HC Deb 28 June 1848 vol 99 cc1291-302

The Order of the Day having been read for going into Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill,

MR. GORING

thought that the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), before he called their attention to the obsolete statutes referred to in this Bill, was bound to prove that the Roman Catholic religion was changed, and that the animus which was formerly displayed against Protestants no longer existed. He ought to show that denunciations such as those contained, for example, in the bull In cœnâ Domini, had been departed from, and that that bull was not in force, but had been publicly repealed. He was afraid, however, that the hon. Member was wholly unable to show that any such repeal had ever taken place. He found that the present Pope, in his encyclical letter written in 1846, spoke of "the truly illustrious and glorious memory "of his predecessor, Gregory XVI., and cordially approved of his conduct. Now, on referring to the encyclical letter of Gregory XVI., published in 1842, he found him stating that— Nothing of what has been regularly defined ought to be retrenched or changed or increased; but that all should be preserved incorrupt both in meaning and expression. Again, he spoke of "that worst and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested liberty of the press." Now, the present Pope approved of that letter, and in his encyclical letter repeated all those anathemas that in former times had been sent forth against all heretics and Protestants, particularly those who published copies of the Bible. He would shortly direct the attention of the House to the letter recently published by the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey). Speaking of the bull In cœnâ Domini, that noble Lord said, "I do not believe that any bull has been published which repeals the one in question." Now, he contended that before they asked the House to repeal the obsolete statutes complained of, they should first repeal this and the other bulls which were still in existence. But the noble Lord said, the bull was not in force, owing to its having become obsolete. Now, in the 21st Clause of the bull he found the following words:— It being our will that this our present process, and all and everything contained in this letter, shall continue and be in full force until another similar process be drawn up and issued by ourselves, or by the Roman Pontiff for the time being. It appeared to him that they could only admit the obsolete character of the bull at the expense of the Pope's infallibility; and it was well known that no bull had been published which repealed one now existing. The bull was ordered to be affixed to the doors of the church of St. John of Lateran, in order that no one might be able "to plead any excuse or allege any ignorance on the ground of such process not having reached them, or being unknown to them." But the noble Lord said there were provisions in the bull which could not be complied with in the present state of society; and that "the provisions respecting heretical books and others almost everywhere point to an age far more removed from our times and our habits." The answer to that was in the encyclical letter of the present Pope, where he condemned all those who printed and published editions of the Bible. The noble Lord admitted that the works of Reiffenstuel and Dens were used at Maynooth, but pleaded that books might be good and useful as class and text books which had yet passages of doubtful authority; and he asked if any one would now quote the first edition of Blackstone as a safe guide, seeing that both the law and the state of society were essentially different. But was there any analogy between points of the law and the doctrines on which the everlasting salvation of mankind depended? Then the noble Lord asked if all those works of Horace or the Satires of Juvenal were expunged from our schools which might be injurious to the morals of the hoys who used them? But the noble Lord forgot that we did not teach morality from the writings of Horace or Juvenal, and that those works were put into the hands of youth merely to teach them language. The noble Lord, in reference to the subject of oaths, said, "If we could not be believed on our oath, or even on our word, it would be absurd to attempt an explanation." Now, he had great respect for the noble Lord, and was confident he had as great a regard for an oath as a Protestant could have; but at the same time he was at a loss to reconcile this with the express decisions of the Church of Rome. One of the canons of Gregory IX. allowed the breach of an oath when it was contrary to the interests of the Church. It was with great regret he touched on these questions; but it was not by him, nor those who thought with him, that they had been raised. By Gregory IX. heretics and schismatics were excommunicated, and all who were bound to them were loosed from their obligations. Clement X. made all heretics amenable to penalties, and even to death. Not one of those anathemas against Protestants had ever been repealed. In the breviary which he held in his hand he found that Pope Pius v., who pretended to dethrone Queen Elizabeth, declared her subjects absolved from their allegiance, and forbade them to obey her commands, had a festival instituted to his honour; and in that breviary he was spoken of as having discharged the office of an inquisitor with extraordinary zeal. The use of the service in which he was so spoken of proved that the spirit of the Church of Rome was still the same in the present day. The Pope asserted the same powers he had ever asserted. He would exercise them if he could; he would exercise them if he obtained the facilities which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to procure for him. Then there was another day set apart for Gregory VII, the deposer of Henry IV., in which Roman Catholics were to pray that they might follow his example. There was a lesson particularly dedicated to the history of Gregory VII., and the Emperor's name was mentioned in that short biography; it was therein said of Gregory VII. that "he stood like a fearless wrestler against the impious attempts of the Emperor Henry, aud excommunicated him." If the present Pope placed a crown on the head of the hon. Member for Youghal, no doubt