The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 23, 1844.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL

BILL.

Lord BEAUMONT moved that this Bill be committed.

The Bishop of LONDON said that the proposed Act
was neither more nor less than an Act to restore the
supremacy of the Pope in this realm.—(Hear, hear.)
He assured the House, that if they were to pass such a
measure—repealing the Act of Uniformity and thirty
other Acts, and at the same time interfering with the pre-
rogative of the Crown—they would create great alarm
throughout the country. lie moved that the Bill be
committed this day three months.
Lord BEAUMONT was surprised that at this time a
Rev. Prelate could be found to oppose the repeal of those
laws which still kept the scaffold and the axe suspended
over the heads of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Until
those Acts were repealed, no Catholic, however loyal,
was secure of his estates. lie believed that there were
people willing to bring into operation those obsolete
Acts, as their Lordships had seen this day there were
persons seeking to enforce- far less atrocious Acts. He
had no wish to injure the Established Church, but if the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would point
out, amongst the Acts which he proposed to repeal, any
that were necessary to the safety or the power of the
Established Church, he would willingly leave them out
of his schedule. The Commissioners of Criminal Law
Inquiry, in their seventh report, strongly dwelt upon
the necessity of abolishing those laws, and they quoted
the eloquent language of Justice Blackstone condemna-
tory of those cruel and impolitic laws.
The Bishop of LONDON explained. He agreed that
many of those laws ought to be repealed. But the
Noble Lord proposed to repeal some Acts that were
necessary for the security of the Church. What he now
chiefly objected to was the season at which the Bill was
brought in—a season when it could not be adequately
discussed, and when it could scarcely be expected that
it would pass the House this year. Surely, the Noble
Lord did not think that in the next, six months the
Roman Catholics would be in a worse condition than
they were now. It was certainly right that the liabili-
ties mentioned by the Noble Lord, although not enforced,
should be done away with. But no inconvenience would
be suffered by delaying it until the beginning of next
session, when the Bishops, the rulers and defenders of
the Church, would be present in the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had him-
self examined the Bill, and had referred it to the Com-
missioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, who struck out
some of the clauses. He now believed that there was
not a single clause in the Bill, as it stood at present,
to which any reasonable person could object. He won-
dered that any one could say at the present clay that it
was necessary for the security of the Church that any
one who a second time denied the supremacy of the
Queen should be transported. By that law every priest
who said mass was still liable to the severest penalties.
He would recommend the Noble Lord to withdraw his
motion, and the Right Rev. Prelate to withdraw his, so
that the Bill might be printed and every Member of the
House be enabled to see what its objects really were.
Lord CAMPBELL was sure that if the Right Rev.
Prelate examined the Bill he would find that it was not
liable to the objection which the Right Reverend Prelate
supposed. He (Lord Campbell) suggested that the Bill
should go into Committee pro forma.
The Earl of WICKLOW approved of the Bill, which
would give great satisfaction to the Roman Catholics,
especially in Ireland, and could not possibly affect the
Established Church. He was sorry that the Bill was
now to be obstructed.—(Hear.) He thought that the
lateness of the session and the absence of the Prelates
were not sufficient reasons for putting off useful mea-
sures. Why were not the Bishops in their places as well
as other Lords ?—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend de-
served the thanks of the Catholics and of all liberal-
minded men for bringing in his Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON would press his opposition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that after what had
passed in the House, and what had been stated in a pub-
lic print, it was absolutely necessary for his own justifi-
cation that he should ask their Lordships to print the
Bill. He thought the House might go into Committee
pro
,forma, and the Bill be printed, that the House and
the public might see what the Bill was. He had already
declared that he had struck out every clause that would
be doubtful. As for the absence of the Bishops, he did
not see how it was necessary to be a divine, in order to
judge whether the Church would be endangered by
allowing a Catholic gentleman to send his son abroad
for his education. .

The Bishop of LONDON withdrew his amendment,
and the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be printed.
The Soap Allowances Bill was read a second time.
REGISTRATION OF CHAPELS BILL.

Lord TEYNHAM moved the second reading of this
Bill, the object of which was to repeal so much of the
present Acts relating to this subject which prevented
religious service before registration. It was further de-
signed to allow a minister of the Gospel to preach in an
unregistered chapel to a congregation not exceeding 40
in number.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the law allowed
every family to pray together, and allowed visitors or
persons accidentally present, besides the family, up to the
number of twenty, to join in the prayer. The Noble
Lord did not object to the registration, and why should
not the registration take place before the building should
be named as a chapel ? He saw no reason for altering
the law, and opposed the Bill.
The Bishnp of GLOUCESTER also opposed the Bill.
and moved that it be read a second time that day three
months.

