The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE pußLin JOITRNA.L%

The Saturday Review thinks that Mr. Disraeli enliveteci'
or at least marked, the debate of last Monday by finding
something new to say on the Irish Church. He must be
.
tired, and he may well be disgusted, with a discussion 111.
which be knows he can win no credit, and 111
which he must feel he is taking the wrong side. Ile
sought, therefore, to escape from the twinges of his own
intellectual judgment or conscience, and from the
fanaticism and platitudes of his supporters, by takis,g
refuge iu a new set of paradoxes on Irish history. 11,111
last theory is that the Irish Church has been wantool
sacrificed to the ignorance of a Ministry who did 11(4
understand the true character of the Fenian rebellion,
The rebellion, he thinks, was of purely American origin?
and failed because no Irishman would have anything t°
do with it. Unfortunately, the Ministry, in their brio&
ness, chose to treat it as a symptom of reallrish discontent'
and, not knowing what other bone to throw to the dog'
flung the persecuted Irish Church in its way. The dog
will of course eat its bone, and the Irish Catholieh
although thoroughly happy before, will permit then•
selves to be represented as likely to be made still hags°,
by having the Protestant Church humiliated and robbed'
This is the startling paradox on which Mr. Disraeli 05
chosen to rely in order to conceal, if possible, from hi°
self and others the position in which he really stain
Ireland not only has no grievance, but does not think :
has any. It is only a foolish Liberal Ministry tbi/:
whispers to Eve in Erin that there is something she wigs:
properly long for. The theory worked out by Mr. Disr*o
only such a short time ago has been discarded, and he I/°
longer admits the melancholy of the Irish, and accoll%1"
for it by that proximity to the ocean on all sides 141::
they share with so many inhabitants of small islands.. P.
would not now allow they are melancholy. On the 'll°T.
trary, they are well off, and they know it. Not a single
person of either party could have failed to remember ths'
Mr. Disraeli's Premiership was ushered in by T-414,
Stanley's declaration that the Irish question was the (111°_,'.
tion of the day, and that the first thing Mr. Disraeli did /111
to:announce that the Cabinet had an Irish policy which MP'
Mayo was commissioned to reveal. Mr. Disraeli did not 111/1,
the risk, but faced the certainty that his paradox would is'
away, like a ghost at cock-crowing, directly
Gladstone dwelt on a few facts of indisputable notoristi:
But he nevertheless thought the paradox worth start
It enabled him to throw a vast amount of vague gene':
blame on the Ministry, and to assume an attitude of OP.
scions superiority towards them, while it saved him h.°112
all necessity of explaining to his party whether he 111
really prepared to ask the House of Lords to miler r°ll/1
the Altar and the Throne and the Orange flag.
The Spectator says that Lord Derby's letter to 0')
Joseph Hawley, which was read at the meeting of til°
Jockey Club last Saturday, and was printed in the PS'
of Monday, may be looked at in two lights. It is at olrt
a plea for young horses and for young peers. trtlde
the present system, we are told that two-year-olds
" crippled " and "stumped," while the great race 04,
is generally followed by a widely-spread report that ilolll,
young lord has gone to the deviL As we write, Pt
entire lacing studs of two young dukes are ol)°11
feirlf
to be sold at Tattersall's, and we may
ascribe such a crash to the influence of s°7,
of those speculators mentioned by Lord Derv,/
In our judgment, public opinion is still unformed uPpd
this subject. There is, no doubt, some feeling exol
whenever a great scandal arises, and the ruin of each °'.ol
victim leads men to ask whether our liberty is
nif
degenerating into license. But after all, people ssY'be
this marquis or that earl had not beggared himself 00 .0
Turf, he would have found some other way of parting °,
his money. If the public is called upon to reprobate 1100110
sharp practice on the Turf, it regards it as nothing ped
than a competition between those who steer close to wej
wind and those who don't care where the wind cos° I
from. Lord Derby will say that such a view is inconsist,ejlj
with the respect which ought to be paid to the Turf, s",
which was paid to it in its palmy days. We Wiesli?f
could see something more definite than the mere Want 'c
respect for an institution which, whether it be aristocts
or popular, does and must do an incalculable aul°1111:
mischief. Any race may be made into an instrumen;iof
gambling, and it has been said that of late years the 10 t,
and healthy excitement produced by the University
race has been prostituted in this way. But the gi`of
horse-races notoriously exist for the sole purP°s°e
gambling. Every thought, every interest, e/tie
speculation is centred not in the race, but ineese
winner ; not in the horses, but in the odds upon tu,e,
People think there is nothing wrong in thisbecause
body does it, and the same reason which takes thew bee
of London to the Derby finds a public for the spoeto;
papers and for the tips of their prophets. There rosito
nothing objectionable here, just as the lottery Oa., 0,
rouge-et-noir tables may be right and proper. But 11
why does the law prohibit wagers, why are there 10t0
fines on games of hazard, why are lotteries declared,a
be public nuisances, and why does playirbee or bet eb
with any instrument of wagering in any place to "'bled
public have access make a man liable to be in:11)14°,110e
as a rogue and vagabond? There must be some
here between our theory and our practice, and it LI
pe
portant to know which of them is right. Otherwise'y
shall be driven to the conclusion that though Cbtilif
farthing is not only a sin, but a misdemeanour when
played by a ragged boy in the streets, there is no rby
whatever in chuck thousand, so long as it is plaYecl
np
marquis, under the auspices of the Jockey dlob'
within the Ring at Epsom.
