The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-08 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDO.N, WEDNESDAY EVENiNG, MARCH 8,186 k

DEPERIAT, PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAsir EVENING.

The Low) CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
the usual hour.
The School for the Indigent Blind Act Amendment BM
was read a second time.
THE CASE OP MR. EDMUNDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt he should
make a statement of all he knew of the matter respect-
ing the resignation of Mr. Edmunds, as Reading Clerk to
the House of Lords. He stated that Mr. Edmunds had
held the office of Clerk of the Patents, an office with a
salary of £4OO a year, created by a statute in the year 1833.
Since then, in the year 1852, a new office had been
created for certain patents—the office of Clerk to the Com-
mission of Patents--with a salary of £6OO a-year. This it
was deemed right, and for several reasons, to give to Mr.
Edmunds. The obligation is thrown upon the clerk
of the patent's to pay all :the fees he receives by
virtue of his office into the Exchequer. In 1864 it was
found great confusion had arisen in the Patent-office
these
. Many
complaints were brought to the noble lord touching
complaints, and Mr. Edmunds was one of the first to
demand the inquiry which followed. The report made by
the committee of inquiry stated that Mr. Edmunds had
received and misapplied public moneys which had come
into his hands, as Clerk of the Patents, to the extent of
£2,681. Since that Mr. Edmunds paid in the sum of
£7,872, notwithstanding the committee had reported
that he was a defaulter only to the extent of £2,681 ;
and accordingly further inquiry was made in January
this year, and the commissioner stated that Mr.
Edmunds was still furthei indebted in the sum of 1'9,100.
Mr. Edmunds has not yet made his answer to that
report. The noble lord first took the opinion of the
Government upon the question whether he should lay
the matter before their lordships. The Government
was of opinion that he should; and he therefore in-
tended to lay the report and Mr. Edmunds's reply upon
the table of the house; and to move for a committee
of inquiry into the subject ; and to advise the house
as to the course it would be proper to take upon
that information. But Mr. Edmunds made to him an
earnest request that he should not make that com-
munication for a few days longer until he (Mr. Edmunds)
had received some communications from abroad. At that
earnest request he postponed the communication for
four or five days. Then Mr. Edmunds sent in a petition ,
Praying to be permitted to resign, and also stating that
as he had been a servant of the country for eighteen
years, he hoped he should have granted to him the
usual pension of £BOO a year. The resignation was,
therefore, laid before their lordships and accepted. The
matter was laid before the committee, and it was a ques-
tion for his lordship to consider if he should pursue
Mr. Edmunds before the committee. As the inquiry had
not fully come to an end, he could not bring his mind to
pursue Mr. Edmunds. The law officers were of opinion
that there was not ground for criminal proceedings.
If it should be found in the end that Mr. Edmunds
is still a defaulter, the pension is liable to be taken
and will be taken, in satisfaction of the debt. The noble lord
concluded: It was necessary that the lesser office, that of
clerk of the patents, with a salary of £4OO a year,
should be immediately filled up. The patronage
was with the Prime Minister, but on my advice the
Prime Minister presented the appointment to a relation of
my own. The other office, that of Clerk of Commission of
Patents, in the Lord Chancellor's patronage, it was not ne-
cesssary to fill immediately, and it will not be filled until
the matter is settled. The noble lord moved that a com-
mission of their lordships be appointed to inquire into the
whole matter.
The Earl of DERBY—My lords, I cannot pretend to feel
any surprise, considering the amount of observation which
the resignation of the office of Mr. Edmunds in this house,
and the pension granted to him, have called forth in the
public mind, and also in the minds of the parties concerned.
I'say, I cannot feel surprised that the noble and learned
lord should take the earliest opportunity of making the
statement which he has done this evening. And, my lords,
the concluding sentence of the noble and learned lord's
speech, following up the intimation which he gave at the
commencement, will, I think; satisfy your lordships that it
will not be expedient on the present occasion to enter into
detail as to the circumstances, with which we are at present
but very imperfectly acquainted. My lords, there are three

parties on their trial before the public in this inquiry. There
is the case of Mr. Leonard Edmunds himself ; there is the
case of the committee of your lordships' house, who, upon
imperfect information, as it would appear to me, recom-
mended the grant of the pension ; and lastly, if I may be
allowed to say so, there is the course that has been pursued
by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack himself. The
noble and learned lord has invited the fullest investigation
by your lordships into the course which has been pursued,
and it would be premature and highly improper, with the
limited information we have before us, to go into the
question. Ido not doubt that the committee to be ap-
pointed to inquire into the merits of the case will also be
desirous that the matter should be fairly placed before
the public through the medium of your lordships. I am
informed that Mr. Leonard Edmonds, whatever may have
been the amount of indiscretion or imprudence, or even, if
you choose to use so hard a word as criminality, may be
imputed to him, is himself anxious for the fullest inquiry,
and to make a statement before the committee of the cir-
cumstances connected with this matter. But your lord-
ships will observe that he comes to this discussion, if there
be any discussion, at a great disadvantage. The noble and
learned lord has had the oprortunity of making his state-
ment, and I do not in the slightest degree complain that he
should have made it in the way that he has thought it de-
sirable to do. But the one point on which the whole matter
turns, namely, the amount of indiscretion or criminality
which attaches to Mr. Edmunds, is not at this moment be-
fore your lardships, although that is an essential condition
on which alone you can judge as to the propriety of the
course which the noble and learned lord has pursued. I am
told that there are extenuating circumstances with regard
to the defalcations in the Patent Office. No doubt there
were irregularities, and lam informed—it may be mere
rumour—that the charge against Mr. Leonard Edmunds is
that instead of handing over a sum of money to the Govern-
ment he had placed it in a deposit bank, when until it was
called for he was receiving on his own account interest ;
but as a claim was made, he paid over the whole sum due
to the public, certainly a larger sum than he was a defaulter
for, to the best of his judgment. Now, it may have been
extremely imprudent and extremely improper that money
should, even for a time, have been placed to such an ac-
count, for Mr. Edmunds's own benefit ; yet I must say that
if this is the whole case—l know lam speaking in entire
ignorance of what the case may be—but I say if that were
the whole case, it falls very far short of that whichhasbeen
imputed to him as a criminal act. Now, I do not for one
moment dispute Mr. Leonard Edmunds's own statement.
He made a report to the commissioners, which we have not
seen, but which of course the committee of your lordships'
house will see. lam now alluding to the preliminary
report. Mr. Leonard Edmunds, I understand, at once re-
signed the office of clerk of patents and the corresponding
office of clerk of the commissioners ; he then remained in
the office of reading clerk at your lordships' table, and I

