The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-04 00:00:00

Mt,

LONDON!
MONDAY MORNING. JULY 4, 1842.

We hope and trust that the reported attempt on her
MAJESTY, of which we insert the particulars else-
where, will be found, though very criminal, to be
far less criminal than a deliberate design to attack her
life. The escape of such a remarkable person as the
would-be ask.sassin . is described, is a strange circum-
stance. In our present imperfect knowledge, how-
ever, we can neither, reproach nor accuse any person ;
but the crime contemplated, and perhaps executed,
wasnot, we are inclined to believe, such as to make
her MAJESTY'S advisers repent of the mercy they have
kia own to FRANCIS.

Some of the Liberal party object to the terms and
form of Mr. WALLACE'S motion. Though that does
not ppear
,to us a good reason for voting against
it, when it is essentially a motion for inquiry, it might
possibly be advisable for Mr. WALLACE to withdraw
it, and allow some of his friends to substitute for it
a motion for the House to resolve itself into a COl-
anittee of the whole House, to inquire into the state of
national distress, with a view of ascertaining the
cause, of it, and providing a remedy for it, if possible.
Slich a motion will be strictly in form; and must,
we apprehend, after Sir ROBERT PEEL'S and Sir J.
GuAlta.ses admissions, find numerous supporters, if
it do not command the assent of a majority of the
House of Commons.
.•
Sir L. PEEL knows that the bulk of the House,
including many of his usual opponents, thought well
of his tariff, and hoped that it and his other measures
might..contribute to the relief of the country. They
acquiesced consequently in his mode of conducting
the pubrc business. They were :not aware of the ex-
tent .of tire distress, and did not foresee its rapid in -
creas ITow, when they are made aware of the fact,
and propose an inquiry, Sir R. PEEL taunts' them with
not halving Foposed it before. They had some re-
liance on his skill, and, therefore, they never thought
of taking the patient out of his hands. He rewards
this deference by contumely and shows himself as
saucy and insulting as he is ignorant.
• s reproach that inquiry was not before demanded
implieis that it was and is necessary. He seems to
think it desirable to relieve him of some of the vast
respo risibility that is crushing him by its weight. He
has aways been anxious to win the sanction of the
Hour e of Commons; he has done much ever to gain
overs alversaries, and he would no doubt be glad to have
such an inquiry as would really make the House of
Corm ions, in its collective capacity, and not Sir R.
PEEL , exclusively, responsible for the condition of the
councti .v. That is one ground on which we think 'a
motini for inquiry only would meet much support.
A no ther ground is the statement of Sir JAMES
GRA BAN. He admitted that distress existed to a
very :gmat degree, and he asserted "that there were no
mea su res except those which the Government proposed,
by ichich the distress of the working classes could be
relieved." That distress, therefore, great as it is,
and, inc rearing as it does- daily, is, according to Sir
JA itit4 (KAMAN and the other Ministers, hopeless
and remediless. But surely the House of Commons,
the whole Legislature, will not give in to such
dreg dful despair, which is tantamount to consigning
a g feat multitude of people to slow starvation and
sevt .ral of our towns to ruin. The House of Corn-
mom is cannot acquiesce in such a conclusion, but
mu st be convinced that the Ministers who hold such
'an/ ;uage have not probed the question to the bottom,
and must, for its own honour and character, con-
itit ate a searching inquiry.
adopt Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S Conclusion is
girt wally to abdicate the functions of Government.
Can i the House of Commons dare to tell the people
that " we, the Commons of England, undertake to
refit late public affairs ; we will provide against the
sroal !est evir',. such as the overturning of a railway
car ige, or Cle neglect of Sabbath observances; we
will: ensure an ample reverence at all times to the,
priesthood ; we u ill never allow the Government to
be rai want of sixpe 'rice—all its officers shall be well
paid, and they shall be as numerous as possible ;
we will carefully k€ e up the rent of the land-
ownel.• and the profit oft I? farmer ; and we will at the
same time tell the manta Sictu:Trs, who are starving by
thousands, we can do a .otE ing whatever for them ?"
Toe starving ummeact arm ,
y say, "Why then
MA US—why appoint
z' Ernst ers with large salaries to
promote our welfare If yoi r can do nothing for us,
'we. must look for other :ruler, If you can give us no'
protection and no a; '
Istance ; if all your cares are
limited to protecting the, property of the Church and
the landowners, we owe You no allegiance, and we
will not pay for useless Ind valueless services." No,
the House of Commons d Are not, emsidering its vast
pretensions, adopt the cc schntion of Sir J. GRAHAM,.
and, by telling the star ing .people it can do nothing
for them, invite then to eek other rulers. The

House of Commons must inquire, and must give relief,
or it will abdicate its functions.

