« 이전계속 »
ing the Archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of prayer to Almighty God, to be used in Churches, &c. during the continuance of the awful disease which at present afflicts the country, and it has been prepared accordingly.
Sheriffs appointed by his Majesty in Council for the year 1832.
Bedfordshire—Abraham Edward Gregory, of Biggleswade, Esq.
Berkshire—T.M. Goodlake, of Wadley House, Esq.
Buckinghamshire—C. S. Ricketts, of Dorton House, Esq.
Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire—T. Page, of Ely, Esq.
Cheshire—J. H. Leche, of Carden, Esq.
Cornwall—E. Archer, of Trelaskc, Esq.
Cumberland—H. Howard,of Corby Castle, Esq.
Derbyshire—S. Shore, of Norton, Esq.
Devonshire—J. M. Woolleorabe, of Ashbury, Esy.
Dorsetshire— Sir E. B. Baker, of Ranston, Bt.
Essex—J.T. Selwyn, of Down Hall, in Hatfield Broad Oak, Esq.
Gloucestershire—R. Canning, of Hartpury, Esq.
Herefordshire—J. Freeman, of Gaines, Esq.
Hertfordshire—R. P. Ward, of Gilstone Park, Esq.
Kent—G. Douglas, of Chilston Park, Esq.
Leicestershire—E. B. Hartopp, of Little Dalby, Esq.
Lincolnshire—W. Hutlon, of Gateburton, Esq.
Monmouthshire—Sir M. Wood, of Ruinney, Bt.
Norfolk—W. L. W. Chute, of South Pickenham, Esq.
Northamptonshire—W. W. Hope, of Rushton, Esq.
Northumberland—H. J. W. Collingwood, of Liiburn Tower, Esq.
Nottinghamshire—H. Machin, of Gateford Hill, Esq.
Oxfordshire—H. H. Blount, of Maple Durham, Esq.
Rutlandshire—W. Gilford, of North Luffenham, Esq.
Shropshire—W. Oakeley, of Oakcley, Esq.
Somersetshire—Sir H. Strachey, of Sutton Court, Bart.
Staffordshire—Sir T. F. F. Boughey, of AquaIte Park.
County of Southampton—Sir William Hcalbcote, of Hursley, Bart.
Suffolk—J. B. Smyth, of Stoke Hall, Ipswich, Esq.
Surrey—M. Stringer, of Effinsham, Esq.
Sussex—A. Donovan, ofFramfit-ld Park, Esq.
Warwickshire—E. M. W. Greswolde, of Malvern Hall, Esq.
Wiltshire—Sir E. Antrobus.of Amesbury, Bt.
Worcestershire—J. J. Martin, of Ham Court, Esq.
Yorkshire—R York, of Wighlll Park, Esq.
Montgomeryshire—Sir C. T. Jones, of Broadway, Knt.
Carnarvonshire—J. Rowlands, of Plas-tirion, Esq.
Anglesey—Sir J. Williams, of Bodelwyddan, Ban.
Merionethshire—W. Turner, of Croesor, Esq. Denbighshire—E. Lloyd, of Cefn, Esq. Flintshire—Sir J. Hanmer, of Bettisfield Park, Bart.
Breconshire—I. P. G. Holford, of Bnckland, Esq.
Cardiganshire—H. L. E. Gwynne, of Lanlery, Esq.
Carmarthenshire—J. L. Puxley, of Lavallin, Esq.
Glamorganshire—F. Fredricks, of Duffryn, Esq.
Pembrokeshire—D. Davles, of Caernachernwen, Esq.
Radnorshire—T. Evans, of Llwynbarriedd, Eaq.
The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has appointed the following gentlemen to be High Sheriffs for the present year :—
Antrim—A. M'Neile, of Ballyeaslle, Esq.
Armagh—The Hon. H. Canlfieid, of Hockley.
Carlow—John Whelan, of Rath, Eaq.
Cavan—W. Humphreys, jun. of Ballyhaise Castle, Esq.
Clare—Crofton M. Vandeleur, of Kilrush-house, Esq.
Cork—R. O. Aldworth, of Newmarket, Esq.
Donegal—Sir i. Stewart, Bart, of Fort Stewart.
Down—Arthnr Innis, of Dromartin, Esq.
Dublin—J. Hans Hamilton, of Sheephill, Esq.
Fermanagh—Viscount Corry, Castlecoole, Enniskillen.
Galway—W. H. Handcock, of Carrentully, Esq.
Kerry—Right Hon. W. Browne, of Woodlawn.
