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

IMPERIAL FARTLAME - NT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 15. The LORD Cnauccti.oa took his seat upon the Woolsack, at Five o'clock. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord KENYON presented a petition from the Marylebnne vestry against the Charitable Traits Bill ' • also a petition to the same effect from the Methodists of Bradford. Lord COTTENHAM presented similar petitions from St. Mee's, 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 Tovni 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 refit-al 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 corn. 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 Nlethodist chapels in Kingston .upon-Hull against the Charitable Trusts measure stating that they viewed that with considerable alarm. Noble Lord also gave notice that on Monday next he shouldT move for a return of all th e mur ders and at tempts at mu rder which had taken place in Ireland since the I st of January,th,r and whether they were committed by day or night, toge twith other circumstances that might ills' inguish them.__ . THE CLERKS OF THE CROWN. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—In pursuance el the notice he had already given, he shoeld move for a . return of the Clerks of the Crown. He should not have suede such a motion without a more distinct notice had he anticipated any opposition. He had many opportunities of diserving 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 et' 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 castes rotulorum of the Queen's County, in opposition to the Crown, legal proceedings were commenced, and the question was tried at Dublin before all the Judges, only two of whom were against the Crown. The question was after wards tried by their Lordships, and the decision given by them was against th e power of the Crown over those officers. It was contemplated that these officers should be united. What was recommended by the last commission of Lord Devon, and on which so much stress has been laid en different occasions by the Government ? He recollected that when that Com mission was issued, whenever Noble Lords urged the Government to take some steps in the ameliora tion of the law of Ireland, they were repeatedly refused until the labours of the Commission were finished, and their re port had been made. Well, new that it was so, it deserved the attention of that Government who had so highly valued it before. The Commission that was issued in 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 1830, 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 he made for the abolition of the office of clerk of the crown. He did not mean to say that, without any inquiry whatever, all persons who were clerks of the peace should be appointed indiscriminately to the office of Clerk of the Crown ; but what he would contend for was, that when these Clerks of the Peace were found to be fit and proper persons for the offices, a due regard should be had to the economy of the country, and the two offices should be merged in one. But that had not been done ; but the state of the fact yea- 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. Kemntis 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 fir a long time before, but in the year 1818 he 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 ask if that was right or just towards the Irish people ? He did not know what were the abilities of this gentleman for the situation he bad filled, but he was well aware that he had had three recommendations for similar situations from Kul. kenny, three recommendations from Wexford, three from other counties, and two from the city of Kilkenny. But he dared to say that they would be informed that arrangements wonld be made by which the late appointments would not stand in the way of future appointments. They might be told so, but he begged their Lordships to remember that those were patent uffices, 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 Lordships what the arrangements to which he had alluded were, and 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 commended, 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 his present remuneration, receive a third more than his present salary for performing his duties of Clerk of the Crown. But then that would only realise a salary of 6,0001. 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 appoi ntment 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 bands of persons wholly irresponsible. Bat at the same time it had been thought expedient that the gentleman who held these offices should have their rights respected, 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 respecting these offices. A Bill was before the Parliament at the present moment in u'd, respect to the su bj ec t. Be did not thi n k th at t h e Noble Marqu i s, with regard to the particular case whi c h h e h a d put f orw ar d, had. made out a very strong case. The gentleman had not been a ppoi n t e d by the present Government . It would not b e consistent with the pnblic service that men should perform the double duties of clerk of the peace and clerk of the Crown. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that after what b i d f a ll en f r om 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- tulorottl. Earl ST. GERMANS said it was the intention of the Go vernment to respect existing rights when the two offices were held by two persons, but in an future appointments the two offices should be merged in one. With regitrd to the case of the Noble Marquis (Londonderry). he believed that that was a peculiar one, and that the Noble Marquis's father had granted a patent to a party for the appointment, by which the right was taken out of the hands of the Noble Marquis. The 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 had fallen into their hands, of making this a:leo:gement. He Himself 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 willin,gli make every sacrifice, in order to ensure this arrangement. Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the Noble Earl opposite you'd take the suggestion of his Noble Friend behind him into consideratio n . He could seer, ro reason why they should transfer into the hands of the Minister of the Crown a patron age which was so a ll-i mportant to the interests of I re l an d . H e slid not say that that vatronao-e had been abused, but still he thought th a t i t would be Letter placed in the ' hands of her Majesty's responsibl e 'Minist er . He objected to the jud g es haling the app o i ntments of clerks of a s3:ze on th e same prin ciple that he thought thy,.' who appointed ce the jud g es should have the appointment o f inferior officers. The Earl of WICKLOW sa id that he . was bound to that the answer of the Noble Earl o n th at s i de of the Houle ' had given him perfect satisfaction. It appeared that these gentle men had got their appointments subject to any ll "e arrangementscovemr N-igilieight. afterwards be come to by the e n e t. As soon-as the r•ecommendation of the Co mm i ss i oners had bean eattondocklirtylhe\povernment., and he thought that it was i ;_,A , their intention to do so, fit parties would be appointed to the 4 7 / 4 office. His Noble Friend had said that that was the intention ..„:::',of the Government. If they had acted in accordance with the F. %:Crecommapdation of the Noble Marquis opposite, incompetent Ck ., , '.llArties vse4a s lavo been appointed ; but as it was, proper par ( ties, 01-Wio :aim), had been appointed.