The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-12 00:00:00

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND
THE REPEAL OF THE AUCTION DUTIES.
The Duke of Richmond must have determined to do
what has been oftener talked of than done—to sacrifice
himself on the altar of the agricultural interest. His
speech against the repeal of the auction duties is a clear
case of self-immolation. A man who pleads a cause,
both hopeless and contemptible, on grounds that are
sure to be scouted by everybody of common sense and
information, must be acting from some unrevealed
motive. It is well for the Duke that he is above the
imputation of a cross—of a hired defeat ; but he must
be victimising either himself or his party, and we have
no alternative but to choose between Quixotism and
treachery. His Grace's leading argument against the
repeal of these duties was, that the tenant-farmer had
been already exempted from them, and therefore, that
others should not be exempted ; that the duties, in fact,
should be retained, because the tenant-farmer had no
longer a selfish interest in their repeal. The alleged
fact in this argument is a gross misstatement ; the
avowed principle is as gross an injustice and absurdity.
The tenant-farmer is not exempted more than others.
The amount of sales by auction exempted from duty in
the year 1840 was 36,511,409/., while the only item in
which the tenant-farmer is particularly concerned, viz ,
" sales of tattle, live or dead stock, corn stock, or un-
manufactured produce of land, whilst they continue on
the land," is 2,891, 1121., that is, not one•twelftls of the
whole. But with the addition of woods, coppices, &c.,
and every other admissible item, the special exemptions
of the agriculturists are not a tenth of the whole. As
for the principle of the above argument, it must speak
for itself. Every special exemption is a legitimate
reason against the continuance of a tax, not for it. If
the agriculturists first get themselves out of the scrape,
and then, on that ground, do their best to keep others in
it, we shall take good care for the future how we give
them a special exemption. We shall find it necessary,
for our own sakes, to leave them interested in the re-
moval of the general burdens. His Grace then draws tip
the case of the agriculturists in the following ingenious
form :
" If the Noble Lord had asked the question of the farmers
of the country, many of them would say, ' Give us an entire
repeal of the malt-tax.' But if they asked for that the Go-
vernment said, How can we make up for so large a defi-
ciency ?' lf, again, the farmers asked to be relieved of a
portion of the county-rate, it was asked what would be the
use of 200,0001. or 300,0001. spread over all the counties of
England ? Thus, in one case they were told they asked too
much, and in the other that what they asked would be of no use
at all."
And why are not both answers quite legitimate? If
a hundred of his Grace's agricultural friends in smock-
frocks came to his door and asked for a fat ox, he would
very probably reply that he could not spare it from his
own purposes. If they immediately lowered their
demand to a barndoor fowl, the most obvious reply
would be —what use was that to a hundred hungry
men? When the noble patron of the Agricultural Pro-
tection Society next attempts a dilemma, he must re-
member not to carry his horns quite so wide apart. The
object of his onslaught escapes between them. His
Grace proceeds—
" They wanted justice to be done them ; on what principle
was the landed interest of the country required to pay for the
apprehension of every pri..oner, for his maintenance ha prison,
and for the prosecution ? "
It is unnecessary to answer the question on what prin-
ciple the landed interest does this ? because it does not
do this, or anything like it. The county-rates do this ;
and the rates are not merely on land, but on all real
property, of which land is only just about half. But we
cannot stop. The Duke plunges on :
" The Government paid half the expenses of the assizes and
the sessions; but why should the counties pay anything to-
wards the assizes? The county had no control whatever of
this expenditure."
The county no control whatever ! Why, who are the
authorities that send prisoners to the assizes ? If the
county had not a special interest in keeping down the
expense of the assizes, it would transfer to them the
work of the sessions. The county can control this ex-
penditure by reducing the committals, not to speak of
certain influences which the aristocracy are supposed to
possess over the moral condition of the country. If
Government were to undertake the whole cost of the
assizes it would be obliged, in self-defence, to take with
it the whole responsibility of committals. What would
then become of the " great unpaid ?" The next sentence
solicits our attention :
" The land was very properly made to support a clergyman
in every parish ; but why was it forced to supply a chaplain in
every workhouse and gaol ? Why should the expense be
thrown exclusively on the land? "
Properly or improperly, the land does neither. Only
a small portion of the land is liable to a rent-charge in
lieu of tithes, which the tenant-farmer merely pays to
the resident clergyman, instead of the perhaps non-resi-
dent landowner. With much more justice may it be
said that the land is made to support a landlord. It,
too, there happens to be no ancient endowment, what
becomes of the Duke's universal burden ? As for- the
land being forced to supply a chaplain in every work-
house and goal, we can only repeat that all real property
does this. The expense is not thrown exclusively, but
only half, on the land. This error is persisted in to the
last. " The land had also to bear the whole expense of
maintaining the wives and children of those confined in
prison, and of men transported." We never before
heard that the land possessed a monopoly of crime, and
that towns did not contribute their quota of prisoners
and convicts, whose wives and children they have occa-
sionally to maintain. Houses, quarries, mines, iron-
works, fisheries, canals, railways, and a thousand other
forms of property divide with agriculture the supply of
crime, and the expense of its consequences. And when
it is remembered that more than half the inmates in
many of our gaols are there for offences against the
Game-laws and the Poor-laws, and have been sent there
with the ultimate intention of keeping down wages, and
keeping up game, it is not unreasonable that the land-
owner should contribute rather handsomely to the ex-
pensive expedient. The Duke, however, in the heat of
his noble argument is not content with fighting against
the burden of crime, he demands for land the profit on
convictions:—
" If a criminal who had any property was transported,
whom did that property go to? It did not go towards the
county-rate, but to the Crown. When recognizance,: 'were
estreated, they also went to the Crown. Was it fair that one
should bear all the loss, and the other take all the s,,eofit?"
