The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF

ane 'limes, in discussing the recent agrarian outrage in
Triverary, observes that there is nothing to relieve the
crirng of a single particle of its intrinsic hideousness. The
Murdered man was a good and liberal landlord, and
Acknowledged to be such by his tenantry ; and he fell a
tictim to a family quarrel in which he bad personally no
Alcern. Yet this man is shot within hearing of his wife,
p,Oopitrently with as little concern as if he were some
Wows animal. But this is not the worst aspect of
the case. , We believe that as many murders are
committed in England as in Ireland in the course of the
117 ear. But in England a murderer was about with the
rand of Cain ; in Ireland he too often commands the
sympathies of the people. But it is an undoubted fact
that..agrarian crime has decreased in a remarkable degree
since England commenced the system of conciliating
instead of oppressing the Irish Roman Catholics. The
late Sir- Robert Peel declared, in the year 1829, that Ire-
land bascarcely been governed for a single year, from the
ton downwards, according to the ordinary course of law.
what was the consequence ? In 1823 no fewer than
2,600 memorials for mercy were presented to the Irish
Viceroy, who commuted capital sentences in four hun-
dred uses, nearly all agrarian. Compare this state of
things with the isolated murders, horrible as they are,
*?ich are now committed in Ireland, and then deny who
cap that Ireland has made a wonderful progress since the
era pf conciliation commenced with Catholic Emancipa-
tion. Let us not be discouraged, therefore, by these occa-
eonal crimes in the wise policy which we have marked
out for ourselves. The task we have before us is to create
Ina-the Irish character a respect for law; and this can only
be done by separating the law from all alliance with injustice.
A great nation like ours is not to befrightened back from the

course of justice because its path is crossed by a criminal

al the wilds of Tipperary. But we must, at the same
impress upon the Irish people the ne,essity of
putting the ban of public odium on undoubted
crime. England has given them a pledge of her goodwill
and of her determination to abolish all relics of injustice

,against which they can urge a legitimate cause of complaint,
and surely we have a right to ask them, even in their own
interest, to second our efforts. We are willing to do our
part ; let the Irish shew themselves willing to do theirs.
We cannot have an imperium in imperio—a secret code of
laws administered in opposition to the law of the land by
irresponsible agents. The public opinion of Ireland must
&dare itself on the side of the law, else the Parliament of
England will labour in vain.
The Standard thinks that the change of policy for

Ireland has been marked by a revival of what are emphati-
cally called "agrarian outrages." The Radical agitators
in England have raised the hopes of the Irish peasantry
so high, that it is no wonder they are eager to test the
sincerity of their sympathies. They have been told what
they should do in vindication of their outraged rights ;
they have been tutored in their wrongs, and directed
bow' they should behave themselves to their op-
pressors by hints so significant that it was scarely
possible for them not to profit by the instruction.
They have listened to the parable teaching what the
Irish should do with their landlords if their country were a
thousand miles away. They have read of how a great
Liberal statesman, writing to a friend, insisted that
" justice would be done, or the landlords would be exter-

minated by the vengeance of the people." They have been
taught out of the same mouth—the mouth of a professed
apostle of liberality and justice—that it was " an essential
thing for the peace of every country that its soil should be
the possession of its own people." The Irish are a race
quick of taking a hint, and apt in improving a lesson,
especially when it is one to their taste.

The Daily News, after examining the conflicting argu-
ments respecting the proposed cession of Gibraltar, remarks
that the fortress is of no particular value to us except in
its prestige and in its commanding the harbour. As to
prestige at this day, it need hardly be taken into account.
If the Spaniards should think that we give them back
Gibraltar because we cannot keep it, we may be quite
sure no other nation will. But the point respecting the
security of the harbour is a very different matter. It is
clear, as we have before shewn, that we ought to possess a
secure harbour at the mouth of the Mediterranean, not
merely for coaling, but for telegraphic purposes. Just now,
for instance, telegrams from Constantinople or Athens are
often delayed a week or more in traversing Austria or
France ; and, were we involved in o. war, the delay might be
fatal to our Eastern possessions. We are bound, therefore,
to take measures to ensure the absolute safety of a harbour
on one side or other of the Straits. And herein we must
say is the point on which the controversialists on both
sides have failed to give us the information we require.
Both, it is said, can be made defensible, unless we lose the
command of the seas for such a time as to permit of a
regular siege. We need not, therefore, consider anything
more than the relative expense of putting each portion in
a state to resist a coop de main or a bombarkment by iron-
clads. For if we do lose the command of the seas for any
length of time we lose all that makes either Gibraltar or
Ceuta of use to us. If our fleets are sunk, dispersed, or
shut up in the Channel, our commerce will be swept
from the Atlantic and Mediterranean both ; our com-
munication with India, whether by Suez or the
Cape, cut off ; our colonies exposed to capture by
expeditions of a few thousand men. In so universal a
catastrophe it will signify nothing to us whether a garri-
son at the extremity of Spain, or one on the African coast,
can hold its ground or not. What would be really of
importance to us would be that the one or the other should
be able to defend a harbour in which our vessels were
sheltered or were refitting ; and this simply brings us
back to the old question of the defensibility of
the harbour at either place by means of our
batteries as against the enemies' batteries. When
in this way we clearly apprehend that it is a
harbour and not a fort that we want, and that we only
need the fort in order to defend the harbour, we have
brought the question to the furthest point at which lands-
men or civilians, or even any military men not belonging
to the scientific corps, are competent to speak upon it.
The grounds for our decision on the vital points at issue
must be furnished to us by sailors and by engineers. If
they say Ceuta can serve our purposes better than, or as well
as Gibraltar, and at no greater expense, then we may dis-
regard any other counsel, and readily enter into negotia-
tions with Spain whenever that country is in a state to
propose them.

