The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

itlll/.

LONDON, SATURnAY, JULY 7, 1849.

The fate of the important motion that was intended
" seriously to damage, if nat effectually to destroy,
the Ministry," is at length decided. A division took
place at three o'clock this morning, when the " free-
trade policy" was affirmed by a majority of 140, in
a House consisting of 452 Members, the numbers
being—for the appointment of the Committee, 156 ;
against it, 296. The hands of the Government have
thus been materially strengthened, and the feeling
of a large majority of the representatives of the
people against a retrograde policy has been
most unequivocally expressed. The fallacies of the
Protectionist journals, of the orators who so recently
declaimed on the boards of Drury-lane Theatre, or on
the Parliamentary stage, that a reaction had taken
place in the public mind, have thus been exhibited in
the strongest light. The Premier has been well
rewarded for the courtesy that induced him,
even at this advanced period of the session, to
relinquish two of the Government nights to
perhaps the most powerful opponent of his
Ministry—the most brilliant and effective orator
of the ultra-Tory party. The nation owes a debrof
gratitude to the Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Buckinghamshire for having elicited so deeided a
manifestation in favour of a liberal and unrestricted
commercial policy, and for having produced the
admirable address of the Right Honourable Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, who vindicated the
justice and expediency of the abolition of protective
imposts in one of the most masterly and effective
orations ever delivered within the walls of Parliament.
That brilliant speech is, indeed, worthy of a clear and
attentive perusal. Ifany lingering doubt could still exist
in the mind of any calm and unprejudiced inquirer—
if for the moment deceived by the specious fallacy of
" protection to the British labourer," he could ima-
gine that the condition of the labouring classes could
be improved by being compelled to pay higher prices
for food, in order to swell the incomes of the privi-
leged few, that difficulty would be removed by a con-
sideration of the lucid and unanswerable reason-
ing
of the ex-Premier. The real question
at issue was distinctly explained. It was
" Shall the Governmentth be displaced, for the
purpose of subverting the
industrious
commercial policy on
which it has acted."
deeply ustrious classes are un-
questionably sufferingendingand severely. The
Exc7s3 returns for the quarterron the sth of
July instant afford the strongestevi
vations they are undergoing, and of thee of
fbthe pH.
bf
many comforts which, from long usage, have become
almost necessaries of life. But would the ackeenoorne
ledged evil be remedied by the adoption of a different
commercial principle, by the attempt to protect every
class in the country against el ery other ? Can these
difficulties and sufferings be in any degree ascribed
to the free-trade policy, erroneously stated to have
been introduced in 1846, the foundations of which,
however, were laid at an early period ? It was in
these points that Sir ROBERT PEEL was most happy.
seized the admissions of the Honourable Gentle-
man, as to the comparative prosperity enjoyed by
all classes and interests in the latter end of the year

1845—and he clearly traced the causes of that
__prosperity to the fiscal changes introduced three
years previously by the alteration of the tariff, and
the substitution (although to a limited degree) of

direct taxation for some of the most oppressive im-
posts, by which the nation had previously been
afflicted. If the national Exchequer was well re-
plenihed in 1845—if there was ample employment
for the labouring classes, and that our export trade
was never in a more thriving condition—what was the
state of the country four years previously ? Carry
back the comparison to the palmy days of protection
and monopoly, to the year 1841, before any
changes had taken place in the fiscal system.
During the previous year an attempt had
been
,made to obtain additional revenue by
imposing additional taxation on every species of im-
ports. All the existing duties were increased by 5
per cent.—the duties on the raw materials for our
manufactures, and on articles of food, so dear to the
Protectionist—and yet there was no corresponding
improvement in the receipts. The strongest proof
was exhibited that the figures of arithmetic cannot be
depended on in fiscal matters. Notwithstanding
these extraordinary efforts the national re-
venue was still inadequate to meet the
national expenditure, and we acccordingly find
that, in 1841 there was a deficit of nearly
2,500,000/ ; and yet at that very time the agricul-
turists were protected to the highest degree, indeed
any species of competition was excluded, even on
the most unfavourable terms. The importation of
meat on any terms was absolutely prohibited, and
the " sliding scale" prevented the possibility of intro-
ducing foreign corn save at famine prices. Surely,
the country should then have been prosperous, if
"protection to the native producer" was the mode by
which universal prosperity could be attained:

In 1842 a great change took place in the fiscal
policy. A direct tax was imposed on income and
property in order to meet the deficiency in the
revenue; the prohibition against the importation of
cattle or meat was removed ; the duties upon the
raw materials, and upon almost every article of
subsistence, were considerably reduced. Within the
four succeeding years these reductions amounted to
no less than 6,582,000/.; and the result wastnhde
overflowing Exchequer, the general prosperity, a
universal contentment that distinguished the year
1845. Surely the system from which such happy
consequence followed should have been fully
carried out the principle of direct taxation.
A further great reduction, with a view to a total
abolition of all indirect imposts, should be gradually
brought into operation. Then, indeed, the people
would be contented, and all classes, as well the agri-
culturist as the manufacturer, would thrive under a
system that rendered England the emporium of the
world, and made her trade, in every respect, free
and unrestricted.