confess I am not altogether satisfied that, with regard to
that office, a somewhat hasty course has not been taken
with respect to Mr. Edmunds. The noble and learned lord
informs us that, in the first instance, ho was under the
impression that the dismissal from that office rested not
with your lordships' house, but with himself as Lord Chan-
cellor, and no one could complain that, with that responsi-
bility attaching to him he should havefelt it
such advice
duty to
make most stringent inquiries, and to take
the subject as might justify him him us to the course
he ought to pursue ; but it subsequently a
pp sthawtht.hhe
dismissal from the office was not the act of the Lord Chan-
cellor but of the house itself; and here I think there i;
ground for inquiry whether the proper course was pursued
or not, because, if I am not misinformed, the Lord Chancel-
lor, previous to the meeting of Parliament, informed Mr.
Leonard Edmunds that it was his intention to bring the
whole case under the consideration of the House of Lords,
but that if Mr. Edmunds consented to resign his office in-
stead of being dismissed by the House of Lords, in that case
the Lord Chancellor would place no obstacle in the way of
his receiving his pension as reading clerk. Now, my lords,
if the dismiisal from that place was in the hands of the
House of Lords, the question ought not to have boon put
on the footing that the resignation of the office should have
secured to Mr. Edmunds the good offices of the Lord Chan-
cellor in obtaining pension to which he was not strictly
and fairly entitled. But the question out to have been
fairly put-.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—I beg to assure my noble
friend and noble lords that that statement which has been
raate!_ to him is utterly without foundation : it is utterly
and entirely untrue. I cannot account for its having been
co dcated to him, except from the • umstance
that I have mentioned,
namely that an applicatione was
rewadedatyo,miettte.e
postpone my statement to the house for a
;told me that it was Mr. Edmunds's in-
tention to resign got a communication from abroad.
I consented to Withhold
my
statement and the laying of the
consequence of that communication;
but that I ever held out
.r. Edmunds that I would with-
libld the statement if he resigned, isquite destitute of foun-
dation.
The Earl of DERRY—I am bound
accept,
without
holding the high positimenton which he
o and learned lord;
dbi
publicly in your lordships' house ; but a tot
hesitation, the state of the
tshtaetement made
nooe
a
am bound to Bay that I should never have ventusarenacltehontimsuechl
s auggestion if it had not been stated to me in
pOsitive manner that the very notice was sent in e a moat
declaration on the part of the noble and learned lored,th t
the
if Mr. Edmunds would, resign his office the noble and
learned lord would place no obstacle in the way of his ob-
taining his pension. Of course I accept the denial of the
noble and learned lord, but that is one of the questions
which the committee will find it necessary to satisfy them-
selves upon. The parties concerned will be brought face
to face with each other, and all the circumstances brought
fully before the committee. Now, my lords, I would say
that the course which in my mind ought to have been
pursued was this—that inasmuch as the House of Lords,
and not the noble and learned lord, is responsible for the

dismissal or the acceptance of the resignation of Mr.
Leonard Edmunds—for I will put it in that light—it
' should have been brought before the House of Lords with
the two parties before them, and their loalsl ips could
have decided, not whether, having been dismissed, he
should receive his pension, but whether the amount of
blame imputed to him in another office justifed his dismis-
sal from the office he held in this house. (Hear, hear.)
This case was prejudged ; he was compelled to resign, and
the question that was alone raised was whether he was
entitled to a pension. We are in this dilemma, either the
criminality was not so great that it ought to entail his
dismissal from the office in your lordships' house, or if the
criminality was sufficient to justify their saying he (Mr.
Edmunds) was not fit to be employed in the public service,
then he ought not to have received a pension. But the pe-
tition for a pension was presented by the noble and learned
lord himself. The noble and learned lord had himself ad-
judged or decided that it was the duty of the house to dis-
miss Mr. Leonard Edmunds ; and he must, consequently,
have been of opinion that he was not entitled to receive
the pension. Yet, being so convinced, he is the person who
presents the petition to the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.)
He is the person who lays the petition on the table, and by
his sanction the committee is appointed to inquire under
ordinary circumstances whether Mr. Edmunds, after 18
years' service in that house, is entitled to a pension. I say,
under the circumstances, a committee of your lordships'
house ought to have been appointed to consider first,
whether Mr. Edmunds merited dismissal at all ; and next,
assuming that he did, whether he was entitled to any pen-
sion. If the noble and learned lord will excuse me for say-
ing so, what he calls a case of notoriety is one with which
we are even now very imperfectly acquainted, although Mr.
Edmunds has been dismissed and another gentleman ap-

pointed in his place, an appointment about which I hare
nothing to say, knowing as I do nothing of the merits or de-
merits of the gentleman who has been placed very suddenly
in the office of reading clerk. My complaint is that when
the resignation had been accepted the merits of the case
as affecting the petition for a pension were not laid before
a committee, and we are now told that a pension having
been granted, it may be applied in liquidation of any
debt that may remain. There are various other rumours
connected with this office, and the cause of Mr. Ed-
munds's embarrassment and resignation, to which I will
not allude ; they involve serious charges against persons
in very high positions ; and I think the inquiry
_ _

should be of such a searching character that all the
circumstances should be placed fully before the committee,
and, if necessary, before the public. I know it is impossible
fairly to discuss this question, but you will pardon me for
saying that if the noble and learned lord has had an oppor-
tunity of laying his case before your lordships it is rather
hard on behalf of a gentleman whose character has been
impugned on such high authority, that even a suggestion
should not be made to your lordships to mitigate, if not
counteract, the ex-parts statement against him. (Hear,
hear.) I have had no communication with Mr. Leonard
Edmunds. I have seen a copy of the answer sent in to the
first statement; but I have no motive whatever nor ill-
feeling against the noble and learned lord on the woolsack,
from whom I have received nothing but personal courtesy
and kindness, for which I am most grateful. I only ask
you not hastily to condemn, in his absence, an officer who
has not had an opportunity of making a statement to you,
and that you will adopt the very fair, straightforward, and
manly propositign of the noble and learned lord of allow-
ing the whole matter to be referred to a committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The noble earl has said

that I had decided before the meeting of Parliament that
Mr. Edmunds should be dismissed. That was the very

thing that I did not decide, and the very thing that the
noble lord should have felt that I had carefully abstained
from deciding. I referred the subject, when I thought I
had the power, to Lord Cranworth and Lord Kingsdown,
and when I found that I had not the power I proposed to
lay the papers before the house, and refer it to a commit-
tee to decide upon the matter. And yet lam told by the
noble lord that he does not wish to discuss the matter
otherwise than fairly.
The Earl of DERBY—I understand that the noble and

learned lord told Mr. Edmunds that the whole case would
be brought before the house unless he anticipated this by
resigning his office.

Lord REDESDALE said that the committee to which
Mr. Edmunds's petition was referred was one of the stand-
ing committees of the house, and not one appointed for the
purpose. They had no information as to what had taken
place in regard to the Patent-office, and their recommenda-
tion that a pension should be given to Mr. Edmunds was
founded entirelyon the manner in which he had discharged
his duties in that house.

