The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-10 00:00:00

•wfsT

tEev aid rot mean to put down the Roman Catholic hierarchy
',ten ; u.e) might .ey so, for they durst net
'Tapt it. As the measure stood in its diminished form, he
defied any bishop of the Rom Catholic Church to exercise
bigl,!PiseOpal functions, withoet being subject to a penalty of
He saw the Attornev-General for Ireland in his place,
and he should like to heir fram him, whether or not what
,7.lv_as slating idrespect of the effect of the measure was the
4.,4ct e He trusted in God that nothing the Legislature could
r would prevent the Roman Catholic subjects of the
Sovereign from obtaining the advantage and support of the
Ify,Pial clergy. Could any sincere Protestant dread any
the 17 between the clergy of the ' Roman Catholic and of
Protestantf'o,re. Churches? He asked the House-to pause he-
s! tlley interfered with the free action of the Roman
millions in Ireland, or before they gave their sane-
,Tin ato the measure which, in point of fact, would be more
"'1 repeal of the Act of 1829.
Mr.
STANFORD found it exceedingly difficult, not only
'..!ote, but to speak, on an issue such as that raised in the
rises Um then under consideration. Still, he should give
Pertv°6l
prin-
ciple or , not according to what men might say was the pur-
meaning of the motion, hut according to the
_ti._of the proposition. Suppose the motion affirmed, what
II?, id it lead to. It would lead to Nothing. Now, it could
4,13 be said that he was opposed to the Pope. He had
;ended the sum of 2.11. in printing and publishing a
18'11 phlet on the patriots of Italy, of which he had only sold
cueiei.--(Laughter.) He was anxious to give every
an
to the Bishop of Rome in 'the re-establishment of
luasitutional government, but he had reason to rind fault
with the steps which the Noble leader of the Whig Adminis-
tration had taken. The Noble Lord had endeavoured to go-
!sera Ireland through the Bishop of Rome. It was quite true
theat task was a difficult one, and that the wishes of seven
the trillions of people were obliged to be consulted; but still
course adopted by the responsible head of the Govern-
,s4;l*z laid him open to censure. The Noble Lord was more
dud statesman than a Protestant in the government of the
them After seven months delay, the Noble Lord had given
th1..11,1 nothing but words. The Noble Lord had consulted
,07 law officers of the Crown, and he knew something of the
,_untion law himself, for he had written a book on it, which
t;(dr. Stanford) had read.—(A laugh.) He was, there-
fore, surprised that he had taken the course he had done. If
trio
ought that the Pope had committed an aggression on
,„_-•
Prerogatives of our Sovereign, and upon the law of na-
na,:which he undoubtedly had • done, he might have
avoided the revival of an obsolete statute. After the as-
eo: "tal',Ption of these titles, and the publication of the rescript
tty which they were conferred, he might have issued
iProclamation, declaring the assumption of all such titles by
pubjects of her Majesty, unlawful, prohibiting their use,
or ,1,112 P; the circulation or publication of any bulls, rescripta,
er documents of that nature. Such a proclamation
,w.snu
ad have come in support of the statute, and any subse-
;ant infraction might have been punished with fine and irn-
oftunualetas But he did not believe that any loyal subject
th. her Majesty would have, after that warning, assumed
1/,`,'13. He thought the terms of the motion of the
11our able Member for Stafford were quite correct.
rd John Russell, in his letter to the Bishop
Wino
• ,•
_axt am, had produced expectations of legislation
mu... lead not been realized. The Noble Lord had also
letter used language which could not but deeply
o:l'und the feelings of the members of the Roman Catholic
the The, terms " suerstitious mummeries," though
Noble Lord had had the good sense subsequently to
frefY and explain them, were phrases which ought not to
b( ten used, because we had no right to insult any man
aceo not of his sincerely entertained religious convictions.
r, hear.) He gave all credit to the tact of the Hon.
hetalberfor Stafford, who had framed his motion so well that
It thou ght no Hon. Gentleman could deny the propositions
.1411-Wined. The Noble Lord, no doubt, relied upon his in-
raj!), in tact ; and it was said that where it was passible
wriggle in it was also possible to wriggle out; but,
giving the Node Lord credit for all .the tact he possessed,
at ~,suouldl support the motion of: , the Hon. Member for
taord, because its propositions were indisputable.
ir R. INGLIS had listened to the very last sentence of
'e slate& of the Hon. Member far Reading, without clis-
trerin,g on what side he intended to vote. Whether the
and Learned Gentleman was a„Brahmin, or, as he had
rsiled himself, a Pariah, whether, like another professor of
~a'eratur e, his works had gone through thirty editions, skip-
Vieg sotee—or expended 25 solid pounds on a pamphlet, of
si" h the people of had the bad taste to, buy only
copies—(Laughter)—whether he was consistent in ex-
e"ing his confidence in the honesty of the Noble Lord,
and yetfinding fault with and voting against his policy—
r'!( all these and other questions connected with the auto-
rgra.phy of the Hon. Member—(A. laugh) —he would not
i!: He would notice only one sentence of the speech ;in
'Which t Lie Honourable' and Learned Gentleman said if the
action of the • Hon. Member for Stafford were carried it
.nuld hove no evil consequences in the country.—(Hear,
'ar.) Now what was the effect of that motion. The
question which the Speaker had to put was, " that he do now
leave the chair." The amendment of the Hon. Member was
to leave out all the words after that, and to insert instead
uric t. l•rea linen Moved by the Hon. Member for Stafford. As-
-nun g for 'a moment that that amendment was unfortu-
bluely carried; what would be the result? Was it of no
canseqttence to the country? On the contrary, the amend-
*lA mt would destroy the Bill. (Hear, hear.) The question
Wt is not whether the Bill was good or bad. He believed it
As .5 good so far as it went. It was not so good as it might
ve been. He had hoped for a better, but when the qnes-
tick n was taken, it would be whether they would go in Com-
-411 tee to-amend it as far as possible, and on that question he
cot old have no hesitation in giving his vote against the
ani endment,--(Hear, bear.) Was there any one in that
„ ,use who believed that no legislation on this subject would
be satisfactory to the great majority .of the people ?—(Hear,
,e 0 or.) On the contrary, such a course would be hostile
aOl da to their feelings and their judgment. The Bill had
ate 'n carried by repeated and increasing majorities ; the
firs t was 394; the second 414, and the third was 434, while
Its opponents bad never mustered more than 90.—(Cries
of Hear, hear.") With the exception of the Honourable
Met nber for Ripon, and the gentlemen who voted with him,
and the Hon. Member for Dublin and his friends, no Mem-
bern that side of the House had voted against the Bill. He
had t i high respect for the Hon. Member for Ripon, and the
;gentle. men who occupied those benches ;lint the memberi of
• 145 last.' Cabinet, the Irish brigade, And all the stray sup-
Porters they could secure, never amounted to more than 90.
