The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-12 00:00:00

,1417
pi
AU GUST 12, 1852.

st-HUT taf. the PUBLIC JOURNALS'
TIMES.--The. extracts from the American Jour-
nals which we yesterday published, and which were
bat samples:oo an extremely copious assortment, will
serve to convince every reader of the success with
which Lordlierby's C;binet, if really without serious
intentions, hag contrived to mystify the Government
and people of the United States. The organs of
the Ministry at home have authoritatively declared
that, with xespect to the north-eastern fisheries, no
new claini has been advanced and no concession with-
drawn, and that even "the disputed interpretation of
the technical terms of the treaty of 1818 remains
where it was." If this be indeed the case, WC can
only observe that the protectors of the colonial fishe-
ries Are as difficult to understand as the protectors of
the British'farmer, arid that.the authorities and people
of the Union have been led into very unfortunate mis-
conceptions. Substantially( speaking.,
there had been
but one "disputed point" in the convention of 1818,
and that, as we have already explained, relates to the
interpretation properly_ applicable to the term " bay"—
the Americans professing to understand by this phrase
the narrow creeks and inlets of the coast exclusively, and
the British Government maintaining that large bays,
such as that of Fundy, to the south, and that of eta-
leur, to the north of New Brunswick, are compree
headed no less effectually than the smaller coast in-
dtapoint which, as the reader is
now aware,
e, has been
i the‘ t disputed" for more than thirty
years. The British Government never made any sur-
render of its it conceded a eertain re-
Americans, although, of course ionfcoUmapnedtyet;it
laimxpaetri°anti erff'e:cr:ctCoofthetilCre Bay
interpretation have
practically acted upon it to a considerable extent.
By the announcement that this question " remains
where it was" we can only understand an assertion
btoutgtihvee
that no step has been taken to place the subjects of
either Government on a footing different from that
prevailing twelve months ago. OF course the dispute
of necessity, "remains where it Was;" that is to say,
the terms of the written convention are
unchanged and the respective merits of the
two interpretations unaffected. To say this
is to say nothing at all, and if the Ministerial
intimation contains any meaning whatever,
it must be that no measures have been taken by the
British Government to make the " disputed inter-
pretation " more important than it has been fur the
last seven years. Now on the 6th of last month Mr.
Webster being Secretary of State to the Govern-
ment of the Union, issued an official document from
the Department of State at Washington, for the pur-
pose of communicating to the American public the
new position in which the question of the fisheries
was placed. In Cals document he stated that an "en-

tire change of police " had occurred in England
with reference not only to the system of bounties,but
to the admission of American fishermen to grounds
from which, according to strict treaty engegemeres,
they ought to be excluded. What fiiliiir-greunds
Mr. Webster here understood is conclusively shown
in the sequel of his notification. After quoting at
length the operative clauses of the convention of
ol
fBlBt,haend
wordexpl ain,bay
i,ogtl:,,he proceeds to &c-
-e "disputed interpretations"
serve that, in 1841, the Legislature of
Nova . Scotia submitted the case for opinion
to the law officers of the Imperial Go-
vernment, and that their decision was against the
right of the Americans to enter these large bays for
the pureoses of fishing, notwithstanding their central
waters might be more than three miles distant from
either shore. "It is this construction," continues
Mr. WebAer, " which the colonies have ever since
desired should be enforced ; and this," he adds, " the
English Government has now, it would appear, con-
sented to do?' Without presuming to be acquainted
with the true intentions of Ministers at home, we
must remark that nothing can be clearer than the
light in which such intentions are regarded abroad.
Mr. Webster, in his proper Ministerial capacity,
writing iu the name of the Government, from a
Government office, end basing his notification on
" information of an official character received at that
department," communicates to the American public
his anticipations that the " disputed interpretation"
of the treaty provisions, instead of " remaining where
it was," will at length be brought to issue by the
forcible adoption of that construction maintained by
the British Government • that the " extensive business
er the eNew England fishermen will ne completely
interrupted" in consequence, and that all con-
cerned, therefore, should "stand on their guard.
