The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-05 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6) lB5l.

materials, 251. 14s. 5d.: leaving balance in favour of
adventurers, 551. 2s. 11d. A call of 1/. per share was
made.

At Craddock Moor Mine meeting, on the 26th of
June, the accounts for March and April showed-Ba-
lance last account, 1171. 18s. 10d.; by call, 105/. 10s.=---
2231. Bs. 10d.-Mine cost, 72/. 9s. Bd.; materials, 201.
9s. Si; leaving balance in favour of adventurers, 1301.
9s. 9d. A call of 10s. per share was made.
At Wheal Mary (Redruth) meeting the accounts for
March and April showed-Balance from last account,
1951 3s. 6d. ; costs and merchants' bills, 1,0751. 183.=
1,2711 Is. 6d.-By ores sold (less dues), 591/. 15s. 4d.;
call in April, 4951.: leaves balance against adventurers,
1841 6s. 2d. A call of 7s. 6d. per share was made.
At the Santa Ana Mining Company's annual meeting,
on Monday last, the accounts showed-Expenditure,
46,2621. 19s. id.-Income, 29,9871 leaving a balance
against the company of 16,2751. 19s. ld.
Shares have changed hands in Alfred Consols, Bed-
ford United, Devon Great Consols, Tremayne, Tincrolt,
East Wheal Leisure, West Wheal Jewel, Butterdon,
Venton, South Tolgus, South Caradon, Spearne Consols,
Wheal Mary Ann, Trelawny, West Caradon, Merllyn,
Garreg, East Wheal Russell, Boringdon, Park, Hennock
(lead), Wheal Arthur, South Tamar, East Tamar, Pen-
zance Consols, and Wheal Lemon.
Inquiries are made for West Caradon, Trelawny, Bed-
ford United, and South Tamar.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 4.

MASTERS' JURISDICTION IN EQUITY BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Lord CRANWORTU expressed a doubt as to
whether the Bill would work satisfactorily.
After a few words from Lord LYNDHURST and Lord
BROUGHAM, the Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the
company of clothworkers of the city of London, praying
to be heard by counsel against this Bill.
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.

