The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-06-05 00:00:00

Ile

ERIAL rAiILIANIENT.

Is the Home of Lords. May 31, the Marquis of Lansdowne
moved the second reading of the Newspapers, Ac., Bill, the
bled of which was to lepeal certain restrictive enactment.
'web Ws become obsolete. It was not Intended in any
•way to affect the rights and liberties of the press.
-tad Cairns, while offering no opposition to the bill,
marred to a recent case which contrasted strikingly with
file statement of the noble marquis. lbe referred to lectures
ramaraed by Murphy in the north of England in a private
wed room.. 1 hey were of a controversial nature, and they
raem prolubited in m
a proclamation issued by the Hoe
aramary. This proclamation was iasued by the Mayor of
Tv °mouth under the authority of the Government Met
feat Ito
before the present bill was issued, and which
avposed to repeal, among others, the very Act under which
proclamation seas issued. Ile could not help expressing
his
suppress
that the Government should have taken any such
mos to suppress free discussion.
Die Lord Clmncellor endeavoured to justify the action of
the tloveniment against Murphy on the grounds that conflicts
between the populace had been excited by previous lee-
tares, and were again tlueatened when the proclamation
wttliffriis pointed out that Murphy hail charged an ad-
mimm fee, in order to keep out the mob, and if all that
rnmper-
opposed to the lectures had to do to call the Goveent
m,.
into action was to fire shot through the windows, there was
eud to freedom of speech „hear, hear).
The Duke of Somerset, as one of the trustees of the Eclat&
yeamtni, which was affected by this bill mnsidered this was
a most inconvenient mode of legislating, and he appealed to
the Government not to carry the bill farther until opportu-
nities were afforded to deal in another way with the subject.
The Slarquia of Lansdowne, answering the objections
mrad by the noble duke, said a bill was passing through the
other !louse to compel a copy of every newspaper published
te be sent direct to the British Museum.
Their Lordships adjourned at six o'clock.
In the Holleltl of (ommons, upon the motion for the
mom reading of the All Saints District Bishopsgate) 13111,
it: Crawford stated the circumstances under which the
smeay companies had obtained permission to take the
.it. of the existing church tun' schools upon the condition
I thsir paying £7,600 and finding a site for a
Dee Church. The bill was to enable schools to be
laidt, and in connection with them a school chapel,
might be licensed for Divine service. the pre-
sent bishop, as also the late Bishop of London, were in
favour of the scheme, and he might say the opinion of the
Ecclesiastical commissioners was not unfavourable to it,
Ind in the parish itself there was no dissent from the pro-
But out of the sum of £350 income, 4150 is to be
devoted to the school, £lOO to the officiating curate, and £3OO
to the vicar of the district. It it-as necessary that this
arrangement should be made with the vital. to secure Ills
consent to the scheme. He therefore thought the amend-
ment upon the paper in the name of the hon. member for
Westruinister had 110 good reason to uphold It, but would, if
carried, promote some private interest.
lie Ir. D. smith objected to the bill, on the ground that
the sum of tano might not to be paid to another clergy-
man, and moved that the bill be read a second time this day
six months.
Mr Tile remarked that the sum proposed to be paid to the
outgoing clergyman was a compensation for the position and
Iffe interest which he had.
The Solicitor-General thought that the amount od £3OO ought
sot to be paid to a clergyman for dotig nothing. Did he
lire in his parish and fulfil the duties of the parish
be (the Soliatortteneral) should not say that £3OO or £6OO
was too much for the work, and he deprecated the applica-
tion of such terms as the hon. member for London had us.
with regard to the amendment. It was this reason that
owed the opposition to the bill, and he would ask why the
elergyman should be sent away and paid £3OO a year for
doing nothing These considerations should, he thought,
present the bill passing.
Lord !tendon thought the bill ought to be rejected in order
that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, might have time to
confer with the population of the distrlet.
Mr. Bruce remarked that the only objection which he had
heard expressed was that £3OO a year would be paid to the
OW of the district out of the income of £350. The matter
bad received the approval of the archbishop anti bishop of
the diocese, aud when it was borne in mind that the vicar's
district would have a considerable portion of the present ills'
Sic! thrown into it, and his duties thereby increased he did
not think that the opposition ought to be continued.
After remarks from Mr. Collins, Mr. Selater- Booth, Mr.
Adair, Mr. Matthews, Mr. D. Dalrymple, and Mr. Hadfield
the Rouse divided, when the numbers were—
For the eecotal reading, 173 ; against, 137 ; majority for
the second reading, 36. The bill was therefore read a second

