The Sun.
London, England, 1870-07-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TITESDA.Y. MORNING, J tILY 26, 1870.

almost inconceivably shocking in thrusting
such a subject as this into the law
courts. Remembering what the Communion
service is, and what it commemorates even to those
who take the very lowest Zwinglian view of this
Sacrament, the idea of feeing lawyers to wrangle
about it before a lay judge is revolting to all but the
theologico-litigious mind. Prompted, we presume,
by this feeling, the defendant refused to appear,
or to take any part in the proceedings.
Thrice every time the Court met " WILLIAM
EARLY BENNETT" was cited with a loud voice, but
there was no reply. This conduct gave the Associa-
tion a great advantage. When another Somerset-
shire clergyman, Archdeacon DENISON, was made a
defendant in a similar suit 16 years ago, he evaded
an unfavourable sentence by resorting to a legal
technicality. In the present trial, at least in its
later stages, the defendant declined to appear, and
the promoters have had everything their own
way. They were thus enabled to put their
own case before the judge in the strongest possible
manner, while on the other hand Mr. BENNETT'S
case was not stated at all. The promoters had a
further advantage in the extreme indiscretion of the
defendant. Mr. BENNETT had, in stating his views
of the Eucharist, made use of an expression which the
highest Sacramentarians did, and which Roman
Catholics themselves would, repudiate as being
false and indeed absurd. It was so palpably
a blunder, a slip of the pen, that Mr.
BENNETT withdrew it in the second edition of the
incriminated work. Not the less, however,
did the Association, being always more bent upon
snatching a victory than upon having the truth de-
fined, authoritatively seize upon this clumsy expres-
sion as the ground of a criminal charge.
Happily this extreme readiness to make a
man an offender for a word has failed. The rigour
of the promoters has been practically rebuked by Sir
ROBERT PHILLIMORE. While condemning the un-
lucky expressicn in decided language, he took into
account Mr. BENNETT'S withdrawal of it, and de-
cided to pass no judgment upon him for it. With
regard to the other and far more important ques-
tion—the exact nature of our LORD'S Presence in
the Eucharist—the Dean of the Court of Arches
has decided that the Church has left this mysterious
matter open to the opinions of her members. She has
not defined it for herself. She has not forbidden
them to define it. Therefore in preaching
what is called the Real Presence, Mr. BENNETT has
not contravened the law. Far be it from us to enter
into any discussion upon the controverted point. It
would be most unseemly for a lay journal to do so.
But what we wish to indicate is that this judgment
is in strict accordance with the judgments in
the GORHAM and ROWLAND WILLIAMS cases.
The spirit which has guided all three—
the judgment with respect to the exact
nature of Baptism, the judgment with respect to the
exact nature of Inspiration, and the judgment with
respect to the exact nature of the Eucharist—is the
same large spirit of toleration which will not attempt
to define what has not been defined already, which will
not give the victory to any one party at the expense
of any other. Had the GORHAM case been decided
against the defendant a large number of the Low
Church party must have seceded. Had the "Essays and
Reviews" case gone against Dr. WILLIAms and Mr.
WILSON, the Church must have lost the Broad
Church party. Had Sir ROBERT PHILLIMORE given
sentence against Mr. BENNETT, there would have been
such a secession of High Churchmen as would have
shaken the Church to its centre.

