The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 7, 1844

and convenience;--from this want have resulted the

countless annoyances and injury to property of all
kinds, that have not merely carried Colonel SIETHORP
to (that remarkably short stage) his " wit's end,"
but have even driven " wise men mad." Lines have
been selected, in some cases, by incompetent engineers,
in others by interested speculators, which Parliament_
has sanctioned with all that "levity" of which Sir R.
PEEL spoke last night in a tone of corresponding indif-
ference. Under that sanction, cuttings of unnecessary
labour and difficulty, danger and expense, have been I
encountered, when a little more of previous inquiry
and precaution would have carried the same under-
taking through an easier, and in all respects more
economically worked line of country. Private pro-
perty has been invaded; favourite retreats for pleasure
or for health desecrated; carefully superintended
and costly improvements levelled, rased, destroyed;
beautiful vistas closed up; easy and valuable roads
to markets, churches, &c., cut off; arable and
pasture cut up or cut through ; valleys filled in;
mountains tunnelled ; uplands brought to the
" line level ;" the landmarks, and with them
the pleasant associations of centuries, thrown
down ; and finally, the public high-roads diverted,
turned, twisted, broken, with water-courses more
or less ill altered, and worse constructed;—all these
changes in, and encroachments on, the former status
and
cases, especiallytss,
not
wantonly,o fpr property, have
bofeepnuibnlictoo, many
but needlessly,
`and in absolute error, made and committed and per-
petrated under the authority of Acts of Parliament,
which never could have passed had there, in the first
place, existed such an organised and well-digested
scheme of communication as we speak of. The
ancient sage who concentrated the experience and
reflection of his whole life in the profound
counsel, " begin nothing of which thou hest not well
considered the end," must have surely possessed a
second sight vision of the railways, which were " yet
Air_ to come," in the dist9kages and remote genera-
tions of an unborn posterity. All these undertakings
among us have been isolated, uncombined, untested,
but gigantic efforts. The ruinous destruction in
excess,—excess to an extent which more forecast and
-better matured plans of reciprocating and permanent
railroad intercommunications might have obviated,
has been gigantic also. We do not mean that such
a revolution in our social and domestic economy
could have been accomplished under any circum-
stances, Without vast prejudice to private property.
But as these affairs have been managed, in a thousand
instances, the victims of the ill-digested plans of re-
morseless speculators have discovered that the axiom
" there can be no public wrong without its legal re-
medy" is moonshine.

Entertaining these views ourselves, we have been
disappointed at finding that the specifications of Mr.
GLADS rorTE's plan of railway reform regard, appa-
rently, Such mere details as the reduction of the pre-
sent proportion
.of paid-up capital (10 per cent.) to
entitle the parties to a Bill :—the modes of construct-
ing the main ways and level crossings, the regulations
necessary to meet the tendency of small lines to
amalgamate into larger ones, and to repress the ori-
gination 'of competing lines. We agree with Mr.
ROEBUCK, that the Government do not seem disposed
to take up the great question in hand on grounds
sufficiently large and national. They are too prone to
merge the main consideration of public utility and
convenience. As to competing lines, whilst we think
Mr. GLADSTONE'S tone one of too decided discourage-
ment, as they are useful checks on growing monopo-
lies, we cannot adopt the extreme opinion of
advocating them to the extent desired by Mr.
ROEBUCK. This would tempt to and involve
further enormous sacrifices of private capital.
With Mr. WALLACE we concur in reprobating
the studied disregard which the great com-
panies—or some of them—display in the non-accom-
modations for the poorer travellers in the third-class
trains; and we do not envy Mr. Woeriurr. the feel-
ing under which he has discovered that this commu-
nity of passengers have nothing to complain of (!!)
as to the cattle-cart like machines to which they are
remitted. But the pervading fault of the whole
debate, we repeat—and especially of the mean-
ingless, wordy, bald, and barren contribution of Sir
ROBERT PEEL on this all important question—
was the total absence of any large and statesmanlike
views of the whole bearing, scope, and tendencies of
the present system on which these marvellous com-
munications are laid down ; and this, at a period; too,
which his own Government characterises as a new
and eventful era in the history-of railroads.

