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

Now ready, in 2 vols. post Bro., 211. bound, --
MADAME DE SEVIGNAIf,
AND HER CONTEMngPORARIES.
Comp
SKETCHES of above ONE HisiUNDRED of the MOST.
EMINENT PERSONS of HER TIMES.
Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.

MRS. GORE'S NEW NOVEL.
Now ready at all the Libraries, in 3 vols. post Bvo.,
THE MAN OF FORTUNE
By MRS. GORE,
Authoress of " Mothers and Daughters," " Mrs. Army tage,'
" The Peeress," &C.
Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlboronh-street.

THE REVOLT OF THE FRENCH PEASANTRY.
This day is published, in 3 vols. post Bvo.,
TIDE JACQUERIE ; or, The Lady and the
Page : an Historical Romance. By G. P. R. JAMES
Esq., Author of " The Huguenot," " Henry of Guise," &c.
" The Jacques and their savage leaders, and the lords and
their followers, who opposed them and perished, form a fitful
and dreadful tragedy ; and the final overthrow of the peasant
force, with its Parisian and other allies, at Meaux, and the
catastrophe which closes the narrative, are in the very highest
style of this class of writing, and well worthy of the popular
reputation of the author."—Literary Gazette.
London : Longman, Brown, and Co.

This day, medium Bvo., with upwards of 40 Illustrations, 21s.
110WITTS VISITS TO REMARK-
ABLE PLACES. Second Series, chiefly in North-
umberland and Durham ; with a Stroll along the Borders.
" A book which has afforded us much gratification—a geod
one to sit down to of a winter's evening."—John Bull.
" Mr. Howitt's book is written in so pod a spirit, that were
it much less amusing and instructive than it is, we should feel
justified in warmly recommending it to public attention. The
sentiments expressed are those of a mind thoroughly imbued
with pure religious feelings."—Atlas.
" A volume of universal and lasting interest.... ..... Amusing
without a shade of frivolity—and instructive without the
slightest appearance of pedantry."—Britannia.
London : Longman, Brown, and Co.

Just ready, embellished with Portraits of Dr. Dee, Paracelsus,

and Cagliostro,
THE CONCLUDING VOLUME OF
MEMOIRS OF EXTRAORDINARY
POPULAR DELUSIONS.
Comprising:—Tho Alchymists, Pretended Antiquity of the
Art, Avicenna, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Raymond
Lulli, Roger Bacon, Pope John XXII.. Cornelius Agrippa,
Paracelsus, Dr Dee and Edward Kelly, The Cosmopolite,
Sendivogius, The Rosicrusians, Alchymieal Writers of the
Seventeenth Century, De Lisle, Albert Aluys, Count de St.
Germains, Cagliostro, Present State of the Science, &c.—
Fortune Telling, The Magnetisers, &c.
By CHARLES MACKAY, Esq.,
Author of " The Thames and its Tributaries, &c.
Richard Bentley, New Burlington-street,
Publisher in Ordinery to her Majesty.

HIS MAJESTY the EMPEROR of
AUSTRIA,
His MAJESTY the EMPEROR of RUSSIA,
His MAJESTY the KING of PRUSSIA,
having AUTHORISED and GUARANTEED several DIS-
TRIBUTIONS of MONEY DIVIDENDS, which (though
they are NO LOTTERIES) offer many possibilities of obtain-
"ng LARGE FORTUNES,
HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH and at
LUBECK,
,re now SELLING ORIGINAL BONDS for the said DIS-
TRIBU TIONS.

Persons desirous to purchase for the Next Distributions
nay receive, PREVIOUS to giving any orders, the PRO-
SPECTUS and PARTICULARS, upon addressing a line to
HEINE BROTHERS.
The NEXT AUSTRIAN DISTRIBUTION contains DI-
VIDENDS of
£25,000 £6OO £llO £7O
5,000 400 100 60
1,500 200 90 50
1,000 150 80 Sterling.
800 120
HEINE BROTHERS having remitted during a short time
25,0001., 18,000/., 9,000/, 5,0001., 3,6001., &c. &c. &c., to
London ; 3,600/., 800/., and 7001., to Edinburgh ; 3,6001. to
Dublin ; 3,600/. to Beverley; 3,600/. to Halifax (Yorkshire);
1,200/. to Portleaven Harbour; 900/., 700/. and 6001. to Li-
verpool ; 9001. to Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; 900/. to Hull ;
9001. and 600/. to Manchester ; 700/. to East Retford (Not-
tinghamshire); 6001. to Bideford; 6001. to Cork; 600/. to
Bradford ; they shall feel glad to remit many Dividends of
the next Distribution to England, Ireland, and Scotland.
Direct for Prospectus and Particulars, without delay, either
to HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH,
or to HEINE BROTHERS, at LUBECK. •

