The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-30 00:00:00

LONDOW, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1869.

Parliament is now earnestly engaged in both
Houses in legislative labours of the most practical
and business-like character. Lords and Commons
were alike yesterday sitting for several hours toge-
ther, in Committee. The Peers, as a Committee,
were engaged upon the Irish Church Bill—the Com-
mons on the University Tests Bills. Clause after
clause, as in each instance, was taken carefully, yet
rapidly into consideration. Clause six was the last
dealt with in the Bill, relating to the University
Tests now passing through the House of Commons.
Clause ten of the Irish Church Bill was the latest
dealt with in the Lords' Committee. If only
the noble lords could take example from
the Duke of LEINSTER, as readily as did
the Earl of CARNAPXON last evening, we should
have no cause for complaint as to any unnecessary de-
lay in the examination of the Lords' amendments.
His Grace, rising simultaneously with Lord CARNAR-
VON to claim the attention of the Committee, and
having priority conceded to him by the noble Earl,
in obedience to a loudly expressed wish on the part
of their Lordships, summed up all that he was de-
sirous of saying in the following laconic sentiment :
"I trust that no alteration will be made in the clause
as it stands, for the result will only be to keep the
country for another year in hot water." Not a. syl-
lable further ! Having said that, the Duke of LEIN-
STER had said everything, and sat down. No won_
der the House, or rather the Committee, re-
sponded to a speech so terse and so entirely to the
purpose with " cheers and laughter." No wonder
the Earl of CARNARVON debarred only for a few
seconds from addressing their Lordships. Imme-
diately upon his rising in due time to that end he
prefaced his remarks by:observing, " I will endea-
vour to compress my ideas on this clause into
almost as ft.w words as those of the noble duke"
—a promise which, in point of fact-, be thereupcn
tolerably well fulfilled. Again, we say, if only
noble lords generally would but emulate the brevity
and precision of his Grace the Duke of LEINTER ! The
luxury of grouse shooting would in that case never
run the risk of being vexatiously postponed. The
midnight sittings of both branches of the Legislature
would not then be of frequent recurrence. Heredi-
tary and popular representatives would not then,
as often as they do now, instinctively during each
Parliamentary session, find reason to cor-
rect the very rare and exceptional errors
of reporting, arising out of their o'wn en-

tangled sentences, slip-slop phraseology, maun-
dering and most illogical arguments, and often
not easily comprehensible articulation. The difficul-
ties of reporting the public out of doors have pro-
bably no conception of. They are often so nume-
rous, and to non-professionals so utterly bewildering,
that it seems next to the miraculous anything cohe-
rent being made out of the mumbled and jumbled
twaddle of those who are there and then being
reported. Consequently, if only the mass of those
who speak in both Lords and Commons—not, of course
the leading debaters in either House, not such men
as -Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. DISRAELT, Mr.
LOW E, and Mr. BRIGHT in the Lower House, or,
again, such orators as in the House of Peers as the
Earl of DERBY, or the Marquis of SALISBURY, or the
Bishop of OXFORD, or the Bishop of PETERBOROUGH,
but instead o: those the general run of speaker in
either branch of the Legislature—if only those would
but generously, wisely for themselves at the moment,
and humanely for their hearers and their readers
afterwards, when reported, if only they would follow
the thoroughly good and novel course pursued by
the Duke of LEINSTER last evening ! The beneficent
consequences resulting from their so doing would, in
that happy and most desirable contingency, be scarcely
calculable. The session would be shortened. " Han-
sard," or, in other words, the official report of the
Parliamentary debates, will no longer bs a Sepulchre
of Speeches, but would dwindle annually to a
little pocket volume, a Lbook for agre-
able and handy reference. Iho newspapers
would not periodically be unreadable for the most
part to non-politicians, as they frequently are now-
adays, and have been, for that matter, time out of
mind, and that, too, in the very pick of the season.
For the hint of so wholesome an innovation as the
one so practically suggested and illustrated last
evening by the Duke of LEINSTER we are, in old-
fashioned phrase, beholden to his Grace as, at the
least, to an intending benefactor.

