The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-28 00:00:00

IMPERI

.AMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 27.

-- -
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool
sack at Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.'

The Duke of CAMBRIDGE presented a petition
against the Charitable Trusts Bill from the Governor
and guardians of the Foundling Hospital.
The Earl of FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition
with a similar prayer from the Governors of Christ's
Hospital.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from
Leeds against the extension of the county courts.
Lord BROUGHAM said that each extension of the
county courts cast upon the judges more work without
any increase of their very scanty remuneration of 1,200/
He thought that the Consolidated Fund ought not to
benefit by the increase of business in those courts, but
that the officers of the courts should benefit by it. He
thought that as by the proposed Bill county court
judges were required to reside in their districts compen-
sation should be made to them for the practice which
they would be compelled to give up.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from certain
solicitors of Southampton in favour of the County Courts
Extension Bill. He (Lord Campbell) considered it was
highly desirable that the county court judges should
receive a higher rate of remuneration in case of addi-
tional business.
PREVENTION OF OFFENCES.
The NOBLE Lone then moved that the Commons'
amendments to the Prevention of Offences Bill should be
taken into consideration. He regretted that the Bill
for the improvement of criminal proceedings had not
been returned at the same time, as it was a measure of
great importance, and had been assented to by Lords
Brougham and Cranworth, the Lord Chancellor, and
some of the most eminent men at the bar. That Bill
bad been referred to a Select Committee, but it was a
great discouragement to law reformers to know that it
might be rejected.
Lord BROUGHAM concurred in the regret ex-
pressed by his Noble and Learned Friend, who had
understated rather than overstated the pains and trouble
taken with the Bill in question. He was quite morti-
fied that it should have been referred to a Select Com-
mittee after the care and attention that had been be-
stowed on it by the judges. He wished to know when
the report of the Common Law Commission would be
laid on the table?
Lord CAMPBELL could communicate no satisfactory
information on that point ; the Judges had been pre-
vented by the delay from making many salutary reforms.
JO TEE PERSHAUD.
Lord BROUGHTON said he had attended in his
place in accordance with the notice of the Noble Earl
(Ellenborough) on the preceding night. The Noble
Earl had communicated to him the nature of his observ-
ations; and he (Lord Broughton) had not the slightest
objection to the returns which the Noble Earl had given
notice to move for. They should be prepared and laid
on the table of the House as soon as possible. Since,
however, it was possible that a mail might immediately
arrive and bring further information on the subject in
question, he thought it was not asking too much to
request the Noble Earl to postpone his motion until the
papers expected by the Government should arrive.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, when the
Noble Lord mentioned his wish to him a few hours pre
viously, he thought it was probable that nothing could
come to hand which would affect what he (the Earl of
Ellenborough) had to state on the subject. He had,
however, promised to give the request his attention. It
was very possible that the Governor-General might
have directed inquiry into the cases of tampering with
witnesses and other cases in connexion with the charge
against Jotee Pershaud ; and if that was the
case, he could not desire to press the subject at present.
His only object -was to get a full and fair inquiry; and
he should, therefore, waive his motion, in accordance
with the request of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord
made no objection to the production of the papers, and
therefore he should go no further. He would, however,
take that opportunity of placing himself right upon a
point in which he had conwaitted a slight inaccuracy.
He had stated that the recognisances of Mr. Laing, the
advocate anti bail of Jotee Pershaud, had been estreated,
and his press placed under an " embargo." He did not
much like the expression when he used it; but he was
compelled to use it because it was employed in the
letter which conveyed him the information. He was
bound, however, to state that the press of Mr. Laing,
who was editor of a newspaper as well as an advocate,
was not carried away, but placed in charge of the police
so as to prevent his using it. Orders were, he under-
stood, issued to seize the press; but the person to whom
they were given was afraid to execute them in conse-
quence of a sale of the property, fictitious or real,
which 'had taken place. There was another point.
He (Earl of Ellenbrorough) understood the Noble
Lord to state that the Affghan and Sutlej
accounts of Jotee Pershaud had been settled.
From the statements of an officer just arrived
from India, he (Earl of Ellenborough) understood that
neither were settled. There was one other point in which
the Noble Lord's reply was not entirely accurate. The
Noble Lord had stated that the two members of the mi-
litary commission who formed the majority had de-
ferred to the opinion of the third member, who formed
the minority, and had therefore laid their report before
the President in Council. This was a mistake, inasmuch
as the military board, by its constitution, was bound to
do so. The question which he (Earl Ellenborough)
put respecting the amount due to Jotee Pershaud had
not been answered by the Noble Lord. He (Earl of
Ellenborough) understood that the amount unquestion-
ably due to Jotee Pershaud, on the showing of the mili-
tary commission, was not less than from 30 to 35 lacs of
rupees, or between 300,0001. and 350,0001., of which not
a rupee had been paid. That sum, in addition to the
amount lodged as security for the performance of his
contracts, which amounted to 5 lace of rupees more, or
50,0001., gave a sum of nearly 400,0001, his property, in
the hands of the Government, according to the last ad-
vices. The Gwalior accounts alone had been settled.
In conclusion, the Noble Earl said that such was. the au-
dacity, the courage, the fidelity, and the zeal of Jotee
Pershaud, that he had in disguise entered the camp of
the enemy, bought grain in their bazaars, and brought it
in for the support of the British army, whilst the war
was proceeding.
Lord BROUGHTON explained.
The returns were then ordered, viz.:—
" A return of the date of the final settlements of the
accounts of Jotee Perdoaud, an army contractor in India,
for the campain of Afighanistan, or Gwalior, and of the
Sutlej respectively.
"An account of the total sum found by the military
board to be due to Jolee Pershaud, and unpaid on the 2d
of May, 1851, on such accounts as had been then laid be-
fore that board for the said several campaigns, and for the
campaign in the Purjaub respectively.
"Au account of the sum deposited by Jotee Pershaud
as security on his nadertaking several contracts for the
said several campaigns respectively, and of the total sum
under these heads which remained in the hands of the
Government of India at the above date."
The Mai quis of LONDONDERRY gave notice of a
motion on the subject of the continued incaroeratjon of
Abd-el-Kade.r for Mcoday. The motion would be for
the further correspondence which had taken place be
tween the English aad French Governments on the
subject.
Lord REDESDALE gave notice of a motion for an
alteration in the appellate jurisdiction of the House. He
thought the chief law officers of the Crown should have
seats in that House for the honour of the law and the
benefit of suitors, in the same manner as the Church
was represented there by the bishops. His motion was
for an address to the effect that her Majesty should order
the offices of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justices of
the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, and the Chief
Baron of the Court of Exchequer should be erected into
baronies which would entitle. them to writs of sum-
mons to that House, by favour of the said offices.. He
thought it might also be necessary to summon the chief
judges in the courts of equity, but he would not include
that proposition, nor would he name a day for his mo
tion, merely throwing it out as a suggestion for cons.
deration.

