The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

POST.—Mr. Ferrand is one of those persons who I
never know when they have had enough of it. The ;
mistake which the Lord Chancellor made some time
ago, in being somewhat too ready in throwing a veil
over the delinquencies of Mr. Edmunds, has been
chosen by him as an incentive to a fresh attack,
which, at present at least, seems to fail in the first
conditions of plausibility. Twenty years ago Mr.
Ferrand was well known as one who made it his
business to purify the political world by acting in
the rather invidious character of a public accuser.
We all remember the fierce attacks which he made
upon Sir James Graham some twenty years ago ;
and, whatever was judged to be the success of his
crusade against the Home Secretary of those days,
Mr. Ferrand at any rate retired for a long time
afterwards from bringing fresh Ministerial indict-
ments. The Report of the Select Committee of the
House of Lords on the Edmunds scandal has, how-
ever, apparently lent him fresh courage. The com-
mittee having differed with the Lord Chancellor as
to the course which should have been pursued on
that occasion, Mr. Ferrand is encouraged to find
new scope for the expression of a diversity of opi-
nion with reference to what has lately taken place
at Leeds. It would have been at least as well, if
only for his own sake, if he had been content to
leave things as they were. But he rakes up a
story with reference to an alleged appointment of
Mr. Richard Bethell to the post of Registrar of the
Court of Bankruptcy at Leeds, asks several ques-
tions which are met with a most circumstantial
negative from the Attorney-General, and, dis-
satisfied with a reply which bears at any rate the
prima facie aspect of being conclusive, he gives
notice of a motion for the appointment of a select
committee to make full inquiry into the whole
subject. Of course it will be in the power of the
House of Commons to grant this committee if they
should think, after the explicit answer they have
received, that there is sufficient grounds to justify
an inq„uiry. On Wednesday, however, it apparently
occurred to Mr. Ferrand that, even in this motion,
he had not gone quite far enough. The brilliant
notion occurred to him that he might possibly catch
not only the Lord Chancellor, but also the Attorney-
General, tripping. Accordingly he gave notice of
his intention to ask the question last night by whom
this circumstantial . statement of the Attorney-
General was supplied, and also whether Sir Roundell
Palmer would object to produce the letter of Mr.
Welch tendering his resignation, and also that of
Mr. Bethell confirming Mr. Welch's statement.
Any application more frivolous than the former it
would be hard to imagine. The Court of Bank-
ruptcy of Leeds did not lie within the department
of the Attorney-General ; and it was quite enough
surely to assume that the Attorney-General derived
his information from the department to which the
Leeds Court of Bankruptcy belonged, and further-
more, that those matters which were stated on the
authority of the Lord Chancellor, namely, that Mr.
Bethell's appearance at Leeds, if it ever took place,
was without Lord Westbury's cognisance, must
have been obtained from the Lord Chancellor him-
I self, and could be valuable only as being drawn
from that source. However, Mr. Ferrand was de-
termined to have the plainest deductions drawn out
in actual words ; and last night he put his question.
We think Sir R. Palmer was fully justified in re-
fusing to produce the person who had supplied him
with information which he had stated on his own
responsibility ; and we should imagine any gentle-
man will be content with Sir Roundell's offer to
hand over to Mr. Ferrand the two letters of
the genuineness of which he insinuates a doubt.
The circumstances of the case, in the Attorney-
General's statement appear and simple
enough, and there can hardly be much mystery
about it. Within a short time there have been two
registrars at Leeds, namely, Mr. Wilde and Mr.
Welch. It appears that certain irregularities,
not extending, however, to personal defalca-
tions, were discovered in Mr. Wilde's accounts by
Mr. Commissioner Ayrton, who reported thereon
to the Lord Chancellor. Lord Westbury accord-
ingly called upon Mr. Wilde for an explanation.
The Chancellor, no doubt, was the chief, if not the
only, judge of the merit of the explanation ; but it
can hardly be doubted that he was both a compe-
tent and disinterested judge. The Chancellor de-
cided that the explanation was not satisfactory.
That was, no doubt, a sufficient ground for Mr.
Wilde's resignation. Next, however, comes the
question of Mr. Wilde's pension. Probably Mr.
Ferrand imagines that the Lord Chancellor wished
to obtain Mr. Wilde's resignation by a sort of
mingled principle of rewards and punishments. He
would give him a pension if he Would retire at once,
in order to nominate a relative in his place. Un-
' luckily, however, for Mr. Ferrand's theory, the
Lord Chancellor nominated neither a relative, nor
a friend, nor even an acquaintance. He gave the
office to a Mr. Welch, whom he knew only by the
honourable mention made of him by Sir William
Atherton and Mr. Edward James in recommending
him for a legal appointment. Here, however, there
is a remaining straw for Mr. Ferrand to cling to.
This gentleman declares it only a provisional ap-
pointment, to fill up the interval between that time
and the expiry of Mr... Richard Bethell's outlawry.