the hon. Member would think such a proceeding would be more for the promotion of the Roman Catholic religion, than the present state of matters. There was also a day set apart for a festival in honour of St. Alphonse Liguori; and a prayer in which Roman Catholics prayed "to be taught by his admonitions, and strengthened by his example." But Liguori taught in his Moral Theology that it was lawful for a man to steal when in extreme necessity, in danger of death, of the gallies, or of prison, and "if his shame of begging be so great that he would prefer death itself to begging." The works of Liguori had received the direct sanction of the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Calendar said— The Congregation of Rites allowed the cause of his beatification to be brought forward in 1796, and on the 14th of May, 1802, decided that it might be safely proceeded with, the Cardinal Reporter having declared that the theologians who had examined his manuscripts and printed works had found nothing censurable in them. Prom a letter in the Roman Catholic Calendar it appeared that— On the 18th May, 1808, Pope Pius VII. confirmed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which declared that all the writings of St. Alphonse, whether printed or inedited, had been most rigorously examined according to the discipline of the Apostolic See, and that not one word had been found censurœ dignum, and made known that the moral system of St. Alphonse had been more than twenty times rigorously discussed with the rules of the decree of Pope Urban VIII., and the documents of Benedict XIV.; that in all those examinations, undertaken with a view to the canonization of St. Alphonse, and in the definitive judgment of the Sacred Congregation, all agreed voce concordi, unanimi consensu, una voce, unanimiter. The Moral Theology of St. Alphonso Liguori had, therefore, been pronounced by the Roman Catholic church not censurable in the slightest degree—the moral theology of a man who inculcated the doctrine that it was allowable for servants to steal, provided they were not sufficiently paid by their masters. He saw in the Times of last Saturday a statement to the effect, that in Sicily the Roman Catholic religion had been declared the religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others. The King was obliged to profess that religion, and, should he change from it, he was to be held as having forfeited his throne. What security was there that if the Roman Catholics got the upper hand in Ireland they would not follow a similar course, with the assistance of the Pope? In the progress of the debate he had heard a great deal of imaginary grievances; but he had not been able to discover one case of practical grievance—any hardship—to which Roman Catholics were subjected by the existing law, or any relief which the repeal of those statutes would give to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. The right hon. the Master of the Mint had spoken of it as a very great grievance under which he laboured, that Roman Catholics were debarred from holding the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. That was the only practical grievance the House had heard mentioned in the course of the debate. But there was nothing in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal which would touch that exclusion. There must, then, be some secret cause which made hon. Gentlemen anxious to pass this Bill. Knowing that laws, like a piece of masonry, hung one on another, and that if a stone, however apparently useless, were removed from the arch, the whole fabric would be shaken, he opposed the repeal of those laws, as calculated to weaken the efficiency of other laws which remained, and which were the bulwarks of the constitution. There was an argument which, proceeding from one part of the House, he looked on with suspicion. It had been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), that the Bill ought to be carried, in order to put an end to religious discussion in that House. The very Wednesday after the hon. Gentleman's speech to that effect, he saw on the Paper a notice of another Bill, namely, the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill. If any weight were to be attached to such an argument, it could only be regarded as grossly insulting to the Roman Catholics. Were the House to suppose that the Roman Catholics would rest satisfied with this Bill—that the order of which the hon. and learned Member was so distinguished an ornament—that the Jesuits—that the high spirit of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) would rest satisfied with this Bill? The noble Lord had spoken of the Roman Catholic Church as aggressive. The noble Lord would bring forward some other measure next Session for the advancement of the Roman Catholic religion. He should not entertain the respect for the noble Lord which he did if he did not believe that the noble Lord would do so. Were he in the noble Lord's position, he should certainly use every effort to obtain the repeal of that law by which Her Most Gracious Majesty would be deposed were she to change her religion. This measure would not satisfy the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. From the extracts he had read, it appeared manifest that they would be satisfied with nothing short of supremacy. He objected to the time at which this measure had been proposed. The conduct of the Roman Catholics in Ireland was not such as entitled them to any boon. The House had the high authority of the Prime Minister, in speaking of the late trial of Mitchel, for believing that Roman Catholics had been excluded from the jury list, not on account of their religion, but because their feelings were supposed to be in accordance with those of the prisoner. What conclusion must be drawn from such a statement? What other inference could be drawn, than that all Roman Catholics were disaffected to Her Majesty's Government in Ireland? The Tablet said, in reply to a remark made by Mr. Drummond— We believe the difference between the 'dead Papists of books,' and the 'real live Roman Catholics' to be very slight; and that the difference, if any there be, is in favour of the 'Papists of books.' The same journal, referring to what had fallen from another hon. Member, said, "Mr. Newdegate's loyalty is somewhat questionable."

