NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Tire suspense in which the Budget kept the public mind last week has not been terminated by the speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the resolutions in which the propositions of the Bridget are embodied; for the measure has not proved to be of that striking kind, whether bad or good, that it would have settled its own fate at once. It has not astonished people. Public opin- ion has neither been scared nor won by it; and a judgment, sus-
flded in form, has become daily more sceptical as to its merits. When Lord Derby, trying to stop Mr. Villiers from proceeding with his resolutions, announced that he intended to stand or fall by the commercial and financial measures which Mr. Disraeli was to lay before Parliament, it was probably a facon de parler, and is not to be taken in a literal sense as implying a resignation on a rejection of the Budget : if it were, we should be in great fear for the stability of Lord Derby's Government. But we are not under that apiprehension. The scheme itself, which was announced as reconciling the conflict between Protection and Free-trade, per- forms no such achievement; and those who distrusted the equivocal passage in the Queen's Speech find no reassurance in the measures to which Lord Derby appealed in terms so wide. Ministers pro- fessedly abated their Protectionist intentions ; but it is a matter of history that they came to power on the strength of the Protection- ist interest; and accordingly we find that, with the exception of one easy concession to the public at largethe lowering of the Tea-duties—the striking features of their scheme are
eoncessions to the chief interests formerly protected. For the purpose of serving those interests, they sacrifice half of the Malt-tax, half of the Hop-duty, half of the farmer's Income- tax, with some minor gifts ; and for the sake of each interests is it that, by these defalcations from the revenue, without any cor- responding economical readjustment of taxation, they create a de- ficiency. At what cost are those gifts out of the public money made to the protected interests ?—for without a larger surplus than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at command, the gifts could not be made gratuitously. The price is, an extension of the Inoome-tax, and an extension with a doubling of the House-tax. Economically the Budget is open to the severest criticism ; and easy calculations suffice to prove that the contemplated boons will never reach those interests for which they are proposed, though the animus is the same. The professed adoption of "unrestricted competition" proves to be a delusion; since there is no alteration in the incidence of the taxes to render the operations of commerce or of industry any freer than they were before.
That the Ministry which accepts Free-trade as a condition of place-holding is still Protectionist at heart, is in effect proclaimed by Lord Derby; who refuses, in the House of Lords, even to ac- knowledge the conversion. As we saw last week, Lord Clanricarde called upon hint to invite the Peers to confirm. the vote which the Commons had passed at the instance of Lord Palmerston for the benefit of Ministers themselves. He has resisted this, and only yielded, with indifferent grace, to an amendment by Lord Harrow- by, which reduces the concurrence of the Lords to a very meagre acquiescence in "recent legislation." In saving his pride at the expense of his political character, Lord Derby .adopts a course nearly unprecedented on the part of a Minister, since-he refuses to Once the House of Lorda and the Rouse of Commons at one on a subject of great public policy. The Ministry occupies a different Position in the two Houses, and the two Houses are in discord by the action of the Premier.
The section of the Protectionist case which was peculiar has undergone a more special discussion—the West India case. In approaching that subject, and exonerating himself from the necessity of renewing the differential duty, Mr. Disraeli anti-
cipated in a great degree the statement which Mr. James Wilson advanced on a formal motion for the purpose of vindicating the late Government. Mr. Wilson's main arguments are, that since the Free-trade sera began, the production of Colonial sugar has increased—except in Jamaica, where it has been checked by dis- ease and a consequent thinning of the labouring population ; and that Colonial sugar commands the metropolitan market, out of which it has driven the foreign competitor. But these arguments rest on a select view of the facts, and keep out of sight the not less important fact that the foreign competitor is driven from our market by the excessively low price of West Indian sugar, cheap- ened for the very purpose. Such conquests do not always bring profit to the conqueror ; nor does production in itself prove prosperity. Competition for the possession of a field may be carried so far as to reduce prices below prime cost ; and it is clear from the notorious facts of the West Indies—from the change of pro- perty, from the total unproductiveness of much property still held —that the West Indian production of sugar has been carried on not only without replacing capital, but with a constant sinking of capital In brief, it has been a contest between the British grower and the Foreign grower ; and the British capitalist has beaten, thus far, by the length of his purse. So mach for retrospection. We know as well as Sir John Pakington or Mr. James Wilson, that, once removed, the differential duties could not be restored ; and, long years before 1846, we warned the West Indians, that their only chance would lie in diminishing the cost of production. To that they are now looking ; and those who have sufficient capital to weather out the long-protracted storm, may ultimately reap in the field which is won for them by those who now sacrifice them- selves and their property in the contest.
Another occurrence without precedent has been the mode in which the establishment of the French " Empire " was advertised to the House of Lords. In making the announcement, Lord Malmes- bury did not content himself with accepting all the representations on the subject authorized by the Government in Paris, but he eulogized the " good sense" of the Emperor and the " immense glory" of the first Napoleon. He boasted the "cordial" feeling with which the change of an institution in France was met by our Government; and he deprecated war with the manner of one who either conveys a threat from the stronger to the weaker, or who expresses the fear of the weaker with earnest deprecation. The French must know, he said, " that war, so far as carried on for the subjugation of either country by the other, is an absurdity; that the one can never be so powerful or so independent as to be able to subjugate the other; and that therefore the war must be only a useless war—useless as cruel, and cruel as useless." True, and not very new ; but to whom is the sermon preached P Is Lord Malmesbury in his capacity of Englishman afraid? or is he in his capacity of " affectionate correspondent" conveying to the English Parliament such a threat as might be conveyed to it by Marshal St. Arnaud? Either way, the manner of making the announcement, we believe to be without precedent in the Parlia-
mentary or official history of this country. •
