The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-27 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY SUN,

AND THE
PARLIAMENTARY SUN,

ARE NOW RE-PUBLISHED,
PRICE SIXPENCE EACH.
Sun Oilier, Aug. 30, 1841.

AILIt AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-3011RO W
minutes attar 0 I Evening 46 minutes after

LONDON:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1341,

We borrow the following remarks from the
Manchester Guardian, because they are quite
coincident with our own thoughts :
LORD STANLEY AND THE CORN-LAWS.• —The more
we consider the important speech of Lord Stanley at the
North Lancashire election, on Tuesday last, the more
we are convinced that the present Cabinet has no inten-
tion of making any substantial alteration in the Corn-
laws. Those who consider the Noble Lord's speech as
nothing more than an expression of his individual opi-
nions, view it in what we cannot but consider an erro-
neous light. In order to comprehend the full weight and
importance of his Lordship's statements, we must take
into account his explanation of the footing on which he
stands with the Prime Minister. On this point his Lord-
ship says :
" From that time (1834) to this, I have been in close,
uninterrupted, and confidential intercourse with Sir Ro-
bert Peel. In Opposition, no great measure has been
taken by the party acting under the direction of Sir Ro-
bert Peel without my cordial concurrence and cordial
sanction ; upon all subjects I have been admitted by him to
the most frank and unreserved communication of opinion;
upon all subjects of past policy I have cordially been able
to agree with him; upon a full discussion of the course
which her Majesty's present Government will pursue,
I have no reason to anticipate any the slightest difference
between the. views of Sir Robert Peel and my own."
Under these circumstances, thus ostentatiously put for-
ward, Lord Stanley must be taken as an exponent, not of
his own views merely, but of the intentions of the Pre-
mier ; and his declarations in reference to the Corn-
lawa may, therefore, be pursued by the present Cabinet,
and of the general principles by which their policy is to
be regulated.

We disagree, therefore, entirely with the
Spectator, which represents Lord STANLEY'S
decided speech in favour of the Corn-laws, as
the expression of his self-will, as indiscreet and
as unwarranted by the resolutions of the Cabinet.
The Cabinet has resolved, we believe, to main-
tain the Corn-laws very nearly as they are, and
the Spectator only lends itself to propagate the
Tory delusions when it intimates that Lord
STANLEY will have some difficulty in February
to reconcile the speech with which he will then
preface his vote in favour of Sir R. PEEL'S mea-
sure for altering the Corn-laws with his speech
at Lancaster. Sir R. PEEL will make no altera-
tion if he can help it.
Lord STANLEY is a frank man; he is a born
aristocratic, and despises the multitude a great
deal too much to use any arts to deceive them.
He is above the meanness of telling- falsehoods
to cajole the people Lying is notoriously the
vice of slaves, and those who rank with them or
spring from them. Lord S' :ANLEY no doubt, ex-
pressed Sir R. PEEL'S Opinions and resolves as
well as his own. Another member
binet (Sir J. GRAmum) used language at Dor-
chester similar to that used at Lancaster by
Lord STANLEY. The reserve of Sir HENRY
HARDINGE and Sir E. KNATCRBULL are to be
placed to the same account as Sir ROBERT PEEL''
hints, and are meaut—if they have any mean: in,'to beguile the people into a belief that the j
Cabinet latends.tg~do. that which the Members
of the Cabinet ,know it has already resolved, un-
less compelled by the people, not to do.
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S conduct, far from refuting,
confirms our view. He played the hypocrite on
Friday, and pretended to feel for the distresses
and then endeavoured to reason it
of the people,
away. He quoted documents concerning the
Banks, as
Savings'
Mr.IVILLIERs observed, to
show that there was no distress. To make them
of any value, he ought, as Mr. VILLIERS and
Mr. COBDEN observed, to produce similar returns
for other months and other years. Without this
comparison, however, the facts quoted by, Sir
ROBERT PEEL are susceptible, we think, of a
different interpretation from that he assigned to
them. He said—

