The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-05 00:00:00

AMENT.

... No direct communication.
... 4 48
... 5 1
... 5 12
... 5 17
... 5 28
5 33

Stratford ••• •.• 5 37
Do. Central Junction 5 38
Western Junction .. 5 39
Devonshire-street ... 5 41
Mile-end ... 5 42
Brick-lane ...
London

... 5 44
.. 5 46

BANK OF ENGLAND.
(From last night's Gazette.)
An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth of Victorla,cap. 82 for
the Week ending on Saturday,
D
zr-L
NT.
theii 28th,r. day of June, 1851.
ni:

Notes isstied • . .. .• .. _
27,693,495

Government debt •• 11,0 f 5,100
Other securities .. .. 2,984,900
Gold coin and bullion 13,660,120
Silver bullion .. . • • • 33,375

-----.
£27,693,495 I Z 27,693,495
M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.

I Dated the 3d day of July, 1851.
RANKING IC
£.
_PrqrletOreCilpit9.l.• 14,553,000
nest .. -. •.•.. . • . • • 3,105,220
Public deposits (in-
clnding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and Di-
vidend accoun,s) • • 9,162,585
Other deposits ••• • • • 9,012,082
Seven day and other
Bills ••••••• • •• • • 1,080,126

436,953,013

Dated the 3d day of July, 1851.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 4.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
MASTERS' JURISDICTION IN EQUITY BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Lord CRANWORTU expressed a doubt as to
whether the Bill would work satisfactorily.
After a few words from Lord LYNDHURST and Lord
BROUGHAN, the Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. _

