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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 15. The Los. CHANCILLOR took his sect upon the Niro°luck tFi,. o'clock. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord KENYON presented a petition from the Marylebone esstry against the Charitable Trusts Bill ; also a petition to the same effect from the Methodists of Bradford. Lord COTTENHAM presented similar petitions from St. (Neves, Canterbury, and several other places. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Messengers 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 Xingsten-upon-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 murder which had taken place in Ireland since the I st of January, and whether they were committed by day or night , together with other circumstances that might distinguish them. _ THE CLERKS OF THE C ROWN. rsu of the f The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—In pursuance notice he had already given , he s hould move or 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 opportun i t ies of observing the character of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and he 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 gi ven b y them was against th e p ower o f the Crown over these 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 on 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 bad 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 1836 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 appointed in 1836, to review the grand jury laws in Ireland—and their 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 be 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 fir and proper persons for the offices, a due regard shwild be had to the economy of the country, and the two offices should be merged in one. Bet that had not been done ; but the state of the fact wa; 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 Crown. It was a well-known fact that Mr. Kemmis 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 lie positively received his appointment as deputy clerk of the Crown. On the death of Mr. Pollock he was, however, turned loose on the world without any compensation. Now, he would a;ic if that was right or just towards the Irish people ? He did not knew 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 Kil kenny, three recommendations from Wexford, three front other counties, and two from the city of Kilkenny. But he dared to say that they would be informed that arrangements would be made by which the late appointments would not stand in the way of future ap?ointments. They might be told so, but he begged their Lordships to remember that these were patent offices, and only held during good behaviour. He hoped 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 what these arrangements 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 so long occupied the attention of their Lordships. He hoped that his Noble Friend would tell their Lordship; what the arrangements to which he had alluded were, mid give distinct answers to the questions which he had put. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said, he at once agreed with the Noble Marquis opposite, that the Government was bound to pay respect to, and seriously consider all the re commendations contained in the report from which the Noble Marquis had quoted ; but he could not say that he admitted that the Government was bound to act in accordance with them. Now what were the recom mendations to which the Noble Marquis had called the atten tion of the House ?—That the clerkship of the Crown should merge into the office of the clerkship of the peace. The com mission of which the Noble Lord (Devon) was the head, re oommended, that in addition to the duties of the clerk of the peace, the same individual should perform the duties of clerk of the Crown, and become public prosecutor. Now, he (the Earl of St. Germans) appealed to any Noble Lord, conversant with the operations of the law, whether that would be a convenient or even a constitutional Course. The Noble 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 1840 to inquire into the grand jury laws of Ireland, which re commended that the clerkship of the crown and the clerkship of the peace should be consolidated, on the ground of economy. They recommended that the clerk of the peace should, in addition to bis present remuneration, receive a third more than his present salary for performing his duties of Clerk of the Crown. But tisen that would only realise a salary of 6,0001. for the whole of Ireland. The 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 Government had considered what was the best mode of effecting the consolidation of these two offices, 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 rotulorum. By the present exercise of this patronage, no 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 vested in the hands of persons wholly irresponsible. But at the same time it had been thought expedient that the gentleman who held these offices should have their rights respected, and 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 respectin g these offices. A Bill was before the Parliament at the present moment respect to the subject. Ha did not think that the Nobleho pat forward with regard to made out appointed the particular ease which he a very strong case. The gentleman had not 11:ileaend'aisazile,st by the present Government. It would not he co the public service that men should perform the double dutie s of 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 sat down, 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 Ge.. vernment to respect existing rights when the two offices were held by two persons, but in all future appointments the two offices should be merged in one. With regard to the case of the Noble Marquis (Londonderry ), he believed that that, a peculiar one, and that the Noble Marquis's fathei• had . by which the granted a pate n t t o a p ar t y f or the appointment, „,,_ right was t a k en out of the hands of the N o bl e Marquis. - 1." Noble Marquis appealed to the law, 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 not taken the opportunity, when so many vacancies hail fallen into their heads, of making this arrangement. He nimself 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 willingly 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 consideratio n . Il e cou l d seee no reason why they should transfer into the hands of the Minister of the Crown a patron age which was so all-important to the interests of Ireland. Ho did not say that that patronage had been abused, but still he thought that it would be better placed in the hands of her Majesty's responsible Minister. He objected to th e j u d ges having the appointm en t s of clerks of assize on the . same prin eiple that he thought th ose who appointed the judAes should have the appointment of inferior Offic.rs. • - The Earl of WICKLOW said that he was bound to House that had g the answer of the Noble Earl on th at s i de of the ii given him perfect satisfaction. It app eared that these seentle men had got their appointments subject t o any arrangements which might afterwards be come to by the Government. As soon as the recommendation of the Commiasieners had been 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 had said that that was the intention of the Government. If they had acted in accordance with the recommendation of the Noble Marquis opposite, incompetent parties would lave 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 THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be laid en the table of Par liament. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that the Right Rev. Prelate entirely misapprehended the principle of that Commission, as far as regarded the preparation of a Bill for the consideration of her Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear, hear. ) The Commissioners prepared a report which was laid upon their Lordships' table by their direction, and upon that report the present Bill had been drawn up and submitted to their 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--be 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 subject 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 be 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 subject ? 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 of 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 hope 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. But 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, far 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 case, 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, he 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 ship; 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 preemunire—as he before said, to im prisonment for life, forfeiture of his property, and put out of the protection of the law.— (Item.. hear.) He gave those as two samples of the thirty Acts which this Bill sought to repeal. Having consented to 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 ward 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 un the part of the Right Rev. Prelate for the purpose of show ing the power of the Pope, or the innocent assumption of au thority ors 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 Lordship , —unanintonsly, 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 Lordships' House in the manner that he as one of them could have desired.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that he believed an impression had gone forth to the country that this measure, taken as a whole, had drawn forth indications of repugnance, aversion, distrust, and alarm—that nothing, at all events, in the shape, of sympathy for the measure had been manifested. It was a measure of suet, a nature, that he thought it ought to be 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—( Hear, hear),— and mutual congratulations—( Hear, hear)—and thank • fulness to the Government who had proposed it.— ( Hear, hear.) And his reason for saying so was because, although this measure professed to be for the re lief of persons labouring under certain penalties in consequence of the religious opinions he held, it was not more a measure of relief to them than to the Church of England—( Hear, hear) —not of relief from unjust and vexatious disabilities, but 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 wi'h his station as a Prelate of the English Church.—( Hear, hear. ) Its, 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 in some degree 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, asd 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, hear)—and that they never ought to have been a part of the law of the land—(Hear, hear)—that there never could 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 s slightest measure with the views that had been taken by Right Rev. Friend at the table (the Bishop Exeter) on this important subject. He (the Bishop ) looked of E David's) looked upon them in no such ( a t t tghh t e h t . o ß s s o e e very h ther at the time that p nal o c f la s u t s . esas the bulwarks of the constitution. He as useful, and as much questione d w e , supposed them to have He believed that if they had never been enacted, we wereße v . a I Friend n e e es sary, been. t o li x e p y od w ie e n re t e a n s ac h t i e s d, R t i h g e h y t should still at this hour have been enjoying all our liberties ex actly to the same extent as we did at the present moment ; but however that might be, those circumstances had passed away, and the necessity for those enactments existed no longer— (Hear, hear)—and he said so on these grounds. Might he be permitted to ask of what effect or force a Papal bull was in this country ?—( Hear, hear.) It was merely a piece of lead attached to the document on which it was written ; and of what import was it to them whether the lead was at- tached to the document by a silken or a hempen string? Or, to drop all those idle suppositions, what difference did it make to their Lordships, or to the people of this country, as to what even the mind or he intention of the Pope was, who published those documents. Now, then, he was coming to a point on which he supposed he had the misfortune of disagreeing with powerrt bats a b u y ti t l h or e i t o y p . inie N n o s his Right Rev. Friend, for he (the Bishop of Exeter) seemed to think, and indeed it had been assumed in argument, not only contended that there couldwthnoahttetbhe(etahPemo by him, but by many others, and it was a very prevalent idea, that we were to estimate the injury to be sustained from these i t n ha s n np th p a o t r — t o ( f H h e i a s r p ro e ri entertainedof td. aDs k sa i es s ri o tdi w ,os n n ) examples which the Right' po i : a i r to induc p e ow t e e r lr a La i rdships to believe and ev it appeared to him that all tlse Prelate . bad brought forward it e al l r bl esr i e n d s t o o me him of Y e — ntably fallen short of that the Pope possessed as much thatthe daalrlktehs those s a e g ages examples ples ecclesiastical h ad m o roost i s l t a o m r lionswt the which aoaf therkm. 0 Rightd H e r He had hßishistory, been ovr. y, Prelate withsurprised a had view madebyt o s o p some of et o oh f i some n h m e mereferencesotrr eproposition.n thangac_ owHnaeeset.boe some i (H e m v e e er d et re a t o n h l lg a ea t ectte h i doenshat one,hd a r ta e nt f od e o r kh r e s p d hi ae t cl o ei e such cases of the reign avtedththeaetotmhamterneefeermeenneet ainegdittiomsr dynasty. of Napoleon, and the authority which Pope Pius VII. exercised to change the whole constitution of the Gallican f C ro h m urc th h e , transfer the allegiance of the French people such a fact as that ithoui heHreeewaallsedqutiote their rnished Lordships' such purpose, ml for he declared to their Lord ,lowosttertn historical fact to prove more ythtahtanif athneortehewratshaenv memory for any .degradation to which t ' he Hear, hear)—he Papal:htriipcsti power had fallen in modern of f times—( Why,. was there any might t no s tortou s than the ex he horror, with thingshoul d i n referhihistory r o y th m o s o e re p p a a r l t p i particular o t r i rmnes. more he w a o y uld speak with the greatest veneration, Pope Pius VII nous demands of Napoleon, to go to, consent e d t o t ' France to performhe w Impe ceremony desired? — or was there any Roman Catholic the not conceive that the authority of the Pope had never been more degraded than when h e w as forced to quit his oW7rcalta and go to Paris to attend at that ceremony, an d p l ace , he e,itl own upon Charlemagne? And with regard to the • upon thein_stance that the Right Rev. Prelate had adduced that night, as to the allocation of the Pope with reference to Spanish affairs. H e ( the Bishop of St. David's) should like to know what effect that allocation had produced upon Spain ; or, to take another instance that could be stated to show the effect of the most ex traordinary assertions of the Papal authority. He wished to know in what case those assertions had produced any effect in the country to which they had related, or where they had turned aside the purposes of the people. He would ask their Lord ships pardon if he should duress a little from the point for the purpose of asking in what the force or efficacy of these Papal bulls consisted? It did not consist in the parchment, or lead, or silk, or hemp, nor did it, in his opinion, at all consist in the I mind, intention, or views of the Pops whe 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 had ever been sub jected, he, for one, should feel no alarm (though the severest penalties were enacted against the importation of " bulls") if ono of those formidable (liniments 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 confidence 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 much 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 beheld in argument. He observed an ex tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something that had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, who had com plained of the impertinence of the French in praying for the conversion of the English. The extract was to the effect, that this was an unreasonable ground of complaint, for as the French prayed for us, we could offer up prayers for them, and so there would be an equality.