Erhatto nut( rumhiugn in Varlinmtut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF VIE WEEK.
Horst or LORDS. Monday, July 21. Royal Assent to the Church-building Com- mission Bill, Mercantile Law (Scotland) Amendment Bill, Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill, Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill, Statutes-not-in-use Repeal Bill, Dwell- ings for the Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill, Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, Police (Counties and Boroughs) Bill—Registration of Titles ; Lord Lyndhurst's Question—Rajah of Coorg ; Lord Clanricarde's Question—Relations with the Bra- zils ; Lord Mahnesbury's Motion—Ismail and Beni ; Lord Malmesbury's Questions — Consolidation of the Statute Law ; Lord Chancellor's Statement—Appropriation Bill read a second time—Court of Chancery (Ireland) Receivers Bill read a third time and passed—Formation, &c., of Parishes Bill committed—Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill read a third time and passed.
Tuesday, July 22. The Crimean. Report ; Lord Lucan's Rejoinder to Mr. Villiers — Appropriation Bill committed—Coast Guard Service Bill committed—Formation, &c., of Parishes Bill read a third time and passed—Marriage and Registration Acts Amendment Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, July 24. Income and Land Taxes Bill read a third time and passed— Coast Guard Service Bill read a third time and passed-Corrupt Practices Pre- vention Bill read a third time and passed—Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer Bill read a third time and passed—Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Mercantile- Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill ; Commons' Amendments agreed to—Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill; Commons' Amendments on Lords' Amendments disagreed to Friday, July 25. The Dyce Sombre Case ; Lord. St. Vincent and Lord Com- bermere—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill ; Commons' Amendments- not agreed to.
HORSE or Ccornoxs. Monday, July 21. Standing Orders Committee ; Report adopted—The German Legion; Mr. Murrough's Question—The Crimean Report Mr. Villiers's Reply to Lord Lucan—Mercantile Law Amendment Bill read a third' time and passed—Joint-Stock Banks Bill read a third time and passed—Indian Bud- get ; Mr. Vernon Smith's Statement—Criminal Appropriation of Trust Property-Rill withdrawn—Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill; Lords' Amendments struck out— Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill read a first time. TuesdaY. July 22. County Courts. Act Amendment Bill read a. third time and passed—Vice-President of Committee of Council on Education Bill read a thirdtime and passed—The English Bible ; Mr. Heywood's Motion—Rule for. Debates,* Mr. Wilkinson's Motion—Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Rill; debate on second reading adjourned.
Wednesday, July 23. Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill read a second time.
Thursday, July 24. Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill committed —Affairs of Spain; Lord Palraerston's Reply to Mr. Murrough—Janies Sadleir ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion.
_Friday, July 25. The. Crimean. Inquiry ; Mr. Layard.'s Question—The Bishops Retirement. Bill, read a third time and-passed—evidence in Foreign Suits Bill read a third time and passed—Parochial-Schools (Scotland) Bill withdrawn—Review of the Session ; Mr. Disraeli's Motion for Returns.
TIME- TABLE.
Friday 5k- 7h 15m Friday Sittings this Week, 4-; Time, 121130m Sittingsthis Week, 7; Time, 37b Om —this Session, 87; — 215h 35m —this Session 117; — 831h 22m FRENCH INTERVENTION IN SPAIN.
In reply to a question from Mr. MURROUG1B as to-whether the Go- vernment were prepared to adopt any and. what means for the prevention of the armed interference of France in the affairs of Spain, Lord Pei, nnitSTON said- " I apprehend that there is at present nothing in regard to the affairs of Spain which could lead to any interference- on the part of the French Go- vernment with those-affairs. The. Emperor of the French is a rasa of great justice ; and he would, I think in any case, feel that foreign interference with the affair' s of the Spanish nation, except under circumstances which we cannot foresee, would be unjust. lie is alto a man of great sagacity ; and the lessons of the past teach that those Sovereigns of France who have been-led to interfere in the affairs. of. Spain have always, sooner or later, found that interference more or less disastrous to themselves. There can be no reason for apprehending-that there is on the part of the French Govern- ment any intention to interfere in Spain."
Isuut AND, Rim.
In reply to a variety of questions from the Earl of MALA1ESBURY , the Earl of. CLARENDON made a statement of some interest with regard to our relations with Russia and the execution of the treaty of Paris. He said that he bad no doubt the fortresses of Ismail and Rerti have been dismantled; and that it-is an extraordinary proceeding on the part of • the Russian Government. No arrangements were made—he should. have thought it almost an- affront to require an explanation—respecting the mode of delivering up these fortresses,. a thing about which there was no difference of-opinion. " I understand. the Russian Government- to say that they considered that they had a right,, until the. boundary of the frontier was marked out, and until the country had been given over to the Allies, to demolish any for- tresses on the Danube, in the same manner- as the-Allies had to demolish
The Lorde.
Hour of Horn of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday .... 10h 5m Tuesday 5h .... Bh Out No sitting. 6h 7h 10m Wednesday Thursday
The Cbinnions.
lima of Hour of Meeting- Adjournment. Monday 4b .('o) 111.45m
Tuesday Noon 80m .... 1011 45m Wednesday Noon Gm Thursday Noon.— 4h Om 6h .... 10h Ofn
4h. 911 Om the fortresses at Sebastopol. But there is this very great distinction—sinee the peace has been signed nothing has been demolished by the Allies, nor any act of aggression committed ; whereas the dismantling of these for- tresses tookplace after the peace was signed. We, being in possession of Rupatoria, of Kinburn, and more particularly of Kerte'', might, in re- taliation, have destroyed all the public works of 'those places ; but we con- sidered that as soon an peace was signed the places became Russian, and it would have been dishonourable on out part to meddle with those works; and, on the same principle, we contend that Russia had no right to meddle with these Danubian fortresses. Snob; my Lords, is the opinion of her Majesty's Government on this subject. There is another fortress to which my noble friend has not alluded—that of Kars--ooneerning which. I have made some inquiry from the Russian Government. The answer which I received was, that the moment peace was signed an Imperial order was sent to Kars directing that nothing there should.be destroyed; but it was stated, that before that order arrived some cbastructien of the works had already taken place. The moment, however, the Imperial mandate arrived, the demolition ceased, and no further damage was done. There has been a re- port that on a part of the territory that is to be ceded to Moldavia certain Crown lands have been sold; and the answer to an inquiry on this subject is, that some authorities were proceeding-to sell Crown lands, but that the Russian Government admitted that they was no longer theirs to dealwith. The Russian Government have stated in the strongest terms that their ob- ject is to carry on everything connected with the peace in the most faithful manner; and I can only hope that for the future nothing will occur to de- stroy the good-will on which that peace is founded."
As to the non-arrival of Count Creptowitch, the Russian Ambassador, Lord Clarendon had been informed that it did not arise from disrespect, but from unavoidable causes.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, the same precautions should have been adopted with regard to the fortresses in question which have been invariably adopted when the surrender of fortresses is made the subject of treaty. The state in which they should be given up is always pro- vided for. If Lord Clarendon had not taken the usual precautions, the blame rested with him.
Lord CLARENDON observed, that Lord Ellenborough's remarks applied to cases in which fortresses are named in the treaty. "Now in this case the fortresses are not named."
The Earl of DERBY—" If they were not named, that is only an addi- tional instance of neglect." The breach of understanding on the part of Russia does not augur well for the continuance of Lord Clarendon's treaty of peace.
THE BISHOPS REPIREMENT BILL.
