The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-08 00:00:00

CARLISLE ELECTION.

On the motion of an Hori. MEMBER, the evidence
taken before the Carlisle Committee was ordered to be
printed.
Mr. WADDINGTON presented a petition from
a place in Somersetshire, praying the House to take
measures for the suppression of seduction.
On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, the River Dun
(extension to Sheffield) Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
Mr. FOX presented a petition from Oldham, pray-
ing for the reduction of the duties on tea.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Arlr. C. ANSTEY moved that the House should
resolve itself into Committee on the Roman Ca-
tholic Relief Bill.
Mr. H. DRUMNIOND wished to know when the
Hon. Member for Youghal intended to proceed with
the adjourned debate on the Treaty of Adrianople.
Mr. C. ANSTEY said, that if the orders of the
day before it were disposed of in the course of the
morning, he was prepared to bring the debate to an
end that day, 'out as that did not appear likely, he
thought the best course would be to adjourn the con-
sideration of the subject de die in diem, and take the
chance of bringing it on some day when the other
orders were disposed of.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee
on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; Mr. Bernal in
the chair.
On the motion for postponing the preamble being
put
Sir R. INGLIS said he was most desirous of
knowing what course the Government intended to
pursue with respect to the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said, that as the House was in
Committee on the Bill, he should be prepared to
state on the part of the Government, as the Bill
went on, what course they would pursue with respect
to it. He saw no obj€ ctien to the first part of the
Bill, and did not intend to oppose that part of it.
Mr. SLANEY could not support the Bill in ifs
present shape. He had voted for the second reading
of the Bill against the wish of his constituents, but
did so in order that the objectionable part of it
might be removed in Committee. If they were
not he must oppose the Bill altogether. He was
against monastic orders having more privileges
than they had at present, and must object
to everything that was calculated to give them
an introduction into this country. Ever since he had
the honour of a seat in that House, he had always
voted for the removal of real grievances from all
classes of her Majesty's subjects ; and he trusted he
should not be considered a bigot, if he stated that he
was not prepared to go the length of the present Bill
If the objectionable part of it were not removed in
Committee, he should object to the Bill altogether in
a future wage.
Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to know upon
what part of the Bill the present discussion had teken
place ?
Mr. BERNAL slid that the discussion had arisen
upon the question of postponing the preamble.
On the first clause being put,
Sir R. INGLIS proposed the omission from the
clause of the words, " shall be repealed."
After some desultory discussion in which Sir R. H.
Inglis, Sir G. Grey, -Lord Mahon, Mr. Law, Mr.
Henley, Mr. Smith O'Brien, Mr. Chisholm Anstey,
Mr. Qroulburn, Mr. Drummond, the Attorney•
General, and Mr. Shiel took part,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of it
The amendment was consequently lost.
Mr. HENLEY moved as an amendment that the
words "in so far as the same relates to or concern
Roman Catholics" should be left out, so that no
distinction should be drawn between Roman Catho-
lics and any other class of religionists.
Mr. ANSTEY had no objection to omit the
words where they appeared in any other part of the
Bill, but he could not consent to their being struck
out of the clause.
Mr. GREENE remarked that if the words were
struck out, the clause would be rendered unintel-
ligible.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Member for
Oxfordshire that the words to which he had referred
ought to be left out of the Bill. The Act proposed to
be repealed by the clause related to Protestants as
well as Roman Catholics, and it ought, therefore, to
he repealed unconditionally if it were repealed at all.
'Air. BERNAL (the Chairman) gave it as his
opinion that the amendment was informal.
Mr. HENLEY, under the circumstances, would
not press his amendment.
Mr. LAW did not think it right that Honourable
:Members should be precluded to move the omission
of words in a clause, but he felt with the Right lion.
the Home Secretary that the provisions of the
Art proposed to be repealed applied to all
dames -of religionists, and ought to be struck out
of the statute-book, without any reservation.
He could see no reason why the Roman Catholic
should be placed in a more advantageous situation
than Protestants, and the amendment proposed by the
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire was rot necessarily
repugnant 'co the title of this Bill. He hoped the
Committee would be allowed to give their opinion
upon it. He should therefore re-move the amend.
ment which had been withdrawn by the Honourable
Member for Oxfordshire.—(Hear, hear.)
_ .

