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

TIIE SUN,

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 affluent 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 ;
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-
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
qualification. A Member must have a command of
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
worth 10,000/. per annum, mortgaged for 60,0001.,
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 ;
Ihe could not clearly meet a demand for
50,0001. at a few days' notice, and he would con-
sequently be branded as an Insolvent and perhaps
driven from the House. Such persons, will not be
willing to render their services, if the measure should
I pass into a law; for it is manifest that inducements
would be held out for proceedings that would not
I exist if he remained in a private station. The effect
of the law would be to throw into the hands of the
" moneyocracy " the power that formerly belonged to
the " landocracy," 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,
crushing the industrious classes, and all to get rid
1 of some half-dozen Members who are involved in
pecuniary difficulties, and unable to satisfy their debts
i 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-
GLia ue,t4 GL., F 1 cla IIUL 111 Llle sugniest aegree
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. WAsoN
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. WASON 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 Mr. WAsort 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—t) 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
system might ultimately be adopted, no great in-
justice could be perpetrated ; no crying grievance
would demand redress ex debito justitia. We hail
Mr. WASON'S proposition, however, as going further
towards the establishment of the correct principle
than any that has yet been submitted fcr public con-
sideration, and, therefore, it has received our unquali-
fied support and approbation.
T his, the first of the three propositions, put for-

" A Budget fur in a Letter to the In-
habitants of' the Borough of Ipswich. From Rigby
Wason, Esq."

ward in the "Budget for the Million," has, as yee t,
remained unimpeached. No doughty champion h.a ,s
entered the lists in opposition—no knight-errs n t
has donned his beaver, or couched his lan c e
to maintain the justice of making childre n
who have received no inheritance from th
parents liable for the debts of those parents— -of
enabling an existing generation to mortgage the
labour of posterity, and thus practically to renele r
their descendants slaves, bound to toil for the bea efit
of others. What has been thought of the iniquitous
code which enabled a vindictive creditor to sell into
bondage the unfortunate family of his insolvent
debtor ? What will hereafter be thought of the la w
that makes provision for the debts incurred by a pc, s-
eeding generation out of the hardly-earned wagers of
the operative, whose only capital consists .of lnis
labour ? It is contrary to every principle of natural
law, and cannot therefore be sustained or justified,
In his subsequent propositions Mr. WAsoN points
out how justice may be rendered to all. He shows
" not only that it is discreditably dishonest in the
owners of property not to pay off the national debt ;"
but that, secondly, "it would be very easy for them
to pay it off," and, thirdly, "that it would be very
profitable for them to pay it off." No
cavil or objection can now be taken to
the basis on which hl3 arguments are founded ;
if the question is to be decided, it must be on the
" merits," and not on " special demurrer." He
calculates that teu per cent. on the accumulated and
realised property of the country would be sufficient
for that purpose ; and to render the settlement more
easy he would give " ten years for the liquidation, with
interest in the meantime, at the rate of four per cent.
per annum." He then enters into calculations to
show that the remaining nine-tenths of the property
would be more valuable when the public debt had
been satisfied, and the nation freed from that incubus,
than the entire is at present with the existing
liabilities, and thus establishes " that it would be very
profitable to pay off the national debt." We heartily
commend the " Budget for the Million" to the con-
sideration of all financial reformers, and of those who
are anxious to act with integrity in their relations
with all. A principle is there laid down, the good
seed is sown which cannot remain barren or unpro-
ductive, but which will undoubtedly bring forth its
fruit in due season, and lead to the emancipation of
the national industry from the fetters and chains with
which it has been so iniquitously hampered.