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is taking a course not in accordance with the rules of the House.

MR. GORING

regretted his inadvertent departure from the rules. The Roman Catholics had no right to complain of obsolete statutes remaining on the Statute-book when there was a law also remaining on the Statute-book by which divines were made liable to the penalties of a prœmunire, to fine and imprisonment, if they did not elect as bishops persons whom they thought unfit to fill that sacred office. This Bill would be regarded as an insult by the loyal Orangemen of Ireland. The time which would test the loyal Protestants of Ireland was approaching, when that disorder would break forth which had been cherished by the noble Lord's policy, characterised as it was by a truckling spirit towards demagogues, and a threatening spirit towards landlords. For the reasons he had stated, and especially as there was not a single Member of Her Majesty's Government present, he thought he would not be betraying a very factious spirit if he moved to postpone going into Committee on the Bill till that day fortnight.

SIR. H. WILLOUGHBY

did not see the hon. and learned Attorney General in his place, though the hon. and learned Gentleman had an Amendment to propose. If the House went into Committee, what would be the state of the question? The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would fall to be considered; but he was anxious to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Amendment would not attain its object, as there were other bulls not included under its terms. It was a question with him whether the discussion should be persisted in; and he thought the absence of the Attorney General afforded a sufficient reason for postponement. How was legislation to be effected by the provisions of the present Bill? There were no fewer than eight statutes lumped up in a mass, which it was proposed to repeal, "so far as affected Roman Catholics." If there were any disabilities, real and tangible, which affected Roman Catholics, he would be ready to assist in removing such disabilities. But he would defy the noble Lord the Member for Arundel to point out any penalties on Roman Catholics imposed in any of the Acts enumerated which had not been repealed by some subsequent statute. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had entered the field, indeed, rather late, because, by the 7th and 8th of Victoria, cap. 102, and by the 9th and 10th of Victoria, c. 59, all disabilities and punishments established in the first six Acts were altogether removed. The first clause did not deal fairly and candidly with the House, because it assumed that pains and penalties existed which in reality had ceased. Then the statute of William III., which related to the oaths taken by barristers, had been altogether repealed by an Act of George III. If the hon. and learned Member for Youghal proved that the penalties of the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 1, existed, he (Sir H. Willoughby) would not continue his opposition. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, who was the only representative of Government present, would explain to the House how they could go on with the discussion in the Committee without the presence of the Attorney General.

SIR G. GREY

said, it would be very inconvenient, if not contrary to the rules of the House, to go into the discussion of the Amendment at that moment, before the House was in Committee.

MR. FORBES

objected to going into Committee, and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Goring) would press his Motion to a division. Differing as he did from the object of this Bill, he should feel it to be his duty to give it his most decided opposition. It was all very well to talk of the grievances to which Roman Catholics were subjected by the provisions of the Act complained of; but it was well known that under that Act no proceedings had been taken against any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic whatever. Besides, he was not prepared by a side wind to repeal that provision of the Act of 1829 which had been introduced as a safeguard to the Protestanism of this country.

