The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-03 00:00:00

THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY.

We extract from " Part IV. of further Corre-
spondence relative to the Affairs of Italy," which
reached us last night, the reply of the British Cabi-
net to the despatch of M. Thouvenel :
No. 2.
LORD I. RUSSELL TO EARL COWLEY.

Foreign-office, March 22.

My Lord,—l transmit to your Excellency here-
with copy of a despatch addressed by M. de Thou-
venel to the Comte de Persigny, wkich was placed
in my hands by the latter on the 15th inst.*
The Emperor of the French pledged himself, in
his Imperial Majesty's speech to the Legislative
Chambers, that he would submit the question of
the annexation of Savoy and the county of Nice

to France to the wisdom and equity of Europe ; and
the accompanying despatch—communications simi-

lar to which have, no doubt, been made-to the other
great Powers—purports to have been written in
redemption of that pledge.
M. Thouvenel's despatch explains the reasons on
account of which the Imperial Government makes
claim to the cession of Savoy and Nice, and it states
the principles upon which the French Government
considers itself justified in making that claim.
It is with great regret that her Majesty's Govern •

ment feels obliged to say that they cannot admit
the force of those reasons, and that they are unable
to subscribe to the justice of those principles.
M. Thouvenel adverts to the events of the last 12
months in support of his arguments. Her Majesty's
Government would wish shortly to advert also to
those events.

The immediate cause of the war which broke out
in Northern Italy in the spring of last year was the
invasion of the Piedmontese territory by tho Alio
trian army.

The Emperor of the French marched a large force
to the assistance and support of his ally, the King
of Sardinia.

The declarations which his Imperial Majesty,
upon several occasions, made as to his intentions,
and as to the objects of the war, led the Powers of
Europe to believe that the war was undertaken
without any view to acquisition of territory by
France, and that its object was to restore Italy to
herself, and to solve, in favour of Italy, that ques-

tion which it was alleged the conduct of the Aus-
trian Government had brought to an issue, namely,
whether Austria should have dominion up to tho
foot of the Alps, or whether Italy should be free
from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic.

M. Thouvenel says that solemn acts, freely con-
cluded after a campaign which had been successful
for the arms of France, are an irrefragable proof
that the French Government had not for its object
any territorial aggrandizement when it was led by
the force of events to interfere in the affairs of

Italy. But he adds that though the French Go-
vernment could not but foresee hypothetical circum-
stances in which disinterestedness would have to
give way to prudence, the treaties of Villafranca
and of Zurich entirely shut out such a contingency.
This statement seems to explain the assurance
given to your Excellency by Count Walewski in
July, 1859, when the Count, being asked as to the
truth of rumours:that, notwithstanding the declara-
tions and proclamations of the Emperor, there was
a negotiation on foot for the cession of Savoy to
France, asserted that, if such a scheme had ever
been entertained, it had been then entirely aban-
doned.

Her Majesty's Government are led to infer from
M. Thouvenel's despatch that the hypothetical con-
tingency to which he alludes was the conquest of
Venetia by France, and its transfer to Piedmont,
and that in such case it had been contemplated that
Savoy should be demanded by France ; but that.
the agreement of Villafranca and the Treaty of
Zurich having left to Austria the possession of
Venetia, the idea of a cession of Savoy to France,
which it now appears has been entertained, was
given up, as stated by Count Walewski.

M. Thouvenel, however, goes on to say that com-
binations in Central Italy, different from those
which the French Government had fruitlessly la-
boured to bring about, compelled the French Go-
vernment to consider the injury which new arrange-
ments in Italy might carry with them to the in-
terests of France; and he proceeds to argue that
when Sardinia, by acquisitions of territory in Cen-
tral Italy, was about to increase her population from
4,000,000 to three times that amount, it became ne-
cessary, for the security of France, that Savoy
should be ceded to her, in order that she might have
in her own hands the northern slopes of the Alps.
The new danger to which M. Thouvenel alleges
that France would thus be exposed would be inva-
sion from Sardinia alone, or from Sardinia acting as
a member of a confederation of hostile Powers.