At the third reading of the Bishops of London and Durham Retire- ment Bill in the House of Peers, Lord REDESDALE moved that the bill be read a third time that day three months. Too much of condition attached to the retirement of the Bishops, and the bill was therefore of a simoniacal character.
A good deal of discussion ensued as to the amount-of "negotiation" there had been in the transaction. The Earl of DERBY contended that the correspondence showed that there had been a distinct negotiation in order to consult the convenience of the Government; The LORD CHAN- CELLOR said, there had been no negotiation except what appeared from the correspondence. The Earl of WiesLow said, he had voted in favour of the second reading, and should not now oppose the bill, but refrain from voting altogether. The transaction might not legally amount to simony; but for a Bishop to offer to place his see in the N.nds of a Min- ister on condition. of being secured a certain income by law, is as much simony as anything can be. The Duke of Somnnster remarked, that when the bill got down to the other House it would. be designated by a much stronger name than simony ; it would be looked on as a haigain between the Prime Minister and the Bishops. What a position the Government would be placed in, if the HOuse of Commons reduced the 60001. a year to 50001. l The Bishop of OXFORD:renewed his argument against the bill ; contending that the transaction was simony ; and, as one of the class privileged by the bill, he rejected the offer of exemption from the penalties of the law.
The third reading, however, was carried. by 26 to 16, and. the bill passed.
Almost the last proceeding of the House of Commons on Monday night was the reading of the Bishops of London and Durham Retire- ment Bill a first time. That took place a few minutes before two o'clock a. m. On Tuesday evening, Lord PALIREBsTm+ moved that the bill should be read a second time ; and in explaining. ita origin and na- ture, he stated some things not previously mentioned during the debates on the subject. Early in the session, Lord Blandford called attention to the fact that there were some Bishops on the- bench whose age and in- firmity rendered them unable to discharge their duties ; and the Govern- ment had been asked to provide for those cases. The first intention of Government was to propose a general measure founded' on the analogy of the course of proceeding in relation to the Judges. Means were to be established by which Bishops could of their own accord retire upon alL lowances with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That measure was necessarily deferred, and in the mean time the Bishops of London and Durham intimated their wish to retire. The Government thought it would be proper to frame a bill limited' te those particular eases, because the emoluments received by the two Bishops are greater than the regulated sums that will be paid to future occupants. Lord Palmerston eulogized the high and generous character of the Bishop of London ; and denied that the Government had offered the Bishops in- ducements to retire in order that an opportunity might be created of making fresh appointments, or that anything corrupt or simoniacal had taken place. It was true that other remedies have been suggested. "Some persons have proposed, for example' that the duties of the dio- cese of London should be performed by one of the other-Bishops. I under- stand it has been said that the person holding the appointment of Bishop of Oxford might undertake the work. I think there are many obvious reasons why that arrangement would not be a fitting one. There is no man more able from his talents and ability than the present Bishop of Oxford to per- form any extra duty that might be imposed on him; but I think that no one could satisfactorily perform the duties of those two sees, and that the arrangement is one which Parliament would not for a moment be disposed to countenance."
In like manner Lord Palmerston disposed of the proposition to appoint Coadjutor Bishops ; and he asked the House to agree to the measure be- fore them.
Although the- night was not very fax advanced—a little after ten— further proceedings were arrested-by the. objection that copies of the bill
had not been furnished to the Members : Mr. HENLEY had not yet ob- tained a copy, and Mr. GLADSTONE had only obtained a copy by acci- dent. The debate was therefore adjourned, and it was arranged that the bill should be taken the first thing on Wednesday morning.
On Wednesday at noon, Sir WILLIA.M Hest-nears began by moving that the bill should be read a second time that day three months. Nearly the whole of the sitting was occupied by the debate, which exhibited parties in a peculiar dislocation. The opponents of the measure were arrayed in two sections. The first comprised the mover of the amend- ment, Lord ROBERT CECIL its seconder, Mr. NAPIER, Sir JAMES GILA- HAM, and Mr. HENLEY ; and their views were stated at great length. They argued, that the bill, which is partial and incomplete, which throws difficulties in the way of future and general legislation, proposes to apply a local remedy to an old evil ; that the resignation to which it would give effect is conditional, and that the principle of conditional resigna- tions is not recognized by the Church, which requires that it should be " absolute, sponth, pure, et simpliciter " whereas the bill was nothing but a " resignation-bond," which is illegal in this country. The trans- action sanctioned by the bill is of a simoniaeal character. It is a bar- gain between the Minister and the Bishops. It is an offer of the nature of a money bargain to sell exalted stations in the Church. It raises for the first time the question whether the tenure of Spiritual Peers in the House of Lords shall be for life, or for a period only such as Parliament shall provide. It is an act for which there has been no precedent since the Reformation. In the be- ginning of the reign of George the Third, Dr. Pearce, Bishop of Roches- ter, wished to resign his see, in order that he might be appointed.Bishop of London, the duties of which office he had long performed for Dr. Sherlock. Dr. Pearce resigned his see to George the Third, on an inti- mation from Lord Chancellor Northington that such a step was practi- cable. When he had resigned, however, Lord Bath, who had promised to obtain his translation to the see of London, procured the see for Dr. Newton. This alarmed the Ministry, who thought the ecclesiastical pa- tronage was slipping away from them; Lord Northington, who had been first doubtful as to the practicability of resignation—who then became clear—and who again suddenly became doubtful of the right to resign ; and the King was induced to send for Dr. Pearce and tell him he must think no more about resigning. That shows how dangerous are these attempts to resign—how soon political influences rise up and multiply.. It was fiuther objected, that the preamble of the act does not contain a correct recital of the case. It states that the Bishops had expressed a desire to vacate their sees on account of their inability to discharge the duties of their office. If that were true, it would be a perfectly legiti- mate proceeding; but the preamble suppresses the fact of the contract upon which they propose to retire—the pecuniary conditions. The re- medy suggested in the place of the Ministerial plan was, a general measure, similar to that brought in by Sir Robert Peel in 1843, which applied to all cases, and provided for Bishops not only suffering from mental but also from bodily infirmities, or the appointment of Suffragan Bishops under the act of Henry the Eighth.
Mr. GLADSTONE made a severe attack upon the Government for its practice of introducing bills of capital importance when the session is expiring; and said that if it were continued, the House, in self-defence, must fix positive dates after which it would not entertain such measures-
" We have come to a state of things in which some forty or forty-five persons holding office under the Government virtually decide every question before the House. It is hardly possible that any combination of Members, or.the union of any body of persons, whatever their position or viewa may be, can face so formidable an official phalanx. In the first few weeks of the session no evil can arise from meeting such an official body ; on the contrary, it is necessary that there should be such an attendance in order to conduct the ordinary business of the House. But it is an abuse, and a gross abuse, which we must not be prevented from commenting upon, to bring down to this House a body of Members to vote upon a subject of the gravest importance at the very last phase of the session, when persons are asking whether the prorogation is to be on the Friday, the Saturday, or the Mon- day, and when any determination of the House means, and can mean, very little more than the determination of some forty or forty-five Members who, hold office under the direction of the noble Viscount."
The second section of opponents of the bill consisted of Mr. Roaeuca and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE. Mr; ROEBUCK urged that the bill would perpetrate a great scandal—Christian bishops availing themselves of an act of Parliament to break through the law. Two prelates who had long en, joyed the richest bishoprics in England, who had become impotent from age and disease, said, If you buy us off we are willing to go." That is a corrupt contract. If these Bishops had been rectors they would be told at once to relinquish their offices. These two Bishops, said Mr. Dos- COHSE, have no right to dictate to Parliament the terms on which they would resign. If they had thrown themselves on the generosity of Par- liament, they would have been generously dealt with. Both Members agreed that the bill was a scandal, which ought to be branded by the House.
