The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-21 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 21, 1851

Roman eatholies should rem nn intact. He appealed to the
noble lord whether ho would not do something of the kind.
Lord BERNARD remarked that the amendment, if
carried, would legalise the very sets which it was intended
by the bill to put down.
Col. RAWDON said that the proviso had been brouggt
forward simply to provide ag.iinst the operation of the bill
• " It appeared there was a doubt

ought not to leave a question of such magnitude in doubt.
The only argliment in favour of extending the bill to Ireland
was that the English and Irish prot.ntant established
churches were identical. Now it was certainly true that
in the act of Union they were said to be united, but had
they been treated as one ? On the cor.trary, t.n of the Irish
secs had been a►olish:d, and a fourth of the tithes colitis-
' cated, whereas nothing of the kind had been done with

in matters pier:4
as to the construction of the bill in that respect; and ha
thought that it was the duty of the committee, in such •
case, to give the benefit of the doubt to the party legislated
for, and to construe it in a liberal spirit. (Hear, hear) If
they took that view, then they would adopt the proviso, to
wilt& he should give his assent.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his impression was that the pro.
posal contained in the proviso had been already decided In
the house. (Hear, hear.) And he referred the house to the
motion, on a former occasion, by the noble lord the member
for Arundel, in whiclifthey would find the same proposition,
that nothing in the bill should interfere with spiritual fano-
lions. It appeared to him clear that the introduction of
the words proposed by the kon. member for Limerick would
only lead to dispute and angry feeling. Such a proviso, it
appeared to him, ought not to be inserted in au act of par-
liament, for the effect would be to leave to the judgment of
a jury that very ambiguous question—" What is spiritual
and what is temporal ?" (Hear, hear.)"
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment 42
Against it
Colonel SIBTHORP then rose to move two amendments
which he had placed upon the paper. The first was to be
added to the end of the second clause, and was,to the effect
that any offender against the act who had been fined 5001.,
should be further imprisoned until the said sum should
have been paid, and that after the payment he should be
banished from the United Kingdom during the pe-
vied of his natural life. The second amendment was
As Introduction of a clause to the aka, that if
wry Secretary of State, or high officer of the crown,
or any person holding any confidential appointment
in the government, should after the commencement
lief the act permit, sanction, or in any manner encourage,
directly or indirectly, any such assumption of titles pro-
vided against in the act, every person so offending should
be finest 5001, imprisoned until the fine was paid, and
thereafter rendered incapable of holding any office, place,
or employment in her Majesty's service. The hon. and
gallant member expressed the hope that he should have
the support of those sixty-three honest members who
had, en a former occasion, evinced their strong attach-
ment to their sovereign and to the protestant religion.
Ile had felt it his duty to introduce this clause ; but, hav-
ing thus expnised his opinion, he would not further take
up the time of the committee by asking them to divide on
his amendment.
After a few words from Mr. :Honor,
The CHAIRMAN asked if Col. Sibthorp withdrew his
amendment.
Col. SIBTHORP replied in the affirmative.
The CHAIRMAN.—Then the question will be " that
the clause stand part of the bill."
Mr. REYNOLDS despaired of the government taking
any of the poison out of the bill, after they
had rejected the amendment of the hon. member
(Mr. Mansell). The honourable member hail asked
the committee to leave the Roman catholic
church the exercise of freedom in spiritual matters, and the
noble lord, having a majority of 160 to 42, rejected the pro-
viso. Now, seeing that the noble lord had rejected it, he
was surprised that he had not invited the hon. and gallant
member to persevere with his amendment, fur with what
consistency could the noble lord reject the one and refuse to
adopt the °the r ? (Hear' hear.) Ile warned the
government that by pushing forward this bill they were
westing discord among the Queen's subjects, and rendering
the government of the country more difficult and expen-
sive. (Hear. hear.)
Dr. POWER. referred to the conflicting opinions which
had been expressed as to the effecta of the bin, and con-
tended that, seeing the existence of such doubts, the noble
lard was hound to have remodelled the measure. He thought
that in the midst of so much doubt, their best course would
he to refer the bill to a select committee, in order that it