The Marquis of BATH understood that the Lord Chan-
cellor had charged the committee with having acted hastily.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I made no charge, nor did
I intend to insinuate anything of the kind.
The Marquis of BATH said that his Lordship had said
that the circumstances of Mr. Edmunds's resignation were
notorious, and that he expected to have received a request
for information.

The LORD CHANCELLOR--What I said was this, and
the noble Marquis might have recollected it, that I did not
for one moment intend to insinuate anything or to cast the
least charge against the members of the committee. These
were the very words I used, and I carefully abstained from
saying that they acted otherwise than rightly.
The Duke of MONTROSE thought there had been
neglect on the part of the Lord Chancellor and of the Go-
vernment in not having laid such important information
before the committee.

Earl GRANVILLE depricated any further discussion of
the subject at that time. It would be fully ihvestigated by
the committee which would be appointed.
The Earl of DERBY proposed that the reference to the
committee should direct them to inquire into "the circum-
stances connected with Mr. Edmunds's appointment to and
holding of his office."
Earl GRANVILLE said that the Government did not
desire to keep back anything, and he dared say these
matters would come before the committee, but he thought
it would not be a dignified proceeding to order the com-
mittee to inquire into rumours which were not even dis-
tinctly stated.

Thy Earl of DERBY would not press his proposition if
he received a distinct understanding that inquiry on the
subject to which he referred should not be stopped, if it
arose in the course of the proceedings of the committee.

Earl GRANVILLE had no hesitation in saying, on the
part of the Government, that not only had they no wish to
stop inquiry, but they wished to promote it in every way.

After a few words from Lord REDESDALB and Lord
COLCHESTER,
The Earl of DERBY proposed that the committee should
be directed to inquire also into the resignation by Mr.
Edmunds of his offices of clerk of patents and of clerk to
the patent commissioners.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had no objec-
tion to that.

The motion, with this amendment, was then agreed to.
The Game Licences (Ireland) Bill passed through con•
mittee.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Bill was read
a second time.

The house adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock

HOUSE OF COMMONS---LasT EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.

The O'DONOGHUE took the oaths and his seat on his
election for the borough of Tralee, and was introduced by
Mr. Longfield and Mr. Hennessy.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Bristol
and North Somerset Railway (Bristol and Bath Lines);
Garth Quarry Railways ; Peterborough, Wisbeach, and
Sutton Railway; Stonehouse and Nailsworth Railway;
Goolei.Keadby, and Macey Junction Railway.

article reaed,trchebelded,thoer
ecovnensumqueardruinptlehde
inshaampeounof
tb. be was
oitrdinwasg
to an estimate that bore the appearance of accuracy, the
annual value of the beer consumed in this country amounted
to £60,000,000 sterling, one-third of which, or £20,000,000,
was attributable to the existence of the malt tax,
whilst £5,000,000 only of that sum found its way to the
Exchequer for the benefit of the state. Abolish the tax,
then, and there would be at once a saving of £20,000,000
to the public, the advantage of which would be shared in
not by a small section of the community only, but by the
small tradesmen, artisans, and labourers, who constituted
upwards of three-fourths of the consumers of bee; and
were the least able to bear the burden of the tax. Since
the peace in 1815 taxes had been either altogether repealed
or reduced upon 800 different articles ; but that upon malt
alone remained. Every principle of political or financial
administration that should govern a minister of finance for-
bade the continuance of the tax, as it should have forbid-
den its original imposition. And he argued that, upon the
same principle on which the duties on corn, wool, cotton,
paper, wines, and other articles had been repealed, the malt
tax ought to be abolished. The hon. and learned gentle-
man then pointed out the advantages of repeal to the far-
mer as a' producer of corn and live stock, by giving him the
unfettered use of barley, and creating a better market for
his produce ; and to the consuming classes, by supply-
ing them with a cheaper and more wholesome bever-
age. He also contended that it would greatly benefit Ire-
land and Scotland by encouraging them to grew inferior
barleys fit for malting purposes upon tracts of land that
were now altogether unproductive. In conclusion, he called
upon the= Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why it
was that this tax upon an article of British produce and
manufacture, and of universal consumption, should be left
standing alone amongst hundreds of others the duties upon
which had been either reduced or repealed.
Sir E. B. LYTTON (who, upon rising, was received
with cheers) said,--Sir, —I rise to second the motion of my
hon. and learned friend. In his able and exhaustive
speech he did not exaggerate the importance attached to
relief from the malt tax by the great body of agricul-
tural producers ; and the amount of the tax, which, no
doubt, seems to many gentlemen the strong reason for re-
taining it, seems to the farmers the strongest argument in
favour of its repeal. (Hear, hear.) What the farmers say
is this, " When you tell us that this tax produces six mil-
lions a year, you only bring more vividly before our eyes
the extent to which we are defrauded in the fair exercise of
our industry and skill. Here you call in free trade in order
to compel us to vie with the corn-growers throughout the
world, and when in this struggle we turn to that crop on
which we ought most to rely, because in that crop we are
most a match for the foreigner, your free trade resolves it-
self into a tax of six millions on our raw material ; and you
make the very amount of the spoliation the reason why we
should submit to be despoiled." (Hear.) But it is not only
against the free cultivation of barley that the tax militates.
Its tendency must be more or less to derange the natural
process of agriculture in the unfettered selection of crops.
(Hear, hear.) Agriculture is a course of tillage spread over
a certain series of years in a certain rotation of crops ; and
in that year in which the farmer would and ought to sow
barley our common sense must tell us that the presence of
this tax at once obtrudes itself on the consideration of his
choice, and will often induce him to select another crop
more exhausting to the land, less appropriate to a judicious
place in the regular course of husbandry, and less lucrative
than barley would be if barley were left free from the ex-
ciseman. (Hear.) You cannot, therefore, wonder to find
many farmers declaring at the various meetings which have
been held on this subject that they will not grow a bushel
of malt as long as this tax lasts. And if the tax thus deters
farmers from selecting a barley crop even in the barley-grow-
ing districts, how much more will it tend to prevent the in-
troduction of that crop in other parts of those kingdoms to
which it would be invaluable as an article of cattle food, and
from which it is now frightened away by a duty of 21s. Bd. a
quarter! (Hear.) Thus, by a positive discouragement you
give to a crop in which England naturallyexcels every other
nation, you exclude it altogether from many soils to which
it would be well adapted, and you stint the whole agricul-
tural wealth of the country to a far greater amount than the
revenue benefits by so mischievous a tax up.= the raw ma-
terial. (Hear, hear.) The question becomes still more im-
portant as to the operation of the tax not only against the
farmer but against every class of consumer, and against thci
elementary source of national wealth, which consists in the
fertility of the soil, when you consider its injurious effect
upon the quantity of stock kept. For stock implies two
things—first, meat to the consumer; secondly, manure to
the soil. (Hear, hear.) Whatever tends to restrict the quan-
tity of stock kept tends to make meat less plentiful and of
higher price—(hear, hear)—and tends also to rob the land
of the manure necessary for its nourishment. (Hear, hear.)
If you have no stock you have no farmyard heap—if you
no farmyard heap you have no guarantee for the perma-
nent and continuous fertility of the soil. (Hear, hear.)
Artificial manures are like doctors' drugs—they may do
great good for a time, they act as restoratives or alteratives ;
but they can no more supersede the necessity for the natural
manure of the farmyard heap than doctor's drugs can super-
sede the necessity for food. (Hear, hear.) The farmyard
heap is the fobd of the soil, and nothing can supply its
place. Now, let me ask any of those distinguished practical
agriculturist; of whom there are so many in this house, if
I am not right when I say that just in proportion as, since
the repeal of the corn laws, successful farming has ceased
to depend upon the price of corn, it ought to depend upon
the increased cultivation and keep of stock? And yet, I ask
again, can there be a greater discouragement to the increase
of stock than a law which restricts the farmer in the growth
of his own food for it ? (Hear.) And what kind of food ?

