The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

about a fortnight ago to ascertain the real state of the agri-
cultural body in France, and he had been informed that
during the year 1850 the amount of agricultural produce—
wheat, wheaten dour, and barley—exported from France to
this country was equal In value (as we understood) to some
2,000,000/. beyond the ordinary exports. It was clear, then,
that France could not only feed her own people, but had a
surplus of food to spare; and it could not, therefore, be
maintained that the agricultural body in France were in a
similar condition to the agriculturists of this country. If the
French exported at a loss, was it conceivable that their ex-
ports would have increased in three years from 216,000
quarters to 595,000' quarters? Noble Lords opposite had
publicly lamented the di-Stress of the .agricaltnial _interest;
the. Noble Earl' (Granville) had acknowledged that distresa
existed among the millers ; but yet these Noble Lords had
not made the slightest attempt to relieve that distress.
The Earl of HARDWICKE-considered it a striking fact
that there was not one interest which came before either
House of Parliament that was not in a depressed condition.
The distress of the agricultural interest had been acknow-
ledged in the Speech from the Throne; and now the millers,
freetraders themselves, had turned round and were calling
upon Parliament for protection. ' It was said that these
petitioners were millers who were in a small way of business,
but very recently a miller of Wakefield, who fed 200,000
people from his mill, had written to Mr. Cobden, as his re-
presentative, begging him to change his views on the sub-
ject of free trade. What, too, was the condition of the ship.
ping interest, and what was the character of the daily and
weekly reports of trade from Manchester ? He might remind
their Lordships that Ireland was no longer a flourishing ex.
porting country, as it was previously to 1845, but that it was
now a large importing country.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE' observed, that if Noble
Lords opposite thought- proper to bring the state of Ireland
under discussion, he thought his Noble Friends would be able
to show that the various interests of that country were not
in the distressed condition that had been represented. The
whole question of protection and free trade was raised by the
suggestion of the Noble Earl, that an import dirty should be
imposed upon flour, and into that subject he would not enter.
He might say, however, as the Noble Earl had referred to
the number of paupers in Ireland, that although it was un -
fortunately too true that the workhouses in the west of
Irehnd were extremely full, he would ask the Noble Earl
what would be the condition of the ratepayers, as well as of
the paupers in those unions, if, instead of having food at
the reasonable price at which it was now obtained, protec-
tive duties were imposed which rendered the price of food
high, ?—(Hear, bear.) He could speak confidently as to the
opinion or the Poor-law guardians, and he had not met
with a single guardian in Ireland who was not so far an ad-
vocate of free trade as to say, " If we had not at this tin.e-
cheap food, it would be utterly impossible for us to support
our paupers." He believed that no , persons had suffered so
much from the removal.of protective duties as the millers in
the south and west of Ireland, but the question raised by
the Noble Earl (Glengall) was one of great importance; and
unfortunately the case of the Irish millers could not be con-
sidered in an isolated point of view, and without reference to
other interests of the country.
After a few words in reply from the Earl of GLENGALL,
The Duke of ARGYLL observed, that there was an lin-
manse pressure upon Glasgow, and other large towns in
Scotland, in consequence of the influx of Irish paupers.
The parochial officers were frequently obliged to give them
half-a-crown a-piece to seni them hack to Ireland —(A laugh)
—and he hoped that no more half-crown paupers would be
sent over from Ireland.
The Earl of LUCAN was sure his Noble Friend (the Earl'
of Glengall) had never intended to say that it was the prac-
tice to send over paupers from Ireland.—(Laughter.) He
had, during the last ten years, resided in that country for a
eonsiderable part of every, year, and at no former period was
there anything at all equal to the amount of distress at pre-
sent existing there. At no period was the cultivation of
land in Ireland so totally neglected as at this moment es-
pecially in Mayo and Galway, and he therefore thought it
was, if he might use the expression without offence, tolerably
audacious on the part of any Noble Lord on the Ministerial
bench to seek a sort of triumph in the present state of Ire-
land. The Noble Marquis (Clanricarde) had said he never
heard any guardians in that country speak in favour of pro-
tection. He (the Earl of Lucan) was a member of four
boards of guardians in Ireland, and three-fourths of the
guardians, if not the whole of them, were Protectionists.
