On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
^ v . annle not only in this country , but in the colonies mif « i 2 * jh of Mr . Gladstone , in moving the second read-W S addre ^ ed to a point upon which he ( Sir John ) £ ' opA with him—namely , « the expediency of giving Rg ^ Ipr freedom of Action to the Church of England in the ^ f ties' which laboured under certain disabilities—the S 3 defect being the want o ^ power to carryv out its Soline , the authority of the bishops . bemgtiutoeratic ; ATie was prepared to concur with Mr . Gladstone , that ¦ tWe ought to be a change in the law , , and that the Church in the colonies required some legislative assistance fiiftt would prevent the bishops from retaining a power at «« . /» daneerous and invidious . The attention of the
AtoIittshop of ' Canterbury had been directed to this subject : « nd thinking the time had come for placing the Church in the colonies upon a better footing , his Grace had opened a communication with the Bishop of Sydney , as Colonial Metropolitan , respecting the mode and form in which the Imperial legislation for that object should be conducted . Pending these communications , he would , independent of other considerations * have suggested whether it was desirable to press the bill during the present session . But it was impossible for him , Sir John added , after the manner in Which Mt . Gladstone had argued the measure , to refrain from entering into what he believed to be its scope object , and tendency—the terms in which the bill was drawn being so indistinct , that he questioned whether any
two lawyers would agree in then * construction of its language . He could iiot doubt that Mr . Gladstone ' s object was to " place the Church of England in the colonies Upon the same footing as other religious denominations ; but he believed , if carried out , its effects would be , first , to exalt the Church of England in the colonies into a state of domi nance ; secondly , to break it up into small separate Churches ; and thirdlyj to destroy the supremacy of the Crown > and even to over-rule all legislation , imperial and colonial . The last clause introduced an important alteration of our ordination service * by dispensing ¦ with the oath of supremacy —the first attempt ever made to enable nersons to hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church of
England without taking that oath . He might be told that the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters did not extend to the colonies ; but this doctrine would be repugnant to the statute 1 st Elizabeth , and to the express words of the Quebec Act . Mr . Gladstone had rested his case , Sir John remarked , upon demands made by the colonies themselves , Tjut had not cited a single application for the passing of such a bill , or for separating from the Church of England , or for renouncing the Crown ' s suuremacy : whereas he ( Sir John ) could show a contrary
desire on their part ; and with that view he read extracts from memorials and resolutions transmitted from-different colonies in Australia and Tasmania . -With , these facts , he could not consent to the further progress of a bill involving such grave considerations . He would , even as a private citizen , be no party to the breaking up of the Church of England into branches , or the impugning the supremacy of the Crown , which , he believed , was one of the surest guarantees for the religious liberty we enjoyed . He intreated Mr . Gladstone to abandon the bill , and moved that the House proceed to the other orders of the day . "
Mr . Gladstone complained that Sir J . Pakington had , unintentionally , grossly misrepresented him as having dispensed with the oath of supremacy , inasmuch as the bill required subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles , one of which ( the 37 th ) declared the supremacy of the Crown , and was precisely equivalent to the 36 th canon ; so that the oath of supremacy was superfluous . Sir J . Pakington contended that this explanation did not touch his objection ; that the bill did , in fact , dispense with the oath of supremacy , and that this was the first attempt to ordain to ecclesiastical offices without taking that oath .
Mr . Addebley warmly supported the bill , and insisted that it was desired by the colonies . Ho frankly admitted that a " separation of the Church from tlio State would be preferable to a psoudo connexion winch paralyzed the Church , and which had no analogy to the connexion of the Church of England with the State . " Sir Robert Ingms looked upon the bill with aversion and distrust . The Attorney-General seemed to bo of opinion that there wns no law in existence forbidding the meeting of the colonial bishops and clergy for the purpose of making internal regulations—and therefore no need of the bill . Mr . Betkell opposed , and Sir W . P . Wood supported , the view taken by Mr . Gladstone . The ground : Horsman's hostilitis singular .
,., y His objection to tho bill was , that it gave to tho colonial church , p owers , exemptions , and authority , which , wnotii or rightly or wrongly lie could not say , wore doniod o ? , 1 ? "wh of Enplane * at homo . Tho only thing they do * wa 8 ' aa tllc ri' 0 ° Kirk llnd otho 1 ' < - ' llurcl 108 ha ( 1 wuno , to renounce State connoxion ; and thon they would WMtoo from State restrictions . " -Tho amendment , not being opposed by Mr . Glatls «»> o , vvns agreed to , and tho Houso passed to tho otliov orders of tho day . , THE MAYNOOTIt DEBATE .