The measure found supporters in Mr. MONCKTON Mir..Nes, Mr. CARO- WELL, Mr. BLACK, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Mr. WALPOLE, and Sir GEORGE GREY, Their argument was, that the bill is an exceptional measure to meet exceptional circumstances. Its object is to provide efficient super- inth sees ndence for the ss of London and Durham, and to economize mate- rially the funds of the Church. [Mr. CARDWELL estimated the imme- diate annual addition to the fluids of the Ecclesiastical Commission at 55001., and the ultimate addition when the pensions fall in at 16,0001.] Simony is of two kinds : the sin committed by Simon Magus—[Nobody, said Mr. Gladstone in his speech, is likely to commit that sin in the nineteenth century]—which is "malum in se" ; and the Parliamentary offence, which is "malum prohibitum"—an offence Which as Parlia- ment created Parliament can remove ; and therefore a contract ratified by Parliament could not be simony. Mr. WALPOLE quoted Gibson's Codex and the 26th of Henry VIII, fixing the retiring allowance of a bishop at one-third of his income, to show that resignation on a retiring allowance is not contrary to law: The Legislature has permitted Colo- nial Bishops to resign their sees on retiring allowances. As to the case of Dr. Pearce and the changes in Lord Northiugton's views, might not those changes have been caused by something other than pressure from his Government? "Ma they not have been caused, as I fear some of the opposition to this bill has been caused, by jealousy, of the persoias into whose hands the fresh appointment might fall ? ' Mr. Walpole
thought the bill would furnish a precedent for a much better measure than that of 1843.
"The principle of the measure, which I approve as a precedent for future legislation, is, that it will enable the Bishops to retire in cases of necessity, subject of course to proper restrictions and guards, which must be thrown around their resignations, so as to prevent, on the one hand, a Minister from using his influence to induce resignations, and, on the other hand, to pre- vent a Bishop from tendering his resignation for any other causes than those arising from positive incapacity. I think it will furnish a precedent for doing this by giving to the new Bishop two-thirds of the income of the see, and a retiring allowance of one-third to the Bishop who resigns. Upon con- sidering the subject generally, you will find that you can hardly make a better provision than this ; because if the House will not give retiring allow- ances out of the funds voted by Parliament, you have no other means of providing these allowances, (without trenching on the funds devoted to the poorer clergy,) except by so distributing the income of the see between the retiring bishop and the bishop who will have to discharge the duties."
Sir GEORGE GREY answered Mr. Gladstone's complaint as to the time of introducing the bill. Look at the dates- " The letter of the Bishop of London is dated the 18th of June and that of the Bishop of Durham the 21st of June ; and the intention of the Govern- ment was announced almost immediately after they were in possession of the Bishops' desire to resign. Of course it required some short time to frame the bill ; but within a fortnight or three weeks from the date of those letters the bill was laid upon the table of the House of Lords." Singularly enough, the bill of 1843, which Six James Graham regards with such pa- rental affection, came down from the House of Lords on the 21st of July— the identical day on which the present bill came down.
Sir George Grey finished his speech at half-past five o'clock. Before
going to a division, Lord Pathisairrox said that the Government would stand by the proposal contained in the bill as to the retiring pensions of the two Bishops. What the Bishops would do if the House diminished the amount, he could not say. The bargain was, to propose a bill to Parliament ; that has been fulfilled ; and the House must decide upon the matter.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked whether the Government would proceed with the bill if the pensions were reduced ? Lord PALMERSTON answered- " We shall announce that after the division is taken." (Cheers.)
On a division, the amendment was negatived by 151 to 72. The bill
was read a second time, and committed for Thursday at twelve o'clock ; Lord Pataimas-rort agreeing, in answer to the opposition of Mr. HEN- LEY and Mr. GLADSTONE, that amendments might, under the circum- stances, be moved without the usual previous notice.
The bill was stiffly contested through every stage on Thursday. On
the motion for going into Committee, Mr. HADFIELD, in a speech drawing a contrast between the high incomes of English prelates and the low incomes of the Pope and the Roman Catholic bishops, moved that the House should go into Committee that day three months. Thereupon the debate was revived and continued on the principle of the bill, by several Members. But the voting-power of its supporters was too strong to be
encountered ; the amendment was withdrawn; the House went into r..
Committee. Mr. G.sosTorrE moved an amedment on clause 1, which would have had the effect, as Sir GEORGE GREY contended, of making the act a general act, instead of a particular measure applicable to two cases only. The amendment was not discussed at all ; and the chief incident in the Committee at this stage was a passage of arms on a point of law and legal learning between Mr. GLADSTONE and the SOLICITOR- GENERAL. Since the conflict had arisen, said Mr. Gladstone, they had better fight it out : they stood there on a footing of equality. So they fought it out, to the amusement of the Committee. Mr. Gladstone did not, however, go to a division, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 3, fixing the amount of the pensions, Mr. THOMAS Di:w- ee/dna moved an amendment equivalent to striking out the clause. Ne- gatived by 105 to 30. Mr. ROEBUCK moved to substitute " 35001." for " 60001." as the amount of the Bishop of London's pension. Negatived by 104 to 19. Mr. ROEBUCK then moved that the pension of the Bishop of Durham should be 30001., instead of 45001. Negatived by 52 to 19.
In the course of the proceedings in Committee' Sir hams GBA.HAM asked whether the letter of the 21st June 1856 was the first communica- tion from the Bishop of London in reference to his retiring allowance ; whether the Bishop of Durham did not require a larger sum ; and whether his letter of the 21st June was not the result of frequent com- munications between him and the Government on the question of the pension? Lord PALMERSTON replied that he heard the circumstances referred to for the first time It is perfectly true that in the course of last autumn, or rather shortly before the Christmas holidays, I was informed verbally that the Bishop of Durham wished to resign. I took those steps upon that communication which I thought to be necessary, having then an intention of bringing for- ward a measure relating to these cases. But after a certain period, I was informed, from the same quarter, that the Bishop of Durham no longer wished to resign : therefore the matter dropped. The first communication made to me by the Bishop was by letter. It may be and very possibly was the fact, that some days before that letter was actually written a verbal com- munication was made to me on the point ; but this I do state, that at no time was any larger sum proposed than what has been mentioned, nor was there any communication such as has been talked of, or any objection made by me to any larger sum than that which is mentioned in the bill."
The bill passed through Committee.
MINISTER OF EDUCATION.
