The Sun.
London, England, 1868-09-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 29, 1868

?HE IRISH CHURCH REPORT

The Report of the Commission on the Irish
Church presents itself with all the solemnity
of a funeral, not to say the silence of a spectre.
Observing the strictest rules of decorum, and
shaping itself to common imaginations, it is
exactly what was expected, and irreproachably
what it was to be. The reduction of scale is
perfectly uniform, only fine by degrees and
beautifully less." In all its prominent features,
it is simply to Lord Derby's Irish Church Re-
form what that was to the previous state of
things. Less primates, less bishops, less cathe-
drals and chapters, less archdeacons, less pay
for the above, less sinecure—or almost sine-
cure—benefices, less sinecure staffs, less parish
clerks and public worship charges, less to be
demanded for the redemption of rent-charges ;
and, on the other hand, less burdens, charges,
repayments, and so forth, on the clerical, capi-
tular, and episcopal incomes. The Commis-
sioners take a kindly and sensible view of £3OO
a year, which they consider not too much for
an educated gentleman who has waited for it
a good many years, and who in return for it
has to reside—actually reside, the Commis-
sioners insist—in some out-of-the-way place.
So below this the changes are in favour of the
clergy, who are even to be better paid where
they have work to do, except where the Pro-
testant population falls below a hundred, when
the extinguisher is to fall, and the Church to
be disestablished and disendowed. Besides

