The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-25 00:00:00

ROMAN CAThOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Mr. WATSON then proceeded to same the second read-
ing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The principle on
which he founded the measure was the clear and sound one
that no man ought to be subjected to penal enactments
merely on account of his religious opinions. A great propor-
tion indeed of these monstrous penal laws, dating from
Edward VI. to George IV., had been repealed in the present
reign, but still much of the offence to justice and common
*ewe remained to be done away with. The whole subject
of these penal laws had been submitted professionally to
several of oar most eminent lawyers, and they had been of
the unanimous opinion that it would be most expedient to
have them wholly repented. The first act which he pro-
posed to repeal was 1 Elie., cap, 1 (erroneously called the
Act of Supremacy, though in point of feet the su-
premacy of the crown in matters ecclesiastical was part
of the common law of the realm), which provided that
if any person gainsaid by word, writing, or otherwise, the su-
premacy, power, or pre-eminence of the sovereign, be should,
for the hest offence, be liable to imprisonment or forfeiture
of goods ; for the second, to the penalty of premunire ; and
for the third, to capital punishment. The penalties, indeed,
of this act had been repealed by recent statutes, but the crime
still remained in force, so that any person committing it was
liable to be prosecuted for misdemeanour. Tho repeal of
this act was strongly recommended by the commissioners ap-
pointed to inquire into the criminal law. Thr second enact-
ment that he desired to repeal was that which rendered tho
spiritual adhesion of persons in this country to Papal bolls or
other spiritual communications from Rome a penal offence.
Au 'thee enactment which he proposed to repeal was the
'Uniformity Act, as far as it affected Roman Catholics. Other
acts he intended to repeal were 30 Ch. 11., 7 & 8 Wm. 111.,
and 31 Gee. I IL, csp. 32. The latter was one of what were
called Relief Acts, but it contained conditions which, if not
complied with, precluded Catholics from participating in the
relief afforded. It was these conditions that he wished to
have abolished. All these restrictions were regarded by
some Protestants as safeguards of the Protestant Church, but
be did not at all regard them in that light. He now came
to the safeguards respecting the regular cleegy. But what
were these safeguards or why they had been provided, he
would notconecive. He knew that when the word " Jesuit"
was mentioned on tLe hustings of Birmingham it frightened
all the old ladies of that town into convulsions ; but many of
the persons connected with monastic orders were most
learned and intelligent, abounding in works of love and cha-
rity, diligent searchers into history and philosophy; and if it
was said that the Jesuits had done some evil, it must also
be admitted that they had dune much good. The legislature
had already, in the acts which had passed the house, re-
moved matey of those bigoted end penal enactments which
he complained of, and he stow asked the honeo to finish the
good week by repealing all that remained of them. It was
argued that those acts were now obselete ; but that was no
argument, or, if one at all, it was in favour of the abrogation
of them. He asked their repeal, not as a concession to the
Catholics, but as justice to the l'rotestants, who boasted
thrtartelves the friends of toleration and of liberal measurm.
To them he would appeal on this question, and he hoped
that in support of their principles they would give their con-
sent to the second reading of this hill.
Sir R, INGLIS complained that the hon. and learned
member had commenced his speech with an attack on the
Lon. member for Birmingham, a 'quench 'supporter of the
principles which he (Sir 11. Inglis) had always advocated.
The hon. and learned member complained that the hon.
member for Birmingham and his constituents were ignorant
of certain onalsaions which hail been made in this year's bill.
The mistake nhiek th y had made was very easily accounted
for, as the p. ints now omitted were to be found in all
former bills, and no notice of their omission bad been given.
Tne hies, and learned member had claims upon the attention
of the house as asound lawyer, bet he thought he could lay
no claims to the character of an accurate historian. He
asserted that penal lases arose with the reformation,
but hi., forgot that it was not tin long after the resolution
tail many of these laws passed. but the hon. and learned
member was also inconsistent with himself, for, by the
terms of the act of Elizabeth, if the supremacy of the
crown over matters ecclesiastical were base I on the common
law of the country, the l'rotestant as well as Catholic subs
d' of the crown would be equally liable to their operation.
The hon. and learned member was °Milted to go bath to the
early part of the reign of Elisabeth for on instance in which
the rigour of this law was preard against a Boman Catholic
sal jet:, and he was very certain that if the hon. and
learned in sober had had a laser illustration he would have
given it. The hon. and learned member bad greatly depre-
ciated the secorides which were given to the Established
Church fa the Aes. of Emancipation, but, however ',lightly
even hr (Sir R. 11. Inglis) might view them, they were ten-
dered an I accepted as seerritee, and therefore the hon. and
learned member sh wld not have alluded to them in terms
so unfitting, Ho (Sir R. Inglis) contended that there was
no cowry in Chtistian Ears pe into which the Jesuits were
admitted without a direct law being passed subiecting them in
nuiohers, residences, and objects, to the powers at the time
being. Tho Jesuits had greatly increased in this country

since the first foundation of their establishment at Stoney-
hant and in Ireland ; and therefore he thought that, in.
stand of removing the severities of 1829, they should rather
strengthen the hands of Foveroment, to enable them to sup. 11
prey, any further extension of the order. The present bill
prohibited any Roman Catholic subject from assuming the
title of archbishop of Canterbury or tushop of London, which
made it less objectionable than former bills brought in by the
hon. and learned member ; but still so mu h remained in the
measure as to rend it objectionable. Ile objects dtoit on
principle—the:Church of England was the established church
of the realm- In Ireland the members of the Protestant
Church were prohibited from processions, and it would be
most unfair to allow to a hostile church that which was
denied to their own Protestant church. Was the hon.
member prepared to see the recession of the host through
the streets of London ? if such scenes were to be intro-
dueed into this country it would be great cause of regret
to the passers of such a measure. The hon. and learned
member for Cork had laid that he would not allow the
procession of the host to be paraded through the streets of
London, it was an object of too much veneration. It was
then for the house to prevent the public exhibition of this
cerement., and not to leave it to the will of the Catholic
priesthood to adopt it if they thought proper. If the
present mea-ure were to pax., it would make this country
the only one in the world where Jesuits were allowed to
entry on their profession without tome restraint. lie
regretted to see that the 9th and 10th Victoria, prohibiting
the introduction of hulls and rescripte, had been already
repealed. In no country in the world was any bull of a
foreian potentate, as was the Pope's, allowed to be introduced
without the previous consent of the government of such
country. Having the objections he had- stated, he begged
to move that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.
Col. SIBTHORP seconded the amendment.