Lord BEAUMONT rose to move that the standing
orders be not insisted on in relation to this Bill. It was of
such a public character that it was really to be considered
as a public Bill, and ought not to be thrown out upon a
mere technicality. Their Lordships had always taken
care to defend private interests affected by public Bills,
and there was nothing in the motion which he
proposed to prevent parties interested from being heard
by themselves or their counsel against the Bill. It
was the custom of their Lordships with regard
to really private Bills, to insist by their standing orders
upon the parties affected having due notice of the inten-
ptthiroaontvios fii
ot tnhswe
oa isfn
thet ri
mo dpßuoicsleisri sbh
laoedf
btt the
ißmo ifal lgs;
junbeehu
tphi
unabt th
ciesvnecase
eti the.
habitant of the metropolis had not had ample
notice. It was true that there was no formal notice
given in the Gasette in October last, but such an adver-
tisement would have given the parties interested no
more information than they had before. Communica-
tions had passed between the Government and the Cor-
poration of London on the subject, and the latter had
in reality had perfect notice, and had no substantial
grounds of complaint. In many similar cases, such
as the Regent's Quadrant Removal Bill, no reference
had taken place to the Standing Orders'Committee. The
Battersea Park Bill, the Chelsea Bridge Bill, the Holy-
head Harbour Bill, had all been treated as public Bills,
and the Bill for removing the Haymarket had been
treated as a public Bill by their Lordships. In this
Smithfield Market Removal Bill there was no
clauses repealing any charter, and no injury had been
done to the Corporation by their not receiving notice.
His individual opinion was, that it was a public Bill, but
he put it to their Lordships whether, even if they con-
sidered it as a private Bill, they would not assent to a
suspension of the Standing Orders.
Lord REDESDALE considered this motion to be of
great importance, as well on account of the importance
of the Bill to which it related, as on account of the in-
nate justice of the case. First of all, his Noble Friend
insisted that this Bill ought not to have gone to the
Standing Orders Committee at all; and then he argued,
that even if it ought to have gone there, and if the Com-
mittee had reported against it, the report ought not to
be regarded, but the standing orders ought to be sus-
pended. In the other House of Parliament no one ever
ex pressed a doubt about sending this Bill to the Standing
Orders Committee; and it had been very properly sent
there in that House, as it was also sent here. It was
esoentially a private Bill, and if their Lordships should
once allow the Government the power of bringing in a
private Bill without affording to private interests the
protection which they had always hitherto enjoyed, they
would expose the rights and properties of individuals to
dangers to which they bad never hitherto been exposed.
The Noble Baron had then maintained that if the Bill
were a private Bill, the standing orders ought to be sus-
pended, and had quoted precedents to show that they had
be en frequently so suspended. But on what grounds had
that been done? It was always in cases in which the
&landing Orders Committee had reported that the stand-
ing orders ought to be dispensed with. He undertook
to prove that there never was a case in which it was so
clf.ar that the standing orders should be complied
with as the present. One of the reasons for establish-
' ing the standing orders regarding private Bills was, that
it was only fair that those whose private interests were
assailed by bills of attack should have time given them
to prepare for defence. Now, what would have been
inure easy in the present case than for the Government
to give Vie corporation notice of its intention to proceed
with this Bill during the present session? It was proved
in the evidence before the other House that soon after
this close of the last session the Government had sent a
communication to the corporation in which they asked
whether it was their intention to remove the market, and
th at the reply of the corporation was that it had no such
intention. He maintained that on receiving that reply
the Government should have served the corporation with
notice of their intention to introduce this Bill. The con-
sequence was that the corporation, not having received
&Li); notice from the Government, resolved to bring in
and did bring in a Bill of their own. He had watched,
as it was his duty as chairman of the Standing Orders
Committee to watch, all the proceedings in the present
Bill, and the protection which he now awarded to the
powerful corporation of London he should have awarded
to the weakest an poorest corporation in the
kingdom. He asked their Lordships calmly and deli-
berately whether the corporation of London had done
anything to forfeit its right to such protection?
Uunder these circumstances, unpleasant as it might
be to him to oppose the further progress of this Bill—
which might be a desirable Bill, although not regularly
introduced—he must resist the present Emotion. He did
conceive it to Le a very unusual course for the House to
se t aside the conclusion of the Standing Orders Com-
mittee. That Committee had a right to expect the sup-
port of her Majesty's Government. If it had not such
support, it was impossible that its duties could be either
ad equately or properly discharged. Alter the title of
th is Bill, and suppose that it was not Smithfield but Co-
vent-garden Market that it affected—suppose, further,
that the Duke of Bedford, as proprietor of the latter
mi irket, came to the Sanding Orders Committee and
claimed its protection—suppose that Committee reported
in his favour, would not their Lordships, one and all of
them, come down to the House in order to protect him
from the attack irregularly made upon him by the Go-
vernment? That protection which their Lordships would
be ready to give to a member of their own body, why
sh ouid they withhold from the Corporation of London?
H e cared not whether it was a large or a small, a rich or
a poor corporation; but so long as he had the honour
to remain in the chair of the Standing Orders Commit-
te P, so long should every corporation and every private
in dividual receive from him the same protection. With
th at determination on his mind, be must oppose the pre-
sent motion.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that the
question then before their Lordships must be considered,
ncit only with reference to the standing orders, but also
wilth reference to the importance of the Bill itself. The
Noble Baron opposite (Lord Redesdale) had only
dibcharged his duty in defending the report of the
Standing Orders Committee. Valuable, however, as he
cot asidered the services of that Committee in the protec-
deal which they gave to property, they never were so
valuable as to exclude the consideration of the public
benefit to society at large in case of great contemplated
cb.anges. Although the statute-book was filled with at-
tempts made from year to year to separate public from
private Bills, they would find that in many public Bills
private interests were involved, and that in many private
Bills public interests were also affected. When he heard
it stated that this was a private and not a public Bill, he
could only reply that it was a Bill for the supply of this
great metropolis with the most important article of food
in the best manner in which it could possibly be sup-
plied. A private Bill, and yet with such an object! In
every other country in Europe but our own the means of
giving the best supply of food to their subjects was con-
sidered so much a matter of public interest that the
Government would not leave it in any other hands but its
own. The best means of supplying good, cheap, and
wholesome food to the inhabitants of this great metropo-
lis never could be considered as a matter of private in-
terest ; and therefore it became the Government,
watching over the public interest, to provide that every
one in this huge metropolis should have the means
of obtaining meat in its best state and in the most
effectual manner. His Noble Friend (Lord Beaumont),
in the able speech with which he prefaced this motion,
had referred to several Acts of Parliament as prece-
dents for the course which he advised the House to take
with regard to this Bill. He had shown that, in the
case of the Opera Colonnade Bill, in the case of Batter-
sea-park Bill, and in several other cases, private inter-
ests had been held to be subservient to public interests.
The importance of those Bills sank into insignificance
when compared with that of the present Bill, which bad
not been introduced without notice or without inquiry,
but after inquiry continued from year to year—which
was in iteelt a sufficient notice—and after discussions, in
Parliament and out of Parliament, which had placed
every man, woman, and child in this metropolis in a si-
tuation to know the object of this measure. The grounds
stated by the Noble Baron opposite were not, in his opi-
nion, sufficient to set aside a measure required by the
public for the public benefit. The object of the Bill was
to set aside a private monopoly for a public good; and
it was in reference to that object he now gave his un-
(pal fled support to his Noble Friend's motion.—(Hear,
hear.) Such applications as the present ought not, he
admitted, to be made on slight grounds; but, in this case,
the grounds were strong and unquestionable. If the
day should ever come when there was the same necessity
for removing Covent-garden market as there now was
for removing Smithfield-market, he should be among the
first to assent to a similar motion under similar circum-
stances, just as he knew that his Noble Friend the Duke
of Bedford would be the first, and not the last, to as-
sent to the removal of such a nuisance.—(Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND was sorry that he felt
himself bound in common justice to vote in favour of
his Noble Friend's (Lord Redesdale's) view of the
question—for he had a perfect horror of limithfield-
market—it was injurious to the public, ay, and it was
injurious to the agricultural interest, inasmuch as it was
not large enough to contain the beasts which they sent
to it, and which were thus damaged and deteriorated in
value. He wanted, however, to know, why Government
had not given notice to the corporation in time, and why
it was in such a hurry to proceed with this Bill, when it
could introduce another regularly within six months'
time ? Let the Bill be thrown out now, let due notices
be given, let another Bill be brought in next session,
and then he (the Duke of Richmond) would vote for it.
His Noble Friend opposite had produced some prece-
dents for his motion; but his Noble Friend had not told
them that the Acts which he referred to as precedents
had ever been referred -to the Standing Orders Com-
mittee, or that that Committee had reported upon them
at all. Now, who were the Members of that Committee?
Peers of the highest character, chosen from both sides
of the House, to see that private interests were ade-
quately protected. He bad attended many meetings of
that Committee, and unless their Lordships backed it
with their support, instead of overthrowing its deci-
sions, that Committee would be rendered worthless, and
he doubted whether they would be able to obtain Peers
to attend upon it. He repeated that Smithfield-market
was at present an inconvenience and an injury to the
country—he had a downright horror of it—but he could

