The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-24 00:00:00

THI SUN, LONDON, V-ITTRSDA7 E*E.NING, JOE N, 1869,

ing any such proposed addition to the thirteenth
clause of the Bill, in regard to the Irish Church now
before Parliament, it would certainly appear a far
more rational proceeding on the part of the Legisla-
ture to sweep aside at last bodily and summarily the
whole of that absurd Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which
has never once to this moment been acted upon,
which, in point of fact, has been just so much waste
paper ever since the time of its first enrolment on
the statute-book of the realm. The Ecclesiastical
Titles Act, in truth, has been all along a
mere blot upon the statute-book. All that
could reasonably be wished in its regard was that it
should be altogether obliterated. A sense of this
had led to the formal proposition to the House of
Commons that the act in question should be abrogated
—long before the disestablishment of the Irish
Church had been suggested to Parliament as Mr.
GLADSTONE'S counter-proposal to Lord Mayo's
plan for levelling up, and, consequently, long before
any one ever dreamt of the Protestant Episcopacy
of Ireland being brought into the same category
with Cardinal CULLF.N and Archbishop MANNING.
In any case, it would now be a wonderful simplifi-
cation, to say the least of it, a really wonderful and
most acceptable simplification of a very ludicrous
jumble of cross-purposes if, instead of the Lords and
Commons entertaining this ingeniously suggested
amendment of clause 13, as propounded for their con-
sideration by Lord COLCHESTER, they determined at
once, and with a good grace, to sweep away the
Ecclesiastical Titles Act altogether. Their so doing
would certainly befit the dignity of England, in this
matter,..better than. any other proposal in regard to it
that could possibly be thought of. The Legislature
has a valid cause for reconsidering, or rather
let us say at once, for re3olutely retracing
the course pursued by it, in a ferment of indignation,
nineteen years ago, when it disdained not to imitate
the conduct of the Little Boy (in LEECH'S memorable
cartoon) who chalked up " No Popery" on Cardinal
WISEMAN'S door, and then ran away. Under no con-
ceivable circumstances can it ever be anything else
than derogatory to the dignity of England, that laws
shall remain inscribed upon her statute book that
can no longer be acted upon. But, when it is borne
in mind that, here, in regard to this particular enact-
ment we are at this moment re:erring to, it never has
been acted upon, even once, since the date of its pass-
ing both Houses and receiving the Royal Assent, it
must be obvious, according to a familiar phrase, even
to the meanest capacity, that the honour and glory
of England suffer so long as any such powerless enact-
ment as that remains in existence. Away with
it, therefore, we would now very seriouhly and
very eArneitly suggest, away bodily with the whole
of that absurdity of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act,
rather than give one moment's consideration to
what Mr. BRIGHT would call the " childish
tinkering" of Lord COLCHESTER'S proposed addition
to the thirteenth clause of the Irish Church Bill, so
soon as that particular clause shall come, in due
course, in the House of Lords, under the scrutiny of
their Lordships in Committee. Better far remove
the incumbranca itself than endeavour to avuid the
perpetual risk there is of stumbling over it, so long as
it continues to lie there in the broad path of legisla-
tion.

