The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Ifay 1 1. The LOKI) CHANCELLOR. took his seat upon the Woolsack, st Fi•e o'clock. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord KENYON presented a petition from the Marylebone vestry against the Charitable Trusts Bill ; also a petition to the same effect from the Methodists of Bradford. Lord COTTENHAM presented similar petitions from St. Olave's, Canterbury, and several other places. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. nessengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Earl BROWNLOW presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council of Boston in Lincolnshire, against the Charitable Trusts Bill. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S presented similar petitions from Carmarthen. THE FREE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from members of the Free Church in Edinburgh, complaining of the refusal to grant sites for the erection of places of worship connected with the Free Church of Scotland. THE CORN-LAWS. Lord BEAUMONT, on the part of the Earl of Yarborough, presented a great number of petitions from Lincolnshire against - any remission in the protection duties on the importation of torn. The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he wished to pre sent a petition which had just been put into his hands. It was from the congregations of nearly all the Methodist chapels in Kingstenenpon-Hull against the Charitable Trusts Bill, stating that they viewed that measure with considerable alarm. The Noble Lord also gave notice that on Monday next he should move for a return of all the murders and attempts at m urder which had t a k en pl ace i n I re l a nd since the Ist of January, and whether they we re committed by day or night, together with other circumstances that might distinguish them. THE CLERKS OF THE CROWN. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—In pursuance of the notice he had already given, he should move for a return of the Clerks of the Crown. He should not have made such a motion without a more distinct notice had he anticipated any opposition. He had many opp ortunities of observing the character of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Le believed that he was calculated to be of consider able benefit to the country. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was chosen in consequence of his ignorance and want of connexion with the country, as was also his secre tary, and they were unacquainted with the people of Dublin Castle, and the duties that devolved on them. There was a gentleman named Pollock, by whose death no less than fifteen appointments as clerks to the Crown fell vacant. It had for a long time been under discussion, whether the office of clerk of the peace could be united with the office of clerk to the Crown. In consequence of the appointment of some gentlemen to serve in those offices by the custos rotulorum of the Queen's County, in opposition to the Crown, legal proceedings were commenced, and the question was tried at Dublin before all the Judges, only two of whom were against the Crown. The question was after wards tried by their Lordships, and the decision given by them was against the power of the Crown over those officers. It was contemplated that these officers should be united. What was recommended by the last commission of Lord Devon, and on which so much stress has been laid en different occasions by the Government ? He recollected that when that Com mission was issued, whenever Noble Lords urged the Government to take some steps in the ameliora tion of the law of Ireland, they were repeatedly refused until the labours of the Commission were finished, and their re port had been made. Well, new that it was so, it deserved the attention of that Government who had so highly valued it before. The Commission that was issued in 18311 recommended that the office of the Clerk of the Peace should be united with that of Clerk of the Crown. But he would go back to another Commission, which was formed of men intimately acquainted with the country—he meant the com mission a ppointed in 1536, to review the grand jury laws in Ireland—and the:r report ought surely to be attended to. They reported, that the duties of the clerk of the peace and the clerk of the Crown should be performed by one officer, and that the duty ought not to be divided among two—the office of Clerk of the Peace ought to be re tained, the office of Clerk of the Crown should be abolished. When this subject was fully placed before the pub lic, the public expected the same arrangement would he made for the abolition of the office of clerk of the crown. He did not mean to say that, without any inquiry whatever, all persons who were clerks of the peace should be appointed indiscriminately to the office of Clerk of the Crown ; but what he would contend for was, that when these Clerks of the Peace were found to be fit and proper persons for the offices, a due regard should be had to the economy of the country, and the Nee offices should be merged in one. Bet that had not been done ; but the state of the fact was this, that in three weeks after the death of the person he had mentioned, a mass of applications had been sent in to the amount of several hundreds, and the gentleman had not been dead a week when it was well known who was to be his successor to at least ten of the situations he held as clerk of the Cro'sn. It was a well-known fact that Mr. Kemusis had been deputy clerk of the Crown for four counties in Ireland and for the city of Kilkenny. This gentleman had acted in that capacity for a long time before, but in the year 1818 he positively received his appointment as deput y clerk of the Crown. On the d ea th o f M r. Pollock he was, towever, turned loose on the world without any compensation. Now, he would ask if that was right or j ust towards the Iri'h people ? He did not know what were the abilities of this gentleman for the situation he had filled, but he was well aware that he had had three recommendations for similar situations from Kile kenny, three recommendations from Wexfsrd, three from other counties, and two from the city of Kilkenny. But he dared to say that they wou!rf be informed that arrangements would made by which the late appointments would riot stand in the way of future appointments. They might be told so, but he begged their Lordships to remember that these were patent offices,_ and only held during good beha v i our . H e Loped that the Noble Earl would clearly inform them on what understanding these arrangements were to be made, and if they were to be enforced. Now the public in Ireland had a right to be in formed in %vitat these arrang,raents were to consist, and what the Government intended to do in respect to these officers. He wanted to know what were the arrangements under which the appointments to those offices were made. He apologised for having sa long occupied the attention of their Lordship. He hoped that his Noble Friend would toll their Lordship. what t arrangements to which he had alluded were, and give distinct answers to the questions which he had put. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said, lie at once agreed will , the Noble Marquis opposite, that the Government was hound to py respect to, and seriously consider all the re commendations contained in the report from which the Noble Marquis bad quoted; het he could net say that he admitted that the Government was tionnit to act its accordance with them. Now what were the recom mendations to which the Neble Marquis had called the atten tion of the House?—That the clerkship of the Crown shoal merge into the uffi,te of the clerkship of tite peace. The com mission of ishich the Noble Lord (Devon) was the head, re corameeded, that in addition to the duties of the clerk of the pace, the same inri.vidual should perform the duties of clef k of the Crown, and become public prosecutor. Now, he (the Earl of St. Germans) appealed to any Noble Lord. conversant w ith the operatioes of the law, whether that would be a convenient or even a constitutional course. The Notate Lord seemed to be well aware that the duties of the Clerk of the Crown and Assize were to prepare indictments, to keep record of challenges, and various other functions peculiar to such officers of the Court. And now he would ask their Lordships whether it would be prudent the same individual should perform the duties of Crown prosecutor ? Unquestionably her Majesty's Govern ment were of opinion it was not. But then came the recommendation of the Committee of 1549 to inquire into the gram) jury laws of Ireland, which re commended that the clerkship of the crown and the clerkship of the peace should he consolidated, on the ground of economy. They recommended that the clerk of the peace should, hi addition to his present remuneration, receive a third more than his present salary for performing his duties of Clerk of the Crown. But then that would only realise a salary of 6,0(.01. for the whole of Ireland. Th Clerk of the Crown would then be obliged to have a deputy equally skilled with himself, to assist in the performance of his duties. The Goverucnent had considered what was the best mode of eff,cting the consolidation of these two Graces, and it has appeared to her Majesty's Government that it would be much more beneficial for the dispatch of public business, and consistent with their interests, that the patronage of these two offices should be vested in the Crown • and that it should not be held by the custos totulorum. By the present exercise of this patronage, co less than fourteen persons held the office of clerk of the Crown, who had not been bred to the profession of the law, and even the very last appointment made was that of a gentleman who had been an officer in the army, and, of course, wholly incompetent to discharge the duties imposed upon him. He would again state , that he held it far more consistent with the interests of the public service, that the Crown, acting by its responsible Ministers, responsible to Parliament for their acts, should have vested in them this patronage, and that it should not be rested in the hands of persons wholly irresponsible. Bat at the same time it had been thought expedient that the gentleman who held these offices should have their rights respected, ard every gentleman who had been appointed since the present Government came into office had bound himself not to demand compensation for any change which Parliament might deem it fit to propose respecting these offices. A Bill was before the Parliament at the present moment in respect to the subject. He did not think that the Noble Marquis, with regard to the particular case which he had put forward, had made out a very strong case. The gentleman had not been . appo i nted by the present Gov ernment. I t would not be the public service that m en s h ou ld perform the dettounlaTetednuttiwesitohf clerk of the peace and clerk of the Crown. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that after what had fallen from the Noble Earl who had just s at d own , it was right that he should understand what was the intention of Go vernment, and whether the appointments to these situations were to be in the gift of the Crown or of the custos ro tulorum. Earl ST. GERMANS said it was the intention of the Go vernment to respect existing rights when the two offices were held by two persons, but in all future appointments the t wo offices should be merg ed in one. 111th regard to the case of the Noble Marquis ( Londonderry), be believed that that was a peculiar one , and that the Noble Marquis's father had granted a patent to a party for the . appointment, by which the right was taken out of the nands of the Noble Marquis. The Noble Marquis appealed to the la w, and it decided that the patent could not be interfered with. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained. The Duke of LEINSTER would confidently assert that an arrangement conjoining the offices of clerks of the peace with clerks of the Crown would be a most beneficial Act for Ire land. He regretted extremely that Government had slot taken the opportunity, when so many vacancies ha.) fallen into their heads, of making this arrangement. He nimeelf would wil lingly resign into the hands of her Majesty's Ministers the power which had been given him of appointing clerks of the peace. He was well aware that the gentleman that held that office in the county of Kildare was in every way fitted for it, but still he would make every sacrifice, in order to ensure this arrangement. Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the Noble Earl opposite would take the suggestion of his Noble Friend behind him into consideration. He could seee no reason why they should transfer into the hands of the Minister of the Crown a patron- 1 age which was so all-important to the interests of Ireland. He did not say th a t th a t p a t ronage h a d b een a bused, but still he I thought that it would he better placed in the hands of her Majesty's responsible Minister. He objected to the judges having the appointments of clerks of assize on the same prin eiple that he thought those who appointed the judges should have the appointment of inferior officers. The Earl of WICKLOW said that he. was bound to say that. the answer of the Noble Earl on that side of the House had I given him perfect satisfaction. It appeared that these gentle men had got their appointments subject to any arrangements which might afterwards he come to by the Government. As soon as the recommendation of the Commissieners had bean , attended to by the Government, and he thought that it was their intention to do so, fit parties would be appointed to the office. His Noble Friend bad said that that was the intention of the Government. If they had acted in accordancewitithe recemmendation of the Noble Marquis opposite, incompetent parties would have been appointed ; but as it was, proper par ties, in his opinion, had been appointed.—(Hear, hear.) Those that had been appointed by the Government would be Perfectly prepared to enter upon the duties of their office when ' f the proper time arrived. For his own part, he was perfectly satisfied with the statement of the Noble Earl (St. Germans). The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that notice ought to have been given to the public of these appointments. He had been misunderstood by the Noble Earl that had re plied to him, for he agreed with the Noble Earl that the two offices should be amalgamated. He himself was a custos, and he should be perfectly ready to give up that office and all its 1 privileges into the hands of the Government, who, in his opi nion, were the proper parties to have the management of such I offices.—( Hear. ) FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. The Earl of ST. GERMANS moved that this Bill be re ' ferred to a Select Committee.—Agreed to. Lord TYNEH AM presented a petition from Breeon against the Charitable Trusts Bill. The Bishop of DURHAM also presented several petitions against the Charitable Trusts Bill. RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL. ' The Bishop of EXETER wished, before the orders of the day were proceeded with, that the Noble Lords woulde ven tured their opinion with respect to the Act of Supremacy. dco H e.passendei thewi offenceth within ques tion wupon he h e e w s o u o b i j d e c p t e w t i t w h a t s 1 m : e whetherut o utmost d t i h f fi e Ac enc t punishable s p h o ab w l e e r t o reignaffi r o m f t Q h a u t e e n a e y E 1 p i z r a i b e e e t e h , the realm. As he underst ood the o p inion of the Noble pore a n d t e ate it head Lords, it was this—That it was not an offenee to affirm it unless there was a inalus animus accompany any such an expression. He supposed that he might take the silence of the Noble Lords as an affirmative that he had stated their opinion c orrectly.—(Laughter.) That was the point on which he reste d hi s doubt, his strong doubt of the accuracy of The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to call Lis Right Rev. Friend to order. If he had intended to call in question the correctness of the opinion given already by the Noble Lords, he ought to have persevered in his motion. If he had intended to raise this question again, he ought to have given notice of his intention, in order that he (the Lord Chancellor) might have asked the Lord Chief Justice to be in the House, and also the Noble Lord wham his Right Rev Friend supposed to be in his place, but whom he did not see there. The Bishop of EXETER said that he was anxious to place ' himself right, in the estimation of their Lordships, by stating the fact that before he put the question, he told the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack what he was going do, and he had also informed his Noble and Learned Friend on the benches opposite, and had the satisfaction of hearing no objec tion. He was surprised at what had been now said, but still he would not persevere in his question. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his Right Rev. Friend had stated that he intended to renew the question, but he never said that he intended to argue it over again, and adduce additional reasons. Lord BROUGHAM said that he understood his Right Rev. Friend to say, that he only intended asking the question with a view of obtaining an explanation of what had been already said. Had he confined himself to that course, his question would have been answered at once. The Bishop of EXE PER then rose, and said that it was his painful duty to state the reasons which compelled him to resist 1 the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord, and, perhaps it would be well at the outset to state the reasons in law which \ made him doubt the accuracy of the opinion given by his Noble Lord. He was more disposed to take that course, because he thought it an additional reason for not going into Committee. For if, as the Noble Lord had told them, they were in such a state that to affirm, maintain, or assist any foreign supremacy within these realms, was an offence, they were destitute of all protec tion against such offences ; and if a clause which was in this Bill were not struck out of it, it would be a strong reason why they should consider the nature of this important point. The Noble Lord had said that it was not an offence per se, or simplieiter to affirm any foreign jurisdiction, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) would state to their Lordships what he thought Of such an opinion. He hoped the House would permit him to read the clause of the Act of the Ist Elizabeth, it was the 16th clause. The Right Rev. Prelate then read the clause at lull length, which was to the effect, that from and after the passing of that Act, for ever after no foreign prince, power, or potentate should have any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country, therefore, if there should be any infringement of the act, it would be contrary to law, and would, therefore, be a misde meanour. But then there was another reason apart from this measure. If any subject of this realm were called upon to take the oath of supremacy, the words of it were the same as those in the clause he had read ; and if he were wrong, he hoped the Noble and Learned Lord opposite would state how he was wrong; but he would maintain that he was right, notwithstand jets; the taunts and the ridicule to which he might expose himself. He should be satisfied if, in this part of the Bill, a simple pun ishment were substituted for misdemeanour. He should re joice if the punishment of pnenzunire should be struck out of the statute.book ; but he should not wish the statute itself to be extinguished, thus leaving no punishment for those who denied the royal supremacy. Holding those opinions, he should be glad if he had no other objections at once to give his assent to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. But he had reasons of a grave objection of another kind to urge against it. The objections which he had he would wish to hear stated with the same force and ability as in the speech o„ the Noble Lord opposite the other day, and which was fol . lowed by a vote which seemed demanded by this expression of opinion. He referred to the powerful speech made by the Noble Lord opposite, who asked the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack why he introduced a Bill of this kind without fully informing them of all its objects ? What did the Noble and Learned Lord say to this ? Nothing. He wrapped himself up in dignified obscurity, and he refused to give any explanation whatever. Their Lordships knew that there had been public reports made by the Criminal Law Commissi , ners ; i and with the permission of the House he would afterwards I read them a quotation from a letter on the subject. Her Ma- I jesty had been pleased to direct a Commission to be issued to l prepare a Bill to be laid before Parliament on this subject. If this was a common occurrence he was not aware of it, and the House wou'd pardon his ignorance; but if it was not a common occurrence, perhaps the Noble and Learned Lord would tell him why the course had been adopted in the present instance. The Commission recommended the absolute aboli• lion of the existing oath of supremacy, that oath which their Lordships had taken, and which every subject of that realm, who was not a Roman Catholic, was bound to take. The Commissioners recommended the striking out of every thing like an assertion of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. Ile should scarcely have believed this unle=s he had looked wiih great accuracy to this statement of the Com missioners, and he would now read to their Lord- Iships the words of the oa'h which they pro posed to substitute in place of the existing one. " I, A. 8., swear that. I wit; faithfully and duly perform al. I , gianee to her Majesty Queen Victoria. and that I will main- fain the succession of:the Crown, as established by Act of Par liemeet, and that I do not believe that the Pope or any other foreign prince or potentate, bath or ought to have"—What? " any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction." Those were the words of the existing oath, as it was well known, because their Lordships had already token it; but were those to he the words of the new oath ? No such tiling; although their Lord- I ships well knew that the constitution of this lan 1, and the security of its Protestant Sovereign was in an especial manner , preserved by the oath. Were Roman Catholics hereafter to ! swear that the Pope bath no authority, or supremacy, er juris dictionin this realm ? No sin b thin.. ; the oath proposed was " That the Pope bath nor ought to h e ave any temporal or civil jurisdiction or authority in this realm." Now, would not that be an enormous and monstrous innovation? He did not be lieve that his Noble and Learned Friend would adopt it. He did not believe that he dare adopt it. Though the Noble and Learned Lords had hitherto been most silent with regard to this subject, they would have from him a positive declaration as to the course which he intended to pursue with regard to the re commendations made by the learned persons who drew up this report. This oath was of a most stringent character. It was an oath, too, in which was concerned the very constitu tion of this land, which constitution was the entire, sole, and independent monarchy of the King of England. By that oath the supremacy of the British Monarch was affirmed, and if they abandoned that oath, they abandoned the constitution. But how had their Lordships' forefathers and predecessors acted on this question ? By absolutely making it a condition, which required any man, who was a Roman Catholic, before he took any part in the Legislature of this country, to swear that the Pope bath riot, nor ought to have, any jurisdiction in this realm. They took that security before they allowed any man to enter within the walls of either that ar any other House of Parliament ; they made him call God to witness the sincerity of his conviction, that the Pope ought not to have any private jurisdiction within the kingdom. Why, then, he would say, that it was impossible for their Lordships to alter, 1 in the slightest degree, the oath as it at present stood in the statute-book. He thought that his Noble and Learned Friend would give them relief on this subject—a relief which he (the Bishop of Exeter) should consider the more necessary to his own feelings, because he had confidence in the Noble Lord, and knew that he would not injure the constitution of Eng land. He knew that his attachment to it was great. It was proposed by a Noble Lord that there should be a rimrorrlat with the Pope, and that the Pope should exercise his authority in this country by the sanction of the Secretary ' of State. Now, it was his (the Bishop of Exeter's) opinion that the oaths which he and all their Lordships had taken pre vented this. Every country in Europe, except Rome, pro tected itself against the power of the Pope. It was not essen tial to the free exercise of the Catholic religion in this country that the authority of the Pope should he supreme in spiritual matters. The passing of this Bill would be attended with the i utmost danger to the peace of the country. Why was that danger to be incur red? Was there a complaint from the Catholics that they could not exercise their religion freely ? No such thing. The only reason urged for the passing of this Bill was that the existing statute was an ugly one, and ought not to remain on the statute book. Now, he hoped that the rugged laws of their ancestors would be still adhered to. In the year 1841 the Pope issued an allocution—which was a kind of address—te Spain in which he made use of threats, and de clared that the proceedings of the Spanish Government with