The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
1101;SE OF LORIIO.—MONDAT. MAT 12.
'Ms Loan CIIAXCILLOU WC* his seat at Iva o'clock.
ADMlNtsritArios OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IM-
PROVEMEN BILL, AND PREVENTION OF OF-
FENCES BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL postponed the einemittees on these
lei until Friday, in consequence of the absence of Lord
-Demos, who bad eseinemed- her inteenen-atratake
auirgesdems in cootedtWe. I • •
iNtrota.vrtox FOROEION FLOUR.
'the Earl of GIok,NOALL, in preventing a petition from
the grand jury of the county of Tipperary, praying for
protection fcr home-made flour against that of foreign ma-
nufacture, said that assoc.( the petitioners had been free
traders, but they were now nearly ruined by free trade,
sad they had, therceur, changed their opinion'. There
mere a at many manufacturers of flour in Ireland, and
their sots wen as large as many cotton factories in Eng-
land, and there was invested in tbs.= an enormous amount
of capital. The millers used to purchase nearly all the
earn grown in Ireland, and the fennel' could always make
mare of getting ready Jamey from them for their grain,
natal t • I free import of grain and flour WY permitted, and
sow they were nearly all rained. They weed to work their
malls sane mouths in the year, both night and day, bat they
Wire now at a stand stiU, and the labourers were in the
workhouses. The quantity of corn grown in Ireland was
also coesiderably Ins than at used to be; in Tipperary alone
there were 15,000 acres Ins than before the free trade in
corn, and all penes" who had any money were going off to
America-260,000mM= pet annum were now emigrating.
la the plus of Irish flour, the paupers were now fecLun
sew Indian meal, and poor, white, miserable-looking cent-
tures they were, for this kind of food, when new, was
slated pussonems. In the agricultural &enacts the paupers
had greatly increased ; in Think. there were now no lens
than 3,1100, and in Nenagh 4,40(1 ; and the very stores that
need to matron the flour were now occupied by
peupen. Ibis was an Enelieh question as well as
as Irish one, because this country was becoming de-
luged with Irish labourers, in consequence of their
ant being able to find employment at home—no less
than le,ooll had arrived within the last week or
two. The quantity of foreign flour imported into this
country was almost incredible. In 11419, there were
2,319,1649 ewta. ; in 1010, 3,)111,440 cwt.. and during the
first quarter of the present year, 1,11.7.e0:10 erns. had been
imported. If "this rettranrdinary increase continued during
the whole year, what would become of the fanner, the
miller, and the Libelant ? (Hear, hear.) Before the pass-
img of the legislative set which permitted this to take place,
they WV, (OW hi the late Sir Robert Peel and company
that there woad ant be any importation from France, for
that country, it was said, was a eorn-importing country
hereelf. Now, whet was the feet? Why, that in
1849 France tweeted to Great Britain and Ireland
1,11911.258 cwt. of flour, and, in 18-50, 1,925,175 cwt •
whilst during the tint quarter only of this year, the
prodigious eelencity of 771,923 cwt. of flour had
been imported into this country from France. and in the
same periosl6oll,ooo quarters of grain. In Inland alone
,1 310 narks of French flour was being imperted weekly.
Ile Uncertain that the Inc trade system was destructive of
the hest iuterno, ca thee hingel me and that in consequence
the capitalists did not enjoy the w•ventage, they ought fawn
the amounts inserted by them in traeline enterprise. Ile
therefore hoed, indeed he believed that from the next
electimi a diffennt state of thines would result, and that
the country would again resume her firmer condition of
prosperity, under the influence of protection.
Karl GRAN VILLE aid he "'weld nut be tempted to
follow the nalee lord oppesite through the van ens stages of
the question of free treat on which he had observed. Ilow•
ever, as regarded the distresss which existed amongst the
milling interest., he feared it wax too true. But in making
that admission he should say it was entirely owing to the
'int of email...teem to whi Ii their were now subjected, as
also to the improvements in machinery and the general care
taken in preparing the arthee for the market, which im-
provements the weal capitalists were not in a positem to
adopt or avail theme, Vlll or much to their own detriment.
Formerly the Irish Miler., he thought, had a preference
in the great English markets, owing to the care with
which they prepared the article ; but the spirit of
niterprise neeneetated further improvereente, in which the
Irish mitten fell lack, and the consequence' were now
telling against them. It WWI a notorious fact, and lie (the
noble earl) had been assured by a French gentleman that
la the lint twenty years in nee ),ranch of industry so much
as in milling del there occur eueli improvement in Paris.
The noble lord opposite intimate) that the question would
he again ',might forward, and an opportunity of discussing
it thus affemleil. Ile (Earl Granville) felt certain that the,
noble' bards gm the, ministerial ride of the house would not
shrink from that diwuoion whenever it was deemed proper
to •ulainit it for their inveetigation. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MA I.M ESISU ICY said the importatson of corn
into this country was immense. The session was now more
than half over, and, notwithstanding the aienie.inn of din-
trio, tenement the eigrieultureas, not the leept attempt had
been made by the noble lord. oppo.ite to alleviate it.
Th Earl ..f 11A Itl/W ICE le Marvell that every interest
treated of in their lonleshipee' house, OR also in the other
house of parleament, wan admitted to he in a most de-
peened condition. The distr.... of the agriculturists was
aeknowledged in the speech from the throne. Heretofore
the millers, in the caress of their free trade enthusiasm,
dating...dant themeelves in the agitatiem to tarry out that
measure. Whet were they doing at present? (Hear.)
They were crying nut for proteetien. It was said that the
parten crying out for protection were the small internee.
Re kuew a miller of Wakefield, whose mill supplied bread
sniffs be 2'00,0011, who wrote to Mr. Cobden, calling talon
that &pattern in to retract his steps, as the millers were
re I (Rear, bear.)
'1 Marquee of CLANICReAItDE admitted that much
poverty did prevail in Ireland, particularly in the western
111510114 but he, wished to know what would he the, condi-
tion o 1 the pregame in theca unions if. instead Of having food
at • rea.onable price, they were obliged to purchase it at
the price it brought in the, elay• of protection.
After a few sword" from the Earl of OleatitaU, the Duke of
Argyll, the Earl of Lucas, and the Earl of Clanricerde,
The petition WWI o•4l.Wed to lie on the table.
et• 11 11 Urn BUILD! Nii ACTS AM EN DM EN'f BILL.
On the minion that the house should go into committee
on thin hill,
lord PORTMAN urged that the bill would make a large
reduction in the number of free wan, and effect other
Aimee. dieadvantageone to the poorer Owe,
The Bishop of LONDON captained that the bill was to
give every facility to persons desirous of erecting new
churches, and defended the reduction in the number of free
seats.
Lord STANLEY objected to the el role Melo character
ot the hill, which propos' to make alteration" applying
nut only to new churches, but also to those already in ex-
istence. Ile thought one of the clauses was calculated to
tetra, disease .... iu the church, by allowing one party to
erect a new rhumb in the inuneeliaate neighbourhood of,
and merely in uppeition to, another.
After obaervetems from the Bishop of 07troitu and the
Karl of
The hill was referred to a select committee.
Their lannhips then adjourned vat tweuty-five minutes to
eight o'clock.