Betwixt restoring prosperity to the people and
risking a great national convulsion, there is, we are
afraid, no alternative. To avoid the latter is for the
general good, but if the bulk of the artisans be to
continue in their present state of destitution it is not
for their good. If they must perish, it is better to
perish amidst the animation of battle than by the lin-
gering, heart-withering process of starvation. Con-
vulsion ought to be avoided at any cost of time or
money, and it can only be avoided, we are afraid,
by allowing the suffering millions to get bread
for themselves. They must be fed, or they
must be convinced that the want of food is
entirely their own fault. As long as the Legislature
persists in making laws which are the mere emana-
tion of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S will, or the will of the
aristocracy—as long as it refuses to inquire, and per-
sists in maintaining restrictions, the people will not
get food, and will not be convinced that the destitution
is not the consequence of the law. To guard against
a convulsion, therefore, inquiry and the abolition of
restrictions are indispensible, and we trust the House
of Commons will insist on entering into an inquiry.

It is a Conservative theory, that Government must
take man as he finds him, and make laws in con-
formity to the existing state of society. In that theory
we agree, and we repudiate the notion of some prac-
tical Radicals, and some philosophical writers, that by
the agency of Government, of new constitutions, and
well-adapted laws, we can increase the prosperity,
promote the morality, and augment the happiness of
the human race. The spray cannot rise higher than
its source, and Government, however wisely contrived
and finely adjusted, cannot improve human nature,
from which it takes its rise. At the same time, we
are not to allow a Government to inflict poverty, de-
moralization, and misery, on the community. Because
Government cannot improve human nature, it does
not follow that none of its acts are injurious to society.
we only dispute the Radical theory, that Government
can improve human nature, and we adopt the Con-
servative theory, that all Governments must take man
as his CREATOR has made him, and must adapt its
regulations to his condition.

We expressly and designedly call this a Con-,
servative theory, because we are about to apply it to
disprove a Conservative error. At present, and at
all times men strive and plan to procure all the things
they need with the least possible labour. To this end
the savage sets his traps, the agriculturist manures his
land, and the manufacturer employs a self-acting mule.
Very often the same end is sought by rapine instead
of peaceful industry ; but it is so generally sought
that it may be said to be universal, and a law of man's
being. It is inherent in almost every individual as
gravity is inherent in every particle of matter. The
exceptions, like the apparent volatility of the atmos-
phere, only confirm the rule. Labour is the price,
and the only price, we pay for all the wealth of the
world. It is all purchased by labour, and the plain
and palpable consequence of this universal striving is
gradually to lessen the quantity of labour, which is
another expression for price, by which all commo-
dities are obtained.

The savage by the invention of a trap, for example,
catches as many animals in a night, while he is en-
joying his repose, as he could run down in a week.
The agriculturist, by the application of manures, or by
varying his crops, doubles or trebles the produce with
which the earth, the sunshine, and rain, reward his
labour. In like manner the manufacturer, by inge-
nious machinery, multiplies many thousand fold the
productive power of individuals. We may, by one
observation, make the immense advantages of this
natural system apparent. It enables a comparatively
few persons to provide necessary subsistence for the
whole ; it is the true source, then, of the possibility of
a leisure class having any existence in society, and
such a class is closely connected with all the arts and
all the knowledge beyond that which is necessary to
provide for mere subsistence. We do not assert that
it is the sole parent of civilization, but it is one of its
essential elements.

