The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-07 00:00:00

rielig :7Z ult.

LONDON
TUESDAY EVENING, 'TUNE 7, 1842.

Mr. FERRAND, last night, gave notice that on Wed-
nesday neat he will move an Address to her MAJESTY,
to grant a million of money for the purpose of relieving
the distress of the people. Although we deprecate, as a
general rule, the interference of the State with the peo-
ple, such a motion properly carries out the antecedent
legislation of the Session. The two Houses have pissed
a law t..) prohibit the people from getting food for them-
selves. What, then, is more just or more natural than that
they should now take mei!sures to provide them with food
and clothing? Mr. FERRANDiS one of those who have voted
to keep out corn and keep out sugar; he is one of those who
voted to prevent the people from feeding and employing
themselves ; and he consistently acts up to his principle,
and proposes to allot the public money to feed and clothe
them. He sees that there is no halting between two
systems ; either the Legislature must undo what it has
done, and set trade entirely free, or it must take on itself
the care of providing subsistence fqr all the people.. A
Corn-law imposes on the State the obligation of allow,
ing no man to want subsistence. That it makes pauper s
of all the working and poorer classes, will recommend
it to those who are anxious to keep the people in a state
of dependence on them. That it will, in a few years, de-
stroy property and overturn the Government may, per-
haps, recommend it to the people. To them it will be
agreeable to be maintained in idleness like gentlemen, in.
stead of working hard for poor wages. What will be the
consequence of drilling them into expecting their daily
loud from time Government, when a short allowance and
a bloody rebellion will be convertible terms, is not for
us, but for Mr. FEIZRAND and the Tories, to foresee and
foretell.

The House of Commons took a vote on the timber
duties last night, one of the most important parts of the
tariff. The Government proposition was supported by
the Members of the late Government in preference to
aly of the amendments which were proposed by Mr.
P. STEWART, Mr. BOERUCCE, and Sir DOUGLAS,
although it was not like the proposition they would have
submitted to the House when they were in office.
Mr. BARING objected to it, 'indeed, that it was not
the best mode of employing 600,0001. of spare
revenue ; that it would 'be better to reduce
the .duty on butter, cheese, wool,. and cotton, if
there were any. revenue to spare, than reduce the duty
to such an extent on timber ; but as the Government
had proposed this plan be would support it. Mr.
RoHnucres scheme fur totally abolishing the differentia'
duty, is the one which we most esteem, and wo cannot
imagine a justification of the Ministers for inflicting so
much injury, as it. is said they will inflict,
on
Canada wood merchants, without being able to -say
that they do justice to the people of England.
Had they done justice by abolishing entirely the dif-
ferential duties, they might have set at defiance the re-
clamations of interested men—the plan they adopt ad-
mits the justice of the claims of the very men they in-
jure. They fitil to do justice to the people of
England, and they inflict injury on their Canadian
friends. They will deservedly lose the confidence of
both I

usual with that
g e nMr
t le. rti' nonsense about
equality of competition and equality of protection, as if
GaLnA: Das Tos
greatE, idnedaele do,f ttkni kweedig,
haetsat
they could ever be produced by any 1aw..., .quality of
competition and equality of protectiOri 'ire the results of
freedom of trade, and every law or every tax interfering
with freedom of trade disturb* and destroys equality
of competition and protection. ;He had, too, the
most extraordinary way of showing that there
was - now no inequality that • can well be con-
ceived. The imports from the
,Baltic have not kept pace
with . the import 6 from Canada, therefore he in-
ferred that the protection and competition were not