right to bring forward
firm, which stood on
►car, nod laughter.)
ECCLESIAg

On the motion that t.
Mr. MUOitE said that 1
to the course of proceeding
in reference to this bill, he s
bowing under no common
been introduced to the be•-

mono wort, with the isestioa
bred it was owing to doo

boost mianqueseniativas —which had been Civet. to the
Speaker as to the scope and purview Otto hill, that he
considered no preliminary report to be seriegeseey. Now if
the first opinion of the Speaker, given ander an erroneous
impression of the scope and purview of the bill wee wrong,
he had too touch confidence in the justice and impartiality
of the deeisione of the chair, on question+ invoking the
riles of the house, to feel any apprehension that
the opinion of the Speaker would in any degree be influ-
enced by any decision which he might have given when
he was imperfectly informed. Assuming the data to be
correct, and the facts well founded nn which the decision of
the Speaker rested, it was, perhaps, the right one • but it
was because he was prepared to show that these dais were
incorrect that he now invited attention to the question, in
the expectation of obtaining a different decision. He begged
the attention of the house to the order of the house on the
seilleet, which provided that no bill rel•ting to religion, or
esey alterations of the law concerning religion, be brought,-
aello the house till it should have been first considered in
eismittee of the whole house, and agreed to by the house.
his objection was against the bill as it stood—in its wire-
%reached form, and as at first introduced ; and it was in
rellereace to the bill in this form that he was prepared to
prove that the preliminary form was necessary. It would
net ho necessary for him to argue before lawyers that ordi-
nation and the udministration of the sacraments were not
temporalities or the incidents of religion, bat vital and
essential parts of religion itself. With regard to the matter
of fact, the letter of Archbishop Murray, whose opi-
nion would be received with that respect and implicit
credence which were due to his high character aad exalted
position, was talon: them, and would be decisive on this
point. Now, he says that the Homan catholic church was
essentially episcopal, that it could not be carried on without
bishops, and that they could not have bishops without the
authority of the Pope. Archbishop Murray also die-
tinetly stated that if this hill passed he would not
be able to perform many of his episcopal function,. It
might be said that Dr. Murray, though perhaps an excellent
theologian, was CIO lawyer, and that his opinion with regard
to the effect of the bill could not be conclusive. Ile (Mt.
Moore) had laid a case before an eminent counsel, in order
to ascertain whether the bill would really interfere with the
ordination of the bishops. The following was the opinion
of Mr. Wales, of the Inner Timplia with respect to the pro-
viso that Homan catholic bishops should not discharge their
function.; under the style or title of bishop of some place in
the United Kingdom. Mr. Willes stated that it
Indwatre a...CM interferenx with the exercise of reelwalatical
foricteet. of she elegise Irish bishop., bee use I am wstructed that It
Is aseratial tar the d in escrow of their fultetl W. by taw ere i ate.
W. they -Lewitt use the now of the aline. within which they are
sppolntil to exert:ow veir eats-meal Trietirdw. It is no answer to
this Dan the lettere which they now in the •110.1 .4 their alien.e are
only widener of the order which they confer, because I apprehend
that it woad be earnest toe dump me and low id the church th.d a
privet Wool.' elllciate without hosing oSuinied such letters; and even
supposes t..at thes would not be reonnised av electing the .all,n,i.
thin, It len,',l .1 11,1,14.11 y to eo 44 it 4 step •., di, oroinution med.
WSJ* having taken place with a circumstance cawntial by the
law at tb..coorch, nut 10 Tiota4oll of the 1,14, of the taxi, W-ntiol at
feast be open to most ..taws doubt, and, in me o, icon, would not be
meg :Wed a. of any ...ensue's. Is es true that a hi4hoo in of the
umvenal church, and that the name of the demise emir esorceied
the I et: limit- within which, for the lout lode, of the chinch, he
lii to comlr lariat:ctn.', but it appears the., by the law of the
twos WWII . church. We see o' the nat., iit the illori-se in come.
Cal t.) the due eseretve of eptwo,ral authinty. The bill. if peised
Imo • law, will, I owe, It were* to me, this. fore, put the duty of
hie lovaips, as b.dnips, Into inevitable Cdtitlict wita their duty as
.titinste. Nor do I think that, It the bill 113,41.1. 2nythioa, the totes
pay owe trot& oi drwrihing the biehow so bistei.• in Dublin, or
site Ike, co. soave the dlficaltr. As I hese already Rua, toe mane
el the &.o. only ezpremes the I cal comp,., within whi h the
bon" let. •zer.iiie his towline.; if so, it con toga no real di,
fertnice to describe toe plus by .• is" or ....t."
He went on to say that
Th. ell, if ponied into • law, lei 1 'Jr? Wolotie,T interfere with the
legal 'emir of isplacinal tendons by the non 111 eitholic arch-
h sic p. end hshops di Ireland, and with ths 11.01 Oaf. of prints
battened u 3 be onlaineal by them. I canna help ad one ilia' I have
such resont to he persuadel of the latnentahal c M.N....ice% Which
would hillew. th .t it iii art h the iiinsuid. raw:tones 1 have hoes Cont-
rolled to sr. ive at this eceselasion.
This opinion was confirmed by that of Sir Fitzroy Kelly,
Mr. Baddeley, and other eminent counsel. Who would deny
that a bill which rendered it impossible fur a bishop to
ordain a preset except by violating either the law of the
land or the law of his own church, was an interference with
the essential parts of religion ? It had been objected that
this was only a constructive effect of the bill, that it was
not implied in its title, and nut intended by its framers. If
it were nut Wendell it Malt have originated in a careless-
ness or levity fur which Itumau catholic% were not res-
ponsible. If a bill prevented a tailor from using his
needle, or a cobbler from using his awl, could it be said it
was not directed against the prosecution of his trade ? The
two eases were parallel. if they prevented a bishop from
ordsuniug by the title of the bill they prevented the online-
lien itself. Lit the lonise observe the mode in which the
standing order was first introduced into the house. In
April, 1773, a bill was introduced into the House of Com-
mons for the relief of protestant di...enters. Thie bill hav-
ing been introduced without a committee, when it went up
to the Howse of Lords the bis'.ops opposed it on the ground
that the bill did nut indicate the real intention; that
the title was not, in fact, what it purported to be, and,
in con...qui:nee ~1 the error whieli had been committed in the
Coinineus, a standing order was introduced enacting that
in future, in order to guard against the clandestine intro-
duction of a bill bearing 4 title which Jid nut correspond
with it. provisions, ti committee ehuuld be interposed. Ilsul
the present bill been introduced in committee all the differ-
ences which hid arisen would have been settled, all the
blunders avoithal. In conclusion, he vaned upon the house
in compliance with the standing orders, to discharge the
order or the day for going into committee.
Sir li. IlltgY observed that the honourable gentle-
man said the standing order was enacted in 1773, in conse-
quence of a bill which waled that house having been ob-
jected to by the bishops in the nous, of Lord+. The hon.
gentleman had correctly stated that that bill was intro-
deced in the House of Commons, and sent up to the House
of Lents iu 1773. llu went ou to state, however that it
was in conveguence of the objections taken to that bill that
the standing order was paean; whereas it so happened that
the standing order bore date the 7th of April, 1772, a year
before the proceedings on this bill occurred. lie held the order
in his hand and would road in It wawa standing order of the
3311 i of April, 1772, and declared .` That no bill relating to
religion or the alteration of the laws concerning religion,
shell be brought into the house until the propesitien has
first been aubmitted to a committee of the whole house."
A similar order was passed relating to trade. Whether these
orders were introduced in 1772 or 1773 was in fact imma-
terial, because what took place was nit the enactment of
new standing orders, but the separation of parts of an old
one passed in 1773--(hear, hear; —.64 the hon. gentleman
would tied by referring to Mr. May's '• Book of Practice.•'
In the farmer standing order, the two subject* of trade and
religion were conjoined, and in 1772 a separation was
effected. lint the real question was, whether this were a
bill which tell within the terms of the standing order as •
bill relating to religion; and on that point there were seve-
ral precedents which might assist the house in coming to a
eonclusion. The hoe. gentleman had endeavoured to
prove that the hill ought to have been so introduced. Ile
(Sir O. Grey) would here sty that the hon. gentleman was
right in assuming that this point had not come on the govern-
Ulent by surprise, It was considered whether or nut it
was right that the bill should be introduced in a committee
of the whole house, and the opinion of the Speaker wee
+ought and obtained on that point. lie also conceded fully
to the hen. gentleman that if he could show that this bill
slid come truly within the termi of the standing order nu
objection could In offered to the course which he stow pro-
posed to take. But how did the hon. gentleman atteuipt to
show that the bill really came within the intuiting order ?
Why, first of 411, he rel'erred to a letter addre-eel to the
right hen baron t the member for Ripon by Arelibishop
Murray, but it was to be observed, that a great deal of this
had refers:nee to the word "acts," which it had been detor-
mins il to omit before the bill went into committee —(hear) ;
and vet it was upon the too of that word that the hut.
otratlvntan had niuntled very much of the argument which
he had addressed to the house in trying to prove that the
biU related to religion. (Hear, hear.) Archbishop Nlur-
ray's letter was written, not after he had se,in the bill, but
before the bill was introduced, and had • -

