The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

IMPERI,

NING, MAY 27, 1851,

Lord BROUGHTON—But it was property won at
the point of the bayonet as much as that won at Lahore.
By the sth article of the treaty with Sindia, tee 13th
of January, 1844. it was stipulated thus:—
" Whereas there is now due to the British Govern-
ment the sum of 10 lees of rupees on the score of charges
of the contingent force, and a further sum of one lac on
account of advances, and the charges of the present ar-
mament of the British Government may be estimeted at
10 laps, and a further expenditure of 5 Lacs will be in-
curred by the British Government in affording compen-
sation, it is further egreed that his Highness shall pay
to the British Government the sum of 26 Lacs of rupees
within 14 days from the date of the treaty."
Here was a specific sum of money extorted from a minor
prince at the point of the bayonet, and almost on the
field of battle, yet there WWI no hesitation in applying
that sum in discharge of debts due to the British Go-
vernment and of the expenses of the war. The destina-
tion of the sums extorted from Gwalior and from Lahore
was precisely the 531113, and the Gwalior money was as
much, or more, the produce of the battle of Maharajpoor
as the Lahore jewels were the produce of the battles in
the Punjeub. Lord Harding° also, in his treaty with
Lahore, of March 9, 1846, demanded, " as indemnifica-
tion for the expense. of the war," payment of one and a
half croree of rupees. It is true that he commuted two-
thirds of this sum for a cession of territory; but such
commutation would seem to make no difference if
there were an inherent right in some other body than
the Government of India to have all money ac-
quired by the force of arms. It would be unfair to
defeat such a right by such a commutation, But, at
any rate, Lord Hardinge demanded in cash one-third of
the abovementioued sum, or 50 lass of rupees, towards
the expenses of the war, and why should a distinction
be drawn between that case and that then before the
house? Lord Dalhousie then followed these examples;
and he should like to know who had a better right to
this money than the people of India, for it was they who
received it, when it was paid into the Indian Treasury,
and the East India Company had no interest in it what-
soever. With respect to the returns for which the
Noble Earl had moved, he did not know whether the
Noble Earl really wanted them, or had only moved for
them to raise a discussion; but, if the Noble Earl really,
wanted them, he must tell him that there was some per-
ion of them he must withhold, as they could not be given
without previous communication with India. He was
precluded from producing communications which were
confidential, and which could not indeed be legally
;ranted, for the 34th section of the East India Company's
Act contained a special reservation, which rendered in-
violate all communications between the East India Com-
pany and their officers at home. He was ready to pro-
duce all that he could with propriety produce; but he
hoped that the Noble Lord would not press the motion.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH replied that he
should feel much more satisfied if the Noble Lord, in ad
lition to stating the substance of the first case prepared
.or the law officers of the Crowe, had had the goodness
•0 inform him whether the question with which it con-
cluded was the same as that with which the second case
loncluded. The Gwalior case was entirely different
from the Lahore case; the arrangement made in the
Gwalior case was made between two states, and not be-
meen a state and a conquering enemy. He had said
nothing which could be thought to cast reflection on the
Governor-General of India. He adhered to the expres-
iion he used in 1849, that the Governor-General bad
acted inadvertently, that he had acted under the error of
supposing that he was the representative of the Crown,
whereas, in fact, he was the representative of the East
India Company only.
I'he Duke of WELLINGTON—Having had the
nonour of serving in the East Indies, and having some
knowledge of transactions of this description, I mast
may, my Lords, that from experience of the station of
Governor-General in Council, I had conceived a very
.lifferant opinion from that which has now been given
by my Noble Friend behind me, who, I think, ha,
a more practical knowledge of the subject than I
can possiely have. But I talk only of my own expe-
rience. The Governor-General in Council is the re-
presentative of all British authority in the East Indies,
and exercises all British authority in the East Indies.
I have served in an army to which the Governor
General has granted booty on the part of the Crowe;
ee has taken upon himselt to assetne, or, if the Noble
Lord pleases, to usurp the authority of the Crown in
;ranting booty, But I say I have myself partaken of
000ty thus granted by a Governor-General.—(Llear,
near.) It is true, my Lords, that he is appointed by the
Court of Directors of the East India Company, but by
he law of England he exercises every British authority
in the East Indies, and he assumes to himself the power
of the Crown to grant booty in the possession of the
Crown. That assumption of authority must be con-
firmed, and I have no doubt it was confirmed, at least I
have never heard otherwise than that it was confirmed,
and would be I conclude in every instance; but this is
what I insist upon, that the Governor-General in Coun-
cil in India does exercise every power of every descrip-
tion oa the part of this country, and that by law he may
usurp authority with which he is not strictly invested at
the moment; but that is a matter to be settled between
the Crown and the authorities that appoint him, namely,
the East India Company. The Crown subsequently con-
firms that authority, and the matter there remains as
between the Crown and the East India Company. lam
speaking of that which I know from experience is
the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked, that what-
ever observations fell from the Noble Earl who had
