The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-23 00:00:00

and which caused his first election to be regarded
such general interest and expectation have,
alas
been doomed to a very bitter disappointmerit, and
the most sanguine of his friends and the raost cre-
dulous of his admirers cannot but be awake that his
re-election, were his re-election possibl(.!, could only
" astilities, and
be a signal for the prolongation of —}
another obstacle to the terminati.o' a of this too
protracted war.

The public will see with consilierable satisfaction
the reversal of the Obnoxious d a cision of the Justices
of Leigh, in regard to the fa7D ous Sunday haymak-
ing case. It was only to Io,A expected that metro-
politan judges would put a more liberal construe-

tion upon the case, alt,bough in reality the hay-

makers have won the day lLss by an extension of
the spirit of the law than by a rigid adherence to

its letter. The case came on in the Court of Queen's

Bench on Thurse,ay, before Lord Chief Justice

CocKEURN and Justices CROMPTON and BLACK.

BURN, when Mr. :MELLISH, Q.C., showed cause

against a rule obtained by the Solicitor-Gertend
last term, in order to remove the conviction into
that Court, with a view to its being quashed. The

earned gentleman's argument was entirely founded

upon the construction to be put upon the wording

of the clause of CHARLES ll.'s Act for the proper
observance of the Sabbath. The disputed section

stipulates that " no tradesman, artificer, workman,
labourer, or other person whatever shall do or exer-
cise any worldly labour, business, or work of their
ordinary callings," and the doubt was whethsr
farmers were included in the persons thus enume-

rated. The question to be argued was whether a
small farmer who worked on his farm, as the parties
implicated in this matter did, without exception,

was a labourer within the statute. Mr. AIELLIsn
endeavoured to show that he was intended by the
words "other person whatsoever" which follow the
list of trades, but the Lord Chief Justice very clearly
showed that by the established rule for the inter-
pretation of such clauses, general terms were under-
stood to apply only to cases ejusdem generis. It was
plain that tha term tradesman could not be con-
strued to mean a farmer, and, as Mr. Justice BLACK-
BURN very truly observed, since farmers at the date
of the Act must have outnumbered tradesmen 100

:o 1, it could hardly be supposed that had it been

intended to include them in the Act, they would
not have been mentioned as well. Upon these
grounds, then, the Court quashed the conviction, the
matter turning entirely, as more weighty affairs
hare done, upon the reading of a doubtful and un-

certain phrase.: It was easy to see that the Justices
took the common sense and right feeling of the
matter into consideration as well as the legal
technicalities—yet had the wording of the act been
a little different they would have been awkwardly
situated. It is true that the paragraph which pro-
vides for the exception of works of charity and
necessity is elastic enough to cover a good deal,
still the possibility of such a case as the one at
Leigh proves that a little reform is needed in this
matter. Had the men been poorer or less strongly
befriended, had the case been hushed up instead of
being brought before the notice of the public it
would never have obtained a hearing in the
Queen's Bench. The same spirit which animated
the Justices of Leigh is unfortunately but too
common. Other acts and occurrences which a
harsh judgment might stretch to reach the meaning
of the act may give rise any day to proceedings
which the real lovers of religion, as well as any
one of common justice and humanity, must deeply
and sincerely regret. If we are once to admit the
principle of making. mer. religious by acts of
Parliament, who shall say what construction each
may put upon the acts of his neighbour ? There is
certainly some alteration needed in the act to pre-
vent the repetition of such proceedings, calculated
as they are to bring contempt and discredit upon
any endeavours to promote the observance of the
day of rest. Unfortunately, some busy social
reformer or other is always ready with a scheme
for adding to the restrictions upon the poor man's
Sunday—witness Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR'S
famous Sunday Trading Bill, Mr. SoMES'S Beer
Bill, and the present ca se at Leigh. We do not find,
however, that these moralists are equally ready to
stop the tradesmen's carts !rom supplying the West
end with perishable delicacies on the Sunday. They
do not suggest that the rich man's cellar should be
locked on a Saturday night and the key given over
into safe keeping until Monday morning. We
would venture to affirm that the Justices at Leigh
would not think it necessary to stop a peer's car-
riage on the highway on the Sunday, even though
the noble lord's airing might be matter of neither
necessity nor charity. Al' hat are the poor to think
of these inconsistencies ? The effect on the lower
classes of all this preaching and practice must be
much the same as when quickwitted children watch
their parents doing the very things that they have
forbidden them to do. Not by mere verbal precept
will our working-men learn to value the day of
rest, they must see it appreciated by those who are
free to please themselves in the manner of their
observance, and not be made to suspect that the
legislators find it convenient to express the extent
of their religious obligations through the medium
of other people's self-den ill. In the case at Leigh
the matter was made still worse by the fact that it
was no idle pleasuring or needless treffic that was
going on, but the simple, though necessary labour
of getting in the hay, scarcely such a fascinating
employment that men should lose a holiday for the
mere sake of doing it. It is absurd in our climate
to talk about the security of fine weather; we all
know that a sudden change in the wind, a cloudy
night, will very soon alter the brightest summer's
sky. Even with the glowing weather of last
season the sudden rains which set in early in August
interfered in some degree with the harvest in the
north. If any one therefore has a right to a liberal
interpretation of any restrictive act, it is surely a
member of that class whose services we may disre-
gard, but which none of us can afford to dispense
with. It is very much to be regretted that
Englishmen holding a responsible position should
have given countenance to so harsh and arbitrary a
construction of the law. That they should have
done so, even amid the enlightened tolerance of
the present day, is sufficient evidence of the
necessity of some change that shall put such un-
just and unreasonable decisions for the future out
of their power.

