NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Tim Peers have not disappointed the expectations of the country. Their dealing with the Irish Corporation Bill has been perfectly consistent with the mad policy which has led them to seize every opportunity of collision with the House of Commons. On Tues- day, the instruction to the Committee, which was equivalent to a resolution that Irishmen are not to have municipal institutions, but are to be treated as a degraded caste, was carried by a majo- rity of 203 to 119. Thus the Lords have managed to combine outrage upon Ireland with insult to the House of Commons.
The Ministers discarded the bill as soon as the division was declared. It is now in the hands of Lord LYNDHURST; under whose care it will speedily assume the shape which is to render it pleasing ill Tory eyes.
The Peers stick at nothing to gain a temporary purpose. Lord HOLLAND proved, in an unanswered speech, that it was contrary to the established rules and precedents of Parliament—rules and precedents full of meaning, not merely formal—to move an in- struction to the Committee which would change the principle of a bill sent up to them by the Commons. They might reject the measure, or alter its details; but after having sanctioned the principle by reading the bill twice, it was utterly unparlia- mentary to alter the principle by means of an instruction to the Committee : for the Commons, when the bill returned to them, could only disagree with or sanction amendments—the new prin- ciple introduced by the Peers would never be discussed by the Commons. The last instance of such a course was on the bill of attainder against the Earl of bAsrest : when the word " attainder" was altered to "banishment" by an instruction to the Committee: the Commons disagreed to the alteration, and were only pacified by a resolution of the Lords that it should not be drawn into a precedent. But the present House of Peers, under the direction of Lord LitientiuesT;have adopted it as a precedent, and thereby placed themselves in as direct and insulting opposition to the Commons as is possible.
We all remember the defence of the English Corporations last session by Lord LYNDHURST, Lord ABINGER, and the rest of the party. They were then the sworn patrons of vested rights and existing bodies. Not a Corporation would they disfranchise with- out evidence on oath. They insisted on the preservation of an- cient forms and officers—on Mayors, Aldermen, and Town Clerks. This year, with effrontery unexampled even in the proceedings of' irresponsible assemblies, they sweep away Corporations by the score, whose title to the privileges and property they bold is precisely the same as that of the English Corporations, without even conde- scending to notice or to quote one line of the evidence on which the House of Commons justified the destruciive part of the Irish Municipal Bill. Let this be remembered against the hypocrites on the People's day of reckoning. When the thing, by whatever name it may he called, is pre- sented to the House of Commons, it will scarcely be recognized there: in fact, it will be a new bill. The principle of the measure passed by the Commons was that of self-government—of vigilant popular control over local administrators. But the principle of the Peers bill will be despotic. For popular control, the authority of the Crown will be substituted; for self-government, the commands of the King's Viceroy. The inhabitants will be as nothing, "the Castle" every thing. How will the Commons deal with such a measure ? That remains to be seen. If they in- dignantly viect it,—and certainly few would blame them for throw- ing hack in their teeth " the amendments" of the Peers—extend- ing, as those amendments must extend, the power of the Crown to a dangerous degree—outraging, as they must outrage, the feelings of a whole people,—if, we say, they reject it, what will be the consequence? Jobbing and profligacy, and a system of ex- clusion too gross even for a Tory to defend, wilt still be permitted in the Irish corporate towns. Another galling distinction will be established between Irishmen and Englishmen; the existing quarrel will be embittered ; and the enemies of the Union will be furnished with an argument which ought to be effective.
[LATRST EDITION.]
Suppose that the House of Commons should resolve to accept the bill sent down to them by the Peers ?—for we can imagine an argument in favour of that alternative. The powers proposed by the Peers to be given to the Crown will be exercised by friendly hands, and turned against those who gave them. The destruc- tive portion of the measure, too, is complete. It will be an
im- mense advantage to the popular party to get rid of the Orange Corporations, with all their means of mischief. The second part might be taken for the sake of the first : but taken under protest ; a resolution being entered on the journals of the House, to the effect that the right of the Irish people to Saxon institutions—to the laws and privileges enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotchinen- should not be invalidated by the acceptance of the LYNDHURST bill. In this way the Peers would be made to bear the entire odium of a measure which we doubt not will be extensively un- popular in Ireland. The citizens of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, when they find themselves deprived of their just influence in the management of their local affairs—when not even the show and paraphernalia of a corporation are left for the gratification of civio vanity—will not forget to whom they are indebted for their insig- nificance. Not merely will the Catholic hatred of Tories be exas- perated, but even Orangemen will be galled by the insolent contempt with which they are handed over to the manage. ment of a Castle clerk. Thus, when the Tories reckon up their gains, they will find that they have lost the corrupt support of the old Corporations—that they have added fuel to the burning hatred of the Catholics—nay, that they have irri- tated and offended the very Orangemen. Yet, in the face of these facts and probabilities, the Opposition exult over the vote of Tuesday, as if it were to bring them great advantage and glory! What infatuation! Such, in reality, is their miserable position, that they can do nothing which will not tend to their own loss and the aggrandizement of their opponents. Whatever may become of the bill, they must suffer defeat, and the Ministers must gain strength in the struggle. Suppose it rejected, the unpopularity of the Peers will be augmented prodigiously : if it should pass, the Liberals would at once see the necessity of renewed exertions to prevent the extensive powers conferred