The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-24 00:00:00

iug any such proposed addition to the thirteenth
clause of the Bill, in regard to the Irish Church now
before Parliament, it would certainly appear a far
more rational proceeding on the part of the Legisla-
ture to sweep aside at last bodily and summarily the
whole of that absurd Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which
has never once to this moment been acted upon,
which, i❑ point of fact, has been just so much waste
paper ever since the time of its first enrolment on
the statute-book of the realm. The Ecclesiastical
Titles Act, in truth, has been all along a
mere blot upon the statute-book. All that
could reasonably be wished in its regard was that it
should be altogether obliterated. A sense of this
had led to the formal proposition to the House of
Commons that the act in question should be abrogated
—long before the disestablishment of the Irish
Church had been suggested to Parliament as Mr.
GLADSTONE'S counter-proposal to Lord MAYo's
plan for levelling up, and, consequently, long before
any one ever dreamt of the Protestant Episcopacy
of Ireland being brought into the same category
with Cardinal CULLEN and Archbishop MANNING.
In any case, it would now be a wonderful simplifi-
cation, to say the least of it, a really wonderful and
most acceptable simplification of a very ludicrous
jumble of cross-purposes if, instead of the Lords and
Commons entertaining this ingeniously suggested
amendment of clause 13, as propounded for their con-
sideration by Lord COLCHESTER, they determined at
once, and with a good grace, to sweep away the
Ecclesiastical Titles Act altogether. Their so doing
would certainly befit the dignity of England, in this
matter, better than any other proposal.in regard to it
that could possibly be thought of. The Legislature
has a valid cause for reconsidering, or rather
let us say at once, for resolutely retracing
the course pursued by it, in a ferment of indignation,
nineteen years ago, when it disdained not to imitate
the conduct of the Little Boy (in LEECH'S memorable
cartoon) who chalkel up " No Popery" on Cardinal
WISEMAN'S door, and then ran away. Under no con-
ceivable circumstances can it ever be anything else
than derogatory to the dignity of England, that laws
shall remain inscribed upon her statute book that
can no longer be acted upon. But, when it is borne
in mind that, here, in regard to this particular enact-
ment we are at this moment re:erring to, it never has
been acted upon, even once, sinc3 the date of its pass-
ing both Houses and receiving the Royal Assent, it
must be obvious, according to a familiar phrase, even
to the meanest capacity, that the honour and glory
of England suffer so long as any such powerless enact-
ment as that remains in existence. Away with
it, therefore, we would now very seriously and
very e irnestly suggest, away bodily with the whole
of that absurdity of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act,
rather than give one moment's consideration to
what Mr. BRIGHT would call the " childish
tinkering" of Lord COLCHESTER'S proposed addition
to the thirteenth clause of the Irish Church Bill, so
soon as that particular clause shall come, in due
course, in the House Lords, under the scrutiny of
their L )rdships in Committee. Better far remove
the incumbrance itself than endeavour to avoid the
perpetual risk there is of stumbling over it, so long as
it continues to lie there in the broad path of legisla-
tion.

WHILE the Conservative party are still delibe-
rating upon the amendments of the Irish Church
Bill which they mean to propose in committee,
individual peers have already given notice of several.
Lord COLCHESTER means to ask that the Irish
bishops shall be exempted from any pains or penalties
which they may incur under the Ecclesiastical
Titles Act for retaining their old territorial titles
after their Church has become disestablished. This
amendment will, we trust, be resisted by the Govern-
ment, inasmuch as, if carried, it win Inca._
..214 Roman Catholic pre-
lates which would violate the first principle of the
bill—religious equality. Of course we do not wish
to see Archbishop TRENCH and Bishop ALEXANDER
prosecuted for calling themselves Archbishop of
Dublin and Bishop of Derry. The true remedy
is to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act alto-
gether. It has never once been put in
force ; it is a relic of the old evil time of
Protestant ascendancy, and any attempt to give it
new life, by acknowledging that it has an active
existence, is to ba deprecated. Lord ROMILLY'S
proposil that "in all cases where any point of
doctrine or discipline of the Church of England shall
come into question and be decided by any of the
civil courts of Ireland, the appeal shall lie to
her MAJESTY in council in England, and not
to the House of Lords," is intended to
retain for the Irish Church when disestablished
the same privilege, if privilege it be, of resorting to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
as the Court of Final Appeal, which it now
possesses. We presume that no objection
will be offered to this amendment. Whatever
defects that court may possess, no legislator is pre-
pared at present to find a substitute for it. Even
the most zealous denouncers of it would scarcely
care to entrust the House of Lords with the duty of
deciding points of doctrine.
The other amendments are far more serious. Earl
GREY goes to the root of the whole question by pro-
posing to omit from the preamble the words " but
not for the maintenance of any Church or clergy or
other ministry, nor for the teaching of religion."
Lord RUSSELL applies in detail the principle here
involved. He sets out with the statement that
the principle of equality between the various denomi-
nations ought to be observed, and that all the
claims of the Established Church having been satis-
fied, the surplus funds shall be devoted to the
building of churches and chapels, to the building or
purchase of ecclesiastical residences, and to the pur-
chase or grant of glebe lands, not exceeding thirty
acres, for both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics,
and to the purchase or grant of lands for the
purpose of graveyards for Protestants of all denomi-
nations and members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally, Lord SHAFTESBURY proposes to use the
funds in granting loans to the Irish peasantry at a
moderate interest and on adequate security, and to
insert clauses whereby in commutation of life
interests consideration may be given for the greater
longevity of the clergy.
There is something almost ludicrous in the con-
tiguity of these proposals. The suggestion that as
the clergy are longer lived than the laity they ought
to have a large sum for their life interest, will raise a
laugh.

THE Peers may discover some reason for congra-
tulation in the complaint made by Lord ROMILLY
of demonstrations in the Strangers' Gallery during
the debates in the Upper House. It has not of late
been often given to the Peers to draw such audiences,
nor have their speeches often possessed such interest
as to awake partisan expressions of applause. But
during the present session the strangers, it appears,
have syste natically " assisted " at the debates in the
House of Lords by according their moral support to
the speakers whom they favoured. Lord
,ROMILIS
apprehends serious consequences from this practice.
He remembers the fate of the French Assembly
during the Revolution, when the manifestations of
the audience first led the members to address the
people rather than their colleagues, and at length
enabled the spectators to overawe the legislators.
It is not likely that the House of Lords will
speedily find itself in the position of the assembly
in which MIRABEAT), DANTON, and ROBESPIERRE
figured; but the Peers have nevertheless just reason
to complain of interruption from visitors. To
preserve the character of a Legislature it is
primarily essential that its deliberations be confined
to its own members. If the audience be so numerous
and so prominent that the speaker is led to seek its
sympathy, the full control of law-making must, mo