brought forward the motion would be received with the
most profound respect, and if the Noble Lord propounded
the opinion that injustice heti been done to the military
in the case to which he had adverted, the opinion was one
which could not fail to excite the deepest attention. The
Noble Lord at the bead of the Board of Control had
handed the notice to him (the Lord Chancellor), and,
believing the facts of the case and the state of the law
were not properly understood, he should tender some ex-
planations on the subject. The Noble Earl had con-
sidered the question as being whether the property be-
longed to the Crown; yet the object was not to consider
the question as lying between the East India Company
and the Crown simply; hut, if the property beloneted to
the Crown, it was a question whether the army might
expect to derive benefit from it, to which they could not
properly be entitled if the property belonged to the
East India Company. Reverting to the historical
events with which the subject of the motion was cot:-
nected, the Noble and Learned Lord reminded their
Lordships that in 1848 no war arose between
the Maharaja of Lahore, and the British Government
in India, but certain subjects of the Maharaja rebelled
against their Sovereign; and the British Government
interfered to protect him; it interfered as au ally and
friend, not as an enemy of the Maharaja. The jewels
and other property in question were placed in the cita-
del, under the guard of it force of the East India Com•
pany's troops. Did that property thereby become the
property of the Crown? Certainly not. If property
were seized in anticipation of hostilities and by way of
precaution, and the hostilities which had been anticipated
followed, the principle stated by the Noble Lord was
applicable; but property not seized hostilely, not seised
in anticipation of hostilities, a subsequent declaration of
hostilities did not affect. The general principles had
been discussed in a case which had occurred at the
Cape of Good hope. The property seized oa the 17th
September, 1848, was seized for the purpose of protec
tion, when the person of the Maharaja was also taken
under protection by the Indian Government. lie
believed that at that time the Queen's troops had not
entered Lahore at all; and it was not till the 20th of
October following that there was any statement
made with reference to general hostilities in the docu-
ments he had seen—documents which went to show that
the steps which were taken were taken fur the protection
of the Maharaja. If possession had been taken of the
property, not in anticipation of hostilities but in the
way now described, and if hostilities had subsequently
arisen, would that property belong to the Crown, and
could any army be entitled to have it awarded as booty?
Certainly not. Therefore the material question was to
ascertain whether the property was taken possession of
hostilely or not with reference to the Maharaja. If'
not, there was an end to the question altogether, because
no subsequent declaration of hostility or subsequent
hos-
tility would affect that property. The Maharaja with his
council then entered into a treaty of.thie nature. He
found he had not strength enough to maintain his sove-
reignty against his rebellious subjects; he therefore pro-
posed to resign his sovereignty and all the rights belong-
ing to him (not that the surrender was a mstter of choice,
but that was the form); the treaty into which he entered
was one in which he acsumed to be what in every view of the
case he (the Lord Chancellor) conceived the Maharaja to
be, the owner of that property taken for protection on
September 17, 1848; and the Maharaja resigned the
sovereignty, together with the property, in consideration
of the East India Company engaging to allow him so
many lees of rupees a year and making certain arrange-
ments with respect to his future condition. It seemed to
him (the Lord Chancellor) that there was no ground
whatever for supposing that injustice had been d ,ne to
the army, for that property never belonged to the Crown,
nor had the Crown any right which could give the army
any right to booty. Unless it could be shown that the
Maharaja had lost his right to the property, there could
be no ground for the view suggested by the Noble Earl.
In a former speech the Noble Earl bad suggested that
the Maharaja was; incapable of entering into a treaty
in as far ho was not a free agent. It would be a new
doctrine if persons were not to be bound by treaties who
were not at the time of making them free agents; such
an idea was founded on the total mistake of applying
the municipal law to political transactions.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained, that as far as
possible he had put the army in the background, and had
stood by the rights of the Crown. He objected now, as
in 1849, that the property in question had been taken
from the Crown unlawfully. He desired only that it
should go lawfully into the hands of those for whom it
was destined. There wait none for wh ,se opinion he
bad a greater respect in a case where ample opportu-
nity had been afforded for investigation ; but the Noble
and Learned Lord had been instructed as to half the
case only.
Lord BROUGHTON asked the Noble Earl whether
the East India Company werenlootrod by
yterot o
fofrptehre_
Crown, rod if they were not so declared
servant was the Governor-General. —0 was liament ? If they were trustees for the Coorotwhno,sewrhvaonset
Cofretrwuns.tees of the Crown, and therefore represented the
dangerousthe
e n tedtthe
N OTb 111: LEo radr lr
eopfr eEs
Le
eLt
eEdN rhoß OE 0
Crown GII rep
in Indial
i
ne
d
a,
fftahirast.
fgvroeueleddadtvhieste tthhee Nlioubtle
from the Marquis ofheLOtaNblDe,OtNhe-
DERRY,
repthree
Crown. ILord
otultopstnoyuc touch
After a few words
There was a short conversation across t
result of which we understood to be that a part of the
Andlit was orderedthe
accordingly, moon to be liega-
t
motion should be agreed to ,so far as the papers asked
f t.
for could be given; the rest o
QA mottles of $ll9 Earl 4141SLA the Select
o

