The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-22 00:00:00

2aAlatt,

LONDON, TIIURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1849.

The Insolvent Members' Bill passed through Com-
mittee in the House of Commons yesterday, with
some slight alterations. There was a very thin
attendance during the discussion, many being absent
at the levee, while a still greater number abstained
from taking any part in the proceedings. In fact,
there appeared a general dislike either to interfere
with the ancient privileges of the House, or to take
a prominent part in resisting the progress of the Bill.
The result has been that a measure of infinitely
greater importance than might be supposed on a
mere cursory perusal of its enactments, has been
hurried through its different stages—the majority
of votes being invariably on one side, the weight of
reason and argument on the other.
The avowed object of the Bill is to avoid the dis-
grace which it is alleged is brought on the represen-
tative branch of the Legislature in consequence of
some half-dozen, or, at the outside, a dozen of its
Members not being in a position immediately to satisfy
any pecuniary demand for which they may be respon-
sible. If that were to be the only result, it would be
perhaps a matter of very little importance one way or
the other ; but, unfortunately, in order to attain that
object, alterations of the most sweeping and extensive
character have been introduced, which, if sanctioned,
will create inconvenience of a very different character,
which will not only deprive a Member of the COM-
MON; House of Parliament of the privileges which he
has heretofore possessed, but expose him to the most
•
vexatious persecutions. The privileges aimed at are
rot those of the Members, but of their constituencies.
It is not for the benefit of the individual that his per-
son is protected, and that he is no longer liable to
be arrested for debt, but for the sake
of those by whom he has been chosen
as a fit and proper person to represent their
wants and wishes, to assent to or reject the taxes that
may be proposed, and to enact laws for the government
•
and regulation of the nation, of which they are free
citizens. Their choice should be free and unfettered;
they have an undoubted right to elect any of their
fellow-citizens to the honourable but arduous posi-
t
tion. No commoner can decline the responsibility,
•
)3,9r if once returned will he be allowed to resign his
aa.t ; it can only be vacated by his elevation to the
Peerage, or by his acceptance of a situation of
emolument under the Crown, in which latter case
it has been thought proper to give the constituency
by whom he was elected an opportunity of saying
whether he still retains their confidence
in his new position as a placeholder.
• 110 may, however, be again and again elected, and he
can no more refuse to sit than he could decline to
serve upon a jury if duly summoned, to act as a
special constable, or to perform any other duty
im-
posed on him by the law. It is in fact, accord-
ing to the _constitutional theory, a responsibility
which he cannot be permitted to shirk or evade.
Now, however,
according to the proposed law, a de-
claration of insolvency, or even a refusal to pay a
•
demand for a certain time will vacate the seat, and
deprive the constituency of their unquestionable
privilege.
/t was well remarked by the Honourable Baronet
the Member for the Tower Hamlets, eahaot,
neither "if the
Bill had been in existence fifty years ago,
4V.P..3see.e• Fox nor SHERIDAN, nor even PITT himself, could have
1:1'1ad a seat in the House." CANNING mightlalso have
-r(
c;been excluded during certain portions of his career.
Scipi4 of the most enlighteneel statesmen, whose ser-
-I'..!_A vices iwere of inestimable value, not merely to those
by. whom they were chosen, but to the community in
general, might also have been rendered ineligible. It is

'~~~,

not for his riches that a man is elected as a Member of •
Parliament. Many other considerations are of infi•
nitely greater importance. He may, although not
in Mil lent circumstances be a man of great and varied
attainments, a staunch reformer of abuses, of un-
questioned political honesty; he may have local
connexions that will render him peculiarly qualified
to watch over the interests of the county or borough ;
1 there may be a general community of sentiments
with the constituency. For all or some of these rea-
sons—any of infinitely greater importance than a
mere command of money—he may be elected, and
why should the choice of the people be limited by a
new test, and one of an uncertain character, which
may be turned into an instrument of great oppression?
The tendency of late years has undoubtedly been
"to remove, rather than to create, tests and exclu-
sions." A very strong feeling has existed in favour
of the abolition of the property qualification. The
people have justly declared that there should be no
limitation to their right of choice. It is notorious
that a qualification can be obtained for 1001, in ad-
dition to the solicitor's costs for preparing the con-
veyance ; and the subsequent pocket mortgage to
the full value, so that little practical in-1
convenience is sustained. It is, however,
an obnoxious and an unconstitutional test that
should be abolished. The effect of the new Act
will be, however, to create by far a more stringent
qualiacation. A Member must have a command of
i ready money, he may be perfectly solvent in his
!circumstances, and yet be involved in temporary dif-
ficulties. Suppose a man in possession of an estate
1 worth 10,0001. per annum, mortgaged for 50,0001.,
I such a person would have a clear surplus income of
8,0001. per annum, and would generally be consi-
dered to be in a very comfortable position. It
! might, however, be desirable to some of his
political opponents to cause him annoyance ;
he could not clearly meet a demand for
50,0001. at a few days' notice; and he would con-
I sequently be branded as an Insolvent and perhaps
Idriven from the House. Such persons, will not be
willing to render their services, if the measure should
pass into a law ; for it is manifest that inducements
I would be held out for proceedings that would not
exist if he remained in a private station. The effect
1 of the law would be to throw into the hands of the
" moneyocracy " the power that formerly belonged to
the " Jandocracy," when real estate alone con-
ferred a qualification ; and it is for the body
•of the people to say whether they are
anxious for such a change that will render probable
new experiments on the currency of the country,
I crushing the industrious classes, and all to get rid
of some half-dozen Members who are involved in
pecuniary difficulties, and unable to satisfy their debts
on demand.