da f i 8 t 01 S " llvin £ professed an inability to grant u JV 'or tho resumption of tho adjourned debate on "aynooth , Mr . Nswddg-atb , for Mr . Spooner , who ohi T ' fixod Juno 1 Gth - T <) this Mr < CAnDW 3 SIjlj thf- tlmt tllis was to postpone the motion until o inquiry could not possibly take placo . wlmn I Rui 88 BI ' ' « < " <>> it m «» t bo obvious , after 1 "ftd been stated , that it would be a mere mockery
( cheers ) upon the 16 th of June to appoint a select committee to inquire into the system of education at Maynoofch College . If there were to be an inquiry at all , it was evident that it could not be by appointing an inquiry to commence on the 16 th of June , when the House would not be sitting at the utmost more than two or . three days , or possibly a week , after that date . ( Hear , hear . ) ^ Tbe Chancellor , of the Excheqtxer said , that the Government were not prepared to abrogate the grant to Maynooth , nor had anything fallen
from any member of the Government to justify that statement . There was a very great desire that an inquiry should take place into the system of education pursued in that college . But the motion was brought forward by his lion , friend ( Mr . Spooner ) , and recommended by Mm on grounds upon which he could not in any way concur . ( Loud cheers from the Opposition . ) He vainly endeavoured to explain the impression made by the speech of Mr . Walpole last week . He declined to carry on the inquiry , as Lord John Russell suggested , by means of a Royal commission .
An attempt was made to adjourn the debate to Wednesday next—the Derby day ; but in the midst of the conversation the clock struck six , and the House stood adjourned . A smart conversation , principally maintained by Irish Members , took place on Thursday respecting the attempt made by Mr . Newdegate to postpone the debate to the 16 th of June . After a great deal of bantering , and quibbling , and evasion , on the motion of Mr . Forbes , it was resolved that the adjourned debate should be resumed on Tuesday next , at 12 o ' clock .
Untitled Article
HOUSE OF LOKDS . An interesting conversation arose in the House of Lords on Monday niglit , arising out of a question put by the Duke of Ab&exi > to Lord Malmesbury . Their lordships must have observed a representation in the public papers , that an Englishman of the name of Murray had been confined in prison at Rome for two or three years , . without trial , on an accusation of having committed a criminal offence , and that he had been recently sentenced to death . That was an extraordinary statement , considering that he was a British subject . He wished to ask the noble earl opposite , whether any application had been made to hiineither from the friends of Mr . Murray or
, from our consular agent at Rome , on his behalf . It would be satisfactory to the public mind of this country if the noble earl would give an explanation of the circumstances under which that gentleman had suffered so long , and of the reasons why he had not been brought at once to trial . It was stated that the trial , which terminated in his being sentenced to death , was not a public , but a secret trial ; that he had never been confronted with the witnesses who gave evidence against him , and that all the proceedings instituted against him were calculated to inspire the British public with a convictio n that he had not met with ordinary justice . The Earl of Malmesbttry said—As far as I am
concerned , I am glad that the noble duke has given me an opportunity of explaining the statements which I have seen with pain in the public journals . The facts of the case are these , as far as I am informed : —About a week after I had acceded to office , —that was in the first week of March , as far as I recollect , —I received a communication from our consul at Rome , Mr . Freoborn , that Mr . Murray , tho son of a meritorious officer formerly in Her Majesty ' s service , had been ; for thirty months confined in the common prison of Ancona on a chargo of murder , alleged to have been committed in common with a band of regular murderors and bravos , who , at the time , infested that part of Italy . Ho was not brought to trial at tho time , in consequenceas it was saidof the disturbed condition of that
, , portion of tho country . In consequence , howover , of tho representations of Mr . Consul Mooro , ho was transferred from tho prison of Ancona to that of Rome . I boliovo that application was made at tho same time to Cardinal Autonoili tlmt ho might havo a fair trial , and that justice might bo dono to him ; and that Cardinal Antonolli gavo a promise that justico should bo dono to him . I have since received a despatch from Mr . Frcoborn , stating tho arrival of Mr . Murray at Homo . On receiving tho first despatch from Mr . Frooborn , I wrote to Mr . Frooborn dosiring him to watch tho prococdingH , to seo that Mr . Murray had fair play , and to take caro that no injustice was Anno . Tho noxt intimation which I received of tho
proceedings in this case was from tho statements in the public journals . Mr . Freoborn has not again alluded to tho sub-Icct , nor havo I rocoivod any intimation regarding it from our Charge" d'Mairos at Florence . You are doubtlosH aware , my lords , of tho anomalous position in which wo stand at llomo , ( hear , hoar , ) and of our having no legitimate channel through which wo can innko a regular application to tho Papal Court . You aro doubtloHS awaro that it is only in a oircuitoun , underhand way , very unworthy of this groat country , ( loud cries of " hoar , " ) that wo can assort andvindicato those- groat points of intornationiiUaw , wliinli 11 ; ih mv < lnf , v in mv nresont oflico to carry out . J . wo
months ago I wrote a strong doHpatoh to Mr . 1 rooborn , directing him to seo fair play in this caso ot Mr . Murray ; and I can assuro tho noble- duko that 1 havo not tho slightost objection to lay tho wholo of tho corroHpomJnnco on this subject upon tho tablo of tho Houso . ( Hear , hoar . ) Tho Duko of AiiOYLL . —I am cortainly Katfufiodwith tho answer of tho noblo secretary , so fur an ho is individually concerned ; but I must Bay , that if Mr . Murray was imprisoned for twenty or thirty months without trial , and without any remonstrance from tho English Government , tho noblo secretary ifi not responsible for that , but hia
immediate predecessors in office . ( Hear , hear . ) I jturn now to another subject .- —Has the noble earl any objection to the production of the despatches which passea between himself and his predecessors in office with the Austrian Government , respecting the case of three individuals , Messrs . Wingate , Smithy and Edwards , who were missionaries in Hungary P . I observe that all the documents connected with their case have already appeared in the public papers , but as yet they are not officially before this House . I have looked for them , my lords , with great curiosity . So far as I am able to judge of the reply given by the noble earl to the application from those gentlemen , it is very unsatisfactory , and the reply of the Austrian Government
is even still less satisfactory . ( Cries of " Hear from , both sides of the House . ) My lords , I am not anxious ^ to deprecate any idea of hostility against the Ministrynas to their policy , so far as it goes , seeing that n . human being knows anything as yet of that policy , (" Hear , " and a laugh , ) but there is one thing which I do deprecate , and that is this , —that any man should imagine that there is any political party in this House less anxious than another to vindicate the rights of British subjects when violated by despotic proceedings abroad . ( Hear , hear . ) I am convinced that all parties will be equally anxious to vindicate those rights of British subjects , which , it is the special duty of all who fill the Foreign-office to maintain .
