HC Deb 09 May 1851 vol 116 cc780-834

Order for Committee read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."


then moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, and said, the conduct of the Government with reference to the way in which they had dealt with this question, had, in his opinion, led to very serious consequences. That conduct had produced in the minds of a large section of the community a morbid feeling of irritation, which would not be soon allayed; enmities, which had called forth corresponding enmities; and expectations, which, whilst they had not been fulfilled on the one hand, imposed on the Government, on the other, restrictions from which there was no possibility of escape. The Resolutions which he had to submit to the consideration of the House contained no enunciation of principles, no conclusions to be arrived at by a series of deduction. They were only and simply descriptive of the acts of the Government. They embodied a modest expression of facts, which were in themselves a vote of censure on the Government. If that was the construction which they bore, it was not his (Mr. Urquhart's) fault, but that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and he (Mr. Urquhart) should be sorry to see the Government expelled on such a Motion. His Resolutions only gave expression to sentiments and opinions which had been already affirmed by several im- portant sections of that House, distinguished for high intellectual capacity, and their love of religious liberty, who, differing in their opinions on many important subjects, were unanimous in the view they took of this. He defied the noble Lord to deny that he had encouraged the Pope to this act of aggression. That was the charge which he brought against him; and he would prove it by reference to his own speeches in that House, as well as elsewhere. Before he quoted from the noble Lord, he would refer to the terms of a circular sent by Earl Grey to the Governors of our different colonial dependencies. In that document the noble Earl invited those Governors to pay honour to the prelates of the Roman Catholic faith. It was dated 1847; and, in referring to the Charitable Bequests Act, Earl Grey says— The Legislature having come to the conclusion of recognising the style and titles of the Roman Catholic prelates, by placing them in the rank after those of the Established Church, the Government had thought fit to give effect to that determination of the Legislature. Now that was an act of the noble Lord's Government. But still more conclusive were the words of the noble Lord on the 13th of February, 1844. The noble Lord said that we ought to take away every thing which was derogatory to the character and position of the Church of Rome, and repeal those penal enactments which still remained on the Statute-book. Eighteen months later—showing that these words contained no temporary or hasty opinion, in July 1845, the noble Lord said he believed that they must repeal the disallowing clauses of the Act of 1849, by which Roman Catholic bishops were prevented from assuming the style and title of bishops of the Established Church, as he did not see good grounds for the continuance of these restrictions. These, then, were the opinions of the noble Lord on the Bill of 1829, namely, that these, the last securities of the emancipation, should be withdrawn, and that greater facilities ought to be granted to Roman Catholics for the exercise of their religion. In 1846, the noble Lord said— Let us suppose, although it would be extravagant to suppose it, that there was any attempt on the part of the Pope to exercise, or even assert, any sovereign power, or in any way to interfere with the Queen's authority, by bull or rescript, or in any other manner; the persons introducing such bull or rescript, or those obeying it, would be punished by the laws of England. In the assertion of the noble Lord, that the restrictions of the Act of 1829 were futile, and that Catholic bishops ought to be placed on the same footing as Protestant bishops, the noble Lord gave a direct encouragement and invitation to the Pope to do what the noble Lord now denounced. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as to the truth of the step taken by the Pope, the noble Lord replied, that he was officially ignorant of the fact; and that, when the hon. Member demanded whether such an act would be tolerated by any other State in Europe, he must recollect that in other countries special authority should he obtained, and an agreement entered into between the Pope and the Sovereign. Now, he put it to the House, could there be any greater encouragement given to the Pope than that which was afforded by the language, the speeches, and indeed the acts of the noble Lord? The noble Lord says that he then thought Rome a friendly Government, but that he now finds out that she is a hostile Government. The difference, in his opinion, was solely caused by the Pope taking the very step which, in 1848, the noble Lord said he had a right to do, namely, that, without an agreement to the contrary, the Pope had a right to exercise the same powers which he now assumes. The noble Lord's method of treating the whole question differed materially from the mode adopted by the learned Attorney General, who was now Master of the Rolls. That Gentleman said he would not enter into the question of insult. And yet he said that the idea of insult had aggravated the desire for legislation in this country—a desire which he showed, he conceived, to be unfounded, since the legislation he proposed tended to effect very different objects from those desired by the public. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) considered that the insult had been already met by the noble response of the country, as evinced in public demonstrations. Without expressing any opinion of his own, he would take the view of the case, as on two occasions presented recently by the late Attorney General, and that view of it which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had so gravely, deliberately, and repeatedly expressed, and without now touching on the diplomatic means by which such an act might have been prevented, or even annulled. The Government had, in these opinions, the means of defeating that which was injurious in the act of the Pope. He must divide the question, as the late Attorney General had done, into its two branches. The one the so-called insult—that is, the appointment of bishops; the second, the, as he should call, injury—the issuing of the rescript. These had to be dealt with by different processes, because the means of their operation were of a different character. The first operated through the consciences of Roman Catholics; the second through the British courts of law. The first had to be dealt with by treating at Rome; the second by statute. They might pass what laws they liked, and the Roman Catholic bishops "would be bishops still." If they attempted to enforce restrictions, trifling as at first they would seem, they would meet with resistance step by step: coercion and resistance would grow; corresponding animosities arise. The body to be coerced had already forced them to relaxation; now, they had not the ground of right and consistency. They ventured on untried courses with all the chances against them; their antagonists had increased in strength, were admitted to all posts of authority, had seats in that House—in the balanced state of parties could at times dictate to England her measures, and impose upon her her governors. Could they force them down again? If so, the old penal laws would not suffice; they must proceed much farther, they must abrogate the constitution. Penal laws could not be dreamt of against a third of the subjects of Her Majesty, without expelling that body from that House, and excluding them from the jury box. These, doubtless, were the considerations which weighed with the noble Lord, when in his own terse fashion he thus placed the dilemma—and which, it had to be observed, excited at the time no alarms in the mind of the people of this country—"either you must have an agreement with the Pope, or you must not interfere in any arrangements of the kind." The same considerations weighed with Sir Robert Peel, and induced him to place on record a warning against retrocession, the end of which, he said, once entered on, would be incalculable, and lead to the most fearful results in Ireland. As to the second point, of injury that was inflicted on the Roman Catholics, according to the late Attorney General, this constituted the whole case:— The bishops, as bishops," said the learned Gentleman, "have authority which the vicars-apostolic had not. In spirituals no difference exists; but as regards the administration of trusts, the presentation to benefices, they have higher powers, and therefore, the existing rights of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity are infringed. He was ready to take that statement of the case as true, for all practical purposes, although he did not refer the change to the territorial character of the bishops, but to the imperious character of the rescript, and considered that vicars-apostolic under that brief would stand exactly in the same position as the bishops. Their new canon law would come to operate, not as the question of titles, through the consciences of Catholics, but through Her Majesty's prerogative of justice, as administered in the courts of law; which courts do enforce any regulation ascertained to be a use, procedure, or by law, of the Roman Catholic body, so long as it is not in violation of the common or statute law of this country. He held it, then, on the showing of the late Attorney General, to be the duty of Government to render the statute law such that every novel pretension contained in the Papal brief should be a violation of the law, and thereby fail to obtain the aid of the secular power for its enforcement. This would have been a course effectual and dignified, free alike from impotence and excess. If these were novel ideas or discoveries, he might entertain the hope that the noble Lord, even at this eleventh hour, would be struck with their importance, and accept this issue from his difficulties. But these were things which the noble Lord knew from the beginning, which, with purpose prepense, he flung away, and aroused a storm of religious alarms to render this or any rational solution impracticable. Had it not been for the conduct and declarations of the noble Lord, the Roman Catholics would have repudiated the rescript. Now, their self-love was enlisted, and their religious feelings insulted. They, like their antagonists, ceased to reason. He had spared nothing that by possibility could exasperate; and the statesman, who had over and over declared that an accommodation on this head could only be had by free consent of and arrangement with the Pope, now stigmatised this act as a violation of the law of nations, and bolstered up the strange assertion by a reference to the practice of certain nations—which again he misrepresented. The law of nations was a word of serious import. Who ever heard of a Government raising a cry of a violation of the law of nations, unless to justify reprisals?—but to raise it to vindicate the introduction of a legislative enactment was a confession of weakness, guilt, and crime. The law of nations did not apply. None of their subjects had been seized or imprisoned—none of their vessels had been captured—none of their territories invaded. The noble Lord was not so ignorant as to the law of nations, and the practices of foreign countries. When he referred to them as illustrating his assertion that no other country would endure such a pretension on the part of the Pope, he had afterwards excepted Austria. The noble Lord could not be ignorant of the contents of the blue book recently furnished by the Foreign Office; but he must have supposed the House to be so, when he ventured on such a statement. Such questions noways belonged to the law of nations; they were matters of compact or of legislation; every State was free to do what it pleased, and any State might contract with the Pope if it thought fit. The House had no very exact idea of what a concordat was—it was a treaty with bipartite engagements; he would show them its character by reading the preamble and the chief articles of the concordat between Maximilian of Bavaria and Pius VII. The hon. Member, after quoting the passages, continued to state that one practice was not common to all countries, either Protestant or Catholic, nor even in the same country. As to Austria, there was no uniform law on this subject ruling the whole empire. It was the same in Prussia, where there were different regulations affecting its different provinces, such as Silesia, Posen, and others. But then the noble Lord said that Austria was an exception—that it now submitted without a murmur to the dictation of the Court of Rome. The change effected in Austria was the only one rational change, the consequence of its late revolution, by which the rights of the Church were freed from the Erastian control to which they had previously been subjected. The same might be said of Prussia. He referred to the despatch from Berlin, dated the 19th of September last. The noble Lord would there see that the revolution in Prussia had superseded the restrictions that had previously been laid on the Pope. They then came to the Netherlands, where there were the celebrated Gallican rights, and which were embodied in a compact with the Pope. As to Belgium, it would be seen that since 1830, by the 16th arti- cle of the constitution, every religion was free. In fact, the whole of the evidence was against the noble Lord, by which he endeavoured to show that there had been a violation of the law or practice of nations. The noble Lord had encouraged, by his conduct, the Pope to do that which he now denounced as a violation of the law of nations. He said that whoever entertained this opinion could not be content with voting against the Bill; but he must express his censure of that conduct of which the Government had been guilty by its tergiversation. But the measure, not honestly brought forward, it was already clearly not the intention of the Government, if adopted, honestly to carry out. The evil was real, its conseqences frightful; but they were less to be attributed to the Pope than the Premier: the Member for the City of London and Pius IX. were alike but tools, and they who planned the scheme could have succeeded only by being assured of both. England alone would not suffer; Europe would be the field on which the animosities engendered would sow their bitter seeds; and for mankind the prospects of these evil times was opened again, on which the doors of reprobation seemed to have been closed. He felt himself, however, precluded on the present occasion from entering into the merits of the case. He had only to deal with the secondary evils superadded by the conduct of the Government. He dissented from the views of all parties in that House. He did not concur with the Gentlemen on his right (the Peelites) in their position that no legislation was requisite, nor with those around him, in declining to obstruct the use of names, nor with those below (the Roman Catholics) in conceiving that the Pope's act was neither intended as an insult nor conveyed an injury. If the House affirmed his Resolution, it pledged itself to nothing. It merely cleared the field of the wrecks of the past futile debate, and they might take up the case de novo, instructed by past experience. The argument with which he would be met was, that the Government would be shaken and must leave office; as to that he was perfectly indifferent in regard to any sympathies of a political kind, for he had none with any party, indeed the reverse; but he had no wish for changes of Governments, nor did he see why it should occur; he was rejoiced to see the false doctrine exploded of ruling by majorities; and he was sure the logic of the noble Lord would find plausible grounds to reconcile, on this as on so many other occasions, defeat with the tenure of office. What he wished was, that measures should be dealt with without reference to who was in power; and, above all, that the censure of this House should fall where it was deserved. In conclusion, he would remark that the measure which had been brought forward by the Government was held by some to be a nullity, and by others a persecution; some could not tell whether it was one or the other. For his part he believed it was both—it would prove a nullity if it were not enforced, and it would prove a persecution if it were carried into effect; but he would not vote for a law which some supported because they deemed it a persecution, and others endured because they called it a nullity. The only way of escaping from this dilemma was to sweep away all that had been done upon the subject. If they did not, they must either reopen the door of religious persecution and intolerance, or they must exhibit this great country as engaged in a futile attempt at legislation, the object of scorn and contumely to the world; and they would in reality grant to the Pope what the noble Lord said they would have granted to him if the House had rejected the second reading of this Bill—they would grant him a great and splendid triumph over and above all his other triumphs—a triumph over the minds of the men of England. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the recent act of the Pope in dividing England into dioceses, and appointing Bishops thereto, was encouraged by the conduct and declarations of Her Majesty's Government,' instead thereof.


