The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

Except on the supposition that amusement must be pro-
vided for the Whitsuntide recess, the Times cannot per-
ceive what advantage can be gained by the "great
demonstrations" which are being just now organised
against the Irish Church Bill. The Times has too high
an opinion of the prudence and political discernment of
the House of Lords to believe that they will allow them-
selves to be influenced by such demonstrations as have
been got up on this subject. There is an intuitive
judgment, a political instinct, among people con-
versant with affairs which tells them when the
country is in earnest, when resistance is useless ;
and the most dignified course is to yield gracefully.
The Lords have thrown out bills year after year
which had the support of the educated Liberals, because
they felt there was no strong popular feeling to back the
measures. Such, for instance, was the bill for permitting
Jews to sit in Parliament, which lingered on for eleven
years, and until a Conservative Government shrank
from the responsibility of opposing it further.
The Lords will not shrink from asserting their liberty,
even at the cost of provoking highly respectable classes ;
but when the deliberate verdict of the country has been
taken as in this matter of the Irish Church, they
will, we are sure, respect it. We should have, indeed, to
go back to the rejection of the Reform Bill in the autumn
of 1831 for an instance of such blind imprudence and its
consequences as would be involved in the rejection of the
Irish Church Bill. In those days the Lords, as it were,
turned at bay. They were led by the great soldier and the
great lawyer of the time to try the policy of daunting
agitation by the display of patrician firmness. The
result was a lesson for ever. It might be thought ominous
if we were to do more than allude to the events which
in a few months made it absolutely necessary the bill
should pass. Do the organisers of Protestant demon-
strations really desire the Lords again to place
themselves in such a position, and bring the State into
such danger? Do they believe the prudent peers of
England will shout " No Surrender ! " at the bidding of
men uniformly irresponsible and generally obscure ? Even
Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Whalley must see that the
Lords cannot reverse the verdict of the country and its
representatives ; they ought, then, also to see that the
present agitation is too late, that it should have been
addressed to the constituencies six months ago, or at least
to the Commons before they accepted the present measure
by a majority so decisive.

The Herald observes that the present Government must,
as it has more than once pointed out, consent to be judged
by their Irish policy. This is their own chosen ground.
Upon that scheme they went to the country, and pre-
vailed. It does not, therefore, lie in their mouth to say
that the evils of Ireland are chronic and incurable ; they
pledged themselves to cure them. If they fail to do so,
they have ousted Mr. Disraeli on false pretences. It is
not for them to palliate the extent and severity of evils
which have certainly increased and assumed an aggavated
form since. February 1868. They are bound to "conci-
liate " Ireland or to confess themselves wrongdoers and
usurpers. And so far conciliation has certainly proved a
signal failure. It is not only that the peasantry have
taken up wilder notions and are enforcing them by more
indiscriminate atrocities than usual ; that agrarian dis-
content is more formidable than ever, and has assumed a
more Socialistic character. It is that all the doubtful and
disloyal portion of Irish society is more offensive, auda-
cious, and deliberate in its seditious demonstrations than
ever ; that it has received the release of the Fenian pri-
soners as a testimony either to the fear or the sympathy of
Ministers—either to the strength or the goodness of their
cause ; that it bas accepted the sacrifice of the
Irish Church in the same spirit. Is it at all
probable that these things will mend ; that a sacrifice
which is anticipated without thanks will be received when
complete with earnest gratitude ; that evils which have
been exasperated by the promise of a Liberal policy will
be healed by the performance?

The Standard thinks that the agitation against the
Irish Church Bill is increasing in intensity. Even while
the bill is on the eve of passing through its third reading
its opponents are demonstrating with renewed energy
their intention to resist it to the uttermost. There is
scarcely a town in the United Kingdom which has not
sent up its protest to the House of Commons, and this
week we have had to record a series of imposing manifes-
tations in several of the leading towns of Yorkshire, at
Birmingham, at Belfast, and at Armagh. The meeting
at Belfast, both as regards its character and its
numerical strength, was one of exceptional importance.
It is a striking commentary on the taunt about
the "handful of Protestants," that in a single
town in Ireland it should be possible to array a
body of persons estimated at between 80,000 and 100,000
strong in opposition to the bill. It is constantly told that
in all Ireland there are not more than 700,000 of the popu-
lation who are in any way interested in the Irish Church,
yet here we find considerably more than a tenth of the
sum total assembled at one spot to give a practical refuta-
tion to the fallacy. It was the fashion in the earlier days
of the bill to protest against its abstract principle ; but
the Protestants of Bradford, Wakefield, and Birmingham
feel that the time has come when more emphatic language
is needed, and hence we find them uniformly memo-
rialising the House of Lords to reject the bill, en bloc. It
has already pointed out the grave embarrassments which
might arise from such a course of conduct, but it can
hardly wonder that English Protestants should not shrink
from recommending it.

