The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1851.

asked the question because of the important ditfereneee
of opinion with resr.ust to the bearings of the clause which
had been exexppressed la the Ant place between the hon. sail
learnedps the 'member for Midhunt, and the law
oldecta of the crown, and in the second place between the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
Lord J. RUSSELL had not himself perceived the ',limed
differences between the opinions, in point oflaw, as regarded
this clause, of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, mid* of other gentlemen of the profession of the law
who had spoken in the house on tic sulijeet. It was cer-
tainly his determination to go on with this clause.
Mr. KEOGH said that the noble lord hail made the
answer which was to have been anticipated ; for, earlier in
the evening, the Solicitor-General stated that it would be
impossible to abandon the clause. But it might bo thought
from this strong expression that the clause was really a
government clause, and had stood originally in the bill. It
was quite clear that no such impossibility existed in the
opinions of the government ; for, if they regarded the
clause in this light, they would have introduced it at first in
the bill. Where war the impossibility ? The bill was
introduced without the clause. Nu opinion of the
' house had lieu recorded in favour of the clause. It
was adopted at the suggestion of the hon. and learned
member for Midhurst; and wily so far could the
government be responsible for it. Before Easter the
government took credit for resisting this clause.
The honourable and learned member for Midhurst stated
that he did not think that this clause applied to Ire-
land. [Mr. Walpole assented.] The Solicitor-General as
distinctly said, in replying to the right hon. gentle-
man, the member for the Univer,ity of Oxterd
(Mr. Gladstone) that this was a declaratory clan-e,
and that it would necessarily affect the aggres-
sion of the Ito.naa catholic bishop of Boss, in Ireland.
The Solicitor4;eueral assented. Was there no dif-
terence of opinion here? (Cheers.) But the 'toy° lord
denied any differences of opinion between the Attor-
ney-Geueral and the Solicitor-General. The
tor-General said that this was a d.dantion of
law. Now he (Mr. Keogh) apprehended that there was no
lawyer in the house who would not say that any act in con-
travention of this section would be a misdemeanour and
punishable as a misdemeanour. The Solicitor-General was
• distinguished equity lawyer; and lie (Mr. Keogh) would
be sorry to deny the just distinction width the hon. and
learned gentleman had won in his profession. llie hon.
and learned member for Midhurst was also an eminent
practitioner at the Chancery bar. But he appealed to the
hon. and learned member for the Cuiverstty of Dublin
(Mr. Napier), • distinguished common law lawyer, and to
the lion. and learned member for Cork (Serjeruit
Murphy), whether the exercise of authority in
coutravention of this section would not be a