—(Hear, hear.) < Those that. been , appointed by the Government would be Rerfeetl7 to enter Upon the duties of their tac when vre THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 16, 1846. the proper time arrived. For his own part, he was perfectly satisfied with the statement of the Noble Earl (St. Germans). The Marquis of CLANRICAR DE thought that notice ought to have been given to the public of these appointments. He had been misunderstood by the Noble Earl that had re plied to him, for he agreed with the Noble Earl that the two offices should be amalgamated. He himself was a custos, and he should be perfectly ready to give up that office and all its privileges into the hands of the Government, who, in his opi nion, were the proper parties to have the management 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. LorhardTiabe Trusts Bill. The presented ill. a petition from Brecon ag ainst the c agaTinbset the ßis Charitab l ehopo of DURHAM Trusts ßHAll also presented several petitions RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL. The Bishop of EXETER wished, before the orders wordeorusld sire their Lo day were proceeded with, that the Noble their opinion with respect to the Act of Supremacy. H e 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 Eliza beth, made it a p un i s h a ble o ff ence to a ffi rm t!'at any prince potentate had any power within the realm. As he understood the opinion of the Noble Lord., it was this—That it was not an offence to affirm it unless there was a males animus accompany any such an expression. He suppee'd 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 tie 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 hare persevered in his motion. If he, had intended to raise this question again, he ought to have given notice of his intention, in order that he (the Lord Chancellor) might have asked the Lord Chief Justice to be in the House, and also the Noble Lord wham his Right Rev Friend supposed to be in his place, but whom he did not see there. The Bishop of EXETER said that he was anxious to Islam 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 nit 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 Loud. He was more disposed to take that course, because he thought it an additional reason for not going into Committee. For if, as the Noble Lord had told them, they were in such a state that to affirm, maintain, or assist any foreign supremacy within these realm-, 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 stro-g reason why they should consider the nature of this important point. The Noble Lord had said that it was not an offence per s‘ , , or simnlieiter 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 Elizaketh, 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 wron . g; but he woald maintain that he was right, notwithstand ing tee 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 prwmunire should be struck out of the statute.beok ; but he should not wish the statute itself to be extirguished, thus leaving no punishment for those who denied the royal supremacy. Holding those opinions, be should be glad if he had no other objections at once to give hiy, assent to the motion of the N o bl e an d L earne d L ord. Bu 7 he had reasons of a grave objection of another kind to urge against it. The objections which he had he would wish to hear stated with the same force and ability as in the speech o the Noble Lord opposite the other day, and which was fol.. lowed by a vote which seemed demanded by this expression of opinion. He referred to the powerful speech made by the Noble Lord opposite, who asked the Noble and Learned Lerd on the Woolsack why he introduced a Bill of this kind without fully informing them of ail its objects ? What (lid 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 out of every thing like an assertion of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. He should scarcely have believed this unless he had looked with 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 will faithfully and duly perform al legiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will main tain the succession of:the 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 bath 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 bad 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, stile, 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 statute-book. He thought that his Noble and Learned Friend would give them relief on this subject—a relief which he (the Bishop of Exeter) should consider the more necessary to his own feelings, because he had confidence in th e N o bl e L or d , and knew that he would not injure the constitution of Eng land. He knew that his attachment to it was great. It was proposed by a Noble Lord that there should, be a concordat with the Pope, and that the P o pe sh o uld 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 zfa a th rea t s , address—to Spain in which he made use of and de lre d that th e proceedings respect to th e C hurch in Spain were alomether unjustifiable in t v h o l, l 7y es N ' o l , :/:e i ro i t, lr and he declared to be null and mi Lordships should pass z t : h p i e s rty ß h il a l d , a similar pomer vcith respect to this eoltrt claimed by the , Pope thing; would be most lu ilibie. Such a state of that it would never take place. Again, c a e " r d ta . he trusted been claimed by certain laymen in the metropolis, Bishop of that see was thrown into prison. arTidhedeie'llaprneedddtthhe-e nouneed the persons engaged in that matter, proceedings to be null and void. Now these steps were not tft t hhr a i k eigs e hQ n ctofuuu i e n lnetn C ry a o t f ho•ic Italy, hut actually within the dominions of to o n ,. gl a l ai ni n d. appearance. his rr T h s he i psi rßit Bill lal case, woulds t u h pe supremacy, e e mf admitoar eassumed cy , , a the nd Pope a it ‘v a most q into foosr (the Bishop o f E xeter ) s h ou ld oppose. the that reason that he Bill going into Committee ; and move that they go into Com mittee on that day three months. The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that all persons were bound to take the oath of supremacy upo n that oath being tendered to them. An Act of Parliament, in 1791, was passed, by which it was enacted that n o person should be com pelled to take the oath of supremacy upon its being tendered to him. But the Right Rev, Prelate had appeared to forget ail the legislation that ha 1 taken place since the statute of Elizabeth, to which he had referred. The Right Rev. Prelate must take into cons•deration all the Acts of Parliament which had passed the Legislature since that period. It was quite irn possible for him to cont e nd th a t various Acts had not passed since that period for the relief of those who professed the Roman Catholic religion. Great facilities had been giv-n for the performance of the rights of their religion, and a very material alteration had been made in the oath of supremacy in favour of Roman Catholics; anti it was quite impossible for the lii, , ,ht Rev. Prelate now to stand up and maintain that a Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately raalntaining the supremacy in ecclesiastical and spiritual matters of the Pope could he considered as offending against the laws of this country.—( Hear, hear.) So much, then, with respect to that part of the case. He had already on a former occasion ex pressed hi; opinion clearly and distinctly, notwithstanding the charge that had been made against him by the Right Rcv. Prelate, and he really must say that he 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 te ,, rin g insisted on the attendance of the judges , by appealing to them -;th respect to the correctness of his opinion ; and he must repeat Ve..... he had before said, that he thought the Right Rev. Prelate ban ~., acted very fairly by him in not giving him notice of his intention ... controvert the opinions which he had expressed. Had that notice ~..._ , given, they might have had the attendance on this occasion or .a,,, Chief Justice of England, who had expressed himself with so much force and precision, in answer to the question pu t to him by the Right Rev. Prelate. Now the Right Rev. Prelate, ad verting to the Commission, said it was the most extraordinary COMITALIsiOII that WU ever bawd; lia4Llllol Li it called upon the Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be laid on 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, bea r .) 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 ;n extenso, and to lay ft on the table of their Lord ships' House. He (the Lord Chancellor) was responsible for the advice he had given on this subject—he did unhappily say that as far as related to the particular clauses of this Bill it was a wise measure, and he thought that it would be sanc tioned and adopted by Parliament. That was the course he had thought proper to pursue with respect to this Bill. But then his Right Rev. Friend said there was something behind, and that he had wrapped himself in dignified obscurity. His Right Rev. Friend had said he had been about to take away some other of the defences of the British Constitution. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) had over and over again said that until this Bill passed he would never touch the subjeet of oaths (Hear, hear.) He had not wrapped himself in any obscurity on that subject—t 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 e ith 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 orh of abjuration. That oath would be perfectly harris'ess, because of itself it would be altogether superfluous. Was there any obscurity in that ? ( Hear.) Could anything be more 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, for a moment to entertain the wish that those Bills, or at least the greater part of them, should not be repealed. It was un necessary for him to call their Lord-hips' attention again to those cases, but he would take the liberty of again mentionirg 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 ships one instance to show how necessary it was, that after they had consented to the second reading of this Bill they should go into Committee, notwithstanding the opposition made by the eloquent and Right Rev. Prelate. If any person in Ireland maintained that the head of the see of Rome bad 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.— (Hear. 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 on 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 on the part of the Pope, for the purpose of inducing their Lordships 6 forget the question before them—that nar row, contracted, and limited question to which he had called their attention. Ile thought he had said enough to induce their Lordship;—unanintously, he believed—( Hear, bear)—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 Lordship., 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 sue. 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 congratulatior.s—( 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 opinio ns h e h e ld , i t was not more a measure of relief to thm 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 with his station as a Prelate of the English Church.—( Hear, hear. ) This, he said, looking at the enactments which this measure was intended to repeal ; and although such express approba tion as he would have wished had not been called forth by the proposal of this measure, yet he believed that no one would venture to say that the repeal of those enactments was not in some decree desirable. Now he (the Bishop of St. David's) was quite willing to admit that there was a very great differerence between the general miss of those enactments which were proposed to be repealed by this Bill, and 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 cc old have been any circumstances that could justify such enactments_ ( Hear, hear)—that they were cruel and wanton violations of the blierty 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 w mild be nothing inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, if the Government of this day thought proper to exercise a similar control over the importation of those Papal bulls, they might pass a similar measure against them.—( Hear, hear.) But when he had made that concession he had gone as far as he could ; he could not sympathise or agree in the slightest measure with the views that had been taken by his Right Rev. Friend at the table (the Bishop of Exeter) on this important subject.- He (the Bishop of Exeter) looked at those penal clauses as the bulwarks of the constitution. He (the Bishop of St. David's) looked upon them in no such light. He very much questioned whether, at the time that they were enacted, they were as necessary, as useful, and as expedient as his Right Rev. Friend supposed them to have been. He believed that if they had never been enacted, we 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 ground,. 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 the intention of the Pope was, who published those documents. 'Now, then, he was coming to a point on whilh he supposed he had the misfortune of disagreeing with his Right Rev. Friend, for he (the Bishop of Exeter) seemed to think and indeed it had been assumed in argument, not only 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 that ath there or couldNo w o h t e b ( e t a h (the Bishop more h Papal bulls by the opiziens that the Pope entertained of his own power rnadneddassertionD avi ) than that—( Hear, hear)—and it appeared *o him that all the examples which the hight Rev. Prelate had brought forward unfounded op of St in support of his position to induce their Lurdehips to believe that the Pope possessed as much power as he did in some of the darkest ages of ecclesiastical history —it appeared to him that all those examples had most lamentably fallen short of the mark. He had been surprised by some of the references which the Right Rev. Prelate had made as to some transac tions of modern history, with a view to prove his proposition. He believed that he had referred to such cases more than once. He recollected one, and he believed that that reference was to some transactions that took place at the commencement of the reign of Napoleon, and the auth or ity w hi c h P ope Pius VII. exercised t o change the whole constitution of the Gallican Church, and to transfer the allegiance of the French people from the legitimate dynasty. He was quite astonished that such a fact as that should be recalled to their Lordships' memory for any such purpose, for he declared to their L rd ships, that if there was any moiern historical fact to pr ove strictly than anoth er th e l ow state of degradation to which the re Papal power had fall en i n modern times—(Hear, hear)he should refer to those particular times. Why, was there any thing in history more palpabl e or more notorious than theex treme reluctance, the terror, he might say the horror, with which that poor old man, of whom he would speak with the greatest veneration, Pope Pius VII , consented to the impe rious demands of Napoleon, to go to France to perform the ceremony desired ?—or was there any Roman Catholic who did conceive that the authority of th e P ope had never been more degraded than when he was forced to quit his own capital and go to Paris, to attend at that ceremony, and place the crown upon the modern Charlemagne? And with regard to th e in stance that the Right Rev. Prelate had adduced that night, a s t o the allocation of the Pope with reference to Spanish aff a i rs . H e (the Bishop of• St. David's) should like to know wh a t e ff ect that allocation had produced upon Spain ; or, to take anoth er the effect of the most that could be stated to show . ex traordinaryinstance . • of the Papal authority. He wished to assertions know in what case those assertions had produced any effect in they had turned they had relate d , or where the country to which lie would ask their Lord p s:de the purposes of the people. VW from the point for the shis _ on if he should digress a e purpose or a e_hax in what the force or efficacy of these Papal bulls consisted • << did not consist in the parchment, or lea d, or oak) or hemp, nor u-i-;t, in his opinion, at all oasis t iu the mind, intention, or views of the Pope who passed them.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Bishop of St. David's) perfectly concurred that the efficacy consisted in the the mind or intention of those to whom they were addressed.— ( Hear, hear;—and therefore it was, that he said so long as the Roman Catholic population of this country preservede hat 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 one of those formidable documents should, by any sleight of hand, be smuggled into this country, a n d b e found, some un lucky morning, affixed to the gates of Lambeth or Buckipghain 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 tot to be repealed, he himself could see no ground of public security which would require such reseric tiens to be imposed, and he also believed it to he entirely use less. Was it possible, if these opinions were held and main tained in foreign countries, that they would not find their way into this country and be held in argument. He observed an ex tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something that had fallen from his Right lion. Friend, who hatl 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 ofcomplaint, 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 supposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a miserable statute, and that if the Pope'. 