The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1869.

ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS, Regent's-park, OPEN daily (ex-
cept Sundays). Admission, Is.; on Mondays, 6d.; Children
under twelve, 6d.

h
e71,1g,

Ann.

change here by ordaining the appointment of a judge,
who must be an experienced barrister. He will
occupy a position subordinate to the Arch-
bishop, who, as in the case of the Bishop and
his chancellor, will be the chief judge. Lastly,
there is a final right of appeal from the the judg-
ment of the Archbishop's court to the Privy Council.
The constitution of this tribunal is not to be altered,
and, in this respect, it will be generally admitted that
Lord SHAFTESBURY has acted with great judgment.
Whether the Privy Council is or is not
a satisfactory tribunal, whether the lay element does
not preponderate too greatly for the just decision of
clerical cases, is a vexed question. But it is not likely
that the originator of this measure, as a prominent
supporter of one of the antagonistic parties, could
have devised any settlement which would have met
with general acceptance.
Such is the proposed constitution of the eccle-
siastical courts. But by far the most momentous
change is made in the method of procedure against
offences committed by clergymen. This is
much the most important branch of eccle-
siastical jurisdiction. The power to decide tithe
disputes, cases of spoliation, and dilapidation
are of comparatively rare occurrence,the first-named
extremely so. Breaches of the laws of discipline are,
however, not only frequent, but the mode of pro-
cedure in such cases is, under the existing law,
very unsatisfactory. The existing system is not
sufficiently simple. Aggrieved parishioners cannot
obtain the reform of abuses without a roundabout.
preliminary in the shapp of obtaining permission
from the Bishop to institute proceedings. This
complexity frequently delays, often defeats,
the ends of justice. - In. matters of this kind,
where the offence is = general, and affects no
individual in particular, the mode of redress must be
simple and direct, or only the most flagrant offences
will be noticed. The bill promises to supply this
want. It stipulates that no charge against clergy-
men, nor any suits involving questions of doctrine,
can be brought in any courts save those pre-
sided over by the Bishops. But it enables
three members of a church to institute proceedings
in the diocesan court against breaches of the eccle-
siastical laws. The court will have power to suspend
or depose any minister, provided that the sentence be
not greater than is now provided by the existing law.
Issues of fact, with the consent of the court, may be
submitted to a jury composed of three beneficed cler-
gymen and justifies of the peace. Besides these
three, there are minor regulations for the saving of
time and expense, the most noteworthy of which is that
surplus fees are to be applied by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, who will have charge of financial
arrangements, to the augmentation of poor livings.
Costs may be enforced against either party bringing a
friv'olous charge or defence. Nothing of importance
has been overlooked in the composition of this
measure, which forms a thoroughly complete whole.
The changes it is designed to effect have long
been felt necessary, to remedy the most vague and
unsatisfactory branch of our judicial system. There
ought to be no difficulty in passing the bill into a
law. The chief complaint which will be brought
against it—that of not dealing with the constitution
of the Privy Council—is not likely to become a
serious obstacle to its success.

