The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOI7RNALL

One side of Oxford University is now most respectably
represented by Mr. Gathorne Hardy, and if Mr. Mow-
bray becomes his colleague, that one side, says the Times,
will enjoy a double representation ; and the other side—
that is, we fully believe, the Oxford of the future—will
not be represented at all. Even upon the now recognised
principle of representing a good minority, Oxford ought to
find a representative who is not the mere double of Mr.
Gathorne Hardy. But there is no need to fall back on
such a plea in this instance. Sir Roundel]. Palmer
would represent the whole constituency of Oxford
better than any partisan, for he is not a partisan, but
a man of singularly independent character and
opinions. He has already in Parliament expressed
opinions that would oppose a great, if not insuperable,
bar to any official connection with the Liberal leader in
the Commons. Nobody has sacrificed more to inde-
pendence and the sacred right of private judgment in
political matters. If he is a wise man, he will defer any
statement of his views on the great question of the day,
that he may be the more free to examine the rival
propositions of the hostile chiefs. But thus far we are
not aware that he would vote against any reasonable com-
promise, could it be hit on and duly effected. If com-
promise be possible, it were much to be desired,
that so we might be spared the resentments and
retaliations likely to ensue from a less moderate and con-
siderate course. In such a case the university would be
wise to put itself as much as possible in the hands of
independent men, not committed to any leader or any
extreme. Sir Roundell Palmer's recommendations, as a
lawyer, a scholar; and a critic, combining fine taste with
varied attainments and extensive information, we need
not dwell upon. Nobody doubts that Sir Roundell
Palmer is a representative who would do honour to
Oxford. Even his opponents will admit this, though, in
the present state of affairs, they may dread an indepen-
dent man with opinions of his own.
The Standard does not agree with Mr. Gladstone's view
of the causes of Irish discontent. He does not prove from
the condition of the Irish in Canada and elsewhere that
the discontent in Ireland is due to injustice. We cheer-
fully allow that the Irish in Canada are happier and more
contented as a rule than the Irish in the United States.
But this fact proves nothing in favour of Mr. Gladstone's
position, but is, on the contrary, strongly adverse to it
and to the whole policy of the Liberals. What is the one
incident of Irish life which Mr. Gladstone adduces in
evidence of the superiority of Canadian institutions ? It is
the career of Mr. Darcy M`Gee, who was assassinated by
a Fenian. Mr. Gladstone himself, we observe, has mis-
givings whether it was really a Fenian who committed this
crime, but in this view he is opposed to the verdict of the
jury who tried the murderer. Everybody, in the
Dominion at least, has no possible doubt that Mr. M'Gee
was shot by a Fenian, in obedience to the orders of the
secret Fenian association. Surely, if this proves anything,
it proves that in spite of the blessings enjoyed by the Irish
in Canada—in spite of the boasted liberality of the
Canadian land laws—in spite of the fact that in the
Dominion the Church of the minority is not " installed
and enthroned in exclusive privileges "—the spirit
of Fenianism exists, in the same forms, with the
same character, and the same aims as either in
the United States or in Ireland. Thus, by the
aid of Mr. Gladstone's own instance, we are enabled
to refute his argument. The absence of a national Church
has been no impediment to the growth of Fenianism in
Canada—the laws regulating the possession of land,
although they converted Mr. D'Arcy ArGee into a
loyalist, did not affect Whelan and the associates of
Whelan. The Fenians were Fenians still, although
everything had been done, on Mr. Gladstone's own
she wing, to turn them from their disloyalty, and to make
them good and contented subjects.

The Daily News agrees that perhaps Mr. Gladstone
makes too much of the solitary phenomenon, serious
though it be, of Fenianism ; and, in connection with
Fenianism in America, of the testimony of an observer,
whose evidence cannot be impugned, but who visited the
United States with his mind preoccupied with one idea,
and his perceptions abnormally alive to a single set of
impressions. The argument from Fenianism considered
in itself does not apply very directly to the Irish Church
Establishment ; the argument from the deep-seated social
and moral distemper of which Fenianism is but the
symptom, goes far beyond the Irish Church. The ecclesias•
tical policy in Ireland, of which Mr. Gladstone is the
advocate, rests for its vindication on its own intrinsic
justice and reasonableness.

