The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING,
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.

A great number of petitions were presented both in
favour and against the bill, the latter being the most
numerous.

Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions from Birming-
ham, both for and against the bill, amongst the latter being
two of very large proportions, ono bearing 23,000 signa-
tures, representing the feelings of the licensed victuallers
of Birmingham ; and the other, with 32,000 signatures,
corning from the retailers of the borough.

Mr. ROEBUCK also presented petitions from Sheffield,
signed by many thousand persons, against the bill.
Mr. J. ABEL SMITH then rose to move the second
reading of the bill, and said in doing so he was actuated
by but one feeling, and that was of improving the con-
dition of his fellow-creatures. No one felt more than
himself the responsibility that he had taken in dealing
with a subject which affected so I:rge a body of traders as
the licensed victuallers of the country. He felt that all
would agree with him that the present system of licensing
was the very worst that could be persevered in, and the
sooner it was taken into the consideration of the Legisla-
ture, with a view to its improvement, the better. He did
not approach the task he had to perform in any ascetic
or exclusive spirit - (hear, hear)—but, on the contrary, he
was actuated by the belief that the passing of such a bill
as he then had the honour to submit to the considera-
tion of the house would greatly enhance the social con-
dition and powerfully contribute to the improvement of
the working classes. He was not actuated by any desire to
compel a large mass of persons to observe the Sabbath in a
manner distasteful to themselves, but with an honest de-
sire to arrest that great source of misery and destitution
which had become an obstacle to all improvement, both
moral and social. The house had, on a former occasion,
taken upon itself to regulate the hours during which pub-
lic-houses might be opened in England and Wales, and
he felt no one would deny that the best results
had followed the adoption of the measure. The present
regulation was that public-houses on Sunday should not
be opened until one o'clock in the afternoon, and that they
should only remain open until 11 o'clock at night, and
that on other days the hours of trading should be limited,
except in very special case; from four a.m.
until one a.m. Now the bill he wished the
house to adopt provided that all public houses
in England and Wales should be shut up on Sundays as
far as drinking on the premises was concerned, except
during the hours between half past twelve to half past two
in the afte.rnoon, and from eight to ton in the evening. It
might be said such a regulation was an interference on his
part with the rights and privileges of the public, but he
did not think it was. He thought the object that would
be obtained by the passing of his bill would result in a
diminution of drunkenness, the great cause of misery, de-
gradation, and crime. The four great points upon Welch
he took his stand were that drunkenness was in
proportion to the facilities offered for its attain-
tnent, that all restraint upon the sale of liquors
on Sundays had been productive of beneficial results,
that the wishes and feelings of the great body of working
men were in favour of his proposal ; and, finally, that it
SW indefensible both in theory and policy to keep open
public-houses on that particular day, when the effects of
doing so were so obnoxious, and that it was unjust to make
exception in favour of the licensed victualler when all other
traders were compelled to close their shops by law. The
hon. gentleman then wont on to show from statistics that
drunkenness in great places, such as Liverpool, was pre-
valent to an extent that was hardly credible, and he fur-
ther stated that he felt certain that in the event of the
true feelings of the working classes being ascertained,
it would be found that the great proportion
were favourable to the bill now before the
house. (Hear, hear.) The petitions presented with re-
spect to the measure wore very significant, and one had
been laid on the table bearing the signatures of over 500
licensed victuallers in the metropolis, who stated that the
passing of such a measure as that under consideration
would be one of the greatest blessings that could be ex-
tended to them. Another that ha thought was deserving
of serious consideration was that presented that day boar
tug the signatures of 5,000 women. They felt that
nothing could so benefit their social condition as the
closing of the public houses on Sunday, and waen it witi
known that upwards of .£15,000,000 was annually spent at
the different public houses of the kingdom, he thought
that good could only result if some at least of that
enormous sum was put into the bellies aad on the backs of
the children of those who so wasted their moans. An-
other startling fact was, that there had been in Liv.:rpool
no less than 143 infants suffocated through the di uakia-
efts of their parents; and, what was still in Ire extra-
ordinary, 3-4thsof the cases hadoccurred between the Satur-
day night and Monday morning. He concluded his task
by asking the house to help him in overcoming the enemy
of humanity, and also the great obstacle to all improve-
ment, moral, social, and religious.