second the Motion.


said, he had been unable to catch what fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Urquhart) in the earlier portion of his address; but he understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that having failed to attract the eye of the Speaker on the second reading of the Bill, he was anxious to take the present opportunity of stating the objections he entertained against this measure; and he therefore asked the House to reopen the discussion, and to reverse the decision at which the House had arrived after a protracted debate of seven nights, and that by an overwhelming majority of 438 against 95. The hon. Gentleman more distinctly asserted in the latter part of his speech, that the object of the present Motion was to get rid altogether of this Bill, to undo all that had been done in regard to what had been termed the Papal Aggression, with a view to relieve the great excitement and strong feeling which existed throughout the country by reason of that aggression, and to leave the act of the Pope to take its course unchecked by that House, whether by resolution or by legislative enactment. The hon. Gentleman proposed still more. He not only opposed Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, in order that the House might consider the provisions of the Bill, but he proposed to substitute a distinct Motion, to the effect that the House should pass a direct vote of censure upon Her Majesty's Government. Strangely misconceiving, and therefore misrepresenting, what fell from his (Sir George Grey's) noble Friend (Lord John Russell) the other night, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), as to what he regarded to be a vote of want of confidence and a vote of censure, the hon. Gentleman said that the Resolution he now proposed, was not a vote of want of confidence, but only a vote of censure, and that it might be quietly submitted to by the Government without involving that dangerous consequence which he anticipated, namely, a general convulsion throughout the country by a change of the Government and a general election. The hon. Gentleman totally misconceived the observations made by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). His noble Friend drew a distinction between the Government being in a minority on four recent occasions, and a vote of want of confidence, or a vote of censure on the part of the House; and he expressly stated, that if either a vote of want of confidence, or a vote of censure were passed, Ministers could not continue to carry on the Government of the country. He (Sir George Grey) would not enter into the general argument which the hon. Gentleman had adduced against the principle of the present measure. He would, however, call the attention of the House to the fact that the Resolution now proposed by way of a vote of censure, was essentially different from those of which the hon. Member originally gave notice. He now proposed not to go into Committee at all, but to substitute a vote of censure upon the Government, founded partly on the conduct of the Government, partly on the letter of his (Sir George Grey's) noble Friend, and partly on the inadequacy of the Bill to meet the case of aggression which it was sought to redress. What was the first notice given by the hon. Gentleman? The Resolutions ran thus:—

  1. "1. That, in the opinion of this House, the act of the Pope in dividing England into dioceses, and appointing Bishops thereto, was invited by the express declarations of the First Lord of the Treasury.
  2. "2. That the source of this measure is not to be sought in the spiritual pretension of the Papal Government, but in its temporal prostration: that the independence of the Pope has been subverted by revolution and intervention, the first prompted, the second sanctioned, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  3. "3. That by the change thus effected, through the instrumentality of British diplomacy, in the character and position of the Papal Government, the Pope, from a dangerous enemy to the Emperor of Russia and the head of the Greek Church, has sunk into an instrument in his hands, by which he will be now enabled to convulse the East and the West, destroy the internal peace of this realm, paralyse its action abroad for all useful purposes, and rekindle religious warfare throughout the world.
  4. "4. That legislation can neither reach the source nor remedy the consequences of this evil, nor have other effect save the promotion of the results for which this measure has been devised."
The first Resolution was in fact the same as the present one; but then the hon. Gentleman wont on to propose a direct censure, not on the First Lord of the Treasury, but, with his old reminiscences about him, he pointed a vote of censure against the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and proposed to take the opportunity of bringing a charge of complicity against the noble Lord with foreign Powers, in order to destroy the independence of the Pope of Rome. Such were the opinions entertained by the hon. Gentleman on the 4th of April. He did not then propose a censure upon the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury only, but also upon the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, dividing that censure with great impartiality with his Holiness the Pope himself. He (Sir George Grey) only adverted to this in order to show that the hon. Gentleman was not a safe guide to follow on this occasion, when he asked the House to undo all that had been done—to stultify themselves, and to take no steps with regard to a measure, the second reading of which had been carried by an overwhelming majority—and to guard the House against being led by the hon. Gentleman until they saw to what he was leading them. He would only say, after the full discussion of the Bill on the second reading, that in his opinion the hon. Gentleman had failed to show one single instance in which the authority of the Pope to interfere with the internal affairs of any Foreign State had been shown to exist, without the express consent of that State, by virtue of some legislative enactment, or by the sovereign authority of the State. Among all the instances adduced by the hon. Gentleman where a similar interference was contemplated by the Pope in this country, the hon. Gentleman had not mentioned one in which that interference was attempted to be made by the Pope's sole authority, and without previous communication with the Government of this country, to carry out the measures which he proposed to be effected by such a brief or rescript as that which formed the foundation of this Bill. With regard to the conduct of the Government, he could not collect any other charge made against them than that of having conferred titles of honour on Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. On a former occasion he had observed that, looking at the position in which the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics stood in Ireland, it was a wise and liberal policy to pay a deference to the feelings and sentiments of the great body of the people of Ireland, by showing outward marks of honour and respect to the heads of their Church. In conferring those honours, and showing those marks of respect, the Government transgressed no law, and violated none of the statutes of this realm. He considered the Government who pursued that line of conduct were actuated by a liberal and wise policy, though some might think they erred on the side of generosity. But when the hon. Gentleman made this accusation, he should be reminded that these titles of honour were conferred at least a year and a half previously to the accession of the present Government. That those titles were so conferred appeared by the records of meetings of the Commissioners under the Bequests Act, in which Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops were designated by those very titles which it was made a charge against the present Government of having conferred. The arguments which had been used by the hon. Gentleman to-night were precisely similar to those which had been used for the last twenty years against every successive Government. It was used when the Catholic Relief Bill was brought forward; it was used when the College of Maynooth was endowed, and also when the Bequests Act was introduced. The Government of those days thought it their duty, and he (Sir George Grey) considered that it was a wise policy, to propose those several measures; and though his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had no connexion with that Government, yet he willingly took his full share of the unpopularity of those measures, and supported them in a spirit of wisdom, justice, and liberality towards his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. But it certainly was never conceived by those who proposed or who supported those measures, that they were afterwards to be debarred from vindicating the honour of the Crown, and the independence of the Sovereign of these realms, by legislating against any act of aggression contemplated by any foreign Power, whether it were the Pope or any other Power, contrary to the law of nations, and the universal practice of Europe. The hon. Gentleman, after adverting to the conduct of the Government then proceeded to produce out of Hansard, declarations which, some years ago, were made by his (Sir George Grey's) noble Friend (Lord John Russell) on the subject of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He adverted to the reply to a question put to him by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis), as to whether he would sanction the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. In the first place, the question had no reference whatever to any such measure as that now under the consideration of the House. But the hon. Gentleman, in selecting these statements, had passed very lightly over the distinct and explicit answer of his noble Friend to the question that was put to him, whether he had given his assent to the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy in England which was then talked of; when his noble Friend distinctly stated that his assent had not been asked, and that if it were asked it would be refused. [Mr. URQUHART: I quoted that.] If he had, he could not help expressing his extreme surprise that with such an explicit declaration on the part of the First Minister of the Crown, there could possibly have been such an impression created in the mind of the Pope and his advisers as the hon. Gentleman said there was, that the Government would be willing parties to the measures recently adopted. If such an impression had at any time been created, why was not some communication made by the Court of Rome to the English Government on the subject? Why was such secrecy thought necessary to be observed with regard to the act of the Pope? The hon. Gentleman had fairly and candidly abstained from making any charge against the Government of any notice having been given to them of the intentions of the Pope. He (Sir George Grey) would here take occasion to say that, since he last addressed the House in reference to what passed at Rome when the Earl of Minto was there, and to a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), as to a conversation between the Earl of Minto and the Abbé Hamilton, he (Sir George Grey) had seen a letter written by the Abbé to a friend, who was authorised to place it in his (Sir George Grey's) hands, in which the Abbœ Hamilton said that he would bear willing testimony to the accuracy of every word of the statement which he (Sir George Grey) on that occasion made, and that there was no foundation whatever for the assertions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had been misinformed altogether. Then the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Urquhart) came to the letter of his (Sir George Grey's) noble Friend. He asked the House to join in a vote of censure upon that letter on account of the following passage, which the hon. Gentleman quoted:— There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome, a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic times. He was not now going into an argument on that question; but the hon. Gentleman asked the House to pass a vote of censure upon the Government and upon his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) for the sentiment contained in this paragraph, after the House had already shown by a large majority that it coincided with his noble Friend in opinion; and the only complaint was that the Bill now before the House did not go far enough to repress the assumption here described. But the hon. Gentleman founded his vote of censure upon this paragraph on the ground that it led to the expectation of extensive measures being about to be proposed, which had been disappointed in the result. For his part, he could see no expectation of legislative measures being held out in this paragraph at all. It was clear that hon. Gentlemen who took as strong a view of the measures of the Pope as did his noble Friend, were of opinion that they might be met by a Resolution of this House, without having recourse to any legislative measure at all; while others who did not differ from his noble Friend as to the character of the acts of the Pope, were of opinion that a proclamation from the Crown would be sufficient to satisfy the urgency of the case. But the hon. Gentleman might have quoted the following paragraph, which directly pointed to legislation, while it certainly did not hold out any such large expectation as the hon. Gentleman assumed:— Upon this subject, then, I will only say that the present state of the law shall be carefully examined, and the propriety of adopting any proceedings with reference to the recent assumptions of power deliberately considered. But the hon. Gentleman now thought there should be no legislation on the subject at all, but that the act of the Pope should be left unchecked, while at the same time he asked the House to censure the Government for the alleged inadequacy of the measure which they had proposed, and which they considered sufficient for the purpose of vindicating the dignity of the Crown, by embodying in a statute a legislative protest against the act of the Pope, and denying the right which he had assumed to exercise authority within this realm. All he now asked the House to do was, after having affirmed the principle of the Bill, not now to turn round and say they would take no further steps in the matter, but remain passive and quiescent under the authority assumed by the Pope to confer titles and dignities by virtue of his rescript within these realms. He hoped the House would not adopt such a course, but would at once consent to go into Committee, in order to consider the provisions of the Bill.


said, he could not accord to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) his acknowledgments for the course he had taken on the present occasion. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman stood between the House and the wishes of the public that some effectual measure should pass for repressing the aggression of which they justly complained, and with which, but for the speech of the hon. Gentleman, the House would now be making some progress. He saw no end that the Resolution could have. In short, it tended to nothing; and, feeling the Motion, to be an impediment to that legisla- tion which the House had determined on pursuing, he should give it his decided opposition. He did not inquire whether the Government had or had not courted the aggression. Suppose by their conduct they had invited this aggression of the Pope; what then? Was that to prevent the country from having the benefit of that legislation which the case required? Let them go into Committee, consider what measure the occasion might require, and endeavour to make that measure as effectual as possible.


