The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 8, 1858. the Liturgy would give rise to no man could foresee the end. of which The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S also opposed the motion. Earl GREY admitted the necessity of some change, but trusted the motion would nut be pressed to a division. The Bishop of CASHEL disapproved any change not originated by a properly constituted body. The Earl of DERBY believed the alterations that would be expected from the appointment of a com mission would not be limited to the removal of trifling, and casual blemishes ; it would be anticipated that the commission would inquire into the merits and demerits of the whole Liturgy; anti to create such an impression would be a very serious incon venience. The alterations Lord E bury recommended might satisfy the wishes of a few anxious friends of the Church, but it was not to be expected they would satisfy the large body of Dissenters, who differed from the doctrines of the Establishment. A revision of the Liturgy would inevitably become a doctrinal question ; the changes would be discussed according to their bearing for or against particular doctrines, and the result would be differences even within the Church itself. He hoped the motion would not be pressed to a division, opposed as it was by nearly the whole of the Episcopacy, the great majority of the house, and, he believed, the best friends of the Church throughout the country. Earl GRANVILLE thought the discussion might be left to produce its effect Pn the public mind, but the motion could not be pressed with any result. After a few words from Lord ABINOLU, the motion was withdrawn. Their lordships then adjourned HOUSE OF COMMONS—TampAy. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. Hadfield, stated that there had been no revision of the stipulations which regulate the commercial relations of the Porte with other powers, or in the position of foreigners resident in Turkey, bat that in regard to both civil and commercial privileges the inhabitants of this country would rank with those of the most taw:tired nations. !l ess in this country to acquiesce in the existing pao hibition. he should support the bill. The LORD ADVOCATE said he should offer the strongest opposition to the bill. He did not, he said, press the theological argument, because it had been exhausted by Mr. Hope, but he should discuss the question as one of policy and expediency. He then weighed the evils of this alteration of the law against its alleged advantages, insisting that Lord Lvndhurst's Act was no alteration of the principle of the law, whereas the present bill was a novelty and an innovation. Mr. PULLER said be should not detain the house upon the social question, which he thought had been exhausted by the Lord Advocate. If the case rested solely upon social grounds, he admitted that much might be seid on both sides. He applied himself to the question of a Divine prohibition, and, confessing the difficulty which attended the construction of the authorized version of the text in Leviticus, he thought the real question was whether the house was competent, without further information, to decide off hand upon a disputed text that there was no such prohioition in the Bible. He suggested that it was the duty of the Government to issue a com mission to Hebrew scholars to ascertain the true construction of the text. Mr. MILNER supported the bill on behalf of the middle and lower classes, who, he said, broke and would continue to break a law which was repugnant to their moral sense. Mr. ARROYO also supported the bill, which would repeal a law which, he said, was habitually disre garded. Mr. Idsuss was constrained, he said, after full consideration, to give his support to the bill. He was satisfied that there was nothing in the theolo gical argument; that there was no scriptural pro hibition of these marriages ; and, looking at the differences of opinion and at the effects of the law as it bto,d, be thought it expedient to pass the bill. After a short reply from Lord BURY, the house divided, when the second reading of the bill was carried by 174 to 134. The other business having been gone through, the house adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Earl GE (NVILLE asked if the proclamation recently issued in India was approved by her Majesty's Go vernment? Ho understood a member of the Minis try bad stated in another place that the Government disapproved the proclamation. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH had no knowledge of what had passed in another place. He had had no communication with the gentleman who had referred to the proclamation, but concluded he was aware of the purport of the despatch on the subject. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) would lay the papers on the table to-morrow. The Customs Ditties Bill and the Excise Duties Bill were read a third time. THE LITURGY. Lord EenitY moved for an address to the Crown for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the necessity of a revision of the Liturgy of the Church of England. He contended that the lapse of nearly 300 years had rendered such a revision necessary ; it was desired by a large portion of the community, was desirable in itselr, and the means by which the alteration could be effected were safe and constitutional. He pointed out the defects of the present Liturgy, the chief of which were the extreme length of the form of prayer for morning seriice, and the repetitions it contained. There were two general exhortations and two general confessions ; the Sovereign and the clergy were each prayed for three times; the Ministry, the Houses of Parliament, and the magistracy, each twice, and the Lord's Prayer -was repeateu three times. The s erv i ce was thus rendered wear isome, especially when the Communion was administered. Similar objections applied to the other services. .Notwithst an di ng t h e Act of Un i form i ty, a l terat i ons In the Liturgy were, in practice, frequently made. There was not a prelate on the episcopal bench who had not broken the Act of Uniformity over and over again. It was argued that if they attempted any change in the Book of Common Prayer no one knew where they would stop; that great differences would arise, and there might be a disruption of the Church in consequence. But these dangers were net avoided by mending still. They could not be blind to the fact that a great disruption had already occurred; though a revision of the Liturgy might not heal all their differences, yet it, would tend to bring back to t h e Church many pious and estimable Nonconformi s t s ; they should therefore make the attempt. No change could be made before the whole blectshad pissed under tho consideration of the loyal Commission, Convocation, and both Houses of tartlet:nein; the means of effecting the revision would, theiefore, be perfectly constitutional The Archbishop of CANTERBURY objected to the propo sa l ; the attempt to introduce such changes in THE INDIAN PROCLAMATION. In answer to an inquiry by Mr. BRIGHT as to the authenticity of a proclamation by the Governor- General of India (a copy of which appears in our columns), announcing au intention to confiscate certain property in Oude, whether, if authentic, it had been issued in accordance with any directions from the Home Government., and, if not so issued, what steps the Government had taken, or meant to take, regarding it, Mr. 13.tru.te said that three weeks ago the Govern ment had received a despatch containing a procla mation, which he believed to be the one referred to ; that it was immediately taken into consideration, and a despatch was written expressing the views of her Majesty's Government with reference to it, and there was no objection to copies of both documents being laid before the house. The proclamation had not been issued in consequence of any directions of the Home Government. Mr. BRIGHT wished to know the tenor of the answer of the Government. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Government in their despatch disapproved the policy of the proclamation in every sense. TENANT RIGHT. Mr. GBEER moved fora select committee to inquire into the nature, origin, and extent of the tenant right custom in Ireland, the recent violations of it in the northern counties, and to report how far it may be practicable to protect, for the benefit of the. occu pying tenants, the property created under that custom. In support of the motion he entered very fully into the reasons for protecting this right, as re garded not only the interests of landlords and tenants, but those of the public at large, inasmuch as it would enlarge the market for labour. He wished, he said, only for inquiry how far it was in the power of the Legislature to recognize the right consistent with the rights of property. Lord HAAS observed that ample information with regard to this question might he found in the library of the house. The custom in Ulster was so variable, and depended upon so ninny circumstances, that it was out of the power of Parliament to deal with it. Not only would legislation upon this subject be im • practicable, but the attempt would, in his opinion, be undesirable, and he thought no pool could result from the appointment of a committee. After some remarks from Mr. Macartney, Mr. C. Fortescue, and Mr. P. O'Brien, the motion was negatived upon a division by 232 to 43. COUNTY FRANCHISE OF Mr. CAM) moved for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. He showed the disparity of the two franchises, and that the county constituency in Scotland was narrowed to the landlords and tenant farmers (the artizan population being mum franchised) ; and the tenants, he said, being always expected to vote with their landlords, the Scotch county members were practically returned by the landed aristocracy. He was aware that the proposed assimilation would grewly enlarge the county con stituency of Scotland ; but this, in his opinion, was a recommendation of the measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cowsm. Mr. MONCRIEFF opposed the motion. He was at a loss, he said, to understand how the assimilation was to be accomplished; if the object was to intro duce into Scotland the 404. freehold franchise, with all its incidents, characteristics, and effects, this, he contended, was impossible. bir. Caird had not said what classes be proposed to enfranchise, and there was no large amount of small tenements capable of receiving the 40s. franchise separately. He pointed out various objections to the messure, which, in his opinion, would not improve the county constituency of Scotland, but would check the progress of liberal and enlightened opicions;and give greater scope to the influence of power and money. Mr. BAXTER recommended Mr. Caird to withdraw the bill, and move for a select committee to consider the whole subject. Mr. C. BaucE opposed the motion, which was sup ported by Mr. BOWYER. Mr. E. ELLICE, though he recommended Mr. Card not to proceed with his bill, did not resist its introduction. The LORD ADVOCATE said he believed that the bill was the result of an entire misconception on the part of the promoters of the movement in which it originated, who supposed that it was possible to effect an assimilation between the county franchise of England and Scotland, which had been demon strated by Mr. Moncrieff to be an impossibility. • , --"oration he enforced and amplified, showing at the same time the ill effects of an attempt at assimilation, in extending the means of creating votes. Sir T. K COLEBROOKE supported the motion, with certain reservations. Colonel SYKES and Mr. PEASE spoke in favour of the bill. Mr. WHITESIDE observed that if the 40s. freehold franchise was to be extended to Scotland because it existed in England, it ought by a parity of reason ing to be restored in Ireland, where it had been extinguished by the Legislature for very sufficient reasons. The discussion was continued by Mr. Calcutt, Mr. Craufard, Mr. Steuart, and other members. Lord ELM) thought the house would stultify itself by assenting to the introduction of a bill for an object which bad been demonstrated to be im possible. . . . Mr. CAIRD having replied, the motion was nega tived by 103 to 84. CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Mr. Pass?, in moving a message to the Lords for a copy of the opinions of the judges in the case of " Cooper v. Slade," putting an interpretation upon the Corrupt Practices Act, drew attention to the state of the law relative to travelling expenses at elections. Mr. Sergeant DEASY dwelt upon the serious effects of the decision as to the past as well as the future, and urged that, for the sake of candidates and con stituents, there should be a spzedy alteration of the law. Mr. WALPOLE stated that the subject had been under consideration, and it was his intention to submit to the house certain amendments of the act, adding that, in his opinion, such expenses, when bunk fide, ought to be legalized. After some remarks by Mr. Frrzoznum and Mr. V. Smrrn, the motion was agreed to. DURHAM COUNTY PALATINE JURISDICTION BILL. On the order for the second reading of this bill, Mr. A. SMITH suggested that the jura regalia to be transferred to the Crown should pass to the Crown as guardian of the public, and be transferred to the Commissioners of the Admiralty, and not to the Board of Land Revenue. Mr. G. HAMILTON intimated that the question would be better discussed in the committee on the bill. Some remarks were made by Mr. ATHERTON and Mr. INGHAM, and the bill was read a second time. PROPERTY QDALITICATION BILL. Mr. L. KING moved the second reading of this bill, briefly referring to the anomalies of the law of qualification, and the frequency of its evasions. Mr. BENTINCK observed that the object of the law was sound and right thst persona should not be members of that house shuse financial position rendered it inconvenient to them to devote the;r time to its business, and that they should be placed above temptation. Mr. MILEs had no difficulty in assenting to the second reading of the bill. Mr. GRIFFITH anti Major EDWARDS made a few remarks. _ Mr. WALPOLE thought the inc present law was a strong objection notorious evasion of it rendered A ;onsisteney of tte to it, and that the it a great sham.