and to feel it, to be exempted, in common fairness, from the reproach of gross inattention (to say the very least) to the interests of a noble but neglected people.

"But however formidable, at first sight, these admissions, which I have no desire to narrow or to qualify, may appear, they in no way shake the foregoing arguments. They do not change the nature of truth, and her capability and destiny to benefit mankind. They do not relieve government of its responsibility, if they show that that responsibility was once unfelt and unsatisfied. They place the legislature of this country in the condition, as it were, of one called to do penance for past offences; but duty remains unaltered and imperative, and abates nothing of her demands upon our services. It is undoubtedly competent, in a Constitutional point of view, to the Government of this country to continue the present disposition of Church property in Ireland. It appears

not too much to assume that our Im

perial Legislature has been qualified to take, and has taken, in point of fact, a sounder view of religious truth than the majority of the people of Ireland, in their destitute and uninstructed state. We believe, accordingly, that that which we place before them is, whether they know it or not, calculated to be beneficial to them; and that if they know it not now, they will know it when it is presented to them fairly. Shall we then purchase their applause at the expense of their substantial, nay, their spiritual

interests?

In

"It does, indeed, so happen that there are also powerful motives on the other side concurring with that which is here represented as paramount. In the first instance, we are not called upon to establish a creed, but only to maintain an existing legal settlement where our Constitutional right is undoubted. the second, political considerations tend strongly to recommend that maintenance. A common form of faith binds the Irish Protestants to ourselves, while they, upon the other hand, are fast linked to Ireland, and thus they supply the most natural bond of connection between the two countries. But if England, by overthrowing their Church, should weaken their moral position, they would be no longer able, perhaps no longer willing, to counteract the desires of the majority, tending, under the direction of their leaders (however, by a wise policy, revocable from that fatal course), to what is termed national independence. Pride and fear, on the one hand, are therefore

bearing up against more immediate apprehension and difficulty on the other. And with some men these may be the fundamental considerations; but it may be doubted whether such men will not flinch in some stage of the contest, should its aspect at any moment become unfavourable."

After briefly noticing what was done in Elizabeth's time, and the indifference to Elizabeth's wise policy which manifested itself in the reigns that succeeded hers, our author goes on to give his reasons for affirming that the errors committed in generations past only the more impose upon us the duty of maintaining the truth. He concludes his argument thus:

"Because, therefore, the Government stands with us in a paternal relation to the people, and is bound in all things to consider not merely their existing tastes, but the capabilities and ways of their improvement; because it has both an intrinsic competency and external means to amend and assist their choice; because to be in accordance with God's word and will it must have a religion, and because to be in accordance with its conscience that religion must be the truth as held by it under the most solemn and accumulated responsibilities ;-because this is the only sanctifying and preserving principle of society, as well as, to the individual, that particular benefit without which all others are worse than valueless, we must disregard the din of political contention and the pressure of worldly and momentary motives, and, in behalf of our regard to man, as well as of our allegiance to God, maintain among ourselves, where happily it still exists, the union between the Church and the State."

We make no apology to our readers for the length to which these extracts have run. They enumerate principles which are either absolutely true or absolutely false; which no change of time or circumstances can affect; which admit of no modification, no gloss, no power in language to explain them away; which bind their professor, if a public man, to a particular line of action, from which,

whatever his position may be, whatever his temptations, he cannot swerve, except by the surrender of self-respect, and the forfeiture of something even more precious than the good opinion of mankind. Not lightly may appeals be made such as are made here, not lightly disregarded. "Because this is the only sanctifying and preserving principle of society, as well as, to the individual, that particular benefit without which all others are worse than uselesss, WE

MUST DISREGARD THE DIN OF POLITICAL CONTENTION AND THE PRESSURE OF WORLDLY AND MOMENTARY

MOTIVES, AND, IN BEHALF OF OUR REGARD TO MAN, AS WELL AS OF OUR ALLEGIANCE TO GOD, maintain among ourselves, where happily it still exists, the union between the Church and the State." By what process of mental torture Mr Gladstone has succeeded in shaking off a faith which, as here enunciatedand we give his own words-is rather religious than political, we cannot pretend to explain. Enough it is for us to know that the feat has been accomplished. The hand which wrote these noble sentences is now raised to perpetrate the very crime against which they stand in protest. The voice which, in the name of God, once called upon the nation to maintain in Ireland the Established Church, now leads the chorus of which the miserable refrain is this, "Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?”

