Gladstone has brought forth his Budget. We have heard two 
cocks on a barn floor crowing against each other, in style 
somewhat similar to that of the two Chancellors of the Exche- 
quer — Ex* and Actual—on the floor of the House of Commons— 
with this difference, that the Whig Bantam has borrowed some of 
the notes of the Conservative Turkey. Last week we analysed that 
portion of Mr. Gladstone’s financial plan which deals with the 
National Debt, and showed how it was a miserable paltering with 
the question, and a mere matter of convenience to usurers, 
stockjobbers, and merchants, to facilitate and cheapen their 
transactions.” We shall see, on the present occasion, that the 
Budget is a class Budget—a middle class Budget—written by an 
aristocratic pen. We will, first, give a brief outline of this notable 
affair:— 

I.—As to Expenditure and Revenue: 

The Chancellor states that the National Expenditure for the 
present year will exceed that of the last, by £1,400,000!! A promising 
way of opening a Budget of Financial Reform. The cause of the 
increase is not less encouraging. 

It comprises an increase in our naval force of £617,000; in the 
army and commissariat of £90,000; for the ordnance £616,000; 
for the militia £230,000. While education, the arm of enlighten- 
ment and the defence of knowledge, receives an increase of only 
£100,000. The total estimated expenditure of the country for 

* Benjamin Disraeli.— Ed. 
> See this volume, pp. 44-49.— Ed. 

the current year, is placed at £52,183,000. The total income is 
estimated at £52,990,000—showing a surplus of £807,000, from 
which, however, £100,000 is deducted for the packet service, and 
altogether an available surplus predicted of £500,000. 

We now approach 

I1.— The Financial Scheme. 

Here the Chancellor deals:— Firstly. With the Income Tax; and 
makes no distinction between fixed and precarious incomes. He 
proposes to reduce, after two years, the tax from 7d. to 6d. in the 
pound. Then, after two years more, from 6d. to 5d. for three 
years—to extend the tax to Ireland, and to lower it so as to 
embrace incomes of £100 per annum. This, he says, “will not 
touch upon the ranks of labour.” The incomes between £100 and 
£150 are to pay only 5d. in the pound. The effect of this will be, 
to lighten the burdens of the rich, and cast that alleviation as a 
weight upon the less rich. The wealthy tradesman is to pay less, 
but, to make up for it, the poor tradesman is to pay where he did 
not pay directly before. This is strange justice—for four years, it 
is true, the man of £100 is to pay 2d. in the pound less than he 
of £150, or £150,000—but after that period they pay the 
same—while after two years the rich man comes into the benefit 
of a reduction effected by taxing the poorer one. Our notion of 
taxation would far sooner incline to a graduated scale in which the 
percentage increased with the amount of the income, for 10,000 
fivepences are less to the man of £10,000 per annum, than 100 
fivepences to him of £100. So much for Whig Finance—with a 
specious, paltry, and roundabout tinkering, it gradually but surely 
lightens the burdens of the rich and increases the burdens of the 
poor. As to saying that the Income Tax does not affect the 
working man, it is a patent absurdity, for under our present social 
system of employer and employed, the middle class man generally 
indemnifies himself for additional taxation in diminished wages or 
increased prices. 

Secondly. The Chancellor proceeds to the legacy duties. Here he 
relieves the sons-in-law and daughters-in-law from the “relations’” 
duty of 10 per cent. reducing theirs to 7 per cent.— infinitesimal 
boon!—and includes all property within the operations of the tax, 
the succession to rateable property being taxed on the life interest. 
By this means he adds £2,000,000 to the taxation of the country, 
and takes credit to himself for supporting skill and industry as 
against property. This clause recognises a principle, and is a 
significant concession, extorted by industrial and commercial 

L.S.D., or Class Budgets, and Who’s Relieved by Them 65 

development from propertied monopoly. It is, we repeat, a 
concession; but one the evasion of which is not only easy, but may 
possibly have been borne in mind by the propertied legislators of 
the financial world. 

Thirdly. The stamp duties for receipts are to be repealed, and 
the affixing of a penny postage stamp to a receipt of any amount 
is in future to be sufficient. A great measure of convenience—to 
the rich—in which the increased use of stamps is supposed to 
counterbalance the loss of revenue, but in which, again, no benefit is 
conferred on the working classes, in but very few of whose 
transactions matter of sufficient value (£5) to demand a stamp ever 
comes under consideration. 

