The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-11 00:00:00

A. 411'
k 111 F

LONDON'

MONDAY MORNING, APRIL 11, 1842.

Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech on Friday night, like
all his latter speeches, was full of fallacies and clap-
traps. He began by referring to the great deficiency
of the revenue, but forgot to state that for upwards of
a million of that deficiency at least, perhaps for three
millions, he and his party are responsible. They
would not allow a remedy to be applied in 1841, as if
they sought to obtain and preserve power by aggra-
vating the difficulties of the Government.
Sir R. PEEL spoke, too, of the difficulties of the Go-
vernment, as if they were the difficulties of the country,
but the country and our aristocratic Government, far
fom being identical, are very different and even
dverse. bodies. The difficulties of the country arise
from the Government taking too much, and autho-
rizing too much to be taken from the people ; while
the difficulties of the Government arise from its own
xtravagance. Sir EODERT PEEL proposes to take
more from the people to relieve the difficulties of the
Government, which will only exasperate the diffi-
culties of the people. Fallaciously confounding the
Government and the people, he concludes that to
increase the wealth of the former is to benefit the
latter, and to maintain the extravagance of the Go-
vernment he is ready to sacrifice the people.
Next Sir R, PEEL referred to the disaster in
Affghanistan as a great national loss, which is much
more a disaster of the East India Company than of the
English people. The army destroyed, though too
numerous not to make us mourn over such a des-
truction, was, thank GOD, not altogether an English
army, taken from the English people, and be-
longing to the English Government ; it was
chiefly an army of sepoys in the pay of the India
Company. One European regiment only appears •to
have been present, and the loss, heavy though it be, is
not sufficient to shake the empire of old England to its
foundation. Sir ROBERT PEEL had not, however,
another fact to state in contradiction to the passage
of her MAJESTY'S Speech at the opening of the
Session, quoted by Mr. SIIIEL, that " her MAJESTY
continued to receive assurances from all Princes and
States that they felt the utmost anxiety to maintain
friendly relations with this country." On:that single
disaster Sir ROBERT PEEL bases his income tax.
Mr. PITT could quote in justification of his tax the
rapid and threatening projects of revolutionary
France. However desirable the preservation of our
Indian Empire may be, there can be no way more
certain to endanger it and make it hateful to the
people than to subject them to an income tax, be-
cause the Company's troops have met with a great
disaster in Affghanistan.

Sir R. PEEL referred, with some exultation, to the
funds being now at 91, and spoke of their being down
at 42 at the period of imposing the first income tax,
as indicative of the country being in a bad condition.
This is terrible ignorance in a Prime Minister. In
Holland, where profit on stock, owing to excessive
iaxation and interest of money, ere notoriously low,
i;ie funds are always high. When merchants and
manufacturers can make 15 or 20 per cent. in trade,
there is no money to be vested in the funds at three
per cent, and they fall for want of purchasers. A high
rate of the funds indicates, therefore, a low. profit of
stock, a low rate of interest, and a clogged society. In
'1798 the advance of the country—thanks to WATT,
PREISTLEY, TENNANT, CAVENDISH, and a great num-
ber of other chemists, inventors, and philosophers—was
very rapid, and the Government could not borrow on
more favourable terms than seven or eight per cent.,
because there were a great many borrowers in the
market willing to give ten • per cent. for money
to carry on our extending commerce. For Sir
ROEERT PEEL to boast of the Three per Cents,
being now at 91, is to betray most lipaentable igno-
rance. If it be a proof that the Government can bor-
row on' easy terms, it is also a proof that capital can •
not find advantageous employment.
One of Sir ROBERT'S most conspicuous clap-
traps was the reduction of the timber duties. There
were great complaints, he said, of the want of
timber for the cottages of the poor in Ireland. He
will give them a log then, but they have asked
fn• bread Which he denies them. He referred to the
aivantages of the people having furniture, but he
forgot to say that by his Corn-law he has denied them
food. His timber duties will confer an advantage on
the shipping interest—let us add that the hosier in the
strand, or the glove-maker at Yeovil will be mulcted
by an income tax to enrich the ship-owner. He
is also to give a bonus to ship and house
builders, and to promote improvements in towns ;
but to cheapen timber, he takes away part of
the income of a poor clerk, or of a half-pay
officer. He is undoubtedly a great master of clap-
trap, but every one of his assertions on the tim-
ber duties proves that he is about to commit a gross
injury on the classes he taxes, and on the classes to
which he denies bread, while the ship-owners and ship-
huilders do not thank him for his injustice.
Tie 'Tiered for his justification, not to the condition
of tho people—not to any well ascertained laws of
ocial progress—not'to the principles of any science,
but :to,. something Lord MELBOURNE and Lord
JOHN RUSSELL had said. That means, that Sir
ROBERT PEEL has no higher standard of Go-
vernment, no better rule for ascertaining the
public welfare, than to find out what Lord JOHN
RUSSEL said during a time of official bias, when he
Was probably warping his own sentiments for a party
purpose, or what lord MELoyaNE, in one of his
happy moments of unthinking indolence, may have
clotheit in the well-sounding words of conventional
speaking. Such a reference may be • a heavy party
blow, but what these Noblemen said is no

