The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—A measure ought to be safe when every-
body praises it, and when the only objection made is
that it does not go far enough. Such is the case
with Mr. Hardy's Metropolitan Poor Bill, which
came on for second reading last night. Every one
has been shocked at the revelations of workhouse
mismanagement, and there are few well-to-do
people in London who would not make some
sacrifice in order that such things might
not recur. 'We may, indeed, see -.vith our own
eyes, and without penetrating into the homes
of misery, how incomplete is the provision for
the distress and suffering that prevail. Old and
feeble and sickly persons who are evidently incapa-
ble of providing for themselves, or who require pro-
per treatment in order to give them health and
strength to work, may be seen any day wandering
through the streets, trusting themselves to the chance
benevolence of passers-by rather than to the legalised
el i fferen cc or cruelty of a workhouse ward. Although
too, in this respect parishes have their various cha-
racters, and the destitute are said to know where
they are likely to meet with a slightly larger modi-
cum of tenderness; though an individual Guardian
may be able to impress his character on all the do-
' ings of a Board, yet we may fairly conclude that the
heavier the burdens on a parish in proportion to the
means of the ratepayers, the stronger will be the
impulse to screw down expenditure to the lowest
point at the cost of what the Guardians would call
strictness and the rest of the world cruelty. To give
some relief to the overburdened parishes is, there-
fore, the best means of promoting a more humane
treatment of the London poor. This duty has been
recognised by all classes in the richer parishes with
that readiness which English society always displays
when it is called upon to do justice. The result has
been the bill of Mr. Hardy, which deals with the
question on principles which are generally admitted
to be sound. It is precisely because we think this
particular measure wise and statesmanlike that we
cannot agree with those who like Lord Enfield
would urge upon the Government the policy of
" going further," and forming the whole metropolis
into a single union. We must confess that the
" bugbears" of " waste, bad management, and want
of responsibility" which Lord Enfield despises, have
a terror for us. We believe that it is for the inte-
rest of the ratepayer, and consequently for the in-
terest of the metropolis as a whole, that the main-
tenance of the general poor should be managed by
Guardians, representing the ratepayers, and not by
a great Poor-law official, as would be the case if the
whole of London were to be administered from a
central office. We are convinced that due humanity
can be combined with economy on the system now
existing in every part of the country--a system by
which local areas of moderate extent and population
and with a certain unity of character relieve their
own poor out of their own funds. But, on the ground
of justice also, the West-end parishes may claim to
be free from supporting the poor of the port of Lon-
don and of the manufacturing suburbs of the East
and South. Undoubtedly, if the principle of a na-
tional rating for the national poor be admitted, there
is an end of our case. St. George's, Hanover-square.,
and Paddington would be bound to pay for Liver-
pool and Glasgow as well as for Southwark or Pop-
lar. If a proposition for charging all poor relief on
the Consolidated Fund were brought forward, it
would be necessary to meet it with other arguments
than those which are called for now. As long, how-
ever, as the principle of our law is that the support
of the poor is a local duty, it is fair to urge that the,
inhabitants of one end of London have no such in-
timate
local connection or unity with those of the
other as should oblige them to take an equal share
in the support of their poor. Mr. Hardy's bill is, it
will be said, a compromise ' • but in this country it is
compromises which succeed, and give the best hope
of a permanent settlement. Experience usually de-
cides against those impatient thinkers who arrogate
to themselves the title of logical because they ride
their theory straight onward, disregarding not only
inconvenient fac!s and opposing sentiments, but
also other theories quite as worthy of respect and
consideration. Mr. Hardy said, in bis reply to his
critics, that he knew a bill for a general rating
would raise such opposition that it would be im-
possible to carry it. This would be in itself suffi-
cient to justify a practical Minister in refusing to
introduce it; but it is also a strong proof that
such a scheme would not have justice to recommend
it. If we look at the general acceptance which the
present measure has met with, though it is one
which will lay additional burdens on a large part of
Loudon, and tax the most powerful classes in so-
ciety, it will be recognised that there is no shrinking
on their part from contributing to help their neigh-
bours. If, then, a bill for equalising the rating
would meet with obstinate resistance, we may as-
sume that it would be felt as a wrong by those
whose assent to a more moderate measure has been
so readily given. A wrong we, indeed, believe it
would be. Rates are a tax upon property, for in a
parish where rates are high rents are low ; the in-
coming tenant always considering the two together
as the yearly cost of his house, so that such a mea-
sure would be, to a great extent, a taxing of the
landlords of the West for the benefit of the land-
lords of the East. For years, however, it would
press with undue severity on householders who have
taken leases at a high. rent on the understanding
that the rates were moderate, and who would find
the cost of their houses considerably enhanced.