misdemeanour, and punishable as a misdemeanour.
Yet the Solicitor General said that the bill would not of
Ireland ae regarded its criminal consequence.. The
hon. and learned member for Melliurst would not touch
the ease of Ireland, for that hon. and learned member be-
lieved that this clause was so sweeping in its operation
that he was afraid to make his clauses applicable to Ire-
land. The noble lord and his friends disclaimed this.
The Attorney-General had weeded that night that
the act of the Pope was unlawful. He (Mr.
Keogh) was ready to meet that proposition. Atter
the legislation of the last 40 years, was it nut incum-
bent on her Majeety's advinne to prove thee it
was unlawful before they asked the assent of the house to
this bill ? It WAS no pleasure to him to be compelled to al-
dress the house so often as he did. Everybody knew that
the feeling of the house 113.1 against the continuance of this
discussion. (Hear, hear.) Ile knew the feeling of the
house too well to. trespass too lung upou it. (Hear, hear.)
But he was Waged to argue that the statement of the
Best clause wax not founded in law. lle then quoted the
words of the clause, declaring the title., jurisdiction and
authority conferred by the Pope's rescript to be unlawful
and void. %Vas it under the 13th of Elisabeth, or the
statute of Richard 11. that the government said the au-
thority was unlawful lle conteuded that it was unlawful
by neither, and he quoted the words of the statute of
Elizabeth, affixing the penalties of high treason to the pro-
mulgating a bull, in support of that position, and then re-
fermi to Lord Lyndhurst's act, repealing the peualties con-
tained in those acts, and argued that unless it was an offence
at common law, which it was not, the removal of the
penalty removed also the offence. 11 denied that the statutes
of Richard 11. and Elizabeth applied to such a case so tide.
They were altogether applicable to the rose of an
established church with dioceses, ben-Ores, and profits, and
not to a dissenting church like the Reiman catholic. lie
contended that the case of lea'or was no precedent, and
I that the Solicitor-General knew it was not; because at the
time of Lalur's trial it was illegal to profess the Roman
catholic religion. The noble lord was not a lawyer, but a
statesman, legislating for the interests of all cheeses
of her Majesty's subjects; and therefore, even if
some old musty statute did net upon the statute
book affecting the interests of millions, would the noble
lord rely upon that as the foundation of his legislation?
There was a statute produced in Hell, which the right host.
baronet the nuenher fur Ripon would remember was not
popularly rut-dyed in Ireland, a great portion of the catholic
population objecting to its restrictive clauses. But a great
portion of the educated catholics saw many advantages con-
ferred by that bill upon their church, and supported it. He
asked was it the intention of the government of that day
to keep on the statute-book in full force those ancient sta-
tutes alluded to by the noble lord and his advisers. Ile now
turned to a statute which had been treated by the Solicitor-
General with great levity, and that was not the only matter
that hon. and learned gentleman had treated with levity.
(Hear, hear.) It might be all very well to treat with levity
the religious liberties of her Majesty', subjects, when he
knew ho would have the cheers of 300 or 409 members
of the honse—(hear, hear)—but he hoped the honour-
able and learned gentleman would not assume that there
was no argument against him, sail he begged hint to recol-
lect the many mistakes, miscalculations, corrections,
amendments, and alterations which his colleague, fn office
had made in regard to this measure before he was so flits-
pant. (Hear, hem.) The hon. and learned gentleman
then referred to the 641 section of the act of ISIS-6, which
provided that when questions arose before the commis-
siencrs concerning the usage or discipline of the church of
Rome, they should be referred to a committee of the said
commission, m consisting of those who profeseed the catholic
religion; and that the committee should certify to the com-
miseionere the parties entitled to take the benefit of the be-
quests or donate ins. These commissioners consist. ;nee only of
catholics but of protestant* also. The 11th section of the same
act enable( persons to convey property fur the maintenance
of archbishoprics and bishoprics in the church of Ireland.
He asked the noble lord to reflect upon this. Suppose a
question arose concerning a donation or bequest made to a
bishop of the Roman catholic church acconling to the usage
and discipline of the Roman catholic church, and he asked
the noble lord how it was to be ascertained who was a bishop
of the Romancatholic church according to the usage and
discipline of that church ? (Ilear, hear.) Was it not by
reference to the bull rescnpt, or letters apostolic, which
had created the Roman catholic church in Ireland ; and
did they mean to pretend that they were ignorant who
were the bishops of the Roman catholic church in Ireland?
Mr. Keogh then referred to a return made during the
government of Mr. Pitt, by the Roman catholic hierarchy
of Ireland. giving an account of their sees, the number of
clergy, their incomes, and so on. The report was signed by
the Roman catholic metropolitan and primate and other
Roman catholic prelates. Die lion. and learned member
then said that that was a document which gave answers
to the queries of the ministry of that day, disclosing iu the
most open and candid manner the state and condition of
tho Roman catholic church. And did they then pretend to
ignore the existence of that church? (Hear, hear.) Did
the Solicitor-General mean to et de as a lawyer in that
house, with the chance of his authority being respected out
of doors, that with the legislation of 11344, when the late
right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth was at the
head of her Majeety's government, and produced this bill
referring to the usages and discipline of the Roman catholic
church, authorising inquiry into them and receiving these
declarations in return—did the hon. and learned gentleman
mean to say that in the year 18.51 he could conic down to
the house with this wretched bill—a " thing of shreds
and patches" (hear, hear) a thing burrowed from
every quarter in the house—(hear, hear)—did the
hon. and learned gentleman do that and say he was not
destroying religious liberty? The hon. and learned member
then analysed in detail the arguments of the Solicitor-
General, and he then argued that it was the business of the
house to see that the Roman catholirsiof Ireland and of this
empire hail the free and undoubted exercise of their reli-
gion. There had been an unbroken existence of a hierarchy
and they were essentially an episcopal hierarchy, and not
vicars apostolic, but this clause would be most inquisi-
torial, and would declare all that to be illegal which the
Roman catholic bishops had been doing to this present time,
because it would render illegal the source and foundation of
their authority. Ile had suggested his amendments because
he believed they were borne out by the statements of the
government to which he had thought they would adhere.
As a test of Sincerity, he called upon the noble lord to re-
strict this clause to England.
The qii ition was then put by Mr. Ilrneat from the
chair, that the word " England" be inserted.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the hon. and learned zentlensen
had told the house for the third or fourth time the bill would be
inoperative, but he had nut favoured them with any argu-
ments. On the question before the house he had said
nothing. Let the house consider what evil it was proposed
to remedy. A rescript or paper from the Pope appeared in
this country purporting to be a rescript or letters apostolic.,
founding an archbishopric to be called the Archbishopric of
Westminster, and founding eleven or twelve other sec-* or
bishoprics named after Southwark, Birmingham, Clifton,
and various other places. It was affirmed in the preamble
of the hill, as originally introduced, that the attempt to
establish under the authority of the see of Rome or other-
wise to establish sees or dioceses was illegal and void,
and in conformity with that preamble, the clause
enacted that " the said brief, rescript, or letters apostolical,
and all and every the jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence,
or title c inferred, or pretended to be conferred, thereby,
are and shall be and be deemed unlawful and void." Any
one would have expected that the hon. and learned gentle-
man would have shown that the see of Rome had the power
and authority to establish sees and bishoprics in this '
country: that what he had done was in conformity with
the law of England, and that the assertion in this clause, '
as well as that which had been contained in the original
preamble, was unfounded. But had the hon. and learned
gentleman said a scale word in support of such a proposi-
tion ? If not, then he had not made out his argument
against the clause. He had raised an adverse argu-
ment with respect to the extension of this clause'
to Ireland—(hear, hear)—and as to the effect it might
hays in Ireland; but with respect to that which was the
rosin proposition, namely, that a rescript had appeared
which pretended to cooler bishoprics, but which gave no
authority at all, but was void, as an unlawful act—with
respect to that the hon. and learned gentleman had not

