Imágenes de páginas



MR. FAWCETT said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received an Estimate of the Expense incurred in India for the Abyssinian Expedition, he having stated on the 18th of February that he had telegraphed to Bombay for this Estimate; and whether he will state its contents and lay it upon the table?

the "Origin, Transmissibility, Incubation, Fomites, and Measures of Prevention" of Cholera; and, whether, in consideration of the life, liberty, and property of many of Her Majesty's subjects depending on the adoption of the conclusions arrived at by the Conference, a translation from French into English of the Report, "preceded by a Prologue," will be distributed?

LORD STANLEY said, in reply, that the regulation of British colonial ports was not conducted by the Foreign Office, and it was needless to add that the Government had no power over the acts of Foreign Powers; but he might state that a Sanitary Board had been established at Constantinople, having for its object to check the spread of cholera in the Mediterranean; and some regulations had been issued by that Board, respecting which he had replied to a Question by the hon. Baronet a few days since. Regarding the latter part of the Question, he doubted whether it would be worth while to do as was suggested.


SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I have not received any complete Estimate from Bombay, but I have received several accounts more or less full, which I communicated to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These accounts were carefully collated with the information which we had in this country; and it was upon the foundation of these accounts that my right hon. Friend gave his Answer a little time since with regard to the probable cost of the Expedition. I do not think the House would understand the accounts from Bombay; but in two or three weeks the Budget will, I hope, be brought forward, and by that time I trust we shall be able to give a tolerably accu- MR. O'REILLY said, he rose to ask the rate Estimate of the cost of the Expedi- Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether tion. It may interest the House, how-it is a fact that the Chairman of the ever, if I mention that Sir Robert Napier expected to be at Theodore's camp, which was about twenty-five miles from Magdala, by the end of March; and, as far as I can judge from the telegrams I have received from him, that expectation was likely to be fulfilled, so that we may expect by the time we re-assemble after the holidays, or within a few days afterwards, to hear the result of his coming into the immediate vicinity of Theodore. Probably by that time we shall know when the Expedition will begin to return; and, under these circumstances, I think it will be more convenient that we should delay any further communication regarding the Estimates until we are in a position, after the holidays, to speak with some confidence.

Gravesend and Milton Board of Guardians objected to the appointment as porter of a person, otherwise well qualified, on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic; whether such objection caused his rejection; and, whether he will have any objection to lay any Correspondence on the subject upon the table of the House?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, in reply, that communications had been received by the Poor Law Board from Mr. Sullivan, a Roman Catholic priest of Gravesend, and two others of the same parish, respecting the subject referred to. The Gravesend guardians, having advertised for a porter, selected two applicants from those who responded; only one, however, attended, and he was a Roman Catholic, named Duggan. The guardians,

CHOLERA IN THE MEDITERRANEAN. therefore, postponed the election.


SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps were taken to prevent the outbreak of Cholera in the Mediterranean in 1867, in accordance with the Report of the British Cholera Commissioners, October, 1866, on


hon. Member was quite right in supposing that the only apparent reason for Duggan's rejection was his religion; but it should be stated that the resolution was unanimous on the part of the guardians. It was, perhaps, needless to add that the regulations of the Poor Law Board contained nothing to prevent the election of a Roman Catholic as a porter to a workhouse;

but guardians were perfectly free-and rection has dwindled down to very small the Board had no power to compel them proportions; but it would be premature to to elect any particular man. The Papers say that tranquillity has been altogether on the subject consisted merely of the re-established. With regard to the latter Correspondence between Mr. Sullivan and part of the Question of the hon. Member, those who acted with him and the Board; I may say that Her Majesty's Governand, as he conceived it would not serve ment, have from the first exercised their the public to lay it on the table, he pro- influence in favour of the Christian popuposed to communicate with the hon. Mem-lation-in favour of giving them a large ber on the subject in private if he desired to do so.


MR. HOLLAND said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, When the Papers which were laid upon the table of the House in December (having reference to the steering and sailing rules), together with the set of diagrams, explaining the "Rule of the Road at Sea" under every circumstance, will be printed and issued?