said, that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the House must come to the discussion and consideration of the hon. Member for Stafford's (Mr. Urquhart's) Amendment upon its own merits, and apart from all extraneous matter. Now, to his mind, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was something very tantamount to the assertion that two and two made four; and, placed as it then was, the House was obliged to assert either that two and two made four, or made something else. As an honest man, he (Lord John Manners) could not refuse to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The cui bono, which was often put to them, would not apply here; for when he considered what the Amendment was based upon, he must say that considerable public good would result from the plain declaration of the truth upon this subject, in the most formal way that that truth could be proclaimed—viz., by a Vote registered on the journals of the House of Commons. More than that, it was important that this declaration should be made, because the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), in his memorable letter, took especial pains to prevent the people of England from seeing the truth which they were now called upon to assert. According to his admissions the other day, the noble Lord was almost willing to run the risk of the disruption of the Church of England in order to prevent the people of England arriving at the truth with respect to the causes of the Papal aggression. It was in vain that fair and candid men, like Mr. Dudley Percival and the Earl of Powis, placed the truth before the country. Twice had the noble Lord, as leader of the Opposition, publicly and in his place, encouraged and invited this very act of the Pope, against which his puny and illusive legislation was now directed. Again, twice as Prime Minister, he had successfully resisted the modest attempts of the Church of England to increase her episcopate, and by that successful refusal had presented to the Pope those great towns of England which otherwise by this time had been the sees of English prelates. By the act of his own Government the noble Lord had granted precedence throughout the whole of Her Majesty's vast colonial empire to the archiepiscopal nominees of the Pope over the whole suffragan prelacy of the Colonies, and over the whole of the Australasian community; and precedence, not to bishops selected for that honour individually by Her Majesty, but by virtue of their very appointment by the Pope. The noble Lord also, with an excess of courtesy, granted similar precedence to the titular archbishops in Ireland. Further, upon the all-important matter of education, year after year, and last year especially, the noble Lord had pertinaciously resisted the fair and just claim of the Church of Ireland to a grant towards the support of her scriptural schools. In short, the whole course of policy of the noble Lord had been one long concession to the claims of the Church of Rome, and one of constant insult and wrong to the Church of England, the only real and effectual barrier against the encroachments of the Church of Rome. And yet the noble Lord had succeeded, by a magic stroke of his pen, in placing himself before the country as the champion of English Protestantism, and the only real opponent of the encroachments of the Church of Rome. It was now, however, reserved for the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) to give expression to that opinion which, in his (Lord John Manners') conscience, he believed would be ratified by the verdict of an impartial posterity. Even if the subsequent conduct of the noble Lord had been in consonance with the uttered tone of his letter, and had the Bill, which after careful preparation, and with such a flourish of trumpets had since been introduced—even had that Bill realised the effects which were expected from it, and been calculated to repel the Papal aggression, instead of being, as it was described by the last legal addition—and here he begged to congratulate the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the House on the return of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy)—instead of the Bill being, as described in the last legal addition to the noble Lord's party, a sham, a fraud, and a delusion—still he would say that the past acts of the noble Lord warranted, justified, and compelled him (Lord John Manners) to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford. He considered, moreover, that the subsequent acts of the noble Lord's policy had been, as the former acts were, favourable to the Church of Rome, and discouraging to the Church of England. He owned he could not see on what ground the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman could be resisted. A few days before the Easter recess, he (Lord John Manners) took the liberty of asking the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) if it was his intention to retract or to modify that circular letter of Earl Grey, by which, to say the least of it, the Pope was admitted to a partnership of honour with Her Majesty throughout the whole of her colonies; and the noble Lord answered, with the frankness which always characterised him, that it was not his intention either to retract or to modify it. What were the facts of the case of the colonies? Every man, woman, and child now knew that the circular to which he referred was based upon an admitted misconception of fact. He had Earl Grey's own admission for that; and it was notorious that his construction of the Charitable Bequests Act, on which the circular was founded, was not the true construction which ought to be put upon that Act. And if this circular was still to be the rule in every colonial dependency of the Crown, then he asked the House, did it not stand to reason, and was it not consonant with every dictate of common sense and justice, that similar orders ought to be issued to every lord lieutenant of an English county, commanding due precedence to be given to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster over every suffragan bishop of the English Church, and over the whole body of Her Majesty's subjects, with an exception, perhaps, in favour of the illustrious Consort of Her Majesty, and possibly, also, in favour of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What were the facts of the case? Dr. Polding was nominated by the Pope to the archbishopric of Sidney—a see already granted by Her Majesty to Dr. Broughton; and according to the orders of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), Dr. Polding was to have precedence granted to him over all the suffragans of the Australian Church, and over all lay persons in the Australian colonies; Dr. Wiseman, nominated by the Pope to the archbishopric of Westminster—a see not occupied by anybody—was denounced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government as an infringer upon the prerogatives of the Crown, and a violator of the rights of the nation. What was the conclusion, then, they must come to on such a state of facts? Why, either that the noble Lord was persecuting Dr. Wiseman, or that he was betraying the rights of his Sovereign and the independence of his country at the Antipodes. The latter, he believed, to be the just and true conclusion to draw; and he, therefore, asked the House, by voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford, to brand that act of Her Majesty's Government as inconsistent with their duty to the Crown, with the rights of the Colonial Church, and with a due regard to the independence of the empire. Another question which he (Lord John Manners) had touched on was the increase of the English episcopacy. When the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) came into office, he admitted, as frankly and fully as any man could, that the number of English bishops was miserably insufficient to discharge the weighty duties which devolved upon them; and he went so far as to specify some additional bishoprics which he proposed to create. If that intention had been followed up by action, it was more than likely some at least of those great towns to which the Pope had now presumed to nominate bishops, and which had excited just indignation, would have been filled by prelates of the Established Church, and Liverpool, Nottingham, and Birmingham might have been free from the indignity offered by the Pope. Before the Papal aggression was made, negotiations on the subject of education were opened between the Government of the noble Lord and the Wesleyans, which terminated in the Government conceding the just and reasonable claims of the Wesleyans. He rejoiced that they had had justice done them in the matter; and he congratulated them on their success against the pedantic bigotry of the noble Lord. The same question was pending shortly afterwards between the Roman Catholics of England and the Government, and those negotiations had also ended in the concession of the claims of the Roman Catholics, and that, too, subsequently to the Papal aggression, and in a manner which painfully contrasted with that in which the Church of England was dealt with at the hands of the Government. Negotiations had been also pending with the Church of England, and her claims (last year admitted, by almost every Gentleman on both sides of the House, excepting those who were Members of Her Majesty's Government, to be just and equit- able) were met by a most sturdy and determined resistance—a resistance still continued. And thus we see Her Majesty's Ministers will grant to Roman Catholics, in the matter of education, even since this aggression, that which they refuse the Church of England. He might multiply instances in point. But those points were sufficient to prove that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was based upon the letter and bare facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman was right in assuming that the Pope must have felt satisfied that any attack he could make on the Church of England would meet with no discouragement, and possibly with countenance, from Her Majesty's Government. He was not disposed to think the Pope would have erred very much in arriving at that conclusion. He believed if the people and the Sovereign of England had not felt themselves aggrieved by the act of the Pope, they would have heard very little of the noble Lord's indignation. He would not now enter into the inconsistencies which marked the noble Lord's measure by which he expected to meet that aggression—inconsistencies which characterised it from the moment it was introduced to the House up to the present time. They could not forget how the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, the measure would do one thing; and the hon. and learned Attorney General said it would do another; while the hon. and learned Solicitor General promised it would do everything; and common sense and public opinion proclaimed it would do nothing. However, he would not enter into the merits or demerits of the Bill—whether it contained all of the former, which an enthusiastic Solicitor General attributed to it, or all of the latter, which the gentlemen who met the other day at Dublin ascribed to it. The question at present was, had the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Urquhart), truth with it or not? If it had truth, let them vote for it; if not, against it. He believed it to have truth, and for that reason he should vote for it; because he thought it of public importance to place on record—upon the Journals of that House—a deliberate condemnation of the past policy of the Government, which had led to that aggression; and because he regarded it as important to hold up the conduct of the Government as a beacon to their successors in the Administration, to warn them against following the course pursued by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. He would vote for it, because he believed it necessary for the vindication of truth and justice; and because no reasoning adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in the least degree shaken the arguments which compelled him to believe that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was strictly and entirely true.


said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had appealed to the House, whether they would sanction a course which would have the effect of undoing all that had been done with reference to the Papal aggression; but he should like to know what the House had effected in that respect, which there was danger of risking by affirming the truism embodied in the Amendment? The Government had encouraged the Pope in acts which eventuated in the establishment of a hierarchy in England, similar to that which bad for centuries existed in Ireland. He believed every Irish Member, in the course of these debates, had expressed his readiness to repel any act of a Pope, or other foreign potentate, which could be termed an aggression on the independence of the country, or an insult to their Protestant fellow-subjects. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) seemed to infer that every Member who supported the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) was prepared to condemn the Government for the acts by which they had encouraged the establishment of the English Roman Catholic hierarchy. He (Mr. Sadleir) was not prepared to condemn the Government for those govermental acts; at the same time he could not withhold his sanction, or decline to affirm the proposition expressed by the Amendment? He maintained that the plain inference to be drawn from the declarations of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was, that he paid no respect to those apprehensions—that he partook of none of those fears, which prompted the introduction of the 24th section in the Act of 1829, by which obstacles were thrown in the way of the establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy. That was the plain and obvious meaning of the noble Lord's declarations; and, possessing a knowledge of the Roman Catholics, no doubt he thought it of great practical importance to have those his fellow-subjects, lay and clerical, under the control of a hierarchy. If the noble Lord perceived the importance of it to the Roman Catholics in every social and political point of view, he must have been as anxious as any Roman Catholic to see the establishment of the hierarchy in this country. It was impossible any Roman Catholic could not desire to see the discipline of their Church, not under the agency of vicars-apostolic, but under the government, control, and supervision of a regularly-constituted and established hierarchy. It was by that means alone that Roman Catholics in England could have the same securities which the Roman Catholics in Ireland enjoyed against any unjustifiable interference on the part of an ill-disposed Pope. The vicars-apostolic were literally the nominees of the Pope of Rome, and the Roman Catholic subjects of England were at their mercy in a great degree. That state of things, which had existed since the Reformation, was only tolerated as an unfortunate necessity; the existence of vicars-apostolic was only a temporary arrangement until the number of Roman Catholics, their property and their position in the country in which vicars-apostolic were appointed, became of such an important character as to justify the creation of a regularly-established hierarchy, and, as a necessary consequence, the creation and constitution of parochial clergy. He held that the present attempt to put down the ecclesiastical arrangements of the Roman Catholics throughout the United Kingdom was as oppressive as any of the penal statutes which remained on the Statute-book. He knew not whether it was intended to put down the hierarchy; but a more dangerous, more unjust, more impolitic, more intolerant cry could not be raised than the cry which had been raised to put down the Roman Catholic bishops. In the archives of Dublin they possessed records of the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland in times of the greatest excitement and the greatest danger, which demonstrated that they had invariably exercised their authority to preserve order and prevent disturbance, and that they had directed their influence to counteract the efforts of the ill-disposed and disaffected. In the troublous times of 1848 the reports of the stipendiary magistrates throughout Ireland afforded incontestable proofs that the bishops and clergy had united in urging the people to be faithful and steady in their allegiance to the Sovereign, and to hold aloof from those who sought to disturb the peace and order of the country. How could any one, then, justify the attempt to deprive a great branch of Christ's Church of the free exercise and full enjoyment of all the advantages which followed the establishment of a hierarchy, on the plea that such an establishment would be inconsistent with the prerogatives of the Crown, and the independence of the nation? He could collect nothing from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to induce him to think that the Government were prepared to expunge that mass of falsehoods which was concentrated in a few lines in the shape of a preamble to this Bill; it was difficult to find a preamble so brief and so full of falsehood. It was unbecoming the Government to palm that false preamble on the House, and it was alike unbecoming the Parliament to endeavour, between false recitals and persecuting clauses, to raise up such a state of the law as, if enforced, would extinguish the Roman Catholic hierarchy throughout the United Kingdom. Was it the intention of Englishmen on that side of the House and on this, who would support the Bill, to subject every Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop doing any act involving an exercise of diocesan jurisdiction, or the use of spiritual functions, to a penalty of 100l.? He challenged the Government to show that that would not be the effect of the Bill, even in its altered shape; and he asked, was that not persecution? Was not that penal legislation? The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was in his place, and the House would expect to receive from him a lucid explanation of the penal bearings of the Bill. It was the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state what acts Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops could do without incurring the penalty of 100l.?. He was not one of those who, with loyalty on his lips, had endeavoured to excite a spirit of insubordination and religious discord in Ireland; but he now felt imperatively called upon to entreat all those who valued the peace of the empire to pause before they passed a measure which would render the government of Ireland more difficult and expensive, and weaken those ties which should naturally combine all classes of the population in resistance to a hostile aggression, from whatever quarter it might proceed. He wished to know how the legislation which the Government had proposed would influence the people of Ireland. In that country the people were prepared to resist any attempt to restrict their religious rights from whatever quarter it proceeded. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had been much praised for the services he had rendered to the promotion of civil and religious liberty, and in particular for the active part he had taken in attempting to remove the disabilities affecting the Jews; but his conduct inyersisting with the Bill under the consideration of the House showed that, however much the noble Lord might be in favour of Jewish Emancipation, he was not in favour of carrying out the principles of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. The supporters of the present measure said that they also were the friends of civil and religious liberty, although the Bill before the House would most unfairly restrict the development of the Roman Catholic faith. It was idle to say that the Catholics would continue to enjoy the privileges guaranteed to them by the Act of 1829 if the action of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England was to be restricted by a penal statute. At the present time especially it was most injudicious and unwise to bring such a measure forward. There had been thousands of Irish Roman Catholics pressing into England for the last few years, who, by their industry, perseverance, and enterprise, and the encouragement which was given to them in this country, supported themselves and their families in comfort. If the Bill before the House passed, many of the good effects of that encouragement given in England to Irish workmen and their families would be done away with. Would English Gentlemen deny to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the spiritual advantages which could be derived from the establishment of an hierarchy, and the consequent establishment of a parochial clergy? When the noble Lord at the head of the Government introduced the Bill, he pretended that some of its provisions had been framed in compliance with the urgent appeal of Roman Catholics. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL dissented.] The noble Lord seemed to intimate that this was not the case, but he could produce the noble Lord's words in support of his statement. The noble Lord assured the House that the Roman Catholic laity were anxious to be protected; and, if he were not mistaken, the noble Lord also said that the second order of clergy wished for protection. The right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, too, told the House that he knew better than Roman Catholic Members what the Roman Catholics wanted, and was kind enough to inform them that the establishment of the hierarchy in England was intended by the Pope to cover his design of acquiring a supreme power in Ireland, and destroying the ecclesiastical and spiritual independence of the bishops, clergy, and laity of that country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said that a hierarchy and a parochial clergy were not required by the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholics. What would the noble Lord think if he were to tell him, a Protestant, that, although he was a member of an Episcopal Church, the Protestants of England did not need a hierarchy or parochial clergy? The assertion was too absurd to require further notice. Again he entreated the House to pause before trying the dangerous experiment of interfering with the religion of the millions in Ireland. Let no man who supported the measure endeavour to salve over his conscience by the plea that the Bill was of too persecuting a character to allow of Ministers enforcing it. Some of the Parliamentary camp followers of the Government were whispering that the Bill, if passed, was to be allowed to remain a dead letter; and the new Member for Cork had announced that it was merely a brutum fulmen. Such a course of proceeding was only calculated to bring legislation into contempt, especially in Ireland, where, above all places, it was desirable to inspire the people with respect for the law. He had no hesitation in declaring that the Bill would be more than a repeal of the Act of 1829. He wished to know if the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was prepared to prosecute the Archbishop of Cashel for using the title he had ever used, and which he (Mr. Sadleir) promised the right hon. Gentleman the right rev. Prelate would continue to use, in the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions? If he was so prepared, it would demonstrate to the world that this was a persecuting and penal act of legislation; and he would venture to predict that the attempt would bring the right hon. Gentlemen into official disrepute, and that it would have no better or other effect than that of creating a habit of contempt for the law and for the tribunals of justice in Ireland.


