The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-26 00:00:00

fitg _Suitt

LONDON:
SATURDAY MORNING. MARCH 26, 1142.

We insert elsewhere a communication from
Dr. BOWRING, and honour, as we ought, his de-
sire to do homage to truth and justice. We
think, however, that what he says of Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S tariff is incomplete, and the report which
we saw of his speech, unfortunately omitted much
of the condemnation which his letter says he
threw on the tariff. IfDr. BOWRING, out of regard
to truth, felt himself constrained to praise Sir R.
PEEL'S tariff, the same regard to truth should
have made him condemn the principle intro-
duced by Sir ROBERT PEEL for the;first time
of establishing a discriminating duty on all
the possible products of our colonies. Much
too, as Sir ROBERT PEEL has done ac-
cording to Dr. BOWRING'S description, he has
acted up to one good principle. We excuse
many of the existing enactments of the tariff,
because they were the offspring of ignorance, we
acquiesce in them because we would not
disturb existing interests, but Sir ROBERT.
PEEL, by his tariff, disturbs existing interests,
and now re-enacts laws, the principles of which
science has long ago repudiated. For this we
censure, and we think Dr. BOWRING ought to
have censured Sir ROBERT PEEL'S tariff. Laws
which were a disgrace to the 17th century,
are enacted by Sir ROBERT PEEL iii the 19th ;
and we cannot praise a slight departure from
ancient errors which at the same time gives to all
that remains of them the solemn sanction of this
generation.

But admitting all that is good in the tariff, WIIS
it not palpable—from the mode in which Sir R.
PEEL brought it forward, dwelling very much
on the great benefits it was to confer on trade ;
deluding the working classes, by a statement
that he was about to confer great benefits
on them—that he coupled his tariff with an in-
come tax, in order to bribe and humbug the
people into submission into that odious impost ?
If his tariff was much better than it is, and were
it coupled with an inquisitorial and unequal in-
come tax, it would deserve to be scouted; but
considering the whole as a mere piece of political
clap-trap, we cannot applaud those free-traders
who approve of the tariff.

We were rather struck in Sir R. PEEL'S speech,
by his admission, that he was not altogether pre-
pared to state that it would not be wise to act
on Mr. J. D. 'Humes recommendation, and
set trade free without regard to what may be
done by foreign nations. But how does he
carry out that principle ? Our colonies being
offsets from us, speaking our language, having the
Same wants as us, will, as a matter of course, if
Statesmen will only let them alone, carry on with
us the most advantageous trade possible. They
will be integral parts of our empire, and our
traffic with them will naturally be like the traf-
fic between England and Scotland. But our
traffic with countries under different go-
vernments, is subjected to interruption,
and perversion from political causes. We are
never able therefore, to carry on with foreign
countries the most advantageous trade possible.
Political considerations check or destroy the
happinessofmankind. Under such circumstances,
a wise and enlightened statesman would create
no factitious advantage for the colonies with which
the people are sure to have the most advanta-
geous trade possible and no factitious disadvantage
fin• those countries with which trade may poi. -
sibly, from other causes, not flow into the most
profitable and useful channels. Sr R. PEEL
does the reverse. He creates by a whole series
of new discriminating duties factitious advantages
for the trade with the colonies, and factitious
disadvantages for the trade with other countries.
That whole proceeding in so adverse, to scientific
truth so contrary to the lessons of experience
,hat it is a disgrace to the Legislature of Great I
Britain, for one moment to entertain a tariff, of
which the principle of discriminating duties fa-
vourable to colonial produce, is found in every
line. With all deference, therefore, to Dr.
Bowntrta, we still hold his praise, of the petty
alterations made by Sir ROBERT PEEL for a pur- •
pose, to have been injudicious and ill-timed.
The eagerness with which Sir ROBERT seized
hold of his admission, ought to have convinced
him that he bad given a weapon of offence into
the hand of his and our opponent.

It is generally asserted that the breaking up
of an administration in this country, turning out
a great number of official men, bringing others
into their places, and perhaps changing the
whole policy of the State, is a serious public
evil. If that be the case at any time the evil
must be tenfold greater to turn out an Ad-
ministration recently formed, which has come
into power expressly because its predecessor
could not carry on the Government successfully
and advantageously. Now to break up Sir
ROBERT PEEL'S Government would seem to
offer no alternative but a long series of con-
fusions. It is doubted whether the Whigs or
Radicals or any third party be just now com-
petent and ready to take the Government with
any chance of carrying it on quietly and
successfully. Under these peculiar circum-
stances, Sir ROBERT PEEL has brought for-
ward a measure which several of his own
followers declare to be unjust, which be is
quite aware is extremely unpopular, which he
knows he will have great difficulty in carrying,
and yet on carrying which he has staked his
existence as a Minister. This may be very cun-
ning in Sir ROBERT PEEL, very artful, some
persons say very bold and maply, but we cannot
call it patriotic. He places his personal gratifi-
cation on one hand and the public peace on the
other, and he says, if you do not give me my own
wry, I will resign, and confusion will be the con-
sequence. Hence Mr. ATTWOOD, while he de-
nounced the income tax, declared that he would
vote with him.. Sir R. PEEL, tries, therefore, to
terrify the public into submission to his income,
tax, and leaves them to choose between bowinz