Such is the impression produced on the American
Government by its official information, nor can we
see, indeed, how even on the face of Sir Johnhave
Pak-
ington's dispatch any different conclusion could
been formed. The circular letter of the
Colonial
Secretary to the Governors of our North American.a
last, plainly states that " her Mxtesty'e
dependencies, bearing date only the 26th (,)1 s
arey
desirous of removing all grounds of complaint on I
ch-
part of the colonies in consequence of encroach-
ments ments of the fishing vessels of the United States
upon by
upon those waters, from which they are excluded
the terms of the convention of 1818, and they there-
forel_
intend to dispatch, as goon as possible, a small
naval force of steamers, or other small vessel,
enforce the observance of such convention. Now,
if these resolutions were intended to apply, as W
are now assured, to such provisions onlyanee
the convention as "the United States do notitiar
Ministers t
le
never did dispute,"
,we cre constrained to remark
snit
that they were somewhat loosely expressed,
theu
that our colonies have been flattered,
American people irritated with extremely
The
sincerity of purpose or distinctness of plan. •
ti in the
" waters" alluded to without any limita"ll shut
dispatch of those from which the Americans
tide
the
out by the convents -ei, do, undoubtedly,
according to the
fishing•grounds of the larger bays, acc0......--,
lowly
rigorous interpretation of the treaty, and notor
satis-
faction so according to the views of those colonists, intion is
faction of all of whose "complaints" the
contention
now to he " enforced." For years past the colonists
have have been alleging as a grievance that the Americans,
p per-
contrary to the stipulations of the treaty, wei
for tan our-
little
mitted to enter bays on the British coast
pose of fishing, and when they are assured
shalt aid dispatch that all their grounds of complaintrdinglY
be removed, and a naval force is chared accordingly
with any
with the execution of the law, it is difficult
English or American reader to come to
e American
conclusion than that arrived at by tee elation of
Government, and accepted by the pop
ea induced
the States. At the same time
we
arc 31
to remark, that every day's additional co.
only that
which the subject receives convinces us 11
the construction of the treaty maintained by
the more
tish Government is right in law, but thate
persuaded
intelligent of the American statesmen
aronsider it to
of this fact, however opposed they may c_ the best in-
the suggestions of local convenience, r
°vs renounce
terests of both countries. The A
ruerlheeretofore en-
hy the treaty for ever " any liberty,
ute fish on or
it'Yed or claimed, to take, dry °te
within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays,
the Bri-
tish
creeks, or harbours" of the British possessions
Now,
America, not distinctly excepted
in which considers
according to the British intepretationo,ln
const—as a
" a bay' as something different
froth
three miles of
line of sea, in fact, from which the
as elsewhere from
British property are to be reckoned
and harbours
creeks,
land—the specification of bays, cerde necessary ; but,
in the treaty was very natural
and Anierinns would
according to the version which taanus, for the single
give, these words become supern esseSSiOni in
word " coast" would have Prljat inshore fishery
cases, if nothing was forbiddel'rent, in short can
within a certain distance. ""ion, cc within three
be the meaning of the
exPrentbat contended for
marine miles of a bay," except A vessel forbidden
observe, too, that M
by the British Government ?
of gantry Bay could
certainly not cast anchor to come within a marine leag
'tiethe middle of it. We
vided for all the
in
r, in the only official
te Websttclle though be
document yet published
on;
British interpretation is con-
will not admit that she 13r.tif
the
subject,
ctntracting parties
formable to the intentions
o impossible to decide-
-a point obviously next t,l3d e that "It would ap-
does, nevertheless, acknowo
construction of this article
pear by a strict and rigidttete. United _ it States are precluded
that fishing-vessels of the Liu
or harbours of the British
from entering into the We
noses of shelter, repairing
provinces, except for the pule
and e water." Now this
dameges, and obtaining' woodconstruction
With respect to the ad-
is all for which we, contend
vantage to be tehen of this
that the Governments of the two countries may not
agreement befitting the
~, an
find it difficult to collie,. ''
we submit to the good sense
characters of beth ; but that in a case where the law,
of the Atnericln pub"
nterpreted, is nevertheless
against them, they should however invidiously i
not embitter the dispute
a,, on those who are certainly
by charging. "aggreF'sm than abruptness, and whose
precipitation may
w.)
itself turn out to have been either
reconsidered et home.
misconceived abroad "r ~.n inveniam, act faeiam"
was Sydney's gallant lIERLD.—"ilut
mottoviand
in the battle of life. "tips
will either find facts, or make them," seems to be the
maxim of some our
contemporaries, in their desperate
struggle, after that glary,itipveride, and crown of morn-
ing" information. Indeed
thee
is this advantage - the system, that a state-
meta is never so certain
. isof being entirely and
unfounded. The
brilliantly exclusive as when it

other day the public
vienraqlumesotinotnh.s.
meat which posses;
very little, or rathehradno.