not get rid of the regard which he thought due to pri-
vate property.

Earl GRANVILLE felt very grateful to the Noble
Duke for the admission which he had made as to the
merits of this Bill, and for his acknowledgment of the
very great evil which it was intended to remove. He
(Ball Granville) would not enter at present into the
merits of the Bill, but would confine himself strictly to
the question on the standing orders. He agreed with
the Noble Marquis, that in ordinary cases it was import-
ant that the standing orders should be complied with.
But there was a great difference between a Bill of this
magnitude and importance and a private Bill of the
.or-
dinary character. When a public Bill was introduced
into the other House of Parliament, if on the face of it
any of its provisions affected the rights and interests of
any individual or of any corporate body, it was referred
at once to the Standing Orders Committee, to see what
injury would be done to the rights and interests of that
individual, or of that corporation. Then the Standing
Orders Committee considered whether the parties would
be put to more inconvenience by its being introduced as
a public or a private Bill. If the interested parties were
put to more inconvenience by its being introduced as a
private Bill, then, if the due notices were not given, as
in a private Bill, the proceeding ceased; but, if not, then
the Committee considered whether they would be placed
in the same favourable situation as if it had been intro-
duced as a privste Bill. In this case the Committee of the
House of Commons found that no injustice would be done
to the corporation of the city of London by introducing
this Bill as a public Bill; but on one particular
point it ordered a notice to be given to the corpora-
tion in the course of March last. The Noble Earl then
proceeded to examine the question whether any injustice
had been done to the corporation by the course now pur-
sued, and, after some reference to the evidence given
before the Committee in the House of Commons by one
of the corporation officers, concluded that no injustice
had been committed. When they recollected the notice
which the corporation received from the Secretary of
State in July last, and when they also recollected the
publicity which had been given to the subject by the
Committees which had been appointed, and by the in-
quiries which had been instituted, he thought it quite
absurd to contend that any injustice had been inflicted
on the corporation in consequence of the notices not
having been given, which, it was said, the standing
orders required. He was of opinion that, if the House
did not agree to the course proposed by his Noble Friend
(Lord Beaumont), it would bring its standing orders
into disrepute, and would not increase the respect now
paid to the House itself.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that the motion
of Lord Beaumont, if carried, would deprive the corpo-
ration of London of a boon conferred upon it by ancient
charter. If their Lordships should adopt that motion
the conclusions of the Standing Orders Committee
in every instance would be called into dispute.
Lord BEAUMONT observed, that his Noble Friend
had said that if his motion were adopted, we should
cast a slight on the reports and character of the Stand-
ing Orders Committee. He differed from his Noble
Friend, and joined issue with him on that point. The
Standing Orders Committee could not report otherwise
than it had reported on this Bill. That Committee was
appointed to investigate into the fast whether the stand-
ing orders had been complied with, and had properly
reported that they had not. It was for their Lordships
to decide whether greater injustice would be done by
adhering to their standing orders or by suspending them.
The report, he admitted, was correct, and in due form;
but the right of enforcing the standing orders was not
with the Committee, but with their Lordships. The cor-
poration had not had formal, but it had received suffi-
cient notice. It could not, therefore, suffer any injury
from the adoption of his motion.
The Earl of DEVON contended that Lord Beaumont
had not described satisfactorily the whole functions of
the Standing Orders Committee. It was not correct to
say that the Standing Orders Committee had only to in-
quire into the fact whether the standing orders had been
complied with—for that Committee, having established the
fact that they had not been complied with, had authority
to recommend that the Bill should not be proceeded with.
It had also authority, if the justice of the case required
such a recommendation, to recommend that it should be
proceeded with. Now the Committee had not given such
a recommendation with respect to this Bill; and in ab-
staining from this recommendation had, in his opinion,
exercised a just discretion. The question in this case
was simply this,—" Is the Bill of such importance that
it is absolutely necessary to pass it this year?" He had
looked very carefully into the provisions of the Bill, and
he did not think that it would accomplish such an
amount of public good as would instils, their Lordships
in dispensing with their usual orders for the protection
of private rights and vested interests.
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that in voting for the
motion of Lord Beaumont, he merely voted on the point
of the propriety of dispensing with the standing orders.
All those Noble Lords who were opposed to the removal
of Smithfield-market—and he confessed that he was
strongly in favour of its removal—would have an oppor-
tunity of stating their opinions hereafter, tilid would not
be precluded from opposing this Bill by any vote they
might give now. He had originally been of opinion
that this Bill should have been treated as a private Bill,
and that the standing orders as to notices ought to have
been complied with; but on more mature reflection he
had had more than doubts of the correctness of his con-
clusion. This market of Smithfield was impeachable or
rather indictable as a public nuisance.—(Hear, hear.)
It might, he repeated, be so proceeded against. [The
Lord Chancellor said a few words—we did not hear them
—seemingly in contradiction to this dictum of Lord
Brougham.) He repeated that he thought that Smith-
field-market was a public nuisance, and that the rights
of the corporation were endangered by continuing such a
nuisance. It was a nuisance as a market, and it was a

