The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-23 00:00:00

Aint.

LONDON:
TIIURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1841.

The landowners under the skilful leadership
of Sir ROBERT PEEL, have triumphed in Parlia-
ment, and at the elections. They are the mas-
ters of the Government. The wants of the
State, and the distress of the public gave their
opponents more power against them in 1841 than
at any former period, yet could these opponents
make no head against them. So far as the
Corn-laws arc concerned, they must, therefore,
always have been masters of the Legislature. In
fact, the late Ministers deferred to them ou this
point, and were completely defeated the instant
they went against the landlords. Their sway in
the Legislature has long been paramount, and
they are responsible fur the condition of the
country,

We do not ask them to look at this condition
in reference to the decay of the manufacturers,
for that will, we believe, give them satisfaction.
We do not appeal to them because the people
are distressed, for they avow their wish to
bumble and degrade the democracy; and the
more the people are reduced, the better the
landed aristocracy will be pleased. But we ask
them to look at it in relation to their own secu-
rity. If they are quite satisfied that their pro-
perty is now as much respected as it was ten or
twenty years ago; that the law by which alone
their property can be protected, continues to be
equally honoured; and-if they are convinced
'that there is no diminution in the 'power of

coercion, and no increase in the power of resist-
ance, they will act consistently in continuing the
present system. If they are not so satisfied and
so convinced, the sooner they alter it the better.
They wee with us in opinion, at least they
•,. •
profess t4.kelieve, that the interest of all classes
is identioact It cannot be for their interest,
thereforethat the manufacturers and the arti-
sans should suffer their present hopeless dis-
tress. We can see that it is not for their interest.
The multitude begin to question their title to
own the land. The opulent manufacturers and
capitalists, heretofore ranged on their side,
and even over-zealous to protect the present
right of landed property, begin to call it in ques-
tion, and side with the multitude.
Under the existing law and practice, as to the
land-tax for example, a great number of the
present holders of land, such as the ASHBUR-
TONS, the ARKWRIGHTS, and the PEELS, have
purchased it, and they have given an increased
sum, because the land-tax has not for many
years been levied nor demanded to the full ex-
tent. If on the whole of the landed property
now possessed by Sir ROBERT PEEL or Lord
ASHBURTON, the land-tax, to the whole amount
of 4s. in the pound on the actual rental, had
always been paid, the Noble Lord, or the father
of the Right Hon. Baronet, would have given
so much less for their estates. This is the illus-
tration; the fact is, that the land-tax, unjustly
evaded by former generations of land-owners,
has become incorporated with the price of
landed property, and has been purchased by
many of the present landlords. To levy it now
to the full extent would be taking something un-
justly from the BARINGS, the ARKWRIGHTS, and
the PEELS, for the benefit of the more ancient
proprietors, whom the industrious merchants
and manufacturers displaced.
Nevertheless, so great is the hostility now felt
towards the landowners, in consequence of the
distress caused by the Corn-laws, that we find the
journals of the capitalists in the manufacturing
districts, and the capitalists themselves, attack-
ing this purchased property of the PEELS and
the BARINGS. The Manchester Guardian of
yesterday, for example—a very cautious journal,
a very moderate Whig journal, not a go-the-
whole-hog journal, but the determined enemy
of the Chartists—has a long article on this ques-
tion of the land-tax, in which it asks, " What
right have the landowners to evade the payment
of the entire sum of 4s. in the pound, which
was originally fixed by law, on the entire rental ?"
It calculates that the land-tax, justly levied as
originally enacted, would at present amount to
no less than 8,000,000/. a year; and it concludes
that the present landlords, who, as we have
shown, have given more for their land in conse-
quence of the practical exemption, should be re-
quired to pay this 8,000,000/. Such opinions
strike at their present right of property ; such
opinions are now very prevalent in the manufac-
turingdistricts ; they are entertained by numerous
and respectable capitalists, and lessen the se-
curity of the landlords' property.
Some few specimens of the language used at
the late Manchester meeting, will justify our re-
marks. We can assure the landed aristocracy
that they are especially worthy of their attention:
" It is the almost universal conviction of the operatives,"
said the Rev. J. Waddington, " that there is provided in
the bounty of Pros idence bread enough and to spare ;
that the famine of the necessaries of life is artificial ; and
that markets are closed against the produce of their
labour in order to keep up the rents of the lords of the
soil, and to increase the value of the tithes. They may
be found sitting in their damp, cheerless, and poverty-
stricken cellars, surrounded with their children, meagre-
bellied or sickening before them under the power of dis-
ease, and as they brood over their miseries they compare
their lot with those whom they regard as their oppressors
—pampered in luxury, and, as they believe, as regardless
of their wretchedness as the rich man in the Gospel was
insensible to the sufferings of Lazarus who perished at