possessed,
were
iin
startled t I eeminent
n daengsiroeue,n
thece- 1
suspicion whatever was ost important treaty, of which
en-
tertained at large, appears, been in existence
for several In ltf
signed on the 20th of act, it had been formally
plenipotentiaries, but bMay, 1852, and this not by
with their own hands —the
three powerful Menarchs,
Emperor of Ruesia, and the Emperor of Austria, the
matter and purport of this convention King of Prussia. The
most vital interests of Europe,ouvention concerned the
the question of general peace came very home to
the future tranquillity of
the or general war, affected
had an importance which it
would be
and altogether
be difficult to ex-
aggerate. This remarkable co uv
n en.tion corresponded
in the dignity and solemnity
•`
magnitude of the questions which •
of its form with the
it undertook
pro-
-spectively to settle. It opened with an invocation of
'
" the name of the Most Holy and Undivided
like the treaty of the 26, of Trinity,
11
1815," A careful and minute digestof September,
rowthe engage-
ments to which the three Northert'
affirmed to have bound themselves oa the presentersrare
occasion, is furnished to the public by our vigilant
contemporary. Now, in spite of the detailed and
categorical manner in which this announcement has
been made, we are obliged to say that it deserves no
more credit than it has in most quarters receiv-'d.
Wherever the writer° borrowed his facts, he seems to
have taken a hint in the effective art of circumstan-
tiality from an admirable scene in the School for
Scandal. Let us, however, examine for a moment the
provisions of this new and important conve •
latton. It
refers to the assumed intention of Louis Napoleon to
revive, if his countrymen so will it, the imperial office
in France. And now, in brief, here is the gist of the
determinations which our contemporary avers to have
been thus solemnly adopted by the three Powers :-
1. Should Prince Louis Napoleon be proclaimed
Emperor, merely for himself, without a view to
the transmission of his power, the three powers will
not actively interfere; but when they shall , have un-
derstood that it is but a temporary throne which he
has ascended, they will suffer him to sit there in
peace. The reason alleged for this policy is that such
a change will be but a change of title, and not a
change of power in Prince Louis Napoleon. Here we
would merely-observe that the:reason attributed,bears
fallacy and certainly futility on the face of it. Such
a reason could have bad little weight with the three
powers in question. If an increase of the authority of
Prince Louis Napoleon in France must at once in-
duce open hostility on the part of those foreign Go-
vernments, they could scarcely have failed to act on
this imperative principle when the events of the 21 of
December oecurred.qhe authority:which he then ac-
quired,
and the great change in his position and
power (though not in his title), met with no resist-
ance. Buie secondly, should Prince Louis Napoleon
be proclaimed Emperor, not merely so as that the
umpire should "determine" at his death, but with
dynastic dignity, and with a revival of the institu-
tion itself of the empire in France, then the three
powers will openly ; d.savow that act of the French
penple, and will reserve to themselves the right of ul-
terior measures in concert. Now, if the reason el-
leged as weighing with the three powers in the
first alternative, or " eventuality," be evidently un-
real, the reasons ascribed to them for their proposed
policy in this second contingency are absolutely far-
cical. The events of the last two-and-twenty years,
combined with the first•mentioned article of this very
" treaty," permit us no other word. The reasons in
question are two. The first is derived from the
treaties of 1815 and from the renunciation made
by Napoleon of the throne of France, for himself and
all his representatives for ever. Both the treaties
and the renunciation quite bar (the former any,
save the Bourbons, the latter in an addi-
tional manner, any member of the Bonaparte
family in particular) from ever wearing :the
French crown. And yet this new " treaty" binds
the three powers to recognise Louis Napoleon
as Emperor in case be be so proclaimed merely for
life. Thus, this treaty at once insists on Napoleon's
renunciation as a bar which forbids any Bonaparte
from wearing the French crown; and the same
treaty provides that a Bonaparte shall, nevertheless,
be allowed to wear it, and thus not only to nullify the
renunciation, but, by a mighty precedent, to make it
far easier for -those who come after him to treat it alto
ua null. it Lae rule is not binding . now, will it be-
come more binding after it has been
broken ? The
second of the two reasons is, the sacredness of the
hereditary principle. The point is thus urged :
" The basis of the European order is hereditary right.
