The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-08-06
THE IRISH CHURCH BILL.


Lords,
Mr. Disraeli, who was received with cheers,
said: ] think it is quite unnecessary and GER
tainly inconvenient that, on an occasion like
the present, we should enter into any discus
sion of the principle of this bill. (Hear,
hear.) Ny opinions on the subject remain
the same, but it does not appear to me that
this is an occasion that requires an expression
of opinion from any honorable member on
that important point. If there was a differ
ence between the two houses as to the prin-
ciple Of the measure, | could easily under
stand, though the consequences might
be of very grave character, that
delay in the settlement or fur
ther consideration of this question
might have been advisable, and not only ex-
pedient, but, upon the whole, most wise and
polite. But, when the difference between
the two houses has resolved itself into what
we must all acknowledge to be mere matters
of detail, l must say that have always felt
that delay in the settlement of this question,
while bringing with it very doubtful advan-
tages, might lead to difficulty and disaster tono
inconsiderable extent. We must therefore,
remember that we are called on to consider
to-day, when differences between the two
branches of the Legislature have taken place
on this question of the Irish Church, whether
it is possible to come to an agreement with
respect to details. and not in the least with
respect to any principle involved in the BILL
Both the House of Lords and the House of
Commons have accepted that principle.
Now, / hear some talk of unconditional
surrender, instead of amicable compro-
mise in this instance; but | cannot
help thinking that those who use expressions
of that kind must really associate the accept
ance of these amendments with the accept
Of tho ,,-i,,ni,,1a ~ fha hill aon aacilNr
understand that if an honorable member is of
opinion that by dissenting in some very
small points of detail the defeat of the mea-
sure might be secured, he should wish that
course to be taken; but it can be owing only
to a confusion of ideas of that character that
the phrase unconditional surrender can be
applied to the settlement which is proposed
for our consideration to-day. Let us see
whether this is Just view Of the case, The
points of difference between the two houses
were really reduced in number to four. Con-
siderable notifications have been agreed to by
the Government in three of these-modifca-
tions, indeed, in very important proposal,
which amount, may say, almost to a total
exchange of its character. If that be the
case; if, when there are only four points
of difference between the houses, points
of detail, her Majesty's Government have con-
sented to q scheme which in three of these
points introduces very considerable mOditica-
tions-I cannot understand how any honora-
BILE gentleman can be satisfied in describing
an arrangement of that kind as one of uncon-
ditional surrender. (Hear, hear 1t appears
to me, on the whole, to be a wise and con-
ciliatory settlement of the points of disagree
ment-(hear, hear) r)-and although l do not
wish to introduce my own opinion upon the
subject--for it is not necessary-f l had
really to decide which party had the best of
the arrangement, 1 should think it, for the
purposes of debate, more prudent to hold my
tongue (Cheers and laughter.) Very likely
the same feeling may influence gentlemen on
either side, and if, therefore, there is reci-
procal feeling of that nature respecting the
settlement, / think we may arrive at
this conclusion-that the compromise
is a fair and just one. (Hear hear.
If the differences between the two
houses involved as l ventured to observe
before, the principle of the measure, could
understand honorable gentlemen expressing
in terms of becoming indignation, their
opinion of what they considered an uncondi-
tional surrender. But, even from their own
view, it could only be an unconditional sur
render of points of detail not of policy: and
when you come to examine into the terms of
arrangement, you find at least, to use the
mildest phrase, that as many of these points
of controversy are conceded to us as have
been conceded to us by the Government. If
any arrangement was to take place upon this
matter cannot understand howit could have
been brought about in any other way. Iknow
there are some who very much regret that the
point as to the glebe-houses has not been in
sisted on. (Hear) But allow me to say that
. that has been considered by some of the
best Judges at all times a very questionable
demand, and that if conceded, it might in
volve conditions as regards the future right
of the State to interfere with the general pro
perty of the disendowed Church, which might
be very inconvenient and perhaps very dan.
gerous hereafter. (Hear, hear.) There is
no doubt whatever that the strong feeling
that exists upon the subject of glebe-houses,
and the necessity of that concession being
made to the disendowed Church of Ireland
arose from the expressions of the right
honorable gentleman and some of his col
leagues upon that subject during their can
vass. They have frankly admitted that those
views were held by them and those expressions
used, and have no wish whatever TO enlarge
upon the subject further than to repeat wha
on another occasion did mention, merely be-
cause it is political truth which ought not tc
be forgotten-that trust this will be the las
occasion on which political questions will bt
dealt with on abstract principles. If the righ
honorable gentleman had not laid down 81
broadly and abstractedly the principles Oh
which he would settle this business, he woul:
have been able to settle it more easily and il
a manner which would have conciliated the
feeling of powerful classes now much
won't say outraged, butcertainly much painet
and offended, and we might have brought
about this settlement in way that would
have been infinitely more satisfactory anC
more advantageous to the country. 1t mus
be remembered that there is not a single
nrincinle on which this legislation was to take