The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-08 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

THE SUN,

accomplished, the -Bill was fairly passtq -through it
amid the heartiest acclamations—Mr. DODSON vacated
his seat at the head of the Table, upon the other end
of which the m Ice was replaced by the Sergeant-at-
Arms, the House resuming, and the chair being reoccu-
pied in due form by Mr. SPEAKER. All this, of course,
is referred te, with dissatisfaction, by the opponents of
the measure, as work done by the " tyrant majority:,
But, in the name of common sense, it may naturally
be asked, what is really implied by so absurd
an expression ? Words like these, being merely
words expressive at once of anger and of helplessness,
are, in themselves, it is true, hardly deserving of se-
rious c3nsideration. They are intrinsically in their
significance—some might rather say perhaps in their
insignificance—simply frivolous : being (as they are)
so much " sound and fury, signifying nothing." But,
even when estimated thus accurately, they are worth
sweeping out of view, as utterly valueless, if only to
the end, that they may be deprived of the chance
of exciting in one single mind a moment's serious
misapprehension. To talk thus on the left hand of
Mr. SPEAKER of the "tyrant majority"is about as ab-
surd as to talk on the right hand of Mr. SPEAKER about
the "miserable minority." The latter phrase—which,
as we all know, has recently been audible in the
House of Commons—is simply indicative of the irri-
tation of the Liberal Party, of the Party actually in
power, and invested with the responsibility of Go-
vernment—is simply indicative of • the irritation, of
that now certainly dominant Party, at the useless
impediments placed in the way of legislative pro-
ceedings the ultimate triumph of which no one for
an instant can seriously doubt. Precisely in
the same way, that other invidious phrase,
the phrase previously referred to as hav-
ing been more than once recently applied to
the political antagonists confronting them in such
vastly superior numbers, by the more galled and
wounded members of the almost helpless Opposition,
the imputation thrown out against the Ministerialists
of being a "tyrant majority," is just as obviously
indicative of the ang, r aed irritation awakened
among the more impulsive and impetuous of the
Conservatives. The expressions thus employed are
in themselves, of course, simply ridiculous. The
minority is in no way, in the sense in which the
word has been applied to them, a " miserable
minority." While, the majority, it is a perfect
outrage to right reason anl common sense to talk of,
as a "tyrant majority." A majority so large is not
necessarily, by reason of its overwhelming prepon-
derance, tyrannical. And, certainly, judging it by its
acts, estimating its character from this very measure
of the Irish Church Bill—a Bill that may be con-
sidered in the light of a crucial test as to the cha-
racter not only of the Ministry introducing it but of
the enormous majority of the House who are the
supporters at once of the 8.11 and of the Government
—the Liberal Party, the Party now iu power, cannot
be said to have shown themselves, in any way, towards
their political antagonists, despotic or domineering.
In the very structure of the bill itself, in the manner
of its introduction, in the mole and in the mood in
which it has been conducted, heretofore, through its
several stages towards its intended transformation
in the end into an enactment, there is nowhere
visible any disposition eithcv on the part
of its projectors or of its promoters to
ride rough-shod over the conscientiously maintained
opinions of their opponents. Whatever may be
wittily said about the respecting of vested interests be-
ing the common places of confiscation iu this matter of
thedisestablishing and d isendowing of thelrishCh arch,
it cannot but be admitted, even by the more impas-
sioned antagonists of the measure, that vested inte-
rests have throughout been earnestly considered in all
the complications and intricacies of its most elaborate
adjustment. Su:nmiug our whole argument up
within the compass of a single sentence, we would
here add, that in no invidious sense whatever
can the phrase of a " miserable majority" be applied
to her MAJESTY'S Opposition—any more than that
other equally insolent phrase of a " tyrant majority"
can be regarded as in any way applicable to the serried
ranks of the supporters of her MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment. •

