The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT;.-OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The elbieet introduced to the House of Commons
by C' esvotain Boldero last Tuesday night is one of much
ir-epsetence, and is also connected with other questions
'of still higher moment. The Hon. and Gallant Offi-
cer, after a short speech explanatory of his views and
objects, moved for a return of " the number of desert-
ers from her Majesty's troops stationed in the Canadas
between the years 1830 and 1837." It was plain,
from the course of this'. Gallant Officer's observations,
that he made the motion which concluded them less
for the sake of exposing to the public the number
of deserters in the Canadas, than for the opportunity
it afforded him of describing the temptations by which
British soldiers were led to abandon their country's
service, tompared with the inadequate inducements
held out to them for remaining in it, and of
sw,gesting to those in power the expediency of
rAnnexing such advantages to long-continued service as
should appear to the soldier an ample let-off against
the bribes which have heretofore betrayed him into a
violation of his military oath and duty. It was stated
truly by Captain Bolder°, confirmed afterwards by
Captain Wood, Member for Middlesex, and shabbily
shuffled out of by Lord Howick, who for the sins
and ruin of the British army has been Secretary at
War, with a scat in the Cabinet, during nearly the
last three years—it was, we say, stated by Captain
Bolder°, that while labour was high, and land easily
attainable, throughout Canada, as well as the whole of
North America, thus offering a double bait to all who
might be disposed to accept either portion of it, the
British soldier had no prospect before him but a
miserable pension of 6d. per diem, after twenty or
twenty-five years' waste of health, and strength, and 1
life, in all regions of the globe, and under e„i ex.
tremes of climate, if, indeed, any hur:atn constitu-
tion can stand such a terrible series of trials.
Lord Howick 'had the assurdnce to tell the House
of Commons, that the a
.atements of the two gallant
officers were unfounded, because 6d. per diem to the
disc:l:aged soldier was the " lowest rate of pension."
Mighty well. But how came 6d. a-day to be any
Tate of pension at all? How came these callous
pinch-poor \\l-lige, to cut down the ordinary rate
of the soldier's pension from ls. per day, after
twenty .five years' service, to 6(1., which is now, and
has teen during the whole of Lord Howick's War
Secretaryship, the " ordinary rate" of pension,—equal
to 91. 2s. 6d. per annum fora broken-down, worn-out,
human being, without enough of hand or heart left
in him to earn a day's meal by work ? If 6d. be the
" lowest" rate of pension:fer the soldier:discharged after
twenty-five years' service, we desire to learn from Vis-
count Howick what proportion of the soldiers to be
turned out upon the world after that fearful period (for
none can yet have been put on the starvation list un-
der Sir J. C. Hobhouse 's warrant)--how many of them
arelikely ever to obtain a single farthing more than the
" lowest rate" of pension ? Is not 6d. a day the
only pension they have to look to with any thing like
a certainty, or even a probability, we might say a
moral possibility, of ever being so favoured as to en-
joy it under almost any circumstances ? A soldier
may, by a course of conduct more blameless, more
exemplary, more fortunate in repelling slander, more
fortunate in escaping the caprice of superiors, more
pure and spotless, and consummate in its resistance
to all seduction, as to all provocation, than belongs to
the nature of human beings--a soldier, we repeat,
raised above human passion and infirmity, may per-
chance, by especial favour of such beneficent screw-
drivers as Lord Howick, have a grand addition of 3d,
nay, sunder some peculiar conjunction of the planets,
an addition of 6d. per day affixed to his name on the
list of military pensions ; but whether the service
of the Army, or the Church, or the State, will ever be
rich or frequent in the production of such moral
phenomena is what we shall not five to decide, nor is
Lord Howick the man to illustrate such rates by his
example. No, the whole affair is paltry, the whole
manoeuvre is dirty and hollow-hearted. It is false to
the; soldier, the Sovereign, and the realm. Sixpence
t-day for the old age of an Englishman, whose youth-
ful blood has flowed in torrents, whose vigorous frame
has melted into feebleness, for the defence and protec-
tion of his country, is a scanty, a scandalous remune-
ration. It is one unworthy of any but Whig jobbers—
themselves plunderers ad libitum of this hoodwinked
people. The Marines, of which corps the rank and file
have many disproportionate advantages over the army
(though far, we admit, from being more than they merit),
wejoy at this hour, or did very lately, a shilling per day,
Vls their "lowest" rate of pension. Why should the army
be so much worse off than the Marines ? Lord Howick
talks glibly of " modifications" which lie has made in
the pinch-pensioner warrant of the wealthy Whig,
Sir John Hobhouse, who preceded him as Secretary
at War. It is pretty notorious that Lord Howick
has long since prepared another budget, of some-
what portentous " modifications" in the general con-
dition of the army, the main scope and purpose of
which modifications is to wrest the army from the
hands of the Crown, where the British Constitution
and common sense have placed it, and to fasten his
own unwholesome claw upon it, that he and his
jobbing and greedy colleagues may pervert the mili-
tary service as they have done that of every other de-
partment in the State, to the grossest uses of the
most profligate and nefarious corruption. This is
is the true meaning of the Howick scheme for put-
ting the army under a " responsible" Minister.
