The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-20 00:00:00

LONDON, 1110ND,.4Y, JUNE 20, 1870

JOHN BULL with his hands in his breeches pockets
counting out his money in Committee of Supply—
as represented now by one M.P., now by another—
is a moving spectacle. He pours out the golden
showers so open handidly—yet every now and then,
with a growl and a grumble. It was thus on Friday
evening when over £45,000 were voted as salaries for
the officers of the House of Lords, and nearly
£50,000 for those of the House of Commons, close
upon £60,000 for the expenses of the Treasury,
almost £90,000 for the item of the Home Depart-

ment, not far short of 65,000 for the Foreign,
still nearer £35,000 for the Colonial, £47,000
and upwards for the Privy Council office and
subordinate departments, and upwards of £lOO,OOO
for the Board of Trade and its subordinate depart-
ments. Altogether, not very far short of £400,000—
to be precise, just £386,164 —being handed over in
lumps, one after another, to eight of the great
Departments of Administration, certainly with no
niggardliness, and only now and then with an ex-
ceptional grunt of dissatisfaction. JOHN BULL, as
represented on Friday night by Mr. MELLOR, took
exception in passing, and no wonder, to the cir-
cumstance that one official personage connected
with our diplomatic system has received altogether
in acknowledgment of his good services, the sum of
£75,000, or, as the member for Ashton-under-Lyne
oddly put it, at the rate of £917 for every year from the
date of his (the diplomatist's) birth. No wonder
the House laughed—poor JOHN figuratively speak-
ing, having to grin and bear it—for, very soon
afterwards, one comes to the record on the Parlia-
mentary report intimating that " the vote was agreed
to." It always is. But for the sake of appearances
the House in Committee of Supply goes through
the formality. Once, and once only, at Friday's sit-
ting of the House of Commons in Committee of
Supply, might it be said that JOHN grumbled, not
at having too little to pay, but at having too little
asked of him in payment. This was in regard to a
mere matter of detail, but a rather prominent one in
respect to the salaries of the Treasury, or, to come
at once to the point, in respect to the salary set apart
for the First Lord of the Treasury. Remembering the
enormous responsibilities devolving upon the First
Minister of the Crown, the Leader of the House of
Commons and the Head of the Government, every
one must surely agree in pronouncing the salary
of £5,000 allotted to him, as compared with his
immense labours and incessant drudgery, the
paltriest pittance, a meed in every way the most
inadequate. One of these days, we may presume,
that the time must come when a small amount of
discretionary power will at last he exercised by the
House of Commons sitting in Committe of Supply,
when [if only the good time would come at once i]
the salaries of the Ministers and other great officers
of State will be redistributed in more suitable pro-
portions.

"THE Thornoliffe Reign of Terror must be put an
end to." Such is the verdict of the Bench at Shef-
field. Such is probably the verdict of all unpreju-
diced and right judging minds, but is there any hope
or chance that so just and reasonable a decision will
produce any practical effect ? The particular
offenders in question may get the two
or three months' imprisonment, which they
so richly deserve, but unless our future
experience prove very different from our
past, we shall not see the last of the Yorkshire
ROBESPIERRES, MARATS, and DANTONS for some
time to come, CHARLES READE and the Sheffield
magistrates notwithstanding. The evil is by no
means confined to a single district ; if it were there
might be some hope of crushing it, eradicating it, or
starving it out ; but Sheffield seems so proud of Mr.
BROADHEAD and his associates that she need not
object to being selected as a represedtative city. Let
us look at the case in question. All the world
knows there have been strikes at the
Thorncliffe colleries, in fact those strikes have long
ago assumed the aspect of riots. Into the rights and
wrongs of the dispute it is not necessary at present
to enter. We have only to look at the matter as an
ordinary trade dispute, arising from a difference of
opinion as to wages, hours of work, &c. In what
manner does the love of fair play supposed to be
characteristic of Englishmen exhibit itself ? Five
non-unionists are employed at Thorncliffe, and as
a matter of course the unionists on strike
endeavour to persuade them to leave their employ-
ment. Failing in this, a naJb of unionists lie in
wait for the men, and as they are passing quietly
home from work, they assail them with violence.
Sticks, stones, and other weapons are called into re-
quisition. What treatment can be too severe for a
man who dares to work when his fellows bid him
be idle. Such an intolerable exercise of individual
independence among the honest workmen of Great
Britain, whose claims to political rights hare
been so loudly supported in the House of Commons,
and so enthusiastically maintained outside, such an
exercise is in the highest degree traitorous, criminal,
and avaricious. It must be sternly repressed, and
we need not wonder that several of these unfortu-
nate non-unionists were so maltreated that they
could not work for some days. Quite right,
of course. They could not stop work-
ing when directed to do so by their fellows,
therefore they must be made to stop. All's fair
in love and war, says the adage, and of course this

is specially the case when the war is between labour
and capital, between employer and employed. We
have heard something of aristocratic tyranny, of
middle class oppression, of the honest desire of
English working-men for political rights for
themselves and their children. All j Kst
and excellent, no doubt, but if this is a
specimen of their legislation, it might be more pru-
dent to keep to the legislation of Peers and Bour-
geoisie, since we all stand a chance, under these admi-
rable social theorists, of getting our heads broken
with a stone, or our limbs shattered with a flask of
gunpowder, should we be indiscreet or dishonest
enough to depart from the beaten track.

