Commons Sitting of 15 August 1853

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Stamford, v. Right Hon. John Charles Herries, Manor of Northstead; Dungarvon, v. John Francis Maguire, Esq. Chiltern Hundreds; Clitheroe, v. John Thomas Walshman Aspinal, Esq., void Election.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Peterborough, Thomson Hankey, Jun., Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Friendly Societies (No. 2)
3° Registrar of the Privy Council; Liberated Africans (Sierra Leone); Passengers Act Amendment.

METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT SEA.
MR. G. A. HAMILTON, in rising to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord

1721
of the Admiralty, in reference to Parliamentary Paper, No. 115, of Session 1853, and to the communication made by Lieutenant Maury to the Secretary of the United States Navy, and of the conference suggested in the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, of December 16, and of Mr. Ingersoll, of March 7, whether any such conference had yet been held, and whether any steps had been taken with a view to establish a uniform and accurate system of recording meteorological and other observations at sea, said, that as the subject was one of great importance, he hoped he might be permitted to make a short explanatory statement. A most interesting series of papers had been presented, by command of Her Majesty, in March last, respecting a proposed plan for making meteorological and hydrographical observations at sea, and respecting which the Government of the United States had evinced a great interest. It appeared, as far as regarded the United States, to have originated in the presenting by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, in November, 1851, of a volume containing Sir John Burgoyne's instructions for taking meteorological observations at the principal foreign stations of the Royal Engineers. This had elicited a letter from Mr. Lawrence, the Ambassador from the United States, to Earl Granville, dated February 17, 1852, calling attention to a plan of Lieutenant Maury, of the National Observatory, Washington, for establishing a universal system of meteorological observations, and enclosing a letter from Mr. Webster, requesting the co-operation of the British Government. It was impossible to read the able letters of Lieutenant Maury without being deeply impressed with the importance of the subject. That officer stated, truly, that all the great interests of States and the well-being of the whole human family were to be advanced by increase of knowledge touching the dynamical laws of the atmosphere, and the distribution through it over the surface of our planet of electricity, heat, and moisture. For the fruits of his labour the husbandman was dependent upon atmospherical conditions. The subject, therefore, he would point out to the House, was one of high scientific interest, and also of the greatest national, industrial, and practical import. At the present time more than 1,000 vessels connected with the United States had made and recorded observations according to a prescribed form. After various communications during the last year
1722
between the Foreign Office, the American Minister, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Royal Society, it had been suggested by Mr. Ingersoll that a conference should be held with Lieutenant Maury, in conformity with the authority given him by the Secretary of the Navy of the United States, in order that some arrangement might be made that the Governments of the principal maritime nations should undertake, conjointly, and in co-operation, a system of meteorological observations, to be made at sea in all ships in the naval service of these several nations, to be participated in by the merchant service. He would take that opportunity of stating that Lieutenant Maury was now in this country. He (Mr. Hamilton) had to ask, therefore, whether any such conference had been held, and whether any steps had been taken, arising out of these papers, to establish a uniform and accurate system of making and recording meteorological and other observations at sea?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that that question had been brought under the attention of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty, and also of the mercantile marine department of the Board of Trade, and would certainly receive all the attention it deserved. He believed he was to have the honour of receiving Mr. Ingersoll upon the subject; and, with regard to the conference to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, he had to state that that conference was appointed to be held at Brussels, in the present month, and that Captain Beechy, of the Board of Trade, was to attend it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION IN INDIA.
MR. LUCASsaid, he rose to ask a question of the right hon. President of the Board of Control as to the Provision made for the exercise of the Catholic religion in India, in pursuance of the compact of 1833, and also to the provision hereafter to be made for the same purpose. He would request permission to refer to the promises of the Government on the subject in 1833. Mr. Grant (now Lord Glenelg), speaking of the Roman Catholic community in India, said—
"That they deserved the particular regard and consideration of the Government,"
And that—
"he should be happy to communicate with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on the sub-

1723
ject, or with any other persons who took an interest in it."
Mr. Grant, in the course of the debate, proposed the following proviso:—
Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Governor General in Council from granting from time to time, with the sanction of the Court of Directors, and of the Commissioners of the Affairs of India, to any sect, persuasion, or community of Christians, not being of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland, such sums of money as may be expedient for the purposes of instruction, or for the maintenance of places of worship."
The question of which be had given notice referred to the manner in which that arrangement and the provision of the Act of 1833 had been carried out. Without going into the discussion of the subject, he wished merely to state that there was no doubt, with respect to certain material points, that the agreement had not been fulfilled. He wished, therefore, to put his question with reference to these points, and to inquire whether it was the intention of the Government to take immediate steps towards fulfilling the agreement of 1833, and carrying out the spirit of that agreement in future?
SIR CHARLES WOODwould not enter on what took place twenty years ago, but quite agreed with the principle then laid down, that adequate provision ought to be made for the spiritual instruction of Roman Catholic servants of the East India Company, as provision was made for the Protestant servants of the Company. The Company did not profess to do more than provide for the spiritual instruction of its servants, or in any way whatever to provide for the religious instruction of the community. Several witnesses had been examined before the Committee on the Indian Territories with respect to points referred to in the hon. Gentleman's questions. Some of those points were of considerable difficulty. He (Sir C. Wood) was quite prepared to admit that the provision at present made for the Roman Catholic servants of the Company was far from being adequate, and that the Indian Government were perfectly alive to the spiritual wants of their servants, and that they were prepared to meet the wants of those servants.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
On the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to this Bill,
SIR CHARLES WOODmoved that
1724
the House agree to various Amendments in the clauses up to Clause 43.
Amendments agreed to.
On the Motion that the Lords' Amendment leaving out Clause 44 (relating to the salt duty) should be agreed to,
SIR JOHN FITZGERALDsaid, that the experience which he had had convinced him of the great necessity there was for the insertion of this clause in the Bill. The simple food of the natives of India absolutely required salt in order to make it palatable, while at the same time the wages of the people were so low that it was difficult to obtain this or any other necessary of life. If the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment, and exclude this clause, he hoped something would at least be done in order to provide the natives of India with unadulterated salt at a cheaper rate than the present price.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he objected most decidedly, on behalf of the poor natives of India, to the excessive duty which was at present imposed on salt in that country. He would remind the House that salt shipped here at 10 s. a ton had a duty of 7l. 10 s. imposed on it in India, where the wholesale price was generally ten guineas a ton, and what the retail price might be it was impossible to calculate. He could refer to a case in which he had made a shipment of salt to India, and after much delay and difficulty was permitted to take the salt into India, where it was found so superior to the salt manufactured by the Company that, notwithstanding the enormous duty, a considerable profit was made. He trusted that, if that monopoly were to be continued, and if Clause 44 were to be struck out of the Bill, the Company would, at all events, reduce very considerably the amount of this duty. He believed that under such a reduction the Company would derive from the tax a larger revenue than that which they received from it at present.
SIR CHARLES WOODbelieved that the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred occurred before 1832—that it took place when the Company had a monopoly, which they had not now. He (Sir C. Wood) should be the last person to maintain a high duty on salt, and was perfectly ready to concur in any reduction of the duty on salt which could be assented to with common prudence and discretion by the Government of India. It was contrary to all sound principle that this House should take on itself to legislate in detail for India. There was one large branch of the

