The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-17 00:00:00

l'Ol,L WHIPPERS BILL

In Ni.ly to • qui .tion by Mr. II U ME: who laid that he
eteil to the principle or the hill no beiug an interfetenev
wish die freedom of labour,

Mr. 1.A114)t t II kith .aut that the cootie he proposed to
tale aimi to hint the tall read a time a., s.iou im pus-
lOW. and (lien n•&r it to a %diTt .IMI.III

SIOILK•4 BILL

lln the niiitoin Sir li tillEl, Ill', bill NA. brought in,
and frad a 111,4 tier.

BORNE°.

Mr. It. Istlt • llt AN notitr that he wombd more
for the proiluctiun ot Ilse I ornsikuldeurr of Sir J. Brooke
with the ism rumen*, complaihiug the conduct of evrtain

VANcouVEIL's IsLAND.

In reply to Mr. Di %16,%.,•
Mr. GA WES raid that the late novernor resieed his
oppoonnient a. Governor of Vanrour vet l*lan4. Ilse ap-
pnittenent n-4,4 with the s.rretary of State hvr the Colo-
nies, but on the rrr0W1111.114.111.11 of the Hudson's Bay
l'ompany. They had neovoure :Wed ;au individual lathe Seem-
tary of State for the Colon'. • for the appointment, and he ap-
prehended tbere would he no olmetion made loth.. person re
ri10MM4.11.1.1. livol.mi•• Lta) l'ompany Were IMMLIMI to
make a r, Writ Crrry two year,. as tv the number of coloneds
and the quantity of Lind cold. Findimr that thi. return
Um. not made, a kiter had been addremed to the Ilisdron's
1t.., t'mapany for as caplanivtioti ; but up to that moment
nu answer itatilleCW Wreilted.

'f 11Y. CASE OF MR. lIILLON.
Mr. OTONNOIt put a que.tion respecting M. !Idiom's
claim. for the captor• of the AU. rieuu smuggling brig Peru.
niquiring w hcthcr hr did not fully carry out the printed
treasury instructions to the pn•renttce service, and on
what ground the tremor,. refused him hi. claim.. and what
more wm requin3l of loin by the instruction. to establiah his
claims than what he hail • ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the qu,stioa of th• lion. gentleman went Inyintil the Of-
dicary hound. of a question. This rm.,• had been mummt
time* alinmansl upon motion, and unleaa the hon. gentle-
man ailopted that WWI. . it would la unpoamble fur him to
anawer the question.
'IIIE CASE OF itoutArr FitsKIN.E.

Sir E. BUXTON wished to put a questiori to the hoe.
gentleman the Under Serntary for the Colonies respecting
the cruel and inhuman treatment which Itobett Erskine, a
person of colour, hail esperieneed at the kinds of an officer
named Murray, aided by another officer kilned Stewart,
oa the coast of Africa in ISE% It appeared that this per-
son was &vetoed by Murray of stealing some article; that
he dewed the charge. but that notwithstanling this denial
he was tortured for eleven days, as was admitted by the
acting governor of the colony. The acting governor also
stated that the account Erskine gave of his sufferings was
little if at all esaggerabsl. and that he was several weeks
in hospital before he recovered. The article said to be
stolen was afterwards fund in the poraerion of a soldier.
and Erskine was tried and acquitted. What he wished to
ask was whether any prows-dings had been taken against
the of Beers Murray and Stewart. and what compeneation
(if any) the governmeut would give to Erskine fur the
suffering* he had undergone. (Ilear. hear.)
Mr. HAWES said that he would nut then go into the
particulars of the case referred to by his hon. friend. Whe-
ther the alleged charge was well or ill founded he was not
then prepaid to say. But it should be known that Erskine
was in the private service of the °dicers, and if he felt ag-
grieved he might have sought a remedy from the courts of
law. It was not until two rears after the occurrence that
the talk' was brought untlei the notice of Earl Grey, and
he immediately ordered inquiry to be made on the spot. In
eonsequence of the information received. a ease was laid
before the Commander-iu-Chief, with whom, and not with
his noble friend the Secretary of State, the matter now
rested as regards these officers. The opinion of the low
officers of the crown had been taken to know if the
courts of law in this country could take cognisance of the
matter, but it appeared that they could not, and that any
proceedings at law must be taken in the courts in the
colony. In the mean time—the occurrence having taken
place four years ago—the officers had gone to other parts of
the world. With regard to the question of compensation,
it was clear that Erskine. being the private servant of the
of who were not under the control of the Coloniid-
*flee, this was not a case in which compensation could be
awarded by the government.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
On the motion fur reading the order of the day for going
into committee on this bill,
Mr. REYNOLDS rose to move an adjournment, but
was informed by the Speaker that. bating already spoken,
he could not mike that motion.
Petitions against the bill were then presented by Mr.
IaILYNOLDS, from various places in Ireland; by Mg.

