The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-11 00:00:00

LONDON, - TUESDAY EVENING,

--NI

field that all was calm until the letter of the Noble
Lord at the bead of the Government appeared. The
Honourable Member seemed to have forgotten the
intervening letters of the Pope. He (Mr. Wood)
could not agree with the Hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire either, that the measure was " p dtry, mean, and
useless." The Honourable Member had a measure of his
own to meet. the evil, it was true; but the people of England
would not be satisfied with the Hon. Member's denial of
merit to the measure of the Government until they had
means of comparing it with his own .measure. He ( Mr.
Wood) had not seen the Bill; but if it was framed in
the shape of, a solemn protest against the encroachment on
the part of the Pepe, he was satisfied it would meet the emer-
gency.
Mr. APCULLAGH confessed, that having listened to the
speech of his Hon. Friend, who had just addressed the
House ( Mr. Page Wood). he wee unable to detect in the
greater portion of that speech any logical argument in favour
it the reading of the Noble Lord's Bill. The first part of
that speech would have been very fitting if a hill of indict.
men, had been issued againet Cardinal Wiseman. Such a
prosecution, however, could not but be conside,ed as a dis-
grace to the time, and it was therefore too bad fir Hole and
Learned Gentlemen to conic there aed talk as they had done
about offences committed by Cardinal eVisernan.—(llear,
hear.) It was to be berne in mind that the practice and
courtesy of the House ordinarily yielded permission to the
.Ministers of the Crown when they ItSkt.'ll for leave to bring
in a Bill— ( Hear, hear)—but on the present occasion that
had not been done, and he had no doubt Veit men who
had never done so before would in this instance vote
against the Bill being brought in.—(Hear, hear.) One
objection to the motion was this, would they be
juetitied as Members of Parliament. and responsible to
the nation, in setting open the floodgates of bigotry?
It had been acid that the statutes of Elizabeth had not been
repealed by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and it wes ales said that
that period furnished a precedent welch they should follow.
But let them consider what the Ministers of Elizabeth had
to. deal with. Elizabeth came to the thro- e when tier rights
to the throne were questioned, and she was called upon to
yield obedience to the canon law of Rome. Her rival Mary
was on the throne of Scotland, and more, than half of her
subjects were inclined to side with the Scottish Queen. The.
Princes of the hOuse of Stuart were, besides, e.bjects of great
euspicion, and the people of England felt that they could not
be trusted. In the reign of William. and Anne, too, there
was a pretender, who was acknowledged by the G urt of
France, and who wa at that tirne.a formidable rival.—
(Bear, bear.) •But where was there a Pretender now,
and where was these a pretence. .for saying that the
-Queen's rights were questioned, or -that the law of the
land could be jeopardised by the late proceeding ?—( Hear,
heate) 'That Noble Lord had attacked the appointment of
Dr. Cullen, and had insinuateet to the House that 'r. Cullen
was appointed primate for other than religious purposes to
preside over the hierarchy of Ireland. Now he (Mr..M•Cul-
lagh) believed that Dr. Cullen, by the position he held at
Rome, and by his education and intercourse, was peculiarly
well informed of the state of Ireland, and was, therefore, fitly
chosen to the eminent office to which he had been appointed. •
The Noble Lend had alluded in a very significant tone to the
address issued by the synod of clergy to the people of Ire-
land. The Noble Lord told the House, and endeavoured to
leave the impression, that the object of the synod's address
was to deal altogether with the question of landlord and te-
nant and the Queen's Colleges. With respect to the Queen's
Colleges, he would only say that if the Henan Catholic
bishops were not warranted in dealing with the question of
education, considt ring their position and the numuer of the
populaton under their charge, he could not conceive with
what public question they were to deal.—( Hear.) As to the
question of landlords and tenants, would the House believe
him when he told it, that out of the 26 pages of which the
sened's address consisted, there were only 16. lines which
referred in any way whatever to that question, and even in
those 16 lines there was no direct allusion to the landlords.
As to the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord, he must say the
exposition of its nature and scope given by the Hon. Gentle-
man the Attorney-General was far from being calculated to
allay the fears of those who were previously opposed to it.
It had been declared again and again that the religious
liberty of the laity was not interfered with by this measure,
but that full religious toleration was to be secured to them.
His answer was, that he hated the word " toleration"; it was '
at best but a cover for real iutolerance, for paltry tempori-
sing, and mean persecution. Equal justice for all, equally
dispensed to all, was the only permanent basis on which the
legi dation ought to rest. He believed that every step they
might take in that retroetrade legislation, which the Noble
Lord called upon them to s +fiction, they would be compelled
to retrace ere long. But it might not be until much mischief
had been done, and he hoped the House would pause at the
commencement.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said, it was impossible not to feel the evils
of a protracted discussion, 014 a question involving the minute
details of a Bill, which, though prepared and ready to lay
before the House, was not yet in its possession.—( Hear,
hear.) But still he did not lament the length of the debate
because he thought it had cleared the ground of many pro-
positions, which it was desirable to deal with at the outset ;
and had, on the other band established many propositions
and concurrent demonstrations which must tend to increase
the strength of the argument which must follow in other
stages of the measure.—(Hear.) He thought it had been
demonstrated that we were acting solely on the defensive—
(Loud cheers)—that every step that had been taken
had been caused by the issue of that document, which stirred
the country from one end to the other—( Hear, hear)--and
which had caused them to call upon Parliament to take
steps which had been provoked entirely by those who
complained of their now being compelled to take them.—
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Dublin, followed
by the Honourable Member who had just sat down, had ac-
cused them of bigotry. The tionoureble Member for
Dublin dreW a delightful picture of the religious accord
which previous to this occurrence bad existed between
people of all persuasions, and then he turned round to the
Government, and complained that it bad destroyed that
peace and harmony—that it had renewed bigotry and in.
tolerance. Why, if there was one point that had been
more clearly established than an..ther, it was the fact, that
that act which the Government,arel the nation complained
of was an illegal act.—(Hear, hear, and "No.") It had been
demonstrated to be illegal; to be opposed not only to the
universal law of civilized nations. but-_ also to the statute
law of this realm.—(ileer,. hear.) That fact had been
clearly demonstrated by his Hon. Friend the Member fOr
Oxford, by reference to these statutes themselves ; and the
Hon. Member who spoke last had contradicted that Hord
Gentleman, nut by quoting any counter-law, but by rnere
asset.; ion.—(Hear. ) Toe Hon. Member had alluded to the
changes in the taw produced by the Bill introduced by Lord
Lyndhurst in the House of Lords for the repeal of the penal
statutes. But the lion. Member had omitted altogether to
notice that Lord Lyndhurst, who introduced the Bill, and
who, after a change of .ainistry, was solicited by the present
Government to retain the charge of it. after they came into
office, introduced into the Bull the clause complained of by
some Hon. Members, namely, that nothing contained in that
Bill should render lawful the bringing in of any foreign bulls
or writings—a clause which, in fact, re-enacted, in almost
id-ntical terms, the statute of Elizabeth.—(Hear, hear.)
The Honourable Member said, if it was illegal, it was the
duty of the Government not to permit the illegality.--
(Hear.) He told the Honourable Member that there were
many cases in which the Government, for various reasons,
did not think it their duty to enforce the provisions of sta-
tutes, and that the question had been maturely weighed
whether they should not institute a prosecution against Car-
dinal Wieeman tinder the existing law. That had been ne-
gatived, and he was fully prepared to justify the conduct of
the Government in that respect. Another -point which had
been demonstrated was, that the act of which they com-
plained was not one which was exclusively required for or
intended for the spiritual welfare of the Roman Catholic
community, but an act by which a claim was made to ex-
ercise temporal and spiritual sway over the whole of
England. If that was disputed, it was only necessary to
turn to the document in which the aggression was an-
nounced and to the rescript that followed it. That
document disregarded altogether the 'authority of the
Queen over England, it disregarded entirely not merely
the exielenee of the Church of England, but of every
other church, and claimed that all should be governed
and dictated to by the P -pe of Rome.—(Hear.)
It contained a.-sumptions which were not only incompatible
with the authority of the Sovereign, hut rights and privileges
which were at present enjoyed by the members of the Church
of Rome, by the members of the Church of England, and oy
members of all Dissenting denominations.—(Heer, hear.)
This had been, he thought, satisfactorily established in the
course of this debate, and it only remained to show that
this Bile would meet the case..—( fear, hear.) On that point
he would say a few words immediately; but first he would
advert to some reflections that had been cast on his Noble
Friend the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The charges pre-
ferred against the Government during this debate, and
which he was prepared to answer and explain, were three:
-- First, that they had given encouragement to the Ro-
man Catholic religion and Roman Catholic bishops, by
giving them titles to which they were nut entitled by law,
but which were merely titles of courtesy and honour;
• second, that the Roman Catholic bishops had been given
honours and precedence which was prohibited by law; and, '
third, that the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, immediately on
his arrival in that country, had called them to his counsel
and assistance. With respect to titles of courtesy and
honour, coneidering the peculiar position these prelates oc-
cupied, as the spiritual heads of the Church to which the
great bulk of the people of Ireland belonged, he confessed
that he acquiesced in the taste and courtesy which treated
them with respect, and gave them the honorary titles of your
grace and my lord.—(Hear, hear.) Nor could he coincide
with the attacks that had been made on Lord Clarendon for