1725
revenue—that arising from opium—which was in a most critical condition; and if, owing to the revolution in China or other causes, that branch of the revenue should fall off, great difficulty might be the result. The Indian Government had shown no indisposition to reduce the duty on salt; and there had been three reductions within a limited period, which amounted on the whole to 25 per cent. Reductions had been made as the state of the finances allowed. The last reduction produced no effect for several years. No resuscitation of the revenue took place till three years after the reduction. The clause proposed to be left out did not affect the rate of duty. It did not propose a reduction of duty, but only that the process of collecting the duty which was now practised should no longer exist, and that an excise duty, to be collected by excise officers, must be the rule. If that were the ground on which the clause was supported and carried, the House of Commons were doing for the Indian Government what the House of Commons did not do for the Government at home. In the omission of the clause the other House had, he thought, acted very wisely.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the was glad to learn that it was not on principle, but rather on technical grounds, that the right hon. Gentleman concurred in the omission of this clause; that the right hon. Gentleman was rather in favour of the clause, but that he thought the House ought not to interfere with the actual administration of India. Though obliged to acquiesce in the Amendment of the other House, in consequence of the delays which might otherwise arise, it was impossible that the House of Commons could express itself too strongly in favour of an alteration of the duty on salt. The opinion of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson), who was well acquainted with the subject, was entitled to much weight. Having been in various parts of India, he (Sir De L. Evans) could corroborate the statements of the hon. Member for the county of Clare (Sir J. D. Fitzgerald), and he hoped the President of the Board of Control would not content himself with a statement of his readiness to concur in acts of the Indian Government on the subject, but that he would take steps to have the salt duty put on a different footing. It would be quite inconsistent with the free-trade principles of the present Government to allow the existence of this tax, or to prevent the free introduction of salt into India
1726
from this country. The right hon. Gentleman had justified the tax on the ground of the necessities of the Indian Government. He (Sir De L. Evans) confessed that this was not a very satisfactory way of viewing the question; because, if the reform of the system was to depend upon the state of the finances of the Indian Government, which the right hon. Gentleman had not intimated were at all improving, he was afraid that that reform loomed rather far in the future. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a better mode of equalising the revenue and expenditure of the Indian Government would be to abstain from those wars in which they so frequently indulged. If they would avoid entering upon wars upon such futile grounds as those which had led to the war in Burmah, for example, this tax might soon be got rid of. He did hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not merely content himself with expressing his readiness to concur with the Government of India in any proposal for altering the tax, but would also strongly recommend the Government to adopt some proposal.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he could not allow this discussion to end without entering his protest against the omission of the clause relating to the salt tax. He looked upon the salt duty as one of the most objectionable taxes which could be imposed upon the people of India, and would therefore move that the House should disagree with the Amendment of the Lords by which the clause had been struck out.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not move a substantive proposition. The Motion before the House was, that the House should agree to the Amendments of the Lords. The hon. Gentleman could move a negative to that Motion.
Lords' Amendments agreed to.

PETERBOROUGH ELECTION.
MR. MILNES GASKELLappeared at the bar and reported that the Peterborough Election Committee had determined—
"That George Hammond Whalley, Esq., is not duly elected a citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Peterborough.
"That Thomas Hankey, jun., Esq., is duly elected, and ought to have been returned a citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Peterborough."

CANTERBURY ELECTION.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to move, according to notice, an Address to Her Majesty for the production of the papers

1727
referred to in the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Canterbury. He must entirely disclaim being actuated by any party motive, or any desire to throw an imputation on the Commissioners, in moving for these papers. He would assume that the Commissioners were correct in their decision that it would be exceeding their powers to lay them before the House; but, whether that were so or not, he thought he could make out a strong primâ facie case to show that the House ought to interfere to procure their production. [The hon. Member then read several extracts from the evidence taken by the Commissioners bearing on this subject.] He contended that the papers for which he moved would show that there had been attempts at the subornation of witnesses. He was well aware that the Act of Parliament would protect Mr. Kingsford against any penal consequences for the disclosures he had made; but as they could not punish him legally, he thought if hon. Gentlemen were honestly desirous to purify the constituencies, it was their duty to hold up such an offender to condign moral punishment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Paper referred to in the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Canterbury, described by them (Question 11,212), to be 'a Paper consisting of extracts from Papers which Mr. Henry Coare Kingsford handed in,' but not printed with their Report; and also for the production of certain other Papers severally described by them as 'Paper B,' 'Draft Minutes of Evidence,' 'Minutes of Evidence,' '11th January 1853 Minutes,' and 'Unindorsed paper,' or 'Leaf of proof,' and referred to respectively in Questions 10,288, 10,292, 10,297, 10,302, 10,303, 10,306, 10,307, and 10,308, but not printed with their Report."
MR. LOWEsaid, that until the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) had uttered his last sentence he was at a loss to understand the object of his Motion. He (Mr. Lowe) understood the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be, that a portion of the papers given in evidence before the Canterbury Election Commissioners had not been produced by them; that some attorney in the city of Canterbury was alleged to have been guilty of
1728
subornation of perjury; and the hon. and learned Member asked the House to require that the papers which the Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, had not thought it right to publish, should be produced. Now, the Act of Parliament under which these Commissioners sat, armed them with very high and searching jurisdiction—with a power of inquisition, indeed, which was entirely unknown to any other court of justice in this kingdom. In its zeal to put down bribery and corruption, Parliament had thought fit to give these Commissioners most paramount and transcendent authority with regard to their inquiries; but the exercise of that authority had been left to the discretion of the Commissioners. The Commissioners, in the exercise of their authority, had thought fit, in the course of the Canterbury inquiry, to require that certain papers should be produced to them for the information of their own minds, and for their guidance in the investigation; but they did not think it right, in the exercise of their discretion, to print these papers, or to submit them to the public eye. Now, he (Mr. Lowe) would ask the House whether, under such circumstances, they thought it would be wise to interfere with this exercise of discretion on the part of the Commissioners? Was it wise or right, in a case where a power had been exercised which he believed was possessed by no other court of justice in this country, with regard to the production of documents, and when the production of papers had been compelled, that the House should take from the Commissioners the discretion which had been allowed them, and drag before the eye of the public papers which the Commissioners had thought it fitting to withhold? No one could deny that the investigation in the case of Canterbury had been very full and complete, and had led to very decisive results. He (Mr. Lowe) apprehended that, so far as the results of that inquiry were concerned, the production of these documents could be of no public service. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion had admitted that any person producing documents before a Commission possessing the extraordinary powers confided to these Election Commissions, was protected from any penal consequences. The production of these documents could not, therefore, be necessary for the purpose of bringing an offender to justice; but the only object for which they were required must be to expose the practices and

