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

, ,----) 4, _.----,--)

r

...-,0,•:t.,-I`,. -:,._;,..,./.,- -J.' _ ~,--''''.._._- -____,..„„..---- .
. .
e . ..,..ca, . .-_,-,,„..... . • , ‘
......) \ Ml' )0, •"I '3t • . —#l.' '4 ` t.,, , ---i
.... ~..
_,,
, •\.,, ' , ~ 4 • '‘'t• -.-4 t ~
. ..,..,,
(.71-al-a
, •, ' J 4-44 ‘,. stz I
r•I
:74 ,' .1..,.
~,,-_ (4477) - •i- ;:\ \'' \ ~.„1, .t. ~, ..." -54..-4.01.•_!-___ •;13411t ', 117.
dziii))).
4. 1,
t
~,.......„ ....,... . .
..„ .
~..„.. ,, .. . ,,24,,, .. •..~,,,,
_ Al"- „. •k, ' „0.6. '
t • 4., counsel
~44:...-',-
~.., .) 4 ,4 -••••-.- .4, -4
•-:',,."..i,..
' ,,,,,, ~--,,,,,. cv It' ,t• 4), , ..,.... ??4;174, . •s.
.ii, Aso ',.• , , r,, -;,. ---. —,---- ..„, -,...,. : _llOOl.
.;, . );,
.. .... _________________________
- . :,:,.',,,..-,.:
- • ~-."4. ----..-, - 43";‘ '''.4e'',. ~ • . „ 41": ~4 '1•‘0.
.._:--eif a, %. hirr— Zliti,.--, h, .1 '- t IS- • t -.• *. 06, ../.
00 .4-, '4 '-`,•,:•••• ' •;. _., ,
---..... -14--•71%.,Z `• ' '1,4•44; VI% ''' ,- • --ie-' -' ' , •,- v i•A' --"'" .--: ..'"-• 1,.., .
''' la

77k

/ G-C~ G'-L- L- 2f ~~

-GG'

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1860.

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD.

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 b►y 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 give passage to a hostile 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.

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
happon 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.

sert in the treaty which it has just concludcu 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 gi,c them the
gucrantees 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 t hat 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 authorise to read this despatch to Lord
John Russell, and to give him a copy of it.

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
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 Sai►
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 the northern and of Switzerland at the
southern extremity of the eastern frontier of France

Receive, &c.,
(Signed)

THOUVENEL

SOCIdL PROGRESS IS POLITICAL
'CHANGE.

We have said that the new Reform Bill is a tr-
mendous measure. We have shown that the sta-
tistics ou 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 occu-
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 be
seen that as enfranchisement applies to the rent
value, while the latter act specifies the rateable
value, tenements rented quite as high as £9 will
appear in the return as under £6, and that tene-
ments rented as high as £3O may be rated and com-
pounded for a sum under £2O. There are,
indeed, streets in London of holdings rented at £l3
which are rated at £5. As, therefore, by force of
statute, the owners are to be rated and assessed in room
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 for
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 duo up to Jan. 20 preceding should be paid.
But the words 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.
These conditions are telling in Parliament. , The
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 were disposed to gallop up
to the fence, as a safe and easy leap, see the broad
ditch of democracy on the other side, and, to 'con-
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 Boirbons—we learn something and

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, *pens 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 unjustly,
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 and Powers
of Europe.

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 um-
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 Stale
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
transactions of those periods have no practical ap-
plicability to the present state of European 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 reclarne une chose i 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.

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.,

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 :

J. RUSSELL.

" In the department of Mont Blanc France ac-
quires the Sub-Prefecture of Chambery, with the
exception of the cantons of I'llopital, St. Pierre
d'Albigny, la Rocette, and Montmelian ; 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
Marleus on the side of France, and Marthed 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 fellows, 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 gn 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.

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" :

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 out lives on the rail, or a
thousand miles from land. The Tories pledged their
policy to an extension of the franchise, the Whigs
have hound themselves to it hand and foot, the
Commons have passed their word on every hust-
ings—nulla vestigia retrorsum. Indeed, the second
follows as a necessary corollary fro:n 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 certain—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 advance 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
mibht just as well say that if a rock was against
his ship, he 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' down in the put them House
of Commons as anywhere 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? Who ag-

(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 b.as been instructed to
communicate to me officially, and which contains
the reply of the Government of hez.Nritannic Ma-
jesty to the statement of the Government of the
Emperor, concerning the annwtion of Savoy and
the arrondissement of Nice to France.