treating them with that respect. But what was the fact?
The charge had been made first by the Hon. Member for
Bucks, and though implied in his speech, it was not so dis-
of his
characterised Nbl Friend,it as
a andgr
dis-
tinct as in his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant of Buckingham-
shire. The 1-lon. Member had commented 'severely on the
hleatttler
einath-ibsluspn
edeecrh. the
He otherm us
must
8 nighta3,
that a greater blunder than the letter of the Hon. Gentle-
man to the Lera-Lieutenant of Bucks he never saw. It was
a collection of blunders, and he thought the Hon. Gentle-
man, considering his own blunders, should be less captious in
his criticism on the epistolary correspondence of others.—
( Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman said that his Noble
Friend (Lord Clarendon) had called upon the Catholic pre-
lates to take precedence at his court, and to give him their
counsel. That was the charge which he had distinctly and
publicly to deny.—(Cheers.) It was true that his Noble
Friend, on his arrival, when Ireland was in a state of ex-
treme danger, did receive a deputation, consisting
ot, he believed, five Roman Catholic prelates, who
presented to him, from those parts of the country with
which they were connected, a lamentable description
of its condition, and effered their suggestions as to the
measures by which it might be relieved. His -Noble 'Friend
had received that deputation, and listened to them
with that respect and attention, which their position
and their knowledge entitled them to,—(Hear, hear)—and
had answered that he would at all times be happy to listen
to any suggestions they had to make, or to receive any in-
formation they might possess, as to the condition of the
people. The Hon. Gentleman had alsO made charges against
the Government of having given precedence to the Roman
Catholic prelates on occasion of her Majesty's visit to Ire-
land. Some Catholic prelates, it was quite true, were pre-
sented on that occasion to he- Majesty, they having to pre.
sent addresses; but they did did not get any undue prece-
dence on the ocea,ion, and were received in common with the
corpora • tion and inhabitants of Dublin, in the same manner
in which they were received on the Occasion of the visit to
Ireland of George the Fourth. All were received with the
same honour, including the Presbyterians and the Society or
Friends, which were the only two bodies that were re •
ceived after the Roman Catholic prelates. With regard to
any error which had taken place, the Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) had said that he &Sir George Grey) was re,
sponsible ; but as he was not, he felt that it was due
also to those, who were not present ix thi, House, to
say something in defence of them. The party who was
responsible was the Lord Chamberlain, who was a member
of the Free Church of Scotland, and who was not very
likely to give honours and titles unnecessarily. An officer
of his had written a letter of explanation on the subject,
which he (Sir George Grey) thought was quite satisfactory,
with respect to the mention of the titles Roman Catholic
Primate of Ireland, and Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Dublin, as applying to Dr. Crolley, and Archbishop Murray.
•, The iomau Catholic Prelates were habitually admitted

