The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times asserts that the Scotch members and Scotch
Reform filled the place of makeshifts on Monday night.
Like the scene at a theatre which is carried on while the
manager is preparing for something wonderful behind, so
the Scotch Reform Bill filled up an evening previous to
the declaration of Irish policy. It must be acknowledged
that the Scotchmen had, as usual, their debate all to them-
selves. There were only three members not Scotchmen
who took any part in the discussion. The three were Mr.
Hadfield, Mr. Rearden, and Mr. Darby Griffith, and there
are some exceptions which prove a rule. Mr. Hadfield
was for throwing out the bill altogether—a course approved
by one only of seventeen or eighteen members who fol-
lowed him. A chorus of Scotchmen protested against the
supposition that they were not ready to take what they
could get, and even the bold Mr. Baxter did not raise his
voice to protest against the gift of additional members
as he did when the Scotch Bill was first introduced. If,
indeed, any hesitation about the bill existed before Sir
James Fergusson spoke, it must have vanished when he
explained the views of the Government. According to
his statement, the bill consists of two clauses and a series
of proposals drawn in blank. The first clause provides
that the borough franchise in Scotland shall be the same
as that approved for England last session. The second
clause deals in the same fashion with the county franchise.
Then comes the proposition that Scotland shall receive a
certain number of additional members. Mr. Laing is
modest in asking for ten, and no more. Some Scotch
members establish by statistics that fifteen would
barely satisfy the claims of justice, while Mr.
Baillie Cochrane has his own figures, proving
that Scotland is entitled to twenty-five. The num-
ber being quite indeterminate, the way in which the
additional seats shall be distributed is also open to the
fullest review. It may be altered in any degree the House
pleases. We confess this announcement gives us more
pleasure than the threatened elasticity in the number of
seats to be given to Scotland. Although jealous of any
addition to the number of the House, we have never been
able to persuade ourselves that 658 is the perfection of
wisdom, or that the change from 658 to 665 would con-
vert a deliberative assembly into a confused mob.
But a line must be drawn somewhere, and if
a still further increase of the number of Scotch
members be contemplated, the necessity of providing
for them by the disfranchisement of the smaller
English boroughs may prove irresistible. As to the
scheme of redistribution proposed by the Ministry, it
was so faulty that the liberty of revising it in almost
every particular was a necessity. The Lord-Advocate
defended some of its provisions, but with a loose-
ness which did not indicate any confidence in his
argument. His chief plea on behalf of the scheme for
denuding the Lowland counties of their towns was that
something of the same kind had been done in 1832 ; but
the House of Commons is persuaded that the supply of
%.‘ isdom in the world was not exhausted in the days of
the great Reform. The House was languid, and assented
to the bill, which, with certain amendments, may ripen
almost noiselessly into an Act.

Experience has long ago shewn, as the Herald poinft
Out, that no Ministry can force through the House a
Reform Bill cut and dried in Downing-street ; and, as-
luredly, if concessions are to be made in the matter of the
Scotch Reform Bill to the common judgment of the House,
the question whether this or that constituency is to receive
a member involves no principle of right or policy by which
a Government is hound to stand or fall. The fear expressed
y Mr. Darby Griffith that Government would have tch
Concede the full extent of the largest demands put forward
on behalf of Scotland, or to give the forty additione3
seats demanded by one eager advocate of Irish claims,
implies a total oblivion of the temper of Parliamen
as well as of the distinction which every public man ha.
daily to draw, and knows how and where to draw, between
servile submission and reasonable compromise. Whatever
pretensions Scotland may make will have to be established
before judges by no means biassed in her favour, and what
ever concessions the House may consent to sanction tb
country will heartily endorse. As Mr. Laing said, the
opinion of the more moderate and unprejudiced portion of
the Scottish people is in favour of the bill, with a few not
extravagant modifications ; we may add that the opinion of
moderate Englishmen is in favour of dealing with Scottish
claims in a liberal and generous spirit.
The Daily News observes that the new Chancellor of
the Exchequer, fresh from the congratulations of his
brethren of the Grand Jury, took his seat on Monday,
and at once proceeded to celebrate his return by a
piece of financial legislation. Fortune, however, whicb
accompanied him as far as the table of the House,
appears to have thought that for the time she had
done enough for her favourite. The Fines and
Fees (Ireland) Bill, the second reading of which
Mr. Hunt moved, was thrown out without so much as a
division, As soon as its principle and object were ascer-
tained it was objected to from all parts of the House—by
Mr. Henley and General Dunne, as well as by Mr.
ders and Mr. Cardwell. Thus, when the Speaker declared
that the " Noes had it, Mr. Disraeli gave way, and suf..
.fured the first bill of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer
Ito be lost.

