The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 5, 1851.

---------- ..._
tice of it the day before, he could have immediately stated
to the house some information on the subject.
Sir B. HALL observed that it was a notice for Friday.
Lord J. ItUSSELL said he knew it was so, but that was
what he complained of. The evident presumption which
would be drawn from the notice of the hon. gentleman, and
which mild be drawn both by that house and the public,
was that certain bishops were assigned certain sums as their
net income, that they received further WWI and had not
paid over what was due e eccliastical commissioners.
Now he begged to stateto , without entering into particu-
lars as to the dilferent bishops, that the arrangement made
was this, that when the ecclesiastical contrnis,i in ,rs considered
the subject it was their opinion that it would not be ad-
visable to fix a sum for each bishop, as that, thy thought,
would make it ton much resemble the salary of en office,
and was not a fit mode of dealing with the income of the
bishops, Whether that was a right opinion or not he
would not now enter into. They therefore came to a de-
termination that certain sums should be paid over by cer-
tain bastions, and that certain sums should be ree,ired by
others. 'Eight thousand pounds were to be paid to the
Bishop of Durham, 6,0001. to the Bishop of Salisbury, and
so on; and the bishops were to take the risk of the,: sums
exceeding or falling short of the sum that was proposed to
them for their income. The consequence hal been that
some of the bishops had received more than was calculated
by the commissioners, and that others had received less.
Sir B. HALL said, what he had eated on a former occa-
sion, and -'hat he had given notice of, was that certain in-
' comes were assigned to the sees, and that the bishops had
received larger incomes than were assignol, and that
where the bishops were to pay over certain sums to the
ecclesiastical commissioners, those sums had nut been paid ;
and he wished to know whether legal proceedings had been
taken to force them to pay
Mr. 11ORSMAN rose, and was pmeeeding to address the
house, when he was met by loud cries of " Order."
Mr. B. OSBORNE thereupon moved that the house do
siren.
r. lIOIIRMAN seconded the motion. lie said he had,
on various occasions, endeavoured to get information both
from the government and the ecclesiastical commissioners,
and subsequent experience had shown not only how difficult
it was to get it--
Mr. W. PATTEN rose to order. Ile had protested the
other night against this mode of raising a debate by moving
the adjournment of the house; told time house then ex-
pressed itself very decidedly against such a proceeding.
The hon. gentleman would see that if that practice was to
be continued, there would be an end to order in their pro-
' ceedings.
I Mr. tIORSMAN—I conceive the hon. gentleman is out
of order. The noble lord has made a statemeut.
The SPEAKER—The hon. gintleman, to make himself
in order, must speak to the question.
Mr. HOUSMAN said it was a question of fairness. He
appealed to the right hon. gentleman (the Speaker) whether
the '- - --' '-- he made a statement with

..e noble lord main ordei.when ...atm a staimae—
reepect to episcopal incomes. (Question.) The hon. mem-
ber fur Newark might call " Question" as long as he liked,
but it would have no effect on him. The point he wished
to state was this, and this only, in reply to what was stated
by the noble lord, that they who moved for these returns
complained that the arrangements under the act of partia-
-1 ment as to episcopal incomes was not carried out ;
and when they asked why, they were entitled to
have an answer; and when they asked for returns,
they were entitled to have them. Lately he asked a
question respecting the estate of Ilortield, and he re-
ceived an answer from the chief commissioner which was
incorrect.
11 Mr. 11. DRUMMOND requested to be allowed to say
one sentence as a near re:tallest rod intimate friend of one of
the noble prelates, who he thought had been belied. Ile
did not complain that any notice had been given in that
house, but he did complain of an assertion being made when
there was nu power iu any person according to the rules of
the louse to deny it.
Mr. GOULUURN said lie felt very deeply the inconve-
nience of permitting a discussion of this kind, and if he had
followed his own feelings, he should not have answered the
observations that had been made, but the hon. gentleman
had charged him with giving a false answer.
Mr. 11ORSMAN—Incorrect.
Mr. GOULBURN said the answer he gave was cornet.
lie stated that he had not any knowledge of the terms on
which the lease of Ilortield was given. The hon. geneeinan
in an under tone, then said something about copyhold coat-
mission, and he, nut remembering at the time what had
been
the nature of the communications between the copy- I
hull commissioners, with whom he had no communication,
made an inquiry on the following day what was the effect
of it. Wishing not to do that which he should scorn to do,
he stated to the hon. gentleman the whole of the circum•
stances, and stated that thell. had been that communica-
I don. He thought, th,refore, the hon. gentleman had no
leight to tax him with having given an improper answer.
After a few words from Sir It. leotts and Sir B. Hatt,
The motion for the adjournment of the house was put
sad negatived.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S ACT.
In answer to Sir 11. WILLI/I:OMIT,
LABOUCHERE said he intended to propose the
second reading of this bill on Thursday morning.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that this bill be read a third
time.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he should have moved that it
be read a third time that day six months, but as it had
been suggested by the right hon. gentleman the member
for the Liiivenity of Oxford that it would be more corive-
nient to take the discussion on the third reading, after the
amendments had been dispelled of, be should yield to that
eutfrItTiNOLDS said he could not consent to the third
reading of this bill of pains and penalties. The noble lord
at the head of the government, who was the author of the
bill, even after the lapse of live months, could out tell
what shape it was to assume within the next
24 hours. Under these circumstances wiser men than he,
and men of more experience, had advised met there should
be a division un the third reading, inasmuch, us by the
forms of the house, if the noble lord was to move that the
amendments, as they were railed, of the hon. and learned
amber fur Abingdon be expunged, he could nut move
that till after the third reading. They therefore gave their
consent to the third media , but it was the kind of consent
that an oyster gave to be opened. (Laughter.)
The question that the bill be read a third time was then
put and agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the first amendment he had
to gropu c was in the second clause. lie had stated pre-
viously it was nut his intention to propose any amendment
in the preamble as it now stood, or in the first clause as it
sow stood. In the second clause there was an amendment
introduced without a division, and that amendment was
almost, if not quite, the same in terms with an amendment
proposed on a precious day, when they se, re going into
committee on the 6th of June, by a hon. baronet, with re-
'to par--' any ball from Rome, which was rejected
. . intro&

