The Sun.
London, England, 1868-12-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times finds faun wit'h the present mode of parlia-
mentary procedure. If there were any sufficient reasone
for retaining the statute of Anne, the effects of it might
be borne with patience ; but it is in fact never anything
more than an embarrassment, and under favourable cir-
cumstances it shines as a unique expedient for causing
trouble and provoking unnecessary expense. Sometimes,
in spite of the feeling which exists that the practice is
unfair, the temptation of worrying or of plunder.
ing a candidate who has taken office is too
strong to be resisted. Sir John Coleridge, for
instance, was returned by a comparatively small
majority for Exeter, and yet by a majority large enough
to be decisive ; and it is inconceivable that the fact of his
having become Solicitor-General and been knighted
would alienate his supporters ; yet it was, we believe,
debated for a short time whether his re-election should not
be opposed. And all this for a statute the reason of
which has passed away. Who can now pretend to appre-
hend danger from the power of the Crown? We can
remember many instances in which uncertainty about
re-election has hindered the accession to a Government of
a member who would have been a valuable addition to
it, but to whom the expense and labour of a contest
would have been a serious difficulty. We can remember
none in which the necessity of the sanction of a consti-
tuency to the taking of office has punished an improper
combination ; we have never heard of any instance in
which it has prevented it. There is, in fact, nothing but
a vague and idle sentiment of Conservatism to oppose to
its abolition ; and it must now be a matter of regret to all
who consider it that the proposition to repeal the Act,
when made in the Reform discussions of 1867, escaped
attention in the multiplicity of topics which then engaged
attention.

The Standard says it must be accepted as rather
ominous of the new state of things in Parliament that
several of the notices of motion yesterday were of a
nature to proclaim the advent of a novel influence. Evi-
dently members were in a hurry to shew how completely
they were in accord with Mr. Gladstone in his latest mood.
Motions to repeal the income tax unconditionally— to
abolish the rating clauses in the Reform Act—to assimi-
late the laws relating to the succession to real property
to those affecting personal property—to alter the system
of registration —to cast the expenses of elections
upon the boroughs and counties were among
the first notified on the first day of the householder Parlia-
ment. Most significant of all was a notice of motion
given by Mr. Maguire, bearing upon the question of cor-
porate property in Ireland. The intention of the member
for Cork is to move that it is undesirable that corporations
should be holders of landed property, and that it is the
duty of the Government to relieve them of such property,
in order that it may be sold to private persons, with
special rights of pre-emption to the existing occupiers.
We commend this motion of a supporter of the
Government to the electors of the City of London.
Here, then, we have, even earlier than we had
anticipated, a precise realisation of what we had
predicted as a necessary consequence of Mr. Gladstone's
Irish Church policy. No sooner is the new House of
Commons formed, which was elected to serve Mr. Glad-
stone, than we have a distinct intimation that the property
of all other corporations is to be no more sacred from
assault than is the property of the Irish Church. " Con-
fiscation," as Mr. Disraeli said, "is contagious." We see
bow quickly he has caught the prevaill-..g contagion, or,
rather, how eager he is to pros' ,;.,‘.3 infection. The
signal being given of a raid upon existing institutions,
Mr. Maguire has only responded in strict logical sequence.
The Herald observes that the means by which some of
the private members mean to signalise themselves in the
course of the coming year are instructive, if not important.
Mr. Vernon Harcourt has lost no time in shewing that he
means, if he can, to take a very active and influential
position in the House of Commons. He intends to move
for a committee to inquire into the laws relating to the
registration of voters. Mr. Hardcastle, having lost his
church-rates question, has taken up the game laws—not,
however,*as it would seem, with a view to their total abolition.
Mr. Locke King rides his old hobby, and proposes to assimi-
late the law of succession to real to that which obtains with
regard to personal property. Mr. Fawcett, fresh from an
expensive contest at Brighton, announces his intention to
make another effort to throw the costs of elections upon
the rates; and Mr. Sheridan, with the modesty which
characterises him, intends to ask Parliament to repeal the
ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act. But the two most
remarkable notices are those given by Mr. Maguire and
an honourable member whose name the reporters do not
give, but who is destined to remain but a few hours in
the obscurity which now involves him. Mr. Maguire, who,
it must be remembered, has the credit, according to the
member for Greenwich, of having opened the Prime
Minister's eyes to the real condition of things in Ireland,
and whose patriotism and ability Mr. Gladstone,
mindful probably of some fervid laudations pronounced
upon him by the member for Cork, has guaranteed with
a superfluity of assurances, proposes nothing less than the
revocation of the charters of the City Companies which
own estates in Ireland, and the sale of their pos-
sessions, a right of pre-emption being given to the tenants.
The other notice is of an intention to call attention to the
over taxation of the country, with a view to provide a
remedy. Here is, indeed, a subject worthy of the largest
powers. We admire the courage of the "great unknown"
who has undertaken it, and all we hope is that he will get
a very early day for introducing it. It would be a national
calamity if Mr. Lowe should be compelled to frame his
Budget before the honourable member has an opportunity
of showing what remedy is to be found for over-taxation.
The Daily News thinks that if the best sign of common
wisdom is the recognition of a truer wisdom—if a nation
and a representative assembly do all that can be reason-
ably expected of them when they shew a discernment of
the problems that await solution, and pick out with
sagacity the men who are competent to solve them, the
Parliament of Household Suffrage and the men who have
chosen it have not been wanting. The intellectual average
of the House of Commons has been considerably reduced
b'y the rejection of men like Mr. J. S. Mill, Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. Horsman, Mr. Osborne, and other eminences of diffe-
rent kinds and degrees. But these gentlemen were rejected
not on account of the qualities in which they were supe-
rior to ordinary men, but for the unfortunate promi-
nence which they succeeded in giving to qualities in
which they fell below the average good sense and right
judgment of their constituents. The academic Liberals
who have sat at the feet of Mr. Mill and Mr. Goldwin
Smith underwent a great discomfiture at the last general
election. But they chose to present themselves to small
and corrupt constituencies, in which they might have
anticipated failure. The election of Mr. Parker for
Perthshire, of - Mr. Fawcett for Brighton, and of
Mr. Trevelyan for the Border BorouAs, is
_proof
that if the battle-fields had been' better chosen
the academic Liberals might have made good
their claims to parliamentary hononrs. me defeat
of Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Austin Bruce, and Lord Har-
tington was due to local and passing causes from which
it would be absurd to generalise. 'T hese and other eminent
men, unfortunately thrown out at the general election,
will probably find their way back into Parliament as vacan-
cies occur: The House of Commons as it now stands is
fairly representative of the country. The beginning of a
gradual change is visible in its composition. The direct
representation of the aristocracy within its walls
is appreciably, if slightly, reduced; other classes
have gained a corresponding proportion of power.
in
terests
of pure thought and high culture and the direct
of the working classes are too sparsely represented, it is
because pure thought and high culture have notyet entered
in alliance as close as might be desired with common
sense, and because the working classes have not had time
to sift men truly representative, from the herd of pre-
tenders who on their own prompting have rushed to the
front. The Parliament of 1868 cannot avoid judgment;
but it may fairly protest against being prejudged.

