The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-19 00:00:00

592 On the order for going into committee upon the Sale and Transfer of Lsnd (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Sergeant DEASY called attention to the claims of Master Flanigan, whose case was the subject of a short discussion ; after which the house went into committee upon the bill, and was occupied iu con sidering its clauses during the remainder of the sitting. THE 44 cAauem." In the evening, Mr. S. FITZGERALD, in reply to Mr. Sergeant Deasy, stated that the arrangement by which the King of Naples bad placed the Cagliari and her crew at the disposal of ber Majesty was not made with the con currence of the Sardinian Government ; that the vessel and her crew had been set at liberty without any categorical demand on the part of the Govern ment of Sardinia. MR. BARBER'S PETITION. Mr. BRADY moved for a select committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of William Henry Barber, and to consider and report whether any and what redress should be afforded to the petitioner ; or whether any and what other steps should be taken in reference to the matters alleged. He detailed the facts of the case, and dwelt upon what he considered to be the wrongs and cruel treat ment of the petitioner. Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the case was so peculiar in its nature that it might be fairly con sidered as an exception to the general rule ; but he suggested an alteration in the wording of the motion, so as to direct the inquiry of the committee into the allegations of the petition, and whether any and what steps should be taken with reference thereto. After some remarks by Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. Bavux, the motion, amended as suggested, was agreed to. Mr. BAXTER moved the following resolution : That, in the opinion of this house, an Under• Secretary of State for Scotland should be appointed, to perform the political duties at present attached to the office of Lord Advocate. He urged the multifarious and anomalous duties belonging to the office of Lord Advocate ; that these duties being divided between London and Edinburgh, ... it was difficult to find him when he was wanted; that his judicial functions interfered with his political duties, so that Scotland had only part of his time and attention in either ; and that if there was an Under- Secretary in that house to attend to the political and general business of Scotland, the Lord Advocate could devote his whole attention to his judicial duties. He objected likewise to the undue influ ence which the present system gave to a practising lawyer. The motion was seconded by Mr. W. EWART. Mr. BOOVERIR thought that Mr. Baxter had failed to substantiate by any proof his allegation that the duties cast upon the Lord Advocate were neglected, or inefficiently performed. According to his experience, the Scotch legislative business was well managed, and he did not think that the pro posed change would be of any real benefit to Scotland. Scotch business in that house could not be well conducted, he said, by any but a Scotch lawyer. Mr. Snarnto supported the motion, suggesting, however, an alteration in the wording of it. Mr. E. ELLICE had a very strong opinion adverse to the motion, which proposed to hand over the affairs of Scotland, he said, not to a Secretary of State, a member of the Cabinet (to such a proposi tion be should not be opposed), but to a mere subordinate. Sir J. Gown( likewise opposed the motion, not being satisfied that the appointment of an Under- Secretary of State for Scotland was desirable, or that it would be useful or acceptable to the people of Scotland. Mr. CRAUFURD spoke strongly in favour of the motion, which was opposed by Mr. W. WiLuAms, who was not convinced of the necessity of creating a new office. The Low) ADVOCATE said, before be agreed to the motion, he must be satisfied that the office was too laoorious for an individual to perform ; that the proposed change would really relieve the holder of she office ; and that the portion of the duties trans ferred to the new officer would be performed as well as they are at present ; and be could not assent to any one of these propositions. He thought that if an Underi.zecretary of State in the Home Depart went were V.. be appointed who was to devote his attention solely to Scotch business, he would not know "hat to do toqh his time. Lord DUNCAN oppos e d the motion, as well as Lord PALMERSTON, 1951 0 said he could not concur in the resolution for the reasons assigned especially by the Lord Advocate. An Under Secretary of State could not take the place of the Lord Advocate in Scotch business in that liousc. The Secretary of State for the Home Department wit responsible for every act of the Crown pertaining to public affairs in Scotland, in which he took the