The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF
The SPEAKER took
o'clock.

MONS, May 79.
;hair shortly before Four

THIRD
The following Bills
passed:—
Midland Railway (Ext
York, Newcastle, and B
West Durham Railwa
Taw Vale Railway and D
CONSIDERA

rADINGS.
illod a third time and

rime, &a.).
ailway (Branch to the
~
[ON OF BILLS.

On the motion for considering the Chorley Water-
works Bill,
Mr. CARDWELL, on behalf of the corporation of
Liverpool, complained that the promoters of this Bill
had departed from their original Act of Parliament in
the appropriation of their capital. The corporation of
Liverpool petitioned against the present Bill, the object
of which was to raise additional capital; but the Com-
mittee, acting under the impression that the corporation
could apply to one of the courts of law to redress the
grievance which they complained of, refused to hear
them. -Now it so happened that the promoters of the
Bill had so framed their original Act as to preclude
that appeal to a court of law, and therefore,
unless the House at this stage inserted a proviso to the
contrary, this Bill would trench upon certain works of
the Liverpool corporation and seriously injure the rate-
payers of that town. He moved the insertion of a pro-
viso to that effect.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the proviso, and, as
Chairman of the Committee which sat upon this Bill,
defended the course that had been taken by that body.
This Bill simply authorised the Chorley Water Works
Company to raise an additional capital of 12,0001. to
carry out certain works which had already been sanc-
tioned by Parliament, and the Committee were at a loss
to know how it could injure Liverpool.
Mr. HEYWOOD supported the Bill, and fully con-
curred in the decision of the Committee.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. W. Brown,
Mr. Thornely, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Greene took
part, the proviso was withdrawn.
The Bill was then considered and agreed, to, as were
also the following Bills:
Liverpool Docks (Alteration of Management, &c.)
Midland Railway (Purchase of Leeds and Bradford
Railway, and Increase of Capital).
Midland Railway (Regulation and Increase of Capital,
&c.)
Weston-super-Mare Improvement and Ma rket.
HARWICH ELECTION.

Mr. K. SEYMER brought up the report of the
Harwich Election Committee unseating Mr. Prinsep, and
declaring the last election to be void.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Sir W. HAYTER, a new writ was
ordered for Clackmannan and Killross, ia the room of
Sir W. Morrison, deceased.
PETITIONS.

Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition from the
Shetland Islands complaining of the burdens upon land.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL presented serveral petitions
from Limerick and Dublin, and other places in Ireland,
against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh
in favour of this Bill.
Mr. FRESEIFIELD presented several petitions from
parishes in Lincolnshire w the same effect.
Mr. COWAN presented petitions from Edinburgh
against the Distilled Spirits 13111, stating That they had
never been consulted with respect to the Bill now before
the House, and that the Bill as it now it tood would be
injurious to their interests.
Mr. CORBALLY presented several petitions against
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented petitions to the same
effect from the undermentioned places:—B ray, in Wick-
low; Thurlos, Tipperary; Killskeery, Tyrone; Lisburn
and Hillsborough, Down and Antrim; Dunabate and
Portrave, Dublin; Kilcar, Donegal county; Clones,
Monaghan ; Tessuagh, Tipperary ; Tn llinghohegby,
Donegal; Aughabery, Monaghan; Killnip pe and Dun-
sany, Meath; Bellynderry, 'Tyrone and AL ntrim; Bath-
naskill, Galway; St. Nicholas Without, Dublin; Dublin
Cemeteries Committee (which on the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman was read from the table); Durs.auly, Leitrim;
Bridgetown, Garrybarry, and Killaboe, Clare.
Mr. JOHN O'BRIEN presented a peieition from the
Chamber of Commerce of the city of Limerick, praying
that the Towns Improvement Bill be suspended till the
wards of that city be reconstructed on the principle of
the Dublin Improvement Act ; also a petition from
a public meeting of the ratepayers aud citizens of
Limerick, praying that the Towns Improvement Bill,
with certain modifications, may pass into Law.
Mr. R. M. FOX presented a petition from the county
of Longford against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which
he moved should be read at the table of the House.
The petition was then read by the Clerk at the table.
• SEWERS ACT.
Lord DUNCAN wished to ask the Right Hon. tho
Secretary of State for the Home Department when he
proposed to bring in his new Bill respecting the Com-
missioners of Sewers.?
Sir G. GREY could not name the day now, but ample
notice would be given of it beforehand.
DINGLE WORKHOUSE.
Mr. REYNOLDS asked the Chief Secretary for Ire-
laud a question respecting the investigation held it the
Dingle workhouse, county of Kerry. ; and -whether the
Protestant-chaplain, and other paid officiate, alleged to
have bribed Catholic paupers to become Prottestants, are
still continued in their respective appointmeiets ?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said an inquiry had been in-
stituted into the meter by the Poor-law Commissioners,
and it hid transpired that they had been in the habit of
distributing small sums amongst the Protestant inmates
of the Dingle workhouse, but it was more for the pur-
poses of charity than anything else.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished to know if the Eon. Baronet
had any objection to lay the paper relating to that before
the House?
'Sir W. SOMERVILLE had none whatever.
THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

