The Express. — London, England, 1847-02-25 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1847. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Iltennos on question, that have be given to brine to a ►ill to repeal so much of the Reform Act to salsa tic right to registratioo in cities and boroughs conditional on toe payment of pone a rates and assured taxes.- -Ayes, 38 ; Nom s'ot. AYES. . _ ___ Barnard, B. O. Duncannon,Vtan Moeda, D. Turner, E. Blake, M. J. &cut; B. Napier, Zor C. %% there. Iton. C. 'interim', Dr. Fielden, J. O'Brien. W. S. Waking, T. Bright, J. Gioborne, T. O'Connell, M. J. Warburton, 11. Brotherloo, J. Hull, Sir B. Pathvll, Cunt Walliarn, W. Chriotie, W. D. flume, J. Pluturhlgr, rupt.lforke, U. R. Collins, W. llompherr. AM. Rie.v,h, J. 1.. crooked, %V. B. Maral.ind, 11. Roebuck, J. A. lI:UAW, D'Eynootart.C.T.Mitebell, T. A. Scott, it. Duncombc,Tbnn. Duncan, Vitet. Moffatt, (1. Thurnely, T. Evans, Sr D. 1.... Duncan, George Molesworth.SOW NOV. 4. Aeland, T. D. Gibson, lion. T. klanfee , , rt. D. Shaw, Rt. Re. F. An Hon. ColOore, Hon. K. Manners, Lord'. Sornerrille.Sir W. Arundel & Surrey Graham, Str.l. Malik., Hon. F. Spooner, IL ?Arlo: Greene. T. Noepeth, Visa. Stewart, J. Halley, J. Grey. Sir 0. O'Brien. ('. Stuort, W.Y. liming, F. T. Harcourt, G. O'Conor Don Tollemache, J. Bentinek,Lordo. Hawes, B. Paint, Lord A. Weeey, Hon. T. Bu:dero, 11. 0. Henley, J. W. Pnlingtort, Sir J. Vyne, IL Bortliiddi , ,P. Ilerrey, Lord A. Pahnendon,Viec. Winninatnn„Sir T Butler, P.:. llobisume, Sir J. Parker, J. Wood, col. T. Copeland, Ald. Iloward, P. it. Plumptre, J. P. Wyse, T. Craig, W. ti. Johnstone, Sir I. Pollf.il, F. IBA. Quln:in /.abriitchcm, 11. Rich, 11. Trl.l.sna. Duudao, Admiral Lypton, lion. Li. Itumell, Lord J. TIM, Lord Y. Forbes, W. klecuulay, T. B. Ruther.Urd, A. Tanen, H. Fox, C. R. lluinwarlnir, T. Sandon, Vinci. WOOLWICII ARSENAL. Dt rt•trr on Mr. T. DUNN/MA'S 11:106011 for papers manning the env of Daniel Tame, late a Intoner, in Woolwich ArAelleli, which Ird to the adjournment of the home. 40 mentben not Ming present.— Aye% 11; Nom, 20. AYFA _ Blake. M. J. Collett, J. ilTornolr, T. TILLII2.B. 'forthwith, P. Fotott, B. W.irburcon, H. Amer, J. Brett erten, J. 1 - ,L4botoe, T. Torte, 11 It. Buncombe, T. Cabhell, B. B. Taylor, J. A. NOES:_ _ _ Mandel& Surreyrox. C. R. --- 12hourhere, M. Paget, Lord A. ii.vl of Godson, R. Maute, Mom P. lirker, J. Ro:dern. 11. G. Greene, T. Morns, IX Rush .ut, Capt. Craig, W. 0. Grey, Sir G. O'Connell, ).jun. Thum.. Ihtudas, Adm. Ilenley. J. W. O'Connell, MJ. Amon, HOMO . FC17.011, Sir It. Jervis, Sir J. °Canoe Don Tufnell, H. FAR VITN, Via. 17.—Fsoromas Bit.t..—ln the NOP6, leave out " lasseeilts. Hun. W. 5.," and insert, " Lae: miles, Ron. E." PARLIAMENTARY PAPER. Pmts PETITIONS.—The seventh report of the committe on public petitions has been delivered; it brings the resist er of petitions presented to the House of Commons down to the 17th hart. On constitutional points scarcely any /. ,ace been presented: there are only three petitions with a total a 317 signatures for repeal of wino. Under the head " ecclesiastical " two petiuons are reported with 17,0 at sig natures from Ireland for the abolition of ministers' money. The pctitkos relating to taxes are : — For repeal stamp I duties on attorney's certificates 10 petitions, wit} ; 115 s i g . , natures; against use of grain in breweries and di Ileries 4 with 494 ; for repeal of excise duty on hon. 1, with 1 ; for reduction of tolls and dues on lighth Asses 24, with 1,617 ; for reduction of duty on tea If ,; w i t h 3;46 2 ; for repeal of window duty 1, with 93. The petitions for a Ten Hours Factories Bill are 602, with 170 . 261 s i gnature . ; the petitions against it 3, with 84 signature 4. There are 13 is pc .r titic ia ns w , ; w an ith d 58 1,89 . 3 ith signatures 2 for ures rental , r alterationforalteretio n of the of t / r i l h e Poor Removal Act, In favour of Lord G eorg . B ent i ne h.. Railway Bill, there were presented 8 petitions, w i t h 320 signatures ; against it 1 with I. Friday ' of nese. We will notice one or two in the Oficial Dirertory. Here we find nothing said of the new rail way board established in the last session, of which Mr. . . Great George months, board Sir R, INGLIS complained that the hon. and learned Silt() to the other part. His non. menu nee lain that, as tohead T HE er : xt ... member had commenced his speech with an attack on the civil disabilities, they were all abolished by the act of last ' T n he " gl've ' rn ' me o la r t 71E723 . ;Tb1;e41;;;Tay Y;;471;;;;;a's a 317 signatures for repeal of union. cutter too 31 ee eiarquis o f WESTMEATH moved, on Friday editor. In this medley of rights and wrongs, it will hon, member fir Birmingham, a :quench ecpporter of the year. What was really abolished was an act of the 13th and surrender at discretion; and this clause, so far from being " ecelesiaitical +• two petitions are reported with 17,0 sa g• night last, for returns respecting the management of be useful to see what the worth of the book really The which he (Sir It. Inglis) had always advocated, of the same queen which imposed the punishment of death agreed to, was protested against by Lord Sendon, the then natures from Ireland for the abolition of ministers' mone The petitisns relating to taxes are:—For repeal e f stamp the crown estate in the county of Roscommon, with is, and whether the public itself has not some clear The lion. and learned member complained that the hon. on the introduction of bulls, writings, or instruments con- Secretary for Ireland, end other members, as being mice- -9 f .. , . . e _„ . 11: sig- the object of proving that for 15 years it had paid no and intelligible rights of its own in this matter. member for Birmingham and his constituents were ignorant nected with the Church of Rome, into this country ; but the listed to east a stain on the Roman Catholics of Ireland, duties on atterne 's certificates 10 petitions wit). ' - stilleriee 4, rent, and thaticgal possession of it having been obtained of certain oiniseions which had been me•:e in this year's bill. bill of last year did not make it lawful to introduce such which was unworthy of a Christian people. natures; Against use o grain an oreweries and us with 484 ; far repeal of excise duty on h omes l Whether we regard the book under its official or . about a year since, by the crown exercising its rights private aspect, its merits, or rather demerits, are the The mistake which th y had made was very easily accounted bulls, writings, or instruments, and, except as to the penalty, Sir R. PEEL said the bill which now stood fora second with I ; for reduction of tolls and dues on l' htheu for, as the p . hits now omitted were to be found in all the law remained the same as before. But no man reading, contemplated a double object. In the first instance, , Z th 3 48 7 1 . as a landlord, the tenants re-possessed themselves same ; and, to speak plainly, it is literally a former bills, and no entice of their omission had been given. would now hold, as the hon. member for Birmingham it contemplated the repeal of many of the enactments of the 2 ro 1 r , with acal l , 0 5 17 e for d reduet i a n of. due e , on T te l i , s e 1 f , . . win ow duty I, . . • petitions tar a ' ' of the lauds the next day by fraud' and violence,— disgrace to its tage be Iwhat it A paren , 1 Tne him. and learned member had claims upon the attention held last year,that the introduction of an Agnus Del or Cru• bill of 1829, which relieved the Roman Catholics from al- Ten Hours Factories Bill aro 402, with 170 eel e i enetwe s e; ap leme t i n ng, co w m e m p e res nced um . e, the game of litigation to be cursory glance through the last eon (dated of the house as amend lawyer, bet he thought he could lay eifix, was a crime for which the offender should be hanged, most all political disabilities ; and it else proposed to carry t h e .. ~ t • • petitio ',genie tt . 3, with 84 f sig a it i ature a, There are 15 no claims to the character of an accurate historian . He drawn, and quartered--(a laugh)--or seriously meant that into effect certain act:idlest emotion, and one of the year 1841 Lord WESTMEATH does not November, 1846) brought to light an error in almost petmone, 1,893 signatures Or alt lion o f the Irish asserted that Penal loses arose with the reformation , it s h ou ld continue t o be a n o ff e nce in this country punish- for the abolition of statutes which were Practically obsolete, p I wand 58 w i t h e e eee f„ a l state enough of the case to enable us to form every page—quite inexcusable. The errors are of but h.: forgot that is was not till long alter the revolution able as a miademeannur for a man to go and hear mass. which implied doubts of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic oor. jaw ,_ _ _r., r alteration of the a judgment on the matter. Of such a ease it is all kinds--omission--commission—ignorance—stale- Poor Removal Act. In favour of Lore George Bentinck's teat many of these laws pissed. but the hon. and learned Then, ae it appeared to him, until they come to that part of community, and which, if put into practical operation, petitiuus, with 320 quite plain that the facts ought to be most distinctly ness. We will notice one or two in the Official member was alma incoreastent with himself, for, by the the bill which his hon. and learned friend had stated he W" would enb n' ct them Weever. and disproportionate penalties. Railway Bill, there were presented 8 it 1 with I. stated, as rho introduction of the word " fraud" into Directory. Here we find nothing said of the new me- ter= of the act of Elizabeth, if the supremacy of the willing to