1729
vilify the character of a country attorney. Now, was this a contest in which that House would think it fitting to engage? Parliament would never have been acquainted with many of the offences which were alleged to have been committed in Canterbury had it not been for the powers possessed by the Commissioners. The law sheltered offenders who were required to give information to the Commissioners from any penal consequences; and he thought it would ill become the House of Commons to say that they would drag into the light of day information which the Commissioners did not think it right to publish. In this view of the case, he (Mr. Lowe) had the honour of expressing the decided opinions of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, both of whom were unavoidably absent, but who had desired him to tender their advice to the House, that it would not act prudently in consenting to this Motion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must express his regret that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had, on the part of the Government, objected to the production of these papers. If the doctrine of that hon. Gentlemen was correct, it appeared that Election Commissioners had the power of suppressing or withholding any portion of the evidence given before them. His own opinion was that the House ought to be put in possession of the fullest information that was obtained with reference to corrupt practices at elections; but if they allowed the Commissioners to exercise their discretion as to the publication of evidence, they might as well at once put an end to the large expenditure which was incurred for these inquiries.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, as he understood the facts of the case, they were these:—The solicitor of Mr. Butler Johnstone, when preparing to defend that Gentleman's seat for Canterbury, took down the evidence of witnesses and made marginal notes for his own private use and for the information of Mr. Butler Johnstone's counsel. The Commissioners exercising their jurisdiction, required that these papers should be produced before them. The solicitor refused compliance with their request, on the ground that it would involve a violation of professional confidence, and the Commissioners gave him two days to consider the matter and to obtain counsel's advice. After obtaining such advice, the solicitor produced the papers in question before the Commissioners, who used them
1730
for their guidance in the examination and cross-examination of every witness produced. The Commissioners, however, determined that they would not make these confidential notes of the solicitor evidence to be submitted to that House; and he (Mr. Butt) must deny the right of the House to interfere with or control in the slightest degree this exercise of discretion on the part of the Commissioners. He did not even believe that the Crown had any power to call for these documents. Even, however, if the House could compel their production, they would be exceeding their proper functions, he thought, if they insisted upon it. The Commissioners had gone quite far enough in extracting private memoranda; and if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion for making those public to all the world, he certainly would be going much further than any private Member had a right to do without abusing his position, especially when his sole purpose—as he himself had stated—was to hold up to public obloquy a solicitor who went the same circuit with the hon. and learned Member himself, and who was in every respect—as the hon. and learned Member allowed—a highly respectable person. He had been in communication with Mr. Butler Johnstone, and that Gentleman felt that a very serious injustice would be done to him by compelling the production of private documents which had been used for the preparation of his case.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there was no doubt that the House, in inquiring into the existence of corrupt practices at any particular place, had a perfect right to examine an attorney as to any communications which had taken place between himself and his client, for he himself had asked such questions of an attorney under examination at the bar, and the House had decided that he was perfectly competent to do so. In this case, however, they had not exercised the jurisdiction themselves, but under an Act of Parliament they had delegated their power for inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices in the borough of Canterbury to Commissioners appointed under that Act. Having, therefore, transferred their powers, the thought they were primâ facie bound to suppose that the Commissioners had rightly exercised their jurisdiction; and it would not be justifiable in the House to suppose that the Commissioners had withheld from it any information which was necessary to enable it to come to a decision as to whe-

1731
ther or not corrupt practices had prevailed in the borough of Canterbury. That, it must be remembered, was the point to which the inquiries of the Commission were directed; and if the information which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) wished to be produced referred to other subjects, he did not think that they would be justified in calling for it on such grounds as he had stated, however important in itself it might be. He should say, therefore, that the House would not do wisely in asking for the production of these papers. If, however, the House should think it advisable to call for them, the proper course would not be to address the Crown, because he did not think the Crown could properly exercise the power of calling on the Commissioners to do that which it had not required them to do when they were constituted. The proper course could be to send for these persons, and either to examine them before a Select Committee, or to compel them by the inherent authority of the House to produce the papers. He said this with reference to the general authority which they gave to Commissioners of this kind; but be could not say, with regard to these Commissioners, that he was much impressed with the discretion which they had shown in the exercise of their functions. Their great departure from the general rules of evidence which usually governed our English Courts of Law, and the great quantity of hearsay evidence which they had taken, did not strengthen the proofs so much as if they had adhered to the rules which usually obtained. There was no doubt that they were right in using the very great powers entrusted to them for the extraction of information; but he believed, if they had kept more closely to the general rules of evidence, the value and efficacy of that information would have been much stronger.
MR. FITZ-STEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he should support the Motion. It would be a dangerous president to allow the Commissioners to suppress documents. The House would afterwards have to act on this Report, and they ought to have the whole of the evidence before them.
MR. CRAUFURD, in reply, said, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was in error in stating that the papers were still in possession of the parties; they were in point of fact in the custody of Her Majesty, having been impounded by the Commissioners.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend, not to press the Motion to a division, as there appeared to be great doubt as to the right to order the production of these papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL CODE—MALTA.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he regretted to be obliged to trespass on the House at that late period of the Session; but before Parliament separated he was desirous of calling the attention of the House to an amended code of laws proposed in Malta, and sent to this country for the sanction of Her Majesty. Some months ago his attention had been called to the proposed alterations in the Malta criminal code; and he applied to the Government for a copy, but was informed it had not yet arrived. He afterwards learned it was lying in the Colonial Office. On this he moved for the production of such portions of it as related to offences against religion; but the papers had only been delivered that morning. This code gave great and just offence to the Protestant inhabitants of that island, and he understood that the law advisers of the Crown in Malta, prepared an amendment, which the present Governor refused to entertain. In the second book of this amended code there were seven separate articles relating to offences against the respect due to religion, of which he would only at present say that the punishment therein awarded reminded one more of the intolerant enactments of despotic Governments, than that of the enlightened legislation of a free country, whose boast it was to have taken the lead in the assertion of the principles of civil and religious liberty. They were also, he would add, unprecedented in the laws of Malta itself. The only argument that he had heard adduced in their favour was, that they were the necessary result of our guarantee to the Maltese of the continued free exercise of their religion. He asked, then, when such a guarantee was given as to warrant the passing of such a code, for he was at a loss to discover it? When Sir Thomas Maitland, the Governor, issued a proclamation at Valetta, dated October 5, 1813, on taking possession of the island in the name of the Crown, he promised to secure to the Maltese, in the fullest manner, the free exercise of their religion, and to retain their ecclesiastical establishment. Recognising this promise in its fullest extent, it could not be fairly interpreted to mean