He never heard the guardians congratulate themselves upon
cheap food, but he had often heard them lament that
wretched paupers were driven to the workhouse in conse-
quence of agricultural labourers deserting their wives and
children.
After a few words in explanation from the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, the subject dropped.
CHURCH BUILDINGS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for going into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Lord PORTMAN said he considered some of the provisions
of the measure very objectionable. It would affect the rights
of some 300,000 persons who now bad free seats in churches,
which bad been erected by private subscriptions or by Church
Building Societies, by giving power to the Ecclesiastical;
Commissioners to let one- half of those sittings, in order to es-
tablish a fund for the payment of the ministers. He believed
that some of the clauses would contravene the statutes of
mortmain. The Bill provided that the right of patronage
should be vested in those parties who subscribed not less than
50/. to the building of a church ; but why were persons who
could not contribute such large sums to be deprived of a
voice in the appointment of the ministers? He also objected
to the clause which gave the right of nomination to any new
church built in an extra-parochial place to the bishop, in-
stead of leaving it with the subscribers. He suggested, as
the Bill was not a common-place one. but, of high importance,
well deserving the attention of the House, that it should be
referred to a Select Committee.

The Bishop of LONDON said, the Bill had been prepared
with the view of providing additional church accommoda-
tion. The popular cry now was that the Church should find
the means within herself of extending her borders, and one
of the most legitimate modes of doing so appeared to be
from new cents. The Church Building Commissioners had
found that in many cases where they had set apart a larger
number of free seats for the poor than they had thought fit
to avail themselves of it would be desirable, and it had
been so represented to them, to let those seats at reduced
rents. He had no objection to the Bill's going before a Select
Committee.

Lord STANLEY did not doubt the goodness of the object
for which thell had been proposed, nor was he disposed to
say that in some cases the number of tree seats might not
be curtailed; but, in cases where persons had given large
sums of money towards the building of a church, with the
view of affording gratuitous accommodation to the poor, he
thought it would be not only inexpedient in point et' policy,
but a breach of faith also, by ex post facto legislation to im-
pose a charge upon those seats, at the discretion of the Com-
_

inissioners. v He objected, therefore, to that ez post facto
legislation. Tnere was another point, also, which he thought
deserving attention. It might be, under the Bill, in places
where the parochial accommodation was amply sufficient,
if sectarian feeling ran high, that the building of a church
in the same neighbourhood might be authorised with the
view of serving sectarian purposes alone. This was by no
means an imaginary case, and he feared that it might not
be a peculiar one.
The Bishop of OXFORD observed, that it would not be
the Ecclesiastical Commissilners, but the Church Building
Commissioners, who would have the power of charging pew.
rents.

The Earl of CARLISLE said, the Bill was founded upon
a report which had been made by. a Commission a few 3 ears
ago. The Commission, composed of gentlemen of different

views, were unanimous in recommending it. It had been
circulated largely among the clergy, who were generally in
favour of it, and the Government also approved of the
Bill as a well-conceived measure for promoting church ex-
tention within the pale of the Church itself. He believed
that very good and cogent reasons could be shown for the
provision for raising pew-rents, but it might be a question
whether some means for obtaining the consent of the parish
beforehand would not be a useful addition to the Bill. That
was a matter, however, which would, no doubt, engage the
attention of the Select Committee.
The Bill was ordered to be referred to a Select Com-
mittee, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OE COMMONS, May 12.
ECCLESIASTICAL TI I'LES BILL.
