The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-28 00:00:00

int .s Ult.

LONDON?
SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 28, 1842.

It was elicited last night from Sir ROBERT PEEL, by
Mr. HUME, that a sum of money had been sent, or as
Sir R. PEEL expressed it, some temporary advances
have been made, by the Government to Paisley, to re_
lieve the urgent distress of the people. Before the Go-
vernment took such an extraordinary step, the misery
must have been extreme. We do not blame it for re-
lieving a little of the distress which it causes, but that
it is obliged to take on itself—havingno funds of its own,
and being obliged to levy taxes for every farthing it
expends—the responsibility of providing for a consider-
able number of the people, is a striking proof of the
errors of its system. The whole purport and object of
Government is changed by acting on the principle of mo-
nopoly, and what is falsely called protection. Instead o f
the whole people equally contributing to the support of
the Government for the common good, the Government
is obliged to support some of the people. This
is the consequence of acting on a false and erroneous
theory. As the Government will take from the Paisley
weavers to give to the landlords, it is now obliged to
take from the landlords, or some other class, to
give to the Paisley weavers. It is thus made plain that
Sir R. PEEL'S plan of protecting one interest and another
interest by high duties; continually involves, to a cer-
tain extent, a re-distribution by the Government of the
property of the people. It is falsely called Conservative
—it is truly revolutionary.
Mr. HUME, we are glad to see, has given notice that
he will on Monday bring the matter under the considera-
tion of the House. We trust that those Members who
have a sincere'atid thorough conviction of the justice and
policy of the principles of free trade, will take the op-
portunity of proving to Sir It. PEEL that the people do
not need his spurious charity, if he would give theta
justice. They must prove to him, also, that he is seek-
ing by his dishonest course and begging-letters the
surest_ means to degrade and pauperise the people, by
accustoming them to look for support to eleemosynary aid
instead of their own exertions.
When Sir ROBERT PEEL refers, in the same
breath, to Hamburgh, and the distress of our people
soliciting charity for both, he overlooks the dis-
tinction between the two cases. The fire at Ham-
burgh is an awful visitation, which may not occur
again in a thousand years ; the distress of our people
is almost a periodical visitation—a chronic disease ;
and while subscriptions to rebuild Hamburgh will have
no tendency to re-kindle fires, or make more contribu-
tions necessary, subscriptions to relieve distress have a
tendency to augment demands pn charity, and require
larger and larger contributions. This distinction must
be pressed on Sir R. PEEL and the House of Commons
on Monday, and through them on the country.
Charity cannot be too much admired when she binds
up wounds and heals the broken-hearted. When she
follows in the train of Justice, she is most lovely ;
but she is too soft and gentle, too yielding and kind, not
to inflict much injury when she dispossesses Justice and
takes her place. The assertion of the free-traders is,
that the protective system is inflicting injury on the com-
munity ; they point to Stockport and Paisley, and to the
general distress, as the proofs of their assertion; and Sir
ROBERT PEEL is about, by the employment of charity, to
suborn this evidence, and to remove the proofs of his
own wrong. Justice would extinguish them. Charity
can only hide them for a moment to swell forth a short
time hence more alarming than at present. Charity can
create no new funds, no new wealth, no additional em-
ployment. She will merely give of her superfluity. Let
Sir It. PEEL do justice to the people, and fresh employ-
ment will arise, new wealth will be created, and funds be
provided for a continual increase of the means of sub-
sistence. His plan of giving the public money to relieve
distress is bribing the people with their own property to
submit to injustice.

From ten o'clock till two the House of Commons was
occupied with the bribery practised at Bridport, and

r•-••
• ,

~:•.:-'

we are happy to say, that the leading men of both
parties agreed that it ought to be inquired into. ThCre
was some little difference as to the nature of the object
for which the inquiry should be instituted, though
it was . generally admitted that it should be
to lay the foundation for legislative measures ;
and it was not finally settled whether the
inquiry should be referred to Mr. ROEBUCK'S Com-
mittee or not ; but the bulk of the House agreed that
the matter was so flagrant, that it could not be passed
over. The persons who called out No to the motion, and
who differed from their leaders, were Sir ROBERT
Nous, Mr. G. BANKES, and Sir C. BURRELL, the re-
' presentatives of the extreme Toryism and Churchism of
the House. Those, then, are the sections of the commu-
nity which profit by bribery, and which, consequently,
wish to encourage it in other parties w:to are becoming
ashamed of it, and are constrained to give it up.
A more complete exposure of the system than Bridport
supplies, it is impossible to conceive. First, the late
Member, Mr. IVARBURTON, by his petition, establishes
both bribery and compromise ; and next, the two sitting
Members, in almost every sentence they uttered, showed
that they had been guilty of bribery, and were conscious
that the borough deserved to be disfranchised.
Sir MOMAS IVILDE's defence of his friend Mr. WAR..
BURTON, and his exposure of the two sitting Members.
were complete; and nothing, we apprehend, but that cal-
lousness which comes from long usage, could enable either
of them to retain, for one moment, a seat which has been
obviously obtained by corrupt and illegal practices. But
they only share what has hitherto been the general opi-
nion and general feeling of the House, which was riotous
with rapture whenever a confession of bribery was
blurted out, though it ought to have filled them with
shame and indignation. The public will not share the
mirth of the House of Commons, and will read with
indignation the exposure of the manner in which the
representation is made a matter of barter and compro-
mise, though it excited only the merriment of Honour-
able Members.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, either for the reason we assigned
yesterday, or some other as little creditable, opposed the
appointment of a Committee to inquire into the bribery
at Ipswich, of which a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, sworn to do justice, has reported that it is guilty
of bribery ; and he supported the appointment of a
Committee to inquire into bribery at Nottingham,
which is only suspected, or rumoured to have been
guilty of that offence. In the case of the convicted
borough, the House of Commons orders the writ to isstle
—in the case of the suspected borough, that said House
withholds it. To us this seems a very strong ease of
inconsistency in the House of Commons, and in Sir It
PEEL.

The real case is still stronger. Whatever the ru-
mours may be, and whatever may be the evidence of
notoriety, on neither of which can the House of
Commons and Sir ROBERT PEEL act with any
show of dignity, the charge against Nottingham
does not concern the constituency at all ; it concerns
the late Member and ; the late candidate. The
charge is, that those gentlemen, or their agents by nod
for them, entered into a corrupt compromise, part of
which is the giving a bond for a sum of money, in order
to secure the seat for Nottingham for the former candi-
date. Now, that/charge in no way implicates the con-
stituency of Nottingham. It is a piece of corruption
confined exclusively to the late sitting Member, the late
candidate, and their agents. The Nottingham Election
Committee has reported nothing whatever against the elec-
tors of Nottingham. The House of Commons, however—
the just House of Commons—and the just Prime Minister.
who is so tenacious of the rights of the constituencies,
that he would, on no account, withhold the writ from
convictel Ipswich, will not allow the writ to issue for
Nottingham. On theft. own principle they punish the.
electors of Nottingham for the rumoured offence or
Messrs. WALTER and LARPENT. Such is the con-
sistency and justice of the House of Commons, led by-
Sir R. PEEL.

~~~

TH. E ‘VEA THER.—NOON, MAY 28.
Ictvf AL GALLERY OF SCIENCE, ADELAIDE-STREET.
Tilermometer.... 61 ) Highrst 75 Lowest 43
Barometer 30.09.—Wind S.W.