said, that he was anxious to avoid saying anything which could be deemed offensive to any section of that House, and that he was satisfied that the House would never deliberately consent to pass any measure the possible effect of which would be the infliction of an injustice upon any class of the community. The course which some hon. Members would take on this occasion might be regarded as offensive to other hon. Members; but he, for one, was obeying the dictates of paramount duty; and, at least, he would guard himself against the use of offensive language, but could not suffer himself to be prevented by any too sensitive feelings of delicacy from doing that which he considered that he was called upon to do. He looked at each question according to its real bearings, and never referred to the issue which another man might tell him was inevitable; for if he believed others, and did not judge for himself, he would be perpetually falling into mistakes. In this respect he might describe himself as the political Pariah of the House. He could not surrender his right of judging the merit or demerit of each question as it came before the House. If, on the contrary, he bound himself over to a leader, and acted like an humble follower, he thought that it would be just as well to send his footman into the House instead of himself. The proposal at present under consideration, he examined, with a reference to its real meaning; and he found that it led to nothing. It was the mere enunciation of inconsequent truisms. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), whom he saw smiling, differed from him. The hon. and learned Gentleman was also in a peculiar position. He sympathised with the hon. and learned Gentleman as little as he did with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on this question. The noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman had both taken to letter-writing about the Pope. The consequences, however, were very different. The noble Lord had done the most popular thing which he had ever accomplished in his career; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had done the most unpopular thing he had ever succeeded in doing—which was saying a great deal. He (Mr. Stanford) took no mere party view in regard to this question. He considered that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a great tactician and a perfect Parliamentary fencer, although he thought no man had ever been so handled as the noble Lord was by the philippic of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) on a recent occasion; and not desiring to oust any Go- vernment until he was certain that a stable Government was ready to succeed, he came to the conclusion that the noble Lord was the best man they could possibly get under the circumstances. He also wished the House to understand that be was not influenced by any bigoted feelings against the Pope. He could inform hon. Gentlemen that he had gone to the expense of 25l. in publishing a pamphlet on the "Patriots of Italy," the tendency of which was in favour of the Pope; and be regretted to add that be had never sold more than six copies; but he trusted the House would not measure its merits by its sale. Up to the period of the Roman revolution, he had believed that the Pope was honestly anxious for such a reform as would have abolished the strictly ecclesiastical government of the States of the Church; and, believing this, he was sorry that the revolution had taken place. As respected the question between the Pope and the Government, it would have to be admitted that there were faults on both sides. The Government bad never behaved in a straightforward manner to the Pope. The Earl of Minto had never ascertained the facts with which it was his business to have made himself acquainted. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had on a former occasion stated that he saw no reason why the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church should not assume dignities the same as those of the Church of England. How, under such circumstances, the noble Lord could propose his Bill, was to him (Mr. Stanford) unaccountable. He thought some steps might have been taken to resist that invasion of the prerogative of England, if the noble Lord had been sincere, more effective than what the hon. Member for Middlesex called the "postprandial resolutions of mock-turtle Protestants." [Mr. B. OSBORNE: I never said anything of the kind.] Then the hon. and gallant Member has enjoyed the credit of a smart saying to which he is not entitled. But when the noble Lord was questioned upon the subject, he said— After all due consultation with the law officers of the Crown, we came to the conclusion that it would not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to institute any legal proceedings against the agents of the Pope for the assumption of ecclesiastical titles, because if we had it would have been based upon ancient and obsolete statutes, which it is always unpleasant and disagreeable to the people of this country to invoke; and the issue would be doubtful; the jury would probably give no verdict. If that had been the real state of affairs, the noble Lord had a strong case to go to the country with. But there was, he would not say a suggestio falsi, but a suppressio veri in the matter; for, though the 9th and 10th of Victoria took away the penalties of the ancient statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, it still left the treason. Now, the noble Lord knew that when a statute was deprived of a penalty, the infringement of it was a misdemeanour, to which both fine and imprisonment were attachable. But the noble Lord did not think fit to instruct the Attorney General to file an indictment against those parties for misdemeanour. But the course which the noble Lord ought to have taken, the course which all lawyers in the country would say he should have taken had he been in earnest about the Papal aggression, which he (Mr. Stanford) was afraid he was not, was this—if he thought the Bishop of Rome bad invaded the prerogative of the Sovereign, and assumed that which he was not entitled to do by the law of nations, he could have avoided the unpleasantness of reviving an obsolete statute, or even the Attorney General's being forced to frame an indictment under the 9th and 10th of Victoria, which was certainly not very obsolete. Notwithstanding the opinion which had been given by the law officers of the Crown on the subject, he insisted that all who made themselves parties to the late act of the Pope, committed a misdemeanour at common law, although the penalties had been taken away by statute. The proper course, then, for the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to have followed was to have issued a proclamation, warning Her Majesty's subjects from assuming any titles, ecclesiastical or otherwise, without the sanction of the Sovereign, and declaring that those who assumed such titles without Her Majesty's sanction would be held guilty of a misdemeanour. In place of following this course, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had allowed six months to elapse without doing anything, and now he had introduced a Bill. What necessity had there been for the introduction of such a measure when a proclamation could have answered all the purposes which the Bill was calculated to attain? The second part of the proposition was equally clear and undeniable with the first. He agreed that the letter of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was calculated "to wound the religious feelings of many of Her Ma- jesty's subjects," and that the expression "superstitious mummeries" was a most unwise and unkind phrase to be used on the part of the noble Lord. He hoped that the noble Lord had done himself the justice to explain away that phrase. No man had a right to insult the religious feelings of another. Religious truth must be left to prevail by argument, by discussion, and also by charity. The Roman Catholics were Christians. They were our fellow-countrymen and our fellow-subjects, and he believed loyal subjects too; and it was certainly matter of regret that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) should have made use of such an offensive expression. Under these circumstances, therefore, and considering that the proposition submitted was unquestionably true, he felt he must support the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart),


had listened with some degree of attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Stanford), and had not been able, until he had heard the last sentence, to discover how the hon. Member intended to vote. The hon. Member bad told them that he had expended 25l. in publishing a book, and such was the bad taste of the people of England, that he had only sold sixty copies. [Laughter, and cries of "Only six copies!"] Only six copies! That was more lamentable still. He (Sir Robert Inglis) did not intend to address himself at any length to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Stanford); but there was one sentence in his speech on which he would offer one or two observations. The hon. Member had said that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) were carried, no evil consequences would accrue. What was the matter really at issue? The question which Mr. Speaker would put from the chair was, "That the Speaker leave the Chair;" and the Amendment was to leave out the words after "that," in order to introduce the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Urquhart). He (Sir Robert Inglis) would assume for the moment that the Amendment would, unhappily, be carried. What would be the practical result? Was it a matter of indifference? On the contrary, if the Amendment were successful, it would destroy the Bill. In other words Mr. Speaker would not leave the chair, and the House would not go into Committee on the subject. That was the issue which the people of England would recognise in the proceedings of their representatives that evening. The Bill was certainly better than no Bill, although better still it might be made; but, whether it were good or bad, when he had merely the choice of the two questions, whether he should go into Committee to see how far he could amend the Bill, or resist all proceedings in the matter, he could have no hesitation in voting for the Motion to go into Committee. That Motion was to the effect that they should proceed to further legislation. There was no man so ill-informed regarding the state of feeling in this country as not to know that the resistance of the House to legislation on this subject, would be distasteful to the feelings, opposed to the principles, and abhorrent to the judgment of the largest portion of the people of England who ever took part in any public question. The issue was not as to whether the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had met in the proper way the requirements of the case, but whether that House should say "we shall have nothing to do with the matter," after having passed the Bill by such majorities as 395 on the first occasion, 414 on the second, and 438 on the last. The minority, too, they would observe, had on these occasions never exceeded 95. Yes, the united forces of those who generally acted with the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) the Irish brigade, and all the ultramontane and montane parties, had never exceeded 95 individuals. Were the people of England, after such repeated majorities, to yield, and submit to have their proceeding nullified, and themselves stultified? He would not discuss the question on any abstract proposition that, carried or unearned, it would leave them where it found them; but if it should not be carried, then they would be thrown back in all they had done since the 14th of February last. He could not help reminding some of his hon. Friends that they should not permit themselves to be misled by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford. Those who voted in support of the Amendment, considering the Bill in the light in which Roman Catholics regarded it, a Bill of pains and penalties, gave the weight of their character and talent to undo all that had been previously done. He could understand the principle that the Prime Minister had not done that which he ought to have done, and what he almost promised the country he would do. He (Sir Robert Inglis) should be prepared to support a Motion calling upon the noble Lord to do more; but, to call upon him, as the hon. Member for Stafford now proposed to undo all that he had done, and to forego all the advantages he had obtained by the large majorities which had marked the progress of this measure, was what he was not prepared to do. In any case the course which he would pursue was clear. He saw a proposition before the House, which if successful would frustrate, if not annihilate, the prospects of the Bill, and destroy the hopes and expectations of the country; and therefore he earnestly hoped that the general body of those who supported the Protestant feeling of the country heretofore would not shrink from doing the same on the present occasion. He would not vote for the Motion before the House; and if not rejected by as large a majority as heretofore supported the noble Lord, he hoped the majority would at least be such as to ensure the House against further futile opposition.


