The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-11 00:00:00

the West Indies has hitherto grown, tell the
public that the West Indies are coming for-
ward with an ample supply, because they are to
send in 5,000 tons more than ever the West Indians al-
lowed us to consume before. They put food beyond
the reach of a hungry man, and then vow, because
he eats not, that he has no appetite. On the whole
the defender of well-poisoning made a clever speech
in favour of protection and against the slave trade,
humanity and interest coinciding charmingly ; and,
as it was propounded with a somewhat solemn tone,
it was supposed by the House to be very earnest and
impressive. On the Hon. Gentleman concluding, the
debate was again adjourned.
The House Adjourned at a Quarter before One.

A pamphlet has been published by Messrs.
LONGMAN, on the Corn-laws, which, from its
title, style, and appropriateness, is to be taken,
we presume, as an official statement of the rea-
sons for proposing a fixed tax on corn, instead of
totally abolishing the nefarious impost. Amongst
those reasons, it is said that the land is heavier
taxed than the capital of the maantfacturer or
the merchant. At least, the writer presumes
that it is, and on that presumption justifies the
fixed duty as a protection to the owners of rent.
We will not enter into the question whether rent
be heavier taxed than other property, though we
are inclined to believe the statement fallacious ;
but if it be, what is the proper remedy—what
does justice require? That other property be
taxed equally to rent. Let the proportions be
accurately ascertained, and we should make no
objection to such an equalization. But does the
writer propose to tax manufacturing and mercan-
tile capital ? No, he proposes to tax the poor
man's loaf. What a monstrous proposition !
What a complete non sequitur ! An injustice is
done by taxing rent higher than interest and
profit, and to remedy the injustice the
writer proposes to tax a third party, who receives
neither rent, profit, nor interest. Such a writer
will be laughed out of court, and if the Parlia-
ment adopt the proposition, it will only add to the
contempt—if to increase is be possible—with
which that assembly is now regarded.
The supposition, too, that land is heavier taxed
than mercantile and manufacturing capital, and
that, therefore, the poor man's loaf is to be taxed
by a tax on a foreign corn, as a protection to the
landowner, laads to another proposition almost
as monstrous as the one adverted to, namely,
that the agriculturist is entitled to a drawback
when corn is exported, in order to enable him to
sell corn cheaply abroad. Foreign corn being
taxed to swell the rent of the landlords, the
cost of the production of corn is enhanced
to the farmer, and the public is to be doubly
taxed to enable him to sell it. We understand
what a drawback means when a tax is imposed
on an imported commodity, and taken back when
that same commodity is exported; but it seems
to us an abuse of terms to call a sum given on
home-grown corn, when exported, equal to the
sum paid on foreign corn, when imported, a
drawback. It is not a drawback—it is a bounty.
It is an extension of the protective system It
is another device to plunder the people for the
benefit of the landowners.

The reader must be well aware why it is pro-
posed. The effect of a fixed duty being to raise
our prices, in ordinary and average years, high
above. "those of the surrounding countries, we
shall never be able to export, and shall gene-
rally import. In very plentiful years, there-
fore, as the people would be fed in average years,
the price of corn would fall below what
would remunerate the farmer, while he has
to pay the landlord's tax. To guard against this
effect, not of nature, not of any laws of society,
but of that very tax, and nothing else, which this
writer recommends, the bounty is to be given.
Is there never to be an end to such preposterous
legislation—such smiting labour, which pays all
taxes, on one cheek, and then smiting it on the
other ,to make both sides suffr equally—such
abortive attempts to remedy one injustice by the
infliction of another ? This is a childish and silly,
if it be not a wicked, device, which will find favour
with no party. If nothing better is to he the re-
sult of the Ministerial propositions than such a
cumbrous and vexatious scheme, the sooner they
are given up the better; and the sooner the Tories
in office are compelled—for they do know, at least,
how to submit—to do justice to the people, the
better.

I The Bill of the Duke of ARGYLL to regulate
the exercise of Church Patronage in Scotland is
now before the public, and justifies our worst sus-
picions. It is the Veto Act clothed in the garb of
an Act of Parliament, and though ostensibly
brought forward for the spiritual relief of the peo-
ple, and the peace and prosperity of the Presby-
terian Church, its sole object is the supremacy of
the clergy; it contains seeds of endless strife and
animosities, and, if carried into effect, would sub-
ject the Church-going people of Scotland to a
system of injustice and tyranny, compared with
which all the evils of the most unrestricted pa-
tronage are but as "a drop of a bucket." In order
that our readers may judge for themselves, we will
briefly analyze this healing measure. The ground-
work of the Bill,fevery one will perceive, is the
mode of appointing the constituency who are en,
titled to_ vote for the election of a minister ; but
the qualifications for this important trust the Bill
not only does not define, but does not make the
slightest allusion to. The franchise is to be fixed
by the. Church, alias the Non-intrusionist clergy.
" And be it further enacted, that the individuals
comprising in each congregation the body of
male communicants hereinbefore mentioned as
entitled to dissent from the call, shall be
ascertained, and the mode of stating their
dissent before the Presbytery shall be
fixed and regulated in suck a manner as the
church may direct." Now we will venture to
say that in the whole history of the grasping at-
tempts of the Church at power, and they are
neither few nor small, there is not one that ap-
pro.i.ehes this in audacity and selfishness. Under
the sanctified name of religion an ecclesiastical
revol;ttion is to be created in Scotland for the os-
tensiblepurposeagiving the people the choice of
their ministers and destroying patronage, but, in
reality, to transfer the patronage from the Crown
and prjneipal heriturawho maintain the Esta- '
blishment to the dominant clergy. They claim
the unrestricted right of fixing the franchise, and
shortening or lengthening the roll of electors at
pleasure. They will strike one off because he is
an Intrusionist ; a second, because he does not
make family worship thrice a-day ; a third, be-
cause he dances; and a fourth, because he goes
to a play. There is no limit set to their power,
and were the House of Lords to sanction such a
measure as this they would establish in one
corner of her Majesty's dominions, and among
the most faithful, moral, and peaceable of her
subjects, a system of despotism that would be
reckoned too severe for the most abandoned con-
victs and the most lawless banditti. Of this
we are certain, that under such a regime
neither the Prime Minister nor the Home
Secretary would have a vote, one-half of
the House of Lords would be disfranchised,
CHALMERS Or CANDLISH would address them in
the words of the arch-hypocrite CROMWELL,
"Get you gone; give place to honester men.
The LORD deliver me from the Earl of ABER-
DEEN." To one he would say, "Thou art a
whoremaster ;" to another, " Thou art an adul-
terer;" to a third, " Thou art a drunkard and a
glutton ;" and "Thou art an extortioner" to a
fourth. In the parish of I)aviot, in the north, con-
sisting of 1,800 inhabitant9, there are at present
only ten righteous men; and were their Lord-
ships' House purged, as this parish has been
purged, we know not if one Peer would be left,
excepting always the Duke of ARGYLL and the
Marquis of BREADALBANE. Independent, how-
ever, of this radical and insurmountable objec-
tion, the Bill has great defects. In case the
patron should present a person not agreeable to
the inhabitants, he and the presentee may appeal
froM the Presbytery to a higher Church Judi-
catory—from Presbytery to Synod, and from
Synod to General 'AsSembly ; and after all this
troublesome and expensive litigation, the patron