The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-16 00:00:00

and eight hundred and fifty-two, for the term of one
year thence next ensuing, and until the assessments
made or which ought to be made for the said last-
mentioned term, or for any preceding year, shall be
completed, collected, levied, and paid."
Under this enactment, no duties will accrue, or
become payable, after the sth April next, and
the powers under the former statutes are only con-
tinued, so far as may be necessary, to enable
the tax-gatherers to collect all such arrears
as may become due up to that period. The im-
post itself expires on the sth April, and unless it
be renewed in some form, there must, notwith-
standing the present flourishing state of the re-
venue, be a Very serious deficiency in that na-
tional revenue--a deficiency that may be pro-
ductive of very serious results.
Under such circumstances, then, we ask again,
is it just or proper—is it respectful to Parliament
or the people, to defer any explanations as to the
Ministerial intentions until after Easter when
the law is on the verge of dissolution 7 Much
care and attention, requiring many weeks, if not
months, must necessarily be bestowed on the sub-
ject before it can finally or satisfactorily be dis-
posed of; but days are not even allowed. If due
allowance be made for the discussions on the
Budget, it will scarcely be practicable even to
introduce the Bill before the sth of April, and most
assuredly impossible that it should receive the
legislative sanction before that day. Great incon-
venience may therefore arise from the gross lathes
and negligence of her MAJESTY'S Government, and
the decisive refusal to satisfy the national curiosity
of the community on such a point. But however
great that inconvenience—however pressing the
emergency—we can assure them that they will not
be averted by a consent to allow a renewal of the
Act for even a single day in its present objection-
able form. Ministers have deliberately delayed
their explanations on the point. They must,
therefore, be responsible for the injurious conse-
quences of their own procrastinating and tempo-
, rising policy.

Mrs. JELLYBY had her " mission," and so has
the Duchess of SUTHERLAND. It was a very
grievous mistake, however, on the part of the
respondent to the Stafford-house Appeal to sup-
pose that between the two there is little, else than
a distinction without a difference. Such actually
appears to have been the impression of Mrs. JULIA.
G. TYLER, in her voluble and discordant response
to the recent Address of the Englishwomen to the
women of the United States. A careful examina-
tion of that reply, reduces us necessarily to the
belief that when the fair and accomplished wife of
the ex-PRESIDENT sat down to write, she was—
(there is only one word for it)—cantankerous.
The 'authoress of this singular document must
be aware, on due, revision of the whole, that she
has only been nagging, when, perhaps, she fancied
herself rhetorical. Instead of reasoning calmly,
and, if possible (which could scarcely be expected
under the circumstances), dispassionately, upon the
moot-question, the question of slavery—Mrs.
JULIA G. TYLER does nothing from first to last, from
the commencement to the conclusion, but scold. her
" good sisters" on the other, meaning, of course,
on this, side of the Atlantic. Indeed it would
seem that she finds it difficult to commend her
own countrywomen without directing one or two
spiteful allusions to the countrywomen of her
Grace the Duchess of SUTHERLAND. Among the
former she says, for example, " You might find
no splended vestments of dress [what possibly can
be "vestments of dress ?"], no glittering diamonds
[fancy diamonds or even paste without the " glit-
ter !I no aristocratic displays." We have not
forgotten how Miss PETOWKER reminded the
KENWIGSES, in allusion to Nicholas Nickleby's
appearance, that it was—" what do you call
breaking watchmen's heads and pulling off door-
knockers ?"—aristocratic ! And so Mrs. JULIA
G. TYLER sneers at " aristocratic displays," tell-
ing us that among her countrywomen we
should no more find those than we should
discover " glittering diamonds " or " vestments
of dress !" Adding with a thin hysterical excla-
mation, " No ! the vestments they wear aro those
of meekness and charity, their diamonds are gems
of the heart, and the splendour, the neatness, and
contentment which everywhere meets the eye."
Splendour by the way had not been mentioned
before, except in connexion with the " vestments
of dress "—for the third non erit inventus was
surely the " aristocratic displays " already parti-
cularised. And then the verb in the singular,
after two nominatives, must clearly be recognised
as a novelty that might have thrown LINDLEY
MURRAY into a state of comma, if it had not
actually brought his existence to a full
stop. The " neatness and contentment
which. meets the eye " everywhere in the
United States would seem to indicate
that the manuscript of this extraordinary effu-
sion, before crossing the ocean, had been revised
by the ghost of Dr. SwF—brought, perchance,
into communication with the writer for that pur-
pose through the " medium" of one'of the Ameri-
can Rappers.
Even with the fear of General CASS before our
eyes, and at the risk of calling forth another of
Mr. JOHN BRIGHT'S grateful and authoritative
panegyrics, we find it altogether impracticable to
treat seriously so very spiteful and slovenly a re-
ply as that which has been vouchsafed by Mrs.
JULIA G. TYLER to the Appeal addressed to her
fellow-countrywomen by their English sisters,
headed by her Grace the Duchess of SUTHER-
LAND. The style alone is enough to set one's teeth
on edge, it is throughout so very shrewdly (might
we venture to say shrewishly) acidulated. Besides
which the argument is as inexact as the grammar.
It is wholly impossible to treat otherwise than we
are doing a document so obviously begging the
question. That question was simple enough in
its entirety. It was condensed into the fact that
certain humane ladies in these islands appealed to
the women of the slave-holding states of America,
in behalf of the unfortunate negro population.
After the magnificent act, by which England
paid down in hard cash 20,000,000/. sterling,
to enable her to manumit all the bondsmen in her
dominions, it was glaringly permissible for the
women of a land thus magnanimous to plead. in
the same holy cause with the women of the slave-
holding divisions of the United States. Mrs.
JULIA G. TYLER retorts by allusions directed
against England, as it was in the age of Queen
AinTE and the Prince of DENMARK. Mais nous
aeons changg tout cela. That generation has been
succeeded by others more generous and enlightened.
It is allowable now to waive all serious reference
to the peccadilloes of PENN, in consideration of the
glorious public virtues of such men as CLARKSON
and WILBERFORCE. In reminding her sisters in
England, therefore, of the bygone sins of Great
Britain in regard to the encouragement of slavery,
Mrs. Jumi. G. TYLER has, as we have already ob-
served, merely been begging the question by an
evasion of the most paltry description—an evasion
indicative of the very reverse of magnanimity.
Because a reply of this peculiarly unsatis-
factory kind has been elicited from the
women of the United States by the ap-
peal, addressed to them from Stafford-house,
by the women of the United Kingdom--excep-
Eons are being made, in some quarters, on the
score of its impropriety. For ourselves, we can re-
cognise no impropriety whatever in a proceeding
which manifests throughout so many amiable
emotions, and which found utterance in language
of such winning and persuasive gentleness. Re-
member it was simply an appeal—an appeal from
women to women an appeal dictated in
no terms of arrogance or self-sufficiency--
an evidence of the generosity of those from
whom it proceeded, while it constituted, at
the same time, an indirect but very manifest tri-
bute to the humanity of the recipients. It has
been mistaken. Judging from the tone of the
reply transmitted to this country from the hand
of the young, and beautiful, and accomplished
wife of the el-PRESIDENT, speaking to her sisters
across the broad Atlantic in the name of her own
countrywomen—the appeal has been most pain-
fully and most lamentably misapprehenhed. • The
interposition of our English wives, and mothers,
and sisters, and daughters would seem to have
been petulantly resented, and at last sarcastically
and bitterly repelled.

Inspired in the first instance by the pathetic