regards taxation, that "the subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities-that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protec tion of the state."- Wealth of Nations, vol. iii., book v., cap. ii. Upon what ground is this well-known maxim to be disregarded in a tax laid on for supporting that new burden which the government has taken upon itself -the burden of Irish pauperism? We can imagine no justifiable pretence but that such a tax is, in part, a penalty. If there be one duty especially clear, it seems to be that contributions for charitable uses are to be proportioned to the ability of those who make them; and if we find that the law, which recognises this truth in a province where it is far less manifest, departs from it in this, we are justified in imagining that the discre pancy is not without a cause; and we find explanation and cause in the belief that a poor rate is, in part, an exponent of a charitable obligation, and, in part, the confession of a neglected duty. In one respect it is to be proportionable to the means of him who pays; in another, it is to be measured by the amount of his transgression. So long as poor law commissioners evade the duty which this view of the subject assigns to them, we can have no faith in the professions of their advocates.

What, then, would we have done? We would have liability and power go hand in hand. No man's responsi bilities should be considered as extending beyond his powers. If the

poor have claims upon those who have property, their claims are valid, either against the state, the empire at large, or against the individuals who have authority over the lands where they are located. Landlord A should not be relieved of his liabilities at the cost of landlord B, unless he, at the same time, part with a commensurate share of his authority. If A retain the power to exact excessive rents, until he has pillaged a miserable tenant into the nakedness and squalor which prepare him for the workhouse, the burden of his trespasses should also be laid upon him. If B is to bear part in the burden, he should have a share in the authority; he should be

armed with power to prevent such distresses as he is to share in.

We demand in this nothing impracticable, or even difficult. It is not that we desire to see rights of property invaded, but that we would not have what are declared to be its obligations put aside. If it be unwise to appoint a council for each electoral division, which shall exercise authority over landlords and tenants within its boundaries, and to appoint as members of the council the parties most concerned in the due administration of affairs, it seems plain to us that a distinction should be made in the amount of rates -not according to local cireumstances, but by moral characteristics. The landlord who trades in pauperism should not shift his liabilities to the landlord who is his tenants' benefactor. We complain that no care has been taken to ascertain distinctions of such vital importance as these, and desire that the evil should be remedied.

As to the difficulty of imposing rates in proportion to real liabilities, none will speak of it, in rural districts, but those who have little experience on the subject. In striking a rate, at this moment, every tenement in every electoral division, has its especial amount of rate marked against it. There would be but little addition of trouble in ascertaining, with equal clearness and exactness, how far each tenement has been chargeable. If the Times, or any other able champion of the poor law, will say that such know. ledge as we call for cannot be had, or that the adjustment which we propose is impracticable, we confidently undertake to show that our views are sound and moderate.

We hold that the "new Irish poor law" was a cruel and unjust im position on the landed interest; and that it has added to the evil of a bad principle details which greatly aggra vate its injustice. Our objections to the measure itself we have already, and more than once, laid before our readers. In reply to the challenge and observations of the Times let this suffice.

But we cannot conclude without adding a brief comment upon a form of argument in which the "Thunderer" seems to confide much, and by which he appears to have satisfied himself that the hardship of

the poor rates is not a thing to complain of. The cost of maintaining the poor is not to exceed, in round numbers, two millions per annum. The rental of Ireland, thirteen millions, according to the poor law valuation, (the Times, Jan. 8, assumes) may amount to sixteen millions. And thus

the burden of the poor law will not press more heavily than an eighth of the rental; or, as is finally conceded, not more heavily than three shillings in the pound. We shall not concern ourselves with the fallacy of an assumption which omits all consideration of the various circumstances which have depreciated Irish property. We deal with the argument. The Irish poor rates do not exceed, in the aggregate, more than three shillings in the pound on the whole rental of Ireland, therefore there is no hardship in them to be complained of. Let this be put in another form. The population of Ireland does not exceed eight millions; the gross income, real and personal, amounts to thirty-two millions: there is, accordingly, four pounds per annum for each individual, and, consequently, there is no penury in Ireland; the Irish poor law may be dispensed with. The answer to such a conclusion would be found in the unequal distribution of property. While of the thirty-two millions of income some receive tens of thousands, and others nothing, there will be poverty to be relieved. In like manner, while of the two millions of poor rates, some properties are burdened

*Cost of In-maintenance, monthly Cost of Out-relief

five-pence in the pound, and some five-and-twenty shillings, there will be hardship to be complained of.

There is, also, a very distressing inequality occasioned by the encumbrances on Irish properties, by which the hardship of poor rates is grievously augmented. It is very generally known that these encumbrances amount to, at least, half the gross rental; and that, in consequence, the poor rates, as paid on Irish property, average six, not three shillings in the pound on the net receipts; but while six shillings may be reckoned as the average, the burden of encumbrances is so distributed as to leave some proprietors four-fifths of their income clear, and not leave one-tenth of the gross rental to others. Thus one proprietor may have to pay three shillings in the pound on a rental of ten thousand pounds per annum, while the income

from which he is to meet this enormous demand does not exceed two.

