The Sun.
London, England, 1829-09-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

An ingenious letter, signed ge Hermes," the
subject of which, being finance, is undoubtedly
worthy of attention. That the soundness of
our correspondent's views are altogether equal
to their ingenuity, it would be too much for us
to pledge a decided opinion. He nevertheless
argues it well. The purpose of the letter, or
essay, which, like the plot of a tragedy, is not
fully disclosed until about the fourth act of the
performance, goes to the extinction of a large
branch of the indirect taxes—those, namely, on
commodities of consumption—and the substitu-
tion of part loan, part income tax, towards pro-
viding for our annual expences. The letter
opens with a curious table, though not quite
new, affording a comparison of the periods of
peace and war, from the Revolution in 1688 until
1814—the amounts of debt existing at the com-
mencement and close of each successive con-
test, from the humble beginning of 700,0001. to
the splendour of 900,000,0001. Hermes is
justified in affirming that a loan is raised at less
expence than a tax, and therefore lodged with
fewer deductions in the Treasury. He is also
less favourable to his own theory than he might
be, in stating that the tax returns to the pockets
of the people, but that the loan does not ; for, in
fact, the price of most warlike contracts and pre-
parations, which forms the larger portion of the
expences of a war, goes as much in the shape of
distribution among the people as the proceeds of
any tax that could be named. We do not, how-
ever, concur quite freely with this writer in his
allegation that loans and income-tax are taken
from the rich, but imposts on commodities from
the poor only. If the rich man, who lends his
money to the Government, were to get no inte-
rest for it, the poor would feel immediately the
bad effects of his reduced income in his di-
minished power of giving employment to their
industry. Even though the lender to Govern-
ment receives interest for the amount of his loan,
the poor are unfavourably affected by it, in so
far as the capital lent is less productive in the
hands of Government than in those of an indi-
vidual who would employ that capital to advan-
tage. So with an income-tax : is it possible our
correspondent can overlook the fact, that a man
who pays 10 per cent.—suppose 100/. a-year--
of income-tax to the Government, is made an
unwilling instrument of plunder upon the poor,
by being stripped of one-tenth of his means of
consumption ; or in other words, of his power
of rewarding Industry ? Whatever is taken di-
rectly from the rich, is indirectly taken from the
pocket of the artisan, who invariably, though si-
lently, participates in the prosperous or diminished
fortunes of his wealthier neighbour. The small
expence of loans and of income-tax, as compared
with taxes on consumption, furnish an argument
in favour of the former, and perhaps the only
argument ; at the same time we admit that a
loan of a million at the market rate of interest,
entails no more substantial burden upon the
state than the same million raised in taxes, seeing
that the surplus of 950,0001. or 960,0001. left
untouched by the tax-gatherer in the case of
loan, produces a profit when employed by indi-
viduals equal to, indeed greater than, the amount
of dividend to be repaid to the lender of the
million. Again, we recommend this letter as at
leant a curious one, to our more diligent readers.
--Times.

