The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 10, 1851.

laughter.) He could not say that he had ever much confi-
dence in any government, but he would not on this occasion
attempt to question the good faith of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in proposing Isis amendmenls. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI thought that great gratitude was due to
the gallant officer for the ability and perseverance with
which he had always pursued this object, in which at but
he had been successful. He also complimented the go-
vernment for the good sense and feting which they had
shown in thus yielding. (Hear.)
Mr. CHAPLIN also lagged to thank the government
for the great fay our which they had shown to the agri-
culturists.

isir:llOONER said that there was a class of yeomanry
who occupied small farm of their own, and he would put
it to his right hon. friend whether he would not extend the
boon to them? (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no one
could be considered a small owner of land who had a farm
the rental of which was 300/. a year. Ile bad, however,
provided for any ease in which the party obtained his liveli-
, bust by the farm.
Mr. BRIGHT said he was somewhat surprised at the fa-
cility with which the right hon. gentleman had proposed
this alteration in the hill, seeing that within the last few
days be had expressed an opinion that the bill was nearly
perfect, and that no valuable alteration could be made in it.
Ile wished to call the attention of the right hon. gentle
man to a point which, he was afraid, was not generally j
understood. There was a very considerable difference be-
tween the mode in which farmers were taxed under this
act and persons in trade. Both modes were, he believed,
'somewhat inconvenient to persons who paid the tax, but the':
difference was this, that farmers were never liable to be j
surcharged. They were nut liable to be charged above a
certain sum, which they knew, anal which in an ordinary
run of years everyboay would admit to be a moderate
charge upon the ordinary profits of farming. (" No, no.")
The farmer would have an appeal against the govern-
ment in case he made less than 114. g. a year, but the govern-
ment would have no appeal against him in case he mode
more. It appeared to him that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was really substituting one sort of injustice fur
another under the pretext of amending the act. Ile hoped
the right hon. gentleman would take the matter into his
consideration.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER said the hon. member for Man
cheater was quite mistaken in supposing that tenants were
never surcharged.
After a few words from Mr. Bright, Mr. E. Denison, Sir
J. Trotlope, and Mr. Booker,
)Ir.ll EXLEY said the case was stronger than it had been
represented to be as regarded the power of surcharge. In
the case of a farm, the occupier of which paid 5001. a year
as rent, if an officer of the crown proved to the satisfaction
of the commiesiouers that it was worth 6001., the occupier
had to pay not onle 31d. in the pound upon the 4001. a
year, but also an additional 7d. in the pound upon the re-
maining 100..
The clause then added to the bill.

Colonel SIBTIIORP then propooed to add to clause 1
the following proviso :—" Prop/Mod also, that nothing in
this act contained shall authorise the continuance of so
mach of the rates and duties granted heretofore under
whiolule E of the said first recited act, no reltteo to the
pay and allowances of the offictro in her Majesty's army or
navy." The hon. and gallant colonel woo understood to
wry, that though he strongly wished to obtain this boon for!
the officers of the army and navy, who were a meritorious
class of public servant., he would not pre.. his proposal.
but content himself with recommending the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to take the matter into his serious conside•
ration.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, great
as the merits of the officers of the army and nary were, he
multi not admit that they had a totter claim to exemption
titan many other claws of her Majesty's subjects; and he
could not, therefore, accept the proviso.
The proviso having lx.eit withdrawn,
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY, in pursuance of his notice,
called the attention of the house to the necessity of provid-
ing some effectual custody of papers relating to the pro-
perty tax returns.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no necessity for introducing a clause. The ease was
one fur instructions, and in point of fact instructions had
been issued with the clew of attaining the greatest possible
security.
After a few words by Mr. IL ynolds, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and Mr. Grattan, the bill as amended was
agreed to.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION
BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on
this bill.

.....
Mr. J. REYNOLDS prevented a petition. agreed to at a
meeting of Roman catholic. held iu the ILduuda, Dublin,
on the 29th of ln.t month, agaiied the Errir4vistica Tie,*
.t..utupt. Bill and the Iteligiou. Ifou.te Bill.
On the motion of Mr. It r. vN "Los the petition woo nail
by the clerk from the table.