The motion for the third reading of the Vice-President of Committee of Council on Education Bill was met by Mr. HENLEY with an amend- ment, that the bill should be read a third time that day. three months. He was not satisfied that there was any necessity for bringing another paid officer into that House. He could not but think that the appoint- ment of this officer had reference to a desire to set up some large scheme of national education to be conducted by the Government. Mr. GLADSTONE concurred in the general views of Mr. Henley with respect to this bill. The House is not so jealous as formerly of paid officers ; nay, Government is sometimes rather officiously pressed to mul- tiply paid Members ; and a practice is growing up of creating offices be- fore they create duties. This bill had been delayed in order that Go- vernment might ascertain the views of the House on Lord John Russell's resolutions. Those views had been emphatically expressed, but the bill went on notwithstanding. Now, there is not sufficient business to jus- tify the appointment of this new officer; and the connoiengo.alitiving him in the House is hardly sufficient cause for his introduction. The constitution of the department would be bad. There would be two parties of equal official rank, a President and a Vice-President. It would rarely happen that both are thoroughly bard-working men ; but the country ought to have none but thoroughly hard-working men. Why not have a joint secretary of the Committee of Education, like the joint secretary of the Board of Trade ? The Poor-law Board and Board of Control are analogous cases. The Government have not sufficiently considered the measure, and it would be better to postpone it until a de- finite idea has been formed of the nature of the duties of this new officer.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the proposal was in no way connected
with the resolutions of Lord John Russell : the scheme had been strongly pressed on the Government in 1855. The House, although it had re- jected all the proposed schemes of public education, had expressed its opinion that education should be extended by the existing means. The grants for education and the business of the department have increased, and it is felt desirable that the department should be enlarged and re- presented in the House of Commons by an influential Minister. Mr. NaPrza. thought that the bill should extend to Ireland. Mr.
VERNON backed Mr. Gladstone's arguments and suggestions. Mr. HAD- FIELD, Mr. PELLATT, Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, opposed the bill. On the other hand, it was supported by Mr. VERNON SMITH and Mr. HEYWOOD, The third reading was carried by 77 to 35; and the bill passed. FoicaorioN OF PARISHES BILL.
In Committee on this bill, Lord Poirrraut moved the omission of clause
9, which empowered a bishop, on application from the minister and churchwardens, to direct that a portion not exceeding one-half of the alms or voluntary contributions collected in the church should be applicable to the maintenance of the minister and the service of the church. This is a new principle. Persons who give alms for charitable purposes will not like to see them employed for a totally new object. The Bishop of OXFORD and the Earl of DERBY said that the whole bill was novel, and the clause was intended to meet the case of ill-provided districts.
The House twice divided 20 against 20. On a third division, the clause was struck out by 22 to 20.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
Mr. HEYWOOD, after pointing out that many errors exist in the au- thorized translation of the Bible, some mistranslation, some interpola- tions, moved for an address, praying that her Majesty would give such directions as to her might seem meet " for the appointment of a Royal Commission, consisting of learned men well skilled in the original lan- guages of the TfOly Scriptures, and conversant with modern Biblical scholarship, to consider of such amendments of the authorized version of the Bible as had been alreads. proposed, and to receive suggestions from all persons who might be willing to offer them ; to point out errors of translation, and such words and phrases as had either changed their meaning or become obsolete in the lapse of time ; and to report the amendments which they might be prepared to recommend."
Sir GEORGE PECHELL seconded the motion.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, the object of the address was not at all in accordance with public opinion, which alone would justify the House in moving upon so important a matter. The appointment of such a olfra- mission would excite general alarm, and unsettle the faith of a great body of the people, and lessen their reverence for the Scriptures. Some slight inaccuracies might be found in the translation, but on the whole it is justly entitled to the reverence with which it is regarded. If clergymen think there are errors in the translation, they are at liberty to point out the true meaning of the text —Motion withdrawn.
STATUTE-LAW CONSOLIDATION.
The LORD Cum-imam called attention to the second report of the Commissioners for Consolidating the Statute-Law. Though a dull and uninviting subject, it is of great importance. The statutes of the realm are about fifteen thousand in number, and are comprised in forty folio volumes of small type. It had been determined to make a general classi- fication of the statutes, and consolidate them under different heads— criminal law, law relating to property, and law relating to mercantile matters. It was found, however, that the work would be useless un- less an improved mode of legislation were adopted in future ; and they suggested the appointment of an officer who should advise on the legal effect of every bill in both Houses, and on the state of the law affected by the bill, its language, structure, and operation on the existing law : what it repealed or modified, what it left unrepealed and conflicting. The precedent for that appointment is the VI:arniner of Standing Orders, and the appointment of such an officer would obviate some of the grosser evils which now attend the introduction of bills both by private Members and the Government. A great portion of the statutes are not law, but matters of temporary enactment—regulations of the Army and Navy, local regulations, and acts relating to finance. Last year, 134 acts passed, and 68 of these were temporary enactments. The Whole legis- lation of the session occupied 1005 pages, but of these only 363 pages were occupied by laws properly so called. By classifying the bills into temporary bills and bills that lay down some general rule of conduct, the additions to the statute-book would be diminished one-third. At the be- ginning of next session, Government intend to appoint an officer of the kind indicated ; and he hoped that both Houses would acquiesce in the appointment of a Committee through whom that officer might communi- cate with them.
During the past session a number of bills have been prepared ; some he had not had time himsolf to look through, others had not been revised by the departments to which they relate. The consolidation of the criminal law has been undertaken by Lord Wensleydale, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr. Greaves. They found, however, that they could not include in the consolidation offences con- nected with the bankruptcy and customs laws, and the laws relating to religion. With these exceptions, all the laws relating to indictable offences have been consolidated into six statutes, under the heads of offences of high treason, against public justice, against the person, of larceny and theft, of malicious injury to property, and of forgery. In two short bills they have embodied the law relating to principal and accessory, and all the acts relating to criminal proceeding. These mea- sures must be accepted with much more confidence than when a bill is introduced for the first time. The Commissioners thought that the law
might be reduced from fifteen thousand to three hundred acts—some thought from two hundred to two hundred and fifty ; and that instead of occupying forty they would occupy four moderately-sized volumes. The Chancellor laid one of the bills on the table, and it was read a first time.
REGISTRATION OF TITLES.
In reply to Lord LYNDHURST, the Loan CHANCELLOR said that the Commission appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the registration of titles had found more difficulties in dealing with the question than they had calculated on ; but he believed they had embodied their recommenda- tions in the shape of a bill. Should they, however, not report next ses- sion, he should introduce his own smaller measure. Lord LYNDHURST also expressed in the strongest terms his regret that so many important bills had been abandoned. He could not remember so wholesale a destruction in any session. The Loan CHANCELLOR shared that regret ; " but still very many useful measures have been passed during the session." THE COUNTY COURTS BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the County Courts Acts Amendment Bill, Mr. GLADSTONE asked whether, during the recess, considering the immense relief which the Courts in Westminster Hall had experienced by the extension of jurisdiction to the County Courts, Government would inquire into the state of the judicial establishments in Westminster Hall, to ascertain whether the present number of Judges is essential.
Sir GEORGE GREY gave no assurance in answer to the question. It is not correct to say that the business in Westminster Hall has diminished since the formation of the County Courts. Although the civil business may be less, the duty at Assites remains much the same. There is an increased demand for Judges on circuit. There might be a new distri- bution of the circuits, by which a greater quantity of business might be got through with a less number of Judges ; but that is a subject which demands mature consideration.
After ,the bill had been read a third time, a. clause was inserted ex- tending its provisions relating to the Superior Courts to the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster and the Court of Pleas at Durham.
Mr. HADFIELD attempted to add two _clauses, one empowering articled ele'rks of two years' standing to appear as advocates in County Courts, the other enabling one attorney to act for another in special cases. These clauses encountered great opposition—they would encourage a non- descript kind of :attorney-advocate in these oeurts. The clauses were withdrawn.
Mr. ROF.BUCK said, he had., discovered that an amendment had been in- troduced without notice in clause 10. The compensation to retiring clerks had been raised from one-fourth to one-third of the. existing sala- ries. He believed no alteration could be made in a bill on a third read- ing without notice. The SPEAKER said that was a mistake. No clause can be inserted on a third reading without notice, but an amendment can be made without notice. Sir JAMES GRAHAM--" Then, has the amendment passed ? " The SPEAKER—" Yes." Sir .TAMES GEAHAts—" Is it not open for the House to discuss it ?" The SPEAXEE.--" No," Sir JAicas CfRiulAm- " Then I cannot sufficiently express my surprise and sorrow."
