The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-04 00:00:00

DIVIDEND.

J. and D. Sugden, fancy cloth manufacturers, Hud-
d,-rsfield, Dec. 24, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown
to the contrary, on the day liefein-mentioned.
C. Rogers, saddler, Bishopsgate-street, Dec. 24
G. J. Marshall, woollen warehouseman, Wood-street,
Cheapside, Dec. 24—R. Barham, jun., draper, Ems-
worth, Hampshire, Dec. 24—J. S. Holmes, ship broker,
Liverpool, Dee.24—T.Stephens, umbrella manufacturer,
Newpte-street, Dec. 24—J. George, silk manufacturer,
Bread-street, Cheapside, Dec. 24—W. llillmr, engineers,
Wapping-wall, Dec. Orrell, commission agent,
Manchester, Dee. 24—J. Lowther, builder, Queen's-row,
Pentonville, Dec. 24.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED._

T. Bayley and H. Chittenden, corn factors, Mirk-lane
—T. and C. Lester, pork merchants, Dudley, Worces-
tershire—G. Broadbent and Co., grocers, Tattkerflty,
Yorkshire—J: and' N. Walker, corn milleri,' Utley,
Yorkshire—J. Gaskins and R. Winder, comb mantgac-
turers, Birmingham—J. Barrowcliff and Co., tiMber
merchants, Bawtry, Yorkshire—T. Peat, J. Walker, and
T. Paine, accountants,-Manchester (so far as regards J.
Walker)—Firth, Hellawell, and Co., silk spinners, Had
dersfield (so far as regards D. and W. Firth)— S. Han-
naford and W. Beare, grocers Dawlish, Devonshire—J.
Newton and T. Watkins, cabinet makers. Braton-street,
Soho—G. B. Wainwright and H. M. Jones, ship
brokers, Liverpool.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
Alexander Doetor, weaver, St. Andrew's, Fifeshire,
Dec. 7 and 28, at twelve, at the Cross Keys Inn,' St.
Andrews.
Alexander Turnbull and Co., furniture brokers, Edin-
burgh, Dec. 4 and 18, at two, at the Royal Exchange
Coffee-house, Edinburgh.
James Taylor and Co., machine makers, Dundee,
Dec. 12 and Jan. 2, at one, at the chambers of W. Neish,
Dundee.
David M'lntyre, plasterer, Nairn, Dec. 10 and Jan. 3,
at one, at Anderson's Hotel, Nairn.
James Mather and James Allan, grocers, Montrose,
Dec. 9 and 30, at twelve, at the chambers of R. Burness,
Montrose.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
?Rost THE EVENING PIPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—There yet remain two months before
the meeting of Parliament. The interval may be well
employed in the discussion of those practical ques-
tions of national finance, and the nature and opera-
tion of those fiscal imposts, which not merely affect
the public interests, but involve the comfort and
health of the great mass of the community. The
flourishing state of the public revenue—presenting,
as it does, a large surplus of income over the
expenditure—will enable the Government to remove
or diminish some of the items of taxation. The
specific mode of relief has, probably, not yet been
decided on. The Premier, with his characteristic
caution, is waiting for an indication of popular
feeling. To this he has been wont to yield. By
consulting it at the present moment he may win
back a portion of his lost popularity. When ex-
pediency promised to serve his purpose, the claims
of principle, and the regard which consistency de-
mands from public men, gave little trouble to
Sir Robert Peel. With a dexterity which alter-
nately amuses and disgusts, the Right Hon. Baronet
breaks such bonds asunder, and divests himself of the
incumbrance. With him, pledges and promises are
but the current coin of the passing hour. The tax
which presses most severely on the community—at
once a heavy impost ; an irritating insult ; an unequal,
and therefore unjust, distribution of the burden, by
which those least able are made to bear the greatest
proportion is, we need scarcely say, the pro-
perty and income7tax. To obtain the immediate
removal of the latter portion of this tax, should be the
object of every man who is capable of discerning the
distinction which obvi,,usly exists between them. The
former should be equitably graduated ; the latter
should be wholly removed. This is the main object.
To attain this desirable relief to the wages of labour
and the profits of trade, every legitimate means should
be employed. A tax upon property regulated by an
equitable scale, is just and beneficial in principle. The
revenue it would supply would enable the Minister
to reduce the taxation which presses most heavily on
the labouring classes. The tax on income is at once
oppressive and inquisitorial—oppressive, for it adds to
the burdens which already press severely on those
least able to bear the load; and inquisitorial, for it
subjects the affairs of the merchant and trader to
