The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1809.

justification. The " unwisdom" was certainly on
the other side, that is to say, it was rather :he
characteristic of the one enditing the sarcastic, or it
should more correctlybe said, the vulgarly fleering and
designedly menacing letter, than of the particular
branch of the Legislature, which was therein fleered
at and menaced. It happens rather unfortunately
for Mr. BRIGHT that immediately upoir the publica-
tion of his discourteous attack upon one of the three
great Estates of the Realm, that very branch of the
Legislature should have given more signal evidences
of its capacity in the exercise of its constitutional
functions than it has ever done within the
experience of the present generation. And this is
all the more remarkable, bearing in mind the
indisputable fact that after the late protracted
discussion was closed by the division upon
the Second Reading of the Irish Church Bill, there
were several of the most brilliant and illustrious
numbers of their Lordships' House who still remained
unheard, who had taken no part whatever in the
debate, whose genius as orators, long recognised by

,he whole country, had upon that famous occasion

found no opportunity for its further manifestation.
Without attempting to enumerate the full catalogue
of those who thus permitted, or who were by un-
avoidable circumstances constrained to permit, the
debate to close and the division to be taken without

their having opened their lips during the discussion,
it will be enough if the names of three of their num-
ber are here particularised. Those three being—
Lord Lrrrow, the Bishop of OXFORD, and the Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH. So that, resplendent as the orato-
rical display was on the part of the House of Lords
during that great debate of the present session, the
whole of the debating power of the House was very
far, indeed, from having been applied to it, during the
course of the four historical nights given up to the
discussion. Since then their lordships, having thus
radiantly signalised anew their rhetorical capacity
and their intellectual vigour, have been sedulously
directing their energies to the serious task of
plodding, as rapidly and yet at the same time as
carefully, as cautiously, and as conscientiously as
could possibly be, clause by clause, through the
whole of the Irish Church Bill, still to this hour
under their collective scrutiny in Committee. " Un-
wisdom," in all this, there has been none. Differ

though we may, though we certainly do, for that
matter, now with member of her MAJESTY'S
Opposition in the Lord; now with that, as to the
nature, and bearing, and application of this and of
that suggested, or, what is more, accepted and en-
forced Amendment, it cannot but be recognized and
acknowledged by us, as Liberals, even where
we are at variance with them, the most d;ametrically,
that it would be the merest impertinence, at the same
time, to designate as unwisdom the course they are
pursuing, simply and solely becau3a it is not the course
we should pursue ourselves. Again, we would pre-
sume, here, to insist upon it that the Lords are intellec-
tually, and legislatively, and constitutionally holding

their own, side by side, with the House of Commons
—and this, moreover, with all the more striking
effect, seeing that they are doing so in the midst
of the most unmannerly insult, and the most
unmeasured and unprovoked derision. As
yet—it would really seem to be worth while re-
calling to mind, for one passing moment, as a cir-
cumstance that appears of late to have been some-
how overlooked, and that consequently might just
as well be thus incidentally particularized—we are
still, as it happens living under the governance
of a complex political system, the integral parts
of which are monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic.
In other worth, Queen, Lords, and Commons are still
somehow, odd though it ►nay seem to say so, the com-
ponent portions of what is yet known all the world
over as the British Constitution. It may _ appear
rather venturesome to declare thus much iu the sight
and bearing, iu the nearly sublime light and within
view of the almost divine wisdom of the great
official and un-official champions of a pure and simple
Democracy. Yet, for all that, the fact is simply as
we have here presumed to assert. And it is in re-
cognition of that fact that the House of Lords is now
dealing in Committee with the several clauses of the

legislative measure recently sent up for their con-
sideration from the House of Commons, as a Bill
directly emanating from the counsels of Her MA-
JESTY'S Government.