Committee on the Epir,copal and CepiLelar Estates Ma-
nagement Bill %yes named.
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL moved the ;second reading of
a Bill for the further regulation. of the salmon fisheries
in Scotland. Tho object of the Bill was to close the
fishing on the Ist instead of the 14th of September, so
that no fish of the salmon kind should be taken after the
31st of August, except that the proprietors of the fish-
ings and persons authorized by them in writing might
angle with the rod for 21 days more. The Bill also
contained a clause relative to the " Saturday's slap,"
providing that the cruives and engines should be
opened or removed from six o'clock on Saturday night to
six o'clock on Monday morning.
The Duke or RICHMOND was not going to divide
the House, but hoped the Noble Duke would allow suffi-
cient time before going into Committee for the parties
interested to become aware of there being such a Bill in
progress. The Bill, it appeared, would allow gentle-
men to fish with rods for tneir amusement when those
who supplied the market were stopped.
The Duke of ARGYLE, observed, that the upper pro-
prietors
had valuable fisheries before traps were set be
low, and that the number of salmon that could be caught
by the fly was a mere drop in the bucket compared with
the take by net or trap. He had thought it advisable in
this Bill to introduce a " Saturday's slap" clause; bu
did not wish to press the clause if it was seriously ob.
jetted to.

Tho Earl of MINTO beli3ved the Bill, as far as i
wont, was calculated to do some good; but it would no
meet the most serious evil.

After a few words from the Earl of YARBOROUGFI,
The Bill was read a second tune.
The House adjourned at a (leaner before Eight
o'clock.

HOUSE OF C(LLWONS, May 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. MortE O'FERRALL took the oaths and his seat for
the county of Lopg'ord.
LORDS'- AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—
Haleswortb, Beceles, and Haddiscoe Railway Bill.
London and Blackwell Railway (Extension of Time for
the Widenitw, &c )
Ntu-th British Railway Bill.
Regent's Canal Company Bill.
Scottish Central Railway Bill.
Whitby Waterworks Bill.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed.—
Bolton, Blackburn, and Clitheroe, and West Yorkshire
Railway Bill.
Brackley Roads Cansolidation Bill.
Great Western Railway (Railways to connect the Bir-
mingham and Oxford Junction Railway with the
London and North-Western Railway at Birmingham,
' &c.) Bill.
Flayling Bridge and Causeway Bill.
Manchester and Salfird Extension Railway Bill.
North Shields Quays and Improvemen,s Bill.
Sunderland Improvement Bill.
Warrington and AltriLchatn Junction Railway Bill.
Weston-super-Mare Improvement and Market Bill.
The following Bills were further considered:—
Great Malvern Improvement, Police, Sewers, Water-
works, Gas, and Markets Bill.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill.
PETITIONS.
_

