounds on which the income tax

will be assailed, and adverted to the probability of
such a combination of parties being formed as
would place Ministers in a minority.
The information which has reached us seems also
to have found its way to Downing-street ; for the
Ministerial organ yesterday announces, in the
plainest possible terms, that in the event of Go-
vernment being defeated on the Budget, a dissolu-
tion will immediately follow. " The rejection,"
says the Ministerial journal, is concluding its arti-
cle, "of any considerable part of the scheme will
necessarily frustrate the whole. If, however, such
an event should unfortunately occur, there is a
Court of Appeal, and .the constituencies will not
fail to understand the gratitude due to those who
may stand between the country and financial pros-
perity."
This is bold enough, certainly. A more unmis-
takeable menace could not be held over the heads
of those members who may have resolved to act an
honest and independent part in the coming divi-
sions on the Budget. But, as if that were not suf-
ficient, a meeting, we are told, of the Liberal party
is to be held at Chesham-place, when the leader of
the House of Commons will tell those who think
proper to be present, that, in the event of the
Gladstone Budget suffering in any of its more im-
portant parts, the inevitable result will be a disso-
lution of Parliament. The noble lord who is, on
Saturday next, to hold this threat in terrorem

over the heads of the Liberal party, has written a
work on the Constitution of this country. Will
his lordship be kind enough to inform us, whether
to attempt, by menaces of this nature, to deter
members from voting in accordance with their con-
victions of right, be in consonance with constitu-
tional principles ?
But we trust that no representative of the people
will be diverted from his purpose by any such
threats. The man who is so, will find in the end,
not only that he has acted dishonestly, and sacri-
ficed. his independence, but that he has pursued an
impolitid course. We must have a dissolution, un-
der any circumstances, soon. It is impossible that
a second session can pass away without an appeal
to the country. And those members who, under
the pressure 'of Ministerial menaces, may act in op-
position to their convictions, will, they may rely
on it, find that they will have a very unpleasant
reckoning to make with their constituents when
they have tore-appear on the hustings.
But it is, besides, a most reprehensible thing on
the part of? Ministers to put the question thus,—
Either the whole Budget, or a dissolution ? For
what purpose does the House of Commons assemble
and deliberate ? Is it not one of its chief functions
to correct what may be erroneous in the Ministerial
measures? If the Legislature is not to be at liberty
to amend what it believes to be faulty in the policy
of Government, without being subjected to the
threat of a dissolution by its organs, it had better
abdicate its functions at once. The Ministerial
menace is based on the assumption that the House
of Commons has nothing to do but to endorse,
sanction, and give effect to the measures 'of the
Cabinet. We do not so' read the constitution' of
England. The people do not so comprehend it.
This blind and sei vile submission to the wishes of
Ministers would be quite in keeping with the state
of affairs in a neighbouring country ; but it is as
foreign to the views of Englishmen, as it is at vari-
ance with all constitutional principles. It may be
right to 'remind the Coalition Cabinet 'that matters
have not yet come to the same pass' in this country
as they have done in France. No Louis Napoleon
sits on the throne of these realms. As yet we
have not seen once in the House of Commons—
and trust we never shall—what we see daily in the
Corps Legislatif, namely, decisions on great public
questions after this fashion :—For the Government
bill, 234 ; against it, 0. So long as we are blessed
with representative institutions, we shall never
witness such vtronderful unanimity as this.
The leader of the House of Commons is the last
man in that assembly who ought to lend himself to
any_ attempts to tamper with the' conscientious
convictions and independence of members. He has
already placed himself in a position, in connection
With this income tax, which, to every honourahle
mind, must be deemed the reverse of enviable.
Immediately after the , formation of the Aberdeen
Administration, he assigned.as_the reason why there
could be no Reform Bill this session, that the time
which would be required 'to revise the income. taxr
would be so great as to render it impossible
find
Ministers to do both things. And now w
the income tax would consume so much
ssf _ y
that, though under the pretext that theorevith'sineotnnnoof
of the Cabinet as to preclude the possibility
ofof
bringing in and carrying through.
far, indeed,from
no revision of the tax at all. So.
Parliamentary Reform, we are in reality to have
the
Jong period of seven -sr
its being revised, we are to. havenot itonrelynewwiethd for
au
its
elements of injustice. How the
present Obnoxious fcat-ureaerss, but with the addition
of some new
noble lord will reconcile what he said in an_
nounchw the Ministerial policy of the session,
relative 'to the revision of the income tax, with
what Mr. Gladstone 'proposes to do, is more than
we can tell. What the country will think of the
whol
e tffahiers,ittahteereto ccanhabreactoridseouibtt in Theit properpeople
terms. They will plainly and emphatically call it
a piece of downright dishonesty---a regular political
presume' objectst to the Budget as a
juggle.o
No one
we
whole. :And, assuredl •
never entered the mind
of any member of Parliamentl to propose its entire
,rejection. We can discern many excellent things
more regret than ourselves
itno isteeaintsd nonerejectionwould b
hrat the
is inh a measure does not
ouse. But surely the
approval of Bauch t
necessarily require that we
h
What we want is to
ft
► away the bad. Week preservsqotuhledgmp,roanvedopfnarllge.
rot to destroy the Budget,