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

    upon the business of the House should not have adopted the suggestions of Mr . Speaker , and other witnesses , on the subject of adjournments of the debate , and the propriety of having select committees nominated by a committee of selection . As matters stood , the majority of the Hotise was completely in the hands of any unscrupulous minority . / lie did not see how the discussion could go on with any hope of success . Numerous amendments stood on the paper , and he felt that to resist such tactics was hopeless . He spoke of " Irish rows , " ana of Irish members being subservient to the priests . He would advise Mr . Chambers to withdraw his motion , and of bill l

    the House to abstract resolutions on soch a siibj < SctJ The w ^ ^ fa ^ ^ PP / t ^ uiials ; but the suitor in . the wrong ought to contribute also to th « maintenance , of the judicial BTstem . The whole subject , how ^ WhoSSS ^ ive the consideration of the Government as soon as tS County remoVIngtbe existing inequalities bet £ eea differen ? courS iZ ^^^^ E ?**** « wcommenaea the noble"Sl learned lord to withdraw tlie resolutions . — / * T Afl ^ * few words in reply from Lord Brougham , the resolutions were negatived . ¦ ' . MKRcANTrLB Makdje . —Ou the motion for the second reaftyg i « M ^ e ^ ercantile Shi ppfog $ & ! , J ^ . g ^ witfc called the attention , of the Crovernmeat to Borne amendments with regar&to-detaU ,, whwsh he ; trusted would W made / in fcllA Kill' AtlMMT lira nwwnvea »¦» ASilm * nStA > AA 'AJRfc— * — - *¦ . _ 1 * ¦ _"_ : _ »

    discussion upon ; thasuggested unprpiratn . ebts , in winch ~ Gap- > tain Scobell , Mr . Lindsay , and Mx . l > unlop took paijt . Mr , CA « PTOfe OT *^ Jw ell # »^ % * - byrthB ^ toniBv and ¦ K HH 3 S $ N ^ IWftitfefc . P « H < te < FJm » - $ » #£ } , ; $ Msl&ject aimed . ajt ware ao £ . codifi ^ bOQ , , hu . ii ^ coB ^ Jida ^ on ^ of ^ he Jaw ,, * S % . flp = Was ^ ppy ^ tq say that . man ^ $ f Kfettjggef ti ^ p * -had ^^ T been , an ^ ip ^ ted ... JLa » M % jfirssen | 84 ppd ^ to ^ m embracedeyery 8 ^ terestj it b « gan / with ( thei-building a ^ di ^^ C ^ tutnnent ^ of g »* P « , 9 « 87 ffifc . | 1 ieye « el to . sw- re ^ BM ^ d ^ jgi ^ tot the crew , made tunmsion lor the safettr nf lif * . mnirvliMijwl

    ^ e ^ hoWetepti P ^ p ^ otageJoc 6 rioMgfr |^ a |^^ p in the last . ^ eBsion , on the subject qf . % h ^ and ^ shpvldtitibe House ; agree ti () giv ^ ajj ^ aii hax ^^ ft ^^ ' J ^^^^ i ^ vageJBiI } 1 jttfae > provisionsof that inea ^ urewooldialso lyejihcorporatpd ^ i £ h , tEe , one nsytr . uno ^ r-cpiisMefatipii' gV ^ ith reference ^ to ^ that . mos ^ important ^ 8 ^ bjw §^ he ;| ia ^ j |!; of ?| ne ^ MPSw ^ er . ^ A * ^ f » J 9 % - cpBttea ^ i ^' j I ^ t ^ j ^ j ^ u ^^ iBli KQPo , ? rtJS * $ ^ thejbill .. ^ e ^ w too ^ no ^ ptuilllti ^ oilft cumstancesof extraordinary hazard in which t&eaBipp | me P ™ B ^ i ^ lH ^« & and tiie &l #£ ^ 4 aja « t 'f » a-Bioned by causes beyond his control . . uerhaDS imrolviinr the