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the
company of clothworkers of the city of London, praying
to be heard by counsel against this Bill.
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
Lord BEAUMONT rose to move that the standing
orders be not insisted on in relation to this Bill. It was of
such a public character that it was really to be considered
as a public Bill, and ought not to be thrown out upon a
mere technicality. Their Lordships had always taken
care to defend private interests affected by public Bills,
and there was nothing in the motion which he
proposed to prevent parties interested from being heard
by themselves or their counsel against the Bill. It
was the custom of their Lordships with regard
to really private Bills, to insist by their standing orders
upon the parties affected having duo notice of the inten-
tion of the introducers of the Bill; but in this case the
provisions of the Bill had been of such public notoriety
that it was impossible to imagine that every in-
habitant of the metropolic had not had ample
notice. It was true that there was no formal notice
given in the Gazette in October last, but such an adver-
tisement would have given the parties interested no
more information than they had before. Communica-
tions had passed between the Government and the Cor-
poration of London on the subject, and the latter had
in reality had perfect notice, and had no substantial
grounds of complaint. In many similar cases, such
as the Regent's Quadrant Removal Bill, no reference
had taken place to the Standing Orders'Committee. The
Battersea Park Bill, the Che!sea Bridge Bill, the Holy-
head Harbour Bill, had all been treated as public Bills,
end the Bill for removing the Haymarket had been
treated as a public Bill by their Lordships. In this
Smithfield Market Removal Bill there was no
clauses repealing any charter, and no injury had been
done to the Corporation by their not receiving notice.
His individual opinion was, that it was a public Bill, but
he put it to their Lordships whether, even if they con-
sidered it as a private Bill, they would not assent to a
suspension of the Standing Orders.
Lord REDESDALE considered this motion to be of
great importance, as well on account of the importance
of the Bill to which it related, as on account of the in-
nate justice of the ease. First of all, his Noble Friend
insisted that this Bill ought not to have gone to the
Standing Orders Committee at all; and then he argued,
that even if it ought to have gone there, and if the Com-
mittee had reported against it, the report ought not to
be regarded, but the standing orders ought to be sus-
pended. In the other House of Parliament no one ever
expressed a doubt about sending this Bill to the Standing
Orders Committee;
_and it had been very properly sent
there in that House, as it was also sent here. It was
essentially a private Bill, and if their Lordships should
once allow the Government the power of bringing in a
private Bill without affording to private interests the
protection which they bad always hitherto enjoyed, they
would expose the rights and properties of individuals to
dangers to which they had never hitherto been exposed.
The Noble Baron had then maintained that if the Bill
were a private Bill, the standing orders ought to be sus-
pended, and had quoted precedents to show that they hid
been frequently so suspended. But on what grounds had
that been done? It was always in cases in which the
Standing Orders Committee had reported that the stand-
ing orders ought to be dispensed with. He undertook
to prove that there never was a case in which it was so
clear that the standing orders should be complied
with as the present. One of the reasons for establish-
ing the standing orders regarding private
.Bills was, that
it was only fair that those whose private interests were
assailed by bills of attack should have time given them
to prepare for defence. Now, what would have been
more easy in the present case than for the Government
to give the corporation notice of its intention to proceed
with this Bill during the present session? It was proved
in the evidence before the other House that soon after
the close of the last session the Government had sent a
communication to the corporation in which they asked
whether it was their intention to remove the market, and
that the reply of the corporation was that it had no such
intention. He maintained that on receiving that reply
the Government should have served the corporation with
notice of their intention to introduce this Bill. The con-
sequence was that the corporation, not having received
any notice from the Government, resolved to bring in
and did bring in a Bill of their own. He had watched,
as it was his duty as chairman of the Standing Orders
Committee to watch, all the proceedings in the present
Bill, and the protection which he now awarded to the
powerful corporation of London he should have awarded
to the weakest an poorest corporation in the
kingdom. He asked their Lordships calmly and deli-
berately whether the corporation of London had done
anything to forfeit its right to such protection?
Uunder these circumstances, unpleasant as it might
be to him to oppose the further progress of this Bill—
which might be a desirable Bill, although not regularly
introduced—he must resist the present motion. He did
conceive it to be a very unusual course for the House to
set aside the conclusion of the Standing Orders Com-
mittee. That Committee had a right to expect the sup-
port of her Majesty's Government. If it had not such
support, it was impossible that its duties could be either
adequately or properly discharged. Alter the title of
this Bill, and suppose that it was not Smithfield but Co-
vent-garden Market that it affected—suppose, further,
that the Duke of Bedford, as proprietor of the latter
market, came to the Standing Orders Committee and
claimed its protection—suppose that Committee reported
in his favour, would not their Lordships, ono and all of
them, come down to the House in order to protect him
from the attack irregularly made upon him by the Go-
vernment? That protection which their Lordships would
be ready to give to a member of their own body, why
should they withhold from the Corporation of London?
He cared not whether it was a large or a small, a rich or
a poor corporation; but so long as he had the honour
to remain in the chair of the Standing Orders Commit-
tee, so long should every corporation and every private
individual receive from him the same protection. With
that determination on his mind, he must oppose the pre-
sent motion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that the
question then before their Lordships must be considered,
not only with reference to the standing orders, but also
with reference to th© importance of the Bill itself. The
Noble Baron opposite (Lord Redesdale) had only
discharged his duty in defending the report of the
Standing Orders Committee. Valuable, however, as he
considered the services of that Committee in the protec-
tion which they gave to property, they never were so
valuable as to exclude the consideration of the public
benefit to society at large in case of great contemplated
changes. Although the statute-book was filled with at-
tempts made from year to year to separate public from
private Bills, they would find that in many public Bills
private interests were involved, and that in many private
Bills public interests were also affected. When he heard
it stated that this was a private and not a, public Bill, he
could only reply that it was a Bill for the supply of this
great metropolis with the most important article of food
in the best manner in which it could possibly be sup-
plied. A private Bill, and yet with such an object! In
every other country in Europe but our own the means of
giving the best. supply of food to their subjects was con-
sidered so much a matter of public interest that the
Government would not leave it in any other hands but its
own. The best means of supplying good, cheap, and
wholesome food to the inhabitants of this great metropo-
lis never could be considered as a matter of private in-
terest ; and therefore it became the Government,
watching over the public interest, to provide that every
one in this huge metropolis should have the means
of obtaining meat in its best state and in the most
effectual manner. His Noble Friend (Lord Beaumont),
in the able speech with which he prefaced this motion,
had referred to several Acts of Parliament as prece-
dents for the course which he advised the House to take
with regard to this Bill. He had shown that, in the
case of the Opera Colonnade Bill, in the case of Batter-
sea-park Bill, and in several other cases, private inter-
ests had been held to be subservient to public interests.
The importance of those Bills sank into insignificance
when compared with that of the present Bill, which had
not been introduced without notice or without inquiry,
but after inquiry continued from year to year—which
was in itself a sufficient notice—and after discussions, in
Parliament and out of Parliament, which had placed
every man, woman, and child in this metropolis in a si-
tuation to know the object of this measure. The grounds
stated by the Noble Baron opposite were not, in his opi-
nion, sufficient to set aside a measure required by the
public for the public benefit. The object of the Bill was
to set aside a private monopoly for a public good; and
it was in reference to that object he now gave his un-
qualified support to his Noble Friend's motion.—(Hear,
hear.) Such applications as the present ought not, he
admitted, to be made on slight grounds; but, in this case,
the grounds were strong and unquestionable. If the
day should ever eome when there was the same necessity
for removing Covent-garden market as there now was
for removing Smithfield-market, he should be among the
first to assent to a similar motion under similar circum-
stances, just as he know that his Noble Friend the Duke
of Bedford would be the first, and not the last, to as-
sent to the removal of such a nuisance.—(Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND was sorry that he felt
himself bound in common justice to vote in favour of
his Noble Friend's (Lord Redesdale's) view of the
question—for he had a perfect horror of 6mithfield-
market—it was injurious to the public, ay, and it was
injurious to the agricultural interest, inasmuch as it was
not large enough to contain the beasts which they sent
to it, and which were thus damaged and deteriorated in
value. He wanted, however, to know, why Government
had not given notice to the corporation in time, and why
it was in such a hurry to proceed with this Bill, when it
could introduce another regularly within six months'
time ? Let the Bill be thrown out now, let due notices
be given, let another Bill be brought in next session,
and then he (the Duke of Richmond) would vote for it.
His Noble Friend opposite had produced some prece-
dents for his motion; but his Noble Friend had not told
them that the Acts which he referred to as precedents
had ever been referred to the Standing Orders Com-
mittee, or that that Committee had reported upon
.them
at all. Now, who were the Members of that Committee?
Peers of the highest character, chosen from both sides
of the House, to see that private interests were ade-
quately protected. He had attended many meetings of
that Committee, and unless their Lordships backed it
with their support, instead of overthrowing its deci-
sions, that Committee would be rendered worthless, and
he doubted whether they would be able to obtain Peers
to attend upon it. He repeated that Smithfield-market
was at present 44 itiOnvoulenc9 *IA as injury to the