Lord TEYNTIAM replied.
The motion for the second reading was negatived with.
out a division, and the Bill was lost.

Lord TEYNIIAM presented a petition from the pa-
rish of Marylebone, complaining of the operations of the
Anatomy Act, as offensive to the feelings of the poor.
The petitioners prayed to be allowed to prove their al-
legations at the bar.
Their Lordships adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 22.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
The Ayre Bridge Bill was read a third time and
passed.

FRANCE AND MOROCCO.

On the order of the day for the House going into a
Committee of Supply being read,
Mr. SHEIL said he had already informed the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government
that be should not persevere in the motion of which he
had given notice, but that he should content himself with
moving for certain papers, the particulars of which he
should specify in the course of the observations which
he intended to make. He was anxious to confine him-
self in the discussion of a mere matter of form to the
facts, and to abstain from any superfluous comments on
them. Any Gentleman who was of opinion that he en-
tertained the design, which would be worse than repre-
hensible, of exciting a feeling of animosity between two
great nations did him wrong, and he should prove that
he did him wrong by the tone which he should adopt.
He felt that it was the deep interest of both countries
to remain at peace, and that by their collision the world
would be disturbed. At the same time he conceived no
advantage could be derived from concealing from them-
selves the precise truth, or from their averting their eyes
from objects which must of necessity at last force them-
selves upon their contemplation. On the sth of
July, 1830, he risked abruptness, in order that
he might avoid the greater fault of prolixity.
On the .sth of July, 1830, Lord Aberdeen ad-
dressed a dispatch to Lord Stuart de Rothsay
which was conceived in a most prudential and concilia-
tory spirit. He would take the opportunity of observ-
ing that the whole of the correspondence of Lord Aber-
deen at that period was distinguished by great sagacity
and wisdom, but that between his conduct and his cor-
respondence there was an infelicitous contrast, for his
conduct was marked with some infirmity of purpose, as
he failed to obtain from the French Government the
pledge which he was, beyond all doubt, entitled to de-
mand. It was remarkable that the prognostications of
Lord Aberdeen had been verified by the events which
were now passing. In page 942 of the State papers,
Lord Aberdeen wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothsay, to ask
for some explanation from the French Government rela-
tive to the expedition against Algiers. Prince de Polig-
nac returned an answer, which was by no means satis-
factory; and Lord Aberdeen again wrote to Lord Stuart
de Rothsay on the 23d of March, 1830. In reply, Lord
Stuart de Rothsay said he saw Monsieur de Polignac,
and could not obtain from him any satisfactory answer,
but that he would communicate with the Sultan. The
Sultan had sent Ali I'acha to Algiers, but the blockading
squadron of the French would not suffer him to enter.
He then came to Boulogne, where he was obliged to per-
form quarantine, and he (Mr. Sheil) believed he never
reached Paris. Shortly after the fall of Algiers, on the
sth of July, Monsieur de Polignac was in captivity, and
placed in immediate proximity to the guillotine, and the
crown was torn from the brow of Charles X., and the
throne of the barricades was given to that remarkable
and sagacious man who now ruled the people of France
—one of the most sagacious men in that country, fertile
in greatness. The Duke of Wellington, with great
sagacity, recognised him as the representative
of the national will. But was it 'not a
most extraordinary circumstance, that after the
correspondence which he had read to the House, after
the distinct intimation given by Lord Aberdeen, that he
expected a stipulation that Algiers should not be appro-
priated by France, after he had stated with such clear-
ness his views as to the ultimate results on the commerce
of the Mediterranean. Was it not most extraordinary
that, after the lapse of four months, during which the
French remained in possession of Algiers, and when ex-
tensive acquisitions were made in the country, that they
should not have demanded, as a condition from the new
Government, that which they had failed to obtain from
the former, the importance of which had been so largely
and so emphatically expressed? It was true that in the
speech from the Throne in November, 1830, it was
stated that no doubt was entertained by his Majesty's
Government that Louis Phillippe would fulfil all his en-
gagements ; but it was most remarkable that there
was no previous engagement with regard to Algiers.
There was no arrangement binding in diplomacy that
had never been obtained. The polished and well lubri-
cated statesman of France had, with his peculiar sinuo-
sity, escaped from the grasp of the pale Englishman.
That was an important fact which could not be to much
insisted upon, when they came to consider what had
since taken place. The Tory Government of 1830 had
recognised Louis Philippe when France was in posses-
sion of Algiers, and yet no engagement had been made
for the abandonment of Algiers by France. The Whigs
came into power in 1830 ; they found France in posses-
sion of Algiers, no stipulation having been made on the
subject, and they found Louis Philippe recognized. He
would now pass from 1830 to 1831. The administration
of Lord Grey lasted to 1834. In that year the Right
Honourable Gentleman opposite came into power,
and his administration was succeeded by that of
Lord Melbourne. Nothing was said or done during
the whole of that time as to any recogni-
tion of the right of France to Algiers. That
right was not denied, but it was not admitted. No
exequatur was applied for for the English Consul. How
far it was necessary to apply for an exequatur for him
from France he would not stop to inquire. He passed
from 1830 to 1831, and almost immediately after the
new Government had been formed, and Lord Aberdeen
had been restored to the Foreign-office, a most remark-
able conversation is found to have taken place on the
subject of the Algerine business. Lord Aberdeen had
himself given the substance of that conversation. No