Such are among the elements from which we would give an answer to the question, "What else" than the Irish poor law? We regard a rate for the poor as in part the contribution which charity demands-in part the penalty in which neglect or abuse of power should be mulcted. As a charitable contribution, it should be proportioned to the ability it taxes-as a penalty, it should vary with the offence it pun

ishes

43,110.

39

954,216

1515,312

517,320

ALTHOUGH there was a cessation of hostilities between the British and Kandians, we were not uninterested observers of the political events occurring in Kandy, which were most important, as the monarch, Sri Wikrama, was no longer the weak, supine youth-a mere automaton, placed on the throne by Pilimi Talawe, and whose actions were subservient to, and dictated by, his adikar, or prime minister. The footing upon which Pilimi Talawe had been with Sri Wikrama, during the first part of his reign, when the Kandians were engaged in war with the British, could not subsist during peace. The autho rity of Pilimi Talawe gradually declined, as the monarch held more securely the reins of government, and felt himself seated fastly on the throne. Sri Wikrama now exhibited his real character, which was that of a despotic tyrant, and he evinced his determination to govern, as his predecessors had ruled Kandy, with absolute power; whilst Pilimi Talawe, on his side, was in like manner resolved to retain, and maintain, his influential hold over the Kandian monarch and his court. Mutual distrust between the monarch and his adikar existed for years, until 1812, when Pilimi Talawe excited the jealous fears of Sri Wikrama, by requesting that the illegitimate daughter of the last king, Rajadhi, might be given in marriage to his son. Sri Wikrama was highly incensed at this presumptuous proposal of the adikar, as he viewed it as a covert attempt to be enabled to claim affinity with the royal blood, and summoned the whole of his chiefs to court, and preferred various charges of misconduct, and arrogant assump

tions, against Pilimi Talawe. The chiefs listened with becoming gravity to the complaints made by their king, and Pilimi Talawe was condemned by Sri Wikrama, with the concurrence of the assembled chiefs; when, to the surprise of all, the king pardoned the adikar, declaring his reluctance to punish so old a servant, and reinstated Pilimi Talawe in his office of adikar. It is difficult to fathom the motive which actuated Sri Wikrama: it must have been dictated either by the most noble generosity, or by the most subtle cunning; but Pilimi Talawe enjoyed his position as adikar only for a short time after he had been reinstated in his office, as his conduct again excited the king's displeasure, who banished him to his province, forbidding him to leave it without his (the king's) permission, and depriving him of his rank and honours. Scarcely was Pilimi Talawe in his province, before he hired Malays to murder the king. This conspiracy was discovered by Eheylapola, formerly the second adikar, but whom the king had made first adikar when he disgraced Pilimi Talawe; the conspirators were taken, tortured, and condemned to be trodden to death by elephants, trained to that purpose; whilst Pilimi Talawe and his nephew were tortured and beheaded.

The demons of cruelty and suspicion now reigned lords paramount in the breast of Sri Wikrama; he con demned his chiefs to death without just cause, and feared rebellion to exist in every breath his subjects drew. Eheylapola, who at that time was devoted to his king, Sri Wikrama regarded with distrust: province after province the king declared to be in a

state of rebellion, although Eheylapola vouched for their allegiance; nevertheless, Sri Wikrama fined some of the inhabitants, imprisoning, torturing, and mutilating others. In some districts the king ordered the priests and Moormen to quit, forbidding all women, except natives of those districts, to remain in them. The domestic wretchedness this edict caused is well described by Dr. Davy in his work on Ceylon

"Wives were separated from their husbands; mothers from their children; the young bride and the aged parentall indiscriminately were torn from the bosom of their families, and driven from their homes, producing scenes alike of distress and anger, which might well shake the firmest loyalty."

Thus we see how Sri Wikrama contrived to goad into rebellion his stanchest adherents and subjects. In the year 1814, for some trivial neglect of duty, Eheylapola was ordered to his district of Saffragam, and thither he retired, in obedience to the king's command; but as Eheylapola was beloved sincerely by the inhabitants of Saffragam, they exhibited every demonstration of joy at the return of Eheylapola. This Sri Wikrama chose to construe into an act of rebellion, and proclaimed Saffragam to be in a state of insurrection, and despatched troops there, to make Eheylapola prisoner, and bring him to the capital, alive, or dead; and these were commanded by Molligodde, formerly the second adikar, but upon whom Sri Wikrama had bestowed the place of Eheylapola.

This nobleman, however, with several chiefs, took refuge in Colombo, placing themselves under the protection of the British government, whilst Molligodde took prisoners many of his adherents, and returned triumphantly to Kandy, carrying with him the adherents of Éheylapola. The fury of the king at the escape of Eheylapola knew no bounds, and he wreaked his vengeance on the victims within his grasp. Executions, tortures, impalements, mutilations, confiscations, and imprisonments, were now the daily—almost hourly-occurrences. The place of torture and execution flowed with human gore-the air was filled with the shrieks of victims, under the hands of the torturer, VOL. XXXIII.-NO. CXCIV.

and Kandy was now one vast slaughtering-place.

