The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-24 00:00:00

THE PUBLIC JOUaNALS.

The Times, in considering the close of the debate on the
Irish Church and the subsequent division, remarks that
the majority is great, overwhelming, decisive ; it is
equal to the most sanguine hopes of the friends of the
bill ; it exceeds the anticipations of many ; yet it kindles
but a slight feeling of triumph, so much bad the certainty
of victory taken away the excitement which hangs on a
doubtful struggle. It is, of course, within the power of
the Conservative party to insist upon using every oppor-
tunity and employing every weapon of resistance, but Mr.
Hardy himself confined his threat of stubborn resistance
to the House of Commons, and he would probably ac-
knowledge the unwritten principle upon the observance
of which the stability of the Constitution depends.
It must never be forgotten that the harmonious
working of our institutions—the avoidance of the recur-
rence of dead-locks such as lately embarrassed the free
colony of Victoria—depends upon the axiom that the
clearly-ascertained will of the people expressed at the
hustings must prevail. This truth was recognised again
and again in the debate of last year in the House of Lords,
and we cannot suppose it will be neglected this session.
The question then provisionally discussed was remitted to
the people free from all complication of side issues and
extraneous subjects, and the verdict of the country was
pronounced upon it. The division of Tuesday night was
the expression of this national judgment. The majority
of 118 which has affirmed the principle of the Ministerial
bill corresponds to a proportionate majority among the
people, and although the details of the measure may be
profitably criticised and even amended in future discus-
sions, that it will be enrolled in the statute-Look must
henceforth be regarded as a certainty.
The Post observes that until the debates of the last and
of the present session there were many tolerably well-
informed men who had no conception of what was meant
by the Irish Church. The ideas entertained were con-
fused, and for the most part erroneous. The mass of the
people simply knew nothing about the matter. They
came to regard the Church Establishment in Ireland as
something which because it existed must necoSsarily be
good. It has been the special mission of the present
Prime Minister to dispel the clarluiess. As.a this is
certainly not too strong an expression to use. It requires
a very bold man to attack an institution which has
stood for centuries, and which, moreover, rests mainly
on the prejudices and the religious partialities of
a numerical majority in the empire. But that man must
not only be bold, but must possess qualities of no ordinary
kind who can successfully persuade that majority to dis-
card its prejudices and dissipate its partialities by the
indomitable force of its will and the exercise of its reason.
The triumph of Mr. Gladstone has been, therefore,
exceedingly great. He had much to contend with, many
obstacles to overcome, many difficulties to vanquish. But
despite probabilities he has proved successful. He has
appealed to the sense of a great nation, he has asked it to
act in a spirit consonant with the spirit of the age in which
it now lifes, and it has responded to that appeal with a
readiness and with an earnestness greater than he himself
could have anticipated.

The llcratd asserts that on Tuesday night the division
was a matter of comparatively little interest. If people
speculated at all it was as to the number by which the
majority would exceed a hundred, and when once such
large figures are assumed, it is impossible to feel much
interest in small modifications of five or ten. The majority
turned out to be one hundred and eighteen, rather more
than most people expected, but practically no greater
triumph to the Government or discomfiture to the Opposi-
tion than if it had been eighty. That it at all represents
the strength of parties in the House of Commons
we can have no hesitation about denying. With
a certainty of defeat so clearly before them, the
supporters of the Church who had any urgent
private reasons for staying at home, naturally felt no call
upon them to respond to the formal appeal addressed to
them by the Conservative Whip ; whilst the Liberals, on
the other hand, rushed to the division in obedience to the
order which required their presence to exercise a moral
pressure upon the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone has
carried by a majority hardly given before to any Minister
a measure which he spent the best years of his life in com-
bating. Is he to be condoled with or congratulated upon
this assuredly decisive vote in favour of a policjr which he
has so vehemently opposed? We leave that question for
the present to the speakers and the writers, who in prais-
ing the Mr. Gladstone of the present day, condemn with
such severity the Mr. Gladstone who represented Newark
and the University of Oxford.

