The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-25 00:00:00

7T manufactories, or of any other description of pro-

A Ereuen thargLai might have tiund Tamworth a
comfortable residence, end its rent•roll a convenient
reward for his exertions in conquering the country.
The fundhoider could not have expected any other
return for having done all in his power to prevent the
success of the invader, than the sponge; he played
his game, 10-t it, and must bear the consequences.
The owners of all property would have been subject
to forced contributions, rapine, and confiscation. A
Davoust in London, Liverpool, Manchester, or Bris-
tol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Dublin, would have
committed precisely the same acts which Davoust did
at Hamburgh.
For whose benefit then was it that the invasion of
the country was successfully resisted ? " For the
owners of property," will be the answer of every
honest man; and who but a dishonest one would
say that they ought not to pay the price of their suc-
cessful efforts?

Admitted that in the breast of every Englishman,
Scotchman, mid Irishman, there exists a feeling that
their cou.itry shall not be invaded. Did they not
freely shed their blood to prevent it on many a well-
fought field; and is it just to make their relatives and
friends also pay for the same objects for which they
died ?

The Gallic Lord of Tamworth would have em-
ployed the labourer, and must have given him wages
sufficient -to support himself and family, or it would
be physically impossible for him to perform his work.
What more does he obtain under the existing state
of things ?
Have I not thus established my first proposition ?
Have I not proved that the owners of property reaped
all the benefit from the non- invasion of the country ?
Have I not proved thatit is discreditably dishonest in
them not to pay the cost of their success ?
2d. lily next proposition is to prove that it would be
very easy to pay of the debt.
1 will take Mr. Macgregor's estimate—as good an
authority as any—of the annual value of the realised
property in the United Kingdom, at 220,000,0001.—
it may or may not be exaggerated—l have an ample
revenue, and could throw off many millions, and yet
attain my object of paying off the debt.
This property is worth from ten to thirty years'
purchase, and therefore I will take an average of
twenty years. The two hundred and twenty millions,
at twenty years' purchase, would produce four bil-
lions four hundred and forty millions. Many of you
will ask, what is a billion ? it is a million millions ;
look at the figures :

£220,000,000 annual revenue from realised property.
20 years' purchase.

£4,400,000,000 value of rcalizod property.
Now, only five per cent. on this sum would
produce more than sufficient to pay off the National
Debt. Five per cent. only ; and I would give the
parties liberty to pay it either at once, or by annual
instalments spread over ten years, with interest in the
meantime at 4 per cent.
Now, have I not proved my second proposition ?
That it would be very easy to pay off the debt.
I will not now trouble you with figures, showing
how a portion of the debt might be converted into an
cuities, or how the annual instalments would be ap-
plied to the extinction of the debt ; these are matters
of detail which would be ;_easily arranged by men of
business, but I will now proceed to prove my third
proposition, which will probably astonish you more
than the preceding.
3d. That it would be very profitable to pay off the
debt.

Yet this proposition will be most clearly established
merely by a Dr. and Cr. account of an individual
contributor, showing what he would have to pay on
the one side, and the benefit he would receive on the
other—figures which every one of you are capable of
checking if erroneous.
Take the case of a person possessed of landed pro-
perty, with a rental of 1,0001. per annum. This,
valued at thirty years' purchase, is 30,0001. ll's
quota of payment would be five per cent. on this sum,
or 1,500/.

Supposing that he was unable to pay this sum, he
would have either to sell a portion of his land or
borrow the money, or pay it off by annual instal-
ments in ten years, with four per cent. interest until
it was paid.
Some would prefer one mode and some another.
There would not be the least difficulty in borrowing
the money at four per cent., probably less, in conse-
quence of the number of those fuudholders, who being
paid off, would desire another investment without
purchasing land.
By the subjoined table you will see that if he bor-
rowed the money at four per cent., his annual inte-
rest would be 601. per annum ; and on the other side
you will see, that at this moment he annually pays
60/. on three articles in direct taxation.

DR.
Interest on 1,5001. it 4 per cent. ..

