The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIII JOURNALS.

The Saturday Review thinks that Mr. Disraeli enlivened'
or at least marked, the debate of last Monday by finding
something new to say on the Irish Church. He must be
r_
tired, and he may well be disgusted, with a discussion P
which he knows he can win no credit, and
which he must feel he is taking the wrong side.
sought, therefore, to escape from the twinges of his 0°
intellectual judgment or conscience, and from tb°
fanaticism and platitudes of his supporters, by tell,
refuge in a new set of paradoxes on Irish history.
last theory is that the Irish Church has been wantow
sacrificed to the ignorance of a Ministry who did 12(4
understand the true character of the Fenian rebellion'
The rebellion, he thinks, was of purely American origin'
and failed because no Irishman would have anything t°
do with it. Unfortunately, the Ministry, in their blind.
ness, chose to treat it as a symptom ofreallrish discontent,
and, not knowing what other bone to throw to the dos'
flung the persecuted Irish Church in its way. The dog
will of course eat its bone, and tic Irish Catholicof
although thoroughly happy before, will permit theta'
selves to be represented as likely to be made still hap Pier
by having the Protestant Church humiliated and robbed.
This is the startling paradox on which Mr. Disraeli 1)55
chosen to rely in order to conceal, if possible, from hiln.
self and others the position in which he really steal'
Ireland not only has no grievance, but does not think it
has any. It is only a foolish Liberal Ministry Oast
whispers to Eve in Erin that there is something she rnigho
properly long for. The theory worked out by Mr. Dial°
only such a short time ago has been discarded, and he no
longer admits the melancholy of the Irish, and account
for it by that proximity to the ocean on all sides which
they share with so many inhabitants of small islands. -u'e
would not now allow they are melancholy. On the Oil'
trary, they are well off, and they know it. Not a sine!
person of either party could have failed to remember OP
Mr. Disraeli's Premiership was ushered in by Urci
Stanley's declaration that the Irish question was the quei.
tion of the day, and that the first thing Mr. Disraeli did On!
to:announce that the Cabinet had an Irish policy which Lau
Mayo was commissioned to reveal. Mr. Disraeli did not 01.11
the risk, but faced the certainty that his paradox would WI
away, like a ghost at cock-crowing, directly Mr
Gladstone dwelt on a few facts of indisputable notorietP
But he nevertheless thought the paradox worth starting,
It enabled him to throw a vast amount of vague general
blame on the Ministry, and to assume an attitude of con'
scions superiority towards them, while it saved him fro'
all necessity of explaining to his party whether be will
really prepared to ask the House of Lords to rally roll"'
the Altar and the Throne and the Orange flag.

The Spectator says that Lord Derby's letter to ale.
Joseph Hawley, which was read at the meeting of Old
Jockey Club last Saturday, and was printed in the Ts
of Monday, may be looked at in two lights. It is at once
a plea for young horses and for young peers. Under
the present system, we are told that two-year-olds are
" crippled " and "stumped," while the great race weep
is generally followed by a widely-spread report that 00
young lord has gone to the devil. As we write, the
.
entire racing studs of two young dukes are abet"
to be sold at Tattersall's, and we may fairlt
ascribe such a crash to the influence of some
of those speculators mentioned by Lord Der*
In our judgment, public opinion id still unformed uPel;
this subject. There is, no doubt, some feeling excite'
whenever a great scandal arises, and the ruin of each 01:
victim leads men to ask whether our liberty is 11°,;
degenerating into license. But after all, people sag'
this marquis or that earl had not beggared himself on the
Turf, he would have found some other way of parting with
his money. If the public is called upon to reprobate sale
sharp practice on the Turf, it regards it as nothing were
than a competition between those who steer close to the
wind and those who don't care where the wind come/
from. Lord Derby will say that such a view is inconsistent
with the respect which ought to be paid to the Turf, and
which was paid to it in its palmy days. We wish We
could see something more definite than the mere want t
respect for an institution which, whether it be aristocrat
s°
popular, does and must do an incalculable amount e,
mischief. Any race may be made into an instrument of
gambling, and it has been said that of late years the manly
and healthy excitement produced by the University 13°e".
