The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-29 00:00:00

Recollect that hitherto the Commercial Treaty
with France, the Budget, the imposition of the
Income Tax to the tune of £10,000,000, the post-
ponement of the deliberate consideration of the
Question of Savoy—that all those things and a
great many others very nearly as unpalatable—
have been swallowed one after another by Par-
liament upon the simple reiteration of the one
grand Ministerial argument—" Trust the Emperor
NAPOLEON, place your reliance in him, in the good
faith and loyalty of his friendship, repose implicit
confidence in his imperial magnanimity."
But—suspicions have now been fully justified !
Nay—" a change" has come " o'er the spirit of the
dream," even of her MAJESTY'S Ministers. Our
Foreign Secretary, wh6, among all our administra-
tors of the Coalition, had most loudly insisted upon

the integrity of the French EMPEROR as a political
security, perfectly indestructible and adamantine=
Lord JOHN RUSSELL himself has now frankly
and explicitly acknowledged his error, has avowed
that the policy of his Imperial Majesty must hence-
forth be regarded, not only by England, but by the
whole of Europe, with profound distrust, and a very
natural degree of suspicion. It is obvious, therefore,
that the House of Commons must at length begin
to regard matters—alike political and diplomatic,
fiscal and financial—under an entirely different
aspect, and from a totally opposite point of view.
It were simply the most egregious folly in the
world for Parliament to continue any longer
blindly remitting duties for the convenience and
emolument of France (without England obtaining
any equivalent whatever, nay, even the smallest
reciprocal advantage) in the hope that one conces-
sion may be made good in some nameless and un-
defined manner by the French EMPEROR'S mag-
nanimity. We know what that sort of vague SE.-
curity is worth. We know by this time—just to
be a trifle plainer—that it is absolutely worthless.
Therefore, the House has nothing else left it to do,
surely, in the matter than to trim its sails afresh—
and go exactly upon an opposite tack.

And now about the Paper Duty Repeal Bill,
which is down upon the papers of the House of
Commons for consideration in committee this even-
ing. It has passed the first and the second reading
under the regis, or the glamour, or whatever else
we may like to call it, of the Ministerial argument
of confidence in the EMPEROR'S good faith, his
loyalty, and his magnamity. As we have learnt
now precisely what that all means—we come to the
reconsideration of the proposed repeal, aided by
fresh lights, in committee. With those lights shin,
ing clear upon the Question from three dif-
ferent points—from Nice, from Turin, from
Paris—shall we to this new act of fatuity
put the seal of our acquiescence ? Already
the House of Commons has done many
rash things this session, but it has hitherto the ex-
cuse so far of having done so under a delusion, under
a misapprehension. It has that excuse no longer.
It must decide now with its eyes wide open, whe-
ther it is really prepared to sacrifice thus for the
exclusive advantage of the foreigner upwards of
£1,250,000 of revenue, or whether it will insist
upon paper being dealt with, if dealt with at all,
upon broad free trade principles. It is simply ab-
surd, we maintain, wholly to remit the import duty
upon foreign paper, while France, no less than the
other Continental Powers, rigidly maintains an
export duty upon the raw material from which
paper is mainly (for all rational printing
purposes exclusively) manufactured. It is
simply absurd to talk of its being Free
Trade for England to remit the import duties
upon foreign paper altogether, while France
proposes to maintain an export duty upon rags of
from £8 to £lO per ton, having up to the present
time prohibited that exportation altogether !
When this export tariff upon rags is still £l2 108.
in Holland ! When it is £9 per ton in Germany
and the Zollverein ! When it is £6 per ton in
Russia! And when, as the law exists, it is for-
mally prohibited in Belgium, and Spain, and Por-
tugal! So that at the very best, wherever that
export tariff is maintained, the duties amount to
from 50 to 100 per cent. upon the value of rags in
those countries. And with a knowledge of this,
the House of Commons is expected to night in Com-
mittee, in the name of Free Trade, with a view to
the furtherance of Free Trade principles, to remit
in the shape of paper duty X 1,250,000 and upwards
without one iota in the shape of an equivalent ! No
wonder Mr. WRIGLEY argues that " unless you
have well considered and are prepared for all the
consequences, you ought not to admit foreign paper
free from countries which maintain an export duty
on rags." No wonder he feels the proposed wrong
bitterly—the wrong proposed to be inflicted on him-
self and his brother manufacturers—when he oan
put the case with perfect truth thus forcibly,
thus (as we conceive it) irresistibly—" Suppose,"
he writes, " that America, actuated by a desire to
monopolise not only the growth, but also the manu-
facture of cotton, were to lay a tax of 50 per cent.
upon the export of cotton ; would our English cot-
ton spinners consider it fair to this great interest if it
were proposed to admit American cloth and pan
freely to this country ? Would they be satisfied to be
told that the thing would right itself in the course
of a few years, and tat in the meantime they
must do the best they could ? Would they patiently
endure to be reminded of the indomitable nature
of English skill and enterprise ? Would any
" Government dare to make a proposal of this
difference betweenth
nature." "Aild if not"
e ohs
iet
icoonnot ifntuhees,
Englishw er ep iasptehre.
maker as it will be if the proposed remission of the
import duty is effected, and that which I have
drawn of the cotton trade as it would be under
similar circumstances ? The only difference is, that
the one is a comparatively small and powerless in-
terest, and the other is all-powerful—
an imperiunt in
imperio." It rests with the House of Commons to
decide to-night whether it will allow that powerful
and latterly dominant interest to remain , so—
whether the English papermakers are to be crushed
under the heels of the insolent champions of peace
(so called)—men who, if they are Englishmen and
members of Parliament, are, above all things,
cotton manufacturers, and speculative proprietors
of, as yet, unremunerative penny newspapers !