—( Laughter. ) What could be the security of the country, if it would be snpposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a miserable statute, and that if the Pope's bulls should come into the country, there was an end to her power? But if the Pope's supremacy should assume a treasonable form then it did expose its author to extreme punishment ; and, therefore, with regard to this point, 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 permitted to make, he most heartily approved of every clause of that Bill, but he could not say that he believed it to be a perfect one. He did not think it went far enough; it was his belief that more might be done on the principle of this Bill to give relief to classes of persons who whero 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 Lordships con sideration, and he only now expressed the hope that their Lordship? 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 seethen if in passing an Act to legitia mise 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 OX FORD 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 observations 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 denied it to be true, and he would go back to historical facts to prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, and 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 pretest against the principle 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 when they declared in their Maker's name that the Pope had not, nor ought to have, any civil or ecclesias tical power within tnis realm. If they passed this measure, it was a positive injustice to relax one-half of the lacy without re laxing the other, for otherwise they would be requiring them to declare a manifest untruth. For, alter all, in what sense was that oath taken? It meant merely that by the law and the constitution of the realm this power ought not to be possessed, and in such a sense was taken by conscientious men. But what would be the case if they repealed this measure? How could such an oath be taken when the individual taking it felt that the law did authorise such power, and that it did net exist covertly, but openly and legally ; and when they would repeal the oath, then, and not till then, would they look the question fairly in the face, He 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 sacrifice to which he was sure their Lordships 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, and 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, and for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi culty irs the case, as stated by the Right Rev. Prelate, who last addressed their Lordships, was not so great as he ima gined; but be (Lord Brougham) felt that they were dealing with a difficulty of another character, when they were allowing an Act of Parliament to apply to those for whom such an Act had never been intended, and upon whom it could have no poss ibl„ff ec t. They were now, however, only dealing with the repeal of a statute. The last two Rev. Prelates who ad dressed their Lordships 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. PRELATY — The words were restored and established. Lord BROUGHAM—Yes, that was a restoration, but it was not established —being restored was to re-establish. The words had been restored and 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 Bight Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of their being put in force, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well that they could be brought into full force at the w ill 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 words 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 Campbell)—who was, per haps, a very good Presbyterian—(Laughter)—and who did not believe one word—one tittle—of this supremacy of the Pope—they, and others who 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 riot believe in the spiritual supre macy of the Pope. But to ask those who believed in their consciences that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope was valid, and who, in taking an oath of the supremacy of their Sovereign, were allowed to believe and hold good the spiritual power of the Pope—to ask them to take an oath by a law which in reality affected them not, but which still had its penalties, would be the greatest injustice, for the reason that we recognised the supremacy of the Pope in spiritual matters, as regarded all Roman Catholics. There were over 100,000 subjects of the Queen, in England, who believed in this spiritual 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 in 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 tendhe would s till halm his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom , and still ,further, and this seven millions of people whom they allowed to believe in it —whom they allowed to 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 f ro m sir& ; and absolution of some sins they might hope to obtain, but for an act denying the truth of the Pope , the head of the Church of Ri Atte, they could never hope to obtain. He should like to see th is oath struck off the statute towards all tpec a 11 of the civil powers. This sa nction was ne- o Others, as they had done towards their Raman Catholic sub jects. A s to allowing the Pope to send , his bulls into this coun try, he would refer to the manner in which they were all owed to entee other countries. Austria, F rance , S , ,,aits, and Portugal, did not allow the he s ad Lai of the bulls of the Pope, without cessary ial b anetie obt a i ;tied, before they were allowed to enter. The Pope appli e d for I, nave,se, and it was granted, and', no injurious re sult followed, Y et this sanction was required, although they were Catholic tout itries, 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 nor t tore harm in these bulls, or that they were of no more impor stance than if they were left to rot on a shelf in the palace at Rc .me, for he considered there might—it was possible that th, ly could contain much harm, and have an important hearing. He could not go with his Noble an d Learned Friend so far as that. His Rev. F r i end had stated that they prayed once a year f or the convers i on o 1 the Roman Catholics. They did so, but then th e prayers of the church were for the conversion of all heretics. I t coo not be said that they prayed so much for the co nvers i on o ['the Roman Catholics as that body were in the habit of praying for ,the conversion of the Protestants. There ee h was this diff eren , -ee tween the prayers of both parties, that the Catholic s p raye for t, h e conversion thirteen times a year ; they were better a t ap plication mad e assure lirt Ri ght their s Laughter. ) lie had framed an amendment t it W(cLl Res ^.7)• or the P 411 which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls .heir i ll Ayers than those they prayed for, if civil author the penalties remaining the same. Lord Cii.f,Yes' R Vt. L The Right Rev. Prelate, who first addressed d his vote; but he could che Ho i t , had claimed t° enter court: try ' without taking the opinion of the which they hand rn d purest motives. The Bill had be and he received it as theire bee infl uence y the S' Edward Ryan, the t prepared by 1) . " rned Friend ir late Chief Just e is r ; -a tta, than whom a more enlightened lawyer, or a mgrs impartial gentleman did not exist. Decemberin last liberal arse r ' e r tp‘ i_end that whatever vote he might give, nissioners framed an Act of Par liament, these C o his Noble and Learned Friend, t• It embraced both parts of 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 offi .e and all its privileges into the hands of the Government, wiz), in his opi nion, were the proper parties to have the manag ment of such offices.