Mr. LOCKE, as an amendment, moved that the bill be
read a second time that day six months. He thought the
honourable gentleman who brought forward the measure
would not give him the same credit that he (Hr. Locke)
freely gave to him (Mr. Smith). He denied th tt he had
waited until he had ascertained which was the strongest
side of the question before he expressed a decided opinion,
but he had always been of opinion that all attempts to make
people sober, by Act of Parliament must necessarily fail.
He did not mean to deny that drinking was a great vice,
that was admitted on all hands, but he thought the selec-
tion of Liverpool as an illustration was most unfortunate,
because it was a place where such peculiar circumstances
prevailed that rendered it altogether an exceptional cas3.
His hon. friend had not quoted one instance to show that
drunkenness was on the increase, and therefore he had a
right to assume that it was on the decrease—(hear, hear)
—and he could not help thinking that the working classes
would not feel that any great compliment had been paid
them by the bringing forward this bill. (near, hear.)
They did not want the protection the hon. gentleman was
so anxious to impose upon them. (Hear, hear.) The
working classes were not such children—(hear, hear)—as
some of their great friends would lead the
house to believe. (Hear, hoar.) What would
the hon. member for Lambeth, who was so great a
friend to the working classes, say it an act of Par-
liament was introduced by them to close his club
on a Sunday. He would soon express his opposi-
tion to such a proposal. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The hon. gentleman also said that it was unfair to
give the licensed victualler a privilege over all other
people who were compelled to cease trading by Act of
Parliament. Was that so ? Were there no cabs,
no omnibuses, no eating-houses, or tobacconists ?
(Hear, hear.) The bill, it was true, was a
very short one, as it only contained one clause,
and was one of the most impracticable that had ever come
under his attention—(hear, hear)—and all legislation on
the subject had nearly always resulted in the most objec-
tionable manner. Why, in 1854 the hon. member for
North Lancashire brought in a bill, which received the sanc-
tion of the house, limiting the hours during which public-
houses should be opened, but what was the result of that
measure ? Why, in the very next session it was found
necessary to repeal that bill altogether, and if the present
act was sanctioned the same thing most certainly would
have to be done. (Hear.) That drunkenness existed
was, he admitted, a misfortune, but it did not follow
that the working men were the persons who spent all
their money in gin. There was a class of persons whose
misery and misfortunes drove them to drink to drown
their cares, that large class ought not to be passed
over silently, but ho denied that the working man earning
wages, and a well-to-do person, was the man who wasted
his means in drunkenness. Experience showed
that suck wig not the tut, blow the dna-

kard class was nearly entirely confined to those
poor, ill clad persons who barely could hold body and soul
together—(hear, hear)—and because unfortunately that
was the case was a well-conducted person to be incon-
venienced by such troublesome and unnecessary legisla-
tion as that submitted to the house by the hon.
member for Chichester? The only person who
was not interfered with by the proposed bill
was the bona fine traveller—(laughter)—that celebrated
person was not interfered with—(hear, hear)—but if the
present bill was accepted a move would soon be made in
another direction, viz., the stoppage of all trains on Sun-
days, and then where would be your bona fide traveller?
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) With respect to the bill being
a step in the right direction, he did not believe
it. (Laughter.) Why it compelled, according to
one of its provisions, a person to drink during
his meals—(laughter)—why had anything ever been
heard of so tyrannical? (Laughter.) Why, here was an
act of Parliament compelling the doiug of that
which that eminent medical man, so celebrated for his
prescribing a blue pill—(Loud laughter)—Dr. Abernethy,
said ought no; to be done. (Laughter.) That great
authority said never drink with your meals—if you want
to preserve your health, never drink at your meals.
(Loud laughter.) Savages, as ho was told by an hon.
friend near, savages in Australia did not drink with their
meals, and there was note more healthy class, he believed,
than they. (Loud laughter.) However the bill told the
people what they were to do, but Dr. Abernethy told them
what not to • do. The latter said, take a glass of ale or
beer after dinner, if it do not disagree with you—(laugh-
ter)— but to wine drinkers he said, drink your wine after
dinner, and a very pleasant good old English custom that
was. (Loud laughter.) He thought it right and rational
that a man should be allowed to do as he liked provided
he didn't hurt anybody else--(laugther) —and he felt certain
that the working men didn't want the solicitude and care
of a certain class of persons, who went about telling what
they ought and ought not to do. (Hear.) They were not
such children as it was endeavoured to make them out.
(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the present bill as a libel
upon them, and therefore he moved that it be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. LABOUCHERE seconded the amendment. Ho
considered such a proposal as that contained in the bill
altogether unnecessary, and he did not think the public
interest would be served by the closing of putlic-houses
on Sundays. The hon. gentleman said ho did not in
pressing forward the bill do so on religious grounds, but
he (Mr. Labouchero) thought that without ho did he
could not :show any necessity for his bill. He though;
however, that some alteration was required in the
licensing laws, and he felt certain that if the