    % m * ° W % ; ww .: tf ^ Mune * t ^ mB&om ^ fIJ se ^ &Hw 0 ^* . Wfc w » s MaWf for any accident occasioned by tte negligence ornuscdndtt « tof that setvaut . / ,, The bill was read a second tune ., ( ., , . „ ; , j i ^ j , ; ; i | , ; ,: 7 . .. Tknakt RiGHT . * - ^ T ; he Landlord aiia ^ inan ^ am ^^ e&ine Powers ( Ireland ) Bills have passed through < k > mtwtt » ei ; ' A great many objections were raised ' -tfcr'fcKef xetentiM ^ M" ^| b ^ modified retrospective compen 8 ationj <; lau 8 i » , ; ibu % 1 »» . fP ^ thought fit to divide the If ouse except on the J . 16 th dlkuse . providing ; tlat landlords should repak cottier teneminta whic ) i ^; carr ^ by . V ^ f ; . \ . ^ & ^ * S « t ( Law opBeopkkty . — -Mr . LoGKK Entoinovedithsaaorad ' reading < of therKeal EeUtes . OhareesBilk HQ said ^ tb ^ tundec theipresentsstate of theilaw : the heir « c the deVise ^ lo a ^ rfttL ' estate whichshad beea left to bim ntor ^» gedfJia £ » riitht ^

    claim paynaentof that mortgage oat ox ^ tbetiparsonaleMatfriof the deceaseaL owner .. from ; this system great hftrdabipfoftcn , arose . ' Infrequently happened that the whole ofs a . deoeaMdfS peroondliestate ^ which was all that stood ibetween Hiwiiridoill and the younger members of his family and > destitatiott ^ # a& entirely swept away , iu order to < swell up atill > iinwrB » ths > already disproportionate ! jhaw of a single beirtoR > devuees Mr . Maun * contended that the bill ia fits npresenti-skater would disiah ^ rit the heir . st-la ^ ' 5 Th « ^ UGin » ifr « GfaBai ? BBMj ^ after pointing out some « tnendmeDt « , which -wereneoMsary / in the bill , consented to U 4 aecond ^ readings upontfhevundcir ^ standing tb&t the first clAUfia ahouU . beicouiidenibly . imodi fied . Upon a division , thew » appejuned . for t ^ aecoad laeaa ^ —Ayes , 166 ; noes , 124 . Majority in favour of tbi bilL 42 .

    Soldiebs' Wrvxa . —In reply to a Question from Lord St . LKONABDa , the , Duke of iSBWoASrus stated ^ . that . large sums bad beeh collected in the churcHes and elwwbere . upon the Day of Humiliation , for tba relief of the wives and children of the soldiers now ou active service In tha-EaitJi . In the first instance the Government deemed it 4 eair « blefo give more < of a national character , to the 4 i # tribnjuon ; o | the funds so collected than would be the case-by , ^ nieans a ojE a voluntary association . It had . therefow ^ rbwa-3 i » tende 4 ta , issue a Koval CommisBion to disDeiaa , the > fundsl as in the

    case of the Patriotic Fund iu the fast war . But a great part of'the moiiey "having been paid dyer to the 4 sao « iat { on . it was thought that to issue a Royal CbmmiMibn qrider ' such circumstances would be f 0 enter upon a species of riralry with the voluntary association , which would certainly be mis * understood . TUatf intention had therefore been abandoned * But if a general action took place , the Government would issue a Royal Commission for the distribution of whatever funds might be collected for the relief of the widows and children of those who fell . , .

    Pbivatb Executions . —The Bishop of Oxford presented a petition , on Monday , from the inhabitants of A / lesbury praying that the mode of carrying into effect capital punishment might bo considered . The bishop argued iu favour of private executions . Lord . Aberdeen , with , much consideration , of manner , said ho could not entertain the ' prayer of the petition . In his opinion private executions ; would be dangerous to tlio public peace . Much is said about the debasing effects of public executions , and no dioubt thoy r are bad enough ; but who can toll what contrary effects may be produced , and how many waveriug on the verge of crime : may be sav « d by tho example ? Th « feeling of the HotUO was against private executions .

    Wills- —Mr . Hume moved for a seleot committee to inquire into and report upon the stat « of the present publio registry of the Prerogative Court , used as a teatamentary ofnee , and whether a better office can be established for tho keeping aad preservation of wills . The Souowor-Geme ual ., remarking upou tlie great importance of the subject , which , as part of a larger reform , hiud . occupied the attention , of successive Governments for many years , assented to tho motion , which , after a short discussion , was agreed to .

    crease the number of bishops as population increased . Mr . Hadpield thought that the property of the Church of England had been its great bane . Mr . Wxlpojcb ' concurred in the proposal fpr adjourn * ment . The bill affected a most important question , and he thought that further information , was desirable . He pointed out various inconsistencies in the details of the measure . Lord John Russell , who had just entered the House , said there was great force in the reasons for the adjournment .