—( Hear.) FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. _ _ The Earl of ST. GERMANS moved that this Bill be re ferred to a Select Committee.—Agreed to. Lord TYNEHAM presented a petition from Brecon 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 would give their opinion with respect to the Act of Supremacy. He ven tured upon the subject with the utmost diffidence. One ques tion which he would put was, whether the Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, made it a punishable offence to affirm that any prince potentate had any power within the realm. As he understood the opinion of the Noble Lords, it was this—That it was not an offence to affirm it unless there was a malus 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 correctly.—(Laughter.) That was the point on which he rested his doubt, his strong doubt of the accuracy of The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to call his 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 whom 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 FER then rose, and said that it was his painful duty to state the reasons which compelled him to resist 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 I 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 simpliciter 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 full 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 wrone; but he woald maintain that he was right, notwithstand ing 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 prmmunire 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 se. 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 ansl 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 Commissioners ; and with the permission of the House he would afterwards read them a quotation from a letter on the subject. Her Ma jesty had been pleased to direct a Commission to be issued to 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 would 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. tion 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 nut of every thing like an assertion of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. Ile should scarcely have believed this unless he had looked wi;h great accuracy to this statement of the Com missioners, and he would now read to their Lord ships the words of the oath which they pro posed to substitute in place of the existing one. " I, A. 8., swear that I wilt faithfully and duly perform al legiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I - will main tain the succession ()tithe Crown, as established by Act of Par liament, and that I do not believe that the Pope or any other foreign prince or potentate, hath 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 taken it; but were those to be the words of the new oath ? No such thing ; although their Lord ships well knew that the constitution of this land, 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, or juris diction in this realm ? No such thing ; the oath proposed was " That the Pope hath nor ought to have 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 not, 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 or 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, in the slightest degree, the oath as it at present stood in the atatute-book. He thought that his Noble and Learned Friend vrould give them relief on this subject—a relief which he (the Bishrtp 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 Anew that his attachment to it was great. It was proposed by a Noble Lord that there should' be a conrorditt 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 be supreme in spiritual matters. The passing of this Bill would be attended with the utmost danger to the peace of the country. Why was that danger to be incurred? 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 r t ta t re4. to the Church in Spain were altogether unjustifiable in vo i d. " 1 4,,, t1 :. 1 . ‘ PT A and he declared them to be null and by the Pope a similar pow er ri .,', w k t "rdships should pass this Bill, with respect to this e‘, l l tr els ' i r"d things would be most horrible, and • state of that it would never take place. Again, eertainhpern trusted been claimed by certain laymen in the metropelisnhtYdti Bishop of that see was thrown into prison. The Pope de nouncede the persons engaged in that matter, and declared the proceedings to be null and void. Now these steps were not taken in Catholic Italy, but actually within the 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. er vrTehe LORD CHANCELL O R denied that all p ersons bound to rake the oath of supremacy upon that oath being tendered `a them. i paved, by which i f w' . take the oath of supremacy pelted to An Act of Parliament, in 1701 w as enacted that nouppoenrsoitias sbheothugldtbeend,ceorrnead-s to him. hat' taken place since the statute of But the Right Rev. Prelate had appeared to forget r eferred. The Right Rev. Prelate all the Elizabeth, to which he had ',l the Acts of Parliament which legislation that must take into consideratico at various Acts had not passed that period. It was quite im possi }wets who professed the Roman had .bpaslesefodrthheimLegtoislcaotnutreensdintchea't ya since that period for the relief of t Catholic religion. Great facilities their performance of the rights o f . and a very religion, . had been given for the material alteration had been made in t impossible for in favour of Roman Catholics; and it was , qty e . maintain that a the Right Rev. Prelate now te stand up Cad the oath of supremacy the Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately f g the supremacy in ecclesiastical and spiritual ma:tfes's 6 of this Pope could be considered as offending against the faM ni m s a i i n n ta in in to that country.—( Hear, hear.) So much, then, with respe.lt , tof the case. He had already on a former occas. ll2 par the ex pressed his opinion clearly and distinctly, notwithstanding' charge that had been made against hint by the Right Re' Prelate, and he really must say that be could not see how the Right Rev. Prelate could renew this subject, after the discus sion which had taken place on it on a former night—( Hear, hear)— without having insisted on the attendance of the judges, by appealing to them with respect to the correctness of his opini on ; and he must repeat what he had before said, that he thought the Right Rev. Prelate had not acted very fairly by him i n not giving him notice of his intention to controvert the opinbsns which he had expressed. Had that notice been given, they might have had the attendance on this occa , ion of the Chief Justice of England, who had expressed himself with so much force and precision, in answer to the question put to him by the Right Rev. Prelate. Now the Right Rev. Prelate, ad verting te the Commission, said it was the most extraordinary Commisision that was ever issued, nasmuch as it called upon the EN I N:G I M'A Y 16, 1n46 the subject-41) 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 would be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very great objections to many of those who were of this opinion. Although that 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 ho 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-books. 