The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-21 00:00:00

MAJORITY-NOES,-102.

Adair, Hugh E. Goold, Wnydhani Osborne, Ralph
Adair, R. Shafto Grace, 0. D.
~ Peto, Samuel
Adderley, C. B. Greene, John Rendlesham,'Lord
Alcock, Thomas Guernsey, Lord Reynolds, John
Ansley, Thomas Gwyn, Howel Rushout, Captain
Arkwright, George Hall, Sir B. Sadleir, John
Bagshaw, John
Barrow, W. H' Hanmer, Sir J. L .serope, (I. P.
Bell, Jacob Sanders, George
,IliarHlailmld:elLatosont:d,eJ,
J.II. .
.
Berkeley, C. L. G. - Ileadlam, T. E. ' eynaer, H. K.
~ Scully, Francis
Blackall, S. W. A.
• ' ' Shafto, R. D.
Blair, Stephen Hodgson, W. N. . Smith, J. Benjamin
Blake, M. J. Hood, Sir A. ~ . 1 Smyth, J:slin George
Booker, T. W. ' Hope, Alexander Stafford, Augustus
Bremridge, Richard Inglis, Sir R. , . Stanley, E. H.
Chatterton, Colonel Jackson, Williarn,,, , , Stuart, John
Clay, James Keogh, William `
Cole, H. A. • ' Kershaw, James ' ' Thompson, Colonel
Collins, William King, P. J.. ~ ti,, Trelawny, J. S.
Copeland, Alderman Knox, Colonel .., •t ;;Vane, Lord H.
Cowan, Charles Locke, Joseph Waddington, H. S.
Davies, D. A. Lushington, CharleS Waddington, David
Devereux, J.,T. 'Lygon, Gen. , -,4 : x Wall, C. B.
nivel, E. Meagher, Thomas' , Walmsley, Sir T.
Douglas, Sir C. E. 'Mahon, Viscount'''. '" Westhead, J. P.--
Duncuft, John Manners, Lord .It tII , Williams, John
Edwards, Henry • Milaes, R. M., j:.,) Williams, W.
Evans, Sir De Lacy Milton, Viscount Williamson, Sir H.
Fagan, William Molesworth,Sir W.--1 t Wilson, Matthew
Mmoorrnsiesll,
D, Nairvillld am
.- ' Wodehouse, E.
Fergus, John Wyvill,' Marmaduke
Fox, Richard M. • Naas, Lord Young, Sir John
Fox, W. J. O'Connell, M. J. TELLERS.
Farrer, James .
' OConnor, Feargus
Frewen, C. H. Galway, Viscount
Fuller, A. E. O'Flaherty, Anthony Mackenzie, W.F.

COUNTY FRAistenisE
.
, ,
Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to
bring in a Bill to make the Franchise in. Counties in England
boroughs, by giving the
raingclUtWofalvesottihneg staomea
all
value of ten pounds." The House divided :—.
osccuthpiaetrs in
of
tenements of the annual
MAdORITY—AYES, 100,
Adair, R. A. Hall, Sir B. Pilkington, James
Adair, Hugh E. Hanmert Sir J. Pinney, William
Hastie, Alexander Rice, E. RA.l'derman
Harris, Richard
Aleock, Thomas Power, Dr.
Anderson, Arthur
Anstey, T. C. Robartes, T. J.
Bass, M. T. lleadlam, T. E. ,
Blake, M. J. Hodges' T• L. balwey, Colonel
Seholetleid, W.
Scrope, G. P.
Bright, John IlumpherY, Aid. 'Shalto, R. D.
Brocklehurst, John Hutt, William
131ewitt, Reginald IRiward, F. H %
Ilastie, Archibald
Jackson, William
Brotherton, J. S 1 '
Brown, W. Keating, Robert aney, Robert A.
Smith, Vernon
Smith, John B.
Calvert, Frederic Langston, d ./1
Trelawny, J. S.
Banbury, Edward Kershaw, James Tye!
Stan.sficld, W. R.
Carter, john B. Lawless, Cecil Strickland; Sir;G.
Chaplin, W. J. Lennard, T. B. Stuart, Lord D.
Clay, James Locke, Joseph Sullivan, Michael
Clifford, H. M. Loveden, 11375 e Tancred,,ll. W.
Cobden, R. Lushington, C. Tenison, E. K.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Mackie, John
T.
Thicknesse, R. A.
Collins, W. 31,cullagh, W. Thompson, Colonel
D'Eyncourt, C. T. HrTaggae-,
Crawford, W. S. l'd'Gregor, Joh, n Thornely, Thomas
Drummond, Henry Meagher, Thomas Villiers, F. W.
Duncan, Lord Mangles, E. H. Wakley, Thomas
Ellis, John Moffatt, George
Sir J.
Walmslev, Sir J.
Evans, Sir De Lacy Molesworth, Sir W. Wawn, J. T.
Evans, William Moore, G. IL Williams, John
Ewart, William Muntz, G. F. Williams W.
Fagan, William O'Connor. Feargua Wilson, Matthew
Forster, Matthew O'Flaherty, Anthony Wood, W. P.
Fox, W. J. Oswald, Alexander MUM.
Gibson, T. M. 'When, Sir G. Hume, Joseph
Granger, T. C. Perfect, Robert Ring, P. J.