By hereditary right the Bourbons are kings of
France. The present head of the house of Bourbon
Count is the de Chambord." Was ever ar-

guinea so felicitously timed, so gracefully
rememliered ? " Present head." It seems he
is now the head of that house; and we piasume
be was not its head while the Orleanist dynasty
reigned. The three powers, we are to believe, quite
overlooked this fact while they had Louis Philippe's
envoys recognised at their Courts ; and it was only
as soon as Louis Philippe had faded like a dissolving
view into the " Mr. Smith" who fled to our shores in
1848,-that they suddenly recollected that he was not
the rightful head of the Bourbons. But even then,
when a R. epublic, ignoring all hereditary right,
whether of emperor or king, whether in elder branch
or in younger, threatened the real tranquillity of
Europe, we heard of no such treaty in favour of the
Count de Chambord. The recognition of Louis
Philippe and the recognition of toe French Re-
public were both departures quite as violent from
tbet rule of forcing the principle of hereditary
right upon other countries, as will be the recog-
nition of Louis Napoleon's lith-empire from the
rule of holding the "renunciation" of the late
Emperor to be in every possible event an insuper-
able bar against the instalment of a Bonaparte on
the throne. For our parts, we believe that while he•
reditary right is a happy principle for a people to
adopt, there are also other principles absolutely neces-
sary to the peace of the world and to the tranquil
advancement of civilization—principles which, if our
fathers had adopted, we, their descendants, should
not now have to say, as we can say wish truth,
" Oceans of blood and countless treasure have been
expended, fearful evils have been suffered and in-
flicted, and the end of all is not attained; the priceless
cost has been paid, but the purchase has not been
secured." To say that a principle is valuable is one
thing; it is quite another thing to say that we ought
to force every valuable principle on reluctant neigh-
hours at the point of the sword. For us, there are no
parties in France; there is but France herself. And
ha who makes her prosperous, and who soonest rind
best secures her tranquillity, deserves well of his
country and of mankind.
CHRONICLE.—Having examined the various
taxes which are imposed on landed property, we must
not forget that, in almost all other countries, the
" untexed foreigner," employed in the production of
corn and cattle, pays much larger contributions to
the revenue of the State than are exacted of the
English landowner. The French Land-tax alone
far exceeds in amount all the imposts
which can in
any env be represented as exclusive burdens on the
soil of England. The proportion of revenue which
is levied from real property is necessarily greater in
countries less advanced than our own in civilization
and commerce. Where imports are scanty and
manufactures non-existing, the land necessarily bears
the charges of national administration and defence.
Mr. Disraeli will hardly be so ill-advised as to
rest his case on a comparison which Mr. Cobden and
his friends have so often threatened to institute.
The whole inquiry is, in truth, irrelevant except
for purposes of controversial hostility. It is for
English financiers to adjust taxation to the circum•
stances of their own country, without regard to the
political or economical considerations which may
influence foreign Governments. They may be well
esßured that no existing or probable burden on land
will affect in any degree the cost of domestic produc-
tion. Even if it were true that real property is
snore heavily taxed in,England than:on the Continent,
it would by no means follow that the landowner is
entitled to compensation or relief, nor, on the other
hand, would the far heavier burdens imposed on his
foreign competitor afford an answer to a well-founded
plaintonhi
are hardspartof any substantial grievance.
advocates His
injustice, but when they can bring forward any plau-
sible china they will, no doubt, be entitled to a bear-
ing. They will, however, act prudently as regards
the interest of their clients, in abstaining from a repo,re
duction of two of their habitual common-ploce:4--boDeunv
beet-root and the tobacco grievances. It lasspro-
said that the English farmer is prohibited flr
save
clueing that thin and tasteless imitation '1
fishes "-
which, in many parts of the continent,
der protective duties. But the supposedcirues„ e same duty
„t tb
altogether imaginary. On PaYnle-m—ported from the
which is levied on genuine sugar
liberty to produce
colonies, English industry is ats may be considered.
beet-root sugar as dear and bad
ass
with the
desirable. The only grievan.ceeno
of protection for
beet-root question is the los
facture The prohibiaon
an inferior article of tortireany enforced, by a law
of horse-grown tobaccotiwso
centuries old. But it
which is now nearlYt revenue of 4,000,0001. is
mast be recollected tba
less than 1,200 per cent. on
raised by a tax of !° and if a countervailing Ex-
all imported tobacwo, restates
is

else duty were imposed on the home-grown plant,
not a leaf would ever be produced in England. The
absolute prohibition is, in fact, cheaper and more
effectual than would be the imposition of an equiva-
lent duty ; and the wildest Protectionist will hardly
advocate the encouragement of native produce by the
maintenance of the existing impost on the foreign ar-
ticle alone. The loss of the whole or the greater
part of the tobacco duties would be a heavy price to
pay for fostering a branch of cultivation which is na-
turally unsuited to our soil and climate. The fact
that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has
adopted the beetroot and tobacco cries forms a strik-
ing illustration of the feebleness of the cause for
which he deems such arguments available.
The most plausible demand put forward on behalf
of the landed interest concerns the large revenue
derived from the Excise duty on malt ; yet it is
remarkable that the landowners themselves have
never been unanimous in the wish to deprive the
State of one of its most valuable resources. A duty
which produces upwards of 5,000,0001. annually
cannot easily be replaced by any impost which well
not occasion serious discontent. Nor are either the
farmers or the landlords ignorant that the malt-tax
really falls on the consumer ; while the barley grower
only Suffers from the limitation of his market, occa-
sioned by the artificial • ease in the price of malt.