WHILE the Conservative party are still delibe-
rating upon the amendments of the Irish Church
Bill which they mean to propose in committee,
individual peers have already given notice of several.
Lord COLCHESTER means to ask that the Irish
bishops shall be exempted from any pains or penalties
which they may incur under the Ecclesiastical
Titles Act for retaining their old territorial titles
after their Church has become disestablished. This
amendment will, we trust, be resisted by the Govern-
ment, inasmuch as, if carried, it will make a distinc-
tion between Protestant and Roman Catholic pre-
lates which would violate the first principle of the
bill ruligiotio ()quid i+y. Of eourse we do not wish
to see Archbishop IRENcii and Bishop ALEXANDER
prosecuted for calling themselves Archbishop of
Dublin and Bishop of Derry. The true remedy
is to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act alto-
gether. It has never once been put in
force ; it is a relic of the old evil time of
Protestant ascendancy, and any attempt to give it
new life, by acknowledging that it has an active
existence, is to b a deprecated. Lord ROMILLY'S
proposal that " in all cases where any point of
doctrine or discipline of the Church of England shall
come into question and be decided by any of the
civil courts of Ireland, the appeal shall lie to
her MAJESTY in council in England, and not
to the House of Lords," is intended to
retain for the Irish Church when disestablished
the same privilege, privilege it be, of resorting to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
as the Court of Final Appeal, which it now
possesses. We presume that no objection
will be offered to this amendment. Whatever
defects that court may possess, no legislator is pre-
pared at present to find a substitute for it. Even
the most zealous denouncers of it would scarcely
care to entrust the House of Lords with the duty of
deciding points of doctrine.
The other amendments are far more serious. Earl
GREY goes to the root of the whole question by pro-
posing to omit from the preamble the words " but
not for the maintenance of any Church or clergy or
other ministry, nor for the teaching of religion."
Lord RUSSELL applies in detail the principle here
involved. He sets out with the statement that
the principle of equality between the various denomi-
nations ought to be observed, and that all the
claims of the Established Church having been satis-
fied, the surplus funds shall be devoted to the
building of churches and chapels, to the building or
purchase of ecclesiastical residences, and to the pur-
chase or grant of glebe lands, not exceeding thirty
acres, for both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics,
and to the purchase or grant of lands for the
purpose of graveyards for Protestants of all denomi-
nations and members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally, Lord SHAFTESBURY proposes to use the
funds in granting loans to the Irish peasantry at a
moderate interest and on adequate security, and to
insert clauses whereby in commutation of life
interests consideration may be given for the greater
longevity of the clergy.
There is something almost ludicrous in the con-
tiguity of these proposals. The suggestion that as
the clergy are longer lived than the laity they ought
to have a large sum for their life interest, will raise a
laugh.

Thu Peers may discover some reason for congra-
tulation in the complaint made by Lord ROMILLY
of demonstrations in the Strangers' Gallery during
the debates in the Upper House. It has not of late
been often given to the Peers to draw such audiences,
nor have their speeches often possessed such interest
as to awake partisan expressions of applause. But
during the present session the strangers, it appears,
have systematically " assisted " at the debates in the
House of Lords by according their moral support to
the speakers whom they favoured. Lord RomiLLY
apprehends serious consequences from this practice.
Ile remembers the fate of the French Assembly
during the Revolution, when the manifestations of
the audience first led the members to address the
people rather than their colleagues, and at length
enabled the spectators to overawe the legislators.
It is not likely that the House of Lords will
speedily find itself in the position of the assembly
in which MIRABEAU, DAYTON, and ROBESPIERRE
figured; but the Peers have nevertheless just reason
to complain of interruption from visitors. To
preserve the character of a Legislature it is
primarily essential that its deliberations be confined
to its own members. If the audience be so numerous
and so prominent that the speaker is led to seek its
sympathy, the full control of law-making must, mo

or lozs, pas.-; out of the hands of those who ale specially
entrusted with it. If the spectators can in any way
influence the course of a debate, they at onm share the
power which ought to belong only to the mem-
bers of the Assembly. Hence the space allotted to
strangers in the English Houses of Parliament is
comparatively small, hence the ladies are
consigned in the Commons to a remote
corner, hence all applause or dissent from
visitors is decidedly objectionable. Such mani-
festations are readily prevented in the
House of Commons, where the SPEAKER, with-
out being too rigorous, is always able to repress
any marked display of sympathy; but in the Upper
House some difficulties present themselves. It would
be useless to merely appeal to the visitors themselves.
Most of them doubtless recognise the propriety of
keeping silence; but the exceptions world counteract
the good-will of the majority. A minor officer
could not well be entrusted with the power of
keeping order in such a great assembly. And, on
the other hand, the LORD CHANCEILOR is able to
urge substantial pleas why the _duty should not be
entrusted to him. He is generally new to the House
he is not elected by the members 'themselves, and is
a political partisan. It is not fear, however,
that the simple task of repressing the exuberant
feelings of strangers could not be performed
by the Lord Chancellor without imolving any fur-
ther power, or by the Chairman of Committees, or
some recognised personage. The matter is of much
importance, and requires attention. And if the duty
be left to the peers generally, the business which
may be done by anybody will, as at present, be
done really by nobody. The Chairman of Com-
mittees is a permanent officer, well acquainted
with the business of the House, and he might
most appropriately take upon hinmlf this additional
duty .