to the entree, and were designated according to their ordi-
nary titles. The designation, he admitted, was erroneous,
and for any error in that way the responsE4ility belonged
to liirn (Si; G. Grey), as well as to any other party. The
Hon. Gentleman, in his letter, said that the Roman Ca-
tholic prelates were received over and over again by her
Majesty. Now he (Sir George Grey) must say that nothing
could be more impartial than the manner in which they
were received—her Majesty conducting herself with the
greatest kindness, and with a graciousness exercised by her
towards all, and the Roman Catholic prelates demeaning
themselves with a courtesy and humility quite becoming
their station, and designating themselves in the presentation
of their address, " We, the undersigned Romeo Catholic
bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland." But
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was not satisfied
with the two errors which had been made in relation to the
designa ions of the Roman Catholic prelates; and charged
the Government, in his letter on the subjest, with having
given precedence to Dr. ll'llale, the pseudo Archbishop of
Team, and to the- pseudo Archbishop of Armagh, Roman
Catholic Primate of Ireland. .He (Sir G. Grey) did not
know whether the El ,n. Gentleman repeated the statement
reap cting the offer said to have been made to those prelates
respecting the office of visitors of the Roman Catholic col-
leges established by the Government In Ireland; hut the
statement had been put forth in Mr. 13owyer's pamphlet. If,
then, he said that the office of visitors of those colleges had
been offered to thnse prelates, he (Sir George Grey) admitted
it, but it was with a view to the advantages of the colleges,
and to satisfy them that the discipline and education
of the Catholic youth were conducted in a manner that
was not incompatible with the Roman Catholic faith. But
if it was meant to say that the offer was made as to the
Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishiop of Tuam, in
recognition of such titles, he (Sir George Grey) meant to
say that that was sta ed which was not the fact, and that
the statement was utterly and entirely destitute of a
shadow of truth.—(Neer, hear.) The Honourable Member
for ~uckinghanishire next stated that the whole question of
the colleges had. in fact, been resigned by her Majesty's
Government to the Pope, and that the Archbishop of Tuam
had been :Mowed to take the wall of the Archbishop of
Canterbury; but in that, as in most other statements in the
Hon. Gentleman's letter, he was mistaken. The Roman
Catholic prelates del pet receive any titles from the pre-
sent Government. beyond what was accorded to them by the
reports of the Commissioners' of the Beqaest Act: and he
(Sir George Grey) teund that on the 9th of January, 1845,
Archbishop Crawley was designated by that title, and that
another Prelate was also designated by the title given to him
in his own Church. He (Sir G. Grey) did not complain of the
acts in that way of his predeceeto-s, and all he should say
was that if there were blame in the wafter, it ought not to
tall on Lord Clarendon, and that he 'had merely acted in a
kindly spirit of conciliation in all his acts towards the
great body of Roman Catholics.—( Hear, bear.): With re-
gard to the title of Cardinal the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire had also stated that the Govern-
ment had tacitly allowed it to be assumed; but he (Sir
George Grey) would tell. the Hon. Gentleman that the Go-
vernment had not sanctioned the conferring and use of that
title in this country, and that no foreign title whether
conferred by the Pope, or any other foreign Power, could
have any weight, or meet with any recognition in this
country unless by letter of licence from the Crown, and
no each letter of licence having been given,
_the title of
Cardinal in this country was of no avail.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the Archbishop of Tuam, an error,
it appeared, had been put forth in a pamphlet written
by the Earl of St. German's that a petit:on had been re-
ceived by this House from that prelate assuming that
title; but the facts were otherwise, for the House had
declined to receive the petition as so designated. He bad
received a letter from Lord Clarendon, in which his Excel-
lency had given the most satisfactory explanations respect-
ing the manner in which Archbishop Murray, and other
Catholic prelates were invited to visit the cdleges established
by the Government in Ireland, with a view to their satisfac-
tion as to the course of conduct pursued towards the Roman
Catholic youth in those colleges, and he could add that Dr.
Isicholson, coadjutor of Corfu, had been also consulted on
the subject, and requested to make report at Rome whither
he was going. Aod it
,was thought that the manner
.in
which the subject was represented to the Pipe would beat-
tended with the best results. The Pope throughout Europe
in 1848, the time to which he was alluding, was regarded as
an enlightened reformer, and it was not for a moment sup-
posed that be could be opposed to the system of education
inculcated in the colleges. With respect to the charges
which had been brought by the Honourable and. Learned
Member for Sheffield, that the Earl of /dint° had been
made aware at -Rome of the step which the Pope
was about to take in relation to 'the re-establishing of a
Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, he (Sir George Grey)
must say what already had been denied by Lord Minto him-
self on that subject, that there appeared to be a very great
mistake about-the matter; and in the correspoudence which
took place between his Noble Friend (Lord Minto) and the
Abbe Hamilton on the subject, his Noble Friend had plainly
stated that he had no recollection of the statement that he
had been apprised of the intention.. A great deal too had
been said in condemnation of his Noble Friend the First
Lord of the Treasury, on this subject; but his Noble Friend,
when asked a question on the matter by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Oxford, stated distinctly that no such proposi-
tion bad been made to him, and that he was not aware that
any such step was contemplated by the Pope.—( Hear, hear.)
And he (Sir George Grey) said again that those who ad-
the Government and people of this country, had advised
vised the Pope, in the face of the well-known feelings of
him to do that which was most unwise and entirely
unwarrantableo--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Bill was
founded in good faith on those principles of civil
and religious liberty which they professed ; but it is
in the meantime, intended to meet, step by step. the act
committed by the Pope, and place an effectual check on its
operation. The letters apostolic constituted an archbishop
of Westminster, with a certain number of suffragan bishops
taking titles from some of the ancient sees of this realm;
the measure about to be brought in states, that there shall
be no such archbishop or bishop. and that the Pope's
attempt to constitute such a hierarchy unless constituted by
the law of this country, passed in the united Parliament of
Queen, Lords, and Commons, shall be null and void. The
