The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-05 00:00:00

Ake

LONDON:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1341.

It cannot be too.often repeated that the country
requires itnprovement in legislation, much more
tl*ut a change in the Ministry. Undoubtedly the
substitution of the Tories for the Whigs, now that
the former have obtained a majority in the House
of Commons, will bring the two Houses of Par-
, liament more into harmony, and enable Sir Ito-
TLERT PEEL to pg.s -his measures; but that will
be only an evil, should the measures, corre-
sponding to the principles on which his majority
has been elected, go to sustain monopoly and
extend the Church. He may constitute perhaps
a strong Government, but if that be bent on mis-
chief, how will the country be benefited
What can such a Government do? Were the
laws now not enforced, were property insecure,
had men no confidence in the future, were
riot and rebellion rife in the land, were the ad-
ministration of -what is misnamed justice im-
peded, were our, commerce interrupted by other
' States, were the seas infested with pirates, or the
roads with robbers, a strong Government to put
down such enormities would be most beneficial ;
but there never was a period when the laws were
more steadily administered and enforced, and
where property was more secure, and the future
more certain. We maintain, then, that the
strongest Goverament which can by any possi-
bility be formed, so far as protecting the property
and lives of the people, by duly administering
thelaws, and so far as protecting our subjects
abroad go, cannot add one jot to the national
prosperity, and is by no means the thing which
is required.
The only point on which we have seen it even
'surmised that the strong Government of the
Tories would be of advantage is, that it would
Put an end to Anti-Corn-law agitation, and to all
*doubt, as to the continuance of the Corn-laws.
Monopoly, it is supposed, would then be per-
fectly secure and the country would flourish.
That is, however, a mistake. The complaint is
that the monopoly has been secure too long, and
that its existence is the cause of our distress.
It is perfectly clear that increasing its security,
by the strong Government of the Tories, would
only add to the manufacturers' complaints. At the
same time, no Government, however strong, can
put an end to Anti-Corn-law agitation, or give
to the landed interest a full sense of se-
curity. No human power can do either. The
starving manufacturers must and will strug-
gle. The alarm of the landowners arises mainly
from a consciousness of wrong, and they can no
more be protected against that by any legisla-
tion than a thief can be relieved from his own
fears. The apprehension and insecurity are the
necessary and inevitable consequences of
in-
justice, and no mortal power can annihilate them.
Thus we maintain that a strong Executive Go-
vernment, as such, can confer no benefit what-
ever on the community.
The distress, we say, arises from faulty legis•
lation, and if' the strong GovernMent of the
Tories can pass laws to amend that which the
Whigs could not pass, it may confer a benefit
the country. In
that sense a strong
means a Legislature
«filling
Government
to redress the griev-
ances of the people. But there is not, the.

slightest reason to believe that the strong Go-
vernnaent of the Tories will be willing to perform
so useful a work. On the contrary, the Tories
are the authors of their grievances, the parents
or supporters of Corn-laws, discriminating
duties, restricted franchises, Church-rates, and
of every other evil growing out 'of legislation of
which the bulk of the people complain. They
will constitute a strong Government and a united
Legislature; only to prevent all and every the
least of those grievances from being redressed.
Having nothing to hope from the strong ,Go-
vernment of the Tories in executing the laws,
we see, and so, we think, must every reflecting
man, great cause for apprehension in their
forming a united Legislature, to maintain all the
accursed laws which are at present dire plagues
to the people.

If it be said that the Tories will redress the
grievances of the people, will walk in the way
of righteousness when they are in office, why,
every man will ask, did they not do that in op-
position? Why did they not, as their opponents
when in opposition continually did, bring for-
ward measures which they suppose will benefit
the community? Ministers have not yet monopo-
lised—whatever the Tories in their ambition
may contemplate—the initiative of all laws, like
some Governments on the Continent ; it is yet
open here for every independent Member of either
House ofParliament to propose whatever measures
he pleases. The Tories are as well aware of the
state of the community as the Whigs, and the
only measures which they have proposed, are
Church Extension, restriction of the franchise
in Ireland, and a law to settle disputed elections.
The last was a useful measure, , and that passed—
as if to show what the Tories could have done
had they been disposed to effect any good for the
people—without the smallest opposition.
So far as benefiting the coinmunity by legis-
lation is concerned, the Tories have had just as
much power to do that out of office as they will
have in office. Why have they not done it?
They declined or refused, because they were not
Ministers. They thwarted their opponents
in making laws, for the sake of thereby
obtaining place and profit. They could, as
Members of Parliament, elected to perform that
duty, have amended or suggested new fiscal regu-
lations at any time, but they refused to perform
the duty, because they were not also the
QUEEN'S Ministers. They neglected their duty,
to satisfy their ambition. They conspired to
impede legislative improvement, the one thing
needful, that they might usurp the Government.
Those who seize the Government to gratify their
own ambition, will use it to attain that end ;
and for them the public good will be, as it has
been, a very subordinate object.

