The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-09 00:00:00

FT MR WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

ring DAY.—Morning, Bh. 40m.—Afternoon, 9'. 20m.
To-Motutow.-Morning, 9b. 55m.—Afternoon, 10h. 30m

g t av`altit

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1867.

On the whole there is much to be satisfied with
in the decision arrived at by the Commons last
night, for they agreed to the most important
of the Lords' amendments, the representation
of minorities. Most strenuous opposition was
made to its passing, however, and indeed the
course pursued by the Liberal side of the House
altogether was disgraceful. Surely sufficient oppor-
tunity has been afforded them during the progress
of the Bill to express their opinions, and to try
to g an their ends, but last night was evidently
made a standing ground for a faction fight,
and it is fortunate that an important clause
was carried after MI. Despite all the sneers of Mr.
BRIGHT, and the efforts he had made, he found
himself in a minority. Mr. GLADSTONE also tried
his utmost, but to no purpose, and Lord CAIRNS'S
Clause may now be regarded as a settled thing.
Mr. BRIGHT moved its rejection in a speech of
great length, and evidently set his mind upon its
rejection. The hon. member for Birmingham cer-
tainly di'l not shine last night, and his intole-
rant language contrasted very unfavourably with
some of his earlier speeches this session,
when he
seemed to wish to the help Government to get
throtili their awkward task, ?trim-ice ha6,l how,.

ever, so perverted his judgment that it is almost im-
possible to say what he will do next on any im-
portant occasion, and if a debate be protracted, ten
to one but he will fail at the last, and virtually undo
all that he has done before by moderation and
conciliation. Mr. BRIGHT was most earnest in his
adjurations to the House on this subject, and de-
clared that the giants of the English constitution,
the great men who were the parents of English
freedom, would have given their vote for him had
they been there. We really do not see how this
can be, or by what means Mr. BRIGHT ascertained
their would-be intentions, but the majority of the
House of Commons preferred to act up to their
own convictions, instead of following Mr.
BRIGHT in his visits to the spirit land.
The hon. member for Birmingham tried
argument as well as exhortation, and said that the
whole matter was " so monstrous, and so unconsti-
tutional, that lie felt as if he were either humiliating
himself or his hearers in discussing it." Mr. KNATCH-
BULL-HUGESSEN'S speech was much to the point,
and he said, very truly, that Mr. BRIGHT argued as
if the weight and importance of constituencies de-
pended entirely on majorities. The main reason
why he advocated this plan was, because "he
desired to see the greatest amount of in-
telligence, and the largest number of persons
possible engaged in taking part in all political
affairs ;" and this is of itself a very forcible argument
in favour of the adoption of the scheme.

Mr. LowE was, of course, very earnest about the
clause, and was very effective in discussing the
speeches of Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. GLADSTONE. The
latter was very strongly against the clause, and
declared that it would not be right to curtail tho
electoral powers of the great towns. Mr.
GLADSTONE'S arguments showed an illiberal
spirit, for he went too much on Mr. BRIGHT'S
tack of sweeping everything away by the
power of numbers. At any rate, it is a matter
of great satisfaction that the House should have
adopted this clause for the representation of mino-
rities, and its success will infallibly be shown as
time proceeds. It is matter of regret that the
Voting Paper Clause shou:d have been thrown out,
and the opposition made to it came with a very
bad grace from the Liberal side of the House.
Mr. GLADSTONE declined to agree to Mr.
DISRAELI'S proposal to have a compromise,
and to omit boroughs from its operation.
Mr. BRIGHT, as might have been expected, was
furious about the motion, and declared that it
would lead to intimidation and similar undesirable
results. Altogether, the course taken by Liberals
in this matter was, as we have said, not unworthy ;
and it is pretty plain by this time that they will
not try anything which will make bribery less
effectual, and prevent the noisy and turbulent
party from losing the best chance of win-
ning the day. Mr. MILL said that he
would rather have no bill at all than
one with such a condition attached to it, and
we have in this declaration a very fair specimen of
the sincerity of these enthusiasts about Reform.
They are full of crotchets, and directly any one
ventures to touch upon their province they are in-
dignant, and say that nothing must be done at all
if all is not exactly as they want. Mr. BRIGHT
has threatened to retire from Parliament in
the event of the minority clause
coming
into operation, but in all probability he will
see fit to change his intentions when the time
comes for putting principle into practice. A good
deal of work was got through last night, and the
Reform Bill may safely be considered as virtually
passed. The difficulties which Ministers have had
to contend against may be best estimated by the viru-
lence of the opposition which they encountered last
!
1 night.
Those who, like Mr. GLADSTONE, had remained
practically quiescent after the great Government
success in April, reappeared yesterday in full force,
while Mr. BRIGHT, who had affirm d the measure
before it went to the Lords, attacked it in a spirit
worthy of 1859, and the malcontents, like Lord
CRANBORNE and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, were all
on the alert. The public will rejoice that the bill
has survived the dangers of this motley crew, and
that, with a few exceptions, it bids fair to sustain
the desired end of those who introduced it. Mr.
DISRAELI did his best in the awkward position in
which he was placed, and though the House of
Commons did not respond to his invitation with
quite the cordiality of previous occasions, it acted
well and wisely in the most important clause that
came under its consideration ; and it is no exaggera-
-1 tion to say that most desperate efforts were made by
some to defeat the Lords' amendments altogether,
a desire in which they were moat happily unsuccess-
ful, but their responsibility is the same.