Lord CAMPBELL thought the suggestion deserved
very great consideration; but the form of the proposi-
tion presented a difficulty, inasmuch as the judge so sum-
moned would be only entitled to a seat in the House of
Lords while be held office.

Lord REDESDALE said this difficulty could be
easily got over by the judge resigning his seat. He ap-
prehended if a bishop resigned his see, he would be no
longer a temporal baron.

ford CAMPBELL said that the object stated by the
Noble Lord could not be affected by an address to the
Crown. It could only be effected by a legislative

measure.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from certain
solicitors, in favour of the County Courts Extension Bill.
BRIDGES (IRELAND).
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
the House passed through Committee the Bridges (Ire-
land) Bill.

'llia Fee-farm Rents (Ireland) Bill was passed through
Committee.
The Law of Evidence Amendment Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Leasehold Tenure of Lund (Ireland) Act Amend-
ment Bill, which stocd for second reading to-day, was
withdrawn, after a short conversation, in which the
Lerd Chancellor, Lori Campbell, and Lord Beaumont
took part.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF (AMNIONS, June 27.
The SPEAKER took the Cnair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Waterford and Tremors Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
On the consideration of the Hove Improvement Bill,
as amended,
Mr. LOCKE moved that the Bill be re-committed to
the former Committee, with leave to sit and proceed on
Monday next.
Captain Duncombe and Sir J. Walsh opposed the mo-

tion, which was supported by Mr. F. French, Sir G.
Pecheil, Mr. Agiionby, and Mr. E.B. Roche, after which
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

... ... ... 92
... ... •• • 34
- • -58

Majority
The motion was then agreed to.
GREAT EXHIBITION.

Mr. STAFFORD, in rising to put a question to
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
on the subject of the Crystal Palace, said he hoped the
Noble Lord would not suppose that he brought forward
the matter in any spirit of censure towards the Govern-
ment, or with the view of extorting from the Noble
Lord the expression of a direct and positive
opinion on the subject.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Or-
der, order.") Ile knew that it was against the rule to

