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

THE PRECIOUS BUDGET.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
CHRONICLE.—We are not at present aware whe-
ther any foundation exists for the rumour'iot an ap-
preaching dissolution of Parliament. The circulation of
inch reports is a familiar method of recalling wavering
adherents to their allegiance, and if they -havo been
countenanced by Ministers, it is more than piobable that
a working majority in the present House teas a more
immediate object than the problematical result of an ap-
vial to the constituencies. At the same time, the rash-
ness which, in Lord John Russell's character, is so sin-
gularly combined with timidity in carrying out reckless
and hasty decisions, renders the desperate resort of a
new election not improbable, as a mode of escaping from
party difficulties. If any such plan is under considera-
tion, it would be well for those who have a voice in the
decision to reflect on the entire absence of all the cir-
cumstances which render an appeal to the country con-
venient or necessary. It is true that the Ministry is in-
volved in serious difficulties, which may be expreassd
in three, or rather in two propositions. It. is impossible
that the sham anti-Aggression Bill can be carried. The
Budget cannot be carried through the House of Com-
mons; and therefore it is difficult to conceive that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer can retain his office. The
anti-Papal difficulty is inherent in the pature of the
question itself, although it has been complicated by the
imbecility and insincerity which have characterized all
the oscillations of the polemical policy of Ministers. It
is possible that a dissolution might anticipate the entire
subsidence of the ferment, which is nevertheless rapidly
subsiding, among the gulled believers in the Durham
Letter; but all the answer which could be given to a
No-Popery appeal would amount at most to a declara-
tion that something must be done. If any consequence
could result from so vague an aspiration, it is clear that
it must be produced by more vigorous agency than that
of the authors of the new prohibition of local titles.
Lord Stanley could bid higher for ultra-Protes-
tant support ; and although we by no means attri-
bute to Mr. Disraeli or to the Duke of Richmond any
enthusiastic desire for a new election, it is probable
that the numerical gain would be greater to the Pro-
tectionists than to the thoroughgoing supporters
of Ministers. Ireland, on the other hand, would
return a larger proportion of Roman Catholics, all
pledged to resist any encroachment on the freedom of
their religion. The majority and the minority would be
more directly opposed to one another 'than ever; and
their relative numbers would not be materially changed.
With the more immediate and pressing difficulty of the
Budget, the constituencies would be still more incompe-
tent to deal. They would probably be unanimous in
requiring a more politic plan, and in wishing for a more
successful financier to frame it; but ageneral election
cannot be decided on considerations of the relative merits
of coffee and chicory. The House of Commons is fully
competent to judge of the demerits of h proposal which
is principally remarkable for the absence of any definite
policy whatever. From the beginningeo the end of his
speech, Sir Charles Wood abstained from enunciating
any theory which could justify either the small and
unsatisfactory changes which he proposed, or the im-
posts which he had determined to retain. Even
the continuance of the income-tiks which was
tho necessary foundation of his whole Budget,
was announced in an apologetic and hesitating
tone which could only encourage criticism and
opposition. He had voted against it, be confessed, when
Sir Robert Peel first proposed it; but le had afterwards
thought that the imposition was justified by those great
reforms in the tariff which it rendered possible. Further
relief from indirect taxation was still possible and de-
sirable; and it might, by a natural inference, have fol-
lowed that the income-tax was to be retained to cover
the commercial experiments which promise results not
inferior to those of previous reductions. Sir Charles
Wood proved to demonstration that the refusal of the
income-tax would not only absorb the, surplus in futare,
but would leave a positive deficit; but on his own show-
ing, a third of the tax might be removed, or the most
unpopular schedules abandoned, without reducing the
revenue below the expenditure; nor could there be any
justification for maintaining it at its present rate, if
no advantage was to be taken of the surplus which
it afforded. The country will certainty not consent to
bear any income-tax for the mere purpose of purchasing
Three per Cents. at 96. The burden ie endured that the
springs of consumption may be lightened, to the increase
of the public and private resources of the country. The
admission that it could only be justified as an instrument
for reducing indirect taxation became equivalent to an
invitation to reject the tax, from the, moment when it
appeared that no serious reforms were to be proposed in
the Customs or Excise. There is much to be said for
and against the income-tax; bat the_ questions relating
to it cannot safely be entrusted to the discretion of a
Minister who appears scarcely to believe in the expedi-
ency of his own proposals, and who declines to undertake
the policy which on his own showing is ne-
cessary to justify the impost. It is far from
improbable that the supporters .of free trade and
commercial reform may be compelled to support
the position which the Finaece Minister so
feebly defends, for the purpose of keeping the ground
open for a perseverance in the policy which he has
neither courage, skill, nor capacity to carry forward.