Tho LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the Bill. He
trusted their Lordships would not allow the money
which had been appropriated for trust purposes, by men
long gone to their graves, to be transported to Ireland, in
order to purchase land there, and exempt trustees from
the liability to which they were subject, and to which
they ought to remain subject, to make good the loss
arising from their lending money entrusted to them o❑
improper and insufficient security. He moved that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the Bill. It would
in some measure tend to modify the operation of the
Encumbered Estates Act. That House would be de-
graded and disgraced as long as they allowed that in-
famous and arbitrary Act to stand upon the statute-
book. Under it, property which was formerly worth
twenty years' purchase, now sold for ton years' value;
and thus, up to the present, upwards of a million of
money was lost to the creditors of Irish property.
Lord BEAUMONT replied, and defended the Bill
against the arguments of the Lord Chancellor. The
Noble Lord said that so convinced was he of the justice
and necessity of the measure, that, though he might not
succeed in carrying it, ho was determined to divide the
House upon it, confident that it must pass on some fu-
ture, if not on the present occasion.
Their Lordships then divided, and there appeared—
For the second reading ••• "' 3
Against it ... 16
Majority against the second reading ... —l3
The Bill was consequently lost.
The Survey of Great Britain Bill was read a third
time and passed, as was also the Hainault Forest Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—
Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
Great Western Railway (Railways to connect the Bir-
mingham and Oxford Junction Railway with the Lon-
don and North-Western Railway at Birmingham, &c.)
Taw Vale Railway and D.,ek.
Ministers' Widows and Orphans' Fund of the Free
Church of Scotland.
The rqort on the Caledonian Railway Bill was con-
sidered and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented in favour of the Ec-
clesiastical Titles Bill sad in favour of the rharnisoy Bill.

STEAM TO AUSTRALIA,
Viscount JOCELYN wished to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether he was prepared to carry out the
recommendation of the first report of the Committee on
steam communication with Australia?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there were many points connected with the subject which
were not considered by the Committee, and he could not
therefore pledge himself to carry out their recommenda-
tions.

BRITISH GUIANA.
Mr. G. BERKELEY wished to know 'if it were the
intention of the Government to lay on the table of the
House the report of the Commissio❑ of Inquiry into the
state of British Guiana, and also all the subsequent cor-
respondence which had taken place with respect to it?
Mr. HA VVES replied that the papers already moved
for, and now in preparation, comprised the documents
referred to by the Hon. Member.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON asked the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, whether it was his in-
tention to prepare, during the recess, with the view to
legislation upon the subject in the next session, any
measure founded upon the report of the Committee of
last year upon prison discipline, and especially with re-
ference to that part of the report which recommended
the establishment of central prisons.
Sir G. GREY said he entirely concurred in some of
the views taken by the Committee in regard to prison
discipline, and he hoped that he would be enabled at no
distant period to carry their recommendations into effect.
During the recess he should give his attention to the
subject, in order to ascertain what course it would be
most advisable to adopt.
LAWS OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON asked the President of the
Poor-law Board, whether it was his intention to bring
in his promised Bill for amending the laws of settlement
and rating, before the close of the present session, with
the view of that Bill being considered by the country
during the recess?
Mr. BAINES said it was certainly his intention, as he
had announced in the early part of the session, to sub-
mit a measure to the House on the subject of the laws
of settlement and the removal of the poor. He had,
however, been prevented doing so in consequence of cir-
cumstances over which it was well known he had no
control ; and the session being now so far ad-
vanced, and the state of public business such
that he felt he could not possibly introduce that measure
now with any hope that it would receive that degree of
discussion and deliberation to which its importance en-
titled it; and unless it did, the measure would not
be attended with any public benefit.—(Hear, hear.)
He, therefore, could only say that it was his confident
hope and expectation that he would be enabled to intro-
duce such a measure some timo in the early part of next
session.

GREENWICH ELECTION.
Mr. A. HERBERT asked the Right Hon. Baronet
the first Lord of the Admiralty, if it was true that at
the recent Greenwich election the workpeople in the
dockyards wore granted a holiday, and still paid their
wages?

Sir F. BARING said the usual custom had been fol-
lowed by allowing the workpeople an opportunity of ex-
ercising the franchise if they possessed it, and as it had
not been a practice to stop the pay on similar occa-
sions, it was not intended to do so now.—(Hear, hear.)
THE NEW HOUSE OF CaMMONS.
Sir E. N. BUXTON wished to ask the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government whether it was intended to
pull down the present House of Commons daring the
ensuing autumn, or to keep it up until such time as
Honourable Members had had an opportunity of ap-
proving of the accommodation to be afforded them in
the new House?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not intended to
pull down the old House until the new one had been
fully approved of.—(Hear, hear.) He would take that
opportunity of stating that after this week he proposed
that the House should on Saturday mornings go on with
Bills.

