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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 8, 1869

accomplished, the Bill was fairly passed 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 reared to, 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 consideration. 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 haul 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 anger and irritation awakened
among tLe 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 an 1 common sense to talk of,
as a "tyrant majority." A majority so large is not
necessarily, by reason of its overwhelming prepon-
derance, tyrannic ii. 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 Bill and of the Government
—the Liberal Party, the Party now in 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 mode 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 either 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 c difiscation in this matter of
the disestablishing and disendowing of t he IrisliChurch,
it cannot but be admitted, even by the more impas-
sioned antagonists of the measure, that vested inte-
rests have throughout been earnestly considered is all
the complications and intricacies of its most elaborate
adjustment. Summing 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- I
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 Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. WHALLEY will
henceforth be silent, nor find 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 Crls7 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
straining at a gnat and the swallowing of a camel. For
—this is ourthird consideration—the objection raised
by such men as Sir Oxon GE JENKINS oxwasaltogether
absurd. That irrepressible baronet and even astute
men like Mr. DISRAIMI 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.
ITLAUEN 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.
The Irish Church revenues become national property
under this Act, that is to sly, about 15 millions
b comee
unooificfnottpiihih:oeteproteotnttihsiotaie:trre. hands,ls a
sterlingsut.ely
• lConsolidatedll,x.lasyan
matter
otaitlthltde
r; oatoofu t oof
of one
tohni
es matter and
o itf
prin-
ciple, -t
pocket
sum or out wet
conveni-
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 s'Afully 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 Protestant
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. Nr. 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
uhen he shewed that the total amount at issue
between him and Mr. AYTOUWWas only £OO,OOO.
The House took a practical view of the matter, and
gave Ministers the substantial majority of 107. Thus
ends this weary and shabby, quarrel so far as the
House of Commons is concerned.

MR. HORSMAN'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.
GLADSTONE, Mr. BRIGHT, and 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. Mils -maw meet it? 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 1865, 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. Honsuari 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, lie formed one in order
to retard, Liberal principles. Nor was it only with
regard to Reform that Mr. HonsuaN was found on
the side of the Conservatives. He was one of the
strongest promoters of the panic of 1850 ; he is,
more perhaps than any other leading politician except
Lord PALMERSTON, responsible for the scandalous
and wasteful outhiy upon our useless fortifications'.
At the same time he vied with Mr. DISRAELI him-
self in putting every conceivable obstacle in the way
of the great measure which has tended to make our
fortifications needless—the Commercial Treaty with
France. Mr. HORSMAN calls himself a Liberal.
Was he a Liberal when he attempted to get up a
war with France instead of a treaty ?
But Mr. Honsmari 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.
IlonsuaN, the opponent of the £6 franchise in 1860,
of the £7 franchise in 1866, has, now that his
Conservative allies have given him household suffrage,
nothing further to say upon that, point save that he
is a Liberal. In one thing we do Mr. HOUSMAN the
justice to say that he 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. HORS3IAN'S antagonism
to the Church and the clerical order is vehement,
bitter, unappeasable. They must expect no mercy
from him. He 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.' Ile 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 MULL MENGE

(It EU7E R'S TELEGRAMS.)

ITALY.

FLORENCE, May 7.

The negociations for the formation of a new
Cabinet continue. To-day conferences have been
held between General Menabrea, Signors Ferraris,
Mondini, and Count Monza di San Martino. Sig-
nor Minghetti and Signor Corretvg are also wen—

tioned as probable members of the, new Cabinet.

Baron Kubeck has left 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 Engl and
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 fiat. Middling
upland, 107 i; cost and freight per steamer.
PLY3IOUTII, May 8.

The Hamburg and American Company's steamer
Iloisatil, from N w-York; has arrive I here with
27 passengers for this port, 53 for Cherbourg, 208
for Hamburg, 45 sacks of mails for Plymouth, 8
for Cherbourg, 21 for Hamburgh, $40,000 in specie
for Cherbourg, and $2,003 for Hamburg.

CEIIv N•

SliANGitm, April 146.

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-
presses his inability to press upon the attention of
the Chinese Government.

CORRESFONDE]TCE FROM PARIS.

(FROII OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

PARIS. FRIDAY, May 7.