argument whatever for now imposing an one-
T tk-PWa roux tax on the people. The -public welfare,
—7-4)77- ' fact, is wholly • lost sight -of'in an endea-
fl4,--I;\.. ur to obtain party triumphs. The national
,'...,.....,_-•\- ".^,
... piness is sacrificed, and publle liberty de.stroynd.
ease Lords Jonzi itussELL and MELBOuRNE have
Inade some very improper speeches. In office they

were little better than Tories, and out of office their
Tory sentiments are held up by Sir ROBERT PEEL as
laws for society ; but the community will not adopt
their opinions as unerring standards of right and
wrong. It insists on a nobler and more exalted
criterion, and if Sir R. PEEL can refer to nothing
better and higher to justify his measures than the
opinions of the men he has turned out of office, be-
cause they were incompetent, he will not satisfy the
public.

At a meeting held at Birmingham on Tuesday
last, of Delegates from various parts of the kingdom,
to promote Complete Suffrage, Mr. STURGE in the
chair, a resolution moved by the Rev. Tnomas
SPENCER in favour of Universal Suffrage, was carried
unanimously. Moreover we are told that a Com-
mittee, appointed to prepare resolutions for discussion,
had recommended the " six points" of the " National
Charter." Wishing well to every movement which
has for its object to secure for every man in the
empire that influence over the legislature which
nature gives I.him in society, and of which no laws,
however poor he be, can deprive him, we trust the
Suffrage Society will carefully separate the right to
the suffrage from the technical mode in which that
right may be exercised.
The suffrage is clearly a natural right, which be-
longs to every member of society, according to his
ability in every condition of society, before laws
existed, after they existed, and very often in spite of
their existence. It is a right, too, of which no laws
can wholly deprive a man, for even the proudest
lord and slave-owner feels himself in some degree
dependent on the opinion of his meanest slave. He
very generally' dreads the man be ill uses. Of that
natural right legislatures, chosen by a portion only
of society—privileges conferred on a few electors or a
few Peers, are plainly and palpably abridgements and
violations. They grow up out of a pre-condition of
direct slavery, of which they are a slight improvement.
But the mode in which that right shall be exercised—for
`example, in choosing a certain number of represen-
tatives, each one by a certain number of electors, with
certain powers, paying those representatives or not,
Voting or not by ballot, causing those representatives
to be elected and to assemble annually, or for three or
more years—is plainly a matter of political expedi-
ency, not like the suffrage, a great, natural, inalien-
able, a priori right. How that right can best be ex-
ercised in forming a Government, and in controlling
a Government, must be learnt from experience, and
must depend, to a very great degree, on the manners
and customs of every society. If this view be correct,
and this distinction well founded, it follows that it
will be extremely injudicious to mix together and in-
sist on obtaining, with the same pertinacity, the com-
plete exercise of the rights of suffrage, and the six
points of the Charter, or any other technical mode of
exercising that right. .
We will only take one case for an illustration. One
point of the Charter, we believe is, that Members of
Parliament should be paid. That has many advan-
tages, but it also has many disadvantages. It would
protract discussion, even more than at present. It
would stimulate, even mr.re than at present, the desire

to become a law-maker and to make laws. Whatever
sharpens that desire, and lengthens discussion, beget-
ting at once more talk and more restrictions, must be
a great evil. While there is no room, therefore, iri
our judgment, for two opinions as to the natural right
of every man to have a full and equal voice in public
affairs, proportionate to his abilities and his know-
ledge, there is great room for a difference of opinion
as to the mode in which that voice may be uttered.
We would respectfully submit, therefore, to the
friends of universal suffrage, that they always keep

this distinction in view; and while they are uncompro-
mising in maintaining the right, let them be tolerant
of those who entertain diverging opinions as to the.
technical means by which the suffrage shall be ex-
ercised.

