The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-16 00:00:00

BAROMETER-29.95.

WlND—South-Westerly; light, with warm dull weather,
It rained in the night—and sonic slight showers this fore-
noon.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Trim DAY.—Morning, 10h. 49m.—Afternoon,z. 11h. 17m,
TO-monnow.-Morning, 11h. 44m.—Afternoon, Oh. Om,

• epts:,-V4
t,AI 0
-•- _ .

THE SUN.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1860.

Another Indignation Meeting was holden last
evening at St. Martin's Hall, Long-acre. This
time, however, it was no flam---no eccentric adver-
tisement of a private wrong laid bare by a sort of
half-brother of poor littl© Miss FLUE, a veritable
living embodiment of that most deplorable of all
individuals, the Man with a Grievance ! The
Indignation Meeting of yesterday was in no way
whatever upon some obscure and imaginary. course

of annoyance, upon some wholly insignificant mat-
ter affecting one man, and that man a mere
Nobody. It was not in relation to a subject
dragged in by the heels just apropos des bottes. It
was a public meeting upon a very considerable
theme of public, or rather, we should say, of
even national importance—one in regard to
which the indignation actually expressed was, to
say the least of it, perfectly genuine and unaffected.

It was a meeting convened expressly for the pur.

pose of " protesting against the usurpation pro-
posed by Lords DERBY and MONTEAGLE to the

House of Lomb in the retention of the paper
duty, independently of the House of Commons and
the Crown." St. Martin's Hall, large as it is, was
crowded to repletion. Mr. Sergeant PARRY was
the Chairman. There were as many as nine mem-
bers of the House of Commoas upon the platform—
foremost among them the ex-official Minister below
the gangway, the member for Birmingham.
Prior to the time appointed for the commence-
ment of the proceedings, sundry animated sand-
wiches paraded the chief thoroughfares of the me-
tropolis carrying about them rather incendiary
or inflammatory placards thrusting upon Her
MAJESTY'S lieges point blank one or other of these
rather pungent inquiries—" Is the House of Lords
to govern the finances of the people and the
country ?" • Or, again—" Is the House of Lords to
deprive the Commons of its privileges ?" It was
the readiest, and certainly the adroitest, way of
getting the stream of popular indignation up at the
!shortest possible notice, by way of forwarding thus
most effectually the views entertained by the
chief promoters of this hastily improvised assem-
blage. And so far as the meeting itself was con-
cerned it was a contrivance that proved to all
intents and purposes eminently successful. The
was crowded. The platform
hall, as we have said,
had as its fitting occupants the nine M.P.'s already
spoken of collectively, but whose names it May be
VA well here at once to specify : those to wit of—
Mr. Bright, M.P. ; Mr. Hadfield, M.P. ; Mr. Law-
see, M.P.; Mr. Ingram, M.P. ; Mr. Leatham,
M.P. ; Mr. Coningharn, M.P. ; Mr. Craufurd, M.P. ;
Mr. Padmore, M.P. ; Mr. Pease, M.P. ; together
with whom were associated among the selecter
portion of the 7roAXot (significant enough), two
eminent paper manufacturers. At once to lend
point to the whole proceedings at last night's
eeting, the Chairman, it is observable,
put the matter point blank before his auditory at
the very outset. Characteristically inaugurating .

