The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-17 00:00:00

-ICT) ‘l-tai

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 17, 1836.

That honourable pink of agricultural cleanliness,
Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY, has, we observe, given
notice of his determination to move the substitution of
a soap-duty reduction, as an amendment upon the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S motion for re-
ducing the Stamp Duty on Newspapers, which stands
for Monday next. The Hon. Baronet ought to go a
step farther, if he really proposes any benefit to the
agricultural population from this inestimable earnest
of his Parliamentary labours. Should his amend-
ment be carried, we recommend him to bring in
a Bill for compelling the Poor Law Commissioners to
provide parochial wash-tubs for the weekly immersion
of the class which the Hon. Baronet deems to be in
such deplorable want of cheap snap. Of course the
law must declare the immersion of the entire popula-
tion of all agricultural parishes—without regard to
rank, profession, sex, or age—compulsory on the
parish officers ; otherwise there will be as little
demand for cheap soap as there is now for dear.
The Hon. Baronet has repeatedly stated that the
halfpenny a pound on hard soap, and the three
farthings a pound on soft soap, which he proposes
to get rid of by his amendment, is a bonus in favour of
personal filthiness. We are persuaded the Government
never intended the tax as a bonus to any class ; but if it
operates as one, we must say that the agriculturists,
generally, have not been backward in taking the fullest
advantage of it. But They labour under a great delu-
sion who suppose that such a paltry reduction of duty
will destroy the bonus of which the Hon. Gentleman
complains. To do that effectually the soap must be as
cheap as the water, and the wash-tub system recom-
mended above, rigidly enforced throughout the country.
if this be done, we ourselves shall do all in our power
to help the Hon. and immaculate Member for South
Northamptonshire to a peerage, by the style and title of
the " Baron of Soapsuds," &c. Without the wash-
tub bill, however, we bed* to assure Sir CHARLES
KNIGHTLEY, that the boon which he proposes to grant
to the agricultural population will be virtually bestowed
upon a class that will riot thank him for his officious-
ness—namely- the commercialists. They, after all, are
the great consumers of soap ; and we only speak their
sentiments in saying, that they would prefer a reduc-
tion, of three pence on the price of a newspaper, to that
of a farthing in the price of a pound of soft soap.
As the question is to be brought forward regularly
on Monday next, it is but fair to those Members of the
Horse of Commons who are pledged to support the
&averment proposition, to remind them beforehand
of our determination to make the country familiar with
the names of those who shall be found absent on the
division. We have made up our mind as to the course
which we shall adopt, nor shall we be turned aside
by penitent letters, enclosing sham certificates of illness,
domestic afflictions, and a hundred other mock excuses,
for a dereliction of a sacred duty, We are prepared
for a good deal of unprincipled tergiversation on this
question. We expect to hear of a great number of
Hon. Gentlemen being suddenly and imperatively
summoned out of town on Saturday, who, as a matter
of course, will be detained in the country till Tuesday.
We have also ventured to hint to several members of

the Faculty, that the beginning of next week will be re-1
markable for rifeness of influenza, cold, fever, svvelllllgt
in the extremities, gout, rheumatism, sureness in 1
the throat, dislocated limbs, bruises, arid 'a host of
other diseases, among the member of .'S. r3tephen s.
But these things shall be All totembered when certain
Hon. Gentlemei! .e,rii.le to the hustings ; and it will be
no fault of Wars, if, long before such a day of final
retritrution, their delinquency be unknown to a single
voter in the United Kingdom.
The Radicals have acted with becoming forbearance
• in declining to press the question of a repeal of the duty
during the present Session. To us it is of no consequence
whether the Stamp Ditty he reduced to ld. or abolished
altogether ; but as all changes are safest when made
gradually, we are of opinion that a reduction of the
duty ought to precede its entire abolition—were it only
to prepare the public for an altered state of things.
We will not now stop to argue a question to which
we have already devoted more space than any three
other London journals ; and we are happy to add, with
such effect as to lead us to hope that a more lengthened
exposition of its general bearing is quite unnecessary.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, we have reason to believe, will
not oppose, if he do not support, the motion
of the CHANCELLOR of the . EXCHEQUER.
The Right Honourable Baronet has been solicited
by certain influential lovers of mental (.I,kness, to
place himself at ilikitead of the agricultural soap-
suds faction ; but we understand that his only answer
was that the public were not such fools as to accept
the reduction of a halfpenny on soap as a panacea for
agricultural distress. In this the Right Hon. Member
_ for Tamworth is right. The people of England see
in the proposed reduction of the stamp duty on news-
papers, a Government measure for bestowing upon them
the blessings of e!-Leap moral and political knowledge.
This measure they have set their hearts upon : they
will—they must—have it