Lord MAiMESBtTRY said , that he could not lay the whole correspondence on the table , as it was not completed . And he followed this up "by a kind of profession of faith : " He must answer the noble duke by the most solemn assurance that he had nothing so much at heart—that he considered nothing so much his duty—as to maintain invi late the principles of international law between this and every foreign country . That was the view which he took of his duty . It was not his duty to argue the justice or
expediency of the law which foreign princes might establish in their own dominions , either in their wisdom or in . their despotism ^ but it was his duty to see whether that law , liberal or despotic , was fairly carried into execution , so far as regarded Her Majesty ' s subjects . ' That / continued the noble earl , 'is my view of my duty ; and I have endeavoured to carry it out in this particular case . '" The Marquis of Breadaxbaite pointed out how closely the " misconduct" on the part of the Austrian Government had followed the retirement of Lord
Palmerston . Some conversation followed , and Lord Campbeli ., taking advantage of the admissions respecting the irregularity of our diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome ,- made by Lord Malmesbury , strongly insisted on the necessity of a bill to regulate those relations . He declared that the amendment made by their lordships in the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill , had caused many disasters ; that an English Minister at the Court of Rome would be well received , and that he would be able to give the Pope correct information as to the state of opinion in this country and Ireland .
In the House of Lords on Tuesday , Lord Eii-enborotjgh vindicated General Godwin from the charge of having delayed the sailing of the expedition to Rangoon , and applauded the appointment of that officer . The only other speech was a hearty eulogy of the conduct of Dr . Selwyn , Bishop of New Zealand , delivered by the Bishop of Oxford .
Untitled Article
BOOKSELLING QUESTION " : Till * ARBITRATION . STRATHEDEN" HOUSE . Lord Campbeli ,, Dr . Milman , and Mr . Groto were , some weeks ago , appointed aa arbitrators by tho Booksellers' Association to decide between them and tho socalled " undcrsellers" on tho free-trade in books question . At the meeting referred to none of these undcrsellers were present ; and Lord Campbell then suggested that another meeting should bo arranged , and an opportunity afforded thoin of stating their views . This took place on Monday , and Strathedon House wns
again tho scene of tho interview , Lord Campbell , Dr . Milman , and Mr . Groto met the two deputationsthe one from tho Booksellers' Association , consisting of Mr . W . Longman ( tho chairman ) , Mr . Murray , Mr . J . H . Parker ( Oxford ) , Mr . Pickering , Mr . Boilby ( Birmingham )* Mr . Douglas ( Edinburgh ) , Mr . Taylor ( of Mr . Hatehavd ' s ) , Mr . It . B . Seoley , Mr . J . J . Miles , Mr . Rivington , Mr . Bobn , and Mr . S . Low ( secretary to tho London Association ); the others being tho invited representation of tho " undcrsollorH , " consisting of Mohhi'h . Bush , Bickers , W . Tegg , and John Clinpinmi , of London ; Mr . Porrin , of the firm of Burge and Porrin , of Manchester j and Mr . Griffin , of Glasgow .
It whs understood . that the Booksellers' Association would bo bound by tho decision at which tho arbitrators arrived ; but , as our readers know , tho freetraders declared their intention of' out-facing any decision , and agitating for open trading , and tho abolition of tlio AsBociution . Mr . Bickorw , Mr . Bush , mid Mr . John Chapman laid belbro Lord Campbell tlioir views , as frco-trndors . Their arguments wero , that tho rights of individuals were infringed when an association stopped in between purchasers and sellers to raise prices ; that regulations framed for tho purpose of effecting this wore jm-
Untitled Article
May 22 , 1852 . ] THE LE AD E R . 479
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), May 22, 1852, page 479, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1936/page/3/
-