the indignation of which it is intended the meeting
should be expressive, Sergeant PARRY declared in
so many words—avowing, while he did so, that he
was employing " the mildest and most temperate
language"—absolutely, we say, avowed in so many
words, that " he could only express his conviction
that if the House of Lords, which was an obvious
anomaly among the institutions of a free country,
ventured to usurp any of the privileges of the
House of Commons or of the people, the days of
hereditary legislation were numbered." Now,
whatever may be thought as to the temper or dis-
cretion of remarks like these, there cannot be an
instant's doubt in the minds of any one amongst us
that they are a sample of what Cousin JONATHAN
calls in the Yankee vernacular—"pretty tall talking."
There is certainly no chance whatever of any one
mistaking the significance of indignation like this.
There is no beating about the bush—no shilly shally-
ing about a merely hinted wrathfulness—no dally-
ing with a simply implied wrong—no small talk in
the shape of indignant circumlocution. Although
Mr. BRIGHT spoke at considerable length after-
wards, and with all his accustomed energy, he said
nothing stronger, nothing more directly to the par-
puse than had been thus already intimated in those
few words uttered by the Chairman at the
very outset of the proceedings. As if to put
the whole grievance complained of, how-
ever categorically before the meeting, there
was moved and seconded before Mr. BRIGHT rose
to address the assembly, the following important
resolution, or, as we might more correctly call it,
cluster of resolutions, viz. :—" That the Excise
Tax on paper—an obstruction to literature and
education, an impediment to commerce and in-
dustry, and a means of diminishing rather than
increasing the revenue—has been repudiated by
the House of Commons, at the suggestion of the
Crown. That for the House of Lords to reject the
bill for its repeal would be equivalent to
the imposition, by its sole authority, of a tax
neither demanded by the Crown nor granted
by the Commons, whose undoubted right it has
always been to be taxed only by themselves.
That such a proceeding, being an act of
usurpation, would be derogatory to the dignity of
the Crown, subversive of the privileges of the
House of Commons and of the rights of the people,
and would tend to impair the authority of the
House of Lords." Whereupon, prior to this reso-
lution being put from the chair (as it was even-
: tually—and carried with acclamation)—the mem-
ber for Birmingham rose yesterday upon that
platform in St, Martin's Hall, and there poured
out in a burning flood of eloquence the vials of his
indignation against the House of Lords in ge-
neral, and, in particular, against the leaders of
her MAJESTY'S Opposition. Exclaiming, in fact,
in regard to the latter—" Lord DERBY in one
house, and Mr. DISRAELI in the other; men in
power who have no principle!" Language this,
by the way, that is not logic, that is not irony, that
is not eloquence—that is the merest vulgarest bully-
ragging—the coarsest, vilest, rudest, oratorical
bludgeoning. Such, however, is the tone habitually
indulged in by some individuals who can never
recognise principle in any one but themselves—
who can never tolerate a difference of opinion
in a free press without instantly denouncing that
difference of opinion as the result of venality—who
cannot even object to the bench of bishops without
describing its occupants in terms nothing short of
being absolutely disgraceful.
Reverting, however, from the consideration of
the tone peculiar to Mr. BRIGHT'S general indig-
nation to that which coloured last evening the
whole current or rather cataract of his particular
indignation, as directed against the opponents of
the Paper Duty Repeal Act—let us say at once,
speaking as among those avowedly in its favour
—that we cannot conceive to ourselves how
possibly Mr. BRIGHT could well have
acted more unwisely in this matter, or
with more glaring indiscretion. There is a very
old adage—" the wisdom of many," as Lord
JOHN has happily said, "and the wit of one'
—which urgently advises every one to leave well
alone. Pity it is that Mr. BRIGHT cannot bear
this in remembrance, and prudently aet upon it !
Here is the Paper Duty Repeal Bill actually passed
through the House of Commons. It has gone up
to the House of Lords, and passed there, too,
through the first pro forma reading. Why
could not all that has been now so angrily said
and written have been left to the conscience
of the House of Lords, and to that likewise of
' the Earl of DERBY and the Earl of DERBY'S sup-
porters. There is no question at all about it, there
can be no question—but that Mr. BRIGHT, in acting
as he is acting, is doing everything he possibly can
to goad and irritate Lord DERBY and the House of
Lords into a resolute rejection of a measure, other-
wise tolerably certain to have been allowed to ripen,
stage by stage, into a perfected enactment.

