The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-29 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1863.

If no other advantage can be supposed to have
accrued from it, we do earnestly trust that, through
the discussion and division of last night in the
House of Commons, we have heard the very last of
that unlucky affair about Mr. CHITRCHWARD. It
gives almost ridiculous promise of being remem-
bered, in regard to this session, as the one bone of
contention struggled over, snarled, and bit across,
by those more ardent among the political Dogs of
War, who may be described, we trust it will not be
thought so very irreverently, as always game for a
party contest, about anything or anybody that acci •
dent may suggest as a subject for dispute. As for the
merits of the matter in dispute, we don't care in the
least to enter into them. For once and for all let us
hope now that it is done with, that we have heard the
very last about it, that it is une affaire finie. When
mud is flying about among the combatants, who
would have the smallest inclination in point of fact
to interfere between them, or even, we will say, to
take any lively interest in the right or wrong
attaching respectively to the belligerents. That
mud, figuratively speaking, has been scattering and
spattering about hither and thither among the dis-
putants who can gainsay ? The obvious assump-
tion of the Government people in regard to the re-
newal of Mr. CHURCHWARD'S now repudiated con-
tract, dated 1859, his contract with the powers that
were, the inns then, the outs now—the
one obvious assumption of the new Govern-
ment in reference to the course they have
followed out with a view to the repudiation of that
contract has been from first to last that the whole
subject matter in dispute rose out of—there is really
not another word for it in the whole vast vocabulary
of the English language—a Job! And what now
is the reply pat forth by the morning organ of the
defendants—that is to say, of the Opposition ?
Why, " not to put too fine a point upon it," it is,
in literal vapidity, nothing more and nothing less
than a response, in the strictest sense of the phrase,
of the to quoque order. In the memorable quarrel
between the old lady's butler and the
old lady's under- butler, in " Oliver Twist,"
the asperities bandied to and fro between those
usually placable, not to say meek and mild spoken
disputants reach their climax, it may be remem-
bered in the enunciation of the euphuistic but
somewhat ungrammatical accusation, " You are a
lie, GILES !"—" You are a falsehood, BRITTLES !"
And so an end of it. It is pretty much the same
now in this at once, we cannot but think, somewhat
trumped up, and certainly when it comes to be
looked into, exceedingly trumpery subject•matter
in dispute between the Government and the Oppo-
sition. " A Job," cries the former; while the latter
can find nothing more telling in the way of accusa-
tion with which to retaliate than the parrot-like
echo, " A Sob." The journal already referred to
can really and seriously find nothing better than
this to say in the way of a retort. It may be said
to do this negatively rather than affirmatively. But
whether negatively or affirmatively it does lit.
Speaking this morning of the course taken (success-
fully it should be added) in regard to this CHURCH-
WARD transaction by the Government, our morning
contemporary,
Who is reputed to represent in some
manner at least the feelings and opinions of the
Opposition, condescends to remark ,1 This we sup-
pose, is not to be called a job, because nobody puts
money in his pocket by it. So," adds the writer
with an iruny slightly vitriolic but rather
"we can only say that
watery nevertheless,
some uglier name than job is required for our
new political morality." A weapon so obtuse
.—however vigorous it may be intended to
prove in the force of its home-thrust, is, after
as innocuous as a prod with a button-headed foil.
Intended wounds there have been administered, in
this struggle, upon both sides in abundance.
Actnal wounds there are none. One or two even-
ings have been wasted in the tussle. Twice there
has been a division—the result upon each of these
occasions having proved to be in favour of the Go-
vernment. Referring again to the morning organ
or the party just nowdefeated in this struggle, we
find the summing up of last night's discussion anent
CHURCHWARD and his now finally repudiated
irate
then to be couched in language no less
than the following :—" As for the debate of last
night tiler)) is little to be said. It was in fact all
one way. Mr. WALPOLE vigorously denounced
this novel, indirect, skulking way of striking at a
political adversary, and, with a forecast which pos-
terity will do justice to, [as if posterity would care
two straws about it!] warned the House against