licensed victualier was taken into council as an ally and
not treated as an enemy much good might doubtless be
effected. He contended that the licensed victualler's in-

terest was bound up in sobriety. (Hear, hea,r, and oh,
oh.) H thought a little reflection on the matter would
prove what he said. Take for instance the case of a man
with the sum of £l,OOO at his command ; he wished to
take a public-house, but the sum required was £5,000. He
went to the brewer, told him of his intention, and asked
him to lend him £3,000 on a first mortgage of the house.
He then went to the distiller and wine merchant and ob-
tained tho promise of the other £l,OOO. They all made
inquiry into the character of the borrower, which being
favourable, the money was advanced and the
man went into the house. Was not that
man's interest bound up in the manner in which ha con-
ducted the house? (Hear, hear.) Would he not lose his
license if he permitted drunkenness, and served drunken
people in his house —(mar, hear)—and did not the with-
drawal of a license entail ruin ? (Hear, hear.) There-
fore the proposition ho had put forth was quite true. He
looked with great dislike upon such officious interference
with the rights of the public as the present bill proposed,
and he hoped the house would refuse to sanction its
principle. -

Mr:HIBBERT would vote for the second reading of
the bill, as he thought the time was propitious for some
alteration in the excise laws. He thought it would not be
very unwise to consider the propriety of issuing what he
would call six-day licenses, at a deduction on the ord;-
nary charges exacted by the Excise. The matter worked
well with cabs, why should it not with public-houses? He,
however, felt the best course for the hon. member to pur-
sue was to allow the bill to b. 3 referred to a select com-
mittee.

