The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-27 00:00:00

EIPIBIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Saturday Review deems that the first evening of the
great and long looked-for debate in the Lords on the Irish
Church fully justified the opinion of those who expected
that the great issues involved would be discussed in a
spirit and with a force worthy of the occasion. Nothing
absolutely new was said or could be said on a subject that
has already occupied the attention of so many political
leaders for so many nights this session in the House of
Commons. But novelty may spring, not only from what
is said, but from the men who are the speakers, and in
this kind of novelty the debate in the Lords was singularly
rich. It was new that the arguments of the supporters of
the bill should receive the countenance of two speakers

who have been Lord-Lieutenants of Ireland; it was new
that the case of the Government and of all the opponents
of the bill should be in the hands of a man like Lord
Derby, who was evidently in honest thorough earnest when
he said what he had to say ; it was new to hear the
opinions of bishops who could speak for themselves and
their Church, and make the most of the cry that the
Church is in danger. But the Opposition, even when
represented by the two Lord-Lieutenants, bad the least
novelty on their side, and were under the disadvantage of
addressing an assembly openly hostile to them, and deter-
mined to outvote them whatever they might say. All
that the Lord-Lieutenants could add of their own per-
sonal knowledge to the debate was the expression of their
conviction that Irish disaffection saw a constant source of
provocation in the existence of the Irish Establishment,
and that they themselves considered that this feeling of
irritation was, under the circumstances, reasonable and
legitimate. Lord Grey suggested the obvious reply that
it is dangerous in itself and most unworthy of England to
grant to the menaces of loafing Americans and of a rabble
of half-armed peasantry what it denied to equity and
logic. This is a good argument so far as it goes. Yet
it admits of a satisfactory reply in the case of the Irish
Church. Disaffection must produce some effect on those
against whom it is directed, and unless they are pre-
pared to govern by sheer military tyranny, it mus; make
them seriously reflect whether there is any good ground
for the existence of hostility to the government whichthey
administer. What are the grounds of Irish disaffection?
They are, first, that Ireland is not an independent country.
England has considered this, and has honestly come to the
conclusion that the independence of Ireland would be not
only most disadvantageous to Ireland itself, but incom-
patible with the safety of England. Having come to this
conclusion, we are prepared to defend it ; and if the Irish
tried to assert their independence—which is most unlikely

--we should repress them by force with a clear conscience.
The next great cause of Irish disffection is the system on
which the land is held. Immediately the question of Irish
land is seriously examined, it is seen to be one of much
complication of detail. We are quite ready to help the
Irish to a better system of land tenure if we can see our
way to it, but there is no definite simple proposal that we
can put before ourselves to adopt or reject. The third
cause of Irish disaffection is the existence of a State Church
which does not accord with the religious belief of any but
a trifling minority of the people, which is a badge of con-
quest, and which is very rich either because it has got
hold. of the property once belonging to the ecclesiastical
body that still commands the adherence of the bulk of the
population, or because it received great grants of land
from Protestant conquerors, in order that it might act as
a Protestant garrison. On considering this ground of dis-
affection, the English people, if they are fairly repre-
sented by the present House of Commons, have come to
'the conclusion that they have not justice on their side.
They are, therefore, prepared to carry out justice when
they see that justice is due from them ; and this was the
substance of the reply of Lord Clarendon to the attack of
•Lord Grey. It is true that by disestablishing the Irish
Church we shall not satisfy the Fenians. They will cry
sut for a revision of the land system and for Irish
pendence. But we shall be in a very different position
when meeting their cries. We shall be able to enforce
patience and fairness on them while we are seeing what
ought to be done about the land, and we shall use guns
and bayonets with infinite sorrow, but with a tranquil
conscience, if any foolish fanatics are silly enough to set
up an independent Ireland.
The first impression produced on the mind of the writer
in the Spectator by the great debate in the Lords, especially
on a Church question, was the impression of the accom-
plished nonchalance of that distinguished assembly. Even
Lord Granville's speech in moving the second reading of
the Suspensory Bill, a speech powerful in argument, lucid in
statement, and happy in illuitration, gave, in manner, the
same impression which was given by the debate in general,
that their lordships stand a little above the point at which
these questions appear of vital interest to those who dis-
cuss them. The first night's debate in the Lords on the
"political step which has so deeply moved the House of
Commons, was rather of the nature of a distinguished and
- elaborate chat over matters of great moment. Lord
Granville gave this impression much more by the easy and
agreeable manner which is so characteristic of him—the
manner which makes him the complement of Mr. Glad-
stone—than by his speech, which was, as we said, full of
weighty reasoning and convincing illustration. Lord
Grey, almost alone, did not give this impression at all,
but not because he seemed to enter into the matter with a
more profound sense of its moral importance than other
peers ; satin r, on the other hand, because he felt an im-
mense and absorbing interest in the didactic duty which he
bad allotted to himself of reproving and disheartening his
Liberal friends. Lord Malmesbury restored the full force
of this impression by his lazy and dawdling talk against
the bill, and the resentful personalities of the reproaches
which, on behalf of her Majesty's Government, he directed
against the Opposition—more in the manner of good Dr.
Watts's sluggard, who says, " you have waked me too
soon, I must slumber again," than in the manner of
the spokesman of a Government caring at all about the
principles involved. Lord Clarendon was vigorous
and animated, but his animation was the anima-
tion of a man who had got hold of weak
opponents and_ enjoyed pummelling them. Lord
Derby, who, of course, spoke the speech of the evening,
was as perfectly in earnest as it is in his way to be, but
then it is only in his way to be in earnest in defending
party and privileges. There is no breadth of political
feeling about him. Lord Kimberley answered him com-
pletely enough, but. even Lord Kimberley was unable to
divest himself of the drawing-room thrust-and-parry
manner which is so characteristic of the peers ; and only
the Bishop of London seemed to us to speak with the
weight and gravity of manner befitting the subject,
• though what he said was conspicuous for its plausibility,
was obviously in defence of an order, and was on the
wrong side. Still he was the only speaker on Thursday
night who spoke with the practical, weighty air of the
House of Commons, and without that tournament style
so curiously characteristic of the House of Lords. As
to Lord Derby's party arguments, they are too contemp-
tible to need answer. He talks of Mr. Gladstone as a
" would-be Minister," and of " personal ambition " as the
motive of what he is now doing,—and this though Lord
Derby himself confessed that he brought in the Reform
Bill of 1867 " for the chance of maintaining his position."
It is simply offensive for a Minister who has made publicly
'such an announcement as that, to try and blacken his
opponents with the imputation of party motives. Lord
Granville has told us that Mr. Gladstone, in expectation
of the fall of the Conservative Ministry last year, believed
it to be the duty of the Liberal Ministry that would
succeed it to deal with the Irish Church, and with that
view opened the question to his colleagues. This is alone
sufficient to clear him from Lord Derby's taunts. A
Liberal Ministry undertaking such a task would have
loaded itself with a frightful difficulty, instead of winning
like Lord Derby another " chance of maintaining its
position."

