July 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



[1844. 







20 



New York papers observe upon 



ted vrHnow perfectly clear, and must be so even 

 ^L^lho have\kherto doubted, that if the Senate of 

 to those who wv res . sted and defea ted the pro- 



^^i? diate annexation," the United Mates 



jeCt u Le been at this moment at war with Mexico.- 

 would have oeen . . t0 return t0 England in 



E^^^* ^^^ """ " <Uffereat 

 jUtei of the Union. 



parliament. 



HOUSE OF LORDS. 

 After the discussion on Morocco noticed in our last, 

 Fri ^ifrhirter Bill, on the motion of the Duke of Wellino- 

 the Bank cn» time.— Lord Campbell, in a speech pointing 



TOK 



out 



read a first time 



t w u re*u the law oQ the sub j ect> aim the necessity 



the P'^^t m0 ved the third reading of his Law of Libel 

 tor improvement, Chancbllor op p OS ed it, contending that it 



BU1, ,7.,Hfn trreat inconvenience, without any countervailing 

 would lean y ? d Beouoham supported the Bill.— Lord Denman 

 advantage. ^ had not received that due and sufficient 



•"% « on which would warrant them in legislating. Public 

 •°?" n hid effected a great change in the practice as relating to 

 buttons for alleged libels on a Government. Attorney. 

 ?^SSV iiMtees, and juries, would shrink from prosecuting or 

 •tine defendants for comments on public men or public acts, 

 convicting century ago would have insured punishment. As to 

 winch naii j v ^ afforded t0 defendants, under the guise of 



P to* the truth a licence which might be abused to an alarming 

 proving nro'uaeation of slanderous accusations, under which 



Socen men might be subjected to a torture greater than any 

 *SE could deliver them from.- Lord Campbell replied; and 

 Jh/ii 11 was rejected, on a division, by 33 to 3.— The Presbyterian 

 v.rriajres Bill went through committee. 



liandav —On the motion of the Duke of Wellington, Lord 

 Colborne was substituted for the Earl of Burlington, to serve on 

 the Post-office secret committee.— Lord Wharncliffe gave 

 notice that on Friday he would move the second reading of the 

 Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill—The Bishop 

 of Exeter stated his decided objection to the Bill, on account of 

 the 11th and 17th clauses, which recognised " Roman Catholic 

 ministers duly appointed according to the laws and constitution 

 of the Roman Catholic Church"— which was, in fact, recognising 

 the jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope within this realm.— 

 Lord Wharncliffe promised to consider the subject. — Lord 

 "Wodehousb complained of statements made in the Times news- 

 paper connecting the incendiarism in Norfolk and Suffolk with 

 theadministration of the Poor Laws. In rather a warm manner, 

 he invited the "gentlemen of the press ''then present to visit 

 with him the poor-houses in his county, when he promised to con- 

 vince them of the falsehood of the statements. — On the motion of 

 the Marquess of Normanbt, a return of the number, age, and 

 aexof the persons committed for trial at the last assizes in Norfolk 

 and Suffolk, on the charge of incendiarism, with the result of the 



trials, was ordered. 

 Tuesday.— On the motion of Lord Wharncliffe, the Union of 



Parishes (Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. — The 

 Bank Charter Bill was read a second time without any discussion, 

 and its committal fixed for Monday. — The Bishop of Exeter 

 moved the third reading of his Brothels Suppression Bill. — Lord 

 Foley opposed it, and moved its third reading that day six months. 

 — The Duke of Wellington advised the Right Rev. Prelate not 

 to press his measure this session, but to leave it for consideration 

 in another year. With respect to the feelings of Government on 

 the subject, he was bound to say that, while Government earnestly 

 desired to mitigate the evils resulting from these establishments, 

 they entertained a strong feeling that, from the nature of the 

 difficulties, it would be impossible to carry the provisions of the 

 measure into execution. It appeared to them that this was a 

 somewhat stringent measure, and that without additional regula- 

 tions and arrangements, neither the Government nor the magis- 

 trates could carry it into execution.— The Bishop of Exeter, upon 

 this, withdrew his Bill. — A great many petitions, chiefly against 

 the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, were presented. 



