The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-09 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1863.

Mr. ROEBUCK'S visit to Fountainebleau was, be-
yond all question, a mistake. Of all Englishmen,
he was one of the very last who ought to have
sought an interview with the French EMPEROR.
With hardly one iota more of delicacy could the
member for Sheffield tarry thus in the anti-chamber
of his MAJESTY, uninvited, waiting there the impe-
rial permission to have an audience with that
foreign ruler he had so often reviled, with hardly
one iota more of delicacy could Mr. ROEBUCK act
thus, than could the member for Bridgewater
himself, the scurrilous assailant of NAPOLEON
111., through his so-called History of the
War in the Crimea. If Mr. KINGLAKE

has written disgraceful personalities about
the French EMPEROR, Mr. ROEBUCK has spoken
others quite as disgraceful. Without preparing the
way for his reception by his Imperial Majesty, by
some indication of regret for words of wrath
breathed against the EMPEROR, very publicly and
very recently, by his Majesty's visitor at Fontaine-
bleau, Mr. ROEBUCK'S appearance there as a
isitor (it is almost needless to say, unasked) was
little less, in one very plain phrase, than an imper-
tinence. The interview itself, therefore, we
would insist, was egregiously and obviously a
mistake. But a still greater mistake was com-
mitted afterwards by Mr. ROEBUCK in the very
tone and manner with which he related the cir-
cumstances of that interview to the British House
of Commons. Her MAJESTY'S Ministers, many of
them, at least, were there listening to him.
Amongst them, upon the Treasury bench, sat the
hon. gentleman, the Under-Secretary of State for,
and, as such, the representative in that House of,
the Foreign Department. Yet, in what tone was
it that Mr. ROEBUCK, the self-appointed envoy,
's most extraordinary," related the particulars of
his eccentric mission to the Palace at Fontainebleau?
With so arrogant an assumption of importance,
that it implied the complete and absolute subor-
dination to himself, both of the Ministers of the
Crown, here in England, and of the noble earl at
Paris, Her MAJESTY'S Ambassador to the Court of
the Tuileries! According to Mr. ROEBUCK, he was
" authorised "by " the great French rula to say
so-and-so to the House of Commons, in explanation
of the opinions and of the policy of his Majesty, in
reference to the Confederates. Intimating as plainly
as language could possibly intimate anything, that
he was simply repeating the very words uttered to
himself by the French EMPEROR, Mr. ROEBUCK
said, " Tell them that I think this, that, and the
other ! Tell them that I have said to you such and
such a thing in reference to this delicate and diffi-
cult question as to the recognition of the Southern
States." In other words, "Tell them the House
of Commons that I think and speak as I
now explain to you, Mr. ROEBUCK ! that I actually
do think upon this matter, I—the Emperor
of the FRENCH !" Yet scarcely has the mem.
ber for Sheffield given this exceedingly
circumstantial report of the proceedings of
his interview with the French EMPEROR, when his
Majesty the EMPEROR himself puts forth a positive
declaration in the columns of the Moniteur, that
during that interview his Majesty never once had
authorised Mr. ROEBUCK to influence the opinions
of the English House of Commons, in his Majesty's
behalf, in any way whatsoever. We look forward
with a certain natural, and surely a very reasonable,
curiosity, to the explanations Mr. ROEBUCK or
Mr. LINDSAY, his companion in the late unhappy
expedition, may be prepared to (Afar, with a view
to reconcile in some measure the now apparently
quite irreconcilable discrepancies in the statements
made, so very recently, here by Mr. ROEBUCK in the
House of Commons, there by his Majesty the EM-
PEROR in the columns of the Moniteur.

Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of
the Casual Poor Metropolis Bill last night, but
unfortunately without success. One advantage
obtained by the discussion was, that Mr. GILPIN
said that the subject was under the consideration of
the Poor Law Board at this moment, and that they
were constantly obtaining additional information
with regard to it. Lord RAYNHAM therefore with-
drew his bill, at the same time expressing an earnest
hope that early next session the Poor Law Board
would bring fur ward a bill to effect the object
I
•TI
had view. The principle of Lord RAY:C-
law
a n'mure was an admirable one, He truly

stated that, " while it was said that all persons
in destitution had a right, in this country, to
claim relief, wherever they might be, the parochial
authorities were enabled with impunity to violate
the provisions of the law; and it appeared that
the Poor Law Board could not cope with those
authorities, when they refused to administer the
relief which they were justly entitled to do."
Surely this fact afforded a sufficient basis for the
introduction of a new state of things. There is
no reader of the Press throughout the country
but must be continually shocked and indignant
at the recurrence of distress cases being cruelly
neglected. Often, indeed, the callous official has
refused admittance to the dying, and it has been
at the inquest on the unfortunate deceased that
the truth has been elicited. Lord RAYNHAM
said that in some cases starvation had resulted
from the parish authorities neglecting to afford
assistance in time. By the provisions of his mea-
sure the metropolis would be constituted into one
district for the purpose of relieving the casual poor,
and the Poor Law Board " would have the power
of compelling all Boards of Guardians, overseers,
and other officers, by a writ of mandamus to carry
into effect the provisions of the existingr law."
a' w . '
" Thus," said the noble lord, " thee would
certainty of proper relief
die in h
f poor,etothete
streetsofwh than
mant
present many world
avail themselves of the law as it at present stood,"
One of the clauses provided that separate sleeping
accommodation should be given to each person, as
at present several of the wards were in a very dis-
graceful state. Also, another evil in the present
system was that admission only took place at certain
hours, and therefore the musters of workhouses
were enabled to refuse relief in several cases. This
he would rectify by arranging that all asylura for
the relief of poor persons should be open at all
hours day and night, and that every person alleging
destitution " should be ipso facto entitled to ad-
mission." Then, in order to prevent improper per-
sons taking advantage of the provisions of the bill,
he should propose that the authorities might, when
they considered it advisable, give to the parties
who sought relief a task of work not exceeding
eight hours.