Pope, acting on the widest sovereignty over this country,
gives thi.se bishops power and authority to govern and regu-
late the sees over which they were appointed. The present
Bill declares that every such act performed, or authority exer-
cised was also null and void. The Pope said that every
authority but that whi it he assumed, and by whomsoever
exercised, not ex. luding Parliament itself, shall not be at
liberty to set aside what had thus been done. The Bill
declared that whatever acts were performed by these bishops
should be t tally prohibited, and the authority so con-
ferred null and void. The Pope invited the wealthy to come
forward and endow those newly-created sees . the Bill
proposes that such endowments shall, to all intents and
purposes, ha null and void. —(llear, hear.) He (Sir George
Grey) agreed with the Honourable Member for Buckine-
hamshire, that this measure did not go the length to which
perhaps, it might have gone, and that it was most desirous
to settle, at once, all the relations which should subsist
between the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown of Eng-
-1 tnd and the Pope. It may be very desirable that some
such settlement should take place; but be would caution
Honourable Gentlemen who were anxious to check the am-
bition of the Pope of Rome, not to reject a practical mea-
sure, such as that now brought forward, for one, which the
present may not be the fitting time to propose, nor a suit-
able opportunity to carry into accomplishment. He would
also caution those who were full of the notion that they
could do so easily, that it was better to wait until the
object could be accomplished. There was no doubt
one way of doing so, and that was by re-enacting the penal
code. (" Hear, hear," front Colonel Sibthorp.) He (Sir
George Grey) believed the House utterly repudiated such a
notion—(Cheers)—and he also believed the country itself
would also repudiate it.—(Cheers.) There was another way
of meeting the difficulty, and from the peculiar circum-
stances of Ireland, it may be desirable and politic to enter on,
but he would ask the House whether they would reject the
measure and proceed at once to reconsider the whole ecclesi-
astical arrangement 3 of that country, in the absence of infor-
mation on which they could safely act. - (Hear, hear.) He
asked Hon. Members, therefore, not to threw away the pre-
sent remedy for a shadow.—(Hear, hear.) His own real
feeling was that their security consists in the national de-
monstrations of the full, free voice of the people
of this country, such as had taken place within
the last three months, from one end of Great
Britain to the other.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle-
Man the Member for Sheffield called that a burst of puri-
tanical hatred against the Pope, but he utterly denied that
it could be characterised in those terms. He believed those
national demonstrations, and that feeling, and those senti-
ments, had a holier origin. Ile believed them to have con-
sisted which various religious de-
nominationsa national
ctm curred, protest,
against
what
they
believed to be
the first attempt to re-impose that yoke against which their
Roman Catholic forefathers struggled, and for which, at the
Reformation, by the wisdom and enlightenment of its pro-
moters, they succeeded in rescuing the people of England.—
(Cheers.) The people of this country had declared that
they were not prepared to return into the bosom of the
Roman Catholic Church. He believed they were grateful
for, and appreciated those blessings, which, from the time of
that Reformation, they had happily enjoyed ; and he,for one,
had no fear of the aggressions or encroachments of the Court
of Rome in this country.--(Cheers.) As to the charge
made of Protestant ascendancy, he must say, in
answer to the charges brought against his country-
men on this subject, that he in his official capacity
received numerous deputations and large bodies, com-
plaining of what had been done, and for the purpose of
presenting addresses to the Crown, and he found that in
almost every instance, with a few rare exceptions. that they
fully and amply recognised as the right of their Roman Ca-
tholic countrymen the freest, fullest, and most unrestricted
exercise of their religion.—(Cheers.) Then as to the condi-
tion of the Roman Catholics previous to this change, it was
a matter of fact that their bishops exercised those functions
which belonged to their office as an episcopal church, and
which it would be absurd to say the bishop of such a church
ought not to be at liberty to perform. lie agreed with what
had been said respecting the conduct of members of their
own Church, but, for his own part, he rejoiced that the feel-
ings of the country had been so unequivocally displayed
on the subject; for after what had been said and done, those
who believed a national apostacy was about to take 'place
would find themselves inistaken.—(Cheers.) He believed
the people of England were now inure than ever determined
to hold fast to those blessings granted them by the Reforma-
tion—blessings which had been handed down to them by
successive generations, amid many and various vicissitudes,
and which they were determined to enjoy ; and, by God's
blessing, transmit unimpaired to their posterity. (The
Right Hon. Gentleman, who was in many portions of his
address totally inaudible, then resumed his seat amid loud
cheers.)
Mr. P. HOWARD moved that the debate be adjourned.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that last night an Hon. Member
asked him to state the details of the Bill, and his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney-General bad accordingly stated
those details, which he (Lord J. Russell) had hoped would
have been sufficient. If the motion for adjournment should
succeed, it must be a very considerable time before the
House would be able to take the provisions of the Bill into
consideration. As the principle would again lave to be dis-
cussed on the• second reading, he hoped his lion. Friend
would not persist in his motion of adjournment.
Mr. ROCHE (amid the impatience of the House) said
that many Hon. Friends of his whoshad not been fortu-
nate enough to hear the Attorney-General's explanation of
the details, were anxious to express their opinion upon the
measure; he therefore did trust that upon a question so lilts
portant as this the Noble Lard would accede to the motion
tor an adjournment, and give them at least one other Bight
to discuss it.—(Questisn, question !)
M. GiBSON must say, with all deference to the
Noble Lord, that in a matter which involved is a certain
degree an attack upon the religious feelings— (Cries of
" No, no ! ")—at least it was so understood by a large num-
ber of persons, and he thought it would be better to give
gentlemen full scope for an expression of their opinions
upon it. This question had been debated precisely upon
the same grounds for years past, and he therefore called
upon the Noble Lord to postpone it for the present, and
to go on with the budget and the practical business of the
country. When those subjects were disposed of, they
might return to this difficult, and he was afraid almost
interminable, question, as to the propriety of endeavour-
lag to keep down the iefluenee of the Rom Cathodes in