—.. -.
Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to know the principle upon
which the hon. baronet the member for Oxford University
opposed the hill ? Was it for the purposes of conferring
additionol securities on the Pretest ant Church ? The hon.
baronet h od not so grounded his opposition last year, nor did
he do so now. What, then, was the great cause ? It had
not been stet, d. The hon. baronet had spoken of a h^stile
churth, but there were constant c reversions to that church
from Protestantism every day. The penalties did not pre-
vent them. What was then the real cause of the opposition
and the great cause which the right hon. member was deter-
mined to maintain ? What was the use of these pains and
penalties ? They brought no money into the exchequer, or
intro the church. He believed the only meson why they were
desired to he kept on the statute book was to gratify a cer-
tain had spirit and malignancy of disposition, which some-
times found their way into the breasts of the best men,
and which made them never happy except when
they were teasing their fellow-creatures. (Laughter.)
He had been that morning reading a speech of Cromwell's,
in which he dismissed a parliament that did not suit his pur-
pose. In finding fault with some of the leading men, Crom-
well slid that they wcre•never easy except when they had
their fingers on other men's conscience, in order that they
might .pinch them there. (Hear, hear.) A aimilat com-
plaint might apply at the present time. What was the use
of retaining these penalties ? He did not believe that one
man in a hundred, out cif doors, could be found to stand up
for a continuance of these pains and penalties. It had been
said that them enactments were securities to the Established
Church ; but the bon. baronet had not shown to the house
how it was that they acted as securities. It had been further
said that they were preserved in the great net of 1829, and
ought to be now preserved. He (Mr. B. Eoeott) thought
that the Emancipation Act of 1829 was a great measure
ofjuatice,:and7he looked with pleasure to the good that act
had done, rather than to that which it had left undone.
Now was the time to carry out its intentions completely. He
wished that the hon. baronet, in finding reasons against fur-
ther concessions to Beeman Catholics, would nut look back to
the tins •of Queen Men, and the interdicts, hut would look
to one who now filled the throne of St. l'eter, and who was
teaching lemons of liberality to the other sovereigns of
Europe. (Hear, hear.) lle trusted that her Majesty's
ministers would permit this measure to pass, and he was sure
that the right hon. baronets the members fur Tamworth and
Dorchester must be anxious for its success. Neither could
the noble lord the member for Lynn have any hostility to it.
In many things, that noble lord was in advance of hie party,
and now he had an opportunity of proving himself the Peal
of 1847. (Great laughter.) The noble lord had supported
the bill before ; be (Mr. Escott) trusted he would support it
again, and that this would be the last debate in the British
House of Commons, having for its subject the removal of
penal enactments on account of religious difference. (Hear.)
Mr. SHAW objected to the bill me tending to disturb
those relations between Protestant and Catholic which were

established by the act of 1820.
Mr. MACAULAY was sorry this question should have
come on at a time when several members peculiarly qualified
to discuss it were necessarily abseee, and when a division
must give but a very imperfect idea of the general sense of
the house. At the same time he could not shrink from
gating his opinions. Ile conceived whenever a 101 l was
brought in, containing a great variety of matter tit to be
paced on the statute-book, that it was no sufficient objection
to its second reading that it ads contained some clauses
which it would be unwise to pass. The principle of
the bill was sufficiently vindicated when it was
shown that it contained many provisions to which they
might to give the force of law. Now, in the pre ent bill,
the first pmrieion was oue which his hon. friend the
member for Oxford had net pronounced, and which he
chal.enged any hon. gentleman to pronounce, improper.
Was it the intention of the House of Commons that every
Roman Catholic in England should he subject to line and
imprisonment for being a Roman Catholic ? Yet that was
the effect of the wording of the law which it was proposed
by the first portion of the bill to repeal. The enactment was,
that all who affirmed or maintained the doctrine that any
fort inn power or authority hod spiritual jurisdiction in thh
country should be subject to fine end imprisonment. Though
the capital punishment was repealed last year, this was the
effect of the law as it now stand. Did not that provision
include every Roman Catholic in this country ? (Hear.) Was
there a single Roman Catholic who slid not hold that some
giritual jurisdiction or other resided in the Bishop of Rome?
$ was true there had been great contests between the doc-
-1 ten of the Catholic church an to the extent of that jurisdie-
thin at various times—at the Council of Trent, and on sub-
sequent occasions. Some, as the Jesuits, had contended,
that the authority of the Pope was greater than that admit-
ted by the divines of the Galilean church, end that it was
supreme in all matters. Other*, that he held powers co-or-
dinate with, and others that his powers were subordinate
to, that of the general council ; but to take the whole range
of Roman Catholic doctors and writers, from Aquinas down
to Bossuet, there was not one that did not hold that some
spiritual jurisdiction resided in the Bishop of Rome—not
one that did not feel himself bound to be in communion with
the bishop. (Hear, hear.) Would any man say that
it was right or just that every Romin Catholic who
taught he, son the doctrines of that religion which he him-
self professed—that every priest who preached the religion
of which he was the expounder—should be liable to fine and
imprisonment for so doing? If that was what was meant,
let it be distinctly asserted. (Hear, hear.) But that, no one,
not even his hon. friend the member for Oxford, would
assert—this he was confident of. (Cheers.) Let him assume a
case. Suppose the government, determined to carry out the
law, directed their attorney-kenerel to proceed in every case
in which it was infringed; and suppose Dr. Wiseman
preached a sermon, taking for his text the words upon which
rested the Roman Catholic doctrine of the power of the
Pope, " Thou art Peter," would any one say that he should
be prosecuted for the misdemeanour which, under the law
as it stood, he would have committed ? If he were prose-
cuted, and placed in Ncwgate for the offence, he was sure
no one would be more indignant at the proceeding than his
hon. friend (Sir It. Inglis). lie could undersumd that
because a law was rarely enforced might be no reason for
blotting it out front the statute hook, for it might be wise
to keep it in terrorem for the punishment of great
offenders, but a law, for enforcing which not even a hypo
thetical ease could be put, there was no excuse for eon-
tinning. (Hear, hear.) Look at the extravagant incon-
sistency of our legislation now. There were several courses
open to them; there was that—which he held to be the
proper one—of imposing upon no sect either fines or civil
disabilities -(hear, hear); or they might prosecute and im-
pose on them disabling laws and penal laws ; or they might
take the other course—that which was (Avocet. d by his
hon. friend the member for Oxford last year—of not im-
posing disebilities, but excluding from power. (" Hear,"
from Sir It. Deere.) But what had they done in the ease
of the Roman Catholic? They had dispensed him from
the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy—they per-
mitted him to take his seat in parliament—but the moment
he did so, ho was liable to be punished by fine and im-
prisonment. Was not this an inconsistency the most aboard
that had ever disgraced the statute-book? (Hear, hear.)
The best defence that could be put forward was, that the
hw would never be executed; but that was no longer any
defence whenever the attention of the house was called to
the subject. Others were called on to act upon it. They
must now say " aye " or " no" t the principle of this bill,
and he conceived that if they refused their assent to it they
would disgrace themselves as a legislature. What he had
said as to this first part of the bill applied in some degree
also to the other part. His hon. friend had said that, as to
civil disabilities, they were all abolished by the act of last
year. What was really abolished was an act of the 13th
of the same queen which imposed the punishment of death
on the introduction of bulls, writings, or instruments con-
' netted with the Church of Rome, into this country ; but the
1 bill of last year did not make it lawful to introduce such
bulls, writings, or instruments, and, except as to the penalty,
the law remained the same as before. But no man
would now bold, as the hon. member for Birmingham
held last year,that the introduction of an Agnus Dei or Cru-
cifix, was a crime for which the offender should be hanged,
drawn, and quartered—(a laugh)—or seriously meant that
it should continue to he an offence in this country punish-
able
as a miademeannur fora man to go and hear mass.
Then, as it appeared to him, until they come to that part of
the bill which his hon. and learned friend had stated he woo
willing to modify, they were dealing with that which ought
not for a moment to become a matter of contest amongst
rational men, and it would surely be an unprecedented
course to throw out a bill et its second reading, because of a
clause which the mover was walling to modify, so as to
meerthe views of its objector.. To that part of the bill
which dealt with Roman Catholic processions he was op-
rsed. There was no intolerance is preventing them.
That was a question of the preservation of the public peace.
If there was a tolerant form of government on earth, it was
that of the British government in India, yet that inter-
fered with religious processions which might endanger
the pence of the country, and he should not ob-
ject to the application of stringent measures for
preventing the celebration of such Roman Catholic rites end
ceremonies as were calculated to endanger the public tran-
quillity; therefore he could not support the clause as it
stood, neither did he agree with all that had been said
against it. It was certainly neither just nor right that a
British subject, being a Franciscan, should be driven from