these pecuniary changes, the Commissioners
condemn numerous corporations and dignities,
without either emolument or office, but simply
kept up for the preservation of titles and hon-
ours. A few pregnant words betray the doubt
whether the bishops will retain their seats in
the House of Lords. Otherwise, the report
might have been drawn up a year ago, or might
have been ten years in almost any Ministerial
portfolio. Indeed, that is the only novelty in
the whole document, so exactly is it otherwise
the very creature of anticipation. Some years
ago Mr. Bernal Osborne made a clever and
amusing speech about the Irish Church, pro-
posing nothing more than a fairer division of
its revenues within its own pale. He might
or might not be quite sincere in the modesty
of his requirements, for the state of things
he incidentally disclosed tended naturally to a
much more advanced measure. If he was sin-
cere, the present report would have certainly
satisfied him. Of course its recommendations
are such as were to be made when the Com-
mission was appointed. Unless it be in the
allusion to the House of Lords, the Report has
not a single express and direct allusion to the
political developments which have totally
altered the situation. But is such a report,
so destitute of novelty and originality, so ob-
viously a matter of course, and one by an
almost mechanical process of diminution, with-
out its significance ? Surely hope is a more
suggestive and inventive spirit than that which
animates this cheerless reproduction. There
is not the slightest attempt to surprise, to put
the public on a new scent, to alter the aspect
of affairs or even to compromise. The last,
indeed, was not within the instructions of the
Commission, but Commissioners, before this,
have made exceedingly good use of their oppor-
tunities to represent the state of things as
they wished it to appear. There is something
like a bid for support to the holders of Church
leases and to the payers of tithe rent-charge,
but otherwise the Church of Ireland, as seen
in this picture, exhibits only that mixture of
obstinacy and humility which makes up into
vulgar resignation. It is drawing its robe
about its limbs. It proposes to cast a some-
what shallow shadow over the land, and so
leave its enemies less excuse. Who can charge
pride on a Church that itself throws primates,
bishops, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and
cathedrals by the score overboard ? It is the
second time the sling has been set to work to
empty the overloaded hold; the second time the
bulwarks have been lifted to roll the deep cargo
into the raging sea. It is true that nothing
solid is given up. The offerings of the altar
of conciliation are mitres, tithes, vestments,
thrones, stalls, names, and additions. It is the
embroidery and furniture that are filmg out to
the pursuing foe. In place of splendour, the
Church of Ireland is henceforth to exhibit more
internal symmetry, so that its domestic anoma-
lies and inequalities may no longer scanda-
lize its own friends and give occasion to its
enemies to blaspheme. It sets its house in
order that it may surely live. Outsiders see
another significance. Indeed, in the very midst
of these careful adjustments that are to smooth
away all inequalities and meet all complaints,
one huge scandal crops up and becomes more
intolerable. Is it possible, is it conceivable,
that the Roman Catholics will quietly allow the
rent charges, now at all events local, and obliged
to be spent on the spot, to be taken from the
native population of the suppressed benefices,
and to be transferred to the less native and
comparatively foreign population of distant
parishes—from the South and the West to the
North, from Catholic to Protestant, from poor
to rich ? This objection lies on the very
threshold of any scheme for internal redis-
tribution. A large income, representing and in
truth existing in the fruits of poor Catholic
labour, is to be carried off—so it is here pro-
posed—to Dublin, or to Belfast, or to London-
derry, or to any Protestant congregation some-
what beyond the average number, in the care
of one English " clergyman. The case o'
any individual parish where the Catholics con-
siderably outnumber the Protestants becomes
the case of the whole Church. No plan of
internal redistribution and adjustment will
meet the case of one such parish as we have
mentioned, and therefore no plan of this sort
will meet the case of the whole Church, or
the question between the 700,000 Protestant
Churchmen and 4,500,000 Roman Catholics.
Such a report is not even an addition to the
materials of the question. Its value has not
even been discounted ; it has simply been an-
ticipated, and taken for what it is worth—
which is, indeed, very little. It neither helps
towards the general decision, nor yet towards
the disposal of the numerous difficulties con-
fessedly in the way of any settlement. The one
object to be aimed at is that the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland shall no longer have a single
religious grievance on which they can found
a charge of persecution, or which they can call
a badge of subjection and a mark of inferiority.
This word is to be taken out of their mouths
at any cost, for this empire cannot afford to
practice at home any injustice she denounces,
and even assists to overthrow, in other coun-
tries, far or near. England believes herself to
have no small share in setting the public opinion
of the civilized world, and religious freedom,
even to religious equality, is one of the benefits
she boasts to have conferred on some of her
neighbours. When this is the case, she must
look at home and " remove the beam from her
own eye." She has no choice in the matter,
tardy as she, like the rest of the world, is in
seeing herself as others see her, and applying
the lesson she reads to unwilling scholars.
Then, will such a plan as this remove the griev-
ance, and satisfy the pride of native and
Catholic Ireland ? Will it be enough for them
that no Irish Protestant bishop sits in Par-
liament, and that there are fewer Protestant
bishops and other dignitaries, and that all the
recommendations of this Report are adopted
and carried out ? That is the great question
before us, and as yet we see no reason to
believe Ireland will be thus satisfied. Cer-
tainly the two Primates give us no encourage-
mllavreegnalettrh;
wealthy,
no,
dr
more
wloi
remey e bne otdtuil
adtt
uee ledl
ouastnhde plainlysuperior,momore
e vigorous
that tohre
e
race and communion ; leaving the inevitable
inference that the existing endowment is a
badge of Irish inferiority.—Tintes.

A report was spread that Robert F. Lincoln, son
of the late President, favours the Seymour-Blair ticket.
In reply to a gentleman who mentioned the rumour, Mr.
Lincoln acknowledged to have heard it, but treated it as
unimportant. He denies its truth, and although not tak-
ing an active part in the political campaign, asserts that
no one more earnestly desires the success of Grant and of
the Republican party than himself.

ON

UP.