modify, they were dealing with that which ought So fares the tatter object was concerned, the bill would have l'ornatUg"; against crown over matters ecclesiastical were base lon the common not fora moment to become a matter of contest amongst his cordial support. He had taken an active part in further- law of the country, the Protestant as well as Catholic sub• rational men, and it would surely be an unprecedented ins the measures of 1841 and 1846, which had that for their —Continued ire rove- colourable pretext of law for the conduct of the Snturr is the head. The office is 29, Great George- feet' of the cn.n•n would be equally li a ble to their operation. course to throw out a bill at 42 second reading, because of a object. He th ally it moat unwiara to continue statutes PHOTOORA . PHIC Ponva&rr s. ._ P tenants. In a case of Lord WEsTME.trlt's own, in street, and was so for some weeks, if not months, The hon. end ler:lied member was ohliged to go beck to the claws which the mover WS , Within to modify, so as to which were wholly out of coneonance and agreement with ments are being made tie Poehogr sphy. The latest which which he was put to a good deal of expense, our re- before November last. Mr. Seiturr and the board early part of the reign or Eliztheth for an instance in which Werth. views of its objector., To that part of th e bill th e spirit o f th e t i mes, and which inflicted penalties which we have to recordls the work of Mr. Kilburn, who het the rigour of this law was preee'd . against a Roman Catholic which dealt with Roman Catholic processions h e we . op• cou ld no t be en f orc ed w ithout revolting the Christian feel- opened an establis h ment se Regent.street, where the specimens on view are minor g the mist perfect that we against him, in an ejt•etment brought collection is, that the courts of law decided itself had been appointed long antecedently to the *teem: end he wee very certain that if the hon. and posed. There wax n•s intolerance in preventing them. intr. even of these who did not agree with the Roman Catho- against a location of the office. But under the Boatel of learned na Leber heel had a la'er illustration he would have That was a question of the preservation of the public peace. li ce , be thought them discredit►ble to the statute-book, sod, have yet seen. The ii Winch . ..al improvement is in colour, tenan+, on the ground of his having sublet Trade, p. 51, the late railway department is men- kren it. The hon. and learned member bad greatly dcpre- If there was a tolerant form of government on earth, it was therefore, he gave his conlicil anent to their removal. which, in Mr. R burn e portraits, has not the pre• a part of Isis farm, contrary to a covenant in the lease tioned, which had been swept away months ago, elated th e securities which were given to the Established that o f th e B r iti s h gover n men t in India, yet that inter- The knit part of the hill professed to supply the veiling defect of faintness. ' ,at possesses the depth and body under which he held. 'The marquis was unreasonably Another office omitted, which is at least two years Church fa the Aet of Emancipation, but, however slightly feted with religious processions which might endanger emissions of the acts of 1844 and 1846. The hon. gentleman of a finished Painting. '..his quality renders a portrait even be (Sir R. H . Inglis) might view them, they were ten- the peace of the country, end he should not ob. whn had the conduct of th e bill said that now by law, and valuable IS a work of art-. which is otherwise rarely the ease angry with the law and tho lawyers, for his proof of old, is that of the registrar of metropolitan surveys— derca ant accepted as meerite., and therefore the hon. and jest to the application of stringent measures for notwithstanding the statute of 1844 and 1816, a Roman '—the likeness being ge•aerally the only recommendation. the covenants having been broken consisted in his a department subject to the office of Woods, and learned member sh mld not have alluded to them in terms preventing the celebration of such Roman Catholic rites and Catholic maliciouslyand advisedly maintaining the authority, Indeed, the process of colouring requires the same rare and showing, that his tenant let the land to some located with its staff at No. 3, Trafalgar-square. The -4 SO unfitting, lie (Sir R. bulls) mute: vied that there was ceremonies as were ealmslited to endanger the public ton- spiritual and ecielesuaetical, of any foreign potentate, , skill as in as ivory miniature. Nor is this attention ill• personsfor what is called a conacre crop, omissions an errors inthe personne of government no comet" in Christian Isar• into which the Jesuits were quality ; therefore be meld not support the clause as it prelate, or power, if he was poesessed of goods of the of bestowed, ibr the die tincinees thin given to the subject has and that this, however contrary it might officers are numerous ; but we pretermit these to admitted without 'direct law being passed subjecting themin stood, neither did he starts with all that had been said 20e, forfeited them all, and if he was notpomesoeillsof eh hitherto been a r.est desideratum, the polished surface of Awe be to the spirit of the contract, nuiobers, residences , and objects, to the powers at the time against it. It wax certainly neither just nor right that a he forfeited all he had, and was subject to a yeses Impel. the picture in mrct CaM3 requiring a poculiar direction of the was not opposed pass to the next portion of the work, the Street being. Tho Jesuits had greatly inexemed in this country Britian ambled, being a Franciscan, should be driven front soement. ' light in order /I'o distinguish its details, to the letter, such conacre hiring of the land Directory. Here we observe that although the IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY, Fn. 24. The Se eskes took the ehatr at twoire o'clock. PRIVATY: NEI& .... FIRST READING 1:-1./ireCtLondon, and Portsmouth, Leeds and Ibilsk SKOONti READINGS.--Boston, Stamford. and Ilinningharn It way (Wearcb to Sutton-bra*, He.); Boston, Stamford. and Bir mingham Hallway (Branch to Wisbech Harbour and Wisbech itar. Imam Improv.ddent) ; Eastern Counties Railway (Hertford to Ilitchln) ; Pastern Union and Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's ktadways Amd ramatlon ; Eat Lascaskire Railway (Southport Branch and Preston Esaraabb) ; East Lancashire Itatlway (Sundry Connectiag Lila); lancaahise 14ilwn resiatlons and Raw:east:di Coil Branch); East larsushire Railway Bury to Manchester) • Edinburgh Jnd Northern Italismy (Burnti Fier, Sc.); Grant N orthern Railway ;Hertford, Hatfield, sialSt. Allasit's Branch); Oreat Northern Railway (Wei-- Vous between Grantham andTork, ; Great Northern Railway ;Dm b:i7rtea Peterborough. Itc:4on, and Doncaster) i4tictßehl, Itotherhaao. Barnsley, Waketk4d, Itadderedvld, and (loo t. itai:vray (ra , dal Alteration of Level% Re.). PUBLIC BUSINWS. PETITIONS.—By Mr. W. 1.., from a place in Forfarshire, In fa vour of tLe Itouim 11thdie Belief MIL Mr.SPOONLe, troin Bir mingham • An HON. Mans. from Leicester, Shrewsbury, Ipswich, and other ;Hem; Mr. Punter. from a p.m: in Sulf .1k ; sir IL Is ola, from conumttee or Proteatant Assoaatioo, from Bath Church of England Lay Association, and from Exmouth; Lord 11.000. from Aceitworth ; Sir J. Dreiwoiern from Exeter; against the Roman CathAk Relief Bill. sir J J.N,TOXR from Scarborough, to favourof the Light lams bring paid out of Consolidated Food. Mr. Sloth O'Brord from guardbane of Baltinaahaw UMon, for repeal of Pic Le gislative Union; from Ballinagery, against discharging from relief worts inconsequracc of outrage. Mr. Wales from seamen of South Shield., against alteration of Navitratiou Law.. Mr. P.m. from gruardi:ns of Hinckley Union, in favour of n national p.r.rate. Mr. Nawn - Lari from Ntinenum Union, to name effect. Q.t. hr - urn. from the guanlians of Bright. Union, for repeal of the Poor Kano. I rap ACt. Mr. Havana from Roman Oathn:ics of Lancaster, in favour ofthe Roman Catholie Itelkf Bill. Mr. It. Yoativ from woodman of Cambridge Union, against Poor Law Amehtirnent Act. Mr. Baudir from it place iu Derbishire, against the Poor Itmoval.tet. Mr. T. Nellallle from Load:, for removal rate-paying clause' of Itclons Aet, and a petition from the same poties and plum, complaining of the operation of the Reform Act. Sir J. Garton from Pordingoridge szainat the Poor Removal Act. 8:r W. VIOLVre from Wexford, fur im mediate relief to existing distress In Ireland. ....—.-- . . . BEPORT.—Landed Property (Irelaud) Advanoe+ Bill. eECOND kir %WNW —llarkeN and Fairs Clausrs, Public Ilr.der = i Ctreis e im l i r Works flames, Waterworks Claworh—Raman THIRD Itg.tDlNG.—Lebouring Poor (Ireland , Lill. P tPErt PBESENTEI). —Returns from the' poor-law commis- Monne. xErif R.\ S ORDERER—On the motion of Mr. Fatwas, return of the cumber of polite constables in c.:ch county, or dirision of • county, in reeked and Wale& under 2 & 3 c. 0.3; mother of police coast ibles in out petty sessions district, name and population of dis trict, and amount pain to couaty polite rate by each district, with an annum of items of eapesditure for 1816. Mr. WATNION, .pies of correspondeoce between committee of town of Kinsale and public &Mori ies, on vubject of reproductive works presented at Kinsale sessions oa Sth October last, tinder the labour-rate act. Mr. Morrnak -100, return of the total number of From employed in cotton, woollen. worsted, dux, and silk factories reapectivelv, in England, Rutland, and Ireland, and the total number in the United Kingdom; showitg the rens:Theo numbers of males and females, and also the monitor of under thirteen yearsof age, a'.