The contemplated abandonment by the London I
Fire Insurance Companies of all connection with
the extinction of fires, and the proposed assumption
of these responsible duties by the Board of Works
is creating considerable discussion in many quar-
ters. It is not to be wondered that the parish
authorities in all parts of London regard the system
of taxation proposed by the -recalcitrant companies
for the maintenance of an efficient firebrigade with
much disfavour. Yesterday Mr. EL L. TAYLOR
called the attention of the court to the subject, and
after some slight discussion, the subject Was referred
to tho General Purposes Committee to consider
what steps should be taken in the matter. Now,
e consider the representatives of the rate-
payers
althoughin wt
he rig
ht to check as far as possible all
unnecessary increase to the already heavy burdens
of the metropolitan population, we cannot shut our

eyes to two important facts. First, that it is ab-

_ -
solutely indispensable for the metropolis to be fur-

nished with effective fire brigades and powerful

engines; and, secondly, that no legal responsibility
devolves upon insurance companies to provide them.
Hitherto, it is true, that the combined companies
have, to a certain extent, performed this duty
voluntarily, of course for their own benefit, for in

;he case of the destruction of insured property the

nsurance office sustains the loss. Therefore, the

great boast that the representatives of these cffices
have lately made of their liberality in expending
large sums for the maintenance of fire engines, &c.,

results simply in the necessary precautions taken to
save their own pockets. Of late years London has
vastly increased in area; localities which but a short
time ago were quiet suburban retreats now form
densely populated portions of the metropolis, and it
became necessary to increase the number of
the fire brigade, which to some' extent has been

done, but no new stations have, we believe, been
erected in remote districts ; also the jealousy of the
officers of the London Fire Brigade engines, dressed

in a little brief authority, has hitherto, to some ex._
tent nullified the exertions of volunteer engines
(which have, in many instances, arrived at the scene
of conflagration before those of the recognised bri-
gadv), by putting obstacles in their way, and en-
deavouring, as far as possible, to keep all the
glory to themselves. In a voluminous statement
published by Mr. FREDERICK HODGES, the pro-
prietor of the extensive distillery at Lambeth, this
practice is very justly complained of, and Mr.