A large number of petitions were presented against
Papal augression.
L'ird DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
Mr. E-nest Jones, complaining of his treatment while
serving a term of imprisonment for having spoken a se-
ditious speech in 1848, and praying for inquiry. The
Noble Lord gave notice that to morrow he would move
that OP petition be printed with the votes.
Sir JOHN YOUNG presented a petition from the
county of Longford against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. W. 11ASTIE prestnted a petition from Glasgow
praying the Hothe to take steps to prevent the adultera-
tion of c+,ff,,e with chicory.
Mr. MONSELL presented a petition from the county
of Limerick against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. E ',VAR r presented a petition in favour of the
Home Male -,pirits
,sisas
Lord CASTLEREAGET presented a petition from the
county of Down against the Ecclesiasticzt Titles Bill.
Mr. T. 13. ROCUE presented srvkral petitions from
places in the county of Cork against the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill.

Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY presented a petition
from Chel.es praying for a repeal of the taxes on
knowledge.
Sir JANIES GRAHAM presented two petitions from
places in the county of Londonderry ugainst the Eecle-
siasticalTitles Bill.

Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Sunder-
land against the stamp duty on newspapers ; also a peti-
tion from Manchester in favour of the Jew Bill, and a
petition from the same place against the 41st section of
-.he Civil Courts (Irelat,d)
WATER BILL.

In reply to a question from Mr. W. PATTEN,
Sir G. GREY said it was his intention to fix the Go-
vernment Water Bill for to-morrow week.
RE TURNS OF EPISCOPAL REVENUES.
Sir G. GREY informed the Hon. Member for Mary-
lebone (Sir B. Hall) that both the returns to which he
referred on Friday were actually rado at the time be
gave au answer to the lion. Baronet's question.
CHANCERY REFORM.
Mr. STUART gave notice that on this day week he
would submit to the House a resolution respecting the
delay which arose in the ordinary business of the Court
of Chancery, in conesequence of the additional jurisdic-
tion imposed upon it by recent 1-gislation in regard to
the atiairs of railways and other joint-stock companies.
;LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT.
Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice that he would move
for leave to bring in a Bill to alter certain conditions in
the Lands Clauses Consolidation Ace
IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH OFFICER IN
PERSIA.
Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from the two
sisters of an officer in the service of the East India
Company, named Lieutenant Wyburn, who was dis-
patched in 1835 as British envoy on an im-
portant mission to Khiva, but was arrested
by the Amber of Bukhara, and remains still in
bis power, complaining that the East India
Company and tee Government had both neg-
lected to take steps to obtain his release, and praying
that the House would institute an inquiry into the mat-
ter. The Hon. Member gave notice that on Thursday
he would put some questions to the Government end the
Deputy-Chairman of the East India Company oil the
subject.

RETURN.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of wills
and administrations transmitted to the Legacy Duty-
office in each year from 1839 to 1850, inclusive ; distin-
guishing the number transmitted in each year by each
registrar, or other officer, and if such registrar or officer
shall have transmitted from more than one court, the
names of the te,vs.ral c,urts, and the t,tal number re-
ceived by the Legacy-Wilco in e,,ch ) ear (in contmuation
of Parliamentary paper, No. 226, of session, 1839),--
Agreed to.