Kildare—T. Fitigerald.of Geraldine, Esq.
Kilkenny—J. Baker, of Kilroran, Esq.
King's County—F. L. Dames, of Green-hilt, Esq.
Lcitrim—H. Waldrou, of Ashford, Esq.
Limerick—H. O'Grady, of Grange, Esq.
Longford—W. Bond, of Farraghroe, Esq.
Louth—W. Filgate, of Lisrenny, Esq.
Mayo—A. C. Lynch, of Hollybrook, Esq.
Meath—R G. Bomford,of Rahanstown, Esq.
Monaghan—A. Montgomery, of Bessmoonl, Esq.
Queen's County—T. Kemmis, of Shane, Esq.
Roscommon—Jeffry Martin French, of Thouiond, Esq.
Sligo—E. L. Neynoe, of Castle Neynoe, Esq.
Tipperary—S. Moore, of Barn, Esq.
Tyrone—T. R. Brown, of Aughantain, Esq.
Waterford—J. P. O'Shce, of Garden Morris, Esq.
Westmeath—W. B. Smith, of Barbaville, Esq.
Wexford—J. Beaumont, jun. of Hyde park, Esq.
Wicklow—W. Parsons Hoey, of Hoyfleld, Esq.
HOUSE OF I.OHDS.
Jan. 26. The Earl of Aberdeen brought forward his promised motion on the subject of Belgium. His Lordship entered into very extensive details respecting the relative positions of Holland and the Netherlands; the proceedings of the Allies in 1814; the circumstances and treaties attendant upon the annexation of Holland and Belgium ; the conferences arising out of the Belgic Revolution, &c. He concluded by moving a long Address to the King, expressive of regret at the system of foreign policy adopted by his Majesty's Ministers, and of the conviction that it was fraught with evil consequences to this country.—Karl Grey at great length defended the conduct of Ministers, and maintained they had taken the only course by which war could have been averted. —The Duke of Wellington supported the motion, convinced as he was of the injustice done to Holland, upon which country it was attempted to force a measure prejudicial to its best interests.—Lord Goderich, in defending the Government, observed, that the present King of the Netherlands did not call upon the Great Powers as mediators, but to assist him by force of arms to put down the Revolution. The independence of Belgium was de facto established, and nothing but war could have destroyed it. He then advocated the principle upon which the right of navigating the Scheldt and Hhine had been ceded to Belgium, and expressed the most perfect conviction that neither he nor his Noble Friend deserved the imputations cast upon them. Me should, therefore, go fearlessly to a division on the question. — The Earl of Aberdeen replied. The House divided, when there appeared. Noncontents, present, 59; Proxies, 73—132; Contents, present, 39; Proxies, 56—95; majority for Ministers, 37.
Feb. 2. Lord W ynford moved "that the Judges be directed to attend this House, to answer the following questions:—Are the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury authorized by the 55th Geo. HI. or by any other law, to issue any sum of money from the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, or any public money, for the payment of any part of the principal or interest of the loan mentioned in such Act, at any time after his Majesty the King of the Netherlands shall have ceased to exercise any sovereign authority in the Belgic provinces, and shall have treated with persons exercising the powers of Government therein; and after his Majesty shall have announced from the throne the conclusion of a treaty between his Majesty, in concurrence with the other Powers of Europe and the King of Belgium, and shall have appointed a minister to treat with the King of Belgium; and after the Ministers of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Prussia shall have treated with a Minister announcing himself as the plenipotentiary of the King of Belgium 1"—The Lord Chancellor, having read the motion from the woolsack, proceeded to argue at considerable length against its adoption, and thus concluded his address to their Lordships:— "Ministers had had recourse to the best advice they could obtain. They had referred the question not only to the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, but to the King's Advocate, who, after the most mature consideration, had given the opinion on which the Government had acted; upon that opinion Government rested their case. That opinion went with his own. He should like to know what would have been said to Ministers if, after having obtained the best advice, they had acted in opposition to it? Would they not have been told of their scandalous and gross breach of faith1." The motion was withdrawn.
Feb. 7. Kai 1 Grey, in presenting a petition from a parish in Ireland, praying for the abolition of tithes, said, as the petition was respectfully worded, he considered he was only performing a Ministerial duty in laying it before the House, but it was not to be supposed that he approved of the measure prayed for. On the contrary, he felt it necessary to state that the power of Government would be exerted to secure the rights of the clergy.—The Earl of Wicklow expressed his satisfaction at hearing the declaration of the Noble Earl, and regretted that a similar one had not been made before.— Earl Grey stated, that if he had supposed such a declaration necessary, he would have made it before. As misrepresentation continued, he felt disposed to avail himself of the opportunity more emphatically, but not more sincerely, than on former occasions, to state that it was the resolution of the Government to employ all the authority with which the law invested it, and exert all its power, to maintain the just rights of the clergy.