Why, precisely that which cAn be grown upon almost any
'soil. Therefore, this tax, which some consider only the
grievance of the farmer, and others ridicule as a mere ques-
tion of beer, operates against every constituent you have in
towns or boroughs, because, by discouraging stock, it
raises the price of meat, and by defrauding the soil of
the manure, which is its most lasting fertiliser,
there is dothing that the soil can yield which
it does not render dearer, while it diminishes the
taxable wealth of the whole community. (Hear, hear.)
But the Board of Trade has issued a report of a course of
experiments on cattle food, by which report it is made to
appear that barley unmalted gives more weight to cattle
and more milk to cows than barley malted ; and thus, it is
contended by a poweiful daily journal that one main argu-
ment for the repeal of the tax is destroyed. That those ex-
periments were made fairly the name of Mr. Lawes is to me
a sufficientguarantee. As a Hertfordshire man, I am too
proud of the fame of that eminent chemist to disparage his
authority. But Mr. Lawes, were he here, would agree with
me when I say that the whole history of physiological
science shows how little faith is to be placed in any prelimi-
nary course of experiments howeverplausible. For instance,
a series of experiments was made on the transfusion of new
.blood into diseased subjects, which appeared at first so

triumphantly successful that it created a profound sensation
throughout Europe. Everywhere medical men adopted the
practice, but the result so upset the theory founded on these
experiments, and caused so many sudden and violent
deaths that the Parliament of Paris actually declared the

transfusion of blood to be criminal. The inventor, de=
spite the unquestioned success of his early experiment;
was sent into banishment, and the whole system fell into
discredit till revived in our day and placed on a scientific
basis. But how ? Why, by allowing that the first pro-
cess of experiments though apparently so successful was
altogether fallacious and exceptional, that the subsequent
course was equally wrong, and showing where, by new
experiments made much more in detail, the process may be
beneficial and where it must be fatal. But in the whole
history of experiments nothing has required so many repe-
titions and undergone such revisions of scientific opinion
as experiments analogous to those of the Board of Trade
which have been made upon the relative merits of articles
of nutrition. Here the deductions drawn from the first
course of experiments, made by the ablest authorities,
have been almost invariably disproved by a second
course of experiments, and the second disproved by a
third; and to this day the whole subject is one of the
most mysterious and the most disputatious on which rival
physiologists can engage. I think that one of the last at
these inquiries on the merit of comparative articles of nutri-
ment made bythe physiologists of the continent was whe-
ther, according to scientific experiments conducted on prin-
ciples of selection exactly similar to those adopted by the
Board of Trade, only selecting varieties of men, instead of
varieties in the inferior animals, more nutrition was con-
tained in the roast beef of Old England or in the boiled leg
of a donkey. (Laughter.) 1 believe the first experiments
were in favour of the donkey, but I am now assured that, on
second thoughts, sound philosophers give the preference to
beef. (Laughter.) Sure I am, however, that if donkeys
yielded to the revenue £6,000,000 a year, a Board of Trade
would never be at a loss to find a preliminary abstract report
to justify its predilection for donkeys. (Cheers and much
laughter.) Then, sir, with all respect to the Board of Trade,
I object to take their report as in any way settling the ques-
tion. We are not to suppose that during all these years farmers
themselves have not been testing the relative merits of
barley and malt as cattle food, with every inducement to
aatauthorityrckYorkshire—who,
prefer barley because it is untaxed. Numberless persons
have made these experiments.l will single one, because he
is as
sh Mr.r
_L awwheos, onaa thisthe s u
largest bj
eestocMrk
Booth, high
of c nt
e asr
breeder in England, and perhaps, in the world, has tried both
barley and malt in every conceivable combination, and
found that though barley might require to be very slightly
steeped, it must be steeped enough to be chargeable to the
tax in order to bo of general advantage, and in that case he
would have given it the most important place in cattle food,
if the tax did not render it too expensive. (Hear, hear.)
Thus, I am quite sure we shall shortly hear from num-
bers of persons of unquestionable authority, that the result of
their experience is totally at variance with the report of
the Board of Trade. But we will now assume, for the sake of
argument that the report establishes the fact at which it aims,
and even then it will not affect, except to strengthen, our
proposition that the Malt-tax operates against the increase
of stock. And for this reason, assuming that unmalted
barley is better than malted barley for the food of cattle,
still it will be the inferior barleys devoted to that object.
But the Malt-tax, as the leading journal I have before re-
ferred to allows, is a fine on the inferior barleys, and a fine
which the sate authority admits is sufficient to discourage
the sowing of inferior barley, that is, to discourage the growth