THE election petitions are relapsing into a round
of monotonous' uniforMity,
but here and there a
fresh variety of demoralisation turns up to cast a
new light upon our electoral system. Blackburn is
a case in point. The hearing of the petition which
has unseated the two Conservative members furnishes
some of the most noteworthy revelations which have
yet been made. The election was characterised
by the most disgraceful rioting in the United
Kingdom, and , votes were secured by the
wholesale application.of an illegal influence; but the
honest class of electorS may satisfactorily reflect that
their unpleasant experience has not been in vain.
The last election in general has furnished
a strong argument 'in favour of the Ballot ;
but of all the individual constituencies Black-
burn must be held to contribute most largely
to this result. The remarkably lively election in the
Lancashire borough was not decided by bribery,
Both parties had recourse to the far cheaper, and, as
it seems, not less efficacious, influence of the "screw."
Conservative employers intimidated their workmen,
Conservative workmen intimidated their colleagues,
and Messrs. lIonNnY and FIELDEN were returned.
As usual, the two innocent ex-members knew nothing
tohfetir agents
means
availed themselves Ssemployedto secure their return, but
extensively of the
most discreditable influence by which the fate
of a contest can be decided. The Con-
servative committee addressed a circular to
the Conservative employers of labour asking them
to secure the votes of those dependent upon them.
The committee found a Christian circumlocution
for the agency which is barbarously, but with
decided force, denominated the " screw." The com-
mittee were of opinion that managers, millowners,
overlookers, and others possessing influence knew
better than other people how to appreciate the
" blessings, temporal and religious, secured by the
Constitution, which is now threateried by unscrupu-
lous politicians." They were therefore implored to
exert their influence to secure the return of
candidates who would shield the Constitution
from these dangers—who would prevent " Christian
England " from being made a " godless nation."
Those in possession of influence took the hint. Their
workpeople were enlisted in the cause of righteous-
ness by a clear intimation that if they refused to
fight the good fight they might be cast out utterly.
The effect was decisive. Many operatives, who would
have voted with the Liberals, decided to preserve
England from becoming a godless nation rather
than incur dismissal. Those who maintained their
independence lost their- places. The Conservatives
won their election by the votes of Liberal artisans,
and when the contes,t was over there was a
general settling up, and old servants who
had been unfaithful politicians were merci-
lessly turned away.. Intimidation was em-
ployed by operatives as well as by masters ; in
fact, the election clearly shews that the danger of
workmen intimidating Their fellows is by no means
chimerical. Operativis who were a grade above
the ranks, overlookega • and others, applisd the
ci screw " as unblustiliglY as their masters,
and though in this - case it was employed
for the benefit of , the Conservatives, there
is no reason to believe that the danger does not
exist equally for both, 'parties. The tendency of
these disclosures is palpable.. It might have occurred
to the Conservative committee and those whom
they addressed that the Constitution will hardly
be upheld by the degradation of a principle
which the Conservatives themselves claim to
have conferred. The -idea might have suggested
itself that the godliness of Christian England will
hardly be promoted by pitting a working man's con
science against his daily bread. But these consider&
tions never do influence elections, and never will. Pre•
vention is certainly better than cure ; but the neces-
sity of a cure.is becoming more and more apparent.

It is said that at the forthcoming meeting of the
Hudson's Bay Company, a number of the share-
holders propose to move that the offer lately pro-
posed by the Colonial-office be rejected, and that
negotiations be opened for the sale of the com-
pany's territory to the Americans. Whether this
suggestion which appears to be dictated by a bitter
feeling at the disappointment sustained by the
shareholders, is meant seriously or not, remains to
be seen.

At a meeting of the Irrigation Company of
France (Limited) the directors' report was adopted.
It referred to the present critical position of the
affairs of the undertaking, but expressed a hope
that all obstacles to the full and active resumption
of the whole of the unfinished works may be re-
moved without much further delay. The works
have been inspected by two engineers,
.who regard
them as wise in conception, economically con-
structed (with certain exceptions), and likely to
become remuneyetiye.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON
SUNDAY.

On Thursday a deputation from the Central Associa•
tion for Stopping the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on
, Sunday waited upon the Home Secretary, the Right Hon.
1-I. A. Bruce. Amongst those present were Archbishop
Manning, Mr. Bazley, M.P., the Rev. J. A. Stowell,
Manchester ; Mr. B. Whitworth, Mr. Jacob
Bright, M.P., Mr. Thomas Barlow, Bolton ; Mr.
H. B. Roberts, Mr. J. Hawking; secretary Claremont
Sunday Schools, Islington ; the Rev. F. W. Brown, New-
castle ; Rev. J. Reid, Moderator of the Presbyterian
Church in England ; Mr. G. Blakly, United Kingdom
Baud of Hope Union ; Rev. J. C. Patterson, Man-
ohester ; Rev. J. M. Ross, Manchester ; Mr. J.
O'Cullahan, Rev. Dr. Fisher, Rev. Dawson Burns,
Mr. W. Hoyle, Mr.. W. Hitchcock, Dr. Martin War-
rington, Rev. G. 11/... Macree, Mr. W. I'. Palmer, Mr.
llowmond, Mr. G. Dibley, Mr. J. Andrews, and the Rev.
J. G. Murray. The members of the deptuation assembled
at the Westminster Palace Hotel prior to rroe—fling to
the Hoi. )11ice. A letter was read from Mr. .
M.P., which stated that the writer regretted that he could
not attend the deputation in the objects sought to be ob-
tained but in which he believed he concurred. A letter
from Mr. Cawley, M.P., to the same effect, was
also read. At this preliminary meeting a me-
morial to the Home Secretary was adopted. This
document asserted - that the stopping of the'.sale of
intoxicating liquors on the Lord's Day would• be in
accordance with the wishes of a great majority, of the
people of this country. Their feeling on this point had
been tested not only in large public meetings (such as
those in the Guildhall, held under the presidency of the
Lord Mayor, and in the Manchester Town Hall,nnder the
presidency of the Mayor), held in twenty or thirty of the
chief cities and towns in the kingdom ; but also by a very
general canvass instituted from hOuse to house in more
than 200 towns and Rillages in various parts-of the country
—the grcss result ofqvhich was as follows

