The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-20 00:00:00

THE BUDGET.

TIMES.—The Budget is now before the nation, and has
already been subjected to an examination more deliberate
than that which was necessarily blessed so largely by
the grandeur of the financial changes proposed, and the
wonderful command of facts, readiness, and perspicuity
displayed by the propounder. Thus far there is
something singular and ominous in the result
of this examination. There are two things most
undeniable in the Budget : first, that it is such
an one as the nation would have expected from
the Whigs, supposing that unfortunate party ever
to have been in a condition to give it ; secondly, that it
is decidedly popular in its tendency; for, except in the
matter of the income-tax, it emancipates commerce at
the expense of property, and ostentatiously favours the
poor. AccorCingly, it was received by the Ministerial
side in comparative silence, by the Opposition with
hearty cheers, and by the people generally with
satisfaction. The walls of the metropolis are
placarded with Sir Robert's " Free Trade Budget."
The economists are delighted. Yet, after all, that
silence is worth more than those cheers and accla-
mations. The Whigs immediately set to work discover-
ing short-comings in the most liberal measure. In the
multitude of grievances now to be redressed, they dis-
cover only that some have been omitted. If Sir Robert,
instead of reducing taxes to the whole extent of the
existing surplus, leaving the augmented estimates for
the ensuing year to be provided for by the probable
improvement of the revenue, and leaving the void of
the income-tax to be filled tip from that source also,
had quietly laid on three or four millions of new taxes,
he could not have been met with more strenuous
defiance. The metropolitan delegates and their Par-
liamentary allies set up their backs at th. Premier,
measure their obstinacy with his, and accumulate
on his devoted head the sins of all the tax-gatherers
for the last thirty years, merely because, while he
utterly sweeps away five important branches of re-
venue, and immensely reduces a sixth, a seventh also
is not added to the list. After all, the flattery of foes
is not worth the patience of a friend. We entirely agree
with the gentlemen we have just referred to, and whose
speeches we print in another column, that the window
duties are most inconvenient, most unsalutary, most un-
equal, most unphilosophical. They spoil the inward com-
fort and outward appearance of our houses. Their exces-
sive and stupid rigour is a constant provocation to the
man of taste and the thrifty householder. They mar
the process of building as much as the duty on glass
does, or rather did, the process of that manufacture.
But, in our humble opinion, they who insist so valiantly
on an immediate abolition of the duty, are
bound to provide for the deficit in as distinct
and categorical a form as the Premier has provided
for his six reductions and six deficits. Let them
bear in mind the various necessities of the case;
that the only portions of our expenditure which are
not absolutely and irreversibly fixed do not amount to
13,000,0001. ; that under existing circumstances, as Sir
C. Napier himself will acknowledge, it is impossible ade-
quately to reduce those portions, or go on safely and re-
spectably, without seine increase ; that the window
duties produce about 1,700,000 and they will
see that something else is necessary than simply
voting the tax a bore. At least, the elinister whose
unfortunate responsibility it is to make, as well
as to unmake, will proceed with a little more
caution. The comparison of the window duties with the
duty on glass is simple enough. Sir Robert enumerated
four subjects of reduction, not as being all that there
were, but as being particularly applicable at the present
juncture, when there is an obvious necessity to choose
such reductions ns shall themselves heal the
wounds they make in the revenue. There
were duties on articles of general consumption
—on the raw materials of manufacture those
which require expensive establishments, and those
which restrict demand, and consequently trade. By
these four tests at least the duty en glass has better
claims than its competitor. It affects more than
3,.500,000 houses, instead of only about 450,000, besides
that windows are only one branch of the glass manufac-
ture. Notwithstanding what was said on Saturday at the
meeting referred to, the window duties are chiefly raised
from the wealthier classes ; more than four-fifths of
the whole being contribut• d by houses with more
than 12 windows. They require no distinct establish-
ment for their (s)llecti,ii ; and, on the other hand, it is
impossible to calculate the increase of demand which a
remission of the du ,y on glass must originate. The
Premier mentioned watch-springs, pipes, tiles, and
chimney ornaments ; he might have added conserva-
tories, now only within the reach of the wealthy.
They talk even of glass bells for churches.
There are of course important grounds of reduction
besides the above four. But just now those four
have the pre-eminence. Moreover the window duties
are a mode, a very clumsy mode perhaps, of taxing
houses. They are a property-tax. Evidently the
day is approaching, as one of the speakers at the meet- '
ing we have referred to intimated, when the whole
question of property will be reconsidered with a view
to a fairer, less vexatious, and more permanent duty
than what the nation now groans under. So, while
there can be no po:.‘sible harm in demonstrating from
facts the injurious character of the window duties,
we must recommend patience for a 3-ear or two
longer. But. having given this general approbation ef
the Minister's prep-seri remission of taxation, and in
truth of the Budget generally, we cannot let the tax
upon property and ineomq pass without saying a few
words upon our previous opposition to the tax affect.
inn the latter ; for we still maintain that a tax upon
income—that is, upon industry—to say nothing
of its inquisitorial character, is unjust and inju
riou'. First, with respect to the duration of this
tax ; the profession that it is only to continue so many
and so many years reminds us forcibly of the follow-
ing little anecdote :--A person who kept an asylum
for the better class of Ltriuties had invited a friend or
two to dine with him, some of his patients being
adPnitted, sub row; to the same table. The host
being called out on some occasion, one of the
patients says to one of the guests, " What's
the state of your milady, Sir ? How long have
you been suffering ?” " Suff,ring ?" replied the guest,
"I am not suffering at all. I was invited to dine with
Mr. So-and-So (the hos!), and I am going home again
this evening." .‘ Ali, Sir," said the patient, "so they
told me, in order to get me here. I thought that I
should go home again the same evening, but now
I fancy I am in for life. . My only escape hence
will be to the grave." And just so it will he with
the income-tax. We were tempted into it at first
for only three years ; now we are to have it for
other three ; and when those are ended, and we are ex-
pecting a release, like the man in the madhouse, we shall
find our burden commensurate with the lives of all of
us. It will be a perpetual tax. If the people suffer it
1.. t them ; but let them not ho deceived ; let them, like,
the patient in the asylum, enter in freely, and know that
they are to be detained there for ever. The unfairness
of the tax we hare argued and proved again and
again till argument and proof are needless.
On the present oc!:tasion Sir Robert Peel puts the
question fairly and temperately in every other respect
except that if duration. lie says, in effect, will you
have it, or have it tee? Between the produce of tit,
property-tax, as Sep t•ed from income, and the casual
fruits of industry, 0:1 the one hand, and the amount of
taxes remitted, on the ether, there is very little differ-
ence; and wei firmly believe that the deficiency which
would arise from th! abolition of the income part of
this general tax might be easily supplied in another
Ivey.