Ur. HUME asked the Under• Secretary for the Colo-
nies whether he would have any objection to lay on the
table the last dispatch received from the Cape respecting
the expense of the Kafir. war?
Mr. HAWES said if the Hon. Member would put his
question to-morrow be would be in a positiotnito give an
answer.
In reply to Mr. ADDERLEY,
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was the intention of the
Government to appoint assistant Commissioners to pro.
ced to the Cape to inquire into the affairs of Kafraria.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what powers the
Commissioners would have to make peace with the Kafir
tribes?
Lord J. RUSSELL said Sir Harry Smith was Chief
Commissioner.—(A laugh.)
VISITS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS TO THE
EXHIBITION.

Mr. HUME said he understood it was the intention of

the Government to give leave of absence to dockyard
servants for six or ten days to enable them to come to
London to see the Exhibition, and he wished to
know whether the Government were to pay their ex-
penses; and also, whether they would have any objec-
tion to extend tee same privilege to other public servants?
Sir F. BARING replied that the Admiralty had given
leave to the officers employed in the dockyards, who
were anxious to attend the Exhibition, to be absent two
days in London, but they did not propose to pay their
expenses either in coming up or in rvturnino..—(llear.)
_ ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

Mr. NlooftEe;:n;die;er;l petitions from Ireland
against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. _

-Mr. SPOONER presented two petitions against Papal
aggression.
Mr. ROCHE presented several petitions from Tip-
perary against the Bill.
Sir JOHN YOUNG presented several petitions from
the county of Durham to the same effect.
Mr. W. Miles from Gloucestershire, and Mr. Hope and
Sir John Trollopo from Rants, presented petitions to
the same effect.
Dr. POWER presented several petitions from different
places in Ireland against the Bill.
Mr. KEA.TING and Mr. LAWLESS presented several
petitions, the latter, chiefly from Clonmel, against the
Bill.
Mr. SADLEIR also presented petitions against the
Bill.
Colonel CHATTERTON presented a petition from
Cork in favour of the Bill.
Several other petitions were presented in favour of
and against the Bill.
The House then resolved itself into Committee, and on
the motion being made to proceed,
Mr. REYNOLDS rose and said, that he moved
that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave
to sit again.—(Loud laughter from all sides of the
House.) Gentlemen might laugh at such a motion, but
they should recollect that when the House lent sat upon
this question an understanding was come to that the
First Lord of the Treasury should decide before they
sat again as to the course which he intended to pursue
with regard to this Bill. It was quite evident that no
such understanding had been come to, and that no
course had been adopted which was at all
likely to lead to the settlement of the question.—(Hear,
hear.) Members might cheer, but those who were most
ready to give that ironical notice of their feelings, might
be of a different opinion when they came to hoar the reason
which he had to adduce for thus moving that the
Chairman should now report progress. He had care-
fully studied this Bill, and had been somewhat asto-
nished at the form which its several clauses lit.d assumed.

The understanding not having been carried out, he felt
himself perfectly justified in the couse which he now pur-
sued, of moving that the Chairman report progress.
It should be recollected that this was not the first Bill
or even the second Bill, for it was entirely a different
Bill from that which had been originally introduced.
The Right. Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home De-
partment had voluntarily abandoned the secor,d and third
clauses of the Bill, but he had retained the first.
During the course of the debate the Honourable Mem-
ber for Midhurst, Mr. Walpole, had placed a notice on
the books which materially affected the whole subject.
By that arrangement the whole of the evil was still con-
tinued, and the first clause curtained all tbe mischief.
That clause he called the Walpole clause. • There was

also another clause of the most insulting nature to him
and his co-religionists, namely, that clauso which
the Secretary of State had manufactured out
of the proviso which had been originally introduced
to exempt the Scotch Episcopalian bishops from the
operation of the Bill. That was what he called making
"fish of one and flesh of the other," and he would like
to know whether the Noble Lord would introduce
just such another clauso for the benefit of the
Roman Catholic bishops of the United King-
dom. Another reason for his making this mu-

tion was, that there wcro several anaendaieTts
which did not apply to the Bill in its present shape;
and would it not, therefore, be reasonable to permit the
Chairman to report .progress, in order to enable Ron.

