The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUOI jig\ 1849,

How will the habit iffi .-e esswfithee-of
tode—of luxury, oweof* W *IF the woad
of stragglteg, self-week esif-esnieellid men P
Mr. Twitteoi would be/be by haling a eluswer
gaol. He has, however, as yet but got the estimates,
1 and the estimates of Pentenville too were modest. Ha
would get the thing dons no doubt. And the
cultivation of the land a a prison could be
made to pay, at lout, the expenses of the inmates' hod.
It might also pay the expense of seeperiniendesee,
although, if any discipline was to be observed, it
weld scarcely be less costly than the superintendenoe
of Pentonvilk. But, in attaining the great oiled
of self-snbsistenoe foe peisoeseu, would not the objest ef
pseality be lost sight of ? Of all employments
agricultural labour is the most varied, the most agree-
able, the mast healthful, and the most difficult to -en-
der severe. Earning his daily bread by labour in the
field'. bow would the lot of the criminal be celculeted
to inspire awe to the peasant, who also tries to earn
his bread by laborer in the fields, and who often fain to
get that labour ? Why has the labour test so generally
failed under the orders of poor-law guardians?
Be-
cause it rendered the lot of the able-bodied pauper
1 more enviable than that of the industrious poor,sub-
jected to the chances of want of employ and starva-
tion.

The tendency of the age is intolerance of severe
punishment. To inflict death has been impowible,
save in extreme cases. The treatment of hollow
criminals is, therefore, to be provided for. And the
penalty, whatever it is, has to be proclaimed as a
terror to evil-doers. Is spade husbandry within spa-
cious walls, on the Isle of Dogs, sufficiently deterring ?
Two objects are to be sought in prison dircipihe—
punishment and reformation. We would most wil-
lingly give Capt. MACONOCHIE fall scope to devise
means for obtaining the latter. Bat the former is not
to be overlooked.

Has Surrey a coroner? or is it an exceptional
county unprovided with such an officer? An epidemic
has broken out in a village of Surrey, carrying off by
wholesale the children in one establishment. Children
removed from the locality of the disease have carried
its latent germs in them, and died of it in other
places. Inquests have been held on the bodies of each
children at Chelsea, in Gray's-inn-road, in Hackney.
But the coroner of Surrey, within whose jurisdiction is
seated the original and central locality of the disease,
remains inert. It does not appear that an inquest has
been held on any one of the numerous victims of
disease in the Daourr establishment at Tooting.
This is an omission equally injudicious and cul-
pable. The investigations in Gray's-inn-road, at
Hackney, and Chelsea, have necessarily led to inqui-
ries into the condition and management of the esta-
blishment in which the disease first appeared, whence
it was brought by the parties on whom the inquests
are held. The coroners and their juries could not
help going into these inquiries :even if they had
wished to avoid them. Nay, more, the state of public
feeling and opinion requires that each inquiries
should be instituted, and the coroner's court is the na-
tural place wherein to set them on foot. Parliament
is not in session; the poor-law commissioners disclaim
all authority over such establishments as that at Toot-
ing : the coroner alone remains. Yet the coroner of
Surrey continues inactive, although from the local seat
of the epidemic being situated within his j uriediction,he
can most effectively prosecute the investigation, and al-
though medical officers of the various unions, officers of
the poor law board, and the general public (including
his own rate-payers) have expressed their sense of his
neglect in no equivocal terms. He cannot but be
aware of the injurious suspicions he provokes by thus
appearing to suppress inquiry.
Until such time as the coroner of Surrey awakes
from his state of suspended official animation, the
public must rest contented with the information which
his brethren less favourably placed for eliciting
the whole truth, can obtain. There is danger, how-
ever, that their scrutiny may be rendered less produc-
tive of practically umf,:l information than it might
be. There are symptoms of a disposition
to convert the coroners' inquests into a battle-field of
the partisans and adverraries of the Board of Health.
They are in imminent hazard of being overwhelmed
with learned discussions on what is and is not cholera,
and whether the directions contained in the mani-
festoes of the Board of Health were judicious or the
reverse ; and with evidence given under the bias of
theories in order to establish particular views on
these points. These are important questions, but
rather beyond the reach cf coroners pries, and at
best, subordinate to the real aim ot coroners' investi-
gations.
The points which a coroner and his jury are ex-
pected to throw light upon are—how did the deceased
come by their deaths ? is any person respon-
sible for these deaths? and who? In the Tooting
cases the natural line of inquiry would go to find out
the circumstances of the deaths; the apparent causes;

