The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

tirnins SAM

LONDON, TUESDAY. MAY 12, 1846.

As we yesterday conjectured the debate upon the Corn Im-
portation Bill was adjourned last night with the general ac-
quiescence of the Commons. This additional postponement
was very naturally to te anticipated for reasons which we
have already particularised—any further delay of the settle-
ment of this measure will now, however, be more than vexa-
tious, it will be tampering to an unjustifiable extent with
the whole commercial relations of the empire. Such a de-
claration as this originates in no factious anxiety to
precipitate a victory which at this present moment is
virtually achieved; it is based upon the unanimous consent
of society, upon the hesitation visible during this session in
almost every quarter of the country, upon the anxiety of
every member of the population, whether manufacturer or
agriculturist. It was from being fully impressed with this
conviction that the Home Secretary prefaced his elaborate
wid conclusive speech yesterday evening by expressing his
disinclination to occupy the attention of the House, because
it was "evidently weary of this protracted discussion !" Never-
theless, harassed as the representatives must undoubtedly
be with so much " lengthened sweetness long drawn-
out,"—but, especially, the true representatives of the people,
the supporters of the Government policy, we rest assured
that their patriotic feelings are too ardent to permit of their
becoming lethargic at a juncture so propitious to the future
prosperity of their fellow-countrymen. They are sufficiently
imbued with a repugnance for those enactments which are on
the eve of being expunged from the statute-book, they are in-
spired with sentiments sufficiently exultant at the approaching
emancipation of commerce, to merge every feeling of
exhaustion at the balderdash uttered night after night by
the delinquents below the gangway into one paramount
sense of satisfaction at participating in a triumph so bene-
ficent With these ideas we feel satisfied every Parlia-
mentary advocate for free trade is actuated ; the
vicinity of those boons for the acquisition of
which they have yearned so hopefully and laboured
go .valiantly during so much untoward opposition,
is surely an adequate preventative of anything like marks of
fatigue. The greater the difficulties, the nobler the consum-
mation—the more numerous the obstacles, the more agreeable
the achievement. There is an axiom in warfare which de-
clares that whenever cruelty is displayed by the conqueror
towards the vanquished troops it is a sure sign that
the losing party were at some period of the
struggle near being the winners. The converse of this

is a proposition, we take it, equally undeniable. And ob-
serving that, throughout the time which this debate has
occupied, the Protectionists have been uniformly treated
with the most lenient placidity, that their garrulity
has been generously permitted to die away of itself, and
that their very acidulated personalities have been re-
torted sometimes by silence, sometimes by a remon-
strance, but never by a •" counter-blast " of personality,
it is clear that the Free-traders felt their superiority