THE ALLEGED Ar.Lll-2,,:i7 A
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.,

The action for libel brought by the Hon. Mr. Cadogan
against the North Wilts Hcralcl was continued on Wednes-
day before Mr. Justice Hannen and a special jury. in the
Bail Court, Westminster.
Mr. Evans was cross-examined by Mr. Henry James,
on behalf of the plaintiff. He said he had told the parties
interested for the defence that all he had written to the
Times was true. He had seen Mr. Sandilands
within the last six months at the office of
Mr. Moon (the defendant's solicitor.) Had not seen
him anywhere else, until this trial came on, when lie had
walked with him in Westminster Hall. Before that had
only seen him twice between 1854 and 1869. He had
stated that he resigned his engagement with the Telegraph
Company. He sent in his resignation, and left in pur-
suance of that. After he had sent in his resignation, on
21st of June, 18:4, he received, through Mr. Courtney,
notice to leave the service on the Ist July, 1854. He was not
aware that his resignation was rejected and that he was dis-
missed. Had not refused to obey certain orders of the direc-
tors. He did receive anotification that the board refused to
accept his resignation. He never asked the reason. He
was not aware that it was denied because he had refused
to comply with orders of the board. Preference was never
given to a message except that of Baron Rothschild
while he was superintendent of the instrument•room. Sir
James Carmichael (one of the directors) never gave priority
to a message. He considered it Was wrong to shew
the messages to Mr. Cadogan, but did so as the latter
directed it. He made a complaint on the subject to Mr.
Brett, one of the managing committee, and to the secre-
tary. The clerks in the room were seated at their table,
with their backs to where Mr. Cadogan used to stand
when he came in. They might have seen him by looking
round. One set of Oaks came ou duty at eight a.m., and
remained until two p.m., when they were relieved by
another set, who remained until -nine p.m. Between
those times none of them • left the office.
He was not superintendent of the receiving•room, and if
a desk wished to to out, he would not have applied to
witness. If anyone had searched the file at the time they
would have found the message to which priority was given
by order of the plaintiff, and which witness had marked.
A register was kept of the time at which each message
was sent away; and it would shew to the directors Lhat
priority had been given to the message. Was
not aware of any tampering with the register.
It was under the direction of Mr. Sandilands. When
the conversation about Baron Rothschild's message took
place between witness and Mr. Cadogan there was only
one clerk so situated that he could hear what was said.
Witness did not call the attention of the directors to the
matter. The message which was sent to Mr. Cado-
gan at Brooks's Club was an Indian sum-
mary. Was not aware that there was at that
time any contract for supplying the clubs with news,
nor did he know that any news was sent to any club by
the company. This was the only message which he ever
sent to Brooks's. This message, which was for the Times,
was sent to Mr. Cadogan for his private use. Messages
were constantly sent to his private house—so many
that he could not. tell what they were. They
were copies of despatches received. Mr. Cadogan
received information intended for other people. Witness
copied the messages himself. Did not call the attention
of the board to this matter. Mr. Cadogan was deputy
chairman.

At this point the evidence of Albert Evans (brother of
the witness) as given at the trial in 1557, was read. It
corroborated the statementsof witness as to Mr. Cadogan's
visits to the instrument-room. Mr. Albert Evans, said
he had never seen any other director use the messages as
Mr. Cadogan did. •
On the application of Mr. Giffard,

Mr. Mowbray Morris, of the Times, was here exammea
in reference to the letter sent to the Times by Mr. Evans
in 1857. It was not published, and Mr. Evans called
upon him to express surprise, when witness told Evans
that he had had an interview with Mr. Cadogan, and
explained why the letter had not been published.
Mr. Giffard proposed to ask what that statement was,
but his lordship thought that it would not be evidence.
The case was again adjourned.