Members to have time to see what those amendments really
were? The many-tongued animal the press had lately been
devoting great space to the proceedings of what was
called the Irish brigade, and remarked on the
dearth of talent in the Irish ranks, asking
where were the Currans, the Grattans, the Sheridans,
the Plunkets? He might well retaliate, and pointing
to the Treasury bench, ask where were the Foxes—
(Laughter)—the Burkes, and the Pitts? He was one
who liked precedents, and if they were reproached for
wasting the time of the House, which they had not yet
done, he would refer them to an edition of
Lord Brougham's speeches, edited by himself, for the
course which was taken by the party to which the Noble
Lord now at the head of the Government belonged, in
1816, for the protection of the people of this country.
Having read the opinion of Mr. Brougham, when he was
a Member of the. House, relative to the propriety of of-
fering every description of opposition to an obnoxious
tax, that example being set by him, and having had his
approval after the lapse of upwards of twenty
years. He should be glad to know whether it
was fair or reasonable of the Noble Lord, and those
who acted with him, to taunt him (Mr. Reynolds) and
those who voted as he voted; with wasting the time
of the House, because he merely did what their bad
policy had given him permission to do. He
trusted the Noble Lord would not object to
the Chairman reporting progress. He wished to
offer no factious opposition to the Bill—A laugh)—
but simply wanted to have time to consider the Bill
in its altered state. If such a concession were made by
the Government, a great deal of time and trouble would
be saved. He therefore felt justified in moving, as an
amendment, that the Chairman now report progress.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he would leave it to the
consideration of the Committee, whether the course
pursued by the Hoa. Gentleman was or was not in ac-
cordance with the understanding which was arrived at
by the House on Friday evening.—(Hear, hear.)
He trusted that the House would not be led into the
discussion of the different topics to which the Hon.
Gentleman had adverted. Whatever might be the ob-
ject of the Hon. Gentleman it could have no other effect
than to prevent the House adopting the arrangement
of Friday night, viz., that they should proceed with the
consideration of the clauses of the Bill.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY seconded the
amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that there were such stringent
regulations in that Bill that if they were to be per-
severed in they would call into question all
the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith.—(Hear, hear.)
and cheers.) This was not the same Bill; it was a new
Bill, and therefore it ought to go through all the pro-
cesses of a new Bill.—(Hear, hear.) It was not
the Bill at all which the Noble Lord had
first introduced. It was altogether a new Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) He confessed that he was not able to understand
it.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had, with all his
constitutional earnestness, pressed the Bill upon the
House, and yet what had been the effect ?
Why, that the Bill had been entirely changed.
Did he then ask for anything that was unrea-
sonable? Nothing of the kind. He only asked for time
for deliberation. The Ministry, with a large ma-
jority at their back, might, it was true, press for a
consummation of their designs; but, to say the least of
it, it was evidently unconstitutional, and he should
therefore vote for the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE regretted equally the motion and
the necessity for its being made, but it was evident that
a great change had been made, not only in the Bill
itself, but in the spirit of the Bill also, causing it
to become altogether a different thing to that
which it formerly was. Within the whole
course of his Parliamentary experience, he had
never met with anything equal to this, and he did there-
fore feel that they bad no right whatever to enter upon
legislation on this subject until they had had advice from
the first law officers of the Crown. Any gentleman
might get up and introduce words which would
altogether alter the tenor and the force of the
Bill. How then could they proceed ? This
Bill contained three operative clauses; of these
three two were rendered void. What would they do
if his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Midhurst had attacked the Pope's brief itself. He said
that that brief was in itself invalid, and quite illegal,
in this country. This proposition the Ministry had
adopted, and it was therefore plain that nothing could
be done soundly at least without that legal advice of
which they now stood so much in need. Was it not also
known to the House that there was another rescript from
the Papal authority for the division of the Roman Ca-
tholic diocese of Ross, which was now separated from
the diocese of Cloyne. Acc Tding to this measure that
rescript would be also void. He, therefore, hoped that
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) or the Secretary of
State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey) would in-
form the House as to the legal character and bearings of
the present Bill; and he also wished to know whether
the excluded clause would be brought back to the Bill,
and whether, if so, it would have the retrospective force
of annulling the past rescript of the Pope, and also of de-
feating the late episcopal jurisdiction in Ireland, to which
he had already adverted?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Committee had two ques-
tions to consider which ought to be kept separate. The
first was the question of the Hon. Member for Dublin,
who had moved that the Chairman should report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again; and whatever the Noble
Lord the Member for Arundel might say, he could not
agree to that course,-because ho had no security, when
they came on Friday next to consider the Bill, that the
Noble Lord might not, without any factious motive, pro-
pose that the Chairman should leave the chair; and thus
they would be in no better position than they were at the
present moment. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) took another course, and said that in going
into a Bill of so much importance as this, especially
when the first clause was not originally in the Bill, but
had been lately introduced, some member of the Govern-
ment ought to explain the general scope of the clauses
and what would be their practical effect; and be (Lord
J. Russell) would not deny, if the other questions were
disposed of; that it would be fair, when they came to read
the clause, that the Attorney-General should explain to
the Committee the view which ho took of that clause
and what would be its legal effect.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY understood
that the agreement came to on last Friday night was,
that there should be no division on the motion of the
Speaker leaving the chair, but that there was no farther
pledge given on their part; and he should add that, when
the Noble Lord stated that there was no security for a
legitimate discussion, there existed a right for every Hon.
Gentleman to avail himself of all the forms of the House
against so obnoxious a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the present was a new
Bill altogether, and that it was nothing but just and fair
that its principles soould be considered.
Sir R. H. INGLIS admitted that the law officers of
the Crown should explain the nature of the new clause,
particularly as that clause was as improvement in the
Bill.

