The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.--The most temperate and hard-working
of politicians is, more sue, taking a holyday. Day
after day throughout the session did Lord Stanley
preside over railway committees, listening to the
wearisome speeches of counsel and the one-sided
evidence of engineers, and weighing against one
another the exaggerated hopes of promoters and the
equally exaggerated forebodings of opponents; but,
in spite of this drudgery of the morning, he was
generally in his place in the House in the evening,
and when the great fight came off he delivered one
of the most effective speeches on the part of the Op-
position. After this surfeit of work he fairly earned
his holyday, and might with a good conscience go
down to Knowsley to enjoy it. Even if he ne-
glected the duty of visiting one's neighbours,
which is the greatest drawback to life in the coun-
try, much might be said in his excuse. But Lord
Stanley is above excuses. Work is his pleasure.
On Thursday was held the half-yearly meeting of
the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and of course
he was there. He came as a listener, but became a
speaker; and before he left the room he had de-
livered a speech in which he discussed such trivial
matters as the Indian Tariff and the Indian Cur-
rency, the consolidation of the departments of Cus-
toms and Inland Revenue, the powers of railway
companies, decimal coinage, and the patent laws.
The characteristics of Lord Stanley's speeches
are by this time tolerably well known to all men.
They are not oratorical displays, such as Mr Glad-
stone or Mr Bright occasionally makes, and it is
probable that his mind is too well balanced to admit
of flights of fancy or the enthusiasm of partial
views ; but admirable good sense is always found in
them, expressed with perfect lucidity. Beneath
this may be traced the temperament which isolates
him from political parties. An aristocratic culture
and a profound distrust of popular voices separate
him from the Radical Reformers, while the tho-
roughness with which he has adopted the utilitarian
philosophy remove 2. him from the mass of the Cone
servative party. In the very first subject discussed
at Liverpool the independence of his position ap-
peared. It was natural that an ex-Secretary of
State for India should address himself to the para-
graph in the Report of the Chamber of Commerce
dealing with the Indian Tariff, and it was inevitable
that Lord Stanley should reprove the unreasoning
language uttered by some people in the North on
the subject. The manufacturers of Lancashire con-
stantly denounce the Customs Duties of India, with.
out considering the question how the Queen's Go-
vernment there is to be carried on. They forget
that money must be had. There are two ways of
raising a revenue in India, and Lancashire critics
object to both. They cry out very properly for in-
creased facilities to redeem the Land Tax, and they
urge at the same time the repeal of Customs Duties.
This is very unreasonable. The existing Customs
Duties are very light, and they are retained simply
because it is impossible to do without the money
which they bring into the Indian Treasury. No
one at Calcutta or at home desires to keep them a mo-
ment after they have become unnecessary, and the
manufacturers of the North may disabuse their minds
of the notion that Pretectionist theories have any in-
fluence in their preservation. An import duty which
is practically less than 3 per cent. ad valorem could
in no case act as a powerful protection of the native
manufacturer against the competition of the Lanca-
shire spinner, and the large exportation of piece-
goods to India which continues in spite of advanced
prices shows the slender influence exercised by the
dreaded protection. The only third way of raising a
revenue in India has failed in practice. Experience
has proved the impossibility of continuing the in-
come-tax. It expires next July, and will not be re-
imposed. We have difficulties in working Schedule
D in England, but they are trifling compared with
the difficulties in the East. The Indian Beboo is
wise in his generation, and when called upon to
make his return, if his income be 20,000 rupees, he
takes his hill and writes down two. It is impossi-
ble to preserve an impost which is systematically
evaded by all except the Europeans in India; and
in the absence of other means of obtaining an income
import duties will necessarily be preserved. As
Lord Stanley's defence of the Indian Tariff showed
his independence of popular opinion in Lancashire,
so do his bold views on the powers which should
be conceded to railway companies prove his inde-
pendence of the traditions of the Conservative party.
When he took occasion in the late session to enun-
ciate the same opinions in the House of Commons,
the opposition to them was led, if we remember
aright, by Sir Hugh Cairns. Tae question at issue
is whether railway companies should be allowed to
become the owners of steam vessels and run them in
connexion with their lines of railway. At present
there is a Parliamentary prohibition of the practice,
which is often relaxed, and Lord Stanley is of
opinion that it should be entirely abolished. There
can be no doubt that this is the sound conclusion,
and at no distant time it will be accepted as such.
It cannot be too often repeated that absolute freedom
of combination in business speculations is now re-
cognised by the law, end the only reason why Rail-
way companies rEquire Parliamentary sanction is
that they may obtain compulsory powers of pur-
chasing land. The solitary question to be considered
by the Legislature is whether the promised utility
of the undertaking to the public warrants elle com-
pulsion put upon an owner who is forced against
his will to sell his inheritance, and this question is
quite independent of any further speculation into
which the company may enter. As it is, the Par•
liamentary disability operates, like every other re-
straint on trade, to the public disadvantage. Rail-
way Companies would not run steam-vessels unless
they could offer the public a service at a less price
than is now demanded for it. The objection which
some persons entertain to the proposal founded oa
the fear that the powers of Railway Companies
may grow to be oppressive—but the true way to
meet this dfficulty is to allow Railway Companies
to do what they please, subject to conditions as to
the manner in which it was to be done. Just as the
milleowners of the North are controlled by the re-
gulations of the Factory Acts, so may Railway
Companies be controlled in the working of their
tieficc—but a Railway Company should no more be
restricted from opening a fresh line of communica-
tion than a mill-owner should be restrained from
building a new mill. We are rather disappointed
at finding the boldness with which Lord Stanley
advocates the freedom of commerce desert him in
discussing what is confessedly a great hindrance to
the freedom of manufacturers. From Railways and
Decimal Coinage he proceeded to Law of Patents,
and we reasonably expect something of importance
upon the subject, as for two years be has been
Chairman of a Royal Commission appointed to
inquire into it. Those who looked ter anything of
value from the Commission will, however, be grie-
vously disappointed. Lord Stanley tells us frankly
that after two years study his own conviction is
that the chief objections to the Patent Law are not
remediable by any change in its details, and yet
changes in its details are all that the Commission
are about to recommend. This is a very lame and
impotent conclusion. Lord Stanley seems to look
upon the evils of the law as the price which the
public pays for rewarding inventors, and asks whe-
ther the time may not be coming when some other
mode of rewarding them may be substituted for it.
We do not know to what mode Lord Stanley
alludes, but if it be that which has occasionally
been suggested, of an inquiry by some tribunal into
the value of any supposed invention, coupled with
a correspondent public reward, we can only express
our utter disbelief of its practicability. The true
way of dealing with the inventor is to let him re-
ward himself. Were the Patent Laws abolished to-