Mr. GLADSTONE thought it would be as well for
the house to read the bill a second time, in order that the
equity of proposing soma alterations in it might be con-
sneered. He was unwilling, paradoxical as it might
appear, to do good to the working classes against their
own will -(hear, hear)—and he ha a satisfaction in back-
ing up the suggestion of the hon. member for Oldham for
a six day's license. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
measure was worthy of further consideration.
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the bill, the great object of
its promoters being to bring about the introduction of the
Maine Liquor Law in this country. (Mr. Glaestone ex-
pressed dissent.) He knew that that was the grand object of
the bill. He did not mean to say that the right hon. gentle-
man the member for South Lancashire was animated with
such a desire. He was too wise, too far-seeing, to en-
tertain for one moment such a stupid notion—but it was
the feeling of a great mauy of the ascetics who pressed
forward this bill. (Hear, hear.) With respect to what
a man might do on a Sunday was a matter of much diver-
sity of opinion. He was one of those who thought the
industrial and well-disposed man who preferred to spend
his Sunday in the open country, admiring the works of
nature and his God, rather than doing as some of his great
friends wished him, did not think that man violated
any divine law in doing so. (Hear, hear.) The man takes
his wife and children with him to spend the day in the
fields. They take their provisions, but forget the bottle of
beer. Is that man to be prevented from getting a drop of
malt liquor because he should not. get drank? He ob-
jected to such ridiculous legislation as that now proposed.
If they dallied with the present proposal at all, they would
be certain to land themselves on the barren rock of the
Maine Liquor Law. The Government, he thought, ought
at once to say out boldly yes or no whether they would
support the bill. It was cue that would not touch gentle-
men - (hear, hear)—but if it should pass a second reading
he (Mr. Roebuck) would move that it be extended to the
clubs—(loud cries of "hear, hear")—in order that the
working class may know that we are but a hollow people,
and making political capital out of them. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. HARDY could not look on the bill in any favour-
able light, because, if it was to receive the sanction of
Parliament, it would result in a re-action. (Hear, hear.)
However, there was one matter which seemed to be parti-
cularly clear, and that was that some alteration was re-
quired in the licensing system. (Hear, hear.) That had
been brought about by the alteration that had, in the first
instance, been mado in the regulations for the sale of beer,
and latterly by the reduction that had been made in the
wino duties. (Hear, hear.) There was a principle con-
tained in the bill he could never agree to, and that was a
difference being made between London and the country.
(Hear, h ear.) With respect to the prohibition to drink
upon the premises except at certain hours, he thought
that might lead to great excess in another quarter
and that it would tend to increase an evil quite as great,
if not greater, viz., secret drinking. (Hear, hear.) After the
fullest consideration ho came to that conclusion, and if his
hon. friend the member for Chichester pressed forward his
bill with a view of ultimately entirely closing public-
houses on Sundays, ho should give it his decided opposi-
tion ; but if he pressed it forward in order that there might
be that which has never yet taken place, viz., au im-
partial inquiry - (hear, hear) -leaving the committee to
deal with me bill iiidependeutly and impartially, he was
prepared to give his vote in savour of the second reading.
Mr. POWELL was in favour of referriug the bill to a
select committee. He hoped teat full consideration would
be given to the suggeetiou of a six day's licence, and that
the adoption of sucha proposal would be of far higher
value than the trifling difference there would be in the cost
of it comp trod with the charge for an annual licence.
(dear, hear.) It would teed to give a day's holiday and
rest to a great limey people, leen use not only w .uld many
licensed victuallers avail themselves of it, but owners of
large le opertiee doubtless vi ould adopt it.
. Mr. MELLY teitueht the bill was one that ought to re-
ceive the sanction of Parliament. A great deal had been
said during the debate about drunkenness, but the obe-ct
of the bill, as he viewed it, was not so much directed to
prevent that—which was almost hopeless—as to the pre-
vention of excessive drinking on Sunday. (Hear, hear.)
He assured the house that he had seen wives sad children
on their knees to their husbands at the doors of publie-
houses begging their husbauds to come home on Sundays,
instead of wasting the whole of their week's wages iu the
purchase of drink.
Mr. HENLEY thought not only that the bill, but the
whole subject, must be thoroughly examined in committee,
and therefore he should not consider himself bound to any
measure emanating therefrom. Ho could not have voted
for the second reading of the bill as it stood, because it
was most vaguely drawn, and he was very averse to
have one law for the country and another for the metro-
polis.
Mr. OSBORNE thought, instead of sending the bill to
a commission up stairs, it was the duty of the Govern-
ment to take the whole circumstances connected with the
licensing system into consideration with a view to its
thorough) improvement.
Mr. HUGHES said there was a great deal of difference
between a public-house and a club. In one women and
children and everybody else could go into, whilst into the
other only gentlemen who had been carefully selected could
enter. (Laughter.) The bill before the house
had the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Archbishop Manning, and the clergy of every
unitedse
that
ty d
a oyf
to de denomination, and, in opposition to that there
licensedciae
to victuallers,
which
side and
they it
wwaass fotih-etheho
would go. He denied that the bill was •
unjust and oppres-
sive, or that it was in the slightest degree • •
an infringement
of the liberty of the subject. Every twenty-fifth person
that was to be met with at the present time was a pauper,
and that state of things, ho contended, had been brought
about solely by drunkenness. He ridiculed the idea that
had been got up that the bill was a step towards
the introduction of a bill analogous to the Maine
Liquor Law. Such an assertion was ridiculous. The bill
was brought forward to bring about a public good, and
he hoped the bill would receive a second reading.
Mr. A. SMITH assented to the proposal of the bill
being referred to a select committee. He was quite will-
ing for it to be fully considered, and perhaps destroyed;
but he was not prepared to go into committee upon a
general question of licensing, weich perhaps might last
for years.
A discussion here ensued between Mr. H. Lewis and
other hon. members, as to the matters that were to be
considered by the select committee to which it was to be
referred. Mr. Roebuck wished that the committee
should have power to inquire into all subjects
connected with the sale of liquors on Sundays,
licenses excepted. This was not acceptable to a number
of other members, ultimately the bill was referred
.to
select committee with power to take evidence.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Mr. M'EVOY postponed proceeding with the second
reading of this bill until the bat of April.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned.

Four thousand tons of Cheshire salt, for agricul-
tural purposes, pass over the South-Western lines during
the year. It is curious that the Isle of Wight, although
a small island and surrounded by the sea, consumes as
much Druitvrich salt as inland districts of the same size.
Salt derived from sea water is considered superior for
agricultural purpoooo to rook ;At.