enlti

The John Bull thinks that the House of Lords s°:1„-09.
bear in mind two premises, and arrive at two conclus%4o
The first premise is that the extension of the frall_,6 °'d
renders it more than ever requisite that the Se`:
Chamber should exercise a real veto; for, even ,
Republic, there is some security in the provision
GyV
majority of two-thirds is necessary. Secondly—a-40
is a most important consideration—that a bill allecia
the Church is one on which the House of Lords is sPe
fit to judge. If it be admitted that on matters of
and commerce the Lower House is the better autht)riloth
it surely may be admitted that, with a Church (ftlesdi
an assembly composed of Churchmen is more coin
deal than one in which Roman Catholics and S°/Ibiog
formists form so large a proportion. The House, welrj.4
well these circumstances in connection with the s ;dr
bill before them, should resolve to exercise its 0.01) -cos'
pendent judgment without the least regard t°4ol
sequences. If, as we contend, the most in3P°OllY
principles are at stake, the House of Lords is ra:oeo
bound, be the consequences what they may, t°
them. But this is not all their duty. It is imPera,,o
binding on their lordships to educate the COttee
It is useless to amend the bill in 001410
The Times and other Liberal papers are quite rig"'
declaring that it is impossible. The principle of °de%
admitted, it is, in our opinion, childish quarrellingtO
details, agreeing as we do with the Marquis of 119,00
that disestablishment is far worse than disseuclostwo-
We rejoice to know that such is Mr. Disraeli's oPillill
c;t10
well as of the Earl of Derby's, and the disavowal of
treacherous article in the Standard will have ths,geso
Affect
on the party. Throwing aside, then, as a_Liol
ignisfatuus the attempt to conceal the policy of riw"
away under grandiloquent phrases as to araendifls-011
bill in committee, the House of Lords may either ab::
their functions, as suggested by the Standard, or ere;111
we have always recommended, assert calmly and
their own authority, and remit to tne people the fushieS
consideration of a question the mighty issues a
they have not fully realised. Justice to themselves, Justioa
to England, justice to the Church, demands this °rid
and we have little doubt that it is, the one which, afte
deliberation, will commend itself to their lordships'
tipoS
The Economist observes that Lord Stanley touebeciiiieo
the true reason for the abolition of the Patent Law° pre
he referred to the injury of third parties which Cited 0
sent law occasions, by reason of patents being gr° °0 Gto
only one out of half-a-dozen persons who come 11E4 AV,
same inventions, or to one of a series of invest°;ol;
improve upon each other's work, and by reason sleeosiv,
general interference with manufacturing. What we "f 01'
have liked to see fully stated was the peculiarity °Oa!
present circumstances of the country in which these,e,
are true. The statements, in fact, amount to Oust, 17
there is a large number of inventions which te:Veil
not required to encourage ; that these are madePa °
incidents of business ; that invention, improvel% of
mechanical and chemical processes, is itself a PliffoetiP',
manufacturing business ; and that in this way the g'i,tioPi
of patents only impedesmanufacturers to whom illveeg
would naturally come. The full force of these faet,ssis-
be felt unless we recognise that a change in the ifer
of invention has taken place. The Patent 1431#1°I;
intended to apply to different manufacturing ea eP°.;
stances from those which now exist, and were be'se,o 0,1
different notions about invention ; the objection
is that they either are or are becoming out °f 0,11
We come, then, to the conclusion that it is for the 5a tVoi
interest that patent laws should be abolished, P'131,0,,,
their abolition will do no great harm to anyone-, il)gi
all to the great mass of inventors or improvers.
we may point out that if the circumstances 11.0.01
described, this country has a special interest in 313° je jt)
such laws. As the leading manufacturing eountr).,.
world, a patent here is likely to be worth In°r°oofr
holder than anywhere else. Consequently, our 01.riteril
turers are more exposed than any others to the 1 t otll
tion and worry of patents. It may well be tna
fiiA
countries which are less tempting to patentees v05r,,,1
the balance of competition weighted in their 101.0 Vofl
consequence. Looked at another way, the 1110e113
invention falls into the hands of great capitalisPa cO°o,
likely is it to strengthen the manufacturing n' „dit,e, 14
which is already most powerful. The norn3al c°;tliiPs
things is all in our favour, and we Should do
I thwart it.