The Imperial Review lays down that Lord Derby's
arguments on that aspect of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church
policy which concerns the rights of property were really
unanswerable. Can it be believed that the leading journal
was serious in asserting that the Established Church is not
a corporation? We are not, of course, bound to know
what definition of this word is generally accepted in
Printing-house-square. But we are, at least, safe in
affirming that there is such a thing as a corporation in this
country ; the Established Church is, not only in practical
fact, but in legal phraseology, a corporation in a stricter
cease than any other in existence. 'Why, it-is a corpora-
tion vast
of corporations. Every bishop,
.every chapter, nay,
every rector or vicar, is
_ac,orzoelarttnalovni the
n
association of all these bothes
legal status and privileges, is, perhaps the recognised
, very best
h n could cite to illustrate to
example which an Englis lt is os •
a foreigner the meaning of theterm.e _
e. amble, of
course, to regard the Church as a specific,cne institu-
tion, or merely as the nation viewed its religious aspect.
But neither the most enthusiastic Ritualist,
nor the moat
advanced thinker of the Broad Church school, would s
ever
dream of denying what is patent to the eyeof
everybody who has the smallest smattering of the
English law, that the Establisheel
th Church
and
of
England and Ireland is, in the eye of e law,
in the universal acceptation of the term, a corporation.
It is curious to observe on what small points a great con-
troversy may turn. It is scarcely too ranch to say that
in this difference between Lord Derby and the accom-
plished critic who has thus commented upon his speech,
lies the whole question of Church endowments now so
fiercely disputed throughout the length amid breadth of
this country. Indeed, the only other part of the common
case made out against Establishments which appears to
lie beyond the scope of this inquiry is the Liberal axiom,
that what Parliament has given Parliament can take
away. It will be difficult, we imagine, for those who lay
stress upon this principle to shew on what ground the
Dukes of Marlborough and Wellington can set up a title
to Blenheim and Strathfieldsaye which may not be sum-
marily set aside by the Legislature. Nor—if we are to go
back to the times of those sovereigns who originally en-
dowed the Church, both in. England and Ireland, and to
asinine that what the State in their persons did, the
State in them ahape of a parliamentary majority is justified
in undoing—will there be wanting good excuse for the
confiscation of all landed property which cannot al e v a
title anterior to the establishment of Christianity in either
- - • - • • _ . "_