his gate full of sores. . . . So far as in me lies will
I expose these scenes of lamentation and woe ; and,
fellow-countrymen, if after these disclosures, ghastly
want could lead to disorder, to tumult, to pillage, or to
bloodshed, for one, I am guiltless of the consequences ;
the inquisition for blood will be made on those who suffer,
such amass of wretchedness to remain without the adoption
of the only adequate rnoains of amelioration."—(Applause)
" If," said Mr. Bright, the Delegate from Rochdale
" to work without wages was to be a slave, then there
were hundreds of thousands of people in this country
as much slaves as any that ever went by that name in the
British Colonies.—(Hear, hear.) So far as uncompen-
sated labour formed a ground of complaint, or a cause
for sympathy, the Englishman had as good a right to
complain, and was as fit a subject for sympathy, as the
negro in the We: t Indies. lle would take the case of
one of the flannel-weavers, for there was nothing like
taking individual cases to see how a great principle
applied.—(Hear, hear.) If the flannel-weaver made a
piece of flannel, the raw material being his own, had he
not as good a right to that piece of flannel as the Duke
of Buckingham had to the acres on his estate ? Undoubt-
edly he had, and a vast deal more—(Cheers)—because
there were certain things which the Duke of Bucking-
ham could not do with his estate, whereas this man
could do what he pleased with his flannel. The Duke
could not allow his land to lie fallow.—(Hear, hear.)
The aristocracy had no right to do that with their land.
Their title to their land did not rest upon so good a
ground as the weaver to his piece of flannel.--(Cheers.)
But, if an American had grown on his land a quarter of
wheat, would he not have as good a right to it as the
Duke had to his green acres, or the weaver to his piece
of flannel ? But when the weaver at Rockdale ex-
changed his flannel for the wheat of the American, and
attempted to bring it home for his use, who stopped him
in the way, and said he should not use it ? Why, the
Duke of Buckingham, and the rest of his class.—(Ap-
plause.) Ay, that class had passed a law to prevent the
weaver and his family from using that to which he had
an undoubted right. He (Mr. Bright) declared that the
Parliament had no right to make a law like that. . . .
With respect to this unjust law—should it be tolerated?
There was no moral law which would condemn a man
for an invasion of the Corn-law. He (Mr. Bright) would
have no scruple whatever, in introducing, in violation of
that law, any quantity of food into this country for the
wants of people Misery was seen in the
house of every poor man. Poor men he was ashamed
to call them, but that was the term now applied to every
working man. Misery was to be seen on his threshold;
haggard destitution, and extreme poverty were the most
prominent things in his family. The consequence was,
that discontent had so pervaded the country that
scarcely any working man would lift a finger in de-
fence of those institutions which Englishmen were wont
to be proud of. Neither the monarch nor the aris-
tocracy were safe under such a state of things—a
state of things that would blast the fairest prospect, and
destroy the most powerful nation that ever existed.
What could be done to upset a law which was fraught
with so much evil consequences ? Ho should be the last
man in the world to encourage force—(Hear, hear)—
Sift, notwithstanding, much good could be effected by
moral force and the power of public opinion, exercised
and brought to bear on the question in a peaceable man-
ner.—(Hear, hear.) When the Church cess was to be
abolished in Ireland, how was it done ? Was it by phy-
sical force ? No. Force was exercised by the Govern-
ment in upholding the cess ; it cost Lord Stanley
28,0001. in law and other expenses, to collect 12,0001. of
a cess.—(Cheers.) Yes, passive resistance; that was an
opponent which no Government could withstand.—
(Cheers.) Undisciplined mobs might be mown down by
her Majesty's troops, but they could not get hold of
" passive resistance." They could not fight with such a
phantom..—(Cheers.) The troops would now find plenty
of spectres to kill, no doubt—(Hear, hear)—but passive
re
not istae--!hat was a spectre which they could
take aim —(Applause.)
" Mr. Brotherton (to make one quotation more) was con-
!timed, that, if the people of this country but understood
the extent of theitizrirongs, they would rise up as one
iant
that an ii2dignation.—(Applu .) se He
Christian Legislature
astonishedan d
(yn.
any country,
professing to be a
S, should ny country, professing to be a
ssuclll:::jni:tr laws."
Christian countr
e
felttn
At all the late meetings vehement
the language the greater was
the applause, and
if the speakers had gone much further the
auditory would willingly have gone with them.
We warn the landowners, that, with reference to
them and to our institutions, an alarming state of
public feeling exists in the manufacturing dis-
tricts. There is an increasing disregard for the
law, and a concentration of hatred and indigna-
tion on those who make it. The land-
owners may possibly survive the sad COL,.
flagration they have kindled, but they
will not escape unseorche •
d Public °pi_
nion, though it be armed with no sword, is the
real guardian of all our rights.
Unsupported by
it, laws are mere pieces of blotted parchment.
The landowners, as legislators, cannot continue,
therefore, to inflict distress and outrage on the
manufacturers without becoming practically con-
vinced, by their own insecurity and sufferings,
that their best interests are identical with those
of the restiof the community. The only way by
which they can be prosperous is, to act justly.

