Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

MR. EWART seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question put"That the House be called over on Monday next the 22nd instant:-That such Members as shall not then attend be sent for in custody of the Serjeant at Arms."

MR. S. CARTER said, that when Parliament was called together by the Queen's proclamation it was the duty of all Members to attend; and if, instead of being there they were in the south of Ireland or the south of France, or anywhere else, they had no right to plead such absence from their duty as an argument against a proposition of this nature.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he perceived that Mr. Erskine May, the gentleman whom his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had so very justly and properly praised, observed in his work upon The Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, "If it be really intended to enforce the call, not less than a week or ten days should intervene between the order and the day named for the call."

MR. ROBERT PALMER did not know whether it was the intention of any hon. Member to oppose this Motion. So far as he was personally concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the House was called over or not, because he was not generally absent from his post on such important questions as that to be discussed on Tuesday next. But, as the hon. Member had stated that the object of a call of the House was that every Member should be present, he would beg to ask the hon. Member what power he had to insure the attendance of Mem-He thought it always expedient to take as bers except at the call of the House? If he could insure their attendance at the debate, that would be something; but the fact was, that he could neither ensure it at the debate nor the division. There was no such power; and half those who attended on Monday and answered to their names might, if they chose, be absent on Tuesday. He merely threw this out that the hon. Member might see whether any useful object could be gained by this Motion; because, if not, it would hardly be worth while putting people to the inconvenience which it would occasion.

MR. HUME said, the House had the power of enforcing the attendance of Members on Monday; and if they attended on Monday and absented themselves on Tuesday, that would be a question between them and their constituencies.

MR. EWART said, that, although there was no security for the attendance of Members on Tuesday, yet there was a strong probability that if they attended on Monday they would do so on Tuesday. There must, moreover, in his opinion, have been some good reason for the adoption of a rule by the House which had been so frequently acted upon.

VISCOUNT BERNARD said, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) the great inconvenience and injustice which he might occasion to some Members if he persevered in this Motion. He was there prepared to vote; but if he had been at home in the south of Ireland it would have been utterly impossible for him to arrive at the House in time after being made aware of the decision of the House.

great care as possible that when there was a call of the House there should be very ample time between the order and the day named; but certainly, as a general rule, he should be very sorry to oppose a Motion of this kind; and, as he gathered from the feeling of the House that there was a desire to make the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers) more or less a Motion of confidence in the Government, he should wish to see as large an attendance upon the occasion as possible; and certainly he should not himself oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. SHEE said, he wished to state the case of some hon. Friends of his, Members for counties in the south and west of Ireland, who he knew could not by possibility be present. Having had no reason to suppose that any business would so soon come before the House on which any great difference of opinion could arise, they had not yet attended the House; and it was impossible that they could now arrive in time; that being so, he thought it would be very hard upon them that they should be taken into the custody of the Serjeantat-Arms. Unless the House had the power, therefore, to make exceptions in such cases, the Motion would be calculated to inflict a great injustice.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he thought it would have been much better if the hon. Member for Montrose, immediately after the announcement of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that he intended to bring forward his Motion, had given notice of his intention at an early day to make a Motion for a call of the House. [Mr.

HUME: I did so the very next day.] As | it was, the time at present was certainly very short. However, according to the practice which he had always seen adopted when the House had been called over, if any valid excuse for absence were given, such, for instance, as being abroad, and unable to arrive in time, that had always been taken by the House, upon the allegation of any hon. Member, to be sufficient. He presumed his hon. Friend intended to pursue the same course in the present instance, and that on any Member not appearing, the question would be asked whether there were any ground or excuse for his absence. Having said thus much, he must say that he did not see any great advantage in the Motion. Certainly it had been practised upon former occasions when any questions of great importance were to be discussed, and, as the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was one of that nature, it was unquestionably of great importance that it should be known whether they had adopted Free Trade and renounced Protection, or had returned to Protection and renounced Free Trade: he thought then, in this instance, the practice of former years might very well be followed.

The House divided:-Ayes 147; Noes 42: Majority 5.

List of the AYES.

Anderson, Sir J.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Hindley, C.
Horsfall, T. B.
Hutchins, E. J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Keogh, W.
Kershaw, J.
King, hon. P. J. L.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Kirk, W.
Langton, W. H. G.
Laslett, W.
Lennox, Lord H. G.
Mackenzie, W. F.
Luce, T.
Mackie, J.
M'Gregor, J.
McTaggart, Sir J.
Mangles, R. D.
Manners, Lord J.
Martin, J.
Massey, W. N.
Miall, E.
Mitchell, T. A.
Milligan, R.
Mills, T.
Milner, W. M. E.
Morgan, C. R.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Mulgrave, Earl of
Murphy, F. S.
Naas, Lord
Napier, rt. hon. J.
Newport, Visct.
O'Brien, P.
O'Connell, M.
Oliveira, B.
Paget, Lord G.