But her Majesty's Government would beg to ob-
serve that to imagine that Sardinia, even with a
population of 12,000,000, would ever think of in-
vading France with a population of 36,000,000, is
to suppose that which amounts to a moral impos-
sibility. Sardinia, so augmented, will become a
respectable State, capable of attaining a great de-
gree of internal prosperity, and sufficiently strong
to defend herself against any other Italian Power;
but that the French Empire, the first military
Power of the Continent, with a vast, compact ter-
ritory, full of natural resources, and with a popula-
tion characteristically warlike, should be in danger
of being attacked by her far weaker neighbour, is
not in the nature of things. There are, besides,
many political considerations which go to show
that the tendency of Sardinia must always be to-
wards maintaining the most friendly relations
with France.

We may, then, at once dismiss the notion that
France can require any other guarantee than her
own inherent strength affords her against any
attack from Sardinia, acting alone.
But M. Thouvenel conceives that Sardinia might

' No, 1.

be a member of a confederacy arrayed against
France, and by having both sides of the Alps she
might open the road for other Powers to make an
invasion of the territory of France.
Now, on this her Majesty's Government would
observe that there never can be a confederacy orga-
nised against France unless it be for common de-
fence against aggressions on the part of France,
and that, therefore, France has it at all times in her
own power to prevent the formation of any such
confederacy. There is no Power in Europe that
does not wish to maintain friendly relations with
France, and there is none that could hope to reap
any advantage from a voluntary and unprovoked
rupture with so powerful a State.
But the chances of Sardinia. becoming an instru-
ment of such a confederacy have been diminished
by the events of late years, and by the new arrange.
ments of Northern and Central Italy.
Till within the last 15 years the Government of
Sardinia was swayed by the influence of Austria,
and might have been supposed to be likely, in the
event of a war between Austria and France, to give
passage through Savoy to any Austrian force which
might have wished to enter France in that direc-
tion ; but of late years Sardinia has broken away
from her connexion with Austria, and has looked
to France, and not in vain, for friendship and sup-
port. Sardinia, therefore, is less likely than ever
willingly to givErinlisage to a hottile force wishing
to enter France ; and it is obvious that Sardinia,
increased in strength, while the Austrian frontier
is thrown back to the Mincio, is less likely than
when she was much weaker, and when the Aus-
trian frontier was on the Ticino, to yield on com-
pulsion that passage to Austrian troops which she
would not concede of her own free will.
We may consider, therefore, as groundless the
apprehension that Sardinia, retaining possession of
Savoy, might open a passage through that province
into France to the troops of a hostile confederacy.
It seems, then, to her Majesty's Government that
the argument in favour of the annexation of Savoy
to France, founded on the assumed insecurity of the
French territory bordering upon Savoy, fulls to the
ground when it comes to be fairly examined.
M.Thouvenel says that this demand for the ces-
sion of Savoy to France ought not to give umbrage
to any Power; that it is founded on a just balance
of forces, and is especially pointed out by the nature
of things, which has placed the French system of
defence at the foot of the western slopes of the
Alps.

But her Majesty's Government must be allowed
to remark that a demand for cession of a neighbour's
territory made by a state so powerful as France,
and whose former and not very remote policy of
territorial aggrandisement brought countless cala-
mities upon Europe, cannot well fail to give nth-
brage to every State interested in the balance of
power, and in the maintenance of the general
peace. Nor can that umbrage be diminished by
the grounds on which the claim is founded, be-
cause, if a great military Power like France is to
demand the territory of a neighbour upon its own
theory of what constitutes geographically its pro-
per system of defence, it is evident that no State
could be secure from the aggressions of a more
powerful neighbour; that might and not right would
henceforward be the rule to determine territorial
possession; and that the integrity and independence
of the smaller States of Europe would be placed in
perpetual jeopardy.
_ _ _

But M. Thouvenel points to historical precedents
in support of the claim now made.

Her Majesty's Government will not enter into an
examination of what took place in regard to the suc-
cession to the throne of Spain, or in regard to the
succession to the throne of Austria, because the
titinsttetions of those periods have no practical ap-
plicability to the present state of E'uropean affairs ;
but with regard to the later transaction to which
M. Thouvenel adverts—viz., the arrangements of
the treaty of 1814—her Majesty's Government
would beg to observe that the arrangements of that
treaty by no means bear out the claim now made by
France, and that it cannot be with reference to the
stipulations of the treaty of 1814 that the demand
for the cession of Savoy and of the county of
Nice can be termed by France a " revendication."
It is to be observed, with regard to the term " re-
vendication," that it is stated that " la revendication
a lieu lorsqu'on reclanie une chose a laquelle on
pretend avoir droit."

Now, the arrangements of the treaty of 1814
were of short duration, and, having been superseded
by those of the treaty of 1815, they cannot be ap-
pealed to as the foundation of any right to be
claimed by France.