Hear, hear:) Well, then, were the people of England to
yi d now?-(Hear, hear.) To call, on the Noble Lord at
.*(1 head of the Government to abandon all that he had done
t his matter, was more than he hoped any of his friends
rot old, assent to. But whatever they might do, his (Sir R.
luisLis's) course was clear.— (Hear, hear.) He now saw a
Pro position in the hands of the Speaker, which, if adopted,
tpot old: annihilate the Bill, and therefore he most earnestly
aulaild that the general way in which they had hitherto sup-
Porte d the people of England on this question would not now
be depawted from by the supporters of the Bill. He for one
would t~ of vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Stafford ,; and he most earnestly hoped that his motion would
r reject ed by a great majority, so as to leave the Bill ot the
Noble
Lead undimiuished in its provisions, and enable the
-Noble Lord to carry out his views, so as to call into exist-
„taces upern ument resistance to Papal aggression, a perma-
'est support' to the Protestant Church in this country.
Lord DUDLEY STUART ;sSid, that the speech of the
o▪
ri. Baronet who had jiist, sat down, in favour of the Bill,
had almost convinced him that he ought to give his vote
t,h orour of the 'motion of the Hon, Member for Stafford.
th regard to the resolution of ,the Hon. Member for
Sts fford, it appeared to, him ,that it was a perfect truism,
sad .it would ,be childishness to waste time in disputing it.
Ta, Government, it -was said, had given encouragement to
"ue Pope to act as he had done, and no doubt that was
4,6° it some respects ; but had not, other Governments done
ule same thing ? To what hadbeen stated in the discussion
" t he question he could add little; but as, at the beginning
13,..f tote discussion, he had not an opaortunity of expressing
~Irrts elf, he trusted the House would permit him now to ex-
l'4.o(' es his, views on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He had,
!ra m the first, a great objection to this Bill, and very early
in the session had declared his 'decided repugnance to
uh y legislation whatever on the subject.— (Hear, hear, from
e oppunents of the Bill.) He said that it should not be
-"
Kansa' to be from any leaning towards the course of Bo-
ra madam, nor from any leaning towards those who leant to-
w aids Romanian' in disguise, and who were known as Pu-
s* Sites, that he was about to take the course that he had
rti; salted out for himself. He hated all persons in disguise.
Th e reason why he was opposed to 'the Bill was not, as he
had 'already intimated, from any leaning towards the Roman
Caul. dies, nor from any leaning to pseudo-Roman Catholics,
but la .cause he was opposed to all interference with civil and
religio us liberty—(Hear, hear)—and but that he had been
kept as way from the House by sickness, he would have offered
to it hi e most strenuous opposition, before now. He con-
aid ered that to interfere with any people in the exercise of the
rel igion which they believed to be true was most unjust, un-
ve. ise, and daugerons.....(Hear, hear.) He bad his own °pi-
ma ons on matters of religious belief, and he should say that
tie e greatest benefit that could be conferred on mankind
cot tld be in their conversion to Protestantism.—(Hear, hear.)
But instead of taking the right course, they were doing the
soma Ary, and were pursuing that which was opposed to all
right. Let every man, he said, be free to exercise his reli-
gion, z.cod let them act upon the principle, " Do unto others
as you -would be done by."—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
tile insult which it was said had been offered by the Pope, he
Ilai eat say it assumed that character, `and was introduced with
adt the paraphernalia of offensiveness. It did, in his opinion,
s o nstitnte an insult to the nation and the Sovereign of the
ois lion ; and he was quite satisfied' that the Pope had been
hada atdhvroisweditn
i.neuced to resort to the step by thole who were the known
tug, nice of this country, and
who' 'wished to " throw the
appi e of
diseclAd:ttistra
the Pope's pastoral" letter& much of the poe
Ihtmnaemionntgshit'it uesminessn, and
expnretstiesci._Thefcould see also what the
1 a ILI the
aft h Itta WA s
I 'folicy he had alwaysibustetts. Recollect the feel-
s • tries witli.whic ,those Governments.
had always denounceEt'etil
enl whenever he had
attachment to
a d how' he
even his objec-
t e opportunity, and he was not surprised to see them med-
ddi ; but his
ng in the step taken by the Pope
Yet he was sure th le is, and religious liberty was greater than
is as to those powers. at the people of
if necessar
t hi s country would rise up,
be offeredhto" (ma man, to
Mt alga any insult that might
_their Gracious
wer—(Hear)—and it were an •
log rereign anY P° la on th ' insult of
iha it description that wou tin e prerogative of the
say they ght to have recourseshould to
h 1 altr bo •
han the melanc p y, a 'tree ma
• rune other paeans t
to. repel it. He said that hue
Is lure now before the Houser
a case, to sen a d fleet to enrce an
• iourse should be in such ,
) But the step taken b
y the
tipology from the Pope.—Ci-•ear•
him ready to exercise spiritual
ope was one which showed
howls themselves ready to do
bower, and all Popes had ever s
if they .had sent a force against
t site same thing. No doubtf Rome whe
him dead Strom ea where
I lie Pope, they would drive
b foreign bayonets. They
le was at that moment kept y
send
cot one to Rome?