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, as far as he understood, would, in all its details, have his cordial support. He was anxious not to pass over in silence what he conceived had been a misappre— hension of the state of the ease by the Right Rev. Prelate who had spoke last, because that misapprehension 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 Learned 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 beets taken by all their Lordships, and had been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of the Protestant people of this country—after the passing of this Act, it would be impossible for any man with a safe con science to take the oath that the Pope neither had nor ought to have any spiritual or temporal jurisdiction in these realms, and stated, with great deference to his Learned Friend, that with regard to the authority of the Pope, this Bill, if it should ever become an Act of Parliament, would nut have the slight est effect under the existing circumstances. Lord BROUGHAM—I do not say that. Lord STANLEY—The Right Rev. Prelate said that he conceived that by the fact they were now able 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 jurisdiction 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 body of their fellow-subjects, who in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical were bound in con science to the see of Rome. And if the interpretation put 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 eats .nt to which they would be guilty of the same offence after the Act han passed. He conceive that the Act did not legal ise the jurisdiction of the Pope. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the specific penalties from communicatio es otherwise innocent be cause they came from Rome. If ti t sis 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 more after the passing of that Act than at thei present moment. They were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in any 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 P ope, or any prince, power, or potentate in these realms, lice did not question what influence or authority the Pope rale ht exercise over the con science of any individual in this con ntry, or how far he might be iuluenced by any command or di .claration, or by any oath which should declare, neither more , nor less, than that after this Bill should pass there was no 11 tvir in this country to sub ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical ma tters. He apprehended it was too clear to admit of a doubt the it there were many Catho lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pope, or of any clergyman fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he should attempt to enforce by virta ie of that authority. The law would step in for the protect ion of the subject, and the priest who should attempt to go be! and that authority and in fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the conduct of individuals would be es tbject to a penalty, and the person so coerced would have (la mages and a remedy by law against the priest who should attempt to do so. There was in the last month, in the county of Cavan, a case in which a priest excommunicated a Roman Catholic Commissioner who refused to admit the authority if 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 F ie titioner damages. This he apprehended to be the state of the law now—to deny that the Pope had or ought to have any juries diction in this country, and that law was not in the least afrec te d by Bills now proposed. He denied that his Noble and Lear ned Friend was chargeable for having postponed the considerate on of the propriety of alter ing the law. If the present meals': re did alter the law in that respect, and if his Noble and Leers ed Friend had kept back a portion of it, it would be a difficult ti uestion to say that he would take them by surprise, by saying eis at now they had passed an Act which had made so total a chain ge as to render it necessary to change the oath of supremacy. He ( Lord Stanley) would himself 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 think th Le re was any ground for the slightest suspicion to be entertain( el. The word was merely a passing one, and he would defend his Friend from the charge of having kept back any portion el t the measure which should be brought forward. He had alre ally trespassed for some time upon the House—( Hear, hear)—: seal, in conclusion, would say, that the law required an alteratioi a, and he hoped that it would be altered in conformity with the t pr esent oath of supremacy. Lord BROUGHAM said he h ad listened with some atten tion to the speech of his Noble i Friend ; he did not complair. of him, but of himself, for having :made himself so little under stood as to state that the object o f this Act was to sanction the supremacy of the Pope. He ha d stated that the oath had nothing to do with the present A et, persons taking the oath of supremacy were placed in a diffic silty by the terms of the oath. As he had said before, his Noble .Friend had given his opinion as to what was the right constr action of the oath, and his opinion was that it was a most delicate matter, and that they were to conside r that they rested thus oath on the conscience of the men. They made a solemn asseveration, which they Lid not see or know, although the Noble Lord and his Honou treble 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 t' tis case was that many people might take these oaths, and migh t safely deny the power of the Pope to have any legal jurisdicti on ; but they could not deny that he had a spiritual power, tho ugh he had none by law. After a few words from the LC vR D CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM said, that' he would suggest, as he had been in the House since ten o'cloc k that morning, and many of their Lordships had only remaine d since a much later period, that they should go into Commits e e, and take those clauses of the Bill to which no opposition we c s offered. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to propose that course. The Bishop of EXETER was ri s ady to assent to that course, but it would not be very easy to s e lect those parts to which no opposition would be given. After some further conversation,. the• House went into Com mittee on the Bill, pro forma. The clauses were then read, and, -wit h the exception of seve ral that were reserved for re-consider at ion, were agreed to. The House then resumed. In answer to a question from a Noble Lord, The LORD CHANCELLOR said I ie could not then fix the day for the re-committal of the Bill. ' rhe Noble and Learned Lord then said that the Bill had passed' through Committee, with the exception of three clauses r t lating to supremacy, bulls, and on incidental points arising or i t of the Act of George 111. Excepting these, the rest of the I Jilt was disposed of. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF C0A131021 , ',!;, May 15. The SPICAKER, took the Chair at Fou r o'clock. MANCHESTER AND SALFORI ) WATERWORKS BILL. Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved t k iat the evidence taken before the Committee on the Mulches' An- and Salford Water works Bill, in the last Session, be ref erred to the Committee on the Lancashire Waterworks Bill.