• Called up by the Speaker, Mr. Wusort explained, that originally a discretionary power was given to the Government to fix the amount to be paid to these clerks; but when it was thought advisable that there should be no such discretionary power, the Government thought one-third would be a fair arrangement.
The SPEAKER said, his decision respecting the amendment would have no reference to the merits of the case, but would be strictly technical. The rule is, that no greater charge can be proposed on the revenue than that which has passed the Committee. The exception is where a bill is introduced to amend an act of a previous session, and which act im- posed a higher charge than is intended to be proposed by the bill thus newly introduced.
I
"When the amendment, therefore, was proposed bYJ the honourable gen- tleman, [Mr. Wil&n,] it was impossible for me to Mee?* whether the in- creased amount of compensation came within the,.'intinary rules of the House, or whether there was such a charge created by the previous bill as would cover the amount 'proposed by the honourablelliember. But, as I now understand; there was no change whatever undor*the old law. If I -antright in that,- theMyou-ought not to attempt to excee.Ohe limits fixed by the. Committee. Therefore, I consider that the :amendment which has been introduced into the clause is informal, and one,whicli ought not to be made ; and it is,therefore cancelled."
The bill then passed.
CoAsT ,GUARD SERVICE.
A conversation arose on the motion for going. into Committee on the Coast Guard Service Bill ; in ',the course of which the . Earl of ELLEN- BOROUGH made a variety of comments on the state: of our naval reserve. The bill by itself would not . secure the necessary:improvements, and he was glad other measures are in, preparation.. ,He rieniarked on the great
age of officers in the Coristauard, and suggested that those who had held 6..Lientenant's.position in that service fir twenty-five years should be allowed to retire upon/nil-pay. At present theb pay; of the men is superior to that of seamen on:board ship. .Were the Goast Guard: men when employed orabortrdship to receive Coast ,Guard.pay ship's pay ? It wouldexcite great dissent:fiction if there were (two sets of men re- ceiving different pay •for doing the.. same dtillesucut, board ship. How is the revenue to be protected during war under this plan? There should be a Director-General of the Coast Guaid in constant communication with the Customs.
Their Lordships must not su_ppose that the country bad never had before a navaireserve. He recollected at the time of the was between Russia and the Portei in 1828=9, Lord Melville;-then at the Adrairalty,atated that if he had instructions he: ould get ready twelve sail of the line in a week. The .eoantry was infinitely better off then than in the present day ; for if twelve• sail of the line were required then, twenty-five sail would be required now to zive the same protection. The real fact is, as the First Minister justly stated, that this country is joined to the Continent by a steam bridge. It must be admitted that almost all the advantages of our insular position have departed, and the naval and military preparations must be made in refer- ence to this state of things. The Country would not be secure unless it com- manded the steam bridge ; and it could not do- that unless it were able to place in the Channel twenty-five sail of the line in a week. He regretted - to hear so often the self-congratulations of the Government for not having exercised the power of impressment. 4 Circumstances might render it neces- sary to resort to impressment to man the ships. The country is in a new position. It must determine, however reluctantly, to be a great military as well as a great naval power. The Government must always have the ques- tion of invasion before its eyes—a question that, if settled at all, would be settled not in a year or a month, but in five days. The army ought to be in a position to protect the country if the naval force should not succeed in pre- venting the approach of an invading enemy.
The Marquis Tow iesnrse said that if there were a proper naval force there would be no need for a large army.
Lord STANLEY of Alderley, replying to Lord Ellenborough, said that Government had only abstained from impressment until all other means were exhausted; that the aged and inefficient officers in the Coast Guard will shortly be pensioned ; and that the difference between the Coast Guard men and the Navy men in regard to pay may be made up by giving the Navy men other advantages.
The bill passed through Committee.
THE GERMAN LEGION.
Mr. MURROUGH moved the adjournment of the House on Monday, for the purpose of making a speech against the Gelman Legion. Mr. WAL- POLE rose to order ; contending that Mr. Murrough ought to confine him- self to showing why his motion should be adopted. Mr. MURROUGH said he concurred, and would state the strong reasons that led him to adopt that course. Here the SPEAKER interposed, supporting Mr. Wal- pole's view of the matter. Mr. MURROVGH continued—When assassina- tions were perpetrated at Aldershot by German mercenaries, the country was indignant beyond measure, and he was justified in calling attention to the subject. " These foreign troops arc countenanced by those who sit in high places." Why should they have huts furnished to them at the expense of the country ? Mr. SPOONER rose to order ; and the SPEAKER repeated, that he had not heard Mr. Murrough state any reason why the House should ad- journ.
Mr. MuRRonen said that no business ought to proceed until the assas- sinations at Aldershot are explained. Were the morals of the Army, nay the country, to be corrupted by a band of German brigands ?
Lord BARRHIGTON and Colonel FREESTUN rose to order.
Mr. ROEBUCK observed, that not long ago Mr. Currie moved the ad- journment of the House to make a statement respecting the naval review at Spithead : if he had a right to do that, surely Mr. Murrough had an equal right. Mr. BALL concurred.
The SPEAKER said, if the practice were persevered in business could not be transacted.
Lord PALMERSTON said that Mr. Murrough was doubly out of order— he had not only departed from the rules of the House, but from the no- tice he had given to put a question. Mr. Minuteman then put his question. Lord PALMERSTON replied, that he deplored the recent occurrence at Aldershot; that the German Legion would not stay there ; and that as to furnishing the huts, it was done because they only made a temporary stay in camp.
IRISH MILTTIA.
Lord DUNGANNON inquired whether the Minister of War had been offi- cially informed that 67 men of the City of Limerick Royal Artillery had been dismissed almost without clothes and only sixpence each, and whether 240 men of the Mayo Rifles had been dismissed in the same con- dition ? He condemned this ill treatment of men who might soon be wanted again. Lord PANMURE said that with respect to the Limerick Artillerymen he had received no information ; and that with respect to the Mayo Rifles, they were not dismissed, but were permitted, at their own request, to re- turn home.
THE INDIAN BUDGET.
When the order of the day for going into Committee on the East India Company's Revenue Accounts was read, Mr. ISAAC Burr endeavoured to move an amendment on the grievances of one of the Ameers of Scinde : but Lord PALMERSTON pointed out that the amendment was irregular - a remark which the decision of the SPEAKER on the point of order confirmed.
The House having gone into Committee, Mr. VERNON SMITH made the annual official statement relative to the affairs of India. When he last addressed' the House on a similar occasion, Mr. Bright called for the earlier production of the Indian accounts. He now had to regret the absence of Mr. Bright, who had always been of service to him and to the House. The accounts had been produced at an earlier period than here- tofore—on the 13th March instead of the 18th May ; but his statement ' was made at nearly the same period of the session as last year. He had before hint the actual accounts of 1853-'4, and the sketch-estimates of 1856-'7. The total revenue of 18.53-'4 was 19,705,0801. ; the total charges in India and England were 21,749,1971.—excess of expenditure 2,044,1171. The estimates for 1856-'7 comprised a net increase of 2,942,4491. in revenue, and a net increase of 2,533,852/. in expenditure, showing a decrease of 408,5971. on the deficit. The estimated deficit for 1855=6 was 2,067,633/. ; and in 1856-'7 it was 1,152,1091. The expenditure of money upon public works had caused the existing deficiency ,. and it was consolatory to know that but for such expenditure there would have been a surplus. He re- gretted that public works had been so eagerly pressed forward, as a conse- quence of the outcry to which he himself had yielded in 1852.
