The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-17 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

rHIS DAY.—Morning, 96. 47m.—Afternoon, 10h. 25m.
ro-Mcautow.-Morning, 11h. 3m.—Afternoon, 11h. 35m.

-
4111:1!
nt fr
't):114% 41114
46-'\

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1868.

A great public meeting was held last evening in
St. James's Hall. It was in connection with the
National Reform Union. Earl RUSSELL was in the
chair, and delivered a long address, which appeared
to give general satisfaction. Every one knows that
the noble lord is an adept in the art of speech-
making, and can always contrive to make the cause
he advocates appear at the time he takes it up to be
all that is popular and advantageous. Whether it
was quite the thing for Earl RUSSELL to come
forward in this way at St. James's Hall or not
must be left to himself and his friends
to settle, but the public must see that the whole
thing is a party move, and that the Irish Church
has come in most appropriately to take the place of
the Reform question, so long a stalking-horse for
power. We should have far greater faith in the
sincerity of conviction that animates these regene-
rators of Ireland if they had waited until the new
Parliament assembled in order to press the matter
forward, and had not been so determined to make
a party question of it. As it is, people may well
ask, why and wherefor are all these meetings and
assemblies convened, and why this breathless haste
to settle a grief so long in dispute, and concerning
which Earl RUSSELL himself had desired a commis-
sion of inquiry might be appointed ? Now he can-
not wait until its labours are concluded, but must
rush forthwith, at all hazards, to settle the thing
at once. Mr. GLADSTONE, the self-elected champion
of Ireland, was of course lauded to the echo,
and indeed it was averred that be should be fur-
nished with full powers to conclude and sign a
treaty of peace with the people of Ireland. This is
certainly a very unconstitutional mode of doing
things, and it seems strange that one who is such a
stickler for precedent s, as the noble lord has alway
shown himself to be, should not see this. The
House of Commons has not put Mr. GLADSTONE in
possession of the Premiership, and he has no right
to arrogate to himself the task of setting the affairs
of Ireland in order.

We cannot say that Lord RUSSELL was very suc-
ful in his attempt to justify Mr. GLADSTONE, for,
on the contrary, he admitted too much in trying to
explain. After entering at some length into
the question of his change of opinion re-
specting the subject during his career, he added
that " whatever ➢lr. GLADSTONE'S opinions were
he took great pains in forming them at the time,
and, when he had formed them, he avowed them
openly, and made no secret of them." It certainly
cannot be laid to the charge of the right hon. gen-
tleman that he has made any " secret" of his last
and greatest change of all, for he has only been too
ready in putting them before the House without
thought or reflection. It sounds very grand at a
meeting like that of last night for it to be said that
they may confide in the " integrity and sincerity of
Mr. GLADSTONE as a leader, and that, supported
by the people of England, he will lead them on to
victory, making a permanent peace between Eng-
land and Ireland ;" but if we come to analyze things
a little, we must see that it is somewhat
after the fashion of much ado about nothing.
No crisis called forth the right hon. gentleman, and
no combination of events has taken place to justify
him in adopting the extreme course of stepping out
of the comparative retirement of opposition into the
full glare and excitement of a great struggle for
supremacy, an encounter of a nature always to be
deplored, in which public questions of interest and
importance are mixed up with the bitterness of
party spirit and the jealous strife which attends
efforts for political aggrandisement. As an old-
fashioned man, and one well used to the old ways
of the Constitution, Earl RUSSELL is shocked
at the theories which have prevailed of
late, and condemns in toto the notion that
we should have for leaders men of no "settled
convictions and opinions," because thereby they
may be the more likely to follow anything that
may be started. Whether this is meant as a gentle
insinuation to the present occupants of the Trea-
sury Bench cannot be positively affirmed or not,
but the great advocates of the doctrines of finality
is anxious now to join heart and soul with the

disciples of the most extreme opinions.
Other speakers followed the noble chairman,
prominent among whom was Mr. MASON JONES.
He certainly had some claim to the merit of
energy and perseverance, for he informed
his hearers that for the last three
months he had been " every night addressing
thousands of his countrymen on this subject in all
the leading cities and towns of England." Mr.
JONES said that this Church question was no longer
one of statistics, but one of high principle; but he
unfortunately illustrated his meaning by declaring
that the country desired the QUEEN to dismiss from
office men " who had degraded the high art of
statesmanship into political jugglery, and who had
resorted to trick and expediency in order to main-
tain their place at the expense of their prin-
ciples, and that her MAJESTY should call
again to her council men who had statesmanlike
principles, and who had resigned office rather than
break their faith with the people." If such ranting
as this was acceptable to the assembly to whom it
was addressed, we do not think that Lord RUSSELL
consulted his own dignity by presiding over the
meeting which favoured such extravagant lan-
guage. But does not this fully prove the harm
that there is in mixing up matters of moment with
party struggles for power. Further on we find
Mr. VERNON lIARCOURT said that the present Go-
vernment was a party without a policy, and a leader
without a principle, resembling SA3ISON, not in his
strength, but in his blindness. Is this a suitable
style in which to converse when any great question
is before the public, still more when it is one relat-
ing to the Church ? How far -wiser and truer would
be that policy which looked to the result as regarded
the nation, and not to the particular advantages
that affected those who urged forward the measure.
It is a contradiction in terms to talk of unity and
conciliation, and then to give utterance to language