Mr. HILDYARD said the omission of the words
could be m oved on bringing up the report without
violating the rules of the House; and as the Hon.
Member whin had possession of the Bill had stated
that he woOd consent to the amendment then, it

would be much better to defer the amendment till
the report ‘VitS brought up.
Mr. LAW thanked his Hon. and Learned Friend
for this advice, and would readily adopt it.
The amrndmont was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. HENLEY the* moved the omission of a num-
ber of words begiklning at the 17th line with the
words "so much," and ending with the v,ord,
"mainprise."
The ATTORNEY—GENERAL stated the opi-
nions which he had form ed with respect to the powers
of some of the Acts propo sad to be repealed. He thought
that in consequence of t be ambiguity of the words,
in the 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 27, repealing tho
penalties of Elizabeth, it iiiight be open to a question.
whether the violation of t lie statute was not still an
offence at common law.
Mr. LAW seconded the motion of the Honourable
Member for Oxford, for t be omission of the words.
He differed with the Learned Attorney-General as
to the effect of the words .0 f the 9th and 10th Vic.
These words had been ii ttroduced upon the most
serious consideration by L and Lyndhurst, and their
object was to keep alive, a c it were, the offence, by
removing the penalty whit had previously attached
to it, and making the violas ion of the Act an offence
at common law, indictable u rider the form of a viola-
tion of the statute. 1

After a few words from / dr. GOULEURN and 111 f..
NB WDEGATE,

Mr. HII,ISYARD wished to know from the At-
torney-General what offence m`; common law the vio
lation of the statute of the Ist of Elizabeth would be,
the 9th arid 10th Vic. being eon sidered as repealing
the penalties contain. ,d in the oliAinal statute.
Thp ATTORNEI7-CiENER.AI, said that a denial
of the temporal supremacy of the Crown was treason
at common law.

Mr. ],.ASV wished to :mow from the Attorney-
General whether it was his opinion that a denial in the
terms of the Ist of Elizabeth of "the spiritual and ec-
clesiastical supre:nacy of the (;rown" would or would
Sot be an offence at common ls'.w?
The ATTORNEY. (114',NER. AL said that in answer
to the question of the Hon. and Learned Member he
would state that an Act which should assert the
ecclesiastical and spiritual rmpre rnacy of any other
party in opposition to the Crown, which was de-
clared by statute " pre-en anent in this realm"
*would be an offence at corn taosi law.

After a few words from Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Goul-
burn, Mr. Henley, and Mr. C. Anstey.
Mr. SHEIL said the question in this case was
whether they would keep an inoperative statute upon
the book. Ile pains and penalties of the statute of
Elizabeth had been abrogated, its sting had been
withdrawn. What was'!,then the use of keeping
it upon the statute-book ? The statute it-
self contained a direct falsehood, and why was
not this false and offensive statute to be repealed ?
(Hear, hear.) That statute states that the Pope had
no authority in this country ; the Pope had a spiritual
authority—he bad the appointment of bishops in this
country. Mr. Justice Coleridge had said " that the
Pope was the rightful head of the Christian
world—(Cries of " No, no")—at least,", before
the Reformation.—(Laughter.) He had collected
this to be the opinion of that Learned Judge from
remarks he had made in a jadgment recently de-
livered
by him. The words he had put into his
mouth were not the precise words that his
Lordship had used.—(Hear, hear, and laughter )
If the Pope, then, was the head of the
Christian world before the Reformation, he
still exercised de facto a spiritual authority in this
country. The bishops of the Roman Catholic
Church had been recognised by various Acts of this
country ; they had been appointed upon commissions
of trust; they had been given precedence to by
various Acts.—(Cries of "No, no.") He insisted
that they had been so appointed ; the title of Roman
Catholic archbishops and bishops had been recognised.
[An,Hon. Member, 'Not Roman Catholic:] The titles
of archbishops and bishops had been introduced into
various Acts. Those technical expressions intimated
the spiritual authority of the Pope. The statute
stated what was not true ; it states that the Pop had
no authority,; he (Mr. Sheil) maintained that he had,
and that the statute spoke a direct falshood.—(Hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the
fact of the recognition of the Roman Catholic
Bishops could not lbe denied. The 9 and 10 Viet.,
which had been alluded to, was brought in by the
Government of which he had the honour of being a
member. That measure had been introduced by the
then Government, upon the recommendation of the
Criminal Law Commissioners, jto whom had been re-
ferred the whole question of obsolete statutes affecting
the religious opinions of the people of this country.
1 t was the intention of her Majesty's Government upon
the fullest consideration to propose by that Bill the
entire repeal of the Ist of Elizabeth, the statute now
under discussion. Lord Lyndhurst, who was at that
time the High Steward of the University of Cam-
bridge, apprehended no danger from the measure, and
he introduced that Bill into the House of Lord!,
The Hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Sheil) had
said that the sting had been withdrawn from this
statute ; then in such case the common law would not
be in the least degree affected. If, however, the
sting be not withdrawn, then he, for one, certainly
thought that, in good faith and honour, he was bound
to see that the sting was withdrawn.—(Hear, hear.)
If the common law he inoperative to punish a party
in this country for denying the supremacy of her
Majesty, he would be quite content that the common
law should not create that an offence which affected
the liberty of conscience of more than one-third of
her Majesty's loyal subjects. He saw no danger in
leaving the common law inoperative in such matters,
for any attempt to enforce that law would be per-
fectly inconsistent with the peace and liberty of the
people of this country.—(llear.) With respect to an
opinion of the Learned Attorney General, that the
denial of the supremacy of the Crown amounted in
common law to treason, he must say that he felt
considerably surprised by the announcement of such an
opiniom—(Hear, hear.) He had a perfect horror of
such an opinion, because if every denial of the su-
premacy of the Crown could be construed into treason,
then would a toast which was very fre-
quently given, via., " The sovereignty of the people,"
place the persons performing that toast in danger of
:in indictment for high treason.— (Laughter.) He
had no hesitation whatever in giving his most cordial
support to the repeal of the clause recited in the Bill
as it now stood.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND recollected the time when
a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was ejected from his
office for proposing the sovereignty of the people. The
motto of the Queen was Dieu et mon droit, and he could
not allow the Roman Catholics to be the only legal-
ised traitors in the country.—(Hear, and laughter.)
After some observations from Mr. Spooner. the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Sheil,
and Mr. Gardner,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ll9
Against it
Majority against the amendment -32
The amendment was consequently lost.
On our admission to the gallery, we found
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL on his legs, mov-

