The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-22 00:00:00

ttitit
.27-kilsll4

LONDON
SATURDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 22, 1842.

We have long ago stated that Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S policy had completely failed to revive
our trade and restore our delapidated finances,
and yesterday we found the Morning Herald
echoing our opinion.
The real difficulties of Sir Robert Peel's Govern-
ment (said our Contemporary) will be augmented
rather than diminished in the ensuing session of Par-
liament, and that augmentation will be caused by the
melancholy condition of the country. Despite an
abundant harvest, increased facilities of import-
ing foreign produce, comparative abundance of
money, as indicated by a low rate of interest,
and general confidence in the men now in
power, there is no material improvement in
trade; and despite a small reduction in the cost of
provisions, the condition of the labouring classes has
become rather worse than it was twelve months ago.
The deficiency exhibited by the last quarter's revenue
in the Excise receipts cannot be argued or explained
away ; the falling-off in the malt tax establishes as a
fact that the means of the working people are smaller
than they were, and that, deep as was their destitution
in the summer of 1841, it has been severer in that of
1840. The last comfort which an English workman
relinquishes is his beer, and yet it is very evident that
he has been this year compelled to stint himself in his
allowance of that beverage . It seems not improbable
that, for the present at least, the limits of taxation have
been reached.

All this is true, after every resource has been
tried. In spite of Queen's letters, and a general
begging for the poor—in spite of Royal visits
and new fashions, giving, as is supposed, a
stimulus to trade, swelling it perhaps in one
place and reducing it in another—in spite
of ail the shabby tricks and subterfuges that
could be devised to hide distress, if it could not
be wiped away, the condition of the manufac-
turing districts continues as bad as ever. The
Friends think it so bad, that they are now pro-
muting, as we learn by the Liverpool Mercury,
charitable contributions to relieve it; and they
are ende4vouring to do that imperfectly, and as
a matter of supererogation, which the Government
ought toperform perfectly, and as a matter of duty.
Remembering the speeches of Sir R. PEEL
and Mr. GLADSTONE, we conclude that they have
failed, not from ignorance, for they
know what
is right, but from incapacity to
give
effect to
Another trouble, too, is
their own opinions.
coming on Sir ROBERT PEEL :--
A gloom (says the Sherborne Journal) pervades
the agricultural interest as heavily as that by which
it was oppressed in the latter part of 1835. *
Two years ago the farmer's stock might have been
beehne
estimated to be worth three thousand pounds, and
would have had no difficulty in borrowing a thousand
on its security. The value o: that stock is now re-
duceil by a third, or two thousand instead of three ;
he must deduct the thousand which he owes, and then
he will only have one thousand for himself instead of
t:Nu, consequently he is only worth half as much as
he was two years ago. This will at once account
for the gloom which pervades the agricultural inte-
rest, and which has been very obvious' at all our re-
cent Caws' and markets. Our home tr;,de in 1835
propped up the prosperity of agriculture,
although wheat was because,
were at veryremuneratig other articles of pro-
duceis unable to give such valnuaglrieee aid.
By but now commerce
By failing to revive commerce and manufac-
tures, Sir R. PEEL has now plunged agriculture
into deep distress, and he will have the ruined
farmers to pacify and starvirg agricultural
labourers to feed or to coerce, when he next
meets the Parliament. The Times, too,
told us
yesterday—
Theyvhole system (of making the poor uncorafort.