from the first moment ; and evincing this knowledge of their
superiority at the commencement, it is assuredly not sur-
prising that they should evidence a great confidence
as to the result immediately anterior to its eluci-
dation. Hence it was Sir JAMES GRAHAM declared over-
night, "I have a very strong opinion that the measure
under consideration will in a very short time become
the law of the land." Nor is the fact less mani-
fest, that the country party have been heaping burning
embers upon their own heads by their most illusory and
pernicious system of procrastination. Instead of having to
compete with bushels, the farmers will new, in all likelihood,
have to compete wild' whole granaries directly the proposed
Acts come into operation ; and for this agreeable difficulty
their gratitude is solely due to their pseudo- friends in
Parliament. From the delays which these meddling po-
liticians have caused in the progression of the Corn and
Customs' Bill through the Lower House the bonded wheat
from foreign countries, which has been accummulating in
our seaports in expectation of the reduction of duties, amounts
to the enormous quantity offiffeenhundred thousand quarters!
Against this and (as the Home Secretary judiciously
observed) against the next harvest the unfortunate
pets of the protectionist will have to enter the
market—the competition, of course, producing a tem-
porary but most embarrassing diminution of price.
This fact, which was last night ably insisted upon by Sir
JAMES GnairAm, is merely an application of the arguments
contained in Mr. COBDEN'S letter to the Tenant-Farmers of
Great Britain, deducing from a delay of months what
he deduces from a delay of years, an applica-
tion of those deductions to Augut or September,
which the Honourable Member for Stockport applies
to 1839. The Secretary for the Home Department adduces
"an enlarged experience," as the primary cause of his con-
version, from the very obsolete credence in the efficacy and
excellence of a protective policy, and a more eligible or ac-
ceptable reason for such a conversion could not
possibly have been advanced. If, in like manner, the Pro-
tectionists could persist in giving themselves such severe
lessons of experience by moving fresh adjournments upon
the question, they,would before long delay themselves into free-
traders. As a specimen of the preposterous style of logic with
which these gentlemen have been endeavouring to bolster up
their very dilapidated system, we may mention an argu-
ment which was dragged into the discussion by
Mr. MILES, the honest, blundering Member for
Somerset. This sagacious legislator actually pro-
pounded, as proofs of the necessity of protection to agri-
culture, that wheat is cultivated in Virginia for a hun-
dred successive years without the application of manure;
and again, that there is in Russia an annual accumulation
of 28,000,000 quarters of corn over and above their home
consumption. Never were facts more untbrtunately
produced by a protectionist reresentative ; in pro-
nouncing them Mr. MILES actually shuttlecocked over
to Sir JAMES GRAHAM a most crushing argument against
himself. Why, as that Right Hon. Baronet justly inferred,
"if those statements were true—if Russia had 28,000,00 of
grain ready at all times for exportation ; and if in America
they grow wheat for a century without manure, every attempt
' to protect this country, every attempt to guard this country,
must be worse than useless." A patient analysis—of which,
however, they are almost invariably unworthy—would as
plainly demonstrate the inefficiency of the thousand similar
pieces of absurdity uttered by the followers of the Noble
Member for Lynn. Saving that it would exceed the etiquette
of the House, and be of an unparliamentary character, the
opposers of this vast measure would long since have
been dispatched to Coventry—so wonderfully old-fashioned
and conventional are all their most cherished opinions. As it
is, they have nearly "strutted their little hour upon the
stage," and those Members who, according to Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, never until the present session
gave the agricultural interest the "advantage of
their eloquence," will be reduced to the necessity of subsid-
ing into their original obscurity as legislators. For this—
though by their departure we lose the cause of considerable
merriment—we rejoice. Assured, however, as is the triumph
of the free-trade principles upon the division at the third
reading, let every individual lover of those princi-
ples render the majority still more triumphant, than
upon the two preceding occasions, by his attendance.
Let every supporter of the proposed policy, as he loves his
kind, as he wishes well to humanity, as he is desirous for
the prosperity of his country, and as he is ambitious of the
tsiutmlepotf a
ion Philanthropic
t,.,aulegislator,enro enrol his
ndaimnehuips pon lace at
majority
inenr.
te;
list. A new and peaceful era is to be commenced • let
him
partake in a glory so bloodless and so imperishable! '

A leading Paris journal, universally admitted to be under
the influence of M. TIIIERS, and to represent faithfully his
political opinions, occasionally puts furth leading articles of
such a trifling, contemptible, and juvenile character, that
not one reader in a hundred could believe for a moment
that they were the production of the great statesman and
historian that once presided over the destinies of France, and
is generally regarded as the successor of the present able
Minister, when accident, or royal caprice, or some great
national question may cause his resignation. One of that
description has just appeared in the Constitutionod, which,
though of the very lowest character, bears all the marks of
the author of the "Consulate and the Empire." R

exhibits his petty jealousies, his unconquerable re-
pugnance to England, and also a wilful departure
from truth, merely to serve A temporary purpose.
The British Cabinet, the writer asserts, beholds with a
jealous eye the protracted stay of Inrtamm PAcitit in
France, and has signified to the Cabinet of the Tuileries its
desire also to receive the son of MEitEstEr Au. The Prince
reluctantly consented to accept the invitation, though he did
so at the risk of injuring his health by the intemperate
climate of England. Then the grand object of the British
Cabinet is disclosed—namely, the settlement of the question
of transit across the Isthmus of Suez; and in reference to
this subject it is said England will use all the powers of se-
duction at its disposal to convert the PACIIA to its views.
" Thus (in order that M. GUIZOT may not escape) the tour
of IBRAHIM in Europo will have served more
the English than the French interests." This is
all in perfect keeping with most of the accounts
of sea battles given by TnIERS, in which he
takes every opportunity of lessening the merit of the English,
or concealing it altogether, and of attributing to them
motives of action so mean and unworthy of a great nation,
that the reader feels astonished how they could be imputed
to a respectable rival by a man professing t', write impartial
history. Everything English that M. THIERS touches he
tries to damage. England can do nothing good from honour-
able motives. She has always some selfish interests to in-
dulge, and, above all,
512 e, takes care to we every opportunity,

