The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-19 00:00:00

THE PRECIOUS BUDGET.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TI iES.—Sir Charles Wood has asked the Helve of
Common:, to give him a vote for the renewal of the in-
come-tax. He brings forward no proposition for a mo-
dification in the form of assessment, but simply requires
the House to perpetuate the injustice of former years.
Now, it would be idle to apply to a Finance Minister
those maxims of ethical science by which the conduct of
individuals should be governed. We must not, there-
fore, talk of injustice. Money he must and will have,
and by the most obvious means. No means are, of
corks°, so obvious for the coming year as those which
answered for the previous twelvemonth. Nothing so
simple as the preparation of a budget—" Stamps, ro
much ; tobacco, tea, customs, so much ; income tax—
what was it laet year?—so much." Thus, in a few mi-
nutes, the question is disposed of. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer buttons his greatcoat, steps down to the-
House, and, with the strength of the Ministry and of
his party behind him, resolves to push the matter through
in some way or other, and so tide it over until another
year. We can only trace one slight feature of diff, r•
ence between the present rftposition of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and similar proposals in former years.
The distinction, after all, is merely one of sentiment in
the proposer. Sir Charles' Wood this time drops the
complicated hypocrisy of styling the impost in question
a property and income-tax. This time the income-tax
is the income-tax, just as petty larceny is petty larceny.
Sir Charles Wood is becoming bolder as he advances in
his career. You might as well reason with a Highland
cateran when out on a cattle-lifting expedition. He
acknowledges but one maxim, and that maxim Rob
Roys:—

"He may take who has the pones.,
And he may keep Who can."
Which pithy sentiment, transposed into income-tax
prose, may not inappositely be. rendered thus :—" I have
remonstrances enough against various portions of the
income-tax, suggesting the reduction of Schedule A, the
abolition of Schedule B, the injustice of Schedule D;
and I am perfectly prepared to admit that exceedingly
good arguments may be advamed by various interests
against all except Schedule Q But, after all, I have
come to the conclusion that, ender all circumstances,
the fairest and justest mole is that of placing
one uniform rate upon al, descriptions of in-
come." So there we have it. That is all the
logic we are to get in return for our money. Two
men present themselves before the Chancellor of
the Exchequer—the one shining, and in good case, like
a Pharoah's fat cow, the other ban, hungry, and care-
worn, as Romeo's apothecary was. Each holds out a
hand. On the plump palm of tae corpulent applicant
repose a 1001. note, four sovereigns in gold, half-a-
sovereign, and ten shillings in saver and copper. The
lean man clutches in his skinny grasp the same coins,
but no 1001. note. It is his year's earning—all that
he could tear out of his poor braiss and nerves in twelve
weary months. To gain it he has shortened his life; a
few years more such labour, ant all is over with him.
His wife and his little ones may go to the parish, or
sell broom-sticks at the bridge's end, for the annual
51. must be annually expeaded on food and raiment. But
with his fat neighbour it is otherwise. It was the 1001.
note that worked while the neighbour hunted, and
shot, and staffed, and slept. At the year's end the note
is not at all exhausted by the generative process, but is
just as ready to produce five litde golden cherubs next
year. However, the fat and the lean man are
now standing before the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ready to be shorn. The Minister
commences operations by a speech upon the ad-
vantages of direct taxation, to which both
victims yield a willing assent. Next follow the words
" I have come to the conclusion that the fairest and,
justest method of carrying out direct taxation is that
of placing one uniform rate upon all descriptions of in-
come." So saying, the functionary dips his fingers into
the hands of the victims, and takes exactly sevenpencse
in the pound from each. Of coarse, the owner of the
1001. note sings a Te Deum, and declares there is no-
thing so mild, so equitable, so Levelling, as an uniform
tax upon income, which leaves his property undisturbed.
Just as much as is wrongfully taken from his neighbour
does he put into his pocket, and of course he is satisfied.
But how is it with the man who, by hook and by crook,
has scraped together the five severei,gos? His reason-
ings and his remonstrances are met with the orpetual
humdrum, "I have come to the conclusion, Sec."
Argument, as we have often said before, is out of the
question. With a man who hm a mind so singularly
constituted that ho cannot apprehend a difference be-
tween something and nothing i; would be mere idleness
to reason. Nor is it worth while to waste words upon
those who understand by direct taxation a system of
taxation which dues not strike with equal force
every 11. sterling in the country. Happily, as yet, the
tax is merely proposed, not voted. The members of the
Lower House will hesitate before they consent to re-
introduce into the statute-book an enactment which has
excited so much indignation throughout the country.
