The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-25 00:00:00

PLA,

LOYDO2I, THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1869.

The more carefully the division list comes to be
examined, the more remarkable, emphatic, and pro-
foundly interesting as a Parliamentary event appears
to be the decision arrived at by the Home of
Commons at three o'clock yesterday morning. It
is not simply decisive of the Second Reading, that
outspoken resolve on the part of the popular branch of
the Legislature. It may be regarded at once—it is re-
garded at once by friend and foe alike—as decisive of
the whole question as to the ulterior transformation,
before the close of the present session, of the Irish
Church Bill into the Irish Church Enactment. Vir-
tually the deed is already done. The measure had
only to pass through its appointed stages—through
the Committee and the Third Reading in the Com-
mons, through all three readings, and the inter-
mediate Committee of the Lords—and the magi-
cal words will then be duly pronounced which
will make that measure no longer a Bill, but
an Act passed during the first session of the
Eighth Parliament of Queen VICTORIA. Scanning
the numbers on this division, two great facts are
especially noticeable, as it were, on the very surface.
Out of the 658 members constituting the aggregate
of the House of Commons, aS many as 623 were
there, actually in the House, at the time of the
division. The other conspicuous fact being—that of
those 623 there were so many of the " Ayes to the
Right" that the result was a clear Lui jority of 118
on the side of the Government. In saying this, how-
ever, the force of those numbers cannot be said to
be in any way fully apparent. Their full force only
becomes apparent when the particulars in regard to
them have been more carefully examined. Ostensibly,
for example, seeing that 623 out of 658 were there, it
would appear that there were thirty-two members who
failed to put in an appearance. Nothing of the kind
And for this reason, that the House of Commons, in
point of fact, consisted at the time—consists now—of
643, and not of 658 members. Fifteen seats were then,
and are still at this moment, unoccupied. Horsham,
for example, because of the double return, has never
been represented at all since the meeting of the new
Parliament. Then, again, the late hon. member for
West Somerset, the Hon. HENRY WYNDHANI, has but
very recently been removed to the House of Lords, by
reason of the death of his father, the late Baron
LECONFIELD, son of the last Earl of EGREMONT.
13.;-
sides, which, thirteen members, wrongly re-
turned, have been unseated on petition,
and their places as yet are not filled up. Fifteen
vacancies, in all, there are, as we have but just now
intimated. But, even then, of the twenty members
who still have to be accounted for, as not having put
in an appearance on the night or morning of the
division, hardly one of them was there, but must be
said to have had no choice at all, or hardly any choice,
in remaining absent from the House on the occasion.
For instance, the member for St. Ives was away be-
cause of his having met with an accident, which has
for the time being absolutely disabled him. Then,
again, the noble lord the member for Chester was
under the very recent affliction of the death
of one of his infant twin children. As
second son of the late Lord LECONFIELD, the mem-
ber for West Cumberland, the Hon. PERCY WYND-
HAM, was precluded, by the death of that nobleman,
from tendering his vote yesterday on the side of the
Opposition. Uncertain as to whether after all he
may not, even yet, be declared by the judge to have
been unduly returned as member for Manchester,
Mr. liuGn BIRLEY has wisely abstained from voting,
knowing very well that, in the just possible event
of hi; being unseated .on the petition n jw under trial
against him, he would be mulcted in the full amount
of the pmalty incurred by those venturing to vote,
thus, under such very questionable circumstances.
Seven paired on each side,`making fourteen
awnhda tcotialisoeu:l7
who indirectly may be said to have pronounced
sent their
personally
opinion
yu
forno let
the measure,llous he
n at
lby-

from the division. Among the five other members
who were absent, without even pairing, there were

two Liberals and three Conservatives—the two
Liberals being the right hon. baronet the
member for Tam worth and the honourable
member for Canterbury—while the three Con-
servatives were the hon. and gallant member for
Dover, the hon. member for Wareham, and the hon.
member for Buckinghamshire. Of the fifteen vacant
seats, seven were for Norwich, Cashel, Sligo, Dublin,
West Sussex, Dumfries County, and Horsham
—the last, as• already remarked, by reason of
the double return. As for the eight other
vacant seats, making up the fifteen, they
were, two a-piece, in the following four Constituencies
_Beverley, Hereford, Blackburn, and Bridgewater.
Four Conservatives only voted for the Bill—namely,
Lord BINGHAM, Mr. EWING, Mr. MATIIEWS, and
Colonel VANDELEUR. Six Liberals on the other
hand voted against it that is to say,
Sir ROBERT CLIFTON, Mr. MARRIOTT DALWAY,
Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Mr. WELLWOOD MAXWELL,
Mr. EDWARD SAUNDERSON, and, most notably of all,
Sir ROUNDELL PALMER. Among the 368 who voted
for the abolition of the Irish Church, it is worthy of
particular note, in regard to the member for Peter-
borough, that for once he forgot " No Popery" and
thought only of Justice for Ireland.

AFTER a majority of 118 there is little more to be
said about the great parliamentary fight. _Finis coronat
opus. A debate in which the arguments were over-
whelmingly upon one side was completed by a
division in which the majority was equally
overwhelming. There have been times, too
many and too recent, in which numbers have
been on one side, logic on the other. True, in course
of years the position has been improved, but as a
rule this has been effected only after a hard fight.
It took years to reconcile the antagonism between
heads and brains on such questions as Parliamentary
Reform, Free Trade, and the Removal of Religious
Disabilities. But this question of the Irish Church has
been raised and settled within a single year. We
say settled, because there is no doubt that the bill
will go through the Commons unaltered in its essen-
tial features; and it is more than probable that the
Lords will shew a wise prudence by declining to reject a
measure backed by such a majority of the repre-
sentative House elected on this very question.
We cannot be too grateful for this satisfactory
promptitude. Religious animosities are the worst
of animosities, and so long as this question remained
undecided, so long would they go rankling and
increasing
every year. Mr. HARDY attempted to
intimidate the Ministerialists and to cheer his own
supporters by recalling the events which followed the
Reform Bill of 1832. He said the Liberal majority
was then even larger than it is now j yet in
two and a half years Sir ROBERT PEEL was Prime
Minister. Mr. HARDY forgot to add that
Sir ROBERT became Prime Minister only '
through the unconstitutional action of the sovereign,
and that in spite of King WILLIAM'S supporthe could
not retain office for six months. He forgot to add that
in less than half a year the Liberals were back again, and
remained in power for six years. He forgot toadd that
they went out in 1834 because they hadquarelled about
the Irish Church ; and that they went out in 1841
because of the fatuous indolence of Lord 3.IEL-
BOURNE. Between then and now there is
tno sort of parallel. The present Cab:net