The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOUraILLS.

The Times thinks it is not easy to treat the rejection of
the Irish Church Dill as being any longer a practical ques-
tion. After the speeches of the Archbishop of Canter-
bury and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on Monday, and
Lord Grey's argument on Tuesday night, followed by a
declaration from the Duke of Richmond that he could not
support Lord Harrowby's amendment, not to mention
equally sure though less tangible indications of opinion in
other quarters, it may be assumed that the second reading
will be carried by asufficlent majority: Lord Grey's history
of the Irish Church question, from the conception of the
Appropriation Clause, convinced his hearers how
impossible it was that an opinion which had gradually
swelled in volume in the way he described could ever ebb,
and his conclusion, that the rejection of the bill could only
result in bringing the Lords into discredit by subjecting
them to the compulsion of passing it without power of
amendment a month or two hence, was felt to be irrefra-
gable. The debate in the House of Lords will evidently
sustain tie high character of the Upper Chamber as a
school of oratory ; but it will do more than this, for it
will exhibit once again the moderation and patriotism of
its members. It is infinitely to the credit of a

Rouse possessing privileges so vast, and in theory, at
!east, unchecked by any feeling of personal responsibility,

that so many of its members should have resolved to
submit their own opinions and preferences to the national
judgment, and should remain unshaken in their resolution
in spite of the injurious language in which they have been
assailed. The vote of Saturday morning will be delivered
upon a judicial consideration of the argumentS in favour
of the measure, based upon its own provisions and the
judgment of the nation at the hustings, and the dignity of
the Upper House will be maintained and its authority
strengthened when it is seen that no provocation has been
sufficient to induce the majority of the Peers to place
themselves in sullen antagonism to the decision of the
people.

The Daily News thinks that not the least admirable
part of the Bishop of St. David's speech was his con-
futation, from Hebrew and Christian history, and from
the broad moral principles which are at the root of both,
of the cry of sacrilege which is raised against the
application of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland to
purposes of mercy. The same cry, as he reminded or
informed the House, was raised against St. Ambrose
►when he sold the sacred vessels of the Church at
Milan for the purpose of redeeming captives from
slavery. The service of humanity is the service of
God ; and the Bishop contended that Miss Burdett
Coutts, in giving a market-place to the poor
people of Bethnal-green, was doing as religious au
act as Sir Benjamin Guinness performed in lavishing

his wealth on the restoration and adornment of St.
Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. These are truths as old
as the Church, if not as old as human nature; but they
are apt to be forgotten in ecclesiastical warfare. They
come with more force from episcopal than from lay lips ;
and thus Dr. Thirlwall has done a public service in uttering

them. The Bishop of St. David's, like most men of his
age and training, would have preferred, if it had been
practicable, the policy of levelling up to that of levelling
down ; but he sees that the abolition of religious inequality

in Ireland can be obtained now only in the way in
which the Government Bill seeks it. Desiring the
end, he accepts the inevitable means. The Bishop has
the courage of his opinions. He rebuked those who,
when a great issue is at stake, instead of manfully siding
with one or other of the two contending parties, stand
aloof in selfish seclusion. His censure and example will,
we trust, convert waverers. If it has this effect, there
can be no doubt of the fate of Lord Harrowby's resolu•
tion. But be the immediate issue what it may, the

Bishop's speech stands out in the debate as a model of
deliberative eloquence and of Christian statesmanship,
and will add a new honour to the scholarly name of Con-
nap Thirlwall.
The Standard says that there are two assumptions in
Lord Grey's remarkable speech, which granted, the con•
elusion is irrefragable. The first is, that the voice of the
country has conclusively approved the proposed plan for

the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish
Church ; the second, that in throwing out the bill the
Lords would negative that decision. On the question,
whether this be so or not, hangs, it seems to us, the
question whether or not the Peers can safely throw out
the bill. If, on the whole, the country is against them,
they must clearly submit sooner or later ; and they
could probably make better terms before than after a de-
feat. The other question is, what the rejection of
the bill would mean. Lord Grey seems to imply that it
would convey a declaration that the Irish Church should
be maintained intact, or nearly so. On the other hand,
as the Ministerialists maintain that by reading the bill a
second time the Lords would preclude themselves from
questioning the policy of total disendowment, it would
seem that by rejecting the second reading they only con-
demn the mode and extent to which that policy has been
carried out. The question is, as we have said before, a