I tad sent a fleet to Greece, and why
.not
I t thorn not
reed the weak,
e em
—Wear, hear.) Whilst they
hade4e no occasion to adopt
* accumb' to the strong; but they,had been
insult—if it was one—
o my such course, because an ittsu
weak, and he said that the
t), tiered .e Sovereign who was f dealing with
13 etter cOnrse would be to take another course of
succeed.—(Hear,
It than that 011egislation,which would not
ent Roman Ca-
".) •The •ht b their legislation ptb rey
y mig y. but they could
tol bishops.from assuming territorial titles,
h 't
Otl prevent, them front exercising spiritual ant ori y over
tl ter r people. As a Protestant, he.rejoiced in his religion;
In he_could give no support or countenance to a measurean
ho se object was to interfere with the principle of civil
eat d
la lig ious liberty.—(Hear, bear.) He was aware that
• tut se which he was taking was unpopular with the gr
ades, of the constituency which he had the honour of repre-
,a, timings but he had determined on taking that course,
1( mg before he had heard the speedies of the Right Honour-
s' tole Baronet the Member for Ripon, and other distinguished
• [embers of that House. On the very second day of the
aF seion, on the report on the Address, he took the liberty
of r stating t 9 the House what his opinions on this sub-
ct were, and of expressing his opposition to any legisla-
th ne upon it. The Eon. Baronet the Member for the Uni-
rye. ra,ity of Oxford bad said that; whenever there was a
di e is ion on the Bill; there bad been immense majorities in
_fa' von r of the Bill ; but that did not influence him (Lord
•Ut Idle y Stuart) in the course which he thought right to pur-
au( 1, He had proclaimed his opinions, uninfluenced by any
/713 la°x. he had heard expressed on this Bill, and seeing that
the a e,a jorities were so formidable in favour of it, it appeared
to nate be only a waste of time to be still discussing it, and
"6 'ln Shied that Hon. Members, seeing that that was the
"Sao ' u,. tld withdrali Naar bpposition tathe Bill, and

THE

set the House free to proceed with the business of the country.
lie maintained that the course taken was not creditable to
those now in the Government, and he believed that the time
would come, when the people of this country would be
ashamed of such legislation. —(Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. BANKER said he should give his vote on very dif-
ferent principles from those expressed by the Noble. Lord
who had just sat down, and the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford. He had agreed commonly with his Hon.
Friend the Member for the Uaiversity of Oxford, but he
thought that ha would be but discharging his duty in voting
for the amendment. now before the house : .for when
it came to a question of " Ayes" or " Noes," he found that
" aye" was the truth, and he .should give his vote on the
" aye" sides Ha agreed _with the Noble Lord (Lord Dud-
ley Stuart) that not only the present .Government were
had
in
fault with regard to the . encouragement which they
given to the Pope, but other Governments had also given en-
coaragement to Roman Catholics, and for these reasons he
should vote for the resolution of, the Hon. Member for Staf-
ford. When these discussions ,began, and when he found
Lord Beaumont and other Roman Catholic Peers of rank
and talent giving their assent to the measure, he was in
hopes the discussions upon • it might be conducted witnout
any religious qaestiens being raised as between Protestant
and Catholic. He (Mr. Bankee), could assure them that such
was the feeling :of his mind, and that he never considered
it a question as between, catholic and Protestant, but as a
political question ,in which he was bound to support the
maintenance of tlje. Established. Church. • But that should
not drive him to adopt a course most pitiful and in-
jurious to the feelings.„ of others. It was perfectly
true that the, Cntholia hierarchy in Ireland was recog-
nised, rot only by collusion, but ,by acts which took
place under the eye of the Sovereign - they were encouraged
by the Government, and hopes heldi out to them that
what they aspired to was not only not distasteful to the
Government, but they had a. right to think that no
such course as that adopted would have been pursued,
He was convinced in his own mind that the terms of the
motion were perfectly true, and he should be ashamed of
himself when celled on to give judgment—to say aye or no
—if he 'did not unhesitatingly pronounce an opinion in its
favour. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government, so
far back as the month of November last, published his
famous letter. ,Parliament did not meet for three months
after. For three months the Cabinet was employed in pre-
paring a measure,,and it was submitted at last for the con-
sideration of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Irish Mem-
bers, no doubt, opposed it; but the minority was the smallest
perhaps on record., A large majority sanctioned the propo-
sition, and the speech of the Noble Lord which introduced
it was perhaps the most eloquent he or any man ever
delivered in that. House on that particular subject. The
House met early he February, but before the end of that
month the Noble Lord resigned his office, abandoned the Bill
and his Sovereign, for causes which were never fully ex-
plained; but among which, as he (Mr. Bankes) understood,
that very Bill formed a portion. Perhaps the Noble Lord
would that night give a reason why, with a majority of 14, and a
minority brought about by accidental circumstances, he
abandoned his Bill and his Sovereign who opened Parlia-
ment with the speech to which he had just alluded. As to
the question of majority or minority, there was a majority
the other night of 14 against him, and yet, instead of re-
signing, he still remained in office. He would tell his Hon ,1
Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that to
oppose the present motion was not. therefore, to place the
Bill in peril, because the Noble Lord having abandoned his
Bill, could his Hon. Friend believe that any Minister who
might come into office would not dare to bring it in, or
introduce a better one.—(Hear, hear.) According, to the
oath which he (Mr. Bankes) had taken, he was bound to
vote for the Bill; a measure, it should be recollected, which
was in its full perfection when the Noble Lord left office,
since whose return it had been emasculated, which led him
to believe it conned the main cause of his resignation. That,
however, would be a subject for discussion in Committee,
when the Noble Lord would have to vote for the clauses he
had himself originally proposed. Believing, as he did, that
the fears of his Hon. Friend were visionary, ho would not
blame him (Mr. Bankes) if he shrank not from voting for
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Stafford, knowing
that the opinions it set forth were perfectly accurate.
Mr. PLUMPTRE would vote for the motion that the
Speaker leave the chair, and against the resolution of the Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Stafford—because it seemed to
him they had quite enough of bandying words backward and
forward—and that the time for action had arrived.—(Hear,
hear.) That was the feeling of the Protestant people of this
country. Therefore whether there was more or less in the
proposition before the House—and it did not contain the whole
truth—be had not a shadow of doubt that the best course he
could pursue was to vote agaidst the motion of the Hon.
Member for Staffoed.—(Cheers.)