taveseed with a Single argument. The bon.
and k.a I gentleman contradicted the authority of
erase. (111 r. Keogh here said some words in explanation.)
gLalor's e
oodlotr,itniste,
resin;
pronounced u
that
tonced h
it
did tnoatt
atlecppibpon
t:o7t to be
present
The hon. and learned gentleman likewise said that the ex-
ercise of the Roman catholic religion was forbidden at the
time of that case. But the statute snider which Latir wa.
ltumut
part of
the hon. and learnt,' gentleman's argument could not
cco,,tniv.iclitcedrewligiasoan
win inticvaetrtl,icansdta ttuhteere,
therefore
n tthhaet
branded as unlawful. That was the authority on
tbhye
odneettitsoirointyi n L
froinalo r
ociansoc
wasth
t
Loa apply to
case thatof
and
east.
d.
he apprehended remained to the
present day. But the hon. and learned gentleman found iu
the Bequest Act some authority which he conceived gave
power to the Roman catholic church to establish any bishop-
ric and to manage that church in any way they thought
llththeeilrl2orm4:uin.
catholicrconP ct
sr.t hbe.iry, hbco hadh., osuiansi ediwould
dt h.recr em
althoughewmasb ohh:dyt oiunb
didat
not insu,ne
titles, did exercise their episcopal functions in the ancient
, dioceses. Therefore that was never opposed or in any way
interfered with so long as the bishops did not interfere
with the law of the land and do that whisk was forli'delen.
The noble lord then continued as follows:—Now, I not
only state that that is the case, hut liar my part, I wish
that state of things to remain, and I do not see any reason
for interfering with the Roman catholic bishops in the ex-
cerise of their functions. (Hear, hear.) But the Bequests
Act, insteaul of being, a, the hon. and learned gentleman has
said, a solemn and public recognition of three powers and
authorities, is an act which, as I have stated on molly
former yet isions, carefully and assiduously, and as I think
most skilfully avoids any such interference. (Hear, hear.) i
In the Heat instance, in speaking of bishops it dues I
on gay, " of bishops exercising spiritual junsdictiou,"
" of bishops exercising authority over any diocese,"
" of Roman catholic bishops eruling or governing any
diocese," as we have heard said in this committee, but it
sacs " bishops exercising their functions or officiating,"
not within toy diocese, but "in any district "--(hear,
hear)—who must therefore be bishops apostolical or in
orders, as Roman catholic bishops, end officiating in any
districts. But then there must come a question with TV-
spurt to certain persons. For instance, it a Roman catho-
lic priest, its any district in which he officiates, were to as-
sume a title to which he was not by law entitled, there
might be considerable embarrassment created to the emn-
missioners. There might too be a question whether there
was a claim of authority from a bishop, by virtue of which
he exercised his functions. That difficulty, if it arose,
might, as I have said, cause very considerable embarrass-
ment to the commissioners, because if that title were to be
produced before a court of law, it is evident that by
the powers of that bill the commissiouers might say, " that
is a title which no Roman catholic priest or bishop can ae-
suine." (('heers, and "hear, hear.") The bill sacs that
if there be any difficulty as to the person entitled to
bequest, the question is to be referred to a committee.
If the person who is entitled to the benefit of that bluest
be a Roman catholic, then that committee is to con-fist of
the Roman catholic commissioners. These esmmiuioncrs,
according to the rule of their church, will decide who is
entitled to receive the benefit of the bequest, and the com-
mittee who have to give in a report, would report not that a
certain person is priest, not that a certain priest is bishop of
Limerick, or of any other diocese, hut they will rep in who
the person is who (ight to receive the benefit of the bequest,
and therefore if you say, "the Right Rev. Or. Ryan"
or " the ltev. Mr. O'Connell," or any. other person, •• is to
receive the benefit of this Iseittust," that is quite sufficient
for the commissioners, and Wlqusstion as to the assumption
of a title can come before the commissioners or the public.
(Cheers, and " Hear, hear.") Such was the case with which
the framers of that most useful hill—introduced for useful
purpose', and worked out in a manner to make these useful
purposes really beneficial—such is the mumer in which that
act was framed. (Cheers.) Neither, then, in regard to
Latin's cam., nor with reference to the Bequests Act, has the
hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Keogh) made out any
lawful power or authority in the see of Rome to erect
bishoeriee and give episcopal jurisdiction and authority in
Ireland. (Hear, hear.) That was the whole of what
the honourable and learned gentleman endeavoured
to do. lie did not endeavour to prove that such
authority existed in England, but he did endeavour to make
out that it existed in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) With respect
to the practical effect of this bill, as I have often said be-
fore, there is trinity any portion of it—althoierh it is a
bill for the United Kingdom, and therefore extends to the
United Kingdom—l must say there is hardly any portion
of it which practically has any effect on 'rebind. It would
melooffitedly operate to prevent any person from ;mum*
the title of Bishop of lialway, and it would, there is no
doubt, affect the Arelibiehop of Tuam. (Ilear, hear.) But
with regard to another matters, this bill will leave the state
of Ireland, after it is passed. as nearly es possible what
it has been before. With regard to the first clause,
it declares that to he law which no lawyer has yet denied to
be lew, and h the him. and learned gentleman him-
self has not denied to be law. (Cheers and " Hear, hear. ')
And therefore it does not make a new law, but declares to
be law what is at present the law, both in England and
Ireland. (Cheers.) The second clause prevents the as-
sumption Many new titles. Every one knows that if Ro-
man catholic bishops were to assume titles it would be those
of existing sees, such as the Bishop of Armagh, the Bishop
