The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT or THE MIMIC JOURNALS.

There will, the Times remarks, he no want of Irish
debates this session, and, though the nation will undoubt-
edly support the House in any measures which the
welfare of Ireland may demand, we have a right to expect
that in any coming discussion the chief men of both
parties and in either House will rise superior to any
political cowardice. The time has come when those who
have at heart the honour of their country, the principles
of justice and economy, and the well-being of the people,
both English and Irish, should take a firm stand against
the subsidsary agitation which has been begun under the
shadow of Fenianism. The theories which have been
propagated, and the demands which are to be addressed to
the Legislature, require that every man should make
up his mind whether the received laws of property
are to be upheld in the United Kingdom, or
whether, beginning first with Ireland, we are to
establish principles which would unsettle our whole
social fabric, and invade the rights of every class.
It needs no great reflection to perceive that the alleged
differences between the conditions of Ireland and England
are exaggerated. if they be not imaginary. The only real
difference is, that in Ireland a larger proportion of the
population is engaged i i agriculture than in England.
This is clearly only a difference of degree, and any legisla-
tion which should establish the right of the Irish occupier
to the permanent ownership of the land merely by reason
of his occupation must necessarily apply equally to the
English occupier. The first thing to be borne in mind
is, that every theory accepted for Ireland is accepted for
England also, and that those who are now calling for
" exceptional " legislation would be, if successful, the
first to declare that such legislation was not excep-
tional, but normal, and that being acknowledged in
Ireland it should be applied in Great Britain also.
If the theories now proposed for Ireland were recom-
mended for this island, there would be no less danger in
them. It would be a very absurd project for the State to
lend money to the average English farmer, and to put
him in possession of his land while holding a mortgage of
it. The English farmer is not one out of millions of needy
rivals. He has money of his own, he knows his business,
he goes into it with the care of a capitalist and the quick-
ness of a tradesman. The State—that is, his fellow-coun-
trymen—might be justified in trusting him, and might
have a fair security for his solvency and honesty. But it
is Ireland, where these conditions are wholly wanting, that
is selected as the first field for the experiment.

The Herald discusses Mr. Pim's bill "to further amend
the law relating to the tenure in Ireland." Mr. Pim aims
at securing compensation to the tenant ; would abolish the
right of distress, and give the landlord further means of
obtaining repossession of the land should the tenant fail to
pay the rent. Our contemporary considers that in the
existing state of Ireland it would he far better for Mr.
Pim, and members like him who have an interest in the
welfare of their country, to leave legislation on the Irish
land question in the hands of the Ministry, aiding them
with their advice, and affording them the results of their
experience in the solution of what we may term a party-
raised difficulty, instead of endeavouring to take the wind
out of their sails by tacking to their measures, as improve.
ments, propositions impossible of acceptance. The rhapso-
dies and revolutionary projects of Mr. Mill are but little
calculated to do mischief from their absurdity, because the
Irish peasants will not be slow to perceive that they can
never he seriously entertained, while the inevitable rejec-
tion of the equally objectionable, but more moderate re-
commendations for the redress of grievances, emanating
from such a man as Mr. Pim, will but add to the existing
discontent, and afford fresh arguments to induce the small
Irish landowners to engage in a conspiracy from which
they have hitherto held aloof, as the only means of obtain-
ing the concession of rights to which they are told by in-
fluential persons that they are justly entitled.
The opinion which the new Solicitor-General has given
the electors of llelston on what he calls " the condition of
Ireland question" may, in the opinion of the Post, notwith-
standing the somewhat positive terms in which it was ex-
pressed, be sensibly modified when the learned gentleman
has had a consultation with his leaders. At all events, the
declaration that he " never will be a party to destroying
the Protestant Church of Ireland," bold as it appears to
be, was no doubt well considered with reference to certain
contingencies. The Solicitor-General, it must be observed,
contemplates the appointment of three additional judges,
an arrangement which would probably be the occasion of
his own promotion, and in that case the personal obligation
which he has contracted could be fulfilled without regard
to the Ministerial programme. It was, nevertheless,
no part of his dtity to make a statement which
shewed either that he had omitted to ascertain
how the Government proposed to deal with the
Irish Church before he accepted office, or that they
had inscribed "No surrender " on their flag. The
latter hypothesis is incredible. Of course nobody is play-
ing with words. We all understand that " destroying the
Protestant Church of Ireland " means the settlement of
the property now held by the clergy of that Church so as
to obtain what Mr. Disraeli some years since described as
" ecclesiastical equality." Mr. Disraeli may, indeed, have
changed his mind ; that is possible, but in this instance,
we repeat, scarcely credible. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer is not, perhaps, bound by anything lie said on the
subject in 1844, as Earl Russell appears to suppose he is ;
but, on the other hand, if his rile is, as the Solicitor-
General intimates, to carry measures which no one else
has been able to carry, he will hardly miss this great op-
portunity of distinguishing himself. There is no reason to
think that Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley regard the Irish
• Church with the romantic affection which the Solicitor-
General has avowed, and the " stupidity " which cannot
be " educated " may be eliminated.

