The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

THE PRE S S, APRIL 24, 1858.

for the country, he said, a change of policy took
place. He contended, also, that the shorter Parlia-
ments were made, the less expensive would be the
elections, and that it was no answer to his argument
to say that, on an average, Parliaments were at
present triennial, since they often lasted five and six
years.
Mr. WALPOLE observed that Mr. Cox had not read
the parliamentary annals with sufficient accuracy,
and had mistaken the sittings of Parliament for new
elections of Parliament :

The Act of Edward 111., which provided that Parliaments
were to sit once annually, did not relate to the choice of
members. The hon. member had quoted history for the
purpose of showing that in the reigns of Henry IV., Henry
V., and Henry VI., Parliaments were frequently held, but
if the hon. member would turn to the history of those reigns
he would find that Parliaments were not frequently chosen.
In the reign of Henry VIII., which lasted some thirty.
eight years, the hon. member would find that one Parlia-
ment sat for six years, during which time the greater
monasteries were destroyed. In the reign of Mary, the
summonses to which the hon. member had referred were
not for new Parliaments, but new sittings of Parliament.
In the reign of Edward VI. one Parliament sat for five
years. In the reign of Elizabeth, the Parliament of 1552
was nit dissolved till 1585, and during that period it sat
twenty-five times. He might go through the reigns of
James I. and Charles I. for the purpose of showing that
from the first statute quoted by the honourable member
down to the act passed in the Long Parliament, in the
reign of Charles 1., there was not an instance of law or
usage establishing the proposition that Parliaments were to
be annually elected.
When Mr. Cox called the Septennial Act a violation
of the Constitution, he forgot, he said, that if the
Parliament of George I. had simply repealed the
Triennial Act, there was nothing in the common law,
the constitutional law, or the statute law, to prevent
its sitting during the whole reign of the King. The
question was, whether the extension of the duration
of Parliaments from three years to seven, which
would have been otherwise unlimited, was wise, and
on the whole best, and he entered somewhat fully
into the reasons which led him to affirm this pro•
position. Since the legislation of the country, he
observed, bad improved under the Septennial Act,
the authority of the house had not been lowered, and
it had been brought by it more into harmony with
the other branch of the Legislature, he hoped the
house would pause before it repealed the act, and
reverted to a measure which had failed.
Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 254
to 57.

INDIAN RAILWAYS.

Mr. LIDDELL called attention to the delay that had
occurred in the construction of railways in India, and
moved the appointment of a select committee to in-
quire into the subject.
Mr. BAILLIE thought that no great advantage could
be derived from an inquiry ; he believed that the
railways were going on as fast as could be expected,
considering the vastness of the works, and be co Id
not consent to a motion that would imply an unde-
served censure.

After some further conversation, the motion was
agreed to without a division.
Mr. Sergeant DEASY obtained leave to bring in a
bill to promote and regulate reformatory schools for
juvenile offenders in Ireland.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to amend the law for the registration of the
county voters in Scotland.

GALWAY DISIMANi

On the order for going into committee on the Gal-
way Freemen Disfranchisement Bill,
Mr. WALPOLE said the bill did not deal equal
justice to all; it confounded the innocent freemen
with the guilty, and, while it disfranchised the
bribed, it did not meddle with the briber. In order

to enable the committee to deal with the whole case
it would be necessary, he observed, to give the com-
mittee an instruction, of which be read the terms.
After pointing out the difficulties and embarrass-
ments with which the measure would be beset in
committee, and the manner in which these cases had
heretofore been dealt with by the house in three
classes of precedents, he stated his own conclusion,
that there were only two courses which the house
could take—either to refuse to go into committee
altogether, or to adopt the instruction lie proposed,
and then postpone the further consideration of the
case. He concluded by moving the instruction em-
powering the committee to include the purchasers
of votes.

The debate was continued by Lord Lovaine, Mr.
Sergeant Deasy, Mr. Maguire, and Mr. J. 1). Fitz-
gerald.

Upon the instruction being put from the chair, '
Lord PALMERSTON said he could not concur in it,
but would simply support the bill for disfranchising
the voters among whom corrupt practices bad pre-
vailed.