Fourthly. The Advertisement Duty is reduced to 6d., instead of 
ls. 6d., as now. This is another instance of miserable tinkering. No 
sound reason can be advanced for keeping the sixpence if you 
give up the shilling—inasmuch as the cumbrous and expensive 
machinery for collecting the sixpence will eat up the proceeds of 
the tax! But the reason may possibly be, not to have to give up the 
posts and appointments connected with the levying of that impost. 
Supplements to newspapers containing advertisements only—are 
to go free by post. Both these clauses are a concession to the 
middle class—while the retention of the newspaper stamp still 
fronts with its massive barrier the spread of Democratic education. 
“The present papers shall have advantages,” says the Chancellor, 
“but new ones, and cheaper ones, shall not be started.” 

Fifthly. The Tax on Life Assurance is reduced from 2s. 6d. to 
6d.—another instance of the same paltering spirit; indentures of 
apprenticeship, without consideration, from £1 to 2s. 6d.; attor- 
neys’ certificates from £12 and £8 to £9 and £6; and the articles 
of clerks from £120 to £80. The first and two last items of the 
above are again a manifest relief to the middle class, but not the 
shadow of a benefit to the poor—while the tax of 6d. is kept 
on advertisements, the Newspaper Stamp Duties and the Taxes on 
Paper are retained, in order that those on servants, dogs, and 
horses, may be reduced to benefit the rich. 

Sixthly. In Scotland and Ireland an addition is to be made to the 
Spirit Duties—and the distillers are to have an allowance for 
“waste.” 

Seventhly. Tradesmen’s Licences (another boon to the middle 
class) are to be more equalised. 

EFighthly. The Soap Duties, and a host of others, are to be dealt 
with, and the Duty on Tea is to be reduced from 2s. 9'/, d. to Is. 
10d. up to °54; to 1s. 3d. to °56; and to Is. after that date. 

Such is a fair outline of the Whig Budget; and we ask our 
readers whether a more contemptible piece of “Penny Legisla- 
tion,” to use the Chancellor’s own expression, ever emanated from 
the Treasury Bench? It is plausible, specious, and sets forth some 
showy points; but what real benefit, what real relief, is conferred 
on the working classes of this country? The reduction of the du- 
ties on soap and tea are the only features at which one can catch; 
but small indeed is the relief thus conferred. The margin has 
everywhere been nicely measured, beyond which the working man 
would gain—the aristocrat and middle classes lose; and the 
transgression of that margin has been studiously avoided. The 
Budget is likely to catch the thoughtless among the people: 
“Reduction of Advertisement Duty to 6d. and Suppression of the 
Supplement Stamp!” But what does it practically amount to for 
the people? Nothing! “Penny Receipt Stamps!” But what is that to 
the wages-slaves who “receive” starvation? Absolutely nothing. 
“Life Assurances reduced from 2s. 6d. to 6d.” What is it to the 
toiler at 6s., 8s., 10s., per week—who cannot insure his life from. 
the crushing slavery of Manchester? Ay, or even to him at £1 and 
30s? Nothing! What is it to the workingman that attorneys can 
get certificates for £3 less? Or clerks be articled for £80 instead 
of £40 more? What to them is the lightening of the legacy duty 
in one item, and its general extension so easily avoided? Does 
it ease their burthen by the weight of a single feather? What is 
it to them that the shopkeepers’ licences shall be more equalised, 
while their profits on labour’s wants find no equality with labour’s 
wage? “Financial Reform” was the one cry out of two which seated 
this Parliament and raised this ministry. There you have it—the 
Reform of Whigs, aristocrats, and moneymongers. Something was 
necessary—some slight concession—the task was to make it so 
slight, that it should scarcely be perceptible, and admirably has the 
financial artist succeeded in his attempt. In his own words—to 
use his own expressions—Gladstone’s Budget is framed ‘for 
the convenience of the trading classes,” and yet it is but a piece 
of “Penny Legislation.” 

Written about April 20, 1853 Reproduced from the newspaper 

No. 51, April 23, 1853 

67