The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMES.—Fenianism has been from the beginning
a compound of audacity and absurdity, but one in
particular the absurdity now predominates very
strongly. We have the benefit, never before enjoyed
in a conspiracy, of seeing and hearing all that one
half of the conspirators either say or do. In Ire-
land the Fenians conceal themselves, but in America
they speak out, and tell us all their successive im-
pressions, plans, and expectations. The latest reve-
lation beats all others in the prodigious depth of its
nonsense. As the suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act in Ireland has driven apparently even the chief
leader of the plot to despair and flight, the Ameri-
can Fenians argue that the conspiracy ought to be
recognised as practically successful, and that, inas-
much as they have abandoned all idea of war, they
are entitled to the character of belligerents. This
demand, it is said, they are actually pressing on
the Government at Washington. They have nothing
whatever to show for it. There is not a Fenian
belligerent anywhere, unless, indeed, it be in the
Fenian Congress in America, where two factions
are undoubtedly ready to fly at each other's throats.
But, excepting this, there are no " forces" of the
" Irish Republic" to be found, nor does anybody
expect to find them. We had lately a good many
strangers in Ireland, evidently there for no good,
and in order to keep these visitors from mischief
we removed certain impediments in the way of
locking them up. They took the hint, and those
who escaped the first sweep of the net made the
best of their way to other parts. It was all done
very neatly, but nobody except a Fenian would
look at the proceeding as " virtually establishing"
an independent Republic at war with Great Bri-
tain. The Fenians are indignant at the measures of
the British Government, but at the same time they
are careful to justify them by the most open and
unreserved avowal of their designs. They complain
that we have nullified a constitution which, as Mr.
James Stephens told us, not one of them recognised
as existing, and they are transported with rage at
our injustice in not allowing them a favourable op-
portunity of exterminating us. They sent " mili-
tary officers of distinction to move silently into Ire-
land," and take the command of an insurrectionary
army, of which proceedings they gave us due notice.
Some of these visitors we have now got in prison,
and the Fenians meet to express sympathy with their
envoys and denounce the arbitrary and unconstitu-
tional conduct of our Government in arresting them.
Their design was to ravage Ireland with fire and
sword, but we had no business to avert the consum-
mation. Our policy is monstrous. We have pre-
vented a sanguinary commotion, which ought to
have come to pass, and which would have come to
pass if we had not adopted extraordinary measures
of protection. The Fenians never so much as pre-
tended to say that we have mistaken their purposes
or that their designs were less than we assume.
They only declare that they might have accomplished
the mischief if we had let them alone, and that our
interference was tyrannical and unjustifiable upon
any constitutional principles. Mr. John Mitchell, too,
has improved the occasion to condemn the whole Irish
policy of the British Government on precisely similar
grounds. He has stated in a letter that Ireland really
has wrongs and grievances of her own, inasmuch as
Irishmen aro not allowed to meet in convention,
or to train themselves to the use of arms,
or to enroll themselves in Volunteer battalions,
or ,to regulate the constitution and practice of their
courts of justice. If, says he, Irishmen were not
debarred from these legitimate privileges, their
rights would soon be secured. The first thing they
would do with their arms would be to exterminate
the English in Ireland, and the Queen's rule would
cease of itself, because no Irish court of Law pro-
perly constituted would find any Irishmen guilty of
any offence against the Crown. Unfortunately,
under the tyrannical system of divorcing Irishmen
from their bayonets, and packing juries impartially
for criminal trials, peace and British dominion are
preserved together ; but it is abominable, he adds,
to maintain that Irishmen, under such circum-
stances, are not "exceptionally" governed. Nothing
could surpass the frankness of this public argu-
ment, but Mr. Mitchell has left one point of con-
sideration. It is, indeed, not impossible that if
Irishmen were suddenly released from the control
of Government they might fly to arms. They have
certain national propensities which render this re-
sult by no means unlikely, but it is not at all likely
that ,their first aim would be the " English gar-
risons." They might, perhaps, attack each other
first, and none know better than Mr. John Mit-
chell the probability of the contingency. He and
his own accomplices in treason quarrelled and fought
in 1848, and the very Fenians themselves are at dag-
gers drawn in the home of their adoption. It is
one feature of our Government in Ireland that it
keeps the peace between rival creeds and parties,
and prevents the war with which Orangemen and
Catholics are perpetually threatening each other.
We wish to see Irishmen united, but the spectacle
of the Fenian camp is enough to show the difficulty
of the conclusion. We do our best to keep them
from open disunion, and we trust some day to see
the benefit of the policy. The two leading doc-
trines of Fenianism were that all Fenians should
love each other and should hate the English. They
have never yet kept the first of these pledges, and
are more likely, of the two, to make war upon each
other than to attack us.
THE " SATURDAY REVIEW " ON THE DEBATE
ON REFORM.—Whatever the merits of the Reform
Bill may be, the debate on it has been lively and
interesting, and has been signalised by some of the
best speaking that has been heard by this generation
in the House. The panegyrists of the Parliaments
which ten-pound householders return may derive
much pleasure from a comparison, if they will take
the trouble to institute it, between the mode in
which the' present house is addressed and listens,
and the tone and character both of the speeches and
the audience at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832.
There is much more pith and argument in our
modern speeches, much more comprehension of the
wider bearing of political changes, a much greater
apprehension of the views of opponents, a far
higher respect for the audience
.addressed, as capable
of appreciating and understanding the best thoughts
as well as the best language that the speaker has to
offer them. It is true that, on the present occasion,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not up to his
usual level. His speech was skilful, for it delayed
as long as possible the key to the great mystery ;
but nothing could prevent the sense of bathos when
the mystery was revealed, and it appears that the
announcement of the new franchise of £7, the fran-
chise that was to work a silent revolution and to in-
spire all Englishmen with a renewed confidence in
the justice and equity of their rulers, was actually
received with much laughter. The mouse that had
been brought forth was so small a one that a sense
of the ludicrous overcame for a moment every other
feeling. In no part of his speech did Mr. Glad-
stone stir his audience, except in his peroration, the