ing the omission of certain words in the clause, for
the purpose of acknowledging the authority of the
Pope on certain matters.
Mr. C. ANSTEY supported the omission of the
words.

Mr. NE WDEGATE opposed the omission:of the
words.

Colonel SIBTHORP also opposed the motion.
After some observations from the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL,
Mr. LAW, in supporting the amendment of the
Hon. Member for the county of Warwick, warned the
Committee of the danger they were running in legal-
ising the introduction of bulls into this country,
which might ultimately lead to the subversion of the
honour of the country. In a few days they
would, no doubt, be called upon to consider
a Bill to establish diplomatic relations with
the Court of Rome, and what the end of
this mischievous system of legislation would
be he was really at a loss to say. There was every
prospect, however, of our being mixed up with the
disputes of half-revolutionized states of Europe, and
it therefore behoved every Member of the Committee,
who valued the peace of his country or the safety
of his Sovereign, to take care not hastily to pass
these pernicious measures.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER, who suggested that they should
only repeal so much of the Act of Elizabeth as re-
lated to the bulls mentioned in the preamble,
Lord MAHON said the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman would certaiLlyiremove his objectio❑
to the clause.

Mr. LAW said it was much too grave a subject to
be dealt with in so inartificially a manner as sug-
gested by the Right Hon. Baronet ; and, in order to
avoid all future doubt upon the question, they ought
to recite and re-enact so much of the Act of Elizabeth
as the House wished to continue on the statute-book.
Mr. C. ANSTEY had no objection to adopt the
proposal of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Recorder, but the Acts of Elizabeth were so compli-
cated that it would be difficult in the present deto
re-enact them.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. STEWART said there were bulls both of a
dangerous or treasonable and of an innocent charac-
ter; and if he understood the Right Hon. the Attor
ney.General, he proposed by his amendment to legalise
the introduction into this country of bulls of the
latter description. Now, would not it be safer to leave
this clause as it stood, and legalize the introduction
of innocent bulls by a separate and distinct enactment ?
After a few words from the Earl of MARCH,
Mr. SHEIL said, in the course of this discussion
the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Oxford had attributed falsehood to him in connexion
with a statement which he (Mr. Sheil) had repre-
sented Mr. Justice Coleridge to have made relating
to the Pope. Had such an imputation come from any
other Hon. Gentleman he should have felt himself
called upon to ask for an explanation.—(Oh, oh.) But,
in order to justify the Hon. Baronet, he had been
out and copied the exact words Mr. Justice Coleridge
used, which were these :—" If the Pope had been con-
tent with the power of Patriarch, he might have re
tained his appellant jurisdiction, which rightly be-
longed to him as the universal head of the whole
Christian church."
Sir R. H. INGLIS doubted whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in reviving this
discussion, but notwithstanding the insinuation of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he trusted he knew well enough
how to behave himself as a gentleman, and a Christian
one too.—(Hear, hear.) He doubted much whether
even the words the Right Hon. Gentleman had just
used would justify the statement be had made, but
he thought, as it might be asked the Right Hon.
_Gentleman whether it was customary to take the
opinions
lln
of a Learned Judge from a newspaper report
or from the accredited reports of Adolphus andEllis?—
(Hear, hear.) ethcaotul
bd
e,
nevnever however,
ia t
eans sduerde
tthe
imputeßi h t
Hon. Gentlemen
falsehood to him, but what he did mean to convey to
the Committee was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had drawn a conclusion from a statement which was
not consistent with the fact.--(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. SHEIL,
Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know exactly how
they good with regard to the clause ? If the proviso
proposed by Government was insisted upon, he should
fad. it to be his duty to vote against the clause,
GovtrnmentTile Cil IpsirColptloLseldelo: of the EXCHEQUER said
11
dd the proviso now.
Mr. LAW sad, then bt-i would move as an amend
nent that the Chairman do report progress, and ask
leave to sit again.
The Committee then di‘rided, when therel7s appeared,
Noes.. ...........
124
Ayes
s —5l
Majority against reporting progres •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
moved the insertion of several words, limiting the
prohibition pertaining to the introduction of bulls,
into this country.
Colonel SIBTIIORP then moved as an amend-
funent that Mr. Bernal do now Leave the chair.

