The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-24 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVEMNG JUNE 24. 1870.

nounced than a shout of non plaeet arose,
which caused some excitement and amusement.
The Chancellor 'hewed a determination worthy of
Mr. LoWE himself, and passed on to the next name
on the list in a manner that permitted no doubt to
rest on the subject. The Duke of RICHMOND, the
Conservative leader of the House of Lords was
well received when he came up after pre-
sentation, but the unfortunate CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER came in for a share of abuse. At
any rate, whether by good or evil report, he was the
hero of the occasion, and attracted sufficient atten-
tion to satisfy the most exigeant aspirant for aca-
demical honours. Much laughter was created
by the allusion of the Regius Professor
to the extreme care which the new Doctor
had taken of the national finances. At any rate, it
must be conceded to the right hon. gentleman that
he bore a trying scene with great equanimity and
surprising good humour. He may return to the
scene of his labours well satisfied that his doctor's
degree has been no lightly won prize, but only
achieved by dint of great exertion, after bearing the
brunt of much ridicule and sarcasm. The new Chancellor
has certainly made a choice selection of names, and
among them may be found men distinguished by very
various attainments. Altogether the Commemoration
at Oxford is an interesting episode, a most refreshing
interlude in the dreary round of dull common-place
existence, and among the many devastastations which
are brought round to us in the Course of Time, let us
hope that destroying power will spare these time-
honoured ceremonies at our two ancient universities.
They form a neutral ground where rival politicians
may meet and draw together, by the ties of a
common interest in arts and letters those who

might otherwise be kept apart by the agency of those
secondary influences which exert so great a power.

THE long pending case of PHILLIPS V. EYRE was
yesterday decided in the Exchequer Chamber. Some
years have passed since the chequered story of the
Jamaica outbreak divided all England into
partisans of Governor EYRE and Mr. GORDON.
The last five years have not been unfruitful of
exciting topics, yet there are few prebibly who do
not recollect the main outlines of the story. The
individual case which has been resuscitated before
successive law courts is not, perhaps familiar to
many in its details, but its outlines are not
very different from those of its predecessors. The
plaintiff PHILLIPS sought compensation from ex-
Governor EYRE for an assault, and for injuries alleged
to have been committed in the island of Jamaica
during the rebellion. The defendant, ex-
Governor EYRE, pleaded that he was indem-
nified by the sict passed by the Legislature,
of the colony, and assented to by the Crown, and
this plea was accepted by the Court of Queen's
Bench. The Act, it will be remembered, was passed
by the Colonial Legislature to indemnify all who
had acted in good faith in the repression of the re-
bellion, from any legal consequences of their acts. A
special mention of the governor and his officers was
made in this Act which after passing through both
Houses of the Colonial Parliament was duly ratified
by the QUEEN. Neither morally nor legally could
a doubt rest on the matter. The Colonial
Parliament, if it had power to pass an
act at all, had power to pass the Act of Indemnity.
If the bill were to be declared worthless, and for-
bidden to pass into English law, the duty of putting
a veto upon it surely belongs to the QUEEN of
GREAT BRITAIN and its dependencies, not to a
particular sect in the island. Martial law is of course
an expedient that should only be resorted to in the
the last extremity, but having been resorted to, its
chief excuse is that it overrides the tedious delays
and uncertainties of civil law. If those who enforce
its provisions are to be liable to be called
before the Law Courts, and compelled to pay
damages for the repressive measures which they
have taken, the proclamation of martial law will be
no better than a farce.

Into the merits of the case it is needless
now to enter. Had Governor EYRE, the
resolute repressor of the Jamaica rebels, the
unflinching upholder of the rights of the Crown and
the undaunted defender of the lives and property of
its subjects, been a man ofa different stamp, we should
have had the Meerut and Delhi tragedy repeated on
a small scale at Morant Bay. Had EDWARD JOHN
EYRE, the friend of the Australasian aborigines, the
kindly counsellor of the black men in their distresses,
been really the monster he was painted by his pre-
judiced assailants, the negroes of Jamaica would
have been well . nigh exterminated. Doubtless
there were acts of harshness and even cruelty com-
mit ted during the pacification of the island. Revo-
lutions are not repressed any more than they are
made with rose water, but we must look to the main
results. There can be no doubt that the
white residents of the colony were for a time
in serious peril, or that the prompt and vigorous
action of the Governor averted the danger. It was
one of those cases in which success is not virtue, for
had Mr. EYRE'S measures fallen short, and had the
rebels achieved even a temporary triumph his name
would have been held in honour, and his fortunes
no doubt well cared for. As it is, thanks to the
pertinacity of his antagonists, the prejudice of sects,
the enthusiastic devotion of a powerful party to any-
thing that wears a black skin, and the vacilllation and
timidity of Governments which are neither bravo
enough to condemn or to uphold him, the Ex-
GOVERNOR of JAMAICA has no enviable place. He
may rest hatisfied, however, as a just and honourable
man who knows that misplaced mercy is often cruelty,
with the judgment of his own conscience: and the
Exchequer Chamber, in unanimously ratifying the
decision of the Court below, does but endorse the
verdict of the majority of his countrymen.

The House of Lords last evening went into com-
mittee on the Irish Land Bill, and rapid progress
was made with the measure, the first and second
clauses being quickly disposed of. The third clause
occasioned the most opposition, and three amend-
ments were proposed, which, although resisted by
the Government, were carried. Progress wont
reported at five minutes to one, when their lordships
adjourned. In the House of Commons the debate
on the Elementary Education Bill was resumed by
Mr. Dixon, the representative of the Birmingham
League, who in a very long speech alluded to the
objectionable principles of the bill according to his
view of the subject. The discussion was carried on
until a late hour, when the debate was further
adjournel. The speakers for the most part were in
favour of the Government measure.

The Official Journal publishes the declaration
signed by France and Russia on the 6th of May last,
guaranteeing property in trademarks.

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS.

One of the committees of the House of Commons
on private bills has made an important change in the
law respecting railway travelling. The Omnibus
Bill of the South Eastern Railway Company had
been sent down from the Lords, and one of
its provisions stipulated that passengers travel-
ling by " working men's and excursion trains,"
run at exceptionally low tares, shal not
recover for injuries received while travelling in such
trains any sum exceeding £loo—the amount of com-
pensation to be fixed by arbitration, the arbitrators
to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It was
argued that the company would be compelled to take
off the cheap trains unless these stipulations were
agreed to, for the workmen's trains were largely
used by persons for whom they were not intended,
and it might happen that £20,000 would have to
be paid to these irregular travellers. The
committee passed the clause, and hus the
£lOO limitation is fixed—for if it apply
to one company, it must apply to another. It is
rather odd that such a great change in the principle
of the common law should be made by a committee
on a private bill. An issue so important might have
been settled on a wider basis.

Such attempts to keep up monopolies and
restrict the freedom of trade ought to be
severely dealt with. They precisely correspond with
the obnoxious acts committed by trade unionists in
restraint of their fellow workmen. There can be no
reason why a less measure of justice should be meted
out in one case than in the other. A great company
should not be allowed to adopt the practice of picket-
ing any more than a few tailors.