The largest portion of the Indian revenue is derived from land. In the Madras Presidency it seemed desirable that there should be a survey and fresh assessment; and Lord Harris was of opinion that a reduced assessment would lead to an increase of the revenue. As regards cotton, some success- ful experiments have been made ; and the prejudices of the natives against the saw-gin for cleaning the cotton are giving way. On the whole, he saw nothing that should lead to despair of raising the revenue ; but there is another mode of producing a surplus—a reduction of expenditure. He could not concur in the proposal to effect this by employing the Native army more and the Queen's troops less ; he could not think it possible to reduce the military expenditure. But there is the civil service. Admitting that it ought to be highly paid, he knew of no other service where a man of twenty could enter at 3501. and rise to 45001. It was said that reduction would be followed by peculation : why, salaries were high enough in the worst times of Indian corruption. Let it not be supposed that anything would be done in the way of an immediate reduction of the civil salaries ; but the Govern- ment would keep the advantages of reduction in view. Touching on the political position of India, he briefly referred to the Santral insurrection - which he referred to the exactions of money-lenders and the corruption of the Native collectors of the land-tax. The local officers were greatly blamed. The country has been declared a non-regulation pre- wince, and placed under a Commissioner. Speaking of our relations with Persia, he said that it is not quite clear whether the Persians have occupied Herat. By an engagement come to in 1853, Persia had undertaken not to interfere in the affairs of Affghanistan. If that engagement were not kept —if the Persians did not retire from Herat—some means must be taken to vindicate British honour and to expel them. Mr. Smith next described and defended the annexation of the kingdom of Oude,—a step rendered necessary by the circumstances of the country, and our position of responsibility with regard to what happened in that country.
Turning from the political to the social condition of Ind]'a, he stated the progress that had been made in railways. There are 360 miles of railway in operation, and 4000 miles of electric telegraph, stretching 1600 miles in one direction. The police of India is in a defective state, and Lord Canning has its amendment under consideration. Fverything possible would be done to eradicate the horrible system of torture, and any person inflicting torture will be punished with the severek penalties and dismissal. He blamed Lord Harris for omitting to pass a new act for the enforcement of the tor- ture-regulations. Mr. Smith gave a flourishing account of the progress of education in India, and desf yibed. the interest the natives take in the subject.
Last year he had stated,the result of the competitive examination for the civil service. Then 112, candidates presented themselves, whereas this year there were only 56. Mr. Smith lamented the extreme severity of the tests applied, and remarked that the double examination proposed by Mr. Mac- aulay that gentleman' bad recommended them to relinquish. The second was an examination in law and Oriental languages ; and, strange as it might sound, yet it is a fact that there are no means of procuring a sound legal education in this country. He had therefore determined to give up the second examination. He had himself introduced the viva voce system, as he thought it a better test of a man's courage, aptitude, and self-posses- sion, than any other. Mr. Smith said he looked upon patronage as one of the noblest attributes
of power. Mr. Whiteside had remarked that Irishmen were excluded from the Indian Leach : Mr. Smith has presented three Judgeships to Irishmen, in order that such an anomalous state of things might be rectified. It would'be a proud day for England when, maintaining her rule over this dis- tant and, populous empire, she could yet say that to the utmost of her power she had advanced the physical prosperity and elevated the moral and intel- lectual character of the people of India—objects wholly overlooked by their ancient dynasties.
He moved a series of resolutions relating to the accounts of India
A desultory discussion ensued ; in which Sir ERSKINE PERRY and Mr. OTWAY attacked the policy of the East India Company in relation to Coorg and Oude, and the financial policy; and Sir J.asms HooG and Mr. MANGLES defended the Directors.
The resolutions were agreed to.
THE BRAZILIAN SLAVE-TRADE.
The Earl of MALMESBURY moved for copies of any correspondence that
has lately taken place between the British and Brazilian Governments. Brazil is the Sardinia of South America ; there is scarcely a country the friendship and alliance of which are of greater consequence to Great Britain. If we were at war with the United States and Brazil were un- friendly, 'American privateers might be sent from the Brazilian coast to annoy our trade. We have always been on friendly terms with the Brazilian empire. In 1826 we made a treaty with Brazil for the aboli- tion of the slave-trade. That trade, however, was not suppressed as de- sired, and in 1845 Lord Aberdeen took a step that angered the Brazilian Government. A bill was passed enabling British cruisers to capture alavers.in Brazilian waters and under the guns of Brazilian fortresses. Partly-by the efforts of our cruisers, and partly by the sincere coopera- tion of the Brazilian Government, the slave-trade rapidly decreased ; but the irritation of the Brazilian Government was very great, and in 1852 .Lord Derby suspended the act. It still remains suspended. At the end of 1855, however, a cargo of slaves was landed, 47 of whom were kid- napped and taken up the country. Upon this, Mr. Jerningham, our Minister, threatened to revive the act of 1845, in a note couched in most .uncourteous terms. That had caused great indignation among all parties in Brazil—in the Emperor, the Parliament, and the press ; and some -of the members of the Chamber plainly set forth the advantages of an alliance with the United States. Lord Malmesbury conjured Lord Clarendon to pay that respect to the Brazilian Government which their good faith deserves, and to restrain the rude and mischievous zeal of his subordinates.
The Earl of CLARENDON admitted that Lord Malmesbury had not ex-
aggerated the importance of a good understanding between the Brazils and this country. The British Government is quite ready to modify the provisions of the act of 1845 if equally stringent provisions were embo- ,clied in a treaty. The Brazilian Government objected to grant those
• conditions. Although the slave-trade has been put down, still as no measures of colonization and immigration have been taken, certain re- cent circumstances have raised the apprehension that the slave-trade might be reestablished. The hands for field-labour are short, as the slaves have died off, and the price of slaves has risen enormously. Last year, the Brazilian Government gave notice to the President of the pro- vince of 'Pernambuco that a slave-ship was expected to land her-cargo on that coast : when the vessel arrived, the police were all absent, and it was by the act of a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood that 160 out of 250 slaves were seized. Courteous representations were made to the Brazilian Government ; complaints of negligence and connivance were made against the Governor of Pernambuco, who removed the inquiry from the spot to a placesix miles distant, and included the gen- tleman who seized the slaves among the persons accused, that he might not appear as a witness. Under these circumstances, Lord Clarendon had instructed Mr. Jerningham to inform the Brazilian Government, that unless something were done to prevent the landing of slaves at Pernam- buco, the British Government would enforce the act of 1845. There was no intention to mortify the Brazilian Government ; but the notice was intended in a friendly manner to put that Government on its guard. The President of Pernambuco has been removed in consequence, and the fernier -Minister to this country appointed in his stead.
The Earl ofABERDEEN said that he had himself proposed the act of
1845, although with very great reluctance. He had even hoped that the time was now come for repealing that act, and he regretted to find that it is not. Under the circumstances, he could not blame the threat of a renewal of the act.
ill otion agreed to.
Loan LUCAN AND MR. Vu.uxns.
