The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-15 00:00:00

ETTRIVOP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The' Times Inakes some observations on the stringency
of the law in respect to election petitions, and declares
that already we are beginning to understand some of the
perils which beset the cause of those who are engaged
either in prosecuting or resisting them. To insist that
petitions should not be filed without particulars would be
to prevent many of them from being filed at all. Again,
it is certain that, if the names of witnesses on behalf of the
petition were known from the first, they would be fre-
quently tampered with before the trial. Even under exist-
ing arrangements it is snrprising what care is neces-
sary to watch the witnesses, to separate them
from their associates, and sometimes to remove
them from their town, and place them in secrecy
till the day of bearing. It is not uncommon,
after a contested election which has given rise to a
petition, to hear of persons " spirited away," or of sudden
mysterious emigrations to distant parts of England er
even to the Colonies. People who have secured an elec-
tion by purchasing votes are not likely to stick at tamper.
ing with witnesses to a petition which is designed to upset
it. So strongly were these considerations felt, that accord.
ing to the old practice before the committees of the House,
no particulars were ever lodged at all. The first and only
notice of the specific charges was made in the opening speech
of counsel for the petitioner. This, we think, was a clear
hardship upon the respondent, and it is satisfactory that Mr.
Justice Willes has inaugurated a more lenient practice.
The Court of Common Pleas declined to modify the
practice any further, and in doing so they showed, in our
opinion, a wise discretion. The objection that the respon-
dent is likely to suffer from so short a notice would be
irresistible if it were founded on fact. But the court has
full power to postpone the trial of an election petition, and,
as a matter of course, would exercise that power upon
being satisfied that the respondent had not had sufficient
opportunity to prepare his defence.

The Post thinks that the recent decision of the Judicial
Committee has not been all that it might have been, and
has tended to make confusion worse confounded. Persons
desiring to keep to the law laid down, will be puzzled to
hear its definitions and cannot fail to make mistakes with
all their efforts to do right. Never was a judgment so
impracticable. It has, indeed, declared the law on the
points raised, but it has shown that the Church of England
is utterly without any really practicable rule for the per-
formance of public worship. The eyes of the Church must
surelynowbe opened to th edisad vantage of ambiguousformu-
laries without anyadequate interpreting authority. If men go
every one his own way—if the Act of -Uniformity be a
thing impossible of performance, the reason must be found
in the uncertain sound which the Church's own trumpet
gives, and in the refusal of the law to allow the only
interpreting voice—that of usage—to have any effect in
dispelling that uncertainty. We are only at the begin-
ning of a great strife, and we write in deprecation
of angry passions. Let the voice of reason and
charity and mutal concession be heard, and all may
yet be well. But if once passion and party spirit be
enlisted in the struggle, evil in many dire forms
must result. With regard to the great meeting of the
Ritualists on Tuesday, nothing that passed there shakes
the truth of what we have said. The ritualists have
shown less spirit of resistance than might have been
expected. They evidently mean, for the most part, to
obey the law, though under protest. It remains to be
seen what the Evangelical party will do. But one thing
is certain, that on the principle laid down it cannot be
tolerated that one party be bound hand and foot to the
letter of the law, and the other be left at liberty to infringe
it both in letter and spirit.