this country. If a division took place, he would vote for the
adjournment.
Mr. KEOGH thought it desirable that an adjournment
should lake place. The Government proposed to extend
the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and some very im-
portant provisions of the Bill had been stated tonight
for the first time by the Attorney-General. He thought,
therefore, that any further discussi-sn on the subject should
be postponed until they had the aid and assistance of the
Attorney-General for Ireland.—(Laughter and cheers.)
During the last session of Parliament the business of the
Attorney-General for Ireland had been done, to a great
extent, by the Attorney-General for England —(A laugh)--
and he thought that upon a question of this kind they ought
to have the opinion and advice of the Attorney-General for
Ireland.

Mr. ANST EY said if the motion for an adjournment was
pressed he would certainly vote for it. He was not disposed
to offer anything like factious opposition to the principle of
this Bill, but he thought it most desirable that the measure
should be fairly discussed in its present stage—(Cheers)
before Ministers were committed to all its details. He was
anxious himself to hate an opportunity of stating the grounds
upon which he was disposed to go to much greater lengths
with respect to the Roman Catholic Church in England than
this Bill proposed, but he wit.: cecidedly opposed to any at-
tempt to change in the slightest degree the status of the
Roman Catholic Church in Ir,land. He intendeelk on a fu-
ture stage of the measure. to ask the House to decide upon a
question which would test the professions they bad heard on
that (tie Ministerial) side of the House, and particularly
front the Hon. Member for Oxford, of attachment to the
great principles of civil and religious liberty.
The House then divided; the numbers were—
Ayes ... -• ••• •••
50
Noes 364
Majority against adjournment .. —305
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. E. B ROtdE was speaking in support of a renewed
motion for an adj ,urnment of the debate, which had been
moved I.,v‘ som, Hon. Member in our absence. _

Lord J..ItUSSELL said, that in replying to the suggestion
made for the adj .urnment of the debate, he could not but
take notice of what had been said by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson),
who, as he did not care about the question, assumed that it
was one that could not be of importance to any others—
(Laughter)—and asked the Government to go on with
other business, to Virg on the budget—and to have this
question taken some other night. He ( Lord J. Russell)
thought it necessary to say at once that that was a proposi-
tion to which he could not accede.—( Hear, hear.) It was
his intention, therefo- e, atter the House had shown very
clearly what was its opinion, that if the motion before them
was withdrawn, they should agree to the adjournment of the
debate, and fix it for the first order day. He could not take
to-morrow (Tueday), as the Hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire (Mr. Disraeli) had a motion of great importance, but
he would fix it for Wednesday next, and he did not propose
to go on with any Government business until the motion
was d;sposed of.
The motion for the adjournment was withdrawn, and the
debate was then adjourned to Wednesday next.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Mr. ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
repeal of all enactments against the religious profession or
discipline of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.—
(Laughter.) It was the same Bill as that of last session,
with the exception that the clause respecting the admission
of bulls from Rome had been omitted, as he thought it more
decorous to omit mention of the matter at present, and he
had added a clause of a very. stringent kind bearing on the
Queen's temporal and ecclesiastical supremacy, so as to get
rid of all scruples on the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
They would now have an opportunity of following Lord
Stanley's recommendation, to look narrowly into the securi-
ties afforded by the Emancipation Act; and all he asked was
leave to bring in the Bill, so that the House could see if it
came within the description he gave of it.
Sir R. H. INGLIS could not but think that it would have
been more seemly and deferential to the feeling of the House
if the Hon. Member had consented to forego discussion on
the question after the decision at which they had just
arrived. He would test the opinion of the House upon the
subject.
Sir G. GREY expressed his surprise that the Hon. Mem-
ber should again propose to introduce the Bill, after the re-
ception it had met with in former sessions.
Mr. BERESFORJ) moved that leave be given on that day
six months.

On a division, there appeared—
For the motion ... 35
Majority ... ... —l4O
Mr. BAINES moved for, and obtained leave, to bring in a
Bill for the better protection of young persons under the care
and control of others as apprentices or servants; and to
enable guardians of the poor to institute and conduct prose-
cutions in certain cases.

The Bill was brought in, and read a first time.
The House then adjourned, at One o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 10.
&tangs at Nisi Frius at Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a CnIDMOII Jury.)
RATCLIFFE' V. PEARCE.

This was en action in trespisa to recover damages for
alleged injuries done to the plaintiff's property.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Churnock conducted the plain-
tiff's case; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Lush appeared fur
the defendant.

Mr. KNOWLES, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
was a glass-cutter, carrying on business in Gray's Inn-
road, and the defendant a builder at Camden-town. In
the month of August last year the defendant was build-
ing some first-class houses in Camden•town, and he re-
quested several glass dealers to furnish him with esti-
mates of their charges for glazing the windows with
plate glass, and among others the plaintiff, whose tender
was accepted, the terms being that ready money should
be paid on the completion of the work. The dtfendant
accordingly sent the wooden frames to the plaintiff'e
shop for the purp se of having the plate put in. In the
meantime the pliintiff learnt that Mr. Pearce had in the
previous year taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors'
Act, and being auxtous net to lose 801. or 901.. the value
cif the glass, he refused wh' n the frames were finished to
deliver tihn to up to him unless he had either the money
or some security for it. After some negotiation the
plaintiff* was at length indue d to vend them in a van to
the premises, and on arriving there he refused to pay •
the money as agreed upon, observing that the tlaintiff
had two altereatives, either to trust him or to take the
glass out ol the frames. The plaintiff said he would not
accept these terms, and the defendant thereupon
ordered a body of Irish labourers, nearly 20
in number, to stop the van and to seiz-t what
he called his own property. They blocked up
the wheels and eeizsd the horse by the head
and there being no one to resist them except the driver
and the plaintiff', foreman, they proceeded to hammer
out the glass, and in doing so destroyed many panes and
injured the rest. On seeing the work of destruction
which was going on, the plaintiff was anxious to save the
glass, and he offered to deliver it if they would desist,
but no notice was taken of the offer. The damage
done to the glass emounted altogether to 401. Bs., and it
was to recover this sum, as well as compensation for the
annoyance and inconvenience which the plaintiff had
suffered, that the present action had been instituted.
The defendant had paid V. into court, which he con-
tended was ample to cover the value of the glass de-
stroyed.
Evidence having been given in support of the plein-

tiff'. case,
Mr. CROWDER addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant. He admitted the trespass, but said the defen-
dant hat been aggravated by the great delay in sending
the windows, which had had the effect of injuring the
houses. Ho also contended that 31. was sufficient to
compensate for the loss r,f the plaintiff.
Several witnesses were called. who stated the glass
was taken out very carduily, and that nut more than
31.'s worth was broken.