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

Several of the morning papers discuss the Sunday
Liquor Bill. After shewing several of its weak points the
Times remarks : The truth is, the object really desired by
the promoters of this measure, and which they confess to
be their ultimate aim, is notoriously impracticable. Total
restriction is not only unjust, but has actually broken
down in practice, and has been abandoned in America,
where it was tried. But, short of this, measures to repress
drunkenness by curtailing an hour or two here and there
from the hours at which the public-houses are open must
needs be trivial, and will probably be merely vexatious.
Some limitation on Sundays is acknowledged to be desira.
ble, and the existing restrictions are sanctioned by prac-
tice ; but, as the House was reminded, an attempt some
years ago to impose similar restrictions to those of
Mr. Abel Smith's bill roused such a storm of popular dis-
constent that the measure, though passed, had to he
repealed. It seems, from what was said of the petitions,
that a majority of the working classes have petiticned
against the bill. Of the petitions in favour of it, many
are notoriously worthless. Clergymen, Scripture-readers,
and Sunday-school teachers cajole those under their in-
fluence to sign such petitions by wholesale, and in many
cases the signature is a mere impertinence. The opinion
of an impressible young woman respecting the liberty
which should be allowed to grown men is scarcely worthy
the attention of the House of Commons. But, happily,
the very arguments which are adduced in favour of the
bill prove that it is unnecessary. There is, we are told,
a growing feeling among the working classes against
excess in liquors. Nothing can be more satisfactory ;
but if so, why legislate at all, and why foster a crusade
which implies that the evil is increasing rather than
diminishing ?

Hitherto the restrictions placed upon the sale of liquors,
although they may be unwise in principle, have produced
comparatively little ill effect, because they have been com-
paratively slight. That they have done any real good the
Standard has no hesitation in denying. The closing of
public-houses at eleven o'clock on Sunday evenings and
at one o'clock on week-day evenings has not diminished
drunkenness or reduced the occasions of crime, whilst it
has inflicted, and inflicts every day, great inconvenience
and injustice upon large numbers of temperate and
respectable persons. Practically the new bill denies all
refreshment to the people of this country on the Sunday,
except to the habitual drunkards, who will, of course,
make their provision. To the lodger, who is expected to
be out of the house except when he is in bed ; to all those
who must work, or will walk for health or recreation ; to
all upon whom illness or the absolute need of some suste-
nance comes when they are at some distance from their
homes, and even there, except at short intervals, all
refreshment is absolutely denied by Mr. Smith. And
why? To save a certain number of wretched fools from
their own folly he would inflict a terrible privation upon
the vast mass of the people.

In the opinion of the Telegraph the bill is bad in every
respect. It is based on false pretences ; it metes out one
measure to the rich and another to the poor; and it is only
the first link in that chain of measures which includes the
Permissive Bill and ends with the Maine Liquor Law.
Therefore, if the House had been obliged to choose
between rejection and acceptance, it must have thrown
out the scheme with indignation. But after that course
had been forcibly advocated by Mr. Locke and Mr.
Labouchere, an amendment was proposed by Mr. Hib-s
bert, to the effect that the bill should be referred to a
select committee, which should consider the whole subject
,of the liquor traffic, and particularly the licensing
system. Mr. Gladstone strongly supported the sugges-
tion ; Mr. Gathorne Hardy accepted it on the part of the
Government ; it was finally sanctioned by the House, and
We have no fault to find with it.

In dealing with the bill for reforming the present form

of railway legislation, the Post points out that previous to
the institution of the Railway Department of the Board
of Trade, the second reading of railway bills was decided
by the House at large, with the Speaker in the chair. In.
creasing pressure of public business made this practice
inconvenient, and the duty was handed over to the Board
of Trade. Unhappily for the country, Sir Robert Peel
withdrew his support from this organisation, and deter-
mined to control railway enterprise ,by competition, under
an idea that such a course had been rendered imperative
by the adoption of the doctrine of free trade. It was a
great error in whatever light looked at. Competition thus
became, as far as both public pc."..icy and private interests
are concerned, the only practical controlling power, a fact
which Mr. Dodson and those who are disposed to back his
ideas will do well to bear in mind. If they abrogate the
right of an existent organisation actually in work to be
beard before a committee on the ground that new compe-
tition ought not to be forced upon them, they must sub-
stitute some other controlling and testing power to protect
both the public and the actual corporations working lines
from the action of unreal promoters, whose only object is
speculative extortion, and a relying raid in the disguise
of thrifty men of business bent upon the development of
the industry of the country. If that power is to be the
Board of Trade, that department should be placed in a
position very superior to that which it now occupies.