enter upon any lengthened statement in putting ques-
tions, but in order that he might explain his motives in
bringing this subject forward, he would move for the
sake of form that the House at its rising do adjourn till
Monday next. It would have been premature to have
brought this question forward earlier, because the
public were not supposed to have been in posses-
sion of sufficient grounds to enable them to form a
decisive opinion upon it ; but it should be recol-
lected by the House that when the arrangement with
regard to the present site of the building was made the
Commissioners had no idea at all of what materials the
building would be oomposed, but, like the large majority
of the House, who urged the expediency of granting
the site, they thought it would bs constructed with the
usual materials. Now, although the actual nature of
the materials with which it had been built might militate
against its removal, on the other hand there were, per-
haps, still stronger reasons why the present structure
should not be continued where it was.--(Hear, hear.)
The first question which he wished to put to the Noble
Lord would be one of mere form, because he appre-
hended that according to the existing arrangement the
Commissioners would have no alternative but to remove the
building when the proper time arrived for doing so; but
whether it was ultimately retained in its present site or
removed, he felt convinced that the question was one of
so national and important a character that it would not
be satisfactory to the public if it were brought forward
for the purpose of being finally settled at an
advanced period of the session when many Mem-
bers would have left town, and only a few could
be called upon to pronounce a decision on the
subject.-e(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, wished now to
ask the Noble Lord, first, in his capacity of Commis-
sioner, and secondly, as the Prime Minister of the
Crown, and organ of the Government, the two
questions of which he had given notice—namely,
whether the Commissioners of the Exhibition consider
themselves bound tosemove the edifice existing in Hyde-
Park; and if so, whether her Majesty's Ministers are
prepared to take any steps to maintain it in its present
position? He repeated, that he did not wish
the Noble Lord to pronounce any opinion of his
own on the subject, but if the Government
intended to take it into consideration, this
was the time to do it, because, according
to the present arrangement, the building must be
destroyed in the month of October.—(Hear, hear.)
If, therefore, the Government intended to take np the
matter or to call the attention of Parliament to it, they
should do so now that the House was, comparatively
speaking, fully attended.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would answer the ques-
tion both as a Commissioner and the Minister of the
Crown, and, in the first place, he could only recall the
recollection of the House to the fears expressed last year
that the temporary building which was intended for the
Exhibition in Hyde-park might be converted into a per-
manent erection, and thereby obstruct a large portion of
the ground which had been devoted to the use and
enjoyment of the frequenters of the park.—(Hear, hear.)
In the course of that agitation the Commissioners made
an agreement of a formal nature with the Commis-
sioners of Woods and Forests, by which it
was agreed the building to be erected for the
Exhibition should not be continued opened longer than
the Ist of November in the present year, and that
within six months after that time the building should be en-
tirely taken down or removed, and the ground upon which
it stood restored to its former state.—(Hear, hear.)
Now the Commissioners, he conceived, had no power to
do otherwise than act according to the agreement
which they had so made, and they had no
intention, as far as he was aware of, either of
departing from its terms and conditions, or of asking for
further time to carry them out.—(Cheers.) With re-
gard to the question put to him as the Minister
standing at the head of the Government,
his answer would be a short one. The matter
had not hitherto been a subject of deliberation
with the Government at all—(Hear, hear)—and for
his own part he must be allowed to say that he had seen
no materials as yet upoa which the Government could
form any opinion. The course, therefore, which they
meant to adopt would depend in a great measure upon
the wishes anti feelings of the public, who had been ac-
customed to enjoy the Fark. It would be for the public
generally to take the initiative in deciding the question,
whether the present building should be pulled down or
permanently maintained, but in ultimately deciding such
a question as that there were many matters which
would have to be taken into their serious consideration,
not the least important of which was, to what purpose it
could be best applied to promote the recreation and enjoy-
ment of the public, and then that having been ascertained,
the next question to be decided was, how its expense
should be provided for.—(Hear.) These were matters
which were of the highest importance, although as
yet he was not at all cognizant of them,
though he had spoken about them to par-
ties who had been engaged in promoting the
building, and therefore he was not in possession of a
sufficient amount of detailed information on the subject