MR. STEPHEN CAVE said, in reply, that the Papers referred to by the hon. Member had long been ready, and might have been distributed some time ago; but it had been thought prudent to delay issuing them in consequence of some important Correspondence with the French Government on the subject, which would render the information more complete. As soon as this additional matter was ready -which he hoped would be at no distant date-no time should be lost in placing the whole in the hands of Members.



MR. KENNEDY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether cruelties are enacted in Crete at present, such as took place while the insurrection was raging in full force; whether tranquillity may be considered to be now re-established; and if, not, whether the British Government exercise any influence in favour of the Christian population?

LORD STANLEY: Sir, it is not very easy to obtain accurate and trustworthy information with reference to what is passing in Crete; but I think I may say that many of the stories of the outrages and acts of cruelty which have appeared in the newspapers have been, if not wholly invented, yet very much exaggerated and over-coloured. Generally, I take the state of things in Crete to be this:-The insurVOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.]

measure of self-government, and of establishing equality before the Law between the Christian and Mahommedan population.


MR. WATKIN said, he would beg to ask, Whether the Boundary Bill will be printed and circulated before the adjournment of the House?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he believed the Bill would be almost immediately printed and circulated.



MR. AYRTON said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay on the Table any Correspondence, with respect to the purchase of the Electric Telegraphs, which has taken place between the Government and the several Companies?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER stated, in reply, that Papers relating to the communications between the Government and the Electric Telegraph Companies in reference to the proposed purchase of the Electric Telegraphs by the Government would be laid upon the table before the Bill was proceeded with, and the second reading of the Bill would be deferred for a sufficient period to allow the House time to consider it.



MR. YORKE desired some information from the Foreign Secretary touching the issue to be submitted to the House, he believed, before its adjournment. In common, he presumed, with other supporters of the Government, he had that morning received through the usual channel a request to attend in his place; but the request was accompanied by a printed paper which he believed he might read without committing a breach of confidence,

2 A

as it had been already published. It ran arranged at the commencement of this as follows:· -

"That there may be no misunderstanding, it is greatly desired that Members will bear in mind that the first division will be taken not on Lord Stanley's Amendment, but directly either to affirm or negative Mr. Gladstone's Motion to go into Committee."

That document had puzzled him (Mr. Yorke) a great deal. His first impression was that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had withdrawn his Amendment; but on looking at the Orders of the Day he found the Question to be debated set forth in the following terms:

debate. I am not the author of the document to which my hon. Friend refers; but I apprehend it is simply intended as an explanation of the manner in which, according to the forms of the House, supposing we divide, the division will be taken.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Sir, the Answer given by the noble Lord to the Question just put has, I think, a very material bearing upon the proceedings of the House, and raises difficulties which I should like to apply to you, Sir (Mr. Speaker), authoritatively to solve. I desire then to ask you whether the first division, if it be "Motion made, and Question proposed, That taken on the Question, "That the words this House will immediately resolve itself into a a Committee to consider the said Acts':-(Mr. proposed to be left out stand part of the Gladstone.)-Amendment proposed, to leave out Question," is to be considered as a division from the word liouse' to the end of the Ques- on the Main Question, "That the House tion, in order to add the words while admitting do now resolve itself into a Committee;" that considerable modifications in the temporal- because if it be so, of course those who ities of the United Church in Ireland may, after the pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of vote with the right hon. Gentleman are opinion that any proposition tending to the dis-voting in the sense of his Resolution; and establishment or disendowment of that Church ought to be reserved for the decision of a new Parliament'-(Lord Stanley), instead thereof :Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.'