The Daily News thinks that the splendid sanction prac-
tically given by the House of Commons to Mr. Glad-
stone's measure conveys a decision which is nithout
appeal. In ancient Rome, the intercession of the tribunes
of the people was good to bar the senatorial authority.
But the intercession of the popular tribunes has in the
matter of the Irish Church gone before the parliamentary
vote. The Pleb iscitum has preceded the Smut us Con::iftt um..
The nation spoke emphatically in favour of Mr. Glad-
stone's Irish policy in the general election ; and through
its representatives it Las now declared itself in favour
of the specific measure by which he proposes tr give
effect to his scheme. A declaration of opinion
and purpose so decisive determines the course which the
House of Lords must take on this matter, if it be guided
by statesmanlike regard for the public good, or even by
this instinct of self-preservation. Its function as a second
chamber is not to give effect to the personal views of a
majority of its members, but to weigh, sift out, and clarify,
so to speak, the national opinion ; to precipitate it, in
chemical phrase, by disentangling it from the foreign
ingredients with which it may be wrapt up and hidden
from common recognition. This work, however, was done
last year, and there is no valid pretence for repeating the
operation. In rejecting the Suspensory Bill of 1868 the Lords
ranitted the main question to the country. The country
has pronounced in a way which admits of no other response
than that of acquiescence. The courage which might lead
the Upper House to reject Mr. Gladstone's bill would be
of that desperate and unintellectual quality for which the
name of foolhardiness has been set apart. Still a certain
degree of respect might be felt for it. The petty
treachery and malice which would endeavour stealthily to
spoil a measure, while affecting to accept, would add
popular contempt to popular indignation.
The Standard declares that there is no reasoning against
a majority, and the division list is the real reply of Mr.
Gladstone to the arguments urged against his bill. Still
it augurs ill for a great political change when it can be
defended only by the brute force of numbers. The true sen
timental grievance of Ireland lies far deeper than thismea-
sure—behind all Churches, behind all questions of tenant-
right, all matters of legislative reform and parliamentary
competence. The true sentimental grievance of Ireland is
the British flag and not the British faith ; not an Established
Protestant. Church, but a Protestant Establishment in every
department of the State ; a Protestant Queen, a Protes-
tant aristocracy, a Protestant Parliament, and a Protestant
policy. That grievance none of us mean to redress ; and
if we do not we shall scarcely conciliate a single disaffected
Irishman by sacrificing the property and alineating the
hearts of 700,000 Irish loyalists. This is the weakness of
Mr. Bright's argument, and the weakness of the Liberal
policy,- and we could wish that the fallacy of " concilia-
tion" had been made as clear in the course of the debate
now concluded as has been the iniquity of
," disendow-
went."
__