•pecifying the total number of eace class in each county, Mr. Husk, tabular return of articles imported into United hinudem In 1886; grad quantities; qaturditiea raying duty, rates of duty, and amounts received for edb, distiturut,hing between other foreign countries and the colonit.s. Returns, epecitying any alterations which have been made since the Ist tidy of January, 1816, in the Tariffs of Foreign States, nod any alterations of the terms and conditions upon which raw produce, goody, or merrhandise are imported into or exported from such Foreign State s specifying the date at which with alterations have been made, and the time at which they hare or are to come into operation. /Specifying any alteration, of Cu•tom Duties or other alterations idfecang the commerce of the Britiah possessions, which have been autboried or effected under the powers of the act!) & to Vie. c. 83. Of the declared values of the following manufactured articles, air. ,—rnanufacturca of cotton, woollen, silk, leather, hard ware, pottery, endplate, which have teenexported from that kingdom, apt,ifyin; the countries or &at& to which such manufactured artaacs have been exported, In the years 1841, ISIS, and laid, respretlvely. Of the number of rotten, woollen, and silk =We work ing short time, or that bad stopped working on the lot day of Afaz,h, 1811, 1813, 1846, and 1817 namectively. Of the corn, grain, flour, and meal, measured in quarters of ewe, and of the quantities of the fo lowing kinds of provbions, via., butter, cheese, biscuit, and cured or fresh meat, which hive been imported into Nis kingdom in the years 1813, 1811, 11114:8, sod 1816 reapectireiy. Of the foreign state; the goverumente of which have prohibited the exportation of or hare imposed ealditional export duties, mortifying the amount and inaeme of siich duties upon, corn, grain, flour meal, potatoes, or other pro visions, together with the date of sect prohibition or imposition of addi tional extant ddly, 171 the years 1811, 1915, 1876, and Ist; respectively. WAYS AND MEANS. Mr. GREENE brought up the report of the committee of Ways and Means which oat on Monday last, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded thereupon. LABOURING POOR (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. LABOUCHERE haying moved the third reading of this bill, Mr. 8. O'BRIEN took the opportunity of saying that he had heard from some districts that gross jobbing was going on upon the public works, and that early neat week be should ask her Majesty's government whether it was true that there were large districts in Ireland in whicn the rate of wages paid for labour on public works did not exceed Bd. a dayl Mr. LABOUCHERE had every reason to believe that the allegations against the managers and superintendents of public works is Ireland were altogether unfounded. The total expenses of management and supervision did not exceed 10 per cent. on the outlay, including the purchase of imple ments. . . Mr. SHAW agreed that much unjust imputation had been thrown upon the managers of public works in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman urged upon the government to provide against the sudden diem asal of too many perm.. at a time from employinf at on these works. Si, O. GREY said thee instructions had already been sent over to Ireland to exercise a due caution on th,. point. In answer to a question from Mr. 8. Cita wrono, Mr. LABOUCUERE said that for the must part the la bourers employed might, by the system of tail:-work acted upon, earn Is. 2d. a day, if they pleased. The bill was then read a third time and passed. UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE. . _ _ In answer to Lord J. MANNIOg, dr. CHRISTIE stated that he should not bria; forward biro diltion respecting the universities of Oxforl and Cam bridge until atter Easter ._ ROMAN CAThOLIC RELIEF BILL. Mr. WATSON then proceeded to same the second read ing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The principle on which he founded the measure was the clear and sound one that no man ought to be subjected to penal enactments merely on account of his religious opinions. A great propor tion indeed of these monstrous penal laws, dating from Edward VI. to George IV., had been repealed in the present reign, but still much of the offence to justice and common *ewe remained to be done away with. The whole subject of these penal laws had been submitted professionally to several of oar most eminent lawyers, and they had been of the unanimous opinion that it would be most expedient to have them wholly repented. The first act which he pro posed to repeal was 1 Elie., cap, 1 (erroneously called the Act of Supremacy, though in point of feet the su premacy of the crown in matters ecclesiastical was part of the common law of the realm), which provided that if any person gainsaid by word, writing, or otherwise, the su premacy, power, or pre-eminence of the sovereign, be should, for the hest offence, be liable to imprisonment or forfeiture of goods ; for the second, to the penalty of premunire ; and for the third, to capital punishment. The penalties, indeed, of this act had been repealed by recent statutes, but the crime still remained in force, so that any person committing it was liable to be prosecuted for misdemeanour. Tho repeal of this act was strongly recommended by the commissioners ap pointed to inquire into the criminal law. Thr second enact ment that he desired to repeal was that which rendered tho spiritual adhesion of persons in this country to Papal bolls or other spiritual communications from Rome a penal offence. Au 'thee enactment which he proposed to repeal was the 'Uniformity Act, as far as it affected Roman Catholics. Other acts he intended to repeal were 30 Ch. 11., 7 & 8 Wm. 111., and 31 Gee. I IL, csp. 32. The latter was one of what were called Relief Acts, but it contained conditions which, if not complied with, precluded Catholics from participating in the relief afforded. It was these conditions that he wished to have abolished. All these restrictions were regarded by some Protestants as safeguards of the Protestant Church, but be did not at all regard them in that light. He now came to the safeguards respecting the regular cleegy. But what were these safeguards or why they had been provided, he would notconecive. He knew that when the word " Jesuit" was mentioned on tLe hustings of Birmingham it frightened all the old ladies of that town into convulsions ; but many of the persons connected with monastic orders were most learned and intelligent, abounding in works of love and cha rity, diligent searchers into history and philosophy; and if it was said that the Jesuits had done some evil, it must also be admitted that they had dune much good. The legislature had already, in the acts which had passed the house, re moved matey of those bigoted end penal enactments which he complained of, and he stow asked the honeo to finish the good week by repealing all that remained of them. It was argued that those acts were now obselete ; but that was no argument, or, if one at all, it was in favour of the abrogation of them. He asked their repeal, not as a concession to the Catholics, but as justice to the l'rotestants, who boasted thrtartelves the friends of toleration and of liberal measurm. To them he would appeal on this question, and he hoped that in support of their principles they would give their con sent to the second reading of this hill. Sir R, INGLIS complained that the hon. and learned member had commenced his speech with an attack on the Lon. member for Birmingham, a 'quench 'supporter of the principles which he (Sir 11. Inglis) had always advocated. The hon. and learned member complained that the hon. member for Birmingham and his constituents were ignorant of certain onalsaions which hail been made in this year's bill. The mistake nhiek th y had made was very easily accounted for, as the p. ints now omitted were to be found in all former bills, and no notice of their omission bad been given. Tne hies, and learned member had claims upon the attention of the house as asound lawyer, bet he thought he could lay no claims to the character of an accurate historian. He asserted that penal lases arose with the reformation, but hi. , forgot that it was not tin long after the resolution tail many of these laws passed. but the hon. and learned member was also inconsistent with himself, for, by the terms of the act of Elizabeth, if the supremacy of the crown over matters ecclesiastical were base I on the common law of the country, the l'rotestant as well as Catholic subs d' of the crown would be equally liable to their operation. The hon. and learned member was °Milted to go bath to the early part of the reign of Elisabeth for on instance in which the rigour of this law was preard against a Boman Catholic sal jet:, and he was very certain that if the hon. and learned in sober had had a laser illustration he would have given it. The hon. and learned member bad greatly depre ciated the secorides which were given to the Established Church fa the Aes. of Emancipation, but, however ' , lightly even hr (Sir R. 11. Inglis) might view them, they were ten dered an I accepted as seerritee, and therefore the hon. and learned member sh wld not have alluded to them in terms so unfitting, Ho (Sir R. Inglis) contended that there was no cowry in Chtistian Ears pe into which the Jesuits were admitted without a direct law being passed subiecting them in nuiohers, residences, and objects, to the powers at the time being. Tho Jesuits had greatly increased in this country since the first foundation of their establishment