.
On the que,twa bung put, that the Speakerdo leave the
chair,
.....

Mr. URQUHART rose, in pursuance of notice, to move
the following noolutions : Tint the recent act of the
Pop,, in dividing England into ilioems, and appointing
bishops thereto, was cticouraged by the conduct and declara-
tions of her Majesty's government. That the publication
by Lord John Russell of his letter to the Bishop of Durham,
which um( tined Oil/m.040114 calculated to wound the
religious 6 (dings of many of her Majesty's subjects,
produced lark expectations of kgislative remedies
which have been ilisappointsil 17 the provisions con-
tained in the measure now submitted to the house."
The hon. m..mber, who spoke at first in a very indistinct
manner, was understood to say, that the house had new
favourably opportunity of recinisiilcriug a 111,.:01111: which
was of a tiovions character, :mil which nearly all parties iu
that house would, he believed, be glad to get rid of. The
conduct of the government, in reference to this matter, had
been such us to excite painful animosities and to raise ex-
pectations which could not be fulfilled, and parliainent was
now reduced t-i the necessity of either carrying out persiru-
Ron, or oliservin4 neutrality. The resolutions of which he
had given utak, were, he thought, calculateli to en-
sure the support of all partii -; and they affirmed 11211 y
what bail been either aus.22-ted or admitted in debate.
The hon. member, who was ahilost inaudible, prir:soded
to opinions and sib-serrations made at slitforent times
by the noble lord at the head of the government, with refer-
eney to the papal aggression. He believed that the propositions
of the noble lord were not made in good thith, and that, if
successful in the house, they were not ns,ant to be honestly
carried out. (Hear, hear.) ii, contended that the act of
the Pope was no violation of the law of nations, nor of
their practice in relation to papal instrums uts : and, in con-
clusion, in adverting to the letter of Lord J. Russell, lie
condemned the promulgation of such an ilia minatory
document at a time when the government might
have negotiated with the court of UMW., which :dime
called for a vote of censure upon the government.
Ile maintained that the noble lord had distinctly en-
couraged and entirely sanctioned the first part of the
Pope's proceedings, especially that act which he now de-
nounced as a violation of the law of nations. And lie would
add that whoever concurred with him in that opinion
must not be content with giving his vote against the bill,
but ulso must express his censure of the conduct
of a government that had been guilty of so such
tergiversation. It had In en said in a former debate
that the conduct of government had nothing to do
with the question. His position was the converse of that.
Ile could see no reason why the amendment hepruposetl
should be objected to by the Roil:mm:lkt themselves, inas-
much as it would get rid of un inconvenient bill, and leave
them free to mike such arrangs menu for the future r•da-
tions between this country awl the papal states its might
be Road most desirable. And though no doubt the ami ud-
moot would he in elfect a vote of censure upon the past
conduct of the government in relation to this subject, yet
as the nob': lord hail declared the other night, wits n called
upon by the hon. and learned member for Slietfishl to ex-
plain wl7 he continued to remain in office afti r having
licen four times left in a minority, that he would oily re-
sign on a direct vote of want of confidence, there was nu
reason for urging against this proposition that it would lie.
the resignation of ministers and the inconveniency
and agitation of a general election. UP this rue oure of the
government some said it would br. a nullity, others argued
that it was persecution; in his opinion it was both.
If carried tato effect it would be persecution,
and if nut it would be a nullity. Ministers
were between two alternatives—that of opening up
a religious persecution throughout the world, or on the
other hand of exhibiting this country us engaged in a futile
attempt which must end in giving a great and splendid
triumph to the Pope—a triumph over the minds of the men
of England. It was to avoid both of these alternatives that
he asked the house to agree to his amendment.
The amenducut having been seconded, and put from the
chair,

