The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-09 00:00:00

difficulties %Nould be comple!ely obviated by taxing it
wheresoever situate for the general purposes of
the nation, including therein those local charges
which the Hon. Gentleman clearly proved were fur
national objects, such as the support of the poor,
the punishment of criminals, &c. Indeed the in-
justice of making the sums levied for those objects

merely local rates, was never more forcibly exposed
than in the course of his brilliant oration.

The remedy proposed was, however, by no means
equivalent to the extent of the grievance. Mr.
DISRAELI suggests " that the present system of local
administration remaining, the present levy of rates
continuing, the local districts shall be responsible fur
one moiety of this taxation, and that the other moiety
shall be contributed from the Consolidated Fund."
This conclusion is not worthy of the arguments
advanced by the Honourable Gentleman. Ile said,
" I know of no reason a priori why the mainte-
nance of the poor should be the duty of a locality."
Why, then, suffer half the burden to remain—why
not equalize the tax throughout the entire king-
dom,, abolish the law of settlement, and permit the
poor man to bring his only capital, his labour, to
the best market. All the objectionable points of
the sy tem would be continued, and no advantage
would be derived by any. These charges, perhaps,
to some extent form portions of the compensating
principle to which we have already alluded. The

entire system, then, should be taken into considers.

on, that all may be legislated on fairly and

mpartially.

Thanks to the Noble Viscount the Member for
Hertford, the Government was last ever,ing afforded
an opportunity of explaining their intentions in re-
gard to convict discipline and the system of trans-
portation. Often as Sir GEORGE GREY, in the
House of Commons, has elucidated the views enter-
tained by her 110.itivry's advisers upon the embar-
rassing and almosi problematic difficulties of this
vexata questio—often as Earl GREY, in the House
of:Lords, has endeavoured to extricate his ideas upon
the subject from the obscurity of his indeci-ion, the
matter has preserved to the country, and even
to the Parliament, the darkness of an in-
scrutable enigma. That the Cabinet should
have hesitated, and deliberated, and wavered upon a
point of so much delicacy and importance cannot be
surprising to any one,-wiirli at.all acquainted with
the dangers and obstructions that have to be either
avoided or overcome in the great science of criminal
jurisprudence. When the overpopulation of our
penal settlements was borne in mind, it was ma-
nifest that an end, at least for a while, must be
put to transportation. When the hideous' crimes
and atrocities prevalent in such terrestrial hells
learnt with dismay in
as Norfolk Island was
the mother country, it became Self-evident
that some modification of the system adopted in the
treatment of those wretched criminals had grown into
an imperative necessity—a necessity forced upon our
rulers by considerations of economy, of policy, of
morality, of decency, and of religion. When the
enormous sums expended in the punishment of those
who had broken the laws of the land or of GOD were
correctly estimated, it was clear that some scheme
must be contrived to effect a retrenchment in that
extravagant expenditure, and especially at a time
when economy, economy, economy was becoming
the watch-word of agitation. Every reflection im-
pelled the Ministry to reconsider the whole system of
the country in reference to the repression of crime,
or to the chastisement of criminals, in order that
some improvements might be introduced whEreby

the outlay would be diminished, the penal settlements
proportionately populated, the hulks rendered less

liable to propagate disease, end the prisons to pro-
pagate infamy ; by which, moreover, the-convicts
might be gradually tempted into habits of industry and
ultimately become reclaimed to, a reputable, if not
to a virtuous, existence. Incited by these wishes,
and driven on by this necessity, the Government
made certain alterations in the treatment of the per-
sons under sentence of transportation or imprison-
ment. The former punishment was mitigated in
some quarters, and in others altogether (or at least
for the time) abolished. The latter was subjected
to a variety a humane experiments. Among these

question must be regarded. The justice and expe-
diency of the proposed or the existing impost must
be considered. How far can it be fairly levied on
the parties made responsible ? Should it be borne
by them exclusively ? or should any other, and what,
classes participate in the burden ? In order to come
to a correct conclusion on those points—to enable
ourselves to return trustworthy answers, the purposes
to which the proceeds of the tax are to be applied
must be inquired
,into, and it must be ascertained
what class or classes of the community wilLbe prin-
cipally benefited thereby.
Under ordinary circumstances the abstract princi-
ple of the justice of the charge should prove decisive.
However desirable in other respects, no mere consi-
deration of policy or expediency could justify a deli-
berate wrong, but, unfortunately, some degree of
injustice must be committed. Every impost pos
sesses more or less inequality. Taxation in any shape
is not a blessing, but still it is a necessary evil. We
must satisfy the claims of the public creditor, however
onerous and burdensome they may prove. We
must provide for the efficiency of our national estab-
lishments, for the administration of justice, and the
repression of crime—in fact, for all purposes tending
to the protection of our lives, our liberties, and our
properties, and which enable us to enjoy the greatest
degree of freedom consistent with the interests of
society in genera). We must consent, then, to con-
tribute to the national burdens in proportion to our
means, to bear our portions of the general charges.
It is the tribute we pay to society for the various
advantages we derive from being admitted as
members of the body politic. We surrender
a certain portion of our natural liberties in order that
we may obtain the fullest guarantcea for the preser-
vation of the remainder, and, among other points,, we
concede to the governing body, chosen by the general
assent of society, the privilege of taxation, which
they are entitled to levy for the general good.
It will then become a question of relative equities
between the different classes. One description of
taxation may perhaps press too heavily on one section
of the community; but it may be compensated by
another, from which they may be com-
paratively exempted, and which will fall
almost exclusively upon their neighbours.
The great end and object of financial reformers should
be, so to regulate the various charges that every in-
dividual should contribute as nearly as possible in
proportion to his means, that the burden should be
distributed according to the ability of those required
to su-tain it. That is not, and cannot be the case
under the present mode of replenishing the national
Exchequer. Indirect taxation is essentially and ne-
cessarily unjust in principle and unequal in operation,
and matters can never be placed upon an equitable and
satisfactory footing until there be a complete and
radical alteration in the entire system.
Now, the propositions just brought forward by the
eloquent and witty Member for Buckinghamshire
apply but to a very small portion of the social griev-
ance. He offers no great or comprehensive remedy
for the acknowledged evil—he would not even remove
the, malt-tax or the tax on hops, although he recog-
nises the injury thereby inflicted upon the agricultu-
ral interest, whose especial champion he professes
himself to be. His motion is exclusively directed
against the local burdens which press with peculiar
weight, not merely on the agriculturists, properly so
called, but on the owners of real property
generally, including shopkeepers, manufacturers, in
tact, householders of every description ; on railways,
factories, iron works, and other species of property
that have no connexion whatever with farms or far-
mers. He demonstrated clearly and incontrovertibly
the injustice of levying those rates on one description
of property only, of assessing the amount on one-
fourth of the property of the entire kingdom, while
the remaining three-fourths were exempted from the
charge. 'We agree to the fullest extent with the
Honourable Gentleman that there is no
earthly reason why the entire property, not
merely of a district, but of the entire
country should not be liable for at least the majority
of these charges. There would undoubtedly be con
siderable difficulty in taxing the personal property in
a locality for local purposes. Innumerable controver-
sies would arise, and much vexatious and expensive
litigation would be the result. It would be invidious
and inquisitorial, perhaps impossible. But