respect to the English church In fact them had been no
fewer than 20 acts of parliament since the period of the
Union in which the two churches were treated as distinct.
As a British representative, who was desirous of econo-
mising the resources of the nation, he must protest against
the application of the bill to Inland, inasmuch a., it would
render it impossible to reduce the army, and so to lighten
the burdens of taxation. (Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered that to ad-
mit the clause would be to render the bill open to the
'barge of inconsistency, which had been vs often, but
not very fairly brought against the promoters of the bill.
The principle upon which it bad been framed was that the
lawful prerogative of the crown was invaded if a foreign
power should assume the right to create dignities, authori-
, ties, and jurisdictions, such as had been attempted to be
created by the papal lull or rescript with reference to the
archbishopric of Westminster. Not only was that act of
the Pope an offence against the royal prerogative, but it
was an infraction of that arrangement which was come to
in 1829, and with which all parties expressed themselves
perfectly satisfied. That act strictly prohibited the taking
of the titles of any sees already existing ; and no one
would venture to say that its spirit had not been
infringed by the recent aggression. Now, the object
of the bill was simply to prevent the evasion of the act of
18'29; and, as that act had a principal reference to Ireland,
it would be absurd to place in the present bill a clause ex-
empting Ireland from its operation. In fact, were they to
do so, it would he to declare either that the royal preroga-
tive did not extend to Ireland, or that it might be with im-
punity insulted in that country. On this point he had
been greatly misrepresented. All that he had ar-
gued on a previous occasion was that to declare what
was the law, either by reciting it in the pream-
ble, or by a declaratory clause, in reference to this
particular act of the Pope did not render the laws relating
to Ireland less strong than they were before ; and the
committee was aware that the statute of Richard and the
law of Elizabeth (or at least one equally stringent) applied
as much to that country as to this. It this bill had the
least reference to spirituals, then they might with some
show of reason argue for the exemption of Ireland. Aud
yet, if it really interfered even in the slightest degree with
the exercise of the Roman catholic religion, and if it was
unjust to a large body it would be equally unjust to a
small ; end he should have equally opposed its extension to
England, or even to Scotland. There was no foundation
on which the bill could be rested which was not equally
applicable to both countries.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE was of opinion that the bill, as it
stood, was an extension of the restrictive provisions of the
Emancipation Act. A distinction ought to be drawn be-
tween the spirit in which that act was passed, and the spirit
in which it was accepted by the Roman catholic' in Ire-
land, and carried out there by the representatives
of the government. Ho denied that that had
been anything like the apiiit of the measure now
proposed. If the assumption of these titles was an
insult to the Queen by the parties assuming them, was not
the insult as great on the part of those who gave and ac-
knowledged these titles This had been done, not only by
the Irish government officers, but by imperial acts of par-
liament. The legislature had, in fact, carried out the
Emancipation Act in a more liberal spirit than that in
which it had been passed. Taking it fur granted that the
assumption of territorial titles was deemed necessary by the
Roman catholic bishops for the discharge of their spiritual
functions, was it not evident that this bill was an act of
pains and penalties when it prevented them assuming the
titles of secs not hitherto occupied, and so fur went beyond
I the Emancipation Act ? To extend this bill to Ireland was
a great political blunder. Anxious to sec Ireland peace-
able and tranquil for years to come, he could not but ex-
press his conviction that it was perfect madness to extend
the bill to that country. In saying so, he by no mean-
Eugland.

might be into a consistent shape. By doing this
they would satisfy the people of Ireland, and give them
some evidence that they did not wish to interfere with their
minden% liberties.
The committee then divided on the question " That
the clause stand part of the bill " :
Ayes l5O
Noes 34-115
On Clause 3,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to propose an
amendment. The bill did not exempt the Scotch church
from the allegation in the preamble, " That the attempt to
establish under cover or authority of the see of Rome,"
any power or jurisdiction in this country " is and
void." Although an exception was made in one et the
clauses in favour of the church in Scotland, it still
remained under the proscription of the declaratory clause.
Now it appeared to him that this bill, under the pretence
of resisting papal, aggression, was an aggression on all
voluntary episcopal churches. No voluntary episcopal
could exist " - under bill

