The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIM ES.— A great blow has been struck against a
favourite of Fortune. Paris—busy, thronging
Paris, without pausing for a moment from her per-
petual pursuit of fashion, while her broad Boulevards
were still streaming with pleasure-seekers, while
new splendours rise about her with rapidity of stage
effect, while all her population seemed engrossed
with the enjoyments created for them,—this petted,
coaxed, well-dressed, well-jewelled Paris has, in
saucy wantonness or in well-hidden thoughfulness,
suddenly turned upon her lord and master and has
inflicted upon him the most emphatic slap in the
face which confident man ever received from a capri-
cious mistress. Too certain of the answer, he has
asked her a presumptuous question, and he has got
his reply. Paris, with all the forms of electoral
legality, and with all the energy of universal suf-
frage, has protested against the Empire. Looking
upon the surface of Parisian life, who would have
prophesied this ? It is quite evident that neither
the Emperor nor his Ministers had the least notion
of such a reverae. Up to the very day which pre-
ceded the elections Paris rattled on gaily in her
perpetual revel and seemed to have no taste for
political excitement. A stranger might have walked
round all the Boulevards without seeing a dozen of
those little square-coloured affiches which simply
told that "M. Thiers" was a " candidat." It was
necessary to go over the Pont Neuf to read any-
thing like a printed appeal, even on behalf of the
virtues of peace and retrenchment. People did not
gather round the few placards that existed. There
were no little knots of men gesticulating in the
streets; and the folk who sat outside the cafe's and
sipped their absinthe before dinner did not seize upon
the papers greedily, as in the old days before 1851.
The Charivari and L'lllustration and L'Entr'acte
were more in request than the Siecle. The little boxes
in the Tuileries gardens were not surrounded by ear-
nest politicians, like those who in old times used to
abonner themselves for a sau upon the whole Paris
press, and walk about in a St. Vitus-like excitement
ejaculating their political aspirations to the heroes
and goddesses around. It was while all things were
tranquil and placid that'this shock came. But the
fact remains. Paris has suddenly seized an oppor-
tunity, and,speaking by universal suffrage, has pro-
tested against the Empire. This is not a simple de-
feat. It looks more like a formal repeal of the great
vote of the seven millions. Paris, although unani-
mous in nothing else, is unanimous in rejecting
every Imperialist candidate. Even in the Sixth
Arrondissement, where two editors and a " honime
de bien" divided the Opposition votes between them,
the Government candidate had no chance. It is
not an Orleanist demonstration, nor a declaration in
favour of the old Parliamentary system ; for M.
Thiers, who may be considered as the most special
representative of these ideas, and to have been most
able to develope their full force, had the least re-
markab'e success of all. M. Thiers obtained a ma-
jority over the Government competitor of only 1,255
votes, whereas Emile 011ivier and Ernest Picard had
majorities of nearly 9,000, and Jules Favre beat the
Government candidate by more than 10,000 votes.
The voters do not seem to have asked what the prin-
ciples of the Opposition candidate might be. It
sufficed to place him high on the poll that M. de
Persigny did not patronise him. The Opposition,
as an Opposition, was certainly not adapted to se-
cure any great respect. It was not a thing having
any unity of thought or any common object. For
some time the Opposition papers refused to publish
the Opposition addresses. Each had its one Oppo-
sition candidate, who was not uncommonly the
director of the patronising journal, and each de-
nounced in unmeasured terms the principles and the
practice of all other Opposition pretenders. The
only fact quite evident to a looker-on was that if the
Opposition hated the Government much they hated
each other a great deal more. It is true that, to some
extent these personal contests ceased under the Tidi
cule of the Parisian public; and that latterly the Op-
position papers consented to insert the Opposition
addresses and make semblance of a sort of sympathy.
Still, however, they were rather like a " happy
family" exhibition, without a master to control
their instincts. It was not their harmony, or their
unity, or their strength which won their victories;
and still less is it their popularity which stands
proved by their great majorities. When Paris goes
forth, and when Lyons follows, and the departments
of the South and the great cities throughout France
make common cause, it is not that they are agreed
upon any positive position. They do not set up M.
