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

TRIAL OF A LOCOMOTIVE ON THE
CHESHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The triad of the tractive powers of the Druid engine,
concerned in the fatal collision in the Sutton tunnel,
which was undertaken to satisfy Captain Laffan, the
Government inspector, and the jury who are investi,gat
ing the case, took place on Saturday morning at half-
past eight o'clock. The engine was in good working
condition, having been worked out at Chester on Thurs-
day night for Captain Laffan's inspection; she took on
a train of eighteen carriages at Chester, consisting of
two first.class, six covered seconds and thirds, and ten
open stand-ups—the number sworn to by Mr. Crutchley,
the station-master at Chester, and others, as being that
dispatched in the train that blocked the road through
the tunnel. The stand-ups were capacious vehicles from
the North Staffordshire lines, capable of holding an im-
mense number of persons, sixty at least, and therefore
gave reason for believing that one of the witnesses had been
misled when he said there were twenty-five carriages in
the train. The weight put in to represent passengers
consisted of old chairs and rails, distributed over the
whole, and making, as was expected, with the weight of
the engine, tender, and carriages, 152 tons. Tha engine
was assisted to Frodsham, and there awaited the tar-
! rival ot Captain Laffan, who was punctual to his ap-
pointed hour. The coroner and six of the jury were in
attendance, with Mr. Bragge, who manages the locomo-
tive department; Mr. Alleson, locomotive superin-
tendent; Mr. Norris, of the London and North-Western
Company, and others. Captain Latian made an experi-
mental trip through the tunnel, and returned, and then
the train was attached. The engine drew her load very
slowly, indeed, at starting, apparently scarcely able to
move it; but she soon got over that, and attained a con-
siderable speed, reaching the mouth of the tunnel, about
a mile and three-quarters, in ten minutes thirty seconds.
She maintained her speed pretty evenly through the
tunnel, and it was evident that she only decreased
it when her wheels slipped, which they did some
little, as was marked by a peculiar best. The tunnel
was perfectly clear, and the end might be distinctly
seen, like a section of a large circle, when the train
was seen a quarter of a mile from the mouth at the
Frodsham end. It was, however, wet, considerable
quantities of water falling in large drops on the
persons of the passengers. With the exception of the
faltering named, the engine went through well, and
reached the other end, a distance of a mile and a quar-
ter, in 3 minutes 55 seconds. She then went down the
incline towards Moon, two miles off, at which station
she finally drew up, 5 minutes 35 seconds after leaving
the tunnel, travelling the whole five mil,s in 20 minutes,
with that load on, at the rate of fifteen miles per hour.
We should add that from the tunnel to Moon there was
a strong wind blowing against the carriages at an angle
of 45 degrees, or at the rate of fifteen miles per hour.
Everybody seemed satisfied with the performance, and
Captain Lain said the engine had done her work well;
but in the evening, at the close of the inquest, he stated
it would be requisite to have a second trial, as, on going
back to Chester to ascertain for himself the actual
weight in the trains, irrespective of the engine and car-
riages, he found it was 20 tons less than he had expected.
He then gave the basis of his calculation for weight,
which he averred Mr. Brugge gave in his evidence. He
took 10 stand-ups at 65 passengers each—Mr. Bragge
having said from 60 to 70—and that gave a total of 650
persons; the third class, it was in evidence, were much
crowded, and he took them at 40 persons each, there
were six ot them, which gave 240 persons; then the
first class held 18 persons each, 36 for the two; that
gave a grand total of 936 persons. He had taken it fur
granted that they would be grown-up people, and as 12
atone each was the weight taken by Mr. Bragge him-
self, he had calculated on that, and the number of tone,
860 persons at that weight would be required to be on
the train.
Mr. Monk, the barrister, who appeared for the com-
pany, aid he thought 12 stone an immoderate estimate.