of cattle food in barley, whether it be malted or unmalted.
(Hear.) My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, whose faith in the legitimate laws of competition,
and whose vast information on all subjects belonging to
philosophical inquiry must make him at heart somewhat
sceptical as to the value of those experiments on which the
Board of Trade seem to rely, saw that in the application
of malted barley to cattle food there was an argument with
which it was difficult to cope ; and, therefore, in his Bill
of last year, he attempted to encourage the experiment of
malting barley exclusively for the purpose of cattle food.
I wish, like my hon. and learned friend, to do the amplest
justice to the enlightened consideration for the interests of
the meat consumer—in other words, for the whole popula-
tion of England, which is evinced by the intention of his
Bill. But I am sure that his candour will at once allow
that the effect of that Bill must be extremely partial. lam
ready to concede, for the sake of argument, that it has done
more good than is generally supposed; but, on the other
hand, it must be quite clear to him, it must be quite clear to
every man of sense, that only a very small number of farmers
and stockkeepers will attempt the experiment of malting
for cattle food; with all the vexatious restrictions heaped
upon the experiment, with all their jealous dislike of the
exciseman,with all their natural and excusable desire not to
co-operate in assisting a contrivance by which the tax itself
is to be retained—a very small number, indeed, compared
with those who would grow barley for the sake of malting
if malt were free from duty and they could count on the
double profit of malting, both for the food of cattle and the
drink of man. And out of that great increase in the
quantity of malted barley the larger part would neces-
sarily go to the food of cattle, because that is the proper
destination of the inferior barley's which at this moment
are almost a drug in the market. (Hear, hear.) But
apart from the direct application of malt to 'cattle food,
and apart from the report of the Board of Trade, and regard-
ing only the application of malt to the popular beverage of
malt liquors, the repeal of the malt tax would inevitably
tend to the increase of the quantity of stock kept. For
malt so applied, if free from duty, would be a new and large
item of profit to the farmer; it would thus increase the
general farming capital, and that increase of capital would
find its natural, because its most profitable, vent in the in-
crease of stock ; while, if the working class paid less for
their beer than they do now, they would, of course, have
more to spend upon butchers' meat—(hear, hear)—and thus
there would be at once created an additional supply of and
demand for that main article of human food—meat, all
tending to the encouragement of keeping stock, and by the
manure produced from'the stock all tending to the increased
fertility of our soil, even for wheat crops, and, therefore, all
tending to the cheapening of bread itself. (Hear, hear.)
For it is clear that the manure which the farmer would ob-
tain by growing untaxed barley he would devote to the
land which is to grow untaxed wheat. Is it not a strange
anomaly that you should say to the bread producer, "You
must give us the cheapest bread which unlimited competi-
tion with foreign countries can secure ;" and then inflict
on the bread grower a tax which directly frustrates your
object of cheap bread stuffs ; because it mulcts the capital
by which the bread crops are produced at home, and cheats
the land of the nourishment which the bread crops require ?
(Hear, hear.) If this tax raises £6,000,000 a year from the
raw material of the agriculturist, what is it but £6,000,000
withdrawn from one of the most reproductive sources of the
wealth of the nation ? (Hear, hear.) I ask, then, is not
this relief essential to the consummation of free trade ? Is
it not the fair demand of skilled labour to be free from a
tax upon the raw material ? And if you wish that raw
material to be worked up so as to contribute a fair benefit
to the consumer, do you suppose that you can effect that
object by the partial experiment of a handful of maltsters
with the exciseman at their backs, and all the complicated
machinery by which malt may be rendered unfit for the use
of man? No; you can only effect your object in the common
sense natural way, by the unshackled competition of the
cultivators of the soil, by whose skill, industry, capital, and
labour the raw material of the soil is to be raised and in-
creased. (Hear, hear.) Now there has been a strong attempt
to prejudice the true merits of this question by narrowing
them to the mere effect of the tax upon malt liquors. But
quite apart from that article of consumption, I think we
have shown that the tax affects the price of meat and of
bread; that it affects the productive fertility of the soil, and
therefore, of course, everything which the soil produces.
But its effect on malt liquor is not a thing to be ridiculed.
First, as to quality, I bring no charge against respectable
brewers. Ido not believe that they adulterate beer by any
deleterious ingredients. But the beer of the working class
is bought reta 1, and we are told by an eminent chemist that
the beer retailed to the working class is agreeably com-
pounded of quassia, wormwood, and coculus indicus, which
last has the special advantage of being a poison that insures
speedy intoxication. (A laugh.) So hero I grant that you
may say to the working man, " It is true that the tax raises
the price of your beer, but then it gives you these two bles-
sings in return—it accelerates the stupefaction of drunken-
ness and shortens the probation of mortal life." (Laughter.)
Secondly, as to the effect of the duty on the price of liquors.
I shall not hero attempt to add anything to the calculations
of my hon. and learned friend. Whether it only tax a quart
of malt liquor at 121 per cent., as my right hon. friend the
President of the Board of Trade assures us, or as my hon.
and learned friend contends, 50 per cent., that is a matter
which I leave entirely to those more competent than myself
to deal with. 1 may indeed think it strange that malt liquor
is only taxed 12-i per cent., when the malt which we assume

,o be its principal ingredient is taxed 70 pm cent., but I am
old enough to know there is no conjuring trick equal to
that of figures in the hands of a clever Minister. (Hear, and
a laugh.) lam contented to take my stand on the simple
certainty, which the President of the Board of Trade is the
last man to dispute, viz., that according to the law of compe-
tition, which affects the operations of trade, the repeal of the
Malt tax would give to the consumer of malt liquor his
most probable chance of having the best quality at the lowest
price, and while the tax lasts he certainly has neither. But
permit me to add that I think it would be difficult to per-
suade the working man that you apply your legislation fairly
to him when, in the name of free trade, you so largely re-
duce your duties on the beverage of the rich, and then, in
the name of the revenue, refuse all mitigation of a tax on
bhe beverage of the poor—taking such special
pains that
the working man shall not have the best drink at the lowest
price that your last legislation on this subject exhausts the
ingenuity of mechanicians in order to exclude the man
from the advantage you are willing to give to a cow or a
pig. (Cheers and laughter.) But, sir, the malt tax is en-
titled to our first consideration, not only for the reasons I
have stated, but because it now stands prominently fore-
most among the objects for which the income tax was first
imposed. (Hear, hear.) What the farmers feel and say is
this, " You have levied an income tax of which we pay a
share, for the avowed object of establishing free trade
as
the mainspring of all fiscal legislation. Availing yourselves
of this mighty instrument of the income tax, you have
given relief to other classes of the community in the taxes
or duties by which their energies were most crippled, or of
which their complaints were most loud ; but, all alone, we
agriculturists have been thrust out of the pale of your be-
nignant consideration. (Hear, hear.) The exciseman
stands between us and the free culture of our soil, just as
ho stood before free trade was an experiment tried upon
ourselves, or the income tax drew from our pockets money
which has gone to the relief of others. You have con-
ceded to fellow-sufferers far less numerous than we are all
those arguments against the principle of excise duties to
which you turn a deaf ear when they are urged by us.
Bricks and soaps and paper have all had priority over our
complaints. (Hear, hear.) But we now ask that the in-
come tax shall complete its object, and give us, however
tardily, some share of the relief which our contributions to
that income tax have so largely assisted to give to all
industrial occupations except our own." " Oh," but it is
said, "we do not dispute the justice of your demand, but
then your grievance is so lucrative to the Exchequer. How
repealm all at
er
ereduction
o
woulddu tnhoat t
ay it ei
sl
fd sy
xca6n,oyooou;oooa expectyeuars
?to
A the agitators, and would not get rid of the exciseman."
And, finally, reasoners of this kind sum up by saying,
"Since we cannot give you all, we will give you nothing."
(Cheers.) But is that the way Reformers deal with reforms ?
—(loud cheers)—or is it in that way we ought to rest and
be thankful ? Why, every abuse would last to the end of
time if one party did not concede a something and the other
party accept a something as an instalment of the whole de-
mand. (Hear.) Do not forget that in this motion we do
not ask you to take off the whole tax all at once. We only
ask you to begin to take it off by any instalment you have
to spare, and continue to bear us in mind whenever you
can take off old taxes without imposing new ones. I do
not deny that I desire and that I argue for the ultimate and
total repeal of this tax ; but I say this on behalf of the far-
mers, that they are like other Englishmen—show them that
you are in earnest to redress their grievance, and they, in
turn, will have confidence in you as to the mode and manner
of doing so, without too sudden a derangement of your finan-
cial operations ; but do not dismiss them by the mockery of
saying, "Since we cannot at once give you complete justice,
we will give you no justice at all." (Hear, hear.) Instead
of justice we give you a report from the Board of Trade. I
respectfully entreat hon. gentlemen on both sides of the
house to regard this question with that fairness and freedom
from prejudice which I am sure is their natural desire upon
all matters that affect the general interests of the com-
munity. Do not be biassed against the motion because it
emanates from these benches ; do not suffer it to become a
party question, and do not regard it as a mere farmers'ques-
tion, on which you have no interest if farmers are not your
constituents. It is one of those instances in which the griev-
ance of the producer is the wrong of the consumer. (Hear.)
And, indeed, if I have proved to you how the tax raises
the price of meat, meat is much more consumed by your
constituents in towns than by our labourers in the counties.
(Hear.) And now as to the amount of the tax. Is it really
so great a difficulty if you will but grapple with it ? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last year, on introduc-
ing his Budget, that since 1860-61 the real diminution in
our taxation had been £6,668,000. That is within three
years above £500,000 more than the proceeds of this malt
tax which, we are now told is protected from even an ap-
proach by the sanctity of its colossal injustice ! Yet so
safely to the revenue did you sweep away more than six
millions and a half of taxes on industry in three years that
last year you had two millions and a half again to give
away, and this year I believe you have the same: All these
great reliefs were effected because you wero in earnest to