We are not surprised at the rejection by the Sici-
Han Government of the ultimatum proposed for their
acceptance by the bombarder FERDINAND, and his
creature, the bankrupt FILANGIERI. The terms pro-
posed were purposely so drawn up as to secure their
rejection by the Sicilians, in order to afford the cruel
and superstitious bigot who, grovelling at the feet of
the POPE at Gaeta, from thence issues orders for the
bombardment of the fairest cities of his dominions, and
the massacre and plunder of the industrious portion of
his subjects, the opportunity which he has avowedly
long desired, of turning Palermo into a garden in
which he may luxuriate in vicious privacy—another
TIBERIUS wallowing in a new Caprcea. We are not
surprised at the rejection of the ultimatum by the
Sicilians, but we are surprised to find that Admirals
PARKER and BAUDIN should have so far forgotten what
was due to themselves, as to consent to
insult the brave and honourable Sicilian nation
by being the bearers of a proposition intended only
as a bitter mockery, and that Lord PALMERSTON,
frightened from his propriety by the empty threats
and braggadocio falsehoods of those " Noble Lords"
—who, to recover the privilege of plundering their
fellow-subjects, by the re-enactment of the corn-laws,
have condescended to rank themselves in the same
category with TESTE and GulzoT and SOPHY DAWES,
by becoming the tools of the old man of Claremont—
should have so forgotten what was due to himself
and to his country as to become the policeman of the
Holy Alliance, and by seizing the Bombay, on board
of which neither arms, ammunition, nor warlike
stores were found, have done his best to emulate the
conduct of his predecessor in the affair of MazziNs.
We trust, however, that it is not too late for
Lord PaLsinawrost to retrace his steps; we be-
lieve that his wiser counsels have been overborne
(we trust only for a time) by the sinister influence of
others; and we hope to find Lord PALMERSON again
pursuing with renewed vigour the liberal and honour-
aisle course ur aebluu twhio, ct.. e;oin... Ls
especial right to expect from the pupil of CANNING
and the friend of Lord WILLIAM BENTINCL. The
present conduct of England and France in relation to
Sicily is disgraceful to them as nations. Be it re-
membered that after the events of January, 1848,
after the Sicilians had expelled the mercenary troops
of a traitor KING from Palermo, they stopped short
in the course of victory at the request of Lord MINTo,
and thus gave the bombarder of Messina an oppor-
tunity of rallying his forces, and of leaguing with
the Lazzaroni for the purposes of massacre and plunder;
that the flag of independent Sicily was acknowledged
and saluted by the fleets of France and England ;
that in consequence of the representations of England,
Sicily abstained from declaring herself a republic;
that the deputation which offered the crown to the
Duke of Gsssoa. was escorted from Palermo by a
French and English fleet ; and that the mediation of
France and England was accepted by Sicily, who was
merely claiming her own constitutional rights—rights
which King FERDINAND had solemnly sworn to ob-
serve—rights on the observance of which his title to
the Crown of Sicily rests--7rights which, neverthe-
less, he has deliberately violated, in contravention of
his oath and to the forfeiture of his crown. Surely,
when Sicily consented to this mediation, she had a
right to expect something more than a mere promise
of a constitution, to be granted some time in the
month •of June, at the will and pleasure
of the excellent King of the Two SICILIES—
such promise being preceded by a pastoral exhorta-
tion to the people of Sicily to cultivate the fields of
Ceres, and followed by a threat from this most pater-
nal KING to ravage the island with fire and sword,
and to repeat the scenes of Messina in every town in
Sicily, should the Sicilians not at once submit to the
yoke of their illegitimate Sovereign. The Constitu-
tion of Sicily is as old as that of Great Britain.
After having been in uninterrupted existence 700
years, it was reformed in 1812, under the auspices of
England, who, in consideration of the support afforded
to her by Sicily during the war, undertook to
" protect and support" (to use the words of Sir Wu.
A'CouRT) the constitutional liberties of Sicily. That
Constitution, so guaranteed by Great Britain, was
violated and ultimately destroyed by the KING,
and that violation, according to the articles
of the Constitution itself, which the KING
had sworn to observe, and which Great Britain
had guaranteed, involves forfeiture of the crown.
These are facts which cannot be contradicted,
they are patent to all the world, and it is merely
necessary to peruse the Constitution of 1812, and the
ordinances of 1816 and subsequent years, to be con-
vinced that the violation on the part of the KING and
the consequent forfeiture of his crown has taken
place. The Sicilians then are in their right, and Great
Britain by the guarantees she gave in 1812,1814, and
1815 is bound to support them in the whole of their
demands, so long as those demands are confined to the
restoration of the Constitution of 1812, and it is
therefore, on the part of Great Britain, a breach of
national faith, to propose to the Sicilians to accept,
instead of their own Constitution, to which they have
an undoubted right, the unsupported promise of a
notoriously promise-violating KING to grant to them
as of his own free will, a Constitution differing en-
tirely from their ancient Constitution as reformed
under the auspices of England in 1812.
The mediating powers, in consenting to be the
bearers of this offer, have entirely forgotten the rela-
tive position of King FERDINAND and of the Sicilians
He has no power to grant a Constitution to Sicily;
inasmuch as he is no longer de jure King of SICILY.
He bas forfeited his throne by his violation of the
Constitution of 1812, and in point of right and justice,
he is in the position of a person seeking to have that
forfeiture annulled upon terms. Instead of his pro-
mising to grant a Constitution to the Sicilians, it is
for the Sicilians to state the terms and guarantees
upon which they are willing to accept him as KlNG—
and it is upon
,this basis, and this basis only, that
Great Britain should have consented to take any part
in this mediation. The terms now offered to the Sici-
lians by the ii,edia:orN are llot only difTercht from the
Constitution of 1812, bui, are ditioreat from the first
propositions made through the intervention of Lord