The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

lOn considering the amount of reductions in the
;-.l,Llic expenditure proposed by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer for the year 1839, we must set out
with stating our full acquiescence in the opinion pro-
' nounced by many Members of the House of Com-
mons, namely, that their attempt (for it is no more)
at reduction, speaks well for the willingness of his
Majesty's Ministers to effect for the country as ex-
tensive a relief as they dare to propose on their own
responsibility, while uncompelled by the people and
by Parliament. Compulsion by Parliament, indeed,
may sound but oddly to those who are aware—and
who is not aware ?—that a Parliamentary majority
has, within a Session or two, defeated the effort of
the Ministers to carry a measure of economical
reform. The measure, indeed, may not have been
one which, taken as a solitary expedient of economy,
deserved a very high tone of approbation, because
it was one which, under the title of a superannua-
tion act, pressed hard upon poor clerks in oflie, and
left the Leviathans with thousands a year untouched.
But if Parliament had done its duty, the bill, instead
of being rejected, would have been so enlarged in its
operation, as to embrace the mighty office-holders,and
to set an example of equal justice to all functionaries,
not of indulgence to the strong, and harshness towards
the feeble. There is, however, little doubt that the
vultures which prey habitually on the taxes, and in
hovering round the skirts of Government look only
to devour the patronage of which it is the dispenser,
—there is no doubt that such foul followers of the
camp will endeavour, by their loud and hungry
screams, to frighten even those whom they pretend
to fawn upon, should they undertake or counte-
nance any means of diminishing the daily mass of
offal. Against these monopolists of the fruit of
taxation Ministers must be powerfully protected.
The people out of doers, and the honest men within,
must join in earnest and persevering demands upon
the official servants of the State, to spare the dis-
tresses of their countrymen, and, by revising the
principles of our taxation and greatly reducing its
amount, to let the resources of the empire, uncon•
troulled by the tax-gatherer, fructify in the hands of
the industrious and skilful against times of public
emergency. It is right to avow that the reductions
now proffered are not equal, by many degrees, to the
actual wants, or just expectations, of the people;
1,032,0001. does not exceed by a single shilling, but
rather falls short of, the sums added to the yearly
expel di arc since 1822. It actually does not cover
the detieit of the last year's revenue as compared
with that of 1828. It does not equal the sum which
Sir Henry Parnell, in his invaluable work on the
Finances just published, proves to be a necessary
and practicable reduction in that single article of ex-
pense, entitled " Collection" of the public revenue.
It is little more than a shilling in the pound on that
sum by which the national expenditure exceeds the
interest of the public debt. Having alluded inci•
dentally to the book by Sir Henry Parnell, we must
add, that as a manual of financial knowledge, it is
beyond all praise. The Hon. Baronet has collected
such a body of detailed and useful information,
drawn it from such unquestionable sources, and ar-
ranged it with such lucid order and simplicity, that
every one who reads can fully understand the sub-
ject; whilst all who are desirous to ascertain by
what fiscal causes their own particular condition and
that of their several families are affected, whe-
ther for good or evil, need go but little
further for a temperate and sagacious instructor.
In speaking of economical' reductions a few days
ago, we had much understated the waste and impro-
vidence exhibited in.the charge for collecting the
public. revenue. Our calculation on that point was, ,
thattlie collection cost the country about six per.
-6sisia-gnats income.. Sir Henry Parnell corrects
-
'' Mir, estimate as follows :—" In the year 1806 a war
'fevenue (in round numbers) of 58,000,0001. was
Collected for about 2,800,0001. per annum. This
was atJl'fr. Piles death. In 1826, only 20 years
afterwards, a period dining which the Government
had (with the exception of about two years) been
administered by men professing to walk in Mr.
Pitt's footsteps, the peace revenue amounted to
54,900,0001., and the charge of collection to
4,030,0001.—that is to say, the agency upon
collecting an income of 54,000,0001. exceeded that
on an income of 58,000,000/. by 1,230,0001. If
then," adds Sir Henry Parnell, " the present '
charge of ii per cent. were reduced to even the
liberal (and indeed extravagant) allowance of 5 per
cent., the saving under this single head of collection
would be 1,300,000/., or more than the whole
amount which Mr. Goulburn announces as a sub-
ject of congratulation when saved on every branch
of the expenditure !" This particular subject of
economy in the collection has, it appears, been exa-
mined into by three Committees of Finance. Yet
the result has been, as we are told in this admirable
work, " an increase in the charge of collection,
which shows that the spirit of profusion still holds a
master hand." The fact is, that the duty of econo-
mical reform must be discharged on a much broader
and holder scale than any Minister has yet ventured
to insist on—or than the English aristocracy, with
their pauper dependents and relations, have ever '
dreamed of permitting. The colonies, for instance,
are sinks of the most corrupt and prodigal waste.