Mr. P. HOWARD said that if the Government ac-
ceded to the suggestion of Mr. Gladstone, then Mr.
Reynclds might with great propriety withdraw his mo-
tion. It they obtained from the law officers of the
Crown a full and distinct explanation of ail the bearings
of the measure, they could reserve their opposition till
it had reached a future stage.
Mr. HORSMAN said that if the Hon. Member for
Dublin would withdraw his motion so as to enable the
statement to be made by the Attorney-General, is ac-
cordance with the suggestion of the Right lion. Gentle
man opposite (Mr. Gladstone), to which the Noble Lard
had acceded, the [lon. Member would not be in a worse
position than he was at present. As some misunder-
standing seemed to exist as to what happened on Friday
last, and as he was present on the occasion ho wished to
observe that the statement of his Noble Friend behind
him (Lord Arund,l and Surrey) as to the arrangement
entered into on that occasion was correct. The Hon.
Gentlemen who were concerned in the arrangement
stated, on that occasion, that they agreed to the Noble
Lord's suggestion, on condition that on Monday they
would not be bound by it, beyond the question that the
Speaker do leave the chair, and to that condition the
Noble Lord assented.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that what he had stated
was, that when they came to the first clause the At•
torney-General would make a statement with respect to
the bearing and legal effects of that clause. That did
not touch the question of the preamble.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that if the motion of
the Hon. Member for Dublin was within the strict let-
ter, it was not within the spirit of the arrangement.
That arrangement was that no opposition should be
made to the Speaker leaving the chair; but having
agreed to the Speaker leaving the chair, what possible
use was there in demanding that he should be put into it
again immediately, for that was the object of the motion
of the Hon, Member for Dublin? Ho thought the Hon.
Gentleman ought to allow the first reading of the Bill,
and on the question that it be read a second time the
Attorney-General should make his statement. He
thought the Noble Lord had hardly kept faith with the
House. For having before Easter called on all Hon
Gentlemen who had amendments to propose in the Bill
to place them on the paper, and that after the Easter re-
cess he would state which of them he would accept and
which reject, the Noble Lord, on the House assembling
after the recess, stated that he would not accept the
amendment of the lion. Member for Midhurst. Yet the
Noble Lord bad sent the Attorney-General to the Hon.
Member for Midhurst in order to " cook up" a new Bill
with him; but it appeared they could not agree upon it.
However, as the House did not know at the present mo-
ment where in the Bill the Hon. Member for Midhurst
meant to place his amendments, that of itself consti-
tuted a ground for a‘king a few days' delay. Ho sug-
gested that the Lion. Member withdraw his motion, and
that they should at once have the statement of the Attor-
ney-General.

Mr. B. ROCHE took the same view of the arrange-
ment of Friday night as the Noble Lord (Arundel and
Surrey).

Mr: 'KEOGH said that the arrangement bad been
made between him and th© Noble Lord, and if he con-
ceived he were violating the spirit of that arrangement
in supporting the motion of the lion. Member for
Dublin, he would not vote for it. But he was convinced
that that motion violated neither the spirit nor the letter
of that undentanding; neither bad the Noble Lord ac-
cused them of such a thing, but the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Sir George Grey) hinted it. What happened
Ras this. He asked the Noble Lord to consent to the
re-printing of the Bill; the Noble Lord at first refused,
and the House now saw that he (Mr. Keogh) had just
and reasonable groends for that request. The Noble
Lord afterwards consented, on condition that on Monday
he should be placed in the same position with respect to
the Bill as he was then; he (Mr. Keogh) agreed, pro-
vided that he and his friends should also be put in
the same position—namely, that on the Speaker
leaving the chair they should make ever, species of
oppoxition to the Bill that they deemed expedient. That
was the arrangement agreed to, tied he insisted it had
not been violated in spirit or letter by them. As re-

