The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-22 00:00:00

PARLIAMEN TARY BUSINESS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings
FEB of
2the House of Commons.)
FRIDAY, . 1.
S'IANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
The following Resolutions were reported from the above
Committee :-
1. That in the case of' the Derby and Ashborne Roads
petition, the standing orders ought ro be dispensed
Bill,That the parties be permitted to proceed with their pro-
vided the same be presented not later than three clear days
after the presentation of this report.
2. That in the case of the Ulverston and Lancaster Rail-
way petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed
with : I hat the parties be permitted to proceed with their
Bill, provided the same be presented not later than three
clear days after the presentation of this report.
3. That in the case of the Clerkenwell Improvement
petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill,
provided the same be presented not later than three clear
days after the presentation of this Report.
4. That in the case of the Smithfield Enlargement peti-
tion, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, pro-
vided the same be presented not later than three clear days
alter the presentation of this report.
5. That in the case of the Lancaster and Yorkshire Rail-
way (Fifth Shares) petition, the standing orders ought to be
dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed
with their Bill, with the exception of the Clause affecting
the mortgages, provided the same be presented not later
than three clear days after the presentation of this report.
6. That in the case of the Mayfield Railway petition, the
standing orders ought to be dispensed with :----That the par-
ties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided the
same be presented not later than three clear days after the
presentation of this report.
7. That in the case of the Dundee Police petition, for ex-
tending the time for the second reading of the Bill, the
standing orders ought to be dispensed with • That the time
for the second reading of the Bill be extended to Friday,
the 28th instant.—Resolutions agreed to.
The Ulverstone and Lancaster Railway Bill was to
be brought in.

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE.
The undernamed Bills are appointed to be read a second
time on Monday, Feb. 24
Bala Pool.
Briton Ferry, Docks, and Railway.
Buckingham's Compensation.
Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and Swansea and Loughor
Railway.
Christchurch (Southwark) Parish.
European and American Printing Telegraph Company, &c.
Great Western Railway (Arrangements with reference to
the Purchase, &c., of the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth
Railways).
Killarney and Valencia Railway.
London and Blackwall Railway (from London and Blackwall
Extension Railway to Tilbury, &c.)
Manchester Waterworks.
Manchester Improvement.
Maryport and Carlisle Railway.
Metropolitan Cattle Market.
Midland Railway (Purchase of Leeds and Bradford Railway
and Increase of Capital).
Richmond and Lancaster Turnpike Road (Western District)
Continuation of Term, &c.
Sheffield and Glossop Road.
Sub- m urine Telegraph Company between England and France.
Tenterden and IVoodchurch Roads.
Wiveliscombe Turnpike Roads.

FALL IN TilE PRICE OF BREAD.—Ye3terday the
bakers throughout the metropolis reduced the price of the
41b. loaf one halfpenny. The best bread is now charged
6id. to 7d. ; second quality 51d. per loaf;
Whitechapel, the" Cut, and other populous districts, o;VY
charged &L, weighed on delivery. some, however, in

LONDON,.

THE PRECIOUS BUDGET.