said, the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had almost convinced him that he ought to give his vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford. Unlike the hon. Baronet, he (Lord Dudley Stuart) was opposed to the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford was nothing more than a truism; and he should say if it had no object but that which it appeared to have it, would be mere childishness to move it. The hon. Gentleman stated that "the Government, by their conduct, had encouraged the Pope to act as he had acted." No doubt some of the acts of the Government would allow of such a construction. But might not the same be said of other Governments, or was it peculiar to the Government in power? After the lengthened discussion that heretofore had taken place on the Bill, he could not hope to add any new argument or advance any reason that had not been previously used. But not having had an opportunity of previously addressing the House on the subject, he hoped then to be permitted to explain his views on the measure. He had from the very first felt a great objection to this Bill, and very early in the Session he declared his decided repugnance to any legislation on the subject. He was, therefore, anxious that his motives should not be in this respect misunderstood; and that no man should suppose that he had been guided to his conclusions by any feeling towards Romanism, or by any kindly feeling to those whom he regarded: as no other than Romanists in disguise, namely, the Puseyites. He hated all persons in disguise, and would prefer an open and avowed enemy to one clothed in the garb of a friend. In the same way he regarded the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, then before the House; and he should tell the hon. Gentleman, that had he come forward in a straightforward manner, and moved that, instead of Mr. Speaker leaving the chair then, he should leave it that day six; months; if the hon. Gentleman had taken that straightforward course, he would have had his vote. Though he was in favour of getting rid of the Bill altogether, yet he objected to do so by a side wind. As he before said, his opposition to the Bill, as well as to all legislation on the subject, arose not from any feeling towards Romanism, as towards that pseudo-Romanism, Puseyism, but because it was an interference with the principles of civil and religious liberty. He had never been able to understand, if they interfered with the internal government or control of religion, how they could say they acted in conformity with the principle of religious liberty. His opinion was that the greatest benefit that could be conferred on mankind would be to convert them all to Protestantism; but he asserted that by their legislation they could do nothing whatever, and did not advance one step towards that consummation. On the contrary, they made it with many a point of honour not to be converted by enlisting their passions and prejudices against truth. Let every man be free in his opinions. He claimed the right of being so; and, acting on the true Christian principle of "doing as he would be I done by," he wished to see every man enjoy to the full the same liberty as himself. A great deal had been said about the insult offered by the Pope. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) felt it. He did think that the manner in which the hierarchy was introduced was an insult to the nation and to the Sovereign; and it was his belief that the Pope had been instigated to that course by some of the worst enemies of the country, whose desire, and in which they had succeeded, was to throw an apple of discord amongst the various religious denominations of the community. History showed that Austria had always exercised great influence at Rome; and it was remarkable that that personage whose presence in this country had excited so much indignation, when, invested with the purple and cardinal's hat, he left Rome for London, did not come by the straight route, but went round by Vienna; and it was from Vienna that he addressed his celebrated letter to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. There were also indications of a leaning towards Austria in the pastoral letters and public addresses of that eminent personage, who betrayed in his writings an evident partiality for some of the creatures and tools of Austria, whose inhumanity had made them peculiarly obnoxious to the censure and detestation of the British people. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) was impressed with the conviction that the Pope, in the course he had taken so offensive to this country, had been influenced by Austria; and it was well known that Austria was guided in all her proceedings by another Power stronger than herself, and whom she obeyed with a submission which made her nothing but the tool and the slave of Russia. If the feelings with which he had ever regarded those Governments were recollected, and the earnestness with which he had denounced them on all occasions, both in this House and out of it, it might well be supposed that his political as well as religious prejudices would have led him to a course opposite to that which, in regard to this Bill, he had thought it his duty to pursue. But his attachment to the great principle of religious liberty was stronger than all these prejudices. When he was told of the insult offered to the country, he was glad to think that the people were prepared to rise as one man to resent any insult to their beloved Queen, and to defend their free institutions. If the insult were such a one as it was represented—if it were, as it had been described, not only at public meetings, but by Ministers of the Crown in this House, an invasion of the prerogatives of the Crown, and subversive of the constitution of the country—then he (Lord Dudley Stuart) should be for meeting it by measures very different from this paltry Bill, which, when it was passed, would prove inoperative for its purpose. If the insult were really of this important character, it would afford a complete justification of a resort to arms. It might be argued that the Pope driven from Rome would still be Pope, and might issue his bulls and edicts as well from a palace or a cottage at Naples, as from the Vatican. That was quite true; still the pages of history showed the Popes always ready to sacrifice spiritual for the acquirements or retention of temporal power; and the Pope, who was only maintained at Rome by foreign bayonets, and not in any degree by the good will of his own people, would, if he saw us resort to coercive means, gladly agree to any conditions. In order to enforce our own rights, we interfered by force of arms with Greece. Why should we not with Rome? Because it would be inconvenient in consequence of other armed Powers being concerned? Surely the position of England was not that of being ready to coerce the weak, but afraid to interfere with the strong. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) was for maintaining the rights of England at all times; and though we had done right in enforcing them with those who were weak; as justice was on our side, he hoped we should never submit to wrong from any quarter whatever. There was, however, no necessity for any violent measures in this case. The insult came from a weak and impotent enemy; it related only to names, and there was more dignity and propriety in treating it with contempt than in resenting it. The only way to treat such proceedings was to laugh at them; if they did not, they might be assured that they would be laughed at. Legislation would not succeed. They might prevent a few ecclesiastics assuming territorial titles; but they could not prevent their exercising spiritual authority over those who wished to recognise it; and all the edicts of the Pope were powerless to enforce that authority on those who did not choose to submit to it. He was aware the course he had pursued on this subject was one disagreeable to the greater number of his constituents. He deplored it; but he had a very strong opinion on the subject. On the second day of the Session, when the report on the Address was brought up, he had declared the great objection he entertained to any legislation whatever on the question. That was before any of the great speeches on this side had been made—before the speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, or of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had been delivered, and before the opinions of other eminent persons out of that House, corroborative of his own, had been proclaimed. He had since that given a close attention to all that had been urged on either side; and had he been able to discover any valid reason for altering the course on which he had entered, he should have been most happy to do so. It was most painful to him to take a course unpleasant to his constituents; but he thought it was the duty of a Member of that House to conduct himself as a representative and not as a delegate, and, on a question in which a great principle was involved, to act in accordance with his own convictions, without regard to any other considerations whatever. For these reasons he had voted against the Bill in its first stage; and though he had given no vote upon the second reading, that was only because he had been prevented by serious illness from coming down to the House. If he could by legitimate means prevent the passing of the Bill, most gladly would he seize the opportunity. But, judging from the immense majorities which upheld the measure in its earlier stages in that House, he thought it a waste of time to contest the matter any longer; and if he could hope to influence his friends who were opposed to it, his advice to them would be, now that they had put their opinions on record, not to persevere in an opposition which it was clear must be unavailing, and which would have no other effect than to prevent the House from directing its attention to other measures of importance to the country.


said, that the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had, upon the most opposite grounds, come to the same conclusion to give their votes in opposition to this Resolution. His (Mr. Bankes's) vote would be different from theirs. By voting for the Amendment, he did nothing to risk the Bill. He was called upon to say "aye" or "no," upon a Resolution (whether submitted to the House with his wish or not was no matter to the present question). He found "aye" to be the truth, and he should give his vote in favour of it. Although he had been one of the large majorities by whom this measure had been sanctioned, he nevertheless confessed that he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Dudley Stuart) that it was most paltry and inoperative; and he also agreed with the noble Lord, that the present Government were not alone censurable for having, by their conduct and declarations, given encouragement to the whole proceedings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but that preceding Governments had taken the same course. That was, however, the reason why he voted for a Resolution which was a declaration, that the House of Commons censured such encouragement by whatever Government it might have been given. If the Members of former Governments were amenable to this censure, let them bear it; and he would have future Governments learn that the House of Commons were not indifferent to this negligence—to treat it in the lightest manner—by which the interests of the Protestant faith had been sacrificed and brought into this jeopardy. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had referred to a number of Members of that House, whom he was pleased to call the "Irish brigade;" and they having been mentioned, he might say that he did not care whether this Amendment was brought forward at their instigation or not. ["No, no!"] Well, if it were, he was equally ready to vote for it if it was true. He felt that those hon. Gentlemen had been hardly treated by this Bill, for that with respect to them it was an ex post facto law. He had hoped, when he found the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Beaumont, and another nobleman of an exalted name and talents assenting to this Bill, that they might have passed through these discussions without ever considering this as a question between Catholics and Protestants. It was, in fact, a political question of a high and important character, and one which he considered as essential to the maintenance of that Established Church which he had sworn to uphold by every means in his power. But that did not drive him to do a very great injury—he bad almost said injustice—to his Irish fellow-subjects, when he was called upon to vote against them an ex post facto law. It was perfectly true that their hierarchy had been acknowledged not only by collusion, but by the acts of those highest in power under the eye of the Sovereign Herself; and they were thus encouraged, and had a right to believe that what their hierarchy aspired to was not distasteful to the Government. This was one of the many difficulties which beset them throughout the whole of the painful transaction—a transaction for which he must say that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had much to answer. The noble Lord wrote his famous letter so far back as November last; Parliament did not meet for three months afterwards; and during that time they must conclude that the noble Lord and his Colleagues were anxiously and sedulously employed in pre- paring the measure which he should submit to Parliament, and to which he had so carefully directed the attention of the whole nation; he called for the co-operation of the people; and Parliament not being then sitting, loyal and dutiful addresses were presented to the Crown in greater numbers than on any other recent occasion. The Sovereign responded to this feeling, and Parliament was opened by a Speech, in which the feelings of the Sovereign, as sanctioned by Her Ministers, were fully and firmly expressed; the measure which was submitted to Parliament by the Cabinet, was warmly opposed by the Irish Members, joined by a large portion of their English Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; but their numbers amounted in the first instance to, comparatively speaking, a very small minority, and there was scarcely ever an occasion when the majority was so large as that which first sanctioned the proposition of the noble Lord. Notwithstanding this, however, before the end of February, the noble Lord resigned office, for causes which had never been fully explained, but of which he had understood the noble Lord to explain that the difficulties of this Bill formed a portion; indeed, if they did not, we were still utterly in the dark as to the causes of that resignation. He (Mr. Bankes) did not think that, by his vote that evening, in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stafford, he should be at all perilling the Bill, for even if its effect should be to induce the noble Lord again to abandon the Bill, could he believe that with the feeling on this subject which still prevailed in the country as strongly as ever, that any other Ministry who should occupy the place of the noble Lord and his Colleagues would dare to abandon that Bill without propounding a better one. He felt bound by the oaths he had taken (however painful it might be to him to join in a vote that was distasteful to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects) to support the Bill, mutilated as it had been since the noble Lord's return to office. When he abandoned office he left the Bill in its original form, and it was since his return that the mutilation had taken place: this was one of the circumstances which induced him to think that it formed a main portion of the noble Lord's difficulties. The alteration of the Bill would be a subject for consideration in Committee, and it would then be for the noble Lord to vote against two-thirds of the provisions of his own mea- sure. It would be for those who thought that there were advantages in the Bill as first propounded over the present Bill, to vote that those clauses should not be removed; and unless the noble Lord had stronger reasons than he had yet shown for their removal, he (Mr. Bankes) should object to it, believing that they would act most consistently with the general feeling throughout the country, and most beneficially with regard to the operation of the Bill, by retaining at least the larger part of those clauses. It was, indeed, an unhappy circumstance, that after deliberating upon it for three months, the authors of the Bill should have found it necessary to cut out two-thirds of it, when it came before the House; for this had not been done in consequence of adverse divisions, since it was admitted on all sides that in the whole recorded course of Parliamentary history there never was a measure which had met with such a preponderating support.


would vote for going into Committee, and against the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stafford. He thought time enough had been wasted in the early part of the Session in crimination and recrimination, and that the period for action had now arrived. That, he was convinced, was the opinion of the Protestant people of this country, who had exercised a long patience on this subject, and whose strong feeling on the question had not abated one jot. If the people believed that Members of that House were acting more from party than from patriotic motives, the greatest offence would be given to, and the greatest distrust excited among, the Protestant community. He conceived that though the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stafford might contain some truth, it did not contain the whole truth: he would, therefore, give it his opposition, and trusted it would be rejected by the House.