Mr. MILES seconded the amendment.

After a few words from the Attorney-General,
Mr. M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Law, and the Eurl of
Arundel and Surrey,
Coloßel SIBTHORP said, that when he found
the House'disposed to adopt every trick,event reason-
able one—(Laughter)--to carry them through the
Rouse, he should always feel it his duty to stand up
for the rights, the liberties, and the throne of his
country. He was responsible for his conduct not only
in the House but out of it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
suggested that the most proper course, considering
the lateness of the hour, would be for the Chairman to
report progress.
Mr. C. ANSTEY said that after the unfair man-
ner in which it had been endeavoured to get rid of
the Bill, he should feel it his duty to take the sense
of the House upon the motion.
Sir G. GREY said that he did not see what good
could result from divi ling on the motion.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that, as the Learned
Recorder, who was a judge of the land, had stated
that he could not understand the clause, perhaps it
would be better to allow him three weeks to under-
stand it, an I by that time, with the assistance of the
Gallant Colonel (Sibthorp), he would no doubt be
prepared with a clause on the subject.—(Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said that he would have no
objection to withdraw his amendment, if the pro-
posal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were ac-
ceded to.

Mr. HUDSON thought the better course would
be to allow a little time for fully understanding the
proposition before the House.
Mr. C. AN STEY said that he should certainly
persist in pressing the House to a division. The
result of the division would, he had no doubt, prove a
warning to Hon. Members not to propose a similar
motion in the future discussion of the Bill.

Mr. WOOD said that at an early stage of the dis-
cussion on this Bill it was stated that the statutes
sought to be repealed were mere waste paper. He could
not now comprehend the reason for wishing for further
time, in order to be able to digest the nature of a
proposed clause for the repeal of these very Acts.
The Hon. Member had completely turned round, and
seemed now to imagine that the throne and the reli-
gion of the country were in perfect danger from the
repeal of those inoperative clauses. For himself, he
had so deep rooted an opinion as to the truth of the
religion that he professed, that he feared but little how
many bulls were brought into this country. He de-
precated strongly the attitude taken by those Hon.
Members who styled themselves the defenders of
Protestantism, representing as they did their religion in
the light of a dscrepid old female, unable to support
herself, but by the retention of these obsolete statutes
upon the book.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD was in favour of the postpone-
ment of the further considerationjof the measure, that
they might not be forced to a premature decision on
a subject of such great importance.
After a few words from Mr. Wood in explanation,
and from Mr. Law, strangers were again ordered to
withdraw, bit upon the request of Sir George Grey
and Mr. Colvile, Mr. C. Anstey declined to press the
motion to a division.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and
obtained leave to sit again.

The House resumed.
GAME CERTIFICATES BILL.

Mr. COLVILE moveds the second reading of
this Bill.

Mr. G. BERKELY thought that this Bill would
be the means of placing fire arms in the hands of a
larger number of persons than were at present en-
titled to carry them, and gave notice of several
amendments which he should propose in Committee.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the second reading,
reserving to himself the right of opposing nearly
every clause in the Bill while in Committee
As he had thus promised his support to the second
reading of the Bill, he hoped the Hon. Member
(Mr. Colvile) who had charge of it would assist him
in opposing the " monster motion," he would call it,
of the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright),
on the subject of the game-laws, that Hon. Member
not knowing, as he be lieved, "a pointer from a pig."
—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then read a second time.
EXEMPTIONS OF SMALL TENEMENTS.
This Bill was read a second timd.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned.

