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

LONDON, SATURDAY

EVENING, APRIL

teas should be maintained in Office or not. But that was
a principle on which it was iraposaible the legislation of
this country could bo satisfactorily conducted. The
Members for the metropolis hal met together and given
a pledge to their constituents that if the Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not unconditionally repeal the win-
dow-tax they would refuse the supplies.—(Cries of
" No, no.") He had heard the Hen. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Marylebono exprass his approbation of the men•
sure brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westmin-
ster had also declared his unqualifiad approval of it;
but he bad not yet heard the Hun. Member for Fins-
bury's opinion upon the subject. When the repeal of
the window-tax was first demanded it was made on
sanitary grounds. Its repeal was conceded, and a
house-tax was substituted. Were the parties satisfied?
No; because the sanitary question was made a pretext
for claiming the repeal of a tax which fell chiefly upon
the middle classes Ia villages and small towns houses
with only seven windows afforded comfortable homes
to the poor, and those houses paid no tax at all.
The great error of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was in giving way to these agitators cf the metro-
polis. If the Eight Honourattle Gentleman had had
the courage to resist those geutlemen who, leaving their
shops to boys, assembled in conclave and issued their
mandates from the Marylebone vestry, threatening to
stop the supplies unless the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer unconditionally repealed the window-tax, he might
have been able to make a well-considered modification
of the incoma.-tax. But the Right Hon. Gentleman
yielded to a metropolitan agitation, and was therefore
compelled to retain that tax in its present most objec-
tionable sham?.