said, that the hon. Member who had last sat down had used a phrase which had excited his (Mr. Reynolds') surprise, although the hon. Member was cheered at the time by the Treasury benches. Have those who were anxious to pass this Bill of pains and penalties against his country exhibited great patience? What does that patience mean? Does it mean that the people were becoming impatient of all control? Were they so anxious to forge the chains for 10,000,000 of our fellow-subjects that they have lost their patience at the delay? He must be allowed to remind the hon. Member that although three months had elapsed since this Bill had been introduced by the noble Lord, it was yet very likely that his patience would be further put to the test; for, if he was not very much mistaken, he and those with whom he co-operated, feeling that this was an aggression upon their creed, had made a declaration of war against it, and were determined to protract the passing of the Bill by every means in their power. He had heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Dudley Stuart) with a mixed feeling of pleasure and of pain—pleasure at hearing him enunciate those sentiments for which he was remarkable, but pain because the noble Lord said it was hopeless for them to fight the battle any longer. He expected a different sentiment from that patriot who had never given up the cause of the Poles—who had always stood by the standard of Poland, even when she was trampled in the gutter by the tyrant of Russia. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had spoken of the large majorities that had divided against them on all occasions. Now, although he (Mr. Reynolds) was willing to admit that majorities were entitled to respect and attention, he had, nevertheless, known cases in which majorities were wrong, and minorities right. He was not surprised at the majorities in that House against his creed, when he referred to the Ministerial edict from Downing-street, on the 4th of November, 1850, and the speeches of the noble Lord and his supporters, circulated through the columns of the public press and posted on the walls of this metropolis. It was enough that the Times should have encouraged this cry of intolerance to get it re-echoed, for every thing that appeared in that paper was believed to be true, particularly when it attacked the Pope and Popery. Many of those who listened to him condemned the Bill as much as he did; but, as they admitted, they were pushed forward by their constituents, who would deprive them of their seats if they did not support it. There were, however, two hon. Members who had both voted and spoken against this Bill, and they deserved, as they had received, the thanks of their constituents; he referred them to the hon. Members for Manchester. They had been told that they dared not show their faces to their constituents, as they would be pelted with missiles. But what did they do? They went during the Easter recess into the, centre of Manchester, and called their constituents together. They told them that they had voted against this Bill again and again, and that they would rather resign their seats than disgrace themselves by becoming parties to this atrocious encroachment upon the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty. And what did the Protestant constituency of Manchester say? Why, they passed a resolution approving of their conduct, and giving a unanimous vote of thanks to them, requesting them to return back to that House and to oppose the Bill in all its stages. He would recommend some of the free-traders, who boasted of their love of civil and religious liberty, to follow this example. They had been told that a majority of 400 Members of that House were in favour of the measure; but was that House to respect the opinions of none but the ignorant, bigoted, and fanatical portion of the population of this kingdom? Were not the people of his (Mr. Reynolds') own country to be respected? The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department stated that the cases of England and Ireland were not analogous, for, in the latter country, the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy had existed together side by side. And how did the right hon. Baronet propose to legislate for the two countries? Why, he applied the same Bill to both. He (Mr. Reynolds) supposed that he did so from his peculiar love of uniformity. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we passed this Resolution of the hon. Member for Stafford, it would be a vote of censure upon the Government, and we must be prepared to abide the consequence. It would not require a telescope to tell what he meant by "the consequence," namely, that the nation would in such a case lose the benefit of his official services. Now, he (Mr. Reynolds) was fully prepared for that national calamity, and he would endeavour to sustain his health under the awful affliction. The noble Member for Colchester (Lord John Manners) appeared to him to have interpreted the Resolution very properly. The noble Lord said, "This is a two-and-two-make-four question; you cannot make five out of it." Then, if it was a truism, how was it that Gentlemen were so shocked at affirming the proposition? Something had been said about voting that black was white; and an Irish patriot recently ob- served that he (Mr. Reynolds) had had the effrontery to avow that he would vote against the Government, whether he thought they were right or wrong. Now, he confessed that from the time of the publication of the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) letter, and of the introduction of this Bill, he would vote on all occasions against the Government, having no confidence in them. The Catholics of Ireland had endorsed that sentiment, and had recently passed resolutions, at an immense aggregate meeting held in Dublin, to the same effect. There were 1,400 signatures to the requisition convening that meeting, the first of which were those of the four Roman Catholic archbishops, then the twenty-three suffragan bishops, one vicar capitular representing a see at present vacant, and then came the signatures of all the Catholic Peers of Ireland, and of nearly all the Catholic Members of that House. There were also 1,250 of the clergy and laity of all orders. There were 7,000,000 of the people of Ireland combined against your Bill and yourselves, so long as you continued this kind of legislation. It was a dangerous thing to alienate their feelings; to set them mad, as legislation like this was about to set them. He had heard it said that there was an insult to the Queen: he denied it. There was no part of the United Kingdom where Her Majesty's name was held in more affectionate reverence than in Ireland. The Catholics of Ireland had always looked upon Her as their friend and protector. It was a cold expression to say, that they cherished an affectionate loyalty. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was running the risk of breaking that affection. Insult the Queen! They would lay down their lives first; but they were determined to sacrifice their lives before they would permit their ancient creed to be interfered with by any of our Algerine legislation. The great meeting to which he had referred, passed a resolution, thanking those Irish Members who, regardless of party ties, had offered a strenuous and uncompromising opposition not only to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, but also to the Administration by whom it was introduced. Then, if he was to blush for his avowal, 7,000,000 of Irish people must blush also. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had dignified a body of the Irish Members in that House by the title of "the Irish Brigade," and called him (Mr. Reynolds) one of the leaders. Though he was not presumptuous enough to consider himself a leader, he felt proud at being a Member of that brigade, which had combined for no other purpose than to defend themselves against aggression, whilst they were ever willing to concede to all what they claimed for themselves—the right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. We would not take a present of your 10,000,000l. of tithes and church rates. [Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH: Oh, oh!] The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark cries "Oh!" He (Mr. Reynolds) was speaking as an Irish Catholic, when he asserted most sincerely that we would not take a present of your money—we would not contaminate our bishops and clergy by allowing them—if even they were willing, which they were not—to accept it. We shall offer every opposition to any State provision being offered to them, because we think it most unjust to compel any person to support a creed from which he conscientiously dissents. But a State religion was maintained in Ireland amongst a population of 8,000,000–7,000,000 of whom were Roman Catholics. Nothing, however, would satisfy the noble Lord at the head of the Government but the passing of a Bill, by which it was declared, that if the Most Rev. Dr. Murray signed his name as Catholic Archbishop of Dublin he would be, fined 100l., and in default of the payment of that sum, he was to be sent to a felons' gaol. He should be glad to know, then, if they were to be blamed for combining against so atrocious a measure. He had been informed, that in the first instance it had been intended that the Bill should apply to England only, and that it had been extended to Ireland on the principle of uniformity. It could not be justified on any other principle. If it had not been so extended, the Act of Union would have been quoted against Ministers, for there was a clause in that Act declaring that the Established Church was the United Church of England and Ireland, and that it should remain so. Ministers had respected that clause; but had they been consistent? There was another Act, the Act of Union with Scotland, which declared that the Presbyterian religion should remain for ever the established religion of Scotland; and yet a clause had been proposed virtually repealing that Act, and permitting Protestant bishops in Scotland to take their titles from Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and other places in that country. Now the Catholics had just as good a right to have a similar clause introduced for them. He was not given to boasting; but he told them that if they passed this Bill it would remain a dead letter, and that they would not dare to put it into execution in Ireland. The noble Lord had been more than once told from that side, that this Bill was sham legislation—that he never intended to put it into operation in Ireland; and the noble Lord had never noticed the charge. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, whom he did not see in his place, had been again and again called on to explain the law; but the moment he was called on he took shelter behind the Chair, or in some of the passages, and there they were in the dark, with not one legal difficulty explained by the functionary whose duty it was to do so. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, what was the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the House for, but to give them the benefit of his opinion in such matters? Not a single legal doubt had been solved by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. ["Oh!"] The meaning of "Oh" was, "Don't ask the Attorney General for Ireland to explain anything." Now he had great doubts whether they intended, after all, to pass this Bill. Some on that side did not think it sufficiently stringent. Others on the Ministerial side thought it severe enough. A certain noble Lord, whose name he might mention in confidence in that House (Lord Stanley), had been held up as the raw head and bloody bones to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and between them there was a contention—he would not say for office—for that would be a vulgar insinuation, but he would say for the interests of religion. But that noble Lord had declared, that if he were in power he would proceed, by resolutions of the two Houses condemnatory of the aggression, and by the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole relations of the Catholic religion with the institutions of this country. He thought hon. Members would agree with him when he said, that when a question was to be shelved, no better mode of doing it could be found than a Select Committee. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government said he must do something. Some hon. Members said that he was doing nothing by this Bill. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis), however, said that the Bill was a good Bill, though not so good as he could wish. In his opinion it was a very bad Bill for the Catholics of England and Ireland, otherwise it would never have received so good a character from the Protestant watchdog of the University of Oxford. The people of Ireland were possessed with the idea that those hon. Members who made such violent speeches on this question must be mad. He had told them, on the contrary, that they were very staid, sensible, quiet-looking Gentlemen. He was answered, that the Tudors were mad who burned people in Smithfield for their religion—that those who engaged in the South Sea scheme were mad—that Lord George Gordon and his mob were mad—that those senators were mad who shed the blood of the country and incurred a debt of 800,000,000l. to replace a rotten dynasty on the Throne of France against the wishes of the French people. These arguments had had weight with him; and he had replied that certainly the senators they had been talking of must be mad also. Suppose the Bill were passed—that they indicted a bishop and packed a jury—for without a packed jury they would never get a verdict of guilty—that they got, he would not say a corrupt Judge, for there was no such thing as a corrupt Judge—but suppose they got a pliable Judge, would they dare to send the bishop to gaol: they dare not lay a finger on a Catholic mitre? They would not dare to do that, and if they dared not do that, why attempt to pass this Bill? They might say that they had a standing Army; but the whole British Army would not keep the peace in Ireland if the religion of the people were touched. He was no advocate for encroaching on the rights and privileges of the Established Church in both countries. Government had a great deal to answer for in throwing the brand of discord amongst the people of Ireland at a time when Protestants and Catholics were living in harmony with, each other. He would entreat the noble Lord, even at the eleventh hour, to pause before he proceeded with this Bill. He had no wish to deprive the noble Lord of the seals of office. Quite the contrary. Believing, however, the present proceedings to be a declaration of war against his creed and his country, he was determined, no matter what might be the consequence, both in that House and out of it, to offer this most atrocious Bill of pains and penalties all the opposition in his power.


said, that he was un- willing to give a silent vote on this occasion. The Motion they were called on to affirm was, that the conduct not only of the present Government, but of other Governments, for some time, had been such as to induce the Pope to make that aggression of which the people had so much right to complain. He could not refuse to affirm that proposition, for it was true. He believed that by affirming it they would do more to support the Bill than hon. Members were aware of. They would thereby read a lesson to the Government, and let them know that they would only be supported when pursuing aright course. Hitherto their course had been to endeavour to conciliate those who were not to be conciliated, and by yielding to the Roman Catholics, to court their approbation and support. Toleration was what they asked. Toleration they had got; but they were not satisfied; nor would they be satisfied with anything short of supremacy. Believing the time had come to make a firm stand against their encroachments, he was determined to vote for the Motion. The declaration of a noble Lord in another place, high in the councils of Her Majesty, too plainly showed that the policy which had been adopted towards Roman Catholics at home and in the colonies, would not be changed. He did not think that Ministers were aware of the evils which their policy was producing. If they looked to the majority in that House, they need not be alarmed; for no Minister dared do otherwise than go on with a measure much better than the present. If the result of the division should be such as to induce the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to resign, there would still be those who would take up the question. He had no hesitation in saying that no Government could stand for more than a few weeks unless they gave an assurance that they meant to bring forward a much stronger measure than this. The Protestant feeling was too deeply rooted to make him at all apprehensive of this Bill being altogether lost; and seeing no danger in delay, but great danger in refusing to affirm the Motion, he should give it his vote.


