The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-17 00:00:00

8P13%1T OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

01 course the debate on the Royal Supremacy is the
topic which engages the attention of the daily papers. The
Times, rebuking Mr. Disraeli for his confusion, explains
what the Royal Supremacy really is, that the Crown—the
Queen acting by the advice of her Ministers—is
the administrative head of the Church. The Queen
has the patronage of ecclesiastical offices, just as
she has the legal and temporal patronage. But
;it would be manifestly wrong to take away the
3s; oney from the Church, and then to leave her trammelled
with the Royal Supremacy. If the Church chooses, in hes
voluntary assembly, to lay herself under the royal hand,
to ask the Crown to appoint the bishops, there can be no
reason for,restricting her liberty even in that direction.
But the State must give freedom to the Church to do
this. Nor does the Times think that the disendowed
and disestablished Churchmen will do it. The proba.
bility is that they will adopt some middle course,
rotaining the doctrines and worship of the English Church
unchanged, but availing themselves of their freedom to
aclOeve greater elasticity of administration; but whatever
they do must be done by them of their own free will. This
is what is allowed them by the second clause.
The Standard, on the other hand, contends that the
clause is most unnecessary. Mr. Disraeli believes—and
the Conservative journal thinks him right—that only
the maintenance of the Royal Supremacy over the Church
will secure the Church a temperate and equitable govern-
ment, and protect it against innovations in doctrine and
discipline. What he proposes is, in fact, that the Church
of Ireland, although deprived of its privileges as an
Established Church, shall continue under the disabilities
of an Established Church. If the Irish Church objects to
Omit position, its objection ought, perhaps, to prevail, but
the members of that Church desire, on the contrary,
to retain the connection with the Church of England
which would place them under the restraints imposed upon
the former after they had ceased to possess the advantages
it would still enjoy. Under these circumstances, our con-
temporary cannot see what valid objection there is to be
offered to Mr. Disraeli's proposal.
The Daily News does not think that Irish Churchmen
would desire to have their privileges curtailed. If the
Church still wishes to be governed by Parliament, it seeks
An inferior rather than a superior position. But
the restraint impliei the dignity of a special
connection with the head of the State, and
our contemporary by no means admits that this
ought to be granted. Because a disestablished Church
asks for it, it does not follow that Parliament is to under-
take the trouble of governing. That great engine is not
lightly to be called on to do the work of this or that reli-
gious denomination. But the Daily News doubts
whether Dr. Ball has warrant for his demands. His
colleague in the representation of the University of
Dublin tells us that in advocating the liberal endow.
meat of the Roman Catholic clergy he does not speal

the mind of his constituents or of the Protestants of Ire-
land. In proposing to restrict the future of the Church,
to tie it down to exact conformity for all time in disci-
pline, doctrine, worship, and government with the Church
of England, he may as little speak their mind. The
Church left to itself, he says, may alter its own terms of
communion, and some of its present incumbents may be
driven from it. Parliament, also, may alter the terms of
communion, as it has done before, with precisely the
same result.

The Telegraph—supported almost unanimously by the
Liberal papers—protests against the debate altogether,
and warns Mr. Disraeli that by continually dividing the
House, he is only shewing the weakness of his own party,
and so proving a foe to the Church. On the question
debated, our contemporary ar,gu es that the supremacy of the
Crown means nothing more than the supremacy of the law.
This will still exist in Ireland. It is absurd to envelope
the subject in a transcendental mist. Over the Baptiste,
as well as the Church, the Queen is to-day supreme. The
effect of Mr. Disraeli's motion was to restrict the liberty
of the Church. It is most wonderful that the complaint
should be made from the side which is supposed to repre-
sent the Church, that the Government mean to give the
body liberty of action.

The Herald, taking the other view of the subject, asks
why, when a demand such as this is made, the Govern-
ment refuse to accede to it ? Our contemporary thinks
union much more to be desired than the freedom the
Government would give. The Irish Churchmen ask to be
allowed to remain members and form a part of the
English Church. The Roman Catholics form one whole ;
why should this privilege be denied to the Protestant
Episcopalians?
The Star does not think the Protestants do or will
demand to have their freedom of action taken from them;
but in any case the connection between the Crown, as such,
and the Church must cease. And it is inconceivable that the

Queen should personally be called upon to be the patron
of the Church. That she should act so would be uncon-

ititutional.