thee.
Mr Edward Verner asked the First Lord of the Treasury
how the Government Intended, in the event of the pausing of
the Irish Church Bill to meet the difficulty that would arise
toiler the provisions of the Poor Relief, the Prisons, and
ether Acts which direct the appointment of chaplains of the
latabllshed Church.
Mr. Gladstone thought it unlikely that any difficulty would
arise, but should such he the case it would be the duty of
Government to consider the facts, and they would give early
information to the Home.
The House was chiefly occupied with the final discussion of
the Irish Church Will. The amendment—" this day three
months ''—to the third reading was moved by
Mr. Holt, who said his object was to give the Conservative
party an opportunity of freeing their consciences from all
responsibility for a measure their objections to which had
not been decreased by the long debates and its treatment
In committee. The essential objection he took to it
was the disruption it would effect of the connection
between Church and State, which he valued as secur-
ing the Independence of the clergy and the freedom of the
laity. The voluntary system about to be introduced into
Ireland had failed in all but large and rich towns, and was
utterly unsuited to that country: and referring to American
decisions on questions of Church property, he asserted
that if Ireland had been pert of the United States,
the Church might have been disestablished, but she
would have retained her property. After corn-
phoning that no reason and no explanation had
been given for the principles on which the bill was
founded—except that its authors had the power or the will
to do the thing—he went on to examine the bill in its present
shape, objecting principally to its arbitrary character, the
Irresponsible power given to the Commission, anti its com-
plete subserviency to the Minister of the slay, its harsh treat-
ment of the Protestants, and its violation of last year's
pledgee. So tar from being a message of peace, it would
create internal discord, and in his peroration he condemned
it as a political error, a social calamity, and a national
crime.
Lord Elcho seconded the amendment. Die regarded the
bill as the inauguration of a policy which would inevitably
lead to the separation of Church and State in the three king-
doors, and discussing in an ironical vein the motives of its in-
troduction, he remarked that whatever might be its effect in
Ireland, it had " pacified " the Liberal party, and bad recon-
ciled what two years ago was thought to be irreconcileable.
Rut he denied emphatically that it would produce peace in
Ireland, where a firm and explicit declaration of policy on
the land question would have produced a ten times more Dan-
quilising elect. Admitting that there was no power now
which could resist the bill, he declared that it would prove
an utter failure for all the purposes of justice and religious
equality it was supposed to have in view. It would alienate
the Protestants, and prepare the way for an attack on the
Act of Settlement lie attributed the policy on which it was
founded to the influence of the " voluntary " party, and he
regarded it as the instrument with which the aristocratic
Whigs had performed the ceremony of "happy despatch."
Mr. Cantwell held that, alter all that had passed—the long
debates of last year, the verdict of the election, and the ex-
bantam arguments of this year—further debate must te
unreal. but having formerly borne a share in the govern-
ment of Ireland, he was unwilling to part with the bill with-
out expressing his sincere conviction that it was a great act
Of netice, that it would cement Ireland to Great Britain, and
would strengthen the power of England among the nations
of the world. It was the first step in the policy by which we
bad conciliated Scotland and Canada, once more alienated
than Ireland, and la the end it would prove a most beneficial
measure to the Church herself.
Sir F. Heygate entered hie final protest against the mea-
sure, which lee predicted would never werk ; while Mr.
Allan support ill it, anticipating that it would tern out to be
the best clung possible for Protestantism in Ireland.
The discussion was continued by Mr. AdderleY, who pro-
nounced the bill to be the most illogical of our time; by Mr.
Stapleton, who supported the bill ; by Mr. J. G. Talbot, who
argued in favour of establishment and endowment, and
anticipated that this would be the first step towards universal
dieendowment ; by Mr. Monsen, who asserted that the bill
had already allayed political disaffection; by Dr. Ball, who
repeated his unconquerable hostility to the principle of
diverting property which had been devoted to religious
uses; by Mr. butlerJohnstone, who supported the bill from
the Opposition benches, and who accepted the epithet of
" revolutionary " as Its cbief reconimemlation ; by Mr.
W. Johnston, who gave expression to the feelings of Indigos-
lion with which the Protestants of Ulster regarded the
measure ; and by Mr. Miller ; after which,
Ile Disraeli commenced his speech by a long retrospect of
Irish history, with the object of showing that for many years
past the Government of England had acted on the uniform
Irish policy of securing the due administration of justice,
opening a free career to merit without distinction of creed,