Mr. KNowLEs replied, and
The Learnc.d JUDGE then summed up, aid the jury
returned a verdict for the phtintitf—Damages 601.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
a Special Jury.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENZRAI. V. THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY.
The Court was again occupied with this cause. The case
.or the plaintiff having terminated, the jury thereupon re-
tired for a few minutes to take some refreshment. On their
return,
Sir F. KELLY rose to address them on behalf of the defen-
dants, the London Dock Company. The case was probably,
upon every ground, the most important that had ever been
brought into a court of justice. He must therefore implore
that they would dismiss from their minds every rumour they
might have heard prior to the commencement of the present
tidal, and he likewise besought them not to allow their
opinion to be arrived at until they had heard the whole of
the evidence which he should have to place before them
on the part of the London Dock Company, for he felt that
when he should have done this he should have shown to them
that the comrany had been as pure, as honourable, and as full
of integrity in all their dealings and transactions as it was
possible for human beings to be. When he should have pre-
sented his evidence to the jury they would find that he had
established the observance of the most perfect integrity, and
the most cautious regard for the rights of their fellow-sub-
jects and their fellows in the mercantile world, on the
part of the London Dock Company in all their dealings and
transactions. The London Dock Company was eitab-
lished towards the close of the last century, in the year
1795, and since that establishment they had had in their
possessi ,n the property of the mercantile community of
that vast city, even to the extent of 20,000,0001. per
annum. They had, too, in their employment between 3,000
and 4,000 servants, and never had they, until the existence
of the present Board of Customs, on any occasion come in
contact either with the Government or with any individual
of the general community whom they had now for upwards
of 60 years served. The London Dock Company, as he had
already stated, had been established in 1795, prior to which
period the vast amount of shipping which came to the port
of London was compelled to lay out exposed in various parts
of the river, or down at sea, until there was found room for
them respectively at some of the many wharfs where they
might unship their cargoes. The result of this exposure
was, that proofs were given of frauds being committed upon
. the revenue to the extent of 172,0001. per annum. To that
extent it was known that the system of plundering and pil-
fering was carried on without the possibility of any safe
check being put upon the system. That was the estimate
of the amount of the frauds which had been carried on, but
there were reasons to expect that that estimate did not
arrive at one-third even of the actual plundering. The
London Dock Company was upon this established, and
from that day down to the present the directors bad
carried on one of the largest undertakings that had
ever been known in this or in any other country.
They had carried on that vast umdertaking
in the greatest commercial community in the world without,
until the present proceedings, ever having come in contact
with the Government or the mercantile community. They
had carried on the I,usiness, dealing with a capital of se, eral
millions yearly, with.art the least suspicion of wrongful con-
duct. The 172,000/. of pilfering to which he had referred
had had reference alone to the one article of sugar, and
that, too, wcs at a period when the importations of sugar
did not amount, to one-third of their present ext n_
far, then, from the London Dock Cf,mpany
the revenue, they had, on the contrary, added
godoee;, manyrauded
millions to that fund by f the conduct
ment
the means ofor the admirable
arrangements of their establish
of the public business. S exeellnt were the arrangements
ass
that for the last 50 years they had had p through their
hands property to the extent of 2A000,000/. or 30,000,0001
from the Customs
in every year, without complaint ett..er or
present
at large. lie
was on the
h d in any way
from the mercantileVkld
to admit thatif it a
occasion fay prepared
been shown that the company, either. directly or indtr. ectiv,
Single had evaded the Mutat Qf 07 QUO Su% duty Ron a giDglo