PRESIDENT GRANT'S proclamation condemning
the Fenian raid was thought a fine stroke of friendli-
ness in this country, and the English Ambassador at
Washington has thanked the American Government
for the favour ; but the Canadians are disposed to
think differently. They have, indeed, decided upon
making a formal complaint of the conduct of the
United States Executive in allowing a Fenian invasion
of Canada to be prepared without let or hindranceon
American territory. They declare that the proclama-
tion was issued so late as to be almost worthless in
affecting the course of the Fenian movement; it
only appeared after much injury had been done,
whereas measures might have been taken much
sooner. The facts certainly afford. great justification,
for this complaint. The Fenian raid was no secret
scheme, but open and notorious. Long before it took
place the world was informed that the great descent
was in preparation. In every considerable
town in the Northern States the plans of
the Brotherhood underwent discussion; the
organisation was carried to some degree of perfection;
funds and weapons were collected; and at length was
visible a general movement of Fenians all along the
frontier from Michigan to the Atlantic seaboard.
The Government remained inactive. The invasion was
allowed to take place. A. considerably body of Fenians
concentrated themselves in Vermont, adjoinirig the
Canadian frontier on the east; they hastily crossed, and
still more hastily recrossed, after a sanguinary conflict
in which not less than one man was killed, and, say,
two or three wounded. After the invasion appeared
the proclamation, discountenancing the attempt, and
directing the United States officers to inter-
fere; and after the defeat some of the
Fenian ringleaders were. captured. This was
all very well, but the Canadians hold that
the marauders might have been stopped at an
earlier stage of their doings, for, as it was, great loss
was inflicted on the colony by panic and the cost of
preparation—all of which injury might have been
prevented by timely movement.
There can be no doubt that the negative
assistance of the American Government was
of value. Had the Fenians found cause to
entertain the hope that their enterprise was
secretly approved at Washington the, invasion must
have become formidable. Moreover, there is some-
thing to be said in respect of the liberty of the sub-
ject, to which so wide an interpretation is given in
America. More unrestrainedly even than in
England, can a man say and write what
he pleases in the United States. It was
impossible for the President to prevent
the full discussion and development of the Fenian
plans, just as it is impossible for the English Ministry
to hinder the elaboration of anti-Napoleonic plots in
London. Still there is a wide difference between
the open discussion of hostile schemes and
the actual assembling of large bodies of
armed men at different points on the fron-
tier. President GRANT might have prevented
the movement from attaining this menacing position.
That he would not have exceeded the limits of his
authority in doing so is proven by a precedent, which
he himself has established. Some time ago a filibus-
tering- expedition, under the command of Colonel"
RYAN, destined for Cuba, was completely frustrated
by the American authorities. In this case the Govern-
ment did not wait until an act of invasion had been
accomplished. It was deemed sufficient that the
expedition was notoriously planned to aid the Cuban
insurgents. On this common information the
Government took action, arrested Colonel RYAN,
dispersed his men, and so broke up the organisation
that no considerable portion of it ever
reached Cuba. Surely this is a case in
point. Had PRESIDENT GRANT acted towards
the Cuban filibusters as he acted towardstheFenians,
he would have quietly allowed the expedition to sail,
it would have accomplished whatever mischief it was
capable of in Cuba, then would have appeared an
official proclamation setting forth the wickedness of
such plans, and a straggler or two might have been
arrested as they returned home. What the PRESIDENT
actually did was right. If it was right in one case,
it was right in the other. Had the American Exe-
cutive taken note of this wholesale migration of
Fenians to the North, and prevented the incursion
across the border; had the proclamation and the
arrests come a few days sooner, the claim of the
Americans to English and Canadian gratitude could
not have been alloyed by unpleasant considerations.

THE hackneyed Horatian maxim about the trans-
forming effect of time must have been in the minds
of a good many persons who were present at Mon-
day night's debate on the University Tests Bill.
Four years ago Mr. GLADSTONE seemed to the
Conservative party the incarnation of revolu-
tion, the most dangerous of agitators, except, per-
haps, Mr. BRIGHT. Nay, even last year he was
held up to public reprobation as the ruthless destroyer
of time-honoured institutions. Yet this session we
find him filling the part so long taken by his prede-
cessor, and allying himself with the Conservative
party against the extreme section of his own fol-
lowers. There were four divisions on Monday upon
the measure above-mentioned, and in each instance
of Government success the hostile amendment
was moved by a Liberal, in each case the very large
minority was composed of Mr. GLADSTONE'S own
nominal supporters, and the majority was
obtained by the help of Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. HARDY,
and their followers. Nor is this likely to be the
only occasion on which this phenomenon will be
exhibited during the present session. If
Monday's contest was lively, that which
begins on Thursday with regard to the
Education Bill will be fierce. Altogether there
can be no longer any question that there is a large
and influential section of the Liberal party which is
dissatisfied with Mr. GLADSTONE'S leadership in
matters ecclesiastical, and that they are determined
to manifest this dissatisfaction again and again in
the lobby, and compel him to decide, once for all, if
he means to maintain his position by the help of his
opponents, and at the cost of estranging no small
number of his friends.

The position is a grave one, and may well cause
Mr. GLADSTONE some anxiety. At the same time it
does not necessarily follow that he is responsible for
it. His Government is very different from Lord
PALMERSTON'S. He has no desire to be the embodi-
ment of the " can't you let it alone ?" policy. But if
the disaffected Liberals go beyond the Liberal
programme, or make demands which the country
would not support, the Premier is justified in
resisting them. No statesman can, in a country like
this, be much in advance of the nation. It is his
duty to direct and to lead, but he ought never to go