The Post remarks upon the position assumed by the
Roman Catholic bishops, and explains it by the supposi-
tion that they do not regard the Anglican bishops as
bishops at all. Mr. Ffoulkes, a Roman convert,
takes another view of the question, and in his letter to
Archbishop Manning he complains that the Church of
Rome has not been that chivalrous and successful guar-
dian of the ancient faith which she professes to be. It is
4uite refreshing to see the Church of Rome dealt with in
this learned, candid, quiet way, so unlike the noisy ultra-
Protestant demonstrations which have been so common of
late years, and have done so much to strengthen the
hands of proselytising Romanists. Such unimpassioned
but cogent argumentation will do more than anything else
to check Ultramontane tendencies in the Roman Church,
and to prevent secession from our own. At the
same time it leaves the Roman hierarchy no ground to
stand upon in this country. However they may be
tolerated by the State, they are altogether at issue with
the Church. Mr. Ffoulkes says plainly to Archbishop
Manning that the conclusion to which Le is driven must
cut " at the very root of the Archbishop's position in
England." No doubt it does. This was the real ground
of hostility to the so-called Papal aggression in 1850. It
may be asked by some why Mr. Ffoulkes does not give
still further expression to his views by at once leaving the
Roman Chur • ; and returning to his old com-
munion. Tha. is a question he is not bound to answer.
Consistency does not logically require it of him, inas-
much as the questions he has raised are not de fide. He
will in all probability be far more useful by staying
where he is; and by teaching the world from an inner
point of view what are the really weak parts of the Roman
system.
The Herald makes some observations upon the increase
and decrease of pauperism during the last few years.
Although there is a subsidence in the flood of pauperism,
it considers that the danger is not yet over, and if frost
should set in, thousands of individuals would speedily be
thrown upon the poor rates. The poor-law expenditu_ )on
the whole is greatly increasing, and without any per-
ceptible benefit to the poor. No doubt in individual cases
the relief does some amount of good ; yet in the aggregate
there is an increase of suffering. Something more than
the poor law seems to be needed for the purpose of reliev-
ing the poverty of the country. On various occasions for
several months past we have pointed out the value attach.attach-
ing to a proper system of emigration, more especially in
the dire ,:tion of Canada. Every day's experience serves to
confirm that view, and we believe that unless this remedy
be adopted no reform of the poor law will be sufficient to
meet the dire necessity which is coming upon us.
The Star observes that Mr. Bright's peace principles
have been put to a novel test. He has shunned the Indian
Secretaryship in vain. Wars and rumours of wars pursue
- the pacific statesman into the calm of his carefully-
selected department. He is adjured to fight, and to fight
a poacher—he who so loathes the game laws. But the
poacher is not the humble villager with whom unpaid
wisdom wages intermittent hostilities. The poacher
against whom Mr. Bright's official right arm is invoked is
a poacher of the sea. Mr. Bright is conjured to make war--
on the bottle-nosed whale. Mr. Bright's predecessor was
never appealed to to throw the aegis of England over the
weak powers of the ocean. Richmond was never nu the seas
for any such purpose, But no sooner does this peace-
loving statesman seek out the Board of Trade as a pacific
retreat, than a " ponderous monster "—a Caliban of the
deep—a shape fraught with suggestions and portents of
marine disaster, was thrust ruthlessly upon the much-
plagned Cabinet. As if it were not enough to disendow the
Irish Church, without being called upon to disestablish—the
bottle-nosed whale. This porpoise question may grow.
Every one who believes ail lie hears is well aware that
it was the existence of a Peace party in Eng-
land that encouraged the Emperor Nicholas to
assail the sacred integrity of Turkey. What if the pre-
sc.nce of Mr. Bright the Board of Trade should suggest
to the bottle-nosed whale the b'ea of leaving the British
Isles absolutely tishless? We shrink, like Mr. Bright,
from a sdhject which it would be painful to pursue fur-
ther. But the Government will d well to consider that
England has waged many a war as unjustifiable as that
which Mr. Drew would draw her into, and that we should
have been richer and less taxed if we had had the courage
to adopt the " crinpilizand centracted "uoliev with which
Mr._Bgigbt has -:''tiatntay' nmt
, an tßigisallttgaSil
of—bottle-noted whales.