perty is now as mu respeetea as it was ten or
iiirenty 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 agree with us in opinion, at least they
professto believe, that the interest of all classes
is id4inqal. It cannot be for their interest,
thQol4,"that the manufacturers and the arti-
sans• should suffer their present hopeless dis-
tress. WoCan 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 ever 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 Asneun-
TONS, the ARKWRIGRTS, 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 ARRWRIGHTS, 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 V
It calculates that the land-tax, justly levied as
originally enacted, would at present amount to
no less than 8,000,0001. 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 8,000,0001. Such opinions
strike at their present right of property ; such
opinions are now very prevalent in the manufac-
turing districts; 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 Providence 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 a mass of wretchedness to remain without the adoption
of the only adequate means 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 Weft Indies. He would take the case of
one of the flannel-weavers, for there was nothing like
taking individual cases to see bow 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
weaver
hrtaod ghisroiplm on ieceoftlannel.--(Cheers.)
ground as
a the n
American 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—:_hould 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
will] so much evil consequences ? He should be the last
man in the world to encourage force—(Hear, hear)—
hut, 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 exereised 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—(flear, hear)—but passive
resistance--that was a spectre which they could
not take aim at.—(Applause.)
"Mr. Brotherton (to make one quotation more) was con-
vinced, that, if the people of this country but understood
the extent of their wrongs, they would rise up as one
man and manifest their indignation.—(Applause.) He
felt astonished that any Legislature, professing to be a
Christian Legislature, or any country, professing to be a
Christian country, should pass such unjust laws."
At all the late meetings the more 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 con-
flagration they have kindled, but they
will not escape unscorched. Public opi-
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 witholit becoming practically con:-
vinced, by their own insecurity and sufferings,
that their best interests are jdentical with those

of the rest of the4eonangunity. •The only way by
which they can be prospOrOns, 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 he 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 what 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-
our 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 dam 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.

CI 7:3901(1

The Gazette de Frariee-itutitifte -God:We've' are
the only French Journals opposed o'llle-forti-
fication of Paris—the darling project. of M.
ODILON BARROT and King Louis PHILIPPE.
These papers, though differing widely .upon other
.questions, have always had the sagacity to Ob-
serve that the fortifications were intended, not to
terrify the enemies, but to enslave the people of
France. We were therefore prepared for the
able comments which their respective columns
of Monday contain upon the bellicose epistle ad-
dressed by M. ODILON BARROT, to his " Dear
CHAMBOLLE," the editor of the Siecle, which
appeared in The Sun•of yesterday. The follow
In is an extract from the article of the Gazette,
which entirely corrOliOr.atesour views :
We are opposed to no measure calculated to defend our
territory, and maintain our nationality ; but the fortifica-
tions of Paris do not do this. The for tifications will
weaken France, giving the present Government the liberty
to be arbitrary, and consequently enabling it to persevere
in the false systems which produce discord and divide the
French. The ocean and the desert may serve as cuirasses
for England and for Russia, but the force of France is
in the sympathetic spirit of her thirty-three millions.
A national representation is worth more to France than
walls, and would give us fourteen armies, instead of
fourteen bastiles. Every system of monopoly is one
of division, and by excluding independent opinions
from the representation you are forced to take up a
militant position. To fortify the existing monopoly with
walls, is to perpetuate division. National unity, and
not fortifications, can preserve France from invasion,
despotism, and anarchic passions— the three extreme
evils. England is materially the most powerful country
in the world; an hundred and twenty millions of men
obey it, and thirty thousand vessels quit and enter its
ports: but its very Constitution is menaced by the system
of exclusion which it keeps up against Ireland. Russia
has her deserts and her 800,000 soldiers; but despotism
which makes her force causes also her weakness. Unity,
under a popular monarch, can alone enable France to
match them.
The Commerce is particularly happy in its
remarks. It proves by .quotations from the
speeches of M. ODILON BARROT in the Chamber
of Deputies, that if in 1830 he was the actual
originator of the project for fortifying Paris, he
thought but very indifferently of it in 1833. In
fact, in the latter year he opposed the fortifica-
tions tooth and nail. The following extracts
from a speech of his, delivered in the Tribune,
will:place this fact beyond contradiction :

„
l We afe'iibt 'agreed about the necessity of permanent
. fortifications. - 13ofia.parte himself' recoiled from before
the'popular susceptibility.which such a scheme naturally
caused, and before that jeoous spirit of liberty, which
• ought to be respected. Governments are often drawn
• into their own despotic systems of violence. Violence
on one side begets the same on the other, and the avenger
then seeks after means of security and force ; these are
to be found in national sympathy. In such circumstances
what would be the fourteen bastiles round Paris, each
with its garrison shut out from the population, and hav-
ing it in its power to intercept all communication with
Paris ? Paris may thus be blocked, and military inac-
tion may paralyse every effort of the national will. • ,
If you wish to put troops into twenty or thirty forts,
it will be necessary to disseminate an army, and then
you will just attain the aim which you desire. Instead of
leaving the army free to act upon the rear of an enemy,
you will concentrate it into the forts around Paris, and
thus leave all the populous departments to the mercy of
an enemy. And the principal advantage to result from
the fortifying of Paris, that of leaving the army free to
operate, will be completely lost by a system of forts,
which will absorb the greater part of the army, and pa-
ralyse its movements.
Suppose,that after you had called all the enemy's
forces to aris, they had the best of it in an engagement,
and that you had staked and lost all in one throW, what
would be the consequence ? The *enemy Wotild'garrison
your forts. In 1814 and 1815 the foreign GeneralS felt
that the soil of France trembled beneath their feet; they
were anxious to withdraw and give terms. Had they
had forts round Paris to garrison, they would have im-
posed much severer conditions.
Here then we have the important admission
that, in the case of a' successful foreign inva-
sion, the fortifications of P'aris would only serve
for garrisons for thb' tirogp§., But of
what importance is it to . Lyons, Bordeaux,
Nantes, Toulouse, and all the other great and
wealthy towns in France, whether or not Paris
be fortified? Would they fare worse- if Paris
was not defended by a single gun, than if he
2,000 pieces of artillery now preparing, by
Louis PHILLIPPE, bristled upon the ramparts
of the Capital ? Most unquestionably not.
Speaking with reference to the operation of the
centralized system of government, established
by NAPOLEON, it is usual to regard Paris as a
synonyme for France; but an invading army
would break up that system the instant it set
foot on the French soil, and then Paris would be , '