the fact whether the causes of the deaths do not ne-
cessarily imply culpability in one or more persons,
and who these persons are. That all the deaths ori-
ginated in an epidemic which first showed itself in
the pauper children's asylum at Tooting, sad which
has not spread beyond it, inasmuch as all the vic-
tims caught the die-use there, is not denied. It is in
the condition of that establishment that we are to
seek the cause of all the deaths that have occurred.

legitimate one. If (as it at prima emme likely to be
waved) the experiment lme been a failaria, the nee to
be made of it is to derive from a detestlea the causes
of the failure euggesdone fora hater plan. It does
not appear difficult to devise a better, but that is a
topic that may be more adviuriageounly discussed after
the termination at the inquiries.

The learned disquisitions, and more learned lan-
guage of the medical witnesses, may be safely disre-
garded. They are all agreed that the disease is of
such a nature as affords presumptive evidence that it
has been occasioned by insufficient drainage, and the
accumulation of nuisances; or by overcrowding of
the inmates of the house, deficient ventilation, or
dampness ; or by insufficient food or clothing ; or by
the concurring influence of several or all of these
causes.

Tux new First Lord of the Admiralty was one of
those who exclaimed loudest during the last session
against the unequal burden of taxation, as it weighed
upon different clauses. Plainly he told the First
Lord of the Treesury that to raise the income tax, or
to levy any new tax, was impossible, without first
giving to all taxes a character of equality and justice.
Mr. BARING was right, and it is to be hoped he will
still be found so.

We believe that if a simple motion was proposed in
the House of Commons, embodying a resolution to the
effect that persons of moderate income in England
were taxed in an extravagantly larger proportion than
persons of large incomes, we have not the least
doubt that the assertion could be so fully proved in
debate, that it would be impossible to reject it, im-
possible to refute the assertion, and equally impos-
sible to avoid acting upon it by a speedy reform in
the repartition of taxation.
There is no one tax that calls so imperatively for
adjustment, and that is so avowedly based on the
principle of sparing the rich and crushing the poor,
as the entire of the stamp duties. Mr. BRIGHT gave
a striking instance of their operation in his recent
speech at Manchester, when he said:

If any man hers wishes to apprentice his son to a profes-
sion, when the apprentice fee amounts to the sum of 4001.,
and there are many such, the tax upon that indenture of
apprenticeship is not less than 251. • and you may settle for
itinerations the largest amount of fended property which the
eye em look over, and your payment for a ramp would not
be sore than 251.

