The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-31 00:00:00

TIIE LORDS AND TIIE DILL.

The John, Bull says "it is impossible that Mr.
Gladstone's spoliation bill can become law during
the current session." It will either be so altered in
committee that Mr. Gladstone will repudiate it, or it
will be unconditionally rejected. Either event would
give time for reaction and agitation, and " agitation,
in season and out of season, is one great requisite."
The same paper asserts that the country has not
yet expressed any opinion upon the Irish
Church ; all that it decided was, as to
whether Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli should
be Premier (why it decided in favour of the
former our contemporary does not say). The John
Bull further asserts that, while Lord Russell will
vote for the second reading, Lord Cairns is surprised
at the feeling which has been evoked in favour of
decisive action on the part of the Lords. Our
contemporary rsks only for another year. and nro-
pliczea iliac 11 mat space tor repentance is given,
everyone will be astonished at the result.
According to the London correspondent of the
Scotsman, the recent semi-authoritative announce-
ments respecting the intention of the Lords to throw
out the bill were put out as feelers ; and the result
hrs been to shew the entire want of sympathy
bctween the Orange party and the great bulk of the
nation. The Government do not shew the least
anxiety as to what the Lords will do.
The Spectator infers from a recent article in the
Standard that the Lords have thrown up the game.
The amendments which the Conservative organ
insists upon are very few, and, with one exception,
of small importance. If, therefore, these are all the
changes which will be asked for by way of preserving
their lordships' dignity, it is not likely that any
serious difficulty will arise.
The Saturday Review likens the position of the
Irish Churchmen to that of an offending servant to
whom the stern head of the household has given
warning. The Lords are to say something in their
behalf. " Missis is to speak for them." But the
Review does not think anything will come of it.
The Lords will not alter the irrevocable fiat of the
Commons. There is Lord Carnarvon, for instance,
who last year voted for the Suspensory Bill ; Lord
Salisbury, who deprecated the opposition of the
Peers to the clearly-expressed will of the people;
and Lord Cairns, who cannot but remember that
both Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Disraeli's Chancellor have
small chance of returning to office until this matter
is settled.
The Church Review criticises very severely the
conduct of Irish Churchmen. Their threat to dissolve
the union if the Church is disestablished shcws how
little their loyalty is worth :
" Never was a cause more hopelessly mismanaged.
These Protestants are themselves sealing the worst fate
that can befal the Irish Establishment. They are basing
the cause they defend solely on the ascendancy principle,
and then investing the principle of ascendancy in a lurid
light of faction and rebellion. Anyone not judicially
blind can see that nothing is to be got out of Parliament
upon this ground. The principle of ascendancy is for
ever gone as a rule of policy in this country. How can
we help these people? It is almost difficult to_sympa-
thim even with the cause that has the irrecoverable un-
happiness of their advocacy.'

A COMMONER AND TWO PEERS ON THE TRISH
C EIBRCII BILL.

The Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M.P., has for some
time been treasurer of the Irish Church Missions.
The Hon. A. Kinnaird voted for the disestablish-
ment of the Irish Church. The supporters of
the Irish Church Missions thinlc that he
cannot conscientiously fulfil their office if he
believes the Church ought not to be retained as a State
Church. They therefore request the hon. gentleman's
resignation. Mr. Kinnaird has consented. In doing
so he declares, in a letter to the Reevd, that he is
as much opposed to the Roman Catholic religion as
ever; '• but," he says, "I share with many brethren
abroad and at home in the feeling that the Irish
Church Establishment gives an advantage to
that system by the semblance of being persecuted:
and 1 therefore in Parliament supported the measure
for disestablishment." To Mr. Colquhoun, the
chairman of the society, he writes, " I have for
fourteen years had much pleasure in acting as
treasurer to the Irish Church Missions, and accord-
ing to my judgment the course I have pursued in
Parliament will really most effectually advance the
cause of the true Church of Christ in Ireland."

Earl Grey does not by any means agree with Mr.
Kinnaird, but he, notwithstanding, does not seem to
care about ousting the Irish Church Bill. He
received a deputation on Friday from the Dublin
Church conference, which urged him to move the
rejection of the measure in the Lords. But he was
very cautions indeed. lie would promise nothing.
He sympathised with Irish Churchmen on account
of their position, was obliged to the deputation for
bringing the matter under his notice, &e. But the
strongest terms he used with regard to the action of
the Lords on the bill was, "Should the House decide
upon entertaining the dtta.ils of the measure, some
at leks of the evils likely to flow from it in its
prese 'iape would probably be guarded against."
That ply does not look li.:e fighting. Earl Grey
,oin in the " No surrender" cry.
The Marquis of Lothian, an opponent of the bill
as far as its abstract principle is concerned, is much
more decided than Earl Grey. The later is in
doubt evidently, the former boldly counsels the Peers
to rass the bill. He writes, he says, under great
bodily suffering ; he has long been withdrawn from
the world, and ho fears that not mixing with it may
have cramped his views; but as ho cannot give his
viva voce advice to the Lords, he asks the Times to bo
allowed to give it through its columns. He points
out that last year the dispute was Letween the Lords
and the Commons, now it is between the first and
the nation, the Lower House undoubtedly represent-
ing the country in this matter. He still dislikes the
bill, he says ; but he remembers that free trade
turned out a blessing, and this measure (though he
can hardly conceive it) may do likewise. If the
bill is thrown out, it will revive agitation and
ill-feeling, and cause blood to be shed in
Ireland, and the newspapers to . teem with
horrors. There can be only one reason for rejecting
the bill—that the country has changed its mind.
Those who think so are justified in attempting to
send the question back to the constituencies. But is
it so ? If not, the rejection would be a great mistake.