The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-21 00:00:00

NATIONAL CONVENTION.

The Convention of Delegates from England, Scotland, and
Wales, met yesterday morning, at 9 o'clock, at the Dr. Johnson
Tavern, Fleet-street.

The object of to-day's meeting was to oppose the steps taken
by Mr. St urge, of Birmingham, in forming a National Suffrage
Association, and the proposition of Mr. Sturge and his party to
merge the name of the Charter into that of the above Asso-
ciation.

Mr. DUNCAN took the chair.
Mr. Caursztf. acted as Secretary, and read the minutes
of the last meeting, which were confirmed.
Mr. Moons* proposed a resolution to the following effect :
" That this Convention respectfully recommend the people
to stand firmly by the Charter, whole and entire, evenin name."
Mr. MASON seconded the resolution.
Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Thomason, Mr. Pitkeathly, and Mr.
M`Dovrall spoke to the resolution. •
Mr. Plume, in speaking to the resolution, said he thought
there was no cause for it, as it implied a wavering in the
cause ; but, as it was before the Convention, he should sup-
port it.
Mr. STA LLwoon, of London, did not wish to attribute mo-
tives to any one, but he had heard of meetings attended by Mr.
O'Brien, Mr. Lowry, and Mr. Vincent, at which meetings
those gentlemen were silent; he, therefore, thought there was
great necessity for the resolution before the meeting.
Mr. DOYLE, of Cheshire, said he had been sent tothe Whig
political boarding school f.,r daring to express his opinion, and
he would go there again before he would give up even the name
of the Charier.—( Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that when
the Association which had been formed to divide the people in
their opinion as to the Charter, came before the public at the
Convention to he called at Birmingham, it would be treated
as it deierved.

After several other Delegates had addressed the Convention,
the resolution was put and carried unanimously. The Con-
vention then adjourned.

THE INCOME TAX.

Calculations have been made by some of the conductors of
the Tory press to support Sir Robert Peel's assertion, that to
persons of moderate means his tariff will give more than his
Income• tax will take away. The result is a statement, copied
from one journal into another, to the following effect : Suppose
a man, his wife, and three children, with an income of 2001.
per annum arising from wages; the new tariff will benefit
them in the reduced price of the necessaries of life, to the
amount of 12/. 10s. 2d. yearly, while the Income-tax will be
not quite 61., leaving a saving from Sir Robert's Peel's mea-
sures of 6/. 10s. 2d. Or suppose a tradesman also with a wife
and three children, who derives from his business a net income
of 3001. per annum ; his estimated benefit from the new tariff
is 17/. 3s. 10d., his income-tax not quite 91., and the balance
in his favour 81. 3s. 10d. The third supposition is that of an
independent income of 500/., the family the same, but with
the addition of two servants; the more liberal style of living
in this case raises the saving to 26/. 61. 10d., from which de-
ducting 151. for Income-tax, there remains a clear profit of
11/. 6s. 10d. ; and thus the argument (ilade out by items
which it is not needful for our present purpose to scrutinise) is
sent forth on its way triumphantly.
We take upon their own showing the illustrators of Sir
Robert Peel's logic, and beg their attention to certain general
consequences of their " facts and figures."
One result is, that the system is contrived to bestow larger
benefits upon the comparatively rich than upon the comport',
lively pour. To the possessor of an independent revenue,
from the public funds, or other non•fluctuating sources, Sir
Robert Peel proposes to make a donation of 111. 6s. 10d.
yearly. On the struggling. tradesman, whose ceaseless
attention, ingenuity, and inaustry hardly win to him a
precarious annual income of 300/., Sir Robert only be-
stows 3s. 10d. And if the tradesman be obliged to shut
up shop, and hire himself out for weekly wages, which, with
those perhaps of one, or two, of his three children, realise
tour pounds a week, then Sir Robert pares down his bounty
to 61. 10s. 2d., mulcting the unfortunate recipient a above
305., when every shilling has become of enhanced value. Such
is the mode in which, according to the logic of his speeches, and
the calculations of his advocates, Sir Robert Peel loves, com-
miserates, and helps the poor. His bounty is measured by the
direct ratio, not of their wants, but of their receipts. To the
gentleman of an independent 5001. a-year he gives about twice
as much as to the poor clerk of 2001. a-year. For the trades-
man he would certainly do more, if the tradesman were but
realising more, and living in a handsomer style. It is singu-
larly original this Tory charity.
it may be said, indeed, that, as the Peel bounty is bestowed
through the medium of diminished taxation upon articles of
consumption, the consequence is unavoidable that its
amount must follow the amount expended on such arti-
cles. Granted; and for that reason it cannot, by itself
be made an uniform amount of relief ; still less can it be made
to augment in proportion to the poverty and want of the party
to be relieved. But the question here is, not of the tariff con-
sidered alone, but of the tariff taken in connection with the In-
come-tax. The relief is in the balance ; and if one weight can-
not be altered, yet the other might. if the poor clerk of 2001.
a year must have less relief than his betters, he might
also hale less tax. Charge him at only one per cent.
on his income, and he saves as much as the tradesman.
Or charge the independent man four per cent. on his
income, and he will save as much, though not more than the
poor clerk. The matter is easily capable of equitable adjust-
ment. The system is niggardly to the poor, and bountiful to
the rmh, from no necessity of the case, but merely because Sir
11. Peel will have it so.