INDIA- HOUSE.-(THIS DAY.)
THE RAJA OF SATTARA.

A special general meeting of proprietors was held this
day, at their house in Leadenhall-street, convened upon
the requisition of nine proprietors, for the purpose of
taking into consideration a series of resolutions, the
general effect of which was that " the deposition of the
late Raja of Battara was unjust, impolitic, and contrary
to law."

After much and prolonged discussion, the CHAIRMAN
moved the adjournment, which was agreed to without a
division, and the Court broke up at a late hour.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
BEWDLEY.

The Bewdley Election Committee reassembled at the
usual time this morning, Mr. Wrightson in the chair.
The evidence in favour of the case for the petitioners
was resumed.

Sarah Binger, a labourer's wife, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Bewdley, proved that Mr. Harris, one of
the agents for the Tory party of Bewdley, to whom her
husband was indebted a few pounds, threatened to 'end
him to Worcester gaol it' he did not vote for Mr. Ire-
land. It was to herself that Mr. Harris made this
threat, but he stated, at the same time, that if her hus•
band would vote for Mr. Ireland he was authorised to
present her with l N. when the election was over.
A number of voters were then called to prove that an
extensive system of treating prevailed at the last elec-
tion. They were all of them plentifully supplied with
drink and edibles, both during and after the election,
free of expense, but it was only upon the condition that
they voted for Mr. Ireland.

The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till eleven
to-morrow.

LINCOLN.

The Select Committee appointed to try the merits of
the petition presented against the return of Mr. Charles
Seeley, for the city of Lincoln, met for the first time at
twelve o'clock this day. Mr. Morgan John O'Connell
in the chair.

Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Wordsworth ap-
peared for the petitioners, and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake,
with whom was Mr. Edwin James, for the sitting
Member.

Mr. Sergeant WRANOHAM opened the case for the
petitioners. The Hon. Gentleman against whose return
the petition had been presented was a miller and baker,
in Lincolnshire, and was a candidate for the city in
the year ls4l, but he was defeated then by Mr.
Collett. After his defeat the friends of the Hon. Mem-
ber started a club, which they christened " The Pig
and Whistle," and it would seem that the object of its
foundation was to secure Mr. Seeley's return at the next
election. About twelve months before the last election
the club began to enroll members with great spirit, and
Mr. Seeley made a very liberal donation to its funds.
The club flourished after this most astonishingly, and
just before the election the interests of Mr. Seeley were
committed to the custody of the managers of the Pig
and Whistle, and they at once established Free- and- easys
at every public-house where landlords would promise to
vote for Mr. Seeley. The expenses were defrayed by
Mr. Seeley and his friends ; but, in the case of the land-
lord of the Plough, who had supported the opposite
party with his vote, and whose bill for the free-and-
easy amounted to between 141. and 151., payment was
refused, and the bill was afterwards recovered in the
County Court, from one of Mr. Seeley's friends, who
gave the neceasary:orders for the establishment of the
Plough free-and-easy.
John Shaw, a freeman, proved that he voted for Mr.
Seeley, and afterwards received from a Mr. Seely 305.,
which he presumed was for voting. Before the election
he received pecuniary assistance from Mr. Seeley's book-
keeper, and was treated on several occasions.
Thomas Martin, a joiner, and freeman of Lincoln,
proved that he received a sovereign from one of Mr.
Seeley's friends; but it did not appear that that was for
his vote
Joseph Talkes, another freeman, proved that Alderman
Graham, of Lincoln, induced him to vote for Mr. Seeley,
and afterwards took him and another voter to the Green
Dragon, where they were treated and, feasted most libe-
rally, free of expense. On the Saturday following the
election he went to Mr. Seeley's counting-house, and
received 18s. There were other voters there being paid,
and the money was taken from a bag. There were many
dishes with silver lying on the table. A man named
Lawton, who had also voted for Mr. Seeley, accompa-
nied him to the counting-house, and received 18s. too.
Upon entering the counting-house nothing was said to
them. While waiting outside his name was called out,
and when he entered there were several people in the
room, and upon being paid they were directed to retire
immediately. The same amount was paid by Colonel
Sibthorp's party, and he had received money at every
election when he voted. . _

Similar evidence was given by other freemen who had
been treated, and who had received money on the Sa-
turday after the election.
The Committee adjourned, at four o'clock, till eleven
o'clock to morrow.