CR. .f.
Present Property Tax, 3 per cent. upon his income
of 1,0001. per annum ... .. .. .. 30
Assessed Taxes .. .. .. .. ... 20
Window Tax .. .. ... ... .. 10

£6O

You see he would be no loser if he paid only the
above taxes, and they were repealed when he was as-
sessed five per cent. to pay off the debt ; but you
well know the large sum an individual with 1,0001.
per annum pays for taxes on articles in the list 1 have
ennumerated, and which would be reduced to such an
extent !

Then consider these articles—malt, hops, soap,
paper, wood, insurance stamps, &c.—the duty on
which would entirely cease; and what a sum he
would save in consequence of those he employs having
their taxes so much reduced ! In diminished poor's-
rates alone, the inevitable result of the employment
necessarily consequent upon such a measure, he
would save a large sum.
Tell me then honestly, have I not proved beyond
doubt that it would be very profitable to pay off the
National Debt ?

Yet I have kept the most important item to the
last. I believe none who have studied the subject
will be disposed to deny, that if the National Debt
was fairly paid off, land and every description of pro-
perty would rise enormously in value. Forty years'
purchase would be more easily obtained with no debt,
than thirty years' as at present; and if this were so,
then deducting the 601. per annum which he has paid
for his contribution, his 9401. per annum would at
forty years' purchase produce 37,6001., 0r7,6001. more
than its present value.
Is not honesty the best policy ?
The fundholder would be in the same position—
his Dr. and Cr. account precisely the same—he would
obtain the same benefit from the taxes which were
repealed, as well as from those which were reduced.
Ile would purchase land at thirty years' purchase
with the money with which he was paid off; and
this, in a few years, would be of much greater value.
And the owner of railroad property : it is hardly
too much to expect that he would receive a far greater
benefit than either.

Little remains for me to say : speaking of in-
dividuals, I have, I think, proved the three propo-
sitions :

Ist. That it is dishonest for property not to pay off
the National Debt.

2d. That it would be easy to do so.
3d. That it would be very profitable to do so.
Who will 'deny the advantages the nation would
receive in a national sense? Who ventures to attack
the strong ? And what nation can be stronger than
that in which every individual finds himself and
family in comfortable circumstances ; instead of being
the heaviest, the subjects of these realms would be
the lightest taxed persons in the world.
It is unnecessary to trouble Sou with those details
which would be necessary to facilitate the carrying
out the measure—important no doubt, but still a
mere matter of business—easily arranged. Let the
public shout for the payment of the National Debt,
and I will show you how easily my plan could be
worked.

A parting word to the owners of property, espe-
cially the aristocracy. Ido not say the handwriting
is on the wall, but there are parties, and powerful
ones, desirous of fixing upon you the payment of the
greater part of the taxes.
The Liverpool Financial Association was formed
for this specific purpose. It is yet in its infancy ;
it has not yet used the argument that the war having
for its end the protection of property, the expenses
ought to be paid by property—when it does, it will
attain a giant's growth with a giant's strength.
Put not your trust in the oligarchy—confide not
in red -tapists ; or again will be played over the game
of catholic emancipation, the loaded dice of the corn-
law. Act in public as you do in private life--if a
debt be honest discharge it yourselves instead of em-
ploying an attorney.
Mr. Macgregor, an able financier, one who has
studied the subject, and not a man of extreme views
upon any question, has proposed that you should pay
five per cent. upon your incomes—a mild beginning.
Will any of you, who have studied history otherwise
than as an old almanac, not infinitely prefer the adop
tion of my plan, and the country without a National
Debt ?

Five per cent. upon property would take from the
party whose case I have stated in the preceding remarks
50/. per annum ; and he would still be loaded with
his share of other taxes to the amount of forty-one
millions. By the plan I propose he would only pay
60/. per annum—the country freed from the National
Debt, and himself only liable for his share of a taxa-
tion very little exceeding twenty millions.
And then how easily the five per cent. might be
doubled or trebled !
Believe lie,
Your very faithful and obedient servant,
RIGBY WASON.