Thursday.— A great number of petitions were presented against 

 the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, one of which gave rise to a discussion 

 on the point of" order," in which Lords Campbell, Brougham, 

 Clanricarde, Mountcashel, Kenyon, andWiCE low took part. 

 —The Earl of Uoden gave notice that he should do everything in 

 his power to defeat what he considered one of the most iniquitous 

 and dangerous measures that ever was proposed to Parliament.— 

 The Earl of Powis stated the course he proposed to take upon the 

 Bangor and St.Asaph's Bishoprics Bill, in consequence of the report 

 of the committee on precedents, and of the intimation given by 

 the Duke of Wellington that the Royal sanction was not likely to 

 be given to the Bill. He said the only courses open to him were 

 either to withdraw the Bill, or to press it forward with the chance 

 of carrying it through its remaining stages in their Lordships' 

 ■House, despits the report of the committee, but also with the 

 risk of being beaten. After the best consideration he came to 

 toe determination not to risk the vantage-ground he had already 

 obtained in having the BUI sanctioned by the majority of the 

 House, and its passing only impeded by a technical interposition. 

 He should therefore withdraw it, convinced that, sooner or later, 

 runner discussion must take place on it, as there were only thirty - 

 U v? V*? who voted against the principle of the measure, The 

 Sa « f« d leave t0 withdraw the Bill.-The Bishop of 



DiJn rw a, ns wered at length the arguments adduced by the 

 ind rnnli V 5 . i Bton in opposition to the Bill on a former night, 

 conJ£? by ex P re ssing his hope that the Government would 



liber? v ♦« Y?" consider the matter, and if they did not feel at 

 th« I, , J , "! n r °™ard themselves in a future session, that 

 S *™ um a t 'east allow it to be proceeded with in the ordinary 

 ciL!V i? further objection.-The Earl of Mount Edg- 

 of thif , a J c . i ; nowle dged that he had voted against the second reading 

 Sat LI co, \ tfar >' to l"s convictions, and solely on the ground 

 mem tr r g f l " was to the public weal to give a Govern- 

 lunnnrt Vi . approved an unvacillating and consistent 

 ioritv nf ti ■ ? 0ked u P° n it as a misfortune that the ma- 

 raent on ti e - lr lor d s hips should be overborne by the Govern- 

 to rprnncw . questlon ; aud strongly recommended Ministers 

 forwari,.. the subject and give facilities for its being brought 

 Bishon nf c f" slon -— The Duke of Wellington replied to the 

 effect of lu'n r> ' s arguments on the general principles and 

 toe Crown t7 ' and denied the undue use of the prerogative of 

 measure 4i,i lT as the dut y of the Ministers of the Crown, when a 

 andlikeh TS the y con sidered injurious instead of being useful, 

 Parliament t? Prerogative of the Crown, was introduced into 

 of such a nu! advise the Crown to consent to the discussion 

 ■ade of tl * -ure-— Lord Lyttleton maintained that the use 

 least unusual 2 gative of the Crown was » in tnis instance » at 

 that it wm" * Would not say with the Duke of Newcastle « 

 would assert thit n trick ~ an unworthy manoeuvre," but he 

 •tttine rid of »i • e cou rse resorted to was an unfair mode of 

 •u^tional Lvi S r m f asure / -Lord Broooham said, that as a con- 

 barred frnm «Z!f ' U was ms opinion that the House was not de- 

 fromthec ?r« assin ? f the Bill, if they chose, without any consent 

 tl»e BUI.— Ti'ip m ' nowever, recommended the withdrawal of 



withdrawal of the Bill under the circumstances. — The Bill was 

 finally withdrawn. — lord Monteaole moved an address to Her 

 Majesty, stating that the accommodation for the pauper lunatics 

 in Ireland was utterly insufficient, and praying Her Majesty to 

 be graciously pleased to take into her immediate consideration" the 

 means necessary for their better accommodation. — Lord Wharn- 

 cliffe assured the noble Lord that the Government were most 

 anxious on the subject, and had taken steps to carry their inten- 

 tions into effect. — The motion was negatived without a division. — 

 The Charitable Loans Societies Bill was read a second time. 