HOUSE OP COMMONS.—NIonnAy, MAY 12.
The S►aaaaa took the chair 114 o'cluek.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
.italsatots to tho Hartlepool Prconett's
Lind. and Harbour Dues Bill were agreed to.
rhe North Shields Quays and Improvements Bill and
the Stroud and Oloutvister Road Bill wire read a third
LM.
the Brighton Nato-Maral Cemetery Bill, the King.
College Hospital (Nu. 2) Bill, and the l'hristehureh (South-
wark) Parish Bill wore read a second time.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
NEW WRIT.
11■ the motion of Major IitIII.P"RD a new writ was
rdered fur the I.ile of Wight. in the room of Mr. Simeon.
RAJAH BROOKE.
Mr R. COCHRANE wished to know from the hon.
memh.•r for Moutrose when he intended to bring on the
motessi of which he had given notice, in respect to the pro-
needing. of ItAials Brooke. As ItWah Brooke w.“ now in
En:Lind. perh.apa the hum gentleman would think it better
out to proceed with the motion, at all.
Mr. HUME said that hr had postpoued his motion at the
request of ben M 'jetty's government. and h. was pn•parcd
to bring the subj.xt forward on the day after toortsrruw, if
the• government would gin• hint that day. 11. was not the
person to shrink from bringing forward the motion.
%Meat. hear

_ reference tn. nets
PUSEYI IT PRACTICES. time by the It min catholic arehbishops and bishops which
Sir D. HALL wished to ask the Prime Minister , were not included iu the bill. The omission of the word
whit steps the archbishops and bialiops of the E.- " acts" weakened very much, if it did not entirely destroy,
t IMahad Church had taken in pursuance of the I the case pat by the hoa. gentleman. The honourable
kite, addressed by the Sivretary of State to the gentleman said it was impossible to assume that con-
Archbishop of Canterbury. by conaniona of her Majesty, for • firm tibia, ordivation, or the administration of the
the purpose of suppressing certain practie.v in place. of •ecratueats could be carried on if this hill worship belonging to the Established ('hureh ; and whether passed. He expressed doubts whether Archbishop
the Dishopof London had taken, or was about to take, any I Murray in that case could continue to administer his
legal proeeedings against oily of the clergy who imactiou ' functions. If the bill pissed, he said, Archbishop Murray,
what his lordship called " luatrionie performances "in the i beiug forbidden to u.' the title of Archbishop of nubile,
churches within his diocese.w„alitunable to perform any of the arts which he had
Lord .1 RUSSELL said that a letter sign-el by 24 of I performed hitherto. Now, he must remind the hon. gentle-
the archbishops and bishops of the Established thurch man that, if the penalty of lOU'. attached to the use of that
hal hecu addressed to their clergy in ciuse•quewe of the , title• carried with it the prohibition which he supposed,
letter addressed by the Secretary of State to the .irchbishop this prohibition had been in existence from the year 1St);
of Canterbury at the command of her Majesty. lie wan for the title of " Arelibiahop of Dublin" was a title pro-
not prepared to say what further steps it was . hibited by the net of 1829. Nothing bad been said by any
proposed to take. He must say that he thought it tuenatir of the govemment,as hail been assumed by the hon.
very inconvenient to be called on to answer in every case of g.ntlernaa, to show that there was any design of interfering
this kind, and he did not think it just to the church. with any one spiritual function of the lionuu catholic
(Hear. heard heirarehy ; and even the honourable gentleman would
EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE. 11,t assert that the evidence of letters of or
Mr T NCOMBE gas. liOtift that he would move was in fuel the ordination itself. As the hon. gentleman
as an amen intent tie the neon -n of his hon. friend• respeet- bat appealed to the Speaker for his opinion, if he would
tag parliamentary reform, that this house will, during the r favour them with that opinion now that the bill had
ann s
mate of stir
es ef parliament, take into their ceinideration the • been before them for many weeks, they would listen to it
th representation of the people, with a sew to its ' with defe nmee.
• emeentioia. (Hear, hem.)
Mr. ROEBUCK .hoped that before the Speaker
KENSINGTON OARDENS. i gave his opinion a few private member+ would be
Mr HUME wished is know from the noble lord at the allownl to give theirs. It had been objected that
Dead of the government whether he would give him neat the honourable gentleman was too late with his objeo-
• Thursday to briag forward the question respecting Kensin.r. time. In the case of the Irish Temporalities Bill in I,M,
• tlnhebi. anoa Claricts ia the neighbe+. which canard
urho of so much interest ameigst the Mr. Wigan based his objection not on the ground the tit
o
atiVetsm reon. but affected taxation. The malt
' Lora J. RUSSELL said that in the pres,nt state of the mai, that a culigiiumitteethat wasit appointed, the bill was with-
public budaess it was impossible fur kiln to give up Thursday drawn, awl re-so:ono:is were moved in committee. Here
I was the case of a bill affecting religion. In 18'29, Sir Robert
Mr. II I:ME—Then will the noble lord give me up to- Peel introduced his celebrated bill fur the relief of catholic*.
• marrow. my uwa day. (Laughter.) •In this case the revolutions were drat passed in committee,
Lewd J. RUSSELL said he had no ohjettion, if other ant the rule was edahlished that nu alteration could be
members who had motions on the paper consented nude in laws atfectia3 religion except in a committee of
Mr. 111.7 SIR %oil that he hoped those gentlemen would the whole house. He thought they would do wisely
so; Out it was to be understood that he did not waive hit referring the to a committee of the whole house.