SULLIVAN, ham Kilkenny and King's county- by Mr.
MEAGHER, from Waterford; by Mr. MOOSE, from
Mayo ; by Mr O'FLAHERTY, from Monaghan; by Mr.
SCULLY, from Tippentry • by Sir J. GRAHAM. from
Meath, Kildare, Down, Donegal, and other counties in
Ireland.
On the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair, no
hon. member rising, there were loud calls of " Divide."
The house divided :
For going into committee
Against it
The house then went into committee on the bill.

The first clause having been agreed to, and the preamble
having been prepea.d,
Mr. KEOGH said he hoped the noble lord would post-
pone the preamble and not trouble the committee to divide
upon it that evening. He would put it to the noble lord
whether it would not be best to reprint the bill in the form
in which he intended to submit it, and then to postpone
the discussion upon it. Ile would also ask the noble lord
to state what alterations he intended to propose.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was impossible for him to
accede to the hon. and learned member s proposal. It was
' a very long time ago since his right hon. friend the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department, stated the altera-
tions which he proposed to make in the hill, and therefore
the house must be fully aware whist those alterations were.
With respect to any other alterations which might be pro-
posed, the opinion of the government must in some degree de-
pend on what took place in the course of the discussion. The
hon. and learned member had wished to he informed whether
the government had come to any agreement or understanding
with the hon. and learned member for Midhurst. Now,
he had no he.itation in saying that he had re-
quested the Attorney-General to communicate with the hon.
and learned number fur !slitllstust on the subject of the
clauses of which he had glean notice, and to state to him
the objettions which either he or the government enter-
tained to particular portions of those clauses. In this he
thought be was pursuing a course which was not only justi-
fiable, hut was generally pursued by persons who, agreeing
as to the main object of • bill, wished if peisible to agree
as to its provision (Hear, hear.) Ile would have been
very glad if the result of that discretion of his had been any
agreement or understanding with the hon. and learned
member for Midhurst ; hut he could not say that it was so.
The hon. and burned gentleman did, however, communi-
cate the objection. entertained by the government to sevend
of the proposed amendments. Anything further which
might result from the conversation which took place,

would be matter fur discussion in committee. The
honourable and learned member (Mr. Keogh) said the
gosernment intended to alter tho whole of the
bill. To that he need only reply that in the first
clause the government did not, he believed, intend to pro-
pose any alteration ; they would certainly nut propose any
material tilt, ration in that clause.