PHARMACY BILL.
Mr. WABLEY said this Bill was approved of by the
College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, the
Apothecaries' Company, and some 30,000 chemists and
druggists, and be should be glad to know from the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether it was not possible to pass it this
session?

Sir GEORGE GREY said it was understood, last
Wednesday, that the Bill should be read a second time,
pro forma, with the view of introducing amendments. It
was then to be reprinted and withdrawn till next session,
so that the public might have an opportunity of
,aying whether they approve of it or not. For his part,
he should have no objection to proceeding with it this
session, but loDking at the objections which had been
raised to it he was afraid it was hardly possible to do
hat.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
It was then agreed that the House at its rising should
adjourn till Monday next.
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES.
In reply to a question from Mr. HENLEY,
Sir G. GREY said that this Bill stood for second read-
ing on Friday next, when he hoped to bring it on. If
not, he would take care that dae notice was given before
it was brought on.
ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES.
Sir B. HALL gave notice that on Friday next he
should ask the following questions of the Noble Lord at'
the head of the Government, for it appeared, according
to the last report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
several prelates, within the last seven years, had re-
ceived large sums over the incomes assigned to them by
Act of Parliament, namely, the Bishop of Durham,
79,6581 ; the Bishops of Chichester, St. David's, Salis-
bury, Oxford, Ely, and Norwich, 28,2671. more than
their regular incomes. He would, therefore, ask
whether it was the intention of the Government to
bring in a Bill to obviate the inconvenience and ocea-
*ionsl hardships of these irregularities of income. Also
whether these prelates had paid over the surplus to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and also, as it appeared
from the same report, that the Archbishop of York, the.
Bishops of St. Asaph and Ely, were indebted to the
Commission 14,2251., and that considerable correspon-
dence had passed between the Commissioners and the
Bishops on the subject, whether it was intended to take
any legal proceedings to recover these sums.
On the order of the day being read,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that with reference to the
questions of which notice had been given by the Hon.
Baronet he could not help thinking that the coarse takcm
was somewhat unfair to the persons concerned. If the
Hon. Baronet had asked the questions at a day's notice
he certainly could have had the information given to
him.

Sir B. HALL said the notice was for next Friday.
, Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That was just what he
complained of, because an evide❑t presumption would
go forth to the House, and the public would believe that
certain bishops were assigned certain incomes, and that
they had received further sums, and had not paid
over what was due to the Ecclesiastical Commission.
lie would not go into the details of the matter now, but
be begged to state generally, that after the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners had considered the matter, and had come
to the opinion that it would be best to fix
a sum for each bishop, the arrangement made was
that certain sums should be paid to some bishops and
certain sums received from other bishops, instead of
paying them their fixed salaries, which would have
borne too much the appearance of a salaried office. The
bishops were to take the risk of those sums exceeding or
falling short of the income fixed, and the consequences
were that some of the bishops had received more or some
less than the sums to which they were entitled by law;
but there was no power on the part of the House, or any
one else, to claim these sums, any more than any other
private property.
Sir B. HALL explained, that what he had said was
that certain incomes were assigned to the sees, but
that certain bishops bad received larger incomes than
were assigned, and that having undertaken to pay over
the sums to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they had
neglected to do so. That was the substance of his
allegation.
Mr. LIORSMAN rose, but was received with loud
cries of " Order," which rendered it impossible for him
to proceed.
Mr. B. OSBORNE then moved the adjournment of
the House.
Mr. HORSMAN seconded the motion. His complaint
was that on various occasions he had endeavoured to ob-
tain information, and had experienced not only how dif.
ficult it was to obtain information, but how unfairly it
was withheld.
Mr. W. PATTEN interrupted. The practice of pro-
longing a discussion by moving the adjournment of the
House had grown so common, that he put it to lion.
Members whether, if it were persisted in, it would be
possible to proceed with any regular business?
Mr. HORS MAN said he was perfectly in order, and
did not think the Honourable Gentleman had any righ
to interrupt him.

The SPEAKER said that if the Hon. Gentleman
wished to remain in order he must keep to the question.
Mr.IIOI3,SMAN, amid loud cries of "Question," rose
. again • He could assure Hon. Gentlemen, and particu-
larly the Hon. Member for Newark, that he was not to
be put down by their cries of order. He reiterated his
complaint, that it was impossible to obtain correct in-
formation of the ecclesiastical questions. Incorrect
answers were often knowingly given, particularly in the
case of Horsham the other day.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND, as a near friend and relative
of one of the belied prelates, protested against accusa-
tions being brought forward in a manner which entirely
prevented any answer being given.
Mr. GOULBURN rebutted the insinuation that he
had given an incorrect answer with regard to the
Horsham case. He had stated all he know on the subject.
After a few words from Sir R. H. INGLIS,
Sir B. HALL explained that what he said was, that it
appeared by the Parliamentary return that the Bishops
of Chichester, St. David's, Ely, Oxford, Norwich, and
Salisbury, received 28,2671. a year more than the in.
comes assigned to their respective sees.
BATTERSEA-PARK AMENDMENT AND
in thes prrk e nn t
°Boa: treerasde a;
EXTENSION BILL.
A Bill to alter and extend the powers of an Act of
he ninth and tenth years of her Majesty's reign,
inti-
tuled " An Act to empower the Commissioners of
her
tfields, 's
Woods
countyto
Smurraeyß,''oywaal Pa
first time, ordered to be read a second time on Thursday
next, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGLIBY,
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said he proposed to take
the Merchant Seamen's Billat twelve o'clock on Thurs-
day next.

- ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this Bill being
proposed,

Mr. J. O'CONNELL said, as it had been found i
that t wrg4 in we generally 011YOLliellt t 9 take

ale debate on the question that the Bill do pass, he hoped
the third reading would be agreed to without discussion.
Mr. REYNOLDS could not sanction the third reading
of this Bill of pains and penalties, because his opposition
remained unabated and unaltered. The answer given
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to a
question pat by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the
University of Oxford yesterday, led him (Mr. Reynolds)
and those with whom he had the honour to act, to
believe that no one in the House knew what sort of
Bill this was ultimately to be. In fact, the Noble Lord
who was the author of the Bill, could not tell
what new shape it was likely to assume in the next 24
hours.—(Hear.) However, wiser men, and men more
experienced in the proceedings of the House than
himself, had advised that no division should
take place on the third reading, inasmuch as, according
to the forms of the House, it would not be competent
for the Noble Lord to expunge or alter any
clauses until the Bill had passed that stage.
In giving his consent, therefore, to the mo-
tion, he begged it to be understood that it was
that kind of consent which an oyster gave
when it was going to be opened.—(Laughter.) He was
not prepared to lend himself to such a farce as
dividing upon the third reading. This political
and religions camelion had changed its hues on every
discussion, and what the next hue was to be,
whether green, black, or drab, entirely depended
on the collective wisdom of the nation.—
(A laugh.) He begged to be specifically understood
as reserving to himself the right of expressing an opinion
upon this Bill of pains and penalties against his creed
and his country when the motion was made that the
Bill do pass.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the first amendment which
he had to make was, as he had stated yesterday, in the
second clause. It was not his' intention to propose any
amendment on the preamble, upon the addition of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, upon which
the House had decided. He would not interfere with
that decision. But in the second clause an amendment
had been introduced without a debate, which was almost
the same in substance as that proposed by the Hon.
Baronet on the 6th of June, and which had been rejected
by 133 votes to 129. The objection to the clause now
introduced bad been then stated by theAttorney-General,
and waslo the effect tient if they made a certain act the
subject of a penalty they would be, in fact, creating two
offences under the Bill. There was another part of the
amendment about prosecution for publication in a news-
paper, which the Government thought unworthy the con-
stitution, and too small and paltry a subject for proceed-
ings on the part of the Crown, This part he also ob-
jected to. What he proposed, therefore, was to omit all
the words in the clacse from the words " any person" in
the 27th line to the same words in the 32d line.
Sir F. THESIGER said the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government had dealt with his (Sir F. Thesiger's)
amendments with his usual skill and dexterity,—(Hear.)
On what grounds the Noble Lord opposed his amend-
ment he could not see; and more especially as the Noble
Lord had said it did not make any particular alteration
in the general scope of the Bill. He said he would
abide by the decision of the House; and therefore he
was now astonished at the Noble Lord's opposition. He
would advert presently to the discussion on the first
clause as it now stood. In answer to questions put to
him, the Attorney General had expressed an opinion
that a misdemeanour was created with respect to these
briefs and rescripts. But he had not at present to dis-
cuss that point with his Hon. and Learned Friend. It
was, clear that any offence created by that clause was
an offence with regard to past briefs and rescripts only.
That being so, let them consider whether his Hon. and
Learned Friend had not conceded all that he (Sir F.
Thesiger) required upon the present occasion—viz',
the necessity of making some provision with respect to
any future brief or rescript that might be introduced into
this-country. What was the nature of the offence, if
any, that was involved in the first clause? He appre-
hended that it was an offence which might be said to be
contained either in the Act of the 16th of Richard 11.,
or in the 13th of Elizabeth. It must be an offence either
for bringing those briefs or rescripts into the country,
or making notification of them, or executing them in any way, as provided by the statute of Richard IL, or else
it must be an offence as provided by the statute of Elze-
beth for using in any place within the realm " any such
bull, writing, or instrument, obtained from the Bishop of
Rome." Now they bad been warned that the object of
their legislation was, as the Noble Lord had expressed
it, " to repel a pretension to power over the realm of
England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which
was inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy." But
how were they to accomplish that object? Certainly
not by the legislation which the Noble Lord had pro-
posed, because that legislation had been directed
merely against the assumption of titles, and could
have no practical effect whatever. It appeared,
however, that no brief or reseriot was of any avail until
it had been received and published; and it was, there-
fore, against the receipt and publication of such docu-
ments that they ought to direct their legislation. In-
deed he should say he believed it would be impossible
for them to reach the root of the evil without directing
their legislation to that object —(Hear, hear.) He felt
sure that the Noble Lord and his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General would readily concede to
him that a brief er bull was of no authority until it was
pnbliShed. That lama the doctine which had been ex •
pressly laid down by Dr. M.Hale in his evidence before
the Commissioners of Education, and by the professor of