at Stoney hant and in Ireland ; and therefore he thought that, in. stand of removing the severities of 1829, they should rather strengthen the hands of Foveroment, to enable them to sup. 1 1 prey, any further extension of the order. The present bill prohibited any Roman Catholic subject from assuming the title of archbishop of Canterbury or tushop of London, which made it less objectionable than former bills brought in by the hon. and learned member ; but still so mu h remained in the measure as to rend it objectionable. Ile objects dtoit on principle—the:Church of England was the established church of the realm- In Ireland the members of the Protestant Church were prohibited from processions, and it would be most unfair to allow to a hostile church that which was denied to their own Protestant church. Was the hon. member prepared to see the recession of the host through the streets of London ? if such scenes were to be intro dueed into this country it would be great cause of regret to the passers of such a measure. The hon. and learned member for Cork had laid that he would not allow the procession of the host to be paraded through the streets of London, it was an object of too much veneration. It was then for the house to prevent the public exhibition of this cerement., and not to leave it to the will of the Catholic priesthood to adopt it if they thought proper. If the present mea-ure were to pax., it would make this country the only one in the world where Jesuits were allowed to entry on their profession without tome restraint. lie regretted to see that the 9th and 10th Victoria, prohibiting the introduction of hulls and rescripte, had been already repealed. In no country in the world was any bull of a foreian potentate, as was the Pope's, allowed to be introduced without the previous consent of the government of such country. Having the objections he had - stated, he begged to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Col. SIBTHORP seconded the amendment. —.. -. Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to know the principle upon which the hon. baronet the member for Oxford University opposed the hill ? Was it for the purposes of conferring additionol securities on the Pretest ant Church ? The hon. baronet h od not so grounded his opposition last year, nor did he do so now. What, then, was the great cause ? It had not been stet, d. The hon. baronet had spoken of a h^stile churth, but there were constant c reversions to that church from Protestantism every day. The penalties did not pre vent them. What was then the real cause of the opposition and the great cause which the right hon. member was deter mined to maintain ? What was the use of these pains and penalties ? They brought no money into the exchequer, or intro the church. He believed the only meson why they were desired to he kept on the statute book was to gratify a cer tain had spirit and malignancy of disposition, which some times found their way into the breasts of the best men, and which made them never happy except when they were teasing their fellow-creatures. (Laughter.) He had been that morning reading a speech of Cromwell's, in which he dismissed a parliament that did not suit his pur pose. In finding fault with some of the leading men, Crom well slid that they wcre•never easy except when they had their fingers on other men's conscience, in order that they might .pinch them there. (Hear, hear.) A aimilat com plaint might apply at the present time. What was the use of retaining these penalties ? He did not believe that one man in a hundred, out cif doors, could be found to stand up for a continuance of these pains and penalties. It had been said that them enactments were securities to the Established Church ; but the bon. baronet had not shown to the house how it was that they acted as securities. It had been further said that they were preserved in the great net of 1829, and ought to be now preserved. He (Mr. B. Eoeott) thought that the Emancipation Act of 1829 was a great measure ofjuatice,:and7he looked with pleasure to the good that act had done, rather than to that which it had left undone. Now was the time to carry out its intentions completely. He wished that the hon. baronet, in finding reasons against fur ther concessions to Beeman Catholics, would nut look back to the tins •of Queen Men , and the interdicts, hut would look to one who now filled the throne of St. l'eter, and who was teaching lemons of liberality to the other sovereigns of Europe. (Hear, hear.) lle trusted that her Majesty's ministers would permit this measure to pass, and he was sure that the right hon. baronets the members fur Tamworth and Dorchester must be anxious for its success. Neither could the noble lord the member for Lynn have any hostility to it. In many things, that noble lord was in advance of hie party, and now he had an opportunity of proving himself the Peal of 1847. (Great laughter.) The noble lord had supported the bill before ; be (Mr. Escott) trusted he would support it again, and that this would be the last debate in the British House of Commons, having for its subject the removal of penal enactments on account of religious difference. (Hear.) Mr. SHAW objected to the bill me tending to disturb those relations between Protestant and Catholic which were established by the act of 1820. Mr. MACAULAY was sorry this question should have come on at a time when several members peculiarly qualified to discuss it were necessarily abseee, and when a division must give but a very imperfect idea of the general sense of the house. At the same time he could not shrink from gating his opinions. Ile conceived whenever a 101 l was brought in, containing a great variety of matter tit to be paced on the statute-book, that it was no sufficient objection to its second reading that it ads contained some clauses which it would be unwise to pass. The principle of the bill was sufficiently vindicated when it was shown that it contained many provisions to which they might to give the force of law. Now, in the pre ent bill, the first pmrieion was oue which his hon. friend the member for Oxford had net pronounced, and which he chal.enged any hon. gentleman to pronounce, improper. Was it the intention of the House of Commons that every Roman Catholic in England should he subject to line and imprisonment for being a Roman Catholic ? Yet that was the effect of the wording of the law which it was proposed by the first portion of the bill to repeal. The enactment was, that all who affirmed or maintained the doctrine that any fort inn power or authority hod spiritual jurisdiction in thh country should be subject to fine end imprisonment. Though the capital punishment was repealed last year, this was the effect of the law as it now stand. Did not that provision include every Roman Catholic in this country ? (Hear.) Was there a single Roman Catholic who slid not hold that some giritual jurisdiction or other resided in the Bishop of Rome? $ was true there had been great contests between the doc -1 ten of the Catholic church an to the extent of that jurisdie thin at various times—at the Council of Trent, and on sub sequent occasions. Some, as the Jesuits, had contended, that the authority of the Pope was greater than that admit ted by the divines of the Galilean church, end that it was supreme in all matters. Other*, that he held powers co-or dinate with, and others that his powers were subordinate to, that of the general council ; but to take the whole range of Roman Catholic doctors and writers, from Aquinas down to Bossuet, there was not one that did not hold that some spiritual jurisdiction resided in the Bishop of Rome—not one that did not feel himself bound to be in communion with the bishop. (Hear, hear.) Would any man say that it was right or just that every Romin Catholic who taught he , son the doctrines of that religion which he him self professed—that every priest who preached the religion of which he was the expounder—should be liable to fine and imprisonment for so doing? If that was what was meant, let it be distinctly asserted. (Hear, hear.) But that, no one, not even his hon. friend the member for Oxford, would assert—this he was confident of. (Cheers.) Let him assume a case. Suppose the government, determined to carry out the law, directed their attorney-kenerel to proceed in every case in which it was infringed; and suppose Dr. Wiseman preached a sermon, taking for his text the words upon which rested the Roman Catholic doctrine of the power of the Pope, " Thou art Peter," would any one say that he should be prosecuted for the misdemeanour which, under the law as it stood, he would have committed ? If he were prose cuted, and placed in Ncwgate for the offence, he was sure no one would be more indignant at the proceeding than his hon. friend (Sir It. Inglis). lie could undersumd that because a law was rarely enforced might be no reason for blotting it out front the statute hook, for it might be wise to keep it in terrorem for the punishment of great offenders, but a law, for enforcing which not even a hypo thetical ease could be put, there was no excuse for eon tinning. (Hear, hear.) Look at the extravagant incon sistency of our legislation now. There were several courses open to them; there was that—which he held to be the proper one—of imposing upon no sect either fines or civil disabilities -(hear, hear); or they might prosecute and im pose on them disabling laws and penal laws ; or they might take the other course—that which was (Avocet. d by his hon. friend the member for Oxford last year—of not im posing disebilities, but excluding from power. (" Hear," from Sir It. Deere.) But what had they