In favour of closing on Sunday. Against. Neutral.
England 291,643
N. Wales - - 31,964
S. Wales 23 267 -
, 899 , 96

Total
346,874 - 37,483
A separate canvass of employers of labour and of work-
shops gave s!roilar results. It was, therefore, prayed that
the Government would introduce a bill into Parliament,
prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors (except to
travellers) during the twenty-four hours of the Lord's
Day.

Mr. BAILEY, M.P., introduced the deputation, and
called upon Mr. Robert 'Whitworth to present the memo-
rial referred to above.
The Rev. Mr. STOWELL intimated that the only object
the deputation had in view was to stop the sale of liquors
on Sunday. Many of those present were not connected
with temperance societies, but they all felt that' it was not
necessary that public-houses should be open on Sunday
except for the convenience of travellers. If the working
classes required beer on Sundays, they could obtain it on
the Saturday. The fact was, that to a large extent the
proposed alteration in the law had the approval of the
working classes.
Archbishop MANNING contended that the efforts made
to prevent drunkenness by moral persuasion would be
much more successful if the traffic in drink on Sunday
was not legalised. What had been done with perfect
success in Scotland was an evidence that the will of the
people would be with the promoters of the present move-
ment ; the mass of the working men and their wives
desired that the temptation to drink on the Sabbath
should be withdrawn. Publicans, too, desired to have one
day's rest in the week. The disease of drunkenness was
On the increase, and a terrible harvest would be reaped.if
steps we taken to prevent it. If impossible
to obtain Obligatory Act, let the will of the people
be tested by the passing of a Permissive Act for large
towns. •

Dr.' MARTIN, ate a medical man, had come to the conclu-
sion that unless something could be done to stem the tide
of drunkenness, but little good could be effected in the
direction of Sunday improvement. Nothing would tend
so much to the preservation of the health of the working
classes as the closing of the public-houses from twelve
o'clock on Saturday night until eight o'clock on Monday
morning.

After a few remarks on the prevalence of drunkenness
amongst juveniles from the Rev. G. W. MACRE;

The lloatF. SECRETARY replied, expressing his gratifica-
tion at having heard the remarks advanced by the mem-
bers of the deputation. He trusted that if his answer
was not entirely satisfactory they would not understand
that he intended for a single moment to throw s doubt
upon the statement that drunkenness was a great
eril, and was the cause of very many crimes. This
however, did not settle the question. 'there were
those in the country who thought that if it could be proved
that a great evil existed, and was productive of disastrous
consequences, it ought to be crushed by the strong hand
of the law. Public-houses, it was contended, were the
sources of such !unmitigated and widespread evil that
Parliament ought to be called upon to inter-
fere and put an end to them. But, he would
ask, if such a state of things were possible in
the present state of opinion in this country. It was
time that the deputation asked not that the public houses
should be entirely done away with, but only that they
should be compelled to close on Sundays. The principle,
however, was the same in both cases. It could not be
denied that it was the duty of a Christian Legislature to
see that as far as possible the Sabbath should be properly
observed, and they would admit that much had.been done
in this direction ; and that as regarded public-houses
there was a great difference between Sunday and other
Says. The matter now brought forward had been referred
;c1 a select committee, and a report had been adopted by
them which was opposed to the views of the deputation.
Mr. Bruce continued that though it would be impossible for
him to promise that anything could be done inParliamentthis
year he:might assure them that if it was at all consistent
with the concurrent claims of other subjects, the question
of licensing generally would be dealt with by her
Majesty's Ministers, and if they could not see
their way to pass entirely preventive measures,
'lley would do what they could to regulate
that system and make the best efforts to guard against its
abuse. Admitting that the evils of drunkenness were
vreat, he (the Home Secretary) was not prepared to admit
all the consequences which were stated to follow from it.
flee of the speakers (Dr. Martin) had referred
:o the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland. No
doubt it had worked well in many respects, but still
the fact remained that last year the number of deaths in
Glasgow was at a higher rate than in Birmingham. He
-was himself inclined to doubt if there was apparent in
Scotland any greater improvement than that which pro-
-ceded from the general improvement of the people
throughout the country. Nor did he believe that drun-
kenness had increased, in proof of which he
invited a comparison of the aspect of the streets
a the present day with that which they presented
sorty or fifty years ago. Much of the crime which still
was prevalent was due to other causes than drunkenness.
The Home Secretary concluded by saying that the only
legislation that would be possible would be such as was
supported by Parliament and the desire of the people.
That desire was in favour of the suppression of
drunkenness, but he was doubtful if it went
further. He would also remind them that public-houses
were the only resorts of large numbers of the working
classes who lived in lodgings, and had no comfortable
homes. If public-houses were to be clotted; ther'ensust go
band in hand with the movement another for prOviding
suitable places of resort fox the working man. All these
were matters which would have to be well Weighed, and he
could do no more than say that the members of the Cabi-

