The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-23 00:00:00

FENIANISM.

ness of his intellect, which cannot endure to see a real evil
merely trimmed or truncated when it might be eradicated.

He is usually supposed—and, we believe, very justly-.

to be a man whose actions have always a very strong pre-
sumption of reasonableness in their favour even when they

seem least reasonable.; ancl, certain'

unanswerable vintlieation of his, at first sight, unintell. gible

leniency in advising the Queen to reprieve the convict
Bisgrove is another confirmation of the public confidence
in his strength of judgment. When, then, we find a states-
man of this type—without any of the old animus in favour
of a radical formula—telling his constituents that, iu
spite of his dislike to secret voting, and his steady refusal
hitherto to support it, he has, under the lights of the facts
brought before him by the last election, decided that secret
voting involves less evil than open voting, and that he
shall support the Ballot in future, we cannot but
admit that the chances in favour of the Ballot
have assumed an entirely new aspect, and that
the reasons which have induced such a states-
man as Mr. Bruce to support it require and deserve
the gravest consideration. And this accordingly we now
propose to give it. Mr. Bruce admits that " the institutions
of a country ought to foster a manly, truthful, . fearless
spirit, and that any institution which would have a con-
trary effect would be a mischievous institution." " I have
myself," continues Mr. Bruce, " often quoted the famous
saying of Sydney Smith that it was not by the ballot-box,
that it.was not by concealing their political opinions, that
the Dutchmen drove the Spaniards out of Holland, or
that the Americans achieved their independence, and I
may add that it was not by secret but by open action that
Scotchmen maintained their civil independence and gained
their religious liberty. I have also, no doubt with con-
siderable truth, insisted on the benefit to all of us which
trial is, and that every man who once performed an action
which exposed him to risk was a stronger and a better man
for doing so." Yet, in spite of these admissions—which are,
by the way, far from bringing out the full strength of the
case against the Ballot—Mr. Bruce has wi tli drawn hiB objec-
tion to the Ballot on various grounds, chiefly this, that at
election times intolerance rises to so artificial a height that
even honest and brave electors are exposed to an amount
of insolent pressure—not only from the rich, but also from
the poor—which makes an election under the present law
an intolerable nuisance to them, and one to which they
ought not to be exposed.

The London Review declares that Mr. Gladstone must
be firm in dealing with the Irish Church question, for
dangers lie ahead in the way of compromise, and he is by
no means bound by those terms which he made last year,
and which were spurned. The elections have well shuffled
the cards, and a new combination has been dealt to each
player in the great game of politics by the sure hand of
public opinion. The hand of public opinion is sure, not
always because public opinion is very distinct or unani-
mous, but because by common consent the voice of the
majority is accepted as final. No one at this. moment
disputes the dictum of the constituencies. No one takes any
further thought of the Tory victories by which the general
defeat was softened. Mr. Disraeli set the example of
resignation in a double sense, and a general disposition to
make the best of it has set in amongst those whose policy
during the debates of last year and the general elections
was "no surrender." In fact, when "no surrender"
surrenders, the submission is apt to be characterised by
great alacrity and a keen eye to what may be saved. The
very arguments by which the overthrow of the Irish
Church was resisted render it obviously prudent for its
supporters to make friends of the mammon of Gladstone
unrighteousness. The more they staked the more they
have to hedge. The more absolute the fall they strove to
avert the greater their eagerness to break the fall which
they now see must come. And the danger is that,
a bargain too favourable for them may be made.
What •it is necessary, therefore, to make clear
to the conscience of the Liberal party is that they
and their leader are free to do absolute justice to the Irish
people by disestablishing the Irish Church, without refe-
rence to the pledges of partial provision for the future
which were given last year. Of course life-interests must
be protected. On the State-Church system a benefice is
necessarily a benefice, and the duty of ministering in
sacred things means the right of receiving so much money
by a yearly national provision. The State ean•no more
• take this away from individuals than they can deprive
• freeholders of their freeholds, although the fact that such
benefices will not be-renewed condemns the present occu-
pation as unjust and indefensible. But beyond the life-
interests we need not go, and they ought to be satisfied by
• a payment as unlike. as possible to the manner in which
the stipends now accrue. The policy of last year, how-
ever, was not thus conceived. Mr. Gladstone sedulously
devoted himself to the conquest of English prejudices by
proving how slight the change of disestablishment and
disendowment would be to those dependent on the Church.
He has now to effect the conquest of Irish discontent by
proving how absolute the-change will be to those who are
offended by the Church. This is the duty of the present
year, in contradistinction to that which last year Mr.
Gladstone so ably performed. And be is entirely fzee to
undertake it.
The Jolin Bull makes some observations upon the con-
duct of the Ritualists, and declares that they are incon-
sistent themselves, and seek to compromise others to suit
their own purposes. Mr. Mackonochie's open declaration
of policy in favour of the Liberation Society has some-
what astounded the world, and enchanted the Dissenting
papers. But to Close behind the scenes it is a matter of
- •no surprise, and his letters may well be quoted in triumph
by Mr. Disraeli as a justification of the one fatal mistake
he made when he allowed himself to Le influenced by
. ultra-Protestant fanatics, some of whose followers have
recently held ar. e i at Ll;l,gton, where professing to
advocate and State, they' pleaded for