The Daily News conceives that the necessary result of
the present co-operative movement will be, that a number
of the smaller retailers must succumb to the pressure, and
must turn to other employments for a livelihood. We shall
have fewer shops. But this will not in itself be a disad-
vantage to the public. The fact is, that the inflation of
prices and the multiplication of establishments have acted
and reacted on each other, to the public loss and to the
traders' gain. High prices have brought in competition.
which has cut down the competitors' profits to a very mode-
rate amount. The necessity of supporting establishments
that had but little custom compelled the shopkeepers
to keep up prices. Then comes in the co-operative
store, which lowers the prices, and of necessity extirpates
the shops which were thus artifically kept up. The result
is obviously a clear saving to the nation. But while this
is the effect of the operation as against the smaller class of
tradesmen, it by no means necessarily follows that the
same result will follow in the case of the larger retail
houses, whether of eatables or of articles of apparel.
Except that they must pay more rent for mere frontage,
these enter the race on greatly more equal terms. A very
large business is necessarily far more equable and far more
economical than a small. The space is more fully and
usefully occupied in proportion. A comparatively small
attendance suffices. Advertising is necessary till a name
is attained, but when that result is achieved, the cost of
publicity forms an inappreciable percentage on the trade
done.

Dealing with Lord Russell's recent pamphlet on Ireland,
the Saturday Renew remarks that nothing is more striking
in the whole of it than the ignorance it betrays of the real
state of the Liberal party. Anyone who read it and did
not know the recent history of English politics would
imagine, as Lord Russell evidently imagines, that if a
scheme is proposed by Lord Russell and adopted by Mr.
Gladstone, it forthwith beccmes the creed of the party to
which they belong, and will be warmly supported by the
votes and speeches of the party as a body. There is not
a shadow of truth in this assumption. The Liberal party
is difficult to lead, and becomes more difficult every year
to lead, because its members insist on thinking for them-
selves, and because Liberalism means such a vast variety
of things, and ranges from Socialism to a feeble preference
for Wbig landowners. To give six-eighths of the revenues
of the Irish Church to the Catholics may be a bad thing
or a good thing, but it is a proposal to which the bulk of
the Liberal party are by no means prepared to commit
themselves. It is true that in the course of time the
Liberals will have to assume a distinct attitude towards
Ireland and the Irish Church, and that, when that
time is come, individual members of the party will
feel themselves obliged to waive their own private
inclinations, and to go with their party, if its policy
towards Ireland is at all to their taste. But how
will the genera policy of the party be settled? By
the adoption of a cut-and-dry schems emanating from
Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone? Most certainly not.
Mr. Gladstone is entirely powerless unless he acts in con-
cert with a considerable number of men with whom Lord
Russell's recommendations are of no intrinsic value what-
ever. Mr. Gladstone, if he is to carry great measures,
mist have the support of the Whig landowners, but he
ieust also have the support of Mr. Bright, Mr. Mill, nabs
Mr. Lowe. Men who have minds so independent, who
have achieved so high a parliamentary position, and who
anre so indispensable to a strong Liberal Ministry, must
r,.:,2rc,c, their influence in the preparation of any great
.'t,urt-. of whiJi they are asked to share the rospon3i-
b:l;,y. If they in the same Cabinet with Mr. Wad-
r!LlClll,l,t't_ to g:Ve up something. of what
Ceey ivisl;el to see carried, lint they would aid in framing
a general scheme to which they would all adhere. Put
while they and Mr. Gladstone are in Opposition, such a
conference and admixture of opinions and views is impos-
sible. Thus we are brought round to the very obvious
conclusion that it is the Ministry, not the Opposition, that
ought to deal with the Irish Church, whereas what Lord
Russell wants is exactly the reverse. He wishes that the
Opposition should introduce the measure, and control its
whole scheme and scope, and that the Ministry should
only be official instruments for turning it into an Act of
Tilia will cover do, and if this had botti gLe