— Agreed to. BOSTON, NEWARK, AND SW IFFIELD AND NOT TINGHAM AND GRANTH Jbl JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. GREENE moved that the or der which, on the sth of February last, was made referring the petition for the Boston, Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham i and Grantham Junction Railway, to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills be read ; that the said order be disch arged ; that the said peti tioa be withdrawn; that the order m ado on the 25th day of March last, referring the Great Grin isby, Louth, Horncastle, Lincoln, and Midland Junction Rails' ray Bill to the Committee of Selection, be read; that the said c xcler be discharged ; that the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to. WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YARMOUTH RAILW.A Mr. MACKINNON moved tha t the petition of Mr. Richard Mosse, against the Waveney Va.lle g and Great Yarmouth Rail way Bill, be referred to the Sole :t Committee to which the said Bill is referred, notwithstxxoti ng the three days' notice having expired; and that the GM imittee be directed to enter particularly into the merits of said petition, by calling for such returns as they may require, r to report specially to this House on the result of such inv esi ligation. After-a few words from Lord G SOMERSET, the motion was withdrawn. BRISTOL AND BIRMING TIAM RAILWAY (BATH LIN E). Mr. HUDSON moved the sec and reading of this Bill, which was read and ordered to be comr &Med. NEWCASTLE AND DA Y.ILINGTON JUNCTION RAILWAY (THIRSK AN ID MALTON BRANCH). This Bill was read a third tinv‘e and passed. WESTON-SUPEL t-MARE PIER. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered, and agreed to. BIRKENHEAD IMPROVER SENT COMMISSIONERS. This Bill was read a third time s and passed. REPO FITS. 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. Carnwath and West Linton Rail way. Dunblane, Doune, and Callande r R a il way . Perth and Inverness Railway. Great North of Scotland Warrington Waterworks (to be considered). Bury Waterworks (to be considered). Lincoln Waterworks (to be consi.LtereEl). CHELSEA BRIDGE AND T HAMES 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 Lincoln, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. ['awe:, Sir William Clay Alderman Hum phery, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Thomas Wood, Mr. An trode3, Lord R. Grosvenor, Viscount Chelsea, Mr. Trotter, and five to be added 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 Lace/I.e (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. WIN KFI [MD UNION. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the a rate p yers of the parish of Winkfield , in the county of Berks, in - vestry assembled, complaining of the conduct of the Poor law C o mmissioners, and the proceedings of the board of gua rdians of the East Hampstead Union. Th e 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 P t ior-law Commissioners, and that in consequence of their not Being 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 th e w h o l e sum of money had been expended upon its erection, there was neither an infirmary for the sick, nor a board room for the guardians to sit in, and the guardians were obliged to assemble in a public house at a distance 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 cheaper site could have been obtained much nearer to the town. The peti tioners had been refused all 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 POOR LAW CO.MINIISSIONERS. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from the Assistant Poor Law Commissioners, praying that some provision might be made by a superannuation 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. BANGOR AND ST. ASAPII. Mr. BORROUG HES presented a petition against the union of the zees of Bangor and St. Asaph:__ TEN HOURS LABOUR BILL. Mr. T. S. DUNCOAIBE presented two petitions, very nu merously and respectably signed, in favour of the restriction of labour to ten hours. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. PIERCE BUTLER gave notice that on Thursday next he should move for the appointment of a Select Com mittee to inquire into the right of the House to en force the attendance of its Members on Committees, and into its authority for inflicting the punishment of im prisonment for non-attendance. Further to inquire how far such practice was sanctioned by the law of the land, and how far the usage was in accordance therewith. POOR-LAW. Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice of his intention on a future day to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend to Ireland the present poor : law of England. POOR-LAW IMPROVEMENT BILL. Captain PECHELL wished to know if the Right Hen. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had dropped his design of carrying on the Poor-law Improvement Bill? Sir JAMES GRAHAM had no such intention, bat the business of the House had rendered it necessary, for the sake of public convenience, to postpone 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, and that it was in accordance with the general feeling of the Members then present; he hoped, therefore, 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. VERIION SMITH thts 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 trusted no time would be lost in allowing the House the opportunity 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 facilitate that object. EAST INDIA COMPANY..—ANNUITIES TO LORD HARDINGE AND LORD GOUGH. Mr. HOGG rose to ask leave to introduce two Bills to au thorise the East India Company to grant annuities of 5,0001. 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 of discussing the merits of the Bills for granting l'ensions 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 of making some remarks respecting them, because he had an ob jection to grant pensions to pers ;ns whose de cendants were unable to maintain the dignity of the profession, and because 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 granting peerages for two or three lives, and then leaving those upon whom the honour had descended destitute, was a reprehensible practice, and ought at ence to be abrogated. In the case of Lord Hardinge, for instance, the honour con ferred upon him would not last longer than the ordinary dura tion of two lives, because he was advanced in years. 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 the time had arrived when the Government ought to consider whether it was politic to grant titles when there was no property to maintain it, for wherever this was 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 generations.—( Roars of 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 the customs of the country precluded them from following any avocation by which they could maintain themselves, but it did not preclude them from having families.--( Continued laughter.) He was willing to discuss the question during the present debate, but as the Bill had passed, it would be un necessary for him to do so ; but he thought it was really a question for the House to take up—whether, when futui e peerages were conferred on individuals who had not the power of supporting them, and which would consequently have to be supported at the expense of the country, it would be politic to grant them. It was the system he complained of, and not the individuals. He hoped, however, that the 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 hard for the Hou. 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 till a late hour of the night.—( Hear, hear.) Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Mr. CARDWELL moved that. the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.