Mr. WAKLEY said, that if the lion. Member felt dis-
satisfied with the shopkeepers of the metropolis, he
(Mr. Waltley) must express himself very much dissatia-
fled with the shopkeepers of Reading.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Did the Hon. Gentleman think it wrong for
the people to agitate when they considered there were
public abwes to redress? (Ur. STANaomi, "No.") Then
why complain? It was quite clear they had an im-
proved Budget in consequence of agitation on the part
of the Right lion. Gentleman's own friends and ordinary
supporters.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite clear the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had that night given mortal
offence; but was it the budget that had done this? No;
it was the speech.—(Cheers.) It was the speech he had
delivered that had called forth so much bitterness and
auger. In the Budget there was very little that was new,
though that which was new was very good.—(Cheers.)
The speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman would give
great satisfaction to the country, and he could assure
the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire that he was
entirely mistaken if ho supposed it would create any
alarm with reference to sustaining public credit in this
country. If he understood anything of the constitution
of the country, the way to sustain public credit was to
satisfy the masses of the people, and the Right Hon.
Gentleman might be assured that his speech of that
night would be received by them with a sentiment of
respect and feelings of admiration. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had become convinced that the msiltitude
must be legislated for, and not the few; that the great
interests of this country which were to be attended to
were those that had reference to the millions, and
that the units must take care of themselves in the best
way they could. Although the income-tax was to be
re-imposed without any change, yet the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman might be assured that the people were in favour
of the principle of direct taxation. What they demanded
was a tax upon property; and he considered the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to be distinctly committed to that
principle. He, however, hoped the Right lion. Gentle-
man would reconsider his proposition with regard to the
income-tax. The tax operated most unjustly as at pre-
sent imposed. It was a monstrous thing that a person
who possessed an immense amount of realized property
should pay no more per cent. than an individual who
obtained his income by the exercise of his skill and by
the sweat of his brow. It was so unjust that it would
not bear discussion. There was no difficulty in con-
structing a graduated scale of taxation on property; if,
therefore, with a view to gain an opportunity to intro-
duce such an alteration a motion should be made for the
renewal of the tax for one year only, he should give that
motion his support.
Mr. STANFORD explained.
Mr. T. BARING could not but congratulate the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman in support of the Government. The Hon.
Gentleman said that the object of that speech was to
prove te at the relief of the masses from taxation was
the best mode of maintaining the national credit; and
he also said that he saw in that speech a disposition to
conciliate popular opinion. Substantially, that the ob-
ject of the Right Hon. Gentleman was to make a great
speech in support of public credit, and do little or no-
thing besides to support it.—(Laughter, and hear.) He
(Mr. Baring) agreed on that point with the Hoe. Mem-
ber for Finsbury. It was right, in his opinion, for a
Government to have a surplus; and he maintained that
the proper course for them to pursue would be to retain
that surplus against contingencies, and not to fritter it
away in the reduction of slight taxation. When the
Right lion. Gentleman, therefore, proposed to relieve
the window-tax, he could not understand his policy or
that of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman proposed in his speech to relieve the
country from taxation on articles o 5 general use; and
yet he only intended to repeal the window- tax, which
pressed upon no more than 400,000 houses is the whole
country. 'flits was not relief to toe people—it was
merely yielding to that pressure from without which
had been applied by the metropolitan Members.—(Hear,
hear.) That was, in fact, class legislation of the most
objectionable description, because it was giving relief' to
those towns which it appeared were the most prosperous,
while it gave nothing to that class which was most
distressed. The Right Hon. Gentleman had formerly
proposed to relieve clover and other seeds used in agri-
cultural operations, and also take upon himself the sup-
port of pauper lunatics; now, however, after his late
incubation, ho intended to do nothing of the kind, but to
leave agriculture as he found it on that occasion. The
Hon. Member for Finsbury lauded direct taxation. He
(Mr. Baring) had no fear for the national credit; but he
certainly should not wish it to depend solely upon direct
taxation, because, in periods of national distress there
would be a strong temptation to break faith with the
public, creditor. lie thought, however, direct and indi-
rect taxation might be advantageously combined. As
he had before stated, he held it to be the duty of the
Government to retain a surplus, not only for the purpose
of meeting unforeseen contingencies, not even for the
purpose of upholding the national credit, but also for
the purpose of meeting any deficiency that might arise,
without recurring to further taxation. A surplus in a
season of prosperity would prevent taxation in a season
of adversity.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle-
man, however, felt that his language ill-expressed the
meaning of his ,measures; and he (Mr. Baring) was
satisfied, that though the Right Hon. Gentleman's pri-
vate wish was to uphold the national credit, his public
acts, compelled by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side,
tended to the sacrifice of the national creditor.—(Hear,
hear.) It was the misfortune of the present Govern-
ment to be weak and yielding, and therefore to be obliged
to aacritice their own convictions to the pressure from
without; and the result would be, that if there was any
sudden check to the national preiperity—such as war,
or that bill of the India Company which had been al-
luded to as waiting to be paid—ahe country would be
left in a position either to borrow, or to tax the already
distressed people for the purpose of meeting it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the llon. Member had ex-
pressed a great deal of indignation at the course pro-
posed to be taken by his Right lion. Friend. The course
proposed by his Right lion. Friend, however, who
wished above all things to maintain public credit, was
to the effect that it was not only desirable to have a
revenue: sufficient for the purposes of government, but
also to have, in case of any unforeseen contingency, or
any sudden demand, the means of meeting either with-
out having recourse to fre h debts or new taxation. So
far his Right Hon. Friend was in agreement with the
Hon. Gentleman. What, however, did the Govern-
ment propose? They proposed in the present year to
have some 900,000/. surplus to meet all demands. If
no aPeration took place in the revenue, they would have
350,0001 surplus. But in making alterations in such
duties as those on timber and coffee, it was found by ex-
perience that though there might be a loss on the first
year, in the second end in the succeeding years there
would most probably bo found a much larger revenue
than before from these article.—(Loud cheers.) Be-
sides that, however, there was the means of making
further reductions afforded.—(Herr, hear.) So that
with 350,000/. certain, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer might very fairly expect even still greater surplus
than that on which he had calculated.—(hear.) All
this, however, excited the indignation of the Hon.
Gentleman, who maintained that nothing but a weak
Government. acting under the impulse of pressure from
without, could act in that manner. And yet the Minis-
ter whom his Right Hon. Friend followed—a wise Mi-
nister, too—had in 1847 laid down as a basis a sum no
larger than 90,00OL—(Laughter and hear.) That
Minister had stated his reasons for expecting an increase
of revenue, and the result proved that he was fully jus-
tified in his expectation. The Hon. Gentleman had not,
however, on that occasion given vent to the virtuous in-
dignation with which he had just treated the House.—
(Hear, hear.) He was, on the contrary, quite content to
follow in the wake of that Government and to support
that Minister who laid down the principle that 90,0001.
was a sufficient surplus for the purpose of meeting all
contingencies. The Hon. Member who now said that
the Government was weak, seemed to forget the place
in which he was speaking—(Hear, hear, and laughter)
—and instead of being aware that he was speaking in
tke House of Commons on a matter of figures—which
his was well able to deal with—hal forgotten what took
place in 1845; and deeming the present an occasion for
a display of after-dinner eloquence—(Hear, laughter,
and cries of " Ori")—instead of availing himself of his
great practical knowledge to satisfy himself of the
facts, he had made a party speech against the Govern-
ment for party reasons, and not far the advancement of a
great principle.—(Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said all the best speeches in the
House of Commons were after-dinner epeeehes—(Hcnr,
and laughter)—and for his own part he had never heard
the Noble Lord himself more happy than in a speech of
that description.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Hon.
Member for Fine-mu had told the House that the pre-
sent Budget was not one bit better than that which the
Hon. Member had previously condemned, hut that its
badness was made up for by the speech which introduced
it.—(hear, brighter, anal No.) That it was as bad, in
fact, as that Budget which had been denounced at those
meetings alluded to by the Hon. Member for Reading;
but that this was no matter now, as the Governmept gave
good speeches.—(Laughter.) This reminded hith (Mr.
Disraeli) of a speech of the Noble Lord—not an after-
dinner speech—the speech he made on introducing the
measure against Papal aggression. (Laughter.)
That speech was certainly a most admirable one as re-
garded matter; but the misfortune was, that the measure
which it introduced was by no means equal to it.

