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

letter which conveyed him the information. Ire was
bound, however, to state that the press of Mr. Laing,
who was editor of a newspaper as well as an ildvocate,
was not carried away, but placed in charge of the police
r so as to prevent his using it. Orders were, he under-
stood, issued to seiz- the press; but the person to whom
! they were given was afraid to execute them in conse-
quence of a sale of the
.property, fictitious or real,
' which had taken place. There was another point.
He (Earl of Ellenborough) understood the Noble
Lord to state that the Affghan and Sutlej
accounts of Jotee Pershaud had been settle d.
From the statements of an officer just arrived
from India, ho (Earl of Ellenborough) understood that
neither were settled. There was one other point in which
the Noble Lord's reply was not entirely accurate. The
Noble Lord had stated that the two members of the mi-
litary commission who formed the majority had de-
ferred to the opinion of the third member, who formed
the minority, and had therefore laid their report before
the President in Council. This was a mistake, inasmuch
as the military board, by its constitution, was bound to
do so. The question which he (Earl of Ellenborough)
put respecting the amount due to Jotee Pershaud had
not been answered by the Noble Lord. He (Earl of
Ellenborough) understood that the amount unquestion-
ably due to Jotee Pershaud, on the showing of the mili-
tary commission, was not less than from 30 to 35 lass of
rupees, or between 300,000/, and 350,000/., of which not
a rupee had been paid. That BUM, in addition to the
amount lodged as security for the performance of his
contracts, which amounted to 5 lass of rupees more, or
50,0001., gave a sum of nearly 400,000/. his property, in
the hands of the Government, according to the last ad-
vices. The Gwalior accounts alone had been settled.
In conclusion, the Noble Earl said that such was the au-
dacity, the courage, the fidelity, and the zeal of Jotee
Pershaud, that he had in disguise entered the camp of
the enemy, bought grain in their bazaars, and brought it
in for the support of the'British army, whilst the war
was proceeding.
Lord BROUGHTON explained.
The returns were then ordered, viz.:—
"A return of the date of the final settlements of the
accounts of Jotee Pershaud, an army contractor in India,
for the campain of Afghanistan, or Gwalior, and of the
Sutlej respectively.
"An account of the total sum found by the military
board to be due to Jotee Pershaud, and unpaid on the 2d
of 51aq, 1851, on such accounts as had been then laid be-
fore that board for the said several campaigns, and for the
campaign in the Punjaub respectively.
" An account of the sum deposited by Jotee Pershaud
as security on his undertaking several contracts for the
said several campaigns respectively, and of the total sum
under these heads which remained in the hands of the
Government of India at the above date."
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice of a
motion on the subject of the continued incarceration of
Abd-el-Kader for Monday. The motion would be for
the further correspondence which had taken place be•
tween the English and French Governments on the
subject.

Lord REDESDALE gave notice of a motion for an
alteration in the appellate jurisdiction of the House. He
thought the chief law officers of the Crown should have
seats in that House for the honour of the law and the
benefit of suitors, in the same manner as the Church
was represented there by the bishops. His motion was
for an address to the effdct that her Majesty should order
the offices of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justices of
the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, and the Chief
Baron of the Court of Exchequer should be erected into
baronies which would entitle them to writs of sum-
mons to that House, by favour of the said offices. He
thought it might also be necessary to summon the chief
judges in the courts of equity, but he would not include
that proposition, nor would he name a day for his mo-
tion, merely throwing it out as a suggestion for consi-
deration.

Lord CAMPBELL thought the suggestion deserved
very great consideration; but the form of the proposi-
tion presented a difficulty, inasmuch as the judge so sum-
moned would be only entitled to a seat in the House of
Lords while he h'ld office.
Lord REDESDALE said this difficulty could be
easily got over by the judge resigning his seat. He ap-
prehended if a bishop resigned his see, he would be no
longer a temporal baron.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the object stated by the
Noble Lord could not be affected by an address to the
Crown. It could only be effected by a legislative
measure.

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

The Fee-farm Rents (Ireland) Bill was passed through
Committee.

The Law of Evidence Amendment Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amend-
ment Bill, which stood for second reading to-day, was
withdrawn, after a short conversation, in which the
Lerd Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and Lord Beaumont
took part.

Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. June 27.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On th© motion of Sir G. GREY, it was ordered that
the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.
ADVERTISING VANS.
In reply to a question put by Mr. MANGLES
Sir G. GREY said that he had given no pledgeto take
any steps for the removal of advertising vans, but he
had merely stated that the police had powers which, to
a certain extent, were capable of abating the nuisance,
but if they should prove insufficient, it must be matter of
consideration whether they should not have entrusted to
them greater powers for that purpose.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from a place
in Ireland against the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
On the reading of the order of the day that this Bill
as amended should be considered—
Mr. MILES rose to move the insertion of the clause
of which be had given notice, and which was as fol-
lows:—" That if a penalty shall be recovered by judg-
ment or verdict against any person for a second
offence under this Act, it shall be lawful for her Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State fur the Home Department, if
in the circumstances of the case it shall appear fit, by
notice in writing signed by him, to require such person
to depart out of this realm within a time to be limited
by such notice; and if such person shall afterwards be
found therein, it shall bo lawful for her Majesty's Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, by war-
rant under his hand, to give such person in charge of
one of her Majesty's messengers, or of such other person
or persons to whom he shall think fit to direct such war-
rant, in order to his being conducted out of the king-
dom." In moving the adoption of this clause, be had to
express his regret that it had not fallen to the lot of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole)
to introduce it. He (Mr. Miles) moved the clause on
the ground that it was in accordance with the wishes of
the people of this country, and he felt that they wree
bound to make the Bill as stringent as possible, to pre-
vent Papal aggression. After the interminable discussion
which had taken place in the different stages of this Bill,
and the interruptions which had been given to the busi-
ness of the House, it was not necessary he should address
them at great length ; but he thought it behoved every
individual to endeavour to make the provisions of the
Bill as complete and stringent for the object in view as
possible. They were the more bound to do so, as they had
been told by Hon. Members from Ireland that the provi-
sions of the Bill could not be carried into effect in that
country, and that it would be treated with contempt,
and its provisions trodden'under foot. What, he would
ask, was said by the organ of the Roman Catholic
body in Ireland? In a late number of the Tablet the
House would find in what spirit the Bill betore the
House was spoken of. The Hon. Member here read an
extract from a late number of the Tablet, in which the
editor stated that in a short time half a dozen rescripts
would be received from Rome. In one. case ho could
confidently state that a brief would be issued for the con-
secration of Dr. Vaughan to the bishopric of Killaloe.
But it was not in this country only that the see of Rome
was pursuing its aggressive course; and to prove that
such was the case, he could refer the House to a letter
which had been addressed by Lord Cowley to Lord Pal-
merston, in which that Noble Lord referred to the ag-
gressions which the Catholic Church was making in the
district of the Upper Rhine. The conduct which had
been pursued in this country wider the authority of the
Pope,.totally destroyed the securities contained in the
Bill of 1829. He felt confident that unless something
was done to strengthen the Bill the Protestant people of
this country would be disgusted, for the Bill, as it stood,
was quite inefficient for the end it was intended to ac-
complish.—(Hear.) He, therefore, hoped the House
would consent to the addition of the clause he had
proposed.
Sir GEORGE GREY, after observing that the clause
proposed was somewhat similar in its character to the
one which bad been moved by the Hon. Member for
Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), said that there was, however,
this important difference, that the proposal of the Hon.
Member for Midhurst could have been carried into effect,
but it was quite clear that the amendment now proposed
could not be of any utility. In the amendment of the
Hpnourable Member for Midhurst measures were pro-
vided for keeping a party out of the country when once
he was sent away. But for that purpose the proposed
clause was quite inoperative. In point of fact, a party
removed under this clause might return, and they
would therefore have to begin de novo. He regretted
that the Hon. Member (Mr. Miles) had thought it ne-
cessary to propose the present clause, utter the discus-
sion which had token place on the clause of the Hon.
Member for Midhurst. He hoped, however, the Hon.
Member would not insist upon the clause.
There being Loud cries for a division, strangers were
ordered to withdraw, when the House divided, and the
numbers were—
For the claim)
Against it l4O
Majority against the clause —39
Mr. KEOGH then moved the addition of a clause to
the following effect :—" That nothing herein con-
tained shall be constructed to annul, repeal, or in any
manner affect any provision contained in an Act passed
in the eighth year of the reign of her present Majesty,.
intituled An Act for the more effectual applieltiool; it)cti Charitable Donations and Bequests in Irelancl,
w...
render illegal or void any disposition of property by 11.1.
or otherwise already made, which, but for the passing of
this Act, would have been legal and valid."
Lord J. RUSSELL said be bad no objection to the
addition of the first portion of the proposed clause, stop-
ping at the word " Ireland," and leaving out all the
words that followed.