We have before us a "statement showing the un-
equal bearing of the existing stamp laws, with sug-
gestions for their amendment, by a London Soli-
citor," which exhibits, in a concise and tabular form,
several examples of the kind we refer to. Thus, on
bonds and mortgages, where the sum secured is more
than 501. and does not exceed 1001., the stamp duty
payable is 11. 10s.; where the sum secured does not
exceed 2001., the duty is 2/. ; not exceed 3001., 31. ;
and so on until we get to the larger amounts, when
we find that the stamp duty of 151. is paid on a bond
or mortgage to secure 15,0001.; 201. on a security for
20,0001. ; and 251. on a security for upwards of
20,0001., at which point the increase of duty ceases
altogether. The man, therefore, who borrows
100,0001. or any larger sum—and there are many of
these large transactions—on the security of his pro-
perty pays no higher duty than the borrower of
20,0001. This seems to be an anomaly not to be ac-
counted for except by the fact that the landowners,
who make our laws, are usually borrowers of large
sums of money on security of their estates.
But let us trace the operation of this part of our
stamp duties on the more numerous transactions,
ranging from 501. to 20,0001. There we find the bor-
rower on security of a sum not exceeding 1001. pays a
stamp duty of 21. per cent. on the amount. His some-
what more wealthy neighbour who mortgages for
200/. pays only 11. 6s. Bd. per cent., while the man
who can secure 300/. is taxed on the transaction at
1/. 41. per cent. • and so on until the more responsible
borrower of 1,0001. finds he is taxed only 13s. 4d. per
cent. on the sum he secures. And as the sum secured
increases, the rate of taxation rapidly diminishes.
Thus where Ike sum secured exceeds 4,000/., but does
not exceed 6,0001., the duty is 91., which, taken at the
medium rate, gives a tax of 41. per cent. ; a security
for 15,0001. pays 2s. 4d. per cent, and one for 20,000/.
2s. 3d. per cent. At this point the duty remains
stationary let the sum secured be ever so
large, so that when we estimate the taxation
on the great securities made by our high
aristocracy and princely merchants, the per
centage must be stated in pence and farthings only.
We leave the reader to calculate what rate per cent.
the stamp duty of 251. will amount to on the 900,0001.
borrowed by the Duke of BUCKINGHAM on the Stowe
estate, mansion, and furniture. What possibla justi-
fication can exist for this gross inequality of taxation P
The shrewd London solicitor appends to the table from
which we have taken the above figures this remark :
"The larger the transaction the better in geteral can
it afford the tax, but justice seems at least to require
equality of taxation ;" and he suggests that a stamp
duty equivalent to 1 per cent on the amount of the
sum secured should be charged on all such transac-
tions : and it is quite certain that an even rate per
cent is the only fair, nay, toe only honest, mode of
laying on such duties ; and whether one, one-and-a-
half, or two per cent, or any other rate of duty be
required to furnish the necessary amount of revenue,
it is quite obvious that the same rate should be paid
on all securities, be they for 501. or 500,0001. In-
deed, the existence of such a gross inequality as that
now pointed out could scarcely have been allowed to
exist had the people paid any serious attention to the
fiscal laws our rulers have made.

The stamp duty on conveyances of property is
about 11. per cent. on the amount of the purchase-
money, with this exception, that when the purchase
money amounts to 100,0064 the stamp duty on the
conveyance is 1,0004 or 11. per cent., but from that
point the duty does not increase, the stamp duty on a
purchase of a million sterling or upwards being still
only 1,000/. Assuming one per cent. to be the proper
rate of duty on purchases of less amount than
100,0001., why should the larger purchases pay a
lower rate ?

The stamp duty on probates of wills ranges from
11. 68. Bd. per cent, to 2!. Bs. 9d. per cent. on the
amount of the personal property—and personal pro-
perty only—passing by the will. Real estate passes
by will not subject to any duty whatever. Though
the probate duties are less grossly unequal than the
stamp duties on securities, still the heaviest rates are
levied on the moderate properties. Thus on pro-
perties from 3001. to 3,0001. the probate duty
varies from 21. to 21 88. 9d. per cent. ; from
3,000 upwards to 30,0001. the rate is from
1!. 17s. 6d. to 11. 11s. ld. per cent., and decreases
slightly to 1,000,0001., where the rate of duty is
1/. 10s. per cent. Here, as in the instanoe of the
duty on conveyances, the duty ceases to increase,
15,000!. being paid as probate duty wherever the
property passing by the will is a million sterling or
upwards. Practically there are not many eases of
larger sums passing by will, but still the principle is
the same, and the rate of duty should be the same on
the largest as on smaller amounts. The " London
Solicitor" suggests an equal probate duty of 2/. per
cent. on the amount of the property. In the legacy
duties equality of taxation is recognised, the rates
being so much per cent. be the property large or
small, and the probate duty should conform to that
rule. _ _ _ _