--(Laughter and cheers.) Tile country was, therefore,
at this moment governed by a Ministry who depended
on their speeches and not on their measures.—(lfear,.
and laughter.) He (Hr. Disraeli) thought the speech of
the lion. Member for Huntingdon a very good spescb.
The Noble Lord, however, thought differently, for what
cause he (Mr. Disraeli) could not say. But ho could not
agree that there was any analogy, as drawn by the Noble
Lord between the present caseand the surplus left by the
late Sir R. Peel. The Government of Sir H. Peel was a
strong Government, for inetance, at that period.—(Hesr.)
It was therefore a very different Government from that
of the Noble Lord, who had so often to come to the table
of that House and announce a change in his measures
with the utmost humility.—(hear.) Sir R. Peel had
confidence in himself; the Noble Lord could not say that
for his Government.—(Hear.) The Government of Sir
R. Peel was supported on that occasion by a strong
party, and therefore :the Minister might make any ar-
rangements he saw fin to make; but the Noble Lord was
not in the same position, for he had only a large surplus,
with a small party.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But there
were other circumstances which made the two cases still
less analagous. The speech of Sir R. Peel, when he
hsd that surplus of 90,000,000/.—(Loud laughter)-
90,0001. rather; Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they
never would get that surplus. The speech of Sir R. Peel
on that occasion was not stuffed full of boastfal anticipa-
tions of a surplus, nor with explanations of his improved
mode of administering the finances of the counter.—
(Hear, hear.) Any one who had heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman, however, would suppose he was about to
pay off the national debt, the basis of all his statements
being to maintain the public credit by means of his
surplus. But what was that surplus ? It was a false
surplus, as had been shown by the First Lord of the
Treasury himself. who had reduced it from 900,0001. to
350,0001. He (Mr. Disraeli) denied the correctness of
the statement. When that mysterious sum claimed by
the East India Company was paid, where would bo the
surplus then ? What was that claim ? When was it
made ?

The CHANCELLOR of th© EXCHEQUER—Yes-
,erday.7(Llughtor.)

„
Mr. DISRA ELI—It was a fortunate circumstance
then that the present Administration returned:to power,
that they might pay this claim which would be other-
wise left to their successors. As he was on his legs, he,
too, would make a friendly observation on the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman introduced his Budget, he took credit to himself
for the sympathy he felt with the sufferings of the owners
and occupiers of land, when he proposed a reduction in
the duty on certain seeds. That proposition excited the
risibility of some Members on his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of
the House—it did not excite his risibility. The Right
Hon. Gentlemman also proposed to bear the burden of
pauper lunatics, which appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli)
to be the admission of a most important principle as re-
garded local taxation; for he could not for the life of him
perceive the difference in that respect between a common
pauper and a lunatic pauper, nor understand how, if the
Consolidated Fund was to support the one, it should not
suport the other. The Right Honourable Gentleman,
however, now withdrew both propositions, because,
as he said, his nervous susceptibility had been
offended at the manner in which they were received
by the opposite side of the House. Ile (Mr. Disraeli)
could not recollect a single speech against them; and
certainly no lengthened discussion had taken place on
the subject of the Budget. But, even supposing some
Hon. Gentlemen had, by a sneer or a smile, expressed
their sense that that amount of relief was by no means
commensurate with the admission of agricultural distress
in the Speech from the Throne, and of the sufferings of
the owners and occupiers of the land, it did not by any
means follow that it afforded a sufficient reason for the
withdrawal of the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition.
—(Hear, hear.) If, however, the Right Hen. Gentle-
man considered this a sufficient ground for such with-
drawal, with what degree of consistency of conduct could
he vindicate the course he had pursued with respect to
his proposition on the window duties, which had been
not alone not received with cordial approbation by Hon.
Members opposite, but which had, at public meet-
ings called to denounce the Government, been held
up to public execration. Yet the gratitude of the
Government to their indignant supporters was to in-
crease the scheme of relief from taxation, which they had
gratefully accepted, while they, on this side of the
House, who had scarcely urged a word of moment against
the proposition for the relief of land, found the pro-
position withdrawn off hand without notice, and Go-
vernment now stood in this position—they commenced
the session with assuring their Sovereign that the only
class which was suffering was the agricultural class, and
when they brought forward their financial scheme not a
single proposal for relief was offered, or a single word of
sympathy expressed for the condition of the owners and
occupiers of land.—(Hear.) Ho did not know what the
feelings of the House were, but he knew what were his
feelings, and he considered the course taken by the Hon.
Member for Stamford with relation to the financial
scheme, on Monday, was temperate and wise. It, was
impossible to foresee what might occur. Members at thc
gangway, who were now the enthusiastic supporters of
Government, could hardly have conceived that they
would be inspired so soon with motives of so exalted a
character—(Laughter)—but if his Right Hon. Friend
did not succeed in carrying his proposition, he (Mr.
Disraeli) would put fairly before tho House and the
country the sufferings of the owners and occu-
piers of land—and taking the question of the
surplus which Government had dealt with in eo
capricious a manner, and had yielded so large a
proportion to clamour so unauthorised—he would
ask the House and the country to come to a decision
as to what should be done with that surplus, and whe-
ther, as one chsss was in a state of sufferint•;, that surplus
should not be dedicated to the mitigation of that suffer-
ing.—(Hear) He would put that question before the
House; he would show how the suffering could be fairly
mitigated, for ho would not have the course of justice
disturbed by any suspicion that he had any wish or mo-
tive except, to give relief to the suffering agricultural in-
terest. He would not permit the worn-oat plan of al-
lowing the general policy of our commercial system to
be mixed up with the principle of justice to the owner
and occupier. He would simply ask the House to look
at the question by itself, and after all the mockery of
financial manceavres—the mockery of financial expe-
dients and injustice—after all the attempts to revive an
exploded scheme of finance—he and they would invite
the House to make an effort to relieve one class—the only
class acknowledged to be in a state of suffering.
Viscount EBRINGTON would trouble the House
with a few words on the propositions subesitted by the
Right Hon. Gentleman. It might be humiliating for a
Whig Government to be able only to make good speeches
and propose bad measures, as the Ron. Gentleman op-
posite said; but it was more humiliating in his opinion
for a party to be able to make good speeches, and to be
incapable of proposing measures as had been admitted
by its chief.—(oll.) Tho Noble Lord then pronounced
a eulogium ou the proposition for reducing the duty on
coffee and timber, and especially for the proposal to sub-
stitute a moderate house-tax for an objectionable win-
dow-tax.

