The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-07-14

speet. eagAt pot 10 yield o. external pressure.
The Enperor. IN his s2areSs. SAYS am well
asssrSi that these views are these Of year een-
stitaestS. IS l su, eoavinesd that they are the
sssse IS are entertained by = majority ef the
CAameer.
PAKis. Jane ir.-rhs city IS eatireay tran
qsa. and there are ne fesrs 81 farther eisor~
der,
TIE manager Of Ls Rsepeil. aaewSpAPer ~
eezsly started il the laterest of the AntS>ny-
nasty party. has keen sentenced 10 fSer
months Imprisonment for melting contempt
Of the Government. The editor was sentenced
to six mentAs' imprisonment. and hned S,OQ0
fraaes. saa each printer 10 enc month, and a
sae Of I.ea0 francs.
A very formidable collision occurred yssser~
aSy AZ St. Esienrs smong the coal miners and
national Troops. The miners attempted 20 res
cue Seae prisoners ff0m the military, and ere-
arms were used en- both sides. The miners were
Al leagsh dispersed. sitsr several had been
killed, aud many Injured. Five soldiers were
badly wounded. Order hsd been restored at
last aceeonts-
LoSnox, June is Midnight. In the
House Of Commons, tonight, Mr.. o,way,
Cnder Foreign Secretary, In reply 10 an in-
qpiry Of Mr.. Beaumont, said that when the
Republic of Mexico was re-estahliShed, IL
declined intercourse With the Powers which
had recognized the Empire The British
Minister AZ the City Of Mexico consequently
withdrew. Her MSlesty's Government had
no objection to open relations, but overtures
must cone from Mexico.
Mr.. Gladstone, in reply TO question iron
Lord North, explained that Mr.. Bright wrote
the recent letter to the Birmingham meeting
without consulting his colleagues, aud on bis
own responsibility. The Government had
no intention Of threatening the House Of
4 80 ks.,a~. tasrse NNs
entitled 10 full freedom Of speech, and he
would regard with great jealousy any at
tempt to interfere with il, especially II made
bv 4 Minister Of the Crown He and his col
league. Mr.. Bright. both discouraged any pop
uIsr action tending 10 interfere with the III
dependence Of the House of LordS, aud
when overtureS had been made to them 10
attend public meetings, both had steadily de-
clined.
The House Of Lords was crowded, and
great interest Was manifested.
Lord Cairns, amid cheers from the opposi-
ton, put the question whether Bright'S letter
had been expected by other members of the
Government, aud whether, In the present
crisis, 1t was proper support and assistance
to the Government He said the Govern
ment must either indorse or rcpudiate il.
Earl Granville, in reply, admitted the au-
thentieity Of the letter, and said the Cabinet
had declined to discuss the policy 10 be pur-
sued If the bill should De rejected. lie knew
that neither Of his colleagues, except Bright
had any knowledge Of the contents OF the
letter, until il was published, he thought
the Cabinet Was not responsible for the indi-
vidual opinions OF its members, and, for
himself. regretted the language Mr.. Bright
had used; but be had Mr.. BTight's authority
tor stating that he bad no Intention to ex,
press disrespect for their LordShips; and II
any pain had been caused there by his words,
he expressed unfeigned regret for IT,
Amer the Duke Of Devonshire's speech in
the House Of Lords, the Marquis Of Sails
bury said be Intended 10 vote for second
reading of the bill, but did not commit him
self 10 all its details. He stigmatized as false
the assertion that the House Of Lords, In as
sentiug TO the will of the nation, express
subordiuation TO the Commons Were that
the fact. il had better disappear as 4 CO.
ordinate branch Of the Government In
majority of cases. the Lords must decide for
themselves, but when the Commons aud the
nation are agreed on certain point, the
functions Of the House Of Lords have passed
away, and the responsibility devolyes on the
nation and the Commons He thought the
bill Liberal and impions, and did not believe
thSt amendments would be CONTEMPORARY
disregarded by the Commons.
Lord Colchester, Bishop Of Tuam, opposed
the bill. and Esris Stanhope and Nelson pro-
posed slight amendments, but only supported
them briefly.
Adverting TO the course Of the House of
Lords on the Reform Bill Of 1852, Earl Rus
sell impIOTed the Lords, and hoped they
would act in accordance with the spirit of
the institution. and accept the decision of
the nation as inAl and binding.
Duke ASercorn opposed the bill, as the
production Of man eager for personal and
psrty triumph. rather than the good of his
The raS,Ir unula h. the alienation,
Of the Protestants, the Introduction of dis
cord, and the failure to conciliate the Cath
olics-
Tie Duke Of Argyle argued that disestsb-
lishmeut and disendOwment could not be
sep4rate de admitted that the question
was forced into consideration hastily, and
not by protraeted agitation, but was the To-
sicsl result Of political freedom. He thought
the measure was an attack on the rights Of
property. He disliked indiseriminate dis
endowment: but the ecclesiastical system Of
Ireland which endowed Protestant sects and
the Mayuooth College, was valueless 10 the
Church, and had never promoted the cause
Of Professionalism. He urged their Lordships
TO consider carefully all the circumstances,
and eude1vOr to be in harmony with the na-
tiOnal will He declared that the present
movement was dictated BY desire to re-
move the foulest stain on English rule in
Irelznd-
Bishop Littlefeld said his experience of the
operation of the GisendoWed Churches led
him to oppose the bill unhesitztingly. Dis
endowment was unfair and unjust, as the
Churches have faithfully discharged their du-
ties il maintaining Professionalism, religious
freedom. and liberty Of conscience.
Lord WATERBURY regarded the bill as full
Of evil, as the effect Of mistaken policy
which Is likely to produce dangerous results.
Still ne WAS not bound to vote for its passage
in the amended form; but II the amend
msufz are not accepted, be must insist on its
rejection II was the constitutional duty Of
the House 10 bow 20 the expressed will Of
the people, and repeet any policy coming
from them; but they should not pass bin
full Of evil and mischief The House Is
bound to see that the will Of the people is
really and deliberately expressed On any
other principle, the House would become a
hereditary 0Iigarchy, which Is entirely out
Of place in the Constitution. The Corona
ton Oath E.s only COMPACT between the
Crown snd the people, from which Pariia-
mert, representing the people, can release
the Crown, and does so il every question
sent 10 the House Of Lords which Is ineon-
sisteut with the Coronation Oath The Act
Of Union L q similar compact, which Parlia-
ment has full power to zbrogzte. IL Is q Sc
nous point TO deprive q corporation Of the
power Of fulfilling its duties We can only
do 80 when It ceases TO discharge its Obligz-
tons On further analysis Of the right Of
the Church 10 Ire property, he maintained
that il had the same equal right TO hold IL as
Z private individual had to possess his es-
tAtez- Admitting the allegation that the
Irish Church was badge Of conquest, would
this movement stop here, or must land be
restored, The questions at issue we're,
church, education, and land The latter should
Be dealt with FIRST he strongly deprecated
the introduction Of the bill at the present
critical juneture-