The Express.
London, England, 1868-04-04 00:00:00

amendment." He denied the moral competeney
of parliament to deal with this question, not be-
cause this was * moribund parliament, but because
when the fundamental laws of the country were
called in question their constituents ought to
have some intimation of what they ware doing.
But he appealed to the house whether their con.
stitnents had been at all consulted on the subject.
He had never contended that the articles of union
were irreversible ; but it was preposterous that
they should be asked to reverse such solemn 011211i-
manta at eight days' notice. Nu one could deny
that the propositions of the right hon. gentleman
were vast and violent. Why this change ? Upon
that point they had no satisfaction.
Perhaps (continued the right honourable gentleman) I
ought to notice the remarks that were made by the noble
lord the member for Stamford. (Cheers and conntercheers.)
The noble lord found in this amendment, of which I have
given to the house * plain history--(laughter)--I say the
plain sad the true history—(more laughter)—the noble
lord found great cane for distrust and want of confident.e
in the language of this amendment. (Hear, hear.) He
saw immediately that we were about to betray the trust
with which he deems we are invested. The tads lord at
no time is wanting in imputing to us being influenced by
not the most amiable motives—((laughter)—that can regu-
late the conduct of public men. I will not
quarrel with the invective of the noble lord.
The noble lord is a man of great talent—(cheers)—there is
vigour in his invective—(opposition cheers)—and there is
DO want of vindictiveness. (Ministerial cheers.) I confess
l ant now only speaking as • critic, and perhaps not an
impartial one, that I think it wants finish. (Cheers and
laughter.) Considering that the noble lord has studied the
subject, and that be has written anonymous articles
against it—(" Oh, oh," front Mr. flandford)—before I was
his colleague and since I was his colleague— I do not know
whether he wrote them when I was his colleague—
(" Oh, oh" again from Mr. Sandford, and ones of
" order")—l think it might have been accomplished
more ad unguen. But the only objection which I have
to the noble lord is this ; there is one thing which he has
never pardoned, and that is the Reform Act of last year.
(Hear, hear.) Now, I put it to the house what would
have been the general state of affairs if the counsels of
the noble lord upon this subject had prevailed, instead
of the suggestions which I made, and which the house
adopted! Now that we are free from the beat and greetdif-
ankles and perplexities of the last session, and can take,
I hope, a fair view of what has ocieurred, I would express
my opinion that the act of last year was a most beneficent
andnoble act—(laughter)—and I look with no apprehen-
sion whatever to the appal which will be made to the
people under the conditions of that act. I believe
you will have a parliament returned to this house
Lull of patriotic feeling and national sentiment,
whose decisions will add spirit to the community
strength to the state. Sir, the oily objection I have to
these attacks of the noble lord is that they invariably pro-
duce an echo from the other side. (Hear, hear.) That
seams to me to be now almost • parliamentary law. When
the bark is heard from this side, the right hon. gentle-
man the member for edits emerges, I will not say from
his cave—(loud laughter)—but perhaps from • more cynical
habitation—(renewed laughter)—and joins immediately in
the chorus o? reciprocal malignity. (Laughter.) The
right hon. gentleman—l forget the line, but it is in •
favourite poet who has been quoted in this house—
" wails his monstrous melody to the moon." (Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman has been extremely analytical
upon the amendment of the government moved by my
noble friend, and his zig-zag commentary founded on an
assumption of circumstances that never occurred, and on
motive. that neverinfluenced, wits amusing at the moment;
but howfar does that commentary agree with tbestatement,
the teal statement which I have given of the cause and origin
of this amendment. The right hon. gentleman was ex-
, thornily exuberant in his comments upon my character
and career. Sir, I will not trouble the house with a
defense of that character and career. (Cheers.) I have
lived in this house more than 30 years, and I can truly
say that during that time comments upon that character
and career have been tolerably free and plain. But the
house has been the jury of my life, and it allows me to
address them. now, therefore here is not the place in
which I think it necessary to vindicate myseU. (Loud
cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Caine
is • very remarkable man. He is a learned man, although
he despises history—(laughter)--land what is more remark-
Ale than even his learning or his logic, is that power of
spontaneouo aversion which he always displays. (Renewed
laughter.) There is nothing that he likes, and
almost everything that he hates. He hates the working
classes of England. He hates the Roman catholic.
of Ireland. He bates the protestant. of Ireland. He
hates her Majesty's ministers— (laughter)—and until the
right hon. gentleman the member fur South Lawmanre
placed his hand upon the ark, he seemed to me almost to
hate the right hon. gentleman. (Renewed laughter.) But
now all is peace. Now we have " the hour and the man."
(Cheers and laughter.) But I believe the clock goes
wrong and the man is not here. (Laughter.) I shall
now ask the attention of the house to the proposition
before us. If I have for a moment trespassed upon your
attention, you will allow me to say that it has been in fair
self-defence. (Cheers.) I have never attacked any one in
my life—('ironical cheers, and cries of "Peel" from the
opposition)—unless I was first assailed. (Cheers and
laughter.)
_ _

