The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-16 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tins DA.T.—Morning, sh. 28m.—Afternoon, sh. 48m.
To-Moßnow.-Morning, 6h. 10m.—Afternoon, 6h. 37m.

ttit 44,011,"-

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1865.

The Union Chargeability Bill has been, indeed, I
a fruitful source of discussion, and given rise to
many conflicting opinions. An amount of irritation
has also been displayed on the occasion, which is
rather unusual to witness at the present juncture,
when all parties seem resolved to let matters take
their course, and to get through the necessary busi-
ness of the session as quickly and quietly as pos-
sible. It is satisfactory, at all events, to think that
this vexed question has been settled at last, and we
trust that due care will be taken to carry out the
provisions of the measure, so that the greatest pos-
sible benefit may accrue to the parties concerned,
and that the affairs of the Unions in the country
may not be mismanaged as they have
so often been hitherto. The Opposition
to the Bill was doubtless carried on with
sincere motives, but it was mistaken, and car-
ried on with unnecessary. pertinacity. The opinion
of the House was plainly shown by the division,
and the proposal to send
e bill upstairs to a Select
Committee was quite untenable. It would have
been virtually putting it aside altogether, and such
a result would have been much to be regretted. It
is high time that something should be done to put a
stop to the anomalies at present workinc, in the
country, and there is no reason to suppose that the
sinister prognostications of those who opposed the
Measure with might and main will be realised.
At the same time it will be seen by the tone of the
debate that great barm is done to a cause
by excessive vehemence and violent description.
It irritates and excites those who think themselves
aggrieved, and are thus led to denounce their
Wrongs, instead of addressing themselves to the
subject immediately before them. Thus, in the
debate last night, the particular injuries that had
been done to the character of landlords was of more
account with many than the general interests of the
community which were at stake in the matter. To
sum up the whole of the case in a few words, it is

--------
evident that there was much to amend and alter in
the condition of things which this Union Charge-
ability Bill gives a fair promise of achieving in a
satisfactory manner. It must be borne in mind
that all changes are at first unpalatable, and
are sure to awaken fears, groundless or other-
wise, as the case may be. It is always an arduous
thing to bring any measure safely through the
storm of discussion, and to encounter the hosts of
arguments that assail the unhappy being who is
venturesome enough to make the attempt. Mr.
VILLIERS may so far be congratulated on his success,
but it is to be hoped that he will bear his honours
meekly, and endeavour to improve the advantage
he has gained. There has been a great deal too
much indifference displayed in the management of
the Poor Law Board, and thus advantage has been
taken by careless and unworthy officials throughout
the land both in town and country, and things are
done which reflect the greatest discredit upon the
system, and are totally at variance with the desires
of the originators of the scheme and the framers of
the law. Those at headquarters repudiate these
things when they are laid to the charge of the sys-
tem ; but more care and caution on their part would
doubtless obviate much of the evil, and conduce
greatly to the advantage of all concerned. Mr.
VILLIERS made a very fair speech last night, and
explained to those who met his proposals with so
much opposition that there really existed but little
foundation for their facts. In the first place, he
stated that the Bill had been brought in on the re-
commendation of the Committee which had sat for
the space of three years to investigate the affairs
of the administration of the Poor Law. It must
be admitted that they certainly took their time
about it, and must therefore have been duly quali-
fied to give an opinion of the matter. It was
always thought besides by those who inaugurated
the reforms in the old Poor Law that it would be
necessary to substitute the union for the parish
rating. This is not, it will be seen on reflection, a
newly devised scheme, so much as the fulfilment of
a long matured plan, and the carrying out of a pre-
concerted scheme that hitherto has been found im-
practicable in its workings. It is very likely true
that exaggeration has taken place in some of the
assertions made and accounts given ; but it is desir-
able that things should be placed on such a footing
that the evils complained of cannot take place, in-
stead of its being assumed that they do not, because
some parts of the country form an exception to the
general rule. Mr. VILLIERS declared that the
farmers were in favour of the bill, and
did not coincide with the arguments of
those who were so much against it, as the law of
parochial settlement did tot work so well for them.
Mr. VILLIERS also declared that the Bill before the
House had not been founded upon the document
that had been called in question with so much
severity ; and, indeed, he had not seen the Report
until subsequently to the introduction of the mea-
sure. The right hon. gentleman, however, defended
the statements that were made by Dr. HUNTER
from the charges of inaccuracy made against them.
In support of this he brought forward several state-
ments which showed the House how much truth there
was in the communication referred to. Certainly, if
one half of the reports given by Dr. HUNTER were true,
the urgent necessity that existed for a change was
plainly made apparent. Mr. THOMPSON showed
great discretion in seeking to withdraw his amend-
ment, but he was not allowed to do so, and the sense
of the House was plainly evidenced by the large
majority that appeared against the amendment, one
hundred and seventy three deciding in favour of the
bill going into committee. Mr. BRUCE showed that
the objects which this bill had in view had been ad-
vocated by many distinguished writers of late years,
and he also argued that for the last half century
the demolition of cottages had been going on. This
is a very painful part of the subject, and
one that urgently calls for some alteration. The
prosperity of the country depends greatly upon
the welfare of the poor, and if the rights
of the cottager be not respected, and the
claims of its owners recognised, no lasting good can
be expected, or, if expected, will be realised. On
the whole, there seems much to be satisfied with in
the results of last night's debate and division, and
it remains to be hoped that the partial success it has
met with in the House will be an earnest and fore-
runner of the after-advantages that will accrue from
the Union Chargeability Bill, and that, when carried
out in its entirety, it may diffuse satisfaction and
contribute to the welfare of the community through-
out the length and breadth of the land, thus bring-
ing reforms into practical working where they have
been so long and earnestly needed.