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY PKEItING, MAY 13, 1851.

en tOllo7red Milk various
ligion, lie was inclined to think it was not neceigaty
fur an to go into a committee of the W lAde lioule unless
misted to the spit itualities of religion. 'Thu Church
IMormolides Act, which the learned gentleman had
Irwas carried with a committee of the whole house.
let hon. member, no longer alive, objected, that the
MB related to religion as well s& taxation. 'l he question was
seined to a committee to search for precedents, and that
siwinsittee decided that it being • taxing measure should
be Introduced in a committee of the whole home. To show,
however, the opinion of the house that the bill had no re-
ference to religion in the meaning of the standing order, he
might mention that when it was introduced it went
through committee without the question of religion
being once alluded to. So far then for the Church
Temporalities Act, if his interpretation was correct. Then
came the bill for carrying into effect the report of the eccle-
siastical. commission, and which was not introduced in •
committee of the whole house. It was supposed to relate
to ecclesiastical gnil not spiritual matters; and therefore
there was no committee. Another precedent alluded to by
the hon. gentleman was the bill for legalising the marriages
of Roman catholi s. That bill was introduced in committee;
but with respect to the present, he believed that such a pro-
ceeding was not necessary. He had been consulted before
its introduction, without, of course, being made acquainted
with its various provisims; and he had come to the con-
clusion that it did out require a committee of the whole
house.

Mr. M. GIBSON uudentood the argument of the
chair to be that, if the present bill were such a
bill as the Church Temporalities Bill, it would be ne-
cessary to refer it to • committee. The question then,
was whether the bill was such a bill—oue directly concern-
ing religion, and if so, whether it was not necessary that it
should be referred to a parliamentary committee? He did
not understand that the right hon. gentleman in the chair was
the proper authority as to the meaning and purport of a
bill, but rather Si to the rules of the house, and if it could
he shown to the chair that the meaning and purport of a
bill, was of such a character as to bring it within any of
the rules, then, he believed, it was the duty of the chair
to decide. lie thou4ht that the question was precisely a
case for counsel. the bill stated in its preamble. that
whereas the doctrine and discipline of the established
church in England, Ireland, and Scotland, was permanently
established, and the titles of the bishops of that church
were also lilted by law, the assumption of such titles by
any other persons should be prohibited. Was it not obvi-
ous that the meaning of the preamble was, that the titles
belonging to our religion, theiUshops of another should not
be allowed to adopt them ? (The buzz of conversation ren-
dered this portion of the right honourable gentle-
man's observations rather indistinct.) That being
the case, it appeared to him distinctly that the
bill came within that class which were styled bills
relating to religion. Perhaps it would not be an improper
course ter him to suggest that a select committee be ap-
pointed to search for precedents, and to report their opi-
nion whither the bill MS ailicting the assumption of cede-
sisstical titlink should in the first instance be referred to
a committee of the whole house.

Mr. Git Arr .kN to a similar view of the question.
Mr. REYNOLDS was proceeding to 'litres. the house,
when
The SPEAKER informed him that he way out of nrder.
The question that the Speaker do leave the chair had been
decided, and could not be amended. Before they proposed
a select committee they must negative the question that the
Speaker do leave the chair.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked whether a motion for adjournment
would not answer

