The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-19 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 whizh was necessarily biassed so largely by
the grandeur of the financial changes proposed, and the
wonilerful command of facts, readiness, and perspicuity
displayed by the propounder. Thus far there is
something siDgnlar 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. Accordingly, it was received by the Ministerial
side in comparative silence, by the Opposition with
hearty cheers, and by the people generally with
satisfaction. The walla 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 disc )ver-
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 pros ided for by the probable
improvement of the revenue, and leaving the void of
the income-tax to be filled up 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 aro 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
13,000,000/. ; 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 some increase ; that the window
sarayndthatnheysimipvlil
seuet i desthapt r o
sdoumc ee h
ianbgoutelsel,7ioso,onoeocLes,
y
voting the tax a bore. At least, the ,linister whose
caution. The comparison
of the
not
a window i n
hdeoi
nwgduties
althat
unfortunate responsibility it is to make, as well
with
there
h theer
e
as to unmake, will proceed with a little more
duty on glass is simple enough. Sir Robert enumerated
four
subjects
of reduction,
were, but as being particularly applicable at the present
junoture, when there is an obvious necessity to choose
such reductions as 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 Isaturday at the
meeting referred to, the window duties are chiefly raised
classesb ; more than four-fifthsuted by houses with more
of
12 require no distinct establish-
theft rhoamn
whole
beingndo:vs. wealthier
Tonhter3i
Ille
glass must originate. The
impossibleprermenmits isfeio remission
n mt hoteeofni rtt
ihoen e dutycollection
calculate
wae the increase of demand which a
t, and, on the other hand, it is
on
h 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 bas 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 possible harm in demonstrating from
facts the injurious character of the window duties,
we must recommend patience for a year or two
longer. But, having given this general approbation of
the Minister's proposed remission of taxation, and in
truth of the Budget generally, we cannot let the tax
upon property and income pass without saying a few
words upon our previous opposition to the tax affect-
ing 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 lunatics had invited a friend or
two to dine with him, some of his patients being
admitted, sub rosa, 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 malady, Sir ? How long have
you been suffering ?" " Suffering ?" replied the guest,
"I am not suffering at all. I was invited to dine with
Mr. So-and-So (the host), and I am going home again
this evening." " Ah, 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 faney lam in for life. My only escape hence
will be to the grave." And just so it will be 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 reease, 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
let them ; but let them not be 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 have argued and proved again and
again till argument and proof are needless.
O the present occasion Sir Robert Peel puts the
question fairly and temperately in every other respect
except that of duration. He says, in effect, will you
have it, or have it not? Between the produce of the
property-tax, as separated from income, and the casual
fruits of industry, on the one band, and the amount of
taxes remitted, on the other, there is very little differ-
ence; and we firmly believe that the deficiency which
would arise from the abolition of the income part of
this general tax might be easily supplied in another

way.
GLOBE.—We are not amongst those who consider
direct taxation of property,—or income so far as it can
b e considered as representing property—objectionable
in princiFle. 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 stands.
If it is impossible to adjust the incidence of that
impost, so as to render 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 navy in war—supposing, for 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