We know that it is rebellion to resist the law
and treason to take arms against the QUEEN ; but
we have yet to learn that it is rebellion to resist
the Tories, or even, if necessary, to take arms
against such a selfish, ambitious crew of mere
place, and power, and pelf-seeking politicians. If
the authority of the QUEEN be separated from
that of the Ministers, the fault lies in those who
force themselves into office by dark and crooked
arts against her will, and certainly not with the
concurrence of the majority of the people, though
they are supported by the Monopolists. Know-
ing how the constituencies have been constrained,
intimidated, and bribed] into 'electing a Tory
majority, we cannot conceive that the com-
munity is under any moral obligation to submit
to their dominion, or be guilty of treason against
the QUEEN in order to sustain their usurpation.
If such nice and important questions are now
.stirred in the country, it is the consequence of
strange conduct on the part of politicians. If we
are compelled to make a distinction between the
QUEEN and her future Ministers it is because, in
fact, they will be creatures of a dishonest oli-
garchy, not the freely chosen depositaries of the
power of the people.

All the provincial Tory papers we see quote
the leaders of the Times on the probable policy
of the Conservatives as quite conclusive as to
what Sir R. PEEL will do. They repeat the
recommendations of our Contemporary, and
raise an expectation that Sir ROBERT'S policy
will correspond to the articles of the Times.
There is good reason, however, to believe that

the Times is not the organ of Sir ROBERT, and

that the policy it has sketched out has no other
authority than its own wishes and principles.
That the Times is not authorised to speak for him
is plain, from, the fact that it has advocated the
election of a Tory Speaker, while it is almost
officially announced that Sir R. PEEL will not
oppose the re-election of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE.
In its columns yesterday it also unwittingly
complimented the Whigs, as it followed out its
own principles, and condemned the Tories. It
advocated self-government, and censured all
endeavours to absorb and concentrate in the
hands of Ministers the various and widely' dis-
tributed elements of administrative power. Our
Contemporary said :
For every Board of Commissioners which they have
created, so much power has been taken out of the hands
of the people, and so much actual liberty, and still more,
security for liberty, has been lost. By the New Poor-
law they have drained off the streams and fountains of a
vast system of self-government which circulated through-
out the nation, into a small number of main dikes and
ditches, terminating in the one everlasting and insatiable
reservoir—themselves. The Rural Police Act is another
offspring of this un-English and anti-popular spirit ;
and we cannot help referring to the same principle
Lord John Russell's arbitrary attempt to make the self-
assertion of privilege by the House of Commons para-
mount to law.

We know of no Commission which has taken
any administrative power out of the hands of the
people except one, the Poor-law Commission,
and of that the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir
R. PEEL were strenuous advocates. The Duke
of WELLINGTON, in particular, with his military
spirit, approved of it as the only means of correct-
ing the abuses of the Poor-laws, and took pains,
by recommending the keeping of records, to
make it complete. The other Commissions, such
as the FactOry CoMmission, were constituted to
carry new laws into execution or merely to in-
quire, and took no liberties whatever from the
people. They were intended, whether success-
fully or not, to protect factory children and
guard them from many injuries.
The new Poor-law, with which the Times finds
most fault, is especially supported by the squires,
who constitute Sir R. PEEL'S majority. It was
exclusively a landlords'
vrae e
ta sh
eu
irre ,
eps at
as
ts
ee
sd. b ysit
Sir Rem.
eRm.
PEEL approved of it throughout, and moreover,
as the leader of a party, heist.heiHr eisreoawtunre,and
must do their bidding or
retire
predi-
lections are for manufactures, of the value of
which he has shown himself sensible • but he is
squires.nes also T he
condemns, Rural P
vic Police
ready to sacrifice them in order 'to remain
tT
Atheet,l leader
the e
of the
passed for their advantage, and is only
an extension of Sir ROBERT
... EEL'S Metro-
politan Police.
Most of the squires, too, in con-
Sir R. PEEL, supported
junction with Lord JOHN
when he vindicated the
RUSSELL privileges of
the House of Commons, greatly to the annoyance
the measures which
of the Times. All the Times
now condemns are notoriously based on Tory
principles, and were carried by the support of
the Tories, and on every one of them the Times
is at present in opposition to its own party.
The principle of local boy self-re ernment, of which
the Times is enamoured, is a Whig principle,
which the Tories have always opposed to the
utmost of their power. The Whigs,
for example,
proposed to give popular and local government
to the large towns, and proposed that they should
elect their own Magistrates, while the Tories in-
sisted on keeping the appointment of the Magis-
trates in the hands of the Crown. Both Ireland
and Scotland are deeply indebted to the Whigs
for carrying out, in their municipal and burgh
reforms, the principle of local government to the
utmost extent which the Tories would allow ; and
if England be not so much indebted to them, it
is only because they merely renovated here the
beneficial system which they there, for the first
time, established. Our Contemporary did not

