The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIO JOURNALS,

The Standard does not think Mr. Gladstone makes Out
his case. It was said that Lord Derby's second Ministry
reduced the income tax from 7d. to sd. Mr. Gladstone
says that this is a gross falsehood. And why? Because
the income tax of the last half of 1857 came in in 1853, so
that Lord Derby's Government had the benefit of a half-
year's return of the 7d. Has that anything in the world
to do with the undeniable fact that they did contrive so
to manage the finances as to reduce the burden of the tax-
payer by 2d. in the pound. To proceed—Mr. Gladstone
denounces them for raising the estimates in 1859. Under
what circumstances? There was evident, imminent danger,
of a general European war; and we found ourselves at
that moment without an available navy. The iron-clad
ship had become the only possible rean-of-war, and it
was necessary for us as quickly as possible to build a new
fleet, and at the same time to be ready for present dangers.
Does Mr. Gladstone deny the necessity, or does he pretend
that it could have been met without an increase of
expenditure? Would he have dared to leave England
absolutely defenceless even at sea ? Would he not have
been a traitor if be had done anything of the kind? What
did he do? He came into office next year, and, indepen-
dently of the Chinese war, he maintained the Con-
servative expenditure—rightly, because he knew it
to be necessary. This is a sufficient answer to his
charge. Again, it is said that the estimates of 1860
were higher than those of 1859. But, says Mr. Gladstone,
that was owing to the Chinese war, and the Chinese war
came because Lord Derby's Government sent a fleet to
convoy and support Lord Elgin. Everyone knows that
the Chinese war of 1859-60 was a mere continuance of that
of 1857, against which the Conservatives had protested ;
that if no fleet had accompanied Lord Elgin, his approach
to Pekin would equally have been resisted ; and, in a
word, that the war was the inevitable consequence of Lord
Palmerston's previous policy, and that in ascribing it to
the Conservatives Mr. Gladstone is deliberately contra.
dicting his own positive knowledge.
The Daily News supports Mr. Gladstone's financia
retrospect. In 1858-9, it is said, with literal truth, when a
Conservative Government was in power, the estimates
were comparatively low. In 1859.60, under a Liberal
Government, those estimates were increased ; and in
1860-61, under the same Administration, they were still
further augmented. But the low estimates of 1858-9,
though proposed by Lord Derby's Government, had been
prepared by Lord Palmerston's ; and the high estimates of
1859-60, though proposed by an Administration of which
Lord Palmerston was the chief, had been prepared by
that of which Lord Derby was the head ; and not only
had the estimates been prepared, but a great part of
the money had been spent, and of course could not
be recovered. As Mr. Gladstone points out, all plans
relating to the public charges must be prepared and com-
pleted months before they are put into execu'ion. In the
changes of party government, this confusion of responsi-
bility is inevitable. The Conservative Cabinet ought,
however, to be content with having the advantage of
Liberal economy in 1858-9 without claiming credit for it.
The Liberal Government inherited Tory extravagance—
that was hard enough, without subjecting them to reproach
for it. So much for the two years 1858.9, and 1859-60.
Now for 1860-61. In that year, which was both one of
Liberal estimates and of Liberal expenditure, there
was a still further increase of some £3,000,000 or
£4,000,000. To what was it due? To the war with

China, which was another bequest from Lord Derby to
Lord Palmerston. This war was the consequence, as Mr.
Gladstone says, of instructions sent out by the Conserva-
tive Ministry. Their policy is responsible for it. It began
before the Liberal Government had been a fortnight in
office ; and, of course, before any despatch of theirs could
have reached the British envoys or commanders there.
The war may have been right or wrong in policy ; but the
expenditure was as strictly exceptional as that for the
Abyssinian expedition, which has never been charged to
the account of the present Administration.
The Herald observes that as the Opposition leader had
laid it down inferentially that Tory Governments had been
as invariably characterised by extravagance as Liberal
Governments by economy, some few statistical facts were
adduced in support of the opposite conclusion. Thus it
was shewn that, taking a period of twenty years, the
heaviest Conservative budget amounted to £69,236,000,
while the heaviest Liberal budget was no less
than £72,792,059 ; that the lowest Conservative
budget was £50,782,476, while that of the
Liberals amounted to £51,250,120 ; and that the
average of the Conservative budgets was £63,000,000,
against an average Liberal expenditure of £65,000,000.
Under these circumstances it is obvious that the war is
carried into the enemy's camp, and that it is not Mr.
Disraeli but Mr. Gladstone who is on his trial. The ex-
Chancellor of the Exchequer shews some skill in manipu-
lating these figures ; but no amount of dexterity will
suffice to explain them away. In fact, leaving out of the
question his charge against the financial policy of the
Conservatives, it can hardly be said that he has vindicated
his own.