THE great Maynooth debate suggests several con-
siderations. The first is one of unmitigated satisfac-
tion that this is the last discussion which the House
of Commons will have to endure upon a subject
which has given bigotry and uncharitableness the
opportunity of an annual demonstration for a whole
generation. We are not so sanguine as to think
that ,MT. NEWDEG ATE and Mr. WHALLEY will
henceforth be silent, nor fin _l their occupation
gone. Gentlemen of their imaginative tempera-
ment, who believe that every twentieth person
is a Jesuit in disguise, and that a man may be one
without knowing it, are sure to find plentiful occa -
sions for airing their favourite horror. They will
find it in the heavens above, in the earth beneath,
and in the waters under the earth. They will discern
Popery in the rig of a ship, in the cut of a uniform,
in the SPEAKER'S wig. But in all such matters as
those they are harmlessly ridiculous; in the matter
of the Maynooth Grant they had the power to inflict
a certain amount of mischief, because they had a
few followers. That these are much fewer
than was supposed, is our second consideration.
Early in the session, the Conservative wirepullers
thought that they could seriously damage the
Government by getting up an alliance between the
Scotch anti-Papists and the Opposition. Mr.
AYTO UN was the instrument used by the clever agent
of the Carlton. But it was soon found that the
thing would not work. The Scotch M.P.'s, Free-
Kirk-men though they might be, intensely opposed
to Romanism though they are, absolutely refused to
do an act of injustice which would have involved the
strainig at a
isgnat and the swallowing of a camel. For
—this
ourthird consideration—the objection raised
n
by such men as Sir GEORG E JENKIN SON wasaltogether
absurd. That irrepressible baronet and even astute
men like Mr. DISRAELI do not object to compen-
sating Maynooth, but object only to compensating
it out-of the Irish Church revenues. They would
have paid the necessary money out of the Consolidated
Fund, but, as Mr. Low TITER said, they would rather
shovel the Church money into St. George's
Channel than give a penny of it to the famous
college. The Scotch members are far too shrewd and
thrifty to be led astray by such extravagance as this.
They are not altogether free from prejudice, for Mr.
M'LAREN declared that if they had been asked to
compensate Maynooth out of the National Ex-
chequer, there would have been an agitation
from the Tweed to John o' Groat's House.
But they were quite willing that the Roman
Catholics should, as well as the Presbyterians,
have their fair share in the revenues of the Irish
Church. As a matter of fact, there is in principle
very little difference between the two proposals.
stltThell:
crtleilri
sterling
Irish
scCol
intoi
that.e ve even
isuuerst
obheeaceonymd,
sea
hneafittinitodnlasl ptnr Imihe
our
it
:t
me
surely be unimportant, sy
if we compensate asMaaynon%
sumpoek
eot r
ro uo tu t o
of f tthh ee
eConsolidatedother.
A ea Fi ua nude
ct
no fv
eonni e-
eathtteroutof
of prtihnis-
o
r of
ciple,
ence, we take the funds which seem most appro-
priate, the funds which have been used for ecclesias-
tical purposes heretofore and apply them to the same
purposes for the future.

The argument which was ezilfully raised, and
which brings us to our fourth consideration, that we
are relieving the English taxpayer at the expense of
Ireland, has at first sight more weight. But it will
not stand examination. The grant to Maynooth
was a niggardly act of justice performed by
the British nation towards the great bulk of
-the Irish people, in the hope that we might

thereby bribe them into allowing the PiOtestant- ---
Established Church. This and the Regium Donum
to the Presbyterians were buttresses erected by
Anglicans in order to support the tottering fabric of
that Church. In other words, English taxpayers
were called upon to pay so much a year in order to
maintain the ascendancy of the Irish clergy and the
Irish landlords. It was but fair that when that
object was abandoned the English people should be
relieved from the charge which it involved. If the
Irish Church revenues are to be for the Irish
people, they had no reason to expect, and it is
clear that they did not expect, that Englishmen would
have to continue the payment imposed upon them
under the old system. These arguments were too
clear and strong to be resisted. Thus it came to
pass that the House, by almost the largest majority
of the whole session, negatived Sir GEORGE JEN-
KINSON'S amendment. Mr. AYTOUN'S was simply a
matter of detail, and it allowed of wider diver-
gence of opinion. The amount voted to
Maynooth is no doubt large, the gift may
be called even bountiful, but it must,
before being censured, be considered in re-
lation to the other pecuniary arrangements of
this bill. The Protestant Episcopalians get nine
millions sterling, including the compensation for life
interests; the Presbyterians get £70,4000; the
Roman Catholics, who are about five times as
numerous as the others put together, get £365,000.
That is, nearly five millions of people get about a
third of a million sterling, and three-quarters of
a million of people get nine and three-
quarter millions sterling. And yet men like
Mr. AYTOUN protest against the extravagance
of the first gift, and the House is called upon to
spend several hours in haggling over the " nicely-
calculated less and more" of a few thousand pounds.
Mr. GLADSTONE reduced the matter to an absurdity
when he shelved that the total amount at issue
between him and Mr. AYTOUN was only £60,000.
The House took a practical view of the matter, and
gave Ministers the substantial Majority of 107. Thus
ends this weary and T shabby quarrel so, far as the
House of Commons is concerned.