The French EMPEROR has once more honoured
his friends of the Telegraph with his special and
pecular confidence. Having in mind the experience
of a former occasion, when the immortal regular
correspondent saw a full moon when the almanack
recorded, and all the rest of the world was aware,
that a new one had just come into being, one might
be inclined to accept with reserve the commu-
nication with which " An Englishman" furnishes that
paper. But certain independent testimony is much
in "An Englishman's" favour. He reports a conver-
sation he had with the EMPEROR. The interview
was private, but his Majesty had no objection to his
words being given to the world; indeed, he seems to
have had an eye to publicity, and to have naturally
selected his best friend, the Telegraph, with the
largest circulation in the world, as the medium
for diffusing his ideas. The subject of
the conversation with "An Englishman" is
Prussia's unpaid debt. There is much evidence in
favour of the theory that there had before 1866
existed an understanding between BISMARCK and
NAPOLEON, in virtue of which the latter was to
remain a spectator of the attack upon Austria, and
in return for this "friendly inactivity," as the EM-
PEROR himself calls it, Prussia was to render
a suitable return. The service was given, but not
the reward. In vain the EMPEROR, as he told "An
Englishman," reminded BISMARCK of his obligations.
The Prussian Premier might at any rate surrender
Luxemburg and " one or two other little towns," as a
slight return for the friendly inactivity. BISMARCK fully
acknowledged the value ofthe negative assistance given
by France during the campaign in 1866. But he could
not surrender a foot of Prussian ground. He had
no objection, however, to strike another bargain with
the EMPEROR. Prussia would like Holland, and
would not mind making sacrifices to get it. What
would France take for Holland ? The EMPEROR
replied that an attempt to annex Holland would
mean war with France. The negotiations then ended.
The present war has come about, and the EMPEROR
tells "An Englishman" that it is the most national
struggle France has undertaken, and that he has no
alternative but to embark in it—the French people
compel him to do so ; meaning plainly, for the
Hohenzollern affair is only casually mentioned in the
course of the conversation, that the "slight return"
for the friendly inactivity must be enforced.
There is, as we have said, corroborative
evidence in faVour of this conversation.- Simul-
taneously with " An Englishman's" letter
in the Telegraph appears the draft of a strange secret
treaty proposed between France and Prussia. This
remarkable document bears no date, but it is not un-
likely that it was put forth about the time of the
Luxembourg quarrel. Nor is it stated by which party
it was prepared; but as the greater part of
the advantages to be derived from its provisions
is allotted to Franco, we may deduce, with
perfect certainty, that the scheme was proposed
by the French Government, and rejected by the
Cabinet of Berlin. By its provisions the EMPEROR
offers to " admit and recognise" the acquisitions of
Prussia in the war of 1866, and to raise no objection
to the federal union ofSouth Germany with the North-
ern Confederation. In return the KING of PRUSSIA
will persuade the King of HOLLAND to sell Luxem-
burg, and in case the Emperor of the FRENCH
"shall be compelled by circumstances to cause his
troops to enter into Belgium or to conquer it,"
Prussia will assist France both by land and sea
against the Powers who may oppose the annexation of
thelittle State. Lastly, a treaty offensive and defensive
is to be concluded between the two great military
Powers. Of course this proposal was rejected by
BISMARCK. It took too much and gave too little.
BISMARCK, on his side, wanted Holland, as "Au
Englishman's" letter tells us ; and the Emperor
NAPOLEON could not concede so much. To have
given Prussia Holland would have utterly spoilt the
prestige of annexing Belgium. The attempt to bargain

failed because each party desired all the profit for
himself. The EMPEROR is now on his way to extort
by force the little return which Count BISMARCK
failed to give up in peace.
It is not improbable that the EMPEROR will be
much disconcerted at the appearance of the outline
treaty in the Times simultaneously . with "An Eng-
lishman's " letter in the Telegraph. The letter suits
his purpose very well; the treaty is a very awkward
document indeed. The two are quite harmonious ;
there is no reason to think that either is not genuine;
but one is supplementary to the other. In the letter
we have the EMPEROR'S story ; in the treaty we have
the whole truth. In the former the French
Sovereign is represented as satisfied with the
smallest rewards for the greatest services. Whilst
Prussia was making her rapid conquests in 1866,
France looked quietly on, though one effort from her
would have swept back the tide of conquest. When
the fight was over, all that was asked was the wretched
Luxembourg, and the one or two other small places.
But in the. treaty we have sketched out a compre-
hensive scheme of annexation, by which all the neigh-
bouring small States were to be divided between
France and Prussia; and no doubt further transac-
tions would have followed, when the appetite of the
two politicians had been whetted by this slight
repast. The reflections prompted by these disclo-
sures are not pleasant. No right-thinking person
can fail to be impressed with profound melancholy
on the perusal of these proposals.

'"TOPICS OF T:. 7.E DAY.

sidered that in the great majority of cases the
articles sold by the employers are charged for at a
much higher price than would be paid in the general
market, the injustice is too much to endure.
"A Working ➢Tdn," writing to the 7 imes, has no
hesitation in saying that half of those who come
under the denomination of his class trade either
directly or indirectly under the truck system. He
denounces the middlemen as the hardest of masters,
and states that advantage is taken when work is
short to put the workmen under the scrow. True
manliness is crushed; those who can afford it]either
migrate or become "crushers" themselves ; and the
effect is visible in the moral and physical condition
of those who are compelled to submit to this vicious
and selfish system.

POLITICAL ECONOMY FOR THE MASSES.
The members of the Whittington Club .have been
holding a meeting to express their views on the war
between France and Prussia, and to organise meet-
ings of working men to influence the conduct of the
English Government. As the leaders of both parlia-
mentary parties have already declared against the
war, any interference of this kind might appear
superfluous. However, the feelings of the members
were strongly expressed, though not always
in a manner creditable to their enlightenment
or their good taste. Mr. Odger, who aspires
to the dignity of Parliament, opened the
proceedings by declaring the war to be a shock to
Christianity. He gave an original and vigorous
illustration of his Christian sentiments by announcing
that "he hated Louis Napoleon as he hated hell, and
that he hated King William no less." The moral
which he drew from the present crisis was that as
long as we had kings we should have war, and as
long as we have an aristocracy we shall have kings.
Never was there such an opportunity of telling kings,
emperors, and priests that England can do without
them. Mr. Odger, of course, despises the classics too
much to be troubled by any recollections of the wars
to the Grecian States and the Roman Republic, but
surely a Radical pur et simple might be expected to
remember that the greatest war since 1815 was
fought in a country where Kings and aristocracies
are alike unknown, and where the priests follow
rather than lead the political sympathies of the
people !