The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

-~--

The upshot of Monday's debate, says the Times, was
that Lord Clanvicarde's bill was postponed till after
Whitsuntide, and in the meantime the Government will
make up their minds as to the course they will take. If
they can in any way come to a decision, we would earnestly
suggest that they should prepare a measure, or at least let
us know the principies which they intend to apply to the
tenure of land in Ireland. It cannot be to the advantage
of the country that another year should pass without some
intimation of the nature of the measure which the Govern.
ment proposes. Lord Monck protested against the coupling
of such matters as the assassination of landlords and the
legislation on land ; but it is hardly to be denied
that to leave open such momentous questions year after
year, and though they have been made the subject of
significant speeches by members of the Government, must
tend to excite vague expectations and to deepen the dis-
content with which it has long been the fashion for Irish-
men to view their relations with their landlords. Of
course there are those who will say that the advocates of
a speedy set tiement of the land qnestion n-ant to prevent
the reform fLczn being complete and thoroughly beneficial.
They will be accused of desiring to hurry through
a measure which will be favourable to the land-
lyrds, instead of waiting for the more liberal
scheme which the Government, after a year of con-
sideration, may produce. As far as regards ourselves,
we utterly repudiate any such notion. We are convinced
that the relations between the owner and occupier of land
in Ireland can never be placed on a sound basis except by
a measure which shall do ample justice both to the tenant
and the landlord. And it is because we see in the House
of Commons as it exists at present an assembly disposed
to carry through even a bold and large scheme that we
would deprecate the lossof time. The present Parliament
was elected to legislate on the Irish Church and on Ireland
generally ; it is in the first glow of youth and enthusiasm,
the Liberal majority is unbroken, and there is no reason
to doubt that it would sanction any well-considered
measure which the Government might 'resolve on pro-
posing.

The Post observes that on Monday the House of Com.
mons, with what we suppose must be termed unabated
energy, proceeded with the task of reducing to their final
shape the several clauses of the Irish Church Bill. Pros
ceedings in committee are not generally of the liveliest
description, but a variety of circumstances conspire to
render those in which the House is now almost exclu-
sively engaged particularly dull and tiresome. All the
questions incidental to discndowment and disestablish-
ment have been so thoroughly "thrashed out" that
nothing remains to be said, and the results of divisions
on disputed points are always practically the same.
Nevertheless the attendance of members in their
places is rigorously enforced by the Whips of
both sides, and Conservatives and Liberals respec-
tively find themselves obliged to forego dinner parties,
visits to the opera, and halls, with a rigour which even
the keenest ascetics would scarcely undertake in Lent.
Even the custcmary expedient of pairing can only in
exceptional cases be resorted to. The Ministry carried
their point by a majority of one hundred, which probably
surprised the Conservatives even snore than that of any
previous division, but which proves that under all circum-
stances the Liberals are prepared to give an unhesitating
and undivided support to their leader. The other sections
of the clause were then agreed to, as also the 26th clause,
which provides for the disposal of burial-grounds. The
committee then entered on the consideration of the clause
dealing with glebe lands and ecclesiastical residences, and
at this point the debate was adjourned.
The Standard declares that it is not possible to forget
the tone of speeches made hs MG& No one who listened
to Mr. Bright and Mr. one then, and believed in
their sincerity, could &olio _ they meant to give the
Irish Church her sacred buildings, her glebe-houses and
gardens, free of charge; to leave her in possession
of 'a considerable revenue, and to treat her
claims in a spirit exactly the opposite of that
carping, spiteful, malicious temper, spoiling with
one hand half that is conceded with the other, that
marks the bill. No one can doubt that, if then suggested,
Mr. Disraeli's amendments would have been declared by
his opponents to fall short of rather than to exceed their
intended liberality to the Church. And when Mr. Glad-
stone denies that there has been a change in the policy of
the Government, he either asserts that they did not mean
what they said in 1868, or he affirms that they are now
acting up to it. If the latter, he asserts what no
one who understands the English language can believe.
Can any one doubt what spirit inspired a contrast like
this ; or whose was the power that, taking advantage of
the ambition, of their necessities, actually compelled an
English Ministry to insult the conscience of the nation by
enriching a Popish college out of the spoils of the Protes-
tant Church ? The bill is not Mr. Gladstone's, nor Mr.
Lowe's, nor Mr. Bright's ; it is the bill of Cardinal Cullen
and the Ilornish hierarchy of Ireland. And if it pass it
will not be the last Treasure of confiscation that, under
similar dictation, will le presented by the Ministers of a
Protestant Queen to a Protestant Parliament.
The Star remarks that Mr. Disraeli appeased on Mon.
day night in his favourite character of champion of those
shadowy and impersonal rights which are talked of as the
vested interests of the laity. He prefaced a long string
of amendments, some of which he moved and some of
which he delegated to lieutenants so diverse in 31..:1;ty
and position as Dr. Ball and Sir George Jenkieeon, with
a spailling shower of epigrams and sneers, discharged
upon the heads of nearly all the keel:lg members of the
Government. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, Mr. Lowe,
Mr. Fortescue, and the Attorney-General for Ireland
were pelted in rapid succession, and did not appear
to be greatly disturbed by the infliction. Mr. Glad-
stone, indeed, in replying to the leader of the
Opposition, made very light of the sarcastic artillery of
which lie had been the object. The point of Mr. Disraeli's
speech was that the interests of the laity had not been
considered in the composition of the bill, and that this
omission was inconsistent with the promises of Mr. Bright
last year of " gracious and generous" treatment. He
quoted Mr. Forteecue's definition this year of the bill as a
" severe and sweeping measure ;" and he taunted Mr.
Lowe with his repudiation of the generosity which had
been avowed by his colleagues. In a few words Mr.
Gladstone disposed of these verbal quibbles. There had
been no change in the policy of the Government ; and
while the generosity, or rather considerateness, applied to
the treatment of individuals, the severity was the necessary
consequence, and even the end, of the disendowing clauses
of the bill.