But the treaty of 1814 did not give either Savoy
or the county of Nice to France.
Article 111. of the treaty of 1814 did indeed leave
to France a very small portion of Savoy ; but that
portion was immediately contiguous to the French
frontier, and was at a distance from the slopes of
the Alps. The words of article 111. on this point
were as follows :

" In the department of Mont Blanc France ac-
quires the Sub-Prefecture of Chambery, with the
exception of the cantons of PlTOpital, St. Pierre
d'Albiguy, la, Rocette, and INlonttnelian ; and also
the Sub-Prefecture of Annecy, with the exception
of the portion of the canton of Faverges situated to
the east of a line passing between Ourechaise and
Marlens on the side of France, and Marthod and
Ugine on the opposite side, and which afterwards
follows the crest of the mountains as far as the
frontier of the Canton of Thones. This line, to-
gether with the limit of the cantons before men-
tioned, shall, on this side, form the new frontier."
It follows, therefore, from what is thus stated,
that if France claims Savoy and Nice on the prin-
ciple of a " revendication"—that is to say, on the
principle of claiming that which she has at any
time had a right to—her claim cannot be founded
on the treaty of 1814, but must go back to the time
of the first French Empire ; and it is needless to
point out what just alarm the whole of Europe
must feel at a claim which, however limited in its
present application, is susceptible of being extended
to such vast and dangerous dimensions.

M. Thouvenel, indeed, records the declaration
spontaneously made by his Imperial Majesty on
ascending the throne, that the governing rule of
his relations with Europe would be respect for
treaties concluded by preceding governments of
France, and M. Thouvenel declares that this is a
principle of conduct to which his Imperial 11Iajesty
will always make it to himself a law to remain
faithful.

The declaration referred to by M. Thouvenel was
no more than might hare been expected from the
just :and enlightened Sovereign by whom it was
made; and the assurance given by M. Thouvenel
that it will be strictly and inviolably observed must
be gratifying to the allies of France and satisfactory
to the whole of Europe. But M. Thouvenel alleges
that the present is an exceptional ease, that changes
which have taken place, and which are about to
take place, in Italy involve changes in the territorial
arrangements established by existing treaties, and
that those treaty arrangements ought not to be al-
tered to the detriment of France.

Her Majesty's Government think they have
shown that no detriment or danger to France would
be the result of the changes now in progress in
Italy ; but there is a State in whose integrity and
independence all Europe takes a deep interest, and
whose integrity and independence France, among
other Powers, has pledged herself by treaty to re-
spect and maintain, and that State would suffer
the most serious detriment, and would be exposed
to the most serious danger, by the proposed transfer
of Savoy from Sardinia to France. It is needless to
say that this State is Switzerland.

By the Treaties of Vienna of 1816 the Powers of
Europe, France included, acknowledged and guar-
anteed the integrity and the perpetual neutrality of
Switzerland, and as a security for that integrity

and that neutrality it was stipulated that the pro-
vinces of Chablais and of Faucigny, and all that
portion of Savoy which is north of Ugine shall form
part of the neutrality of Switzerland, as acknow-
ledged and guaranteed by the contracting Powers,
and it was further stipulated that, in consequence
thereof, whenever the Powers, neighbours of Swit-
zerland, should be actually at war, or whenever
there should be an imminent danger of war
between them, the troops of the King of
Sardinia, the Sovereign of Savoy, which may
happen to be in those provinces shall retire
therefrom, passing, if necessary, through the
Valais, and that no armed troops of any other
Power shall either traverse or be stationed in those
provinces and territories, except such troops as the
Swiss Confederation shall think proper to place
therein.

It is plain that these engagements about Savoy,
to which France is a party, were intended as a se-
curity for Switzerland against danger coming from
France; but what would become of that security if
Savoy were annexed to France, and if the very
Power against which this access to Switzerland has
been barred should become the owner of the barrier
thus erected for the protection of the Confederation P
It is, indeed, implied in the despatch of M. Thouve-
nel that France, in taking Savoy, would accept also
the engagements by which the King of Sardinia is
bound, in regard to the neutralised portion of that
country ; but it is no disparagement to France to
say that neither Switzerland nor the Powers of
Europe could consider such an arrangement as afford-
ing to the integrity and neutrality of the Swiss
Confederation that security which the above-men-
tioned stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna are cal-
culated to afford; and her Majesty's Government
contend that it is not competent for France and Sar-
dinia, by the compact between them, and without
the consent of the other States of Europe, so mate-
rially to impair, as the proposed cession of Savoy
would do, an element of security which a great
European compact has provided for a State whose
independence is an object of European concern.
Nor can it be for the well-understood interest of
France herself to break down the barriers by which
the neutrality of Switzerland is secured. It must
surely be acknowledged that the neutrality of Bel-
gium at tho northern and of Switzerland at the
southern extremity of the eastern frontier of France

