HC Deb 16 May 1851 vol 116 cc1046-61

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th May],—Debate resumed.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. REYNOLDS

said, I beg to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday.

MR. SPEAKER

The Order of the Day must be disposed of before that Motion can be put.

MR. REYNOLDS

Then, Sir, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot move that, he having already spoken.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 35: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Arkwright, G. Bass, M. T.
Ashley, Lord Benbow, J.
Bailey, J. Bernard, Visct.
Bankes, G. Booth, Sir R. G.
Bremridge, R. Hornby, J.
Brockman, E. D, Hotham, Lord
Brooke, Lord Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Brotherton, J. Hudson, G.
Brown, W. Inglis, Sir H. H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bunbury, W. M. Jones, Capt.
Carew, W. H. P. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Chandos, Marq. of Lacy, H. C.
Chaplin, W. J. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T.F.
Christopher, R. A. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Christy, S. Mackie, J.
Clive, hon. R. H. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Clive, H. B. Martin, J.
Cobbold, J. C. Maunsell, T. P.
Conolly, T. Mullings, J. R.
Dalrymple, J. Mundy, W.
Dick, Q. Napier, J.
Disraeli, B. Newdegate, C. N.
Divett, E. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Packe, C. W.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Paget, Lord A.
Duncan, Visct. Pakington, Sir J.
Duncan, G. Peto, S. M.
Duncombe, hon. A. Philips, Sir G. R.
Duncuft, J. Rawdon, Col.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Repton, G. W. J.
Du Pre, C. G. Ricardo, J. L.
Ebrington, Visct. Ricardo, O.
Elliott, hon. J. E. Russell, Lord J.
Evans, Sir De L. Sandars, G.
Evans, J. Smollett, A.
Ewart, W. Spooner, R.
Farnham, E. B. Stanley, hon. E. H.
Fergus, J. Stanton, W. H.
Fenguson, Sir R. A. Staunton, Sir G. T.
FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W. Stuart, H.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Thompson, Col.
Forster, M. Thornely, T.
Fuller, A. E. Traill, G.
Gilpin, Col. Tyler, Sir G.
Glyn, G. C. Verney, Sir H.
Gordon, Adm. Tesey, hon. T.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Waddington H. S.
Grogan, E. Walpole, S. H.
Guest, Sir J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Gwyn, H. Williams, J.
Hall, Sir B. Williams, W.
Hamilton, G. A. Wodehouse, E.
Harris, R. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Hayes, Sir E. Wrightson, W. B.
Heneage, G. H. W. Wyvill, M.
Heneage, E.
Henley, J. W. TELLERS.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Hayter, W. G.
Heywood, J. Hawes, B.
List of the NOES.
Armstrong, Sir A. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Hume, J.
Keogh, W.
Barron, Sir H. W. Kildare, Marq. of
Bright, J. Lawless, hon. C.
Castlereagh, Visct. Lushington, C.
Cobden, R. Magan, W. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Meagher, T.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Morgan, H. K. G.
Devereux, J. T. O'Connor, F.
Duncombe, T. O'Flaherty, A.
Ellis, J. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Fagan, J. Power, Dr.
Fortescue, C. Power, N.
French, F. Sadleir, J.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Scully, F.
Somers, J. P. Wall, C. B.
Sullivan, M. Walmsley, Sir J.
TELLERS.
Reynolds, J. Moore, G. H.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

On the Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"

