The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

THE INCOME T-AX MAJORITY.

THE Government has carried the main point of their
Financial policy by a larger-majority than was antici-
pated, but it is a majority gained at the expense of
principle, and•the probable consequence of which isby
no means of a formidable character. Whether we
take the Budget of itself, or the speech by which Mr.
DISRAELI exposed its inconsistencies, we shall find
the same leaning towards a system of Direct Tax-
ation, as though it were a settled principle, the
Wisdom of which could not be questioned. Both

sides seem to have agreed that there is a
general demand for an extension of this system, and
the only subject of difference is as to the man-
lier of the extension. This, however, is jumping
to a conclusion with a precipitancy in no way in-
dicative of political wisdom. 'lt will be found that,
like Free-trade in Corn, Direct Taxation has been
demanded by the same practical hands in popular

agitation, and has only received attention by the
loudness and perseverance with which it has been

clamoured for. Parliament would seem to be no
longer a deliberative assembly, but a tribunal to
register the decisions arrived at by popular meet-
ings; and it is this abrogation of its proper func-
tions which constitutes the danger of modern legis-
lation. 'We commented last week uponthe desertion
of principle by many professing Conservatives, and
the division on the Budget has shown the desertion
to be much more extensive than was then supposed.
Our surprise must be, however,oonsiderablymitigated
when we consider the wretched example which was
set _
only left
Peelite section of the Cabinet, and we
are
to regret that the career of treachery
begun by the late Sir ROBERT PEEL has been so
pbr
of bitter fruits. The discussion upon
the Budget has elicited some points which are not
the
of observation; and it would be well if
the Legislature could be induced to pause before
irrevocably committing itself to a system from which
there would be no hope of escape. When Mr.
GLADSTONE proposed his renewal of the Property
and Income Tax for seven years, at a very slight
graduated reduction, he endeavoured to show that
the Finance Minister of 1860 would he in a position
to abolish it at that time, his disposable means
being partially dependent on the improvements in
the productiveness of other taxes in the mean time.
But he did not attempt to explain what should
be the financial policy in the interval, or he
must have stated that every year the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER would be called upon to appro-
priate any accruing surplus to further reductions;
so that the end of seven years would see him in no
better position to abolish this impost than he is at
the present time. This is one of the evils arising
from not grappling with the subject at once ; and
the Budget would have been infinitely more satis-
factory, had it proceeded to devote a portion of the

saving to a partial reduction of the Income-tax,
instead of pretending to let the higher classes have
some share of the boon by taking the duty off Rose-
water and lowering the Assessed-taxes on Horses,
Carriages, and Male Servants. Whatever may be
the reasons for continuing the Income-tax, it can
Only be justified on the ground of necessity, for
not even its advocates have ventured to deny that