by t
The __- then crivided.
For land J. 'tundra proposition l2l
Against it.
--it
Majority against.
On returning to the gallery, strangers were again ordered
to withdraw, and a second division took place, on the
question, as was understood, " that the bill do pass," the
result of which was:
For the question
Against it
Majority for the bill
217
On the question of the title of the bill,
Mr. GRATTAN said that he regarded the bill as affect-
ing the Roman catholic marriages and the civil peace of the
people of Ireland. Ile, therefore, thought that its title was
au improper one, and begged to submit that it be entitled
" A Bill to invalidate Roman Catholic Marriages and to i
discourage the Roman Catholic Religion in Ireland." if
they were to withdraw their military and police force from I
Ireland this bill would not stand for a single moment.
The people of England had a right to the enjoyment of
civil and religious liberty. Such was the It.. and constitu-
tion of this country. That was the meaning of the revolu-
tion of 168.8. Why did they not follow the same principle
with respect to Ireland? If the government introduced this
hill fur the purpose of creating disunion amongst the Irish
people, he rejoiced to say that they signally failed in that
design, fur the Roman catholics and protestants did not
show that animosity towards each other which the acri-
monious speeches of members in that house were calculated
to produce. What right had they to peas such •
bill ? Let the Roman catholies be Turks if they
(I.aughter.) It did not shot anything of
the real spirit of religion to propose 'such a mea-
sure. ilis wish was to see the people of the two coun-
tries united in heart, but how was it possible for the Irish
people to become parties to such a union as long as they
were treated with such marked injustice, and as long as
such distinctions were made in the legislation for the two
I countries ? (near, hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded
I by moving that the bill be entitled,a bill to prevent the free
exercise of the Roman catholic religion in Ireland. (near.)
Mr. REYNOLDS seconded the motion.
Sir J. 6 HALLAM said it was his wish that no circumstance
might ever occur which would shake the union between Eng-
land and Ireland—(hear,)—and although he was of opinion
that the commencement of this affair was unfortunate, yet,
if possible, the termination of that evening appeared to him
mare unfortunate still. Ile took part in two divisions
with his noble friend, in endeavouring to resist certain al-
tcrations in the bill, which had lawn termed amendments,
giving more stringency to the measure than her Majesty's
government thought either safe 'or desirable. (near, hear.)
Certainly under the arrangement which had been made, he
did expect that a full and ample opportunity would be
given fur one more discussion on the principle of
the bill before it was sent up to the other
house of parliament. (near, hear.) lie must say that the
Speaker gave every member of that house the fullest op-
portunity of expressing his opinions—eheers)—but he
took blame to himself that under the particular circum-
stances ha did not propose the adjournment of the debate,
in order that a still further opportunity might be given—he
would not say to those who were surtirised at the undue
spend with which the Speaker put the question, hut those
who, being absent front the house, could not at the time
take part in the discussion. lie thought the circumstances
altogether unfortunate. Still, ho would suggest to his
hon. friends, with whom he fully agreed in resisting this
hill, Chat there would he more dignity and propriety in
not taking • divisive on the title of the bill.
(near, hear.) lie wished them to recollect that
the further progress of this bill, in its altered shape, was in
reality under the guidance and subject to the responsibility
of her Majesty's government. The responsibility was
lienvv, and he was sure the government would feel it to be
so. 'What this country owed to the defence of its civil
liberty on the part of the noble lord at the head of her Ma-
jesty's government, even after all that had passed with re-
spect to this bill, ought to inspire not Engtand only, but
I Ireland also with a hope that in this last resort religious
liberty would still be safe under the protection of the noble
lord iand certainly, under
under
ucoeirleilumstanees, if his hon.
1
his amend-

