Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

explanation by Sir J. Pakington, leave was given to bring in the bill.

On the order of the day for going into committee on the Militia Bill, Mr. COBDEN moved, as an amendment, that a return of the effective force of the royal navy on the 31st of March last be laid upon the table, and that the consideration of the bill in committee be postponed until after the production of such return. He contended that our navy ought to be sufficient to protect the country against an invasion. From the only source to which he had access, he found that we had 500 vessels of war, building, in ordinary, or afloat. He could not ascertain the real amount of our naval force at home; but he thought there was great waste in keeping large ships of war upon distant stations, under the pretext of protection of our commerce. If we were really in danger of an invasion, why should nineteen vessels of war be kept in the Mediterranean? But the danger was ideal. There was no instance of a war between two great nations without ample warning and time of preparation; and it was improbable and inconsistent with the interests of the ruler of France to suppose he would depart from the recognised principles of international usage. Mr. Cobden urged the difficulties of conveying over an invading army, especially in the face of a steam fleet larger than could be furnished by the whole continent together, as well as the military facilities provided by our railroads. He did not believe, he said, that any man of common sense out of the house had more apprehension of invasion now than two years ago; but if the country was really afraid, let our ships be brought home before we were made a military people.-The amendment was seconded by Mr. ANDERSON, who dwelt at some length upon the resources to be found in our mercantile steam navy.— Captain BOLDERO said the amendment pretended one thing and meant another. The information could be got from the "Navy List; " the real object was delay. He examined various suggestions auxiliary to the bill, and assigned several reasons why the regular army should be increased by 10,000 or 15,000 men. Mr. BRIGHT maintained that the object of the motion was not delay, but to place before the house facts which would enable it to decide upon the expediency of any further expenditure upon our military establishments. The bill, he contended, was hostile to the industry of the country, injurious to freedom, and there was no interest which the country cared for that would not be prejudiced by a militia, unless it was proved to be absolutely necessary to the safety of the country. If there was a new danger, where was it? Had the people of France or their ruler shown any symptom of a wish to pick a quarrel with us? The French people approved of their present ruler because his policy afforded a security for repose, which would not last an instant if he declared war with, or attacked piratically, this country, for which he could have no motive, while the motive of self-preservation would suffice to hold his hand. No case, therefore, had been made out for the bill, which grew out of a panic, the worst possible ground for legislation. Mr. WHITESIDE, in replying to Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, observed that no apprehension was entertained of the French people, who might be satisfied with their ruler; but it was, as declared by Mr. Pitt in defending the militia bill of 1802, because the French were essentially a military power, and that power was centred in one man. He vindicated the policy of this measure, which was, he said, essentially peaceful, and intended solely for self-defence.-The debate was adjourned.

On Tuesday, May the 4th, the adjourned debate was resumed, and a great number of members joined in it. Sir DE LACY EVANS maintained that our regular military force had been underrated, and that of France over-estimated. He argued that the French available army did not amount to more than 100,000 fighting men, without allowing for indispensable garrisons; he did not believe that France could spare more than 30,000 men for foreign service. He still thought the force proposed to be raised an illusory one; but of the two bills he preferred that of the late government.-Major BERESFORD, in reply to Sir De Lacy Evans, showed from official returns that he had exaggerated the amount of regulars we could bring into the field to repel an invasion; that the infantry and artillery numbered 34,143, or

