The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 20, 1951.

that whilst by a reeestion of the dilheential duty is the impssig ge hop a lex ea this he • areh year, he
on ease they would waidally Yuri the nionial pro- web* entemalled ia rho abeertelina of the noble ford who
dune, sad would give as wean easeewernme4 Co his bail wises kW. Fla it a most dangerous
husks rind; they would net sear* to the tler o mason • but it was one feswilllftehr government was not
Mlle the adman". Ma redentlest in (Heusi . . .
to the lon of memo they would 4... leile. .Dtivrworas:Maldßiltrigia in eefhwittsi.
quit would nil him ad the . et • Thkitlaread • snood tine. andsphorod wag ame.
innoseed by the home •-• ' . he
; emitted • . • - l
=IA bin thee*, ''''' nail in the " • The 'owned at a quarbree eight o'eloolt.
ties daft wee net le , - . . •
the Imp aiwoost d— • ._ _ ‘
pelt le mac Bat tint woad be y • mother HOI3IIE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY, MAT 19.
Wel while h appeased to blot =24 her The Sew= took the chair at 4 o'claki.
wined perfectly ' ble.
(Choirs.) 1" Soto,d to to" the *lightest precaution The foiloWing bills were read • third time :—Midland
Nana that uswisswaa whit& did not affect the higher Railway (Extension of Time, &c.) Bill ; Xeek, ?Immo*
amuldboraiwwis, bat sdill.pwolgony enabled the retail and Berwick Railway (Branch to the West Durham Emil-
deagir le Wise es the pow Owen of the ems- way, ifie.) Bill ; Taw Takr-lieSerair and Daft Bill.
maturity as aidisested, and frequently • noxious THE CI:MALEY WATEMWORMS BILL.
article, charging on that adulterated article the prior On the motion for Ow abthse wmilowesisw of this bill,
which might be Katy charged for the genuine article. Mr. CARDWELL eideglelle Sheba Oa tb• ground that
Having further objected to the reduction of the duty the town of Lieugemel kili wig ben chewed a y 0,,,, 04,,,,gi
on timber, Lord Stanley weat on to asy that the on the committee loam the ha
sate marquis took great credit for • reduction of one After a brief diseemion,
Lon of direst taxation, by which he considered Mr. eattnvrata. withihow We opposition, and the
AL
coati-
smaas t boon in a sanitary sense well as in a Sean- denims of the bin was scrod
reline
wetbe bestowed on a large portion of the The Eastern Union Railway Bill was considered and
was not going to say that he amended.
=in ads is which the window tax operated as The Liverrol Docks (alteration of management) Bill
obilsikenegia, • Ike it tow not fraught with any serious was recommitted.
but wisest Ow noble marquis took cre&t to the The following bills were also considered : Midland RUL-
E;
eat for doing away with the window tax, he should way (purchase of Leeds and Bradford Railway, and in-
that be to • great extant charged • similar tax me crease of capital) Bill, Midland Railway (rwuMtion and
the same pieties of the community by the sub- Mcrae' of capital, des.) Bill, and Weston-super-Mare Im-
illldiss of a house In he the window tax. Ile believed provmment and Market Bill.
Ai mbailiow taw was drawable on about 500,000 houses, PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Manly ea ialleiloWsnail portion of the houses of the PETITIONS PRESENTED. --
, orlibt the Tows tax would be chargeable on PAPAL AGOILISSION.—By Sir D. DUNDAS, from Su.
Insitom, and, therefore, although there was to bo a thalami ; _Mr. COWAN, from Argylesbire • Mr. FRESH-
neggles is point of amount by the conversion of the tax, FIELD, from Lincolnshire ; Mr.-PLUbIiTRE (several),
there wet still • direct tax charged, not upon windows, it Mr. OREEN'ALL, from congregations of Weeleian me-
was trot, but on house which had window', exempting the thediste in 20 places; Capt. ARCHDALL, from Wc!doioa
remaining small portion ; and he did not know why that reogremmoue ~n Fermanagh, praying for more strumpet
exemption was rmide. Ile did not see why they should mai- measure.; her. CHILD, similar petitions frets Raiford,
See the revenue for the purpose of exempting put that clam shire ; Mr. HEA LD it, also to the same ell" ; Mr.
which exercise the elective franchise, and winch was alWayl COWAN, from th a syn of the united original seceders,
supposed to be correlative with the amount of taxation. Ile held at Edinburgh, from lamthesdi Limner, and Ellamle
did not see why they should gratuitously sacrifice the ford, in Argyleshire,. igl'ilw't" ~.
might obtain if they did not ECCLVAIAiTICAL Itr
amount of revenue which they uss aesuerrtom BILL.—B 7 Mr.
exempt that clsos. This exemption might be very cunveni- GRACE (several), fit ,m Roscommon; Mr. J. 0 CON-
ant to the constituencies of metropolitan members; and that NE LL, from Limerick and Dublin; Col. DUNNE, from
Whence might not have been without its weight. Other- Queen's County; Mr. . COItBALLY, from Kilmore and
wise be did not know why the man who resided in the 201. other places in Ireland; Mr. REYNOLDS, from Galway,
house should be subject to the tax, whilst the man who Tipperary, Donegal, MOIL glum, Meath, Tyrone, and Las.
lived in a 101. house, and as such was entitled to a vote, was donderry, Dublin, Clare, an I Leitrim; Mr. FOK (several),
exempted from it. Ho maintained that without sacrificing from Longford and Meath ; Sir J. GRAHAM, from Cork,
the revenue they might have obtained to a great degree the Dr. POWER (several), from Cork; Mr. E. K. TENISON,
sanitary objects they had in view. lie believed that by the from Leitrim ; Mr. O'f LAE Eitrii from thelwaY ; Mr.
conversion of a window tax into a house tax, pressing on the htooßn, from Mayo, Sligo, , •nd Louth ; Mr. SCULLY,
same amount of property and the same number of houses, from Tipperary, King's County
they might have effected the change without any lose to SELL (8), from and Limerick ; Mr. MON
a, Clue, ~,a (2). from Kerry; Sir J.
the revenue, and without any injustice to individuals ; YOUNG
Corp), from Connaught' tar. ROCHE, from 13
or they might even retain for the present the windox tax, clues in o ; Col. CHATTERI 'ON, from Blarney and
and enable parties who were liable to that tax to compound Whitechurch, county Cork, against.
for the present amount, and allow them hereafter to open HARWICH ELECTION C 'OMMITTEE.
any number of window* they might think fit without being Mr. K. SBYMER, as chairman o f this committee, re-
subject to the inquisitorial visit of the tax-gatherer. ported that the committee had deter% lined that Mr. 11. T.
(Hear, bear.) Her Majesty's government might make Prinsep was not duly elected to serve i i parliament fur the
what professions, what declarations they pleased against the borough of Harwich at the last &Aeries t„ and that, cones,
income tax, 'but the country would judge of quently, the election we. void; and fort. 'ter that the com-
their sincerity not by their profession, but by their mittee had struck the names of several t visions off the list
practices, and however strongly they might condemn the of voters.
tax In theory, if the country saw that year by year they
were taking steps by their disposal of every surplus of
revenue which would render it impossible for them to re-
move the income-tax, they would come to the not unnatural
conclusion, that however theoretically her Majesty's go-
vernment might object to it, practically they meant to con-
tinue it as • perineuent tax, and to incorporate to • greater
extent than had ever yet been done, • system of direct tax-
ation as the basis of their financial policy. (Cheers.) He
entertained those objections to the course which had been
pursued by her Majesty's government. He thought they
ought to have taken steps gradually, but certainly to get rid
of the income-tax at the earliest possible moment ; but in the
=in which their lordships stood, be should be sorry to
himeelf the responsibility of advising or suggesting
to their lordships that they should reject a bill which they
were not able to amend. and the continuance of which was
absolutely memory fur the maintenance of the public
credit. (Hear. hear.)
Thu Earl of MALMESBURY said he wished to know
hem the noble marquis upon what assessment the house
Inn um% Ito levied t
The Mrsqui. of LANSDOWNE was understood to say
Ihri NM mantel was under consideration, but he believed
ft meet be PI the local assessment.

