The Express. — London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 1101;SE OF LORIIO.—MONDAT. MAT 12. 'Ms Loan CIIAXCILLOU WC* his seat at Iva o'clock. ADMlNtsritArios OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IM PROVEMEN BILL, AND PREVENTION OF OF- FENCES BILL. Lord CAMPBELL postponed the einemittees on these lei until Friday, in consequence of the absence of Lord -Demos, who bad eseinemed- her inteenen-atratake auirgesdems in cootedtWe. I • • iNtrota.vrtox FOROEION FLOUR. 'the Earl of GIok,NOALL, in preventing a petition from the grand jury of the county of Tipperary, praying for protection fcr home-made flour against that of foreign ma nufacture, said that assoc.( the petitioners had been free traders, but they were now nearly ruined by free trade, sad they had, therceur, changed their opinion'. There mere a at many manufacturers of flour in Ireland, and their sots wen as large as many cotton factories in Eng land, and there was invested in tbs.= an enormous amount of capital. The millers used to purchase nearly all the earn grown in Ireland, and the fennel' could always make mare of getting ready Jamey from them for their grain, natal t • I free import of grain and flour WY permitted, and sow they were nearly all rained. They weed to work their malls sane mouths in the year, both night and day, bat they Wire now at a stand stiU, and the labourers were in the workhouses. The quantity of corn grown in Ireland was also coesiderably Ins than at used to be; in Tipperary alone there were 15,000 acres Ins than before the free trade in corn, and all penes" who had any money were going off to America-260,000mM= pet annum were now emigrating. la the plus of Irish flour, the paupers were now fecLun sew Indian meal, and poor, white, miserable-looking cent- tures they were, for this kind of food, when new, was slated pussonems. In the agricultural &enacts the paupers had greatly increased ; in Think. there were now no lens than 3,1100, and in Nenagh 4,40(1 ; and the very stores that need to matron the flour were now occupied by peupen. Ibis was an Enelieh question as well as as Irish one, because this country was becoming de luged with Irish labourers, in consequence of their ant being able to find employment at home—no less than le,ooll had arrived within the last week or two. The quantity of foreign flour imported into this country was almost incredible. In 11419, there were 2,319,1649 ewta. ; in 1010, 3,)111,440 cwt.. and during the first quarter of the present year, 1,11.7.e0:10 erns. had been imported. If "this rettranrdinary increase continued during the whole year, what would become of the fanner, the miller, and the Libelant ? (Hear, hear.) Before the pass img of the legislative set which permitted this to take place, they WV, (OW hi the late Sir Robert Peel and company that there woad ant be any importation from France, for that country, it was said, was a eorn-importing country hereelf. Now, whet was the feet? Why, that in 1849 France tweeted to Great Britain and Ireland 1,11911.258 cwt. of flour, and, in 18-50, 1,925,175 cwt • whilst during the tint quarter only of this year, th e prodigious eelencity of 771,923 cwt. of flour had been imported into this country from France. and in the same periosl6oll,ooo quarters of grain. In Inland alone ,1 310 narks of French flour was being imperted weekly. Ile Uncertain that the Inc trade system was destructive of the hest iuterno, ca thee hingel me and that in consequence the capitalists did not enjoy the w•ventage, they ought fawn the amounts inserted by them in traeline enterprise. Ile therefore hoed , indeed he believed that from the next electimi a diffennt state of thines would result, and that the country would again resume her firmer condition of prosperity, under the influence of protection. Karl GRAN VILLE aid he "'weld nut be tempted to follow the nalee lord oppesite through the van ens stages of the question of free treat on which he had observed. Ilow• ever, as regarded the distresss which existed amongst the milling interest., he feared it wax too true. But in making that admission he should say it was entirely owing to the 'int of email...teem to whi Ii their were now subjected, as also to the improvements in machinery and the general care taken in preparing the arthee for the market, which im provements the weal capitalists were not in a positem to adopt or avail theme, Vlll or much to their own detriment. Formerly the Irish Miler., he thought, had a preference in the great English markets, owing to the care with which they prepared the article ; but the spirit of niterprise neeneetated further improvereente, in which the Irish mitten fell lack, and the consequence' were now telling against them. It WWI a notorious fact, and lie (the noble earl) had been assured by a French gentleman that la the lint twenty years in nee ),ranch of industry so much as in milling del there occur eueli improvement in Paris. The noble lord opposite intimate) that the question would he again ',might forward, and an opportunity of discussing it thus affemleil. Ile (Earl Granville) felt certain that the, noble' bards gm the , ministerial ride of the house would not shrink from that diwuoion whenever it was deemed proper to •ulainit it for their inveetigation. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of MA I.M ESISU ICY said the importatson of corn into this country was immense. The session was now more than half over, and, notwithstanding the aienie.inn of din trio, tenement the eigrieultureas, not the leept attempt had been made by the noble lord. oppo.ite to alleviate it. Th Earl ..f 11A Itl/W ICE le Marvell that every interest treated of in their lonleshipee' house, OR also in the other house of parleament, wan admitted to he in a most de peened condition. The distr.... of the agriculturists was aeknowledged in the speech from the throne. Heretofore the millers, in the caress of their free trade enthusiasm, dating...dant themeelves in the agitatiem to tarry out that measure. Whet were they doing at present? (Hear.) They were crying nut for proteetien. It was said that the parten crying out for protection were the small internee. Re kuew a miller of Wakefield, whose mill supplied bread sniffs be 2'00,0011, who wrote to Mr. Cobden, calling talon that &pattern in to retract his steps, as the millers were re I (Rear, bear.) '1 Marquee of CLANICReAItDE admitted that much poverty did prevail in Ireland, particularly in the western 111510114 but he , wished to know what would he the , condi tion o 1 the pregame in theca unions if. instead Of having food at • rea.onable price, they were obliged to purchase it at the price it brought in the, elay• of protection. After a few sword" from the Earl of OleatitaU, the Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Lucas, and the Earl of Clanricerde, The petition WWI o•4l.Wed to lie on the table. et• 11 11 Urn BUILD! Nii ACTS AM EN DM EN'f BILL. On the minion that the house should go into committee on thin hill, lord PORTMAN urged that the bill would make a large reduction in the number of free wan, and effect other Aimee. dieadvantageone to the poorer Owe, The Bishop of LONDON captained that the bill was to give every facility to persons desirous of erecting new churches, and defended the reduction in the number of free seats. Lord STANLEY objected to the el role Melo character ot the hill, which propos' to make alteration" applying nut only to new churches, but also to those already in ex istence. Ile thought one of the clauses was calculated to tetra, disease .... iu the church, by allowing one party to erect a new rhumb in the inuneeliaate neighbourhood of, and merely in uppeition to, another. After obaervetems from the Bishop of 07troitu and the Karl of The hill was referred to a select committee. Their lannhips then adjourned vat tweuty-five minutes to eight o'clock. right to bring forward firm, which stood on ►car, nod laughter.) ECCLESIAg On the motion that t. Mr. MUOitE said that 1 to the course of proceeding in reference to this bill, he s bowing under no common been introduced to the be•- mono wort, with the isestioa bred it was owing to doo boost mianqueseniativas —which had been Civet. to the Speaker as to the scope and purview Otto hill, that he considered no preliminary report to be seriegeseey. Now if the first opinion of the Speaker, given ander an erroneous impression of the scope and purview of the bill wee wrong, he had too touch confidence in the justice and impartiality of the deeisione of the chair, on question+ invoking the riles of the house, to feel any apprehension that the opinion of the Speaker would in any degree be influ enced by any decision which he might have given when he was imperfectly informed. Assuming the data to be correct, and the facts well founded nn which the decision of the Speaker rested, it was, perhaps, the right one • but it was because he was prepared to show that these da is were incorrect that he now invited attention to the question, in the expectation of obtaining a different decision. He begged the attention of the house to the order of the house on the seilleet, which provided that no bill rel•ting to religion, or esey alterations of the law concerning religion, be brought,- aello the house till it should have been first considered in