From the first time it has beena matter of hypocrisy and
deception. Men kept quiet uron the subject because it
seemed intended that at a time named the injustice should
cease. tielf-deception, however, is impossible any
longer. The income-tax hoe stuck to us since 1842; we
are now in 1851, end it is proposed to give it another
three years' spell. The year 1861 will find ass exactly
in the same condition, and with as little chance of getting
rid of the obnoxious impost. It is not that we disap-
prove—we should rather say, that public opinion disap-
proves, the partial introduction of direct tax 'lion into
our financial system. On the contrary, a judicious com-
bination of direct and indirect taxation would appear to
be the fi!ell scheme best adapted to the necessities and
position of the country. But then the direct taxation
must not come upon us is the form of a graduated
property-tax—the gradations of the tax varying in an
inverse ratio with the amount of property. There
must be no blunder, no injustice, no dishonesty of
this kind, or the inevitable result will follow. Under
any circumstances we must condemn without qualifica-
tion falsehood and perjury; but we cannot phut cur eyes
to the evidence of the Parliamentary returns. We can-
not but admit, whilst we deplore, the fact of the enor-
mous amount of lyi which must have taken place in
making the return to the income-tax. We lament it,
but we do not wonder at such a result. Taxation is
hard enough of endurancest all times, but when it comes
aggravated with a sense of injustice we are not surprised
that men do by all wears, questionable or otherwise,
avoid the payment of a tax. Now that Sir Charles
Wood's proposition is before the House, the discussion
upon it will soon follow, A very keen attention will
be given to the votes and speeches of Members upon a
point so interesting to the country. We look to a better
result than in former years, and for this plain reason:—
In bygone times the first imposition, and the temporary
re-impositioa of the tax, might be justified by the emer-
gency of the moment. It might be allowed us to sup-
pose that the impost was really only of a transitory
character. But now, for better for worse, direct taxation
is a constituent element of our financial system unless
the re-imposition of this very tax in so obnoxious and
dishonest a form should induce the country to avoid it
altogether 't On the whole," Sir Charles Wood should
reflect that it is just possible people out of doors " may
come to a conclusion! "
ADVERTISER.—A more complete financial abortion
than the Budget of Monday night was never ushered
into existence in this or any other country. Had its
Right Honourable framer devoted his nights and days
during the legislative recess, iu studying how ho could
make it thoroughly imbecile, absurd, and unsatisfactory,
he could not have been more successful in concocting a
measure entitled to be so characterised. It is humiliat-
ing to the national character, to see so bungling a
piece of financial handicraft as that which Sir Charles
Wood submitted to the House on Monday. It is con-
ventionally assumed that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer is the ablest financier in the country. 'We all
know the contrary. Wo all know that some of the
most incompetent men that ever professed to be con-
versant with figures, have, by some lucky accident or
other, filled that office. It would be difficult to find
hell a dezan men of ordinary education, and average
talents, more unfit for the situation which he fills, than
is Sir Charles Wood. It would be impossible to find a
person, possessing the slightest knowledge of financial
matters, who would have brought forward so
miserable an abortion as the Budget which the Right
Honourable Gentleman submitted to the House on
Monday night. It is mortifying to think that
foreign countries will identify the national capacity
for financial affairs with the foolish and feeble de-
velopment of Monday night. They will assume,
from the fact of Sir Charles Wood filling the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is the greatest
man in the country on financial questions. What, then,
must they think of the nation? We can, it is true, pity
their ignorance in forming any such opinion of Sir
Charles, but that is the only consolation we have. They
will persist in the belief that he is our ablest man in
matters of finance, and that, consequently, on that im-
portant subject, we are a nation of ignoramuses and im-
beciles. It rests with the people of this country, to say
whether or not they are willing to rest under this im-
putation. It is in their power, if they are so disposed,
to purge themselves from it. We cannot doubt that they
will. It is hard enough that we should stiffer in pocket
from the bungling workmanship of this incompetent
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let us not tamely submit
to tee the national character made ridiculous in the eyes
of other countries, through the ignorance and follies of
a man whom accidental circumstances alone have placed
in his present position. The Budget of Sir
bCharles.re,
Woodmust be smashed. It must be swept Arne. entirely.
It must be hooted and hissed off thhpbobacic t
never to re-appear. It is a bava:naotbebwo
mended. It is incurably bad. measure
must Wo
or cannot give us a
Budget. If Sir Charles will
aid of some ono else,
better article, we must call in nothboet_
the power to do it.
who has both the disposition
god.
It is for himself to
Either he or his Budgetb
mustssured of this, that his Budget
say which. Let him .
etheeiBal
.capaeity, cannot co-exist.
and himself, in his
is no elterentlye for but to give it up, or for
hTihesreelfto give in. The two great features of the mea-
sure--'w tit, way in which tin proposes to deal with the
are,
window duties, and his determination to perpetuate the
i e-tex es it now stands. IL; plans tith regard
trt(-137 window-tax have already been met with one
universal shout of derision and indignation throughout
the metropolis. The provinces will echo and re-echo the
voice of the metropolis. The loud cry of diseppo'ntment
and ire which now eseen.ls from every mouth iu Lon-
don, will he heard with increased energy and emphasis
from the lips of all elutes in the country. It seems as
if the Right lion. Gentleman had deemed the question
of the window duties a legitimate one for trying
to WI at extent he might experiment on the patience
of the public. His mode of dealing with it appears
to indicate something Worse than ignorance and
incapacity. It looks its if he were determined delibe-
ratly to trifle with the feelings of the people'. The; hi
a danger:le game for tiir Charles to play. Tondos,