The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-05 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, 111/1Y 5, 1868.

Mr. DISRAELI has acted wisely, and so the event
will prove. The crowth of members who thronged
the house yesterday afternoon were present at an
interesting and exciting scene, and it was also an
• important one in many respects. The situation of the
Government is somewhat peculiar, but we defy the
most captious critic, or the most jealous scrutineer
among his opponents, to say that the Premier has
acted in an unconstitutional manner, or shown any
anxiety to remain in office inconsistent with the
claims of honour or the rules of precedent. As Mr.
DISRAELI intimated to the House yesterday,
he placed his resignation in the hands of her
MAJESTY. It is satisfactory to know that the right
hon. gentleman has done this, though in reality he
was not called upon to do so, because such an act
silences the malicious insinuations of some who
ought to know better than to give utterance to
them. In a lengthened statement Mr. DISRAELI
explained to the llouse the state of affairs, and the
result of his information was pretty much what the
initiated expected from previous remarks on the
subject. I'Vhen we come to consider the matter
closely, we must come to the conclusion that it
is Mr. GLADSTONE who is the author of this
singular and somewhat unprecedented state
of affairs, and not Mr. DISRAELI. It is, therefore,
most unfair for the lealer of the Opposition and
his most vehement supporters to take the line of
argument they do, and to exclaim at the strange
turn events have taken. If any one reads the speech
of Mr. DISRAELI attentively through we believe
that he must feel convinced that the right hon.
gentleman has acted in a manner the most becom-
ing and the most patriotic. A Minister has duties
to perform, and sometimes it may be more hard to
remain in office than to resign. We cannot see
that there was any reason why the Ministry should
resign, and as for a dissolution it must be evident
that such an event could not in reality interfere
irregularly with the order of things. The consti-
tuencies have never been tried on this question of
the Irish Church, and it is worthy of notice that at
the last general election which took place under the
auspices of Lord PALMERSTON, Mr. GLADSTONE,
then leader of the House of Commons, declared to
one of his constituents that the question was so re-
mote that in his day he might never be called upon
to consider it. This shows the extreme inconsis-
tency of the course the right hon. gentleman is now
pursuing in upsetting the business of the 'louse,
disturbing the legislation of the year, and all for
what?—that the House may pronounce its opinion
upon a subject which it cannot possibly ever be
able to settle. Iu 1852, and again in 1859, as Mr.
DISRAELI stated last night, his party had resigned
office, notwithstanding many representations to the
contrary that were made to them ; still they deemed
it advisable to do so. But the present First Lord of
the Treasury, who had the decision left to him on
those occasions, feels very justly now that circum-
stances are altered.

One point of especial importance we would refer
to, and it bears directly on the resignation part of
the matter which some touched upon so strongly
yesterday. Mr. DusitAELl declared that he had
been told by many hon. members that they did not
look upon the decision of the 3d of April in the
light of a censure upon Government, though they
had voted in the majority; and no wonder they did
so, because it was not such a thing at all, and only
most partial and prejudiced minds could consider it
in that view. Nothing could be fairer than the
course Mr. DISRAELI has taken. He proposes to
give Mr. GLADSTONE the earliest possible night to
complete his Resolutions. As for the second and
third, though meeting them with a direct negative,
Mr. DISRAELI does not deem it advisable to enter
into protracted debates and formal divisions upon
them. It would ba much better to have the appeal