Captain Lisffin said there might be 8 stone • people in
the train, and they would go against the people of 16
stone. The train was crowded, and he thought a lower
average could not be taken. The weight of 936 passen-
gers, at 12 stone each, would be 70 tons, but he found
only 48 in the carriages, a difference of 22 tons.
Mr. Brown, solicitor, said that 10 stone, and not 12,
was the weight named as an average.
Mr. Monk said he certainly should have spoken
against such an average as 12 stone at the time if he had
heard it named.

.AMENT,

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
The Lords' amendments to the Hartlepool Freemen's
Lands and Harbour Dues Bill were considered arid
agreed to.

SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were then read a second time:—
Brighton Extramural Cemetery; King's College Hos
plod (No. 2); and Christchurch (Southwark) Parish
Bills.

PETI FIONS.
A great number of petitions were presented against
the Papal aggression.
Mr. ORD presented a petition from Fife against the
Prisons' (Scotland) Bill.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from
Preston against the continuance of the Regium Donum.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Lin-
coln, complaining of agricultural distress.
Colonel SALWEY presented a petition from Welling-
ton praying for electoral reform.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER presented a petition from
Berkshire against the Jew Bill.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the
board of guardians at Preston praying for extended
powers to raise loans for the relief of the poor.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Paddington,
against the proposed encroachment on Kensington-
gardens.
Sir G. GREY presented a petition from Northumber-
land, praying for a modification of the taxes on carriages.
NEW WRIT.
Major BERESFORD moved for a new writ for the
Isle of Wight in toe place of Mr. Simeon.
RAJA BROOKE.
Mr. B. COCHRANE asked Mr. .Hume when he pro-
posed to bring forward his motion relative to Raja
Brooke? He supposed now that Sir James Brooke had
come to England, the lion. Member was afraid to bring
it on —(lfear, hear. )
Mr. HUME said, so far from that being the case, he
had been waiting the arrival of the Raja, and it Govern-
ment would only give him the day after to-morrow. the
Hon. Gentlemen should see whether he was afraid to
bring the motion on or not.

audacious on the part of any Noble Lord on the Ministerial
bench to seek a sort of triumph in the present state of Ire-
land. The Noble Marquis (Clanricarde) had said he never
heard any guardians in that country speak in favour of pro-
tection. He (the Earl of Lucan) was a member of four
boards of guardians in Ireland, and three-fourths of the
guardians, if not the whole of them, were Protectionists.
He never heard the guardians congratulate themselves upon
cheap food, but he had often heard them lament that
wretched paupers were driven to the workhouse in conse-
quence of agricultural labourers deserting their wives and
children.
After a few words in explanation from the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, the subject dropped.
CHURCH BUILDINGS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for going into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Lord FOR [MAN said he considered some of the provisions
of the measure very objectionable. It would affect the rights
of some 30 ',BOO persons who now had free seats in churches,
which had been erected by private subscriptions or by Church
Building Societies, by giving power to the Ecclesiattical
Commissioners to let one. half of those sittings, in order to es-
tablish a fund for the payment of the ministers. He believed
that some of the clauses would contravene the statutes of
mortmain. The Bill provided that the right of patronage
should be vested in those parties who subscribed not less than
501. to the building of a church ; but why were persons who
could not contribute such large sums to be deprived of a
voice in the appointment of the ministers? He also objected
to the clause which gave the right of nomination to any new
church built in at extra-par ichial place to the bishop, in- ,
stead of leaving it with the subscribers. He suggested, as
the Bill was nut a common-place one, but of high importance,
well deserving the attention of the House, that it should be
referred to a Select Committee.
The Bishop of LONDON said, the Bill had been prepared
with the view of providing additional ch.irch accommoda-
tion. The popular cry now was that the Church should find
the means within herself of extending her borders, aid one
of the most legitimate modes of doing so appeared to be
from new-rents. The Church Building Commissioners had
found that in many cases where they had set apart a larger
number of free seats for the poor than they had thought fit
to avail themselves of it would be desirable, and it had
been so represented to them, to let those seats at reduced
rents. He had no objection to the Bill's going before a Select
Committee.