man could doubt the veracity of Lord Aberdeen, or of the
Count St. Aulaire, or of M. Guizot. No doubt there
had been a misapprehension and nothing more. But it
was a singular circumstance that the French Ambassa-
dor should have so availed himself of that conversation,
which Lord Aberdeen stated to have been perfectly ac-
cidental and fortuitous. What was the result of that
conversation ? Why, immediately afterwards, the King
of the French, in his speech from the throne, in Decem-
ber, 1841, stated to the Chambers, that he had taken
measures for the purpose of protecting the security of the
foreign possessions of France from what he called
" external complications." M. Guizot explained to the
Chamber the meaning of that phrase, which was that
Lord Aberdeen had explained to Count Aulaire that
he regarded the possession of Algiers by France as un
fait accompli, and had no objection to make. There
could be no doubt but that Count St. Aulaire had mis-
taken what Lord Aberdeen had said ; and on the 28th
of January, 1842, Lord Aberdeen wrote a dispatch to
Lord Cowley, in which he denied that he had stated
that lie bad no objection to make, but stated that
he had merely intimated that he had no observation
to make, and remained silent on the subject. That dis-
patch had been communicated to M. Guizot, but M.
Guizot had made no observation on it. A very import-
ant step had since been taken by the French Govern-
ment, and it was because he found that the measures
adopted by France were distinctly affecting the com-
merce of this country with Africa that he felt it important
to call the attention of the House to this subject.
On the 16th of December, 1843, a most important re-
port of the Duke of Dalmatia had been presented to the
King of the French, which appeared in the Moniteur of
the 21st of December, 1843. The report of the Duke of
Dalmatia was on the subject of the French possessions in
Algiers, and recommended that means should be adopted
to prevent foreign States from taking advantage of the
commerce of those possessions, and that duties should be
raised upon the textual fabric of foreign manufactures
consumed in Algiers. An ordonnance, dated the 16th
of December, 1843, containing a new tariff, was founded
upon this report, and a duty of 12 francs and 10 cen-
times per kilogramme was imposed upon foreign printed
calico, and a duty of four francs per ton was imposed
upon foreign shipping. This imposed a burden of 30
per cent. additional upon our commerce. Now, let them
look at the results of this tariff on British trade. In the
Times of July 18, 1844, there appeared a let-
ter from their correspondent, dated Oran, July 5,
in wfiich the writer stated that British commerce, which
had formerly been flourishing there, was now annihi-
lated, except for coals ; that the port duties on British
shipping was four francs per ton, and on foreign vessels
it was the same, except on Sardinian vessels, which were
favoured by treaty, and admitted at two francs per ton;
and that the general effect of the tariff had been to raise
the charges on British commerce from fifteen per cent.
to thirty per cent., which, in fact, amounted to an ex-
clusion. What was the state of trade in Algeria before
this? Mr. M'Gregor, in his admirable book on the
" Statistics of Commerce," stated that in 1840 and 1841
1,846 French vessels entered the ports of Algeria, and
only 200 English ones. Verily, the power of England in
this region was at the lowest ebb. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then read a report from the Moniteur news-
paper, which stated that from an ordinance recently
issued by the French Government, the duties in Algeria
on foreign manufacture were one-third more than in
France, and that ordinance was not to be disturbed. He
did not quarrel with France because of her conquest
of Algiers. He did not dispute her title to that
country—he did not wish to embark in a question which
might disturb the peace of the House.—(Hear, hear,
from Sir R. Peel)—but he wished that from the past
they might learn to make some configuration of the
future—that they should take into consideration the
events now passing on the coast of the Mediterranean,
and which bore a close resemblance to those which pre-
ceded the conquest of .Algiers.—(Hear, hear, from Sir
C. Napier.) The cause of quarrel between the Dey of
Algiers and the French Consul was of a trifling nature. I
What was the origin of that between France and
Morocco ? That Abd-el-Kader, the hero of the desert,
had sought refuge in the country of the Emperor, having
been driven from his own dominions ; the Arabs of that
nation, feeling the combined influence of nationality and
religion, cherished him, and this was the cases belli. But
had they not reason to look with caution on the shadows
which events were casting before them, and by which
the Mediterranean was now darkened ? It was manifest
that the same course would be pursued in Morocco
regarding our commerce as was pursued in Algiers, if the
French gained possession over it.—(Hear, hear.) Mr.
M'Gregor, in the second volume of his statistics, gave the
strength and power of Morocco, and the commerce of this
country with it. England, in 1839, exported to Mo-
rocco 299,0001. 163 English vessels were, in that year,
employed in the exportation to Morocco ; whilst in that
same year, only 12 of their vessels were engaged in the
same trade. He did not ask the English Government
to question the policy of the French ; but be wished to
understand what precautions or steps the British Go-
vernment had taken, and whether our force in the
Mediterranean was equal to what it was on former occa-
sions, when its weakness was made the object of cen-
sure. In 1838, the Duke of Wellington, whose autho-
rity was great on naval as well as on military questions,
per ',tare aut terra, being in opposition, said the fleet
was not sufficient. He (Mr. Shed) naturally looked to
what the state of the British fleet in 1838 was in the
Mediterranean :—ships of the line 18, frigates 29, sloops
39, brigs 29, wan steamers 22. The Duke added that
there should be a squadron ready for any emergency ; and
the present Prime Minister of England expressed himself
to a similar effect. What was the state of the British
navy, in 1841, when the Whigs left office ? It was as
follows :—Ships of the line, 26 ; frigates, 36 ; sloops,
40 ; brigs, 37 ; armed steamers, 22 ; other war vessels,
36. Now let them compare the state of the navy in

