The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF

The Daily News criticises the different speakers in the
debate, and shews how the noisy vulgarity of Mr. Greene,
the flabby platitudes of Mr. Holt, and the loud debating-
society harangues of Mr. Charley, made Mr. Whalley
appear sensible and moderate, and were an admirable foil
for the very promising speech of Lord Sandon, which was
admirable in its manner and temper, if not very strong
iu argument. Lord Sandon recognises that there are
two parties in the Roman Catholic Church—the Ultra-
montane and the Liberal party. He has no fear of the
latter. He wishes to strengthen it. Has he ever asked
himself why it does not exist in Ireland? If he considers
the question, he will probably see that the Protestant
Establishment has thrown the Roman Catholic laity into
the arms of the priesthood, and prevented the growth
there of Liberal Catholicism. Let the struggle against
Protestant ascendancy cease from without, and the strife
will begin for liberty within.
The Telegraph thinks that Thursday's scene in the
House of Commons was discreditable to a great legislative
assembly. As if the principle of the Irish Church Bill
had never been debated, as if the second reading of the
measure had not been carried by the overwhelming
majority of 118, member after member rose to urge that
the House should again go through the dreary work of
discussing whether the Irish Church should be disestab-
lished and disendowed. Mr. Newdegate, Colonel Stuart
Knox, Mr. Holt, Mr. Percy Wyndham, Mr. Greene, Mr.
Charley, and other members of the Conservative party,
did not hide the fact that their aim was to kill time.
And with what view? They know that the passing of
the measure is a foregone conclusion ; nevertheless
they go on resisting, protesting, and threatening,
with a species of blind fury. Yet they sadly err if they
think that by such tactics they can do any service, either
to their party, or to the Irish Church. Not a single
Liberal of the slightest eminence took part in the debate.
By abusing their power of obstruction the Tory members
have been guilty of an innovation on Parliamentary
practice for which they will be condemned by the country
as severely as by the House itself.
The Times, in discussing the debate in the Lords on the
two bills for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts,
remarks that the present state of ecclesiastical jurisdiction
satisfies no one. The whole machinery of ecclesiastical
law needs renewal, for though there has been a good deal
of legislation on the matter during the last forty years. yet
this has been affected in the piecemeal manner to which
Parliament is prone, and the old fabric, though patched
sip with some carefulness, is old still, and can
never be adapted to present wants, it is not
difficult to see in what direction reform must tend. There
must be ,more unity and centralisation. The present
system is that of an age when there was little
communication, and the bishop was the spiritual ruler of
a territory which was ecclesiastically complete, and almost
independent. With the facility of traffic and the increase
of communication it is unnecessary that a separate appa-
ratus should be maintained for each diocese, or even that
each of the two provinces should be distinguished for such
a purpose as clergy discipline. The English Church will
soon exist for England only ; the union with the Irish
Church is about to end • the Colonial Churches will soon
have their separate and independent organisations, and in
any legislation with respect to England we need not look
beyond the northern portion of this island. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the extent of the territory or
the multitude of persons who will come under
jurisdiction are so great that a single court will not
be able to dispose of all the business that is likely to arise.
In this respect the Times approves of Lord Shaftesbury's
bill, and in some other particulars it prefers the present
system to the Archbishop's proposals. It is said that a
ritualistic bishop might have protected Mr. Mackonochie,
and a latitudinarian the " Essays and Reviews." But,
even if this had happened, it would have been a less
evil than the subjection of every clergyman to the attacks
of the most ignorant and bigoted of his flock. Let it be
remembered that a great number of the clergy are more
liberal in theological matters than their congregations,
and that to restrict them further by holding before them
always the prospect of a prosecution for heresy is a mis-
take that educated men ought not to make.
The Herald believes that the independent Liberals find
they have made a mistake in surrendering themselves
wholly to the dictation of Mr. Gladstone. 'The Liberals
had but one motto on their flag ; their creed had but one
dogma. Every man was to pin his faith upon Mr.
Gladstone—to think as he thought, to speak as
he spoke. To doubt Mr. Gladstone's infalli-
bility, to shrink from sundering the connection
between Church and State, to strain even at the camels
of their leader's new gospel, was to sin beyond hope of
forgiveness. And what is the result? They have knocked
out the brains of Liberalism in the House of Commons.
There is a majority which is willing to follow Mr. Glad-
stone anywhere and in anything. It is their business. It
is what they are sent to the House of Commons to do.
The lessen was sternly imposed, and these men have
learned it to perfection. Docile pupils, they have come
to understand that everything with which they are con-
cerned centres in the present Premier. The whole faith,
Liberalism, from its Alpha to its Omega, is summed up
in Mr. Gladstone, and whichever way they speak or vote,
it is for no other reason than that " the Great Mogul
does so."

