On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    No.486. JuLrl6, 1859-1 THE LEADER. 833

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    ¦ » • . ¦ Imperial Parliament. Monday, J...

    Chancellor of the Exchequer -whether , in appointing this committee , he intended to call in question the acts of past Governments , or only to ' -bring ; upon the late A dministration a responsibility for their conduct i If the former , he warned him that he would enter upon a course that would do infinite mischief . — -Alter a debate in which an objection that too few Irish members were included among the number of hon . gentlemen of whom the committee was composed , was urged with much pertinacity by many representatives from the sister isle , on the name of Mr . Baxter being proposed as a member of the committee . Mr Maouire moved its omission with the view ol substituting that of Mr . Hennessy , but , after some debate , the amendment was negatived on a division by a majority of 135 to 34 , and Mr . Baxter duly nominated to serve -dri the committee . ROMAK CATHOLIC REXIEF AMENDMENT BILL . On the motion for the second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Act Amendment Bill , by which a Catholic was declared eligible for the office of Lord Chancellor , Mr . ITewdegatE moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months . He argued at some length against the measure as being an invasion , of the Protestant constitution , and practically abrogating the settlement of 1829 . —The amendment was seconded by Sir Brooke Bridges . —Mr . Card well supported the bill , which was framed , as he contended , strictly in accordance with the principles of the Act of 1829 . That principle recognised the

    complete equality of Catholics and Protestants , limited only by one or two special exceptions based upon causes which did not exist with regard to the appointment of Lord Chancellor of Ireland . — Mr . Whiteside said if the mode in which and the time when this measure was introduced were inconvenient , the arguments by which it was supported were , still more objectionable . Sir G . Lewis had asserted that the exception in the Act of Emancipation was owing to an inadvertence of Sir R . Peel ; but , if so , all the advocates of emancipation were equally mistaken , for this very exception was found in all the bills , of 1813 , 1821 , and 1825 . The principle kept in view by Sir R . Peel , as shown in

    his published posthumous papers , was not limited to Jthe exercise of ecclesiastical patronage by the Irish Lord Chancellor , but had regard to the security of the Protestant constitution and the act of settlement , since the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as Lord Justice , might ( as the present Lord Chancellor actually did ) exercise delegated regal power in Ireland . He urged various objections to the bill , wliich he denounced in strong terms as an insidious as well as an impolitic measure . —The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that the late Attorney-General for Ireland appeared to have retrograded very considerably from the tolerant doctrines which he had advocated from the Treasury bench . He argued

    that the functions appertaining to the Irish Chancellorship were essentially legal and secular , and as a disciple of Sir Robert Peel j > ave his cordial approbation to a measure which merely carried out the principle whereon the enactment of 1829 was based . —Mr . Walpole maintained that the settlement of 1829 should not be disturbed , except upon graver causes than had been shown in favour of the present measure . —Colonel Diorcsorc moved tho adjournment of the debate . —Lord Palmerstox hoped that the House would be allowed to come to a division on a measure respecting which he . obsorvort that many members seemed already to have made up their minds . The question was a very simple one . Tho

    office of Irish Chancellor was in all its essential characteristics entirely judicial and civil , and as such there was no reason why Catholic barristers should be barred from access to the highest prize in their profession . —Mr . DisinAisLi observed that h ' o was surprised at tho tone taken by Lord Palmerston . He did not think the question quite so clear as Lord Palmerston supposed ; on tho contrary , it was one of very considerable difficulty as to the functions , exercised by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland . Ho did not say that a groat settlement should not bo disr turbqd , if tho change were justly required ; but this to

    ought to l > e shown . Ho should like tho question be referred to a select committee . —The Homis SBCHifiTAiiv supported tho bill , but was willing to consent to the proposition for referring 1 It . after tho second reading , to a select committee . Tho House divided on tho question tliat tho debate should bo adjourned . There appeared—Ayes , 143 [ noes , 210 —68 . The discussion , -which had become very confused , wns renewed and pursued for some time . At last tho motion for adjourning Uio debate was renewed Arid agreed to , and the further progress of tho bill stands posponed until Tuesday next . The House then adjourned at two o ' clock .

    been so strongly pronounced in its favour . They -were , he believed , more likely to maintain the efficiency of the church and to preserve its hold on the affections of the community by abrogating rather than by perpetuating the compulsory impost hitherto levied for its support . The house then divided . For the second reading , 263 ; for the amendment , 193—70 . The bill was then read a second time . The house adjourned at half-past five . Thursday , Jttly 14 .