Mr. REYNOLDS observed that the Hon. Member who
just sat down used a phrase for which he was cheered by the
Treasury benchese—that in regard to this Bill of pains and
penalties, the people of this country had exhibited great pa-
tience. Did that mean that they were impatient of all con-
trol—that they 'f ere so anxious to forge manacles on ten
millions of their fellow-subjects, of whom he was one—(A
laugh) —that they had lost their patience? The Honourable
Gentleman would allow him to say that, although three
months had *peed since the. Bill was introduced on the
10th of February, it was very likely his patience would be
put to the test a little farther, for if he were not very much
mistaken, both himself end . those who acted with him,
feeling it was 1111 aggression on their creed, a declaration
of war was determined to protect themselves in opposing
the measure by every means in their power. He
(Mr. Reynolds) heard with great pleasure and con-
siderable pain the speech of his Noble Friend the
Member for Marylebone. He heard the sentiments he
expressed with. pleasure, but he felt pain in hearing him
say it was no, use to oppose the present measure any
further, because it was hopeless. He did not expect to
hear such an opinion from a man who stood by the patriotic
Poles in their hour ,of peril and of need—who raised the
Polish standard' when it was trampled in the gutter.—
(Laughter.) He had been told by more than one Member
that they would pot vote for the Bill, because they were
sure to lose their seats. There were, however, two Hon.
Gentlemen who voted and spoke against it, for which they
deserved—as they received—the thanks of every lover of
civil and religious liberty -id the` United -Kingdom. Those
Hon. Members, who represented Manchester, were told also
that they would lose their seats; and yet, hen they went
among their constituents, and called a meeting during the
recess; when they declared they would rather lose their
seats than vote for the Bill, they were not only not
censured in that bee-hive of human industry, but
a vote of confidence in them was pasSed unanimously. They
may talk of their majority of 400; but if the ignorant, bi-
goted, and fanatical portion of the people of England were to
be respected, were not his Catholic countrymen entitled to
some respect likewise? The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary for the Home Department, in his eloquent speech
of that night, said that in Ireland the Catholic and Protestant
hierarchy were side by side, and that, therefore, there was
a difference between England and that country. Ye admitted
there was a difference, but he applied the same Bill
to both, he (Mr. Reynolds) supposed in consequence of his
particular love of uniformity. An Irish patriot, whom he
regretted not to see in his place, had said of him that he
(Mr. Reynolds) had ventured to avow in a society of English
gentlemen his determination to vote against the Government
on all questions. He (Mr. Reynolds) repeated the avowal
that from the period of the, publication of that letter, and
the introduction of'this Bill of pains and penalties against his
creed, and the speeches, which were an aggravation of
it, he not only appealed to • them, but to the Catholics
of Ireland, in aggregate meeting assembled on the 29th
ult., in the Retunda at Dublin, with reference to
this Bill, and to that of the Honourable Member
for Bodmin—the 'Religious Houses Bill. That aggregate
meeting was convened by a requisition having 1,400 signa-
tures, amongst which were those of four Roman Catholic
archbishops, twenty-three bishops, and one vicar capitular,
representing a see now vacant. It was signed also byof
the Roman Catholic Members of that House, and by 1,250
the Catholic clergy and laity of Ireland. The resolutions
passed at that meeting were unanimously concurred in.
They might not value their opinions, perhaps, but they
were the opinions, nevertheless, of seven millions of people
combined against their Bill , and themselves (the Govern-
ment). He had heard it said that what the Pope had done
was an insult to the Queen. Now he was not given
boasting, but he "felt bound to say, that there was no part
of the United Kip,gdom wiere her,Majesty's name was
held in more affectionate remembrance than it was in Ire-
land— (El ear, hear) and particularly by the Roman Ca-
tholics of, Ireland. The Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment was running the risk of breaking up that affec-
tionate loyalty with, which the Queen was there esteemed;
for whilst they Were prepared to adhere to their allegiance,
even at the risks of their lives, they were prepared, to
sacrifice their lives rather than see their ancient
creed insulted.—(hear, hear, and cheers.) The resolutions
to which he adverted vindicated the cause ofreligious liberty
and declared that the. Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill
was an intolerable:violation of it.—(Hear, hear.) And far-
ther than that; they declared that opposition not only to the
Bill itself, but to the Administration by which it bad been
introduced. Nnw need he blush for what he had said ? If
he did, seven millions of people ought to blush with him, for
they bad endorsed his own opinions.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. and Venerable Baronet, who usually occupied the place
he then sat in, called his party in the House " the brigade,"
and himself the leeder of it. To that charge he pleaded not
guilty. He was not the leader, but he was one of their body,
and he would say that it had only combined to protect itself
against aggression. They maintained a state religion in'
Ireland, whicli Seven Millions of Roman Catholics, out of a
population of eight; millions, .bowed to in submission. They
forced the majority. to support the creed of the minority, and
although they (the Catholics) yieldedywitli Christian for-
beateureeth,ey. avd not lee them eilone, but passed a Bill, •
by which if MurrayM should sign his name to a priest's
appointment, he, would be fined 1001., and in default"
be sentenced to the common felons' gaol.'
Bat he (Mr. Aleseaolds) doubted very. much whether the
Bill would pass. Lord Stanley had said were he in power he
would endeavour. to pass a resolution Condemning the aggres-
sion, and then, he'would get a Select Committee to inquire
into the relations- subsisting between Roman Catholics and
the State. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government
‘‘ having said, we must do semeth'ing," although Honourable
Gentlemen on. his:(Mr. Reynoldsa) side of the House said,
" They are doing nothing," and the Hon. Baronet who usu-
ally occupied that, place said, "it is a good Bill—it is not so
good a Bill as I could wish ; but still it is a good Bill." It
was a bad Bill fa. the Roman Catholics, or else it would not
have got so good a name from the Protestant watch-dog.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He would implore of the Noble Lord,
now at the eleventh hour, to withdraw his Bill. He was not .
anxiousi to remove the Noble, Lord from office, but as this
her who sarnid.
a declaration' of war against his country and religion, he .
should oppose it. .
Mr. SPOONPIi said be did not agree with the lion. Mem- .