eismittee of the whole house, and agreed to by the house. his objection was against the bill as it stood—in its wire %reached form, and as at first introduced ; and it was in rellereace to the bill in this form that he was prepared to prove that the preliminary form was necessary. It would net ho necessary for him to argue before lawyers that ordi nation and the udministration of the sacraments were not temporalities or the incidents of religion, bat vital and essential parts of religion itself. With regard to the matter of fact, the letter of Archbishop Murray, whose opi nion would be received with that respect and implicit credence which were due to his high character aad exalted position, was talon: them, and would be decisive on this point. Now, he says that the Homan catholic church was essentially episcopal, that it could not be carried on without bishops, and that they could not have bishops without the authority of the Pope. Archbishop Murray also die tinetly stated that if this hill passed he would not be able to perform many of his episcopal function,. It might be said that Dr. Murray, though perhaps an excellent theologian, was CIO lawyer, and that his opinion with regard to the effect of the bill could not be conclusive. Ile (Mt. Moore) had laid a case before an eminent counsel, in order to ascertain whether the bill would really interfere with the ordination of the bishops. The following was the opinion of Mr. Wales, of the Inner Timplia with respect to the pro viso that Homan catholic bishops should not discharge their function.; under the style or title of bishop of some place in the United Kingdom. Mr. Willes stated that it Indwatre a...CM interferenx with the exercise of reelwalatical foricteet. of she elegise Irish bishop., bee use I am wstructed that It Is aseratial tar the d in escrow of their fultetl W. by taw ere i ate. W. they -Lewitt use the now of the aline. within which they are sppolntil to exert:ow veir eats - meal Trietirdw. It is no answer to this Dan the lettere which they now in the •110.1 .4 their alien.e are only widener of the order which they confer, because I apprehend that it woad be earnest toe dump me and low id the church th.d a privet Wool.' elllciate without hosing oSuinied such letters; and even supposes t..at thes would not be reonnised av electing the .all,n,i. thin, It len,' , l .1 11,1,14.11 y to eo 44 it 4 step •., di, oroinution med. WSJ* having taken place with a circumstance cawntial by the law at tb..coorch, nut 10 Tiota4oll of the 1,14 , of the taxi, W-ntiol at feast be open to most ..taws doubt, and, in me o, icon, would not be meg :Wed a. of any ...ensue's. Is es true that a hi4hoo in of the umvenal church, and that the name of the demise emir esorceied the I et: limit- within which, for the lout lode, of the chinch, he lii to comlr lariat:ctn.', but it appears the., by the law of the twos WWII . church. We see o' the nat. , iit the illori-se in come. Cal t.) the due eseretve of eptwo,ral authinty. The bill. if peised Imo • law, will, I owe, It were* to me, this. fore, put the duty of hie lovaips, as b.dnips, Into inevitable Cdtitlict wita their duty as .titinste. Nor do I think that, It the bill 113,41.1. 2nythioa, the totes pay owe trot& oi drwrihing the biehow so bistei.• in Dublin, or site I ke, co. soave the dlficaltr. As I hese already Rua, toe mane el the &.o. only ezpremes the I cal comp,., within whi h the bon" let. •zer.iiie his towline.; if so, it con toga no real di, fertnice to describe toe plus by .• is" or ....t." He went on to say that Th. ell, if ponied into • law, lei 1 'Jr? Wolotie,T interfere with the legal 'emir of isplacinal tendons by the non 111 eitholic arch h sic p. end hshops di Ireland, and with ths 11.01 Oaf. of prints battened u 3 be onlaineal by them. I canna help ad one ilia' I have such resont to he persuadel of the latnentahal c M.N....ice% Which would hillew. th .t it iii art h the iiinsuid. raw:tones 1 have hoes Cont rolled to sr. ive at this eceselasion. This opinion was confirmed by that of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Baddeley, and other eminent counsel. Who would deny that a bill which rendered it impossible fur a bishop to ordain a preset except by violating either the law of the land or the law of his own church, was an interference with the essential parts of religion ? It had been objected that this was only a constructive effect of the bill, that it was not implied in its title, and nut intended by its framers. If it were nut Wendell it Malt have originated in a careless ness or levity fur which Itumau catholic% were not res ponsible. If a bill prevented a tailor from using his needle, or a cobbler from using his awl, could it be said it was not directed against the prosecution of his trade ? The two eases were parallel. if they prevented a bishop from ordsuniug by the title of the bill they prevented the online lien itself. Lit the lonise observe the mode in which the standing order was first introduced into the house. In April, 1773, a bill was introduced into the House of Com mons for the relief of protestant di...enters. Thie bill hav ing been introduced without a committee, when it went up to the Howse of Lords the bis'.ops opposed it on the ground that the bill did nut indicate the real intention; that the title was not, in fact, what it purported to be, and, in con...qui:nee ~1 the error whieli had been committed in the Coinineus, a standing order was introduced enacting that in future, in order to guard against the clandestine intro duction of a bill bearing 4 title which Jid nut correspond with it. provisions, ti committee ehuuld be interposed. Ilsul the present bill been introduced in committee all the differ ences which hid arisen would have been settled, all the blunders avoithal. In conclusion, he vaned upon the house in compliance with the standing orders, to discharg e the order or the day for going into committee. Sir li. IlltgY observed that the honourable gentle man said the standing order was enacted in 1773, in conse quence of a bill which waled that house having been ob jected to by the bishops in the nous, of Lord+. The hon. gentleman had correctly stated that that bill was intro deced in the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lents iu 1773. llu went ou to state, however that it was in conveguence of the objections taken to that bill that the standing order was paea n; whereas it so happened that the standing order bore date the 7th of April, 1772, a year before the proceedings on this bill occurred. lie held the order in his hand and would road in It wawa standing order of the 3311 i of April, 1772, and declared .` That no bill relating to religion or the alteration of the laws concerning religion, shell be brought into the house until the propesitien has first been aubmitted to a committee of the whole house." A similar order was passed relating to trade. Whether these orders were introduced in 1772 or 1773 was in fact imma terial, because what took place was nit the enactment of new standing orders, but the separation of parts of an old one passed in 1773--(hear, hear; —.64 the hon. gentleman would tied by referring to Mr. May's '• Book of Practice.•' In the farmer standing order, the two subject* of trade and religion were conjoined, and in 1772 a separation was effected. lint the real question was, whether this were a bill which tell within the terms of the standing order as • bill relating to religion; and on that point there were seve ral precedents which might assist the house in coming to a eonclusion. The hoe. gentleman had endeavoured to prove that the hill ought to have been so introduced. Ile (Sir O. Grey) would here sty that the hon. gentleman was right in assuming that this point had not come on the govern- Ulent by surprise, It was considered whether or nut it was right that the bill should be introduced in a committee of the whole house, and the opinion of the Speaker wee +ought and obtained on that point. lie also conceded fully to the hen. gentleman that if he co u ld s h ow th at this bill slid come truly within the termi of the standing order nu objection could In offered to the course which he stow pro- posed to take. But how did the hon. gentleman atteuipt to show that the bill really came within the intuiting order ? Why, first of 411, he rel'erred to a letter addre-eel to the right hen baron t the member for Ripon by Arelibishop Murray, but it was to be observed, that a great deal of this had refers:nee to the word "acts," which it had been detor mins il to omit before the bill went into committee —(hear) ; and vet it was upon the too of that word that the hut. otratlvntan had niuntled very much of the argument which he had addressed to the house in trying to prove that the biU related to religion. (Hear, hear.) Archbishop Nlur ray's letter was written, not after he had se,in the bill, but before the bill was intr o duced, and had • - HOUSE OP COMMONS.—NIonnAy, MAY 12. The S►aaaaa took the chair 114 o'cluek. PRIVATE BUSINESS. .italsatots to tho Hartlepool Prconett's Lind. and Harbour Dues Bill were agreed to. rhe North Shields Quays and Improvements Bill and the Stroud and Oloutvister Road Bill wire read a third LM. the Brighton Nato-Maral Cemetery Bill, the King. College Hospital (Nu. 2) Bill, and the l'hristehureh (South wark) Parish Bill wore read a second time. PUBLIC BUSINESS. NEW WRIT. 11■ the motion of Major IitIII.P"RD a new writ was rdered fur the I.ile of Wight. in the room of Mr. Simeon. RAJAH BROOKE. Mr R. COCHRANE wished to know from the hon. memh.