Lord STANLEY did not doubt the goodness of the object
for which the Bill had been proposed, nor was he disposed to
say that in some cases the number of tree seats might not
be curtailed ; but, in cases where persons had given large
sums of money towards the building of a church, with the
view of affording gratuitous accommodation to the poor, he
thought it would be not only inexpedient in point of policy,
but a breach of faith also, by ex post facto legislation to im-
pose a charge upon those seats. at the discretion of the Com-
missioners. He objected, therefore, to that ex post facto
legislation. There was another point, also, which he thought
deserving attention. It might be, under the Bill, in places
where the parochial accommodation was amply sufficient,
ifs ctarian feeling ran high, that the building of a church
in the same neighbourhood might be authorised with the
view of serving sectarian purposes alone. This was by no
means an imaginary case, aad he feared that it might not
be a peculiar one.
The Bishop of OXFORD observed, that it would not be
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the Church Building
Commissioners, who would have the power of charging pew-
rents.

would have been well sifted, and Members been enabled
to make those inquiries and obtain that information which
they deemed necessary. The Bill not only affected
the temporalities of religion, but the most vital and es-
sential parts of religion itself. and if it passed, it Would
be impossible for a Roman Catholic bishop to be or-
dained consistently with the law of the land, and unless
that ceremony took place, he could not be considered
as one of the spiritual heads of the Church. He,
therefore, called on the Speaker and the House, in com-
pliance with the standing order, to discharge the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said he would not enter into the ex-
pediency of introducing the Bill in Committee, because
that was not the real question before the House, but he
might observe that the advantages mentioned by the
Hon. Gentleman were perfectly imaginary. His Right
Hon. Friend (Lord J. Russell) would not have been
compelled to detail more minutely the provisions of the
Bill in Committee than when he first introduced the
Bill to the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Honour-
able Gentleman had stated that the standing
order was made in 1773 in consequence of a Bill intro-
duced into the House, and ultimately objected to by the
bishops. Now it so happened that the standing
order was made in April, 1772, some mouths
previous to that Bill being brought forward.
There was also a similar standing order at the same time
relative to Bills affecting trade, and those two were not
new orders, but merely the separation of one order which
was made in 1703, into two. The standing order, there-
fore, had certainly existed long before the Bill mentioned
by the Hon. Gentleman was introduced. The real question
was, whether the present Bill fell within the meaning of the
standing order. If the Hon. Gentleman had succeeded
iu showing that it did, he was willing to admit that no
objection could be taken to the course which the Hon.
Gentleman had pursued. But how did he purpose to
show this? First, by quoting a letter written to the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon
before the Bill was- introduced, which relied
mainly for its line of argument upon the word " acts" to
be done by any bishop, which word, in fact, was not to
be found in the Bill as it stood at present. The same
was the case with the Hon. Gentleman's own argu-
ment, which rested mainly on the u e of the word "acts,"
which was omitted from the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman
said, moreover, that if this Bill passed the Archbishop
of Dublin would be unable to exercise the spiritual
duties which he now exercised. If such were
the case he would remind the Hon. Gentleman and the
House that such had been the case ever since 1829, be-
cause that title had been prohibited by law ever since
that time. Again. he would remind the Hero Gentle-
man that in 1831 a Bill was passed to legalise marriages
among Roman Catholics. Now marriage was a solemn
sacrament of religion among Roman Catholics, and tee
Bill was introduced into the House without the prelimi-
nary form.
Mr. ROEBUCK was of opinion that this was a
question affecting religion, and as such came under the
meaning of the standing order. At the present moment
Roman Catholic priests were not prohibited from taking
titles of sees which were not already appropriated by
bishops of the Established Church, and a person bear-
ing the title of Bishop of W, sttninster could receive be-
quests to be applied to the benefit of his own religion.