Friday.— The Duke of Richmond stated that the committee 

 on Qui Tarn Actions had authorised him to state that the evi- 

 dence of Mr. Russell should be communicated to the individual 

 in the other House (Mr. Christie: who had brought forward the 

 subject.— The Earl of Radnor thought it was improper to pub- 

 lish parts of evklence of a sitting committee.— The Mar- 

 quis of Normanby called attention to the speech of Mr. 

 Christie, made on Thursday night in the other House, 

 in which the hon. member said, there was presumptive 

 evidence of a conspiracy between certain members of that 

 House and the Chairman of the Lords' committee on Qui Tarn 

 Actions. He was sure that his Noble Friend (the Duke of Rich- 

 mond) was beyond all suspicions of the sort.— The Earl of 

 Radnor also defended the Noble Duke.— The Duke of Rich- 

 mond said he did not feel the least annoyed at the statements 

 made elsewhere, as regarded himself ; he stood upon his own 

 character; only he thought that^gentlemen, especially if young 

 Members of Parliament, ought to be cautious in imputing im- 

 proper motives to any one.— Lord Monte aglk defended the con- 

 duct of Mr. Christie, who would not willingly do a wrong.— 

 Lord Campbell said there was no ground for casting impu- 

 tations on the Noble Duke ; he confessed, however, that the 

 Members of the other House might have had some cause for the 

 views some of them had taken.— The Earl of Radnor presented 

 another petition from Mr. Mazzini, complaining of his letters 

 being surreptitiously broken open.— The Marquis of Nor- 

 manby postponed until Tuesday week his motion respecting the 

 sanatory condition of towns.— [Left sittiug. j 



*cted 

 the p teb 





whv th- I ara - uess of Clanricarde asserted that the rea- 

 lv ,li E H eces T'ty of tne R°yal consent had been so unex- 

 iSnflES? Mas iu order t0 avoid the scandal of seeing 

 chequer 2 - tlle Board of Trad e and the Chancellor of the Ex- 

 should the Km k" lts f avour,and in opposition to their colleagues, 

 w "ARNciiVi .? ve . gone down to the H °use of Commons.— Lord 

 »ere favoiinL • \ ed that cither Mr - Gladstone or Mr. Goulburn 

 KitUeats JttliJ° the Bil1 ' though the latter gentleman's con- 

 certainly were.-The Bishop of Bangor approved of the 



HOUSE OF COMMONS. 

 Friday.— After the withdrawal of Col. Sibthorp's motion for 

 the abolition of the Poor- Law Commission, the House pro- 

 ceeded with the different clauses of the Poor-Law Amendment 

 Bill. The first clause having passed, Sir J. Grauam proposed, 

 on the 2d clause, that 12 months should be allowed instead of 

 six, for the mother's application against the father to obtain 

 maintenance for the illegitimate child. It was equally neces- 

 sary for the purposes of justice that there should be some limi- 

 tation of time, and that the time so limited should not be too 

 short. After some discussion, Sir J. Graham proposed, with 

 the general assent, to allow that the father should be liable to 

 a summons at any time, on proof that he had paid money for 

 the child's maintenance within twelve months from its birth. 

 —On the 4th clause, Mr. Beckett Denison objected to the 

 enactment giving to the putative father the power of appeal. 