With this alteration the clause was agreed to, and wa,
ordered to stand part of tho
Mr. KEOGH then proposed the addition. of the fol-
lowing clause ;—" That nothing h•roill oult}ine4 shall

JUNE 2B, 1851.

in any manner prevent the reception in evidence, in any
court of law or t cpity in this kiugdorn, of any letter of
ordination or otter document conferring ecclesiastical
powers upon any clergyman of the I{ 'man Catholic
p
Church, which, but for the passing of this Act, would
have been so received"
The A rTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause,
and said he thought the House should not adopt any
clause which would sanction any title assumed against
the provisions of the present Bill.
Tne House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause... ••• ... 45
Against it ... ••• ••• ... 220
Majority ••• ... —175
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. KEOGH addressing the Llewe. He felt the
greatest surprise at the course pursued by the Noble
Lord with reference to the next clause he had on the
paper. He had spoken to the Attorney-General arid the
Solicitor-General, who had both received him with the
greatest courtesy, and intimated their approval of that
clause, and he. was distinctly given to understand that it
would receive the support of the Government. Not five
minutes since the Secretary of the Treasury had told
him to be brief, for the Government would support him,
and the Noble Lord would keep his men for that purpose
if he did not speak too lohs;—(Laughter)—and now the
Noble Lord told him that he would not support it.—
(Hear.) Of all the rapid changes that had taken place in
the progress of this Bill, and there had been many, this
was the most rapid and the most unaccountable. In
one breath he was told that he should receive the support
of the Government—in the next the Noble Lord turned
round and said he did not consider himself bound by any-
thing that had passed.—(Hear.) He would, however,
propose the clause, though no doubt from this change of
intention, he would be beaten, but he begged Honourable
Members to recollect that a few minutes ago it had all
the strength of the Government in its support.—(Hear,
hear.) What he proposed by that clause was, " That
no proceedings shall be taken under this Act save and
except by her Majesty's Attorney-General for the time
being in England and Ireland, and by the Lord Advo-
cate in Scotland." He need net at any length detain
the House by stating the obvious reasons why such a
clause should be passed. If it were rejected, the Catholic
archbishops and bishops of Ireland would be placed at
the mercy of persons who, from sectarian and personal
motives, would be too happy to cause them annoyance
and injury. Bigots and fanatics might institute pro-
ceedings under the Act, and he asked if it was desirable
that the vindication of the prerogatives of the Crown
should be left to such persons? Was it not better that
it should be entrusted to the first law officers of the
Crown, acting under the sanction of Parliament? He
believed it was for the interest of the country that this
should be the case, and therefore he should certainly
divide the House on the clause, which he Low begged to
propose.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had alluded to him, he would state in a few
words the course he had taken, and the course he in-
tended to take with respect to this clause. When he
came into the House he had not the slightest intention
of agreeing to it; but without having paid much or par-
ticular attention to it, he meant to oppose it. Some of
his Right Hon. Friends around him thought, however,
that as the clause would have the effect intended by the
Bill, naneely, that no action should be brought except by
the Attorney-General, that it might be introduced, if with
no positive advantage, at all events without much injury,
to the Bill. At first, on that statement, he thought that it
might be so introduced, but upon reconsideration of the
subject, he came to the conclusion that it was beet not to
introduce any clause into the Bill which had riot been
fully and maturely considered, and agreed to by the
Government. With respect to the first clause of the
Bill, no penalty could be proceeded for under it; and in
the second clause, which specified the penalty, it was
stated that no prosecution could be instituted, except by
the Attorney-General. That was the law as laid down
in the Act of 1829, and they had preserved that law in
this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) There could be no fines under
the first clause, and under the second there could be no
prosecution except by the authority of the Crown. He
thought, therefore, the amendment was wholly unneces-
sary, and that it would be far safer to leave the Bill as it
was.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS
,was of opinion that the arguments
adduced by the Noble Lord for opposing the clause were
in its favour. If there was any doubt as to whether
prosecutions could be instituted under the first clause,
the amendment would put an end to those doubts, and if
it was the intention of the Bill that no prosecution should
be instituted, except by the authority of the Crown.
where could be the harm of introducing this clause?
Why should there be any doubt left on a question of so
much importance as whteher Roman Catholic archbishopa
and bishops could be sued for penalties by common
informers, or if not for penalties, at least for misdemea-
nour.? There were plenty of such persons in Ireland
who would take a pleasure in doing so. He had had
some experience of them himselt. When he was
Lord Mayor of Dublin, in last year, a doubt was ex-
pressed as to the legality of his election, and there
were penalties attached to certain acts if per-
formed by him without due authority. Informations
were laid against him by a society in Dublin, called the
Priests' Protection Society, composed of ultra-Protes-
tants, and he was served with 210 letitats—(Laughter)
—each of them for the recovery of 501. penalty.
He was put to an enormous expense in defending him-
self. Now he wanted to know from the Noble Lord if
