The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-31 00:00:00

Upon the Irish Church Question the issue is dis-
tinct enough. But after that—the Deluge! After
that—the disintegration of political parties as they
are at present, and the formation of new combina-
tions after that inevitable disintegration ! But even
as things are now in reference to that great, broad,
solid alternative as to the disestablishment and disco-
e ndo wment, or the maintenance still in a modified form,
of the Irish Church, we have no sufficient guarantee,
that that is a question that may not, in the possibili-
ties, be evaded by some consummate piece of dexterity
on the part of the present Prime. Minister. There is
a talk, for example, of his probably evading the
necessity of resigning office--no matter what the
extent of the nominal majority against him on the
assembling of the new Parliament—by the fore-
shadowing in the Speech from the Throne of so large
a measure of reform in regard to the Irish Land
Question that the Ministry proposing it could hardly,
upon the instant of introducing a remedial measure
such as that for Ireland, be doomed by a point blank
vote of want of confidence. Knowing that these are
(to say the least of them) among the possibilities in
the immediate future, we cannot but reiterate
the remark with which we commenced that
when considered apart from the Irish Church Ques-
tion, the alternative now before the country, and
afterwards, upon the decision of the country, about
to be brought directly before Parliament, or, more
strictly speaking, before the House of Commons,
is, after all, not so clear, is, after all, not so easily
definable as upon the first blush the superficial ob-
server might have been inclined to suppose.
Whatever may be the numerical majority won by
Mr. GLADSTONE, whatever may be the minority
in which Mr. DISRAELI may find himself—the result
will have to be decided afterwards. It will have to
be decided, in other words, not so much upon the
hustings as upon the floor of the House of
Commons. " When Greek meets Greek, then comes
the tug of war." When the two foremost men in
England among our statesmen, again confront each
other from either side of that substantial table
intervening between the Treasury bench and
the front bench of the Opposition then
will come, but not until then will come, the decision
to be arrived at. What that decision will be must
remain problematical even after the returns have
shown the enormous preponderance, in all human
likelihood, on the side of Mr. GLADSTONE as Leader
of the Opposition. Even supposing him to have that
preponderance, numerically, to the extraordinary
extent now anticipated by the more sanguine
among his supporters, namely, to the extent of his
obtaining a clear majority of over 200—the imme-
diate acquisition by him of power cannot even then
be looked upon as a foregone conclusion. Possession
is nine; points of the law. And with a Master Tacti-
tian like Mr. DISRAELLI actually in power w hen
Parliament meets—prepared for every emergency--
endowed with a'genius for finesse that has never been
surpassed—himself individually prepared to make any
concessions that may be deemed inevitable to meet the
requirements of the age—cunning of fence and per-
fect in temper—it by no means follows that, because
numbers happened to be against him, he may not still
contrive to solve in his own way the Irish difficulty,
ani to retain still within his own grasp the respon-
sibility of conducting the QUEEN'S Government.

IN the multitude of counsellors there is perplexity.
If Mr. DISItAELI had known that the good PRIMATE
who has just been taken from us was so near his end,
the Premier would have been the heartiest to offer
up prayers for his Grace's recovery. As it is, he is
called upon to make an appointment of all
others the most difficult, of all others the
most certain to displease a large number of persons,
and that on the eve of a general election. He might
have had the filling of the whole bench of judges—he
and Lord DERBY have pretty nearly had that already—
and no one outside the Inns of Court and West-
minster would have cared. No one would have any
thought of giving or withholding a vote in consequence.
Ask the first dozen men you meet, who is the Chief
Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who is the
Lord Chief Baron, and they will tell you that they
don't know and clip% care. Ask a hundred
persons in succession the names and the politics
of the last six judges who have received
the ermine, and you will get no answer.
But when a bishop has to be appointed
every one is on the qui vine, every one is personally
interested. The organ of the City gives the
Premier excellent advice, and tells him to choose
the best man. The organ of the Philistines is a little
more explicit, and tells him that in the opinion of the
said organ one bishop who is named will not do, and
another, also named, will do. The organ of the publi-
cans is very precise indeed. It runs through the whole
episcopate, and in an article which shews a familiarity
with the bishops and their words and deeds which many
a cleric might envy, two-thirds of the prelates are first
of all eliminated, and the rest are then discussed one
by one. Victuallers and Premier are warned against
the awful consequences of appointing this man.
Victuallers and Premier are told of the blessings in
store for them if that other man be chosen. The
Times admires the late Primate as one who
had the art of never interfering more than
was absolutely necessary, and who owed his
promotion to that quality; the Advertiser declares
that if a second Dr. LONGLEY be appointed, there
will in ten years be no English Church left to dis-
establish. The Daily Telegraph selects Dr. TAIT as the
best possible selection ; the Advertiser declares that
such a choice would be fatal to the Church. The
Standard describes an ideally perfect man as the one
whom the Premier means to select ; and we most
sincerely say, we wish he may get him.
Why all this anxiety ? Why this superabundance
of advice ? Even the most devout believer in the doc-
trine of Italia eeeksia sine episcopo never supposed that
the existence of the English Church depended upon
the precise views of any particular bishop, even though
he were metropolitan. We have had Archbishop
SUMNER, and we have had Archbishop LONGLEY :
the one a kind-hearted, amiable Low Churchman ;
the other a kind-hearted, amiable High Churchman.
Both made excellent archbishops, in spite of the low
churchmanship of the one and the high church-
manship of the other. Neither has left any
permanent mark on the Church, except so
far as the Lambeth Conference may be said
to have done so. Neither has been able with all
his urbanity, to prevent partisanship within the
Church from becoming more bitter every year.
Neither has been able to postpone by a clay the dis-
ruption that we conceive is inevitable and not distant.
A partisan bishop might have hastened it, perhaps,
by an act of intolerance. The Advertiser's favourite
bishop, Dr. BARING, or Dr. IVALDEGRAVE, or Dr.
LEE, would certainly accelerate it by a few years.
But, after all, the impending event is due rather
to the great body of the Church, both lay and cleric; is
due to that stern conflict between authority and inquiry
which began to be fought at the Reformation,
which has to be fought out now to the bitter end,
though, thank GOD, without the accompaniment of
the rack and the stake. Hitherto the battle has been
waged upon a minor issue—the issue as to whether
the Church or the Book shall be considered the in-
fallible guide,
The real question its, has England any