NEW WRIT.
was ordered
On the motion of Mr. HITTZIL, a new vnit
Clackmannan
to be issued for the election of a member for
Ccassd
sad Kinross, in the room of Gen. Morison, des
DINGLE WORKHOUSE.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished to know whether at investiga-
Ron had taken place ea to the conduct of cert. "1", officers
(lay and clerical) of the workhouse at Dingle, a n, "f so,
whether it was proved at that investigation that the
blatant rector of Dingle had collected money in the church,
which he afterwards paid out in bribes to the paupen to io-
dine them to become protestants.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE had found that, in C. "'se-
quence of a complaint made by the Roman on the.
he chaplain, that money was distributed in the workho I'`e
for proselyting purposes, an inquiry was ordered by t. 'e
Poor-law Commissioner; when it appeared that the pr..
natant chaplain and his curates had given small sums to
the protestant paupers who attended to their administra-
tion. It did not appear that they had given any for prose-
lyting purposes, indeed their having any such intention was
denied upon oath, but still it could not be denied that the
practice was highly objectionable, sad therefore the com-
missioners had directed a letter to be written to Mr. Good-
man, demanding that the practice should be discontinued.
K AFFlit WAR.
Mr. HUME asked whether there would be any objec-
tion to lay on the table copies of the despatches which had
been last received from the Cape stating the probable
charge of the Kaffir war, and the grounds upon which
300,0001. were made the probable estimate? His belief
was that the expenditure would be nearer is million.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES would answer the question to-morrow
(this day).
Mr. ADDERLY asked whether commissioners had been
sppeiated to proceed to the seat of war; gad, if so,
whether their appointment wow out of the select com-
mittee ?

TM Zarl of MALI1E8111:111f said that if that were so,
o more unjust and tyrannical tax could not exist • for it
was notorious that the local &movement varied in different
parts of the country as much as to 12 and even 20 per
cent.

After • few words from Lord BIAUMONT and the Earl of
ILii•nesuc fir,
Laid BEEN KItS called on the government to give some
odiefte the tax payers from frivolous and vexatious our-
Lord MONTEAGLE said, that with regard to the
general adasioistratien of the property tax, considering the
eiseemstances in which it was introduced, and the small ex-
mismes of those who had to administer it—those who had
ed under the old income tax having been either
vemovVfrom otlice or having died—he never witnessed
enytktog on the part of those who had to carry outs system
of taxation more praiseworthy than the resolution, good
sew, and moderation with which this tax was enforced.
Is thought, however, that the country ought not to be led
bliadfold into a system of perpetuation under the pretext
of a periodical ft newal.
Earl GREY, in reply to Lord Renters, said that he
MB afraid that no further check could be put upon sur-
than those employed at present, unless the secrecy
it MS ace, wary to throw over the levying of the tax
woriellisteribeed with. After some observations in reply to
Ohs afectiens of Lord Monteagle, Earl Grey went on to
my that the taut& lord opposite (Lord Stanley) took
the proposition of her Majesty's ministers to imply an un-
dertaking gradually to get rid of the duty on customs, with
a view to trust entirely to direct taxatiou. He (Earl Grey)
did not see how the noble lord could draw any such infer-
ence. Ho cEarl (frey) considered that the object was not
to get rid merely of the customs duties, but of those
taxes whether customs or excise dutie s— which
proved obstructive to the industry of the com-
munity. (Hear, hear.) A largo portion of the revenue
which had been sacrificed in consequence of the income tax
had been derived not from customs but excise duties—for
instance, glass and bricks. The improvements that had
taken place in the manufacture of glass since the removal of
the duti, were most important, and these improvements
MA ftm the period of cessation of the excise officers'
elite. The duty on bricks had been only one year re-
titled, yet the purposes to which they were now applied
were exceedingly numerous, much more so than heretofore.
Asa landowner, and one who, like others, felt the pressure
of the time., he could say that the remission of the duty on
betas was vastly benebcial to the landed interests, and
mold prove still mom so, owing to the facilities the
ellbrded fir building and improvements. (Hear, hear.
With mg :aril to the tams of the present year, the noble for
Manley) had found great fault with the repeal of the
shies on coffee and timber, and had stated that no advan-
lege was derived by the consumer from the repeal of the
WM duty. That reduction had now been some weeks in
egmelles, as it took effect from the time the resolution was
reII the HOLM: of COMM; and, on Saturday last,
d reed a circular from an eminent commercial firm in
lie Mad trade, stating that the alteration of duty had
whoa so reduction in the price of colonial timber. The
MINS was, that for some years the import of colonial tim-
ber bed been confined to timber of peculiar kinds with
width the Baltic timber came very slightly into conipc-
Mtion. At present the reduction had not affected colonial
timber at all. (Hear, hear.) His firm belief was that
nothing ever did so muck injury to the colonies
se the existence of those differential duties. Already,
be Nam Mmeress, the consumers had got the advan-
tile fel Immehisis of the reduction, in others of
tiedebliffs end In ether eases the difference of price was equal
btlewble redaction of duty; but until the supply could
be made 00-extensive with the increased demand, the con-
mid not calculate ea having the full benefit. Hut
I•stthe reduction had soomited to the extent to which it
MI gene, was perfectly -deniable. The extraordinary
astlyiq now manifested utlead all the trades
4 which timber was largemit selliefy every
erne that the reduction of t bees a measure
al* greatest advantage. The noble lord (litenlig) had
add fat the reduction of the duties on coffee we. as am
to *a esaseaser. Ile had been in communication with gen-
tian= illisseted in colonial produce; and though it was
not femme for persons engaged in any particular trade to
recognise the advantage of the reduction of protection to
that trade, he had not heard from any of those gentlemen
a hint that any disadvantage would result to them from this
=ll. And this for the simplest ofd masons : the
fecylon alone produced a larger ger laity of cab*
flan this comers consumed; hence it Me *vines that
the geatectioe tees nominal and utterly Taub. ; . Ow
gesel be a eagles for the markets of lite weal] emir that
me= se the protection mar be of value. Bat
Ele of both duties wee Illelebleset vase. It
eennoied tweisimodirs, and hemied le amps the who,..
Mt of mai liemble ID smhee. b SSW Wag ot/ ,e,
hide of coffee Isle eseinspllaa. sal wadi throe be so uo.
Meld benefit to the Exchequer. TM whir lord had
dr Ord the goverument with refusing to cheek ad own,.
Iten, and hail implied that the goverment rather 11,,oured
It Ora otherwise. But the fact wee, that not only the pre-
sent administration, bat that of which the bade keg
y) had been a emaabar, sad the peeseCag an, bad
lielt thtt practically it was IN* Impeoliht , by me N.,
monstrance or interfONSlM if UM Miginfig. to maim
adulteration. He tesredialleheration we. too alems, not
only in coffee, but in a pea many this) fp flit an eon.
ansed. The othera:ol,±am the Morelos of loommie
, he had hem ante vslm ass dog, He
eft
it was =AZ naf um MN that its
sZriuse was to ad 'hest Nulls mustard.
ser)—that a very Sip qmssatity of lees se this sub-'
sees was ground up and Mid tif 111/11111.111. lee believed
lb leas a very harmless sublearae. Int milattleily it was
laK Re as mustard. With owl lb alillueboh, the
seedy was in the hands des emeembeel the only
emit Tall to ascertain whit INS per ma what was
use. , as far as It wester eseessms reer wee
calculated to meet the • be dos
ahniabbied the price et peg rods bleb le
ow%
adulterate that whisk was 1 fah** peNlk ant
1:01 *at it would be of is Os pew memo
, to Spb te pivoted Mit Ilme• W iadeibbieg mire.
1 bee erlielt malted the set ebb of ea
-••ffty.pretes ship tbsresbeet the sentry,. allrinsgpa

Lord J. RUSSELL said that commissioners would be
appointed to go out oa assistant commissioners to Sir 11.
Smith (who was not superseded) to inquire into the affairs
of Calearia. It had been intended to send out commis-
sioners before the appointment of the comraittee.
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the noble lord would tell the
house whether these commissioners would hare power to
settle the question of peace or war.
Lord J. RUSSELL said their duty would be to mist Sir
11. Smith.

Kr. ROEBUCK—WouId they have power to make
peace with the Kadin ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—They would Le 'claimant commie-
sioners to Sir H. Smith.

iiTrci.l:eniSiili; asked whether there would be any
objection to substitute the name of Mr. Keogh for that of
Lord Arundel on the select committee ?

Lord J. RUSSELL bad no objection.
PUBLIC SERVANTS AT THE EXHIBITION.