Eccentricity and a love of jobbery are two
of the most marked features of the English
character. We rejoice in being unlike the rest
of the world, in doing things that other people
do not, and in not doing things that other
people do. There is nothing about which we
are so jealous as our title to eccentricity, and
if this be granted we care not if we are charged
with breaking treaties innumerable, or any
amount of commercial dishonesty. Indeed,
from any point of view, these things are de-
cidedly eccentric, and on that ground, capable
of defence—as tending to keep up our national
character in the eyes of foreigners. But we
are somehow not so proud of these things as

we might be, and prefer, as we take care to
tell everyone, taking our stand on the open

Bible.
It is on this somewhat narrow platform that
the chief of the Conservative party has elected
to stand, and the cry of the Church in danger
has again been resorted to to rally Englishmen,
as of old, round its leader. But the cry is
feeble and meaningless, and, save the oppor-
tunity it has given for the display of fanaticism
on the part of a few incendiaries like Murphy,
it has, we are thankful to say, produced no
evil results. The time has gone by when a
Catholic was considered an alien and a neces-
sarily disloyal subject, and Mr. Disraeli can
only get a very few ignorant people to believe
in his cry of "Wolf!" Considered from his
standpoint, to use a German expression, it is a
besides showing
ysintra't has to resort to
the
engweeraokuns
eesxspoefrima experiment,
such a cry, he will be considered, by the many,
to have demonstrated the slight hold the Church
of England has over the body of the people.
For it is plain, since he has identified his party
with that Church, that if he suffer defeat the
Church of England is not the Church of the
greater mass of the people, and even if he
gain, as there is sure to be, in such a case, a
large liberal minority, that there is a very large
portion of the people which is not in communion
with her. He is not wrong in appealing to
the passions, rather than to the reasbn of the
people, but any one at all acquainted with the
state of parties amongst us, must consider his
attempt at incendiarism as the dying effort of
the Tory party to keepout the hateful Whigs.
We will not insinuate that a huge piece of
jobbery is being done at Portsmouth for elec-
tion purposes, because we do not know that
such is the case, and are anxious to give every-
one his due—even Mr. Disraeli. Still the
announcement which appears in the Naval and
Military Intelligence in the Standard of the
16th inst., is sufficiently interesting to tax-
payers to make them anxious for more par-
ticulars. Seven men-of-war are to be broken
up at Portsmouth as soon as practicable, " not
being considered worth the expense of repair-
ing."::Breaking up is a very expensive ope-
ration, and always a loss. We believe that
something like the following takes place on
such an occasion. The ship is sold with her
stores, &c., for a mere nothing—often less than
the value of the latter—which are bought
back again by the Government at nearly full
price. Seven ships are proposed to be treated
in this way, whose large tonnage show them
to be comparatively new ; their names are the
Cygnel, five screw gun vessel, 428 tons ' • Sutlej,
twenty-eight, screw frigate, 3,066 tons; Griffen,
brigantine (coal depot at Portsmouth); the
Agamemnon, seventy-nine, screw, 3,102 tons;
Algiers, seventy-three, screw, 3,340 tons ;
Queen, seventy-four, screw, 3,249 tons ; and
Shannon, thirty-five, screw frigate, 2,667 tons.
This means that, exclusive of the Griffen, whose
tonnage is not given, we are going to make
a sacrifice of efficiency in our navy to the extent
of 294 guns, and 15,852 tons ! And for what ?
Are these ships really not worth repairing,
or is . . . . ? We hope the Admiralty
will give us a satisfactory answer on this
point.
We take. occasion, from these ships, to call
Mr. Disraeli's attention to an old hulk, which
ought long since to have been broken up, and
which, though useful in vindicating our claim
to eccentricity, is dangerous to those it carries,
and if not abandoned in time, must sooner or
later founder with all hands on board. We
refer to the Irish Church, which even its
friends admit is a failure, and whose main-
tenance they do not attempt to justify on any
grounds but those of expediency. If ever there
was an alien Church, the Irish Church is one.
Its only possible mission was to impoverish,
and that it has faithfully accomplished. There
is no doubt of its being a standing insult to the
Irish people, but there is equally no doubt of
its being a standing profit to us, and for that
we find we can occasionally tolerate an injus-
tice. We have liberated the blacks in Jamaica,
and made ourselves nuisances in the cause of
freedom to every Government in Europe. Is
it possible for us to find time to do an act of
justice at home, and free a sister country from
a hateful wrong, or do we in effect declare,
with the Yankee politician, that in the cause
of right we "are ready to sacrifice every able
,
bodied relation, but had rather be excused
ourselves ? Since Mr. Disraeli's Government
is engaged in breaking up, here is a hulk to
which we would direct his attention. Mr. Glad-
stone seems inclined to bid for it : let the
Premier sell it, then, and it will be the most
profitable sale that his Government ever has
made.—Westmlitster Gazette.