- .
64 the appeal of the Archbishop of Florence, both
of which appeared in the Express of Tuesday last.]
Now he would appeal to hun. moot-era whether year+ sgo,
before we hail der iveil ourselves of the aafeguanl which
existed by law --(cheers)—we should have been exposed to
these repeated aggressions and encroachments? (Cheers.)
But we had disarmed ourselves, and now were constantly
subject to repeated attacks of this ile-wription. (Rear,
hear.) It was clear that the Pope took advantage of our
;unfortunate divisions to put forward hi+ pretmsions ; and
he (the hon. and learned member) called upon the house
ere it was too late to adopt such a course a. would put an
end to the dangers by which they were surrounded.
(Cheers.) If they tailed at the last moment it could only
be from the circumstance that the guardians of our pro-
' testant constitution hail neglected their duty; they
I might depend upon it, that if they did not unite in raising
some barrier against these advances they would always be
subject to papal encroachment. (Lead cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his hon. and learned
friend hail shown the wide distinction which existed
lwtween the principle upon which the bill hail been
framed, and in which his own elatlK9 had b,ea
submitted to them. The last observations of the hon. and
learned gentleman plainly showed that in his opinion they
had gone toe far in granting the Relief Act of 1829. (Loud
cheers.) Ile (the Solicitor-General) rejoiced to hear that
cheer, for it made the matter now sufliciently
(Cheers.) The bill recited, tint in the preamble, and after
wards at the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for
Mielburst, by a declaratory clause, that the act which hail
excited so much indignation, was an infraction of the exist-
ing law, of the law as it CILI4CII after as well as before the
net of 1829. (Cheer') Then havin?, .t.t.a the indecent
violation which had taken place in the law by the rewript
'which had been brought into this country, the bill pro-
ceeded to provide that the very same restrictions which ex-
isted in the act of 1829, should be extended to Met which
were not in existence at the passing of that net,
which were not now, and which perhap+ never might
be, in existence. There were two points involved
in the matter. On the one hand, the dignity of the crown
which had been violated was as•orted by the strung &els-
ration of the bill, which had been carried by an enormous
majority; and at the same time the bill would secure intact
the act of 1829. (Rear, hear.) The hon. and learned
gentleman had in no way whatever added to the strength of
the existing law, viz., the act of Richard II.; and with
respect to the hon. gentleman's question respecting that
statute, lie had no hesitation in saying that he did not
think it would be desirable to take procceilino upon it.
The act of Elizabeth, however, was still in full force, ex-
cept as far as the penalties were concerned ; and by that
act the offence would be a mifelerneanour. (Rear, hear.)
The bill before them was intended merely to prevent the
evasion of the act of 1829, and to prevent a person escap-
ing by calling himself Archbishop of NVeatminiter,
instead of Archbishop of Canterbury. (Ileac, hear.)
But the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed another
Sue of 1(0)1., but that addition he looked upon as quite
futile, although very vexatious. (Cheers.) With respect
to the appeal to the Italians for the new cathedral in Lon-
don, he really could not sec how the clause could touch that.
Sir F. TRESIGER.—I did not say it would.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, then did not understand
Ma hon. and learned friend's object in motioning it.
(Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he considerial the clause
would be quite useless, but, that tieing at the same time
Hlllieleated to irritate, it was very objectionable, and he
should, therefore, oppose its retention in the bill. (('heers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK rose amidst howl cries of "divide."
Hu was sure that however impatient the house might
be, and however critical the house, they would not
wish to hurry the question to a division, even
though dinner should wait. (- Hear," and a laugh.) lie did
not regard the question as a mere religious one, but looking
at it as a legislator, he did not scruple to say that one more
mischievous never was submitted to the house. (Cheer+)
Ile regretted to hear the hon. and learned member for
Abingdon address himself to stile prejudices and endeavour
to drag back the public mind to th7.7l7.farorcmhise, :lick
it had so long been emancipated (Cheers.) Re had talked
about the insults offered to this country by the Pope and

gaud to procueing _
by 133 to 129. rhe objection to the elamei duad
woo atatell by his honourable and learned friend the
• if • -- mate it a sub-

the Archbishop of Florence. .Now allithe poor ,nbishop
had eic was to ark his peopl•. to prq for this country ; and
rose littilrl

friend would take his advice, he —.. not area _
scent to a division, but acquloace iu the bill's going up to
the birds: (Hcar..)

Attorney-General, who said they
ject of penalty to obtain a bull, and again im-
posed another penalty for assuming the title that
was, in effect, making two penalties for the same offence ;
and that ho (Lord John Russell) believed to be perfectly
true as regarded that part of the bill. But there was
another part of this amendment which related to the pub-
'Minion of any bull. Now, with regard to these words ho
imagined they would make subject to a penalty any per on
who should publish any reseript in a newspaper ; and that
would not he an offence which they ought by law to pre-,
scribe. With regard to the said offence of procuring'
a rt.-script it would be very unlikely that evidence would be
obtained that any person had procured a retscript. It was
therefore that he judged it better to leave out these words.'
The noble lord concluded by moving to leave out in the
; second clause, after the words " any person" in the 27th
line all the words down to the words "any person" in the I
' :Cud line.
Sir F. THESIGEII said the noble lord hail certainly
dealt with the amendments which he felt it to be his duty
to submit to the consideration of the house with his usual
skill and dexterity. A division having taken place on one
of his amendments which related to the preamble, and there
being a considerable majority in its favour, the noble lord
took a second division on au amendment in the first clause,
and was defeated by a large majority; and the noble lord
anticipating that if he continued the contest he mould meet
with a greater defeat drew off his forces, and promised that
he would renew the engagement hereafter. Now the noble
lord had not extricated himself from the state of embar-
rassment in which he hail placed himself, but appeared
to hint to have plunged himself deeper into it.
For what had the noble lord agreed to ? He had agreed
that it should be declared by the legislature that all briefs
and rescripts which had been heretofore issued for the pur-
pose of creating archbishops and bishops of pretended sees
should be deemed uplawlid and void. That was what the