1733
more than to accord to the Maltese the same protection in the exercise of their religion which we ourselves enjoyed. But in this code protection bid fair to become persecution. In 1837, in the amended code of laws which was then passed, in the 83rd article, the penalty of forced labour and imprisonment was awarded to
"whoever shall disturb with violence, or with intent to profane, the sacred functions or ceremonies, whether of the Roman Catholic or of the Anglican religion during the celebration thereof."
This enactment evidently contemplated overt acts during public worship, and was not intended to interfere with the full right of discussion. The Ordinance which was passed with reference to the press forbade the publication of any writing reviling, ridiculing, or otherwise insulting any fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, or any doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the Established Church of England, or of any society of Christians other than these Churches; or the government, rites, and discipline of these several Churches. If they turned to the proposed amended code, they would find that the Roman Catholic Church was designated for the first time the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, while the Established Church of England was entirely omitted by name, and only included under the general term "dissentient" from the Roman Catholic Church, so that it was proposed that the religion of the Sovereign herself should henceforth in Malta only be recognised as a dissentient worship from the Church of Rome! They would also find that the functions of the Roman Catholic Church were alone termed sacred; that term was not, in the proposed code, applied to the Protestant worship. This was another innovation. The proposed penalties applied to offences against the Roman Catholic religion without as well as within the places of public worship, but not so in the case of other religions; and the same observation applied to the so-called insults offered to the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church, and to thefts committed in their private houses, which were invariably annexed to their churches. The term "blasphemy" was applied to offences against the Virgin Mary and the Saints, as though they were entitled to divine honours, so that our Sovereign, who had already declared her conviction that it was blasphemy so to honour her, was, by assenting to this code, to declare an oppo-
1734
site doctrine. Forced labour from four to six years was awarded to those who stole the eucharist, even from a priest's house; to which might be added solitary confinement for six terms, or sixty days; and all might be increased by one degree, which might mean adding any or all of the aggravations of punishment instituted by the prison regulations. A more monstrous law he had never heard of. There were hundreds of sailors and soldiers in Malta. If one of them, in a moment of inadvertence, insulted a priest, he might be imprisoned for six years. He could not conceive how any Catholic Government even could have the audacity to propose such a law. Another clause distinguished between offences with intent and those without intent to profane, and punished both, so that if a gentleman in the street omitted to take off his hat to a procession, he might be punished under this clause. If such a law were really carried out, it would necessitate a Motion in that House similar to that made with reference to the Madiai—with this difference, that we should have to lay our petition at the feet of a Sovereign who, in the person of Her Ministers, had protested against similar enactments. In conclusion, he could not believe that the noble Lord the leader of that House, who so recently had written that admirable letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany with reference to the Madiai, and that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, who had ever been the zealous defender of civil and religious liberty at home and abroad, would allow a Government with which they were connected to advise the Crown to give its sanction to such a monstrous code, which, under the pretence of protection to religion, enacted a series of persecuting laws, more worthy of the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Emperor of Austria, than of the Sovereign of a free and enlightened people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an humble address to Her Majesty, praying that She would withhold Her sanction from the said amended code until the subject should have received the mature consideration of Parliament.
MR. J. T. CHAMBERS, in seconding the Motion, said, that if these amended laws of Malta received the sanction of the British Parliament, they would become British law, involving an alteration in the criminal code of a portion of the Empire. There was nothing in legislation more important to guard against than sudden al-

1735
terations of the criminal code of any country. The civil law might be altered, but alterations in the criminal code might involve mischief which it would be impossible to repair. Now these alterations of the penal code of Malta would destroy religious liberty at a blow. They altered, and altered materially, the position of every religious community in Malta; that of the Roman Catholic was raised, but every other sect was degraded. The former code forbade any writing insulting or reviling any fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic, Anglican, or other Christian Church—here the word "Church" was applied in reference to every class; in the new code it was used only in reference to the Roman Catholics. In the old code, the words used were "revile, ridicule, or insult;" in the new the word "insult" only was used. It was a word capable of any interpretation, and it was impossible to say what would be the construction put on it by a Roman Catholic magistrate. The new code would stifle all free discussion: the Roman Catholics required that their religion should be protected even against argument. In the 2nd Article, the offence was supposed to be committed without violence, or intent to profane, and in such case a slighter punishment was inflicted. But where there was no intent there could be no crime. By this code any of their soldiers or sailors might at any moment be dragged before a magistrate. He believed that the effect of the altered law would be to stop free discussion upon what Protestants regarded as the improper and unscriptural practices of the Roman Catholic religion; and he felt assured that if the noble Lord the Member for the City of London were to make as bold a statement of his views on this question as he had done in respect to the Irish Church, this amended code would never pass. By it the legal status of British subjects would be imperilled, and, looking to the provisions of the former code, he did not think the old law required any alteration whatsoever.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That the proposed Amended Maltese Code of Laws is opposed to the constitutional rights and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects, and is an innovation on Maltese Law:—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, setting forth the above facts, and humbly praying that Her Majesty may be most graciously pleased to take the said facts into Her Royal consideration, and to withhold Her sanction to the said Amended Code, until the subject shall have received the mature consideration of Parliament."
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he was not sorry that his hon. Friend had stated his objections to this criminal code in a clear and substantive form. In one respect, indeed, he must qualify the satisfaction with which he had listened to his speech, because he must say that he thought it to a certain extent an injudicious one, calculated to keep alive the animosity between different sections of the community at Malta, which it was their object, if possible, to allay. He thought, also, that it was not so accurate as it might have been, if the hon. Gentleman had chosen to refer to the facts upon record, which were as accessible to his hon. Friend as to himself. He understood his hon. Friend to take general exception to this code, upon the ground that Malta formed part of the dominions of the Crown, and that that Crown being a Protestant one, the Government could not properly assent to a law which established the Church of Rome—
MR. KINNAIRD: No; I objected to the application of the term "blasphemy" in the code.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: His hon. Friend, at all events, referred to the law of Tuscany and to the case of the Madiai, leaving the impression that the amended code of Malta would render persons liable to punishment who should act as the Madiai had done. Those persons had been punished for reading a Protestant Bible; but there was no provision under this code by which any Maltese, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, could be punished for such an act. The House must bear in mind that Malta was a Roman Catholic country, placed under a Legislative Council which was now elective; that Roman Catholics had been returned to that Council; and that this was a law which, after a great deal of consideration, that Council had thought fit to adopt. His hon. Friend considered that this was an unnecessary alteration of the code of 1837; but he had fallen into some inaccuracy with respect to that code. His hon. Friend had eulogised the code of 1837 as impartial; but the House would probably be surprised to learn that that code was only one draughted by the Commissioners: it had never been brought into operation—had never for a single day been enacted as the law of Malta. Li fact, it was merely a code prepared by the Malta commissioners, and sent to England for confirmation, and had never been adopted. He was surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman

1737
should eulogise that code, for it was marked by much more illiberality than the present code; it protected only two religions—the Church of Rome and the Church of England, which were placed on an equality; but offences against the Church of Scotland, for example, might be committed without transgressing that code. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the extreme severity with which stealing the host was punished in the present code. By the 56th section it wa provided that the punishment shou be hard labour from four to six years. But the argument was a strange one from an hon. Gentleman who praised the code of 1837, by which the offence was punishable by a penalty of fifteen years' imprisonment. What were the circumstances under which this chapter of crimes against religion was brought before the House? For many years the necessity of consolidating the criminal law of Malta was found to be urgent. That law consisted of a variety of enactments, dating from an early period, many centuries back, and marked with all the inconsistency and severity which characterised the contemporaneous legislation of the age, not even excepting the legislation of this country. The case of Malta was, perhaps, the worse, because the legislation was that of a single individual, and that individual the head of a religious order. Therefore it was found necessary to codify this law, to endeavour to bring it into closer assimilation and harmony with the law of England, and with that milder spirit which had latterly prevailed with respect to criminal punishments. Under such circumstances was this Ordinance passed. It passed not without great preparation. For the last twenty years Commissioners had been appointed to consider the subject; and a code was submitted to the elective Council of Malta in 1850, and passed by that body. When the code came to this country it was objected to by Lord Grey on account of the designation given therein to the Catholic religion, which was called the "dominant Church" of Malta. Objection was taken to the Church of Rome being called so in any country belonging to the Crown of England, or being assumed to have the predominance over any other religion. The Council reluctantly consented to withdraw that objectionable expression, substituting the expression of "the Church of the country," it being notorious that the Roman Catholic religion was the religion of the country. He had hoped that this con-
1738
cession on the part of the Council would have satisfied the members of the other Churches in Malta. It was, however, contended that the Church of England ought to be particularised as one of the Protestant Churches in the Island, and that these latter were improperly described as "dissenting" from the Church of Rome. He (Mr. Peel) would have been better pleased had the Church of England been mentioned by name; but the word which in the Italian was thought to imply "dissenting" from the worship of the Roman Catholic Church was translated in the Parliamentary paper sent round that morning "differing;" and he was told the meaning of the Italian word was "differing from," or not "agreeing with." The title of this chapter of the criminal code was "Of crimes against the respect due to religion." He was sure the hon. Gentleman could not object to that. Every one would admit that there was criminality in acts which outraged religion, which went to offend the most deeply seated and acute feelings of the human breast, and which, of course, in a corresponding degree, tended to endanger the tranquillity and peace of the island. Therefore, on principle, there could be no objection to including a chapter designed to secure the respect which was due to religion. The only question was, whether the code was open to the comments made upon it by the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Peel) asserted that the distinguishing characteristic of the code was, not merely toleration, but perfect impartiality between all religions. The hon. Gentleman, he observed, objected to this statement. He (Mr. Peel) certainly was not aware in what way the code deviated from this description. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the 51st section, inasmuch as it appeared to him that the code protected the religion of the Church of Rome from offences, whether committed within or without places of worship; whereas by this section other religions differing from that of the Roman Catholic Church were protected only from offences committed within places devoted to worship. Now he was able to state that this was a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member. He had looked at the proceedings of the Elective Council of Malta, and he had found that while that body was in Committee on the 51st clause, a Roman Catholic Gentleman did propose the insertion of words which would have had that effect;

1739
but the Amendment was objected to on the ground that it would have exposed the funeral ceremonies of the Church of England, which were not performed within places appointed for public worship, to insult, and that it was desirable that that Church should have the same protection as the Roman Catholic Church. For that reason the Amendment was withdrawn, and the Crown Advocate had stated that all Churches would enjoy the same protection in this respect. There was, indeed, one section, which at first sight, appeared to be an exception to this statement—he alluded to the 55th section which declared that—
"Whoever shall outrage the objects of worship of the Catholic Church, whether within or without the places appointed for public worship, shall be punished," &c.
While there was no similar provision with regard to other Churches differing from the Roman Catholic Church. But in this particular case the omission was of no importance whatever, inasmuch as in the Protestant religion there were no objects of worship which it was desirable to protect; and, therefore, the limitation in the clause was really of no importance. He thought, therefore, he might state, without the fear of contradiction, that the code did recognise the principle of equality among all religious communities in Malta; and certainly in this respect it possessed a great advantage over the code of 1827, which had been so strangely eulogised by the hon. Member. He admitted, indeed, that the code was a severe one, and he should have been very glad if the penalties had undergone still greater modification. He admitted that some acts were there characterised as criminal acts, which, perhaps, wonld not have been so regarded in this or in any other country—as, for example, blaspheming the saints; he should have been glad if it had not been included. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman had considerably exaggerated the effect of the code in that respect. For instance, the hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to show that under this code, if a person omitted to take off his hat when a procession was passing along, he might be subjected to imprisonment or fine. Now, he would undertake to say that that would not be the case, and that the hon. Gentleman would not find any provision in the code for punishing a mere act of omission at all; and it was understood to be the opinion of the law adviser of the Crown in Malta that a person might safely
1740
omit to lift his hat when a procession was passing without subjecting himself to a penalty. So, also, with regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman with respect to acts being punished by the code where there was no intention to commit a crime. Every one would agree that the essence of a criminal act was its intent. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to prove his case by adverting to the distinction which was drawn in the code between acts "with intent" and acts "without intent" to profane. But it was possible to conceive a case of malicious intent without being accompanied by any open act of outrage, involving an intention to profane; and he apprehended that that was the reason why such a distinction had been drawn in the code. He believed there was no intention to punish where there was an entire absence of criminal intent. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the last section of the code, which said that—
"Whenever the acts contemplated in this title shall be accompanied by circumstances rendering them liable to more serious punishments, such punishments shall be 'awarded, increased in one degree.'"
The meaning of that section was this—that where an offence analogous to any of the offences described in the preceding sections was committed, which, under the general law of Malta, was subject to more severe punishment than that which was awarded in the preceding sections, and where such offence was also an offence against the respect due to religion, the punishment should be increased by one degree. Take, by way of example, the act of stealing the eucharist. That by the general law might be an act of burglary, which would, perhaps, be punished by imprisonment for five or six years. But if, in addition to its being burglary, it was also an outrage against the Christian religion, then in that case there should be an accumulated penalty, in addition to that awarded by the general law, of one degree. He could not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member to postpone the ratification of the criminal code of Malta till next Session of Parliament. He asked the House to remember that Malta was a Roman Catholic country; that since 1850 its business had been administered by the Elective Members of a Council of Legislation; that, of course, these gentleman were members of the Roman Catholic Church; that this criminal

