The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

has been hitherto assumed, perhaps
too confidently, that any Reform Bill proposed by
Lord Derby's Government will be accepted with
little edification by the House of Lords. The brief
speech of Lord Grey on Tuesday night is calcu-
lated to dispel the impression. Though he dis-
claims the intention of opposing the second reading,
he significantly deprecates haste, and gives notice
of a resolution upon which amendments may be
founded in committee. No one knows the history
of the Reform Act better than Lord Grey ; nor
can they have overlooked the obvious parallel be-
tween the course he contemplates and that taken
by Lord Lyndhurst in 1832. The bill framed by
his own father had passed the Commons on the
23d of March, and the second reading had been
by a majority of nine in the House of
Lords on the 14th of April. On May 7, when the
first section came on for discussion in committee,
Lord Lyndhurst succeeded in persuading the House
to postpone the consideration of the disfranchising
clauses till the new franchises should. have been
discussed. What followed must be fresh in the
memory of many still living, and Lord Grey is the
last man to provoke a second collision between the
two branches of the Legislature and their repre-
sentatives. The resolution which he intends to
move will doubtless be moderate and general, but if
it is to have any meaning or effect, it must purport
to pledge the House to a certain policy in the com-
mittee. If pressed to a division and adopted, it
will inevitably involve the reopening of questions
debated for two sessions in the Lower House, and
supposed to have been determined. Snell, in fact,
is Lord Grey's avowed object, and, though pru-
dence might induce him to waive many personal
objections to the bill as it stands, we know from
his published treatise on Reform how seriously it
conflicts with his own convictions. Mr. Lowe
himself has not protested more emphatically than
Lord Grey against " a transfer of political power,"
an addition of strength to the democratic ele-
ment in the nation, or a reconstruction of our
institutions upon the 'American model. Nothing
short of the restoration of those safeguards
which Mr. Disraeli has abandoned, with the tacit
consent of Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Hardy,
can satisfy Lord Grey's theory of a safe Reform
Bill, whatever practical alternative he may be pre-
pared to accept. It, therefore, behoves independent
members of the Upper House to pause before com-
mitting themselves, under his guidance, to a dis-
turbance of the settlement effected in the Commons.
The constitutional right of the Upper House to
reject or modify a bill of this nature is, of course,
beyond dispute. At the same time it is a right
which, upon every ground, ought to be exercised
with much reserve. The very fact of the Peers being,
in contemplation of law, a co-ordinate estate of the
realm, superior in dignity and equal in legislative
power to the Commons, suggests a good reason why
they should abstain from anything like an obstructive
resistance to Parliamentary Reform. The qualifi-
cations of electors and the distribution of constituen-
cies are matters which directly concern the popular
branch of the Legislature, just as the creation of
life-peerages directly concerns the hereditary branch.
The private interest which members of the Peerage
may have in such affairs is, to say the least, not recog-
nised by the Constitution, while the Lower House
must be presumed to be the best judge of changes de-
signed to promote its own representative efficiency.
In 1831-2 the opponents of Reform in the Lords had
an excuse which is now wanting. Many of them
were the absolute owners of boroughs threatened
with disfranchisement, and regarded that process as
nothing less than a confiscation of their property.
No one now ventures to assert a proprietary claim
on any constituency, and of those to be deprived of
one member each there are not above four or five
which are even reputed to be pocket boroughs. In
other respects the sacrifice, if it be a sacrifice, now
demanded of the Lords is trifling, indeed, compared
with that demanded of their fathers. They were
then felt, and felt themselves, to be resigning for
ever the control of English politics, and few be-
lieved that it would be possible for them to retain
the degree of influence which still belongs to them.
They are now invited to sanction an extension
of power to the working classes at the expense
of the middle classes, rather than of their own order.
It is far more probable that Mr. Disraeli's Reform
Bill will " swamp" the £lO householders than it is
that it will " swamp" the nobility. That such is the
purpose of its author is no secret, and we have never
concealed the belief that a grand opportunity of
winning by legitimate means the political leadership
of the country is offered by it to the aristocracy of
birth and education. The House of Lords, then,
has no selfish ends to serve by throwing out or muti-
lating the bill, while the consequence of their doing
so would be deplorable. So manifest and urgent is
this consideration that no material amendment is
likely to be proposed, except in concert with an in-
fluential party in the Commons. It is rumoured
that attempts may yet be made to strike out the
lodger franchise, to revive the cumulative vote, to
engraft upon section 7 Mr. Poulett Scrope's plan
for disposing of the compound householder, to re-
strict the boundaries of agricultural boroughs—in
short, to introduce organic changes into the struc-
ture of the bill. There is much to be said, as, in-
deed, much has already been said, for every one of
these alterations, but we must decline to enter again
upon their merits before a previous question has
been answered. That question is—whether there
is any reasonable prospect of these amendments
being ultimately adopted by the House of Commons
and the nation. If so, the House of Lords may do
good service by debating them afresh ; if not, it can
do nothing but mischief. Now, we venture to say
that it would be a great mistake to presume upon,
the readiness of the Commons to abandon decisions
on important points, however narrow.do tThehomßaejoforritiny
m
by which they may have been carried.
Bill, in its present shape, is well understood by all
tanndo LpeorrindaGnorneyt
Rhiemfosrelluf
h a s partiesrecorded
e ah cs oopinion
i ts
a,
Bill can ever be carried except by a compromise. It
has not, it is true, been drawn up as he recommended
by a Committee of the Privy Councilandapproved
beforehand in a conference between the Liberal
and Conservative leaders, but it is as really the