deducting one-fifth for non-efficient, and adding 7750 pensioners, 34,280 rank and file; that 28,000 must be deducted for garrisons and dock-yards, which would leave available for field service only 6280, and adding 4284 cavalry and sappers and miners, 10,564 rank and file only to meet an invading force. In the present feeling of the house, an increase of the regular army could not be maintained; whilst in point of expense, 15,000 regular troops would cost 600,000l. the first year, and 525,000l. afterwards, whereas the estimate for the whole cost of the militia was only 350,000l. the first year. There was every chance, he observed, that this species of force would prove very available, and so far from superseding the regular army, it would be, as it had been, a nursery for it.-Lord PALMERSTON, having been frequently alluded to in the course of the debate, would say a few words. He thought an invasion was possible, to use no stronger word, and that it was the duty of the country to guard against such an event. The country would judge between his opponents and himself, but, if he were wrong, and his advice were followed, the country was safe while, if they were wrong, and their advice were followed, the country was in danger. They, knowing nothing of war, or the means by which it was carried on, wished to lull the country into a false security. Now, he had heard that the late King of the French, subsequently to the Tahiti dispute (at which time the present preachers of peace were the loudest advocates for intervention), stated that his generals had pledged themselves, if war broke out, to be in London within a week. After explaining away various misconstructions that had been placed upon language he had previously used in reference to this question, he said that he had the greatest respect for sincere opinions, such as were at the bottom of the opposition to this bill, and which, though they had not been broadly stated in the debate, had been set forth in a pamphlet which he quoted, and which he described as proving that it was our duty as Christians to allow this country to be conquered by France. He excited the loudest cheering by citing a passage from that pamphlet, in which the writer urged that though the French might come, plunder London, sweep all our institutions away, and drive the Queen into exile, the "mills" would go on, men would stand behind counters," and "money would be made;" and, finally, this glorious example of Christian humility and forbearance on our part, would actually shame the French into going away and sending back the money of which they might have plundered us. He firmly believed that this work was written in serious and sober earnest, and that it emanated from a party from whom much of the opposition to this bill proceeded. The government had to deal with two alternatives, one (as suggested by the party he had referred to) a voluntary submission on the part of this country to its conquest by France, as a just retribution for engaging in war; or, if we were still wedded to the ancient notions of self-vindication, to provide the means by which invasion might be successfully resisted.-Colonel THOMPSON suggested that the authors of "Punch" had written the pamphlet quoted by Lord Palmerston, but was quite certain that no considerable body in the country concurred in such crude views. Mr. DRUMMOND said that the printer of the pamphlet in question was a candidate to succeed Mr. Fox Maule in the representation of Perth.-Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the amendment, but protested against Lord Palmerston's statement that this bill would make the country safe. He did not believe that such would be the result of the measure, but thought that any of the other means to which government might have resorted for the defence of the nation would have been preferable to this bill. Contending that the measure would not provide a force ready to repel even a small invasion, he disclaimed the party motives with which he had been charged, and utterly denied that his conduct would bear such an interpretation. Upon a division, the amendment was rejected by 285 against 76. A second division took place upon the original question, that the Speaker leave the chair, which was carried by 219 against 85.-Mr. Bright, Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Cobden, still struggled for some

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

respite, entreating that a "long day" should be fixed for going seriously into committee; Mr. BRIGHT avowing the object of the postponement to be, "that the opinion of the country might be expressed for and against the measure."-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that Mr. Bright's demand was "preposterous," and was only made to give time for " agitation."-This reading was warmly denied; and being adhered to somewhat peremptorily, Mr. COBDEN warned Mr. Disraeli not to indulge the tone he was falling into "towards those who, having been placed in frequent antagonism to him, on many occasions had shown him forbearance and consideration."-The struggle was still prolonged; and two more divisions were taken, in which the government numbers were 103 and 105, and those of the minority 31 and 29; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give in. At nearly half-past two in the morning, it was at last fixed that the bill should be committed on Thursday.

On Wednesday the 5th, the debate on the second reading of the Irish Tenant Right Bill, postponed from March last, was resumed. The bill was supported by Mr. Conolly, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Reynolds; and opposed by Lord Naas, Sir W. Somerville, and Lord C. Hamilton. On a division the second reading was negatived by 167 against 57.

[MAY.

was resumed. On the proposal for filling up the blank in the clause with "fifty thousand men" for the first year, Sir E. COLEBROOKE opposed it, intending to move the insertion of a smaller number. After some discussion the committee divided, and the numbers werefor the original motion, 135; against it, 61; majority, 74.-Mr. BRIGHT moved a proviso to the clause, to the effect that punishments in the militia should not extend to flogging or other corporal punishments.-Mr. BERESFORD, in opposing the motion, said that corporal punishments had almost entirely ceased in the army; but still he could not agree to the propriety of abolishing the power of resorting to that mode of punishment, should the necessity for it arise, whether the offenders were militia men or belonged to the regular army. A lengthened discussion ensued, terminating in a division, on which the numbers were-for the proviso, 92; against it, 199: majority, 107. The clause was then agreed

to.