to enable him to pronounce an opinion upan it.—(Cries
of "Hear, hear.") His answer to the second question
might be gathered from that fact. It was not a question
that had engaged the attention or consideration of the
Government.—(Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Sir G. GREY, it was ordered that
the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.
ADVERTISING VANS.
In reply to a question put by Mr. MANGLES,
Sir G. GREY said that be had given no pledge to take
any steps for the removal of advertising vans, but he
had merely stated that the police had powers which, to
a certain extent, were capable of abating the nuisance,
bat if they should prove insufficient, it must be matter of
consideration whether they should not have entrusted to
them greater powers for that purpose.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from a place
in Ireland against the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
On the reading of the order of the day that this Bill
as amended should be considered—
Mr. MILES rose to move the insertion of the clause
of which he had given notice, and which was as fol-
lows:—" That if a penalty shall be recovered by judg-
ment or verdict against any person for a second
offence under this Act, it shall be lawful for her Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, if
in the circumstances of the case it shall appear fit, by
notice in writing signed by him, to require such person
to depart out of this realm within a time to be limited
by such notice; and if such person shall afterwards be
found therein, it shall be lawful for her Majesty's Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, by war-
rant under his hand, to give such person in charge of
one of her Majesty's messengers, or of such other person
or persons to whom he shall think fit to direct such war-
rant, in order to his being conducted out of _the king-
dom." In moving the adoption of this clause, he had to
express his regret that it had not fallen to the lot of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole)
to introduce it. He (Mr. Miles) moved the clause on
the ground that it was in accordance with the wishes
the people of this country, and he felt that they we re
bound to make the Bill as stringent as possible, to pr
vent Papal aggression. After the interminable discussion
which had taken place in the different stages of this Bill,
and the interruptions which had been given to the busi-
ness of the House, it was not necessary he should address
them at great length ; but be thought it behoved every
individual to endeavour to make the provisions of the
Bill as complete and stringent for the object in view as
possible. They were the more bound to do so, as they had
been told by Hon. Members from Ireland that the provi-
sions of the Bill could not be carried into effect in that
country, and that it would be treated with contempt,
and its provisions trodden under foot. What, he would
ask, was said by the organ of the Roman Catholic
body in Ireland? In a late number of the Tablet the
House would find in what spirit the Bill before the
House was spoken of. The Hon. Member hero read an
extract from a late number of the Tablet, in which the
editor stated that in a short time half a dozen rescripts
would be received from Rome. In one case ho could
confidently state that a brief would be issued for the con-
secration of Dr. Vaughan to the bishopric of Killaloe.
But it was not in this country only that the see of Rome
was pursuing its aggressive course; and to prove that
such was the case, he could refer the House to a letter
which had been addressed by Lord Cowley to Lord Pal-
merston, in which that Noble Lord referred to the ag-
gressions which the Catholic Church was making in the
district of the Upper Rhine. The conduct which had
been pursued in this country under the authority of the
Pope, totally destroyed the securities contained in the
Bill of 1829. He felt confident that unless something
was done to strengthen the Bill the Protestant people of
this country would be disgusted, for the Bill, as it stood,
was quite inefficient for the end it was intended to •ac-
complish.—(Hear.) He, therefore, hoped the House
would consent to the addition of the clause he had
proposed.
Sir GEORGE GREY, after observing that the clause
proposed was somewhat similar in its character to the
one which had been moved by the Hon. Member for
Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), said that there was, however,
this important difference, that the proposal of the Hon.
Member for Midhurst could have been carried into effect,
but it was quite clear that the amendment now proposed
could not be of any utility. In the amendment of the
Honourable Member for Midhurst measures were pro-
vided for keeping a party out of the country when once
he was sent away. But for that purpose the proposed
clause was quits inoperative. In point of fact, a party
removed under this clause might return, and they
would therefore have to begin de novo. He regretted
that the Hon. Member (Mr. Miles) had thought it ne-
cessary to propose the present clause, atter the discus-
sion which had taken place on the clause of the Hon.
Member for Midhurst. Ho hoped, however, the Hon.
Member would not insist upon the clause.
There being loud cries for a division, strangers were
ordered to withdraw, when the House divided, and the
numbers were—
For the clam
Against it