canon law at Maynooth. Now bulls were published by
the authority of the bishops. As bulls and briefs were
of no avail until they were published, he was anxious to
know whether her Majesty's Ministers meant to say that
the statute of Richard the Second should be
in force at the present day against aggres-
sions of that kind; and ,he had frequently asked
that question, but he had never been able to obtain
an answer from the Noble Lord, or from his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, or from any of
the supporters of the Government. In the clause which
he had proposed he had considerably mitigated the se-
yerity,of the statute of Richard IL, and nobody would
think of applying the penalties of prtemunire, the very
nature of which was almost unknown at the present day,
to any offence of that kind. He had framed his clause
in the mildest spirit of modern legislation, and in the
very direction which the Noble Lord had said they
ought to pursue. What were the objections urged by
the Noble Lord against that particular clause? The
Noble Lord had repeated the objection of his Honour-
able and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General that
the clause would inflict cumulative penalties. Now,
the answer to that statement was, that the two of-
fences—namely, the offence of procuring a brief and
the offence of publishing a brief were completely dis-
tinct; and the penalties attach, d to those distinct of-
fences could not be considered cumulative penalties. He
could see no reason whatever why distinct penalties
should not be applied to each offence. Tne next objec-
tion of the Noble Lord was that the words " publishing
or putting in use within any part of the United King-
dom any such bull, brief, or rescript" might possibly
apply to publishing bulls, briefs, or rescripts in a news-
paper; and the Noble Lord bad added that that was too
paltry an offence for any Attorney-General to conde-
scend to prosecute. But the Noble Lord was entirely
mistaken upon that point. The publication of a bull,
referred to in the clause, was such a publication as that
which he had already described, by affixing it to the
church doors, or by publishing it throughout the
different churches in each diocese. The publication
to which the Noble Lord had alluded was not the publi-
cation of a bull, but the publication of a copy of it, and
would not come within the operation of the clause.
The Noble Lord had further stated that he objected to
the term " procuring" those bulls from Rome, because
it would be very difficult to obtain any evidence of that
fact. Now that difficulty might exist; that might be an
unfortunate circumstan ;e, but they ought not to refuse
to pass an enactment which was right in itself merely
because there might be a difficulty in enforcing it. Those
were all the objections which the Noble Lord had stated
to the clause; and he (Sir F. Thesiger) appealed to the
House whether he had not satisfactorily answered them?
—(Hear, hear.)—But the Noble Lord had suggested
that those additions to the Bill had been introduced by
him (Sir F. Thesiger) in the spirit of persecution.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I said quite the contrary.
Sir F. THESIGER continued—He was obliged to
the Noble Lord for that statement. His object had been
to meet the views of the Noble Lord in that matter, and
to make the Bill of the Noble Lord conformable to his
own declared intentions. It was not a battle of
Churches they were then discussing, but a contest
between two supremacies; it was a question,
as the Noble Lord had truly stated, whether her Ala.
jesty the Queen was to be the undoubted Sovereign of
her realm.—(Hear, hear.) They were certainly suffer-
ing considerably from the weakness and uncertainty of
their legislation. It appeared that this country had of
late attracted the special care and attention of his Holi-
ness the Pope. He perceived that there had lately been
issued from the printing press of the " Royal Apostolic
Chamber" in Rome an appeal to the piety and charity
of Italians, which was of a very singular character. In,
that document it was first of all stated, that „ among all
the foreign missions, that of London presented the
greatest hopes and demands;" and he after wards found
in it the following passages:--e The
project has been
approved by ecclesiastical authority of building a spa
cious church in the centre of London,
in a fine position,
in one of the most majestic streets in the city, princi-
•pally for the use of the Italians, and thence of other
foreigners, as well as of the natives. In this way there
will be in the capital of the British empire a church,
Roman, not only in its faith and principle, but also
.in its rites, in its ceremonies, and in the practices of
,sound devotion ; a church similar in its mate-
rial construction to the ancient Christian temples;
a church which, at the express wish of the Holy
Father, will be dedicated to the Prince of the Apostles,
St. Peter; a church which will be always go-
verned by a congregation of Italian .secular priests
'founded at Rome, that the Roman spirit may always in-
fluence the same.—(Hear, hear.) The holiness of our
Lord Pope Pius 11. has, in his provident teal for the
good of religion and souls, by means of the holy con-
gregation for propagating the faith, and of that of the
bishops and religious orders, caused this great work to
be most urgently recommended to the charity of Italian
believers and
to the zeal of the bishops of Italy. More-
'l, the Most Eminent and Most Rev. Cardinal Wise-
-laenr, Archbishop of Westminster, Ordinary of London,
has equally recommended this most interesting work.
And site Most Eminent and Most Rev. the Cardinal
Vicar has published a second notification, dated March
26, 1851, in which he repeats his recommendation
to the Roman charity of this most pious object.
Finally, his Holiness himself, by his rescript to the
holy congregation for propagating the faith, dated
March 9, 1851, has granted an indulgence of 100 days
to whomsoever shall contribute any alms to this end."
That document from the Pope was accompanied by a
" notification" from the Archbishop of Florence, from
which he mid row! the following u44raoti--"l4inpld