After carefully examining most of the boroughs in
which no extension is recommended by the Boundary
Commission, the Daily News thinks it would be difficult
to dispute the justice of the opinions so far as expressed by
the commissioners. But what principle has led to the
extension of boundaries ? It is, of course, easy enough to
say that all the persons who dwell immediately beyond
the parliamentary boundary should be included within it,
or that those who have " a community of interest" with
the inhabitants of a town should be considered towns-
people. But in applying this principle there are con-
siderable difficulties. If, indeed, the duty of the com-
missioners had been to separate the urban from the
agricultural population, their task would have been
comparatively simple. But the intention of the Legis-
lature was very different. Parliament never intended
that the population of the country should be divided into
two classes—urban and agricultural. Before adding any
new district to a borough, the first question to be
is whether the inhabitants of this district are
specially connected with the borough of which they are to
form part. It is not enough to shew that beyond the

boundaries of a borough there is a mass of persons who do
not live by agriculture. It must he &hewn that they are,
in fact, the overflow of the borough population—called
into existence by the borough, and that had the borough
not existed this increase of population would not have
taken place.

The proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to Ireland is,
the Star observes, so well-intentioned, harmless, and, in-
deed, commendable a project, that it would be unfair to
criticise it in a narrow and carping tone. But it would be
Still less fair to allow the exaggerated hopes which people
are forming of its beneficent effects to go on swelling and
gleaming like glittering soap bubbles doomed to speedy
collapse and extinction. There is no excuse whatever for
any personal ill-feeling towards any member of the Royal
Family in Ireland ; and we are satisfied there is no per-
sonal ill-feeling there. Everybody who knows the
Irish people knows that their natural tendency
is towards a deep, reverential, and indeed servile
loyalty. We are by no means satisfied that it might
not have been possible, if any English sovereign had
thought it worth while trying, to have fed and flattered
that sentiment of loyalty, and actually made it a substi-
tute for the manly, honourable feeling of allegiance with
-which an intelligent and self-respecting people reward the
justice and integrity of an upright ruler. We are by no
nicans convinced that the Irish people, if judiciously
warmed every now and then by the sunshine of Royal
favour, might not at one time have forgotten Protestant

ascendancy and landlord absenteeism, and all the subjects
of complaint, and lain down in their rags like a Neapoli-
tan lazzarone, and been content and happy and abject.
But with the growth of education this feeling must have
an end. A race has grown up in Ireland almost entirely
estranged from the BriLlsli race, and to expect any benefi
cent result from the Royal visit is ridiculous.
The Times devotes a leader to the consideration of the
pamphlet issued by the Emperor Napoleon, which tells
the world by what vast number of votes both the original
founder and restorer of the Empire at various periods at-
tained the supreme rank. Our contemporary does not see
the use of statistics which nobody disputes. The issue of
them, however, shews that the Emperor is getting mis
trustful. He has shaken the foundation on which he has
built his throne by increasing his armament. But there is
nobody to oppose him. There is no Opposition leader
with a determined scheme of action -; none ready
to take upon himself the responsibility of a revo-
lution. France has come to an end of all political
experiments. The present has nothing so dreadful
as to induce her voluntarily to face an unknown future.
It is upon this instinct of order at any price that the
Emperor Napoleon can rely for support against any
deliberate attack, while the immense strength of his civil
and military organisation screens him from those " sur-
prises" which have so often decided the fate of his prede-
cessors. The French would not willingly overthrow him,
and he must take care that they do not do so by mere
cversidit. It is to little purpcse, we think, that the
Imperial pamphlet dwells upon tne excellences of the
Constitution and on its, capabilities of progressive im-
provement. 'What the French people want is_peace—
iwoce with liberty, if the two blessings_ can be con-.?.
NmA, but peace before HI things and at_ any price.
,it
is impossible that the Emperor should not
.percelve
how greatly the new army law has compromised
before public opinion. That army bill was conceived
under false apprehensions ; it was proceeded with in oLe-
dience to still more false views of consistency, in obedience
to an obstinacy which does not really belong to the Em-
peror's character. We are convinced an assurance that
the law, if not actually repealed, would be at least so
modified in its application as to lighten its most crushing
burdens, would do more for the stability of the Emperor's
throne and for the chances of his dynasty than any
" titles " resting upon the most unanimous plebiscite. A
proposal on his part for a simultaneous disarmament would
win him the suffrage not only of millions of Frenchmen,
bat of the friends of true frgedm and progress' throu,rll-
-
oiAt the world. "'I"