still greater nuisance on account of the dangers which
environed the public in its avenues and approaches.—
(Hear, hear.) By the course proposed by his Noble
Friend opposite, those who opposed this Bill were not
shut out from opposing it; the corporation was not shut
out from defending this nuisance. It might still resist
the general cry for improvement, and might still main-
tain its right to stand by its ancient nuisance.—(Hear,
hear.) It was not true that the House of Commons
had treated this as a private Bill. It was theretore for
their Lordships to consider whether they would treat it
as such. It, however, he were asked, "Supposing it to
be a private Bill, will you suspend the standing orders?"
he had no hesitation in replying that he would, and give
his support to Lord Beaumont's motion.
Lord REDES DALE observed that it was the duty
of the Committee under the standing orders to state
their opinion, and to report it to the House, on the
question whether those orders had been complied with,
and whether, if not, the Bill should be proceeded with.
In this case the Committee had reported in the negative
on both these questions. If this motion were carried it
would be the first instance in which the report of the
Standing Orders Committee had been disregarded and
set aside; and it would open a door to injustice
which they would have great difficulty in closing here-
after.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Content ••• ••• ••• 76
Not content ... ... 22
Majority ..• ••• —54
The result of the division is that the Bill for the re-
moval of Smithfield-market will be proceeded with.
PURCHASE OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord BEAUMONT moved the second reading of the
Purchase of Lands Facilitation by means of Trust
Funds (Ireland) No. 2 Bill. Considerable sums of
money had been lent on landed property in Ireland
under the provisions of the Act known as Lynch's Bill,
the trustees being first mortgagees; but since the En-
cumbered Estates Act was passed, a puisne creditor had
power to force the sales of an estate, and the prior
mortgagee was precluded from bidding for the property
or interfering in the sale. Tue property was thus sold
for what it brought, and the mortgages were therefore
rendered comparativ,ly valueless. The Encumbered
Estates Act by its operation had depreciated the value
of land throughout Ireland generally. Unless they took
steps to enable capital to go to and remain in Ireland
they would make the Encumbered Estates Act, which
might have been most useful measure, one of the most
dangerous charact 9r, against which the hostility of the
country would be undoubtedly directed. The Bill he
proposed would pre vent that danger. He moved that it
be read a second time._ _

The LORD CHA NCELLOR opposed the Bill. He
trusted their Lords hips would not allow the money
which had been appropriated for trust purposes, by men
long gone t their graves, to be transported to Ireland, in
order to purchase land there, and exempt trustees from
the liability to which they were subject, and to which
they ought to remain subject, to make good the loss
arising from their lending money entrusted to them on
improper and insufficient security. Ho moved that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the Bill. It would
in some measure tend to modify the operation of the
Encumbered Estates Act. That House would be de-
graded and disgraced as long as they allowed that in-
famous and arbitrary Act to stand upon the statute-
book. Under it, property which was formerly worth
twenty years' purchase, now sold for ten years' value;
and thus, up to the present, upwards of a million of
money was lost to the creditors of Irish property.
Lord BEAUMONT replied, and defended the Bill
against the arguments of the Lord Chancellor. The
Noble Lord said that so convinced was he of the justice
and necessity of the measure, that, though he might not
succeed in carrying it, be was determined to divide the
House upon it, confident that it must puss on some fu-
ture, if not on the present occasion.
Their Lordships then divided, and there appeared—
For the second reading 3
Against it ... ... 16
Msjority against the second reading ... —l3
The But was consequently loot.
The Survey of Great Britain Bill was read a third
time and passed, as was also the Hainault Forest Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMOLVS, July 4:
BATTERSEA PARK AMENDMENT AND

EXTENSION BILL.