MINISTERIAL CRISIS.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Lord John Russell has tendered his resig-
nation to her Majesty, and only holds office till another
Government can be formed. The extensive loss of Par-
liamentary confidence, or rather of Parliamentary sym-
pathy, which his Lordship and his colleagues have evi-
dently suffered of late has probably prepared most of our
readers for this result. In the face of so much resolute
opposition from so many different quarters, and with so
much irresolate support—in the face of such divisions as
those of yesterday week and last Thursday, Lord John
Russell could not expect that the present Cebinet would
safely ride through the many delicate questions pressing
upon the attention of Parliament. The Budget, it, meet
be confessed, has satisfied no party, and it seemed only
too probable that any possible modification of it would
purchase lukewarm thanks at the expense of strenuous
objections. It is proverbially difficult to please
everybody, even under the most favourable circum-
stances, and that difficulty becomes an impossibility
when there is a predisposition not to be pleased.
The interest of the public, which far an unusu-
ally long period has been attracted to questions of the
past, will be immediately directed to the future. What
sort of Government are we to have? A new one alto-
gether, or a reconstruction? So far as regards the
political principles and the personal characters of the
men, there is no reason why a Cabinet should not be
formed with Lord John still for a leader, but with seve-
ral new members, including two or three from Sir
Robert Peel's Administration. Lard John could not
have better colleagues than those who have proved such
steady, though disinterested allies. But, whether for
good or for ill, the Whig school is- generally averse to
coalition. It is too much of an oligarchy, almost too
much 'of a family, to endure the introduction of new
elements, especially when tsere is anything to be for-
given or forgot. The Whigs come in and go out toge-
ther, and much as the public will undoubtedly lose by
the sacrifice of the whole Cabinet, we can scarcely
hope to see any part of it in new combination.
Besides what has hitherto been the Ministerial sec-
tion of Parliament, the Protectionists are the most
numerous body professing a common creed. What
may they expect out of the present crisis ?
It is sufficient to say that they are still Protectionists,
and to all political purposes might just as well be French-
men or rigid Mahowetans. Suppose them summoned to
her Majesty's Councils and compelled to dissolve Par-
liament, which they correctly avow to be their solitary
chance—for they would not get a sixpence of the public
money from the present House—what sort of account
would they give of themselves to our popular constitu-
encies? They can only pledge themselves to enhance the
price of bread and all other food, and to throw away the
legislation of the last five, or rather 'of the last nine—nay
of the last twenty years. We are not saying what the
Protectionists might have done. Had they but followed
their leaders—had they taken common sense, instead -of
passion for their guide, they might now have been in a
position to govern this country. But they have wasted
five years in one long fit of sullen indignation, and have
cnstgi
00
nnt ofi
free
e teoof rot
re
aer
dv theied ae
nn
dtt publichu et
yh
obut their
authors.
0.
uT
lwould
incessant
nl
only
fateesms ens ne
att
mi
generaloawle d ni
c ot
n et
ei
Parliament to be beaten on the Address—to leave
public affairs in the greatest confusion—perhaps to lose
the year 1851 altogether for the, purposes of legisla-
tion—perhaps to incur the necessity of another general
election—perhaps to throw the Government ultimately
into the bands of the politicians with whom they feel
much less sympathy then they do either for the friends
of Lord John Russell or for the admirers of Sir Robert
Peel. Undoubtedly there exist abundant materials for
the formation of an entirely new Government, bound to
that commercial policy which Lord John Russell in-
herited
from his predecessor. This is not the time either
to revert to the errors of the retiring Cabinet, or to in-
quire very critically into the personal merits of this or
that probable member of the new one. It is rather the
time to view things as a whole, and we have little doubt
that from the numerous independent, statesmen of our
day a Government could be formed that would deserve,
and generally receive, the cordial support of those who
are for the present in power. Whatever is done, is
is most desirable, above all, that there should be union,
and therefore some degree of generosity and mutual for•
bearance, among the various sections that stand by free
trade. The progress of sound legislation, the peace ot
the country, and the stability of our institutions abso
lutely require that all should combine to prevent even a
momentary success of the Protectionist imposture. For
the sake of the country gentlemen, for the sake of the
House of Lords, for the sake of that representative sys
tem which still gives considerable weight to the owners
and occupiers of the soil, the question of free trade ought
not to come again before the people of this country. It
is too serious and too sore a point to be re-opened, espe-
cially by the rough process of a general election. All
wise men should combine to avert that peril, and all
wise men should, therefore, combine to give a fair
chance—that, of course, is al! that is asked—to what-
ever body of liberal statesmen her Majesty may summon
to her Councils.
As we long since prophesied, Lord John Russell and
his colleagues have at length felt the odium consequent
upon their. determination to maintain the direct taxation
of the country in it present form. We have never missed
an opportunity during the last nine years of making the
most earnest remonstrance against the absurd
and iniquitous assessment of the income-tax. Nor were
our remonstrances confined to a solitary warning on
each occasion. Fix weeks—we may almost without