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 die 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 he permitted to meke, he most heartily approved of every clause of that Bill, but he cou'd 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 where now labouring under severe penalties. He was not called upon to enter at present on that subject, but the time would come he felt persuaded, and that before long, when this subject would be brought under their Lordships con sideration, and he only now expressed.the hope that their Lordships' decision would be grounded on a calm consideration of the whole, and that they would not be influenced either by personal feelings or rhetorical declama tion. And they should see then if in passing an Act to les. , itie 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 hod proved themselves guilty of the basest conduct—literary dema gogues, who had pandered to the worst passions of tl:e 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 princieles of liberty and freedom. The Bishop of °Xi. ORD would not trespass lone upon the attention of the House, nor would he have risen except for the latter observatioes 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 en theirs—he must beg entirely to reject that imputation. He could not suffer such and attack ; fir 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 spacial points of difficulty, which he hoped the great legal knowledge and skill of the Noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) might be enabled to explain to him, and the second part of the observatio• s of the Right Rev. Prelate would lead him at once to the explanation. He said there was a special duty which was incumbent on them to do away with these enactments from the statute-book. He said they were the work of the Church of England, hut he denied it to be true, and he would go back to historical feces to prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, an 4 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 i m prudently attached to the g a t es o f th e palace deposing th Queen ; and there was not energy enough iu 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 cruses were not religious, but civil and national announcements of the opinion of the people, and they (the Bishops) had no more to do with the matter than any of their Lordships present. —( Hear, hear.) It was a national protest against the 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 tie Pope had power spiritual and ecclesiastical within the realm; and let them re member how that would concord with the cab which they were bound to take when they deep ,red 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 . law without re laxing the other, for otherwise they would be requiring them to declare a manifest untruth. Fur, alter all, in what sense was that oath taken ? It mean t m ere l y 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 whin the individual taking it felt that the law did authorise such power, and that it did not exist covertly, but openly and hgally ; 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 Lnrd would avoid the dificulty, 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 Fay, 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 alt ere d i n 1828 , to t h e manner Theadts.least it didoath n e t - h applyi which htaodßboeme Roman Catholics, mentioned but was made for those who were no t R oman C athol i cs, and w in as w n hi o e t h in it ad n e o f t o v r, st o a r n for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi culty in 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 possible effect. They were now, however, only dealing with tie repeal o f 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 gcod—quite as binding and effectual. A REv. PRELATE—The words were restored and established. Lord BROUGHAN I —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 sta'ute so as to affect the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as it applied to Roman Catholics. He preferred the protest of the King, Lords, and Commons that the Pope's supremacy was a fallacy, a fraud, if they would, and that it was to have its penalties, although the Right Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of their being put in foree, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well that they could be brought into full force at the will of evil dis posed persons. Now, as to the oath of supremacy, to which the Reverend Prelate adverted, he was of opinion that if the oath regarding the King was not sufficiently binding, " a-lack-a-day," he (Lord Brougham) did see much virtue in an oath. Did it not strike the Rev. Prelate, that in the oath of supremacy taken by the Roman Catholics there was an omission as to the Pope ? They omitted altogether the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. That body were allowed to leave out the 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 not 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 va:id, 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 tend it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom, and he would still have his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it still further, 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 from sin ; and absolution of some sins they might hope to obtain, butt for an act denying the truth of the Pope, the head of the Church of Rome, they could never hope to obtain. He should like to see this oath struck off the statute towards all others, as they had done towards their Roman Catholic sub jects. As to allowing the Pope to send his bulls into this Co untry, he would refer to the manner in which they were allowed to enter other countries. Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal, did not allow the admission of the bulls of the Pope, without the special sanction of the civil powers. This sanction was ne cessary to be obtained, before they were allowed to enter. The Pope applied for leave, and it was granted, and!no injurious re sult followed. Yet this sanction was required, although they were Catholic countries, acknowledging the spiritual authority of the head of the Church of Rome. lie could not go so far with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, in saying that there was nomore harm in these bulls, or that they were of no more importance than if they were lefteo rot on a shelf in the palace at Rome, for he considered there might—it was possible that they could contain much harm, and have an important hearing. He could not go with his Noble and Learned Friend so fer as that. His Rev. Friend had stated that they prayed once a year for the conversion of the Roman Catholics. They did so, but then the prayers of the church were for the conversion of all heretics. It could not be said that they prayed so much for the conversion of the Roman Catholics as that body were in the habit of praying for the conversion of the Protestants. There was this difference between the prayers of both parties, that the Catholics prayed for the conversion thirteen times a year ; they were better at their prayers than those they prayed for, if ap plication made them so.