The Property and Income Tax Bill, which had been read a second time the previous night, was passed pro formá through committee.

On Monday the 10th, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to Assign the four seats in Parliament in lieu of St. Albans and Sudbury. He considered this to be one of the measures of paramount importance which ministers deemed it necessary to take before the dissolution. The proposition of ministers was that two of the vacant seats should be awarded to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the other two to the southern division of Lancashire. Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the motion, contending that the measure was unnecessary, and that its introduction was peculiarly inexpedient on the eve of a dissolution of parliament. On a division the motion was negatived by 234 against 148.

On Thursday the 6th, the house went into committee on the Militia Bill, upon the third clause, which repealed the provisions of the act of 1802, and subsequent acts relating to property qualifications of persons to be appointed officers, with certain exceptions. Mr. HUME moved the omission of the latter portion of the clause, with the view of repealing all the existing militia laws, and consolidating the whole law in the present act, in conformity with the title of the bill, which professed to be a bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the militia in England." This motion was opposed by On Tuesday the 11th, Mr. SPOONER moved for a Mr. WALPOLE, and after a very brisk debate, was select committee to inquire into the System of Education negatived upon a division of 165 against 82.—Mr. M. carried on at the College of Maynooth. He charged the GIBSON moved other amendments of the same clause, Maynooth system with being injurious to society, with the effect of which was to abolish the property qualifica- creating immorality, and with being completely subvertion of deputy-lieutenants and officers in the militia of sive of the true principles of allegiance. He maintained the rank of major and upwards. Mr. WALPOLE that the original grant to the college was in itself bad in objected to this proposition, but consented to add a principle, and that all the forebodings of those who had proviso at the end of the clause, that the qualification | opposed it had been fully realised; that the system should not be restricted to real estate. This com- taught there was antagonistical to the word of God, and promise was agreed to. On the 7th clause, which a national sin, and, as such, it was his earnest wish to prescribed the number of men to be raised, Mr. see the grant refused. He examined the doctrines CHARTERIS, meaning to propose the omission of the which appeared from the books used at the college to be compulsory clauses, suggested that, instead of 80,000 inculcated at Maynooth, in respect to oaths and their men, 40,000 be raised to serve five years, each man obligations; to morality and honesty, including the disto be drilled fifty-six days in the first year, and ten tinctions between mortal sins and venial sins; to the days in each of the four succeeding years; 20,000 to supremacy of the Romish ecclesiastic law above the be called out in 1852, 10,000 in 1853, and 10,000 in constitutional law, and its authority over even heretics; 1854.--Mr. WALPOLE resisted this alteration, which to contracts with heretics, and to confession. In order would counteract the design of the bill, that of to prove the encroaching spirit of the Romish church, having a sufficient body of men to meet an emergency. Mr. Spooner contrasted the declarations made and With respect to the compulsory clauses, he added, it pledges given by its clergy in Ireland previous to Roman was his intention to propose that the 16th clause, catholic emancipation-whereby many protestants had which authorised her Majesty to order a ballot where been reconciled to that measure-with its recent pretenmen cannot be raised by voluntary enlistment, should sions, and he pledged himself if a committee were not come into force until the 31st of December next, granted, to show that the disloyalty, and even rebellion so that time would be afforded to ascertain how far which had appeared in Ireland, might be traced to the the experiment of voluntary enlistment had succeeded, teaching and the doctrines inculcated at Maynooth. and the new parliament would have a full opportunity | The Marquis of BLANDFORD seconded the motion. Mr of stopping the ballot, if it was deemed unadvisable ANSTEY moved, by way of amendment, a resolutior to have recourse to its machinery. This intimation that the house will resolve itself into a committee t diverted the discussion in a great degree from the 7th consider of a bill for repealing the Maynooth endowment clause to the 16th, several members contending that it act, and all other acts for charging the revenue in aid was so essential a change as to give a new character ecclesiastical or religious purposes, arguing that neither to the measure which would leave the proposed Roman catholics nor protestants could, without a viola addition to our defensive force to accident, notwith- tion of religious liberty, be taxed for the support o standing the plea of urgency. Mr. Walpole, on the institutions connected with a faith to which they did other hand, maintained that it was only carrying out not belong. The withdrawal of these grants w world what the government had announced from the first, remove from the house questions of polemics, for which namely, that the ballot should not be put in operation it was a very unsuitable arena.-The amendment until it had been ascertained that voluntary enlist- seconded by Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, who, while opposed ment had failed. The committee divided upon the the original motion, did not mean to record his admiquestion of filling up the blank in the 7th clause ration of the endowment of Maynooth, to which he with the words "eighty thousand," which was affirmed as little friendly as Mr. Spooner; but he would by 237 against 106. join in an attack upon a small endowment to a Roman catholic college whilst the large endowment of the Protestant church were left untouched.