LIFE BOATS.
In reply to Sir J. Y. BULLER,
Sir F. BARING said it was not the intention of the
Government to propose any grant to tha Shipwrecked
Fishermen's Society for the purpose of assisting them
in maintaining life-boats on the coast.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND).
Mr. SCULLY asked the Ateerno3 -General for Ire-
land if it was true that a charge had been tiled in his
name in the office of Master Lip ton, in the Court of
Chancery in Ireland, on behalf of George Mathews, as
relator, in the case of Attorney-General v. Drumm, nd:
if so, whether Adam J. Macrory, E.q., the solicitor, bud
done so by his authority, or with his knowledge; and
whether the said charge would be permitted to come
before Master Litton for hearing as authorised by him,
or in his name, as her Majesty's Attorney-General?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland said the
charge had been filed by his direction, and would come
before the Master in the ordinary course.
INCOME-'TAX.
Mr. HUME said he had a notice on the paper
for nominating the Committee on income, but as
business was now preset ding there did not appear
to be much chance of his getting the Committeee
appointed at all, unless the Government came to his
assistance. He therefore wished to know if Ministers
intended to assist him in bringing the motion on?
Lord JOAN RUSSELL would inquire about it, and
see if some arrangement could not he made respecting it.
ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SADLEIR wished to know from the Right Hon.
the Secretary of State for the Home Department it it was
the intention of the Master of the Rolls to proceed with
the Security for Advances (Ireland) Bill?
Sir G. GREY said it was. The progress of the Bill
had been delayed by the same cause that had obstructed
all other public business, namely, the opposition which
had been offered to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
The House then again went into Committee on this
Bill.
Mr. M'CULLAGII moved the follwingla wam,”etnodrainestertt:
,o
—ln page 2, line 15, after the words
, by
these words, "or who shall have been recognised as
Roman Catholic archbishop of any province, Roman
Catholic bishop of any diocese, or Roman Catholic dean
of any deanery, by any of her Majesty's superior courts
of law or equii.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment.
Mr. GRATTAN denounced their whole system
of legislation in this matter as a species of
fraud
and hypocrisy far below the dignity of the House
to have entered upon.
Did the supporters
of the Bill mean to put down the Roman Catholic reli
gion in Ireland, and to alloy., no church to be in exist-
ence there in which the
slightest degree, directly
or indirectly? He would
pc could interfere in the
remind them that lreland well as ,had a charter to preserve as
, and on the principle of that charter
Irishmen wouldB'uun
oppose, and he hoped defeat, the present
Bill. They ought to have learned long ago from the
wisdom of their ancestors that it was impossible
to govern on a system of penal laws. The greatest
men who had adorned shut House had re.
pounced the idea. The system of legislation
w'n,ch had been pursued towards Ireland had
deprived the people of the nobility and gentry, and
beggared the middle classes, and had loft them
nothing but their priests; and if this continued,
as the present Bill proposed, it would make
the country altogether into a Roman Catholic country.
For his part, he thought there was no length
permitted by the law or the rules of that House to which
Members ought not to go to oppose the Bill, and he
eloping. be sb! Idlitr tich et_ by 109__14 91 144194 t 9 Warn!

