The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-20 00:00:00

BAROMETER-29.6 3.
IVINn--South-Westerly—light ; with doubtful weather,
inclining to rain. .

,
• t
,

THE SUN.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 20, 1881.

There were " cheers" last night in the House of
Commons at the close of a division, in which the
ex-Governer of the Bank of Eogland defeated the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. Those " cheers" were audible because
that defeat was the first discomfiture sustained this
session by her MAJESTY'S Government. They were
all the more heartily given, those " cheers," because
the blow struck was one aimed, not directly or in-
directly, at any of his fifteen ministerial colleagues,
but point blank at our Financial Administrator.
They were " cheers" given out " with a will" by
the majority told off against Mr. GLADSTONE, be-
cause the particular motion thus carried, in spite of
all Mr. GLADSTONE'S arguments (many of them
most specious and ingenious arguments, indeed,
some of them being put to the House last night with
consummate rhetorical adroitness) because, we
say, the particular motion thus carried in spite of
Mr. GLADSTONE'S reasoning, and of his own vote
and of the votes of so many of his ministerial
colleagues and their supporters, was a motion
for a different assessment of Schedule D, and in
fact, for a better adjustment of the iniquitous
and detested Income Tax ! No wonder the House
cheered, or rather the majority of the Rouse
cheered, under these circumstances. It was the
glimmering, at last, of the first auspicious break in
those dull leaden clouds, which have so long covered
the whole political welkin, down to the entire cir
cumference of the horizon, under the evil influence
—a malign influence like that said to have been
exercised by the storm-brewing necromancers of
old—under the evil influence of that unlucky, and
in effect, though not, we believe, in design, most
malignant Magician of Finance, our present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
• The defeat sustained last evening by Mr. GLAD-
STONE, and through him by the Government, was
the result of no policy of party—it was the pro-
duce of no factious movement. To recognise this
fact upon the instant, it is only necessary to note
the nature of the motion upon which the House
divided, to mark the quarter from which it ema-
nated, and to scan the names given in the Division
List. It is especially noticeable in regard to the
last point, namely, in reference to the Division
List, that while so many leading members of the
Government appear in the melancholy catalogue of
the minority, including among them Viscount
PALMERSTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir GEORGE
LEWIS, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr, MILNER GIBSON, 1
and Mr. GLADSTONE—the Leader of the Oppo- i
sition was not there to take any part at all in the
division ; Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT, Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON, and Lord JOHN MANNERS alone, of
the late Ministry, being there to add a few units
to the total number of voters rendering Mr. USE_
BARD'S motion (simply a motion for a Committee
of Inquiry) triumphant. It was a division observe,
in the first instance, which, in a House of no
less than 258—(not by any means, for an
ordinary night, a small House !)—w hieb , in
a House of no less than 258, yielded a
clear niajority of FOUR against the strong Coalition
Govern ment ! This adverse division moreover
Coming immediately after the successive defeats