The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

THE SUN,

refusal on the part of the Committee to
adopt the very mode rate proposal then under their
cOadderatiou would indicate a determination on their
parts not to listen to reason or argument upon that sub-
ject; and he could not help feeling that the result of
such a course would be to alienate the affactious of one-
third of her Majesty's subjects, while the Legislature
;would ultimately be compelled ignominiously to retrace
its steps in the matter.
Air. J. O'CONNELL denied the right of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) to
express an opinion on the condition of the Roman
Catholic Church in Rome, because the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in the book he had published had put forward
no other views upon that subject than those which were
already to be found iu works written by persons noto-
riously hostile to the Roman Catholic religion. He
(&lr. J. O'Connell) contended that the tendency of the
,actsl4 which had been quoted in the course of that discus-
-011 hs d not been directed against the exercise of
spiritual jurisdiction, but had been meant solely to pro•
sent encroachments on the temporal power of the State.
Re believed that if the words which it was proposed
should be omitted in that case were retained, the Latbolic
41, equests Act would become a total nullity. England
jest summoned the nations of the earth t,) admire
tter progress in the arts of civilization, and the many
gs
in which Providence had showered down upon
Ler; and she ought not at such a moment to afford those
nations the miserable spectacle of a return to the most
°h:leotionable practices of what the lion. and Learned
Gentleman the Solicitor-General had characterised as
the wont times of barbarism and intolerance.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Yor the amendment 38
.Against it ... 107
Alejority against the amendment ...-69
s, CRAWFORD, who had notice of an aroend-
teent eat the paper to exclude Ireland from the operation
Of the Bill, intimated that, instead of moving it on this
Clause, tie should bring it forward as a separate clause
When a is was di,posed of.
Sir B. WILLOUGHBY then moved, as an amend-
Meat on. the second clause, the insertion of words making
illeged for any person'hereafter to obtain or cause to
be procured from the Bishop or See of Rome, or publish
or put in use within any part of the United Kingdom,
any bull, brief; roscript, letters apostolical, or any other
hstrutaent or writing for the purpose of creating an
hierarchy of bishops, named from any province or see,
and with titles derived from places belonging to the
Crown 'of the United Kingdom.
Lord. J. RUSSELL said that the original amendment
of Mr. Walpole was framed similarly to this, and he
should oppose it, as going beyond the intention of the
10th Gel°. IV.— the Catholic Relief Act. It created an
additie sal offence, and that an offence which would be
exceedisegly diffieult of prosecution.
Sir F. THESIGER supported the amendment. The
Noble Lord had stated in pis famous letter that " there
is an re ioumption of power in all the documents which
have cc sae from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over
the realm of England. end a claim to sole and undivided
sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy,
With the: rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the
Opirittoal indepenclondence of the nation, as asserted even
In Row tin Catholic times." That WAS the course of le-
gislatio r. which the Noble Lord bad originally pointed
Out; bu:t certainly nothing could exceed the disappoint-
ment of those whose expectations were raised by that
letter when they saw the Noble Lord's Bill.—(Hear,
hear, ac d a laugh.) True, the Bill had, to a certain
degree, , been amended and strengthened by adopting
the surgestion of Mr. Walpole; but by adopting those
sliggesO ons and leaving the Bill in its present
state, :it was in the most inconsistent condition
that co t.ld possibly be imagined, because the Noble
Lord h aving all along declared that his intention
Was that his legislation should be uniform for every part
of the kingdom, and that he meant to apply the same
law to Itveland that he applied to other parts of the
United Kingdom, the shape in which the Bill now stood
was thhe The preamble referred only to a particular
rescript, which was applicable to England, and the de-
claratory enactment referred to the same part of the
United Kingdom, and to the rescript which had been
introduced here; yet the Noble Lord opposed the amend-
bent of Sir IL Willoughby, the effect of which was to
declare illegal, and to subject to a penalty, any similar
bulls, rescripts, or letters apostolical which should
hereafter be introduced into any part of the United
liiegdout. It had been repeatedly stated that the only
reason why the law hod not been put he force against
the aggression of the Papacy, and why the parties who
bad been instrumental in forwarding it had not been pus
Wished, was, that the law was in an obsolete state, and it
Would not do to awaken it from its slumbers in the sta-
tute-book, and to bring it into operation suddenly against
the parties who had broken it. But what did the
Noble Lord do if he left his Bill in its present conditioe?