very grave one ; and the authority of Lord Grey and
others who have spoken on the same side is
deservedly high. But while the Government give
no assurance of their willingness to listen to
terms, while their organs have never retracted
the significant warnings they have repeatedly uttered
that no attempt to save for the Church any
portion of her endowments would be tolerated, while the
second person in the Cabinet openly taunts and insults,
ridicules and menaces the Upper House, it is impossible
that counsels of moderation should have the weight which
is due to them. Schemes of compromise imply concession
on both sides ; and in this case one side has distinctly pro-
claimed that it will yield nothing. If the Government will
not withdraw or repudiate that declaration, on them and on
them alone will rest the responsibility for all the mischiefs
which Lord Grey anticipates from the collision between
the two Houses, to which as yet all things appear
tend.
The herald is os opinion that it is very much to be
desired before the debate on the Irish Church Bill is
brought to a close, so far as the motion for the second
reading is concerned, the Government shall be required to
state distinctly in what sense the House of Lords is to
interpret the assurance of Lord Granville that amend-
ments from the Opposition side of the House will receive
the careful and respectful consideration of the Ministry.
The experience gained from the attitude of Mr. Gladstone
and his supporters in the House of Commons warrants the
assumption that there is no disposition whatever to con-
cede one inch to the fair requirements of the friends of the
Irish Church. It is the more necessary that some
such explanation should be forthcoming, because it is
quite evident from the tone of the Primate's speech on
Monday, and from those of Earl Grey and the Duke of
Richmond op Tuesday night, that votes may be influenced by
what there is too much reason to fear will prove an utter
delusion. We are not prepared to deny, for instance, that,
the attitude of the Conservative party might be materially
modified if the Government were to declare themselves
prepared to accept the amendments sketched out by the
Archbishop of Canterbury. But we cannot forget that in
substance they have already been rejected in the House of
Commons, and that we have thus far not an atom of
warrant for the assumption that they will meet with a
more favourable reception if they are commended to the
Government by the vote of the Peers.
The Star is indignant at the criticisms on Mr. Bright's
letter to the Birmingham meeting,. As if everybody who
thinks about politics at all did not know before Mr.
Bright's letter, as well as they know now, that if the
Peers throw themselves athwart the course of the nation,
" they may meet with accidents not pleasant for them to
think of." If the Lords assent to the second reading, it
will be exactly to avoid that of which Mr. Bright fore-
warns them, in saying that " they will stimulate discus.
sion on important questions which, but for their infatu-
tion, might have slumbered for many years." Why, that
is the hidden meaning of the whole of this week's debate.
Is it not childish to ask us all to discuss a question
of this rank with bated breath ? If Mr. Bright's
career means one t hing more unmistakably than another,
it is that politics are hest handled with freedom and
manliness and common sense. Mr. Bright has never said
anything more contumelious of the Upper House than is
implied in the tone of those who presume to rebuke him.
His letter is declared to be rash, provoking, and mis-
chievous. Why? Because its frank statement of the
difficulties in which the Peers bid fair to place themselves
may so pique them, that out of pique—that is to say, out
of the meanest of all known sentiments— they will
throw over a bill which otherwise they would have
passed. Mr. Bright says that it is possible for a
Chamber like the House of Lords, throwing it-
self athwart the wishes of a nation, to meet
with unpleasant accidents. And this is the
very consideration which Tory writers frankly admit will
pass the bill, if it be passed. Finally, Mr. Bright recog-
nises the good and wise men who are among the peers, and
hopes that their counsels may prevail. Are not most of us
hoping for exactly this? The actual contents of the letter,
then, must be accepted by everyone whose opinion is
worth having ; and it is mere childishness to urge that
because a statesman is a Minister heis bound to press his
finger on his lips, lest anybody to whom he may speak the
truth should think himself bullied. If people are living
in a Fool's Paradise, the kindest thing either in a Cabinet
Minister or anybody else is to awaken them.

The Post imagines that Mr. Bright can scarcely be
aware of the degree in which such an exhibition as this
tends to shew the public that a professing Liberal may be
a bigot of a worse type than the Tory of tradition, or
than a blatant Orangeman, and that there may be loud-
voiced advocates of freedom to whom general liberty is
foolishness and a stumbling block. Mr. Bright, if he were
only Mr. Bright, an unattached member for a democra-
tically-disposed borough, would have been justly liable
to every opinion which we have expressed, and to
every term which we have used ; but Mr. Bright
is a good deal more than this. Mr. Bright is a Minister
of the Crown, constitutionally esteemed to be in harmony
with the Crown, with his colleagues, and with the House
of Commons. We do not believe that he is in harmony
with any of these elements of the Constitution. Not
fifty men could be found in the House of Commons to
endorse his views. Neither the leader in the Upper
nor the Lower House has ever suffered even the
shadow of such opinions to fall across the political
path ; nor do we believe that any one of his colleagues
would on any provocation, or under any circumstances,
tender to the Crown advice indicating; a policy in
accordance with the spirit of government which appears to
animate the President of the Board of Trade. It is not
surprising, then, that I.ord Cairns should have given notice
that on Thursday he will endeavour by a question—which
no one is more competent to use as a weapon of attack--
to extract from the Cabinet some avowal of Opinion upon
Mr. Bright's deliberate ebullition. Possibly Earl Gran-
ville may begin to feel that his colleague is taxing his
amiable generosity somewhat too heavily, and may he
disposed to throw off the burden of apologetic explana-
Con.