he was prepared to place Dr. Murray, the Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, and the other Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops of Ireland, at the mercy of common
informers? It so, there would be actions against them
without number. He trusted the Noble Lord would yet
consider the clause which had been proposed by his
Hon. and Learned Friend, and which would place the
power distinctly in the hands of the first law officer of
the Crown.
Mr. H. GRATTAN asked if the Noble Lord was aware
the feeling that was new raging in Ireland, where mobs of
had already broken into chapels and violated Roman
Catholic altars? As an instance of the extreme feeling
which Protestants could display, he might state that iu
a certain town in the north of Ireland a Roman Catholic
priest had been sentenced by the magistrates to be
stripped and publicly flogged in the streets; and, had it
not been tor Lord Plunkett, the then Attorney. General
for Ireland, the streets would have been reddened with
his blood. lie should like to know how Protestants
would think of the Bishop of Exeter or the Archbishop
of Canterbury, bring flogged in the streets of Dublin.—
(Cheers.) He protested against the conduct of the Mi-
nistry it this matter, which, if not an intentional error,
was certainly a political blunder.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think it a fit course to in-
flict on the House a legal argument, more especially as,
on a former occasion, tie had expressed very fully the
opinion which he still entertained with respect to the
legal scope and bearing of the Bill. He stated then,
and he repeated now, the opinion teat the offence against
which the first clause was directed was, by that clause,
an indictable offence. He did not, however, as he had
said, wish to inflict a legal argument upon the House
now, but if there was any doubt upon the subject by the
construction of the law of 1829, there was none what-
ever by the present Bill. The first clause was not only
a declaratory, but an enacting clause.—(Hear, hear.) It
declared the brief in question illegal and void, and that
being so, removed any doubt as to an indictment lying
against any infraction of the clause. But, in fact, all
doubt on the question had been removed by the answer
of the Attorney-General fur Ireland to the question
which he (Sir J. Graham) put to him, and which, as he
understood the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, was to the
effect that all similar briefs would fall under the operation
of the declaration in the Act. Now similar briefs would
be required for the appointment of all Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops in Ireland; and, by the first
clause, all of these briefs would be declared illegal and
void. If that was the legal effect of the clause, then it
was obvious that any person whatever in Ireland
might, animated by a vindictive feeling—without the
sanction of the Government, contrary to its feelings and
wishes—have the power to prefer an indictment to
tho grand jury. If they found a true bill the parties
indicted would have to take their trials before petty
juries, the majority of whom might be Protestants, and
quite ready to convict of miedemeanour.—(Hear, hear.)
It was necessary to put a stop to such proceedings for
the purpose of preserving the power of the law officers
of the Crown, and for the sake of the peace and good go-
vernment of Ireland, the adoption of the clause proposed
by the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone was im-
peratively necessary. If it was rejected now that this
open protest had been made, great and serious would be
the responsibility of those who resisted that amendment.
—(Great cheering from the Irish Members, and cries of
"Divide.")
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said surely her Majesty's
Government were not going to let that speech go un-
answered.—(Hear, hear.) If the Roman Catholics of
Ireland were to be strangled, let them not be strangled
by mutes.—(Cheers.)
Mr. LAWLESS said the Government would not have
bad
dared to treat an English Member in the way theyHe
treated his Hon. and Learned Friend on this clause.
nt
thatwould
to heirtake
conductthat opportunityshould
h e
roenifwarning e
remembered
the t
someG O v
futuree n ni e
outhidatnhoet
time.—( Hear.)
didLnoordt authorise t RUSSELLhor i
tHot'n. and Learned
e
a in shouldsabhnod
mu e
be ofatliberty
se aliy personcould assure us raeyet
that
Hhoeuswe
oppose the clause proposed by
Gentleman. The next point
.hseßwtiig'shhetdatoon. explain Friend was,
with regard to the speech of
say,
that it
was
his
in-
tention Member for Ripon.
the on, and
Member
wfoarsAutbainligedootnit,earunpdiathttadt
to oppose thfie
to Lbeein4rgn se
od, Gentlemanhe
ddn
ot
thinkthe thatens
by the Bill that any person should
the
pre-
fer an indictment under it except )saw officers of the
Crown.
iAntd-
Mr. KEOGH thought it now necessary to inform the
House, that be bad had a communication with
clause,t h the
and
that and Solicitor-General respecting
his ttranteboth of them expressed themselves favourable to it.
They had communicated with the Secretary cf State for
the Home Department, and it teas said that he was
also in favour of the clause, and after that he (Mr.
Keogh) had no opportunity ee communicating with
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord retired into the
House. Now in addition to that, it had n stated to
him by the Secretary for the Treasury (although the
Noble Lord might riot now ecknowledge it) that if he
would trot say much to the Howe in reference to his
proposed clause that he would keep a Ilouse to support
it.—(Order, order.) Now these were statements which
the House ought to hear. He considered that the whole
matter from the communication thus made to him was
settled, and in consequence of that, and understanding
that the Noble Lord had authorised the communication
he bad told his friends that the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) and his men would not oppose the clause, and
now he hoped the Noble Lord would allow his men to
support it.
Sir G. GREY said that with respect to him, the Hon.
and Learned Member must be mistaken, for he had
given no such authority us the Hoz and Learned Mem-