    " Some of th « provisions also of th « measure were such as he could uot support in committee , as they appeared to make the revenues fit the Church less connected with and der pendent upon landed property than was desirable for the interests of the Church should be the case . Seeing , therefore , these various objections , and admitting their weight , he should , be glad toliear that the noble marquis consented to d « fer the measure and rest satisfied with having brought the matter under discussion , and remaining convinced , as he no doubt would be , that the subject was one too important to be allowed to drop , and that before long , if be were apt successfniin carrying the measure , the Government would feel obliged—when It had full information before it—to introduce

    sxtcu measures as were tuougat consistent with the improvement of the revenues , and at the same time with principles which , would , afford increased stability , to the Church . If the House were called upon to come to a decision , on the principle of the bill , strong ; as were some of the reasons for postponement , he shpuldfeel himself obliged rather to affirm than to vote against the principle of the bill . The main intention of the biU was to give to the Church Estate Commissioners the administration of the property from which income was derired , which was a sound prmciple , and one which would tend not only to improvement asttp the property , but would be more consistent with-the dignity of the bishops , and at the same tinie be the means of . giving them more time to

    attend to duties which were becoming more and more essential to the best interests of the inh ? tl ) itanta of their various dioceses , the plan , of giving a fixed income to the bishops , to be paid put of the funds arising . from the management of the land , was a great iinproye ' ment on the present system , aiid upjon that account alone , if the question v ? ere that of affirming the principle of the bill , W should be disposed to vote in its favour . And in so douig he should consider also the personal claims which the noble marquis had . upon the support of tiie House . But : while prepared to record his vote for the princi p le of the bill , he did not think it desirable to go into committee on the measure until ; various alterations bad been introduced . Upon the whole , therefore , he hoDed

    that the noble marquis would feel disposed to consent to . the adjournment of the debate . There was one subject which bad uot as yet occupied the attention : of the House , but was one to which Lord John Russell had devoted some attention and that was with respect to the present mode of distributing the Burplus funds by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners . Toe report of the commissioners approved by the House of Commons , had jointed out the mod « by which an increased revenue might be made available for the purposes of what was called Chnoch extension , but they bad not stated the mode in which the , funds so derived ought to be distributed . When be left office iu 1844 , be directed the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London , to the sabjoct , and was in hopes that some recommendation would have been made to the House ou the subiect . The EcclesL .

    astical Commissioners , however , thought it better to make some regulstions among tbenaselves for the disposal of the surplus tunds . These regulations were not , he thought , altogether sinited to the wants of the Church , « nd that too much of the funds was given to existing parishes with small populations . He thought it desirable that those rules should be submitted to Parliament , and receive its attentive consideration . There was also the question of the constitution of cathedral chapters , and the purposes to which their revenues ehould be applied : also , that much vexed question of the church rates , -which , though it could not be considered by Parliament this year , could not be deferred beyond the next session . He thought , therefore , that it would be much better if all these questions were treated as a whole , rather than that the subject of Church reform and improvement should be treated piecemeal and in detail . "

    A very desultory discussion ensued . Mr . Liddblx concurred in the principle of the bill , but was not in favour of its machinery . Sir B . Halx said that the progress of reform in the Church was , on the whole , satisfactory , and though he should divide in favour of the bill , would suggest the postponement of further proceedings . Mr . Digby SarMoua supported the bill , as recognising the right of the laity to interfere in Church management . &ir G . Guet was prepared to vote for the second reading , while suggesting the mover ' s concurrence in postponement of further proceedings . Mr . H . T . Lidd ell hoped the second reading would not , under tlie circumstances , be preased to division . Lord Blandford replied at some length , and contended that it was most desirable' that the House should affirm the principle of the bill .

    On a division the motion for adjournment was rejected by 123 to 62 ; and having gained this victory , Lord Blandford agreed , if tho bill were read a second time , not to press it further this Beesion , and the bill having been so reaid , tho 21 st June was named for its committal proformd .