Sir IL PEEL had seen no account of it except that in
the public journals.
JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL.

On the motion fur reading the order of the day for
going into a Committee on the Joint-Stock Banks Bill
being put,
Sir W. CLAY gave notice of his intention that he
would move to strike out that portion of the Bill which
conferred the power of unlimited liability, and that
shareholders should be liable for their own shares only.
He went on to show that all their experience proved
that unlimited liability had not afforded that security
which was expected from it, while all their experience,
both as regarded the banks of England and Ireland, and
the Scotch banks, was in favour of limited liability.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would not adopt the
extensive alteration proposed by the Hon. Baronet.
He did not see why an exception should be made in
favour of banks from the law, which was applicable to all
partnerships.—(Hear, hear.) Apart from authority, he
thought. that reason was opposed to the proposition of
the Hon. Baronet. But surely all authority was against
him. A Committee had sat on the subject of banks for
three sessions, in 1836, 1837, 1838, which had exhausted
the subject. A great deal of evidence had been given
on the subject of unlimited liability, and it was all in
favour of such a system. If the shareholders were not
subject to unlimited liability, he feared that persons of
large property and high name would have applications
made to them to become partners. It would be said to
them, " Become a shareholder for 1001., in the worst
event you cannot be responsible for more than that."
Now he feared that local influence would be used in
this way, and would be sometimes used with suc-
cess, so that the bank would have the influ-
ence of a high name without the responsibility.
He admitted that unlimited responsibility had not been
always a security, but he hoped it would be under
the regulations of the present Bill. For those reasons
he hoped the House would not agree to the proposition
of the Hon. Baronet.