Mr. DISRAELI said that having on two or three occa-
'ions abstained from making any observations because he
did not wish to postpone the period for going into com-
mittee, he would nuw make two or three remarks on the
proposed amendments. lie could not but feel that the
position of the house with respect to the propositions of the
government was very much changed by some recent decla-
rations of the I'rime Minister. Very recently the noble
lord had told the house that he had nu hesitation in saying
that the rescript of the Pope and the appointment of Car-
dinal Wiseman were part and parcel of a great conspiracy
against the civil and religious liberties of this country. Now
that wase,a still large r description than they had before of the
evil to be met. (Hear, hear.) lle took that statement as
an authentic etatemeut of the government. He could not
believe that a minister could make such a declaration with-
out well weighing—
Lord J. ItUSsELL (interrupting) said—Perber the
hon. and learned gentleman would allow him to repeat ;
what he had said. If his recollection served him, he said it
was part of a conspiracy to prevent the extension of civil ;
and religious liberty in Europe, and that the influence of
this country might be conceived to be favourable to the
rause of civil and religious liberty in Europe. He did not
state, as far as his recollection served him—he certainly
did not mean to state—that there was a conspiracy against
the civil and religious liberty of this country.
Mr. DISRAELI had felt quite sure that on such a topic
the noble lord would nut use an exaggerated phrase,'
and that he knew more on this subject than he felt
justified in communicating to the house. Even taking the
version which was now given, hu doubted whether during this
controversy an Lnglish minister had made a more important
communication to the House of CWIIIIIOII%. Now, he felt
bound to ask himself whether this bill was adapted to meet ;
such a danger. It was remarkable that as the bill appeared
before them, it bore no reference to the circumstances which
occasioned it. (blear, hear.) It did not allude to the
grievance which it was proposed to remedy. If, indeed,'
there had been a conspiracy, the government ought, first, to
heave dealt with the arch-conspiratur himself: and if legis-
lation
were necessary, they should have legislated on
vane principle which would have settled the ditfi- ;
cultic, that they had to contend with. The go-
Tenement might have laid down the principle of ,
which he (Mr. Disraeli) had spoken before, that
the assumption of any title, civil or ecclesiastical, i
granted by a foreign prance, by a subject of her Majesty
was illegal, and should entail must inconvenient noise- ,
quences on the party assuming it. That would have been
; a political remedy fur a political evil ; it would have shown
that this country was determined to bale with the alleged
conspiracy, and to prevent a recurrence of it. The govern-
ment had unfortunately adopted a course just the reverse
of this. In the tint place, they had rolled elan the house
to legislate without the slightest reference to the causes of
legislation; and, still more unfortunately, the only legisla-
;
tion which they recommended wore the unhappy semblance
of petty religious persecution. It was under these
circumstances that he had to consider the pro- '
reseed amendments. Those amendments were considerable
in number, but they divided themselves under two heads.
These were amenelmenu which took what he thought the
right course, which sought to connect our legislutiou with
the causes which had produced it—causes which, in the .
Tenement scheme, were carefully concealed, which recognised
;whit hail occurred as a political evil and applied a political
remedy. On the other hand, there were amendments of
a different kind which attempted to make efficient kgisla- •
Lion which were essentially ineffective, and which, following
up the fatal error of the government bill, only aggravated
the dangers and inconveniences of petty penal legialation.
(Hear, hear.) Now, all those amendments, which, in a
frank and undaunted manner, declared to Europe the
MACS of this legislation, which show. d that this bill was
what it ought to be, a retaliatory bill, intended to resent is
gross insult, and to prevent a resurrenee of outrages of this
description, were amendments which would, he thought,
greatly improve the bill, and he trusted that they would
have the concurrence of large majorities. The other class of
amendments was of a different kind. Then. was, fur ex-
ample, a claws.. called •• the informer's clause." This
clause was, he observed, extremely popular with those who
advocated the non-application of this bill to Ireland, because
they said it was impossible that it could be enforced there.
Now, he did not presume to ',peak for any one but himself,
but he must say, that under no circumstances would he con-
sent to apply legislation to England on this subject which
was not uppl led to Ireland. (Cheers.) Ihe real
question before the house was, bow they were
to maintain the supremacy of the sovereign of England;
and to waive the assertion of that supremacy in the sister
kingdom would be: most impolitic and injurious. (Hear,
hear.) He should feel it his duty to oppose any amend-
ments of the government which did not frankly cope with
the difficulties which had necessitated legislation ; and, on
the other hand. he should support those amendments which
in a manner Incoming a great nation declared the reasons
why they took the step which they were about to take,
which showed that this bill was a retaliatory bill passed to
baffle' conspiracy, and to maintain the honour and the civil
and religious liberty of this country. Ile repeated he
should not deem it expedient to support amendments
whose only object was to render efficient a scheme of legis-
lation which shrank from avowing the Cal/0e of the pro-
posed law, and seemed to justify the conclusion that the
government dare not tell the reason why this country
had assumed the position which it now occupied. He ob-
jected to the attempt to compensate fur the want of frank
and manly dealing by a scheme of penal legislation which
was vexation. and inefficient, and calculated to produce
general disgust, and even disaffection, without baffling con-
spiracy or vindicating the honour of England.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if he understood the hon.
gentleman correctly there were some points on which he
had the good fortune to agree with him. The hon. gen-
tleman stated that he wished to have inserted iu the bill
an account of the reason why it was introduced, and the
nature of the offence which it designed to remedy. Now
in the preamble of the bill, as it was originally intro-
duced. there was a recital that the attempt to establish, un-
der colour of the authority of the see of Rome, archbishoprics
and bishoprics in this country wu illegal and void, and there
was also a recital with regard to the offence which had been
committed against this country. But, in order to make the
matter more definite, his right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey)
proposed to introduce the words " divers of her Majesty's
subjects have assumed to themselves the titles of archbishops
and bishops of a province and of a pretended see or diocese
within the United Kingdom, under colour of an alleged
authority given to them fur that purpose by a rescript or a
letter from the Pope." He (Lord J. Russell) did not know
whether what had taken place could be described more
clearly than in those words. If the hon. gentleman thought
that a clearer definition could be (liven, that
would be a matter for discussion in committee. With
regard to another point—a point of great importance,
which relating to the suing at law for the recovery of
penalties, he understood the hon. gentleman to say he did
not think the informer's clause would add to the efficiency
of the bill, but that, on the contrary, it would be a source
of great vexation. lie (Lord J. Rumen) quite agreed with
the hon. gentleman on that subject, but he had already
stated that that was one of the clauses to which he did not
propose to adhere. There was another point with regard
to which be bad made a statement to the house
before the bill went into committee. He had stated
generally, with respect to the amendments proposed
by the honourable and learned member for Midhurst,
that the government was not disposed to accede to
them, but be observed that there was one of those amend-
ments in which he catizely agreed in principle, although
he wished the hon. and learned gentleman to consider
whether his object was not carried into effect better by the
words of the preamble than by the clause which he pro-
posed. The lion. and learned member for Athlone lad
aids that the assumption of titles was not void and 1.11,
and that therefore the recital of the preamble was false.
He (Lord J. Russell), therefore, considering that such a
statement had been made, and, moreover, that the portion
of
a! bill whack was most likely to be consulted would
*II AM claw of the act, they had deter