In a letter from Paris, in a Morning Cotem.
porary, the composition of a French Liberal,
some statements are made (we have no doubt of
their truth) of considerable importance, with a
view to the forming an opinion as to the proba-
ble issue of the present disputes. 44 It will ap-
pear to you (says the Parisian correspondent),
that without being revolutionary, one may like
genuine elections, one may find the Censorship
incompatible with a Representative Government,
and one may deem it reasonable that he who
makes the law should be entitled to interpret it.
These are the concessions wrested from the old
Alinistry—these are the concessions which have
put the Crown in jeopardy ! But this Cham-
ber is detestable in its composition, it gives
cause of alarm to the great mass of property in
France ! The majority on the left side is at
once insulting and dangerous to the great mass
of property, and to the domestic respectability
of France. No more open electors—no more
electors from the Tiers-Etat—they are all revo-
lutionists.' A stranger, who is inattentive to
what exists and passes in this country, might let
himself be deceived at first by these words ; but
if he examines matters more closely, he sees that
the great proprietors sit in three times a greater
number on the left side than on the right—that
there is greater capital and more landed fortune
in thirty Deputies of the left, than in all the
Deputies united at the right side—that there are
as many, and beyond all question more, persons
qualified for the Peerage, both by their riches,
their ancestors, their services, their historical
glories, and their birth, on the left side as on the
right. That on the left side are generally seated
the richest proprietors, the most opulent bankers,
the merchants and manufacturers in the
greatest credit, the most celebrated charac-
ters in the Magistracy and at the Bar
in matters of administration, and in know-
ledge of war ; in short, that it is on the left
side that the real respectability and influence of
France is to be found. To convince yourself of
the truth of what I write, cast your eyes upon
the picture of the Chamber of Deputies. As far
as regards literary and scientific celebrity and ora-
torical talent, I do not imagine that the right
side will dispute with the left these plebeian ad-
vantages. If any doubt existed upon this point,
the Moniteur would soon decide it." if the
weight of property be on the Liberal side, that
side can hardly fail to triumph. Names alone,
however well they may sound, count for very
little in the present day in a contest with pro-
perty. Mr. Burke pointed out the notable de-
fect in the ancien regime, that the exclusive
character of the nobility arrayed property and
talent against the existing order of things. If
before the Revolution the new men were so rich
as to balance the nobility, how much must the
plebeian side have gained since that event I A
fact alluded to by this Correspondent is well de-
serving of attention :-44 This inexorable faction
(he says) wants a people to back it ; and the
Clergy have entered into a contract with its
leaders to find or make such a people for it.
Their task is to excite the fear, the hope, the
credulity, the ignorance, the fanaticism of the
lower orders of society. There cannot be a bet-
ter understanding between any two classes of
persons than there is between the most potent
seiguor and the basest vulgar—between the
priest and the mendicant! The Clergy do
not spare any exertions to fulfil their
part of the contract, and never cease to
hurl their anathemas from the pulpit upon
the nation which pays them with exemplary
resignation." The Priests can have little or no
influence with people of education, because that
mrostration of the understanding which they in-

culcate is revolting to all but the merest vulgar.
The Ultras have the owners of property against
them, because the former are poor and rapacious,
and the latter wish to preserve what they possess.
The Priests and the Ultras have both an equal
interest in courting the rabble ; and having a
common interest, they naturally seek to promote
the views of each other. We have always under-
stood that France owes its political salvation to
the high pecuniary qualification which limited
the number of Electors to 80,000 out of thirty
millions. Universal suffrage in France, accord-
ing to the opinion of the best informed people
of that country, would have led to the triumph
of Ultraism and Priestcraft, by enabling poverty
and ignorance to outweigh property and educa-
tion. Any one who attends to the domestic his-
tory of England, from the breaking out of the
disputes between the Parliament and Charles the
First, will perceive that the rabble in England
were always opposed to the friends of order and

. ..
good government. On this subject we could
produce numberless authorities ; but the point
will hardly be disputed by any person of good
information. Richard Baxter, in his Auto-
biography, acknowledges that " all the rab-
ble of the ignorant ungodly vulgar" were
against the Parliament. Again, he says, " A
very great part of the Knights and Gen-
tlemen of England in the several counties (who
were not Parliament men) adhered to the King,
except in Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk,
Cambridgeshire, Ike., where the King with his
army never came ; and could he have got foot-
ing there, its like it would have been there as in

other places ; and most of the tenants of these
gentlemen, and also most of the poorest of the
people, tukom the other called the rabble, did
follow the gentry, and were for the King. On
the Parliament side were (beside themselves)
the smaller part (as some thought) of the gentry
in most of the counties, and the greatest part
of the tradesmen and freeholders, and the middle
sort of men, especially in those corporations and
countries which depend on clothing and such
manufactures. If you ask the reason of this dif.
fence, ask also why in France it is not commonly
the Nobility nor the beggars, but the merchants,
a middle sort of men, that were Protestants ?
The reasons which the party themselves gave
was, because, say they, the tradesmen have a
correspondency with London, and so are grown to
be a far more intelligent sort of men than the
ignorant peasants that are like brutes, who will
follow any that they think the strongest, or look
to get by ; and the freeholders were not enslaved