Mr. llardy's bill will give a substantial relief
without unduly burdening the residential parishes.
It is, of course, difficult to draw the line with logical
accuracy between various classes of expenditure,
but there is sufficient reason and principle in the
distinctions made in the bill between what shall be
done by the metropolis and what shall be done
by the union. The charge of lunatics the treat-
ment of persons sick of contagious diseases, and
requiring to be kept apart, the payment of officers
and medical men, the cost of medicines, and the
education of poor children are matters which may
reasonably be managed and paid for by the metro-
polis, since they either concern the community. at
large, or can be better administered by a Central
Board than the mere relief of the poor. It was
asked in the course of the debate why all the sick
were not placed on the general fund ; it may be
answered that this would be a temptation to the
parishes to get rid of the infirm inmates of work-
houses by sending them to the public hospitals.
On the other hand, lunacy and smallpox are de-
finite maladies which cannot be counterfeited. So of
medical attendance and medicines. No one is likely
to take too much of them, even when furnished at
the cost of the Metropolis. As to education, it has
already been recognised as a national concern for
which money is annually granted by Parliament, and
consequently no new principle is introduced when
the instruction of those who would grow up in igno-
rance and crime to prey upon the Metropolis at
large is undertaken by a general Board. These
considerations have so far prevailed that all parties
are willing to accept the Government Bill. Those
who are theoretically in favour of a uniform rating
for all purposes are content to keep their demands
in abeyance until the working of the present
measure is ascertained. This is all we can desire.
We believe that the Bill will give satisfaction, and
that it combines in an efficient manner the relief of
time poor parishes with the maintenance of that local
taxation and management which are the best
guarantees of economy. The people of London are
indebted to the House of Commons for the readi-
ness with which it has accepted the Bill, and their
thanks are especially due to the late President of
the Poor Law Board, who, though desirous of
carrying its provisions further, has acknowledged
its efficacy, and promises his co-peration in passing it.

POST.—The recent disturbances in Ireland left no
choice to the Government in respect to the further
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If so repres-
sive a measure was deemed necessary a twelvemonth
since, when no breach of the peace had actually
occurred, and if its continued adoption was con-
sidered expedient six months later, when the gaols
were empty and every one believed the Fenian con-
spiracy had been completely crushed, no diversity
of opinion could exist in regard to the advisability
of arming the Executive with exceptional powers
at a time when an outbreak has actually taken
place, when arrests are daily made, and when
large numbers of individuals are in custody,
of whose complicity in the conspiracy no pos-
sible doubt can exist. The reception with which
the motion of the Irish Secretary, for leave to bring
in a bill to continue the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act in Ireland, was met on Wednesday,
prepared every one for the unopposed reading of
that measure a second time last night. If any cir-
cumstances could justify the Legislature in practi-
cally abrogating the constitution for a time in a por-
tion of the United Kingdom, they are certainly now
supplied. It is not a question whether it is in the
power of Parliament to legislate in such a manner
as will reconcile the Irish nation in its entirety to
English rule, but whether for the moment it is not
indispensable that the Government should have their
hands strengthened, in order to prevent a misguided
minority working a great amount of evil to the re-
mainder of their countrymen and to the State. And
if anything could further reconcile Parliament to
the continuance of this exceptional legislation, it is
the consciousness that the arbitrary powers which
it is asked to confer upon the Government will not
be abused. Except for the evil disposed, it may
with truth be said that the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act is entirely inoperative. The returns
which have been submitted to Parliament of the

arrests made by the Irish Executive by virtue of
the Suspension Acts of last year, as well as the in-
formation given respecting the treatment to which
the persons so arrested were subjected, prove that

the Government have invariably exercised their ex-
traordinary powers with humanity, forbearance,
and circumspection. It is but seldom it bas oc-
curred that the innocent have been arrested, and
