The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

A clause has been introduced by Mr. Poulett
Thomson in the Customs Bill, for the purpose of en-
abling the Treasury to grant to important inland towns
the privileges of establishing warehouses for bonding
goods—a power already exercised with regard to ports.
... Of the justice,- as well as the policy, of such a measure,
it might have been supposed that no doubt could be
entertained. Why Manchester, and Birmingham,
and Leeds, and Sheffield, should not enjoy the benefit
of becoming entrepots to the consumption of their re-
spective neighbourhoods, it is difficult to guess. If
the revenue be secured from risk of loss, and the ex-
pense of fresh establishments of offices be not exces-
sive, then surely there can be no justice in withholding
• from a great town, however it happens to be thirty or
forty miles from the sea, the advantages which may
be conferred without dispute upon every fishing village ;
nor any policy in depriving it, as well as the large circle of
which it may be the centre, of a share in those benefits
which have resulted to the ports of this country
• from the bonding system, so far as this has hitherto
prevailed. In the clauses introduced by Mr. Poulett
Thomson both of these possible objections are com-
pletely removed. The revenue will be secured from
any risk of loss, however remote, because the goods
will be transmitted to the inland bonding warehouses
under surety that the duty payable upon the quantities
or weight so sent shall be eventually paid ; and the
expense of establishments, which, we understand, is
in no case estimated to exceed 7001. or 800/., must be
guaranteed to the Customs previously to the town
being sanctioned by the Treasury as a place of deposit.
It might have been supposed, therefore, that no ob-
jection could have been made in any quarter to an ar-
rangement calculated so much to promote the ends
both of justice and sound policy, and least of all
should we have anticipated opposition from those who
profess themselves to be the warm advocates of com-
mercial liberty. It is with no little surprise, then, that
we have found amongst the opponents of this mea-
sure Mr. Joseph Hume. That Liverpool, and
Hull, and the London Docks should, through
their Representatives, endeavour to prevent a
general benefit for the sake of their own mono-
polies, is not a matter of astonishment, although,
as was well observed by Mr. Cayley, in a late morn-
ing sitting—such of those gentlemen even as have
hitherto professed themselves friends of free trade,
might have been wiser than have thus sacrificed their
_ principles at the shrine of their warehouse-keeping
supporters ; but that Mr. Hume should have joined
in the cry for monopoly is, indeed, a little astounding.
We should not have thought that the influence of the
few Middlesex voters who have taken fright for the
value of their shares in the docks would have been suf-
ficient to have made this black white in the eyes of
their calculating representative. For the sake of the
public, we trust that the efforts of these monopolists
will not succeed—that the measure will be persevered
in during this Session of Parliament. It has been
long promised, and the great towns are anxiously ex-
pecting it. Whatever tends to facilitate commercial
transactions, whkever gives the. means of extending
business without additional expense of capital, is bene-
ficial in the highest degree to the community ; and we
view this measure as calculated to produce important
results in both of these views. We repeat, that we
hope the measure will be persevered in, and we have
no fears of the result of any division in the House
which may range the friends of monopoly against the
friends of a liberal commercial policy.—Morn. Chron.
The number of letters which we continue to receive
on the subject of the flogging operation in St. George's
Barracks is a proof how deeply it has sunk into the
public mind. Though we are quite aware that the
practice of flogging in the Army has its advocates,
both in the Army and in the Press of this country,
and though we at once admit the importance of the
statement made by Mr. Ellice, in the conversation
which took place in the House of Commons on Mon-
day night, as to the great increase of crime amongst
the soldiery, still we are confident that any inquiry,
conducted fairly and without prejudice, must tend to
the abolition of torture as a mode of punishment, and
the substitution of some other in its place. We shall
be told, no doubt, as we have been often told before,
that it betrays an affectation, nay, a sickliness of sen-
timent, to exclaim against the practice of whipping
men like brutes. But whatever censure may, in the
estimation •of some persons, attach to our opinions
and feelings in this respect, it is a censure which
the great mass of society is equally exposed to ;
for, as the Secretary at War will himself admit, " the
spirit of the age" and the schoohnaster's perambula-
tions are at variance with the cat-o'-nine-tails. There-
fore, we say, inquire by all means whether lEngland be
the only country, and Englishmen the only soldiers, in
which and amongst whom discipline cannot be pre-
served except by means which outrage the feelings of
the community and degrade the character of man.
With respect to the particular case, the circumstances
. of which have produced so deep an impression, we
shall only observe that the statement of 'Mr. Tennyson
corroborated the account of our Correspondent in its
principal details, and that we hope the admission of the
Secretary at War as to the conduct which the Com-
manding Officer ought to have pursued on observing
the effects of the punishment upon the bystanders, will
be felt as it ought to be in the proper quarter. With-
out attempting at all to palliate the offences for which
the unfortunate man suffered, it does strike us as rather
extraordinary that the largest measure of punishment
should be assigned to him, as many in number, and
as severe in application, as even Military law allows.
Let us hope, however, that the prospect which seems
again to open on us of improvement will not be frus-
trated as when Sir John Hobhouse was Secretary at
War ; in which capacity, instead of correcting errors,
he took the tone from his predecessors in office, and
became the apologist of the system he had so often
denounced.—Morning Herald.
The scheme of Australian colonization has made
its way into the House of Commons, and in favour of
it a Bill has been already drawn up, and stands for a
second reading to-night. There is no reason that we
can perceive, why any number of persons who think
proper, should not agree upon a plan of emigration to
Australia or to any other part of the world. But there
• are some reasons why such people should not on in-
sufficient data be suffered to enlist the authority of
the State in support of their particular' project, and
under the imposing recommendation of an Act ofPar-
liament or Charter, to seduce a large proportion of
British subjects into measures, which, if left to any
chance of adoption which might arise out of the na-
tural and intrinsic merit of the scheme proposed, un-
aided by such adventitious influence, would never for
a moment be thought of by any reasonable man. We
have already shown that it was our wish to discounte-
nance the boastful and inflated language in which the
advocates of the " Southern Australian Colony,"
have spoken of its " certain advantages" as su-
perior to those offered by any existing colony.
It appeared to us, that a string of abstract
propositions, each—for ought :we know—sound in
itself, presented no solid security to the pub-
lic that any one of them would be so acted on
by the new company as to realize the fruits and profits
of which it was declared on paper or in speeches to
be the necessary source. It appeared to us. that any
new "joint-stock company" ought, in common modesty
and decency, to bring forward some grounds of confi-
. dence in the discretion, the honesty, the efficiency of
its members, after all the disgraceful and ruinous cala-
mities of which joint-stock transactions had been pro-
ductive within the memory of the youngest man
amongst us. But then we are told, by thecsecrpeatnar;,
(Mr. Gouger) that there was no joint-stock oin
nor any " company " at all. Then who and 'what, in
the name of wonder, are they? A set of men put forth
their names as directors, secretaries, and the Lord knows
what ; they talk of their intending to accomplish ex-
traordinary objects, and to proceed by extraordinary
means, and to take vast trouble, and even, if they mean
anything consistent or intelligible, to incur no small re-
sponsibility. And yet when we talk oftheir being a Com-
pany, they turn short round upon us, and protest that
they are " no company," and that no one individual of
their whole body is to be a particle the better (save only
,eCt to the consciousness of doing good) for all his
drial and most laborious exertions. Why, we never
.
eard of patriotism so refined as this—we never before
!7-"f

1 44,1„,,,i;

c".

.