of Dublin, and the Bishop of Ross, which I believe is a
title existing. It would be the titles of existing sees that
would be assumed, and the bill therefore Is a bill di-
rected—as I think it ought to be directed—to the
particular olleuce which I thick has been com-
mitted against the crown, the parliament, end the
nation—(eheers)—and dues not do anything which is not
necessary fur the purpose of meeting that offence. Ou the
other hand, if we made this declaration of law solely as re-
gards England, the Pope would erect any new sees in Ire-
land which he thought proper, and would give jurisdiction
and authority in Ireland, notwithstanding the authority of
the crown and the independence of the nation. (Loud
cheers.) It would amount to a great change of the law,
in derogation of the authority of the crown rind the inde-
pendence of this nation, and I trust this house will not
sanction any such alteration. (Cheers.) It suits the
purpose of honourable gentlemen, it appears, to make a
great agitation in Inland; to proclaim, as I have seen done
in some resolutions that came from Timm, that hereafter
•• our bishops will be driven out of Ireland," that " our
chapels will be levelled to the ground," that "no priest
will be allowed to officiate." These are the statements
made in order to impose on eery ignorant people, but every
one in this house knows that after this bill is passed there
will he perfect freedom of conscience and the full exercise
of the Roman catholic religion. But some hon. gentle-
men get up and say, " We Roman eatholics
after all, the best judges as to what is M-
ammary fur the organisation of the Roman catholic
religion." But I say, stop a little. I am quite ready that
you should have everything you think proper for the exer-
cise of your religion or the organisation of your church if
you do not interline with others. (Cheers, and " hear, hear.")
As long ax you choose to have two bishops in England, or
four bishops, or even twelve bishops, that is a mat-
ter with which I have no concern whatever,
H you think them necessary for your organisa-
tion. But when you come to my that von
mast rule English counties and English places, I leave
• right to take objection (Hear, hoar) You might jest
es well say that because by the act of 1791 Roman catholic
priests arc allowed to perform masses, if you say you
maned perform them without cutering Westminster Ablier,
yea are at liberty to enter there. (Hear, hear) M e
my: "You are at liberty to perform masses wherever
yea like—in whatever chapel or other proper ;duce, but
Is Westminster Abbey you have no right, and into West-
Winter Abbey you shall not come." (Laughter and loud
timers.) Organise as you please, but only allow us
to preserve the independence of the nation, and not
be subject to a foreign power. (Loud cheering.)
Mr. ROCHE said that if the noble lord (Lord". Russell)
wee right in saying that the bill did not affect Ireland, he
could not understand oil what ground he refused to agree to
the amendment. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and
the committee divided, when the number: were :
For the amendment
Against Bl-15
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. KEOGH mining another amendment on the first
clause. He (Mr. Keogh) proposed that the following words
should be added at the end of the first clause .—" That no-
thing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the
ecclesiastical and spiritual functions of the Roman catholic
bishops and archbishops in Ireland."
The ATTORNEY-OENER AL said that the clause to
which these words were proposal' to be added did not affect
the ecclesiastical and spiritual functions of Roman catholic
bishops and archbishops, unless their jurisdiction and autho-
rity should be exercised in pursuance of titles illegally as-
sumed. (Hear, hear.) It would certainly be inconsistent
to say that the bishops might lega exercise spiritual juris-
diction which was
oie Auttillegallybltdoorttnetyt assume.tnoh.
nseis or
Attorney-General
(3;1 ndo by hhi:dr
amendmentsr .
t)ih aajetstt3s
thisgoio kind
tKd
oE,i°t thatl I it
Tel
eld
amendment was inconsistent with the clause • but he (the
Attorney-General) must recollect that no Roman catholic
bishop could be appointed except by a reseript or letters
apostolical, and he (Mr. Keogh) was anxious that the Roman
catholic clergy should be fully protected in the exercise of
their spiritual functions. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
said that he did not wish to interfere with the religious
liberty of the people of Ireland. Would he put in a dal"
to this effect, •• That nothing in this bill contained shall be
construed to affect the spiritual liberties of the Roman
catholic people of Ireland ?" (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Keogh) wished to know if this bill was introduced with a
view to affect the episcopal protestant church in Scotland ?
The episcopalian protestants in Scotland did not exceed two
hundred thousand persons. Would the noble lord grant them
a clause that the act should not interfere with the religious
liberties of six millions of Irish catholic% ? In every form of
expression they had sought to extract an expression from
the noble lord that he would not interfere with the reli-
gious liberties of the catholic,. lie now tried another
form, and if the noble lord rejected it, he could assure him
they would oppose the bill in all the forms which the ndes
of the house would permit.
Mr. A. B. HOPE said he had hitherto supported the
small minority who had so consistently opposed this bill ;
but though he should not vote with the majority. yet in
this case he could not vote with the minority. 'o doubt
this bill was a grievance to the Roman catholic, of Ire-
land; but he thought if they looked dispassionately
at it they would see that religious liberty win as dear to
60,000 as it was to 6,000,000.
Mr. ANSTEY was surprised that there should be any
opposition to this amendment ; he saw no necessity for the
amendment, but as it was moved he should vote for it.
lie trusted teat the noble lord would yet introduce
a clause exempting Ireland altogether from the operation
of the bill. Allusion had been made to declarations signed