Sir ROBERT PEEL persisted in speaking to the
main question on Friday evening after the question
of adjournment had been put. The SPEAKER supported
him in doing so, by observing that the question of
adjournment involved the main question, and that it
had been customary in modern times to grant Mem-
bers great latitude for their observations whenever
that question was put. We do not pretend to dispute
the SPEAKER'S high authority, but it appears to us a
real contradiction to allow a Member to speak to the
main question when an adjournment is moved for the
express purpose of putting an end to a debate. If
that be proper, the question of adjournment for such
a purpose is a mere useless form. It is an unmeaning
motion, which ought not to be tolerated. To us it
appears, when such a motion is made for such a pur-
pose, and a Member desires to speak to the main
question, whether he shall be allowed to do so or not,
the House, not the SPEAKER, must decide. If the
House choose to hear him, well and good ; if the House
object to hear him, the motion for an adjournment
pressed to a division, or a motion that Sir ROBERT
PEEL be heard, and the sense of the House
taken on it, is the proper mode of settling the
dispute. Then comes into operation the privilege of
the minority to move adjournments, ad infinitem: We
conclude, therefore, and we state our conclusion, with
all due respect to the SPEAKER, and with all
honour to his motives, that he usurped the functions
of the House in deciding that Sir R. PEEL might
speak to the main question. We are also of opinion
that the minority neglected its duty in not insisting
on the House, instead of the SPEAKER, deciding the
point, by which Sir R. PEEL would not have been
heard. His arbitrary course of proceeding, of which
even the Times cordially disapproves, justifies the
minority—nay, calls on the minority to take every
means in its power to obstruct and thwart the
man who wishes to exercise tyranny under the forms
of freedom, and by the help of Parliament.

We are no advoc?tes of class interests, but We think
the graziers are treated unfairly by Sir R. PEEL'S tariff.
His propositions are not justice; they are not what. the
manufacturers demand, nor what free trade requires; they
are not agreeable to religion nor morality ; ,they tend,
therefore, to take away from the graziers and farmers
so much of their present receipts and present property as
suits the views of Sir R. PEEL If his tariff were an act,
ofjuStice—were it put forth as a step towards a Complete
free trade—we should hail it with satisfaction ; but as
now 'concocted, it is simply a new artificial distribution
of the property of individuals, which he commands the
Parliameiit to enact.

Look, too, at some of the pretexts and fallacies by
which the scheme is supported. He increases the taxes
nearly three millions a year—taxes raise prices ; and
yet he tells us to find a compensation for the income tax
in a reduction of prices. According to his own theory,
and the theory of his party, prices must be, and are,
kept up by laws, to enable us to bear our taxes,cind
bear the national debt ; at the same time, he adds to our
taxes, and contrary to the whole stream of his argument
and his conduct, consoles us with a hope that prices will
fall. If that be so, how will his increased taxation be
conveniently paid ?
The farmers, who will have to pay a share, though it
be not a large' one, of the new taxes, are particularly
hardly dealt with, because it is their produce of which
Sir R. PEEL is to lower the price while he reduces
none of their charges, and adds to their burdens. If he
bad abolished the Corn-law they would have found a
compensation in lower rents, lower prices of everything
they would have to purchase, a greatly lowered expense
of labour, and an increased demand for their produce.
They would not have given their labourers less flour, but
that flour would have cast them a great deal less. Compara-
tively very little labour is employed in the raising of
cattle, and consequently while Sir R. PEEL beats down the
price of the farmers' cattle, he will make no reduction in
the cost of producing them. Those who do not breed
cattle, may buy their stock somewhat cheaper ; but as no
reduction in wages or rent will follow the impor-
tation of cattle, the breeders will be at as great
expense as before, and will get less for
their stock. This is an injustice to the working grazier,
perpetrated by Sir ROBERT PEEL'S partial reduction Of
duties, which would not be perpetrated by the abolition
of all the Corn and Provision-laws. There is, after all,
not much more good to be said of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
tariff, than of his income tax, and that can only be com-
pared to a pestilence.