 The woman would never have the means of meeting such a 

 process. It would be better that the adjudication should be by 

 three justices instead of two, and that their decision should 

 be final. Several members concurred in the objection to 

 the appeal, especially as it was given only to the man, 

 and not to the woman. — Sir J. Graham feared that the 

 question was one upon which no further consideration 

 would enable the House to form a better judgment. He 

 thought that the power of two justices in petty sessions to 

 charge- a poor man with the payment of a weekly sum for 13 

 years was a large and dangerous authority, if left without ap- 

 peal It was, however, a matter upon which he had not a very 

 strong opinion, and which he must leave to the decision of the 

 committee.— Mr. Waklev pressed urgently for reconsideration, 

 with a view to the extension of the appeal to the woman. The 

 distress of women, chargeable with the maintenance of their 

 illegitimate children was the cause of weekly and daily infanti- 

 cide —The committee, after some discussion, went to a division, 

 the result of which was, that the appeal was left to the man ; 

 and to the woman the right of renewing her application.— On 

 the llth clause, empowering the commissioners to regulate the 

 auoreaticing of poor children, Sir C. Napier and others con- 

 tended, that this direction was better left with the guardians, 



which Mr. Gladstone rose to make the Government statement 

 on behalf of the Bill. Several remarkable instances had recently 

 occurred of Bills misrepresented and misunderstood, but 

 in no case had there been more formidable organisation 

 against a measure, or grosser perversion of its real nature. 

 So solicitous were the Government to protect railway 

 interests, that they were accused of having " packed" the com- 

 mittee, which, constituted as it was, had come substantially to 

 an opinion, if not iu favour of this precise measure, at least in 

 approbation of an interference to a similar extent. He was 

 surprised by the allegation that the evidence was erparte ; if 

 it were so at all, it was on the side of the railway companies, 

 as he showed by reading the names of influential individuals 

 connected with their management who were examined as wit- 

 nesses. Running over the clauses of the Bill, affirming that the 

 portion of it which provided for thehumbler classes conveyance 

 at a penny a mile, in carriages sheltered from exposure to the 

 weather, constituted a national question of some importance, 

 he came to what he considered the essence of the Bill, the power 

 of "option." On this point great delusion prevailed j it was 

 assumed that the Bill gave to the Executive Government the 

 option of purchasing: for the State existing or future railways, 

 or of revising their tolls at discretion. This he stron, denied, 

 and said, if it were so, he would himself vote again>t the Bill. 

 The Executive would have no power under it of purchasing: 

 without coming to Parliament in each specific case. Railways 

 constituted a new element in our social state ; it was impossible 

 to foresee in what position wc might be placed by them ten or 

 fifteen years hence | and all that the Bill proposed was, not 

 <<>\iolate public faith by giving to the Bxecut e a present 

 option of purchase, but simply to " reserve ie Legislature 



at some future period the right to do so without befog barred 

 by the plea of "vested interest," if It should then bo 

 deemed politic and expedient. An Executive could not purchase 

 a railway without money, nor obtain money v. lout coming 

 to Parliament, and showing good ground for the demand. If 

 it were feared that the Bill would enable the Executive to tie 

 up the discretion of the Legislature, let them devise any proviso 

 which would prevent it, and it should have his. ion. 



