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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 7, 1869.

Thom_
• Slut

LONDOW, WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1869.

Transformed though the Irish Church Bill has

been in its passage through the Lords' Committee, we

still recognize even in the contradictory and sweeping
character of the various amendments which have been

introduced, the dawning of the reasonable prospect
of a satisfactory compromise being eventually arrived
at between the Peers and the Commons, between the

Oppo.sitiou and the Government. There seems no

cause, now, that the rival licuses should come to
loggerheads. A collision is no longer, what, until
very recently, it was deemed to be, inevitable. That
is—if only the powerful Ministry at the head of the
great dominant party in the House of Commons and
throughout the country, will show a readiness to con-
cede—somewhat. Supposing Ministers are still reso-
lute in their fixed determination to yield upon no
single point whatever, of course there is no alterna-
tive. In that case the Loris' Amendments
must be regarded and treated by them
as having affected a fatal transformation. In which
contingency the course pursued must be the arro-
gant and autocratic course some two or three wears
ago distinctly enough foreshadowed—meaning the
hurried close of the session, the temporary proroga-
tion of Parliament, the calling of the Houses together
again very shortly afterwards, the introduction in
the autumn of 1869 of the Irish Church Bill in its
original form in the House of Commons, its silent
and rapid passage through its various stages towards
its development by that House into an enactment, and
its ominous reintroduction into the House of Lords
simultaneously with (in a double sense) a very libe-
ral addition to the aggregate number of our heredi-
tary legislators. Nothing of this kind, however,
do we now in any way seriously anticipate. The
Bill has been passed through the Lords' Committee.
It has been transformed by the adoption of many of
the most important amendments proposed by one or
another of the now Liberal, now Conservative, op-
ponents of the scheme as it was originally planned by
the Government. It will be duly reported on Friday
evening. Something of the force of those amendments
may then be modified or mitigate]. But to all in-
tents and purposes the amended Bill, when it has
been read a third time in tb.e House of Lords and
passed, will be pretty much what it has been rendered
at this moment by its manipulation during its recent
passage through Committee. And yet—for all
that—we believe in the possibility, nay, more than
that, we believe in the probability- of a compro-
mise—and of a compromise, too, of a satisfactory
character. That some compromise was practically
brought within reach of the Legislature, became ob-
vious, indeed, so soon as the Lords had determined,
by their memorable division upon the Second Read-
ing, that the Bill should be allowed to go into Com-
mittee. It, then, only remained to be seen how far the
Bill itself would be changed or distorted in Com-
mittee by the amendments, and consequent upon
the rejection or acceptance of those amendments, how
far the dominant party would be reconciled to or
alienated from the notion of anything at all like
concession. Concession upon one point, Ministers
have from
.first to last set their faces against re-
solutely—that is, against what is called, as
the Marquis of SALISBURY thinks ungrammatically,
concurrent endowment. Evading that rock ahead,
postponing that difficulty, Lurch CAIRNS' amendment
of last evening—an amendment carried by 160 as
opposed to 90, or, in other words, bar a clear majo-
rity cf 70 in a House of 250--sets aside for the time
being the appropriating of the funds of the Eatab-
lishment, leaving the solution of the problem as to
its ultimate destination for the future, the caliner,
the more deliberate consideration of the Imperial Par -
liament. ?he argument against the appropriation
clause of the Bill, as it originally stood, as it was
introduced by the Government, and as it was accepted
by the House of Commons, has been all along very for-
midably this—that, by reason of that p ,rticular clause
simply reducing the county cess, the main advantage
of the projected appropriation would appertain even-
tually to the Irish landlords—the landlords, by means
of the reversionary donation of the tithe rent charge,
having otherwise been largely benefited by the work-
ing out of the Government scheme of disendowmcnt.
Lord TAUNTON—the Right Hon. HENRY LABOU-
CHERE of ten years ago—very forcibly argued
on the other hand, however, that the notion was
seriously to be deprecated, of throwing loose upon the
country this great and vitally important question as
to the proper distribution of the surplus obtained
through the realisation of the Irish Church property
by means of the projected plan of disendowment.
Thrown loose, however, it will not be, according to our
conviction. It is precisely upon that point, as we con-
ceive, that will arise the possibility and the practica-
bility of au honourable and satisfactory compromise
on the part of Her MAJESTY'S Government, and
on the part of Her MAJESTY'S Opposition—the Op-
position all powerful in the Lords, the Govern-
ment all powerful in the Commons. Rather
than indefinitely delay the appropriation of the sur-
plus—it must sooner or later, we believe, become ap-
parent that mutual concessions will be in every way
desirable. How these concessions may be best arrived
at, we conceive to be very clearly indicated through
the wise and conciliatory remarks addressed last even-
ing to the House of Peers by Lord TAUNTON.