effect them while you could avail yourselves of the income
tax. Be only as earnest to complete, by this relief, the ob-
jects of that income tax, and ways and means will be found
in this case, as they have been found in others, on which a
relief to the national industry has proved to be the readiest
means to increase the national income. I have always said
of this House of Commons, in which it is more than 30 years
since I first had the honour of a seat, that there has never
been a popular assembly, on the whole, so alive to the
principles of political honour, nor an aristocratic assembly,
on the whole more desirous of doing equal justice between
man and man ; and it is from a respectful but profound
conviction that neither according to honour and justice
you can play fast and loose with those professions and
pledges in free trade which makes the. repeal of the malt
tax the logical and inevitable consequence of the corn law,
that I entreat you not to reject the motion of my hon. and
learned friend. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. NEATE, moved, as an amendment, that considering
the immunities from taxation now enjoyed by the owners
and occupiers of land, they were not entitled to any special
consideration on account of the pecuniary pressure of the
malt tax ; and that if, on other grounds, that tax
should be reduced or abolished, compensation to the re-
venue should be sought, in the first instance, by with-
drawing from landed property the advantage it now had
over other property in the shape of total exemption from
probate duty and partial exemption from succession duty
and income tax.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. WHITE.

Mr. DUCANE supported the motion ; and in the reply
to the remarks of Mr. Neate, observed that the landed in-
terest had special burdens from which other classes were
exempt, and that the extinction of the malt duty ought in
justice and good faith to be a consequence of corn law re-
peal.

Mr. THOMPSON, in opposing the motion, contended
that the removal of the tax would not confer the advantage
upon the farming interest that was spoken of by its advo-
cates, for it was still a moot point whether barley was not
as good as malt for feeding purposes, whilst the only land
that would be reallybenefitedwould be the lighter descrip-
tions occupied by sheep farmers.

Mr. MORRIT T said that if he were Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in possession of a surplus, the course he should
take would be to reduce the income tax a penny, sweep
away the fire insurance duty altogether, and keep over the
balance of the surplus for another year to enable him to
remit £4,000,000 of malt tax.

Mr. HARDCASTLE suggested the withdrawal of the
amendment, to enable him to move the " previous ques-
tion," of which he had given notice. He also observed
that, so far as the interests of consumers were concerned,
there was every reason to believe that the tax was, after
all, a very small burden, whilst it did not by any means
injuriously affect the barley growers ; on the contrary, the
growers of the superior barley received a large bonus
through the operation of the duty. One result of repeal-
ing the tax must be an accompanying remission of 255. a
quarter. They might, therefore, anticipate a vast impor-
tation of foreign malt, which would compete with the bet-
ter sorts of English barley, and though itself of an inferior
description would force down the price of the native grown
produce.

Col. BABTELOTT characterised the argument of Mr.
Hardcastle as a defence of the monopoly enjoyed by the
brewers. His conviction was, and it was supported by the
highest authority, that if the tax were repealed the best
barleys would command a better price than at present, and
the barley trade generally would be greatly invigorated.
The maltster, being then untrammeled, would go into the
market and buy different classes of barley at their real and
full value. At present the poorer sorts of grain, not find-
ing purchasers, became a drug in the market. As to the
feeding properties of malt, experiments conducted by Lord
Leconfield and Mr. Rigden showed that it competed ad-
vantageously even with oil-cake ; and there could be no
doubt that malt made a much better manure than barley.
He asked the house to sanction a reduction of the duty as
an instalment towards ultimate repeal.
Mr. GIBSON admitted that the first portion of the mo-
tion bore a moderate aspect, but thought it was unnecessary
to assume that this duty or any other would not be consi-
dered by a Government that was about to propose a reduc-
tion of indirect taxation. To ask the house, however, to
agree to this resolution would be to tie the hands of the
present and all future Administrations, and bind them to
the solemn promise that, whatever might bo the claims of
other interests, and whatever the circumstances of the
country, a deaf ear was to be turned to all claimants except
those who required the abolition of the malt tax. If the
motion were carried, Parliament would be unable to dis-
regard it, and unless rescinded, it pledged itself not to re-
peal any indirect tax until this £6,000,000 was got rid of.
Moreover, the abolition of the malt duty would be a mea-
sure of injustice to other parts of the kingdom; for whereas
the relief it would give in England would be ss. sd. per
head of the population, in Scotland it would only be ls.
10d. per head, and in Ireland is. I.d. per head. In his
opinion, public feeling preferred a reduction of the duties
on tea and sugar to that upon malt or any alcoholic drinks.
Mr. HENLEY, treating the question as one of revenue,
said that all previous experience showed that reductions of
duty had been accompanied by an increased consumption,
and there was no reason why a similar result should not
ensue from the abrogation of tine malt tax. Comparing
the operation of the duty on malt with that on wine, the
right hon. gentleman contended that to the person who
bought by retail the former was a charge of 30 per cent. as
against only 7 per cent. upon the latter. He looked upon
the question as equally affecting producer and consumer,
farmer and labourer ; and seeing that the duty on wine
and brandy had been reduced, he thought the claim of the
poor man to a remission of say one-half the malt duty was
an act of justice, whilst in the course of a year or two the
revenue would be completely recouped.
Mr. NEATE then withdrew his amendment, whereupon
Mr. HARDCASTLE moved the previous question.
The house then divided on the motion " That this ques-
tion be put." The numbers were—

171
251
Majority against putting the question —BO
The question, therefore, upon Sir F. Kelly's motion, was
not put from the chair.
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers.