A Bill to alter and extend the powers of an Act of
he ninth and tenth years of her Majesty's reign, inti-
toiled " An Act to empower the Commissioners of her
Majt-sty's Woods to form a Royal Park in Battersea-
fields, in the county of Surrey," we,i
presented, read a
first time, ordered to be read a second time on Thursday
next, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGIL3Y,
Mr. said he proposed to take
the Moral ant Seamen's Bill ut twel re o'clock on Thur s-
day next. _ _

CLESIASTIC AL TIT LES BILL.
On the t notion for the third reading of this Bill being
proposed,
Mr. J. ',O'CONNELL said, as it had been found
that it W enl'd be more generally convenient to take

the debate on the question that the Bill do pass, he hoped
the third reading would be agreed to without discussion.
Mr. REYNOLDS could not sanction the third reading
of this Bill of pains and penalties, because his opposition

remained unabated and unaltered. The answer given
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to a
question put by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the
-University of Oxford yesterday, led him (Mr. Reynolds)

and those with who& he had the honour to act, to
believe that no one in the House knew what sort of
Bill this was ultimately to be. In fact, the Noble Lord
who was the author of the Bill, could not tell
what new shape it was likely to assume in the next 24
hours.—(Hear.) However, wiser men, and men more
experienced in the proceedings of the House than
himself, had advised that no division should
take place on the third reading, inasmuch as, according
to the forms of the House, it would not be competent
for the Noble Lord to expunge or alter any
clauses until the Bill had passed that stage.
In giving his consent, therefore, to the mo-
tion, he begged it to be understood that it was
that kind of consent which an oyster gave
when it was going to be opened.—(Laughter.) Ho was
not prepared to lend himself to such a farce as
dividing upon the third reading. This political
and religious camelion had changed its hues on every
discussion, and what the next hue was to be,
whether green, black, or arab, entirely depended
on the collective wisdom of the nation.—
(A laugh.) He begged to be specifically understood
as reserving to himself the right of expressing an opinion
upon this Bill of pains and penalties against his creed
and his country when the motion was made that the
Bill do pass.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do pass,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the first amendment which
he had to make was, as he had stated yesterday, in the
second clause. It was not his intention to propose any
amendment on the preamble, upon the addition of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, upon which
the House had decided. He would not interfere with
that decision. But in the second clause an amendment
had been introduced without a debate, which was almost
the same in substance as that proposed by the Hon.
Baronet on the 6th of June, and which had been rejected
by 133 votes to 129. The objection to the clause now
introduced had been then stated by theAttorney-General,
and was to the effect that if they made a certain act the
subject of a penalty they would be, in fact, creating two
offences under the Bill. There was another part of the
amendment about prosecution for publication in a news-
paper, which the Government thought unworthy the con-
stitution, and too small and paltry a subject for proceed-
ings on the part of the Crown, This part he also ob-
jected to. What he proposed, therefore, was to omit all
the words in the clacse from the words " any person" in
_ _

the 27th line to the same words in the 32d line.
Sir F. THESIGER, said the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government had dealt with his (Sir F. Thesiger's)
amendments with his usual skill and dexterity.—(Hear.)
On what grounds the Noble Lord opposed his amend-
ntent he could not see; and more especially as the Noble
Lord had said it did not make any particular alteration
in the general scope of the Bill. He said he would
abide by the decision of the House; and therefore he
was now astonished at the Noble Lord's opposition. He
would advert presently to the discussion on the first
clause as it now stood. In answer to questions put to
him, the Attorney General had expressed an opinion
that a misdemeanour was created with respect to these
briefs and rescripts. But he had not at present to dis-
cuss that point with his Hon. and Learned Friend. It
was clear that any offence created by that clause was
an offence with regard to past briefs and rescripts only.
That being so, let them consider whether his Hon. and
Learned Friend had not conceded all that he (Sir F.
Tnesiger) required upon the present occasion—v;r,
the necessity of making some provision with respect to
any future brief or rescript that might be introduced into
this country. What was the nature of the offence, if

any, that was involved in the first clause? He appre-
hended that it was an offence which might be said to be
contained either in the Act of the 16th of Richard 11.,
or in the 13th of Elizabeth. It must be an offence either
for bringing those briefs or rescripts into the country,
or making notification of them, or executing them in any
way, as provided by the statute of Richard IL, or else
it must be an offence as provided by the statute of Edza-
beth for using in any place within the realm " any such
bull, writing, or instrument, obtained from the Bishop of
Rome." Now they had been warned that the object of
their legislation was, as the Noble Lord had expressed
it, " to repel a pretension to power over the realm of
England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which
was inconsistent with the Queen's supr,macy. But
how were they to accomplish that object? Certainly
not by the legislation which the Noble Lord had pro-
posed, because that legislation had been directed
merely against the assumption of titles, and could
have no practical effect whatever. It appeared,
however, that no brief or rescriot was of any avail until
it had been received and published; and it was, there-
fore, against the receipt and publication of such docu-
ments that they ought to direct their legislation. In-
deed he should say he believed it would be impossible
for them to reach the root of the evil without directing