    In the House of Lords * Lord Stratford deRedcliffe , observing that the armistice between France and Austria had ripened into a peace , withdrew the notice respecting the Italian question which he had postponed on Friday last , but which still remained on the paper . Hudson ' s bat territory . The Duke of Newcastle , in answer to a question from Lord Carnarvon , explained the steps which the Government proposed to take during the present session in reference to the North-American territories , over which the Hudson ' s Bay Company have held an exclusive license of trade with the Indians .

    The measures which were contemplated by the Government at the present moment were the introduction of a bill for the appointment of magistrates , and to lay down rules for the regulation of trade with the Indians . It was not , however , the inten ^ tion of the Government to extend the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company , nor was it proposed by the Colonial-office to assist emigrants . He agreed with "Lord Carnarvon that it was highly necessary to establish communications between Canada on the one side , and Vancouver ' s Island on the other ; at the same time , although he recognised the value of railways , it was not intended to assist them by means of subsidies .

    ARMING OF COMMERCIAL STEAMSHIPS . Lord Airlie asked her Majesty ' s Government whether they had considered the expediency of making arrangements with owners of steam vessete for the purpose of rendering them fit to carry armaments of heavy guns if required . T—The Duke of Somerset said it had been decided by . a committee of naval and military officers , appointed in 1852 , tliat it was inexpedient to render commercial steam vessels fit . for war , as it made them bad ships for war and worse for trade . The use of these ships would be to . carry troops and stores , and not to act on the offensive . In certain cases , however , the

    committee had decided that some few of these vessels in case of war might be fitted out at an expense of 3 , 0001 . or 4 , 000 ? . for the defence of harbours and the mouths of rivers . He explained that the present Board had sent officers to inquire how far steam-tugs might be available for the defence of the mouth of the river , but he did not suspect a very favourable report on the subject . The question which had been put by Lord Airlie had met with due consideration from the Government , but it was nob their present intention to reopen the matter . — Lord Haudwioke agreed with the First Lord . Their lordships adjourned at half-past seven . In the House of Commons , Sir J . Shelley gave notice , that in the event of the City of London Corporation Bill reaching the stage of committee he should move clauses providing that tho votes taken under that measure should bo recorded by ballot . The Home Secretary , in answer to a subsequent question , stated that , contrary to his expectation , some considerable opposition was threatened against tho bill , and promised to fix an early day for the second reading . INDIAN ARMY . In the House of Commons , on the order for going into a Committee of Supply , Mr . II . Dailmh culled attention to the report of tho commissioners appointed to inquire into the organisation of the Indian array . An opinion was expressed in tho report , that henceforth . an army of not less than 80 , 000 European troops should bo pormanontly retainoil in our Indian ornpire . Now , there would bo much difficulty * p h' » opinion , in maintaining sucli an army in India in . thnoof war . The foroe now in that country was about 85 , 000 men j but tho eonsoquonco had boon thatin spite of all our effbrts , wo hud not boon

    tionBill . —Mr . Dtr Cane moved to defer the second residing for six months . He was prepared , he said , to stand by the existing law , with all its imperfections , rather than give his assent to a measure which he believed to be one of simple spoliation and the first step towards the destruction of the establishment . — The amendment was seconded by Lord R . Montagu * who observed that this was not merely a question of Church-rate , the ulterior object being to sever Church and State , upon the plea that the State had nothing to do with religion , —a doctrine against which he argued upon both theory and authorities . —Mr . Baines , as a dissenter , disclaimed all hostility to the establishment , but contended that

    every church ought to depend exclusively upon the support of its ownmembers . —Mr . Adderley argued in favour of maintaining the church rate , upon the ground that the impost constituted a common law obligation on the parishioners . The present bill , he observed , by absolutely extinguishing the church rate , deprived those parishes , where the rate had always been voluntarily granted , of their rightful liberties . —Mn . Mellor believed that the churches would be more carefully attended to if they were entirely maintained and repaired by voluntary contributions . —Mr . Packe opposed the bill . —Mr . Hen-NTESSY . as a Roman Catholic , supported the amendment . to

