Star.
London, England, 1817-03-24 00:00:00

THE LAND AND THE FUNDS.

Some people have questioned the accuracy of the
statement of the CHANCELLOR of the Elms:was last
week, that, if the House had permitted the Income
Tax to have been continued, the price of Stocks
woad have risen long ago. We think the proposi-
tion cannot be doubted. If that species of property
is alone to be exempted from the payment of Poor•rates
and all casualties. and if Land and Labour are to be
taxed to the quick for its support, who would not he
a competitor for the possession of such favoured pro.
pert; And where the competitors for purchase are
IsuiSciently numerous, mast there not be a rise in the
price of the commodity ?
We have asked often, and we shall never lose sight
of the question, whether it is equitable.-whether it
is politic that this species of property should be ly)l-
-stered up at the expense of every other in the K ng-
dom ? We ask farther, which is only another manner
of stating the same question, whether the mai ite•
Stance of a high price for the Public. Fund• waile
every other kind of property experiences a ruinous
depression, indicates a state of souad and vigorous
health in the body politic, or a state of internal mor •
bid malady which threatens its ultimate ruin it pro-
per remedies be not speedily administered t---Our own
conviction inclines to the latter opinion. However we
may be found to diff-r from those whose decisions
may give practical soup irt to the Contrary system, it
is our firm belief, that the sys em which operates to
give to fictitious—to paper property, a value alcove
that which real properly can command in the market,
must eventually undermine the prosperity of the com-
munity.

We have the presumption then to differ from the
Minister on the indications of the Stock barometer.
What with him is held a symptom of national pros-
perity. we view as evidence of deep and wide-spread
distress. Were the beam now, as formerly, as nearly
in equilibrium that a person would find it 4fficuit to
decide whether an investment in the funds or in land
would be moot beneficial for his family, the case
would be quite different ; but when none can be
found willing to buy land. there must be something
operating to the unfair prejudice of this species of
property, which most be removed before the nation
can recover a healthy cod vigorous tone.

But if we differ from Mini:ter: in our view of this
question, we differ equally from Mr. BROUGHAM'S
Opinion that the Fonds cannot be assessed to the Poor
Rates without something approaching to Bankruptcy.
What is the radical end and object of the Foor
Rates ?—The maintenance of the infirm. and she
poor—Of those who have no property nor the .mess
of acquiring subsistence. Now. how' in this to be
done but by a levy on the property of the Coinmu-i
nity ?—lf the nature of property has changed since
the Poor Laws were first devised : if pe new species
of property has since leenxreatetl—irth at any reason
why a mode of collection devised when we had none
of this species of property shnuid still be continued ?
That the only species of property then in existence
should be that ahem which should supw.rqaitnain the
Poor ? The proposition carries absurdity on its front.
The claims of the poor and the destitute are, in
the nature of things, not on this or oa that kind of
property only, but atm property generally,: and the
boon'should be regulated by the principles of equity
and justice. It is not the demand of a robber, but
the claim of the distressed and sick members of a fa-
mily to support from his kindred while he is in dis-
tress. Now what would we think of two brothers
left as the natural protectors of the destitute, un-
provided orphans of another brother or a sister
...441 one derivim a small income from his Farm.
the other a large revenue kepi the Inds..

We ask what would be [said of the humanity and
jitstice of the latter. were be to argue thus : " My in-
come is derived from the Stocks—yours from Agri-
culture, and therefore you alone must maintain our
sister's children. I will not contribute one farthing ?"
Again—Who is tile Stock-holder ? The man
who has made enough to enable him to retire
from the risks of improvements and of commerce.—
While exposed to these dangers, he was bound to
maintain the poor. Now that he has realized a lot:
tune, and is better able than ever to contribute to
their support, he claims to be exempted I—This in-
ju.tice ought not to be suffered to continue any longer I