----
e
In the month of June, 1841, the sums paid
month wereaid in amounted
to 66,4421.; the sums drawn out in the same
i
86,3641., exhibiting the melancholy fact that the sums
drawn out in that month exceeded the
sums paid in by
the sum of 20,000/ In July, however, the sums paid
into the Savings' Banks amounted to 124,900/, whilst
the sums drawn out reached only to 87,000/. In the
month of August the sums paid in were 100,000/t and
The sums drawn out only 50,00C1 Now, olx,erve, that
June the sums drawn Out exceeded the sums paid in
b.).
20,0001.; in the month of August the sums paid in ex-
ceeded the sums paid out by .50,0001, and amounted to
double the sum withdrawn. Whether this was partly
owing to the confidence engendered throughout the
country in consequence of the change of Administra-
tion I cannot say.—(" Hear, hear," and laughter from
both sides of the House.) The Hon. Gentleman says I
take a partial and interested view of the subject. One
of my reasons for hoping for an improvement is, that I
see an increased confidence throughout the country; and
those impressions which I entertained before are at least
confirmed by the fact—it may be only simultaneous, and
not stand in the relation of cause and effect—that
whereas in the month of June the sums drawn out ex-
of
ceedednehe t
Admire sums paid in by 20,000/, when the presage
a w tration appeared about to the stuns paid in exceeded those drawn bout by
lised,
50,000/.—(Hear, hear.) I state the fact—f draw no
inference from it, except that it Constitutes an additional
reason for pausing before we attempt too suddenly to

apply a remedy for distress. Up to the 11. th of Septem-
ber the sums paid in had been 32,000/ and the sums
drawn out 20,000/ It is true that a great pro portion of these
deposits are made by the retail dealers, but it is gene-
rally admitted that their prosperity is s, correct test of
that of the working classes.

The handloom-weavers, who, f' Jr want of em-
ployment, are parading carts ab out Manchester,
with placards, stating " that they are starving,
in a land of plenty," could nr A be depositors in
Savings' Banks. Neither could the workmen
and retail traders of Boitora and Stockport. They
are, probably, chiefly to be found amongst ser-
vants and small capitalists, little manufacturers,
and a variety of p'zr'sons who could find no bet-
ter employment for their funds than putting
them into a Savings) Bank. We doubt whether
that be an l'lldication of prosperity or the re-
Wken the little capitalist can extend his
operatio-,,5, and when the retail trader has a
brisi.c and increasing demand, they do not place
their funds in Savings' Banks; they employ
them in their business, because that is then a
more profitable investment. The increase of in-
vestments in the Savings' Banks, therefore, may
be an index to the want of profitable employ-
ment for capital, and to a stagnating trade, not
to the increasing prosperity of the retail dealers
and of the working classes.
On this principle the explanation of the di-
minished deposits in June, and the increased de-
posits in August and September, may not be
very flattering to the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet, nor very significant of the utility of his
Government. In June there was yet a hope
that the Corn-laws might be repealed or modi-
fied, and the little capitalists in the manufacturing
districts kept their funds in their own hands, ex-
pecting to use them in new and profitable in-
vestments, arising from the extension of trade
In August and September that hope was extin-

verse.

;wished. The accession of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet to -office killed it outright, and convinced
the people that nothing was to be done to relieve
them—that trade was to remain hampered, and,
therefore, they could make nothing more of
their funds than the interest which is guaranteed
to those who put money in the Savings' Banks.
Were commerce prospering, and could men in busi-
ness make 10 or 15 per cent. on their money, they
would not put it into the Savings' Bank at 31- or
4 per cent. It is, therefore, because they cannot
make as high interest on their capital by employ-
ing it in trade in August, which they hoped to do
in June, that they increase their deposits or
divert their capital from active production

yielding profits, to passive non-production yielding
only interest. The accumulation of funds in
Savings' Banks may, under this aspect, be rather
an indication of increasing decay than of increa-
sing prosperity since the accession of the Tories
to office. Looking at the returns quoted by Sir
R. PEEL, in conjunction with the known state of
the country, we are disposed to believe that such
is a true interpretation of them.