MR. SERJEANT TALFOURD

regretted the course which had been taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goring). All the topics which had been introduced as obstacles to proceeding with this Bill on the present occasion, had been very fully discussed on a previous day in the admirable speech of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). The House having affirmed the principle of the Bill on the second reading, a long discussion having taken place on the question of going into Committee, and the House having, when in Committee, arrived at a decision in which he most heartily concurred, that the Bill should be divided into two parts, he did confess that it appeared to him to be a factious course now to raise another discussion upon the principle of the Bill upon going into Committee on the present occasion. He was prepared to join the hon. Gentleman opposite in voting against that part of the Bill which went to disturb the great settlement of Catholic emancipation, without, he believed, doing any real good to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, whilst it would create the greatest irritation among the Protestants of the kingdom, who were justly excited by the pretensions to domination put forward by the Roman Catholics. He sympathised with them on that point; but he did not think it fitting to obstruct the progress of the Bill by discussing matters which had been so well discussed before.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the important fact must not be lost sight of, that the first question they would have to consider on going into Committee was an Amendment to be proposed by the Attorney General, the effect of which would be rather to conceal than to amend the proposition of the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey), whose purpose was to admit in this country the authority of the Pope, to be enforced with the sanction of English law and of the English Government. Although the principle of the Bill had been fully discussed, yet he did not think that the objection formerly raised by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), to the repeal of the 13th of Elizabeth, was fairly met by Her Majesty's Ministers; for he had certainly hoped that they would have insisted that that particular statute should be exempted from the list of Acts proposed to be repealed. He wished, therefore, to impress upon the House, that the Amendment which the Attorney General was to move on going into Committee, would not meet the emergency of the case, and that it was necessary to take a review of the whole question now, before they went into Committee, when it would not be compatible with the practice to do so. Let him remind the House of the conditions upon which the Pope, when he ascended the chair of St. Peter, recommended allegiance to those sovereigns who acknowledged his authority. In his encyclical letter he said— Have a care to impress upon their minds the obedience and subjection which are due from a Christian people to princes and powers, teaching according to the apostolic precept that there is no power but from God, and that those who resist the power, resist the ordinance of God, and purchase to themselves damnation. And, therefore, that this precept of obeying the lawful authorities cannot be violated by any one without sin, unless indeed anything be commanded which is opposed to the laws of God and of the Church. Of which the Pope is the sole framer and expounder. Now, these were the conditions upon which his Holiness would vouchsafe to Her Majesty his protection, if his authority were admitted in this country, and communications were instituted between the Court of England and the Court of Rome. And what did he say would be Her Majesty's position should his authority be admitted? He said in the same encyclical letter— We trust that the princes, our dearest sons in Christ, remembering, in their piety and religion, that the kingly authority was given to them not only for the government of the world, but more especially for the protection of the Church (St. Leo Epist., 156 al. 125 ad Leonem Augustum), and that we, whilst we maintain the cause of the Church, maintain that also of their kingdom and of their safety, that so they may hold their provinces in undisturbed possession (Idem, Epist. 