The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-05-26
The Irish Church Question.

The Irish Church Question.
The great debate in the British Parlia-
ment on the question of disestablishing the
Irish church, is thus described by Peter
Bayne in letter to the Watchman and
Reflector:
The parliamentary annals of the month
Just closed will be read with pride and sat,
isfaction by many generations of English
men. They contain the record of debate
so high in tone, so sustained in intellectual
power, so grand in result, that not since the
Long Parliament was still chewing its
mighty youth" has there been any thing like
it in England. Were to enter upon de-
scription or criticism of this debate as a
whole, I should soon exceed the limits of a
letter. [ shall refer to but four speeches
which stand out even from its elevated level,
those to wit, of Disraeh, Lowe, Gladstone
and Bright. The chief of the Tories, the
invincible, versatile, imperturbable Benja-
min Disraeli, spoke as, under the circum-
stances, no man in Europe but himself could
have spoken. Since Edipus proved one
too many for the Sphynx, never was man in
more puzzling predicament, and never did
man extricate himself better out of it
He had to defend the Irish church; and,
both in published volume and in famous
Grafton delivered in the House of Commons,
he had denounced that church as emphati-
cally as any living man, He had to con-
front the three greatest orators, and almost
the three greatest men in England, who sat
staring in his face on the bench opposite him,
and to maintain against them a thesis on
which, in his heart of hearts, his opinion
was the same as theirs. He had to speak
as would please the squires and the country
gentlemen, who, as chief of the Conserva-
tives, he leads, and yet he profoundly de-
spises their most cherished prejudices, their
most characteristic cackle. That good
speech, in any deep sense, could be pro-
duced on these conditions was impossible;
but who except Mr.. Disrael, who except
that Tory chief who has written the most
extravag antly brilliant books in the English
language, could have produced even splen-
didly worded and rhetorically effective
speech? That Mr.. Disraeli's was all this
and more, there can be no doubt. The lit
erary men who listened to it were in costa
sizes. Its lofty and solemn periods, its stately
illusions to that mystery of religion before
which, as insoluble, all right,minded men
of science pause, its vaguely alarming pro
nhecies of overthrow to the church of ENG.
land and disaster to the United Kingdom
its adroit and well aimed thrusts wherever
Mr.. Gladstone had left an opening in hi:
armor, impressed once more upon all men
the conviction, that a more dextrous, nimble
shifty and unconquerable genius than this
scion of the ancient Hebrew house of Dis
raeli has seldom appeared in this world.
Mr.. loves speech was not in all respects
unexceptionable 1t lacked breadth. 1t wa:
critical rather than comprehensive. But its
logic was penetrating and irresistible. As
he went over the speeches of his opponents,
you thought of carpenter, going with his
plane over surface of table spotted with
wine or ink, and so perfectly obliterating
every spot that the very places where they
were became undiscoverable Mr.. Gladstone
was clear, unimpassioned, convincing. De
had mastered the Irish question in all it;
principles and in all its details, and he in
spired his hearers with absolute confidence
in his power to deal with it. At every stage
of this Irish church business, both in Parlia
ment and beyond its walls, Mr.. Gladstone
has depended on the eloquence of reality,
Mr.. Disrael on the eloquence of phrase and
metaphor, and sonorous but hollow general
tiles; and it is to the credit of the British
public that Mr.. Disraeli's eloquence has
preceded defeat and Mr.. Gladstone's herald
ed victory. But of all the orators who wor
golden opinions in this debate, no one wor
them so conspicuously as Mr.. Bright, The
leaf gold of them will remain around hi;
brow as an enduring chaplet. When Mr.
Bright sat down, both Tories and Liberals
joined in applause, a mark Of distinction
accorded to no other speaker. Since he
spoke, the country has rung with praise o
his grafton, and | do not recollect any in
stance in which the terms of commentator
applied by journalists to speech uttered in
the House of Commons, were so enthusiastic
Yet it is not quite easy at first to see where
in so mighty spell resided. The speech
contained no argument which could be con
sidered new, no principle, no fact which ha(
not been previously mentioned. As you
examine it we'll however, you observe that il
is pervaded with spirit of religious earnest
ness which raises it out of the ordinary re
gion of parliamentary speeches. Toward
the end this swells and raises into glow Of
spiritual fervor, which would have been fell
to be impressive in the discourse of great
pulpit orator. Tie House of Commons has
no federation for religious cant; but Mr.
Bright is felt to be sincere, and there is a
peculiar manliness and intrepidity in his
style of thought and speech; and he can &C
cordingly adopt tone of religious appea
upon which no other statesman could ven
ture. When he spoke of true religion as
contrasted with the decorOus indifference