The Star thinks that there is now a moral certainty
that the street tramways scheme will have a fair trial in
this metropolis. At no time could any doubt be enter-
tained that this would be the issue of an appeal to Pat,
liatnent by responsible persons who were willing to meet
any reasonable objections which did not affect the principle
for which they contended. The public expectation has
been amply justified by the decisions at which the com-
mittee appointed by the House of Commons has arrived.
It is of opinion that come limitation should be placed on
the proposNl monopoly ; that, after a period to be fixed,
the street authorities shag have power to purchase the
tramways; that the police shall have full authority to
regulate the traffic ; and that the bye-laws shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the Home Office. To these regu-
lations no just objection can be taken ; but the
principle having been affirmed, the matter may
be regarded as practically settled so far as the
judgment of the committee is concerned. The
public roads arc public property ; and the use to which
they may be put must be determined, not by the commer-
cial interests—real or supposed— of individuals who have
no claim to enjoy more than that common right of way
which will still remain wholly unrestricted, but upon the
broad grounds of the public convenience which, in
the
estimation of the people themselves,
,willbeenhanced by
the con4ruction of tramways on tue great roads that
intersect kkis metropolis,

JOURNALS.

The Times, in discussing the reopening of the debate on
the Irish Church, observes that as the House of Commons
has got into committee, there is some hope that the pro-
gress of the bill may now be pursued with business-like
despatch. It is conceivable that the bill may be so
expedited as to pass through committee before Whitsun-
tide. The amendments in the notice-book are not
numerous, and they are easily divisible into classes, so
that if one of a class is rejected the others will fall with it.
We cannot, for example, suppose that when Mr. Disraeli has
been defeated on his first suggestion, to endow the Church
Body with some large multiple of the aggregate income of
Irish incumbents, he will think it consistent with his dignity
to persevere with amendments precisely similar in scope,
though varying fions it in terms. Indeed, the end of the
warfare is already at hand. Mr. Disraeli shewed it by the
few hesitating words he spoke at the close of the debate.
What fo‘ce can withstand the strength of national opinion
groping fuller and firmer every day the subject is dis-
cussed ? The majority of the House of Commons on Thurs-
day, though greater than the triumphant majority on
the second reading of the bill, is yet insufficient to express
the strength of the supporters of the measure, for, as Mr.
Gladstone justly boasted, the supporters of the Ministerial
policy are as one man, while its opponents are an army of
distracted councils and divided policy.
The Standard declares that, highly as it respects the
character, thoroughly as it appreciates the motives, of the
hon. member for North Warwickshire, it cannot but think
that he was mistaken in the course he pursued on Thurs-
day. To call that course factious, as Liberal journals have
done, is the very extravagance of unreasoning partisan-
ship. The forms of the House, as Mr. Newdegate justly
observed, are carefully adapted to protect the right of
minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and
especially against that species of tyranny which is legalised
in French assemblies by the permission to vote "the
close of the debate," and in America by the use of
" the previous question." If he had resisted the
temptation to expose the habitual disloyalty of the Roman
clergy, and the pretensions of their chief, and had
directed his efforts to shew how seriously their power
would be increased by this measure, taking for granted
the injurious character of that power, he might really
have made an impression on the House, and exercised an
influence on the opinion of the country. As it was, the
respect which a high character, unscathed by the political
trials of a quarter of a century, commands in the House
of Commons secured a patient hearing for the orator ; but
so far as any effect on the feelings of his hearers or the
fortune of the struggle goes his opportunity was worse
than thrown away.
The Post hardly expected that the House of Commons
would resolve itself into committee on the Irish Church
Bill without any preliminary debate. True, the only
question raised on the motion for going into committee
had been exhaustively discussed previous to the second
reading of the bill, and it is no less true that the opinion
of the House in favour of the measure had been then de-
clared by an immense majority. Still there are always to
be found men who, like Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Greene,
are so conscientious or so perverse that they con-
ceive themselves not only justified in throwing
every obstacle, however ineffectual, in the path
of their opponents, but morally obliged to do so, if
they would maintain their character for consistency.
In one sense, perhaps, what passed in the House
of Commons can scarcely be described with propriety as a
debate. Those who joined in it were, almost without
exception, the opponents of the bill. The lAberals, satis-
fied with their strength, remained silent. Nothing new
was advanced, and nothing needed to be refuted which
had not already been refuted over and over again. In
replying, at the close of the night to the collective
speeches of the members of the Opposition, Mr. Gladstone
merely performed an act of courtesy. At all events, it
must be a source of satisfaction to him, as well as to
everyone else, that the last occasion for the discussion of
vague generalities has now passed away. Having once
gone into committee on the bill, no further discussion can
take place on the ••• formal motion for the Speaker to
quit the chair.