The appointment, however, appears to have been
permanent, and to have been made without any
qualification. So far aslragards Mr. Bethell, the
evidence of dates seems to be conclusive against Mr.
Ferrand's hypothesis. Mr. Welch's appointment
took place on the 30th of July, 1864 ; the outlawry-
only dated from the 15th of December following.
With this circumstantial contradiction, it can hardly
be pretended that any part of Mr. Ferrand's posi-
tion survives. The Attorney-General declares also
that, although the Lord Chancellor had been re-
quested to transfer Mr. Welch to London by way
of promotion, in order to make room for Mr. Bethell
at Leeds, he altogether refused to do so. It is quite
possible that this proposition may lie at the bottom
of the whole fabric Mr. Ferrand has built up. But,
be this as it may, it is impossible to conceive, after
the Attorney-General's plain and demonstrative
reply, that it can have any better foundation.
HERALD.—The ill-luck which has attended Mr.
Locke's bill for establishing "free trade in theatres,"
and for rendering theatres commodious and safe
places of public entertainment, should not so far
' discourage the advocates of the measure as to make
them despair of ultimate success. This bill is not
the first necessary piece of legislation which the
inexorable Wednesday rule of the house has " put
off," and postponed till its appearance on the notice
paper became rather a sign of what was not to be
than of what would really happen. Bills which have
bloomed into acts of much greater importance than
Mr. Locke's bill have successfully passed the ordeal
of disappointment and delay, in spite of public and
private attempts to burke them, and in defiance of
deeply-interested augury. Therefore, when we find
certain interests adverse to the reform which would
be created by the bill hailing with a shout of
triumph the fact that the measure halts considerably
on its way to a second reading, and attempting, by
the aid of unpolished badinage, to laugh Mr. Locke
and his proposal out of countenance, we only recog-
nise the old tactics, and see behind the transparent
mask the would-be confident mummer. Unhappily
Mr. Locke's bill affects two classes of public caterers
for amusement who have agreed to differ, and to
consider themselves as enemies, the one class against
the other. The theatrical lessee has, in many in-
stances, taken it into his head that he is being out-
generalled and made to suffer loss by the music-hall
proprietor._ He sees that while he has to obtain

.t‘ le-ave and licence" for his performances, his brother
of the music-hall is, in matters of entertainment, a
chartered libertine, and chartered, too, to offer his
patrons the extra attractions of the tavern or the
hotel. It is here that the theatrical lessee feels, or
thinks he feels, the shoe pinch. The English,
although on the whole a sober people, have bibulous
tendencies when they take their pleasure ; and so
terribly Common has become the practice of
smoking tobacc6, that where the smoker may
send up his curling wreaths between himself and
the footlights, a goodly company is pretty sure
to assemble. The bait of the music-hall, then
is very nicely compounded, and the theatrical
lessee thinks it a little too nice for the public to be
pleasant to him. He therefore as or a counter-
balancing advantage. He wants T monopoly of
drama, ballet, and pantomime, as a set-off against
the pipe, the cigar, and the grog. It is purely a
question of profit ; not of morality or the well-being
of society. The music-hall runs the theatre very
closely in the matter of popularity, axd the theatre
wants to have the music-hall weighted or handi-
capped till absolutely rivalry shall be out of the
question. " Beep these places," says the lessee,
" down to their old level : grant them their comic
songs, their tumblers, their trapezeists, their dogs
and monkeys, their irrepressible niggers, and all the
irregularities of the entertaining school, but prohibit
them from the higher grades of public amusement.
In other words, keep the music-halls down to a low
standard, and condemn their audiences to the pe-
nalty of a second or third-rate programme for their
ill-conditioned tastes. Deny them anything - like
elevation, save that which may be supplied in the
body of the house by the waiter, and quarter your
pipes and grog with mountebank supporters." There
is nothing more in the whole dispute than this—it is
a question of rivals in trade. The music-hall has
grown ambitious of improvement ; and the theatre
craves to nip this ambition in the bud. And because
Mr. Locke's bill would hinder the proceeding, and
let the two classes of establishments do what they
please under precisely similar conditions, the " ori-
ginal houses" are wroth, and the hon. member for
Southwark feels in various ways the effect of med-
dling with a monopoly. The public, however, has
something to say in such a matter; and it says plainly

and regardless of private interests, "We do not want
these leading strings. We can go alone in our amuse-
ments, subject, of course, to a censor morum alike for
all places of theatrical and musical entertainment. In
the petty squabbles between one set of managers and
another set, we take no concern, except to regret
that they stand in the way of general improvement.
