The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-31 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 18G8.

The debate on the Irish Church began last night
in an appropriate style, and was carried on with
spirit throughout, Mr. HARDY moving the adjourn-
ment. If an abundance of words could convince or
overawe an assembly, Mr. GLADSTONE would cer-
tainly have succeeded to the utmost of his wishes,
but the far shorter speech of Lord STANLEY was
much more impressive, and greatly to the point.
Of course, Mr. GLADSTONE was sure to make an
impression on the House whatever he said, and
therefore the cheers which greeted his oration can-
not be taken as a sure sign that his arguments were
convincing and his exhortations fully successful.
The real objection to the propositions of the right
hon. gentleman is that he has chosen a very un-
fitting time for urging it forward. There is no
possible reason to give which can show the necessity
for adopting such a course now, and during his long
speech he certainly failed to justify himself
for so doing. Lord STANLEY remarked very truly
that " during the debate party-feeling would be
sure to run high, and every a`,tempt would be made
and every artifice employed to place upon a false
issue the question to be decided, therefore it is very
necessary to keep facts as plainly as possible before
us." We do not see how this very abstruse and
complicated matter could have been put before the
House better or more clearly than it was by Lord
STANLEY, and he was particularly impressive in
showing the absurdity of those who declared that
the Government should have met the Resolutions
with a direct negative. Another point of great im-
portance in the noble lord's speech was the decided
way in which he had dealt with the Resolutions
themselves, showing them to be very vague and
uncertain. It is true that Mr. GLADSTONE spoke out
rather more plainly in proposing them, but
then, as Lord STANLEY said, the House was not
called upon to discuss the speech of the right hon.
gentleman, but the Resolutions themselves as they
stood. In fact, as he put it, it " was preposterous
to call upon them to affirm a proposition which, so
worded and framed as that, those who support it
will not be able to agree as to what is the great
principle which they have been asserting, or the
practical result at which it is likely to arrive."
Disestablishment is not disendowment, and yet
Mr. GLADSTONE would infer that it is.

It is of consequence to notice that Lord STANLEY
did not stand forth as the unflinching advocate of
the present system as it stands, for, on the contrary,
he said, very decidedly, that not one educated per-
son in a hundred would contend that the Irish eccle-
siastical arrangements are satisfactory as they stand,
and that he certainly should not be that one; but that
is very different from affirming that it is exp3dient
or desirable at once to uproot the present system,
and at so inopportune a time too. Nothing shows
more clearly the undue haste which has actuated
Mr. GLADSTONE than the fact that he has not yet
had time or opportunity to complete his work, but
leaves it unfinished, and in the most abrupt man-
ner imaginable presents it to the scrutiny of the
House. The real perplexity of Parliament for the
last thirty years has been to settle what should be
done with the endowments if the present application
be altered, and yet the right hon. gentleman who
persists in pressing forward to enlighten the House
and edify the community, as if he felt the inspira-
tion of a second DANIEL coming to judgment upon
him, absolutely fails when he comes to this
part of the question. Well might Lord STAN-
LEY borrow Mr. COBDEN's famous query to
illustrate his meaning, and say, " What next, and
next ?" Supposing that the framers of the Resolu-
tions succeed in getting them into committee, and
for legislating this year ; that is physically impos-
sible, as all must know who have the least glimmer-
ing of Parliamentary knowledge. As for " pledging
the House," that is at all times a rash experiment,
but under the peculiar position of affairs that is at
present Freposterous. It is well known that a great
change is at band, and that the Parliament now
sitting must shortly cease to exist, and can never
have this question of the Irish Church to deal with.
They must remain for the work of a new Parlia-
ment, which will be elected by a greatly enlarged
constituency. " You are," exclaimed the noble
lord, " advocating a superfluous measure, designed
to secure an insignificant end." As for the
.argument that a dying Parliament can, like a dying
man, make a will, that is very effectively disposed
of by Lord STANLEY, when he says that a dying man
can only dispose of what is his own ; and the Le-
gislature of the future cannot be in the competence
of the present House to dispose.
As for Earl RUSSELL'S pamphlet, the noble lord
was very effective in his criticism of it, especially
the passage in which he shows how little faith the
Liberal Leader puts in the triumph of Liberal prin-
ciples when they are submitted to the judgment of