The Post thinks Mr. Gladstone is quite successful in
answering the answers which it has been attempted to
make to his original assertion that the present Ministry
has increased the permanent expenditure by £3,000,000
since its accession to office. It is absurd to affect
to answer it by the assertion that ten years
ago the Liberals were as extravagant as their
opponents, for that does not mend the matter in the
least ; indeed, it makes it rather worse, for if the Liberals
have been improving in this respect and the Conservatives
deteriorating, it is clearly an additional merit to be placed
to the credit of the former. But Mr. Gladstone declares
that this reply, " in addition to being irrelevant, is wholly
untrue." All its parts rest, in fact, as he shows, upon a
confusion between the respective dates of the imposition
and the actual incidence of taxes, and between the dates
of estimates and of actual expenditure.
The Times learns that Mr. Purchas displays his sense of
duty to his diocesan by publicly declaring his intention
both to disobey the bishop's inhibition, and to treat his
admonition with contempt. He will preach next Sunday,
and he announces an even more Ritualistic service than
before. We are thus afforded, if this intelligence be true,
another instance of that insolent disregard of all autho-
rity which has from the first characterised the Ritualistic
clergy. Their proceedings have been an open defiance alike
of archbishops, of bishops, of a royal commission, of
established custom, and even of the older members
of the High Church party. Notwithstanding the express
injunction of the Prayer-book, they have refused to accept
the arbitration of their diocesans, and, with no better jus-
tification than disputed interpretations of obscure rubrics,
they have set themselves to carry out their own devices.
.According to their professed principles, their whole
authority is directly derived from bishops, and it is one of
the maxims of their school that nothing can be done rightly
without a bishop. But as soon as the bishop interferes
with themselves they at once scout his authority, and
refuse to be controlled. It is difficult to imagine a more
discreditable spectacle than is presented by the present con-
duct of Mr. Purchas. There is certainly no other profession
in which a subordinate would treat his superiors with such
contempt. We do not know what the law of the case may
be, and it is as open to Mr. Purchas to dispute the legality
of the inhibition as to resist the suit with which he is
threatened. But common decorum would suggest that
while the question is pending he should consult the wishes
of his lawful superior. We trust the bishop will lose no
time in testing the validity of his inhibition. Mr.
Purchas has now rendered it evident that if he can
be inhibited he ought to be ; and Church discipline
needs to be rendered much more stringent if a bishop can
be thus flouted by the self-willed incumbent of a petty
proprietary chapel.

There is no danger, says the Telegraph, that Mr. Roe-
buck will subside into anybody's political pet ; he will
probably remain " Tear'em," as he once called himself, to
the end of the chapter. He defends himself for his action
while he sat on the Sheffield Trades Union Commission ;
and probably even his enemies could not point to anything
which he did that was indefensible or actually wrong. Yet
his speeches in the House, and his questions as a commis-
sioner, certainly gave everybody the idea that he was an
enraged denouncer, not only of Broadhead and his
immediate tools, but of all the Sheffield artisans as
probable accomplices of the notorious conspirator. He
now says that Sheffield working men are on their trial ; but
at that time he spoke as if they ought to be hanged. Ho
is now quite willing to give trades unions coercive
powers for collecting subscriptions from their members ;
but he has in his head an odd notion, that when a union
does anything illegal, all its coercive powers should
be immediately withdrawn. Mr. Roebuck adds, " I
am a lawyer ;" and surely he ought to know that
if a man does anything illegal, he ought to be
punished positively, and not by indiscriminately
withdrawing his acknowledged rights. The regulation
which he suggests would be as absurd as a law that a man
who beat his wife should thenceforth have no right to sue
in a civil court. If the members of a trades union,
collec:ively or individually, break the law, let them be
prosecuted collectively or individually ;• but the mere
withdrawal of their power to get in sums of money which
have been duly subscribed would be a vary illogical and
illusory substitute for the regular punitive action of the

The first Cabinet Council since the prorogation was
held at the official residence of the Prime Minister on
Tuesday afternoon. The Duke of Richmond and Lord
John Manners were absent. The name of Colonel Wilson
Patten, the now Chief Secretary for Ireland, does not
appear in the list of Ministers present. The right hon.
gentleman's predecessor, Lord Mayo, was a morn* o; tale
abiuet.