pound weight of the merchandize which had come into
their possession, or had in any way knowingly defrauded or
deprived a single merchant of one shilling's worth of his
property, he would consent at once to a verdict being passed
against him upon this as well as upon the other b informa-
tions which the Board of Customs had thought proper to file
against the London Dock Company. But let him ask where
there was any evidence, out of the vast mass which the jury
had heard during the last three days—now nearly four days
hich went iu the least to establish or to prove the charge
which had been set up against his clients? That being so,
then, lie would here throw back, with the fullest contempt
and with indignation, the base accusations which had been
preferred against the London Dock Company, upon those
who had instructed his Learned Friend on the other side.
Unhesitatingly, too, did he declare that these informations
were as disgraceful to those who had got them up as were
the charges untrue. The charges which his Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General had made and insinuated he repelled
with scorn and indignation The imputations were false
from their beginning to their ending, and he threw those im-
putations back upon those who had cast them upon the
London Duck Company in so unscrupulous arid so dis-
graceful a manner. He begged to be distinctly under-
stood as not making these or any other of his obser-
vations in reference to his Learned Friend, because he
took it for granted that his Learned Friend had only acted
upon his instructions. He repeated again, then, that these
proceedings from their commencement to their ending were
utterly disgraceful to those by whom they had been got up
and carried on, and he at the same time wholly acquitted his
lion. and Learned Friend of having been actuated by un-
worthy motives in his address on behalf of the Crown. But
his Learned Friend bad made these imputations in a public
court of justice—he might say he had made them to the
world at large - not merely to that court, not merely to the
Lord Chief Baron, not merely to the jury, not merely to
Europe—but he had made them to the world at large, be-
cause they all knew that what occurred in that court found
its way to all parts of the civilized globe. His Learned
Friend, then, had made these charges in hearing of the whole
world, against a company of mercantile gentlemen, without
one single tittle of evidence to substantiate the accusations.
The charges had not only not been supported, but they
could not be substantiated. His Learned Friend had told the
jury, among other things, that the London Dock Company
had been in the habit of giving a bonus to such of their
officers as were employed in those departments of the esta-
blishment where the " sweepings" were carried on, and that
those of their servants who were the most successful in the
collection of those " sweeping " were the persons who
were made the objects of the largest rewards. Let him ask,
had there been one syllable or one word of evidence given
in reference to this part of the accusations? Had there been
one word of proof in
_respect to this base and odious at-
tempt at blackening the characters of the gentlemen whom
he had the honour to represent on the present occasion—a
body of gentlemen whose integrity was as pure and un-
blemished as that of any portion of the community? What
right had the Board of Customs, who were themselves the
trustees of the public, to expend the money of that public
by the institution of proceedings like the present, when they
had not one particle of evidence to support their odious and
base calumny? The Board of Customs well knew what was
the nature of the gratuities which had been given by the
London Dock Company to their servants, because the whole
proceeding had been fully explained to the board by the
company—that explanation being, that the company had
been accustomed to make a triennial distribution of rewards
to the superior order of officers on account of " superior dili-
gence " and for "over work" which was actually per-
formed by any of the officers. Not the most remote refer-
ence bad these rewards to the "sweepings," while upwards
of two-thirds of the gratuities were bestowed upon officers
whose duties were in no way connected with the collection
of " sweepings." After the London Dock Company had
furnished these explanations to the Board of Customs,
the latter wrote back to the company, stating that not the
slightest imputation attached to that body on account of the
distribution of the gratuities in question ; and yet, notwith-
standing this communication, exculpating them as it were
from all blame upon the subject, his Learned Friend had been
instructed to come into that court and trump up a repetition
of so odious and so base an accusation. Such a proceeding,
he might say, was totally without precedent, especially, tit o,
where the Board of Customs had been unable to adduce any evi-
dence to establish their charges. The London Dock Company,
after an existence of upwards of fifty years, now found them-
selves dragged into a public court to defend a series of infor-
mations based upon testimony which he would presently
show was at once the most discreditable as well as the most
fallacious. If the Customs or the Crown had confined them-
selves to offering evidence as to the question arising upon
the 28 casks of sugar and the 50 or 55 packages of cocoa,
which constituted the subject of the first information, he
could have shown long ago, with regard to '2O of these
casks, that they had been lying in the docks waiting for the
visit of the Custom-house officer to pass them for exportation.
With respect, also, to the cocoa, it was in his power to show
that it was utterly impossible for the London Dock Company
to convert it to their own use, or even to defraud the revenue
of one single shilling of the duty on account of that cocoa;
unless, indeed, it had been the intention of the company to
smuggle it out of the docks and to dispose of it for home
consumption. As the case for the London Dock Company
proceeded, the jury and his Lordship, ay, and his Learned
Friend too, would find from the evidence he should adduce,
that the cocoa seized had been in course of collection for
many years—that it was made up of " sweepings," and
stray bags which had not been claimed and could not be ac-
counted for, and, moreover, that the whole would have come
into the Customs' account and then been exported in the
usual manner. It was perfectly absurd to say that the mer-
chants of London could have been defrauded of the amount,
seeing that during the half century since the establishment
of the London Cocks not one single complaint of any de-
scription had ever been advanced against that great com-
pany, and that on the contrary they had throughout car-
ried on their business in the most perfect harmony with the
Government and the revenue, and also to the universal
satisfaction of the mercantile community at large. He felt
no hesitation in admitting that if one-fortieth part of the
allegations which had been set up against the London Dock
Company by his Learned Friend the Solicitor-General could
have been substantiated, the board of directors of that com-
pany would be deserving of expulsion from all society. They
would in that case have deserved to have been driven
out from all soci-ty with the brand of shame and disgrace
placed upon their brows. But be was in a position to show
that there was not one atom of truth in any of the accusa-
tions which had been brought forward against the com-
pany; and that, on the contrary, every one of the 24 gen-
tlemen who represented the interests of the Dock Company
was a man ot honour, integrity, and honesty—persons who,
of all men of the world, would have revolted from any
idea of evading or attempting to evade the payment of one
farthing of the duty which the revenue was entitled to de-
mand, or of abstracting one single pound of merchandize
from the trader and merchant. The Dock Company were
accused of having defrauded the merchant of the sugar
which might have remained in the ship or had escaped
from the packages; and they were also charged with the
still graver offence ot carrying on a systematic felony by
the abstraction of original packages of merchandize.
Why, if this were so, the Loudon Dock Company was
neither more nor less than a band of felons, associated

together for the express purpose of plundering the mercan-
tile community at large. Probably the jury were not aware
that the greater proportion of the shareholders in the
London Dock Company were some of the most extensive
merchants in the land—some of the largest mercantile pro-
prietors in the empire; and if the impotations and accusa-
tions which had been advanced by his Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General were true, 20 out of the 24 directors of the
company would lose, by several thousands per annum, a
larger sum than they coull by any possibility derive from
their dividends as shareholders, swollen as their funds were
said to have been by these alleged peculations. Would it
not, then, be a national shame, as well as a national misfot-
tone, that a number of gentlemen, who imported no less than
25,000,000?. worth of merchandise yearly, could be parties to
a base and contemptible fraud upon their fellow-merchants? ;
But he was in a position to prove that the amount derivable
from the " sweepings" would not afford to the shareholders
one additional penny to their dividends. Was it, then, to be
supposed that fur such a consideration the directors of this
ancient company would connive at a system of plunder and
fraud, the effect of which must, in the common order
of things, be that they themselves, as the largest importers,
would be the largest sufferers? He could not but feel that
it was almost disrespectful on bis part towards the jury
to dwell so long upon the supposition that the directors of the
London Duck Company could so far betray the hitherto un-
bounded confidence which the company bad had reposed in
it from the day of its formation until the imputations about
which they were at that moment inquiring. Witnesses, how-
ever,
had been called, who had with so much shamelessness
sworn that the custom had been for the company, by its ser-
vants, to plunder the merchants of an enormous quantity of
good marketable sugar in each year. He was not going to
shrink from meeting every one of the charges which his
Learned Friend had brought against the Dock Company, for,
on the contrary, he would prove byond the possibility of
doubt that each charge was founded on fabrication and poi-
' tive.falsehood; and while he should not in the conduct of
his cause shrink from meeting every point of accusation, his

