The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-24 00:00:00

gUr N, MAY 24, 1852,

had 20,000,0001. of bullion in 1852, therefore one result
of free trade was, to bring bullion into its coffers. Thua.
leaving California out of view, and describing that as
having flowed from free trade, *hid) had only happened
in spite of free trade. But let us give Lord John Mbasell's
own words. He thus writes:—
" It is not necessaryfor ene to celebrate the-success of
measures intended to continue and complete ihe policy
of free trade. You will find, the more recent facts, fur-
nishing the most eenslasive proofs of the,wisdam of that
policy, in the financial statement of the-present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. That speech deserves your at-
tentive study.— •
" The financial results of the policy of the last ten
years May be this summed up:--
"1. Customs duties hrivii been repealed or reduced to
the extent of 9,000,0001.'
"2.4 Excise duties have been _repealed or reduced to
the extent of 1.500,0004
" 3 Stamp duties were reduCed in 1850 to the extent
of 500,000/.
"4. The window duties have been commuted for a
house-tax, by which relief was given to the extent of
1,200,0001.
".5.• The prodoce of Caitonis, Excise, Sthmps, And'
Taxed wag, in 1842; 48;000,000: In 185 t, 46,600;000.
Thus the relief to the iountry• has been. .0,204,ci001..
The loss to the revenue only 1,400,0001."
, Now this. reireaentation would be:. excisable if we.
could suppose Lord 'John to be profoundly ignorant of
thitt took place from 1821' to 1830,,he belug a fifeni3l
bof the House ut. Commons i.all that tide.,
ganis net beliere him to be ihus ignorant, then he is guilty
ticith of the suppreigio veri and also of the su'Oestie
..His position is this; " See the admirable effects of- free
trade? In ten years we hare taken off 1,2,200,0004 •of
taxes." Why does he keep out pf sight the imposition
of the inconiettax, of more than 5,200,0001. per annum,
I •whittlrit4decobe -*be weal womisaion.tomlosa,thaw.../
petannum?
,But this is but a small part of the suppres-
sion.. During all the years, from 1821 to 1830, Lord
John Russell was a regular attendant on the business of
Parliament. And in those ten years-he saw the follow-
ing reductions made:—
In 1821.• Duty on agricultural horses £ .460,000
1822. On malt, hides, salt, tonnage,
hearth money
:1823. Assessed taxes, spirits, Customs 3,200,000
1824. On ruin, coals, stamps. wool,
1,727,000
3,146,000'
silk, union duties ....... ....
1825. On salt, hemp, coffee, wine,
600,000
1832. On beer, leather, cider 3,375,000
1826. On tstopombiracsits,:coiadsesressed taxes, Cus.