There is another point worth notice in these calculations.
The man of 2001. a year is to make, by the amended tariff, a
gloss saving annually of 121. 10s. 2d. ; he of 3001., a saving of
17/. 3s. 10.1 ; and he of 500/., one of 26/. 6s. 10d.
iiay we ask where all this money goes to now?
The calculation, with some very trifling exceptions,
is made upon an assumed reduction in the prices of articles of
w'..ich are therefore supposed to be kept up by the pre-
sent restrictions and prohibitions. It is not that the specified
savings are now paid in the form of duties to the Govern-
'tient. At least, that is a comparatively insignificant por-
tion. The clerk of 2001. per annum is calculated to save above
7 guineas on bread and meat alone. The saving is, therefore,
mainly made out of what is now paid by consumers of all classes
as the landlord's tax. Nor is it the whole of that tax, or
anything like it. The remission is just such a reduction of
the landlords' tax as Sir Robert Peel thinks a landlords' majo-
rity must, for very shame, or in consideration of other advan-
tages, consent to make. He argues that the remissiea will
leave agricultural produce in perfect security and nr.der full
protection. Here, then, we have at last a confession that the
consumer has been hitherto unnecessarily taxed by the land•
owners; a confession that the predominant class (now more
predominant than ever) has been extorting a superfluous in-
come-tax of five per cent. from the man of 500/. a year;
of five and a halt per cent. from the tradesman of 300/.
a year ; and of six per cent. from the clerk or jowney
man of 4/. a week. These statements,
_ be it remembered,
rest on no Anti-Corn-law authority. We take them from the
Church and State Gazette, and the Morning Post. The
writer of them is " prepared to discuss and defend these
figures." They are the basis of an apology for, or rather a
eulogy upon, Sir Robert Peel's measures. They are, in truth,
Sir Robert Peel's own arguments, as urged by himself and his
colleagues in the House of Commons, amplified and made
more definite and tangible. We hope his statistical retainers
wilt extend their researches, and make more calculations.
Figures are obstinate things ; and though they may be
subpoenaed as witnesses in a bad cause, are very apt to show
the truth, and contradict the falsehood they were called to
testily.— Chronicle.

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS.
(FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.)
TIMES.—The premium on gold at Paris is 9 per mille,
which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. 10id. per ounce for
standard gold, gives an exchange of 25 376, and the ex-
change at Paris on London at short being 25 62k, it follows
that gold is 1.0 per cent. dearer in London than in Paris.
By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 4331 per
mark, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. 101/2d. per
ounce, for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13 9i, and the
exchange at Hamburgh on London at short being 13 11, it
follows that gold is 0.60 per cent. dearer in London than in
H amburgh.
The course of exchange at New York on London is 1071
per cent., and the par of exchange between England and
America being 109 23-40 per cent., it follows that the ex-
change is 1.83 per cent. against England. But the quoted
exchange at New York being for bills at 60 days' sight, the
interest must be deducted from the above difference.
By the official returns published by the Customs, the exports
of tile precious metals to foreign and colonial ports for the week
ending Thursday last, were as under, viz. Ounces.
Silver coin to Rotterdam 30,000
Sioter coin to Hamburgh lO,OOO
Silver coin to Calais...
Silver bars to Calais..... .................. 1.0,000
Silver bars to Rotterdam ... 105,000
Gold coin to Port Philip...

AFFAIR or HoNoun.—The Hon. John Yachett,
brother of Lord Audley, and John John G. I'. Achill, Esq.,
having meditated a " pop-and carry-one" affair on the Fifteen
Acres, Dublin, on Saturday, the police were on the qui vice,
and succeeded in preventing the parties from firing through
each other's heads, by arresting and bringing the belligerents
before the Magistrates, where they entered into securities to keep
the peace.
A letter from Vienna announces the arrest in that
city of a Frenchman who had absconded from a banking-house
at Paris with a sum of 200,000 f. He had been traced to Ra-
tisbon, which place he had just left for Vienna, when informa-
tion was received there of his offence. On being arrested only
NOE were found upon him.