done in the ease of the Roman Catholic? They had dispensed him from the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy—they per mitted him to take his seat in parliament—but the moment he did so, ho was liable to be punished by fine and im prisonment. Was not this an inconsistency the most aboard that had ever disgraced the statute-book? (Hear, hear.) The best defence that could be put forward was, that the hw would never be executed; but that was no longer any defence whenever the attention of the house was called to the subject. Others were called on to act upon it. They must now say " aye " or " no" t the principle of this bill, and he conceived that if they refused their assent to it they would disgrace themselves as a legislature. What he had said as to this first part of the bill applied in some degree also to the other part. His hon. friend had said that, as to civil disabilities, they were all abolished by the act of last year. What was really abolished was an act of the 13th of the same queen which imposed the punishment of death on the introduction of bulls, writings, or instruments con ' netted with the Church of Rome, into this country ; but the 1 bill of last year did not make it lawful to introduce such bulls, writings, or instruments, and, except as to the penalty, the law remained the same as before. But no man would now bold, as the hon. member for Birmingham held last year,that the introduction of an Agnus Dei or Cru cifix, was a crime for which the offender should be hanged, drawn, and quartered—(a laugh)—or seriously meant that it should continue to he an offence in this country punish able as a miademeannur fora man to go and hear mass. Then, as it appeared to him, until they come to that part of the bill which his hon. and learned friend had stated he woo willing to modify, they were dealing with that which ought not for a moment to become a matter of contest amongst rational men, and it would surely be an unprecedented course to throw out a bill et its second reading, because of a clause which the mover was walling to modify, so as to meerthe views of its objector.. To that part of the bill which dealt with Roman Catholic processions he was op rsed. There was no intolerance is preventing them. That was a question of the preservation of the public peace. If there was a tolerant form of government on earth, it was that of the British government in India, yet that inter fered with religious processions which might endanger the pence of the country, and he should not ob ject to the application of stringent measures for preventing the celebration of such Roman Catholic rites end ceremonies as were calculated to endanger the public tran quillity; therefore he could not support the clause as it stood, neither did he agree with all that had been said against it. It was certainly neither just nor right that a British subject, being a Franciscan, should be driven from his country, and if he ventured to break through that ban that he should be liable to he transported for lite. But be could see no force in the hon. and learned gentleman's objec tion to the adoption of a similar system of regioration in regard to Roman Catholics in was adopted towards all dis senting congregations. If a man were a Jesuit and con cealed his religion, he might become an object of suepietion; but some system by which it might be known who were and who were not member, of each religious order, was .n his opinion compatible with religious liberty and toleration, and with the security of the state. (Hear, hear.) Mr. FINCH opposed the bill on the ground that it would tend to encourag • the Church of Rome, which he believed to be adverse to the royal prerogative, and the protestant constitution of this country. Every Raman Cetloilie was taught to believe that his church was the mother, and ought to be the mistress of all others. When it was complained that sre were intolerant towards the Roman Catholics, he would say, let us have a little free trade in this matter—a little reciprocity ; —but he looked in vain for toleration to protestant+ in catholic countries. France and. Belgium had, it was true, broken down the power of the Chun h of Rome, but where that church still re tained its influence, as in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, he looked in vain for toleration. In Rome, notwithstanding the immense sums of money spent by Englishmen there, every amilication for permission to erect a Protestant church in that city had been unsure, seta). He objected to the mea sure as hostile to the British constitution, to civilisation, to the statute law, and to the safety and security of the Pro testant selieion. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN considered that a discussion for so many hours upon such a measure was worthy of tee dark ages. No man could went that the religious superintend ence of the Cetholie priesthood had not been productive of much good yet by the law which this bill went to repeal they were Hanle to he prosreated fur a misdemeanor for teaching their religion. Mr. SPOONER, in reference to the chum in the bill of last year, observed, that what he then said, Mitring first I heard the opinion of the Sal ieitot-General, that if that clause passed, the common law would not h; sufficient to prevent a man bringing into this country a bull, which per se was an innocent document, Was, thot he mast oppose a dense which would allow a document to be introduced which, ow the face of it. assert, d the authority and supremacy of n foreisn prince in this country. He therefore repudiated the sentiments attributed to him by the right hon. gentleman the Pay muter of the Forces. If they acted on the principle of the hon.nsembcr for Limerick, end allowed the Lord Chancellors and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to he Roman Catholics, then there would be oily one mew step from that to the throne. (Cheer.) As for the Romari Catholic religion itself, he did not hesitate to say that he impugned it because he beliered that it was not only not the religion of the Bible, but con trary to the Bible. (Hear, hear.) Ile regretted to think that this country wan losing its Protestant character, and he believed in his conscience that wasone of the causes—(eriee of " Oh!")—which had brought down upon it the affliction under which It was at present suffering. (Renewed and general cries of "Nn.") Mr. MACAULAY observe) that he should willingly retract what he had said, if he had done the smallest talus tire to the hon. member ; but he had said nothing which was not clearly demonstrated by the ordinary authority. Mr. J. O'CONNELL fully acquiesced in the proposition that the most stringent enactments should be pawed to pre vent. Catholic proccesions, and to compel the registration of the different Catholic orders throughout the country ; but he protested against continuing restrictions on the statue book which tended to keep up an unhealthy degree of irri tation, which were of no value as securities because never acted upon, which confeesodly would never ho enforced, which were openly violated, and which it war a disgrace to the legislnture to continue. (Bear, hear.) With re togard what had been said about the obedience of Jesuits, that law sainted no doubt amongst them in amongst other Roman Catholic religious bodies, and was strictly observed as a general rule, but he boned to remark tharamonget all orders there existed a higher power still, which, according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, they were hound to obey, and that was the monitor of their own conscience which forbade them to yield obe dience to that wlech they conscientiously believed to he morally wrong. He regretted that the Iteconler of Dublin should have spoken of the Roman Catholics soil they were an insignificant body bemiring et the door of that house. They constituted 7-Bths of tee population of Ireland, and 3.Bths of the population of the United Kingdom. They must, the re fore, in carrying into effect the constitution of this country, be regarded as a greet fact, tot to he got rid of by any sup posed superiority in point of religion, or by the keeping up of restrictions such as this bill proposed to remove. Mr. NEWDEIGATE could not agree in the opinion that while Catholic countries found it necessary to impose certain restrictions upon the papal power, thin Protestant country should set the example of totally abelishing them. The ex istence of the Roman Catholic church in this county was doubtless a great fact, but be could not perceive that that church was at present onfferinn from the operation of any penal statutes or disabilities. Indeed, if such were the ease, he, as a hater of persecution, and the advorate of tolerance, would join in repealing them. But he could not consent to a measure which proposed to break down some of the bul warks of the constitution, and erect nothing in their place bulwarks which did not interfere with the fair and open ex ercise of the Roman Catholic religion, but which did, and which might, to preclude the malicious and illegal purpose of setting up the authority of a foreign potentate against the sovereign of this country. (Hear.) He saw no reason for doing away with that portion of the bill which did away with the oaths taken by Roman Catholic barristers. It was a provision which did not exist in the bill of last year, and for which the hon. gentleman who in troduced the bill had not alleged any grounds. Tne oath of supremacy merely declared that the Pope had no civil or temporal authority in this country, and to that declaration he could see no valid objection. The toleration of Jesuits, he thought, would be most dangerous; as they were the enemies of liberty everywhere, and hod proved themselves so inimical to the interests of nations, that Pope Clement 111. had contemnlated their supprewion, but died before he could accomplish it; and Clement V. did suppress them in nearly every country in Europe as a religious order. Even in the present day their injurious influence was to be observed in Switzerinnd, where they were exciting much civil dissension. Lord G. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for Winchester had appealed to him to prove himself the Peel of 1817. He had certainly been the unflinching supporter of the removal of Catholic disabilities, and he would vote with tho honourable member for Kinsale on the present occa sion, without in the least degree trenching on the midi testes of the right honourable baronet (Sir R. Peel). It had been argued by his hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, that there was no practical evil or grievance to be remedied by the bill, as the laws it proposed to repeal were already obsolete, and therefore harmless. Now, if that were ao, he thought it a reason why tloy ought to repeal them. But it was net so; for they gore rise, on he could show, to crest practical evils. (Hear, hear.) His bon. friend said that there was no example, since Elizabeth, of a Roman Catholic having been hanged for advocating the supremacy of the Pope. That might be. But, in modern times, he believed there would be found many examples of great grievances, arisirg out of these lawywhich were said to he °baguette In 1837, a cause was tried before Lord Langdale, respecting the right of a Roman Catholic priest to hold a rent-charge for the benefit of mrtain Roman Catholic poor, when it was decided that it wan contrary to the penal statute, and that the property must be forfeited to the crown. Now, that was deemed so great a pracCeal grievance by the late government, that the right hon. ba ronet the number for Tamworth bad felt it to he his duty to recommend that a new great should be made of the rent ' cherge. (Hear, heir.) Then was it no prurient grievance that Roman Catholics could not he buried in churchyards, or have performed over them, in the open air, tee rites of Chris•ian burial by the clergy of their own church, dressed in their own habits? (Meer. bear.) Yet such was the effect of the law as it now stoo d ; and Roman Catholics were ob'iced to have their burial service performed in the chamber of death. Now, that ho considered a very great grievance, and one that ought not to be permitted in a Christian country. (Hear, hear.) Again, when the hoe. member for Cork tilled the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, the scandal was made known to the world that he, as a Roman Catholic, being disabled from appear ing in his robes of office in his own church, marched in those robes through the streets of Dublin, and at the door of that sacred edifice, in the presence ot thousands of his fellow Roman Catholic citizens, was ohliaed to strip them off and east them midis. (Loud cries of "He ar.") Now, did the house suppose that such scenes an that were likely to conci liate the Roman Catholics of the empire, or effect any species of good ? It WWI, on the contrary, in his opinion, • great practical grievance, which ought 6i be remedied, and which would be remedied by this bill. Ile believed it was chiefly from the order of the Christian Br then that the schoolmasters of Ireland were taken, an order to which Father Mathew belong d; and yet he, a man who had no compeer in Ireland in establishing the principles of sobriety and morality amongst the people, he himself was, under the laws that now existed, liable to be ban shed for exercising his proper calling, and, if he returned, liable to be trans ported for life. (Hear, hear.) These were grievances that ought to be removed; and as for any compact helms; made in 1829, he for one acknowledged none. tHear, hear.) The government of 1829 was obliged to lay down its arms and surrender at discretion; end this clause, so far from being agreed to, was protested against by Lord Sandon, the then Secretary for Ireland, and other members, as being eaten hard to east a stain on the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which was unworthy of a Christian people. Sir R, PEEL said the bill which now stood for a second reading, contemplated a double object. In the first instance, it contemplated the repeal of many of the enactments of the bill of 1829, which relieved the Roman Catholics from al most all political disabilities ; and it also proposed to carry into effect certain acts of last session, and one of the year 1841 for the abolition of statutes which were practically obsolete, which implied doubts of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic community, and which, if pat into practical operation, would subt ect them to severe and disproportionate penalties. So far as the latter object was concerned, the bill would have his cordial support. He had taken an active part in further ing the measures of 1841 and 1846, which had that for their object. He theught it most unwise to continue statutes which were wholly out of consonance and agreement with the spirit of the times, and which inflicted penalties which could not be enforced without revolting the Christian feel ing. even of those who did not agree with the Roman Catho lics; he thooght them discreditable to the statute-look, sad, therefore, he gave his cordial assent to their removal. The first part of the bill professed to supply the omissions of the acts of 1844 and 1846. The hon. gentleman wine had the conduct of the bill said that now by law, and notwithstanding the statute of 1844 and 1816, a Roman Catholic maliciously and advisedly maintaining the authority, spiritual and eerie:emetics', of any foreign potentate, prelate, or power, if he was possessed of goods of the of 20 , 1. forfeited them all, and if he was not ponmasedeqf he iorfeited all he had, and was subject to a yeses pi., **anent. Mr. WATSON.—The penalties are repealed. It Is • mis demeanor. Mr. C. E. LAW.—It Is an offence against the constitu tion at common law Sir It. PEEL—The law which inflicted that penalty might have ceased to be enforced, but the provision of that net sub jected a Roman Catholic to fine end imprisonment. The hon. and learned gentleman said it was • part of the constitu tion—(ironical sheen)—that a Roman Catholic main taining the spiritual authority of the Pope was subject to fine and imprisonment. The hon. member for Warwickshire certainly aid if it was done " maliciously and advisedly;" hut malice would be inferred. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir It. Peel) was not prepared to assert that a komaa Catholic maintaining the ecclesiattical authority of the Pope should he subject to fine and imprisonment; and ho doubted if it was part of the censtitutiou—(hear, hear, and laughter) —for when the Roman Catholics were admitted to bit in par liament, they were relieved from the necessity of maintain ing that the Pope had no spiritual authority in these realms; but by the oath they now took, they asserted that nei:her the Pope nor any otLer prelate or potentate had any temporal or civil. jurisdictioa directly or indirectly in these maims. In order to perform one of the greatest c institu tional acts, the functions of a member of the legis lature, a Roman Catholic was relieved from totally denying the spiritual authority of the Pope. As to the oath of supremacy, even before these enactments, the Roman Cs:holies did not object to it. They (Protestants) could not take that oath unless they denied that any foreign potentate had any authority in these realms, which could be enforced by some power or jurisdiction ; and the Homan Catholics took it in the same sense. The operation of the statutes which hid passed would he incomplete if Roman Catholics were subject to fine and imprisonment for main taining the spiritual authority of the Pope, and, therefore, he agreed to that part of the bill. As t t the other object of the bill, he totally dissented from it, fir it proposed the repeal of the enactments of the bill of 1629, and he would *leaps contend for the substantial maintenance of that bill. One provision of that bill was, that no Homan Catholic prelate should assume tLe name or title of a particular see ; a second that no Roman Catholic priest should appear in the streets in the dress and insignia of his order; mother, against the introduction of religious orders into the country. The hem. gentleman said that he world not repeal the act which prisrented prelates from assuming the titles of sees; and again, he said be was content that no priest should appear in the dress of his order in processions, because it would be satisfactory to the minds of Protestants. On the same ground, he (Sir D. Peel) would maintain the other pruvi moos of the bill of 1824. Although it might be contended that no sompact w.vt then entered into on these points, yet h' was cenfident that great difficulty wool,' have arisen it removincthe disabilities of the Roman Catholics unless that step half been accompanied by regulations acceptable to the minds of Protestants. It would also operate as a great discouragement to pursuing the same course if, u few years after, the legislature,. without proper rem 0113 shown, set those regulations aside. He differed from the noble lord with regard to the appearance of priests in the insignia end dress of their order, for the general scope and tendency of the acts which had been passed, was, that there should be a ition of the supremacy of the Protestant Church. recognition of the ,upre,ooey of the I'roteatant