The Courier, assuming the entire correctness of a statement in
an Edinburgh newspaper, charges the Spectator with having committed the foil/ming errors hr its account last week of the strength of parties in the House of Commons on the Irish Church question-
" Our contemporary states the Ministerial majority, on the occasion to which we have alluded, at 19; adding, that he did not underrate the Liberal strength on the Irish A ppropriat ion - clause, when he formerly estimated the Miuisters' majority at 20. But there are obvious mistakes iu the calculations on which the Spectator founds those results.
" lie marks the Pairs at 64, instead of 66. lie states the Absentees unac- counted for at 22, while 14 was their real number. lie makes no allowance for the Speaker. who if he had been entitled to vote would undoubtedly have voted with 'Ministers. Finally, he hands over the Absentees unaccounted for to the Oppo•ition, while be (night ungoestionably to have stated them for and against 'Ministers in the relative proportiou to those who actually voted on each side."
We reply to these charges in their order. The only statement of Pairs whieh we have seen—and the only one, we believe, that was pub- lisbed—was in the Times; which gave the Pairs at 64: how mire the 66 made out ? Neither the ('eerier rem the Edinburgh journalist fur- nishes an answer. It is mere assumption to say that the Absentees un- accounted for are only 14, as we shall presently show. The Speaker, of course, could not vote, and ought not to be counted on either side. As regards the Absentees, we gave the Courier all he claimed as iVbigs, and were justified in considering the remainder es Tories: it would have I een absurd to allow the Whigs the benefit of all their ab- sentees, and then assume dust the larger proportion of the other ab- sentees were also but this is what the Courier does. In a subsequent paragraph, we examined the lists more in detail ; and there, 13 of he Absentees tire given to the Liberals, 19 to the Tories, and 4 are put down as Doubtful. The Edinburgh paper, which the Courier quotes as such im run hority, gives only.fbur Absen- tees to the 'forks. Now we should like to ask whether the following Members %%amid not have joined the Opposition if they had been present?
Sir R. Bulkeley, Lord Mandeville,
Culnimiul Conolly, Sir 0. Mosley,
Colonel nary, J Meo . . Fctr, P. II Fletwoo . S. oytz, . ed, W Pe 0. W. Tps, Lot Forbes, ap P. B. Thompson, Sir G. Ileatlicote, R. G. Townley, Lin d A. Hill, Lod o Loud J. Townsend, r A. Leonine, . F. Turner. Lord G. Lentx, T Sir It. Lopez,
The Cwwier has got into a 'milk of saying, with particular empha- sis, that Lords G. and A. Lennox would not have voted with the op- position. how How does lie, how can we, know that ? Orr this question they have voted with the Tories, and when was their conversion pro. claimed ? ‘Ve take them rut their last recorded votes. But let the Courier deduct the two bade Lennox, and then 17 will remain, all of whom we are persuaded would have voted with the Tories had they been present. Our calculation may be incorrect to the extent of one or two votes; we never pretend to perfect accuracy in these matters; but that the Courier has find a single error upon us as yet, we are en - itled to deny.
Previous page
