The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-03 00:00:00

NEWCASTLE

On Saturday, at the Fenham Park Grounds, T. Hum-
phrey and G. Goundrey ran 180 yards, for £4O. Goundrey
received four yards start, but was beaten by half a yard
Betting-5 to 4on Goundrey. R. Young and an Unknown
of Gateshead, ran 80 yards; for £2O. The Unknown won
by a foot. Even betting. J. Scott, of Wellington Quay,
and B. Turner, of Shields, ran 125 yards, for £3O. , Tur-
ner won a good race by a foot. Betting-5 to 4on Scott
J. Stewart, of Ushworth, and J. Archbold, of Seaton Burn,
ran 105 yards, for £4O. Stewart won easily by six yards.
Betting-7 to 4on the winner. The final heat of Messrs.
Sterling and Emtnerson's 140 yards Handicap (first prize,
£3O, second, £7, and third, £3), was decided as follows :
W. Linsley, of Witton Giliort, 13 yards start, 1; R. Blyth
of Shields, 17, 2 ; J. Crow, of Stockton, 12, 3 ; J. Burn-
hope, of Boldon, 14, 4. Won by A foot. .

Is, On saturday, at gas Aston Cross Grou‘.... C. Lutwich

and an Amateur walked one mile, for £lO. Lutwich won
by 100 yards. Mr. Foxall was referee. Betting—G to 4on
Lutwich.

At the Vauxhall Grounds, Birmingham, Tom Newbold
and J. Clark (both of Birmingham) ran 200 yards, for £lO,
when Clark won by half a yard. Mr. Archer was referee
—C. Moore, of Ashted, and G. Lester, of Birmingham
walked two miles, for £l5. Moore won by half a yard
Mr. Smith was refe Betting-2 to lon Moore.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

--,,...-

THE " SATURDAY REVIEW" ON THE REFORM BILL,

—One of the most unfortunate consequences of the.
exceedingly unsatisfactory manner in which the
Government has dealt with the Reform question is
that the discussion on it shows an increasing ten-
dency to assume a wrong character. A bold measure
dealing with the whole question would haVe chal-
lenged a definite and well-directed criticism. But
this poor fragment of a measure impels men to wan-
der on all sides from what ought to be the realissue.
On the one hand, far too much is made of the pos-
sible evils which any Reform Bill that lowers the
franchise may be expected to create in boroughs
that must remain among the chief centres of our
representative system. No Reform Bill can be per-
fect, and every. Reform Bill must in one sense be

artificial and arbitrary, for no argument can prove
that the particular figure selected as the measure of
the franchise is the only right, legitimate, and

defensible figure. If men do not want a Reform
Bill at all, and object to all reduction of the

franchise, they had much better say so. But it
is absurd to say that a Reform Bill is desirable,
and that a reduction of the franchise is desirable,
but that it is a great pity that the reduction of the

franchise which is desired should not produce the
right reeults in this or that large borough. Discus-
sion cannot proceed unless political crisis will stick
by their own first principles, and the first principles
by which a Reform Bill is to be judged are, we
think, sufficiently simple. For a variety of reasons

it is desirable that the franchise should -be reduced,
and for a variety of other reasonsit is desirable that
a eonsiderable number of the smaller boroughs
should have their political power decreased or taken
away. A good Reform Bill would be a bill that,
while boldly reducing the franchise, distributed
the seats so that every class of English society
should be fairly and adequately represented.
But the best Reform Bill that man could devise
would do harm in some particular constituencies,
and we ought to be prepared to suffer this in
order to attain a great national benefit, if we
wish for a Reform Bill at all. But if it is idle
to attack the bill on the ground that it will not work
well everywhere, the language in which the bill is
defended is much more than idle ; it is wild and ex-
travagant to the last degree. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, for example, declares that he cannot
understand how his opponents can object to enfran-
chising £7 householders, who are our fellow-Chris-
tians, and men of our own flesh and blood. This is
not argument ; it is declamation of thQ most un-
meaning kind. Are not £6 householders also theo-
retically our fellow-Christians—are they not just
as much of our flesh and blood as 17 householders ?

We are debating how many of these Christians and
brethren we are to endow with political power, and
if we say that all English Christians ought to be
enfranchised, we come at once to universal suf-
frage. Smaller men carry this wildness of declama-
tion to a pitch that makes it almost doubtful whe-
ther sense and truth have not said good-bye altoge-
ther to the world of English politics. Mr.