MANY of our contemporaries seem to undergo a
remarkable process of conversion at irregular periods.
Nothing can exceed the vigilance with which they
watch over the interests of the people whilst the
party they represent is shivering in the cold of
Opposition. Every abuse is actively looked after ; the
stagnant depths of every branch of the Administra-
tion are indefatigably stirred up. But the disadvan-
tages of too much zeal are rapidly appreciated when a
change of Ministry takes place. Party journals are
capable of easy regeneration. The " organs " which
were so insatiable for reform whilst in Opposition,
are content in office with just that amount of
change which will enable them to decently
get through their time. It is only on this
theory that the remarkable apathy of the leading

Liberal papers to certain important questions which
ha've sprung up since last December is to be ex-
plained. No appeals, for instance, can induce our
Liberal contemporaries to take any notice of
the arbitrary doings of Her MAJESTY'S Cus-
toms Commissioners. The question affects the
whole interests of trade ; the grievances complained
of are of the most serious character. The Commis-
sioners, mostly by a foolish clause inserted in the
Customs Consolidation Act of 1853, have been
invested with almost unlimited power of intervention
in trade affairs—with an amount of control, in fact,
which renders them quite independent, at present,
of any other authority. The whole question of
Customs' jurisdiction needs revision, and especially
is it necessary that their power of grant-
ing or withholding the right of landing goods
at ports and wharves should be placed under the
control of some really responsible department. At
present the Customs Commissioners can refuse the
right of landing to any owners of dock property,
and thus have it in their power to virtually frustrate
their undertaking, even when the works are
conducted under an Act of Parliament. In
the case of the Dagenham Docks, the company
was empowered to construct by three separate Acts
of Parliament; but the power to allow the landing

of duty-free goods belongs to the Commissioners, who
refuse it. They cannot take away the company's
property ; but in withholding the permission by
which alone the property can be of any value, the
Commissioners set the decision of the Legis-
lature at defiance, and bring the company's
works to a standstill.. Nothing can be more
glaring than the injustice of this case. A
company was formed to construct docks, wharves,
warehouses, and the like, at Dagenham Lake,
situated on the Thames, a few miles east of London.
The cheapness of the land, the convenience of
the site for the storage of goods, and other advan-
tages, all promised a lucrative trade. Many
commercial men of high position pronounced in
favour of the enterprise. Three Acts of Parliament
were obtained during the space of eleven years, a
large sum was subscribed, and £160,000 spent.
Part of the works was finished, and ready for earning
revenue ; but when the indispensable permission o
land duty-free goods was asked from the Commis-
sioners it was refused. If goods cannot bo landed,
the whole object' of the undertaking is palpably
frustrated ; and such has been the case. The
construction of the docks has been stopped, and the
capital remains unproductive, simply because of an
arbitrary decision which the Commissioners will not
retract, and which, because a Liberal Government is
in office, the Liberal journals and M.P's. who
represent commercial interests cannot be induced to
notice.

•We have previously considered all that the
Commissioners have to say in defence of this
proceeding. They argue that the works at
Dagenham would be of no public utility ;
which in the first place is not true, and in the
next place has nothing to do with the question.
One hundred and thirty-three City merchants,
brokers, and shipowners, none of them shareholders
in the company, have testified that the docks would
be of great service in affording means for the storing
of dangerous goods, instead of consigning them to
crowded neighbourhoods, as at present. But it is
not the proper duty of the Commissioners to
decide, in spite of Acts of Parliament and
private enterprise, whether such an undertaking
is likely to be useful or not. It is quite clear that if
they take upon themselves this function they are
assuming the power to veto all enterprises of the
kind. Nobody in future would be able to construct a
dock without first asking permission of these potentates.
So far from attempting to engross any such power,
their duty evidently is to interfere with com-
merce as little as their , position will permit,leaving
private enterprise to the full responsibility of those
who conduct it. is to the cost of maintaining a staff
of officers at Dagenham, that objection is at once
met by the fact that the company is quite willing
to bear all expense arising from this so urce.
The remedy for this needless injury to a great
interest is very simple. It is true, indeed, that the
whole jurisdiction of the Commissioners needs
careful revision in the way of curtailment; but this
can be done only by means •of the Legislature.
A law moderating the power of the department, and
furnishing more efficient means of control, is much
needed. But an Act of Parliament is not required
to meet this special case, which is simply an undue
exercise of an administrative function. An
e:aravagant law must, in most branches of
legislation, have a pernicious effect until it is
altered; but this is not necessarily the case in
matters affecting the Executive. If undue power has
been conferred upon any one department, as in this
case, it is always in the power of the
higher Administration to restrain it. The
extrema lex of theory may be readily modified
by the equity of practice. Neither the Customs nor
any other department would venture to persist in an
unjust and arbitrary act against the will of the
Ministry. The Government has the power to re-
dress this injury, and if it decline to do so, it be-
comes the duty of the Press and of the represents,
fives of the nation to insist upon justice,