wean it, but his observations render a pro-
found homage to the principles of the Whigs,
and repudiate those of the paity to which he
belongs. _ _

No; is our Contemporary, in using such lan-
guage, even consistent with himself? He wishes
to see power locally and administratively dis-
tributed amongst the people—so do all Liberals.
He argues against an executive despotism,
against which the Whigs contend. At the
same time he is steadfastly opposed- to en-
trusting the Catholics of Ireland with local and
administrative power, and over them he would
establish the executive despotism of Protestant
England. But principles of government have
nothing to do with principles of religion, and those
which are proper for Calvinists, are equally pro-
per for IVlahomedans or Hindoos. The religion of
people, whether Catholics or Protestants, no
mare renders them indifferent to good or had go-
vernment than to pleasure and pain, and should
not be taken into consideration.

At the same time, of all religionists the
Catholics of . our country, after the Pagans,
if there be any, seem to have the strongest
claim on the benefits of our ancient insti-
tutions. The freedom of our Saxon ancestors,
the basis of our best laws, as contrasted with laws
which all Europe adopted or borrowed from im-
perial Rome, was the offspring of heathenism,
and was in no wise indebted to Christianity for
its origin. If it were polished it was also en-
feebled by our Christian, though Roman Catholic,
ancestors. Nor weke our franchises considerably
enlarged, or our municipal privileges much ex-
tended, except during the Commonwealth
(though some. alarming specimens of feudal,
tyranny died out), at any period subsequent to
the Reformation. If any persons now existing
amongst us may, on account of their religion,
claim a right to have our institutions restored on
their ancient foundations, those persons are the
Catholics; but to them the Times denies the jus-
tice it demands for others, and would establish
over the Catholics of Ireland the executive des-
potism of England.
Our Contemporary boasts, too, of the " connec-
tion now existing in England between Church
and State," as having "made the ramifications of
self-government among the people flow in the
same local channels, and observe the same
boundaries, with our ecclesiastical institutions."
Our parishes, to which our Contemporary al-
ludes, were, in fact, Roman Catholic contri-
vances. They were intended to serve the pur-
poses of the Church more than the State;. but
with singular ingratitude the Times, while it ap-
plauds the contrivance, would deprive the direct
heirs of the founders of its benefits.

Adopting that line of argument the Times
takes the Tory side, and is inconsistent with
itself; praising local and self-government, it
takes the Whig side, and quarrels with its pre-
sent patrons. A journal which is zealous for
Whig doctrines in one sentence and zealous for
Tory doctrines in the next, cannot, however, be
looked on as an authority for any line of policy,
or for any party; and we should not have noticed
its contradictory vagaries at much length, were we
not somewhat desirous of undeceiving our distant
brethren who quotejthe leaders of the Times, as a
sure indication of the future policy of PEEL.

Every rainy day fills the community with
alarm. The people tremble for the harvest, and
a few fine or foul days will now make a difference
of millions to the /wealth of the country, and of
life or death to many poor persons. The corn
markets, so far as sales are effected, are rising
rapidly. The Averages published to-day show
a rise of 4s, Id. since last week ; and as
the average of the six weeks, 655. 2d., is
below the average of the week, 68s. 3d. the
average of the six weeks will be higher next
week,even should very fine weatherprevent a fur_
ther rise in the markets. The duty recorded to-day
is 21s. Bd. Last week it was 225. Bd.; and it
will now, we hope, for the sake of the people,
rapidly decline; The postponement of the har-
vest by the ungenial weather has compelled the
dealers to have recourse to foreign countries to
eke out our supply, and the great object at pre-
sent must be to bring that quantity into con-
sumption from. abroad without paying any duty.
The people will suffer from high prices, and no-
thing will be contributed to the revenue.

