On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
being a Hindoo and the other a Mahometan , to situations in the legislative council . Sir Chables Wood and Mr . Mangles defended the clause as it stood . A Hindoo or a Mussulman in the council would by no means represent the people of India ; their introduction would be rather distasteful to a large portion of the population of India . Lord Stanley and Mr . BliACEElT , though favourable to the admission of natives to offices of distinction in India , doubted whether
ifc was wise to begin by admitting them to the legislative council before they obtained admission to the ° civil service . Lord Jocelyn approved of giving the Governor-General liberty to appoint natives to the council , but objected to Mr . Hume's amendment , making their appointment imperative . Mr . Danb y Seymour , in a speech of ill-timed length , supported the amendment : lie was interrupted by frequent calls for a division . The House divided ; there appeared , for Mr . Hume ' s amendment , 39 ; against it , 138 . v
On clause 24 enacting that the Governor-General's assent should be requisite for the validity of laws , Sir Herbert Maddock moved to insert after the woi'd " always" the words " that , in making laws and regulations ; regard shall be had to the religion and manners and opinions of the different races of people inhabiting the said territories . " Mr . Lowe said that the proposed words were merely directory , and would have no legal effect , and if they could have any power would be dangerous . We were not bound to respect all the religious opinions of the natives , without reference to good sense and morality . We had putr an end to many of their customs , such as infanticide and suttee , and we should , he hoped , put an end to a good many more . The amendment was negatived .
The veto by the Crown on the appointment of the Advocate-General was opposed by Mr . Hume as taking away the responsibility of the directors , but passed amid general approval . jA lively discussion-arose on the clause appointing new law commissioners , Mr . Bright and Mr . Blackett referring pointedly to the failure of the former commission . In 1833 the country was told that there was nothing so easy as to give a good code of laws to India . This was particularly dwelt upon in great oratorical displays , and it was accompanied by-proposals for the admission of natives to equal chances of office with Europeans . The House was told that England , by doing that , was taking a liberal and a magnanimous
course . But the whole of our anticipations have been disappointed . The law commission had cost more than 100 , 000 / . When each member received 10 , 000 ? . a year it ' was not difficult to spend so large a sum in a very snort time ; but it appears that , after spending all the money , there has been no sort of result . The code prepared by Mr . Macaulay is absolutely untranslatable into any of the languages known in India , and a very distinguished man had said that if it could be translated it would bo absolutely impossible for the natives of India to comprehend it . If this be the fact , it is advisable not to proceed with thft commission ; but it would have been much better if Mr . Macaulay had not resided for five years in Calcutta at a cost of 10 , 000 / .
a year . Mr . Blaokett taunted Sir Jamen Hogg with his silence under these charges . Sir Jakes rose , referred to Mr . Blackett as " an individual , " and eaid that Mr . Macaulay was paid 10 , 000 £ . a-year as member of the legislative council , not as member of the law comnnsBion . Some conversation arose as to the directors' salaries . Some said the proposed 6001 . a-year was too low . Sir Charles Wood said , ho would make ifc 1000 ? . a-year , if the House wished . Mr . Bbight struck in with an anecdote , to show that , independently of salaries , directors had perquisites from patronage : " A gentleman had applied , through another , to a director for an appointment , which the director soomed willing to give , but his friend , in announcing it to him , said , ' Ho is not a rich man ; you are a man of business . ' 'Hut , ' said the one to bo appointed , ' what do you mean by tolling mo I am a man of business P' ' Oh ! you are a man of business , ' waa the reply . The gentleman to bo appointed then urged that ho should havo to go to tho India-liouse , andmalco oath that lie had not givon , and should not give , anything in consideration for his appointment . He was mot by the otlior saying , ' Those things aro more mattor of form ; and you aao a man of buflineflH . ' He , liowevor , assured him that , though ho might bo a man of business , he was not a mjin of that sort of businesH ; and bo ho did not get tho appointment ; . Somebody olno did , who was moro a man of business , and loss scrupulous upon these points . " Sir James Hog a indignantly replied to tho accusation : " Tho honourable gentleman lifts spoken of somo personal friend of his own—a friend wlioscomato deal in tho basest of all traffics . Ho has Bpokon of a proposal baso to the man who made it , baao to tho man to whom it was made . Ho haa told ua that Homebody olso got that appointmont—somebody who wafl a bettor man ot buaineafl . I call upon him now , na ho hopoa that in future Jus
statements in the House will command belief and credit , to state the name , the appointment , and the director , whom , if these imputations against him are true , he ought to hold up to public scorn and disgrace . " Sir James then referred to discoveries made some time since , of a-gang , of swindlers , who used the names of the directors to sell a pretended power of Indian patronage ,. . . . . . ' , Other members called on Mr . Bright to name the parties he referred to ; but Mir / Bright declined . After a little irrelevant discussion , the subject dropped , the question as to the directors * salaries being postponed .