There is an evening -for the theatre, and an evening
for the music-hall, and why the two institutions
should not do their best to provide us wholesome
entertainment is a question to which we want a plain
answer." That answer has never been given, ex-
cept in the form of an interested and a ridiculous
one. If you make the music-hall more attractive,
or allow it to be made more attractive, say the
lessees, we shall suffer in pocket. Our " crowded
houses" will sink to a beggarly account of empty
boxes, we shall never have the melancholy satisfaction
of turning money from the doors, and "only stand-
ing room " will no longer affright the playgoer as h e
stares wretchedly in at the box entrance. Indeed,
" complet" will be as unfamiliar a word to us as to
a ramshackle stage-coach rolling on a dull day from
Paris to beyond the barriers. We have not heard
any answer but this to the demand for " free trade
in theatres." Certain writers have, it is true, hinted
something about theatres becoming taveWs if music-
halls are to have the privileges at present enjoyed
by theatres; but this notably absurd idea is repu-
diated even by theatrical lessees themselves, as an
imputation of a scandalous character. It is unne-
cessary, therefore, to do more than entertain the
question of self-interest, of pecuniary loss to thea-
trical managers, and this may be easily disposed of
as a consideration totally inadmissible, when the
broad ground of freedom from a monopoly that de-
grades one kind of entertainment is the basis argued
upon. It is not possible to maintain for long the
profits of a particular class up to a certain standard,
by shutting out the rivalry of another class. The
law may do it for a time • but, as the existing dis-
pute shows, it cannot make monopoly permanent.
There will be ingenious evasions, as in the case of
the Canterbury Hall ghosts, arrd triumphant de-
fiances, as in the case of the Alhambra ballet. There
will be puzzled magistrates giving decisions to be
quashed, and an astounded people laughing over the
laboured attempts of " experts," to show the differ-
ence between stage tweedle-dum and music-hall
tweedle-dee. All the while, poor Mr. Donne, from the
Chamberlain's-office, will be tortured to prove that he
is absolutely hors de combat, and unable to do more
than promptly obey a subpoena. We maintain that
the present condition of things cannot last,
and that even while it does last, practically the law
will be evaded. There are many persons who
gravely assert that the decision recently pronounced
at the Middlesex Sessions in favour of the Alhambra
ballet was itself a violation of the law : and really
the business is so nice a one that he would be a rash
man who should maintain the perfect and complete
legality of that decision. It is all a muddle, a
muddle that Mr. Locke's bill is framed to cure. To
postpone or burke the consideration of such a bill
is, therefore, not the best policy on the part even of
those who favour the very slight and simple case of
the theatrical managers. While everybody is in
doubt as to what is and what is not legal in a
music-hall, the benefit of the doubt will be given to
the more liberal policy of permission, and theatrical
managers will roll up to the police-court the stone
of Sisyphus, that it may be pushed down again by
higher authorities. It would be as well to ponder
these facts before trying to get rid by a side wind of
a question that requires a proper settlement.
CORK REPORTER.—The war in America being
now over, and the South having failed to establish
their independence, it is to be hoped that President
Johnson's policy will be one of conciliation, and not
one of subjugation. He must see the error com-
mitted by Russia in the management of Poland,
establishing a despotism there which has been
equally injurious to both. No doubt, his Ministers
will be in great measure guided by the advice of the
gentlemen representing foreign Courts at Washing-
ton, whose duty it is to do everything in their power
to assuage the evils of war. President Johnson
seems to have great animosity towards the Southern
planters and country gentlemen, which rankles in
all his speeches. He seems to look on one class—
the rich—as inconsistent with good government.
If his feelings for the people be carried into execu-
tion by trampling on the planters, what is to pre-
vent similar feelings against men of wealth in
the North being carried out ? When the ban-
kers and merchants of New York and Boston see a
class legislation against men of property in the
• South, it will be time for them to remember the
words of the poet, " Praximus ardet Ucalegon' "
—when your neighbour's house is on fire, &c. Mr.
Johnson in his speecheA calls treason a diabolical
crime, but we must consider what is treason. Was
it treason in the colonies to revolt against Great
Britain? Was it treason in Naples, Modena, and
Parma to dethrone their Sovereigns ? Wash treason
for the people of England to bring in William the
Third, and substitute the House of Hanover for that
Stuart? Was it treason for France to select the
Emperor Napoleon vice the Bourbons ? It was not.
No more was it treason for the people of the Southern
States, united in their wishes, to elect Davis vice
Lincoln. Mr. Horace Greely, on the breaking out
of the war, boldly stated that " the cotton
States had every right to secede, and that
to deny them that right would be against
all ideas of liberty and freedom." The
constitution of the United States did not
forbid it, but expressly stated that " whenever any
form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends (life, liberty; and thq• pursuit of happiness), it
is the right of the people to alter and to abolish it,
and institute a new government, laying its founda-
tion on such principles, and organizing its powers in
such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness." The South acted
on this principle, but failed in achieving secession.
During the Hungarian rebellion, and other revolu-
tions in Europe, the United States Government were
the first to support the insurrection, having sent a
Minister to recognise Hungary to Europe, and on
this point we must refer President Johnson to the
action of Messrs. Webster, Buchanan, Seward, and
other principal Secretaries of State, in their corre-
spondence with their envoys in Europe, to prove
that, with the precedents of his Government, trea-
son in other countries was not considered diabolical.