MR. KEOGH

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the preamble of the Bill be taken first. He trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, or of discussing this question. He had put a question to the noble Lord on the previous day as to whether there was any understanding or agreement existing between him and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), in reference to the Amendments proposed to be made by the latter hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee upon the Bill; and, if so, whether, in consequence of any such agreement or understanding, the Government, or the hon. and learned Member, had in any respect altered their views in reference to those clauses of which the hon. and learned Member had given notice. The noble Lord had then answered his question by saying that he would explain his views upon going into Committee. The House would recollect that the Bill upon which the House had agreed to go into Committee was not the Bill, nor like the Bill, nor anything approaching to the Bill, which the noble Lord meant to stand or fall by; nor was it one which any party or section there would venture to propose to become the law of the land. The noble Lord had had, no doubt, overwhelming majorities upon this Bill, which had, however, decreased upon the present occasion: whereas the noble Lord had on former occasions boasted of his majority of 400, it was now reduced to 80. The noble Lord knew very well that these majorities were not composed of persons who entirely assented to the propriety of the Bill which he had laid upon the table of the House, nor were they prepared to support the Bill as the noble Lord proposed to alter it in Committee. Therefore, at that moment, there was a Bill before the House which the Government had themselves withdrawn, for there was scarcely one line in it which the Government were prepared to stand by. He therefore put it to the noble Lord whether it would not be just and proper to reprint the Bill in that particular form in which he wished it to stand for discussion. He did not make the proposition for the purpose of creating any unnecessary delay; but he thought it but fair and just that the Members of that House and their constituents should know what the actual proposition of the Government was by which they intended to abide. It was quite impossible that they could go on discussing this Bill until it was reprinted; and he therefore asked the noble Lord to state what alterations he meant to propose, in order that the Bill might be reprinted, and that no discussion should be taken until the measure was placed before them in a proper form for their consideration.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I think it is impossible for me to accede to the proposion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a very long time ago since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained the alterations we proposed to make in the Bill. It is now about six weeks or two months since the House was made fully aware of the nature of those alterations. With respect to any other alteration that may be proposed, the opinion of the Government will, in some degree, depend on what takes place on the discussion of this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be informed as to whether any agreement or understanding has been come to by the Government with the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and I have no hesitation in telling the hon. and learned Gentleman that I desired my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who has a personal acquaintance with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst, to endeavour to ascertain from him what course he would take with regard to the Amendments he meant to propose, and to state to him the objections which either he or the Government entertain to those clauses. I think I was pursuing a course not only perfectly justifiable, but which is pursued by persons who agree in the main objects of a Bill, and the consequence of which might be that we should agree as to the provisions of that Bill. I should be very glad if the result of that direction of mine to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been an agreement or understanding with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst. I cannot say it is so. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated the objections we entertain to several of the Amendments the hon and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) intends to move; but anything that may result from the agreement, must he a matter for discussion in the Committee on the Bill. The views the hon. and learned Gentleman entertains, and the views we entertain, with respect to the provisions of the Bill, will appear in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) says that we propose to abandon the whole of the Bill. The first question to entertain is the first clause in the Bill; we shall propose to go on in the ordinary course—to postpone the preamble, and go on with that first clause. There is no alteration—there is no material alteration proposed in that first clause; and that is the clause which we consider is the main clause of the Bill.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I came down to the House this evening for the purpose of supporting Ministers in going into Committee upon this Bill, because I have no wish to see any unnecessary delay in the progress of the measure. I have hitherto avoided making any observations upon the Amendments to be proposed, as I wished to see them first placed upon the paper of the House. With the permission of the Committee, I will now, however, make one or two remarks which I think will facilitate our progress upon the present occasion. I cannot but feel that the position of the House with respect to the proposition of the Government is very much changed by some recent declarations of the Ministry. Very recently the noble Lord told us that he had no hesitation in saying that the rescript of the Pope and the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman were part and parcel of a great conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of this country—

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Of Europe.

MR. DISRAELI

That is a still larger description of the evil. I make this observation in reference to the Amendment we are called upon to consider, and I am bound to say that I take that statement of the Government as an authentic statement. I cannot believe that a Minister would make such a declaration without well weighing his words.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

The hon. Gentleman says that what I stated was that it was part and parcel of a general conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of this country. Now, what I said was that it was part of a conspiracy with a view to prevent the extension of civil and religious liberty in Europe, and that the influence of this country might be conceived to be fa- vourable to the cause of civil and religious liberty. I certainly do not recollect saying, at least I did not intend to say, that it was a conspiracy against the civil and religious liberty of this country.