It, however, it passed he would not be
able to do so, and for that reason he con-
sidered this was a Bill which interfered with
religion, and the Noble Lord himself had acknowledged
that by proposing to extract certain clauses from the
Bill, and had thus put himself out of court.
The SPEAKEit said, having been appealed to
by two Honourable Members to state what his
opinion upon this matter was, perhaps the House would
/dew him to do so as shortly as he could. There
was no authority founded upon any decision of the
House for determining what was meant by the phrase
" Bills relating to religion," but having looked closely
into the reports of Bills which had passed the House
which bore upon matters of religion he thought
it was not necessary to pass a Bill through a
Committee of the whole House, unless the
Bill related to the spiritualities of religion. True,
the Church Temporalities Act went through Com-
mittee, as had been stated by an Hon. Member, but to
show that it was not because it related to religion that it
was carried into Committee, he might mention that
there was no allusion made to the standing order now
under discussion, and the Bill passed through just as
though it had been a money Bill. Then came the Bill
for carrying into effect the report of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. That was not introduced in a Commit-
tee of the whole House, because it was supposed to re-
late to temporal and not spiritual matters, and for pre-
cisely the same reason the Irish Marriage Act did
not go through a preliminary Committee. Under
all those circumstances he was of opinion that the Bill
now before the House was not one which it was neces-
sary to introduce into Committee of the whole House.
--(Hear, hear.) He was consulted upon this sub-
ject in the first instance without, of course,
being made acquainted with the whole of its
provisions, and he gave the same opinion then; and
having since carefully considered the Bill, he saw no
reason whatever to change that opinion.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said it appeared to him that
the opinion of the Speaker went upon the assumption
that this Bill interfered with relizion no further than did
those Bills which the Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
ferred to; but that assumption was decidedly erroneous.
He had considerable doubts whether, looking at the pro-
visions of the Bill, it was not a measure altering
the laws concerning religion, and imposing pains
and penalties on a portion of the people. Though
he bowed with deference to the opinion of
the Speaker, yet until they had submitted
to him a proper case for his consideration,
he thought they ought not to abide by the opinion wit oh
he had just given to the House.—(Hear.) He would
suggest that they should take the same course which was
a !opted with the Irish Temperalitics Bill, and appoint
a Select Committee to examine into precedents, and re-
port whether, according to the orders and rules of the
House, the Bill should have been introduced in a Com-
mittee of the whole House.—(Hear.)
Mr. GRATTAN said it wits absurd to suppose that
this was a measure which did not affect the religion of
his fellow-country men. It was a mockery, an insult,
and an attempt to play upon words for the Noble Lord
,at the head of the Government to make such an
assertion. Had they not for the last few months
(ken almost entirely occupied in discussing red.
gious subjects ? The ferment which the Bill
'had already given rise tu, end was likely
to increas e would make the Ministers regret to the last
day of their lives that they had passed such a measure.
They had neither the courage, determination, or mind
mo get Ireland out of the diffieulties in which their ii,so-
- Toe and overbearing Iseguage had placed her. If the
Bill were passed, the House would not only be made the
laughing-stock of the three kingdoms, but of the world.
Nir. REYNOLDS moved that the debate be now ad-
journed, in order to afford time to inquire into prece-
dence.
Mr. HUME was quite ready to consent to the ad-
journment of the debate.
