The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-30 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION

tritnins

LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1845.

Mr. MACAULAY'S letter authenticates the explana.

tion which we gave, immediately after the event, of
the failure of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S attempt to form
a Government. " All our plans were ft ustrated by
Lord GREY," says Mr. MACAULAY. After this there
is no doubt on the matter. We have thought, from
the first, that the interests of the Liberal party re-
quired that there should be no delicacy about Lord
GREY, if; as is now indisputable, Lord GREY did it
all ; and that to publish the truth was the only way
to prevent erroneous and exaggerated accounts
from getting into circulation, which might
seriously injure the Liberal party and the great
cause identified with it. Already has Lord GREY'S
objection to Lord PALMERSTON, as Foreign Secretary,
been magnified and distorted into an objection to sit
Nith him at all in the same Cabinet, and into a gene-
ral reluctance on the part of his political friends to
place him in the Foreign-office. If either of these
things had been true, we might despair of a Liberal
Government ever being formed. The knowledge of
the exact truth only causes us to regret that Lord
GREY should have been so far humoured as to be per-
mitted to break up an Administration, while it assures
us that, when next Lord J. RUSSELL is sent for, he
will not consult Lord GREY till after Lord PrALMER-
STON is appointed. "All our plans were frustrated by
Lord GREY." Mr. MACAULAY may be allowed, in
writing to a constituent, to indulge in some self-gra-
tulation at,the course which he himself had pursued,
and to contrast it with Lord GREY'S. " From the
first I told Lord Jonrt that I stipulated for one thing
only—total and immediate repeal of the corn-laws ;
that my objections to gradual abolition were insur-
mountable ; but that, if he declared for total and im-
mediate
repeal, I would be, as to all other matters, ab-
solutely in his hands ; that I would take any office or
no office, just r.s suited him best; and that he should
never be disturbed by any personal pretensions or
jealousies on my part. If every body else had acted
thus, there would now have been a Liberal Ministry."

We may safely conclude from another docu-
ment proceeding from another of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S advisers—Lord MORPETH'S address to the
electors of the West Riding—that he, too, stipulated
for immediate and entire repeal. "If I am sent to
the House of Commons at the present juncture,"
says Lord MORPETH, " I should deem it the main
object of my mission to insist upon an immediate and
final repeal of the corn-laws."
But to return to Lord GREY. A weekly Contem-
porary has attempted his defence, and it is a defence
which Mr. MACAULAY'S remarkable letter will not
affect. We are told by Lord GREY'S apologist that
he had travelled to town with another of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S confidential advisers, to whom he had
communicated his objection to Lord PALMERSTON as
Foreign Secretary, and he was to take it for granted
that this objection had been communicated by his
travelling companion to Lord JOHN. We are not told
that Lord GREY had commissioned Mr. ELLICE (for
he, we understand, is the party alluded to by the
Spect tor) to state his objection to Lord Joust. But
even if he had so commissioned Mr. ELLICE, it would
surely have been no justification of Lord GREY. It
was surely his duty to state his views on such a mat-
ter himself to Lord Joint, and to take the first oppor-
tunity of stating them.

But this is not all the defence. We are told that
on the evening of the day on which it was determined
to undertake the formation of a Ministry, Lord GREY
went home and wrote a letter to Lord JOHN, recom-
mending great caution and disregard of all private
feelings in the arrangements of the various offices at
his disposal, and making satisfaction with all Lord
Jour's arrangements a condition of his own accept-
ance of office. Strong hints these, says the apologist.
The idea of hints at all, we reply, in acase cf this kind!
" However," Mr. MACAULAY adds, " perhaps it is
best as it is." And so say we. It is gratifying to vs
to find the views which we have all along expressed of

the greater probability of Sir R. PEEL'S boil
t(. .pt+lf‘ n,,1 ,7*F•ti
an opinion as Mr. 'MACAULAY'S. " Sir It PEEL
now undertake the settlement of the question.
certain that he can settle it. It is by no meal
thin that we could have done so; for we shalt
man support him ; and a large proportion of
who are now in office would have refused tog •
us." Let us hope that Mr. MACAULAY is 110 t,
correct in his last surmise—that none of the pr
holders of office will support Sir R. PEEL in
IN hat they would have opposed from Lord ,
RUSSELL. The maintenance of a high stands)
public character must never be lost sight of i
agitation even of the most important public ques
and, while it may be conceded to Sir R. PEES:
official followers to change their votes from confi
in .the Minister, changes of this sort require 01
freedom from the temptations of place to gull]
their sincerity to the public.