advice of the Lord Advocate ; but if this resolution were adopted, in- THE PRESS, JUNE 19, 1638. stead of advising with the Lord Advocate, he w,.u!d advise with his own Under-Secretary on Scotch law, and it was clear that he would possess less int'orma• lion upon the subject. The effect of the motion, therefore, would not be that which the mover sup• posed. Mr. DUNLOP supported the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that, in a matter which concerned the administra tion of affairs in Scotland, motives of economy ought not to govern the decision of the house. The question was whether the present system Wll3 wanting in the qualities of other branches of her Majesty's service. He denied that there was any deficiency of responsibility or of efficiency. The great objection to the motion was that the house had no evidence whatever that the people of Scotland were suffering in any degree from the system as it existed. After a few observations from Sir G. MONTGOMERY, Mr. BAXTER consented to adopt the amendment suggested by Mr. Stirling, and the resolution then stood in this form : That, in the opinion of the house, an Under-Secretary for Scotland should be appointed in the Home Office, to perform a part of the duties attached to the office of Lord Advocate. Upon a division this resolution was negatived by 174 to 47. POLICE Id IRELAND. Lord NAAS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to make better provision for the police force in Dublin and other towns in Ireland, acknowledged that the police force was a fine and well-trained body of men, who had conducted themselves, upon the whole, well, but specified certain objections to its constitution, more especially in Dublin and Belfast. It was proposed to abolish the local police force in those places, to amalgamate it with the constabulary, and to establish one uniform police system through out Ireland. He specified the details of the measure, including the expense, the manner in which it was to be defrayed, and the provisions made for abolice force for the smaller towns. After some remarks by Mr. J. Fitzgerald, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Gropn, and Mr. Vance, leave was given to bring in the bill. Lor 1 NAAS bad likewise leave to introduce a bill for the more effectual Administration of Justice in the Police District of Dublin Metropolis. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable persons to establish their legiti macy by the judgment of a court of law, and also to enable persons in like manner to establish their right to be regarded as natural-born subjects of Great Britain ; and to extend the jurisdiction of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. He explained the object and tenor of the measure. Leave was given. Mr. 11191Lutorr obtained leave to bring in a bill to secure the right of new trial in criminal cases. The orders of the day were then gone through, and the house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. EDINBURGH, &C., ANNUITY TAX BILL. Mr. BLACE, in moving that this bill be read a second time, said its object was to remove an enor mous grievance, the tax being not only extremely oppressive, but injurious to morals and religion, and especially to the Church of Scotland. When the tax was first proposed two centuries ago the grounds of its imposition were reasonable, but what was applicable at that day, when all were of the same creed, was inapplicable now. He insisted that the burden was not merely an oppressive one, but that it was partial in its incidents, and that it forced con sciences. As an evil and a wrong it ought to be abated, and although those who called int its re moval were not bound to provide an equivalent, the bill proposed that seat•rents and church•door collec tions should furnish a fund, or the principal part of a fund, as a substitute for this tax. Mr. BAXTER seconded the motion, contending that after the abolition of ministers' money in Ireland, which was a mitigated annuity tax, Scotland was entitled to be relieved from this burden. Mr. BLACKBURN observed that Mr. Black, although he had dwelt upon the grievance, had said little about the bill, which was an unjust measure, coming from the enemies of the Established Churc h, The substitutes proposed as a provision for the clergy were perfectly illusory. Seat-rents were objection able in their character, and would not be paid ; and church-door collections were entirely for charitable purposes. He moved to deter the second reading for six months. This amendment was seconded by Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. J. B. SMITH supported the bill as founded in justice. Mr. COWAN likewise gave it his cordial support. The tax, he said, was a highly aggravated and intolerable church rate, in its nature unjust and ob noxious. Mr. F. Scorn opposed the bill, considering that it involved a