The proposition for repealing the window-tax was
brought forward with the same hesitating appearance
of inviting defeat. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
declared that house property was not unduly burdened;
and if he slighly referred to the irregularities in the
assessment of the window duties, and to the social evils
which they are said to produce, it was difficult to under-
stand why, among many obnoxious taxes, he had selected
an impost for abolition of which he entertained so favour-
able an opinion. Agreeing with him that house-owners
are not entitled to monopolise a surplus of two millions,
wo might have received with comparative satisfaction the
announcement of a moderate house tait, to be levied in
proportion to the value. The greatest evil in the win-
dow-tax consists in its inequality, and capricious gra-
duation is precisely that feature in tIA, system which is
to be especially preserved in the new duty charged
upon houses. A small house with .Imany windows is
to pay more than a tenement of double value and fewer
glazed openings; and, as if to makeehe injustice more
glaring by contrast, new houses are-tube fairly assessed
in comparison with one another, and therefore unfairly
in comparison with the vast majority. of dwellings. The
builder of a house worth 30/. a year, in addition to the ad-
vantage of untaxed brick and glass, is to be rated at an
annual house duty of 11.10 s.—while his next neighbour, if
he has the misfortune to have twenty windows, may be
charged with three or four times the amount. This un-
just and impracticable arrangement will not be rendered
more palatable by the Minister's dikttante explanation
of his course. He had taken warning, he said, by his
experience in the stamp duties, and he must decline to un-
dertake an adjustment of taxation, which might in some
cases involve an increase of assessments Yet it seems the pe-
culiar duty of a financier, in bringing forward a new fiscal
arrangement, to adjust, as far as possible, the burden to the
ability, even at the risk of dissatisfying the few who
might be losers by an enforcement of justice. As if to
answer even the feeble excuse which is offered, there arc
actually certain cases in which, under the plan as it
stands, taxation will be increased; but these cases are
isolated, and the grievance can in no instance affect the
wealthy and powerful. The basis of the Budget, both
in respect of the taxes which it retains and those which
it modifies, has been rendered unsafe by the diffident
position of its official advocate and author. Until the
debates hare commenced—perhaps until divisions
have been attempted —it will be difficult to judge
whether the resources on which the Minister cal-
culates will really be left at his disposal. But,
on the assumption that he has the surplus which
appears oa the face of his statement, the most
serious of all the charges against the Budget re-
mains—that he has frittered it way in peddling and
petty modes of application, and has wasted a great op-
portunity. Sir Robert Peel tried.his bold and imecesstul
experiments in the face of an alarming deficit. It would
be unreasonable to expect that the how of Ulysses should
be bent by feebler and more timid arms; but at least it
might have been expected that a surplus revenue would
be the means of conferring some benefit on the country.
Entire branches of trade might be raised into prospe-
rity, and vast masses of the comMunity might find their
enjoyments increased, by a wise disposal of the resources
which are now at the command of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the House of Commons. It is not by
btrying and then another, nor
tut satisfying them, that
a skilful and far-seeing financier would make use of a
good fortune which Sir Charles Wood seems to fear
to bribe,
efiirrsetioanimesinwteitrheas
and deprecate from a conscious inability to turn it to
account.
ADVERTISER.—The Whig Ministry are in a help-
less and hopeless condition. Their greatest enemies
must pity them. They have come to a dead fix; they
have sunk so deep in the mire, that we see no human
probability of their extrication. Even Hercules himself
could hardly get them out of the mud. It is all their
own doings. They have themselves alone to blame for
the pretty predicament in which they are placed. Lord
Stanley and Mr. Disraeli may severally apostrophise
the Russell Administration in the words of Macbeth—
" Thou canst not say I did it."
We always predicted it would come to this. We have
uniformly said, " Give theta rope enough..
The quota-
tion is too well known to require that it should be given
at length. It would appear as if the Premier and Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer were just now running a
race. It looks as if there were a regular competi-
tion between these two members of the Cabinet,
as to who shall most speedily and most effectually
damage, previous to destroying, the Whig Govern-
ment. Each is acquitting himself with great ability in
his way. The Papal Aggression Bill of the Noble Lord
and the Budget of the Right Hon. Gentleman, are re-
spectively very much adapted for the Purpose. Neither
Minister could have been happier in his choice of instru-
mentality for destroying the kVhig Government. Which
of the two is labouring in his vocation with the greatest
success, is a point on which we find a difference of opi-
nion to prevail. It appears to many a neck-and neck-
race, so far as it has gone. between Lord John Russell
and Sir Charles Wood. Either of the two would have
sufficed to accomplish their object before any long time
had elapsed. As both aro working in harness together,
they cannot fail to do it in a very brief period. Our own
opinion, if we must needs express an Opinion, is, that
Sir Charles Wood will be the winner. Others, we know,
think different; but that will not diminish the strength
of our faith in our own conclusions. Were we disposed
to gamble, we would back the Right Hon. Gentleman
against the Noble Lord. At Tattersall's also, were
bets to be taken in that celebrated locality, the odds,
we are sure, would be in favour of the Right Hon.
Gentleman. The Budget, we hold, will beat tee Papal
Bill in precipitating the dissolution of the Ministry. The
latter would have done the deed in the lose run, but the
Budget will do it at once. The odds, in the estimation
of others es well as in ours, are decidedle in favour of.
Sir Charles. Lord John seeks to delay 1115 measure in
its ygrioue stages. sir Outdo is determined that the