MONDAY, JULY 7-continued. The Thames Embankment-Question, Mr. W. Williams-Answer, Mr. Cowper 1504 Thames Embankment Bill [Bill No. 162]-considered in Committee Clause 34 (Plans and Elevations of Buildings fronting River to be submitted to First Commissioner of Works) - Amendment (Lord John Manners), "That the said Clause be omitted". Question put, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill"- The Committee divided: Ayes 162; Clause 35 (Board may grant Building Leases of Ground not wanted for Pur- poses of this Act)-Amendment (Mr. Augustus Smith) moved; and Clause 42 (Prohibition against Use of Locomotives along the Streets)- Amendment, "That the said Clause be omitted "(Sir William Jolliffe); Clause 77 (Crown Lessees to have Option of taking Lease of Reclaimed Land adjacent to their Properties for Terms of their Leases)-After Additional Clause ( Mr. Ayrton)—Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time "-The Committee divided: Ayes 18; Nocs 139: Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) Bill [Bill 168]-Order for Committee read-Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"-Debate To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient to postpone the consideration of further expenditure upon the proposed Fortifications authorized by this Bill, until there have been laid before the House Copies or Extracts of Reports from our Naval Attaché at Paris, showing the state of the French Navy from time to time, at intervals not exceeding three months, during the years 1860 and 1861," (Mr. Lindsay) 1531 1531 1535 instead thereof Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question - Amendment withdrawn - Main Question put, and agreed to-Bill considered in Committee County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill [Bill 122] Order for Committee read Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair - Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Mr. Scully) instead thereof-Question, MONDAY, JULY 7-continued. County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill-Committee-continued. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to-Main Question put, and agreed to-Bill considered Clause 2-Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress" (Mr. Scully) III. NEW MEMBERS SWOrn. WEDNESDAY, MAY 28. Luke White, Esq., v. Alfred Rhodes Bristow, Esq., Chiltern TUESDAY, JUNE 3. Shrewsbury.-Henry Robertson, Esq., v. Robert Aglionby Slaney, Esq., deceased, HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, APPOINTED TO MEET 31 MAY, 1859, AND FROM THENCE CONTINUED TILL 6 FEBRUARY, 1862, IN THE TWENTY-FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. THIRD VOLUME OF THE SESSION. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, May 27, 1862. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Unlawful Oaths THE SLAVE TRADE. L Spanish subjects should be made piracy and capitally punishable. The noble and learned Lord was understood to say that certain Spanish officers were believed to have received bribes for conniving at the slave trade. EARL RUSSELL said, he would look into the papers on this subject, and make a statement on Friday on both the points referred to by the noble and learned Lord. With respect to Marshal Serrano, he believed that he was incapable of receiving bribes to permit the prosecution of the slave trade. ORD BROUGHAM said, he wished to refer to the reply of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, on the previous evenLORD BROUGHAM said, he had never ing, that there was a difficulty in applying charged with or even in any way suspected heard that Marshal Serrano had been the law respecting the slave trade to a foreign ship fitting out in an English port, been most pure and honourable in his goof such conduct. On the contrary, he had for the purpose of stating that he had referred to the Acts of 1811 and subsequent vernment, and, as an instance of that, he Acts, and was obliged to confess that he had actually suggested that slave trading could see no difficulty; but, at all events, should be declared piracy and those enhe trusted that measures would be taken gaged in it pirates, as the best mode of now to repress that abominable trade. He suppressing that abominable traffic. desired to urge strongly upon the noble SECOND READING. Order of the day for the Second Reading Earl the Foreign Secretary that our Am- ACT OF UNIFORMITY AMENDMENT BILL. bassador at Madrid should be directed to urge upon the Spanish Government the propriety of adopting the suggestion of read. Marshal Serrano, Captain General of Cuba; LORD EBURY* (having presented nunamely, that slave-trading on the part of merous petitions in favour of the Bill) proVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] B ceeded as follows: My Lords, the question I am about to raise is one of considerable importance, and the state of the House proves that the public regard its solution with interest. Under these circumstances I regret that the subject has not fallen into abler hands; but it is not my fault I have endeavoured to induce others, whose opinions would have been received with more consideration, especially members of the Episcopal Bench, to take it up, but quite in vain. All that remains for me, therefore, is to endeavour to perform the task to the best of my ability, and, at the outset, to beg at your Lordships' hands a patient and indulgent consideration. Having alluded to the right rev. Bench, I think I ought to say, that whilst I feel sure that the opinions of that right rev. body will weigh much with your Lordships, yet, in truth, this question is rather a lay question than a clerical one; for, as the right rev. Prelate who presides over this diocese truly observed in a recent speech "The ecclesiastical authorities are not to blame for the provisions of the Act of 1662; it was simply and solely the work of Parliament, and Parliament alone is responsible for it." I will commence by explaining why it is that I have adopted the present mode of proceeding, after the very small share of success which attended a Motion which I made two years ago of a description so far similar that it included the question now before the House. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion I moved, in the very terms which found acceptance in this House in 1687, an address for a Royal Commission (the only method known to the Constitution for such a purpose) to examine and report upon the changes which were demanded, and which the lapse of two centuries had, in the opinion of many, rendered necessary, in the liturgy, canons and formularies of our National Church, including also the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. I was opposed on that occasion by all the speakers but one, not upon the ground that no change was necessary, but because my Motion was too extensive and indefinite, and contemplated the revision of some portion of our formularies involving disputed doctrine, which was said to be dangerous to the peace of the Church. The most rev. the Primate, whose absence upon this occasion we all in common regret, candidly avowed his preference generally for the alterations made in our Prayer Book by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London went further, and said, that had I confined myself to the terms of subscription, and the rubrics, he thought the result of the Motion would have been different. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttleton), who takes a great and most intelligent interest in these subjects, strongly repudiated the notion of finality. Such being the case, I thought myself justified in taking further counsel on this matter; and, deferring to the views of those distinguished persons, I prepared my measures accordingly. Of two Bills which I have laid before your Lordships this Session, the object of one is to give the officiating minister, in certain defined cases, a discretion in the performance of Divine worship which the rubric at present prevents his exercising. On that Bill (the Public Worship Bill) I shall not offer any observations, as it is for the present virtually withdrawn ; but I will proceed as briefly as I can to endeavour to persuade your Lordships favourably to receive the measure which stands for second reading this evening, being a Bill for the relaxation of the terms of subscription imposed by the Act of 1662. I cannot satisfactorily perform the duty I have undertaken without entering a little into the history of that well-known, but often not-very-well-understood Act. It is neither the first, nor the second, nor the third Act of Uniformity which has been passed by Parliament, nor is it the only one now in force; that enacted a hundred years previously (1st Elizabeth) being in full vigour, with all those tremendous penalties with which the Legislature of those days was wont to enforce its provisions. Even should my present Bill fail, it would be as well that these two Acts of Uniformity should be reviewed, with the object. of making them somewhat more intelligible than they are at present, and bringing them into harmony with the more temperate legislation of the present times. Two Acts of Uniformity succeeded each other within two years in the reign of Edward VI. They were repealed by Mary. Then came the Act of Elizabeth, to which I have alluded; and, lastly, that of Charles II., which it is the object of the present measure to amend, It is quite true that all these Acts pass equally under the name of Acts of Uniformity. They all declare that a particular Book of Common |