The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-19 00:00:00

BPIIIIT OF THE PUBLIC TOIJRNALS.

The Times asks the Americans to consider calmly what
they have to acknowledge, as well as to complain of, in
the Matters now actually in dispute. We did beyond
doubt treat a civil war in America as if it were an ordinary
war, instead of regarding it as something altogether
exceptional and beyond the application of ordinary rules.
It is no secret that the leaders of the secession did build
their hopes to a great extent upon the action of this
country. They confidently calculated not only on
" recognition," but on intervention. There was a time
when the Americans would have made any bargain with
us to avert this dreaded intervention, and at that same
time, as they well know, we were pressed to intervene by
an ally so powerful that if the combined weight of the two
nations had been thrown into the scale against the North,
the Southern half of the Union would never have been re-
covered. Yet we resisted these solicitations and we endured
the loss of the greatest trade in the world, rather than
depart from that neutrality for which we ate now prose-
cuted. Mr. Sumner says we are chargeable for half the
war. Do those who approve his words forget that Mr.
Jefferson Davis said the very same thing? '[he Confede-
rate President declared in the heat of the contest that, but
fer the prodigious supplies which the Federals drew from
this country, the war would not have lasted six months.
Mr. Ads ms, in his correspondence with Lord Russell,
made admissions to the same effect. All intelligent
Americans know, and all candid Americans would admit,
that the conduct of our Coverninent during their civil war
either was, or was intended to be, void of offence towards
them. If the private opinions or sympathies of a people
are to be now made, for the first time in history, a subject
of international litigation, the Americans should ask
themselves to what countercharges they would themselves
be liable in a cause so founded ; but the wiser course is to
put such matters out of the question altogether, and con-
fine the scope of diplomatic negotiations to such affairs as
are within the cognizance of public law.

The Standard says that in the brief interval which will
elapse between the final stage of amendment in the House
of Commons and the first reading in the Upper House, it
may be useful once more to review the progress of the
Irish Church Bill in committee, and recapitulate the fate
of the various amendments proposed. The matters
already pointed out as particularly objectionable were the
price charged for the glebe-house, the confiscation of the
northern glebe-lands, given by a Protestant King for Pro-
testant purposes ; the injustice of not allowing the tithe-
rent charge payer an equivalent for his present legal right
to deduct poor rate, and the adoption of fourteen years'
value as a measure of capitalisation for Maynooth but not
for the Church. The price for the glebe-houses has been
reduced from twelve to ten years; the Church Body
may buy, or refuse to buy, as seems expedient ; the
result of this being in round numbers that the houses may
be had for (according to Mr. Gladstone's calculation) about
£OO,OOO, instead of for about £200,000, as proposed in the
original scheme. The landlords are now allowed fifty-two
instead of forty-five years to redeem the tithe rent-charge,
and instalments are to be allowed for poor rate. These
are the whole concessions of any pecuniary value, and after
a fair and full allowance for them, the bill remains a
monument of unrelenting confiscation and oppression.
Whether as such it should be wholly rejected, or allowed
to be read a second time by the House of Lords, is for the
Conservative leaders in that House to determine, but cer-
tain we are that under no circumstances should it be
allowed to become law without provisions enabling a
general and not an individual commutation of life incomes,
and the preservation of glebe-houses free of charge, and
of the Ulster glebes for the new Church.
The Daily News remaika that Lord Cairns has every
qualification for leadership, except its conscious power. A
very acute and shrewd, and not unkindly critic, with
unusual opportunities of observation, has described Lord
Cairns as less the le'►der of the Tory party than their man
of business. He is their confidential agent, their bailiff, or
their land-steward, rather than their chief. This cha-
racter is the more conspicuous from the fact that Lord
Cairns succeeds Lord Derby—for the roifaineant period
of Lord Malmesbury's vain efforts to lead need not be taken
into account. Lord Derby spoke as a feudal chief giving
orders to his vassals ; Lord Clirns speaks like an attorney
who has received his instructions—in with case, of course,
with decent disguise and circumlocution. In both there
is a kind of self-confidence ; but in the one it is
the self-confidence of the smart man of business.
in the other of conscious personal ascendancy and social
superiority. In manner, address, and in yet smaller
matters, Lord Cairns is the brisk professional man. He
altogether wants the easy negligence of Lord Derby and
Lord Salisbury. He exercises no magnetic influence upon
his party. He is not in social feeling sufficiently at one
with them to Le sure that in speaking his own mind he is
speaking theirs ; nor has lie the authority to impose his
mind upon them. He is prosaic and lawyer-like. The
difficulty mhich this fact presents will probably be evaded
during what remains of the present session by Lord Derby's
return to the field to take the command of the Conserva-
tive forces in the battle of the Irish Church. Lord Cairns
will make en excellent second, and will probably do, and
do well, the work which Dr. Ball discharged in the House
of Commons. When the next great Occasion arises, be
may have more thoroughly learned his business ; or Lord
Salisbury, who is the natural lender of the Tory party,
may be ready to assume the place which awaits him
The Tele;;raplt thinks that the recent. news from Arno' ica
seems to confirm the justice of the original opinion, that
the iminectate importance of Senator Surnner'e speech
had been somewhat over-estimated in this country. It is
now more than ever clear that neither the speaker nor his
audience interpreted the remarkable utterance in the
sense of a distinct declaration of hostility ; and, though
we see no reason to modify our view regarding the injustice