MINORITY.—NOES, 52.
Adderley, C. B. Frewen, C. U. Parker, John
Arbuthnott, Hon. H, Grace, O. D. Power, Nicholas
Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir G. Domilly, Sir John
Baring, Sir F. Grey, R. W. Russell, Lord John
Barrow, W. IL Ilatchell, John Seymour, H. D.
Bellew, R. H. Hawes, Beniarnin Seymour, Lord
Berkeley, Admiral maid, James Somerville, Sir W.
Blair, Stephen Henley, J. W. Stanley, E.
Bremridge, Richard Hobliouso, sir J. Stanton, W. S.
Brockman, E. D. Hood, Sir A. Turner, G. J.
Buck, L. W. Hernby, John Verner, Sir W.
Campbell, W. F. Knight, F. W. Williamson, Sir 11.
Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, Henryn Wilson, James
Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Wood, Sir Charled
Duncuit, John Lewis, G. C.

Dundas, Admiral Mauls, Fox TELLERS.
Dundas, Sir David Napier, Joseph IlaYter, W. G.
Elliot, J. E. Eill, Lord M.
Freestun, Colonel rraaggeett:
Lord
dd
G.

Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
office, from the Governors of New South Wales, New
Zealand, the Cape of Good 'lope, Sierra Leone, and St.
Helena.