Leaving Mr Gladstone to reconcile as he best may his acts as a politician with his professions as a Christian man, we return to the line of argument from which his eloquent appeal to God and man had diverted us, and repeat distinctly what we asserted at the opening of this essay. It is not an article in our faith-it enters not into the creed of the party to which we belong, that law, or custom, or principle, or all combined, are adverse to changes, so long as they are wisely introduced into

the institutions on which society is in this country founded. We are not, nor ever were, believers in the immutability of any sublunary thing whatever, should it be even the form of our government itself. What have we been doing, indeed, ever since that basis of the Constitution was laid, of which we spoke not long ago? Innovating continually upon the arrangements of society in all parts of the empire. Early in last century Scotland was persuaded to enter into legislative, as she was already in imperial, union with England. In agreeing to this arrangement, both portions of the realm accepted very grave changes in their respective constitutions. The popular principle in Scotland gained something from the Crown by getting rid of the Lords of the Articles. It lost in the absorption of only a very limited representation both of its peers and of its commoners into the United Parliament. England, on the other hand, gave her assent to many arrangements which were by no means in unison with the tastes, the prejudices, and the principles of a vast majority of the people. She guaranteed to Scotland her ancient laws -her forms in the administration of these laws; her Church, with its Confession of Faith, its Kirksessions, Presbyteries, and General Assembly; and, in doing so, made them in some degree her own. Surely no one will deny that the changes thereby introduced into the spirit of the English Constitution were at once large and vital. Yet though the reverse of popular in either section of the island at the beginning, they were brought about quietly and easily; because the Crown, through its responsible Ministers, took the initiative in the matter, and the Legislatures of the two countries adopted and carried into effect the Crown's suggestions. We say nothing of the penal and other laws which the United Parliament passed by-and-by, offensive

alike to Scotland and to England. Nor is it desirable to dwell upon the system of electoral corruption which the great Revolution houses inaugurated, and by the operation of which they kept the authority of the Crown in their own hands for the better part of a century. The effect of this latter innovation was to increase the power of the aristocracy at the expense both of the royal prerogative and the just rights of the people. The operation of the penal laws was cruel. But while the former, which was effected not only without the sanction of the Legislature, but apart from its cognisance, created a great revolution in the political influences of the country; the latter, as they came into force only to meet a pressing emergency, so, when the emergency passed away, they grew milder in their operation, and at last died out. Both, however, made themselves felt in the formation of the national character. But far more important than all other changes-till we come down to times comparatively recent-was the legislative union with Ireland. Up to the beginning of the present century, England and Ireland were, for all social and many political purposes, as much distinct and separate nationalities as England and Scotland had been up to the beginning of the last century. No doubt the laws administered in the one country were administered in the other, in courts similarly constituted, and by judges and magistrates bearing cognate titles; but each had its own Parliament and its own Church, the latter Episcopal, like the English Church, but having its own customs and its own canons. In bringing the two countries into one, a vast change was wrought in the Constitution of each. It is our deliberate opinion that the change would have been both more complete and more beneficial had the mockery of a viceregal court been at the same time abolished. For this it is,

more than any other institution, which has kept alive in the minds of the Irish people the dream of a distinct nationality. But while the Lord-Lieutenant was still left to amuse the citizens of Dublin with his courtly shows, the Irish Houses of Lords and Commons ceased to exist, the former being represented by four spiritual and twenty-eight temporal peers in the Upper House of the United Parliament; the latter by one hundred representatives of the Irish people in the Lower. Do not let us forget that this radical change in the Constitution of the two countries was proposed by the common sovereign, and confirmed by the respective Legislatures. Neither may we put out of view the purposes which it was designed to subserve. There had always been the risk up to that moment of collision between the Parliaments of England and Ireland, and such collisions from time to time took place on questions both of foreign and domestic policy. The risk ceased as soon as the two countries, through their respective Estates, had coalesced and become one. They were no longer therefore to be spoken of-they never ought to have been again spoken of, or written about, or legislated for-as two kingdoms, but as one kingdom,-one in laws, in manners, and in their religion interwoven with the State. For, in truth, it was to effect these unities, and especially the last, that the ablest statesmen of the day brought the union of the two Legislatures about. "So long as the separation shall continue," wrote Lord Castlereagh, while paving the way for the proposed great measure, "the Church of Ireland will ever be liable to be impeached upon local grounds. Nor will it be able to maintain itself effectually against the argument of physical force. But when once completely incorporated with the Church of England, it will be placed upon such a strong and national foundation as to be above

all apprehensions or alarms." Hence the first article in the Act declares that the continuance and preservation of the United Church is an essential condition of the Union itself. And it is worthy of remark that the form of words made use of to set forth this truth is not employed in any other of the arrangements which were on that important occasion effected. "This great measure," said the King, in the speech with which he closed the session of 1800,"on which my wishes have been long earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as the happiest event of my reign; being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to my Irish subjects the full participation of the blessings derived from the British Constitution."