Mr. Speaker, I should hardly have thought it necessary to speak at this stage of the debate; but it is possible that some part of the House at least may be misled by the statement which fell from so distinguished a Member of the House as the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes). The hon. Member said, "Here is a proposition laid before the House, and I am obliged to say 'aye or no' to that proposition." Now, nothing can be a more mistaken view of the question. The real question is one of a totally different nature. The real question is this—A Bill is introduced by the Members of the Government, and which, upon its second reading, met with the support of a very large majority—438 Members voting in favour of the second reading, while only 95 Members opposed it. The House having thus approved of the second reading of this Bill, it is now proposed, in the usual course of our proceedings, to go into Committee upon the Bill, and the regular question is proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" upon which an hon. Member gets up and moves a vote of censure upon the Government, which, as he says, will sweep away the Bill and the Government; and hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill on the second reading take advantage of this paltry and shabby proceeding to vote against a Bill which on the second reading they had supported. Sir, the bare technical question will not be to affirm or to deny the proposition of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart). The regular Motion is, that you now leave the Chair; and the question you will have to put is, that those words stand part of the question, so that there is not the least foundation for saying that the hon. Member is obliged, if he approves of that proposition, and thinks it true, to vote against the Motion. It is the reverse of accurate, and it is quite astonishing that an hon. and learned Member of his experience should be thus misled. Well, then with less authority, at an earlier part of the evening, the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord John Manners) says that it is quite impossible that he can refuse his assent to that proposition—that it is merely a proposition that two and two make four—and that be cannot possibly deny it. I really think that the noble Lord is not in such a dilemma as he seems to suppose he is, because, with regard to any other Bill that he was favourable to, supposing that identical proposition to be made, and an hon. Member were to rise and were to say, "Before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair I have a curious arithmetical proposition to lay before the House, that two and two make four," would the noble Lord say, "I shall not think it necessary to discuss that proposi- tion. If anybody can bring any arguments against it, let him do so, but that arithmetical proposition must be discussed before we can possibly think of going into Committee." Such, Sir, I say, is the unfounded excuse for giving a vote for this Amendment; but the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), and, lastly, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) gave an explanation which must be highly edifying to those Members who think they are going to get rid of the Bill by means of this proposition. They say, "To be sure this is a vote of censure upon the Government, and no Government can remain in office with such a vote of censure; but then you'll have a better Government and a better Bill." You'll get a bettor Bill—and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire delights in that anticipation—[Mr. SPOONER; Hear, hear!]—a better Bill, in his sense of the word, being of course what those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would regard as more stringent, more penal, and more persecuting. Well, then, what is the proposition which they say is so valuable that it is quite impossible to pass it by? It is this—"That the recent act of the Pope in dividing England into dioceses, and appointing bishops thereto, was encouraged by the conduct and declarations of Her Majesty's Government." Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Reynolds) said that those words—and I suppose he has some authority for that interpretation—apply indeed to the present Government, and also to preceding Governments. Then I think I understand a little better what it is that it is now proposed to affirm. It is, that all the conduct of recent Governments with respect to Roman Catholics has been erroneous; that those measures of fairness, of liberality, of justice, as I think them, were totally erroneous, and have led to this aggression Now, Sir, I totally deny that proposition, and I totally deny also that the conduct of recent Governments, or of the present Government, has been legitimately the cause of the present Papal aggression; for, Sir, I should say, according to all the usual motives of action (unless you suppose that there was some peculiar meanness and unworthiness in those who advised the See of Rome upon this occasion), that if a Government treated the Roman Catholics with indulgence—if they were disposed to listen to any of their grievances, and to obtain, if possible, a remedy for those grievances—that, so far from that being a reason for throwing every insult upon the Crown of the country—so far from its being a reason for attempting, against the consent of the Government, to establish titles and dominion in this country, it would, on the contrary, be a reason for the head of a body which was thus treated to pay some deference to the Government which had been thus liberal towards them, to consult them, if necessary, and, at all events, not wantonly to insult and exasperate the country, the Government of which had behaved to them in a friendly manner. Now, Sir, I believe that I should be casting a very unjust imputation upon the Pope if I were to say that his conduct had been actuated by motives different from this, and that every act of indulgence and liberality had only tended to provoke him to aggression and insult. I think I should be accusing him of most unworthy motives were I to say so. What I do believe is, that the acts of the present and of former Governments have not been at all the cause of the present aggression. I am ready to defend the conduct of those with whom I have acted during the time I have been in Parliament, and of those who preceded me, and who acted in a manner to restore to the Roman Catholics rights of which they were deprived at that time without justice. All that conduct of twenty-four years, from 1805 to 1829, and of twenty-two years, from 1829 to the present time—all that policy of conciliation towards the Roman Catholics has been, I believe, a wise policy, and I am not disposed to depart in any degree from the defence of that policy. But, Sir, I do believe that this aggression has been part and parcel of a great plan which is aimed against civil and religious liberty in every country in Europe. I believe that, whether the Government of this country had been favourable to Roman Catholics or unfavourable to them, in the present circumstanees of the world this attempt would have been made; and I feel the more secure in resisting this aggression, because I can say that there was nothing in the conduct of the Government to which I belong, or in the conduct of the Government which immediately preceded us, and nothing in our conduct as a party out of office, which tended in any way to provoke or to make us justly liable to this aggression. The hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) speaks as if everything were perfectly quiet and undisturbed, and all persons were living in harmony, until we provoked an outcry and introduced the present Bill. The hon. Member must recollect that we on our side were totally guiltless of any act which could be styled persecution or enmity against Roman Catholics. On the contrary, the only political attacks which were made upon us were on account of too much favour shown by us to Roman Catholics; and at that period there arrived that famous rescript, not excited or invited by us, but which came into this country, and was thus the cause of the exasperation that ensued. It was not, therefore, any aggression or any act upon our part. It was the act of those who advised that aggression; and we know now, by testimony which is to be believed in this matter, by the testimony of the Earl of Shrewsbury, that those who were in the habit of advising the Pope were known enemies of England. We know, likewise, from other information, that about the time when that rescript was promulgated, it was said, and said by persons who had, I suppose, good reason for saying so, that a measure was being adopted which would set all England in a flame, and create great disturbance among the people of the United Kingdom. Well, I believe that was the object, and I believe it was to counteract the liberal influence of this country in Europe, and to enforce the views and plans of those who cannot bear the progress of constitutional freedom. I believe it was for that purpose that an aggression was framed which might disturb the mind of England, and excite a difference between the people of England and the people of Ireland. I am unwilling to enter into the details of the Bill; but the hon. Member for the city of Dublin has made representations so much at variance with the fact that I cannot but take some notice of them, for he says that we prohibit Irish bishops from taking their titles, that they have a right to take their titles, and that we now propose by a Bill to prohibit them. Now, is it not the case—I certainly believe it is—that most of the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, in their relations with the clergy, assume the same sees which are likewise the sees and dioceses of the Prelates of the Protestant Established Church. If that be the case, here is an Act which was passed in the 10th Geo. IV., which says— That every archbishop, bishop, or other person who shall assume any ecclesiastical title derived from any existing see in Ireland, other than the persons authorised so to do, shall forfeit for every such offence the sum of 100l. There is an Act which applies to Ireland, not a Bill introduced for the first time, but which is now on our Statute-book. And yet the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, and almost every one who speaks on that side of the House, talk as if this was a measure of legislation introduced now for the first time! Why, they have been living under it since 1829, and yet they come forward now and characterise the Bill we have introduced as one of persecution and penalty such as never had been thought of before! What we attempt to meet, and what I think we are bound to attempt to meet, is the assumption of titles; and the assumption of power to govern certain districts of England, in consequence of a certain rescript from the Pope of Rome; and, had it not been for that rescript, I myself should have been perfectly satisfied with the existing state of the law of Ireland. I do not think it doubtful that and question as to the case of the Archbishop of Tuam, or the Bishop of Galway, that could have been raised, would have been met by the justice of the case, and that the administration of the law might have been safely left in the same manner in which it has been left since 1829. But it was the attempt to assume titles in England—to assume to rule and govern certain districts in England, and virtually to assume a temporal sovereignty that cannot be carried into effect without the consent of the Sovereign of the realm—it was this that made legislation necessary. Now, I wish to explain the reason why I think the House cannot vote on the assumption of the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), that there is a proposition before them that they must either affirm or deny. It is not, as I apprehend, necessary either to affirm or deny that proposition. If they choose to act in conformity with their former vote, they will go into the consideration of this Bill, discuss its clauses, and examine its provisions; but if, on the contrary, they wish to take this opportunity of coming to a vote of censure against the Government, let them take that opportunity if they will; but do not let them say they are under any obligation to do so in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart). On the contrary, I should have said that the fairer course would have been, if they thought it necessary to move a vote of censure, which, according to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), includes all the measures with regard to Roman Catholics that have for many years been carried into execution by successive Governments—if that be their intention, their better course would have been to bring forward a substantive proposition for the consideration of the House. As it is at present, all those who are opposed to this Bill will vote with them to get rid of the Bill—they themselves, at the same time, wishing to make the Bill more stringent, or to introduce another Bill with severer provisions. If they choose to take that course, undoubtedly it is in their power to do so; but I do not think that that is such a course as the people of England expect them to take. I think they expect that, whatever may be our party differences, the proceeding with this Bill is not the proper occasion to exhibit those differences; but that we ought rather to turn our attention, after the second reading of the measure, to devise those measures that may be necessary for the security of the Crown and the security of the nation. Whether or not the present provisions are sufficient or insufficient, is another question. All we can do is to introduce such a measure as we think will be sufficient for the purpose. I would not go one inch beyond the necessity of the case, because I wish, while resisting aggression, to maintain that religious liberty which I hope will never be lost in this country.


The noble Lord at the head of the Government has accurately placed before the House the circumstances under which the question will be put before us; and the noble Lord has said there is no necessity to give an opinion on the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart). The accuracy of the statement of the noble Lord, as regards the form of the question, cannot be controverted; but let me look at the Amendment which is proposed. That Amendment, to state it shortly, is to the effect that the recent act of the Pope was encouraged by Her Majesty's Government—a very important statement—a Statement which I had virtually made myself often and often in this House—a statement which, months ago, when that act of the Pope occurred, I expressed in a letter to my constituents. And now, when an hon. Gentleman not associated with myself, nor my Friends near me, in any political connection, places that statement before the House—if I mean to take ad- vantage of the plea suggested by the noble Lord, and say, that by the forms of the House I can avoid giving an opinion on this question, then indeed I think I should be taking a mean and shabby course. Now, if this issue is placed before me, I cannot avoid giving an opinion on the subject; I cannot shrink from expressing an opinion on this occasion which I have attempted to maintain and establish on others during the course of this Session, and which I am bound to say, after all that I have heard from Her Majesty's Government on many occasions, and after giving that opinion, statement, and argument the maturest consideration, I cannot in my conscience find any reason to doubt the accuracy of. Is it, then, true or not, that the aggression of the Pope has been encouraged by the conduct and declaration of Her Majesty's Government? Is it a fact, or not, that the First Minister of the Crown has himself in this House expressed an opinion that he saw no harm in a Roman, Catholic bishop assuming territorial titles in the realm of England? Is that a fact, or is it not? Is it not in the experience of every Member of this House, and still in the throbbing memory of the country? Is it a fact, or is it not, that the Secretary of State in another place, expressed his hope that the Roman Catholic bishops of the United Kingdom should take their seats as Peers of Parliament in the House of Lords? Is that a fact, or is it not? Is that a circumstance of which there is any doubt? Is it not an opinion that still echoes in the indignant ears of the people of England? Is it a fact, or is it not, that a Member of the Government, sent as a Plenipotentiary into Italy, held frequent and encouraging conversations with his Holiness the Pope? Is it a fact, or is it not, that, influenced by his counsels, and animated by his presence, the Pope himself condescendingly intimated that he was about to interfere in the domestic concerns of this country? ["No, no!"] According to the account of the noble Earl, his Holiness said, "Here is something that touches England," and yet the Plenipotentiary never inquired what it was. I remember myself at the time expressing surprise that the Plenipotentiary did not inquire what it was—


I wish to state what I did say; I said that the Earl of Minto certainly did not remember that any such statement had been made by the Pope as that he was about to interfere in the domestic concerns of England, though such a version of what had fallen from the Pope had been given by other parties present on that occasion.


That shows, then, that the Viceroy of Ireland was in direct communication with the Pope. If this be the fact, I ask you whether, in the language of this Resolution, the conduct of the Pope may not be fairly described to have been encouraged by the conduct and declaration of the Government? I do not enter now into the question of the policy of the Government in this respect—whether it was politic, legal, constitutional, or religious. What I ask this House is—are these statements facts or not? And, if they be facts, how can we avoid giving our assent to the Amendment which is placed before us? Its object is certainly not to destroy the Government, but their Bill. But the highest authority in this House will tell us that it is not in the power of any Gentleman who moves an Amendment like the present one to injure the Bill one jot. Is there any person in this House that really believes its legislation against Papal aggression is in any danger or jeopardy by asserting these truths? No person for a moment believes that a legislative act of that kind is injured. Then what is the danger, what is the peril of the House of Commons declaring that to be true, the accuracy of which no one disputes? But is there no advantage in it? I do not want to narrow the question to that issue, though I content myself with keeping to it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) says he looks to the legislation and the Government of England with respect to the Pope. I have opposed the measures of the Government on this subject myself; and I might widen the issue, but I will not take refuge in such a line of policy. I have before expressed my opinion, founded not on theory or phantasy, or vain presumption, but on facts that no one has denied or controverted. I have expressed my opinion that the conduct of the existing Government in this notorious instance has encouraged this aggressive conduct on the part of the Pope of Rome. I believe that opinion will be the verdict of the country. It has been from the first the opinion of the country. The noble Lord boasts of his large majority in favour of legislation on this subject; but the greatness of the majority has not accelerated the movements of the Legislature itself. I ask the House now whether a declaration of this kind may not be of very great advantage? There has been great delay and waste of time since the aggressive act complained of occurred; there has been considerable controversy in different parts of the country, and a vast majority of this House, as well as of the country, are of opinion that it is wise, expedient, and necessary to have some legislative act which shall express our opinion of the conduct of the Pope. Still I think that nothing can be more salutary than that by a Resolution of this kind we shall give what I believe to be an accurate and dispassionate summary of public opinion with respect to the course of events, which we all of us lament. That is the practical result of the Amendment. We give an historical opinion upon all that has been done in preceding months and years. We say that the Government encouraged the conduct of the Pope, while, at the same time, we are prepared to support even that Government in the steps which may be necessary to punish and check the usurpation which has been attempted. I see nothing in such a course but what is calculated to raise the House of Commons in public estimation; and, for my own part, I believe that in acceding to the Resolution I am performing a public duty.


