Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

deeply on any political question affecting them as I do upon this. I cannot contemplate the adoption of this Bill without dismay. You may put down rebellion with the sword, but, my Lords, how will you contend with

"The unconquerable will And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield?"

The Earl of Minto gave the latest explanation respecting his mission to Rome.

When there, he had had a conversation with the Pope on the question of resuming diplomatic relations between the two countries. He told the Pope openly, that we should not be willing to receive in this country an ecclesiastic as his representative. The Pope said, he could not undertake to send a Minister who was not an ecclesiastic; but added, that this need not occasion any difficulty in the transaction of business between the two Courts, because we might adopt the course suggested by the noble Earl who had moved the amendment-the course taken by the Governments of Prussia and Russia, and accredit a Minister to him. On that understanding matters stood at that time; but when a clause, supported by the noble Earl (Aberdeen), was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill in their Lordships' House, the Pope said that that circumstance had entirely altered the state of the case, and that after that parliamentary refusal to entertain such a Minister from him as could alone represent him, nothing on earth should induce him to receive a Minister accredited from this country to Rome. Lord Aberdeen had said, that while Lord Minto was at Rome a paragraph appeared in the Roman

Gazette announcing that a subscrip tion was opened to build a church in London, and that among the persons appointed to receive subscriptions was Cardinal Wiseman. "Archbishop of Westminster." He (Lord Minto) never saw that paragraph until he entered the House that evening, when a copy of the paper was placed in his hands. On a former occasion he had acknowledged he was aware that an intention existed of creating Cardinal Wiseman Archbishop of Westminster. Every one knew it. (Laughter.) It was spoken of on all hands. At the time that appeared, he understood that something had occurred, and that the elevation of Cardinal Wiseman would not take place. He thought he could perceive in the paragraph evidence that Cardinal Wiseman was not the person referred to. The Cardinal was not named in the paragraph, and he believed that it referred to Dr. Gregory.

Lord Aberdeen.-"What difference does that make? The paragraph speaks of an Archbishop of Westminster.'"

Lord Minto. It certainly showed an intention to create somebody "Archbishop of Westminster." Of course he was aware of the intention, as he stated before, long before he visited Rome. ("Hear," and laughter.)

Lord Fitzwilliam said, that he did not quite understand the effect of the Bill. He would have preferred a declaration condemning the assumption of titles, and he would not have interfered with the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.

The Earl of Hardwicke observed, that the Bill was not thoroughly supported by any party: he should vote for it reluctantly, to maintain

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Bill, thus sanctioned by the votes of a great majority of the Peers, passed through Committee in a single night. A good deal of questioning and explanation, however, took place at this stage between the opponents and supporters of the measure. Lord Monteagle addressed a string of questions to the Lord Chancellor respecting the operation of the various clauses, but professed himself unsatisfied with the explananations of the learned Lord. Lord Monteagle then moved an amendment, supported by Lord Camoys, to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill. Viscount Canning, and the Earls of Wicklow and St. Germans condemned the application of the measure to that country, but could not vote for the amendment, because it drew a distinction between the supremacy of the Crown in the two parts of the United Kingdom.

On a division, Lord Monteagle's proposition was negatived by 82 to 17.

More opposition arose on specific clauses of the Bill, the leading

opponents being the Earl of Aberdeen and the Earl of Ellenborough, supported by other Peers. Lord Aberdeen pointed out, that the word "otherwise " prohibited the appointment of any bishops, and yet they exempted the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Duke of Argyll strongly objected to the provision which enabled any informer to sue for the penalty, and he moved to omit it. The Lord Chancellor ascribed the insertion of that clause to the absence of the Irish Members in the House of Commons. That was no reason, said the Duke of Newcastle, why the Peers should neglect their duty. But in fact, he added, Ministers were afraid to let a word of the Bill be altered, lest the other House should have an opportunity of revising it. The amendment was negatived by 61 to 26.

The first clause was carried by 77 to 26, and the other sections and the preamble without a division.

On the 29th of July Parliament was at length relieved of the measure with which it had so long and painfully travailed, by the Bill being read a third time in the House of Lords. The final stage was not suffered to pass sub silentio. The Earl of Aberdeen repeated some of his general arguments against the policy of legislation on the subject; announcing his intention of recording his protest against it. He argued that this Bill would prove most inju rious to the public interests; he anticipated from it greater evil than he could contemplate" without feelings of the deepest horror."

The Bishop of Oxford made a speech of some length to explain the reasons which induced him to

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 Chris tian 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 see, would have no necessity to try the existing bishops for heresy, but find his work realy done to his hands, with his new bishops in fuil power. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with the religious institutions which England has esta blished for the instruction of her people. It was on these grounds that he supported the Bill,-first, because the Bishup of home had endeavoured to remove us from the category of Christian people: and, secondly, because he had been assating the Charch of England, by atten purg to aliish, and, as far as his rescript went, actually ablishing, its separate bishoprics Such aggressors he beid that as a nation, we were bound to repel The Fish repted the bil for that turpose; but avowed he was quite discontented with it He total y pected to persecata He etrcted to a e no ruat according to the generai ales, 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 lo Paans 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 Giengall, 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 Sagy; and Lord Gage.

The Ball having been read a third time. Loni Monteagle moved an animent, providing that the Bill "should not apply to, or in any way affect, any act done by any Ar bishop, Bish p, or Dean, by virtue of his app-intment by the dee of home, or creste any penalty, disably, or offence, by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or ase of an ecclesiastical title conferred er punerting to be exaterred by the authority of the Sce at Home, provided that the ecclesi

astical 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. 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.

CHAPTER IV.

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-He proposes a total Repeal of the Windowe 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. Herries 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 Tax 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 OppositionA 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, and 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. Newdegate, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Hume, and other Members-The Resolutions are negatived by a majority of 113. ALTERATION OF DUTIES ON COFFEE AND TIMBER.-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 with the same view, Mr. T. Baring is outcoted by 199 to 122. MALT TAX.-Repeal of that Duty moved by Mr. Cayley-His Speech -He is supported by Mr. Disraeli and other Members of the Agricultural Party-The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord John Russell

« EdellinenJatka »