The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-07-16
FOREIGN Affairs.

LONDON, July 15-Midnight-In the House
of Commons the Irish Church bill, as
amended in the House of Lords, came up for
consideration There was full attendance
of members, and the galleries were crowded.
Mr.. Gladstone, on rising, was greeted with
loud cheers by the Liberals and derisive
shouts from the Tory benches.
He said, with respect to the amendments
which had been made TO the bill, that the
Government proposed to restore the preamble
and the date of disestablishment as they APP
peared in the original bill, and they should
agree to the amendments relating to curates
annuities and to the protection of annuitants,
with some notifications but all the other
amendments they should oppose, with the
single exception of the grant of $500, 600 in
lieu of private benefactions made before 1860.
Disraeli said that, although the abstract
principles of the bill had been repeatedly
discussed, there had been little discussion on
the details of its provisions. He hoped the
amendments made would receive calm con-
sideration.
Mr.. Gladstone then moved the House dis
agree to the preamble as amanded. He
thought the concurrent endowment which the
Lords had in view was a very different scheme
from that of Mr.. Pitt, which contemplated
an established Catholic Church side by side
with the Established Church, and under State
control. Concurrent endowment, as now un-
derstood, was totally opposed to the spirit of
the time.
If the House could be induced to agree to
it, it was certain that the country, especially
large constituencies would not sanction it.
He strongly advocated the appropriation of
the surplus fund, as originally proposed, with
proviso reserving to Parliament control
over them.
Disraeh thought the House ought to agree
to amend the preamble. He asserted that
the House of Lords did not desire the reser-
walton of the surplus for concurrent endow-
ment, and ridiculed the plan for its appropri-
alton. He hoped the House would prevent
such waste of the public funds, and not al
low them to be dealt with in this loose and
vague manner.
Mr.. Ball, member for Dublin University
thought the restoration Of the original pre-
amble would be fatal to many advantages Sc
cured to the Church by the Lords.
Mr.. Bright admitted that at a former time
he had proposed something like the present
scheme of concurrent endowment, but de-
clared that public feeling was now totally op-
posed to religious endowments, and no Minis
ter would be able to carry such a scheme. He
felt that all the plans, save the one originally
proposed by the bill, were so full of difficult
ties that it would be idle to discuss them.
Sir Roundell Palmer although not q sup
under the circumstances, that grants for re-
sidences to the clergy Of the great majority,
could not be refused out of that fund, which,
contrary to his ideas, they had declared was
wrongfully taken from the great majority
and used for the religious purposes of the
minority Unless some proposal of this kind
was agreed to, they would never establish
religious equality or satisfy the expectations
OF the Irish. They should not allow theil
anti-Oatholic prejudices to refuse this small
boon to the great majority.
The House then divided, and the amend
ment of the House of Lords with respect t.
endowments was disagreed to by vote o
846 against 222; majority for the Govern
ment, 124.
The amendment in regard to the appropra
ton of surplus funds was also disagreed to
by vote of 24G against 1G4
Mr. Gladstone then moved the restoration
OF the original date, namely, January 1, 1871
for the dissolution of the Legislative unio
between the Churches of England and Ire
land, and, after some discussion, the dat
was restored without a division, and til
House then adjourned
LONDON, July l5.-The Times says the pr