    THE CONVENT QUESTION . Mr . Chambers ' a committee ou Couventual and Monastic Establishments has received its quietus from the hands of its promoters . The adjourned debate on Conventual and Monastic Institutions waa resumed by Mr . Nkwdboatb , who expressed his deep regret that the select committee

    proceed by way . The forms of the House threw around that mode of procedure greater protection than it did in the case of a select committee . Mr . U right could , conceive nothing more insulting to the Roman CatHolic members ; thati Mr ! Newaegate ' s speech . Mr . Bright held that these gentlemen were entitled to convert the j-tiles of the House into the means of defence against the assaults of the representatives of a hostile church . Mr . Bright entreated Mr * Chambers , i £ he , resolved . to withdraw his motion , not to adopt the suggestion to bring . In a bill ( that course be had already taken , and it had failed ) , but to wasb . his hands of the matter altogether , in so far as Parliament was concerned . > ¦

    - Mr . Coxmkr protested against the doctrine that a minoi ity should rule the ' majqrity . Mr . John- Ball repelled Mr . Newdegate ' s charges as ^ to "the $ ubserv ^ ricy of ^ heltbinan Ca ^ b ^ % ^ mb ^ rsr Mr ! Fbewek quoted words ; spoken at' a .. reccut meeting of Koman Catbolics , totheeffept thatian appeal should be made to the ; Emperor of the French , should the threatened motion be : carried ^ He lioped the attention of the Government had been directed to the-words . ^ Mr * Ghaxbebs would not go into the merits of the controversy , but would content himself with stating the reasons which induced him to withdraw from the attempt to nominate the committee . He had looked

    at ; the course ; ! peA > y # h fm in eyery ; light ; and Ending that it was literally and physically impoasible to go on , he had resolved to withdraw his motion . That motion had been met by facdpus opposition , and , aided by the singular and , he believed , unprecedented course taken by the Government , bad gained its object . In withdrawing his motion , he must not be understood as abandoning his object . The course to be pursued must be matter for considerati ^ . Lord J 6 hk Rtres ' Eix repellei a remdrk made by Mr . Charnbers , that tte Goyernment ; in , ieferejace to this question , had set a precedent injurious to the character of the House . For himielf , he had

    expressed his own opinion , and surelyPie was en titled to : do that . It was quite competent for a Minister , to oppose a majority— 'the rules of . the House provided for such a course , but that did not by any means involve the principle Hhat aminority may override the majority . ' Lord ifbhn Russell rejoiced at the > wfithi drawal of the iii ' otfcon , as removing an irritating arid unnecessary subject of . contention . Sir John Pakinoton , in referring to the resistance offered out of dpora to the proposed inquiry , took occasion to disclaim all intention , in so far as he was concerned , of giving offence to his Roman Catholic fellow-Christians ^ ; Sir John lioped he vrouLd never

    see another instance of a minority overcoming a ma < jority of that House . Mr . Coqan defended the policy adopted by the Roman Catholic members . Mr . Decmhond admitted defeat , but denied that it was a fair defeat . He thought it best that the motion should be withdrawn , simply because he could not help it . Thirty years ago he presented a petition , to that House , in which he asserted that , if Roman Catholics were admitted into Parliament , they would be the nominees of the priests , and could not possibly act in harmony with Protestant members . On a future day he would move that a royal commission be issued to inquire into monastic and conventual institutions .

    Mr . Cratjford would object to the withdrawal of the motion , and would talce # , division upon thej point . After remarks from Mr . MAxnsrB , Mr . Vincent Sender , Lord Edward Howard , and Colonel Blaie , The amendment was negatived by 100 to 1 ; and the order discharged . Law Taxes . —Lord Brougham brought under the consideration of the House the subject of taxes or fees upon proceedings in the courts of law . the noble and learned lord alluded principally to tho amount of fees charged in the county courts , mentioning that , upon an average of the years 1852 and 1853 , they amounted to 261 , 000 / ., being

    174 per cent , upon the sums sued for , and upwards of 80 per cent , on the sums recovered by judgment . In the superior courts the fees ; paid amounted to only 50 , 000 / . a year . Complaining of the injury which such a state of things inflicted upon the county courts , b y reducing the amount of business brought to them , he vindicated the principle of all law taxes being deft-ayod . not by suitors , but by the public , out of the Consolidated Fund . In conclusion , tho noble and learned lord moved a Beries of seven resolutions , embodying tho principles he ha < i enunciated . The Loud Chancellor concurred in most of the views of Lord Brougham , but ^ ie doubted whether tho present was an opportune moment for changing tho existing system , and ho expressed an opiaion that it would be inexpedient to pledge

    Untitled Article

    May 20 , 1854 . ] THE- LEADER . ^ f — ^^?* ¦ ¦ . ... * - " - '" ¦ ¦

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 20, 1854, page 461, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2039/page/5/