    - ^ -The Home Secretar y referred statistical returns , which showed that the amount actually required , for the repair of the church fabrics barely amounted to a rate of one penny in the pound per annum on the mass of assessable property . The objection to the rate , therefore , could not be on account of the severity of the burden ; it was mainly a conscientious objection , founded upon principle . But there were objections which had operated upon members of the Established Church , as where , residing in districts , they were called upon to contribute both to the mother church and the district church ; and where the unpopularity of the minister was made the ground of refusing

    a rate ; The result was , that while in a vast majority of the exclusively rural parishes Churchrates encountered little or no . objection , in a large number of towns they were withheld . Hence , owing to this difference , every attempt to levy one uniform rate in all parishes , rural and town , would break down . After examining various plans which had been proposed for dealing witli the practical difficulties since the decision of the House of Lords , and the objections they had provoked , he observed that he saw no reasonable prospect of the Government being able to prevail upon the House to agree to a compromise ; and , although he did not deny that there were valid objections to the

    general and total abolition of a compulsory rate , he was prepared to give his vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill . In the event of the Legislature passing the measure he thought it might be possible to . establish an organised parochial system , which would facilitate the receipt , custody , and administration of a voluntary rate for the maintenance of church fabrics . —Lord J . Manners eulogised the bill brought lorward by Mr . Walpole , and regarded it , as a liberal compromise . —Lord Fermoy controverted the assertion that the present nieasure was calculated to weaken or injure the established church . —Mr . H . Drummond insisted that the primary object of tho bill was to undermine

    the establishment . None but hypocrites , he-declarod , could deny that fact for a moment . —Lord Palmeuston acknowledged that he had hover voted for bills of similar tenour to that before the House . He acknowledged , also that his private opinion upon tho subject of church , rates had undergone no change . But public opinion had been expressed so often and so strongly in favour of tho bill both in and out of Parliumont that he felt compelled to surrender his fcndivichial prepossessions , and was accordingly willing to yoto for the second reading . Ho trusted that when tho moasure camo before the committee somo means would ho devised to insure a provision for the duo maintoimnoo of the church fabrics which were thus denuded of their legally-provided funds . —Mr . Disraeli ironically , complimented Lord Palmerston upon his frank avowal of a change of opinionbut tho question was , he remarked , whether

    , able to raise in this country tho nurobor of men voted by Parliament last year by 10 . M 0 , and wo had been obliged to call out 2 .-5 , 000 militia to do the duty of regular troops ; so that tho army was deficient 35 , 000 men . Tho question was , could we , with voluntary enlistment , raise and maintain bolarge an army as to allow of a permanent force of 80 , 000 men being kept in India , with duo regard to tho wunta of our numerous colonies and tho exigencies of tho mother country in the event of war ? He inquired whether tho Secretary of fctnto for India intonded to bring this question before tlio House . — Sir C . Wood replied that tho present Government had not had time to consider a subjeut of so much dlffloulty and importance . —General Vkku took tho opportunity of making a reply to a letter in the *

    , ha-ving changed his opinion ho had indicated any course that would justify the House in recognising him as one competent to recommend a policy so different from that lio had hitherto followed . Was tho course which tho Government wore taking a safe course ? They changed their opinion because a charge was necessary , but shrunk from tho responsibility of proposing a measure to meet the necessities of tho case . Ho admitted that tho prosont state of this quoation was highly unsatisfactory , blit it was the duty of the Government either to support the present law . or at once to accept tho policy recommended by SSr J . Trelawny , and tell the House fairly that whHo they accepted that policy they were not prepared to offer a substitute for it . —lord J . RuasjuLJti signified his adherence to tho bill entirely on the ground that publio opinion had

    Wednesday , July 13 . OHUROH ItATXBB . At the mid-day sitting of tho Housm of Commons , Mr . Dxi . L . wrN , in the absence of Sir J . Trelawny , moved , the second reading of tho Church-rates Aboil-

    No.486. Julrl6, 1859-1 The Leader. 833

    No . 486 . JuLrl 6 , 1859-1 THE LEADER . 833

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 16, 1859, page 5, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_16071859/page/5/