The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-22 00:00:00

CORN-LAW COMPENSATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—I proceed to fillow up the subject of my
letter in your paper of Tuesday evening, Dec. 14.
In settling the form in which compensation
for the manufacturing and commercial interests
ought to be demanded from the landowners, the
object is not to determine what would be the
snuggest, cosiest, and on the whole the most
politic mode, if -an Act of Parliament entitled
" An Act for Retribution on the Landed Inte-
rest" were sent down to us from the Lords, with
blanks which we were invited to fill up according
to our own choice and judgment of what we
should like best. This would be the error of the
Chartists, who say " What would be so comfort-
.able as the Charter? . Therefore let us go for it
and nothing else." But it is to determine what
is the form of demand, which carries with it the
greatest probability of practical effect; the effect
being after all, to a considerable extent, like that
produced by the artilleryman, when he points his
gun to a given star, less with the expectation of
hitting it, than of hitting something else which
he has set his heart upon demolishing.
When the proposal is made to tax the land-
owners twenty millions a-year, it may be the
justest thing in the world, but people do not see
it to be so. It may be the most exact measure
of retributim, weighed out to an ounce in the
nicest sca es of political economy, but it does not
ca: ry the proof and evidence upon its face. The
argument also by which it has been accom-
panied—that it Would still leave the landowners
the richest in Europe—is of an unfortunate com-
plexion. It is the counterpart of the argument
which states, that because Mr. Strutt rides in a
carriage, and Mr. Evans is understood to give
claret, it is clear they have not been robbed more
than they ought to be. It is, in fact, an ar-
gument for a Prime Minister. The demand
for a bounty on foreign corn, in duration and
magnitude equal to the past duties, bears, on the
contrary, the justice of its own dimensions on the
face of it. It is as difficult to object to on the
sore of justice, as levying a simple restoration
from a thief.

Another objection to the proposal for levying
twenty millions a-year by a land-tax, is that the
payment of a land-tax (notwithstanding what
has been lately done by Mr. Scott upon the
question, which, however powerful, cannot have
had the effect of removing all prejudices from all
minds) is one of the Atrouenilds of the land-
! owners, rather than what they count a weakness.
It would, therebre, be running directly upon
what they consider as their point of strength.
" We are paying one land-tax already," would
be their answer, "and you econe to tell us we
ought to pay another. We think the public, in
debt to us for what we do, and you choose this
for an argument why our mrdens should be in-
creased." There is no use in saying this defence
cannot resist the examination of a searching and
impartial mind. The question is not of whether
an enemy's defence ought to be effective, but
whether it will be.

If the landowners object that a bounty on
foreign corn is not, per se,
in the first style of
political economy, but is to a certain extent a
throwing away. of the natural resources of a
country on the same principles as a duty, one
answer is, that whenever the landowners shall
propose to remove this damage to the community
by offering a commutation into a tax on land or
rents there is no doubt that fair terms would be
accepted, or even that something would be done
towards meeting them,
in the way of allowing
them a favourable bargain.. But the offer must
come from the landowners.