.A clause, proposed by the Duke of WELLINGTON
to be introduced into the Grand Junction Railway
Bill, and into all Railway Bills that may hereafter ob-
tain the sanction of Parliament, formed the chief sub-
ject of discussion last night in the House of Lords.
We are almost sorry that it should have met with so
much opposition as it did, because an undue impor-
tance may thereby be attached to it by the public.
The clause alluded to is expressed in the following
wotds :

" That nothing therein contained shall extend or be con-
strued, deemed, or taken to extend to exempt the railroad to
be formed under or by virtue of the powers i❑ and by this Act
contained and given, or any branch thereof, from the provi-
sions of any general Act or general Acts for the regulation
of railroads, which may be passed before the expiration of one
year from the passing of this Act, if Parliament shall be
sitting at the expiration of such period of one year, or if Par-
liament shall not then be sitting, before the end of the then
next Session of Parliament:'

To the general principle embodied in this clause there
can, we apprehend, be no reasonable objection. It is
unquestionably the duty of Parliament to take care
that the powers which it grants to individuals or to
Companies for the public advantage, be not perverted
into instruments of private monopoly at the public ex-
pense. But as this is the duty of Parliament—so
also has Parliament the right to interfere, whenever
it may judge such interference necessary, in order to pro-
tect the public from any breach of faith or any extrava-
gant demands on the part of such Companies. The public
benefit is the sole plea which is urged by those who
engage in railroads and similar undertakings—the
public benefit is the sole consideration on which pe-
culiar privileges are granted to them by Parliament ;
and when this consideration is lost sight of, or not suffi-
ciently regarded, by the one party, the other has both
the right and the power either to withdraw the pri-
vileges, or to modify them, as may be deemed most
expedient. There can be no distinction, in this re-
spect, between such Bills and those commonly called
public Bills. In principle they are the same, and
must be dealt with in the same way. We therefore
think it rather a superfluous, if not a mischievous
piece of legislation, by a declaratory enactment to
moot a point of this kind, at a time when
so many Railway Bills have already passed both
Houses, and so many more have gone through all but
the last stage of their progress. It is calculated to
cause needless alarm among those who have invested
capital in Railways, and to check, not the spirit of rash
or fraudulent speculation, but the wholesome ardour of
legitimate enterprize. There is, however, no real cause
for any apprehension. It is a fortunate circumstance,
that in this instance the Lords must be controlled by
the Commons. The future Act (if any such should
ever be passed) which is to regulate railways must be
sanctioned by the Representatives of the people, and
we may rest assured that they will not sanction any
law that is not founded in justice, and that does not
put all on an equal footing.

Another " skrimmage" took place last night in tie
House of Commons between Col. SIBTITORP and
Sir JOHN HOBIIOUSE. In the debate on the Re-
gistration of Voters' Bill, the Hon. and Gallant
.Member for Lincoln proposed, at twelve o'clock, that
Mr. BROTHERTON'S motion for reporting progress
be persisted in, whereupon Sir J. HOBIIOUSE very
justly observed, that if such a practice were persevered
in, the House must sit till September, adding, in
allusion to some interruption given by Col. SIB-
TIIORP, that " that there was nothing so foolish as a
foolish laugh." This hint the latter took as a direct
impeachment of his intellectuals; and wincing "like a
galled jade" under the sarcasm, left the House,
breathing fire and fury against the offending Baronet.
Ultimately, however, the matter was arranged, after
the fashion in such cases made and provided by the
House ; but not before the Gallant Member had
prosed pretty considerably about the necessity
of maintaining " an unimiVrable honour"—just
as if his " honour" were at all aggrieved by the
.
insinuation that his upper story was not quite
so well furnished as it might be I In hinting that
Colonel SIBTIIORP is no Solomon, Sir JOHN HOB-
HOUSE only gaveaterance to the opinion of all who
have ever read his speeches, which, whether we re-
gard their matter or their manner, are prodigies of in-
eptitude ; and the Gallant Member should have been
far too wise to have taken fire at such a frank and dis-
criminating opinion. He should have " kissed the
rod that chastised him," from a consideration that it
was laid on, solely for his good. As respects his mo-
tion for reporting progress, nothing could possibly have
been more inconsiderate—nothing more annoying to all
parties ; for if the House is to rise every night at 12
o'clock, it is evident that it must meet at the same hour
in the day, greatly to the embarrassment of all Com•
mittee business, and the personal inconvenience of the
majority of Members, whether Whig, Tory, or
Radical. But faction does not consider this ;
hence the motion of the " foolish," but well-
whiskered Colonel—to whom, by the bye, one
word at parting—if he resolves to call out every man
who refuses to assess his sagacity at the same high rate
that he himself does, he may as well call out nine-
tenths of the male adult population of the United
Kingdom I But to revert to a more important sub-
ject. Mr. WAKLEY, we perceive, withdrew iris mo-
tion for a repeal of the Septennial Act, on the plea
thdt the discussion at this particular period would be
inexpedient. The Hon. Member is right in his con-
clusions, and deserves praise for his forbearance; for
though the question of Triennial Parliaments is a most