while she pursues her own schemes, to inflict some injury
on France. That malevolent feeling is well represented
in the paragraph respecting the PAC A'S visit to the
British Court. Her MAJESTY and her Ministers do not invite
the son of MEHEMET ALI to England for • his own sake,
or out of respect to the high qualities of his illustrious father,
or as some return for his impartial and generous conduct to-
wards English merchants, and indeed Englishmen generally,
during the Syrian expedition, but solely to serve its own
purposes and drive a bargain with his successor for the free
passage of British troops through Egypt. And not satisfied
with stating that the attempt will be nixie, M. THIERS con-
cludes that it will be successful, that France will lose all the
expected advantages from the visit of a Prince which the
ex-Minister took under his especial protection, and
that jealous England will snatch the prize from
her hands. It is hardly necessary to say that
England neither has nor can have any such motives.
Our gracious QUEEN only gives another proof of her
wish to live on the best terms with other Sovereigns, and
with that view pays the usual compliment of invitation to
the son of one of the most remarkable men of the age. Her
Ministers know that the question of transit cannot be set-
tled by IBRAHIM P.tcyrn—that any attempt of the kind would
excite unfavourable feelings towards England on the part of
the present ruler, who will both reign and govern to the
last—that the health of IBRAHIM PACHA is of the most un-
certain tenure—that it is doubtful if he can survive his
father—and that new arrangements, as at Lahore, may
be necessary, when the band that reared the Egyptian
sovereignty, and has kept it so long together, shall have
become cold and helpless. And, besides, we are not cer-
tain that it is for the interest of England and her Indian
possessions that a passage for troops of all nations,
through the Isthmus, should be conceded. The expense
incurred by sending troops to India by sea may be more than
counter-balanced by rendering India liable to the sudden in-
vasion of European troops by the way of Suez and the Red
Sea. After all, why is the scheme opposed by the ex-
Minister? Solely because he believes England is bent upon
it. France could not in any way suffer by the concession ;
some slight return, too, might be made to England for throw-
ing open the China trade and conferringa great benefit on our
neighbours, but M. THIERS has no sympathy of that kind,
and should it be the misfortune of this country to see him
again restored to power, she must expect neither favours nor
fair play at his hands.

The striking characteristic of the British nation is the
perfect freedom of discussion enjoyed by our Legislature,
our public meetings, and by the press, of fully and fairly
commenting upon all matters of general interest which may
from day to day arise. It is to this freedom that we owe
the abolition of abuses which long were suffered to
exist, and which affixed a stain on our Constitution,
To this we owe the existence of civil and religious
liberty throughout the British dominions, the abolition of
rotten boroughs,and the rendering the popular branch of our
Legislature what it professed to be—a fair representation of
the people. To this we owe the adoption of the principles of
free trade, the prostration of monopoly, and the admission of
cheap food for the people. None of those great results were
obtained without many years of anxious discussion, of a
prolonged, and apparently hopeles, contest. At first
a small, but zealous body, brought forward the
abuse, stated it fairly and simply, urged its
injustice, and called for its reformation. In almost every in-
stance their suggestions were received with contumely and
their proposals rejected by large numerical majorities. But,
though defeated for the moment, they were not dismayed.
Again and again they invited discussion, secured a debate;
the force of public opinion was enlisted in the
struggle, the minority increased, became a mighty
and formidable phalanx; that which at first
was feebly whispered, was now thundered within
the walls of St. Stephen's till at length truth and justice pre-
vailed, and bigotry, corruption, monopoly, were swept
away in the overwhelming torrent, and such we have no
doubt will be the result of the exposure made by Mr.
WATSON, on Thursday evening, in bringing forward his mo-
tion for a Select Committee " to inquire into the nature and
extent of the taxation of suitors by the collection of fees in
the courts of law and equity, and the application of such
fees, and the compensations paid to retired officers of those
courts, and into the propriety of the continuance thereof;
and particularly to inquire into the orders for compensation
made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons filling the office
of clerk of the enrolments, comptrollers of hanaper, riding
clerks, six clerks, sworn clerks, waiting clerks, and others,
under the, Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 103, and to inquire into the
nature, duties, and emoluments of those officers before the
passing of that Act, and their right to compensation during
life and for seven years after the death of such persons."
Indeed we have the assurance of the great benefit conferred
on the public by the discussion in the speeches made by the
Home Secretary and the Right Honourable Baronet at the
head of the Government.
The former Honourable Gentleman stated, "that if the mo-
tion had been confined to the introductory part of the motion
before the House, namely, for an inqury into the nature and
extent of the taxation of suitors, by the collection of fees in
the courts of law and equity, he would have had no objection
to the motion, because he considered that an inquiry of that
nature might be attended with beneficial results," and rested
his opposition chiefly on the fact that Mr. Huang had, in the
course of the debate, designated the transaction in reference
to which the inquiry was moved for as " the job of obs,'
and that the conduct of the Lord Chancellor might be incul-
pated. Surely this will not be received as a sufficient excuse for
the suppression of the inquiry. He admits that it may be at-
tended with beneficial results and yet he totes against it—on
what principle can this inconsistency be justified? If the
conduct of the Noble and Learned Lord was pure and irre-
proachable, as it was asserted to be, what could he have to
fear from investigation? Why should his friends be anxious
to smother inquiry—to avoid publicity? On the contrary, it
would alone be a sufficient reason for acceding to the proposi-
tion. It is impossible after this that Sir JAMES GRAMAM
can continue his opposition to the inquiry from which so
much good must result. But the speech of Sir R. PEEL
contains a far more gratifying announcement. Nothing more
able, more powerful. could have been urged in support of
Mr. WATSON. The Right Hon. Baronet, with all the force
and eloquence so peculiarly his own, says—
" But let us put an end to the sale of these offices in future;
and let us also ensure a periodical inquiry into the fees
received by every person, in order that when their
amounts reach an extravagant sum, they may be reduced-
In some years they. were of great magnitude—as in
this present year, for instance, by a pressure of business, the
amount of fees taken may be exceedinglylarge. Reduce them;
but, at the same time, keep them sufficiently high to remu-
nerate men of talent. Let us provide for this inquiry. So
much for the future. I think it a scandal to the courts of
justice of this country, that this House has abolished sine-
cures, but that we have sealed our eyes to the legalised con-
tinuance of these fees, collected in extravagant sums from
suitors, because we have had no public clamour for their
abrogation. If those sums had been received by a Minister
of the Government, or by any one of the clerks of this House,
who sit at the table, they would have been taken away; but
you have allowed these things to continue, while you have,
as I said before, abolished sinecures."
And concludes by assuring the House, " that as far as legis-
lating for the future on the subject, the reformation of these
abuses should have the cordial support of the Government."
Were there no other result of the motion than these ad.
missions and pron.ises, Mr. WATSON may well be proud of
the service he has rendered to his country. But we will hope
that perseverance on his part will at length be rewarded
to the fullest extent. It is not to be conceived that a Bill
smuggled through the House of Commons, of the guardians
of the public purse, almost sub silentio, which passed through
all its stages in one short week, should be considered so bind-
ing in its nature, so efficacious in its operation, that no re-
medy can now be obtained. Its injustice may be admitted,
the com pensation thereby awarded may be so enormous as to be
almost incredible; sinecurists may receive sums for subordi-
nate offices, requiring no knowledge, skill, or education, ex-
ceeding in amount the salaries of the learned and laborious
judges who preside in those very courts; and shall it be sail,
that when this crying grievance is expo3ed, its enormity