' Mr. RE VNOLDS moved that the debate be adjourned.
After a few words from Mr. W. l'atre'i and Mr. F.
O'CONNOR,
Mr. Ill:ME said it was quite competent to the house to
adjourn the debate, and afterwards to appoint a committee
to consider the question.
Mr. KEOGH said that, as he understood the decision ar-
rived at was that the bill did not come withing the standing
orders, as nut affecting questions of a spiritual nature, he
begged to submit that such decision involnd a consident-
tiOn of the clauses of the bill. And although he admitted
that the house was not to be bound by the opinions of law-
yon, yet he hoped he might be allowed to remind the house
that this bill had been brought under the consideration of
the highest legal authorities in the country. He did nut
allude to the opinion of Mr. Bethel!, but to an express opi-
nion as to whether the spiritualities of the Roman catholics
would he affected by the legislation of this bill. The ques-
tion had been submitted to three of the most eminent
counsel in England—Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and Mr.
Baddelly i the last named gentleman one peculiarly versed
in ecclesiastical law. The following was the opinion of
those eminent counsel :
We are of ..pinion that th- till In Its original state, and containing
the 2nd sod 3rd clown, an well as the lot and 4th, would rend,
it illegal for any Boman Who& archhisfirop or bishop to exercoe
his official (alien, it, as archbishop or bishop of any p• mince or see
in tba United lionadom of Great Britain and In land, though much
function's were metal,. pampa' and apirtual, and had no seferrnee
whatever to soy 'mum:al nano it authority. We dorm, Avid that
the oloneopal at d sprit 4al I unction/tor any archhiahm, or bishop r in
only be ',avian, and lawfulty esercl•ed wlttion •lie &tots of some
roll ace or Magee canonmilly ansigaed to bun as the aocesietioa or
bishop thereof, or within 4 MU' Idtber province or diocese by the per-
IlliNloll of the archloidiop u bishop of such oth -r poovinc • or dis-
co... and that as he could oils exercise such opiscopal soul sporitun
fin loons wahin the loutio of tog own province , see as the arch-
bishop or bishop thin-of, by that name and title, and under the
authority of that tell e, it follow. that this till would re-a .er it tin.
lawful f a hem to to norm regularly the pruner duties of his ofboc.
s•lt.ush merely eviieopsi tor spiritual, such, for Matinee, aa tli se
.4 ordination et tisitation, an t the maintenance of &scion..
amanita his clergy.
lie hoped the house would consent to refer the bill to a
committee. (Hear, hear.l
The SOLICITOIt-GENERAL said that the question for
the house to consider wan, whether this was a bill relating
to religion, and therefore coining within the meaning of the
standing order. Now, the first words that would
strike one in the standing order:were, " faith and doctrine,"
and no one would dream that they referred to eccle-
siastical management, superintendence, or jurisdiction.
IL• apprehended that no one would assert that Dr. Wiseman
could not ordain and confirm as well as Bishop of Melipota-
outs as if he were rteognixed as Archbishop of Westminster
The real meaning of Dr. Murray was, that certain temporal
advantages connected with the cure of souls would he lost
by the change, not that there would be env difference in
the power of ordination or confirmation. Every one ad-
mitted that this was LI question of temporality, and that
they were not going into. committee on religion. With re-
gard to the argument of the hon. memlxv for Manchester,
that the Speaker's opinion was of value only as to the stand-
ing orders of the house, and not as to the construction of"
the clauses of a bill, unless the Speaker gave an ,
opinion upon the clauses, how could he decide whether a
bill ought to h.tve originated in committee or not? He
thought the right hob. gentleman in the chair had arrived !
at the correct conclusion, and one that was fully borne out
by the whole course of precedent. The Church Temporal- .
ities Bill of 1933 was a strong case in point. By that bill,
10 out of 't/ bishoprics in Ireland were abolished. Had the
ten bishops whose sees were thus abolished no spiritual '
functions —did not that set interfere with ordi-
nation
and confirmation by handing over the people
of one diocese to the Bishop of another ? The '
reason why the relief bill of 1829 MLA originated in a cons. I
mittee of the whole house was, that by it they were alter-
ing an oath, and so far were intefcrring with religion. The
samereason applied also to the Jew -Bill. The hon. and
learned member for Youghall's bill, and Mr. Watsou's bill
for repealing certain disabilities from Roman catholic'
which rentaitsett after the passing of the Emancipation Act
—neither of them had originated in a committee of the
whole house. There was another point fur consideration.
. What was meant by religion when the house
passed this order? Faith and doctrine, no doubt;
but was it nut the faith and doctrine of the est ibliehed
church ? (Cheers.) The object of the order was that they
should not bumper with or alter the faith and doctrine of the
established church, and therefore every bill referring to that
faith and doctrine must he preceded by a resolution of the
whole house. The grand committee on religion, which ho
had traced back to the time of James 1., would any man
tell him that committee had no intention to alter the regu-
Idiom of the lloinatt catholic church ? Seeing the whole
course of precedents was in favour of the opinion which
they had heard from the chair, he trusted the house would
not stultify itself by coming to an adverse iecision.
Mr. OL.IDSTONE observed that, if the question were
the adjournment of the debate, he must vote against it, but,
if the motion suggested by the right hon. membtir for Man-
' ehester (Mr. Gibson) to appoint a committee to examine the
question, so a. to decide as to what should be the practice of
the house, should be fairly brought forward, it would have
his support, fur all most admit that the precedents a. to this
point, were in a most unsatisfactory state. It was impossible
to apply a principle to the precedent. they had, by which
they could he reduced into a consistent and intelligible
whole by which to regulate their proceeding. in bills like the
present; sal, thou.:ll the result of the inquiry might
in all .probability be that there was no ruhtleient reason
to interfere with the progress of the bill, it would be
most valuable a, affording them the 1:11e1111 of deciding upon
a rale for their future guidance, and of ensuring uniformity
of practice. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had
stated the case fairly and fully, but he could not say that he
agreed in all the hon. and learned gentleman's conolusions.
There was some col me for the propooottiOn of the Solicitor-
General, that the true meaning of the term "religion" in
the st coding order Was, not religion in general, but the
established religion of the country. He leant to that con-
struction; but the course of precedents applicable to that
construction was by an 'means decisive. The Solicitor-
General hal argued that bill* affecting injuriously the secu-
rities of the established church should be introduced through
a preliminary committee. The house had then to decide
whether a bill tending to strengthen those seem ities should
conform to the order or not. This bill was intended to
strengthen the established religion of the country, and he
thought the rule ought to apply both ways. (Cries of
Divide."
Mr. SADLEIIt disputed some of b.. po.itions of the'
flolicltnetfieneral_

The gallery was cleared for • division, bat none took
pLiee. On our return U. the gallery, we found
bird J. RUSSELL expressing his opinion that there was
no groins I shown for referring the question of precedents to
a committee. The instances quoted by the right hon. mem-
ber for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were nut
in point. One was, the Tent and Corporations Act. That
was a question where s person should in certain cases take

Lord J.— RUSSELL assured the hon. member for Clon-
mel (Mr. Lawless) that the majority on the division which
had just been come to had not been composed entirely,
as he seemed to suppose, of ministerialists; for there were
in the lobby some of the strongest opponents of ministers—
men who could not be moved by him to vote otherwise than
as their consciences dictated. (Hear, hear.) The question
had been fairly discussed. The house having decided that
they would not adjourn the debate, it was now pro-
posed that the house should adjourn, in order
to get rid of the bill. This proposition made
him suspect that that resolution which hon. mem-
bers told him they had come to some time ago—
not to make any factious opposition to the bill—a resolution
he very much adtuired—(a laugh)—he was afraid they
had Catered in that resolution now. (Hear, hear.) The
house had heard the opinions of the Speaker and some com-
petent members; and were matters now to be reversed be-
cause there were some Roman catholics in Ireland who
might suppose that they had a better opinion of order than
the Speaker ? (" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said he had not been excited to offer
any factious opposition by his vote at this particular
stage. (A laugh.) That laugh induced him to state that
he had no factious intention with reference to moving the
last resolution. His object in doing so was to afford time
to the house to agree to the views of the right hon. member
for Manchester. If the noble lord would consent to the ap-
pointment of a select committee, they would not isbjeet—at
least he (Mr. Reynolds) would not—to proceed with the
debate pane passe with the inquiry by the committee.
They were justified in dividing as often as they thought
proper.
After a few words from Mr. Keogh, Sir G. Grey, Mr.
Anstey, and Mr. Moore,
The house divided :
For the adjournment
Against
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL was found addressing the house
on the reporters being readmitted to the gallery. He said
that he would confine himself to the general question. Its
denied that the act of the Pope was of a character to call
for any description of legislation from either house of par-
liament, for he altogether denied that that act of the Pope
affected in any manner the Roman catholic subjects of the
Queen as respected their loyalty to the throne. lie, for one,
would not admit that his position hail been altered by what
was culled the pupal aggression This, he believed, was the
practical view to take of the question. He looked to what had
been the position of his ea-religionists in England and Ireland
up to the events of last September. There was no doubt
that in Ireland the Roman catholic population subjected
themselves implicitly in all spiritual matters to the prelates
appointed by the Pope. There was no doubt that the
Roman catholic population had acknowledged with equal
unreserve the spiritual jurisdiction of the vicars.ap.isto ic
appointed by the Pope. The act of the Pope could not be
considered an "aggression" as regarded Ireland. As it
regarded Eugland the result was that it rendered the Ro-
man catholic population more independent than they hal
ever been before of the Pope. and of the appointees of the
Pope. He (Mr. O'Connell) maintained that it was a delu-
sion to take any other view of the question than this as he
lresented it. But ne might be asked if they were nut to
egislate, what were they toile, ? Ile vrould answer at once
Do nothing.
Mr. URQUHART had received on Friday the authority
of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for the assumption that
this was a political, and, in only a distant respect,
a religious question. The noble lord, admitting
at last what he (Mr. Urquhart) had often stated,
alleged broadly that the aggression of the Pope
was far more a political than a religious movement
against this country. Now this was exactly the discovery
which the instinct of the country hail made at the outset.
'the country, however, had gone further than the noble
lord, and had made the further discovery that the source
whence this uggressiou had proceeded had been opened up
by the foreign policy of her Majesty's government. He
contended that in this case there hail been no violation of
the law of nations, inasmuch as there were no treaty
rights. Iu other countries the Pope had followed a similar
course.