and of endeavouring to gotten such anomalies as might exist
without having recouree to any violent changes. The result
had been a continuous Improvement in the condition of
the country and the people up to the commencement of the
Fenian movement, and if the gems policy of conciliation
had been permitted to go on working Its gradual change.,
in another twenty years Ireland would have been much in the
same condition as England and Scotland. On a right
appreciation of the Fenian movement depended the juetillca-
tion of this bill. Mr. Gladstone assumed that it wits a
national conspiracy, but this Mr. Disraeli denied, and
awned that it was • foreign conspiracy, originated and sup-
Ported from abroad, and therefore did not furnish the excuse
required and suggested for this revolutionary bill. No real
reason had been given for this sudden and complete change in
one policy to Ireland; nor was there the smallest evidence
that it would remove whatever discontent might exist. On
the contrary, the bill, aided by the impressions the Govern-
ment had created of their Intentioes on the land question,
would produce much irritation and disturbance if not
disaster. In this struggle the powerful organisation and
discipline of the Roman hierarchy would make itself felt,
the Protestants of Ireland would naturally and properly
resist the establishment of Papal supremacy, and
among other serious consequences of the con-
flict between them, Mr. Disraeli ,prevoking some laughter)
hinted at a dissolution of the Union—civil war, another con-
quest of Ireland, a second siege of Derry, and a second treaty
of Limerick. At leant, to such ends tended the policy to be
inaugurated by this bill; and after complaining of the stern-
ness with which all his amendments had been refused by the
Government Mr. Disraeli concluded by Impressively warning
the House of the vast Importance of the Inane, and exhorting
each member to weigh well the responsibility he was about
to incur.
Mr Gladstone remarked that Mr. Dieraell's speech, though
fertile in critleism, was barren of any kind of assurance from
which his followers could gather what he would do for the
Irish Church. lie denied that the Fenian conspiracy had
been the determining influence in shaping the Irish policy of
the Government. The effect it produced Was in directing
the public mind to the condition of Ireland, and preparing
it ter this bill, But as he showed, by reference to the
Quenes Speech of 1567, and Lord Mayo's speech last year, Mr.
Disraeli had formerly been of a different opitiion, and that
Fenianism had influenced his Irish policy. The Go-
vernment had acted solely on a deep conviction of the injus-
tice and impolicy of the Dinh Church. To Mr. Disraeles
complaint about the fate atilt; amendments he retorted that
on a moderate calculation the compensations they proposed
would have lett the Church considerably richer than before.
Reviewing the history of the bill, Mr. Gladstone remarked
that nothing could more powerfully help it to a succeesfulter-
mination than thennanimity withwhich it had been supported
by the great majority of the House 01 Commons. The reason
for this unbroken concord, which hail so much surprised some,
was due to their complete agreement an to the manlier
in which the Irish Church was to be dealt with; while
the Opposition, on the other hand, were hopelessly divided
on it. Adverting to a charge that the bill was harsh and
arrogant, he tnaintained that while it fulfilled all
pledges, wherever it was possible, it had tempered
justice with mercy. As to the future of the bill, Mr.
Gladstone said that as he hail never complained of
the Lords for rejecting the Suspensory Bill last year, soils
would not noir assume that they would fail to discern what
Wan due to the emphatic verdict of the nation and to their
own permanent utility. Treating an the momentary
despondency of morbid fears the predictions that the bill
would permanently cripple Protestantism in Ireland, Mr.
Gladstene concluded in a powerful peroration by expreesing
an earnest hope that the Church would pass triumphantly
thneigh the ordeal, and would emerge with a higher sense of
her mission, end freed from the uujust privileges and the
bitter memories which had been her unhappy heritage.
The House then divided, and the amendment Was rejected
by a mej•sity if 114—ebl to c 47. The 1,111 was then read a
tided time and pasited.
Several other bills were forwarded a stage, and the 1101550

adjourned.
In the House of Lord., June let, Earl Granville brought up
the Irirn Church Bill from the House of Commons, and it
was read a first time without comment. The second reading
was fixed for the 14th of June.
The Stennaries Bill was read a second time, on the motion
of Lord Portman,
The Earl of Longford rose to pet a question In reference to
the appointment to the vacaut office of Cnder-fiecretaryship
of Ireland. First, he ilesir- dto know whether the prevent
Government Intended to mice It a permanent appointint
or not. The noble earl proceeded to allude to the appoint-
ment of the Lite Sir E. Wetherall, which he said illil not snit
Cite office of a very noisy party In Dublin, and he regretted
that the Government had adopted that unfavourable view.
Ito einphatically condemned the threat to remove Sir E.
etherall and place
ot the Government.in his once one of the political friends