Mr. FREWEN said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
declared he did not wish to send down a regiment of tax-
gatherers to collect taxes; but this was exactly what the
Right Hon. Gentleman had done with respect to the
county with which he was connected. A number of writs
had been served on the farmers in that district for taxes,
and it was impossible to describe the amount of distress
and suffering which had been occasioned. Ile had re-
ceived upwards of sixty leans on the subject, and he
could assure the house if they were read they would
prove that the agricultural interest in that district was
nearly ruined. It was impossible this state of things
could go on without that part of the country being re-
duced to ss bad or even a worse state than was Ireland.

Mr. WAWN argued that the changes in our naviga-
tion-laws had damaged the shipping interest.
Mr. LABOUCHERE must repel the assertion that
the repeal of the navigation-laws had or was likely to
operate injuriously on British shipping or on the British
shipbuilder. Ile was satisfied, looking at the cost of iron
and shipbuilding materials, that with fair play we could
build ships co as to compete advantageously with any other
country in the world. Even before the reduction of duty
on shipbuilding materials was made the British shipbuil-
der was able to build ships to compete with those of any
nation. He observed by the returns that only 10,000
tons of foreign shipping had been registered within a
given period. He could not say the number of ships
building in tha various dockyards, but, taking the port
of Londo❑ alone, it would be found that of iron steamers
more than 10,000 tons had been built on foreign ac-
count. In iron steam-ship building this country pos-
sessed immense advantages, and this enabled us not only
to supply our own wants, but those of foreign nations.
It was not the proper time for. going into this ciscus-
sion, otherwise he should have no difficulty in proving
his case.

Mr. WAWN said ho had documents in his possession
to prove that the shipping interest had been in a dis-
tressed condition for many years.*
Colonel SIBTHORP could not make head or tail of
the Budget. He believed, however, there was far more
tail than head in it. He gave notice that he intended to
take the sense of the House as to the effect of the income-
tax now levied on the farmers of England. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had made a miserable exhibi-
tion, and what he had now said he might have said six
weeks ego. The reason why the Right Hon. Gentle-
man did not do so was because he wanted to smuggle a
few votes for the army and navy estimates, and for car-
rying on the credit of the country, about which so much
boast had been made.
Colonel THOMPSON trusted that the friends of the
manufacturing interest would sustain the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in any opposition that might bo brought
against his financial scheme from the other side of the
House. The friends of the poor and the working classes
were bound to support the Government on the present
occasion; for the real question at issue was whether the
taxation of the country should, in the main, be paid by
the; rich or out of the bread
.of the poor and the sources
of their employment.
Mr. ALCOC!( Saw no great benefit to the agricultu-
ral interest likely to arise from tho amended Budget,
though on the whole it would be more satisfactory to the
public at large than his previous scheme. As regarded
the income-V.lx he approved of the principle on which it
was based; though of its details he must say that, so far
as they effected the tenant farmers, they were mese arhi-
: trary and unfair. The abolition of the income-tax would
of necessity render perpetual the malt-tax, and ho trusted
therefore that the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire
(me. would not lend himself to such a fallacy.
Mr. G. HU l)SON, in reference to some observations
which had fallen from the President of the Board of
Trade, directed attention to a petition which he had
presented from the ship builders and owners of Sunder-
land, complaining of great distress in their trace, and
he called upon the Government to abolish the timber
duty altogether instead of partially, as proposed in the
Budget.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to state ono single
fact in answer to the Hon, Member, and it was this, that

5, 1851.

during the pact year tu)re, and larger, and better ships
had been built at Sun4crland than had ever been built
since Sunderland was a shipping port.—(!leas.)
Mr. lILTDSON admitted that, but said it did not fol-
low that the trade was therefore prosperous.—(Oh.) Ile
himsrlf had been ltrgely eig,aged in trade. and had gone
on for years making no profits at all. E.itablishments
could not be broken up all at once.
Mr. HEYWORTH said that the true policy for the
landed interest to pursue, was to give every facility fur
the extension of trade and commerce. Hon. Members
had talked of repudiating the national debt. If it ever
should be repudiated, it would be from the contiuusnee
of a system of taxation which plundered the labouring
people of the country.
The resolution was then put from the chair and
agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS, 17,556,000 L was
voted to be raised by Exchequer-bills, for the service of
the, year 1851.
Report to be received on Monday.