by Roman catholic", hut Roman catholic" had signed de-
clarations au inconsistent with each other, that he paid no
attention to them. Hon. members would recollect the (a-
mens address of the clergy of the diocese of Beverley, which
was presented to Cardinal Wiseman, against the establish-
meet of the hierarchy, and deprecating the introduction of
I any foreign system of ecclesiastical legislation, as oh-
noxious to taeir own feelings and us hostile to
I the feelings of the millions by whom they were
surrounded. That document was agreed to at a
district meeting presided over by the dean whose sig-
nature was attached to it, rind the document with the sig-
natures appended was published. What followed ? Every
;one of the subscribers within two or three days had a circa-
lur sent to him to this effect :—" Reverend Sir, you will
please to peruse the enclosed draft address to Cardinal
Wiseman, and if you approve of it you will sign it, and
send it back by return of post." Ho believed there were
only two clergymen who had the hardihood to refuse
to sign it.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he wished
to ask the hon. and learned gentleman whether lie ad-
dressed the house as a catholic or not? (Loud cries of
I
" hear, hear." from the catholic members.)
Mr. ANSTEY ruse amid cries of " No, no." Ile said,
if the question was in order, he supposed he should be in
order hr replying. Ile could only say. he should be very
sorry to commit what he should conceive to be the unpar-
donable °trolley of putting such a question to any gentle-
man. As the noble lord seemed to expect an answer, lie
should smother his tidings, and tell him that he was to the
full as gond a catholic as he was.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that was
suflici.mt. Ile thought that when an hon. member got up
among catholic members and expressed sentiments totally at
sariance with catholic feelings, it was then fair to ask the
hon. gentleman that question.
Mr. NAPIER said there was no difference that he was
aware of, created by the act of 171/1, between the catholic'
of England and the catholies of Ireland with regard to this
question.
Mr. ANSTEY said the difference between the operation
of a bill of this kiad in Ireland and England was, that a
bull which related to the hierarchy was legal in Ireland, but
not iu England, because, under the Relief Act, the hier-
archy was tolerated, but in England, not the hierarchy, but
the vicars apostolic.
Mr. M. GIBSON would admit that there would ceitainly
have been a stronger case had the proposal of the hon. and
learned member fur Athlone (Mr. Keogh) =omitted a pro.
visa applsin,g only to Ireland instead of to the whole of the
United kingdom ; though he (Mr. Gibson) preferred taking
it generally. When, however, they considered the monstrous
injustice of forcing on tho people of Ireland a church
which was no use to them, and then saying by an act of
parliament that they should not maintain a church of their
own—;cheers)--litat that they should be subjected to
every species of insult and oppression—(cheers)—lie
must say it male one anxious to include Ireland
most especially in the proviso. (Renewed cheers.)
They forced a great bench of bishops of the esta-
blished church upon a Roman catholic people—(cheers)
and then they brought in a bill to say that that Roman
catholic penp:o should not maintain their own bishops by
their ox n contributions as II non-established community,
and should not give them those titles which they believed
would tend to make them most respected and useful, and
so would raise the Roman catholic church in that country.
(Cheers.) There was something so palpably unjust iu the
whole pmeeeding, something that so violated the very
principlis of justice, that lie could hardly condescend to
enter into th•Leletails of thi, clause. (Cheers.)