threw overboard the Roman eithulics of lie
had done all in his power to relax their chains; but the
injustice was aggravated by extending the measure to the
lister country
Mr. G. H. CAVENDISH, believing the people of England
to be truly attached to the protestant religion, and utterly
to repudiate the notion of any foreign potentate having
jurisdiction in this realm, thought that the legislature was
bound to give effect to that feeling as far as possible, at
least in this country; but with regard to Ireland the ease
was different. Despite the determined and systematic at-
tempts to plant proteotantism there since the time of
Cromwell, there had been no conversions to any extent
among the native Irish, with whom the descendants of the
original protestant settlers had never amalgamated.
The protestant church, though established and en-
dowed, had never taken root there. It was, there-
useless to think of legislating for Ireland on the same
principles as for this country. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. J. CLAY and Mr. LAWLESS,

the
without being. liable to the pains and penalties prescribed.
The bill wan in effect really to establish the arrogant claim
of superiority of the established church over
churches, a- . • ' • '

' )Ir. H. DICUMMOND said the quition at present
before the house was, whether the provisions of the bill
should or should not extend to Inland. An important con-
Adoration had been referred to, namely, the subsidence of
That • -- would subside ; it -

, and he would, therefore, resist this bill because
it was an aggression on the voluntary principle.
The hon. member concluded by moving the amendment of
which he had given notice—" To expunge all the words in
the third clause after the word .place in line 2, page 3,
and to insert the following words, used as the designation
of office in such church, or to the assumption or use of the
title of archbishop, bishop, or dean, taken by say pence
solely as the designation of his office, for the grosammi
of any voluntary church according to its rules sal
and not claiming or assuming to have by law in respect
such title - iu!isilictian, authority or pre-eminence is

agitation. agitation never _ ~.made; it never
could subside, because the aggremion was on the
part of the Roman catholic church, backed by
' all the members of that creed, who were deter.
mined to bring the people of England—es they
declared—back from their present state of heathenism to
their own purer condition and belief. A doren times at
least the word " aggression " had been flung is the teeth
of hon. members who supported the bill, whilst hon.
gentlemen who opposed the measure referred to their
loyalty, as also to the loyalty of those whom they repre-
sentcd. (Hear, hear.) Now, here was a specimen of
Acid.amen -

any
the United Kingdom.' "
Sir O. OREY said if the hon. gentleman anal emfg Oa
preserve the right of the Roman catholic arnaltbags
bishops to use the word archbishop or Walla% ISM NO
-- that there was in this beta ew--

Reman catholic loyalty. (Here the hon. —. pro-
, eeeded to quote as follows from a nameless document) :
We acknowledge a divided loyalty to the sovereign
pontiff, and perish the crown' and princes who repu-
diate it." (Loud cries of " No, no," and " Name, name,"

Was, n ~.a.l nt
them, but if he meant to say thc4ahtuttey mut' 11 take Vhelle
of archbishop or bishop of a diocese, the title being from
some city or place in the UnitetelLingdom, though he
might not by law claim any jurisdiction thereby, that
would neutralise the whole of the bill.
The committee then divided:
For the amendment
Against it llB-86
Tho Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he did not
object to this chase, but one of the principal causes for the
introduction of the bill was an assumed attack on the supra-
mac,' of the crown. The episcopal church in Scotland stood
in precisely the same relation to the crown as did the catho-
lic in England, with the solitary difference that the head
of the catholic church - • - • and

,
from the member.) lie would not give the name.
itnit.) Here was more of the same: "We respeetthe au-
of the vicar of Christ more than that of a musty act of
t. (" Hear, hear," from the Irish members.)
tilidammair divided allegiance ? Nothing of the kind. We
moklor our allegiance is due to the Homan throne first of
mad secondly, lam infinitely lower sense to mere
mitly states and proommouts. .AU the spiritual exceeds
▪ temporal in impolsoso, so does our loyalty to the holy
sss tomossi tint is Is lay minor authority.
01PLAJIMIldif ism to order. (Oh, oh.) The hon.
bids mod style, and kindly feeling towards
Cilarellembeus of As Roman catholic persuasion, had quoted
!WWII p_arsamilis, which would appear to him (Mr.
0" - as if by some honourable gentleman.

