The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We have repea►edly adverted to the inequality of the
land tax, and stated the arguments for a more just distri-
bution of its pressure. In some districts it is felt as a
heavy burden ; in others the sum raised under that name
hears so small a proportion to the value of the property
on which it is assessed, as to be scarcely worth notice.
Thus the whole sum assessed on the extensive, populous,
and wealthy county of Lancaster, including Liverpool
(the second commercial town in the kingdom), Manches-
ter, Preston, Bolton, and several other considerable towns,
is only 20,989/., while the cities of London and West-
minster (without including the county of Middlesex) pay
1116,491/. But the assessments on smaller dis ricts,
towns, or parishes, are still more disproportioned to the
value of their respective property. Thus the large and
wealthy city of Bath pays only 433/. 6s. as land tax,
while the decayed town of Winchilsea (in which there
are not more than forty or fifty inhabited houses) is as-
sessed at 405/. But to come nearer home. We find that
some of the parishes in the metropolis are assessed at a large
per tentage on their valued rental, while the charge in others
is almost nominal. In the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn,
the land tax amounts to Is. 3d. in the pound ; in the pa-
rish of St. Paul, Covent-garden, to 2s. 4d ; while in
Mary'ehone it is only a small fraction of a farthing !
Jpon the above-mentioned parish of St. Andrew, Hol
horn, and St. George the Martyr, whose rental amounts
only to 116,0001., the sum of 9,018/. is levied, while
Marylebene pays only 492/. out of a rental of 720,0001. !
This tax, it is well known, was imposed and assessed by
the 4th of William and Mary, the provisions of which
Were continued by successive statutes till Mr. Pitt's Act,
of 1798, under which it has ever since been collected.
Its first distribution was no doubt intended to be equal,
and might have approached to equality; but the total
change which has since taken place in the property of
particular districts within more than a century and a
quarter—a change produced by the successful cultivation
of land then lying waste, by the t stablishment of manu-
facturing towns where no manufactures then existed,
and even by the erection of populous cities, or
quarters of cities where no building had then com-
menced—renders the ancient assessment totally in-
applicable to present circumstances. As well might
the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present day
propose to recur to the old plan of fifteenths and subsidies,
as retain the assessment of the land tax made upwards of a
century ago. These facts have been again pressed upon our
attention by a meeting of the governors and directors of the
united parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. George-

the. Martyr (on which the assessment falls with severe
, pressure), who have resolved to petition Parliament for
a total abolition, or a more equal distribution, of the land
tax. Their petition, along with a printed statement
railed their " case," now lies before us. Both papers are
remarkably well drawn up, and are calculated to produce
a strong impression. One of the chief objections, or
rather the only objection, to any change which would
equalize the distribution of the tax, is the pledge of a
perpetual arrangement which seems to be implied in the
perenis.ion granted to proprietors by the Act of 1798 to
redeem tl•eir land-tax. On this subject we may quote
the following passage from the "case" of the petitioners,
without having room at present to enter ourselves on the
discussion :
" Difficulties have been suggested to an equalization of this
tax, by reason of the transactions which have taken place
under the Land-tax Redemption Acts; but it is submitted,
that no objections can be raised if the properties whereon the
land-tax has been redeemed are continued exempt; and as an
adjustment must sooner or later be effected, when those
places upon which the tax now presses so heavily become fur-
ther decayed, and consequently unable to raise the quota as-
sessed upon them, it will be better to arrest the evil at once,
and secure to the revenue all the benefit capable of being
derived from a fair assessment.
" The sum directed to be raised for land-tax in England
and Wales, by the statute 38 Geo. 111., is 1,989,6731., of
which the amount redeemed is under 720,000/., or little
more than a third ; and it is estimated, that if the unredeemed
portion of the tax were equalised, at a rate of Is. in the pound,
an increase to the revenue would accrue from it of 1,500,0001.
a year, and if also the future assessments were to be made
according to the alterations of property, a much stronger in-
ducement would exist for all persons to redeem, and thus the
tax might be got rid of altogether."—Times.

