Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

with the regular army were anxious for the present measure. While expressing a doubt as to the wisdom of the amalgamation of the two armies, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not advocate a divided command or responsibility as to the army in India. He thought, however, that great advantages would arise from having a local force for local purposes, which it would be desirable from time to time to renovate with fresh blood. Now, this Bill was not so much for amalgamating as for destroying the local force, and he thought, before such a plan was sanctioned by the House, the House ought to know what the Government proposed to substitute for that force, and how they intended to meet the difficulties they had created. Another question on which they had had no information was as to the system of promotion. Was that of seniority or that of purchase to be introduced? How, also, was the promotion of the native officers to be regulated? However, he supposed that the Government had well matured their plans, and were acting on positive and good in

formation, and he should, therefore, leave the responsibility of this great and dangerous measure with them, in preference to assuming it himself by voting against the second reading.

Lord Clyde entirely concurred with what the Duke of Cambridge had said, and he impressed strongly upon the House the necessity of unity in an army in respect to command and discipline, a state of things which did not exist in the present local army of India.

Earl Granville defended the Bill and assured the House that, although the details of the scheme and the means of carrying it out had not been introduced into the Bill, the Government had well considered and matured the essential parts of the measure. It was absolutely necessary to decide this matter one way or the other as soon as possible, in order to remove the anxiety caused by the present unsettled state of things. He hoped there would be no division on the Bill.

The second reading accordingly passed, nem. con., and the measure speedily became law.

CHAPTER VII.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, &C.-CHURCH RATES-Sir John Trelawny brings in again his Bill for the abolition of the rate-Lord R. Montague moves the postponement of the second reading for six months-Speeches of Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Ker Seymer, Mr. Bristow, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Fermoy, and other members-The second reading is carried by 263 to 234-Further debates on the Bill in Committee-Mr. Newdegate proposes, as a substitute for Church Rates, a fixed charge on real property -After much discussion, the amendment is rejected by a large majority -Further opposition on the third reading of the Bill-Mr. Whiteside moves its rejection -His motion is supported by Mr. Disraeli, opposed by Mr. Bright, and negatived by a majority of 9, and the Bill is passed-Lord Lyreden moves the second reading in the House of Lords, and is supported by Lord Ripon and the Duke of Newcastle— The Dukes of Marlborough and Rutland, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl of Derby, and Earl Grey, oppose the Bill-It is thrown out by 128 to 31-TRUSTEES OF ENDOWED SCHOOLS-A Bill for removing a grievance felt by Dissenters excluded from these trusts is brought in by Lord Cranworth-Debate in the House of Lords thereon---It undergoes important changes in Committee, and in a modified form becomes law-A measure introduced for the same object by Mr. Dilwyn in the House of Commons, undergoes much discussion, and on the motion of Mr. Selwyn is postponed for six months-MAYNOOTH COLLEGE-Mr. Spooner brings on his annual motion against the endowment of this College-His speech-After a short debate the motion is negatived by 186 to 128-RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THEATRES-Lord Dungannon brings this subject under the notice of the House of Lords -The Earl of Shaftesbury enters fully into the question in an interesting speech-Remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl Granville, the Bishops of London and Llandaff, and other peers-The discussion terminates without result-REVISION OF THE PRAYER-BOOK-- Lord Ebury mores for the appointment of a Commission, with a view to a revision of the Liturgy and Canons of the Church of England— Speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishops of London and Oxford, Earl Stanhope, Earl Granville, Lord Lyttleton, and other peers-The motion is rejected without a division-UNION OF CITY BENEFICES- A Bill introduced by the Bishop of London for the purpose of relieving spiritual destitution by transferring surplus funds and buildings to other places. After some debate in the House of Lords, it becomes law-CENSUS OF 1861-A Bill to authorize this operation is brought in by the Government—The proposal to require returns as

to religious profession is warmly opposed by the Dissenters-Agitation on this question-Mr. Baines moves the omission of this clause in the Bill-Speech of Sir George Lewis-The Government protest against the objection, but concede the point-The Bill is passed-NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND-Mr. Isaac Butt moves an Address praying for inquiry Speeches of Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Cardwell (Secretary for Ireland), Mr. Lefroy, and Mr. Henessey-The motion is negatived by 196 to 62-TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND IN IRELAND-Mr. Cardwell brings in a Bill to settle the much-disputed land question -After much debate and some modification it is passed into a law— POSTPONED MEASURES-REFORM OF THE CORPORATION OF LONDON -The Bill introduced by Sir George Lewis passes a second reading, and is then suspended-REFORM OF THE LAWS OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY-An extended and comprehensive measure for this purpose is submitted to the House of Commons by the Attorney-General-It is received with much favour, and a great part of the Bill passes through Committee, but on account of the pressure of business is postponed to another Session---MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS IN SYRIA-This subject is brought before the House of Lords by Lord Stratford de RedcliffeHis speech-Speeches of Lord Wodehouse, Marquis of Clanricarde, Earl Granville, and other peers-CONCLUSION OF THE SESSION-Its great length and severe labour-It is terminated by the prorogation of Parliament by Commission on the 28th of August-The Royal Speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor-Review of the operations of the Session.