[ocr errors]

It was obvious that if the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," were decided in the affirmative, the noble Lord would be precluded from putting his Amendment; and therefore it might be true in the letter, that the noble Lord's Amendment was not involved in the Question to be submitted to the House, but virtually his Amendment was precluded from being submitted to the House in case the Question first submitted was decided in the affirmative. If it were decided in the negative, then the Amendment would be put; but he did not see in what sense it could be said that the division would be taken on the Main Question, when, if it were decided in the affirmative, the noble Lord's Amendment would be precluded from being put. He therefore begged to ask the noble Lord whether it was his intention to withdraw the Amendment; and, if not, in what sense the House was to understand the Notice that had been circulated among the Government supporters that morning.

LORD STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I may say it is not my intention to withdraw the Amendment which I have moved, nor will any change or modification whatever be made in the course of our proceedings as

if it be not so, those who do not vote with the Government abstain from voting for the Amendment of the noble Lord. I desire, therefore, to know from you, Sir, the precise purport of the Question which you are to put from the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Original Motion before the House is, "That the House resolve itself into Committee." To that an Amendment had been proposed, and the House has, up to this time, been mainly engaged on the Amendment. If the House should affirm "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." that will be decisive of the Amendment, and then will come the Main Question, which will stand disembarrassed from all other words.


MR. WHALLEY said, he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire a Question, which he had reason to believe would be answered satisfactorily by him-that was to say, in the sense in which he was understood to have spoken when introducing his Reso lutions. His reason for putting it was that it related to a matter in which the public took very considerable interest. The Question which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this, Whether, in the event of the Resolutions moved by him being carried, he would include in

any Bill which might be introduced by himself, in pursuance of those Resolutions, provisions for the repeal of the Maynooth Grant; or whether, in the event of Bills to carry out those Resolutions emanating from other quarters, he would himself propose or support proposals by others, having for their object the withdrawal of the Maynooth Grant and of all other endowments in Ireland?

MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, if I might ask the indulgence of my hon. Friend, it perhaps would be more convenient and more in accordance with the usage of debate if I were to offer in any remarks I may have to make on the Amendment of the noble Lord to-morrow night what would substantially serve as a reply to him. I would only say, as I know he is quite right in his statement that a great interest is felt on the subject-that I thought I had in my opening speech answered what I take to be the most important part of the hon. Member's Question, by saying that in my opinion-for I can say no more than that it was my opinion-any plan such as I had been endeavouring to lay the basis and foundation of must include provisions, whether immediate or not, for the entire relief of the Consolidated Fund from all charges, either for the Maynooth Grant or any other purposes of religion in Ireland.



Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [30th March],

"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the said Acts," -(Mr. Gladstone ;)

And which Amendment was,

To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the United Church in Ireland may, after the pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of that Church ought to be reserved for the decision of a new Parliament,"-(Lord Stanley,) -instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, As I hold very definite and what are called in the cant phrase of the day "advanced" opinions on this subject, I shall be very plain and explicit in my statement of them. From the time that I entered political life I may say I have held steadfastly one opinion about Established Churches-I have always believed that they are a mischief; and therefore, Sir, impelled by no personal object, whether of power or profit-impelled neither by party considerations nor yet by any purposes of ambition-I shall vote for the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions. I believe that a Church Establishment is a bad instrument for teaching religion. A Government when it undertakes to teach religion must, of necessity, undertake to teach some particular religion, and by so doing must necessarily give offence to a great number of persons in respect to subjects which they believe to be of the greatest possible importance. Moreover, I believe that Churchmen, and especially Church dignitaries are very unfit to be legislators; and therefore I should be very much pleased to see any departure from the House of Lords of any Church dignitaries. These being my opinions on the Main Question before us, I still wish to address to the House some considerations upon the manner and the arguments by which these propositions have been supported on the present occasion, and also, I may say, of the aim and intentions with which this proposition has been brought forward. One argument advanced in support of this Resolution has been that is a badge of conquest as regards the Cathe present Established Church of Ireland tholic population of Ireland. Now, this is a proposition that I utterly and entirely deny. The conquest of Ireland-the Norman Conquest of Ireland-was made when England and Ireland were Catholic, and if there be any badge of conquest resulting from the transactions of that time, it is the Catholic Papal Church of Ireland; for, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, at the time of this conquest Ireland was not in connection with the Papacy, and therefore the Norman conquest, which led to that connection, established as a badge of conquest the Papal Church in Ireland. And, accordingly, I say it is misleading the people of Ireland for us to allege that the present Established Church of Ireland