Sir 6.
GREY observed that in consequence of the almost
general conversation prevailing in the house while the hon.
gentleman was addressing it, he had been unable to catch
all that fell from him, especially iu the earlier part of his
address: but, as he understood the hon. gentleman, he cora-
meneed by expressing his regret that he had not succeeded
in catching the eye of the Speaker in the debate on the
second reading of the bill, and that he was therefore anxi-
ous to take this opportunity of stating his objection to its
principle, and proceeded to ask the house to reopen the
whole discussion and reverse a decision arrived at
after a debate of seven nights' duration, and affirmed by
a gentleman 433 against 95. (Hear, hear.) But the
ho had gone further. He had asserted in the
latter part of his speech that the object of his amendment
was to get rid of the bill, to undo all that had been dane
with regard to the late act of papal aggression, and to leave
the act of the Pope, which had excited—and justly excited
—such strong feelings of excitement and indignation in the
country, to take its course, unchecked and unimpeded.
And more than this, the hon. member proposed to prevent
not only the going into committee to consider the details of
• bill the 4 cond reading of which had been confirmed as he
had said by so large a majority, but to meet the motion for
going into committee by an amendment which involved—
and narrowly involved—a vote of censure upon the govern-
ment; and strongly misconceiving what had fallen from his
noble friend (Lord J. Rweiell) the other night, in answer to
the hon. and learned member fur Sheffield, the hon. mem-
ber towards the close of his speech said that this
not being a vote of want of confidence, but only
• vote of censure on the government, put forward
as a means of getting rid of the bill, the government
ought to be obliged to him and submit to it
without subjecting the house or the country to the revolu-
tion of a general election, which a change in the government
would cause. The hon. member had wholly misconceived
the statement made by his (Sir G. Grey's) noble friend