way in which the engineers had made the road in Abys-
sinia, the donkeys and mules would be still drinking con-
densed water in Annesley Bay.
A new Conservative Premier must, says the Spectator,
be found ; and it is in the highest degree for the public
interest that the new Premier should be made to feel the
burden of responsibility properly involved in the office far
more keenly than has been possible of late years, when
three aged Premiers in succession have rested, rather on
their prestige than on their capacity, in that position. He
ought not to be a " figure-head" Minister, like the Duke
of Richmond, to whom Mr. Disraeli is supposed to incline
as the only possible successor of Lord Derby—perhaps
partly by way of indicating his own disinclination to serve
under Lord Stanley. Nor should it be Lord Stanley him-
self, who would necessarily go to the Peers if he were to
accept the office, as he could not supplant Mr. Disraeli,
even if he were competent to replace him. It should be
no other than Mr. Disraeli. We are the more anxious to
urge the importance of thus rivetting the full sense of
responsibility on the next Tory Prime Minister, because
Mr. Disraeli is evidently intending to play again this
session that dangerously tentative and humble policy of
appealing to the House to tell him what it wishes, which
lie played last session, and which his position behind Lord
Derby, as the real, but not the nominal chief, so unfortu-
nately favours. His mode of dealing with the Scotch Reform
Bill on Monday is not, perhaps, as regards the particular
measure, of the highest moment. If the bill be passed in a
defective and mischievous form, it will probably be mended
very soon after the meeting of the new Parliament.
But the danger is not in the consequences to the individual
measure, but in the symptoms of a ftlesl intention of Mr.
Disraeli to diminish the Ministerial responsibility for the
measures he proposes to a minimum, and make them
appear at least as measures forced upon him by the House,
instead of recommended by him to the House. The
Scotch Reform Bill had, he said, only two principles— a
very liberal extension of the suffrage, and an increase of
the number of Scotch seats. All else was detail, open to
alteration in committee, on which the Government, though
they had suggested a course, were all but indifferent. If
the Scotch members did not like the excision of all the im-
portant burghs out of the counties, and could persuade the
House, they might. If they wanted more than seven new
seats, and could persuade the House, they might. If
they could recommend a scheme by which they could
obtain these seats without adding to the total number of
the House, and could persuade the House to accept it, they
might. Everything was to be absolutely elastic to the wish
of the House. Re cared for nothing, and had indeed em-
bodied one provision which he disliked in deference to the
majorities of last session. Only give him a policy, and he
would adopt it.
Mr. Gladstone's Church Rate Bill proceeds, in the
opinion of the John Bull, on the false and exaggerated
assumption that in " many " parishes church rates have
given rise to ill-feeling and litigation ; whereas it has
notoriously been exceptional. He then practically
' adopts Mr. Bright's suggestion of getting rid of the
beadle ; i.e., he abolishes a compulsory rate, and allows
a voluntary assessment. The remaining clauses provide
for the method in which the contributions are to be
made, and for the application of the funds. Now,
we say at once that the principle of church rate
being yiel,led, we had far rather accept Mr. Hard-
castle's bill for total abolition than this mockery of
a compromise. We shall lament that another tie
which binds the Church and State together has been
severed, that the public recognition of the national faith is
weakened, that the interests of the poor man are sacri-
ficed to political expediency and to long-continued but
over-estimated agitation ; and we would fain hope that an
impartial select committee in both Houses may hit on
some scheme which may avert the evil ; but if the Church
is to lose her rates and be thrown on her own resources,
let there be no pretence of church rates, no bottle without
the wine, no shell without the kernel, no pretence of a
privilege that does not exist. Mr. Hubbard, Colonel
Barttelot, and others, imagine that church rates
will still be collected if the bill become law, and
so no doubt they would in parishes where the
Church was strong. But what about these unfortunate
cases where the landowners are aliens and opposed to
her ? What about the power of district churches to
levy rates, a F oint which in any real compromise the
Church should insist on ? The fact is, that as Mr.
Henley well pointed out, the cumbrous machinery of

the bill is utterly unnecessary. The churches where
rates are now levied will no doubt be maintained, but
how ? No longer by the just contribution of the whole
parishioners, but by the willing contributions of the
few already overburdened by their support of nearly
every charity. It is a further attempt to increase the
too heavy burdens of the zealous few, while the 3areless
multitude will give less than ever, and the enthusiasm of
these comparatively few will be better sustained by there
being no pretence of a legal machinery. We urge
strongly on the country clergy and gentry, who are the
most interested in this matter, first, to procure the appoint-
ment of select committees in both Houses, where the case,
stripped of the nonsensical and false plumage in which it
is dressed out to meet the public eye and to catch political
support, may be thoroughly sifted ; and it an appeal to
a Reformed Parliament fails, then let the Church
accept her position (the State will be the greatest sufferer),
and set herself manfully to the task of supplying the
deficiency.