garded the proposition just made by the Noble Lord, he
understood the Noble Lord admitted the justice of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) appeal, for
he had said that if they took one step, it was but right
that he himself or the Attorney General should make a
statement. Now the Chairman of Committees had just
informed him that it was necessary to move that the Bill
be read a first and second time, because of the alterations
made in it; but that if it were the same Bill it would not
be necessary. The Noble Lord had adopted a great por-
tion of the Hon. Member for Midhurst's amendment;
let the Attorney-General then make his statement, and
afterwards let them adjourn the question to Friday next,
in order that they might have an opportunity of fully
considering the provisions of the Bill as amended. The
Noble Lord had undertaken to have the Bill reprinted,
bat it had not been delivered to Hon. Members until late
that morning. On that ground alone they were entitled
to have it adjourned.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he had given notice of his
amendments on the second reading of the Bill; and
they had been put on the paper before the Easter re-
cess,
so that it could not be with justice said that the
House was taken by surprise with respect to those
amendments. After the Easter recess the Noble Lord
stated that he did not object in principle to the first
clause, which he (Mr. Walpole) proposed, for that it
was in substance already contained in the Bill. He
(Mr. Walpole) met the Attorney-General by accident in
the street, and spoke to him on the subject of his
amendments, wondering that the plan therein suggested
had not been adopted by the Government. Oa the fol-
lowing day he had a conversation with the Attorney-
General on the subject of his amendments, a portion of
which the Government objected to, and another por-
tion they did not object to. But, until he came down
on Friday last, the Government were under no arrange -
ment with him either to reject or accept them. How
there could be any such compromise, he could not
understand, for he approved of the principle of the Bill,
and he could see nothing objectionable in an Ron.
Member who supported a Bill communicating with the
Attorney-General, who had the conduct of the Bill, in
order to see how far any amendments he meant to pro-
pose in the Bill were objectionable or not.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—It was the Noble Lord himself
who had stated he had sent the Attorney-General to the
Hon. Member for Midhurst.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had said very truly that he had met the Attorney.
General by accident, and the latter had most properly
cold him (Lord J.Russell) that he bad some conversation
with the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid burst with
respect to his amendments, but he did not wish to com-
municate furth©r with him without his (Lord J. Russell's)
authority. He (Lord J. Russell) did not give-him any
explicit directions on the matter, but gave him his autho-
rity to communicate with the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man respecting it.
Mr. HUME said the question was, whether the expla-
nation asked for should be given on the motion that the
preamble be postponed, or on the first clause. It ap-
peared to him a matter of very little importance on which
it was given.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD,
Mr. MOORE reminded the House that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Athlone had a notice on the paper of a motion
with respect to the postponement of the preamble, and it
was quite impossible therefore to accede to the postpone-
ment of the preamble now.
Mr. REYNOLDS would not enter into any explana-
tion respecting Friday night's arrangement, as it had
been already explained by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Athlone. He was prepared to withdraw his
motion only on the'specific understanding that the At-
torney-General should be permitted to explain the Bill
as amended, and after that explanation was made, that
no further progress should be attempted by the Govern-
ment with the Bill until Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree to the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
The amended Bill was then read a first and second
time.

On the question that the preamble be postponed,
Nr. REYNOLDS moved that the Chairman report
progress.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 46
Against it 262
aj °city 216
The preamble was postponed accordingly.
On the first clause being put from the chair,
The AT rORNEY-GENERAL, understanding it was
the general wish of the House he should make a state-
ment of the legal effect of the provisions of the Bill,
felt it to be his duty to do so on the present occasion.
In the first place, he totally and entirely disagreed with
those Hon. Members who said that the Bill was a new
Bill. The only clause to which he proposed to attach
any observations, in the first instance, was the first
clause, as that was tho clause alleged to contain certain
matter which made the Bill a new measure. He was,
however, prepared to show that this clause effected no
alteration whatever in reality in the character of. the
Bill; but that, on the contrary, it left that measure sub-
stantially the same as before. As the Bill stood before,
the preamble recited " that whereas certain of her Ma-
jesty's subjects, by virtue of a pretended authority of the
See of Rome, had asenened titles out of provinces, dio-
ceses, and towns in her Majesty's kingdoms." It then
went on to refer to the Act 10 (ieo. IV., c. 7, in which
was to be found an enactment providing against the as-
sumption of any such style or title as regarded pro-
vinces and dioceses already occupied by the Church of
England, making it an offence, and affixing thereto a
penalty. After this, it proceeded to recite that the at-
accept to establish such etylc seid titles having been made,
t declared it expeaient to prohibit such assumption,
and then went on to recite the penalty fixed in the
second clause as applicable to the case. The
second clause made the assumption of titles not included
in the 10th Geo. IV., c. 7, illegal; in other words, it
placed provinces, cities, and towns not appropriated by
the Established Church on the same tooting as those in
that Act, subjecting those who took such titles to the
same penalty as was provided Isy that statute. The other
clause—that originally suggested. by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurse—was the clause which it
was suggested created a new Bill of the measure. But
that clause was purely declaratory. It embodied only
the recitals in the preamble, which went to say that cer-
tain persons had done a certain thing which ought to be
prevented; and it merely asserted that this recital should
be held legally valid. The first clause, which was sug-
gested by the Hon. and Learned Member, might strike
the House as superfluous; but a great desire had been ex-
pressed that itshould be adopted to mark the sense of the
country on the subject. There was an ievasion—and it
was desired that there should be a declaration of Parlia-
ment on the subj-ct to go tor th to the world. It ap-
peared to him (the Attorney-General) to add nothing to
the Bill; as far as punishment for the offence was in ques.
tion, or as far as the penalty wae concerne 1, while it
gave a more solemn form to the declaration. As
it was no hardship, and gave some satisfaction to a
great number of persons, to vindicate the national
Sovereignty, there could not, in his opinion, be any
possible harm in adopting it. The Bill, however, was
no new Bill. The clause was only what it purported to
be—a recital of the preamble, aria giving it more expli-
citly. With regard to the second clause, it had been
already so much discussed, that he could not understand
how any person could tail to sea its bearings. It
amounted to this—that the Act 10 Geo. IV., which now
applied in terms only to titles alro ady appropriated by
the Established Church, was proptjeed to be applied to
titles not so appropriated. An aeaempt was made to
parcel out England into provinces and dioceses by an
authority which had no foundation in the constitution,
and to assume titles and dignities aa arising out of these
divisions, at th© instance of a foreign power. The clause
proposed these titles should be void; and that the places
from whence they purported to be d erived should be put
in the same category as those place s referred to in the
10th Geo. IV. It did no more and no less. And when