As Sri Wikrama could not get the person of Eheylapola into his power, he determined to obtain possession of his wife and children. Accordingly, they were made prisoners, with Eheylapola's brother and his wife, the tyrant resolving to wreak his vengeance on all. They were, forthwith, brought to Kandy, condemned to suffer death for being the wife, offspring, and relations of a rebel, and were to be executed publicly in the market-place of Kandy, in the presence of the whole court and population. The day appointed for this horrible butchery arrived, and the wife of Eheylapola, with his four children (the eldest boy being but eleven years of age, and the youngest an infant of a few months old, sucking at its mother's breast), were led to the place of execution. The wife, a woman of majestic mien and noble deportment, attired in her court dress, and adorned with all her jewels of state, befitting her high rank and station, advanced boldly to meet her fate, declaring her husband's integrity, and expressing her hope that the life which she was about to give up might be of benefit to him. She was ordered to stand back, as it was the king's command that she was to die last-to stand by and see her children butchered. She uttered no remonstrance, but embraced her eldest boy, telling him to submit to his fate as became Eheylapola's son. The child hesitated, and, terrified, clung to his mother for protection, when his brother, two years younger, stepped forward boldly, embraced his mother, and told his brother not to disgrace his father by such cowardly conduct, and that he would show him how to die as became Eheylapola's son; advanced with firm step to the executioner-one blow-a lifeless trunk, deluged in blood, falls to the earth, and the young noble spirit had taken its flight. But the refinement of barbarous cruelty was not to terminate in compelling a mother to stand and see her offspring butchered; the trunkless head was thrown into a paddy-pounder, the pestle placed in the mother's hand, and she was ordered to pound the head of her child, or she should be disgracefully tortured. The mother hesitated; but the feelings of

R

innate delicacy implanted in the highborn woman's breast prevailed-every mental anguish would be preferable to the public exposure of her person-she lifted up the pestle, closing her eyes, and let it fall on the skull of her dead child. This hideous scene was enacted with the two other children, and the wretched mother had to endure the same mental torture. At last it was the infant's turn to die, and it was taken from its mother's arms, where it laid sleeping, and smiling, in tranquil unconsciousness. Eheylapola's wife pressed his babe convulsively to her bosom; then, in mute agony, allowed the executioner to take her last child from her. In a moment the little head was severed from the delicate body. The milk that had been drawn a short time previously from the mother's breast, was seen distinctly flowing, and mingling with the sanguine stream of life. The Kandian matron then advanced eagerly to meet death. With a firm step she walked towards the executioner, but with caution, to avoid stepping in the blood, or treading on the lifeless, mutilated bodies of her children. Her face was calm-almost wore an expression of satisfaction— the worst had happened—she had seen her children slaughtered-they were out of the tyrant Sri Wikrama's power. The hand of the executioner is laid on her, to lead her to her watery grave.* She thrusts him aside, telling him not to pollute a high-born Kandian matron with his touch; to remember that she was Eheylapola's wife, and had stood calmly to see her children murdered: would she shrink from meeting them in death? Bade adieu to her brotherin-law, telling him to meet death as became his birth; called to her sisterin-law not to unman her husband by useless wailings, but to follow her; then walked towards the tank (called Bogambarawl, contiguous to Kandy), two executioners following and preceding, carrying large stones.

They have arrived at the tank; Eheylapola's wife gazes fixedly on the tranquil water, whereon the sunbeams glitter sportively in millions of rays;

the sister weeps as the executioner commences attaching the heavy stone to her slender throat. It is firmly secured; the weight bears her fragile form to the earth; and the executioners are compelled to carry her to the tank. She shrieks wildly as they near her tank; they hold her over the waters-more piercing shrieks rend the air. A sudden splash-then the waters close over a tyrant's victim, serenely unconscious of the atrocity perpetrated. Eheylapola's wife had stood motionless during this period, a slight expression of scorn passing over her features, as her sister's shrieks filled the atmosphere. 'Tis now her turn to die. The executioners advance towards her, carrying the ponderous stone. She motions them off. They still advance-are quite close to her; the cords that are to attach the weight to her throat already touch her person; she asks them to desist, assuring them that she will not make any resistance, or attempt to save her life. The executioners refuse, stating they must adhere to their orders, and one lays his hand roughly on her shoulder. She shrieks, and eludes his foul touch, for with a bound she darts towards the tank, and leaps into the water: they close over her form in eddying circles, and her spirit has flown for ever. The executioners depart, palm-trees droop gracefully over the waters, and the sunbeams glitter sportively in millions of sparkling rays, as the stream murmurs a requiem over the murdered wife and sister of Eheylapola.

The butchery in the market was not completed when Eheylapola's wife quitted it, for her husband's brother was still to die. The headsmán advances towards him, sword in hand, lays his blood-stained hand on the chief's shoulder, attempting to raise his head. The chief, with an indignant exclamation, throws the audacious hand off his person, plants his feet firmly on the earth, draws himself up to his full height, standing with majestic dignity, and scornfully desiring the executioner to fulfil the tyrant's command. Has the chief's stern gaze