The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-23 00:00:00

i
ei:./Y/4 'eitiTtg uatt

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1850.

Theie can no longer be any question as to the
leadership of tha Protectionists. The Honourable
Member fur Buckinghamshire has fully established

Those who contested his claim during the
vacation, when there was nothing required but the
delivery of prosaic harangues to drowsy agricul-
turists, are silent, now that the tug of war has
actually commenced—the insubordination has de-
parted when real service is required. The Parlia-
mentary contest is something different from the
mere parade of county meetings. The " carpet
knights" are silenced ; Mr. DISRAELI is the recog-
nised chief, and his commands are received with
profound respect, and followed with implicit
obedience.

3is title.

The first direct trial of strength during the present
session took place on Thursday night, when the debate
on Mr. -DISRAELI'S motion for a Committee of the
whole House was brought to a concitvion
after an animated discussion of unusual interest and
ability. The Protectionists mustered in extraordinary
force, and their strength was increased by the adhe-
sion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
the University of Oxford, and some of hi, immediate
followers. The majority was, therefore, less than
bad been anticipated, no less than 262 Members
having recorded their votes in favour of the motion,
And 273 against it. The victory, therefore,
remained with the Government, but it was not
achieved without an arduous and exciting
struggle, and the announcement of the result
of the division was received amid the cheers
of the minority, who, although defeated, were by no
means discomfited on the occasion. The heavy artil-
lery on both sides of the House was brought into
operation—three leading members of the late Minis-
try, the ex-Premier and two ex-Secretaries
of State for the Horne Department and the Colonies,
explained their views at considerable length, Sir
ROBERT PEEL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM being op-
posed to, and Mr. GLADSTONE in favour of,
the motion. The First Lord of the
Treasury also appeared, and concluded
a speech,of great ability and clearness by a highly
honourable vindication of the character and con-
duct of his distinguished predecessor. In a very
complimentary strain he bore testimony to the
disinterested spirit which had dictated the
adoption 'of free-trade policy by the Right lion. Ba-
ronet, and fully absolved him from the suspicion of
having been actuated by any mean or unworthy
motives. This testimony, alike creditable to both
parties—to the Noble Lord by whom it, was
delivered, and the illustrious statesman in whose
favour it was offered,—was deservedly received with
loud and enthusiastic cheering.

It was justly stated by Sir JAMES GRAHAM that
the real question under debate was, whether
the entire fiscal burdens of the country,
should be revised and altered. If the mo-
tion had been successful the Honourable
Gentleman by whom it was brought forward
would not have been contented with his
Stet triumph, but would have brought forward

a series of other changes, until the entire 12,000,0001.
so loudly cornialained of were transferred to
the general revenue of the country, which should
necessarily be remitted from other sources, to enable
it to meet the additional demands.
The sums included in the three resolutions
amounted to about 2,500,0001., exclusive of the un-
ascertained amount for the casual poor. The
establishment charges for the United Kingdom,
mentioned in the first resolution, would re-
I quire about 1,800,0001., that is about one
million and a half for England and Wales, and
three hundred thousand pounds for Ireland ; and the
miscellaneous rates, alluded to in the second, about
700,0001. The expected surplus would clearly be
sufficient to provide for the new claims
thus made upon the National Exchequer, and there
would not only be a cessation of any further remis-
sion of taxes affecting the industry and comforts of
the people, but there would be either a consider-
able ad iition to the property or income-tax, or the
re-enactment of many indirect imposts which have
been abrogated with the almost unanimous approba-
tion of the people. A change of such magnitude
could not, in fact, be made without a complete altera-
tion of the entire fiscal system, and the adoption of
a torally new scheme of taxation.
Had Mr. DISRAELI gone to that extent he would,
most probably, have succeeded. He would have re-
ceived the support of many independent Members, of
the fiscal and financial reformers, who recog-
nise the necessity of such a change. But,
unfortunately, for himself and his party, the remedies
he suggested were of too partial and one-sided a
character. They were manifestly intended for the
benefit of a particular class—the proprietors of
real property, who already contribute less than
their fair quota to the national expenditure. It is
perfectly just and reasonable that the owners of per-
sonal property should bear their proportion of
the cost of supporting the destitute poor throughout
the entire kingdom. It was the intention of those
by whom the original Act was passed that such
should be the case, and the early decisions of the
courts of law showed that every description of pro-
perty, personal as well as real, came within the
meaning of the Act, and was fairly rateable. In
Sir H. EARLEY'S case (2 Bulstrode, 354) it was
held by Judges HUTTON and COOKE, " that accounts
for the relief of the poor were to be made in an equal
manner upon the inhabitants, according to
their visible estates, which they had and
enjoyed, real and personal." And more re-
cently, Lord KENYON affirmed the same principle.
In the case of REX V. MAST. (6 Term Reports, 156),
the Noble Lord declared, " that each inhabitant
should contribute in proportion to his ability, which
was to be ascertained by his possessions in the parish.
Every inhabitant ought to be rated accord-
ing to the present value of his estate ;"
and he added, "If a person choose to keep his pro-
perty in money, and the fact of his possessing it be
clearly proved, he is rateable for that; but if he prefer
using it in the amelioration of an estate or other
property, he is rateable for the same in another
shape." The correctness of the above judgment
and the soundness of the law thus promulgated is
affirmed by Parliament in each and every year, it
being considered necessary to bring in an annual
Bill for the exemption of stock in trade. Why,
then, we ask, did not the Honourable Gen-
tleman endeavour to cast the burden upon those
who were fairly liable, to make the owners of personal
property to contribute to the poor-rates ? Had he
done so his demand would have been fair and equit-
able, and would have carried with it the
sympathies and feelings of the people, but,
in place of doing so, he endeavoured to
change the entire character of the measure, and to
cast the expense of maintaining the poor upon the
industrious classes, many of whom are but little
better in their circumstances than the very paupers
themselves. This was neither just nor expedient,
and we are therefore rejoiced at the failure of the
motion, which would have embarrassed and annoyed
Ministers, without being of any practical utility to
the community in general.