Mr. HUME said he had learnt that government had
Even the dockyard men permission to come up and sec the
xhibition. lie wished to know whether government also
meant to pay their expenses, and, if so, whether a like in-
dulgence would be extended to other public bodies ?
Sir F. T. BARING said that the Admiralty had given
the dockyard men two days to come up and see the Exhibi-
tion, but they did nut propose to pay their expenses coining
up, or going down, or during their stay in London. (A
laugh.)
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
On the order of the day fur the committee being read,
petitions in favour of the bill were presented by Mr.
Spooner, from Warwickshire; against, by Messrs. Moore,
Roche, Scully, Mogan, Dr. Power, Lawless, Col. Chatter-
tun, Clements, Simnel:, 11PCulleigh, from various place. in
Ireland. In favour of, by Mr. Miles, from Somerset; and
by Sir J. Trollope, from Lincolnshire.
The house then went into committee, and on the chair-
man putting the usual formal question that the bill be read
• first time,
Mr. REYNOLDS roes to move, as an anundment, that
the chairman report progress. (Laughter.) They had last
reported program on the understanding met the noble lord
would prom his bill. They (the Die members) had
not violated that understanding. (fresilal cheers.) lie
might be charged with violating it understanding in
the spirit, if not the letter, but he thought he could justify
himself against that charge. He begged to rewind the
essamittes that this was nut the bill vaiM i had been ori-
&ally laid ea the table, and it wee oat wily not the Sent
bin, bat it wee ass the second bikini/mire to the second
the midi had bat said the einniinnts el the hon. and
leaned itsgeber for Yidlning. the eater, of the two side"
had cedy led to greater cow:Mat locautre, In addition to
what he would call the Walpola dame, ha found a proviso
which was mot insultiog to nimmea wmtholia. He meant
the ca
tion of bat wield not tel_goehlshismt Mime from
inertia
e
sPesstian of the h.
'similar clause excludits g the )demon @Wm& prelates of the
United Kingdom. '(A Legit.) They bad it recorded
now that petitions had been pesemated signed by no
less than a !clinic in of persons agehest this bell, yet
the noble lord w uuld pay lam attend= to the prayers
of that million of 'people than to the Male voice
of the Bishop of Durham or any ether lighey. (Hear,
ran:l r ,bject wee not to elk haliou op,
bu merely to obtain there fairly to
IMO. the ' Sect of the bill as it stood In its amended
sellft• reed r J hewed the committee would mot think him
wageelftemil Au fig he, as a catholic de ending his own
MP ad ler a delay of 24 hours only, a delay which
As an "ty save considerable time in the future
,401.11 W ON details. Ile would now move that the
linnow on do report progress and auk leave to sit again.
(1111' hear.)
r G. GREY was not going to argue whether the
see .rse punned by the hon. member was or was not in ac-
re. adanee with the spirit of the understanding arrived at on
"iriday might ; that was a question he would leave for the de-
tain OHM Someeittee. But if the hon. gentleman thought
Ibeg the thee bad own for the revision of the standing or-
ate elbiei with the general consent of the house, and not at
the illiweelen of a elide government, as the bon. member
ammimoiserith regard to the presentation of petitions, it would
be t Ilia whin the Speaker was in the chair to
beteg teastiee Were the house, and to ask its decision
=it 4 bp t eat wigwag house was in committee upon a bill
1111111111=1111ha with that subject, and when they
olidd eat ememele It. (Beer.) He hoped the committee
wail wee be led into a useless discussion of the order of the
hank field after the declaration of the hon. member of
whit hie object was it could have no other end than that of
waft obstruction and violating the understanding come
toes rriday to enter to-night into the discussion of the de-
Idle tithe
111 AIWNDEL and SURREY had risen to second
detemondiment of the hon. member for Dublin, when the
right bre. baronet interposed. He contended that that
mumberat was not a violation of the understanding come
to ea Friday. (" Hoar," and " Oh.") That understanding
wee that the Speaker should be allowed to leave the chair,
wed the hone go into committee without opposition, and
that arrangement had been adhered to. (Hear.) He could
en no reason why they bed eat led the bill in its amended
Om plated in their bftd• en
et in Wag. delayed es a Inee hear d 7: =Allesawben
*see who, like lueseeltdreieg mop* day Mug at etne-
Mans up stairs, wield Iran sr opportunity of considering
what effect the membegge Ltrodncd might have.
(Cheers.)
Yr. ROEBUCK 111111116/1114 that, under the Mena-
gleates, the request which had been made was not warm-

me bl.Xhare were propositions in the bill, as it n...
steed. ~appeared to him to be of vital importance, area
of se grads. • character that if they had any sense or
messing at ell they would go to call in question the actual
erstere ,of the Roman catholic faith iet this couple,.
(Beer, heat.) The committee ought to be pet In a position'
to know whether this would be the effete of the amend-
meats or got. The bill wee now to all mimosas a new
ha, sad ought W go through the forms of new bill.
Them several Sam had the noble lord of himself thAinged his
whole seem of policy in regard to this bill. (Hear, hear.)
He believed the law officers of the crown, finned upon,
would be unable to trace the legal bearing of the extra-'
ordinary changes which had been introduced. (Hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE should mppoit the motion behove
Ste chair, as be did not think it would be v'— --t
with the understanding that Wes come to on YAW te
Wig fixward any amendment now for the purpose ef ohs
strutting the program of the bill in committee, and though
hen. gentlemen might have made an imprudent
meet, he would advise them to adhere to it, and at
proper time they would be justified in demanding some
days' delay for the consideration of the legal effect of the
alterations which had been made in the bill. But what he
would propose was what the hon. and learned gentleman
(Kr. Roebuck) bad suggested, via., to call upon the law
silken of the crown or some member of the govern%
meat to give to the committee their general view
of the legal bearing of the changes made in the
measure, and he for one could not consent to proceed
with the bill in detail until that was done. The committee
should not lose sight of the feet that the progress of this
bill was unexampled in parliamentary history. After three
mouths' investigation on a subject of vital importance, and
of a most delicate nature, government introduced a bill
adequate, as they said, and no more than adequate, to the
occasion. That bill consisted of three clauses—the first
imposing penalties for the assumption of titles under the
swop
rescript; the second annulling all writings or deeds
in respect to titles assumed under rush
rescript ; and tho third cancelling all bequests
made in favour of persons assuming titles under
such rescript. The vote in favour of that bill was
given by au almost unexampled majority—a majority cd
to I—a testimony, he was willing to admit, of waves Er
tional feeling on the subject. (Hear, bear.) The
went, having that vote of 6 to 1 in their favour, Mltli
fit, after the lapse of a short time, to announce the with-
drawal from that bill of the two most stringent out of the
three operating clauses. A great and fundamental change
was then made in the measure, and he was bound to my
that the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary, on tho part
of the government, explained in fall what was the nature
of that change, and the operation he thought it would have
on the bill. (Hear, hear.) But such a change, however
great and unfortunate— and every great change, after its
introduction by the government, was unfortunate, even if I
unavoidable, iu • measure which nearly and deeply touched
the religious tenets of large masses of the people—but how-
ever great and unfortunate, he was far from saying that
such a change was altogether without example. (Ham)
But what was without example was that the government,
having after three mouths' deliberation introduced their'
measure, and having afterwards changed it so as to alter its
very essence in the way of relaxing it—that they should
then on their own motion, and not on a vote of the Housed
Commons, introduce new amendments not in the sense of
the former amembnents—that of relaxing—but in the err
of greatly binding and enhancing the stringency of the
measure. (Loud cheers from the Irish members.) He be-
lieved he was right in sayiug that the iutrodurtion of the
clause of the hon. and learned member for Midhurst (Kr.
Walpole) would have the effect of binding and enhancing
—if not, he should be glad to hear arguments to convince
him of his error ; hut he thought there was no lawyer who
would not admit that the introduction of an enactment an-
uulliug the rescript was an essential change in
the bill, and a change in the direction ho bad
stated. (Hear, hear.) Then he wanted to have the
precise legal bearing of the change which had been thus
made in the bill, in order that they might be able to enter
upon the dissuasion of the details. (Cheers.) He would
state his opinion of the change from the bill as first intro-
duced—from the first edition of the bill. (Cheers.) Iu
that edition it was provided that all writings and documents
executed by persons under the papal rescript should be
void. But they were told that that would interfere with
the rights of the Roman catholic church, and that part of
the bill was accordingly withdrawn. Now, what he wanted
' , to know as to the second clause of the original bill was,
whether its principle was not re-introduced by the amend-
, mane now made ? And whatever might be the difference
o. r opinion amongst lawyers—if no two of them agreed upon
gs, • legal bearing of the bill the more necessary was it that
the, ,should be informed of what the views of the govern-
ment soars in makiog these amendments. (llear, hear.)
He wou Id state what, as it appeared him, would be the
effect. Imperfectly informed, as lie neeessarily was, I
be contes seed there was rnueh to be said ou the part of those
who, think ing • pc nal act neccesary, determined tor pport the
amendmeno: of the hon. a nd learned member for liidhunt,
tow if there were an ocea ,ion (which he, however, denied
this to be) fir retracing th ..ir steps and entering again es
a course of penal ligielatior„ whatever they did they Arid
take tare nut to make this law • mockery, hut gave it as
Intelligible and legislative p rinciple. (Cheers.) The hon.
and learned monis, r for Mi dhunt dectazed by his amend-
ments that the brief or rescrip t of the Pope, appointing the
hierarchy, was illegal, and, coneistently enough, that all
other merlins and briefs issuing from the Pope were illegal.
The government, in their dilator, appeared to have
adopted the clause of the hon. mid teamed gentleman
which made the rescript illegal. Oa that he (Mr. Glad-
stone) would put two questions to the government. As he
understood another rescript had been sent forth by the
Pope posterior to that appointing the hierarchy in England,
relating to Ireland, with regard to which, it they were to
observe uniformity of legislation, some atterien was ne-
cemary. What was that rescript? It was, r he under-
stood it, to abolish the jurisdiction of the Roman
catholic bishop of Cloyue, in Ireland, over the diocese of
Row, erecting a new sec of Ross, and constituting • new
diocese. (Hear, hear.) The main difference, he believed,
between this case and that of the rescript iota/Airing the
hierarchy here, was that this bad been done at the request
of the Roman catholics of Ireland ; but the acting power
which gave farce to the instrument was the same in both
reseripts. (Hese, hear.) Now were they to.legialate so as
to give uniformity of legislation in both these cases, or were
they, by their legislation, to annul the one rescript and
leave the other in full farce ? (Hear, hear.) Ile wished
to have it explained what the intentions of the government