The withdrawal of the Greek and Turkish Ambassadors
from Constantinople and Athens respectively suggests to
the Post some discussion on the Protectorate of Greece
by England, France, and Russia. The sole motive
which directed that protectorate was the desire of
affording to Greece, by securing her from -molesta-
tion, the opportunity of maintaining a respectable
position among the States of Europe. Up to
the present, however, even her most enthusiastic
admirers must admit she has done nothing to justify the
hopes which were entertained concerning her. Her
domestic affairs have been wretchedly mismanaged. No
attempt has been made to retrieve the disgrace which
attaches to her in the money markets of Europe ; nor has
she sought in any way to gain the respect or confidence of
other States. She conceives, apparently, that her real
mission is to drive the Turk out of Europe,
and to substitute the Cross for the Crescent on
the dome of St. Sophia. That this, however, is
not her mission it is the obvious duty of the protecting
Powers now to make her fully understand. If this pro-
tectorate is to b: maintained, it must be of a qualified, n)t
of an absolute character. The consideration on which it
is accorded must be observed, and that consideration is
that Greece shall strictly abstain from meddling in the
affairs of other States. England and France have as much.
—nay, more—interest in the ?maintenance of the indepen-
dence of Turkey as they have in preserving hers, and if
she would continue to retain her autonomy, she must
manifest that respect f;:r the rights of her neighbours
xvhich is dictated by the fundamental principles of inter-
n a ei al a.r.