out church was • foreigner; he (the Earl
of Arundel) maintained that the episcopal church in Scot-
land had no more right to say they would have bishops of
their church with territorial titles than the catholics of
England had.
Sir G. GREY remarked that the Scotch bishops stood on
a totally different footing. inasmuch as they did not hold
their oMm from the appointment of a foreign power. There
was asthiag is this clause, however, which gave them a
right la swansthese titles. The right had been desired by
the Court of Station in Scotland, and this clause left them
just as they were before.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he agreed with the right hon.
baronet that there was a distinction between bishops hold-
ing office by foreign authority, and those who did not so
hold it. Bat the question which he wished to put to her
Majesty's at was of a diferent description. He
wanted to Imaw why this clause was not to extend to other
bishops who might choose to hold territorial titles, but might
not hold than =der the authority of a foreign power. Per-
haps the answer would be, that *ere were no such bishops,
But them might he. Them wise NMI persona in Scotland
profess/Ng to be who were dissatisfied with
' the arreasemswts of the eoYh mad who had takes
steps le ebtela the appelahmeat a bishop of their
own. Why should theylse pormilsi himadoing this ? Then
why should not the Wesleyan", If they those, call their
superintendents of circuits bishops with territorial titles.
The CHAIRMAN was putting the dame, when
Mr. GLADSTONE said he bop* there would be some
aaswer to his

J'Flaheity) of spoken
However, he found the honiurable gentleman was readi
from a newspaper the name of which he (Mr. O'Flaherty)
bed sever beard. It was anything but fair; and if the
sobs of the house admitted of the expression, he would say
it WU anything but honourable of the honourable gentle-
ness Seib so. Oh, oh," and "Order.") He was not to
W&m fed orn. (" Oh, oh," and clamour.)
Tim CHAIRMAN—The honourable member has let
limp an expression that " be is not to be put down." I hope
be does not address that to the chair. (" Hear, hear,"
*teen and clamour.)
Sir R. H. INOLIS thought the honourable gentleman
(Mr. O'Flaherty) was bound to specify the particular in-
stance in which the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Drum.
mond‘ had violated the order; of the house. (Hear, hear.)
But he had not done so; he had not stated where or how
the bon. member for Surrey had violated either the rule'
et the house or of good taste or feeling. (Hear, bear.)
M. KEOGH said the hon. member for Galway (Mr.
07Mherty) had been called to order by the hon. baronet
who had last addressed the house. He wished to know
hew his bon. friend had violated order. (Hear,
hear.) His honourable friend had merely said that,
if the rules of the house permitted, he would
say the conduct of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
Drummond) was anything but honourable. (Hear, hear.)
Now every hon. gentleman was aware that that was an
evasive expression, and that these evasive expressions
were used with a view that the rules of the house should
not be violated. - hear.) He had heard • much

whence his authority c:nanated might be known. (Hear.) Mr. CAMPBELL rose, but the impatience of the house
lie (Mr. Reynolds) really thought the hon. gentleman was y fur the division prevented his being heard. After
quoting frost an authentic document. (Cries of " Order," i attempting in vain to raise his voice above the cries
awl Chair," with loud confusion.) of "-Divide " " Question," " Oh, oh," dm., which came
The CHAIRMAN interposed. It was competent to the , from all pails of the house, the honourable member
hon. gentleman to speak to older; but be (the Chairman) 'at length moved that the chairman report progress.
could not see where the hon. member for Surrey was out of This attempt to force attention was met by loud
order. (Cries of ''Hear, hear," and " Drummond.") cheers from the Irish members, and laughter from
DRUM ,then other the interruption, however, continuing,
. _