.1. •

thleilk)ll4K. Ig 1,19, thettlewe, fesibrie::: a .410. di; haidliele eride the wade ler& ma be
re.- The following year the *WSW intend to interfere with the spiritual action, and
•
iTiriZtiein of whether they should rola** 'We -asked the house to pa.ss the bill with only the first
catholias 'from disabdities, but those ' :douse in it. Now he said upon the authority of the Atter-
impose4 toy the doctrine of transubstantiation, d ney-Oetteral, of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, of Mr. Brodie, and of
various outer doctrines of the Home* catholic Sr. Barldelc7—tothe three latter of whom a case had been
cltrch. That oleo was a question skif a re- ' submitted—that thirds. clause of the bill would contain all
ligiont astsift. Za both instances they were supposed to 4 that the other clineessontained. The three eminent counsel
be some eeenuity for the religion of the country.. rite" I Ile had referred ft stfid:
precedents would not at all tell in the present case. (ileac, We are of oplinat that If the Ind and VI el 1114,4 of the bill wen
hear.) He would not go into the argument stated so erlMagett, the .at clause wo tld of Itsat rend, r it illegal for any
ilairlt-by the right lion. member fur the city of Oxford Remus catholichh arehh&lsht.op ora bishop to exercise his °Metal rune.
(Sir P. W0o4), but he own'( at once that there nppeared tiVris.erms oi-6117,1717;1t-;;r-s'n)11-trelloaiyidriVInch' osractriefaincnttt." Uns
ited
to be no ground for referring the question to a co.nmittee. , merely spiratti 11. g
(Hear.) Farther questions were started by the right hon. I Now, was the noble lord sincere ? Did the noble lord
member for the University of Oxford, and, amongst other not mean to interfere with spiritual functions in Ireland ?
things, he stated, with great truth, what was con- The opinion went on :
firmed by the Speaker, that precedents 1110141 very Though such functions were merely apiritutt, and had ne reference
various, and iu somo instances contradictory. It whatseer to any temporal netts or mentally. If .. the swumpthm
might be a question whether it would not be Or sat of the name, style.. or one 04 6'114""P or "I'9 .'1 say eit7.l
the 6nlo tows, or place. Sr duly wrrit ory or district to st Kingdom,
well to have a select committee to arrive at a conclusion on
the subject, but his impression was against the adoption be rendered hisnl- penal, as it would be by the Ist section, It hallows
that every act will* sash rush wellhead., or bishop could only per-
of that course. It was for the house to decide, according form regularly as archhislo, or WM, of some province or see, sad
to its own views, whether it was necessary to go into coin- is that copacity, mutt be deemed to be thereby prohibited.
mitts* on this particular bill or not ; but, to appoint corn- But it did not stop there. It went on to say—
mittees, in accordance with the views entertained by Ws are oh opinion that if the Ind and 3rd clauses of the hill were
Lawyers, would be a mo,t inconvenient course, because e,.lPlthierit the 1 4 cl". 1" would of il'.ll render it (tryst(tryst for airy
~
nothing bat the judgment of the house ought to prevail. catholic archbishop or bishop to acce,,t any emolument ne en.
(Hear, hear.) do.'"Waarect, or to ern ar e'. any trust or power as elibt-hop or hallo?
of any province or see in the thread Kingdom, In relation to any
Mr. BRIGHT, amid loud cries of " Divide," proceeded property, whether charitable or otherwise, and wh tiler 'flooded for
to say that the bill distinctly referred to the church of Eng- the benefit of such arcoloshop or bishop, or of ouch province or we,
land, and its very object was to strengthen and secure the
or or the persoas suSject to his apirimal authuroy therein, If such acs
prelates of that church in their dignities and offices. As
eeptance or exert as involved his ilVolleptio.n or use of the name, style.
Of title of arciabashopor bishop of a p iLletbar promisee or see to the
there were doubts upon the subject the governmeut should MOW Ktegdo.n and such emolument no endowro at, AEI such trust
concede the committee. or power be.onpil t.., him solely lo auch his capacity of archbishop or
The house divided: bishop.
For the adjournment of the debate 63 Ile said that it was in vain for the noble lord to conten
Against it
On our return to the gallery we found aad ecclesiastical rights of Ireland. The prising of this act
Mr. IIKWI.ESS expressing his opinion, amid loud cries was la 'violation of the act of 1846. He (Mr. Keogh)
of" Oh, oh," and much ironical laughter, that this gees- was at Itome when it was announced that Cardinal Wise-
tion was being carried by an overpowering majority, who man was made Archbishop of Westminster. There was
did not listen to the justice of the case at all. Ho moved great rejoicing, and the English consulate was illumi-
that the house do now adjourn. noted. That he saw himself. Seeing these things,
Mr. GRATTAN seconded the motion. then, could it be supposed that the Pope intended