Mr. Jonas, indeed, increase , . the
House stated before thaCommittee of
of Lords that the 1121 l ' by enhancing the
Malt-tax, t-tax,
cost of the beer consumedincreased
a by his labourers,
t.
his expenses 6d. an
Mont-
eagle truly observes in his But this, as Lord on
report, " caneot be called
a special burden on real
that the London
property, unless it be con-
tendedcoalheaver and worker
in the docks is not as a consumer of
porter as the agricultural labourer
is of ale."
An acute man of business,
a Protectionist farmer, even though he be
economical questions which bear
comprehends
transactions. Mr. Jonas evidently on his private
his interest in the Malt-tax is that of hnderstands that
B. consumer, and
not of a producer ; and it is from a similar
of the true bearing of the question perception
that the party who
advocate the system of raising revenue by indirect
duties have never seriously-attacked the Malt-tax,
although they have added the impost to
grievances peculiar to the land. lhe
real
list of
of the malt duty, and of taxes on commoditieseaopponents
general, must be looked for in a different in
Mr. Disraeli, in his successful Budget speech, drew
quarter.
a fanciful distinction between Customs duties levied
on foreign productions, and Excise revenue which forms
a burden on native industry. Sounder economists
watch both classes of taxes with equal interest in the
hope of reducing the burden on consumers without
dangerously tampering with the finances of the State.
The Malt-tax will, like the rest, be entitled to coneide-
ration in its turn, as an impost which may probably be
found to be of an elastic nature. Tea, wine, and tobacco
may, no doubt, be rendered cheaper without eventual
loss to the Exchequer ; and there is no reason why
the duty of 21s. Btd. per quarter oe malt should for
ever form the fiscal addition to the price of so useful
a commodity as beer. But it is for the benefit of
labourers and coalheavers, and not in the problema-
tical hope of adding to the rent of gravelly soils, that
the question must be practically considered. In the
meantime, if barley-growers think, as they justly
may, that they are not remotely interested in the
cheapness of beer, they may profitably direct their
energies to the reduction of a heavier impost than
that which the Exciseman levies on malt.
We have repeatedly called attention to the un-
scrupulous exactions of the brewers who mono-
polise the beer trade of London. In the days
of protective duties, and even in seasons of
actual scarcity, the retail price of porter was 4d.
per pot, and it was understood that the partners
in the great brewing firms were in the enjoyment of
at least reasonable profits on their capital. The price
of barley has of late years sunk one-half, the cost of
hopehas been materially reduced, wages and all other
collateral expenses have been diminished—but the
working man still pays 4d. per pot for his porter. It
is evident that there is something wrong in the law
which renders such a monopoly possible. What that
wrong is, and how it is to be remedied, may be a
question not easily solved ; but it is one which the
grower of the main staple of the beer manufacture,
is, beyond all others, interested in answering. The
root of- the difficulty may be indicated is sae
simple remark that in the case of beer, as in that
of other fermented liquors, the principle of Free-
trade has not fair play. For purposes, not
of revenue nor of Protection, bat of police and
public morality, the sale of intoxicating liquors
is regulated and restricted. The field is not perfectly
open, and the natural results of a partial monopoly
follow from a limited competition, which renders
combination practicable. Until an attempt shall have
been made to remedy the evil, it is not necessary to
admit that there is any inseparable connexion between
a judicious regulation of public-houses and the ac-
quisition of exorbitant profits by the brewer. To
this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer may, per-
haps, direct his attention with advantage. If it be
his noble ambition to realise the vision of Jack Cade,
by giving the consumer ten hoops to his three-hooped
pot, let him do so without ruining the revenue by
the repeal of the Malt-tax. The community is con-
cerned in the maintenance of the public credit; but it
has no interest in the enormous dividends which are
derived by private firms from the sale,
a price
fixed in the days of Protection, of an arest. lcl eheve the
ma ma-
de
nufacture of which legislutive Chang
comparatively cheap.
extent, the pro.
The consumers, and, to a certain
three ways—viz.