clients did shrink with feelings of horror at the supposition
that any persons could believe that they had been guilty of
the nefarious and fraudulent conduct which". was imputed to
them by the Crown. He besought the jury to bear in mind
the class of wi'nesses who had been brought forward to
support the information on the part of the Crown.
What had some of these witnesses proved ? Why,
that there was a regular system of felony being
carried on in the London Docks, which a tew years
since would have been punishable by death. Then nearly
all of the witnesses had been betraying the company, even
supposing their statements were true—which he in the most
unqualified terms denied—while they haot been eating the
bread of the Dock Company. The Learned Counsel then
commented with much severity upon the evidence given by
several of these witnesses, and then took a general review
of the case which had been made out on the part of the
Crown—the whole of which he designated as a gross and
wilfully base fabrication. He took his stand to the case
made out by his Learned Friend on behalf of the Crown
by stating that that case was a tissue of fabrications and
falsehood. That that was so he should bring forward a
mass of evidence of so clear and distinct a character that it
would be impossible for any man to resist its convincing and
satisfactory effect. The Board of Customs had been offered an
inspection of the books of the Dock Company, and free access
to every corner of the premises, which the communication
had gone on to state were at all times open to the revenue
officers. The Learned Counsel then entered into an outline
of the evidence which it would be his duty to call, and com:
plained in bitter terms of the way in which the Crown had
assisted
conducted its case, and of its having withheld every infor-
mation from the Dock Company which could have
them in the preparation of their defence;h interference
called on the jury to discountenance Busse
was
the London
conclusion,
with the proceedings of such a cornPanY as he contended
Dock Company, unless it could be proved,
nt instance, that their acts
it had not been proved in the prole and,in
-nterference.
were such as to Gentleman sucil down at the conclusion of a
The Learned sat
•
duration amid the .partial plaudits from
speech of six hours'
an over-crowded court.
dings were then adjourned at half-p
six ( ) g.ast
The further proceeding
this mornin
o'clock to till-morrow

C~DyESTISEMENT Holloway's Ointment am)
Pills the best re
living with
Badl r Le
King,s. Eo
of
LizaD Dint
rienw;
nearthe
rvesdnyt
wife of a farm se
Salisbury, suffered for several months with a sore leg, the
ulceration of which was au dreadfully obstinate that it defied the
skill of eminent medical men to abate its malignancy. When in
its worst state Ibe commenced using Holloway's Ointment and
Pills, which coon produced .avourable appearances, and by per-
severing in their use for a short period, she can now boast a
sound cure. There is no case, however obstinate, bad, or long
standing, but may be cured by these admirable medicines.
—Sold by all Druggists and at Professor HoLuway's Estab-
lishment, 244, Strand, London.

VINTRY WARD CHARITY SCHOOLS.--Yesterday
morning the Lord Mayor, the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and the
members of the Court of Common Council, went in their state
carriages to the church of St. James, Garlick-hyt he, Garlick-
bill, Upper Thames-street, where a sermon was preached
by the Reverend Edward Rica D. D.. head master of Christ's
Hospital, &c., in aid of the funds of the 'nary Ward charitY

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
MIDLAND.

DERRY, MONDAY EVENING.—AII extraordinary special
meeting of the shareholders or the above company was held
afternoon, at the Derby station, for the purpose of con-
sidering, and, if thought fit, of approving of the provisions
of the undermentioned Bills proposed to be introduced into
Paiiiament in the ensuing cession :
"A Bill to authorise the acquisition by the Midland Rail.
way Company of the estate and interest of the Leeds and
Bradford Railway Company in the Leeds and Bradiord Rail-
way, and to empower the Midland Company to raise money
for such purpose.

" A 13111 to extend the time for the Purchase of certain
ands and completion of works authorised by the Midland
Railway Ripley Branches Act, 1848,' and on the Gloucester
and Stonehouse Junction Railway.
d
"A Bill to regulate and increase the capital of the Midland
of
and
Railway Company, and to confirm and legalise the creation
applicationdirectors),
c(tifo rtsh)e,
proceeds of such shams, and for other purposes."
and issue of certain(osleo/c.hs:ilramreasn,
ofnd the
board
th
presided.
The M.P.
d.
The advertisement by which the meeting had been con-
vened having been read by Mr. bell (the secretary),
The CHAIRMAN said it might appear extraordinary that
the shareholders should be called together on the eve of
holding their half yearly meeting; but. the reason was, that
the directors were anxious to lay before thorn the qto stion of
the purchase of the Leeds and Bradford Railway prior to the
subject coming under the discussion of the Leeds and Brad-
ford shareholders, who would hold a meeting oa the follow-
ing (this) day in reference to the matter. The hoard were
also desirous to have the question respecting the .%l. shares
settled. This subject hau already been before the proprie-
tors, and the directors were unanimous in recommding that
the proposed measure in referenca to such shares should be
carried out.
The proposed arrangement with the holders of SQI. shares
was then explained.
The number of 501. shares created is
Of which are unissued

77,855
... 610

... 77,245

Issued
The amount called up being 351. per share,
the interest payalole in 1851, at 5 per
cent. would be £135,178 15 0
But supposing the proposed arrangement
be agreed to, and the dividend on the
consolidated stock to be at the rate of 3
per cent. per annuuhAtle account would
stand thus :
Dividend on 77,245 shares
of 331. 6d. Bd., at 3 per
cent —. 577,245 0
Ditto on 77,245 shares of
11. 13s. 4d., at 4 ditto... 5,793 7 6

83,038 7

Benefit arising to the holders of consoli-
dated stock ---

If, however, the dividend on the stock
be at the rate of 2i per cent. only, the
benefit would then amount to