them er to shrink from doing his part. The Bill re
an atte city, and 4ully justified any length of oppositiou.
Mr. CONOLLY begged the indulgence of the Reuse
while ho stated his reasons for supporting the Bill of
the Government. The Bill did not prevent Roman Ca-
tholic subjects enjoying the rights of their religion, nor
did it interfere with the spiritual functions of the
Roman Catholic bishops. He considered that the Noble
Lori bad done wisely in prohibiting the assumption of
rerritoriel titles by the Roman Catholic clergy, for though
they were of themselves mere bugbear titles, and of no
importance, they showed an attempt on the part of
the Pope to acquire temporal and political power.
Papal influence, was not confined to religion, but,
on the contrary, was exercised, over worldly affairs in a
way irreconcileble with the law of the land.—(Hear.)
Alt history testified as to the graspitj nature of the
Roman Catholic Church, and showed beyond a doubt
chat the power she aimed at was not alone spiritual, but
also temporal. That, therefore, being the nature of the
power sought to be assumed by the Pope of Rome, be
wa, decidedly opposed to any extension of it. Not that
he was in the least frightened that such a power could
ever undermine their own glorious constitution, but, at
the same time, were it allowed unbounded sway he was
afraid that it might do much, as it had already done in
Ireland, to impede and embarrass the freedom of that
constitution. He thought, therefore, that in resisting
Vita act of aggression on the part of the Pope, the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government had' taken the
course that he ought to have done. It was no doubt
said by those who opposed that course, that in adopting
it the Noble Lord was infringing upon the religious li-
berty of the subject, but how that argument could be
used by those who professed to belong to a church
which permitted of no religious liberty whatever, was a
mystery
which he could not, and had never yet heard
any one attempt to solve.—(gear.)
Mr. F. PEEL confessed that his mind was in such a
state of uncertainty with respect to the probable range
of the clause, that he fait dispoosd to support
amendment which would hays the effect of weakening it-
The Committee, be telt, would be guilty of some incon-
sistency
of conduct, if, after having deliberately con-
sented to reject the two clauses which steed originally
in the Bill as it was first introduced by her Majesty's
Government, and that, too, upon the recommendation of
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Howe
Department, it now consented to the adoption, unnie;
dified in any respect, of the present clause, which boa
been culled from amongst the amendments of the 800.
and Learned Member for Midhurst. Let the House re-
member the circumstances under which it consented
to waive those two important clauses. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had informed the.
House that subsequently to the introduction of the Bill
he had discovered eat under certain circumstances in the
operation of the Bequests Act, for exam/ye, if a Roman
Catholic priest was required to produce as evidence in n
court of law in Ireland, with a view to establishing his
title to the donation bequeathed to him, under that Act,
his letters of oidinatiou, or the instrument of his institu-
tion, or collation to his benefice, which letters or instru-
ments were invariably acid of necessity signed by the
dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church under the
style and title of the sees to which they had been nomi-
nated or appointed by the Pope, the courts of law in Ire-
land had nut considered those documents inadmissible
as evidence, expressly upon the ground that, although
the open assumption of those titles might be prohibited
under a penalty, eat that there was no express declares
tion in the Rumen Catholic Rebel Act to the effect that
those titles themselves were illegal and void. If that
were so, how would it be consistent in them to adopt
the present clause without any modification whatever,
when it declared that a brief, and any title conferred
under it, was illegal and void? Was it not clear that
where they made an express declaration that any title.
conferred by the Pope should be illegal and void—that
was, should be of no effect, and treated as non-existent
—there was no court of law in the world that would re-
cognize as a valid designation of the party such a title
subscribing any document, whether it were a letter of
ordination ur au institution to a benefice. That was the
inconsistency which they should rew,,ve if they could, or
if not, at least introduce some modification into the
clause to remedy it. It might be said that the
clause referred only to a particular brief, and that that
brief concerned England only, and that Ireland, in
which country alone the Bt quests Act bad force, could
not be prejuuiceu by it. But the clause was a declara-
tory one, and re-enacted the . xistiog law. In terms it
might only strike at one particular brief, but in effect it
declared that every brief and every title derived from the
Pope should, by reason of its source and origin, be treated
as illegal and void. It might be said that the clause was
ineoxious, as it only re-enacted the existing law; but the
fact of its being necessary to re enact a law already in
force showed that alreadythe law had been allowed to tall
into desuetude. It was because he took these views of
the matter that he was anxious that some modification
should be introduced in the clause as it now stood.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
••• ... 43
Against it 179
Majority, ...
The amendment was accordingly lost. 136
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. REYNOLDS, before they proceeded further with
the clause, begged to ask the Noble Lord a question.
Bearing in mind the differences of opinion between the
lawyers with respect to its effect, m re particularly the
difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and
the Attorney-General, and between those two Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen and the Hon. and Learned Member
for Midhurst, and coupling both instances with the able