the Pope had only endenvoired to I.- o money to ....no a '
cathedral. Woo this any more than was done every day by
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Fureign
Parts ? We had an alliance with the Emperor of Turkey,
and he appealed to the hon. gentleman exactly opposite (Sir
R. Inglis), whether he would not con.i.ler a mission to that
country a laudable object? If the missionaries endeavoured
to force their religion on the Turks by force of arms they
would, of course, he wrong; but they appealed to their
intellect. Thoy had no power over them except over their
minds, and he would ask what other woo the power of
Rome in England ? (Cheers) As far no regarded his own
mind the Pope had no power at all, but he had no reli-
gious prejudices. (Laughter.) 'these were little points which
however powerful, did little ben. fit either to their morality
or their religion. (Cheers.) The Solicitor-General said
that the clause did not alter the 1,11; but the hon. member
for Abingdon did not agree with Min, and the latter hon.
member was right as to the matter of fact. (Rear, hear.)
It would make the bill much nioro stringent and
mischievous. (Cheers.) lie had always thought that
the right honourable and learned gentleman (Sir F.
Thesigcr) was a follower of the late eminent and lamented
statesman, Sir It. Peel; and if ever there was a government
which marked its sense of the total impossibility of govern-
, ing this country on the old principle of exclusion of the
catholic religion, it was that of the Duke of Wellington' in
which Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, and Sir R. Peel led
the House of Commons. No three men were more strongly
pledged again.t catholic entamipatiou ; nevertheless, they
came down and told parliament that the time had come
when there must be a total change of policy with regard to
the catholic religion. lie (Mr. Roebuck) quarrelled not
with the opposition of the hon. baronet (sir It. Inglis)
to this amendment, for the lien. baronet bad always
adhered to the bigoted view of the subject. (Laughter)
But how the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir F.
Thesiger) could propose to return to it, he could not under.
,•

•
Mr. Serjeant RI lIY would complain of having been
most unfairly attacked by the hon. member for Meath (Mr.
Grattan.) He had always been hostile to this bill as re-
garded Ireland, always prepared to state his object
, Hans ; but, not having been in the house at the time of the
second reading, lie felt that he would not be justified in
stating his objection to the principle during a discussion on
the oliAails. He had however intended to state his views
ou the question that the bill do pass ; but, though lie rose
at the time, as hon. members around him would
hear witness, the Speaker said lie was too late.
ily the rapidity with which this question was
put he was prevented from stating his objections.
He should stand or fall by his own convictions and
disreininl vituperations.
Mr. GRATTAN could assure the hon. and learned
member that he had meant nothing derogatory to his cha-
racter.
Mr. REYNOLDS thought the hon. and learned member
fur Cork owed an apology to Irish mottle rs for the lan-
guage which he haul applied to their conduct. The request
of the right hon. baronet the member for Ripon was to him
(Mr. Reynolds) almost a command. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. LAWLESS said he must declare that the conduct of
the noble lord at that stage of the bill corresponded with
the spirit ill which the bill was proposed and pressed for-
ward. It was well understood that the bill should he dis-
cussed on the question that the bill do pass; and the con-
duct of the noble lord on this occasion was so unlike all his
previous conduct, that lie almost doubted whether he was
the same noble lord. If there bad not been a singly
Irish member present the noble lord should not have
allowed the question to have been put. Such conduct was
unhandsome awl unworthy of the noble lord's former self.
I The right hon. baronet the member for Ripon (Sir J. Gra-
, ham) had declared that in his opinion the noble lord's con-
duct was nnhandsonic.