'-lav,:ey which would be as great as that so-called liberty
of which Mr. Mackonochie dreams. Mr. Lowder, like
Mr. Maciconuchie, living in a world of his own, talks very
dreami:y of v.-itin,4 far GoO's providence, Lot the Arch-
deacon of Taunton coneu=_,ively proved, to the
satisfaction of all who have not arrived at a
preconceived conclusion, and wilt not Le convinced,
the utter inconsistency of the poßition he has taken up.
We have always urged consideration and fair play for the
Ritualists, we have acknowledged their self-sacrifice and
devotion, but if they put themselves beyond the pale of
the law and are a law to tlemselves, it becomes impera-
tively necessary that we should now disclaim any sym-
pathy with those who set themselves against the law. Mr.
James Skinner, in one of those lengthy letters to the
Guardian which are so characteristic of the writer, and in
which he splits hairs to perfection, says that he will obey
the law if his bishop tells him, but not otherwise. We
trust that the Bishop of Worcester will do nothing of the
kind unless Mr. Skinner should resort to him for his
fatherly counsel in an open and bond flute manner, and with
no desire to put his lordship in a fix. The Ritualists are
willing, they tell us, for the bishops to carry out the
judgment. Yet, if they do so, what an outcry there
will be,

A correspondent writing from Rome mentions that
in the course of a conversation with Dr. Manning,
the Archbishop attributed the decline of Fenianism
to the influence of the Roman Catholic priests. They
have steadfastlythscountenanced it, and as the Sacra-
ments are forbidden to all persons who are members
of a secret society, the Archbishop believes that
Fenianism will die out. There is no doubt that the
Roman Catholic Church has set its face against this
conspiracy ; for behind Fenianism it has seen Red
Republicanism, afar more dangerous antagonist than
any religiouS heresy.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS.

The appointment of chaplains to the Roman
Catholic prisoners was considered by the Middlesex
magistrates on Thursday. Like the Aldermen of
the City of London, these worthy gentlemen were
most anxious that the Establishment should hold its
own in the gaols. To pay a " Romish priest" would
be to allow "a foreign prince" to triumph in these
dominions. The magistrates are "Protestants" against
Inman Catholic assumptions, and so they would not
provide any kind of religious instruction for persons
who hold the faith of Rome. Though pure doctrine
may thus flourish in our gaols, there is great room
y, his complete and I for the development of Christian charity on the
bench.

TILE RITUAL CONTROVERSY.

According to the Church Times, the Church Asso-
ciation has determined to pay the costs of the pro-
moter in the recent suit of Martin v. Mackonochie.
In doing this the association will take a step that
will considerably improve its position in the public
estimation, and that, too, at the very time when
the ultra-Ritualists are damaging theirs by
a refusal to obey the ruling of a court
whose authority they had acknowledged by pleading
before it, and whose judgment they would have
obeyed had it been favourable to them. With
reference to this matter, Mr. Lowder sends his
answer to the second letter of Archdeacon Denison's
to him, which we noticed a few days ago. Mr.
Lowder does not deny the charge of disobedience,
but retorts it upon his correspondent, and asks him
if he obeys the judgment by wearinc, the eucharistic
vestments. Bather, has not the Archdeacon shewn
that it is impossible for any party to obey the judg-
ment? Mr.Lowder contends that he is reallynnich nearer
obedience than those who cry out against him. This
is really a remarkable statement. The Privy Council
has ruled that certain specific practices are illegal
upon grounds which the persons who have resorted
to them affirm would render legal and obligatory
certain other practices. The inference is, at all
events, doubtful ; but even supposing it is justified,
it is a strange way of sheaving obedfeme to
adopt the practices which are only inferentially sanc-
tioned, and to maintain those which are expressly
prohibited. Probably, Mr. Lowder will say that he
does not recognise the tribunal at all : then why did
he and his friends appeal to it; why, too, have they
laid so much stress upon the fact that this decision is
at variance with others by the same court ?- In con-
elading his letter. Mr. Lo-,viler says that each must
follow for himself the indications of God's will, and
" while we may best be serving the cause of the
Church by patient submission, another may be
called upon to suffer and witness for the truth."
Mr. Lowder does not seem to recognise that there is
athird course—secession from a Church which requires
him, as he supposes, to disobey either God or
man.
A correspondent of the Daily Yews mentions that
agents of the Church Association will, on the
approaching Sunday, .visit various churches to see
that the Ritual judgment has been complied with
The Association mean to enforce the law now that it'
has been declared in their favour.