On Friday the 7th, the house, in committee, proceeded with the Militia Bill, and the consideration of clause 7

!

[ocr errors]

was

to

vas

not

ts

at once.

week.

Mr. WALPOLE, on the part of the government, wished made up their minds, as a step to the repeal of the grant. to make an early statement of the course they meant to But a select committee appointed upon the motion of pursue. All agreed that this question, whether regarded gentlemen expressing such sentiments could not be in a political or a social or a moral aspect, was one of the intrusted with such an inquiry. It was a national utmost difficulty. Mr. Spooner's motion, for an inquiry question, and in all preceding cases had been dealt with into the system of education at the college of Maynooth, by the executive government, and he proposed that this raised the question whether the grant had or had not inquiry should be conducted under the immediate superanswered its purpose. There were two arguments against intendence and responsibility of the executive government. inquiry-first, that the question was concluded in 1845,-Mr. GRATTAN and Mr. НUME opposed the motion.and ought not to be reopened; second, that the grant Lord PALMERSTON stated the grounds upon which he itself was so vicious in principle that it ought to be repealed intended to vote against both the original motion and With regard to the first, since parliament had the amendment. He thought that the house was entermade the grant, parliament had a right to recall it. ing upon an unwise course, and which, if the motion When the grant was made perpetual in 1845, Sir R. Peel should be agreed to, must either end in a nullity or lead stated two grounds for the measure-first, the poverty to dangerous consequences. No ground had been laid hanging over the college; second, that it would break for the motion, the object of which was to withdraw the up a formidable confederacy in Ireland against the British grant-a course which would not abolish ultramontane government and British connection. There were three influence in Ireland, but on the contrary, would force purposes for which the grant was made-first, to secure the Irish priesthood to seek education abroad. He a well-educated, loyal, and domestic priesthood; second, believed the motion had arisen from feelings out of to provide funds for their instruction; and third, to break doors, which had unfortunately been aroused amongst up by generosity what Sir R. Peel termed a "formidable the protestants of this country by what he should never confederacy." Then, had these, or any of these, purposes shrink from characterising as the aggressive and unjustibeen answered? This was a question which the house fiable proceedings of the court of Rome. But let not the was bound to consider before it determined whether or house visit this act upon the catholic youth of Ireland not this committee should be granted. Had there been intended for the ministry, which would be as impolitic as a well-educated, loyal, domestic priesthood in Ireland? it was unjust. It appeared to him that the motion was Up to a certain time there may have been; but there one of vengeance, and if so, it was at variance with all were strong reasons for believing that many of the priest-sound principles of national policy, and on that ground hood educated at this college were members of different he resisted it.-The debate was adjourned until that day orders who do not remain à domestic priesthood. Had not the the character of the priesthood changed of late years? He feared that instead of confining themselves, as they ought to do, to the supporting of their own religion, they had, in fact, assumed an aggressive character. He alluded to what had taken place since Dr. Cullen had come into Ireland. If the facts were so, measures should be taken against an application of the public money to any other than its legitimate purposeto provide a well-educated, loyal, and domestic priesthood. The grant had been intended by Sir R. Peel as a messenger of peace; it was made in a liberal and confiding spirit; and he would ask any man if the system of education at Maynooth had had the tendency designed by Sir R. Peel. These were the reasons which induced the government to think that some inquiry ought to be made -namely, that the conditions of the grant had not been adequately fulfilled, and that the objects for which it was made no longer existed to the same extent. He thought, therefore, that the country had a right to ask, and that the house was bound to consent to an inquiry, and by the results of that inquiry his own opinion would abide.—Mr. OSBORNE denounced this as a mean attempt to raise a "No Popery "cry with which to go to the hustings. The object was to destroy the Roman Catholic religion, and he would not be a party to a one-sided attack upon that faith, and a direct insult upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The house ought not to have its time wasted and its passions excited by such subjects.-Mr. GLADSTONE said that although he did not contend that parliament was bound by any compact to maintain the grant, yet, unless it could be shown that the objects of the endowment had failed, and the expectations enterained at the time of the endowment had been frustrated, oth prudence and justice demanded the maintenance of he grant; and it appeared to him that such failure could ot be shown. If the endowment was to be withdrawn, he parliament that withdrew it must be prepared to ter upon the whole subject of the reconstruction of clesiastical arrangements in Ireland. He did not say hether this would be right or wrong, but it was the essary as well as the logical consequence of the course which the house was entering. No serious case his opinion, been made out to prove the failure endowment; not a single student had left Maynooth he enlargement of the grant; he should, therefore, preferred the delay of the inquiry until a later od. At the same time, when a motion of this kind as made, he thought the friends of Maynooth should cast no obstacles in its way. Prudence and justice, however, prescribed limits to the inquiry. The mover and his seconder looked upon inquiry simply as a means of establishing certain charges upon which they had