noble lord had yielded. Now, what was it the noble lord J-- es , -- • • ......... —..--.....
Sir J. GRAHAM, said he must bo allowed to explain.
resisted? The noble lord attempted to resist a
which he (Sir F. Thesiger) proposed to introduce into the We had admitted catholies to be our fellow-citizens infect as What he said had been misunderstood by. the hon. gentle-
provision I stand. Parliament had taken the step with their eyes open.
bill, that all future briefs and rescripts of a similar descrir well so in name; we had admitted their religion to be
üblicly professed here. It wan acknowledged every time thought the Speaker gave every member the fullest oppor
tion should be prohibited under a penalty. He (Sir '. P man (Mr. Lawless). Ile said most pointedly that he
Thesiger) confessed that if he had the choice between the a Homan catholic member came to that table to take theoath. tunas, of entering into the discussion, and he certainly did
adoption of one of these clauses or the other, he shmild Now no man could be a catholic unless he acknowledged I not say that the noble lord's (Lord J. Itti-sell) conduct was
hare been rather in favour of the prospective than the re- the Pope of Itome to ho the head of that re-
1 unhandsome. (Hear, hear.) Seeing the hoe. and learned
trospective legislation. The noble lord, however, had a ligion. (Hear, hear.) But this bill said that member for Cork (kir. Scrjeant Murphy) in his place he
' choice upon the matter, and he chose to admit that which every bull such as was described in its preamble should he thought he was about to rise, and when he did not do so
was undoubtedly of great importance, but which could only null and void. The words of the first clause were remark- I felt sure that he could not be aware of the present stage
constitute a half measure, it only
fur the future. On providing for the past able: "All such briefs, reseripts, or letters apostolic ; and 'of the debate ; but instead of blaming the noble lord, he
without at all making any provisionthis'
what ground was it that the noble lord offered this or title, conferred, or intended to be conferred thereby, , debate, in order to afford au opportunity for further ilia-
are and shall be deemed unlawful and void " If this bill cession.
opposition ? They had the opinion of the noble
lord expressed ono former occasion that his (Sir F. The-
ment made very little, if any, ation in
became law, let not the goverument suppose they could , After a few words from Mr. Lswi.f..,s,
lager's) amend
control its application. It had been suggested that 1 Mr. KEOGHwould recommend his lion. friends around
alter
the scope of the bill. Now, he was rather curious for hen.
M
it was not necessary a person to be in hole i him to assent to the proposition of the right h.
to understand on what ground it was that the noble
orders to make a good marriage. But, though iu 1 baronet (Sir J. Graham), whose high position in that house,
lad now opposed the introduction of these provisions. both England and Ireland the marriages of dissenting combined with the eminent services which he had at all
The Atternev-General had expressed his opinion that there ministers were good, it was necessary that they should be " times rendered to the cause of religious liberty entitled him
WM a prohibition contained in this clause which would
curb ministers; and if a man professedto be a catholic to their most implicit confidence. However he might re-
and was not so, the marriage he solemnised was no. Bret what hail taken place, he must say that the responsibi-
Slate a misdemeanour with reference to these briefs and Priest,
waseripts ; but if that were so it had clearly reference ti the
marriage at all. On these grounds he appealed to the noble 1 pity of the bill rested solely upon the government, who
g e briefs and reseripto. His right hon. and learned friend lord (liiiesell), not only against the amen Ins- ats of Sir F. i had first retreated from their own bill, and then adopted
im
bad, therefore, couceded all that was required upon the pre-
Thesiger, but against the bill altogether. It propo-sea things alterations to which they had previously declared that they
sent occasion, namely, the necessity there was for making
which must of necessity be the groundwork of dissension, ! were opposed. This bill would find its way up to the House
litigation, and misery. It it were put into eseetition, it of Lords in connexion with this remarkable fact, that it
provision for any future documents of the same character
would be the brand of discord in Ireland—(hear, hear)—if was the first bill restraining the religious liberties of a ,
which might lie introduced into this country. The statutes
of Richard end Elisabeth were directed again,[ the procur. not, it would be the shame of that house and the parliament great portion of the people that had ever reached that I
(Hear, hear.) He would not criticise the', house, after the I'rime Minister had experienced four
lags publishing, or putting in force bulls or rescripte, and that passel it.
wordiest, of the preamble, but it was in reality not English. I ignominious defeats upon its different stages. The weight ;
that would not apply to the assumption of ecclesiastical
(Laughter.) k'rom beginning to end it Res Ihe would be unable to sustain.
thrown upon the noble lord, was such as
titles. But the object of the house was to repel the assume Its • whereases ' were placed as if they had been there by ,oe responsibility
don of power in a document which had oome from Route • accident.
?,jr. AGLIONBY could not refrain from saying that he
pretention to supremacy in the realm of England, mid' a hardly intelligible ; but if it had an intelligible meaning,
I claim to undivided sway, which was inconsistent with it was such at he had described. thought the attack made on the noble lord at the head of
the Queen's prerogative. 1.19 W then were they to Mr. NAPIER rose amidst loud and prolonged cries of the government wanmost unjustifiable, Al regarded the