THE TREATY BETWEEN CHINA AND

TILE UNITED STATES.

Though the full text of this treaty has not been
published in the English papers, nor any of the
speeches by which his Excellency Anson Burling-
ame, in America, explained and answered antici-
pated objections, yet it has been made the subject
here of a hostile criticism which is as general as it is
inexplicable. On the 2d September the Times re-
viewed it at length, and again on the 11th. We
confine our remarks to the first review, wherein the
treaty is discussed article by article. The reviewer
asserts that these articles are so harmless and so need-
less, as to awaken suspicion, and that he rose from
the perusal with a conviction that there is more un-
derneath them than appears on the surface. His posi-
tion was that of one dealing with another of whose
wily design he was convinced, and whose power
to injure he dreaded, while unable to detect any-

thing but a plain, hearty, open offer of the inter-
change of friendship and privileges, and the spirit
of his writing is naively shown in these remarks.
Convinced of a plot he earnestly endeavours to
forewarn the nation against the crafty strangers,
and he succeeds only iu as far as he perverts the
truth, making what is frank and open appear deceit-
ful and treacherous. We will not here pursue this
portion of our subject, which is discussed in our
leader ; at present we desire to deal with the re-
viewer's remarks on the articles. In the first he
strangely confuses territory with people ; the Em-
peror of China has relinquished jurisdiction over the
persons of certain foreigners residing in certain por-
tions of his empire, but he has not relinquished the
right of dominion over the soil, as the article asserts;
but the reviewer does not perceive the difference,
and mixes up men and places in such a muddle, as
might be expected to follow from such a mistake.
This article further, and as a sequenCe of the Em-
peror's assertion of his right, maintains the neu-
trality of the waters and territory under his juris-
diction in case of war between foreign powers. To
show that this was a purposeless clause, intended to
raise a phantom of war in the hope of " scaring"
the Western Powers into acquiescence, the reviewer
asserts that the Chinese territory, not having been
violated during the Russian war, would never be
violated at all, and is sufficiently guarded by Inter-
national law. No capture was there made of Rus-
sian vessels, because there were no Russian vessels
there to capture ; but our reviewer is ignorant of the
fact, or suppressed it, that Prussia actually cap-
tured a Danish ship in these waters, and that the
British fleet, when the Trent affair threatened war,
was so distributed and prepared that, international
law notwithstanding, but few American vessels
could have escaped ; and if this be doubted, Admi-
ral Sir James Hope, to whom remonstrance was
made, is on the spot to deny it. The second Article
reserves to the discretion of the Chinese Govern-
ment matters relating to trade not expressly pro-
vided for by treaty. Those only who actually come
into contact, as officials, with an Asiatic Govern-
ment, and see the representatives of other nations
in like contact, can understand the force of this
Article ; and it is our wish here the more distinctly
to state the reason as it runs through every clause of
the treaty, which we desire our readers to recollect.
It matters not whether we be French, American,
English, or German, we meet the representatives of
Eastern nations with a haughty assumption of
superiority, with a dictatorial tone, in instances
approaching to, and even running into, the grossest
insolence. An Envoy from China knows that at
Peking the Minister of a civilized Power, if he gave
way to the pressure of the trading community, would
assert an authority unauthorised by the Treaty, and
extend its limits at his own discretion, so as to
embrace objects not within its scope, and do this
with his band almost on the jugular vein of the
nation. The Embassy keenly alive to this, and
aware that without an express stipulation reserv-
ing these rights, they are at the mercy, the forbear-
ance, and the judgment of the Ministers of Foreign
Powys, attach the highest importance to this secu-
rity, as would the English or the French under
similar circumstances. The reviewer simply sneers
at the particular pains so to guard the United
States that it parts with neither privilege nor con-
cession. Neither this nor the previous article has