MR. DISRAELI

I am willing to take the noble Lord's recollection as more accurate than my own. I repeat that I think on such a topic he would not have used an exaggerated phrase, and that he knows more of the subject than he feels authorised to communicate to the House; but I doubt whether, in this century, in England, a Minister has made a more important communication to the House of Commons. I am hound to ask the noble Lord whether the Bill, as it appears before us—for I understand two clauses to be virtually withdrawn—will meet such dangerous circumstances. In the first place, there is this remarkable characteristic in the Bill as it now, for the first time, formally appears before us—it bears no reference to the circumstances which have occasioned it. That is the remarkable characteristic of the Bill now before us; it does not allude to the grievance that it proposes to remedy. If, indeed, the re-script of the Pope, and the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman, are part of a conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of England or of Europe, I would say the first thing we should have done was to have dealt with the arch-conspirator himself. It was the duty of the Government to secure the removal of one whom they believed to be an arch-conspirator. I would say that, when we came to legislate, we should have legislated upon some principle that would have settled the difficulties we had to contend with, or at least have aspired to settle them. We might have laid down a principle to which I referred before, and which appears to me to be a principle adequate to deal with those circumstances, namely, that the assumption of any title, civil or ecclesiastical, by any subject of Her Majesty, that title being granted by a foreign prince, should be an illegal assumption; and if the accounts we have received in the course of the debate be correct, the declaration that such an assumption was illegal would have entailed consequences upon those who, in an unauthorised manner, have adopted those titles which they would have found it most inconvenient to cope with. If we had declared that, without the consent of Her Majesty, no one of her subjects should take civil or ecclesiastical titles from foreign princes, we should have laid down a principle competent to deal with the circumstances we are called upon to encounter. This would be a political remedy for a political evil; and this conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of England or of Europe, would have been encountered in a manner which would show that this country was determined to baffle the conspirators, and lay down a principle of legislation that might prevent any recurrence of those manœuvres. But, instead of that, Her Majesty's Government have, I think, unfortunately adopted a course quite the reverse. In the first place, they have called upon us to legislate without the slightest reference to the circumstances and causes which called for that legislation, and, still more unfortunately, the only legislation that they recommend assumes at least the unhappy semblance of something like a petty religious persecution. Now, Sir, if Parliament, by the advice of the Minister, had secured the removal of that Cardinal Popish prince, whose presence in this country has been declared by a high authority to be a part of the great conspiracy against civil and religious liberty, and if Parliament had laid down I a principle of legislation which would I have brought under the constitutional control of the Sovereign all those who assumed titles, civil or ecclesiastical, at the bidding of a foreign prince, we should (without having recourse to this petty penal legislation) have vindicated the honour of the country, have baffled the conspiracy, and laid down a principle of legislation that would not have encouraged its recurrence. I am obliged to consider the various Amendments before us with reference to those circumstances. Those Amendments are considerable in number, and are about to be proposed by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; but though considerable in number, they divide themselves under two heads. There are those Amendments which take, I think, the right course—which seek to connect our legislation with the causes which really have produced it, and which in the Government scheme are studiously concealed— which recognise what has occurred as a political evil, and seek to apply to it a political remedy. There are, on the other hand, Amendments of a different kind, which attempt to make efficient legislation that which is essentially ineffective—which do not seek to connect our legislation with the circumstances that have occasioned it—I which do not seek to offer or afford political remedies for political evils; but, on the contrary, following up what I think is a fatal error of the Government Bill, only aggravate the dangers and inconvenience of that petty penal legislation to which I have referred. Now, Sir, all those Amendments which in a frank and undaunted manner declare to Europe, and to the country, the reasons why we are undertaking this legislation—which show that this Bill is what it ought to be, a retaliatory Bill, intended to resent a gross insult, and to prevent the recurrence of outrages of that description—are Amendments which I think so far greatly improve the Bill; and they are Amendments which, though they may not do all I require in that respect, greatly improve the legislative proposition of. The Government—and they are Amendments that I trust will obtain the concurrence of large majorities of this House, for they offer a political remedy for a political evil; and with a political evil we must remember we are alone dealing. The other class of Amendments are of a different kind. There is a clause called the informer's clause, for example, that is extremely popular with those who advocate the non-application of this Bill to Ireland. They say, "It is impossible that this clause can work in Ireland; and therefore we are in favour of this clause for England, and that is our argument for not applying the proposed legislation to Ireland." I do not presume to answer for any person but myself; but I say this for myself—that under no circumstances will I consent to apply legislation to England on this subject that is not applied to Ireland. The question before us is, how can we maintain the supremacy of our Sovereign? That is the only and the real question before us; and to say that we will maintain the supremacy of our Sovereign in England, and that we will evade the assertion