Mr. KEOGH contended that the Bill affected the spi-
ritualities of the Roman Catholic Church, and read the
written opinion of Sir F. Kelly, vir. Brodie, convey-
ancer, and Mr. Baddele) , stating that the Bill would ren-
der it illegal for any archbishop or bishop of the Roman
Catholic Church to exercise their official functions in
this country, though they might be merely of a spirituai
nature.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended, that the first
thing that would strike any individual when considering
the history of the standing orders in question, was that the
sense in which the word "religion" was used in that order
was one concerning matters of faith and doctrine, and Let
mere matters of ecclesiastical management, superintendence,
or jurisdiction. The question then was, whether this Bill
aid in any way affect faith or doctrine, or in any manner
concern spiritualities of any description. The Roman Catho-
lic Archbishop of Dublin, inueed said, that if the Bill passed
he should not be able to ordain a priest or adminLaer the
sacrament of confirmation. Was it intended, then, to be
said that from the year 1829 to the present moment there
had been no ordination and no sacrament of confirmation
performed by any Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop in
Ireland, except by the Bishop of Galway, whose see had
been created since 1829, or by the Archbishop of Tuam,
there being no Protestant archbishop of that title? If the
argument of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mayo were
right, such must have been the case, because the provisions
of the present Bill were precisely similar to those contained
in the Bill of 1829. He apprehended there was not a ,viember
in the House. who wind/1 tell him that a Roman Catholic
bishop could not ordain a priest unless he were a bishop of
some particular diocese—or that Dr. Wiseman could not
have exercised his spiraual functions as well when
Archbishop was
of
Bishop of Melipotamus as he could when .
Westminster. The real meaning of Dr. Murray's statement
was this:—" There are certain temporal advantages
which
the
person ordained by me as Archbishop of Dublin
nhrr
would not possess if he were ordained by me under anyl.
title." But that was clearly out of the precincts of religion.
It It dealt with temporalities merely. Reference
made to an opinion of Mr. Willes, but how did that
commence? fhe Learned Counsel said, had
tsotrptiinctioedn
that the Archbishop cannot ordain or do s'o‘lan''clindso:nuifnllessenitt
b.: under the title of Archbishop of Dublin
co rectly instruct() t, then the Bill will have ;eseaurnnc he and. such
d Counsel
an effect." Now, in the first piste, if the L
were truly instructed, then the Roman C. aitrheolahned mArcuhstbihshaovpe
of Dublin and all the Catholic bishops f
been under an interdict for the last 22 years. Was such a
statement made to the Lea ned Counsel?Heef(ththe kindeSol waricitor
General) would venture to say that nothing
ever hinted at; nor would any one very seriously
contend that a Roman Catholic bishop's spiritual
tunctions depended upon the title whi h he as.
uaidßut it was dangerous to act upon the opinion
sofcebu'usel without knowing the stateinent Lid before
oim. He would rather trust to the opinion given by the
Right Hon. Gentleman in the chair, who formed his judg.
meet not only from the standing orders of the House, but
from the clauses of the Bill which formed the subject mater
to which those or
ad
aploncl usion ied. He had tie doubt Mr. Speaker
had arrived at righpt c on this question. The
Right Hon. Member for Manchester (speaking ad
inv.idialli)
said that when they were removing disabilities the House
went into a preliminary Committee, but that when they were
imposing disabilities they did not think
nnecessary to go
into Committee. But the Right Hon. Ge tleman must be
perfectly aware of the reason why the House wens into
Committee on the Catholic Relief Bill. That was a measure
for altering an oath. There was a point remaining which
deserved the consideration of the House. Looking at the
time when the order was made, and when the word " reli-
gion" was used, he h •
ming in tee first
by the word " reli son„ place contended tnat
gwas meant " faith and doctrine," he
would now ask —but what faith and docti ine? Was it not perfectly clear that it meant the faith and doctrine of the Es-
tablished Church ? The order meant that tie; House should
not tamper with the established religion, nor alter its doc-
trines, without first havin the sanction of a Committee of
the whole House. No lawyer, on reading this Bill, would say
that it meant to effect achange in the doctrine or internal
economy of the Roman Catholic religion ; and to say that
the Bill would alter or affect the established religion would
be absurd. The whole question was whether the Bill
touched spiritualities. Looking at the Bill in evlery. point `of
it
View, he was of opinion that did not affect religion,
touch any spiritual function of the Roman Catholic n:nor
Church.