The Herald declares Mr. Gladstone means to spoil the
Irish landlord as well as the Irish Church. He denounces
the laws of Ireland protecting the owners of land in the
enjoyment of their property—the same laws which pre-
vail in England, it should be remembered—as unjust and
tyrannical, and excuses the murders and other outrages by
which Irish tenants attempt-, to make themselves practi-
cally the owners of the soil. Mr. Gladstone seems to

think that the English people are not aware of the hatred
entertained by the Irish abroad for the English Govern.
ment, and he quotes the assertion which Mr. Maguire
makes with so much complacency to shew the danger and
to point out the remedy. We are to win these people by
justice and reparation, and Mr. Gladstone explains what
he means by telling us what they consider injustice.
Eviction is injustice, therefore the power of eviction must
be taken away, and the tenant made owner of the soil.
The Daily News says that some legislation on trades
unions, especially with the view of securing their funds,
has become necessary. The unionists themselves seem to

be divided in opinion as to what they wish Parliament to
do for them, but they all agree that some alteration must
be made in the laws which regulate combinations. The

most moderate expressions of these demands is con-
tained in a bill which was prepared by the representatives
of the London unions, and presented to the House
during the last Session by Sir Fowell Buxton.
That bill proposes to declare trade societies
legal, and to place them exactly in the same posi-
tion before the law as that which is occupied by all
other associations which are not corporate bodies. It
repeals the Combination Laws, which were specially
enacted as restrictions on trades unionism, but re-enacts
their chief provisions in a less offensive form. It removes
the suspicion of illegality from combinations which are
formed for purposes of trade, but makes any attempt to
carry out those purposes by means of violence or threats
distinctly criminal. The Act is, in fact, an assertion and
legalisation of the principle of free combinations, but it
retains an important modification of the principle, by
making threats penal. It provides, however, that
for this special offence a special mode of trial shall he
adopted. Workmen accused of hindering others from work
by violence, or threats of violence, are only to be tried
before the superior judges, and by a jury, chosen by ballot
from the register of electors, should the accused demand
it. The object of this provision is• said to be to ensure
a thorough investigation of the case before an experienced
judge, and a jury in which no class predominates,
So far, therefore, as this Act is concerned, there
will probably be no great objection to it on
the Liberal side of the House. It merely rectifies
the injustice which legislation has unintentionally done to
the trades unions, removes the grievance under which
they suffer, and provides on the one band special security
against the offences to which workmen are tempted, and
on the other hand makes special provision for the trial of
such offences. This is all that the unions can justly ask,
and they will only imperil this if they ask for more.
The Post makes out that the City of London, with its
four members, is better off than boroughs with three.
We took the case of a three-cornered constituency with
7,502 electors, of whom 3,000 entertained Conservative
opinions, and showed how the 4,502 Liberals could never-
theless return their three candidates. In a four-cornered
constituency it would, however, only require 4,002
Liberals to come to the poll in order to prevent the
3,000 Conservatives returning a single candidate. Let
us suppose that these are the proportions between
the Conservatives and the Liberals in London, or that it
is in this proportion that votes will he polled at the forth-
coming election. As the Conservatives would vote for
the three gentlemen representing their opinions, the result
of the poll on their side would be a return of 3,000 votes
each for Alderman Gibbons, Mr. Bell, and 111 r. 'l'wells.
Notwithstanding, however, this unanimity on the side of the
Conservatives, the Liberal majority of 4,002 would, by skil-
ful management, be enabled to secure the four seats. Let,
for example, 3,001 vote for Baron Rothschild, and as each
of these voters would possess two votes besides, let him
give them to two of the three remaining Liberal candidates.
Let 1,000 of them, for example, vote for Mr. Crawford and
Mr. Goschen, 1,000 more for Mr. Crawford and
Alderman Lawrence, and the remaining 1,001 for Mr.
Goschen and Alderman. Lawrence. The result,
therefore, of polling these 3,001 votes would
be that Baron Rothschild would have received
3,001 votes, Mr. Goschen 2,001, Alderman Lawrence
2,001, and Mr. Crawford 2,000. There would, however,
remain 1,001 voters still unpolled, each with three votes
at his disposal, and if these were given to Mr. Goschen,
Alderman Lawrence, and Mr. Crawford, each of these
gentlemen, together with Baron Retlischild, would shew
a greater number of votes than any of the Conservative
candidates, and all the four seats would thus be secured
by the Liberal party.

The transport Clara, with artillery and infantry for
China and Japan, has just sailed from the Thames for
Portsmouth, where she will embark a draught of the 50th,
to join the service companies in Ceylon._ At Gravesend
she took on board " fresh beef " for the Channel ; but the
meat was so far from fresh that the Government con-
tractor was ordered to replace it. The second supply
being also had, a third quantity was demanded ; but
it was once more discovered to he of such villanons
quality, that the officers of ti:e staff rejected the beef
altogether, and purchased a supply for the men from the
butchers of the town. The Telegraph asks if so gross and
dop_:;zed a case of dishonesty occurs "in the daylight,"
nn. lee the inspection of vigilant officers, and in open defiance
of conscience and bond what cha zee is there of honesty
on the part of those who furnish stores and victuals
which a o not to be immediately tested ? Would
this beef contractor, or another of the same kind, have
hesitated to furnish limejuice adulterated with sulphuric
acid, or cocoa made of mutton fat? tarn that the
circumstances have been referred to the Horse Guards
and if this purveyor supplies any more beef or other food '
to the Queen's soldiers, the lacks -of thel42ne civara3
mug bv_r9fermi taTarli*um