The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOITENLLS.

m

The Times, in commenting on Thursday's debate in the
House of Lords, says that the answer of the Ministry to
Lord Russell was that no sacrifice of other measures could
have enabled the Irish Land and the Irish Church ques-
tions to be settled in the same session ; but, as we have
before remarked, we cannot admit the sufficiency of this
reasoning. - Allowing it, however, to the full, the Govern.
ment would still be open to censure, because they have
not been content with the simple declaration that they
could net carry a Land Bill this year. They have gone on
to declare that they will submit proposals for
legislation to Parliament next session, and they
have refused to look at Lord Clanricarde's bill,
on the ground that it is insufficient to effect
the great end in view. It need not be said that
an announcement by the Prime Minister that a Land
Bill will be brought in next session implies a definite
scheme adopted by the chiefs of the Cabinet, and thus,
without reference to Mr. Bright's unfortunate speech,
great expectations have been excited in Ireland. The
natural effect of a promise that the bill will be forth-
coming
in a few months, treating the subject from a point
of view altogether different from that of Lord Clanricarde,
has been to excite wild hopes which should have been re-
pressed rather than encouraged. Mr. Bright's imprudence
only brought the evil of this policy of promises into clearer
relief. The simple truth is, the question of Irish Land
Tenure is one of the most difficult that can task English
statesmanship. It is beset with difficulties, almost with
dangers. Every ill-considered word spoken on the subject
adds to the embarrassment, and yet men of all kinds,
from Ministers to Parliamentary candidates, say whatever
they think may be pleasant, however ill-considered. The
one thing which is certain is the discontented peasant. It
is not everywhere, nor at all times, that he asserts his
dissatisfaction, but at irregular periods, and then it takes
the form of agrarian murder. If the Government spoke
with a due regard to the exigencies of their position, they
would say, in the first place, that private assassination is
a form of political agitation they cannot, and will not,
endure ; next, that they will diligently inquire into the
grievances of the tenantry, to ascertain their reality and
meaning; and, then, that any injustice proved to exist
shall be remedied. Unfortunately, this plain language is
discarded for pretty phrases which mean nothing, but are
interpreted by Irish peasants as meaning everything, and
promises which, though they may cover the absence of any
definite policy, serve to increase the demands which perplex
the statesman.

The Standard thinks it is incredible, indeed, that the
Ministry should affect to be ignorant of the real point on
which an explanation is demanded from them, and pre-
tend to believe that all they have to do is to declare that
Mr. Bright's scheme is not theirs. We want something
more than this in justification of the Government and for
the peace of Ireland. To repeat Lord Russell's challenge,
Why, since Mr. Bright had spoken for himself, did not
the others speak for themselves? Why do they give only
a negative disclaimer to Mr. Bright's ideas? Had
nothing at all been said by any Minister on the subject,
then the G overmnent might have been justified in refusing
to answer any queries as to the nature of a measure which
they were not ready to introduce. But when one Minister,
known to be of influence among his colleagues, openly
declares that he has a plan by which the Irish laud ques-
tion may be settled—when that declaration has led to con-
sequences most damaging to the peace and the security of
Ireland, then it is clearly the duty of the Government to
ell us precisely wherein they disagree from their too
effusive colleague, and how much of his principles they
reject—to state in general terms the nature of the scheme
which they prefer, and to announce, at least, whether it
warrants any of the exaggerated hopes which are now
held of the plan which has been propounded in the
name of the Government by the President of the Board
of Trade.
The Daily News declares that, by way of illustrating the
lines of Dr. Watts about the mischief which a certain
potentate is always ready to find for idle hands to do, the
Peers are toying and tampering with the grave question
of the land of Ireland. Lord Russell, as if the work had
not been sufficiently done before, renewed the attack
made the other day by Lord Salisbury on Mr. Bright and
the Government. What Lord Russell and Lord Derby
unite in requiring from the Government is not that they
should state, as they have stated over and over again, that
Ministers are not pledged to Mr. Bright's scheme, but that
they should pledge themselves against it. Any recommenda-
tion more absurd in itself, or more impracticable, if, as Lord
Derby insists, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright are the
Government, was never heard. The Duke of Abercorn
contended that the agrarian outrages of Ireland were
evidently due to the wild hopes raised by the electioneer-.
ing promises of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr.
Bruce. The statement is easy; the proof is impossible.
Any period of political excitement is onlyktoo likely to be
marked by outbreaks which are to be deplored. If great
acts of justice were to be unperformed because of the
trouble which attends the doing of them, progress would
be impossible. Had Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues
preserved an obstinate silence on what is admitted to be
the question of all others interesting to the Irish, it is
quite possible that the sullen anger of the people would
have shown itself more formidable than their vague hopes.
If Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues said more than they
Meant, they are to be blamed for exciting expectations
which they will not satisfy. It will be for them to prove
next session that they deliberately meant what they said,
and that their meaning is capable of being embodied in a
measure of large and sober statesmanship.
The Herald says that the answer, or explanation, which
Lord Salisbury failed to extract from Ministers, on the
affairs of Ireland, last week, Lord Russell also failed to
elicit on Thursday evening. In both instances the ques-
tions were most distinctly put, and covered a wide ground.
Lord Russell, however, went even beyond the Marquis of
Salisbury in the explicitness of his interrogations. He
asked what, considering the avowals of Ministers,
and the facts of the day, were the securities of life
or property and the prospects of politics in
Ireland ? We know what is taking place. The ex-
Whig Premier, of course, gives credit to Mr. Glad-
stone and his colleagues for a desire to counteract
the mischief working ; but he tells them fairly that
they have excited Irish feeling ; that they have raised
false hopes; that they have added one agitation to another,
and that they are doing their utmost and their worst to
exasperate disaffection. Either, he urged, they should
have met the new Parliament with a complete Irish policy
or not have talked of more than they designed to pro-
pose. The truth concerning Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy
is as it was shewn to be on Thursday night in the
House of Lords : it has created delusions; it has
fostered wicked passions ; it has led the people
astray ; it has poisoned and bewildered their minds.
Hence the disastrous condition of things which Lord
Russell deplores, and which Lord Granville cannot
explain. The Secretary of State once more repudiated
Mr. Bright's confiscation scheme ; but the Premier did
not repudiate it when sketched from the Treasury bench.
On the contrary, its responsibility was tacitly accepted,
and would never have been disavowed had not Lord Salis-
bury and Lord Russell raised their voices, on different
sides of the House, in solemn protest. But, in speaking
to Lord Russell's question, Lord Granville never once
approached the point at issue, and satisfied himself with
smiling away a subject which, after all, may be of impor
tance to the empire.

