The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-09 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1858.

In little more than a week the Chancellor of
the Exchequer will develops his financial scheme
for the ensuing year. The views of the Right
Hon. Gentleman are looked for with considerable
anxiety, not only in the Money Market and on
the Stock Exchange, but by the industrial com-
munity throughout the length and breadth of the
land. The nation has had painful experience of
the calamities produced by the course of policy
pursued by Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GLADSTONE,
and Sir G. C. LEWIS. The steady refusal of the
former to recognise the magnitude of the com-
mercial crisis until the Bank of England was en-
dangered, and the convertibility of its notes placed
in jeopardy; the application of the money in the
Treasury, by the second, in paying off a sum of
ten millions without the slightest necessity
for 110 doing, and his other abortive attempt
to provide for all the expenses of the war with
Russia out of the annual revenue, together with
his steadfast refusal to recognise the distinction
between permanent and precarious income, oc-
casioned enormous losses and deep discon-
tent, which Sir GEouoz CORNEWALL LEWIS did
nothing to mitigate, but rather enhanced by
his stolid perseverance in the beaten tiack.
Under the Baronets the nation has encountered
two panics, and seen the rate of discount en-
hanced to an enormous rate, while Mr. €41,4-D_
STONE put the screw on the present generation for
the benefit of posterity, to an intolerable degree of
pressure. It is now for Mr. DISRAELI to show
what he can do to prove his superiority over
his three predecessors, and confute those who
fancy that they can sneer him down because he is
a man of brilliant imagination and glowing olc-

quence, a striking contrast in these respects to the
gentlemen who bear " the bloody hand" on their
escutcheons.

That there must be a deficiency of from six to
seven millions is now generally admitted. The
Times acknowledgesto six, and we recently pointed
out that it would be close on seven. The calcula-
tions which we put forward, when " the precious
budget" of last year was introduced, have been
strikingly verified, making due allowance for the
perturbations arising from the Indian mutiny and
other elements that could not then have been an-
ticipated. It is the duty of Mr. DISRAELI to meet
this serious demand in the manner that will prove
least burdensome to the great body of the people,
and also most consistent with justice and equity.
We have frequently pointed out the imperative
necessity of a complete revision of the fiscal code,
so as to apportion the burden fairly, and make
every British citizen contribute to the maintenance
of the national establishments and the liquidaticn
of the national liabilities according to his means
and position. Itcouldnot, however, be anticipated
that Mr. DISRAELI could enter on such a task,
which should be preceded by a very stringent in-
vestigation before a select committee. We must
for this year, and under existing circumstances,
be contented if he make the most of the materials
at his disposal, and render the additional charges
required for making up the coming deficiency as
light as possible.
The first point that can fairly be required is
the renewal of the Exchequer Bonds created by
Mr. GLADSTONE. By so doing a large portion of
the deficiency will be provided for, and that in the
most equitable manner. As we yesterday explained
it was never intended that the South Sea stock should
be paid off without an equivalent, and we repeatedly
urged that the tax-payers were fairly entitled to
have the stock which should be substituted there-
for, sold for the benefit of the Treasury. This
would probably have been done, but that it would
have rendered the grievous mistake of Mr.
GLADSTONE too perceptible, and proved beyond
the possibility of doubt that his abortive attempt
had cost the nation nearly a million sterling. The
six millions of Exchequer Bonds were intended as
a partial substitute, and there is ample justifica-
tion for their renewal, which would not in any
degree destroy " the beauty of the invention," or
what would be still better, let new stock similar
to that contemplated by Mr. GLADSTONE, be
created to the same amount that would have been
required if every holder of South Sea Stock had
accepted the terms proposed by Mr. GLADSTONE.
No reasonable objection could be made to this
course. The Oxford pet would be silenced. He
at least could not complain of such an arrange-
ment. There might also be added the sum ad-
vanced to the\Sardinian Loan, which is bringing
in a well secured revenue to the British nation,
although it was paid out of current receipts, and
the amounts paid for the redemption of the Sound
Dues—which ought to have spread over at least
20 years—and for the redemption of certain
hereditary pensions which would never have been-
sanctioned by Parliament. The latter transactions
were, however, kept strictly concealed. Nothing
was known on the point until credit was taken for
the money thus misappropriated, in the annual ac-
counts. All these matters which have occasioned
the deficiency, might be properly taken advantage
of by Mr. DISRAELI to repair the evil, and
by so doing he would have a handsome fund in
hand to modify or abolish obnoxious imposts, the
most striking whereof is the " tax on prudence,"
in the shape of duties on fire and life policies of

assurance.

