The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We invite attention to a sensible article froM a
Correspondent, on the attempt to defeat the Bank-
ruptcy Court Bill. Certainly, the opposition to that
measure, regard being had to the quarter from
whence it springs, is the greatest proof of the ser-
vice it is likely to render the commercial world. Do
merchants, dealers, or traders oppose it t' No ; but
those who, through the present law, prey on. mer-
chants, dealers, and tradesmen. The septtpgirit,—
the seventy Commissioners,—these and their friends
only oppose it ; and Oils it but too frequently
happens, that the agency employed in the operation
of any law, think that the law was made for them,
and not for the benefit of the country. The oppo-
sition to the new Bankrupt Law, which has failed in
the Lords, is to be tried in the Commons. It is stared
that the Chancellor by the new Bill, instead of corn.
inissionerships, obtains the disposal of ten judgeships,
besides the situations of registrars and assignees.
'Why, whoever thought that the Bill could be carried
into effect without officers ? But it is not denied
that the proposed system saves a great expense;
neither does the Chancellor obtain this patronage as
is asserted. But first of all let us observe, that to
'whomsoever it belongs, their power is straightened
and confined, that it cannot act in a very corrupt
way ; f,,r the class of persons who may be made
Judges of bankrupt is extremely limited by the Bill,
and must possess peculiar and defined qualifications.
But the fact is, that the patronage rests not with the
Chancellor, but with the Crown ; and though no
doubt the opinion of the Chancellor may have
weight, it is very far from being decisive, as we
could prove in a variety of similar cases; for the
Chancellor may be consulted on the appointment of
Judges in Westminster-hall, but he has not there-
fore the nomination of those important offices. The
patronage of the judgeships and of the registerships
is as little that 'of the Chancellor, and as much that
of the Crown, as the patronage of the bishoprics.
However, the attacks on the Bill spring from private
motives. From such only can they spring, for the
mercantile interest is wholly for it; and it is for the
convenience and security of the mercantile interest
oNly that bankrupt laws are formed. Perhaps it is
suspected that the Common Law bar may supply a
greater number of fit persons for the new judgeships
than the Chancery bar 1 Be it so : the administra-
tion of bankruptcy belongs more properly to com-
mon law than equity. But let the commercial and
trading public look to their Bill. Of one thing we
are sure, that whatever opposition the Duke of
Cumberland and his party may make to this benefi-
cial measure, the middling classes throughout Eng-
land are most anxious to see it in operation. We
humbly suppose that this numerous and important
body may understand the nature of the Bill as well
as the illustrious Prince who heads the minority
against it.—Times.

Among the favourable signs of the times, is the
readiness with which many proprietors of boroughs
and corporations have come forward to resign the
power, which they feel they are not justly entitled
to exercise, into the hands of the people. To the
other instances must be added the Duke of Devon-
shire, who, on Monday night, expressed himself
anxious to part with the patronage he possessed.
The Marquis of Lansdowne last night presented a
petition from the Steward and Corporation of the
borough of Caine, in which they expressed that they
bad long been of opinion that the elective franchise
aught to be extended to householders paying a cer-
tain aent. Lord Suffield, in presenting a petition
from a district in Norfolk, took the opportunity " of
stating, that the plan of Reform proposed by his
Majesty's Ministers met with his unqualified appro-
bation." He added, that "he had heard persons
who were interested in boroughs and borough influ-
ence declare, that they felt grateful to his Majesty's
Ministers for having brought this measure forward ;
it relieved them from the odium and obloquy to
which that species of influence subjected them ;
and if such persons, who were to lose valuable and
beneficial interests by the measure, so highly approved
of it, and felt so grateful to Ministers, how much more
deep was the obligation under which the rest of their
Lordships lay to his Majesty's Ministers, for having
freed them from that odium and obloquy which they
as part of the aristocracy, shared with those having
vantage.' 'lle himself had no such influence, and
felt grateful to the Ministry for being freed from the
obloquy by a measure which could not fail to be ex-
tremely beneficial to the country. He had always
been averse to that species of influence, and yet he
bad been subjected to his share of the discredit
which it attached to the aristocracy generally." No
man, who wishes to regulate his conduct by princi-
ples of justice, would think of retaining the power
of disposing of the property of the people without
their consent, which the possession of boroughs gives
him. II a Lordship expresses himself as an honest
mat, should express himself; and we do not wonder
that he, and others of his order, who think as he
does, should be grateful to the Ministry for freeing
them from the obloquy which borough property
attached to the aristocracy in general. Another
Nobleman (the Earl of Shrewsbury) has just
published a short pamphlet, entitled, " Suggese
lions for the Improvement of the Labouring Poor,
addressed to every Member of the Legislature" (and
some of his suggestions are well deserving of atten-
tion), in which he observes, " As far as my know-
ledge extends, no Administration has ever yet ruled
in this country that can justly be said to have go-
verned with any desire to establish the interests of
the people. The whole object seems to have been to
extort as much money as possible for purposes of
the most lavish and wasteful expenditure; and that
always as a question between the privileged orders
and the Government, as if the people had neither
interest nor concern in the matter. When the
people, indeed, were considered, it'appears to have
been only in reference to the most convenient method
of coercion; the whole history otlegislation in their
regard, being one of pains and penalties, disqualifi-
cati in, and restriction: so much so, that our gaols
have been crowded, our colonies have been peopled,
our scaffolds have groaned under victims to laws
scarce ten years old. But late events, both in this
empire and in Europe, hare put a final termination
to the career of folly and corruption. The people
have at length discovered their real strength; the na-
tural order of things have been reversed—they lead
instead of being led; they have taught the Rulers
of Nations that the avenging day, though delayed, is
not delayed for ever; that justice, however out-
raged, will at length re-assert her authority; that
the power of the oppressor shall cease, the hand of
tyranny shall wither. Let not these lessons be neg-
lected by those to whom the destinies of nations are
entrusted; I am sure they will not be lost upon our
present rulers. They have needed no prophet to
interpret to them the signs of the times;s—they have
themselves prophesied to others. They have foreseen
the natural consequences of a long system of misrule,
they have even known that effects would be true to
their causes; they have a thousand times foretold the
predicament in which we now find ourselves, and
they are the men to extricate us from it. It is to
their sagacity, their wisdom, their principles anti
honour, that we must trust for our salvation. As
they have been the predictors of our calamities, they
are now the harbingers of our regeneration; they are
pledged to save the country, and do it they must
and will." The power of the boroughmongers is
incompatible with the diffusion of knowledge; and
of this truth the boroughmongers have always been
tolerably well aware. The people, whatever Lord
William may think, have no cause to be grateful
to the Oligarchy or to the High Church Parsons,
their dependents, and tools, for the education which
has enabled them to break their chains. " Cor-
ruption," as our contemporary (the Scotsman)
observes, " readily allies itself with ignorance. The
disgraceful doctrine, that education is an evil, and
knowledge in the mass of the people dangerous, sprung
also out of the necessities of the Oligarchy, and
was the natural progeny of the borough system."
It is recorde of the best Governor Virginia everi
bad, Sir Willid am Berkeley, that, like a true cavalier,