That in the progress of society the different pro-
ducts of different labourers are exchanged for one
another, makes no alteration ir► the general rule. Of
this universal striving at all, times to procure com-
modities at little cost of labour, universal cheapness
is the natural and necessary. result.
Never were the efforts of this law of human na-
ture more apparent than at this time. The spirit of
carnage being no longer allowed to waste the
abodes of Europeans, their chief skill and ingenuity
are turned to produce useful and agreeable commo-
dities at a cheap rate, that is, at the cost of a less and
less quantity of labour. In England this progress during
the last thirty years has been astonishing, and the
same quantity of goods which then cost 10,000,0001.,
may now be had for less than half the sum. The
reduction in money price, however, does not repre-
sent the whole reduction ; because, the extended use
of paper money, and improvements in working mines
and purifying the precious metals indicate that money
itself is now the produce of less labour, or, is itself
naturally cheaper, while the things it measures are
also cheapened. Thus, the universal striving which
is a law of man's nature, has in our age, and espe-
cially, though not exclusively, in our country, attained
its object in an extraordinary degree.
But what, in the meantime, has been the conduct
of the Government, which ought, according to
the Conservative theory, to have framed its laws
with a special view to this great, permanent, universal,
and successful striving after cheapness ? Why, the
Conservative Government has passed laws and upheld
laws, and has perilled its own existence in upholding
laws which countervail, oppose, and endeavour to render
vain the attempts of the universal people to reduce the
price, or the cost of commodities. Instead of
taking man and society as it is, the Govern-
ment, using the phrase in its widest sense, has
resolved on modelling both on a pet notion of
its own. It would not have cheapness—it has de-
creed dearness. It has passed a law to say that the
people shall not procure their food by that very
small quantity of labour, by which a piece of cotton
cloth sent to the United States would buy a bushel of
flour, or, sent to the Brazils, would buy a cwt. of
sugar. It has set itself to constrain, alter, and mis-
direct the whole strivings of all the industrious classes,
and the whole course of human society. It says the
people shall not eat unless they employ three days'
labour in gaining bread from our limited soil, when
they might obtain it, by one day's labour, from the
choice soil of the United States. It is this direct op-
position of the Government to the stream and course
of society, this foolish attempt, in the teeth of the Con-
servative
theory, to impede the striving of men to
obtain abundance and cheapness after their own
fashion, and, according to their own devices,
which is at the bottom of all our present social
misery. Nature or GOD commands man to
put out his labour to the greatest profit—the
Government assumes to know better than individuals
how to make their labour profitable, and it impiously
strives to counteract the laws of Nature.

While our people have thus been successfully and
nobly engaged in providing useful commodities at
little cost, the Government has been employed in
preventing other persons from doing the same for
them. It has virtually said to the farmers of the
United States and of the Continent of Europe, if you
follow the good example of our people, which you
would be sure to do, and produce food for them as
they produce cloth for you, I will not allow you to
bring your produce to England : at least I will
place such a duty on it as to make it unprofitable,
which will disable you from bringing it. Thus, while
our people have been exerting their skill to provide
cheap commodities, the mischievous Government has
been depriving them of a market. It has, in a
manner, prohibited other people from working
for them, while it has encouraged them to work for
other people. The consequences of this fatal, this
anti-Conservative, anti-social policy is now evident in
the want of markets for our goods. There is compa-
ratively little or nothing to be got for them. There
is no sugar, no flour, beyond what our own Colonies
and farmers supply. If you prevent men selling
goods at a profit, you effectually prevent them being
made. Hence, when you destroy the market for our
goods, that is, prevent provisions ,
you stop being given in ex-
change for them, you stop their production •
the labour which produces them ; you stop the em-
ployment for the people. This is exactly what has now
taken place. The Government has prevented our
people from receiving the food by which other people
would buy their cotton and cutlery ; there is no longer,
therefore, a corresponding market for those commodi.

ties, no longer employment for the people in making
them, and there is great distress in the land. This is
all clearly traced to the laws, which, in defiance of
nature, have expressly thwarted the efforts of our
people to create or obtain wealth at a little cost of
labour.