•r for Moutrose when he intended to bring on the motessi of which he had given notice, in respect to the pro needing. of ItAials Brooke. As ItWah Brooke w.“ now in En:Lind. perh.apa the hum gentleman would think it better out to proceed with the motion, at all. Mr. HUME said that hr had postpoued his motion at the request of ben M 'jetty's government. and h. was pn•parcd to bring the subj.xt forward on the day after toortsrruw, if the• government would gin• hint that day. 11. was not the person to shrink from bringing forward the motion. %Meat. hear _ reference tn . nets PUSEYI IT PRACTICES. time by the It min catholic arehbishops and bishops which Sir D. HALL wished to ask the Prime Minister , were not included iu the bill. The omission of the word whit steps the archbishops and bialiops of the E.- " acts" weakened very much, if it did not entirely destroy, t IMahad Church had taken in pursuan ce o f th e I the case pat by the hoa. g en tl eman. Th e h onoura b le kite, addressed by the Sivretary of State to the gentleman said it was impos s ible to assume t h at con- Archbishop of Canterbury. by conaniona of her Majesty, for • firm tibia, ordivation, or the administration of the the purpose of suppressing certain practie.v in place. of •ecratueats could be carried on if this hill worship belonging to the Established ('hureh ; and whether passed. He expressed doubts whether Archbishop the Dishopof London had taken, or was about to take, any I Murray in that case could continue to administer his legal proeeedings against oily of the clergy who imactiou ' functions. If the bill pissed, he said, Archbishop Murray, what his lordship called " luatrionie performances "in the i beiug forbidden to u.' the title of Archbishop of nubile, churches within his diocese. w„a litunable to perform any of the arts which he had Lord .1 RUSSELL said that a letter sign -el by 24 of I performed hitherto. Now, he must remind the hon. gentle the archbishops and bishops of the Established thurch man that, if the penalty of lOU'. attached to the use of that hal hecu addressed to their clergy in c iuse•quewe of the , title • carried with it the prohibition which he supposed, letter addressed by the Secretary of State to the .irchbishop this prohibition had been in existence from the year 1St); of Canterbury at the command of her Majesty. lie wan for the title of " Arelibiahop of Dublin" was a title pro not prepared to say what further steps it was . hibited by the net of 1829. Nothing bad been said by any proposed to take. He must say that he thought it tuenatir of the govemment,as hail been assumed by the hon. very inconvenient to be called on to answer in every case of g.ntlernaa, to show that there was any design of interfering this kind, and he did not think it just to the church. with any one spiritual function of the lionuu catholic (Hear. heard heirarehy ; and even the honourable gentleman would EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE . 11 , t assert that the eviden c e o f l etters of or Mr T NCOMBE gas. liOtift that he would move was in fuel the ordination itself. As the hon. gentleman as an amen intent tie the neon -n of his hon. friend • respeet- bat appealed to the Speaker for his opinion, if he would tag parliamentary reform, that this house will, during the r favour them with that opinion now that the bill had ann s mate of stir e s ef parliament, take i n t o their ceinideration the • been before them for many w e eks, th e y wou ld li sten to i t th representation of the people, with a sew to its ' with defe nmee. • emeentioia. (Hear, hem.) Mr. ROEBUCK . hoped that before the Speaker KENSINGTON OARDENS. i gave his opinion a few private member+ would be Mr HUME wished is know from the noble lord at the allownl to give theirs. It had been objected that Dead of the government whether he would give him neat the honourable gentleman was too late with his objeo • Thursday to briag forward the question respecting Kensin.r. time. In the case of the Irish Temporalities Bill in I , M, • t lnhebi. anoa Claricts ia the neighbe+. which canard urho of so much interest ameigst the M r . Wigan based his o bjectio n no t on th e groun d the t it o atiVetsm reon. but affected taxation. The malt ' Lora J. RUSSELL s a id th at in t h e pres , nt state of the mai, that a cu ligi iumittee that was it appointed, the bill was with public budaess it was impossible fur kiln to give up Thursday drawn, awl re-so:ono:is were moved in committee. Here I was the case of a bill affecting religion. In 18'29, Sir Robert Mr. II I:ME—Then will the noble lord give me up to- Peel introduced his celebrated bill fur the relief of catholic*. • marrow. my uwa day. (Laughter.) •In this case the revolutions were drat passed in committee, Lewd J. RUSSELL said he had no ohjettion, if other ant the rule was edahlished that nu alteration could be members who had motions on the paper consented nude in laws atfectia3 religion except in a committee of Mr. 111.7 SIR %oil that he hoped those gentlemen would the whole house. He thought they would do wisely so; Out it was to be understood that he did not waive hit referring the to a committee of the whole house. THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY PKEItING, MAY 13, 1851. en tOllo7red Milk various ligion, lie was inclined to think it was not neceigaty fur an to go into a committee of the W lAd e lioule unless misted to the spit itualities of religion. 'Thu Church IMormolides Act, which the learned gentleman had Irwas carried with a committee of the wh o le house. let hon. member, no longer alive, objected, that the MB related to religion as well s& taxation. 'l he question was seined to a committee to search for precedents, and that siwinsittee decided that it being • taxing measure should be Introduced in a committee of the whole home. To show, however, the opinion of the house that the bill had no re ference to religion in the meaning of the standing order, he might mention that when it was introduced it went through committee without the question of religion being once alluded to. So far then for the Church Temporalities Act, if his interpretation was correct. Then came the bill for carrying into effect the report of the eccle siastical. commission, and which was not introduced in • committee of the whole house. It was supposed to relate to ecclesiastical gnil not spiritual matters; and therefore there was no committee. Another precedent alluded to by the hon. gentleman was the bill for legalising the marriages of Roman catholi s. That bill was introduced in committee; but with respect to the present, he believed that such a pro ceeding was not necessary. He had been consulted before its introduction, without, of course, being made acquainted with its various provisims; and he had come to the con clusion that it did out require a committee of the whole house. Mr. M. GIBSON uudentood the argument of the chair to be that, if the present bill were such a bill as the Church Temporalities Bill, it would be ne cessary to refer it to • committee. The question then, was whether the bill was such a bill—oue directly concern ing religion, and if so, whether it was not necessary that it should be referred to a parliamentary committee? He did not understand that the right hon. gentleman in the chair was the proper authority as to the meaning and purport of a bill, but rather Si to the rules of the house, and if it could he shown to the chair that the meaning and purport of a bill, was of such a character as to bring it within any of the rules, then, he believed, it was the duty of the chair to decide. lie thou4ht that the question was precisely a case for counsel. the bill stated in its preamble. that whereas the doctrine and discipline of the established church in England, Ireland, and Scotland, was permanently established, and the titles of the bishops of that church were also lilted by law, the assumption of such titles by any other persons should be prohibited. Was it not obvi ous that the meaning of the preamble was, that the titles belonging to our religion, theiUshops of another should not be allowed to adopt them ? (The buzz of conversation ren dered this portion of the right honourable gentle man's observations rather indistinct.) That being the case, it appeared to him distinctly that the bill came within that class which were styled bills relating to religion. Perhaps it would not be an improper course ter him to suggest that a select committee be ap pointed to search for precedents, and to report their opi nion whither the bill MS ailicting the assumption of cede sisstical titlin k should in the first instance be referred to a committee of the whole house. Mr. Git Arr .kN to a similar view of the question. Mr. REYNOLDS was proceeding to 'litres. the house, when The SPEAKER informed him that he way out of nrder. The question that the Speaker do leave the chair had been decided, and could not be amended. Before they proposed a select committee they must negative the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. Mr. ROEBUCK