The House then went into Committee, but after the first resolution had been formally put, the Chairman was directed to report progress.

The majority on this division was larger in favour of Mr. Gladstone's policy than had been anticipated on either side, and produced considerable impression on the public mind as indicating the tendency of opinion and its probable decision on the great question of the Irish Church. Those who desired to see the end of that Establishment derived much encouragement from the judgment pronounced by the House of Commons, reflecting, as on the eve of a general election it was likely to do, the prevailing sentiments of the constituencies. On the other hand, the defenders of the assailed Church were not idle, but exerted themselves by convoking public meetings, and by urgent appeals through the press to rouse the Conservative sentiment of the country on behalf of the menaced institution. The Easter Recess followed immediately upon the termination of the great debate on Lord Stanley's amendment, and an interval occurred before the resumption of the question in Parliament, during which some important meetings were held in the metropolis and in the principal towns upon the Irish Church question. In St. James's Hall two large meetings were called, one on the part of the Liberals, at which Earl Russell presided, another convoked by the Conservatives, at which Mr. Campbell Colquhoun took the chair. At the former the noble lord addressed his auditors in an animated speech, which was cordially applauded. Lord Russell said, "I have pleasure in appearing before you at this great meeting, because it appears to me a crisis of the greatest national importance. The people of England hope to put an end to a war-not a thirty years' war, but a three hundred years' war-which has prevailed on the subject of the Irish Church establishment. I trust that we shall all agree to make a treaty of peace and friendship with the people of Ireland, and that Mr. Gladstone will be furnished with full powers to sign that treaty. The difficulty in speaking of the Irish Church is to find any argument in its defence. Many persons believe that an Established State Church does not promote religion and morality; others, amongst whom I reckon myself, think that it does promote religion and morality. Those who think that it does not are quite ready to give up one of the worst establishments, the Irish Church; whilst those who are in favour of Church establishments consider it a burlesque on establishments to make a Church establishment for one-eighth of a people and against the will of at least sixeighths of the remainder. Therefore, nothing like argument is used in favour of the Irish Church, and instead of arguments we have frightful vaticinations. We are told that if the Irish Church is disestablished there will be an end of our civil and religious liberties; and it has been imparted as a sort of secret to a clergyman in Buckinghamshire that it would be worse than even a foreign conquest of this island. One is puzzled to reconcile that prophecy

with the line taken by Government on Lord Stanley's resolution, that though some modifications might be made, the question of endowment or disendowment should be reserved for the Parliament that is to meet next year. That looked as if disendowment were to be considered next year. Now, if some great military power were to say to us, Unless you submit to degrading and dishonourable terms, England will be invaded and conquered next year,' what a strange answer it would be to say, 'We cannot consider it this year, but next year we will take it into consideration.' Really the two parts of the Government proposition do not hang well together. I think that we shall all agree as to the first resolution of Mr. Gladstone, which is clearly for disestablishment, that the sooner it takes place the better. Now, as to disendowment, my object is equality. The people of Ireland are entitled to see all her Majesty's subjects in Ireland on a footing of equality, and it is rather a secondary operation whether this equality shall be obtained by endowing different religions, or by the disendowment of all. I do not disguise my preferences on that subject. But as I perceive that the Protestant people of England and Scotland do not wish to endow all these communions, and that the Roman Catholics of Ireland do not wish to accept any endowment, I discard any preference of my own, and seek for the disendowment of all. I cannot think that the Church of England will be any loser by the proposed disendowment. It is rather as if you should say to a swimmer, 'I think you would swim better if you had a large lump of lead tied round your neck.' The Church of Ireland is that lump of lead; it does not help the Church of England, but it tends to make it fall to the bottom. There is a very important third resolution of Mr. Gladstone's; it asks the Crown to place at the disposal of Parliament her Majesty's interest in the dignities and benefices of Ireland. That is in conformity with the advice which I gave to King William IV. many years ago, and which the King accepted; but having to contend with Sir R. Peel, Sir J. Graham, and Lord Derby, I did not succeed. I trust that Mr. Gladstone will be more fortunate. I was present at a meeting in another hall in this metropolis, where the late Prince Consort in an elegant speech declared that King William III. was the wisest King that ever reigned in England. When King William ascended the throne it was a question whether Scotland should be compelled to maintain the Episcopal Church of England, but King William, by yielding to the wishes of Scotland, was able to establish the prosperity which has since prevailed there. I have only now to say that a theory has been started of late that instead of having men in whom you can confide to lead you, you should have men with no settled convictions, who are, therefore, more likely to follow any thing that may be started. If I admire and wish to follow Mr. Gladstone it is upon different grounds. It is because although I have seen variations of opinion in him—and what statesman is there who must not confess that he has often changed