of that authority in the sister kingdom, is to take a course the most impolitic and injurious that could he taken. I think, therefore, that this clause, called the "informer's clause," takes its class under the second division of the legislative proposition to which I have referred. It is in harmony with the Government Bill; but the Government Bill I think is essentially erroneous. Instead of asserting a principle, and making those who violate that principle take the consequences of their illegal conduct, the Government, without any reference to the circumstances that occasioned this Bill, and with which you have to deal, propose solely a clause which I shall still call petty penal legislation. It no doubt may be perfectly consonant to those who approve of legislation that is essentially ineffective to propose something whose efficacy may make it more efficient. In my opinion it will not, and therefore, on going into Committee, I shall feel it to be my duty to support any Amendment from whatever side it comes—whether from the Government or from Gentlemen at this side of the House—which will frankly and truly attempt to cope with the difficulties and with the circumstances which have really occasioned our legislation. I shall support all those Amendments which, in a manner becoming a great nation, declare the reason why we take the step we are now about to consummate. I shall support all those Amendments which will make this Bill a retaliatory Act—an Act passed to vindicate our honour—to baffle a conspiracy—to assert and maintain really the cause of civil and religious liberty; but I shall not feel it expedient to support Amendments, the only object of which is to render that efficient which is essentially ineffective, namely, a scheme of legislation which shrinks from avowing the causes for the proposed law; which dares not to tell the reasons why the Government of this great country assumes the position it now occupies in this respect; and, as it were, compensates for such want of frankness and manly dealing by a scheme of penal legislation, vexatious, insufficient, and calculated, I think, to produce general disgust, and not to vindicate the honour of this country—not to baffle the conspiracy, in which I believe, and which has been denounced by the Minister—and not tending to vindicate the honour and dignity of England.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly in what he has stated, there are some points on which I can agree with him. The hon. Gentleman stated that he wished the Government to have placed in this Bill an account of the cause why this Bill was introduced, and what was the nature of the offences which it proposes to meet. In the preamble of the Bill, as it was originally introduced, there was a recital that any attempt to establish, under colour and authority of the See of Rome, archbishops and bishops in this country, was illegal and void. To make that more definite, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, proposes to introduce these words:— Divers of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects have assumed to themselves the titles of archbishops and bishops of a pretended province, and pretended sees or dioceses within the United Kingdom, under colour of an alleged authority given to them for that purpose by a rescript or letter from the See of Rome. I don't know that what has taken place can be described more fully than they have been described in these words. If the hon. Gentleman finds that other words describe them more fully, or, if he has other words to suggest that are superior to the words proposed to be used, he can propose them. With regard to another point of great importance, I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to one of the Amendments, by which it is proposed that a person can be sued in a court of law for the recovery of those penalties. That is the clause he calls the informer's clause; and the hon. Gentleman does not think these words would add to the efficiency of the Bill, but, on the contrary, would be a source of great vexation. If I understood him exactly, I quite agree with him in that objection, and I have already stated to the House before going into Committee, that it was one of the clauses I meant to withdraw. I made another statement to the House before going into Committee, to which I wish to refer. I stated generally that, with regard to the Amendments proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), the Government were not prepared to accede to those Amendments; but I stated there was one Amendment on which we were so entirely agreed in principle, that we certainly wish him to consider whether or not it was better carried into effect by the words of the preamble, than by the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon considering the clause, we shall have the advantage of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), that this assumption of titles by authority from the See of Rome, was by no means void or illegal. But considering that the part of the Act of Parliament, which would be generally consulted as a declaration of the intentions of Parliament would be the first clause of the Act, we have come to the opinion that it would be better to adopt the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) as a clause, instead of inserting them in the preamble of the Bill. With regard to the other proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he gives his reasons for proposing them, and I shall then have the opportunity to state the objections I entertain to them. With regard to the proposal having reference to the allowing persons to bring actions under the Act, I consider it will not only be vexatious in practice, and give rise to great inconvenience, but it will be objectionable in principle, because the offence that will be committed will be an offence against Her Majesty's Crown; and it should be a competent authority, and not a private authority, that should attempt the vindication of the law. With respect to that vindication, I certainly think, if this Bill should pass, it will be the duty of the Government, if any person assume those titles, to put the law into force, of course always exercising a discretion on that subject as to the evidence in support of the offence, and the likelihood of obtaining a conviction. It would be another question, if it was not thought possible to obtain a conviction in any of those cases; but, generally speaking, it I will be the duty of the Government to decide what course shall be taken in all such cases.

