The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

' admits of justification. He has not a word to say in defence
of the clause which places on a footing of equality, in regard
to the payment of the income impost,' the toil-worn author,
the exhausted medical practitioner, or any other person
earning a bare subsistence by an unceasing pressure on his
brain, with the more fortunate holder of Consols, the
possessor of a certain income from a Government situa-
tion, or the recipient of rents from heritable or
other property of fixed annual value. No. Bold
and self-assured as the Right Hon. Gentleman is, he has
not the effrontery to make any attempt to show that such a
state of matters accords with the dictates of justice. But
though not doing this in theory, he does a good deal worse
he does it in practice. He proposes the renewal of the in-
come-tax, with all its unjust and iniquitous provisions, for
another term of three years.
It is for those who are the victims of this injustice and
oppression, to say whether he is to succeed or not. If they
arouse themselves at once to determined effort against the
perpetuation of this hideous feature in the Budget of last
night, Sir Charles will yet be defeated. Let the country
everywhere raise its voice in opposition to the miserable
abortion of last night, and the right hon. author of the
measure will be fain, as be did last year in the case of the
stamp duties, to lay violent hands on his own financial
offspring.

(From the Daily News)
If ever there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer on whom
it was incumbent to bring forward a Budget that would re-
deem his own character, and reflect some respect and popu-
larity on the Administration, it was Sir Charles %%ood last
night. That gentleman mast, or ought to, have felt, how
unfortunate has hitherto been his career. Compelled to deal,
in his first years of office, with a famine and with continued
deficits, he still failed to persuade the country that his mode
of meeting those deficits eras either acceptable or wise.
Still, every one made allowance for the difficulties of his po-
sition; and so he stumbled on, until during this year, the
last year, and the year to come, this Minister has had a sur-
plus to deal with of at least seven milliots in three years—a
surplus, too, that the buoyant rise and prosperity of the
country might have enabled him to give away wisely at
seedtime and gather up agait at harvest. With the mantle
of Peel upon his shoulders—with a House of Commons
and a public full of admiration for what Peel had
accomplished, and most ready to venture any ex-
periment in pursuance of the same policy, what might not a
Chancellor of the Exchequer have done? He might have
immortalised himself, and given fresh youth to his party.
For the old age of parties, after all, is the slumber of doing
nothing, the incapacity that loses opportunities, with the
fatuity that sees not dangers as it approaches.
Sir Charles Wood has done not one of the things that he
might have done. Fascinated, or it might be said—petrified,
like his colleagues, by the metacing attitude of that agricul-
tural interest, which the popular force had compelled to
sacrifice their private interest to justice, the whole thought
of the present Chancellor has been to propitiate that in-
terest, and to dole out to these country gentlemen what
financial boons he had to bestow, not largely enough to con-
ciliate them, but in dribblets, which they accepted and de-
spised.
After his peddling with the stamp duties last year and
flinging the brick tax to the agriculturists, who did not
thank him, one might have expected this year that he would
have looked largely around hire, dealt out the surplus, and
arranged a scheme of finance it some way becoming his po-
sition and the progress of the age. He had been driven close
last year in a division on the window duties, and these he
especially declared his intentica to deal with. Well; the
remission cf such a tax would have been a boon to the
industrious classes. And all men consoled themselves
that if no new impulse was to be given to trade, still that
the civic classes would be rid of a barbarous and heavy tax.
Greatly will they be mistaken. The good Chancellor is
not the man to do anything largely, frankly, or wholly.
He is a genuine pedlar, who will give the people an inch, but
never an ell ; who will higgle with them for a fraction ;
and who could never bring his mind to let one hand
part with a shilling, witlicut a prospect of filching
back ninepence with the other. Such is his mea-
sure about the window-tax. Repeal it, indeed! Bless
the mark ! The man hal not the heart to do
anything so frank. And so the window-duty is to be abo-
lished for all new houses, but they are to pay a five per cent.
tax on the rent. The owners cf existing houses are to be
gratified by a remission of one-third of their present window •
tax. But shops or houses worth more than 201. must pay
9d. in the pound ; and so must farmers who live in houses
above that value. So that in lieu of the window-tax, which
could not be augmented front its unpopularity, John Bull
has got a house-tax, without a grievance to plead against it
—five per cent. on the rent to commence with, and ready for
the first augmentation that is to come. The house-tax, it is
plain enough, will not be paid by the owners of house pro-
pertv, although the Chancellor argued upon the few claims
such property had to exemption. The house-tax, like rent
itself, will be paid, nine-tenths of it, by the industrious, the
trading, the professional classes. It will be paid out of in-
come, nut property; and is, in fact, but an immense aug-
mentation of one or two sOedules of the property and
income-tax, and those already the most unjustly over-
burdened.
After having combined as much blunder, pettiness, and
injustice as was possible in the chief measure of his Budget,
what could be expected front the smaller items? Some of
them are just enough, as fat as they go, and as the make-
weights of a good and large scheme, might have passed.
We last week recommended the reduction of the timber-
duty in justice to the shipbudders, and of the coffee duties,
if real coffee were any longer to be tasted. These are unex-
ceptionable. But what shal we say to the marvellous ge-
nerosity of taking 150,0001. of the expenses of pauper
lunatics and flinging it upon the Consolidated Fund? This
relief of the locality Sir Oharles Wood would not give
to towns, but merely to country districts; and
these he probably weuk rid of all the expense but
for the cherished necessity of retaining for the county
justices that control over the expenditure, whether paid by
the Consolidated Fund or fur, which the Chancellor thought
indispensable to the being of the state. In truth, Sir Charles
Wood, in these arguments, and indeed throughout the whole
speech, seemed labouring to prove his fitness to serve as a
Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Stanley and Disraeli
Ministry. The squirearchy itself could show nothing more
orthodox or more crass than Sir Charles Wood.
After such a Budget as
,this, propounded at such a time, we
may consider the days of the Whig Ministry to be numbered.
Lord John Russell is a spirited leader, well able to face about,
and when foes close around him, show undaunted courage,
with the resources of a free and liberal politician. But
what can be do with such a colleague as this?
How can lie face the clamorous crowd of angry religionists
with a Bill that does not satisfy them, yet disgusts the poli-
tician? How does he meet the public, accustomed to and
expectant of that address and even grandeur in dealing with
financial difficulties that reconciled risen to burdens, and re-
placed discontent with confidence? Sir Charles Wood's
Budget will this day be welcomed throughout England by a
shout of derision. It is not that an amendment might be
carried against it, but any amendment ; and the best would
be a rote repudiating the whole thing on the simple ground
of the incapacity of its proposer.

