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

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. Rieu 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 public
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 CHANCELLOR 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.

APRIL 26, 1856.

AUSTRIAN OCCUPATION OF PARMA.
The Earl of CIANRICARDE moved for copies of re-
ports and correspondence relating to the occupation
of Parma by Austrian troops and the assumption of
the Government of the Duchy by Austrian autho-
rities.
The Earl of CLARENDON was unable to lay on the
table any correspondence calculated to throw light on
the recent occurrences at Parma. By a convention
between the Governments of Parma and Modena
and Austria, the Duchies were entitled to call in the
aid of Austria in case of need. After the assassina-
tion of the late Duke of Parma and during the sub-
sequent disorders the Duchess declared the province
in a state of siege, and, according to the convention,
called in the aid of Austria; there had been no
special intervention by that power in consequence of
recent events4a; an Austrian battalion had been kept
i I Parma since 1849.

CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE ENLISTMENT CWESTION.
The Earl of CLARENDON, in reply to a question by
the Earl of Derby, stated that the papers on the
questions pending with America would be laid on the
table daring the next week.