_Continued from our Third Edition of last nigh.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended, that the first
,hing that would strike any individual when considering
he history of the standing orders in question, was that the
sense in which the word "religion" was used in that order
was one concerning matters of faith and doctrine, and not
mere matters of ecclesiastical management, superintendence,
or jurisdiction. The question then was, whether this Bill
did in any way affect faith or doctrine, or in any manner
concern epiritualities of any description. The Roman Catho-
lic Archbishop of Dublin, indeed said, that if the Bill passed
he should not be able to ordain a priest or administer the
sacrament of confirmation. Was it intended, then, to be
said that from the year 1829 to the present moment there
had been no ordination and no sacrament of confirmation
performed by any Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop in
Ireland, except by the Bishop of Galway, whose see had
been created since 1829, or by the Archbishop of Tuam,
there being no Protestant archbishop of that title? If the
argument of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mayo were
right, such must have been the case, because the provisions
of the present Bill were precisely similar to those contained
in the Bill of 1829. He apprehended there was not a Member
in the House who would tell him that a Roman Catholic
bishop could nut ordain a priest unless be were a bishop of
some particular diocese—or that Dr. Wiseman could not
have exercised his spiritual functions as well when he was
Bishop of Melipotamus as he could when Archbishop of
Westminster. The real meaning of Dr. Murray's statement
was this :—" There are certain temporal advantages to the
person ordained by me as Archbishop of Dublin which he
would not possess if he were ordained by me under any other
title." But that was clearly out of the precincts of religion.
It dealt with temporalities merely. Reference had been
made to an opinion of Mr. Willes, but how did that opinion
commence? The Learned Counsel said, "1 em instructed
that the Archbishop cannot ordain or do so and so unless it
be under the title of Archbishop of Dublin; and,l
a
ifd
u(1: 7
co erectly instructed, then the Bill will have suchaLus • l
an effect." Now, in the first place, if the Learned use
were truly instructed, then the Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Dublin and all the Catholic bishop-, of lrehrud must have
been under au interdict for the last 22 years. IN as such a
statement made to the Leaned Counsel? He (the Solicitor-
General) would venture to say that nothing of the kind was
ever hinted at; nor would any one very seriously
contend that a Roman Catholic bishop's spiritual
functions depended upon the title which he as.
suined. But it was dangerous to act upon the opinion
of counsel without knowing the starementi-id by the
him. He would rather trust to the opinion given
Right Hon. Gentleman in the chair, who formed his judg.
ment not only from the standing orders of the House, but
from the clauses of the Biil which formed the subject matter
to which those orders applied. He had no doubt Mr. Speaker
had arrived at a right conclusion on this question.. The
Right Lion. Member for Manchester (speaking
but ad arvidiani)
disabilities the House
said that when they were removingga
that
went into a preliminary Committee, when they were
imposing disabilities they did not think L necessary to go
into Committee. But the Rink It
et en Gentleman must be
perfectly aware of the reason why the House— went into
Committee on the Catholic Relief
Bill. That was a measure
for altering an oath. There was a point remaining which
deserved the consideration of the House. Looking at the
time when the order was made, and when the word n reli-
gion" was used, be ha -*
by the word "religioeling in Le first place contended that
was meant " fsith and doctrine," he
would now ask—hut what faith and doctrine? Was it not
perfectly clear that it
meant the faith and doctrine of the Es-
tablished Church ?
The order meant that the House should
net tamper with the established re ligion nor alter its doc-
trines, without first havin the sanction Of a Committee of
the whole House. No lawyer, in reading this Bill, would say •
that it meant to effect a change in the doctrine or internal
economy of the Roman Cathdic religion ; and to say that
the Bill would alter or affect the established religion would •
be absurd. The whole question was whether the Bill
touched spiritualities. Looking at the Bill in every point of
view, he was of opinion that it did not affect religion, nor
touch any spiritual function of the Roman Catholic Church.