sure ; for,. imperfect as it was, it was better than any-
Wig they (mold bops for from those who opposed it.
Mr. I'. HOWARD observed that though the second
"epilog of the bill had been affirmed by a majority of 6 to
1, ay committal of the bill—the stage which went to the
reakisatitm of the purpose Intended by it—had only been car-
tied by about one-sixth of the representatives of the people.
Mr. NORBMAN suggested that the hon. member for
Dublin should posmone his amendment, provided the law
officers of the crown, or the noble lord, would agree to ex-
plain the present position of the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that what he had stated was
that when they came to the first clause the Attorney-
Oeneml would make a statement as to the bearing and
effect of that clause, but that would not touch the
preamble.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the agreement on Friday
night was that there was to ho no opposition to the Speaker
leaving the chair. Let the hon. member for Dublin
withdraw his amendment for the present, and let the law
officers of the crown explain the provisions of the bill.
(Hear.)
Mr. ROCHE said that as this was a question of the keep-
ing or breaking of good faith, he would state his recollec-
tion of the proceedings which had taken place on Friday
night. On the house going into committee, the bill was
read a first and second time, the postponement of the
preamble was objected to, and the bill was ordered to
be printed, and its further consideration postponed until
to-day. The committee were now asked to go two steps
further than they went on Friday, and, having gone these
two steps, they were then promised that they should hear
the explanations of the law ollicen of the crown. The bill,
however, was a new one, mid, being new, the explanation
ought at once to be given. If the learned gentlemen
showed that this was not a new hill, hut the old one, then
the committee might take it into consideration ; but, what-
ever their explanations might be, the Irish members were
exactly in the same position now as they had been in on
Friday night.
Mr. KhOOH assured the noble lord that if for a moment
he conceived he was violating the spirit of the arrangement
of Friday night, he would vote against the proposition of
the hon. member for Dublin. But he was of opinion that
the Irish members were not violating either the spirit or'
the letter of that arrangement. He had asked the noble
lord on Friday to reprint the bill. The noble lord at that
refused, but at length consented to do so, on the under-
standing that be should stand to-day in the same position
as he did on the last day; but the Irish members were also
to be in the same position now as they were then. Let, the
explanatory statement be made at once, and let the noble
lord adjourn the question until Friday next, the more par-
ticolarly so as the amended bill in its printed form had
not reached the hands of hon. members until a late hour

that morning.
Mr. WALI'OLE said that all his amendments had been
put upon the paper prior to the Easter recess, and that
these amendments included the clause which the govern-
ment had now adopted. It was quite true that the noble I
lord promised to state after the recess what he would do
with the amendments; and, accordingly, after the recess'
the noble lord said that he did not object on principle to
the first of his (Mr. Walpole s) amendment., but that
he thought it was included in the old preamble. Ile ob-
jected, however, to the other amendments. Now, it had
been said that since that time the Attorney-General and
himself (Mr. Walpole) had been cooking up a new
bill. Ile certainly had met his learned friend the
Attorney-General in the street accidentally, and he had
spoken to him about his amendments. The Attorney-Ge-
neral had not been sent to him by the noble lord. On the
following day he met the Attorney-General a second time,
and the latter then alluded to those parts of the amend-
ments to which the government objected most strongly, and
also to those parts to which they assented; hut until he
(Mr. Walpole) came down to the house on Friday evening,
the government were under no arrangement with him,
nor was he under any arrangement with them, either
to accept or reject any clause. There was, moreover,
no compromise between them. (Hear.) He entirely ap-
proved of the principle of the bill brought in by the noble
lord ; and, approving of that, he did not think there was
anything unbecoming in the conference he had had with
the Attorney-General, the object of which was to see how
far his amendments would or would not be acceptable to
the government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was the noble lord himself
who stated that he sent the Attorney-General to the hon.
member for Midhurat.

I Lord J. RUSSELL said it was quite true that the hon.
member for Midliurst had first met the Attorney General
in the street. The latter informed him (Lord J. Russell)
that he had had some conversation with the hon. gentle-
man respecting his amendment% but he said that he would
not hold any further conversation with him without the
authority of the government. lie (Lord J. Ru.ssell) did
not give the Attorney-General any specific authority with
. .

restn:Ct to the clauses'but he gave
municate with the hon. member for Midhurst. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Hume, Mr. B. Crawford, and
Mr. Moore,

Mr. REYNOLDS said he was willing to withdraw his
amendment, provided the noble lord would consent, after
the Attorney-General's explanatory statement, to postpone
the further consideration of the bill until Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that he could nut agree to
the arrangement of the hon. member for Dublin. (Rear)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took plum, the formal motions, that the bill be read a
Bret and second time, having been agreed to, and
Mr. REYNOLDS having withdrawn his amendment,
The CIIAIRMAN then pot the neat formal motion,
That the preamble be postponed."
Mr. REYNOLDS, thereupon, again moved that " The
chairman report progress end ask leave to sit again."
The house divided :

or reporting progress
Against 262-216

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then nee and said that
to would obey what appeared to be the general wishes of
tho house and explain the provisiouof the bill as it now
stood. It seemed to him that the legal effects of the bill
could be asp Mined in a few words, and that the whole
matter lay in a very smelt sompass. In the first place, he
must state that he totally disagreed with the assertion made
by several hon. members that this was a new bill. The
only elm= to which the could possibly apply the observa-
tion was what was now the first clause. Now, he was pre-
pared to show that that fiat clause did in 110 respect alter the
character of the bill, and that the bill, with that addition,
meant substantially, and LID more than, what it had meant
without the clause. AA the bill had stood before, the 2nd
and 3rd clauses of the eriginal bill being withdrawn, and
looking only to the preamble and to the government's first
clause, which no _appeared as the second clause, it
amounted only to thus. The preamble recited that " cerisia
of her Majesty's subjects, under colour of a pretended
authority from the Sec of Rome, had assumed to them-
selves the titles of archbishops and bishops of pretended
provinces and of pretended secs and dioceses." It then
went on to recite the statute of 10 George IV., e. 7, and
the enactment of that statute, which provided if any
person should assume the name, style, or title of the bishop
of any bishopric, or the dean of any deanery of tho este-
bibbed church, should be subject to • conviction under
the Istituto, and should be liable to a stated penalty.
It (the preamble) then continued to recite, " And whereas
it may bo doubted whether the recited enactment extends
to the assumption of the title of archbishop or biduip of a
pretended province or diocese, or archbishop or bishop of •
territory, or dean of any pretended deanery
ciitykagriaisil"or Ireland, not being the sec, province, or
diocese of any archbishop or bishop or deanery of any dean
reeegnised by law ; but the attempt to establish, under
colour of authority from the see of Rome, or otherwise, such
pretended secs, provinces, or dioceses or deaneries is illegal
and void. And whereas it is expedient to prohibit the as-
sumption of such titles in respect of any places within the'
United Kingdom." Then they had to look to tho second
clause, for he was now explaining the bill as it had stood
without the first clause. f he second dense enacted that
the assumption of titles not provided for in express terms by
the 10 George IV., shall also be illegal and void ; that was
to say, the titles prohibited as :being the titles in pos-
session of the established church; or, in other
words, the second clause placed such dioceses, provinces,
cities and towns, not already appropriated as archiepiscopal
or episcopal titles of the established church, on the same
footing as that in which other places were put by the
10 George IV. That was the original bill. The offence
was made precisely the same as that created by the 10
George IV. in respect to all assumption of title by "an
person other than a person thcreunto authorised by law
said in both cases the penalty was made the
same. The first clause, which undoubtedly was
a different clause, was originally proposed by the
hon. and learned member fur Mulliurst ; and it was
now contended that this made the bill an entirely new bill.
It did no such thing. The clause was neither more our less
than a declaratory clause embodying the recital contained
in the preamble. They recited in the preamble that a cur-
tain assumption of titles was illegal and void ; and this
clause declared the titles to which the preamble referred
illegal and void. It had been stated by the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell), when the question was first raised, that
the government considered the clause superfluous as being
already embodied in the preamble, and what was the first
clause of the old bill was the second clause of the present
bill, and as doing over again that which had been already I
really sufficiently done. On looking at the bill
ea it had before stood, a moment's considera-
tion showed that the proposed addition was not
absolutely necessary: and he (the Attorney-General), had
ventured to suggest so much to tho hon. and learned mem-
ber for Midhurst. But the government had found a
general desire prevailing to have this clause inserted. It
was argued that there had been an invasion of the national
independence and of the national sovereignty by a foreign
power ; that it was not enough to recite the insult as illegal,
het that a national declaration was required of the illgality,
In order that there might be no mistake about it ; that this
declaration ought to go forth, with the authority of parlia-
ment, to all the world, in the face of whom this invasion of
the national rights had taken place ; that no shadow of
doubt should be left on the minds of our Roman ca-
tholic fellow-subjects, so that they should not be in-
stated to violate the law from any ignorance ; and
that, therefore, we ought not to be satisfied with •
were bald declaration, but shoullpass a distinct and em-
phatic enactment thatcertain papal bulls and rescripta con-
lining territorial titles in the United Kingdom shall be
illegal and void. It had, then, subsequently appeared to
him (the Attorney-General) that such a clause would add
nothing valid—would be of no value as far as the 11
offence or punishment was concerned ; but that, never-
bun it would give a more solemn form to that which was
already recited in the preamble of the bill, and would
satisfy the minds of many'
persons who imagined enough
was not done in the preamble and would remove all doubts
whatever as to the explicit intentions of parliament. There-
hire the government had adopted it, but with the full
Wad that it did nothing more nor loss than re-state