The statutes of Richard H. and Elizabeth, they
were told, were existing laws, and now in operation, but
laws not to be brought in force as applicable to this par-
ticular subject, in consequence of some supposed hard-
ship that would arise from reviving these dormant sta-
tutes, and bringing them into use in the present day.
Well, but were they to be brought into ute at any future
day? What was the intention? Were they to remain,
as before, dead letters upon the statute-book, or. were
they to be applicable to any encroachment of a :outlier
character which might hereafter bo attempted against
this country?--(Hear, hear.) Surely the better plan
would be, if it were the intention of the Noble Lord and
his Government that any similar rescripts introduced
into this country should be subjected to the penal toe,:-
miens of the Bill, not to do it indirectly, but upon the
face of the Bill itself to declare that intention, and ex-
pressly to provide against any possibility of supposing
that there was no law which could be applied to this
particular encroachment, and by adopting the amend-
ment to declare that any similar rescripts introduced
into the United Kingdom should be subjected to the
penalty provideel by the Bill.—(Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said ho saw no sub-
stantial difference between the present amendment and
that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurat
(Mr. Walpole). The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then repeated the arguments against the amendment,
which he had urged against the proposal of Mr. Wal-
pole, and contendd that the Bill would be a consistent
and uniform Bill without it. The object and scope of
the Bill was to prevent the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles, and the clause as it stood struck at that assump-
tion; but the promoters of the amendment said it was
necessary to go further, to do something more—in fact,
to go beyond the object of the Bill, and prevent the in-
troduction of bulls for the creation of ecclesiastical
titles. But it was useless to declare offences and enact
penalties unless they could carry their law into effect.
Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman believe they could
ever convict anybody of obtaining, or causing to be pro-
cured, a bull, brief, or rescript? What possible proof
could they have of it? Did he suppose that the com-
munications which took place between the Sovereign
Pontiff and his agents in this country would be so open
and avowed that he would be able to carry out that part
of the clause if it were adopted and made law ? Besides,
if the amendment were agreed to, they would be split-
ting up one transaction into two, and be visiting it with
a two-fold penalty, and thus, in fact, would go beyond
the intention of the Act of 10th George IV.
Mr. FRESFIFIELD said there might be two offences
committed—the one being the assumption of the title,
the other the procuring a bull, which might or might
not be put in force by the same individual. These Acts
would, therefore, be properly punished as two offences.
It might happen that a person negotiated to obtain a
bull and brine it to this country, and yet did not succeed
in putting it in force. But his doing so ought to be
punished nevertheless. In his opinion they were two
distinct offences, and should be so punished.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, and can-
tended that the Attorney-General was not warranted in
saying that it was the same as that of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhuret. It was essentially dif-
ferent— it made the Bill prospective; whilst, if they left
it to stand in its present shape, no man could say that it
might not he retrospective in its effects.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the two
things against which the Bill was aim©d was the assump-
tion of territorial titles, and the offensive character of
the rescript of the Pope, claiming over this country a
jurisdiction which had not been attempted to bo enforced
by the Pope for the last 300 years. The Bill dealt with
these by the first clause, which declared the assumption
of those titles illegal; and by the second clause, which
imposed a penalty. The amendment would introduce a
new penalty,—viz., that for procuring the introduction of
bulls into this country. It would thus go beyond the
Act of 1829, which he thought not to be advisable.
Mr. J. STUART said the difference between the
clause and the amendment was that the former only
punished those who assumed an episcopal title, whereas
the amendment applied to those who might procure
authority to use those titles. lie should vote for tho
amendment.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the introduction -of
bulls was still an offence against law, and punishable as
such, the Legislature in 1846 having only repealed the
penaltier. Instead of thus running counter to so recent
a decision of Parliament by the introduction of certain
words in a clause, lot the Hon. Member, if he wished to
deal with the matter, take up the whole subject of those
ancient Acts and their penalties.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Bill was merely retrospec-
tive, as applying only to the rescript of September last.
The amendment was prospective, making the penalty co-
extensive with every aggression which might hereafter
be made.