a badge of conquest. No man would be more ready, and has been more ready, than I to state my utter abhorrence of the

mode in which, England has governed Ireland. No man has been more ready to find fault with those terrible penal laws, which were the curse of Ireland and the disgrace of this country. But those laws have been repealed, and now there remains no possible grievance in Ireland except that Established Church which, is now complained of. Since the year 1829 this House has pursued one steady course of legislation with regard to Ireland. Day by day, year by year, we have erased from the statute book one enact ment after another, which drew a line of distinction between the Irish people and the people of England. And now, at this present moment--I challenge contradiction of the statement-there is no difference between the situation of an Irish Catholic and an Englishman in England before the law. Well, then, if we have done that, have we not done much that ought to have conciliated the people? But we are told that we have done nothing until we have disestablished the Irish Church. Now, Sir, the quarrel between England and Ireland is not a quarrel of religion; it is a quarrel of race; it is a quarrel of conquest.["Laughter."] Aye, of conquest. We have no quarrel with Scotland, because we did not conquer Scotland. We have even now a quarrel with Wales-as everybody knows who knows anything of the country-because in the days of Edward I. weconquered Wales. It is one of the most curious phenomena of man's nature that a circumstance like that should rest in the recollections of a people; but it does, and the Irish people will not, to the latest hour of their existence, forget that they were conquered in the reign of Henry II. Now, that may appear to be a paradox; but search the history of the world over, and you will find it to be true. But we are told, and we were boldly told by an hon. Member behind me, that, disendow the Irish Church, arrange the land question as you will-even in the fashion which the Irish people want it-still you will not have done that which the Irish people demand, and without which they will not be satisfied. What do they want? They want separation from England. We may hide it as much as we please from ourselves, but the fact remains, that until you have separated Ireland from England, and made her independent, you will not have satisfied the wishes, the intentions, or the projects of a great portion of the people of Ireland. So much, then, as to

the statement that the Irish Church is a badge of conquest. Now, next, as to the Irish Church being a tax upon the people of Ireland.

Let us understand that matter clearly. We are told that the tithes belong to the Irish Papal Church. My answer is a very small portion of them only. And, moreover, I claim for this Parliament the power of changing the appropriation of public property, and devoting it to whatever purpose it pleases; and if this Parliament decides to disendow the Irish Church, it has perfect power to do so, and all the talk about the sacredness of her property is to me utter nonsense and rubbish. But, Sir, this cuts both ways. Do not talk to me of the Church property belonging to the Irish Roman Catholic Church, because I assume at once that Parliament has power to divert the public property. It has diverted the Church property, and so far it has gone to the Irish Church. There is no sacred right-none of any sort connected with human affairs. What to-day is law, may be to-morrow repealed; and there is nothing this House has established which tomorrow it may not disestablish. Now, let us understand this doctrine of tithe, because it was one of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire that the Irish people maintained a Church to which they are opposed. I deny that entirely. They do not do any such thing. The Irish farmer when he takes a farm takes it subject to tithe; he therefore takes it at so much less rent, and he does not pay the tithe. The landlord when he buys an estate buys it charged with tithe; he buys it at so much less, and therefore he does not buy the tithe. It does not belong to him. To whom does it belong? It belongs to the State, which may apply the tithe as it will. Therefore, the real question at issue is this-Is the property now held by the Irish Church so employed that it may be said to be employed in the best way for the Irish people? I think I am putting the case in the fairest way possible. Well, I do not think it is, Sir; but, at the same time, I think much may be said in its favour for the way it is applied, and that is not taken into consideration by those who speak and talk on the subject. First, I think I have established that neither the farmer nor the landlord pay the tithe. Therefore, it is no tax upon the people of Ireland. Now comes the question as to its application.

This first step in the ap

« AnteriorContinuar »