« EdellinenJatka »
give his assent to the Bill. His main argument in favour of the Bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops constituted an aggression in this country; and he supported that conclusion by distinguishing the act of the Bishop of Rome from certain acts of the central Christian authority at Jerusalem in olden times, appointing bishops in certain foreign countries still under heathen control.
"England," he said, "is a Christian country, and the new bishops are appointed to supersede the Protestant bishops; so that if there were a revolution in favour of the Roman Catholic faith, — which may God avert, — the Bishop of Rome would have swept away all our ancient sees, would have no necessity to try the existing bishops for heresy, but find his work ready done to his hands, with his new bishops in full power. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with those religious institutions which England has established for the instruction of her people." It was on these grounds that he supported the Bill,—first, because the Bishop of Rome had endeavoured to remove us from the category of Christian people; and, secondly, because he had been assailing the Church of England, by attempting to abolish, and, as far as his rescript went, actually abolishing, its separate bishoprics. Such aggressions he held that, as a nation, we were bound to repel. The Bishop accepted the Bill for that purpose; but avowed he was quite discontented with it. He totally objected to persecution. He objected to a concordat according to the general idea, but regretted that there was no arrange
ment to regulate the admission of Papal bulls: such a regulation would have prevented all this unhappy dissension. He regretted various amendments that have been lost in the Commons; and, inter alia, the want of a provision for controlling religious houses by a visitation.
The Duke of Argyll defended the Bill against the support of Dr. Wilberforce, and himself against some allusions which the Bishop had made to him. He remarked, that though he was willing to defend the Church of England, this was not the time to be singing Io Pit'ans upon the state of that Church, which was the only Church day by day and week by week giving forth converts to the Church of Rome.
The Bill was supported by Earl Fortescue—who looked for a more stringent measure from Parliament if the provisions of this one should be evaded; by the Earl of Glengall.Lord Redesdale, and Earl Grey—the last mainly in defence of his own consistency. It was opposed by Lord Stuart de Decies; by Earl Nelson—who objected to the aggression, but also to penal legislation; by the Marquis of Sligo; and Lord Gage.
The Bill having been read a third time, Lord Monteagle moved an amendment, providing that the Bill "should not apply to, or in. any way affect, any act done by any Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, by virtue of his appointment by the See of Rome, or create any penalty, disability, or offence, by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or use of an ecclesiastical title conferred or purporting to be conferred by the authority of the See of Rome; provided that the ecclesiastical name, style, designation, or title assumed, or used by any such Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic Archbishop, Roman Catholic Bishop, or Roman Catholic Dean, as the case may be, officiating or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorized to officiate, in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."
The Marquis of Lansdowne opposed the addition, maintaining that it was needless. He would say at once and without hesitation, that if the Pope had desired to secure, as it was a lawful object for him to secure, the benefit of episcopal administration to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen—
if he had informed the Government that such was his intention —and if he had confined himself, both in his brief and in the mandate announcing the brief, to the designations which were contained in the proposed amendment—there would not have been the least objection to his so doing. Lord Lansdowne would go further, and say that even now, although the Pope had not taken that course, there was not one of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church which, stripped of all connection with the assumption of territorial titles, could not be sufficiently exercised under the Bill as it now stood, without the addition proposed by his noble Friend. After a short debate the amendment was withdrawn, and so the Bill passed, and shortly afterwards received the royal assent.
Finance.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his second Financial Statement for the Year, on the 5th of April—He explains at length the motives which had influenced him in making his Propositions to the House, and the subsequent modifications in his Plans—Heproposesa total Repeal of the Window Tax in lieu of the Alteration before propounded, and retracts some of the boons to the Agricultural Interest which had been ungraciously received—The Budget meets with a more favourable reception than the former one. The Income Tax.—Mr. Henries moves a Resolution directed to an alleviation of that Impost—He is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Speeches of Mr. Prinsep, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. T. Baring, Mr. J. Wilson, Sir R. Inglis, and other Members—Mr. Herries's Resolution is rejected on a division by 278 against 230—The Second Reading of the Income Taj: Bill is opposed by Mr. Spooner and Mr. Muntz, but without effect— On the Bill going into Committee, Mr. Hume moves that the Grant be limited to one year, with the object of having the whole subject considered in a Select Committee—The Amendment is opposed by the Government, also by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Sidney Herbert—It is supported by Alderman Thompson, Mr. Miles, and Mr. Disraeli, and is carried by 244 to 230, amidst great cheering from the Opposition— A few days afterwards, Lord John Russell declares the intention of the Government to acquiesce in the Amendment—Remarks of Mr. Disraeli—Mr. Hume experiences much difficulty in nominating a Select Committee on the Income Tax—Discussion as to the object of the Amendment, antf the motives of those who had supported it—Remarks of Lord John Russell and Sir C. Wood—A Committee is at length nominated. Protectionist Finance.—On the 30th of June Mr. Disraeli moves certain Resolutions respecting the Financial Position and Prospects of the Country, and the Policy of the Government—His Speech—He is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Speeches of Mr. Neicdegate, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Hume, and other Members—The Resolutions are negatived by a majority of 113. Alteration Of Duties On Coffee And Timrer.—The former opposed by Mr. E. H. Stanley, but agreed to by the House—Mr. T. Baring moves a Resolution condemnatory of the Adulteration of Coffee by means of Chicory—The motion is opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and rejected after a debate by 5 votes only—On a second attempt witth the same view, Mr. T. Baring is outvoted by 199 to 122. Malt Tax.—Repeal of that Duty moved by Mr. Cayley—His Speeck —He is supported by Mr. Disraeli and other Members of the Agricultural Party—The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord John Russell resist the Motion, which is rejected by 258 to 122—Mr. Bass afterwards moves that the Malt Duty be reduced one-half—This also is negatived by the House—Mr. Frewen attempts a Repeal of the Hop Duty, but without success—Lord Naas twice defeats the Government on his Motion with respect to the mode of levying Duties on Homemade Spirits in Bond; and Lord Robert Grosvernor once, upon a Proposition for repealing the Attorney's Certificate Duty—The Chancellor of the Exchequer ultimately succeeds in reversing the decisions as to both.