Which of them remunerates this unfortunate coun-
try for the burdens entailed upon us by its military
defence, and its jobbing military administra-
tion ? Where our colonial possessions are insu-
lar, their internal tranquillity ought to be main-
tained by a militia force, and the protection of their
coasts by sloops of war or frigates. We do not un-
derstand what benefit can be extracted from the
Seven Islands to Great Britain in the present ex-
tent and situation of that acquisition. Corfu, again,
like the Maritius and Malta, is a " post," and may
be worth a garrison of 2,000 or 3,000 men; but the
other islands undoubtedly had better be turned over
to the new State of Greece, and British ships, and
money, released from the office of defending them.
We have left untouched an immense field of re-
trenchment in the civil departments at home, in the
colonies, and in foreign countries. The court,—the
juilicature,--the diplomatic expenditure,—which
last Sir Henry Parnell, so far as ive can find, has
overlooked,—well merit repeated considevation.
Sure we are, that four millions a year, instead of
one, might well be spared from she frightful out-
goings of the nation ; which, if they continue at
fifty-five millions a year, may well be pronounced
by the Hon. Baronet above mentioned, the sure
forerunner of bankruptcy, in case of a foreign war.
The subject of taxation, in its manner of affecting
industry, according to the nature of the tax im•
posed, we may recur to on another occasion. But
we must now subjoin, that it is impossible for Lug- i
land to go on under her existing weight of taxes.—
Times.

There are occasions on which a public Journalist
may take an honest satisfaction, from contemplating
the. effects produced by the force of public opinion,
in directing and sustaining which the Press exercises
so potent an influence, Such a satisfaction we de-
rive from the tolerably correct notiona now generally
prevalent with respect to the character and functions
of an unpaid Magistracy, once the theme of st;-: cinch
extravagant eulogy, and we may be permitted to in-
dulge a like grateful sentTimcnt with reference to the
measures of Legal Reform at this moment nor ding.
Our readers will bear witness how frequently and
how zealously, often to the exclusion of' themes of
party politics, or other topica of temporary interest,
the columns of the Morning Chronicle have been
devoted to excite and enlighten the public mic,d
upon the grave and momentous subject of our
Juridical Institutions; and the desp and general
acnondcaerdnapttvahtiicolll th::
te he nation
present s iP their s
reformation
society;foi•matiot
no: c,re we conscious of an exaggerated E...pprciation
of our own humble labours w 11.4. we claim for our-
selves some portion of ttieiperit of- having procured
for those objects the attention of public men. The
lexigezicie
discussionwhich took place in the House of Commons
On Thursday night is, we think, to be regarded. IP; all
the friends of Legal Reform with great satisfaction.On that occasion 01 lionouratje And Le .fined Geri-

tleman, to whom the country. is ituiebted for the
Commissions of Legal Inquiry now at work, in re-
ference to the abolition of the Welsh Judicature,
affirmed that, although in the appointment of the
Petty Judges of the Principality the influence of
party might be discernible, no Minister would have
the hardihood to meet Parhament after nominating
a Judge in Westminster-hall from other recom-
mendations than those of his superior professional
endowments. Is it possible that, to a man of Mr.
Brougham's sagacity, all the judicial appointments
the
in
epii his
rei influence
ee appearedwehaovfpersona
personal
merits
emits? anlaste from
it
tnot
notorious that many appointments to the Bench
have in all times been obtained by powerful con-
nection and political subserviency ? Again, did the
Learned Gentleman mean to cast discredit on the
proposed plan of opening the Courts of Common
Pleas and Exchequer, when he said that "he
thought Mr. Peel deceived himself if he fancied the
addition of one Judge to each of the Courts in West-
minster-hall, or the destruction of the monopoly of
Ilarristets in one Court, or of Solicitors in another,
or the improvement of enabling all sorts of business
to be originated in all the three Courts, would have
the effect of creating an equal division of business
between the different Courts"--or, does not the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman confound con-
sequences with causes when he assigns such reasons
as the following for the opinion above expressed
" The King's Bench was in possession ; it was the
favourite Court ; the suitors thronged into it ; the
best Practitioners and the best Judges were conse-
quently to be found there ?"—Morning Chronicle.
lord Torrington, on Thursday night, on present-
ing a petition from Tonbridge, stated, " that there
wits great and almost incredible distress in that part
of Kent in which he resides, and which is called the
Garden of Kent ;" that in the parish of Mereworth,
in which he resided, " there were 2,200 acres, of
which about 1,000 were wood land and land of little
value; the rental was 1,6681.; the poor-ratts,high way-
rates, &c. were 1,2511., and the poor-rates on the
tithes were 3721., making a total of 1,6234, being
within 451. of the rent. The whole population of
the parish was 755, and the number of persons re-
siding within the parish who received relief was 323,
residing out of the parish 138, making a total of 458
persons who received relief." He added, that "he
hoped this statement would receive the attention
of his Majesty's Ministers." In observing that
in general the object of those who come forward
with these cases of distress is to mislead the public,
we do not wish to impute any each object to his
Lordship ; but this we know, that his Lordship
would have better enabled his Majesty's Minis-
ters and the country to form a correct judgment
respecting Mereworth, had he stated, that though
it be in the Garden of Kent, the population has for
some generations been in a most wretched condi-
don. In order to show the spirit with which these
statements are made, we have looked into several
of the Parliamentary Returns. The Poor,' rates
of Mereworth, for the year ending Easter,
1814, during the glorious period of high priced
corn, were 1,0791. The population in 1801 was
1597; in 1811 it was 602; in 1821 it was
711; and now in 1830, according to Lord Tor-
rington, it is 755. In 1814, the number of poor was
greater that the whole number of inhabitants ought
to have been. If the poor-rates for England, caleu.