43 al. 34 ad Theodosium Augustum), will aid our common wishes and endeavours with their power aud authority, and defend the liberty and safety of the Church, that the right band of Christ may defend their kingdom (Idem. Ibid.). The House would observe that the Pope here assumed to himself to be the representative of Christ on earth; and the meaning of the reservation in the above passage was, that he would maintain the authority of no king or potentate who did not style himself the spiritual child of him (the Bishop of Rome); who would not undertake to advance the interests of the Romish Church, or would not submit to the decrees which the Pope enunciated as the law. He asked the House, then, to pause ere they constituted in this country, under the authority of their own legal officers, the admission of the power of this potentate, who would consent to nothing less than the acknowledgment of his own supremacy. They could not have two concurrent supremacies in the same kingdom. They could not have two suns in the same firmament. And, therefore, the present measure, if agreed to, would entail upon the country a perpetual collision between the authority of two powers, each claiming supremacy, the Crown of England on the one hand, the Pope of Rome on the other. If difficulties were continually rising whilst yet the supremacy of the Crown was intact, and supported by the undoubted loyalty of the great body of the people—if difficulties arose even now, from the aggressive action of the Church of Rome what must the difficulties be when this collision for supremacy should take place? It was admitted that the present was an aggressive measure, yet hon. Members qurrelled with him and his friends because they had again and again pleaded the general issue. Why, the general issue was, that he and those who acted with him, and who were on the defensive, complained of those perpetual aggressions; and they wished to make the country understand that under the title of "Relief Bill" was concealed an attempt at aggression on the Protestant Church, and to draw still closer round our Roman Catholic brethren in this kingdom and in Ireland the bonds of the iron tyranny of the Roman See. The Roman Catholic Members of this House complained of their hands being tied. "Here are the marks of the iron on our wrists," said the Master of the Mint (Mr. Sheil); but he could see no scar—it had been obliterated, and the hands which were now unbound were raised against the Protestant institutions of the country. He appealed to hon. Members from Ireland whether this was not the fact; for had not Parliament been obliged to pass an Act to prevent their speaking treason? They talked of grievances, but what were they? Daily their religion was extending itself—new Roman Catholic churches were rising in all directions around us—and the Roman Catholics themselves carried on a wide system of combination, and had perfect liberty of action throughout the British empire. Yet they were constantly complaining and threatening our Protestant institutions with the hand which Protestant legislation had set free. Let the House remember that oven when this country was strictly Roman Catholic, our kings were one after the other forced to defend themselves against the aggressions of the Roman Catholic Church—in fact, there had been but one series of aggressions from the Conquest to the present day. He hoped, therefore, that the House and the country were equally prepared to resist this further attempt at aggression in the shape of a Relief Bill. In the absence of the Attorney General, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) whether the Amendment of the Attorney General, which it was proposed to introduce in Committee, would guard against the introduction of Papal bulls with regard to the immediate appointment to benefices, and giving jurisdiction to the Pope in that country in ecclesiastical affairs? Because so far as he had ascertained, in consulting those who were best acquainted with the subject, such acts as those which might be considered ministerial on the part of the Pope, as being at the head of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, would be maintained under the Amendments of the Attorney General. He asked whether the Government was prepared to constitute itself the agents of a foreign supremacy? They proposed that only certain bulls should be introduced into this country; but were they to constitute themselves the judges? If so, they would sanction their being the agents and servants of a hostile Power.

