The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1867.

A majority of sixty-six for Government, in favour
of Mr. DISRAELI'S amendment over that of Mr.
HIBBERT'S proposition, seems to have virtually de-
cided the fate of the Bill before Parliament, and
to prove to its opponents, small and great, that
their efforts are fruitless. In some respects, indeed,
- the division before Easter may be considered to have
determined the thing, but last night has certainly
made the question more settled and secure. The
decision that the committee came to was not arrived
at without much debating, and various arguments
were used by the speakers against Mr. DISRAELI'S
proposal. Mr. MILL was very decided in his lan-
guage, and pronounced that the effect of passing
this measure would be to make a central registra-
tion society into the chief institution of the country.
The lion. member was so eager in his denunciation
of the scheme that he was not very particular in
the wor I.; he employed to express his views. fie
said that through the iustrunieutality of this pro-

p05.,1 a number of voters would be put upon the
register by unfair means. " All creatures fought
with their natural weapons, and those with
which hon. gentlemen opposite were most
familiar were carried in their pockets." This
is a ridiculous sort of argument, and in the
present instance quite out of character, because any
one at all conversant with the subject knows that it
is the Libcral side of the House which is the most
distinguished for bribery, and which always meets
with the greatest losses when the test of a general
election takes place. General PEEL, at any rate,
made a little diversion, for he infused some amuse-
ment into the dull discussion by saying that he had
been asked how he could reconcile his opposition to

this scheme with his desire to see the question
settled, and his answer was that a man may wish to
see himself settled, andyet "does not, in the hope of
securing a settlement, throw himself into the river
in despair of getting over the bridge." Mr. GLAD-
STONE has now found it convenient to forget his
determination not to come forward in the discus-
sions that take place on this subject, for he made a
long speech, in which he exhausted his inge-
nuity to prove that nothing could, would, and
should be right which did not fall in
with his views and with his system. The
House did not, however, seem to pay much at-
tention to the observations of the right hon. gen-
tleman, and at any rate were not much influenced
by them, if at all. He went a great deal too far in
his attempt to prove that the Government plan was
wrong, and the close of his remarks brought him
indeed to a lame and impotent conclusion. He
was actually obliged to withdraw an expression
which he had used, " fraud." The good sense and
right feeling of the thude of Commons will always
triumph in the end over the most daring attempts
made by the most eminent individuals in support
of their extreme views and opinions, and in some
respects Mr. GLADSTONE made a greater mistake
last night than he has ever done yet, and he had
not the last resource of the destitute to fall back
upon and plead the " heat of debate," for every-
thing was perfectly calm.

We consider it a very uncalled-for thing for Mr.
GLADSTONE to get up and use this language, at a
time too when so much had been conceded by the
Government. "My belief is that you may do
anything with the people of England if you
will treat them honestly and above board.
But fraud—(oh, oh)—dissimulation, circuitous
methods ; legislative fraud, I mean, of course."
After some futile attempts_to explain himself, the
right hon. gentleman was compelled to withdraw
the word altogether, but his subsequent observations
were not much better. " I will not speak of fraud,
but of an adjustment of provisions in an Act of
Parliament, which will produce in the public mind,
as these provisions are now widely producing, the
impression or conviction that Parliament is palter-
ing in a double sense with the people of England,
and professing to give that which it means, in sub-
stance, as to the far greater part of it, to withhold ;
and I say that such a course as this, instead of lead-
ing to the settlement of the question of Reform,
will be a blow to the honour and the credit of the
Legislature, and a serious injury to the institutions
of the country." All we can say is that, if this was
the best Mr. GLADSTONE could do,•he had far better
have fulfilled his threat, and retired from the
lead of the Opposition, and the conduct of
affairs on the left hand of the Speaker.
His latter end has been worse than his beginning,
hut we hope that we have heard the last of his vin-
dictive vituperation on the subject of Reform for
this Session. Lord J. MANNERS made an admirable
reply to the right hon. gentleman, and showed how
in his endeavours to damage the Government he
was, in reality, assailing the House of Commons
itself by attacking its deliberate act.
Mr. LOWE favoured the House with a few re-
marks, in which he seemed to condemn the scheme
before the Committee, and argued that the Govern-
ment had never taken into account the part the
compound householder would play in this question.
We do not blame them if they did not, for we ex-
pect that no one else did, before affairs took a par-
ticular turn. Mr. BufGaT made another of those
earnest appeals to the Committee of which we may
truly say that their name is legion, and declared
that the bill would not stop agitation. He called
Mr. DISRAELI'S plan an " audacious" one, but he
fared even worse than Mr: GLADSTONE, for his
most pathetic adjurations were met with laughter,
which evidently irritated him very much, for he
said that if he had not a right to speak for those
who wished for Reform out of doors no man had.
He went on to say that he " lamented with a grief
that he could not well express the course the House
was taking." This mournful announcement was
also met with shouts of laughter. The hon. member
then waxed wroth, and told the supporters of the
Ministry that he ventured at the last hour to tell
them they were not acting with fairness or equality.
Mr. ROEBUCK'S remarks were a relief to the House
after the one-sided harangues they had listened to
in many quarters, and the hon. member for Sheffield
came out strong, and showed the difference between
the real Reformer and the party one. He told Mr.
BRIGHT his mind pretty plainly, and declared that
his arguments were a part of that " stump oratory
which anybody who goes about telling people that
they are dealt unjustly with will always find people
ready to listen." As for the unworthy devica that
was resorted to about Sheffield, Mr. ROEBUCK soon
disposed of that, and said that not one respectable
man went to the meeting in question, and lie won-
dered at the right hon. gentleman, the member for
South Lancashire, alluding to it, with the example
of Oxford just in their memories. Again, " when
the hon. member for Birmingham twitted me with
the altered state of feeling in Sheffield, I should
have thought that he would have recollected Man-
chester."