Mr. DILUMMOND resumed. The lion. Member
for Derby (Mr. Cavendish), had referred much to the loy-
alty of the Roman catholics ; and the hon. gentleman who
followed him made such large demands for credit to he
given to the loyalty of the people of Ireland at the present
moment, that he (Mr. Drummond) could not avoid reading
the document, when he recollected having it in his pocket.
(A laugh.) lie had other documents also. (Ironical cries
of " read from the Irish members.) They were from the
Tabkt, the organ of " Dear Lucas.' (Laughter, and cries
of "read.") No, ho would not read, ho had
not time just then. (Laughter.) But he was go-
ing to speak to the point at issue. (Beat, hear.)
Believing that the question would not end there, he consi-
dered it was of importance that they should not irritate, or
unnecessarily inflict annoyance. What had been done in
the way of aggression was not done by Ireland. (Hear,
heir.) When the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) introduces{
the present measure to the house he satisfied neither party.
However, the noble lord justified himself by saying he
would du what he conceived to be necessary and no more.
(Ikar, hear.) The aggression had been confined to this
country, no charge could be made against Ireland ; and,
therefore, he did not think Ireland should be included in
the measure of repression introduced by her Majesty's mi-
nisters. (Ilear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY observed that the bull of the Pope to
establish or continue a hierarchy in Ireland in the present
state of the law—regard being hail to the provisions of the
act of 1829—was perfectly legal ; but the bull issued by
the same authority for establishing or maintaining
' a hierarchy in England was illegal. Such appeared
to him to be the present position of affairs. (Hear, hear.)
Tho act of the Pope was an aggression on the rights of the
Roman catholics of England and on the subjects of her
Majesty. It was on this ground that the noble lord founded
the bill ; but he said at the sane time that it would be Clj-
jectionable to legislate beyond the necessity of the occasion,
and the mischief it was intended to rearms. But the
noble lord was not true to that principle when he extended
' the measure to Ireland. ()tear, hear.) 'rho Roman
catholics of Ireland were always ready to de-
fend their rights and liberties when they were
invaded, but that was not the case with the
Roman catholic' of England. In the year 1315, when
an attempt was made by the Pope in conjunction with the
English government to impose a new form of ecclesiastical
government in Ireland, it was opposed by the priests and
laity of the country, and a resolution was drawn up by Mr.
O'Connell, in which it was declared that anything affecting
their rights as members of a free state would be considered
by them as nou-obligatory upon their conscience. Two
months after, the Sacred Propaganda withdrew altogether
from the attempt. But the English Roman catholics had
not shown equal zeal in defending their independence
against the act of the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman. On the
contrary, they hail come forward in too many instances to
adopt it, and in no instance hail they comp forward to dis-
avow it. (Hear, hear.) As a proof of that, he might men-
tion that an address to the Duke of Norfolk, calling upon
him to convene a meeting for the purpose of considering the
effect of the Pope's act on the civil rights of the Roman
catholics, was drawn up by a Roman catholic of high posi-
tion in this country, and was circulated for signatures
amongst Roman catholics who were opposed to the papal
ri script, but not more than ten persons could be got to sign
it. (" dicer, hear" from the Roman catholic members.)
Yet those hon. gentlemen who cheered could not but lie
aware that a,noagst their own circles there were many Ito-
niaa catholies who disapproved of the act. Those who
signed the address to Cardinal Wiseman did so rather to
mark their condemnation of the scurrilous abuse which
had been heaped upon their religion and priests both at
public meetings and in the public prints of this country,
than to sianify their approval of his act. (" No, no.")
That was a matter of notoriety amongst Boman catholics,

