The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-19 00:00:00

''''.N44,

a moment as to which he would prefer. FARINA
went to Sicily as Count CAVOUR'S commissioner to
effect the first ; he is a Sicilian, and he succeeded,
according to his own account, in inducing the
chiefs of 300 municipal bodies in agreeing to his
views. Doubtless the argument was—make safe
what you have got. To which GARIBALDI could
obviously reply, you have not got Sicily yet. Its
"Quadrangle" is yet in the KING'S hand ; you
must capture Messina, the military stronghold of
Sicily; the hold from which FERDINAND and
FILANGIERI re-subjugated the island in 1849

you must capture Messina and then talk of an-
nexation. lam the responsible Dictator, and can-

ration.

not be dictated to.

But GARIBALDI, as FARINA says, would not stop
there; he frankly says, he postpones annexation
until he can see his way to annexing all Italy.
He had enough of one precipitate annexation

in the results of Villafranca. He had no
choice then but to yield to what his superiors
in the field of battle decreed. Now he has
no superior ; and he does not mean to be
Dictator and Commander-in-Chief for nothing.
He knows the complications at Turin full well.
He is aware that the diplomatist, Count CATOUR
is in the hands of the French EMPEROR, and thai
though as desirous of a united Italy as himself, he
dare not kick over the Imperial traces. He knows
that " confederation" is the watchword of France,
and that at Turin they cannot reject it. He sees
FRANCIS IL, at French instigation, sending offers
of alliance to VICTOR EMMANUEL ; and sees the
Sovereign, to whom he has given his allegiance for
the sake of Italy, compelled to seem to look coldly
on the project of a united Italy. He understands
that VICTOR EMMANUEL cannot, even if France
were not officiously in the way, seize on the
Neapolitan territories and the States of the Church,
mad cashier the Rulers, as Lords PALMERSTON,
RUSSELL, and BROUGHAM think best, for the sake
of the public peace, and as the antidote to revolu-
tions. He is fully aware that all the power of the
superior priests of every grade, and of the monks,
will be brought to bear against union—all these
things the great Italian patriot well knows, and
has his counter-plan accordingly.
And it is to his plan that we all wish " God
speed." And more than that; we have great con-
fidence in its author, Whatever GARIBALDI
has undertaken, that, he has done. His
defence of Rome was acknowledged to be
a great military succees ; though such crazy
fortifications could not resist for ever. In its
way it was as glorious as the defence of Kars. His
exploits on the Alps, with the resources at his com-
mand, altogether surpassed those of the vain-glo-
rious Frenchman. His last in Sicily with two
thousand to twenty thousand tells its own tale,
And GARIBALDI'S patriot troops cannot now
be overpowered by mere numbers of French-
men fighting to enslave Italy to the Pope. Eng-
land will never suffer that. He will now be able
to fight his own battle with Bourbon despotism ;
he has begun it nobly, and may be safely left to
finish it. Louis NAPOLEON will doubtless do all
he can to complicate things at Naples for him ;
but he will not venture, while we too have a Medi-
terranean fleet, to fire, again, a gun against him.
Some indeed tell us that the south and north of
Italy never can unite, the wish being doubtless
father to the thought ; our reply is, leave the south
and the north with GARIRALDI for their adviser, to
settle that themselves. I f they do not, on both
sides, wish for union, England can have not the
slightest wish to force it upon them. GARIBALDI,
on his part, most assuredly does not want to con-
quer the people of Naples, but their despot, his
mercenaries, and his police, on behalf of the people.
We may be confident that, if, when freed from ter-
rorism, they preferred to leave their promised liber-
ties in the hands which give then& only as a bait,
GARIBALDI, would leave the simpletons and their
Bourbons to themselves, to receive yet one more, and
final, lesson in the perfidy of the worthless dynasty.
Nothing in the world is wanted but to secure for
the honest patriot " fair play and no favour."
But the true state of the case can hardly be
doubted. We have not yet while we write the ex-
planation of the last disturbances at Naples ; but
this at least we know—they were caused by the irri-
tation of the Royal granter of an amnesty with the
popular joy on the return to their country of a band
of the amnestied exiles. The joy in Naples over
the few exiles who returned, more than over all
the citizens who needed no return, so like the joy
of a better world over those who were lost but are
found—was unendurable to the wretch who wourd
rather they bad all gone to perdition than find
again a place in the bosom of their families and of
their native land. Thus much is certain ; and we
only hope that the murder of the rejoicing in-
habitants, and the dismissal of the Liberal Minis-
try are but the prelude to the exile of the Boun-
BONS and of all belonging to them, never to return
by any amnesty. Certainly never to return
amidst the joy of the people. The Queen
Mother and the camarilla—who it was
promised long ago should be dismissed,
still remain to prompt the young Monarch
to resume his old counsels—we only hope that they
have staid to make a larger freight for the vessel
which will have the honour of being dredging barge
to Neapolitan liberties. We believe it is not un,
common for such vessels to empty their contents in
very deep water, and the Mediterranean is deep
enough ; but, what is political " sludge" in one
country may be thrown on the shores of another
and do no harm. The Spanish coast is near and
Austria not far off. So that Naples be cleared out
we shall not care where the rubbish is shot.
tn-