respect to the Church in Spain were altogether unjustifiable in the eves of the Pope, and he declared them to be null and \ with respect to this count void.. N ow , if t h e i r L or d s hi ps s h ou ld pass t hi s Bill, a similar poser might be things would b e moat h r. ' . been claimed by certain laymen in the certain property had e that it would never take plat,. y claimed by the Pope Such a state of Oribe, and he trusted ~ ii r zs l is, and the Bishop of that see was throw n i nto pr i son. de nounced the persons engaged in that matter, and a:Zede proceedings to be null and void. Now these steps were i no taken in Catholic Italy, hut actually within th e dominions of the Queen of England. The case, therefore, assumed a most frightful appearance. This Bill would admit the Pope into this country to claim his spiritual supremacy, and it was for that reason that he (the Bishop of Exeter) should oppose the Bill going into Committee ; and move that they go into Com mittee on that day three months. The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that all persons were bound to take the oath of supremacy upon that oath being tendered to them. An Act of Parliament. in 1791, was passed, by which it was enacted that no person should be com pelled to take the oath of supremacy upon its being tendered to him. But the Right Rev. Prelate had appeared to forget all the legislation that hal taken place since the statute of lElizabeth, to which he had referred. The Ri g ht Rev. Prela te must take into consideration all the Acts of Parliament which bad passed the Leg islature since that period. It was quite im possible for him to con tend that various Acts had not passed had been given for the performance. since that period for the relief of those who professed the Roman Catholic religion. Great .... performance o in the oath of supremacy material alteration had been made . of the rights of their religion, and a very • that up and maintain a 1 the Right Rev. Prelate now to stand in fayour of Roman Catholics; and it was quite impossible . for Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately maintaining the supremacy in ecclesiastical and spirituahe laws of this Pope could be considered as offending against spiritual. m atters of the ex- 1 country.—( Hear, hear.) So much, then, Stith respect to that part of the case. He had already on a former occasion d. the , pressed his opinion clearly and distinctly, notwithstaning_ev. I charge that had been made against him by the Right Rev. Prelate, and he really must say that he could not see h Right Rev. Prelate could renew this sub j ect, after the discus sion which had taken place on it on a former night—(Hear, attendance of the judges, hear)—without having insist ed on the had before said, that he by appealing to them with res p ect to the correctness of his opinion ; and he must repeat what he thought the Rig to controvert the • ht Rev. Prelate had not acte d ver y fairl y by him in not giving him notice of his intention opinions which he had expressed. Had that notice been given, they might have had the attendance on this occasion of the Chief Justice of England, who had expressed himself with so much force and precision, in answer to t h e q uestion p ut to him by the Right Rev. Prelate. Now the Right Rey. Prelate, ad verting to the Commission, said it was the most extraordinary C"UniniCOA that was ever issued, nagaucit 35 it called upon the r Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be hid on the table of Par liament. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that the Right Rev. Prelate entirely misapprehended the principle of that l a a r i d e e s d t y , t h h iN e n r s p t a e r r a s t . on ( n o f e l e r l e l a r f . o ) r upon wa thats laid r report , as the present Bill had beers dra w n up and submitted to their ap t n n t f e a a s h or s: e aher b e r y r elprepared‘g their d a i r e r e e t p i o o r o t which tC t l f he e me i remCoLinos:omri consideration Commissioners Lordships. Her Majesty's Ministers had exercised their judg ment and consideration upon it, and they had thought it right to adopt it in extenso, and to lay it on the table of their Lord ships' House. He (the Lord Chancellor) was responsible for the advice he had given on this subject—he did unhappily say that as far as related to the particular clauses of this Bill it was a wise measure, and he thought that it would be sanc tioned and adopted by Parliament. That was the course he had thought proper to pursue with respect to this Bill. But then his Right Rev. Friend said there was something behind, and that he had wrapped himself in dignified obscurity. His Right Rev. Friend had said he had been about to take away some other of the defences of the British Constitution. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) had over and over again said that until this Bill passed he would never touch the subjeet of oaths.— (Hear, hear.) He had not wrapped himself in any obscurity on that subject—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—he had thought it far better, in the first instance, if pos sible, that their Lordships should consider this Bill upon its merits, in order that it might be passed by the Le gislature ; and he could not consider how any alteration in the Bill with regard to the oaths would at all affect the pass ing of this measure, or render it the less advisable that it should pass their Lordships' House. Bnt what would their Lordships think of the charge of obscurity made by the Right Hon. Prelate, when he (the Lord Chancellor himself) had told him, he believed, no longer back than the last time they assembled there, that he had no intention to propose any alteration with regard to oaths? He had told him that he did not intend to alter the oath of supremacy. nor the oath of allegiance ; and the only point on which any doubt would re main would be the oath of abjuration. That oath would be perfectly harmless, because of itself it would he altogether superfluous. Was there any obscurity in that ? ( Hear.) Could anything be mere distinct than the statement which he had made to the Right Rev. Prelate on that suhj-mt ? And now having proceeded thus far, he must say that no person more admired the eloquent and feeling manner in which his Right Rev. Friend always addressed himself upon subjects o f this nature. He agreed mainly in the opinion which the Right Rev. Prelate maintained in respect to Popish usurpa tion, and the insolent authority which the Pope had exer cised towards other countries.—( Hear. ) He had so expressed himself in very strong terms upon a former night —so strongly indeed as to call down upon himself the indignation of a Noble Lord that sat on the opposition side of the House. He thought that he had not expressed himself in stronger terms than the occasion warranted, when he subscribed entirely to the opinion laid down by his Right Rev. Friend. He could not hone or expect to rival his eloquence, otherwise, had he thought of doing so, he would have followed in the same train of observa tion used by the Right Rev Prelate. Rut he considered that that eloquence had been entirely misapplied considering the question before the House.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Lord Chancellor) had acceded to the second reading of this Bill, which proposed to repeal thirty Acts or parts of Acts ; and when he took the liberty of proposing the Bill to their Lord ships, he stated cases of such a nature that it was impossible for any man of common understanding, and common feeling, for a moment to entertain the wish that those Bills, or at least the greater part of them, should not be repealed. It was un necessary for him to call their Lordships' attention again to those cases, but he would take the liberty of again mentioning two. If any person professing the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, maintained the spiritual or the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, be was liable to the forfeiture of his property, and for the third offence was considered guilty of high treason. Why, their Lordships had already altered the oath for the pur pose of giving the Roman Catholics relief on that head. The Right Rev. Prelate had manifested great ignorance on this subject, for despite his arguments the Irish Act was still in force. This Bill on their Lordships table repealed the Irish Act of Parliament, and it also repealed the refuse of the Eng lish laws.—(Hear, hear.) He would only give their Lord ships one instance to show how necessary it was, that after they had consented to the second reading of this Bill they should go into Committee, notwithstanding the opposition made by the eloquent and Right Rev. Prelate. If any person in Ireland maintained that the head of the see of Rome had any jurisdiction in this country he was, by the Irish Act, sub jected to the pains of a prcemunire—as he before said, to im prisonment for life, forfeiture of his property, and put out of the protection of the law.— (Hear, hear.) He gave those as two samples of the thirty Acts which this Bill sought to repeal. Having consentedto the second reading of this Bill, whatever opinions their Lordships might hold as to the clauses with respect to supremacy, or the clauses with respect to the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, whatever their opinions might be, and although they might agree in every word spoken by the Right Rev. Prelate, was it possible to en force the laws at present on the statute-book ?—( Hear, hear.) And he did not see what need there was for so much eloquence on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate far the purpose of show ing the power of the Pope, or the innocent assumption of au thority on the part of the Pope, for the purpose of inducing their Lordships to forget the question before them—that nar row, contracted, and limited question to which he had called their attention. He thought he had said enough to induce their Lordships—unanimously, he believed—( Hear, hear)—for perhaps the Right Rev. Prelate himself would become a con vert—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—to consent to this Bill going into Committee.—( Cheers. ) The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S was anxious to take this op portunity of expressing his opinion to their Lordships, because he did not believe that this measure had been met on the part of the Right Reverend Prelates in their Lordalsips l House in the manner that he as one of them could have desired.—( Hear, hear.) He mint say that he believed an impression had gore forth to the c worry that this measure, taken as a whole, had drawn forth indications of repugnance, aversion, distrust, and alarm—that nothing, at all events, in the shap.s of symeathv for the measure had been manife-ted. It iv s a measure of suet a nature, that he thought it ought to b i received, more particularly on the part of their Lordships' House. in a very different manner. He thought that. it was one which ought to have drawn forth expressions of satisfaction—f Hear, hear),— and mutual eongratulations—( Hear, hear)—and thank • fulness to the Government who had proi,o,ed it.— ( Hear, hear.) And his reason for saving so was because, although this measure professed to be for the re lief of persons labouring under certain penaltias in consequence of the religions opinions he held, it was net more a measure of relief to them than to the Church of Eng!an , l—( Hear, hear) —not of relief from unjust and vexatious disabilities, hut from their having proposed those penalties, to their black discredit and shame. He did in his heart believe that if the Right Rev. Prelate, who was sitting at the table (the Bishop of Exeter) had himself come forward to propose such a measure as this, he (the Bishop of St. David's) was perfectly satisfied that he would have acted in a manner not at all inconsistent with his station as a Prelate of the English Church.—( Hear, hear. ) This, he said, looking at the enactments which this measure was intended to repeal ; and although such express approba tion as he would have wished had not been called forth by the proposal of this measure, yet he believed that no one would venture to say that the repeal of those enactments was not is some devree desirable. Now he (the Bishop of St. David's) was quite willing to admit that there was a very great differerence between the general mass of those enactments which were proposed to be repealed by this Bill, ar.d those two particular enactments in reference to which the Right Rev. Prelate had proposed a question to the Judges. The difference he took to be this ; as to the great mass of those enactments, he was prepared to say that' they were positively unjust and iniquitous in their own nature—( Hear, bear) —and that they never ought to have been a part of the law of the land—( Hear, bear)—that there never cc uld have been any circumstances that could justify such enactments— ( Hear, hear)—that they were cruel and wanton violations of the liberty of the subject and the rights of conscience.