—Agreed to. Mr. T. S. DUN COMBE, 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 the 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 information 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 condncted in such 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 quea ion connected with the sub-sorters, considered it judicious that the inquiry should be conducted by gentlemen who were not connected with the Post-office department, and ce therefore oe he appointed the solicitor con ddeupcatrtteenitn,vanestligahteionin.speActt:orosffttthltreheePlertetPesrid-ect-naortffiroiefrst h w t e e l r n e l aanpd pwoiitnnteesdecsonj objecting o ihim, n ly t w t i o th be exam b u in t e i d n i c .n ons th et e lue p n re c s e e o n f ee on o e f o t f h t e l s i e e two gentlemen, the solicitor afterwards conducted the exami nation alone; it must be obvious, therefore, to the Hon. Gen tleman that he (Mr. Cardwell) could give no further infor mation upon the subject until the report of the inquiry was made. T. DUNCOMBE said that he would move that a copy of that report should be laid upon the table. Mr. CARDWELL would have no objection. VALUATION OF IRELAND. Sir DENHAAI NORRIS asked the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland, if the Government proposed to bring in a Bill this session rel a ti ve t o t h e va l uat i on o f l an d i n I re l an d? Lord LINCOLN said that it was proposed to bring in a Bill on that subject, which would be the same in substance as that introduced last year ; but in the present state of public busi ness he could not pledge himself at what period he would be enabled to introduce it. Sir D. NORREYS wished to know whether the Noble Lord was aware that all valuations which at present took place in Ireland were illegal. Lord LINCOLN said that he was aware of the fact, and a Bill would be introduced this session to remedy the evil. It was then agreed that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next. CORN BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The adjourned debate upon the Corn Bill was resumed by Mr. COLQUHOUN. who addressed the House amidst much confusion. He said that argument Ilium this subject had been exhausted. He was however fearful that the Bill would pass notwithstanding. The Noble Lord the Alember for Lynn had asked the Right Hon. Baronet a question with respect to certain returns from the Customs. That ques tion had been answered by the Right Honourable Baronet. He thought that he might remind the Right Hon. Baronet that he had declared, in his opinion, the price of wheat would not exceed 355. per quarter. Sir ROBERT PEEL dissented from this declaration. Mr. COLHUHOUN did not wish to misinterpret the e y as m ou u s st fo r r em ad in vo d ea h ti in h r g , t ß h i a g t ht he ll h on ad . Baronet, 3 bu e t ne he of ce h r i t e ain r l e e c r or n duties, duties wo that not th e p b r e i c e r e e d f u w e e h d e wheat, l o w w h ad matedc3nss. the refer also to the admission made to thei quarte r. o c . b th e f a n e t g m e libienerl the doubted. The declaration was made in reference to the year for Leeds, by whom this declaration had been 1835, when wheat was not more than from 395. to 40s. a quarter. and I stated that, with fall from r om 8 i f r o r R LondonPEEL w — h what " l a b s el a i s e k v e e d d if foreign corn were admitted duty free, . k'd ' , by wouldte beNoble the pri Lord ee the e t. Mem ber.wheat t a h n e u e n x r p e e st r r ie ic u t e e e d o t f rad lB e 3s in , tchoernt,thledp,irdteenootf t w h i l i n eat , w yu eu g ld m be low 355. a quarter.—( Hear, hear. ) did then in effect tally with e," of wheat under a system of fall below 33s , it would unrestricted import, would n what Mr. h e C h ° I had stated—that Q U HOUN—trThleiipsri would net be less than 30s. a quarter. now appear that the Right ot Honourable .Baarnodnet hoped e per p s r u i a c d e ed that if this statement of the prices that w ld aths ensue from the repeal of the corn-laws was correct, that shock would be given betueonndaelrbly tthhseusehlmawanufsc tawHhoeautgreat turing, commercial, and agricultural interests of the country.—( a ti o e u a t r, th h e ear p . r ) iees lt of had been the present state of the country had been created, but they es ou w g h h i t ch, to if h re e ar realised, would lead to a generalwere Theyhop place in 1835, what had been referred to by b theby w Righthat lti 0 0 0 n k . LI Wilson,a Mr. r o n e t c , t oh aeßn Chairman hE t a h Ni r e mwa ha s historyoft understoodh of e Ahti which. cto thate;, given m b r y . 1. 111 1 r i. . 00 r h 1: 3. 3. d yi , son referred to was not the Chairmao of the League, aw vague. Mr. COLQUIMUN — Then ila was one who had sub ject. Mr. Wilson said that the effect oth some con nexion with that body, and whc, was to give the n )r o e p ee in 9 io d z i l u on the i I s 1 6 1 3 1) 5 - was to give a fal , e direction to capital, and to gs i o ncreas . e manufacturing products in such a ratio as to glut the market, and to produce the disastrous state of things that followed. The proceedings (11835, and the years that imme diately preceded and followed, were years of speculation and fic titious trailing, inevitably producing the general stagnation that took plac e i n 1841 . Th e Right Hon. Baronetand 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 Honourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department said there wuuln be no great fall in prices. He further said he inspoceed tint *ors would be groat steadiness in it. He (Mr. Colquhoun) was satis fied, however, that if he could not convince the Right lion. 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 aesumntion 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 ; th it 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 most 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 statist, 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 that was the cause of the low prices of 1835. The same thing was stated with respect to 1838, that they had an harvest similarly iu success. They thus had an increase in these years of five millions, making the supply twenty-five, instead of twenty millions. Then during these years, other corn-growing countries had a similar excess. Thus they would have more to send to this country at periods when, owing to the excess, it was not required. Now he would ask mercantile men and those engaged in trade, whether the effect of that would not be to depress prices most enormously ? ( Hear, hear.) If the same excess occurred 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 agriculturlists would restrict the supply in consequence of low prices, and, as in 1838, the prices would run up enorm ously ; so that there would be no stability of prices or supply if the corn-laws were repealed.—( Hear, Bear.) They would have enormous oscillations—high prices at one time, and low prices at another—the one 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. He perfectly agreed with the Right lion. Baronet the First 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 Member 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 thry did so, the condition of the people would still remain the same. The agriculture of 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 wet e '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 he called their attention to facts, and he had no doubt they would he able to form a more sober estimate of the consequences. Since 1815, the time of the war, population had greatly in creased. There were 8.000,000 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 the manufacturers 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 colonies. Did the Hon. Member for Stockport expect to obtain that protection after the Bill passed? Already the manufacturers were sufferingfrom competition in the Brazils, and what weuld be their qate when they lost the manufactures? The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had ridiculed his Noble Friend for stating that the exports to the colonies were 3,000,000 per annum, from which this country obtained no benefit. Why, 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 British manufac tures, for obtaining the drawback, and then passing them across the borders. When the Canadas became an integral part of the United States, as from the intercourse caused by the effects of the measure, they were very likely to become, th A Hon. and Learned Gentleman would find that his antici pations of the results were not at all likely to be realised. But it was very possible that the matter might be exaggerated by