Mr. HAWES said the question was whether unlimited
or limited security afforded the best security for sound
banking. The Right lion. Gentleman was mistaken
when he said that all authority was iu favour of un-
limited responsibility, for there was very high authority
on both sides of the question. lie thought that a limited
liability on the part of the shareholders, and an unlimited
one on the part of the Directors, would answer ever)
purpose, and afford ample security. The system of
limited liability on the part of the shareholders would
be a great inducement to men of fortune to join banks,
and this would prove of great benefit to the public.
Mr. MORRISON thought the principle of limited
responsibility was most injurious. To show this, he need
only refer to America, where the system had been found
to work very disadvantageously. He felt that the
present system was in an unsatisfactory state, and it
would ultimately be found necessary to alterand revise it.
Mr. P. M. STEWART doubted whether any Hon.
Gentleman connected with any bank would support the
proposition of the Hon. Baronet, nor did he think that
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Lambeth would
tend to increased security in our system of banking.
He thought the principle of limited liability was a bad
one, and he hoped, therefore, that it would never be
adopted in this country.
Mr. TURNER opposed the amendment.
The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the House went into Committee on the Bill.
The first clause was agreed to.
On clause 2 being put,
Mr. GLADSTONE:said there had been a distinct un-
derstanding that the Joint-Stock Companies Bill should
be proceeded with after the Railways Bill. Several
gentlemen, on that understanding, had remained
in town for the purpose of attending the
Committee, and be therefore suggested that his Right
Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
should consent to report progress for the present, and
resume the consideration of his measure after the Com-
mittee on the Railways Bill.
The - CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he was ready to adopt any course that would suit the
convenience of the House.

After a short conversation, it was resolved to proceed
with the Railways Bill ; and the House having resumed,
the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again this day.
RAILWAYS BILL.

On the motion that the House resolve itself into a
Committee on the Railways Bill,
Mr. MORRISON said, that some few years ago the
Government of the country appeared to be altogether
opposed to any interference with railroads, in conse-
quence of which greater enterprise was manifested by
capitalists to embark in railroad speculations. It would
have been much better if the Government had shown
this desire of interference some years ago. If the pre-
sent Bill passed, the public would be benefited to the
extent of more numerous competing lines, but the pro-
prietors of existing railroads would be most materially
injured. He thought, that if a tariff of lid. or 2d. per
mile was levied on competing lines, it would have the
effect of causing a reduction of fares, if that was
the object of the Bill. The best objection to the
Bill was, that it was unnecessary. With re-
gard to third-class carriages, he thought that
public opinion would soon correct the abuse of delaying
poor persons travelling in the third class. He was best
acquainted with the Great Western Railroad, and he
thought that a great improvement might be made in the
third-class carriages. He also thought that the comfort
of those persons who travelled in the second-class car-
riages was also too much neglected. Another abuse
was that some carriers were favoured more than others
by the directors. He thought that lists of the prices of
carrying goods ought to be left with the Board of Trade,
and that they should adhere to those price. He did
not think that railway companies ought to be liable to a
penalty of 10/. for parcels which might be lost. On
grounds of public policy, he thought that such a pro-
vision was necessary with regard to stage coaches ;
but railroads were circumstanced so differently
that he thought they ought not to be made
subject to a penalty for lost parcels. He
had great faith in the atmospheric principle upon
railways, and he thought it would soon become exten-
sively adopted. He did not thoroughly approve of the
Bill of the Government, because it passed by three lead-
ing points—revision, tariff, and lease.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not think this Bill went far
enough in protecting the public. He thought greater
powers ought to have been taken by the Board of Trade
with respect to the revision of railways ; and he thought
that the provisions of the Bill ought to have been ex-
tended to old as well as to new companies. He hoped
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board
of Trade, would consent to extend the clause relating
to third-class passengers to all existing companies.
Third-class passengers had hitherto been treated
in the most inconsiderate, unjust, and cruel manner,
by existing railway companies, and he hoped
therefore, that all companies ought to be made
to come under the operation of the third-class passen-
gers' clause in this Bill. He thought, too, that power
should be given for the revision, by the Board of Trade,
of the carriage traffic on a railway, as well as the pas-
senger traffic.
Colonel SIBTHORP had no hesitation in saying that
the present Bill was a very similar Bill to that which
was originally before the House. More than half the
clauses had been struck out, and the Bill was most par-
tial in its operations. The Bill would have the effect of
establishing a monopoly in favour of existing railway
companies.
Mr. V. SMITH had expected that some statement
would have been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman
with respect to the alterations which he had proposed.
Great alteration had been made, and he thought that
only one day for their consideration was too short a time
especially without any explanation by the Right Hon.
Gentleman. _