The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

. -
the next year's financial arrangements, they cannot cal-
culate ou this source of revenue as an element in
their Budget. After this signal defeat, is it possible for the
Ministry to retain the offices which they have long held
without power, and can now only retain with disgrace?
Lord John Russell's postponement of the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bid would seem to imply that be does not intend to
meet the House of Commons again as a tlinister. With
what feeling of honour —with what advantage to the public
service can the Ministers now hold the scats of their offices,
except until their successors are appointed? On Monday
evening, no doubt, Lord John Russell will state to the House
the course which he intends to pursue. If he has the spirit
of a man it is impossible for him to make any other an-
nouncement than that which the country till receive with
exultation—the announcement that he and his colleagues
have placed their resignation in the hands of the Sovereign,
whom they can no longer serve without betraying the con
stitutional principles that guide the Ministerial arrangements
of this country.

CHRONICLE. —A majority of 14 against Ministers, in a
full House, on such a question as the income-tax, is a start-
ling occurrence. In the anticipation of such a possibility we
deseaclulrminignothr
econmsaidinertaentisolnicsesuofboardgritiaa
object oaf subordinate to top r
itnhoei
plo great
in
finance, which was itself the guarantee for a true commercial
policy. Mr. Hume's ill timed interferencelas defeated our
purpose, and has secured a triumph which Will certainly not,
in the first instance, accrue to the cause which he desires to
support. With only one year's tenure of the income-tax,
we doubt, with Mr. Sidney Herbert, whether the Govern-
ment will venture to proceed with the reductions
already an-
nounced in the Budget. If the Ministers retain their places,
they will have a difficulty in devising any financial measures
'o meet the emergency. Yet their retireeu
ent from office
would risk the dangerous experiment of aStanley Govern-
ment, with a general election immediately resulting, and with
consequences beyond, which we sbopld be unwilling
g to fore-
bode; while, were they to retain their post eh -
se e great battle
of free trade might possibly be fought with greater
advantage in another year. Unfortunately the debate
was unsatisfactory, from the indefinite nature of
the issue to be decided, and from the itreng admixture
of cross purposes in the conflict. In the 1y part
. ar of the
evening individual Members indulged itie the most uncon-
nected monologues, each on the particulati '
grievance which
excited his own individual dissatisfactioa: Mr. Fres Wield
argued at some length in favour of a partial relief to an-
nuitants; and Mr. Williams declaimed, ,With more reason
than opportuneness, against the exemptiou of Ireland from
;he burden. When at last the stragglingrcemmittoo found
a definite object to pursue, Mr. Hume, ;_,unfortunately,
as-
sumed the direction of its course with mo* infelicitous '
inge-
nuity. In proposing the limit .tion of tile new
Income-lax
to a single year, he explained, with unnaietake,bie sincerity
his own object in desiring to renew the. discussion
twelve '
months hence. He declared himself a friend to direct taxa-
tion, tion, and he had even the courage to avow the honest
doc-
trine
that smaller properties have no stronger claims to ex-
emption than those which produce an income of more than
1501. a year. His wish was to give the House an
3 opp rtu-
nity of revising the various inequalitie4 of the tax,
can at present see no facility which should enable
Parliament to assess the tax more justly in 1832
than in 1851. No inquiries are necessary —no statistics are
and The question is tone of abstract political economy:
and it has long been eluded by politicians. The views which
Mr. Hume supports at present will meet with the same ad-
herence and the same resistance hereafter.. However this
may be, the Member for Montrose has been in the Howe
long enough to know that divisions by to
means imply the
agreement of the supporters of a motion with
the reasons
urged by the proposer. It was sufficienti-
er evident that the
Protectionists would welcome an amendment which no way
pledged them to take the opportunity hereafter of assisting
Mr. Hume in the re-adjustment of the tot. It is difficult to
hence, '
say who may be in power a year or what may then
be the easiest means of getting a majority.. But it is quite
certain that the loss of the income-tax would leave a deficit
in the Exchequer, and we have often beep warned that a re-
newed duty on corn will be proposed as the remedy for the
financial difficulty. If any doubt could have existed as to
the tendency of Mr. Hume'e motion, it must hiVe been re-
moved by the_rapi d succession of Protectionist speakers who
unwilling ally. Alderm '
welcome their new and . anl homp.
roosne ti%oir.Buck,
and Lord Granby vied with each other in their
Sex ions of animosity against the income-tax, although the
press
amendment was in
tended to make it permanent by afford-
ing
an opportunity of rendering it more equitable. Mr.
111 wtttt and Mr. Macgregor were not deterred by the sus_
• . adherence of their opponents from joining Mr. Hume
sus-
picious
ded crusade against the questionable ach
in his single-min e -
Mr.Cobden, with greater sagacity, refused to enter
elutes.
patent trap, and rebuked the Veteran leader of the
theeco nomists with sufficient severity fortbe strategical blunder
which he had committed. It was impossible, as he truly said,
Mr.
the question which Flume really intended
to vote upon his
If he had embodiedobjections to the pre-
sentto raise. finite ro osition
income-tax in a de P P . they would
defeated by a majority which would
have been
included all the most eager
certainly have
Pro-
tectionist supporters of the actual amendment. The effect
of the success of Mr. Humes motion Will be, as Mr. Cob-
den observed, to put a stop to the remiss:on of imposts
on consumption which are much more unjust than the
income-tax. The present Budget, as Mr. Sidney Herbert
remarked, has almost entirely failed its carrying out the
Policy which renders the income-tax expedient; but, as he
at the same time suggested, the refusal of the tax win
make the further attempt to deal with elastic duties
altogether impossible., Even the "sitting Member" for .it,
lban s understood the interests of the Go-
borough of St. A
vernment sufficiently well to express his intention of voting
against Mr. Hume, with whose amendment it appeared
that he, in every respect, cordially agrees!. It is remarkable
that none of the economists who professed to be scandalized
at the injustice of the actual tax referred to the broad
distinction between a perpetual impost and one levied for a
limited period. The appeal on behalf of annuitants
was answered by the just objection that life es-
tates in land would be equally entitled to any benefit
conferred on the owners of limited interests. It did not ap-
pear to occur to ,either party that . both classes of income
must be rated at their full amount to a permanent property-
tax, unless the most gratuitous injustice is to be ,1 1
-eeberately
perpetrated. In such a case a seduction on account of in-
surance would be neither more nor less than just an allow-
ance in consideration of the expense of keeping a carriage.
The speakers on the other side of the Home
might be ex-
cused if they were more openly regardlus of the principles of
financial justice. The Marquis of Granby boldly took the bull
by the horns in his adoption of the dogma that the worst
tax on consumption is better than the best of income-taxes.
Having become reconciled to such a ropositionl no i)oli-
._ ... • • -