Sir G. GREY denied that it was only retrospective; it
would apply to every territorial title that might hereafter
be derived from Rome.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... a. 129
Against it ... 133
Majority ~-4
Colonel SIBTHORP moved an amendment in line
37, after the words " pay the sum of " instead of 100/.
to insert 5001. He said he had a better opinion of the
Pope then of the Noble Lord.—(Laughter and cheers.)
If he had been the Pope he would have done the same
thing—(Laughter)--fur the Noble Lord had invited the
Pope to come here; but if the Popo did come, be hoped
he would not visit the Noble Lord in Downing-street.
lie thought the conduct of the Noble Lord had been in-
sulting to Ireland.—(Cheers from Irish Members.)
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For ••• ••• 63
Against 199
Majority —136
Mr. O'FLAHERTY asked'the Chairman whether, on
voting on the question of 5001., there would bo a second
voting on that of 100/.? Ho complained that he had
been interfered with by a Noble Lord on asking the
question.
Lard M. BILL said he had heard the Chairman clear
the House, and he asked a group of gentiemen to go
into the lobby. One of them said he interfered with
his asking a question of the Chairman, and he said ho
bad nothing more to say on the subject.
After a few words from slr. DISRAELI,

Sir F. TRESIGER rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice.
Mr. REYNOLDS rose to order. He asked the Chair-
man whether it was competent for the Hon. Member to
put the merriment?
Mr. BERNAL decided in the affirmative.
Sir F. TLIESIGER did not anticipate much objection
to his proposition, it was of so reasonable a character.
Tho clause proposed to leave the recovery of penalties
to the Act 10 George IV.; that was to say by informa-
tion. The Hon. Member for Midhurst desired to re-
cover the penalty by means of an informer; but a diffe-
rence of opinion prevailed upon the subject. some think-
ing to leave the recovery to the Attorney-General would
be illusory, and the provision a dead letter; while others
thought if it were left to an informer it would give rise to
great vexation, and leave a great opening to fraud end
collusioe. lie (Sir F. Tbesiger) felt there was weight
in both objections; and therefore he :suggested a middle
course—leaving to the Attorney-General the eight under
Act 10 Geo. IV., but giving au informer the power to in-
stitute a suit under the control of the Attorney-General.
It wes one thing to institute a suit, and another to con-
trol it. In his proposition, the Attorney-General and
the informer would be a mutual check on each other.
For if the Attorney-General was slack, and the informer
respectable, it would be impossible, for the Attorney-
General to refuse it. The advantage of his proposition
was, that it still left the responsibility to the Attorney-
General. The Right Hon. Member for Longford had
stated that it was understood that the law of 1829,as re-
garded the provision in question, should not be carried
into effect. The law, nevertheless, was the same in Ire-
land as in England; and yet the Attorney-General bed
not prosecuted those persons who had assumed territo-
rial titles. This is was which had led to all the present
difficulty, and with that experience before them, the
Committee could not hesitate to adopt the amendment.
Be agreed that nothing was worse than to pass penal
laws and not to enforee them. This amendment he (Sir
Frederick Thesiger) proposed as a test of the sincerity
of the Government in the case of the penalty. Tho Hon.