—( Hear, hear.) He did not say that there might not have been un happy circumstances in the times in which those enactments were passed that might have afforded some legitimate grounds of excuse; but he contended that they ought never to have been tolerated in any days, however disturbed they might have been ; but with regard to those two particular enactments that had been referred to, he contended that they stood on a very different ground. He admitted that there might have been reasons to justify severe measures against the introduction of Papal bulls. He believed that if the Government of that day, when this Act was passed, felt that such measures were necessary for its security and safety, it had a right to pass such measures—( Hear, hear)—and he was prepared to make a much larger concession, and to say that there would be nothing inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, if the Government of this day thought proper to exercise a similar control over the importation of those Papal bulls, they might pass a similar measure against them.—( Hear, hear.) But when he had made that concession he had gone as far as he could ; he could not sympathise or agree in the slightest measure with the views that had been taken by his Right Rev. Friend at the table (the Bishop of Exeter) on this important subject. He (the Bishop of Exeter) looked at those penal clauses as the bulwarks of the constitution. He (the Bishop of St. David's) looked upon them in no such light. Ile very much questioned whether, at the time that they were enacted, they were as necessary, as useful, and as expedient as his Right Rev. Friend supposed them to have been. He believed tnat if they had never been enacted, we should still at this hour have been enjoying all our liberties ex actly to the .ame extent as we did at the present moment ; but however that might be, those circumstances had pass ad away, and the necessity for those enactments existed no longer— (Hear, hear)—and he said so on these grounds. Might he be permitted to a k of what effect or force a Papal bull was in this country ?—( Hear, hear.) It was merely a piece of lead attached to the do •ument on which it was wri ten ; and of what import was it to them whether the le scl was at tached to the document by a silken or a hempen string? Or, to drop all those idle suppositions, what diffeence did it make to their Lordships, or to the people of this country, as to what even the mind or the intention of the Pope was, who published: those documents. Now, then, he was coming to t. point ore which he supposed he had the misfortune of disagreeing with. his Right Rev. Friend, for he (the Bishop of Exeter) seemedl b to y t b h i n b and but b y indeed ma. many t o h t a n d been e rs, ao and m tu was e in a d a very rg u p m r , e .v n a t I , e not i o d n e a l that we were to estimate the injury to be sustained atom theses Papal bulls by the opinions that the Pepe entertained of his ow l , power and authority. Now he (the 13,3h0p of St. David's 1) contentied that there could not be a snore unfounded assertion than that—( Hear, hear)—acrd it appeared • o him that all tho, example s which the [tight Rev. Prelate had brought forward to ci f f eig h eee i sx a haoa n mdf opseicteeciseluennbs ecclesiastical rt i :m n era d ioi : el c td, slbt their Lerdships to believes that the Pope possessed as much power as he did in some c 4 the th n h ea S t )aailk:ter. those y e s — o n . ta i teb appeared el fallenet ahreerdesfbteoorertnhni references t which the Right Rev. Prelate had made as to some transace. tions of modern history, with a view to prove his proposition. He believed that he had referred to such cases more than once. He recollected one, and he believed that that reference, was to some transactions that took place at the commencement • of the reign of Napoleon, and the authority which Pope Pius. VII. exercised to change the whole constitution of the Galilean Church, and to transfer the allegiance of the French people from the legitimate dynasty. He was quite astonished that such a fact as that should be recalled to their Lordships' memory for any such p ur p ose , f or h e d ec l are d to their Lord ships, that if th ere was any modern historical fact to prove mare strictlyshould particular o w state tim o e f s w a was there to wehaic)h— any- thingt he t Papal inpohwhietrn had, history t Tin r fallen e palipnablpalpable o r modern tn n t r i e m n e n s --t notorious r ;i than h the ehe t - treme reluctance, the terror, he might say the h which that poor old ma n , o f w h om he would spear r w or i , th w t i ltshe I greatest veneration, Pope Pius VII., consented to the impe rious demands of Napoleon, to go t o F rance to perform the • cer emony desired ?—or was there any Roman Catholic who did no t conceive that the authority of th e P ope h ad never been 1 more degraded than when he was forced to quit his own capital i and go to Paris , t o attend at tha t ceremony, and place th e crown ' upon the modern Charlemagne? And with regard to the in stance that the Right Rev. Prelate had adduced that night, as to 1 the allocation of the Pope with reference to Spanish affairs. He (the Bishop of St. David's) should like to know what effect *at allocation had produced upon Spain ; or, to take another instance that could be stated to show the effect of the most ex traordinaryhe Papal authority. He w i s h e d know in what cas e those as sertions had produced any e ff ect i n assertio ns of t to He would ask their Lord ohtotuld p di , r p ess a little from the point for the the country to which the h y e had eo r l e e l . ated, or where they had t urne d aside the purposes ships pardon if he _ purpose of t consistin the parchment, or lead, bulls consisted? It d id not S opinion, at all consist in the ' hI or silk, or hemp, nor did it , in asking in wha t the force or efficacy of these Papal mind, intention, or views of the Pope who passed them.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Bishop of St. David's), perfectly concurred that the efficacy consisted in the the mind or intention of those to whom they were addressed.— ( Hear, hear;—and therefore it was, that he said so long as the Roman Catholic population of this country preserved that cha racter which had maintained now for centuries, in spite of the hardest trials to which any class of men bad ever been sub alarriportation of "bulls") if (though the severest penaltiessub jected, ed, he, werefiir nn e,enacted shouldagainst I thoe importation one of those formidable documents should, by any sleight of hand, be smuggled into this country, and be found, some un lucky morning, affixed to the gates of Lambeth or Buckingham Palace ; for he thought that, in any such case, no greater danger need be apprehended, than if it had been allowed to moulder away in the Vatican in which it was framed. It was quite clear that their safety could never rest in the mind of the Pope, but in the intelligence and loyalty of the Roman Catholic people—( Hear, hear)--and the more con6deace they reposed in them the better grounds they would have to expect it in return from them ; and the more evidence they showed them of suspicion and distrust the less right they could have to hope from that loyalty. He said it imported very thwth to their dignity that persons should not be subjected to such trials. But there was another point in which he had to differ from the Right Rev. Prelate, who, though he considered it was a flagrant injustice that it ought not to be repealed, he himself could see no ground of public security which would require such restric tions to be imposed, and he also believed it to be entirely use less. Was it possible. if these opinions were held and main tained in foreign countries, that they would not find their way into this country and be held in argument. He observed an ex tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something that bad fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, who had corn plaieed of the imp• rtinence of the French in praying fur the conversion of the English. The extract was 'o the effect, that this was an unreasonable ground of complaint, for as the French pray e d fur us, we could t ff-r up pryers for them. arid so there would be an equality.—( Laughter.) What could be the security of she country, if it would be supposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a miserable statute, and that if the Pope', bulls should come into the couetry, there was an end to her power? But if the Pope's supremacy should assume a treasonable form then it die expose its author to extreme punishment ; and, therefore, with reeard to this pout, upon which his Right Hon. Friend had laid so much stress, he was entirely mistaken. There was just one remark which he would wish to be tiermitted to make, he most heartily approved of every elms.e of that Bill, but he cou d not say that Le believed it to be a perfect one. He did not think it went far enough; it was his belief that more might be dine on the principle of this Bill to give relief to classes of persons who where now labouring under severe penalties. He was not called upon to enter at present on that subject, but the time would come he felt persuaded, and that before long, when this subject would be brought under their Lordship,' con sideration, and he only now expressed the hope that their Lordships' decision would be grounded on a calm consideration of the whole, and that they would not be influenced either by personal feelings or rhetorical declama tion. And they should see then if in passing an Act to legitie miss these bulls there would be any danger to the safety of this country. Those who were opposed to this measure were in general opposed to no legitimate authority—persons who had proved themselves guilty of the basest conduct—literary dema gogues, who had pandered to the worst passions of the multi tude, and sacrificed their station as teachers to the vilest ends, and, having degraded the most sacred names, they then put themselves forward in the foremost ranks in opposition to the principles of liberty and freedom. The Bishop of OXFORD would not trespass long upon the attention of the House, nor would he have risen except for the latter observations of his Right Rev. Friend. There was one thing of which he had to complain, and that was, that the prin ciple of this Bill had been received coldly and unworthily by his Right Rev. Brethren. He must beg, on his own behalf and on theirs--he must beg entirely to reject that imputation. He could not suffer such and attack ; for his part he received heartily, and gladly, all that part of the measure which tended to do away with injustice, and his Right Rev. Brethren claimed for themselves just as much liberality as the Right Rev. Prelate. But let him be permitted to say that there might be other parts of that measure which his arguments had not reached, and he was prepared to argue those points. He confessed he was astonished when the details of that measure were presented to him. There were two or three special points of difficulty, which he hoped the great legal knowledge and skill of the Noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) might be enabled to explain to him, and the second part of the observatio. s of the Right Rev. Prelate would lead him at once to the explanation. He said there was a special duty which was incumbent on them to do away with these enactments from the statute-book. He said they were the work of the Church of England, hut he deeied it to he true, and he would go back to historical facts to prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, an so it appeared from the preamble of the Bill which had been enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It arose from the circumstance of a Papal bull being imprudently attached to the gates of the palace deposing the Queen ; and there was not energy enough in the common law to punish these offenders, for their ancestors were not such persons to enact laws, if laws were not required, for they would thus expose the weakness of the law. These clauses were not religious, but civil and national announcements of the opinion of the people, and they (the Bishops) had no more to do with the matter than any of their Lordships present. —( Hear, hear.) It was a national protest against the princip'e that any ecclesiastical potentate had any right or authority within the realm and if they withdrew that national and civil protest, they would be weakening the barriers of their power. and they would be acknowledging that the Pope had power spiritual and ecclesiastical within the realm; and let them re member how that would concord with the oa h which they were bound to take as hen they deel .red in their Maker's name that the Pope had not. nor o .ght to have, any civil or ecelesias heal