his country, and if he ventured to break through that ban
that he should be liable to he transported for lite. But be
could see no force in the hon. and learned gentleman's objec-
tion to the adoption of a similar system of regioration in
regard to Roman Catholics in was adopted towards all dis-
senting congregations. If a man were a Jesuit and con-
cealed his religion, he might become an object of suepietion;
but some system by which it might be known who were and
who were not member, of each religious order, was .n his
opinion compatible with religious liberty and toleration, and
with the security of the state. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FINCH opposed the bill on the ground that it would
tend to encourag • the Church of Rome, which he believed
to be adverse to the royal prerogative, and the protestant
constitution of this country. Every Raman Cetloilie was
taught to believe that his church was the mother, and ought
to be the mistress of all others. When it was complained
that sre were intolerant towards the Roman Catholics, he
would say, let us have a little free trade in this matter—a
little reciprocity ; —but he looked in vain for toleration to
protestant+ in catholic countries. France and. Belgium
had, it was true, broken down the power of the
Chun h of Rome, but where that church still re-
tained its influence, as in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, he
looked in vain for toleration. In Rome, notwithstanding
the immense sums of money spent by Englishmen there,
every amilication for permission to erect a Protestant church
in that city had been unsure, seta). He objected to the mea-
sure as hostile to the British constitution, to civilisation, to
the statute law, and to the safety and security of the Pro-
testant selieion.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN considered that a discussion for so
many hours upon such a measure was worthy of tee dark
ages. No man could went that the religious superintend-
ence of the Cetholie priesthood had not been productive of
much good yet by the law which this bill went to repeal
they were Hanle to he prosreated fur a misdemeanor for
teaching their religion.
Mr. SPOONER, in reference to the chum in the bill of
last year, observed, that what he then said, Mitring first
I heard the opinion of the Sal ieitot-General, that if that clause
passed, the common law would not h; sufficient to prevent a
man bringing into this country a bull, which per se was an
innocent document, Was, thot he mast oppose a dense which
would allow a document to be introduced which, ow the face
of it. assert, d the authority and supremacy of n foreisn prince
in this country. He therefore repudiated the sentiments
attributed to him by the right hon. gentleman the Pay-
muter of the Forces. If they acted on the principle of the
hon.nsembcr for Limerick, end allowed the Lord Chancellors
and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to he Roman Catholics, then
there would be oily one mew step from that to the throne.
(Cheer.) As for the Romari Catholic religion itself, he did
not hesitate to say that he impugned it because he beliered
that it was not only not the religion of the Bible, but con-
trary to the Bible. (Hear, hear.) Ile regretted to think
that this country wan losing its Protestant character, and he
believed in his conscience that wasone of the causes—(eriee
of " Oh!")—which had brought down upon it the affliction
under which It was at present suffering. (Renewed and
general cries of "Nn.")
Mr. MACAULAY observe) that he should willingly
retract what he had said, if he had done the smallest talus-
tire to the hon. member ; but he had said nothing which
was not clearly demonstrated by the ordinary authority.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL fully acquiesced in the proposition
that the most stringent enactments should be pawed to pre-
vent. Catholic proccesions, and to compel the registration of
the different Catholic orders throughout the country ; but
he protested against continuing restrictions on the statue
book which tended to keep up an unhealthy degree of irri-
tation, which were of no value as securities because never
acted upon, which confeesodly would never ho enforced,
which were openly violated, and which it war a disgrace to
the legislnture to continue. (Bear, hear.) With re-
togard what had been said about the obedience
of Jesuits, that law sainted no doubt amongst them
in amongst other Roman Catholic religious bodies, and was
strictly observed as a general rule, but he boned to remark
tharamonget all orders there existed a higher power still,
which, according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic
church, they were hound to obey, and that was the monitor
of their own conscience which forbade them to yield obe-
dience to that wlech they conscientiously believed to he
morally wrong. He regretted that the Iteconler of Dublin
should have spoken of the Roman Catholics soil they were an
insignificant body bemiring et the door of that house. They
constituted 7-Bths of tee population of Ireland, and 3.Bths of
the population of the United Kingdom. They must, the re-
fore, in carrying into effect the constitution of this country,
be regarded as a greet fact, tot to he got rid of by any sup-
posed superiority in point of religion, or by the keeping up
of restrictions such as this bill proposed to remove.
Mr. NEWDEIGATE could not agree in the opinion that
while Catholic countries found it necessary to impose certain
restrictions upon the papal power, thin Protestant country
should set the example of totally abelishing them. The ex-
istence of the Roman Catholic church in this county was
doubtless a great fact, but be could not perceive that that
church was at present onfferinn from the operation of any
penal statutes or disabilities. Indeed, if such were the ease,
he, as a hater of persecution, and the advorate of tolerance,
would join in repealing them. But he could not consent to
a measure which proposed to break down some of the bul-
warks of the constitution, and erect nothing in their place
bulwarks which did not interfere with the fair and open ex-
ercise of the Roman Catholic religion, but which did, and
which might, to preclude the malicious and illegal
purpose of setting up the authority of a foreign
potentate against the sovereign of this country. (Hear.)
He saw no reason for doing away with that portion of the