Feb. 13. On the motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne, certain papers were ordered relative to the progress of the disease called Spasmodic Cholera, on which it was intend ed by Government to found a Hill to enable parishes to tax themselves for the purpose of raising a fund to prevent its increase. On the 14th the papers were laid before the House—on the 16th the Bill was brought in, on the 17th read a second time, committed, and read a third time and passed—the standing order of the House having been suspended.
Feb. 16. The Marquis of Lansdowne presented the Report of the Select Committee to which had been referred the consideration of Tithes in Ireland and the state of the law on that subject there, and moved that it should be read. It was accordingly read by the Clerk at the table. The Report adverts to the condition to which the Protestant Clergy of Ireland are reduced, owing to the resistance of tithe payments; the enormous arrears of tithes due in 1831, amounting, in three or four dioceses, to as much as 84,00<M., Stc. It recommends that the Treasury be empowered to advance sums to the Clergymen to whom arrears of tithes are due; and that the Attorney-General have powers similar to those passed by the Irish Parliament in 1798, &c. to proceed in the Exchequer Court for the recovery of tithes due. The Report concludes by strongly urging the necessity of an entire change of the system, as regards the lay as well as the ecclesiastical tithes of Ireland, so as to prevent pecuniary collision between the Clergy and the people of Ireland. The Committee have not yet concluded their inquiries, but they thought it advisable to male their Report.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Jan- 23. The House resolved itself into Committee on the English Reform Bill, and proceeded with that part of the first clause which states that the " thirty'' places in schedule B shall, after the passing of this Bill, return "one" Member each. Mr. Goulburn and others thought it premature to fix the number, and contended that the House ought to wait for information respecting divers boroughs, promised by Ministers.— Mr. Goulburn moved that the word "thirty" be omitted. This was discussed at some length, and the Committee eventually divided. The numbers were, for the original motion, 210; against it, 112; majority, 98. The subsequent clauses, down to the 7th—that respecting a Bill to establish the boundaries—were then adopted, after much desultory conversation. AH the schedules were, of course, postponed. On the subject of the boundaries complaint was made, and it was asked by Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Croker, and others, to postpone these parts of the Bill till correct information could be obtained.—Lord John Russell stated, that Government, unarmed with Parliamentary authority, had collected the best information they could; but the House was not asked to decide the boundaries of the various boroughs, &c.; that would be done by Parliamentary investigation and authority.
Jan. 24. The Committee proceeded from the seventh to the eleventh clause, without opposition more decided than that of some verbal criticism; but on the clause respecting the appointment of the returning officer in places not now sending Members, and ■where the population may not have a corporation, some conversation took place between the lawyers in the House, defending and denying the constitutionality of allowing the Sheriff to name the returning officer where some requisite authority did not already exist. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, intimated that, though this mode was at present proposed, it was intended, in the event of inconveniences arising, to advise the Crown to grant charters to places where corporations were required, but where they might not now exist.
The clause eventually passed. On that which proposed the division of Lincolnshire, Colonel Sibthorp opposed it to a division. For the clause, 195; for the amendment, 64; majority, 131.