If, however, the law is to pass, it would be
monstrous to exclude the House of Peers from its
operation. If Parliamentary privileges must be
abolished in one branch of the Legislature, why conti-
nue them in the other, where the same cogent reasons
cannot be alleged for their existence ? A Peer is not
chosen by a large body of his countrymen, who call
upon him to be the exponent of their wants and
wishes in Parliament. He could only forfeit his in-
dividual privilege, no others would be involved in the
punishment of his conduct. 'We confess that we do
not desire to see any change with respect to either
House; but if a law be introduced with respect to
insolvent Members of the House of Commons, it must
be extended to hereditary Legislators also, and that
right speedily.

The "Budget for the Million," which originally ap-
peared in the columns of The Sun, has been published
in a new form, with several emendations and addi-
tions.* The great principle is now fairly before the
public. The trifling error that was so eagerly seized
on by those who desired that the industry of the
" many " should still be taxed for the benefit of the
"few "—that the hard earnings of the overworked
artizan should contribute to the liquidation of debts
contracted for the preservation and protection of pro-
perty, has been rectified. That trifling mistake,
which we ourselves pointed out the same
day, and in the very same impression in
which the Budget first appeared, and which
was acknowledged and corrected by Mr. WASON
without a moment's unnecessary delay, was
made the foundation of innumerable attacks. Al-
though the principle was not in the slightest degree
involved therein, every argument was directed against
the accuracy of the figures. It appeared as if the
" amateur" supporters of the existing system consi-
dered that, if they could succeed in showing that five
per cent. on the amount of accumulated and
realised property would not be sufficient to pay
off the national debt, but that ten per cent.
would be required for the purpose, no further
argument was necessary ; that the plain and simple
proposition, " that it is discreditably dishonest in the
owners of realised property not to pay off the national
debt," might be slurred over without note or com-
ment of any description.,
It was undoubtedly convenient to evade, if practi-
cable, the consideration of such a question. It was
much easier to ride off on a point of special pleading
than to defend the justice or propriety of the existing
fiscal system—of the system which, as Mr. Wasois
happily remarks, compels "the half-starved sempstress
to contribute to the payment of a debt incurred by
the State for the protection of her grandmother,"
which obliges her " to pay an enormous tax upon her
principal article of food," to add 800 per cent. to the
price of her only luxury—tea ; "to render her scanty
meal, still more scanty," in order that the proprietors
of accumulated fortunes " might be absolved from
the payment of their own just debts."
This is the great feature of the "Budget for the
Million." The distinction is clearly pointed out be-
tween "taxes levied for the purposes of Government"
for present protection, and " taxes levied for the pay-
ment of interest of a debt incurred by a past genera-
tion." Every citizen of a state, however humble,
enjoys some advantages from the annual expenditure
of the nation. He is saved from all the
miseries and sufferings that must inevitably result
from a state of anarchy and confusion, he is enabled
to turn his industry to the best advantage, and, there-
fore, he should contribute fairly, according to his
means from the fruits of that industry, to the present
expenses of Government; " but," according to Mr.
WasoN's views—" the payment of either the prin-
cipal or the interest of a debt contracted by a pre-
ceding generation stands upon a very different ground,
for the industrious classes of a succeeding generation
never received, do not receive, and cannot possibly
receive any equivalent for that debt ; while, for the
taxes necessary for the carrying on the government
they receive the inestimable blessings of order."
With those impressions Mr. Wasosi looks to the ob-
jects for which a tax is imposed ; he inquires into
the ultimate destination of the proceeds thereof; he
divides the sum required on account of the public
liabilities, from that necessary for the support of the
national establishments. The first, he contends,
should be provided for exclusively by the owners of
accumulated and realised property, the only parties
actually benefited thereby ; while, whatsoever may
be required for the annual expenses, he thinks should
be raised by " indirect taxation," by which all would
contribute their fair proportion.
We do not quite agree with Air. Wasox on this
latter point. We think that it would be more equi-
table and more politic to abolish wholly and for ever
the system of indirect imposts—to carry out the glo-
rious doctrines of free trade to their fullest extent—
to render England indeed the emporium of the world
—to receive, without restriction, the produce of
other land in exchange for our manufactures—to
make industry really free ; and when the successful
results of that industry are apparent—when savings
have been set aside and suffered to accumulate
then, but not till then, to make these accumulations
contribute to the national revenue. We believe that
such a course is consistent with the soundest policy.
It is, however, a fair subject for argument. Whichever
1 system might ultimately be adopted, no great in-
justice could be perpetrated ; no crying grievance
would demand redress ex debit° justitiw. We hail
Mr. Wasori's proposition, however, as going further
towards the establishment of the correct principle
than any that has yet been submitted for public con-
sideration, and, therefore, it has received our unquali-
fled support and approbation.
This, the first of the three propositions, put for-

* " A Budget for tho Million, in a Letter to the In-
habitants of the Borough of Ipswich. From Rigby
Wagon, Esq."