The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-08-07

Ahe "reot stfuSSic HI lsrSianus
On our fourth page We give n full telegraphic
abstract of the debate in parliament I'm the Irish
Church Bill, from July 2d till July 2lst. The
bill finally passed the House of Lords on the
18th, with over fifty amendments, so mutiIated,
however, that it could hardly be recognized rs
the same that came from the lower house.
On the 18th of July, the Commons took up
the bill n sent to them by the Lords, and except
ing two or three unimportant amendments, which
were concurrcd in, decided to adhere to the bill
as originally passed by them. They are deter
mined not 10 surrender the chief features Of the
measure, and if the Lords continue to stand out
against the government, Mr.. Gladstone will pro-
rogue parliament, and prepare a more stringent
bill.
The chief point of difference between the two
houses is on the question of the disposal Of the
surplus funds or interest and income arising from
the property Of the Established Church in Ireland,
which this bill disestablishes, i. G., destroys all
connection between state and church, placing
Episcopal Churches in Ireland on the same foot
ing as Catholic, Presbyterian or any other de-
nomination. The Lords insist that the surplus
funds ms well rs the globes shall be divided
among the above sects. The Ministry oppose
H"DS Oh arc BfOuuu tEil III question sUOulu DC
left open for future settlement, to be disposed of
as experience indicates to be the best.
In the discussion before the Commons, Mr..
Disraeli charged Mr.. Gladstone with a breach of
his pledge to accept whatever amendments the
Lords might make. The premier replied that he
had made no such pledge, and had treated the
Lords with due courtesy in debating the amend
ments which they had made. Nearly all these
amendments, however, were thrown out.
Under date Of July Sth, is a significant item,
referring to q letter privately circulated, the
intent of which is to call a public meeting of
the leading liberals to discuss 80 the best c~onstitu-
tional mode of getting rid of this obstruction to
legislation that is, the House of Lords. 1t
shows the state of public feeling there, and a
determination to shelvc the Lords, should they
persist in opposing the will of the people. The
present British Ministry hold the destiny of the
Lords in their hands, and if they decide to adopt
any course to curtail the power of the Peers, it
will be carried. We do not believe the Peers
will allow matters to Progress SO far as to render
anything OF this kind necessary, but that they
will, when the bill comes to a final vote, grace
fully yield, under n protest such as Earl Derby
has issued.
The debate on the 2lst of July, the latest date
we have, and the comments of the London press
thereon, are very interesting and should be read
throughout. England is now, as the Nelrs, says
- in the midst of n constitutional crisis. The
Lords, giving full swing to their reckless impulses,
have rushed into n collision with the government,
the House of Commons and the country. The
duties and responsibilities of the situation should
be weighed by the Ministry with calmness and
confdence-of men sure of ultimate and speedy
The bill, when presented at the autumn
session, will become the law with great speed.
The Lords will not require the threat of the
creation of new Peers TO lead them to assent to
more stringent measures. The country must
decide whether an irresponsible debating society
is to be allowed to interpose between it and it's
purposes and convictions, constitutions
expressed"
This is pretty free talk, and had it been uttered
in France, it would have been called treason, no
or if applied to local matters in Hawaii
the paper which spoke it would have been
allied ga blackguard sheet,'-a favorite term
with some narrow minds.