their legislation to that object.—(Hear, hear.) He felt
sure that the Noble Lord and his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General would readily concede to
him that a brief er bull was of no authority until it was
published. That was the doctine which had been ex•
pressly laid down by Dr. M•liale in his evidence before
the Commissioners of Education, and by the professor of
canon law at Maynooth. Now bulls were published by
the authority of the bishops. As bulls and briefs were
of no avail until they were published, he was anxious to
know whether her Majesty's Ministers meant to say that
the statute of Richard the Second should be
in force at the present day against aggres-
sions of that kind; and he had frequently asked
that question, but he had never been able to obtain
an answer from the Noble Lord, or from his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, or from any of
the supporters of the Government. In the clause which
he had proposed he had considerably mitigated the se-
verity of the statute of Richard IL, and nobody would
think of applying the penalties of praemunire, the very
nature of which was almost unknown at the present day,
to any offence of that kind. He had framed his clause
in the mildest spirit of modern legislation, and ia, the
very direction which the Noble Lord had said they
ought to pursue. What were the objections urged by
the Noble Lord against that particular clause? The
Noble Lord had repeated the objection of his Honour-
able and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General that
the clause would iuffict cumulative penalties. Now,
the answer to that statement was, that the two of-
fences—namely, the offence of procuring a brief and
the offence of publishing a brief were completely dis-
tinct; and the penalties attached to those distinct of-
fences could not be considered cumulative penalties. He
could see no reason whatever why distinct penalties
should not be applied to each offence. The next objec-
tion of the Noble Lord was that the words publishing
or putting in use within any part of the United King-
dom any such bull, brief, or rescript" might possibly
apply to publishing bulls, briefs, or rescripis in a news-
paper; and the Noble Lord bad added that that was too
paltry an ofThnce for any Attorney-General to conde-
scend to prosecute. But the Noble Lard was entirely
mistaken upon that point. The publication of a bull,
referred to in the clause, was such a publication as that
which he had already described, by affixing it to the
church doors, or by publishing it throughout the
different churches in each diocese. The publication
to which the Noble Lord had alluded was not the publi-
cation of a bull, but the publication of a copy of it, and
would not come within the operation of the clause.
The Noble Lord had further stated that he objected to
the term " procuring " those bulls from Rome, because
it would be very difficult to obtain any evidence of that
fact. Now that difficulty might exist; that might be an
unfortunate circumstan )e, but they ought not to refuse
to pass an enactment which was right in itself merely
because there might be a difficulty in enforcing it. Those
were all the objections which the Noble Lord had stated
to the clause; and he (Sir F. Thesiger) appealed to the
House whether he had not satisfactorily answered them?
—(Hear, hear.)—But the Noble Lord bad suggested
that those additions to the Bill had been introduced by
him (Sir F. Thesiger) in the spirit of persecution.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I said quite the con.rary.
Sir F. THESIGER, continued—He was obliged to
the Noble Lorti for that statement. His object had been
to meet the views of the Noble Lord in that matter, and
to make the Bill of the Noble Lord conformable to his
own declared intentions. It was not a battle of
Churches they were then discussing, but a contest
between two supremacies; it was a question,
as the Noble Lord had truly stated, whether her Ma-
jesty the Queen was to be the undoubted Sovereign of
her realm.—(Hear, hear.) They were certainly suffer-
ing considerably from the weakness and uncertainty of
their legislation. It appeared that this country had of
late attracted the special care and attention of his lioli-
ness the Pope. He perceived that there had lately been
issued from the printing press of the " Royal Apostolic
Chamber" in Rome an appeal to the piety and charity
of Italians, which was of a very
singular character. In
that document it was first of all stated, that " among all
the foreign missions, that of London presented the
greatest hopes and demands;" and he afterwards found
in it the following passages._. The project has been
approved by ecclesiastical authority of building a spie
cious church in the centre of London, iu a tine position,
in one of the most majestic streets in the city, princi-
pally for the use of the Italians, and thence of other
foreigners, as well as of the native?. In this way there
will be in the capital of the British empire a church,
Roman, not only in its faith and principle, but also
in its rites, in its ceremonies, and . the practices of
sound devotion ; a church similar in its mate-
rial construction to the ancient
.Christian temples;
a church which, at the express wish of the Holy
Father, will be dedicated to.theeerince of the Apostles,
St. Pter;
a church which will be always
kgo-
verned by a congregation of Italian secular priests
founded at Rome, that the Roman spirit may always in-
The holiness of our
fluence the same.—(Elear, hear.)
Lord Pope Pius IX. has, in his provident zeal tor the
good of religion and souls, by means of the holy con-
gregation for propagating the faith, and of that of the
bishops and religious orders, caused this great work to
be most urgently recommended to the charity of Italian
believers and to the zeal of the bishops of Italy. More-
over, the Most Eminent and Most R.v. Cardinal Wise-
man, Archbishop of Westminster, Ordinary of London,
has equally recommended this most interesting work.
And the Most Eminent and Most Rev. the Cardinal
Vicar has published a second notification, dated March
26, 1851, in which he repeats his recommendation
to the Roman charity of this most pious object.
Finally, his Holiness himself, by his rescript to the
holy congregation for propagating the faith, dated
;March 9, 1851, has granted an indulgence of 100 days
to whomsoever shall contribute any alms to this end."
That document from the Pope was accompanied by a
" notification" from the Archbishop of Florence, from
which he would read the following extract;—" I should

