The Press. — London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

MAY 23, 1857 opinion that the bill did not go far enough. One objection he had to the bill was its great inequality between the two sexes. He called upon their lord ships to do justice. The more their lordships con• sidered this part of the measure the more they would be satisfied of the unsoundness of the argument urged against women who applied fors divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. But if their lordships could not concur in that sug gestion, he hoped they would allow wilful desertion to be a sufficient ground for a divorce. By deserting his wife, the man violated the very purposes for which marriage was instituted. He could not con cur with the Lord Chancellor in postponing the action of trim. con. till after the divorce, because in many cases the injured party would be unable to obtain a divorce by reason of the expense, and the consequence would then be that he would have no action at all against the adulterer. Lord WENSLEYDALE said that, for the sake of the good the measure contained, he would not oppose the second reading, but he had some misgivings as to how the measure would work. The Earl Of MALMESBURY would not oppose the second reading, but in committee would propose a clause to prevent the guilty parties intermarrying. The Duke of NORFOLK should oppose the bill at every stage. Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill. Lord DUNGANNON moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. — The Bishop of SALISBURY said it was true our blessed Lord did permit separation, but no sanction was given in the New Testament to divotce a vincula matrinwnii. He would urge their lordships to sweep away the privilegia which they were in the custom of granting, and put themselves in this respect on a level with the poor man. The Bishop of BANGOR opposed the bill. The Bishop of LIANDLer said, although he could not vote for the amendment, there were some por tions of the bill to which he should object in com mittee. The Bishop of DURHAM supported the bill. The Bishop of OXFORD entered very elaborately into the scriptural argument on the subject of mar riage and divorce, and said that, after having studied the matter, he was the more strongly brought to the conclusion at which he had arrived when the subject was formerly discussed by their lordships. lie objected to the bill because he thought it was dealing with a most grave subject in a most imperfect manner. The bill came before them under false pretences, because it assumed to give to the poor man the same law as it gave to the rich, but which it was impossible it could do. The Bishop of LONDON altogether disagreed with the Bishop of Oxford, and felt himself fully entitled to give his hearty approval of the bill. Their lordships divided, when the second reading was agreed to by a majority of 29—the numbers bring 47 for and 18 against the measure. Their lordships adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES IN SHEEP AND CATTLE. On the motion of Mr. BENTINCK, leave was given to bring in a bill to amend an act passed in the session 11th and 12th Victoria, chap. 107; also to amend an act passed in the session 10th and 17th Victoria, chap. 82; also to amend an act passes' in the session 19th and 20th Victoria, chap. 101, entitled, "An Act to continue certain Acts to prevent the spreading of contagious or infectious disorders among s'neep, cattle, and other animals." The bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time. ELECTION PETITIONS. Petitions against the return of members were presented from Dublin (city), Lisburne, and Bury St. Edmund's, and were referred to the General Committee of Elections. AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL. Sir G. GREY, in moving, by way of amendment, to defer the second reading for six months, observed that, while the bill proposed to reduce the maximum imprisonment from six months to two, it empowered magistrates clothed with summary jurisdiction to add the punishment of whipping, and that this would be the only instance. in which whipping would be in flicted, without the intervention of a jury, upon adult males. He thought the law as it now stood operated beneficially. Mr. DILLWYN defended the bill. Upon a division the second reading was negatived by 221 to 86, and the bill consequently thrown out. MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND). Mr. FAGAN, in moving the second reading of the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill, gave a succinct history of the question from the date of the impo sition of the tax in the reign of Charles 11. He then adverted to the funds at the disposal of the Eccle siastical Commissioners (103,0001. a year), which were, he said, annually increasing, and he contended that, although the expenditure was wasteful, there was THE PRESS. an ample surplus out of which to pay this charge (12,500/. a year) of ministers' money. The principle, he maintained, had been conceded when Sir John Young's Act passed in 1854, although that measure was a compromise. Mr. NAPIER moved to defer the second reading for six months. The principle of the bill, he argued, violated the rights of property and contravened the settlement of the Irish Church question contained in the Church Temporalities Act, which was under stood to be final and complete, and it had hitherto been resisted by every Government. He insisted that ministers' money was a tax upon property, and that it belonged to the united Church by as good a title as that by which any landed proprietor held his estate ; and that a Roman Catholic taking property liable to the tax took it subject to the charge. Was the debtor to be relieved, h• asked, because he was a Roman Catholic, and the creditor a Protestant ? Some of the proprietors subject to this charge, how ever, were wealthy Protestants. He protested against the application of what was termed the sur plus of the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to this tax ; that fund was subject to certain trusts, and the first claimant upc.n Church property was the Church itself. He cont .nded that Sir John Young's Act was an equitable adjustment of the question, and that the funds of tho Ecclesi astical Commissioners were insufficient for the pur poses to which they were properly applicable. If we really have a united Church, let the same rule that Church property is sacred property be applied to the Irish Church as to that of England. Sir G. GREY said the real practical question was, whether, when the objects in the contemplation of Parliament at the time when the Ecclesiastical Corn. mission was established had been satisfactorily provided for, it would not be better that the charge upon the towns subject to it should not be paid out of the funds in the hands of the Commissioners, thereby contributing to the efficiency of the Estab• lished Church in those towns, than to prolong a series of litigation and nourish a spirit of ? ment, he insisted, had adopted the principle of this bill in the Act of 1855, under which the greater portion of the tax had been actually paid by the Ecclesiasdcal Commissioners, the funds in whose hands, be believed, had augmented to an amount amply sufficient to defray this tax. . Mr. WiirrestnE said it was a poor argument in favour of this measure that, having conceded some thing, everything must be given up. The tax was originally imposed by a lawful authority and for a