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

Obturiug

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1830.

There can no longer be any question as to the
leadership of the Protectionists. The Honourable
Member for Buckinghamshire has fully established
his title. 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 bas de-
parted when real service is requ3lred. 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
profbund respect, and followed with implicit
obedience.

The first direct trial of strength dur:ng 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 conclusion
after an animated discussion of unazual 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 his immediate
followers. The majority was, therefore, less than
had been anticipated, no less than 952 Members
having recorded their votes in favour of the motion,
and j 73 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 Home 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 Hon. 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.„Fas 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
first triumph, but would have brought forward

a series of other changes, until the entire 12,000,0001.
so loudly complained 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 inclu4pd in the three resolutions
amounted to about 2,500,000/., exclusive of the un-
ascertained amount for the casual poor. The
establishment charges for the United Kingdom,
mentioned in the first resolution, would re-
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 addition 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 totally 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 naticnal 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 11. EARLEY'S case (2 Balstrode, 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 llonourable 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. MOFFATT,

- :
and after a short discussion negatived by a majority
of 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 these 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 had any
other object than to vindicate what he conceived to
be the honour and integrity of the House. We fully
exonerate Mr. Morrarr 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, (1
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
niost 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.

Bat 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
kingdom. As we have already stated, the privilege
is that of the constituency, and not of the repre2en-
tative. The Illember is protected in person while
discharging the duties imposed on him by his fel-
low-subjects. lie cannot get rid of the responsi-
bility, his resignation cannot be accepted ; it is
may 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-
cutnstances, it would indeed be unfair to subject his 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

taken in execution while attending to their profes-
sional pursuits. Even the clients themselves are pro-
tected, eundo, niorando, et redeundo, while going to,
remaining at, or returning from the hearing of cases
in which they are personally concerned. Witnesses,
jurymen, and a vast number of public officers are en-
titled to similar exemptions, simply on the ground of
general policy, and that public or private interests
may not be prejudiced by the inconvenient and inop-
portune enforcement of the rights of creditors.
These extensive privileges have never been ques-
tioned, nor have any petitions been presented
for their abolition, and yet, we are gravely told that
the most important privilege of all—the privilege of
constituencies, and the right of free legislation—should
be abrogated, because three or four persons out of six
hundred and fifty-eight have abused their position,
and refused to perform impossibilities, by paying that
which they have not in their possession.
Again, the effect of the measure would be to throw
enormous power into the hands of the " moneyocracyt
a party who have already but too much influence in
the Legislature. No person who owed any money
whatsoever would venture to enter Parliament if
subjected to such persecution, although able to pay
fifty shillings in the pound. Suppose a gentleman,
with an estate of ten thousand pounds per an-
num, which had descended to him charged
with incumbrances to the extent of 20,0001., or
30,0001. It could not be truly asserted that such a
person was not perfectly solvent, and yet he would at
any moment be subject to the greatest annoyance and
injury, if he chanced to offend one of his creditors, or
to excite the animosity of the Government. As the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University
of Cambridge truly stated, "The measure went to
take away from the constituency the right to judge
whether the state of a man's affairs was such as to
incapacitate him from representing them in that
}louse. They might repose confidence in a person
whose embarrassments might lay him open to the
operation of the Bill." Questions of a very injurious
character might thus be raised between the House
and various constituencies, that would,redound neither
to the honour or credit of Parliament.

Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. HUME, and
many other gentlemen, felt these objec-
tior,s so strongly, that although, at first
in favour of the principle of the Bill, they withdrew
their support, and voted against the second reading
on the second occasion, and the measure was thrown
out, as we have stated, by a decisive majority. We
trust that the public time may be no more taken up
by such ill-digested propositions, which would
seriously damage the best interests of the country,
and be wholly opposed to the principles of the Consti-
tution, without carrying with it any counteracting
advantages.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
On Thursday there was a grand review of all the
artillery i❑ and around Paris in the Champ de Mars,
by General CHANGARNIER. Shortly before the com-
mencement of the review the PRESIDENT of the Re-
public, accompanied by General D'HAuTrooL, Gene-
ral LAIIITTE and a briiliant staff, appeared upon the
ground, and became at once the "observed of all ob-
servers," to the evident annoyance of General CRAN-
GARNIER, who by no means relished being thus eclipsed
by the PRESIDENT, who was greeted throughout his
progress with loud cries of " Five la Republique,"
" Vive ! Napoleon." These cries proceeded from the
people, as General CIIANGARNIER had strictly pro-
hibited the utterance of cries of any sort by the troops.
A species of sullen reconciliation—a truce, rather
than a treaty—has been patched up between the Mi-
nistry and the parti-pretre ; and the normal schools,
heretofore the honour of France, have been sacrificed
by the Minister as a peace offering to the
clergy. In the course of the discussion on the
Education Bill on Thursday, it was proposed to give
the Council of the Department the power of sup-
pressing normal schools. M. DE PARRIEU proposed
as an amendment, that such suppression should not be
valid unless confirmed by the Minister of Public
Instruction, and just as it was about to be put to the
vote, he suddenly withdrew it, amidst the cheers of
the parti-pretre and the laughter of the Republicans.
This is virtually a suppression of the normal schools,
and a handing over of the primary instruction of
prance to the friends, and colleagues, and partisans of
FREER LEOTADE.