is of advantage to her, as well as to Europe. The
neutrality of those two States narrows the line of
frontier along which hostilities between France and
Germany can take place, and, adding to the secu-
rity of both, it tends to give stability to the gene-
ral peace. M. Thouvenel alleges that the proposed
cession of Savoy and the county of Nice to France
raises no question incompatible with the best esta-
blished and most rigorous rules of public law. He
points to similarity of character, of language, of
habits; to the geographical configuration, and
to commercial intercourse, as having pre-
pared and adapted the people of those countries for
annexation to France ; and he says that the Alps
ought to be the line of separation between France
and Italy, and that thus the new boundary which it
is proposed to establish between France and Pied-
mont finds its sanction in the force of things. This
statement, indeed, opens a wide field for conjecture
as to the future, and though it is immediately fol-
lowed by the somewhat inconsistent assurance that
it is not upon the ground of ideas of nationality, nor
upon that of natural frontiers, that the cession of
Savoy and of Nice is demanded, those arguments
cannot fail to give rise to the most serious reflections.
Her Majesty's Government, then, would beg to sub-
mit that no case has been made out to justify this
cession on the ground of necessary defence for
France, and that this cession would most un justly,
and in violation of treaty engagements, materially
weaken a defensive arrangement which united
Europe has provided as a security for the neutrality
and integrity of Switzerland.
Great Britain has no direct interest of her own
in this matter, and it is from no unfriendly feeling
towards France that her remonstrances on this sub-
ject have proceeded. Her Majesty's Government,
indeed, are deeply impressed with the conviction
that any territorial advantage which France might
gain by the proposed annexation would be far
more than counterbalanced by the distrust with
which it would inspire the other States end Powers
of Europe.

The calamities which overspread by turns almost
every part of the continent of Europe during the
closing years of the last and the early years of the
present century are still fresh in the memory of
mankind ; their renewal would, indeed, be a de-
plorable misfortune, and it cannot be surprising
that 'the attention of nations and of their rulers
should be directed, with anxious solicitude, to
events which have a bearing both on the interests
of the present and on the destinies of the future.
Your Excellency will read and give a copy of
this despatch to M. Thouvenel.—l am, &c.,

J. RUSSELL.

The following is the latest despatch addressed to
the Court by M. Thouvenel. Lord Cowley, how-
ever, sends a copy of the Treaty of Annexation,
which we have already published. It will be seen
that France accepts Savoy " with its engage-
ments" :

(Translation.)
Paris, March 26, 1860.
M. le Comte,—l have the honour to transmit to
you herewith copy of the despatch from Lord John
Russell, which Earl Cowley has been instructed to
communicate to me officially, and which contains
the reply of the Government of her Britannic Ma-
jesty to the statement of the Government of the
Emperor, concerning the annexation of Savoy and
the arrondissement of Nice to France.
I cannot but experience a very lively feeling of
regret that I have not succeeded, as I desired, in
modifying an opinion which was already known to
me through the previous communication of the
English ambassador ; but the prolongation of any
discussion on this subject would have no practical
result, and I prefer, rather than provoke a fresh
exchange of explanations equally painful to both
countries, to confine myself to asserting that Lord
John Russell's despatch has not the character of a
protest. In a word, the Government of her Bri-
tannic Majesty declares that it does not share the
opinion of the Government of the Emperor ; but
this divergence does not constitute an opposition of
a nature to affect the relations of the Cabinets of
Paris and London. I am sincerely pleased at this,
M. le Comte ; and there are only two points in
Lord John Russell's argument which I wish to
examine summarily, so as to leave in the mind of
her Britannic Majesty's principal Secretary of State
neither a misunderstanding nor a doubt as to our
intentions. I believed that I had established that
the Emperor, in making use in his speech to the
great bodies of the State of the word " rovendica-
Lion," had never had an idea of referring to
any diplomatic act, or to any circumstance
of other times. The explanations which I
have given on this subject to his Ma-
jesty's representatives at the German Courts
have been everywhere considered as satisfac-
tory as possible, and I had requested you to
transmit to Lord J. Russell a copy of the despatch
which contains them. I renew these explanations
to-day with the confidence that, on examining them
closer, her Britannic Majesty's Government will
not receive them less favourably than the Powers
to whom they were more especially addressed.
As for the neutrality of S witzerland, M. le Comte,
which Lord J. Russell comiders to be menaced by
the annexation of Savoy to the territory of the Em-
pire, I will content myself with remarking to you
that France atte ches the greatest interest in pre-
serving it from s.ny injury. The Emperor's Govern-
ment, therefore., has not hesitated, in order to prove
the sincerity of its disposition in this respect, to in-