p iwer within this realm. If they passed this measure, it was a positive injustice to relax one-half of the law without re laxing the other, for otherwise 'hey would be requiring them to declare a meni test untruth. For, a.ter all, in what sense was that oath taken? It mean , rn -rely that by the law and the constitution of the realm this power ought not to he pthsessed, arid in such a sense was taken by conscientious men. But what would be the case if they repealed this meesute? H'.w could such an oath he taken wh n the individual taking it felt that the law did anihorise such poser. and that it did net exist covertly, but openly and Isgally ; and when they would repeal the oath, then, and not till then, wou'd they look the question fairly in the face. did hope the talents of the Noble Lord would avoid the difficulty, and preserve the good, and that they would not sacrifice the national protest —a sacrifiee to which he was sure their Lord•hips would never agree. Lord BROUGHAM said, his Noble Friend had explained the matter so fully, that he felt there was little for him to say, wad that it would be useless waste of time should he enter into the question. There had been a most material change in the law since the last fifty years. The oath of supremacy had been repealed or altered in 1828, to the manner in which it now stands. The oath which had been mentioned was not made for, or at least it did not apply to Roman Catholics, but was made for those who were not Roman Catholics, mid for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi culty in the ease, as stated by the Right Rev. Prelate, who 1 ast addressed their Lordship., was fe n l o t t th so at g t r h e e a y t waesrehedeailminag gwiintehda; but difficu l Tty ( o l i o a r n d o ß th r e ° r u e g h h aTac ) ter, when they were allowing ten Act of Parliament to apply to those for whom such an Act had never been intended, and upon whom it could have no possible effect. They were now, however, only dealing with tee repeal of a statute. The last two Rev. Prelates who ad dressed their Lordship had stated that, by the repeal of this statute, they were about to repeal a protest against the supre macy of the Pope. Now, if this Act was repealed to-morrow, or even if it had never existed, would they not have on record a protest of the Queen, Lords, and Commons? It was not an enactment to be sure, but it was quite as good—quite as binding and effectual. A REV. PRELATE—The words were restored and established. that was a restoration, but it was r s estored was to re-establish. The :wo Lo not.rdsrd B aittb haedsb°eelljGhe be re Ye n i' re ti s d to —A r N ed i and n ' re-established, because it had been -established by the law of the land long before. So the House - would see that that did not stand on record upon the statute so as to affect the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as it applied to Roman Catholics. He preferred the protest of the King, Lords, and Commons that the Pope's supremacy was a fallacy, a fraud, if they would, and that it was to have its penalties, although the Right Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of their being put in three, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well that they could be brought into full force at the will of evil dis posed persons. Now, as to the oath of supremacy. to which the Reverend Prelate adverted, he was of opinion that if the oath regarding the King was not sufficiently binding, " a-lack-a-day," he (Lord Brougham) did see much virtue in an oath. Did it not strike the Rev. Prelate, that in the oath of supremacy taken by the Roman Catholics there was an omission as to the Pope ? They omitted altogether the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. That body were allowed to leave out the weds in reference to spiritual supremacy, but it was retained for the benefit of those who did not believe one -word of the Pope's supremacy—for himself, and his Noble and Learned Friend behind him (Lord Caraphell)—who was, per haps, a very good Presbyterian—(Laugher)—and who did not believe one word—one tittle—of this supremacy of the Pope—they, and others whe believed as they did, were obliged 'to take that oath. He could not help thinking that there was great inconsistency—indeed very great absurdity—in calling -upon them to say they shall not believe in the spiritual supre -macy of the Pope. But to ask those who believed in their consciences that the spiritual eupremacy nf the Pope was va:id, and who, in taking an oath of the supremacy of their Sovereign, were allowed to believe and hold good th e spiritual power of the Pope—to ask them to take an oath by a law which in reality affected them nit, hut which still had its penalties, would be the greatest injestic.e, for the reason that we recognised the supremacy of the Pope in spiritual mattes s, se regarded all Reman Cathelics. There 'sere over 100,000 subjects of the Queen, in England, wh hel•eved in this .piritual supremacy; but there were over 7,000 000 of people in Ireland who believed in the same way; and was it that they only believed he it ? They not only be lieved it, but they also acted upon his authority in spiritual matters. Let the Pope narrow his supremacy. and only ex tend it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom, and he would still have his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it still further, arid this seven millions of people whom they allowed to believe in it —whim they allowed so affirm such belief, would still in their obedience acknowledge and act under this spiritual authority. They were all bound to be lieve in it as they hoped for their salvation—as they hoped for absolution from sin ; and absolution of some sins they might hope to obtain, bat for an act denying the truth of the Pope, the head of the Church of Rome, they could never hope to obtain. He should like to see this oath struck off the statute towards all others, as they had done towards their Roman Catholic sub jects. As to allowing the Pope to send his bulls into this country, he would refer to the manner in which they were allowed to enter other countries. Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal, did not allow the admission of the bulls of the Pope, without the special sanction of the civil powers. This sanction was ne cessary to be obtained, before they were allowed to enter. The Pope applied for leave, and it was granted, and!no injurious re sult followed. Yet this sanction was required, although they were Catholic countries, acknowledging the spiritual authority of the head of the Church of Rome. He could not go so far with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, in saying that there was no more harm in these bulls, or that they were of no more importance than if they were left to rot on a shelf in the palace at Rome, for he considered there might—it was possible that they could contain much harm, and have an important hearing. He could not go with his Noble and Learned Friend so far as that. His Rev. Friend had stated that they prayed once a year for the conversion of the Roman Catholics. They did so, but then the prayers of the church were for the conversion of all heretics. It could not be said that they prayed so much for the conversion of the Roman Catholics as that body were in the habit of praying for the conversion of the Protestants. There was this difference between the prayers of both parties, that the -Catholics prayed for the conversion thirteen times a year ; they 'were better at their prayers than those they swayed for, if ap plication made them so.—( Laughter.) He had framed an ;amendment for the Bill,which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls 'to enter this country without taking the opinion of the .civil authorities, the penalties remaining the same. Lord CAMPBELL—The Right Rev. Prelate, who first :addressed the House, had claimed his vote; but he could :assure his Right Rev. Friend that whatever vote he might give, it would be influenced by the purest motives. The Bill had been prepared by his Learned Friend Sir Edward Ryan, the !Sate Chief Justice of Calcutta, than whom a more enlightened lawyer, or amore liberal and impartial gentleman did not exist. sin December last these Commissioners framed an Act of Par liament, which they handed to hie Noble and Learned Friend, , wad he re ( xived it as their report. It embraced both parts of the subject—the oaths and the opinions, for they were insepa rable; and they could not be prepared to judge of the penalties unless they knew how these oaths would affect the laws they wished to be preserved. This measure. when it was passed, would be a most emphatic permission for the laws with respect to the oaths of supremacy to remain as they then stood, and it w.Juld be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very great objections to many of those who were of this opinion Although , hat was his opinion, his Learned Friend would have done well if he had given way to the recommondation of the Commissioners, as he understood him several times to say that he approved of it, and that with regard to parts of the Bill, he thought it expedient to divide the Bill, and to bring it in at separate times. He also understood him to say, that he would bring in the second part of the Bill before any length of time had elapsed—he did not say that he would postpone any part. These laws were a reproach to the laws of this country ; our ancestors might be excused for passing these laws, but we had no excuse for allowing them to remain on our statute-bo ks. Lord STANLEY said that he owed the House some apology for rising to make any observations on this sub ject. He was not about to enter upon any discussion on the merits of this measure, which, an far as he understnod, would, in all its details, have his curdial support. He was anxious not to pass over in silence what he conceived had been a mi-appr , - hension of the state of the ease by the Right Rev. Prelate who had spoke last, because that miaapprehension appeared to him to have been sanctioned by the high authority of the Noble Lord who last addressed the House from the second bench. In speaking of his Right Rev. Friend and his Lcarne.l and Noble Friend on the Woolsack, he had said, that although at the present time the oath of supremacy might be fairly and without hesitation taken—it had been taken by a'l their Lordships, and bad been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of the Pro estant j eople of this country - atter the pacing of this Act, it e ou , il be impesehe tor any man with a safe con scieece to take the oath that the Pope neither had no- ought to have any spiritual or temporal juri-diction in ih. se rea ma. and stated, with great deference to his Learned Friend, that with regard to the authority of the Pope, this Bill. if it shnuei ever tiro me an Act of Parliament, would net have the slight est effect under the existites circumatatices. Lord BROUG H A3I Ido not say that. Lord STANLEY—The Right Ifev. Prelate said that he conceived that by the fact they were now she to recognise. they were about to close the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope. With every deference to the Right Rev. Prelate, he ( Lord Stanley) conceived they were able to do no such thing ; for, after this Act shall have passed, the spiritual authority and juriselic ion of the Pope over any portion of the subjects of her Majesty would remain precisely in the same condition—neither greater nor less—neither more nor less recognised, nor more legalised than at the present moment At that time they knew that there were a large hody of their fellow-subjects, who in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical were bound in con science to the see of Rome. And if the interpretation pot on the oath was to deny that they were so bound, or ought to be bound, every one of their Lordships was guilty of perjury in taking that oath, precisely to the extent to which they would be guilty of the same offence after the Act had passed. He c ,, nceive that the Act did not legalise the jurisdiction of the Pone. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the specific penalties from communications otherwise innocent be cause they came from Rome. If this communication, or in struction, or order, contained anything seditious, anything injurious, or anything calculated to affect the civil rights of a subject of these realms, it did not assume the character of au thority, and would not be recognised as valid any mere after the passing of that Act than at the present moment. They were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in arty sense which the present authorities in England rejected. If the spiritual jurisdiction of Rome was not anything less (and it would not be anything less), they had all committed perjury; for spiritually, or otherwise, they could not recognise, by any means, the authority of the Pope, or any prince, power, or potentate in these realms. He did not question what influence or authority the Pope might exercise over the con science of any individual in this country, or how far he might be influenced by any command or declaration, or by any oath which should declare, neither more nor less, than that after this Bill should pass there was no law in this country to sub ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters. He apprehended it was too clear to admit of a doubt that there were many Catho lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pepe, or of any clergymen fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he should attempt to en f o r ce by virtue of that authority. The law would step in for the protection of the subject, and the priest who should attempt to go beyond that authority and in fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the conduct of individuals would be subject to a penalty, and the person so coerced would have damages and a remedy by law against the priest who should attempt to do so. There was in tLe last month, in the county of Cavan, a case in which a priest excommunicated a Roman Catholic Commissioner who refused to admit the authority of the priest, and instead of applying to the Pope he applied to the civil tribunal of this country, which tribunal repudiated the power of the priest to excommunicate, and awarded the petitioner ?amages. This he apprehended to be the state of the law now—tn deny that the Pope had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country, and that law was not in the least affected by Bills now proposed. He denied that his Noble and Learned Friend was chargeable for having postponed the consideration of the propriety ot alter ing the law. If the present measure did alter the law in that respect, and if his Noble and Learned Friend bad kept back a portion of it, it would be a difficult question to say that he woutd take them by surprise, by saying that now they had passed an Act which had made so total a change as to render it neces,ary to change the oath of supremacy. He ( Lord Stanley amild himselt shrink from an imputation of such a nature, and their Lordships would, no doubt, have condemned him for such a course. But he did not. thick there was any grennd for the slightest suspicion to be entertained. The word ea: mot elv passing one, and he would defend his Friend from t e charge of hav;ne kept bark any portion of the measure which sh ell ' be brought forward. He had already trespassed for some tont up-ri the H•tu , e— ( Hear, hear) and, in conclusion, would sar, that the law requit ed an aaeration, anti he hoped that it would be actered in conformity with the present oath ct supernal. Lord BROUr;I:ANI said he had listened with some nen tion to the speech of his Noble Friend ; he did not compleit: of him, but of himself, for having made himself so little under s'„ood as to state that the obj , tet of this Act was to sanction the supremacy of the Pope. He had stated that the oath had nothing to do with the present Act, persons taking the oath of supremacy were placed in a difficulty by the terms of the oath. As he had said before, his Noble Friend had given his opinion as to what was the right construction of the oath, and his opinion was that it was a most delicate matter, and that they were to consider that they rested the oath on the conscience of the men. They made a solemn asseveration, which they did not see or know, although the Noble Lord and his Honourable Friend supposed that they saw and knew it.. It had nothing to do with the legal construction of the oath, nor the Act before their Lordships for taking away the spiritual jurisdiction of this country. The view he took of this case saws that many people might take these oaths, and might safely deny the power of the Pope to have any legal jurisdiction ; but they could not deny that he had a spiritual power, though he had none by law. After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM said, that he would suggest, as he had been in the House since ten o'clock that morning, and many of their Lordships had only remained since a much later period, that they should go into Committee, and take those clauses of the Bill to whice no opposition was offered. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to propose that course. The Bishop of EXETER was ready to assent to that course, but it would not be very easy to select those parts to which no opposition would be given. After some further conversation, the House went into Corn. raittee on the Bill, pro . for;na. The clauses were then read, and, with the exception of seve ral that were reserved for re-consideration, were agreed to. The House then resumed. I n answer to a question from a Noble Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not then fix the day for the re-comniittal of the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord then said that the Bill had passed through Committee, with the exception of three clauses relating to supremacy, bulls, and on incidental points arising out of the Act of George 111. Excepting these, the rest of the Bill was disposed of. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF commoN ss 15. - - - The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD WATERWORKS BILL. Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the evidence taken before the Committee on the Manchester and Salford Water works Bill, in the last Session, be referred to the C.rmmittee on the Lancashire Waterworks Bill.—Agreed to. BOSTON, NEWARK, AND SHEFFIELD AND NOT TINGHAM AND GRANTHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. GREENE moved that the order which, on the sth of February last, was made referring the petition for the Hoston, Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham and Grantham Junction Railway, to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Hills be read ; that the said wider be discharged; that the said peti tints be withdrawn; that the order made on the 25th day tit March last, referring the Great Grimsby, Louth, Horncastle, Lincoln, and Midland Junction Railway Bill to the Committee of Selection. be read; that the said order be discharged ; that the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to. WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YARMOUTH RAILWAY. Mr. MACKINN , )N moved that the pet , tion of Nrr. Richard Mosse, against the Waveney Valley and Great Yarm.uth hall way Bill, be referred to the Select Committee to which the said Bil is referred, notwithstanding the three day,' notice having expired ; and that the Committee be (Lrected to enter particularly into the merits of said petition, by calling for such returns as they may require, aid to rep specially to this House on the result of such mve.tigation. After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, the motion was withdrawn. BRISTOL AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY (BATH LINE). Mr. HUDSON moved the second reading of this Bill, which was read and ordered to be committed. NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON JUNCTION RAILWAY (THIRSK AND MALTON BRANCH). This Bill vk as read a third time and passed. WES FON-SUPER-MARE PIER. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered, and agreed to.. BIRKENHEAD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS. This Bill was read a third time and passed. REPORTS. The following reports were brought up, the amendments agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed:— Cambridge and Oxford Railway. Kendal Union Gas and Water Ca lway. Du r n ri b wh i a a n t e and o West une, a n L d i n c t o a Railway. an d er Railway. a Perth and Inverness Railway. Great North of Scotland Railway. Warrington Waterworks (to be considered). Bury Waterworks (to be considered). Lincoln Waterworks (to be considered). CHELSEA BRIDGE AND THAMES EMBANKMENT. Mr. YOUNG moved to refer the Chelsea Bridge and Thames Embankment Bill and the Battersea Park Bill to a select committee. Mr. Young, the Earl of L.ncoln, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Hawes. Sir William Clay Alderman Hum phery, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Thomas Wood, Mr. An trodua, Lord R. Grosvenor, Viscount Chelsea, Mr. Trotter, and five to be addi.d to the committee of selection.—The mo tion was agreed to. Several petitions for and against different railway Bills were presented, among which was one from the Right Hon. Shaw Lefevre (the Speaker), the announcement of which caused considerable laughter. A number of petitions were then presented against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, also against the erection of county lunatic asylums. WINKFIELD UNION. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the rate payers of the parish of Winkfield, in the ceunty of Berk!, in vestry assembled, complaining of the conduct of the Poor law Commis loners, and the proceedings of the bo ar d o f guardians of the East Hampstead Union. The peti tion was adopted at a public meeting assembled in the vestry, and was signed by the clergyman of the parish. The petitioners stated that they had been unfairly dealt with by the Poor-law Commissioners, and that in consequence of their not teing fairly represented at the Board of Guardians the interest of the rate-payers had been completely swamped. The workhouse had been built at an extravagant expense, and away from the population, and although the whale sum of money bad been expended upon its erection, there was neither an infirmary for the sick, ror a board room for the guardians to sit in, and t he guardians were obliged to assemble in a public house at a dist ance from the workhouse.—( Hear, hear.) The petitioners also stated, that the ground taken for the building, was set at an exorbitantly dear rate, and a much chestier site could have hey n cbtained much nearer to the town. The peti tioners had been, refused ad redress, and prayed that they might be heard before- the Committee then sitting on the Andover Union —( Hear. hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then gave no tice that he would draw the attention of the House to the facts stated in the petition on Tuesday next. ASSISTANT PO)R LAW COMMISSIONERS. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from the As , istant Poor Law Commissioners, praying that some provision might he made by a .inperannuation fund or otherwise, for such of them as should have faithfully performed their duties. MR. W. S. O'BRIEN. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition, having appended to it 70,000 signatures. praying for the release of Mr. W. Smith O'Brien. RA NGOR AND ST. ASAPH. Mr. BORROW; HES presented a petition against the union of the see: of B:ngor and St. Asa , h. TEN HOURS LABOUR BILL. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMRE pre,ented Iwo prtitirmß, very nu merou•ly anti re.qpectably signed. in favour of the restrict i 441 of labour to ten h' vita. PREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. PIERCE BUTLER gave notice that co Thursday next he should move for he appointment of a Select Com mittee to inquire into the right of the [lntr , to en force the attendance of its Members on Committees, ant into its authority for inflic•ing the put , ishmt.nt of im pri.onmPnt for non-attemlAtce. Further to irogirte how far such practito. wa. ,anct:.oned by tl:e law of the land, and how far the u4l,ge was in arcordAnce therewith. POOR-LAW. Mr. P. SCROPE gave nfitive of his intention 41-, a fu ure day to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend to Irrl,nd the prk , sent pa of.E2gland. POO9 LAW DIPROVENIENT BILL. Captain PkCHELL wished to know it the Right Hon. Baronet the F_lecretary for the Home Department had dropped his design of saarrving on the Poor-law Improvement. Bill? Sir JAMES GRAHAM had no such in'ention, bat the busine-s of the House had rendered it necessary, for the sake o f pu bli c cusiwn ie n ce, to postp , ne its consideration for the present. It was understood that after the Corn-law Bill had been read a third time the Factory Bill should be brought under discussion. He believed this was stated in the House last night, anal that it was in accordance with the general feeling of the - Members then present ; he hoped, zherefore, that the Hon. and Gallant Officer would not press for the reading of the Bill of which he had spoken, but would accede to the arrangement which had been entered into on this business. After a few words from Mr. VER:iON SMITH the sub ject dropped. RAILWAYS DISSOLUTION BILL. Mr. LABOUCHERE said there was another Bill which had been read a second time, and on which it had been ar ranged that the discussion on the motion for going into com mittee should take place—he meant the Railways Dissolution Bill. He treated no time would be lost in allowing the House the opportnnity of expressing its opinion on the measure. Sir R. PEEL said it was important that the sense of the House should be taken on the Bill at the earliest day, so that the measure might be proceeded with. He should do all he could to faci!itate that object. EAST INDIA COMPANY.