bee bad referred to. It had bean submitted to him whe-
ther there was any objection to the clause, and he said
he had an objection to it, and that he thought it was
not necessary.
Mr. SCULLY thought so far as the Noble Lord
(Lord Juhu Russell) was concerned, the explanariea
was satisfactory, but he hoped that the Secretary to the
Treasury (Mr. Hayter) would give some explanation to
the House on the subject.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
"Order Red Question.")
Mr. HAYTER had no hesitation in saying that he
had a communication with the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), but that conversation
was of a very different nature to that which had been
now related to the House by the Hon. and Learned
Member. The communicetion was not an authorised
one.—(Hear, hear, interruption, and cries of " Order.")
It was not—it had not—been stated to him, beyond
the mere expression, that he understood—" Name,
nage," " Spoke," and cries of " Order." He certainly
arfreiited that he had stated that he would request Hon.
Members to remain in the House, in order that they
might be in their places if necessary. The Hon. and
Learned Member had said that he had stated that he
had had a communication with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary of Statellor the Home Department
[ Mr. E:Eonti—l did not say so.)—And that it was made
in a confidential manner. 'The communication was not
one made by him from the Members of Government. He
was stating to the Hunourableand Learned Member that
he understocd (he did not say from whom he under-
stood) there was no objection made to his clause—
(" Name, name")—and he stated, moreover, es be
tied already said, that he would request Honourable
Members to remain in the House, so that a fair division
might take plf,co. He had never, he repeated, stated to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman a communication on
the subject from the Noble Lord or Sir George Grey.
The statement was made in the conversational and con-
fidential tone which were uniformly adopted and re-
spected between Members of the House.—(Haar, hear,
Question, question, and cries of " Divide.")
- Mr. KEOGH rose to explain. amidst renewed cries
of " Order, order, Spoke, spike." He hoped the Hon.
Member (Mr. Hayter) would remainin his place, which
he saw he was about leaving. That which the Hon.
Gentleman said was a confidential communication, he
begged leave to tell him was not so.—(Hear, hear, and
Order.)
The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Member's
remarks were not explanations, but a reply.
Mr. H. GRATTAN thought that the Hon. and
Learned Member ought to be heard.
Mr. MOORE, amidst the general excitement, moved
the adjournment of the House. and evoked cries of
" Order, order," " Go on, go on."
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, no doubt, wished to explain, but as he (Lord J.
Russell) thought, more then was said.
Mr. KEOGH did not wish to trespass on the House
unnecessarily. He was now in order, and the Hon. Gen-
tleman had distinctly admitted that every statement of
his (Mr. Keogh's) was correct, entirely correct, and that
he had said he would keep his party in the House.
Well, now, he would mention what he did not state
before. The Hon. Member said that the Hon. Member
for Abingdon would not press his motion in opposition
to his (Mr. Keogh's). Well, now, what did the Hon.
Gentleman mean by saying that the communication was
a confidential one?—(Bear, hear, and cries of Spoke,
spoke.") If he thought it a confidential communication,
why did he say that the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government would not oppose the clause, if he (Mr.
Keogh) would limit his observations?—(Excitement,
cries or " Hear, hear," " Order, order, and " Spoke
spoke.") Well, then, how did it become the Noble Lord
now to come down and repudiate the statement of the
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury?—(Re-
newed excitement, and cries of " Order.")
Sir F. THESIGER assured the House that, as far as
he was concerned, he bad not the slightest communica-
tion with any Hun. Gentleman, and ho wished that the
matter would he so understoore
FUART WORI'LEY hoped that the House
would not do more than was on the face of the clause.
The professed object was, that there should be no in-
dictment by the powers of the Act of Parliament. For
his own part, he had not the slightest doubt that the
meaning of the clause was that no proceeding.; should be
taken; and if the Archbishop of Weatmiester should,
not choose to comply with the law, why, then,. under
this clause no proceedings could be taken, and in that
case, according to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
clause, he would say that no indictment or proceeding
should be taken.—(clear, hear.)
Mr. KEOGH was quite willing to adopt the form in
the clause which the lion. and .Learned Recorder's re-
marks suggested, namely, that no indictment or Crown
proceedings should be taken under the .Act of Parlia-
ment, unless with the greatest caution.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, Hon. Members
calling loudly for a division, and the galleries were
speedily cleared, when there appeared—
For Mr. Keogh's clause
Against it