in answer to the hon. and learned member for Sheffield.
His noble friend drew a clear distinction between the cir-
cumstance by which ministers had been placed in a mino-
rity en the occasion referred to by the hon. and learned
member, and their being placed in a minority on a vote of
censure or want of confidence, under which he said the
whole of his colleagues entirely concurred with him,it would
be impossible fur the government to continuo to hold
office. (Hear.) lie would not detain the house by going
into the general argument advanced by the lion. gentleman
against proceeding with the bill, but he might be permitted
to call attention tithe fact that the hon. gentlemen's reso-
lutions, as they were now submitted, were very different
from those of which he originally gave notice. The hon.
gentleman now proposed that the house should nut go into
committee ; but that the bill should be swept away, while
a substantive vote of censure against the government should
be substituted, founded partly on their general policy,
partly on their conduct previous to the act of aggression.
partly on this bill, and partly on the letter of his
noble friend. Now, what was the nature of the rem-
lotions of which the lion. gentleman hail given notice
" That the act of the Pope was invited by the express de-
claration
of the prime minister, and resulted from the mea-
sures taken by the foreign secretary in Italy, which, by
prostrating the temporal milependowe of the Pope, placed
his spiritual authority in this realm, and throughout the
rest of Europe, directly at the disimmal of the powers who
rule at Rome, viz., Austria and France, and halirectly,
through them, of the Russian cabinet and the Greek church.
That all legislation (heyond that requisite to protect the
auelent usages of the Roman catholics of this kingdom
against the usurpations of the recent rescript), tends to ad-
vance, nut to frustrate, the objects in this measure of the
Patriarch Czar, namely, the political distraction of England
by means of Ireland, and the religious distraction of
the west by the rekindling of discord between the two
other section:toff the Christian world." (Cheers and laughter.)
Such was the opinion entertained by the hon. gentleman
on the ith of April, the day on which this resolution stands
on the paper in his name. Then he proposed, not a vote of
censure on his noble friend the First Lord of the Treasury,
but on his noble frieuel the Secretary fur Foreign Attars,
dividing with great impartiality that censure with the Pope.
himself. (" Heir, hear," and a laugh.) Tne hon. gentle-
man then thought the Pope would be able to convulse the
country East and West, and produce results which he said '
could not be averted by legislation. (Hear' bear.) He
mentioned this merely to show that the hon. gentle-
man was not a safe guide fur the house to
follow when he asked them to undo all they had dune,
and satisfy themselves by taking no further step in
respect to a measure the second reading of which they had
affirmed by so overwhelming a majority. (Cheers) The hon.
gentleman had adverted especially to the conduct of the
government, by which, as he alleged, the aggressiou had
been invited ; but so far as he hail heard the lion. gentle-
man, he could collect no other charge than that which re-
lated to the conferring of titles on the Irish Roman catholic
prelates. Upon this poiut he hail before stated,
and he now repeated, that, looking at the posi-
tion of the Roman catholic prelates in Ireland,
in reference to the great body of the people he thought it a
wise and is liberal policy—and showing a due and proper
deference to the Irish people that those outward marks of
honour should be conferred on their ecclesiastical prelates,
provided government in doing so violated no law or esatute
of this realm. (Hear, hear.) Ile conlvszed lie had not ex-
pected that advantage would be takeu of that caress' us
it had been taken, but when the hon. gentleman mode this
a charge against ministers, he should remember that those
titles were coneesled year belOre the present ministry
came into ottice, and were quoted in the Charitable Be-
queats Act, in all the proceedings under which the Irish
Roman catholic prelates had been designated by their eccle-
siastical titles. But the charge that the government, by
making concessions to the Roman catholics of Ireland, were
inviting Roman catholic aggression, was by no means a
new one. It had been used as against the Emancipation
Act, the Maynooth Act, the Bequests Act—and against
successive governments when administering the affairs of
this United Kingdom, they thought it their duty to
submit to the house those measures which, as he
thought, were directed by a wise, just, unit libe-
ral policy, and which, though proposed by 0-
vernoteuts of which lie was not a jumbos he
had supported, and of which he and his colleagues
were ready to take their full share of the responsibility.
The hon. gentleman asked the house to join him in a vote
of coudeinuation of the letter of his noble friend on ac-
count of one passage as leading to the expectation of exten-
sive legislation. That passage was,—" There is an assump-
tion ea power in all the eloamuients which have Mlle troan
Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of Eng-
land, soul a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is M-
e:oils:stood with the queen's supremacy, with the rights of
our bishops an I clergy, and with the spiritual independence
of the nation, as asserts:a even in Ronan catholic times."
He was not now going to argue this question, or to ten-
tier proofs in continuation of the statement* made in that
letter totow hide the lion. gentleman had objeeted; hilt when
the hon. gentleman asked the house to pass a vote of cen-
sure on the goveniment in general, and on his noble friend
in particular, for penning this paragraph, lie must take
leave to remind him that an opinion having 'Well pro-
nounced on the part of the house, the complaint of the
house- was not that the act was nut necessary, but that it
did not go the length required. But the hon. gentle-man