Ayes ...
Noes ...

Leave was given to Mr. BLAKE to bring in a bill to
amend the act for the regulation of municipal corporations
in Ireland ; to Sir R. PEEL a bill to provide for superan-
nuation allowances to officers in unions in Ireland ; to Mr.
COWPER two bills for acquiring additional lands for im-
proving the sites of the new public offices in Downing-
street and the India-office.

The other business on the paper was also disposed of
and the house adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—We seem to have arrived at that turning
point of the American war which brings us, as it
were, within sight of the final scene and the part we
shall be called on to play in it. The almost undisputed
progress of a Federal army through Georgia and South
Carolina, and the successive surrender of strong-
holds believed to be impregnable at its very ap-
proach, are by no means the only signs of Confede-
rate exhaustion. The great maritime cities, for the
defence of which such immense sacrifices had been
made, have long been occupied by miserable rem-
nants of their former population. Two months ago,
as appears from the letters of our correspondent,
Charleston, the very cradle of the " rebellion," was
a deserted and half-ruined city ; the cattle pastur-
ing, and even the partridge bringing up her brood,
in the streets. No wonder that men could not be
found to stay the progress of Sherman. Every
place was under-garrisoned, and could not Spare
soldiers without inviting attack. Material of all
kinds was wanting. If the garrison of Fort Fisher,
profiting by the experience of the first attack, had
supplied themselves with two or three rifled guns of
larger calibre, or had they completed the earthworks
where the causeway from the river ran into the fort,
or had they obtained the services of more officers
acquainted with the works than the two who fell
wounded early in the affair, or had the scanty gar_
rison not been raw recruits, then the fort ought not
to have fallen ; but in all these " ifs" we read the
lamentable condition of the Confederate cause. The
men, the guns, the officers, the labour were simply
not forthcoming, and without them forts cannot be
held, nor battles won. Energy, and even confi-
dence, it is said, are also on the decline. The Caro-
linas and their Southern neighbours showed the
true Southern temperament at the outbreak of the
struggle, when Virginia held back ; but it is she now
that holds her ground in the very face of the foe.
History and military criticism, however, will have a
good deal to say on the defence of Richmond when
all is over. If that defence is now, as it is said,
maintained by only 35,000 against thrice that num-
ber, then the Confederates cannot complain of the
capital; and, whatever the object, that force does
well which keeps thrice its number in check. But
the strength of the whole Confederacy has long been
drained for the sake of the capital, when head-
quarters could as easily have been established in a
less assailable position. 'That, however, has been
the case on both sides, and it is very remarkable
that when the founders of the Union made it part
of their plan to do as much as possible without a
capital at all, except just for the convenience of
common deliberation, the chief features of this war
should be the obstinate defence of two capitals at
a cost of blood and treasure beyond all proportion
t o their value. The exhaustion we have mentioned
is the point to which speculations on the probability
of peace have been most generally confined. The
Con federates began with a much less population of
whites than the Federals ; and this disparity was
practically increased by the great distance of some
of the States, and the want of communication. It
was enough if the Southern and Western States of
the Confederation could defend themselves. But
as the war advanced the Federal cause was continu-
ally and largely recruited by immigration, a re-
source entirely wanting on the other side. Europe
therefore saw with admiration the gallant stand