Pope. He coul
thej :adoption of this resolution would destroy
the Bill
conduct of this
ney were only called upon to declare that the
andn other Governments had encouraged the
it was true.
who brought it forwa
At refuse to affirm that resolution, because
the
with the
time he wished to state that he
had no sympathy
Undoubtedly they thought'nor
forward,
speech of the lion. Gentleman
contrary
woo would
with those who supported it.
considered
they would destroy the Bill, but
teach a rrtsson to the Government, that
that it would etrengthen it,
those they sought to conciliate hbeecoanusteheit
would not be satisfied. No
Ministry could do otherwise than
present Government resigned, another on with the Bill. If the
would
would bring ip a more stringent lie saw no danger in
be found which
the delay, but great danger in refusing to affirm the resolu
lion. With, these views he should veto in
n support of the
amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I should hardly have b
necessary to speak at this stage of the debate, butt itught
is
le that some part of.the House at least may be misledp-
pas-
sible
the statement which fell from so distinguished a Member
of the House as the Hon. Member for Dorsetahire. The
Hon. Member said, 4, Here is a proposition laid before the
House, and lam obliged to say `aye or no' to that proposi-t
tions" Now, nothing can be a more mistaken view of the
question.—(Hear, hear.) The real question is one of a
totally diffe -cut nature. The real question is this—a Bill is
introduced by the Members of the Gov
theernment, and which
upon its second reading, met with support of y
I believe, to 95. The
large. majority—upwards of 4.30,
House having thus approved of the second reading of this
Bill, it is now proposed, in the usual course of our proceed-
ings, to is,
into Committee upon the Bill, and the
leaye t regular,
he'
queitibif roivied time the 'Speaker -do•

chair ;" upon which an lion. Member gate up and moves a
vote of censure upon the Government, which, as be says, will
sweep away the Bill and the Government; and Lion. Gentle-
men supported the Bill on the second reading take ad-
vantage of this paltry and shabby proceeding-( Hear,
hear) -to vote against a Bill which on the second reading
they haet supported. -( Hear, hear.) Sir; the bare technical
questiart will not be-to affirm or to deny the proposition of
toe 'lnes Member for Stafford. The regular motion is, that
you no* leave the choir, and the question you will have to
put is, that those words stand part of the question, so that
there is not the least foundation for saying that the Hon.
Member is obliged, if he approves of that proposition, and
thinks it true, to vote against the motion.-(Hear. ) It is
the reverse of accurate, and it is quite astonishing that an
Hon. and Leatned Member of his experience should be thus
misle'. Well, then with less authority, at an earlier part of
the evening; :the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester
says that it is quite impossible that he can refuse his assent
to that proposition-that it is merely a proposition that
two and two make four, mid that he cannot possibly deny
it. I really think that the Noble Lord is not in such a di-
lemma as he seems to suppose he is, because, with
regard to any other Bill that he was favourable to, suppos-
ing that identical proposition to be made, and an Hon.
Member, were to rise and were to say, " Before the
Speaker leaves the chair I have a curious arithmetical
proposition to lay before the House, that two and two
make four," would the Noble Lord say, " I shall not think
it necessary to discuss that proposition; If anybody can
bring any arguments against it, let him do so, but that
arithmetical proposition must be discussed before we can
possibly think of going into Committee."-(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Such, Sir, I say is the unfounded excuse for
giving a vote for this amendment ; but the Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire, and lastly the Hon. Member for Warwickshire,
gave an explanation which must be highly edifying to those
alembeirs who think they are going to get rid of the Bill by
means of this proposition. They. say, "To be sure, this
is a vote of censure upon the Government, and no Govern-
ment can remain in office with such a vote of censure;" but
then Ault haVe a batter Government and a better
laugh.) You'll get a better Bill, and the Hon. Member for"
Warwickshire delights in that antieipation-(" Hear, hear,
from Mr. Spooner)-a better Bill, in his sense of the word,
being of course what those other Hon. Gentlemen would re-
gard as more stringent, more penal, and more persecuting.-
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, what is the proposition which they
say is so valuable that it is quite impossible to pass it by ? It
is this-" That the recent act of the Pope in dividing Eng-
land into dioceses and appointing bishops thereto was en-
couraged by the conduct and declarations of her Majesty's
Government." Now, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman who spoke
last said that those words-and I suppose he has some au-
thority for that interpretation-apply indeed to the present
Government, and also to preceding Governments. Then I
think I understand a little better what it is now proposed to
affirm. It is, that all the conduct of recent Governments
with respect to Roman Catholics has been erroneous; that
those Measures of fairness, of liberality, of justice, as I think
them, were totally erroneous, and have led to this aggression.
Now, Sir, I totally deny that proposition, .and I totally deny
also that the conduct of recent Governments, or of the present
Government, has been legitimately the cause of the present
Papal aggression ; fOr, Sir, I should say according to all the
usual motives of action (unless you suppose that there was
some Peculiar meanness and unworthiness in those who ad-
vised the See of Rome upon this occasion), that if a Govern-
ment treated the Roman Catholics with indulgence-if they
were disposed to listen to any of their grievances, and
to obtain, if possible, a remedy for those grievances, that so
far from that being a reason for throwing every
,insult upon
the Crown of the country-so far from its being a reason
for attempting, against the consent of the Government,
to establish titles and dominion in this country, it
would, on the contrary, be a reason for the head of
a body which *as thus treated to pay some deference to the
Government which had been thus liberal towards them, to
consult them, if necessary, and, at all events, not wantonly
to insult and exasperate, the country, the Government of
which had behaved to them in a friendly manner.- (Cheers.)
Now, Sir, I believe that I should be casting a very unjust
imputation upon the Pope if I were to 'esty that his conduct
had been actuated by motives different from this, and that
every 'act of indulgence and liberality. had only tended to
provoke him to aggression and insult. I think I should be
accusing him of most unworthy motives were I to say so.
What 1 do believe is, that the acts of the present and former
Goverriinents have not been at all the cease of the present
aggression.-(Hear, hear.) I am.ready to defend the con-
duct of those with whom I have acted during the time I
have been in Parliament, and of those who preceded me, and
who acted in a manner to restore the Roman Catholic rights
of which they were deprived at that time without justice.-
(Hear, hear.) All that conduct of 24 years, from 1805 to
1829, and of 22 years, from 1829 to the present time-all
that policy of conciliation towards the Roman Catholics has
been, I believe, a wise policy, and I am not disposed to de-
part in any degree from the defence of that policy.-(Hear.)
But, Sri, I do believe that this aggression has been part and
parcel of a great plan which is aimed against civil and reli-
giousi liberty in every country n Europe.--(Great cheering.)