were in thin- respect. There was another Liu:Mika. By
the bill, as it stood, they would annul the rescript of Sep-
tember last, and declare that all titles conferred by it were
unlawful and void. (Hear, hear.) But they declined
to introduce (as he understood) the amendment of the hon.
and learned member for Midhuret, which provided that
not only as to this rescript, but all future ',-
seriphs, any party who should obtain them, or
bring them into the kingdom, or give effect to
them, should be held guilty of an offence and be
liable to prosecution. His lion. and learned friend, there-
fore, if ho (Mr. (Hailstone) was correct, very fairly annulled
all future rescript& Viral as the present. (Rear, hoar.)
But look at the position in which the government proposed
to place the house. This rescript of the 29th of September
they declared to be unlawful and void; but if it should
please the l'opo to issue another rescript—porhaps the same
m terms and effect—that was, if be did the same thing they
now declared to be illegal and void, but did it under a dif-
ferent date—a date posterior to the act of September—it
would be good toall intents and purposes except as regarded
the penal clauses. (The Solicitor-General hero made an
observation scams the table.) Then let the hon.
and learned gentleman give the committee the be-
nefit of his opinion. (Hear, hear.) If he war
to understand the hon. and learned gentleman to
give it as his opinion that because they declared in an act
of parliament a certain rescript, there specially referred to,
to be illegal and void, they declared other rewripts not
there mentioned to be illegal and void also, let them
hear it on the authority of the law officers of the crown
or of some member of the government. (Hear, bear.)
But if that was not the view—if the intention was to del)
with the past, but to leave all future reseripts of the Pope
to take their enttne—that would be to assume a position
which would be ridiculous in the face of the world.
Ho would suggest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rey-
nolds), that according to parliamentary practice, any
member pledging himself not to oppose the Speaker's leav-
ing the chair upon any bill, was understood to pledge him-
self not to prevent the consideration of the details of such
bill in committee. (Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL conceived the committee had two ques-
tions for their consideration, which ought to be kept sepa-
rate from each other. The first, the question raised by the
hon. member for Dublin, who had met the ordinary formal
motion that the bill be read a first time by an amendment
that the chairman report progress. Notwithstanding what
had been said by the noble lord the member for Arundel,
he (Lord J. Russell) could not agree to that course ; for if
he aid, he had no security that when on Friday next they
again got into committee the noble lord might not then
think he was not taking a factious course by moving that
the chairman report progress, so that they would then be in
the same position as they were in now. The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Oladstone) took another course, and if they
disposed of the first question the request he bad made the
government would be • reasonable one. (gear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman, as he understood him, said that
in going into the consideration of a bill of so much impor-
taw and especially when the first clause was not ori-
ginally in the bill, but had been subsequently introduced,
that some member of the government, or one of the law
officers of the crown, should explain what they understood
to be the general sccpe of the clauses, and what their legal
effect would be. (Hear, hear.) lie was not disposed to
deny, the motion of the hon. member for Dublin being first
disposed of, that it would be proper, when they came to read
the clauses, that his hon. and learned friend the Attar-
ney-Genend should explain to the committee the view
which he and the government took of this first clause, and
what would be its legal effect. (Hear.) There was, how-
ever, one thing he would observe, as it was evident the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had 'never read the
preamble of the government bill, though it had been before
the house since February, or he would not have made the
observation he had with regard to the first clause of the
bill. (Hear.) But he would reserve all dlecussion on the
subject until they should have disposed of the motion of the
hon. member for Dublin.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY defended the
course he had taken, which he contended was no violation
of the arrangement come to on Friday last.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the bill, being altogether a
new one, ought to have been introduced by • general state-
ment from the noble lord, for, until they had the scope and
view taken of it by the government, the house could not be
in a position to discuss it.
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that it was a new bill.
Sir R. 'NOLO should rote for proceeding with the MOM

what was stated in the preamble. This lOW really all that
he had got to ay about the lint clause. As regarded the
second clause, it had been already so much discussed, that
he could not understand " how any person could have
failed" to perceive its exact intention and effect. Tho
second clause was neither more nor less than this. The act
of 10 George IV. applied in its terms only to the territorial
titles previously appropriated to the established proteatant
church. An attempt had now been made, which the pre-
amble of this bill declared to be illegal and void, to (tercel
out this country, England more especially, into provinces
and dioceses, under an authority which had no foundation
whatever in the constitution or in the law of the
land. The government, therefore, proposed to enact that the
lassumption of such titles should be illegal—that WY to say,
they proposed to place all titles of this particular nature
assumed under a foreign authority, even though not appro-
priated by the established church, on the same footing as
the titles already appropriated by the established church,
and to which the 10 George IV. already applied. The
clause went this far, and no further. And when it was
asserted that this clause would interfere with the adminis-
tration of charitable bequests of members of the Roman
catholic church, the simple and obvious answer was, that
the 10 George IV. had not had that effect, and that there-
fore this bill never could have such an effect, inasmuch
as this bill was nothing more than an applica-
tion of the 10 George IV. to titles not
already appropriated by the established church. This
was its whole purport, and he could not comprehend
how any one could have any doubt or difficulty about it
lie thought that ho bad now explained the bill eutfi-
ciently to the house, and would not longer trespass on its
patience.
Mr. I'. 110 WARD wondered why, if the matter was so
simple as the hon. and learned gentleman pretended it to
be, the bill had been withheld, contrary to the usual prac-
tice, from members until after mid-day that day. (Hear,
hear.) Ile protested altogether against taking the discus-
sion of the bill that night, no time having been given for
the consideration of it.
Mr. K. SEYMER (who was very indistinctly heard'in the
gallery) was understood to ask the Solicitor-General (the
Attorney-General having left the house) on what grounds
the government had made a dis'inetion between Ireland
and England in the bill in referring to the papal hull issued
in England, and in avoiding all mention of the later bull of
precisely the same character and equally offensive issued in
Ireland ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL knew that his hon. and
learned friend the Attorney-General had intended to ad-
vert to this point. The answer was very simple. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and the bon. gentle-
man who had spoken last had not distinctly appreciated
the nature of a recital in the preamble of a bill, and the
nature of a declaratory clause. A declaratory clause enacted
on the judgment of the highest authority of the realm that
such and such a state of things was the existing law of the
country, which all courts of law met without dispute,
and which admitted of no appeal. With regard to
this particular hull, and the reason for declaring
this particular bull to be void, the matter might
be clearly stated. That it was void he believed
no lawyer hail ever entertained any doubt whatever.
That it was illegal to accept • title under a bull of the
Pope of Rome, had been decided in James's time in Lalor's
case. Later was appointed to a title, and was punished (as
shown in Sir John Davis's reports), and since that time
there had never been any question on the subject. It was
declared illegal under the statute of prtemunire of Richard
the Second. This bull professed to do the same thing as
was done in Lalor's case: and the remarkable circumstaneu