On Wednesday the 12th, the debate on Mr. M. Gibson's three resolutions concerning the Paper Duty, the Newspaper Stamp Duty, and the Advertisement Duty, adjourned from the 22nd of April, was resumed. Mr. COWAN explained the nature of the restrictions peculiarly applicable to the manufacture of paper; the tendency of which, he said, was to obstruct improvements. The excise duty fell with great severity upon certain branches of this manufacture-cards, boards, boxes, and packages for British articles exported-and the vexatious processes of supervision occasioned a further outlay. But for the depressing and crushing effect of these duties and restrictions, the paper manufacture would have attained a far greater extension than it now had.-Mr. GLADSTONE said, although he should be heartily glad when the time came at which the duty on paper could be repealed, on the present occasion such a proposal could not be entertained. There were, however, so many interesting circumstances connected with this duty that it was a question which might be very usefully discussed in the house. One branch of the trade particularly deserved its attention-namely, the consumption of paper in the printing of literary works. A most important struggle was going on in the book trade, and though it would be very unjust at present to bear hard upon publishers and booksellers, who had consented to refer the subject to the judgment of certain distinguished personages, he must say, it was a great evil that the cost of books should be raised so much above what might be termed the natural price; and the whole state of the book market of this country was a disgrace to it. Monopoly and combination had been so long applied to this trade as nearly to reduce it to its minimum. With the exception of the works of certain highly esteemed and distinguished authors, the sale of what were called new publications, in an enormous majority of cases, scarcely ever exceeded 500 copies, and the great mass did not pay expenses. What was the consequence? The sale of such new publications was limited in a great measure to circulating libraries and book-clubs, which were ingenious expedients to mitigate the evil of the high prices of books. The effect of this system was to raise artificially the cost of printing, and to interfere generally with the natural play of supply and demand, whilst it gave encouragement to piratical practices. If the paper duty were taken off, we ought to be the cheapest producers and largest consumers of books in the world, whereas now the demand was narrower and the prices of books were higher in this than in any other country.-The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave an exposition of his official duty in relation to prosecutions for evasion of the stamp duties, and of the