liespcnsible ! to what ? Why, to the misled
inejority of the same House of Commons which
maintains the said Lord Howick in his office The
Long Parliament dragged the army into its meshes ;
how long afterwards was it before its musketry was
turned against the King ? The army, before 1793,
was in the hands of a " responsible.' Minister. What
sort of army was it ? Why, an ensign who got his
vninmission in January, obtained his Lieutenant-colo-
neley before the 31st of December following. The
Commander-in-Chief of the Army is now responsible
to the -'nly power by which he can be safely governed
—viz., by the Sovereign on the throne ; which Sove-
reign is, of course, a watcher of public opinion, as
represented by its constitutional organs. Turn over
the Horse-Guards to Lord Howick, and we know whose
cousins, to the tenth degree, will fill each successive pro-
motion. The proposal to recompence deserving soldiers by
giants of land in our North American colonies is re-
commended by arguments, political and military, to
which it seems to us that no solid answer can be made.
Kindness, as well as justice, to the soldier himself--
economy as regards the revenue, and security derived
from such an expedient to the possessions of the Bri-
tish Crown in that great but ill-protected portion of the
empire, would each and all be served by providing this
refuge for our retired soldiers, exacting as the price of
his new property the obligation of defending it by
arms. It scarcely requires more than the statement
of such a plan to insure it the most favourable consi-
deration from the country, and, as doubtless future
occasions will arise for a full developement of all its
capabilities and attributes, we shall leave the subject
for the present.— Times.
The French Government has intimated its intention
of adding ten or fifteen per cent. to the duty now le-
vied in France, on British linen-yarns, and of increas-
ing the de:ales on British linens, to forty or fifty per
cent. In order to exclude British linen manufactures
from every part of the Continent, as far as its power
extends, the French Government has at the same time
intimated to the Government of Belgium, that the
ditties on Belgian yarns and linens imported into
France, shall not be raised—provided the duties levied
in Belgium on English linens shall be raised to the
French level ! The result of these projected arrange-
ments, if they shall be carried into effect, will be, utter
ruin to hundreds of British capitalists—and starvation
to thousands of English artizans ! This is another ex-
quisite illustration of the value of our free-trade system !
The principles of our free-trade system point to cheap-
ness, as the greatest of social blessings—cheapness
of labour, that is to say, and of all the products of
labour. This cheapness is all gain to the moneyed
classes—and to the idle consumers of society :—all
loss to labourers, and producers of every kind
is Unli-
mited competition with machinery, and with lightly-
taxed, half-starved foreign labourers, the secret by
which this economist-Commended cheapness is pro-
duced. But mark the consequences ! A system
which leaves our labourers unprotected, or but slightly
protected, front the competition of foreign producers,

leaves us, to at least the same extent, dependent upon
foreign constimers ? The whole tendency of the free
trade system is to multiply beyond the powers of
calculation, the influence of money ed men, and of
idle consumers, over the other classes of society ; and,
in so far as the consumption of producers is concerned,
to substitute universally, bad customers for good ones I
Let it be observed, that the clearness of British labour
is the circumstance, against which, above all others,
the political economists inveigh. Dear British
labour ought in every possible case, according to the
free-trade creed, to be replaced by cheap labour,
whether British or foreign. And this change, the
economists have the impudence to declare, is, in every
case advantageous to producers I Yet, can any one
fail to perceive, that to rcpleee high wages by ltA
wages is to substitute poor customer% !rot' customers
comparatively wealthy ? Such is the inevitable ten-
dency of free trades—such has been the uniform re-
sult of tll.e system I The economists, for instance,
te'.l us that in many branches of trade, British wages
are too high to admit of successful competition with fo-
reigners ; and, therefore, we are told, we must lose the
foreign market ! But if the suggestions of the econo-
mists be adopted, and the foreign market secured, is
it not obvious, that by the very same process, the
home-market (excepting that home market created by
non-productive consumers) must he lost ? If the
wages of British artisans are lowered to the continen-
tal level of wages, large classes of British producers
must depend for a great portion of their returns on
poorly-paid foreign and poorly-paid English la-
bourers—instead of depending t'n't these returns on
highly remunerated labsr,Trers in this country I Let
any practical ran determine, white;, kind of trade is
themor:. wholesome ?As free trade extends--as com-
petition with machinery and with foreign producers in- '
creases—the power of English labourers to consume
the products of their own industry lessens. Man-
chester supplies all the world with cottons ; and the
poor cotton-spinners themselves are in rags I The
silk-weavers of England produce fabrics of ex-
quisite texture ; and in requital for sixteen hours of
daily toil, the free-trade system allots to tens of thou-
sands of them, two-pence halfpenny. There are not
in England, any classes of men more industrious or
more ingenious than the silk-weavers and the cotton-
spinners. There are not, in Europe, perhaps, two
classes of men who consume so little of the pro-
duce of their own industry—or so little of the produce
of any kind of industry. They are the worst cus-
tomers, therefore, that English producers have I What
the silk-weavers, and the cotton-spinners are—
the principles of free trade, if fully " carried out,"
would render every other class of British labourers I A
free trade in corn, for instance, would in England
lower the wages of labour universally one half—would
double the competition in all town trades, by throw-
ing, perhaps, a million of agricultural labourers out of
employment—would, in short, utterly destroy the va-
lue of all classes of labourers as customers—and would
invest the moneyed classes, and the idle consumers of
society, with the power of fixing what prices might
seem good to them, on all the products of British in-
dustry. The same process which reduces a silk-
weaver's wages from three shillings a day to twopence-
halfpenny, is adding, at every moment, to the value of
the millionaire's property, and to the variety of the
idler's enjoyments ! Highly-paid labour, and a good
home-market, constitute the only sound basis of
manufacturing greatness. The same causes which
beggar our labourers, render our trade insecure !