The Herald remarks upon the opening of the National
Association as the latest thing out in Irish politics. The
reports of the meeting in the principal Dublin organs of
the Liberal party give a list of seventeen persons, including
the chairman, as attending on this solemn occasion. Of
these, eight were Roman Catholic clergymen and one was
a Liberal Protestant, whose eloquence seems to have
fallen coldly on the audience. Another member was a
noted orator from the Dublin corporation, and the remain-
ing seven were quite unknown to fame. But absurd as this
assembly looks, its proceedings and history throw some
light on Irish politics. Though the number attending
was so small, the association includes, we are assured,
many members of Parliament, and amongst the letters
read were lengthened addresses of encouragement from
Cardinal Cullen and from other Roman Catholic bishops.
Whatever this association may be in reality, it is put for-
ward as the chief political organisation of the Irish Liberal
party. That it has not much strength of its own is appa-
rent at a glance. It appears from the letters read that the
association has been complaining of a deficiency of subscrip-
tions ; and it was evident, both from the names of those
present, and from these letters, that the association chiefly
existed because it was found by the guides of the Radical
party in Ireland, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, to be an
indispensable part of their political organisation.
The Star Holds that there is a time for all things, and
this is the time for revising the police system of London ;
but it does not follow that this is the time for introducing
a vast system of surveillance, and for making the police
responsible for the way of life of all thieves at large. The
two subjects are distinct, and each is large enough to give
full scope for separate treatment. In fact, they cannot
without disadvantage be coupled in one agitation or
elucidated in one discussion. The treatment of the per-
manent criminal classes, if they are to have any treat-
ment beyond effectual punishment when convicted of
crimes, is a question for Parliament. The police system
of the metropolis is mainly a question for London.
There is a general desire that the old plans should not be
continued. There is dissatisfaction with the local efficiency
of the police and with the lack of local control. There are
objections to the centralised discipline of the force. There
i 4 a feeling that protectively the police are sleepy, and
that detectively they are stupid. Moreover, there is great
impatience at the military air and aspect which the organi-
sation has for some time increasingly borne. This has
arisen partly from misdirected zeal at Scotland-yard, which
has fostered drill at the expense of individual sagacity and
alertness. But it has also been encouraged by the
growing tendency to make the Chief Commissioner
a sort of prefect of police—an officer wholly incongruous
with our institutions, and with the spirit alike of the
Government and community. Whatever else is over-
hauled at this opportune moment, this must not be for-
gotten. It must be clearly understood that we have no
Prefect of Police, and that whatever resemblance to that
office necessarily attaches to the Chief Commissionership
ought to be got rid of. A full parliamentary inquiry
ought to take place before the new Commissioner is ap-
pointed, and by its results the people of London would be
content for the present to be bound.
The Telegraph takes a retrospective glance at the
history of the police force, and recalls the fact that the
extreme Liberal party were much opposed to the scheme
introduced by Sir Robert Peel. After dwelling upon the
faults and failures of the system, it declares that a great
deal will depend upon the character of Sir R. Mayne's
successor. When we have a new Chief Commissioner of
Police, we shall begin to see our way towards making the
police system more efficient, and the constables more
serviceable. Once more we repeat what we have so
frequently asserted of late. The new Chief of Police must

not be a military man. We do not want any gallant
officer, on full or half pay, or retired ; of great experience
in the East, or the Antipodes, or elsewhere, and yet know-
ing considerably less about the criminal population of
London than a London " street Arab " knows of the
Arabic language. We do not want an upright
but opinionated martinet, stiff with parade-ground
inflexibility, crammed with orderly-room traditions.
We don't want Lieutenant-Colonel Anybody. Nor should
the throne of Scotland-yard be offered to any mere
red-tape bureaucrat, any fervid doctrinaire. What we
require is at once an educated, thoughtful, and high-minded
gentleman, and a shrewd man of the world ; a thorough

police-lawyer, with ability, culture, experience of London
rascality and London misery, and versed in the ways, not
only of criminals, but of constables. On such a gen-
tleman it would not be so difficult, we should say, for
Mr. Bruce to lay his hand. But this is not all. The
change in Scotland•yard should be thorough. The
present Assistant• Commissioners have every possible meed
of recognition for their past services, and the country is
fully prepared to make every requisite acknowledgment.
Tt is time, h owever, that they should be relegated to the
honourable retirement which they have so fully earned ;
and that their place should be taken by a young, active,
and vigorous man, who can direct, organise, and reform—
who can not only look after the discipline of a civilian
army of eight thousand men, but bestow some thought
on their mlterial comforts and their moral well-being.

The Doily News comments upon the recent proeeedings
at the trial at Portsmouth, and thinks that the public is
not likely to understand all the facts of the case, but two
or three points are quite evident. The trial was an inci-
dent of a quarrel which began over the wreck itself.
The prosecution was evidently a mistake, and the wise
course would have been to have settled the dispute without
bringing it before the public. But there were more pas•
sions than interests involved, and where there is passion
there are always complications, amid which all interests
public cannot be expected to understand the
di Muted questions as to salvage and jurisdiction out of
which qtiarrels rose. But what they can under-
Ftand is • that one of cur mast cherished ser-
vices has , had• its fair fame challenged, and that
in 63 result that . fair farm; is vindicated. The
accusation against Captain Wilm,hurst struck at the
character of the British navy. His honourable acquittal
vindicates that character. Had he been guilty, the
service would have received another and less satisfactory
vindication. 7 he British people are proud of the men to
whom they entrust the honour of their flag. Their honour
is the honour of the nation, and they must be, like Cresar's
wife, above suspicion. It is our national boast that where-
ever the flag waves or the uniform is seen right and justice
have a representative in the world ; and though the boast
is one which cannot always be justified, it marks out the
ideal towards which the national aspirations tend—an
ideal which inspires the best and noblest of our public
servants, and from them spreads a--sentiment of hollow
down to the humblest rpailis . . .