which should fix attention was, that from the time of
Lalor's case to the present period, no subject of
. England had dared to accept a foreign title of this
nature, and no "sovereign pontiff" had ever ventured
to issue such a bull. After t e lapse of two centuries and
a half an aggression had never been made by the court of
Rome, and now they had to deal with the ill-judged and
ill-advised proceedings taken in consNnence by certain of
her Majesty's subjects. It was thought by the government
that it would be enough in this bill to recite that these
proceedings were illegal and void. It, however, occurred
to the hon. and learned member for Miclhurst—and the
hon. and learned gentleman was not single in that view—
which had been put forth in an aisle pamphlet printed
anonymously, but which was generally recognised as the
production of an individual in an eminent judicial position
and a privy councillor, that a declaratory clause was neces.ary
in addition to the recital of the preamble. He (the Soli-
citor-General) contented, for his own part, that he thought
a recital was equivalent to any declaratory clause. But this
being the first bull issued in late times it had been conceded
by the government that it was advisable to say not only
that the attempt made was illegal and void, but to record a
parliamentary declaration, on the one hand, with a re-
ference to the view which might betaken by foreign nations
in regard to the insult to our own, and on the otker hand
to put it beyond all doubt that any and every person at-
tempting to act under a bull of thin description was engaged
in an unlawful act, and would subject himself to heavy
punishment. This being so, they took the first bull issued;
they recited it ; and they declared it illegal and void.
Then came an objection, and the government were told
that they had committed an error in omitting a reference to
the bull in regard to the bishopric of Ross in Ireland.
Now, obviously this bull was a bull of the same nature as that
issued in England ; and this bill applied to it in the same
!ray, as a matter of course. A declaratory clause was the
judgment of the highest court of the realm ; and the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) might make the mistake,
hut no legal mind could fall into the error of supposing
that the highest court of judicature having de-
clared a certain instrument to be void, the deei-
cion of other courts would be different, or that
the second or third instrument of the same kind would be
less void. There was no necessity for following up all the
minor instruments that might proceed from the Name au-
thority—all that was wanted being the declaration of par-
liament on the one particular bull—thereafter all similar
bulls being necessarily equally illegal and void. This err-
: tainly would be the more dignified course to take. They
could not with any dignity follow up or anticipate all the
petty ramifications of the machinery of the Court of Rome.
Let them take this one monstrous instrument, dividing the
country into new provinces, and, as continental writers de-
scribed it, annihilating the dioceses of Canterbury and
York and London; and having recorded their national de-
claration against that, let them take their stand upon it.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLAI)STONE hoped he might be excused for say-
ing that he failed in perceiving that this first clause, as it
now stood, was simply • declaratory clause. (hear, hear.)
He understood the hon. and learned gentlemen the law
officers of the crown to state that it was a declaratory
clause. Why he excused himself for not perceiving this
nfwoeasrrme rbelsrucaettudheceu.nlaral.e)lstosrheyucchlwa.uassehea7thulatcodlu' h—uiastuaihperrcyushluiatl
ar,
seen had
ceeiled the recital of a doubt—that the state of the law was

doubtful—and that the clause was to decide that doubt.
(Hoar, hear.) But here nothing of the kind was done.
lie wanted to know whether, the effect of which
had been intended to be produced by the second
clause of the bill as it originally stood, relating to
the invalidity of the documents, papers, and deeds, signed
i by Roman catholics under rescripts of the Pope—whether
he conceives that the same effect will be produced by the
bill as it at present stood ? It was most desirable the house
should know, on t►e authority of the legal officers of tho
crown, whether the invalidity of all legal documents con-
nected with the rights of the Boman catholic religion wan
to be enacted ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the right hon.
gentleman had scarcely correctly understood. The hon.
and learned gentleman here quoted part of the terms of the
enacting part of the original clause, and said that the pre-
sent clause, as we understood, went much further and was
more extensive. The objection taken to the enactment, and
which led to the withdrawal of the clause, was this. It was
said, " You are enacting a clause which will have a retro-
spective effect of the most injurious description." That was
the objection the most strongly impressed upon the minds of
the Roman catholic prelates of Ireland. They said that
under the old act of 1829—they might be wrong—but they
had ordained a great number of ministers under that act,
and that after the passing of this :bill ;many of those ordi-
nations would be void, and the legislature would
prohibit those prelates from going on and doing what they
had been doing ever since the year 1829, and which they
had no right to suppose they were not at perfect liberty to
do. (Hear, hear.) Those prelates said, " Don't do that ;
but let us stand as wo were under the law of 1829: and, if
we were wrong under that act, let us he right under the
new one. We ask to do certain acts under the clause of the
statute of 1829, and we ask the government to leave us ex-
actly u we were under that act." That was what the
catholic bishops of Ireland had said. Now that was done
when the clause was withdrawn. (Hear, hear.) But if the
Popo thought fit to come in any legitimate manners if ho
could, and create a new bishopric—which he (the Solicitor-
General) did not think the 1 could—let him try to do
so. Let the Pope appoint his bishop, as in former
times • create a title to it, as the state of things
existed before, when the vicars said, " We don't carry
a title openly; but still we consider ourselves to be bona
fide bishops among our own people, although we carry no
title publicly." Our striking at this particular bull, and
restraining titles in this instance, did not in any way mili-
tate against these bishops doing hereafter what and all they
had done from the year 1829 up to the present day. (Hear)
He thought those prelates had a right to the benefit of the
doubt expressed by their saying, " Let us stand in the
same position u we were in 1829, and do not go beyond
the spirit of that act." (Hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE complained that the hon. and learned
gentleman had not answered his question, which related to
the effect of this clause upon the Irish prelates.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—His own opinion was,
that acts which were of a dubious character done under the
act of 1829 might come under the operation of the clause;
but if their acts were legal, they would of course remain so.
Mr. M'CULLAGII said that a similar document had
been issued in the case of the bishopric of Galway, and no
notice of it had been taken by the government. The right
hon. member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)
had asked a question, which his hon. and learned friend
had certainly not answered, and had not attempted to
answer. (Hear, hear.) He was sure the home would not
be put off' with the answer his hon. and learned friend had
given. He had not answered the question which he (Mr.
M'Cullagh) had been the first to put in that house, namely,
whether the subtraction of the first and second clauses by
the government—for he bad never admitted, and never
would admit, that this was the same bill—(cheers)—
whether the subtraction of these clauses was really and sub-
stantially a change of the restrictive and persecuting policy
now adopted, or whether the hon. and learned gentle-
man (lid not think that every ecclesiastical, as well
as every temporal act, was really to be declared
invalid by those 2nd and 3rd clauses, and whether he did
believe that if brought before a court of law they would bo
decided to be illegsl lie contended that when grave

