The Press. — London, England, 1856-04-26 00:00:00

I 390 V rocubings in V arliaincut. CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, on Monday, in moving the second reading of this bill, explained that it dealt solely with the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The present form of process before the courts was so dilatory and expensive that a re form VIM imperatively called for. The bill pro posed that four ecclesiastical assessors should be appointed to supersede the vicars-general of the kingdom. The assessors to be nominated by two Irish and two English bishops, assisted by the Bishop of London. Upon appointment they were to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. The jurisdic tion of the court to extend to offences committed by clerks in holy orders, and the proceedings necessary to enforce a due administration of the Sacrament and of the rights and ceremonies of the Church. All proceedings under the act to be commenced within two years of the offence, while an appeal should be permitted from the diocesan to the provincial court, and from that court to the Court of Privy Council. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved that the bill be read again that day six months. The Bishop of DERRY supported the bill. The Bishop of EXETER strongly opposed the bill. The 15th clause withdrew all authority from the bishops to vest it in the archbishop; while the 16th authorised the Church to commit for contempt—the privilege it had at all times refused to receive. He regarded it as an ill-considered and miscalculated measure, involving an enormous expenditure for in adequate objects, derogatory to the bishops and de grading to the Church, which it would deprive of every power of independent action. The Bishop of BANGOR denounced the bill as " an abominable job." The Earl of HARROWBY defended the bill. The 15th and 16th clauses now objected to by the Bishop of Exeter were introduced to meet his ob jection last year to the want of such clauses in a f firmer bill. The bishop wished to get rid of the supremacy of the Crown by a side•wind. The ob jtctions to the bill were rather in detail than in p'inciple—and therefore should be considered in committee. The Earl of DERBY said this was no party ques tion. He had come there earnest to listen t ) argu ment and learn the truth. His impression had been to support the bill. Churcii discipline, as now administered, Ivas not satisfactory. The bishops were called upon to exercise their authority, but they had no power to carry it into effect. After listening to the Chancellor on the one side, and the Bishop of Exeter on the other, he had made up his mind that there was no use in discussing the bill. It could not pass through a committee. The ex penses, RS suggested by the Bishop of Exeter, were enormous, and would create a deficiency of 24,0001. to be made good. Hs would not consent to the bill. The Bishop of CASHEL supported the second reading. . _ _ The - Bishop of Orson]) said the spirit of the bill was subversive of the Church of England. The su• premacy of the bishop in his own diocese was a part of the Christian practice. The bill was objectionable in practice as in principle. It could not be re modelled—it must be rejected. Their lordships then divided— For the amendment Against it Majority against the Lord Chancel lor's bill -8 THE CIVIL SERVICE. Lord GODERICH, on Thursday, moved an address to the Crown expressing approval of the report pre• sensed by the Civil Service Commissioners, as well as of the improvements recently accomplished in the organisation of the public departments, and fur ther assuring her Majesty of full support and the necessary provision towards establishing and ex tending the system of competition among candidates for admission to the civil service. In support of his motion he argued, from the report of the commis sioners, that the partial competition now adopted in the civil service did not go far enough, as it appeared that between one•third and one fourth of the nomi nees had been rejected as unacquainted with the simplest rudiments of knowledge ; and he denied that in the nomination system any control over the moral qualifications of the candidates was necessarily exer cised. Enlarging the field of competition would open an avenue to honourable ambition, and offer an indirect but powerful stimulus to educa tion. Patronage, besides its influence upon our representative system, had an embarrassing effect upon the members of that house, whose relations with their constituents ought to rest, he observed, not upon the reciprocation of favours and benefits, but upon mutual confidence. ..... Sir S. NORTHCOTE seconded the motion, and in sisted that a much more efficient test of moral qua- THE PRESS. lifications might be provided under an open compe tition than by the personal responsibility of the nomination system. He remarked, however, that the commissioners had never intended to suggest that examinations should be made a title to promo tion as well as a test of admissibility in the civil ser vice. Functionaries once appointed should be left to the supervision, and advanced upon the recommen dation, of the heads of their several departments. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQVER said the question at issue was simply whether the principle advocated by Lord Goderich would or would not render the civil service more efficient than it was under the present system. That principle was open competition. The present system did not exclude competition, but it required a responsibility for the character of the candidate, which Lord Goderich would give up. The principle embodied an entirely new mode of making appointments, avoided by rail way companies and mercantile bodies. It must be carried into effect, not by an address, but by a bill. He should recommend the house to be content with the present system, at all events for another year. It worked well, as the returns proved, for out of 1,423 nominees, 463 were rejected by the commis sioners up to the 2lst inst. He moved the previous question. Mr. GLADSTONE thought the responsibility of heads of departments, upon which Sir G. Lewis lay so much stress, was a delusion and a stalking-horse. The house was not asked to throw open every ap pointment to competition. The motion was simply to pray her Majesty to make further trial of the com petitive principle. Mr. C. LUSHINOTON opposed the motion, contend ing that the proposal to adopt literary competition as a test for admission to the public service was im practicable and inexpedient. The discovery of a technical objection to his mo tion was here announced by Lord GODERICH, but, with the permission of the house, the resolution was withdrawn, and presented in the amended form— " That the house will, on Friday, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider an address to her Ma jesty." The debate was then resumed by Mr. W. EWART, who strongly approved of the prin ciple of open competition. The motion was also supported by Mr. Tite and Lord Ehrington it was opposed by Mr. J. G. Philli more and Lord R. Cecil. Mr. Ri e u advocated competition, because it stimu lated education, and superseded the system of patronage in the civil service. - Mr. LABOUCHERE thought competition within cer tain