The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-10 00:00:00

capital—an incident ever since known in the history
of this country as the Great Fire of London—have
been these lamentable events, so to speak, of yester-
day's occurrence, the Great Fire of Quebec and the
Great Fire of Constantinople. In all three cases the
cause of the conflagration wasidentical. In each iu-

stance the city destroyed was a city,in the very materials
of it, in the highest degree combustible. A city of old
wooden ramshackle houses, closely packed and
jumbled up together, arranged in narrow streets, the
upper stories overlapping the projecting roof beams
at the eaves and parapets, in many places nearly
touching each other. Scarcely any provision
made against the horrors of combustion
"Whatever appliance there were to that end, o,
the most primitive character. Ligh

ngle teen

meat thoroughly in such a metropolitan city

constructed, and the element that has been well de-
scribed as a good servant, but a bad master readily
enough obtains the mastery until the crackling
flames soon fly abroad like wildfire. Read the nar-
rative of our own calamitous conflagration, as it was
jotted down from day to day, sometimes evidently
from hour to hour, in cipher by the then Secretary
of the Admiralty, Mr. SAMUEL YEPYS. What was
then penned by the old gossiping Diarist, might
have been penned, in many of the particulars, only
the other day by a Canadian, or a Turkish Diarist
at Quebec, or at Constantinople. Out of the cata-
strophe in each of those capitals, however, there
will come, we may rest perfectly well assured, through
the mere labour of reconstruction, as there came nut
of the catastrophe of the Great Fire of London,
through the labour here of a reconstruction amount-

ug, in its way, to a respleudant resurrection, good
ucalculable for all after generations of the inhabi_
ants of particular cities thus visited.

The most interesting part of the proceedings in the
House of Commons last evening was the debate
arising from Mr. Crawford's amendment. The ques-
tion on which he and the Government joined issue
was as to whether sugar dealers should be entitled to
drawback, the same as manufacturers. A. division
seemed inevitable, and Mr. Gladstone had to come to

the front and exert his power of persuasion to avert so
undesirable a result. He emphatically refused to
recognise the principle that dealers should
be regarded as manufacturers, but effected a
compromise by expressing the willingness of Go-
vernment to deal with their case separately. The
amendment was ultimately withdrawn. When the
Customs and Inland Revenue Bill got into committee,
Viscount Bury strongly objected to the course pur-
sued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in with-
drawing the clauses relating to the duty on railway
traffic receipts. Mr. Lowe had to confess that at the

time he made his proposals in April ho was ignorant
of the real position of the railway companies. From
his explanation it seemed that the companies had
obtained, shortly after Parliament had fixed a maxi-
mum fare and imposed a duty of five per cent. on
the passengers traffic, permission to charge five
par cent, over and above the maximum fixed by the
legislature. Thus it was represented to him
that that which appeared to be a boon was no benefit
whatever. The Government suffered a defeat on
Mr. G. Gregory's motion to introduce a clause
exempting owners of horses employed in agriculture
from liability to take out a license on account of the
animal being occasionally used for drawing materials
for the repair of roads and highways, and whether
for hire or otherwise. The singular spectacle was seen
of the Speaker arrayed with Mr. Disraeli and the Op-
position ranks against the Ministry and its supporters.
Mr. Gladstone but very ill concealed his annoyance
at the result of the division, and the remarks he
made after the division were very ominous.
On going into Committee of Supply on the Army
Estimates several grants of money were made.
The House adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

TOPICS OF THE DAY.