race has been prostituted in this way. But the grey
horse-races notoriously exist for the sole purpose
gambling. Every thought, every interest, eve"
speculation is centred not in the race, but in the
winner ; not in the horses, but in the odds upon then'
People think there is nothing wrong in thisbecause ever
le
body does it, and the same reason which takes the who
of London to the Derby finds a public for the sporting
papers and for the tips of their prophets. There maybe
nothing objectionable here, just as the lottery and the
rouge-et-noir tables may be right and proper. But if so
why does the law prohibit wagers, why are there heavy
fines on games of hazard, why are lotteries declared t°
be public nuisances, and why does playing or betting
with any instrument of wagering in any place to which
the public have access make a man liable to be imprisoned
as a rogue and vagabond? There must be some difference
here between our theory and our practice, and it is illy
portant to know which of them is right. Otherwise, we
shall be driven to the conclusion that though chuck'
farthing is not only a sin, but a misdemeanour when it P 7
played by a ragged boy in the streets, there is no herm
whatever in chuck-thousand, so long as it is played hi
marquis, under the auspices of the Jockey Clubs an
within the Ring at Epsom. •
The John Bull thinks that the House of Lords sigglia
bear in mind two premises, and arrive at two conclusions'
The first premise is that the extension of the franchil .
renders it more than ever requisite that the Secell
Chamber should exercise a real veto ; for, even in -
Republic, there is some security in the provision that
t.!
majority of two-thirds is necessary. Secondly—and this
is a most important consideration—that a bill affecting
the Church is one on which the House of Lords is specials
fit to judge. If it be admitted that on matters of linen
and commerce the. Lower House is the better authority'
it surely may be admitted that, with a Church questiee'
an assembly composed of Churchmen is more fitted t°
deal than one in which Roman Catholics and Nen .„e°llQ:
formists form so large a proportion. The House, weiginl
well these circumstances in connection with the sPecir
bill before them, should resolve to exercise its own ill°.
pendent judgment without the least regard to con'
sequences. If, as we contend, the most importanv
principles are at stake, the House of Lords is morally
bound, be the consequences what they may, to alert
them. But this is not all their duty. It is imperatively
binding on their lordships to educate the coup'
It is useless to amend the bill in committee'
The Times and other Liberal papers are quite right
declaring that it is impossible. The principle of the 13.
admitted, it is, in our opinion, childish quarrelling o'4
details, agreeing as we do with the Marquis of Lothiell'
that disestablishment is far worse than disendownlenty
We rejoice to know that such is Mr. Disraeli's opinion eg
well as of the Earl of Derby's, and the disavowal of the
treacherous article in the Standard will have the best
effect on the party. Throwing aside, then, as a vier:
ignis fatuus the attempt to conceal the policy of rulln113:
away under grandiloquent phrases as to amending w.„-
bill in committee, the House of Lords may either abdiee_;
their functions, as suggested by the Standard, or else, e'
we have always recommended, assert calmly and judicialli
their own authority, and remit to the people the fat. fil.h°
consideration of a question the mighty issues of win
they have not fully realised. Justice to themselves, i'
to England, justice to the Church, demands this eon'
and we have little doubt that it is, the one which, afterfttil
deliberation, will commend itself to their lordships.
The Economist observes that Lord Stanley touched uPell
the true reason for the abolition of the Patent Laws wiles
he referred to the injury of third parties which the Pre;
sent law occasions, by reason of patents being granted he
only one out of half-a-dozen persons who come upon i.PO
same inventions, or to one of a series of inventors wt%
improve upon each other's work, and by reason also oft 7.3
general interference with manufacturing. What we 011°18
have liked to see fully stated was the peculiarity a
present circumstances of the country in which these thlbst
are true. The statements, in fact, amount to this—to
there is a large number of inventions which patents 2/..4
not required to encourage ; that these are made as ordin
incidents of business ; that invention, improvement "si
mechanical and chemical processes, is itself a part find
manufacturing business-; and that in this way the gran;
of patents only impedes manufacturers to whom inventiel34
would naturally come. The full force of these facts canli-
be felt unless we recognise that a change in the characteg
of invention has taken place. The Patent Laws were
intended to apply to different manufacturing circuev
stances from those which now exist, and were based o°o
different notions about invention ; the objection to theta
is that they either are or are becoming out of datei
We come, then, to the conclusion that it is for the Olen
interest that patent laws should be abolished, and thatof
their abolition will do no great harm to anyone—less" -
hePe
all to the great mass of inventors or improvers. per
as
we may point out that if the circumstances are
described, this country has a special interest in abolishing
such laws. As the leading manufacturing country i"
world, a patent here is likely to be worth more t°
itg
holder than anywhere else. Consequently, our manuf4_,
turers are more exposed than any others to the interrnve
tion and worry of patents. It may well be that oi
ll
countries which are less tempting to patentees will fin
the balance of competition weighted in their favelljof
consequence. Looked at another way, the more
invention falls into the hands of great capitalists the nou'-
ountry
likely is it to strengthen the manufacturing a
Condit on of
which is already most powerful. The normal condll
things is all in our favour, and we should do nothleb:
thwart it,