effect of which soon faded away, as the effect of all
perorations must do. It was evident that he did
not believe in his own measure. He himself said
openly that he thought a different measure would
have been a better one. He was but the voice of
the Cabinet, and a man who is only the voice of an
absent host of wavering discordant politicians can
never speak as great speakers speak when they utter
their own thoughts, and strive to impress on others
what they honestly believe. Mr. Gladstone does
not believe in a one-barrelled £7 franchise bill as
he has in his time believed in the repeal of the paper
duty and in the French treaty. He knows that he
is only conforming to the needs of a supposed party
crisis, and not acting with freedom and deliberation
for the benefit of the nation. He therefore spoke as
a clever advocate speaks, honest to his employers, but
still looking on a brief as nothing more than a brief.
It was very wise in him to take the unusual course
of closing such a debate without a reply, for there
was nothing more to say. He had done his duty ;
he had undertaken to lay before the house the pro-
posal of the Government, and he had laid it. There
was nothing left except for the country to be invited
to take a month to consider it, and to say how it
liked it. But if Mr. Gladstoup had been the spokes-
man of a measure that satisfied himself, that seemed
to him worthy of himself and of his political posi-
tion, that inspired him with the consciousness of
serving a great cause, and that rested on arguments
which he thought intellectually incontestable, we
may be sure he would have a tenderer care for the
offspring that he loved, and would have finally com-
mended it to the public with zeal and earnestness, as
he would also, in the introduction of it, have dis-
played those higher qualities of oratory which were
wanting in his speech of Monday. The speech of
Mr. Lowe was, as a piece of argument, far the best
that was heard on either side of the house. But
then he had selected much the easiest ground for
argument when he discussed the question whether
there should be any Reform Bill at all. That the
present House of Commons is not bound by the
opinions of its predecessors is exactly one of
those plain truths which it is very easy to see
when they are well pointed out. As Mr.
Laing justly observed, in a calm and thought-
ful speech which made a great impresion on the
house, the statistics show an overwhelming case for
redistribution, but only a slight case.for reduction
of the franchise. And it must be owned that the
general arguments againit the reduction of the
franchise aro easier to put, are more definite and
telling, than the arguments for it. That there are
arguments by which Mr. Lowe's arguments can be
met we need scarcely say, for the criticisms made on
his speech of last year will in the main apply to his
speech of this session. But we confess that we find
much that is weighty and solid in Mr. Lowe's argu-
ments, and are satisfied that there is no more than
a balance of reasoning against them. Lord Cran-
borne justly remarked that far too much is habitu-
ally made of the argument from a possible revolu-
tion with which Mr. Bright once threatened us all
if the bill were not passed. It is right and wise to
admit a large number of the working-men to the
franchise, and if we think there are reasonable
grounds for supposing that, as a body, they will
make a fairly good use of the privilege, let us admit
them ; but to admit them when we think they will
do harm, because if we do not, they may one day
break our heads, is contemptible. But although
the argumentative part of the debate was good, the
personal, abusive, and epigrammatic part was much
better. The speeches of Mr. Lowe and Mr. Hors-
man, and especially of the former, abounded with
clever things. Mr. Lowe's use of his Virgil was
neat and happy in the extreme, while we must own
that we envy the quickness and scholarship of the
vast audience which is supposed to have seen on the
spot all the neatness and all the happiness of the use
of the word " quater " as bearing upon the abortive
efforts of Lord Russell's latter career. It really was
quite kind of Virgil to have written so aptly, and to
have provided Mr. Lowe with two lines so appro-
priate as those beginning—" Instamus tamen
im-
memores."