bill which did away with the oaths taken by Roman Catholic
barristers. It was a provision which did not exist in the
bill of last year, and for which the hon. gentleman who in-
troduced the bill had not alleged any grounds. Tne oath of
supremacy merely declared that the Pope had no civil or
temporal authority in this country, and to that declaration
he could see no valid objection. The toleration of Jesuits,
he thought, would be most dangerous; as they were the
enemies of liberty everywhere, and hod proved themselves
so inimical to the interests of nations, that Pope Clement 111.
had contemnlated their supprewion, but died before he could
accomplish it; and Clement V. did suppress them in nearly
every country in Europe as a religious order. Even in the
present day their injurious influence was to be observed in
Switzerinnd, where they were exciting much civil dissension.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for
Winchester had appealed to him to prove himself the Peel of
1817. He had certainly been the unflinching supporter of
the removal of Catholic disabilities, and he would vote with
tho honourable member for Kinsale on the present occa-
sion, without in the least degree trenching on the midi-
testes of the right honourable baronet (Sir R. Peel). It
had been argued by his hon. friend the member for the
University of Oxford, that there was no practical evil or
grievance to be remedied by the bill, as the laws it proposed
to repeal were already obsolete, and therefore harmless.
Now, if that were ao, he thought it a reason why tloy ought
to repeal them. But it was net so; for they gore rise, on he
could show, to crest practical evils. (Hear, hear.) His
bon. friend said that there was no example, since Elizabeth,
of a Roman Catholic having been hanged for advocating
the supremacy of the Pope. That might be. But, in
modern times, he believed there would be found many
examples of great grievances, arisirg out of these lawywhich
were said to he °baguette In 1837, a cause was tried before
Lord Langdale, respecting the right of a Roman Catholic
priest to hold a rent-charge for the benefit of mrtain Roman
Catholic poor, when it was decided that it wan contrary to
the penal statute, and that the property must be forfeited to
the crown. Now, that was deemed so great a pracCeal
grievance by the late government, that the right hon. ba-
ronet the number for Tamworth bad felt it to he his duty
to recommend that a new great should be made of the rent-
' cherge. (Hear, heir.) Then was it no prurient grievance
that Roman Catholics could not he buried in churchyards,
or have performed over them, in the open air, tee rites of
Chris•ian burial by the clergy of their own church, dressed
in their own habits? (Meer. bear.) Yet such was the
effect of the law as it now stood ; and Roman Catholics were
ob'iced to have their burial service performed in the
chamber of death. Now, that ho considered a very
great grievance, and one that ought not to be
permitted in a Christian country. (Hear, hear.) Again,
when the hoe. member for Cork tilled the office of Lord
Mayor of Dublin, the scandal was made known to the world
that he, as a Roman Catholic, being disabled from appear-
ing in his robes of office in his own church, marched in those
robes through the streets of Dublin, and at the door of that
sacred edifice, in the presence ot thousands of his fellow
Roman Catholic citizens, was ohliaed to strip them off and
east them midis. (Loud cries of "He ar.") Now, did the
house suppose that such scenes an that were likely to conci-
liate the Roman Catholics of the empire, or effect any
species of good ? It WWI, on the contrary, in his opinion, •
great practical grievance, which ought 6i be remedied, and
which would be remedied by this bill. Ile believed it was
chiefly from the order of the Christian Br then that the
schoolmasters of Ireland were taken, an order to which
Father Mathew belong d; and yet he, a man who had no
compeer in Ireland in establishing the principles of sobriety
and morality amongst the people, he himself was, under the
laws that now existed, liable to be ban shed for exercising
his proper calling, and, if he returned, liable to be trans-
ported for life. (Hear, hear.) These were grievances that
ought to be removed; and as for any compact helms; made
in 1829, he for one acknowledged none. tHear, hear.)
The government of 1829 was obliged to lay down its arms
and surrender at discretion; end this clause, so far from being
agreed to, was protested against by Lord Sandon, the then
Secretary for Ireland, and other members, as being eaten-
hard to east a stain on the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
which was unworthy of a Christian people.
Sir R, PEEL said the bill which now stood for a second
reading, contemplated a double object. In the first instance,
it contemplated the repeal of many of the enactments of the
bill of 1829, which relieved the Roman Catholics from al-
most all political disabilities ; and it also proposed to carry
into effect certain acts of last session, and one of the year 1841
for the abolition of statutes which were practically obsolete,
which implied doubts of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic
community, and which, if pat into practical operation,
would subtect them to severe and disproportionate penalties.
So far as the latter object was concerned, the bill would have
his cordial support. He had taken an active part in further-
ing the measures of 1841 and 1846, which had that for their
object. He theught it most unwise to continue statutes
which were wholly out of consonance and agreement with
the spirit of the times, and which inflicted penalties which
could not be enforced without revolting the Christian feel-
ing. even of those who did not agree with the Roman Catho-
lics; he thooght them discreditable to the statute-look, sad,
therefore, he gave his cordial assent to their removal.
The first part of the bill professed to supply the
omissions of the acts of 1844 and 1846. The hon. gentleman
wine had the conduct of the bill said that now by law, and
notwithstanding the statute of 1844 and 1816, a Roman
Catholic maliciously and advisedly maintaining the authority,
spiritual and eerie:emetics', of any foreign potentate,
prelate, or power, if he was possessed of goods of the of
20,1. forfeited them all, and if he was not ponmasedeqf
he iorfeited all he had, and was subject to a yeses pi.,
**anent.

