The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-10 00:00:00


The recent confessions of Messrs. Whalley and
Newdegate are too good a theme for the Saturday
Review to miss. Our contemporary compares the
M.P.'s to the rival Christy Minstrels who are now
singing in London, each invoking the royal patron-
age, each declaring themselves to be the only original
persons suppose that there is
between them, but!, as a
mvmeiarntytsetrriieltstoife Ordinaryfadifferencect ,
cm
Cesar and Pompey are very
unlike, especially Pompey ; the difficulty is that
one cannot, in spite of this unlikeness, tell
which is Caesar and which is Pompey. Mr. Newde-
gate asserts that Mr. Whalley has made Protes-
tantism ridiculous;, Mr. Whalley asserts that
Protestantism has (as he was warned would be the
case) made him ridiculous. Apparently Mr. Whalley
andee Protestantism
to the promotion of general hilarity. One thing
m sn
from act and react upon each other,
N these confessions. Mr. ewde-
scertain
er ta i
gate thought that the chestnuts were warm, and
advised that some enterprising person should be
engaged to take them off the fire. Mr. Whalley was
engaged, and the chestnuts certainly were warm.

MAYNOOTH AND THE 44 ADVERTISER."

The Morning Advertiser is sorely out of heart.
After instructing the publicans for the last twenty
iniquity in-general, and the wickedness of Maynooth
in particular, dayarticnlaib.,y douray in the mystery of the Papal
contemporary finds the house of
Commons
to "endow" Maynooth with £365,000. But
nilde sp e ra nd un determining; thereby a tremendous majority
is vengeance in store.
" It is no trifling consolation to us to feel
assured that a considerable number of those members
who sacrificed their Protestantism to party interests
will have to pay the penalty of the loss of their seats
for their tergiversation." Does the Advertiser really
suppose that the aforesaid members would have ven-
tured to " sacrifice their Protestantism" if they bad
not received the full permission of their constituents
to do so ?

PRESIDENTIAL PATRONAGE.

(From the Angelo-Aiean Times.)

Senator Ross was astonished and pained by this
declaration of the PRESIDENT " that where any
man. had held office during the past year and a half,
it was presumptive evidence that he was a JOHNSON
man." We also are pained and astonished, though
for a differeai reason, for Mr. Ross only saw in
friends from office. To him, 4, it plainly said that
General GRANT'S declaration the dismissal of his
notwithstanding the fact that fully one-half the
offices of the country were filled by earnest and
faithful Radical Republicans and soldiers—the PRE-
SIDENT'S wannest political friends and supporters
—they must give place to the hordes of bargaining
politicians axd place-hunters who for the past few
weeks have blocked the halls and swarmed in the
avenues of tae capital." Gen. GRANT has acted on
the old principle, to an extent for which the country
was little p'epared. The time-honoured story has
been repeated,
and the play:has been in accordance
withthe well.known programme " to the victor belong
the spoils." The declaration attributed to General
(I RANT has, however, awiderbeating than that given
toit by Senabr Ross, for it contains more than every-
thing that isobjectionable in the American system.
Does the PRESIDENT divide all his fellow...citizens
into Johnson-men and Grant-men, as Rhode Island
is divided into Spragues and Browns. Is America to
descend to the faction following of a paltry Italian
town in the Middle Ages ?—and, if not, why does
he, the head of the Executive, use so objectionable
a term? Bail as this is, the real vice is not realised
therein. ANDREW JOHNSON was the lawful .Pre-
sident of th,3 United States. The men, his suc-
cessor thus stigmatized, for it is clear he intended
it as a tern] of reproach, were the public servants
acting for tae country in
their several °facial ova.-