be was found "to thank God there are no schools
or printing." The base Press, the corrupt Press,
the odious and abominable Press—to use the epi-
thets of a distinguished opponent of Reform—and
schools, have, at length wrought the downfall of the
boroughroongers. Those who wish to enjoy no
more than what they may enjoy without injury to
others—who are conscious of no inclination to rob
and plunder their fellow-subjects—must naturally
feel indignant at being held up by the oligarchy and
their tools in the House of Commons, as an obstacle
to the conceding to the people the power to choose
their representatives. No wonder Lord Suffield
should be anxious to disclaim all sympathy with the•
men who would hold up his order as essentially hos-
tile to the people. This point is very ably handled
in the Scotsman of Saturday last :
" Has not every constitutional writer declared that
King, Lords, and Commons, all exist solely for the good
of the people? And who shall presume to understand the
good of the people better than themselves ? Supposing,
then, they, as the roost competent judges of their own
interest, deem the Crown and the Peerage superfluous or
hurtful,—fiat, ought these to be maintained in existence?
and secondly, admitting► it were wise to maintain them,
would it in such a case be possible ? We are speaking of
the deliberate opinions of the people, as they would be ex-
hibited in a House of Commons representing property as
well as persons, allowing to all ranks of men their natural
and legitimate influence, and nothing more—not a House
which has two Members for an old wall or dovecot, while
the ten millions of property in Manchester are unrepre-
sented !

" But look at Mr. Canning" sophistry on the otter
side. alf the House of Commons were the organ of the
popular will, it would sweep away the Crown and the
Peerage.' Be it so ! then what is the House of Com-
mons ? The answer is plain : it is an engine for pre
serving the Crown and the Peerage against the wishes
of the people ! The re it use of a House of Commons, it
seems, is not to give effect to the will of the people, as we
imagined, but to prevent that will from operating or being
expressed ! A most beautiful and original idea of a re-
presentative body ! Such, when analysed, is George
Canning's description of the• Howie of Commons ; and we
have dwelt upon it at some length, because it forms the
political code of the Tories generally, and we meet with,
it less or more disguised in all the recent speeches against
Reform.

" The real effect of Mr. Canning's sophistry is to cover
corruption and horoughmongering, at the expense of the
Crown and the Peerage. First, it assumes that the people

are hostile to the Crown and the Peerage, which is
false. Next, it affirms that the real use of a House of

Commons is to be—not a check upon the Clown and the
Aristocracy for the people—but a check upon the people
for the Crown and the Aristocracy. Thirdly, it holds up
the institution of the Peerage and the CrOkyn, as the great
obstacles of Reform, and thus exposes them to undeserved
odium, by making them answerable for all the abuses
which have grown out of the rotten burgh system ! !"
We have no doubt that the Aristocracy will gain
greatly by the Reform. They will not, indeed, be
allowed to dispose so freely as they have done of
the public purse; but being obliged to merit the
honours to which they lay claim, the people will
never be backward in admitting the value of their
services, and in acknowledging their deserts. There
is greater danger to an Aristocracy than the being
able to dispense with the body of the people.—
Morning Chronick.

