The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-29 00:00:00

rt:ittee on the Expenditure of the County Ratea•
he3e Gentlemen will find ample amusement from
the Perusal of this work, and moreover it will
furnish food for deep and serious meditation
during the Christmas holidays. They will 5"
to its Pages the gradual increase of this tax, from
the year 1792 to the year 1823; but in order
that this monitory volume may produce the best
'frect, We would advise them to look to the total
ree6pts of the year 179'3, and, passing over all
the interveninm years, look at the receipt for
"It year 1823, and we believe then they will
scaredy credit the fact. There, however, it
t'lt'ds recorded before them, and credible or
"ti they must make the best of the statement.
aut with the County Rate generally it is not
eur intention to deal, we shall simp4 refer to one
branch of its expenditure—a branch, however,
of flinch more importance to the country than
"" the expenditure of the immense sum it oc-
""us—we mean the prosecution of offenders.—
/34 this subject the short report which pre-
ctdes the very valuable evidence, and appendix
6f Returns, in this volume, has these remarks :
They observe, with regret, from the accounts of the Tree-
s:rats of Counties from 1792,. to 1823, that a gradual increass
ar occurred in the expence of prosecutions, both from the
number of prosecutions and the increased expence of each.
hey refer the house to the whole of the printed returns
they have stated the amount in 1792, "r'd 1123' as
keing the first and last
years, and the years 1816 and 1017,
'w‘ere taken to spew the increase in two successive years.
rout 17 counties no accounts have been returned; in 1792
tr::1 1016 and 1817, four counties are deficient in their returns.
11 Ith these allowancris, the totals for those
years appear as
,

17`•2 • 14C3,117 1817 -- 143047
1-810 2g,678 1023 -- 70,647

Thus then we have the expellee of public pro-
secutions in 1792 at 83,977, anti 1823, f 76,647,
'nighty difference, and withal, totally inexpli-
:able. But to proceed, another part of this vo-
"lrne gives a scale of allowances for prosecutions
IN
the County of Sussex; and it seems thereby,
that Olt the prosecution of John Gower, for stealing
cdrPenters' tools, value 25., the expences of his
'votlyiction at the Assizes reached the sum of
1;41' 183. 6d., anti if the conviction had been be-
the Quarter Sessions, they would have been
61' 7s. 6d. only. The use the Committee make
,r this first fact is to bring forward their proposal,
that the expence of prosecutions at the Assizes
4411 be defrayed out of the general funds of the
Country—in plainer terms, by the Govern-

n~~i~t.

In recommending this proposition to the House,
the Committee has failed to make use of the last
fact and set forth only the first, which we believe,
81',11 he thought by many in common with our-
L_
hardly sufficient to support the proposal.
It is trot contended that a shifting of the burden
from
°lt' hand to another would diminish the
-Pence, but it is assumed that because the ex-
-1'"11c so large it is at all events desirable to
1, -e,oey,
the County rate of such payment. An
"gumption resting on no foundation, were it
Qt for the second fact, which we have above
itxhihited.—Not that we imagine that even
this fact is at all conclusive on the point, for we
ac"°wledge we can see no reason why the
c
utsnty should not pay the expences of pro-
secutions before the Judges of Assize, as well
RI those before the Quarter Sessions. In
truth, however, the expence must eventually
b
Paid by the State ; and in this point of view,
is matter of small importance whether the
; 1;ulley is obtained by direct or indirect taxation.
14 this is not the question, for the Committee
k "uw that by a transfer of the expence from the
_
Quilty to the Government the trade of the
t:woluntry would be made to pay that expence
Itch had hitherto fallen on the land alone.
°lv far this is just and reasonable we will not
etertnint, but we will take upon ourselves to
sag that their observation " that the greater
"mber of offences committed are aggressions
'4; the increased and increasing chattel property
t'trtlul kingdom,. the charge of prosecuting which
.e.uces filti:"-exclusively on the poor-rate," IS
:frtli": and " entitled to little weight. Criminal
I -"lc" are io their very nature mostly confined
I:
chattel property, as it is here called, and we
I
'f}l°4ld obliged to any person to point out any
:-etice against the land which may not be the
üblict of summary conviction before a single or
's" Magistrates, except one or two capital felo-
I 111"• So that if the distinction attempted to be
1.
hetweeu offences against personal property
;1141 offences against real property, were worth any
,"Ig at all, the expence of prosecutions, whether
` the Assizes or the Quarter Sessions should be
defrayed by
the State at large, and not by a
district
of that State. Moreover criminal offences
"
ay be committed against the person,and what then
becomes of this distinction ? or are we to suppose
ti
lat a Gentleman of landed property is less tote-
rtlted in the protection of his person than a trader
merchant, and therefore ex in termini entitled