If the old Tory Quarterly committed itself
egregiously of late, the old Whig Quarterly, the
Edinburgh, has certainly followed suit in its cur-
rent number, but just now published—floundering
into a false position with the most amazingly deli-
berate premeditation. The Quarterly Reviewer,
in his perverse attempt, strove, as will be remem-
bered, to carry dissension into the front ranks of
his own party, for the gratification of some per-
sonal spleen, and for the allaying thereby of his
own individual heart-burnings. The Edinburgh
Reviewer would now appear to be bent, in his turn,
upon a spitefully disingenuous endeavour to mar
that notable "experiment" which is still being made,
according to the hon. gentleman the repesentative
for the Tower Hamlets, by the members of the pre-
sent Coalition Government. An experiment namely
to try whether the Whig Party and the Liberal
Party can really constitute a firm and stable
Administration. Against these insidious
efforts, on either side, we would protest
with all the fervour of our convictions and with
all the frankness of our independenCe.
The "obscure writer" in the Quarterly turned out
to be the noble lord the member for Stamford, the
Lord ROBERT ARTHUR TALBOT GASCOIGNE CECIL,
second son of the present (the second) -Marquess of
SALISBURY, late Lord President of the Council
under the Earl of DERBY'S Administration.
Whether the " obscure writer" in the Edinburgh
should likewise prove upon examination to be some
other scion of a noble house or not—his gratuitous
assumption of the part of MARPLOT in the great
quarterly organ of his party, does most assuredly

appear to us not one jot less discreditable. The
Quarterly critic, it is notorious, essayed to alienate
the Conservatives from their brilliant and
gifted leader the right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire. The Edinburgh
critic has now been doing his " little all"
to bring about the untimely discomfiture of the
Coalition, not through a Man, bat through a Mea-
sure. His endeavour may be described, in fact, as
nothing less fatuous and flagitious than the nailing
of the old blue and buff standard to the mast, and
the branding upon it of the old Anti-Ballot decla-