&ked, and when men like Sir Fitzroy Kelly
mil the hog. mensbn for Aylesbury and others, all agree- •
knwith the eight ken. baronet the member for Ripon, and
ellagyeed twin the plc of the construction of these
doom the wu well worthy the serious
INlMliketriffienwf the law officers of the crown.
ga was odd ihet the statute relating to bequests
Mmalmed udi,Peallsals and the hon. member for
Adders lad sold that it repealed in terms the penal part
'cl the est of 11EL What he (Kr. M'Cullagh) said was,
that t ho plegalat Art of 1841, introduced by Sir Robert
Vol, with the approval of the noble lord and all who acted
with hiss. alai with the adhesion of the present Master of •
the Rolla, S gestate acting not only upon Roman catholic
arehbiehopesmilMnliep, Wages the titles of the archbishop
wad bishops -he daagliwo OW act with many other ac-
losowledgments dudadaseied titles which might be one-
meroted,that that Mate of things led to an abnegation of the
whole penal oharaeter of the ate of 1829. (Chien.)
'The noble lied bad said, in reply to the honourable
Member Ace Athlone, " Was it to be conceived that
the right lea. beesset the member for Ripon, the organ of
Biz Robert Peers government, would have brought in a bill
to nullify and repeal the act of 189?" The right hon.
gentleman himself voluntarily told the house this session—
in his first speech of the session—and reminded the house
of the act of 1844. The hon. and learned gentleman here
read an extract from a speech of Sir J. Graham.
Sir J. GRAHAM was understood to my that those were
not his words.
Mr. M'CULLAGII appealed to the candour of the right
bon. gentleman, fur he had read the words from Hansard.
Would the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General my
that a court of equity would, in a case where the trust taken
by the bishop under the terms of the act of parliament fell at
her death, the necessity arising of finding new trustees, ap
point • new trustee for him? He asked his hon. and
learned friends whether it was the same thing if that pro-
perty or money should pass to the heirs or next of kin of
the bishop personally, or to whomsoever might be his exe-
cutor or administrator, or to the successor of the bishop
in the diocese ? Yet that would be the only re-
sult of a bill is equity to substitute at their plea-
- sure and discretion somebody holding an analogous office.
Be dial not know whet the bill was; and if they tools it
before a jury of the house, his did not believe they would
get an explanation. ((hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would at once an-
swer the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, that he was
not th. re to discuss legal questions. (Hear, hear.) As •
lawyer he might be boun.l to state his opinion, and he was
ready to state his. What he was prepared to state was this.
Althouith the various opinions which had teem stated on
the quaetion might have bees obtained by different persons,
ha
believed that ho should be stating the sentiments of the
legal nrofeuion if he said " We do not believe that the
ausehul apprehended by some hon. gentlemen will flow
Thom this moseure." Ile believed that the effect of this
sestets was simply to put certain classes of sees and dio-
eases upon the sew footing an that on which they stood
wire the act 10 Geo. IV., cap 7, and he hewed to ask
whether these laconveniences and fatal mischiefs which
had been so muds talked about and which some hon. mem-
ber, so much apprehended had been found to result from
that set He did not think any hon. member would say as
much as that. (Hear.) Therefore the best course would
be to determine the validity of the opinions which had
been quoted anal referred to. For his own part hr did not
believe that the consequences which some persons appre-
hended would follow this bill when made law. It
would be a very different thing if it was proposed
to caelew a bishopric. There he agreed with the
honourable and learned gentleman that this bill would
prevent it. But if you left property in the terms of a
Iseqoe.t—if you left a party money, and chose to
.give
to him an appellation which thisact of parliament declared
to be illegal anal void, you must take the consequence of
your own act. If the object was to leave property to the
party for charitable trusts, and it was left to him specified
by his title, he apprehended that the courts of equity—and
he spoke in the presence of many learned friends more con-
versant with those courts than himself—hut he apprehended
that the courts of equity would only look to the intentions
of the teetatur, and would regard the title merely as •
designation of the person named in the will to whom the
testator intended the property should be left. (Hear.)
And further, that a court of equity would give effect
to the bequest according to the intent of the
testator, and would not directly interfere with the
dispoeition of the bequest according to that inten-
tion. (hear, hear.) He apprehended that he had now
answered the question of the hon. and learned gentleman.
This was not the place to go into a legal argument, and
therefere he should content himself with saying that he did
ant b.. le•ve such mischiefs as had been prophesied would
follow this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER thought the course that hail been pursued
was very inconvenient, in a number of questi being Ili,-
massed together. It would have been more convenient to
W if hon. and learned gentlemen had reserved these ques-
tions of law to the proper time. Tho hon. member for
Athlone hail given notice of another amendment, that the
Bequest Act be not interfered with, and be should like to
bear that this recognition had been taken. On the second
rs-din' of the bill he would be reedy to controvert it fully.
Mr.'al. GIBSON said that there appeared to him to be a
doubt on the minds of both the Attorney-General and
Boliciter-General as to the course that ought to be pursued.
If the government really wished to avoid the inconveniences
that might arise from the uncertain construction of these
clause. they would introduce a direct proviso in their bill
for the purpose of preventing those inconveniences. If
there were a doubt of what might be done by the courts in
the construction of the clauses of the bill, let them take the
obvious mode of putting that doubt at rest by inserting in
the hill a clear and distinct proviso. (Hear.) lie did nut
think it came under the head of well-drawn bills. (Hear.)
There was not much good workmanship about it—(cheers)
—and he believed, when it was considered that the pre-
gnable had been altered, that the clauses were new,
and that there were doubts as to what the effects)
of the measure might be under this, its matured
form lie must say that there must be a great deal of bail
workmanship in the drawing up of that bill. (Hear, hear.)
He was perplexed himself as to what was the meaning of
the bishop of a district. Ile referred to the ease of the
Beeb' bishops. By the bill u person who celled himself a
bishop was to be fined 1001. That was the effect of the
clause. But why the :ketch bishop were permitted to
break the law was left for further explanation. (Hear.)
The hen. member then read an extract from the minutes of
the committee of council on education to the effect that
Roman catholic priests managing the religious instruction
of the children belonging to their faith, or as members of
committee exercising any control in the schools must have
been previously ordained by the Roman catholic bishop for
the tune being of tho ecclesiastical district in which the
schools may be situated. (In the ninth of November (con-
tinued Mr. Gibson), tho very day when the celebrated pro-
testant demonstrations had been made in the city, another
letter hail been written by the authority of the Lord Presi-
dent of the Council to the Roman catholic school com-
mittee expressing his gratification that this manage-
ment clause which he (Mr. Gibson) had just read was
likely to be carried out. It behoved the law offi-
cers of the crown to tell them what they meant to
do in regard to the deeds in which the titles of the bishop
were recited. How could they name a bishop by his title in
a deed if it were a penal act fur a man to call himself a
bishop ? He hoped that government would give a fair
and full explanation of what course they intended to
adopt with regard to these trust deeds, and on what
grounds, on the 29th of November, they had used the
term " Roman catholic bishop" of a district, if they hail
decided on enacting • law rendering a person liable to a fine
of 1001. who called himself Roman catholic bishop of a
district? (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER said that the question which the
hoe, was really called on to discuss was, whether the pre-
amble should or should not be postponed and all the die
eneion seemed to here a very remote hearing on that
matter. lie thought they should not spend their
time in dimming mans which would all arise when they
came to diem as big in its separate clauses.
Mr. ROCltimAillthatif the discussion had stopped with the
speech of the AttormerGeneral they would have had one
clear and distinct Matoment ; but the Solicitor-General had
followed the Attorney-General, and had given them quite
a different view of the powers of the bill. The Attorney-
General had said that this bill did not extend any fur-
ther than the old ens, and the Solicitor-General had stated
that the present bill was more extensive than the old one,
and would apply to Ireland.
Mr. P. H. HOWARD considered the argument of the
right hon. member fttr Manchester (Mr. Gibson) was an im-
portant one.
Viscount BERNARD, after alluding to the district of
Rose, on the authority of Dr. Doyle, begged to state that
the right of presentabon in the Irish Roman catholic church
had formerly belonged to • family of the name of Stuart,
and that family being now extinct, the Pope, as the supreme
head of the church, had taken this right to himself. This
claim of the I'ope to the right of presentation in Ireland,
resting as it did on the fact of the Stuart family be-
ing eatince was a virtual denial of the sove-
reignty of the Queen in that country. (Hear, hear.)
Ile trusted that whatever delay might take place in the
poising of this measure, be trusted that whatever measure
=ft h t be passed, it would be efficient.
B Mr. T. UNCOMBE thought they ought to discuss the
preamble tire"
Loud J. RUSSELL mid ho wished to take the usual
course. He was aware that he once did agree to time the
preamble first, but such difficulty arose that ha should be
eon, to do it again.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE remarked that this was an un-
usual hill, and they might take en unusual course upon it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said if they dimmed the preamble
first and they wawa the ',script from the papers, the
has. maahew wadi ww; what authority was there for it ?
The ist of the coomiptlassi issued wee quite notorious.
Kr. MOORE contended that -naafi they had read the
preamble they could not unientand the clause.
Kr. AGLIONBY said it appearld to him the preamble
was redly an enacting clause, and they therefore ought to
take it first.
Mr. KEOGH remarked that it had been observed they
made no way. Why was it ? It was because the noble
lord at the head of the government had not made up his
own mind as to what he should ask for. One night, under
• severe pressure from the repreeentatires of Ireland, he gave
up two amass. On another night, under equal pressure
from another side of the house, ho agreed to certain amend-
ments of the hot. and learned member for Midhurst, and,
in order to make that up to the Irish members, he gave up
a little bit of the preamble. There was hardly a line of
the bill which the noble lord had not taken from one
side of the house or the other. Then the hon. mem-
ber for Midhurst gave notice on Friday night
of amendments to the clauses of the bill, which had since
been made to fit in at the right place, the hot. and learned
member baying met the Attorney-General in the street;
whereas they (the Isiah members) bad not bad the good

