The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-26 00:00:00

THE SUN.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1859.

Scarcely has Parliament been prorogued for the
long vacation, scarcely has grouse shooting begun,
hardly have the deerstalkers buckled on their
heather habiliments, when the more inveterate
politicians, great and small, are addressing long
speeches here and there all over the country to
their constituents. It was only the other evening
that we had occasion to record the oratorical say
ings of Mr. COBDEN, two days running, down at
Rochdale. We have a pretty fair prospect of
having a similar display of ultra-liberal rhetoric
down at Huddersfield, in celebration of the triumph
(as it is called by his own supporters) of the
sitting member for that borough—or, as we should
rather designate it more accurately, in celebration
of the partial acquittal of the Mr. LEATHAM, who
was not unseated upon charges of bribery and corrup-
Yesterday we took occasion to remark
upon the clean breast Mr. LINDSAY was
making of it at the beginning of this
week down in his particular borough among
the free and independent, the ultra-liberal and
ultra-reforming electors of Sunderland. To-day
our attention is called—here, to the Whig banquet,
and all the after-dinner speeches, at Winchester—
there, to the Consecration banquet, and all their
after-dinner speeches, at Ashburton. It is amus-
ing to note the broad contrast presented by these
two festivities when drawn thus into comparison.
Upon the one hand, the Ins are so confident in
their position, and so contemptuous when referring
to the powerlessness of the Opposition. Upon the
other, the Outs profess so perfect a reliance upon
their speedy return to power, and such an agree-
able consciousness of the precarious plight of the
existing Government. Here, as ever, the truth
may be discovered, we may rest assured, as nearly
as possible about midway between these ex-
tvemes of anticipation. And it is in this that we
are disposed to recognise the happiest augury for
that truest patriot, your true, and earnest, and
liberal-minded, and not merely party reformer.
That happyaugury, we conceive, lies in the Balance
of Parties, now more nearly attained than ever has
been even momentarily possible during the last
twelve or thirteen years, in fact, ever since the great
Conservative Party was inexorably, and, as we
have ever regarded it (not being partisans), most
magnanimously broken up by Sir ROBERT PEEL.
Since that date of 1845-1846, the elements
of party in the House of Commons, and
more or less, in fact, throughout the whole country,
have been returned to a chaotic confusion.
Every now and then, during the interval which
has since intervened, there have been new and
various, but in each instance, as it has speedily
enough proved, merely temporary combinations.
Hitherto, however, up to this last general election,
the two great parties in the House of Commons
have been each of them numerically weak—weak
from their internal dissensions, from the dropping
off here and there of little groups of restless and
independent politicians, minor sections intrinsically
insignificant, but so far formidable that they could
upon occasions, by combining, produce either a dead
lock in legislation, or an actual, and, as it invariably
happened an abrupt change of Administrations.
Hence, in truth, has it come to pass that all these
twelve or thirteen years last past we have gained
not one step in advance either in Parliamenrary
Reform, in Administrative Reform, or in the more
rational economising of the national resources.

tion.

Happily, however, the hour at length struck
from which was to date a new era in our Parlia-
mentary history, in our progressive legislation, and
for that matter too, we hope, in the widest and
noblest sense, in our Constitutional Government.
The cup of the popular indignation was at
last brimmed up to overflowing. The
dull,
deplorable, do-nothing rule of the Whigs
under Lord JOHN had tired the patience of the
country out, in the first instance, after more than
five, after nearly six dreary years of it had dragged
its slow length along. The first Derbyite Ministry,
that of 1852, being little else than the merest con-
test for power, formed a hiatus in our Parliamentary
annals of just ten months duration. After that
episode the nation became disgusted increasingly
by the two years disastrous misrule of the
ABERDEEN Coalition, with the drifting into war,
the evasion of reform, and the deadly bungling
of a great military and maritime cam-
paign. Disheartened, as well as disgusted, the
nation, through its representatives, accorded to
Lord PALMERSTON, by an impetus of mistaken
reliance, the magnificent and enviable opportunity
of a Parliamentary Dictatorship. Within three
years the illusion was dissipated. The implicit
confidence reposed in Lord PALMERSTON was