[blocks in formation]

Pakington, rt.hon.Sir J. Winnington, Sir T. E.

Wyndham, Gen.

Peel, F.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Hume, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Duncan, G.

Phinn, T.

Ewart, W.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Johnstone, hon. H. B.

Rolt, P.

[blocks in formation]

Morgan, O.

Montgomery, H. L.

Russell, F. W. Scott, hon. F. Seymer, H. K. Sibthorp, Col. Smijth, Sir W. Sm th, Sir F. Smith, W. M. Smollett, A. Stanhope, J. B. Stirling, W. Swift, R. Taylor, Col. Thicknesse, R. A. Tollemache, J. Vance, J. Vansittart, G. H. Verner, Sir W. Villiers, hon. F. Wall, C. B. Whitmore, H. Wigram, L. T. Willoughby, Sir H. Wise, J. A. Wyndham, W. Wynn, H. W. W. Yorke, hon. E. T. Young, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Newdegate, C. N. Vyse, R. H.

respecting which he had not had a previous opportunity of giving an explanation. He begged to be permitted to state how the case stood with respect to the proposed charter which was sought to be obtained for the Crystal Palace, because misapprehensions had arisen concerning it which had taken a great hold on the public mind, and he should be gratified if the explanation he could give would relieve any of the parties from their apprehensions, and relieve him from the vast number of memorials which were presented to him almost every day of his life. When first it was determined to form the Crystal Palace Company, it was a great object with the Directors to have a charter of incorporation-not to give them any powers which the law did not give them before, but for the purpose of securing to the shareholders the advantage of a limited liability, which would afford great facilities for carrying into effect the objects they contemplated; and a memorial was presented to the Government accordingly. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) was not in this country at the time the Company made their application; but he (the Earl of Derby) saw the Directors of the Company; and when they had stated their views to him, he stated to them that he thought the most convenient course they could pursue was to put down in the form of a draught Charter the objects they had in view, and the restrictions to which they proposed to submit, in regard to the open

The House adjourned at a quarter after ing of the building on the Sunday, in order Seven o'clock till Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Monday, November 22, 1852.

MINUTES.] Sat First in Parliament.-The Duke of Brandon, after the Death of his Father. Took the Oaths.-Several Lords.

THE EXHIBITION (SYDENHAM). LORD PANMURE having presented a petition from the Free Synod of Aberdeen against the opening of the Exhibition (Sydenham) on any part of the Lord's Day,

The EARL of DERBY said, he was glad to have the opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention to the subject to which the petition had reference, and

to obtain the countenance of the Government. He had since been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), and the parties were informed that they were to consider the conversation that had taken place as merely an explanation of the views of the Government with regard to restrictions as to the opening on Sundays; but as to the issuing of any charter at all, that was a subject for consideration on the part of the proper authorities. They had proceeded on the assumption that there was nothing in the law which prevented the opening of the Palace on Sundays, and thought they had only to consider what clauses it would be necessary to introduce on granting the charter. He had no hesitation in saying, for his own part, that (subject to the restrictions which the Company had declared its willingness to submit to), the opening

of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday, far | inserted in the charter could render that from being a desecration of the Sabbath, legal which was declared illegal by law; would be a great benefit to the people of and if such were the law, it could only be this overcrowded metropolis, by enabling altered by the authority of Parliament, and them to avail themselves on the Sunday they would not attempt to mislead the pubafternoon of the innocent recreation and lic opinion by giving a sanction which they amusement provided for them by the could not really give. The alteration could building and the beautiful grounds at- only be made with the consent of Parliatached to it. If this scheme had involved ment; and he hoped that he might be peran exhibition of articles of manufactures, mitted to say, on the part of Ministers, machinery, and commerce, within the walls, that if the payment for admission into the and the attendance of the exhibitors to ex- Crystal Palace on the Sunday were found plain their inventions in arts, science, and to be contrary to the law, they would be manufactures, or if it had required the pre- the last persons to ask for the enactment sence of a numerous body of attendants of such a provision as would legalise it, howto guard and protect them on the Sunday, ever advantageous they might think it for he might have taken a very different view the health, comfort, and morality of the of the subject. But the representatives of population. When the clause to which he the Company had stated to him that their had referred was proposed to be introduced object was to close on the Sunday all the into the charter, it was looked upon by the exhibition of machinery, manufactures, and Government, and by the promoters of the commerce, and merely to throw open their project, as a restrictive clause; but if the beautiful park, garden, and conservatory, opening of the Crystal Palace should be setting aside for that purpose certain hours, illegal-a point which was then under the which would not interfere with the attend- consideration of the law officers of the ance of the population of London at Divine Crown-no clause authorising it would be Service in the morning. It was further inserted in the charter. In that case, the intimated to him by the Directors that it clause must be inserted, not by the consent was their intention to run trains to the of Her Majesty's Ministers, but by the aubuilding itself, to issue return tickets, and thority of Parliament. to carry their visitors direct from the locality to London; they would thus be prevented from being scattered over the vicinity, and from being accumulated in the public-houses in the evening. It was also stated to him that it was the intention of the Directors to prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors in the precincts of the building and in the building itself. Subjeet to those restrictions, and to the risk of violating them, he still continued to be of opinion, notwithstanding the remonstrances that had been addressed to him, that, far from desecrating the Sabbath, the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday would be useful to the population in giving them fresh air and amusement, and in promoting moral and social improvement among the working classes. Since these arrangements had been spoken of, a question had arisen as to whether the opening of the Crystal Palace could not be prohibited under the existing law, and whether under a certain statute-passed for a very different purpose, and enacting that the payment of money for admission into any place of amusement on a Sunday should be deemed an illegal offence-it could be opened at all. If that should be the case, he need not say that no clause

