The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

BAROMETER-29.69.

WIND—W.N.W., ; light, with dull, rainy weather, and
fitful heavy showers ; fine weather in the evening.

JUNE 11.
THERMOMETER, IN THE SHAME.
62—highest since noon yesterday.
47—lowest this morniag and during the night.
65—this day at noon.
BAROMETER-29.90.

WlND—South•Westerly ; light, with heavy, cloudy
weather. It was sultry for an hour or two about noon.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIS DAY.—Morning, 6h. 52m.—Afternoon, 7h. 16m.
To-mwtnow.-Morning, 7h. 40m.—Afternoon, Bh. 7m.

17
- f A'
, bp° IT
„ 0 •A. ---
^ I.; ,

I

ti..~:'\

THE SUN.
LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1860.

if the Reform Bill for England, as well as for
Scotland and Ireland, be laid aside for the ses-
sion, whom shall we blamed First, tive say,
Ministers, and next the Opposition. One for dis-
graceful obstruction, in opposition to the declared
wishes of its only competent leader—the other
for not putting a stop to the discreditable tactics
of the shabby Liberals and rancorous Tories.

There can be no doubt that had the Cabinet
agreed that the bill should pass, and that they
would, like CROMWELL, "stand no nonsense," they
were in a position to carry their measure. But
CROMWELLS are not to be found in England just now.
Sicily could furnish us with one, but she wants
him herself, and we must not expect perhaps of our
Premier, or of our Foreign Secretary, that they
should show as much decision at home as abroad.
They ought to do it. They ought to give us a
little of the benefit of speaking like freemen. They
ought not to have introduced a Reform Bill at all
unless they intended to make it the measure of a
standing or a falling Ministry. As soon as they
saw the shabby scheme of faithless Whigs and
hostile Tories, they had an easy course before them,
and one which would have conciliated for them
the respect of this country and of the
world. They had but to tell the House that they
were pledged to carry the Bill this session
—that if requisite the House would sit much
longer to do so—that if rejected by either Lords
or Commons they should appeal to the country—
and we should have been as for ward now with the
Reform Bill as with the Budget, perhaps more so.
This, then, is the charge against Ministers, that
they did not let factious members know that the
consequences of obstruction must fall on their own
heads. It was soon apparent that the present Par-
liament must have another year of it, because the
registration could not be made under the new
bill in time for an election by the enlarged
constituencies. Members would therefore have
felt that they must bear the penalty of
one election at least the more if they persisted in a
new time-wasting opposition ; also that they would
incur the penalty of interfering with the pleasures
of the shooting season—both arguments weighing
muck more, we fear, with many of our legislators
than any considerations of public business.
As to the opposition, we must repeat that we
consider it about the meanest which has ever dis-
graced a great party. There was the manly course
open to it, of rejecting the bill on the motion for the
second reading. That would have been worthy
of a great party if it could fled grounds to justify
itself on the principles of ti,e bill, but to delay the
business of the country by six precious nights of
empty talk on the second reading, whsn they dared
not propose a vote against it, this was—paltry. It
was unworthy of English Gentlemen. And we
believe no debate can be found within our recollec-
tion in which so many words:wore uttered with such
a minimum of information or of argument in them.
Time enough was spent in this way to have almost
got the bill through committee, and it was intended
it should be so. Garrulity was specially invoked
to clog the wheels of business. If we blame the
Government for want of manly decision,—for not
administering the political birch for this truancy,

of tongue, we must much more blame those who
could avail themselves of such methods to resist

Reform.

To us it seems as if Toryism intended now to
ride roughshod over the country. If any two
things were considered settled, one was that the
House of Commons had the sole charge of the taxa-
tion of the country, the other, that we were to
have a Reform Bill this year. Toryism has
rudely kicked over both the old principle and the
modern expectation. But what does all this mean ?
Why do lords almost imperil the existence of their
House, and their great party in the Commons dis-
grace itself by conduct worthy only of a small and
factious minority ? There must be in their view
something serious at stake to make both noble lords
and the Opposition in the Commons so utterly
reckless of all order and decency. We believe their
object is not far to seek. They dread any rea
extension of popular power. On more closely
scrutinising the Reform Bill, they think it will
really strengthen the Liberal party—that public
opinion will have more weight in the House of
Commons, and be proportionally more difficult for
the Lords to encounter. The Ballot and a fairer
distribution of seats they will not even hear of,
simply because they would give a fair and honest
expression of the public mind. The present Reform
Bill they dread, not perhaps because they see
very much direct mischief to Toryism in it,
but because it will lead, they think, to other and
more important demands, they are determined
therefore to try what can be done by resisting the
just demands of the people.
On the taxation question it is the same. The
House of Lords shudders at the idea of impending
equal taxation—the feudal exemptions of its class
would, if abolished, almost save us the need of an
income tax, of even a tenpenny one; but their
order and class have become so accustomed to be
spared, that they consider their exemptions almost
in the light of property, and regard equal taxation as
confiscation. Let them, however,beware. The country
has made no intimidating demonstration either on the
subject of Reform, or on that of taxation—simply
because their legislators seemed to promise pretty
well on both. Toryism may, however, find itself
mistaken in calculating on public apathy. While
the Continent is advancing in liberty and equality,
Englishmen will not be content to stand still,

