The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

Well! the cause of justice has at length pre-
vailed. And where are now Mr. BARING'S ob-
jections—his senseless obstinacy, merely be-
cause he was wrong—in opposition to claims,
the justice of which was acknowledged but a few
years after he was born ?

The public will naturally wonder at such in-
ordinate folly, and ask, in their simplicity,
how it is that men who have come into public
consideration and confidence should so far forget
themselves as to oppose a claim sanctioned by
repeated votes of the House of Commons. The
answer is this—a mock Liberal, Mr. SPRING
RICE, of notorious memory—a Shannon jobber,
who contrived to worm himself into place,
and eventually to saddle the country with
,000/. a year or more, contrived to bamboozle
Mr. BARING to follow in his steps, which were
the steps of political shuffling. And, acting on
these slippery counsels, Mr. BARING opposed
the Danish Claims, which Mr. SPRING RICE would
not have done if they belonged to the Shannon
River instead of the Copenhagen Seas.
We acquit Mr. BARING of any animus in his
opposition but that which he derived from the
whisperings of Mr. SPRING RICE—a gentleman
whose especial merit it was that his best friends
were at a loss where to find his counterpart, so
slippery and statesmanlike were all his evolu-
tions. Mr. SHANNON RICE was the rock on which
the present CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
split, and in working out his pilotage be brought
the Cabinet vessel into shoals and shallows. It
were well if she rested there, but she has
floundered and backed astern so much that they
are in danger of backing out altogether! Well,
wilful pilots must take the consequence of their
own improvidence; but why should the passengers
suffer? Simply because they row in the- same
boat with the pilot who misguides them. This is a
safe text for honest electors, to look out for good
Liberals—men who will do their duty to their
country, their conscience, and their Goy.
It is not our purpose to damage Ministers be-
cause they have done many things wrong—our
object is to convert them! But we shall not en-
large on these matters now; we promise them a
safe deliverance—lF they deserve it.

The country gentlemen seem resolved to profit
by the confusion of " breaking up," to slip un-
perceived and unopposed some of their favourite
measures through Parliament. Yesterday morn-
ing, as soon as the day began, or rather, before
the Parliamentary night had expired, they laid
on the table two Bills, one to provide for repair-
ing, improving, and rebuilding county bridges,
for which Lord ELIOT and Sir E. KlaaTctirsuLL
s; and sponsors, and the other, " to autlior:se, for
a time, the application of a portion of the
rates to turnpike-roads," which owns
highway
paternity of Sir C. BURRELL and
the respechi,i'le
Mr. DA„By.
.ooth. Bills were read a first time
on Thursday morniq, and both were appointed
g.
to be read a second time on Thursday evenin
'
Quick law-making that; a2d as it is not said
that all the county bridges of (lornwall and Kent
are tumbling down, or all the turi.:'Dike-roads of
Sussex are under water, there must' be some
strong reason for this urgent haste to in.froduce
new measures, when scores of those which .I‘ave
been previously considered are cast out.
The title of the first Bill, which is all that we
know of it, does not imply anything objection-
but the title of the second carries with it
a perversion of public funds. Turnpike-roads
are, in the majority of cases, private specula-
tions; individuals advance money to make them,
in the expectation of being well paid by the
tolls which Parliament authorises them to levy;
highway rates are public taxes, levied by the
authority of parish vestries and Magistrates. To
apply those funds to turnpike roads seems to us
to be improving the property of private indi-
viduals by the public taxes. That such is the
real object of the Bill, that there is any line of
turnpike roads bordering on the Rape of Bram-
ber, forming a convenient access to some ancient
castles, owned by certain Sussex esquires, we do
not know a road; but if there be such; it may, we
apprehend, be partly maintained at the public
expense, under the provisions of such a Bill, and
the pockets of the said squires be spared, by
taking money out of the pockets of the rate-
payers. The title of the Bill makes us regard
it with the greatest suspicion ; and we trust that
,
Mr. HUME, or Mr. WARBURTON, or some otner
determined foe to Parliamentary jobbing, will
take care that a gross and flagitious job is not
perpetrated under the guise ofpromoting commu-
nication. Our country readers, too, would do
well•to look sharp after the Bill, or they may
find themselves compelled to pay out of the
highway rates the interest of the money which
certain gentlemen have advanced for making
roads on speculation. As they tax the people to
make good their rent on unproductive land, we
can see no reason or principle why they should
not tax the people to make good the interest on
their turnpike-road bonds.

The manner in which the Tories have already
begun to use their power in the House of Com-
mons, is an indication of what they will do in
office. We have heard during the last six years
a great deal about the tyrant majority, but the
Whigs, in the utmost plentitude of their power,
never used it so wantonly as did the Tories on
Wednesday evening their majority of ONE. On
the faith of that single vote did Sir R. PEEL and
my Lord STANLEY then taunt the Ministers with
having lost the confidence of Parliament. On
the faith of that single vote did EDWARD
S.
SU will
GDEN assume that the Whigs I
beout
of
office in October, and, relying on that, he stopped
the Bill for improving the administration of jus-
tice. If they behave so now, what will they do
should they ever be placed on the Treasury
Benches ? " Depend upon it," as Sir R. PEEL
frequently says, in a moat oracular manlier,
should they ever again be Ministers, England
will be an unfit habitation for a free man.
We stated yesterday, and we see no reason
whatevQr nowt to alter our opinion, that the Mi-
nist,.rs did wrong in giving up the Bill. They
have given a handle to their opponents to
say that they cared as little for the be-
nefit of the suitors, and for the administration
of justice, as the Tories, and promoted the
lost Bill only for the sake of the patronage it
conferred. That was not their object, though
the mode in which they gave up the Bill—as it
were, in a pet—lent that colour to their conduct.
The Tories, however, had no other object in
stopping the Bill than to grasp the patronage.
They avowed that. Their conduct was most un-
seemly and insulting. Not one of them dared to