N G 3

THE PRECIOUS BUDGET.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES.—Me. Locke King brought on I,st night his
annuli motion for the assimi ration of the county frac-
chis to that of boroughs, and after a brisk little debate
kliniaters were beaten by a majority of two to one. Mr.
King mustered a round hundred against the Ministerial
52 —exsctly one for each county in England and Wales.
No-v, really this is too bid. It is too bad that people
who have been saying for years that something ought to
be done, and who on the strength of the present Go-
vernment saying the same have not withdrawn their
confidence from it, should be put into this ignominious
position—for every usual supporter of Government
comes in for a share of its scandals. Think of the pro-
poser of the Reform Bill being beaten twenty years
after, two to one, on a question of reform! This comes
of a man having once done a good thing—a circum-
stance well known to be ruinous to ordinary minds.
Well was his Lordship christened Finality John. He
is evidently. one of those who worship the work of
their own hands, as if many as great a man had not
lived to see all his work scattered to the winds. Behest
year fully admitted the intrinsic metits of Mr. King's
plan, acknowledging the strong claims of 101. house-
holders, and confessed that it was only a question of
time. This 'language, in which we entirely concurred,
had its natural effect on his 159 supporters, who all saw
that the opposition was virtually abandoned, and that,
for the future, they were to deal with the question as
they might think best. The result was, that the ma-
jority of 159 dwindled Last night to less than one-third,
while Mr. King's compact and persevering century of
Reformers remained exactly what it was lest year, viz,
one hundred men—neither more nor less. It is not,
then, Mr. King that has gained ground, but Lord
John Russell that has lost it. lie was distinctly
warned last session, both in the House and in
these columns, that unless he should be prepared
with a measure for comprehending some very
important classes now wholly unrepresented, he
would find many of his supporters !saving him in the
lurch. MI that he could then say was, that it was a
question of time, end that the middle of July was too
late to set about it. Mr. King has brought it on in the
middle of February, and his Lordship is equally unpre-
pared. We think we have the greatest reason to com-
plain of this management, not merely because we are
anxious to see something done in the way of reform. but
also because Mr. King has been allowed a more unqua-
lified triumph for his particular plan then we are ready
to accord. The principle of admitting all the 101. house-
holders at present unrepresented to the county franchise,
and of thus mekirg the county the residuary legatee of
all other constituencien is a very sweeping one, and
would require some correction. In many, if
net insist, of our counties the landowners and farmers
would be utterly swamped among a multitude
f tradesmen, shopkeepers, and even artisans.
Again, the proportion of 101. householders is much
larger in trading than in purely agricultural districts.
In ten rural parishes containing ten thousand inhabit-
eras there may very easily be not more than a hundred
101. householders, allowing on the average a squire, a
clergyman, four farmers, a shopkeeper, a publican, a
blacksmith, and a carpenter to each. But in a town of
ten thousand inhabitants there will be not far short of a
thousand 101. householders. Should, however, the pro-
portion be 200 such householders to 10,000 agricul-
turists, and 800 of them to 10,000 inhabitants of a town,
then Mr. King's plan would give the trading classes of the
county four times as much representative weight as he gives
to the agricultural classes, besides leaving the former
in almost exclusive possession of the cities and
boroughs now sending Members to Parliament. The
plan would require at the very least that many large
towns, and perhaps whole districts, should be made Par-
liamentary boroughs, in order that they might not prove
overwhelming additions to the county constituencies.
But, thanks to Lord John Russell, Mr. King has obtained
a signal advantage for his naked proposition to make the
qualification the same in county as in lowa. Such is
our double complaint—first, that Lord John Russell has
procured for his followers the discredit of resisting Par-
liamentary reform; secondly, that he has given a real
advantage to a sweeping and unqualified measure.
But last night's affair has in more respects than
one a very ugly appearance. It is useless to con-
ceal that Government is losing weight both in the
[louse and out of it. There are rocks a-head of all
sorts. Tosnight comes on the income-tax, which from
the first we have protested against, for the Procrustean
rule which it applies to the lonpst and shortest tenures
—to the rent which has been paid a thousand years, and
wilt probably be paid as much longer, and to the pro-
fessional or literary income which may cease to-morrow.
Farmers, tradesmen, and almost every other class, object
to the tax as it now stands, and their combined objec-
tions are likely enough to be expressed in the speeches
and votes of this evening. That impediment passed,
then comes the window-tax, and Sir Charles Wood's
house-tax. The public, we are much concerned to say,
does not appreciate the elaborate conscientiousness with
which Sir Charles has endeavoured to carve out his sur-
plus amongst the numerous expectants or non-expectants
of his bounty. The repeal of the corn-laws, and some other
largo measures, have utterly spoilt them for half-and-
half bonus. We really think that Sir Charles might
have retained-the window-tax with better grace than he
has proposed to " repeal " it. We cannot help it—no-
body can help it—the public has a certain way of view-
things, and its present feeling is very much that which
Dickens describes in a large hungry family, which had
been led to expect a Christmas pudding, and received in-
stead five yards of flannel. As matters 1, ois at present,