On Wednesday the Marriages Bill passed through
Committee in the House of Commons. A decisive
majority of 53 was obtained on the only division that
took place. The friends of civil and religious liberty
must not, however, relax their exertions; they must
not sink into apathy or carelessness in consequence of
their success. Another attempt will be made on the
third reading either to reject or mutilate the mea-
sure, and it must still pass through all its stages in
the Upper House. Those who desire to coerce the
consciences of their fellow-men, who would compel
others to adopt their own doctrinal views, will not
without a struggle surrender any of the
few remnants of intolerance that still dis-
grace the national statute-book. From the
proceedings on Wednesday it is manifest that the
opponents of the Bill cannot-be conciliated. No
concessions will induce them to abandon their oppo-
sition, or to submit with a good grace to the con •
templated change in the law. The exception to
which the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Bute reluctantly, and as it appears to us, un-
necessarily assented, only evoked a stronger ex-
pression of determined hostility. Why should any
invidious distinction still be maintained ? Why
should the question be embarrassed by imposing a
restriction on such marriages that should not equally
apply to all others ? It may be very proper
to attempt to check the crime of adul•
tery by declaring that no marriage
should ever be valid between guilty parties,
but if so, a general measure should be passed for the
purpose, and disgrace and odium should not be need-
lessly cast on those " moral and religious persons"'
who have believed themselves to be justified in form-
ing such connexions. Why should it, even by im-
plication, be held out that an improper intercourse is
more likely to take place between a brother and
sister-in-law than between others ? The solitary
case referred to during the debate was surely not
sufficient to justify the enactment, and even there it
appears that the parties were publicly married within
three weeks after the dissolution of the former mar-
riage. "Extreme cases," it is said, "make bad
precedents ;" and certainly no more extreme case
than the one alluded to could be adduced;'
and be it remembered that it:occurred under the pre-
sent state of the law, to which indeed it might
perhaps, in some degree, be ascribable. Mr. STUART
WORTLEY, by suffering his own better opinion to be
overruled in deference to some ridiculous scruples, has
unwittingly sanctioned an enactment that may lead
to very vexatious and annoying proceedings.
Mr. A. J. B. HOPE, who had previously
published a bulky octavo impugning the
report of the Commissioners, brought forward
an amendment, which, if adopted, would
have completely neutralised the advantages
of the Bill, and destroyed its force. The jurisdiction
of the Ecclesiastical Court, that was found to be so
very objectionable previous to the passing of the
sth and 6th William IV., c. 54, would be revived.
No clergyman can be called upon to celebrate such
marriages, if conscientiously opposed thereto. Those
who claim liberty of conscience for themselves are
willing to extend the most perfect freedom to all ; but
Mr. HOPE would subject a minister who believed
that he was properly discharging a most solemn and
important duty to spiritual censure. The case of
Mr. SHOES has not, as yet, been forgotten.
There is no desire to increase the power
of a court so obnoxious to the great body of the
people. If Mr. Hors's amendment had been, or
should be carried, and he has intimated his intention
of renewing the discussion on the third reading, it.
only effect would be to swell the ranks of dissent, and
lead to very many secessions from the Church by law
established.

The other amendment, and that on which the
trial of strength took place, was brought forward for
the purpose of exempting Scotland and Ireland
from the operations of the Bill. It would,
' indeed, be a strange and anomalous pro-
ceeding to sanction unions in one part
of the empire that should be utterly null and void ab
initio in another ; to degrade a woman from the
station of a wife which she occupied in one country
into that of a mistress in another ; to render innocent
children illegitimate in Scotland and Ireland who
might inherit honours and dignity in England; per-
haps to alter the succession to titles and the inheri-
tance of properties which were never intended to be
separated. If these descriptions of marriages are in-
deed so repugnant to the feelings of the population,
if they are practically unknown in these countries,
there can be no practical reason for maintaining the
restriction. Any legislation creating unnecessary
distinctions between the laws in force in
different parts of the United Kingdom should
be particularly guarded against. The aim and object
of Parliament should be to cement more strongly the
existing union, and to bind more closely the ties by
which the countries are united.
It cannot be said that there is any violation of
the treaty of union with Scotland. No change is
made in the ecclesiastical laws or church govern-
ment—a simple act of toleration is passed. A
restriction, affecting not only Scotchmen and
members of the Church of Scotland, but also
Englishmen, and persons of every religious sect
or denolukation, who may happen to be domi
tiled in that country, is t
. couldto sbterivreemtoodviesdco;veirt
agnr would
eiatv
national
invasion
on 1 e
oe
fd
compactbe a
that.
the rights of the Church of Scotland in
strained interpretatit n of that
a simple act of grace and justice. As well might
Irishmen complain of the removal of the disabt
by which Roman Catholics and Dissenters
were
affected s
affected as an infringement of the rights of the
Church of Ireland, or a violation of the fundamental
provisions of the great settlement solemnly entered
into by two independent nations half a century since.
The present Bill, we trust, will speedily receive the
Royal Assent, and the last vestige of religious into.