Thiers because they desire the adoption of any spe-
cific policy ; and so well did M. Thiers and his
friends know this no Thiers confession of faith ap-
peared. It must have been very hard to flesh and
blood, and especially to the flesh and blood of a
great orator and great writer, to stand before all
France and be pelted with sharp epigrams by
Minister of State, and to make no reply. Yet M.
Thiers endured this rather than destroy the equivo-
cal position which his silence prolonged. If there
be any truth in the statement of the Constitutionnel,
a council of his friends deliberately suppressed the
Circular he had prepared, lest the other sections of
the Opposition should be deprived of all excuse for
voting for him. So, also, the Republican candidates
who have succeeded, not because the voters who re-
turned them are all in favour of a return to a Re-
publican form of Government, but because they are
discontented with things as they are—the one bond
of union has been a protest against the Empire.
All this has been brought about by the blundering
of M. de Persigny. If Frenchmen have been found
wanting in the moderation and in the spirit of com-
promise which is necessary to Parliamentary go-
vernment, French Ministers have been found still
more lamentably deficient in the decent simula-
tion of official respect for the freedom of election.
The Minister's warnings to the Press at this ill-
chosen moment made him odious; his communicated
articles, forced even upon the poor literary jester
Le Charivari, made him ridiculous ; his obtrusive
dictation to the electors made him offensive, his
selection of candidates inspired contempt, This
is not the way to deal with such a population
as that of France. A more adroit man would
have adopted the popular candidates, and pro-
claimed the desire of the Emperor to have all
opinions represented in his Parliament ; but even
a moderately shrewd man would have seen that, if
it was not the moment for liberty of speech to all, it
was certainly the moment for silence in high places.
What will be the result ? Will the Emperor trust
to the oath taken by the Opposition candidates, and
go on to free institutions ? It is true that, Or-
leanists and Republicans alike, they have all sworn
" fidelity to the Emperor." Some affect to find in
the Article of the Constitution which declares the
Emperor to be responsible a door of escape from
any oath of allegiance. But, however that may be,
can much trust be placed in any such bond as that
after what has so often happened in France and
elsewhere? Even if the Emperor were inclined to
risk this course, what means has he of conducting
a Parliamentary Government with such men as
Thiers and Dufaure in Opposition, and with no
better debaters than his own mediocrities to set
against them? In such a contest the Empire
would
be talked dowa in a single session. If, indeed, the
Emperor had secured these men for the Empire
there would be something to ho p e i n favour of a
policy of progress, but M. de Persigny has forced
them ostentatiously to take their place in Op
posi-
tion. We shall be curious to note the next
move
of the Imperial policy. Regard it from o
of view we may, this is a very serious defeat ; what paint
and
the Emperor must feel some bitterness in the reflec-
ti
the undis on that all its worst features have been called forth
by d
b guised partisanship of the Government,
any the folly and insolence of the Imperial
Minister.
HERALD.---From favourite food the earliest times fish was a
with the inhabitants of these isles.

In the London markets, during the reign of the
Plantagenets, and probably long before, there
were to be found sturgeon, cad, ray, herring (fresh,
aalted, and red), bass, conger, sole, mackerel, sur-
mullet, turbot, dory, porpoise, haddock, sea-ling,
sprats, salmon, shad, eels, pike, barbel, roach,
dace, dabs, flounders, lamprey, smelts, stickelings,
oysters; mussels, cockles, whelks, scallops, and
stockfish. The hon. member for Sunderland sighs
for such days of plenty, and with goad reason, for
unless the House of Commons helps us, we shall
see them no more. The sale of fish, as the mediaeval
antiquarian, Mr. Riley, whose word is indisputable,
tells us, seems to have attracted the surveillance and
attention of the authorities to a greater extent than
that of butcher's meat ; and fish, there can hardly be
a doubt, was much more largely consumed by the
middle and lower classes of the community than
butcher's meat, owing partly to its comparative
cheapness, and in part to the rigidness with which
the fast days of the Romish Church were kept. So
we arc glad to sec that the hon. member's motion
for an inquiry by a Royal commission into the pre-
sent condition of our sea fisheries was successful,
though certain members of the Government, them-
delves well experienced in the uses and habits of
deep-sea fishing, thought proper to essay to upset it.