The Star disapproves of the course adopted by Lord
Russell on the Irish land question, and says that the
noble earl does not understand the land question. He
probably never studied it. He knows little or nothing of
it. It is not in his line. He would be wise to leave it in
the hands of those who are responsible for the adjustment
of the question in the immediate future. Bard Russell,
though ignorant of the Irish land question, is far from
ignorant of official exigencies, and of the difficulties
which lie in the way of those who have to
press forward great changes. It is a poor
sort of restlessness which impels him to acid to
their trials the regret which they must feel when
they are flouted by old allies, even when the hostility
displayed is as futile as it is fretful. Lord Russell's age
and great services render it impossible to say more on such
an occasion, but it would also be impossible to say less.
There is something peculiarly sad in the reflection that
Lord Russell has lived to be stimulated by the cheers of
Lord Derby and the opponents of his whole political life
in an attack on a Ministry to which in the Simeon period
of his career he should have wished nothing but God speed.
The Telegraph refers to the "May Meetings" of the
Archbishops and the Deans, and does not think the noble
ambition of Archbishop Tait to make his Church truly
the " National Church" a fantastic or forbidden aspir-
ation. By charter of history, by origin, and by testimony,
the Church of England stands as the Church of Free Con-
sciences. No man has yet put asunder the union by which
Heaven joined the spirit of the Reformation and the
spirit of Liberty in Europe. The recently-appointed
spiritual chief of the Church has admirably caught
her spirit. On a late occasion he publicly de•
dared that he regarded the Establishment as
essentially national in its obligations as well as its
rights ; and he proclaimed the principle that it was bound
not to fence about its portals with inquisitorial tests,
which might enforce exclusion, but to welcome within the
fold all who might desire to enter and share its benignant
influences. If the Church of. England cannot now become
"national" in a new and splendid sense, it will be either
because her servants have betrayed her—which we
cannot believe—or because the age of science
upon which we are entering admits no Church
at all—which we should sincerely deplore. If
ever a. superb object of enthusiasm, worthy the passionate
labours of a Loyola or the saintly courage of a Savonarola,
was Offered to the eyes of Churchmen, surely it is this
opportunity, presented to the Church of England by the
noblest leader that Christians have had for many a gene
ration, of conciliating to itself the boldest impulses, the
largest purposes of the period—and of going forth into the
wonderful future which is approaching, where we already
see, side by side with intellectual freedom and catholic
science, the dawn of an enlightened and comprehensive