The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-02 00:00:00

(fir truing aim

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1848.

Whatever may be the ultim ate consequence of the
great Reform movement, which has just commenced
under the auspices of HuatE and Conn Es—one thing
is already certain, that the Government will endea-
vour to prevent the necessity of such sweeping
measures being forced through the Houses of Legis-
lature by precipitate but insufficient concessions.
Last evening the House of Commons had proof of this
from an announcement made by the Prime Minister.
This announcement consisted of two very important
notices of motions—one originating in the
failure of the Jewish Disabilities Bill—the ether
in the strength already revealed by the new League
in favour of certain Parliamentary innovations.
" Sir," said Lord JOHN RUSSELL, " I wish to give
two notices of motions. One is, that I propose on
Monday next to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to
alter the form of oath to be required of Members on
taking their seats in Parliament. The other is, that
on Friday I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to
repeal so much of the existing law as makes it neces-
sary to pay the assessed taxes in order to be on the
register as an elector in cities and boroughs." Without
question these are sufficiently remarkable intimations
from a Liberal Premier, even from a Premier like the
Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, the
statesman who had the privilege of introducing to the
Lower House at Westminster the first comprehen-
sive Bill for the revision of our representative system
We call them remarkable intimations advisedly. —in:
timations only—nothing more. And they are simply
remarkable, inasmuch as they indicate a sense,
on the
part of the Administration, of a necessity for con-
ceding certain extraordinary reforms to the mul-
titude.

Against the first of Lord Jong RUSSELL'S notices
of motion we have nothing whatever to object. A
revision is absolutely needful in the wording of the
Oath of Abjuration. That is beyond all denial.
When it is notorious that the effect of this assevera-
tion is the direct exclusion from the House of Cona-
monsof a large kody of conscientious men, while it

offers a loophole for the admission of those unprin-
cipled persons who would lie without a blush in the
face of earth and heaven, it is impossible to
maintain that no modification is requisite. In-
fidels and Socinians individuals who deny
the existence of a Deity, and who scorn
all credence in the divinity of CHRlST—Atheists,
Deists, and Freethinkers, Latitudinarians, and others,
who are openly antagonistic to religion, may enter,
and have entered, Parliament, swearing their allegi-
ance solemnly before GOD and man " on the true
faith of a Christian !" GIBBON acted thus— derisively
no doubt—with a chuckle at the credulity of his com-
patriots and at the ingenuity of his prevarication.
There is, consequently, no obstacle whatever in the
Oath of Abjuration against the entrance of those who
are totally devoid of any sense of moral obliga-
tion ; whereas, in the instance of a conscientious
man, such as a believer in the creed of MOSES, the
" phrase" already mentioned offers an insurmountable
and certainly a most unwarrantable obstruction.
Therefore it is that Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposes to
abolish this unjustifiable distinction by erasing the
expression altogether from the formularies of Par-
liament, and by that means to worst the intentions
of a mistaken or fanatical opposition.
Against the first of these two important notices of
motion, we can, as we have already ob-
served, raise not one shadow of objection.
With the second it is altogether different.
We are, on no account, disposed to blink the matter
or to glose over the reason of our dissatisfaction. As
far as the innovation itself goes, it is all well and
good enough. As far as the notion itself is concerned
—of repealing so much of the existing law as makes
it necessary to pay the assessed taxes in order to be
on the register as an elector in cities and boroughs—
that notion is admirable. But the improvement is
not sufficiently great to excite in any manner our
enthusiasm. On the contrary, it is so utterly inade-
quate that we cannot but regard it with jealousy
—we cannot but look upon it as a sullen
and reluctant yielding to popular intimidation—we
cannot consider it, in fact, as otherwise than a mere
Ministerial sop to the Cerberus of Democracy. A
change, and a very comprehensive change too, is
o r
essential in regard to the rate-paying clauses of the
segmentßeform in
Bill.the vast N o doubtcircle
of of it.ref Butms which that isaorenlnycma.
becoming absolutely necessary for the maintenance
and development of the British Constituti • •
on. In
reference to the manner of the elections of our
representative legislators alone, is this the only in-
novation that is essential ? We ask common
prudence. We ask common sense. We ask common
honesty. Look at the result of the last general
election, the election of 1847, and deny if you
can the fact that the boasted Bill of 1832 has been
very far indeed from destroying the system of
bribery, corruption, and intimidation, which were
the evil consequences of the execrable practices of
boroughmongering ! Deny that deplorable fact if
you can ! Remember that Horsham was a corrupt
election—that Harwich was a corrupt election—
that Yarmouth was a corrupt election—that
Derby was a corrupt election—that Cheltenham
was a corrupt election—that Aylesbury was a corrupt
election—that Leicester was a corrupt election—that
Lancaster was a corrupt election—that Bel,vdley was
a corrupt election—that Walsall was a corrupt elec-
tion—that Kinsale was a corrupt election—that Lin-
coln was a corrupt election—that Carlisle was a
corrupt election. Remember that the grossest treating
was proved against an unsuccessful candidate at Lyme
Regis, and that the most shameless intimidation was re-
sorted to by another unsuccessful candidate at Stamford.
Remember all this, and then pronounce a veto against
the new movement for Parliamentary Reform—if'
you can, with an untroubled conscience. Assuredly,
such a veto would " stick in the thioat " of the
Sovereign as obstinately as the Amen in the throat of
the Thane of Cawdor. For these reasons we cannot
but regard with very different sentiments the two
remarkable notices of motions made last evening by
the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. We
cannot but view the first with the most unconditional
pleasure, and the second with the most positive dis-
satisfaction.

