The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-15 00:00:00

as ywe are informed, discharged no less than between'
bop and 600 of these men within the few months
which have elapsed since their first appearance
among us. Must there not, then, we would con.l
fidently ask, be something radically wrong in a
system which works so ill, and which gives such
great and increasing dissatisfaction ? We will not
venture to point out any means of improvement,
though there obviously are means by which it might
be rendered less objectionable; for we should hold
ourselves to blame were we to lend our aid in ren-
dering that less unpopular which is radically wrong;
but this we will say, that the substitution of a m►li-
tary for a civil force ; that a system which makes its
agents dependent upon the Government alone, and
not upon their fellow-citizens; and one under which
(as the present Old Bailey Sessions are, we hear,
likely to testify) crime has nearly doubled instead
of being diminished, is not one to which a country
having any regard for free institutions is ever likely
to be reconciled, more especially if it happen, as this
does, not only to dip more deeply into the pockets
of the public than that which it has supplanted, but
also to interfere in an exceeding arb►trary and
hitherto unknown manner with the common com-
forts and conveniences of a free people.—Moriting
Herald.

The rumour is again revived of it being the in-
tention of Government to abolish the office of
Viceroy of Ireland—not in the current but most
probably in the next Session of Parliament. Eco-
nomy is the order of the day ; and, as our illustrious
rulers are of opinion that small savings in money
can alone save the nation, it would not surprise us
to see the same sort of pruning applied to Ireland
which is pursued towards Scotland. The Duke of
Wellington, who owes his fame and his estates to
the profusion and liberality of his country, is him-
self a miserly Statesman where the interests of other
persons are concerned ; and, in order to make an
atonement for that extravagant expenditure wasted
on himself, is desirous to practise the cheese-paring
system upon those who are less fortunate and
affluent than the hero of Waterloo. We should
like, however, to see him commence this
severe economy nearer home. If he were really
desirous to benefit his country he would re-
duce the double salaries of those who are over-
paid, who fill situations for which they are
evidently incapacitated, and receive military pay
with one hand and the wages of the civilian with
the other. In the practical part of this virtuous
frugality and patriotism the Noble Duke should
lead the way and set us an example. The salary of
the Minister is ample. It was considered sufficiently
so by Lord Liverpool and by Mr. Canning—the
former a more honest, the latter a more able, Minis-
ter than Arthur Duke of Wellington. Mr. Perceval
had more talents, and was incorruptible, although
he had not one-fifth of the income of the present
Premier. Pitt died insolvent—Fox never had a
clear sixpence of his own in his life—Canning died
poor—which facts prove that a rich Minister is not
always the most successful or most independent
Statesman, but, on the contrary, that a poor Minis-
ter may be a more able and faithful public
servant than one rolling in wealth, increasing
his daily gains, and laying the foundation of a for-
tune far more splendid than that of any nobleman
or prince of the blood in England. Why, in the
name of all that is just, should Sir George Murray
derive more money from the public purse than ever
Pitt or Perceval did during the zenith of their
ministerial career ? Why should Sir Henry Her-
hinge be better paid than was the late Lord Lou.
donderry, or Lord Rosslyn receive in hard cash for
doing absolutely nothing, for being as useless as an
emboweiled crab, a larger sum than the entire pro-
duce of the excise in the county to which he be-
longs ? The Ministers cry economy loud enough,
God knows, but not one dolt will they disgorge
themselves. They can cut and slash among the
salaries of poor clerks, who have drudged the greater
portion of their lives for a miserable pittance; but
they can pocket their sinful and undeserved thou-
sands without a blush, without a feeling of grati-
tude, without caring a straw for the sufferings of
the people. This conduct has an ugly and repul-
sive look. It is reprehensible in the extreme, and
must fill every sensible or generous mind with dis-
girst.—Morning Journal.

We had put into our hands yesterday one of
those things denominated " A Supplement to the
Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,"
which, on the present occasion, contains the Reso-
lutions of the Committee of the Honourable House,

for effecting an alteration in the Stamp Duties. The
thing extends altogether over ninety-three folio
pages, and in point of weight—for we had the
curiosity to have it weighed—amounts, within a
trifle, to an imperial pound ! We had thought
that the present age was one of improvement and of
the march of intellect—of simplification, instead of
complexity—of reduction, instead of increase of
duties ; but the " thing," for it deserves no better
name, which is now before us, would go far to prove
that, instead of advancing, we are decidedly retro-
grading. Nothing, in fact, can be conceived
more truly confused, inexplicable, and, in conse-
quence, more barbarous and troublesome, than
the definitions of Stamp duties which have
received the first fiat of the House of Com-
mons, but which, we trust, Will be thrown out
on the first opportunity of examining them. There
is, on the one hand, no comparative table of the
old and new ditties, by which to judge of the in-
crease and decrease of the stamp duty ; and on the
other, there appears to be a determination to grasp
at every thing which can possibly be the subject of
a tax, which shuts any thing but a knowledge of
those sound principles of financial calculation which
ought to regulate the imposition of taxes. The
schedule cf law stamps alone extends, for example,
over nearly fifty pages ; while in the matter of drugs,
patent medi eines, &c.—or, to speak generally, of those
articles which are generally vended by chemists, apo-
thecaries, and druggists—we have a list extending
over thirteen folio pages, which would set even a
Chancery lawyer's bill at defiance, and from which
no other benefit can be derived than that of incon-
veniencing the public, and putting money in the
pocket of the Solicitor of Stamps. It would be
useless to enumerate all the items in this grand
affair of a change in the stamp duties—our paper
indeed is not sufficient for the purpose—or all the
omissions, in point of sound policy, which we can
trace in it ; but we cannot help expressing our re-
gret, on looking over the schedule of newspaper
duties, that there is not only no decrease of them
for the benefit of the public, but, on the contrary,
an increase, for the apparent benefit of the Trea-
sury, but which will, assuredly, turn out to its dis-
advantage. The fourpenny duty on every news-
paper, and the three-and-six-penny duty on
every advertisement, are still to be conti-
nued—the one being a direct tax upon the
spread of knowledge, or rather a direct barrier
in its way; and the other tending in a man-
ner which cannot be calculated to diminish
the amount of commercial transactions. If the
Chancellor uf the Exchequer were wise he would
diminish the stamp duty on newspapers one-half,
and the duty on advertisements in a still greater
ratio. Both taxes would then be more productive
than they are now, and the public be at the same
time greatly benefitted; for there can be no greater
mistake, in so far as the Treasury is concerned, than
to imagine that its coffers will be filled by the conti-
nuance of excessive duties. The very opposite of
this doctrine is not only demonstrable, but has been
demonstrated, again and again, in a manner not to
be contradicted. Why, then, injure at once both
the public and the revenue, by continuing a system
which is alike injurious to both ? The Chancellor
p
o n ntehwe s ppaupbel
public,
and do not
of the Exchequer is egregiously mistaken, if he
imagines that these
taxes
stertthm but u
e fall upon
and upon the revenue ; and before his schedule is,
atfdtl isanctioned by the fiat of a law, we trust that he
will be convinced that such is the case.—ilforning
Advertiser.