meet this assumption ? Certainly not by mere legisla- " Divide," to which the hon. and learned gentleman yielded Speaker, he must say that he put the question slowly and
lion against ecclesiastical titles; hut insomuch at an 1 the house immediately' divided. i deliberately, as if he expected some one to rise, looking
briefs and reseripts had, according to the statement For Lord J. Russell's amendment 129 towards that part of the house which was occupied by Irish
!members: lie put the question twice, and appeared surprised
of tumor catholic authorities themselves, no man- Against it 2OB-79
ner of force or validity until they were received and Mr. FILESIIFIEI.D then rose, amidst loud cries of " Oh, that no one rose. The hon. and learned member for Ath-
published, they ought rather to direct their attention to oh," to move the following amendment, of which he had lone said the whole reeponsibility of this bill rested upon
that. Now, a bull or reseript might be pablieheil in three given notice. , the government. He (Mr. Aglionby) totally denied that,
ways ; first, by Milling it to the church doors ; secondly, by To kir,. out all tha wont. atter Vie wards "united church," p. 2. ' and would apal to the public for confirmation.
reading it in all the eh
in the diocese ; and, thirdly,i Mr. MOOILE said, whatever might be urged to the con-
by delivering it to the priest., to be communicated by them to line 4i, t i thn end of the &the., end to ittesrt the mllowing verde:—
I deemed to
Mthe oat-sees udintgairbi'mae!, 1 teary, the responsibility of this bill rested with the l'rime
..7..very such permit) Aril be
each individual in their flocks. The noble lord saiiithe law was tl,4're'desl7,4,,iy„,l,e.,:t e;,..".r0iX,,,,,a" ,„7,':•,:n. ha at,' :1.1 ;;71.17:t.tat to d,,out- Minister, who had taken charge of a bill which centained
in such an obsolete state, that it was perfectly impossible to out of thisi
realm wito n • time to be Round in sun juhratent, not . a provision diametrically opposed to his own fre-
, take any proceedings upon it. The noble lord, by thus excecohnit their calmalar m wits trim aucli conviction, and a rertig. quently expressed opinions. This bill rendered penal
casting a reflection upon the law, had mode it, if the term CAW 4,1 Puel jo Nolen ,' water the *eel of the ..art PrOa.,aaa Mt what the noble lord had declared to be essential
might he used, more of a dead letter than it was :r; free. If 'to the continuance of the catholic religion in Ireland.
au judgment, or th• 'sign Jture of the proper ter 1t be set court,
t
then the noble lord considered the motive of Richard was l'ha"' bet "I'll,thh ",' 1',"."1.",, ei atithae, Parret, ,a,ujn'arin.a.n ,,,au. "h,,%.°llacrfenn. °
to
I. IThe Irish Roman catholic members had not neglected their
I really inoperative, it was clear that they wanted stone new LT.' 4,:0ia,:.1.1;',.;,.„',,,, , ant ir..;e-,;.,,, ~.-;,-..; .o-:,al-ot shall os. i duty. They were delighted to see the bill as it was. (Hear,
law to supply its place ; and unleas toil legislation Was fain 1 'whin the e-
hm a'ter ouch time in one
inolfunent liesand It - hear.) They wished to ace it puss in as nit impracticable
directed to that end, it would be wholly inefficient and eh.; b • :await tor be
alaj ety'e rata de metary of State, and
he is !and diagrareful a shape as poseible.
futile. (Cheers.) But if the Mw were really operative, then heresy tentured, b, warrant und. r his baud ant aeal, to give such 1 Colonel SIBTIIOII.I' looked upon the whole proceeding
the nohle lord could hardly have any ohjeetion to the has l'ee"" i" ct".ll'' of ''''''
induction of his (Sir F. Thesiger's) clause, for it mitigated ot lice Map, •ty's
,eneseerLs re, oe totf, !ern thtopwis, i of the government in regard to this measure as proof of
political cowardice on the part of the noble lord, on whose
won to wholetc.h.:ll.ltOlti..k. tnt;ll,treilst orl„.11, warrant,
mtu ”inai.da
be
eat.
the penalties of the old statute (and no one would atta nor abln, his cn'a..,,,,,. and a, sj„, , ant if hem dl scorn to this kjnp head let the responsibility rest. The course the noble bird
Ito eufore a one/metier, the penalties of which were scarce y taw after be oho I base as
Ca attiodood to depart, nd 'MAI h ivy had taken proved to him that he and his coilewsues ear,•d
I now known), and it wave it a modern form. (Cheers.) &ported or ben removill as aforesaid, he shall be II dole to ba rent • nothing for the religion of the country, nor fur the interests
I The noble lord said that it inflicted double penalties. Now e,yona res., :is i. pr•tvithat by an act pace lin the tenth year of the
_, of the crown.
cumulative penalties were those which imposed two ' telit. of bk.,`/1"e 14041 K,iPtt tieeelee the Fourth, e' 7' in the Caw m Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it was scarcely recce
cumulative son IUeIMILTO M reap 011 utters.
Ipenalties fur the same offence ; hut if there werenary to notice what hail fallen from the hon. and gallant
two offences (end nobody would deny that such ' The hos. gentleman, who was much interrupted by the
member, but there were circumstances with regard to
was the case in this matter), there could surely be no oh3ec- such' provisi„. ..„
imeatienee of the house, was understood to say that some
what had occurred during the last few days, and el*.
this was necessrry to make the measure
tiun to a distinct penalty for each. (Cheers) But the
noble lord said the provision in the claim) relating to theclans' with regard to what had occurred in the debate of
etffective. lie referred to the circumstances under which
introduced, and was under- that night, which without some explanation might he liable
publication of a hull, brief, or rescript, would apply to pub' i
stood
1 the mean of 1429 had been
to misconstruction. Of this they had had proof during the
lication in a newspinwr, ; and that would be too paltry n Tato argue that this provision was in strict keeping with
ge,ite,. , discussion of the last half hour. The house would re-
' offence for any AttoraerGeneral to prosecute. Now thea
noble lord was really mistaken. lie (Sir F. Theoiger) continued to address the hone for upwards of a t tbliteprinci principles of the Emancipation Act. The lion.
member that when it was seg./esti:el by the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for the Uuiversity of Osford, that as
already explained what the publication of a hull or reschAilit of the bill would he changed by the adoption of
really wan; besidea which, the publication in a newspaper 11 t darter of an hour, hut not a single observation of his'
the amendments to be proposed, it woald be &lir:dile to
;leached the gallery in coneequence of the vehement i the shape
was obviously only the publication of a espy of the brief or anti continuous bursts of interruption. When he had Lan-
CIIII:Cd, ...
take the discussion on the general merits of the bill on the
motion that it do pass in the shape in which it then might
rewcipt, whereas the clause was directed against the publi- be, rather than on the question of the third reading, lie
cation of the document itself. (" (Isar, hear," and laughs Lord J. RUSSELL said, I wish to consume as little rif
ter.) It was therefore quite absurd to say that the clause the time of the house as possible, and will, therefore, say
onl a few words as regards this amendment. (Lord J. Russell) assented to that course, cansidering that
as there was to be another discussion on the principle of the
would reach the editors and proprietors of newspapers.
(Hear, hear.) Hie desire was solely to meet what Zit 110 N. MEMBER —lt has not been seconded.
measure, it would he most convenient that it should he taken
on the bill in the shape in which it should ultimately appear
the noble lord said were his intentions—(loud cheers)
--and he thought he had eurceeded in his object. ('• clear, hear," and laughter.)
It won understood that the amendment then fell to the
after the decision of the house upon the amendments. But
(Cheers.) There was nothing in his proposition to inter- the opponents of the meanure to decide whether they would
although that was the most convenient course, it was for
tore with religious liberty, or with any une,,sity of the Lord J. RUSSELL said with regard to the amendment ground, having no seconder.
take a discussion on the third reading or on the question
Roman catholic church. (Cheers) It Walt not a contest that the bill do pase, all he had to do being to move, accord-
of the hon, and learned gentleman, the member for Abing-
between churches at all, but a contest between two supre- don (Sir F. Thesigcr), he was nut disposed to trespass at
to the notice he had given, the omission of a portion of
inacies—(cheers)--a contest whether the (lessen was to ht• length lin the time of the house. The question had been
the undoubted sovereign of lien own realms. (Corers.) the amendments which had been introduced at the instance
They were suffering from the wealsnew of their legisiationi sufficiently armed tdready; and, it being his wish that tle. ing
of the honourable and learned. member for Abingdon.
(Chem.) This country attracted the s•iecial attention of matter shMilif be left in the halide of the law officers of the
Those hon. gentlemen (the opponent of the bill,) chose to
c;:aenai altogether, he should therefore more that the words
his Matinees, and there had just appear:el an appe.al to the
piety and charity of the Italians, which hail been issued at common * f informer," "as carried in the amendment of the
hoiamllno Cntleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) absent themselves on the discussion end division on those
Rome, and printed at the press of the Ravel Apostolic ' amendments; and, after the decision upon them, the
Speaker having most clearly stated to the home" that the
Chamber. (The hon. and learned gentleman then stroll be learnednitted it the clause.
question then was " that the bill do now pass," by (Lord J.
read the greater
_portion of the document, Sir F. TiII:SMELL said that as the questinn hail been so
as well fully discussed already. he would not delay the house with
Russell) was certainly surprised that no one rose to speak
- -.. • - any repetition of argument. (" Divide.") upon that question. For a moment he had felt disposed to
-- house " ii di - - rise himself • '-end to him that, if he spoke first,

