The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

titt _S- um

LONDON
SATURDAY MORNING. APRIL 30, 1842.

The discussion in the House of Lords last night con-
cerning the appointment of Magistrates, is quite a jewel.
It reflects all the virtues of our partisan legislative Judges
and Government in the must brilliant light. It is a
matter of history that from the lung period the Go•
vrrnment had been in possession of the Tories prior to
1830, the bulk of the Magistrates, as well as of all the
officers under the Government, were Tories. No man,
before 1830, could get any appointment who was nut a
Tory. When the Whigs came into office, and during
the time they were in office, they acted avowedly on the
same principle, and, as the rule, placed their own friends
and partisans on the Bench, as well as in all public
offices. Now, again, the Tories are in office, and tbey
are again having recourse to their old practices.
Last night the Marquis of NORMANDY presented a
petition from Gateshead, complaining of the late addi-
tions made to the Magistracy in that borough, and
referred to several other instances in which similar addi-
tions of Tory Magistrates had been made. The LORD
CHANCELLOR defended the appointments, on the ground
that the Tories only followed the example of the Whigs,
but did not go nearly so far. Between both parties it
comes to this—that the Bench is jobbed, and men
appointed to administer the laws, and do justice to the
people, not. because they arc fit for the high office, but
because they arc Whigs, or because they are Tories.

Well might Lord RADNOR, with that honest indigna-
tion which he so well knows how to express, say of
such conduct, and say particularly of the LORD
CHANCELLOR'S defence of it, that it excited his disgust.
Ile stigmatised it, too, as unconstitutional ; and he told
the LORD (2n ANcELLoa, if he believed what he had said
of the Whigs, and thought he could substantiate his
charge, he ought to get some of his friends in the House
of Commons to impeach the late Ministers. Such eli-
mination and recrimination let in a flood of light on the
purity of statesmen, not one of whom, whatever may be his
professions, cares for the people, but all of whom study
their party interest, even ;no appointing Magistrates to
administer justice to the people. The practice dis-
cussed last night is bad enough, but it is infinitely
wprse, as Lord RADNoa observed, to have it defended
by the LORD CHANCELLOR.

The Uuuse of Commons debated last night for a con-
siderable time Mr. RokamcK's proposition to reduce the
duty on professional and trade income, from 7d. per
11. to .3A-d. The Hon. Member's motidn was lost by a
majority of 146. Mr. GOULBURN'S chief argument
against the proposition was, that all taxation was un-
equal, that is unjust, and he Would not, therefore, lessen
the injustice of the Income-tax. He wishes to per-
petrate as much wrong by taxation as possi-
ble. He also urged that some incomes derived from
trade, such as those of established banking-houses, were
a secure as those of lauded property, and that it would
only be adding to the injustice to exempt such incomes
from the full weight of the tax. Mr. GOULBURN'S
statement proves that the measure is more anomalous
and miichicvous than was at first supposed, and no
doubt the more the discussion is continued the more
enormous will the anomalies appear.
Mr. GOULBURN'S argument is as anomalous as the
Bill. Because, said the/Hon. Gentleman in substance,
some bankers have an old hereditary business, which is
almost equal to landed property, I will tax all profes-
sional and trade incomes at the same rate as the safe
and certain incomes derived from an estate, or from an
hereditary banking-house. While such a spirit presides
at the Treasury, it is in vain to expect any modification
of the Income-tax Bill, and it will probably be for the
advantage of the public to allow the Bill to pass unim-
proved. It will be the sooner kicked uti: Were pro-
fessional men and traders spared, that would give them a
strong motive for adhering to the Income-tax : if it be
unmitigated, all classes will combine, we hope, to resist
.tad defeat it.