made manifest, the public indignation aroused, that
this hurried legislation was final, and that it
cannot now be altered or amended? Certainly not.
Under any circumstances the taxation of the suitors of the
courts would be unjust and iniquitous. Why should the
Legislature tolerate a system so abominable, why should any
person, because his fortune or character is made the object of
attack, be thereby made the object of special taxation ?
Will he not suffer enough in the payment of the large fees
necessary for his professional advisers? Is there not anxiety
and expense enough attendant on the unfortunate liti-
gant, without his having to pay those enormous
fees, without bearing the whole expense of the judicial staff
of the country, nay, further, of the harpies, the drones, who,
without rendering any service themselves, are contented to
dip their hands into his pocket, and receive ruinous salaries
for doing nothing? These things cannot be suffered to con.
tinue—there must be a remedy, and a speedy one, afforded.
It is ridiculous to say that their abolition would increase
litigation ; such could not be the case on the part of the
defendants, for they are brought into court without
their own consent. No matter whether the expense
be great or small, they must encounter it; no option
is afforded them; and in the case of a plaintiff, the
only person who can be thereby deterred is the poor man,
who, although his case may be equitable, may be unable to
obtain justice, from the enormous expense attendant on the
progress of his claims, and the delays which may be thrown
in his way by the skilful wiles of a wealthy antagonist. Is
this desirable? should the system te continued for such an
object? We think not; and we doubt not that the public
will be of a similar opinion.
Is it because there has been a long continuance in this
shameful waste of the public funds that the proceeding should
be tolerated and allowed to remain? We think the gentle-
men may be well satisfied with impunity for
offences, in being permitted to retain
evreevelpri in principle of
spoilsjust ice,
of they
the
pubic, ttlilteeilrargpeasstums heretofore received by them, without being
compelled to disgorge their plunder. Is it because, by the
a
have
et
been
permitted
sol perversionon g
of every
to
olt
iht
isotnt hoefvthsahtoupldow ? As well might the light-
nois receive an enormous sum for
the :b
-Engered gentleman, who made a handsome livelihood from
h eimprovedisn
system of police, and call for compensation
t of his pleawg peccadilloes;
longer indulged in the enjoyment the pockets of his neighbours,
imenigslaltiaognaibnesetsaunse
h should it be ex-
ersonal
tended for seven years beyond his life, to p
but even supposing there was any ground for granting such
a payment to the sinecurist himself,