Be the interpretation, however, what it may,
it is quite clear that, by Sir R. PEEL using those
returns in the manner he did, he does not
credit the statements which have been made of the
public distress. Of course, therefore, he be-
lieves that the Corn-laws cause no mischief. Lord
STANLEY'S great argument in favour of them
was, in fact, stolen or borrowed from Sir R.
PEEL, and both assert that the evils the country
now labour under are the result of over-produc-
tion and too large issues of paper money. They
both, therefore, take precisely the same view of
the present state of the country, and both are
agreed as to not altering the Corn-laws. The only,
or at least the chief difference, between them is,
that Lord STANLEY, with the arrogance of a born
plunderer of his industrious fellow-creatures,
boldly avows his opinions, while Sir R. PEEL,
with some of the shuffling of the half inde-
pendent aristocracy-aping class from which he
sprang, still seeks to keep on good terms with
the commercial and manufacturing classes, and
wants boldness to express his determination to
sustain the extorted rents of the landowners at
all hazards.

The Tories began their career of economy in
an appropriate manner on Friday. They voted
1,500/. a-year more as a retiring pension to a Vice-
Chancellor than was necessary, and they voted
to reward Lord ABINGER'S son fob the very un-
justifiable conduct of his father.

Our readers will recollect that in March, 1840,
a Bill was brought into Parliament to abolish the
Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer.
After that Bill was brought in, an office which
Lord ABINGER knew was to be abolished fell
vacant, and he appointed his son to fill it. To
make such an appointment for the purpose of
obtaining an annuity for the occupant when the
office was to be abolished, was, in a moral point of
view, dishonest. But it was made, and the com-
pensation clause in the Bill did not except this
office. On Friday evening, expressly with a view
to prevent the honourable Mr. SCARLETT
from receiving from 1,2001. to 1,4001. per year
of the public money, for having been appointed
by his father to an office which his father knew
was to be abolished, Mr. WARD moved to ex-
clude all those persons from the benefit of the
compensation who were appointed to office after
the Bill had been brought in. This reasonable
and just proposition the Tories resisted, and they
were successful in carrying the clause so as to
include Mr. SCARLETT. That gentleman, there-
fore, whose father is already most munificently
paid by the country for his poor services, is to
have from 1,2001. to 1,400/. a-year of the public
money, for having previously received at the rate
of 2,0001. a-year for about eighteen months for
doing little or nothing. That is a specimen of the
manner in which the Tories at this time are to
economise the resources of the country, and re-
lieve the public of its enormous burdens.

For our parts, we object to the whole system.
Why should law officers be compensated for los-
inc, their situations when their services are no
longer wanted, any more than merchants' clerks
or hand-loom weavers? Why should a man be
appointed to an office merely to entitle him to
compensation ? When Lord BBOUGHAN ap-
pointed one of his brothers to an office in the
Court of Chancery, he did it conditionally, that
he was to make no claim for compensation should
that office be abolished. The same course was
taken on other occasions, and it may be said to
have lately become a rule that appointments now
made should not entitle the holders to compensa-
tion should their offices be abolished. At any ;
rate it is monstrous to appoint a man to an office
after it is known that it is to be abolished, and
then demand compensation.
The principle on which compensation is justified I
is, that a man accepts an office and gives up other
pursuits, relying on that office being continued.
When it is known that the office is to be abo-
lished, the reason for granting compensation
I disappears. Lord ABINGER'S conduct, therefore,
in not rejecting compensation for his son, appears
to us unworthy of his high station; his son's
conduct is unworthy of a man of honour and
honesty; and the conduct of the Legislature, in
sanctioning such sorry behaviour, betrayed its
trust, and did what lay in its power to degrade
and demoralise society.. That is, however, what.
we arc to expect from a Legislature which acts
under the influence of Tory principles.

The City police, hitherto quiet, orderly, and
humane guardians of the public peace, have un-
finquitately caught the mania whit}, has pre-
vailed for some time in the metropolitan body of
the West, and committed a few outrageous acts,
which we arc glad to see the City authorities
denounce with just severity. A singular instance
of this new system of tyranny came before Sir
PETER LAURIE on Saturday. We need not recite
the case. It is very brief, and will be found un-
der the head of Mansion-house. The inspector,
(whole name was not mentioned), appears to be
an old offender, one of those officious,
meddling, tyrannical class, who infest the
Bow-street district, and are more pleased in
wreaking their vengeance on honest men for
some hasty expression or imaginary insult to
their dignity, than in abating nuisances or cap-

• r ' 4 -449
.7t, • 4
rte-7
•
M 0 j • n- •
.4

41: tg, :„§utt.