COLONEL CONOLLY

had resisted the measure in its former stages, and the more he had considered it the more was he convinced of its dangerous tendency. A number of obsolete Acts of Parliament had been raked up and exaggerated into a grievance, to annihilate the security which was offered by the Roman Catholic body themselves at the time the Emancipation Act was passed.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 102; Noes 76: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S. Lewis, G. C.
Adderley, C. B. M'Cullagh, W. T.
Armstrong, Sir A. Maher, N. V.
Barnard, E. G. Maitland, T.
Barrington, Visct. Marshall, W.
Bellew, R. M. Melgund, Visct.
Bernal, R. Milner, W. M. E.
Blackall, S. W. Moffatt, G.
Bourke, R. S. Molesworth, Sir W.
Bowles, Adm. Monsell, W.
Brotherton, J. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Brown, W. Mowatt, F.
Callaghan, D. Mulgrave, Earl of
Caulfeild, J. M. Napier, J.
Clements, hon. C. S. O'Brien, J.
Cobden, R. Ogle, S. C. H.
Courtenay, Lord Pakington, Sir J.
Damer, hon. Col. Patten, J. W.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Pusey, P
Drumlanrig, Visct. Raphael, A.
Drummond, H. Repton, G. W. J.
Duncan, G. Roche, E. B.
Dunne, F. P. Sadlier, J.
East, Sir J. B. Scrope, G. P.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Scully, F.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Seymer, H. K.
Evans, W. Sheridan, R. B.
Fagan, W. Simeon, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Slaney, R. A.
Foley, J. H. H. Smith, rt. hon R. V.
Fordyce, A. D. Smith, J. B.
Forster, M. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Fortescue, C. Stansfleld, W. R. C.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Strickland, Sir G.
Grace, O. D. J. Stuart, Lord D.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Sullivan, M.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Talfourd, Serj.
Haggitt, F. R. Tancred, H. W.
Hall, Sir B. Tenison, E. K.
Hastie, A. Thicknesse, R. A.
Hawes, B. Thompson, Col.
Hayter, W. G. Thornely, T.
Headlam, T. E. Townshend, Capt.
Heneage, G. H. W. Tufnell, H.
Henry, A. Vane, Lord H.
Hervey, Lord A. Watkins, Col.
Heywood, J. Wawn, J. T.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Williams, J.
Hobhouse, T. B.
Johnstone, Sir J. TELLERS.
Keogh, W. Anstey, T. C.
Kershaw, J. Arundel and Surrey, Earl of
King, hon. P. J. L.
List of the NOES.
Arkwright, G. Baldock, E. H.
Bagge, W. Beckett, W.
Bentinck, Lord H. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Beresford, W. Hood, Sir A.
Boldero, H. G. Hotham, Lord
Bremridge, R. Hudson, G.
Broadley, H. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Buck, L. W. Jones, Capt.
Chichester, Lord J.L. Lockhart, W.
Christopher, R. A. Mackenzie, W. F.
Christy, S. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Cobbold, J. C. Mandeville, Visct.
Cole, hon. H. A. Manners, Lord C. S.
Compton, H. C. Miles, P. W. S.
Conolly, Col. Mullings, J. R.
Cubitt, W. Newdegate, C. N.
Davies, D. A. S. Palmer, R.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Plowden, W. H. C.
Duncombe, hon. A. Prime, R.
Duncombe, hon. O. Pugh, D.
Dundas, G. Sandars, G.
Egerton, W. T. Scott, hon. F.
Farnham, E. B. Seymour, Sir H.
Farrer, J. Shirley, E. J.
Fellowes, E. Sibthorp, Col.
Forbes, W. Spooner, R.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Stafford, A.
Fox, S. W. L. Stuart, H.
Frewen, C. H. Thornhill, G.
Fuller, A. E. Trollope, Sir J.
Galway, Visct. Vivian, J. E.
Goddard, A. L. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Gooch, E. S. Waddington, H. S.
Gore, W. R. O. Welby, G. E.
Gwyn, H. Wellesley, Lord C.
Hamilton, Lord C.
Hayes, Sir E. TELLERS.
Henley, J. W. Goring, C.
Hildyard, R. C. Willoughby, Sir H.

House went into Committee.

On the question that the following words be inserted in the 1st (repealing) Clause:— Also so much of an Act passed in the 13th of Elizabeth, entitled 'An Act against the bringing in and putting in Execution of Bulls, Writings, or Instruments, and other Superstitious Things of the See of Rome,' as does not relate to such bulls, writings, and other things as are mentioned in the preamble of the said Act.

After a short debate, it was moved that the Chairman do now report progress.

The Committee divided on reporting progress:—Ayes 106; Noes 110: Majority 4.

