The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-15 00:00:00

they cannot expect to conquer them. Sympathy and
encouragement could scarcely be more totally uncalled for.
Mr. Gladstone no more believes himself unequal to dealing
with the Irish Land Bill than he thought himself unequal
to dealing with the Irish Church Bill. If he must be
supposed to be serious in saying that he is now afraid, he
must also be supposed to be serious in saying that he gains
strength to go on in his Irish policy from dining with a
Lord Mayor of opposite politics to his own. A man so
easily Encouraged may be safely trusted not to rest long
dismayed. Public speaking must not be tortured into
meaning in this way. These kind of rhetorical common-
places are meant to carry hearers or readers along with,
them, but not to make anyone wiser or to acquaint the
world with the secrets of Government. So, too, the Irish
Land question is just where it was, neither less difficult nor
more difficult to dispose of. If Mr. Gladstone ' wants
encouragement, he may get it from a much more apposite,
source than that of a Guildhall dinner, by reading such
letters as that in which a well known Irish nobleman has
just declared that he is ready to submit to any sacrifice in
order to establish happy relations between landlord and
tenant in Ireland. What he said of the evil effects of the
acts of lawlessness daily committed in Ireland is perfectly,
true, and they certainly serve to disenchant all who think
that legislative changes will make the English Government'
immediately and permanently popular in Ireland.. But'
neither the. Cabinet nor the Liberal party seriously propose
to themselves popularity in Ireland as an abn. Tt; do
what is just and practicable in very difficult circumstances
is all their endeavour; and they may hope to attain this
in some measure whether the Fenians shoot 'each other,
and leave off consuming tobacco or not, and whether Mr.
Gladstone is inspired by the whim of the moment to
speak at a City dinner, in an exuberant or a desponding
strain.

The Spectator declares that Mr. Ayrton is a man of very
considerable ability, who fully deserved the trial which he
has received and is receiving in the Ministry, but the more
we see of him as a Minister, the less, hitherto, we are dis-
posed to predict for him a career at all commensurate
with the sharpness of his political criticism. The
truth is, that he puts forth a great repellent
force and no attractive force whatever. Like an
electric eel, he temporarily disables antagonists by the
shock and jar of the influence which he radiates. But he
has no following, and probably never will have. He dwells
on none of the political ideas and none of the political
impressions by which men are bound together and animated
in a common cause. He seems to emulate the reputation
of a kind of political Serjeant Snubbin. On a very
memorable occasion he snubbed the Queen; he has fre-
quently snubbed the House of Lords ; and his habitual
practice is to snub the House of Commons. It is evidently
a treat to him to snub new members, even if they be on
his own side—as a new member who took his seat a year
or two ago on a question affecting the houses of
the poor can testify. He is never reluctant to snub old
members, as some of the members for Finsbury and the
City can testify; and in his address at the Tower Hamlets
on Monday he took occasion to snub, with great appearance
of zeal and reality, the newspaper press of this country,
the late Ministry, apparently even the present Ministry,
and, with most pertinacity and (we must add) must jus-
tice c,f all, an important section of his own constituency.
Mr. Ayrton says that the duty of tho First Commissioner
of Public Works is not to be a great adept in the arts of
public building and ornamentation, but to employ those
who are. And pray how is he to judge between thebetter
and the worse of these, if he knows of no criterion by
which to judge between the better and the worse? He
says, again, that his duty is to see that the people get " full
value for their money," and how is he to know that, if he
is no judge at all of the comparative merits of the diffe-
rent ways in which a given sum of money can be
spent so as to produce a maximum of artistic effect ?
But it is impossible to ignore Mr. Ayrton's pleasure in
adverse remark. It is his weakness to prefer, for its own
sake, adverse to favourable criticism. It is his still greater
weakness to prefer, for its own sake, what we may call
political remark, to the exposition of political principle.
He has never yet made a speech in Parliament, as far as
we remember, on the essential principle of a great political
question. He has never yet shown that his interest in
principles is even as deep as his interest in technical
details. Even when addressing his constituents on the

hustings, it is the same. He passes over his substantive
creed with a mere credo, and devotes all his energy to the

little excresences of erroneous interpretation. He not
only " believes in the contrary," but the contrary in which'
he believes is often a petty and insignificant contrary,
which is hardly worth the trouble of exposition. His'
political mind wants sap, and, like many minds which
want sap, it is apt to be gritty, and resemble strongly
political sand-paper. With a great deal of respect for Mr.
Ayrton's diligence and force in mastering so large a mass
of detail against which the nature of common politicians
is apt to revolt, we hardy expect great things of any sort
from him, because be is always shewing himself both too
carping for influence over men, and too minute and
circumstantial for a grasp of principle or a manifesto of
faith.