Sir H. W. BARRON took the same view of the case,
and accused the government with acting a two-faced part in
wishing to p.,rseente the Roman catholics, but with pre-
tending that they did not.
Captain TAYLOR. was decidedly in favour of a mea-
sure the effect of which would be to repel emphatically
the insolent aggression of the papal court, but while he
would vote for this bill as lacing a step in the right
direction, he wished it at the same time to he understood
that he considered the noble lord had proposed that which
was meagre and blotf etive, and utterly inconsistent with
the suggestions and pledges of the Durham letter.
Mr. REYNOLDS reminded the committee of the
question he had put in the earlier part of the even-
ing, as to whether the noble lord, in the fare
of the widely different legal opinions which had
been expressa, would think it wise to persevere with
this clause. The noble lord, with that coolness which was
his characteristic, even in persistence in error, made very
small beer of hint (Mr. Reynolds) in replying curtly that
there were no differences of opinion, and that he would not
give up the clause. But the matter had now been made
quite clear. The Solicitor General had declared that a cer-
tain colour was hl ; and the hon. and learned member
for Midhurst, with not less solemnity, had as distinctly pro-
nounced the same hue to be white. It remained to be
seen whether the government would not learn wisdom and
abandon so doubtful a clause. Ile (Mr. Reynolds) and his
friends, who were taking the same course in regard to this
measure, had no pleasant functions to discharge, and felt
keenly the remarks which had been expressed in re-
ference to them, but they were doing what they believed
it to be their duty to do; and, few as they were,
Go against MO, their reward would hereafter he that their
names would be written in Ireland in letters of gull.
(threat laughter.) Ile repeated the expression—their
names would hereafter he written in letters of gold. Ile
would not venture to hint wlmt would in the future be said
of those who compssed the majority. Ile should be sorry
to any an insulting word against that majority. Ile be-
lieved that they were driven in this course—that they were
but obeying the commands of their constituencies. And he
maintained that, as regarded this question, the House of
Commons had ceased to be a deliberative assembly.
Ilad the government proposed any measure for England
and Scotland to lighten the pressure of indirect taxation ?
What measure of any consequence had they on the notice
paper? Why had the proposal of mornirm sittings been
Introduced? What had they done on Saturday night ?
(Loud laughter, and cries of " hear, hear," from Mr.
Wawn.) Ile wished the hon. member fur Shields would go
to his own side of the house.
Mr. WAWN rose to order.