Another point connected with this part of our subject we shall make free to touch upon here, because the advocates of disestablishment in Ireland have been allowed, we cannot imagine why, to distort it for their own purposes. Don't talk to us about the maintenance of the Established Church because of the one article which is quoted as a fundamental condition in the Articles of Union. The Irish Church has already been dealt with exactly as the United Parliament judged expedient in the teeth of this awful condition to which you refer. Was she not deprived of a fourth part of her income by the Tithe Commutation Act? Has she not been curtailed in her proportions by the amalgamation of benefices and the suppression of not fewer than ten bishoprics? Who resisted these measures, on the ground that they were in violation of the Act of Union? and if they made no breach in that national compact, why should it be broken by the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church altogether?

We have looked carefully over the Act of Union, and we cannot discover a clause, or a fragment of a clause, which guarantees to the

Irish branch of the United Church that she shall continue for ever exactly as she was in 1800. More than one parish has been divided since that date into two or more ecclesiastical districts. Who ever thought of forbidding such division on the ground that it would violate the Act of Union? In like manner it was considered judicious by the Church as well as by the State, that certain changes should be introduced into the manner of paying the clergy, and that a curtailment should be effected in the organisation of parishes, and in the number of bishops set apart to superintend the ecclesiastical affairs of these parishes. But as, in the former case, not a single parish was blotted out of the roll, so, in the second, each diocese retained its individuality, though for obvious reasons the spiritual supervision of several was committed to one head. We have still a Bishop of Kildare in the person of the Archbishop of Dublin; and of Ferns and Leighlin, though these are superintended, as well as Ossory, by the same prelate. To refer to such arrangements as these, as if in any way they altered the political status of the Church in Ireland, is equivalent to asserting that a rose-tree which produced last year fifty roses, has ceased to be a rose-tree because this year it produces only five. The union of the Church with the State is indeed guaranteed in the Act of Union; but there is not a word which debars either the Church or the State from effecting such changes in the machinery of their government as time and altered circumstances may direct. The Irish lay peerage, for example, may be allowed to die out, all except the twenty-eight; or by conferring upon every Irish duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron a British peerage. In like manner the hundred members originally provided for in the Act of Union may become two hundred, if the united Legislature think fit. But the Legislature will still remain

united, and the Union, so far, sustain no shock, any more than it has been struck at by the Act of Parliament which threw upon two archbishops and ten bishops the work which used formerly to be intrusted in Ireland to four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Indeed, when we call to mind the fact that England, with its twenty millions of inhabitants, has only two archbishops and twenty-six bishops, including the Bishop of Sodor and Man, the thought which occurs to us is this, that the amalgamation of ecclesiastical jurisdictions in Ireland, with its one million of Church people and its whole population of less than six, is censurable, rather because it did not go far enough than because it went too far. But as to regarding the arrangement as a blow struck at the Act of Union -the idea is simply preposterous. What if, upon further inquiry, it should appear that two archbishops and six bishops are sufficient for the Irish branch of the Church, is there anything in the letter or spirit of the Constitution to prevent the Irish branch of the Church from assenting to such decision, or which could prevent the Legislature, with the concurrence of the Crown, from assigning to two archbishops and six bishops the pastoral charge of all the dioceses in Ireland? But this is a very different thing from pronouncing that the Church in Ireland shall, as a State Church, cease to exist. Carry that motion,-expel the representative Irish bishops from the House of Lords-shut up the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, and confiscate the Church property,— and you will leave yourselves without any other ground than that of brute force for asserting that the legislative union between the two countries must continue.

We have put the subject in this light, not for the purpose of contending that the Queen, Lords, and Commons of the United Kingdom lack the power to disestablish the

Irish branch of the United Church if they please, but in order to lay bare the sophistry which endeavours to justify the proceeding on the ground that there are no moral reasons against it, inasmuch as the particular article in the Act of Union which is supposed to bar the measure has already been violated. Let us turn now to the particular process by which so vast a constitutional change is aimed at, and consider it in reference both to the effect which it is immediately producing, and to the certain consequences which must attend it whether it prove successful or otherwise.

On every other occasion when change had become necessaryeither because of the progress of public opinion out of doors, or through the pressure of political embarrassments on the Government- the utmost care has heretofore been taken by statesmen of every shade of opinion in this country to make the proposition to change emanate from the Executive. Over and over again, it has come to pass that the Ministers of the Crown, though convinced of the sound policy of some Constitutional measure, have been unable to bring the individual sovereign whom they served to adopt their view of the matter. This was noticeably and repeatedly the case under George III.; as when the Whigs brought forward their India Bill in 1783; at the time of the Union about which we are now writing; when Pitt desired to emancipate the Roman Catholic laity, and to pay both the priests and the Presbyterian ministers of Ireland; and again, when Fox came into power after Pitt's death. What happened on each of these occasions? Men of the highest honour, public and private, either submitted to the defeat of their favourite opinions, or they abstained from pressing them rather than run the risk of provoking a collision between the Executive and the Legislature. The