able) must be abandoned, or some day or other the
entire social edifice will come tumbling about our
ears. This coercive system, always un-Christian, is
now absolutely unsafe. The poor must be treated
rot like beasts of burden, but like fellow-creatures.
Above all, the great body of the poor, who are can-
didates neither for the prison nor the workhouse,
must be elevated above their present position and
circumstances. Too often, now, are they driven into
the ranks of the poachers, or the paupers, by the hard-
hearted indifference of those above them. Their
cottages are demolished, their gardens taken from
them, their harvest work is given to the Irish, even
the gleaning of the fields is now denied them ; and
yet, with lowered wages, and all parish aid taken
away, they are told, " Ye are idle! ye are idle!!"
And the farmer, the steward, the guardian, the Magis-
trate, all concur in one feeling—" We mustn't make
things too comforkible."
A great point is gained for the people, when
we find one Tory journal showing that the Pre-
mier's measures are complete failures, and an-
other insisting on abolishing the Tory coercive
system, admonishing the Government to treat
the poor like fellow-creatures, or the entire social
edifice will come tumbling about our ears.
What the Times may understand by the words
" fellow-creatures," we cannot positively say; but
as the editors and writers in the Times are gen-
tlemen, one of them being a representative of
the people, and the others, no do,ubt, electors,
they must include, we presume, in .thely ideas of
treating the poor like fellow-eretittOk4;l giving
them all the rights and privileged idTh6h;belong
to representatives and electors. Anything short
of that will not be treating them like fellow-
creatures. The poor do not want charity, they
want justice. " Chartism, Weekly Dispatches, and
Corn-law lecturers," as the Times says, have
carried them far beyond the notion that
they can be served by being made dependent.
They will not be contented unless they are treat-
ed quite as the fellows of the rest of the com-
munity, and receive political rights as a means
ofguarding themselves against the re-construction
of the present " unsafe and un-Christian coercive
system." Sir R. PEEL'S difficulties, then, are
only beginning. In addition to being under the
necessity of adopting other measures, pressed on
him by rivals or opponents for the improvement
of commerce, he will have to make the body of
the people comfortable, who are exasperated by
privations, and taught, we believe, by his own
organs, that the system they complain of is un-
Christian) unjust, and cannot last.

Sir R. PEEL is somewhat familiar with. the
process of eating his leek. To confess that he
has for years supported a ruinous policy, and to
propose that it be altered, is an old practice
of his. He will have to repeat it on the meeting
of Parliament. He will be obliged again to say,.
we apprehend, with bitter and burning shame,
"I was wrong; I bolstered up for years, with my
opinion and my votes, a series of laws which have
plunged all classes into distress, and almost
brought the country to despair ; and being now
convinced of that, nothing shall prevent me from
acknowledging my error, and calling on Parlia-
ment to aid me in repairing the immense mis-
chief we have in common inflicted on the com-
munity." This time, however, it will not be a
party triumph for the Whigs, who have been as
much the enemies of free trade as he has—and
his measures will go, we are sure, much beyond
the measures they have ever devised; but lie will
give a triumph to truth over error—to freedom
over restriction—to the people over the aristo-
cracy—and to the natural laws which determine
the progress of society over the craft of states-
men. If Sir R. PEEL and his party never felt
shame before they will feel it, we believe, next
session, when they will be obliged puYiely to
acknowledge that the great and experienced
practitioner is a very ignorant empiric.

Reports are rife at Paris that negotiations are
to be resumed for concluding a commercial
treaty between England and France. We hear,
too, of commercial treaties with other countries,
and see in some journals supplications for the
Government to negotiate such treaties. Such
reports and supplications remind us that
the late sagacious Mr. DEACON HuME,
in his evidence before the Import Du-
ties Committee, gave a decided opinion
against all such treaties. In substance he stated
that he was averse to them, because they
made our legislation dependent on that of
other countries, and might compel our Legisla-
ture to continue or inflict an injustice on some
portion of our own people.
The famous METIIuEN treaty with Portugal,
which secured for England a favourable market
for her woollens, on condition that England
levied a discriminating duty in favour of Portu-
guese wines, is an example of such a treaty.
Whatever political considerations might have
dictated it, though subsequent events proved
them to be unsubstantial dreams, it is
now quite plain, and is universally admitted,
that it was, on the whole, very injurious to
our trade, that it imposed an unjust impost on
the drinkers of wine in England, for the benefit
of the woollen manufacturers, and, raising the
price of woollens somewhat, it did, in reality,
levy a tax on all the consumers of woollens in
England, to put it into the pockets of the master
-manufacturers. That treaty really taxed one
class of the people for the benefit of another,
and was, in principle, as unjust an act of spolia-
tion as the Corn-laws. We are inclined to think
that no commercial treaty can be concluded
which will not have such effects, and therefore'
the subject is worthy of more consideration than
it receives.
What is a commercial treaty ? A convention
between two States, that each will allow the
ships and goods of the other to enter its ports on
the payment of certain duties, on condition that
the other will allow its ships and goods the same
privileges on the payment of certain other duties.
It binds one State to levy duties to please an-
other. France, we will suppose, agrees that
English bar-iron may be imported into France on
the payment of twenty francs a ton, on condition
that England admits French wines to be imported
on the payment of a penny a gallon. As a re-
laxation of exorbitant duties previously levied in
each country on the commodities of the other
from a principle of spite or jealousy or retalia-
tion, such a treaty at first sight seems a most ex-
cellent measure, and we will not say, as a lessening
of mischief, that it is not praiseworthy ; but there
are some considerations which give it a different
appearance. The mutual commerce that is to be
thus fostered would take place to the mutual