further announce that his Holiness Pius IX., at the re-
quest of certain English Catholics, has deigned lately to
grant an indulgence of 100 days to whesekver may recite
three Ave illarias, with after each, the invocation Auxilium
Christianorarn ora pro nobis, and plenary indulgence for
one day at their own choice, to whoever shall have recited
them for one entire month, provided that, having con
fessed and communicated, he shall pray particularly for
the Catholic Church of England." Now he appealed to
lion. Members whether a few years ago, before we had
deprived ourselves of the securities against such acts of
aggression, we should have been expos( d to those re-
peated attacks and insults?—(Hear, hear.) But after
we had disarmed ourselves, we had subjected ourselves
to constant attacks of that description. It appeared
that the Pope at present put forth his pretensions while
relying upon the unfortunate divisions which prevailed
in this country. Ho called upon Hon. Members before
it was too late to be warned by the conduct of the Holy
See as to what they were to expect in future, and to en-
deavour if they possibly could at the present moment to
make their legislation of such a character as would be
adequate to meet the dangers by which they were en-
compassed.—(Hear, hear.) He confessed it appeared to
him that if they then failed, that could only be because
the guardians of our Protestant Constitution, after
having neglected their trust, and after having incau-
tiously encouraged the advances of the. Roman Catholics,
had, in the midst of the difficulties of their position,
thought proper to support at the last moment a measure
which could offer no real security against the aggression
of the See of Rome.—(Leud cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his Hon.
and Learned Friend had certainly shown at the conclu-
sion of his speech that he was animated by a very dif-
ferent spirit from that in which the Bill had been
brought forward by her Majesty's Government. He
believed that the proposals of his Hon. and Learned
Friend would not materially alter the character of the
Bill; but it was evident, from the latter part of the
speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend, that, in his
opinion, Parliament had gone too far in granting the
Relief Bill of 1829.—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministe-
rial benches, and counter cheers from the opposition side
of the House.) Those cheers of Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site ma de their sentiments upon that point perfectly in-
telligible, Those Hon. Gentlemen disapproved of the
meesur aof 1829; but the Bill introduced upon the pre-
sent occasion by her Majesty's Government went on the
directly opposite principle. The object of the Govern-
ment was to adhere to the arrangement—he would not
call it compact, for there had been no compact—of 1829.
The Bill recited in the preamble, and afterwards, at the
sugges F:tan of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attor-
neey-G-eneral, it was declared in the measure itself, that
the act which had given such offence throughout this
country' was an infraction of the existing law; and it
proceeded to provide that the restriction which had
existed in the Act of 1829 with respect to all existing
sees of the Established Church shouid be extended to
any sees named from cities or towns in the United
Kingdom. The Bill entirely abided by the spirit of the
clause fin the Act of 1829, which had clearly for its ob-
ject the prevention of coeflicting titles by the assumption
f a right to sees on the part of the Roman Catholic
bishop. His Honourable and Learned Friend had asked
whether her Majesty's Government thought that it would
be advisable to prosecute under the Act of Richard IL?
Now h a (the Solicitor-General) had no hesitation in say-
ing that it would not be advisable. No one could think
at the present day of instituting a prosecution in order
to enforce the penalties of prcemunire. With regard to
the Act of Elizabeth, it was well known that nothing of
the penalties of that Act remained, although the pro-
ceeding against which it was directed continued to be a
misdemeanour. The Bill, as proposed by her Majesty's
Govern meat, would punish the assumption of titles; but
the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend would
punish the publication of bulls. Now, that latter ar-
rangement would be an infraction of the Act of 1829. It
would he an alteration in itself vexatious, while it would
be productive of no special advantage whatever. He
venture al to say that the offences which his Hon. and
Learned Frieed would create could never be established
against anybody. His Hon. and Learned Friend
would punish with a penalty of 100/. the offence
of procuring a bull from Rome; but was it probable
that any person could ever be convicted of that
offence tapon any evidence on which a jury could rely?
He should further say that he believed the judges of this
country would not attribute to the word " publishing"
the meaning which bad been attached to it by his Hon.
and Learned Friend ; and that the publisher of a news-
paper, ?rho should insert a bull in its columns, would
not escape from the penalties which his Honourable and
Learned Friend would impose, under the plea that he
had merely inserted a copy of the document. His Hon.
and Learned Friend seemed to suppose that if he should
persuade the House to agree to his amendments in that
instance he might hereafter persuade them to legislate
in the spirit to which he had referred towards the
conclusion of his observations, in a spirit which would
lead them to repeal the Act of 1829. by which they
had effaced from our statute-book the last remnants
of anything in the shape of persecution. The amend-
ments of his Honourable and Learned Friend were
nut framed in the spirit of the Act of 1829 ; and it
was on that account, and not because he thought there
was any real stringency in those amendments, that be
hoped the House would refuse to give to them its as-
sent.—(Cries for a division.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said that from the speech of his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General he felt