..ose himself ; but it °mune,.
hon. gentlemen who might follow him would ming charges
against him of one kind or another, which he would, by
the rules of the house, ho prevented front replying vi.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore it wits that he abstained from
doing so, and left it to the house, by affirming or negativing
the question, to decide whether the bill shettlil pass or not.
(Hear, hear.) But then the hon. member for Clonmel (Mr.
Lawless) laid it to his charge that the debate had not taken
place. Without charging any blame on the hon. member
and his friends who so absented themselves from the house,
and afterwards refrained from rising on the question that
the bill do pass, he could not see how blame could rest upon
him. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for
Athlone (Mr. Keogh) was also angry :that there had been
no discussion, and had spoken of Ministers suffering defeat
upon an amendment which they had proposed aitll the
view of making the bill as he himself bad proposed
to make it by(the hono a proposition which, when brought for-
ward by him urable member) they had opposed.
That proposition which went to prevent any person
from instituting criminal proceedings under the act
except the Attorney-General. It was the opinion
of the government, after consultation with the
law officers of the crown, that the bill as it stood was in that
shape that no one but the Attorney-General could originate
proceedings under it, and therefore he (Lord J. Russell)
resisted the hon. and learned gentleman's clause as unne-
cessary, and not considering it fair to support it without
giving notice to the house that he intended to do so. But
when the hon. and learned member for Abingdon proposed
an amendment altering the hill altogether from that shape
in which the hon. and learned member for Athlone wished
it to be, by giving permission to any common iulinmer to
institute proceedings, then the bon. and learned gentleman
absented himself front the house, and by his absence gave
his concurrence to an amendment which went to overthrow
his own views. Now what consistency there was in such a
course he could not understand. (ilean) lie could understand
an hon. member saying., as the hon. member lire Mayo (Mr.
Moore) had said, " I wish the bill to be as had as it can be,
• and [hemline we will take no part in improving it or in in-
serting any changes which may tend to make it more
stringent, but that was not the view of the hon. and
learned member for Athlone, who had proposed several
amendments, one of which he (Lord John Russell) had
assented to, and because another had been rejected the
hon. and learned gentleman by his absence ussisteil in the
introduction of a principle the opposite to that fir which he
contended. Such a course of conduct, he confessed, was
to hint unintelligible. (Hear.) Still more was it unintel-
ligible to him that hon. members who by their absence
had enabled the hon. and learned member for Abingdon to
introduce his amendments, should lay on those who had
charge of the bill the whole of the respimsibility. He was
not disposed to shrink from any responsibility he thought
justly attached to him. The respensibility he did incur in
regard to this bill, and that was sufficiently serious, was
that of considering whether after those amendments had
been introduced against his consent, and in opposition to
, the arguments ho hail advanced, he could continue to take
• charge of the bill, and ask the house to assent
to it in its present shape. That was the amount
of responsibility which now rested upon him, not
that of introducing or carrying those amendments,
but of considering whether he on the part of the go-
venment could adopt the hill as it now stood. With re-
pt,' to that question (said the noble lord), those who are
in the same situation that I am, of thinking that the in-
troduction of the papal rescript into this country last
autumn was a serious aggression ou the part of a tertian
power against the rights of the crown of this country,
and against the independence of this nation— (hear,
hear)—those who ate of that opinion will agree with
me, that it would base been a serious misfortune, if after
we had been front the commencement of the session de-
bating a bill which was intended to become a legislative
act, and as such was calculated to repel that
aggression, and assert the supremacy of the crown and
the rights of the nation wo deserted the bill altogether,
and left the aggression unchecked, and those who had
committed it to triumph over a people whose grievous in-
dignation hail been roused by it. (Ilear, hear.) Weighing
then the one alternative against the other, and having