arguments which bad appeared on the subject that day
in tee organ of the Government—the Times newspaper-s-
-he wished to ask the Noble Lord whether, remembering
those facts, be was still determined to persevere in
urging the adoption of the clause on the Committee?
Lord J. RUSSELL had not himself perceived any
differences of opinion between the Solicitor and Attor-
ney-General and between those Hon. and Learned Gen-
men and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to
by the Hon. Member, and it certainly was his determi-
nation to go on with the clause.
Mr. KEOGH observed that the Solicitor-General had
raid it was impossible that this clause should be aban-
doned; and one would imagine, therefore, that it was
the Goeernmeot's own clause. But if there was such an
impossibility the Government would have originally- in-
truductd the clause. He, now asked the Noble Lord
where was the impossibility of striking the clause out of
the Bill? The Government had not first introduced it,
and there was no declaration or vote of the House in its
favour. The Noble Lord had taken the clause at the
suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
hurtle When the Hen. and Learned Gentleman were
notice of his amendments, the Dublin Evening Post,
whicih was the organ of the Government in Dublin, and
every organ and retainer of the Government in Ireland,
drew what they called the marked contrast between the
Noble Lord's. Bill and the amendments of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman; and Roman Catholics were asked
how they could oppose the Government when they did
not go the length in their Bill which the Hon. and
Learned Member did in his amendments. But the
Noble Lord did not perceive nay difference. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst had stated from the
beginning that he did not consider the clause applied
to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)' The Honourable and
Learned .Member for Midhurat, he perceived, as-
sented to that proposition. The Hon. and Learned '
Gentleman went further, and stated that it was quite
mint cessary for Hon. Members for Ireland to be
struggling against the clause, for that the clause did •
not touch the r country. That was a clear propesition;
but the Solicitor-General had distinctly stated, in reply
Ousre-
reply
to the Right Hon. Member for the University
ford (Mr. Gladstone), that it was a
declaratory o
clause,
'
and would n• cessatily include the cash of the creation of
the bishopric of Ross, in Ireland. Did be (Mr. Keogh)
--(Afrom the
nod of assent
The Hon a
state the case accurate') ?
Solicitor-General.)•nd Learned Gentleman
assented, If that,
th,y, werethe case, the Hun. and
Learned Member for Midhurst assented to the propo-
sition that tee clause did not extend to Ireland. Did
the Noble Lord perceive the inconsistency and contra.
diction bet Ween those two expressions of opinion? But
the Noble Lord also was unable to perceive the con-
tradiction between the Solicitor-General and the At-
torney-General on the clause. The Solicitor-General
said that it was a declaration of the law that a brief, re-
script, or document of the kind mentioned should be
deemed unlawful and void. Was there one there, then,
who would deny that any act done under the brief, and,
therefore, in contravention of that clause, would be as
lawful as the brief, rescript, or document itself under
which the she was done, and would be criminal in
Lebaarrnr sdi eMr,
that respect ,and a breach of the law? He ap-
ap edailsefdintgoutshhee
ChancerydHon. and
eomnbtehre fpoorfnMf,idfohurthste,
Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin
(ills. Napier), a
ed disting • h
ins commou law lawyer, or
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr. Ser-
geant Murphy), Whether the exercise of authority under
a brief in contravention of this section would not be a
demeanour,mi and punishable as such. But what said
eLanett &tomey- senera I? Why, the Learned
Attorney-General said that the clause would not affect
Ireland as regarded its criminal consequences. What
was the moral which he drew from those diverse and
various statements? The moral was this--that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst would not touch
the case of Ireland, while the Noble Lord felt that the
clause was of so sweeping a nature in its operation that
he was afraid to make the clause applicable to that
country. The Noble Lord, therefore, in order to gain
the support of the opposite side of the House, aroposed
r to take the clause as it stood, with the version put upon it
by the Solicitor-General. Hut there was a third party to
be dealt with, namely, the supporters of the Government
in Ireland; and it, therefore, became a question how best
to bamboozle them. The Noble Lord said that the Bill
was declaratory—that it left the law as it stood—that it
did not alter it in a single particular. Then came tho
question was it unlawful? Was it not, after the legis.
ration of the past fifty years, incumbent on the law ad-
visers of her Majesty to prove that the Act to which the
clause applied was illegal before they asked the House
for its assent to its Provisions?—(Hear.) The Attorney-
a
General said the House would not expect him to go into
law argument, even though the question afficted the
religious belief of 8,000,0
theoo of her Majesty's subjects;
awl yet be called upon /dense to pass the law. On
what was the clause founded? On the 13th Elizabeth
or the 16th Richard IL, or on both? The Solicitor-
General said on 13th Elizabeth as regarded England.
But the words of that statute were, that any person
acting under any bu
treasll, brief, or rescript of the Pope,
was guilty of high on, and should suffer the pe-
nalty of that clime. If this was the case, what then
became of Lord Lyndhurst's Act (1846), which re-
pealed that penalty?—(Rear.) If not, then the offence
being at common law, removing the penalty was tan-
tamount to abolishing
the offence. The Solicitor-Ge-
neral quoted Lalor's case. He (Mr. Keogh), however,
denied that the Statute of Provisors applied to that ease
Was applicable to this. That statute applied only to
Established Church with hoodoos end property j,