The advocates for the present system of navigation-
laws, before they can call upon the public to consent
to a continuance of the exclusive privileges that en-
tail such extraordinary expenses upon the general
body of consumers, and operate as such grievous re-
strictions upon the legitimate extension and full
development of our commerce and our manufactures,
must clearly and unequivocally establish that the
shipowners, the parties for whose supposed advantage
the obnoxious provisions have been enforced, are
really benefited thereby ; and, secondly, that there
exists some great national necessity for the
perpetuation of a system so manifestly inequitable,
and that if the stringent enactments and regulations
were relaxed to any considerable extent, it would
prove fatal to the maritime superiority so dear to the
heart of every Englishman, and so essential to the
maintenance of the national safety and the national
honour, no slight or fancied benefits would be suf-
ficient. The simple question is, will the commercial
marine of the country be sacrificed, if the vessels of
other nations are permitted to enter into a fair com-
petition in the European carrying trade, the long
voyage trade, and the colonial trade, in all of which
it has heretofore enjoyed a practical monopoly ? To
that extent it must be carried, and nothing less would
justify the taxation of the many for the personal
advantage of the few.
Now, in the very first instance, we must be per-
mitted to doubt whetherb any actual benefit accrues to
the shipping interests from these exclusive privileges.
It is true that, in some instances, they may demand, and
possibly may receive,: higher freights, in consequence
of Rot being expilled to the competition that would
otherwise exist. But the result of these exorbitant
freights is to slasken trade, and to prevent the con-
stant and remunerating employment which they would
otherwise obtain. Produce will not be raised when
the whole profit may be taken from the grower, by
the extravagant demands of the shipowner. A fair
and reasonable facility must be afforded of sending
it at a moderate cost for carriage to the market, in
which it is ultimately to be disposed of, to encourage
the original producer. If that is withheld he will
become careless and indifferent, or perhaps wholly
withdraw from the effort, and in any event there
will be a smaller quantity to be carried, and that at a
much higher cost originally.
A rather homely comparison may illustrate this
argument. Would it be beneficial to the omnibus
proprietors of the metropolis to enact that
no person should be carried from Charing-cross,
or from any of the suburban villages, to the Bank at
less than five shillings per head. Each omnibus that
was filled would certainly pay very much better
than those which conveyed passengers at the present
moderate fares; but how few would be contented to
pay such extravagant rates ? Merchants, tradesmen,
and clerks, would live in the immediate vicinities of
their respective places of business in place of having
their families residing in pure and wholesome air. It
is the cheapness of the journey that induces them to
make it, otherwise they would relinquish it altogether
or walk, notwithstanding the loss of time and fatigue
they would thereby suffer. The same result would
ensue if a monopoly was given to a single company
with the privilege of fixing their fares at any rate
they thought proper. Unless the directors and ma-
nagers were intelligent and clear-headed men, they
would charge so highly as to reduce the traffic. Per-
haps, eventually, the proprietors obtain
rvtasienbeed returns,yttebrhavig
n
and the public are certainly better
the entire traffic thrown open to general competition,
iins
iwn
gh ifch fair
re vaenrdy t hi n g find
moderate s
pi
rt s level—the
o fits,
a
the
nd - r
passengerse
being carried at reasonable rates.
It must also be borne in mind that our shipping
itself suffers from the regulations established by other
countries in consequence of the example we have
afforded. If England has her navigation-laws, so has
America, so has Germany, and, indeed, almost every
other maritime country that could be named. If we
abolish our code, and admit the vessels of the United
States to our ports, they will adopt an equally
liberal policy. The Right Honourable Gentleman
the Member for Manchester, in the course of his
powerful speech last night, clearly pointed out the in-
jurious effects of the combined influence of the English
and American navigation-laws on English shipping,
almost the whole of the carrying trade between Eng-
land and America being in consequence thereof given