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

• 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

    to the upholding of which the House ought not to pledge the honour of the country ; that the resolution , if carried , may be mischievous , can never bs useful , and is both impolitic and undignified . Sir William concluded by moving the previous question . " Mr . It . Phillibiork contested the justice of many of the propositions of Sir W . Molesworth , but agreed with him as to the wisdom , and expediency of the course of Government in waiving the rights of the Crown on the present occasion . He suggested the withdrawal of the motion . Mr . Bowyek argued in opposition to the motion , but during his speech the House was counted out .

    THE TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL . Mr . "Wai-pole having referred to the fact that bills had been introduced with reference to testamentary jurisdiction and matrimony and divorce , and to the probability that a bill may be brought in next year with regard to church discipline , all having reference to matters which are embraced within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction , begged to ask the noble lord the President of the Council whether , under the" circumstances , lie would think it right to proceed with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill this year , and whether it would not be advisable to have all the bills relating to the jurisdiction , of the ecclesiastical courts submitted to Parliament before they

    legislated upon any part of the question . Lord Johk Rosseix said that since he had been last questioned-on . the subject * he had been in communication with the Xiord Chancellor respecting it , and it had also been under the consideration of the Groy . ernnient , and he was therefore now able to answer the Question of Mr . Waipole . The Lord Chancellor hadlntToduced into the House of Xprds a bill on the subject of divorce . With respect to church discipline no bill had been proposed 3 but undoubtedly it was a matter that would receive early consideration . He found there was much : difference of opinion with respect to the nature of the court to which many of those matters should be referred , whether to a branch of the Court of Chancery , or to

    a separate court , though not resembling the present Ecclesiastical Court . On consideration of this question , which , was one of great importance , and taking also into consideration the late period of the session , the Government had come to the determination not to proceed at present with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill . With respect to the Divorce Bill , the Lord Chancellor proposed to make some alterations in that bill . There was part of it founded upon the report of the divorce commissioners , not in any way connected with or having reference to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of real property , and that being a separate question , the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that it might be proceeded with . Lord John Russell reserved , therefore , any decision on that part of the question .

    ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS . In moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts bill , Lord Brougham said that the Court of Admiralty bad for some time had the power of summoning witnesses before it , of taking their evidence viva voce , and of directing it to be reduced to writing , in sucli manner as the judge of the court might think fit . The object of the present measure -was to extend this salutary provision to the ecclesiastical courts , there being no reason whatever why it should not be applied to these as well as to the Court of Admiralty .

    The -witnesses in the Adimralty Court being generally seamen , whose detention in this country would be frequently attended with considerable inconvenience , their affidavits were still generally used , nnd -the power given by the satute had not been under other circumstances ; but so far as it had been applied , it had been found to work satisfactorily . The Lord Chancellor supported the bill . It would be his duty during the recess to look into the whole subject of the ecclesiastical courts , with a view to meet the gross evils which existed .

    The interest of the debate , however , lay in the mode of dealing with the subject adopted by the Bishop of Oxporp . lie assured the House that it waB from no want of appreciation of the need of such legislation that such a measure had not boforo been introduced ; but the difficulties in the wny were enormous . Such a bill was in somo sort to punisli , the errors in doctrine and in practice of the clergtf of the Church of England—not the bishops . The bishops would have to administer the law , to which the clergy would bo subject ; and there wore the greateafc difficulties in the wny of the bishops attempting legislation , without the clergy having tho

    opportunity fully to discusa for themselves and pronounco their opinion on tho bill which was to bo introduced . It was not for him to say how that could bo done . But , for himself , ho did not expect to sco any legislation on this difficult nnd delicate subject brought to a happy conclusion until those who wore to bo tho special subjects of such legislation should bo able to g-lvo Parliament the benefit of hearing what they thought , of weighing their arguments , and giving weight to those worthy of woight , an 4 disregarding those -which wore inapplicable . Ho ibol ^ voA xnany thoughtful members of their lordshipa ' House wore coming to tho conviotion that it would

    be highly advantageous that the clergy should have the power of discussing church questions in public , and he thought he spoke the opinion of all the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission when he said it appeared to him that the greatest possible benefit would accrue from affording the clergy at large the opportunity of expressing what they thought and felt on these subjects . He assured the House it was not apathy , but a sense of the inherent difficulties of the subject , which prevented the bishops from bringing forward such a measure .

    The Earl of Harbowby heartily concurred in the sentiments of the Bishop of Oxford with regard to public discussions on these matters by the clergy . Parliament wanted to know what the clergy thought and felt , and it never could ascertain that without some such arrangement as had been suggested . Perhaps the ancient machinery of Convocation could be brought into action , and he considered it more and more necessary / inasmuch as the Imperial Parliament less and less identified itself with the Church of England . The bill was then read a second time .