an investigation by, and exposure to, the eyes of those
from whom it is essential they should be concealed.
It is also, as has been well observed, " a premium on
dishonesty." Its demoralizing influence is manifest.
" The full weight of the burden is only felt by the
honest man ; the less scrupulous may with facility
save half the amount by fraudulent returns, and
defy every attempt to prove their inaccuracy." The
objections which apply to the tax on income are not
applicable to a. tax on real or funded property. The
facilities for collecting•the latter are grcat--involving
neither trouble nor expense. "In the case of houses
or land, it,is collected from the occupying tenant, who
payW•it Ae'erfly,a,becillise fie is authorised to deduct
it from his lan lord's renC The' landlord," in turn,
when his-estate.is—mortgaged, deducts it from the
interest due to • the mortgagee. There is no in-
quisition into his resources, or ineumbrances ; and
yet no opportunity is given him of evading
a fraction of the legal demand:" When-
ever the -promised general revision of the fiscal
policy of the country be entered upon—and we think
the coming session the best for the purpose which has
been presented in the history of the country for many
years—it is obvious that the principle of direct taxa-
tion must be seriously entertained. No sound and
advantageous change can be effected in the general tax-
ation of the country which is not based on this prin-
ciple. The idea, therefore, of giving up that part of
the property-tax which is derived from tangible pro•
perty, whether it be in lands, houses, or in the funds,
is founded on the inequitable policy of throwing an
unequal portion of taxation on the shoulders of
industry—an error, or rather a vice, which has per-
vaded the fiscal legislation of the country. To apply
the same rule to fluctuating sources of income as to
those which are fixed, is not merely absurd, it is ine-
quitable and injurious. Even if the tax on income,
as contradistinguished from the tax on property,
were to be retained at a diminished rate, the odious
feature would remain. The private affairs of indivi-
duals would be subjected to inquisitorial inquiry and
injurious exposure and publicity; and this in a free
country is intolerable, and will not be endured longer
than imperious necessity compels.
STANDARD.—The meeting 'for the protection
and relief of needlewomen, hell yesterday at Willis's
Rooms, and presided over by Lord Ashley, is one of
the signs of the times, and in all respects an auspicious
sign. The. association, still in its infancy, we may say
but just born, has provided work, at 9s. a-week, for
nearly one thousand industrious women, and what
is perhaps still more gratifying, has conciliated
many extensive dealers to the principle of fair
wages. There is not the least reason to doubt that
if the public do its duty fairly, the blessing may be
extended ten-fold or one hundred-fold even in a few
months. Let purchasers resolve to deal only with
those who give fair wages, and not grudge to pay in
proportion, low wages, now the rule, will become
the exception; they will not long be an exception
until they disappear, and thus the good work
will be completed without injury to any one.
Following the Noble Chairman (need we name
him who is ever most forward in every good
work, Lord Ashley), we must, however, refer to
two classes of employers, over whom the public has a
more direct control than over any others, but who are
the agents of more mischief to the poor needlewomen
than any others—the managers of workhouses, and of
female schools and asylums. The low prices at which
persons supported by other resources, can afford to
work, is the main cause why the prices of female la-
bour generally are so miserably depressed. As regards
workhouses, there is no excuse for their inmates being
at all sent into the market. The law makes
for them a provision, such as it is, irrespective of the
value of their labour ; and, let them labour never so
industriously, the law does not allow them to parti-
cipate in the fruit of their toil. Upon what conceiv-
able just principle, then, •can they be thrown into
competition with those for whom the law does nothing.
Let managers of workhouses, if they please, give
employment to the persons under their charge; but
let them sell the produce of the labour thus cheaply
obtained at a minimum price, somewhat above what
is sufficient to maintain decently, independent and
unassisted, labourers in the same line—common jus-
tice demands this at the very least. The case of

.