The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-20 00:00:00

COMPLETE SUFFRAGE.

A meeting of the friends of Complete Suffrage was
held on Wednesday night, at Thornton's Coffee-house,
Knightsbridge. Mr. DENSHAW Wag called to the Chair.
Mr. NEESOM, one of the Delegates to the late Bir-
mingham Conference, addressed the meeting at great
length, on the necessity of union between the middle
and working classes ; and was followed by
Mr. CHARLES WESTERTON, another Delegate, who
contended that Complete Suffrage Unions, similar to
that proposed by the Conference, were eminently cal-
culated to effect the purpose so strongly contended
for by Mr. Neesom. He attributed the power of
the aristocracy and its results to the disunion of the
people.
Messrs. Smith, of Old Brompton, Elms and Gif-
ford, of Hammersmith, and other gentlemen addressed
the meeting, and the following resolution was carried
unanimously :—" That, as soon as sufficient names
were procured, Mr. Westerton should be authorised
to write to Birmingham for the requisite number of
cards of Membership."
The meeting then adjourned to next Wednesday
evening, when the subject will be taken into further
consideration.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—We are, it seems, to have a Tory Op-
position to Ministers, and a Whig Coalition with
them ! Such is the prediction of the Post, in an
article which we extract elsewhere. "The end of
the matter is," says that most consistent organ
of acrid Toryism, " that after all their exer-
tions last summer, the representatives of the
producing interests [the Post always treats the own-
ers of wheat-lands as the only producers, whereas,
the truth is, they produce less, relatively to their
means, than any other capitalists] are not in a better
position than they were before the struggle began.
We think it probable," adds the Post, " that the
most serious results upon the position of parties in the
House of Commons will, ere long, be produced by,
the unanimity of the present leaders on the subject
of free-trade philosophy. They who remember what
the Whigs did, in April, 1827, will not be sur-
prised if, ere long, they should see Mr. Hawes sit-
ting with his knees in Sir Robert Peel's back." As
the Post, in its present malcontent mood, thinks fit to
revive the memory of what the Whigs did in 1827,
we can have no possible objection to reciprocate these
reminiscences. What the Tories did in 1827 (we mean
the political Tories who have brains in their heads,
and not their animal herd in the counties, who have no
faculty but to butt and ruminate—to butt at their
fancied foes, and ruminate afterwards on the fraud of
their false friends)—what the Tories did in 1827, was
just, ,nutatis mutandis, what they did again, last year.
The Post need not be so very resentful of the gene-
ral imputation of unintellectual character which is
thrown on its party, when it seems, from its own
showing, that its party is doomed everlastingly to be
duped. It is generally supposed that people must
really be rather stupid, when that experience, which
teaches fools, seems insufficient to teach them any-
thing. Cannot you see, but marry boys," says Sir
Hugh Evans to Master Slender. " Cannot you
remember, but trust Peel," might we say to the
Church-Corn-law-and- Chandos Tories. The part
which the Tories and Whigs played in 1827-28
was essentially the same :as they have been playing
in the past year and the present. In 1827, the
leading Tories deserted Canning, on the pretext of
Pro-Catholic principles, but, in reality, because Wel-
lington and Peel did not choose Canning to },e
Minister. The truth was, Mr. Peel could not play
first fiddle, and would not play second fiddle. While
Canning lived, therefore, Mr. Peel entrenched him-
self in the last ditch of High Church, and continued
the faithful child and champion of Oxford, always
without prejudice of his usual reservations, and his
right to leave Oxford in the lurch, when it suited him.
It suited him the very next year. Canning was dead,
and Peel leader in the Commons. Last year Sir
Robert Peel availed himself of the Pro-Commerce
principles of the Whigs to turn them out, just as he
split from Canning for Pro-Catholicism. We do not
mean to say that the cases are perfectly parellel ; but
they throw a very. similar light on the character of
the statesman. They show that there is, at all times,
a certain large portion of his public professions which
he puts forth simply to enhance his importance, or
sithserve his ambition—to keep him at the head of the
stand-still party, so long as he cannot place himself
at the head of the progressive party in the conduct of
Government.
STANDARD.—We cannot help thinking that
some of our contemporaries take an inaccurate view of
the effect of the Ministerial propositions, when they
complain of the clauses of the tariff affecting the in-
troduction of live cattle. The exmple of the importa-
tion from Ireland—an importation tenfold greater
than can be anticipated from the Continent—proves
very clearly that no diminution in prices need
to be apprehended ; and as to the chance of
an advance upon present prices, it is altogether
hopeless, except from an improvement in the
condition of all classes of the people. The
power of consumption has, like the power of tax-
ation, its limits. These limits are coincident in those
which bound the power of indirect taxation ; and
it has been proved, by the failure of the five
per cent. duties in 1841, that we have reached
the limits of indirect taxation. This is a serious
warning of something wrong in the social state--ra
solemn admonition of statesmen to retrace some
part of our later policy. It is not, however, with
a view to this consideration, all important
as it is, that we now refer to the fact that
the power of consumption has reached, its limits, and
that it is still receding further within those limits. If
the consumption of animal food of domestic produce be
in danger of diminution from foreign competition, it
is only one danger substituted for another ; for no less
is the danger of diminution from compulsory habits of
economy. We might refer to whole classes, who were
once accustomed to the use of animal food, who are
now strangers to it—such was the wisdom of the
Malthusian landowners and farmers who sup-
ported the New Poor-law, as many of them as
there were. We might, we say, refer to whole
classes whom the Somerset House regimen has
taught to discontinue the use of animal food,
but it is not necessary to descend to them, though
the working classes are always the greatest con-
sumers. We can confidently refer to the house-
books of the gentry and nobility for proof that, even
in the largest establishments, the consumption of
animal food has greatly diminished—probably dimi-
nished to the extent of one-half, in most houses, within
the last 25 years ; and this diminuation will be pro-
gressive, in any case, as we proceed—more rapidly
progressive, should higher prices be demanded, as less
than higher prices will not remunerate, if a further
domestic supplyshould be brought into the market.