POSTSCRIPT. SATURDAY.
By far the largest portion of Parliamentary discussion last night was thst which Mr. G. A. HAMILTON raised in the Commons, in moving as an amendment on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, that an
address be presented to her Majesty praying a modification of the system of national education in Ireland ; an oft-debated subject, which was not
treated with any originality of argument or freshness of information. Mr. Hamilton readvanced the "grievance" of high Protestantism in Ire- land—the exclusion of his coreligionists from the benefit of the national grants by the persistence of the National Board in regulations which
practically render the schools, on the one hand, denominational schools, or on the other secular schools from which the Bible and religious educa- tion are altogether excluded. The feature of the debate was a speech of historical scope and great personal eloquence, by Mr. E. H. STANLEY, in which he diffidently but with great effect defended the system originated by his father, Lord Stanley, in 1831. The existing system was also defended by Lord Joins RUSSELL and Sir JAMES Guanesi. The Premier especially replied to an attack on the mode of dispensing Church patronage pursued by the Crown in Ireland. The Irish Bishops have far more Church pa- tronage than the Crown ; and he did not consider it matter of blame, that the Crown, with its more limited patronage, should favour clergymen who, being pious, learned, and excellent in other respects, concurred in the desire to promote the system which they uphold. At the close of his effective speech, Sir JAMES Gimlets" avowed the inexpressible pleasure with which he had listened to Mr. Stanley, who had spoken to them in the manner, almost in the voice of his father. Let him persevere in his course on this subject—" Per genitorem oro! per seem surgentis In the darkness which has settled on the fate of Ireland, the success of this system appears almost the only bright spot visible. Ultimately, the anumdment was negatived, by 225 to 142.
In the House of Lords, the legality of the Post-office order, for carry- ing out the resolution passed in the House of Commons, was strongly questioned by Lord BROUGHAM. As a lawyer, he entertained great doubts whether the Crown has power to issue, or at least to enforce, those regulations. He himself entertained grave doubts on the subject, but other lawyers said that they had no doubts what- ever. The ground which had been urged upon his attention by persons out of doors was this, that the order in Council was issued in answer to the ad- dress of one House only. Now, nothing could be more legitimate than that the Crown should act on the address of one House ; but if the directions were of doubtful legality, the illegality could not be removed by addresses from even both Houses. The point was this—certain taxes were imposed for the delivery of letters ; and if they were not to be delivered on Sunday, why had not the Crown the power to say that they should not be delivered on Satur- day or any other day ? He hoped the matter would be well considered be- fore these directions are carried into effect.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE admitted that the point raised is one of very great importance, and he promised to obtain correct information re- specting it this day.
The Marquis of LANSDOIME obtained his Select Committee to "inquire whether an improvement can be made in the existing arrangements of the House so as to afford better accommodation for Ambassadors and Id-misters of foreign powers who may desire to be present at its debates." There was, however, a retrospective conversation.
Lord LANSDOWNE expressed regret at the misunderstanding through which a distinguished member of the diplomatic body, universally admired and beloved, had been compelled to leave a place in their Lordships' House to which he had no right, although he had every reason to believe that he had that right.
Lord BROMIHASseconded the motion, "in token of his agreement " •' and added some explanations as "what took place and what he said," toshow that it arose without any intention on his part to originate the affair. He had the honour of the acquaintance of the eminent individual alluded to ; had been on the most friendly footing with him ; and had the greatest respect for his attainments, station, and character : so it was from no disrespect to him or his functions that he acted. Anything more gross than the misrepresents- tions which had gone forth, in language the least decorous ever applied to any _ Member of either House of Parliament, he never read. He purposely abstained from mentioning the individual's name, because he was aware, ar at least ex- pectssl, that as soon as the mutter was mcntioned he would leave his seat, and that his name would never have come before the public. If it had been any one of their Lordships, who would have had an undoWited right to be in that place, he should, with all possible tenderness and respect for the wrongdoer, have protested against his remain- ing there. But no gentleman in England, either of this or, he be-
limed, ed, the other House—he could speak with confidence, of the House to
which he belonged—no gentleman in England would keep a seat to the exclusion of any lady unable to obtain a seat ;.fhisPetresses were standing at the door and could not obtain a seat. Readdressed hiiiiiielf.three times over —most courteously—to this highly respectable individual, after Whited three times over that Peeresses were waiting at the door : in all probability, as he spoke in English, that respectable individual did not undersiank'Isbe- cause he did nothing but look at me," [or, says the doubting reporter, "be- cause he did not even look at me."] "I then told him, I should be under' the disagreeable necessity of enforcing the standing orders. Still he took no notice of what I said" ; and "even after I addressed the House, and the order was enforced from the .woodi., he being, as I suppose, ignorant of our language, still took no notice." In consequence of the gentleman's presence in the gallery, a near relation of the noble Viscount whose conduct formed the subject of debate was kept for ties) or three hours in the box of the Usher of the Black Rod ; and one or two Peeresses went home, in consequence of their places being preoccupied. But it is totally groundless that the least disrespect was meant or shown. Earl GREY stated, that the very distinguishedperson alluded to by no means uuderstood that he was appealed to from feelings of courtesy : on the contrary, rightly or wrongly, the impression of that distinguished individual was, that he was summoned out of the place which he occupied in such a manner as made him think it due to himself and to the body of which he was a member to decline to go out. Earl Grey took shame to himself for not having suggested that the order ought not to be enforced ; but the matter passed so rapidly, that the idea did not occur to him.
Lord LONDONDERRY said, he had heard from a Foreign Minister an ac- count of the matter very different from the version given by Lord Brougham. The 31arquis of BREADALBAXE had heard from an eye-witness that the public prints were right in stating that Lord Brougham addressed Chevalier Bunsen from a part of the House, and said, "Now, will you some down ?" Lord Bnotionam rejoined, that whoever said so, entirely, totally, and grossly misinformed the noble Lord.
Previous page