101
140

Majority against the clause... —39
Mr. KEOGH then moved the addition of a clause to
the following effect :—" That nothing herein con-
tained shall be constructed to annul, repeal, or in any
manner afract any provision contained in an Act passed
in the eighth year of the reign of her present Majesty,
intituled An Act for the mo,e effectual application of
Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ryland,' or to
render illegal or void any disposition of property by will
or otherwise already ,made, which, but for the passing of
this Act, would have been legal and valid."
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no objection to the
addition of the first portion of the proposed clause, stop-
ping at the word "Ireland," and leaving cut all the
words that followed.
With this alteration the clause was agreed to, and Was
ordered to stand part of the
Mr. KEOGH then proposed the addition of the fol-
lowing clause ;—', That nothing herein contained 61411 ,

m any manner prevent the reception in evidence, in any
court of law or edeity in this kingdom, of any letter of
ordination or other document conferring ecclesiastical
powers upon any clergyman of the Human Catholic
Church, which, but fur the passing of this Act, would
have been so received."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause,
and said he thought the House should not adopt any
clause which would sanction any title assumed against
the provisions of the present Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared
Fur the clause... ... ..• ... 45
Against it ... , 220
Majority ...
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. KEOGH addressing the House. lie felt the
greatest surprise at the course pursued by the Noble
Lord with reference to the next clause he had on the
paper. He had spoken to the Attorney-General and the
Solicitor-General, who had both received him with the
greatest courtesy, and intimated their approval of that
clause, and he was distinctly given to understand that it
would receive the support of the Government. Not five
minutes since the secretary of the Treasury had told
him to be brief, for the Government would support him,
and the Noble Lord would keep his men for that purpose
if he did not speak too long—(Laughter)—aied now the
Noble Lord told him that he would not support it.—
(Hear.) Of all the rapid changes that had taken place in
the progress of this Bill, and there had-been many, this
was the most rapid and the most unaccountable. In
one breath he was told that he should receive the support
of the Government—in the next the Noble Lord turned
round and said he did not consider himself bound by any-
thing that had passed.—(gear,) He would, however,
propose the clause, though no doubt frpm this change of
intention, he would be beaten, but he begged Honourable
Members to recollect that a few minntes ago it had all
the strength of the Government in its support.—(Hear,
hear.) What he proposed by that clause was, " That
no proceedings shall be taken under this Act save and
except by her Majesty's Attorney-General for the time
being in England and Ireland, and by the Lord Advo-
cate in Scotland." He need not at any leegth detain
the House by stating the obvious reasons why such a
clause should be passed. If it were rejected, the Catholic
archbishops and bishops of Ireland would be placed at
the mercy of persons who, from sectarian and personal
motives, would be too happy to cause them annoyance
and injury. Bigots and fanatics might institute pro-
ceedings under the Act, and he asked it it was desirable
that the vindication of the prerogatives of the Crown
should be left to such persons? Was it not better that
it should be entrusted to the first law officers of the
Crown, acting under the sanction of Parliament? He
believed it was for the interest of the country that this
should be the case, and therefore he should certainly
divide the House on the clause, which he now begged to
propose.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had alluded to him, he would state in a few
words the course he had taken, and the course he in-
tended to take with respect to this clause. When he
came into the House he had not the slightest intention
of agreeing to it; but without having paid much or par-
ticular attention to it, he meant to oppose it. Some of
his Right Hon. Friends around him thought, however,
that as the clause would have the effect intended by the
Bill, namely, that no action should be brought except by
the Attorney-General, that it might be introduced, if with
no positive advantage, at all events without much injury,
to the Bill. At first, on that statement, he thought that it
might be so introduced, but upon reconsideration of the
subject, he came to the conclusion that it was beat not to
introduce any clause into the Bill which had not been
fully and maturely considered, and agreed to by the
Government. With respect to the first clause of the
Bill, no penalty could be proceeded for under it; and in
the second clause, which specified the penalty, it was
stated that no prosecution could be instituted, except by
the Attorney-General. That was the law as laid down
in the Act of 1829, and they had preserved that law in
this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) There could be no fines under
the first clause, and under the sscond there could be no
prosecution except by the authority of the Crown. He
thought, therefore, the amendment was wholly unneces-
sary, and that it would be far safer to leave the Bill as it
was.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS was of opinion that the arguments
adduced by the Noble Lord fur opposing the clause were
in its favour. If there was any doubt as to whether
prosecutions could be instituted under the first clause,
the amendment would put an end to those doubts, and if
it was the intention of the Bill that no prosecution should
be instituted, except by the authority of the Crown,
where could be the harm of introducing this clause?
Why should there be any doubt left on a question of so
much importance as whetherßoman Catholic archbishops
and bishops could be sued for penalties by common
informers, or if not for penalties, at least for misdemea-
nours? There were plenty of such persons in Ireland
who would take a pleasure in doing so. He had bad
some experience of them himself. When he was
Lord Mayor of Dublin, in last year, a doubt was ex-
pressed as to the legality of his election, and there
were penalties attached to certain acts if per-
formed by him without due authority. Informations