said, he agreed in the Amendment, so far as to say that the conduct on the part of the Catholics and of the Pope had been the result of the previous conduct of the Government. He did not call it aggression, inasmuch as he believed it to have been brought about by the conduct of the Government. In the belief on the part of those who had voted that they were not about to offend the Government of this country, he could not call it aggression. These acts to which he had referred as having given great offence to the people of England, were, he believed, brought about by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Up to a certain point of time every act of theirs tended to bring about this result. He would go one step further, and say that in every one of those acts of the Government, if he had been called upon to give an opinion, he should have coincided. He thought they were exceedingly wise acts. He thought that up to the time of that unfortunate letter of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, the conduct of the Government was wise—was in the highest degree generous—was a large- minded policy, begun in 1829. That being his opinion as regarded a matter of fact, he acceded—guarding himself against that one word aggression—he acceded to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Urquhart). And now let him address himself to hon. Gentlemen who were going to vote on this proposition. What they were about to affirm was, that it was not generous to the Catholics of England and Ireland that they should support the Bill after they had thus characterised it. Because the Catholics of England and Ireland did not intend to give offence—because he believed they were led on step by step to the proceeding which took place—he supported this proposition, and he would upon every occasion; and he believed that hereafter the country would support him in his opinion. He would take every opportunity of putting an end to this Bill.


said, that having the misfortune to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and many other Gentlemen on his side of the House, with whom he was in the habit of acting, he wished to explain in a few words the reasons for the vote which he was about to give. He had bad the honour that day of presenting a petition from 10,000 inhabitants of the county of Kent, a portion of which he had the honour to represent, and although not approving entirely of the Bill which was under discussion, yet for the progress of that Bill, and with the view of rendering it more efficient, he thought he should not be acting up to the wishes of those who entrusted him with that petition if he supported this Amendment. He was not there for one moment to deny that there was some truth in the proposition of the hon. Member for Stafford; but notwithstanding what had been said, he must take upon himself to judge for himself, and he denied that the proposition was such that he was called upon to affirm it; and he maintained that if he did not vote against it, he refused, in point of fact, to go on with the Bill. He was not prepared to refuse to go on with the Bill. Amendments were to be proposed by an hon. and learned Friend of his, which would make the Bill much more efficient, and with that view he felt it his duty to vote against this Amendment.


did not rise to explain a vote which he thought required no explanation, but to point out to hon. Gentlemen near him what the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) could scarcely have failed to show them. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that by agreeing to this proposition they were damaging the Bill; and he held it to be the duty of every Member of Parliament not to be parties to any such delusion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 280; Noes 201: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, Sir T. N. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Acland, Sir T. D. Clifford, H. M.
Adair, H. E. Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.
Adair, R. A. S. Cocks, T. S.
Aglionby, H. A. Collins, W.
Alcock, T. Copeland, Aid.
Anderson, A. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Anson, hon. Col. Craig, Sir W.
Anson, Visct. Crowder, R. B.
Anstey, T. C. Cubitt, W.
Armstrong, Sir A. Currie, R.
Armstrong, R. B. Curteis, H. M.
Ashley, Lord Dalrymple, J.
Bagshaw, J. Dashwood, Sir G. H.
Bailey, J. Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Baring, H. B. Deedes, W.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.T.
Barrow, W. H. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bass, M. T. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Bell, J. Drummond, H.
Benbow, J. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Berkeley, Adm. Duff, G. S.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Duff, J.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Duke, Sir J.
Bernal, R. Duncan, Visct.
Bethell, R. Duncan, G.
Birch, Sir T. B. Duncuft, J.
Blackstone, W. S. Dundas, Adm.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Bowles, Adm. East, Sir J. B.
Boyle, hon. Col. Egerton, Sir P.
Broadley, H. Ellice, E.
Brocklehurst, J. Elliott, hon. J. E.
Brockman, E. D. Emlyn, Visct.
Brotherton, J. Enfield, Visct.
Brown, H. Estcourt, J. B. B.
Brown, W. Euston, Earl of
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Evans, J.
Bunbury, E. H. Evans, W.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Ewart, W.
Carter, J. B. Fergus, J.
Caulfield, J. M. Ferguson, Col.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J.W.
Cavendish, W. G. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Cayley, E. S. Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Chaplin, W. J. Foley, J. H. H.
Childers, J. W. Fordyce, A. D.
Clay, J. Forster, M.
Clay, Sir W. Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Freshfield, J. W. Melgund, Visct.
Glyn, G. C. Milner, W. M. E.
Goddard, A. L. Milnes, R. M.
Gordon, Adm. Milton, Visct.
Granger, T. C. Moffatt, G.
Greene, T. Molesworth, Sir W.
Grenfell, C. P. Moncrieff, J.
Grenfell, C. W. Moody, C. A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Morris, D.
Grey, R. W. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Mulgrave, Earl of
Guest, Sir J. Muntz, G. F.
Hale, R. B. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Halford, Sir H. Norreys, Lord
Hall, Sir B. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G Ogle, S. C. H.
Hanmer, Sir J. Ord, W.
Harcourt, G. G. Osborne, R.
Hardcastle, J. A. Owen, Sir J.
Hastie, A. Paget, Lord A.
Hastie, A. Paget, Lord C.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J. Paget, Lord G.
Hawes, B. Pakington, Sir J.
Hayes, Sir E. Palmerston, Visct.
Headlam, T. E. Parker, J.
Heald, J. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Heathcoat, J. Peel, Sir R.
Heathcote, Sir G. J. Perfect, R.
Heneage, G. H. W. Peto, S. M.
Heneage, E. Pigott, F.
Hervey, Lord A. Pilkington, J.
Heywood, J. Pinney, W.
Hindley, C. Plowden, W. H. C.
Hobhouse, T. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Hollond, R. Powlett, Lord W.
Hotham, Lord Pusey, P.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Rawdon, Col.
Howard, hon. E. G. G. Reid, Col.
Howard, Sir R. Rendlesham, Lord
Hughes, W. B. Ricardo, O.
Hutt, W. Rice, E. R.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Rich, H.
Jermyn, Earl Romilly, Col.
Johnstone, Sir J. Romilly, Sir J.
Kershaw, J. Rumbold, C. E.
King, hon. P. J. L. Russell, Lord J.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Russell, hon. E. S.
Langston, J. H. Russell, F. C. H.
Lawley, hon. B.R. Sandars, G.
Legh, G. C. Sandars, J.
Lemon, Sir C. Scrope, G. P.
Lennard, T. B. Seymer, H. K.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Seymour, H. D.
Lewis, G. C. Seymour, Lord
Lindsay, hon. Col. Shelburne, Earl of
Littleton, hon. E. R. Sheridan, R. B.
Locke, J. Sidney, Ald.
Lockhart, A. E. Smith, M. T.
Loveden, P. Smollett, A.
Lygon, hon. G. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Mackinnon, W. A. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Macnaghten, Sir E. Spearman, H. J.
M'Gregor, J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mangles, R. D. Stanton, W. H.
Marshall, W. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Martin, C. W. Stuart, Lord J.
Masterman, J. Stuart, H.
Matheson, A. Talbot, C. R. M.
Matheson, Sir J. Thicknesse, R. A.
Matheson, Col. Thompson, Col.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Thornely, T.
Tollemache, hon. F. G. Wigram, L. T.
Tollemache, J. Willcox, B. M.
Townley, R. G. Williams, J.
Townshend, Capt. Williams, W.
Traill, G. Willyams, H.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Williamson, Sir H.
Trevor, hon. T. Willoughby, Sir H.
Tufnell, rt. hon. H. Wilson, J.
Verney, Sir H. Wilson, M.
Vesey, hon. T. Wodehouse, E.
Villiers, Visct. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Vivian, J. H. Wood, Sir W. P.
Wakley, T. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Walter, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Watkins, Col. L. Wyvill, M.
Wawn, J. T.
Wellesley, Lord C. TELLERS.
West, F. R. Hayter, W. G.
Westhead, J. P. B. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Conolly, T.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Arkwright, G. Crawford, W. S.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Devereux, J. T.
Dick, Q.
Bagge, W. Disraeli, B.
Bagot, hon. W. Dod, J. W.
Baillie, H. J. Dodd, G.
Baird, J. Drax, J. S. W. S. E.
Baldock, E. H. Duncombe, hon. A.
Baldwin, C. B. Duncombe, hon. O.
Bankes, G. Dundas, G.
Barron, Sir H. W. Dunne, Col.
Bateson, T. Du Pre, C. G.
Bennet, P. Edwards, H.
Bentinck, Lord H. Evelyn, W. J.
Beresford, W. Fagan, J.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Farnham, E. B.
Bernard, Visct. Farrer, J.
Best, J. Fellowes, E.
Blair, S. Floyer, J.
Blake, M. J. Forbes, W.
Blakemore, R. Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Blandford, Marq. of Fox, R. M.
Blewitt, R. J. Fox, S. W. L.
Boldero, H. G. Fox, W. J.
Booker, T. W. Frewen, C. H.
Booth, Sir R. G. Fuller, A. E.
Bremridge, R. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Brisco, M. Galway, Visct.
Broadwood, H. Gaskell, J. M.
Brooke, Lord Gilpin, Col.
Bruce, Lord E. Gooch, E. S.
Bruen, Col. Goold, W.
Buck, L. W. Grace, O. D. J.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Grattan, H.
Bunbury, W. M. Greene, J.
Burghley, Lord Grogan, E.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Guernsey, Lord
Butler, P. S. Hall, Col.
Cabbell, B. B. Halsey, T. P.
Carew, W. H. P. Hamilton, G. A.
Castlereagh, Visct. Hamilton, J. H.
Christopher, R. A. Harris, hon. Capt.
Christy, S. Henley, J. W.
Clive, H. B. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Cobbold, J. C. Higgins, G. G. O.
Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B. Hildyard, R. C.
Colville, C. R. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Compton, H. C. Hill, Lord E.
Hodgson, W. N. Power, Dr.
Hope, H. T. Power, N.
Hope, A. Renton, J. C.
Hornby, J. Repton, G. W. J.
Howard, P. H. Reynolds, J.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Richards, R.
Keating, R. Roche, E. B.
Keogh, W. Roebuck, J. A.
Kerrison, Sir E. Rufford, F.
Knightley, Sir C. Rushout, Capt.
Knox, Col. Sadleir, J.
Knox, hon. W. S. Scholefield, W.
Langton, W. H. P. G. Scott, hon. F.
Lawless, hon. C. Scully, F.
Lennox, Lord A. G. Seaham, Visct.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Sibthorp, Col.
Lewisham, Visct. Smythe, hon. G.
Long, W. Somers, J. P.
Lopes, Sir R. Somerset, Capt.
Lowther, hon. Col. Spooner, R.
Lowther, H. Stafford, A.
Mackenzie, W. F. Stanford, J. F.
M'Cullagh, W. T. Stanley, E.
Maher, N. V. Stanley, hon. E. H.
Meagher, T. Stuart, J.
Mandeville, Visct. Sturt, H. G.
Manners, Lord G. Sullivan, M.
Manners, Lord J. Talbot, J. H.
March, Earl of Taylor, T. E.
Maunsell, T. P. Tenison, E. K.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Thesiger, Sir F.
Meux, Sir H. Thompson, Ald.
Miles, P. W. S. Towneley, J.
Miles, W. Trelawny, J. S.
Monsell, W. Trollope, Sir J.
Moore, G. H. Tyler, Sir G.
Mullings, J. R. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Mundy, W. Verner, Sir W.
Murphy, F. S. Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Napier, J. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Neeld, J. Waddington, H. S.
Newport, Visct. Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Noel, hon. G. J. Welby, G. E.
O'Brien, Sir T. Whiteside, J.
O'Connell, J. Williams, T. P.
O'Connell, M. J. Worcester, Marq. of
O'Flaherty, A. Wynn, H. W. W.
Ossulston, Lord Wynn, Sir W. W.
Oswald, A. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Packe, C. W.
Pigot, Sir R. TELLERS.
Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. Urquhart, D.
Portal, M. Naas, Lord

Main Question again proposed.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.