and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving, "In
clause 2, line 39, after the word thereof,' to add these
words, ' or by action of debt at the snit of any person in
one of her Majesty's superior courts of law, with the
consent of her Majesty 'e Attorney-General in England
and Ireland, or the Lord Advocate in Scotland, as the
case may be.' "
The MASTER of the ROLLS said there wore many
statut©s which enabled actions to be brought by private
individuals with the sanction of the Attorney-General;
but there were no cases which required greater attention
on his part; and.he would venture to say, from the expe-
-1 rience he had had of that office, that the adoption of such
a clause would be far from having the effect which it was
intended to have. It would, in point of fact, induce the
Attorney-General to shift from his own shoulders to
those of others the responsibility of bringing such ac-
tions. It was the usual course with an Attorney-General
not to allow any action to be brought without prima
facie evidence being laid before him to support such ac-
tion. If he were convinced of the propriety of an action
being brought, it was his duty to bring it himself. He
should also require of the person bringing the action to
enter into a bond as a security for the costs, if the action
went against him. Whereas, if the action was brought
by the Attorney-General, ho would be under no such
liability to pay the costs. The effect of putting such re-
strictions upon the regular course of proceeding would
be to make the Act a dead letter.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that the observatioes which
had fallen from the Master of the Rolls were the most
convincing proofs that the amendment ought to be
adopted. No objections could bo raised against the
amendment, except the possibility of its becoming a
dead letter. Ho said the offence being notorious it was
necessary to provide against the law officers of the
Crown neglecting their duty in protactieg the nation
from a wrong done to it. The law in this respect, in-
volved in the Emancipation Act, did become a dead let •
ter.—(Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that there
was no law to prevent a Roman Catholic becoming At-
torney-General. They should not, therefore, put him
in a position in which his feelings would ceetlict with
his duty. But by giving the subject the power of put-
ting the law in motion, they would save him from the
painful position in which he would be placed. tipon
this amendment he (Mr. Walpole) was disposed to stand
firm, and unless the Government acceded to the propo-
sition of his Hon. and Learned Friend an ampression
would he induced that the Government did not really
intend to enforce the law in support of the dignity of
the Crown and to resent the insult to the nation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it appeared to
him that the course proposed by the supporters of the
amendment was a most objectionable one. They were
not dealing with cases in which they would be compelled
to rely upon the scrutinising eye of an informer, but
they were dealing with an offence which was committed
before the eyes of the world. It would be but degrading
the motives for an action of this sort if they were to give
power to the informer to originate the proceedings. The
prosecution should be a Government one, and based
upon the proper grounds. It would also degrade the
office of the Attorney-General if it were brought in con-
tact with a common informer. If the Attorney-General
were satisfied there were good grounds for bringing the
action it would be his own duty to institute the prosecu-
tion; and if he did not do his duty, the House would
compel him to take the proper course. In the case of a
Roman Catholic Attorney-General, if he so far forgot
his duty in not instituting a prosecution when it was ne-
cessary for him to do so, he would be equally- capable of
negfccunp.:, nib duo., the informer_ from
proceeding. If they thought the Attorney-General in-
capable of discharging his duty, why then, in heaven's
name, invest the power in the hands of some person else.

Mr. DISRAELI did not think that the circumstances
to which the amendment referred were petty. They
would be circumstances of considerable notoriety and
interest. Ho thought it highly desirable that the ma-
jesty of the law should be vindicated by the Attorney-
General alone. But how stood the facts? Had that
high and learned functionary been entrusted with this
duty, and had he done that which the country had ex-
pected from him?—(Hear, hear.) It was, unfortunately,
a matter of historical record that the Attorney-General
had not accomplished that which the Legislature had an-
ticipated that he would have fulfilled.—(Hear, hear.)
With that experience, then, they were called upon to
deal with the circumstances before them. And how had
they dealt with them? The Hon. and Learned Member
for Midhurst had already made a proposition upon this
subject. He (Mr. Disraeli) had felt it his duty to ex-
press his objections to the course ho then recommended
the Howe to adopt. But, at the same time, while alive
to that objection, he could not be blind to the fact that
the At • ney-General had eignagy failed in the discharge
of those duties with which he had been entrusted. The
objections made by the Master of the Rolls and the Attor-
ney-General were in effa:t that they sought by
this proposition to exercise a control over the Attor-
ney-General. That was their objection, theoretically
they desired that the Attorney-General should not
be controlled in the fulfilment of those duties which
they believed it to be his duty to discharge.—(Hear,
bear.) But practically they knew that the Attorney-
General under such circumstances bed slumbered at his
post. They therefore desired that he should do his
duty in a manner that would not incur public odium or
dis:epute. Under these circumstances he felt it his duty
to support the amendment of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Abingdon. He had already expressed his
objections to the main construction of the Bill. He
thought diet they had made a great mistake in the basis
of their legislation upon this subject being penal. He
did not change his opinion on that point, though he
would nut presume to introduce it into the present dis-
cussion. But the House having resolved by largo ma-
jorities that they would meet this imminent danger and
Papal aggression by penal legislation, it became their
duty to make it efficient, and not only efficient, but as
far as possible conducive to the national honour and to
the national credit.—(Cheers.)