Look at this projected movement on the part of
the French Government I Had our home-market
been what sound policy would make it, the custom
of France would be of very subordinate importance I
The French Government may not be fairly blamed for
this step. It is the duty of every Government to se-
cure employment to the labouring population under its
care ; it is the duty of the French Government to pro-
tect French labourers from destructive competition
with the labourers of England. But that which is a
duty imperative on the rulers of France, ought to be
felt as a duty no less imperative on the rulers of Eng-
land.
The English Government—ought to deem it one
of the most sacred of duties, to guard the English
labourer from destructive competition with foreign
labourers, and with machinery. Whether, in the event
of the French Government carrying its intimations into
effect, the unfortunate British capitalists who shall
suffer from this change of financial policy, may not
have a fair claim to compensation at the hands of the
English Government, whose free-trade schemes have
given to so large a portion of our trade its present un
1 fortunate direction—may be a subject of doubt. But
there can be no doubt, we imagine, in the minds of
those who wish to secure permanency and firmness to
the commercial greatness of England, that the prin-
ciples of our commercial policy ought to be changed
without delay.—Morning Herald.
The Times, in its City article of yesterday, is
pleased to refer to the proceedings of the French
Government in regard to the contemplated increase of
the French import duty on linen yarns, and to censure
our Government for not preventing it. We understand
that the Government have been far from idle on the
matter : they have adopted the only course which was
open to them ; they have urged the impolicy of the
step, and used otherwise the strongest remonstrances ;
the censures of the Times should- be passed on the
blindness and inactivity of those interests in France,
the silk and the wine, whiCh may be implicated in the
consequences of such measures ; for it is not likely
that our interests here will passively submit to be so
tampered with. But whatever may be the result, the
British Government have not been neglecting this
bnsiness ; and we recommend the Times to learn from
the merchants and manufacturers of this country what
they think of its activity and zeal in behalf of their
interests. It may suit the politics of the moment to
turn a period against the Government at the expense of
all recollection of the past, but the merchant and the
manufacturer have better and more decisive proofs of
its real conduct.—Morning Chronicle.
We have much pleasure in directing attention to
the communication of a correspondent, in reference to
the improved prospects of the poor Spitalfields weavers.
The self-constituted Committee, which has, so long,
intercepted from their destination the subscriptions of
the Queen Dowager, and of the nobility, has, at
length, been shamed into a sense of duty. The pro-
cess of relief has commenced. The touching inci-
dent with which our eorrespondent's communication
closes, will not be without its effect. Two individuals
—father and daughter, members of the Society of
Friends—have visited Spitalfields, relieved all the
most Ivt etched of the sufferers, and saved many of
them from death. They have withheld their names
from the objects of their beneficence. When we
contrast the conduct of these two Christians, with
the conduct of the political economists who com-
pose the Committee of the Adelaide Fund, it
is difficult to repress certain emotions, by no
means favourable to the " philosophers." The
two benevolent strangers, out of their private re-
sources, rescue many helpless creatures from death.
The Committee of economists permit hundreds of the
weavers to endure the pangs of starvation—holding
in their hands, all the while, a large sum of money,
the property of the body to which the poor victims be-
long I When the Levite and the priest, whose doings
are recorded in Scripture, shrank from ministering to
the distresses of the wayfarer, whom the Samaritan
ultimately relieved, the extent of their offence is
summed up in the words—" They passed by on the
other side." But had the Levite and the priest, in-
stead of simply " passing by," stopped to insult the
poor wayfarer, by lectures on the " imprudence" of
venturing in paths frequented by thieves, and on the
greater " imprudence" of carrying money about with
him ;—and had the Levite and the priest been the
hearers all the while of contributions for the purpose of
replacing, partially at least, the wayfarer's loss in mo-
ney :—had these things been attributed by Scripture
to the Levite and the priest—the Levite and the priest
would only have been prototypes of certain philoso-
phical preachers in our day of " moral elevation" to
the starving poor i—Morning Herald.

Reports of a -7—distressing nature having been generally
circulated through this city respecting the death of a woman
named Frances Hill, who died in the workhouse on Tuesday
last, Mr. Ilitchins was led to summon a jury to investigate the
circumstances touching her death. On Thursday the jury re-
turned a verdict that F. Hill died from exhaustion, produced by
want of food and the severity of the weather.—LincolnGazette.