Mr. WATSON.—The penalties are repealed. It Is • mis-
demeanor.
Mr. C. E. LAW.—It Is an offence against the constitu-
tion at common law
Sir It. PEEL—The law which inflicted that penalty might
have ceased to be enforced, but the provision of that net sub-
jected a Roman Catholic to fine end imprisonment. The hon.
and learned gentleman said it was • part of the constitu-
tion—(ironical sheen)—that a Roman Catholic main-
taining the spiritual authority of the Pope was
subject to fine and imprisonment. The hon. member for
Warwickshire certainly aid if it was done " maliciously and
advisedly;" hut malice would be inferred. (Hear, hear.)
He (Sir It. Peel) was not prepared to assert that a komaa
Catholic maintaining the ecclesiattical authority of the Pope
should he subject to fine and imprisonment; and ho doubted
if it was part of the censtitutiou—(hear, hear, and laughter)
—for when the Roman Catholics were admitted to bit in par-
liament, they were relieved from the necessity of maintain-
ing that the Pope had no spiritual authority in these realms;
but by the oath they now took, they asserted that nei:her
the Pope nor any otLer prelate or potentate had any temporal
or civil. jurisdictioa directly or indirectly in these maims.
In order to perform one of the greatest c institu-
tional acts, the functions of a member of the legis-
lature, a Roman Catholic was relieved from totally
denying the spiritual authority of the Pope. As to the
oath of supremacy, even before these enactments, the
Roman Cs:holies did not object to it. They (Protestants)
could not take that oath unless they denied that any foreign
potentate had any authority in these realms, which could
be enforced by some power or jurisdiction ; and the Homan
Catholics took it in the same sense. The operation of the
statutes which hid passed would he incomplete if Roman
Catholics were subject to fine and imprisonment for main-
taining the spiritual authority of the Pope, and, therefore,
he agreed to that part of the bill. As t t the other object
of the bill, he totally dissented from it, fir it proposed the
repeal of the enactments of the bill of 1629, and he would
*leaps contend for the substantial maintenance of that bill.
One provision of that bill was, that no Homan Catholic prelate
should assume tLe name or title of a particular see ; a
second that no Roman Catholic priest should appear in the
streets in the dress and insignia of his order; mother, against
the introduction of religious orders into the country. The
hem. gentleman said that he world not repeal the act which
prisrented prelates from assuming the titles of sees; and
again, he said be was content that no priest should appear in
the dress of his order in processions, because it would be
satisfactory to the minds of Protestants. On the same
ground, he (Sir D. Peel) would maintain the other pruvi-
moos of the bill of 1824. Although it might be contended
that no sompact w.vt then entered into on these points, yet
h' was cenfident that great difficulty wool,' have arisen it
removincthe disabilities of the Roman Catholics unless that
step half been accompanied by regulations acceptable
to the minds of Protestants. It would also operate as
a great discouragement to pursuing the same course if, u few
years after, the legislature,. without proper rem 0113 shown,
set those regulations aside. He differed from the noble lord
with regard to the appearance of priests in the insignia end
dress of their order, for the general scope and tendency of
the acts which had been passed, was, that there should be a
ition of the supremacy of the Protestant Church.
recognition of the ,upre,ooey of the I'roteatant Church.
With regard to religious orders, he admitted that there
might he better reeu'ations adopts], and it was possible
that there was too much severity in the penalty of banish-
ment, but he wait ant prepared to assent to the alaultste re-
peat of the provisions of the statutes in relation to this sub-
lest, without the adoption of some other regula-
tions, or that religious bodies should be established in
this country without their being under the control and
superintendence of the state. While, therefore, he agreed
that the enactments of this bill were in conformity with the
statutes of 1844 and 1546, he must accompany that acknow-
ledgment by a declaration that to the latter part of the bill,
which repealed the securities which accompanied the re-
moi al of the disabilities of the Roman Cutbolisa in 1839. he
was not prepared to assent until he heard that some other
regulations were to be adopted, and particularly as regardcsl
monastic orders. At the tame time he did not thiuk he was
justified in refusing to rave his consideration to the hill.
because some parts of it did not meet with his unqualified
assent. (Hear, hear.)
isle C. E. LAW —(ansidat cries of " Divide ")—said he
had the authority of the Chancellor of the government of
the right hon. baronet for saying that to impugn the spiritual
supremacy of the crown, was an offence at common law.
With reg did to the two statutes of Elizabeth, if anything
was wanted to prove that the offences which were contained
in those statutes continued at common law, it would lie
found in the hill of last session. The common law punish.
meet still attached to the maliciously impugning the aupre-
macy of the crown, though the statutory penalty was re-
moved. He should oppnee the second reading of the bill.
After • few words horn the Earl of AILIINDEL and
StalltEY,
Mc. GOCEBOURN said, that as it was his intention to
vote against the second reaffing of the bill, he thought
it necessary to state the grounds on which he did so. The
bill comprised two distinct parts; in one part it repealed
statutes which had been omitted in the measures of last
session, and in the other, enactments of the bill of 1529,
which, in his mind, were the important elements and essence
of that bill. He was prepared to assent to that was pro-
, posed by the first part, but he could not support the second
readitid of a bill which professed to repeal statutes which
were said to be obsolete, hut which in tact repeal,' the bill
of 1829, which imposed limited et strictions on the Roman
Catho.im. As he was one of the parties who introduced
that bit, he knew that although there was no positive com-
pact, y..t many persons, by the existence of those provisions,
were led to lend thcir assistance to its passing. lie could
net assent to the repeal of enactments which he conceived
good faith obliged him to maintain.
Mr. WATSON, in reply, said he hoped in committee to
satisfy both the right ken. baronet and the right hon. gentle-
, man the Paymaster of the Forces.
The house then divided— For the second readins 102
Against it
Majority _3