We must confess that for once the Duke has the better
of us. He is right here. Certainly there ought to be a
county ledger of the profit and loss on. criminal causes;
with the prison and assize charges on. one pate, and per
contra the felon's pigs, and chairs, and crockery. Now
and then a convict does not " cut up so ill." Justice
ought to be assimilated to the habits of a mercantile
country. But there is an important item we are
astonished to find omitted in his Grace's list of agricul-
tural grievances. When a man is hung, whatever
charges " the land" has been at on account of his con-
finement and trial, his clothes all go to Jack Ketch.
This is monstrously unfair. The " tenant-farmers,"
who have been at all the loss, have an undoubted right
to the profit, viz , the wretch's smock frock and boots.
One is tempted onwards. " There was not a session
that did not throw some additional expense on the land,
because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not care
how much the county-rate was burdened." The Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, of course, has no sympathy with
rate-payers. If the opportunity offered, he would not
hesitate to sell all the landowners and tenant-farmers
in the country to the Turks, and apply the proceeds
towards the redemption of the national debt. But
what additional expense has been thrown on the land
this session ? To continue. " He wished the Conso-
lidated Fund was charged with 15 or 20 per cent. of
the poor-rate ; the counties would still have enough
to pay to make them look after the expenditure,
and by the Government bearing part of it justice
would be done." In the present state of the poor-
law, it Government paid 15 or 20 per cent. of the ex-
pense, the only result would be, that the Duke of Rich-
mond would send 15 or 20 per cent. more of his
labourers, their wives, and children, to the union-
workhouse, and screw down wages 15 or 20 per cent.
lower. If this answered, he would soon begin to ask 50
per cent. from Government, that he might send 50 per
cent, more to the union, and get his labourers at 3s. 6d.
a week instead of 7s. We are forced to deny ourselves
a few general remarks we had intended on this unique
piece of ducal eloquence. The running commentary
must suffice. This, however, we will say:—we nev'er
yet read anything so uniformly, so compactly, so com-
pendiously erroneous. His Grace has never once stumbled
on common sense or veracity. Not a principle, not
a sentiment, not a fact is within sight of truth or
propriety. The speaker flounders along through the
mud of his argument without finding one stepping stone,
one bit of terra firma. It reminds us of a story we have
heard of a distinguished vocalist, remarkable for the
painful accuracy of his ear. He was at a public dinner,
where a conceited amateur volunteered a song. As soon
as it was over the professional gentleman gave vent to
his agonized feelings in a complimentary address. "Sir,"
said he, " I thank you. You have given me a greater
treat than I ever enjoyed or expected to enjoy. You
went through that song without being once in tune.
Every note was wrong."—Times.

DENBIGIISHIRE.—On Wednesday Sir W. W. Wyni
was re-elected to represent the county of Denbigh without opposi.
t ion, though the lion. Baronet was obliged to listen to some se.
vere reproofs from a free trader for opposing the repeal of the corn-
laws, from an agriculturist for betraying the farmers, a•id from a
Mr. Brownlow Wynne Wynne for supporting a Government which
had betrayed them as farmers, robbed them as Churchmen, and in-
sulted them as Protestants. Though considerable dissatisfaction
was expressed with the Hon. Baronet's conduct, no other candi-
date was proposed, and he is sent back to Parliament by constitu.
ents who no longer place implicit faith in Sir Watkin.
SALE OF THE HUNTERS OF MR. FOLJAMBE.—
Thursday a sale by auction took place at Messrs. Tattersall and
Son's, Hyde-park-corner, ot the stud of hunters well known to
have run with the hounds of Mr. Foljambe, in Nottinghamshire,
and who has given up hunting. The yard was thronged with gen-
tlemen of sporting celebrity, and a very active competition arose
far the different lots. Among the noblemen and gentlemen pre-
sent were the Earl of Sefton, Lord Rosalyn, Lord Langda!e, Lord
Curzon, Lord Craven, Lord Shelburne, Mr. C. Newdegate, M.P.,
Sir if. Peyton, Sir C. Cockrell, &c. There were twenty horses,
which were sold for about 1,800 guineas. Sampson fetched 340
guineas, Parker 290 guineas, Brilliant 300 guineas, Sir Gilbert
240 guineas, &c. The hounds of Mr. Foljambe were disposed of a
few weeks ago at the kennel, and sold for above 3,700 guineas.
TRUE ClVlLlSATlON.—Prosecutions have already
commenced against the press in Algeria. This is the strongest
proof we have yet heard of the colony becoming every day more
and more French.—Punch.
TUE
young FUGlTlVEgentrleßrnZ owhEo
,T.OnNaw.-3yAflraosinteir:tonEh.as Pa.
.
Fletcher, the
length, been heard of at Ross, in Herefordshire. An old nurse
her
way, after arriving at Bristol by the night-train from SloumghadeHis
is
of the family it seems lived in that town, and to her he
clothes were sent for from the dames three or four days ago, and
it is not expected that he
twilli n g
treturnhee
recent
eo, Eton.
ooet:
LOSSOf
lif
Pat LthlisFElwa—ce
TheTpltaLull'lißnEquAirTy FAVERSHAM,
respec
terminated on Tuesday, when a verdict of '• Wilful Murder"P
returned against Charles Sims, who, it appeared from the evidence
had set fire to the premises, b:,• which the deceased met her death.
Mr. Moscheles has been engaged by the Philhar-
monic Society, to conduct the five remaining concerts of the pre.
Lilt ninn,