made by the Confederates, their military genius,
and their personal courage ; but it saw also that the
end was only a question of time on one side or of
weariness on the other. It appears as if the South
is exhausted by the war before the North is
wearied of it, and that the end is not far. The
cause is simply bleeding to death. The Confede-
rates can make peace whenever they please by re-
turning to the Union, and they will find the way
made easy. As to conditions of peace, it is need-
less to discuss more than one, and that is a joint
stock of grudges against this country. As in many
other quarrels, a common object of hatred is the
occasion and ground of reconciliation. The
.:
trea-
suries of the two sides will not produce a large sum"
but their grievances with England mount up to
something considerable. We are prepared for this
A bloody quarrel must leave bitter remembrances
and much indignation. These must have an object,
and if the combatants shake hands the next victim
that can be found is an unconcerned and unsympa-
thetic bystander. Who better indeed than the po-
liceman himself, if he can be attacked with impu-
nity ? As the Federal Government maintains that
it has a quarrel with us in the shape of claims which we
do not acknowledge, and it has a great deal to gain
by a successful war with us, the question to which we
have to address ourselves is simply whether they
can go to war with us with a fair prospect of suc-
cess. If they can, they certainly will. The first
consideration that occurs is that if the Confederates
are exhausted, the Federals are only less so ; and if
the latter only succeed by the exhaustion of their
Southern foe, they are not likely to find success
easy by turning against a new foe, with untouched
strength and resources. It is true that there is a
large army, many of whom may be called veterans,
and all in the hands of men with some experience of
actual fighting. But the soldier, in all ages, after a
certain period of hardship, pines for repose, and
longs for his snug farm, even though after a brief
interval he is again ready for fighting. Throughout
the whole of the States industry is more or less at a
standstill for want of men, and it offers wages that
compete with the enormous bounties and pay of the
soldier. The attraction of peace will be irresistible
after five years or more of this desperate work. So
we must consider whether the men will enlist again
for a new war against a new and certainly not less
vigorous foe. They must be paid first on the old
account ; and there is not a soldier in the service
whose pay is not many months in arrears. But that
will be a trifle compared with the new bill. The
American Treasury, hopelessly insolvent, will have
to try conclusions with the Treasury which paid a
hundred millions sterling for one war 10 years ago,
and has been reducing taxation ever since. It would
have to do this with a crippled commerce, for though
both would play this game, America would have her
full share of its forfeits. For every Alabama that
has sneaked out of our ports a hundred would steam
out with the British colours. New York, too, which
has hitherto fought at a distance and given money
rather than men, would have to bear the brunt of
the new struggle, and might haply share the fate of
Charleston, Savannah, and a few other of its victims.
The Federal territory might not be inviolate, and
if Canada can be reached it can also strike home.
Long wars, distant enterprises, familiarity with com-
mand, the exercise of proconsular authority, the
mutual jealousies of chiefs, and a real dictatorship
at head-quarters, are sure in the end to break up a
Republic. The statesmen of that Republic have
lately had some reason to survey their past policy,
domestic as well as foreign, and to apply to it
higher and truer principles than those which satisfy
the vulgar tests of everyday life. They may pos-
sibly have come to the conclusion that States are
not to be founded on violence, aggression, and fraud.
They may discover that, after all, the New World
is amenable to the same moral code, the same poli-
tical wisdom, the same laws of providence, as the
Old. On comparing notes, they may find that the
men and the States that successively started with a
very reasonable hope of conquering and annexing
all Asia, all Europe, all Africa, and even all together,
did not succeed, and had even to pay fearful penal-
ties, sooner or later, for the very attempt. So, put-
ting all things together, we are inclined to believe
that the Government of Washington will not attack
us immediately on the conclusion of the present war,
and that it will therein show its wisdom. It would,
however be most inconvenient, and costly, and dis-
agreeable to have the quarrel hanging over our
heads waiting for American convenience and oppor-
tunity. When the time comes our statesmen will
have to see that we are not placed under that pen-
nance. If that, indeed, is to be our fate, and if we
are to live in daily expectation of news that the
United States have marched upon our provinces for
the satisfaction of some old claims vamped up for
the purpose, we may be excused if we are less
anxious to see the present war over than we other-
wise should be.
POST.—If General Lee, in the carrying out of his
plans for establishing the independence of his coun-
try, should find it necessary to abandon Richmond
as Charleston has been abandoned already, and
leaving to the Federals a worthless and anything
but glorious acquisition, they will then be in posses-
sion of the principal places on the confines of the
South—and of very little besides. The prosecution
of the war by the invaders, without the aid, direct
or indirect, of their ships, will be something very
different to what it has been hitherto. The chief
points on the circumference of the Confederacy
having been secured, such as the forts on the
Atlantic and in the Gulph of Mexico, together
with the Mississippi, and Richmond—if Rich-
mond should really fall the work of CPCCu
pying the interior will have to be commenced.
Of what value that occupation is likely to
be we have some, though not adequate, illus-
tration in Louisiana. But, to overrun a coun-
try of the magnitude of the Southern Confederacy
will be a work of time, even with Richmond as a
base for Federal operations, instead of being, as it
is now and may for an indefinite time continue to
be, a bulwark which the Federals cannot pass. But
the occupation of all the chief towns of the South
by no means implies a cessation of the war. In the
form of guerilla hostilities it might be prolonged for
almost any length of time, even after the large armies
had been disbanded. But it is not until after the regu-
lar operations of the war are at an end, as well as
after the convulsive efforts of guerilla tactics have
failed, that the process of pacification can, in such
a country as the Southern States, be commenced ;
and this part of the task which the North has under-
taken would be the most difficult of all. If, then,
we look a t the actual position of affairs, the pro-
gress which the North fancies it has hitherto made
towards what it calls the restoration of the Union is
as nothi▪
ng compared with that which would have to
be passed through before the South were reduced
even to such a condition of reluctant passivity as
that whic• h Poland exemplifies at the present time
relatively to Russia. Is it likely that even such a
restoration of the Union as this should ever be
achieved ty the Federals ? Their armies, accord-
ing to the latest news, were in an exceedingly
critical position. There appears to be no doubt
of the ability of General Lee to assemble under his
standard the entire forces of the Confederacy long
before there was any possibility of massing the armies
of Sherman and Grant together for united action
against the South. What, then, is to prevent Lee,
thus reinforced, from overwhelming Grant and
Sherman in detail? The discomfiture of Grant alone
would be sufficient to stop the progress of Sherman,
who would then have to seek the refuge of the fleet ;
and General Lee might carry the war into the
Northern States, with most important results.
The time has unquestionably come when the South
is about to make a supreme effort, which may have
the effect of repelling the invaders, and which, even
if it fails, will not leave -the Confederacy in any
worse position than at present. Now that all the
Southern armies are under the control of
one mind, there is likely to be that har-
mony in their arrangements, and that adapta-
tion of means to end, which is not to be found in a
divided command. It has been, at the very moment
when the North has been upon the point, as it
fancied, of striking the decisive blow, that it has
found itself signally defeated, with all its work to
begin over again. What has happened so often on a
comparatively small scale may again take place
upon a much larger one, with proportionatelylarger
consequences. We have been just told by one of
the highest living authorities, enforcing the doctrine
of one of the profoundest writers of the last century,
that if the fate of a country is decided by a single
war, it was because there was a more general and
permanent cause at work beneath the surface of
things. If the resolution of the Southern people
should remain firm for independence, is it feasible to
suppose that the Federals will ever make so much
progress as is implied in the defeat of the main
Confederate armies, and the occupation of the
country ? Will not the rising of the people en
masse prevent this ? But even supposing that a
combination of adverse circumstances should render
it possible, still, if their determination and spirit
remain firm, a people of six millions can never be
permanently subdued and held by a commercial
nation of three times their number. A commercial
nation would soon discover that the experiment
was not worth the cost. A nation of patriots six
millions strong, who have been able to do what
the South has done, are sure, if they retain the
will, to find their way to independence.
.There
was a point in her history when Rome was in a
far worse plight than the Southern Confede- -
racy. Hannibal held for years undisputed posses-
sion of all Italy, and had shut the Romans up in
their capital. Yet the spirit of the people remained
unbroken, and their firm will enabled them to
triumph in the end. The Federals and their parti-
sans appear to entertain very singular notions about

the progress of the war. However slight or delusive
the advantages gained by the North, there seems to
be no end to their joy and congratulations. They
appear to have thought that there was to be an end
of the war and a restoration of the Union imme-
diately after Grant took Vicksburg, and when he
uttered his boast about marching to Richmond in a
given line if it took him all last summer. The son
sanguine expectations were raised by the capture
Atlanta, and then again by that of Savannah ;
now that Charleston has been abandoned, and P,
of a profound plan of defensive strategy, there iS air
mid boasting in the North about the rebellion beiY
upon the point of suppression. The Federals van,
it may be safely asserted, have to gain more kaPe:ci
tant victories than any which have yet oil:111°10
their arms before they have got possession of
the
the principal points even on the mere confines ef aid
Confederacy. A still more desperate ordeal vin
be gone through before they occupied the South.'
the sense of making themselves master of the p -
ral
cipal places in the interior. And aft.?,r that they.
would find before them the most ardneus
of all---the work of pacifying the connterY and
restoring by force a Union the essence 01 rely
is friendship and consent. But it is not his
that matters will ever go so far as c..
point. The Federals cannot but know the hn,Pgei
ticable nature of such an enterprise ; at least they
would find it out by experience long before
have even overrun the South ; assuming, of roe
that they should continue successful instead 01 nl_, of
ing with some crushing overthrow at the hanushat
Lee and his lieutenants. When it is supposed t
enough has been done for what the North call gill
they will probably find it expedient to stop destroy
career of bankruptcy anLi ruin, and cease to ti.
themselves in the vain hope of destroying the S°ll