THERE must be thunder in the air. If milk is not
turning sour, tempers are. The suave Mr. DI.SRAELI'S
wigging of Mr. LowE on Saturday was sharp enough;
but the mellifluous Sir JOHN COLERIDGE'S snubbing
of Mr. FAWCETT on Monday was absolutely fierce.
Now, neither the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
nor the member for Brighton is a fool or a
bore. The most angelic-tempered men—and
Mr. DISRAELI, as we all know, is akin to
the angels—may be pardoned if occasionally '
they " sit upon " a CHARLEY or a JENKINSON,
GRIFFITHS or a KNOX. But when men of the
calibre of the two who have just been subjected to that
process are concerned, it is scarcely seemly for states-
men, however exalted, however angelic, to indulge
in.language such as that with which the silver-tongued
SOLICITOR-GENERAL astonished the House of Com-
mons. It is quite true that Mr. FAWCETT has been
rather troublesome this session. It is quite true that
he has not yet forgiven Ministers for their
not very creditable desertion of him, when his bill
for throwing the expenses of elections on the rates
came on for a second reading. It is quite true that
he made some remarks, more frank than discreet,
about the bribe which he said they were offering the
Irish landlords to pass the Irish Church Bill. It is
the
the
standardL i Liberal
pqauri
ttye true
this
session
11: e a
to has,
ventured he alo
rare
fisealltht
of revolt, and to divide the House against the Govern-
ment. But surely his rebellion is not without
extenuation. If anything could provoke a saint it
would have been the shabby manner in which
Ministers, without a word of warning, threw him
overboard at the very moment when he thought
himself secure of victory, and about to open the
gates of Parliament to his own peculiar constituents,
the working men. Moreover, are Ministers resolved
that not a word shall be said against any of their
proceedings by any of their usual supporters ? Are
they so little satisfied with their overwhelming
majorities that they must have absolute unanimity ?
Do the riches and honours and power of HAMAN A

avail them nothing so long as there is a MORDECAI
in the gate ?

If Sir JOHN COLERIDGE should reply that his
speech was not prompted by any remembrance of
Mr. FAWCETT'S temporary revolt, but solely by the
matter to which it expressly referred, then we say
that there was even less excuse for an attack so
ungentlemanly and so savage as that which he made
on Monday night. There is no doubt at all that
the conduct which Ministers have taken with regard
to the OVEREND and GURNEY trial has given great
and widespread dissatisfaction. If they had con-
descended to listen to what was said on the subject
out of doors they would have heard comments by no
means complimentary. They would have heard it
asked what has become of the Home Office that it
is postponing important matters generally until some
future day, and will have nothing to do with this
special matter. They would have heard the ques-
tions put by Mr. FAWCETT asked much
more emphatically by men outside the House
of Commons. They would have heard it said that
it is a most unseemly thing that while the ablest of
the Government law officers of the Crown is
retained for the defence of the OVEREND and
GURNEY directors, the Government should resolutely
refuse to offer any assistance in a prosecution which
is of national importance. It is true that Sir JOHN
COLERIDGE gave a satisfactory explanation of his con-
nection with his clients in the first place. But we
venture to say, despite so high an authority as the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL, that if no rule exists whereby
a counsel on becoming a law officer of the Crown is
required to withdraw from the defence of clients
prosecuted in a criminal court, should the Crown
think fit to make the requisition, there ought
to be such a rule. We do not altogether share
the popular indignation which has been so
widely felt against the Government for their
original decision in this matter. It seems to us
that a good deal of it was got up in order
to cover the indolence and the parsimony of wealthy
men who could very well afford to help Dr. THOM
instead of calling upon the Government to do so.
Still the indignation did exist, and Mr. FAWCETT
was but the mouthpiece of it when he called
attention to the fact that, on the one hand,
the Crown refused to prosecute, and that, on
the other hand, one of its chief advisers had
undertaken the defence in this unhappy case.
In fact, Government have at length, and tardily,
yielded to the pressure brought upon them, and con-
sented that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL shall under-
take the prosecution next December. In that case
we shall, unless Sir JOHN COLERIDGE withdraws
from the case, witness the unseemly spectacle of the
first law officer of the Crown opposed by the second.
This spectacle has indeed just been actually pre-
sented. In any case, Mr. FAWCETT'S speech was not
one to call for such vehement and overbearing
rebuke as it elicited. It is to be hoped that these
storms will clear the parliamentary atmos-
phere. Two of them are quite enough in two
days. Meanwhile we cannot be too thankful that,
in spite of the weather, Mr. lIoasMAN has not caused
the voice of his thunder to be heard once throughout
the session.

LATEST INTELL MENCE

(REUTER'S TELEGRAMS.)

AMERICA.

NEW YORK, July G.

The anniversary of the Declaration of Independ-
ence was celebrated enthusiastically throughout the
North, but much apathy is reported to have been
manifested in the South.

The Hamburg and American steamship Silesia,
and the Cunard Royal Mail steamer Java, arrived
out to-day ; the former at 4 a.m. and the latter at
6 a.m.

The Guion steamship Nebraska, the Allan (Glas-
gow) steamer St. Patrick, and the National steam-
ship England also arrived here to-day.

COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.
CLOSING PRICES.

Gold closed at 1358 ; the highest quotation dur-
ing the day was 137 ; the lowest, 135.
Sterling Exchange on L9ndon 1093
5-20 U. S. Bonds, 1889
1885 llBl.
" 1867 ll6l.
10-40
Illinois
Erie 29k.
Cotton —Mi,l. upland 34&c.
Petroleum—Standard White 3lle.
Flour, extra state, $6.20e. to $6.80c. Corn, old
mixed, 100 c.

QUEBEC, July 6.
The Allau (Glasgow) steamship Hibernian ar-
rived to-day.

EMIGRATION.

The report of the Emigration Commissioners for 1868
gates that, while tho average emigration during the
fifty-four years from 1815 to 1868 inclusive has been
120,345 a year, and during the 10 years ending with 1868,
170,150 a year, the emigration in 1868 was 196,825. The
emigration in 1867 having been 195,953, the increase
during the year was only 372. Another striking feature in
the emigration is the largo decrease, both absolutely and
relatively, in the number of Irish emigrants. Excluding
foreign emigrants and those whose origin is not stated, the
result during the last six years is as follows :—Percentage
of Irish : 1863, 60.34; 1864, 61.69; 1865, 57.56; 1866, 5E3-15;
1867, 56.45; and 1868, 47.02.