Bert in the treaty which it has just concluder at
Turin a clause in these terms:—

"It is understood that his Majesty the King of
Sardinia cannot transfer the neutral portions of
Savoy except on the conditions upon which he him-
self possesses them, and that it will appertain to
his Majesty the Emperor of the French to come to
an understanding on this subject, both with the
Powers represented at the Congress of Vienna and
with the Swiss Confederation, and to give them. the
guarantees required by the stipulations referred to
in this article."

It appears to me that all apprehensions should
disappear in face of this spontaneous engagement,
and that henceforth her Britannic Majesty's Govern-
ment, certain of having an opportunity of discus-
sing the guarantees which shall, in pursuance of
an European agreement, be judged to be best fitted
to realise, in their relations with the permanent
neutrality of Switzerland, the object of the stipula-
tions relative to the contingent neutralisation of a
part of Savoy, has no reason to fear that this inte-
rest, the importance of which we have thus recog-
nised, will not be settled in a satisfactory manner.
You are authorised to read this despatch to Lord
John Russell, and to give him a copy of it.

Receive, &c.,
(Signed)

THOUVENEL,

SOLEIL PROGRESS IS POLITICAL

CHANGE.

We have said that the new Reform Bill is a tre-
mendous measure. We have shown that the sta-
tistics on which it is founded are wholly fallacious,
and that the increment in the electoral body may,
in the boroughs alone, be nearer 600,000 than
200,000. The return which Lord J. Russell quotes
to show the probable increase, is no answer to that
question. It is that of the number of " male per-
sons resident within each Parlimentary borough
in England and Wales assessed to the last
poor-rate at £6 and under £10." The docu-
ment will not " show the number of electors
which will be added to the register by the lower-
ing of the franchise from £lO to £6." There are
two compounding acts in full operation in all those
boroughs, which effectually shut out the light in re.
ference to this inquiry. By the acts 59 Geo. 111., cap.
12, sec. 19, and the 13 and 14 Vic., cap. 99, the
vestry of any parish may " declare and order that
the owners of tenements in such parish the yearly
rateable value whereof shall not exceed £2O, shall
be rated and assessed . . . instead of the occur
piers." These acts then provide that a remission of
rates not exceeding 50 per cent. shall be made from
the charge on all such tenements. It will thus b
seen that as enfranchisement applies to the ren
value, while the latter act specifies the rateabl
value, tenements rented quite as high as £9 will
apr ;ler in the return as under £6, and that teneL
ments rented as high as £3O may be rated and com
indeed, pounded founder
holdings 2 Thererented
ed at £1
a ai
n streetsra sum
in London of
which are rated at £5. As, therefore, by force I o
statute, the owners are to be rated and assessed in roo
of the occupiers, to tenements under £2O rateable
value, it is clear that an enormous number of occu-
piers eligible to be registered must have been
omitted from a return which only gives the number!
of occupiers rated. The notes to the return (b) (c)
and (d) illustrates this. " Islington and Saint
Luke's (they state) do not contain the number of
persons occupying tenements rated to the owners."
In Norwich, which has 5,498 electors, " 12,162 tene-
ments rated to the owners instead of the occupiers
are not included in the return." In Hull, which
has 5,526 electors, 11,021 tenements are omitted fol

- -
the same reason. The very identical omission ap-
plies to all the rest. There are tenements in Lon-
don yielding £5OO a year where the owner, who
pays the rates and taxes, is alone assessed. The
provision of the Reform and subsequent Acts (con-
tinued in the present bill), relating to payment of
rates, requires that before the 20th of July the
rates due up to Jan. 20 preceding should be paid.
But the w.ords of the statute (s. 27) specify " all
rates which shall have become payable from" the
occupier. If, however, by force of statute, they
have become payable from the owner instead " of
the occupier," it is clear that payment of rates in
compounded tenements is not a condition precedent
to registration,