There was a difference of two-thirds between the fare f our 

 railways and those of Belgium ; and although it was said that 

 this was a much richer country, we paid no more, rather less, 

 for our cotton goods. Seeing that the public were interested 

 to the extent of fifteen millions annually, and that under the 

 present system of rival companies, and anxiety to realise large 

 dividends, no general experiment of cheap communis on 

 could be tried, it was wise to reserve a right to the Legislature 

 < f purchase, it future circumstances might render it an object 

 of national policy. It might be asked— Why not be tent 

 with a naked reservation? That would prove a mere brut um 

 fulmen, like a former resolution of the House ; and it was de- 

 sirable that the limits should be clearly defiucd, on the faith of 

 which capital might be invested. The old railway companies 

 urged that the Bill would submit them to ruinous conditions 

 hereafter. Kcallv, after the rather unprecedented attempt to 

 suppress discussion on a Bill based on the report of a select 

 committee, they were too bashful in asserting either their power 

 or their pretensions. Even at that moment lie was addressing a 

 majority of rai way proprietors; his own family were as largely 

 interested as any other; and it was ludicrous to imagine 

 that these powerful combinations could not protect their 

 interests at any future period. Time was a^ked for the 

 consideration of the Bill. But it was not a measure of defini- 

 tive legislation, being simply one of precaution, so far as iU 

 leading provisions were involved; aud the allegation of being 

 surprised by the Bill was contradicted by the fact, that the 

 recommendations of the committee, on which it rested, had 

 been before the public three months. They were tempted to 

 postpone the Bill, by bland promises of consideration next 

 session. But delay would render these powerful companies 

 only stronger and more arrogant ; and it would not be his fault 

 if Parliament let slip the present favourable opportunity for 

 legislating. They were urged to leave railways, like anything 

 else, to the natural operation of competition j but he would 

 as soon hear the Gracchi speak on sedition, as railway proprie- 

 tors on competition. Illustrating this by anecdotes, and ex- 

 tracts from evidence, he showed the high ground taken by the 

 advocates of the inviolability of railway property, and 

 attributed the entire opposition to the Bill to the active agency 



w£o had personal knowledge of the circumstance • of ejeh «« XilwaV .43 « «nd^licitor. i ^ho knew well the arts of 

 -Several members concurred in this view, and the clause was « ™»W **X r by private canvass or publ-c misstatement 

 ™^ 5 ^»nm«Pt their obiections.-On the 13th clause, touching rawing it, f ^}ethcr ^P-^%^ and Meetly overlooking 



the third report of the committee, or forgetting such evidence 

 as Mr. Glvnn's, recommending that if they legislated it should 

 be immediate. They were told of "a shock to railway pro- 

 nertv : " but the Bill had not been exposed to a dull day in the 

 money market. Since the publication of the third report 

 fifteen new railways had been projected, and, since the appear- 

 ance of the Bill, railway shares had risen! On Monday week 

 a lugubrious body of men-railway directors in front-solicitors 

 and agents in the rear- waited on Sir R. Peel and himself, to 

 ask for a postponement of the Bill; and when they were told 

 that the Government were resolved to press it, they retired 

 with doleful predictions of injustice, interference, and rum } 

 yet since that event the shares of the Great \\ estern have 

 risen 5/. ! The opposition to the Bill had but strengthened 

 his determination to proceed with a measure, moderate m 

 its claims, and precautionary in its nature , and he did not 

 think that the railway companies had mounted so high, 

 or the House of Commons sunk so low. as to cause '^rejec- 

 tion, the second reading of which he concluded by mo wng. 

 Mr. Entwisle, as one of the " lugubrious deputation ^at had 

 waited on the Government, commented on the Bill. J»»« ~ 



contended was unjust to the railway co^^^™ 

 for third class trains was supported by gentlemen wao 



modified to meet their objection 



the constituency for the election of guardians, Mr T. Dun-combs 

 proposed that no more than one vote should be allowed to one 

 person.-Sir J. Geaham justified the clause as it stood , and, 

 on a division, it was sustained in its original shape.-Dis- 

 cussions followed on other clauses of no general interest, and 

 after numerous amendments and divisions the clauses, down 



to 19 inclusive, were agreed to. ...... 



Mond^.-lrl reply to Mr. Sheil, Sir R. Peel stated that our 

 Consul at Algiers was not there under an exequatur from the 

 French Government. In fact the Consul was appointed in 1827, 

 under the authority of the Turkish and Algenne Governments. 

 In 1830 the expedition of France was undertaken, and Algiers 

 was occupied. The Duke of Wellington's Government was 

 succeeded by that of Lord Grey, and during the whole period of 

 that noble Lord's Government the question was not stirred, nor 

 was there any acquiescence. The question stands now pre- 

 cisely as it did in 1830, and during the whole period that Mr. 