ducers, of beer, are taxed in at least . . ,
hop duty, and the hcensing
through the malt duty, the
system, to which the brewers owe that monopoly
which malt-tax and
which they so grossly abuse. Of th_
already spoken and
of the brewers' profits we have . , . ,
we will not at present discuss the protection which
is afforded to malt against the competition of sugar
and molasses. The hop duty necessarily eugments
the price of malt liquors to the purchaser, bat it may
be doubted whether it affects the value of land, even
in the districts of Kent, Sussex, and Herefordshire,
where hops are ordinarily grown. One half of the
duty is paid after credit has been given for six months,
and the remainder at the expiration of a year from
the gathering of the crop—an anomalous regulation,
by which, in effect, the State advances a portion of
the capital engaged in the most speculative of all
agricultural undertakings. The loss of this undue
and questionable advantage would probably be the
principal result of a repeal of the duty, so far as the
owners and occupiers of hop grounds are concerned. The
Customs duty on foreign hops would, of course, be re-
moved at the same time; and it is doubtful whether a free
competition with Belgium and Germany would allow
the English producer to extend his cultivation. w
Thel
whole area of soil at present devoted to the production
of hops is about 50,000 acres. The repeal ' tag
has not been regarded with much favour of the
owners since Mr. Cobden has spoken by the land-
in favour of its abolition. It is and voted
of the levity with which a curious illustration
popular doctrines are
Some sometimes repeated, that So
of free trade have not hesitated
professed supporters
Customs duty on hops
should
be retained, notwith-
standing the removal of the impost levied by the Et;
cise on domestic produce. It would be difficult for
the most industrious collector ofgrievances to dis-
cover any special burden on land, addition to those
which we heve aimed discussed. in
draft
Report,
y_ T
however, to whichreferred,ne
reminds
we have so often
o.tx on occu-
us that the mode of assessing the Incom, a r. It
pieta p of land has given rise to abundant
tcia_maliirmers
might have been thought that l
.
n al
to co-
were, of all classes, the least efsted for agricul-
plain of direct taxation. Horses- duty, while the
total purposes are exempt °
fr:lader PsY assessed
butcher, the baker, and there in their respective
taxes on those which they req:ilgo levied in a manner
trades. The Propeatr tax ter tbao to any other per-
more favourable to the f
, -9,8":"All tenants of less than
son engaged in haileexempt from the impost, unless
3001. a year rental r
n_urco4 of income. An enormous
they possess othehre e
soceupiers in the kingdom are thus
majority of allote
interference of the tax-collector,
relieved froabioie
class avoids thbt vexatious inquisition
1 while the. wwhich causes so much discontent among
into proqurer
rs
and tradesmen. Ireland, again, the
1 manufac_ gat eef agricultural grievances, is altogether
great from the Income-tax. Tenant-farmers have
ex'E°P. to demand • • '-'
little reason a revision of the mode of as.
eet for its results would probably be anything
but ,
eat satisfectory to them. The arbitrary valuation of
the farmer's profits at one-half of his rental must, on
an average, be highly favourable to his interests. No
resident in the country can believe that a tenant of 3001,
a year ordinarily spends so small an income as 150/,
It is true that a still more disadvantageous result
might appear on the face of the occupier's books, for
farmers have liberal notions on certain subjects. In
some districts the mistress of the establishmentclaims
the poultry for pin money, without k Ile nowledging
any liability to account for the grain which they con-
sume ; and in the same manner the farmer, before he
begins to calculate his profits, assumes that himself,
his family, and his horses are provided with shelter
and with food. The annuitant in lodgings
as much out of pocket as his . may, pay
suostantial neighbour
at the farm, whose plentiful housekeeping.
Yet, when the one pays 41. 103. he envies.
to the State out of his
annual 1501., while the other, at a rent of 2901., is

C (
'

e

'exempt from Licome-tax, it is certainly not the occu-
pier of the land who has a right to complain of ine-
quelinte Farmers, however, were never tittnt suiTer-
end Cecir complaints are re.ederei mere audible
by tha eneurattance that they pose's vote:. F`-'r se-
veral years their professed advecates in Parliament
remonstrated against the hardship of paying a tax on
en assumed income, Khan perhaps in an exceptional
year no nrofits whatever might have been realised.