The CHAIRMAN said the hon. member for Shields hail
not transgressed the rules of order.
Mr. WAWN begged to ask what business the house had
transatted on Saturday night ? (" Hear, hear," and
laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said it hail been well observed that a
child might ask a question which it would puzzle a philoso-
pher to answer. It would be impossible, for instance, to
answer the question of what they had been doing on
Saturday night; but there were other 'questions which it
was not unreasonable to ask. lie should like to know
whether it Wa3 intended that this bill should extend to
Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) Irish members could sit by
day, and talk too ; and he would be glad to know who
would be tired first. (Laughter.) Ile must now refer for
a moment to the hon. and learned member for Youghal
(Mr. Anstcy), whom he had heard that night bearing false
witness to his creed. (Loud and reiterated cries of
" (luestion," which prevented the hon. gentleman from
continuing his allusion.)
Mr. LAWLESS rose to order. Ile appealed to the house
whether the hon. member for South Shields, who had been
crying question, was jitstilied in this interruption ?
Mr. WAWN said he had not interrupted the hon. mem-
' her while he was speaking to the question, but when he
diverged from it, he claimed his pris ilege, as a member, of
calling " question." (Hear, hear.)
Alter a few words froin Mr. REYNOLDS and the Marquis
of GHANFIV,

Mr. MOORE called the attention of the hon. and learned
member for Youghal to a passage iu a book purported to
have been written by hint.
Mr. ANSTEY having replied,
Mr. MOORE, who was interrupt.sl by loud cries of
" Divide," charged hon. members with acting in regard to
this bill not as a delifienitive assembly, with a view to just
legislation, but as persons addressing themselves to their
constituents, with a view to election purposes—making
this a hustings question. (Cries of " Oh.") As they would
not permit him to proceed he would move that tho chair-
man report prose sis. (Cheers, and cries of " Oh.")
Lord J. RUSSELL must say that the house had lis-
tened with remarkable patience to the hon. gentleman.
(Hear, hear.) If the discussion had been confined to the
merits of tie amendment or to the merits of the clause, or
even to the merit, of the bill generally, there would be
nothing extrawdinary in it ; hut considering that the hon.
gentleman had now taken up more than an hour in discus-
' -log every other sort of question than that before them, the
patience of the committee had been most remarkable, and
he could not think it reasonable that the hon. gentleman
should persist in continuing such a discussion. Certainly
he (Lord J. Russell) could not consent further to waste the
time of the house. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know what would be the
effect of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that this bill did
not declare that all bulls were illegal and void, but confined
itself to bulls and rescripts creating dioceses with territorial
titles. (Hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of ARUNDEL and Sea-
HET and Mr. Mown:,
The committee divided—.
The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against 314-28.3
On our readmission to the gallery,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL was expressing the wish to the
government that some words should be inserted, providing
that the bill should not interfere with any spiritual act of
the Roman catholic bishops.
Sir G. GREY said that it was not necessary to do so, be-
cause the bill would not interfere with any act of the
bishops that was simply spiritual. It was merely to•prevent
the Pope from exercodug territorial authority.
Mr. SADLEIR rose.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bernal) said the question I have
to propose is, that the clause stand part of the bill. Does
the hon. member intend to move ?

Mr. SADLEIR replied in the affirmative. lie would test
the sincerity of the right hon. the Home Secretary by the
proposal he was about to make. The noble lord had al-
together avoided touching the question which his hun. and
learned friend (Mr. Keogh) had raised. They had been
told by the Attorney-General fur England, in answer to the
right boo. member for Manchester,thst there were some bulls
that ware illegal, and that there were other bull, or rescrip:s
that were lawful. What he intended to propose was a proviso
at the end of the clause to remove those doubts which he
felt in common with many other persons; and the words
he hod adopted were taken from a clause in the
Charitable Bequests Act. Great practical and political
mischief would result from loose legislation on this subject.
The proviso was in these words :—" Provided that nothing in
this act con,ained shall be construed to affect any arch-
bishop or bishop, or other person in holy orders of the
church of Rome, officiating in any district, or having pasto-
ral superintendence of any congregation of persons proles-

sing the Roman catholic religion according to the
and discipline of the church of Rome in the United K
doni as they existed previous to the 29th of Septemher,
1850."_

.—.„.
Lord J. It I;sSELL did not sec any advantage which
would he gained by going over the same ground. His right
hon. friend (Sir 0. Grey) bad said that the bill did I.(
interfere with the spiritual functions of the Roman catholic
clergy • they bad just divided on the question, and Ae
(lima J. Russell) therefore thought there ►hould be an end
of it. (('heers, and " Hear, hear.")
Mr. OSWALD wished to state to the house what was the
law in Scotland, previous to the 29th of September, isO.
A statute had been ptoted in 1567, for I.lle purpw of
" *Whiting popery." That statute prohiliited all inter-
eourie with the see of Rome, under pain of proscription,
banishment, and the deprivation of all offices of emolument,
honour, or dignity; and forbade, under similar penalties,
any bishop or other prelate of the realm from using say
jurisdiction or authority by virtue of powers conferred cm
them by the court ot Rome. If this were the law of
Scotland just now he (Mr. Oswald? begged to ask if there
existed the slightest use fur extending the measure to that
country? Same of the pains and penalti..s against Unman
catholit•s had been abrogated in the fird of George 111.
and the 4Rh chapter of that year, but this act of 1467 had
not been repealed. Ile appealed to the 1...,rd Advocate if
be were not correct in this. (Rear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of ARUNDEL and
Sraustr,
Mr. THELAWNY wished to have an answer from the
law officers of the crown to a very brief question. Ile
would suppose a case, in which a catholic bishop or arch-
bishop assumed the title of Archbishop or Bishop of tt•est.
minster, an.l, iu virtue of his office, he would suppose that
bishop or archbishop to ordain a clergyman. Now, sup-
posing that clergyman to fall into the commission of some
impropriety, for which his bishop should suspend him, and
that the clergyman, being of a vindictive di.position, turned
against his bishop and produced the writt.:. instrument hy
virtue of which the bishop ordained and entrusted hint
with the cure of souls, would it, in such case, he open ta
the crown to proceed against the bishop for misdenteanour ?
(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, said lie had an.sered
the question over and over again. In Li, opinion, under
the first clause—the clause then before them—ho

meanour would arise • it affected only the validity of acts
done under au assumed territorial title. Thu pi•nalti, of
the act wero under the second clause, but nut ut all tou.lied
by the Bret.
The committee tlividcd—
For the proviso
Against it

Mr. KEOOII moved to add the followin7, prori-o.—
" l'rmilled that no criminal proceeding shall be comturnced.
or indictment preferred against any per-on, under or I,l•
virtue of thi. clause.