But, beyond anything., a judicious apportion-
ment of the Incotne-tax is demanded by the
country. The gross, the palpable injustice of that
flagrant grievance, is universally felt. If it were not
an "actual fact" coming home to every man earn-
ing 1001. per annum or upwards, and touching him
in the tenderest point—the pocket—it could not
be credited that any Government would so greatly
stultify itself as to prop sse—sr any Parliament as
to enact—such an iniquitous system. Mr.
DISRAELI was the only financial Minister who re-
cognised the distinction between dividends, in-
terest, and annual produce of accumulated and
realised property, and the hard earnings of
industry. He has now a glorious opportunity of
carrying out hie view. A beginning is all that
is required. If he commences by reducing the
payment under schedule D to one-half of those
required from men possessing tangible property,
the country will hail the step in the right direc-
tion, and gladly confess that "the right man" is,
at last, "in the right place." More will, un-
doubtedly, be required, but that handsome instal-
ment will be willingly accepted. Should he do
so, he will establish an irresistible claim to the
national gratitude, and so strengthen the hands of
Government that it may smile with disdain at all
the factious opposition offered on untenable
grounds. The golden opportunity is before him.
It should not be neglected or misapplied.
On this point we would earnestly invite atten-
tion to an article by an esteemed and valued cot-
laborateur, the Belfast ifercantile Journal, which
will be found in another part of this day's im-
pression. The views contained therein are in
strict accordance with those we have incessantly
advocated. It is but a question of strict justice
that so long as the exemption is extended to in-
comes not exceeding 1001., a similar relief should
be given to every payer, whatever may be the amount
of kis receipts, on the first 1001. It is absurd to
say that a man earning barely 1001. per annum
should be'charged V. 18s. 4d., while the person
with 991. would go free, or that the mechanic
obtaining 21. per week should give 10d., and the
working man who gained 38s. paid nothing. The
class brought within the operation of the tax, com-
prising a large proportion of clerks struggling to
maintain a respectable appearance, are those for
whom the utmost sympathy should be felt, and
the greatest possible relief afforded.

We highly approve of our contemporary's sug-
gestion of taxing accumulated property of all
kinds according to its capitalised value. We have
repeatedly urged the justice and expediency of so
doing, and in the beginning of 1857 pointed out
the large returns that would be obtained from the
adoption of such a system, by means whereof
the most obnoxious and onerous taxes might be
either entirely repealed or materially
property has its duties as well as its rights, and
certainly not the least important is that of pro-
viding for the interest of the national
Bill ex debt,—.
which, as we have already prove 3, should
clusively on realised property—and also of con-
tributing largely to the maintenance of the public
establishments, which to a great degree are re-
quired for its protection. The man without pro-
perty of any description would have little to fear
if the expenditure in these departments were re-
duced t) one quarter of their present amount.

The true difficulty in the Indian
question is
that candidly stated by Lord DERBY at the Man-
sion-house—how to combine a responsible Minister
with an effective Council. We must confess this
is the problem which it has always appeared to us
impcs ible to solve. Make the Council powerful,
and the President or Secretary—whichever name
i. e may go by—is in just that proportion irrespon

otefrtabsolute, and you de-
i
he Council to act effec-
:tibroley t hme ainducementse
effec-
tively. If the Council be composed of persons to
whom any Minister must more or less defer, or if
they are authorised to adopt a mode of procedure
which interferes with the Minister's free action,
the latter could always put forward, when
attacked in Parliament, the plea of our first
parent, and could justly say—the Council which
thou gayest to be with me advised thus, and I did
act. And the House must admit the plea, too. It
could not get rid of an Indian Minister who
yielded to the power created to "check" him. On
the other hand, what would a Council become
which had no substantive power ? What would
our Lords and Commons be, if the Minister of the
day could hear their opinions and then act on his
own ? What have Louis NAPOLEON'S Senate
and Legislative Council, and even our own
Board of Admiralty ever been ? It seems
as inevitable that a Council which does not
act as well as advise, or whose advice is
not necessarily followed by
action, should lose
its vigour, as that any muscle of our body, if not
used, should shrink and almost vanish.