But another answer is, that it may be main-
tained with great appearance of justice and of
ultimate success, that a bounty of the nature
and character described, though in one direction
uneconomical or a source.of national loss, would
more than compensate for it in another direction,
by the tendency it would have to recover such
portions as might be recoverable, of the trade
and commerce of the world, which pains have
been taken to cut out of the hands of English-
men, and a premium given to foreigners for being
the instruments. There is nothing like being
distinct. The position advanced is, that though
a bounty on foreign corn is undeniably a national
expense and an outlay, it is an outlay it would
be most wise to make at the present moment,
for the sake of the trade and commerce
now in the act of expiring, which might be
rescued from destruction. A dram may be in
a general way a needless or harmful expense
but if pouring a dram down the throat of a man
apparently drowned, will save him and all the
posterity that may be in the loins of their
father, it can hardly be said to be improvidently
expended. The manufacturing and commercial
interest demands justice in the shape of this dram.
And there is an amazing difference in point of
popularity, between a tax to bring corn in, and a
tax to keep it out.
Note here, that all intelligent advocates on
the side of the manufacturing and commercial
interests, know that whenever the change comes,
it must be by some kind of gradations. But
they know too, that this is no impediment to
compensation being afterwards made by a bounty,
by gradations of the same kind.
Allow me to notice further, that there may
be suspicion of a mistake being abroad, on the
subject of the necessity or desirableness of coming
to 'a fixed duty as a preliniinary to abolition. It
looks like the bad start of some not very clear
mind, which saw distinctly that to get a duty of
10s. and then remove it by two shillings a-year,
was one way to remove the Corn-laws, but did
not see that the end might be obtained with equal
certainty by deducting annually from each grade
of the existing scale; which might with equal
ease be changed into a bounty by corresponding
steps. Why are we to encounter all the prosing,
and all the chances of disappointment and trickery,
which may arise out of insisting on fighting a
bye battle for a fixed duty as a preliminary? If
anybody can show good reasons, let the thing go
on ; but let the reasons be shown.
Yours very sincerely,
T. PERRON-ET THOMPSON.
Blackheath, Dec. 21, 1841.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.—Thc will of Mrs.
Anna Maria James, of Birmingham, has just been
proved in Doctors' Commons by the executors. '.Vie
personal property of the deceased is sworn under
16,000/. Amongst the various charitable bequests
are the following :—British and Foreign Bible So-
ciety, 5001. ; London Missionary, 5001.•' Colonial Mis-
sionary, 500/.; Moravian Missionary, 2001.; Baptist Mis-
sionary, 100/. ; Religious Tract Society, 2001. ; Congre-
gational School, Lewisham, 2001. ; School for Mission-
aries' Daughters, at Walthamstow, 2001. ;
.Congrega-
tional Union for England and Wat s, 300/. ; the Village
Itinerary, 100/. ; Irish Evangelical Society, 100/. ; to the
Southwark Sunday School Society, 1001. ; to the Carr's-
lane Sunday School Society, 100/. ; to the Sidmouth
Marsh Chapel Sunday School, 501. ; and to the Irish
Congregational Union, 501.
Wednesday, being the anniversary of the deposit
of the remains of the Emperor Napoleon at the liotel
des Invalides, a great many National Guards in miiform,
soldiers of the Old Guard, and the Polish Army, with
nu serous other persons, visited the Emperor's tomb, and
made offerings of crowns of iumnortelles, with which the
chapel was strewed.