The more the question of an income tax is debated
in Parliament, and discussed out of doers, the more the
people of England must detest and abhor it. Well did
Mr. SuIEL describe it in his eloquent speech on Friday,
in the House of Commons, when he said that it was a
tax which the Tories themselves had admitted was un-
just, " inasmuch as it pressed lightly upon the affluent,
but fell with witheiing effect upon the industrious classes
—which established an inquisition into the circumstances

11l thi:-; ahnoA as abhorrent as the
religious inquisition of 'Spain: in "the palmy days of the
auto d,a fe brotherhood of Sr. Donmuc--which, by the

,- - .

impositi .on of oaths, turned the Gospel itself into an im-
plement - o f taxation—which held out a premium' to false-
hood, anc 1 inflicted a penalty upon truth—a tax, from
which ha nesty could not escape, and in which fraud
could riot be caught—which held out a direct in-
ducemei It to perjury, and was therefore of all im-
posts flu most immoral—which most vulgarized tte
feelings-- which was most abhorrent, to the reli-
gious :se ntiments—and the most revolting to the
moral s, at se of the English people." Never was there a
better t les cription of this tax than is embodied in this
extract ft om the speech of the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentlen u in. No tax ever was proposed. more obnoxious
to the g e nius of the British people, and should it be car-
ried in ti ie shape in which it is now proposed, it will
seal th a doom of the Tory Cabinet. We well know that
Sir I. P EEL intends that it shall be perpetual. Upon
this too!un t it is important that the country should be
correct 1y informed. But will the nation tolerate it ? It
will nc it, and. could not, even if it would; for its opera-
tion w Id inevitably have the effect of deranging and
ruin nl ; tale commercial credit, and consequently the
trade A Great Britain. It is proposed as a temporary
measu re —it is intended to be a permanent one. As was
welly &as arved by Lord J. RUSSELL in the debate last
night, ,of ice the tax is on, the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQL at a will be in no hurry to take it off." " The
Tax," :said the Noble Lord, "is certain for three years
—it is
_probable for fivp .years—and it is probable for
five o r ten years after that." The Noble Lord might
with gl eat truth have added, that instead of being
probf ..b1 a for twenty years, Sir ROBERT PEEL would,
with ti ie utmost self-complacency and self-assurance,
take a. :loan upon it for three hundred years. For the
very reasons for which it is so unequal,
so partia tlly oppressive, so unjust, and so inquisitorial, is it
intern letl to be permanent. In vain did Mr. SHIEL array
the g' )(xi. r.ense of the toil-nurtured Sir ROBERT PEEL, the
father-, -a gainst the aristocracy-patted, arrogant quackery
of Sir 3 {OBERT PEEL, the son, with a view to expose
the fr ill acy that the poor were benefited by an in-
come ti ix. The wisdom of his ancestor was folly in
the eyes of the Tory Premier. He rather appeared
to re lei it the gathering wisdom from a family tree, of
which. :the stem was so very green. The speeches of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. SHIEL made, never-
theless, a very strong impression upon the House—
so m ads so., indeed, that Sir ROBERT obtained a hearing
with tribe utmost difficulty, and was listened to with
muck impatience even by his friends. In vain
did h': appeal to the agriculturists, by assur-
ing Ahern that his tariff would not injure
them by attempting to prove to them that
before: reducing the duty on beef, there was no beef for
import ation—and that, in fact, he had been humbugging
the rrieL..cantile and trading classes. They evidently had
taken_
l i
keni ;fright
slighitEaL.t the true picture of the income tax drawn