there is not a little chance of this long-expected boon
being sulkily refused, in the hope that somebody else will
do the thing more handsomely,—in fact, as Peel would
have done it. To some other measures we need not now
allude more particularly, but it is evident that Ministers
are not to be allowed so easy a time of it as they have
hitherto silo) eci, and that the fourth session, so fatal to
the popularity of Governments and the constancy of
supporters, is beginning to tell. At such a crisis we
must call it an unpardonable slip to leave Mr. Locke
King in possession of Reform, with a popular cause and
a large majority. As to the promise of a measure next
session, who can pretend to say how we shall all stand
by that time? The announcement is like that of the
Newgate Ordinary who promised to take the second part
of his text next Sunday, though the persons he was ad-
dressing were to be hanged the next morning. The
only difference is that in the present instance it is the
preacher rather than the congregation that is in danger
of losing his position.
Whatever be the merits or demerits of the budget of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite evident that
it cannot pass in its present shape, and the sooner this
truth is recognised and acted upon the better. Sir
Charles Wood has very properly pressed the House to let
him know the fate of his scheme as soon as possible, and
we think he is not likely to be kept long in suspense.
Sir Charles Wood calls upon the people of this country
to make a great sacrifice, to submit for three years more,
and thus to increase the probability of having to submit
for ever, to a most inquisitorial and unequal tax, which
used to be considered as a desperate resort, to be had re-
course to only in time of war. The fact that the income-
tax does not increase in proportion to the income shows
that the sense of its injustice and the facility of eluding
it offer temptations too great to be withstood, and
that it is, in fact, debauching the conscience of the
country. These inequalities and immoral tendencies Sir
Charles is at no pains to remedy, bat flings them before
the House, to take or to reject in the lump, only re-
questing to be favoured with an early intimation of their
opinion. The measure is too bad to be altered, there-
fore it must be passed as it stands. The income-tax was
laid on by Sir Robert Peel partly to cover a deficit of
ruinous amount, partly to give a trial to a new system
of policy. which should remove the burden of taxation
from `the country to the of property, or make up
for reduced taxation on the consumer by an increase of
consumption. Sir Charles Wood claims to tread in the
steps of his great predecessor, and how does he set about
it? With a surplus of two millions, he devotes to the
policy of Sir Robert Peel 492,000 L, the sum which he
estimates will be required to meet the defi-
ciencies occasioned by the reduction of duty
on coffee, timber, and clover seed. Those, therefore,
who look with an eye of favour on the policy of Sir Ro-
bert will see little in the present Budget to reconcile
them to the re-imposition of an income-tax in a paltry
imitation of the policy of their loader, which seems to
remind them of its burdens and sacrifices without pro-
mising any of its magnificent results. But something
must be done for popularity. Principle is a noble thing,
but the greatest arithmetician, the most stoical calcu-
lator, must yield somewhat to expediency. Of all those
who have clamoured against taxation, the metropolis has
been the loudest against the window-tax, and therefore
the window-tax is to be sacrificed. A more objectionable
impost in a sanitary or architectural point of view can-
not
be conceived, and, although its reduction or aboli-
tion contains within itself no revivifying principle
like that which has compensated by increased con-
sumption for the removal of so many burdeiss, it
was so deservedly unpopular that the sternest dis-
ciple of Sir Robert Peel might well rejoice at its ex-
tinction. Here, then, if not strictly logical and con-
sistent, Sir Charles Wood was at least likely to be
popular, and to gain golden opinions from 'that very
numerous class of financiers who view the merits of a
Chancellor of the Exchequer from the commanding
point of view afforded by their own hearthstone, and
estimate the goodness or badness of his measures by the
amount of his demands upon their pockets. But Sir
Charles Wood could not be popular in a popular way.
He took those who argue against the window-tax on
account of its sanitary and architectural obliquities at
their word, and most rashly assumed, that if these ob-
jections to the tax could be removed, the tax itself might
be retained. The window-tax, after all, he seems to
have thought, is only a house-tax calculated on an ob-
jectional principle; if I alter the principle I may retain
the tax. No one was ever more mistaken. The ground
on which the window-tax is objected to is one thing;
the ground on which it is disliked is another. If
Sir C. Wood meant to carry out a system of
finance founded on scientific and farsighted principles,
he would not probably have meddled with the window-
tax at all; if he meant to court popularity he should
have abolished it altogether. As it is, he has incurred
much more odium than he would have done by steadily
pursuing the reduction of those import and excise duties
which narrow our markets, fetter our energies, wad in-
terfere with our manufactures. The meetings hold in
London and elsewhere since the promulgation of this
most infelicitous scheme sound much more like the first
transports of rage and disappointment than of gratitude
and satisfaction. The numerous class of persons who,
renting houses free from window-tax at upwards of
of
twenty pounds a year, find themselves compelled for th
first time to contribute in this form to the public reve-
nue, consider themselves, and with some justico, the vic-
tims of the system. They indignantly ask why it should
be that on the occasion of a large surplus they should
be selected to mourn amid the general rejoicing, and
the popularity which Sir Charles might hope to have