HODGES has been induced to give publicity to the
treatment that his Volunteer Fire Brigade has
experienced at the bands of the London Fire
Brigade's servants, because all his applications to
the authorities at the head office in Watling-street
for redress have been pooh-poohed by the commit-
tee of the London Fire Brigade. Mr. HODGES
very properly claims the same privileges for his
engines as those vouchsafed to those of the London
Fire Brigade, or any other private establishments.
\Ve gather from the report of the select commit-
tee of the House of Commons, on fires in the Me-
tropolis, that sat in 1862, that the London Fire
Engine Establishment was formed in 1852, partly
to put an end to the rivalry that existed between
the advertising Fire Brigades, maintained by the
different fire insurance companies in London, a
rivalry which was productive naturally of good, as
well as of some considerable evil on occasions of
fires," and partly " for the purpose of promoting
and encouraging greater efficiency in the
existing force." The London Fire Brigade is simply
a private enterprise, and although we do not wish
to detract one iota from the credit due to the offi-
cers and men of this establishment, as a body, for
daring and skill in extingishing fires, we cannot see
by what right they arrogate to themselves the
authority to prohibit the exertions of those who
have legally as much claim to be present to assist
as themselves. We have cited the case of Mr.
HODGES principally because his men and officers
are acknowledged to be the most efficient of the
volunteer brigades at present in existence. If it
were necessary we might mention numerous dis-
trict volunteer brigades which have been called into
existence by the isolation of the localities in which
they are situated from any of the London Fire Bri-
gade establishments. The only answer vouchsafed
to the petitioners for the erection of local establish-
ments is " provide it yourselves." These have
great reason to complain of discourtesy from the
representatives of those whose interests aro so
deeply involved in the protection of property from
fire. V e have particularly drawn attention to the
treatment of Mr. HODGES and others, partly to
show with what injustice they have been met with,
but more especially to demonstrate how absolutely
necessary it is to have this vexed question settled,
It is admitted by all who are et all acquainted with
the extent and power of the plant at present at the
disposal of the London Fire Brigade, that it is en-
tirely inadequate for th© requirements of London
and its suburbs, while the number of its stations is
small, and those limited to what may be termed
the home circuit. The expense of maintaining this
ineffective force—some £25,000 yearly—is be-
gradged by the proprietors of offices which
receive nearly half a million sterling an-
nually in the shape of premiums or insurances.
Let, therefore, the Metropolitan Board of
Works undertake the responsibility which the
insurance offices are both unwilling and unable to
accomplish satisfactorily. But in undertaking such
an onerous duty, let no pains be spared to carry it
out in a manner befitting the representatives of this
vast city ; let engines of the most improved con-
struction be placed in every district. The officers
in charge of the establishment and the engines
must have undisputed access to the water-mains,
independently of the parish authorities and the
turncocks, so that no obstruction may be placed in
their way. The assistance of volunteers would still
be useful, but, except in cases of extraordinary con-
flagrations, their attendance beyond their own
localities might not be necessary. We are certain
that Mr. HODGES, or any other enterprising and
philanthropic gentleman, or those in charge of their
engines would be happy to act under the direction
of the legal authority, whose duty it would be to
show them every courtesy, and render them any
necessary assistance. Finally, we trust that the
motion so energetically brought forward last session
by the member for Dudley will this year become
law, and that the heavy tax on insurances may be
reduced thirty-three per cent., or from three shil-
lings in every hundred pounds insured to two
shillings, and a few years further on to one shilling.
If this is, as we trust it will be the case, the public
will not feel the expense of aiding in part to main-
tain an effective fire brigade. But the insurance
companies must bear their share; each ought to
pay in proportion to their income no inconsiderable
proportion of the expense. If railway companies
are controlled by Acts of Parliament, why not in-
surance companies. Yet if these be obdurate, why
should not a Metropolitan Mutual Fire Insurance
Company be started under the auspices of the
Metropolitan Board of Works ; in short, an insur-
ance company whose dividends would be divided
amongst the insured, who pay for the means of
extinguishing the fires,

His MAJESTY NAPOLEON 111., AND M. TRIERS.
—Of the Emperor's speech to the Cardinal, in
answer to his discourse, so much has already been
said in all the daily journals, both in this country and in
England, and it has caused such profound sensation in all
circles that it would be unnecessary here to do more than
allude to its effects. It is looked upon by all parties and
classes as a manifestation, and a direct evidence of his Ma-
jesty's annoyance at the course the discussions engaged in
the Legislative Assembly, between certain members of the
Opposition and the Ministers of the Government, are assum-
ing. That these offensive, even more than animated,
strictutts, will tend to a reactionary line of policy on the
side of Louis Napoleon, seems only too probable. The
excitement produced in political circles last week was ex-
cessive, and all sorts of rumours were afloat. One of these,
gathered, however, in an Orleanist saloon (which one is
obliged for that reason to accept with mistrust) was, that
M. Thiers, soon after his first and remarkable oration, had
been called in by the Emperor, who, thanking him for the
moderate manner in which he had expressed his viiws and
spoken of him personally, had proposed, to the old poli-
tician to form a Cabinet combined of the more moderate of
the Opposition members, himself at the head. M. Thiers
had, it is said, declined, telling the Emperor to wait, for he
had not said all he had to say, and•perhaps his Majesty's
feelings might undergo a very considerable change ere the
discussions then going on were completely terminated.