The BAnkrupt and Insolvent Members Bill has
been unequivocally, and, we trust, permanently re-
jected by the House of Commons. The second read-
ing was on Wednesday proposed by Mr. MOF7ATT,
and after a short discussion negatived by a majority
f 39—the numbers being for the second reading
34, against it 73. We shall, therefore, hear no more
of this mischievous and impolitic measure for the
present session, and after the clear and decisive ex-
pression of opinion by influential .Members, and the
secession of many quondam supporters, we can
scarcely suppose that the Honourable Gentleman will
again bring forward a proposition so injurious to the
interests and opposed to the wishes of the several
constituencies, whose undoubted privilege it is to
select the persons whom they believe best qualified to
represent their feelings and principles in the Imperial
Parliament.
We take some degree of credit to ourselves for
having exhibited the question in its true light last
session, when it was passing through its various
stages almost sub silentio, and when it was asserted
that the only persons affected would be those who
are either unable or unwilling to liquidate their just
liabilities, and who avail themselves of their legisla-
torial privileges to set their creditors at defiance. The
parties against whom such a charge could fairly be
brought are comparatively few in number ; there are
probably not more than half-a-dozen, or, at the
utmost, a dozen Members, who might be unable to
appear in public if the exemption from arrest were
taken away. It has, even, been more than insinuated
that the Bill was directed against a single individual.
We do not mean to assert that the Honourable Gen-

tleman by whom the subject was introduced was in-
fluenced by any personal motives, or that he bad any
other object than to vindicate what he conceived to
be the honour and integrity of the House. We fully
exonerate Mr. MorrATT from any such charge ; but
we believe that he was instigated by others who did
not desire to come prominently forward, and who
shifted the task from themselves to a gentleman who

was above suspicion.
When we consider the extensive remedies now
available against the property, real or personal, cf
even a Member of either House of Parliament, we can-
not suppose that creditors would derive much advan-
tage from the additional powers proposed to be con-
ferred on them. They might be able to annoy
embarrassed Members very considerably, and
to prevent their attendance on questions of the
most vital importance to the community in general ;

but they would not thereby procure the satisfaction
of their demands. If payment cannot be enforced
under the existing state of the law, it is vain to sup-
pose that it could be obtained under any provisions,
however stringent. If a Member is really unable to
pay his debts, no threat of imprisonment or eviction
from Parliament could enable him to do so. He
might be made to suffer more in person and character
than private individuals; but, to use a homely ex-
pression, it is impossible " to make a man pay money
when he has not got it." Creditors, therefore, would
not really be benefited, although a great instrument
of oppression and annoyance would be placed in their
hands.

But for this very equivocal advantage, let us
for a moment consider the possible, not to say
probable results of the measure. Its first effect
would be to place under restrictions the right of
choice of the different elective bodies throughout the
the
kingdom. As we have already stated, the privilege
is that of the constituency, and not of h
represen-
tative. The Member is protected in person
while
discharging the duties imposed on him by his fel-
low-subjects. He cannot get rid of the responsi-
bility, his resignation cannot be accepted ; it is
only by his acceptance of an office of emolument
under the Crown, that his seat can be vacated, and
he may be again and again elected. Under such cir-
cumstances, it would indeed be unfair to subject him to
any additional vexation or annoyance in consequence
of the honour conferred upon him. The honest and
conscientious discharge of his duties might excite
hostility,• and induce persons to use undue influ-
ence in order to obtain his vote, or at least
to prevent his attendance on important questions in
which his constituents were materially interested.
For their sakes, therefore, and that they might not be
virtually disfranchised on such occasions, he was pro.
tected from arrest. Similar privileges are bestowed
upon others. Barristers and attorneys cannot be