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
Fohstbr ; and opposed by Mr . Napier * Lord D « tncak , Mr . Walfole » Mr . Phtllimore , and Sir € teoR « E Grey . —The Lord * Advocate , thinking teat the bill was a meritorious step towards remedying an acknowledged evil * said he would not oppose the second reading , though he doubted if the measure would put a stop to the marriages complained of . —This , indeed , was the opinion generally taken by the opposers of the bill ; and Mr . Walpole pointed out that , as it was contemplated merely to impose a penalty upon the infringers of the law , the marriages would still take place between those rich enough to pay for them—which , he said , would be laying down one law for the rich , and another for the poor : The Ecclesiastical Property ( Ireland ) Bill passed through committee .
MARRIAGE IAW AMENDMENT BILL . The adjourned debate on the second reading , of this bill was opened by Srr W . Heathcote , who obserred that , if there existed only a doubt as to the Divine prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife ' s sister , the House ought not to assume the serious responsibility of passing the bill . —Mr . Phinn insisted that no one could point out a direct prohibition of such marriages in the Scriptures ; and that , if there was really any objection founded in the moral law , there would be implanted in mankind a horror of these contracts . A similar view was taken
by Mr . Lowe , who said that , in the absence of any direct Divine law , we must appeal to the human conscience . —To this , Mr . Gladstone replied by demanding " what is meant by conscience?—the general conscience of individuals , or the private conscience of each person ? " As regards the first , he contended that that is sufficiently expressed by the law as it stands ; and , with respect to the latter , he said that private conscience is not alone concerned . He warned those who use the 18 th verse of the 18 th chapter of Leviticus as a sanction for these marriages , that the same verse might be employed to sanction polygamy . He defied any one to show that the phrase " near of kin" does not include a wife ' s sister ; and he condemned the bill as being a demand for a law to establish an anarchy in the Church of
England and the country at large . —Mr . Spooner supported the bill ; and Mr . Cobtden replied to " sp lendid fallacies" of Mr . Gladstone , who had endeavoured to establish an analogy between bigamy and marriage with a deceased wife ' s sister , the latter being sanctioned by almost all the states of the Continent . The charge of bringing anarchy into the Church was met by Mr . Cobden by the assertion that half our clergymen in the metropolis , and a large proportion in the manufacturing districts , are in favour of the change . The . women of England , also , he said , are for an alteration in the law ; and the Jews themselves have stated that they consider such marriages legal and proper . —The bill was further supported by Mr . Phillimoue , and opposed by Mr . Koundell Palmer ; and the second reading
was carried by 165 to 157 . THE VIENNA CONFERENCES . Earl Grey on Thursday gave the following notice for Monday , the 21 st inst .: " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty , to thank her Majesty for having ordered the protocols of the recent negotiations at Vienna to be laid before us ; to inform her Majesty that this House deeply deplores the failure of the attempt to put an end , by these negotiations , to the calamities of the war in which the country is now engaged ; and to express our opinion that the proposals of Russia were such as to nfFord a fair prospect of concluding a peace by which all the original objects of the war might have been gained , and by which her Majesty and her allies might have obtained all the advantages which can reasonably be demanded from Kussia . "—The Earl of Clarendon laid on the tuble ii copy of the protocols of the Vienna
Conforeuces . iflSUJSJUES ( BRITISH ISLANDS AND FRANCE ) BILL . This bill was read a second time on the motion of Lord Stanley ov Au > eki-bi , who explained its object to bo the better carrying out of the provisions of the treaty of 1839 , which dollnes the limits within which the fishermen , of either country arc to iish . It appeared that the English fishermen havo disregarded the treaty , and have frequently encroached upon French waters ; Jind that , until the lust two or throe years , the French , who havo faithfully observed tho treaty , have been obliged to send out armed boats , by which the English nshenuun have been tuken into Dieppe . SECOND HEAiMNU . Tho Church Patronage Tranwfcr Bill was read a
second tuue . TllE BKBASTOPOL OOMMITTKB . A moBsnge was brought up by Mr . Hoebuck and other mombors of tho House of CoinniouH , asking leave tooxamino tho Earl of Aberdeen and Lord De lias aa wiUueaaos before tlie SebtiBtonol inquiry Ooinjmittoe . —On tho motion of the Duke of Akoslx , leave was given . THE AWMlRAtTr COURT : 1 JKEAC 1 I OF BLOCKADE . Sir Q . B . Pischkll begged to ask tho First Lord
of the Admiralty if his attention had been called to the case of the vessel named Osfgee , seized by her Majesty ' s ship Alban for breach of blockade , and restored without cost by decree of tlie Admiralty Court , but on appeal costs and damages were awarded against the captain of the Alban ; and to inquire if the officers of her Majesty ' s ships , under soch circumstances , are to be held responsible for such expenses . —^ Sir Charles Wood believed that the facts were as stated by his hon . and gallant friend , but no application on the subject had yet been made to him by the parties interested in the decision , and he did not thi ^ k it w « uld be prudent for him to > state then in the House his © pinion on a matter that might be brought formally before him .