The following announcement appears in several of
the journals : .

"The representatives composing the meeting at the
Council of State assembled on Wednesday evening,
under the presidency of M. de Seze. The gathering was
much more numerous than had taken place for along
time previously. The question to be discussed was the
course to be pursued with respect to that part of the
Education Bill which concerns the normal schools. M.
Piscatory, M. Thiers, M. Mol6, M. do Maltalambert,
and M. Berryer, addressed the meeting • and in the
coarse of their respective speeches, insisted on the neces-
sity of mutual concessions, in order to preserve the ma-
jority intact. Eventually it was resolved unanimously
that the departments should be allowed the power of
maintaining or suppressing the normal schools. The
effect of this decision will be to place the committee
and the ministry in accord, and to preserve the union of
the majority. In reference to religious corporations, it
was decided almost unanimously that all amendments
restricting the liberty of persons should be opposed,
and that, as recommended by the committee, a full dis-
cussion of the matter should be postponed until the
bringing forward of the organic law on associations.
The question of the Paris and Avignon Railway was
postponed."

The Evenement says that the democratic Socialist
delegates have consented to a fusion, and that the
three candidates will probably be DUPONT DE Bus-
SAC, EMILE DE GIRARDIN, and VIDAL.

The semi-official Patrie publishes the following :--
" We learn from a good source that MM. Louis Blanc
and Ledru Rolin lately demanded an audience of Lord
Palmerston, which was granted. After this interview,
which probably satisfied the two refugees, the latter re-
commended their friends at Paris to spare Lord Palmer-
ston in reference to the Anglo-Greek incident. It is
to this political recommendation that must be ascribed
the singular reserve of the Montagne on that question."
The Debats says the intention of the manifestation
against Greece was to extract from Russia an expla-
nation as to the cause of her immense warlike prepa-
rations.

The Archbishop of PARIS has addressed a circular
to the pariah priests of his diocese, directing that in
compliance with the decree of the National Assembly
and the late circular of the Alinister of the Interior
respecting the anniversary of the Revolution, a mass
shall be performed in the cathedral of Notre Dame,
and also in all the churches of the arch-diocese, and
also a Te Deuni chanted.

It is announced that M. DE PIRSIGNY is about to
return from Berlin, the object of his mission having
been accomplished. He is to be replaced at Berlin by
M. D'Anatu, the French Envoy at Dresden.
Letters from the Jura of the 20th state that 3tIAZ
ZINI has definitively quitted Switzerland, and has pro-
ceeded to London. He passed through that depart-
ment, and a few days before had been seen at
Lons le Saulnier. The Council of State of Fribourg
had decreed the expulsion of five refugees for bad
conduct.

The following are the principal items in the weekly
return of the Bank :

Francs.
Specie in Paris ... 330,377,823
Ditto in branches ... ... 138,268,931
Bills in Paris portfolio ... ... 39,129,238
Ditto in branches ... 67;226,405
Bills lying unpaid in Paris ... 1,623,352
Ditto in branches... ... 1,509,494
Bank Notes in circulation in Paris 394,229,100
Ditto in branches ... 70,382,150
Credit to Treasury 83,290,854
Private credit accounts ... 75,072,937
Ditto in branches ... 25,113,765

Gold has again increased by about four millions.
The bills in portfolio have declined, the discount of
bills account having fallen below the lowest point
hitherto reached since the revolution. In other
respects the returns present little variation.
PARIS BOURSE, FEB. 22.-- Last Prices :—Five per
Cents., 95f. 50c.; Three per Cents., 57f. 70c.; Bank of
France, 2,320 f.
BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK-EXCHANGE, FEB. 22.
Boulogne and Amiens, 7% div.—Dutch Rhenish, 21/i.