Lord STANLEY'S answer to the question put to
him last night by Mr. H. SEYMOUR, did not express
much confidence in the present position of the
Abissinian captives. The noble lord said that the
latest accounts which he had received from Mas-
sowah were of the date of July 20th. It was re-
presented that the KING'S power was greatly
diminished, that rebel troops were actually in
sight of his camp, and that communication between
Debre Tabor, where he is, and Magdala, where the
prisoners are 'detained, is cut off. " But," added
Lord STANLEY, after repeating this statement, " I
cannot say whether it will be permanently cut
off, and it • would therefore be premature to '
conclude that the prisoners were about to be imme-
diately liberated." Such being the case, we trust
that the opportunity afforded us by the temporary
release of the prisoners from 'THEODORE'S guard
may be turned promptly to account. The chances
of war are proverbially uncertain, and it is very
probable that the KING may make a special effort
to recapture the prisoneis in pursuance of his policy
towards this country. He had evidently some end
in view in their long detention, and will no doubt
be much mortified at his prey having escaped from
his grasp. If he can regain possession of the Euro-
pean captives he may recover some of his lost
prestige among his followers. By sending a force
from India to the assistance of the rebels we may
recover the prisoners from their long captivity with
very little delay or difficulty ; and we hope Lord
STANLEY will transmit instructions for an im-
mediate despatch of troops. By leaving the fate of
so many Englishmen to the doubtful chances of
war, in which neither party is fighting for us, we
shall do incalculable harm to our reputation in the
East, and weaken the power and influence of Eng-
land iu every semi-civilised country with which
we have to deal. No nation is more concerned in 1
preserving that hedging round of dignity and
prestige which is so valuable an assistant to mere
physical force, and which indeed in many cases
seems as an efficient substitute for it. But if Eng-
land is known to be too weak, or too indolent, or
too indifferent to exert herself on behalf of her

official representatives, our interests in every quarter
of the globe will be imperilled, and in our dealings
with China, with Japan, above all with India, we
shall find that the timorous saving of life and
honour at the expense of the Abyssinian cap-
tive. 3 wi,l be likely to involve us in heavy
and costly wars. England is at a low ebb indeed
if she cannot rescue her subjects from a half-de-
throned KING, whose people are in open rebellion
againot him, .It L 3 not a question that will afford to

ruE SUN, LON 1)

wait, and we hope that Lord STANLEY has alread
adopted the only safe and ready means for its solu-
tion.

Yesterday afternoon was held, under the presi-
dency of the Lord Mayor, a Reform meeting in the
City—one of the last, we may presume, that will
for the present be found necessary or desirable.
The proceedings were very brief, inasmuch as the
time was limited owing to the necessity of present-
ing the petition agreed upon to the House of
Commons that very afternoon. The object
of the petitioners was to obtain the rejec-
tion of the Lords' amendments against which the
speakers argued with much energy. The increase
of the copyhold and leasehold qualifications from
£5 to £lO, the use of voting papers the loss of one
vote to the electors of the City, or, as the petitioners
termed it, their " partial disfranchisement," and the
requirement of the payment of a county or borough
rate in addition to the poor rate were all dwelt
upon. As we have seen, the House of Commons,
with one exception, adopted the desired views, and
reduced the bill to very much the same position as
formerly. The citizens of London have less reason to
complain of the reduction of their voting powers than
the members of other constituencies, seeing that
three votes is by no means an unreasonable allow-
ance. The terms of the petitioners were ingeni-
ously vague. They do not altogether disapprove of
the principle of representing minorities, but say
that the mode by which that object is proposed to
be effected by the Upper House " affords oppor-

tunity for the practice of abuses, for the evils of
which any supposed advantages in the principle
itself would yield inadequate compensa-
tion." This is not a very lucid objection.
The fear that the Peers hope to replace

the influence they lose in nomination boroughs and
nomination minorities is surely a groundless one in
the City of London. The voting papers were
objected to on the grounds that they would facilitate
corrupt practices and the exercise of undue in-
fluence. All this, however, is mere matter of con-
jecture, and since there are many solid arguments
in favour of the adoption of voting papers, it would
surely be wise to mike the experiment in a few
boroughs or counties. Experience would soon show
whether the objections raised to them were
valid or no, while there is no question that the
adoption of a different mode of voting would be
the first step towards the Ballot. Very probably

it is the conviction of this that excites so strenuous
an opposition to the papers. One thing is certain
our present mode of conducting our elections is
eminently unsatisfactory, but there are always a
host of objectors to exclaim against the adoption
of any new course, so that we have not much
chance of seeing a change for the better.