obtained by the remission set; one-third of tbe_wiedow • but let us :ell', that Cti votes upon the income-ax
tax it far more then enernterbattcce;.l by the -teat threET--iirecte"ee 'fbreratesmen obteieeel frcrn t.
morout remonstrences of the victims o' the douse-treYee Ceue:.-y the )nei,m,-.etat open a distinct Ronnie thiai,. •
Thus,- whether we Consider the Budget as desiguel tte 'elar;nicl-net fie Made a perpetual impost. Coefidii ee...• •
ei,eisfy popular outcry, or to carry out a SCielnifiC final!- that Prenthse, the country cheerfully ecceded to its temi.
vial operation, it equally fail; to conciliate support. Ir. porary icepoeition. la a spirit of deep solemnity weoeak,_,, e: •
gives a little to everybody, just enough to. stimulete- "ill arose who have so feelingly proclaimed theinstreere:'
their appetite fir mote, and then to disappoint it. It is the Gdiciaris of his (Tit:ions, now vote for the redetupe - •
little necessary for us to add
.our voice to the g.:noral tion .of the pledge which, even. from the tomb,Felpe;'e.e.l
ehoru.s of unmeasured vituperation, but we cannot help i honour of Cue e:eparted statesman cabs on them to keeps, e-e,
thinking that a great Opportunity has been lost, or rail ter inviolate.• 'se\
frittered away. Small reductions like these contained ADVERTISER..The premier and the Chancellor
in the Budget-could have bsen made in any_year, ;out of the Exchequer are brothers in adversity. It is dim-
the existence of a large surplus, and the required re- Milt to say which is most to be commiserated. They
newel of the einebeee-tex, seemed t:) suggest the doubtless sympathise with each other. They may do
.necessity either of remitting the income tax, or much by reciprocating their compassion, to keep each
Of purchasing . assent to its re-imposition. . other in co,ue,tere suchnanc a
e. Poor Lord
of legislators, " were LordLord John ! Poor Sir
some comprehensive financial measure. That cp. Charles ! ,sl
portunity has been let slip, and may not soon never sf on." It may seem unkind, hat the truth must
return. It is not, fur little amendment-1 of he teld. The sorrows of the Noble Lord and of the
little duties, for peddling alterations, which are jusr suf• Right Hon. Gentleman t.re bat beginning. Sir Charles
ficient to show hOW:much further they ought to hove Weed will, evening. have a foretaste of what is in
been carried, that the people of thisceuntryare disposed ' reserve for bin). The discussion, as the Parliamentery
to submit to a re-imposition of - ihe iecome-t;:x.. The Phraseology has it, ‘• is to he taken" on the Budget to_ -
principle of that tax is loudly condemned by public nerhe The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, cense-
talon, and will not' be acquiesced in Unless uphSkl by a quer. tly, be this night's victim. The immol,tion of the
Minister who offers to One nebula a fair and reasonable Preearer, or, rather, the coutreeecement of the process,
equivalent. To carry ou:- a great idea, to reduce our will take elect next week, when the Papal Aggression
financial system to seiensiGe and reasonable principles., it l till ?gain comes, ben° site Front all we can
has been and would be submitted to; but those who i.sk see 4,r /war, Sir Charles Wood will be c'empelled, before
for its reneteal,:- with allits iniquities unabated, mast the deck et-tikes twelve roopight, to come, in his ()ern
show themselves able •to employ the funds which' it inil4l, to one of two conclusions. He will feel that he
places at • their disposal to a really profitable purpose. D::15:: cithtn• a.banflon tai. Budget, his tints-
We would therefore counsel the Chancellor of the Ex- riots as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had better
chtquer to take back his measure, and so to recast rt si make op hie mini et ()nee re no the former. If he
that it maynieet the heP,ity approbation of, at any rate, Inetitatte the inevitehle result will he, that be will have
some class her Majt4ty'e subject's. The prettent to be be:h. it' he riesist in his edherence to his titan-
Budget, while it has encountered so many bitter enemies, Mat abortion of isfendav night, tile pellslty he .rill have
has utterly failed to conciliate for itself even lukewitem te.ty e big ffelieti pertinacity will he elf, tees of
friends. „ office. With himself will, of Outae, go hi, 8u,,-It