If he depended on precedents be might refer to many; for
instance, the Church Temporalities Act, the Tithes Commu-
tation Act, the Vestries Bill, the Curates Bill; these and
other Bills hid been paned Oritimit EiY PolimallrY refer'

ence to a Committee of the whole Honse; he, therefo re
thought that if the House were to yield 'to the'argument
which had been urged on this occasion, it would completely
stultify itself, and at the same time be acting in direct oppo-
sition to the whole cnrrent of precedents.
11r. GLADSTONE thought the present discussion would
have one useful result, in showing that the precedents on
this important question were in a state that was most unsa-
tisfactory. Therefore, although that might not be a' suffi-
cient reason for interferring with the progress of the Bill, yet
he thought it was most desirable that some rule should be
laid down for their future guidance, in order that - an uni-
formity of practice might prevail' in a matter of 'no. ineonii-
derable -importance. 'The Solicitor-Gel:lei-ailed ingned. the
question with great fairness. The- two main questions, as
the Hoo. and Learned Gentleman had stated, were—first,
whether the word " religion" in the standing 'order included
any religion except the established religion? and, if it did,
then, secondly, whether,' there being the Roman Catho-
lic religion, in this country, it could be said that its
spiritualities were touched by this Bill or not? It ape
peered to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the Solicitor-Generel_
was perfectly right in saying that the preper mearunget
the standing order was, that it regarded not, religion in
general, but the established religion of the country. If that
were so, what was the course which precedent pointed to for
the House to follow? There was, he feared, no consistene
or uniform precedent. The precedent of 1772 would
lead to the inference that Bills which tended to affect the
securities of the established religion ought to pass throngs],
preliminary Committees. It was true the Act of 1778 for
the relief of the Roman Catholics was passed without going
e
through any such Committee, but then there were venous
precedents the other way. There was the Act of 182$, for
the repeal of the Corporation and Test 'Acts, 'the Act ot.
1829, for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, AT,
several other Bills, all of which' were introance."
through the medium of a Committee. The Solier
tor-General had said that the reason those Bills were
submitted to an intermediate Committee was, that they
altered an oath. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not thibk that
circumstance was alone :sufficient to account for the
practice.
He was of opinion that the standing order was intended ;5
protect the established religion ; and that whenever Perlin'
rant dealt with the securities which the established rell'
gion possessed, whether good or bad, the So dealing
with them must pass through a preliminary Committee:
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had also said She!
the meaning of the standing order was that Parliament
not tamper with the established religion ; but that
when measures were to be passed for strengthening the OW
rities of that religion then it was not necessary for Such lug
re su to go through a preliminary Committee. He ("eh
Gladstone) believed that that argument contained the
and gist of the whole matter, that that was We doctrine to
be extracted from the whole heap of precedents before there:
and that Bills which injuriously affected, weakened, or
diminished the securities of 'the Establiehed Church, ought
to to pass through a preliminary Committee; but that De •
which purported to strengthen those securities did not raj
quire to go through that preliminary stege. Looking, he'r,
ever, at the preamble of the present Bill, he confessed
thought that rule ought to be applied both ways.—(tes:;
hear.) This Bill was not like one for repealing a tax; ,
it was a measure which, while giving to one party. we
taking away from another; while it tended to strength.
the Church of England, it took from the Roman Catholics
that which they would otherwise enjoy. The question WS:
one involved in considerable difficulties; and he thought.ror
would be wise, whether with reference to the present Bilinaf
to the future course of legislation, to appoint a CommitteSee
inquiry in order to fix upon some clear and authoritative
construction of this important standing order, so that the
practice of the House, which had been hitherto confused and,
unintelligible, might be made clear, practical, and intelligible:
Mr. SADLEIR thought the very showing of Goverutneny
in their speeches proved the Bill had reference to the lsts;
blished Church. Indeed, he believed the Bill went furthe'
than was ever contemplated by the restrictive clauses of the
Act of 1829.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but after S
short interval the door was re-opened, and we found
Lord J. RUSSEL'', addressing the House. He Was- el'
serving there was no ground for further delay on the 84.64
The instances of the Corporation and Test Acts and of t'et
relief of *Roman Catholic disabilities, qnoted by the Bigel
Hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone), referred to supposed securi-
ties for the religion of the country, and those precedents tot
not apply to the present case. He did not believe a SeLec,,,,
Committee could do anything more than leave the pestle'
to the discretion of the House.
