The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT a is Prilitnlitritntg,

The Times devotes its leader chiefly' to the answering of.
Lord Derby. His lordship made, as might have been
expected, the ablest speech delivered last night against
the disestablishment of the Irish Church. One might
almost say it was the best that has been delivered any.
where. His defence of the Irish Establishment was intel-
ligible and consistent. Lord Derby rested his case on the
inviolability of property. The Church, he said, was
a corporation in the possession of great property. Part
of its endowment in Ireland dated from beyond the
origin of parliamentary government, and, indeed,
from before the conquest of Ireland, but the greaten
portion was derived from the grants of estates
forfeited after the revolution of 1688. He denied that any
Parliament, least of all the present expiring and discre.
elited House of Commons, was morally justified in touch.
i:lg the property thus held by the Church, and he declared
that the proposal bad no parallel, save in the spoliation of
the monasteries, when the ancestors of some of the pro.
moters of the present movement were enriched. As
to the proposition that Parliament, having endowed
the Church (and he denied this assumed fact), could
disendow it, it would be as just to say that Par-
liament could resume possession of Blenheim and
-Vrathfleldsaye. This argument is essentially erroneous.
It is not true, in the first place, that the Church is a cor•
poration. This may appear a trivial objection, and in
itself it would not be worth dwelling upon, but it is the
clue to the fallacy in Lord Derby's reasoning. The Eng•
lish nation has never created and endowed a corporation
of the Church so as to place it outside and apart from
itself. The simple fact is that at different times—and with
respect to the greater part of it since 1688—Parliament
has enacted that certain property in Ireland should be
held upon certain public uses. Parliament has always
retained and has constantly exercised its right to super.
vise these uses. Scarcely a year passes, certainly no ten
years pass, but some change of administration or of dis-
tribution is introduced which would be wholly unintelli-
gible unless Parliament had this right, which would be
absolutely unjust according to Lord Derby's hypo•
thesis. Parliament never for an instant aban.
dons the control, the exclusive right of legislating
with respect to the property devoted for a time to reli
gious uses, and this is of course the essential distinction be.
tween an episcopal palace, a dozen of which have been
sold by prrliamentary authority within the present cen-
tury, and Blenheim or Strathfieldsaye. The sole question!
to which Parliament attends with reference to the pro-
perty thus under its control are these : Does it continue
to serve the use to which it was applied? Is that
assumed use still beneficial ? Have any circumstance!
arisen destroying its advantage and converting it into an
injury? Apply these questions to the Irish Establishment.
It never has served its intended use. It was meant to
Ireland Protestant ! it has converted it into the most
Catholic country in Europe. There is not the slightest
prospect of its realizing its end; and in the meanwhile it re•
mains a standing monument of offence and a danger tc
the empire. In vain, the Times continues, may arch•
bishops prophesy evil and Conservative peers denounce
revolution. There is not a member of the House of Lords
who is not too familiar with such prophecies and denuncia-
tions. Religion departed, or ought to have departed, from
the land forty years ago. It was impossible that the
Throne could survive 1832. When the Municipal Corpo-
rations Act was passed the security of property received
a death-blow. The abolition of the Corn Laws destroyed
our aristocracy. The secularisation of the clergy reserves
in Canada alienated for ever the last of the Canadian
loyalists. And yet there is some religious activity left
among us, the Throne was never more secure, property is
treated with the same respect, our aristocracy is richer
than ever, and the loyalty of Canada is almost trouble-
some. Shall we be told now that the disestablishment of
the Irish Church will destroy the religious life of Ireland
and alienate the only friends of the Union in the island!
We turn away from such prophecies only bent more reso.
lutely than ever to pursue the course approved by a
thousand proofs.