it was urged that this clause would interfere with the
operation of the Charitable Bequs sts Act, the simple
answer to that allegation was, tnat the 10th George IV.
did not interfere with it, and this (;11111S3 applied only to
titles not included in that Act. He (the Attorney-
General) should be trifling with too time and patience of
the House if he added another word to the legal explana-
tion which he was called on to gicv, as, after the long
discussion which the Bill had und, :agony, nothing new
could be said by him on the subject.
Mr. P. HOWARD contended th it the Bill was essen-
tially a new Bill. If it were not ; to, it would not have
been read a first and a second time o by the Chairman.
Besides, the date on the amended Bill was altered. Now,
the Bill being a new Bill, he considered that the House
had not been treated with sufficient candour by the Go-
vernment, who submitted it in a priatted form that morn-
ing, and forced on a discussion of its provisions almost

immediately afterwards.
Mr. K. SEYMER called the 31`,tentio n of the law
officers of the Crown to the fact, that while the Bill
relating to
de-
clared illegal the bull or spostoliclettersto
somewhat similar
England, it omitted all reference to,
the diocese of Ross
bull or Papal rescript underw
3hnes
I.a faredtion
a necessarysoverei g
nftoyr
had recently been constituted in rebind. If IPgisla-
tion in express terms were
upholding the independence of t
in England, he certainly thought.. it was equally
war
Queen by persons of
im-
portant it should be. adopted for Ireland, where
had actually been levied against e.h
station, who were now sufferi Lgt e penalty of their
some
crimes.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the answer to the
question of the Hon. Gentleman was simple. Under
the Statute of Prxmunire, acts performed in accordance
with the directions of Pa
pal reec ripts or foreign bulls
were declared to be illegal. In the time of James 11.
Lalor was punished for such an o fence; and since that
period—although twe centuries r ind a half had elapsed
—up to the recent aggression, no 5; übicot of the British
Crown had dared to act upon tb o dictum of a foreign
bull. The Pope's recent rescript, being the first for two
centuries and a half; which had pi tactical effect in this
country, it was thought proper to ( leclare it, and all acts
performed by reason of its directi. ins, illegal and void.
But it did not follow that because they had done so in
this particular instance, it, was ne sessary to declare all
the minor instruments which fol! owed from the same
quarter illegal and void, when the y were so by existing
statute. Ile conAdered the must c ignified course was to
take up the monstrous instruint or dividing England
into dioceses, and having Tecifico. declared its
teh-
galiiy, to leave all similar instruments to be dealt w

- -
as illegal.
rilr. GLADSTONE said he could not pz.,rceive that
this was a declaratory clan so. Dochlratory clauses in
legislative enactments usually succeeded a recital that
the state of the law was doubtful; !but here nothing of
the sort was done. They declareJ by their Bill, with-
out reference to any other matter, that the act of the
Pope was iikgal, and ha confessed tfiat this appeared to
him to bea very unu9ual proceeding. It seemed him
that parties would be at a loss to understand whether
this was a declaratory clause or no t; but if it were a de-
claratory clause, what need was Otero for decloriug that