The report of the Chelsea Board of General Officers was laid on the table of the House of Commons on Monday, by Mr. VI* r Isms, the Judge-Advocate. In moving that the papers be laid on the table, Mr. Villiers noticed an extraordinary statement said to have been made in another place. He was told that a noble Lord [Lord Liman] had ascribed the 'delay= the production of the report to the fact that Mr. Villiers drew it, and that he had been dilatory to serve the objects of the Minis- ter for War. If the noble Lord made that statement, he could not have uttered a more unmitigated untruth ; and, said Mr. Villiers, " I cannot believe he has been correctly reported."
" I did not draw the report, and I did not delay its presentation. The General Officers drew their own conclusions from the evidence submitted to them, and were quite competent to do so ; and I did not delay the pre-
sentation of the report—first, i
because I had no power to do so if I had wish- ed it, and in the next place I had no object or interest whatever in doing so. I do not believe that anybody deserving the least respect has ever assigned any reason for supposing that I had done so. The noble Lord has been in constant communication with persons who have been connected with this inquiry and report, and I do not believe that anybody of the least au- thority has given him this information. He has not obtained it from Lord. Hardinge, with whom he has been in frequent communication of late about the proceedings ; for _Lord Hardinge knows that all that this noble Lord is reported to have said of me is unfounded in fact. He has not had it from Sir Alexander Woodford ; for I have applied to him to know if he con- sidered that what was reported to have been said by this noble Lord was true, and whether, by any accident, he thought that anything could have been said or done by the Board that could have led the noble Lord into er- ror. His reply was, that, as far as the Board was concerned, it was a gra- tuitous misstatement; it was perfectly untrue that I had ever wished or attempted to postpone the completion of the report, and that nothing that had been said at or by the Board could for a momentjustify such a thing being said ; that the Government officers had finished their report as soon as they were able, and that they were much indebted to the Deputy-Judge-Advocate for the assistance that had been rendered them. It was not from Lord Beauchamp, who that noble Lord had probably forgotten was in the same House as himself ; for he rose, after the noble .Lord had spoken, and, like a man of honour and a gentle- man, refuted the calumnies which he heard unjustly uttered against an absent person. I do not, therefore, know where the noble Lord got his information, if he is correctly reported. It is further reported that this noble Lord imputed to me partiality. during the conduct of the inquiry, and that I had abused the authority_ with which I was invested, in order to prejudice him. Sir, I think this House will support me in saying that I should degrade myself, as well as the office that I have the honour to hold, if I were to descend to notice such a charge." (Cheers.) The proceedings, fortunately for him, were public—he hoped the noble Lord as well as him.. self was prepared - to -abide by the verdict of the public. The noble Lord said the inquiry was political, because the Judge-Advocate was-a Minister. So far was this from the truth, that Mr. Villiers knew nothing of the poli- tics of the General Officers except of the three who are in Parliament. Since, however, that statement was made, Mr. Villiers had ascertained that all were of the same political party as the noble Lord ; that Sir Alexander Woodford's private secretary was his private friend and political partisan; and thus, those who tried, judged, and acquitted the noble Lord, were his own political paytisans. For himself, he should be ashamed to impute po- litical motives in the smallest degree to them ; he believed they decided upon the evidence ; and in Lord LRCM'S case, looking to the evidence be- fore them, however imperfect and insufficient that may have been, they have given a just verdict. Why Lord Lucan wished to discredit the in- quiry, he could not say. He hoped the House would, when they considered that a Member of that House has no other way of meeting such charges than to refute them publicly in his place, excuse his observations.
-General Peat said, he had no hesitation in saying, as a member of the Chelsea Board, that the charge made in another place is unfair and =- founded. No inquiry was ever conducted with less political feeling. The position of Mr. 'Villiers was an anomalous one, and the question might arise what position the Judge-Advocate should occupy in such in- quiries; but he was at a loss for language sufficiently powerful to express his opinion of the advantage which the Board derived from the assistance of Mr. Villiers.
In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of LIMAN returned to the subject. He read a report of his Friday's speech which he-said he had himself put upon paper, and which several persons present on that occasion had agreed was.an accurate report. He proceeded to deny that he had used words put into his mouth by the "learned gentleman" in another place. He had not stated, nor had he supposed, that "the learned gentleman " had drawn up the report. He had not been in com- munication with any one individual connected with the inquiry. He had never had so little communication with Lord Hardinge as during the last six months. He had never -touched on the subject to his daughter or her husband'Mr. Hardinge [Lord Hardinge's son]. He had not said the inquiry was political because the Judge-Advocate attended the court. He thought he had a right to complain that "this learned _gentleman" should have made so baseless an insinuation as that in Lord Lucan's case the inquiry might have been incomplete and the evidence insufficient; " and if the learned gentleman did utter it, it was base." He should leave the House and the public to determine as to whom the charge falls on of uttering unmitigated untruths ; and he should advise the learned gentleman to be more cautious in the language he uses. Lord PANMURE said he could not do better than apply Lord Lucan's Closing advice to 'himself—to be a little more careful in his language. Lord Panmure understood Lord Lucan to say that the Judge-Advocate- General had drawn up the report, and that he had used his position to delay its production. That was also the understanding of a member of the Board, [Lord Beauchampj who rose in his place to defend the Jutige- Advocate-General from the charge. It was to be extremely regretted tit Lord Lucan took advantage of his position as a Peer of Parliament to pass grave reflections on the highest judicial authority of the Army—the individual who administers its criminal law.
Mn. JAMES SADLEIR.
On Monday, the House ordered, on the motion of Mr. nonnuaa, that Mr. James Sadleir should attend in his place on Thursday, as Mr. Roe- budk intended on that day to move that Mr. Sadleir should be expelled. On Thursday, Mr. ROEBUCK stated that Mr. Sadleir had been sought by the messenger, and could not -be found. He called upon the House to expel Mr. Sadleir. He could not say that he was guilty, but he would say that charges had been brought against Mr. James Sadleir deroga- tory to his honour and destructive to his power and capacity as a Member of that House : that the Master of the Rolls had chargedhim with'fraud ; that the Grand Jury at Clonmell had found a true bill against him ; that he had fled from justice, instead of remaining to rebut these charges. It might be said that the House would be committed to a perilous precedent by adopting this Station. It might be said that the proceeding was hasty, Hasty ! why, "this man has disgraced the House—brought glimme and ignomky on the House; and the House, if it regarded its own honour, had nothing for, it but to cut off the peccant Member." Mr. Roebuck cited a number of precedents applicable to his motion.
Mr. NArrim seconded the motion ; bringing more precedents.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that a grave judicial question of this kind ought not to be settled without examination. It should be borne in mind that Mr. Sadleir bad left the country before the warrant was out against him ; and it could not be said that he would not return. The papers re- ferred to by Mr. Roebuck ought to be printed. Mr. Wortley there- fore moved that the debate be adjourned till next day.
Mr. J. D. Frrzosnein protested against the House proceeding on the ground that certain facts were " notorious." The House had no
evi- dence before it except that Mr. Sadleir was accused of fraud. He did not oppose the motion ; it was a motion proper to he made at the fitting time ; but the House had nothing before them to act upon. The AT- ToRNEY-thamsmkr. said, if James Sadleir did not appear to plead he would be outlawed, and outlawry is a disqualification. Lord PALsizitsrou said that, assuming there was a full persuasion of James Sadleir's guilt, the House ought not to expel him without founding upon some formal indisputable ground—" conviction, confession, or the report of a Com- mittee." Mr. HENLEY concurred, and moved the previous question.
Mr. Itonancw now said, it was evident that politics had been mixed up in the matter. Lord PALMERSTON repudiated the charge—the House proceeded on the abstract principles of justice. Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. SEYMOUR Ferzerna.Le alone supported Mr. Roebuck's demand for immediate action.
