The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The motion of Mr. Young in the House of Com-
mons on Thursday, to repeal "theßeciprocity Act,"
or to annul that law which permits his Majesty's
Government to form treaties of navigation and in-
tercourse with foreign powers on equal or reciprocal
terms, was neither supported nor opposed in such a
novel manner, or on such fresh grounds, as would
warrant or justify on our part a renewed discussion
on such an exhausted subject. Though we readily
give Mr. Young credit for his ability, his perse-
verance, and activity in the cause of the shipowners,
we cannot allow that he has advanced any new
argument ; and the answer given by Mr. Poulett
Thomson last year would, with very slight changes,
have done equally well for the present. There
probably never was any question in which those
whose understandings are not blinded by personal in-
terest had less excuse for persisting in error. It has
no connexion whatever with the greater or smaller
amount of our national debt—with the more or less
oppressive weight of our fiscal burdens—with the
expenses of our ship-building or the cost of manning
our commercial navy. It would certainly be better
if we had never incurred any debt at all—if our
taxes were reduced to a lower scale—and if we could
construct and man our ships with a smaller expen-
diture of money ; but neither the maintenance of
our present domestic policy, nor its change, could
affect our reciprocal relations with other states.
Do those persons who clamour against our recipro-
city treaties really reflect upon what their language
means ? Our seven or eight treaties with our com-
mercial allies, founded on this Principle, only sti-
pulate (by the very meaning of the terms) that
their shipping shall have the same advantages
(neither more nor less) in our ports that
our shipping enjoys in theirs. And would they be
satisfied with less ? If we had continued our dis-
criminating duties in favour of our own shipping, did
not they threaten to impose similar duties on ours,
in favour of their own ? If we were to-morrow to
annul our conventions, and reimpose such duties,
would they not follow our example? And who in
such a case would be the greatest sufferers ? Why,
unquestionably, the nation which had the greatest
number of ships liable to such imposts, and exposed
to such vexations. Those who argue this question
against the commercial policy of the three last go-
vernments forget entirely that the change, however
desirable for the extension of our trade, was not
of their voluntary seeking. The North Americans,
immediately after the peace, insisted upon equal
terms of communication (in other words on
" reciprocity") or non-intercourse. They made
good their point, and we were obliged to yield to
the justice of their demand. Is any anti-reciprocity
man now so insane as to dream of proposing dis-
criminating duties against the shipping of the United
States ? No ! They are too powerful and too
well acquainted with their own interests to permit
such a tl.ought without retaliation. Prussia, think-
ing that she perceived an advantage in the terms on
which we traded with America, insisted upon a
similar reciprocal arrangement. Could we refuse
to an old ally in Europe what we had conceded to
a great commercial rival west of the Atlantic ?
Would not, in the first place, such a refusal have
been deemed an act of oppression inflicted on un-
resisting weakness, to revenge ourselves for the
successful emancipation of the strong from our
grasp ? And would it not, in the second place,
have been entirely nugatory? Prussia or Den-
mark, or any of the smaller states in the
north of Europe, though they cannot com-
bat our fleets, may refuse the admission of our
goods into their ports except on their own condi-
tions ; and, though they can carry on no maritime
war, may carry on a war of custom-houses. The
game of " discriminating duties" can thus be played
b two States as well as one, however powerful that
one may be, and however weak its antagonist. This
is an important consideration, which the enemies of
reciprocity seem entirely to have overlooked; while,
with an almost inconceivable inconsistency, they com-
plain that Spain acts towards Great Britain as the)
require Great Britain to act towards Prussia and
the other parties to our reciprocity system in the
north of Europe. It is needless, therefore, to com-
plain that our shipping since 1823 or 1824
has diminished as compared with that of
our allies, who enjoy the benefits of " reci-
procity." There is great reason for doubting some
of the facts on which even this limited conclusion
is founded ; but though they were true to their full
extent, how could we have prevented the result ?
It is worse than idle to compare the rate at which
foreigners can navigate their vessels, with the ex-
penses which our navigation incurs, unless we could
pass a law extending to foreign ports prohibitive of
their sailing except on our own conditions. In fact,
we regard the whole pending dispute to be like
Gray's " long passages, which end in nothing," un-
less the complaints of the shipowners were directed
to the practical object of reducing the tax upon
foreign timber, upon foreign corn, and upon other
articles, the high price of which affects ship-buile-
ing and navigation. The tax on hemp has been
already abolished ; let that on timber and corn fol-
low, and we shall then be enabled to defy foreign
competition in our own ports, or in foreign ports,
without interfering with our existing " reciprocity"
troaties.—Times.
We have no doubt as to the success of Mr.
Spring Rice at Cambridge ; but few people can
have an idea of the nature and extent of the in-
fluence which is brought to bear against him. The
university have taken up the interests of Sir
Edward Sugden warmly, and they have the power
of punishing the inhabitants who vote for Mr.
Spring Rice in various ways. We shall endeavour
to give our readers some idea• of the means and
methods by which influence may be exerted upon
inhabitant householders and tradesmen in Cam-
bridge. It is well known to all who have ever been
at Cambridge, that many of the students of the
university reside in lodgings during term time. The
Vice-Chancellor licenses all lodging-houses, and
without a license no householder can admit a student
of the university to occupy his lodgings. If, then, it
should be the pleasure of the Vice-Chancellor not
to grant any license, or to withdraw it from an in-
habitant householder, the said householder has no
remedy—he must submit to the injustice. Some
inhabitant householders, who are not tradesmen,
take houses for the sole purpose of letting different
sets of lodgings. They agree to pay large annual
rents, in the expectation of being able to reimburse
themselves fully by means of teir lodgers ;—but
how if the Vice-Chancellor should think proper not
to license their houses ? The Vice-Chancellor has
the same power in regard to taverns and public-
houses. If a tradesman should let lodgings—say a
hosier or a shoemaker, &c.—the Vice-Chancellor
may equally prevent him from letting lodgings to
students, and from selling his goods to students,
on grounds of which he and the Proctors and Heads
of Houses are the only judges (a majority of them
is sufficient) ; he may discomnton the offending
tradesmen, that is to say, may inflict the sentence of
'rustication or expulsion on the student who dares
.to miter the shop, and purchase goods, or employ
the said tradesman ; so far the Vice-Chancellor, in
hi; capacity as head of the University. But
in their respective colleges, each master of a college
is equally powerful in regard to refusing permission
to the students of his college to lodge in any house,
the owner of which ma.d have fallen under the mas-
ter's displeasure. The same holds good in regard
to buying of, or employing any, particular trades-
man ; and the master appoints the college servants
(all of whom have residences in the town), and can
dismiss them at his own pleasure. Such also, as far
as regards lodging-houses and tradesmen, is virtu-
ally the power of any college tutor, for he may re-
fuse to become responsible, or, in the college
phrase, to take in the bills of any tradesmen ; who,
of of ,F.Ania l t expose themselves to the risk of
O+
IT avin-ilie 'is paid by the young men ilimthem-
selves, and, Wei. or , will not venture to offend a
i.
tutor by non-com e ance with any wish he may ex-
press. The power itself, no doubt, is good and proper,
IN Len applied to Is* and proper purposes, but is

OZ