The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-16 00:00:00

130 ULOGNE.

Much discusgon is going on, at present, in the
commercial circles of France, and England, and Bel-
gium, as to the proposed duty to be put upon linen
yarns imported into France. The English press and
the Belgian, we think, are right in their views ; we
consider the imposition of the duty a very unwise
measure as regards France, and we are led to this
conclusion by two reasons.
1. If the duty be imposed, it is a general tax upon
all France, for the benefit of some few manufacturers.
Is it right to tax a whole people for the benefit of
a few ? We say no, especially when it is considered
who those few arc. No person will deny that they
are almost all foreigners; men who began the
speculation with their eyes open,—with a full
knowledge of the law and of what they would
have to contend against; men who employ foreigners
to carry on their trade and not natives, excluding
it thereby from national productions, and the
protection national productions, extensirely grown or
manufactured, and employing thousands, may have
some claim to; men who have embarked in the spe-
culation fur self-interest, not caring one sous or giving
one thought to France, or any benefit the country in
general may derive from their speculation. Now, are
such men or their speculations of such importance as
to merit the particular consideration of a foreign State
to that degree that the whole population of a country,
34 millions, are to be taxed 20 per cent., that they
should grow rich and drink champagne, and drive their
carriages, at the expense of rich and poor, through
the length and breadth of the land ? We say no.
These opinions may be unpalatable to many in this
town who have thrown their money into the concern
at Capecure. But we see no reason why we, and all
the country should be obliged to pay 20 per cent. more
for our. sheets, table cloths, and linen, that these
foreigners in the land should be paid 6 or 10
per cent: for their capital in the speculation. It is in
our humble idea unjust to the nation at large. Had
the duty been lowered after the enterprise was corn-

menced, and disappointments and losses been the re-
sult, we should have been silent. But INC do not
think, because speculators have formed bad calcula-
tions and knew but little. Of the expenses or profits
arising from the trade into which they sanguinely,
and without due consideration, threw their capital,
that, therefore, the whole nation are to be taxed for
their benefit. We lay aside the political considera-
tions attached to the question, reprisals of foreign
countries, higher duties put on French industry,
heart burnings, discontent, &c., with these we have
nothing to do. We look on it as a purely domestic
question, and in that point of view only do we treat
it; every thinking mind will soon see_ it in all its
bearings.
2. The second point in which we consider it of
immense importance is that
_a the loss of duty which
must follow. The diminution of the revenue must
be great. In 1840 no less than 13,137,368 pounds
of linen yarns were exported to France from England
alone ; what were imported from Belgium we have
no means of stating ; no doubt it was one half of
that from England, else the Belgian Chambers would
not be so roused, as it will be seen they were by the
extract we give below from the debates. Any person,
then, the least acquainted with the subject, by mul-
tiplying these number of pounds by the duty at pre-
sent levied, will see the loss the Customs of the country'
will sustain. But that is not all, not only will the re-
venue suffer, but all who are engaged at the ports as
commission agents, and workmen ; all engaged in
transporting the merchandise inland, and the thousands
benefited by the employ that this thread has created.
Almost all these are Frenchmen, to them a fruitful
source of industry will be dried up and employment
taken from them to benefit wild speculation. Now,
we maintain, of course with all due deference to wiser
heads, that the above considerations should induce a
wise Government to pause ere they taxed a whole
people, and took the bread out of the mouths of
thousands' merely to benefit a few foreigners
who havebeen so foolish as to speculate in under-
takings which have proved unprofitable. We
consider it very unwise to ransack the annals
of a country and go back nearly two hundred
years, when the spirit of commercial prosperity was
totally unknown, to defend a measure similar to what
we now notice. Suppose England, in order to pro-
tect Bett's patent brandy, and Taylor's gooseberry
wine, was to place an extra duty of 20 per cent. on
French brandy and wine, hat would be the exclama-
tions on this side of the Channel ? England has not
done this ; on the new tariff Sir Robert Peel has
considerably diminished the duty on boots, shoes,
gloves, silks, trinkets, and various objects of art, all in
favour of rench manufacturers ;is the proposed 20
per cent. a return of gratitude ? Nations can reta-
liate ; but God forbid that, to please some eight or ten
foreign speculators who have settled in France, the
present good understanding existing between the two
countries should suffer the least diminution.—Boulogne
Gazette.