by the bill from falling into dangerous hands. The best speech in the debate by many degrees, was delivered by the hearty old Whig, Lord HOLLAND. It was vigorous and sound ill argument, and conceived in a kindly spirit towards the people whose cause he pleaded ; while the vehemence, and occa- sional difficulty of his delivery, as well as the good-humour which marked his countenance, kept us in constant remembrance of the orator's relationship to CHARLES Fox. Lord LYNDHURST attempted a reply to Lord HOLLAND; but failed completely,—especially where he endeavoured to prove that Lord GRENVIL LE had afforded a precedent for the " instruction," when he moved, in 1808, that the Committee on the Bank Charter Bill should be instructed to make Catholics eligible to a seat at the Board of Directors I Such a precedent! and by a lawyer, the maker of "crack judgments!" Lord FITZGERALD was very long-winded and very tiresome; Lord Chancellor CorresmAre rather feeble; and Lord ABINGER a mere pleader on small points. Lord MELBOURNE, on the con- trary and as usual, was vigorous and spirited, in spite of bodily illness ; exhibiting a bold front to the Tory majority, and throwing the consequences of their rashness on their own heads. Lord MORPETH explained the leading provisions of the new Irish Church Bill to the House of Commons on Monday. The tithe is to be commuted into a permanent rent charge, 30 per cent. being de- ducted, as by the bill of last year. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests are to collect these rent charges, and pay them to a Committee of the Privy Council. This Committee will first divide the country into ecclesiastical districts, and appoint clergymen to certain portions of them, having reference to the numbers of Pro- testants rather than the extent of country ; and then pay the clergy. men, in proportion to the duties they are to perform, but in no case at a rate exceeding 500/. a year. No betiefices will be suppressed; but in many instances several will be placed under the care of one clergyman, whose sphere of duty, embracing 'a large territory, will extend over a number of persons sufficient to make up a con- gregation. It is calculated that the surplus revenue will be 97,0001. a year, when the whole of the plan comes into play : for the present, 50,000/. a year is charged on the Consolidated Fund and made applicable to the moral and religious education of all sects in Ireland. The balance of the Million Loan, 463,0001. in amount, is to be repaid to the Treasury ; but no part of the money advanced and not yet returned is to be demanded of the tithe- owner.
Well—we hope the Tories are pleased with having obtained this bill in lieu of that which they rejected last year. The opproplia- tion principle is not abandoned ; the surplus is raised from 5010,001. to 97,000/.; the remainder of the Million Loan, which was in fact a grant, given up last year, is this year to be repaid. In the mean. while, the danger of losing tithe altogether has been .much augs mented : Lord MORPETH warned the Opposition, that nextses- sion the property about which they were quarrelling might have entirely disappeared.
Sir ROBERT PEEL quietly announced his intention of opposing the new plan, though he did not oppose the formal resolution moved by Lord MORPETH : but Lord STANLEY could not contain his disappointment and wrath; and laid himself open to a sharp rebuke from Lord JOHN RUSSELL,—between whom and the "Hotspur" of the Opposition there seems to be considerable ill-will, though they still bandy the term " my noble friend," while growling and snarling at each other.
The Marquis of CHANDOS was supported by a large minority, on Wednesday, in an attempt to pledge the House to devote the sur- plus revenue to the relief of the Agricultural interest. He and his friends used, and were answered by, the old arguments. Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the Marquis ; but we suspect that the word had gone forth from head-quarters not to "follow the leader;" for in the majority of 208 to 172, we cannot find the names of half-a-dozen Tories. Is it uncharitable to surmise that if he had not played false, a considerable number of Tories would have voted with Sir ROBERT PEEL?
MT. CUTHBERT RI PPON, 011 Tuesday, brought forward a motion, which, until it shall be carried in one shape or another, we hope will be an annual one—that the presence of the Bishops in Par- liament is inimical to the interests of religion. It was rejected, of course, by a large majority-180 to 53. But no attempt was made to disprove the truth of the proposition ; the discussion being shirked by Ministers ; while, on the Opposition side of the House, Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR and Mr. LAWSON, who wished to be eloquent in behalf of the Prelates, were put down by the clamour of their own party.
It is not probable that a solitary measure for removing the Bishops from Parliament will ever be passed. We must wait for a general Reform of the Peerage, of which the expulsion of the Bishops will form a part ; or we must look forward to the time when the unholy union of Church and State, of which the pre- sence of the Bishops in the Upper House is the outward symbol, shall be dissolved by the advance of intelligence among Church- of-England Christians, or the increasing numbers and power of other sects. At this present time, the desire of the Liberals for the removal of the Bishops is perhaps abated by the prospect of a change for the better being effected in the politics of the Bench, through deaths and new appointments.
The long-expected measure of Chancery Reform was laid be- fore the House of Peers on Thursday, by Lord COTTENHAM. After so mighty a labour, the mouse is indeed very small. It amounts to little more than the appointment of a new ChiefJudge in Chancery, and the extension of the sittings of the Peers in their judicial capacity through the Parliamentary recess, and the period which may elapse between the dissolution of one Parliament and the meeting of another. It assumes that the Lord Chancellor shall still be a Cabinet Minister, and exercise political functions, though his judicial duties will be confined to presiding in the House of Lords and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to decide on appeals. Against this part of the bill the Liberal Lord LANGDALE, and, strange to say, the Tory Lords ABINGER and WYNFORD, protested; and Lord MELBOURNE inti- mated that Ministers had no objection to separate the political and judicial functions of the Chancellor, though they deemed it pru- dent to let the suggestion of such an alteration proceed from the Reformers on the other side of the House.
Previous page