The-se conditions are telling in Parliament. The
r Bill hangs fire. A " count out" is imminent every
time it becomes the " order of the day." The leader
of the Opposition expresses in a significant and
official tone his hope that the measure will be
" withdrawn." Liberal members jib and boggle,
walk where at first they weredisposed to gallop up
to the fence, as a safe and easy leap, see the broad
ditch of democracy on the other side, and, to COE-
tinue the sporting metaphor, take to " funking."
Is that rational, above all, is it even safe—mustn't
they take the leap, and will they not clear the fence
easiest by " going at it with a will ?"
Christianity is the root of true democracy. The
infinite significancy of a human soul makes adven-
titious distinctions dwindle into nothing. We stand
face to face with the poorest and the most abject,
and see, after all, how little it is that separates two
" poor forked animals "—and that " monarchs are
but beggars' shadows." Is not this the secret of a
Reform Bill now ? We are told that nobody wants
it—we are assured that the ballot would not yield
twenty votes in the House of Commons for it—then
why is it here ? A Tory Government is committed
to it—a Palmerston Ministry is dragged at its
heels ; without agitation or excitement, turbulence
or discontent, in the very zenith of universal pro-
sperity, peace, and order, organic change is at the
door. What could do that but a great law in the
natural history of society, that progress and civilisa-
tion are the ushers of democracy ? We are but
wiser than the Bourbons—we learn something and
forget something—yield to the inevitable, and are
borne onward, in place of resisting what inexorably
will be, to be overwhelmed by it.
And what then ? After all, what is it we fear ?
whom is it we dread ? Man, human nature, those
among whom we live, who are in our families, our
shops, and counting-houses, who are twenty to one
of us, do all our work, navigate our ships, fight our
battles, to whom we trust our lives on the rail, or a
thousand miles from land. The Tories pledged their
policy to an extension of the franchise, the Whigs
have bound themselves to it hand and foot, the
Commons have passed their word on every hust-
ings—nulla vestiyia retrorsunz. Indeed, the second
follows as a necessary corollary from the first Re-
form Bill. Let us be ever so niggardly in our con-
cession now—it renders a further early extension
of the franchise certtin—it gives power to a new
class to strengthen that which enforces it now. Is
it not wiser to do that at once, liberally, and radi-
cally, which will be extorted if not given ? "If it
be now, 'tis not to come ; if it be not to come, it
will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come;
the readiness is all." To arrest the advanee of the
many is really to call upon mankind to stand still.
It is, indeed, to endorse the doctrine of the Southern
planter, that a large portion of the race are incap-
able of improvement, totally unfit for self-control,
are not to be entrusted with the function which the
Deity has made the distinctive prerogative of the
race—that of endless self-development into higher
states of being.
Let the question be grappled with. An intoler-
able blatant fool has said, " If the laws of political
economy are against trades' unions, trades unions
will be against political economy." Why, a pilot
might just as well say that if a rock was against
his ship, ho would run his ship against a rock. A
mechanic is subject to all the necessities, the slave
of the same inexorable laws, which dictate the
policy and legislation of the rich ; he is the creature
of the same logic, the subject of the same facts, and
the same conclusions. Give him his full swing of
power, an ascendancy in the House of Commons,
what can he make of it when all is done ? " Sell
seven halfpenny loaves for a penny, make the three-
hooped pot have ten hoops, make it felony to drink
small beer, and have all the realm in. common
He will find ?"
out simply that the thing can't be done ;
and that, if it could, it would be at the expense of
his own order. While the press prints and the rail
carries, and the tongue can wag in public meeting,
and confusion ends in bankruptcy and no wages,
what chance is there of that ? There is a rightful
supremacy in common sense and common honesty,
when they confront wrong headed fanaticism
and hare-brained prejudice, which will as
certainly put them down in the House
of Commons as any where else. Indeed,
it is just there where genius,
wisdom, and
knowledge will for the first time find it
for their interest to meet face to face the crude ex-
travagance of Socialistic dreamers, that democracy
will be most effectually disabused of its delusions.
Are the masses the only social order who have
taken unenlightened views of their own interests
and other people's rights ? Who made the absurd
laws against forestalling and regrating, usury,
liberty of conscience, the export of machinery, the
free transit of artisans from the realm? %Silo ag-

