The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 15, 1868.

LOXDON, IVEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 18G3.

-b-

In the House of Lords, yesterday, the Royal
Assent was given by Commission to the Scotch and
Irish Reform Bills, the Boundary Bill, and a num-
ber of other bills. It is satisfactory that so much
progress should have been made., and that these
v4p,tdouti natters should have been zo Jar 4sposed
of. The question of railway fares was then dis-

cussed. The resolution of Lord TAUNTON was an
admirable one, and it is well that the House should
have adopted it, for it is most likely to answer the
desired ends, and to serve the best interests of the
public. It proposes that no railway bill
shall be read a second time which increases
the rates of charges for passengers and goods 1
until a special report from the Board of Trade shall.
have been laid upon the table. This will meet all
objections, and enable our legislators to steer clear
of all conflicting interests without prejudicing one
side or injuring the other. Circumstances m*y
arise which render it needful for the companies to
increase their fares, but then let all the facts re-
lating to them be duly inquired into before any
permission be granted. Making all due allowance
for the exigencies of the railway companies the in-
terests of the travelling community must not be
overlooked, and a good deal may be said on both
sides of the question. Lord PEDESDALE'S rule
is a hard one, and it is not likely that
Parliament will agree to his proposition. At the
same time it would be well that the railway com-
panies should take due time to consider all things
relating to the fares proposed, so that they may, if
possible, make no change, for any alteration of this
sort is sure to confuse the public, if it does not
end in irritating them. The House of Lords
has acted in this matter with due regard to the
claims of both sides, and no doubt, in the end, they
will meet with the thanks of both sides, for they
have discussed the question, so full of complication,
with calmness and without prejudice.

Not much was done in the House of Lords last
evening. The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Bill
was under consideration some time, but the House
will have again to go into committee on it on
Friday next. The Lord Chancellor was in favour
of proceeding with it, provided the amendments
were carried which he suggested. In this he was
opposed by some others, among whom was Lord
WESTBURY, who said that one-half of the bill was
unnecessary, and the other half extremely incon-
venient, if not mischievous. In order that
there might be time allowed for consider-
ing the matter, the Lord Chancellor pro-
posed that the bill be adjourned until the
early part of next week. Lord CRANWORTLI, who
has charge of the Bill, did not seem averse to the
amendments, and therefore it may still ba passed.
The House adjourned at seven o'clock, after having
read some Bills a second time and furthered others.
The Revenue Officers Disabilities Removal Bill
was passed through Committee. The District
Tithes Act Amendment Bill was passed
through Committee also, after some re-
marks from the Bishop of OXFORD. On the
whole the House is making great progress with the
remaining work of the session ; and, considering
the difficulties that have been put in the way at the
earlier part of the year, we consider that great
credit is due to the members of both Houses for
the zeal and assiduity they have shown in persever-
ing to bring matters to a satisfactory close.

Notwithstanding the heat of the weather, which
is not very favourable to industry, the House of
Commons is steadily and industriously pushing for-
ward in its work, and every evening something is
done towards accomplishing the labour of the ses-
sion. Yesterday morning was occupied by the
Corrupt Practices Bill, being the third morning so
engaged. Since the members prefer the cumbrous
and uncertain method of dealing with bribery and
corruption by special legislation to the short and
simple cure of the ballot, we would do them the
justice to admit that they are sparing no trouble
over their ungrateful task. It may be very much
doubted whether, after all, the desired result will
obtained—but at any rate much labour will be
saved to the members of Parliamentary committees
—delay and expense will be avoided, and the work
better done by experienced judges. M.P.'s, how-
ever immaculate themselves, are more likely to be
unconsciously influenced by their associations with
the accused, and by all the agencies of political life.
The judge is accustomed to sifting evidence, to dis-
criminating character, and to bringing unwelcome
truth to light. Yesterday the committee resumed
clause 17 of the bill, which provides that the judgment
of a judge shall have the same effect as the report
of an Election Committee as regards the issuing of
Commissions of Inquiry and Mr. BOUVERIE opened
the discussion by proposing that the clause should
be omitted, with the view of adding to it and ex-
tending its effects. Mr. BOUVERIE maintained that
under the new system it would be nobody's busi-
ness to move the necessary address to the Crown.
He suggested that a Commission shall be appointed,
as a matter of course, on the judge reporting the pre-
valence of corrupt practices. Other members pro-
posed the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-
General should have the duty of moving for
commissions, but after a good deal of discussion the
matter was dropped. Another point was raised
respecting the same clause. Mr. MILL proposed to
empower the Judges to inquire into the purity of
municipal as well as Parliamentary elections. The
Chairman, however, thought the suggestion out of
place, and Mr. MILL is going to repeat it on the
report. Mr. LOWTHER, a little further on, proposed
another change. At present, of course, the ex-
penses of the Judges are to be defrayed in the
usual manner at the cost of the State. Mr. LOWTHER
moved that such expenses should be paid by the locality
except where the petition proves to have been
frivolous or vexatious. This is going farther than
the Chinese law, which punishes a man's relations
for his crimes. Mr. LOWTIIER would extend the
punishment to his neighbours ! The Solicitor-Ge-
neral argued in opposition to such a motion, that
though the bribery of a dozen voters might call for
an inquiry it would not justify the imposition of
expenses on a whole locality. Thera would be
another objection to it in the fact that the existence
of such a provision would tend to check inquiry,
because such inquiries would be very unpo-
pular among the residents, and men would
shrink from setting it on foot for fear
of offending their neighbours. The House
apparently were fully sensible of its draw-
backs, since on a division the amendment was
lost by 134 to 67. Much larger, however, was the
majority against Mr. PowELL'S amendment to
clause 45 which gave rise to an animated discussion.
Clause 45, is one of the most sensible of the bill,
because it meets the offence with a practical punish-
ment, which no one will be unwilling to inflict.
Imprisonment and similar punishments are certain
to fail of their mark, just because men will
shrink from sentencing one of their fellows
who has done no worse thin thou-
sands before Lim to social degradation.
The loss of a seat in Parliament is a punishment
fairly apportioned to the offence ; and though of
course disgraced by the conviction of bribery,
there will not be the stigma of felony cast upon
the unscrupulous candidate. In America the laws
are stringently severe against both briber and
bribed, and the consequence is that no one is ever
accused. But we cannot hold with Mr. POWELL
that the sentence is too severe. To obtain
a seat in Parliament by undue influence, intimi-
dation, or bribery, is a very serious palitica.l
offence, and it le carried to such an extent among

