Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

" IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. --

[No title]

News
Cite
Share

In the House of Lords, on Friday, Lord Westmeath brought before the House the details of certain infractions of the authorised worship of the Church of England prac- tised in the Church of St. Alban, Holborn, and in other churches; also the pastoral address issued by the Rev. J. Going respecting confession. The Bishop of London deplored that such practices as those Lord Westmeath had described should exist, but the law on the subject was in a very unsatisfactory state, and there were many difficulties in applying it. He would willingly support an alteration of the law if proposed to Parliament on the authority of the Government. The patrons of livings might do much to check these practices, and so might the inhabitants of the district churches in which they generally occurred. On the order for going into committee on the Union; Changeability Bill, Lord Bath and Lord Kingsdown objected to the bill. Lord Lyveden believed the parochial system had been a great misfortune for the labouring poor of England. He hoped this bill would be carried further, and that the poor would be released from the last fetters of the old parochial ^After some remarks from the Duke cf Cleveland the bill passed through committee. The reasons of the Commons for disagreeing with their lordships' amendments to the Courts of Justice Building Bill were considered, and the House agreed not to insist on those amendments. The other orders were gone through, and their lordships adjourned at five minutes past nine. In the House of Commons, at the morning sitting, Eome time was occupied in the discussion of a motion to refer the South Kensington New Road BiE-a private bill-to the former committee, the motion being ultimately withdrawn. During the remainder of the sitting, the House was in committee upon the clauses of the felmcn Fishery Act (1861) Amendment Bill. In the evening, on the order for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. Seely moved a resolution, "That it is inexpedient to continue the practice of appointing naval officers who are not possessed of a technical knowledge of the business car- ried on in her Majesty's dockyards to the offices of superin- tendents thereof, and the practice of limiting their tenure of office to a period of five years." He entered very minutely into details of figures to establish a charge of mismanage- ment, observing that the Board of Admiralty must be per- fectly aware of this mismanagement, though they would not take the proper mode of remedying it, by putting the right men in the right place. Lord C. Paget in reply to Mr. Seely, admitted that the workmanship in the Royal dockyards was more expensive than in private yards, but the workmanship was superior, and it was acknowledged that it was of great importance that we should have Royal dockyards. With respect to the appointment of naval officers to the office of superintendent, the principal ship-building concerns in this country were practically managed by naval officers. It was so in the United States and in France. He touched lightly upon some of the details contained in Mr. Seely's speech, and expressed a hope that the House would not agree to the motion. Mr. Bright supported the resolution. Upon a division, the question put by the chair, that the words proposed to be left out (namely, that "he do then leave the chair," in order that the House might go into committee) stand part of the question—was carried in the negative by 36 to 34—a majority of 2 against the Govern- ment. Mr. Seely's resolution was then put as a substantive mo- tion, and the debate was renewed, and upon a further divi- sion, the resolution was negatived by 60 to 33—a majority of 27 for the Government. Mr. Hanbury Tracy asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to recommend to the Crown the amalgamation of the Civil and Military Orders of the Bath, and moved f°r returns. After some observations from Sir W. Fraser, Colonel o/kes, and Mr. Scourfield, and a reply from Lord Palmer- ston, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Dillwyn called attention to the purchase of the Soulages Collection for the South Kensington Museum; and moved for copies of the correspondence and papers relating to it. complained that a transaction this kind should have taken place without the knowledge and consent of Parliament. This motion was also withdrawn, after a short discussion. Mr. H. Berkeley moved a resolution—"That, as a general election is impending, and as we have no law whieh can put down the intimidation of voters, nor prevent bribery, it is therefore expedient that a trial should be given to the vote by ballot. He supported the motion in a characteristic spcech, citing and commenting upon autho- rities, insisting mamly upon the prevalence of intimidation at elections, in respect to wnien, he said, ao improvement had taken place. He illustrated his argument by examples drawn from both the great partly m the House, and pre- sented it with much breadth of humour Lord Palmerston confessed that these ^^alexhibitions were highly amusing and diverting. He denied that it was personal right He held that it was a tatconferred upon an individual for the benefit was bound to exercise it in the face of his fellows. The object of the ballot was to screen the trustee in the eler- cise of his trust, and was at variance with the principles and practice of the Constitution. ,w,18 Upon a division, the motion was negatived Dy The other orders of the day were then proceeded, with; various bills were forwarded a stage; others were passed; and, after some further business, the House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

SHE NEVER TOLD HER LOVE.

[No title]

RATHER ELEVATED.I

SINGULAR ACTION FOR FALSE…

THE ALLEGED HOMICIDE AT STEPNEY.|

Ianh Q1:.aUHttY 'J]jarkds.

[No title]

[No title]