c c
to insult the people of England by this act ?
The noble lord said that the Roman catholic bishops inter-
fered in the question of the colleges. But in 1832 no less
than 17 bishops and very considerable numbers of the
clergy of the established church protested against the sys-
tem of national education in Ireland. (blear, hear.) Well,
then, if it was competent fur the bishops and clergy of the
established church to interfere in a question of education,
way should it not be competent fur the Roman catholic
bishops to recommend parents not to send their children to
schools tor mixed education ? (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord then spoke of the synod of Thurles as
something that was altogether strange and outrageous.
One would imagine the noble lord had never heard of such
a thing as a synod in his life. Yet he might have heard of
the synod of Ulster, of the synod of the presbyterian
church of Scotland, of the synod of the presbyterian
church synod—a double synod—(laughter)—and of the
synod of original seceders. (Renewed laughter.) Ile did
not know whether the noble lord was or was not a
member of the latter body.. (Laughter.) Now, what-
ever might have been the feelings of the Roman catho-
lin of Ireland originally with respect to the colleges,
since the publication of the noble lord's letter, in which lie
described the ceremonies of the Roman catholic religion in
the most extraordinary language, the meaning given to
which had, indeed, been disavowed by the noble
but which, by plain and common sense men, would be read
in a plain and common sense way, by men, who, not pos-
sessing the refinement of intellect of the noble lord,
would not read black white, and white black,—(hear,
hear)—wince the publication of that letter no man
would venture to say Oat the Itoman catholics of Ireland
ought to send their children to these schools. (Hear, hear.)
' The noble lord was obliged to refer to Sardinia to make out
a case for this bill. Now, there was an unbroken hierarchy
for many year. in Ireland, and was the wade lord able to
bring forward no ease in Ireland in which religious indepen-
dence was stifled, without travelling beyond the Alps, and
calling on thou to explain a ease of which they knew
nothing, at a moment's notice? (Hear, hear.) This MUs
the worst feature of the bill; ine the cloven
foot appeared. The proposed exemption of the prelates of
the Scotch episcopal church showed that this bill was
aimed solely against the Roman catholic religion
The hon. member for Dublin was blamed for saying that lie
was ready to vote Lima white. Ile (Mr. Keogh) was ready
to justify every vote he had given on this question. But if
otherwise, he might turn fur an example to those fifth-rate
gentlemen opposite, those defenders of religious liberty, who
made themselves very remarkable out of the house for their
denunciations of Raman catholics hecause they were en-
, gaged in the defence of their religious liberties, but whose
yokel were never heard within the walls of that house.
(Hear, hear.) Ile would ask those gentlemen where would
the question of parliamentary reform, or even the question
of tree trade be, if Roman catholic emancipation had not
been carried? :But the members for Manchester, the
honourable member for the West Riding, the veteran
leader of parliamentary reform in that house, the most dis-
tinguished statesmen of the Imo administration to a man
were on their side, and that being so, they could well
afford the sneers of the small body who sat around and be-
hind the distinguished advocates of free trade. (Ilear,
hear.) If the noble lord by means of a tyrannical
majority succeeded in that house in striking down religious
liberty, then they would go out of that house and would
never cease till they had replished it. (Cheers.) They
were nut to be intimidated a momentary defeat. (Hear.)
Thelhad borne centuries o persecution. Ovetithe aveng-
ing and fanatic sword of Cromwell, the insidious
treachery of the Stuarts, the ex tetions and confis-
cations—he used the term openly, plainly, and advisedly—
in which the ancestors of the noble lord took a conspicuous
part, they had triumphed, and would triumph again.
(Cheers.) And this they would do without forgetting their
allegiance in temporal matters to their sovereign, whilst
they recognised in spiritual matters the authority of the
supreme head of the Roman catholic church.
Duna dolutp. Capl4.3 uumubdn oasura.
Amulet, imperlam foe pater Itonlaaus ha'*Dit.
(Loud cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned gentleman