morrow the inventor would still have his priority,

he would still have his secret. tf he can keep his

secret, he may reap what advantage he can of it;
bnt if publication to the world be a necessary con.
sequcnce of its use, why should the public pay for
that which is in its nature incapable of; appropria-
tion ?

Posy'.—We published yesterday some additional
correspondence bearing ou a subject which, though
of considerable importance, was not brought under
the notice of Parliament until the eve of the proro-
gation. We refer to the enlistment of British sub•
jects, and more especially of Irishmen, in the mili
tary service of the Federal Government. When
we used the word "enlistment" we employ a term
which is scarcely appropriate,
,The municipal laws,
not only of this country, but of the 'United States,
prohibit the enlistment of the eitizeu,s of either for
the purpose of being employed in the 2rosecution
of hostilities against a State with which the Go-

vcrnment of the country in which such personei are
enlisted is at peace, and none have heretofore show,:l
themselves more jealous of any infraction of this
law than the Executive authorities of the United
States. Bat although the enlistment of British
subjects by the Federal Government for the purpose
of making war against the Southern Confederacy
would have been a grave off3nce, it sinks into com-
parative insigneficance beside that with which wo
are now compelled to charge the Government at.
Washington. Everything is proverbially fair in,
war, and it might seem that, if the emissaries of
the Federal Gevernment persuaded a number of
English operatives or Irish peasants to emigrate to
America, and take up arms either for the sake of
the high boanties or the renown which rewards
those who join the armies of the North, they were
not guilty of any serious moral offence. Any Bri-
tish subject who likes may leave bis native country
and enter the military service of any State which
chooses to receive him, and the mere act of
inviting him to do so, though prohibited by
the municipal law, will riot consequently
strike dab
y Ws being etren-iQly thigittout3, It