7NM

ITER ALD.—Theßritish Ur use of Commons is to-ni,ght
to remino the discussion of the weake.,.:, the most unjust,
and the most impolitic floar.cial scheme ever preso:ueti
by any Chancellor of the Exchequ,r to the rr.preseAte.-
tives of the.pcop'e. ,The first question upon which the
House will have to dett:rmine is the continuance or tv.fu--
continnznce of the- ineome•tax. The Chancellor of the
'Exchequer tells us, ts.nd tells.us truly, that this question
must he disposed of before the items of his Budget can
bo considered, bccauFe his Whole scheme is balled upon
the re-imposition of this odious tax. Le:, us add to t
however, that the question of the income-tax cannot he
satisfactorily decided. without-considering the whole of
the Budget, becau6e it is to sustain that Beget that the
proposal is made to re-impose the income-tax. This tax

is suggested to supply tile deficiencies in the revenue
which other parts of his financial propositions fail to meet.
It is because the ways and means of the Right Hon.
Gentleman do nut furnish sufficient to meet the expen-
diture of the country without re course to thiS extraor-
dinary assessment that it is proposed. Thu income-
tax is, in fact, • the price which we pay for the rest of
his financial measures. It is to sustain those measures
that we are called on to submit to the tax. Were we
asked whether those measures be worth the price, a stout
of derision from the whole country would be the reply.
Never was' a proposal for raising the year's revenue so
unanimously condemned by the press. All classes

g'
cannot exist an hour after 1119 official carter h'is cloAed.
If it were otberwis, cGuld umierstand. tkit_ie fedinga
hich would I,ld I:itn to cling to it with. ad the ei.2,ttou
of a Lt:h?r. We eau comp,eliond, that hne. zzoiy
:_nik,h u thkg lo the Min:etvritil world, ss a man Paving
davoted is regard ter his offspring, as to iaspitve tuna
with B. I roi :'.4n wculd prorupt him !,f) :41u1rdice
ijr6golf for the :2111;:e of a f9.v.nrite treatiure. This can-
not be so with Sir Charter Wood and.l3'.!:, hudge!. Any
4ttempt ro s,vo it from the dpsquetir,n with .11xh it is
menaced will most certainty be inefll.ettmi; while, the
very attempt to avert the inivendint annihilation, will
ncernsarily tovolva his own official extinction. If 17e at
onee abandon his Budget—if he cut out cod cast off his
own offspring, he im,y possibly thereby save himseir.
.

But it cannot, under arty .eircum;taneeP, be saved. Its
doom u: seale,l. The sentence of death is written on its
forehead. A few weeks lil;,nee, end it will be in its
tomb. It will have had but a brier existence. It has
bleu horn but to di?. It lies been uFh.,2red ;oto the
world merely for the purpow of being extimmisbed.
The Right :Honourable Gentlemen to whom it owes its
parentage will before many weeks, possibly hefere many
days. have eleFed. have to act as chief mourner at its
funeral. Scm.,) r-rsena nre prepared to see Sir Charles
Wooer make an attempt to save his (-offspring from a vio-
lent death by indulgifg, should the House persist in its
hostility to the meli,iure—in the threat of a resignation