Mr. BRIGHT' recollected that the Noble Lord hatrerithe;
drawn clauses from the Bill, on the ground that they affect.'
the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic faith, and therefore
the Bill came within the undoubted practice of the House*
The Noble Lord invited the House to inflict an injury en
8,000,000 or 10,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kinglet!:
and to pass over certain rules which the Established
had insisted on for its own security. The Roman Catholic
population stood before the House in precisely the same reit,'
tion as the members of the Established ehurch, and t";
Noble Lord ought to have been more careful, when takissa
away their rights, to proceed with the utmost caution thin
if he were engaged on a matter which would affect the power
of the dominant' church. It would be only fair, in order to
satisfy the Roman Catholics to reter the queston to a Select
Committee, when they would see the House proceed vin"
as much care and delicacy in their ease as in that of the Pe"
tablished Church.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion of adjournment .. 53
Against it ... 179
Majority for going on with the debate 119
126 •
On returning to the gallery,
Mr. LAWLESS was speaking. He did not believe the
majority represented the sense of the House, but that the/,
represented the influence of the Government. He would.
move that the House be adjourned.—(Ohl oh!)
Mr. GRATTAN, as a Protestant Member, wished to a—
cond the motion, and appealed to the Noble Lord not to PO
the question as a in ;Ater of good feeling.
Lord J. RUSSELL said 'hat he had seen in the majority.
many Hon. Members who had in general been opposed to his
Government, and that he had never seen a more attentive
House than had been present during this debate. That the
House should now be called on to adjourn made him rasped.
Hun. Gentlemen had faltered is the resolution which it was
said they had come to—not to make any factious opposition,
to the Bill—a resolution which he had very much admired.
(Hear, and laughter.) They had heard the opinion of the
Speaker and of several Hun. Members well acquainted with
the forms of the House, and if there were any Irish Members -
who thought they had a better opinion on points of order
than the Speaker and these Hon. Members, perhaps it would'
be as well ter the House to hear it.
Mr. REYNOLDS disclaimed any intention of offering &
factious opposition, but was not aware that any such reso-
lution as the Noble Lord mentioned had been-agreed upon-
He was afraid the Irish Members would disappoint the Noble
Lord in his anticipations of their political politeness. Would
the Noble Lord consent to nominate a Select Committee, And
he (Mr. Reynolds) would not object to the debate going on
pari passe ?
Mr. KEOGH thought the Noble Lord had admitted it
might be desirable to examine into precedents e
which -Weas
in effect allowing the propriety of a Committee. If .
granted the Committee, they would not oppose his proceet
ing with the Bill. The Speaker said the reason why t
order of the House did not apply was, that the Bill did notnot
affect the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic Church. The
Solicitor-General argued that the order did not apply,becaut•
it was intended to refer to the Protestant religion exclusieedf-
Surely such a difference of opieion was good ground for a
Committee. .
Sir G. GREY denied that his Neble Friend had expressede
any opinion in favour ot a Committee•
He had argued thee
the question was of a different nature . from those which had
been referred to.
Mr. ANSTEY was of opinion that the course the Roman
Catholic Members were pursuing was nut calculated to swell
the minority opposed to the Bill. He desired to Separate
himself from them, because their object was evidently to
throw obstructions in the way of the House, and prevent it
from proceeding with the Bill.
Mr. MOORE expressed his surprise that the Hon. Meta•
ber, who had hitherto been the very 'personification of obstruc-
tion—who had spent one whole session iu obstructing every
thing—his own Bill among the rest—(A laugh)—should noW
lecture others for following his example. Every Member
unconnected with the Government who had spoken in the
course of the debate admitted the desirableness of appointing
a Committee. If the Noble Lord would consent to the ar
pointment of a Committee, the motion for adjournment
would be at once withdrawn.