which had already been decided? He wanted to know
whether the same effect would be produced by the Bill,
as it stotal then, as was intended by the Bill as it origi-
nally stood. His supposition, of course, was immaterial,
but he certainly supposed that the first clause would
have that effect.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expleined that the
objection which led to the withdrawal of the second
clause was, that it had E t retrospective effcet of a dan-
gerous character. The Roman Catholic prelates of Ire-
land said, that under what they conceived to be the con-
atruction of the Act of 1829, they had retained the ee-
clteiestical titles, which were forbidden by that Aot
They considered that they were quite right in so read-
ing the Act, and therefore requested that they
might be
left in the same position (2. Bit placed them in. No be
(the Solicitor-General) entertained great doubt as to
whether they had acted rightly under that Act; bnt,
whether that were so or not, if these prelates were right
under the old Act, they would continue to be so atilt;
,
and if they were wrong under the old Act, they would
be equally wrong now. All that had been conceded in
striking out the second clause. If the Pope could pro'
to
prohibit let them proceed. There was no clause there
prohibit him, and as it was matter of doubt whether 0
could legally proceed, he was entitled to the benefit of
the doubt.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. and Learned Gen'
ileman had not answered his question as to what would
be the effect of the clause, not with reference to Irish,
'
but English sees.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied that English
Roman Catholic bishops would stand in precisely 11
same way as the Irish Roman Catholic bishops stotta
If Irish bishops were right English bishops would Os°
be right, but he had his doubts.
Mr. M'CLILLAGH said the Pope's proceedings if
relation to the bishopric of Ross was not the first case!,
the kind, for in the diocese of Galway there was a new
bishopric,'created under precisely similar circumstances'
Why, then, was that case not taken up if the act was
illegal? He did not think the Hon. and Learned Gen'
tleman had answered the Right Hon. Gentleman's clursci
tion, whether the subtraction of the second and sh'r
clauses was a real charge, and whether the retention °f
the first clause really did not tend to invalidate every
act done by Roman Catholic bishops since their apPcin
meat and the passing of the Act of 1829. There were.
very grave doubts on this point raised by the 106 d
learned authorities in the law, and it therefore behave
the legal advisers of the Crown to grapple with the doubts'
tint
fact, to decide the question at once—to decide it,
tit
n
fact, in that House.—(Hear, hear.) The House Ng:.
to know whether it was the Bill of February, of gsr°;,,.
other
of April, or the fourth Bill, a combination of the t'
Bills—the Bill of May—they were discussing. He wishedto
deal with the doubt he had referred to on broad grounds'
and he hoped the House would require its clear solution'
If violations of the Act of 1829 had occurred, why were
they suffered to sleep up to this moment? If the present
Bill was not a persecuting Act, why were the doubts
about the first clause not cleared up? With respect tl
the Bequests Act, he contended, though it did not rePell
the Act of 1829, yet having been recognised by Geyer:l3:i
ment and by Sir Edward Sugden, such a recogoitit
amounted to a virtual abnegation of the Act of 182°
Whatever the words of the Bequests Act, they Wel
really and actually intended to give validity to what Oh
been done by the Roman Catholic bishops, even thong"
it was in presumed contravention of the Act of 1829. Pt:
wanted to know what were to become of beget;
granted to bishops in trust, arid to their successors? h`„
believed that question had not yet been dealt with in it:
entirety. The way in which the clause would open:
would not so much punish the usurper of titles, as it Pr";
fessed to do—as it would operate against the wishes 0'
intentions of the pious and humble Roman Catholic.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was en;
the place to discuss legal questions—(ol9—but he was
quite ready to state his opinion in explanation of ;""
question in issue. However learned and specific ;be
opinions on the question obtained by the Hon. Member'
he must take leave to doubt that such mischief as list
been stated would flow from the measure. The effect
of the clause, as he had already stated, was to putt
certain class of trustees under the operation of the Itt'
10th Geo. IV. Now, he would ask whether any fatal
mischief had hitherto resulted from that Act? Itractii
cally it had not, and he should say that the wording,°
that Act might fairly be taken as a counterpart XV°
result and operation of the working of the present men'
sure. If money were to be left fol. the purpose of en'
sowing a bishopric, and prohibited titles were used,
then he agreed that the operation of the mes'
sure would effect such a bequest—but if the t_tte.
'
quest was left in different terms, then din'
rent consequences would follow. If, in contra'
vention of the law, a bequest was made in terms which
an Act of Parliament declared should make such bequest
illegal and void—then the party sa leaving the bequest
must take the consequences of his own act. If the
bequest were left for charitable purposes, even though
loft in an illegal form, a court of equity would only looter
to the intentions of the testator. If titles were used in
relation to persons who were to carry out the intentions,
of the testator, which were illegal, the Court would 5611
give effect to the intentions of the testator. The Coa:
would not let an incorrect designation interfere with
the leaving of money for charitable purposes. So, there'
fore, the present measure yvould not be attended with
the mischief which had been predicted, and the opinions
of the legal persons to the contrary would not be found
to be correct. The Act of 10 Geo. IV. had been in (spy
ration 22 years; that Act made the assumption of titles
by Roman Catholic bishops illegal, yet be quests had fora
that time been made to Roman Catholic bishops for ohs'
ritatsle purposes; and he would ask, had there been found
any practical difficulty or inconvenieuce in adminir
tering those charities? If there had been, let the fact
be brought before the House, and it would be deal;
with at once. But no difficulty or inconvenience 0
yet had been felt, and it was therefore not reason
able to expect that it would be found with regard
to the Bequests Act—that is, provided no violation of
the law gave invalidity to the intentions of the testator.
He would remind Hon. Gentlemen how cautiously the
Act had been framed—the words were, " exercising or
officiating within the district." This would apply 1°
the class of cases under discussion, because it was essens
tial that the religious intentions of her Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects should be properly carried out. The
Bequests Act was carefully framed, so as to leave the
Roman Catholic bishops untouched so long as no in-
fraction of the law was committed, by giving to them
titles by law prohibited. This, however, was not the
piece to enter upon an elaborate legal argument; be,
however, thought it advisable to state his candid opinion
on the question.
Mr. NAPIER said that when the proper time arrived
he should be fully prepared to answer many of the argil'
merits which had been offered in opposition to this
Mr. M. GIBSON said that as a great deal of doubt
seemed to he entertained as to the operation of this Bill,
it behoved them at present to introduce such provisions
into the Bill as would obviate any future misinterpreta-
tion. At present a Scotch bishop was exempt from ;he
consequences which attached to the same offence in
England and in Ireland, though for what principle he
could not tell. On the 26th of October, 1851, the
clauses submitted to the Roman Catholic School Com"
mittee by her Majesty's Committee of Privy Council on
Education recognised in terms the Roman Catholic
bishop of ecclesiistical districts which Awas a subject
that demanded explanation. The priest so ordained is
to manage the religious instructions of those schools,
and no priest is to interfere who is not authorised by