Mr. EETHELL agreed with the last Hon. Gentleman
that they ought nut to encourage a petty piece of legis-
lation, and in that spirit he would oppose the amend-
ment of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
Member for Abingdon ; for anything more petty,
more at variance with the principles of their law,
than to commit the punishment of an offence under
the present Bill to a common informer he could riot
conceive. Ho defied any person to produce a precedent
to show that a great national offence, liable to a penalty
of this sort, was left to the prosecution of an informer.
The offence was one of great notoriety, of great publi-
city. What a as that House? Was it not the Grand
Inquisition of the nation, armed with the authority to
see that the persons who were entrusted with the execu-
tion of the laws had performed their duty? tend when
they were told by the Hen. Gentleman that wo ought
to resort to the means of legislation, because the Attor-
ney-General hod been found sleeping at his post, ho
would ask, where was the House of Commons during
that slumber?—(Hear, hear.) lied they not partici-
pated in his neglect?—and by this course which they
now proposed to take did they not show that they were
afraid that they would be parties in any proceeding
whidla the Attorney-General should (Alginate? Accord-
ing to thelanguage of this clause, the information was
not to be brought. forward in the shape of a public action;
but it was to be in the nature of a private action. Now,
what could be more petty? The action was to recover
too/. as a debt due to the plaintiff; and this great
national offence—the vindication of their national inde-
pendence against a
public affront given to them before
the eyes of all Europe—was to resolve itself into a pe-
nalty which was to be exacted by a private individual,
who was to ask the consent of the Attorney-General to
rputrecommended
this 1001.
by R
i nhisobp.OmekeemabeArsnodppthosaittew,absectahnesce rsefor-
sooth, they felt they should not enter into a course of
petty penal legislation.—(Hear, hear.) Observe the
danger of collusion by this proceeding. If the Attorney-
General was soporific, and that a private individual came
forward to discharge his duty, the moment he obtained
the consent of the Attorney-General he might show him-
self to be a party not desirous of vindicating the law, rind
might collude with the defendant, and the whole of the
cl sine anl the proceeding under it would be utterly
bafll,_ d. They would have no control over the actions
und,irsu haeir cumesatnas o
n cef evasion
by the of-
s, which actions might
madebe
eought
a shield and m
tender, who would be enabled to sin against the law
with impunity. That would dczetve not only the
name of petty penal legislation, but would be a'
blunder to which he hoped the House would not
commit themselves. Was it fitting or charitable
to put the happiness and comfort of Roman Catholics in
such a condition—to piece them at the mercy of the
common informer and spies? Would that tend to the
happiness of the community ? The Bill had been sup-
eorted by Hon. Members on his side of the House on the
iground that it was a great vindication of our liberty and
our constitution fromthat domination claimed by the Pope.
He hoped, there
,fore the House would not permit a public
offence to be taken out of the hands of a public prose-
cutor and placed in the hands of an informer, whose only
inducement would be to extract 1001. from some unfin-

xunate individual. He should, therefore, give his oppo-
lition to the amendment.
Lord J. MANNERS said the Hon. and Learned Gen•
tleman had directed his objections not so much against
the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Abingdon al against the amendment of the Hon. and
Learned Member for ItLdhurst. To him the question
teeined to be this, would the House have an efficient or
an inefficient measure? Ho had supported the measure
of her Majesty's Government hitherto, but believing as
he did that the amendment would put an end to petty
pnrseeutiug actions, and at the same ti:ne prevent the
Attorney-General from neglecting his duty, be should

give it his support.
Lord J. RUSSELL said according to analogy pro-
secutions ought to be felt to the Attorney-General when
offence; were committed against the Statc, and the Crown.
