The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-08 00:00:00

as responsible. But for their temporising—
but for the Foreign Secretary's hesitating, shilly-
shally policy in the earlier stages of these transac-
tions and negotiaticns—the Federals would have
been spared a sore amount of temptation to inso-
lence and temerity in their treatment of our flag.
While we ourselves would, in consequence, have
been guarded then—had Lord RUSSELL but spoken
or written, that is to say, at first, with the
firmness he only made up his mind to display at
last—we ourselves would then in consequence have
been spared many insults and mach irritation, that
nothing whatever can justify on the part of the
Federals, and that we English cannot very easily
lose the painful remembrance of.

Last night, on the second reading of the Prison
Ministers Bill, Mr. LONG moved as an amendment
that it be read a second time that day six months,
which was negatived by a majority of thirty-one.
It was a pity that the hon. member did not allow
the house to ratify the decision it had come to on
the question the first time it was discussed. These
religious arguments seldom do any good ; they
embitter the mind and rouse angry feelings. In the
excitement of discussion and the irritation of
debate, more is said on the spur of the moment
than would be written in a calmer hour of delibe-
ration, Mr. LONG said in the course of his speech,
that according to the spirit of this bill they would
be bound to provide or pay for a chaplain of the
Mormonite persuasion if the prisoners requested
them to do so. Sir L. PALK secondtd the motion.

He said that Mr. DISRAELI treated this bill as one

of great principle and civil and religions
liberty, but he could not see in the bill any

principle of progression in that direction.
He objected to the measure, because "he
thought it was a miserable compromise, and
would create ill-feeling, contention, and dispute in

a court wholly unqualified for these discussions:,
Mr. MORRTTT made his first speech on this occasion.
He said that the arguments he had heard on this
occasion were most inconclusive. He thought it was
because people were wicked they required priests ;
and as to the remarks about Mormons, the power
was under the control of the magistracy, and
therefore it was not probable that such
an appointment would be made. Mr. MOR-
RITT made some remarks on the importance
of allowing these prisoners who were on the verge
of eternity, for what they knew, the opportunity of
receiving religious instruction. He concluded his
impressive address by stating that he should support
the measure. Mr.KENDALL went so far as to call the
bill the mistake of the session. Sir J. PAKINGTON
made ene of his sensible speeches on this subjc;
and vindicated his party from the imputation that
had been cast upon it, of supporting this measure
from political motives. He truly said, that if

" there was one principle of the Church of England
which more than another tended to strengthen its
hold on the affections of the people, it was the prin-
ciple of toleration." This is strictly true, and the
whole tone of the right hon. baronet's speech
reflects great credit upon him. Mr. WHALLEY
made one of his violent diatribes against
the bill. Major HAMILTON made a most extraordi-
nary speech, which was interrupted with loud
laughter. He said that if they adopted this plan,
" a party of thieves and blackguards would
find their way into prison to secure a sum
of money to one of their pals." We have
all heard of " honour among thieves," bu'
not of such devoted friendship as to be im-
mured in a dungeon that their associates may gain
a small stipend annually. Besides, in his excite-
ment, Major HAMILTON forgot he was including
the Catholic ministers among the community
he abused. Mr. DISRAELI made a few
remarks in committee on the imputa-
tions that had been made against his party, and
declared that no one had a right to do so, without
evidence. He defied any one to say that he made
the Church of England the means of advancing the
objects of a party, and concluded by saying that
the strength of that Church consisted in its
ability to perform just offices, while it suffered the
complete development of civil and religions liberty.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, with singular bad taste, contra-
dicted the remarks of Mr. DISRAELI, and this vexa-
tious debate was adjourned, the chairman reporting
progress.

It is no great matter of rejoicing to Reformers
that the House of Lords has passed the Corrupt
Practices at Elections Bill. Its pretentious severity,
its elaborate clauses, and careful precautions have,
no doubt, been framed with the best possible in-
tentions, but are as likely to prevent bribery sac
corruption as a house built without foundations is to
stand the test of time. It is by no means the first
experiment or the first device for the cure of the
greatest evil attending Parliamentary representa-
tion—an evil which all parties agree in deprecating,
but which all parties refuse to deal with in the only
efficacious manner. It is easy to denounce bribery,
easy to appoint committees, and disfranchise unfor-
tinate scapegoats, who are made to represent the
purity of English electoral principle, while their
fellows who have very probably come into their
seats on much the same terms, are happily
exempt from such unpleasant consequences.
The old couplet respecting treason is not
without its parallel in modern times. Open and
detected bribery is a disgrace to the constitution,
and a fair subject for the denunciations of all
parties. But who shall say how much both sides
would lose if every election which had been owed to
local interest or other indirect influences were de-
clared null and void ? Yet, as some members must
be returned to Parliament, and the political views
of the present day admit of no very wide
divergence, would it not be as well to make
the experiment of that measure which has been
persistently maintained by its advocates during
many years, which has been abussed, argued against,
denounced as un-English, ridiculed and decried in
way, but never subjected to the test of expe-
riment.
It is asserted by the defenders of the
every
Ballot, among whom we have ranked ourselves,
for many long years, that the cure would be speedy,
simple and effective. It is a measure totally dis-
tinct from universal suffrage, payment of members,
or any of those extreme Radical theories, whose
Le present frame
want of practical possibility ;-n h
of society at once strikes the least observing. It is a
measure that can be easily introduced without any
startling change or eudden overthrow of time-
worn associations. The most enthusiastic lover of
old scenes and sights, and old privileges, would
hardly regret the turmoil and disorder of
a contested election. The difficulties attending
every other proposed solution of the problem must
be manifest to any one who has given
least attention to the question. Earl RUSSELL
last night admitted that he had known a case
where an agent had declared his services to be
gratuitous, but had received the day after the elec-
tion a gift of £5OO as a testimony of the gratitude
felt by the successful candidate for his dutintereated
services. The subject is hedged round with diffi-
culties, but the greatest obstacle of all in the path
of improvement is the reluctance of all parties to
give up their present comfortable monopoly.
Beth sides of the House would probably unite in I
loudly denouncing such an assertion, but if such