These arrangements appear very satisfactory, and
if this measure had passed into law there would be
less suffering among a class that is unfitted to bear
it from many attendant circumstances, and there
would be less " complaining in the streets," which
surely would be a desirable consummation. But all
these suggestions to improve the condition of the
poor are always met by a torrent of remonstrance,
and a host of objections start up on all sides. One
would think, on hearing and perusing these countless
difficulties in the way of doing good, that it would
be better to give up the attempt altogether
lin despair. Such is the inference that the wise
counsels of the astute in such matters leads us
.t..u.
infer is their secret meaning. Lord MARNEYIII
" Sybil," in speaking of the inconvehient,ipetrase
of the poor, declared w.th satiffaction, that "he
built no cottages but efstroy all I can," and this
principle seems tdactuate many who legislate or
10
rather to refuse to legislate on workhouses. Such
as they are, they are too good for -their occupants,
and it would be only encouraging vice and increas-
ing vagrancy to propose any remedial change.
According to the objections urged last night by
some who spoke after Lord RAYNIIA3I, it is impos-
sible to adopt a medium course ; either tramps and
robbers are to be encouraged, or else the
deserving poor must suffer. It is really
unworthy of sensible persons to persist
through prejudice in maintaining such a state of
things. As the Government will not do anything
themselves this session, they might at least have
I had the grace to be a little more encouraging to
the private bills that some hon. members have
proposed in desperation at the present dad state
of things in many quarters. But inaction must
be the order of the day, and the same fate at-
tended Lord RAYNHA3I'S useful measure that
await all attempts to lighten the bondage of the
distressed needlewomen a few weeks ago. Then
all proposals were met with scorn and ridicule.
It would interfere with business, injure the pros-
pects of the employed, and produce countless evils.
Really these wise people talk as if it were
machines they were discussing, and not human
creatures with the same feelings as themselves.
Also our legislators should remember that, besides
mercantile interests, Christian charity should in-
fluence such details. Only those who are actuated
by a spirit of fair play in their dealing with those
entrusted to their care will be enabled to render
a satisfactory account of their actions when, as
Miss MULOCII has forcibly expressed it, " the long
day of life, with all its labour, is over for eternity."

We are glad to see that, in spite of some opposi-
tion, the second reading of the Anchor and Chain
Cables Bill was carried last night by a decisive
majority. The common sense of the house at once
apnerdcethiveedcfatheeiendtesp on irraobteiclittiyof the suggested meas! re,
it offered to life at sea.
of shipowners, as we anticipated,
The great majority
have expressed their approval of the bill, and con-
sequently the complaints of undue interference
with trade were little heeded. The name of its.
projector is a sufficient warrant that the bill is
neither a piece of superfluous and uncalled-for
leg:slation, nor an unnecessary trenching on the
details of private business. There would be, said
Mr. LAIRD, no interference with trade. He pro-
posed that, after the Ist of January next, all vessels
registered should be required to have chains and
anchors which had been properly tested. He
deprecated the threatened opposition of the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, and assured the house
that he had reason to know that most of the ship..
owners of the country supported the measure. On
this point Mr. LAIRD may be allowed to speak with
some confidence, and it is therefore surprising to
find gentlemen reiterating the objection of injustice
to the trade. If the members of the trade do not
think so, why should other parties object oa their
behalf ?
Mr. CAVE, the seconder, very justly said
that after a railway accident an inquiry was made
as to the
quality of the iron which had
been used, but that this protection was
impossible in the case of a loss at sea. What the
result of such an inquiry would be, could the dark
waters give up their prey, we may only too easily
guess from the startling fact that, of the chain
cables tested at Liverpool, 82 per cent.te e haveof
sbue
ce
hn
found to be defective. It is idle, in the
evidence as this, for Mr. LINDSAY to say that it is
the interest of shipowners to provide themselves
with good anchors, and for Mr. GIBSON to object,
on the ground of trouble and difficulty. The right
hon. gentleman also said scornfully that this was
a bill for coasters; as if the lives of the crews of
coasters were of no importance. If the right hon.
gentleman will take the trouble to examine the
wreck chart and list of shipwrecks for any recent
year, he will find the number of disasters to the
trading vessels on our coasts to be by no means in-
significant, and it is no secret that they are gene-
rally very imperfectly fitted out. Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON, however, had another answer for the
President of the Board of Trade. He reminded
him that in the terrible gale at Balaklava no less
than 30 transports were lost in consequence of
defective anchors and cables, whereas none of her