If he depended on precedents he might refer to many; for
instance, the Church Temporalities Act, the Tithes Commu-
tation Act, . the Vestries Bill, the Curates Bill ; these and
for.
other Billeted been paned ;.withOili SPY PrellimarY

enee to a Committee of the whole House; he, therefore,
thought that if the House were to yield to the argument
which had been urged on this occasion, it would completely
stultify itself, and at the same time be acting in direct oppo-
sition to the whole current of precedents.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the present discussion would
have one useful result, in showing that the precedents on
this important question were in a state that was most
ei
unsa-
tisfactory. Therefore, although that might not be a 8,.
cient reason for interferring with the progress of the Bill, yet
he thought it was most desirable that some rule should be
laid down for their future guidance, in order that an uni-
formity of practice might prevail in a matter of no inconsi-
d
erable importance. The Solicitor-General had argued the
question with great fairness. The two main questions, a
,
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ha 4 stated were—first,
whe her the word " religion" in the standing order included
any religion except the established religion? and, if it did,
then, secondly, whether, there being the Roman Catho•
lic religion in this country, it could be said that. its
spiritualities were touched by This Bill or not? It al:07
peered to him ( Mr. Gladr.one) that the Solicitor-General
was perfectly right in saying that the proper meaningo.
the standing order was, that it regarded not religionralns
general, but the established religion of the country. if that
were so, what was the course which precedent pointed to for
~
the House to follow ? There was, he feared, no censiste.n!
or uniform precedent. The precedent of 1772 would
lead to the inference that Bills which tended to affect the
securities of the established religion ought to pass through
preliminary Committees. It was true the Act of 1778 tor
the relief of the Roman Catholics was passed withal going
through any such Committee, bat then there were vete;n"
preceuents the other way. There was the Act of 1828,,
the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, the Act °,
1829, for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and
several other Bills, all of which were introdoc7
through the medium of a Committee. The S°
tor-General had said that the reason those Bills were
submitted to an intermediate Committee was, that the)
altered an oath. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think that
circumstance was alone sufficient to account for the practict
He was of opinion that the standing order was intended i
protect the established religion ; and that whenever Pali!:
ment dealt with the securities which the established ref's
gion possessed, whether good or bad, the Bills so sleeting
with them must pass through a preliminary Committee!
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had
also said the
th- meaning of the standing order was that Parliament
should not tamper with the established religion; but that
when measures n ere to be passed for strengthening the secu-
rities of that religion then it was not necessary for such
in-
sure to go through a preliminary Committee. He (3.
Gladstone) believed that that argument contained the pith,
~
and gist of the whole matter, that that was the doctrine W
be ex`rac:ed from the whole heap of precedents before thee,
and that Bills which injuriously affected, weakened, Or
diminished the securities of the Establisher Church, ougbt
to pass through a preliminary Committee; but that BO
which purported to strengthen those securities did not re"
quire to go through that preliminary st ,ge. Looking, boy
ever, at the preamble of the present Bill, he confessed be
thought that rule ought to be applied both ways.—(lle
/1
hear.) This Bill was not like one for repealing a tax; hot
it was a measure which, while giving to one party, "',,
taking away from another ; while it tended to strengthife
the Church of England. it took from the Roman Catholics
that which they would otherwise enjoy. The question vits
one involved in considerable difficulties; and he thought it
would be wise, whether with reference to the present Bill, or
to the future course of legislatlll, to appoint a Committee of
inquiry in order to fix upon some clear and authoritadV°
construction of this important standing order, so that the
practice of the House, which had been hitherto confused and
unintelligible, might be math clear, practical, and intelligible-
Mr. SADLEIR thought the very showing of Government
in their speeches proved the Bill had reference to the Este'
blished Church. Indeed, he believed the Bill went further
than was ever contemplated by the restrictive clauses of the
Act of 1829.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but after as
short interval the door was re-opened, and we found
Lord J. RUSSELL addressing the House. He was ob-
serving there was no ground for further delay on the subject-
The instances of the Corporation and Test Acts and of the
relief of Roman Catholic disabilities, quoted by the Eiglit
Hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone) referred to supposed secure,
ties for the religion of the country, and those precedents
not apply to the present case: He did not believe a Select
Committee could do anything more than leave the question
to the discretion of the House.