quarters,
and after several ineffectual appeals for silence the hon.
member proceeded to contend amid the noise that the
24th gelation of the act of 1829, implied a local recognition
of certain titles in Ireland by their not being prohibited.
The papal power had attempted to disturb the arrange-
ment then made so far as this country was concerned—
parliament was endeavouring to meet the aggression, and
the question was whether it should simply resist the aggres-
sion or inflict a grievance ? The one it was necessary to do,
the other it was not. By including Ireland in the opera-
tion of the bill it would be less effective as regarded Eng-
land. Was it worth while to disappoint the expectations
of the people, and to renew religious animosities between
Ireland and this country, and that without the prospect
of restraining those assumptions which had arisen out
of the act, he had adverted to, and which if
they continued would make the act of 1829, so
far as Ireland was concerned incapable and frivolous.
Was it just to Ireland, or to Lord Clarendon, to perse-
vere with the measure ? (Laughter.) The hoe. member
proceeded at some further length to address the house ;
but amidst so much of interruption and laughter, that
very few connected sentences reached the gallery.
The committee divided :
For the clause GO
Against it 25-5-195
Sir R. INGLIS rose to move the clause of which he had
given notice.
Mr. KEOGH entreated the hon. baronet not to persevere
with the proposition at that hour (half-past 11).
Sir It. INOLIS could not tweed° to the suggestion. The
hon. baronet, who amidst the noise of the house, was im-
fettle heard, described the clause, which was declaratory
to the general effect that the Queen is the fountain of
all honour, that titles cannot be conferred by foreign
princes upon the subjects of her Majesty with-
out her Majesty's sanction, and with respect to
the church, that the rank, precedence, and titles of the
established church "cannot be imparted to the bishops of
any communion not so established ;" and then enacted
that " it is and shall not be deemed lawful for any minister
or servant of the crown in the United Kingdom, to give or
allow any rank or precedence, or to use in any public, legal,
or official document, any prefix of title or appellation of
honour in respect to any ecclesiastical order or dignity in
the church of Rome." There had been fervent protesta-
tions of loyalty from Roman catholic., but did they not
know that the sovereign for whom they pretended such re-
verence was bound by a solemn oath to maintain the pro-
testant church not only in England and Scotland, but in
Ireland also? There was no difference in the Queen's pre-
rogative in England, Scotland, or Ireland. He hoped the
house was prepared to sanction the clause he proposed.
Lord J RUSSELL rose to object to this clause. The
hon. gentleman called it a clause, but, in fact, it was a very
I long bill, and one which he thought would create as much
confusion as any bill he had ever heard of. (Hear.) The
hon. baronet, in the preamble to his hill, had brought a
heavy accusation against the government—not against the
present government, but those which had preceded it—and
he had said that from 1829 perhaps not one government
had been witkout some mark of censure. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Warwickshire agreed with the
opinion of the lien. baronet. (Mr. Sroomen : Hear,
hear.) Then those hon. members would be almost the
only two persona who could take places in the new cabinet
atter a vote of censure had passed on the government.
(" Hear," and a laugh.) In the beginning of the preamble
of the )ton. baronet's amendment, the following passage
occurred :—" And whereas such assumptions have no
fouudation in the law or custom of this realm, but rather
are manifestly against all law, yet by negligence and suffe-
rance of late years, such assumptions have gained allowance
and countenance, to the great disparagement of her Ma-
jesty's imperial crown and dignity, and to the weakening
and dishearteeie— -e - " ' of

and he was in a condition to pioduco evidence of its truth.
He thought that a strong case had been made out for legis-
lation, and for very stringent legislation in the sense of the
first clause. (Ironical cheering from the Roman catholic
members.) Yes, he repeated that a case had been made
out fur annulling and putting an end, by means of the an•
thority of parliament, to the ill-advised and insolent aggro-
' sion of the court of Rome on the temporal rights of English
subjects, whereas no case at all had been made out for the two
raining clauses,and least of all for the proposition to include
Ireland within the scope of the bill. That was the distinc-
tion he took, and hon. gentlemen opposite would do well to
consider with hint whether they would not effect their ob-
ject by excluding Ireland from the bill.
An Wen I'dvmucti—We decline any connexion of the
kind. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY could not act with hon. gentlemen oppo-
alto on this or any other question. (Ironical cheers.) lie
was there an independent member, representing both
Roman catholics and protestants, and unless he were