As yet, the evidence taken has been principally of
parties who incline to attribute the disease to one or
more of these canoes. A conclusive case has not been
made out, but certainly a case that requires explai.a-
tion. It is averred that the establishment is situated
among a system of stagnant ditches. It is averred,
that one part of the building (in which 150 children
slept) was erected among pig-sties. It is averred
that there were nearly 1,400 children on the este-
b.ishment, and that Mr. HALL, assistant poor-law
commissioner, declared in 1846 there was only ac-
commodation for 1,100. It is stated by a guardian
of the Holborn Union that when he visited the estab-
lishment r year ago he saw bad potatoes served up
flit the children's dinner; that a number of the chil-
dren complained of not having enough to at; that
Mr. Dsourr bullied both the children and the visit-
ing guardians on that occasion; and that no com-
plaints have been made since. It is stated by Mr.
GILAINGER that he found the surgery inadequately
supplied with instruments and medicines; that there
was a deficiency of attendants ; and that the clothing
(at least of the girls) was insufficient. It is affirmed
that a disease (the itch) was prevalent among the
children, which implies enfeebled constitutions, in
consequence of dirt, insufficient clothing, &c.
Unless these allegations shall be satisfactorily dis-
proved in the course of the inquiries now in pro-
gress, it will be impossible to escape the
conclusion that there has been gross and
culpable neglect of duty somewhere. In that case there
are only two parties who can be legally and morally
held responsible for the neglect and its consequences.
In the first place blame will attach to the proprietors
and managers of the establishment : they will be open
to the charge of having sought to augment their
' profits by adopting a system which of necessity ex-
posed the children to moue disease. In the second
place blame will attach to the boirds of guardians
who sent children to the establishment, for not taking
i due precautions to ascertain its sanitary condition
t beforehand, or to enforce proper treatment of the in-
mates afterwards.
A positive opinion regarding the merits of the case
mast, in common fairness, be reserved until the in-
quests are concluded. There is, however, no reason
to shrink from the plain and unequivocal statement
that the proprietors of the establishment and all the
boards of guardians who have had children there are 'I
at present placed upon their trials. And now is the
time to deprecate any perversion of this inquiry to I
serve the purpose of sentimental or interested clamourers
against the new poor-law system. Supposing the
worst features of the case to be substantiate d, as bed
or worse abuses have occurred under the old system
of poor laws ; and with regard to the scheme of farm-
ing oat the children, as it is ceded, no blame can
attach to the parties who first tried the experiment.
Had there. been sufficient authority to enforce
good conduct on the part of the " farmer" ; had
due vigilance been exerted to enforce proper manage-
ment; had the thing not been overdone by cro eding
too many children into one place, the experiment
might have answered. At the outset, the atumpt to
secure fresh, country air for the children was a most

Another class of stamp daties to which the " Soli-
citor" refers, is the duty on settlements. There, where
the money or funds settled do not amount to 1,0001.,
the duty is 7a. per cent., diminishing as the sum set-
tled increases, until at 20,0001. the rate is only
2s. 3d. per cent. The chief inequality of the duties on
settlements of personal property, arises, however,
when they are compared with the duties on probates.
Such settlements are in fact and effect gifts of the na-
ture of bequest by will, and therefore ought to be
charged with the same rate of duty, say 21. per cent. on
the amount settled. Indeed, a &higher rate of duty
might fairly be charged on settlements than on pro
bates, because the property passing by will pays
' legacy as well as probate duty, while a large propor-
tion of the settlements of personal property are made
with the express object of evading payment of legacy
duty. This is especially the case where the persons
intended to be benefited are remotely, or not at all,
connected in blood with the donor ; the legacy duty
in such cases being often as high as 10 per cent.
The paper to which we have alluded does net refer
to the larger question of inequality in the stamp duties
on real and personal property: that requires separate
notice; but we find a ongst the stamp duties im-
posed on various dealings with personal property
the most gross inequality, for which no conceivable
reason can be assigned. It may, perhaps, be said
that it is necessary to raise a large revenue by means
of stamp duties, and therefore a high duty must be
imposed on transactions of moderate amount, as being
the most numerous ; but that only makes out a case
i for a high rate of duty on such transactions, not for •
high rate on the small, and a low rate on the large
transactions. It is to this point in particular that we I
on the present occasion seek to direct attention. And
here let us remark that it is a favourable sign of the
times that the intelligent solicitors, London and pro-
vincial, are generally turning their attention to this
class of questions. Nobody can tell better than they
'can the grievous hardships inflicted by the pressure,
especially the unequal pessure, of the stamp duties.