The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

eider, not whether free trade has so much improved the
Position of capitalists and of the industrious classes, but
in what position these classes would now be but for free
trade. Another of the Chancellor's theories was, that
as we were quite neh enough to pay a heavy amount of
taxa:ion, so we should maintain and keep a surplus for
Paying off the debt. And he actually twitted Lord Mel-
bourne's Government with having abolished the sinking
fund, and allowed a deficit to grow. But why was the
sinking fund abolished? Was it impatience or unwil-
lingness on the part of the Legislature to devote money
to the payment of the debt? No—but because this sur-
plus or the sinking fund voted for the redemption of the
debt. was always swallowed up by the extravagance of
the Government first, and then fresh money borrowed
at high prices to redeem the debt at a loss. Had we bad
truly honest, careful, and really accountable Govern-
meats, the sinking fund would never have been abo-
lished. What a Minister ought to do with a surplus
would be to turn it to the most profitable account. And
the most profitable is indubitably to apply it to such
reductions of duties as will make up by increased con-
sumption the at first diminished amount. Five or six
millions spent in bringing down the tea duties to
a cent. per cent. tax, yet bringing them to contribute the
same amount of revenue; these are sums more profitably
spent than in any redemption of debt. And the same
may be said of malt. The greatest, however, of Sir
Charles Wood's imprudences last night was his declara-
tion, that although; the property-tax was imposed in
1842 for a special purpose, of partly meeting a deficit
and partly relieving consumers, in 1845 it was re-
newed on altogether a different basis. In other words,
it was to be permanent, Of all the political capital that
has been of late flung to the Protectionists this is the
most precious, and that of which they will make no use.
Has Sir Charles Wood yet to learn that much that is
good to be dose is by no means good to be said? Peel
would have burnt his tongue ere he allowed it to utter
such a truth. And Peel would never have committed
the egregious blunder of ,giving up the window-tax in
the same session in which he was to ask the renewal of the
income-tax. The window-tax he would have no doubt abo-
lished, but he would have done so before. At all
events, for the session in which the renewal of the in-
come-tax was to be voted, be would have taken care to
come forward with what he called an equivalent—some-
thing to compensate, and stir up the people not only to
tolerate, but applaud it. He would have appealed to the
housewife's teapot, and cheapened its contents, as
rider to the Bid that was to renew the income-tax. In-
stead of this, Sir C. Wood comes forward with a remis-
sion of direct taxation on the one hand, and the re-im-
position of direct taxation on the other. And he expects
so have the country sneer this without any inquiry into
the merits, adjustment, or equi-distribution of direct
taxation in general. We can only say that if Parlia-
ment and the public do suffer this, it can only be in
pity tor Sir Charles Wood's helplessness, and in despair
of his capacity, not from any approbation of his
plans or want of consciousness of their faults and
utter incoherence. Sharing these sentiments ourselves,
we shall not criticise Sir Charles Wood's house-tax.
We retain the objections we long since stated, and think
that all parts of direct taxation should be considered to-
gether. But it is undeniably an improvement. But
we regret that it was not graduated in a slight de-
gree, and that instead of exempting all houses under
201., a small percentage was not put upon all houses.
Ira the case of the tenements under 201. it would always
be paid by the owners, and we do not see why capital
vested in one species of houses should not pay as well
as capital vested in another. The rent paid by the poor
for their habitations is enormous, not because of the
high price of materials, or of building, or of the amount
of capital invested, but because of the insecurity of such
tenants paying, and of the kind of capitalists who gene-
rally supply such houses. They are generally builders
of small means, who seek a largo return for their out-
lay, and who can give that personal vigilance required
for the collection of the rents. Threepence in the pound
on such houses, say five shillings for a twenty-pouni
house, would in no wise raise the rent for the poor cc-
cupant, and would make a large return to the revenue.
There are 3.500,000 betties in England, and any one can
calculate. The advantages of indirect taxation are uni-
versality, and eon esquently the greatness of its result.
If the same advantage bp not allowed to be possessed by
direct taxation, the latter mill not have that sway and
use is should have. And the fairest and least burden-
some system of taxation will be rendered the most bur-
densome and the most unpopular.