The resolution passed by the House of Representatives
" all forms of repudiation," is, the To yraph
thinks, an act of homage to European no less than A me-
rican opinion, and mf y help to reassure those holders of
United States Bonds who feared the logical issue of the
utterances which were made last autumn, in opposite camps,
uy Mr. Pendleton and the valorous Butler. At the same time
we nuist point out that, whatever its moral influence as a
protest, the wording of the resolution by no means
excludes the possibility of greenback redemption, should
Congress see fit to propose that mode of paying off the
Five-Twenties. All that the Representatives did on
Monday was to declare that they would not offer to the
national creditors "a less amount than the Government
has contracted to pay." Secretary Nl`Culloch and General
Butler would unite in endorsing this language,
which does not touch the real point at issue. The
question is, what has Government ' contracted to pay
dollars in gold or dollars in currency? So far as the resolu-
tion is concerned, that difficulty remains just where it was.
We have no reason to think that the new Congress will
sanction any form of repudiation ; we merely observe that
should its members hereafter, under external pressure,
propose to pay off the Five-Twenties in greenbacks, there
is nothing in the resolution to hinder their doing 50 with
nerfect consistency,

LORD CAIRNS AND LORD FO.RTESCUE.

The follawina correspondence appears In the Times:—
" No. 1.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescue.
" 5, Cromwell Houses, Dec. 11.

" My Lora,—i observe, in the Times of to-day it n
reported that yeur lordship at a dinner at Barnstaple or
the Bth inst., in acknowledging the toast of The Lord
Lieutenant and Magistrates of the County,' and com,
menting on the members of the late Government, statec
you had yourself 'twice witnessed the detection of LorC
Cairns in misquoting despatches and Acts of Parliament.'
"I should be glad to hear from your lordship that thh
report is incorrect ; but if it be correct, I take this mode—
as the House of Lords is not sitting for the purpose of
questions or debate—of asking you to furnish me with s
reference to the despatches and Acts of Parliament'
which you allege were misquoted by me, with a statement
of the ' misquotations' to which you referred, and of the
occasions when, as you say, you yourself witnessed the
detection' of these misquotations. _ .

" I have the honour to be, my lord, your most obedient
servant, " C tIRNS."

No. 2.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescue.

" 5, Cromwell Houses, Dec. 12.
" My Lord,—Since writing my letter of yesterday I
have been furnished with a copy of the North Devon
Journal of the 10th inst., in which your lordship is
reported to have spoken, at the public dinner at Barn-
staple, on the Bth inst., in the following words :
" g Then we hear a great deal about the admirable
Lord Chancellor in the late Government. Undoubtedly
he was a man of consummate eloquence and ability, but
during the short time he has had a seat in the House of
Lords I have been twice an eye-witness to his detection in
the act of misquoting despatches and Acts of Parliament,
and of his misquoting them with an effrontery and a dex-
terity painfully suggestive of a familiarity with such
practices.'

` I now beg to ask your lordship whether this report is
correct.

" I have the honour to be, my lord, your most obedient
servant " CAIRNS."

"No. 3.

" Castle-bill, Dec. 12, 1868.

"My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge your
lordship's letter of the 11th, inquiring whether the words
attributed to me in a short report in the Times of the
speech made after the dinner to Mr. Acland last Tuesday
was correct, and asking me to furnish you with a reference
to the despatches and Acts of Parliament which I alleged
to have been misquoted by you.
" I saw none of the reports of the Devonshire papers
before their publication, but from their unanimity I fear
I must have omitted to use the words ' misrepresentation or
misquotation' as I ought on that occasion. It is with
shame and regret I have to acknowledge that, while
complaining in such strong terms of inaccuracy
on the part of your lordship, I have been guilty of it
myself, and I hasten to tender the apology due to you for
my indefensible language about you in that speech.
Your lordship did not misquote the despatches cited by
you in your attempt to convict Lord Carnarvon of
inconsistency and inaccuracy in the debate on the
Irish Church Bill. You only, in my opinion, and I
fancy in that of most of your hearers, seriously
misrepresented their bearing on my noble friend's con-
duct. Your lordship did not, as I had imagined before
referring to-day to the reports of the debate, quote, much
less misquote, the Act placing upon the Consolidated Fund
an annual grant of .4-20,300 for Church purposes in the
West Indies. You only, as was subsequently shewn by
Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham in the House
of Lords, and since verified from ' Hansard by myself,
altogether misstated the time and circumstances of the in-
troduction of that grant, and utterly misrepresented its
character. Your lordship in the same speech assigned as a
reason for your Government's proposal to discontinue that
grant dispositions and intentions on the part of the West
Indian colonists which, when challenged to the proof, you
did not attempt to substantiate.
"It was not so much these misrepresentations (for, as J.
too well know, men are liable unintentionally to be led
into them, especially by the excitement of speaking) as
your lordship's marked omission to tender Lord Carnarvon
one word of apology for them, an omission felt by many,
and publicly complained of by Lord Granville, that left
such a strong impression on my mind. It was that omission
which suggested to me the not absolute impossibility of simi-
lar inaccuracy on the part of your lordship in your thrice
repeated interruption and correction of my words when
following your lordship in the discussion of the 31st and
32nd Victoria, c. 73. It was that omission which led me
then to hurry out immediately to look at the clause under
discussion (7th and Bth George IV., c. 73, s. 9), instead of
accepting, as I otherwise should, at once the correction of
a Lord Chancellor on such a point. I need hardly remind
your lordship that there I found the very words I had
used ; while what your lordship, with such unaccountable
eagerness, thrice substituted, amid the cheers of your
friends, was not in tlic clause.