The Eleuse then resumed.
ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ACT (REPEAL) SILT..
On the motion of Mr. J. STUARf, the House went
into Committee on this BAL.
After a few words from Mr. STANFORD,
_ _ _

Sir J. ROIIILLY 6ug,,,,,estecltit a clause should be
introduced to prevent the Bills an:l Acts which had been
drawn up this session being affected by the present
measure.

Mr. J. STUART had no objection to bring up such
a clauie on the report.
Mr. F. MAULE said that that very day two important
Bills had been sent to the Lords drawn up in conformity
with the Act, and some such clause as that proposed was
necessary to prevent them bring affected by this measure.
The l3dl then went through the Committee. Report
on Monday.
Oa the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS, the following Com-
mittee on Expiring Laws was appointod:—Mr. C. Lewis,
Mr. Hayter, the Attorney- General, Mr. Bernal, Mr.
Parker, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Hume, Mr. Aglionby,
Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. B,llew, Mr. Greene, Mr. Rich, Sir
George Clerk, Sir John Young, and Mr. Stafford.
Mr. CHARTERIS moved for a Select Committee to
inquire into and report on the present state of the
ordnance survey of Scotland, and on the works which
will be required for its completion. He said the survey
for England, with the exception of the four northern
counties, had been completed, so also had the survey of
Ireland, within the last 20 years. Though the survey of
Scotland had commenced in 1609, only a fourth part
had been surveyed. The sum expended for the survey
of Eugland was 780,0001.; for Ireland, 820,0001.; and for
Scotland, only 66,0001. Ho trusted, therefore, the Go-
vernment would not oppose the Committee.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought the Hon. Gentleman was
entitled to the thanks of the people of Scotland for trk-
ing up the question. He gladly supported the motioni
for a Committee, and should be ready to give any assist-
ance he could.

After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE,
The motion was agreed to.
Viscount JOCELYN moved
" That the Select Committee ou steam communications
with India, &c., do consist of 17 Members.
" That Mr. Bright be added to the Committee on steam
communications with India, &e.

. -
"That Mr. Elliott ho discharged from attendance
on the Committee on steam communications with Indio,
&c., and that Mr. Wilson be added."—Agreed to.
The House then adjourned at n Quarter past Twelve
o'clock.