The defenders of Church-rates have recoiled.
Like the Austrians at Solferino, they made an
unexpected advance on Sir J. TRELAWNY'S posi-
tion at the second reading; and, though they did
not deprive him of a single vote—for the number
of his supporters was identical with that of last
year—by silently whipping up forty of their own
defaulters, they lessened his large majority by that
amount. This looked like a step towards victory;
and, iii addition, they kept up a fire of petitions
which with equal secrecy they had caused to be
prepared in every parish hole and corner, till it
really seemed as if a sudden zeal for Church-rates
had oveL spread the country. But the Solferino-
like advance has been followed by a Solferino-like
retreat. Abolitionists awoke in an instant from
their imagined security—in a few weeks their peti-
tions have largely outnumbered the whole year's
work of their antagonists. During the last week
or two members have come loaded like bees to the
House, with not merely one, but fives, tens, and
hundreds of petitions, signed, too, by an average of

persons more than three times as numerous as that
of the other party, till the House looked aghast at
the multitudes which still kept coming—
indeed, St. Stephen's Chapel seemed likely to
become a wholesale petition warehouse. So
thorough was the victory, so complete the dismay,
that the party which but a few short weeks ago
celebrated its increased minority as a triumph, was
now compelled to retire bodily from the contest.
Poor Mr. PAcKE, whom they had selected to head the
last grand charge, and to carry an amendment, that
the bill should be committed that day six months,
was compelled to withdraw it ! The ecclesiastical
Zouaves had thoroughly routed the ecclesiastical
Austrians; their whole line gave way, and the
Quadrangle of the House of Lords is their only
hope. We are perfectly certain, however, that
there will be no Villafranca armistice. The Quad-
rangle may hold out as long as it can, but it is
certain to be forced. No compromise will be tole-
rated. Any capitulations their lordships like, so
that Church-rates be completely abolished ; but
nothing will be endured which leaves a vestige of
the power to coerce the reluctant to pay for the
worship of the willing.
Poor Mr. NEWDEGATE, with his amendments,
followed Mr. PAcKE. His own party had in vain
endeavoured to dissuade him from persisting. But
persist he would; he wanted the tax transferred
from persons to property ; to become a charge on
property ; to be levied on the occupier, but deducted
from rent. The house would not hear of this, and
the unfortunate assailant of Maynooth and
" Papists " was left by his fellow Protestants in a
minority of 49 to 222. So much for one notable
recommendation of the pious Marquis of BLAND-
FORD'S committee—that owners of property, not
occupiers, should be saddled with the rate. Mr.
WALTER coolly observed that those who used the
Church ought to pay for the accommodation ; one
of his largest tenants, he said, who would pay
most of all in his parish, neither had, nor could ob-
tain, a pew in the parish church. Surely it was
rather hard that his farm should pay Church-rates
for the fortunate pew-holders.
Sir GEORGE GREY'S proposal came next—the
bill having been committed—that power should be
given to the incumbent and churchwardens to charge
the appropriated pews. Legal and technical diffi-
culties were raised, and it was pretended that such
provisions did not belong to a bill for the abolition
of Church-rates. Sir GEORGE stated that the pro-
posal was his own, and not that of the Government ;
and finding more opposition than he anticipated
withdrew his motion. We certainly think his plan
a perfectly fair one. All the talk about the exclu-
sion of the poor is mere cant. Are the poor ex-
cluded from the chapels of Dissenters, where they
are certainly to be found in far greater numbers
than in churches ? Indeed, the fact is rather the
other way. The poor, infinitely to their credit,
prefer to pay the trifle they can afford, for the ac-
commodation. We were much struck by the evi-
dence of a Wesleyan witness before the Lords' com-
mittee; he told the committee that their