The Committee again divided on the question that the words be inserted:—Ayes 113; Noes 113.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bunbury, E. H.
Adair, H. E. Butler, P. S.
Adair, R. A. S. Buxton, Sir E. N.
Armstrong, Sir A. Callaghan, D.
Baines, M. T. Campbell, hon. W. F.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Clay, Sir W.
Barnard, E. G. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Blake, M. J. Clements, hon. C. S.
Bowring, Dr. Cobden, R.
Brotherton, J. Coke, hon. E. K.
Brown, W. Courtenay, Lord
Dawson, hon. T. V. Mowatt, F.
Drummond, H. O'Brien, J.
Duff, G. S. O'Brien, T.
Duncan, G. O'Connell, M. J.
Dunne, F. P. Osborne, R.
East, Sir J. B. Owen, Sir J.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Patten, J. W.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Pechell, Capt.
Euston, Earl of Peel, Col.
Evans, W. Peto, S. M.
Fagan, W. Pigott, F.
Fergus, J. Pilkington, J.
Fordyce, A. D. Pusey, P.
Forster, M. Raphael, A.
Fox, W. J. Rich, H.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. Robartes, T. J. A.
Grace, O. D. J. Scrope, G. P.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Scully, F.
Greene, J. Seymer, H. K.
Greene, T. Simeon, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Spearman, H. J.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Stuart, Lord J.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Sullivan, M.
Hastie, A. Tenison, E. K.
Hayter, W. G. Tonnent, R. J.
Headlam, T. E. Thicknesse, R. A.
Heneage, G. H. W. Thompson, Col.
Hervey, Lord A. Thornely, T.
Heywood, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Hobhouse, T. B. Turner, E.
Hume, J. Urquhart, D.
Humphery, Ald. Vane, Lord H.
Johnstone, Sir J. Villiers, Visct.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Kershaw, J. Wall, C. B.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Walpole, S. H.
Locke, J. Ward, H. G.
Lushington, C. Watkins, Col.
Maher, N. V. Wawn, J. T.
Maitland, T. Wilson, M.
Marshall, J. G. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Matheson, Col. Wood, W. P.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Wyvill, M.
Milner, W. M. E.
Moffatt, G. TELLERS.
Monsell, W. Anstey, T. C.
Moore, G. H. Arundel and Surrey Earl of
Morpeth, Visct.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Conolly, Col.
Arkwright, G. Copeland, Ald.
Bagot, hon. W. Cubitt, W.
Baldock, E. H. Davies, D. A. S.
Barrington, Visct. Dod, J. W.
Bateson, T. Dodd, G.
Bennet, P. Duncombe, hon. A.
Bentinck, Lord H. Duncombe, hon. O.
Beresford, W. Duncuft, J.
Boldero, H. G. Edwards, H.
Boyd, J. Egerton, Sir P.
Bremridge, R. Egerton, W. T.
Broadley, H. Farnham, E. B.
Brooke, Lord Farrer, J.
Bruce, C. L. C. Fellowes, E.
Buck, L. W. Filmer, Sir E.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Forbes, W.
Bunbury, W. M. Fox, S. W. L.
Carew, W. H. P. Frewen, C. H.
Christy, S. Fuller, A. E.
Cole, hon. H. A. Galway, Visct.
Coles, H. B. Gooch, E. S.
Compton, H. C. Gore, W. O.
Goring, C. Neeld, J.
Granby, Marq. of Noel, hon. G. J.
Grogan, E. Ossulston, Lord
Gwyn, H. Pennant, hon. Col.
Hall, Col. Plowden, W. H. C.
Hamilton, G. A. Powell, Col.
Hamilton, Lord C. Renton, J. C.
Harris, hon. Capt. Repton, G. W. J.
Henley, J. W. Rufford, F.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Rushout, Capt.
Hildyard, R. C. Shirley, E. J.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Sibthorp, Col.
Hodgson, W. N. Sidney, Ald.
Hood, Sir A. Smyth, J. G.
Hotham, Lord Spooner, R.
Houldsworth, T. Stafford, A.
Hudson, G. Sturt, H. G.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Talfourd, Serj.
Jocelyn, Visct. Taylor, T. E.
Jones, Capt. Trevor, hon. G. R
Knox, Col. Trollope, Sir J.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Verner, Sir W.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Lockhart, W. Waddington, D.
Lowther, hon. Col. Waddington, H. S.
Lowther, H. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Mackenzie, W. F. Welby, G. E.
Mandeville, Visct. Wellesley, Lord C.
Manners, Lord C. S. Willoughby, Sir H.
Manners, Lord G. Wodehouse, E.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Worcester, Marq, of
Morgan, O. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Mullings, J. R. TELLERS.
Napier, J. Newdegate, C. N.
Neeld, J. Stuart, J.

The Chairman gave his casting vote for inserting the words.

On the question that the Chairman do now report progress, the Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 111: Majority 1.

[The other List being similar, we need not repeat it.]

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, he had been to consult the highest authority as to the forms and usages of that House. From what he had heard, he (Sir R. Inglis) believed that, although precedents might be found for the Speaker giving a casting vote, there was (as we understood) no precedent for such a course being taken by the Chairman of a Committee. He thought that the discussion on this Bill ought not to be continued, after the proceedings which had taken place.

The CHAIRMAN

said, the House must allow him to state that, during the number of years he had had the honour of occupying the chair, he did not remember any occurrence of this kind; and, without referring to those authorities from which he might derive information on the subject, he was totally unprepared to say whether a similar case had ever before occurred.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at Six o'clock.