THE NEW BUDGET.
eltom THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—Sir Charles Wobd cannot be taxed this
year with yielding too large a compliance to public im-
portunity. His new Budget is substantially the same as
that which he hastened to give us in the third week of
the session. He has announced the renewal of the in-
come-tax, as yet without any modification, though, as he
refers rather darkly to some details to be published
next Monday, it is possible we may find ourselves agree-
ably surprised on this point. The window-tax is once
more condemned, but the proposed substitute is a con-
siderable improvement on that which before gave such
general dissatisfaction, That was a complex scheme, the
chief features of which were a reduction of the window-
tax ou existing houses to two-thirds of its present
amount, and five per cent. on the rental of new houses.
Sir Charles now proposes a uniform tax of 9d. in the
pound, or 3 per cent., on all dwelling-houses, and 6d.
in the pound on houses with shops, inns, farm-houses,
and all buildings of a semi-industrial, semi-residential
character; houses of a rental under 201. a-year being
exempted as before. As the agricultural interest does
not appreciate the boons offered to it in the trans-
fer of half the charge for lunatics from the
rates to the Consolidated .Fund, and in the reduction
tion of the duties on foreign seed, Sir Charles has taken
it at its word, and, contrary to his own estimate of these
boons, will no longer press them. The remission of half
the differential duty on foreign timber, and the reduc-
tion of the duties on colonial and foreign coffee to a uni-
form rate of 3d. a pound, continuo parts of the Budget.
We certainly did not expect that Sir Charles would
dodge about looking for a Budget that would give unie
vernal content. Such ai ono there does not exist in the
world of possibilities; and a Chancellor of the Exche- '
quer, like any other public man, is bound to stick to his
plans with some pertinacity. That the new Budget will
be popular we can hardly expect, for we cannot profess
unqualified satisfaction with it ourselves. As to the new
form of the house-tax, it certainly is much less °Nee-
tionable than the former. According to that plan, the
inequalities of the existing window-tax were perpetuated,
though the amount was somewhat reduced, and an olti
house full of windows which paid 151. a year with some
hope of relief, was to be saddled with a perpe-
tual burden of 10/. The commotion made by the
proposal is too fresh for it to be necessary to mention
mere objections. Sir Charles's new proposal will, we
should think, satisfy all who will consent to a house-tax
at all. In the cases of particular hardship, where the
present window-tax amounts to 15 or 20, or even 30 per
cent. on the rental, a tax of 34 per cent. will be felt as
a trifling affair. The late outcry against a house-tex
arose, as it seemed to us, chiefly from a feeling of disap-
pointment that the window-tax was not to be repealed
without a substitute. Apart from the disappointed ex-
pectations of Marylebone and Bath, there can be uo
valid objection alleged to a house-tax, for as a general
rule a house is a very good measure of expenditure.
We do not sue why a man who occupies a house worth
1,0001. a year, perhaps several such houses, should not
be taxed for those luxuries as well as the tea-drinker,
the beer drinker, and the tobacco-smoker. The chief
objection to a house-tax is one that has been little
alluded to. It is that houses are heavily
taxed already. The property tax of 7d. in the
pound on houses, the duty on lire assurance,
the poor-rates and county-rates for public
purposes, all mount up into a considerable
sum, varying from 10 to 20 per cont. on the rental. As
the property-tax, however, will some day, we are per-
suaded, be taleen off our shoulders, and as the duty on
assurances is far too iniquitous and impolitic to be per-
petual, the question of " a house-tax" may be consi-
dered independent of them. The new form of the
house-tax will yield about 400,000/. less than that for-
merly proposed, but the reluctance of the agriculturists
to accept the two boons offered by Sir Charles will en-
able him to be more liberal to householders then he at
first intended to be. The income-tax will not be re-
imposed without a serious discussion—first, on the
propriety of putting the notorious schedule on a
more equitable footing ; and, secondly, on the sort
of understanding upon which the nation consents to
another lease for three years. Every year adds
to the sense of injustice that pervades the com-
mercial and professional classes on the subject of a tax
on purely industrial income, for every year multiplies
examples of income-tax paid in part out of capital..
We know of cases where nothing now remains out of
professional incomes that have paid income-tax every
year since 1842, and where the widows and orphans
would feel it a very serious relief to receive back the
income-tax paid in that period. We know of cases
where life assurances for the sake of large families
have reduced the net income so low that the income-tax
was, in fact, 4 or 5 per cent. on small and precarious
incomes. Still harder cases have comp to our know-
ledge where the income has been steadily declining
during the whole of the nine years, till, through Hi!.
health or other circumstances, it totally ceased, while the
tax upon it was kept up at nearly the original amount,
and never ceased till the last payment was made by exe-
cutors oat of a scanty fund. The gradual diminution
of total income assessed to the tax is itself a proof either
of growing dishonesty, which we, cannot wholly believe,
or of the fact that payments in former years were exces-
sive. As to the perpetuity of the tax, now is the time
to extract some pledge en that point. If, as is commonly
alleged, the incole.ne-tax. iS to serve as a temp prary fund
for permanent relief to industry, let us hear how far that
is to go, and at what point the claims of working people
• with less than 150/. a year are to be considered so far
satisfied that working people with more than 1501. are
no longer to be taxed for the sake of those below them.
How much more indirect taxation is to be reduced, and
how many more Kafir wars to be paid, on the strength
of the income-tax? These are the questions to come on
next Monday, and the week should not be permitted to
pass without some satisfaction upon them.
HERALD.—" There is something towards a new
great coat," said an Irishman wheat he hammered a nail
into the wall of his cabin. " How much?" asked his
wife. " Why, there's the nail to hang it on," was the
response. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires
is the now great coat. Ho has the nail—the income-tax!
Give us an income-tax, and we can carry on the financial
arrangements of the nation to the end of time. Dama-
ging, destructive, unpopular though the impost may be,
it is still a marvellously-convenient revenue with which
to carry through one of the most difficult jobs which a
Whig Administration ever assiened to itself. Issok icC
the Budget of last night. of what is it composed?.y
Why the Minister—however well inclined—has only
done a bit of petty larceny, when he might, with the
same amount of moral effrontery, have can4itted the
thet
ati
p lans
wholesale felony of stealing the batch of fiscal
pro-
pounded by Lord Stanley, and approved of
by
ui-
mous voice of the nation. This however, iv,lu not
s Nor
the purposes of the Government. Tee littleness of rnero
Whiggery sticks to them to the last. They have not the
courage to do inure then pilfer some odds and ends of the
courageous and well-defined plan of the eiatesinan who is
about to direct the destinies of the eiteen, e eat We have
only
to ask our readers, will they submit to the resteap„sitiutt
of the income-tax for three years? The, response is in
the mouth of every man who enjoys a re venue of more
than 150/. a year;
and we have no doubt ilia the amend-
ment of Mr. llerries, when proposed on Monday night,
will meet with a general assent. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer might well say that in his exposition there
was " nothing striking"--indeed, there was nothing
striking, save his knocking the nail upon the head, upon
which be had nothing new to hang. The exposition of
the Right Hon. Ucatleman is before the country. The

.c
"' S

~i ~:~~:

