The Express.
London, England, 1863-06-05 00:00:00

TO 0011EBrNDINTS„

A. Anilhroft.—WehaveTforgrardedic7tr letter to the reporter
at the putice.court referred to.
aurartibuietaiii attended for " The Uproot" Leactoo Imedug
raper. meat be at the oak,. 10, beovestootreet. by Two
o'obook on the day of public:Woo.

Tin Evnurs, UNLITIL Y MORTAL Miss Harris.
—.ll/tRBB6 Mews. A. Wigan, Bowe. Bucks/one, Gordor,
and Barren; Mrs. A. Hipa. Mrs. Wilkloa. Mts. L. Angel, and
Miss 1. Mr/OA—And BUCK/STONE AT HOME.

PRIMMISIL

Wm Varna, PERilarPloN -7-001 TIP AND CAMP.
Mesas. 0. Vinum, Verner, H. Marston, Delman. Marra►,
and Warde; Moms Amy SadawSok, J. Laidlaw, and I.ydla
Thompson.—And A CHARMING PAIL

LYCZUIL

Teas Emma; A SUDffil;; rr Am. Kamm Shore and
Wlddicarcb lienrsde and Mn.a Lee.—And THE DUKE'S
MOTTO. Mown Yachter, Shore, Brougham. and Raymond :
Mamas C. Latium E. Terry, and Ilawortlty.

BRITANNIA.

TAW RPefDN, 1116 WIDOW AND ORPHANS.—FATTR,
ROM AND ell A ATTY. vrltti Professor Perver s adantatinn
Mr. Dinkel; SPICTRAL 11.1.171110/I.—AAA TUB ILALADZITA.

HIGH WATIA AT WIDOS BJUDeIt.
MD DAY —Doran& Di. 1144....A11keh0n5. 4h. 35434
TO44olloll—Marshig. M. 05.....1115m0rm. M. 25m.

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 5.

Tits promoters of Mr. Somsa's Bill have been
anxious that the public, in learning its rejection I
by an overwhelming majority of the House of Com-
mons, should learn at the same time that they in-
tend to organize an extensive agitation in its fa-
vour for next Session. We are told that it has
been resolved to form "a central Association,with
" branches in all parts of the kingdom," for the
more systematic advocacy of the measure. We
are sorry for this, as we always are when we see
honest, well-meaning efforts thrown away ; and
although the reception given to our remarks on
the Bill upon two former occasions was not of a
nature to encourage a renewal of friendly advice,
we shall once more appeal to the good sense of those
supporters of the measure who are not hopelessly
committed to impracticable projects.
The reason assigned for the renewal of agitation
is, that the opinion of the country at large in favour
of the Bill has not been duly represented. Yet
the vast preponderance of petitions has been in
favour of the Bill ; and what is more important,
an immense pressure has been brought to bear on
members of Parliament by the most powerful social
agency known in this country—that of the minis-
ters of religion. There is scarcely a representative
of a town constituency who has not had letters
from the conformist and nonconformist clergy, ad-
juring him by the most solemn considerations to
support Mr. SOMES'B Bill. In truth, the supporters
of the Bill have hitherto had it almost all their
own way, and can hardly hope to increase the
preponderance they have acquired by a general
movement which must needs awaken counter
manifestations. There are certain kinds of ques-
tions
which have all to gain from discussion, how-
ever promoted. Some principle, it may be of
great undeveloped utility, is lying latent and remote
in barren abstraction because it has been impos-
sible to obtain public attention to it. Discus-
sion brings it into view, and the more people can
be got to look at it the greater is the number of
its friends. This is not the position of Mr.
Soma's measure. There is nothing recondite
about it. Everybody understands it as well now
as he will after ten years of petitioning, and public
meetings, and debates in Parliament. Five
minutes' serious, intelligent reflection is sufficient
to ascertain its real character. It 4s one of those
numerous proposals which may flourish for an
indefinite time in a special atmosphere, on condi-
tion of never making any practical difference to
those who do not go out of their way to seek it,
but which is peremptorily negatived as soon as it
threatens to interfere with anybody's convenience.
The gentlemen who have charged themselves
with the duty of representing public opinion on
this subject appear to entertain ideas as to the
principles of legislation very different from those
which generally prevail among statesmen. We
have an illustration of this in a paper which
has been forwarded to na, purporting to exhibit the
result of a canvass of the parish of St. Pancras,
made for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion
of the adult inhabitants on Mr. Swim's Bill. It
appears that the promoters of the Bill employed
sixty men to leave at every house in St. Pancras
a schedule, to be filled up and signed by the
householder, specifying the number of inmates of
21 years of see and upwards, the number of these
in favour of Mr. Sorma's Bill, the number opposed,
and the number who were neutral. It appears
that the opinions of 51,657 adult persona were
registered, of whom 25,751 were favourable,
and 18,289 decidedly opposed to Mr.
Soasa's Bill, while 7,617 were neutral.
As the managers of the canvass put it, " those
" who are decidedly opposed to Mr. Bosaa's Bill,
" as compared with those of a directly contrary
" opinion, are in a minority of 7,462. Taking
" the per centege of the returns it appears that in
" every 100 those desirous of the Bill number
" 50 ; opposed to the Bill, 35 ; indifferent to the
" issue of the Bill, 15. Out of every 100 hold-
" ing a positive opinion 58 are in favour, 42
" opposed." These results are offered as repre-
sentative of metropolitan sentiment. Now, waiv-
ing all objection to this canvass on the ground of
informality, and, for the sake of argument,
accepting the returns as a fair specimen of what

;• general canvass of London would produce,
what is the inference to be drawn from the facts
that half the adults in • given population desire
a Bill, while out of every hundred hold-
ing a positive opinion, fifty-eight are in favour
and forty-two opposed I The friends of Mr.
Souse's Bill may think that the fact of
a majority settles the question, for all
liberal-minded people at least. If so, we tell them
they are mistaken. As • merely practical means
of striving at a decision on controverted questions
an appeal to the majority is the best expedient
I known to governments. But measures have •
character of their own apart from the number of
adherents they can command, as reformers called
to fight up-hill battles ought not to need remind-
ing. Every day the law of the majority brings home
to us something which this or that man objects
to ; a rate for a church to which he does not be-
long, and of which perhaps he disapproves ; • tax
to support a commercial policy which may be
ruining his trade, and so on. Something of this
kind takes place under the freest governments.
But Mr. SOM PS'S Bill does not belong to
this class of measures. As submitted to
Parliament it imposed personal restrictions,
which may be made light of by the well-to-do, who
have all the week at their command, but which in
the circumstances wherein hundreds of thousands
of our city-pent people find themselves amount to
downright physical cruelty. And are we to be
told that such restrictions, more fit for cri-
minals than free men, are to be imposed npou
42 unwilling people out of a hundred by the
mere will of the other 58? Something more
than a majority—which may be made up of
the indifferent, of those whom the proposed legis-
lation will not affect, of those who are indignant
at other people's sins—is required to make a law
a source of benefit to the community. It must
carry with it a conviction of its own
justice and utility to those who will be
called to obey it. Now, nothing has contributed
so much to place Mr. SOllllB% Bill out of the pale
of legislation, as the harsh and inconsiderate spirit
in which it is conceived. If the acts it pro-
hibited had been flagrant offences against God and
man, instead of transactions of ordinary trade out
of which social mischief might arise through ex-
cess, its prohibitions could not have been more
61/001

Iping.