Mr. DisrtkEm's speech was greatly to the point,
and he showed the weakness of the arguments
employed against the Bill, and that part of it which
was the subject of immediate consideration. He
made a great point by quoting some of Lord Rus-
SELL'S observations, in 1851, about the compound
householder, and raised a laugh against Mr.
BRIGHT, who interrupted to ask the date, by urging
that he had been too many for the Lou. member,
and had brought his authority to the llouse. Mr.
GLADSTONE'S conduct and manner were properly
treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
said that be had expressed himself wiih that "fer -
vent violence of which he was so thoroughly a
master." Further on he very properly
the
hou.
animad-
verted upon the language employed by h
gentleman respecting the doings of the Govern-
ment, and observed with great force that one ho
had taken for so long a period a leading part in
public affairs ought to have known better than to
make use of such expressions. The cheers that rang
through the House sufficiently showed the feeling
with which hon. members regarded the extravagant
language used by Mr. GLADSTONE. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer concluded by thanking the House
for the candour with which the propositions of the
Government had been generally received, and
wound up his remarkp by this impressive passage :
"All I can say of the Government is that we have
had no other wish in this business than to bring it
to a happy conclusion ; that wish has not been'the
result of any desire to retain power or acquire
reputation. indeed we have at all times been
ready to give to the House of Cumnions
in the conduct of this business that
influential position which would show to the
country that the measure, if passed at all, was
passed by the House and not by the Govern-
ment. This assurance I again at the last hour con-
vey to the consideration of the committee, and I
still venture to express a hope that, with the aid
and assistance of the House, her Majesty's Govern-
ment may yet succeed in conducting this business
to a happy and satisfactory solution." We should
think, after last division, that there wati no

longer any doubt as to the issue of the matter, and
we congratulate the Government upon the result of
the division. The attacks made upon them recoiled
upon their authors, and never was there a greater
failure than that met with by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr.
BRIGHT, and others. The course these have taken
shows them to be anything but genuine Reformers,
and the House of Commons is evidently quite tired
of their persistency in a line that they have seen is
inimical to its wishes and opinions.

