The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-16 00:00:00

v111(1111 241 it

LOITDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 16. 1849.

The debate on the resolutions brought forward by f
the llon. Member I3uekingbamshire, and the
amendment thereon proposed by the veteran Member
for iNiontroee, was
after a discussion protracted duringthree entire sit-
tings of the House. Divisions took
place on both
points. The amendment was first rejected a ma-
majority
jority of 324. The original resolutios then byrhnet with
a similar fate—the numerical
1-280 Members l'.ever,
having been reduced to 9
their votes in favour of Ministers, while 189 recording
sup-
ported the views of Mr. DISRAELI, and were wiji
ing to afford him the opportunity he desired of
bringing before a Committee of the whole House the
details of the; great and comprehensive measure with
which,hotted himself to be fully prepared. We
cannot retret the time applied to the consideration of
this iinpottaat subject. Anything relating to the

fiscal burdens of the country cannot be too fully or
too often discussed. That there are crying grievances
cannot fur a moment be contradicted or denied. The
entire system of taxation is erroneous and defective.
It rests on an unstable and rotten foundation. It is
based on injustice, and cannot be regarded
as permanent until a more equitable prin-
ciple be introduced, until every citizen shall
contribute according to his means to the main-
tenance of the national establishments, and the liqui-
dation of the national liabilities. That is the golden
rule that should be brought into operation as speedily
as possible—its justice, its expediency is recognised
by all ; none could be found with sufficient hardi-
hood to question the propriety of such a system. But
unfortunately, here the unanimity ends. Each per-
son is full of the hardships to which his own particu-
lar class is subjected; he expatiates loudly on cases
of individual hardship, and endeavours to cast a portion
of the burden from his own shoulders upon those of his
neighlour, who is perhaps unable to sustain the
weight to which he is already subjected. A snore
statesmanlike, a more general view should, however,
be taken.

" Melius est petere fontes quam sectaz i rivulos."

In place of discussing minor details, and inquiring
into the circumstances of particular imposts, the en-
tire taxation of the country should be investigated.
The amount of the charges and the outgoings of
every description and character, by whatever name
they may be known, should be ascertained. Having
thus determined the lowest amount that would
be required, the charges should then be equitably
assessed, so that every member of the body politic
should bear his just and fair proportion of the general
burden, according to his power, and to the protection
and benefit he receives. This is the only mode by
which a measure adequate to the emergency can be

obtained. If all who felt themselves to be aggrieved
under the existing system united in the demand, no
Government could venture to reject the ap-

plication. " Divide et impera" is, however,
a well-known principle. One class or body
of men are played off against another, and
by fomenting their dissensions, and inflaming

their passions, the dominant. party is enaMed to keep

both down. The power of the one is used as a de-
fence against the aggressions of the other, and
vice versa, and thus the general grievances are
maintained, the iniquitous and vile system is per-
petuated.
A stronger illustration could not be desired, than
was afforded by the divisions of last night. The
agricultural and manufacturing interests were
arrayed in opposing ranks. All those, who with
the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire,
believed that the owners and occupiers of real pro-
perty were unduly taxed, who desired a more equal dis-
tribution of local taxation, flung their weight into
the Ministerial scale, in order to defeat the amend-
ment of the Honourable Member for Montrose. The
189 supporters of Mr. DISRAELI swelled the Govern-
ment majority by their votes. The numbers, con-
sequently, were against the amendment 394, for it
70 ; whereas, if all who desired inquiry, and a
change of system had co-operated together, the
numbers would have been against the amend-
ment 394 189 = 205, for it 70 plus 189 = 259 ;
or, in other words, a majority of 54. On the divi-
sion on the resolutions, the defeated party fully
returned the compliment. The 70 Reformers
achieved the Ministerial triumph by their votes. Had
it been otherwise, the glorious victory would have
been converted into a signal defeat. There would
again have been a decisive majority, 189 plus 70=259
would have outnumbered 280-70=210. The de-
sired investigation would thus have been obtained,
and the side of truth and justice would ultimately
have prevailed.