Now as ths Attorney-General represented both State
and Crown, ho ought of c arse to be the prosecutor in
cases where it was deemed fit that prosecutions should
be undertaken. In eases of libel against the Sovereign
the Attorney-General was resorted to and not a common
informer. The only reason weighing with the House
against analogy—for without that reason the House
could have no hesitation about the matter—was that the
Act of 1829, as asserted, had been constantly violated,
and that Attorney-Generals had connived at that
latirn. He believed that assumption was totally at va-
riance with the fact. He could not 'be supposed to an-
swer for every one, but those at least with whom ho
had been connected in office, he could undertake to
answer for. The Attorney-General for. Ireland, Sir
M. O'Loghlin, he could answer for. He re-
membered on one occasion stating to, that gen-
tleman not from his own opinion, 'but from a
something that had hen brought before him, that
there was a suspicion that he (Sir M. O'Loghlin) had
unduly favoured Roman Catholics. That Gentleman
answered, much to his honour, "If you give the
slightest belief to the rumour that I show partiality
to Roman Catholics over Protestants, I em unfit to hold
my office."—(Hear, hear.) There was the Lord Chief
Justice Blackburn°, of high abilities and legal qualifica-
tion; he was not likely to give way to improper partia-
lity. The Master of the Roils for Ireland—could ha be
charged with not performing his duty, for such was the
assumption conveyed by this amendment? He owned
that he should consider that Attorney-General unworthy
of his office who gave permission to an informer to bring
a qui tam action under the Bill. If he saw an Attorney-
General in the House who had given such permission,
he should say to him, " If this case ought to be prose-

cuted, why not prosecute it yourself?" vlt would be a
bad example if an Attorney• General, having a doubt
about the evidence bearing out a prosecution, should say
to a common informer, " Though I will not prosecute,
yon may try your chance of getting 1001. from some in-
dividual. I'll sign my name to the action." Now that
would be petty penal legislation, and in his opinion there
could not bo a mo:e accurate description of such an
Act. In a case of that kind he owned that an Attor-
ney-General would be unworthy of his office; and be-
lieving as he did that the gentlemen he had named had
not failed in their duty, he must give his opposition to
the amendment.

Mr. REYNOLDS moved that tho Chairman report
progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL must say there was no ground
whatever for the Hon. Member's motion. The House
was then fuller than at", any period of the evening.
The question had been amply discussed, nothing more
could be added with advantage, and he ti ought the
House was ;quite fit to come to a =elusion without
further &lay.
Mr. KEOGH said Government we:o nearly in a mi-
nority a little while ago, and they were not then anxious
the debate should close. There was no Member who
represmtecl an Irish constituency who had taken a part
in this important question.—(oh.) It was not reason-
able to oppose the Hon. Gentleman's motion.
Mr. REYNOLDS thought his motion by no means

After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 41
Against it ... ... ... 306
Mcjority • • ••• -265
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved that the Chairman leave

lc chair.

Lord J. RUSSELL said ho had endeavoured, as far as
possible, to meet the convenience of the lion. Member
for Dublin and those who acted with him, by postpon-
ing the further discussion of the Bill from the day he
had originally named to that day fortnight, and he must
say that a more unfair return could not be imagined than
that which he had received at the hands of the Hon.
Member for Dublin, who, after indulging in taunts and
sarcasms, had taken advantage of the concession which
,he had made to prevent him from making further pro-
gress with the Bill that night.—(Cheers.)
Mr. P. BUTLER said no man was more opposed to
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill than himself. He was a
Protestant and a sincere one; but he thought this the
most unfortunate Bill ever introduced into that House;
and representing, as' he did, a constituency nineteen out
of every twenty of whom were Roman Catholics, he had
voted in the minority. He was not, however, prepared
to go further; he had done all which ho thought consist-
ent with gentlemanly fooling—(Cheers)—and would go
no further; and if there should be another division, he
would not vote against the Hon. Member for Dublin, but
would walk out of the House.—(Cheers.)
Sir It. INGLIS hoped it was not too late for the Noble
Lord at the head of tho Government to reconsider the
announcement which he had made, and that in justioo to
tenses:at' end the onle of England ho vrnuld proceed
'Thursday
with the Bill on 'Thursday next—(aear, hear)—and so
continue, de die in diem, and, if necessary, test the sense
of the House as ho had just tested it, and so prove that
all public business was interrupted in its progress by not
more than a tenth part of the Members of that House—
(Loud cheers)—so that the Bill, after having, he be-
lieved, been more days under discussion than any mea-
sure for the last twenty years, might at length be brought
to a close, no; perhaps, in so satisfactory a manner as
could be desired, but at any rate might terminate, and
that the time of the House might not be further wasted.
Mr. REYNOLDS believed that ho was not justly open
to the imputations that had been cast upon him—(Loud
cries of " Oh," and confusion). If he was not allowed '
to explain, he would call for a division.—(Oh, oh.)