z.,,

question of the income-tax will be brought st4ostintWV7l-'''- 'sN
before the House of Commons on Monday niglstNiidiesete
have reason to believe that the result will aitii4; Aefis
wishes of the nation—the dissolution of the Wedge
.1 '-"r-
-cal Ministry, and the advent to power of a Craw •
able to accomplish the demands of the
ADVERTISER.---The new edition of the
Budget was published last night. We are much misueff
tAten if it be not received by the country with nearly `4srAle
the same mingled emotions of disappointment and deri-
sion, as the first edition ushered into the world some
weeks ago. We see in it the same little-mindness—the
same financial incapacity—the same genius for bungling
fiscal legislation, as that which characterised the Budget
which the Right Hon. Gentleman brought before the
public amid the jeers and laughter of the House and the
public, more than a month ago. The window-tax is at
last to be given up in name, but is to be retained, in a
somewhat modified form, we admit, under the name of a
tax en houses. " What's in a name?" What matters
it to the payers of the impost, whether the collector
calls for the money under the designation of a win-
der:, or cf es house-tax? It will be just as incon-
venient and es oppsessive to pay the amount under
the latter, as under the former designation. Why
did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer endea-
vour to retrieve, at least partially, his character as a
financier, by sweeping away the obnoxious impost, root
and br2nch—leaving not even a trace of it behind? But
we reproach ourselves for asking such a question. Sir
Charles is a man of no mind. He has not the ca-
pacity to do anything which would command the com-
mendation of the country. Those provisions in the Whig
Bedget which relate to the reduction of the timber and
coffee duties aro to be retained, as at first proposed.
The only parts of his former scheme which the Right
Hon. Gentleman abandons entirely are those which re-
lazed to the reduction of the taxes on seeds and lunatic
asylums. These he now proposes to retain. The an-
nouncement was received with laughter and jeers.
And so it well might. It is really lamentable to
see a men filling the office of Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, thus gravely trifling with matters of national
finance. " But worse remains behind." The income-
tax is to be perpetuated, with all its enormities. The
Right Hon. Gentleman, so far from seeing anything in-
quisitorial, oppressive, or unjust in this impost, holds it
up as a perfect model in its way. He proposes no modie
fication, no alteration, in any of its provisions. It is
true, he does not crown the nonchalance with which he
speaks of this impost as the very perfection of taxes, by
saying in so many words that he means to perpetuate it
for an indefinite period; but there can be no question
whatever that such is his intention. It now remains
for the country to have its say on the subject. The
financial oracle of Dovvning-street has spoken. His
voice has been heard in Parliament, and will reach the
ears of the entire nation before forty-eight hours have
elapsed. It is for the nation now to speak. It is right
that its voice should be aleo heard, and heard forthwith.
Are the myriads of persons who are the victims of this
iniquitous tax, to submit tamely to its re-imposition? It
wilt be their own fault if they do. They have only to
raise their voices against the monstrous meditated in-
justice, and both the Budget and its bungling author
will be utterly swept away—never more to re-appear on
the financial stage.

