The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 11, 1:852.

source. The other, being desirous of a large
• present income, buys small houses, which return
▪ a nominal income of 8001. per annum, subject, of
course, to considerable deductions for necessary
repairs, to say nothing of the chances of loss
through defaulting tenants. The one, then,
would pay directly on his 4001. per annum
11/. 1 ls. Bd., while the other, on his nominal
8001. per annum, would pay directly 231. 3s. 4d. ;
and, indirectly, through his tenants—for it
would all eventually fall on him—ls. 6d. in the
pound, or 601. per annum, making a total of
831. 3s. 4d. This is neither just nor equitable,
and we venture to assert that it will not be sub-
mitted to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
clares that this question of extension of the House-
tax, is like that of the distinction between per-
manent and precarious income, " a principle"—
but that so far as the details are concerned, "it
would be arrogance on his part to say that the.
Government would stand or fall by them." We
should, on the other hand, fully concurring in
the point respecting the details, say the " princi-
ple" at issue was, whether the Legislature were
prepared to affirm the principle of direct taxation
on accumulated and realised property, so as to
enable him to afford the fiscal remissions which he
deemed alike just and expedient, and essential to
the welfare and prosperity of the nation.
There are other reasons why an extension of
the Property-tax, rather than of the House-tax,
should be resorted to. We are, at this moment,
in a state of fiscal transition. There must be a
speedy revision of our system of taxation. The
reduction of the Malt Duties, and Hop Duties,
would be of comparatively trivial advantage either
to the grower or consumer. The interference
of the Excise would still be required at every
stage of the manufacture of beer. The great
monopolists the brewers would reap the
benefit of the reduction, the community in general
of the abolition, and it is only with a view to the
ultimate abolition of the entire tax that we advo-
cate the reduction. This will render necessary a
further increase of direct taxation, and that can
only be obtained to a sufficient extent by means of
the Property-tax. These changes must be resorted
to, and the first resolution now under discussion
must be rejected, no matter what may be results,
so far as the state of parties or the Ministerial
arrangements are concerned.

It was a curious coincidence, that America
should have been mourning for WEBSTER precisely
at about the same period when England was
mourning for WELLINGTON. During the same
month of November (1852)—the old Monarchy
consigned to the tomb with public obsequies the
greatest of her warriors, and the young Republic
offered a somewhat similar funeral homage to the
memory of the greatest of her statesmen. In
their love of country, as 'well as in the simplicity
of their 'character, there was a certain degree of
resemblance between DANimr. WEBSTER and AR-
THUR WELLESLEY, but in all other respects their
natures not less than their careers, revealed a
striking dissimilarity. Very different, also, was
the manner of the interment of the one, and of
the solemn pageant in honour of the other—as
different, indeed, as the temperament of JOHN
Bum, is different from that of Brother JONA-
THAN. In London, the ceremony of the 18th
ultimo was a grand posthumous ovation, accorded
to an illustrious warrior by a nation peculiarly
alive to the splendour of their historical associa-
tions. It was a procession principally military in
character, closed by a religious ceremonial of great
pomp and sublimity. It was an occasion on
which the millions evinced their regard for the
fame of the departed hero by their presence
during so many hours—a presence marked
throughout as silent and respectful—whether in
the myriads thronging either side of the pathway
of the procession, or congregated together in tens
of thousands under the gorgeous roof of St.
Paul's Cathedral. In New York the spec-
tacle of the 16th ultimo might have appeared
respectable to business men accustomed to
such displays, and entirely divested of all
that appeals more directly to the depths of the
national sensibility, or to the heights of the popu-
lar imagination. It seems to have been a stupend-
ous affair calculated to be decidedly creditable to
any large concern in the undertaking line. It
was evidently conducted on a scale of colossal
magnitude, for the New York Herald of the day
after, informs its readers that " the procession oc-
cupied two hours and three minutes (evidently by
a stop watch), in passing a given point." It was
ushered by a powerful body of policemen. It com-
prised a-variety of well-known regiments—well
known at least among the plains of Texas and the
mountains of California—led by officers, almost
every one of them distinguished by the twin
Christian names familiar to the natives of Yan-
keeland Colonel G. W. MORRELL, Colonel
R. C. WETMORE, Colonel J. A. BOGERT,
Colonel A. S. VOSBURG, and a variety of others,
with the like double-barrelled initials—some of
them not merely double-barrelled in the way of
cognomens, but regular revolvers, running through
the majority of the letters of the alphabet. Ac-
companying these were a swarm of mutes and
mourners, abounding in crape, as glossy as ravens,
and magpied with white muslin. Then came, as
the climax of the cortege, the funeral car, drawn
by eight grey horses, guarded by the LAFAYETTE
Fusiliers, appropriately conducted by Captain
FRENCH—an empty car (with a " valons," like a
bedstead), an empty urn (gilt), and an empty coffin
—ten feet long, and four feet broad, as though con-
structed not for a man, but for a brobdignag. We
must not be mistaken. We honour the memory
of a great citizen, a great orator, a great and pa-
triotic statesman, like DANIEL WEBSTER—far,
therefore, from us be the intention to talk flip-
pantly of either his demise or his interment. We
are only solicitous to speak in apposite terms of
the extraordinary and hollow extravagance, as it
appears to us, displayed by the people of New
York upon the occasion of this funereal celebra-
tion. Expressive of the indecorum of the whole
tffair, there was a funeral oration pronounced over
he deceased by—again the double-barrelled ini-
ials—one J, T. BRADY, in the course of which the
speaker had the disgusting indecency to pronounce,
at it were, over the grave of DANIEL WEBSTER, the
most odious and foul-mouthed vituperations upon
one of the greatest potentates of Christendom

contradictory recommendations. One mourning
ornament exclaimed—

" Weep Not :"
while another strongly advised the spectators to
act quite differently, thus,—

" If you have tears
Shed them now !"

Among many of them there was manifest a some-
what distressing sameness, a painful iteration, a
sort of posthumous tautology. One said, " I still
live," another said, " I still live," another said,
"I still live," another said, " I still live." A
very original quotation from SHAKSPERE informed
the world from one of the fourth storeys of Park
Row—

" We ne'er shall look upon his like again."
Another, coolly appropriating the property of a
poet, declared of an orator that

" He was not for an age, but for all time."
Another seemed to trill very pleasantly a line of a
pretty little ditty—
" Though lost to sight, to memory dear."
Enough of all this, however. We have surely
vindicated our course by displaying these miserable
pretences of grief over a really great citizen—a
circumstance as insulting to the memory of DANIEL
WEBSTER, as it was undoubtedly discreditable to
the taste and feeling of the people of the United
States.