The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none has eOrtainlY undertaken a very difficult task, and has per.
took place. On the re-admisdon of the reporters, formed that tads, I have nu hesitation in saying, with very
Mr. KEOGH was aildreesing the house. He re- great ability—(hear, hear)—but I own it appears to sin
juiced, he said, that there •••• an opportunity of that the difficulty of the task is beyond even the power and
discussing the question before the Speakhe oppor-
Crr left the the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman. (Hear.)
chair, and that the noble lord had still
The statement that I have made, and the statement which
tunity, if he thought proper, of retracing his other members of the house have nude with regard to Ire-
steps, because he believed that the Jumble lord had not even land is this, that titles taken from the names of existing
yet arrived at a true conception of the great dengue in- sees have been forbidden since 1819, and therefore that the
valved in the passing of this bill. The right hon. baronet Roman catholic bishops of Ireland have either been labour.
had asked them if they were prepared to undo all that they ing under grievous persecution since that time, or else this
had been doing for the last two nienths. Ile (Mr. Keogh) bill is not of the persecuting and penal nature it is pre-
would ask the noble lord (Lord John Rusa.ll) if he was tended to be. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that
prepared to undo not only what be had been doing for this proposition is undeniable. (Hear.) The hon. and
the hut two months, but all that he had been learned gentleman Pays that we never attempted to enforce the
saying and doing during the whole of his ;milli- provisions of the Act of 1829, and he calls on me now
cal career ; and still more, if he was prepared to to say whether this is a new bill to carry it out; hat
undo what had been done by men who took a greater share if we were now going to enforce the provisions of the
in the greateetruggle:for religious liberty than eves the noble Act of 1829, it would be only necessary to put into ope-
lord took? Was he prepared to undo what Mr. Canning ration the provisions of that act, and no new net would
tried to effect, what Mr. Plunkett stregeliel for, what Mr. have been required. The hon. and learned gentleman
Brougham and Lord Wellesley fought for? Ile was satin says that none of the Roman catholic bishops of Ireland
tied that if they passed this bill all that those Freat men could exercise their episcopal functions under the first
accomplished would have been done in vain. floe noble clause of this bill, and yet, he says, from the year 1829
lord on the lust occasion said they had been suffer- down to the present time they slid exercise their functions,
ing under this infliction since 18'29, because the Catholic in spite of the law of 1829. The hon. gentleman says it
Relief Act imposed the very a ime penalties which this was because the act was not enforced. Now, in order to
bill proposed. Bat, if that were so, why bring in this bill ? put an act in force you must have an offence committed,
The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said this and you must have evidence that the offence wen coin-
bill was merely e complement to that of 1829. But he mated. (Hear, hear.) We have had various governments
(Mr. Keogh) asked why this bill was not confined to Eng. in Ireland since 1829. A while government was not in
land ? The noble lord (Lord John Russell) admitted that office since that period. There was the administration of
he had never put in force the act of 1829. Well, if they the Duke of Wellington and Lord De Grey, Sir Edward
did not complain of the act of 18!9, it was for the best of Sugden and the present Chief Justice of the Queen's
all possible reasons ; because it was not put in force. Bench were governing in Ireland. Did they neglect the
But if the noble lord intended to put this act execution of that act of parliament. (Hear, hear.) Cer-
in force he would ask del he intend to put it tainly not. I believe that obedience was paid to the law of
in force in Ireland, or did he intend this act to be, as his the Roman catholic prelates, and I need no other proof of
supporters mail, a sham in Ireland ? Did the noble lord in- that than the petition which they presented to this house
tend to put in a proviso at the end that it should nut be put signed with their names, but without presuming to take
into force ? Then he should understand it. But the noble their title. from any sec or diocese existing in Ireland.
hint said he sincerely believed this act was necessary, and Therefore he should have concluded that, with the excep-
that he intended to put it into force in Ireland, and there- thin of one Roman catholic archbishop who says that his
fore he (Mr. Keogh) said they would not submit to it, and see is not within the title of the act, the Roman catholic
that it was a differeut act from the act of 1829. Then bishops of Ireland generally, in all their public act.,
he contended that the effect of the Charitable obeyed the act of 1829 in this respect. (hear, hear.,
Bequests Act which passed in 11118 was to repeal Now, sir, if the act of parliament is obeyed, what can the
the obnoxious clauses of the act of 1829, and to government ask further? We are not going to seek for
render that legal now which was illegal before. The eon- everymeaus ofprosecution which can be found by examining
dition of the Roman hierarchy was chance and legalised into the relations of Roman catholic bishops with the
by that act. What became then of the noble lord's urge- priests of the districts in which they exercise their functions.
meat that the same grievance existed now, and that they (Hear, hear.) We would avoid, if possible, anything of an had no right to complain, because they were only doing unnecessary nature, and which bears with it the character
that which was enacted by the act of 18'29 ? Then, hods- of vexation. (Hear, hear) I remember that Sir Robert
pendent of that assertion, he believed the noble lord Win at Peel, in introducing the Raman Catholic Relief Bill, stated
this moment perfectly unaware of what the effect , that what was intended in that case was to prevent the
of the bill would be. It had been said that the first 1 ostentatious and open assumption of titles taken from sees
clause was in analogy with the act of 1829 ; but in Ireland, sad that if that assumption was prohibited by
it was in spirit, in effect, and in analogy, dif. ! law, and if the prohibition were obeyed, the government
ferent. They must construe the C1:11.141,1 with the ' would be ssitistied. Sir, I conceive that to have been the
preamble. The preamble of the act of 1829 stated, that ' meaning of the act, and such, I conceive, has been the
.5 st hereiu, by various acts, restraints and disabilities are i practice with regard to that act on the part of sue-
imposed upon the Roman eathsilic subjects of his Majesty, cessive governments. So that the difficulty of the hon. gen-
,to which other subjects of hit Majesty are not liable, and &man really comes to be no difficulty at all. Now, with re-
whereas it is expedieut that such restraints and liabilities gard to matters of this kind, and with regard to this whole
should be removed." The preamble of this bill, in prise- question, I say it ought not to be the policy of this or of any
Ipie, was that it was expedient and necessary to secure and other government to seek out matters of offence for the
fortify the rights of the established church in both purpose of prosecution. I have read in one of Dr. Wise-
countries, and that the titles of Roman catholic prelates man's lectures that there is at this day an Abbot of West-
!! are inconsistent with those rights. Then there were re- minster, who has continued from the earliest
cities in th.s bill while were positively untrue. It recited times. (Laughter.) I make no curious inquiry
'that whereas it might be doubted whether a certain enact- into that subject : I do not propose that we
meat extended to the prohibition of the titles of bishop or should forbid any person at a distance to assume that
archbishop. Now, there was not a lawyer in the housse by title. But when a person comes here with the pretended
whom the shadow of a daub{ could be entertained on the authority of the Pope—(cheers)—and say. that the Pope
subject. Did the Attorney-General doubt that it applied at has been pleased to give certain titles, that he has been
present to the titles of a diocese not taken from the title of pleased to divide the country into dioceses, and by the same
a diocese of any bishop or archbishop of the church of Eng- act has totally abolished the archbishopric of Canterbury—
! land ? Well, then, it was not doubted. What was the next (laughter)—and that he assumes to rule and to govern in
oleftrteeltigoifoltfuenlcatwio,nsb,uitt
it
ts nts.otatnheollonn-acondmpdaliationgee
! asserti at ? That the attempt to estahlish,under the colour of this country of England, then, I say, it is not the quiet
tiihkertauithuHri teydoefntihede acetha of; Rsi
ts mt,
me , s
notuch pretendedAdinoeed :hey, wird
triexerciseththe
he say that? Because the noble lord said he had consulted defiance of the sovereignty of this country t e par, and h lia-
the taw advisers of the crown, and they told him it was nut went of this country can
no leager s hut its eyes to that
-
,
! illegal. Why were these misstatements made in the ' which has been properly brought to its notice. (Cheer.)
pr.-Amble of the bill ? Because English gentlemen felt that Well, then, the hon. and learned gentleman would say,
the Emancipation Act was a great, wise, liberal, and eaten. i " Why make any mention of Ireland in this bill ?" (Hear,
sive act, and that it would not be fair, right, or proper to hear) Why, the offence that we complain of is an offence
deprive the Raman cetholics of this countiy of chivy against the prerogatives of the crown, it is
any of the privileges then conceded to them, an offence against the independence of the nation,
and, in order to do that, false statements were and it being so, we cannot omit Ireland, as a part
mei: in the bill. It was said by the noble lord that it 'of the United Kingdom. But with regard to the act itself,
would not interfere with the general action of the Roman what we require to be done has, I think, been done by the
catholic church in Irelan I; but the Attorney-General, the I act of 1829. It may be that alter this act is 'passed, we
present Honer of the Rolls ,said it would so interfere. ' thall find
perstms in England or in Ireland openly assuming

rd the glued°, if parlismon ' re- The SPEAKER said that, having been appealed to by
s the paper ferjudleuvw. he rigbkhon. geqll4pasq• and the hew. member Jhr *Om.
. I \ _ stabNue eminiottfria educe to flewillAtter, efie paves
LSTICAL TIT 9 LL. ' o items, allow to eapqrse it ow well uhe gelid_
the Speaker • J c • rhea t question one of ! at clinically all
hat in bringi rd an i might r 4.3 het quota 4of o • twpittecedents Itit lti
t ..ding w ' •to tak , clue a . There wno auth Ineeft• claeision toy, qh,,,
11, he w uite '''' 'at he uuse tWm du* ' _by the lellierce the .statelllng
mmon dean e. his bil ad order referring tti religion.' As •Iv. be was
it house without the preliminary form able to collect from the diderent inehrnretations that
5 admitted in some _emu but only in hail been given to the terms, and from the course that had
action of the Speaker. But ho be: been followed With various bills relating More or -Teis-to re.-1
. • • •