profit of the two countries without any treaty, or
it would not. If it would, it needs no treaty other
than a treaty of peace and mutual kindness,
which, indeed, nations ought to observe towards
one another, whether they have a treaty or not
—and the commercial treaty can be of no use
whatever. If that commerce would not take
place, or not be continued, without the treaty, it
follows that the reciprocal and discriminating
duties by which it is encouraged are, to a certain
extent, bounties on an unproductive trade—a
trade which would not be carried on without
those duties ; and the treaty, therefore, directs
commerce into a comparatively unprofitable
channel. All such treaties, therefore, are either
unnecessary and useless, or opposed to the natu-
ral laws which regulate the production of wealth,
and consequently mischievous.
Let us, however, look at them in relation to
the subjects of each State. The duties our Go-
vernment a 2-r-Ts to levy on certain commodities,
in consequence of a treaty with France, will be
unfair arid unjust to some portions of our people,
or they will not. They will be such duties and
taxes as the Government ought to levy for the
wants of the State, or they will be of a different
character. If they be just, fair, and proper, on
what pretext can the Government refuse to levy
them, when its duty requires it to treat the
people fairly and justly, and yet assent to levy
them to please the wine-growers and the Go-
vernment of France? If they are otherwise, if
they be unjust, unfair, and improper, will it not
be scandalous in the English Government, a
flagrant violation of its duties to its own subjects,
to levy them, because that serves the supposed
interest of France?

At present nearly one half of our revenue is
levied on m
imported comodities.
.Altliough we
condemn the
exorbitant duties levied on French

wines and brandies, and believe that both the
health and morality of our people would be im-
proved by allowing the wines of France free
access into this country; yet it cannot be denied
that as long as such an enormous revenue is
levied by the Customs, that wines and brandies
are as appropriate articles to tax as almost any
that are imported. If the duties on them be not
fairly and justly apportioned to other commodi-
ties, let them be fairly adjusted; but the bulk of
the community would have great reason to com-
plain if duties were lowered on wines, which
are the luxuries of the rich, while they are
maintained in all their rigour on the bread, the
cotton, and the sugar, which go to feed and
clothe the poor. For the sake, therefore, of
forcing a sale of a little more linen-yarn and
bar-iron in France, to the exclusive benefit
nearly of master iron and woollen manufactu-
rers, it will not be just to relieve wine
drinkers from their fair share of taxation,
and continue the heavy burdens on the
food and clothing of the bulk of the labourers.
This is only an illustration, but the reasoning
extends to every article on which it may be pro-
posed to alter the duties, in order to meet the
views of France. Either those duties are now
fairly levied, and it would be scandalous to alter
them, and inflict an injustice, however trifling,
on some portion 9f our people, to promote a trade
with France, not to their exclusive- advantage,—
or they are unfairly levied, and it is equally
scandalous in the Government not to act justly
towards its own people till doing that shall plea-
sure France.

There are, perhaps, some yet higher conside-
rations connected with the subject. There used
to be amongst our statesmen—and Conservative
statesmen, in particular, rather gloried in it—an
idea of duty. They had, or professed to have, a
great respect for the duties of their station, and
expressed 13 strong determination to perform
their duties to their country. We hope that
that idea has not been extinguished, and that
amongst them there are yet some who will
shut out views of temporary, and ill-to-calculate
expediency, and resolve to do what their
duty to their country demands. What is
that duty in relation to commercial- treaties?
Is it to make our laws dependent on those of an-
other State ? Is it to ask France whether we
may levy a shilling or two more or less on the
wine which our own people drink ? Is it to ask
Brazils or the United States what tax we may
levy on sugar, or cotton, or tobacco ? We
affirm that it is not; but commercial treaties, of
necessity, make our legislation contingent and
dependent on the assent of foreign countries;
and commercial treaties, therefore, strike at the
independence of the State. Conservative states-
men have been willing to starve their country-
men—nay, they have starved a great number—
in order to preserve, according to their fashion,
the presumed independence of the country, and
they will not, we are sure, be ready to bind their
own idol with the chains of a commercial treaty.
We agree, therefore, with Mr. DEACON
HUME in condemning, commercial treaties.
We say with him, " Levy such Customs'
duties as you require for the State, with
a due regard to the interest of your own people ;
study that as your primary, or rather sole, ob-
ject ; do to your own people what fiirness and
justice require ; protect all honest commerce, but
bind not yourselves down by commercial treaties-
to a line of conduct which must be unjust to some
portion of your own subjects in order to please
another State."