    THE REGION DONtTM . The annual debate on the vote of 38 , 754 ? . for nonconforming and other Ministers in Ireland—known as the Regium Donum—took place in Committee of Supply , on Thursday night . Mr . Bright proposed to negative the vote , and in a long and amusing speech condemned this State assistance to those who ought upon principle to reject it , and who were perfectly able to provide themselves with the luxury of religious organisation , instead of taking hush-money from the State . The honourable member for Manchester was especially sarcastic upon the linen manufacturers of the north of Ireland , who he said were able to do everything except to pay their own

    ministers . He showed that a weekly payment of one penny per head from each person enjoying the religious advantages in question would enable them to 'dispense with this humiliating aid , which exposed them to the rebuke of their Nonconformist brethren in England . He did not wish to ask the committee at once to refuse a grant upon which many hundred clergymen were dependent for bread , but he would divide upon the proposed addition to the former allowance , in order to take a division on the principle involved , so that , after fair notice to the parties that they must pay their own clergy , the grant might be exploded . Mr . Kirk contended that the grant had been productive of great good , and that it was indispensable to the religious interests of the Presbyterians of Ireland .

    After some further discussion , Lord John Russell expressed his regret that tlie religious question had been introduced by various speakers into the debate , and said that there were two grounds on which the grant might be supported , namely , that of contract and that of the fair expectation of the Presbyterians . He deprecated the mode in -which the exemplary clergy of that body had been alluded to in the discussion , and said that the continuance of the grant was most advantageous to the State . Bearing testimony to the good service which the Presbyterian ministers had done in promoting morality and piety , he said that he did not know that he should have proposed this as a now grant , but that as it had been many years in existence , and had been very beneficial , lie should certainly support it .

    tion of the board , proposing that it should continue for two years . He would make the Home Secretary responsible for its proceedings , and the board , consisting of two paid and one unpaid officer , subject to the instructions and control of the Home Secretary . He could not agree to reduce the vote . This led to much discussion , and to an elaborate attack upon Mr . Edwin Chadwiclc , and Dr . Southwood Smith , paid commissioners , by Sir Benjamin Hall , and a general attack upon the board . Lord Palmebston agreed to postpone the vote , especially as he intended to bring in his bill the next night .

    The City Churches Removal Bill . —Sir J . Pakinoton moved the second reading of this bill in the House of Commons , on Thursday morning ; and Mr . R . Philmmore , remarking that the bill proposed to sw « ep away the churches of the poor because the rich had deserted tho city , and that it was proposed to do this without the consent of the parishioners , moved the second reading that day six months . In this he was seconded by Mr . Hadfielw , and supported by Mr . Moffat , Mr . Christopher , Lord R . Cecil , Mr . Henley , Mr . Masterman , Mr . Thojtas Duncombe , and Sir James Duke . On tho other side , were Mr . Thomson Hankey and Mr . Sidney Herbert . Mr . Druaimoxd wished to know , if consecrated ground were to be thus treated , what was the use of the farce of consecration , and next , what was the use of bishops , except for the purposes of consecration . The House then divided , when th « numbers -were—For the second reading , 59 ; for the amendment , 143 ; majority for the amendment , 84 * The bill was therefore rejected .

    New War Mikistry . —The Earl of Malmesbury asked the noble earl at the head of the Government whether it was true that the offices of the new department of Secretary of State for War were to be removed to the house occupied by the Inclosure Commissioners in Whitehall-gardensj and that the Inclosure Commissioners in their turn were to be . removed to St . James ' s-sqpiare ? Having complained of this arrangement as inconvenient , expensive , and unnecessary , the noble earl further called attention to tie state of the Foreignoffice , in Downing-stroet , which he compared to that of old barracks from the want of repair . The Foreign Secretary had no residence within the building , while the room in which he sat was so unsafe that , if he received company , it had to be propped up , and he could not give a dinner jecause there was no kitchen .

    The Earl of Abeivdeen said the louse occupied by the Inclosure Commissioners was the only one in ' the neighbourhood of Downing street and the Horse Guards which could he found for the new War Department ; whilst the house to which the Inclosure Commissioners would be removed was one which they had themselves approved before being removed from Somerset House . Inquiry , however , should be made as to the amount of inconvenience which the change ¦ would produce ; but he apprehended that two months would lie sufficient to re-arrange the urchwes of the commission . As to tho state of the Foreign-office , he well knew from personal experience that it was disgraceful and dangerous . The rents in the walls were quite alarming to look at . Plans for a new building were in preparation , and wonld be completed by the end of the summer , but 3 ier Majesty ' s Government had no present intention of applying to Parliament for a grant of public money for a new erection . But no doubt , by the time the noble earl returned to office , tho place would be fit for his reception !