1.2"">,e11-717777:7?‘
. 4_1_,,1_4z-fii?M"
gravated our Draco-parish-beadlei':*Kynra,-,,..., ',‘,-X.
and deprived even ignorant orpiriis,VP4Oiiirb."4l,-,-
IVho made and encllktCd.-,:lithAVizit4: *,rs.-‘1,i,,,•)
i
Chance our system .of tenure ra-.,„nv0ric.,.......- :,,' -,.
realty ;-...... fobbed everybody tecnif-4.-.T.,
took hfaf the labourer', loaf to inerealkihis ftplojg
-.)-nt, protected .agriculture, ships, colonies, no
against foreigners, but ourselves? Not working
men. Who set trade free, and untaxed bread? -
Not Parliament, but public opinion and the people.
Strikes are stupidities, trades' unions are pernicious,
the interference of ogganised bodies with the free
bargains of masters and men is an unmitigated
mischief. But are any of these absurdities worse
than, or half so pernicious as, the crude vagaries of
upper class legislation ? It is a remarkable and a
most hopeful fact that there is not a trades' union
in all America, and that there, as in France, the
defiance of the laws of political economy proceeds
chiefly from the educated and middle classes.
Except in reference to expenditure, does our his 7
tory of the operation of the last RefOrm Bill dis-
murage us in going further in the same direction ?
The prodigious development of enterpi ise, genius,
discovery in science, above all trade, commerce, and
wealth, which have resulted from giving freer scope
to individual energy by the Act of 1832, is a guide
not a beacon for 1860. 1)o we dread the fiscal legi-
slation of democracy ? Lavish expenditure is its
vice—has been the blot upon the extended suffrage
effected by the Reform Act. But partial and class
taxation appears not to be the peculiar sin, to say
the least, of numerical represent3tion. Our Colonies,
with a suffrage more extended than it is proposed
to make our own, raise their revenue in by far the
largest measure by indirect taxation. The federal
taxation of America is protective and indirect
almost exclusively. Who, indeed, have imPOseil
the income and assessed taxes of this country, but
the only classes who pay them, and who have uni-
formly exempted those who are not directly re-
presented from any share of the burden. The
municipal and State taxation of America is heavy,
unequal,'and lavishly, as well as corruptly, ex-
pended. The population is a polyglot of Jxish,
German, British, French, Italian, qualified yearly
with foreign elements at once absorbed into the
constituent voting body. A Babel of nations can-
not be expected to display homogeneous patriotism,
or intelligent co-operation. But it ought not to
be forgotten that our local and municipal affairs are
and have been for 30 years regulated by household
suffrage, and we do not find that it will sustain an
unfavourable comparison with that of the State
itself. The least defensible portion of the local
expenditure is that over which the ratepayers have
no control—which is supplied by them to be applied
by the justices and grand jury without accounta-
bility to the persons assessed.
Whatever be faults of democracy, this at least
must be conceded as its distinguishing excellence,
that it enables every man to find his level; that it
looks, searches out, helps to rise into occupation
and public usefulness every man, down to the
lowest, who has in him any special faculty for the
general service—puts a marshal's baton into the
knapsack of every private. Its prejudices are not
peculiar to its order—the shipowners, publicans,
and other interests, fostered by protective privileges,
are as tenacious of their fancied rights as the trades'
unions. It is free from many Idola, many pet-
hobbies and delusions of statesmanship which have
wofully misled our Legislature. It never would
have produced the disasters of our united services
in the Crimea—the fruit of mere nepotic incompe-
tency. It would long ere this have found out, as
it has in our colonies and the American Republic,
the worthlessness of 13gal verbiage, and the prac-
ticability of securing and transferring realty as
simply as Consols. It would have codified the law,
and revised it periodically, in place of leaving it
groaning under the chronic nightmare of lazy
Judges and thrifty barristers. It would long since
have summarily solved the problem of Church-
rates, and discarded the State Church of Ireland,
ignored by the Irish people. It would have re-
duced the fat benefices and rich sinecurism of the
English Establishment to dimensions of practical
utility, and its hierarchy to that responsibility to
the people without which no public servant will
rightly serve the public. It will open the honours
of the State with equal frankness to all classes, and
it will never tolerate unmerited pensions, State
drones, and pay without work.
Jt will have its vices as every form of human
society has. A preferential balance of good is all
that can be expected, all that philosophy isentitled
to demand as the price of its concession. It is no
mean recommendation of the policy which inaugu-
rates it that liberty and exaction can go no further
than to get all the power that is possible ; when
the million get all that is to be had, it is impossible
for them to desire more than all that is to be had.
That they will make blunders is only to say they
will not be free from the frail fallibility which
marks the predominance of every other class. But
after all, with our laws, habits, and customs, our
unbounded liberty of thought and action, our so-
cial and civil institutions, our local self government
already in full operation, our right of meeting, bar
unfettered press, how can public opinion very per-
manently err, and when it corrects itself, what can
withstand it ? The true interest of the masses is
the interest of the whole community. 'What use
can they make of power for their own real good,
which will not be for the good of all ?—Dispatch.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Mr. Wm. Gresham, a solicitor, of Castle-street,
Holborn, and High Bailiff of Southwark, appeared
before Mr. Alderman Humphery, at the Guildhall
Police-court yesterday, to answer the following
complaint :