This enterprise is in itself sufficiently insidious.
But we believe it will lead in the end to no greater
success than that attendant upon the equally blun-
dering effort of Lord ROBERT CECIL to deprive
Mr. DISRAELI of the leadership of the Conservative
party. The apple of discord which has been but
just now cast by the Edinburgh reviewer among
the motley supporters of the present Liberal Coali-
tion, looks wonderfully tempting, it is true, has
about it the superficial bloom of ripeness and every
indication of a succulence and flavour in the
highest degree refreshing and appetising. But, at
the first nibble, it turns out to be as worthless as
an apple of the Dead Sea—dust and ashes
at its core—the dust and ashes of all sorts
of old dead and gone arguments these
ashes here, by the way, being as unlike as possible
to those mentioned by Mr. GRAY, the poet, as vital
still in the last with their " wonted fires !"
" Secret Voting and Parliamentary Reform" is
the double title of this most insensate and maladroit
political pronunciamento in the current number of
the Edinburgh. Whatever there is of serious argu-
ment—and it is small enough in all conscience—
anywhere discoverable in this paper of the old
Whig Quarterly, we shall examine into more care-
fully in these columns at our earliest opportunity.
In the meanwhile we cannot but direct attention to
the flippancy and frivolity of the tone in which the
writer takes this grave and vitally important sub-
ject into consideration. His earliest illus-
tration is drawn from no more serious or
philosophic source than the humorous " Con-
tested Election" of Mr. Tom TAYLOR,
the whimsical playwright. His antipathy to the
Ballot leads him at the very outset into the formal
extenuation of bribery and corruption through this
bold and monstrous paradox—" If we had no votes,
no one would bribe us." Accepting which as con-
clusive, we might by a parity of reasoning venture
to palliate the crime of homicide by an utterance
equally Socratic—" If we had no lives, no one
would take them." But the writer goes yet further
than this—he not only deprecates any especial hor-
ror of bribery and " influence" at elections by say-
ing of them "after all they are weeds which spring
up on the soil of liberty"—he has the hardihood to
maintain that "It would be spendthrift husbandry
to endanger the
.fruits in destroying the weeds
which are thrown up by the strength and richness
of the soil." According to which ambi-dexterous
logic we might insist upon the rashness of dealing
in any way harshly with all (even the most
heinous) descriptions of crime through fear of im-
pairing what is good in the effort at its extermina-
tion. Nevertheless, with a startling inconsistency
while advancing these most shallow reasons against
any precautionary measures being taken to prevent
the hazard of bribery and corruption, the
Reviewer can, upon the very :same page, write
thus boldly and vigorously about those taints
upon our popular system of representation—
" It is indeed a singular instance of the extent to
which conventional rules will overbear the plainest
and simplest dictates of common honesty, to find
men of respectability, nay even men of station, con-
niving at an offence not more respectable than shop-
lifting, and not iniich less nefarious than highway
robbery. We do not speak of bribery merely, which,
infamous as it is, stands in our opinion higher in
the scale than some other offences of the same kind.
The worst, the most pitiful and most disgraceful of
such offenders, is the man who uses his position or his
influence to coerce or compel an elector to vote
against his inclination. The right to vote without
coercion or restraint is the property of the elector ;
the law secures it to him, just as much as it does his
purse to the traveller ; and the man who tries
to take from him the free exercise of that right,
is in his heart no better than a thief." It is because we
are so perfectly persuaded of all this, and because
we deem the present system of open voting as utterly
powerless to protect the elector on the one hand
from being bribed, and the candidate on the other
from the temptation of bribing, that we ask for the
one only reliable guarantee of perfect freedom in
the exercise of the electoral franchise, the ballot-box,
or, if the writer of the Edinburgh likes the phrase
better, the system of secret-voting.
The flippancy of the Reviewer's tone, however, is
signalised yet more remarkably as he warms to his
party-argument. The unfairness of the spirit in
which he writes is evidenced hardly less by the
very selection of his language when supposing the
Ballot, for the sake of argument, to be " established
with a gloom as impenetrable as its best friends
could wish "—than by the ridiculous character of
the little apologue through which he affects to de-
pict its working. This apologue, which may be
found at page 270 of No. 227 of the Edinburgh, is
really borrowed (the root-idea of .it) from Mr. Tom
TAYLOR'S " Contested Election" aforesaid—and it
may be, with perfect accuracy, described as nothing
less, in so many words, than a burlesque upon a bur-
lesque, a caricature of a caricature ! The Reviewer
naively appends to his imaginary election in the
supposititious constituency of Flamboroug h this
wonderfully frank acknowledgment of its worth-
lessness—" Such is a rude sketch of a possible system
of bribery under the Ballot !" But imagine fur-
ther the "judgment" of a political writer who can
seriously inform us of the following as a scheme of
corruption actually in vogue under the pre-
sent system of open voting—telling us—
" A gentleman belonging to a borough had a
fancy for lending money to the electors, in small
sums of £lO, £2O, or £30." Adding, "He
took reasonable interest, and called up his loans at
pleasure, and whenever an election came on, gave
a general notice to his debtors to pay up, unless
they were prepared to support his candidate."
And yet absolutely appending to the above record
these astounding words, " Now the Ballot would
not derange, in the slightest degree, the principle on
which a borough might thus be bought and sold."
Would it not ? Does any man in his sober senses
really and truly believe that there could be found
in the three kingdoms a single individual, outside
the walls of a lunatic asylum, who would be Pre-
pared to lend money after this fashion, upon such
a contingency? The whole reasoning of this paper,
in fact—if such jolt er-headed notions can well be
dignified with the name of reasoning—is simply
preposterous; it is a ringing of the changes, in
effect, alternately of ridicule the most frivolous,
and of paradoxes the most audacious and tran-

sparent.