Mn. IIOuSMAN'S defence of Caves is more clever
than accurate. When he appeals to the example of
the Liberal leaders, to that of Lord RUSSELL, Mr.
GLADSTONE, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. COBDEN, and Mr.
LOWE, he forgets that, with the exception of the
last, they set up the standard of rebellion because
the ostensible Liberal leader had deserted his
own colours. The China War of 1857
was a flagrant outrage, not only upon the
rights of nations, but upon the principles of
Liberalism. The Conspiracy to Murder Bill was, per-
haps, not so clear a departure from those principles,
but it was, at least, fairly open to hostile criticism.
The truth is, Lord PALMERSTON attempted to rule
nominally as a Liberal Minister by the aid of Con-
servative measures. To this Lord RUSSELL, Mr.
G LADSTONE, Mr. ERIGHT, r.nd Mr. COBDEN would
not assent. The result of their opposition was
the Willis's Rooms compact, one of the con-
ditions whereof was the introduction of a Liberal
Reform Bill. That condition was fulfilled. How
did Mr. IlonsmAN meet ity Let HANsARD's Debates
for 1860 declare. He took the part which was
assumed by Mr. LOWE in 1866 under precisely
similar circumstances. He was left out of the
Cabinet of 1859, as Mr. LowE was of the
Cabinet of 1803, and he took his revenge
upon Lord PALMERSTON and Lord RUSSELL,
as Mr. LOWE took his upon Lord RUSSELL
and Mr. GLADSTONE. Both bills were defeated;
Mr. HonsmArr was one of those who accomplished
both defeats. To compare his conduct with that of
Lord RUSSELL, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. BRIGHT, and
Mr. COBDEN is, therefore, absurd. They formed
a Cave in order to advance, he formed one in order
to retard, Liberal principles. Nor was it only with
regard to Reform that Mr. HonsmAN was found on
the side of the Conservatives. He was one of the
strongest promoters of the panic of 1859 ; he is,
more perhaps than any other leadingpolitician except
Lord PALMERSTON, responsible for the scandalous
and wasteful outLiy upon our useless fortifications.
At the same time he vied with Mr. DISRAELI him-
self in pu Iting every conceivable obstacle in the way
of the great me :sure which has tended to make our
fortifications needless—the Commercial Treaty with
France. Mr. lIonsNrAN calls himself a Liberal.
Was he a Liberal when he attempted to get up a
war with France instead of a treaty ?

But Mr. HonsmAN is a Liberal now. We do not
doubt it. Liberalism is predominant, triumphant.
It was not so in Lord PALMERSTON'S time. But
" the times change and we with them," and Mr.
Hon SMAN, the opponent of the £6 franchise in 1860,
of the £7 franchise in 1866, has, now that his
Conservativeallies have given him household suffrage,
nothing further to say upon that point save that he
is a Liberal. In one thing we do Mr. Hon SMAN the
justice to say that be has been always consistent—
in his hatred of the Church. We have compared
him to Mr. LowE, and he resembles that Minister in
his ecclesiastical antipathies as well as in his distrust
of the working classes. Mr. HousmAN's antagonism
to the Church and the clerical order is vehement,
bitter, unappeasable. They must expect no mercy
from him. Ile supports the Irish Church Bill as we
do, but from a very different motive. We consider
it an act of national justice; he sees in it a stab in
the side of the Church, a staggering blow at the
clergy. His speech on Thursday night revealed the
keenness of his hatred. He is altogether a man of
too violent feelings. They override his judgment,
they make him prejudiced where he ought to be
dispassionate, they blind him when he ought to be
discriminating. He is a clever man, but we have
small confidence in him.

LATEST INTELL MENCE

(RECrER's TELEGRAMS.)

ITALY.

FLORENCE, May 7.

The negotiations for tha formation of a new
Cabinet continue. To-day conferences havo been
held between General Menabrea, Signors Ferraris,
Mondini, and Count Ponza di San Martino. Sig-
nor Minghetti and Signor Correnti are also men-
tioned as probable members of the new Cabinet.
Baron Knbeck has li.ft for Naples to present the
Order of the Golden Fleece to Prince Humbert.

AMERICA.

NEW YORK, May 7.

According to Mr. Adam Moffat's report, the
receipts of cotton have been 21,500 bales, and
total since the Ist of September, and taken by
American spinners direct. Shipments to England
25,000 ; to France, 3,000 ; to the Continent,
5,000 ; and since the Ist of September, 1,250,000
bales. Stock, 1,260,000. Market flat. Middling
upland, 1071 ; cost and freight per steamer.

PLYMOUTII, May 8.

The Hamburg and American Company's steamer
Ho'satin, from New York, has arrived here with
27 passengers for this port, 50 for Cherbourg, 208
for Hamburg, 45 sacks of m ills for Plymouth, 8
fo: Cherbourg, 21 for Hamburgh, $lO,OOO in specie
for Cherbourg, and $2,000 for Hamburg.

C [-lINA.

SHANGHAI, Arril 11G.

A despatch from Sir Rutherford Alcock, regard-
ing the right of Europeans to reside in the interior
of China, has been published. Sir Rutherford ex-
prcsiies his inability to press upon the attention of
the Chinese Government.