—ANNUITIES TO LORD HA RDINGE AND LORD GOUGH. Mr. HOGG rose to ask leave to introduce two Bills to au thorise the East India Company to grant annuities of 5,000/. and 2,000/. per annum respectively to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, for their recent brilliant services in the East Indies. He hoped no obstable would be placed in the way of forwarding those measures. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that, so far from offering any ob stacle in the way of their progress, he would do everything in his power to hasten them forward. Mr. HUME wished to know when an opportunity would be given ot discussing the merits of the Pills for granting Pensions to Lords Hardinge and Gough, because it might happen that those Bills might pass at a late period of the night, without an opportunity being afforded of discussing them at all. He wished to have an opportunity ot making some remarks respecting them, because he had an ob jection to grant pensions to pars ns whose de cendants were unable to maintain the dignity of the profession, and bu cause the time had come when they ought to require her Majesty not to grant peerages which must be kept up at the expense of the country. With all due deference to the House, he must say that he thought this plan of grant ng peerages for two or three liver, and then leaving those upon whom the honour had descended destitute, was a repreb' nsible practice, and ought at once to be abrogated. In the case of Lord Hardinge, for instance, the honour con ferred upon him would not last longer than the ordinary Jura. tion of two lives, because be was a lvanced in yews. He urged the same arguments several years ago, in the case of Lord Keane, but he was opposed to the House, and was there fore unsuccessful. He repeated that he considered tee time had arrived when the Government ought to consider whether it was politic to grant titles abet there was no property to maintain it. for wherever this wa• done they had the Peer and his family quartered upon the public —( Great laughter)—and there was no getting a head of him or his progeny for generarions.—( Roars ot laughter.) He did not wish to particularise individuals, but, if they created an aristocracy, it ought not to be main tained by the public purse —( Hear, hear.) It was true ti e customs of the country precluded them from following an • avocation by villieh they could maintain themselves, but it did not preclude them from having, families.- .(Chntinue , i laughter.) He era- willing :o diqiuss i iiw question during ;he present debate, but as tl e Bull had passed. it would be necessary for him to do se ; but he thou ht it was really a qo p„s,ii n fir the House to take up—whether, when e peerages were conferred on individuals ho had not the poster of supporting them, and which would consequently have to be supported at the expense of the country, it would be politic to craw them. It was th , ay-tern he wimplained ot, and roa the individuals. He hoped, however, that ibe House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bills in the daylight. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke a few words in reply to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Montrose, but in so low a tone of voice as to be quite inaudible in the gallery. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, was understood to say that it was rather bard for the Hon. Member to predict that the life of Lord Gough was not worth a months' purchase. It was not the fault of Government that Bills of this nature had not been brought on tiul a late hour of the night.—( Hear, hear.) Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Mr. CA RD WELL moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.—Agreed to. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE, seeing the Honourable Gentle man the Secretary for the Treasury, he wished to ask him a question with reference to the Post. office abuses he had lately brought under the consideration of the House. He had been given to understand that the speech he made on a recent occasion had leen placed in tile hands of Mr. Pea cock, the Solicitor to the Post-office, to inquire into the charges which it contained, notwithstanding it had been stated that they were groundless. He wished to know, then, whether his infotmation was correct or not. He under stood, also, that some of the letter-carriers were taken before Mr. Peacock to be examined touching those charges, but, upon asking for a pledge to be held harmless if they proved them, it was refused.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The inquiry was one which ought to be conducted in sueh a manner as to give satisfaction to the public. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Honourable Gentleman would have any objectiion to produce the evidence which was taken, and to inform the House of the result of that inquiry. Mr. CARDWELL would confine himself to an explanation of the course which had been pursued under the circumstances referred to by the Hon. Gentleman. The Postmaster-General,being desirous to have a full investigation into the whole ques ion connected with the sub-sorters, considered it judicious that the inquiry should be conducted by gentlex.en who were not connected with the Post-office department, and therefore he appointed the solicitor of the Post-office to con duct the investigation. At first the President of the Inland departmea, and the inspector of the letter-carriers were ap pointed conjointly with him, but in consequence of one of the witnesses obj_Tting to be examined in the prese-ce of these two gentlemen, the solicitor afterwards conducted the exami nation alone; it must be obvious, therefore, to the lion Gen tleman that he (Mr Cardwell) could give no further infor matien upon the subject until the report of the inquiry was made. air. T. DUNCONIBE said that he would move that a copy of that report should be laid upon the table. Mr. CARDWELL would have no objecti VALUATION OF IRELAND Sir DENHAM NORRIS asked the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Irel •nd, if the Gov , rninent proposed to bring in a 8.11 this session relative to , he valuation of land in Ireland ? Lord LINCOLN said that it was }imposed •o bring in a Bill on tnat subj.ct, winch would be this same in substance as that intro uced last year ; but in the present state of public b , si • nest he could not pledge himself at what pi•riod he would be enabled to introduce it. Sir D. NORREYS wi , bed to know whether the Noble Lord was aware that all valuations which at present took place Leland were iilegal Lord LINCOLNf' said that he was aware of the fact, and a Bill would be iwroduced this ses s ion to remedy the evil. It was their a.;reed that the House at its rising do et . ,ijourn Alonday CORN BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The aejourned i i, bate upon the Coro Bill was re-timed by Mr. COLQUHOUN. who addressed ihe 1 - lou , e amok , nr,eh con!usion. lie said that argument up, n this subj.-et hart been exhauved. He was however fearful that the Bit! w.,uld pass tett viiiiistindirta. ihe al , ile Lord the Member fur Ly ma had asked the Right Him. 13,,,r0n,,t a question well respect to certain retures from the Customs. That ques tion had been answered by the Right Honourable Baronet. He thought that he might remind the Right H Baron-'t that he had decla..eri, in his opinion, the price of wheat would not exceed Tis. per quarter. Sir ROBERT PEEL dissented from this declarat ion. Mr. C' /LHUHOUN did not wish to misinterpret the Right Hon. Baronet, but he certainly must remind him, that he had stated as one of his reasons for advocating the ch..nge in ti.e corn duties that the price of wheat, when ad. m tted at the lower duties, would not be reduced below 355. a quarter. He would refer also to the admission made to the Hon. Member for Leeds, by whom this declaration had been doubted. The declaration was made in reference to the year 1835, when wheat was not more than from 395. to 40s. a quarter. Sir R. PEEL—I was asked by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for London what I believed would be the price of wheat if foreign corn were admitted duty free, and I stated that, with an unrestricted trade in corn, I did not think, judging from the experience of 1835, that the price of wheat would fall be low 355. a quarter.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. COLQUHOUN—This did then in effect tally with what he had stated—that the price of wheat under a system of nnrestricteo import, would not fall below 355., and it would now appear that the Right Honourable Baronet hoped that the price would net be less than 305. a quarter. He was persuaded that if this statement of the prices that would ensue from the repeal of the norn.laws was correct, that a great shock would be given to all the manufac turing, commercial, and agricultural interests of the eountry.—( Hear, hear.) It had been by such repre sentations about the prices of corn under th s law that the present state of the country had been created, but they were founded in hopes which, if realised, would lead to a general panic. They ought to be taught by what took place in 1835, what had been referred to by the Rig ht Hon . Baronet, and the hist or y o f w hi ch had been given by Mr; Wilson, the Chairman of the Anti-Corn-law League. Mr. COBDEN was understood to say, that the Mr. Wil son referred to was not the Chairman of the Lea gu Mr. COLQUHOUN—Th en he was one who had con nexion with that b o d y , an d w h o was to give an opinion on the sub ject. Mr. Wilson said that the effect of the proceedings of 1835 was to give a fake direction to capital, and to increase manufacturing products in such a ratio as to g lut the market, and t o pro d uce the disastrous state of thi ng s that follow(d. The proc ee di ngs t. f 1 835, and the years that imme diately preceded and followed, were years of speculation and fic titious trailing, inevitably producing the general stagnati , n that took place in 1841. The Right Hon. Baronet and the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that prices will not fall if this measure is carried, and the Right H:mourabh , Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department said there woliin br no great! I.; t o...is. 'lle further said he eapected that there would be great ' steadiness in it. He (Mr. Colquhoun ) was satis fied, however, that if he could not convince the Right Hon. Gentlemen of the fallacy of this expectation, he would be able to satisfy the House that there was no hope whatever of the rate of prices being such as they expected, Just let them look at the a sumption of those who held the argument that the repeal of the corn-laws would lead to a regular supply of wheat, and to unvarying prices. They stated that after the repeal of the corn-laws, trade, in all its branches, would be regulated ; that there would be an average supply of corn, and an average demand for it. Let them assume that their in ports of grain amounted to any quantity they pleased. The average amount was rather more than one million of quar ters. Let them assume that they would have only three or four millions of quarters, for at whatever quantity they put it it would not affect the argument. Assume that they brought in four millions of quarters; that he thought the moat sanguine advocate of free-trade would not question. Now the average production of wheat in this city was sixteen millions of quar ters, to which they had to add four millions of quarters, mak ing together a regular supply of twenty millions of quarters. A most eminent stat•st, Mr. Tooke, stated that the harvest of 1834 was in excess over the ordinary harvests of this country to the extent of one-fourth ; and he also stated that 'hat was the cause of the low prices of 1835. The same thing was stated with respact to 1838. that they had an harvest similarly in success. They thus had an increase in these )ears of five millions. making the supply twenty-five, instead of twenty millions. Then during these years, er corn, growing countries had a similar exce.s. Thus they weuld have more to send to this country at periods when : owing to the Faces,;, it was not nqtured. Now he would ask mercantile men and those engaged in trade, whether the • T ee of that. w'iuld Not be to depress prices most enormously?— ! Hear, hear, ) If the same excess oceurred in 1854, prices would be reduced to the lowest degree here and all along the Baltic. And what would happen? The same as happened in 1844 , aericul urlists %voted restrict the . supply in consequence of low pri es. and, as in 1838, the taices would run up enigma eusi, ; so that there would be no stability of prices or sue ply it the corn-laws were repealed.