among the' people are arrayed against it. By some
singular fatuity of blundering Sir Charles Wood has
contrived that his proposed remission of to ration shall
be as unpopular as the imposition of new taxes. His
boon of substituting a house-tax for the impast on win-
dows has excited a ferment fiercer than was excited last
year by his proposal to retain the window-tax in its
integrity. His reduction of the duty upon -coffee and
timber is declaimed against as another blow at our colo-
nial interests. In a fit of exuberant generosity, he pro-
poses to give to agriculturists their seeds duty free.
Mr. Frewen, the Member for an agricultural county,
points out that this is but a contrivance still further to de-
preciate the value of the tillage of the soil. Nay, when
the Chancellor's munificence rises to the height of re-
lieving the agricultural interest from the expense of
the support of lunatics, the representatives of
that interest with one consent reject his prof-
fered gift as " a delusion, a mockery, and a snare.
We suspect, then, that the country will hardly be
willing to purchase such a Budget at the price of hub-
miffing to the income-tax. Unfortunate in windows—
not singularly successful in coffee—a positive failure in
timber—ridiculously breaking down in the matter of
agricultural seeds—and absolutely pelted with ignominy
from lunatic asylums —the ill-fated Chancellor will
hardly shelter himself from popular indignation behind
that rather unpopular individual the collector of the
income-tax. Still, however, the representatives of the
people have a duty to discharge that is of wider and
more permanent interest than the mere condemnation of
the Budget. It.must now, onco for all, be determined
whether the machinery of the income-tax is to be a
settled and permanent instrument of British finance.
It is impossible to disguise the truth, that if the vote be
now taken for the continutince of this impost, it is a
vote that the revenue of the country shall be now and
for ever hereafter raised by its means—each year's accu-
mulated precedent increases the difficulty of getting rid
of it. Another renewal, and it becomes one of the insti-
tutions of the country. When is this tax to be refined,
if not now? So long as Parliaments agree to vote it
Ministers will be ready to propose it. It, in a time of
profound peace—of a financial surplus—of no unusual
demand upon' our resources—if, under such circum-
stances, Parliament at once accede to its rti-imposition,
when, or under what circumstances, will it be refustd?
Is it, then, argued that the income-tax is to be perpetual?
To what class that is subject to its operation may sr e net
turn for some almost peculiar illustration of its injustice?
Indiscriminate, indeed, in its oppression, it has so many
forms of injustice that each person can, with reason, be-
lieve that he is the victim of a separate wrong. The
farmer complains that its mode of assessment up 'U him
makes it nothing but robbery in form of law, the manu-
facturer and merchant that they are taxei for profits
when they suffer loss—the professional 'man bitterly
feels the injustice of taxing his hard-earned gains equally
with the interest of the millionnsire. Take any one of these
classes singly, and contemplating that alone. we can almost
fancy that each has a grievance peculiar to itself.
The truth is, that the tax itself to each and ,all is one
gigantic and universal grievance—a grievance resting
upon two of its characteristics—its inequality and its
inquisitorial character. It is under the show of equality
most cruelly unequal. A tax of 3 per cent. upon the
owner of an income of 1,0001. a year is a very different
thing from the same proportioned impost upon the man
of 300/. While the first may hardly feel it, it may det
prive the second—scercely able to make both ends meet
—perhaps pf the means of educating a child—it presses
upon the struggling tradesman with a severity to which
the demand upon his epulent rival bears no assignable
proporttore—it clutches with remorseless and unrelen ing
grasp the iek'y 'class that can worst afford taxation—
those whose ordinary expenditure just reaches
their income. TitXts upon luxuries self-denial may
escape. The taa. upon income perjury only can
evade.- The maa upon the verge of embarrassment it
plunges into difficulty—the struggling man it crushes—
the sinking mae it pushes down. In the fact that no
reduction 'in expenditure can evade it—some persona
fancy a merit—ete see in it a great cruelty. The bed of
Procrustes was the most terrible invention of human
torture. Still Mere cruel is the inequality of its opera-
tion upon professional income and on real property.
How much of the income of any professional man may
fairly be said to be profit applicable to his own pur-
poses—how much of it income which he can be said to
have to spend. Must we not first inquire how much of
his income is of necessity expended inmaintaining a po-
sition in society essential to his professional gains ?
Is the • money expended on the carriage and horses
of the physician any portion of his income in any
sense in which income is a fair subject of taxa-
tion? Nay; must we not deduct from gains depending
on the precariousness of human life that portion of thorn
which musk be devoted to the sacred object of making
provision for those who are dependent for their bread
upon his earnings? Deduct these items from the gains
of any professional man, and the residue alone is income
at his own disposal. It is out of the gross amount that
he must pay the income-tax, which yet is assessed upon
a nominal sum of three, five times, perhaps ten times the
amount of his available funds. We can but glance at
considerations which ten times our space would not
enable us fully to discuss. Even beyond its inequality
—gross and palpable as is that injustice—we deprecate
the inquisitorial character of this impost. We have
been stole, in some degree to estimate the sensation
produced by the plain and practical letter of " A
Manchester Merchant," which appeared in the Morning
Herald of Tuesday. Is it, we ask, to be endured that
British merchants should bo obliged to disclose to any
men—to their rivals in trade—every secret of their part-
nership—every item of their ventures? Yet this the letter
of our correspondent feelingly established the commis-
sioners had a right to demand. It is not the language
of cant to say that this system is un-English. This pro•
nounoes, in our mind, its severest and its most truthful
condemnation.. There is a sturdy independence about
the Saxon character that ill brooks this prying by Go-
vernment officials into the private details of each man's
affairs. To the respect that legislation pays to that very
spirit of independence we verily believe we owe much of
the qualities that give dignity to the English character. It
is a spirit that legislation may foster, but which the tax-
gatherer may break down. There is something abhorrent
to it iu that inquisition which demands of you to subject
all your concerns to any commissioner of revenue.
If an Englishman's house be hie castle—tbe ledger of
an English merchant should be subject to no intrusiv
eyes—no man should have a right to come even for the
unjust e
purposes of taxation, and extort from his eeighb em ho
details of his income—the nature of his dealing _
t
particulars of his livelihood—the
c
c of his gains.
onfession of the
struggles of his honest poverty, the _secret
in principle,
Away, then, we say with a tax
o now tell the
cruel in its operation, inquisitorial and un-English in Its
machinery. Let the Houseide f u
f rm
Minister that he must, prov o
om
thensrevenue of the
country by some
and more agreeable to equiy.
to which.
us say that there is
means metre coLnestonant to our feelings,
the country- has a
dileistoeursmeined resistance to the renewal
to the friends of
Peel. , Nine years ago that statesman, high in
the late Sir
or° ifngeht
It t oese
pno
okso ft
.forthlaet
confidence of his country, succeeded in imposing this
the Robert
unpopular tax, when nh one else could have done so.
Bat,even be could not have carried it if he had not
pledged himself that it was impossed to meet a tenipe-
rary exigency, and should not be converted into a per-
manent instrument of finance. Upon previous occasions
men might believe its renewal temporary : the question
now beyond doubt is, whether it is to b 3 made perpe-
tual. Is the imputation to lie upon his memory that
the country was cheated into the concession of this tax
.under false pretences? Is the pledge under which ho
obtained that concession to be redeemed? We have
heard solemn and feeling perorations in which free-trade
votes were justified as the preservation of sacred trusts
confided to the
_e_peakers by the example of their de-
parted leader. We doubt not that they were sincere,