poor, without exception, paid a penny a week
as their contribution. And so strong does the feel-
ing of self-respect seem to be, that " the brethren "
who are better off furnish the very poor with the
means of payment to save their feelings ! There
is the same feeling in Scotland, where weekly
collections at the doors is the practice of all
Churches. The poorest and the youngest will not
pass the plate. The poor are not the class to object
to a small and reasonable seat rent, while free seats
would, of course, be reserved in every place of
public worship. Nothing seems fairer than, that
as we pay for a seat in a theatre, an omnibus, or a
railway carriage, so we should pay for a seat in a
church ; while no religious sect would, for de-
cency's sake, forget their " third class" worshippers
—we almost blush to mention such an idea in con-
nection with Christian worship.
Lord JOHN MANNERS liked neither Mr. NEWDE-
GATE'S nor Sir GEORGE GREY'S proposals; indeed,
he would like nothing that mitigated the purely
abolition character of Sir JOHN TRELAWNY'S bill.
His hope is in the Lords, and we well know they
are hopeful enough in any such cause as this. What
they will do this year, of course, no one can be sure.
The chances in the Lords are always against libera-
lism and common sense, and especially against the
surrender of any privilege, ecclesiastical or politi-
cal, commonly in proportion to its offensiveness.
It exhibits most strikingly the dignity of the
Lords, whin they can coolly face repeated divisions
of the House of Commons, and ignore petitions
by the thousand from the ignoble vulgus ; and
hence, as likely as not, they will refuse
to abolish Church-rates this year. Reasoning
would be, we fear, wasted upon their Lordships—
not, we wish it to be understood, upon the more
active portion of the Peers, those who take a part
regularly in the business of the country, and who
know something of public life. It is that portion
of the House which has no right to belong to it at
all—the dormant three-fourths or four-fifths, who
never hear a debate, certainly never make a speech
—whose names are only known by reference to lists
and catalogues,—and whom ninety-nine hundredths
of Englishmen know no more of than they do of
the greengrocers of Southwark—it is these Peers
with whom it is hopeless to reason, for they are
utterly incapable of weighing arguments. They ask
no question about a bill, but is it a Tory Bill, or a
Liberal one. If the former, up go their proxies
against it to their noble Tory agent, at Westmin-
ster, and it is by the help of all this antiquated
lumber that the progress of the country is every year
obstructed. How long is the way to be blocked up
by this venerable rubbish ? We talk of reforming
our representation in the House of Commons ; we
surely need quite as much to reform the House
of Lords. If hereditary Peers we must have, we
then must have some means of rendering them
amenable to reason and public opinion. At pre-
sent they are far more despotic than his Majesty of
FRANCE whom they so willingly depreciate ; he
does respect popular opinion. The House of Peers
takes a pleasure in bearding both the people and
their representatives. And this they eo from the
dignified• seclusion of their ivy-covered castles,
haveassignhaveproxy Lords,
Lords.

On the first announcement of the French Eg-
PEROR'S intention to cheat England, her Ministers,
and Parliament, by substituting a prohibitive thottyr
or. rags for prohibition, we strongly expressed
indignation not only with the selfit,hness of the
thing—for the whole Treaty is one of pure selfish-
ness on the French side—but at the insult to this
country. We can, therefore, but be gratified to see
that the press of the country, and the voice of
all genuine Englishmen has since fully recog-
nised the justice of our sentiments. Like
a contemporary this morning, we, too, may
say, that we can have no interest in dear paper.
The cheaper we can buy this raw material of our
manufacture, obviously, the better for us. But
we recoil from cheapness at the cost of our honour.
Though viewed commercially, we and the paper-
makers are antagonists—their object being to sell
to us dep., and ours to buy of them cheap; yet we