If it be said that all the huge fabrics which have been
built up in the manufacturing towns, that all the
ponderous machines there employed, all the skilful,
inventions there in constant use, the tall chimneys
the deep mines, are not natural ; we reply, that if
they be not, neither is the skill of the trapper, nor
the art of the agriculturist, natural. But when we
see that in all ages and all countries these kind of
arts have come successively into existence ; that after
man has learnt to appease the cravings of hunger at a
small cost, he has invariably directed his powers to
increase comforts and luxuries, we must contend that
the mannfacturing system, though it assumes different
shapes in different countries, is a natural phasic
in the history of mankind. It is not con-
fined to England. It prevails, and has pre-
vailed, under different modifications, in every
country in which civilisation has made any
progress. The growth of the manufacturing system,
therefore, is a natural portion of society, though it
have been modified in different countries by their
different political institutions. Here, owing to our
aristocratic form of Government, it has assumed an
aristocratic character, and cotton Lords and iron Lords
vie with landlords in wealth, while the labourers
under all three are equally in a low and degraded
condition. But that is not the consequence of the
manufacturing system, with all its beautiful in-
ventions—it is the consequence of our political form
of society, it arises from political regulations to main-
tain the aristocracy, and foster such a distribution of
property as suits them.

There are many things about which a prudent
man holds his tongue, and in our opinion the re-
ported indiscretion of Colonel DUNDAS is one of them.
Men may talk about it in society ; it is a bit of gossip
proper to set the tongues of small wits, who at
" clubs do congregate," in motion, but what can the
Legislature have to do with such verbiage ? We
therefore see it announced with some regret that
Lord WORSLEY iS to ask Sir R. PEEL a question
on the subject this evening. We presume Sir
ROBERT PEEL will treat the matter with supreme
contempt. To notice ribaldry in Parliament is
to give it importance. It is evident, from
the prompt manner in which, according to re-
port, the imprudence of the Gallant Officer was met
and corrected, that her MAJESTY will find protection
in every company, and that she does not need the in-
terference of Lord WORSLEY, Sir R. PEEL, and the
House of Commons, to ensure her, from the bulk of
the people, a heartfelt respect.

Our readers- will remember that the House of
Commons, a short time back, rejected, by 110 to 7, a
clause which Mr. PARINGTON proposed to foist into
the Public-houses Bill, prohibiting licensed victuallers
from opening their houses before one o'clock in the
afternoon of Sunday, Christmas-day, or Good
Friday. Before that clause was rejected, a Bill for
the improvement of Liverpool had been introduced,
which contained a similar clause, and it was allowed to
pass through the House of Commons, with the under-
standing that it should follow the fate of Mr. PA-
KINGTON'S clause. With a want of good wish, how-
ever, as we are informed, the Tory Corporation of
Liverpool is now endeavouring to carry the Liverpool
Bill through the House of Lords with the reprobated
clause, which it will not give up. Lord SHAFTES-
BURY, Lord BROUGHAM, the DUKE of RICHMOND,
and other Noble Lords are opposed to this unworthy
proceeding, but it finds supporters amongst those,
who, like the inquisitors of old, are always tormenting
the people for their " soul's health." To introduce
such a clause into a private Act of Parliament is an
infringement on the ordinary practices of legislation.
To apply it to such a place as Liverpool, where a
great maritime population is every day driven from
the ships as they arrive, and is obliged to take refuge
in public-houses, or worse places, is an outrage on
humanity. To limit it to the borough, while that is
surrounded by suburbs with not even a wall between
them, is a gross act of injustice to the publicans of
the borough of Liverpool. To insert such a clause in
any Act of Parliament, or to make such a law, is a
wanton and pharasaical interference with the liberties
and enjoyments of the people. We heartily hope,
therefore, that the Peers will reject this clause, which
will be discussed this evening, we believe, on bringing
up the Report on the Bill.