LORD DTJNDONALd ' S INVENTION . —MR . LATABDS MOTION . Lord Palmerston , in reply to Mr . French , said the plans of the Earl of Dundonald had been submitted for consideration to several persons of eminence , and among others to Professors Faraday , Play fair , and Graham . —He then stated that on Monday night he would consent that the Government business should give way to the motion of Mr . Layard , if he could prevail on other gentlemen who had precedence of him on the paper to waive their right to enable him to bring it on . —Later in the evening , Mr . Layard , observing that a debate on the administrative system of the country was appointed to take place " ^ elsewhere" on Monday next , considered that he consulted the convenience of the House by postponing the discussion of his own motion on the subject .
THE NEGOTIATIONS . Lord Palsierston , in answer to Mr . Bright , said there had been no formal or written proposal made by the Austrian Government since the 26 th of April . Verbal communications had passed between the representatives of the Austrian Government and those of the English and French Governments , and also between the representatives of the Frencli and English Governments ; but he was sure Mr . Bright would feel that , considering , the relations between the three Governments , it would not be for the public interest to give a detailed explanation with
regard to them . With respect to the question whether the negotiations were entirely broken off" , his answer was similar to that which he gave the other evening—that the elements of a conference still exist at Vienna , there being at that city a British representative , a French representative , a representative of Turkey , a representative of Austria , and a representative of Russia . —Responding to a further question from Mr . Bright , Lord Falmeeston said that , in his opinion , inconveniences might result from a discussion of the question , but that each member must use his own discretion in the matter .
THE INDIAN ARMY . Sir Erskine Perry moved for a select committee to consider how the army of India may be made most available for the war in Europe , and to inquire into the steps necessary to be taken if it should . be deemed expedient to constitute the army of the East India Company a royal army . He quoted a variety of statistics , showing that the Indian army amounts to 400 , 000 men and 12 , 000 officers ; and cited , the opinions of the Marquis of Wellesley , the late Sir Charles Napier , Lord Gough , Sir Willoughby Cotton , and other high military authorities , to prove that the soldiers of the East India Company ' s Service are among the best in the world . Sir Erskine then
proceeded to argue that this army holds out a legitimate source from whence to augment the regular forces in time of war , thus superseding the necessity forforeign legions . He admitted that the recent memorandum , assigning the same position to the Company ' s officers that is taken by the Queen ' s officers of corresponding rank , is an advance in the right direction ; but he held that it does not go far enough , lie wished to see a complete incorporation of the two services , so that the Indian army might be as available for this country as the roynl army itself . His motion , he urged , pledged the House to no opinion : it merelj r asked for inquiry ; and , considering tho magnitude of the quoation , he trusted the committee would be granted . —The motion was seconded by Sir Dm Lacy Evans , who enlarged upon the loss sustained hy the country , owing to tho
non-employment of such experienced soldiers as the Indian army contains ; and remarked that that army Would itself be benefited by being commanded by royal officors . He thought ,-however , that the Bepoys would not be of any use in the Crimea . —Mr . Oxwajt and Mr . John MACtiiiKaou further supported the motion , which was opposed by Sir «) . ! fcYrisa « RAU > , Colonel Dcjnnw , Mr . J . G . Pjulliuoiik , Mr . Djvnby Se y mour , Sir J . W . lloaa , and Mr . Veknon ( Smith , on tho general grounds that the proposed change would cause great confusion and inconvenience to both services ; that no great number of man could bo spared from service in . India ; thnfc it would be very unjust to take the management of the Jndian forces otiA of tho hands of the Company , who « ro best acquainted with the necessities of "the service ; that the Governor-General of India is tho only person
capable of judging whether any portion of the armj could be dispensed with ; that the constitution and internal arrangements of the Indian and the royal armies are so totally different , that amalgamation would be totally impracticable ; and that , even as it is , the former is to a certain extent available for foreign purposes , having been used in expeditions to Egypt , to Ceylon , to Java , to the Mauritius , to the Eastern Archipelago , arid to Afghanistan , wlrich last , contended Sir J . W . Hogg , was essentially an expedifcKHufoT European purposes . Besides , added the same speaker , " the services of Indian officers are at
this moment required in aid of our regular army ; hundreds of volunteers from the Indian army have come forward ; and Indian officers are now serving in the Crimea , and in various departments of the army of the East . "—Mr . Vebnon Smith , in urging similar views , said he thought the question was unfit for reference to a select committee , and warned the House that , as we are now at war with Russia , we must not overlook the safety of our Indian Empire . —Sir Ekskinb Perry having briefly replied , the House divided , when the motion was lost by 171 to 62 .
