Year: 1872

of the Controversy.


The excellent temper which has so far char
acterized the discussion between Mr.. Froude,
the eminent English historian and Father
Burke, the distinguished Irish priest, leads US
to suggest its continuance. We are ready to
admit with Father Burke, the proposition
that when an Englishman undertakes to ex-
plain the sorrows and miseries of Ireland he
can only look at these questions from the out
side; but, at the same time. we wish to
remind this eloquent Irish champion
that an Lishman can only regard
the issue from the inside AS impartial
judges in this novel controversy the American
people ought to look at it from all sides, and
this is the principal reason why we desire the
discussion between these able men to 60 on in


the same good temper which has SO far char


acterized it. If we are to enter into the merits


of the differences between England and Ire


land and to judge of the whole case we can


better fulfil our functions as arbitrators in this


new species of what the lawyers would call
feigned issue, after hearing the facts and argu-
ments of both parties to the case.


Mr. Froudes appeal to the American people
is a novel one, and admits of new principle
of the res adj,,dicata 1t is our privilege to
criticise the advocates as we'll as TO decide the
issue. Nor need we wait till the case on both
sides and the counter have been fully
presented before exercising our functions as
critics and as judges With this view of the
matter we met the appeal of Mr. Froude as it
was presented in his first lecture, and with the
same view we shall meet the plea of Father
Burke. We think Father Burke would have
done better if the courtesy with which he
treated his antagonist had been equalled by the
calmness with which he argued his cause. 1t
is perhaps expecting too much to expect cold
and judicial treatment of the question from
one who necessarily looks at it from the
inside. But in this connection we cannot
overlook the fact that Mr.. Froude's outside
view induced him ut the outset TO endeavor to
confne his case within a certain and defined
limit The American people will only smile
at the fiery zeal of the Irish priest, but they
will also say to the English historian that the
merits of this controversy and the value
Of the American Judgment both turn
on the very question which he SO
carefully excludes from the case. An old
lawyer distinguished in this country for his
learning, his ability and his judicial fairness,
used to say, when the North and the South
were hotly arguing the question of slavery,
the one side holding that Congress was bound
to exclude it from the Territories, and the
other that Congress was bound to protect it in
every part of the national domain not pro-
vided with State governments, 1.-THE power to
legislate at all is the power to legislate either
way" In this case the right to judge at all
is the right to judge of his country's duty in
the premises free from Mr. Froude's outside
restrictions in behalf of England, or Father
Burke's inside convictions of what is due to
Ireland.


1t is curious point in this controversy chat
the question of blood is brought so promi-
nently forward Mr.. Froude, in referring to
q supposed kinship which no real American
feels, tells us of the excuse of an American
sailor in China for interfering with other
peoples quarrels-'blood is thicker than
water" And in replying to Father Burke's
rather reckless assertion characterizing the
famous bull of Pope Adrian for the subjuga-
ton of Ireland as ga humping English lie'
Mr.. Froude reminds the Irish priest of
the purity of his Norman descent. |
As regards the question of the gen.
uineness of Pope Adrian's bull the historian
has the priest at q disadvantage. Until
i4c o,1f1 ostv ,o<
doubted, and even Lingard, the Catholic his
torian of England, speaks of it without any
suspicion of its being forgery. 1t is true,
there is another side even to this question.
The fact that King Henry IL did not bethink
himself of using it as his credentials for the
subjugation of Ireland for twenty years after
it was written and only brought it to light
after the death of the Pope who authorized it,
suggests at least reasonable grounds of cavil
and the claims of dissolute and bar
barous King, who excused his own ra-
pacity and punished it in his
subjects, on the ground that what is right
with him is wrong with others, by which King
Karrott justifes his taking of bribes himself,
but corrects it in his Ministers, to the right
full possession of document so remarkable
and so sacred are not the best evidences of the
truthfulness of his allegations But it would
have been better if Father Burke had not
denied what was so long unquestioned and,
adopting Mr.. Froude's theory that blood is
thicker than water, had met the historian with
the reminder that at best this famous bull was
only letter of questionable authenticity, ad-
dressed by an English Pope to an English
King


We cannot follow this controversy into the
minutim of attack and defence adopted by the
champions on both sides. The theory of Mr..
Froude's first lecture was the assumption that
Irishmen were not fit to be free, and his sec
ond lecture was tale of barbarity and blood