The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-17 00:00:00

the clergy of that communion the right or pre-emp-
tion on easy terms as regards the glebes and manses.
Therefore a measure proposing to deal perfect justice
to all religions ought to give the Roman Catholics
clergy something, and . the least that it can
give them is glebes and manses. The reply that
it is impossible to do so because the nation will
not consent to it, he held to be prompted by that
very principle of Protestant ascendancy which Mr.
GLADSTONE desired to destroy. In other words,
Protestants still claim the right of vetoing the
State support of all religions whereof they
disapprove. The speeches made by Ministers
did not touch this point at all. They, and
especially Mr. BRIGHT, did not once condemn
the proposed grant upon its own demerits, but
simply because it was impossible to carry it. To use
Mr. BRIGHT'S emphatic words, the influence of the
most powerful Minister, and none has ever been
more powerful than Mr. GLADSTONE, would break and
shiver like broken glass if he were to endeavour to
endow the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. What,
then, is the use of discussing it ? Are the Conser-
vative party prepared to appeal to the country with
the cry of concurrent endowment ? If not, if they
know that such an appeal would be fatal to them,
why ask the Liberal party to make it ? This is not
very exalted statesmanship, we are bound to con-
fess. But we do not see how the Government could
have decided otherwise than it has done. Ministers,
at all events, will not venture to force upon the
country a measure which the country will not hear
of. The Lords may prove more bold, but if they
do, they will scarcely be so prudent.
The utter disorganisation which pervades the Con-
servative party at the present time with regard to this
question might well serve as a warning to the Libe-
rals how they involved themselves in like trouble. On
the one side we see Lord DERBY and Lord CAIRNS ;
on the other side Lord SALISBURY. Mr. DISRAELI,
who every one supposed favoured concurrent endow-
ment, has now sided with the two first peers, who
are resolutely opposed to it; Mr. HARDY, who was
believed to be the very incarnation of High Tory
Protestantism, has declared himself in favour of it. ,
Thus confusion is worse confounded.

The concurrent scheme being disposed of, it was
necessary to fall back upon . the Government pro-
posal. That we have always held to be the nearest
approach possible to the cy pr es principle. Education
would be equally near under some circumstances ; but
in Ireland national education is bound to be
secular, and therefore in that country the
relief of the sick and the afflicted is most
akin to religious purposes. The objection
that the application of money in this way
would be merely a lightening of the bur-
dens of the landlords does not seem to hold
good, since the proposed asylums are intended, not
so much for the relief of sick paupers, as of those
who in this country would resort to the hospitals and
asylums supported by voluntary contributions. There
are lamentably few of these in Ireland. Mr, GLAD-
STONE intimated that Government might be dis-

posed to adopt in part Lord SHAFTESB URY'S
proposal to lend the surplus money to fisher-

men and others.

We trust that he wi]

not do this. It is one of the great merits
of his present scheme that it will not increase the evil

which it seeks to relieve. Almsgiving is the surest in-
centive to mendicity. But while money given to idiots
and the blind and the mute will not cause any addi-
tion to these unhappy classes, the loan system

would open the door to innumerable applicants, and,
we fear, to not a little jobbery. It would, moreover,
be a violation of the principle hitherto so carefully
observed, that money originally devoted to a religious
use shall continue to be so devoted.

THE Haymarket does at least seem to serve the
purpose of chewing up the merits and demerits, the
shortcomings and excesses of our police force. The
history of that most famous of infamous streets
is written in the registers of the police-courts,
and it is not often that its monotonous record
presents anything- worthy of public notice. But
when a Haymarket case is exceptional, it is generally
because it furnishes us with some valuable informa-
tion touching that recondite study—the habits and
customs of British policemen. Such a case, furnish-
ing material for very serious reflection, was heard
in a metropolitan police-court on Thursday. A
charge of the usual drunk and disorderly type was
preferred against three young men by some police-
men. The offenders had been found in the Hay-
market, after one o'clock, making a disturbance.
They were drunk, said the guardians of the peace ;
they refused to "move !on ;" when taken into
custody they made use of foul language ; and, worst
of all, kicked. The case is precisely of the kind
which end uniformly in the choice of fine or imprison-
ment being offered to the culprits; but this time the
denofiment was very different. The prisoners not
only denied every item of the evidence given by the
policemen, but they brought such corroborative
testimony that the magistrate expressed himself
bound to believe them, to dismiss the case, and to
convict the upholders of the law of false swearing.
The three unfortunate young men were clerks in a
banking establishment not far from the Haymarket;
they had been engaged late, had partaken of supper at
the bank, and were going home in a perfectly sober
state. Arrived at a cab-stand in the Haymarket,
they deliberated a little as to engaging a cab, and were
forthwith ordered to move on. One of them was roughly
pushed, and, on remonstrating, taken into custody.
Another youth, who protested against this treat-
ment, was struck on the head, and likewise carried
off to a police-station. The third, who in-
timated his intention of lodging a complaint,
was violently kicked, knocked down, assailed
with abuse, and finally incarcerated. Such
was the version of the affair given by the three
clerks, and there could be no doubt of its accuracy,
and consequently no doubt of the brutality and per-
jury of the police. The youths were of undoubted
respectability, one of them the son of a professional
man. Business was the cause of their appearance in
the llaymarket at a late hour. It was proved that
tbey had left the bank in a perfectly sober condition,
and it was shewn that the encounter took place only
five or ten minutes afterwards. Independent wit-
nesses attested not only that they were sober,
but that the conduct of the police had been
violent :without provocation. Medical testi-
mony deposed that blows had been inflicted.
Beyond doubt the charge against them was not
merely groundless, but wilfully false.

Happily, the case came before a magistrate—Mr.
KNOX—who is not disposed to attach peculiar and
special credence to witnesses in uniform. Making
every allowance for the time and place, the confusion
incidental to the most disorderly of thorough-
fares, the magistrate confidently gave judgment that
the policemen- had committed an assault and bad
endeavoured to exculpate themselves by perjury. Pro-
secution on a charge of false swearing may probably do
something to prevent a recurrence of this flag-
rant betrayal of trust, whilst the three youths
escape without injury to character. But
the affair is serious, notwithstanding this
fortunate ending. It might have ended very
differently. Had there been no corroborative testi-
mony it is very probable that the youths, even if
they had escaped at all, would have been subjected
to an exposure which would not, as in this case, have
left them free from suspicion. There are un-
doubtedly many instances in which the evidence
of a policeman is opposed against the unsup-
ported evidence of a defendant, and in which
the former wrongly obtains the preference. The
imputation of being drunk and disorderly must,
if left uncleared, have proved ruinous to these three
young men. Their position enabled them to engage
counsel, and good fortune enabled them to bring for-
ward impartial witnesses. But whatmust be theconse-
quences sometimes, where the inculpated person is too
poor to obtain this assistance ? It is unfortunate,
certainly, that at a time when we find the power
entrusted to the police insufficient, we also find that
it would be dangerous to entrust them with more.