were laid against him by a society in Dublin, called the
Priests' Protection Society, composed of ultra-Protes-
tants, and he was served with 210 latitats—(Laughter)
—each of them for the recovery of 501. penalty.
He was put to an enormous expense in defending him-
self. Now he wanted to know from the Noble Lord if
he was prepared to place Dr. Murray, the Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, anti the other Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops of Ireland, at the mercy of common
informers? If so, there would be actions against them
without number. He trusted the Noble Lord would yet
consider the clause which bad been proposed by his
Hon. and Learned Friend, and which would place the
power distinctly in the hands of the first law officer of
the Crown.
Mr. H. GRATTAN asked if the Noble Lord was aware
the feeling that was new raging in Ireland, where mobs of
had already broken into chapels and violated Roman
Catholic altars? As an instance of the extreme feeling
which Protestants could display, he might state that in
a certain town in the north of Ireland a Roman Catholic
priest had been sentenced by the magistrates to be
stripped and publicly flogged in the streets; and, had it
not been for Lord Plunkett, the then Attorney-General
for Ireland, the streets would have been reddened with
bis blood. He should like to know how Protestants
would think of the Bishop of Exeter or the Archbishop
of Canterbury, being flogged in the streets of Dublin.—
(Cheers.) He protested against the conduct of the Mi-
nistry in this matter, which, if not an intentional error,
was certainly a political blunder.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think it a fit course to in-
flict on the House a legal argument, more especially as,
on a former occasion, he had expressed very fully the
opinion which ho still entertained with respect to the
legal scope and bearing of the Bill. He stated then,
and he repeated now, the opinion that the offence against
which the first clause was directed was, by that clause,
an indictable offence. He did not, however, as he had
said, wish to inflict a legal argument upon the House
now, bat if there was any doubt upon the subject by the
construction of the law of 1829, there was none what-
ever by the present Bill. The first clause was not only
a declaratory, but an enacting clause.—(Hear, hear.) It
declared the brief in question illegal and void, and that
being so, removed any doubt as to an indictment lying
against any infraction of the clause. But, in fact, all
doubt on the question had been removed by the answer
of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the question
which he (Sir J. Graham) put to him, and which, as be
understood the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, was to the
effect that all similar briefs would fall under the operation
of the declaration in the Act. Now similar briefs would
be required for the appointment of all Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops in Ireland; and, by the first
clause, all of these briefs would be declared illegal and
void. If that was the legal effect of the clause, then it
was obvious that any person whatever in Ireland
might, animated by a vindictive feeling—without the
sanction of the Government, contrary to its feelings and
wishes—have the power to prefer an indictment to
the grand jury. If they found a true bill the parties
indicted would have to take their trials before petty
juries, the majority of whom might be Protestants, and
quite ready to convict of misdemeanour.—(Hear, hear.)
It was necessary to put a step to such proceedings for
the purpose of preserving the power of the law officers
of the Crown, and for the sake of the peace and good go-
vernment of Ireland, the adoption of the clause proposed
by the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone was im-
peratively necessary. If it was rejected now that this
open protest had been made, great and serious would be
the responsibility of those who resisted that amendment.
—(Great cheering from the Irish Members, and cries of
" Divide.")
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said surely her Majesty's
Government were not going to let that speech go un-
answered.—(Hear, hear.) If the Roman Catholics of
Ireland were to be strangled, let them not be strangled
by mutes..—(Cheers.)
Mr. LAWLESS said the Government would not have
dared to treat en English Member in the way they had
treated his Hon. and Learned Friend on this clause. He
would take that opportunity of warning the Government
that their conduct should be remembered at some future
did not authorise any person to say that ho haonaLearned
Lord J. RUSSELL could assure the House
wouldthat
nothe
oppose the clause proposed by thee eH
the Hon. and
Gentleman. The next point he wished
with regard to the speech of his Rig cloto. explain
twhaast,
Right Hon. Friend the
thatu it was his f
Member for Ripon. il easmhoeunlddmseanyt
in-
tention to oppose the
Learned Gentlem
being so, he did not think thstitw at
should be at liberty top ated
an the ;Member forus Ahainligedoonui.eamndl
by the Bill that any person.
eers of the
Crown.
pre-
fer an indictment under it except the law offl
resPeetiti'fahviosucilab_e' to it.
KEOGH thought it now necessary to inform the
ral
House, that he had had, a communication with the At-
d themselvesclause,
and
and it was eaid that he was
They had communicated with the Secretary of State for
of Stioielimeiteoxr-ptereesnsee
tt
°ll rant P both tahn
talso in favour of the clause, and after that he (Mr.
Keogh) had no opportunity of communicating with
he Home Department,
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord retired into the
House. Now in addition to that, it had been stated to
him by the Secretary for the Treasury (although the
Noble Lord might not now ticknowledge it) that if he
would not ray touch to the House in reference to his
proposed clause that he would keep a House
to support
it.—(Order, order.) Now these were statements which
the House ought to hear. He considered that the ada lo
matter Irons the communication thus made to him was
settled, and in consequence of that, and understanding
that the Noble Lord had h d
aut mese
the
communication
he had told his friends that the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) and his men would not oppose the clause, and
now he hoped the Noble Lord would allow his men to
support it.
Sir G. GREY said that with respect to him, the Hon.
and Learned Member must be mistaken, for be had
given no such authority as the Hon. and Learned Mem-