GLOBE.—We are not amongst those who consider
direct taxation of property,—or income so far as it can
be considered es representing property—objectionable
in principle. But we must have an ardent appetite in-
deed for direct taxation, if we could acquiesce in the
unamended continuation of the income-tax as it stand,.
If it is impossible to adjust the incidence of that
impost, so as to rend,r it less unequal than it has been
repeatedly shown it is at present, then nothing but a
case of urgency could justify its original imposition,
and nothing but a continuance of the same urgency can
now justify its continuance. It stands on somewhat a
similar footing to the system of impressment for manning
the nary in war—supposing, fair the sake of the argu-
ment, impressment distinctly indispensable to that object
It is admitted that impressment is a peculiar hardship
on merchant seamen; and if that hardship were pro
tracted (without the alleged necessity) in time of' peace
the case would he somewhat analogous to that of
an unequal income-tax protraeted to similar periods.
If, therefore, it is impassible to impose any other in-
come-tax than the present, it is impossible to de-
fend its imposition ley any other plea than necessity.
That plea abandoned, the ground is cut from under
its continuation. It behoved Sir Robert Peel, who
was pre-determin: d, it seems, to continue it, to have
cverthrown this position, which not only strikes every
reflecting mind, but which is irrefragably deduced from
that which he him elf assumed in laying on this im-
post. It was on the plea of necessity that the objet
Irons against it were met. It was on that plea—on the
Case of urgency for supporting the public credit—for
filling up ISe deficit which for one or two years had
exist, d, after indirect, taxation was said to have reached
its limits that this war tax—this income impress-
ment —was alone defend. ri. It cannot be defended so
now, It must he fairly admitted that the public allowei
the far ns silence gives consent. It was an
• honourable feeling that prompted then] to take the word
of the responsible :Meister both for the necessity he
alleged, and for the concurrent duration of this forced
requisition with that necessity. His " supplemental
noses" should have sympathised (like Taliacotius's)
with that which they first were cut from ; his grand
excision was justified by necessity; and with that neces-
s.ty its product was hound to drop. Even then, it
is true, certain, wli'gs declared there was n
necessity in tile matter.'
e
They were not listened to :
Esc are net sure that they
s,ouill have been listened to
on so vital a poll,
Robert Peal had, at The
great advantage which Sir
was, that their that tlin,s, over his opponents,
discovered resources were hypo-
thetical, and
suthlenly—his were direct.
perhaps vulgar, but thereeVa_slnothing untried, nothing
experimental about them.
to propose a property •tax, alone
11 I the Whigs been in force
wtithhcitheir other changes
—as an interim measure evveitib„,
would have prc•oecupied that strongr full effects—they
maground which a
it be so) who
Minister holds in England (I.:ning„r„.,,,y
confronts boldly the- worst
but how
This ad-
vantage Sir Robert Peel took at etalreti".
can he claim it now ? The strengthngof;
then was the exceptional nature alike of thescrciasisse,
and•ofbis provision for it. That the one would pas;
away,L;indthe other would vanish along with it—that
tie eatAtordinary effort would cease with the extraordi-
nary occosiou--was the fur prospect held out. Well—
the occasion has east ; and w'itit has become of the pros-
pe;oii<.4a of the oromise ? If the income-tax is :o be
permainialit;e4,,. be on grounds opposite to those of its
—l/6 arguments on which the one was justi-
m "coldly furnish forth" the other—
' ifr • .:Te actualiy be reversed. We were then told
Mi“ ifiXt *measure of last resort, to mot au exigency

of instant Peril. Such measures in their own naturo
must be bad. The more complete the Premier endea-
voured to make his demonstration of the urgency—the
more evident is it that a measure of urgency belongs not to
a season of no urgency. He has had time for setting his house
in order. If this direct tax was to be perpetuated, he has had
time for turning it into something else than a perpetuation
of injustice. It is alleged that all taxation must press un-
equally. Yes—but taxes upon expenditure have this
element of equality in them—that expenditure generally
will be proportioned to means. In proportion as taxes
strike objects of more luxurious expenditure, they be-
come fairer in their incidence ; though, unfortunately, a
large taxation cannot be levied mainly on such objects.
But, more or less, a man can limit his expenditure, in
proportion as prudence demands, and deny himself such
taxed enjoyments as would curtail due provision for the
future. He is not left this refuge in the case of direct
taxation on gross income ; and therefore it is the more
imperative to graduate such taxation with some approach
to equity. There is no such approach even pretended in
the impost now sought to be prolonged.