- -
The Telegraph asks, "What will thOLords do with it?"
That is the momentous question. The Commons have
played their part. After the discussion of Tuesday, Mr.
Gladstone's bill may be altered in small points of detail,
but the principle on which it is founded is irrevocably
fixed. Mistakes of detail there may be. A trifle too
much may be allotted to Rome ; a trifle too little to
Armagh. Presbyterian Ulster, possibly, is entitled to
half a fish or a crust more than has been set aside by the
bill as the Ulster portion. We have not looked into the
measure with the eye of an actuary or an auctioneer. We
take the principle as Mr. Gladstone has laid it down ;
ltis
consequent proposals we ad.,pt with the," errors excepted,"
and by all means let what is wrong in the working out
of the scheme be made right. Let the Commons,
in committee, carefully examine the chain link by link,
and find if each link rings true. Why perpetrate little
wrongs when you are struggling to do that which is so
broadly and plainly right? For the bill, in the Commons,
we have no longer any fear. Mr. Gladstone and his
majority are doing a great work. It might, indeed, have
been wished, as we have said, that somebody had briefly
told the House that we were but finding our way back to
the point from which our fathers made a false start three
centuries back, with very grievous results to themselves
and to those who came after them. We have no fear of
what will happen from this bill when it passes into law.
We look upon it as a noble legacy, bequeathed by the
British Parliament and people of the year 1869 to those
who will come after us. When such a principle as that
contained in the bill has made its way into the mind of a
great nation, fanaticism and bigotry may do their worst.
The Star believes the country will derive from the
results of the Irish debate all that satisfaction which
must naturally arise from tiie realisation of hopes long j
persevered in against hope. That the Irish Church Esta,_
blishment must disappear has long been the conviction of I
all Liberal statesii
aiexcept the few who cherished the
design of e.ta.hlishii.leen Carbolic and Presbyterian establish.
meats by the side. design the people of England
have never becilfaVollral),ll3o:•een tolerant. All the hopes,
therefore, of so many alisxe‘tle,rine
willing to do justice to Irelt
the discsfahhs!onent of theal:.ish_ Church. Butt till quite
lately they were entertained
t,s;Ltnl,ll the greatist difficulty.
The noble ri•aolutioo drat, this questicn
should be settled in the only
w:(a followed,
however, by a great revival of liti.LBthile wayi
eceived by this policy at the eleAt(einsVes.
plaeft,wlll how easy it
was to arouse and draw forth the syni::
• long been cherished ; and we inay ,17,,1nd. in the niajo.
a-lW nt Mr. Gladstone's back—a,
Upon. ue said on Ttiesday,representin44;:li:rttelo''t,natsiiyila'elliei
in nothing so fully as in kindliness of feeling
land—the fruitful awl secure assurance of the °Lanni' I're,
of that scheme of justice which has 1 ern
by the Government since their accession to i,:hee. 1114.1..
who take a broad view of political progress, and who
regard the improvement of legislation as more impel,
taut than the gains of parties, may gladly perceive,
in the grand enlightened enthusiasm of Mr. Gladstone's
closing speech, the sure promise of a lengthened day of
uninterrupted progress such as no temporary Liberal
reverse could stay—a day of success which the great
patriotic triumph over which we have now to rejoice
inaugurates with peculiar and .unsullied brilliancy.

DIPERIAL FARLIA EN

_~~
,~

HOUSE OF COMAIONS.—LAsr EVENING.
The SPEAVTB took the chair at 4 o'clock.
SLIGO BOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL.

A short debate took place on the motion for the secoad
reading of this bill. The house eventually divided, when
there appeared—

For the motion
Against it ll9
Majority in favour of the bill -16
OPENING THE MUSEUMS ON SUNDAYS.

A great many petitions were presented against the pro-
posal to open the British Museum and other public iusti-
tutions on Sundays.
THE RELEASED FENIANS.

Mr. C. FORTESGUE, in reply to Sir G. Jeukinson,
i•a'd it was quite true that language of a very objection-
able character had been used at two banquets given ateork
and Ballenasloo in honourof the released Fenims. Only two
of those persons released h•ld so grossly and disgracefully
abused the clemency of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) The
seditious language had not escaped the attention
of the Government, and it was now under the
cons:d..,ration of the law officers of tho Crown.
He hoped too much importance would not be given to
the mischievous eloquence of these persons, as the Go-
vernment were not indifferent to the matter, and
were quite determined that such things should not
continue. (Hear, hear.) The persons who had been set
at liberty did not receive a free pardon, but were set
at liberty with certain conditions being enforced
on them. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the case
of those r ersons in Australia, he had already on a
former occasion stated the intention of the Government,
but ho could only say that each individual case
would be considered on its own merits. With
respect to a statement which appeared that morning in
one of the newspapers that day, that the two Fenian
convicts, O'Donovan Roser and Newby had been re-
leased. Such a statement bad no foundation in fact.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Mayor of Cork might
feel confident, if he felt so disposed, "that they bad Mr.
Gladstone on their side, and that all the other Fenians
would be released." (Laughter.) All he could say wa-,
that there was no intention on the part of the Govern-melt
to release any more Fenians.