Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page



IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. T House of Lords, March 8, in answer to Lord Cairns, Lorn Granville stated that it was proposed to adjourn from the 19th ef March to the 5th of April, for the Easter Recess On the motion to read the Oriel College, Oxford, BiH the Earl of Derby s id there were points in it which were important to the Church and the College that should be well considered by a select committee, for it involved a constitu- tional principle and affected the patronage of the Crown. The Bishop of London was very glad the noble earl had called attention to the subject, for there were strong objec tioiiS to some of the proposed alterations-the suggested en- dowment for the provost being especially objectionable. Lord Redesdale had had both parties before him, and though he thought some of the changes proposed were neces- sary, he objected to bills being brought forward to accomplish that which might be done by order in council. that which might be done by order in council. Earl Granville thought the objects of the bill were good. Lord Russell, in pursuance of notice, called attention to the sums voted by Parliament for public education. He was of opinion that, in comparison with what had been done, particularly in Germany and the New England States education was behind-hand in England and Ireland. The plan of grants in aid had not been without result, but an unjust part of the burden was, as demonstrated by Canon Girdlestone, thrown on the parochial clergy in consequence of the unwillingness of the landowners to promote educa- tion. The clergy could not do all, and a large part of the country was without schools. It would be necessary, he believed, for the Government next year to undertake a general seheme. The relief of the rates from other burdens might render it possible to procure some support to schools out of them, but he intimated an opinion that public grants must be loeked to as the main resource; the question of religious education required speedy attention. The TT86 °jL a differed as to this from that of England. MI. ce"t was raised by local subscriptions, ami the State supplied only 40 per cent. but in Ireland the State had to contribute 93 per cent. At all events where private grants formed so small a proportion of the expenditure as in Ireland, the State was entitled to use a wider discretion in the arrangements respect- ing religious teaching. The Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland had, however, claimed to conduct the religious teaching, even in localities where there was a considerable Protest ant population. The reports of the Board of National .Education in 1866 and 1867 pointed out this evil tendency. .Lord Russell himself considered a system of denominational education in Ireland would gravely increase the want of concord in that island. Lord De Grey defended the Government for having decided not to bring in a general measure of education at a period when it was hopeless to secure proper attention for it. The Duke of Marlborough dwelt on the increasing successful results of the present system. The feeling of the usefulness rnnVv/nniHryfe^0rtS VJ?rowing- He was himself entirely ? °} the good effects of the existing denominational system of education in England, and he deprecated any rash interference with it by the Government. After remarks from Lord Lyveden, Lord Salisbury, Lord Grey, and the Bishop of London, and after some observations by Lord Harrowby, who feared that education, if not properly directed, might increase crime, and by Lord Belper and the Duke of Cleveland, the subieet dropped. After other unimportant business, their lordships ad- journed. r House of Commons, SirS. Northcote asked the First Lerd of the Treasury whether he would state the amount of the property of the Irish Church and the amount of charges that were to be made upon it. Mr. Gladstone said he was quite ready to give every official information in the thape of Parliamentary papers with re- spect to the property of the Ir sh Church and the amount of the charges to be made upon it, but he wished that as regar. s the calculations that he had made the other night and all other estimates should be taken for what they were worth as matters of opinion. From the best information he could obtain, he had made the following estimates:-The estimated amount of the value of the property of the Irish Church, exclusive of the value of the fabrics and sites, were as follows:—The tithe-rent charge was estimated in round numbers at £ 9,000,000; the proceeds of the leased lands and perpetual annuities at £ 4,000,000; the value of the glebe lands and other lands let for short terms not on lease at £ 750,000. These made the total pro- perty of the Irish church, as estimated £16,000,000 in round numbers. With respect to the charges, the life interest of all bishops, cathedral dignitaries, and incumbents a' £ 4>900,000, the life interest of curates at £ «0o,000, the amount of lay compensation, chiefly to clerks sextoris, and others holding freehol(t appointments,at £ 600 000* the value of the advowsons at X300,000, the private endow- ments at £ 500,000, thebuild ing charge on theglibesatZ250,000, and the S'ims required to provide for the grants to the Presbyterian and other colleges and the College of Maynooth at 41 100,000, and the expenses of the commission at £ 20,000 a year tor ten years at 4200,000, making a total of X8,650,000, being a residue of £ 7,350,000. The main business of the evening was the Navy Estimates, and after enquiries and remarks from several hon. members, The House went into Committee of Supply, and Mr. Childers explained the Navy Estimates; and first he stated that tneir total was £ 9,996,000, viz, £ 8,164,000 effec- tive services, £ 1,-515,000 non-effective, and