asked whether a motion for adjournment would not answer ' Mr. RE VNOLDS moved that the debate be adjourned. After a few words from Mr. W. l'atre'i and Mr. F. O'CONNOR, Mr. Ill:ME said it was quite competent to the house to adjourn the debate, and afterwards to appoint a committee to consider the question. Mr. KEOGH said that, as he understood the decision ar rived at was that the bill did not come withing the standing orders, as nut affecting questions of a spiritual nature, he begged to submit that such decision involnd a consident tiOn of the clauses of the bill. And although he admitted that the house was not to be bound by the opinions of law yon, yet he hoped he might be allowed to remind the house that this bill had been brought under the consideration of the highest legal authorities in the country. He did nut allude to the opinion of Mr. Bethel!, but to an express opi nion as to whether the spiritualities of the Roman catholics would he affected by the legislation of this bill. The ques tion had been submitted to three of the most eminent counsel in England—Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Baddelly i the last named gentleman one peculiarly versed in ecclesiastical law. The following was the opinion of those eminent counsel : We are of ..pinion that th- till In Its original state, and containing the 2nd sod 3rd clown, an well as the lot and 4th, would rend, it illegal for any Boman Who& archhisfirop or bishop to exercoe his official (alien, it, as archbishop or bishop of any p• mince or see in tba United lionadom of Great Britain and In land, though much function's were metal,. pampa' and apirtual, and had no seferrnee whatever to soy 'mum:al nano it authority. We dorm, Avid that the oloneopal at d sprit 4al I unction/tor any archhiahm, or bishop r in only be ',avian, and lawfulty esercl•ed wlttion •lie &tots of some roll ace or Magee canonmilly ansigaed to bun as the aocesietioa or bishop thereof, or within 4 MU' Idtber province or diocese by the per- IlliNloll of the archloidiop u bishop of such oth -r poovinc • or dis co... and that as he could oils exercise such opiscopal soul sporitun fin loons wahin the loutio of tog own province , see as the arch bishop or bishop thin-of, by that name and title, and under the authority of that tell e, it follow. that this till would re-a .er it tin. lawful f a hem to to n o rm regularly the pruner duties of his ofboc. s•lt.ush merely eviieopsi tor spiritual, such, for Matinee, aa tli se .4 ordination et tisitation, an t the maintenance of &scion.. amanita his clergy. lie hoped the house would consent to refer the bill to a committee. (Hear, hear.l The SOLICITOIt-GENERAL said that the question for the house to consider wan, whether this was a bill relating to religion, and therefore coining within the meaning of the standing order. Now, the first words that would strike one in the standing order:were, " faith and doctrine," and no one would dream that they referred to eccle siastical management, superintendence, or jurisdiction. IL• apprehended that no one would assert that Dr. Wiseman could not ordain and confirm as well as Bishop of Melipota outs as if he were rteognixed as Archbishop of Westminster The real meaning of Dr. Murray was, that certain temporal advantages connected with the cure of souls would he lost by the c h ange, not that there would be env difference in the power of ordination or confirmation. Every one ad mitted that this was LI question of temporality, and that they were not going into. committee on religion. With re gard to the argument of the hon. memlxv for Manchester, that the Speaker's opinion was of value only as to the stand ing orders of the house, and not as to the construction of" the clauses of a bill, unless the Speaker gave an , opinion upon the cl auses , h ow could he decide whether a bill ought to h.tve originated in committee or not? He thought the right hob. gentleman in the chair had arrived ! at the correct conclusion, and one that was fully borne out by the whole course of precedent. The Church Temporal- . ities Bill of 1933 was a strong case in point. By that bill, 10 out of 't/ bishoprics in Ireland were abolished. Had the ten bishops whose sees were thus abolished no spiritual ' functions —did not that set interfere with ordi nation and confirmation by handing over the people of one diocese to the Bishop of another ? The ' reason why the relief bill of 1829 MLA originated in a cons. I mittee of the whole house was, that by it they were alter ing an oath, and so far were intefcrring with religion. The samereason applied also to the Jew - Bill. The hon. and learned member for Youghall's bill, and Mr. Watsou's bill for repealing certain disabilities from Roman catholic' which rentaitsett after the passing of the Emancipation Act —neither of them had originated in a committee of the whole house. There was another point fur consideration. . What was meant by religion when the house passed this order? Faith and doctrine, no doubt; but was it nut the faith and doctrine of the est ibliehed church ? (Cheers.) The object of the order was that they should not bumper with or alter the faith and doctrine of the established church, and therefore every bill referring to that faith and doctrine must he preceded by a resolution of the whole house. The grand committee on religion, which ho had traced back to the time of James 1., would any man tell him that committee had no intention to alter the regu- Idiom of the lloinatt catholic church ? Seeing the whole course of precedents was in favour of the opinion which they had heard from the chair, he trusted the house would not stultify itself by coming to an adverse iecision. Mr. OL.IDSTONE observed that, if the question were the adjournment of the debate, he must vote against it, but, if the motion suggested by the right hon. membtir for Man ' ehester (Mr. Gibson) to appoint a committee to examine the question, so a. to decide as to what should be the practice of the house, should be fairly brought forward, it would have his support, fur all most admit that the precedents a. to this point, were in a most unsatisfactory state. It was impossible to apply a principle to the precedent. they had, by which they could he reduced into a consistent and intelligible whole by which to regulate their proceeding. in bills like the present; sal, thou.:ll the result of the inquiry might in all .probability be that there was no ruhtleient reason to interfere with the progress of the bill, it would be most valuable a, affording them the 1:11e1111 of deciding upon a rale for their future guidance, and of ensuring uniformity of practice. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had stated the case fairly and fully, but he could not say that he agreed in all the hon. and learned gentleman's conolusions. There was some col me for the propooottiOn of the Solicitor- General, that the true meaning of the term "religion" in the st coding order Was, not religion in general, but the established religion of the country. He leant to that con struction; but the course of precedents applicable to that construction was by an 'means decisive. The Solicitor- General hal argued that bill* affecting injuriously the secu rities of the established church should be introduced through a preliminary committee. The house had then to decide whether a bill tending to strengthen those seem ities should conform to the order or not. This bill was intended to strengthen the established religion of the country, and he thought the rule ought to apply both ways. (Cries of Divide." Mr. SADLEIIt disputed some of b.. po.itions of the ' flolicltnetfieneral_ The gallery was cleared for • division, bat none took pLiee. On our return U. the gallery, we found bird J. RUSSELL expressing his opinion that there was no groins I shown for referring the question of precedents to a committee. The instances quoted by the right hon. mem ber for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were nut in point. One was, the Tent and Corporations Act. That was a question where s person should in certain cases take Lord J. — RUSSELL assured the hon. member for Clon mel (Mr. Lawless) that the majority on the division which had just been come to had not been composed entirely, as he seemed to suppose, of ministerialists; for there were in the lobby some of the strongest opponents of ministers— men who could not be moved by him to vote otherwise than as their consciences dictated. (Hear, hear.) The question had been fairly discussed. The house having decided that they would not adjourn the debate, it was now pro posed that the house should adjourn, in order to get rid of the bill. This proposition made him suspect that that resolution which hon. mem bers told him they had come to some time ago— not to make any factious opposition to the bill—a resolution he very much adtuired—(a laugh)—he was afraid they had Catered in that resolution now. (Hear, hear.) The house had heard the opinions of the Speaker and some com petent members; and were matters now to be reversed be cause there were some Roman catholics in Ireland who might suppose that they had a better opinion of order than the Speaker ? (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Mr. REYNOLDS said he had not been excited to offer any factious