Bur if, without any actual necessity for so tyrannical
and ;Inquisitorial a measure, the country must suc-
cumb for the present to the Tory yoke of an income
tax, !et the amendment proposed by Sir R
and wlaich we were the first to suggest, be adopted. In
order that th.e. tax may operate with some degree of
fairn( upon struggling men, with incomes varying from
1501. to 400/. a year, let only the surplus over 1501. be
taxeei. At whatever sum the tax commences, it ought
only 4o fall upon the surplus over and above that sum.
The injustice of taxing an income of 1511. a year, de-
rive.l from manual toil, and earned for the support of
a ilelpless young family, at the same rate as an in-
come of 10,000/. from land ; .and relieving from taxa•
lion altogether an income from the same source of 1491.
for the maintenance of an individual, is so monstrous
that all common sense and right feeling revolts at it.
Here it is that the sliding-scale is required, and not in
the Corn Bill. But if we cannot obtain the sliding-
scale, let us insist that only the surplus revenue over the
1501. a-year shall be subject to this m )st tyrannical
impost

The French Journals have been receivQd, but they con-
tain -no political news of interest. We subjoin extracts
from them :

The Journal des Cher (Bourges) of the sth says—" It is re-
ported here that Don Carlos intends to remove to. the • house
of Mrs. Durand, a widow; this house, built on the site of an
an ancient convent of St. Ambrose, of which some ruins are
now left, possesses great domains, and the Pretender would
find there a relic which must be dear to every Spanibh'heart,
we mean the mortal remains of the noble Captain Rodriga
Diaz de Dever, so celebrated by the name of the Cid ; they
were brought to Bourges more than 30 years ago by Mrs.
Durand's husband, who held a high post in the military ad-
ministration of the French armies in Spain."
It was affirmed yesterday says the Debats, that the French
Government had received intelligence of the fall of I4it
Mehemet Pacha.— Constittaionnel.

We have already stated that a jury of inquiry was to assem-
ble at Barcelona, to decide whether there were grounds for
the prosecution of the Constitutionnel of that city, for a violent
article which it published in February last, against the King
of the French, and for which the French Consul bad demanded
satisfaction of the Captain-General of the province, who had
referred the application to the Government. The Regent
having ordered a prosecution, a preliminary jury was sum-
moned according to the laws of Spain, relative to offences of
the press. The jury met on the 3lst ult., and notwithstanding
the virulence of the article, in which the King of the French
is stated to be "anxious for the destruction of Espartero,
although not bold enough, I.ke a Frenchman, to attack his
enemy openly, but to be like' a vile Venetian, who strikes in
the dark, and who pours poison into the cup ; and who has,
perhaps, already in Madrid assassins charged with this infamous
action ; and paid enormously for that purpose," they came to
an unanimous verdict that there were nogrounds forprosecution.
"Letters from St. Petersburg, written,by persons worthy or
credit, announee," says the Presse, " that the Emperor Nicho-
las has promised the hand of the Grand Duchess Olga, to the
Duke of Nassau." The Augsburg Gazette states from Paris
that the hand of the Princess was positively solicited for the
Duke de Bordeaux and refused by the Emperor on the ground
of the previous engagement with the Duke of Nassau. It adds
that the attempt is now to be made by the legitimate party
to obtain for the Duke de Bordeaux, the hand of the youngest
daughter of the Emperor, who is only 17 years of age, and that
the Viscount d'Arlincourt is to proceed shortly to St. Peters-
burgh for the pnrpose.—. Gatigani s Messenger.
BOURSE—Penis, THURSDAY, APRIL 7.

First Higbest Loweit Last
Price Price. Prig.. Prim
french 5 rer Cents ll7 95 ... ... 1,7 90 ... 118

- --
- 4jC per Cents lO7 51; ... 1 750 ... 107 .-To :.: 107 50
4per Cents. ... 101 ... 101 ... 101 ... 101
3 per Cam BO 65 .. 80 65 ... 80 CO ... 81) 65
olank el trance
Leine Bank 5,0001. stares 1042 50 .. 5042 50 ...5042 10 ...5042 50
de wan !sank

fielgia n 5 per Gents. - 103 ... 103 ... 103 .. jiki
5 perCenis., 1840... 104% ... 104% ... 104% ... 104%
iparnsh Ac me, .. ... 25% ... 25.% ... 254 ... ',5%
P3ll, iv. .... 54 ... 54 ... 54 ... 5
P Atitauesrs per Cents.
rieapolnan lO7 3) ... r.:7 50 ... 107 39 ... 07 50
R0man.....,...,
RAILWAY SHARES.
St. Germain
Versailles. N. 6 342 50 ... 342 50 ... 341 25 ... 341 25
LE
Xouen ......... .......... —.. 525 ... 525 ... 525 ... 525
l)rican.
St .eburs to Salt 240 ... 240 ... ‘,3?. 50 ... 235

