The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-16 00:00:00

firma OP THE PUBLIC JOURNaiS,

Even those who are most opposed to the Goverthnent
must, the Saturday Review declares, acknowledge ticult in
the matter of the Boundary Bill they have behaved' with
perfect fairness to the House of Commons and to the
country. It is true that there was a little nonsense4origi-
nally in the manner in which the subject of boundaries
was introduced by Mr. Disraeli to the consideration of the
House. He spoke after his fashion, and hinted thatAome
great secret lay in the revision of boundaries, and that it
was to have a sort of magical effect upon the operation of
the Reform Bill. This secret, like other grand secreita of
the same magician, turns out to be moonshine. The
Boundary Bill, even if passed exactly as presented too the
House, would, according to the acknowledgment of pien
of all parties, produce no perceptible results at all on the
general issue of an' election. No party interests are
involved. But the House settled last year that there'was
to be a Boundary Bill, and it also settled that the revision
of boundaries should mean the enlargement, and in no
case the contraction, of boroughs. This was not at all
logical, and in theory was wholly indefensible. But the
House sanctioned the proposal of the Government, and it
was decided that no reductions were to be made. Com-
missioners were appointed by the House itself, and not by
the Government ; and not only were they men perfectly
'well fitted to the task, but, so far as they represented
shades of political opinion, they belonged rather to the
Opposition than to the party in power. Naturally, the
Government wished to stand by the bill as it was brought
in ; and if they had been a strong Government they
would have had their way, and all opposition would
have been silenced on the ground that the commissioners
acted as the referees of the House, and their decision
must be taken to be final. But the Government is very
far from being a strong Government, and therefore, when.
the House manifested a wish to control the operation
of the bill, the Government gave way at once. It is true
they had not much choice. A Government in a minority
must do as it is bid. But a Government in a minority
naay submit with a good grace or a bad grace, and on this
occasion the Government submitted with a very good
grace. It accepted the only possible mode of extricating
the House from the difficulty of dealing with a subject of
infinite details. Mr. Disraeli as that a committee
should be appointed by the House, and should sit from
day to day until it had completed its task. It will inquire
into the cases where reasonable objections to the decisions
of the commissioners have been or can be raised. There ap-
pears to be no reason why the labours of the committee
should last very long. They cannot, of course, go into
oral evidence from the boroughs affected. They can only
look at petitiaas and memorials, and their first duty will
be to see whence these documents come. Unless they
represent the feelings and wishes of a very considerable
number of those aff.ected by the bill, they will not be worth
attending to. If tb.ey are numerously signed the com-
mittee can first examtne the grounds on which they are
presented, and if these grounds are prima facie valid, they
can call in the aid of the assistant commissioners if they
wish for further information: ; and if they do not, they can
pronounce their verdict at once.

The Spectator says that if Parliament cannot contrive
to strengthen our county and municipal arrangements for
maintaining order, it will wake up one day to find civil was
raging over half the North of England. In those vast
hives of humanity the mining and Manufacturing cities,
with their narrow streets and fierce population, there are
plenty of elements of combustion—one alone, the quarrel
between unionists and non-unionists, is of the most
dangerous and wide-spread character—and the roughs of
All classes have at last found out the secret weakness of
the English system —the feeebleness of authority when
opposed by force. It is only a fortnight since we had to
record the seizure. of Wigan by a mob of colliers. This
week the prosperous town of Ashton has been the scene of
a stW more dangerous, because religions riot, during
which one person has been killed, two left at the point of
death, and some twenty-five severely wounded, while no
less than seventy houses have been destroyed, and three
hundred families turned naked, homeless, and moneyless
into the street for no offence whatever. Now, if English
.cities and counties were organised on any civilised
principle riots like these could not occur ; they would be
repressed at once in their inception, not by bloodshed, but
lay the production of force which could shed blood if neces-
sary to restore order. The dragoons took no lives. It was
the rioters who took lives, and the half-armed police. It
was the wretched policy of displaying force not sufficient for
coercion—force which could be defied, or, if needful, over-
powered—which allowed the riot to become so dangerous.
It is order, common external order, freedom from mob
rule and violent assault, which we are failing to secure,
which apparently our rulers have forgotten how to secure,
now social deferences will no longer secure it. One would
think, to watch the paralysis of authority all over Eng-
land, that the magistrates held anarchy to be the normal'
and proper condition of things, or imagined that freedom
meant the right of every man to brain his neighbour if
that operation amused him. The art of repressing dis-
order, still alive in Ireland, seems to be lost here, till
authority knows no better device than to send fists against
fists, batons against clubs, cutlasses against revolvers. We
venture to say a reserve detachment of fifty policemen in
Ashton armed with " Sniders," and authority to use them
at the bidding of the mayor, would do more to maintain
external order in Ashton and ten miles round, than ten..
thousand special constables. That involves bloodshed?
Not a bit of it. Let 10,000 rioters know that fifty men
in front of them are authorised, if resisted, to slay, and
they will melt away like snow in sunlight. Bloodshed
may be required once, and if it is, if there is no other way
of protecting the feeble or the poor in our, great cities,
if, without it, any fool of a lecturer is able to give any
town in England up to be sacked, bloodshed had better be.

The London Review, in criticising the navy estimates,

remarks : At present it is very doubtful that our ironclads
will, within an early date, be able to do the work of our
wooden walls ; certainly not if the Cbief Constructor of
the Navy is allowed to have his way. The report of