Church. With regard to religious orders, he admitted that there might he better reeu'ations adopts], and it was possible that there was too much severity in the penalty of banish ment, but he wait ant prepared to assent to the alaultste re peat of the provisions of the statutes in relation to this sub lest, without the adoption of some other regula tions, or that religious bodies should be established in this country without their being under the control and superintendence of the state. While, therefore, he agreed that the enactments of this bill were in conformity with the statutes of 1844 and 1546, he must accompany that acknow ledgment by a declaration that to the latter part of the bill, which repealed the securities which accompanied the re moi al of the disabilities of the Roman Cutbolisa in 1839. he was not prepared to assent until he heard that some other regulations were to be adopted, and particularly as regardcsl monastic orders. At the tame time he did not thiuk he was justified in refusing to rave his consideration to the hill. because some parts of it did not meet with his unqualified assent. (Hear, hear.) isle C. E. LAW —(ansidat cries of " Divide ")—said he had the authority of the Chancellor of the government of the right hon. baronet for saying that to impugn the spiritual supremacy of the crown, was an offence at common law. With reg did to the two statutes of Elizabeth, if anything was wanted to prove that the offences which were contained in those statutes continued at common law, it would lie found in the hill of last session. The common law punish. meet still attached to the maliciously impugning the aupre macy of the crown, though the statutory penalty was re moved. He should oppnee the second reading of the bill. After • few words horn the Earl of AILIINDEL and StalltEY, Mc. GOCEBOURN said, that as it was his intention to vote against the second reaffing of the bill, he thought it necessary to state the grounds on which he did so. The bill comprised two distinct parts; in one part it repealed statutes which had been omitted in the measures of last session, and in the other, enactments of the bill of 1529, which, in his mind, were the important elements and essence of that bill. He was prepared to assent to that was pro , posed by the first part, but he could not support the second readitid of a bill which professed to repeal statutes which were said to be obsolete, hut which in tact repeal,' the bill of 1829, which imposed limited et strictions on the Roman Catho.im. As he was one of the parties who introduced that bit, he knew that although there was no positive com pact, y..t many persons, by the existence of those provisions, were led to lend thcir assistance to its passing. lie could net assent to the repeal of enactments which he conceived good faith obliged him to maintain. Mr. WATSON, in reply, said he hoped in committee to satisfy both the right ken. baronet and the right hon. gentle , man the Paymaster of the Forces. The house then divided— For the second readins 102 Against it Majority _3 TENANTS-RIGInS (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. S. CRAWFORD deferred the further consideration of this bill until the °Mir measures lel ding tu Ireland were passed. LORDS' AMENDNIENTS. On the !Burton of Sir G, OR , the lords' amendments to the Dectitute Persons' (Ireland) Bill mere agreed to. The house then adjourned at a ft w minutes to six. not giving to the person so hiring it anything that the law regards as possession, and, being only one of the modes of husbandry, as little divesting the imme diate tenant of possession, as if grazing cattle of another's had been placed on the grounds. As we understood the case, we thought his lordship had really nothing to complain of, though the injury to his property may have been far greater (as we think he stated in some published letters) than if his tenant had dealt with the farm in the way the covenant guarded against. There can be no doubt that covenants may easily be framed against this mode of husbandry, and that, if such was his object, he had only himself to blame for not having, in his lease used language calculated to effect it. In Lord WESTMEATIIN representations, however, on the subject of the law of landlord and tenant, there is very great general truth. What is called tenancy at will is supposed to imply that the landlord has the power at once to get rid of such tenant. A word of explanation may remove much error on this sub ject. There is practically no such thing as tenancy at will, either in England or Ireland. I'he courts of law, whenever they find a tenancy indeterminate in point of time existing, regard it as a tenancy from year to year ; and which can only be put an end to at the same period of the year at which it has com menced, and after six months' notice to the opposite party. An Irish landlord, who has been paid no rent for the last two or three years, feels it time to get rid of his tenant. He finds in February, 1847, that the tenancy has com menced on the Ist of May, some dozen years ago, and he learns that he cannot demand possession till May, 1818, and then cannot succeed in an action of possession, except he has been fortunate enough to have notices to quit, in which no flaw can be de tected, served on tenants living perhaps in a part of the country where the process•scrver's occupation is a dangerous trade. Some time since, a Tipperary paper bestowed high praise on Mr. Serjeant liowcEr, for appointing two process•servers to the offices rendered vacant by their fathers murders. Now we really cannot see any meaning whatever in continuing a state of law which gives to one man another's land longer than he continues to pay the rent, the payment of which was the condition on which it was received ; and while we do not fall out with the courts of law for having created this tenancy from year to year—for it is their creation, and not that of the parties—we yet cull on the legisla ture, in dealing with the Irish landlord, to remem ber that this state of things is not the act of the landlords, but arises altogether from fictions of law. Indeed, the courts themselves ought to guard against their fictions creating not alone Incon venience, but absolute injustice. "We Irish are re presented," says Lord AVESTMEATIT. " as asking the alms of England. We only ask you to give us our estates;" and if any part of his estates are withheld from him by tenants without leases, and who will neither give him rent nor land, we cannot but think there is substantial justice in his demand. In England it is assumed that an Irish landlord is all. powerful, that his land is his own to do what he pleases with ; that if a district is dibturlied, the fault is his. Is it ever remembered by those who think thus, that a man obtaining an estate in Ire land, whether by inheritance or purchase, scarcely ever obtains it except with a population crowded together upon it, and numbers greater than it can possibly support; that having purchased. we will suppose, the estate, and become its legal owner, he has, before he can render it available for any purpose, again to purchase, otter. at a price far greater than the fee-simple of the lands, the rights, as they are called, of the dwellers on the lands, whose possession, however acquired, renders any actual oc cupation by the new owner altogether impossible. Nothing is morefrequent than for landlords, when let ting a farm, to impose it as a condition on the incoming tenant that he shall not demand to be given actual possession, but shall obtain it as he best can from persons occupying the ground without any plausible pretence of right—a condition which exposes the life of the incoming tenants to imminent danger, as may be well imagined. This is a state of facts that no conduct of individual landlords can essentially vary ; and we cannot hut think the case free from all doubt, that whether allowances be made to tenants for supposed improvements, ur not, at the expiration of the time for which they have contracted to take a farm, they should nut be allowed to retain possession of the land for one day with out a renewed contract with their landlord. The legislature found it necessary to interfere with the courts of law, and insist on their not evading the statutes of limitation by inferring fictitious promises of payment from acknowledgments of old debts. They mild not do a more essential wise to both landlord and tenant then by at awe getting rid of the tenancy from year to year la all eases in which it does not arise by the act of partieslie themselves. (impel, if you will, written Inns in all cases; but do not allow the purposes of to be overruled and rendered of none effect mere fictions of law. If a farm be let to a mail for one year, and he remains a day beyond the year, it may be fair to hider a renewal of the contract, and to let him have the farm for a second year. But why go further than this? Why assume, as incident to such a holdings that in the middle of the second year a notice should be given, which there was nonced of giving is the first, and that if bosh notice beveglected he has th right In occupy for a third yearn' This rule ci law is abeolutely unconnected in any. way whatever with the oontract of tho parties. To the tenant it is no adequate protection—to the landlord it is afisolutely %vinous. The runs is not pretended to arise from the contract of the parties. A distinguished equity judge described it thus : The courts of, law fixed one positive rola of six months notice; a rule that may in many cases he very omivenient, it others very inconvenient." (1G Vesey.), The assistance which this rule of lam gives to any person acquiring the possession of ground and.affeeting to have any claim of tenancy, does more to destroy the power of proper dealing bviat land in Ireland than any other cause whatever. 