both sides of the House, by the fears of one side and the hopes of the other. Yet, however this might be, the political effects c f the measure would not so speedily subside. It had the effect of breaking up the combination which had so long existed be tween the party with whom he acted and their leaders. He did not wish to make any personal attack on the Right Honourable Gentleman, but he felt it right to state that he believed that combination would never again be renewed. Neither did he think it de sirable, for the sake either of public men or the character and the interests of the conntry at large, that it should be renewed. —(Hear, hear.) He had in his own hum'ile capacity followed the Right Hon. Gentleman with a deep admiration o f his talents, and now, when that combination was about to be broken, he viewed him, as he believed the country did, with sensations of the deep ta e ht s e t t h g R r eigt honesty.h—t O ( 7 H . e nh a i r sl3 , am h r e oe a tu r i ev . te ) ,s b ta e le P n e t r s mi a t n te d d w to ith sa a y ll th blemishes in his public c h arac t er an d op i nions which Hihhtheeadahlmoltpub;ii he would pardon him (Mr. Colquhoun) referring to, as very injurious to a public man. His defects were, having no faith 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 10A all confidence in on the first indication of a storm. At the first approach of an autumn storm he threw overboard at once the whole cargo of his life. —( Hear, hear.) How long the opinions which the Right Hon. Baronet had lately taken up in his mind, it was impossible to say ; but 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 had political confidence in the Noble Lord opposite ; he had a great admiration for character and talents, but he must pardon him if 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 most vociferously, when the faintest hearts would have despaired. —( Cheers. ) And if he served under the Noble Lord, whose chivalry he 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-beaten 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 Nob o l f e ca l t o hp r e d si , lrat f ge o u r lyn_s i: would place them in a better position. It would be, perhaps, a matter of difficulty to bring tbem.elves to such a course, but he would rather encounter that difficultly and danger than to continuebet where, e w i hee an orders et aohrefe ytph—we were r h e e camp—they leaders,bh oaudth to oaerrde meets s o p m i kt e he t ed h something He me yf it, for one, ... that the sooner they left such a camp the, better. _(Hoer r 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 side of the House; he turned the skeleton of the League against them. An HONOURABLE MEMBER —The ghost. Mr. COLQUHOUN —Well then, the ghost it bad had more effect, and it was much stronger than the skeleton. The Hon. Member had fought his battle with great ability, an d with so much jud g m en t, as to call forth tue compliment of the Noble Lord. (Hear, hear. The opportunity would soon be given to them to meet the principles of Hon. Members opposite. He was sure they would be met with courage, and he hoped with success. If they were worsted, and he thought it likely they would be, they would still have to guard some of the great institutions of the country against the attacks of Hon. Members opposite; and his lion. Friends would thus have to fight another gallants and he trusted in the end, successful war. He quite a& mitted that the present excitement was in favour of Govern ment, but he thought it would soon pass away, when the hopes of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be found not to be realised, and the promises which they had made to the mer chant, the manufacturer, and the labourer, not fulfilled. Merchants would not have had that increase of trade which lion. Members told them they might expect. Manufacturers would not have had that development for their manufactures which they had been taught to expect ; while the labourers would not have experienced that rise in their wages which they had been led to expect. When all the hopes, which lion. Members bad held out to the people, and by which this n measure a ha ,(11 the 'been carried, delusion b should iown away,ha e been proved to be sieges}, then they the protec tionist party would appeal to the simple question—who in the hour ofpeo 'pleriesfisEanngdladniffid,cultywe with this andth eiros3unbstralent friends.—(Cheers. fait_hlefscshceoeurnsse)llors, and who their humble Mr. WOOD had expressed, on various occasions, to his laws which ime posed taxes on the food for the people was both inexpedien constituents, his • o.ti r s i aj a low tariff and unjust. lie would call the atention of the House to the opinion that nin a otn n ni y noatfr s o y ed s o t ur e en m e of . fact that during the last few years there had been a most ex traordinary importation of foreign corn at low duties co-ordi nate with a most extraordinary importation of bullion. The comparative statementr of atl l oe,rn, drain corresponding i n sndpb t et l ou e non m i taoi wheat in n ni ga. t t h at hit niveaeaenin(mnittiftadiebv, importation Lic d l atd IN l l, ti oa t ws o ao e dt icueocsut with outinvt ny would most certainly have the effect m l a :s e would lera raise su pp t y h eo of amountffood. o f • e of that the repeal of the corn laws it a e ges to the labourer, bu s , reth e peal of the corn-laws would pated, of hinderinogntlreprogres—sivee nocfrease creating a nd a i mpr great e r with t a h griculture. The average of If wages had been proportionate id havetl d t i h d e not effe ctw anticipate hi c h w a t s h a a n t t priceo oul d o fh cornav eb e e x e ow c ret o le n k tr . ary, free trade would be attendede; beneficial effects on the entire system of agric Y tt e l ui tn e wages in the year 1835 was about Bs. a we ek ' they 'onate to the price of corn, What influence then did the e n rt " o ps n the amount of wages ? None whatever, and theref ore any apprehension of a diminution in the amou nt , of wa ges was ill-grounded, and had no substantial basis. The Honourable Gentleman then entered init.) an elaborattet disquisition on the influence which the /nice of corn 11 ; a on the reward of, labour, and the proportion w h ,f.„ the price of corn bore to the amount of wi l g — e He would assume that the amount of wages which a labourek, and his family received during the year 1835 was le per vie z e s „ or 52/. per year. They would consume on the a verage u s , quarters of wheat during the. year, which would cost lad that there would remain ss balance of 421. to be expend e house rent, clothe s , an d o th er necessar i es. In 183 9, howeve r, eve the amount of wages f e ll to 39 1. a-year, and the pr i ce ot tn e h. ,_ quarters of wheat was 17/. 10s., so that th e labourer's fa instead of having a b a l ance o f 421. to spend in house re n t other necessaries, had a balance of 22/. 10s. to p r ovide th eN selvel with everything. Th e corn -l aws h a d th e tendency s _ es , bring about this state of things, and eventually would in reducing the labourer to starvation and a state of pauge e r er He entreated the landlords in that House to consider vir , t ''„,„ that distress and suffering, whose existence they so much a l",, mented, was not occasioned by their previous legislation m , by those laws which had hitherto so largely tended to augmen t their rent-rolls? Ile, as a landlord, was prepared to m o a n ' , every sacrifice in favour of a measure which, in his est imati was calculated to do so much good for the people ; and he,..t this one, therefore intended to support the third reading of i n Bill.—( Hear, hear. ) to Mr. P. BENNET considered that if the House poz. ea .... this law, they would be committing an ac t of the g ross: 6 % l ;a justice to the agricultural interest.—( hear, hear.) 1 1 0 , saavassed a good many agrietltu r i s t s u p ost this Vie" "'