..iddishertening of the priitcsa.nt reformed churches 1..
thin realm, and to the discouragement of the protestant
faith in the land, and in all other her Majesty's dominions."
That was a grave and solemn charge to which it was impos-
sible he (Lord J. RusseU) could agree. And in the suppo-
sition that that censure was established, the hon. gentleman
went on to enact that " it is not and shall nut be deemed
lawful for any minister or servant of the crown in the
United Kingdom, or for any governor or subordinate
officer in any of the dominions thereunto belonging, on
Occasion of any public state or ceremonial or otherwise,
to give or allow any rank or precedence, or to
use in any public legal or official document any
prefix of title or appellation of honour." What the mean-
ing was of the phrase public state or ceremonial it was
difficult to say. lie supposed that the order in council in
which a Roman catholic bishop was styled " right reverend"
was a public document in which the title of " right reverend
prelate" was given to a Roman catholic ecclesiastic. That
was certainly a title. honour. Then the hon. baronet

to advocate fraud and imposture, sad ambition, as parts
of the Roman catholic system, he mustezpress his
unqualified condemnation of the recent act of aggression
on the part of the court of Rome, but the noble, lord by
-a Ireland in the bill, had the people of Ire-

went further, and by his bill enacted that no titles should
be given to Roman catholic prelates in the colonies except
in cases of "any dependency ceded by treaty to the crown
in which treaty there shall have been a special pro-
vision for the maintenance of the church of Rome therein."

- .
including me mu, ranged
land on the side of Dr. Cullen and against the colleges.
The popular excitement or frenzy in Ireland dated only
from the month of February, and the noble lord would do
well to went to the amendment for excluding that country
from the bill. (near, hear.)
After a few words frotuaMr. W. ruossta and Mr.
R00t.%
Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to say a few words
before the committee went to a division, in order to show
why Ireland should not be excluded from the bill. (Bear,
If the of the - 'waded—and

hecii.) It prerogative crown was
he must assume that, if the bill was to be approved of, and
if Ireland were left out of the bill, then it would follow
that the prerogative of the crown could not be infringed
with impunity in England, whilst in Ireland it could
be infringed with • (Hear, hear.) It -

maintenance of the church ot noim .....
The hon. gentleman should remember that many of these
colonies had legislatures who legislated for their own class,
and that it was often a question in those colonies whether
their legislature should have its own way, or that an act of
parliament should rule them. In those colonial parlia-
ments there would be great variation of religious opinions,
and consequently there would be hardly a minister or a
servant of the crown who might not be liable to this charge,
and to a prosecution for violation of this law. Sometimes,
for example, he had himself met Archbishop Murray at a
public dinner, and be had asked him to go out of the room
before %.4-- --

_ impunity. , hear.) -. seemed,
therefore, to him that it would not be possible logically to
defend the bill unless Ireland was included. (Hear, hear.)
But then, in point of practice and of fact, it was said there
were many millions of Boman catholics in Ireland and that
therefore they ought not to pass a bill prohibiting anything
from being dune which the Roman catholics of that
might wish to sec done. It appeared to him that th=
of the argument to that effect went nut so much BOW
this bill, which to a very trifling degree extended the
present law, as against the existing law—the provisions of
10 Geo. 4. If it were right to allow persons to call them.
selves " Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin," Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Armagh," " Bishop of Limerick,"
land so forth, in order to accomplish that object it was ne-
.

go
.Itha la neadonsa, i and he thought it was very pro-
per to do so. But it It be said that that was a viola-
tion of the law, and was a question for a jury to decide.
(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) The hon. baronet had
also said that these acts had been done by all former go-
.. . ..
by

vernments, and introduced with profusion the pressint
government. Such a clause could not be allowed to be
brought up, and he should oppose the motion. (Hear.)
The committee then divided.
For the clause l2l
Against it 166-45
The house then resumed, the chairman reported progress,
lad obtained leave to sit again on Monday.
Lord .Y. RUSSELL (who was speaking when we re-
entered the gallery). stated the course he intended to take
with the u public bonces. With regard to the Customs Bill
and the Window Duties Bill, he intended to take these two
orders on Monday se'nnight. lie proposed to take the
committee on supply on Thursday if possible. The noble
that' -e at its ruing

