The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-30 00:00:00

of the Irish demagogue. O'Connell dreaded blood-
shed. If he found that he had been urging his
followers too strongly beyond the limits of peaceful
agitation, he drew back before it was too late. He
never gave them advice which could bring them into
direct collision with the strength of the executive
government, and he discouraged those impatient
rivals whose indiscreet ardour brooked no compro-
mise or delay. Mr. Bright has taught his followers
deliberately to risk a conflict the issue of which
might have involved most tremendous consequences.
Thanks to the forbearance of the Government and
the temper of the police, those consequences have
not yet ensued. Their absence has, however, been
purchased at a price which cannot easily be esti-
mated. A blow has been struck, not only at the
exercise but even at the principle of authority in
England, which cannot but shake, for the time, her
influence in every nation of Europe. For the past
week London has virtually been in the hands of
the dregs of its population. There is no other
capital in which a similar riot, under similar circum-
stances, would not have been suppressed at once.
The reasons which have prevented its suppression
here will either be not considered, or will be wrongly
considered by foreign critics. The fact will remain,
and will be regarded as proving that boasting,
wealthy, powerful England is smitten with paralysis
at the heart. A country which cannot control the
fermenting scum of its city Arabs, what power can
it have in the councils of Europe, or the politics of
the world? Such will be the argument now put into
the mouth of every Continental statesman. That it
may at no distant day be rebutted, is not impossible.
Indeed, the impatience of every class of the com-
munity at the degradation of which all are conscious
must ere long rouse all in a general effort to rid
themselves of the reproach. But, meanwhile, who
shall measure the loss of character and position which
the continuance of this reproach imposes on us ? If
Mr. Bright has failed in many of his schemes, he has
at last succeeded iu one—that of lowering his country
in the eyes of the world, and introducing the prin-
ciple of anarchy into the citadel of the constitution.
We hesitate to associate another name with that of
Mr. Bright in this abuse of Tribunitian powers. We
are unwilling to believe that the honours which the
rabble has thrust on Mr. Gladstone indicate more
than a vague hope that he will throw the aegis of
his character over acts which in his heart he must
detest. At present Mr. Gladstone's silence is more
than unbecoming ;it is ignoble. It may be ad-
mitted that it is desirable that the question, not of
the right of petition (for about this there can be _
_ _

no doubt), but of the mode and time of exercising
it, should receive a judicial solution in a court of
law. Not that we have any doubts about it ; but
so much nonsense has been talked about it by the
Airtons, Layards, and others, that plain people are
bamboozled. This question, however, subsides into
a secondary place now. The paramount question
for the Government and for every respectable man

is, how is the present disgraceful state of things to
be terminated and it recurrence prevented ? If we
fail in settling this Parliament must cease to sit,
and the Sovereign to reside, in London.—,Saturday
Review.

The Spectator says the matter rests, leaving in
impartial minds the conclusion that Mr. Walpole
is weak, Sir Richard Mayne an old soldier, the
British " rough" no politician, and Mr. Beales a
goose. Mr. Bright wrote a letter to the Reform
League which had, we fear, no little influence in
promoting the foolish and mischievous proceedings
of Monday in Hyde-park. Our security rests on
the foundation of having as few restrictions on in-
dividual choice as is consistent with national life,
and those few removable by the will of a represen-
tative Parliament. It is not a sign of liberty that
the mere wish of a crowd should be able to overrule
Parliamentary authority, or to put to one sort of
use what the majority of the people prefer to see
devoted to another use. If the people ought to be
able to use the Parks at their pleasure for political
purposes, why not to use the House of Comnions
at their pleasure for purposes of amusement—for
fancy balls or popular concerts? It is these random
fire balloons which Mr. Bright sends up every now
and then which bring down upon him a distrust far
beyond what would be due to his general political
opinion.