net would be quite ready to attempt anything that could
be reasonably done to prevent drunkenness.

A Cabinet Council will be held at the official resi-
dence of the First Lorl of the Treasury, Downing-street, on
Saturday.

The Church Estates Commissioners hairc issued their
.nnual report.. They have, 'ender the provisions of
The 6th and 7th sections of the Act, transfet4ettio the Eccle-
siastical Cornmisaioners for England during the pitstyear a sum
of £70,000 in respect of the surplus proceeds of enfranchise-
ments completed. The aggregate amount which has been
paid over or transferred to the account of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners is now £1,400,207 2s. 2d., in addition to
£170,000 in respect of interest which has accrued on the
surplus.

An account of the receipts and disbursements of
;ho Duchy of Lancaster in the year ended 21st December,
1868 ; also a separate account of the capital of the said
duchy, to the same date, has just been issued. The re-
ceipts wero £46,785, and there was cash at bankers' on 21st
December last, amounting to £3,695. The payments in_
elude £28,500 for her Majesty's use, rad £13,737 ordinary
charges, salaries, improvements, ezc. The capital account
shows— stock, £31,350, and cash £2,040. A sum of £857
has been outlaid on the estates.

The Lords Justices bad before them on Thursday
the case of the Credit Fonder and Mobilier of England v.
the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, in which
an appeal was made against the refusal of Vice-Chancellor
Stuart to give leave to the Credit Fonder and Mobilier of
England to file a bill against the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway Company to recover' X 200,000 which
the former company had given for debentures issued by
the latter company on the security of theeastern section
undertaking. Their lordships granted leave to file a bill,
on the Credit Foncier undertaking not to proceed against
the company under any decree they might obtain in the pro-
posed suit, and not to issue any execution ageing t)49s9ra-
*QV thi tact.
, -

