The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-02 00:00:00

Lynn, could find it in his heart, without
any hesitation, to express his approval last
evening. Yet even Lord STANLEY would
shrink from asserting for one moment that
the system as it is—like every new system in point
of fact--does not admit of very considerable im-
provement. It only required that the House should
listen as well as it could, between explosions of
laughter, to the ludicrous illustrations of the folly
and fatuity still requiring to be eliminated from the
system as it is at present organised—the numerous
illustrations of this capacity for improvement, ad-
duced and gravely applied, among others, to the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer by Mr. PEACOCK ! Particularly in regard to
the problem of any etymological connection dis-
coverable between the nightingale's thrill, the horse's
nostril, and the diverse drill—worn by the negro,
practised by the soldier, and used by the carpenter !
A nonsensical jumble actually down upon the
printed examination papers from which Mr. PEA-
COCK was reading last night to his Laughing
Audience in the House of Commons. Other " puz-
zlers" for novices, were also quoted from the same
preposterous examination papers by the same hon.
member—who must certainly be allowed to have
thereby fully proved his case : as, for example,
" Who was the author of ' Polyolbion P'"----,, wh,
called CHAUCER'S principal poem—[And, by the way,
what is its title ?]—' the well of English undefiled ?"
—Or, again," What are the titles of the poems writ-
ten by PIERS PLOWMAN ?" As if the correctly an-
swering of questions like those could in any
conceivable degree serve to demonstrate the
suitability of a candidate for a Government clerk-
ship! No wonder Mr..PEAcom indignantly asserted
yesterday that the best clerks were often unable to
answer the papers thus sagely designed to test their
capabilities ! And no wonder the House applauded
the hon. member when he said it.

No—before we dream of extending the appli-
cation of the present system of competitive
examinations among the other departments, let
us systematically and resolutely endeavour to
improve it as a system wherever it is
already applied. The rest will follow. And
we argue thus—precisely as in regard to the ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform, we would always
maintain the advisability of improving the repre-
sentative system as it now is, before dreaming of ex-
tending it, or in other words, of giving the boon of
the Ballot precedence over that of the extension of
the Suffrage.

Mr. GLADSTONE and his commander-in-chief,
who gallantly came to his aid last night, have
received an avertissement for Thursday, by a ma-
jority of 127 to 116. The House seems suddenly
to have taken fire on the fire duty, and we can only
express our hope that the fire will not be extin-

guished till it has consumed the unnatural impost.
Mr. SHERIDAN'S proposal was one of the most
moderate—not immediate abolition—not abolition
at all—only one shilling out of the three down, and
another shilling five years hence. The last shilling
to remain, like the same duty on corn, as a kind of
monument, sacred to the memory of the un-
wisdom of our forefathers. But for these
monumental shillings future generations might
hardly believe that their forefathers had taxed
heavily both the food of the people and the pru-
dence of the possessors of the more destructible
kinds of property.
When the chief arguments of the Government
were, first, wait till Wednesday ; and, next, remem-
ber
that much may be said against every tax, we
may be pretty sure that much could not be said for
a Fire Insurance Duty. It is true all taxes are
evils. All curtail the consumption, or lessen the
use of the article taxed ; all deprive the: tax .payer
of some luxuries, comforts, or even necessaries, he
might otherwise command ; and, so far, when
the repeal of a tax is asked, the question
of the comparative evils of its incidence
is raised. But there may be taxes which
border upon the immoral, which deter men not from
indulgence in luxuries but from the exercise of
virtues, and the Fire Insurance duty comes very
close to this. If prudence be not the noblest of
the virtues, it is one of the most valuable in regard
to the very safety of society ; and the condemned
duty unquestionably operates as a tax on prudence.
When a person, thinking of insuring a thousand
pounds' worth of property, learns that he must
pay to the Exchequer a hundred, and, on a large
portion of property, even two hundred, per cent.
more than the company would charge him, he is
but too apt imprudently to exclaim—" Then, I'll
risk it." It is not easy to ascertain the amount of
property thus imprudently "risked," but it is cer-
tainly very large ; and almost as certain that the
duty is the chief cause of the imprudence. If
Mr. NEWMAREI'S calculation be correct, that 80
per cent. of the insurable property in London
alone was uninsured, we cannot doubt that the cost
of insurance is the reason.