We have not thought it necessary to offer any
comments on the scheme for reforming the

Corn-laws, recently announced in the Globe as
having received the assent of the agriculturists,
and as likely to be submitted to Parliament by
the Cabinet, because the scheme appeared to us

destitute of authority. When objections have

been urged to the present system, and a fixed
duty has been proposed, the Tories have exult-
ingly pointed to the great quantity of corn which
has been imported under the system at a duty of
ls., and have boasted of that as one of its hap-
piest effects. When prices rise very high, it
allows corn to come in at a nominal duty. The
proposed scheme would annihilate that argu-
ment in its favour, by placing the lowest duty,
whatever may be the price, at 4s. the quarter.
The Tories will not, we opine, venture to destroy
the single, and by them much praised, advantage
of the present system.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, too, has frequently de-
nounced a fixed duty, because it could not be
maintained when prices were exorbitantly high.
A duty never to be lower than 4s. would be a
fixed duty to that extent, and Sir ROBERT must
eat up all his thunder against a fixed duty,
or hurl it against the scheme suggested in the
Globe. It contravenes, in fact, the principles
avowed by the present Ministers ; and we, there-
fore, do not believe that it emanates from them.
Proceed, however, from whom it may, it is so di-
rectly at variance with that total repeal for
which we contend, and falls so far short ofjus-
tice, that it shall meet, should it be brought for-
ward by any competent authority, with our stre-
nuous opposition.

The Tory Journals assert that the present Mi-
nistry is pledged to the principle of protection to
agriculture, and the sliding scale. They endea-
vour to excite some little hopes, however, in the
public, by stating that the sliding scale may be
improved; that the Ministers are not pledged to
the details of the law, and that these probably
may be altered with advantage. If that be Sir
ROBERT PEEL'S opinion, as we believe it is, it is
not the opinion of the Duke of BUCKINGHAM.
His Grace has, at sundry " ordinaries" and
" Farmers' Clubs," declared stoutly for the
whole law, and advised the farmers to suffer no
alteration in it whatever. His Grace is con-
sistent. Who can tell where alterations will
stop when they have commenced? He is the
Lord ELDON of his party, and is well aware that
it is much easier to maintain a darn unimpaired
than to prevent it being totally washed away
after making a breach in it.
The authority of the law mainly depends on
its sanctity; to propose alterations in it, is to admit,
to a certain extent, that it is a bad law, and, so
far, to plead guilty to the charge of those who con-
demn it. For the Pro-Corn-law-men there is no
safety but in sticking to every tittle of the present
law, averages, jumping-scale and all. By pro-
posing alterations they will brand it as some-
thing less than the incarnation of wisdom.
When it is admitted that the scale is not
correct, that the averages are not well taken,
we should like to know what the law is sepa-
rate from these details. The principle of
protection to agriculture, as it is called, is en-
tirely a pecuniary question of degree. The most
unrighteous of the unrighteous landlords do not
ask for a protecting duty of 20s. when wheat sells
at 80s. The exact sum now fixed on is a just pro-
tection for the agriculturists, or it is not. If it be
just, why alter it? To propose an alteration is
to admit an injustice on one side or the other.
Apart from the details, there is no principle in
the law, and when the Pro-Corn-law men give
up the details, they throw the principle over-
board. Many of them admit that the law can-
not be maintained as it is, and they may be as-
sured that they cannot alter it without bringing
about its total annihilation.