There is not much news of any interest in the
Paris Journals .of Tuesday. The Journal des
Debats has a long article on the projected aug-
mentation of the import duties in the United
States, which our Parisian Contemporary regards
as calculated to inflict considerable injury on
French commerce. The following is an analysis
of the article in the Debuts, which will interest
our commercial readers :
The Debuts begins by stating that the United
States receive annually French produce and manufactures
to the amount of 120 to 130,000,000 fr., of which on an
average 50 millions are in silks, 12 millions in wines and
brandies, 8 or 10 millions in cambrics, lawns, and linens,
and 20 to 25 millions in furniture and other articles of
taste. of Parisian manufacture. Immediately afterwards,
however, the Debuts informs us that the imports of
French merchandise into the United States, in 1839,
amounted to 175 millions of francs, of which the amount
duty free was 115 millions, and that which paid duty
70 millions, this duty, however, not exceeding upon about
a quarter or a third of the amount 5, 10, or 15 per cent.
upon the estimated value. Accustomed as we are to
errors in the French journals where figures are concerned,
we must confess that in a statistical article, and in a
paper which is generally got up as to its original articles
with so much care, they create some surprise. The
Debats does not explain why the imports ofFrench produce
and manufactures into the United States are estimated here
at 120 or 130 millions annually, whilst the official returns
in America, for 1839, state them at 175 millions ; and
as the division of this sum, according to the Debate,
makes, when added together 185, and not 175 millions,
we are unable to say whether the amount of imports is
the larger or the smaller sum. Errors of this nature are
of little- importance in. themselves, but they sometimes
affect the reasoning of an article, and they are calculated
to create an impression that it was written in haste,
which should never be the case where statistics are con-
cerned. The Debuts then goes on to observe, that if the
projected duty of 20 per cent. upon imports should be
enforced, two-thirds of the whole amount of French
goods imported into the United States will be subject to
an augmentation of duty, which would affect the demand
the more, as the articles exported to that country are
chiefly objects of luxury rather than necessity, and are,
therefore, less likely to meet with a sale at an increased
price. The-United States, says the Debuts, are entering
upon an unwise course, and it reminds the Government
of that country, that the-prosperity of a nation, and its
public credit, do not consist in its Customs' re venues. This
is a truism which few good political economists will, per-
haps, be inclined to dispute, and it would be well if it were
more adopted by different Governments. The Debats,
however, declares that France has set an example of
commercial liberality to the United States in the treaty
of 1822, and that if she permitted the Americans to have
the carrying trade of the cottons, which she imports, it
was probably because in return they received the greater
part of French goods into their own country duty free,
and levied very moderate duties upon the rest. The
Debate concludes by expressing a hope that the United
States, in the interest of their relations with Europe, and
particularly with France, will not hesitate to reject the
new fiscal measure which is proposed, and calls upon the
representatives of French interests to protest with energy
against a project, which, if realised, would, it says, vitiate
the principle of the treaties between France and the
United States, and be a retrograde step in a comrcercial
policy which has hitherto been liberal and enlightened.
" The man," says -the Journal du Loiret, "who car-
ried away the two young girls from Orleans, a few days
ago, has been taken and recognised, but no traces of the
children. have been discovered as yet, and there is every
reason to fear that their brutal raptor has murdered
them. after having treated them in a manner most
outraging to humanity. On the 29th ult. the villain was
seen and arrested at Jargeau, about four leagues from
Orleans, and brought into that town amidst the execra-
tions of the people, who ,at length became so violent,
that a considerable armed force could with difficulty save
him from being torn to pieces. His name is Serein, he is
about fifty years of age, and in easy circumstances,
having a tobacconist's.; bUreau at Ferolles, near Jargeau.
He -,h7ts preserved the most dogged silence as to the
treatment and fate of his innocent victims, but the bottom
of his cart has evidently been stained with blood,
though endeavours have been made to wash it out.
Similar marks are alsO perceptible on his clothes. He
has been taken back to Jargeau, with the cart, in order
to collect the testimony of those .who may have seen
t.ehEePxr.:m.rociTnurihneegurAforlladgiouw.stinßraogte4
Magistrate.
s t been
him in the interval between the carrying off the children
pn
dtbu ryt
he
oanednehraisl,caa
given us as the results of this excursion. lle was ac-
companiedcr eo umr
mune by the way he
w‘-as recognised, and received with in-
en
ePrveeeryu
in-
dignation. He, however, continued to protest his innocence
till he came within sight of his own village, when, over-
come with shame and compunction, he made a partial
confession, which the Magistrate took down in the cart
itself. Serein admitted that he had taken away the
children, and declared that he had left them in certain 4