The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-03 00:00:00

CONCURRENT ENDOWMENT.

After the Duke of Argyll's explicit statement in
the House of Lords, even the Times ought to be con-
vinced that Mr. Gladstone, when he said that
he would not accept any form of concurrent
endowment, meant what he said, instead of the
exact opposite, as the leading journal implied in its
leader published the morning after the Mansion
House speech. But though the leading journal is
probably convinced, it will not confess that it has
been wrong, but now keeps silence. The Daily Tele-
graph, the Daily News, the Morning Star, naturally
enough, point to the Duke's speech as confirming their
interpretation of Mr. Gladstone's. Even the
Morning Advertiser, which believes that the Premier
is in partnership with the Pope, admits that "it
seems sufficiently clear from Mr. Gladstone's speech
at the Mansion House that he has made up his mind
not-to accept the amendment of the Duke of Cleve-
land should it be adopted for concurrent endow-
ment. We are glad," says the same paper with
unusual frankness, " that Mr. Gladstone lies
come to this resolution ; n.l we are sure the
entire country will share in our satisfaction. Mr.
Gladstone, in acting thus, will be doing so in perfect
consistency with what Le said in Parliament in its
closing session last year." The Standard cannot
make out any other meaning than that which its
contemporaries discover.

This -determination of the Premier, if it has not
originated in, must at least have been strengthened
by, what is now taking place in Ireland. The
correspondent Dublin of the Daily Telegraph states that
the sclietne of the Peers is repudiated by all parties.
The Episcopalians and Presbyterians most vehemently
object to the application of any of the national funds
to the purposes of the Roman Catholic religion,
while the clergy and people of the latter Church have
consistently disclaimed any desire for a State pro-
vision. The Evening Post, which is a faithful ex-
ponent of Catholic opinion, emphatically declares
that the Irish Catholics object to the proposed
amendments in the direction of concurrent endow-
ment as illusory, and to any plan of concur-
rent endowment as involving a breach, if
assented to by themselves, of national good faith.
Still more emphatic is the statement of the corre-
spondent of the Times itself. At the very time that
that journal was advocating concurrent endowment
as a wise and statesmanlike measure which had only
to be placed before the people in order to be ac-
cepted as the best solution of a long-vexed
question, the correspondent was writing—" The
proposal of ' concurrent endowment' is rejected
at every side here. The standing committee of the,
Church Conference met yesterday and passed reso-
lutions repudiating the policy of ' levelling up.
The Conservative Press condemns it, awl the Cork
Examiner,. expressing the feelings of the Roman
Catholic party, observes sow, the Catholics of
Ireland, ts it happens, have pronounced with all
possible distinctness and emphasis upon the question
of concurrent endowment, and their decision has
been not less adverse to it than that of the English
Nonconformists or Scottish Presbyterians.'"
It is highly important to Ministers that if this plan
is to be rejected the public sentiment against it
should be strongly and emphatically expressed.
The Conservative peers are clearly resolved to use
s and the ,amending the bill
athcceorpdoinT
twohictlhletilrieyolpvnossesviselovf
Govern-
ment will shortly have to encounter the
serious responsibility of advising the House of
Commons to reject the amendments of the Upper
House, at the risk of throwing over the bill to
another session, with an intermediate period of
popular excitement. Under these circumstances the
meeting of Nonconformists, in London, to protest
against the proposals of the Duke of Cleveland, and
other peers, is a matter of considerable significance.

MEETING OF PEERS.

The Times contains a rather vague announcement.

says :--

" We understand that a meeting of influential peers was
held on Thursday at the Duke of Cleveland's, to consider
the effect of the various amendments of the Irish Church
Bill now before the House of Lords, and to settle the
course of action most likely to render the bill effective for
the objects they have in view. These objects are believed
to refer to the composition of the new Church Body, the
clauses concerning which were postponed on Thursday
night, as well as to the amendment of which the Duke of
Cleveland has already given notice. The greatest unani-
mity prevailed as to the course to be pursued and the
particular amendments to be proposed. Lords Grey,
Russell, Westbury, and others are understood to have
waived their separate action to follow the lead of the
Duke of Cleveland."

Who the "influential peers" are is not quite clear,
nor whether they included the Conservatives. From
the omission of the names of any but Liberal lords,
it would appear not.

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE AND THE HIISIX
CHURCH BILL.

The Duke of Cambridge has brol.cen the neutrality
which he has hilerto been care:'ul to observe. In
the last division which took place in the house of
Lords on Thursday night, his Royal Highness voted
in favour of the Earl of Carnarvon's proposal, to
secure to the incumbents of the Ir!sh Church 14
years' purchase of their several life-interests.