ONCE more has a superior court been asked to
grant protection to the funds of trades unions, and
once more has the law been deemed insufficient for
the purpose. The case of " FARRAR v. CLOSE," which
came before the Court of Queen's Bench on
Saturday, was a simple issue on this point
of law. The secretary of the Amalgamated
Society of Carpenters and Joiners had fraudulently
misappropriated 240 of the funds entrusted to his
care, and the members appealed for justice to the
Bradford magistrates. The facts left no room for
dispute ; the secretary was guilty ; but the magi-
strates nevertheless dismissed the case on the ground
that the rules of the society provided for illegal
purposes, and that the case, therefore, did not come
within the scope of the Friendly Societies Act.
The question was brought before the Court of Queen's
Bench on appeal, and was again left undecided, the
four judges being equally divided for and against the
claims of the society. The LORD CHIEF JusTicz,who
was supported by Justice MELLon, laid down that the
rules of the society were so constituted as to admit
of the funds being employed for the support of men
on strike. One rule provided that any member
who was out of work for reasons satisfactory
to ',the committee should be entitled to the
sum of fifteen shillings per week. Of course
it did not necessarily follow that these weekly pay-
ments were made in support of strikes ; but it was
quite possible that such assistance might be given ;
and, in fact, the evidence shewed that money had
been paid to men out of work in districts where
strikes were going on. The society, therefore, par-
took of the character of a trades union, and the law
provided that no trades union could claim the benefit
of the Friendly Societies Act in the protection of
their funds from dishonesty. hence the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE decided that the
guilty treasurer must go scot free. Justices
11ANNEx and lIAYEs took the opposite view. They
argued that the society was formed for a good pur-
pose—that of assisting distressed workmen. The
rules were framed with this object, and though it
was argued that they might be applied to a bad pur-
pose, yet the same might be said of any other
rules. In this case there was nothing to
shew that the society as a body lon sanctioned
the application of the rules to an illejal purpose.
It was true that money had been paid to men on
strike; but all strikes were not necessarily illegal.

The reason why these men had left their work might,
according to the rules, be perfectly satisfactory to the
committee, and they might accordingly receive the
weekly payment. The society did nothing in
restraint of trade; they did not prevent the
men going back to work, and there was no evidence
to prove that what the society did was opposed to
the interests of the community.
Such are, in brief, the pleas on which the four
judges• founded their diverse decisions. The
task of deciding between such authorities
is an invidious one ; but the question
affected in this case is of great and increasing
importance, and the judgment given on Saturday is
in its results decidedly unsatisfactory. Owing to the
division of the judges, the case is left undecided :
the verdict of the Bradford magistrates must stand,
and a rogue will thus be abetted by the law—
unintentionally, it is true—in defrauding a number
of working men. Decidedly the law, anct not the

judges, are at fault. The statute book, as it stands
prescribes that no society which employs its funds as
a trades union, in support of strikes, can claim legal
protection against robbery and fraud ; and it was
to the authority of this decision of the Legislature
that theLonn CHIEF JUSTICE felt himself constraind
to submit. But public opinion has long ago decided
that the law is unsatisfactory, and must be
amended. Trades unions cannot be encouraged
in unlawful interference with trade; but
though they will not be allowed to use
coercion, it is just that they should be permitted
to combine in a lawful manner for purposes
which they consider of advantage to themselves.
Equally is it just that their funds should be protected
from fraud. Beyond doubt a change of the law in
this sense is a mere question of time. Of course
the obvious duty of the judges is to regard, not
what the law ought to be, but what it is. In this
instance, however, the division shews that the law of
the case was by no means clear; the arguments on both
sides clearly shew that the position of the society with
regard to the Friendly Societies Act was at least
doubtful ; and where there is a doubt, surely it
ought to be given on the side of honesty.
Had Justices HANNEN and HAYES prevailed,
it is far from certain that the law would have been
violated, whilst the result would have brought a
defaulter to justice and satisfied the public. The
actual decision is not more surely in accordance with
the law, and its effect is that a robbery goes unpu-
nished, to the profit of nobody except the rogue.

t.
Cif int Nit

HER MAJESTY.

WINDSOR CASTLE) July 5.

The Queen, accompanied by their Royal High-
nesses Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice,
went out this morning.

LATEST INTELL MENGE

(REUTER'S TELEGRAMS.)

CORRESPONDENCE FROM PAU%

1 ;FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

PARIS, MONDAY, July 5.

Yesterday was a ales von in politics ; but political
rumours and facts are not the less abundant. The inter-
pellation of the Left Centre still pursues its career
of success, though at the last meeting of the principal
deputies who signed it a quarrel took place
respecting the exact policy of reform on which the party
were to take their stand. The great majority, however,
resolved to demand simply Ministerial responsibility and
the right of the Chamber to regulate its own labours.
Two of the Imperialists who signed the interpellation
demanded that nothing be said respecting Ministerial
responsibility, that the party simply ask for reform without
indicating what particular changes they were in
favour of. But the remainder wisely rejected
this proposal, and the two Imperialists withdrew. An
official paper says that a great number withdrew. This is
incorrect. The total number of signatures up to today is
ninety-six. Neither M. 'Tiers nor any of the Radicals
have signed, but all these are expected to vote with the
Left Centre.