£15,883,000
Thus in ten years of a Protectionist Goverent,
without a. whisper of free trade, the taxes repealed
were within a small fraction of sixteen millions ; and
no income-tax imposed to make up the deficiency.
On ,the other side, under a free trade regime,
says Lord John, we have seen, in ten years, taxes
repealed to the amount of 12,200,0001. He forgets
to deduct from this the income-tax imposed, which
yields more than 5,100,0001. So that when this is de-
ducted, the remission of taxes, in ten years of tree trade,
is less than seven millions, while, in ten years of pro-
tection, it was nearly sixteen millions. Are we to suppose
Lord John Russell to be intensely ignorant, Or exceed-
ingly dishonest? One of the two he must be. We leave
it to his City friends, who will meet in a few hours to de-
cide, his fate—to determine under, which designation he
should be fanged. Either, in boasting of the last ten
years,he' knew .nothing of what had been the state of
the case in .Lord Liverpool's days; and then he was
most disgracefully ignorant. Or elee,, knowing it, he
concealed it, and then he was a political trickster. On
ender the other of these two horns of the dilemma he
Imust be impaled; there is, clearly, no escape for him.
CHRONICLE.--If to have abandoned .-bis position
and Oat his, ernay,ie a general's best quatification for the
IstiOilinitind in a new campaign, there can be no doubt
that the'claims of Lord John• Rtissell to the leadership
Hof the Liberal party stand pre-eminent. If the author
of a rout,is necessarily the most competent chief that
,cateshe chosen to rally -the disordered troops, no man can
be fitter than the ex-Premier ' to.retrieve the mischief
' .vvhichhe has effeeted: That:m.oh is 'his 'own view of
his position appears frenxthe letter which be has ad-
dressed to -the electors of London—a composition in
which the ordinary terseness of his Lordship's egotism
is exchanged for an unusual and apologetic prolixity.
tie founds his claims upon two grounds—the gratitude
'due to his past achievements, and the expectation of
benefits froth his future services. We much fear that,
as human nature is constituted, the former title will
only' avail in so far as it tends to establish the
' latter. But if the hopes which Lord John Russell
holds out are to be measured by his performsnerss' he
must rely upon a class of supporters who have either
..,very short memories or very limited desires. In
rehearsing the good deeds of his Administration, 'he
must have' been rather at a loss' for material when he
was obliged to revert to such measures as the suspen-
sion of the Bank Charter and the Irish distress loan.
The temporary abrogation of- the laws which regulate
our monetary system me.y„bave been ,a necessary expe-
dient, but it can hardly be reckoned a high stroke of
policy; and as for the 8,000,0001. squandered and jobbed
away in Ireland,- we should have thought the less said
about it the better. But the especial claim which he
, jasßt
ehencutad et
helpst upRussell,
lf
f:rttihssi
c remindingeik,
althoughtxet.
statistics
hst years
aauelttiastsfrohtwasisriconisfutri.
wetvthhlb
ehotairalecsaytthmdi
involving
exahhda
asgyospnre af
oaensvrsaaosa:neepereuhpolis
poet
nl.hrosftepbhue
uusadt
confusion
L ounrwt bhGoere
fdeco tonavcjnea
ofiutnr
hahnsoynee:
bulwark of free trade. Wo must confess that this asser-
tion
0 focobuhfunitde,hr
he
has
shown ment and of s disunited party. We have nothing to ob-
policy which
created the state of things which they represent.
On the contrary, it was the existence of the latter
which kept him in office. The fear of losing free trade
reconciled the public to keeping Lord John Russell; and
if there is, at this moment, any danger of the restora-
tion of Protection, it arises solely from the apprehen-
sion of his Lordship's return to power. When we read
the catalogue of the blessings which commercial free-
dom has secured to the country, what surprises us is,
not how the late Government contrived to maintain such
a system, but how en Administration commanding such
resources could be compelled to abdicate in favour of a
minority pledged to Protection. When Lord John Rus-
sell puts himself forward as the natural leader of
,the
Liberal party, the question which every reasonable
politician will ask is—why has he already involved us in
defeat, and what reason is there to believe that he will
henceforward lead us to victory? If he be not an in-
capable statesman, it cannot be denied that he has been
a moat unfortunate one. Soon after the Reform Act
the fortunes of the Liberal cause were mainly en-
trusted' to his conduct. The Whig party started,
under his guidance, with the gigantic capital which that
great triumph had given them; but their subsequent
history has been a continuous record of political bank-
ruptcy. Weak Administrations alternated with insig-
nificant Oppositions; and the long annals of inglorious
office, interrupted from time to time by some signal
'defeat, have been illuminated by no gleam of even tran-
sient success. Lord Melbourne's and Lord John Rus-
sell's Administrations will go down to posterity as the
feeblest Governments that ever retained office without
exercising power. Political campaigns are lost either
by the intrinsic weakness of a cause or by the misma-
nagement of tho commander. Lord John Russell, we
imagine, will hardly refer his repeated failures to ,the
former source. orl a careful consideration of his
career, we have no hesitation in ascribing his
repeated disasters, in the midst of such abundant
resources, to his incapacity to appreciate the
effects of? the ,Reform Act. . That singular want of
plitincy which is the chief characteristic of the ex-Pre-
mier's mind prevented him from comprehending the con-
sequences which his own measure had produced. No-
thing can be more remarkable than the contrast between
the manner-in which Sir Robert Peel's mind assimilated
itself to the new condition of things, and the pedantic
rigidity with which Lord John Russell adhered to all his
old traditions. The principles of his party led him to
Reform; but they could not-give him the grasp of mind
Reformed Parliament with the machinery of a 10.703 lag.
understandat attempt m and
pt to accept
conduct s
oligarchy. His Lordship, seems to have
requisite
arose
te t
miserable
the Reform Bill, like the " Houses" w
lease
the Revolution, were to have a perpetualunder-
the results.business
_oe uhf c.
a
of office. He never appears to have ia.
stood that a capital change in the constitution
iof 1' I
gined that the Whig, families who supported
met by statesmen in a new
he iniddle-olass
kneW as little ho had deal with t
tein did with
thence which heevoked as FranTkheliss
contrived
meet,btho et t sets
with:::
he
created new
baad onpsotlri
uticetaeldp. o. w ors regfuunrdeaetontbael
mom of all the disunion which has !i lea. Whig'
at the
dle-
Lori John uss ,
ell because
class-politicians do not trust
disqualification
rt
y.
a n en d a
nogne
rtehde
Li part
be
nao f p
rtihneci r R
ll as olitician, or to
to run down Lord John Rase
aftersinc
taaptnandeei i
yg experience
feoxr t
hr ie.
worse than idle to con-
cealmerits as
a inplatnbie;s against his pretensions
he has no sympathy with them.
position of a party leader.that our remarks are exclusively
understandset
f r iedds
to occupy that situation
word to say against the un-
od fout hboetu undervalue
el
rda s
ct
claims
niaxvi his
miey
tei years, rns , 0 i
it would
s
city of London •
to represent the in
enee?, and character,
truth must nevertheless be told
Parliament. But the .
reserve. As a political 9
of hWilspehrseltteahtuesdrrveneTedrihn tnieghs °met
0 office,
without
d and incompetent, and he gives
him-
self feeble, half-hearte ,
s of a statesmve
directed; for we have not a
the celiac. of his deplorableh failure. There is no reason
sent
for believing that, in t ee
error of
his past career; he
he would correct a singlef
does not throw out a intlitatrobme el h muchas,
caninfer dprinciplethe. of ' Family Go-
vernment" as a mistake which. will not bear repetition;
not the slightest proof
h
and, oonsetrielltlY, our anxiety for the triumph of a Li-
beral policy is the exact measure of our repugnance to
see Lord John Russell again entrusted with the lead of
the Liberal pa, ty, •
DAILY NEWS.—Lord John Russell has again ten-
dered, to the electors of the city of London, his services
as their representative in the House of Commons. We
cannot entertain a doubt -that the offer to frankly made