[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

proceedings in the case of the 'Household Narrative of Gladstone's object was to place the church of England Current Events.'-The other members who spoke on in the colonies upon the same footing as other religious the resolutions before the house were, Mr. Mowatt, denominations; but he believed, if carried out, its effects Mr. Reynolds, Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. would be, first, to exalt the church of England in the Hume, and Mr. Wakeley, in favour of all the resolu- colonies into a state of dominance; secondly, to break tions; Sir William Clay particularly in support of it up into small separate churches, and thirdly, to the last two of the three resolutions, respecting the destroy the supremacy of the crown, and even to overrule advertisement-duty and the stamp-duty. Mr. Ker all legislation, imperial and colonial. The last clause Seymer, who had formerly supported the resolutions, introduced an important alteration of our ordination now withheld his vote for them, only on the ground of service by dispensing with the oath of supremacy-the the particular financial juncture. The house divided first attempt ever made to enable persons to hold eccleon each resolution separately. The first proposition, siastical offices in the church of England without taking the abolition of the paper-duty, was negatived by 195 that oath. He might be told that the supremacy of the to 107; the second, proposing the abolition of the stamp- crown in ecclesiastical matters did not extend to the duty, was negatived by 199 to 100; the third, propo- | colonies; but this doctrine would be repugnant to the sing the abolition of the advertisement-duty, was statute 1st Elizabeth and to the express words of the negatived by 181 to 116. Quebec act. Mr Gladstone had rested his case, Sir John remarked, upon demands made by the colonies themselves, but had not cited a single application for the passing of such a bill, or for separating from the church of England, or for renouncing the crown's supremacy; whereas he (Sir John) could show a contrary desire on their part; and with that view he read extracts from memorials and resolutions transmitted from different colonies in Australia and Tasmania. With these facts and views, he could not consent to the further progress of a bill involving such grave considerations. He would, even as a private citizen, be no party to the breaking up of the church of England into branches, or the impugning the supremacy of the crown which, he believed, was one of the surest guarantees for the religious liberty we enjoyed. He intreated Mr. Gladstone to abandon the bill, and moved that the house proceed to the order of the day.-After some discussion Mr Gladstone said that he would not press the bill to a division, and the amendment for passing to the next order of the day was agreed to.

On Friday the 14th, Mr. MASTERMAN asked the government if they had any measure to prevent the Desertion of Seamen in Australia. Sir JOHN PAKING TON stated, that the most assiduous attention had been directed to this important subject. At the port of Melbourne, on the 6th of January, there were thirtyfive vessels, with crews of 816 persons, of whom no fewer than 478 had deserted. Ministers had resolved to assist the colonial governments by sending some military to their aid. Two service companies of infantry would be stationed at Sydney, and four at Melbourne; and a man-of war would be accorded to the port of Melbourne, as a most effectual restraint on the desertion of the crews.

The Militia Bill was discussed in committee, and several clauses were carried on divisions.

On Monday the 17th, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Communicated to the house the result of the investigation which her Majesty's government had undertaken to make with reference to the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennet, the Vicar of Frome. The crown officers had reported that her Majesty had no means of making an effectual inquiry into the circumstances of the case; that if a commision issued it would not be possible to compel the production of evidence; and that there might be a risk of contravening the bill of rights if the commission assumed the character of a court of ecclesiastical inquiry. Irrespective of the legal opinion of the law officers, her Majesty's government viewed with great apprehension the course they had been urged to adopt, and they had felt that, if a person had offended against the law, it would be of no advantage to attempt to vindicate it by illegal means. They were satisfied, moreover, that, under the law as it stood, there existed a sufficient remedy; that by the clergy discipline act, it was open to any parishoner of Frome to appeal to the bishop of the diocese, who, if a primû facie case should be made out, might institute a judicial inquiry. Where a legal remedy was in existence which had not been appealed to by those who complained of a grievance, nothing could be more unwise than to have recourse to any unusual course. The government, therefore, being advised that there is a legal remedy, under the existing law, if duly invoked by those who complained of a grievance, were of opinion that those who complained should seek redress in the mode provided by the law. Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that he should on the following day move for a commission of inquiry into the facts he had laid before the house in this case upon a former occasion.-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that where means of redress were available under the existing law, they should always be exhausted before extraordinary means were resorted to. As the government had been advised, there had been nothing illegal in the course pursued by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, though that would not preclude the parishioners of Frome from taking further measures.-Mr.GLADSTONE was ready to show, at the proper time, that the bishop of Bath and Wells had acted within the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

The house, in committee, proceeded with the Militia Bill, and several clauses were agreed to.