According to the Telegraph, some surprise has been
excited by what has seemed the apathy with which Mr.
Disraeli has seen clause after clause of the Irish Church
Bill passed through committee. In that stage not a burst
of rhetoric, not a premeditated epithet of indignation,
not an epigram, not a criticism, has the leader of her
Majesty's Opposition launched against the bill—until
Monday. But he then made amends for his unwonted
reticence. Before moving his own amendments, the Tory
chief proceeded to deliver one of those philippics by which
he has won his way to a front place in statesmanship, or,
at least, in party leadership. Mr. Bright was reminded
that he bad urged Mr. Gladstone to deal with the Irish
Church in " a gracious and generous spirit," and thq
Prime Minister that he had heartily responded to his
colleague's words. But, after the general election, added
Mr. Disraeli, not another word was said about being
" zracions or generous." The Chancellor of the Exchequer
—whose " sympathy with all the softer parts of ous
nature " Mr. Disraeli did not forget to signalise—had pro.
tested against the idea that we should be "generous "
with other people's money ; and Mr. Chichester
Fortescue had eulogised the bill as "severe and sweep.
ing." Such was Mr. Disraeli's indictment. rut there is
no discrepancy between the
_statements which ths
Ministers made when out of place, and those which they
have set forth since they have been in power. The bill is
" gracious and generous "—in some respects, perhaps,
more gracious and generous than strict equality can
warrant ; and to that characteristic we may justly ascribe
the fact of its passing through the ordeals of public opinion
and the -House of Commons with greater rapidity and
success than any great measure brought in by any states-
man—even by Mr. Disraeli himself.

The Daily News says that if the lawyers are right,
neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Privy
Council has any jurisdiction over the Bishop of Natal.
The Royal Supremacy ha.; creatul what it cannot control.
It has conferred the duty, the position, and the title of
Bishop, but has reserved means of enforcing responsi-
bility for them. 'the fault, hwever, does not rest in the
colony, but at I:
Mlle. CSC colonial bishopric.; were the
ervaturcs of the vain ambition of the Bishop of Oxford and
other dignitaries at home. They thought to anticipate the
wishes of the i;olonists, and have overreached themselves.
They were pretty sure that when the colonies came to
self-government they would not do the right thing in this
matter, and they tried to do it for them beforehand. They
were not to be trusted to choose their own ecclesiastical

system, and with the aid of the loyal Supremacy, most
improperly accorded, prelates at home were in haste 0
put a little copy of our State Church in posses•
sion of the ground. 3 ence all the difficulty and all the
humiliation of these later year=. The Church has been

betrayed by a few fussy self-constituted leaders into

false position, and is suffering from it.

Wom-EN PR EACTIERS.—A New York paper says
the Methodists have boldly solved one of the great
problems of the day by licensing women to preach. The
Conference of the Ellenville District, New York, has
given credentials for this purpoz:e to a widow lady named
Vann Cott. The sing Sing Conference has referred the
subject to a special committee. •

MISCELLANEOUS NEWS.

THE WRIT FOR YOUGHAL.

There is likely to be a fight over the issue of the
writ for Youghal. Ministers intend moving for it
to-day (Tuesday). It is said that the motion will be
resisted by the Conservatives, who will endeavour
to obtain the notes of evidence taken at the trial of
the election petitions, and maybe will ask for a royal
commission.

PIIODEILTY IN ADVOWSONS.

The amendment to the Irish Church Bill proposed
by Captain Archdall on Friday night, providing that
compensation for advowsons should be paid not to
the owners of livings, but to the Irish Church body,
raised a neat point of equity. Sir Stafford North-
cote, in stating the whole case, left his . hearers in
doubt as to what his opinion was. lie pointed out
that a living was public property, vested by accident
in one person. He shewed that, according to his
opinion, this person—the landlord—was being com-
pensated for all his losses by the provisions of the bill.
And yet he declared he would not vote against this
person being compensated again. The Times stated his
argument as that adowsons were not private pro-
perty. Sir Stafford, however, writes correcting this,
and, so far as we can gather from his letter, what the
i
member for North Devon really does hold s
that, theoretically, a living is public property. In
its commencement it was such ; but practically—the
sale of adowsons having become a recognised trans-
action—it has vested i:1 and become the private pro-
perty of the one who holds it. So though he speaks
on abstract principles, Sir Stafford votes without
them.