us that it must be dealt with sharply. Mr. LOWE
rurged that the harshness of the punishment would
edefeat its own object, but can he pretend to say
that the present system is effectual ? We should
like to see the intimidation at elections made an
equal offence with bribery, but this the members
may be still more unwilling to grant. It speaks
' well for the sincerity of the House on this matter
that Mr. POWELL'S amendment was negatived
by the largo majority of 171, though he
contended that the punishment was horrible in its
nature. The bill, it appears, is to be limited to
three years, which will give a fair test of its work-
ing merits. No doubt this announcement, which
Mr. DISRAELI made last night, will greatly facili-
tate its progress through the few remaining stages.
We hope by the time three years have elapsed both
parties will have been " educated" into adopting a
shorter and surer route to the desired end.

Mr. BRIGHT has been figuring away at Limerick.
First of all, the hon. member was presented with an
address, which was long, and a numerous company
assembled. In replying to the address, Mr. BRIGHT
said he did not intend to mix up in any political
demonstration when he came to visit the banks of
the Shannon, still he did not regret having had to
appear before the meeting then present. Accord-
ing to his definition at Limerick, Mr. BRIGHT has
assumed a new character, and is anxious to preach
to his countrymen of political righteousness, on which
he says the " happiness of States depends." He
went there to speak as no partisan, but to dis-
cuss the subject of the Irish Church, which
excited the people of Great Britain as well
as of Ireland. The general tenour of the remarks
made by the hon. member for Birmingham is much
the same as that which characterised the former
speeches he has delivered, and the key-note of his
strain was the wrongs of Ireland. A more ill-
judged policy than this can hardly be imagined,
but nothing can or will teach moderation to those
who get a crotchet in their heads, and hence we
❑eed not wonder, however much we regret, that he
should follow so mischievous a course. It was one
of the chief arguments against Mr. GLADSTONE'S
proposition to the House of Commons that it woke
up the fires of religious controversy, and excited and
disturbed men's minds at a time when tranquil-
lity with respect to Irish questions was much to
be desired. We must also protest against the
tone which Mr. BRIGHT took in speaking of the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He said
that they were so familiar with it in England that
" it excited no surprise or discussion, at least on the
Treasury Bench." Now this was manifestly unfair,
for no matter which party was in, the greatest re-
gret was always expressed by these who felt com-
pelled by circumstances to propose the unwelcome
act to Parliament, and it is a most unwarrantable
thing for one who knows the facts of the case as.
Mr. BRIGHT does to go to Ireland and talk of the
police as an " armed force that ought not to
exist in the country." During the Fenian disturb-
ances the Irish constabulary rendered most impor-
tant and efficient services, and the attention of both
Houses of Parliament was directed to it, and due
recognition made ; it is therefore preposterous for
Mr. BRIGHT to talk after this fashion. As for his
flourish about the Irish looking to the "West" for
the sympathy they cannot get from England, we
should think that Fenianism had pretty well tired
out all well-meaning Irishmen from haying recourse
to that device to console them.