responded to during those three years by an arro-
gance of bearing that, it is so far satisfactory to
know, is almost unexampled in the history of our
Legislature. It was when this arrogance, and even
insolence had at length reached a point beyond which
further endurance by the House and the country was
absolutely impossible that the strong Government,
the popular Government, the one only practical
Government, went down one fine evening, or rather
one chilly morning in the cheerless month of Feb-
ruary, whew ! like a pack of cards. It was the
fall, everyone said then, of Humpty Dumpty. But
there, too, every one was again mistaken. Here is
Humpty Dumpty back again—and dragged back,
moreover, in triumph, by all the QUEEN'S horses
and all the QUEEN'S men. But between his
downfalling and his uprising have occurred
those incidents which, we rejoice to know'
give us under any and every circumstance a
fairer prospect than we have had now for twelve
or thirteen years past consecutively—of something
like progress in Reform and of something like a
strong Government. First of all, the Conservative
Administration by coming into power again
when It did and as it did—formally
pledged itself to the acceptance of Reform
as a Necessity. It yielded a guarantee of
its sincerity in this by conceding successively the
Jew Bill and one of the points of the Charter
namely, Property Qualification. Secondly, the
general election that has so recently taken place
produced a result in its way no less important, and,
if possible, still more satisfactory. It brought
about, for the first time since the date
of Sir ROBERT'S memorable disruption, already
particularised, that more equal Balance of Party
in which we recognise the surest and the happiest
augury—for progress:once more in Reform, and for
strength once more in our Governments. For
these things we are indebted, if to any one, to
the Derbyites—or rather to the circumstances of
which they availed themselves to the utmost of
their ability.

As curious an instance as we have ever met with
of the tenacity of the monopolists and the incon-
sistency of Whig free-traders now lies before us.
We refer to the " Report of the Select Committee
on the QUEEN'S Printer's Patent," which gives him
the exclusive privilege of printing the Bible in
England, except that the two Universities enjoy
the right, by charter, to print them also. Our
readers will remember that when Mr. BAINES, the
member for Leeds, appealed to the Home Secretary
as to the intention of the Government to advise
her MAJESTY on the renewal of the patent, the
free-trader, Sir G. C. LEWIS, met him with all
sorts of excuses for evading the subject ; he did not
know that Bibles could be printed cheaper, and he
must have guarantees for their accuracy, and so
forth; till our Whig free-trader drove Mr. BAINES
to accept a select committee to ascertain what he
ought to have known without a thought—whether
unrestricted competition were or were not the best
securities for quality and cheapness in regard to
Bibles as well as to everything else. Had Mr.
WALPOLE and the Tories taken such a course, it
might almost have been respected as consistent—
certainly forgiven ; but Sir G. LEWIS fell very
much in our estimate of his soundness when he
could palter with what, to a free-trader, ought to
have been so plain a matter.

Well, here we have the evidence of the first wit-
nesses examined, and very amusing it is. It is due
to Mr. BAINES, the chairman, to mention that he
appears to fulfil his duty most admirably. He
is evidently thoroughly up in the subject,
shows considerable acuteness in detecting the
evasions of the monopolists, and in leading
them to self-refuting answers, yet all his questions
are those of a man of business notions, and all of
them expressed in the most urbane phraseology.
Mr. SPOTTISWOODE himself was the first examined;
but even his ability, and the respect of all parties
for his literary and social position, cannot give a
monopolist the best of the case in a free-trade con-
troversy. On the question of cheapness, for in-
stance, he wants to prove that restricted competi-
tion is the best plan : his proof is that the Bible
is now printed cheaper than any other book of its
size, which Mr. CIIILDS, of Bungay, who has
printed a large number for Scotland and for the
Tract Society, proves ought to be the case. But
Mr. SPOTTISWOODE wanted to prove that the com-
petition of the three has produced this cheapness.
Two price lists of his own are, however, put into
his hands; and he is asked to compare them. It
appears that in the space of three months his own
prices fell more thE•n 50 per cent.—the total of prices
in November being £l9 12s. 6d.;and in February £9
is. 6d.! and it turns out that just in that time the
Scottish monopoly was abolished, and Scottish
Bibles were published at free-trade prices ! All
kinds of excuses are resorted to, both by Mr. SPOT-
TISWOODE and Mr. F. COME, another witness, the
superintendent of the Oxford Bible press, but all
in vain. Changes in the price of ink and paper,
and the introduction of machinery and the like,
were mentioned ; but the obstinate fact would re-
main that such changes were small and gradual,
and the fall in price was immense and sudden. The
three competitors had cheapened nothing, till the
Scotch competition had alarmed them. At fifty
per cent. profit nothing could have prevented the
smuggling of Bibles across the border. The Inqui-
sition itself would have been defied. The three
monopolists, therefore, who till that time had com-
bined to charge us double prices for our Bibles, at
once improved their management and sought a
profit out of a larger sale,
Judiciously enough the monopolist witnesses, and
their friends in the committee, tried hard to prove
that the competition of thirty printers would not
serve the public better than the competition of
three. The rule of three did not apply to Bible
printing and monopoly ; if three competitors and
five or six Scotch oires have reduced the price of
Bibles by one half, how much will ten times that
number reduce them' is no fair Example for
COCKER. Well, it is no doubt true that the pre-
position IN ill not hold, or we should next have Bibles
for nothing ; but it came out clearly in evidence
that there was abundant scope for trade inventive-
ness in the quality, and character, and getting up
of Bibles as of other things ; and that, if they could
not be much cheaper, they might be greatly im-
proved. Of course the real question is—what
right have three printers to ask Parliament and
the QUEEN that Bible printing should be limited
to their workshops?
Here it is that the question of accuracy is raised.
The monopolists profess that they secure a clegiee
of accuracy not to be attained by competition.
Now we should, of course, deny that the
Government has any more to do with the accuracy
1 of our Bibles than of our BACONS and MILTON'S.
The very demand proves the ignorance of those
i
1 who make it, of the first principles of religion as
well of commerce. Do we want a Pope in
Downing-street a
nisng-street to sanction the present version, as
the POPE of Rome sanctisns the Vulgate or the
Douay versions? Do we, in this sense, recognise
the QUEEN as Defender of the Faith ? But,
first, numeroua instances of inaccuracies in
the Bibles printed before the monopoly was
threatened, were produced. Secondly, the pa-