It is, on this well-understood principle,
that we invariably find the leading men
of the different parties, those who are either actually
in the enjoyment of official rank and emolument, or
who anticipate the arrival of that happy period, oppo-
sing every inquiry unless the object of that inquiry is
clearly indicated. It is not sufficient to show the
existence of gross injustice, of grievous hardships,
unless the nature of the proposed remedy is clearly
indicated and explained to the House. It would
indeed be strange if it were not of such a character as

to excite the hostility cr alArm the prejudices
of some few whose voices might prove suf-
ficiently potential to turn the nicely- bilanced
scale. Thus we find the R;ght llon. Member for
the University of Cambridge—a quondam and per-
haps a future Chancellor of the Exchequer—an-
nouncing to the effect that he could not consent to
go into Committee to arrange a change of taxation
unless he had a tolerably gcod idea of what that
change was to be. This is true official strategy, the
manoeuvre invariably resorted to. Mr. DISRAELI,
with an acute perception of the system, withheld his
project until he should lay it with all its
details before the Committee. He explained
the nature of the grievance he intended
to remedy, but he did not indicate the mode by
which it was to be carried into execution. It was
forthwith assumed that he contemplated an increase
of the property and income-tax, with all its inequali-
ties, and torrents of eloquence were poured out in
opposition to the phantom, and his motion was con-
sequently rejected. So it hes ever been, and so it
will ever be, until those who are justly dissatisfied
with the existing state of things :agree to lay aside
their minor differences, and, for once at least, to
unite in obtaining a full investigation into the
general system, with a view to the removal
of every grievance. Why, we ask, might not all
parties coalesce in supporting a motion for the ap-
pointment of a Committee to take into their conside-.
ration the general system of taxation, with a view of
ascertaining what changes, if any, would be expe-
dient and equitable ? Surely the suffrages of all
parties might be united to carry a resolution that
would not pledge the house to the adoption of any
particular course, but which would give all classes
and interests full opportunities of being heard in their
own defence. We offer this suggestion for the guid-
ance of those who are justly dissatisfied with the
present state of affairs.

According to an opinion expressed by the cele-
brated American essayist, RALPH WALDO EMERSON,
immediately on his return from Great Britain to the
United States—the chief characteristic of English.
men is pluck! And there are certainly two associ-
ations situated respectively in Yorkshire and Lan-
cashire who have within the last few days been en-
deavouring to afford the remark something like a dis-
tinct verification. Unfortunately the penalties of
their contention must have fallen in the first instance,
in the event of any disaster, upon the public. It
may be all very pleasant for the pointsmen
or switchers of two belligerent lines of
railway to have a tussle about the pas-
sage of a train,—it may be capital fun (and
doubtless it was capital fun) for the engine-drivers of
the East Lancashire Company and of the Lancashire
and Yorkshire Company to back their locomotives,
buffer against buffer, and try who could conquer or
blow up first—it is possibly an agreeable as well as a
facetious mode of interrupting the monotony of rail-
way duties to erect temporary fortifications across an
arterial line as complacently as Uncle TOBY and Cor-
poral TRIM constructed ditches and counterscarps in
btlelery skittle-groundbut all that we would im-
plore of railway
at the end Gf the shrub-
directors and their
future feel dis-
posed
subor-
dinates,to
rwechreenaetvee
in
h •
that they will avoid im-
perilling they
themselves rnsay with these innocent little
explosions of pugnacity, la,
the lives of her MAJESTY'SIiege
inter-
fering so very rashly with their general convenience.
and
nvenience.
As luck would have it, the quarrel which we are about
to submit to consideration was attended with no
melancholy catastrophe, although the most fatal con-
sequences might have resulted from the insane
wrath of its promoters. It is from this circum-
stance alone that we are enabled to regard with
a feeling of good humoured derision an occurrence
that might otherwise have ext:ited merely horror
and indignation.
From the accounts which have already been pub-
lished, in reference to the recent dispute between
those two great northern associations, it would appear
that the East Lancashire Company have been per-
mitted,until towards the close of last week, to run their
trains over three or four miles of the line belonging to
the Lancashire anclYorkshire Rail way—affording com -
pensatiou for that privilege by paying certain ttipu-