Fawcett attended a meeting at Brighton, and
gravely assured his hearers that the only reason
why the Government Bill was opposed was because
its opponents were determined that Mr. Gladstone
should never be Premier, as not being aristocratic
enough. Human perversity can scarcely go further
than this. The Government proposes a tiny frag-
ment of Reform; it is objected that to deal with
Reform by fragments is impolitic ; and men like Mr.
Fawcett declare that the only conceivable ground
for such an objection must be the secret wish to
have a Lord at the head of the Treasury. But if
other men are wild and rhetorical, what is to be
said of Mr. Bright ? His letter to his Birmingham
constituents is a masterly example of all that a
politician at such a crisis as the present ought not
to say. In the first place, the bill is declared to be
an honest bill. It does nothing but fix on a figure
for the franchise, and Mr. Bright acknowledges that
the figure fixed on seems to him the wrong one. But
then this simple fragment of Reform, doing no-
thing but fix on a wrong figure, has a subtle moral
virtue about it. It is a poor thing in itself, but ethi-
cally it is beautiful. The only attempt that Mr.
Blight makes to give a meaning to his words is by
saying that what he likes about the bill is not its
contents, but the resolution of the Ministry to stand
or fall by it. If so, Ministers have the satisfaction
of imparting a moral excellence to their bill at a very
cheap rate. If they did anything else, or gave any
hope of doing proposinganything else, besides their
fragment of Reform, it might show that they at-
tached a value toßef orm thatßeformers might admire.
But as they do nothing else, and show themselves
utterly unable to do anything else, they could not
help standing or falling by
-the most dishonest, as

well as by the most honest, bill that could be framed.
But this bill creates dismay and horror, not only in
the breasts of Tories, but in the breasts of sound
and undoubted Liberals. These Liberals object to a

fragmentary measure of Reform as much as the
Tories do, and they are then, in Mr. Bright's opinion,
guilty of having formed one of the dirtiest conspira-
cies ever known, a conspiracy, for example, far blacker
than the conspiracy which successfully opposed a

Liberal Govern-mei:if on the occasion of the China war
and the attempt to murder the Emperor. If a Libe-
ral votes with Tories to reprobate a too meek way
of treating France, or to ,stigmatise a war as unjust,
he is a noble, honest man delivering his soul, and
trusting in a Providence that is above human parties.
If he votes with Tories to reprobate dealing with Re-
form by halves, he is a dirty conspirator. So far as
blackguarding him and abusing him or denouncing
him can make him change his mind in time, or
punish him if he does not change his mind, Mr.
Bright is not the man to stint the necessary abuse.
Nor is it to be doubted that in some instances he
may succeed. Sir William Hutt, for instance,
thought of taking quite an honest and independent
line, thinking for himself and showing that he was
not afraid to express his deliberate convictions.
But some Gateshead Bright was down on him, and
he succumbed at once, and promised in the most

delightfully amiable way never to be a dirty con-
spirator, any more. But all members are not so
meek as this, nor do their constituencies wish they
should be. If Mr. Bright blackguards them they
can stand it. They are not like the fishwomau who
was shut up when O'Connell called her an isosceles
triangle. Like the gentlemen of Nottingham, they
will not think " scoundrel" an abusive term when
they consider who it is that uses it. And it must
be owned that Mr. Bright is quite sharp enough to
see this. He has resources at, his command. He
can coax or he can threaten, as well as abuse.