1 believe that, whether the Government of this country had
been favourable to Roman Catholics or unfavourable to
them, in the present circumstances of the world this attempt
would have been made, and I feel the more secure in resist-
ing this aggression, because I can say that there was nothing
in the Conduct of the Government to which I belong, or in
the conduct of the Government which immediately preceded
us, and nothing in our conduct as a party out of office, which
tended in any lway to provoke or to make us justly liable to
this aggression.-(Hear. hear.) The Hon. Member for
Dublin speaks as if everything were perfectly quiet and un-
disturbed, and, all persons were living in harmony, until we
provoked an outcry and introduced the present Bill. He
must recollect that we on our sides were totally guiltless of
any act which' could be styled persecution or enmity against
Roman Catholics. On the contrary, the only political at-
tacks which were made upon us were on account of too
much favour shown by us to the Roman Catholics; and at
that period there arrived that famous rescript, not excited or
invited by us, but which came into this country and was thus
the cause of the exasperation that ensued.-(Hear, hear.) It
was dot, therefore, any aggression or any act upon our part.
It was the act of those who advised that aggression, and we
know now, by testimony which is to be believed in this
matter, by the testimony of the Earl of Shrewsbury, that
those who were in the habit of advising the Pope were
known enemies of England. We know, likewisee, from
other information, that about the time' when that rescript
was promulgated it was said, and said by persons who had, I
suppose, good resson for saying so, that a measure was being
adopted which would set all England in a flame, and create
great disturbance among the people of the United Kingdom.
Well, I believe that was the object, -and• 1 believe it was to
counteract the liberal influence of this country, in Europe,
and to enforce the views and plans of those who cannot bear
the progress of constitutional, freedom-(Cheers)-I believe
it was for that purpose that an aggression was framed
which might disturb the mind of England, and excite a dif-
ference between, the people of England and of 'lreland.-
(Hear, hear.) I am unwilling to enter into the details of
the Bill, but the Hon. Member for. Dublin has made repre-
sentations so much at variance with the fact that I cannot
but take some notice of them, for he says that we :prohibit
Irish bishops from taking their titles, that they have a right
to take their titles, and that we now 'propose by a Bill to
prohibit them. Now, is it not the casee-I certainly believe
it is-that most of.the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland in
their relations with the clergy assume the same sees which
are likewise i the sees and dioceses of prelates of the Protes-
testant Established Church; and, if that be the case, here is
an Act whiCh was framed in the 10th year of 'George IV.,
which says that if any person after the commencement of that
Act, other than the person thereunto authorized by law, shall
assume or use the name, style, or title .of archbishop of any
province, bishop of any bishopric, or dean of any deanery, in
Engtend or Ireland, he shall for every such offence forfeit
and pay the sum of 1001.- (Hear.) There is the Act which
applies to Ireland.' It is not a Bill introduced now for the
first time ; but it is an, Act existing upon your statute-books.
And yet the Hon. Member for Dublin, and almost every one
who speaks on that side of the House, talk as if this was a
measure of legislation introduced nosa 'for the first time!
Why, they have been Hieing .under it since 1829; and yet
they come forward 'now and characterise the Bill we have
introduced as one of persecution and penalty
,such as never
had been thought of beforel-(Hear, bear.) What we at-
tempt to meet, and what I think we are bound to attempt
to beet, is the assumption of titles, and the assumption of
power to govern certain districts .of England, in conse-
quence of a certain rescript from the Pope of Rome-(Hear,
hear) and, had it not been for that rescript, I myself
shentd have been perfectly satisfied with the existing state
of the law in Ireland.- (Hear, hear.) I do not
think it doubtful 'that any question as to the case of
that the
Archbishop of Tuam, or the Bishop of Galway,
could have been raised would have been met by the jus-
tice of the case, and that the administration of the law
might have been safely left in the same manner in which
it has been 'left since 1829.-(llear,l bear.) But it was
the attempt to assume titles in England, to assume to rule
and govern certain districts in. England, and virtually
to assume a temporal sovereignty that cannot be carried into
effect without the consent of the Sovereign of the realm-it
was this that made legislation necessary.-(Hear.) Now, I
wish to explain the reason why I think the House cannot
vote on the assumption of the lion. and Learned Member for
Dorsetshire, that there is a proposition before them that
they must either affirm or deny. It is not, as I apprehend,
necessary either to affirm or deny that proposition.-(Hear,
bear.) If they choose to act in conformity with their
former vote they will go into the consideration of this Bill,
discuss its clauses, an examine its provisions; bat if, on
the contrary, they wish to take this opportunity of coming
to a vote'of censure against the Government, let them take.'
that opportunity if they will ; but do not let them say they
are under any obligation to do so.-( Hear, hear.) On the
contrary, I should have said that the fair course would have
been, if they thought it necessary to move as vote of censure,
which, according to the Hon. 'Member for Warwickshire
(Mr. Spooner), includes' all the measures with regard to
Roman Catholics that have for many yeari been carried into
execution by successive Governments,,-if that be their in-
tention, their batter course would have been to bring forward
a substantive proposition for the consideration of the House.
-(Cheers.) As it is at present, all those, who are opposed
to this Bill will vote with them to get rid of the Bill, they
themselves, at the same time, wishing to make the Bill more
stringent, or to introduce another Bill with severer provi-
sions.-( Hear, hear.) If they choose to take that course,
undoubtedly it is in their power to do so, but I do not think
that that is such a course as the people of England expect
them totake.- (Cheers.) I think they expect that, what-
ever may 'be our party differences, the proceeding with this
Bill is not the proper occasion to exhibit those differences-
(Cheers)-but that we ought rather to .tarn our attention,
after the second reading of the measure, to devise those mea-
sures that may be necessary for the security of the Crown
and the security of the nation.-(Cheeri.) Whether or not
the present provisions are sufficient or insufficient is another
question. All we can do is to introduce Such a measure as we
think will be sufficient for the purpose.. Iwould not go one
inch beyond the necessity of the case, because I wish, while
resisting aggression, to maintain that religious liberty which
I hope will never be lost in this country.-(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI-The Noble Lord. has correctly placed
before the House the form in which this question will now be
put. He has said there is no neceasity, to give any opinion
on the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Staf-
forda and the statement of the Noble Lord, so far as regards
the forms of the House, cannot be controverted. But the
amendment, is, to express it briefly, that the recent act of the
Pope was encouraged by the conduct mid declarations of her
Majesty's Government,-a very important assumption, a
statement 1 have virtually made myself often and often in
this House in the course of these discussions, and a statement
that months ago I expressed in a letter to my constituents.-
( Hear, hear.) Now, when a gentleman' not connected with
me or my friends near me in any political way places that
statement before the House, if were to take advantage of
the plea of the Noble Lord, and say thatby the forms of the
House I was not bound to give any opinion on the question,
I think I should be taking a , mean and shabby course. -
(Cheers.) If this issue is placed before me I cannot
avoid giving an opinion on the subject.-(Cries of a Hear,
hear.") cannot shrink from expressing an opinion
on this occasion that I have attempted to establish
on other occasions in the course of the session,
and which, from all I have heard from the Govern-
ment, after giving to their statements and their arguments
the maturest consideration, I cannot in my conscience find
yreafton to doubt the 'fie eufacyjof.-41/ear hear.) is it
true, or is it not true, that
the aggreseion of the Pope has

been encouraged by the conduct and declarations of her
Majesty's Government?—(Cheers.) Is it a fact or not that
the First lllinister of the Crown has himself, in this House,
expressed an opinion that he saw no harm in Roman Ca-
tholic bishops assuming territorial titles in the realm of
England ?—(Oteers.) Is that a fact, or is it not, in the ex-
perience of every Hon. Member of this House, and still in
the throbbing memory of the country?—(Cheers.) Is it a
fact or is it not, that a Secretary of State in another place
expressed his hope that the Rtmtan Catholic bishops of the
United Kingdom would take their seats as Peers of Parlia-
ment in the House of Lords? Is that a circumstance of
which there is any doubt ? And is it not an opinion that
still echoes in the indignant ears of the people of England ?