[Mr. Gladstone, remarks the Spectator, had said—
" We cannot look upon it as the Trojan horse ap-
proaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled
with armed men bent on ruin, plunder, and con-
fiscation. We cannot join in comparing it with
that monstrum infelix, we cannot say :

" Scandit fatalis machina muros
Fo3ta armis, modiaequu minans illabitur urbi.'
I believe that those persons whom we ask you to
enfranchise ought rather to be welcomed as you
would welcome recruits to your army." And the
Spectator adds, Mr. Lowe caught up the image, and
ingeniously pressed it into the service of the Con-
servative cause. " The right honourable gentleman,"
he said, " who had not time to give us a reason for
introducing the bill, found time to give us a quo-
tation, and it was a quotation of a very curious
kind, because not finding in his classical repertoire
any quotation that would exactly describe the state
of perfect bliss to which his bill would introduce us,
he was induced to take the exact contrary, and
make a quotation to show us what the bill was not—

" Scandit fatalis machina muros
Rata armis,'
At length the fatal fabric mounts the walls
Big with destruction . . .
• • . . then descending down,
It enters o'er our heads and threats the town.

(Dryden's Virgil.)
he exclaimed—' that,' he added, is not my bill.'
Well, that was a very apt quotation, but there was
a curious felicity about it he little dreamed of. The
House remembers that among other proofs of the
degree in which public opinion is enlisted in the
cause of Reform was this—that this is now the fifth
Reform Bill that has been brought since 1851.
Now just attend to the sequel of the passage quoted
by the right honourable gentleman. lam no be-
liever in sortes Virgilianz, and the House will see
why in a moment.
0 patria, 0 divum domus Ilium et inclyta bello
Mmnia Dardanidum ! quater ipso in limine portn
Substitit, atque utero sonitum quater arma dedero.'
" But this is not all :

"' Instamus tamen immemores csecique furore
Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce.'
6 0 sacred city built by hands divine,
O valiant heroes of the Trojan line !
Four times it stuck ; as oft the clashing sound
Of arms was heard and inward groans abound.
Yet mad with zeal and blinded with our fate
We haul along the horse in solemn state,
Then place the dire portent within the tower.'