TENANTS-RIGInS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD deferred the further consideration
of this bill until the °Mir measures lel ding tu Ireland were
passed.
LORDS' AMENDNIENTS.

On the !Burton of Sir G, OR , the lords' amendments to
the Dectitute Persons' (Ireland) Bill mere agreed to.
The house then adjourned at a ft w minutes to six.

not giving to the person so hiring it anything that
the law regards as possession, and, being only one of
the modes of husbandry, as little divesting the imme-
diate tenant of possession, as if grazing cattle of
another's had been placed on the grounds. As we
understood the case, we thought his lordship had
really nothing to complain of, though the injury to
his property may have been far greater (as we
think he stated in some published letters) than
if his tenant had dealt with the farm
in the way the covenant guarded against.
There can be no doubt that covenants may easily be
framed against this mode of husbandry, and that, if
such was his object, he had only himself to blame for
not having, in his lease used language calculated to
effect it.

In Lord WESTMEATIIN representations, however,
on the subject of the law of landlord and tenant, there
is very great general truth. What is called tenancy
at will is supposed to imply that the landlord has the
power at once to get rid of such tenant. A word of
explanation may remove much error on this sub-
ject. There is practically no such thing as tenancy at
will, either in England or Ireland. I'he courts of
law, whenever they find a tenancy indeterminate in
point of time existing, regard it as a tenancy from
year to year ; and which can only be put an end to at
the same period of the year at which it has com-
menced, and after six months' notice to the opposite
party. An Irish landlord, who has been paid
no rent for the last two or three years,
feels it time to get rid of his tenant. He
finds in February, 1847, that the tenancy has com-
menced on the Ist of May, some dozen years ago,
and he learns that he cannot demand possession till
May, 1818, and then cannot succeed in an action
of possession, except he has been fortunate enough
to have notices to quit, in which no flaw can be de-
tected, served on tenants living perhaps in a part of the
country where the process•scrver's occupation is a
dangerous trade. Some time since, a Tipperary
paper bestowed high praise on Mr. Serjeant
liowcEr, for appointing two process•servers to the
offices rendered vacant by their fathers murders.
Now we really cannot see any meaning whatever in
continuing a state of law which gives to one man
another's land longer than he continues to pay the
rent, the payment of which was the condition on which
it was received ; and while we do not fall out with the
courts of law for having created this tenancy from
year to year—for it is their creation, and not
that of the parties—we yet cull on the legisla-
ture, in dealing with the Irish landlord, to remem-
ber that this state of things is not the act of the
landlords, but arises altogether from fictions of law.
Indeed, the courts themselves ought to guard
against their fictions creating not alone Incon-
venience, but absolute injustice. "We Irish are re-
presented," says Lord AVESTMEATIT. " as asking the
alms of England. We only ask you to give us our
estates;" and if any part of his estates are withheld
from him by tenants without leases, and who will
neither give him rent nor land, we cannot but think
there is substantial justice in his demand.
In England it is assumed that an Irish landlord is
all.

powerful, that his land is his own to do what he
pleases with ; that if a district is dibturlied, the fault
is his. Is it ever remembered by those who think
thus, that a man obtaining an estate in Ire-
land, whether by inheritance or purchase, scarcely
ever obtains it except with a population
crowded together upon it, and numbers greater
than it can possibly support; that having purchased.
we will suppose, the estate, and become its legal
owner, he has, before he can render it available for
any purpose, again to purchase, otter. at a price far
greater than the fee-simple of the lands, the rights, as
they are called, of the dwellers on the lands, whose
possession, however acquired, renders any actual oc-
cupation by the new owner altogether impossible.
Nothing is morefrequent than for landlords, when let-
ting a farm, to impose it as a condition on the incoming
tenant that he shall not demand to be given
actual possession, but shall obtain it as he best
can from persons occupying the ground without
any plausible pretence of right—a condition which
exposes the life of the incoming tenants to imminent
danger, as may be well imagined. This is a state of
facts that no conduct of individual landlords can
essentially vary ; and we cannot hut think the case
free from all doubt, that whether allowances be made
to tenants for supposed improvements, ur not, at the
expiration of the time for which they have contracted
to take a farm, they should nut be allowed to retain
possession of the land for one day with-
out a renewed contract with their landlord.
The legislature found it necessary to interfere
with the courts of law, and insist on their
not evading the statutes of limitation by inferring
fictitious promises of payment from acknowledgments
of old debts. They mild not do a more essential
wise to both landlord and tenant then by at
awe getting rid of the tenancy from year to year
la all eases in which it does not arise by the act of
partieslie themselves. (impel, if you will, written
Inns in all cases; but do not allow the purposes of
to be overruled and rendered of none effect
mere fictions of law. If a farm be let to a mail
for one year, and he remains a day beyond
the year, it may be fair to hider a renewal
of the contract, and to let him have the farm
for a second year. But why go further than
this? Why assume, as incident to such a holdings
that in the middle of the second year a notice
should be given, which there was nonced of giving is
the first, and that if bosh notice beveglected he has th
right In occupy for a third yearn' This rule ci law
is abeolutely unconnected in any. way whatever with
the oontract of tho parties. To the tenant it is no
adequate protection—to the landlord it is afisolutely
%vinous. The runs is not pretended to arise from
the contract of the parties. A distinguished equity
judge described it thus : The courts of, law fixed
one positive rola of six months notice; a rule that
may in many cases he very omivenient, it others very
inconvenient." (1G Vesey.), The assistance which
this rule of lam gives to any person acquiring the
possession of ground and.affeeting to have any claim
of tenancy, does more to destroy the power of proper
dealing bviat land in Ireland than any other cause
whatever.