It really seems as if Mr. BRIGHT was now in
favour of a repeal of the Union, or at any rate he
lays himself open to such an accusation,
for he calls upon the meeting to listen
to him, while he assured them that " an Act which
the Parliament of the United Kingdom could pass
it could also repeal." Even those who are most
accustomed to Mr. 13itraufs rhodomontade will be
somewhat amazed at this style of talking, but what
can he do ? He must have an exciting topic to dis-
cuss—the sensational is the sine qua non of his
speeches, and which animates all his discourses.
Reform is done with, and the Repeal of the Union
is a glorious substitute ; if it can never be done it
will be all the better, because it cannot be so easily
exhausted ; and who knows but that he
is exulting in having a pet grievance that
no meddling Conservative in a spirit of progress
can dare to touch and make his own. In conclu-
sion, 'Mr. BRIGHT declared, that they were then
" met in the city of the violated treaty, violated
during centuries of time ;" and he urged upon his
hearers the importance of making a new treaty, of
which the purport should be justice on the part of
Great Britain, and forgiveness on the part of Ire-
land. With the outrage at Sydney alai the suffer-
ings at Clerkenwell fresh in our recollection, it is
not going too far to say that the lessons of justice
and forgiveness may be learned and practised in a
contrary direction to that which is here prescribed.

Mr. ROEBUCK'S speech at Sheffield will be found
well worthy of attention, and the hon. member
spoke with his usual decision and energy. For
some reason, more or less exaggerated, if not un-
founded, Mr. ROEBUCK has been from time to time
assailed by those who animadvert upon his policy
and question the propriety of his votes of late
years. He is more able to defend himself from
open attacks, but covert insinuations are at all times
difficult to meet, and it is a satisfaction to know
that the hon. member has had an opportunity of
speaking out his mind. The meeting was crowded,
and the Mayor opened the proceedings by requesting
from all parties a patient hearing. Mr. ROEBUCK
began by saying that he had always maintained it
to be the duty of a member of Parliament to take
all the evidence he could, and then to act according
to his own judgment, to serve the interests of the
country in the best manner. Then, again, when
the constituency had to decide upon the merits of
the man before them, they must do so fearlessly
and without hesitation, whichever direction their
votes pointed in, as this serious day of reckoning
is now fast approaching. Mr. ROEBUCK has re-
viewed the course of events during the last Parlia-
ment. When it was elected Lord PALMERSTON was
alive, and the Liberal party had all the prestige of
his name to fall back upon. _Before, however, the
Parliament which was chosen under his auspiees
could meet the Prime Minister died. In passing a
comment on his management of the House as its
Leader, Mr. ROEBUCK dwelt upon the fact of his
great courtesy ; he was conciliatory in his manner,
and he led the House as very few men have led it.
Mr. GLADSTONE succeeded him, and all looked with
curiosity to see how he would manage it, He, in
concert with Lord RUsSELL, unwisely resigned
power in a hurry. Lord DERBY came in, and Mr.
ROEBUCK had to ask himself, in common with the
other independent Liberals, what he had better do
i❑ order to procure for the country a good Reform
Bill. For 12 years by various Administrations efforts
had been made to perform the task, bat without
success. Who can blame Mr. ROEBUCK for being
tired of such a course, and for resolving, come
what may, to get some measure carrried. Respect-
ing the proposal of the Conservatives, he said, " If
the bill-is not a good one, let it be made so by the
House of Commons. He supported Mr. DISRAELI ;
the bill was made a good one, and all before him,
while he was now speakins, were thus rendered

electors. Are you prepared to reward me for my
services by turning me out" ? demanded he in his
usual straightforward style and spirit.
When Mr. GLADSTONE brought in the Resolu-
tions respecting the Irish Church, Mr. ROEBUCK
declared that he would support them, as he was
against the Irish Church, but the proposal was
brought in by the right hon. member at a very un-
fortunate time. Those who take a prejudicial view
of everything may learn some wholesome truths
from the passages of this speech which refer to the
opinions entertained of others. " But am Ito say
there is no good in a man because I happen to think
him wrong upon a particular question ?" Mr.
ROEBUCK'S critics will, we believe, find it very
difficult to answer the query. One great evil of
Mr. GLADSTONE and his friends discussing the Irish
question so long was that it took up the time of
Parliament and prevented other matters being
attended to.

The real reason why so much opposition has been
made against Mr. ROEBUCK is that he took a decided
course respecting the outrages of the trades unions,
and denounced them in the manner they deserved.
The explanations which he tendered to the meeting
were perfectly satisfactory in every way ; but of
course some prejudiced individuals chose to remain
unconvinced. It was complained of Mr. ROEBUCK
that on the Commission he acted like an advocate ;
but, as he said, he acted as the advocate of truth.
As for the disparaging remarks which were passed
upon the hon. member, he very pointedly asked
if he was responsible for the horrors which
were disclosed, and for the sad truths which came
to light inconsequence. of the zeal of the Commis-
sion. He was in some measure answerable for the
commission having been appointed, but that is
quite another thing, as all just men must admit.
Finally, Mr. ROEBUCK said that he supported trades
unions, but only when they did legal things.
Every means should be taken to support them
when they act legally, but the moment they do
otherwise let the support of the law be taken
against them. Twenty years have been spent by
Mr. ROEBUCK in the service of his country, and he
did not lay too much stress upon the work he had
performed when he asked the electors of Sheffield to
return him again as their member. Notwithstanding
all the temporary clamour raised by a section, we feel
convinced that the call will be responded to,
and that Sheffield will not show its devotion to
prejudice and its faith in injustice by refusing to
return one who deserves so well at its hands as he
who has just rendered an account of his steward-
ship.