SINGULAR DEATH OF A , BOlL—Yesterday Mr.
Wakley, 51. P., held an inquest it University College Hospital,
on the body of John Villiers; aged 13, the son of a surgeon in
the army, residing at 54, London-street, Fitzroy-square. I t
appeared from the statement Alf-the deceased's fathiv that the
deceased, who was rather a iickly boy, was exceedingly fond of
eating vegetables of every description. On Thursday he, ac-
companied by some juvenile friends, wont into the fields for
the purpose of gathering sorrel, of whch, during the time he
was out, he ate a great quantity. On his return home in the
evening, deceased complained of violent pains in the bowels,
which induced his father to administer. medicine to hm. He
slightly recovered on Friday, .but again gradually got worse,
and his appearance left no doubt on his father's mind that he
was attacked with cholera. He continued to prescribe for
him until the morning of Sunday, when the deceased's mother,
fearing he was dying. took hint in her arms, and carried him
to the above hospital. Dr. Quaine, resident saigeon of the
hospital, proved the admission of the deceased about one o'clock
on Sunday, evidently, in his opinion, labouring under the
effects of cholera. He died in half an hour after. Mr. Quaine
here detailed the appearancet of the body on post mortem
examination, which left no doubt on his mind that he had died
of cholera, induced by the eating improper food above men-
tioned. The Jury returned a verdict of " Died from cholera,
caused by taking improper food."
DEATH FROM SUFFOCATION.—Yesterday an inquest
was held before Mr. Wakley, at the White Horse, Drury-lane,
on the body of Mrs. Elizabeth Hickey, resieing at • I‘o. 49,
Parker-street, an army cluthes maker, who was choked while
eating apiece of meat. Before the Jury returned their verdict,
the C‘ironer said that it happened nearly on all occasions that
if a person died suddenly, While 'at a meal or eating, the death
was attributed to choking ; but in the great majority of such
cases the person was seized with a fit at that moment, and died
from the effect of that attack, and not from choking. In the
present instance there could be little doubt that the death re-
sulted from suffocation, caused by the meat ; and the distinction
was to be drawn from the fact that the deceased was sensible
from first to last ; that she put. her hands to her mouth ; and
that she attempted to extract the meat with her finger, none
of which signs are present when a lit has come on at the
moment that the person happens to be eating. These consti-
tuted marked distinctions, and'showed that the obstruction was
at the throat, and not a sudden effect of the brain or the heart.
Verdict—" Accidentally ahoki.d."
The mortal remains of Lord Congleton were con-
veyed from his late residence, 43, Cadogan-place, the day before
yesterday, for inter ment in the faMily mausoleum of the Parnell
family, in St. George's, Hanover -I quire, burial- greamd, on
the Bayswater-road. The youthful Marques of Drogheda,
grandson of the late Lord, came up from Et, n College to attend
the funeral, which was strictly private. The present Lord Con-
gleton, the Hon. Henry Pat tiell, Bishop 01 Ripon, Mr. Edward
H. Cole, sons-in-law of his late Lordship, were among the re-
latives present at the mournful ceremony.

IMPERIAL • PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15.
ELECTORS REMOVAL BILL.

Mr. HUME wished to ktioWr whether it was the inten-
tion of the Government to bring in a Bill to remedy the
admitted evil which the ineaure which had just been
thrown out as designed to meet ?
Sir J. GRAHAM was understood to say, that he had
no statement to make upon the subject.
Mr. HUME repeated his question, whether the Go-
vernment meant to introduce- a Bill to remedy the ad-
mitted Cvils of the present electoral system ?
Sir h. PEEL said that he "apprehended the question of
the lion. Gentleman was one of an unusual nature. He
was not then prepared to vay that the Governueut had
come to any determination upon the subject.
Mr. HUME said, as it tad been stated in her Ma-
jesty's speech that the attention of the House should be
directed to the registration .of electors, he thought the
Right Bon. Baronet should have made up his mind upon
that subject.— (Oh, oh, and laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL thought the Hun. Member's observations
were perfectly uncalled for,—(llear.) They had brought
forward measures of great importance—the Income-tax,
the Tariff, and the Poor-law; and they had not as yet
had an opportunity of calling the attention of the House
to the registration of electors.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet whether he intended to lay on the table a Bill
for the improvement of the registration of voters. He
asked that question before East(T, and the Right Hon.
Baronet then stated that the'Bill was ready, but as the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had
the conduct of that Bill, was not then in his place, it
could not then be laid on the table. It was intended,
however, said the Right Hon. Baronet, to lay it on the
table either before or after Easter. They were now
near the end of the Session, and they had heard nothing
more of that Bill. He wanted to know whether the Bill
was to be laid on the table or not ? He wanted to know
what were the reform views of her Majesty's Ministers,
or whether they had any reform views at all.—(Hear,
hear.) There was a great necessity for this Bill=much
perjury did exist at all elections of Members. of Parlia-
ment —(Cries of " Question" and " Order.") He had
sat fourteen days on the Weymouth Committee, and
there were 60 voters out of 500 struck off the register,
and 50 of those were owing to cases of removal. Were
they to see this Bill for the registration of voters ? He
was delighted that the House had come to the decision it
had, because it would let the people see that that House
was much worse, with regard, to reform princirles, than
the other House, for that House had rejected the Bills
on the second reading, which the other House would not
have done.
Lord CLEMENTS wished to ask if it was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill on
the subject of Irish Registration.
Sir R. PEEL said that iriTibe early part of the even-
ing the Right lion. Secretary for the Home Department
had stated that he would at a future day, to-morrow or
the next day, state to the House the intention of her
Majesty's Government on the subject, and he thought
that answer was sufficient.

Mr. FOX MAULE said the answer the Right Hon.
Baronet had just given, justified him in moving an
amendment that the Bill be read that day week.
Mr. HODGSON said the Bill had nothing to do with
the registration of voters. -
Mr. REDINGTON said that was a very good rea-
son why they should legislate at once on the subject,
without waiting for the Bill Of the -Right Hon. Baronet.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—

For Mr. Maule's amendment 79
For the original motion lOl
• Majority for the original motion -22
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
On bringing up the Repoti of the Salmon Fisheries
(Scotland) Bill,
Captain' GORDON moved the following amendments,
of which he had given notice
. Clause 2, page 2, line 6, to htuve out "any proprietor,"
and insert " a majority of proprietors."
In line 7, leave out " twenty," and insert " not less
than ten."

In line 8, leave out " or by any three or more of such
proprietors possesing Salmotr Fishings of the yearly
value of not less than ten pounds each."
In line 41, after " river," insert' " stream, lock, water,
estuary, bay, frith, or sea lock or sea coast as aforesaid."
Clause 7, page 4, line 13, after " Act," insert " upon
application made to them by proprietors possessing
Salmon Fishings of at least one hull the amount of the
whole annual value;" and

at the end of the clause add " Frovided also, that
nothing herein contained shall prejudice the rights of
proprietors of any river, or the banks then of."
After a short discussion the amendments were agreed to.
The Report was then received, and the Bill was or-
dered to be engrwsed.

DEAN FOREST POOR BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN this Bill
went through Committee.
DEAN FOREST ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICTS