Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 24th April 1852, Edition Town of 2, Page 384, Untitled Article

Page 384
Page 4
4 of 24

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.

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

  • 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.

      Untitled Article

      letter or spirit ; or whether it needed altering . Mr . Waipoxe specifically promised sttch inquiry , in such a spirit . ; Ultimately Mr ; Hobsmah- pressed his nSBtidn . The division was taken on " the previous Question , " whether the main motion should be put or not : the House decided in the negative ; the numbersstanding thus—For the motion , 80 ; against itj 100 . Majority , 20 .

      ECCLESIASTICAL ENCROACHMENT . A little incident among the odds and ends of business at the day sitting , on Wednesday , signifies much . Mr . Frewen had moved the second reading of his Building of Churches , &c , Bill ; but the Speaker pointed out that the second clause did not come withui the title of the bill ; and Mr . Gladstone made the same discovery with regard to the fourth clause . The title of the bill was— " To promote the building of churches in benefices that had no church , and . to prevent the union of benefices above a certain value . "

      The fourth clause related to non-residence 0 n their benefices by masters of endowed public school !; ' ; The second clause provided that persons should be' allowed to have cTiapels in their private homes . The order of the day for the second reading was discharged—so that the bill is thrown out .

      REVOCATION OF THE MAYNOOTH GHAUT . On Tuesday , the Marquis , of Cjcanbicabde called for an explanation of the Ministerial intentions respecting the annual grant of 26 , 000 / . a-year to . Maynooth College . To show the importance of the subject , Lord Clanricarde quoted the following passage from a speech by Lord Derby himself , in 1845 : — - " They asked whether this measure was to stand alone ? He replied , that this was to be taken by itself ; but , at the

      same time , to be taken as an indication of the future conduct of Government . The Government desired that this measure should be considered in the eyes of the people of Ireland as a manifeiiatidn ^ fnat'Xlie' Gorernnterifc resolved to treat them , with conciliation , and in . a spirit as honourable to their Roman Catholic subjects as to any other portion of her Majesty ' s subjects . This was not to be treated as the harbing er or future measures , but as &n indication of what would be the conduct of the Government towards Ireland . He believed that it would be so received in

      Ireland . " .- > Doubts as : to the intentions of Ministers , however , had been especially suggested by the following passage from a speech by the Solicitor-General , Sir Fitzroy Kelly , to his constituents in Suffolk : — " I shall support , and cordially support , the motion for a committee of inquiry into the whole circumstances attending that grant , which is about to be brought before the House of Commons . And if , gentlemen , as the result of the inquiries of that committee , and as the report of that committee , it shall be found that , consistently with the good faith of Parliament , and consistently with what becomes all public men to observe , strict honour and integrity Avith their fellow-countrymen , it is possible to put an end to that grant , I for one shall rejoice in concurring with the Government , of which I am an unworthy member , in an act entirely to put an end to it . "

      Now what is the committee to which Sir Pitzroy Kelly adverted ? There is on the notice paper of the Commons a notice of a motion by Mr . Spooner , for a select committee on the national system of education in Ireland—a totally different subject from that of Maynooth . The doubts are rendered more cogent by other circumstances . This very Solicitor-General was Solicitor-General of the Government which introduced the bill of 1845 to render the Maynooth grant permanent ; and among the present Ministers are several who opposed that bill—Mr . George Banks , Major Beresford , Mr . G . A . Hamilton , Mr . Henley , Mr . Christopher , and Mr . Disraeli . There would be no inconsistency in opposing a bill , and yet refusing to repeal it ; but the fact of the original opposition could not be forgotten .

      Adverting to a former question of the same kind , the Earl of Deeby now repeated that her Majesty ' s Government had no present intention of altering the law with respect to the- College of Maynooth ; but the attitude which tho Roman-catholic church had assumed , and tho spirit of aggression which it had adopted , added greatly to tho difficulties of those who desired to defend tho continuance of tho grant to Maynooth , which was made permanent by the act of 1845 . Ho must now say , that tho difficulty of defending tho continuance of that grant would bo considerably increased by the speech which tho Marquis of Clanricardo had delivered

      that evening" For IJioro woro only two grdunds on which tho vindication of tho grant could rest . Tho flreifc was tlio ground of general policy ; and tho second was tho ground of good faith given or implied by tho Government of this country . Now , as to tho second ground , that of good faith—which was tho main proposition of that evening , and on which a large majority of tho country rowtod tho continuance of a grant vory repugnant to ifcH principles and feelings—tho noble marquis had thrown it completely overboard , alloging that Parliament was riofc bound to continue tho grant by any contract , engagement , or obligation . Tho noblo Marquij then rooted tho defence of the grant on , tho policy

      alone of the Government . That policy waj ? front the | first , and still continued to be , founded on a desiife to give to the Irish population within the Queen ' s dominions a sound , liberal , and theological education , and , on the hope that t iberality on the part of Parhaioent , ; continued from year to . year , and confirmed by formal enactment in the year 1845 , would produce that which it was natural to expect , an enlightened and well-educated priesthood , well affected to the' Crown and respecting the . authority of the Government , disposed , to inculcate eharity and forbearance and peace among all classes of society , together with devoted loyalty to the Sovereign and obedience , to the law of the land That was the policy which originally dictated and subsequently confirmed the grant . ' The noble Marquis said , that he could easily unqierstaiid the conduct of

      those who in the year 1845 opposed the grant on principle , and who afterwards when the law was passed ,- —there the noble Marquis stopped , and would not say ' and when the fruit which it produced was clearly seen , '—the noble Marquis , lie repeated , said that he could easily understand the conduct of those who , first opposing / afterwards supported the law , or at any rate did not press for ^ its repeal , and that he did not see any inconsistencyin theirso ' doing The converse of that proposition was equally truer there were very many who supported the original grant in the hope and expectation that it would produce other fruits than those which had been derived from it , fliid whowere now not guilty of any inconsistency if they had changed their opinions as to the policy of that grant from sad experience of the fruits which it had borne . " .

      Observing that he could not be responsible for speeches at the hustings , Lord Derby said thai the Government had no present intention of altering tne existing law , but he would add , that if circumstances should arise to induce the Government to take another course , ample notice would be given in both Houses of Parliament , and thenl the noble Marquis wouldhave an opportunity of opposing the Contemplated change , or of taunting individuals with supposed inconsistency between their present principles and past conduct .

      After this reply , followed a heated and acrimonious debate . Earl Grey called for a more explicit answer , TeinarMifg ; that t 6 rd-3 b ^* by : ought to declare whether he adhered to the opinion expressed by him in 18 ^ 5 ; and , if he did adhere to it , he should ^ also in / orin the House whether lie held it merely as Ms owii private and abstract opinion , like that in favour of the imposition of a duty on foreign corn , or whether it was to govern the policy of the Government : No reply . The Marquis of Clanbioabde wished to know whether the noble Earl intended to intimate that

      his course was to depend on the result of an inquiry ? The Earl of Derby was aware , from the votes of the other House > that there was to be an inquiry : further than that he had said nothing , and farther than that he would say nothing . Earl Grey asked whether the noble Earl adhered to his opinions of 1845 ? The Earl of Derby rejoined , " That is a question which the noble Earl had no right to ask of me or any man : " he would add , however , that he was greatly disappointed at the result of the measure of 1845 . The Earl of Minto

      asked whether the noble Earl was prepared to resist a motion for the discontinuance of the grant ? The Earl of Derby would intimate tho course which Government was prepared to pursue if the noble Earl would move the repeal of the aot of 1845 . ( Cheers and laughter . ) The Earl of Harrowtjy asked the noble Earl ( Grey ) if he adhered to the opinion which ho expressed in 1845 ? Earl Grey said , that in

      putting that question , the noble Earl was taking a most unusual course . ( A roar of laughter , ) In 1845 he hud formed no opinion as to tho probable results of the measure ; but still , contrasting the wealthy Protestant Church in Ireland , and the endowed Dissenting bodies , with the small endowment for Maynootb < , he retained his opinion , that such a state of things could not continue with justice to tho people of Ireland , or with safety to the Empire .

      Tho Marquis of Lansdowne hero gave tho debate a higher turn ; observing that he would take tho most unusual course , of replying to a question that had not beeu put . Ho declared that ho did not support tho grant on tho ground of tho favourable impression that it might produce on the minds of tho Roman Catholics —ho looked to no such bargain ; but ho supported , it on tho ground assigned by Sir Itobert Peel—that it was important for tho Itoinan Catholic clergy to have a good education—important to Catholics , to Protestants , to tho whole community . And ho adjured his noble friend opposite not to lay tlio foundation for a perpetual renewal of tho annual votes . Tho conversation elosod witli a few words from tho

      Bifclhop of CashEIj as to tho progress of " tho truth /' through tho exertions of tho Protestant clergy , in tho United StatcH ; a progress , rejoined Earl Grey , which showed how tho Protestant religion had been kept down in Ireland through tho injustice of tho present arrangements .

      CHANCERY KEFORM . Tho Lord Chancellor laid upon tho table of tlio Lords on Monday , a bill to abolish the office of the

      Masters in Chaiicety > arid to substitvite other 6 fBcers in their stead . The plan ( The four senior' mastersi would be dismissed to their seniority , and would retain their fiul salaries Iwhen . disi missed . The five remaining Masters would carry on the business of the court , but under , new ; powers . The four Judges in Equity— -namel y * the . MaBter of the ¦ Rolls , and the' three Two-Chancellors , each haying one chief-cjeri and each chief clerk laving one , second cleric under iini ' should carry bri in chambers all the business 6 f their respective courts hitherto transacted by the Masters . Henceforward there would be irio references to the Masters- —no reports from the Masters—no statement of . facts ; All these matters of form were to be abolished , % jaA ; the judge Was to transact in chambers sb much ofthe business 1

      of thecourt as may not be proper'to be heard bf huriself in public * He would go into bis chamber at whatever hour ofthe day he might think fitting or convenient or even for the whole day ,. and there he would consult with his clerks as to what Ought i <> bedone . If a report should be necessary , he Tfrquld eitlierdraw it tip huriself in his ehanibei ^ or would send for the registrar to drawit up for him . This bill would also define the power which the judge was to have in chambers , for it Was quite evident that , if the new , scheme were to have any chance of success , you must york it out yourself , and see clearly what it was : for thei merefact of gitdii ^ general powers was not a fair way of testing tnS inents of any new scheme ; When the jiidsegot into Me chamber , each of them would have a chief clerkunder him . He had only thought it right that eaeb . judge should have th , e power of

      appointing Mspwn cmet clerk ; so . that , m should have the powerof ipijroving ids exertipnaV , He also intended to giye the appomfaient . of the second clerk to the chief clerk ; for the same reason wliich induced him to give to the judge the appointment of . his chief ; elerk , ~ namely , a desire to encourage a strong feeling of sympathy between those who had to appoint and those who had to obey . He also intended that , . when . the biU came into operation , there should be some place provided where the judge could have at once the benefit of the co-operation of his chief clerk . He would not delay the operation of hisbill until fitting places were provided for such purposes ; He should therefore propose that ^ for the present , the Master of the Sous should meet his clerk at the liolls-office , and that each of the three Yice ^ bhancelldrs should be . provided -with commodious . chamberB in Lincom ' siinn tuitil the country should furnish , them better aecoma < wl ( riaon .

      Having made some allusion to the present chambers reserved for the Masters ( which was noli heard distinctly in the gallery ) , the -Lord Chancellor said that he proposed to take a power to ^ ell tfibse chambers , believing that the money produced from such * sal © woiild feesjQficient to build three commodious courts for the three Yice-Chancellors , with rooms annexed for the accommodation of their clerks . He was most anxious that the new clerks should not find their way into Southampton-buildings ; for if they were once placed there they would act as if they were Masters , and not clerks ; and in that case the new scheme would not answer . He would not go further into the details of the bill ; but he must remind their lordships that as the law now stood there was no power , if one of the his

      three Vice-Chancellors was obliged to resign or vacate . appointment , to appoint his successor . He therefore proposed to give to the Crown power , to appoint a successor from time to time to any Vice-Chancellor so , vacating . He admitted that there was one inconvenience in the new scheme . In each of the courts of common law there were at present five judges , and when one of them was absent at chambers , the business of the Court proceeded , and was not disturbed . Tot in each of the courts of equity the judge might have to leave bis court for a part of , or even for the whole day , In the latter case his court must be entirely closed ^ and then no business whatever could be carriedon . He hoped , however , that the facility , thecheapness , tho rapidity , and the ease whioh . the suitor and the judge would both feel in the transaction of business would be more than a compensation for this inconvenience .

      Lord St . Leonards stated that the bill would remedy the defect of the existing law ; under which the court cannot bring the parties before it and compel them to wind up a suit . In the course of a very brief discussion on the bill , Lord Campbell expressed desire for a measure which would prevent the practice , ot sending the suitor from one court to another . In *» ° Clapham cose , for instance , the Court of Law ought to have had the power to grant an injunction to arrest tho proved nuisance . Ho < md Lord Cr ANWORTH botU approved of the introduction of tho bill .

      TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE . Oil Thursday , Mr . MixNER Gibson again laid beforo the House of Commons tho reasons for repealing tno Taxes on Knowledge—tho Paper-tax , tho n 0 W 8 P ^ Stamp-tax , and the Advertisement-duty . He did so with great clearness and effect , although tho subjectmatter is tho Hume with that long familiar to the pu »" lie . Ho read lotters from Mr . Charles Knight , * ' Ingram , proprietor of tho Illustrated London m > •~~ ** n *""»* J If vf ** Jt ^_»« j » - » % \ r * */*» v * Jh vwrwwrr ----- _ j - »«•• tho

      relating their experience , especially against I duty ; to which Mr . Gibson devoted the larger porwoi of his speech . Ho also showed how the repeal ot w » particular tax would give immensely increased P '" J mont to tho men , women , nnd children , whoso » p is tho chief item of the cost-prico . Citing fV ° . f " many unstamped papers already existing , wluon commont on politicnl nflhirs , Mr . Gibson p 0 " 10 " ! that tho Stamp-tax is maintained , not for itH < p » * rovonuo , 150 , 000 ^ ., but for tho purpose of checiiing ineroaso of the press .

      Untitled Article

      3 $ 4 ¦ " . ' : ¦ Tit llAfip .: ¦ . ¦' . ., ¦ . ; ... ; . ¦ :: j : ^( skmM 8 m

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), April 24, 1852, page 384, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1932/page/4/