Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Harris, J. D.

Ogilvy, Sir J. Oliphant, L.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 289; Hartington, Marquess of O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

Noes 310: Majority 21.

[blocks in formation]

Hay, Lord J.

Hay, Lord W. M. Hayter, Captain A. D. Headlam, rt. hn. T. E. Heathcote, Sir W. Henderson, J.

Heneage, E.
Henley, Lord
Herbert, H. A.
Hodgson, K. D.
Holden, I.
Holland, E.
Hope, A. J. B. B.
Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Hubbard, J. G.
Hughes, T.
Hughes, W. B.
Hurst, R. H.

Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W.
Jackson, W.
Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Johnstone, Sir J.

Earle, R. A.

[blocks in formation]

Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E. Kingscote, Colonel

Blake, J. A.

Esmonde, J.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Evans, T. W.

Bouverie, rt. hn. E. P. Ewart, W.

Bright, Sir C. T.

Eykyn, R.

Bright, J.

Fawcett, H.

Bruce, Lord C.

Fildes, J.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Kinglake, J. A.

Rothschild, Baron M. de

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Rothschild, N. M. de

[blocks in formation]

Butler, C. S.
Buxton, Sir T. F.
Calcraft, J. H. M.
Calthorpe,hn.F.H.W.G.
Candlish, J.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.
Carington, hon. C. R.

Finlay, A. S.

FitzGerald, Lord O. A.
Fitz Patrick, rt.hn. J.W.
Foljambe, F. J. S.
Fordyce, W. D.
Forster, C.

Forster, W. E.
Foster, W. O.
Fort, R.

Fortescue, rt. hon. C. S.

Fortescue, hon. D. F.

Leatham, W. H.

Leeman, G.

Lefevre, G. J. S. Locke, J.

Lowe, rt. hon. R. Lusk, A. M.Laren, D.

Russell, F. W.

Russell, Sir W.

St. Aubyn, J.

Samuda, J. D'A. Samuelson, B.

Scholefield, W. Scott, Sir W. Scrope, G. P. Seely, C.

Seymour, A.

Seymour, H. D.

Shafto, R. D.

Sheridan, H. B.

[blocks in formation]

Marjoribanks, Sir D. C. Sherriff, A. C.

Maguire, J. F.

Carnegie, hon. C.

Martin, C. W.

Castlerosse, Viscount

Gaselee, Serjeant S.

Martin, P. W.

Cave, T.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Matheson, A.

Cavendish, Lord E.

[blocks in formation]

Cavendish, Lord F. C.

Cavendish, Lord G.

[blocks in formation]

Chambers, M.

Glyn, G. G.

Miller, W.

[blocks in formation]

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Milbank, F. A.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Norwood, C. M.

Verney, Sir II.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Gray, Lieut,-Colonel

Grey, hon. T. de
Griffith, C. D.
Grosvenor, Earl
Grosvenor, Lord R.
Guinness, Sir B. L.
Gurney, rt. hon. R.
Gwyn, H.

Hamilton,rt.hon.Lord C.

Hamilton, Lord C. J.

Hamilton, I. T.

Hamilton, Viscount

Hardy, rt. hon, G.
Hardy, J.

Hartley, J.

Hartopp, E. B.
Harvey, R. B.
Harvey, R. J. H.

Hervey, Lord A. H. C.
Hay, Sir J. C. D.
Heathcote, hon. G. H.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Henniker-Major, hon.

J. M.

Herbert, hn. Colonel P.
Heygate, Sir F. W.
Hildyard, T. B. T.
Hodgkinson, G.
Hodgson, W. N.
Hogg, Lieut.-Col. J. M.
Holford, R. S.
Holmesdale, Viscount
Hood, Sir A. A.
Hornby, W. H.
Horsfall, T. B.

Hotham, Lord

Huddleston, J. W.

Dyke, W. H.

Dyott, Colonel R.

Howes, E.

Eckersley, N.

Hunt, G. W.

Edwards, Sir H.

Innes, A. C.

Egerton, Sir P. G.

Egerton, hon. A. F.

Egerton, hon. W.

Egerton, E. C.

Elcho, Lord

Ewing, H. E. Crum

Fane, Lt.-Col. H. H. Fane, Colonel J. W. Feilden, J.

Fitzwilliam, hn.C.W.W.

Fellowes, E.

Fergusson, Sir J.

Bruce, Sir H. H.

Floyer, J.

Bruen, H.

Foley, II. W.

Buckley, E.

Forde, Colonel

Bulkeley, Sir R.

Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

Burrell, Sir P.

Freshfield, C. K.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mackinnon, Capt. L. B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

M'Lagan, P.

Mainwaring, T.

Malcolm, J. W.

Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

Manners, Lord G. J.

Marsh, M. II.

Meller, Colonel
Mitchell, T. A.
Mitford, W. T.
Montagu, Lord R.
Montgomery, Sir G.
Mordaunt, Sir C.
Morgan, O.

Morgan, hon. Major
Morris, G.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Naas, Lord
Neeld, Sir J.
Neville-Grenville, R.
Newdegate, C. N.
Newport, Viscount
North, Colonel
Northcote,rt.hn.SirS.H.
O'Neill, E.
Packe, C. W.

Paget, R. H.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Palk, Sir L.

Parker, Major W.
Parry, T.

Patten, Colonel W.

[blocks in formation]

Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. Severne, J. E.

Selwyn, C. J.

Seymour, G. H.

Simonds, W. B.

[Committee-Clause 3.

[blocks in formation]

MR. COGAN said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the fact as reported in the newspapers that the Solicitor General for Ireland, at & meeting of the Church Education Society held in Dublin on the 10th of April, proposed a resolution which he stated—

Expressed the positive principles of the Church Education Society as a Scriptural insti tution, and also its position as an antagonist of the National System;"

and, whether the Government participate in this condemnation of the National sys

Committee report Progress; to sit tem of Education as compared with that again upon Thursday 2nd May.

[blocks in formation]

CHURCH

DISCIPLINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. On Motion of Mr. WHALLEY, Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the third and fourth years of Victoria, chapter eighty-six, commonly called "The Church Discipline Act," as deprives the Laity of the power of prosecuting the Clergy for offences against the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Church of England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. KENNARD.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock, till Monday 29th April.

[blocks in formation]

of the Church Education Society, and intend to propose any alterations in it with a view to substitute in its stead a system of education founded on the principles of the Church Education Society?

LORD NAAS said, in reply, that the precise terms of the resolution moved by the Solicitor General for Ireland on the

occasion referred to were

[ocr errors]

That this Society is convinced that the Scriptural instruction of every child having access to should stand, and affords good hope, with the their schools is the true principle on which they Divine blessing, of the advancement of religion, peace, and happiness in the country." But his hon. and learned Friend pronounced no condemnation whatever of the National system, and merely, in expressing his general concurrence with the views of the Church Education Society, stated his opinion that the principle of the two systems was similar. In answer to the concluding part of the Question of the right hon, Member, he had to state that the Government did not intend to propose any alteration in the National system "with a view to substi tute in its stead a system of education founded on the principles of the Church Education Society."

IRELAND-RIVER SHANNON.

QUESTION.

MR. W. ORMSBY GORE said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Trea

sury, Whether Mr. Lynam, Civil Engineer, has made his Report upon the state of the river Shannon; and, if not, when it may be expected?

MR. HUNT said, in reply, that the Report had only been received that morning; but in a few days he hoped it would be laid upon the table of the House.

LUXEMBOURG.-QUESTION.

MR. HORSMAN: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask, Whether the noble Lord has any objection to inform the House what is the present state of the negotiations respecting Luxembourg; whether it is true that those negotiations have resulted in an arrangement for a Conference in London; and, whether he is prepared to lay upon the table of the House Papers which will show the part the English Government have taken in this

transaction?

from the first and throughout the language I have held to all parties concerned has been this-that if, unfortunately, matters took a different turn from that which they now seem likely to take, and if hostilities were to break out, the position of England in this quarrel would be one of strict and impartial neutrality.

PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS

MR. DILLWYN'S MEMORANDUM.

[ocr errors]

EXPLANATIONS.

forward on that occasion. The note was dated April 28, 1867," from "Newmarket, near Cambridge," and was to this

Motion on the Paper of his intention to MR. DILLWYN said, he had placed a put a question to the hon. Member for read to the House on the 12th April, purNottingham, as to certain Papers which he porting to be the Copy of a Memorandum made by the Member for Swansea ; and to ask that Gentleman by what means he obtained such Papers. He would beg to ask leave of the House to make a personal explanation with reference to this subject. He had that morning received a note from LORD STANLEY: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), and, as have to state that I have reason to believe he had found that in dealing with matters in which the hon. Gentleman was concerned that the propositions made for a Conference it would be better not to trust to memory, -propositions which were not solely made by England, but by all the Powers neutral he would read the communication he had in this dispute will be accepted by both received from the hon. Gentleman in France and Prussia. More than that, answer to a private notice he had given although it is too early to speak with ab-him of his intention to bring this matter solute confidence on the matter, yet I have every reason to hope, and even to believe, that this question of Luxembourg, which for the last fortnight has disturbed all Europe, is in a fair way to be speedily and amicably arranged. I fear I have no right to state to the House any details as to the present state of the negotiations; because however willing I might be, and I am always willing to explain and to vindicate the course pursued by this Government, it is obvious that I have no right to disclose the proceedings of other Governments, which have been communicated to me more or less confidentially, without the consent of those Governments. I may, however, take this opportunity of contradicting a report which I find has been current that Her Majesty's Government has expressed decided views upon the merits of the question now in dispute between France and Prussia. No such opinion has been expressed. We certainly did express a very strong opinion in favour of settling this question by peaceable means. I may also say that