opposition by his vote at this particular stage. (A laugh.) That laugh induced him to state that he had no factious intention with reference to moving the last resolution. His object in doing so was to afford time to the house to agree to the views of the right hon. member for Manchester. If the noble lord would consent to the ap pointment of a select committee, they would not isbjeet—at least he (Mr. Reynolds) would not—to proceed with the debate pane passe with the inquiry by the committee. They were justified in dividing as often as they thought proper. After a few words from Mr. Keogh, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Anstey, and Mr. Moore, The house divided : For the adjournment Against Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL was found addressing the house on the reporters being readmitted to the gallery. He said that he would confine himself to the general question. Its denied that the act of the Pope was of a character to call for any description of legislation from either house of par liament, for he altogether denied that that act of the Pope affected in any manner the Roman catholic subjects of the Queen as respected their loyalty to the throne. lie, for one, would not admit that his position hail been altered by what was culled the pupal aggression This, he believed, was the practical view to take of the question. He looked to what had been the position of his ea-religionists in England and Ireland up to the events of last September. There was no doubt that in Ireland the Roman catholic population subjected themselves implicitly in all spiritual matters to the prelates appointed by the Pope. There was no doubt that the Roman catholic population had acknowledged with equal unreserve the spiritual jurisdiction of the vicars.ap.isto ic appointed by the Pope. The act of the Pope could not be considered an "aggression" as regarded Ireland. As it regarded Eugland the result was that it rendered the Ro man catholic population more independent than they hal ever been before of the Pope. and of the appointees of the Pope. He (Mr. O'Connell) maintained that it was a delu sion to take any other view of the question than this as he lresented it. But ne might be a s ked if they w e re nut to egislate, what were they toile, ? Ile vrould answer at once Do nothing. Mr. URQUHART had received on Friday the authority of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for the assumption that this was a political, and, in only a distant respect, a religious question. The noble lord, admitting at last what he (Mr. Urquhart) had often stated, alleged broadly that the aggression of the Pope was far more a political than a religious movement against this country. Now this was exactly the discovery which the instinct of the country hail made at the outset. 'the country, however, had gone further than the noble lord, and had made the further discovery that the source whence this uggressiou had proceeded had been opened up by the foreign policy of her Majesty's government. He contended that in this case there hail been no violation of the law of nations, inasmuch as there were no treaty rights. Iu other countries the Pope had followed a similar course. .1. • thleilk )ll4 K . Ig 1,19 , thettlewe, fesib r ie::: a .410. di; haidliele eride the wade ler& ma be re. - The following year the *WSW intend to interfere with the spiritual action, and • iTiriZtiein of whether they should rola** 'We - asked the house to pa.ss the bill with only the fi rst catholias 'from disabdities, but those ' :douse in it. Now he said upon the authority of the Atter impose4 toy the doctrine of transubstantiation, d ney-Oetteral, of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, of Mr. Brodie, and of various outer doctrines of the Home* catholic Sr. Barldelc7—tothe three latter of whom a case had been cltrch. That oleo was a question skif a re- ' submitted—that thirds. clause of the bill would contain all ligiont astsift. Za both instances they were supposed to 4 that the other clineessontained. The three eminent counsel be some eeenuity for the religion of the country.. rite" I Ile had referred ft stfid: precedents would not at all tell in the present case. (ileac, We are of oplinat that If the Ind and VI el 1114,4 of the bill wen hear.) He would not go into the argument stated so erlMagett, the .at clause wo tld of Itsat rend, r it illegal for any ilairlt - by the right lion. member fur the city of Oxford Remus catholic hh arehh & lsh t. op or a bishop to exercise his °Metal rune. (Sir P. W0o4), but he own'( at once that there nppeared t iVri s. erms oi - 6 1 1 7, 1717;1t - ;;r - s ' n ) 11 - tre l l o ai y idriVI nc h ' osractriefaincnttt." Un s ited to be no ground for referring the question to a co.nmittee. , merely spiratti 11. g (Hear.) Farther questions were started by the right hon. I Now, was the noble lord sincere ? Did the noble lord member for the University of Oxford, and, amongst other not mean to interfere with spiritual functions in Ireland ? things, he stated, with great truth, what was con- The opinion went on : firmed by the Speaker, that precedents 1110141 very Though such functions were merely apiritutt, and had ne reference various, and iu somo instances contradictory. It whatseer to any temporal netts or mentally. If .. the swumpthm might be a question whether it would not be Or sat of the name, style.. or one 04 6'114""P or "I ' 9 .'1 say eit7.l the 6nlo tows, or place. Sr duly wrrit ory or district to st Kingdom, well to have a select committee to arrive at a c o nclusion on the subject, but his impression was against the adoption be rendered hisnl- penal, as it would be by the Ist section, It hallows that every act will* sash rush wellhead., or bishop could only per of that course. It was for the house to decide, according form regularly as archhislo, or WM, of some province or see, sad to its own views, whether it was necessary to go into coin- is that copacity, mutt be deemed to be thereby prohibited. mitts* on this particular bill or not ; but, to appoint corn- But it did not stop there. It went on to say— mittees, in accordance with the views entertained by Ws are oh opinion that if the Ind and 3rd clauses of the hill were Lawyers, would be a mo,t inconvenient course, because e,. l Plthier i t th e 1 4 cl". 1" would of il'.ll render it (tryst(tryst for airy ~ nothing bat the judgment of the house ought to prevail. cat h olic archbishop or bishop to acce,,t any emolument ne en. (Hear, hear.) do .'" W a arect, or to ern ar e'. any trust or power as elibt-hop or hallo? of any province or see in the thread Kingdom, In relation to any Mr. BRIGHT, amid loud cries of " Divide," proceeded property, whether charitable or otherwise, and wh tiler 'flooded for to say that the bill distinctly referred to the church of Eng- the benefit of such arcoloshop or bishop, or of ouch province or we, land, and its very object was to strengthen and secure the or or the persoas suSject to his apirimal authuroy therein, If such acs prelates of that church in their dignities and offices. As eeptance or exert as involved his ilVolleptio . n or use of the name, style. Of title of arciabashopor bishop of a p iLletbar promisee or see to the there were doubts upon the subject the governmeut should MOW Ktegdo.n and such emolument no endowro at, AEI such trust concede the committee. or p ower be.onpil t.., him solely lo auch his capacity of archbishop or The house divided: bishop. For the adjournment of the debate 63 Ile said that it was in vain for the noble lord to conten Against it On our return to the gallery we found aad ecclesiastical rights of Ireland. The prising of this act Mr. IIKWI.ESS expressing his opinion, amid loud cries was la 'violation of the act of 1846. He (Mr. Keogh) of" Oh, oh," and much ironical laughter, that this gees- was at Itome when it was announced that Cardinal Wise tion was being carried by an overpowering majority, who man was made Archbishop of Westminster. There was did not listen to the justice of the case at all. Ho moved great rejoicing, and the English consulate was illumi that the house do now adjourn. noted. That he saw himself. Seeing these things, Mr. GRATTAN seconded the motion. then, could it be supposed that the Pope intended c c to insult the people of England by this act ? The noble lord said that the Roman catholic bishops inter fered in the question of the colleges. But in 1832 no less than 17 bishops and very considerable numbers of the clergy of the established church protested against the sys tem of national education in Ireland. (blear, hear.) Well, then, if it was competent fur the bishops and clergy of the established church to interfere in a question of education, way should it not be competent fur the Roman catholic bishops to recommend parents not to send their children to schools tor mixed education ? (Hear, hear.) The noble lord then spoke of the syno d of Thurles as something that was altogether strange and outrageous. One would imagine the noble lord had never heard of such a thing as a synod in his life. Yet he might have heard of the synod of Ulster, of the synod of the presbyterian church of Scotland, of the synod of the presbyterian church synod—a double synod—(laughter)—and of the synod of original seceders. (Renewed laughter.) Ile