exaggeration say for months—at intervals of three
years since 1842—we have endeavoured to re-
present the condition of public feeling on the subject
whenever the renewal of the obnoxious method of
assessment was proposed in Parliament. It was all
in vain. Might makes right. As long as the Ministry
for the time being found a House of Commons prepared
to vote the renewal of the tax as it stood for yet
another period of three years, so long did they stop
their ears to all remonstrance. It was an easier, it was
a safer thing to take the money in the accustomed form.
There was leis risk of a deficit when the year's accounts
were closed if the usual balance under the head of
" Income-tax" could be carried forward to the credit of
the nation. Account was taken of figures, but no ac-
count was taken of the feelings of a people quick
enough to discover injustice and powerful enough to
defeat it in the long run. If we are not mistaken, the
course pursued by the educated classes of English so-
ciety under the imposition and re-imposition of this
unequal fiscal burden will be remembered as yet another
instance of the exemplary patience of Englishmen
under circumstances of political trial. Three times
since the re-introduction of the income-tax by the late
Sir Robert Peel has a locus prnitentice with regard to
its assessment been offered to the Cabinet of the day;
and now, upon the third occasion, unless extraordinary
means had been used, we were as far removed as ever
from a fair reconsideration of the measure. It is not
matter of astonishment that Lord John Russell and his
colleagues have at length stumbled upon an insurmount-
able obstacle. The wonder rather is that they and their
predecessors should have succeeded so tang in playing off
one class against the other, and in gaining currency for
the merest and most transparent sophisms as the inspira-
tions of profound political sagacity. The explanation ot
this phenomenon must be sought for in a succession of
causes. In the year 1842, when the re-imposition of the
tax was proposed, we had lost a whole army in the Cau-
bul Pass—we were engaged in war with China—we
were involved in the difficulties of a failing budget.
It wait natural enough that men should rather ac-
cept the means of safety than canvass the abstract
merits of the system by which it was to be obtained.
Three years elapsed, and we were intent up- n the im-
panding revolutiou iu the commercial policy of the ceun-
try. All objects sank into unimportance in the presence
of the one absorbing question of the day. T.hree years
more elapsed. The Irish famine bad rendered an enor-
mous loan necessary, the system of free trade had been
inaugurated, and the feeling of the country was against
endangering the recent settlement by inendving its re.
sults with the possible effects of other changes uncoa-
uect, d with its operation. The injustice wits felt as
keenly then as it is at the present moment. Remon-
strances were utrered as loudly then as now; but there
Was a
fixed determination nut to drive matters to an ex-
tremity. For three years longer the professional and
trading classes of England made abnegation of 'their
rights. It was hoped that, in the interval that must elapse
before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled
once more to ask for the renewal of the tax, his pertinacity
might be softened or his error removed. Well, then,
we have arrived at the end of that period. Again,
the Minister of Finance has come down to the House of
Commons, and has asked for a vote of renewal without
any proposition for an amended assessment of the tax.
Have we not had patience? Is there now any shadow
of political necessity to justify the further imposition of
so unequal a burden upon a particular class, and that
one—we use the term advisedly—the most laborious, the
most struggling class of English society? Our proposi•
tion is briefly this—that any system which treats a per-
manent and a transitory income as identical quantities
for fiscal purposes is an act of public dishonesty of the
grossest kind. If a confusion of this kind be inseparable
from the nature of an income-tax, then let us hear no
more of any such impost. Its very name should be sy-
nonymous with injustice and impolicy. Whatever
it may be in terms, an income-tax so levied is in
reality nothing less than one of those expedients for
the fiscal relief- of certain privileged classes at the
expense of others which mainly led to the French
revolution of 1789. Let us see for a moment how
the matter stands as a question of figures, and we
will venture once more to employ an illustration which
we used bat the other day. The income of one man de-
rived from the interest of 1001. sterling is—say 5/. per
annum; the income of his neighbour is—say 51. per an-
num, as the wages for the sweat of his brow or the
labour of his brain. At the end of the year one man is
possessed of 1051. in money ; the other of 5L The
Chancellor of the Exchequer then, upon a system which
professes to be one of direct taxation, takes exactly two
shillings and elevenpence from each of these persons.
That is to say, he leaves the 1001. altogether untouched.
He ignores this sum altogether ; or if he admits its
existence upon the one side, he assumes it upon the
other, where it has no existence at all. This is direct
taxation ! This is the system vaunted by statesman
and economic writers, es the most just and philosophi-
cal method of dividing the public burdens ! The in-
come of realized property is taxed at a given rate ;
transitory income IA taxed at the same rate. Omitting
for the moment all appeals ad migericordiam, is
this a method of taxation' which it was seriously pro-
posed to fasten in perpetuity upon the people of this
country? For it, must not ba forgotten that those per-
sons whose incomes depend upon the vicissitudes of trade,
or upon the still more sorrowful vicissitudes of health
and sickness—of life and death, contribute also their fair
share to the revenue in all other respects. The raimenp,
they and their families wear, the food they consume, the