fortune to meet an attorney-general in a conciliatory mood
—an attorney-general in search of a preamble—(a laugh)—
and the important amendment of the hon. member for
Rochdale, and than of which he had given notice, did not
dt. The noble lord said it wan the universal practice to
take the preamble fast. He (Mr. Keogh) admitted that.
And why! Because in all other acts they had some set-
tled principle on which to act ; but here they had got no
settled principle. Had not the noble lord every time he
nee is that house announced a different principle on which
thiibm was bead. The preamble contained the words "the
said brief, reseript, or letters apostolieal." What brief,
',receipt, or letters apostolical ? The noble lord said, " Look
at the preamble!" That was preAsely what be (Mr. Keogh)
asked the house to do. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lad
had stated that the script was perfectly notorious, for it
had been published in all the newspapers. That he (Kr.
Keogh) denied. It had never been published in any of the
public journals; and ho would venture to say that it had
sever met the eyes of any individual in that house. The noble
lord was evidently not at home with the fats of the am.
The Charitable Bequests Act left it to the embolie ame-
missioners to decide who was the puma aommt, sod law
could they do that but by referring to dm %RIK emeettel,
or letters apostolical, under which at... the llama
catholic prelates of Ireland held their sees. (C=.
He (ltr. Keogh) considered that they IMO filly
in exposing the inconsistencies and absurdilda of msb
sure • and that it was not to the delays isteepomed by the
Irish mmbers, but to the blunders of the premeame date
bill, that its slow progress was really to ha attributed.
(Loud cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the quaitios for
them now to decide was, whether they elhaeld or
should not postpone the consideration of the pima-
ble. Now everybody knew that the premises of bills
was usually taken last, inasmuch as the CUOMO were
the important feature ; and when it had been deter-
mined what they should be, they then went through the
preamble, so as to adapt it to them. Just in the same man-
ner, he believed, every author wrote his preface after he
had di:tidied his work. Then, they were told about the
wonderful changes which the government had introduced
into the bill; but he denied that there had been any
changes in the bill whatever. (Cries of "Oh! ") He re-
peated that its intention remained the same—namely, that
they would not allow these titles to be assumed either
under the papal brief or otherwise. That was its object
now, and the clauses which had been withdrawn had not been
taken away in consequence of any pressure in the house,
but because it had been represent.'d to them by Archbishop
Murray that they would make the bill go farther than the
act of 1429, with which it was the wish of government that
it should coincide. (Hear.) It was not very encouraging
to the law advisers of the crown whenever they delivered
an opinion to lie told that they totally differed and be was
sure that the hen. and learned member for Athlone must
know bAter. (Cheers.)

Strangers then withdrew for a division, but after the
lapse M about five minutes the gallery-door was re-opened,
and it was f.,und that no division had taken place. On our
return,

Mr. REYNOLDS was found addressing the house, amid
loud cries of " Oh, oh." He said that, without underrating
the legal acquirements of the Attorney•Oeueral and the
Solicitor-General, he must say they did not appear to him
to have thrown much light ou the subject. He (tlr. Rey-
nolds) felt fully warranted in moving that the Chairman
should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. ItOEI3UCK said no one could be more opposed
than he was to the preamble of this bill ; but, if this
country was to be governed by moans of a legislative es-
sembly—(cheers)—artain habits of dealing with the ordi-
nary business of the house were absolutely necessary to
make that government useful. (Hear, hear.) Hon. mem-
bers who were opposed to the preamble would believe that
he had the same object as they had. He would do all he
could by means of fair argument and as open and honest
opposition to put an end to this bill ; but he entreated hon.
gentlemen, os they regarded the interests of their own coca-
try,to be governed by the rules of a legislative ainensbly,and
not to introduce a system which would make persons say
that they were trifling with the great interests of the
country. (Hear, hear.) Ile entreated them to let the
committee go to a division on the bill, and not to trifle with
tie forms of the house.

After a few words from Mr. 16100ILE and Mr. ROEBUCK,
The Earl of ARUNDEL hoped his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Dublin, would withdraw his motion for reporting
progress. and allow the comin'ttee to divide on the pre-
amble, and he trusted that after the division the govern-
ment would consent to postpone for the present any further
progress. (Hear, hear.)

Mr P. HOWARD concurred in this advice. (Laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said non, of the appeals which had
been made to him had convinced him that he was wrong,
and he should, therefore, divide the committee on the ques•
tbm that the chairman do report progress.
The committee then divided.
For reporting progress
Against 271-241
The committee again Welded on the question that the,
preamble be postponed:
For the postponement
Against 258-213
The Earl of ARUNDEL moved that the chairman re-
port ress.
Sirp o.rog GREY said that they had now spent five hours
upon a desultory conversation—(hear, hear)—and as the
usual hour for adjournment bad not yet arrived he hoped
the committee would proceed with the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. M.. 1. O'CONNELL supported the motion for
adjou ntment.
Mr. REYNOLDS hoped that the Irish members would
stand firm in their resistance to a tyrant majority that
sought to force upon them a bill of pains and penalties.
(Hear, hear.) They would get nothing by political gen-
tility —(laughter)—or by bowing and scraping to the 1 ree-
ntry bench. (Hear, hear.) Ile could tell them thut if
only half a dozen members stood together the government
should not go on with the clause that night, and the sooner
they were made acquainted with that tact the better.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that honourable gentlemen
should be allowed time to consider what course they ought
to adopt with regard to the alterations. They should give
at least 12 hours—[An hon. member—a fortnight!—(laugh-
ter)—for the consideration of the altered state of the bill.
They should not give Irish members the opportunity of
saying that they were beaten by a tyrant majority. (Rear,
hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS asked whether it was fair that the hon.
member for Dublin should be allowed the use of such an
expression as a tyrant majority. (Hear.) He would ask if
it was fit that a minority should have the power of post-
poning, as they had done for the last ten days, the greatest
measure of this session ? (Hear, hear.) lie would call so
the government to protect the majority from a tyrant mi-
nority. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL trusted the government would
yield to the appeal made to them by the hon. member fur
Sheffield, who had advocated the cause of religious liberty
on this occasion with so much seal, ability, and discretion.
(Hear, hear,) He did not look for any adjournment fur a
fortnight, bat only for a night, and he did not think this
was by any means an unreasonable request. (Hear.)
Sir F. THEIHGER said ho hoped the government would
yield to the appeal made to them. It was important that
they should do so because they had adopted the proposition
of the hon. and learned member for Midhurst which made
a declaratory enactment in the bill, that declaratory enact-
ment merely applying to the rescript of the Pope of the'
29th Sep., 1830. In answer to a question by the hon. mem-
ber for Orford his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-
General stated that this declaratory enactment was appli•
table only to England; but that if carried into a law the
judges in Ireland would feel themselves bound by it to de-
clare any similar rescript is Ireland illegal and void. Ho
therefore interred that any similar brief or rescript in Ire-
land would be illegal and void. And if that was what was
really intended, he thought it would be far better that the
intentions of parliament should be clearly stated in the bill.
(Hear, hear.) Immediately he heard the answer of his
hon. friend it occurred to him that it would bo desirable to
introduce an amendment in the fiat clause setting
forth that it was desirable to extend the bill not
merely to the present rescript but to all reacripts and briefs.
It would, of course, be impossible at the present lime to
enter into the consideration of the amendment which
would come on upon the government clause ; and there-
fore he hoped the government would accede to the applica-
tion for postponement—certainly not for the reasons given
by the Irish members, bat fur other reasons—in order that
the house might have the opportunity of considering such
an amendmeat as that which he thought it his duty to en-
deavour to introduce into the bill, and which he could
hardly understand the government could refuse to accept,
after the speech delivered by his hen. and learned friend
the Solicitor-General. (Hear.)
Mr. GEACII said he was one of those who had gone
into the library. He had entered parliament with the in-
tention of opposing the present bill, and he was opposed to
it still, but he thopght the Irish members were frittering
away public time without any practical use, and be humbly
entreated those gentlemen not to condone their present
course of policy any longer. (Hear, hear,)
Sir G. GREY said he had thought it his duty, having
regard to the public time alluded to by the last hon. gentle-
man, to ask the committee to make some progress
with the bill that night. It was now quite
clear, however, that at that advanced hoar (a quarter
to twelve) no practical advsnoe in it could be made ; and,
es
the amendments would probably have to be altered, in
order to meet the bill in its present shape, a postponement
was rendered the more desirable. He proposed to proceed
i with the further consideration of the boll in oentolittoe at 5 '
o'clock on Friday. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said that, with regard to the postpone-
ment of the further consideration of the bill, neither him•
self nor any other of the Irish members was bound by what
had just fallen from the right bon. baronet.
Tho CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again on Friday. _ _

HAINAULi' FOREST BILL.
This bill pared through committee.
SALE OF ARSENIC REGULATIONS BILL.
This hill pared through committee.
APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICES, At., BILL.
This bill, after some discuisioit, pared through com-
mittee.