Jan. 26. Mr. Herries, after a very long speech, censuring his Majesty's Mini-ters for a misapplication of the public money with respect to the Russian loan, in haring made payments to Russia since the separation of Belgium from Holland, and contending that the guaranty for the payment of the interest ceased on the separation of the two countries—concluded by moving three resolutions; the first, to the effect, that by the Act of the 25th of George III. for the purpose of carrying into effect the Convention entered into between Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the Treasury was empowered to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia, conformably with the provisions of the Convention ; the second, to the effect that the payment of these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium; and the third, to the eficct that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland had separated, all payments made since that separation, by Ministers, were unwarranted by Act of Parliament, and contrary to the truly recognizing the loan. The motion gave rise to an extended discussion, and the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman were supported by Mr. Pollock, Mr. Baring, Mr. Hume, and Mr. O'Connell. — Loid Althorp defended his Majesty's Government, and maintained that they had only acted with that faith which had ever marked the conduct of this country; he hoped that while public faith with nations was kept in view, Hon. Members would not vole for the resolutions merely for the sake of a saving of public money. It was not for him now to consider whether or not the engagement was a judicious one; he could only look at the treaty, and abide by it to keep public faith. The Hon. Gentleman had said, that the object was to secure the union with Belgium and Holland, and not for the benefit of Russia; but he ought to have looked likewise to the object of Russia in the treaty. This country had entered into the engagement for the purpose of inducing Russia to further that union; and on the faith of this country had Russia complied. The mere question for the House to consider was, whether the spirit and letter of the treaty would warrant this country in departing from the existing engagement. From the negociations and correspondences that took place at the time, there could not remain a doubt that the separation meant a separation from coercion by external force. Now, no such separation by force had taken place, and consequently England was still, with regard to the engagement, in the same situation in which it had ever stood. The intention, at least of the Treasury, had been to act according to the law, and he felt that Government had so acted. With respect to the resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he bad only to say, that as the two first were merely declaratory of fact, he would merely, so far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third resolution was a direct censure on Ministers, he would meet it with a direct negative.—The Attorney-General declared, that the Crown and its Ministers were the judges of the construction that ought to be put upon the treaty, and that one branch of the legislature ought not to dictate to the other.—Sir R. Peel would confidently say, that Government had not the authority to make the payments. Lord Castlereagh, who was the Minister that made the treaty on the part of this country, informed the House, that by the treaty this country was only bound to the payment so long as the Low Countries should be united to Holland under the sovereignty of the house of Orange. According to the construction of the treaty now contended for, England would be bound to pay the money, even if Belgium were united to France by peaceable means. He thought that could not be consistent with the letter or the spirit of the treaty. If the supporters of Reform should vote against the resolutions, they would give an argument in favour of Reform beyond any which their reason or ingenuity had yet brought forward.—Lord I'almerstnn contended that the alleged blame did not rest with the present Ministers, but with arrangements made before they took office. The House then divided on the first two resolutions, when the numbers were, for the motion, 219; for the previous question, 239; majority for Ministers, 20. The House again divided on the third resolution, regarding the legality of the acts of Ministers, in the alleged violation of the Act of Parliament, when there were, Ayes, 214; Noes, 238; majority for Ministers, 24.
Jan. 27. The House resolved itself into a committee on the Reform Bill. The clause for the division of counties was carried by 315 to 89.—Mr. C. Graut moved the appointment of a committee to inquire into and report on the expediency of renewing the Charter of the East India Company. He proposed that the committee should consist of forty-eight members, to be divided into seven or eight sub-committees, each committee to investigate different parts of the important subject.—Agreed to.
Jan. 31. Colonel Havies moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire relative to the distressed state of the glove
trade. The House divided on the motion, which was opposed by Ministers, and it was lost by a majority of 228 to 168.
Feb. 1. The House went into Committee on the Reform Bill, and passed the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth clauses. The next was the tenantat-will clause, of which Sir Robert Heron moved the omission, but the motion was negatived by a majority of 242—the numbers being 272 and 30.—On the 24th clause being read, Mr. Praed moved an amendment, the object of which was to give to every 40s. freeholder, residing in a borough, the right of voting for the borough, but to prohibit him from voting for the county.—Lord John Russell objected, that it was calculated to give too much preponderance to the landed interest; and it was lost by a majority of 90—181 to 91.
Feb. 2. The House having gone into Committee on the Reform Bill, the seventeenth clause, providing for the subdivisions of the counties of York and Lincoln, was agreed to. The twenty-fifth clause was then passed.—On the twenty-sixth clause being read, Lord Althorp suggested an amendment, fixing one period for the registration of voters in every year, commencing with the present, namely, the 1st of July. The clause, thus amended, was agreed to. —Clause twenty-seven being read, Mr. Hunt proposed that all householders, paying rates and taxes, should have a vote at elections. After considerable discussion, the House divided, when there were, for Mr. Hunt's amendment, 11; against it, 290; majority, 279.
Feb. 3. The House went into Committee on the Reform Bill, and the twentyseventh clause was read.—Mr. E. Uenison proposed an amendment, which would have the effect of fixing, for a specified time, the votes resulting from valuations that might now take place. It was opposed by Ministers, and not pressed to a division.—.Mr. G. Vernon then moved an amendment, that the franchise should be enjoyed only by those who occupied houses rated at 10/. to the poor-rates. The Committee divided; for the original clause, 252; for the amendment, 184; majority, 68. — Mr. Hunt moved, that Preston be exempt from the operation of the Bill. On the division there were, for the amendment, 5; against it, 206; majority, 201.