Is it a fact, or is it not, that a member of the Cabinet
was sent as plenipotentiary to Italy, and held frequent
and encouraging conversations with his Holiness?—(llear,
hear.) Is it a fact, or is it not, that, influenced by
his counsels, and animated by his presence, the Pope him-
self condescendingly intimated to him that he was about
to interfere with the domestic affairs of this country?
("No.") " There is something that affects Englaml," was the
intimation, according to the statement of the Noble Lord
opposite, and I at the time expressed my surprise that the
plenipotentiary did not deem it necessary to inquire what

it was.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I wish to state what I did say. I
observed that it had been stated that the Pope used these
words, but that Lord Minto denied that he ever heard any-
thing of the sort.—(Cheers. )
Mr. DISRAELI-1s it a tact, or is it not, that the Vice-
royalty of Ireland was in indirect communication with the
Pope, and expressed affection for his person, and reverence
for his character?—(Cheers.) If these be facts, I ask,
whether, in the language of this resolution, the aggression of
the Pope may not fairly be described to have been encou-
raged by the conduct and declarations of her Majesty's Go-
vernment?—(Hear, hear.) I do not now enter into the
question of the policy of that conduct on the part of the
Government. I do not now ask whethee it was proper, or
politic, or constitutional, or religious. What I ask is, if these
statements be facts, how can we avoid giving our assent to
the amendment?—(Hear, hear.) Whet is the danger of this
amendment? According to the statement of the Hon. Gen-
tleman who introduced it, his object is not to destroy the
Government, but their Bill; but the highest authority in the
House will inform us that it is not in the power of any one
who moves such an amendment to injure the Bill one whit,
because it will be in the power of any Member of the House
to proceed with the measure.—(Hear, hear) Is there any.
one who actually believes that the existence of any legisla-
tive Act against Papal aggression is in jeopardy by assenting
to the truth contained in this amendment?—(Hear.) If so,
then what is the peril if the House declares formally that to
be true the accuracy of which no one denies ?—(Hear, hear.)
But is there any adyantagb in it? The Hon. Member for
Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) says he looks to the whole
legislation of the Government for many years with respect
to the Church of Rome. I have opposed measures of former
Governments on these subjects myself, and I might with ad-
vantage widen the issue, but I will not take refuge in such a
line of policy. No one has denied that the conduct of the exist-
ing Government in those notorious instances to which I have
referred has encouraged this aggressive conduct on the part
of the Pope of Rome; and I believe that will be the opi-
nion of the country now, as it has been from the first.—
(Hear.) Then, is there any great waste of time in this discus-
sion ? The Noble Lord boasts of his large majority in favour
of legislation three months ago ; but the greatness of the ma-
jority has not tended to accelerate the measure.—(Hear,
hear.) Surely, therefore, this night is not to be grudged if
it terminate in a profitable result, and if any advantage is to
be gained. There has been delay since the aggressive act
occurred ; and, though a vast majority of the House came to
the result that it was wise and necessary to legislate, still
nothing could be more salutary than by a resolution of this
kind to give now a great and dispassionate expression of
opinion with respect to the causes and events which we have
all so much lamented (Hear, hear.) That is the prac-
tical result of the amendment. We state calmly that, in our
opinion, the conduct of the Government has encouraged
this aggression, while we are prepared to support even that
Government in such a measure as will check and control it.
—( Hear, hear.) I sea nothing in the position of the House
adopting this amendment but such as is calculated to raise
the House in pubic estimation ; and in acceding to it, I, for
one, believe that we shall be performing a great public
duty.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK did not call the recent conduct of the
Roman Catholics in England aggression, because he consi-
dered that it had been directly encouraed by the conduct
towards the Roman Catholics of her Majesty's Government.
Now, up to the time of the Noble Lord's unfortunate letter,
did he at all consider that conduct of the Government objec-
tionable? On. the contrary, he regarded it as most wise,
politic, and generous. Called upon as he was to vote as a
matter of fact, whether he thought the Government had en-
couraged the conduct of the Roman Catholics, he could not
do otherwise than say " aye."
Mr. DEEDES had hitherto supported the Bill of her Ma-
jesty's Government, with the purpose, if possible, of rendering
it more efficacious in Committee, and he could not consent to
stop its progress.
Sir T. ACLAND called upon the House to allow no other
consideration to interfere with the progrees of a measure ab-
solutely required to put down Papal aggression.
The House then divided, and the numbers were,—
For Mr. Urquhart's resolution ... 201
Against it 280
Majority for Ministers ... —79
The Committee on the Ecclesiastical Assumption Titles
Bill was then adjourned to Monday next, to be made the
first order of the day.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it was agreed
that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next.
THE KAFIR COMMITTEE.
Mr. KEOGH moved that the Committee on Kafir Tribes
consist of 17 Members, and that Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Sadleir,
and Colonel Dunne be added to that Committee.