did not know whether the noble lord was or was not a member of the latter body.. (Laughter.) Now, what ever might have been the feelings of the Roman catho lin of Ireland originally with respect to the colleges, since the publication of the noble lord's letter, in which lie described the ceremonies of the Roman catholic religion in the most extraordinary language, the meaning given to which had, indeed, been disavowed by the noble but which, by plain and common sense men, would be read in a plain and common sense way, by men, who, not pos sessing the refinement of intel lect of the noble lord, would not read black white, and white black,—(hear, hear)—wince the publication of that letter no man would venture to say Oat the Itoman catholics of Ireland ought to send their children to these schools. (Hear, hear.) ' The noble lord was obliged to refer to Sardinia to make out a case for this bill. Now, there was an unbroken hierarchy for many year. in Ireland, and was the wade lord able to bring forward no ease in Ireland in which religious indepen dence was stifled, without travelling beyond the Alps, and calling on thou to explain a ease of which they knew nothing, at a moment's notice? (Hear, hear.) This MU s the worst feature of the bill; ine the cloven foot appeared. The proposed exemption of the prelates of the Scotch episcopal church showed that this bill was aimed solely against the Roman catholic religion The hon. member for Dublin was blamed for saying that lie was ready to vote Lima white. Ile (Mr. Keogh) was ready to justify every vote he had given on this question. But if otherwise, he might turn fur an example to those fifth-rate gentlemen opposite, those defenders of religious liberty, who made themselves very remarkable out of the house for their denunciations of Raman catholics hecause they were en , gaged in the defence of their religious liberties, but whose yokel were never heard within the walls of that house. (Hear, hear.) Ile would ask those gentlemen where would the question of parliamentary reform, or even the question of tree trade be, if Roman catholic emancipation had not been carried? :But the members for Manchester, the honourable member for the West Riding, the veteran leader of parliamentary reform in that house, the most dis tinguished statesmen of the Imo administration to a man were on their side, and that being so, they could well afford the sneers of the small body who sat around and be hind the distinguished advocates of free trade. (Ilear, hear.) If the noble lord by means of a tyrannica l majority succeeded in that house in striking down religious liberty, then they would go out of that house and would never cease till they had replished it. (Cheers.) They were nut to be intimidated a momentary defeat. (Hear.) Thelhad borne centuries o persecution. Ovetithe aveng ing and fanatic sword of Cromwell, the insidious treachery of the Stuarts, the ex tetions and confis cations—he used the term openly, plainly, and advisedly— in which the ancestors of the noble lord took a conspicuous part, they had triumphed, and would triumph again. (Cheers.) And this they would do without forgetting their allegiance in temporal matters to their sovereign, whilst they recognised in spiritual matters the authority of the supreme head of the Roman catholic church. Duna dolutp. Capl4.3 uumubdn oasura. Amulet, imperlam foe pater Itonlaaus ha'*Dit. (Loud cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned gentleman The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none has eOrtainlY undertaken a very difficult task, and has per. took place. On the re-admisdon of the reporters, formed that tads, I have nu hesitati on i n say i ng , w i t h very Mr. KEOGH was aildreesing the house. He re- great ability—(hear, hear)—but I own it appears to sin juiced, he said, that there •••• an opportunity of that the difficulty of the task is beyond even the power and discussing the question before the Speakhe oppor- Crr left the the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman. (Hear.) chair, and that the noble l o rd had s till The statement that I have m a d e , and the statement which tunity, if he thought proper, of retracing his other members of the house have nude with regard to Ire steps, because he believ e d that th e Jumble lord had not even land is this, that titles taken from the names of existing yet arrived at a true conception of the great d e ng ue i n - sees have been forbidden s i nce 1819, an d t h ere f ore t h at the valved in the passing of this bill. The right hon. baronet Roman catholic bishops of Ireland have either been labour. had asked them if they were prepared to undo all that they ing under grievous persecution since that time, or else this had been doing for the last two nienths. Ile (Mr. Keogh) bill is not of the persecuting and penal nature it is pre would ask the noble lord (Lord J o h n R usa. ll) if h e was tended to be. (Hear, h ear .) It appears to me t h at prepared to undo not only what be had been doing for this proposition is undeniable. (Hear.) The hon. and the hut two months, but all that he had been learned gentleman Pays that we never attempted to enforce the saying and doing during the whole of his ;milli- provisions of the Act of 1829, and he calls on me now cal career ; and still more, if he was prepared to to say whether this is a new bill to carry it out; hat undo what had been done by men who took a greater share if we were now going to enforce the provisions of the in the greateetruggle:for religious liberty than eves the noble Act of 1829, it would be only necessary to put into ope lord took? Was he prepared to undo what Mr. Canning ration the provisions of that act, and no new net would tried to effect, what Mr. Plunkett stregeliel for, what Mr. have been required. The hon. and learned gentleman Brougham and Lord Wellesley fought for? Ile was satin says that none of the Roman catholic bishops of Ireland tied that if they passed this bill all that those Freat men could exercise their episcopal functions under the first accomplished would have been done in vain. floe noble clause of this bill, and yet, he says, from the year 1829 lord on the lust occasion said they had been suffer- down to the present time they slid exercise their functions, ing under this infliction since 18'29, because the Catholic in spite of the law of 1829. The hon. gentleman says it Relief Act imposed the very a ime penalties which this was because the act was not enforced. Now, in order to bill proposed. Bat, if that were so, why bring in this bill ? put an act in force you must have an offence committed, The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said this and you must have evidence that the offence wen coin bill was merely e complement to that of 1829. But he mated. (Hear, hear.) We have had various governments (Mr. Keogh) asked why this bill was not confined to Eng. in Ireland since 1829. A while government was not in land ? The noble lord (Lord John Russell) admitted that office since that period. There was the administration of he had never put in f o rc e th e ac t o f 1829. W e ll , if t h ey th e D u k e o f W e lli ngton and Lord De Grey, Sir Ed war d did not complain of th e act of 18!9, it was for the best of Sugden and the present Chi e f J ust i ce o f the Queen ' s all possible reasons ; because it was not put in force. Bench were governing in Ireland. Did they neglect the But if the noble lord intended to put this act execution of that act of parliament. (Hear, hear.) Cer in force he would ask del he intend to put it tainly not. I believe that obedience was paid to the law of in force in Ireland, or did he intend this act to be, as his the Roman catholic prelates, and I need no other proof of supporters mail, a sham in Ireland ? Did the noble lord in- that than the petiti on w hi c h they presented to this house tend to put in a proviso at the end that it should nut be put signed with their names, but without presuming to take into force ? Then he should understand it. But the noble their title. from any sec or diocese existing in Ireland. hint said he sincerely believed this act was necessary, and Therefore he should have concluded that, with the excep that he intended to put it into force in Ireland, and there- thin of one Roman catholic archbishop who says that his fore he (Mr. Keogh) said they would not submit to it, and see is not within the title of the act, the Roman catholic that it was a differeut act from the act of 1829. Then bishops of Ireland generally, in all their public act., he contended that the effect of the Charitable obeyed the act of 1829 in this respect. (hear, hear., Bequests Act which passed in 11118 was to repeal Now, sir, if the act o f par li ament i s o b eyed, what can the the obnoxious clauses of the a ct o f 1829 , an d to government ask furth er ? We are not going to seek for render that legal now which was illegal before. The eon- everymeaus ofprosecution which can be found by examining dition of the Roman hierarchy was chance and legalised into the relations of Roman catholic bishops with the by that act. What became then of the noble lord's urge- priests of the districts in which they exercise their functions. meat that the same grievance existed now, and that they (Hear, hear.) We would