CHRONICLE.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not an easy task last night, and it is not wonderful
if he accomplished it with but moderate success. The
great change in the Budget consists in the substitution
of a house-tax for the modified window-tax which was
originally proposed. The alterations of the coffee and
timeer duties are to be the same which were announced
two months ago; but the abolition of the duty on seeds,
and the transference of certain charges tor lunatic
asylums from the county rate to the Consolidated Fund,
are struck out of the amended Budget. We regret the
levity with which Sir Charles Wcod announced his reasons
for these comparatively unimportant changes. He had
met with no gratitude, he said, for his original proposals
on these two points, and therefore he assumed that those
concerned attached no value to the relief which was
offered them. Yet the plan was originally either just or
unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely did
tot lot k tor extravagant gratitude for a boon of
150,0001. a year, divided among the landed
interest of the country; and whatever reasons existed
for the offer two months ago continue to the
present moment with undiminished force. But in
the meantime Lord Stanley has become a pro-
fessed candidate for office, and there is no longer any use
in attempting to buy the votes of the Country Party.
Mr. Herries' resolutions on Monday would not be with-
drawn for the sake of bringing in seeds duty free. These
are not the reasons which would influence a wise and
grave financial Minister. Sir Robert Peal never sought
to buy off opposition by the repeal of some petty impost
on a special interest. He knew that such an attempt
could not succeed—and he would not have done it if he
could. By declaiming against protective duties and the
sponge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that
be had met all the objections which were so universally
raised against his first tentative Budget. And yet all
the serious objections with which it was met had equally
little to do with Protection and with repudiation. He
came nearer the truth when he complained that his op.
penente had said that his scheme contained no principle
whatever. Having often ventured to make some remark
of the kind, we confess that we are not satisfied with
the answer. My principle, says Sir Charles Wood, is to
look principally to the interests of the labouring masses;
and, provided we cheapen the primary necessaries of life,
we may be indifferent to the reclamations cf property. Bat
wa never said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
incapable of enunciating a principle; we only complained
that his notorious Budget involved no such element. The
labouring classes can only be relieved by the removal or
reduction of that indirect taxation of which they pay so
disproportionate a share. When we turn from Sir
Charles Wood's speech to his Budget, we find that just
400,000 i. is the sum devoted to the carrying out cf this
vital principle. With a surplus of 1,900,000/., some-
what more than a filth part is applied to the purpose
which five-sixths of the Minister's speech is meant to
recommend, if it means anything. We cannot hesitate
to approve the refusal of the Minister to squander the
whole amount of the surplus on the removal of direct
texes on property. He has gone as fir as was justi-
Ilable, and perhaps even farther, in the amount to whicb
ho has reduced the tax on dwellings. The relief, as
he says, is not equal; nor would it be easy, by any just
change, to mitigate an unequal tax in an equal ratio.
The new house-tax will, in a few cases, increase the
burden—but only where it ought to be in-
creased. Even if Belgrave-square should have to
pay la more than at present, few will he the un-
tashiengble mourners for the new afflictions of Bel-
gravia. There is, however, ono feature in the
house-tax which makes it unjust, and which
we warn Sir Charles Wood will eventually render
it untenable. The exemption of houses below 201.
a year is no boon whatever to the labouring classes.
Whatever is taken off the direct charge on a house, is
inevitably added to the rent. A house of 201. a year,
with 15t. of house-tax, will hit, in the event of being
ux,ampt,d from the duty, for exactly 20/. 15s. When
„
Chancellor of the Exchequer boasts that three m
of houses will pay no duty whatever, he utterly icondemns
the proposal which he makes for continuing a proportion
of direct taxation. Why should fifteen seventeenths of
ec:::nntaplroine
the house property
? Small houncs are Isda valuable than largo
of the kingdom enjoy an arbitrary
dn''ac e yearlrhi 103ov or even
house
exemption
(bm.aeb,;:;y, but the owners are not
f
the
and the ex-
-2 (.If. ttill3e,reear,avr:
ht furnish the means of relieving the springs of elastic
cannow
assure 4 0 0, OO
SirO Charleshouses
mu;
BtPerenirearat'Y' would al
Cllslire valuablent ruler ro-iut ought
t'al-nou9n"isi act thoi y productive that it
w'Zircer ICtaioitta'exrhe3entit°nonui'in'rer will be diminished by a large
year from the adoption of his proposi-
ill2aol. the minimum of taxable rent,
tfiiri;cl..tlioenlsV2'.vh:Vetilil become a common value of houses. In-
justice will necessarily lead to contrivances to imitate it
and to evade the burdens which it imposes. The Mi-
nister entirely misconstrues Mr. Mill. An impartial
housc•tex is an impost on income—in its exceptional
form it is a burden on a certain kind of house-property.
This single error will be found hereafter to vitiate the
whole scheme of the new house-tax, which otherwise
would obtain approbation, and which, as compared with
the window-tax, is even now entitled to support. As
against Lord Stanley's schemes, the Ministerial pale,
must, with all its faults, be defended. It is bad enough
to do nothing in support of sound principles; but .it to
worse to deny and renounce them. The issue to
ten-
dered to the House of Commons on Monday is that
t io n ofci
justice or injustice—progress or decay
latxitat the
property or of industry. We cannot doe
in msjority will agree with Lord Retort Grosvenor
be
de-
clining to reject the burdens upon the rich, while the
poor man pays twenty times the per-tentage on his tea,
his tobacco, and his beer.
DAILY NEWS.—rhe Chancellor of the Exchequer
has at least simplified his Budget, and although the mile
lion and a quarter which ho gives up will bring no very
sensible pecuniary relief in any quarter, it will still
silence in some measure the most clamorous of com-
plainants. Whether the owners of old-fashioned cowl.
try houses, or of those large edifices in towns which
happen to contain shel form that class of the comma-
nity which most requiredd alleviation in the way of taxes,
one may be inclined to doubt; but Sir Charles Wood by
his first Budget had flung the country into such a slough
of embarrassment and despond, that any mode of extri-
cation was likely to be welcomed and accepted. If the
Chancellor's Budget was somewhat better digested than
his previous one, so was his speech. It had warmth in
it; and the man, being an amiable person, appeared to
advantage, making an effort to vindicate his plans and
repair his shattered reputation. In this he partially,
succeeded with the House, which received his appeal
with indulgence and even with favour. And yet that
speech does not impress us with any higher idea of Sir
Charles Wood's capacity as a financier. His theories were
often erroneous, his eloquence, or what he intended to
be such, was clap-trap, and his admissions highly imprce
dent. And we strongly counsel the Whigs to take ad
vantage of Sir Charles Wood's little gleam of success,
to
remove him to some less responsible office, and find, if
they can, amongst them, or beyond them,
bitter
f i d the
Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Sir Charhs p
prefaced
the
financial i!eins of his now Budget by expatiatingrincreased
ability prosperity of the country, and upon thhei;;*
edaemyands. He
ability of the tax-payers to
'l'llc-rand in the character
depicted the income-tax as a trifle;
of a gentleman of 5,000 e year, he declared that 150/. a
income-tax was a small contribution. We admit it.
But the 301. income and house-tax of a struggling man
of business, or earner of 7001..
ab year, iii addition to some
~
t' is no trifle. We deny utterly
that the country, I
tio/. or 701. of other
.t,ae x
nemsnali
by mate is better able to
than it was ten years ago. We deny
that capital
pay these talcs
produces the same returns, that personalexertions command the same income, that speculation iu
commerce or in vestments in manufactures produce the
any thing like the same results. Sir Charles Wood
says,same or a
if Fl•*- be the case, then free trade is a failure.
A1.040h i4uleigaieu this to =Leto ape, lie should c4iai

-HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.
LA INIUTA DI PORTICI (MASANIELLO).
First Appearance of Madlle. MONTI, Signori PAKDINI and
SCOTTI, and M. MASSOL, on THURSDAY mext, April 19.
The Nobility, Subscribers, and the Public are respectfully informed
that this .Night will be included in the Subscription.