_ .
He did not believe in an Irish crisis, as
in-
terpreted by Mr. Gladstone ; but this he
would say, that the condition of Ireland
was not entirely satisfactory. Mr. Glad-
stone drew on the history of seven centuries.
What could they do when a great statesmen came
like a thief in the night, and brought forward such
vast premises to draw his conclusions from They
must take general news. The condition of Ireland
was now much better than it was before the Union.
The people were more prosperous, and in the en-
joyment of greater social and political rights. He
denied that the Irish were a conquered race any
more than the English, or that the Irish church
was a badge of conquest. Why was the church in
Ireland more a badge of conquest than the church
of England was a badge of conquest to a dissenter ?
His policy towards Ireland had been a policy of
conciliation. The principle of their policy in
Ireland had been to create, and not to destroy, and
they could not strengthen the protestant in-
terest more than by doing justice to the Roman
catholic. The proposition to create a catholic
university in Ireland was in furtherance of
that policy. They had endeavoured to con-
ciliate creeds and populations. But Mr.
Gladstone proposed a change that would
outrage the feelings and sentiments of a
large and influential class of the population. Had
the protestants of Ireland no regard to their
church, and were their feelings not to be regarded
But the policy recommended by Mr. Gladstone
involved issues much more important than the
government of Ireland. What would be the effect
on the property of the country ! There were
abbeys in Ireland and England not enjoyed by
abbots. Under no circumstances must the pro-
perty of the church of Ireland be devoted to a se-
cular purpose, which was always a job. What
would be the consequence of Mr. Gladstone's pro-
poaition : The policy of conciliation would be
gone, for protestant ascendancy there would be
substituted Papal supremacy, and all that they had
attempted for years was to be obliterated. Govern-
ment without religion was difficult, if not impos-
sible, and how could they connect government
with religion except by establishment f Were
they prepared to say that government in Ireland
was to be disconnected with religion. If they
adopted that principle for Ireland why not adopt
it for Scotland, where the kirk was also in a
minority? The crisis in England was now coming.
The Roman catholic' and the high ritualists, who
had long been secretly in union, were now in open
confederacy. They had their hand almost upon
the realm of England, under the guise of liberalism ;
they were about to seize on the supreme power of
the realm, but he would oppose them to the utmost
of his ability. Their policy, of which Mr. Glad-
stone was the exponent, would deprive the sub-
jects of her Majesty of some of their privileges,
and was dangerous even to the tenure of the
crown.

Mr. GLAnsrorrs then rose, amid loud cheers
from his supporters. After attributing some of 1
the observations of Mr. Disraeli to • heated im-
agination, he proceeded to reply to some of the
points raised in the debate. He ridiculed the fears
expressed of the irritating effecta of this change on
the minds of the protestant., and pointed to the
numerous successful instances of disestablishment.
Mr. Disraeli's arrament that a fundamental law of
the country could not be dealt with by parliament
1 without reference to the constituencies, he described
as ultra-democratic, if not anarchical. He did
not conceal his intention to separate church
from state in Ireland and that he argued was the
most effectual mode of preserving what Mr.
Disraeli called the connection between govern-
ment and the religious principle. And to the
objection that this would lead to the destruction
of the English church, Mr. Gladstone replied
that each establishment must stand on its own
merits, and the Irish establishment could not be
maintained by its applicability to England. Exa-
mining the varying declarations of the Premier,
the Home Secretary, and the. Irish Eleoretalty,