cf Ministers. We do not share in these apprehentions.
We anticipate nothing of the kind. That is a „same
which cannot always be played with safety, much less
with success. The trick is becoming stale. It will not
do to be too frequently repeated. When rescrted
to on every occasion in which Ministers are thwarted,
it loses all its effect. It may have been all very
well to try the effect of the thing when Lord John
Russell first found his Cabinet in jeopardy; but
because it was successful then, that is no reason
why it should be successful now. Eech successive
repetition of a menace of this kind diminishes its effect,
until it ceases to have any effect at all. Two years ago
Lord John Russell's threat of resignation inspired an un-
easy and a regretful feeling in the country, because it
was hoped that the Noble Lord's Government would im-
prove as it went on. Wo have all lived to see, that un-
dignified expedient resorted to too often already. Be-
cause the circumstance of parties or the country were
peculiar at the particular moment, Lord John Russell
has, on more than one occasion, forced obnoxious mea-
sures down the throats of an unwilling Parliament and a
reluctant people. But the time for carrying his pur-
poses by such unworthy and such unconstitutional
means has gone by; the threat would make no impres-
siou now; it would not inspire an atom of alarm in the
public mind. The Noble Lord would have the mor-
tification of finding that the nation no longer
said, " Oh, pray don't resign." He would
hear quite different language. On his ears
would fall the ungrateful words, "Do re-
sign, by all means. It is high time that you did.
You ought to have done it long ago." We are aware
that some of the friends of the Whig Cabinet—the in-
terested friends, fur they have no other—say that no
ntteecessors can be found to the present Ministry. That
is all nonsense. The forsaken lover in the song con-
soled herself with the reflection that " there is as good
fish in the sea as ever yet were taken." The same may
be said in reference to Ministers. Terrible, indeed,
would be the dearth of statesmen in this great country,
if it could not produce twelve cc fourteen men, equal in
ecquirciments, capacity, and the other necessary crush-
tits for an Executive, as the present occupants of Down-
ing-street. It would not, indeed, be easy to mees with
an equal number of persons, of average ecluctstion,
more imbecile or mote incompetent than the
Whig advisers of her Majesty. 'l' lie Russell
Ministry me et e feeble, tote( ring, end unpopular
before. They were on the high road to ejeeslution.
The Papal aggression measure of the Noble Lord, and
the Budget of the Right Hon. Gf rifleman, were all that
was wanting to clap an extinguisher en them. Thane
niessures will only accelerate en event winch wes inuvi-
table under any circumstances. Should Sir Charles
Wood be so foolish and a.' disrespectful to the House,
at, to On eaten that Ministers will go out in the erznt of
his Budget being smashed, then we trust there will be
found in that assembly some one with :efficient spirit to
reply to the menace, by telling them to " go,'' and not
to stand upon the order of their going. but to go at once.
The country, from one end to the other, will echo the
words. The nation, as with one voice, will say, " Amen."
The Whigs will quit office unpitied and unlamented.
They have, for a long time past, been barely tolerated.
The Russell Cabinet has been a Cabinet of sufferance.
The time has arrived when the country must have a
trong Government—a Government which will reflect
the opinions and promote the real interests of the
people.
POST.—When, iu 1845, the then Prime Minister
came to the conclusion that the interest and credit of
the country rendered it necessary to demand from Par-
liament a renewal cf the -tat directly levied upon the
income of the nation wader the Act of 1842, for a further
limited period of three years, the proposal was thought
a matter of sufficient moment to make it a subject not
merely of mention, but almost of direct recomnieedation,
in the Speech from the Throne. Sir Robert Feel had,
when first he made his "earnest appeal to Cho-posses-
sors of property to remedy the mighty and grov big evil"
by which the country was alarmed, end its enterprise re-
stricted, expressed his doubts whether, in three
.1 ears, the
operation of the new system of financial and commercial
legislation would produce such an effect on the revenue,
as to enable him, at the expiration of that period, to
dispense with the direct and burdensome taxation
to which, under the peculiar circumstances—cir-
cumstances which he hoped and believed to be ex-
ceptional—he bad asked the country to submit.
Sir Robert Peel's doubts were the only portion
of his coda of faith which were justified by events.
In 1845, after three years of experimental finance, he,
found that it would be, we will not say impossible, but;
hazardous, to dispense with this adventitious and ex-
ceptional, at least so it was represented to be, aid to the.
revenue. Parliament and the country, advised by the.
Crown, and urged by the Minister, acquiesced in the
proposed renewal. The income-tax was extended for
a further period of three years, the extension being ac-
companied with protestations from the people against
the impost being converted into a permanent tax, and
promises from the Government that this should be the
last time of asking. Previous, however, to the expira-
tion of the limited extension, Sir Robert Peel resigned
the administration of public affairs, and another Minister
sat on the Treasury Bench, during whose tenure or
office occurred the commercial distress of 1847; famine
in Ireland, almost universal bankruptcy, and actual uni-
versal distrust in Great Britain, shook the credit and
resources of the kingdom till they tottered to their foun-
dation. It was manitest to the merest tyro in finance that
the ordinary sources of revenue would not be sufficient to
the occasion, and that it was not possible that the finance
Ministei should do otherwise than ask the country to
time,the demand lia
(t.
grant him a further lease of the income-tax.
elt was
granted freely, frankly. At the nameen
it
pat
rotested ththate they only
nlyeafc
idea of this exceptional motto
of raising revenue being incorporated as a permatneat
element in the financial system of the country, Tlaa
Governments who have availed themselves of the impost
have acknowledged unreservedly the justice of this
v
Not a single Member, of whatever
gthuelucciVc
repudiated emphatically theaeastances, and Oast,.
Party, or of
whatever
ever ventured to defend the
tax qUi tax' Sir Robert Peel, in 1842 and 1845, and
political opinions,
Sir Charles Wood in 1848, held out to the country not
merely the hope, but the confident expectation and
assurance that the operation of the new commercial sys-
temenergy, would render the permanence of the income-tax una
thricet a k ing,
answered,
on
swe there
d faith
with o of
nwahniac
necessary. These were the promises, these were theunder-'
possessors of property
to Mae of the
respective Governments. They responded trustingly,
nobly. Has faith been kept with the country? Has
either or any Minister made any attempt to fulfil their
promises to the nation? We regret that to those ques-
tions truth compels as to answer—No. Sir Robert Peel
chalked out for his own guidance and that of Parliament
a line tortuous and leading to most dangerous: estate.
but with a sort of plausibility in its approaches which
seduced a large party. He assumed that there are
many taxes unduly restricting the access to COMMela
ins
on the part of the consumer. It was evident that the
sudden removal of these taxes, whatever they might be,
would diminish the revenue below the amount necessary
for the current expenditure of the country; but he eon..
tended that the increased consumption, consequent on
increased ability from reduction of price, eseeidii
precess of time, again fill up the measure of incomete
the brim. To prevent, however, any possibility ofirougist
while
awaiting the rising of tee to-be-fertilising stream.
he asked for, and obtained, a par-centage upon the. n-
come of the people. To a considerable extent his an-
ticipations were realized: he found himself actually pos-
sessed, in 1845 and in 1846, the last year of his tenure
of office, of a surplus almost, if not quite sufficient Co
enable him to dispense with the
exceptional assistance
of the income-tax. He' had not, however, the moral
courage to do justice and to keep faith with the nation.
Buoyed up by a full-blown and frothy prosperity
he indulged in specious remissals of taxation—the

.._._l