"Dec. 13.

" I bad written nearly thus much before receiving your
lordship's second letter this morning. I cannot, lam
sorry to say, but acknowledge from my own recollection,
confirmed by the reports in other Devonshire papers, that
I used the words attributed to me in the North Devon
Journal. I had already prepared before the post came a
letter to the Times, which, with some corrections, I enclose
for your lordship's transmission, should you think proper
to send it in preference to publishing the correspondence.
In that letter your lordship will see I fully acknowledge
my misstatement, and own that my comments on those
instances of your lordship's reckless assertion in the
excitement of discussion were couched in terms which
subsequent reflection, and still more the bitter lesson of
my own inaccuracy, have convinced me I was not justified
in using then, and ought publicly to retract and apologise
for now, as I desire to do.

" I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's
obedient servant, " FORTESCUE.
" P.S.—I have not finished making a fair copy of my
corrected letter, and the post is going, but your lordship
shall receive it to-morrow,"

" No. 4.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescue.

"Dec. 15, 1868.

" My Lord, —I have to acknowledge your lordship's
letter dated the 12th and 13th instant, and also another
letter to the same effect, which your lordship offers
me the option of transmitting to the editor of the
Times.

" As your lordship desires to retract and apologise for
the statement of which I complained, your letter, had it
contained no more, would have left nothing for me to do
but to accept the apology and forget that the circumstance
had occurred.

" But your lordship adds to the apology an elaborate
narrative, by way, as I understand it, of an excuse ; and I
am forced to refer to this, lest I should appear to admit
either its accuracy or relevancy.
" As to a discussion which your lordship states to have
taken place in the House of Lords during the progress of
anAct of last session (the 31st and 32nd Victoria, c. 73), you
do not supply me with any idea or words connected with
it by which it could be identified. I have looked at the
reports of the debates both in the Times and Hansard,'
and I can find nothing whatever on the subject. lam
sorry to say I have no recollection of, and I do not even
understand, what you refer to. But if you had then any
complaint to make of any statement made by me in
debate, I apprehend that the House of Peers, and not an
election dinner at Barnstaple, would have been the fitting
place in which to make it.
" You refer at greater length to the debates on the Irish
Church Bill, and to an argument adduced in those debates,
derived from the past and present position of the Church
in the West Indian Colonies. I have no intention of reopen-
ing that subject in this correspondence. I cannot accept
your lordship's version of either the condition or details of
the argument, or of the facts on which it was founded.
This, however, is matter of opinion. Your lordship is
of course free to form your own opinion, and I do
not expect you to concur in mine. But what I own is to
me matter both of surprise and regret, is that your lordship
should see in any view of that passage of parliamentary
history, even the colour of justification for an attack made
not in your place in the House of Lords, but at a public
dinner in a country town ; not in self-defence, but wholly
without provocation ; not in the heat of debate, but in
ceremonious acknowledgment of a non-politlrlil toast ;
an attack which, if your lordship understands it as I
understand it, imputed rim-sonal dishonour and deceit to a
member of a Government which you wished to discredit.
" I propo3P, as your lordship anticipates, to request the
publication of this correspondence, and I therefore return
the letter addressed to the editor of the Tinies.—l have the
honour to be, my lord, your most obedient servant,

` CAIRNS."

THE CRYSTAL PALACE. —The report of the
Crystal Palace Company shows that there is v. balance of
£16,128 as the result of the year's working. There has
been to sonic extent a falling off in the receipts on ordinary
days—a fact which the directors attribute in part to the
"unfortunate rise in fares" on the two lines of railway to
the Palace. On the other hand, the number of visitors on
the days of special attractions has been maintained, and the
attendance of season ticket holders exceeds that of last
year by 72,106. The restoration of that portion of the
building which was destroyed by fire two years ago has
been gradually pushed on, and the greater part of it will
be "restored to the attractions of the coming Christmas
season." The Palace is uow insured in the amount of
nearly £llO,OOO.