Of the inequality of the tax one or two consi-
derations, obvious to all, show that, in this respect,
not even the Income-tax can surpass it. It is
one which the prudent man is compelled by his
prudence to pay, while lais reckless neighbour
escapes without paying a penny. Were the tax
levied on all combustible property, it would be to
that extent equal. As, however, insurance is
voluntary, we are told that 80 per cent. of such 1
property evades the tax. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer makes a toll-gate, or octroi barrier, of
prudence.

Again, one large class of persons are exempted
from the tax by special favour. As landlords make
our laws we cannot be surprised that they should
remember themselves, and the fact is that the pro-
duce of their estates pays no duty ! We do not
wish the insurance of farming produce to be taxed,
especially as the tax was repealed to enable the
offices to face agricultural incendiarism at a lower
rate of premium ; but we can see no reason why
manufacturing incendiarism is not met in a similar
manner. At the present moment the rates of in-
surance on farming stock are much lower than on
most manufacturing produce.
And then there is, what has always struck us as
the grand inequality of all—the fire insurance duty
is levied on one class of property only, and that
just the class which has the better claim to exemp-
tion—on combustible property. All the enormous
amount of property in land, mines, canals, fisheries,
&c., which is safe from the risk of fire, is safe also
from a charge of 3s. per cent. by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. We can conceive of no law, but the
good old one of the strongest, which could convert
that which lessens the value of property into a means
of taxing it, Land, for instance, cannot take fire—
it escapes, therefore,. any premium for insurance
against it. Stock in trade may be burnt in a few
h oars, and at any moment, hence it pays to the
insurance office a premium for security. But not
content with this natutal disadvantage and tax,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer steps in and
doub'es the
with disadvantage of goods as compared
land !
Exact justice would rather require
that land should pay
an annual tax on account of
its incombustibility, and that combustible property
should be exempt. The
p,iti •
e absolute security
le of taxing liability
to sudden loss, and of exempting
consideration.
frorveitt,hniannk nweevehrabveeasraaid momene
enough
to show that this

tax is infinitely more vicious in its essential prin-
ciples than the late paper duty, or than most of the
repealed taxes, It stands by itself in its immediate
inequality and in its immoral bearings. It could
not have subsisted so long, but that it is paid by
the most prudent part of the community, and pru-
dent men are generally patient men. Nothing, in-
deed, can be said for it, except that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer must get money how and where
he can.

We remember Sir G. C. LEWIS, when he had to
fight for it, invented, by the aid of a subordinate, a
most ludicrously ingenious argument ; if, said he,
the risk be slight and the premium low, the insur-
ance may pay, as on house property, two hundred
per cent. duty, and he can afford it. Had he carried
out his argument he must have added, but if the
risk be nil—he can well afford a higher tax ; and,
therefore, we shall levy one on all incombustible
property at least equal to the average charge for
premium and duty on other property. That equit-
able and logical conclusion did not of course suit
Sir GEORGE.

But he did not stop there. If, said he, the risk
be great, and the premium high, the proportions of
the tax are reversed. If, for instance, the premium
be three or four times the tax, the tax becomes only
thirty-three or twenty-five per cent. ! As if the'
reversal of the proportions, by largely increasing
the total charge to the insured, made it easier for
him to bear the tax ! We exposed this extraordi-
nary fallacy at the time. But it is memorable as
an illustration of the extent to which a most able
man can be blinded by a pre-conceived determine-
tiu., In no nil... -nay Mlu we tit:COUTO few t" 10.4
that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should gravely
tell the House of Commons and the country what
amounts to this—that a man who had paid ten or
twenty shillings to an office to insure his property
could better afford:a three shillings tax, in addition,
than a man who had paid but eighteenpence for the
safety of his hundred pounds. The palpable fact
being that the hardship of the tax increases in pro-
portion as its ratio to the premium diminishes, and
vice versa ; till, if paid for property which fire could
not injure, the hardship might be said to vanish,

On a broad view of the whole case, we cannot
but think the House of Commons did wisely in
expressing its opinion so decidedly last night.

