The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENINC, MAY 15, 1 69.

Third Series of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,
Volume CXXXVIII., page 2,077. It runs thus :" I
have always believed"—these were the very words of
Mr. A. H. LAYARD, then the hon., now the right hon.,
member for Southwark, and at this present moment her
MAJESTY'S Chief Commissioner of Public Works, an
officer of State previously associated in his title with
Parks and Palaces, and before that with Woods and
Forests—" I have always believed that success
would be the inevitable result, if the two services,
the Army and Navy, had fair-play, and if we sent
the right man to fill the right place." It is rather an
unfortunate coincidence that the very man who first
employed that felicitous expression about the
Right, • Man in the Right Place should—all
these years afterwards—be the very one to
suggest, in his official capacity, as the
of the metropolis, the erecting of—the Wrong Build-
ing in the Wrong Place. As Chief Commissioner
of Public Works, Mr. LAYARD, immediately on en-
tering upon the discharge of the duties of his office
in the formation of the present Government, finds
committed to his charge, as about the first and fore-
most of his imme Bate responsibilities, the duty of
seeing carried out to a successful result, the project
of building up, at last, in the capital of the British
Empire, in a suitable position, and, according to a
suitable design, an edifice worthy of being the chosen
or central locality for the administration of the Laws
of England. Until Mr. LAYARD's induction into the
post of Chief Commissioner of Public Works under Mr.
GLADSTONE'S Premiership, the title associated with this
projected structure has—with a significant reference
to its intended grandeur—been, not only popularly
but officially, spoken of as the Palace of Justice. Con-
sequent upon Mr. LAYARD'S succession to the posi-
tion previously occupied by Lord JOHN MANNERS, the
future home of THEWS is no longer referred to as the
Palace of Justice, but simply as the New Law Courts.
A site, as we all know, has long ago been selected, has
been purchased, has been actually cleared—this, in
accordance with, or in obedience to, the decision of
a Royal Commission, one of the principal members of
which is the hon. and learned gentleman the member
for Richmond, the high-minded statesman, lawyer,
orator, jurisconsult, whose exquisite scrupulosity of
conscience has precluded him from the supreme
position (among all the lay subjects of the Crown)
of Lord High Chancellor. The Carey-street Site
has been deliberately selected, deliberately bought,
deliberately paid for, deliberately cleared. It is there
—an eyesore in the very centre of the metropol's
waiting for the time when the architect and the con-
tractors, the masons and the bricklayer's, the hod-
carriers, the joiners, the slaters, the painters, the
carpenters, and all the rest of them, swarming over
that now unsightly wilderness, strewn with the debris
of laths and plaister, with brick-bats and brick-dust,
armed with plan and plumb-line, with pickaxe and
spade, with hod and trowel, shall begin in earnest
the building up of the intended law courts from their
very foundations. Almost immediately before the
last change of Government, it is true; this carefully-
prepared Carey-street site suddenly came to have a
doubt thrown upon it, by the mere fact of the sug-
gestion of a site unquestionably nobler and more im-
posing in every way, the site advocated principally
by Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN, in preference to the al-
ready chosen, purchased, and cleared site between
Carey-street and the Strand, midway between Lin-
coln's-inn and the Temple—the newly opened
and certainly magnificent site now lying bare
and vacant on the north-eastern margin of
the Thames Embankment. Scarcely has Mr.
LAYARD realized all this, however, scarcely
has he assumed his position as Chief Commissioner
of Public Works, when he, the author of the phrase
about the Right Man in the Right Place, does his
very utmost to ensure the erection of the Wrong
Building in the Wrong Place. He disdainfully sets
at nought the fact of all that has, been actually
done and paid for in regard to the Carey-street
site. He scornfully discards the notion of any such
site as the one sketebed out by Sir CHARLES TRE-
VELTAN between the Strand and the Thames Em-
bankment. He abjures the project of building
up anywhere at all a Palace of Justice.
Paring cheeses, skinning flints, and mending pens,
being now all in vogue, his heart is bent upon some
miserably economical compromise. Instead of a
Palace of Justice, we are simply to have New Law
Courts. Not a building embracing all the Law
Courts, but just a few of them. And to ensure
our doing ne more than this, to secure us effectually
from the risk of having the temptation, in this matter,
to expand our ideas, to spend any more money in
connection with this particular project—what is the
alluring scheme set before us by Mr. LAYARD, what
is the charming site pointed out by him for the
final selection of the Legislature? Why—in less than
half a dozen words—a hole in a corner! Our earnest
hope, in this matter, is that the Government pro-
position in regard to the Howard-street site will be
defeated by an independent House, of Commons,
and that either the Carey-street site or Sir CHARLES
TREVELTAN'S still finer site than that on the Thames
Embankment, will be selected, by preference, not for
the building up merely of e2rtain New Law Courts,
but (as originally proposed) of—a Palace of Justice.