good purpose, and why, he asked, was this charge upon property, which had never been abused, to be repealed? With the measure, in his belief, was bound up the maintenance of church rates in Eng land, of the annuity tax in Scotland, and the appro priation of the whole ecclesiastical properties in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman then, in an able speech, reviewed the manner in which this question had been dealt with by Mr. Horsman, and complained that the Irish Government had encou raged agitation respecting it, instead of enforcing the payment of the tax, which if they hail been firm, he said, would have been paid. It was only a debt which those who had justly incurred it did not wish to pay. Mr. HORSMAN vindicated the course be had taken with reference to this question, and the pledge given by the Government in the last Parliament, which, he contended, was perfectly consistent with the sup port they gave to this bill. Sir F. THESIGER said he called this a question of property, for Lord Palmerston in 1851 had distinctly given that character to it ; and the Churches of England and Ireland being, by the Act of Union, inseparably bound up together, the question con cerned the rights of both. This tax was originally laid upon property, and no proposition had ever been entertained by any Government for the repeal of this tax without a substitute being suggested. This had been admitted by Sir J. Young, whose act recognised this as a charge upon property, removing all objec tions to it for the sake of making it a permanent tax. The principle of this bill, if carried out, must extend to other subjects ; the consequence of passing it would be to establish the principle that property was no longer to be held sacred and inviolable. Lord J. Russell, observed that it appeared to him that the measure could he justified upon one simple ground. The Act of Iti33 took away a church revenue amounting to 70,000/. a year, and charged it upon another fund, on the ground that the church cess was vexatious and oppressive and kept up hostility to the Established Church, and it appeared to him that this impost of 12,0001. a year was liable to the same object►on, being vexatious and oppressive. The only question then was, whether the Ecclesias- tical Commissioners had sufficient funds at their disposal to meet this charge, and he was of opinion that they had. Mr. WALPOLF. reminded Lord J. Russell that the conclusion to which he had come was diametrically opposed to that upon the subject of church rates, and expressed his confidence that the principle of 499 this bill, if acted upon, would lead into difficulties which Lord John would be the first to lament. He thought, if this bill passed, it would furnish a power ful argument to those who wished to repeal the Maynooth grant, and he maintained that until the trusts attached to the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were satisfied there would be no sur plus applicable to this charge. Lord PALMERSTON trusted that the house would consider this question upon its owl' merits, and not be led to combine it with other measures. All must admit, lie said, that this tax was objectionable, and attempts had been made to mitigate its evils. He believed the bill of 1851 had introduced a great im provement by placing the reduced stipends of the clergymen upon the funds of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners. But experience had shown that the ex periment had not completely succeeded. Those funds were amply sufficient to bear the charge of 12,000/. a year, and, with the view of putting an end to heart burnings and dissension, he thought it was expedient to place it permanently on those funds. Upon a division the second reading was carried by 313 to 174. THE mruru. Sir J. RAMSDEN, in reply to Major Sibthorp whether it was the inten►.ion of her Majesty's Government to call up any of the militia regiments for training this year, and if so, what regiments and at what period, said that it was not possible at present to give an answer to the gallant member's question, inasmuch as until Parliament had decided what sum should be granted for the expenses of the militia for the year the Government could not say what regiments should be called out for training. With regard to the latter part of the question, in the month of March last the War office had sent a circular to all the lord-lieutenants, intimating to them that no militia regiments would be called out for training until September, after the harvest had been got in. The report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to. The remaining business having been disposed o the house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY. On the motion of Mr. DUNLOP, to which the Lord Advocate assented, the Registration of Long Leases (Scotland) Bill was read a second time. Mr. ADDERLEY moved the order for going into committee upon the Industrial Schools Bill. Lord GODERICH moved to defer the committee for three weeks, but this amendment was ultimately withdrawn, and the bill committed pro foroui, to be reprinted with amendments. Tho house then went into committee upon the Judgments Execution, Ice., Bill, and was occupied in the discussion of its details during tha remainder of the sitting, the Chairman being ordered to report progress. ELECTION PETITIONS. Petitions were announced against the returns for Finsbury, Lambeth, Bodmin, Dover, Weymouth, Oalway, Bath, and Cashel. They were referred to the General Committee on Elections. The house adjourned at six o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tat:rummy. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to a question from Viscount Melgund, stated that, in consequence of the want of time, the Government did not intend to introduce a bill on the subject of national education in Scotland during the present session, but he hoped that in the next session they would be able to bring in a measure which would be satisfactory to all parties. PORT OF DUBLIN. Mr. VAxcE moved that the house resolve itself into a committee in order that he might obtain leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain duties on ships entering the port of Dublin, and other imposts affect ing its trade and commerce. Although this appeared to be a matter of local interest, he observed, it was really one of general concern, and he insisted upon the absurd, ridiculous, and unfair character of some of the charges upon ships entering the harbour of Kingstown. Mr. LOWE explained the peculiar circumstances of this case, which, he said, induced the Government to think it their duty to resist the motion . The dues referred to by the hon. member amounted to about 3,000/. a year, the whole of which amount was ap propriated to the Consolidated Fund, as interest for the advances which that fund had made, amounting to 314,0001., for the repair and improvement of Kingstown harbour. Besides this, the imperial Government paid yearly to the Ballast Board of Dublin 2,)001. for certain differential duties. Of this sum the hon. member said nothing. Contenting himself with seeking to get rid of the liability to pay interest for money advanced , he made no offer to give up annual payments made for the benefit of the city which he represented. He certainly could not consent to the motion before the house. Lord PALMERSTON was quite willing to make a com promise with the bon. member, and if the bon. gentleman would undertake to support the Govern• I