avoid, if possible, anything of an had no right to complain, b e ca use they were only doing unnecessary nature, and which bear s w ith it the character that which was enacted by the act of 18'29 ? Then, hods- of vexation. (Hear, hear) I remember that Sir Robert pendent of that assertion, he believed the noble lord Win at Peel, in introducing the Raman Catholic Relief Bill, stated this moment perfectly unaware of what the effect , that what was intended in that case was to prevent the of the bill would be. It had been said that the first 1 ostentatious and open assumption of titles taken from sees clause was in analogy with the act of 1829 ; but in Ireland, sad that if that assumption was prohibited by it was in spirit, in effect, and in analogy, dif. ! law, and if the prohibition were obeyed, the government ferent. They must construe the C1:11.141,1 with the ' would be ssitistied. Sir, I conceive that to have been the preamble. The preamble of the act of 1829 stated, that ' meaning of the act, and such, I conceive, has been the .5 st hereiu, by various acts, restraints and disabilities are i practice with regard to that act on the part of sue imposed upon the Roman eathsilic subjects of his Majesty, cessive governments. So that the difficulty of the hon. gen ,to which other subjects of hit Maj es ty are not li a bl e, and &man really comes to be no di ffi cu lt y a t a ll . N ow, with re whereas it is expedieut that such restraints and liabilities gard to matters of this kind, and with regard to this whole should be removed." The preamble of this bill, in prise- question, I say it ought not to be the policy of this or of any Ipie, was that it was exp e di ent an d necessary to secure and other government to seek out matters of offence for th e fortify the rights o f t h e esta bli shed church in both purpose of prosecution. I have read in one of Dr. Wise countries, and that the titles of Roman catholic prelates man's lectures that there is at this day an Abbot of West !! are inconsistent with those rights. Then there were re- minster, who has continued from the earliest cities in th.s bill while were positively untrue. It recited times. (Laughter.) I make no curious inquiry 'that whereas it might be doubted whether a certain enact- into that subject : I do not propose that we meat extended to the prohibition of the titles of bishop or should forbid any person at a distance to assume that archbishop. Now, there was not a lawyer in the housse by title. But when a person comes here with the pretended whom the shadow of a daub{ could be entertained on the authority of the Pope—(cheers) —and say. that the Pope subject. Did the Attorney-General doubt that it applied at has been pleased to give certain titles, that he has been present to the titles of a diocese not taken from the title of pleased to divide the country into dioceses, and by the same a diocese of any bishop or archbishop of the church of Eng- act has totally abolished the archbishopric of Canterbury— ! land ? Well, then, it was not doubted. What was the next (laughter)—and that he assumes to rule and to govern in oleftrteeltigoifoltfuenlcatwio,nsb,uitt it t s n ts. ot a t n he ol lo n n- a co nd mp da lia ti o ng ee ! asserti at ? That the attempt to estahlish,under the colour of this country of England, then, I say, it is not the quiet t ii h k e rt au i thu H ri t e y d o e f n t i h ed e ace tha of ; Rs i t s m t, m e , s notuch pretended A di n oee d : h e y , w i r d tri exerciseththe he say that? Because the noble lord said he had consulted defiance of the sovereignty of this country t e par, and h lia the taw advisers of the crown, and they told hi m i t was nut went of this country can no leager s hut its eyes to that - , ! illegal. Why were these misstatements made in the ' which has been properly brought to its notice. (Cheer. ) pr.-Amble of the bill ? Because English gentlem en f e l t t h at W e ll , t h en, the hon. and learned gentleman would say, the Emancipation Act was a great, wise, liberal, and eat e n. i " Why make any mention of Ireland in this bill ?" (Hear, sive act, and th a t it wou ld not b e fair, right, or proper to hear) Why, the offence that we complain of is an offence deprive the Raman cetholics of this countiy of chivy against the prerogatives of the crown, it is any of the privileges then conceded to them, an offence against the independence of the nation, and, in order to do that, false statements were and it being so, we cannot omit Ireland, as a part mei: in the bill. It was said by the noble lord that it 'of the United Kingdom. But with regard to the act itself, would not interfere with the general action of the Roman what we require to be done has, I think, b een d one by the catholic church in Irelan I; b u t the Attorney-General, the I act of 1829. It m a y b e that alter this act is 'passe d , we present Honer of the Rolls ,said it would so interfere. ' thall find perstms in England or in Ireland openly assuming rd the glued°, if parlismon ' re- The SPEAKER said that, having been appealed to by s the paper ferjudleuvw. he rigbkhon. geqll4pasq• and the hew. member Jhr *Om. . I \ _ stabNue eminiottfria educe to flew illAtter, efie paves LSTICAL TIT 9 LL. ' o items, allow to eapqrse it ow well uhe gel id _ the Speaker • J c • rhea t question one of ! at clinically all hat in bringi rd an i might r 4.3 het quota 4of o • twpittecedents Itit lti t . .ding w ' •to tak , clue a . There wno auth Inee ft• cla e i s i o n toy , qh,,, 11, he w uite '''' 'at he uuse tWm du* ' _by the lellierce the .statelllng mmon dean e. his bil ad order referring tti religion.' As •Iv. be was it house without the preliminary form able to collect from the diderent inehrnretations that 5 admitted in some _emu but only in hail been given to the terms, and from the course that had action of the Speaker. But ho be: been followed With various bills relating More or - Teis - to re. - 1 . • • • these titles, and attempting by that assumption to set up their power and authority against the power and authority of the crown of England. I should say that in that case, whether it he iet England or in Ireland, the crown oti.4ht to use means to enforce the law. (Hear, hew s ) Sir, t h e hon. and learned gentleman in arguing this case recited what he called the false assumption. in the preamble to this bill. (hear, hear.) He first referred to the enactment in the act of 1829, and he said that that enactment had been repealed by the Bequests Act. I own I was ansinisheil to hear such a statement. Onl y imagine that the right lion. gentle man the member for Ripon acting under the direction of Sir Robert Peel, then Prime Minister of the country, should have introduced a bill which repealed an important part of the act of 1829, the relief act, by waich ahem 'Wenn catholic, have seats in parliament and enjoy Oleos, and that he should never have mentioned to the Hoes of Cern mons that he proposed to repeal an important part of that act. It is impossible that he could have meant that, and there are no words in the act introduced which at all countenance such a supposition (Hear, hear.) The wools were very carefully chosen; they aro not loose words, like those which we find in a cemetery act passed afterwards, and which I could wish were not allowed to slip through in 'an act of parliament. (Hear.) The words in the 13-quests Act, enact introduced by Sir Hubert f'uel's government with deliberation, speak of a " bequest in trust fur any arch bishop or bishop or any other person in holy orders of the Church of Rome officiating in any district?' Those are the words with respect to the bishops. Then with regard to the clergy, the words are, "or having pastoral superinten dence of any congregation of person professing the Roman catholic religion." Those worsts differ entirely from tho phrase, " having jurisdiction over any diocese • ' they are worts used in order to avoid any of those word s which im ply authority, jurisdiction, and legal power. So much for the first assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman. His neat remark is, that we say it may be doubted whether the assumption in the recited act extends to the assumption of the title of any archbiahopor bishop of any see which is n o t held by any archbishop or bishop of the catholic church. Now I have heard a very learned lawyer start doubts on that subject. I believe the general opinion of the profession of the law is that the words do not include the case of persons taking the titles of non-exisling sees; but at the same time, after we have heard from the mouth of a very learned lawyer, a doubt on that point, I think we were justified in asserting that it may be doubted whether that is the law. Now, an other averment of the hon. and learned gentleman has refer ence to the words "an attempt to establish under colour or authority of the see of Rome." Now, I believe, I am sure I have heard from every lawyer whom I have spoken to on the subject—that that is actually the law of this country ; and I observe that the hon and learned member fur Mid hurst, in an amendment which he has prepared, does not use the word., " be it enacted," hut the words, " be it declared," evidently considering that that is already , the law of the country. Well, then, Sir I know not why the hon. and learned