Among the Bills which received the Royal Assent
yesterday, was the Corn-keeping-out, or, in Parliamen-
tary language, the Corn Importation Bill. That mea-
sure, which goes to inflict poverty, hunger, and starve-
'Lion on the people, is now the law of the land, and, like
other such bad laws, will be obeyed, however much it
may be execrated through the length mid breadth of the
land. Though less wrongful than the law it abolished,
which all parties at length admitted to be unjust, it is an
unjust law, and all the decrees of all the Parliaments
that ever existed, cannot alter its character.

At this moment, the people are riotous in several
places for want, of work and want of food. A Tory
paper of last evening contained an account of a body of
men at Manchester taking awuy bread from the shops.
Hunger, approaching to rictual starvation, is at this
moment the lot of great numbers of industrious, hard-

working, honest men ; and when such are the calamitous
circumstances of the people, the Legislature, called too, by
way of mockery,paternal, enacts a law to levy according to
the present average prices, a duty.of 13s. per quarter, or
22 per cent. of the value, on the food of the people.
Such an enactment at this time, and after public ex-
perience has condemned and repudiated a similar law,
we can only stigmatise as most unjust and most impious.
The authors of the old law might plead ignorance; the
authors of the new law can use no such plea; and they
will stand convicted and condemned to all time, of know-
ingly passing a law to keep out food, after experience
had demonstrated that the effects of such a law are most
ruinous.

At the same time let us state that the new
law is a milder injustice than the law it abolished.
According to the averages published yesterday, the
duty on wheat under the old law was 275. Bd.,
or nearly 48 per cent. of the price—what a mon-
strous iniquity, while the people are actually starving :
under the new law it will be 13s. The duty on barley
under the old law is 225. 10d. ; under the new law it
will be 10s. Oats, tinder the old law, 19s. 9d. ; tinder
the new law, Bs. Rye, under the old law, 19s. 9d. ;
under the new law, Os. 6d. The law comes into opera-
tion from the time of its receiving- the Royal Assent,
yesterday; and these diminished duties, collected under
the old mode of taking the averages, till a sufficient
number of averages by the new method has been col-
lected, will henceforth be payable. The declaration
of duty on Friday next, we presume, will be the re-
duced sums we have just mentioned.
What will be the immediate effect of the law coming
into operation, we will not venture to state with any
positiveness. The average price is 595., the duty is
135.; for the importers to sell with a profit, therefore
they must have imported their wheat, and paid all ex-
penses, for 455. We should suppose that very little or
no wheat has been imported at that price, and conse-
quently, great as the reduction of duty appears, it will
not be worth one straw to the consumer. If such be
the case, Sir R. PEEL'S law, even before his system of
averages ha 3 come into operation, will be of no advan-
tage whatever to the public; and his Corn-law is, we
fear, a type of most of those other mock reforms in
the Tariff, with which he has bribed many people to ac-
quiesce in an Income-tax. •

In the debate of March 9, Sir IL PEEL says—

But what, I again ask, will be the consequence of rejecting
this measure ? In proposing it I offer a great mitigation of
the evils complained of in the present system. Reject it, and
what other arrangement can be made ? Is the Noble Lord
strong enough to carry his Bs. duty ? Is any other party strong
enough to maintain the existing system, or to give a Corn-law
more favourable to the agriculturist? The only alternative 4,
leaving this question the subject of prolonged agitation and
discussion, interrupting all commercial intercourse, disturbing
the relations between landlord and tenant, and making it im-
possible for any man to know upon what terms he holds his land.