... 71
... 232

Majority --161 against •••
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved the following clause:--
" That nothing herein contained shall be construed to
repeal or affect an Act pissed in the tenth year of
the reign of her present Majesty, intituled "An
Act for the maintenance of the cemeteries at Golden
Bridge and Prospect, in the county of Dublin, and to
create a perpetual succession in the governing body
or committee fur managing the same." Ile consi-
dered it of great imp°, tauce that such a clause should
be adopted. There were two cemeteries in Dublin,
which were established under Act of Parliament, and
had existed for a period of twenty years; but under the
provisions of this Bill. Archbishop Murry, of Dublin,
who had now the privilege of licensing Roman Catholic
clergymen to officiate in the administration of the rites
of the Catholic Church in cases of interment, would no
longer be free to do so. He should like to hear the
opinion of the Attorney-General on the matter.
The ATTORNEY-GENZBAL for England could
say with perfect sincerity that nothing could be more
opposed to his f chugs than that the provisions of the
Bill should in any way interfere with the Act of Parlia-
ment to which the Lion. Meniber for the city of Dublin
referred. Is was not intended by the Bill to interfere
with any private Act of Parliament, and he saw no rea-
son, therefore, for the introduction of such a clause as
that proposed by the Hon. Member.
Mr. REYNOLDS expressed his surprise that the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman could have so expressed him-
self, and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman gave
it as his opinion that the Dublin Cemeteries Act was a
" private" Act of Parliament, his belief was that the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman could not have read the
Act. The Hon. Member then read the 27th section of
the Act, showing that it was a public and not a private
A t.

