The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 9, .1869.

familiar with defeat in his attempts at legislation.
At one time he felt these disappointments rather
poignantly. He has now apparently become accus-
tomed to them. He takes them in good part. Even
the impertinence of Mr. BRIGHT, in speaking, or rather
in wri ing, about the " childish pottering" applied to
the scheme involved in this very measure of the Life
Peerages Bill, the Veteran ex-Premier and ex-Leader
of the Liberal Party, of the Party of the Reformers,
could sweep aside with a jest expressive simply of
good humoured indifference. The Bill itself was really
a matter of comparatively very small importance. It
was singularly modest in its pretensions. It proposed
merely to legalize the creation of two life Peerages
a year, on the understanding that a fixed
aggregate number should never come to be
exceeded. It was designed to effect systematically,
and upon the authority of a distinct enactment,
what was mainly attempted to be done a few years
since through an extraordinary exercise of the power
of the Crown, and without any such authorization on
the part of the Legislature, in the memorable instance
of Lord WENSLEYDALE. Objections to the proposed
arrangement have, undoubtedly, been visible all
through. Life Peerages would obviously place those
accepting them very invidiously indeed in the midst
of a hereditary aristocracy. The possessor of a life peer-
age would stand upon a lower level than the other
members of the Upper House of Parliament. The
family of a Life Peer would—outside the House--be in
a wholly false position. The recipients of these very
left-hauded honours, would, in some instance, would,
in themajority of instances, be marked with the brand,
be ticketted with the badge, of Poverty. They and
their immediate relations would be neither of the
class of nobles, nor of the class of commoners. And
what is somewhat remarkable, Earl RUSSELL himself
—the introducer of the Bill—distinctly repudiated
the notion of his having proposed, for one instant, by
means of this Bill, to raise the reputation of the
House of Lords. " I never pretended," he said,
" that this House required anything of the kind"—
adding, very reasonably under the circumstances, that,
" after the debate which has recently occurred, this
would be about the worst moment for questioning
its capacity or character in managing our legislative
business." The principal object held in view by the
Bill was in point of fact to meet, through it, the case
of persons who would be considerable ornaments to
that House, and who would do more than merely
adorn the House, who would be very useful in the
discussion of particular questions, and yet who would
be precluded from the occupation of a heredi-
tary peerage by reason of their not possessing
sufficient means for the adequate maintenance of the
dignity of a peerage of a hereditary character. Ac-
cording to Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE'S calculation—as
Lord DENMAN took occasion to remind the House last
evening, immediately afterwards—" no Duke should
have less than £B,OOO, no Marquis less than £7,000,
no Earl less than £5,000, and no Baron less than
£4,000 entailed upon his family." No mention being
made of a Viscount, by Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE, we
presume his annual income ought to be some £5,500,
or thereabouts. It was upon the motion of the Earl
of MALIIESBURY to the effect that the third reading
should be postponed for another quarter that the bill
was eventually thrown out decisively for this session at
least in the manner intimated. During the course
of Lord IMALmEsuunv's remarks in support of his
amendment, the noble earl vindicated very felicitously,
as we conceive, the character of the House of Lords
as a representative chamber. His argument was that
the Peers are not simply landowners. And, in en-
forcing this argument, Lord MALMESBURY went on
to say, with considerable emphasis—" Property of
every kind belongs to members of this House. We
are not only owners of land, but owners and even
lts.sees of mines and other industrial property.
Among us there are also bankers, railway directors,
and men most eminent in their knowledge of com-
mercial affairs, such as the noble marquis (SALIs -
BURY) and other peers. There are eminent officers
of the army and navy, who are ready to enter upon
discussions of interest to your lordships relative
to those professions. There are more than fifty
peers who have been eminent an,l distin-
guished members of the House of Commons.
There are eminent diplomatist?, like Lord STRATFORD
DE REDCLIFFE and Lord COWLEY, whom I may
mention as they are not now present:, There are
historians, among whom I may mention my noble
friend behind me (Earl STANHOPE), who, if ever your
lordships were mistaken on any point of history,
would set you right. There are writers both of prose
and poetry, including my noble friend opposite (Lord
Houorrrox) and another noble lord (LvrroN),
than whom no English writer can be, more dis-
tinguished. There are twelve or fifteen peers who pos-
sess immense property in this metropolis, and who
can assist us in discussions on property, and who are
conversant with the wants of the middle and lower
classes. There are eminent lawyers, and a great
number of magistrates accustomed to judicial de..
cisions, many of them being chairmen of quarter
sessions." The very reasonable conclusion arrived at
from all this, being—that the House of Lords (pace
Mr. BRIGHT) is not only a hereditary but a distinctly
representative institution.