I eannot 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. lam sincerely pleased at this,
M. le Comte ; and there are only two points in
Lord John Russ 211'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 " revendica-
tion," 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 Switzerland, M. le Comte,
which Lord J. Russell considers to be menaced by
the annexation cf Savoy to the territory of the Em.
pire, I will content myself with remarking to you
that France attaches the greatest interest in pre-
serving it from any injury. The Emperor's Govern-
ment, therefore, has not hesitated, in order to prove
the bincerity of its disposition in this reoPecto t 9

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 tL which his Imperial Majesty
will always make it to himself a law to remain
faithful.

Thouvenel was
The declaration referred to by M.
no more than might have been expected from the
just
,and enlightened Sai•ercign by whom it was
made; and the assurance given M. Thouvenel
that it will be strictly andmviolably observed must
be gratifying to the allies of France and satisfactory
to the whole of Europe. That M. Thouvenel allege;
that the present is an exceptional case, that changes
which have taken place, and which are about to
take place, in Italy involv changes in the territorial
arrangements establishol by existing treaties, and
that those treaty arrangements ought not to be al-
tered to the detriment o: France.

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

By the Treaties of Vienna of 1815 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

1
i ~

e7e-

NEWSPAPEIt
our Dreco-parish-beadle 6 teeeelfV'ee
-ed even ignorant or info . , . ''12,,,,4.,'-7'''.41,,%
? Who made and endure; Ifir!' i11e.4 te, t 4 4
:ancery, our system of tenure an. A e;.-_,.l4'' '74Z
j
re-alt-; who robbed everybody to en ,ati.;;"ezeTtii .'ee
;iii
took half the labourer's loaf to inerea lag-74- ''',.. eyii,
ment, protected agriculture, ships, . elaws, la e
against foreigners, but ourselves? NotAVirl- ~. S
mem. Who set trade free, and untaxed bread ?
Not Parliament, but public opinion and the people.
Strikes aro stupidities, trades' unions are pernicious,
the interference oNrganieed 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.ceude 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 elasses.
Except in reference to expenditure, dive our his-
tory of the operation of the last Reform Bill dis-
courage us in going further in the same direction ?
The prodigious development of enterprise, genius,
discovery in science, above all trade, commerce, and
wealth, which have resulted from givhig freer seope
to individual energy by the Act of 1832, is a guide
not a beacon for 1860. Da we dread the ii:crl legi-
slation of democracy ? Lavish expenditure is its
vice—has been the blot upon the extended suffrage
effected by the Reform Act. But partial end e!rss
taxation appears not to be the peculiar sin, to eav
the least, of numerical representation. Our Coloniete
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 imposed
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 nor-raptly, ex-
pended. The population is a polyglot of Irish,
German, British, French, Italian, qualified yearly-
with foreign elements at once absorbed into the
constituent voting body. A Babel-of nations cati-
not be expected to display homogegeous patriotism,
or intelligent-co-operation. But it ought not to
be forgotten that our local and municipal aflhirs are
and have been -for 20 years regaltiteel by heusehold -
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 distinguit,bine 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 pi ejudices 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 feund out, as
it has in our colonies and the American Republic,
the worthlessness of legal verbiage, and the prac-
ticability of securing and transferring realty as
simply as Consols. It would have codified the law,
and revised it periodieally, 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.
It 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 prise of its concession. It is no
mean recommendation of the policy which inaugu-
rates it that liberty and exaction can go nofurther
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, our
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
should 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 brut 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
Ifie same • instant a man at his side emplied a scut-
tleful of cinders and ashes over her. Immediately
afterwards Mr. Gresham shouted out ,"I'hat'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 wsault,
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 his
power to drive Mr. Gresham out.
Alderman Humpliery-IVonld it not be 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 known in the City, hav-
ing resided in these very premises for 21 years.
Mr. Wontner—That was seven years ago, and
before Johnson had the house.
Mr.
MArticinson said the evidence of the, coin-
plainant proved his case that Mr:Gresharn was
prohibited from taking the ashes to the proper
place.
Alderman Humphery said it was not material, as
nothing could justify a wilful assault.
Mr. Gresham—l declare most solemnly before
nod, if it is the last word I speak, that I did not
sec any one there.
Alderman Humphery—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. I can only feel
that the ashes were thrown by Mr. Greshatn's di-
rection, 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 flumphery—Why does Mr. Gresham
stay there ? I would leave if I did not find myself
comfortable, were I in his place.
Mr. Wontner—We only want him to leave our
premises, 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 single
day of his notice.
The fine was paid._

7 z