opinions on particular subjects ?-yet this must be said for Mr. Gladstone, that he has always avowed his opinions, and never made a secret of them. I am persuaded that you may confide in Mr. Gladstone as a leader, in his integrity and in his sincerity, and that, supported by the people of England, he will lead you to victory, and make that permanent peace which I have already alluded to between England and Ireland. When he has done that we shall be stronger in every respect-stronger in our internal relations, stronger in the means of keeping peace in Ireland, and peace every where, stronger against any foreign enemy, if any foreign enemy should presume to attack us. Having, therefore, these convictions I trust you will agree with me, and that you will heartily give your support to Mr. Gladstone in the resolutions which he has proposed.'

The resolutions proposed to the meeting in favour of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church were carried by acclamation.

At the other meeting, which manifested no less ardour and zeal in defence of the threatened Establishment, resolutions were passed pledging those present to the most strenuous exertions to maintain the existing connexion of religion with the State, the supremacy of the Crown, and the principles of the Reformation. The Chairman, Mr. Campbell Colquhoun, in his opening address, denounced in uncompromising language the proposed concession to the Roman Catholic party in Ireland. He said he had read wearily through the debates in the House of Commons, and failed to find the real issue clearly stated. The speeches in that House alleged that the Irish Church was a wrong and an injustice, and that if it were removed the people of Ireland would be satisfied. Those who asserted this stood upon a ground which would not bear the weight of a feather. He pledged himself to prove this to any intelligent, honest man, and he did not wish to deal with any other. Mr. Gladstone, in one of his fine sentences, said this grievance touched the sentiments of the Irish people, but he (the Chairman) could tell them that he had been through Ireland, and he never heard there but one voice that they respected and loved the Irish Protestant clergy. When he sat in Parliament he was, as now, a defender of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He denied that it was the grievance of the Irish people. He was a Scotchman, and though not a Presbyterian, he respected the Presbyterian Church, and in Parliament had contended that it should remain in its unbroken strength. Through the carelessness and folly of the Parliament in 1844 that Church was split in two. If he, as a Scotchman, were to call public meetings, and proclaim treason against the Union, what would be said of him? It would be, "Poor gentleman, put him under the custody of his friends, and get him a quiet retreat." To say that nations were moved by sentimental grievances was the idlest talk that ever fell from a man of talent. The people of Meath said the sole question of Ireland was the land question.

The Chairman then referred to Mr. Bright's statement, that it was a calamity that millions of Roman Catholics were directed in their ordinary and political conduct from the centre of Rome, and that there was no country under that influence so much as Ireland. He said that the real difficulty of Ireland was the deadly antipathy of a large portion of the people there to the people of England, and he referred to the risings of 1798 and 1803, and to the demonstrations made there in reference to the executions of the Fenians at Manchester. He concluded by asking, were they now-when the Union was rotting to its centre-going to inflict a blow on above a million of men who were faithful to England, devoted to her, and on whom the House of Commons had rained assaults, attacks, and reproaches, but who had remained, in spite of all, invariably loyal to England? These gentlemen in the House of Commons were going the way to break up the empire. Well and wisely had Mr. Carlyle said, "The last link of the Union is the Irish Church." Would they comply with those insane demands? As a lover of England, he said if they were going to have within six hours of their shores four millions and a half of men, led by fanatic priests, hating England, and detesting her heretical Prince and Crown, they were going to bring themselves down from all their greatness, and committing a most grievous blunder; and he thanked God that at least he could hold up his hand in an earnest protest against the selfish madness of politicians and the blindness of party.