On the first name,
Sir G. GREY proposed that the names should be postponed
till Monday, when the names his Noble Friend (Lord J. Rus-
sell) spoke of would appear on the votes.
Mr. HINDLEY said he thought some one connected with
the African Missionary Societies should be placed on the
Committee. - -
Mr. KEOGH having persisted in his motion,
Sir B. HALL said he must decidedly object to Mr. Rey-
nolds being placed on the Committee, because he had de-
clared, solemnly and openly, that he would oppose every
proposition of the Government, right or wrong, and there-
fore could not be regarded as an impartial person.—(Hear,
hear.) If the Hon. Member spoke truth, he must go
into Committee pledged by that solemn avowal to be in-
different to the ends of justice.—(Hear, heir.) But for that
statement he would have been a very proper member of the
Committee.
Mr. REYNOLDS rose to vindicate himself. The Hon.
Baronet had had the boldness—he would not ray audacity,
for that would be unparliamentary—to sae he (Mr. Rey-
nolds) would go into a Committee where he was called on
to do justice between party and party, in the same way as he
would go into the lobby to record a vote of want of confi-
dence in Government. There was no analogy between a
vote is Committee and a vote in the House. Ihe Nestor of
Reformers said once he would vote black was white for his
party, but ho had nevertheless been placed on Committee
after Committee. Was he (Mr. Reynolds) to be excluded
because he declared that, so long as Government had charge
of a certain Bil, he would look on his votes as expressions of
want of confidence?
Mr. J. WILLIAMS must, as a Welchman, express the
deep indignation which he felt, and he was sure the whole
principality would feel, at there being no lion. Member from
Wales on this Committee.—(Great laughter.) A country-
man of his, who had lately returned from Kafirland, had told
him there was a great similarity bet Ween the Kafir and the
Welch languages, and he therefore fliblitiht that if a Com-
mission on this subject was appointed, on. Members from
Wales should be upon it.—(Great laughter.)
After a conversation, in which several Hon. Members took
part,
Mr. KEOGH said he was willing to, withdraw his motion,
but,
Lord NAAS suggesting that it would be better to adjourn
the debate, moved the adjournment accordingly.,
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 25
Against it 1.. 87
Majority
Sir J. Y. BULLER then moved that the House adjourn,
and it was agreed to without a division.
The adjournment took place at a Quarter before Two.

Mr. Hutchins paired, against the repeal of the malt-tax
with Mr. Baldock.
The Marquis of Worcester paired, with Colonel D. Pen-
nant, for Mr. Cayley's motion for the repo .1 of the malt-tax.
Mr. Sidney paired, with Mr. T. Smith, on Lord Naas's
motion.
Mr. Richards, who was in favour of Lord Nasits motion,
paired with Mr. Ord, who was against it.

COURT CIRCULAR.
Her Majesty and his Royal Highness the Prince Albert,
accompanied by their Royal Highnesses the Prince and
Princess of Prussia, and the Prince Frederick Wiliam of
Prussia, left Buckingham Palace at two o'clock yesterday
afternoon fur Stafford House, to honour the Duke and.
Duchess of Sutherland with a visit. The royal suite con-
sisted of the Countess of Gainsborough, the Countess A. de
Harke, Colonel the Hon. Charles Grey, Lieutenant-Colonel
Francis Hugh Seymour, and Count Goltz. Her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent attended by Lady Fanny
Howard, also honoured the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland
with her company.
A select circle, including the Marquis of Westminster, the
Marquis and Marchioness of Breadalbane, the Countess
(Dowager) of Carlisle, Earl Granville, and the Hon. Charles
Howard, had the honour of meeting the Queen.
Luncheon was served to her Majesty and the august circle,
after which the QU3ell and Prince Albert, the Duchess of
Kent, the Prince and Princess of Prussia. and ,Prince
Frederick William, , were conducted through the Picture
Gallery and State Rooms to view the valuable collection of
pictures.
The Queen and Prince Albert, the Duchess of Kent, and
the Prussian Royal Family took their departure from Stafford
House at four o'clock.
Their Royal Hignesses Prince Albert, the Prince and
Princess of Prussia, Prince Frederick William, and the
Princess Louisa of Prussia, visited the Exhibition of the
Industry of all Nations yesterday morning. The royal suite
consisted of the Countess A. de Harke, Countess Oriolla,
Colonel Hon. C. Grey, Lieutenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour,
Count Pukler, Major Von Bayen, Count Goltz, Colonel
Fisher, and Lieutenant Heinz.
The Queen, with the Princess Royal and the Princess
Alice, accompanied by the Princess of Prussia and the Prin-
cess Louisa of Prussia, took, a drive yesterday afternoon in
an open landau and four. Prince Albert, the Prince of
Prussia, and Prince Frederick William of Prussia, rode out
on horseback. Colonel the Hon. C. Grey and Lieutenant-
Colonel F. H. Seymour, were in attendance on horseback.
The Princesses Helena and Louisa took an airing yester-
day in an open carriage and four.
Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar visited the Prince and
Princess of Prussia yesterday, at Buckingham Palace.
Her Majesty and his Royal Highness Prinee Albert, ac-
companied by their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess
of Prussia, and Prince Frederick William of Prussia, ho-
noured the performances of the French plays last evening
with their presence. The Royal suite consisted of the Countess
A. de Harke, the Countess Oriolla, the Hon. Eleanor
Stanley, the Hon. Beatrice Byng, Lord Waterpark, Count
Pokier, Count Goltz,' Colonel Honourable Charles Grey,
Lieutenant-Colonel F. H. Seymour, and Lieutenant von
Heinz.
Her Royal highness the Duchess of Kent, attended by
Lady Fanny Howard and Lord James P. Murray, also ho..
nourel the performance of the French plays with her pre-
sence last evening.
Her Majesty's private band attended after dinner, in
Buckingham Palace, on Thursday evening, and performed
the following pieces :
Overture (Op. 44) Kalliwoda.
Auber.
Aria, " Acteon"
Duetto, " Die lustigan Weiber von Windsor" Otto Nicolai.
Pas de Schal, " La Bayadere" Auber.
Der Gruss un Alpenlande Marsch Kuhaer.
A Cabinet Council was held yesterday, at the. Foreign-
office, Downing-street. The Ministers present were Lord
John Russell, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis, of Lana-
,