—(Laughter.) He had framed an amendment for the Bill,which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls to enter this country without taking the opinion of the civil authorities, the penalties remaining the same. Lord CAMPBELL—The Right Rev. Prelate, who first addressed the House, had claimed his vote; but he could assure his Ri g ht Rev. Friend that whatever vote he might give, it would be influenced by the purest motives. The Bill had been prepared by his Learned Friend Sir Edward Ryan , the late Chief Justice of Calcutta, than whom a more enlightened lawyer, or a more liberal and impartial gentleman did not exist. In December last these Commissioners framed an Act of Par liament, which they handed to his Noble and Learned Friend, and he received it as their report. It embraced both parts of the subject—the oaths and the opinions, for they were insepa- ; ' rabies; and they could not be prepared to judge of the penalties unless they knew how these oaths would affect the laws they widied to be preserved. This mea s ure. when it was passed, would be a most emphatic peranission for the laws with respect to the oaths of supremacy to remain as they then stood, and it as Mild be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very great objections to many of those who wore of this opinion. Although 'hat was his opinion, his Learned Friend would have ' done well if he had given way to the recommondation of the ' Commissioners, cs he understood him several times to say that he approved of it, and that with regard to parts of the Bill, lie thought it expedient to divide the Bill, and to briers ' it in at separate times. He alto understood him to s a y, th a t he would bring in the second part of the Bill before any length of time had elapsed—he did not say that he would postpone any part. These laws were a reproach to the laws of this country ; our ancestors might be excused for passing these laws, but we had no excuse for allowing them to remain on our statute-bo ks. Lord STANLEY said that lie owed the House some apology for ridng to make any observations on this sub ject. He was not about to enter noon any dismission 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 u hat he conesivesi had fh en a mi.appre hension of the state of the ease by the Right Rev. Prelate who h a d spoke last, because that misapprehension appeared to him to have been sanctioned by the high authority of the Noble Lord who last addreased the House from the second bench. In speaking of his Right Rev. Fsiend and his Learned and Noble Friend on the Woolsack, be had said, that although at the present time the oath of supremacy might be fairly and without hesitation taken-- it h,td been taken by all their Lordshias, and had been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of the Protestant ; ceple c f this country—after the passing, of this Act, it et ou'd be impossible for any man with a wt.fe 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 deferen ce to hi s Le arne d Friend, that with regard to the authority of the Pope, this Bill, if it should ever became an Act of Parliament, would not have the slight est effect under the existing circumstances. Lord BROUGII AM— I do not say that. Lord STANLEY—The Right Rev. Prelate said that he conceived that by the feet 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 jarisdic ion of the Pope over any portion of the subjects of her Majesty would remain precisely in the same condition—neither greater nor less—neither snore nor less recognised, nor more legalises' 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 gnilty of perjury in taking that oath, precisely to the extent to which they would be gutlty of the same offenee after the Act had passed. He cenceive that the Act dad not legalise the jurisdiction of the Pope. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the specific penalties from communications otherwise innocent be e:tine they came from horse. If this communication, or in struction, or order, contained anything seditious, anything injurious, or anything calculated to affect the civil rights of a subject of these realms, it did not aesume the character of au thority, and weuld not be recognised as valid any mere after the passing of that Act than at the present moment. They were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in any sen-e which the present authorities in England rejected. If the spiritual juriwliction of Rome was not anything less (and it would not be auything less), they had all committed perjury; for spiritually, er otherwise, they cool t not recognise, by any means, the authority of the Pope, or any prince, power, or potentate in these reale, S. He did not question what influence er authority the Pope toieht exercise over the con science of any individual in this country, or how far he might be influenced by any command or declaration, or by any oath which should declare, neither more nor less, than that after this Bill should pass there was no law in this country to sub ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters. He apprehended it was too clear to admit of a doubt that there were many Catho lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pepe, or of any clergyman fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he should attempt to enforce by virtue of that authority. The law would step in for the protection of the subject, and the priest who should attempt to go beyond that authority and in fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the conduct of individuals would be subject to a penalty, and the person so coerced would have damages and a .remedy by law against the priest who should attempt to do so. There was in the last month, in the county of Cavan, a case in which a priest excommunicated a Roman Catholic Commis - -inner who refused to admit the authority of the priest, and instead of applying to the Pope he applied to the civil tribunal of this country, which tribunal repudiated the power of the priest to excommunicate, and awarded the petitioner damages. This he apprehended to be die state of the law now—to deny that the Pope had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country, and that taw was not in the least affected by Bills now proposed. He denied that his Noble and Learned Friend was chargeable for heving postponed the consideration of the propriety of alter ing the law. If the present measure did alter the law in that respect, and if his Noble and Learned Friend had kept back a portion of it, it would be a difficult question to say that he would take them by surprise, by saying that now they had passed an Act which had made so total a change 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 thiuk there was any gronnd for the slightest suspicion to be entertained. The word was merely a passing one, and he would defend his Friend from tite charge of hav:ng kept hack any portion of the measure which should be brought forward. He had already trespassed for some time upon the House—( Hear, hear)—and, in conclusion, would say, that the law requited an alteration, and he hoped that it would be altered in conformity with the present oath cf supremacy. Lord BROUGHAM said he had listened with some atten tion to the speech of his Noble Friend ; lie did not complain of him, but of himself, for having made himself so little under stood as to state that the object of this Act was to sanction the supremacy of the Pope. Ile had stated that the oath has nothing to cio with the present Act, persons taking the oath of supremacy were placed in a difficulty by the terms of the oath. As he had said before, his Noble Friend had given his opinion as to what was the right construction of the oath, and his opinion was that it was a most de - ricate matter, and that they were to consider that they rested the oath on the conscience of the men. They made a solemn asseveration, which they did not see or knov, although the Nobie Lord and his Honourable Friend supposed that they saw and knave it. It had nothing to do with the legal construction of the oath, nor the Act before their Lordships for taking away the spiritual jurisdiction of this country. The view he took of this case was that many people might take these oaths, and taught safely deny the power of the Pope to have any legal jurisdiction ; but they could not deny that he had a spiritual power, though he had none by law. After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM said, that he would suggest, as he had been in the House since ten o'clock that morning, and many of their Lordships had only remained since a much later period, that they should go into Committee, anti take those clauses of the Bill to whicti no opposition was offered. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to propose that course. The Bishop of EXETER was ready to assent to that course, but it would not be very easy to select those parts to which no opposition would be given. After some further conversation, the House went into Corn. mittee on the Bill, pro forma. The clauses were then read, and, with the exception of seve ral that were reserved fur re-consideration, were agreed to. The House then resumed. In answer to a question from a Noble Lord, The LORD CI-lAN CELLOR said he could not then fix the day for the re-cotnrmittal of the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord then said that the Bill had passed through Committee, with the exception of three clauses relating to supremacy, bulls, and on incidental points arising out of the Act of George 111. Excepting these, the rest of the Bill was di , posed of. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ,Ilay 15. The SPFA KEIL tOCk t he Chair at Four o'clock. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD WATERWORKS BILL. Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the evidence taken before the Committee OR the Manchester and Salford Water works Bill, in the last Session, be referred to the Committee on the Lancashire Waterworks Bill.L-A , treed to. BOSTON, NEWARK, AND SHEFFIELD AND NOT TINGHAM AND GRANTHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. GREENE moved that , the order which, on the sth of February last, was made referring the petition for the Boston, Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham and Grantham Junction Railway, to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills be read ; that the said order be discharged ; that the said peti tion bt... withdrawn; that the order made on the 25th day o f March last, referring the Great Grimsby, Louth, Borneastle, Lincoln, and Midland Junction Railway Bill to the Committee of Selection, be read ; that the said order be discharged ; that the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to. WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YARMOUTH RAILWAY. Mr. MACKINNON moved that the petition of Mr. Richard Morse against the Waveney Vall e y an d G reat Y armouth Rail way Bill, be referred to the Select Committee to which the said Bill is referred, notwithstanding the three days' notice having expired ; and that the Committee be directed to enter particularly into the merits of said petition, by calling for such returns as they may require, and to report specially to this House on the result of such investigation. After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, the motion was withdrawn. BRISTOL AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY (BATH LINE). Mr. HUDSON moved the second reading of this Bill, which was read and ordered to ha committed. NEWCA STLE AND DARLINGTON JUNCTION RAILWAY (THIRSK AND MALTON BRANCH). This Bill was read a third time and passed. WESTON-SUPER-MARE PIER. The Lords' amendmsnts to this Bill were eonsidereJ, and agreed to. BIRKENHEAD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS. This Bill was read a third time and passed. REPORTS. _ . The following reports were brought up, the amendments agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be ongro3sed : Cambridge and Oxford Kendal Union Gas and Water: Carnwath and West Linton Railway. Dunblane, Doune, and Caliander Railway. Perth and Inverness Railway. Great North of Scotland Railway. Warrington Waterworks (to be considered). Bury Waterworks (to be considered). Lincoln Waterworks (to be considered). CHELSEA BRIDGE AND THAMES EMBANKMENT. Mr. YOUNG moved to refer the Chelsea Bridge and Thames Embankment Bill and the Battersea Park Biil to a select committee. Mr. Young, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Hawes. Sic William Clay Alderman Hutu phery, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Thomas Wood, Mr. An trodus, Lord R. Grosvenor, Viscouut Chelsea, Mr. Trotter, and five to be addPci to the committee of selection.—The mo tion was agreed to. Several petitions for and against different railway Bills were presented, among which was one from the Right Hon. Shaw Lefevre (the Speaker), the announcement of which caused considerable laughter. A number of petitions were then presented a:ainst the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, also against the erection of county lunatic as}lums. WJNKFJELD UNION. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the rate parish of Wink&ld, in the county of Berk,, in rate pagers of the veatry assembled, complaining of the conduct of the Poor law Commis Toners, and the proceedings of the board of guardians of the East Hampstead Union. The peti tion was adopted at a public meeting assembled in the vestry, and was signed by the clergyman of the parish. The petitioners stated that they had been unfairly dealt with by the Poor-law Commissioners, and that in consequence of their not 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 the whole sam of money had !nen expended upon its erection, there was neither en infirmary for the sick, ror a board room for the guardians to sit in, and the guardians were obliged to a.semble 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 ranch cheaPer site could have been obtained much nearer to the town. The peti tioners had been refused all ree'ress, 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 drew the attention of the House to the facts stated in the petition on Tuesday next. ASSISTANT POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS. 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 71),000 signatures, praying for the release of Mr. W. Smith O'Brien. BANCMII AND ST. ASAPH. Mr. BORROUG HES prrsented a petition against the union of the see , of B‘offor g.nd St. Asrt,h. TEN HOURS LABOUR BILL. Mr. T. S. DUNCONIBE presented two petitions., very nu meroutly and respecithly signed, in favour of the restriction of labour to ten hours. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. PIERCE BUTLER gave notice that cn Thursday next he should move for the appointment of a Select Com mittee to inqnire 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 lam prionment for non-attendance. Further to inquire how far such practice was sanctioned by the law of the land, and how far the usage NVZS in accordance therewith. POOR-LAW. Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice of his intention on a fu'ure day to more for leave to bring in a Bill to extend to Ireland the present pot r-law of England. POOR. LAW IMPROVEMENT BILL. Captain PECHF.LL wished to know if the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had dropped his design of carrying on the Poor-low Improvement Bill? Sir JAMES GRAHAM }rid no such intention, but the busine's of the House had rendered it necessary, for the sake of public convenience, to postp , ,ne its consideration for the present. It was understood that after the Corn-law Bill had bee❑ read a third time the Factory Bill should he brought under discussion. He believed this was sta'etl in the House last night, and that it was in accordance with the general feeling of the Members then presort ; he hoped, khere for e, 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 Lad been ent-red into or, this hu.iness. After a few words from Mr. VER:iON SMITH the sub ject dropped. RAILWAYS DISSOLUTION BILL. Mr. LABOUCH ERE 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 los. in allowing the House the opportunity of expresling its opioi-n 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 introdu ce tw o Bill s to au thorise the East India Company to grant annuities of 5,000/. and 2,000 1 . per annum respectively to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, for their recent brilliant* services in the East Indies. He hoped no astable 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 wooly be given of discussing the merits of the Pills for granting Pensions to Lords Hardinge. and Gough, because it might happen that those Bills might pass at a late period of the night, without an opportunity being afforded of discussing them at all. He wished to have an opportunity of making some remarks re , pect inn. them, because he had an ob ject ion to grant pensions to pers ns whose de cendants were unable to maintain the dignity of the procession, and b , cause the time had come when they ought to require her Majesty not to grant peerages which must be kept up at the expense of the country. With all due deference to the House, he must say that he thought this plan of grant ng peerages for two or three lives, and then leaving those upon whom the honour had descended destitute, was a reprehensible practice, and ought at once to he 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 Yeats. He urged the same arguments several years ago, in the case 9f Lord Keane, but he was opposed to the House, and was there fore unsuccessful. He repeated that ho considered tee 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 an' avocation by which they could maintain themselves, hut it did not preclude them. from having families.