We have now, the Post observes, the official conhrma.
Pion of our announcement that the Foreign-office agencies
were about to be abolished. A long statement was pro-
,pnted on the 7th instant to both Houses of Parliament on
his troublesome subject ; and it is to be hoped that we
ball soon have heard the last of a condition of things
which has been generally condemned by all impartial
persons for more than eighty years, when an inquiry was
first instituted respecting this abuse, even then an old one.
There is every reason to believe that the agents who still
levy tax upon public salaries under the control of the
.Foreign Office are respectable gentlemen, who have neve;,
up to this time clearly realised to themselves the objec-
tionable nature of the profits accruing from this trade.
Lord Stanley, therefore, only treated them with the kind-
ness due to unconscious error when he stated to them
that, although he contemplated the abolition of the
system, he was willing to receive from the agents any
statement which they might wish to make upon the sub-
ject. They have availed themselves of this opportunity;
and it would have been surprising if ordinary men hae
not endeavoured by every possible means to escape
the forfeiture of the large gains they have enjoyed.
Looking back over some eighty years, the Post shows that
the question has been again and again shelved. From
Lord Castlereagh until this time the agencies have been
allowed to flourish in spite of active reformers. The agents,
having official friends to speak for them, were allowed to
remain. In 1854 Lord Clarendon stated his willingness to
consent to the abolition of the agencies. Lord Malmes-
bury is reported also to have wished to suppress them.
Every one by turns has been prevented carrying his inten-
tions into effect, and now the old stratagems so often sue•
cessful are being again tried to frustrate the purpose o;
Lord Stanley. The present returns now laid before the
public, with the supplement for which we are to be taxed,
is merely another attempt to evade and shelve a (lea,
Lion which has been successfully trifled with for eighty
years.

The great rowing case has now, says the Telegrap4,
Gone through one stage in the Court of Queen's Bench,
and Sadler has gained the advantage of a substantial pre-
liminary decision. The verdict of the jury, delivered
last night, after some deliberation, is, in effect, that
Sadler did not receive sufficient notice of the referee's
intention to put him out of the race if he would not
Start. But the questions of law which are reserved pre-
sent several debatable matters, especially affecting the
jurisdiction of referees, and the interpretation to be
~laced on the recognised rules of boat - racing,
It is a moot point whether the referee had power
to award the stakes. The Lord Chief Justice
said that the whole case turned upon the referee's
jurisdiction, and that it was a question of law. What th,.
'dispute most strikingly illustrates is the laxity of the rules
and regulations at present governing watermen's races.
The issues raised are altogether novel, and the effect of the
ultimate decision of the courts, whatever it may be, should
stimulate boating legislators to revise and define their
code. Stringent measures should be taken to inflict penal-
ties on men who will not start when ordered, or start only
when a " foul "is certain to ensue. It would be well,
also, if the remark of the Lord Chief Justice on the
shameful misbehaviour of the steamers produced some
amendment, and if steps were taken to keep them in their
proper place, astern. Do not let us have the vices of the
turf perpetrated on the water.
After Mr. Hardy's explanation and exposition of what
the Government knew, the story of the Clerkenwell
explo-
sion reads to the Star like a ction. Is there a singl
householder in this kingdom who would let his house be
blown up, as Clerkenwell with the fullest and
most exact intimation of treiseTpctedevent in his posses-
sion for eight and-twenty hours was,
beforehand ? If the
Government had disbelieved the information,beei as they
naturally might, the blame would haveconsiderable,
but it would have been comparatively small. They be-
lieved it thoroughly, however. 'Without hesitation,e we
pronounce this story unprecedented in the r
official stupidity. Fortunately, its incidents a
to oecsro
drag,
scono-f
con-
spicuously and grossly absurd that it is likely
upon those concerned a censure more condign than official
unintelligence usually receives.

If the Standard is to believe the story made public
ny the Pays. that the foremost and hitherto most respected
French journals are in the pay of foreign Governments,
particularly such Governments as those of Signor Ratt Izzi,
it will have to be shewn something more convincing than
a few desultory unauthenticated excerpts from the post-
humous papers of an obscure agent, which would prove
nothing definite, even if they were all genuine and all true.
We believe that the Pobv has produced no documents
which were not submitted to the Jury of Honour; and it is
unreasonable to suppose that they would not have been at
the disposal of M. de Kerv6guen when he cast about him so
anxiously for corroboration of the charges made by La
Finance. Moreover, the conduct of the Pays in the
matter has been marked, we regret to say, by shameless
prevarication, that journal one day printing the most
unmistakeable insinuations, and the next day denying
that it had ever made them. It is possible that more may
yet follow; but we have no hesitation in saying that so
far the Pays has done itself as little honour by its attempts
at discrediting its contemporaries as the majority in the
Corps L6gislatif in refusing to hear M. Havin when it had
Duce lideud to M, i Xer,dvuent