The kind interest shown by Sir ROBERT PEEL

and other members of the House of Commons in the
fate of the victims of priestly intolerance in Spain
seems to have been worse than thrown a way. On
an appeal against the first sentence of seven years'
labour in the galleys for reading the Bible, these
simple - hearted Spaniards had four years each
added to their punishment. Their reading the
Bible was construed as " attempting to abolish or
change in Spain the Catholic, Apostolic, and Ro-
man religion "—a crime punished by the 128th
article of the penal code with imprisonment and
subsequent banishment if the accused were a
e
public functionary, and with the " major impri-
sonment," if any one else ! Such is Spanish law
—such are Popish priests
they are in
the
power. Well did Lord P
case on the 14th of March last in the House of

Commons :—" The Spanish nation is a nation full

of valiant, noble, chivalrous feelings and senti-
ments; but unfortunately in Spain the Catholic
priesthood exercise a sway greater than that they
possess in any other country ; and, however libe-
ral—l believe I may say so—the Catholic laity
in most countries are, history tells us that wher-
ever the priesthood gets the predominance the
utmost amount of intolerance as invariably pre-
vails. And although in countries where they form
a minority they are constantly demanding not only
toleration but equality, in countries where they are
predominant neither equality nor toleration exists.
Well, sir, the case in this instance bears upon

law. It does not depend upon the will and ac-
tion of the Government. There are ancient laws
of the most intolerant and persecuting kind which
have been called into action by the ministers of
the Christian religion, and that action has been
the condemnation of these unhappy men to pun-
ishment which must in its nature be revolting to
the minds of liberal pers4ins."
Had they been condemned for reading and
teaching the Koran, or the publications of a Spanish
HOLYOAKE, the cruelty would have been equally
indefensible, and equally disgraceful to the faith to
which its perpetrators belong. What can the reli-
gion be worth which cannot hold its ground against
the teachers of other religions, which forbids people,
if it can, to hear of any religion except through its
own priests; and which fetters the free choice of its
professors by ignorance, maintained by imprison-
ment in the galleys for eleven years P We have a
striking corroboration of the truth of Lord PALMER-
STON'S observations from Spain itself. A Romish
journal at Madrid, the Clamor Public°, shows how
differently educated laymen, there, appreciate the
rights of conscience from what the priests do. In
a noble article, of which, though long, we insert the
greater part, the writer observes :

"We frankly confess that so cruel a sentence has made

a profound impression upon us, because it inflicts a wound
and injury on men whose offence consists in professing a
creed differing from that of the established religion. We
are well aware that the penal code in this instance, con-
formable with the ancient laws of the kingdom, prescribes
the penalty of the severest imprisonment (prisiori mayor)
on those who endeavour to abolish or alter, directly or in-
directly, in Spain the Roman Catholic apostolic religion.
But it dees seem to us that, looking at the spirit of the age, 1
and the tolerance which, in matters of faith, all the Govern-
ments of the world are showing, we could and ought to dis-
play less rigour against those who, in their relations with
divinity, practise other worship under the belief, however
mistaken, that heaven will thus be open to them.

" And our sorrow is increased when we consider what
would become of ourselves—ardent and sincere Catholics
as we are —if in other countries where fortune or misfor-
tune should oblige us to reside we were treated like the
unfo: tunate persons who are groaning in the prisons of
Granada. For is it not a contradiction that the Spaniards
residing in England, France, Germany, and even in Mo-
rocco, are able to worship the God of their fathers as their
heart and conscience dictate, although the dominant wor-
ship is different from ours ; while here, those who do not
conform to the established religion are persecuted, prose-
cuted, condemned, and martyred? Is it just, is it creditable
to us, that the fanatical sectaries of the Karan should give
us lessons of tolerance ? What should we say if, on the
plea of reprisals, our brethren living in Protestant coup•
tries were condemned to renounce their religion under pain
of being punished for exercising it with the brand of the
reprobate and the chain of the convict ?
" Christian charity—that charity which our Divine
Master taught us—advises us to compassionate those who
have their eyes shut against the light of truth, and that we
should endeavour to regenerate them, not with punishment,
which tortures and humiliates, but by means of example
and persuasion, which may command the understanding.
We should be very glad if the Government, appreciating
these brief observations with the intelligent spirit of the
age, and seeing in them no more than the frank and loyal
expressi.n of good intentions, should advise the Crown to
make use, in this case, of the most beautiful of its prero-
gatives, and temper with pardon and clemency the inexo-
rable rigour of justice."

But what are British Catholics about ? Are they
content to rest under the stigma of being equally
indifferent to the civil liberties of Roman Italians,
and the religious liberties of Spanish Nonconfor-
mists ? Can they read such remarks as those of
the Clamor Publico and not blush to think that,
loudly as they demanded, and gladly as English
liberals accorded them, Catholic emancipation here,