'WE observe in the votes of the House of Cummons,
that Mr. Moerarr proposes to question the CHAN-
CELLOU of the EXACIIE(IIJER as. to the arrengements
between Mr. KEEL= and the Poet-office letter-carriers,
in respect of the " London INnt-office Directory."
This publicarann is a very anomalous one. On the
one hand we have a public officer employing public;
placers, subordinate to him, to coiled information,
advertise and sell a work from the profits of which he
derives an income of some thousands of pounds a
year. The profi% of the " Poet Office Directory,"
whatever they may be, all go into the pocket of Mr.
KELLY, superintendent of letter earners. On the
other hand, whenever this arran"cment is attacked,
we have the Poet-office defending it, on the
ground that the information is collected for
the benefit of the department. One day the " Post
Office Directory" is official information collected
by, a public officer in the path of his duty; the next,
it is the private property of Mr. KELLY, who defends
his copyright by legal process. Some letter-carriers
are willing agents, making handsome per eentages in
the sale of the books; others are persecuted and dis-
missed for heterodoxy towards the book and its
editor. In this medley, of rights and wrongs, it will
be useful to see what the worth of the book really
is, and whether the public itself has not some clear
and intelligible rights of its own in this matter.
Whether we regard the book under its official or
private aspect, its merits, or rather demerits, are the
same; and, to speak plainly, it is literally a
disgrace to its parentage, be it what it may. A
cursory glance through the last edition (dated
November, 1846) brought to light an error in almost
every page—quite inexcusable. The errors are of
all kinds-omission—commission—ignorance—stale-

of ary took place as long ago as last
dose
Met, the Earl of HADDISGTON and Sir G. CoCK-
o are still made to reside at the Admiralty
Jr_)cand Mr. Gouttienst (p. 219), it seems, FCT-
-7;;pmari;;l y remains tenant of Downing-stt eet, though
Ear C. Wool) is Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The logical order of the classification is curious.
weed of finding the government School of I ksign,
which is located at Somerset-house, in the Official
iredory,it is placed in the Trades Directory. In
this section, among the trades, we have likewise
mittens, picture galleries, public libraries! Thus,
British Museum stands between muffin bakers and
week copyists—picture galleries, between pickle
warehouses looking-glass frame makers ! And
ceder the head of museums. are named the Dank of
Engfand for its coin, Gay's hospital and St. Bar-
tholemew'a. for their medictue ; and even the Ord-
Office, uPall-mal!, for its mechanism, as if the
geatlemcn of this department were showmen.
The information respecting newspapers and publi-
carious is most faulty. First, as to otnissionv. The
list at once strikes us as not including the 11117111 y
rimy, Dogylas jrrrol fs 11: ekly Newspaper, the
Daily Nora, established in January, 1816, or the
Express. We have no doubt a comparison with a
correct list would show many more. The list of pro-
Thiele' papers prefesses to give the days and the
place at publicateon ; but there are no fewer than
twenty-sex eases where the days el publication are
wanting, and several, such as the ...Northern Times,
the Shropshire Consereatire, the Staffiev/shire hirer-
hiser, the Yorkshire (;a:ette, &c., to which no place
of publication is attached, so that this Post-office
Directory would be no guide whatever for the direc-
tion of a post letter to theft.
It might be expected that we should meet with ac-
curacy at least in the editor's own department—the
Post-Olike ; but even hero errors of all kinds are to be
found. Thus, as respects the postage of a newspaper
to Lucca (p. 1739), it is not stated what it is, or
whether there be none ; whilst the poetage of a news-
paper to Prussia is given as " free," whereas it should ,
have been twopence. Credulous citizens following this
Directory in such a case, would find that a newspaper
to Prussia would never reach its destination. The
postage of a letter to Ilamburr,,h is stated to be Bd.;
it ought to be 641., and so on. But we must bring
oar list of errata to an end, or we shall till our co-
lumns. We have produced instances enough to show
the general untrustworthiness of the book. Before
we conclude, we may remark that, in the " Convey-
ance Directory," in the enumeration of the metropo-
litan railways, not a word is to be found about the
South-Western Railway!
Such being the character of this work, which is
of the nature of a monopoly, the public have a right
to demand one of two things : either that the I'ust-
ai6es shall cause it to bo made accurate, if it be claimed
so an official production; or that Mr. Kelly be no longer
protected by the Post-office in what is practically, a
monopoly of the work; for it must be observed that
all other Direetories,—ROßSON'S, PIGOTT'S, &C.—
have been driven out of the field. They could not
compete, having no such cheap agency as a postman
meaning gratis for them all the year round.
We concede at once that it is necessary for the
Post-office to collect, for its own information, such
details of addresses as thin book supplies. We think
it should be made part of the letter-carriers' official
duty to collect and report such intelligence often and
systematically. There should be no option on
the letter-carriers' part to do so. It is possible that an
officer of the Post-office might have opportunities for
editing the book better th in any one else, if he were
zealous and intelligent, and if so, that he ought to
he the person deputed by the Post-office to do this
work. and perhaps it would be a wise arrangement
in order to ensure his constant vigilance, to make his
emoluments dependent somewhat on the success of
the publication, and therefore adopting the best
means for compiling this work at the public expense,
and publishing it so as to ensure the utmost perfec-
tion: all that the public would then have a right to
demand is that it shall be sold at the minimum
charge. We arc satisfied that the work might be
published at least at one-third less than its
present price, and still be made to yield a
handsome profit. There would be no cost to
the publisher in collecting the informatien, and
the Post-of ee ought to make arrangements
to secure a revision of the work, always to be
kept in type, at least every month, if not oftener, and
thus guarantee the earliest news of every change. It
would, in fact, be the publisher's business only to
priat, bind, and sell the book when the greatest issue
takes place. The information should always be
brought up fresh within a fortnight of publication,
which would be perfectly feasible with good arrange-
ments. As a rule, small. numbers only of an edition
should be issued at one time, and the work, besides
being published inione volume, should be sold in por-
tions.

Considering that the Post-office has sanctioned the
informal arrangement with Mr. KELLY so long, we
think that when these changes are made, and made
they certainly will be, the first offer of the publication
should be given to Mr. KELLY, taking, how ever, every
precaution against the repetition, under his editor-
ship, of such blunders as we have pointed out.

Tae receipt of South Australian papers to the 17th
of October last enables us to communicate the agree-
' - .---,t-novernor Hoe