We publish Mr. CHRISTOPHER'S suggestions
for an alteration of the Corn-laws. They do not
differ essentially from those which the Honour-
able Gentleman threw out on October 23th,
at Boston, and which were noticed in The
Sun, except that he was then certain that the
minimum duty should be 205., while now he is
uncertain whether it should be 20s. or 30s. He
has since that time been much amongst his consti-
tuents, and if they approve of his ss. fixed duty as
against the public, with a sliding scale for the
advantage of the farmer, they appear not to
approve of so low a minimum duty as 20s. It is
one great consolation, however, to find that
Mr. CHRISTOPHER is of opinion that the law, as
it exists at present, cannot be maintained.

Madrid papers of the 14th inst. have reached
us. We have given in our Foreign Summary all
that is most important in their contents. Bands
of robbers continue to invest the great roads in
the neighbourhood of the capital, but as the Go-
vernment is taking active measures to put them
down, we expect soon to hear of their dis-
appearance.

The Five per Cents. were done at the Madrid
Bourse on the 14th inst. at 331 for cash, and 341
at 60 days.

We have received the Paris Papers of Thurs-
day. It was well and generally known in Paris
on that day that the Court of Peers had con-
demned M. DUPOTY, Editor of the Journal du
Peuple, for participation in the attempt to assas-
sinate the Royal Princes. This participation con-
sists in his having edited a Journal which was
subscribed for by the proprietor of the wine-
shop in which the conspirators were in the
habit of assembling. Why the builder of the
wine-shop was not included in DUPOTY'S sen-
tence the Peers only can explain, for he
was equally criminal with the able writer now
about to be made the scape-goat of the sins of
the Cabinet. But the French papers are too ter-
rified to do more than allude to this iniquitous
proceeding. The National knows that the
President of the Court longs to pounce upon it,
and therefore discreetly remains silent. The
Siecle is in the same predicament. The Temps,
which being usually more moderate is less impli-
cated, has the following remarks on this infamous
trial :

" Of this we are certain, that the Government (un-
worthy of being called the Government of July) would,
if it could, re-establish the censorship. But this the
Charter forbids. Therefore, not being able to silence
the Press, the Ministry defame it, and strive to dis-
honour it. They would prefer, no doubt, to buy ; but
unluckily for them there are certain men belonging to
the Press who would prefer to be ruined rather than to
sell themselves. As a last resource, and in defiance of
truth and justice, the Press is compromised in a procedure
for high treason. We think Government might find a
more consistent and more honourable method of proceed-
ing against the fourth power of the State, than by any
sort of legal pursuit whatever. Till men are found at the
head of affairs of sufficient political capacity to compre-
hend the subject, all that we can say is, that the Press is
one of the indispensable elements of our institutions ;
that the public will never submit to be deprived of their
own unshackled organs ; and that the Ministry, at once
weak and violent, who prefer to persecute instead of con-
ciliating, or who decline to combat their opponents with
their own weapons, will only have exemplified for the
hundredth time the fable of the serpent and the file."

As the charter is now no better than a piece
of mere parchment, the press of France ought
at once to unite in demanding the restoration of
the censorship. No abridgement of the freedom
of opinion can exhibit such tyranny as is shown
in the prosecution of M. DUPOTY by the Court
of Peers. Writers in France are no longer pro,
tdcted by the laws or by the charter. Neither
are they amenable only to the laws—they are
every instant at the mercy of a tribunal worse
than ever disgraced this country when a JEF•
PRIES sat on the Bench, and a Colonel KIRK was
charged with the maintenance of public order.
The Bishop OfCHARTRES and the French Press
are at loggerheads about the state of religion in
France. Recently the Journal des Debats pub-
lished some well-written articles condemning
French ecclesiastics for adopting the supersti-
tions of the dark ages, and praising the modera-
tion of the Church of England, more especially
the Puseyite and Newmanite section of it.
The Bishop, in a pastoral letter levelled at the
Debats, repelled these attacks upon the priest-
hood. The Debuts replied, and the Bishop re-
joined. As this theological conflict is nothing to
us, we merely refer to it for the purpose of
quoting the writer in the Debats' curious corn-