Mr. Wontner said he appeared on behalf of Miss
Emma Johnson, the complainant, who was the
daughter of the landlord of the house in which Mr.
Gresham's offices were situated. The case was of
a peculiar character, and he regretted that he
shoul I be compelled to bring it before this Court,
but the annoyance Mr. Johnson and his family suf-
fered at Mr. Gresham's hands was such that they had
found it impossible to put up with it any longer.
Mr. Gresham had occupied a set of chambers in
Mr. Johnson's house since June last, but some time
ago the family became considerably annoyed by
what took place in the chambers after the clerks left
of an evening, and Mr. Johnson accordingly remon-
strated with Mr. Gresham upon the impropriety of
admitting females to the chambers after office
hours, and from that time a system of annoyance
had been continued to an intolerable extent. On
Thursday last the servant told Miss Johnson that
Mr. Gresham had been emptying chamber uten-
sils from his window into the yard, and scarcely
crediting that such should be the case, Miss John-
son went into the yard to ascertain the fact, and,
upon looking up at the window, she there saw Mr.
Gresham, and heard him exclaim " Now then." At
the same instant a man at his side empiied a scut-
tleful of cinders and ashes over her. Immediately
afterwards Mr. Gresham shouted out " That's it,
that's it," and closed the window. That the de-
fendant intended, by his conduct, to annoy the
complainant, it was quite clear; and if the magis.
trate was of opinion that the ashes were wilfully
thrown over the complainant by direction of the
defendant, then it amounted to a common a sault,
for which he was amenable.

Miss Emma Johnson deposed to the same effect,
and the evidence of the servant of the house and
others manifested the animus existing between the
parties.
Mr. Atkinson, for the defence, said that the act
complained of was unintentional ; the fact was,
that Mr. Johnson was a very acute man of busi-
ness, and wanting these premises for his own pur-
poses he was endeavouring by every means in hie
power to drive Mr. Gresham out.
Alderman litimphery—Would it not bo better
for all parties that Mr. Gresham should go away
If he is annoyed as you say, he is very foolish to
stay.
Mr. Atkinson—Mr. Gresham is a most respect-
able solicitor, and is well knownintr 21 years.
heCity,hav-
ing resided in these very premises for
Mr. Wontner—That was seven years ago, and
before Mr. Johnson had the house.
Mr. Atkinson said the evidence of the com-
plainant proved his case that Mr. Gresham was
prohibited from taking the ashes to the proper
place.
Alderman llumphery said it was not material, as
nothing could justify a wilful assault.
Mr. Gresham—l declare most solemnly before
God, if it is the last word I speak, that I did not
see any one there.
Alderman Humpherv—lt is a great pity that
both parties could not arrange their difficulties. I
think Mr. Gresham, like many other people, does
that in a moment of irritation which he is sorry for
afterwards, and I believe he regrets this matter now
that he has had time for reflection. 1 can only foel
that the ashes were thrown by Mr. Gresham's di-
recti3n, and that is an assault for which I must fine
him 20s.

Mr. Atkinson was sorry the worthy alderman had,
taken that view of the case, as it afforded a tri-
umph to the other party which would only tend. to
embitter the quarrel between them more than ever.
Alderman Humphery—Why does Mr. Gresham
stay there ? 1 would leave if I did not find myself
comfortable, were I in his place.
Mr, Wontner—We only want him to leave our
prcknises, and if he will go at once we will forgive
him the quarter's rent.
Mr. Atkinson was about to reply, when
Mr. Gresham said he would not abate a in ;10
day of his notice.
'the fine was paid.