The previous question having been put and carried, Mr. Roaaucx said —"I wish to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Go- vernment. If an application is made for the Chiltern Hundreds for Mr. James Sadleir, will the Government pledge themselves not to grant it ?"
Lord PALMERSTON answered—" Undoubtedly." (Cheers.)
THE RAJAH OF COORG. '
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE complained of the treatment which the Rajah of Coorg had experienced at the hands of the East India Company. The Rajah was a prisoner of state at Benares, but he obtained leave of absence for one year to come to this country, partly to superintend the education of his daughter, who is being brought up as a Christian. When his term of leave expired he applied for an extension, but the East India Company refused it ; and as he did not return to India, they stopped that portion of his allowance paid to him here—a tyrannical and unjust proceeding. At this very time the Rajah is carrying on a suit in Chancery against the East India Company. Why does the East India Company insist on his returning to India, and why is the Rajah's al- lowance stopped ?
The Duke of ARGYLL said that the Rajah was a prisoner of war in In- dia, and it could not be considered an act of tyranny in the East India Company to decline an extension of leave. They consider it objection- able that the Rajah •should continue in England expending his revenue. The local Government of India experience great inconvenience by the residence of individuals like this Rajah in England. They correspond with their former subjects, and sometimes induce* belief that they will recover their power. It would be quite as easy for the Rajah to carry on his lawsuit if he were in India as it is in England. The Earl of ELLWBOROUGH said that the conduct of the East India Company was ungenerous and unwise. At the same time, it is neither for the advantage of the Government of India nor for these princes that they should reside here to prosecute their claims ; and four years ago he had recommended the Rajah to return to India. The Rajah claims 80,0001. from the East India Company. Lord Ellenborough could not understand now a question of that kind between two Indian sovereigns could be matter for adjudication by the Court of Chancery. As the money was prize of war, it might, however, be found that it belonged to the Crown.
PROPOSED NEW RULE FOR DEBATES.
Mr. Wuxi:mos moved a resolution, that except upon the introduction of a measure no Member should speak for more than half an hour at the same time upon one question, nor upon any occasion for more than one hour. Although a young Member, he claimed to have much acquaintance with the proceedings of public bodies, and he had never seen so much time wasted by any as by that House. Delay w.as caused not only by long speeches, but by the motions so frequently made on the question of the adjournment of the House. From a statement he had prepared, it ap- peared that during the session there were 273 Members who had not spoken at all, 209 who had not spoken for more than half an hour ; of the remaining 170, 55 had only spoken once : so that the monopoly of speaking is confined to .a comparatively small number of Members. A pause of some duration ensued, and it seemed likely that 'the motion would drop, when Lord PALMERSTON rose. Every Member, he said, must desire to shorten the debates ; but he could not recommend the House to adopt Mr. Wilkinson's method, which would restrain that free- dom of speech which is the foundation of our liberty. Comparing the present with the past, he did not think the privilege of long speeches had been particularly abused. Time was when hardly any one spoke for less than an hour and a half or two hours.
" I remember the case of a worthy baronet—whose name .I need not give, a Surrey Member—who began a speech at five o'clock ; a friend of his, at the end of two hours, went to Clapham, drank tea, played a game of whist, and returned to the Rouse, when he found his ftend still on his legs. (Laughter.) These things do not happen now-a-days, for there is a sort of control exercised by the House over Members who speak. It is very seldom than any Member intrudes on the House longer than he finds to be really necessary; but unquestionably there are subjects on which it is essential that Members who have information to give, or objections to urge, or de- fences to make, should be allowed a good deal of time to state their views to the House, and where any restriction of the kind proposed by my honour- able friend would not have the effect of really shortening the debate, but would materially impede the enlightenment of the House on the matter which they had to decide."
Formerly, many Members sat for small places, and their constitpenta did not care whether they spoke or not : now every Member has consti- tuents who expect that his voice should be heard from time to time. Debates are prolonged not by the length of speeches but the multitude of speakers. Again, much more time is lost by the licence taken by Members to bring on all sorts of questions on the motion for adjourning from Friday to Monday ; thereby long speeches. There are more Mem- bers now than formerly who are capable of speaking with credit to them- selves and advantage to the House, and the debates convey more in- formation to the country than when two or three leaders spoke on each side. He hoped Mr. Wilkinson would not press his motion to a division.
Mr. MILNES thought that more good would be done if persons in high position were to set an example, than by any rigid rule. Mr. BIGGS supported the motion. The rule proposed works well in the United States. Mr. W. J. Fox thought that much speaking would be saved if the leaders, instead of waiting to trip each other up, would speak early in the debate. Mr. Mamma., supported the motion. On a division, the motion was negatived by 57 to 30.
STANDING ORDERS.
On the motion of Colonel Wilms PArrviv, the report of the Standing Orders Committee was adopted with amendment. It was agreed that " no amendment not being merely verbal shall be made in any bill on the third reading" ; that all Committees should sit on Wednesdays with- out the permission of the House being obtained upon a motion ; and that the House will not receive any petition or proceed upon any motion for a charge upon the revenues of the East India Company without the recommendation of the Crown. The last order was a subject of discus- sion ; and the words " of the Crown " were substituted for " of the Court of Directors, sanctioned by the Commissioners for the Affairs of India."
THE EPISCOPAL RESIGNATION CORRESPONDENCE. The Lord Bishop of London to Viscount Palmerston.
" Fulham Palace, June 18, 1856.
" My dear Lord—I think it proper to communicate to your Lordship my desire, on account of continued illness, if allowed by law, to resign the bishopric of London, upon being secured the enjoyment during my life of a clear annuity of 6000t. If this proposal should be approved by your Lordship, I trust that you will take proper measures for carrying it into effect.
" I have the honour to be, my dear Lord, your Lordship's very faithful servant, " C. J. Lortioon.^
Viscount Palmerston to the Bishop of London.
" Piccadilly, June 19.
" My dear Lord—I have to acknowledge the communication of your wishes to resign your see on the conditions mentioned by you ; and I will take steps to carry your wishes into effect.
" My dear Lord, yours faithfully, Patsies-weer."
The Lord Bishop of Durham to Viscount Palmerston.
" 4, Upper Portland Place, June 21. " My Lord—In consequence of the great failure of my sight, and other infirmi- ties incident to a very advanced age, I sin anxious, Hallowed by law, to be relieved from the fatigue and responsibility of the high office which I have now enjoyed for the last twenty years. As I shall relinquish a very much larger income, I am per- suaded that your Lordship will not consider the annual allowance of 45001. per an- num by any means unreasonable. Upon the assurance that this will be granted, I shall be ready to resign the bishopric of Durham on any day not earlier than the 1st of August. " I could have wished to name a later day, for I fear it will not be in my power to complete arrangements for leaving Aucklmid at so early a day ; but Lord Chiches- ter informed me that it might be inconvenient to the Government. I therefore ac- quiesced, in the confidence that I should not be hurried unnecessarily ; and it may possibly be desirable that my successor, whoever he may be, should have an oppor- tunity of conferring with me, before I leave Auckland, upon the state of the-diocese.
" I have the honour to be, my Lord, your most obedient servant, " E. Dtnria.w.'• The Lord Bishop of London to Viscount Palmerston. .' Fulham Palace, 23d June 1856.
" My dear Lord—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 19th instant, and to express my obligation for your prompt acquiescence in my proposal. " I remain, my dear Lord, your very faithful servant, C. J. Lotrnow."
Previous page