Feb. 6. Mr. Goulburn, on the bringing up of the Report of the Committee of Supply, entered into a very lengthened examination of the financial state of the country, with the view of showing that the favourable anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been falsified, and that, instead of a surplus, there had been a large falling off in the revenue.—Lord Althorp entered into an explanation of the circumstances that had led to the result.
Feb. 7. The House went into Committee on the Reform Bill, when the 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and other clauses and amendments, were disposed of.
Feb. 8. In Committee on the Reform Bill, Clauses 32 and the following, up to 38, were agreed to.
Feb. 9. Mr. Courtenay brought forward a motion for papers, explanatory of the nature of our connexion with Portugal. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, disavowed any intention of espousing either the cause of Don Miguel or Don Pedro. All he contended for was the policy of non-intervention. It was owing to the inconsistency of the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, in departing from the line of policy adopted by the late Mr. Canning, that the present state of affairs between the two countries was owing. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving an address to the King for all communications concerning the enlistment and equipment of men and ships for the expedition of Don Pedro against Portugal, together with any remonstrance from Portugal on the subject.—Sir James Mackintosh opposed the motion, on the ground that the Government had no right to enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act in the case of Portugal. He denied that Don Miguel was, by the law of nations, in possession of Portugal, and his government was obnoxious to all Europe.— After a discussion of considerable length, in which the motion was supported by Lord Eliot and Sir R. Peel, and opposed by Colonel Davies, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Stanley, the Attorney-General, and Lord Sandon, the House divided—Ayes, 139; Noes, 274. Majority against the motion, 135.
Feb. 10. The House went into a Committee on the Reform Bill. Clauses 38 and 39
were agreed to Un the 40th Clause being
put, Air. Croker objected to the J udges having the appointment of the Barristers who were to decide on the qualification of voters. Judges should not be made a part of political machinery. — Lord Althorp said the object was to avoid political influence.—The words requiring the approbation of the Lord Chancellor being struck out, and an amendment made to prevent the Barristers being Members of Parliament, the Clause was
agreed to Clauses 41 to 50, inclusive,
were agreed to.—On the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, Clause 51, giving the Barrister power to imprison witnesses who refused to answer, was postponed—Clauses 52 and 53 were also agreed to.
Feb. 13. A discussion took place relative to the alleged appearance of Cholera in the Metropolis.
Feb. 14. Mr. Lambert presented Petitions from Wexford, praying for the aboli
tion of Tithes in Ireland, which led to an animated discussion, and eventually to a most important communication from Mr. Stanley, the Secretary for Ireland.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained Earl Grey's sentiments on this subject, and said that the law would be enforced; but that, if coercive measures were requisite, they would not be resorted to by the Government, unless accompanied by measures to redress the grievances of the existing tithe system in Ireland. —Sir R. Peel observed that there was some dissimilarity between the sentiments of the two Noble Lords; but that he must presume that the Governmenthad taken a new view of the subject. After some farther conversation, Mr. Stanley stated that whatever measures he might deem it requisite, with the sanction of the Government, to bring forward, would
of course be on their own responsibility
that remedial measures were contemplated, as well as those to support the law, should such be considered requisite—that it would be their object to support the Protestant Church of Ireland—but that the tendency and effect of such measures would, at the same time, undoubtedly be the " extinction" of tithes in that country.—Lord Althorp applied for, and obtained leave, to bring in a Bill to increase the powers of the Privy Council in reference to the disease called Spasmodic Cholera. The Bill is to enable the Privy Council to enforce such measures as the progress of the cholera may occasion, should it unhappily rage violently and extensively; to aid parishes with money; to enforce the prompt removal of the sick or the dead; and to adopt such other measures as might appear necessary. The Bill also contains provisions for the repayment of such monies as may be advanced, and penalties for neglecting regulations that may be enforced. The Bill was afterwards brought in, and called forth a good deal of desultory conversation. The money which the Government may find it requisite to advance to parishes to meet emergencies is to be charged on the parish rate, or eventually on the county rate. This, the Opposition contended, would be hard, and that it ought to be charged on the country, as it is for the general good. The Government feared that the adoption of such a provision would very seriously impede private exertions and local charities,on which, after all, so much must depend. The Bill was read a first and second time, on the 15th, was committed, and read a third time and passed.*
Feb. 15. The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill. Clause*
* A Bill for a similar purpose with reference to Scotland, was introduced on the 16th by the Lord Advocate, and passed on the 17th.