tent, and the charters of the universities,
do not bind the monopolists to accuracy. Thirdly,
Mr. CHILDS, of Bungay, has already printed largely,
and with perfect accuracy, both for the Tract So-
ciety, and for Scotland, and for the Roman Catholics
also. _Fourthly, The sufficient guarantee for accu-
racy is, that Bible printing could be undertaken
only by printers of large capital, persons who had
a character to maintain; and the vigilance of all
denominations, of all readers, and of all the large
societies, through whom the great bulk of Bibles
are sold, is the true commercial guarantee, and the
all-sufficient one. Much stress was laid on the
correct punctuation—the fact is this, both in the
Old and New Testament it is a matter of taste.
There is no inspired punctuation—none whatever
in the earliest manuscripts.
The sale of English Bibles in America was ad-
verted to, but we cannot perceive what it has to
do with the right or wrong of monopoly. Ameri-
cans, as Dr. CASWALL gave evidence, would never
tolerate a Government patent or even guarantee.
Mr. ClllLDS—whose evidence was worth more than
that of all the rest—showed that the price of Ame-
rican skilled labour was so high that their Bibles
might well cost them as much as ours ; and the
mononpolists pay no duty for paper.
We advise Mr. BAINES to keep a sharp look out
lest we be saddled with another job like that of the
Scottish Board. If one be created let it be a self-
supporting one. Let those who want Bibles authen-
ticated by a board pay for the authentication, just
as persons do who have their gold coined at the
mint. We should be content with the accuracy
produced by unrestricted competition ; if the Bible
Society, or the Christian Knowledge Society, or
tradesmen want a Government guarantee, then let
them pay for it by a fee to the Board which grants
it. The evidence is much of it very interesting.
The straightforward answers of Mr. BESLEY, Mr.
CHILDS, and the free-trade witnesses, compared
with the obstinate and evasive fencing of the
monopolists, is itself enough to settle the question.

CITY OF LONDON LYING-IN

HOSPITAL.

The City of London boasts that it is fond of
publicity in its doings. Its accounts are, in some
fashion, made public now. Its Common Council
debates are public ; its Lord Mayor has a grand
public show on his inauguration, and it has given,
and will give " public receptions" to statesmen, to
generals, and even to Sovereigns. We used often
to wonder, however, that it should proclaim its
readiness to give " public receptions" to a class of
persons who do not usually covet that honour.
We almost thought the announcement must be the
painter's mistake. It is not so, however. The
City of London Lying-in Hospital has been new
painted, and still the announcement is that it is for
the " Public Reception of Pregnant Women," and
that these public receptions of such " interesting"
persons, and in whom the public take such inte-
rest is—" according to Act of Parliament."

- 'AVZ.',')
V ..)
--'4-7::', ,L t k
,_.
f.,..„- V
. --,
:',-.4. • , 4 ...,
r .Y-•,1 '
..,' .. , '..,“i ' V t". T4O 4.
o t-,,,,---,-,..:
. %., Al
1,
1, \
61g-1- ~ r *i.l,, 47'•11 0 ' ' I,l°OlV ''' '-
` t. . S'
s • =-,,,,,