further announce that his Holiness Pius IX., et the re,;
quest of certein English Catholics, has deigned
grant an indulgence of 100 days to whosoever maY
three Ave Marias, with after each, the invocation Auxil,
Christianorum era pro nobis, and plenary indulgence e 4
one day at their own choice, to whoever shall have relit,.
them for one entire month, provided that, having c°6l
fessed and communicated, he shall pray particularly at;
the Catholic Church of England." Now he appeele,,„
Hon. Members whether a few years ago, before we "of
deprived ourselves of the securities against such octlrr
aggression, we should have been exposed to those net
pealed attacks and insults?—(Hear, hear.) Beta ,0
we had disarmed ourselves, we had subjected ourse'
to constant attacks of that description. It aPPesbrili
that the Pope at present put forth his pretensions /lid
relying upon the unfortunate divisions which preYealtri
in this country. He called upon Hon. Members be
it was too late to be warned by the conduct of the 1.0;
See as to what they were to expect in future, and te;i:
deavour if they possibly could at the present mom
make their legislation of such a character as wool'
adequate to meet the dangers by which they were p
compassed.—(Hear, hear.) He confessed it appeare°,
him that if they then failed, that could only be heel',
the guardians of our Protestant Constituticn, o.
having neglected their trust, and after having 0;4
tiously encouraged the advances of the Roman Cathee„
had, in the midst of the difficulties of their positw
thought proper to support at the last moment a messt,l;
which could offer no real security against the aggressl
of the See of Rome.—(Loud cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his e•
and Learned Friend bad certainly shown at the cool
sion of his speech that he was animated by a very
ferent spirit from that in which the Bill had
brought forward by her Majesty's Government.
believed that the proposals of his Hon. and Lest's,,
Friend would not materially alter the character of
Bill; but it was evident, from the latter part of ;
speech of his lion. and Learned Friend, that, to
opinion, Parliament bad gone too far in granting
Relief Bill of 1829.—(" Hear, hear," from the Mieif)
rial benches, and counter cheers from the oppositions!,
of the House.) Those cheers of Hon. Gentlemen opr
site made their sentiments upon that point perfectly ifo
telligible, Those Hon. Gentlemen disapproved Of e
measure of 1829; but the Bill introduced upon the P 8
sent occasion by her Majesty's Government went 00
directly opposite principle. The object of the GO,
ment was to adhere to the arrangement—he would
,i;
call it compact, for there had been no compact—of 1°;)
The Bill recited in the preamble, and afterwards, et d
suggestion of his Hon. and Learned Friend the 'At,l,l"l
neey-General, it was declared in the measure itself, '"
the act which had given such offence throughout d;
country was an infraction of the existing law; 104
proceeded to provide that the restriction wbiob
existed in the Act of 1829 with respect to all exists;
sees of the Established Church should be extended„
any sees named from cities or towns in the T 3
,111,y
Kingdom. The Bill entirely abided by the spirit 01 ;)
clause in the Act of 1829. which had clearly for its !i