    Royal Assent , —In the House of Lords on Monday night , the royal assent was given by commission to three public and sixty-six private bills : the former were the Customs' Duties Bill , the JExcise Duties Bill , and the High Treason ( Ireland ) Bill . Maynootu again . —The passing of tho Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill was imperilled because Mr . Spooncr hates the Romnn Catholics . On the question that the bill do puss , describing the jluoing of the Maynooth grant upon tho Consolidated Fund as unconstitutional he moved that sill grants taken for tho support of Maynooth should be put in the schedules of the till , so that they might come regularly every year before tlie House , and bo voted or rejected as tho ease might be . —Lord . John Kussell significantly told tho House that unless the amendment were rejected tho bill would bo withdrawn altogether . Nevertheless , on a division , taken without almost any discussion , tho amendment was only negatived by 10 G to 90 . Tho bill then passed .

    Mr . Bright said that tho extreme difficulty that Lord J . Russell had found in making out any case at all rendered reply unnecessary . The committee then divided , and tlie numbers were—for tho grant , 149 ; for Mr . Bright ' s amendment , 62 ; majority for the grant , 87 . TI 10 vote was agreed to . THE BOARD OF III 2 ALTU . In Committee of Supply , on the vote of 11 , 865 / . for the General Board of Health , Sir George Pjeckell , condemning tho proceedings of tho board , moved that the vote bo reduced by 6855 / . Lord Palmjdbston heartily defended the board . If there had never been a cholera visitation , tho health of the country might have been loft to tcilco care of itself , but that is not the case now .

    Doa-CARTS . —Wd St . Leonards moved the second rending of tho Cruolty to Animals Bill , which , among other things , prohibits throughout the country tho use of carts drawn by dogs . His allcgntion in support of tho bill was , that dog-carts frighten horses ; and that doga so omployod aro frequently made mail by drawing . There was a sober and ft merry opposition to tho bill . Lord Kqlinton gravely deolarod that it is " perfectly visionary nnd unstable" to object that dogs nro over driven inaitj . Wheelbarrows sometimes frighten lioiHcs , but that in jio reason for prohibiting wlicolburrows . Tho Mnrquisi of Wxhtminsticu said a doc naturally stands on its toon , but ; < lass in harness aro forced out of tlmt natural powitiun only by enduring croat wain i ncsimnY tno

    ? ' If Brighton did not wish to bo included in tho arrangements of tho board , thoro would bo no difficulty in excluding that town . In ovory tqwn there wore two parties , known by tho two designations corresponding to those ot Whig nnd Tory , nnd almost dividing tho town—tho one wns tho clean party , and tho other was tho dirty party . { Loud lauahtur . ' ) riicso wore tho woll-known fiiotioriH . One man would any , " 1 am of tho dirty party—I liko tho dirt—1 don ' t chooso to puy for being olonu . ( Laughter , ') Now , in tlio towns where tho dirty party prevailed , tho arrangements of tho Board of Honlth did not apply . It was not in tho power of tho Hoard

    -oru MAo piuuUod cjiuso of ifiOO owners of log-carts in Sussex nnd Hiunpshiro . To this tho Duke of AuayivL retorted that thoro vcro formerl y 1600 persons using dog-onrts in London , but , no compensation was given to thorn when tho uho of dog-enrta wna prohibited . Did they glvo those portions oompunHution wlwn tho uhq of dog-carte was prohibited ? If they did not flivo them compensation and it thoy committed an act of Injuatioo then , it might fairly bo arguod that tlio . y might commit an act of injuatico now . ( Loud Inwjhtur . ) llo did not admit , however tlmt any lnjuatioo was done to iIiohq pomona at that timo and ho did not , thoro / ore , concede tlmt any injustice would bo doiio now .

    of Health to compel tho dirty yiuty to aubmlt to tho claim pnrty . ( Laughter . ) A provisional order could not bo mauwl without a preliminary proceeding indicating tho dcairo of a certain portion of tho inhabitants to have thoao arrangements ostnbliBhad , and where applications hud boon madu to convert pvovimonal ordors into law , they could not bo bo convortod , except with tho pousont of Parliament . In many qhbm those orders had boon rojeotod by l ' jirlhunont , and that was conclusive evidence thut tho Board of Health could not impose on n town nrriinqainonts which tho town might think inconvenient and uhoIosh . " Ho proposod to bring in a bill to altor tho

    conotruc-Jmu-I Gkanvim . tc took a lively viow of tlio subieot . It io Hiad dogs aro not , boaata of draught j but tlio hill provoa tlmt thoy aro . by proposing to put a utop to their boing uaod no Hiiiatflol dgmghl . Anything will frighton aotno horsoa—a bird flying out of n hedge— -and if you arc to prohibit ovorytluug that frightona thorn , you may bogin with railway

    Untitled Article

    . 628 THE LEADER . [ Saturday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 8, 1854, page 628, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2046/page/4/