—( Hear, bear.) They would hie ye enormous oscillations—high prices at one time, and low prices at another--the (me ruinous to the farmer, and the other to the labourer; ruinous, too, in one instance to the manufacturers, for as the price of corn rose in this country the home market of the manufacturer gradually decreased Hi perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet the Filet Lord of the Treasury, that they ought to endeavour to secure the wages of the labourer from varia tions in amount—but he contended, that after they repealed the corn-laws the wages of the labourer would remain still unsettled. They would be subject to the same fluctuation in prices, and liable to the srme vicissitudes of fortune. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Membr r for Bath, had re marked,with his usual aeuteness, that it would be useless to repeal the corn-laws for the benefit of the labouring part of the com munity, without they paid the same attention to the improve ment of their habits. Unless the y did so, the condition of the people would still remain the same. The agriculture ef this • country had improved more than that of any other country in the world, with the exception of Belgium. The fact was, they fed a larger number of people on the square mile than that of any other country, with the exception he had men tioned. In France they had 150 persons to the square mile, but in England there mete 230. In France fourteen bushels to the acre was the minimum of the produce ; in Eng . land it was 28 The prices of meat and grain had steadily fallen, considering the improvements that had been made, and the extent of the increase in population. If it was con sidered necessary to make a change, that change surely could be made without the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister of the Crown, attempting to malign that interest with which he had been so long connected. It was said that, under the operation of the principles of free trade, agriculture would make a spring, and receive a great stimulus. Would the House permit him to detain it for a few minutes while be called their attention to facts, and he had no doubt they would be able to form a more sober estimate of the consequences. Since 1815, the time of the war, population had greatly in creased. There were 8000,000 of an increase, and there was not less than 64,000.000 of an increase in the produce. The colonial trade had doubled in amount since the war, and what would be the effect of this measure on the colonial trade? Did 'he manufacturer, expect to keep the colonial trade in its pre sent position ? They had at present from seven to fifteen per cent. protecting duty in the West Indies and in the North American c , lonics. Did the Hon. Member fur Stockport expect to obtain that protection after the Bill passed? Already the manufacturers were suffering from competition in the Brazils , and what wieed betheir, tate when they Inst the manufactures? The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had ridiculed his Noble Friend for stati-g that the exports to the colonies were 3.0 0.000 per annum, from which this country obtained no benefit. Whv, he would remind that Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, that the house of Brucanon, in New York, was esta blished for the express purpose of receiving Britiso manufac tures, fer obtaining the drawback, and then passing them eerier' the b rders. ‘l. hen the Canaries became an integral part of the Uni , ed States, as from the intercourse catyted by the effects of the measure, they were very likely to becomes rh t Hon. and Learned Gentleman would find that his antici pations of the results were not at all likely to be realised. But i was very pssilile that the matter might be exaggerated bf b ot h 'ide s of the House, by the fears of one side an.l the hopes the ether. Yet, boweve- this m ght be, the political effects. f the measure would not so speedily subside. It had the effect Of ireaking up the cernhinatten which had so lung exived be ween the party with whom he acted and their leaders. Ile did nut wish to make any p rsonal attack on th- Right Honourable Gentteman, but he felt it right to state Pint he believed that. combination would never attain he renewed. Neither did he think it de strable, fur the sake either of public men or the character and ris e ieter.-sts of the primary at large that it should be renewed. —( Hear, hexer. ) He had in his own ham le cspacity followed 'he Right lion Gentleman with a deep admiration of his talents, and now, when that combination was about ro be hreken, he viewed him, as be believed the country did, with sensations of the dee t -cst reg et.—( Hear, h ear .) Ne m ust he permitted to say that the Right H on . B aronet , w i t h a ll his talents and with all the honesty of hi s mot i ves , h a d two blemishes in his pubic character and opi n io ns w hi c h h e h o ped he would pardon him (Mr. Colquh oun ) re f err i ng to, as ve ry injurious to a pubic man. His d e f ec t s were, h aving no f a i t h in his own principles, and exhibiting great fear of his own opinions. He appeared like a mariner at sea with a bad cargo that he had borne a long distance. but the safety of which he lost all confidence in on the first indication of a storm. At the fret approach of an autumn worm he threw overboard at once the whole cargo of his life.—(Hear, hear.) How long the opinions which the Right Hen. Baronet had lately taken up in his mind, it was impossible to say; b u t he defied any man who had watched vigilantly, as the conduct of political men ought to be watched, the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet, to say that there was one principle he now main• tained which he would not abandon during a period of popular excitement,— (Cheers.) He did not mean to say that he bad political confidence in the Noble Lord opposite ; he had a grei!t . admiration for character and talents, but b e mus t p ar d o n him i f he said that his (Mr. Colquhoun's) Hon. Friends and himself, would not form a portion of any party he might lead.—( Hear.) He was very courageous and gallant, because he had cheered that Noble Lord in stormy times, when his party was in dangers Sliest vociferously, when the faintest hearts would hav e despaired —( Cheers.) And if he serv e d un d er t h e N o ble Lan, whose chinks be admired, he should feel exactly as he remem bered he once felt at Calais. storm bound, and when he wished to return from the continent, being impatient to reach his own soil. He remembered pressing a weather-beateii captain to go to sea. who said, .. You are a landsman, and like all landsmen, ignorant ; this is a storm in which it would not be safe to leave the land." Now the Noble Lord went out of harbour at a Pe' riod when he might have been of service to the constitution. Now the duty of himself and his Hon Friends would be better done should they take their stand with the Noble Lord, for it would place them in a better position. it would be, perhaps, a matter of difficulty to bring them-elve s to such a course, but he would rather.enconnter that difficultly end danger than to continue in a camp—they had heard something of camps lately-- where, when they were about to meet the enemy, their guns, by the orders of their leaders, were spiked. He felt, for one, that the saoner they left such a camp the better.—( Hear, hear. ) Better leave it than have their principles lost by acting with those whom they had been willing to follow, but with whom they could not now agree. The Hon. Member for Stockport had turned his guns against that &de of the House; he turned the skeleton of the League against them. - An HONOURABLE MEMBER —The ghost Mr. COLQUHOUN —Well then, the ghost; it had bad more effect, arid it was much stronger than the skeleton. The Hon. Member ha I fought his bathe with great ability, and with so mush judgment, as to call forth the compliment of the Noble Lord. ( Hear, hear. The opnerturiity would soon b e g i ven to t h em to m eet the principles of Hon. Members opposite. He was sure they would be met with courage, and he hoped with suceess• II they were worsted, and he thought it liksa they weuld bet they would still have to guard som e o f t h e great i ns tit u tions o f the country against the atta c k s o f Hon. Iletehers opposite. and his Hon. Friends would thus h ave to fi g h t anot h er gallant' and he trusted in the end, su cc e s sf u l war . H e qu it e ad mitted that the present exs-i'ement was i n f avour o f Govern . : ment, hut he thought it would soon pass away , w hen t'e hones of Hon. Gentlemen of p site. would b e f ou nd not to b e realised, and t , .e promisee which th ey had ma d e to t h e nier . „ chant,. the manufacturer, and the :abou rPr , no t tuffill , °. Merchants would not have had th a t i ncrease o f tra d e whic h Hon. ,11embers told them they might expect Manufacturer s would not have 1 ad that dev , -Inpment for their manufactur es which they had been taught to expect : while the labourers fr w,;uld not have experi,eed th a t r i se i n the i r wages whic h , they had ti-on I,d to expe ct . Wh en all the hopes, %villen Here Members ha I held out to the p eni l e , an d b y w hich tn is measure hail been carried, , hould have been proved to be C)' sion.try, ant the delusion bit): u awav, then they the prot9: tiorest party would appeal to tie p eop l e o f England, with tete elms to question--oh' in tie boor of ttricri4 and difficulty wer e their . übtle and tatthles; counsellors, and who their bumb l e anti constant friends—(Cheers ) of Mr. WOOD had expressed, on various occasions,w constitoents, his opinion that. any sy st e m which in his to im posed taxes on the food for the people was both inexpe di en and unjust. He would call the atention of th e H ouse to t h e fact that during the last few years there had been a most ee traordinary importation of foreign corn at iow duties co-ordi nate with a most extraordinary importation of bullion. The Hon. Gentleman then entered into a comparative statement of the amount of wheat and bullion introduced into the country. It corn at low , duties with", loofw tariff was productive ° with out correspondinga evident. that a t d h v e n i g ns ta t a m e r s t a i t n i a n l a a d w r s ai w n o o u f l d bu ea ll i i s o e n. the H a e m d o i u d n n t o o t f sa w y ag th at to th t e hane re t r iac e bi. a po l : o tre f er_ t : he abn c ut o ti :! would most certainly have the effect of creating a greater more liberal supply of food.• repeal of the corn-laws would hliaveedtihdenelft free tradecetwwohulledh pated, of hindering the progressive increase and imer_o t v tende d with beneficial effects on the of agriculture. On the contrar y, slhfnwuladgehsavheabdebeeneni4sat of rleu entire sys em ng a week. The average of wages in the year 1835 was about Bs. they weeks proportionate to the price of corn, did t he price of corn t'k hat influence then whatever, exert on the amount of wages ? None t and therefore any apprehension of a diminution in the am ° , e - h u e bwe a h_ e a : t t e t r h oe. e : of wages was ill -grounded, and had no substantial basis. „- Honourable Gentleman then entered into an elaborat e disquisition on the influence which the price of . on the reward of labour, and the proportion whin° r wages' the price of corn bore to the amount of - He would assume that the amount of wages which a labour er corn -- and his family received during the year 183.5 was 1/. per a fi re fi or 52/. per year. They would consume on the avers . % 0 quarters of wheat during the year, which would Cost in that there would remain a balance of 421. to be expen" ..efee , house rent, clothes, and other necessaries. In 1639, her f fi l e the amount of wages fell to 391. a-year, and the pric,e"_ rn ey, quarters of wheat was 17/. 10s., so that the labourers .7 3 ' t sa d instead of having a balance of 42/. to spend in house id 7 .en th n e y ns' to other necessaries, had a balance of 12/. 10s. to pro e v n selves with everything. The corn-laws had the t issue Re about this state of things, and eventually svu u e 'L r i gu . it, reducing tie labourer to starvation and a state of th in e! He entreated the nindlords in that Heuse to considePrauwlsC, that distress and suffering, whose existence they s° muc h and la mented, was not occasioned by their previous leg d make by those laws which had hitherto so largely tended is to augm en t their rent-rolls? He, as a lanthord, was prepare e every sacrifice i favour of a measure which, in his 'tr for was calculated to do so much good for the people ; nc of be, this one, therefore intended to support the third rea di n g Bill.—( Hear, hear.) d Mr. P. R ENNET considered that if the House e ou r s n e .se P s ar i e n.. this law, they would be committing an ac th t of T.,0 be d t, s e air; te- teal 'etre-est. ( Hear, bear. ) q n uost i o , .1` canvassed a goal many agricalturiita upon this TILE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 16, 1846