As we observed, however, a few days ago, it
seems to be considered a necessity that a Council
we must have. The old Company has left that
impression, at least, on the minds of most of our
legislators. It will probably survive in part
under the name of an East India Council, when
the name of East India Company is abolished.
It might take for its motto, while expecting its
change, the nom onsnis moriar of the poet, for by
a kind of political metempsychosis the worthy
directors, or many of them, will enjoy a higher
title, a double salary, and no diminution, perhaps
rather an increase of patronage. Lord DERBY can
scarcely be blamed for proposing a Council, when
he knew that Parliament is not yet prepared to
construct a new Home Government for India on
any other terms ; but from his statement on
Monday week we have little doubt that he con-
siders a Council and a really responsible Minister
to be almost incompatible ; if, therefore, a Coun-
cil we must have, his Cabinet proposed to make
the Council one of the greatest possible moral
weight, and to lay greater stress on making the
Council efficient than the Minister responsible.
At the same time he has provided that the Mini-
ster should be able to act almost as a perfect
autocrat if he wished ; the great check being that
it would not be easy for him to ignore the moral
weight of the elected half of the Council.
The India House has very naturally criticised
both the bills. It has presented a report, which,
however, reads like a last dying speech and con-
fession, to the proprietary, and finds, of course, so
many faults with both bills as to show that the
Company is better than either of the proposed
councils 1 One thing is very amusing. Both Lord
PALMERSTON and Mr. DISRAELI wished to be as
tender as possible to the " sick man," or as civil
as possible in showing the old Company the door.
They used as kind words as possible, therefore, and
bowed the Directors out. The worthy Directors
mistook the commiseration and the courtesy for
bona fide tributes of praise to their past merits 1
They actually advert, almost in the opening of
their report, to the praises bestowed by the
abolishers on the institution they were abolishing,
as rendering it marvellous that it should be
abolished, and important if it were, that its ex-
cellencies should be perpetuated under any new
arrangement 1

As to the two bills, they divide their censures
and their approbation pretty equally, though
Lord DERBY'S as the more thorough-going comes
in perhaps for more of the former. Either of
theta ought, they think, to be opposed by all legal
means, but if the Rouse will pass one of them
every effort must be made in committee, to confer
increased powers on the council, that is, to lessen
the responsibility of the Minister, and to make
the irresponsible council the real power, and the
actual administrator of the Home Government of
India. One proposal in Lord DERBY'S Bill has
our hearty concurrence--the appointment of a
commission to examine, in India, into the slate
and prospects of Indian Finance ; the Directors
profess fear for the reputation of the Indian Go-
vernment, and opposo most hotly the appoint-
ment of the commission—their real fear is a
Blue Book of facts on their own Revenue delin-

quencies.
The election of five members of council by com-
mercial constituencies, of course, incurs their un-
qualified censure ;—" they can only express a
feeling of amazement," at which we certainly are
not at all amazed. They are obliged to confess
that an English element is wanted in the couccil,
and if they had not done so, their own most valu-
able servant, CA ARTHUR COTTON COUld have en-
lightened them. " Old Indians"--he has told
them—" Are the destruction of India." " What is
wanted is a great majority of untainted English-
men, Englishmen who are not turned
Asiatics." " India never can make a fair
start in the race of improvement till
Old Indians are in the minority among the riding
body." " What is wanted, is representatives from
different classes in England, who will bring their
English energy and understanding to the work."
Such is the testimony of one of the most honest
and efficient of the Company's servants in India,
and we ask whether Lord PALltansTois's Bill, or
any other part •f Lord DERBY'S Bill, provides
Councillors more nearly approaching Colonel A.
COTTON'S description, than the proposal to choose
five Councillors from commercial men by the five
largest commercial towns in the kingdom. No
person, we presume, seriously concerned to de-
cide aright, could do more than laugh at the very
silly picture drawn by The Times from fancy, of
the bankrupt merchant beggars whom London
and other great cities would choose as Councillors
for India. The proposal is perhaps sentenced,
by the interested, to be joked out of the Bill ; we
think, however, that, assuming we are to have
a working Council, the idea is a good one.
It is superfluous, however, to advert to all
their criticisms, since they are scarcely anything
more than a repetition of the current objections ;
objections easy enough to make, and some of them
such as we have already made ourselves. Mr.
Serjeant GAZELEE objected to both bills, and
" thought it would be much better to throw the
whole responsibility upon the Ministers, who
might be assisted by a competent number of
clerks. Such was the system in the Imperial
Government, and surely what was good for Eng-
land was good for India." Different as England
and India are, the last remark is somewhat of a
non sequitur. Still it is not to be denied that the
simple responsibility of a Minister, who would
always be able to command the services of the
ablest men, might be the best solution of the diffi-
culty stated by Lord DERBY. We should not be
much surprised if the public were, indeed, driven
to get rid of councils altogether.
In any case we cannot conceive that
Lord DERBY will allow himself to be driven
from office, as the factious ones may hope,
on an India Bill. It is not a party saject,
any Minister would be justified in accepting any
a'terations which discussion, not partizanship,
Lord DE.P.BY will not
may show to be desirable.