L316,000 trans- port services, which is a reduction of 11,027,000 on last year, and P-1,300,000 from the year 1867-68 These reductions were ivided generally over all the votes, and after the accounts had been corrected there would be a reduction of £ 199,000 for waees, iC73,0(10 victualling departments, £ 127,000 dockyards, £ 57,000 stores, £ 331.009 contracts, and £ 21,000 transports. He stated, that he had succeeded in concentrating all the administrative departments of the Admiralty about White- hall, and the general result ef his changes was a siving of £ 20,000 a year, with DO injustice to any single individual. About £9,000 a year would be saved ia the superintendence of tke dockyards, though there was an increase of 424,000 for wages, and there would be a considerable saving in petty charges for maintenance, &c while the great works at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Malta would be pushed on with increased vigour. Inquiries were also going on into the victualling and hospital departments, which he anticipated would lead to considerable reductions. The mode of dealing with the fleet, he stated, had been to reduce the South American, Pacific, China, Indi m, and African squadronsfrom 80 ships andll,600 men to 64 ships and 8,5u0 men It had been arranged that the Indian Government should pay about E70,000 a year towards the expenses of the vessels kept in the Indian waters; and it wa proposed al- most immediately to send a flying squadron of some of our finest vessels to visit the foreign stations, and to despatch a few of the Coastguard vessels on a cruise. The reduc- tion of men and boys effected in the Estimates was from 66,770 to 61,000, to the credit of which, however, the late Board of Admiralty was chiefly entitled. After showing that at the end of the financial year pretty nearly all the ships now in hand would be co. nieted, he announced that two turret ships, which would be the most powerful afloat, would be laid down at once, one at Pem- broke and one at Chatham. They would be 4,400 tons, double screws, 12! knots speed, plated with 12-inch and 14-inch armour, carrying four 25-ton guns, and costing E286,060 each. Another turret ram-an improved Hotspur-and two or three vessels of the Stanch class compieted the hipbuilding programme of the year; and when it was carried out we should have 47 armoured vessels afloat, with 598 guns and these, with 66 efficient unarmoured ships and a large number of vessels of the old type, which he maintained (without going into close comparisons) would give us a navy stronger than that of any other nation. Mr. Corry vindicated at some length the policy of the late Board, which he showed, before it went out, had prepared for a reductien of 4658.000 on last year's Estimates, leaving » only £ 365,OuO to Mr. Childers' credit. Criticising the pro- gramme of the year, he expressed serious doubts whether the reductions in the Admiralty establishments were wise, and strongly obj- cted to the laying down of the two new turret ships until the Captain and Monarch had been tried at sea. A general approbation of the main features of the Esti- mates was expressed by Mr. Gourley, Colonel Sykes, Sir C. Wingfield, Mr. Brogden and Mr. Graves; and the first three votes—63,300 men and boys, 12,762,353 wages, and £1,172,368 victuals and clothing for the seamen and marines-were agreed to. The House afterwards adjourned. In the House of Lords, March 9, the Duke of Somerset, in putting a question in reference to the papers lately presented to Parliament respecting missionaries in China, referred to the outrage committed on British subjects at Yang-tchou. What the noble duke wanted to know was what right have we to send missionaries into the interior of the country to convert the Chinese? We did not like it even in this country. It was most unjust and unfair to employ our naval forces against the Chinese in support of the missionaries. He did not object to the despatches of either Lord Stanley or Earl Clarendon on the subject, but what he complained of was that they did not go far enough. He contended that our friendly relations with the Chinese Government were pre- judiced by proceedings like that which happened near Nanking. The Government wanted to reduce our naval strength in Chinese waters, but to do that they must reduce the missionaries, for every missionary expedition required a gunboat. They were actually missions of gunboats. He altogether objected to our forcing religion down the throats of the Chinese. He wanted to prevent these missionaries from going to China. It was no use saying let them go at their peril, for in case of a riot or disturbance there would be an appeal to Pekin, leading perhaps to very great diffi- culties between the two Governments. { The Earl of Clarendon thought this question was one of very growing and pressing interest. The presnt state of things was most unsatisfactory. He regretted that mis- sionary ztal often led the missionaries into danger. He thought they ought not to go into countries where no consul resides. The authorities and population of China were ad- verse to these missionary intrusions. The present state of things ought not to be tolerated. The noble earl then read the following instructions which he had given to her Majesty's representative iu China;- I have to Instruct you to explain to her Majesty's Consuls that the special purposes for which her Majesty's ships of war are stationed in the ports of China, and em- ployed on the coasts, are to protect the floating commerce of British subjects against piratical attacks in Chinese waters, to support her Majesty's consuls in maintaining order and discipline among the crews of British vessels in the respective ports, and, in cases of great emergency, to protect the lives and properties of British subjects, if placed In peril by wanton