The House divided, when there appeared
For the adjournment 36
Against it ... "' ... 145
Majority •••-109
thethe Speaker
dpod
wleavingbic
the chair for going into Committee Bill,
The motion was then renewed
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL rose to explain Undies House
wed
onfer
it, as he had not an opportunity
ohfisdroetnasgosons
on
nr
telepeposseigcnond reading. He considered that
the act of the Pope was not such as to have called for
legislation on the part of either
CatholicstherHouseofoEf
England
dmweenft
Up to last autumn the Roman
governed by a body of vicars apostolic, and those vicars
apostolic were the nominees of the Pope. The Bill before
the House had been met by a great display of opinion in the
country. That feeling spread through the length and
breadth of the land, and the present attempt at legislation
was the result of a certain undefined wish on the part of
the people, that Parliament should do something. lie
could not, as some Hon. Gentlemen contended, look at that
movement as one emanating from the Church of England.
The excitement out of doors was merely proof of an anxiety
of feeling in the counter). that this House should interfere
in religious matters. He *ought, however, that le a•
this
nsubject was altogether unnecessary. If the
nd were attacked, let it defend itself:Ctionnufoebn
otfh If
the Pope's nominees presumed to claim temporal or civil
authority over the Sovereign of these realms, then would be
the time to interfere, and no loyal Roman Catholic would
refuse to assist. He should oppose the progress of the -Bill,
and he would join in every legitimate division that could be
taken on its merits at future stages.
Mr. URQUIIAR V said,
that when be last addressed the
House he was virtually precluded from entering into any
question but that of the
conduct of the Government. Since
that period the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
had opened up a branch of the question which appeared to
him of great importance, and upon which he wisbed to ad-
dress a few considerations to the House. - The Noble Lord
*Wed that the motive and object of the Papal Government
in the step it had lately taken had been not a religious but a
political one; that the Government of the Pope, operated
upon by the Government of certain other European countries
who were alarmed at the great influence which Englandi
exercised on the Continent in favour of Liberalisarfide stepCo
r -
stitutional government, had been induced
to
take the
that, in short, the measure had adiplomaticg flame;
that, in a
origin. Nor
in question for the purpese of setting En;
was the Noble Lord alone in this statement.
b • Statements in
a similar strain (which he quoted) had een made by Lord
Clarend~n, by the Hon. Member for the University of Ox-
ford, by the `Noble Lord the Member
Foreignberfor Bath,
Departmenta_ and othbereiti
The Noble Lord at the head of th
said that it was impos-ible for us to meet the aggression .by
diplomatic arrangement, because after
r the Pope had taken
so decided a course we should only expose ourselves by so
doing to huntiliatioe and defeat. The Master of the Rolls,
however, had used a very different argument. He said,
" How could we go to Rome after the introduction of the
clause into the Diplomatic Relatiens Bill which had offended
the Pope and vitiated the action of that measure ?"—(Heare)
The whole question had been placed in a faulty position by
the introduction of the topic of the law of nations; for
there were no treaty rights with respect to the Pope, and
unless the Pope had injured one of our citizens, infringed our
territory, or done some such act, that question could not
arise. In Armenia the same conduct had been pursued as in
England by the Pope, but there, 'as the matter was treated
with contempt, the Roman Catholics protested against it-
If, however, the same course had been pursued in Armenia
as had been hollowed in England, and if the people had been
told that by the act of the Pope the undivided sway of the
Sultan was in danger, probably the whole body of the
Armenians would have exhibited the same servility as the
Roman Catholics here had shown to that potentate, the Pope-
The Hon. Member having referred to the occupation of Rome
by the F-ench, and to the offer, as he observed, of the Czar
of Russia's treasury and arms or the Pope's aid, expreeled
hie convicticm that some cause other than religious was sa•