confined his censure to this ground—that it led to an ex-
pectation of an indefinite extension of legislative nosistorea
on this subject. Now he could bet- nothing leading to that
tenon...ion in it. (Hear, hear.) There were those who,
taking as stung a view as flit- 11011. gentleman as to the act
of the Pape. thought that without legislation—at all events
in the first instance—the difficulty might be met by a new
resolution of parliament ; and there were others who
thought that a proelaneatiou from the crown might have sa-
tisfied the emergency of the ease-, but 111131 V of [ltem differing
front the import:me of the case, or differing front leis noble
friend astotheapirit and tenor of the act of the Pope. (Items)
But the Imo. gentleman hail omitted a paragraph which was
subversive altogether of the idea of extensive legisiatiun.
si Upon this subject, then, l will only say that the present
state of the law skill lie carefully examined, Lind the pro-
priety of adopting any proceedings with reference to the
recent assumptions of power deliberately considered."
What lie asked of the house was, to agree to theinution
that the Speaker leave the chair, and not to stultify them-
selves by turning round now, after having affirmed the
principle of the bill by so large a naajurity, and declaring
that they would take no further steps in regard to it, but
that they would rentitiu quiet and acquiescent while their
titles said their authority were exercised under the reseript
of the Pope. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words in explanation from Mr. UtteaultAUT,
Mr. FRESIIFIELD observed that he would nut stop to
inquire whether government had, en the hon. 'smellier for
Stafford said, encouraged this aggression. The question
was, were they, because ministers might have invited that
aggression, to deprive the country of that legislation which
the case required i It appeared to him that the argument
of the hon. member fur Stutford was immaterial and irrele-
vant to the question at issue, and lie regretted that the time
of the house should have been so long occupied uselessly in
considering it. (Ileac.)
Lord J. MANNERS differed with the hon. gentleman
who iced just spoken, and thought much good would result
front the mere pruchunation of the truth by a resolution in
the Journals of the House of Commons. And it wits the encore
importaut, he cause the noble lord in his ever memorable
letter took especial pains to prevent the people of England
from oweiug the real truth, which he desired should he
asserted. The other day the noble lord was almost willing
to risk the disruption of the church of Eutaw], ill order,
nt\id:ai ;
as he (Lord J. Manners) supposed, to prevent the people
cslcyans
from arriving at the real truth as to this papal aggression.
It was so even when fair and candid men like Dudley Per-
! rival and Earl Powia placed the truth before the country.
'Pile noble lord twice, us leader of the opposition, publicly
in Las place invited and encouraged this very set of the
pupaes• against which his puny mut delusive legislation was
now directed. (Cheers.) Again, twice the noble lord had,
as prime minister, refused mid misted the attempt of the
church of England to increase her episcopate, and by that •
nitisal had preserved fur the Pope those great towns O
England which might clue have been the WV. of English
prelates. Then the noble lord had, by the acts of his go- I
vernonent, granted precedence in our colonial empire'
to the archiepiscopal nominees of the Pope eyed
the whole suffragan bishops and the whole of
our colonial community, and in excess of cour-
tesy
had granted a similar precedence to the titular •
Arilibisliops of Ireland. And while he was giving this
encouragement to the Runtish church, he had refused a i
grant to the established church of Ireland—a grout for !
scriptural schools. The noble lord, whose whole policy
had been one long concession to the claims of the church
of Rome, and one long monotony of wrung and insults to ;
the church of Englauel, the only real harrier to Rome, hoed i
succeeded, by a magic stroke of his pen, in plaeing himself
before the people as the only champion of protestautism,
omfiserEa?,gsylit a,thic'rt too
mtalh;isehg::er4huehasii;:tinsioiet:T,
and the only real and determined opponent of
Bir
nd
the church of Rome. When the noble lord
otlonhi
hfusai
ehsl
pending
promises,
cocuchp
been uw.
Before
freed
.ref,
t.t:i
h wasr
ocrd:
came into office Le admitted that the number
e.
ri
!oh,.
on,,p wml
aggression
Nt!
helet
tu p oatneht.hcnie:m:
and he rejoiced to say that
government and thwusia°.l
the governuteut conceded the just and reasonable claims put
forward by the Wesleyan, or the subject of education. At
the same time negotiations were pending between the
Roman catholic' of England and the government, and
these ended in the concession of the claims of the
' Roman catholics. The merits of the bill might he us
great as the enthusiastic Muster of the Rolls had pro-
claimed them lobe ; but, whether that was so or not, the house
was now called upon to consider whether the resolution of the
I hon. member for Stafford embodied the truth. Ile
I (Lard J. Manners) would vote for it, because he was con
i-
vinced t was the truth, because he thought it of great
public importance to place on record on the journals of the
house a deliberate condemnation of the past policy of the
government which had led to this aggression, and also be-
cause he thought it of importance to hold up that policy as
a beacon to warn future administrations against pursuing r

similar line of misconduct. (hear.), a
Strangers were here ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place.
Mr. SADLEIR said the meaning of the resolution was
this—that government had encouraged by their acts the
establishment of a hierarchy in this country similar to that
which had for centuries existed in Ireland. Now, the
Roman catholic memb,rs had on former occasions de-
clared that, if any insult to the Queen was meditated by
the aggression, they would be the first to repel it ; and he
repeated that declaration now. It was imposaible, how-