- -175

her had referred to. It had been submitted to him whe-
ther there was any objection to the clause, and he said
he had an objection to it, and that he thought it was
not necessary.
Mr. SCULLY thought so far as the Noble Lord
(Lord John Russell) was concerned, the explanation
was satisfactory, but he hoped that the necretary to the
Treasury (Mr. Hayter) would give some explanation to
the House on the subject,—(Hear, hear, and cries of
"Order and Question.")
Mr. HAYTER had no hesitation in saying that he
had a communication with the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Athlone (Ur. Keogh), but that conversation
was of a very different nature to that which had been
now related to the House by the Hon. end Learned
Member. The communication was not an authorised
one.--(Hear, hear, interruption, and cries of " Order.")
It was not—it had not—been stated to him, beyond
the mere expression, that he understood—" Name,
name," " Spoke," and cries of " Order." He certainly
admitted that he had stated that he would request Hon.
Members to remain in the House, in order that they
might bo in their places if necessary. The Hon. and
Learned Member had said that he had stated that be
had had a communication with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary of State for the HOMO Department
—[ Mr. KEOGII—I did not say 60.3—And that it was made
in a confidential manner. The communication was not
one made by him from the Member's of Government. He
was stating to the Honourable and Learned Member that
he understood (he did not say from whom he under-
stood) there was no objection made to his clause—
(" Name, name")—and he stated, . moreover, as he
had already said, that he would request Honourable
Members to remain in the House, so that a fair division
might take place. He had never, he repeated, stated to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman a communication on
the subject from the Noble Lord or Sir George Grey.
The statement was made in the conversational and con-
fidential tone which were uniformly adopted and re-
spected between Members of the House.—((sear hear
Question, question, and cries of " Divide.") , ,
Mr. KEOGH rose to explain, amidst renewed cries
of " Order, order, Spoke, spoke." He hoped the Hun.
Member (Mr. Hayter) would remain in his place, which
be saw he was about leaving. That which the Hon.
Gentleman said was a confidential communication, he
begged leave to tell him was not so.—(Hear, hear, and
Order.)
The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Member's
remarks were not explanations, but a reply.
Mr. H. GRATTAN thought that the Hon. and
Learned Member ought to be heard.
Mr. MOORE, amidst the general excitement, moved
the adjournment of the House, and evoked cries of
" Order, order," " Go on, go on."
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, reo doubt, wished to explain, but as he (Lord J.
Russell) thought, more than was said.
Mr. KEOGH did not wish to trespass on the House
unnecessarily. He was now in order, and the Hon. Gen-
tleman had distinctly admitted that every statement of
his (Mr. Keogh's) was correct, entirely correct, and that
he had said he would keep his party in the House.
Well, now, he would mention what he did not state
before. The Hon. Member said that the Hon. Member
for Abingdon would not press his motion in opposition
to his (Mr. Keogh's). Well, now, what did the Hon.
Gentleman mean by saying that the communication was
a Confidential one?—(Bear, hear, and cries of " Spoke,
spoke.") If he thought it a confidential communication,
why did. he say that the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government would not oppose the clause, if he (Mr.
Keogb) would limit his observations?—(Excitement,
cries or " Hear, hear," " Order, order, and " Spoke
spoke.") Well, then, how did it become the Noble Lord
now to come down and repudiate the statement of the
lion. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury?—(Re-
newed excitement, and cries of " Order.")
Sir F. 'TB.ESIGER assured the House that, as far as
ho was concerned, he had not the slightest communica-
tion wits any Hun. Gentleman, and he wished that the
matter would he au understood.
MrsiSrUART WORTLEY hoped that the House
would no do more than was on the face of the clause.
The prol need object was, that there should be no in-
dictment by the powers of the Act of Parliament. For
his own part, he had not the slightest doubt that the
meaning of the clause was that no proceedings should be
taken; and if the Archbishop of Westminster should
not choose to comply with the law, why, then, under
this &twee no proceedings could be taken, and in that
case, according to the Eon. and Learned Gentleman's
clause, he would say that no indictment or proceeding
should be taken.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KEOGH was quite willing to adopt the form in
the clause which the Hon. and Learned Recorder's re-
marks suggested, namely, that no indictment or Crown
proceedings should be taken under the Act of Parlia-
ment, unLess with the greatest caution.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, Hon. Members
calling letully for a division, and the galleries were
speedily cleared, when there appeared—
For Mr. Keogh's clause ... 71
Against it ... ..• ..„ 232
Majority against ••• --161
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved the following clause:—
"That nothing herein contained shall be construed to
repeal or affect an Act passed in the tenth year of
the reign of her present Majesty, intituled "An
Act for the maintenance of the cemeteries at Golden
Bridge and Prospect, in the county of Dublin, and to
create a perpetual succession in the governing body
or committee for managing the same." He consi-
dered it of great importance that such a clause should
be adopted. There were two cemeteries in Dublin,
which were established under Act of Parliament, and e_
had existed for a period of twenty years; but under the
provisions of this Bill, Archbishop Murry, of Dublin,
who bad now the privilege of licensing Roman Catholic
clergymen to officiate in the administration of the rites
of the Catholic Church in cases of interment, would no
longer be free to do so. He should like to hear the
opinion of the Attorney-General on the matter.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for England could
say with perfect sincerity that nothing could be more
opposed to his feelings than that the provisions of the
Bill should in any way interfere with the Act of Parlia-
ment to which the Hon. Member for the city of Dublin
referred. It was not intended by the Bill to interfere
with any private Act of Parliament, and he saw no rea-
son, therefore, for the introduction of such a clause as
that proposed by the Hon. Member.
Mr. REYNOLDS expressed his surprise that the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman could have so exp. essed him-
self, and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman gave
it as his opinion that the Dublin Cemeteries Act was a
" private" Act of Parliament, his belief was that the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman could not have read the
Act. The Hon. Member then read the 27th section of
the Act, showing that it was a public and not a private
At t.