and extravagance of his solemn indictment against Eng-
land, we note with satisfaction that the Americans appear
to agree with us in considering it rather as an expression
of public opinion than as an official exposition of national
policy. For the present we anticipate no immediate action
with reference to the Alabama claims. It is, no doubt,
undesirable that the question should be left open ; but, in
the present excited condition of American feeling, we see
no possibility of arriving at any very speedy and satis-
factory settlement. Beyond a general desire to do what ,
is right and fair, this country has no interest whatever in I
concluding an Alabama Convention, except in so far as
such an agreement might protect our own commerce here-
after from depredations similar to those which Captain
Semmes inflicted upon the Federal merchant marine.
And, with a Government like that of the United States,
ruling over so immense an area, and exercising so little
d:rect authority over the several States, no Convention I
could practically be enforced in time of war, unless the
public opinion of the country were opposed to reprisals
against England. An excellent service, however, can be
rendered, not to the two countries only, but to the world
at large, if the representative statesmen of each nation
will but honestly and faithfully keep their people informed
on the actual views and state of feeling in the other
country—and will thus, by force of that reciprocal
" understanding " which is the basis of all trust and
friendship, pave the way towards a conciliatory and final
settlement.
The Times heartily welcomes the address of Archbishop
Leahy. There is much in the style of his order that
generally offends English taste. The chiefs of the Church
are often stilted and verbose, and in Ireland there is some-
thing ostentatious and condescending in theirloyalty, which
rather provokes one at having to accept it. The gist of the
archiepiscopal address is that Irishmen should obey the
laws, abstain from the sin of bloodguiltiness, and await
the changes which popular opinion and the altered spirit 1
of British statesmen will shortly produce. The moral
reprobation of murder conveyed in the Archbishop's address
is entirely satisfactory, and will, we trust, produce excel-
lent effects. The political argument is hardly of the same
weight, for thongli it is equally intended to dissuade tenants
from taking the last vengeance into their own hands,
the conclusion as against minor agitation is not so clear.
Whatever may be the reasoning by which the higher
Romish priesthood arrives at the conclusion that it is its
duty to interfere energetically and put down the disorders
of Westmeath and Tipperary, we shall welcome the
result. We should be glad to find them indignant at
the crime, without an argumentation which may seem
to extenuate it ; but, allowing for national and religious
prepossessions, the part the Romish clergy have taken
is no doubt much LI their credit, and we cannot afford to
neglect such allies. Let the priesthood consider, as, in
fact, the Archbishop tells his flock, that the less of outrage
there is, the more likely is Parliament to approach with
due consideration the question of the wrongs of Ireland.
Without bartering their support for favourable legis-
lation, the whole body of Irish priests can advance the
political cause of their country by restoring, as far as in
them lies, social tranquillity during the period which must
elapse before the new Irish legislation is brought to a close.
It is vex y far from our intention, says the Post, to i:npute
insincerity to the Holy See, or to Archbishop Leahy. But
when we are told that there is no criminal conspiracy, we
must say the actual condition of Ireland appears to de-
mand a better explanation, and particularly since the
Archbishop admits in effect that the Irish Roman Catholics
have no secrets which are not open to their clerical guar-
dians. It is a large and frank admission of sacerdotal
ascendancy. It is an acceptance of responsibility which
cannot possibly be exaggerated. The Roman Catholic
clergy are certainly not answerable for the crimes of a few
desperadoes acting singly. They have black sheep in
their flocks, as other shepherds have. But it comes
to this—that no organised movement can be hiVen
from their searching inspection, and almost that
such a movement depends on their countenance or conni-
vance. If they denounce it from the altar it falls dead at
their feet. Its life is in their hands. It seems, however,
if we are not misinformed as to the procedure in this
instance, that the Pope felt bound to complain of the reich
ti-
cence they observed in the presence of outrages N?
offended the public conscience, and that Arcllbi
op
Leahy's pastoral was dictated by en instructed appren
tion of events. This is not the language of nAir.egp hash'
interpreting the Pope's sentiments the Archous
be
ee convinced,paerremitted toh nepx pion of
t.Sratinllsiteonmoary
eprethssatedinhitshoewpnervijoe
to the restoration of the peace an
which Ireland is entering the Holy
oFradtehre;hwilelhl contribute
which
' tial to the happin an r9tiiLlMAl2Reitiv
indict jaiatils-