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

side over tlu Government ! Ridiculous though
that view of it undoubtedly is in itself, the
fact of its being so regarded, is one having about it
an undoubted significance. It emphasis sin a re-
markable manner t%e enormity of the majority
hitherto wielded by Mr. GLADSTONE like a rod of
iron over the heads of his political opponents since
his induction into office, at the head of the present
Government. It demonstrates rather signally the
magnitude of the dominant party in the House of
Commons, when the mere circumstance of the dwind-
ling of the net majority on a single division, from over
a Hundred to over Seventy, should be hailed almost
as a victory by the Conservative Opposition. Then,
again, therewas the contention which took place, there
were the recriminations which were indulgedin between
the ex-Premierand the President of the Board of Trade
—recriminations which were indulged in not only by
Mr. DISRAELI and Mr. BRIGHT, but by Mr. GLAD-
STONE, and by Mr. HARDY, and by Lord JOHN
MANNERS. And all apropos to a remark thrown out
by the President of the Board of Trade, previous to
the Division being taken, a remark which was re-
garded by the Opposition (falling as it had done
from the lips of a leading member of the Cabinet.) as
tantamount to a distinct threat or menace to the
House of Commons of a possible, or proximate, and,
of course, a purely contingent Dissolution. Refer-
ring especially and individually to the Leader
of the Opposition, Mr. BRIGHT observed,
in reference to the period when the House
of Commons was dealing with the preamble of the
Irish Church Bill—" As every one felt at the
_time,
and as the right hon. gentleman knows, and as we
all know, the question to come, and the difficulty
which was before us was the endowment of the
Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. And he knows,
and we all know, that if from any disaster that might
happen to this Bill, another appeal were made to the
constituencies of the Unit4d Kingdom—not that the
members might greatly change; they might be the
same ; but I undertake to say that the members on
that side of the house would if possible, be more
irrevocably pledged to oppose that endowment
than gentlemen on this side. If gentlemen
opposite went to their constituencies sup-
porting the scheme of the House of Lords—l don't
know what the numbers are, but I undertake to say
that not one of them would require to find a seat below
the gangway, and that the portion of the house above
the gangway opposite would in the next Parliament
hold the whole of the Conservative party favourable
to endowment."—At this there were Ministerial
cheers, mingled with cries of " No, no," from the
Opposition—Mr. BRion'r adding, sententiously,
"That is my opinion." Rising very shortly after
that division had been taken, which, giving a clear
majority of 72 to the Government, was nevertheless
hailed almost as a victory/by the Opposition, Mr. Dis-
RAELl—tOwards the close of his speech, when referring
to the relative attitude assumed in regard to the Irish
Church Bill by the Lords and by the Com Mons,
other wise by the Opposition and by the Government—
asked" What occurs ?
_Why," exclaimed the ex-Pre-
mier, "the right hon. gentleman (Mr. GLADSTONE) has
counselled the House to refuse any approbation of
any of these amendments, and another colleague of
the Minister, the President of the Board of Trade,
absolutely got up to-night and threatened the House
with dissolution—which was a most unconstitutional
pro.:eeding—as the penalty of these amendments
being adhered to." Thereupon arose the rather
stormy contention, in theindulgenceof the recrimina-
tions excited by which not only the ex-Premier and
the President of the Board of Trade, but the Prime
Minister, and Mr. GATIIORNE HARDY, and Lord
JOHN MANNERS rather freely participated. Denying
point-blank that his right hon. colleague's remarks
bore any such construction as that imputed to them
by the Lca ler of the Opposition, Mr. GLADSTONE

exclairnea, with ttaconccaled irritation, "Every allu.

sion to the possibility of a dissolution on the part of
a Miuister is cot a iiinace." A threat, Mr. BIZIGIifS
remarks did not constitute, according to Mr. CLAD-

STONE. Whereas, immediately after that declaration
on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury, Mr.
lIARDY thus cogently commented upon the indiscreet

words uttered by a Cabinet Minister—who is always,

by the way, either uttering or writing what may be
mildly characterised, as at the very least, words of

indi•icretion.

" The Right llon. Gentleman dic

allude," said Mr. HARDY,

" to a dissolution.

Wha

did he mean by it? Was it a promise or was it a
threat? It was either one or the other. Ido not

greatly care which. He said that under certain cir.

cumstances, rolating to a question immediately

pending, this House might be sent abou'

its business." Repelling the charge directed

against him originally by Mr. DISRAELI, and after-
wards enforced by the coincident opinion of Mr.
HARDY, the President of the Board of Trade ob-

served shortly afterwards, I venture to say that not
a single member of this House besides the two right
hon. gentlemen opposite, when I alluded to the pro-
bable expression of opinion pa the part of the consti-
tuencies with respect to concurrent endowment, if

that question were referred to them, understood that

I spoke of a dissolution in the slightest degree by way
of menace." In so speaking, Dlr. BRIGHT certainly

" ventured" too far, seeing that Lord JOHN MANNERS

directly afterwards declared unequivocally that he

himself had put precisely the same interpretation, as
that put by his two right hon. friends, upon Mr.

BRIGHT'S reference to a dissolution as just

possibly imminent. Carried away by his own
burning indignation at the idea that any one

could possibly think for one moment that he meant
a spade when he spoke of a spade, Mr. BRIGHT closed

his denial of any such intention having ever been in
his mind, by using words still hastier and still more

indiscreet than any he had previously uttered ;
namely, where he said, "We are dealing with
what I regard as a great historical transaction, and
I am afraid lest ui on the last night of its discus-

sion right hon. gentlemen opposite, who ought to
set a good example to the House and their party,
should have forgotten those honourable rules which

ought to subsist between the members of this
Assembly, in the endeavour to fix on me a charge

which, whatever may be my failings, I certainly am

not so stupid as to be guilty of, and which I say,

without hesitation, the great majority of th© House

. _
.._
believes to be without foundation." No wonder Lord

JOHN MANNERS instantly rose to his feet—imme-

diately upon Mr. BRIGHT resuming his seat upon the

Treasury bench—with the severe, yet temperate,

but at the same time almost scornful re-

mark—" The right hon. gentleman used, towards
the close of his speech, language which, fortunately,

is seldom heard in tills House"— a reproof at which
the House cheered ! Is there really no hope that,
with all hi's splendid qualities, the greatest

orator of the house of Com►nons, ono of the

most (ILinterested of public men, and, to our
thinking, also one of the most far-seeing
of all living politicians, may ouo of these

days reveal some glimmering sense of what is
meant among ordir.ary mortals by good temper and
good taste, to say nothing of moderate tact or of

ordinary di-scrotion.

IF Sir ROUNDELL PALMER'S very powerful speech
had been made in the House of Lords, the majority
in favour of Lord STANHOPE'S amendment would
have been a good deal more than seven. His argu-
ment is that Parliament, has given up to the
Protestant Episcopalian communion the churches
and the cathedrals without charge, and has given