it is the invariable practice of the authorities to
release all who are able to furnish reasonable
evidence of their being unconnected with the
Fenian Brotherhood. In Ireland, as here, the Exe-
cutive can have no motive for making unjustifiable
or vexatious arrests, and it is necessary to say
that if they felt inclined to do so the mere suspen-
sion of the Habeas Corpus Act would not afford
them immunity for tyrannical acts. The Habeas
Corpus Act furnishes a ready means of trying in
all cases the legality of an imprisonment ; but
even if it were abrogated to-morrow, the Go-
vernment would still continue to be responsib'e to
Parliament and to the people for any unjustifiable
attacks on the liberty of the subject. It is commonly
supposed, as the Habeas Corpus Act was passed ill
the reign of Charles 11., that it was then for the
first time the English people succeeded in protecting
themselves against arbitrary imprisonment. This,
however, is an error. The principle of that cele-
brated statute was distinctly enunciated in one of
the clauses of Magna Charta, by which it was de-
clared that no one should be deprived of his liberty
save in accordance with the laws of the land. The
only effect of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act is
to enable the authorities to imprison individuals
without assigning cause or bringing them to trial ;
but the Government continue accountable for the
manner in which they avail themselves of the powers
with which they are entrusted, and must be pre-
pared to show that they have not exercised them in a
tyrannical or capricious manner. But although the
political privileges of the Irish people will be practi-
cally unaffected by the continued suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act during the next three months,
it is undeniable that the adoption of so extreme a
measure is to a great extent an opprobrium to the
Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament.
Sir George Grey was right last evening when he
said that the passing of the measure then before the
House of Commons was a matter not only of regret
but of humiliation. It is prima facie evidence of
something wrong in a system of government, if,
though nominally constitutional, it needs such sud-
den and such frequent wrenches as those to whish
the constitution in Ireland has recently been sub-
mitted. It is an accepted principle of political go-
vernment that contentment in a people presupposes
a good system of government, and discontent a bad
one. Measured by this test, it would be impos-
sible to avoid the conclusion that Ireland is badly
governed ; and if some demur to that conclusion,
they cannot, at all events, deny that such an
impression is apt to be created, and, as a
matter of fact, is created in the minds of
foreigners. If there is any one thing more than
another on which the people of this kingdom pride
themselves, it is the sanctity of their personal liberty.
We boast of being the freest nation in the world,
and have an irradicable idea that we are the best
governed. It is, however, a very sad comment on
our boastings that three different times in the
course of a single twelvemonth Parliament has
deemed it necessary to arm the Government with
arbitrary powers in a considerable portion of the
United Kingdom. What is the value of your con-
stitution, strangers will be inclined to ask, if you
are compelled to suspend it whenever the domestic
horizon is overcast ? It is only fair to say that such
a taunt would be much more easily answered on
the present occasion than it would have been some
years ago. It is a curious fact, but nevertheless 3
true one, that it is not against the Irish people that
the exceptional measure now passing through Par-
liament is directed. The Irish people are for the
most part loyal, the educated and better classes
being so without exception. But men rightly de-
scribed by Lord Naas as filibusters have come
amongst them ; men who have made sedition 3
trade, and who, relying on the ignorance and ere"
dulity of the peasantry, have sought to excite there
to rebel against the established Government. it is
in order to enable the authorities to deal with these
men that Parliament is again asked to suspend the
Habeas Corpus Act. And no one who takes to
heart the interest of the unfortunate beings who
have been made the dupes of the Yankee rowdies
can for a moment doubt that the proposed Pleasure
is just and humane. For these men none can have
any sympathy. They are simply robbers under the
assumed guise of patriots. The lesson that is now
being taught them will, it is hoped, not be without
beneficial results. The English and the Irish
people, through their representatives in Parliament,
have declared their determination to drive them out
of the kingdom, and nothing remains for them but
to submit with what grace they may to the final
decision of the British nation.

COUNTRY MARKETS.