Mr. BRIGHT' recollected that the Noble Lord had with-
drawn clauses from the Bill, on the ground that they affected
the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic faith, and therefore
the Bill came within the undoubted practice of the House*
The Noble Lord invited the House to inflict an injury 00
8,000,000 or 10,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom'
and to pass over certain rules which the Established Church
had insisted on for its own security. The Roman Catholic
population stood before the House in precisely the same rela-
tion as the members of the Established Church, and the
Noble Lord ought to have been more careful, when taking
away their rights, to proceed with the utmost caution then
if he were engaged on a matter which would affect the power
of the dominant church. It would be only fair, in order W
satisfy the Roman Catholics to refer the question to a Select
Committee, when they would see the house proceed with
as much care and delicacy in their case as in that of the Es'
tablished Church.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion of adjournment 53
Against it ... 179
Majority for going on with the debate--126
On returning to the gallery,
Mr. LAWLESS was speaking. He did not believe thee
majority represented the sense of the House, but that they
represented the influence of the Government. He would
move that the House be adjourned.—(oh! oh!)
Mr. GRATTAN, as a Protestant Member, wished to se-
cond the motion, and appealed to the Noble Lord not to pm,
the question as a nr.t.ter ot good feeling.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had seen in the majority
many Hon. Members who had in general been opposed to his
Government, and that he had never seen a, more attentive
Hou,e than had been present during this debate. That the
House should now be called on to adjourn made him suspect
n. Gentlemen had faltered in the resolution which it was
said they had come to—not to make any factious opposition
to the Bill—a resolution which he had very much admired.
(Hear, and laughter.) They had beard the opinion of the
Speaker and of several liqn. Members well acquainted with
the forms of the House, and if there were any Irish Members
who thought they had a better opinion on points of order
than the Speaker and these Hon. Members, perhaps it would
be as well tor the House to hear it.
Mr. REYNOLDS disclaimed any intention of offering
factious opposition, but was not aware that any such reso-
lution as the Noble Lord mentioned had been agreed upon-
He was afraid the Irish Members would disappoint the Noble
Lora in his anticipations of their poht cal politeness. Would
:he Noble Lord consent to nominate a Select Committee, and
he (Mr. Reynolds) w,uld not object to the debate going on
pare pease ?
Mr. KEOGH thought the Noble Lord had admitted it
might be desirable to examine into precedents, which west
in effect allowing the propriety of a Committee. If be
granted the Committee, they would not oppose his proceed-
ing with the Bill. The Speaker said the reason why the
order of the House did not apply was, that the Bill did not
affect the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic Church, The
Solicitor-General argued that the order did not apply,because
it was intended to refer to the Protestant religion exclusively.
Surely such a difference of opinion was good ground for
Committee.
Sir G. GREY denied that his Noble Friend had expressed
any opinion in favour of a Committee. He had argued that
the questicn was of a different nature from those which had
been referred to.
Mr. ANSTEY was of opinion that the course the Roman
Catholic Members were pursuing was not calculated to swell
the minority opposed to the Bill. He desired to separate
himself from them, because their object was evidently to
throw obstructions in the way of the House, and prevent it
from proceeding with the Bill.
Mr. MOORJ, expressed his surprise that the Hon. Mem-
ber, who had hitherto been the very personification of obstruc-
tion—who had spent one whole session in obstructing every-
thing—his own Bill among the res7—(A laugh )—should now
lecture others for following his example. Every Member
unconnected with the Government who had spoken in the
course of the debate admitted t desirableness of appointing
a Committee. It' the Noble Lord would consent to the ap-
pointment of a Commi'tee, the motion for adjournment
would be at once withdrawn.