sure that his Hon. and Learned Friend did not under-
stand—he would not say his own Bill, for it appeared
at present to be nobody's Bill—but the measure then
before the House. He regretted to find his Hoe. and
Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir F.
Thesiger) addressing himself to the stale prejudices of
the House, and employing his powers in endeavouring
to drag back the public mind to that thraldom from
which it had been so long relieved. His Hon. and
Learned Friend had talked about insults from the
Pope, from the Archbishop of Westminster, and
the Archbishop of Florence. Now, as regarded
the Archbishop of Florence, it appeared that all :he
had asked was that people should pray for the
success of the Roman Catholic religion in England ;
and that surely was a perfectly unobjectionable act.
Then the Pope proposed to build a church in London;
but he could not see how that proceeding differed from
the course taken by the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in For-ign Parts.—(Hear, hear.) His Hoff.
and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that the
alterations of his Honourable and Learned Friend the
Member for Abingdon would not materially affect the
Bill; but he was sure that that was not the opinion of
his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member fore
Abingdon. In his (Mr. Roebuck's) belief his Honour-
able and Learned Frond bad made the Bill more strin-
gent and more mischievous. It was impossible to go-
vern the country on the old principle of excluding Ro-
man Catholics. Of this the Duke of Wellington, Lord
Lyndhurst, and Sir R. Peel were well aware in 1b29,
when they proposed the Emancipation Act. The Catho-
lic religion then was recognised, and it was impossible
for the Catholic religion to exist without commueicatioce
with the Pope cf Rome. Parliament knew well what
they were doing in 1829, and no one better than the
Lord Chancellor of that time, who, in 1828 had made
the most powerful speech against emancipation. The
Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel also, whose
personal honour was almost pledged to resist it—all
these three came down to the House of Commons and
the House of Lords, and declared that they could not
govern the country on the old principle—that they must
admit the Catholic religion, and those who professed it,
to all the privileges enjoyed by other subjects. It was
impossible for a statesman not to see at that time that a
broad gulf was drawn between their past and future le-
gislation, for they then admitted the Catholics in fact as
well as in name. Now,
no man could be a Catholic
unless he acknowledged the Pope to be the head of his
religion. This Bill said that every bull described in the
preamble should be null and void. What would be the re-
sult if this Bill became law? The Attorney and Solicitor-
Generals and the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment supposed they could control this Bill. They could not.
Suppose he, being a Protestant, had a Catholic cousin,
the result of a Catholic marriage. The law said his
cousin was a bastard, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was sup-
posed to be the next heir to the estate. He brought an
act of ejectment against his cousin, and he proved that
his COUSiEt was married by a Catholic priest. There
being no registration in Ireland, the parents could not
have gone to the registry. He proved that the priest
who married them was ordained by no other means
than by the Archbishop of Armagh. He proved that
A. 8., calling himself Archbishop of Armagh, was ap-
pointed by a Papal rescript, such as those described in
this Bill. These consequences would follow. Being so
appointed, be would be no archbishop at all.—(Hear.)
The priest whom he had ordained would also be no priest
at
Hear.) The priest was not a priest—the mar-
riage was not a marriage—his cousin was basterdised, and
the verdict must be for the plaintiff.—(Laughter.). He
was astounded at the ignorance which that laugh dis-
played. It was all very well to make light of the matter;
but did any one believe that such actions would not be
brought?—(Rear.) Could any man suppose that this
Bill would not light up the torch of discord in Ireland?
—(Hear, hear.) Did any one believe that if a man
thirsting for an estate saw such a means open to him to
obtain it he would not try his chance at law? Thank.
ing the House for the attention with which they had
.heardhina, he would go no further. He protested not only
against the amendments of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Abingdon, but against sanctioning each a
Bill at all. It would be the groundwork of dissension,
litigation, and misery, and, if put into execution, would
be a brand of discord in Ireland, and if not, would be the
shame of that House and of Parliament.—(Cheers.)'
Mr. NAPIER rose to speak, but the noise and impa-
tience of the House for a division wag so great, that after
essaying in vain tor some minutes to obtain a hearing,
the Hon. and Learned Member resumed his seat.
The Irish Members, as on a previous occasion, left the
House in a body.
The House then divided,: when there appeared—,,,
Fur Sir F. Thesiger's amendments ... 208
Against them
Majority ... ••• The announcement of the numbers was received. With
loud cheers.
Mr. FRESHFIELD then rose to move, '° To letete out
all the words after the words United Church,' p. 2 line
43, to the end of the clause, and to insert the following
words:—' Every such person shall be deemed to be an
offender under this Act, and, being lawfully convicted of
any of the offences hereinbefote mentioned upon indict-
ment or information, he shall be adjudged to depart' out
of this realm within a time to be limited in such judg-
ment, not exceeding three calendar months from such
conviction, and a certificate of such judgment, under the
seal of the court pronouncing such judgment, or the sig-
nature of the proper officer of the said court, shall be
forthwith deposited by the prosecutor of such indictment
or information at the office of her Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for the Home Department; and if the
person so convicted shall be found within this realm
Ott/ each time i ouch judgment limited, it ehttli be