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

LOIVDOOI, FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1869.

The oddest effect was produced last night in the
House of Commons, by the (in many respects) bril-
liant and effective speech in which the Second Read-
ing of the Irish Church Bill was opposed by the ex-
Premier as Leader of her MAJESTY'S Opposition. It
was in many respects, as we have said, brilliant, and
it was often very effective. Bat—it was inappro-
priate to the occasion. As a piece of radiant and
even riant " persiflage," it was repeatedly delightful.
It was never once—during the two hours and ten
minutes occupied by its delivery—dull. It wa,

throughout exhilarating— frequently exciting laughter
(not against the speaker, observe, although he was
all along speaking in such a peculiarly false position
not against him but with him) now and then, even.
producing roars of laughter from both sides of
the House. But in that fact was observable,
of course, its extraordinary incongruity. A
facetious speech—to oppose so great a measure ! A
speech, repeatedly of the drollest character, with
which withstand what Mr. DISRAELI is denouncing
all the while as an act of flagrant confiscation ! It
was certainly carrying off the grievance with a cool
hand. It was most assuredly making light of what
so many of his supporters regard, and denounce, asa
monstrous wrong. It was putting the best face upon

it—jesting, thus, rather than dancing over an earth-
quake. Nevertheless, in spite of its inappropriate
character, in spite of its incongruity—it was, per-
haps, after all, the only way in which Mr.
DISRAELI could have been reasonably expected
to deal with the matter at all under the
circumstances. To Mr. GATITORNE HARDY must be

left more fittingly the denunciation—with impassioned
fervour, and in the language of sternly virtuous in-
diguation—of what he, and Conservative members
Who think with him, conscientiously believe in their in-
nermost heart and soul, to be a proposal of the most
revolutionary character to despoil the Irish Church of
its property,:to the end of appropriating the surplus

'ends derivable from their sale to what the member

for Oxford University with others who think like
him, regard as secular uses. As for Mr. DISRAELI
himself—the Opposition to the Government Bill had,
as a matter of course, to be led by him—because
of the simple fact of his being the Leader of the
Opposition. As ex-Premier, as Chief of the Party,
he could do no otherwise. But, while constrained
thus to stand forth as the principal champion of those

who are earnestly and resolutely in favour of the
maintenance intact of the union of Church and State,

Mr. DISRAELI could not but speak within his own vivid
recollection, and within the vivid recollection also of
very many of those who heard him last evening, of
having himself, just, one quarter of a century ago,
spoken exactly on the opposite side—namely
as the independent and almost isolated de-
nouncer of that very Irish Church which
he was then and there, yesterday, eulogizing as an
institution that ought to be preserved. His words
of five-and-twenty years ago he referred to but a few
months since—it was in the course of last session—as
so much "heedless rhetoric." lie spoke then, in 1844,
from below the gangway. He was a nominal supporter
at the time of Sir ROBERT PEEL, but a supporter of
that great statesman, in the fullest sense of the term
(as Sir ROBERT himself found out soon afterwards)
thoroughly independent. Nobody seemed then to
listen to him-- as he himself remarked only last year
when referring to the subject. Everybody listened
to him last evening in a densely crowded house'
as he stood there—not as he stood twenty-
five years ago as a comparative obscure
member, certainly an unheeded member, as he has
himself said, speaking from below the gangway, but—
addressing himself to the House of Commons as one
who bad thrice led it, as one who had been for ten
months himself the First Minister of the Crown, as
one still occupying only the second place in that
august assembly by right of his recognized
position as ex-Prime Minister of England and as
Leader of the Conservative or Constitutional Oppo-
sition. So addressing himself to the House last
night, Mr. DISRAELI relieved himself from the awk-
wardness of the position he so very conspicuously
occupied, as the vindicator and upholder of the very
institution he had formerly denounced, by comment-
ing upon the Bill and its probable consequences in as
humorous a speech as he has ever yet delivered. It
was a speech not full of irony, like so many other of
his celebrated orations in Parliament, but running
over with the richest and raciest humour. It was
impossible to help laughing at him, or rather with
him, as he delineated that most delightful
companion in the world, the Irish gentleman with-
out any property. Listening to him as he touched
off the portraiture with the merest inflexions of his
voice, with the merest movement of his eyebrows,
his shoulders, his hands, people chuckled, shook their
sides, suppressed their laughter, so that they might
not lose a word, and then, at the close of it, fairly
roared with merriment. Time and again Mr DISRAELI
appealed thus to the risibility of his audience, who
for the life of them, nevertheless, could not help, each
time, on recovering from their fits of laughter, asking
themselves—Vas this the vindication of the main-
tenance intact of the union of Church and State ?
Was this the denunciation of the Irish Church Bill
as a- gigantic attack upon one of the great
fundamental principles lying at the very root of the
Constitution? Such as it was, however—that speech
of Mr. DISRAELI'S-it was inimitable. It was lis-
tened to throughout with breathless attention, and
will long be remembered as among his oratorical
masterpieces. But it affects the cause at issue in no
way whatever. It leaves the measure now before the
House—untouched—unflawed—scathless.

LORD SHAFTESBURY'S bill for the regulation of
ecclesiastical law procedures is a comprehensive but
moderate measure, and is likely to form part of the
successful legislation of the year. It embodies all
that is necessary to place the laws affecting the
discipline of the clergy on a better footing, and
yet the task undertaken is chiefly one of con-
solidation. The changes made are comparatively

few, and only such as have been found absolutely ne-
cessary. The ecclesiastical tribunals will remain

substantially the same as at present, and will preserve
jurisdiction over the same class of offences. The
diocesan courts are to be presided over by
the bishop, and, subordinately, his chancellor
—the law officer appointed by an Act
of llms-ny VIII.'s reign to assist the bishop
in questions of ecclesiastical law. These dio-
cesan courts will retain the same jurisdiction as at
present. They will retain their power of deciding
matter-of-fact questions affecting tithes, the payment
of ecclesiastical dues to the clergy, spoliation—unjustly
taking the benefice of one incumbent and conferring it
upon another, dilapidation of church buildings, and
all charges against clergymen of immorality or other
breaches of the ecclesiastical law. Besides these dio-
cesan tribunals, there are the courts of the Provinces
of Cbl T and York, to which appeal can be
made on etrheurequest of the bishop. The provincial
courts will have full jurisdiction to revise the deci-
sions of the diocesan tribunals, and they will be pre-
sided over 14 the Archbishops ; but the Act makes a