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

~ ' ,
_i

031 r4:l A

iMt
AIL ,2,/:1/4

LONDON, 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, bril'iant, and
it was often very effective. Bat--it was inappro-
priate to the occasion. As a piece of radiant and
even riaa4 " persiflage," it was repeatedly delightful.
It was never once—during the two hours and ten
minutes occupied by its delivery—dull. It was

throughout exhilara-Cng— 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 !
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. GATIIORNE HARDY must be
left more fittingly the denunciation—with impassioned
fervour, and in the 1 tnguage 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
funds 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 o:

very many of those who beard 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." He 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. Fveryhody 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 had 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 bis recognized
position as ex-Prime Minister of England and as
Leader of the Conservative or Constitutional Oppo-
sition. So ad lressing 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 bad 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

heruselves—Was this the vindication of the main-
enance intact of the union of Church and State ?
Vas 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..DtsßAELl's—it was inimitable. It was lis-

,ened 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