gentleemm should state that there is any part of the preamble of this bill which is not borne out by the law and the facts of the case. The hon. and learned gentle man after having discussed the preamble of this bill, went on to speak of the enactment itself, and said he considered it a violation of religious liberty. He threatened us with the anger which would be excited in Inland, and in strong metaphorical language, he said that if this bill 'Mould pass the oppression would be resented, and the people would never sheathe their swords until they had got the better of their oppressors. Well, Sir, I am exceedingly sorry that members of this house, repreaenting, no ghat, a feeling that exists in Ireland upon this sub ject, should consider this bill any violation of religious liberty. But Idu nut think we are bound on that account to part with a single particle of that authority which is in herent in the crown of England—(cheers)—or of that inde pendence which is inherent in the lanple of the United Kingdom. (Loud cheers.) I know not what might lie the consequence if we were to give way to these notions that religious liberty will be infringed if we do preserve that liberty, that sovereignty, must that independence. (Hear, hear.) For my own part, I have no wish to exchange the religious liberty that we shall all enjoy, that the Itennaii catholic clergy will enjoy, after the passing of this bill, for any of that kind of religious liberty which is enjoyed at Rome. (Great cheering.) It is but the other day that we were interned by oue of our ministers in Italy that there was a person now lying in prison fur the offence—the offence, of what? Of circulating an Italian translation of the Holy Scriptures. lam not now speaking of !tone; I an speaking or another of the states of Italy. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from Mr. Keogh.) The hon. gentleman seems to think it a great triumph that it was not at Rome. (Laughter.) Will he tell me that it was not the influence of the Roman church that led to it? (Hear, hear.) Will he tell me that it would be competent to Italians to erect a protestant place of worship in Rome— (hear, hear, and cheers)—to go freely to that place of wor ship, and to publish every day their opinions, showing the protestant religion to be, according to their opinion, the truth with retpeet to religious matters ? (Hear.) Why, they could do nothing of the sort, and the hon. and learned gentleman well knows it. Sir, I rejoice that we have still the means of enjoying a religious liberty more real, MOM actual, than that which the hon. gentleman could hope for. (Hear, hear.) lan very glad that if I wish to learn the art of reasoning I am not debarred from reading " Whate ley's Logic." (Laughter.) I rejoice that in this country we are not subject to those prohibitions which at Rome aro so common, and indeed so prevailing. (Hear, hear.) Not wishing again to argue those parts of the question on which 1 have had to trouble the house on ter mer occasions, but repelling the statement of the hon. and learned gentlemen', that there is anything like persecution in this bill, 1 must again aver that this is a political measure directed tegairmot a political encroachment—(cheers)—and that we will not suffer the name of religious liberty to be prostituted fur the purpose of covering foreign aggressiou. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said he had observed almost all that had appeared in the papers during the agitation of this question, and he had nu hesitation in saying that as yet there bad been nu logical definition of the injury that had been inflicted on this country, and no agreement as to any remedy which parliament could provide. After the noble lord had written hi, celebrated letter he had three months for quiet deliberation whether in Downing-street or Wind sor, and at the end of that three month' they had the noble lord's speech, which was not about the Papal rescript, thu real mutter in hand, but about various matters that had occurred on the other side of the Channel. The noble lord was now conscious of the difficulty, and could not withdraw Ireland without overthrowiug the whole speech upon which his legislation was founded. The noble lord objected to the synod of Thurles. Ile (Mr. Bright) did not wish to see such synods, or anything else that interfered with education, but if the two churches were compared, they must be driven to the conclusion that the protestant bishops and clergy were quite as meddlesome in politics as the catholic, and more especially upon this very question of national educa tion. Ile had, while in the south of Ireland, spoken to a gentleman who win a county magistrate and a chairman of a board of guardians, and that gentleman had said that the established clergy had committed a great mistake in so uni versally rejecting the national schools, as they had by such conduct thrown them wholly in the hands of the priests'. (Cheers.? They should not then judge too harshly of the synod of Thurles for taking' a different view of education from them, more especially al at that synod the votes were equally divided, more than could be said of the established clergy either of Ireland or of England. But the noble hard would have no bishops but his own bishops, of whom hr was by turns t h e tyrant and the vassal, while the bishops of Ireland, in whom the people had confidence, were nut to have any opinion on this ques tion of education, or if they had they were nut to express it. But the noble lord had nut been able clearly to define the mutter uaon which he was going to legislate. Ile had had to cite a great number of arta, to ganii:h with refer ences to history, and menaces from other countries, atilt° make up what lawyers called a cumulative case, iti order to establish even the slightest case for legislation. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord admitted that the law had not been broken ; he could not cite any case in which the catholic bishops of Ireland had broken the law. He (Mr. Bright) had thought that the noble lord was going to admit that as the law had not been broken ' uu offence had been committed, inst e ad o f w hi c h he was about to ask for a stringent law to put down an offence which had never been committed. (Cheers from the Irish members.) There was one point on which the law has been broken, and that was in the importation of the bull, but with that offence the noble lord would not interfere. The language of the l'ope was complained of as offensive, but had priests in power ever used any other? The supremacy of the Queen was, in the sense used by the noble lord, no better than a fiction. There might have bean such supremacy down to the times of James IL, but now there was no supremacy but that of the three estates of the realm, and the supremacy of the law. The Queen MSS the chief of the established church, hut that church had not been assailed either in its wealth or power, The Queen had not the power of making Roman catholic bishops, and therefore the making of them by the only power on earth that had authority to make them was no invasion of the prerogative of the crown. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that the Pope had ignunal the established church of this country and had abolished the see of Canterbury. But the Pope had always dune so, he looked upon the church of England as an usurping church, pretty much an the church of England looked upon congregations of dissenters. Did not that church when appealing to the house on the plea of religious destitution reckon up the population in a district, and the number of church sittings, without even taking into account the number of dissenting teachers, or of dissenting places of worship ? (Hear, hear.) It was thus that one church always treated another, and it was one of the unfortunate proof+, that so much as they had had of churches and of religious, the true spirit of Christianity had made very little way amongst the churches of the world. (Hear, hear.) He was nut one of those who thought there was any strength in the argument which was used so often, that bishops in ordinary were not necessary for the effec tual working of the Roman catholic church. He was no friend to the bishop of any church. (Cheers, and laughter.) la the case of the bishops, they were governed by laws regularly enacted, while the vicars apostolic were controlled solely by the will of the I p o p e who exercised as much power u s h e th oug ht p roper. The difference was this, a vicar-apostolic was alone respon sible to the Pope and to his will whatever it might deter mine; but when a bishop in ordinary was appointed, ho was relieved from the caprice—if he might au sat —of the Pope, and subject alone to those portions of the canon law that could be exercised in any country in accordance with the permission of the civil law of that country. (Hear, hear.) It was awned that the Roman catholicof this country had suffered no grievance in being driven back again to the rule of vicars-apostolic. He (Mr. Bright) begged to ask the people of this country, whether they would prefer to live under the ordinary consti tution of the country, administered by its recognised tribunals, or under sonic special commission, with some exceptional state of the law, where liberty might I ,t