1741
code had not been passed without great preparation; and that considerable concessions had been made in the course of the discussions upon it in Committee. A concession had been made, for instance, with respect to the title of the Roman Catholic Church as a dominant Church, and he had been in hopes that that concession would have conciliated the members of the Church of England in Malta. On the subject of this criminal code there had been a considerable degree of religious excitement, which, he was happy to say, was gradually being allayed, and he considered that the most desirable course for the Government to pursue was to allow the criminal code to come at once into operation. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to press his Motion to a division.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that he wished he could agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this code dealt impartially with all religious persuasions. On the contrary, he still believed that the effect of it would be to make the Roman Catholic Church the dominant religion in Malta. He did not now allude to the language in which the Roman Catholic religion was spoken of, while every other persuasion was studiously disparaged. Not that he believed even this a matter of light importance, but he alluded to the enactments of practical effect and importance. In the first place, he could not agree that the clauses which prohibited any disturbance to the Protestant and Roman Catholic worship were in effect the same; the clause relating to Roman Catholic worship contained the words "within or without a place of worship;" but these words were omitted in that protecting Protestant worship. He did not know how a Maltese Court of Law would interpret such a clause; but if it were an Act passed by that House, and interpreted in a British Court of Law, he had no difficulty in saying that the Judges would decide that the omission of these words in the second clause was a plain intimation that it was designed to make a difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic ceremonies—to protect the latter out of doors, and to confine the former to their places of worship. He believed this to be the meaning of the framers of the code. What else could possibly have caused the omission of the words in the paragraph protecting Protestant worship—in every other respect a verbatim repetition of that relating to Ro-
1742
man Catholics? This might be reasonable, or it might not; but certainly it was not legislating alike for Protestants and Roman Catholics. But surely, if the hon. Gentleman would look at the 54th clause, he would find the difference between the Church of Rome and other persuasions made openly and in express terms. That clause made it penal to revile or ridicule any article of the Church of Rome, or any doctrine held by the generality of Christians—that is, it protected the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome; it also protected those great doctrines which the Church of Rome held with other Christians; but it gave no protection against ridicule or reviling to any peculiar doctrines, either of the Church of England or of any other Protestant body. Surely, after this, it was impossible to say that it extended the same protection to all Churches alike. This was the only clause prohibiting assaults by way of ridicule, or reviling upon doctrines. It ran thus:—
"whoever shall publicly blaspheme, or impiously execrate the name of God, or of any of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, or of the Blessed Virgin, or of the saints; or shall revile, or otherwise insult, or ridicule by words, gestures, or exhibitions, any article of the Roman Catholic Church, or an essential article of the Christian religion as received by the generality of Christians, shall be punished with imprisonment."
Right or wrong, no one could deny that this was a special protection to the Church of Rome. The hon. Gentleman appeared not to know of the existence of this clause. Was there not in this mistake of the hon. Gentleman the very strongest argument for asking Ministers not to give their assent at present to this code? If the hon. Gentleman, with all that ability to which he (Mr. Butt) would always bear willing testimony—if he, the Minister responsible for this code, could yet make a statement to the House plainly founded on an obvious mistake as to its provisions, might he not fairly say that Ministers were about to assent to a code of which, in fact, they knew very little? But he must earnestly ask the attention of the House and the Ministry to a much more important matter than even this. It was very difficult to believe that the 50th clause had not been framed—he did not wish to say insidiously or Jesuitically—but if a Jesuit had framed this clause to entrap the Sovereign into a recognition of undue pretensions, and to a guarantee for groundless claims, it could not have been more dexterously framed:—
"whosoever during the performance of the

1743
sacred functions or ceremonies of the Church of the country, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, the maintenance and protection of which in its present position are secured by law and guaranteed by the British Crown, shall disturb the same with violence or with intent to profane, whether within or without places appointed for public worship, shall be punished with imprisonment from seven months to two years."
Now, he asked, what honest object could there be in placing this description of the Roman Catholic Church, and this assertion of its rights, in the middle of a police regulation? Not one word of it was necessary to define the crime. For what object was it introduced, except for the insidious purpose of obtaining the Royal assent to statements that were unfounded in fact? He did not quarrel with the expression "Church of the country;" neither did he dwell upon the designation of the Roman Catholic Church as "the Apostolic Church," although he did think the phrase a very objectionable one in an ordinance to be assented to by a Sovereign who had sworn that it was not so; but he asked their earnest attention to the statement that the present position of the Church in Malta was guaranteed by the British Crown—that is, whatever position that Church now holds de facto, the British Crown is pledged to uphold. What is that position? They had the evidence of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies that those who framed this Ordinance considered it a dominant one. Well, then, the moment the Queen signed this Ordinance, Her Royal faith was pledged to maintain the Roman Catholic Church in its present position—not the one the law would give it, but the one it may have usurped. He should sincerely regret being obliged to support the Motion if the question went to a division, because he agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) that the sooner the matter was settled the better; but he could not consent to purchase even peace by allowing his Sovereign to be insidiously brought into a position of guaranteeing that which it was never intended that the Crown of England should guarantee. There was one way, however, of escaping from the difficulty. Let the Government consent to postpone the ratification of the Ordinance till next Session. An adverse division would, he knew, have an evil effect with the Roman Catholic population of Malta. He there fore earnestly begged of Ministers to avoid this by postponing the assent to this Ordinance. He felt what had been urged by the hon. Gentleman upon this point; but
1744
not even for the sake of peace would he sacrifice such principles as, he believed, were involved in this question; and if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would not give them the assurance that was asked for, he must, although with reluctance, vote for the proposed Address to the Crown.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he was of opinion that the code contained a vast amount of objectionable matter, and that it was alike hostile to civil and religious liberty. He saw no reason why any class of religionists, whether dominant in the State, or established by law, should have any advantage in point of criminal law over any other religion. The speech of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies was not at all satisfactory on this subject. He had admitted that the code awarded one degree more punishment for offences against the Roman Catholic clergy and ceremonies than for any other; and it was just that one degree that he (Mr. Pellatt) objected to. He thought the country was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinnaird) for having brought the subject forward.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must point out the wide construction which the words of the code relating to insults offered to Roman Catholic ceremonies, functions, and articles, might be made to bear. It was a rule with the Roman Catholic Church, that whatever was once made an article of the faith never ceased to be such, though some articles might be suspended for a time, or in their application to certain persons or localities. The doctrine against which the oath of abjuration taken by Members of Parliament was aimed, namely, the "Impious," "heretical," and "damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be deposed and murdered by their subjects," as recited in the oath taken by every Protestant Member at the table of the House, though some Roman Catholics said it was suspended, was still an article of the Church of Rome, which it would be punishable in Malta to revile, or ridicule, or speak in the terms of the Protestant oath, if the criminal code passed in the form in which it was submitted to the House, and had been sanctioned by the Maltese Legislature. This code condemned, in fact, the oath which had been taken by every Member of that House. It might be well to tolerate the Roman Catholic religion; but he hoped the House would not