The clause introducing competition at Haileybury , and consequent appointments , was opposed by Mr . Monckton Milnes . The patronage possessed by the Court of Directors has been administered in a manner that did not deserve change nor alteration . It has been distributed amongst the great middle class of the country , in a manner wholly free from political bias- — in a manner which has secured a most efficient civil service , and , as far as the military appointments were concerned , has obtained the unequivocal approval of Lord Hardinge and General Pollock . Why , then ,
should we take this patronage from the directors , and dispose of it on a system wholly foreign to , and unknown to , the feelings of the people of this country ? The effect of the proposed alteration would be to make a man ' s appointment to any of the company ' s services depend , nob on his general ability to discharge the duties of his office , but on his success in the pi'eliininary examination for admission to Haileybury or Addiscombe . The principle that a man ' s ability in after life could be predicted from his success in youth was not correct . - Last evening , all the original clauses of the bill were gone through . The new clauses are to be considered on Mondav .
Untitled Article
July 23 , 1853 . ] T HE L E A D E R . 699
Untitled Article
2 * . on every 1 . 0 / . worth of timber felled , and 20 * . in case the property is inherited from a stranger . This would fetter the right of property , and interfere with the freedom of the proprietor . Lord John Manners denounced the tax as an excise duty upon home-grown timber , and sneered at the commercial classes as having a livelier perception of their own interests than the country gentlemen . The clause was carried by 112 to ' 77 . " Sir John Pakington then moved an amendment , to the effect that the clause respecting encumbrances should be prospective , not retrospective in its action . Mr . Malins earnestly urged on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assent to the amendment . Mr . Dis- > baeli also urged the Government to reconsider the clause , pointing how oppressively it would fall in many cases . It was not in the power of a father and son to combine ' to alienate any part of the property . ' Mr . Gladstone and Sir Richard Bethell defended the clause . It may inflict hardship in some cases , but no tax upon property can be levied without inflicting some hardship . The clause was carried by 134 to 93 . After a renewal by Mr . Mamns of Mr . Mullings' former amendment excluding title deeds from the documents to be exposed to the commissioners , the motion that the bill do "pass" was put from the chair . The Opposition answered with a loud shout of " No , " but on a division there appeared for the bill , 176 ; against it , 104 . Majority for Government , 72 . The Government success was thus crowned . Last evening , in the House of Lords , the Bill was read a second time , after a debate , in which Lord Derby and Lord Malmesbury vehemently , and with " much speaking , " opposed the Bill . Lord Derby , admitting Mr . Gladstone ' s " ability , " reminded the House of that " signal and melancholy failure , " the conversion scheme , and then described the Succession Duty Bill , as taking away from a successor a part of what was actually his own before the death of the predecessor ; and warmly denounced the retrospective action of the measure in regard to all property . In the meantime he did not oppose the second reading , but would content himself with opposing some of the worst features of the Bill incommittee . The Duke of Argyll answered the various objections in detail . The Earl of Malmesbttry attacked the measure on the same grounds as Lord Derby , but in much less measured terms . The tax , besides being unjust , was " cowardly , disgraceful , and absurd ; " and he went so far as to say that it was based upon the encouragement of the worst vices of the community . He expressed his intention of opposing some of its most offensive " portions in committee . Earl Granville remarked , go 6 d humouredly , upon the strength of the epithets brought to bear against the tax , whieh he also defended against special objections . Alluding to a favourite subject of complaint—the necessity of subjecting title deeds for examination—he remarked , that it was a notorious fact that the aristocracy , when they ^ wished to mortgage their estates " did not care twopence to whom they showed their title deeds "—and made a point of showing them indeed , to Jews , and persons of the worst character . Lord St . Leonards urged some legal arguments against the measure . The Duke of Newcastle answered him , and tho Earl of Habkowby followed , in objecting to the Bill . The Bill was then read a second time . THE SYSTEM OF " NATIONAL EDUCATION . " The recent changes in the regulation of the Irish " National" schools were brought before Parliament by tho Earl of Donoughmoue . The first principle of tho national system via * " united secular , and separate religious instruction . " After some modification that principle was departed from by a rule , according to which the patron of any school might , on certain days , and at fixed hours , give religious instruction to the children of persons of his own denomination , or to the children of such ns consented to their receiving it , but might ulso prevent any other persons giving religious instruction in his school . The consequence ia that there are separate schools under separate patrons , with one kind of religious instruction taught in each . According to tho last report of tho commissioners , thero aro in Ireland 4704 schools , and the number of children on their rolls is 520 , 401 . ( This appears to show that 1 in 13 t ) f the population— a very watiufiictory average—is under iiiHtruction ; but it in not ho in fuct , for tho report of the commissioners altjo hIiows that only about 47 per sent , of tho children on the rolls uctually attend tho ( choola . ) Of tho schools , 277 ^ aro under tho management of tho Bomun-catholic clergy ; 475 under tho Presbyterians ; 7 under tho DisHcntera ; mixed schools , under tho management of clergymen of different dononinations , 11 ; and under tho management of lay patron ' s , whoso religious sentiments uro not stated , probnbly 1154 . It therefore appears , upon the nearest calculation that cun bo made , that of tho 4000 schoola which form tho wholo number under tho board , 3500
Untitled Article
THE CHUBCH IN THE COLONIES . In . the colonies a regular administration of church affairs is wanting , and the laws for the regulation of the church in this country are not applicate abroad . The Archbishop of Canterbury has introduced a Bill to remedy this condition of things . It purposes the establishment of a convention in which clerical and lay members of the church shall appear by their representatives , and share in the framing of such rules and regulations as may from time to time be deemed necessary for its discipline . No alteration shall beraade in the formularies of our church , and in cases of difficulty or doubt there shall be ^ an ultimate appeal to the metropolitan in the mother country . The regulations for removing improper clergymen will be left to the colonists themselves . Those are the principal objects of tho Bill . It is to bo permissive and not compulsory , to enable the members of the church of England in the colonies to do such things as the members of all other religious communities can do . It is not to carry with it the effect of a law in this country or in the colonies , but is to enable the members of the church of England to enter into such regulations amongst themselves as they may think it necessary to adopt . It will merely have a binding effect upon them by their own mutual agreement . After Lord- Monteagle had expressed a fear that tho Bill did not effectually p reclude discussion in the said convention of doctrines and forms of worship , tho clauses of the Bill were considered in Committee . Tho only alteration of any importance was an addition to Clause 3 , to the effect that tho Assembly would hove no right to deprive any clergyman of his civil rights . Lord Monteagle wished to insert an amendment p rohibition over tho discussion of matters affecting faith and doctrine , but it was held sufficient to provi de that such discussion should not result in any alteration of theso matters . Tho Bill passed through Committee . SUCCESSION DUTY BILL PARSED . This bill has at length cHcnped the dropping fire of amendments . It has been " read a third time and passed" in tho House of Commons . Mr . Liddell , tho new member for Liverpool , made a speech on tho motion for tho third reading . To a small and inattcntivo audience ho act forth many objections to tho tnx . It will bo unequal in its incidence ; it will bo a heavy tax upon Homo proportion frequently transferred , while upon others not often transferred it will full very lightly . To a not speech to this effect thero was no reply , and tho bill wns then read n third time . On tho motion that tho bill do pass , Mr . Spoon Kit reiterated his object ion to the clause which twice levied a ton per confc . tax on the Huccesfiion of property left by n stranger to a father and to a son after him . Sir John Pakington , Mr . Mulling s , and Mr . Malins al « o protested against tho cluuso . But Mr . Gladstone rented to make any alteration , and tho clause wuh carried by 138 to 100 . Tho clnuHO taxing timber whs again heartily denounced by tho Opposition . Mr . Malins pointed out that in fuct it wna un oxciso tax ; it levied
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 23, 1853, page 699, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1996/page/3/
-