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

Thit _suit

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 mill m of that deficiency at least, perhaps for three
millions, he.. and 11;s 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
from being identical, are very different and even
adverse bodies. The difficulties of the country arise
from the Government taking too much, and autho-
rising too much to be taken from the people ; while
the difficulties of the Government arise from its own
extravagance. Sir ROBERT 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. SHIEL. 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
tisaster Sir ROBERT PEEL bases his income tax.
gr. PITT could quote in justification of his tax the
r. apid and threatening projects of revolutionary
France. Hewever 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-
k.ause 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 profits on stock, owing to excessive
taxatian and interest of money, are notoriously low,
the fiends 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
rt,te of the funds indicates, therefore, a low profit of
'lock, a low rate of interest, and a clogged society. In
1798 the advance of the country—thanks to WATT,
-PRIESTLEY, TENNANT, CAVENDISH, and a great num-
lber 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 terry on our extending commerce. For Sir
ROBERT PEEL to boast of the Three per 'Cents
being now at 91, is to betray most lamentable igno•
xance. 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 S;'• 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
for bread.which he denies them. He referred to the
advantages of the people having furniture, but he
'ergot to say that by his Corn-law he has denied them
f )od. His timber duties will confer an advantage on
t: ae shippihg 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
o fficer. He is undoubtedly a great master of clap-
t)ap, but every- one 4£ his assertions on the flin-
.
-tr duties ',proves that 'he is about .to commit a gross
In) •ury on the classes he taxes, and on the classes tr,
whi ch he denies bread, while the ship-owners and
buik'ers do not thank him for his injustice.
lie v.P,ferred kr: his justification, not to the condition
of the peo.?ie--not to any well ascertained laws of
ecial progress—not to the principles of ar,y science,
„nt to soine4i;hing Lord MELBOURNE and Lord
.I.:)fisr Resszra. had said. That Ir4eans, that Sir
I,!OBERT 13.4 EL has no higher .cans,
of Go-
vernmerrt, no better rule fox ascertainin the
public -welfare, than to
o g
ut whit Lord JOHN
r,-
TrSSELL .
aia during a li
..e of official bias, when he
1.-:•.s probably warping vis
own sentiments fora part
rurpose,y
or what Le ta ATELnounxt,
may have
in one of his
HeritS of - Mltll;nkin in dolence,
1)443PY 111°1 • ,
g
clothed in the we il-Sounding words of conventional
speaking. Such a reference may be a heavy Party
How, but .14, hat these Noblemen said is no
argument 10,iatever for now imposing an one.
people.
Tris tax 6:4 the The public welfare,
in fact, is ..wholly lost sight of in an endea-
vur to obtain party triumphs. The national
-prppineSs is sacrificed; and public liberty destroyed,
because Lordri JOHN RUSSELL and MELBOURNE have
made some will.; improper speeches. In office they
)rare little better than Tories, and out of office their
Trey sentiment rite held up by Sir ROBERT PEEL as
laws for society; but the community will not adopt
their opinions- as unerring. standards of rie•ht and
wrong. It f.,siets on a nobler and more elalted
criterion, tai' Sir R. FEES can refer to nothing

,