We are quite aware that such opinions do not
accord with the wishes of the manufacturing in-
terest. Some of its journals are rather urgent
for the Government to negotiate new commercial
treaties. That such treaties might for the pre-
sent promote the prosperity of the woollen ma-
nufacturers and linen yarn spinners we will not
deny, but it would be at the expense of the rest
of the community. We are not now to learn
that_the manufacturers are no more to be impli-
citly relied on than the landlords, when they
would determine the policy of the nation
by what they suppose would promote their
advantage. The protecting policy, in fact, which
they so justly rue and so loudly deplore, which is
ruining them now that it is applied to the pro-
duce of land, is, in truth, the policy of the mann-
' facturers, and was made the policy of the State
by their reiterated demands. Protection. is the
ricketty bantling of what is called the commer-
cial system. To call for protection, let us tell
the manufacturers, implies dependence, and at
once places that commerce, which ought to be
free, with which Government ought not to in-
terfere, under the hoof of patronising, restrict-
ing, and spoliating statesmen. Some of the
Paris journals are hostile to a commercial treaty
with England, and we confess a similar hostility
to a commercial treaty with France, for the
reasons we have assigned, which are totally dif-
ferent from those of jealousy and hatred, which,
we regret to see, continue to animate our Paris
brethren.

It will be seen, from the news received by
the Hamburg!' mail, that great rejoicings took
place at Warsaw, on the arrival of the Em-
peror NICHOLAS at the capital of the ancient
kingdom of Poland'. The city was illuminated
for three successive nights, in honour of the
Sovereign who had battered it to pieces, who
had sent to Siberia hundreds of the bravest
sons of Poland, and who, in defiance of the
Treaty of Vienna, is adopting measures for
making that country an integral portion of the
Russian empire. Any condition is prefer-
able to that of brave men and beautiful
women who are compelled to conceal sentiments
dearest to their hearts, and worship their de-
stroyer. We should have thought that the Em-
PEROR would have spared that gallant nation
this last humiliation, and not insisted on a
mockery which degrades both the actor and the
sufferers. But Poland cannot be kept down.
She has the sympathies of every civilized State,
and the day will yet come when she will avenge
herself on 'those who fomented her domestic
quarrels, who encouraged the father to fight
against the son, and, in the general confusion,
made the country their prey. Prussia and Aus-
tria seem not at all satisfied with their share of
the plunder; and Russia will find, at no distant
period, that PROVIDENCE will visit the sins of
the fathers upon the children, and require an
atonement for deeds that excite alike the indig-
nation of Heathens and Christians.

The excellent speech delivered by Mr. Ser-
,DoAtiMTS,hutrh:daCyh,adiormesahnimogf
rtelaiet
hlNoiniodudrl,easnexd
gs ee as to
nAs
will be read with delight by all who take a deep
interest in the intellectual improvement of the
lower
in g t cll
e (la suseessii
nT hNle,
hLi rgnaeNdre
rs
e Gentleman,t() his rienmvairekws--,
threw off the trammels which too generally re-
strain legal authorities from following the dic-
tates of justice and common sense, exposed the
absurdity of retaining on the statute-book ancient
laws made for a different race of men, and strongly
urged on our legislators the duty and the necessity
of providing for the large masses of the intellec-
tual inhabitants rational and moral edification
and amusement. We have often had occasion to
animadvert on the absurd laws made with the
avowed purpose of preserving order arid encou-
raging morality among the numerous classes
that frequent public houses, but which in reality
have the contrary effect, which irritate the peo-
ple by needless restrictions, and by such dissimi-
lar enactments for diffurent places, not only cre-
ate dissatisfaction, but turn these very laws into
contempt. What is good for London is good
for Leeds and Manchester. A change of locality
does not alter the great principles of religion and
morality. If it is a sin to remain in a public-
house on a Saturday night after twelve o'clock in
the metropolis, it must be a sin also at York and
Durham; and the " collective wisdom" incu
great blame by not extending the Sabbatarian
law over the whole country. The Home Secre-
tary said he saw no harm in a poor man eating a
crust of bread and cheese with a glass of ale on a
Sunday morning in Cumberland, while Mr. BEN-
JAMIN HAWES and others of the same school,
consider it a grievous orence in Middlesex, and