lating according to the population of 1811, had been
at the rate of the population of Mereworth, we
should have had the enormous amount of nearly
nineteen millions per annum. The fact stares any
one in the face; the population in 1814, when all
sorts of land were in tillage, was so redundant as to
require a rate of /ten shillings in the pound. Since
that time 150 hays been added to the population.
It is because men like Lord Torrington have grorssly
neglected their duty, that the people of Mereworth
are in this wretched state. Why do they allow
the growth of this redundant population ? Look
at the other extremity of England, Northumber-
land. For instance,the township of Easington-grange
was rented in 1815 at 1,7721.; the township of El-
wick, 2,3891.; the township of Middleton, 1,5784,
each nearly the rent of Mereworth. The population
of the first, in 1811, was 57 ; the second, 78; and
the third, 57. The Poor Rates in the first, in 1814,
.vere 321.; in the second, 621.; and in the third,
871. If the population of these three townships,
instead of 192, had been, at the rate of Mereworth,
1,800, these 1,800 would, in like manner, have all
been beggars. In another twenty years, with their
admirable system of management, the population of
Nlereworth will probably have added another 1.50 to
their number; and then, a; every addition of this
sort throws people dawn from the class of payers to
that of receivers of rates, the land will probably he
given up altogether to the inhabitants,—Aid.
The Speech of Sir James Scarlett, on Thursday
night, in vindication of his conduct in instituting
the late prosecutions, requires some notice. It was
less arrogant in tone than his speeches in his own
Court, because from the manner in which the
House cheered the observations directed aga'nst hint
by Sir Francis Burdett that night, and Sir James
Graham on a former evening, end the coldness of
his own reception, he could not fail to have some
misgivings with respect to the policy of the course
he had pursued. But though the tone was some-
what subdued, there was no symptom of approach
towards juster and more rational views on the sub-
ject of the Press. It is latneetehie to think that the
Press should be so Inuelt at the mercy of a man
who, however dexterous as an advocate, especially
when addressing a Jury, is one of the worst rea-
soners that ever addressed a deliberative assembly,
" Be was not ashamed (he observed) to say in public--
what all men were ready enough to say in private—that
no single individual could now resist the tyranny of the
Neal; so that we were came to that condition so well
described by the Roman historian, in which " nee male
nec remedia pati pooautnus." Again, "he thought that
the Press of thia country ought to enjoy full liberty,
shackled by any previous cesscre, but at the Caine time
he thought that the Preto would not long enjoy that
moral influence, which it ought to po..aege if every opi.
nion or falsehood which it promulgated were treated with
indifferenoe,,if its rhapsodies in praise of some men and
its calamities in depreciation of others, were both to be
considered as idle words, full of wood, but meaning no-.
thing."
It has never yet been contended by any one, that
the Press ought to have the power to publish false-
hoods calculated to injure individuals; and though
there may be differences of opinion as to the mode
in which reparation should be sought, there can be
no doubt as to reparation being due to the injured
party. Let us, therefore, separate the private from
the pvihhe part of the question, The public part of
the question is—ought writers, publishing what
tends to bring Parlitarient and Ministers into con..
tempt, to be punished ? Sir James has two oppo-
site sets of Arguments to prove that the Press ought
not to be allowed to bring Parliament and Ministers
into, contempt; first, no single individual could now
withstand the tyranny of the Press, andthe"
i unless3rese
his Honourable Fsiend meant that the Liberty of
the Press should become the Tyranny or
ahtiisdptrltivetatneo4im)cal shhiosuld pteert is right
he
must
privateu t
ad-
mit
judgment except under the peril of being attacked
iu
by the most wicked and virulent falsehood, both in
that there were occasions align whichcitY some cu.,
tigation must be adtninisteertv::::sQvidetrbe:teruotff:,nitd‘eise odfectihae.
Press"—that is, that the Preas being perfectly free,
decla-
mations or rhapsodies over argument, vague allega-
the Press is all-
triaeinho7erdp‘rvoilolf.alwo"ns prevailth
powerful—it is tyrantlicat; on the good side it is
impotent. But the second set of arguments is
curiously at "irariance with the first. In the first the
Press Is an overpnwerieg tyrant. In the second he
says, come let us advance to the aid of the poor
Press--,if we treat its opinion with indifference—if
we consider its rhapsodies in praise of some and its
calumnies in depreciation of others as idle words,
full of aonnd and meaning nothing, it will lose all
its moral influence. The Press it but a ricketty
child, which cannot exist 'rztikout the fostering care
of the Attorney-General. We must punish it for
being a tyrant sehn.th cannot be WithStQed ; and wt