The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-25 00:00:00

*L n'

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1850.

Mr. DIfilltA.ELI'S motion for a revision of the p oor-
laws, by the transfer of the establishment charges,
and the charges for the relief of casual poor to the
general revenue of the country, has forcibly directed
the public attention to the injustice and inequality of
the existing system . As we have already shown, it
was originally intended that the owners of personal
property should contribute fairly, in proportion to
their means, to the support of the destitute poor.
It was justly conceived that the poverty of
the country constituted the first charge
upon its property, and that the burden should be
equitably distributed on all inhabitants of the district
who were in the possession and enjoyment of accu-
mulated and realised property of any description what-
soever. The payment of poor-rates was a great social
duty, from which no person of sufficient ability could
be discharged or exonerated. In those days, how-
ever, personal property was comparatively small
in amount and of a character that could
easily be concealed, so that an opportunity existed for
unconscientious persons of defrauding the other rate-
payers by withholding any return of their personal
property. The value of lands and buildings could
easily be ascertained, but not so of mere personal pro-
perty, of money, or securities for money. It was, there-
fore, found convenient to exempt the latter description
of property, in order to avoid the disputes and liti-
gation that would otherwise unquestionably arise,
and the heavy legal expenses consequent thereon.
Since that period, however, a new machinery has
been brought into operation by which the income
arising from personal property can be ascertained
and made to defray its fair proportion of the na-
tional expenditure. But no movement has taken
place to make it contribute towards the relief of the
poor. The unconscientious and illegal frauds that were
perpetrated in a former age have been permitted to exo-
nerate the present possessors of personal property from
the charges for which they were legally and equitably
responsible. It is a well-known maxim of law that
" no time can sanctify a fraud ;" and it must, there-
fore, be manifest that the parties have no title to a
continuance of the exemption which they have so
long enjoyed, and that they could no more complain,
if now compelled to act properly, than the descend-
ants or representatives of a robber, if obliged to make
restitution of stolen goods.
Mr. DISRAELI, was, however, greatly mistaken in the
nature of the remedy which he suggested. He
clearly and distinctly exposed the existing injustice,
and the consequent injury to the land (including
houses and buildings in the term), by making the
entire poor-rates fall upon what represented but little
more than one-third of the accumulated capital of
the country. But he would correct that evil by one
of still greater magnitude. lie did not propose
to make the owners of personal property
contribute their fair proportion of the charge,
but to bring in a new class of contribu-
tors, and to tax the industrious and labouring
classes for the support of those who were but little
worse off than themselves. This grave mistake most
probably led to the rejection of the motion, which
might have been carried with the general approbation
of the country, had it been limited to making every
description of property contribute rateably to the
poor•law expenditure.
A proposition of a more comprehensive and far
more equitable character has just been put forward by
a gentleman whose family have long been
intimately connected with, and interested in,
the welfare and prosperity of agriculture.
The Hon. DUDLEY PELHAM, M.P., brother of the
Earl of YARBOROUGII, has published a pamphlet,* in
which the question is most ably and fairly argued,

* " Suggestions on immediate Legislative Require-
ment, addressed more particularly to the Landed Inte-
rests." By the Hon. Dudley Pelham, M.P. London: W.
11. D4lton. Pp, 16.