The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-13 00:00:00

not. Not, very possibly, by any direct
suggestion ; but, by an alter ego of much more ad-
vanced politics, being well acquainted with his
wishes, and those of his Whig coadjutors. The
Ballot Society have adopted a resolution repu-
diating the procrastination as quite opposed to their
policy ; Mr. BERKELEY, too, we are glad to find,
did earnestly support the course of taking as early
a vote as possible. But twenty-five members met,
in response to a circular, asking them to consider
the best 'mode of bringing forward the question
this session ; many members spoke strongly on the
' necessity of the Ballot. The want of it had made
them recently smart severely, but Sir JOHN
SHELLEY, cleverly, after some discussion,
interposed the suggestion, "is it expedient
to moot the subject of the Ballot at all this ses-
sion." When it came to the vote, twelve were
caught with Whig chaff, eleven were for going
straight forward, and Sir JOHN SHELLEY, to the
infinite comfort of Lords PALMERSTON and RUSSELL,
and a whole bevy of Whigs, was in a majority of
one ! Twelve of the two hundred and thirty-eight
who have voted for the Ballot settled that the
Whigs should not be tested this session ; and, from
the shape the business had taken, there seemed to

be no help for it.
But in the other two affairs the new men were
compelled to show their colours. On Monday
night our new Home Secretary spoke for himself
and colleagues. The question was one which
Free-traders and Religious Liberty-men ought
to have been in a position to answer at
once with a simple—" No." Mr. BAINES
asked—Does Her MAJESTY'S Government intend to
renew the monopoly, originating in King JAYES's
reign, of printing the Bible ? And what is the
answer of the successor of Mr, WALPOLE ? Why,
being a good Liberal, he treats us to a story of
the Royal prerogative ! The QUEEN, forsooth, at
this time of day after the abolition of all
other patent monopolies, after the patents having
been rejected by the Irish Court of Chancery as
essentially vicious in principle, after being sun-
dered in Scotland—the QUEEN is to hear of her
Liberal Ministers recognising her prerogative to
grant a monopoly of printing the Bible itself !
And then our Free-trading Home Secretary ac-
tually would make us believe that accuracy and
cheapness are best secured by Government super-
vision ! ! They set up a board to revise the Bibles
printed by Scotch printers, and would have to pro-
vide one here ! We are ashamed to notice such
nonsense, and worse than nonsense. Pray what
right on earth have the Government, the civil
power, to interfere with printing the Bible more
than with printing SHAKESPEARE ? We should
like a test to be produced from the Bible itself
warranting the civil power to take care of the ac-
curacy of the Book of books. But quite apart from the
ineffable presumption of our statesmen in busying
themselves with keeping guard over the Bible, where
have they learned that accuracy and cheapness aro
better secured by Government patents, or Boards,
than by the unrestricted competition of traders.
We shall want a board to time our watches, or to
guarantee the stitching of our coats next. We did
suppose that by common consent, monopoly and
protection were buried in 1852, for ever ; but Sir
0. C. LEWIS, the Whig Free-trader must resuscitate
them on behalf of a shameless abuse of the Royal
prerogative ! No, we demand a perfectly free
printing of the Bible. We want no boards—no
Whig jobs—no new places and placemen. We
are thankful to say we could ourselves, if we
wished, print a perfectly accurate Bible in our
own office, without the kind help of Sir G. C.
LEWIS or tusy of his intermeddling, boards. We
hope the press of England will stand upon its dig-
nity and rights against our protectionist patron of
printing a book which no more needs or wants the
Government to look after than any other person.
The other straw was Mr. DILLWYN'S Bill. Sir
G. C. LEWIS actually went to the ex-Attorney-
General to find a pretext for trying to shelve the
bill by a Select Committee. Mr. DYLLWYN com-
pelled him to divide, and the Government, with
the exception of Mr. GLADSTONE were ashamed to
vote against him ; but the Home Secretary per-
sisted in compelling Mr. DILLWYN to accept
a Select Committee. The business is a
very simple one. The CoUrt of Chan-
cery has decided and so made it law, that
if the founders of a Grammar School have men-
tioned no creed, the narrow and sectarian interpre-
tation of presuming they were meant to be Church
of England schools shall be adopted. The Bill
simply provides that this bigoted assumption shall
cease; that the presumption, infuture, shall be the
liberal one—that if the founder mentioned no creed
or sect, the school shall, in all respects, be open to
all. This Bill our Government has done its best to
"burke!" And these are the men for whom we have
turned out Tories. We believe that both Mr.
DILLWYN and Mr. BAINES would have fared better
if Lord DERBY had still been in office.