SPIRIT DE' THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

The Times affirms that flimsiness relieved with spangles
—the difinition of .a Columbine's skirt—is a too apt
description of Mr. Disraeli's speech on Thursday night.
It was a great occasion. He began by reminding the
House of Commons that the First Minister of the Crown
had himself declared, in introducing the Irish Church Bill,
that no more gigantic issue had ever been presented to the
deliberation of a free Parliament. But how did Mr.
Disraeli rise to the altitude of the occasion? He
diverged at the outset into philosophy; and while
we freely acknowledge that Mr. Disraeli's fun is
exquisite, his philosophy is simply detestable. English
Tory members, and still more the excellent Protestants
of Ireland, were simply puzzled and indignant at the
use of arguments which appeared to them to abandon
all their strong positions, and to rest the case they rely
upon as sacred upon pleas' which they themselves feel tc
he merely fantastical. What they wanted were good
rousing denunciations of Papists and the Ministry, oppor.
tunities for outbursts of Kentish fire ; and Nvliat did they
get? Mr. Disraeli was laboriously cii it to the Roman
Catholics. He was deferential to the forthcoming
(Ecumenical Council. In a word, he was, though some•
what dull and laboured on the whole, yet to a perfectly
unconcerned auditor occasionally vivacious; but to the
men at his back, whose life and soul were in the matter in
hand, wholly incomprehensible and disappointing.
Mr. Disraeli's speech was entirely _ consistent with the
avoidance of a division on a second reading. Of some of
his most prominent friends and allies it may be said that
they cannot with any consistency support a direct negative
to the bill. They have acknowledged the necessity of
change. They have confessed that the change must
divest the Irish I.:stablishment of a, sensible portion of its
property. In a word, they have admitted the principle
of the Ministerial bill. It is to little purpose to discuss
minutely a course of action which must be fully determined
on Tuesday, but one thing might be deduced with toler-
able certainty from the argument of Mr. Disraeli on. Thur-
sday, that in his opinion the issue is already decided.
The Daily News declares that Mr. Disraeli's speech on
Thursday evening was made under very dispiriting cir-
cumstances, And was itself practically a confession of
defeat. Like Falstaff, the leader of the Opposition has
"led his rigamuffins where they will be peppered," and
he is conscious that lie and they are, intellectually, only
food for powder. The spectacle of a good man strug-
gling with adversity is said to have been the sight of all
others most grateful to the gods. The spectacle pre-
sented on Thursday night of a party leader contending
gallantly against overwhelming numbers and yet more
overwhelming arguments has an interest and a
pathos of its own which makes the beholder forget for the
Moment that Mr. Disraeli has with his own hands dug the
pit in which he is now floundering, and has himself woven
the net in which he is immeshed. The leader of the Oppo-
sition commenced his speech on Thursday evening with a
dignified moderation of tone which suited the situation.
He appealed to the House of Commons to display the
self-control and the forbearance which fitted the gigantic
issue which was brought before it. The reference he made
to the other gigantic issue, which was decided in a different
temper two centuries ago, was, perhaps, conceived in that
vein of exaggeration and of strained historic analogy to
which he is prone, and of which his allusion a year ago to
the Dutch conquest of England was an example. Mr.
Disraeli was, however, in the main, true to his word ; and
he creditably abstained from those coarse incentives tc
sectarian fanaticism to which, twelve months ago, he
made a frantic, but happily a vain, appeal. As to Mr.
Disraeli's alarms for the Church Established in England,
and for the security of private property, if the present bill
should become law, they are the commonplaces of alarmist
eloquence. No one would be more amused than he at the,
simplicity which should take his rhetoric for logic.
The Standard considers that Mr. Disraeli's speech on
Thursday night is likely to exercise an important influence,
on the future course of the debates on the Church Spolia-
tion Bill. Its studied moderation will do much to avert
what we have always considered as one of the most serious
of the incidental dangers attending the discussion of a
measure appealing so forcibly to the worst passions of one
part of the community, snd involving so deeply the
strongest feelings and highest interests of all. No
one questions Mr. Disraeli's possession of all the
qualities of a great orator; and no great orator
could fail to discern the opportunities which the
occasion afforded for those bursts of fervid eloquence
and concentrated passion which the subject appeared
almost to deniand. If he abstained from these, it was
'because the responsibilities of the statesman outweighed
the instincts of the orator, and warned him to sacrifice to
permanent and public interests the opportunity of a great
personal and party triumph. If, hereafter, the discus.
sion be restrained within the bounds of parliamentary
decorum and constitutional safety,
.the . restraint will
be chiefly due to the self-denial of the Conservative
leader. No speech yet made has contributed more to
the clear and distinct apprehension of the nature and
merits •of the issue or of the character and conse
quences of the bill.

The Post observes that a debate has commenced in the.
House of Commons which, considering the magnitude of
the issue involved, will be second in importance to none
that have taken place in Parliament for many years past.
The result may possibly be predicted with no little cer-
tainty, but this, which under ordinary circumstances
diminishes the interest felt in a contest, rather enhances
that which attaches to the pending contest over the Irish
Church. Party feeling, however intense it may be, seldom
equals the feeling of antagonism between two rival sects

of Christians, and in the issue now raised it so happens
that there are at present all the elementsboth of political and
religious strife. Pursuant to notice, the leader of the Oppo-
sition moved what, according to the rules.of parliamentary
procedure, amounted to the rejection of the bill. The task
was one which by right devolved on him, and perhaps it
is needless to say that it was discharged with ability.
But, having said this, we fear we can add nothing more
in praise of Mr. Disraeli's speech against the second
reading of the Irish Church Bill. In his exordium he
recognised the magnitude of the issue, and he deprecated-
any censure at the hands of those who differed from him
in creed if, in the heat of debate, he should say anything
to wound their' religious susceptibilities. A good many
years ago Mr. Disraeli addressed to the House of Commons,
on an analogous subject, a speech which will be recollected
and quoted years after that of Thursday night is forgotten,
and as we listened to him we could not help thinking that
he was looking back with regret on that happier time
when, unfettered by official trammels or party bonds, he
was enabled t., give free utterance to his thoughts on the
trrievances of the Irish people.