At preset) r, as Mr. Fenwick unmistakeably preyed,
our fisheries are almost universally falling off, year
by year, and unless something is done, the serious
contingency of a limited supply from all quarters
would appear to be threatening us. And this appre-
hended scarcity does not arise from the consumption
startling as that is as reported from London alone.
It is not owing to the City alirnentiveness which
last year disposed of half a million and more of cod-
fish, 2.5,000,000 of mackerel, 100,000,000 of soles,
35,000,000 of plaice, 200,000,000 of fresh haddocks,
oa the 300,000,000 of periwinkles, according to the
honourable member's testimony, that any serious
diminution impends. It is the reckless waste and
neglect, as Mr. Fen wick explained, of nature's own
laws, by the very men whose interest it is to main-
tain an abundant supply—the fishermen who are to
make a living by their trade—which have nearly
ruined our coast fisheries. The system of trawling
and the use of the seine net destroy or disturb the
spawn of the fish ; for strangely enough, and to the
hindrance of their own future business, the men ore
accustomed, without heed or care, to take up the
spawn and carry it into deep water, or receive it
into their boats and sell it as manure. Any one
who has seen the miscellaneous haul made by the
trawling net snay.readily understand how it scrapes
up and unsettles everything it touches, and
when it happens to travel over the shallow
breeding ground it necessarily becomes a ruthless
enemy to a great amount of fish life. The young
fry suffer a similar depredation from this rude and
exhausting means of capture. The takes are fre-
quently found to be too small in size for the market,
and are either accordingly tossed back into the sea,
dead or alive, it does not much matter, or are sold
in a mass as mere manure. " Oneafternoon, only a
few months ago," affirmed the hon. gentleman, " he
saw exposed for sale in a northern city two cart-
loads of codfish, the largest of which was not bigger
than his hand, and he appealed to the house if that
did not show a wanton waste of God's gifts." We
can endorse, from personal and repeated experience,
the hon. member's appeal as to the thoughtless
habits of the fishermen who use the trawling net all
round our coast. The captain of a trawler himself
acknowledged to the hon. member that "he had
sometimes thrown overboard as many as 7,000 or
8,000 fish at once after using the trawl. "As to
spawn, on one occasion," added this informant,
"while he had three tons of spawn, as he estimated,
by the weight of the trawl, in his net, he bad only
besides some crabs and a dozen flat fish." From all
parts of England similar evidence had reached the
honourable member, which perhaps the honourable
member for Hull may study with advantage ere he
indulges a sneer against the value of an accurate
and assured inquiry into the reasons of the decreas-
ing quantity of fish caught on our shores. The
salmon fishery is itself a notable instance at the
present time of the pertinent worth of these parlia-
mentary investigations, and the recommendations
whic'a result from the comparison of the most reli-
able evidence furnished without fee or reward The
act, which is but two years old, has, in Mr. Fen-
wick's own words, resuscitated the salmon fisheries,
and rivers previously destitute of fish are found to
be gradually and surely stocked. Even the Thames
is likely to resume its old reputation, and we may
soon hope to hear of a similar bit of news to that
which, even within the last 25 years, astonished
veteran anglers, that "salmon of 151 b. weight have
been taken as low down as Wandsworth." Salmon,
amongst all the more highly prized fish in the Lon-
don market, has actually fallen in price since the
operation of that act. The same regulations which
have answered so well in preserving fish in our
rivers, may, it is fitly argued, be enforced for the
preservation of our deep-sea fisheries. With respect
to the fisheries in the Channel and elsewhere, ac-
cessible to the French fishermen, no harm can arise
from this inquiry, and we dispose of the objections
of the President of the Board of Trade, that num-
bers of people would be much alarmed if such an
inquiry were set on foot, by assuring him that our
neighbours will thank us for any legislation which
is likely to improve the take of the deep waters out-
side the territorial limits from which they are pro-
hibited. We do not think that, with the means at
the command of the Admiralty, there need be any
difficulty in amassing such a store of sure and posi-
tive information as may be likely to benefit both the
fishing interest and the public generally. In this
important branch of industry, which commands a
capital of £10,000,000 sterling, and employs
240,000 men of hardy habits and mostly in the
prime of life, any long continued depression of
trade would not be very easily remedied; and there
can be no qaestion but that the consumption of fish
as food for the working classes has, of late years, in
the towns especially, been considerably smaller
from the lessened supply.