The House divided, when there appeared -
For the adjournment

... 36
... 145

Majority 109
The motion was then renewed for the Speaker leaving
he chair for going into Committee on the Bill, upon which
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL rose to explain to the .House.
Ida reasons for opposing it, as he had not an opportunity
of doing so on the second reading. He considered that
the act of the Pope was not such as to have called for
legislation on the part of either House of Parliament.
Up to last autumn the Roman Catholics of England were
governed by a body of vicars apostolic, and those vicars
apostolic were the nominees of the Pope. The Bill before
the House had been met by a great display of opinion in the
country. That feeling spread through the length and
breadth of the land, and the present attempt at legislation
was the result of a certain undefined wish on the part of
the people, that Parliament should do something. He ,
Gateinugtlemfroeam
tchonetcenhdoerdeh, loofoEk
nagtlathndat.
mcoouvldemneont,taasssoomnee Hemona.n
The excitement out of doors was merely proof of an anxiety
of feeling is the country that this House should interfere
and were attacl
in religious matters. He thought,
altogether unnecessareei-tse__
tion on this subject was If the
however, that
Church of Eng
the P. pe's nominees presu .ed, let it defend t
ort civil
med to claim temporal o
authority over the Soverethe time to interfere, ign of these ratline, then would be
refuse toand no loyal Roman Catholic would
s'-'l5. • lie should oppose the progress of the Bill,
and he would join in every legitimate division that could be
:-aken on its me • tits at future stages.
Mr. URQUHART • said, that when he last addressed the
House he was virtually precluded from entering into any
question but that of the conduct of the Government. Since
Lord that period the Noble the head at of the Government
itn
had o
ofnepe d
up a branch of the question which appeared to
h
great, importance, and upon which he wished to ade
dress a few considerations to the House. The Noble Lord
state,' that the motive and object of the Papal Government
in the step it had lately taken had been not a religious but a
political one; that the Government of the Pope, operated
upon by the Government of certain other European countries,
who were alarmed at the great influence which England
exercised on the Continent in favour of Liberalism and Con.
stitutional government, had been induced to take the step
in question for the purpese of setting England in a flame;
that, in short, the measure had a diplomatic origin. Nor
was the Noble Lord alone in this statement. Statements in
a similar strain (which he quoted) had been made by Lord
Clarendon, by the Hon. Member for the University' of Ox.
ford, by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, and others.
The Noble Lord at the bead of the Foreign Department had
said that it was irnposeible for us to meet the aggression by
diplomatic arrangement, because after the Pope had taken
so decided a course we should only expose ourse'ves by so
doing to humiliation and defeat. The Master of the Rolls,
however, had used a very different argument. He said,
.4 How could we go to Reme after the introduction of the
clause into the Diplomatic Relations Bill which had offended
the Pope and vitiated the action of that measure?"—(Hear.)
The whole question had been placed in a faulty position by
the introduction of the topic of the law of nations; for
there were no treaty rights with respect to the Pope, and
unless the Pope had injured one of our citizens, infringed our
territory, or done some such act, that question could not
arise. 1n Armenia the same conduct had been pursued as in
England by the Pope, but there, as the matter was treated
%%Lb contempt, the Roman Catholics protested against it.
If, however, the sante course had been pursued in Armenia
as had been followed in England, and if the people nad been
toll that by the act of the Pope the undivided sway of the
Su'tan was in danger, probably the whole body of the
Armenians would have exhibited the same servility as the
Roman Catholics here had shown to that potentate, the Pope.
The Hon. Member having re'erred to the
occupation of Rome
by the F. encb, and to the offer, as he observed, of the Czar
of Russia's treasury and arms for the Pope's aid, expressed
laic wiwictioil that some cause other than religious Was the