"It was almost touch and go last night with the
Metropolitan Local Management Act Amendment
(No. 2) Bill for its second reading. Upon a divi-
sion, in a house of 146 members, that stage was
passed only by the narrow majority of 10-78

voting for going into committee, and 68 against it.
Several of the leading metropolitan members
staunchly supported the measure, as it was surely
very right and reasonable that they should do.
They had the Government moreover at their backs
in the person of the Home Secretary. But—against
them—against the Bill itself—was that redoubtable
champion of the Gas Companies' Monopoly, Mr.
STANILAND. This, remember, although the very
rigmarole title of the Bill might have warned him,
might actually, one would think, have shamed him,
against any such interference. This roundabout title
being, as we have seen, the Metropolis local Ma-
nagement Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill. That one
word " local," it might have been supposed, would
prove sufficient to warn off from any pert attempt
at meddling in the matter one who surely had no
right or title to do so thus obtrusively from the mere
circumstance of his not being amongst the number
of the Metropolitan representatives. So thought
not Mr. STANILAND, whose advocacy of the Gas
Companies is apparently inducing him to run a muck
against anything and everything calculated to mar
the hitherto fondly cherished hopes of his clients
for the continuance yet longer, and the per-
petration, if possible, of their monster mono-
poly. It was no wonder therefore that
Mr. JAMES should express very frankly his
surprise at this uncalled-for interposition of Mr.
STANILAND; saying, " he did not know why the
hon. member, who did not represent any of the
places that would be effected by this Bill, should
oppose it—except (Mr. JAMES added) that the other
evening he came forward as the great champion of
the Gas Companies, whose monopoly might thus
be very seriously threatened." Into the lobby,
however (notwithstanding this well-merited sar-
casm), there went last night 68 in support of Mr.
STANILAND'S proposition for not letting the bill go
into committee. In vain, however, as we have
seen, thanks to the 78 who supported Sir G. C.
LEWIS'S view of the measure, and the combined
advocacy of it by the metropolitan members pre-
sent in the House last evening. The second
reading passed, the House duly went into Com-
mittee, and the Bill may now, therefore, be regarded
as in a fair way, even at this fag end of the session,
of being fast developed into an enactment.

MR. STANSFEL_D'S PLAN FOR A NATIONAL
BANK OF ISSUE.

That were a special stock created for the distinct
object of providing a sound currency, instead of
appropriating the existing Government stocks for
that purpose to the exclusive advantage of the fund-
holders, a sum of at least £30,000,000 might be
obtained for the use of the Government, and for the
benefit of the people, without laying any burden on
the public whatsoever.
Assuming the total issue of notes to be for
£45,000,000, based upon two-thirds of the amount
in Government securities, and one-third in gold, a
sum of £30,000,000 in a National Bank 3 per cent.
stock would be required.
The operation would be as follows. The public
in the first instance would purchase the stock
from the Government and give their money in
exchange, as they do for an ordinary Government
loan ; they would then deposit the stock with the
National Bank Commissioners, and receive their
money back in the shape of legal tender bank notes;
adding to their deposit of £30,000,000 of National
Bank stock, £15,000,000 of gold, against which
they would also receive notes. The public there-
fore would be in possession of the same amount of
money as before the transaction ; they would have
lost none, and yet the Government would have
gained £30,000,000. This result arises simply from
the Government becoming the issuers of this credit
money instead of bankers ; by taking from fallible
issuing bankers the monopoly which they now en-
joy for their private advantage, and transferring it
to an infallible national bank for the good of the
public.
On the part of the Government it would be the
receipt of the sum of £30,000,000 subject to an
annual charge of £900,000, and as this charge
would be defrayed out of the profits of the circu-
lation, the Government would get the amount
without laying any burden on the people what-
soever ; and were a still larger amount than
£30,000,000 of the National Bank stock required,
the Government would obtain a still greater sum.
It may be said that such an issue would virtually
, be a Government issue of notes for £45,800,000,
based on a reserve of gold of £15,000,000, to ensure
convertibility, and so it would be ; but with this

important difference in the working, that the
amount in circulation would adjust itself to the re-
quirements of commerce, and be regulated by the
wants of the public and not of the Government.

FLORAL EXHIBITION AT COVENT

GARDEY

This very beautiful exhibition was thrown open
to the public yesterday, most of whom, if we may
judge from the expressions of delight and admira-
tion which escaped them, had never seen so many
flowers before in their lives. Independently of the
flowers and fruit (for some very fine pines were not
denied admittance), the picturesque character of
the building, enhanced by the almost endless rows
of festoons which stretched across the roof, forms a
conspicuous feature. Nothing was wanting to the
attractiveness of the scene save the presence of a
first-rate band, the absence of which, we think, was
generally felt by the spectators as they promenaded
up and down the walks.
The following is the schedule of prizes given and
awarded by Mr. Gye

ROSES.

CLASS 1.-OPEN TO AMATEURS, GARDENERS, AND

GROWERS FOR SALE.

For the best Collection of Roses in Pots; the size of the
Pots unlimited.—A first prize of £8 to Messrs. Paul; a
second prize of £5 to Mr. Francis.
CUT BLOOMS.
CLASS lI.—OPEN TO GROWERS FOR SALE.