limits might be found useful ; but he called upon the house to pause before it expressed a pre ference for that principle in the abstract, and thus enforced its adoption on the Government in every department and under all circumstances. Lord GODERICH replied, when The house divided:— For the motion For the previous question Majority against the Government 21 THE NAVAL REVIEW. In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord RAVENSWORTH called the attention of the Govern ment to the total failure of the arrangements made by the Admiralty for the accommodation of the peers at the naval review. The plan of embarka tion at Southampton, the steamer appointed to their service, and the whole arrangements of the day were grossly defective. The suffering and inconvenience that alt were put to demanded some explanation from the Government. Earl GRANVILLE denied that the engines of the Transit were defective. The stokers had let the fire out, but that was no fault of the Government. Every inquiry should be made. Lord CAMPBELL acquitted the Government from being to blame for the late arrival at Southampton : But he must say that, though his noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty might not be personally responsible, there certainly was somewhere gross misconduct, by means of which they bad had to encounter a kind of Balaklava. ( Laughter.) It was clear that all that had happened, ex cept the breaking of the engine, was the result of miscon duct. The Transit weighed anchor, and two of his learned brethren, judges of the land, who were on board, were seen working at the capstan—(laughter)—and but for them the anchor would probably not have been got up. (Laughter.) There was goat reason to complain of the Transit. She had two engines, one of which was permanently disabled ; and with regard to the other, by the misconduct of those on board, the fires became extinct, and there was no steam. In the Commons, Mr. Stafford, Lord W. Poulett, Lord Stanley, Colonel North, Mr. H. Herbert, and Mr. Newdegate, expressed their strong disappro bation of the arrangements made the day previous for members by the Admiralty. The whole pro ceedings were characterised as discreditable to the Government. Lord PALMERSTON suggested the propriety of postponing the discussion till Sir Charles Wood re- SATURDAY, turned from Portsmouth, where he was then de tained. Mr. KENNEDY gave notice that at an early day he should move for a committee to inquire into the whole affair, and the subject dropped. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Sir F. BARING moved for a select committee "tO inquire into the receipt, issue, and audit of publi c moneys in the Exchequer, the Pay-office, and the, Audit Department." A lucid system of book-keeping and perfect accountability, ought, he urged, to be or ganised throughout every department in which the public money was expended. These requirements were very imperfectly fulfilled by the present ma chinery. In the first place, in the payment of publio money into the Exchequer, the Treasury, by a minute, had the power to abduct the money i t its progress to the Exchequer, a system he considered highly unsatisfactory. Then the sums issued for the public service were now constantly applied by the Treasury to any other service they might think fit. There was great irregularity and many diffetences also in the mode of auditing the public accounts, and in sonic parts of the system inquiry was abso lutely necessary. In the case of the Customs and Excise the whole or the greater part of the gross revenue was paid into the Exchequer, whence it was issued under votes of Parliament. These accounts were, he believed, ultimately audited by the Audit Board, but Parliament knew nothing of this audit. The civil-service votes were not even submitted to the Audit Board, and thus a large amount of expen diture, formerly audited by the Audit Board, bad been transferred to the departmental audit without the sanction of Parliament being asked in any shape. The motion was seconded by Mr. W. WlLLwis, and supported by Mr. GLADSTONE, who suggested, however, that the inquiry should be intrusted to a commission appointed by the Crown. The CHAN C ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied the existence of any irregularities in the Exchequer ac counts demanding special investigation. The sys tem of audit established over every branch of the public receipts and expenditure was now much mote perfect than at any previous time. He would not, nevertheless, oppose the appointment of a committee, or issue of a commission, if the house thought such a step expedient or useful. Lord PALMERSTON intimated his consent to the nomination of a committee, and the motion wai then agreed to. THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. PANIZZI. On Monday, on the house going into Committee of Supply, and a vote of 60,0001. for the British Museum being proposed, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES observed that the late appointment of Mr. Panizzi was not a judicious one. That gentleman was a foreigner, and his selection was a slight to our own literary men. He (Mr. Milnes) felt every desire to promote the vies of foreigners who had taken refuge in England; but this could not reconcile him to the appointment a Mr. Panizzi, instead of a distinguished literary man of our own country, to the post of librarian. He regarded the selection of Mr. Panizzi as an evidence that the government of the Museum was not satis factorily administered. The SPEAKER defended the selection of Jr. Panizzi. The circumstance of his being a fo reigner could be no disqualification. Of five gentle men who had held the office of chief librarian previous to Mr. Panizzi's appointment, two were foreigners. With regard to the question of patronage, he (the Speaker) was quite ready to say for his two colleagues (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor) and himself, that they had no ob jections whatever to be relieved of it, but as long as it was continued in their hands it would be exer cised for the benefit of the institution. Mr. IAYARD defended the appointment of Mr. Panizzi, but urged that some reform was required in the government of the Museum. Mr. DISRAELI defended Mr. Panizzi against what he designated as a personal attack upon him by Mr. Milnes, who had not, however, he observed, alleged a single objection to his selection except that he was a foreigner. In his (Mr. Disraeli's) opinion if the trustees had not appointed Mr. Panizzi to the post, they would have acted with great injustice and offered discouragement to meritorious public servants. _ Lord J. RUSSELL expressed surprise that Mr. Milner should have shown so little liberality as to consider a person, whose talents he had admitted, disqualified for this post because he was born out of England. Mr. MILNES reiterated his opinion, that tnis par ticular office should have been conferred upon a dis tinguished literary Englishman. The vote was then agreed to. BIBLICAL. REVISION. Mr. HEYWOOD, on Thursday, gave notice that on the 20th of May he would move an humble address to the Crown, praying for a Royal C om mission to inquire into tho state of the authorised version of tne Bible, and to prepare a plan for the revision of that ancient translation. I