The ellA IItMAN—Do I tand,rstand hon and lc amed
gentleman propo.e% it ot the pry rent moment ?
Mr. KEOGH—If the noble lord thinks it de%irable to
proceed at one in the morning.
The CHAIRMAN—Du you move it now?
Mr. K EGG lI—I wish to give notice now.
The CIIAIRMAN—The hon. and learned gentleman
cannot Rive notice of it now.
Mr. K HOG ll—Then I move it.

Mr. REYNOLDS eunridered that the advanced hour
Of the morning was hi+ excuse fur moving that the
Chairman do now report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would not give the committee
the trouble of dividing on this motion. lie thought it was
now sufficiently clear that hon. member. had heeu making
the same motion mer and over again. (Loud ern, ut
Ilear, hear.") That when they had gone into the lobby,
finding themselves in a small minority, they had framed
motions at the moment which had been before
rejected, awl brought them before the commit-
tee in a different shape. That tieing sufficiently
obvious he thought it as well that they should have time to
reflect upon this conduct, and he did not think they would
be inclined to repeat it again when they saw that rottlAte
opinion ennilmned such a mode of proceeding.
Mr. REYNOLDS again rose end essayed to address the
committee, but his voice wars drowned by loud cries of "Oh,
oh." For one or two minutes the hoe. gentleman tried to
obtain a bearing, but every attempt WAS met by renewed
" Oh, 0h.," and the hon. gentleman sat down saying some-
thing about " beastly interruption."
The motion that the Chairman report progress was then
agreed to.
APPRENTICES TO SEA SERVICE (IRELAND)
HILL (No. 2).
. . . . . .

Thiq bill pa•-•ied through committee and the several
elitt.ts were :igrecil to.

ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION.
On the order of the day fur going into committee on this
bill, _

Mr. BANKES said he should oppose the further pro-
gress of the bill. and moved that the house adjourn.
The CHANCELLOR of the E Nell EQUER deprecated
the course pursued by the hon. zentletuan (Mr. Bunke.).
The house had unanimously resolved there should he an in-
quiry, and some expense must necessarily be incurred.
Mr. BANK ES would withdraw his objections, it the
word " salaries" were omitted.

Mr. ELLICE said the provision was only permissive in
ease the house thought tit.
The house divided—
For the adjournment
Against it
The house then went into committer on the bill.
Colonel stirritont. moved that the chairman report
prottrcas.
After a short discussion the committee divided—
For the mutton
A;,,ainst it
Mr. BANKES then moved the omission of the word
" salaries" from the first clause, upon which the committee
again divided—
For the motion
Against it
.tn bon. MEMBER. moved that the chairman report
progress, whereupon the committee again divided—

For the motion 1
Again■t it
Mr. BANKES moved the chairman should leave the
chair.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed to
the chairman reporting progresr.
Alter a brief discussion, the hou,e divided—

For leasing the chair l•i
Against 42-27

While-reporters were absent, the house divided a second
time, the question put being that the chairman should
report krogress :
iur l4
Against 42-28

The galleries were again cleared, but no dirisbm was
taken, and it was understood that the whole subject was
punt tuned.
The other business on the paper was disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter-past 2.

PMlt'.-Mr. Christopher paired off last night iu favour
of the Ecclesiastical Titles Dill with the O'Gorman Mahou
against.

PAIILIAMENTAItY COMMITTEES.

M.►ItBET 11EMO►,tr. COMMITTEE.
Yeatenlay, Mr. Cardwell in the chair, this committee re-
sumed their proceedings. The witnesses examined in pro-
motion of the measure were Mr. Bond, of Uak Farm,
Taunton; Mr. Haynes, of Bridgwater; Mr. 'Purr, Lin-
colndlire ; and Mr. Bryant, extensive graziers. Their evi-
dence went to corroborate that already recorded in the
Blue books of the house, and was to the effect that under
the existing Smithfield n'yime great injury was dune to the
cattle, by their being driven through the thoroughfares,
besides being confined in su inconvenient a situ, and great
advantage would accrue if the proposed new market were
in the neighbourhood of the railway stations. The com-
mittee soon after adjourned to ►Yednlesday, to give time for
the production of further evidence. 'rite Islington Cattle
Market Company's Bill has been referred for consideration
to the committee by the house.

STAEFORDSIII ILE AND SUM/PAH= NILWAY.--Yester-
day, before his Honour Master Richards, Mes.rs. Gregory
and Brynton, two of the directors of this company, were ex-
'mined at great length, by Mr. Daniel and by Mr. Roxburgh
(counsel for Mr. Hutton, the official manager), and both
gentlemen concurred iu stating that no authority was given
tar the removal of the company's funds out of the Commer-
cial Bank.

li .trr it TIMER Co3lllllTlTE.—Yesterday this committee
met for the first time, to arrange the order of their proceed-
ings, and choose a chairman.