1745
assent to laws which would render it penal on the part of any of Her Majesty's subjects to except publicly to doctrines which had been abjured by the Parliament of this country. The 51st Article provided that, "if the crime be committed without violence, and without intent to profane," a certain punishment should be inflicted. Now, the basis of British law was, that criminality consisted in the intent; but this code of laws would create criminality without intent. Surely the Government would not sanction such a principle. He did not know what might be the idea of criminality in the minds of the Maltese lawyers, but he objected to this innovation. He objected to the code on all the grounds that had been stated, and because it created offences which Protestant Englishmen could not be expected to avoid; for acts which were laudable in England, would become criminal in Malta. All he asked was, that the Government would reconsider this Maltese code before it received Her Majesty's approval.
MR. HUMEsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, arose from applying principles to Malta which ought only to regulate this country. He had visited Malta in 1809, shortly after it had fallen into our hands. When the French garrison was in possession of the forts, all efforts of the blockading fleet to dispossess them were vain till the inhabitants united with it. When possession was taken, the inhabitants were guaranteed in the free exercise of all the rites and ceremonies of their Church, and protection for the Roman Catholic as the dominant religion. They had an elective assembly in Malta which had altered the laws. Hon. Gentlemen disapproved of those alterations, and they called on that House to interfere, as if those laws were to be applied to Protestants in a Protestant country. They complained of the Roman Catholics for seeking to make their religion dominant, but he feared they were following their example. Many countries were subject to this. The same rules could not be applied to all. In Lower Canada, as in Malta, the Catholics were most numerous, and should be treated as the dominant party.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had called attention to the 54th Article of this code, which imposed certain punishments for reviling or otherwise insulting or ridiculing any article of the Roman Catholic Church, and that hon.
1746
Gentleman had gravely told the House, that it was a doctrine or article of the Roman Catholic Church, that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be deposed and murdered by their subjects. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that that charge had always been denounced as a calumny and a libel by Roman Catholics, who denied that they had ever entertained such an infamous doctrine? Why, Roman Catholics were themselves willing to take the declaration solemnly abjuring any such doctrine for themselves and for their Church. As a Roman Catholic, he protested for himself, and for all his co-religionists whom he knew, that this was not, and, as far as he was aware, never had been, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had also said, that in the case of some of the criminal acts dealt with by this code, intent was excluded from consideration. Well, according to the law of England, there were many crimes of which intent formed no part. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire assaulted any man, the law would punish him, whatever his intent might have been. If the hon. Gentleman libelled any man, whatever his intent might be, the law would punish him. With regard to the allusion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) to the 50th Article, which he said might have been prepared by a Jesuit, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) might observe, that the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman objected were words of limitation, which restrained the operation of the article to rights secured by law or guaranteed by the British Crown. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) would never maintain that the Roman Catholic Church anywhere should be a dominant Church; all he asked was, religious equality for himself and the professors of his faith with those of other persuasions. It must be remembered, however, that in this ease they were not dealing with England, but with a colony which had been annexed to the British Crown under peculiar circumstances, and where the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion—the dominant religion of the Colony—had been guaranteed, in the manner just stated by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume).
MR. WARNERwas afraid that by the proposed code a Protestant would be liable to imprisonment if he should remain covered whilst a procession of what was called "the host" passed by hint in the streets of Malta. By the 51st Article, any one