much less to go back. To be first refused the
repeal of a tax by our House of lrresponsibles,
and then a most moderate Reform Bill—one made
only to pass—by their eldest sons and their party
in the Commons, may well prove more than the
country will put up with. They are fond enough
of denouncing Mr. BRIGHT as a revolutionist—but
he will certainly retort on them the charge in his
inter-sessional orations, with telling illustrations
furnished by themselves.

We trust Sir G. C. LEWIS will have the good
sense to abandon his objectionable proposals in re-
gard to the religious census. The meeting of last
week, as well as the deputation to the Premier,
ought to convince him that he will meet with more
resistance than will be welcome to him from many
determined members of Parliament, besides that of
an energetic portion of the public. The last state-
ment of the Home Secretary in the House of
Commons was:that he was willing to give up, if he
must do so, the penalty to be obtained summarily
by any informer for not giving a correct answer to
the personal interrogatory, What is your profes-
sion ? and to the vicarious one, What is the creed
of the members of your household ? It seems to
have been this last declaration which led to the
highly-respectable meeting, convened by circular,
at Rendall's Hotel, with Sir MORTON PETO in the
chair, besides 15 members of Parliament, and a con-
siderable number of gentlemen of great influence in
their respective circles. The intention was, evi-
dently, not to attempt anything of the Hyde-park
kind, but to show the Home Secretary that gentle-
men, to whom the present Government, and all
Liberal Governments are so largely indebted for
support, are immoveably hostile to his plan. Un-
less, therefore, he can pretend that his new columns
are a matter of principle with him, it will come to
this—do you mean to quarrel with the cordial sup-
porters of your Government on a question of detail
to which you arq in no way pledged, but on which
they have feelings and opinions you cannot possi-
bly change.
We have already expressed our strong distaste
for the scheme of the Home Secretary, and felt
pretty sure that Dissenters would especially resent
interrogatories which, as we showed, were designed
to exhibit them ina disparaging light. And we were
not mistaken. Besides the late meeting, we have
just received a circular, with the resolutions there
passed, signed by twenty-one members of Parlia-
ment—exactly the Ministerial majority of Thurs-
day night—and about the same number of well-
known and highly-respectable Dissenters, announc-
ing a public meeting for Tuesday (to-morrow)
evening, at the Freemasons' Sall. We entirely
concur with these gentlemen. Like one of the
speakers at the meeting, we should be tempted if
the Census Inquisitor came to us with the question,
What is your religious belief or profession ? to say,
" You impudent fellow, what is that to you." Mr.
JAMES WYLD, M.P., also remarked, what had not
occurred to us before, that it might become the
means of a system of proselytism in the public ser-
vice and amongst Government employees. This
would be far from impossible. We know no reason
why a High Churchman, the highest of the high, a
BERESFORD HOPE for instance, if other wise qualified,
should not be a Minister presiding over a great
department. At present, and properly, the Minis-
ter knows nothing of the creed of the subordinates ;
what is that to him, or to any one ? But how easy
would it be to intimidate men whose bread de-
pended on his favour into writing themselves Church-
men when they were conscientious Dissenters.
Apart from all this, nothing could reconcile us to
such un-English catechising respecting our creed.
With the penalty abolished, the whole thing left to
the enumerator, the refusal of some, the fraudulent
entries of households and public institutions by
their heads if men of any strong bias, and many other
causes, the whole thing would be quite fallacious,
and utterly wanting in the grand essential of
statistics—accuracy. It would not be even an ap-
proximately accurate return.

Whatever may be in store for us in the future in
regard to our foreign relations, however threaten-
ing the political situation may appear, undoubtedly
does appear in various parts of the European conti-
nent—we have, at any rate, the satisfaction here in
England of remembering we are by no means un-
prepared for any emergency. England, in fact, has
for a long while past been on the qui vice!'
We have long since rubbed the rust off our armour,
and if the Baltic Fleet did no other good
service, it at least awakened us vividly to
the necessity of sharpening our cutlasses.
The Crimean war, moreover, came to us more than
a lustre back full of wholesome warning. It showed
us our weak points— the chinks in our mail—every
flaw and blemish in our military organisation. We
have been profitting from that timely lesson ever
since. Our Commissariat arrangements have been
overhauled from beginning to end. Our hospital