• --
the Rom- in Catholic bishop— of the district. Then, be
said, that if the Privy Council actually agreed to that
in November last, atter the Papal brief had been pub-
lished, does it not seem monstrous that now they should
be legislating to fine a man a hundred pounds if he
called himself a Roman Catholic bishop of a district?---
(Hear, hear.) An Act more complex and difficult
than this to understand he bak never heard.

House to t.--hl3eLcißuleCstliionTbilefEoSrelGitE,
whichß be
vva
Sir begged to reca
s,
whether l
preamble should bo postponed for further consideration?
He had never considered this as a new Bill. The object
the
of this motion was to enable them to have a fuller dis-
cussion en this Bill, or rath: r this portion of the Bill.
He would suggest that they should be allowed to pro'
ceed to the discussion of the preamble.
:dr. ROCHE said that the Attorney-General was of
opinion that this Bill had no greater scope than the
former Bill, but up jumped the Learned Solicitor.
General and said that this new clause was more powerful
than anything in the old Bill, and it would extend to
Ireland. New, what would be its effect on the diocese
of Ross? That diocese had been for ages united to the
diocese of
Cloyse. He ought to know something aboil!
that dioce, ait was in his district. The practical
result of uniting Ross and Cloyne was, that the spiritual
cure of the two dioceses was carried out more efficiently.
What did they propose to do by this Bill? They prc
T
posed to r,ler the union of these two eioceses illegal'
How could the lion. and Learned Gentleman the
Attorney-General, get up in his place and say that the
Emancipation Act had been the law of the laud in Ire-
land for two and twenty years. Practically, it had nor"
been carried into effect in Ireland. The more they
meddled with this Bill the deeper they would got into
the mire.

Mr. PHILLIP HOWARD said the suggestion of the
Hon. Member for Manchester (Mi. Milner Gibson) was
a very valuable one, that they should now explain how,
when the Privy Council lately recognised Roman Ca'
tholic bishops of districts, they now proposed to fine soY
man who called himself Roman Catholic bishop of $
diocese a hundred pounds.
Lord BERNARD said, the mere question at issue
was, what was the attack of the Bishop of Rome on this,
counts; ? It was a direct attack on the sovereignty of
our Queen. Had not he termed the glorious reformation
the Ans;lican schism? In the early Church the appoint-
ment of bishops remained with the people at large. Al'
terwards it fell into the hands of the clergy, and now
in this country, it had practically fallen into the hands
of the Crown. What he wished to dwell upon was this
—that the family of Stuart being extinct, whose title to
nominate these bishops was not denied, the present sr
pointmert by the Pepe, without consulting the Sore'
reign, was a virtual denial of the rights of our present
Gracious Sovereign. There was one word more which
he had to say upon the subject. It was said the feelings
of the people were indifferent en this subject. Such wasnot the case in Ireland; but they thought it was a wile/.
policy to leave the subject to be dccidsd by the lmper's;
Parliament, but the) felt the greatest indignation against
the atrocious attempt of the Court of Rome, and e
would give his support to any efficient measure to re-
strain the insidious attempts made against the Pro-
testant relisrfo.s.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government to inform them what his wishes
were upon the actual question before them. What did
sthaiedNroebscleriLord mean by saying in his Bill that " the
pt was illegal end void!" Where was the re.
H© did not see it • it was not on the table of to°
How could theccliscuss it unless it was 'lid
before them?

LordJ:itUSELL thought it was mugh the better