Within a few hours after his letter was, read at
Birmingham, he was at Manchester, protesting that,
so far as Lord Grosvenor was concerned, he only
called him a dirty conspirator in the Pickwickian
sense, and meant by it that he was a most estimable
young nobleman of sound Liberal principles, and
descended from a grandfather who had supported
the Anti-Corn-Law League. And if coaxing fails,
as well as abuse, then the last, the surest, and the
sharpest means must be used. Mr. Bright will call
upon his " lambs." Let him only have enough of
them to line the advances to Westminster on the
voting day, and he ,a ill engage that the bill is
carried, as sure as Robert Clifton was returned for
Nottingham. If there is apathy in the country as
to the Reform Bill, and if the arguments are all, so
far as we can see, one way, and the abuse-the other,
it certainly cannot be said that the Ministry and its
more determined supporters are apathetic. Next
week the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to
raise the war-cry in Lancashire, and some of
his subordinates are going to see what can be
done in the West Riding. But the warmest
friends of the Ministry must see that the
issue is no longer whether the Reform Bill shall be
carried, but whether the Ministry shall get a ma-
jority on the second reading. Mr. Gladstone is de-
termined to have a majority if he can, and to get
it distinctly in favour of a measure dealing only
with a fragment of Reform. If that can but be
achieved, the honour of the Government will be
technically taken as saved, and the bill may be left
to its fate. It is obvious that all the difficulties
that could have been created by dealing with Re-
form as a whole will be greatly increased by the
proposed plan of drafting bills for the redistribution
of seats, but not proceeding with them. Unless
these bills are adopted as substantially parts of the
Government measure, there is no probability that
they will ever be carried ; and unless they are car-
ried they will not show what the ultimate conse-
quences of the bill are to be. Every clause of the
Franchise, Bill will be discussed with reference to
them just as much as if they were part of the pre-
sent Government proposal. But, at the same time,
those who object to the redistribution of seats which
the Government may propose will not even have
the poor consolatign of knowing the worst that can
befall them. If fhey pass the - Franchise Bill, and
wait for next Session to deal with redistribution,
they may have a more obnoxious measure pretsed
on them than that which the Government may now
suggest. For, without imputing insincerity to the
Government, the accidents of political life may
easily retard the settlement of redistribution uutilthe
new voters under the Franchise Bill come
on
the register; and then it Will be the new constitu-
encies and not the present ones, that will settle by far

the most important question of Reform—the ques-
tion how the voting power, when created, is to be
arranged. We may be sure that all the members
who have small boroughs to defend will see this,

and plain speakers like Mr. Bass at Derby make no
secret of what is intended, and expressly say that a
Franchise Bill is a good thing, for the reason that it
will place the settlement of redistribution in the

hands of constituences more democratic than the
existing ones. It is difficult to believe that the
many members who have both public and private
reasons for wishing to know what is going to be-
come of the places they represent will fall into so
obvious a trap, and by far the most direct and
straightforward course is that taken by Lord Gros-
venor, to decline to discuss Reform Bills by frag-

ments. But then the Ministry will go out if Lord
Grosvenor's Resolution is carried, and a large number
of members who quite agree with Lord Grosvenor's
wish to keep the Ministry in, provided that a mere
Franchise Billdoes not becomelaw. The Government
has afforded them a loophole. They are:to vote for
the second reading, and then the Government will
so complicate and hamper the question by bringing-
in dummy bills for redistribution that no one need
fear fear that the Franchise Bill will pass. Mr. Oliphant
and Mr. Kinglake were charmed with this proposal.
It saved their principles, and restored them to their
party, and reassured them in a variety of pleasant
ways. We do not quarrel with them for this.
Perhaps they were right in thinking themselves not
strong enough to take a bolder line. But we do
not see why a man like Lord Grosvenor should be
called a dirty conspirator because he prefers saying
what he means, and acting on what he thinks.