The London Review says that the riots which have
this week disgraced us are the logical and miserable
result of Mr. Bright's exhortations to the people,
published some time before the Easter recess, to
make an imposing demonstration of their wishes—
a thinly-disguised incitement to the populace to
influence the deliberations of Parliament by an
exhibition of force. As the great cock crowed, the
little cock learned. Mr. Beales claimed the parks
for the people, whether, for the purpose in question,
they belonged to them or not, and Mr. Bright wrote
to the secretary of the Reform League a letter which
was either singularly childish or studiedly malicious,
inciting the League to defy the Ministry, the police,
and the law. That letter was a great blunder, and
we especially regret it, because we have respected
Mr. Bright's reputation as that of one of the fore-

most men of our time, to whom the country owes
much, even though it wisely refrains from endorsing
the whole of his policy. And it is all the more to
be lamented, because it raises a strong suspicion
that he has studied to provoke a collision between
the people and the police at which he had not the
courage to be present.

The Economist thinks that Mr. Mill's speech will
do as much to diminish his Parliamentary weight as
any of his greater speeches has done to increase it.
That great blunders have been made in enforcing
the policy of the Government we believe. But the
deficiency has been rather in not carrying out the
policy strongly enough—with sufficient display of
strength—than in carrying it out too strongly.
But there is not even a good pretence for suggest-
ing, as Mr. Mill suggested, a doubt whether the
Government really wished to prohibit all London
open-air meetings for political purposes, instead of
only to forbid them in open spaces properly devoted
to public amusement and exercise. Mr. Mill said
that some of the newspapers were hostile to all open-
air political meetings in London. We can well
believe it, for newspapers in the extremity of the
need for something to say do say the very silliest
things from time to time ; but we must do the Tory
Administration the justice to admit that nothing
which has fallen from them has ever indicated hos-

tility to open-air meetings for political purposes as
such, but only to their being held in unfit places
like the public parks.

THE CHURCH-RATE BILLS.—The four bills of Mr.
Gladstone, Mr. Hardeastle, Mr.. Newdegate, and
Sir 'W. Bovill follow each other on the notice paper of the
House of Commons for the Wednesday morning sitting,
and as they stand first it is certain that Mr. Gladstone's
bill, at least, will come on. As there will be nearly six
hours for the debate, it may be assumed that the process of
talking against time cannot be a third time adopted with a
hope of success, and that, therefore, the question that the
bill be read a second time will be put from the chair,
Although the Government have pledged themselves not to
vote against the second reading, Mr. Neato has moved an
amendment which, if carried, would put an end to the bill,
and he has publicly stated that he intends pressing it to a
division. Contrary to expectation, therefore, there may be
another trial of strength on the question, and the sup-
porters of Mr. Gladstone's bill be required to be at their
post to prevent its being disposed of by an adverse vote.

THAMES C ONS E ItVAN CY.—The Conservators of
the Thames, who at present, and until the bill of
this session shall pass, have the management of the river,
not throughout the navigable portion of it, but only up to
Staines, show in their report on the past year that they
received in 1885 £22,880 for tonnage dues, £5,390 for pier
dues, £5,676 for tolls, £10,883 for material raised by dredg-
ing and supplied to the contractors for the Thames em-
bankment ; and various other receipts brought the year's
income up to more than £56,000. The expenditure is
chiefly for salaries and wages, the Board having to improve
the river by dredging ; to keep a staff of pier-masters, col-
lectors, river-keepers, inspectors, and clerks ; to maintain
piers, landing-places, towing-paths, and buoys for moor-
ing ; to remove wrecks and obstructions ; and to prevent
the pollution of the stream as far as they may. The Con-
servators have reduced to £120,800 their debt for money
borrowed on the security of the tolls westward of London-
bride, and they have £58,312 iu the funds or otherwise in-
vested, besides a cash balance of £lO,OOO.

MRS. YELVERTON.—Mrs. Theresa Yelverton
(Longworth) has presented a petition to the House of Lords
praying that she may be permitted to proceed with her
second appeal from the Court of Session iu Scotland against
Major Yelverton in forma pauperis. The petition was on
Thursday referred to the Appeal Committee.