THE IRISH CHURCH DEBATE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2345, 29 June 1868, Page 3

THE IRISH CHURCH DEBATE.

The closing scene is thus graphically described by the Express

"When the Prime Minister rose the House was au grand complet. There were present the Prince of "Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, who sat together in the Peers' box on the Ministerial ■side of the House, Prince Arthur, Prince Christian, and Prince Teck, who were in the gallery. There were the chiefs of the church as well as the heads of the state. The remoter seats of the gallery were occupied by a crowd of anxious listeners, many of whom where members of the churches whose rival claims more or less brought the question before the House for discussion and decision. The members of the House who could not find seats in the chamber might be found standing in the side galleries. It was one of those occasions in which prime miuisters of England, and no one more than the preseut Prime Minister, delight. It is a rare privilege to be the leader of an assembly, the oldest and the most critical in the world; and as such Mr Disraeli recognised his position. He felt that the hour had coine, and that he was the man. He begau in grave and studied tones, after the cheer with which his rising was received had subsided, to represent the importance of the subject and to vindicate the course pursued by the Govern* ment. He then turned to criticise his opponents. In this portion of his speech he was most happy, and the alternate laughter and cheers of the House shewed how effective was his limning. Mr Lowe, Lord Cranburne, Mr Cardwell, Mr Bright, and Mr Gladstone were all touched with the hand of an artist whose forte is sarcasm and carricature. It will probably in future time be recorded as one of the ' curiosities' of character that on the very night in which he was freely hitting all around him—his former colleagues as well as his political opponents—he deliberately stated that " he had never attacked any one in his life." When some hon. member reminded him of " Peel," he added, " unless he had been first attacked." On the memorable night of December, 16, 1862, Sir J. Graham was a man who was " greatly regarded but not greatly respected," and the preseut Lord Halifax was informed that " petulance was not sarcasm, and insolence was not invective." Mr Disraeli was more unequal in his speech thau he usually is; and he spun it out to such length that there was at one time a call for a division. He tried to be philosophical on the question of church and state, but he was only theological, or rather ecclesiastical. He endeavoured to represent the attack on the Irish Church as an attack on the rights of property, and wound up with an allusion, which was probably intended for the ear ot the Prince of "Wales, that the policy of the Opposition would " injuriously affect even the tenure of the Crown." " At ten minutes to one o'clock Mr Gladstone rose to reply, and for more than an hour he kept alive the attention of the House. Hi'b beginning was peculiarly happy. He charged Mr Disraeli with the irrelevancy and wandering of his speech. He made a " clear and intelligible" statement of the position he took up. He spoke with the conviction o£ a good cause and an assured victory, and terminated the debate at ten minutes past two.

" Then came the moment for clearing the House and putting the question, The members were congregated on all Bides especially at the door. Though the main result is probably known beforehand in the case of great decisions, there is always a certain amount of excitement accompanying them. The division on this occasion was unusually long. When the members had returned there was an anxious look to know in whose hand the division paper would be placed. When it was handed to Mr Glyn, the new ' whip' of the Liberal party, a cheer broke forth from the Opposition, which showed that they had at last ' closed their ranks,' and could no longer be taunted as the disunited Liberals. "When Mr Glyn announced the numbers, showing a majority of sixty against the Government, the cheering was repeated again and again. Again the House divided on the question that it go into committee, and owing to a mistake on the part of two Liberal members, who went into the wrong lobby, a reduced majority of fifty-six was the result. Mr Gladstone stated his first resolution, progress was reported, and the House broke up after three o'clock with 'a one cheer more' from the Opposition."

The interval of time between this defeat of the Government on the eve of an adjournment, and the reassembling of Parliament on Monday last, was a period of considerable public excitement. The Irish Church questiou became the all engrossing topic of society. It obtruded everywhere; filled the columns of the newspapers; provoked warm discussions at public meetings, and invaded the haunts oi business and of social intercourse. The most surprising phenomenon is, to see the marvellous advance the disestablishent proposal has made within the space ot a few short weeks. Even Earl Russell, who, a month or two since, published a pamphlet advocating the " levelling up " theory, or the impartial endowment of all sects in Ireland, has appeared before a meeting in St. James's hall, publically recanted his old-fashioned, notions, and intimated

his intention to fight under the flag hoisted by Mr Gladstone. All the talent, power, and vigour of the country, are ranging themselves on the side of this new crusade. Even the upholders of religions establishments evince, by their disunion, half-hearted-ness, and helpless terror, their conviction that the days of dominant State Churchism are rapidly drawing to a close. An attempted demonstration on the part of the defenders of the Irish Church at St. James's hall, a few evenings since, proved a miserable failure—the more significant, when contrasted with thebrilliantand enthusiastic meeting of Mr Gladstone's supporters in the same place on the previous evening. Even Mr Disraeli's elaborate endeavours to rouse and rally the friends of Protestant ascendancy to his side have been met with a singularly cold response. And that solemn warning in the peroration of his speech to the effect that not only the altar but even the Throne was in dauger through the machinations of State-church abolitionists, while it has excited much indignant comment, has frightened no one whose opinion and support are of any value. Some of the Liberal papers are greatly scandalised that, after the signal defeat of last Friday week, Mr Disraeli should not take the usual constitutional course, and resign; and the statement of one of the Tory organs that the Premier had promised the Queen that he would not dissolve Parliament during the present year, is denounced with excessive warmth. Mr Disraeli will certainly do nothing so rash as to resign or to dissolve. He will bold on to office till the new is elected, and then, the education of his party having been sufficiently advanced, he will repeat the tactics which were so successful on the lieform question. Mr Disraeli will be Mr Disraeli to the end,