Mr. ROEBUCK once said—it was said last year, and
in reference to some remarks of Lord JouN MAN-
NERS, that we believe still and believed at the time
were wholly misapprehended—that many of "the
nicest men have tho nastiest ideas." Lord HADDO'S
objection last evening to female models at the Royal
Academy has vividly recalled this observation of Mr.
ROEBUCK'S to our remembrance. The noble lord
confuses in his own mind the life-study room at
the Academy with the Coal Hole Poses Plastiques.
Tie conceives that "the exhibition in art of

females wholly unclothed ought not to receive
the sanction of a public grant of money to the
schools in which such practice is adopted." It was
happily remarked in answer to this objection
by Mr. ADDEF.LEY that " the Noble Lord would
fain apparently confine the study to drapery, as if

the human form, encased in bustles and crinoline,
was the highest study of art." The hon. member
adding—" If that were so, Madame TUSSAUD'S
would be nearer the noble lord's idea of high art
than anything else." Lord PALMERSTON in a similar
mood suggesting that he " should like his noble
friend to be more precise, and to state to what extent
the minimum of clothing was consistent with his
notions of propriety, for there was a minimum as
well as a maximum." Adding that '° Without insist-
ing upon crinoline and the voluminous dress alluded
to by the hon. member who had just spoken, it was
quite clear that they might go to different parts of the
world, and in some of the southern climates, or in
certain districts of Africa, might find patterns of
clothing which, though they would exempt the
models from the anathema of the noble lord, would
still leave them open to the charge of showing suffi-
ciently large portions of the human form to render
institutions where they might be found ineligible
for the grants of public money." This is more
than merely pleasant banter ; it is an argument
that is perfectly logical—the ever caustic logic
of the reductio ad alsardant. Happily for the
interest of high art the objection raised
upon the prudish motion of Lord lIADDO was
overwhelmingly negatived by 147 against 32.
Had a supervision like the one thus abortively
suggested been carried into the atelliers of

TITIAN and GEORGIONE, or earlier still into the
grand old classic art-work-shops of PIIIDIAS
and PRAXITILES—the world would have been
without some of the greatest masterpieces of the

painter's brush and the sculptor's chisel—the
Tribune of Florence would not now enshrine the
Venus de Medici, neither possibly (had these
objections been carried but a little further in the
ages of antiquity), would the galleries of the
Vatican have now revealed to view the divine
form of the Apollo Belvidere.

We would suggest to Lord GREY to ask for a re-
turn which must be of great service to his Select

Committee. He is inquiring into the numbers and
quality of the electors, or rather of the proposed ad-
ditions to those who at present enjoy the suffrage.
Obviously one of the best guides will be the con-
duct of electors of the same general class as those
whom it is proposed to enfranchise. Now, there is
one class which stands out very clearly, and which
is easily defined, we refer to the class of tenant
farmers. There has also been considerable dispute
as to their characters ; their landlords tell us that
they are a growingly intelligent and inde-
pendent class of men. Politicians uncon-
nected with the landlord class say just the reverse.
Indeed some of the landed aristocracy ad-
mit the charge of political subserviency
against the tenant farmers generally. Mr. H.
BERKELEY, we all remember, described them as men
who changed their votes with a change of land-
lords, who were in fact handed from the Whig to
the Conservative candidate and vice versa, just as
patiently as buck rabbits were transferred by their
ears from hatch to hatch by their schoolboy pro-
prietors.