As to the counter interpellation of M. du Mind—
calling for reforms, but leaving out the great question of
Ministerial responsibility—it has broken down altogether.
Some say it was got up by M. Ronher, in order, by
conceding minor changes, to avoid Ministerial respon-
sibility—the granting of which will be the
signal for his departure from office. However
this may be, the interpellation has collapsed altogether.
The battle will now be fought out between the
Left Centre and their allieg and the Imperialists proper.
Taking the Radicals and all who will vote for the inter-
pellation, the Government, if it opposes, will command
a majority of forty. But what a majority ! From the
Radicals to the Moderate Imperialists, almost every
deputy of known ability, every representative of an im-
nortant constituency, will be with the minority.
The tone adopted by M. Jules Simon in his speech on
the election of M. Durand is the theme of comment in
several of the papers. The facts were all on his side.
The election had been disgraced by compulsion and
inti-
midation ; but the fierce •` irreconcilable " attitude of
M. Simon is deemed unnecessary, and indicative of future
trouble.

The interpellations multiply. M. Bancel has deter-
mined to inquire respecting the recent disturbances in the
coal basin of the Loire ; and the Catholic deputies are,
according to the Union, preparing an interpellation on
the Roman policy of the Government. " This step hasbeen
decided upon in consequence of the Emperor's silence on
that subject in his replies to the Bishops of Chartres and
Beauvais. Those prelates had taken care in their allo-
cutions to insist on the maintenance of the French troops
at Rome, and had adverted to the solemn declarations of
December 5, 1867."

The notorious M. Paul de Cassagnac has sent a chal-
lenge to M. Henri Rochefort ; but the seconds have
returned with the reply that M. Rochefort will not fight.
An eminent lawyer now gives it as his opinion that the
editor of La Lanterne is not excluded from sitting in
the Corps Legislatif by the late sentence depriving
him of his rights as a citizen. The sentence of
deprivation, in fact, does not begin to run until M. Roche-
fort completes his term of imprisonment, He can, there-
fore, be elected, and if elected he cannot be imprisoned
with the consent of the Chamber. This lawyer calls to
mind a memorable instance of a French citizen, deprived
of his civil rights, being elected by a constituency, and the
Chamber confirming his election. That citizen was Louis
Napoleon. . _

I see that your new Commissioner of Police is carrying
on a vigorous raid against the gamblers. The authoritieshere
have long been in open war against these offenders, but, as
in England, their efforts do not meet with perfectly satis-
factory success. The proprietors of three cafes in the Rue
de Vangirard have just been fined and imprisoned by the
Correctional Tribunal for allowing gambling to be carried
on in their establishments. The game played was bac-
carat, and although the sums staked at the commencement
of each evening were in general only fifty centimes or a
franc, at a later hour, when the losers were anxious to get
get back their money, gold pieces were frequently put down,
and some young men have lost sums of one and two thousand
francs in a few nights. The defendants said that play was
common in all the cafes in the Latin Quartier, and that if
they refused to allow it they would lose all their customers.
No doubt much of this sort of gambling goes on quite
safely. Of course, the plea that others commit the same
offence cannot exculpate those who are caught ; but the
difficulty here, as in England, is that very heavy gambling
is common in the clubs and places of resort for the rich,
and the police never interfere.
The papers continue to give long bulletins of the pro-
gress of the strikes in the South. Their news is chiefly
confined to the reiteration of the statement that no pro-
gress whatever has been made, that the men still hold out,
and that the masters do not give in. In the mining dis-
trict of the Loire, the coa.lpits remain silent, and at
Lyons the various trades still refuse to resume work. But one
incident in connection with a strike at Marseilles furnishes
a very remarkable variation to the monotony of these
reports. The joiners of Mai seilles struck, held out for sonic
time, and then went to work again, after at least some of their
demands had been granted. Immediately- after the termi-
nation of the strike a letter appeared in the Marseilles
journals thanking the various French societies for the aid
they had given to the joiners. "The Joiners' Society,"
said this remarkable document, " thanks all the societies
of Marseilles, Cannes, the Ciotat, and of the other neigh-
bouring towns, the assistance of which has been of such
great utility. The societies of Paris likewise deserve the
gratitude of the Marseilles joiners, in particular the
engineers, printers, lithographers, bookbinders, tin-
workers, musical instrument makers, &c. The best repa-
ration which we can make will be to follow their example
when circumstances require it." This is really a new and
serious aspect of the industrial question. It is the first
time to my recollection that any society of French
workmen publicly acknowledged the aid they
received from other societies, and promised to
return it in case of need. In this case it will be seen
that the joiners of Marseilles were supported by workmen
of very various occupations at the other extremity of
France. This letter is another testimony to the wide-
spread unity which working men are establishing in cases
of strikes.