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE said, he had listened a few nights previous with great gratification to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, in which he referred to four or five subjects of legal reform; but he was disappointed at finding no mention whatever of an amelioration or amendment of the law of partnership. Under the present state of the law it was impossible for persons who had moderate means to associate their capital together, whereby their earnings would fructify in a laudable manner. Why should they not be permitted to associate together under the limited liability which the directors of the Crystal Palace Company were now so anxious to obtain? The consequence of the present state of the law was that they had to go to the Board of Trade for a charter, and the granting of that charter was regulated by no fixed rule whatever. That was a great grievance, because it gave to large capitalists the power to enter into speculations such as this; whereas a large number of small capitalists who were inclined to invest their money in such an undertaking were unable to do so. He would suggest to those who were much more competent to deal with the subject then he was, that it would be a most use

ful and acceptable reform, if a law of part-1 nership were passed something like that in operation in France, or like that in force in Ireland, which had been found to work most beneficially in that country.

of the present year has been accompanied with considerable excitement, and has led to long discussion; but the proceedings of Convocation have gone this year no further than they have gone in all the preceding years-that is, they moved and voted an Address to the Crown at the commencement of the Session. It is true that the discussion upon that Address to the Crown

LORD CAMPBELL rose to express the high satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that statement would be satis-previous to which it would not have been factory to the great majority of the country. Their Lordships would recollect that he had been no friend originally to the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, but since it was transferred to Sydenham he was the warm friend of it, as conducive, not only to the recreation of the people, but to the cause of morality and religion. Under the restrictions which the noble Earl had stated, he believed the opening of it on the afternoon of Sundays, would not only be a recreation, but of the greatest advantage. There was an Act of Parliament in force, which prevented the taking money for admission into any place of public amusement or recreation on a Sunday; but he trusted that Parliament would relax that law in favour of the Crystal Palace Company, in consideration of the restrictions mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, and assented to by the Company.

Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

MEETING OF CONVOCATION.

The EARL of SHAFTESBURY wished to put a question to the noble Earl opposite on a subject of great interest. He alluded to the sittings and to the proceedings of Convocation. Many petitions had been, or would be, presented on the subject. He wished to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to Convocation? It now stood adjourned to the 16th of February; he wished to know whether it would then be allowed to assemble again and proceed to business? He also wished to know whether, during that interval, the Committee appointed by the Lower House of Convocation would be permitted to sit ?

The EARL of DERBY: As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned there is no intention of making any deviation from the customary and ordinary course that for many years has been pursued with respect to Convocation; nor do I understand that there has been any deviation from the ordinary practice, although undoubtedly the meeting of Convocation in the course

decorous or proper that any power over Convocation should be exercised lasted for a period of three days; but though it lasted for three days, this is not the first occasion on which there has been a discussion, or on which an Amendment has been moved in Comvocation. In the year 1847 the discussion lasted through the whole of one day, and an Amendment was moved, praying the Crown to revive the active powers of Convocation. The power of proroguing Convocation, undoubtedly in the last resort, rests with the Crown; but I believe there has been no instance in which that power has been exercised by the Crown, at least for many years, the power being usually exercised by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, either acting (for that is a doubtful point) upon his own authority, or with the advice of the other bishops, consensu fratrum. On the present occasion I understand that the usual and ordinary course has been adopted, and that the noble Earl is mistaken in speaking of the adjournment of Convocation, for I am informed that the usual course has been pursued, not of adjourning, but of proroguing Convocation in the usual form. The Address having been voted to the Crown, the Convocation has been prorogued by the Archbishop to a period not far from being coincident with the time of the meeting of both Houses of Parliament after the recess. There is nothing unusual in the prorogation of Convocation to a distant day for the purpose of receiving the answer of the Crown to its Address-it is not usual to receive an immediate answerthere is always a prorogation for the purpose of receiving the answer. I have not had the opportunity, since my noble Friend gave notice of asking the question, of communicating with his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury; but I have no reason to suppose that when Convocation meets again he will depart from the practice that has hitherto universally prevailed, nor do I apprehend that he will do more than lay before Convocation the answer to the Address, and then in the usual form prorogue

« EdellinenJatka »