MR. KEOGH

considered that the preamble should be first taken in order. The noble Lord had said that he had abandoned his own preamble to the Bill. [Lord JOHN Russell: No!] Then the noble Lord adopted the preamble of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst—was not that so?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that there were certain words proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Walpole) which he intended to adopt, but it was a distinct clause.

MR. KEOGH

had understood the noble Lord to say that he intended to introduce a further recital into the preamble. Was not that true? Then the noble Lord said that he preferred the adoption of words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. It was little matter whether these words were in the preamble or in a clause. The noble Lord declared that he intended to make serious alterations in his own Bill; that he intended to leave out the second, third, and fourth clauses, and that the Government would have a Bill with one clause, and that there were other words to be introduced either as a preamble or as a clause. Now, he put it to the Committee, whether they (the Irish Mem- bers) were called upon to take any one step with respect to this Bill in its present shape, and that, too, without being informed what was precisely the Bill which the noble Lord intended to stand by. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles) who had voted for the Bill, had informed him that if there were no other person, in that House to make the Motion, he would move that the Bill should be reprinted. Before they went one step further, he said the Bill ought to be reprinted. Again, he put it to the noble Lord whether it was fair to the Roman Catholics to persist in such a course as this? They were bound not to allow the noble Lord to go forward with this Bill in its present shape and form. The objections here were made for no purpose of delay: the object was, on the contrary, to secure a fair and legitimate progress with the measure before them—to have that measure put in a clear and intelligible manner before them. It was not, he said, fair to that House, it was not fair to the Roman Catholics, it was not fair to the country, to attempt forcing on a discussion upon a Bill which was not before them in a clear and intelligible form.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I beg to make a proposal, which, if the hon. and learned Gentleman adopts, and the Committee should consent to, I should be willing to abide by. What I am willing to do is, to leave out the clauses which we now propose to leave out; to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, which I stated the Government were willing to accept; to put the preamble in the form my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes; to have the Bill printed, and then to go into Committee on Monday, on the understanding there would be no debate on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst will consent to go into Committee with the Bill, as the Government proposes, I shall then be willing to take that course.

MR. KEOGH

said, the noble Lord had made a proposition which he was not prepared to say was not a very fair proposition, as he understood the noble Lord merely proposed that the Bill should be reprinted; but that when before them it would be open to them to offer any opposition which they thought was called for.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, the hon. and learned ' Gentleman had entirely ex- plained his (Lord John Russell's) meaning. When the Bill was reprinted, the whole question would be open for discussion.

MR. GRATTAN

desired to know, first, what was held to be included in the Bill. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that he gave up his preamble. The noble Lord made an offer, if hon. Members would not object to Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair on Monday; but it would be impossible, after what had taken place in Ireland, for any Irish Member to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair to go into Committee on this Bill. The Irish had liberty to fight for it, and they would fight for it, but they would fight for it against that House. They would not suffer their peace to be disturbed any longer by paltry legislation. The present Bill was the commencement of a course of war in Ireland. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), was carried, no Roman Catholic priest could exist in Ireland. Roman Catholic ecclesiastics could only exist, in the first instance, by the authority of the Pope, and that authority was denied in the preamble. [Cries of "Order!"] There was no order in his country. The proposition now was, whether the preamble be postponed. ["No, no!"] Yes, it was. He wished to know whether the preamble was withdrawn or not? [An Hon. Member: Yes.] Then, if the Motion was withdrawn, what were they now discussing? [An Hon. MEMBER: Nothing.] Well, as we were discussing nothing, the Committee will perhaps allow me to say a word or two upon that point. The preamble was to be altered, and three clauses out of four were to be withdrawn. Was it then worth the noble Lord's while to drag the House and the country into that Serbonian bog, where armies whole have sunk? Let the noble Lord make another omission, and leave out Ireland. Let him take warning by the ominous bell they had heard tolling from Enniskillen on the former evening, and not resuscitate the fell spirit of party in Ireland. The Orange party, there, was again raising its head, an instance of whose intolerance had lately occurred in his own neighbourhood. An English clergyman having been buried there, a cross was placed over his grave, but the Orange party broke into the churchyard in the night, broke the cross, and wrote "No Popery" on it. They afterwards spent the remainder of the night drinking—To "Hell with the Pope and all the cardinals." They should consider the state of Ireland, instead of such trumpery measures as this, In the north every man who asked for his rent was shot, while the south was a desert. A man had lately ridden twenty miles in Ireland without meeting a human being. Talk of bullies! the bullies were the men who had kept down his country with 40,000 armed men. They had driven the people to the grave or to America, but they should remember Saratoga, General Cornwallis, and Lord Burgoyne. [Loud laughter.] Well, General Burgoyne. He hoped that the noble Lord would reject the Bill.