Sir F. TIIESIGER said his Honourable and Learned
Friend the Attorney-General was perfectly correct In
what he stated. There was a distinction between public
and private Acts of Parliament. The recital of an Act
did not make it either of a private or public nature; and
the Dublin Cemetery Act was a local Act, and when Dr.
Murray was mentioned in that Act, as Archbishop of
Dublin, it did not make him any the more Archbishop
of Dublin. The Bill could not in the slightest degree
affect the Cemeteries Act, and the Hon. Gentleman's
clause was not, therefore, necessary.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed the clause.
After which the Committee divided, when there
appeared—
For the clause

... 32

__-
Against it. ••• •• ••• ••• 150
Majority against the clause •••--118
Sir F. THESIGEB, then rose to propose the follow-
ng amendments, but as soon as ho had done so the
Irish Roman Catholic Members rose, and lett the House
in a body, amid loud cries of " Hear, hear:”—
"In tee preamble, lines 5 and 6, instead of the words,
'by a certain brief, rescript,' to insert the words, ' by
certain briefs, rescripts.'
" Line 6, after the word Rome,' insert the words
and particularly by a certain brief; rescript, or letters
apoetolical.'
sai'
d Cbriaieuts,erels'crpiapgte,' 2insleinrte t2hle,
scripts.'
" Clause 2, page 2, line 25, after the word' act,' in.
words
nnsrtdesa
aolfl tahnechw
briefs,ords' thee-
ps errntn
procured
wt,ronrnid s
t, ahe Bnyi s
npneprsnornssehealnlfobßtnamine.onrrcsahuasell tpoubbe.
lish or put in use within any part of the United King-
dom, any such bull, brief, rescript, or letters apostolical,
purpose of
nonr
bishops of such nant iyt uotti hn
egr
pre-
tended provieces, sees, or dioceses, within the United
Kingdom, or if.'
sinrinshtrunmreehnbtisohrnwp:intirng for the
" Clause 2, page 2, line 39, after the word ' thereof,'
to add the words ' or by action of debt at the suit of any
person in one of h( her her Majesty's superior courts of law.
Majesty's Attorney-General in
her Majesty's Advocate in Scot-
lwa
ni with the
Englandaths e t
andch oe consent
es
ale
rsneetl
maon.ady,nbre
tsuanither a the
treasure magn
Should
could not but express his own feeling of disappoints,
mheantt
aninninoludshoapvineibonnesn boftrhneugNhotbflnerwLaorrdd.
i,
If it were not too serious a matter, he should say that t
was perfectly ridiculous., after the Protestant feeling of
the country had been stirred to the foundation, after the
nation being excited from one end to the other, that all
this should have ended in the dish served up by the
Noble Lord. He believed that bad the Noble Lord
been permitted, unchecked and uncontroled, to pursue
his oar course, to act upon his own feelings and wishes,
the measure would have been of a very different nature.
But unhappily the Noble Lord lost an opportunity of
establishing a reputation which would have lasted so long
as the history of England endured; but at the solicita-
tion of others he let " I dare not wait on I would."
They were at all events indebted to him for the decla-
ration he made, and as far as language was concerned
he did all that was necessary. The Noble Lord also
stated, in introducing the Bill, his intention to be to
make the law uniform in the United Kingdom; he over
and over again expressed that intention, and on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, he ridiculed
the idea of allowing a rescript which would be illegal in
England to be legal in Ireland. The Noble Lord, in
express and positive terms, made no possible distinction
between the two countries, and he would beg the House
to bear with him for a moment while he showed that
he would have been perfectly justified in adopting such
a course. There could be nu d,iubt whatever
that the Act of Richard the Second was made to
apply to Ireland; by Poyning's law of Henry the
Seventh, and in the reign of James the First, an Irish
priest named Labor was indicted and convicted under
that statute. By various Acts passed in the reigns of
William and Mary, and in that of Anne, the law was
made more stringent in Ireland than it was in England,
for it banished all Roman Catholic ecclesiastics found in
the country. The operation of these Acts continued
until 1752, when an Act was passed which mitigated the
penalties, but contained the remarkable clause, excepting
all Who assumed any ecclesiastical title whatever, and
that exception was never repealed. In 1793 another Act
was pasted for the relief of Roman Catholics, but left