THE " LONDON REVIEW" ON MR. LOWE AND
" JUNIUS MiNon."—Some time ago it was said that
the newspaper most spoken of in England had
leaders superior in force and style to the remarkable
diatribes of Junius. The compliment was a bad One
every way. Junius would be a dangerous and use-
less model for imitation, but in a journal which has
daily thunder of its own we have lately seen articles
which remind us of those which Woodfall published.
As far as taste is concerned, they are not a whit
superior, and we may premise that it is in this con-
nection solely we desire to regard them. We do not
choose to advocate the policy or defend the conduct
of Mr. Lowe, but simply wish to call our readers'
attention to a style of writing which, if pursued and
repeated, would be destructive to the interests of
the press. The amenities of discussion are very in-
telligible. Every writer is supposed to be acquainted
with them, and the tone of modern journalism has
been brought to its present moderation IT the com-
mon consent and unanimity of the public, who have
decided that politics may be considered in the same
temper as that in which the other affairs of life are
reviewed. We read now with astonishment of the
days of Swift, Bolingbroke, Arbuthnot, and Wal-
pole, when charges of bribery and lying were
brought by honourable members against each other
every night; when filthy epigrams were flung right
and left at the Ministers by the Opposition ; and
when the Ministers paid literary hacks to retaliate
for them in kind.- Ladies wore party patches on
their cheeks, and even in the theatres Whigs and
Tories refused to amalgamate. This sort of thing
was, after a while, understood to be undignified and
worthless. It lingered for a season in subsidised
journals, but died out during the progress of true
Liberalism. The sturdy Cobbett left his mantle to
the moths ; and the journals who are understood to
be the heirs of his free thinking to their work
without scolding. We ought, indeed, to be most
careful in this respect, with the example of the Ame-
rican press held up to us. It is admitted that no
single journal can claim to represent any wide sec-
tion of our Yankee friends, and simply because our
shrewd cousins perceive that the editors are unable
to control their personal sentiments, or to measure
any question except by the narrow standard registered
in their offices by the proprietors. Their use of
strong language is another reason of their impotence,
and their outrageous mendacity is a third. It is
human nature to believe that brag and inefficiency
go together. Fustian, literary shoddy of the poorest
description, is the staple of the Herald and the
Tribune. If an American buys these papers, he
takes care to tell you his political faith is not pinned
to them. With us the case is very different. Nearly
every Englishman has his favourite newspaper,
whose opinions are more or less the same as his own,
whose views, when they differ from his, he often
accepts upon trust, and whose conduct he expects to
find as guarded and decent as that of an individual
who desired to hold a respectableposition in society.
There are, of course, people who like hot articles,
but most assuredly the paper condescending to cook
them will derive no credit from its patrons. Our
readers will remember the speech made by Mr. Lowe
on reform. We repeat, our intention is not to de-
fend that gentleman's principles, but that he has a
right to deliver them without being subjected to a
series of pasquinades nobody can doubt. It is not
fair criticism to keep on calling names. To speak
of a public man using a journalistic connection for
ulterior political ends, to assert that his nature is
malicious, cynical, and unstable, to jeer at him as a
disappointed speculator for office, is certainly carry-
ing the controversy a little beyond the bounds of
discretion er decency. The " fiend in human shape"

should be left to the marvellous constructors oi

penny novels. We ought to have done with Mr,
Potts and the Independent (Eatanswill) long ago
et here is the hand of Potts or of a lesser Junius

J -
there is no mistaking the thick and slab epithets,
the turgid flatulence, and the profound bray of the
Pottsian style. We insert it as a sample :
Prostitution in any form is sad and bad ; but it always
seems saddest and worst when gifts meant for the gracious
uses of home, like youth and beauty, are paraded and traf-
ficked in the streets. So the misuse of any talent is evil ;
but to prostitute the very highest and richest, deliberately
to bond intellect, scholarship, taste, and the experience of
grey hairs to the task of caressing a contemned party, and
of coquetting with a prospect of stolen power, is shameful,
sorrowful,' and in Parliament has hitherto been happily
rare. Last evening, however, Mr. Robert Lowe afforded
an exhibition," &c.

--- -
The strain being pitched in such a key, it is easy
to surmise how the article proceeds. The art of this
composition is worth a moment's attention. It has
become the fashion with " Junius Minor" to use the
social evil largely in illustration. Its metaphors are
naked, and (being so innocent) are never ashamed.
We have heard it remarked, however, that another
motive induces this practice. " Prostitution "is
not an unattractive word to head an article with ;
people will follow it up for more reasons than one.
To get from it to Mr. Lowe is an agreeable task,
and performed in that spirit of Christian charity so
finely signified in the Lit of Dumas
.fits morality
twanged in the first sentence. A man who feels
that prostitution is " sad and bad," and who has a
mind for domesticities, must be terribly pained to
turn all this against a gentleman who differs from
him in politics. Elsewhere Mr. Lowe is said ele-
gantly to commit " debauches in composition,"
or, in other terms, is suspected of writing leaders
for the Times. Does the reader see the force of
" debauches in composition"? The sense is sus-
pended for one delicious instant between the word
" debauches " and " composition" during which
the fancy is tickled with an unqualified image very
creditable to the taste of " Junius Minor." Again
tc debauch" belongs to the gutter vocabulary, and
is own brother to prostitute, with which we
set out so boldly ; the phrase is charmingly consis-
tent " Junius Minor" is itself a model of tempe-
rate composition ; a violent teetotaller, who wouldn't
for the world use strong adjectives. Seriously, is it
right to publish that a member of Parliament is
(metaphorically) prostituting himself, debauching
himself, and "purblind ?"#ow does this stuff differ