WE have already described the very unfavourable reception that was given to the first financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, though not the avowed cause, was generally believed to have contributed in no small degree to the temporary abdication of the Whig Ministry. On their resumption of office, it followed, in accordance with the prevailing expectation, that the financial schemes of the Government underwent a reconsideration, and a remodelled budget was produced, which avoided some of the principal objections to the original propositions.
On the 5th of April Sir Charles Wood submitted his amended plans to the House. He began by saying that time had been afforded him to reconsider the proposals he had made to the House, and he had had the advantage of hearing the course of financial policy which Lord Stanley was prepared to pursue. The two proposals were before the country, which could decide which of the two was most conducive to the welfare of this great empire. He admitted that his proposals had not given general satisfaction, but he had been surprised at the manner in which they had been received in some quarters. The main demand made upon him had been for a remission of taxation to which he felt it impossible to accede con
sistently with the maintenance of public credit, and the establishments which were necessary for the welfare of the country. The all-pervading objection to his proposals was that he had thought it necessary to retain some margin of the surplus to meet sudden emergencies—a policy the wisdom of which had been verified by experience—and to maintain the public credit. He saw no reason to alter his estimate of financial receipts, or of the disposable surplus; with this surplus he did not attempt to effect any great operations, but in fact the great monopolies had been already destroyed. The principle which had actuated all his schemes was the desire to relieve and benefit the great mass of the population, Government being instituted for the benefit of the many and not of the few. It was for their sakes that he had supported the remission of the duties on corn, meat, foreign cattle, and foreign sugar. With the same view of cheapening their provisions and their clothing, he had advocated the reduction of duties on raw materials. There still remained one matter of vital importance to the poorer classes— their dwellings. It was with the view of improving their condition in these respects that the duty on bricks was abolished in the preceding session, and that it was now proposed to reduce the duty
"he Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his second Financial for the Year, on the 5th of April—He explains at length the ich had influenced him in making his Propositions to the
the subsequent modifications in his Plans—He proposes a total the Window Tax in lieu of the Alteration before propounded, 8 some of the boons
to the Agricultural Interest which had aciously received— The Budget meets with a more favourEon than the former one. THE INCOME TAX.-Mr. Herries Resolution directed to an alleviation of that Impost—He is by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Speeches of Mr. Ir. F. Peel, Mr. T. Baring, Mr. J. Wilson, Sir R. Inglis, Members— Mr. Herries's Resolution is rejected on a divi8 against 230—The Second Reading of the Income Tax osed by Mr. Spooner and Mr. Muntz, but without effectI going into Committee, Mr. Hume moves that the Grant be one year, with the object of having the whole subject con
a Select Committee — The Amendment is opposed by the rt, also by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Sidney Herbert-It is Sy Alderman Thompson, Mr. Miles, and Mr. Disraeli, and By 244 to 230, amidst great cheering from the Opposition28 afterwards, Lord John Russell declares the intention of nment to acquiesce in the Amendment-Remarks of Mr. Mr. Hume experiences much difficulty in nominating a emittee on the Income Tax— Discussion as to the object of Ement, and the motives of those who had supported it-ReLord John Russell and Sir C. Wood— A Committee is at zinated. PROTECTIONIST FINANCE.—On the 30th of June ieli moves certain Resolutions respecting the Financial ad Prospects of the Country, and the Policy of the Govern3 Speech -- He is answered by the Chancellor of the ExSpeeches of Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Hume, ÁMembers—The Resolutions are negatived by a majority of TERATION OF DUTIES ON COFFEE AND TIMBER.— The former
Mr. E. H. Stanley, but agreed to by the House-Mr. T. oves a Resolution condemnalory of the Adulteration of Coffee ef Chicory—The Motion is opposed by the Chancellor of the
and rejected after a debate by 5 votes only-On a second Eh the same view, Mr. T. Baring is outvoted by 199 to 122. -:- Repeal of that Duty moved by Mr. Cayley-His Speech Epported by Mr. Disraeli and other Members of the Agriculy—The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord John Russell