New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-06-18
GREAT BRITAIN.


JOHN BWGHT-THE PETITION OF NOVA
SCOTIA REJECTED
LONDON, June lin the House OF Commons on
Tuesday night an interesting debate took place on
the petition Of the people of Nova Scotia against the
Canadian Union act. Mr.. John Bright moved that
n commission he appointed TO inquire into the causes
Of the discomfort in Nova Scotia in consequence Of the
operation of the act Of Confederation Mr. Bright sup
ported his motion with a speech, in which he de-
cared that an investigation into this matter could
not be otherwise than advantageous. II 1t was re-
fused the people of Nova Scotia would feel that they
were victims of a policy with which they did not
and could not sympathize. Such refusal would in
crease their hostility to Canada estrange them from
England and give powerful stimulus TO
their sympathy with the United States. Justice
and generosity to the people of Nova Scotia, de
manded this inquiry. The Ministry would be greatly
10 blame should any untOward event result from
refusal 10 grant this demand. Mr.. William f. Bax
ter member for MOntTose seconded the motion made
BY Mr. Bright. The right honorable e. b. Adderley
Under-Secrctary Of the Colonial Department rose to
reply for the Government lie acknowledged that
discomfort prevailed in the Province of Nova Scotia.
He took occasion TO deny the correctness of state
ment made by Mr. Bright in speech on the 18th of
last May TO the effect that the passage of the Cana
dian Union act in Parliament here was not final,
but merely preliminary 10 It's confirmation by
the acts of the Legislatures of each of tho Proyin-
ces concerned. The right honorable gentlemen con
tnued by declaring that the appointment OF tins
Commission Of Inquiry would be great evil, and
would be considered an insult by the Dominion OF
Canada. lie informed the House that steps had been
taken by the Government TO aay the present feel
ing IN the North American Provinces. He said that
this feeling was not so bitter had been represented
o,ft ha "A
Ottawa had since been approved of by Nova Scotia,
and whatever discomfort still existed would
RAPIDLY disappear as the people of that province had
no reason now TO apprehend an increase of taxation
or expenditure After further discussion division
of the House took place on Mr. Brghts motion, and
resulted as follows: For the Commission of Inquiry,
81 against. 1888 majority against 90.
THIRD READING OF THE IRISH CHURCH BILL.
Later in the evening the Irish Church Appoint
ments Suspensory bill was passed TO third reading
THE IRISH CHURCH QUESTION.
In the House of Commons, on the 9Th OF June,
Oh the order Of the day for going into Committee on
Mr. Gladstones bill being read,
Mr. Sinclair Aytoun moved instruction TO the Com
mtee provide the tenure OF all offices In the Col
iege OF Maynooth put the same footing the bill
and that money shall be payable after the passing OF
the bill 10 the trustees OF Mayooth for the support Of stu
dents Mr. Aytoun supported his instruction by the ar'
gnment OF religious equality, and the House Of Com.
mons had pronounced in favor Of disendowing the
Protestant establishment the Roman Catholics OF Ireland
ought also 10 be deprived Of oil aid from the state
Col Grevie Nugent, who maintained that TINS lnstruc
ton would put Stop altogether the College OF May
nooth whereas Mr.. Gadstone's bill only temporarily
suspended the appointments in the Irish Church. moved
as counter proposition that every official appointed 10
Maynooh after the passing OF this bill snail hod oco
subject to the pleasure Of Parliament
Mr.. Gladstone objected TO the instruction that II was
both large and too small 10 applied stronger meas
10 MaynoOth than to the Protestant Church. for IN
under his bill function would
TO discharged usual pending the ultimate decision
Parliament while under this instruction the entrance
and IL small t did not extend TO the re-
cipents ~ the Re1iuD DonuBi He admitted, however
both In the Maynooth Grant and the Regum Donnh
ought to be stopped but it had never been usual TO
do this by statute where The vested right Iesteu
property but annual votes or act 0f Parlia-
ment he argued that the action ought to be by notice
from the Executive and he therefore pressed the Govern
ment for some expression OF opinion In the matter
There was response. however. to this appeal from
Mr. Newgats, the instruction was rejected on u's'on
by 1855 10 100 - -
Col Grevle NuRent convinced by Mr.. Gladstone's ar
gunent that unnecessary to give Parliamentary
warning to the officials OF haynooth, offered TO wthdrs"
his amendment, but A.,
Mr. Gladstone renewed his demand for intimation
Of opinion from the Government, and thus pressed,
Mr. Hardy replied that, though the Government hsu no
desire 20 interfere this stage he did not OBJECT 10 say
That. notice ought To In given 70 Ine mayhooh
professors he would support the amendmenr , Oh n
Some Observations made by MT Coga anu OH "
Bowyer and ultimately the instruction OF ool dreylle
H,Rent EXTENDED the suggestion OF sr George utey
SO as apply 81 the recipients OF the Rega Doh"D' as
web as Of the siasDoo,h Grant was agreed 70 ~,
There short discussion on a motion Dy MT new
degate ~ onmnAt the Bill that day SIX months, but
was not pressed and the BILL passed Opp0sed throughf
Committee with no other amendment than new clause
To give effect 90 the Instruction just agreed 10.
uIiE CASE OF EX-GOVERNOR EYRE;
In the House of Commons on the 9TH OF June
Mr. Lamont who had given notice OF the following
motion That in the opinion Of this House Is the duty
OF her Maestys Government TO deny the wh0P Oi the
expenses 10 which Gov Eyre may be Put by the oosecu