We observe that at the recent dinner of " the

gentlemen connected with the shipping and colonial
interests," some severe remarks having been made
on the mischievous tendency of the dogmas of the

political economists, Air. Ward, one of the Repre-

sentatives of the City, alluded to the author of the
" Wealth of Nations" in language of unqualified
censure, and said he " wished that Adam Smith
had never lived, or that lie had lived long enough to
alter his views." We suspect that Adam Smith
was not, like some of our eminent modern statesmen,
much disposed to make his principles accommodate
themselves to the prevalent notions " by doctrines
faihioned to the varying hour." His political faith
was as fixed and decided as might be expected from
one who had arrived at his conclusions through the
laborious inquiries of an intellect at once acute,
comprehensive, and luminous. His opinions had
consequently a firmer foundation than the shifting
sands of expediency, and he had convinced himself
before he attempted to convince others. But if
Mr. Ward supposes tat Adam Smith is respon-
sible for the wild paradoxes and mischievous follies
of the modern race of political economists, he

• • works . . ,
Writer's as any man need be who is de-
tennined to avoid the remotest chance of be-
coming a convert. Adam Smith was not an advocate
either for getting rid of the colonies or for breaking
down the navigation laws. His doctrine of " free-
trade" was not the wild and irrational thing which

it has become in the hands of the modern econo-
mists, who, in the blind zeal for their pedantic
dogmas, overlook the actual circumstances of the
country, to which they would make them applicable.
While the former inculcated the principle of free
trade, as beneficial to commercial nations in the ab-
stract, he limited the application of it by a reference
to the existing circumstances of the nation. He
had never seen a country with eight hundred mil-
lions of debt, and the consequent weight of taxation
which the productive industry of such a country is
under the necessity of bearing, and which renders
it wholly incapable of entering into free competition
with nations far more lightly taxed, and where the
cost of production is, of course comparatively less.
In fact he bad never seen England as she is at the
present day. Yet in speaking of the actual adoption
of the " free trade principle" as to foreign goods,
he says—" The case in which it may sometimes be
a matter of deliberation how far, or in what
manner, it is proper to restore the free importation
of foreign goods, after it has been for some time
interrupted, is when particular manufactures, by
means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign
goods which can come into competition with them,
have been so far extended as to employ a great
multitude of hands. Humanity may in this case re-
quire that the freedom of trade should be restored
only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of
reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties
and prohibition: taken away all at once, cheaper
foreign goods of the same kind might he poured sofast
into the home market as to deprive, all at once, many
thousand people of their ordinary employment and
means of subsistence." The modern political econo-
mists never took these circumstances into considera-

tion when they broke down the navigation laws, and
opened the flood-gates of free trade upon this over-
taxed country all at once. But they take a pride in
despising all considerations of humanity; and hu-
manity, in turn, despises them. When Adam Smith
wrote the above passage, the public debt of Eng-
land was only about 129 millions ; bad it been
800 millions, as it now is, he would have seen
further reasons for using reserve and circumspec-
tion in allowing the free importation of foreign
goods, by which so many thousands have been de-
prived of" their ordinary employment and the means
of subsistence." Now, with regard to colonies, so far
was this writer from considering them necessarily inju,
rious to the mother country, that 1113 expressly assets
the contrary. He is, indeed, decidedly opposed to
monopolies of the colonial trade, but considers the
trade itself, apart from such monopolies, are inva-
riably beneficial. Let us hear his own words—
" We must carefully distinguish between the effects
of the colony trade and those of the monopoly of
that trade. The former are always and necessarily
beneficial; the latter always and necessarily hurtful.
But. the former are so beneficial that the colony
trade, though subject to a monopoly, and notwith-
standing the hurtful effects of that monopoly, is rill
upon the whole beneficial, and greatly beneficial,
though a good deal less so than it otherwise would
be." As to the Navigation Act, we have not space
at present to enter into his reasoning upon the sub-
jeet. It may be sufficient to state the opinion at
which he arrived on examining all its provisions.
He says that, " though some of the regulations of
this famous Act may have proceeded from national
animosity, yet they are as wise as if they had all
been dictated by the most deliberate wisdom.
I Would Mr. Ward wish Adam Smith to have lived
long enough to alter this opinion, and to co-operate
with the political economists of the present day in

th e rash folly of sweeping away what the mos
" deliberate wisdom" had projected as the founda-
tion and defence of England's commercial greatness?
—Morning Herald.