The Star, in remarking that the first parliamentary
work to be done after the holidays is to dispose of the bill
embodying the proposals of the Budget, says that pro-
bably the House of Commons, even were the proposals of
doubtful utility, would not be disposed to examine in a
very hostile spirit the arrangements of a Chancellor of the
Exchequer who has brought forth a surplus out of the
most unpromising materials. The reforms, however, are
in themselves both reasonable and beneficial. Upon the
adoption of them depends the reduction of a penny on the
income tax ; and indeed the abolition of the fire
insurance duty, the duty on hackney carriages, the
license duty to let post horses, and the Customs'
duty on corn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not disguise that his surplus was obtained by the re-
arrangement of the times and modes of paying the assessed
and income taxes, and the economy expected to result
therefrom. We thus cannot receive the benefit of the
reductions permitted by the surplus, and at the same time
attack the mode of obtaining the surplus itself. The
House must make up its mind either to enjoy reductions
of taxation, or to lose them by refusing to carry out the
necessary re-arrangements. We have no doubt of the
result, which will be to set the seal of approval to the
first Budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has
proved himself capable of grasping both principles
and details, and raised hopes of a brilliant financial
career for the Ministry of which he is so important a
member.

The Daily News remarks that the parliamentary session
of 1869 is already half finished. A good deal of work
has been put in train for accomplishment. How much
of it will be actually done, he who survives to the middle
of next August will be in a position to say. Practically,
the Irish Church Bill has passed the House of Commons.
The Conservative party will formally take the sense of
the House—it wishes there were any means of communi-
cating a portion of it to them—on the third reading of
the bill next Monday. To Mr. Holt, the member for
North Lancashire, the task has been seriously confided of
moving that the bill be read a third time that day six
months. The Liberal party can have no objection to
making another signal manifestation of their strength,
at the particular request of their Conservative friends,
on that day. Their unanimity and force have been
sufficiently displayed before. But if Mr. Disraeli,
or any other member of the Conservative party, thinks
that the Lords will approach the consideration of the
Irish Church Bill in a more rational temper if they are
spared the necessity of looking back over the Whitsun-
tide recess for an overwhelming declaration of opinion
and purpose, by all means let them have the desired
reminder. It does not think they need it. The Lords
will shew their patriotism as well as their prudence in not
protracting a losing battle. The more sensible and
influential organs of Conservative opinion admit that the
peers are bound in common sense to accept the bill. Of
course they have a constitutional right to reject it.
But some constitutional rights continue to exist
only because they are prudently exercised. Eco-
nomy in the use of them is an essential con-
dition of their endurance. The Lords are not asked to take
any course which is humiliating or ignoble. A disap-
proval of the Irish Church Bill in the abstract is compa-
tible with a recognition of the fact that now that the country,
at the polling-booths and by the votes of its
inrepresenta-
tives in the House of Commons, has declared favour of
it, regard to national interests requires that i▪ t should be
accepted. In a sense of public duty, the egotism of per-
sonal opinion will be swallowed up. The Lords will
silently pass a self-denying ordinance ; and in sodoing
will shew that the unerring instinct which Alr. Disraeli
attributes to the Commons is not monopoli▪
sed by the
Lower House.

The Herald looks with disfavour on the County
Administration Bill, which it considers gives no new
power to the ratepayers and only hampers the magistrates
The ratepayers, in fact, looking at it minutely, will find
that they are complimented by being introduced upon
the boards in a hopeless and permanent minority.
The pretence was that a power should be granted
to tho ratepayers. The fact is that no such power is
granted. But the most mischievous feature of the scheme
consists in its supplemental arrangement. Under this the
new board is made a nullity altogether. Its juri-.diction
is Idt entirely undetermined, It upy, or it may not,

kept in conflict with the court of quarter sessions; Th.
Legislature absolutely refuses to say how far, or in whst
lirections, its powers shall extend. It provides, instead,
a. complicated system of appeal. It sets the board,
beforehand, deliberately at variance with the court. It
even leaves elections open. It creates a vast machine/
Df affidavits, proofs, and allegations. Public And
private expenditure, upon a wasteful scale, follow, as
a matter of course. Whatever is " properly" incurred
must be paid by the county—and here we may suggest
that the counties should feel particularly grateful to
teir new taxing masters ; whatever is not properrY
incurred must be defrayed by the board, or, the rate'
payers, under another name. And, as if the embarrass'
ments created by the bill did not suffice, the Board of
Trade is made a court of appeal on questions of bounds*
Not only on those questions—on disputed amounts of
rental also. The lawyers will find some employment if
ever the " County Administration Bill" of 1869 conies
into operation.