Trelawny re

and reviewed

the

arguments

SIR, John this Sunyanis at- against the abolition of the rate

tempt to abolish Church-rates. The Bill for this purpose was brought in on an early day, and the second reading was moved on the 8th of February, the motion being preceded by the presentation of a mass of petitions for and against the measure, the latter much preponderating in number. Among these was one signed by no less than sixty-four archdeacons, which was read at length at the table of the House before the debate began. In proposing his motion, Sir John Trelawny admitted that the subject was one of great difficulty, and proceeded to notice some of the details which were essential to the proper consideration of it. He referred to the weight of authorities in favour of a settlement of the question,

[ocr errors]

founded upon its legal incidents, contending that it was not, as sometimes alleged, a charge upon the land, and adverting to special reasons why the House ought to deal with the question at this time. The decision of the House of Lords in the " Braintree case ' had made an entire alteration in the law of Church-rate, and the amount of rate now levied had been already reduced to 253,000, and was reducible still further by the exclusion of illegal charges, while the exemption of Dissenters from the compulsory payment of the rate (which the opponents of the Bill were prepared to concede) and making no distinction between them and Churchmen, would have the effect of augmenting the amount of voluntary con

tributions towards the repair of churches. He pointed out other resources for the diminution of charges, and asked the advocates of the rate whether, in assenting to its abolition, they, upon the whole, gave up much for an object so desirable as the final adjustment of this vexed question.

The motion was seconded by Sir C. Douglas.

Lord R. Montagu moved, as an amendment, to defer the second reading for six months. After noticing some of the arguments of Sir J. Trelawny, he observed that he had looked at this question in the old point of view, whereas, since the evidence adduced before the Lords' Committee last year, which Sir John seemed not to have read, the question had entered an entirely new phase, and assumed a different character. It was formerly supposed that this was a question of conscience; but it now appeared, from the evidence of Dissenters, that the conscientious objection had nothing to do with the matter; that it was merely a political objection or a factious agitation, the ultimate aim of which was the severance of the Church from the State. He read portions of the evidence taken by the Committee in support of his position, observing that the ulterior object, to which end a victory over Churchrates would be used as a means, showed that more would be given up by the surrender of the rates than Sir John Trelawny wished the House to suppose. He insisted that the evidence and the number of petitions proved that the desire for the abolition of Church-rates was not general, and that a feeling was growing up in favour of their continuance.

This amendment was seconded

by Mr. R. Long, who dwelt upon the injustice of sweeping away a fund appropriated by law to the sustentation of churches, without providing any equivalent or compensation.

Sir G. Lewis, after defending Lord J. Russell (who was absent) against some strong remarks made upon his change of opinion regarding this question by Mr. Long, observed that he was not one of those who took extreme views upon it, differing in some points from both sides, and he proceeded to explain. the reasons which had led him reluctantly to the conclusion that, in the present state of the question, the only course for him to take was to vote in favour of the Bill. He pointed out what he considered as fallacies on either side, and, looking at the proposal to substitute pew-rents for Churchrates, he remarked that he could not understand the objection to resorting to a system of pew-rents, which were Church-rates under another name, and in which he was convinced an equivalent could be found.

Mr. K. Seymer, considering the present position of the Churchrate question, thought the House had a right to complain that a ques tion of so much importance should be left in the hands of a private member, and cited the opinions expressed by members of the present Government, which he contrasted with the course they had pursued upon this question. Suggesting practical objections to the working of the measure before the House, he contended that in rural districts there was no real opposition to Church-rates, and that the opposition of Dissenters, as it was now avowed, was not founded upon a conscientious objection. With

reference to pew-rents, he believed that members of the Church of England in the rural districts were universally opposed to them.

Mr. Bristow said he thought that, both for the interests of the Church of England and the peace of the country, it would be wise and prudent to pass this Bill abolishing a compulsory Church-rate, which was an annually-recurring cause of strife and ill-will.

Mr. Disraeli wished to put before the House a view of this question which had not been at all considered namely, the extremely centralizing character of the measure, which called upon a central authority to interfere with the parochial constitution, at least ten per cent. of the parishes not wishing to be interfered with.

He

looked, he said, with great jealousy upon a central authority interfering with a constitution that had existed for centuries, and had been productive of beneficial results. The object was no longer to redress a practical grievance, but to adopt a speculative theory. Heretofore legislation upon this question was proposed to be based upon a conscientious scruple; but that basis was now abandoned, and the real question was whether there should be an Established Church. Although this issue was not necessarily put before the House upon this occasion, they had it in clear evidence that it was the real issue; and, believing that this measure would revolutionize the parochial constitution of the country, he should give it his hearty opposi

tion.

Lord Fermoy denied that the abolition of Church-rates would interfere with the connection of Church and State. This measure could only do what had been done

in Ireland-it would remove contests and heart-burnings, and the Church of England would be stronger than before.

Mr. Packe and Mr. Hubbard spoke in opposition to the Bill, and Mr. Thompson in its favour. Sir J. Trelawny then replied, and the House having divided, the amendment was negatived by 263 to 234, giving a majority of 29 in favour of the Bill, which was then read a second time.

Some further discussion took place on going into Committee on the Bill, on the 28th of March.

Mr. Packe urged various objections to the measure, which he considered to be unnecessarily large, and with reference to the amount of public opinion in favour of it, he observed that, in some of the most populous towns and boroughs whence petitions had been presented upon this question, which he contended was a purely religious one, upwards of one half of the inhabitants attended no place of worship what

ever.

Mr. Newdegate moved, as an amendment, a Resolution,-the same he had brought forward in 1859,-that "this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the propriety of establishing, in lieu of Church rates, thenceforth to be abolished, a charge on all hereditaments in respect of the occupancy of which Church-rates have been paid within the last seven years, to be levied with the county rate at a uniform rate of poundage, the occupier being entitled to deduct amount of charge levied on his occupation." He insisted that Church-rates were a charge upon property, and by proposing to assess owners instead of occu

the

« EdellinenJatka »