principle subversive of Church property, and destructive of the Establishment. Mr. GLLPIN supported it.. Thi.; tax, he said, could he defended only by the old arguments in favour of church rates and ministers' money. Mr. C. BRUCE spoke against the bill, the passing of which, he said, would be equivalent to the con. demnotion by Parliament of the principle of as Vaa•allslieUvrtalnt, Sir T. E. COLEBROOKE, though disposed to relieve the city of Edinburgh from an exceptional position, was not prepared, on the other hand, to place that city in a better position than any other city of Scot land. This was an attempt at a compromise, th terms of which might be adjusted in the committee,. The LORD ADVOCATE observed that the question resolved itself into this—whether the equivalent for the tax proposed by the bill was adequate and ample. It was agreed on both sides that this was a most nnfortimate mode of providing stipends for the clergy. He considered that it was an inexpedient mode, ar d no man would rejoice more than he at any measure being devised that should have the effect of abolishiug this obnoxious tax altogether, consistent with the providing a sufficient equivalent. He referred to the, attempts made from the year 1835 at a compromise which had been defeated, he said, mainly by those who did not desire to part with a grievance for a mere mitigation, but whose object was to infli ct a permanent and fatali blow upon the interests of the Established Church. This bill absolutely abolished this tax ; it did not propose, as former bills did, to dis tribute the charge over a wider area, and to take away the exemption of privileged classes, so as to make it fall lighter, but to abolish it altogether. He then proceeded to examine the expedients by which this bill proposed to supply an equivalent fund for the stipends of the city clergy. The surplus of seat rents would afford but a scanty supply ; creditors had securities over them, and the legal existence of the rents was a subject of litigation. If the church.door collections were diverted from their present charitable objects, what probability was there that they would remain at their present amount? He showed that the aggregate fund would greatly reduce the stipends ; but it was not merely the amount of the fund to which be objected, but the want of security. He was no enemy to the abolition of the tax, if it were com muted for a real equivalent ; and if he could only see his way to a satisfactory settlement of the question, nothing would, he said, be more gratifying to him than to propose such a settlement, but not upon the terms of an absolute abolition without an adequate equivalent. Lord DUNCAN supported the bill, and Mr. HORSHAM recommended the Lord Advocate to take warning from the fate of church rates, the incidents of which, and of ministers' money, con trasted favourably, he observed, with those of the Edinburgh Annuity Tax. He was prepared to vote for the second reading of the bill, the principle of which had been admitted in the case of church rates and ministers' money. A grievance was acknow ledged, and the assent to the second reading would not commit the house to the mode and amount of the equivalent, which were matters of detail. Upon a division, the amendment was carried by a single vote, the ayes for tho then second read. ing being 129 and the noes 130. The bill . is fore lost. The County Management Bill was read a second time. On the order for going into committee upon the Registration of County Voters (Scotland) Bill, Mr. G. DUNDAS moved to defer the committee fur six months. After a short discussion, this amendment was carried upon a division by 108 to 9(1; so this Lill is lost. On the order for the second reading of the lusu ranee and Assurance Institutions Bill, Mr. SHERIDAN desired to postpone the second reading until the 7th of July ; hut Mi. HENLEY recommended him to withdraw the bill altogether. This suggestion not being adopted, Mr. E6TCOURT moved to defer the second reading for six months. when tho a continued quarter to to six 0 amendment M r . 1a until debate stood adjourned. B % e l a o k Ck, UP°ll this The remaining orders were then gone th rou g h without debate, and the house adjourned at ten minutes to six o'clock HOUSE OF I.ORDS—Tiluismy. SLAVE TRADE. The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from St. Mary's, Jamaica, complaining of the continued violation by the Government of Spain of t he treaties by which that country is bound to suppress the slave trade to the island of Cuba, and praying that measures should be taken to compel Spain to fulfil the con ditions of those treaties. He described the engage ments Spain had entered into, at different periods, to suppress the traffic, notwithstanding which i t was still continued ; the importation of slaves was co°. demned by public opinion in Cuba; but the Captain-