The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-22 00:00:00

to reduce the public expenditure, there be an
unavoidable and recognised necessity for such a
tax at all—a fact to be first demonstrated. But
how the framers of this project dream of de-
luding the manufacturing and commercial classes
by the asseveration that an inquisitorial tax upon
their capital (for such is the proposal) would be
an immense relief to their distresses, is more

;han we can explain. Moreover, this property-
tax is to be a substitute for all other taxes what-

soever ! Marvellous ! All other taxes now pro-
duce a revenue of some 47,000,0001. per an-
num ; so that, supposing we strike off the odd
7,000,0001.,—a trifling sacrifice to economy
and the luxury of round numbers,—we should
be blessed with a property-tax of 40,000,0001.,
a-year, equivalent to at least 52,000,0001. of the
currency of 1813, at which period both property
and income tax in one produced but 14,000,0001.
annually,—that is to say, the present property-
tax would be near four times greater than the
old one, or 40 per cent. upon the means of that
part of the community which has any means of
support but daily labour,—seeing that the tax
artificer would commence with incomes—ay,
and temporary incomes, too—of 751. a-year.
He never seems to be aware that a deduction
of 40 per cent. from the revenues of the opu-
lent would diminish, by just so much, the fund
for employing and paying the poor,—a direct
tax on property being a manifest subtraction
from the purchase-money of labour. Upon the
whole, the case is not made out in the tract
alluded to, though, at the same time, we are
far from alleging that the fate of the property.
tax is to be concluded by the fallacies of its
advocate.— Times.

It gave us much satisfaction to perceive, by
the Mansion-house report in Tuesday's Chro-
nicle, that the Lord Mayor, in the case of three
young men, brought before him, charged with
having broken into and entered a warehouse,
and stolen therefrom several articles, obtained a
confession, in answer to a question avowedly put
to obtain all the information his Lordship could
get. Alderman Scholey was quite horror-struck.
The Worthy Alderman thought such a course
might lead prisoners to say what was " prejudi-
cial to them." 0, for God's sake, let us be
careful lest any thief should, by possibility, say
anything against himself. Alderman Scholey
may rest assured, that the witness least disposed
to prejudice a person is that person himself.
Men charged with crimes are not much disposed,
in general, to add to the evidence against them.
But if they have no reluctance to make a clean
breast, we do not see why a Magistrate, whose
object ought to be to protect the public, should
be restrained from endeavouring to obtain as
much information as possible, because it may
chance to prejudice a prisoner. Sir Peter
Laurie said, " it was his determination always to
question persons charged before him with offences;
that he considered it very great nonsense to
caution prisoners not to say anything calculated
to criminate themselves, or to induce them to say
they were not guilty, when they knew in their con-
sciences they were guilty. In his opinion such
conduct was opposite to reason and common
sense." Prejudice a prisoner ! Why hanging
a prisoner is prejudicing him, yet we hang him
when proof of his guilt has been obtained. A
prisoner is entitled to justice, but no favour.
The business is not to prejudice the public, and
not to be unjust towards a prisoner. With all
the pains we can possibly take to discover crime,
we shall always find great difficulties in our way;
and there can be no mind surely for adding to
the difficulties of excluding any evidence. The
best possible evidence against any man, and
the worst for him, is himself. Other wit-
nesses may have motives to criminate a pri-
soner falsely ; but the prisoner himself can have
no such motive. The maxim which Alderman
Scholey repeats by rote, is derived from times
very different from the present, when it had
its use. To question a man in former times
was to torture him ; and it was no doubt unjust
to compel a man to criminate himself to avoid
suffering. It was, therefore, a just maxim ap-
plied to such a state of things that a man should
not be compelled to prejudice himself. But in
our days, when no witness can be compelled to
say more than he likes, why should he be cau-
tioned to hold his tongue ? Society has no in-
terest, surely, that a thief should escape. What-
ever adds to the chances of escape of guilt is an
evil, a great evil. It adds to the amount of
crime, to the loss of the community, and the
amount of punishment in the end. One would
suppose that the instructors of English Magis-
trates were the thieves, for many of their maxims
are such as we might expect thieves to inculcate.
However, as the maxims tend to increase Old
Bailey practice, it is not difficult to account for
the favour they find.—Morning Chronicle.
The speech of the King of the French to the
Chambers, which we published in our paper of
yesterday, has been taken by our liberal con
temporaries to mean well, to mean ill, and to
mean nothing at all. For the Times tells us
that the speech of the King of the French " ap-
pears the most moderate, reasonable, and unpre-
tending address that has been delivered from the
throne of France for •the last 17 years ;"—the
Herald, that the speech of the King of the
French " is a pompous and weak production,
worthy of a pen guided by the inspirations of a
Council of Doctrinnaires ;"--the Chronicle,
that the speech of the King of the French
" does not call for any particular comment."
The opinion of this latter critic was clearly
meant to be correct. It was undoubtedly
intended that the speech of his Majesty
of the French should " call for no par-
ticular comment." If the object of speech
be "to conceal our thoughts," speech has
seldom been more adroitly employed than on
this occasion. Extravagance or economy,
clemency or rigour, war or peace, the speech
may recommend either, or any, or all, according
to the inclinations of its interpreters. " Fal lal
la," says the King of the French, or words to
that fifect. We say like Juliet in the tragedy,
"he speaks—yet he says nothing." But although
we learn, from the address of Louis Philip to
his Chambers, very little as to the intended po-
licy of France, we get a little insight into the
spirit by which that policy is likely to be in-
fluenced. His Majesty states that, in spite of
the efforts of his Government, the treaty of the
15th of November, 1831, which went to effect
the separation of Belgium and Holland, remained
unexecuted ; that the means of conciliation ap-
peared to be exhausted ; that the end was not
attained. " I conceived," says the King of the
French, " that such a state of things could not be
prolonged without compromising the dignity and
the interests of France. The moment had arrived
to enforce the treaties, and to fulfil the engage-
ments contracted towards Belgium. The King
of Great Britain participated in my sentiments."
What were the sentiments in which the King
of Great Britain is said to have participated ?
Sentiments of reluctance to compromise the dig-