The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-22 00:00:00

THREE years and one month ago the Houses of
Parliament were called upon at a few hours' notice
to pass through all its stages, at one sitting, a bill for
suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. The
bill was passed with feeble numerical opposition,
only eight members in the Lower House and none
in the Upper venturing to oppose it. Nevertheless
it gave rise to the most eloquent speech of the most
eloquent member of the House of Commons. This
speaker asked how much longer that policy of force
and repression was. to be pursued in Ireland ?
how much longer the Government meant to with-
hold justice from that portion of the QUEEN'S
dominions ? how much longer the union between
Great Britain and Ireland was to be maintained by
means of the gaoler and the soldier ? He implored
the House to adopt another policy, to try justice and
consideration, and see if they would not succeed in
accomplishing that which injustice and indif-
ference never had accomplished, and never
would accomplish. He counselled Ministers
to hold a special session, which should be given
up solely to Ireland. His words produced no imme-
diate result. A Conservative Government came into
office. A rising took place in Kerry and near Dublin.
It was abortive o‘course. How could it be other-
wise when, on the one side, were unarmed lads, and
on the other 25,000 of the best-disciplined troops in
the kingdom ? Twice the Suspension Act was re-
newed. One of the ablest statesmen among (though
he is scarcely of) the Conservative party deplored the
condition of Ireland as " a miserable state of things,"
as " a strange and perplexing problem," as " painful,
dangerous, and discreditable." Lord STANLEY spoke
thus just before the commencement of last session,
and he seemed to imply that the Government was
prepared at length to deal with the Irish question. We
know what happened. We know how Lord MAYO, in a
speech of three hours and twenty minutes, suggested
the plan of levelling-up the churches, and promised
a measure for dealing with the land. The
suggestion was repudiated almost as soon as it was
made, for the country would not listen to it ;
the land bill was dropped. The nation was
appealed to, and a new Ministry came into office,
whereof one of the most distinguished members is
that very orator who three years ago asked for
an Irish session. He now has his demand
virtually granted. February 17, 1866, saw Mr.
Bnicarr protesting with passionate eloquence
against the policy of force; March 19, 1869,
sees Mr. BRIGHT rejoicing in the certain prospect of
triumph, not because it is a personal victory, but
because it is the victory of those principles which
he advocated three years ago. Between then and now
how great a contrast ! Then the hurried measure of
repression passed at a sitting ; and the orator stand-
ing up almost alone, a voice in the desert almost un-
heeded ; now the Minister advocating the well-
weighed measure of conciliation he has helped
to frame, as the first instalment of that
policy of
goodwill which is henceforth to guide our rule of
Ireland. Surely there is no need to despair after
this. Surely when we look back those three years
and see reaction triumphant, the author of the
Reform Bill sinking beneath the waves of faction,
and his ablest friend hooted down by well-dined
squires, and then see that same Minister at the head
of an overwhelming majority, and that friend his
colleague and coadjutor, the most impatient reformer
of State or Church need never shew impatience
again.

Nor is it only Reformers who should find consola-
tion in the eventful history of these three years.
The most obstructive Conservatives may take corn-
h fort. If they themselves have during that time
passed a Reform Bill far more sweeping than that
which they at first resisted as revolutionary—if they
can contemplate this handiwork of theirs without
dismay, and even with satisfaction—why should they
so disquiet themselves about the change which it is
now proposed to make ? Let them cast their eyes
back to the events, not of these three last years only,
but to those of the last forty, and see whether every
one of the great changes which they opposed vehe-
mently at the time did not commend itself to them
almost immediately after it was effected. Let them
read that magnificent passage in Mr. Bright's speech
on Friday night, wherein lie recalled to their remem-
brance Roman Catholic emancipation, the Reform
Bill of 1832, the abolition of slavery, the repeal
of the corn laws, the dissolution of the
East India Company, the Reform Bill of 1867
and confess if there is one of those measures which,
they would repeal now if they had the power to do
so. And, if as we are sure they will say that there is
none, let them ask themselves if it was wise to resist
each of these changes until it was forced upon them ;
if it was wise to be on the verge of civil war in 1829,
to be within twenty-four hours of a revolution in
1832, to wait for the ruin of the West Indian
planters in 1854, for the Irish famine in 1846, for
the Indian mutiny hi 18.57, for the Hyde Park riot
in 1866. Let them say if true statesmanship does
not consist in preventing such convulsions and
calamities as these, in granting freely to grateful
hearts, rather than in surrendering grudgingly to
imperious wills. Two years hence Conservatives
will be looking as complacently upon a disesta-
blished Irish Church, as they now look upon house-
hold suffrage. Is it really worth while to continue
any longer a resistance which the most eminent
among them know to be not only:futile, but unjusti-
fiable ?

THE controversy on the proposed abolition of the
light dues levied on merchant shipping has not as
yet terminated favourably for the advocates of
the change. There is a good deal to be said on
both sides; but a transfer of financial obligations
can be justified only when there is decisive proof
that an excessive and unfair burden is thrown upon
the class on behalf of which complaint is made. The
shipowners and their supportershave hardly succeeded
in making out a case of this kind. It is proposed that
the tolls levied on merchant shipping for the main-
tenance of the lighthouses and beacons on the Bri-
tish coast should be discontinued, and that the cost