able intelligence that Lieutenant-s,sess..-...
has with true magnanimity and judgment deferred
to the unauimous opinion of the colonists, end with-
drawn the inauspicious Royalties Bill. The South
Australian Gazette of 10th October states :
The question of the royalties, so fir as it can be decided
within the colony, is now settled. They arenot to be imposed.
The governor, .with a manliness which does him credit, after
performing all that the most exacting colonial minister could
expect, to carry out his views, abandoned the measure when
he discovered that the resistance to it on the part of the non-
official members of the council and of the colonists was deter-
mined and intletiblc.
We sincerely hope that the Home authorities may
acquiesce in this wise decision of the governor. The
bill went to confer upon the crown a right to take
one-fifteenth of all ores brought to the pit mouth in
the colony. The owners or workers of the mines
might obtain leave to pay money in lieu of this exac-
tion in kind; but the bill makes provision for locating
a supervisor within a short distance of every mine.
Its object was to have the mines of South Australia
worked under an excise. This, as we formerly ob-
served, is in direct violation of the fundamental laws
of the colony, which established an absolute right of
property in grantees of land to everything, above or
below the surface. And it was an innovation
calculated to exercise a prejudicial influence on
the progress of the settlement, as even the young
experience of Australia may show. Ic New South
V. the right to minerals was reserved, and the
consequence has been that the valuable coal deposits of
that colony are turned to very little account. In
South Australia, hitherto, minerals have not been
reserved, and that infant colony has already a respect-
able mining industry. •
From the South Australian Gazette of the 17th
October, we learn that the red-tapists of the govern-
ment offices are shocked at the discourtesy and irregu-
larity of the procedure by which the non-official mem-
bers of council achieved the defeat of the Royalties
Bill. There was nothing illegal in that procedure,
and the importance and urgency of the case war-
ranted their straining courtesy a little. But those com-
plaints of the officials suggest a more important con-
sideration than even the freedom of mining enterprise.
New Zealand, with from 8,000 to 10,000 colonists, his
an elective legislature ; why should South Australia,
with more than double the number, not have an elec-
tive legislature also? 'fhe proceedings on the
ties Bill show that the admission of a non-r=
majority into the legislative council is a mere mockery.
If these members are simple or supple they only
serve to enable the government to act despotically
without appearing to do so. If they are honest and
"i!urtily, they have no power to interpose legal constitu-
tmr!al obstacles to despotism, but merely a status
which enables them to countenance popular resist-
ance to authority. Non-official members in a non-
elective council are of necessity forced to become
either agitators or nobodies.

Our usual Paris express has reached us. The pro-
jects of law brought into the French Chambers, with
a view to facilitate the supplies of subsistence from
abroad, are adopted with as little discussion or delay
as those for the relief of Ireland in the British parlia-
ment. The law throwing open the coasting trade in
grain to ships of all nations has been promptly
adopted. The elevation of the rate of discount having
failed to attain all the desired objects, or rather
haring produced inconvenience which did not before
exist, a project of law is now under discussion audio-
mang the bank in Paris to issue notes for 10/.

The general rise continues in all the markets of
France, and the most serious apprehensions continuo
to be entertained as to the practicability of securing
sufficient supplies of grain to avert the horrors of a
famine before the next harvest. The demand for
shipping elsewhere is so extensive, and freights so
high, that the hopes which the law just passed ex-
cited are damped. Although an exact census of the
quantity of grain which will still be wanted for the
support of the population till July has not been, and
probably cannot be, obtained, yet there is no doubt
that there is still a large deficiency.
The Normanby-Guizot quarrel still continues to
engage the attention of the journals in Paris on

L'Union Monarchipie says, that a correspondent
entitled to confidence has sent front London the fol-
lowing particulars:
On the 19th Lord John Russell sent for Count St. Aulaire,
and in presence of two of his colleagues had a long interview
with him on the subject of the unhappy quarrel between Lord
Normanby and M. Guizot. In this interview, for which
Count St. Aulairc was is ,t prepared, thR lead..r of the English
calsinit is said to have warmly pleaded the cause of his ambas-
an for. 't he count listened with open enrs, and stammered
forth a few wards which were not cren listened to. Lord J.
Russell, feeling no mercy for his mute anguish, dealt blow
after blow, and carried despair into the heart of the French
ambassador. Firmly rei:lved to lease no doubts in the mind
of M. Curettes envoy, he f A.:tinily declared to him that there
was a complete and perfect units of action between the Bri-
tish government and its ambassador; that the cabinet of the
Tuileries must not be surprised if, Lord Normanby failing
to obtain the satisfaction he demanded, that unity was mani-
fested in c more direct manner. In other words, Lord John
Russell wushrd his hands of all responsibility of the c dew-
quences which might result from the Normanby affair.
Guizot, a cording to the Union Monarchique,
received this news on Monday. In this perplexity,
it is announced by several journals that an extra-
ordinary count r was despatched front the Tuileries
to Brussels to entreat King Leopold to bring the aid
of his counsels without delay to Patio, and it was
said that immediately afterwards a special mes-
senger was despatched from Brussels to the Belgian
Embassy in London.
On Monday the King and Queen of the Belgians
arrived in Paris.

e are assured that private letters were received
in Paris on Tuesday, staiog that M. Martin du Nord
was attacked at his chateau in the provinces with so
severe an indisposition, that he was tot expec:ed to
survive more than a few days.
Letters from Rome mention the intention of the
Pontiff to give a municipal constitution to that city.
Preparations were also making to introduce gas-
lighting.

The journals and correspondence of Madrid of the
17th inst. were received in Paris on Tuesday. They
brought no intelligence of general interest. The
Chambers had not
yet voted the address, and although
it was expected that it would be passed by a con-
siderable majority, yet many of the sup forcers of the
former cabinet had manifested a certain coolness
towards the present ministry.
General Pezuela, the Captain-General of Madrid,
had resigned, and would, it was expected, be suc-
ceeded either by General Concha or General Armero.
It was expected that l)on Miguel might land on
the coast of Spain; and orders were accordingly issued
to intercept hum.

RUSSIA.—ST. PETERSBURG.—Letters from St.
Petersburg, Feb. 6, say:—Throe last few days we have had
at our court an ambassador from the court of Saxe Alten.
burg, M. Von Schrider, who has for many years represented
the kingdom of Saxony and the other houses ef that line. It is
stated that an alliance is about to he formed with the first of
these courts by the marriage of the Grand Duke Constantine
with the Princess Alexandrine. The nuptials, however,
will not take place for a year and a half or two years, as it
is proposed that his imperial highness s'tall set nut upon
his voyage round the world early this spring, accompanied
by his tutor. M. Von Lutken. The urine. as is expected to
arrive here in a fow months, in order to gain instruction iu
, the language and religion of her adopted country.
IIONIE VlDEO.—Additional advices, received
yesterday from Falmouth, confirm the statement we had
Previously given, that Messrs. Graham and Brent had failed
in their object of mediation between Buenos Ayris and
' Paraguay. Although it is said Lopez had suspended hos-
tilities, he was still determined on severing Paraguay from
the national union. The notables of Monte Video had
issued an enactment to sell the stamp, license, and excise re-
venues for 1849 and 18,50, to supply the expenses of the war.