We would suggest to Lord GREY that it must be
worth while to settle this question. Large numbers
of the proposed new voters in counties will be
holders of small portions of land, under the same
country gentry who are affirmed and denied to be
the real proprietors of the votes of the present
tenant electors. It is worth while to know, on au-
thority, whether or not they are likely to be serfs
or independent voters. It is worth something,
also, to have the evidence before us on the truth or
falsehood of these charges against our country
aristocracy. It may be only on gratuitous suspicion
that they are charged with so influencing the votes
of their tenants—that they all, as the rule, vote with
their landlord, be he of what politics he may, and
whether they themselves agree with him or not.
Some county members, reviling with too good rea-
son the borough constituencies of Wakefield and
Gloucester, have proclaimed that the counties are
immaculate; that no one ever heard of bribing in
connection with county elections. To this the
borough members reply—that bribery is unneces-
sary—that landlord intimidation most inexpen-
sively supplies its place ; and they retort upon the
county members in the language of Lord MAcAU-
LAY, and tell them that their bribery by intimida-
tion is meaner than the borough bribing by money.
It is pocket-saving bribery—bribery in which the
bribed is not even a willing voter; in which he has
the intelligence to prefer another candidate, and
to think him the better man for his country's in-
terests, but has to writhe under the dread of a
penalty he dares not face. Now all this
may be true or may be false, so far as any
Parliamentary evidence on the subject goes. We
have costly evidence of the reality and nature of
borough bribery, and plenty of it; we have none
on the authority of Parliament on the disputed
question of landlord intimidation.
We dare not venture to propose a Royal Com-
mission—such a commission can indemnify against
the penalties of law, but it could not protect from
landlord penalties, supposing always that the
charge of intimidation is true. If we knew that
any industrious and intelligent farmer had voted
against his convictions, how could we have the
cruelty to gibbet him before the landlords of the
district, as the man who gave evidence that they
had exercised a mean and despotic influence over
his vote. Besides, how few could be compelled to
say they were intimidated, though they really were
so. They would invent mental justifications and
reservations for stating that they had voted
" freely and indifferently." Neither could any
commission call for proof external to the
man's own statement, that his politics did
not accord with his votes. It would be
cruel to the poor farmer, and to his
friends alike, to endanger the former through
the latter. Any means of investigation into the
subject must be quite independent of the tenants,
or even of the landlords' own statements.
We see, then, no means of ascertaining the truth
respecting alleged landlord intimidation and tenant
subserviency, but the return we would now pro-
pose to Lord GREY. It should be a return com-
prising all contested county elections at the last
general election ; and we should like it to extend
backwards, as far as possible, to individual con-
tested county elections, and even to one or two
more general elections.
The particulars it should ask would be—Firstly,
the names of the landlords, and the candidate for
whom they had voted, or, if they had not voted,
for whom they used open and legitimate influence,
such as expressing themselves favourable to his
views, or authorising their stewards and agents
to do so. Indeed, in the case of peers,
it would be reasonable to distinguish
them as commonly giving their votes or
proxies in favour of Liberals or Conser-
vatives, as the case might be. Secondly,
of the names of the tenant voters on the register
under each landlord; distinguishing in columns
following, those who had voted for their landlord's
candidate, those who had voted against him, and
those who had abstained from voting. Thirdly,
if, as we should recommend, several preceding
elections were embraced, a column should indicate
those cases in which an estate had passed into the
hands of a proprietor of politics opposed to those
of his predecessor, when it should be specially
noted how many of the tenants had changed with
with the landlord, and how many remained on the
same political side as before.
A return of this kind would present actual evi-
dence on the subject which could leave no doubt.
on any mind. If it were found under the second
head that the vast majority of the tenant farmers
voted with their landlords—if the minority were
like one under a French ballot, ludicrously small
—and especially, if in the few cases of political
changes on the part of the owner of the farm, the
tenants were nearly all found to change also, then
no one could deny that the identity of tenants'
and landlords' votes, or politics, implied the con-
nection of cause and effect. The accusation would
be made out against the class, without unpleasant
attacks upon the individual ; and, legislation to con-
vert the farmers' votes into realities, or as the
American said—to " enable them to do their own
,-oting," would be shown to be imperative. The
Ballot could be refused no longer. On the other
hAnd, if it should appear that the votes in opposi-
tion to the landlord were reasonably numerous,
half the case,—the best half of it—for the ballot
would be gone. Its greatest merit is as the pre-
vention of intimidation ; it would put a stop to
that even more completely than to bribery; let the
landlords, therefore, insist on the kind of return we
have described ; and, if they are falsely accused,