• The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Mr. O'Connell, presented
on Saturday to the Queen, at Buckingham Palace, an
Address of Congratulation on the birth of the Prince
of Wales, from the Corporation of the city of Dub-
lin. His Lordship appeared in his State civic .robes,
aiid was attended by his officers, and followed by a depu-
tation of Aldermen and Town Councillors of the Cor-
poration, together with Mr. John O'Connell and other
gentlemen, the former being in their municipal robes.
The Duke of Wellington, Sir James Graham, and other
Cabinet Ministers, were present at the reception of the
Address. Sir R. 'Peel did not attend. The Protestant
Dissenting Clergy also presented Congratulatory Ad-
dresses to her Majesty on the Birth of the Prince of Wales.
A Guard of Honour and Military Band were in attend-
ance 4 Buckingham Palace, and a large concourse of
spectators were assembled in the front. usual.ofli-
cers of State were present.
Mr. Hume left town on .Saturday to offer himself
for the Montrose district of Burghs ; and we have no
doubt of his success.

Lord Stanley's silence in the Rouse of Commons is
obviously constrained. The Noble Lcrd is in full vigour,
and uevtr in a better condition to talk. Why, then, is
he silent ? His leader is afraid of him, and will not
allow him to speak. Is Lord. Stanley likely to bear this
long ? We believe not. His proud spirit already chafes
against the bars of the cage, in which the cotton-spin-
ner's son has shut him up, and there can be little doubt,
we believe, that Lord Stanley will soon burst out of the
Peel Cabinet, br( eking if to pieces.
Mr. Shiel's speech had many and great merits, and
one more than we were aware of. We heard it all, but
the top of the Speaker's chair intervenes between the
reporter's gallery.and the first row of benches, so as to
prevent persons in the gallery from seeing all which
passes below. We were not aware, therefore, that Mr.
Shiers speech kindled the wrath of Lord Stanley, as well
of Sir Robert Peel, and moreover
.begot a little wrath
betwixt them. Lord Stanley was prepared to answer
Mr. Shiel, and was greivously mortified that the Premier
took the task out of his hands. The irritable Lord is
not likely to forgive this, but must submit to-the all-suf-
ficient Premier. To Mr. Shiel, the compliment paid by
the Premier was very great. He did not dare to leave
Mr. Shiers speech unanswered till Monday, nor would
he trust the answer to any meaner tongue than his own.
The extent to which he was stung is evident from Mr.
Shiers speech alterinc, the well-ordered course of the
debate. kir Robert Peel did not intend to speak till the
close—he was obliged to speak in the middle. Ile spoke
angrily too ; but he could not leave Mr. Shiel's speech
unanswered. It fell like a bomb-shell on the Ministerial
benches, and scattered the Ministers with fear and dread.
Well done Shiel. The world will praise and honour you.

FROM A CORRESPONDENT.—On her Majesty's
way to the Drawing-room a latrnourous looking countryman
called out to her Majesty, " Don't ye pay the income tax !"
which caused a hearty laugh among the crowd, who responded
" Bravo!"
The City of Aberdeen steam-ship, which arrived
last week at St. Katherine's, brought from Scotland 209
oxen, besides sheep and a large quanti'y of salmon for the
London market. the spacious decks of the vessel appeared
like a cattle market in itself as she came up the river.
The coal-mine of La Barrette, -which was in such
high repute at Lille, has just been sold before the Civil Tri-
bunal of Mons, says the' Echo du Nord, " to satisfy its credi-
tors, and was purchased by Messrs. Lefebyre and Ce., the
owners of ziljoining miue., for 39,009 f. The La Barrette
Mine eras a few years ago divided into ..la ,:x.tirig' to
1,152,000 E, with a reserve of the power of issuing further
shares to the amount of 200,000 f."