The annual speech of Louts Purrurrit, deli°
on Saturday, gives dissatisfaction, as usual, to
Paris Opposition journals ; but, considering
political tenets and the Republican views of 50
and the hostile feeling of others to the reigl
dynasty, the KING and his Ministry will prob
regard these symptoms of discontent as the g

proofs of national prosperity, and an admissicoi
that wise policy which has consolidated the strel

of the kingdom, and secured the Constitutioo
1836 against the attempts of Republicans and 144

in atists.

It is only fair to state—and indeed i

not be denied—that France for many years 145,
enjoyed such tranquillity and prosperity as she
at the present moment. It would be difficult, lad
to find a period in her history when such encour!
ment was given to national industry, and the 19,

sitions of the people so completely turned away
the wild schemes of conquest and glory to the

substantial blessings of peace, and the develop:oo
the numerous sources of wealth and power posse'
by that great nation. His MAJESTY, therefore, ,j
out vanity might boast that the policy which be!
maintained would one day cause the memory of
reign to be held in honour. When was France
prosperous ? During the reign of Louis XIV.
gained great conquests for a time, but they cost'
great sacrifices ; they were all, except a very°
snatched rudely from her, and towards
close of his reign France perhaps ye.

was in so low and miserable a condi'
The enemy was at the gates of Pa
the youth and the financial resources of
country were exhausted, and a peace of any I
IN as considered better than war. During the r

which followed affairs were not in a be
state. France lost all her possessions in `,;
nada and India, and, in fact, was strig,
of every colony that could contribute to
trade or strengthen her navy. The disasr,i
and the victories which took place under Louis N';
and the Republic are too well known to require
cital, and during the whole reign: of NapauEol
policy of the Government was of the most rul,,
character. France never had such an enemy as
POLEON. He annihilated her commerce and na tioasito
dustry,wasted her strength in foreign wars, ii.nd.fi ;
brought her to the brink of utter ruin. The itestoraw;
was productive of only one good—it produce
revolution, established a new dynasty and a new t.P.4
stitution, which have for the last fifteen years_ irj
electing a complete change, strengthenitig the 1171
of the peaceable, encouraging the industrious, to,
assuaging the hostility of neighbouring
_ASO y
It is the peculiar glory of the present Mit;
reign, that he has ever cultivated, as far 0
his power, the friendship of England, not by CO'',
siona derogatory to the honour or injurious to, t it
terests of his people, but by prudent, firm, and
the same time, amicable negotiations. :His rtiO
object was to convince both nations bis
peace was their best policy, and thanks Olibt,
own firmness and perseverance, aided, no d 0
by Ministers entertaining the same ,dispasiti
he has been eminently successful, and every 'ley
disposed citizen and true patriot of bath courttli,d
say, " Long may he reign." We have tried s*"
with France for fifty times, and when peace caleel
and the reckoning was cast up, both nations 01
found themselves equally losers. For the resu/00,
a different policy LOUIS PHILIPPE deservibio
highest praise, and future generations will ae
ample justice.