On Wednesday the 19th, the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Colonial Bishops' Bill was resumed, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON objected to the bill on various grounds. He could not doubt, he said, that Mr.

On the next order, for the resumption of the debate upon the Grant to Maynooth College, which Mr. NEWDEGATE (in the absence of Mr Spooner) proposed to defer to the 16th of June, an animated conversation took place, in which Lord J. RUSSELL characterised the whole proceeding as a mere mockery. He was not, he said, opposed to a fair and well-conducted inquiry, but not into the grounds upon which the grant was made; and the inquiry should be conducted in the mode pointed out by the act, or by a royal commission. He complained that the government, instead of throwing the subject open, did not pronounce a decided opinion upon it. If they were prepared to withdraw the grant, let them do so; if to maintain it, they should not excite public feeling in relation to the question.-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the government were not prepared to abrogate the grant. had been brought forward upon grounds which did not meet his concurrence, and Mr Walpole, while admitting that under the circumstances an inquiry should take place, had said it ought to be limited to seeing whether the objects of the institution had been fulfilled. Although a committee of that house was not the course he (Mr Disraeli) should have recommended, he did not think it was the duty of the government to advise her Majesty to issue a royal commission.

The motion

On Thursday the 20th, the house proceeded in committee with the Militia Bill. Many clauses were discussed and agreed to, and after reaching the last but one the chairman reported progress.

On Friday the 21st, the Militia Bill passed through committee, and the house having resumed, Monday nex was fixed for the third reading of the bill.

On the question of the second reading of the Ne Sir W. MOLESWOP Zealand Government Bill, Sir opposed the bill, as being a Brobdignagian meas about to be applied to the government of a putian colony. He objected to almost all the of the plan, which he contended would introduce nd but confusion into the colony.—Mr. ADDERLEY suppo the bill, which he hoped might be passed with as lit delay as possible.-Mr. VERNON SMITH contended tha a bill, involving so many important details, could not be properly discussed during the short period allotted to the existence of the present parliament.-Mr. E. DENISON thought if the details were to be arranged by the colony,

the bill might go on; but if the details were to be arranged by that house, there was no time for their discussion. Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the second reading of the bill.-Mr. F. PEEL also gave his general support to the bill.-Mr. GLADSTONE said that, upon the whole, he thought the bill was highly creditable to the government; and although it had its faults, yet it gave such extensive powers of alteration to the legislature of the colony, that he would give it his most cordial support. If the bill was to be fought in committee, it would certainly be lost for this session, and it was not, therefore, his intention, having this alternative before him, to do more than suggest to the government the alterations which he thought.it would be advisable to make in the details of the bill. The right hon. gentleman then stated various alterations, which he contended would be immense improvements to the measure.-Sir J. PAKINGTON believed the principles of the bill were sound and safe, and he therefore hoped to be able to carry it through parliament during the present session. -After some observations from Sir J. Graham, Mr. Mangles, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Anstey, the bill was read a second time.