IF any future biographer shoulddofor Postmasters-
General what Lord CAMPBELL has done for Lord-
Chancellors, he would have to write that the first
member of the House of Commons who held the
former office had to propose in the first year of his
holding it one of the most important changes ever
made in his department. It is quite the most
important since the penny postage was author-
ised just thirty years ago. When we remem-
ber all the years during which we have advocated the
acquisition of the telegraphs by the Government, we
cannot but feel satisfaction at the approaching coro-
nation of this edifice. The satisfaction will be all the
greater because the consummation will have been
attained only after great obstacles. It is no secret
that the acquisition was met, not only with no favour,
but with absolute dislike, by the members of the pre-
sent Government. Last year the present PRESIDENT
of the POOR-LAW BOARD did his utmost to stifle
the scheme in select committee. This year
its promoters have had little but coldness
and discouragement from the PRESIDENT
of the BOARD Of TRADE and the CHANCEL-
Lon of the ExcrtEurEn. It is mainly through
the efforts of the last Conservative Chancellor of the
Exchequer in the House of Commons, and those of
Mr. ScUDAMORE outside the House, that
this great adminstrative reform has been brought
to its present stage of all but completion.
Yet probably the efforts of both those gentlemen
would have failed had not the Press throughout the
kingdom, without respect of politics, urged the
Government to undertake this new department of
labour.
The Marquis of EIARTINGTON has now delivered
his budget, and we do not think that even the M.P.
who lately denounced the purchase to his con-
stituents as a " scandalous job " can find fault with
it. Under the searching investigation of the
arbitrators the purchase money has been reduced by
nearly 20 per cent. upon the price originally
asked. For G millions the whole of the telegraphs
in the kingdom, exclusive of private telegraphs,
will become the property of the nation. The gross
revenue from that property is estimated at about 10
per cent. of that amount; the net profit, after paying
all expenses, is a little under 5 per cent. Against
this must be placed the interest of the purchase
money, which at 31- per cent. would leave the nation
with a clear surplus of £77,000 a year. This is but
a very small proportion of the advantage which

will be gained. The min benefit will ar'sf3
from the bringing of telegraphic communica-
tion within the reach of all persons who
are not absolutely paulers. If instead of
bringing in a revenue of ever a million a year, the
Post Office involved a loss we should not on that
account regret the reducti.n of postage to a penny.
So with regard to the te'.graphs, if it should prove
that the purchase of then, instead of leaving us with
R 77,000 to play with, should involve a loss to that
amount, we shall not wira ourselves off our bargain
when every little town has its telegraph office,
and when in the great twins the transmission and
the delivery of telegram; is effected with as little
trouble and with as greatregularity as the transmis-
sion and the delivery of letters. There is not the
smallest reason to anticipate such loss. The deficit
anticipated when the penny postage was introduced
has turned out a very handsome surplus. There
is no reason why, when a surplus is anticipated, it
should not be more thin realised.
The details of Lord HARTINGTON'S measure do
not call for any partictlar comment. He has wisely
left himself free to rid* the required sum in any or
all of four different ways. No doubt he will consult
with Mr. LowE on the important point, and pro-
bably that great authority will tell him that for
economy there is nothing like the sweet simplicity
of the Three per Cents. We cannot com-
plain that the Government asks for a mono-
poly of telegraphic business. It is necessary
that at first starting in a new undertaking of the kind
the Government should be protected from rivalry.
Nevertheless, we trust that Ministers will be con-
tented with limiting their demand to a specific
period. We shall be much mistaken if, in the
course of a few years, the Telegraph Department is
not able to do without alladventitious support of this
kind.

SHARPNEL VERSUS SEGMENT SHELL.

The Times has a long articled propos to the experi-
ments being carried on on Dartmoor upon the long
agitated question, " Which is the better, shrapnel or
segment shell ?" After giving the arguments on each side,
the Times says that the moderate party must come to the
following conclusion :—" Shrapnel shell, when served with
deliberation, is, doubtless, more effective than segment
shell under certain conditions. • On the other hand, the
segment shell fitted with a concussion fuse is always ready
to hand, and is certainlymore simpleand decidedlycheaper
than shrapnel. Probably two segment shells, with a simple
concussion fuse, could be bought at the price of one
shrapnel. Again, segment shells, when fired with concussion
fuses, have proved themselves very formidable projectiles
against abattis, guns, stockades, and troops under the
cover of low walls and breastworks. It is very improbable
that the leaden bullets of the shrapnel would have
much effect in cutting to pieces the wheels of gun carriages
or the struts of a stockade. We have fired segment shells
with concussion fuses in real warfare, and all officers who
have used them, or witnessed their use, speak most highly
in their praise. It is notorious that both the Russians
and Prussians look on shrapnel shells with disfavour ; even
the Austrians, who use a pattern almost identical with
our own, are said to have considerably reduced the
proportion of shrapnel carried by their field batteries.
Now, this course has been adopted, not from the results
of a fire against inanimate two-inch wooden planks, but
against warm flesh and blood ; and, although we may
have our insular prejudices on following or regarding the
opinion of foreigners, we should proceed with due caution
and do nothing hastily. The Boxer shrapnel is an admi-
rable projectile, and we are justly proud of the inventor ;
but will it satisfy all the requirements of the service? If
we adopt an exclusive employment of shrapnel, are we
right and all the rest of the world wrong ? On the other
hand, suppose both are right, would it not be advisable to
have some of both projectiles ? "