Sir F. THESIGER said his Honourable and Learned
Friend the Atturtiej-General was perfectly correct in
what he stated. There was a distinction between public
and private Acts of Parliament. 'The recital of an Act
did not make it either of a private or public nature; and
the Dublin Cemetery Act was a local Act, and when Dr.
Murray was mentioned in that Act, as Archbishop of
Dublin, it did not make him any the more Archbishop
of Dublin. The Bill could not in the slightest degree
affect the Cemeteries Act, and the Hon. Gentlemans
clause was no:, therafire, necessary.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed the clause.
After which the Committee divided, when there
appeared—
For the clause

... 32

_
Against it ••• ••• -, 150
-
Kijority against the clause ••• —llB
Sir F. TiIESIGER then 1030 to propose the follow-
-eg amendments, tut as soon as he had done so the
Irish Roman C,tholic Members rose, and lett the House
in a body, amid loud cries of " Hear, heart.'—
" In the preamble, lines 5 and 6, instead of the words,
'by a certain brief, rescript,' to insert the words, ' by
certain briefs, rescripts.'
Line 6, after the word Rome,' insert the words
and particularly by a certain brief; rescript, or letters
apostolical.'
" Clause 1, page 2, line 21, instead of the words the
said brief, rescript,' insert the words all such briefs, re-
scripts'
" Clause 2, page 2, line 25. after the word act,' in-
sert the words, any person shall obtain or cause to be
procured from the Bishop or See of Rome, or shall pub-
lish or put in use within any part of the United King-
dom, any such bull, brief, rescript, or letters apostolical,
or any other instrument or writing for the
purposetheun itedof
constituting such archbishops or bishops of such pre-
tended provinces, sees, or dioceses, within
Kingdom, or if.
e Clause 2, page 2, line 39, after the word thereof,'
to add the words or by action of debt at the suit of any
12E1personafter
o di n a
tnd heel eof ahnedr, Mnrajheesrtyld'saiseuspver,sioAr
dcvot,unartise oinf
slnan.
wt,
with the consent of her Majesty's Attorney-General in
lHanedc'eausldthneoctabsuetmay be
.'"
'his own feeling of disappoint-.
magnanimous opinions of the Noble Lord,
that such a measure should have been brought forward.
If it were not too serious a matter, he should say that it
was perfectly ridiculous, after the Protestant feeling of
the country had been stirred to the foundation, after the
nation being excited from one end to the other, that all
this should have ended in the dish served up by 113°
Noble Lord. He believed that bad the Noble Lord
been permitted, unchecked and uncontroled, to 'T1-fine
his oen course, to act upon his own feelings and wishes,
the measure would have been of a very different nature.
But unhappily the Noble Lord lost an o[portunity of
establishing a reputation which would have lasted so long
as the history
of Eiiglatid endured; but at thcesocleircnitead-
lion of others he let " I dare not wait on I would."
They were at all events indebted to him for the decla-
ration he made, and as far as language was on
he did all that was necessary. The Noble Lord also
stared, in introducing the Bill, his intention to be to
make the law uniform in the United Kingdom; he over
and over again expressed that intention, and on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, he ridiculed
the idea of allowing a recript which would be illegal in
England to be legal in Ireland. The Noble Lord, in
express and positive terms, made no possible distinction
between the two countries, and he would beg the House
to bear with .hieu for a moment while he showed that
he would have been perfectly justified in adopting such
a course. There could bo 110 doubt whatever
that the Act of Richard the Second was made to
apply to Ireland; by Foyning's law of Henry the
Seventh, and in the reign et James the First, an Irish
priest named Later was indicted and convicted under
that statute. By various Acts passed in the reigns of
William and Mary, and in that of Anne, the law was
made more stringent in Ireland than it was in England,
for it banished all Roman Catholic ecclesiastics found in
the country. The operation of these Acts continued
until 1752. when an Act was passed which mitigated the
penalties, but contained the remarkable clause, excepting
all who assumed ary eccleseistical title whatever, and
that exception was never repealed. In 1793 another Act
was passed for the relief of Homan Catholics, but left