from the scurrility of the New York Herald? If it
is not stopped in time, the old cheap and nasty pro-
verb will once more be singularly exemplified. We
will make every allowance for the temptations of a
daily paper—so many columns to be filled up, ro©m
enough for a pillory, a subject to hand, missiles on
stock, and the little game to be witnessed for a sum
not worth mentioning. On the famous principle
.that those who drive fat oxen should themselves be

fat, there are those who imagine that the user of
strong language ought to be an intellectual Her-
cules ; but we need scarcely say that there are one
or two reasons for doubting the reasons of this
theory. When Mr. Swiveller was hard up, he wrote
a begging letter, which he made quite touching with
the aid of a pepper-castor. " Junius Minor" re-
sorts to the pepper-castor evidently—for spice
though, not for tears. The danger of this condi-
ment is that it invariably causes a writer to argue
after the lucid manner of Mr. Unsworth of the
Christy Minstrels. Why this should be we know
not, but the fact is undeniable; he begins to stump
and wander, and at the finish, so to speak, drops
under the table with his pen and appears all abroad.
" Junius Minor" is more consecutive than Mr. Uns-
worth, though not, on the whole, so funny. The
comicality of a gibe should not be encouraged. We
are not taking up cudgels for Mr. Lowe ; but any
journal may challenge or strive to arrest the course
of a literary Malay running a muck and striving
to stab the repute of a political opponent. If
a critic to-morrow was to attempt to smother Byron
or snuff out Keats, a host of pens would defend
the poets, and the feeling of the country would not
permit genius to be slanged to silence. Mr. Lowe
may be profoundly wrong in his thinking, harsh in
his language, and irritant in his Parliamentary de-
meanour, but he has a distinct title to form and
speak his opinions without being branded for them
by " Junius Minor." The latter may find fault
with those opinions, deride them and put them in
italics (the process of italicising is both able and
argumentative), but Mr. Lowe's private aims and
occupations, whatever they are, ought to be left to
him in peace. 'Evidence of malice aforethought
deprives a stricture of its power to hurt. " Junius
Minor," too, might, as the saying is, take it easy,

V. ►.--

An awful disaster befell a frog who would puff him•
self as big as an ox. Drawing it mild by way of
a change would serve " Junius Minor." If people
were to hear a railway alarum perpetually cream-
ing, in the end they would pay no more attention
to it than they would to the tune of a penny whistle,
and they possibly might confound the voice of the
engine with the latter cheap and melodious instru-
ment. What a sad day.that would be for " Junius
Minor ! "

EINAHAN'S LL WHISKY. DUBLIN
t A_ EXHIBITION, 1865.
This celebrated OLD IRISH WHISKY gained the
Dublin Prize Medal.
It is Pure, Mild, Mellow, Delicious, and very Whole-
some.
Sold in Bottles, Bs. Bd., at the Retail Houses in London ;
by the Agents in the principal towns in England; or
wholesale at
8. GREAT WINDMILL-STREET, LONDON, W.
Observe the Red Seal, Pink Label, and Cork branded
" Kinahan's LL Whisky."

•
UTUAL LOAN FUND ASSOCIATION
,LT. IL (Incorporated by Act of Parliament, 1850),
1 RUSSELL-STREET, COVENT-GARDEN, LONDON.
ADVANCES MONEY on Personal Security, Bills of Sale,
Freehold or beneficial Leasehold Property, without inquiry
fee, or any deduction whatever, for periods of one, two, or
three years, repayable weekly, monthly, or quarterly. Dills
discounted. The greatest secrecy observed. Advances also
made towards the Purchase of a House, repayable in 5, 10, or
15 years —Forms free on application, or receipt of a stamped
envelope,

EDWARD HARPER, Secretary.

CHOCOLATE.-MENIER'S FRENCH.

CHOCOLAT-MENIER, for Breakfast.

.Limp cloth, price la.,
SYSTEMATIC MEMORY ; or, How to Make
Bad Memory Good, and a Good Memory Better. By
T. MACLAREN.