 Sheil and his friends were in office.-In re pi v to further ques- 

 tions put by Sir C. Napier, the Premier stated that there never 

 was a period when the power of this country to make a great 

 naval demonstration was greater than at ; present, although the 

 number of ships actually commissioned is small. He also an- 

 nounced that our Consul-Gene, al at Tangiers is at present with 

 the Emperor of Morocco, and that therefore the report is untrue 

 hut the Emperor had refused our mediation.-After an unavail- 

 ing attempt on the part of Mr. C. Wood, Lord Palmersto.v, 

 and Lord Howice to extract further information on the subject, 

 t "e matter dropped.-On the order of the day for the second 

 readingof the Railway Bill, Mr. Gisbornk moved as an amend- 

 ment that the order be discharged. It was impossiole, he said, 

 if the measure should be hastily passed, that, opposed as it was 

 bv the whole railway boards, and carried as it must be in haste, 

 it could work well. They required therefore time till the next 

 session to mature the Bill.— Mr. C. Russell seconded the amend- 

 ment The railway companies complained that they had not been 

 fairlv* heard : they had been kept in ignorance of the scheme of 

 the Board of Trade, until it appeared in the specific shape of the 

 Hill before the House; but its appearance was the signal for 

 universal alarm. On behalf of interests involving upwards of 

 one hundred millions of invested capital, he besought a post- 

 ponement till next session, and trusted that the House would 

 Sot refuse so reasonable a request -Mr. Gladstone said that 

 it would absolutely preclude them from going into the Merits of 

 the Bill, which was wholly misunderstood out of doois. J-cr 

 them go into its discussion, and then any amendment for Post- 

 ponement could be fitly introduced -Sir R; P« t ^aid * £ the 

 iailway companies, presuming on their reputed strength, inhteaa 

 of acting on the ancient maxim, "St. **»*»3Jtt 

 determined not even to permit an ^f^^^est 

 state its views on a measure introduced for the P« Da ^"i ation 

 Now was the time to legislate; a spirit ot .^^ jptwjatwn 



was abroad; 62 Bills had been applied for ^V^jXuse to re- 

 session would witness many more. H* begged he 1 Un ^ t re 

 collect that class of the community which lad hithert 

 no benefit from rai Iwaya, and far jrhofh ttj» g f> ^^ 



mour 



£ere ^ desiroas of availing themselves of *%^»™££ 



even though occas on *"> e J & of tne Pre sident of the Board 



SZeT^W^' approved of the Bill ; he 



idnnr^wav -hares, and he hated the very name of 



broads" afloTwTitch % considered dangerous, delusive, gam- 



^/i r ° a ?«H V, .satisfactory speculations. Private property must 



soccumb to public good. Delays were dangerow^and the Go- 



biing, and unsatisfactory spec 



umb to public good. Del . , 



vernment roust beware of man-traps and spring- guns.-Mr. 

 I ZTcHERE, Lord Sandon, and Mr. Cardwkll spoke in 

 favour of the second reading; and Mr. M. Philips and Mr. 

 parebr against it.-Mr. Shiel asked if the Dublin and Cashel 

 Railway would be affected by the Bill ?-Mr. Gladstone said 

 it would affect all future railways.— Mr. Sheil then said that 

 the shareholders had subscribed their money without any cog- 

 nisance of the intentions of the Board of Trade. K " 

 uassed, it would check railway enterprise «» Ire i* n j f' 

 There were two thousand miles of constructed ralIwa p tne 

 England, which would be exempted from the operation oi* 

 Bill; in Ireland only five, the Dublin and Kingstown jj and »£ 

 would therefore cover the face of the country ^.^"v em- 

 He was afraid of augmenting the patronage of ma ^ 

 ment ; the Board of Trade was very near the Tree 8 ^iray. 

 Cardwkll was concerned with the Dublin and ca ^ and 

 the Bill for which was not yet carried througu ra "* . in of . 

 therefore its promoters would have no 'Ojusucc ^ is did n0 t 



lu ordinary cases trade was best left 'f* e n ; hli ,. to watch mo- 

 apply to railways, and he called upon tne P"« . _„ iri ,^rimL 

 nopoly with jealousy. He thwtoetoue. 

 natc opposition would be offered to the 



e called upon ^the pawn. - dbcriroU 



» e ih :rJr t Xtm^U. without 