DESTRUCTION OF A GLASGOW THEATRE
BY FIRE.

We (North British Mail) regret to nave to record the
total destruction by fire of the Prince of Wales Theatre.
It is situated at the junction of Main-street, Cowcaddens,
and Stewart-street, the front entrance facing the Esta-
blished Normal Seminary. At a quarter past eleven
o'clock, at the conclusion of the performance of the
pantomime, the audience was dismissed. Nothing was
then observed to be wrung, but about five minutes
after twelve this (Thursday) morning some persons in the
street gave the alarm that the theatre was on fire, flames
coming from the roof above the gallery and that part of
the stage nearest to Stewart-street. The lieutenant on
duty in the Northern Police-office telegraphed the news tc
the central brigade station, but ere the firemen had
reached the scene of the fire the flames had got complete
mastery over the building. Tinder such circumstances,
and considering the inflammable nature of the materials
the fire had to work upon, the roof soon fell in. It was
not till near three o'clock that the flames had subsided.
The.fire did not cease raging till it had burned up every-
thing that was combustible. It is impossible to state at
present the precise extent of the loss; but so far as we
can learn the building was insured by the proprietor, Mr.
Hannay. Mr. Davis is insured for £2,000 ; but the value
of his scenery and other properties is estimated at £B,OOO,
so that his loss is £6,000. lie was a spectator of the fire,
and seemed so beside himself with excitement as at times
to place himself in personal danger. This is the fifth
theatre in Glasgow which has been destroyed by fire.
The Prince of Wales Theatre, which was opened on the
3rd August, 1867, was built on the site of the Old Colos-
seum, in Stewart and Cowcaddens streets. It had a neat
but unpretending appearance. The gallery was seated fur
1,000, pit and stalls for 1,600, while in the boxes sitting
room was provided for 700.

THE HAYDOCK COLLIERY EXPLOSION.

The proposal to amalgamate the funds which are being
raised for the relief of the sufferers by the several colliery
explosions which have occurred in the neighbourhood of
Wigan meets with general favour, and a meeting is to be
held at Wigan to consider the subject. The charitable in
the neighbourhood of Haydock met in that township on
Tuesday afternoon, when a sum of £BOO was promptly
subscribed, to be handed over to the general fund, should
such be formed, and if not, to be appropriated solely to the
relief of the distressed in that township. One-half of
this £BOO was given by the proprietors, and £2OO by Mr.
W. J. Legh, M.P. The inquest on the bodies of the
twenty-six deceased was resumed at the Ram's Head Inn,
Haydock, on Thursday, before Mr. Driffield, district
coroner. The first witness called was Hugh Arnold, the
only survivor of the twenty-seven workmen who were
employed in the part of the workings where the explosion
occurred. He could, however, tell little about the acci-
dent. He felt the suck, and then he ran till he
was overpowered by the choke-damp. He remem-
bered nothing more till a week afterwards. Joseph
Marsh was the next witness called. He worked
in a place next to that of his brother, John Marsh,
whose shot is believed by most persons hitherto called to
have ignited the gas. Joseph did not go round the pit that
morning as he was ill, and so far as the evidence of the
exploring party goes, the indications in the spot where he
ought to have been working went to prove that the gas had
come from there. It had come from a fault, and a hole
there which would have been examined by the witness
when he went to work on the Thursday before the explo-
sion had not afterwards been looked to by him, although he
had fired a shot on each of the three subsequent days. The
coroner pointed out to Marsh the danger he had incurred.
Mr. Higson, the Government inspector, reprimanded him
for his omission. The coroner said it appeared from the
witness's statement that he had not been told anything
about the gas at this hole by those in authority, although
he was a new man, and had only worked three days in the
pit. They could not say, therefore, that any blame
attached to him, although he might have caused the
explosion on the day before. The evidence was valuable,
as it shewed the want of instructions from his superiors. The
underlooker, Isaac Billinger, was again called, and re-stated
his opinion that the deceased fireman Greenall was a trust-
worthy man. He could not, however, explain how it was
Greenall or his deputy did not take Marsh to his work
on the morning when he went first. The jury returned
a verdict of " Death by explosion of fire-damp at John
Marsh's blow-out shot ; but whether there has been an
accumulation of gas or a sudden outburst, there is no
evidence to show."