any more to do with the United States thin with
other Powers ; but should another Power think so,
the desire of the Embassy is to accept the same
conditions from them, the intention being to pro-
tect Chinese officials and territory from the domi-
neering influence of foreigners. 'What the United
States relinquish is protection to their officers in
such conduct, and it certainly is not much for an
honest and true-hearted nation to grant—nor for
another to ask. The reviewer then proceeds to
show that the Chinese Government recognizing in
1860 the impossibility of closing the door which
shut them in from the world opened it wide, and
this was in truth the reason for their present con-
duct. This is precisely the fact, for they recognize
not only the impossibility, but the folly of keeping,
it closed. Yet the reviewer here making this asser-
tion, elsewhere declares the mission to have emanated
from a foreign brain, and to have started with the
one Chinese object " to stop all progress ; as to the
rest carte blanche," or, in other words, to shut the
door. The reviewer shows by the Russian Conven-
tion that the question of jurisdiction was not of pro-
minent importance in the eyes of the Chinese, but
he overlooks the fact that the Russians are mere indi-
vidual traders moving through the vast interior and
along the extensive borders of China, and therefore
to refer disputes between them and the Chinese
where the Chinese are all-powerful to a mutual
understanding between the Russian Consuls and
the Chinese functionaries might readily be conceded.
But the case is widely different at Canton, at
Shanghai, at Takoo, where the foreign consuls are
in communication with men of war, and fly their
flags under the protection of open. ports. From three
to seven inclusive the Articles appear to the re-
viewer " objectless, since their provisions are already
engrafted into former treaties." No assertion could
have better displayed his ignorance, and he actually
places these Articles in defiance of his readers side
by side with the former provisions to which he
alludes. The present Treaty gives the Emperor of
China the right to appoint Consuls to the United
States' ports ; that is—as the Mission hopes to
make the Treaty universal—to all foreign ports.
The old Article gave the United States—that is,
foreign Powers—the right to appoint Consuls to
the open ports of China ; but these provisions the
reviewer considers to be identical, the more so as
the Treaty was one of reciprocity. We would like
to have seen a Chinaman erecting himself into a
Chinese Consul at San Francisco, and claiming to
administer to his countrymen Chinese law, to the
exclusion of the State law. Whatever may be the
ignorance of the English as to the force of our
remark, it will come home pretty strongly to
our own readers. The fourth Article, quoting
the 29th Article of the Treaty of the 18th
June, 1858, which the review places in juxtaposi-
tion further agrees that every religious persuasion,
not simply " the Protestant and Roman Catholic
Churches," to which it was formerly restricted, shall
enjoy entire liberty of conscience in both countries.
The reviewer appears to be blind to the wide dif-
ference between this and a provision embracing the
Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches only. The
former treaties were intended to guard the citizens
foreign countries in China ; this Treaty is in-
tended to guard the Chinese in foreign countries.
But the man cannot understand that there is any
difference in toleration being extended to a fol-
lower of Confucius in New York, and to a Quaker
in Peking. Our space is too r,s'ricted to act as
does the Times, and to place these Articles side by
side, or the folly and bigotry of the remarks would
be more apparent than we can hope to make them.
We will, however, contrast the concluding clause
of Article 4 with Article 12 of tha old Treaty,
which the reviewer declares to be exactly similar.
" Art. 4. Cemeteries for " Art. 12. Any desecra-
sepulture of the dead, of tion of the cemeteries by
whatever nativity or na- natives of China shall be
tionality, shall be held in re- severely punished accord-
spect and free from disturb- ing to law."
ance or profanation."
Those who know the Chinese are aware of the
value they attach to such a provision. To preserve
their dead and to carry the remains to the land of
nativity is, with them, a passionate desire, but the
old treaties took care, as usual, only of the Chris-