The electoral campaign presents an aspect of monotonous
activity. Both sides aro working hard to win, and that is
about all that can be said. Doubts are expressed in some
quarters as to whether the Opposition is doing all that it
might to oppose a strong front to the overpowering cur-
rent of Government influence ; but with the exception of
a little dissension, which might well be amended, it does
not seem to me that the Liberals could do much more.
Meetings are Lheld by the score, electoral cir-
culars, manifestoes, and signs in general mock the
weary Parisian at every step, and the papers are nothing
but a budget of electoral horrors. Many of the Liberal
party are sacrificing time and money in the interests of
their country. Many of them work with no desire beyond
that of a sincere wish to aid the great cause of liberty ;
and let all honour be given to such men.
But if it were not for a little squabbling we should get
almost as dull and as melancholy as you seemed to do
before the memorable day when the Conservative party
of Britain was utterly defeated in the boroughs. These little
quarrels keep us alive. The row about M. Emile 011ivier,
for instance, is very entertaining, except perhaps that we
have too much of it. I need hardly enter into detail
as to the cause of this quarrel. M. Emile 011ivier's esca-
pade with the Emperor—the famous " Le 19 Janvier"
affair—has lost him the confidence of the Paris
Republicans. The Siècle opposed him, and the
Liberte furiously fought his battle in its columns.
Vituperation of an advanced time —" fool," " mad m an,"an d
other polite expressions—distinguished the dispute between
the two papers, which was killed at length by its own
fury. But the Liberte has not succeeded in converting
the Republicans, who are opposing M. 011ivier with a hot
and strong man of the name of Bancel. M. 011ivier does
not object to the Empire, provided liberty were granted
by the ruler ; M. Bancel goes in for a general "chaw up"
of the Empire and everything in it. His theory is that
the Emperor has no right to occupy the throne
of France; that France, indeed, ought not to
have a throne at all, but ought to be a
republic. No measure of liberty, no degree of national
prosperity, can reconcile M. Bancel to Imperial institu•
Cana_ Lot U. Emperor grant a oonatitntinn as lihpral as
that of England, and the Republicans will still striae to
overturn him. M. 011ivier has just addressed a challenge
to M. Bancel, requesting him to fight out his opinions on
a public platform. The one would argue liberty under the
Empire ; the other would argue that liberty is not possible
under the Empire. But M. Bancel declines this chal-
lenge, urging that a debate on a fixed issue would not be
an electoral meeting, and that, moreover, M. 011ivier can
learn and combat his opinions by attending any of the
numerous me', ;s which he holds. Perhaps M. Bancel
is right, bulwayho'w he would be no match for the elo-
quent, though not very wise, 011ivier in an oratorical
battle.

A shocking story of domestic life was told the day be-
fore yesterday in the first chamber of the Seine Civil
Tribunal. The case was one of demand for separation de-
cay—the only form of divorce known in France—
brought by Madame de Turenne against her
husband, Count Raymond de Turenne. Madanae
de Turenne was the widow of a rich Jew. She
married Count Raymond for the sake of his title, and
Count Raymond—it is the old story—married her for the
sake of her money. M. Allegri, father of Madame
de Turenne, saw but too well the motive of the
young Count, and at first opposed the marriage ; but
be gave way to the widLes of his daughter. The marriage
took place, the young Jewess became Madame de Turenne,
and gave up to ker husband a fortune of £2,000 a year
and the most colossal expectations. The Count soon
re-
vealed his real disposition. In order to marry the Jewess
he had to obtain a dispensation from the Pope,
and in his application he in no wise concealed the motives
which led him to the union. Certa et sola occasio ad
reparandum fortunam suam. "It is the only sure chance
of repairing my fortune." This well-beloved son of the
Church gave the Pope to understand that, after the death of
the father-in-law,the daughter might be brought into the true
fold ; moreover, all his children, he said, should be brought
up Catholics. Count Raymond was an officer of the. Pon-
tifical Zouaves, and Rome therefore could refuse him
nothing. Besides, would it not be spoiling the
Egyptians to take away a fortune from the
Jews, and bring it into the Catholic Church ? The dis.
rensation was granted. But Count Raymond was
clearly not born for marriage. lie seemed to have no
opinion of women save that they were destined by nature
to alleviate the ennui of man. The habits of his

military career were strictly preserved at the domestic
hearth. He ignored utterly the delicacy and refinement
requisite in social intercourse with the gentler sex. The
day after his marriage he entertained his wife with certain
piquant scer.es from his lively career, the narra-
tion of which would, have discredited the lowest
Paris wine-shop. He entered into details respecting
tome love affairs which were still. goinz on.
His life throughout was a faithful continuation
of this beginning. He carried on an intrigue with the
governess of his children. He engaged a young girl of
18 to give them lessons in German, and addressed enthu-
siastic declarations to her in his wife's drawing-room. It
is quite time that such a marriage was dissolved. Madame
de Turenne might have commenced the suit much sooner.
The case is still going on.
The tastes of modern Paris are exemplified by a drama
now being performed at the Francais. All Paris is wild
about this piece. And yet its plot is such that, in the
language of the reporters, it is "unfit for publication." A
cave scene similar to that between Dido and LEl:leas, a girl
falling in love with her mother's unlawful lover, and the
betrayal of the mother to the husband by the daughter, are
some of the incidents in this hideous conglomeration. It
draws immense audiences, and is greeted with frantic
applause.