One of the most important debates of the present
Session of Parliament took place in the House of Com-
mons on Friday, upon Mr. WALLACE'S motion for an
inquiry into the extent and causes of the present dis-
tressed state of the country. The Ministers opposed the
motion, on various grounds, some of which were ab-
surd, and others an insult to the common sense of the
House of Commons. Sir ROBERT PEEL, for example,
taunted the Honourable Member for Greenock with not
bringing forward his motion earlier in the Session.
Does the Right Hon. Baronet forget that Lord KIN-
NAIRD some weeks ago brought forward a similar mo-
tion in the House of Lords, and that the subservient
tools of Ministers in that House rejected it in the
most contemptuous manner ? Would they have done
so had they not been so commanded by the Right
honourable Baronet ? Most certainly they would
not. Their Lordships have had nothing to em-
ploy them all the Session, and doubtless would have had
no objection to appoint a Select Committee of Inquiry.
The Right Hon. Baronet hinted at the close of his
speech that unless the people submitted patiently to be
starved he would take care to repress them. The working
classes want bread, and Sir ROBERT' PEEL is preparing
bayonets for them. His remedies are the musket and the
sabre. The patient manifests restiveness under the
forcible administration of nauseous drugs, and the Doctor
has at once recourse to a strait waistcoat. Sir ROBERT
PEEL further objected to the motion, on the ground that
the Hon. Mover proposed no remedy for the general dis-
tress. Now we regard the omission of a specific remedy
as a reason which strongly recommended the motion to
the House. Remedies aro best proposed when the ex-
tent of the evil is known. Had a remedy been proposed,
all who objected to it would vote against the motion on
that ground alone, professing at the same time to have
no objections to simple inquiry. Lord J. RUSSELL, too, op.
posed the motion, becauie it was too vague. Is there any
vagueness in the fact that there are thousands of indus-
trious families in Paisley, Glasgow, Manchester, Shef-
field, and all the other manufacturing towns of Eng-
land and Scotland in a state of actual starvation ? Is
there any vagueness in proposing to ascertain their ex-
act numbers, and attempting to discover in what
way they can be relieved ? The fact is that Lord
J. RUSSELL is perfectly aware that much of the distress
of the country is attributable to the supineness and bad
legislation of the late Government. They withheld their
remedies till they knew it was useless to apply them—
till they were certain that they would be defeated.
How long the debate, which we are very glad
was adjourned till to-night, will continue, depends
upon those Liberal Members who represent starving
constituencies. We trust, however, that it will be ad-
journed night after night till Sir ROBERT PEEL iS com-
pelled to give a simple answer to the question—Are
the people to perish with hunger, or will the Govern-
ment adopt any means of relieving them ?

We have Madrid Papers of the 23d ult., but they con-
tain no news of any moment. Tranquillity prevailed in
Murcia, Valencia, Gallicia, Estrernadura, Castile, and
Seville. Catalonia only was disturbed.

On the Madrid Bourse on the 23d one bargain was done in
the Three per Cents. for 1,400,000 reels, at 22 2-16, at sixty
days; thirty bargains in the Five per Cents. for 19,600,000
reels at 301 31 and 34 at various dates with 11 coupons, and
one in the Five per Cents. Inscriptions, for 200,000 reals, at
258, at sixty days with 1,4 prem., and the eleven expired
six months' div. One transaction was effected in the St. Fer-
dinand Bank Shares for 92,800 reels at 132 for cash, and two
operations took place in the Treasury Floating Debt for
213,000 reals, at 40 for cash without the dividends, and at 47
with the six months' interest and div. Exchange on London
at ninety days 378 paper.

There is nothing but election news in the Paris Jour-
nals. This class of intelligence has no interest for Eng-
lish readers, to whom half the names of the different
candidates are utterly unknown.
A letter from Madrid in the Courrier de la Gironde of the
'2Bth of June, says It is known to our readers that the
English ship Cambria was seized a fortnight ago, because it
had on board prohibited goods which were not entered in its
manifesto. A Custom-house officer: named Cosmo Sanz, who
was put on board the English ship to keep watch, has disap-
peared, and the most minute search, ordered by the Spanish
authorities, has not been able to discover what has become of
him. It is unanimously believed that this unfortunate Custom-
house officer has been basely assassinated and thrown into the
sea by the English, who think any means good provided they
can insure the triumph of their commercial monopoly."
The Courrier de Cadiz. which arrived yesterday, informs
us that the greatest agitation prevailed in that city, and that
British subjects were hardly safe.—. Commerce.

BOURSE-PARIS, THURSDAY, JUNE 30.
First Highest Lowest Last
Price Price. Pricw. Prier.
Frank %per Ce0t5.....••••• • 110 70 118 90 118 93
AperTeots. 101 60 ... 101'60 ... 101 60 ... 101 60
Spar 70'90 •• 79 15 78 go 78 to
Loan i5eem..4.4.0.11 78 90 ••• .713 78 78.90