The Ministry received not one but " three warnings"
last week—such warnings as ought to make them sensible,
if not thoroughly infatuated, of the instability of power
not founded upon principle—not exercised for any higher
or nobler object than that of the selfish aggrandisement of
the party who enjoy it, consequently having no moral
strength, no hold upon the respect or affections of a think-
ing or enlightened people. The first warning was upon
the motio❑ of Mr. Harvey fur a Committee on the" Pen-
sion List." The second, on the motion of Lord Chandos
for relief to the agricultural interests. The third, on Sir
Elia aril Knatchbull's motion for the discharge of the order
relative to the case of Mr. Baron Smith. On the two
former of these motions the Ministry had such small ma-
jorities as to show that the sense of the House was de
cidedly against them ; those majorities being loss tha❑ the
number of Ministers actually in the House. and voting
in their own defence. In the last case the Ministers,
as the public are aware, were willing to sacrifice one of
the best friends of order, peace, and, we will add, of libe-
ral government in Ireland, to propitiate the reckless agi-
tators who would have dragged as a criminal from the
Bench the upright and venerable Judge, whose great
offence was his intrepid denunciation of the factious
violence that threatened to dissolve the very elements of
society. In this instance the Cabinet, with the exception
of Sir James Graham, acted the part of men not only re-
gardless of principle, but bereft of understanding. The
House of Commons, however, haying had time to reflect
upon the injustice committed in the first instance, and
being enabled, through the aid of the press, to perceive the
pernicious consequences of the precedent which it was
about to establish against the independence of the bench,
retraced its steps, and restored the intended victim to that
unsullied purity of reputation at which political malevo-
lence aimed its envenomed but unavailing shafts. I❑ this
instance Ministers seemed to have courted dishonour, and
to have rushed at the heels of Mr. O'Connell into dis.
graceful defeat. But now that Ministers have been de-
feated their retainers of the press pretend that the
charge against Mr. Baron Smith was not entertained
as a ministerial question. If it were not taken up
as a ministerial question, the defensive explanation
which Sir James Graham gave of his vote wou'd
not only ❑ot have been necessary, but unseason-
able and obtrusive. The gist of that explanation
was, that the Ministers had previously come to a
unanimous resolution to oppose Mr. O'Connell's mo-
tion, and that afterwards they suddenly changed that
determination and made an evolution to the opposite side,
when he fell out of the ranks, and did so, he declared, as
his only means of preserving his independence of cha-
racter. Now, if the question were not a Ministerial one,
Sir James Graham would have knot n that every Mem-
ber of the Cabinet was free to vote as he pleased, with-
out being obliged to give reasons to account for an appa-
rent act of mutiny to the command of Lord Alfhorp.
Indeed, a Ministerial paper subsequently stated that the
example established in the case of Sir Henry Parnell, on
the Russian-Dutch loan job, would not be followed, as if
the non-dismissal of the First Lord of the Admiralty from
the Cabinet were a stretch of indulgent consideration on
the part of his colleagues, though his offence was the
same as that of the Honourable Member for Dundee;
hut unless there was Ministerial constraint on the votes
of the Members of the Government there was no insub-
ordination. Besides, until the Ministers were defeated, all
the journals which usually support the Government treated
the question as a Ministerial one. The chief Morning
Paper that supports them, but which on this occasion
preferred the view which the insubordinate Sir James
Graham and Mr. Spring Rice took of the question to that
of their colleagues, thus spoke on Friday :—" Upon the
whole of this question, we are deeply concerned at the
course which his Majesty's Ministers have thought them-
selves on this occasion compelled to follow—to us it ap-
pears, though a well-intentioned, a most erroneous course.
It is not the first time Ministers have bad the mis-
fortune to cause regret, not altogether unmixed with
astonishment, at their extreme and gratuitous subser-
viency to requests which ought not to have been com-
plied with, or commands which ought to have been
decidedly, but most respectfully disobeyed." Who gave
the Ministers the commands here alluded to?—let us
see. The same journal proceeded as follows :—" The
Court is an appendage to the Monarchy, but neither a
responsible Minister nor a great nation can, nor ought,
to be an appendage to the Court. Be that as it may,
nothing was ever more humiliating than to see a well-
meaning, and, i❑ many points, an estimable Administra-
lion, ignorant of its own intrinsic strength, and acting as
it it were conscious it lived by sufferance only. It mor-
tifies the true friends and steady supporters of a reform
Government to see its direction vacillating, and its foot•
steps tottering, crutching itself up one day by Radicals
and next by Tories, that it may, at last, be divided by
both, and possibly smashed between them. In one short
week a triumph has been achieved for Irish anarchy, and
for ultra-Tory corruption." Here we see the charge of
Mr. O'Connell against Mr. Baron Smith treated pre-
cisely on the same footing in reference to the Cabinet, as
Mr. Harvey's motion relative to the pension list—that is,
both are treated as Ministerial questions, the one being

supported, and the other opposed, not by some Members
of the Ministry, but by the Administration itself. Yet
the Morning Paper from which we have quoted the above
passage declared, the very next day, that is, the day after
the defeat of Ministers, that the change in favour of
" Irish anarchy" was not treated as a Ministerial ques-
tion ! But, passing that by, when their admiring friends
give such an account of the vacillation, imbecility, and
want of fixed principle which mark the policy of the
Whig Ministers, what more severe criticism can be levelled
at them by the independent portion of the press ? We
will only add to it, that, if the " reform Ministry" does
not become a reformed Ministry, the nation will look out
for more faithful stewards of its interests. In plain lan-
guage, it will have hoaester men! —Morning Herald.
We are not enabled to add any information with respect
to the intentions of Sir William Horne. Marylebone is
hotly canvassed, in the belief, no doubt, that he will see
cause to change his mind. We presume Ministers will
avail themselves of their brief respite to agree upon some
system of action more in accordance with the ordinary
maxims of prudence than that on which they acted dur-
ing the past week. It may or may not be creditable to
the House of Commons occasionally to vote one thing
one day and another the next; but it never can be
creditable to a Ministry to allow one portion of them
to be seen speaking and voting against the rest. Cabi-
net discussions ought not to be continued out of the Ca-
binet. If Mr. Littleton is opposed in Irish questions
to day by Sir James Graham and Mr. Spring Rice,
we may expect Lord John Russell and Mr. S anley
to be moving a vote of censure on Lord Palmerston for
his foreign policy. The Scripture says, a house divided
against itself cannot stand. What Sir James Graham
may think we know not. But we have no wish to make
matters worse by any remarks of ours. It may easily be
conceived that cause of offence has been given and offence
has been taken. We trust all may yet be well, and that
the past will only be remembered to avoid splitting en the
same rock in future. It would indeed be greatly to be
lamented if well-intentioned men, in whom the country
has great confidence, and who have made such progress in
many questions of vital importance to the nation, could
not avoid scene like those of last week. Mr. Spankie is
a dangerous adviser for Sir James Graham ; and least the
latter should be so far carried away by the Learned Ser-
geants Toryism, aslto forget that he has colleagues, it would
lie well if he were to take precautions. But we will say
no more.—Morning Chronicle.