EDUCATION ( SCOTLAND ) BILL . The motion for going into Committee on this bill was resisted by Mr . Gumming Bruce , on the ground of the lateness of the hour ( twenty minutes to eleven )! and he-therefore moved the adjournment of the debate . A majority of 46 against this motion having been exhibited by a division , the debate proceeded , and Mr . Bswjce moved an amendment to the effect , that the Committee be instructed to divide
the measure into two bills—one relating to the parochial schools , the other te the new schools contemplated by the bil'l . His abject , he explained , was to enable the Legislature to adopt the useful provisions of the Lord Advocate ' s measure , without sweeping away the existing system of parochial schools in connexion with the Church of Scotland . —Lord Ralkeith then moved the adjournment of the discussion , to which the Lord Advocate consented , and it was postponed to Monday . The Ecclesiastical Property ( Ireland ) Bill was read a third time , and passed .
CONSTITUTION FOR VICTORIA . Lord John Russell obtained leave to bring in a bill enabling her Majesty-to assent to a bill passed by the Legislature of Victoria , establishing a constitution in that colony . CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND THE LAW OF DIVORCE BILLS . Sir John Pakington wished to ask the Solicitor-General for England whether the Government were prepared to introduce a Church Discipline Bill before the second reading of the English Testamentary Bill ; and , whether the Church Discipline Bill would deal with the United Church of England and Ireland as one Church ; also , whether the Government would introduce a Matrimonial and Divorce Bill before
the second reading of the English Testamentary Bill . —The Solicitor-General said the bill for the improvement of the courts witl * * espect to church discipline , which at the present moment is in a state that involves great reproach , was prepared under his direction at the same time as the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill . "When the latter bill was introduced , it had not been submitted to the consideration of the Government . This had , however , been done since , and the Government thought it right and becoming that the opinions of the right rev . prelates , ov some of them , should be taken before that bill was introduced into the House of Lords . Tlie bill was prepared on the principle of treating the United Church of England and Ireland as one Church , and
he knew of no other legal principle on which it could be prepared . With regard to the time of its introduction , the House would see from what he had stated that it-was impossible for him to say whether or not it would be brought in before the second reading of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill , seeing that there was to be an adjourned debate on that bill . Tlie Government had not the slightest intontiou of abandoning the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill , although it had been compelled to yield for tlio present to measures of a more pressing character . A Matrimonial and Divorce Bill had boen prepared , and it would bo introduced immediately alter the House had expressed its opinion with regard to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill on the second reading .
Untitled Article
TnE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE . JIO . NHAV . Slit Tiiomam Ha . sttnoh wjih farther examined and Htatod that mjvwhI i . i « ran «> H had occurred in which document * « onno « r <« l with Ordnance biiMincoH had had only one Hiffnoturo ; lmt not in any wiho where money ih concTnX » ' < l > «« « ff 0 " *™ 1 rul " ' nil nuxttor , mvoWms a . principle « w | iii «« two Biffiintim * . Document ,, w . th one liffnaturo ciny tho authority of the board only ui tie-Ji 5 . ttWHit . il matt er * . lWnfif to detail * , l . n Mated that an order l '«» r live thounnnd waterproof Hheet » waH given » littlo before hint November , and that they wo not « £ ; ceivod at tho Tower until tho 25 Jr » d of January , IBO ^ : ;
Untitled Article
M& . * 1 % IS 55 - ] THE L'EAPB-B . 4 ® &
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), May 12, 1855, page 435, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2090/page/3/
-