attacks directed against them either OH the part of local authorities or by an uncontrolled popular movement. As regards this last point, her Majesty's consuls must constantly hear in mind that the interference of naval force, either on their represen- tation, or on the part of naval officers acting on their own estimation of facts before them, will alone receive the subse- quent approval of her Majasty's Government, when it is clearly shown that without such interference the lives and properties of British subjects would, in all probability, have been sacrificed; and even in such a case her Majesty's Government will expect to learn that the alternative of receiv- ing them on board ship, and so extri ating them from I threatened danger, was not available. Beyond this the circum- stances of the case must be of a very peculiar nature which would be held by her Majesty's Government to justify a re- course to force. Her Majesty's Governmer.t cannot leave with her Majesty's consuls or naval officers to determine for themselves what redress or reparation for wrong done to British subjects is due, or by what means it should he en- forced. They cannot allow them to determine whether coercion is to be applied by blockade, by reprisals, by land ing armed parties, or by acts of even a more hostile charac- ter. All such proceedings bear more or less the character of acts of war, and her Majesty's Government cannot delegate to her Maj esty's servants in foreign countries the power of involv- ing their own country in war My despatches to which I have referred will have enabled you to point out in unmistakeable terms to her Majesty's consuls the course they are to pursue when an emergency calling for immediate action as the sole means of protecting British life and property has passed away. They must appeal to her Majesty's Minister at Pekin to obtain redress through the action of the Central Govern- ment and he, on his part, if he fails to obtain it, will submit the case for the judgment of of Her Majesty's Govern- ment, with whom alone it rests to decide as to the course to be thereupon pursued." The noble lord added that similar instructions had been given by the Admiralty to the officers of the navy on the China station. In the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Batescn asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland—1. Whether Captain Mackey, the Fenian convict, who is reported to have received an unconditional pardon from her Majesty's present advisers, was the same individual who last year killed a polcie con- stable at Cork, who attacked and set fire to a police barrack at Ballyknockbane and seized the arms of the constabulary belonging to that station, who also attacked and rifled the Martello Tower at Fota in December, 1867, and who was implicated in other outrages at Castle Martyr, Knockadoon, Kilmallock Kflcooley Wood, and elsewhere. 2. Whether the said Captain Mackey had, in 1866, been arrested by order of Lord Kimberley, under a Lord-Lieutenant's warrant, and had been discharged in the month of April following, on his solemnly pledging himself in writing not to return to the United Kingdom. 3. And, finally, whether this man was the criminal, who, for these repeated outrages, was, on the 20th of March last, sentenced by the present Lord Chancellor to twelve years' penal servitude ? Mr. Chichester Fortescue said the statements were sub- stantially correct, with but one exception, and that was that the prisoner Mackey had been discharged (loud laughter). There was not the slightest intention to remit any portion of the sentence (cheers and renewed laughter). Mr. Beckett Denison asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was true that the Indian Government had subsidised the Ameer of Affghanistan with money and arms and, if so, whether the subsidy was to be an annual one, and what conditions are attached thereto? Mr. Grant Duff said the late Viceroy gave the Ameer six lacs of rupees, and also promised another six lacs, and pre- sented him with some arms. The word subsidy was not an appropriate one, and there were ne conditions or promise of any annual payment. In reply to Mr. Hadfleld, Mr. Gladstone stated that, on the night of the J3rd, he should move that the House do adjourn until the 31st inst. Mr. Locke King asked leave to bring.jn a bill for the better settling the real estates of intestates. He said, in the case of a man dying without a will, the bill would assimi- late the laws relating to land to the laws relating to personal property. He denied that his ooject was to introduce the law of primogeniture as it prevailed in Fiance. The bill having been seconded, Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Goldney objected to the measure. Mr Beresford-Hope referred to the two divisions which took place on the same subject in 1859 and 1866, when the bill was rejected by very large majorities, and said the prin- cipal opposition then came from some members of the Liberal Government. He believed the bill did not work satisfactorily in countries where it was the law, and he should oppose the bill at its second reading. Mr Walter thought a measure of such importance should be dealt with by the Government. Mr. Hatfield supported the bill. Sir L. Palk strongly objected to the measure. Mr. Gladstone said he understood there was no intention to divide the House. He believed the subject could be dealt with better by the Government, but he could not pledge the Government to deal with the question just at present, as they have so many measures on their hands. He hoped, however, that the House would allow the bill to be brought "kr. Henley hoped the title of the bill would be altered to that of a bill for the confiscation of the 40s. freeholds. Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

[No title]






_-----_"----ACTION AGAINST…