The Protest of the Dukes of StissEx and GLOU-
CESTER, of Lords GRENVILLE, WELLESLEY, KING, and
several other Peers, against the passing of the Corn Bill
of 1815—which our readers will find in another part of
The
it
is
Sun—isa legislative document as important
as succinctly and skilfully drawn up. Not a word
is
:coet
has
n argument is beside the mark
its value. The Dissentients
—te
thharto
ewvne
raywa yn
begin by stating broadly the fact that they " are ad-
verse on principle to all new restraints on commerce,"
and then proceed to declare their opinion that the
Corn Bill is founded on a delusive theory, and will
never be productive of benefit to the community
at large. "We cannot peranade ourselves," they
observe, " that this law will ever contribute to
produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So
long as it operates at all, its effects must be the op-
posite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity,
of dearness, and uncertainty. To cut off any of the
sources of supply can only tend to lessen its abund-
ance; to close against ourselves the cheapest market
for any commodity must enhance the price at which
we purchase it ; and to confine the consumer of corn
to the produce of his own country, is to refuse to
ourselves the benefit of that provision which PROVI-
•DENCE itself has made for equalising, to man tbe-
variations of season and .climate." These
observations, which were mere prophecies at
the time they were made, are _ admitted facts
now ; but indeed the experience of the last
thirty years has abundantly demonstrated the pre-
scient sagacity of every individual opinion put forth
in the Protest. Had the sentiments of Lord GREN-
VILLE, who is said to have drawn up this able docu-
ment, been attended to, as they ought to have been,
the country would not, have known those commercial
fluctuations and panics, and seasons of severest de-
pression, with which it has from time to time been
visited since the close of
,the European war; trade,
being carried on on just and enlightened principles,
would have been comparatively steady and secure in
its operations, -without being consigned, as it is now in
a great degree, to the mercy of the chapter of accidents;
and the selfish, indolent Few would not have been bene-
fited to the manifest detriment of the industrious
Many. But the Monopolists prevailed in 1815, as
they have prevailed in the present, 1844 ; but we
have the consolation of knowing now—a consolation
which was wanting to us at the former period—that
the reign of this obstructive faction has long since
passed its meridian, and is setting westward. Never
again. can they exercise the moral and political influ-
ence which they once exercised; the question .of their
utter defeat, already fully settled in men's. minds,
is now merely a .matter of time ; and they may
cry out, with quite as much propriety as
the Psalmist, "Ichabod, Ichabod, the glory bath
departed from our house !" Despite their majority
in the House of Commons, it is clear that they are
filled with gloomy forebodings--those shadows of
" coming events"— and have less confidence than ever
in the steadiness and determination of that Minister
who is the only prop and stay that inexorable circum-
stances have left them. Even while he ranges
himself unequivocally on their side, the Mono-
polists distrust Sir R. PEEL, and would fain, if they
could, make a present of him- to the Anti-Corn-law
League. From his professions of good will they
shrink with well-grounded abhorrence,. and are
never more suspicious of treachery than when he is
most specious and friendly in bis declarations. Hear
Mr. ADEANE on this point. " The Premier certainly
did speak out," said this gentleman at the Cambridge
Anti-League meeting, " and I hope he will keep
his word. lie did speak out ; but the question
was, did he speak out, or was it they who had
spoken out ? Would he have spoken at all, had there
not been this stir among the agriculturists ? He had
learned his task during the holidays, and was now
repeating it in Parliament, but it was they who had
taught him his lesson." Mr. ADEANE is perfectly
right. Sir RonEwr PEEL has spoken out from the
pressure of no strong enlightened conviction on his
mind, but simply because he was ordered to speak
out by the Duke of RICHMOND and the rest of the
Monopolists. It was Hobson's : choice with him•