1747
would be liable to imprisonment who should blaspheme the name of the Holy Trinity, or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, &c. Now, he should like to know, whether, under that article, a Protestant minister in Malta would not be liable to imprisonment if he should venture to speak in his pulpit against the doctrines of the Church of Rome? There was a very valuable institution at Malta, called the Malta Protestant College, and it seemed to him that the 51st Clause would altogether prevent the Professors of that College from lecturing on controversial questions. He concurred with hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, in thinking that there were good reasons why the Government should not agree to such of the articles in the proposed code as concerned divine worship.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in dealing with this question they must consider the position in which they found the Roman Catholic Church in Malta, what was due to the subjects of Her Majesty who were residing in that island, and also what was due to civil and religious liberty on the part of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty. Now, with regard to the first of these points, no one would deny that when we took possession of Malta the great majority of the inhabitants of that island were Roman Catholics, and it was promised and proclaimed to the people of Malta that we would respect and protect their religion. In one of the proclamations of General Pigot, that officer declared that it was his duty as well as his inclination to insure to the Maltese people full protection for their religion and their property. Indeed, in every declaration on the part of the Crown of England with reference to the island of Malta, there was an open and solemn declaration that the religion of the Maltese should be confirmed, maintained, and respected. Now, the religion alluded to in these declarations must be admitted by every one to have been the Roman Catholic religion. It must be recollected that at the period when we took possession of Malta the question was not so much as it now was between the Roman Catholic religion and various denominations of Protestants, but between the Christian religion and those who opposed it. When, however, the English took possession of that island they engaged to protect persons of all religious opinions. Such being the case, we were bound to respect the worship, practice, and faith of the Roman Catholic Church; and in order to do that it was included in that profession that some punishment should be
1748
awarded to those who openly reviled and insulted that faith. It was only that which we exacted here—that persons not belonging to a particular faith should not be allowed to disturb or insult the practice of that faith. In the same way in the island at the present time the code of the 4th of March, 1838, prohibited the publication of any writing reviling, ridiculing, or otherwise insulting any doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This showed what the present law was, which the hon. Member for Perth said was to be altered if this criminal code was adopted by Her Majesty's Government. According to our original declaration, and according to the law at present existing in Malta, the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was to be protected and maintained, and any open insult against it was punishable. The punishment decreed for the offence he had just mentioned was from one to twelve months' imprisonment. Coming next to the proposed alterations of the existing code, he was bound to say that, with regard to the first class of objections which had been made against them, he did not think that they were such as ought to prevent the advisers of the Crown giving their assent to the altered code. With regard to the objection that the Church of England was not to be specially recognised, or put as it were in any way in the position of honour in which it formerly stood, he could only say that he thought that, if the popular Council elected by the people of Malta chose to specify the Roman Catholic religion, or chose to specify any other branch of the Christian religion, they were fully authorised to do so, and we were not entitled to object to it. He thought, likewise, that there was no foundation for the objection made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that under the term "any article of the Roman Catholic Church " might be included that which Roman Catholic Members often said in that House was no part of their religion—that Princes excommunicated by the Pope of Rome might be deposed or murdered by their subjects. Whatever might have been the case with regard to Popes in bygone times, he did not believe that any Roman Catholic would now allow that it was an article of his creed. Therefore, as this code protected articles of the Roman Catholic Church which seemed hardly to differ from those doctrines already protected by the existing law—though, perhaps, the present code was rather more specific in its language, the objections which had been made on this

1749
ground could not be well-founded. Still, observations had been made in the course of the debate which required further consideration. He would not say that they were conclusive against the particular terms which were used, but he certainly felt that they deserved serious and deliberate consideration, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by those legal Gentlemen whom the Government would wish to consult. He was speaking, of course, of the law officers of the Crown in this country. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), that the words used in a parenthesis with respect to the Roman Catholic religion, "the maintenance and protection of which in its present position are secured by law," were quite unnecessary; and he thought further that the words "in its present position" might be interpreted in a manner which at the present time the House would not be prepared to adopt. The hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. Fitzgerald) said, that if the words were left out, the article would be still more extensive. That might be the case, but all he could say was, that the matter was well worthy of further consideration. For his own part, he did not see the necessity of specifying or defining the civil rights of the Roman Catholic Church in a criminal code, when they were only fixing a punishment for an offence. There were some words in other articles of the code which he thought were also liable to exception; the crime of disturbing the ceremonies of the Church of the country or any other worship, if committed without violence or without intention to profane, was to be punished by imprisonment from one to three mouths. He could easily believe that it might not always be necessary to show that there was violence or intent to profane; but in many of these cases he should have thought that two or three days' imprisonment, or a small fine, would have been quite sufficient. He disagreed from the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), if he meant to say that we should not protect the Roman Catholic Church against any person blaspheming the name of the Blessed Virgin; if we protected the Roman Catholic Church at all, we must take its opinions as we found them, and not select any particular one, and declare that we would not protect that. He owned, however, that he thought the words "insulting or ridiculing by words or gestures" were liable to very wide interpretation. He perfectly well remembered—for the matter gave rise to a very lament-
1750
able occurrence—a young Englishman at Macao, where the Roman Catholic religion was dominant, being put into prison by the governor because he did not, whether by design or accident, pull off his hat as a religious procession was passing by. Throughout the whole off these articles there was an absence of that which he thought ought to be examined into—that the offence should be wilful, and with the view of insulting religious worship. The most trifling gesture, if done with the view of insulting the religion of the country, was certainly an offence; but it was one of which the police might take cognisance with the simple purpose of preventing a disturbance. He would not enter further into a description of the code, but he must say that it certainly required further consideration. If upon sending back to Malta the observations which might occur to the persons who could judge of the right value of words far better than he could, the Council there should receive them favourably, and remodel the code in such a manner that Her Majesty's Government could assent to it without objection, he thought they would be right in doing so, as a criminal code was a matter of considerable importance. The Government would then have full power and discretion to assent to the code, and they would be bound to produce all the correspondence on the subject at the beginning of the next Session. All he could say now was, that reference should be made to the law officers of the Crown as to the penal effects of the articles, and that the matter should be considered with a view to secure every respect to the Roman Catholic religion in Malta, and at the same time full civil and religious liberty to all Her Majesty's subjects.
MR. SPOONERthought what had fallen from the noble Lord must be perfectly satisfactory to the House, as he had stated that he would give his best attention to the suggestions that had been thrown out during the discussion, with regard to modifications that ought to be introduced. There was one point in the very first Article which provided for the commission of any offence "within or without any place of worship." Now, that applied only to the Roman Catholic religion; the words "within and without" were not applied to any other form of worship, and he could not understand why there should be that exception. Again, there were the words "insult and outrage," which were very indefinite words, and which were to be

1751
judged of by persons whose feelings were likely to be highly excited on the subject. These words required some further definition and explanation. Another objection he must suggest was the introduction of the word "intention." Now, he did not think that where there was no intention to insult, there could be any offence against religion. However, after the intimation of the noble Lord, he would not detain the House further, but hoped those objections would receive their due consideration.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must express his thanks to the hon. Member (Mr. Kinnaird) for bringing the subject forward, and also to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russel) for the latter part of his speech. The discussion was sure to do good. The time was come when in the eye of the law all religious persuasions must be equal. It was the boast of this country that a slave could not put his foot on any British territory; but the best and the sweetest of all liberties, and the brightest gem of the Crown, was religious liberty, which would enable a man to worship his Maker according to the dictates of his own conscience. He respected the rights of the Roman Catholics equally with his own; he asked nothing for himself that he would not concede to them. Having these sentiments he hoped they would use no weapons but those of reason, scripture, and truth.
MR, KINNAIRDsaid, he must beg to tender his thanks to the noble Lord for the remarks he made on this subject, more particularly as they formed a complete justification to him for bringing it forward. He thought the noble Lord had answered the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies with entire impartiality. The hon. Gentleman had accused him of showing bitterness in his speech; but if the hon. Gentleman would read that speech in the newspapers to-morrow, he would not find a word in it calculated to wound the feelings of any one. After what had been said by the noble Lord, he would not press the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.