For One Hundred Varieties of Roses, three trusses of
each variety.—A first prize of £8 to Messrs. Paul ; a second
prize of £6 to Mr. Hcllamby ; a third prize of i 5 to Mr.
Mitchell.

For Fifty Varieties of Roses, three trusses of each variety.
—A first prize of £7 to Messrs. Paul ; a second prize of £5
to Mr. Francis ; a third prize of £3 to Mr. Cant.
For Thirty Varieties of Roses, three trusses of each
variety.--A first prize of £6 to Mr. Keynes ; a second prize
of £4 to Mr. Turner ; a third prize of £2 to Mr. Laing.
CLASS lII.—OPEN TO AMATEURS AND GARDENERS.
For Forty Varieties of Roses, not exceeding three
trusses of each variety.—A first prize of £8 to Mr. J. T.
Hedge ; a second prize of £6 to Mr. Terry ; a third prize of
£5 to Mr. J. Evans.
For Twenty-five Varieties of Roses, not exceeding three
trusses of each variety.—A first prize of £7 to Mr. J. T.
Hedge ; a second prize of £5 to Mr. Moffatt ; a third prize
of £3 to C. M. Worthington, Esq.
For Fifteen Varieties of Roses, not exceeding three
trusses of each variety.—A first prize of £6 to Mr. J. T.
Hedge ; a second prize of £1 to Mr. Churchfield ; a third
prize of £2 to Rev. G. E. Maunsell.
NEW VARIETIES OF ROSES.
[Not exhibited previously to 1858.]
CLASS IV.—OPEN TO AMATEURS, GARDENERS, AND

NURSERYMEN.
A first prize of £5 to Mr. Keynes and Messrs. Paul, equal;
a second prize of Li to Mr. Lane; a third prize of £3 to Mr,

Fraser.

FUCHSIAS.
CLASS V.—OPEN TO AMATEURS, GARDENERS, AND
GROWERS, FOR SALE.
For the best Twelve Specimen Plants of Fuchsias—A
first prize of £8 to Mr. Oubridge ; a second prize of £5 to
Mr. Lousey ; a third prize of £3 to Mr. Croucher.
For the best Collection of Fuchsias —A first prize of £8
to Mr. Todman ; a second prize of £5 to Mr. Hayes ; a third
prize of £1 to Messrs. Frazer.
Yoe the best Collection of Pyramid and Standard Fuchsias
—A first prize of £lO to Mr. Gilbert; a second prize of £5
to Mr. Young.

CACTI.
CLASS VI.—OPEN TO AMATEURS, GARDENERS, AND
GROWERS, FOR SALE.
Fur the best Collection of Cacti—A first prize of £6 to Dr.
Waggett ; a second prize of £1 to Mr. Green.
For the Six best Specimen Plants of Llacti—A first prize
of £5 to Mr. Green ; a second prize of £3 to Dr. Waggett.
CLASS VII.—OPEN TO AM A.TEIJRS, GARDENERS, AND

GrLOWERS FOR SALE.
For the Best Collection of Twelve Stove and Greenhouse
Plants A first prize of £2O to Mr. Whitbread ; a second
prize of £l5 to Mr. Peed ; a third prize of £lO to Mr.
Gilbert.
For the Best Collection of Six Stove and Greenhouse
Plants.—A first prize of £lO to Mr. Whitbread ; a second
prize of £7 to Mr. Whitbread; a third prize of £5 to Mr.
Peed.

ROSES.
(EXTRA PRIZES ADDED SINCE THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT

Ctass VIII.—OPEN TO GROWERS FOR SALE.
For Fifty Varieties of Roses, One Truss of each Variety.
—A first prize of £4 to Mr. Kcvnes ; a second prize of £3
to Mr. Cant; a third prize of ;.f.;•j to Mr. Turner.
For Twenty Varieties of Roses, One Truss of each Va-
nety.—A first prize of £4 to Mr. Keynes ; a second prize
of £3 to Mr. Cranston • a third prize of £2 to Mr. Laing.
In addition to the above, extra prizes were awarded to
Messrs. Lane, Mr. Cranston, Messrs. Crawshay, Mr. Perry,
Mr. Evans, Mr. Terry, Miss Crawshay, A. Fryer, Esq.,
Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Green, Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Francis, Mr',
Cattell, Mr. C. Turner, Mr. Burley, Messrs. E. G. Hender-
son and Son, Mr. Standish, Messrs. Milne and Co.) Mr
•
Summers, Mr, Hopkins, and Mr. Wright.