In vain it was urged that the complainants would
unhesitatingly reject a proposal for placing them on
the same footing with ordinary traders. An average,
it was suggested, implied the possibility of defect as
well as of excess, since a centre of oscillation must
lie between two extremes. Nevertheless, it eras re-
peated again and again that the advantage which a
fortunate farmer might gain from the mode of as-
sessment was no compensation for the losseS sus-
tained by a less prosperous neighbour; and a year or
two of low prices naturally obliterated the recollec-
tion of a time when the tax was probably paid on a
mere moiety of the profits. The coincidence of agri-
cultural distress with Ministerial difficulties at last
overcame the reasonable objections of financiers ; and
in 1851 Sir Charles Wood consented to give the
farmer an appeal against the assessment founded
on the rental. At present, therefore, capital
is invested in agriculture under the most advan-
tageous conditions, so far as fiscal burdens are con-
cerned. However great may he the profits of a suc-
cessful year, the occupier is only required to pay
Income-tax on half his rental- If, on the other hand,
his gains assumed fall below thevalue, he is allowed
a deduction for the deficieecy. The exemption of
farmhouses from taxation, and of agricultural produce
from the dirty on fire-insurances, is not a more dis-
tinct benefit to farmers,
the Property-
as compared with other classes
than is the present system of levying
Property-
tax. It is true that rents are still rated equally with
every other species of income ; but even landownsre
cannot pretend that the most &ECUS of all kinds of
property ought to be exempted from ordinary bur-
dens. As usual, however, they complainedn the
name of their tenants as long as it was possible to dis-
i
cover the shadow of a grievance. The Stamp duties
have been reduced and simplified since the inquiry
which was instituted by the House of Lords; but the
heaviest burdens on landed property are
aill to be
found in the taxes imposed by the State and by the
law on all transfers of real property. Lord
Monteagle, in his draft report, justly points to this
class of grievances as the most intelerable—and, at
the same time, the most easily removable—to which
landowners are subject. The common remark that the
price of land on the Continent bears a higher pro-
portion to ifs annual value than in England, is in
itself by no means conclusive. In France and on the
Rhine, there is- much competion for small freehold
and little for farms. Moreover, capital has in Eng-
land a hundred cbannsla of investment, while in
poorer countries it is habitually laid out is the pur-
chase of land. There are many other reasons which
nomeans
show that a sound economical condition by
p
purchase
implies a maximum in the number of years
given for land ; but it is nevertheless true that the
cost of conveyances, both direct and incidental, forms
a large deduction from the value of every estate in
the country. A commencement has been made in
Equity Reform, but it may he doubted whether the
benefit will reach the laud.- Until a comprehensive
les3will br.i
.sien
at)rTl
uncertainee segy sel%,ec emi
fool fsanu endgeti:sildet
ericarbotri,:io)
tiy cbestablished,
a:tnrl
haee
ese.
founded on the difilculty of selling snanall
laud. The Gov,!rrirr fiapovretriyonso
will establish r'ctlalies to
seriously with this difficulty
hiienhtersehsat,llof grapple
the gratitude of theelnatnev.ed.
dif-
ferent kind from those which can be based -
on idle
Acclamation against ron-existent burden!".

I.
'THE HARP Y STk:A.I6,IER
.
We have a few words to soy about the performarces
of another Admiralty steamer—the liarpy—which has
just tecomplistail the pass; ;e home from Rio in 110
days. Our old frited the Meamra—au have much
pleaeure in observing—is beieg prepared for fresh
triumphs by the hand of the dockyard people at Sheer-
ness. They era caulking end payiuta her decks with
Je they's mat ins glue. They
are making alterations in
her internal fitment,, and placing a coat of prepared
mineral pitch upon her bottom. Despite of all these im-
portant changes Englaud, we are told, is justified in ex-
pecting that within the three weeks the Mettmra will be
afloat again. Meanwhile, the reputation of the Admi-
ralty has been ably sustained. ono avulso non deficit
alter. While the Megai:a has been in deck, the Harpy has
been staggering about the Atlantic for the last three
months at the most imminent danger to the lives of
all on board. In the case of this ship it may be said—
and with reason—that we have to right to expect any
such rapid passage as is habitually made by the Brazil
line of mercantile steamers. She was sent home, in
point of fact, on account of the 'dangerous state of her
:,oilers, reed so it was neeessasy to navigate her at a re-
duced pressure. Allowance, however, has its limits—
and whether those limits have in this iustanee been ex-
ceeded must be jeCged from the following facts.
The time bill of tee Mestere since her departure from
Rio stands as follows:—Rio on the 18th of April, Bahia
on the sth of May, Pernambuco on the 15th, andiFeyal
on the 231 of July, off Plymouth on Friday last, Ned ar-
rived at Portsmouth on Saturday night. The Harpy left
Pernambuco with 150 tons of coal on board—us much or
more than she could stow. Her decks were choked up
with the coal in order to supply the shortcomings of the
stowage below. With this supply she steamed
steadily away for the depot at St. Vincent's,
and was within a comparatively short distance when
it was found that the supply of coal was exhausted. A
desperate effort must ho made to keep the boilers going.
Everything was thrown into the fire—coal sacks, mess
tables, cld junk, the cabin doors, everything, in short,
that was not absolutely nscessary to keep the vessel
above water. All efforts, however, were in vain, the in-
terior of the Harpy presented a mere tabula rasa; there
was nothing more to throw on the fires, which very
naturally went out. Under these disagreeable circum-
stances the effacer in command Ca' the ship, Commander
Williams, who appears to have discharged his duty
with great energy and discretion, came to the resolution
of bearing up for the Western Islands. In order to give
thrill a-chance of reaching this haven alive it was neces-
sary to put the crew on a reduced scale of provisioes and
water. They apperr to have suffsrcd very comaiderably
trom actual hardships, and still more from the terrible
~Faivelibthie very dayly
3 theyPlllardeenrtSeh%l in
:3i iti el itcaehmiltnnt Fify.ehay:eel one 't.'
