New-York tribune., 1869-04-16
MR.. DISRAELPS NEW POLICY.

|
him in the sad moonlight. Did not Mr.. Disraeli,
when, the other day. he addressed the meeting
of Conservative members of Parliament on the
future policy of the party feel that the review
of his troops was almost as shadowy, unreal,
and ghostlike thing as that which the German
poet imagined 7 Really, one is almost glad, or
at least relieved, to find that there is COnserva-
tive party still in England-that it has not
vanished into the companiOnship of the john
son party which used to have existence here.
But the banners, the symbols, the hope of the
party arc gone. The policy Of "No Surrender"
the only policy which could animate Tory
party ut all, has positively evapOrated under
the influence of the unparalleled and magnii-
cent majority which followed Mr.. Gladstone.
One can hardly believe that there was any
heart or hope in the meeting of Conserya-
tive members. cover 200," we are told, were
present, and the number Of Mr.. Gladstone's
actual majority was 11S!
Nor does the account we receive Of the pro-
ceedings at the great Conservative meeting
tend to throw an air Of reality over it. Mr..
Disraeli announced the amendments which his
party intend to propose and so far as the
Cable message allows us to understand them,
or guess at their meaning we can only say
| that some Of them are too insignificant to be
regarded as indorsng any policy whatever,
while others aim so directly at the very princi-
ple of Mr.. Gladstone's bill that Mr. Disraeli
canpot possibly have any hope of their adop-
tion. To propose, for instance, that grants
made to the Irish Church at any time since
the Reformation shall remain intact is to
propose to maintain that very principle OF en-
| dowment against which the Government meas
ure is directed. What is the fundamental idea
and doctrine of the bills Not mcrely-nOt at
| all, in fact-that the Established Church ought
TO be compelled to give up property which 1t
acquired before it could fairly claim to be
Protestant Church. The principle is, that what
Mr.. Dsraeli himself described as an alien
church-the church of very small
and foreign minority-Ought not to be
maintained out of the national property at
all State cndowmcnts made by William
| the Third are no whit less obnoxious to this
! principle than such endowments made by
| Henry the Eighth. "The application OF
large portion of the Church revenues to the
Support of public worship" is proposal open
| TO Just the same objection. 1t is direct at
tack upon the principle which was affirmed by
tho majority of 11S. Mr.. Disrael cannot hope to
carry it. There might be something more Of
chance for the effort to be made to have the
clauses of the bill which refer to the
Maynooth grant and the Regum Donum
struck out There are undoubtedly few Lib
erals, among the Scottish members especially,
who are ready to perpctrato any injustice at
the bidding of anybody where the MaynOoth
grant is concerned. The Maynooth grant lost
| 4 4: rIa
rendered it impossible for Thackeray when he
thlrsted for seat in Parliament, to accept the
| invitation of Scottish constituency. Some
few Liberals, therefore (the great WHALLEY
himself is n LiberaD, would beyond doubt be
sorcly tempted TO help Mr.. Disraeli in trying to
throw Maynooth ont of the compromise. But
there will hardly be wavercrs or rencgades
enough to impcril even the Maynooth clause in
the House Of Commons, although there might be
n sufficiently stiif fight made by the Tories on
that point to encourage the House of Lords
into mutating Mt least that portion of the
bill.
Certainly that is the only ono OF the amend
ments which seems 10 us to have any genuine
vitality or sincerity in il. But the Cable
message does not make 1t clear whether tho
proposal is TO strike out the Maynooth clauses
in order that Maynooth may be left without
| anything, or merely in order to compensate it
in some other way. When we speak of the
contemplated amendment as having some pos
sible vitality in it, we do so OH the assumption
that it is really meant as a No Popery blow.
| In this case it would indeed fail but
| it might in the Tory sense be worth
the trying. 1t is quite possible, however, that
L.. = al
to Maynooth from being given out of the
property Of the lIisl State Church. At present
| Maynooth is aided out of imperial funds. That
aid is now TO cease, and Mr.. Gladstone proposes
to compensate Maynooth out of the fund re-
allied by the disendowment of the church.
During the debate in the House many members
| and some of them Roman Catholics, complained
OF this The Tories said, &" 1t is unfair to relieve
"the Imperial Treasury ut the expense of the
Irish Church, The Roman Catholics, some few
sad looking at the matter from their own
point OF view, 1T is unfair to rely on the
Imperial Treasury at the expense of the purely
"lrish property now being resumed from its
wrongful holder, the State Church, and which
fought to be applied for the benefit of the na-
"tiOn at large.' If this Is all Mr.. Disraeli's
amendment applies to, It is hardly worth talk
ing OF. The particular source from which the
MaynOoth compensation is to be had is not
matter of the slightest moment. Tn fact,
Mr.. Gladstone himself spoke of that question
as one which the Government were quite will
ing to leave open for further consideration,
when the mere details and machinery Of the
bill have to be examined. In all this we see
no policy. The amendments which would be
Of real moment are impossible and hopeless; tho