On Monday the 24th, on the question of the day for the third reading of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, Colonel SIBTHORP moved the rejection of the bill, which he characterised as inquisitorial and iniquitous. After a brief discussion, the motion was negatived by 281 against 6.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an amendment, to include counties and divisions of counties in the bill. This amendment was supported by Captain Harris, Mr. P. Howard, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Bright.-Lord J. RUSSELL said the reason why he had not included counties in the bill was, that although there had been many complaints of corruption in boroughs, he did not remember any case in which bribery had prevailed in a county or division of a county, and he thought it was objectionable to adopt such an amendment, which had not been proposed in the committee, at a moment, without previous notice.-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not opposed to the principle of the suggestion, but his belief was that the county constituencies were pure, and that corruption in the boroughs had been very much exaggerated. It would be well, however, for the house not hastily to adopt a measure the machinery of which was designed for boroughs, and was inapplicable to counties. Was the house prepared to disfranchise a county?-The amendment was supported by Lord R. Grosvenor, Mr. Wakley, Mr. W. Williams, and Mr. Horsman, and opposed by Sir A. Cockburn and Mr. Floyer.-Upon a division, it was carried by 109 against 71.-Another amendment, proposed by Alderman SIDNEY, to include the universities, was also agreed to.-The bill as thus amended was then read a third time and passed.

[subsumed][ocr errors]

May 2nd. Drainage of Land in Ireland, Select Committee agreed to.

4th-Leave given Lord Lyndhurst to bring in a Bill to repeal penal disqualifications.

11th.-Disabilities Repeal Bill passed through Committee. 14th.-Bishopric of Christchurch (New Zealand) Bill read a second time.-Capt. Warner's Inventions, Select Committee agreed to. 17th.-Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill read a second time. Bill, read a third time, and passed. 18th.-Bishopric of New Zealand Bill, and Disabilities Repeal

21st.-Jurisdiction of Equity Bill read a second time.Common Law Jurisdiction Bill considered in Committee. 24th.-The Stock in Trade Bill and Highway Rates Bill read a third time and passed.-Common Law Procedure Amendment Bill, report ordered to be printed.-Property Tax Continuance Bill, read a second time. 25th.-Enfranchisement of Copyholds Bill read a second time, and referred to a select committee.-Master in Chancery Abolition Bill passed through committee.-Stamp Duties (Ireland) Bill read a second time.-Improvement of Equity Jurisdiction Bill, and Property Tax Continuance Bill passed through committee.-Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill read a second time. King's motion negatived. House of Commons.—April 27.-County Franchise, Mr. Locke

28th.-County Elections Bill, division against first reading.Universities of Scotland Bill, second reading negatived.-Colonial Bishops Bill, debate on second reading adjourned to 19th of May. negatived.-Enfranchisement of Copyholds Bill read a third 29th.-Crystal Palace, Mr. Heywood's motion for a Committee time, and passed.

chequer.

30th.-Financial Statement by the Chancellor of the ExJune 3.-Leave given Sir J. Pakington to bring in Bill for Constitution to New Zealand.-Militia debate on Mr. Cobden's motion adjourned.

4th.-Militia, Mr. Cobden's motion negatived.
5th.-Tenant-right in Ireland, Mr. S. Crawford's Bill thrown

out.

6th.-Militia Bill considered in Committee.

7th.-Militia Bill in Committee.-Property-tax Bill considered in Committee.-County Elections Expenses Bill thrown out. in Committee.-Proclamation for assembling Parliament Bill, 10th. Forfeited Seats in House of Commons, Mr. B. Disraeli's motion for a Bill rejected.-Militia Bill further considered in Committee.-Law Officers' Salaries Bill read a first time.

11th.-Maynooth, debate on Mr. Spooner's motion for a Select Committee adjourned.

drawn. Mr. Gibson's Resolutions respecting Taxes on Know12th.-Qualification of Members, Mr. Tuffnell's Bill withledge negatived.

14th.--Militia Bill further considered in Committee.
17th.-Militia Bill further considered in Committee.-Encum-
bered Estates Act Continuance Bill read a first time.
18th.-No house.

Polls Bill read a second time.
19th. Charitable Trusts Bill abandoned.-County Elections

20th.-Militia Bill further considered in Committee.-Deserters from Foreign Ships Bill read a third time, and passed.Metropolitan Interments Bill read a first time.

21st.-London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Bill read

a third time, and passed.-Militia Bill passed through Com

mittee.-New Zealand Government Bill read a second time.
24th.-Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill read a third time
and passed.-Poor Law Board Continuance Bill, Lord D.
Stuart's motion for an Instruction to Committee negatived, and
the bill passed through committee.

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »