The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-07-03
lBy Telegraph, from Engand.l
The Irish Church Bill in the House of
Lords,

The Irish Church Bill in the House O
G Lords.
t LONDON, June 14.-The House of Peers to
t night, in anticipation of the debate on the Irisl
E bill, was full. All the seats on the floor were
? occupied at the opening, and the galleries and
lobbies were crowded with spectators. In the
5 streets in the vicinity of the House of Parliament
, a great throng of people was collected.
The Earl of Granville moved that the bill pass
to a second reading. He declared that he always
{ thought the Irish Church was an anomaly, and
had failed to fulfill the mission for which it was
: intended. There was a great injustice which
should be l~egislated on in a reasonable, wise and
moderate way. He traced the history of the
controversy during the last year. He said the
resignation of the Disraeli Ministry and its
acceptance, showed the decision of the country
i'm favor of disestablishment and disendownent
After explaining the provisions of the bill under
consideration, Lord Granville continued: The
Government does not desire to sever the spiritual
connection between the Irish and English
Churches. He would leave the explanation of
the subject of to his colleagues, but
declared that there was nothing in the act of
union to prevent the passage Of the bill. He
did not undervalue that act, but maintained that
it was not unalterable, nor should it be allowed
to stand in the way of a measure deemed neces-
sary to a majority of the people of Ireland.
Referring to threatened opposition and COM
menting on the bigotry of past times. he appealed
~ tuC anu " DlSuOpS u Weigh we'll tUSiT
course. Nothing vas more suicidal than to point
to the principle ON which the Irish Church stands.
for this step was but the prelude to disestablish-
ment. The House of Peers has great power for
good, but there is one thing it does not possess.
1t has not more power than the House of Com |
mons. 1t has not power to thwart the national
will. 1t was said that the method of conducting
the bill in the Commons was offensive. and that
the House of Lords had been advised to be concil- |
iatory in their present declarations. He well knew
the value of Cancellation. but there was no neces-
Ssfv for ~ hnra For no xrnnll oCc,rA fGaT @-l, xl.x |
though the Liberal party adhered strongly to the
policy of the bill, they would gratefully welcome
and carfnlly consider any alteration of detail pro-
posed by their lordships. More than this he could
not say.
Earl of Harrowsby moved that the second read
ing of the bill be postponed three months. He
opposed the bill as revolutionary, in violation of
the coronation oath, and of the act of union. The
circumstances were not sufficient to justify its
introduction. Its results would be to diminish the
number of Irish Professionals. 1t was not an act of
Justice. He repudiated the idea that the rejection
of the measure would be running counter to the
national will. The sense of the country had not
been tested on the point. He believed that the
country was now earnestly looking to and expect
ing the House of Lords to reject the bill.
Lord Clarendon said he did not reciprocate the
feelings OF the Earl of HarrOwsby as to the result
of the bill. Similar fOrebodings were expressed
with regard to reform and free trade measures.
He believed the sentiment of the country bad been
fully tested on the topic. and been discussed the 1
past year and a half, and was SO thoroughly ex-
hausted and understood, that he was unable to saw
anything new on it. He believed that Ireland was
the question of the hour. Her condition bad be-
wlidered government after government. The uni
VefSal assent OF the country, and the impOSsibility :
of such a state of things continuing. imposed on
MIR. Gladstone the duty of settling the Irish Church ?
grievance. :
The Duke of Rutland opposed the bill because it W
overthrew the rights of property. violated the OF
religion OF a majority Of the Union people of the q
United Kingdom, destroyed the union of Church
and State. He denied that the Irish Church was a
badge of cOnnnQSt- and t6pclarpI bic conr;ot;o-
that the voluntary system would never answer.
Lord S%tratford Radcliffe objected to many details
OF the bill, but warned the House of Lords not to a
substance for shadow. He believed the s.
passage OF the bill as it now stood would result in .
lrreparable injury to the Church, and could not
its condition in Ireland. The relative
of the two Houses of Parliament. how
ever. demand a second reading of the bill, after -
which the House of Lords could amend its objec- n
ionable features. III
Lord Romilly regarded the idea that this bill =
would prove destructive to Professionalism as a ~
myth. 1t would only deprive the Crown on the M
of some Bishops.
June 10. In continuation of the debate in the
House of Lords last night, Lord Romilly. in his Ais
peech on the passage of the Disestablishment Bill.
aid be would not interfere with the doctrine or 4
of the Church. He warned the House Cox
gainst opposing the national will. and reminded Ind
hem that the severest blow they had received was -.
n the rejection of the reform Bill and the final a.
they were under to pass it. g.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said the Bench of -
bishops intended to do what in conscience they
wisest and best. On the decision of the
louise of Lords depended issues affecting the "
hurch in Ireland and England, as well as the des- "
MES of the Empire. He would not agree to a
lind reception or rejection of the bill which was to
aa Sot dss fsa'g,@ on s HT p9'ia'ss eit lsi'af Hs b eps q be G;
who urged rejection really desired to see this
louse powerless. He was attached to the Irish A
hurch he believed any blow injuring it would -
Jure the English Church. He therefore desired to
i've calm and serious consideration to the bill. and ia
mend 1t so as to make it a good measure. The
irnest endeavor of the House of Peers. containing
sads OF the Church and of the landed interest of n
aim. would be of more avail than any agitation L
ceilings at Manchester or in Ireland.
Earl Granville was unable to understand how Fe
could hand Ireland bodily over to the
hurch of Rome, but thought they were bound to
cognize the merits of freedom from State control,
Inch had for SO long a period been a kind of slav-
y He repudiated the idea that this bill would
al the fate of the English Church be did not T.
ink if an act of spoliation. as it distinguished -
1vate from corporate property. On the monetary
lestlon be urged iberality and generosity, and, in
advised the House not to reject the bill. IN
majority Of the Commons, he said, demand its
ssage but the minority of the House and the
untry commended its consideration.
The Bishop of Derry opposed the bill, on the 7
ound that it ignored the Queens supremacy, and
,uld. in the end. bring the country under the do
MON of the Papal Legate. 10
The House, W ithOut taking any action. at 1918
journed. -
LONDON, June 15.-The London Times, on last UN
,htis debate in the House of Lords. says that the
eeches of Lord Stratford de Radcliffe and the
chbishop of Canterbury leave no doubt as to the
of the bill. While they dislike or are unable Hi
persuade themselves it will have a beneficial eff
t, they advise the House of Lords to give its a..
The practical good sense and patriotism - o
these speeches contrast very strongly with the
lie of Brightis hasty effusion. At
The Telegraph says that after the first nights de-
te on the Irish Church Bill, its passage cannot
doubted. -.
Fhe Star thinks that since the speech of the Iron
of Canterbury, everything appears ia
able to. the passage of the bill.
dr.. Bright has written a letter to a meeting at
in which he says that if the House of
IDS delay the passage of the Irish Church Bill, II
y will stimulate a discussion of the subject eSs
ch might slumber for years. The value of a
lstitution which gives a majority in one House
power in the other House against a given pol
may be questioned. Why is it that when the Va
wn and Commons harmonic with the nation. ' Z