The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-25 00:00:00

Lively limited, that their contributions amount to
only one twenty-second part of the entire
proceeds of the tax, that the injustice may
e continued with impunity, is too ridiculous
to require contradiction. Nothing can Eanctify
an injustice, and if the amount realised be so
small, it surely can be the more easily
dealt with, or even abolished altogether,
so as to permit industry to escape uninjured
from the nets of the Tax Collectors. That, how-
ever, is a principle which Mr. GLAnsToNE—the
champion of the moneyocracy—will never con-
cede until reduced to the last extremity.
On the second point, as to the duration of the
Tax, we cannot perceive any valid grounds for
its extension beyond the terms hitherto granted.
It is not at a time when the people are demand-
ing a reduction of the duration of Par-
liament from seven to three years, in order that
the electors might exercise a more salutary
control over their representatives, that we should
extend the duration of the tax from three to seven
years, in order to increase the term of Ministerial
irresponsibility, or lessen the influence of the inde-
pendent Members. Mr. GLAnsToNE'sproject for the
cessation of the tax is practically nothing more
than an ingenious device to get it renewed for a
longer term, but we should scarcely think
that he could catch many votes on such a
very transparent and shallow artifice ; for
as he can give no security for the redemption
of his undertaking, we are justified in considering
it as a very shallow artifice. If he could do so, we
should regard it as the greatest misfortune that
could happen to the nation.

Nearly three years ago there appeared a most
remarkable article in the pages of the Westminster.
Its authorship was attributed, with what reason
it would be difficult to decide, to one of the most
eminent writers of the present generation. It
referred to a subject so painful, so disastrous, so
vile, so odious, and degrading that but few men
have ever found courage to drag it into publicity
and bring it deliberately under national considera-
tion. Few ? Why, in the whole of France and
England put together there have been scarcely
more than four statists who have ventured boldly
upon its analysis. But, happily for the world,
those four men were men of heart and industry—
philosophers, in their way, and philanthropists.
There was JAMES BEARD TALBOT,* with his ap-
palling narrative of the monster-evil, and its de-
plorable consequences. There was Dr. RYAN,I'
with his mournful account of its progress in our
own metropolis. There was that brave-hearted
physician of Paris,T PARENT-DIJOHATELET, with
those two dreadful volumes compiled by humane
researches extending over eight years devoted en-
tirely to the work of investigation. Lastly, there
was HENRY MAYHEW, § with his startling reve-
lations of the state of the -poor in London, first
published through the columns of the Morning
Chronicle. The question has been whispered
about, once or twice, within the walls of Parlia-
ment. Yet, even there, even in that House of
Lords, where evidence is occasionally heard of
the most revolting character, in dubious cases of
imputed depravity—even there the question of
which we have spoken has been hushed up when
mentioned, as altogether too loathsome for even
ameliorative or corrective examination. "Of all
the social problems which philosophy has to deal
with," says the writer of the remarkable paper
already alluded to, 1j " this is, we believe, the
darkest, the knottiest, and the saddest." Nay, as
we find observed almost immediately afterwards,
" Statesmen see the mighty evil lying on themain
pathway of the world, and with a groan of pity and
despair 'pass by on the other side.' " It is a leprous
blot upon the frame of society, which our rulers
have shrunk from touching, with a view to the
diminution of its virulence, for it is vain to dream
of its total eradication. Every one has, there-
fore, refrained from dealing with the question at
all—restrained from so doing by the terrible nature
of the truths which would have to be particular-
ised. Fortunately, the anonymous reviewer in
the Westminster had more daring than the rest of
the community, even than the mass of our publicists
and philosophers. To the high moral courage dis-
played in this matter by a nature of evidently
noble and beautiful benevolence, the nation is in-
debted for a treatise, as dreadful in its details as
it is purifying and elevating in its tendency. The
moral ulcer requiring to be healed, though in
every way loathsome and revolting, has not dis-
mayed the heart of this philanthropist. The tale
he has to tell is terrible, no doubt ; but, through
all its aggregated horror, its influence is strangely
humanising.

Under its present title, the essay, reprinted
from the Westminster, is significantly presented
to the public as " The Great Sin of Great Cities."
Upon the occasion of its original appearance as a
contribution to that periodical, it was simply and
boldly designated by the one word—" Prostitu-
tion." Our purpose in referring to the present
reprint, is merely that of directing to it, most
earnestly, the attention of the more humane and
intelligent members of the population. It con-
voys in every sentence a moral that it were well
for the credit of humanity if cur Legislators
ultimately took into consideration. It re-
counts the miseries of those 50,000 wretched
victims of the infamous system of prostitution.
It inveighs against the cruelty of that popular in-
difference upon the subject which abandons so
many unfortunates, to their evil fate without one
effort for their redemption or reclamation. It
were needless, at this moment, to enter more at
large into the painful analysis of the evil by this
uncompromising and undaunted reviewer—brave
and gentle in his benevolence for here,
within the compass of a pamphlet, the
whole question is laid bare to the public gaze—
so that " all who run may read "—so that the
most squeamish amongst us cannot plead ignorance
in regard to the existence of this dread and
damning abomination.