IT is impossible to imagine what good object can
be obtained by Thursday night's debate in the Lords
on the state of Ireland. Mr. BRIGHT has made an
injudicious speech on the land question, granted;
that speech has led to " wild hopes " on the part of
the Irish tenants, it is possible ; but the speech has
been repudiated by Mr. BRIGHT'S colleagues, and
that repudiation has been open, emphatic, and
official. What more would Lord RUSSELL have ?
What more would his new colleagues, Lord DERBY
and the Duke of ABERCORN, have ? A land bill for
Ireland ? They will have it next session ; to this the
Government has pledged itself. But they want it this
session. Lord DERBY wants it immediately ; wants
that which his own son has declared is " impossible."
The Peers say that the postponement is giving rise to
extravagant expectations on the part of Irish tenants.
We are inclined to think that the real secret of all this u r-
gency is extravagant fear on the part of Irish landlords.
LordßussELL sees with perfectequanimity a measure
for disposing of the Church lands, but he is hysteri-
cally nervous about any measure which may affect
private estates. We cannot now do as was done 300
years ago, purchase the support of the House of
BEDFORD by a present of Abbey demesnes. There is
no Irish Tavistock or Woburn at the disposal of Mr.
GLADSTONE. On the contrary, the landlords, instead
of profiting by the present great ecclesiastical revolu-
tion, believe that it will only facilitate a
proprietary revolution. Hinc ilia lachrymee.
Hence this restlessness, this impatience, this eager-
ness to know the worst, this anxiety so consuming
that it puts to flight all counsels of prudence,
fixes the attention of the Irish people upon that
whence their attention should have been diverted,
and graves upon the rock with a pen of iron the
passing utterances that should have been writ only
upon water.
The accusation against the Government is twofold.
First, that it has not done its duty in suppressing
crime ; second, that it has committed a grave
error in statesmanship in not introducing this session
a second important bill affecting Ireland. As regards
the first accusation, there is no doubt that the
Government erred in releasing the forty-nine Fenian
convicts ; there is no doubt now. But " after-wisdom
is no man's wisdom," says the proverb. It was natural
enough to.stippose that the people of Ireland would
be pacified by the release of the, least guilty of its
political offenders. lqiiiisteris full of gegefoiiii'
aentimenta and of benevolent intentions, waded

to be met with answering gratitude. They havt
not; they are disappointed. They made an experi,
ment ; it has failed ; they will not try it again. Bu
there is no other admission to be made. The Govern.
ment have proclaimed Derry, have sent clown I,
special body of police to Mullingar, and now contem-
plate applying for additional powers in order b
preserve the peace. And it must be rememberel
that, except at Derry, there has been no extensity,
breach of the peace. There have been murder,
and attempted murders—some prompted br
revenge, as in the case of Mr. ANKETELL, tit
station-master, who was killed by a discharge)
employe ; some by disputes respecting the land ; sonu
by other motives, including, it is said, female jealous:.
It is the policy of the opponents of the Govern-
ment to ascribe all these crimes to one cause—land-
hunger—and to charge the Government with having
excited it. The facts are against the accusation, and
the truth is simply that several isolated deeds
of violence have taken place in Irelam:,
prompted by a variety of motives, including
one in which the landed class take a par-
ticular interest, and on account of which they
would have the whole country punished. Had tie
murders taken place in the towns, had the murderers
merely stolen purses, we should have heard nothing
of all this outcry. But " real" property is a very
sacred thing; it belongs to a privileged class—tie
class privileged to sit in the Legislature ; and ao
night after night the attempt is made to goad
Ministers into stultifying their " message of peace"
by proclaiming martial law, or by some other
kindred act of severity.

Lord GRANVILLE has for the third time declareia
that the Government will not bring in a Land Bill
this session. Lord GRANVILLE has for the second
time defended Mr. BRIGHT from attacks which his
assailants carefully forbear from making in the
House where. the object of their attacks can meet
them. If their lordships are not satisfied_ with this
doable aa,Lwe, with this triple refusal, we .know not
what will satisfy them. It is a new thing for
private members or for the Opposition to attempt
to extract from the Government an announce-
ment of measures which are not yet pre-
pared. It is usual for the Government to decide
what measures shall or shall not be brought forward,
and with them rests the responsibility of any delay.
If the Opposition are dissatisfied, let them move a
direct vote of no-confidence. Let Lord RUSSELL
move it if he will ; it will not be the first time that
he has attempted to overthrow a Liberal Government
of which he is not a member. At the same
time we would caution the Peers not to take
another " leap in the dark." Lord DERBY himself
gave abundant proof of the difficulty which besets
this land problem. We question if the confession
that he is practically unable to get rid of his tenants
or to raise their rent, will not excite much wilder
hopes than either Mr. BRIGHT'S letter or speech.
Practically Lord DERBY'S tenantry have, upon his
own shewing, "fixity of tenure." Practically
that formidable thing, at the thought of which
the Irish landlords are so terrified is already
among them. Practically the only difference
which Mr. BRIGHT'S scheme would make to
them is that it would give the force of law to
that which has already the force of custom. How
grateful then they ought to be when they learn that
the Government are not prepared to go so far as
this. If they would only be prudent they would
refrain from constantly calling the attention of the
Irish tenantry to this suggestion; they would refrain
from forcing the Government into the adoption of
a policy which now, at all events, is thought to be
beyond the necessity of the case.