POST.—The House of Commons yesterday showed
its good sense in rejecting, by a majority of two
hundred and seventy-eight to one hundred and
three votes, one of the most mischievous and ob-
noxious measures which has for many years past
been submitted for the approval of Parliament.
Indeed, it is difficult to understand how it came to
pass that the bill for closing public-houses on Sun-
days found as many supporters as it did. That the
Temperance Association were enabled to induce
two gentlemen with extreme views on the subject
of Sabbath observance, and hazy notions of the
statistics of drunkenness as furnished by police re-
ports, to promote a bill embodying their peculiar
tenets is not wonderful; but it is truly astonishing
that one hundred and three gentlemen could be
found besides, who, so far as lay in their power,
endeavoured to pass a law which would have been
an insult to the character of the nation, as well as a
gross outrage upon the rights of its members. The
best excuse that can be found for these gentlemen
is that they failed to realise the consequences of the
measure to which they gave their advocacy and
support. We do not now refer to such consequences
as riots and disturbances; the assemblages of thou-
sands of industrious, sober, and well-conducted
men, to protest against being sacrificed for the mere
purpose of preventing habitual drunkards indulging
in their favourite vice upon the Lord's-day; the
ill feeling which would be created between classes
between whom at present the most perfect harmony
subsists—to these consequences we do not at present
advert. We allude simply to the immediate effects
of the operation of the act. The man who is neither
blind, nor deaf, nor maimed, can form no concep-
tion of the disadvantages under which persons thus
afflicted are compelled to suffer ; and in like manner
those who have well-stocked cellars or clubs to
hich they can resort, cannot possibly realise the
position of those who, during the only day in the
week permitted for rest and recreation, would be
debarred from all means of obtaining any refreshing
or invigorating drink. It is., however, fortunate
that these gentlemen, who were ready with such
precipitation to legislate for the millions whose
feelings and wants they failed to appreciate, were
in a minority, and that a bill which would never
have been sanctioned or tolerated by the English
people has not commanded the approval of their
representatives. It is much to be regretted that some
people will get drunk, just as it is much to be de-
plored that some young men will dissipate their for-
tunes But just as the Legislature would not be jus-
tified in depriving everyone of the power of disposing
of his property as he thought fit, in order to pre-
vent a few spendthrifts consummating their ruin,
so it is not entitled to prevent nine hundred and
ninety-nine sober people from taking beer or wine
in moderation on a given day in order to prevent
one individual from drinking to excess. And yet
this was the pith of the argument advanced by Mr.
Somes in favour of hisbill
bill. But ill conceived as the
design of the measure was, in operation it would
have been found utterly impracticable. The excep-
tion in favour of bona fide travellers would have
given rise to no end of litigation. Some of the
metropolitan magistrates have held that an excur-
sionist by rail on a Sunday is a traveller. If so, the
Londoner could still, we suppose, by producing the
half of his return ticket, have beer or wine with
his dinner at the Star and Garter at Richmond,
whereas the pedestrian or omnibus passenger would
be obliged to remain satisfied with a draught of
water. The traveller stopping in an hotel in Fleet-
street might still, we suppose, indulge in his pint
of stout, whereas the Templar, who dines habitu-
ally in the same coffee-room, though known to the
proprietor, would be compelled to forego his cus-
tomary tankard. And wherefore all this ? Simply
in order to prevent a few individuals getting drunk
on Sundays. The House of Commons has very
properly refused to victimise the many for the .
benefit of the few.