" MY DEAR CIIAMBOLLE—YOU have very well ex-
plained the cause of the choler of the Morning Chronicle
against the fortifications of Paris. It is evident, that as
long as France remains without defence against new in-
vesions, her alliance with England must be a compulsory
one, unless she prefers to throw herself into the arms of
Russia, disavowing thereby the principle, as well as all
the morality of her policy ; and every alliance which is
not free and facultative is a dependency, and a species of
servage, rather than an alliance. We, who were parti-
sans of the English alliance, never desired such depen-
dence. We wished that France might suffice to herself.
A nation is not a first-rate nation but upon one condi-
tion, which is, the being able, in a ' orottl and just cause,
to combat alone against all, and when Europe says
yes, to say no. Prussia acquired its rank as a first-rate
nation the day that she had the courage to accept the
defiance of all the Powers united against her and re-
sist them. It does not evince too much pride for France.to
pretend to the same honour. In this great and unequal
duel, which we neither desire nor provoke, but which is
possible, and necessary to provide against, we should
have to combat two Powers, both beyond our reach—
Russia and England, one cuirassed by the ocean, the
other with the entire breadth of Europe before her, and
behind her the deserts of Asia. Are we to face such
enemies without casque or armour? It would be too
chivalrous, even if resistance could be continued on other
points, after the occupation of Paris—if our population
was united, as it would be were there but the choice be-
tween an established Government and that of the
foreigner; but who does not know that Paris fallen,
and the Tuileries occupied by a Government having
its partisans, announcing itself as the pledge of
reconciliation with Europe, and holding in its hands
all the powers of centralization, national resist-
ance could not be long effectual. Has not mo-
dern history afforded two examples of this last
and cruel truth ? Should we run the risk of a third,
which would probably be the last of French nationality?
Where is the French patriot, who, in 1814 and 1815, has
not shed tears of blood at the aspect of a brave and
numerous population stricken with powerlessness, and
witness of a revolution taking place for the profit of a
family, of which it the day before knew not the existence?
We were then exhausted, discouraged, but less divided
than we are now, and Napoleon still commanded our
armies. Where is the patriot, who, in 1830, when France
resumed the right of disposing of herself, and flung a
defiance to Europe—where is the patriot who did not at
the instant, and from the mere instinct of national inde-
pendence, regard the fortification of Paris as the first
necessity of the country. I was then at the Hotel de
Ville, and I avow I first started the project. Marshal
Soult reminded the Chamber of this during the
late debate ; and he was right. I then looked upon .
this measure as so necessary a consequence of the
revolution of July that I did not conceive the
possibility of doubt or contradiction. If later, I com-
batted a system of detached forts, which alarmed Paris,
and did not defend it, and which would have left the po-
pulation, as in 1814 and 1815, mere spectators of the
struggle which was to decide the fate of their country, I
defy any one to cite a word of mine doubting the neces-
sity of fortifying Paris.
" As to the alarms which the English journal mani-
fests for liberty, I am nowise moved by them. I love
liberty probably more than the Whig writers of the
Chronicle, but I love it proud and strong, with the sen-
timent of nationality. The liberty which might vege-
tate under the dependence of the Cossack knout, or the
insolent and forced protection of England, is not to my
taste. It is not for that liberty that our fathers com-
bated. Let those who affi ct fears for liberty abstain
from giving their support to the authors of all those re-
actionary measures, which, since 1830, have kept thecoun.
try in a state of crisis ; let them join us, instead of re-
sisting us by votes, calumniating us in speeches, and I
promise that we shall obtain by our united efforts such
guarantees that the fortifications of Paris shall no
longer occasion anxieties for freedom. There will then
remain of these fortifications merely what made us
vote them—an immense force for the country, increase
of dignity in foreign policy, and, above all, more internal
security against that extreme of misfortunes, a foreign
invasion, which hangs suspended over the head of the
nation; and which, as long as it remains dreaded, will
expose us to the alternative of desperate resolutions, or
of humiliating and shameful concessions.
"I give you here currently the reflections inspired by
the Morning Chronicle. In the situation in which the
statesmen whom the Chronicle represents have placed
my country, I am more proud than saddened by such
attacks, leaving to others the melancholy glory of merit-
ing the praise of the foreigner. You were right not to
take up seriously the reproach which the Chronicle ad"--
dresses to me, of not having in 1830 stipulated more
serious guarantees in favour of our liberties. The men
and the affairs of this country are ill known in England;
this is not the first time that I have perceived it. Not
only was I not Deputy at the moment when the destinies
of our revolution were decided, but I was not in Paris.
It is only in England that people can be ignorant that I
accompanied Charles X. as his safeguard, to Cherbourgh,
and that all I could do on the eve of my departure
was to carry to the chamber (which, alarmed by
the revolution, and anxious to have done with it, Was in
haste to fill up the vacancy to the throne) that protest
of the National Guard and the provisional government,
which I developed to the tribune, against any grant of
the Crown before certain guarantees were stipulated as
conditions of that grant. This protest produced the
69th article of the Charter, in which it is repeated, in-
deed, word for word. On my return I accepted the post
of Prefect at the Hotel de Ville, merely as a political
post; and I kept it as long as I found means of resisting
subversive and anarchist passions.on one side, or that
reaction which began to manifest itself on the other.
And if in this resistance I ceased to have for auxiliaries
Lafayette at the head of the National Guard of Paris,
Lafitte and Dupont de l'Eure in the Ministry, it is well
known that it was not my fault. It would be sovereign
injustice to render me responsible for my want of power.
The Morning Chronicle, before it speaks of us, should de-
rive its information from other sources than those from
whom its correspondents draw.
" Toes a vous de caur.
" ODILON BARROT.