The Post remarks that the House of Lords has acquired
the habit of discharging its legislative functions with
extraordinary rapidity. It frequently gets through its
evening's work in half an hour, and, except on compara•
tively rare occasions, does everything required of it
before dinner hour. It is, therefore, satisfactory to the
public that on an occasion like the present, whatever
may be the opinions of the majority of its members,
it should gravely and seriously discuss, not during two or
three hours, but during two or three evenings, the most
important question which has now been submitted to it
Whether rightly or wrongly, the majority of the elective
representation of the nation have passed a measure which
strikes a fatal blow to the continued existence of the Irieb
Church ; and if the House of Lords, in the exercise of its
undoubted prerogative, proposes to reject that measure, it
is but right and proper that it should assign its reasons for

so doing.
The Herald thinks it a hard task to say whether there
be more cause for anger or for ridicule in the language in
which, day after day, the Lords have been advertised
of the peril which they will incur by rejecting the bill
for the ad interim disestablishment of the Irish
Church. The existence of an Upper Chamber,
whether hereditary or not, would have no meaning of
use, would be simply an encumbrance to the machinery
of the State, if it could not exercise an independent
judgment upon great political measures ; and it would be
difficult to name a case which would furnish stronger jus-
tification, in all the attendant circumstances, for the
exercise of a suspensive veto, than the present. The
bitterest Radical must, the Herald conceives, be aware of
this ; to Lord Granville it must be perfectly obvious ; and
that noble earl, in moving the second reading of the
measure, must have felt that those whom he addressed
had received from those whom he there represented such
provocation as made the rejection of his motion a matte'
not only of certainty, but almost of duty, or at least of
self -respect.

The contrast between responsible and irresponsible
legislation came out, the Daily News remarks, very clearly
in the House of Lords. It is evident that the vast
changes of opinion which the prospect of contact with a
new constituency has produced in the House of Commons
have not had their full counterpart in the Upper House.
Their lordships have no fear of constituencies before
their eyes, and are inclined to legislate rather
from their own inward light than from any re•
flection from the opinion of the outer world.
The Daily News confesses that there is something melan-
choly in this obstructive attitude of the House of Lords
The spectacle of the good man struggling against adverse
fate has always excited the admiration of mankind ; but,
unhappily, irreverent caricature has invented a companion
picture in Mrs. Partirgton and her mop trying to keep
out the ocean. The spectacle which their lordships have
determined to present to the world is of course the sublime
one ; but to the distorted vision of an unbelieving age they
appear in the ridiculous aspect. It is a rising tide against
which they are contending, not one of the storms of
fate; and it is not the potent wand of omnipotent justice
with which they bid it defiance, but Mrs. Partington's
mop.
The Standard declares that it is not wise to settle so
large a question at so short a notice, and under c ircum
stances which indicate something like a yielding to panic.
Nor is it advisable to deal with it after a fashion
which will inevitably arouse the bitter resentment
of that class of her Majesty's Irish subjects which
is at once the most orderly, the most industrious, the
most thriving, the most contented, and the most
loyal. At least, let the House of Lords effect thus
much—that the Legislature shall not act without accurate
information to go upon, and without plain warrant from
the natior. Lord Grey is slow to recogniee the motives
which have actuated the leaders of his party in pressing
forward the Irish Church question in violation of both
these conditions. Personal ambition is at the root of it all,
and less friendly critics than the noble earl will not shrink
from saying as much before the debate is brought to a
close.

In answer to the question why the Liberals did not deal
with the Irish question when in office, the Telegraph con-
tends that it was impossible. When the Liberals were in
office, they had to deal with a weighty problem which was
tAe question of the day, and whichs,,llad for years baffled
the most strenuous efforts of Tory and Liberal statesmen.
Now arises another great question, and the House of
Lords has to show itself alive to the occasion. But, un-
happily, the Suspensory Bill will not only be rejected, but
rejected by some such majority as 110. Those who are
the staunchest Wends of the peerage will regret such a
result most keenly. Lord Granville impressively warned
his fellow peers against provoking the people to say that
the effort to establish religious equality has been defeated
by aristocratic privilege. If ever that idea should arise,
it will be an evil day for the House of Lords.
The Star remarks that the peers have entered upon the
duty assigned to them by the Constitution, and are
expected fcrthwith to decide against the Irish4hiurch
Suspensory Bill. Any other result is probably past
praying for. Lord Clarendon prophecies that the bill
will be thrown out by a larger majority than that which
carried it thr,ugh the House of Collin-1(41s. This
being pretty certain, we have simply to watch
the incidents of the debate by which the foregone
conclusion is to be prefaced. As the bill is to be lost, we
can afford to face the catastrophe. That it will cost a little
money is a very small consideration. That it will much
embitter the general election is a very serious considera-
tion. The most important consideration of all for the
peers is, that the affront which they needlessly offer to the
representatives of the people will stamp their characterin
g de of the new electors Wlio v lienoefor*ar4 toji