The two Houses met again after the Easter recess on the 20th of April, and the 27th was appointed for resuming the proceedings in the House of Commons upon Mr. Gladstone's resolutions. Meanwhile, the question which engrossed the thoughts of all politicians, was brought up rather prematurely in the House of Lords by Lord Derby, who, without any formal motion before the House, called attention to Mr. Gladstone's resolutions, especially that which asked her Majesty to place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church. Fearing that the first of these resolutions, at all events, would be carried by a large majority, and reminding Earl Russell of the views he had enunciated last year on the Church question, he asked the noble earl whether he adhered to the opinion he had recently expressed, that any Minister who suddenly changed his opinions on an important political question was unworthy of the confidence of the country; and whether the supporters of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions intended to take steps for obtaining the concurrence of their lordships and the action of Parliament with respect to them. Having pointed out the similarity of the present state of things to that which existed in 1835, when the famous Appropriation Clause was carried through the House of Commons, Lord Derby expressed a hope that, no matter how factious was the opposition, the Government would allow nothing to induce them to abandon their duty towards their Sovereign and the country, of completing the work

of reform, and insisting that the voice of the newly-enlarged constituencies should be heard upon this most important question, and that they would give no countenance to a policy which could only introduce religious discord and animosity into Ireland, and must create a serious and irreconcileable difference between the two Houses of Parliament.

Earl Russell, considering that the House of Commons was on the point of deciding upon the resolutions, regarded the course now taken by Lord Derby as most extraordinary. To the charge of apparent inconsistency on his part he replied, as Mr. Burke once did in a similar situation, that the inconsistency of measures. was not incompatible with the consistency of the end. One of the chief objects of his political life had been to establish peace and prosperity in Ireland, and he justified his approval of the resolutions whilst an inquiry was going on which he himself had moved by the fact that the inquiry was not of so extended a scope as he had asked. He hesitated not to say that he still had a preference for his own scheme of endowing the clergy of all persuasions in Ireland, but finding that this was now altogether impracticable, he had no chance but to vary the means in order to preserve the consistency of the end. To the question of the noble earl, Lord Russell replied that it was not intended to propose Mr. Gladstone's resolutions in their lordships' House. The better way would be, if they were carried through the Commons, to embody them in a Bill, for a Bill supported by a large majority of that House and the sympathy of the great bulk of the people would be far more likely to secure the assent of their lordships than any resolutions whatever. The noble earl also expressed a hope that the Government would not act upon Lord Derby's advice, for if they advised the Crown to resist the deliberate sense of the Commons, conveyed by a large majority, they would cause a collision between that House and the Crown such as had not been witnessed for many years. There was no intention, however, to ask the Crown to act upon the request of one House, but the resolutions would be followed by a Bill, and he trusted that, if the measure came up with the approval of a large majority, their lordships would have the patriotism and good sense to accept it.

A discussion ensued, in which several peers took part. Earl Granville protested strongly against the unusual course of proceeding adopted by Lord Derby. He was greatly surprised that any unofficial member of the House, however eminent, should put a question to another unofficial member, equally eminent, requiring him to state what were the views of members of the House of Commons upon questions then actually under their discussion. What would Lord Derby think if he asked him what course his late colleagues intended to take if the resolutions in question were passed by an overwhelming majority? He protested against the House of Lords being thus apparently made to pledge itself to fly in the face of the House of Commons and the country before a