The Star thinks that Mr. Disraeli deserves credit
for sticking to his text, and his fidelity is the more
honourable to him. because his text is so empty and
absurd. On Thursday night the House of Commons lis-
tened with great attention while the leader of the expatiatedOpposi-
on the beauties of his State
Church onceurcht again
heory,and perhaps the occasion gained in general
interest because many heard for the first time some of
those wonderful utterances which in the solemn guise of
type are apt to seem nearly incredible. The old common-
places were solemnly trotted out. The House was told
how the State derived its highest sanctions from
religiOn, and how the Church undertook some of
the highest functions of the State. The country Was
invite to enjoy a retrospect in which our forefathers won
regulated freedom and set the fashion of temperate reli-
gion. Complete political liberty combined with order,
complete religious liberty united with a national faith—
these are the myths of Mr. Disraeli's worship. T 1
familiar State-Church argument may be said to have coin,
posed the solid pudding of Mr. Disraeli's discourse ; but
there were several plums in it, and, on the whole, his
•-!ookery was much more successful and appetising than on
some recent occasions of like importance. Amongst these
we must reckon the delicate distinction which this acute
critic of vituperative diction established between spoliation
and confiscation. It is reassuring to hear Mr. Gladstone
acquitted on such authority of spoliation.

The Herald asserts that Mr. Disraeli's speech, which
created in Mr. Chichester Fortescue's bosom a mingled
feeling of admiration and regret, was not merely one of
the finest oratorical performances upon that noblest of
all theatres the English House of Commons, it was a
great argument for English liberties, and a keen, and, as
we venture to think, an unanswerable criticism of the pro-
visions of the Government measure. The perfect art of
the speech, looked at apart from the question of agreement
or opposition to the right hon. gentleman's views, will
be umversally admitted. The attention of the House
never flagged as the leader of the Opposition passed from
passages of vigorous eloquence to the most laughter-pro-
voking sallies and the closest argument. The composition
of the speech was admirable. rihere was no sluvenlines%
about the work, everything was done ad unguem. The
balance of each sentence, the happiness of each epigram,
the rich humour of each stroke of satire—every one pF
them; it must be noted, most carefully divested of any.
thing like personal or more party feeling, and the
loftiness and force of the peroration, make it one of
the very Soot orations ever addressed 'to the House of
Commons.

The Telegraph says that Mr. Disraeli, defending the
Irish Church, was in a position essentially dramatic.
It is now a quarter of a century—the phrase smacks of
the stage—since the not then distinguished gentleman
addressed the House of Commons on the same questior.
It was in the year 1844, and the speaker was still a member
of the Conservative party, still a nominal follower of S,r
Robert Peel. He has since that date referred to his speec
as containing in parts some " heedless rhetoric ." but we
would not hear his enemy say so, nor shall we do our
ears such violence to make them trusters of his ow.,
report against himself." The speech was not heedless ;
it was statesmanlike and unimpassioned, pointing out the
evils of Irish society in phrases fitting, forcible, and. just. Not that we mean to underrate the ability o.!
Mr. Disraeli's work. Whatever we may say of the argu-
ments themselves, their arrangement and delivery wet.•
distinguished by an amount of vigour, tact, and courage
which will render the speech remarkable even among th., most successful essays of the right honourable gentleman.
It put some of his peculiar views on Church and State
with great felicity and force, and there were touches o!
humour that would have redeemed even a dull oratory.
But we fancy that any true Churchman who was present
must have exclaimed Save us from our friends i" as he
heard the-Protestant leader declare that the future danger
was lest "religion" shotdd be too "strong ;" for, if the
State and religion came hereafter into conflict, religion was
likely to be " wrong." Therefore the sphere of religion is
to be " contracted ,• ' therefore the clergy are to be kept in
relation to the • State, otherwise they will be k 444
witgaititilwato.
•