effect

"Sir,-In case you still wish to address to me the question that stands in the Notice Paper in that it will not suit my arrangements to be in your name for to-morrow, I beg to inform you London before Thursday next. I have the honour to be, your most obedient servant,

"R. OSBORNE."

He should make no comment in the absence of the hon. Gentleman upon the occurrence of the other evening, further than to remark upon the want of courtesy shown by the hon. Gentleman in not giving him notice of his intention to bring the memorandum of which he (Mr. Dillwyn) was the author before the House. Owing to the abrupt manner in which the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to bring the matter forward, he (Mr. Dillwyn) had been taken very much by surprise, and had felt himself in a very awkward position in having to explain at a minute's notice, and in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel

Taylor), transactions in which he and that
hon. and galant Member were concerned.
The question he had put upon the Paper
was intended to elicit from the hon. Member
for Nottingham the means by which he had
become possessed of the paper he had read
to the House on the 12th of April, which
purported to be a copy of the memorandum
he (Mr. Dillwyn) had made of the conver-
sation he had had with the hon. and gallant
Member for the county of Dublin. The
original memorandum made by him was
not strictly of either a public or a private
character, as it was well known in the
lobby that such a memorandum had been
drawn up.
The right hon. Member for
Lewes (Mr. Brand), in a letter of the 15th
of April, explaining how the paper came
into the possession of the hon. Member for
Nottingham, said-

"It struck me that this statement was of the

greatest importance as affecting the question before the House, and I accordingly asked Mr. Stanley if he would give me the terms of the memorandum. He thereupon dictated the memorandum, which was afterwards read, and assured me that it was strictly correct."

He thought, however, that in order to prevent such misunderstandings and the necessity for such explanation in future, it would be better if hon. Gentlemen of the experience of the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) and the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Owen Stanley), when they next made a memorandum from recollection, would act a little more cau tiously and with a better sense of fair play, and show the memorandum to the hon. Member concerned. They ought, in his opinion, to have shown him the memorandum, and to have ascertained that it was substantially correct. In this case, how ever, he had nothing further to say than that the memorandum brought forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) was incorrect, both in form and in sub

stance.

MR. OWEN STANLEY said, he was very sorry to be obliged again to address the House upon this subject; but, after the statement made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he felt that it was incumbent on him to say one or two words. As to giving the hon. Member for Swansea notice, it was not the hon. Mem ber for Swansea who had asked him to read the document; it was another hon. Member- the hon. Member for Lincoln. He was not on terms of private intimacy with the hon. Member for Swansea, and he did not regard the document as in any way a private one. He mentioned it to the right hou. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) because he had had communications with the right hon. Member with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). When he found that the document was being shown to hon. Members at eleven o'clock at night

This, therefore, gave the required explanation as to the means by which the hon. Member for Nottingham had obtained the paper he read to the House. The statement it contained that the hon and gallant Member for the county of Dublin had said that the Earl of Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) upon the Reform Bill was incorrect, inasmuch as the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin did not allude to the opinions of the noble Earl in any way. That document did not refer to the question at issue before the House in any way, but related exclusively to the propriety of for that was an important fact-he menadjourning the debate until after the recess, tioned it to the right hon. Member for so as to allow time for the consideration of Lewes. The hon. Member for Swanses Mr. Hibbert's Amendment by the Cabinet, had said that it was drawn up at five that consideration being for the time pre- o'clock, previous to the Motion for the Advented by the illness of Lord Derby. That journment being made by the noble Lord the was the whole purport of the memorandum, Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). It and in justice to the hon. and gallant was, however, eleven o'clock when the Gentleman the Member for the county of document was being shown to hon. Mem Dublin, he (Mr. Dillwyn) felt bound to ex-bers, certainly with a view to induce those plain most explicitly that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hint in any manner whatever that Lord Derby was favourable to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). The memorandum was one merely affecting the adjournment; it was no secret, and he showed it freely to several hon. Members.

Members favourable to the Amendment to
support the Government.
It was, of
course, difficult, after the perusal of a do-
cument, to remember the exact words.
The right hon. Member for Lewes, wishing
to speak to the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Glad
stone), asked him (Mr. Owen Stanley) for

1

« PreviousContinue »