A somewhat important question was put to her
MAJESTY'S Ministers in both houses last evening by
Lord HOUGHTON and Mr. WHITE. The answer
which it elicited from the Prime Minister and the
Foreign Secretary was more satisfactory than official
replies generally are, and the sense of the houses
and of the public generally was with them. The
object of both questions was substantially the same,
namely, whether the Government was prepared to
withdraw that recognition of the Confederate States
as belligerents which they had previously accorded.
Lord RUSSELL adopted a bolder tone than he
formerly did in referring to the United States, and
certainly his arguments were unanswerable. Those
Americans who waste their indignation upon us,
for acknowledging the Confederates as belli-
gerents would do well to study the clear and
logical statement of Lord RUSSELL on this point.
It is impossible, he said, for a war to be carried on
by only one party, and therefore when the United
States claimed belligerent rights for themselves they
virtually declared the Confederates to possess the
same. The question of the recognition of the belli-
gerent rights of the Confederacy was, as Lord
RUSSELL plainly showed, decided by the Presi-
dent of the United States himself. When
he decreed that all the ports of the seven
States should be blockaded he claimed for
himself the rights of war, and those rights the United
States have, as Lord RUSSELL himself admits, exer-
cised with extreme rigour. The right of search
over merchant vessels upon the high seas has been
vigorously maintained by the United States autho-
rities. "I do not know," said the Foreign Secre-
tary, " any case in which the right of search,
of capture of vessels and imprisonment of crews,
has been exercised with greater severity by abellige-
rent than it has been exercised by the United States."
It only remained for the English Government to de-
cide whether or no they should recognise that right
on the part of the Federal Government. It was
quite impossible that the officers of the United
States should be permitted to search British ships,
to seize British goods, and cramp and injure British
commerce, while declaring all the time that there
was no war, and that a state of complete peace
existed. Such conduct would have been too pusil-
lanimous even for Lord RUSSELL; or rather, perhaps,
he knew the English temper too well to attempt
such a course. As for the present state
of things it is necessary, as the Foreign
Secretary showed, to ascertain first what

the Federal Government is about to do before
the recognition of the Confederates as belligerents
can be withdrawn. Therefore, upon the Govern-
ment a the 'United States propcfiing that all