New-York tribune., 1869-06-19
FOREIGN NEWS.
GREAT BRITAIN.
GREAT BRITAIN.
THE CHURCH DEBATE-MR. GLADSTONE ACCUSED
OF ARROGANCE.

midnight and il was impossible TO 1urhIsh .ho
American press an account of the proceedings o"ns
to the Iateness of the hour After Lord Redesdales
speech in opposition, and the Duke of DeyonshIes
in favor Of the measure, the Marquis OF SALISBURY
took the floor and spoke at considerable length lie
said that while he intended to vote for the secohd
reading of the bill, he did not wish to commit MIN
self to all the details Of the measure he strongly
objected to the position and attitude OF the House VI
Lords with respect to the nation, and deemed the
assertion that the Lords in asserting 10 the VIII Vi
the nation express subOrdinaton to the Commons
as false If that were fact, it would be better for
the House of Lords to disappear as coordinate
branch of the Government The object OF the second
House was to supply the omissions and reetlfy the
defects of the first. In many cases the House OF
Commons only represented the nation in theory. In
the majority of cases the House of Lords must decide
for themselves; but when the House of Commons
and the nation are agreed on grave point,
the functions of the House of Lords have
passed away and the responsibility de-
wolves on the nation and on the House. We
might fairly accept this decision without abnega-
tion of duty. Opposition to the decided opinion OF
the nation would only delay the inevitable ISSUE
and create period of disturbance and dlscontent
He thought the bill under discussion ilEbera and IN
furious He did not believe that amendments would
be contemptuously dsregarded" by the House OF
Commons as had been ntimated. He thought the
governments Of a large majority gave prospect OF
uninterrupted success; but the nation would soon
turn against o Minister displaying domineenng
spirit. Admitting any amount of arrogance IN Mr..
Gladstone the House of Commons might consider
its own present position as compared with its poss-
BILE position if the bill were rejected. Nothing could
be more fatal than such policy The contest would
then be carried on under disadvantage. and the
House of Lords would finally have to give way.
Lord Colchester and the Bishop of Tuam, Killaly,
and Achowry opposed the bill, and Earls StanhOpe
and Nelson proposed slight amendments, and sup
ported them briefly. ............. ........-.
CERTAIN PASSAGE OF THE CHURCH BILL.
The press this morning infer from the tone of the
debate in the House of Lords that the passage OF the
Irish Church bill is certain The Times says disestab-
sh is foredoomed the extent and mode OF proceed
ing remain to be settled. Notifications OF the biB
are now admissible. 1~R : ,si'J5s--,ss,,-,
SPEECH OF EARL RUSSELL - DIsENDowMENT
NOT TO BE TOTAL.
LONDON, Friday, June IS, 1869.
The excitement over the debate in the House of
Lords on the Irish Church bill increases. The
benches, lobbes and galleries Of the House were
crowded again tonight. ~,
Earl Russell was the first speaker He said many
and generosity for Ireland had endeavored to settle
this Church question: but their efforts were made in
vain. The fact that a small proportion of the people
of Ireland belonged to the Church establishes the
Justice well the necessity of dealing with the
question. The creation of the Irish Church in the
beginning n wise thing, but the result of three
centuries made alteration necessary. The
act of union was too solemn COM
pact to be interfered with save in great crisis;
but great crisis was at hand
He reviewed former promises of concession, which
Mr. Pitt, IL be had had the opportunity, would have
accomplished He also traced the history of the alb
otion of prelacy in Scotland but said Ireland had
never been in position to initiate Scotland. She
had been oppressed by penal laws and disabilities,
notwithstanding promises of relief He believed
that concurrent endowment was preferable to the
present measure but the Catholics refused to accept
it, He held that the Tories were responsible for the
present state of Ireland. They had rejected the
policy of Pitt Canning, and Peel, and now as an
alternative they proposed to accept Pitts policy
But he regretted to say that it was now too late
They had no choice now but TO dsestablsh and dis
endow. DisendOwment need not be total He was
inclined to the generous course which Mr.. Bright
originally advocated especially as the Catholics and
Presbyterans TO be compensated from the |
Church revenues He wished to do the best he could
for Ireland, but not endanger the Churches of Eng
land and Scotland Admitting this course to be me-
cessary for Ireland, must not give q stimulus to
those desiring to dsestablish all the Churches He
desired the Tories to accept the verdict of the
to which they had appealed, and said the
result Of that appeal must be regarded the delib
crate verdict of the nation on the question. Advert
ing to the course of the House of Lords on the Re-
form bil in 1892 Earl Russell inplOred their Lord
;,,o tba foft
,tituton and accept the decision of the nation as
final and binding. The Duke of Abercorn opposed
The BILL as the production of man eager for personal
md party triumph rather than for the good of his
country The result would be the alienation of
Protestants introduction of discord and failure to
,onciliate the Catholics.
The Duke of Argyle argued that disestablishment
md dsendowment could not be separated. He adj
nitted that the question was forced into cOnsldera
ion hastily not by protracted agitation, but by the
ogical result Of political freedom. He thought the
Measure an attack on the rights of property,
md disliked indiscriminate disendowment but
he ecclesiastical system in Ireland, which |
ndowed Protestant sects and the Maynooth
,ollege was vaueless to the Church. and had never
promoted the cause of Professionalism. He urged
heir Lordships to consider carefully all the crcum
tances and endeavor to be in harmony with the ma
ion and declared that the present movement was
iGtated by desire to erase the foulest stain on
,nQland's rule over Ireland.
Lord Westbury regarded the bill as full of evils,
nd as the effect of mistaken policy which was
kelly to produce dangerous results Still he felt
ound to vote for its passage in an amended form
Mt if amendments were not accepted ne must insist
n the rejection of the bill 1t was the constitutional
uty of the House to bow TO the expressed will ofthe
eOple