maturely considered the edict of the amendments of thu
hon. and learned gentlemen the member for Abingdon;

•
having stated his Objections to them when they were pro-
posed, he felt there was no part of those amendments, al-
tered as they had been from those originally submitted
by the hon. and learned member for Midhurat (Mr. Wal-
pole) and made more temperate in their operation,
there was nothing in those amendments which I thought
I would justify me in incurring the serious responsibility of
throwing out the bill. (Loud cheers.) That is the rcspon-
sibility I have incurred, and b which I um ready to abide.
Ido not believe there is snythiug in the bill which mili-
tates against religious liberty. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman the member for Ripon has said,
in terms I do nut deserve, that he believed the conduct of
the bill will be safe in my hands after it shall have passed
into an act, and that he has no fear that religious liberty
will he violated. (hear, hear.) I thought I had
a more extensive question than that to consider with regard
to the passing of this bill. Ido not think it would be
sufficient that I should say that the members of the present
government, whether in this country or in Ireland, would
take rare that the bill was not put into operation in melt a
I manner as to violate religious freedom. (Cheers.) I think
we should not be justified iu moving the passing of this
bill—we should not be justitissl in being parties to
it-if wo considered that any government that might
I succeed us would be able to use the powers
which it confers to violate the religious liberty
of any portion of her Majesty's subjects. (Cheers.) I thiui
our responsibility goes to the extent I have now stated. I
think we should fall short of our duty if we said we are
willing to take charge of this bill, and as far us we are con-
cerned, to put its provisions in force in such a manner that
no oppression shall be exercised, but that those who may
come after us may use it for such a purpose. I do
not believe that the bill as it now stands clubs)
used for such a purpose. I do not mean to say
that an Attorney-Gem,ral might not by a flagrant
-•,on of ditty e,- -to a common informer to pro-

violation of ditty give power
e.N.NI to put the penalties of the bill in force—that is pos-
sible: but in such a case it would be like many other acts
of parliament, by which similar powers are conferred, in
the confidence that the discretion of the government would
be duly exercised. Parliament being always to be appealed
to to check any violation of the liberty of the subject. After
all, is there anything hostile to religions liberty in preventing
bishops, not from officiating, but in preventing their °tibia-
ling under certain territorial titles, and using instruments in
this country, granted by foreign powers, conferring on theta
those territorial titles? (Rear, hear.) It appears to me
there is no infringement of religious liberty in that pre-
vention; and it likewise appears to me perfectly prat-tin-
ble, and what the see of Rome, considering the present
state of the world, and the hill of 1829, and the other
enactments that have passed in this country, might he ex-
pected to adopt, and which would relieve us from all ap-
prehension on the subji et. The fact iv, though it would Ise
heard as a novelty at Rome, that this country, not, as I
think, by a deplorable schism, but by a division from the
church of Rome, became another body of the great Christian
community, separated from Rome, and maintaining its own
national church and its own system as a religious and
Christian nation. (Hear.) There are others, protestant,
dissenting from the established church, but likewise forming
part of the great Christian community. if the church of
Rome would but acknowledge this fact, that there were
other Christians in the world besides Roman citholics—if
they would say that their archbishops and bishops were
archbishops and bishops, not of Westminster, of Birming-
ham, of Armagh, or of Dublin, but bishops of the Roman
catholic community officiating in those districts, and if
they would confine their ministrations to those of the Ro-
man catholic faith, I do not believe there would be any
dispute in parliament or the country, not only as to