Admiral BERKELEY said he had witnessed tyrant
majorities, and what had been called factious minorities;
but in his lifetime—and his Parliamentary experience
had been considerable—he had never witnessed a more
patient or forbearing majority—(Hear, hear)—or a more
factious—he would not make use of other terms—oppo-
sition than that which had been led by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Dublin. I will tell the Hon. Member (continued
the lion. and Gallant Member) that the rules of this
House were made by gentlemen—(Loud cheers)—by
gentlemen for the guidance of gentlemen—(Renewed and
protracted cheers) and if there are those that are come
amongst us that cannot be guided by those feelings, it is
high time we should alter the rules of our House, and
place ourselves in a different position.—(Load cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said an unnecessary warmth had
arisen from u want of appreciation of the observations '
of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government. The
appeal of the Noble Lord was couched in such good
temper, and actuated by so good a spirit, that he was
quite certain that if it had been allowed to have its pro-
per
effect they ehould have been now discussing the
amendment of his Honourable and Learned Friend.
That was an important amendment, and re-
paired more discussion, perhaps, than it had re-
ceived;
but, although it was their habit, generally
speaking, to finish the debate at midnight, yet the Hon.
Member for Dublin should recollect that they were on
the eve of an adjournment, and when a Committee was
at work, and in the midst of discussing an amendment
of, or rather en addition to a clause, it was not unusual
to sit up an hour or two beyond that time, or perhaps even
more.— (Hear, hear.) By two o'clock they might have
fairly discussed it, and he really thought, although they
had lost time, it was still in their power to do so. The
Lion. Member for Dublin and his friends would not
forget the considerate manner in which the Noble Lord
had arranged the business with regard to the conve-
nience of Hon. Members of the sister kingdom, and the
temperate tone in which he had addressed himself to the
question before them—(Hear, hear)—so different from
that indulged in by other Hon. Members--(Hear,
hear)—and would agree, he felt assured, to go on with
the dissuasion of the amendment of his lion, and
Learned Friend. Ho agreed with the Hon. and Gallant
Admiral that not only were the rules of the House
made by gentlemen, but that every Member of that
House was actuated by a gentlemanlike feeling, and he
could not help thinking, although they had wasted
time, that the Hon. Member for Dublin and his friends
would reconsider their determination, and, duly appre-
ciating the excellent tone adopted by the Noble Leader
of that House, would consent to proceed with the busi-
ness before them.—(Flear, hear.)
Mr. KEOGH quite agreed with the Hon. Member
for Bucks as to the temperate and kind tone of the Noble
Lord, but he regretted that the Hon. Member had not
called attention to the tone of another Hon. Member.
The Hon, and Gallant Member said he had known tyrant
majorities and factious 'minorities, but the Hon. and
Gallant Member was the Member of a party which had
never been very scrupulous, whether in a minority or a
majority, as to the opposition which they thought pro-
per to give to measures with which they wore dissatis-
fied. On a memorable occasion with which the Noble
Lord was perfectly familiar, he himself had taken part
in an opposition as obstinate—he would not, use the
711 Nsanoyble of which he couldneomplain;
and Lord that it void be vain
wordhienwteomuplder tell
to appeal to the temperate and kind manner Which was
so natural to him, if he allowed his subordinates to in-
dulge in a tone so different from his own.—(Hear.)
Colonel KNOX (who rose amidst much noise and
confusion), said he had voted in the minority, feeling
confident that the discussion could not terminate that
night; but was he, therefore, to be thus designated by
the Hon. and Gallant Admiral?—(Laughter.)
Admiral BERKELEY begged to assure the Hon. and
Gallant Colonel that he had made no complaint what-
ever against him. But he had been kept there night
after night listening to what he could hardly consider
arguments proceeding from a particular quarter, and he
thought he had some right to complain; but in making
his complaint he had been guarded in his language.—
(Oh, oh.) lie had certainly heard much strange len-
.' gunge in that House, and he could only say, honestly
and conscientiously, Out in the language he had used,
however strong it might be, he had no intention of in-
sulting any man.—Ulcer, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. P. BUTLER,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .
Against it
Majority against the Chair-
man leaving the chair —2ol
On the opening
of the gallery,
Mr. SCULLY was objecting to proceeding any further
at that late hour with the proviso.
Mr. LAWLESS thought the language used by the
lion. and Gallant Member for Gloucester, which was