—(Continued laughter.) He was willing to di.euss 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 future 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 lion. 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 uoderstood to ssy that it was rather hard for the Hon. Member to predict that the life of Lord Gough was not worth a months' purchase. It was not the fault of Government that Bills of this nature had not been brought on ti.l 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. DUNCW.IBE, 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 con=ideration of the House. He had been given to understand that the speech he made on a recent , ceasion 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 sta'ed that they, were groundless. Ho wished to know, then, whether his info, mation was correct or not. He under stood, also, that some of the letter-carriers were taken before Mr. Peacock to be examined touching those charges, but, upon asking for a pledge to be held harmless if they proved them, it was refused.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The inquiry was one which ought to be conducted in 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 stab -:otters, considered it judicious that the inquiry should be conducted by gentlemen who were not connected with the Post-office department, and therefore he appointed the solicitor of the Post-office to con duct the investigation,. At first the President of the Inland department, and the inspector of the letter-carriers were ap pointed conjointly with him, but in consequence of one of ;he ttiitnesses objecting to be examined in the presence of these two gentlemen, the solicitor afterwards conducted the exami nationtlone ; 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. mr. 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 DENHAM NORRIS asked the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland, if the Government proposed to bring its a Bill this session relative to the valuation of land in Ireland ? 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 st a t e o f p u bli c 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 whien at present took place in Ireland were 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 upr,n this subject had been exhausted. He was however fearful that the Bill would pass notwithstanding. The Noble Lord the Member 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 H.,n. Baronet that he had declared, in his opinion, the price of wheat would not exceed 355. per quarter. Sir ROBERT PEEL dissented from ibis declaration. o t f h the Mr. COLFI UHOUN did not wish to misinterpret the Right Hon. 13 tronet, but he certainly must remind hi m , that he had stated as one of his rea'ons for advocati ng the cht,nge in tt.e corn duties that the price of wheat, w he n ad m tted at the lower duties, would not be re d uce d b e l ow 35 5 . a quarter. He would refer also to the admission ma d e to the Hon. Member for Leeds, by whom this declaration had been doubted. The declaration was made in reference to the year 1835, when wheat was not mo re th an f rom 395. to 40s. a quarter. Sir R. PEEL—I was ask e d by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for London what I believed would be the price of wheat if foreign corn were admitted duty free, and I stated that, with an unrestricted trade in corn, I did not think, judging from the experience of 1835, that the price of wheat would fall be. low 355. a quarter.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. COLQUHOUN—This did then in effect tally with what he had stated—that the price of wileat under a syste m o f unrestricted import, would not fall below 355., and it swoothuaaldtt now appear that the Right Honourable Baron e t h oped that the price would not be less than 30s, a quarter. He was persuaded that if this statement of the prix ;es ensue from the repeal of the eorn-l aws Ina correct, a great shock would be given t o a ll the manufac turing, commercial, and agricultural interests country.—( Hear, hear.) It had been by such repre sentations about the prices of corn under th s law that the present state of the country, ihfardealbieseen created, but th ey be taught by o b e y ki in T h h e e p y es ou w g h b i t eh to whatle lead t t o o 0 k a g w e e n r e e ra f l ou p n a d o e t d o. place in 1835, what had been referred to by t h e Ri ght Hon. I B v a i r is on n e , t, th a e nt h t a h ir e m h a i n sto o r f y ti of Vrh 'eh h a d b een given by Mr. Mr. COBDEN was understood Anti- Cor n -l aw L eague. rstond to say, that the Mr. Vin son referred to was not the Chairman he irman of the League.nexAilorn. CrsOith that LQU ilUeras give o o pintn n a e o who had o e bo°dy,N—Tke an d who wa-tow o sin n th e e e su e b n - - ject. M r . Wil son said that the effect of the proceedings of 1835 was to give a fal-e direction to capital, and to increase manufacturing products in such a ratio as to glut the market, and to produce the disastrousis3s,ard the e ate of things that imme diately preceded and followed, were years of i s followed. The proceedings pyeeeaurlsattihoantainmdmfiee: titious trading, inevitably producing the general stagnation that took place in 1841. The Ri g ht lion. Baronet an d theßig ht Hon. Gentlema n th e P res i dent 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 wouln be no great fall in prices.. He further said he expected that there would be great ' steadiness in it. He (Mr. Colquhoun) was satis fied, however, that it 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 stplh as they expected, Just let them look at the assumption 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 breeches. would be regulated ; that there would be an average supply of corn, and an average demand for it. Let, them assume that their in ports of grain amounted to any quantity they pleased. The average amount was rather more than one million of quar ters. Let them assume that they would have only three or four millions of quarters, for at whatever quantity they put it it would not affect the argument. Assume that they brought in four millions of quarters; that he thought the 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 1833. The same thing was stated with respect to 1838, that they had an harvest similarly in 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 ffect of that would not be to depress prises 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 egrieulturlists would restrict the supply in consequence of low prises, 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, hear.) They would have evormou3 oscillations—high priers at one time, and low prices at another—the one ruinous to the farmer, and the other to the labourer; ruinous, too, i n 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 Hon. 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, acid liable to the srme vicissitudes of fortune. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the r for Bath, had re marked,with his usual a uteness, that it would be useless to repeal the c rry- laws for the benefit of the labouring part of the com munity, without they paid the same eaten-ion to the improve ment of their habits. Unless th y did se, 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 peiseni to the square mile, but in England there we, e 230. In France -fourteen 4 bushels to the acre wee the minimum of the produce ; in Eng lane 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 c•;atige surely could be made without the Right Hon. Baronet, the Fret 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 princip'es 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 conseque n ces. Since 1815, th e t i me o f t h e war, population had greatly in creased. There wer e 8000,000 of a n i ncrease , an d there was not less than 64.000.001 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 et/lonia! 