MR. WALPOLE

thought the hon. Member (Mr. Grattan) had certainly mistaken what both the noble Lord at the head of the Government and himself intended to do. The proposition which had been made by the noble Lord appeared to him (Mr. Walpole) so reasonable that if hon. Members exactly understood it they would scarcely object to it. That proposition really amounted to this, that the House should consider itself in Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of enabling Government to reprint the Bill according to the form in which they intended to lay it before the House. According to the statement of the noble Lord, the Bill would then simply contain the recital of which the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary had given notice as the preamble, and would go on to declare, not, as had been supposed by some hon. Members, that —"this kingdom is and has been at all times so free and independent that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority within the same or any part thereof; and whereas the Bishop of Rome, by a certain brief, rescript, or letters apostolical, purporting to have been given at Rome on the 29th day of September, 1850, hath recently pretended to constitute within the kingdom of England, according to the common rules of the Church of Rome, a hierarchy of bishops, named from sees and with titles derived from places he-longing to the Crown of England," &c. but would contain as the first clause these words only:— The said brief, rescript, or letters apostolical and all and every the jurisdiction, authority, preeminence, or title conferred, or pretended to be conferred thereby, as aforesaid, are and shall be and be deemed unlawful and void. The Bill would then contain as the second clause that which was now the first, and the clauses which were now second, third, and fourth, would be struck out. It would thus come before the House in a form which would leave it open to him, if he thought, as he certainly did, that the Bill was defective, particularly in the preamble, to move any Amendment he thought proper; and he reserved to himself the power of moving any of the Amendments he had placed on the paper. He would not say he did not see great difficulty with respect to the portion of the Bill which related to what had been called the informers' clause, as well as the difficulty in the way of Government, and that of acceding to his own Amendment without some qualification. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan) thought he wished no Roman Catholic to exist in Ireland, or desired to interfere with any spiritual function of the Roman Catholic bishops or ministers, all he could say was, that if the hon. Member could prove to him any of his Amendments would have such an effect, he would immediately withdraw it; and that he would not propose anything whatever which, in his conscience, he believed could interfere with any such function, or prove injurious to religious liberty.

MR. MOORE

said, after what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Moore) would think it a breach of honourable feeling to oppose Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair on Monday.

MR. M. GIBSON

questioned whether, after all, it was worth while to amend the preamble. He thought it would be shown that the preamble was not at all necessary for any practical purpose, and that it would be quite sufficient merely to enact what they wished to be done by their enacting clause. He could not understand what object there could he in taking so much pains to amend the preamble, for the enacting clause would be that which would guide courts and juries.

MR. NEWDEGATE

wished to ask Government if they were prepared to allow the temporal aggression of the Pope to pass unnoticed? There had been an intrusion on this country of a Cardinal priest and legate from his Holiness, which was contrary to the law and ancient custom of the realm. No legate à latere could come here without the express permission of the Sovereign, and on the promise that he would do nothing contrary to the rights and privileges of the kingdom. By that step the system under which the Roman Catholics had hitherto lived would be broken up by Cardinal Wiseman and Legate Cullen. With regard to these legates, their presence was not essential to the discharge of episcopal functions, but superseded them, and they were not required for the administration of the sacraments, or for the cause of charitable funds. This part of the aggression was purely political, and was directed against the authority of the Crown and the temporal liberty of the subject. Was the noble Lord prepared to take no step in this matter?

SIR FREDERICK THESIGER

said, as the Committee had agreed to the fair proposition of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), he thought it would be infinitely better that they should not enter into a discussion of that kind. His hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), when the Bill was reprinted, would have an opportunity of seeing whether there were any provisions to meet the difficulties or inconveniences which he had stated; and if there were none, it would be open to him to propose Amendments of his own. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone would permit him (Sir Frederick Thesiger) to make an observation as to the preamble. The course in Committee had been to postpone the preamble until after the clauses were settled; and he thought it would be desirable to follow that course on the present occasion, which would not be attended with any inconvenience in discussing the clauses.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

thought, with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), that it would be advisable to reserve till Monday the discussion of the points referred to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, and hon. Gentlemen opposite. All he asked was that they should on Monday be placed in the same position as they were now, and that no opposition should be made to the Motion for going into Committee.

MR. KEOGH,

in answer to the appeal which had been made to him, merely wished to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Frederick Thesiger) that it was not the invariable custom to postpone the preambles of all Bills, and that he would be prepared to quote precedents to show that such was the case.

House resumed.

Bill reported, to be printed as amended.

Forward to