emery to repeal the provisions of 10 Oco, IV:The whole of
the argument as regarded the practice appeared to him not
an argument against including Ireland in this bill, but
for the repeal of the 10 Geo. IV. Ile did not perceive that
hon. gentlemen improved the case at all by asserting, as
they did, that that act was not in force ; he maintained the
contrary; but, supposing the case was otherwise, :they
should not willingly allow an act to remain on the statute
book which they considered a persecuting act, imposing
pains and penalties on persons professing their religion. Ifl
that were the character of this bill as regarded Ireland, it
was so much more the character of the 10 Geo. IV., and
therefore he repeated what honourable members ought to
do was not to rest contented with this amendment, but at
once to ask for the repeal of the existing statute. As the
matter stood at present the question seemed to him far more
one of right and of logic than of practice. This bill carried
very little further than it was already carried the prohibi-
tion against the assumption of titles; what it really did,and
what he thought it would be effective in doing, was to pro-
hibit the assumption of the titles of places which did not
give titles to existing sees. That was what they proposed
to do, and proposing that with regard to England he did
not think they would be justified in saying that any person
might under a rescript of the Pope assume the title at
Bishop of Galway, or of any other place, without the autho-
rity of parliament.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that, viewing this bill as an insult
to Roman catholics, he was prepared to vote for excluding
or Irish - v from its -- He co.-

lord then moved , • the house at its ,do adjourn till
Monday next.
The motion having been seconded, was agreed to.
WOODS, FORESTS, &c., BILL.
After a few words from Viscount DeNciN and Lord
SEYMOUR, in reference to the postponement of this order,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought it should be taken at
a morning sitting.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the taking of so important a
bill at a morning sitting. Indeed there was so much incon-
venience attendant on morning sittings that he did not
think it at all reasonable that they should be held at this
period of the session. If they were persisted is they would
break up all the committees. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would fix it fur Tuesday, but
he begged to add that if he found it could not otherwise be
brought on next week he would be obliged to have a morn-
ing sitting for it.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTII BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
The preamble was postponed.
Mr. HOLLOND inquired why Hastings was excluded
from the schedule
Lord SEYMOUR said that Hastings had been for the
present omitted on account of some 1 real dispute. Ile,
however, considered himself at liberty to introduce that
borough into another bill which he intended bringing for-
ward in a few days.
After • few words from Mr. Frewen, Mr. Ilollond, and
Lord the several clauses were - ' to.

ad agreed
Mr HOLLOND moved that Hastings be added to tho
schedule.
The committee divided.
For the amendment 45
Against it
Oa the reporters being admitted into the gallery,
Mr. FRE WEN was complaining of the bill being brought
sat bp-nicht unexpectedly. Several members who took an
Interest in it would have been present had they known. lie
hoped his hon. friend the member for Hastings would
take an opportunity of bringing the case of that town be-
Rae the consideration of the house.-
Mr. HOLLOND said it was necessary for the welfare of,
the town of Hastings that it should be included in the bill.
Mr. W. MILES said the noble lord ought to state his'
reasons for not including Hastings.
Lord SEYMOUR said the hon. member would recol-
lect that he came to him himself with respect to a
town in his own part of the country, as to which
there were great difficulties. They were not agreed
as to whether the town should be under the
Board of Health, and if it were they were not agreed as to
the boundaries. A deputation from St. Leonard's waited
upon him and said although it was fair to Hastings it was
very unfair to St. Leonard's. He then said he would put
the town aside for that bill, and would five them several
weeks to come to a better understanding among them-
selves. But looking to the importance of putting Hastings
under the General Health of Towns Act, he should put it
into the next bill that he brought before the house.
After some further consideration, the schedule as origi-
sally proposed was passed, and the house resumed.
HOME-MADE SPIRITS IN BOND.
Lord NAAS moved that the report on this bill be
!nought up.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed to
take the discussion on another stage of the bill, and the
motion was agreed to.
CIVIL BILL (IRELAND).
This bill passed through committee pro forma.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for leave to bring In a hill
to amend the acts relating to the Merchant Seaman's Fund.
He stated that the condition of this fund had long been •
cause of complaint. It was in a state of hopeless insolvency
and presented increased difficulties every year. It was a
fund raised by a compulsory tax of 6d. • month on all sea-
men • and the mismanagement had been so great, that Mr.
Finlipson calculated that, if it were now wound up, the do-