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. pretesting duty in the W es t I n di es an d i n the N or th American c- lonies. Did the Hon. Member for Stockport expect to obtain that protection after the Bill passed? Already the msnufact urers were suffering from competition in the Brazils., and what w' uld be their, tate when the) lost the manufactures? The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had ridiculed his Noble Friend for stating that the exports to the colonies were 3.0 0,000 per annum, from which this country obtained no benefit. Why, he would remind that Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, alit the house of Brucanon, in New York, was esta blished for the express purpose of receiving British manufac tures, fn obtaining the drawback, and then passing them, across the borders. it hen th e C ana d as b ecame an integral part of the United States, as from the intercourse caused • by the effects of the measure, they were very likely to becomes th t Hon. and Learned Gentleman would find that his antici pations of the results were not at all likely to be realised. But 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 af 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 dee sirable, for the sake either of public men or the character and the interests of the country at large. that it should be renewed; —(Hear, hear.) He had in his own humale capacity followed the Right Hon. Gentleman with a deep admiration of his talents, and now, when that combination was about to be broken, lie viewed him, as he believed the country did, with sensations of the deepest regret.—( Hear, hear.) Ho must be permitted to say that the Right Hon. Baronet, with all his talents and with all the honesty of his motives, had two blemishes in his pnblic character and opinions which he hoped he would pardon him (Mr. Coquhoun) referring to, as very injurious to a public man. His defects were, having no faith in his own principles, and exhibitin g great f ear of his own opinions. He appeared like a mariner at sea svith a bad cargo that he had borne a long distance, but the safety of which he 10 t all confidence in on the first indication of a storm. At the Erst approach of an autumn storm he threw overboard at once the whole caigo of his life.—(l-11are 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 watered vigilantly, a s th e con duct or pelitical 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 t o sa y th a t he had polbical confidence in the Noble Lord oppo-ite ; he had a gret . admiration for character and talents, b u t h e mus t par d on him if he said that his ( Mr. Colquhnun's) Hon. Friends and himself, would not form a portion of any party he might lead.- ( Hear. He was very courageous and gallant, beceuse he had cheered that Noble Lord in stormy times, when his party was in danger , most vociferou ly, when the faintest hearts would •have despaired. —( Cheers.) And if he served under the Noble Lcrd , 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 Noble Lord, for it • would place them in a better position. It would be, perhapa, a matter of difficulty to bring them-elves to such a course, but he would rather encounter that difficultly and danger than to continue in a camp—they hat! heard something of camps lately— where, when they were about to meet the enemy, their guns, by the orders of their leaders, were spiked. He felt, for one, that the sooner they left such a camp the better.—(Hear, hear.) Better leave it than have their principles lost by acting with those whom they had been willing to follow, but with whom they could not now agree. The Hots. Member for Stockport had turned his guns against that side of the Houset; he turned the skeleton of the League against them. An HONOURABLE Memnee —The ghost. Mr. COLQUHOUN —Well then, the ghost : it had had more effect, and it was much stronger than the skeleton. The Hon. Member hai fought his battle with great ability, 3 . 2 d with so much judgment, a s t o ca ll f or th t h e compliment of the Noble Lord. (H ear , hea , r; The opportunity would soon be g i ven to t h em to m eet the principles of Hon. Members opposite. He was sure they, would be met with courage, an d h e h ope d w i th success . 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 Hon. Friends would thus have to fight another eallan t ' and he trusted in the end, success f u l war. He qu i te ad 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 he realised, and the promises which they bad made to the t rier" chant, the manufacturer, and th e l a b ourer, no t fulfillen,• Merchants would not have had th a t i ncrease o f tra d e which Hon. Members told them they might expect Manufacturer s 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. Wh en a ll th e h o p es , which Hon. Members had held out to the people, and by which this in the counsellors,hr)hour of measure had been carried, should have b t ee ,fi n pr t oii i v e edd m o bovt sionary, and the delusion blown away, h of England, with this peopleof crisis an d whoand their difficulty were protec tionist party would appeal to the their simple ubt question—oho le and faithlessany system of laws which im posedand constant friends.—(Cheers ) t a i various uosf occasions,fhe us h tt u oo ni t h b b l i e e s cens i t r ilu W en O ts, O h D is importation of bullion. The taxes on th h e aodp fo h o el d ixopn f r o e r tshs t ea n d h t e: people was both inexpedient and unjust. He would call t i r n e a d ry into a comparative statement fact that during' the last few years there had been a mos t ex traordinary importation of foreign corn at low duties co-ordi nate the amount of wheat and bullion introduced i . w G it e h n a tle m m o a s n t th ea en tra e o n r t d e no. It was evident that the importati in of cornnto the country It low duties "It", out corresponding advantages in at alow tariff was p r oductive lot a drain of bullion. He did not say that the 'lcorn"e laws would raise the amount of wage repeal of the 't sto the labourer, but l would most certainly have the effect greater an d more liberal supply of food. He di of creating a repeal of the corn-laws would have d not anticipate the paced, of hindering theprogressive the effect which was antics"eut of agriculture. On the increase and improvern ee d contrary, free trade would be attended with beneficial effects on the The averageof• agricultur e. entire system of k wages in the year 1833 was about 83. a wee • If wages had been they proportionate to the price of corn, , should h ave b een 143 a week. What influence then did !an price of corn exert on the amount of wages ? None whatev er, and therefore any °hot apprehension of a diminution in the am of wages was ill - grounded, and had no substantial basis. Th e Honourabl e G entleman then entered into an ela b ora te disquisiti on on the influence which the price of corn h,s on the rew ar d of, labour, and the p ro p or ti o n whic h the pri ce o f coin b ore to the amount of wag es . He would ass ume t h at t h e amount of wages which a l a boure r and his family received during the year 1835 was 1/. per vc7.,; or 521. per y ear . Th ey wou ld consume on the average 0 quarters of wheat d ur i ng th e year , w hi c h wou ld cos t 10/ m that there would remain a balance of 421. to be expended house rent, clothes, and other necessaries. In 1839, however of fire the amount of wages fell to 391. a-year, and the price quarters of wheat was 17/. 10.5., so that the labourer's lama; instead of having a b a l ance o f 421. t o spen d i n h ou se rent other necessaries, had a balanc e o f S 2/. 10s. to provide them selves with everything. Th e corn -l aws h a d the tendency to to bring about this state of thi n g s , an d ev e n tually would ue in reducing the labourer to starvation and a state of pauperism' He entreated the landlords in th a t H o use to consider whether that distress and suffering, whose existence they so muersm, la mented, was not occasioned by their previous legislation, and by those laws which had hitherto so largely tended to aug m ent their rent-rolls? He, as a landlord, was prepared to a 'n it on, ' every sacrifice in favour of a measure which, in his estrin was calculated to do so much good for the people ; and he, for one, therefore intended to support the third reading of this Eill.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. P. BENNET considered that if tire House passed this law, they would be committing an act of the g rossesttne justice to the agricultural interest.—(Hear, hear.) He had -canvassed a good many agriculturists upon this question/