product of mutual concession as if it had been so
matured. Nor is this all. It cannot be forgotten,
though it need not he proclaimed on the housetops,
that it has been purchased at a cost of political
morality without precedent in our own times.
Nothing but assured success in a great enterprise
will reconcile the Government, the House of Com-
mons, or the public to a retrospect of this session,
and success would be greatly imperilled by any con-
siderable mutilation of the bill. It is easy to revise
a provisional arrangement, but it is dangerous to
meddle with the articles of a treaty of peace.

The Trades' Union Commission.

MR. ROEBUCK V. MR. CONNOLLY.

A special meeting of the delegates representing the
London trades societies at the late Conference at St.
Martin's Hall was held last evening at the Sussex
Hall, Bouverie-street, Fleet-street, for the purpose
of taking into consideration the course to be pursued
by the trades towards the Commission, consequent
upon the exclusion of the trades' representative, Mr.
Connolly, from the sittings of the Commission for
having made certain remarks upon the public con-
duct of Mr. Roebuck, M.P. Mr. George Potter
occupied the chair.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, said
he considered the conduct pursued by the Commis-
sion towards Mr. Connolly a gross act of tyranny,
and an unwarrantable interference with the freedom
of speech. (Hear.) Had Mr. Connally spoken of
Mr. Roebuck as -a
member of the Commission, there
might have been some ground for the interference of
the commissioners in their official capacity ; but Mr.
Connolly referred to Mr. Roebuck only as a member
of Parliament. Mr. Roebuck might or might not be
what Mr. Connolly described him to be, but in either
case the Commission had exceeded its powers in
making itself a partisan on either side.
The SECRETARY read a let ter from Mr. M'Donald,
president of the Miners' Association, recommend-
ing that all further communication between the
trades and the Commission should cease until
the resolution of expulsion was rescinded. Ho
also read a letter from the committee of the
London Compositors' Society strongly condemna-
tory of the Commission.

Mr. CONNOLLY then rose, amidst loud cheers, and
gave a detailed report of the proceedings at the
Commission, resulting in hio exclusion. All that he
had said about Mr. Roebuck he was prepared to re-
peat.

Mr. PACKER (turner) then moved a resolution,
describing Mr. Connolly's exclusion as an act of
tyranny calling for the strongest condemnation.
Mr. PARISII (brushmaker) seconded the resolu-
tion, which, having been supported by several other
delegates, was carried unanimously.
It was agreed to discuss at a future meeting the
propriety of marking their sense of the conduct of
the commissioners in this matter, by abstaining from
any further communication with them.
Tho proceedings then adjourned.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

SALISBURY.-TUESDAY.

The attendance at market to-day was equal to last week.
Wheat small supply, and 2s per. qr. dearer. Grinding bar-
ley dearer, but oats, beans, and peas were dealt in at pre-
vious quotations. . _ _

The following are the quotations ;—Wheat realised from
58s to 72s ; barley, 31s to 875; oats, 26s to ns ; beans, 46;
to 565; and peas, 40s to 48s per qr. Tares, from 53 6d to
7s 6d per bushel ; Best bread, 16(1; household ditto, 151
per 81b loaf. Flour, 46s to 50s per sack.