This law, therefore, is nut described by him as just ;
it is a mere compromise between parties at the moment,
the relative strength of which is varying every hour.
He proposes the law to mitigate the evils of the old law,
which no party, he says, can maintain. He plainly avows
that there is no alternative but to accept his compro-
mise, or submit to that prolonged agitation and discus-
sion which has made the old law untenable. He pro.-
muted the compromise to put au end to agitation and
discussion. lle has not succeeded ; he cannot succeed ;
the whole Parliament, pass what laws it may, short of
total repeal, cannot put an end to agitation and discus-
sion. His compromise, therefore, is worthless, and his
unjust law will not be even momentarily expedient.
By his allusion to agitation and to the impossibility of
maintaining the laws, he acknowledges a master; but at
the same time he will not carry out what that master
pres:ribes. Agitation will again force him, or some
other Prime Minister, to take the question up, and
will ultimately be obeyed. To bow to agitation as capa-
ble of overturning the law, and yet not to take the law
which agitation dictates, is showing a refractory temper,
not a discerning mind. Influenced by such a temper Sir
ROBERT PEEL has reduced the Legislature to enact an
injustice, and to degrade its own character in the eyes
of a discerning people, for no other object than to effect
a momentary balance or compromise between fluctuating
parties. He and his supporters may call that wisdom—
to us it appears the folly of a very cunning man.

Irish disturbances and Tory Government appear to
be inseparable. Lord DE GREY was scarcely seated
in his Vice-regal Chair, when the old animosity of
Orangemen against Catholics displayed itself in all
its hateful rancour ; the most opprobrious epithets
were used almost in the hearing of his Excellency,
and but a faint attempt was made by the Ex-
ecutive to convince the offended party that the
New Government was resolved to administer equal
justice to all classes of the Irish people. What has been
the result? Insolence on one hand, and distrust of the law
on the other, with every appearance of disturbances which
when suffered to reach a certain height, can be
put down only by an armed force. In the county of
Tipperary, even Tory Journals admit that the people
are in a more discontented and dangerous condition
than during the Government of Lord NORMA.NBT,
black as they were wont to picture his Administration.
A Coercion Act they say is indispensably necessary,
and the Lord Lieutenant of the County is callei upon to
convene the Magistracy and appeal to the Government
for protection to life and property, " for which at pre •
sent there is no security." This is certainly a dismal
description of the state of the country, occurring too
within a few weeks after Lord DE GREY boasted of the
tranquillity produced by the vigorous adminini3tration
of the laws. The laws, which under the late Lord
Lieutenant and his predecessor were found suffi-
ciently strong, even with all the indiscriminate
gaol deliveries and wicked leniency of Lord Non-
MANBY, are now,; helpless, and the Irish must,
according to the good old Tory practice, be put
down by coercion Bills, Insurrection Acts, and all
that hateful, unconstitutional machinery which distin-
guished the worst periods of the CASTLEREAGH Govern-
ment. For the peace of the country, we confidently an-
ticipate that Sir ROBERT PEEL will discountenance any
such dangerous experiment. Why have recourse to
brute force, when past experience proves that the Irish
are much more easily governed by mild treatment and
equal laws, than by hosts of policemen and standing ar-
mies ? This is not a time to begin a furious crusade
against seven millions of Catholics to gratify the wicked
passions of Orangemen.

The nightly squabbles of the House of Commons
about the business of Election Committees, must con-
vince every man of any reflection, who troubles his head
about the matter, that the time has arrived when public
convenience demands the establishment of a fixed and
regular tribunal for deciding upon all contested elections.
It is clear that the Horse of Commons enjoys privileges
which it cannot enforce, and which, if it could, would not
meet the objections which are constantly made to modes
of proceeding so clumsy, so ill-defined, and so entirely
under the control of individual prejudice, caprice, or
party feeling. As the House of Commons is not a judi-
cial tribunal, it can merely commit to prison for contempt
of its authority— an offence more likely to give popu-
larity than to excite any feeling of public indignation
against the offender. Now it is essential that the tri-
bunal trying contested elections should possess all the
judicial functions of a Criminal Law Court, and that its
authority should be entirely independent of the House.
What are called the privileges of the two Houses of
Parliament were valuable in feudal times, when the ad-
ministration of justice was regulated by the pleasure of
the Court. But as civilisation advances, law rightly oc-
cupies the place of privilege. In fact, privileges become
absurdities, unless defined and protected by laws.
It is unnecessary to remind the House of Commons
that no tribunal in Great Britain is regarded with more
universal contempt than an Election Committee. As
soon as the political complexion of the majority of such
Committee isknown, there is not a door-keeper or porter
about the House who cannot tell with certainty whether
the Member petitioned against will, or will not, be un-
seated. It becomes a mere party contest. The judicial
forms observed are intended only to blind the public to
the farce going on within doors.