'WE observe in the votes of the House of Cummons, that Mr. Moerarr proposes to question the CHAN CELLOU of the EXACIIE(IIJER as. to the arrengements between Mr. KEEL= and the Poet-office letter-carriers, in respect of the " London INnt-office Directory." This publicarann is a very anomalous one. On the one hand we have a public officer employing public; placers, subordinate to him, to coiled information, advertise and sell a work from the profits of which he derives an income of some thousands of pounds a year. The profi% of the " Poet Office Directory," whatever they may be, all go into the pocket of Mr. KELLY, superintendent of letter earners. On the other hand, whenever this arran"cment is attacked, we have the Poet-office defending it, on the ground that the information is collected for the benefit of the department. One day the " Post Office Directory" is official information collected by , a public officer in the path of his duty; the next, it is the private property of Mr. KELLY, who defends his copyright by legal process. Some letter-carriers are willing agents, making handsome per eentages in the sale of the books; others are persecuted and dis missed for heterodoxy towards the book and its editor. In this medley , of rights and wrongs, it will be useful to see what the worth of the book really is, and whether the public itself has not some clear and intelligible rights of its own in this matter. Whether we regard the book under its official or private aspect, its merits, or rather demerits, are the same; and, to speak plainly, it is literally a disgrace to its parentage, be it what it may. A cursory glance through the last edition (dated November, 1846) brought to light an error in almost every page—quite inexcusable. The errors are of all kinds-omission—commission—ignorance—stale Fibe MAILS, The mall, for Vigo, Oporto, Listne, Madeira, Cadiz, and Gibraltar, will be mode up on the morning of the 2;th Febrwary. The mails for New South Wale., Van Diemen's Land, and New Zealand will he made up on the evenieof of the let March. The W,nt India iniulv, including theoe for Airs iro, Honduras, and the Ithvannah, will be made rap on the morning of the Snd March. The mails for Briti di North America, Bermuda, and the United State., will be made up on the evening of the led March. Tb" overlong made for Gibraltar. alulta, Greene, the lonian Wand% Egypt, Aden, Cerl try bidet, llong-liong, mod China, via Southampton, will he made up on the morning of the 31d of March. The inol, for the 11r..i10, the Rivet Plate, Monte Video, Pernam buco, Bahia, Ma leis, and Ituenai Ayrev, will be made up on the evening of the 4th March. The overland closed mail", via Maroeilles, to the Mtditerranean, Egypt, Aden, Cerlon, rch. llon; Kong, Au., will be made up on the evening of the 13ih Ma TO CORRESPONDENTS. The Advert'ging 071;es... ' nrth '" ''''''''''' and "EXPRESS " have been IiEITOVED frorn 90. FLEET.sTREPT, to No. 10, ItOUVERIE.STREPT, FLEET-ST gx,Lr, contiguous to the Printing and Publishing Olken, adveruertiwute intended for The Erpreu, London evening paper, tenet be at the (nee by Two o'etiek on the day of publication. HIGH WATER AT I.ONIEN-lIRMGE. Tars DAS —MOTIA00 ; 0 mill. 00F4 10; Afternoon, 0 min. pat 11. Toillonnow—Slurning, 49 min. put 11; Afternoon, 0 min. past O. LONDON, THURSDAY, FE8.25. AT the morning sitting of the House of Commons yesterday, the Labouring Poor (Ireland) Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. CrtrusTlE stated that he should not bring forward his motion on the subject of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge until after Easter. Mr. WArsoN, on moving tfie second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, said the principle on whicle he founded the measure was, that no man ought to be subjected to penal enactments merely on act.ount of his religious opinions. Sir Roma INGLL4 moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. members who spoke in favour of the original motion were Mr. B. EirGorr, Mr. MACAULAY, Mr. JOHN O'O3E:CELL, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK. Those in favour of the amend ment, Col. SIDTHORP, Mr. SHAW, Mr. Fixer!, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. NEW DEGATE, Mr. LAw, and Mr. GOUL or UN. Sir H. PEEL said that those parts of the bill which had for their object the abolition of statutes which were practically obsolete, which implied doubts of the loyalty of the itoman Catholics, and which if put into operation would subject them to severe penalties, had his cordial support; but to the latter part of the bill, which proposed to repeal the securi ties which accompanied the removal of the ltoman Catholic disabilities in 1829, he was not prepared to assent until he heard that some otherregalations were to be adopted, particularly us regarded monastic orders, in lieu thereof. At the same time, he did not think he was justified in refusing to give his conside ration to the bill, because some parts of it did not meet with his unqualified approbation. The house having divided, the second reading was carried by a majority of three. SOCIETY has made terrible progress in one respect, the precocious criminality of youth, we might almost, say, of childhood, whilst the law has not adapted itself to a state of things as hideous as anomalous. IVe have but the one scstem of iron machinery for punishing and deterring adults, and through this severe machinery we pass the juvenile offenders, whose crime is that of their parents, in leaving their waifs and victims to want and to temptation. The jury and the judgment-seat winnow the young fro:n the hardened offender. But the terrible ordeal of imprisonment before trial, of weeks and months' duration, in the present state of our prisons, is moral death to young and old. However, the young excite our commiseration more, and justly. fho true remedy is to do away wit h, or shorten this preliminary imprisonment for all. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, despair ing of this,would abrogate the laws of the country altogether with respect to the young, and deliver them up to the caprice or mercies of the local magistrates. It is, however, to the cruelty and absurdity of the magistrates, anti to the cruelty and absurdity of existing laws, that these committals for children are owing. The breaches of trust committed by boys, to whom their masters imprudently com mit the task of rem wing debts, form the greater portion of the crimes which swell the lists of the assize courts. We cannot but think that a very great portion of the fault in these cases is owing to the laziness and thoughtlessness of masters, who expose poor boys to temptations beyond their years. The law favours masters far too much in the punishment of these breaches of trust. We should cut through and take away those meshes of the law, formed on purpose to catch the young and the unwary, and we she old throw the onus of prevent ing Kroh losses and crimes more on the employers of youth. If we restrict the mill-owner from over tasking the physical strength of the young, we should restrict the shopkeeper, the housekeeper, and the trader, from over-tasking the moral strength of those under age, by exposing them recklessly to such temptations, and then as heartlessly craving the inter vention of the law to punish. We think, therefore, that, in the first place, the law itself requires reform. That our prisons also require reform need not be repeated. None are more con vinced of it than our own Home-office, or more anxious to provide the fitting remedy. And after all, the imprisonment before trial, so destructive to the adult in the loss of his time and the interruption. of his earnings, is in this respect of little loss to the boy ; nay, in a gaol where there was discipline and instruc tion, the time might he most profitably spent. But tho first of all reforms is to shortest the time of imprison ment before trial, especially far light offer-ass, or for those committed by youth. How this is to he effeetedlis a matter of • grave con sideration, and Sir JOHN teersceoe Wale rather to have hit upon his remedtm in a hurry, than defy con sidered them. The Glob* enumerates a veriety of weighty objections. ice: the least is She inSliction of short imprisonments, vim of the worst features of our Present system. W e should say, that the best punish ment for petty erirrms committed by boys under four teen, was the punishment of the sebool, castigation. Between that and. such a term of imprisonment as would admit the_ application of a corrective system, them should be no medium. It seems tl at the corrective system for boys, as practised at La Sfettraye, and elsewhere, has won the approba' .ion of ministers, and that establishments of the kind for juvenile criminals are to be multiplied. Such pros Mien is merciful and just, and, connected with 0.1 1 3. subsequent expatiation of the youths, as indiv;.d oats, excellent. But we have no hesitation in saying that any plan must fail which we old bestow upon that class of the young population aich had lapsed into crime, an education, a security .f future prospects, and, in fact, all those blessings which form the sole birthright of the offspring of the virtuous arid industrious. If prison organisation is so much to outstrip social, that criminals are to enjoy that moral and intellectual training which the young of the poorer and middle classes cannot hope for, then we shall be . placing society topsy-turvy, and esta blishing prem iums for youthful crime.