" P.S. The Commerce takes advantage of the article
of the Chronicle. It must be blinded with passion to
seek its arms and arguments there !"

ANTI-CORN-LAW CONFERENCE.
The number of ministers and members of Dissenting
Churches who have promised to attend the great Anti-
Corn-law Conference in this city, on the 11th and 12th
January next, has greatly exceeded the most sanguine
anticipations of its projectors. Upwards of- 201 minis-
ters, and 452 members have promised to attend ; and
every post brings additional names. We understand
there is now no doubt that the meeting will take
place, and that it will be the largest and most influential
ever heldin Scotland on the subject of the Corn-laws.
In addition to those who are to attend, nearly
300 other ministers, who from various causes
are unable to leave their homes at this season, have sig-
nified their cordial approbation of the proposed meeting,
and their anxious desire to do everything in their power
to promote the total abolition of the Corn and provision-
laws, which they regard as unjust in principle, and con-
trary to the spirit of Christianity. With about six or
eight exceptions out of upwards of five hundred ministers
who have sent answers, they are all opposed even to a
fixed duty, and in favour of an entirely free trade in
corn ; and, with very few exceptions, they state that
their people are nearly unanimous in entertaining
the same opinions—even in agricultural districts. In
i very many nstances, it is stated that meetings have
been held, and that the congregations are perfectly
unanimous on the subject. Other letters state that
even among the farmers the abolition cause has recently
made rapid progress, and that if some provision were
devised by which the landlords should be required to
make an equitable arrangement regarding existing leases,
the tenantry would soon be quite unanimous in favour of
total repeal. Altogether, the letters are of a most cheer-
ing character, regarding the progress of the repeal cause.
The different bodies have intimated their intention of
being present as follows : Ministers. Members.
I. Secession Churches
2. Relief Churches 39 79
3. Independent Churches
4. Baptist Churches
5. Smaller Sects 7 7

—Scottish Pilot.

ADELPHI THEATRE.

The story of " Barnaby Rudge" was on Monday dra-
matised at the Adelphi, with strong fidelity to the fea-
tures of the original fiction. This is the second dramatic
version of the story of " Boz," it having been attempted
before at the English Opera ; but in the present instance
the dramatist has had the advantage of waiting for the
conclusion of the novel, and has fashioned his materials
up to the climax of the original tale. It were needless to
go again over the plot of Dickens's popular work ; it
will be enough in the present instance to indicate the
order of the characters. Par exemple, Mr. 'Wright sus-
tained the part of Tappertit. His scene with old Varden
and his daughter in the breakfast-parlour was a triumph
of comic acting, and, when put in juxta-position to his
request to Hugh, the ostler (0. Smith), to shake hands
with him, brings out two ludicrous contrasts of humour
and fun. He sees the dirt on the ostler's one hand, and
asks him if lie has not another. He has no second hand
cleaner than the first, and therefore the droll and deli-
cate Tappertit is content with owing him the shake.
The versatility of Yates drew , down the applause
of the house. In the first instance he took the part
of Miggs, the maid, and in the next that of
Sir John Chester, the dandy of the olden time.
It is enough to say that Mrs. Yates performed the part
of Mrs. Rudge, to indicate that the pathos and passion
of that episode of the novel were developed with spirit,
energy, and success in the drama. Barnaby, the idiot
boy, became, in the hands df Miss Chaplin, an interest-
ing performance, chastely and quietly_ acted, and with-
out any straining after effect, John Willett, the sturdy,
burly headed Boniface, was well given by Wilkinson ;
and Paul Redford did his •
utmost for old Yerden, The