The rejection of Mr. WALLACE'S motion for leave to
bring in a Bill to reduce the number of the Judges of
the Court of Session in Scotland, does not surprise
us. The House of Commons is filled with lawyers,
and every lawyer in the House of Commons looks for-
ward to a Judgeship. The more seats there are on
the Judicial Bench, the more chances there are of
speedy preferment. Judgeships, moreover, are a
source of patronage to the Government, and every Mi-
nister finds in patronage a security for continuance in
office. Still the labours of Mr. WALLACE will not be
unproductive of immense advantages. Already exten-
sive reforms have taken place in the administration of
the law in Scotland in consequence of the publicity which
he gave to the abuses existing in the several law Courts;
others will follow, and thus the fear of exposure will
operate beneficially upon the judicial bench of Scotland.
Mr. WALLACE proved, by a refuence to the Parliamen-
tary documents that the Court of Session does not sit
more, on an average, than two hours daily for about six
months in the year, and that of that two hours one-
third is occupied in disposing of orders and mo-
tions of no
.importance. Then the form of plead-
ing from written papers, instead of viva voce, imposes
immense labour upon the advocates, and impedes every
.motion of the wheels of justice. But these evils, though
deep-roote'd,' 'are not immovable. Mr. WALLACE has
only to persevere in his exertions to reform the admi-

nistration of the law in Scotland, to be sure of ultimate

success.

We have Madrid Journals of the 20th instant, but
their contents are uninteresting. We therefore merely
subjoin the state of the Madrid Stock Exchange
MADRID BOURSE, APRIL 20.—The basiness done to-day
amounted, in English money, to about 213,4021. The market
has experienced but little variation, prices being much the
same as on Tuesday. In the Three per Cents. ten opera-
tions were effected for a sum of 8,900,000 reals, at 22/
and 23/, at sixty days. In the Five per Cents., 18,800,000
reals were negotiated, in thirty bargains, at 27/i 13.16, 28b,
and 28, also at sixty days. In the Debt without interest there
were two transactions for three millions of reals, at 6*, at sixty
days. Not a single bargain was done for eash throughout the
day. Exchange on London, at ninety days, 37a to %, but
there was little or no demand for this paper.

There is no news in the French Journals of any in.
terest to English readers. The Railway Bill was the
subject of discussion in the Chamber of Deputies on
Tuesday, but the debate was carried on in the midst of
conversations, (Alen loud enough to prevent the speakers
from being heard. The impression out of doors seems
to be that the Government proposes to do morn than it
has the means of accomplishing. This is a very common
error with all Governments, as well as that of France.
Ministers, for the time being, always fancy themselves
omnipotent

The following Royal ordinance is published in the Moniteur
Algeriene of the 20th April:—
" No execution to death, by whatever jurisdiction it may
have been ordered, shall take place in any part of the French
possessions in Algeria, until a report has been made to us (the
King), and we have decided to give a free course to justice.
Nevertheless, in cases of extreme urgency, the Governor-
General may order execution, making an immediate commu-
nication to our Secretary of War of the motives of his decision,
which he will make known to us. This power granted to the
Governor- General cannot be delegated.''
We learn from Berlin that a favourable change had taken
place in the health of the ex-King of Holland.
_ _ _ _ _

A letter from Wanaw, dated April 13, in the Frankfurter
journal, states that the army of Poland and Lithuania is almost
immediately to be placed on a peace footing.
The Muniteur of the 27th has no official part. It gives no-
tice of the hours on the 30th of April and Ist of May at which
the King will receive the several public bodies, deputations,
&c., on the occa-ion of his fete.—Constitutioanel.