(Dryden's Virgil.)
" Well, I abominate the pasa,ge contained in the
last two lines, but I mix my confidence with fear."
Mr. Lowe was of course rewarded with even more
acclamations for his classical ingenuity than Mr.
Gladstone for his eloquence, and the house, as we
said, appeared to take a good deal more interest in
the Trojan-horse question than in the £7 franchise.]
But far the best speech in this line was that of Mr.
Bright, which may be counted among the most suc-
cessful specimens of playful abuse of opponents that
have ever been addressed to Parliament. Mr. Lowe
and Mr. Horsman had challenged him, and had
tried to get the laugh of the house against him.
That he should in reply justify himself, and make a
serious and vehement appeal in favour of the bill,
might have been expected. But it could scarcely
have been expected that even so consummate and
masterly a speaker could, with ease and perfect con-
fidence of success, abandon this higher ground of
oratory, and descend into the arena of personalities,
in order to cover two intellectual 'gladiators with a
playful ridicule. Every hit was admirable, not be-
cause it was forcible or convincing, but because it
was so extremely witty, novel, and captivating.
The suggestion that Mr. Horsman had entered
into a political Cave of Adullam, whither he in-
vited.very one that was distressed and every one
that was discontented ; the discovery that Mr. Lowe
and Mr. Horsman had resolved to make a party of
two ; the comparison of them to a hairy terrier as
to which no one can say which is the head and
which is the tail ; the disposal of Mr. Lowe's and
Mr. Marsh's Australian parallels by the remark that
they Seemed to take a Botany Bay view of their
countrymen ; and the picture of Mr. Lowe taking,
like a polypus on a rock, his coulour from the hun-
dred and seventy villagers and seven working-men
of Calne, were flights of Parliamentary humour that
have seldom been surpassed. The accusation against
Mr. Lowe, that he had changed his opinions, that
he forgot out of office what in office he had advo-
cated, and that Mr. Lowe was still casting a longing,
lingering look at the office the warm precincts of
which he had been obliged to quit, would have been
as unjust as it was in part notoriously untrue had
it not been a retort to a similar charge against Mr.
Bright himself, in which Mr. Horsman tried to affix
the worst possible sense to expressions which Mr.
Bright had used lohg before in addressing one of
the gatherings of his admirers. Even, however, in
this contest of personalities, Mr. Lowe and Mr.
Bright found occasion to be civil to etch other.
Mr. Lowe declared that he should be happy at any
time to walk ten miles to hear Mr. Bright, and Mr.
Bright thanked the Marquis of Lansdowne for send-
ing to Parliament an intellectual gladiator. There
was really no more bitterness in the debate on the
bill than there seems likely to be iu its reception by
the country; and just as we may guess that a man
who thinks a £7 franchise the solution of all diffi-
culties may still feel a kindly indulgence for a friend
who thinks it would do more harm than good, so
we may hope that Mr. Bright and Mr. Lowe, in the
midst of their interchange of abuse, have a respect
and esteem for each other.

A DANGEROUS PASSENGER.—An unfortunate ac-
cident has just occurred at Hongkong. A lady coming
ashore in a sampan, while trifling with a revolve; acciden-
tally shot one of the boatmen, who was engaged hnisting
the sail, and he died almost immediately. The jury re-
turned a verdict of accidental death.--China

COUNTRY MARKETS.

NORTHAMPTON—MARcH 17.

Not much passing in wheat. Barley sold at recent cur-
rencies. Oats were steadily disposed of at former quota-
tions. A healthy trade in beans at quite last week's prices.
Peas a heavy sale.
New white wheat, 43u to 47s ; new red, 40s to 465 ; old
white, 48s to 53s ; old red, 43s to 48s per 36 stone: Barley
for malting, 39s to 41s per qr. ; grinding, 28s to 40s per 30
stone. Oats, old, 30s to 34s ' • new, 20s to 28s per 24 stone.
Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 39s to 44s per 38 stone. Peas,
34s to 39s per 36 stone.