ACCORDING to the decision of the judge, Stafford
cannot claim, with Beverley, Barnstaple, and other
distinguished places, a position in the first rank of
iniquitous boroughs ; but its pre-eminence in the
second order of electoral corruption is indisputable.
In unseating both the members returned at the last
election, Mr. Justice BLACKBURN has not thought
it necessary to report that corrupt practices exten-
sively prevailed in Stafford ; but it is clear that the
escape has been a very narrow one. Previously to
the Reform Bill the constituency numbered only
1,039, and the increase under household suffrage
has been comparatively small. Both in 1805 and in
1868 there were three aspirants for the representa-
tion of this borough. The candidate at the head of
the poll on each occasion secured nearly the same
number of votes, and in the case of the other two
the difference was under five hundred. The consti-
tuency, therefore, has not greatly varied in number,
whilst the bad character which it long ago earned
has been faithfully kept. Out of the 1,124 voters who
supported Colonel MELLER, 912 were charged with
illegal practices ; of the 1,107 who gave their votes
to Mr. CHAWNER , the unsuccessful candidate,
corruption was laid to the charge of 497. The
charges actually proved embraced almost all . the
various forms of bribery which our electoral system
has developed. There was sore evidence of
direct money payment. Intimidation was curly
proved against the agents of Mr. PoCHIN,
the Liberal who came in first. A " vigilance
committee " of twenty or thirty men had .)een
organised, and though this committee did not
display much vigilance in discovering the illegal acts
of opponents, it had been employed in preventing
adverse voters from coining to the poll. But Mr.
POCHIN was decidedly the most guiltless of the
two candidates. His preparations had been made,
the judge did not hesitate to affirm, to prevent
bribery. He fell because his agent had incited the
vigilance committee to intimidate voters comirg to
the support of the Conservative, Colonel MELLER.
But the case against the latter candidate, whogained
the second position on the poll, was made out more
fully. The election of 1805 was disgracefully
corrupt, much more so than that of last year.
Colonel MELLEr. was returned in 1805 by means of
a useful organisation which he thought it well to
keep up in store for the next emergency. A
`Working Men's Conservative Associationwas formed,
and the interest of its members was kept alive by
frequent meetings, at which drink could be procured
at a greatly reduced rate. When the day of election
came, the utility of this far-seeing measure became
evident. The rooms of the association were con-
verted into election committee-rooms, and the
members into committee-men. Altogether, Colonel
MELLER'S agents engaged some three dozen
public-houses in the small town of Stafford, paid rents
for them amounting in all to nearly £5OO, and
employed between 700 and 800 committee-men. As
he polled no more than 1,124, the duties of these
committees may readily be divined. It will not-be one-
sided to credit the allegations of the opposing counsel,
that their duties consisted solely in drinking. Colonel
MELLER, in fact, had his army of voters at com-
mand, ready, as Mr. Justice BLACKBURN remarked, for
corruption, if circumstances should require it. It was
impossible to regard as valid an election at which such
an organisation had been employed. All three candi-
dates, indeed, were found more or less guilty of illegal
practices. Mr. CHAWNER, the Liberal who was un-
successful, petitioned for a scrutiny against Colonel
MELLER, who headed him by seventeen votes. But
as Mr. CHAWNER had coalesced with Mr. Poems, he
was involved in the intimidation of the vigilance
committee. The whole of this lengthy and complex
election trial furnishes a striking illustration of the
new form which bribery is taking. Direct corruption
has become almost extinct at Stafford, as
at other places where it has in former years been
rife. Indirect bribery is now found to be the only
practice affording a chance of success, and it is
against this impurity that future reforms must be
directed. .The public-houses play an ever-increasing
part in this sort of corruption.

In a letter from St. Petersburg the writer re-
commends the Hotel D'Angleterre, kept by Monsieur
Schmitz, where he says are to be found good wines, excel-
lence of cuisine, and that desideratum, obliging waiters,
whose civility-does not depend on the grattlitylp
Umue hostis oiso ever on the • alert
.for the- conx-
lost of his guests and patrons (opposite 541saao's Church).
80, DelPsYsquid,

THE _BISHOP OF CARLISLE.

The Carlisle Journal says :—" It affords some satisfac.
tion to know that for the last week or so the Bishop has
obtained so much relief from suffering that he has been
able to take an occasional drive in the open air, but we
regret to add that this temporary soothing of the pain
gives no hope that the cause has been at all
removed. His lordship's condition, in fact, is
still such as to occasion the most serious
apprehensions. Since his return from the Continent he
has occupied Mr. Moore's London residence in Kensington
Palace-gardens, the use of which had been most con-
tiderately placed at his disposal, and where he has the
tdwantage of the devoted attention of Lady Waldegrave
And his own servants, and of constant communication with
his medical advisers. If we are not misinformed, the
malady from w.ch his lordship is suffering is some
obscure disease of the brain."