The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUbLIO JOURNAL

-
Mr. Gladstone's address strikes the Times as somewhat
feeble in composition, and not very weighty in argument.
But Mr. Gladstone, like Mr. Disraeli, has his difficulties.
Even were he willing to commit himself with a policy of a
bold and original character, it b
must be remembered that
has to deal with a constituency newly called into existence,
the representatives it has yet to choose, a Government
that may never be at all, and circumstances beyond
our present anticipation. The Parliament we are to
have in full work four months hence can only be guessed,
and the state of affairs may then be extraordinary.
Mr. Gladstone contents himself with a survey in which
one fact stands out prominent, and throws minor features
into insignificance. It is that the British people govern
themselves, and no man can say for them what they will
do. The numbers will demand legislation for the numbers,
and the numbers will carry the day. If a man is
to lead a party with the least hope of success, he
must do so with the figures before him, and count
heads out of doors before he comes to the test of
a division within. Mr. Disraeli, with the day of
trial only four months before him, has sounded the
trumpet-blast of "No surrender, no compromise," what-
ever the many may demand. The public, warned by
events, look not at the imposing front of Mr. Disraeli's
defences, but at theebscure flanks by which the position
may he relinquished for one safer or further off. Mr.
Gladstone could not do this. 'Whatever he promises is
accepted without reserve. He is not credited with a loop-
hole for escape. So there is nothing in his address from
which he is the least likely to withdraw. Respecting
the details of the address, the Times says it is
is not easy to see why Mr. Gladstone has re-opened the
question of Reform, and given it so much space in hie
address. A desire, natural as it may be, to pluck from
the Conservative Premier the only feather in his cap— the
security of personal rating—can hardly be thought
an adequate reason for inviting the new House of
Commons to begin at once to mend the constituency.
In the matter of primary education we are to infer that
Mr. Gladstone is prepared to make grants freely and
equally to all schools and all denominations upon the con-
dition that the scholar so assisted shall be taught some
religion or other. lie proposes equality, if it can be done,
and if religion do not slip through in the process. But
whether he offers it or not, the new British constituency
will take it themselves, and so dispose of the question. The
Irish policy of the Opposition has long been known.
If Mr. Gladstone had published his address a fortnight
ago, or even a day before that of the Premier was issued,
the Hercad would have said it was weak, tame, disin-
genuous, and a failure. But as he had a perfect right to
do, the Opposition leader preferred to wait and see what
Mr. Disraeli would say. Having held back, however, in
order to intercept the Conservative manifesto, it was
impossible to shirk it. Having pointedly awaited the
challenge, he was in a manner forced to accept it. Con.
sidered in this light, as the reply of the Opposition
leader to the manifesto of the Premier, it must be
admitted that Mr. Gladstone's failure assumes the
proportions of a catastrophe. So far as it deals with
the points raised by Mr. Disraeli the address is
characterised by evasiveness and inaccuracy. As regards
the Irish Church question, Mr. Gladstone attempts no
reply whatever. If Mr. Disraeli's allegations can be
answered, we submit that the leader of the Opposition
was bound to repel them, and that he could not afford
to allow them to pass unanswered. That he has care-
fully avoided them—that he does not even make
a single reference to the Church of England, to
Protestantism, or to Roman Catholicism, is, we
are bold to affirm, a convincing proof that he dares
not, because he cannot, grapple with the irrefragable
arguments with which the Premier has confronted him.
•With respect to education, Mr. Gladstone has said that
the schools are to afford religious teaching, but the State
is to take no cognisance of its character and tendency.
Each sect may obtain a grant for its schools and teach
religion in its own way, without any check or warrant
from the State. 'What does this amount to in Ireland?
That the education and religious training of the great
bulk of the youth of the country in the national schools
will be in the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The Standard says that with respect to the great ques-
tion of the day, the fate of the Established Church, we
find in Mr. Gladstone's address no word of apology for
convicted misstatements of fact ; no line of explanation,
no hinted guarantee, in regard to those questions on
which his Protestant supporters in Parliament vainly
strove to obtain some sort of security. But we have
the old sophistries repeated with the old confidence.
Again, we are told that a National Church should be
the Church of the nation—without an attempt to
meet the damaging inquiry whether the Irish people
be a separate nation, or part of the nation which
inhabits the United Kingdom. Again, the Protestants,
who settled in Ireland in reliance on the support of their
countrymen, who accepted the Union as a fresh guarantee
of that support, are treated not as the most loyal and
English portion of the population, but as a minority dis-
affected to Ireland, whose alienation from the religion and
sympathies of the majority is a reproach, and a reason fur
setting aside their rights and disregarding their wishes.
Again, we are told that the Church "misapplies funds
meant for the advantage of the (Irish) nation at
large," the truth being that nearly the whole of
these funds belong to, and were granted for, the
benefit of the Protestant Church and community.
As regards England, Mr. Gladstone has given in his co-
hesion to the advocates of secular education, and intimates
that the State should dissociate itself " from the teaching
of particular creeds in schools aided by grants from any
national fund." After having been the pioneers of national
education—having lavished money and labour thereon,
having made one concession after another to the demands
of the State—the clergy and the friends of religious educa-
tion are now to be thrown over, and their schools not
merely to be deprived of State aid, but to be exposed to
State competition. What is to he done with the funds of
the Irish Church Mr. Gladstone declines to say.

On the subject of education, the Daily News thinks Mr.
Gladstone speaks in terms which, though guarded as to
detail, are satisfactory in principle. The neutrality of the
State between various creeds in schools aided by the public
money, and the necessity of additional security for the
rights of conscience, are the guiding rules of educational
policy which Mr. Gladstone lays down. The country,
we believe, has made up its mind on them ; and though
Archdeacon Denison may protest, he may be left

quietly to the performance of that archidiaconal function.
With respect to the whole address, the Daily News
observes that it differs from Mr. Disraeli's in declaring a
policy, whilst the Premier's literary skill was directed to
the concealment of the fact that he had no policy to
declare. The nation has, therefore, to choose between
Mr. Gladstone's policy and Mr. Disraeli's perplexity,
between a master of statesmanship and a master of
phrases, between a consummate administrator and a
dexterous parliamentary manager, between a man of
earnest purpose and conviction and a man who, with
many high gifts, has never treated politics otherwise than
as a fascinating game of skill or a career of daring