Mr. ROEBUCK remarked that there was an old saying
to the effect that what was sauce for the gooso was
saw* for the gander, but that it seemed the noble
lord the member for Tiverton desired to eat those
different birds with different sauces

ON

Upon the one side, in the case of Galway, were the
bribed—the poor, the many. and the unfortunate. They
were to be punished wbo:esule under the operation of ihe
bill which the noble lord had announced it to be his inten•
tion to support. Upon the other side there was a set of
men by is horn those poor people had been bribed, and la
their behalf the noble lord was ready to come forward and
to say, " Do you not recollect we have given those men
indemnity?" that indemnity ought to be extended to the
poor bribed; but, exclaimed the noble lord, " We punish
them wholesale. That is no punishment at all." lie
should wish to know what was the meaning of a principle
such as that? Why, it was as plain as the sun at noonday,
when there was no cloud. The fact was that the poor, the
many, and the unfortunate were to be disfranchised fur the
purpose of placing the borough in the hands of the bribers.
Now, to take that course would be to commit an act of in.
justice, not only against the parties concerned, but against
the county itself.

Upon a division the instruction) was carried by
10 to 121.

Colonel FRENCH then moved to defer the committee
for six months.

Lord PALMERSTON, though he had voted against
the instruction, could not consent to get rid of
the bill.

The house having again divided, the amendment
was negatived by 226 to 51, and the house went into
committee upon the bill, when the Chairman was
ordered to report progress after a short conversation
as to the mode of proceeding.
Some further business having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY,
CHURCH RATES.
At the mid•dny sitting the motion for going into
committee was resisted by _

I

Mr. Pacxe, who moved an amendment deferring
the committee for six months. He denied that the
opposition to the rate was founded on conscientious
principles, and referred to the rejection of Sir W.
Oa) and other advocates of its repeal at the last
elections as proving that their view of the question
was not supported by public opinion.
Mr. K. SEYMER seconded the amendment.
Mr. HUGESSEN supported the bill. It was, he
contended, discreditable to the Established Church
to argue that the fabric of its edifices could not be
maintained except by a compulsory rate levied partly
upon dissenters. The controversy had been argued
entirely as a question of principle, and he repudiated
the assertion that the agitation against church rates
bad been based upon " pocket objections."
The bill was also defended by Mr. PUGH.
Mr. K. SEYMER, while disapproving of the total
abolition of the church-rate system, advocated the
compromise by which every man who acknowledged
himself a dissenter would be enabled to claim ex
emption. He thought that the Legislature should
prescribe the precise purposes to which the rite
should be applied, or the classes by whom it should
be paid.
Sir G. GREY objected to any arrangement in which
it would be possible to revive the impost in places
where it had been once abolished.
Lord J. MANNERS was anxious to obtain an
amicable settlement of the controversy, an object
which he feared the present measure was calculated
to frustrate.
Lord H. VANE believed that the present state of
the law on the subject was most unsatisfactory, and
that the question was ripe for permanent adjustment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
that, as Mr. Puller had put an amendment urn the
paper (proposing a substitute for the rates by a rent•
charge upon land) which deserved the serious con-
sideration of the house, and as that amendment
could not be discussed in the committee, and the
amendment of Mr. Packe would rescind a decision
of the house, the latter amendment should be with-
drawn.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with Mr. Disraeli, and
thought that Mr. Puller's amendment would afford
the means of settling the question.
After an unsuccessful attempt by Mr. Steuart to
obtain a hearing, the SPEAKER put the question in
the ordinary form, that the words of the original
motion proposed to be left out by the amend-
ment should stand part of the question, and, no
negative being uttered, apparently through lapse of
attention or misapprehension by the dissentients, be
declared that the " ayes" had it, and the house went
into committee upon the bill, Mr. Puller being
thereby precluded from moving his amendment.
Upon the first clause of the bill,
Sir A. Eurote moved an amendment, the effect of
which was to suspend the operation of the bill fur
three years.
This amendment, after a long discussion, was
negatived.
Lord R. Cecm moved an amendment of the same
.
clause, confining the operation of the bill to cities
and boroughs.
Sir G. LEWIS objected that this amendment
not carry out the principle in view, it being tect c
in one respect and too narrow iu another, and 11a
burested tbat thu Propositions of Sir Grey fur
9