ject the prevention of conflicting titles by the assume`")
of a right to sees on the part of the Roman Catb
bishops. His Honourable and Learned Friend had 116 y
oi
whether her Majesty's Government thought that it tij
be advisable to prosecute under the Act of Richard
Now he (the Solicitor-General) had no hesitation iD
ing that it would not be advisable. No one could tsl
at the present day of instituting a prosecution in eicv
to enforce the penalties of premunire. With regat.
the Act of Elizabeth, it was well known that nothiliP
the penalties of that Act remained, although the
ceeding against which it was directed continued to 0
misdemeanour. The Bill, as proposed by her Milie°js
Government, would punish the assumption of titlesl,
the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend toi
punish the publication of bulls. Now, that latter
rangement would be an infraction of the Act of 1829.
would be an alteration in itself vexatious, while it l°°ll,
be productive of no special advantage whatever.
ventured to say that the offences which his Hon., h,
Learned Friend would create could never be establti
against anybody. His Hon. and Learned Yreo
would punish with a penalty of 1001. the oneli
of procuring a bull from Rome; but was it probo
that any person could ever be convicted of 11
offence upon any evidence on which a jury could t-'Ol,
He should further say that he believed the judges of 1,
country would not attribute to the word ''publish;ro,
the meaning which had been attached to it by his Plif
and Learned Friend ; and that the publisher of a ee)
paper, who should insert a bull in its columns, /I°,ol,
not escape from the penalties which his Honourable
Learned Friend would impose, under the plea tsar;
had merely inserted a copy of the document. His
and Learned Friend seemed to suppose that if he oly,ti
persuade the House to agree to his amendments iOlO
instance he might hereafter persuade them to leglio
in the spirit to which he had referred towards 4
conclusion of his observations, in a spirit which Wutil!
lead them to repeal the Act of 1829, by which 'pt
had effaced from our statute -book the last rano pi
of anything in the shape of persecution. The o°s
ments of his Honourable and Learned Friend 'cis
not framed in the spirit of the Act of 1829 ; an
was on that account, and not because he thought t's
was any real stringency in those amendments, the'o,
hoped the House would refuse to give to them 0
sent.—(Cries for a division.) fpi
Mr. ROEBUCK said that from the speech 0 fel
Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General bell
sure that his Hon. and Learned Friend did not to
stand—he would not say his own Bill, for it attFesa
at present to be nobody's Bill—but the measure t',
before the House. He regretted to find his Hog;
Learned Friend the Member for Abingdon (Siroo
Thesiger) addressing himself to the stale prejudiceof
the House, and employing his powers in endeavetlLA
to drag back the public mind to that thraldom "01
which it had been so long relieved. His Hon. ly
Learned Friend had talked about insults from
Pope, from the Archbishop of Westminster, yf
the Archbishop of Florence. Now, as 1'4111;0:
the Archbishop of Florence, it appeared that to of
had asked was that people should pray for
success of the Roman Catholic religion in Engll/oli
and tbat surely was a perfectly unobjectionable
Then the Pope proposed to build a church in Lott).
but he could not see how that proceeding differed "d
the course taken by the Society for the Propagattewf
the Gospel in Fur. ign Parts.—(Hear, hear.) His Poi
and Learned Friend the Solicitor• General said thet of
alterations of his Honourable and Learned Friend of
Member for Abingdon would not materially affee,tod
Bill; but he was sure that that was not the opini° Irt
his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member or
Abingdon. In his (Mr. Roebuck's) belief his f(on°o,
able and Learned Friend had made the Bill more Of e
gent and more mischievous. It was impossible tO
veru the country on the old principle of excluding
man Catholics. Of this the Duke of Wellington,
Lyndhurst, and Sir R. Peel were well aware in I‘l,'e,
when they proposed the Emancipation Act. The Cotoll
lio religion then was recognised, and it was impolto
for the Catholic religion to exist without communiceol
with the Pope of Rome. Parliament knew well woo
they were doing in 1829, and no one better thee iy
Lord Chancellor of that time, who, in 1828 had 03,01
the most powerful speech against emancpation. kol
Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel also, 1"0
personal honour was almost pledged to resist it Pd
these three came down to the House of Commonaedl
the House of Lords, and declared that they could Pol
govern the country on the old principle—tbat they 133 d it,
admit the Catholic religion, and those who professe 00
to all the privileges enjoyed by other subjects. It $1
impossible for a statesman not to see at that time thtiv
broad gulf was drawn between their past and future 0
ghlation, for they then admitted the Catholics in facto
well as in name. Now, no man could be a Catheo
unless he acknowledged the Pope to be the head of ,10
religion. This Bill said that eve' bull described in
preamble should be null and void. What would be tb°„r
suit if this Bill became law? The Attorney and Solioitvo,
Generals and the Noble Lord at the head of the Gollroy
ment supposed they could control this Bill. They could Via
Suppose he, brine a Protestaut, had a Catholic con
the result of a Catholic marriage. The law said Y„,
cousin was a bastard, and be (Mr. Roebuck) was filo
posed to be the next heir to the estate. He broughtbol
act cousint against his cousin, and he proved it,ert
Catholic priest. I,Paoi
his was married by a
being no registration in Ireland, the parents could
haveho married gone t o the
themw
registry.a was
He
proved that the pool
w ordained by no other WV
than by the Archbishop of Armagh. He proved t e
A. 8., calling himself Archbishop of Armagh, wag alO
pointed by a Papal rescript, such as those describe' po
this Bill. These consequences would follow. Being
r,)
appointed, he would be no archbishop at all.—(fjel!of
The priest whom he had ordained would also be no Prl
at all.—(Hear.) The priest was not a priest—the r °(I
e
liege was not a marriage—his cousin was baste rdisedt ~„
the verdict must be for the plaintiff.—(Laughter.)
was astounded at the ignorance which that laugh :di
played. It was all very well to make light of the n3rti`,o
but did any one believe that such actions would 110419
brought?—(Hear.) Could any man suppose that 'cif
Bill would not light up the torch of discord in Irela°oo
—(Hear, hear.) Did any one believe that if a 030
thirsting for an estate saw such a means open to hirev
obtain it he would not try his chance at law? Thel3o
ing the House for the attention with which they ~
heardhim, he would go no further. He protested not 01361
agaicst the amendments of the Hon. and Leal
Member for Abingdon, but against sanctioning 50.4,
Bill at all. It would be the groundwork of dissenal"o
litigation, and misery, and, if put into execution, W° be
be a brand of discord in Ireland, and if not, would be
shame of that. House and of Parliament.—(Cheers.) a,
Mr. NAPIER rose to speak, but the noise and ic°,l:o(
tience or the House for a division was so great, that a' d,
essaying in vain for some minutes to obtain a heart"-
the Hon. and Learned Member resumed his seat. iho
The Irish Members, as on a previous occasion, left
House in a body.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Fur Sir F. Thesiger's amendments ... 208
Against them ... 129
Majority ——7 9 .0
The announcement of the numbers was received 1/1
loud cheers. oat
Mr. FRESHFIELD then rose to move, " To leave,;-,.
all the words after the words 'United Church,' p. 2, '?0-%
43, to the end of the clause, and to insert the follows 4
words:—' Every such person shall be deemed to be :of
offender under this Act, and, being lawfully convictet!or
any of the offences bereinbefore mentioned upon it'd/ al
ment or information, he shall be adjudged to depart
c id,
of this realm within a time to be limited in such .in el;
went, not exceeding three calendar months from o°lo
conviction, and a certificate of such judgment, under kg,
seal of the court pronouncing such judgment, or the ive
nature of the proper officer of the said court, shall
pc
forthwith deposited by the prosecutor of such indictiveol
' or information at the office of her Majesty's Prtuciflis
Secretary of State for the Home Department; and if 10
person so convicted shall be found within this Oa De
after such time in ouch judgment limited, it oh ali