The disputes about the Hyde Park affair have
now reached the tranquil atmosphere of the Upper
House, and they occupied, last evening, a consi-
derable share of attention. It was no doubt satis-
factory to their lordships, and it will be satisfac-
tory to the pub!ie, to have Lord DERBY'S own
account of the course pursued by the Govern-
ment. The noble earl gave his explanation with
the frankness and straightforwardness which
usually distinguish him, and vindicated the con-
duct of his Cabinet. He informed the House that
Mr. WALPOLE, owing to ill-health and the pres-
sure of anxiety, had resigned his office, so that
those who have grumbled at the leniency of his
administration may possibly find a more forcible
Minister not more welcome. Whatever line of
policy has been selected by Mr. WALPOLE, there
is very little doubt that he would have been
severely blamed by somebody. It is always so
easy to censure those in power, and to decide
theoretically on the best course to pursue. If he
had made no sign, and permitted a stormy meeting
which might have resulted in riot or window
breaking, he would have been blamed by the
peaceable householders of the vicinity. If he had
attempted active interference, and a collision had
ensued between the people and the military,
he would have been censured for pro-
voking an unpopular conflict. Having left
the meeting undisturbed while preparing for a pos-
sible disturbance, he is blamed for bringing the
Executive into contempt. If conduct is to be
judged by its results, Mr. WALPOLE was not so
unwise as his critics pretended, since the much-
dreaded collision has been avoided, the park and the
neighbouring property are uninjured, the Reform
League are satisfied, and all is at rest. It must
also be remembered that the excellent behaviour of
the crowd on Monday was no doubt partly due to
the previous communications with the Government,
because the members of the League were put on
their mettle and exerted themselves to the utmost
to preserve order. The knowledge of the ample
provision made by the Government for the repres-
sion of riot and disturbance had no doubt a consi-
derable effect upon the army of roughs and pick-
pockets who are always the real sources of danger
and confusion in these affairs. Lord DERBY, in
answer to Lord COWPER'S speech on the matter,
entered fully into the whole history of the matter,
and succeeded in placing the conduct of the Go-
vernment in a more consistent and reasonable light
than has heretofore been done by any of its mem-
bers. lie explained that last year, before the dis-
turbances, the Government, referring to precedents,
found that, by the decision of the law officers
of the Crown in 1856, there was a right to close
the gates of the park or to exclude persons
when the gates were open, though of course it was
undesirable to exercise such powers unreservedly.
" The authority to close and exclude the public
from the parks," so run the legal statement, " is
that which every landowner has to prevent the
public from trespassing on his lands." Acting
upon this decision, the Government closed the gates
of the park, with, what Lord DERBY justly termed,
unfortunate results. Whatever the right of thy.
Crown, he would not, he said, for his part have
repeated an experiment which had such disastrous
consequences, occasioned so much ill feeling, and
rendered the Park for long after the resort of the
most lawless and abandoned characters. Lord
DERBY declared that it was his full conviction that
the Crown had a right to protect the park, and
that the intention of the Government in issuing the
much-censured notice of the Home Secretary was to
found on it an action for trespass against the prin-
cipal leaders of the movement, an intention which
they still intended to fulfil. The legal opinion of
their own advisers was not taken till after the
affair of last year, and Lord DERBY says it
would have been an unsuitable time to hive en-
deavoured to increase the powers of the Crown
at the end of a session when the new
bill could not have been passed, and would
only have given rise to increased irritation. There
was, as we have said, a good deal of debate on the
subject, the noble lords on the opposition side being
very ready to find fault, but Lord DERBY declared
himself quite satisfied with the result, and indifferent
to any humiliation brought upon the Government
by their own forbearance. " I will say, my lords,
over and over again, that I consider as nothing the
temporary violation of the rights of the Crown—a
subject more especially to be dealt with by a mea-
sure placing it on a more satisfactory footing—l say
I consider that as nothing in comparison with the
risk which might have occurred if, in the exercise of
, we e broughtdmhoabdand a larl,o7en
forcea
o f collisionthe between
anmilitary
t that
foultvieart
and police." Such a conflict would have been on every
account much to be deplored. We hope the
good sense of the people at large will prevent any
repetition of the risk. All unprejudiced observers
must see that, as Lord GREY, always a friend to
free discussion, last night observed, that the parks
are not intended for political discussion, but for
the recreation of the public at large. "If the
parks were allowed to be used for political why
not for religious discussion ? But if the members
of the various religious persuasions were allowed to
hold forth there, was it not likely that angry con-
troversies would arise, and that the parks would
be soon altogether diverted from their legitimate
objects?" If the prospect which Lord RUSSELL
dimly referred to be realised, and Mr. BEALES
thinks it desirable to get up a weekly meeting in
Hyde-park, will it not be time for the ratepayers of
Loudon to protest against the expenditure of the
public money in the futile attempt to beautify and
preserve the parks as places of public recreation?

The House of Commons heard, with great satis-
faction last night, the statement of Lord STANLEY
respecting the Luxemburg question, and it is a mat-
ter of general congratulation and relief that, for the
present at least, the risk of a European war is
averted. "Ten days ago," said Lord STANLEY,
" I expro-sed a hope that this Luxemburg question,
which was then disturbing Europe, was in a fair
way of being brought to an amicable termination,
and I believe I am not too sanguine when I say
that the hope I then expressed is practically rea-
lised." The guarantee given by England is, as
Lord ST&NLEY explained, no new one, and
although it was impossible fur him in the present
position of affairs to go into the details of the
matter, he reminded the llouse that England, in
common with the rest of the signataries to the
Treaty of 1839, actually guaranteed the Grand
Duchy of Luxemburg to the King of HOLLAND in
the most full, absolute, and unconditional manner.
Ali that has been done now is to adapt that engage.
ment to the changed circumstances of the times,
the present position of the Duchy itself, and