PROPERTY AND INCOME-TAX.
A Parliamentary return printed on Saturday, at the in-
stance of Mr. Moffatt, contains the following particulars with
reference to the operaten of the income-tax, which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer intends to re-impose " for a limited
period." The total rumber of persons who paid income-tax
in the year ending the sth of April, 1849, was 144,626, and
the gross amount received was 5,605,5321. The receipts are
thus made up :-
Schedule A ... ••• ••• £2,656,796
I/ B ••• ••• 320,093
C••• ••• 750.761
„ D ..• ••• ••• ... 1,529,398
E 4.. ... 348,459
which; the duty was charged was up-
The total income fon
wards of 510,0,0001. The amounts received from the various
classes of income were as follows :-
tinder £l5O a year
£l5O and under £2OO from 38,902 persons
200 and under 300 from 28,274 persons
300 and under 400 from 14,162 persons 131,971
400 and under 500 from 6,896 persons
500 and under 6"0 from 5,010 persons
600 and under 700 from 2,878 persons
700 and under 800 from 1,852 persons
800 and under 900 from 1,549 persons
900 and under 1,000 from 775 persons 91,025
1,000 and under 2,000 from 4,659 persons . 175,390
2,000 and under 3,000 from 1,286 persons
3,000 and under 4,000 from 621 persons
4,000 and under 5,041 from 327 persons
5,000 and under 10,000 from 617 persons
10,000 and under 20,000 from 215 persons
20,000 and under 50,000 from 96 persons . 80,511
50,000 and upwards from 19 persons

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TATTERSALL'S—YESTERDAY.
LIVERPOOL SPRING CUP.
6 to 1 agst Mr. Meeson's Doubt—taken to 100/.
LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE.
10 to 1 agst Sir John
10 to 1 agst Abd-el-Kader
10 to 1 agst Maria Day
10 to 1 agst Rat-trap
12 to 1 agst Vain Hope—taken
14 to 1 agst Peter Simple
20 to 1 agst Rescue
20 to 1 agst Maurice Daley
20 to 1 agst Fugitive
25 to I agst Venice
25 to 1 agst Currig—taken to 1001.
The movements on this event were confined to a de-
cline in Vain Hope and Peter Simple.
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE HANDICAP.
9 to 1 agst Mr. Metklam's Coelcail—taken
METROPOLITAN HANDICAP.
12 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Cnmus
CHESTER CUP.
11 to 1 agst Mr. Treen's Rhesus, 5 yrs, 7st-12 to 1
taken freely
22 to 1 agst Mr. J. Brown's Haricot, 4 yrs, 6st 121 b
—taken
25 to 1 agst Lord Strathmore's Montague, 5 yrs, 7st
21b—taken
30 to 1 agst Mr. Saxon's Black Doctor, 3 yra, Set 41b
50 to 1 agst Mr. Lister's Nancy, 3 yrs, 4st 121b—
taken to 2001.
3,000 to 45 agst Mr. Carew's Eva, 5 yrs, Get 41b--taken
1,000 to 15 agst Mr. Disney's Sir Richard, 5 yrs, 7st—t
1,000 to 10 agst Mr. Herbert's Spot, 5 yrs. 7st 31b—t
1,000 to 10 agst Capt. Lowther's Tarn wadlin, .5 yrs, bet
—taken
n s
euon
Several hundreds were laid oat near the
Rhesus at 12 to 1, the layers refusing to g:l3?e teh bpe t-
.
ting apart from this was flat and uninsport
DERst.
6 to 1 agst Mr. Howard's Grecian—taken freely
d's Prime Minister—taken and
afterwards offered
_
Newminster—taken and
6 to 1 agst Mr. Halfor
12 to 1 agstufMterrw.
Nieshrd 012 to 1 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's Mountain Sylph colt
22
agst Mr. Gerard Sturt's Lamartine—taken
25
o to
atred
s
sgst
MMr.r. Meiklam's Constellation—taken
.T. Clark's Marlborough Buck—take
2
30 to 1
30 to 1 agst Lord Stanley's Storm—taken
5 tt o 1 ap
40 to 1 asst Sir J. Hawley's Confessor—t to 1001.
1,000 to 20 agst Mr. Higgins Theseus —taken
80 to 1 agst Mr. F. Garner's Serus—taken
100 to 1 egst Sir G. Heatheote's Lady Geraldine colt
—taken
Grecian and Newminster were in great force, sevet al
hundreds having been laid out on each at the quot-d
prices; 25 to 1 was taken to a good deal of money about
Constellation, 80 to 1 to two or three hundred pounds
about Serus, and 10,000 to 100 about the Lady Geraldine
colt.

OAKS.
12 to 1 agst Lord Caledon's Sister to Wanota—taken
12 to 1 'slot Lord Stanley's iris-.-taken