thhl aag, 1 adt El i
directed
iLI allr . e
dr)ro b.nbii .t
provision
of water. The
stein catchliea
itnhethecontdaenehte3,dreete
.his men
n net: it to their slender
or they wouldd'. not have reached
Fayal without eneturine the sufferings inseparable from
se tu al privation. ThO. P pessasse from Pernambuco to
Fayal had occupied 69 days. the only winder is bow
eVeL. in the British navy en efficer ceuki he found to com-
mand area a crew to work such a craft across the
Atlantic. The eted -the ' and, we have
e.. uet of commander,
no doubt, that of the men, been above nil
en, appears to have ,
i•her
Praise. The ship in which they were would nth' me
steam nor sail, and wide
yet they contrived to biing.hereue6.
in sivety to Portsmouth harbour.
from the account we have received,
the shuts to which the Harpy's We live evceiridea coif
pe,ltpeirittgieFarrnne dl
eu
tote
triyn
ord(l.r to keep the steam going. ,""kaapy wasn't built
sailing it was just as bad. " ld'''.,,et eery rationally oh-
for sailing." les our corms
:,C'°'l,„t on earth can she do?"
nerves—" if a ship can't sail,
en the wild assumption
Well—could she steam,
board? ',4f;:,„ reply we get is, that
I that she had furl 00 ar made to Issnr a 121 b.
the Harpy's boilers tvebh:refoGrrigsiaDfeitiPs sake had been re-
steam pressure, "'hi ~, et this modified degree of pres-
ducsd to 4llbe but evc, jaw e giving way," and required
ture the boilers "'Crow a patch there, in order to keep
eerea,i3st
she ever reached the shores uf
now a patch
be little short of a miracle.
G'hreernattßi'grictstallineare'resrem, 3theo question arises in the first place,
Novv, c" cc- i ,aving Rio in b tuth a condition as to
shiP en e
was the
ati. dapat Ch across the At! ntic at all? The
justify 7sulting from the state of facts before us is in-
answer It iv,,, ib ~... .....1%, in el.. Lish,or .1..E5,.". t,,
"I"tih" lives of the brave commander and crew of the
aptratirslit to a steamship the boilers in which had been
conde
ned or to a railing ship which wouldialifinc24,,ticl
isail.as
The .
garp; appears to have combined the absence, we
pardon for the Hibernicism, of both
ll
gut as it appears to our uninformed minds, although it
might have been an unsafe thing thin-, the Harpy should
be sent to her machinery, it would not have involved
any very greet amount of danger to have seat the
necessary e
at
machinery to the Herpy. To be „ire, we
i,'o l
are not the Lords of the Admiralty, or great
tthheedocockuyrsae of
rds,orouarnyitihtitnlig) isefxtpheertisnecre
t; but
heard
ot, sia:vweP he
licit-
minded merchants sending the requisite machinery for
steam-ships across the waters of the Atlantic. Of course
it was a question of expense in the accond place—for the
first question was ono of humanity and prudence. Was
it worth while to incur such an expense at all? If this
question was decided in the affirmative, it Was certainly
best to get the necessary work executed at as cheap a
rate es pessiele. What would have been the cost of
freight on one side; and what the cost, on the other
hand, of maintaining the llarny's people for three
months and a half staggering about the eettan in the
most imminent petit of their lives? A comparisee of the
two charnel cannot surely be very difficult.
suppsse it had beets decided on mature TaiPsfinedr%'7tiohri
thee:, it was the most economical c
Harpyboilers refittedliome thatin E
surcbl-elcbut consistent with
been condemned, it wouhl have
nshgelanmdi;ght be ovnseurria:urfehdoirenrds
had
the rul to give the gallant officer
es of common prudence -: - • h oin safety
"ling his blottohome
iil
whenevercommand
h the the:ill boilers s: of sailing
rtinodo
arhwlidevaeetcbarhel
eaf-syta.htmhoue sapecdreoaienuedneldtgionnfagtsitohonef
If anything could a
with which an
hisg
companies.i Oi‘CUMS riri4V latiYr3tavi-e}grlicel beieng manyarn on
g a the
longday mercantileere such steam
a
t to sea from any dockyard in
ship " La Plata
these hingden] a Teat the same number of this journal
—Times.
of the Harpy and the
shouldfirst
tr i
ph aovfe
Lrae Viral VI

Several men employed in the goods yard of. the
pouen Railway,. at the Batignolles, hired a boat on Friday
the
evening at Asnieres for a row. When in the centre of the
river, five of them determined to bathe, and immediately
after two of the number disappeared. One was got up by
his companions, and recovered, but the other was drowned.
—.Paris raper.