to -their-landlords as their tenants are." Down
to the very last war, the rabble have ever been
Church and King, which is saying enough. In
the reign of Queen Anne and the First Georges
they were Jacobites, and burnt Dissenting Meet-
ing-houses. The Church and King riots of
Birmingham, Manchester, &c., are still fresh in
recollection. This is the most perilous rock in
the way of the Reformers. Changes of opinion
proceed from the few, and gradually extend
among the many. In most countries, the mass
of the people are exceedingly ignorant, and the
slaves of prejudices. When any measure is
submitted to the decision of the many, prejudice
and inveterate attachment to old usage will carry
the day. As a country becomes rich, there is a
large middle class with means and leisure to read,
but even in this, the richest country in Europe,
the middle class is greatly outnumbered by those
who toil. It has been said that the body of the
people, though not themselves qualified to decide
on measures, know who are best fitted to be en-
trusted with the decision. But we are not so
sure of this. Let us suppose an election—the
opinions which the Candidates entertain will
of course be canvassed ; and it is certain
that on such an occasion truth will always
be triumphant? Again, Mr. Mill thinks
that the mass of the people will be led by
middle classes. Of this we are not so
certain. When Dr. Priestley's house was burnt
down in Birmingham, the middle classes and the
mob espoused different sides, just as the rabble
were, during the civil wars, generally against the
middle classes. But in our times a new feature
iswitnessed in society. Mechanics and work-
ing people in towns and villages begin to be well
informed, and to display nearly as much respec-
tability as the middle classes. The more nume-
rous this class is, the more safe is it to extend
suffrage. But the condition on which the suf-
frage can with safety be bestowed, is knowledge
and respectability. The problem is, to find a
body of electors whose interests are identical
with those of the country, that is too numerous
to be bribed ; and if the addition of numbers do
not increase the security against sinister interests,
while it tends to affect the wisdom of the deci-
sion, a qualification of some sort in a question
of Reform will be beneficial rather than other-
wise.—Morning Chronicle.
The Admiralty at length decided upon fur-
nishing all papers and letters required by the
members, the prosecutor, or the prisoner, in the
pending Naval Court-martial. At the opening
of the business we ventured to predict the neces-
sity of this concession, to further the ends of
justice ; there is a humilis susurrus, that this
result was not arrived at, without a good deal of
acrimonious discussion, in which a bilious
official distinguished himself quite as much by
his caustic severity, as his professional know-
ledge ; his opinion did not ultimately regulate
the course adopted by the majority. Rumour
further adds, that the malcontent is quite as sick
of his collaborateurs, as they have long been of
him. A divorce by mutual consent a Vinculol
Qfficii is much talked of.—lbid.
It appears that there exists at the present mo-
ment a combination among the great coal-pro-
prietors in the North, for the purpose of raising
the price of that necessary article. These pa-
triotic monopolists, who seemed so anxious not
long ago that the public should be enabled to
purchase coals at a reasonable price, and who
gained some credit for taking the Corporation of
London to task respecting the duties on that
commodity, have agreed to supply the metro-
polis with only a limited quantity, to prevent the
inhabitants of London from having any chance
of enjoying the pleasure of a comfortable fire-
side during the ensuing winter at a moderate ex-
pense. It is said that all the proprietors, with
one exception, have joined to carry into effect
this oppressive monopoly. Such conduct comes
with very ill-grace from persons of great wealth,
and some of them of high rank, who have not
the excuse of the distressed artisans, whose com-
binations for the purpose of obtaining a little
addition to their wages, no person who values
the good opinion of society will defend. We
hope this odious coalition will be effectually put
down. We refer our readers to some remarks
of Mr. Tickner, in the Common Council, which
will be found in another part of our Paper, on
this subject, so interesting to the community at
large.—Morning Herald.
In another part of our Paper will be found an
interesting report of the proceedings of a public

meeting at Covent-garden Theatre. We had no
doubt of the spirit with which such an appeal
would be answered, generally, but we expected
that it would have been made in such a manner
as to have given precedence to the contributions
of the highest classes of society, so that their
example might prove a stimulus to the liberality
of others. As that course was not taken, but
one which necessarily left the noble patrons of
the drama to perfect rather than commence the
good work, so generous a subscription re-
flects peculiar honour upon those from whom
it proceeded. The list exhibits in the
most honourable light the names of many
individuals connected with the stage by pro-
fession, as well as of others wedded to its
interest by taste ; there are, however, some re-
maining behind whose assistance would have
been more gracious, and perhaps more beneficial,
if it had been spontaneous upon this occasion.
The services of Mr. Robins, under all the cir-
cumstances, ought publicly to be distinguished.
It is difficult to say whether the exertions of that
gentleman reflected more credit upon his
own generous and disinterested motives, or
gave a more efficient aid to the cause in which
they were made. There are many other indivi-
dual instances of liberality, noticed in our re-
port, and written in the more eloquent language
of the subscription, which the public will know
how to appreciate. We believe it may be con-
fidently stated as the result of this Meeting, that
the " properties" of Covent-garden Theatre are
saved from destruction. Mr. Kemble assured
the Meeting that such arrangements had been
made as would legally place them beyond the
reach of the creditors of the theatre when once
released from the existing claims.—Morning
Post.