The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-20 00:00:00

ebeiernin

LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 185

When Sir CHARLES WOOD was enlightening the
House of Commons and the country on Monday
evening with the disclosure of the varied contents of
his " PRECIOUS BUDGET," he desired that a decision
with respect to the " income-tax " should be come to
at as early a period as possible. He justified this de-
mand on the ground that the " financial scheme"
(the word was well chosen) depended on the renewal
of the income-tax, and that therefore he ought to be
placed in a position to proceed immediately with the
measures which are dependent on its adoption by the
House, or if, on the other hand, the income-tax
should be refused, that his 'successor should have as
much time as possible to prepare his financial scheme.
The Right Honourable Baronet has thus flung down
his gage of battle, intimating that his continuance in
office depends on a prompt and ready submission
being yielded to his high behests, that if the chosen
representatives of the people dare to run counter to his
sovereign will and pleasure, or to exhibit any symp-
toms of insubordination, the country will thenceforth
be deprived of his inestimable services. It is unques-
tionably a fearful alternative. On the one side of the
scale is the income-tax, in its present unjust, un-
equal, and oppressive form, paralysing the exertions
of those who are toiling mentally and bodily to sup-
port their families in the position they are bound to
occupy, and to lay by some provision for the days of
sickness or old age, or the period when their wives
and children will be deprived of the fostering care and
protection of their parent. On the other side is
Sir CaaaLes WOOD with his precious Budget ! !
If we perpetuate that iniquitous impost
without revision or modification—and if it be con-
ceded on the present occasion it will' he perpetuated—
we create a deep and burning sense. of injury, that
will rankle in the hearts of a numerous body of edu-
cated and active-minded men, arraying them in open
hostility against the law of the land, or, what may be
still worse, inducing them to avoid the palpable in-
justice with which they are treated by wilful and de-
liberate concealment, or by deceptive returns. The
A. B. or X. Y. Z. who occasionally figure in the
public journals as making restitution for " income-tax
evaded" by inclosing Bank notes to a large amount to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must be of peculiarly
sensitive dispositions if they should feel any qualms of
conscience for escaping from assessments under Sche-
dules D. or E. It will, it must eventually produce a
stain upon and lead to the demoralization of the national
character. These are results to be avoided at almost
any price, even at the risk of our sagacious Minister
of Finance shaking the dust from off his feet when
abandoning the ungrateful and short-sighted Senate,
and seeking consolation in the shady groves of Hie-
kleton Hall, mad carrying with him to his retirement
the "model Budget" of the age.
Let us see, however, what it is we are about to
reject—the real value of the boon that is tendered for
our acceptance. Against the perpetuation of the in-
come• tax we have—crede Sir CHARLES WOOD—the
abolition of the window-tax. This would, undoubt-
edly, be something to boast of—something for which
to bless the name of the man to whom the country
was entitled for so great a concession. Stop, too
credulous reader ! pause for a moment before you
yield too easy a credence to the assertions of
our excellent Minister. We need not inquire into
the motives that induced the Right Hon. Baronet to
meddle with the obnoxious tax on light and air;
whether he was moved by considerations of equity
and policy, or by a recollection of the narrow escape
which the Government had last session of being de-
feated on the motion of the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath. The slender majority of three (!) might
haply have dwelt on his memory, and it is possible
that his colleagues might have directed his attention
to the subject in a manner that could not be disre-
garded. The result, however, is all that we have to
deal with, and if it were the object to make the
smallest concession with the greatest possible preten-
sion, we might congratulate Sir CHARLES on
having accomplished his design. The win-
dow - tax was to be abolished with all
its gross inequalities, that made houses in
unaristocratic situations contribute as much
to the revenue as others of five times their
value in more fashionable localities. But good,
kind, liberal Sir CHARLES WOOD is not the person
to deprive the " men of his order" of any advantage
which they have hitherto enjoyed at the expense of
the multitude. The evil is to be averted so far as all
buildings that may henceforward be erected are con-
cerned, but to all existing houses it is to be perpe-
tuated. Future buildings are to be taxed five per cent.,
or ls. in the pound, on their value, it being confessedly
a more equitable mode of assessment than that de-
pendent on the number of apertures to admit light or
air. But he will not act equitably towards
must .continue to
ir n 5 eorfa ttihon .
the present
r
` NO, they
tchheayrge, as a continuing
pay
pt r
we
os nat g
tax, and that although the dwellings have ceased to
be value ale. The miserable option of blocking up
window 3, ttind Ow getting rid of the impost, will 110