The ex-Radical, ex-Protestant, and very eceell'.o
Sir CHARLES WOLESLEY, ci-devant " Legislatio,
Attorney " for the town of Birmingham, bag
dressed a letter to the working classes in the res°4
facturing districts, in which, amidst re.uch viturcot
tion of the Anti-Corn-law League, he, unlike
atilt
of his brother protectionists, does descend to
ments on which he founds arguments. The stateele.,
on which all his arguments are based is as follovis,6
" You all know there is what is termed capital ilto
landlords have capital. An estate which belong7,4l
my nephew, called Tixall, which joins mine (rental swim;
6,0001. per annum), has lately been sold to Earl TaP'id
for, I think, 240,000/.; and the steward of the estate,lie
me, if his Lordship got 3 per cent. for his eapitak,,a
would be very well otf. Well, then, here 'was 240,0v"
capital, and 3 per cent. interest.
" Well, now we will go on a little further ; I will tor,
a tip-top man from among the master rnanufactur,e,6,
even Mr. Cobden himself. We have been informed
comes from among the yeomen of Kent ; and who 5e
respectable as a yeoman of that county ? For, as 1:e
old song says, And a man of Kent was he.' Well,
will suppose this man of Kent had some capital Sly'
Come, what shall we say, by way of a guess, it amoue
to ? Why, 5,000/. Well, here then was Mr. Cobden
,0
capital. Now it is very generally understood that I
makes a large income, say as much as Earl Talbot gets
for his capital, 6,0001. per annum. If so, the one gets
three per cent., the other the deuce knows what pe
cent., for I will not stay to calculate it."
Now this, " three per cent" fallacy is a vet!
favourite one with the protectionists. The late Sit
FRANCIS BURDETT, on more than one occasie°'
broached it in the House of Commons, artid at pro'
tection meetings it is generally put forward. as the
eke val de bataille. Sir CHARLES WOLSELEY puts the
case in a nutshell, and, as example is of more fore'
than precept, we are glad that the Right
ft
Hon. Baronet, instead of confining himself,
as is too often the case with the protectionists, to
generals, has condescended to particulars, and bss
chosen Earl TALBOT and Mr. COBDEN as the respee'
tive representatives of the landed and trading interests,
for the purpose of instituting a comparison between
them. Earl TALBOT gets three per cent. fat
his capital invested in land, and seeing that,
Earl TALBOT " toils not, neither does he spine
and that his capital is invested in the very safest man'
tier possible, we do not think that he has any great
reason to complain. Sir CHARLES WOLESLEY then
assumes Mr. COBDEN'S capital to be 5,0004., and
proceeds, " Now, it is very generally understood
he makes a large income, say as much $5
Earl TALBOT gets for his capital, 6,000 L
per annum. If so, the one gets three per cent., and
the other the deuce knows what per cent." We give
Sir C. WOLESLEY great credit for the studiedly obscure
way in which he has put this. "He makes a large
income, say as much as Earl TALBOT gets for his
capital." True, he may make a large income, but
not upon capital alone, as Earl TALBOT does. Mr.
COBDEN makes his income by his personal exertions,
He deducts the interest upon his capital before be
calculates his profits, and those profits are not the
interest of his capital, but the wages which he has
earned as a skilled labourer. Nov if Earl TALBOT
were to employ himself in productive labour, as Mr.
COBDEN does (if he were to cultivate his estate
himself instead of letting it), he too would have an'
income of more than three per cent. on his
capital—that is to say, he would have his
three per cent. on his capital invested, plus the profit
of his labour. The following question, although
evidently put with an ill intention, for the purpose of
endeavouring to excite dissensions between employer
and employed, is so self-evidently fallacious, and
contains such an important admission on the subject
of the rate of agricultural wages, that we really feel
obliged to Sir CHARLES WOLESLEY for putting it. "If
Lord TALBOT gives his labourers 12s. per week out
of his three per cent., how much ought Mr. COBDEN
to give his mill workmen out of his 1,6001. per cent. ?"
If Lord TALBOT gives his labourers 12s. per week out
of his three per cent., he is indeed a rara avis among
landlords, inasmuch as he must himself pay, out of the
rent he receives, the wages of all the labourers employed
by his tenants in the cultivation of the farms they hold
and, r him. In no other way can he pay his labourers
12s. a week out of his three per cent., because, if the
labouleis are employed by him iu tbo cultivation of