The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-25 00:00:00

of their crimes. So far as we know, however, the
shepherds were murdered before, not after the troops
pursued them, and it is the worst part of the charge
against the Greek authorities that their anxiety to
apprehend the criminals 'completely overpowered
their desire to avert the crime.

The debate in the Upper. House on Monday even-
ing would have taken a different turn, could yester-
day's intelligence have been anticipated. It was as
well, however, that it should have taken place when
it did, since it proved that Englishmen, however
deeply and painfully moved by personal
sorrow or by national feeling, are not to
be betrayed into a forgetfulness of their con-
stitutional and characteristic fairness and moderation.
There is a heavy indictment against the Greek au-
thorities, but as Englishmen we can only desire to
lot them have fair play. They must be allowed the
fullest opportunity to explain their conduct, to prove,
if possible, that there existed no complicity between
their subsidiary agents and the brigand chiefs, to
exhibit beyond the possibility of contradiction, that
political machinations and considerations had nothing
to do with the culpable supineness and the still more
culpable activity which produced this disastrous
tragedy. At the same time when this is done, when
full opportunity has been given for self-
defence and for national exoneration, the
matter must not be allowed to end. If the
Greeks be indeed all that they repres,ent,
they can have no more hearty desire than for the im
mediate and total extirpation of the brigandage
which disgraces their country. if they are insin-
cere they will have no right to protest if the Powers,
to whose fostering care they owe their very existence
as a nation, should refuse to protect assassins. if
the other Powers hesitate to fulfil so obvious a duty,
England, at least, can no longer shelter under her
flag men who can trifle with the fundamental laws
which regulate civilisation.

THERE was a strong contrast between the debates
in the two Houses of Parliament on Monday night.
The Lords were engaged on the melancholy, and
unhappily fruitless, topic of the Greek murders : the
Commons were doing such a good night's work as
had not been accomplished for many a day
before. A month ago we were all in
despair—Ministers, private M.P.'s, journalists, and
the public generally, at the block of parliamen-
tary business. It seemed as if every subject would
have to give way to the Land Bill, and as if even
that would have to be divided over two sessions. But on
Monday this bill, entire and complete, passed through
committee with a chorus cf rejoicing in which, pro-
bably, most Conservative M.P.'s joined at heart,
if not in tongue ; and the University Tests Bill,
become for the first time a Ministerial measure, was
passed by a large majority with much jubilant
shouting, and a groan from Mr. Newdegate that only
made the rejoicing more emphatic, just as a
skilful musician will sometimes strike a discord
to set off his perfect harmonies. Nor was this all.
a promise of good things to come was made by the
Premier. The Education Bill is to be brought on after
all, and when Whitsuntide is over the Commons
will have an opportunity of settling another
of the great social problems or the age,
and of adding fresh lustre to this the
first of the people's Parliaments. But before that by
way of recruiting their strength and giving thein
new energy for the great work before them, M.P.'s
are to have a holiday, beginning, if all goes well, on
the eve of the Derby, and lasting for something
over a week. Hard work all this, but then
it is work ; it will be something achieved
and settled, not merely palavered about, and when
the time for the shooting of birds is come, M.P.'s
will be able to enjoy the slaughter because they will
feel that having done so well for their own race they
have earned the right to exterminate another.

Referring to the principal debate of Monday night
it is impossible not to feel some amount of
sympathy with men like Mr. Walpole, Mr. Mowbray,
and Mr. Hardy. They are advocates of an old
order, which has been for some years past yielding
place to new, and being by the nature of their mind at-
tached to ancient traditions, and incapable of realis-
ing the possibility of conserving all that is really
good even in the midst of sweeping changes—fearing
that to reform the universities is to destro y them—these
university M.P.'s resist with all their might
alterations which they believe will be fatal to some
of the noblest institutions established in this
land of just and old renown. It is superfluous
to say that we and all those who support the Univer-
sisty Tests Bill would resist it no less if we shared
their fears. We do not share them. We believe that
religious teaching will not cease even though com-
pulsory attendance at chapel should be
abolished. We hold that, on the con-
trary, such compulsory attendance is a serious
impediment to real religion. Nor is there any
reason to fear that the presence of Dissenters on the
governing bodies of the colleges will tend to irreli-
gion. It must be remembered that dissent implies a
positive relation towards religion, which connection
with any State Church does not necessarily imply,
No one will take the trouble to dissent
unless he has some definite views about
religion. On the other hand (as the experience of
the last century, especially in the Universities,
abundantly chews), conformity to the Established
Church is consistent with the most utter indiffe-
rence to what is termed vital religion. That
state of spiritual death is past, at all events
for a time, and the commingling and co-operation
of Dissenters and Churchmen, and the wholesome and
healthy rivalry which is not born of envy and strife,
but which is the child of zeal and earnestness, will
serve to infuse fresh religious life into the Univer-
sities, even though it destroy some of the old
forms.

The argument respecting the intentions of founders
is -one that can scarcely be put forward with any
seriousness now. Sir John Coleridge answered it by
anticipation. Parliament has from the earliest times,
and with the most unmistakeable emphasis,
asserted its right to deal with property held in
mortmain and by corporations, and Parliament
has acted on that assertion over and over again. It
has been repeatedly pointed out that all the pre-
Reformation endowments, and they form a large
majority at both Universities, were taken from the
Roman Catholic and given to the Reformed Church
300 years ago ; or rather that the State, having
always held them to be national pro-
perty, removed them from the religious control
of a Church which the State abjured, and put them
under the religious control of a Church which the
State was establishing. What has been done once
may be done again. The answer that the Reformed
Church was the old original Church, and the
Roman Catholic a Church dissenting from that is
nothing to the purpose. It is undeniable that many
of the colleges were founded by Roman Catholics,
and that they intended the Roman faith to be taught
therein. If they were not members of the National
Church at that time (and it would be hard to chew
what other Church was the National Church), they
were, as Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice in his able speech
pointed out, Dissenters; and then the argument runs, if
the State has taken colleges from Dissenters
it may surely restore to Dissenters at least a share in