•mending Sir W. Clay's bill embodied the principle
in a more practical form.
The amendment was ultimately withdrawn.
Mr. LYGON moved that the chairman report pro-
gress.
This motion, upon a division, was negatived by
340 to 104.
It being now past a quarter to six o'clock, the
further proceedings of the committee were, by rule,
adjourned.
The remaining orders were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY.
The Earl of MALMESBURY laid on the table addi-
tional papers relating to the capture of the Cagliari.
OATHS BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST moved the second reading of the
Oaths Bill. He explained that the objection for-
merly male to a similar measure by the Earl of
Dairy, that the question of the Oath of Abjuration
and that of the removal of the disabilities of the
Jews were mixed up together, was obviated in the
present measure. The two questions were separated,
and stood by themselves. On each of them the
house could come to a distinct vote. The portions
of the Oath of Abjuration referring to the supposed
descendants of the Pretender were cancelled, and
the rem cinder of it, referring to the succession,
s premacy, and all?giance, formed one oath, to
which the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
were annexed. The question of the disability of
the Jew was raised on the fifth clause, by which
it was provided that on the oath being administered
to a Jew the words "on the true faith of a
Christian " might be struck out. In committee
on the bill it would be competent for any noble
lord to move the omission of the fifth clause,
and thus the whole question of the Jewish dis•
abilities would be distinctly raised. He thought
any discussion till the next stage of the bill would be
unnecessary.
The Earl of Dsszy saw no objection to modifying
the existing form of the oaths, and omttting those
portions of them which had become obsolete. He
should not, therefore, object to the second reading
of the bill. But, as to the clause removing the
disabilities of the Jews, he bad heard nothing to
change the opinion be had formerly expressed; and
he must say, with some regret, but without hesita-
tion, that he could not take a different course as to
the present measure. If the omission of the fifth
clause were moved in committee, he should support
the motion.

Earl GREY recommended the Earl of Derby to
follow with regard to this question the example of
the Duke of Wellington on the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts.

The hill was then read a second time, and their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tatramtr.

DR. BERNARD.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to inquiries by
Me. Roebuck and Sir R. Bethell, who desired to
know whether the charge of murder was made on
the authority of the law officers of the Crown, en-
tered into a history and an explanation of the pro.
ceedings against Dr. Bernard, and stated that, after
his acquittal upon the capital charge, and after con.
sidering the whole of the evidence in the power of the
Crown, it appeared to him that to proceed with the
prosecution and put Dr. Bernard again upon trial
for conspiracy would be a violation of a well known
maxim of law, and therefore the charge would be no
further proceeded with.
Sir R. &Tagil, pressed for a more explicit:answer
to his question, as to whether the later proceedings
had been taken under the direction of her Majesty's
present law officers ; but
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined to give any
other answer than that for all that had been done,
either before the police magistrate, at the Old
Bailey, or elsewhere, since the present Government
came into office and be became Attorney-General, he
Ftood there personally responsible, and was ready at
all times to vindicate himself.
Subsequently, in answer to a question put by Mr.
Sergeant KINGLAKE upon the same subject,
Mr. WALPOLE said, in the proceedings against Dr.
Bernard no step whatever had been taken without
the assistance and advice of the Attorney-General.
THE COUNTY FRANCHISE IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. CURD gave notice that on this day fortnight
ne should call the attention of the house to this
subject, and propose a resolution expressive of the
opinion of the house that a 40s. county franchise
ought to be given to the people of Scotland.
Mr. Wise moved a resolution, " That the diplo-
in atie salaries and pensions now charged upon the
Consolidated Fund should be brought under the
Mora immediate view and control of Parliament,
and be paid out of a vote annually provided by the
House of Commons for the purpose." After passing
au uufavourable sentence upon diplomacy and mia•
41°131,A0 dieouesekt tbe Aasaci4,l part of tbo goes-