The Jolts Bull considers that the positive condem-
nation of six members of the Exeter Chapter, and
the negative opposition of four is, under all the
circumstances, a fact of no small significance.
For the strength of the opposition is far wider than is
apparent to those who form their opinion by the gossip of
clubs or drawing-rooms, or from the opinions of the daily
press. Some have refrained from opposing Dr. Temple for
selfish and personal reasons ; others—a far more numerous
body, of whom Archdeacons Downall and Phillpotts are
surely types—from fearing that they should be putting a,
nail into the coffin of the Establishment; while many;
have held aloof from a desire to bring about that very
result. Add to these the large class always disposed to
let things take their chance, and those who felt that as
no immediate practical result could ensue opposition was
aseless, and the result is not so dispiriting as at first sight
appears. Of this we feel convinced, that the future results
of what many consider an abortive opposition will be very
important. _ _

The Economist says that the extraordinary Supplement
on Indian finance, of which we before noticed the tele-
graphic summary, and which has now arrived itself, shews
at once that the two evils which ten years ago Mr. Wilson
went out to cure still exist much as ever if not quite as
bad as ever. These two evils were the uncertainty of the
accounts, and the deficit. We could not then depend on
Indian figures, and it was thought unendurable that we
could not depend. Yet now after ten years we cannot,
depend on them much, if at all, better. The'
whole of this " Penitential Supplement" is to
say that the last Budget was all wrong, and
that the Government are very sorry it was all wrong.
The estimate is made up of about ten months reality and
about two months conjecture, and is always put forward
as if it was likely to be right, whereas it almost always
turns out to be completely wrong. An Indian Budget'is
a conjecture founded on a conjecture. Instead of being
vexed when it is wrong, we should be surprised when it,

is right. All this may seem obvious, so easy to see that it
not worth while to insist on it. But it is not easy to get
it altered. Since 1861 it has been annually pointed out in
the Economist, till we have become tired of pointing it out'
The Indian deficit is uncovered too. Ten years ago Mr.
Wilson found that in thirty-three years out of forty-six
there had been a deficit in India, and only in thirteen
years a surplus. Only in two years since the commence-
ment of the budget system .in 1860 has there been more
than " a nominal surplus of income over expenditure."
The old and chronic deficit of India still remains to be
.ured. There is another point. Who is now responsible
for the Indian Exchequer? Sir R. Temple had not we
believe et e I arrived in Calcutta when this Gazette was
issued from Simla. Who is in his absence the Finance
Minister? There ought to be some responsible officer
always charged with Indian finance. Sir R. Temple
may have been, we think he was, in error in coming
home during his first year as Finance Minister.
But even though he was away and not responsible,
some one on the spot ought to be responsible. We ought
to know who this is. We ought not to be left with a
vague reference to the responsibility of Lord Mayo. No
doubt the Governor-General in India is responsible for all
that Government does, but the liability is too vague to be
useful: those who are in theory answerable for all are in
practice answerable for nothing, and we want a Minister
or a deputy-I\linister responsible both in fact and name,
for the finance of India and for all statements with respect
to it.

A story of Sainte-Bouro appears in the Lyon:
journal, the Decentralisation. lie was dining in company
with the Pero Lacordaire, and the conversation turning on
religion, Sainte-Bouve said :—" I don't understand your
revelation, and I make a point of believing nothing I do
not fully understand." "Pardon me, sir, said Lacordaire,
" you do not understand why fire hardens eggs and melts
butter, but I perceive that you believe in omelettes !y
Sainte•Beuve treated the Pere Lacordaire with the greatest
deference ever after, and always spoke of him with the
Utmost revect.