The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

;:f the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—It must be admitted that the proposa.
of extending to land the existing taxes on the succes-
sion to personal property is not at present what can he
called a practical question ; that is to say, t is not a
question there is much practical prospect o carrying.
Neither is it what can be called a party question.
There ar9 conscious and unconscious landed predilec-
tions on both sides the House. Lord John Russell
.And Lord Howick showed no alacrity to extend im-
posts on inheritance. Sir R. Peel on the other hand,
showed no unoornprising front against it on principle.
This, therefore, must be regarded as an open question,
dem ending discussion, and which must be matured by
that process for ultimate settlement. It appears to us,
however, that Mr. Elphinstone was perfectly justi-
fied in bringing it under consideration at the mo-
ment he did. For what is that moment ? It
,s that lut which Parliament are just about to
anpOse most unequal • taxation, by most inquisi-
_orial -machinery, on the profits of trade and in -
lustry. Surely that was the moment, if any,
to recal its. attention to the fact that existing taxes
are :not.. equally extended to all classes ! " The
House," :says the Post, " had just agreed to tax
landed property by sevenpence in the pound
upon the income derived from it, when up starts
this philosopher to propose a new tax upon the same
description of property." And why not, pray, if this
new tax is merely equivalent to other taxes already
!evied on other property, and from which land is un-
duly exempted? The House is going to lay a new
tax on all income as well as landed. It is going a
step farther—just where arrested by Mr. Elphin-
stone. It is going to extend its new tax, to pro-
ceeds of capital which are not net income. It is
:oing to tax, as income, funds which are clearly des-
cined to replace capital. Before it consummates this in-
ustice against other classes than those which prepon-
derate so decidedly at present in Parliament, is it not
fair to ask it to begin by justice against its own class ?
Would it not call with a better grace for contributions
which really encroach upon capital, if it could first
point to a voluntary sacrifice of an unjust privilege?
With what degree of decency will it tax traders on
more than their income, after deciding that the public
revenue shall continue less than its just amount by
exempting from taxation the descent to property of
their own order ?

STANDARD.—The Southampton Committee has
made the proper use of the advice tendered to it, and
Mr. Fleming has not been pressed for the answer
which the Qommittee had no legal right to compel,
and which, uncompelled, he could not give without
a violation of confidence. We hail this return to
the sound legal path with satisfaction, not only as
proof that the Committee's error in the first instance
was merely an error of misconception, but also as
affording a precedent which must render the acts
of this and other Committees more efficient, by
making those acts more sober and considerate,
and the Committees more respectable and more re-
spected. Many projects are offered from day to day,
having for their object the prevention of corrup-
tion ; but, questionless, good Committees for the
trial of controverted elections, present the most
natural, the most simple, and the most constitutional
preventive. When men are taught, as such Com-
mittees will teach them in a little time, that they
must probably throw away the money which they
expend in bribery, few will be so foolish as to ven-
ture in a lottery so unpromising. We much doubt
whether, if the writs were issued to-morrow, any purse-
laden adventurer would be found to take the chance
of Sudbury or Ipswich. It is no doubt proper to
punish the corrupting candidate and the corrupted
electOr, and to punish them as severely as the laws will
permit—and such exemplary punishments, co-
operating with the diminution of the chances of
success and of impunity, would go further in check-
ing corruption than the ballot or fifty projects of the
kind ; but we are not to be told at this time of day
that it is the certainty of failure and punishment,
and not merely the severity of the latter, that
prevents crime—indeed the certainty of failure is a
more powerful dissuasive than even the certainty of
punishment after success. We hear every day of
men committing crimesq the punishment of which is
manifestly inevitable ; but we never hear of men out
of Bedlam attempting impossibilities. The most
desperate housebreaker never dreams of committing
a burglary upon the Bank of England ; its walls, its
locks, and its watchmen, more than serve the purpose of
penal in protecting that establishment. The reason
why a manifest impossibility, or even a great impro-
bability of success, operates more effectually to prevent
crime than the utmost dread of punishment, is
obvious without any metaphysical research. Oppor-
tunity is, of all the agents of the Evil One, the most
successful tempter ; but manifest impossibilities or
great improbabilities, shut out the sense of oppor-
tunity, and thus do what the fear of punishment can
rarely do—arrest the very first movements to
crime. How does it happen that nobody has ever
yet made his way into the House of Commons upon
a forged return ? The thing could be effected with
less trouble and expense than a return by bribery ;
and it could not be visited with a heavier punishment
—not, as we imagine, with so heavy a punishment.
The reason is, because the enterprise, though it might
succeed for a day or two, would be sure to fail in the
end. Now, let the same certainty of failure attend a
return obtained by bribery, and you will no more
have such returns than you will have forged returns.