Lords Sitting of 27 July 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Boroughs Relief; Workhouse Loans (Ireland); Slave Trade (Persian Gulf).
2a Defects in Leases Suspension; Railways Abandonment; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Stamp, &c. Allowances; Treasury Instruments; Customs; Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; General Board of Health; Metropolitan Sewers; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Reported—Dublin Improvement; Pilotage; New Forest and Waltham Forest; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Collection of Rates (Dublin).
3a Bankruptcy (Ireland); Judgments (Ireland); Petty Bag, &c. Offices Amendment; London Corporation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fortescue, from Plymouth and Dalkeith, in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill.—By Lord Stanley, from Bath and Wells, for an Alteration in the Management of Educational Grants; also from Tipperary, for Protection from unrestricted Foreign Competition; also from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the Pilotage Bill.—By Lord Redesdale, from Canterbury, against the Stamp, &c. Allowances Bill.—By the Earl of Rochester, from Chelmsford, against the Granting any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—By Earl Fitzhardinge, from Bristol, for the Abolition of Intramural Interments.

BANKRUPTCY LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMannounced to their Lordships that this Bill had now come back to their Lordships—a Bill which he declared to be of vast importance to the law, in the judicature, and to the mercantile community at large. As he was about to ask them to assent to all the alterations of the Commons, with the exception of two clauses, from which he must ask them to dissent, he would venture to intrude upon their attention with a statement on which he thought that the fate of this Bill for the present Session would materially depend. He hoped that the House of Commons would not refuse to accede to his proposition, but would meet him, as he was prepared to meet them, in a spirit of mutual accommodation. The Bill, which, as their Lordships were well aware, had passed unanimously in that House, had gone down five or six weeks ago to the other House of Parliament. That body, approving of its principle, had given it a second reading, and had referred the settlement of its details to a Select Committee.

1017
Unfortunately, on that Select Committee it was not found possible, from their numerous avocations, to place the most eminent Chancery lawyers who adorned the benches of the other House of Parliament. But on that Committee were some of the most eminent Members of the Common Law bar. The Attorney General had himself taken charge of the Bill, and the Committee could not have had an abler chairman (Mr. Spencer Walpole). The rest of the Committee had no particular concern with the bankruptcy law—they were mercantile men from Manchester, Liverpool, and the city of London; there were also some of the Members from the great trading towns of Yorkshire. The first objection which the Committee made to the Bill, related to the form of it. Now, he had borrowed the form of it from the French code, which was universally admired throughout Europe, and which, he thought, was the most suitable to all parties. The Committee, however, departed from his plan, recurred to ancient forms, and set their faces against all innovations. The bankruptcy code, as he had framed it, consisted of 378 articles, numbered in succession for the convenience of citation. The Committee struck out a considerable number of his "articles," and because they thought the word "article" a bad word, expunged it from the Bill, and substituted for it the word "sections." They also adopted Roman and not Arabic numerals; and the Bill had been sent back to them with an X for 10, and with a C for 100, an alteration no doubt very important and very praiseworthy, but for which he could see no reason whatsoever. The Bill, however, so mutilated, had come back to them, he would not say changed at nurse, but much altered in its external appearance. And all this was done to avoid innovation, although neither he nor any other lawyer had ever heard of the word "section." Then the Committee divided the whole Bill into chapters. It was divided into 29 chapters, all of which were headed by the formal words:—"Be it enacted "—which added something to the length of the Bill, but nothing to its real value. He did not object to this; but he merely wished to explain how the progeny of their Lordships had been altered by the fostering care of the other House. A want of the practical knowledge of the bankrupt law generally, and also of the working of that law, had caused the Committee to make great alterations in the Act, as
1018
he thought, much to its detriment. First of all, the examination clauses, to which the mercantile community attached much importance, had been left out of the Bill. All the provisions as to fraudulent and secret transfers of property had boon expunged, which would not have been the case, he would venture to say, had any of his learned Friends of the Chancery bar been members of the Committee. Those excellent persons would either have not struck the clauses out, or, if they had, would have discovered an efficient substitute for them. He spoke on that point from personal knowledge of the men, and also from personal communication with them on the point. Another alteration had been made in giving power to hear evidence in the Court of Appeal, upon the supposition that there was an intermediate court of appeal in which such evidence was taken. Now, that intermediate court of appeal had no existence. He had received, and would read to the House, two memorials from Manchester—and the last was from the Chamber of Commerce of that city, dated July 25, 1849—both stating that this Bill, in consequence of these erasures, was not worth having, and that the Bankruptcy Bill should be at once rejected in the hope of getting a better next Session. Now, though he could readily enough concur in the chagrin of these parties, he could not altogether coincide in their conclusions. He could not consent to reject the Amendments of the Commons; for such a rejection would involve the total destruction of the Bill. The merchants of London and the traders of Yorkshire agreed with the Bill, but lamented the changes made in it. They were of opinion, for several reasons with which he would not trouble their Lordships, that it was an important improvement on the present law, upon which future improvements might be engrafted in another Session; and such improvements he pledged himself to introduce early in the next Session. Clearly then, as practical men engaged in accomplishing a practical object, it was their duty to listen to the voice of London and Yorkshire, and not to that of Manchester and Liverpool. Nevertheless, he felt some surprise and great regret that the Select Committee did not take extraordinary precautions to call before them the Bankruptcy Commissioners. Mr. Holroyd, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Fonblanque, and others, had been engaged for the last 18 or 20 years in bankruptcy;

1019
and yet not one of those learned personages had been called before the Committee. He (Lord Brougham) went to give his evidence before them; but he was a poor substitute for such high authority as theirs. He could not help mentioning another thing—that during the alteration of this Bill in the Select Committee, another Bill had been sent up to their Lordships which had been passed unanimously in all its stages in the Commons—which had been read a second time, and committed by their Lordships—and which was even now waiting for a third reading. Would their Lordships believe it?—the very clauses which had been rejected in the English Bankruptcy Consolidation Bill, had been inserted in the Irish Bankruptcy Bill, and passed without opposition. Their Lordships were, therefore, either going to provide two different codes of bankruptcy for the two countries on each side of the Channel; or, if they were not, and were determined to make the two Bills the same, they must reject all the clauses in the Bill of the Commons, as the Commons had rejected all the clauses in the Bill of the Lords. The House of Commons had spent, he believed, just two hours and ten minutes in going through the 278 clauses of this Bill, allotting, on the average, to each clause just twenty-five seconds of time, which, he was informed, was a very large average for that House at this period of the Session. The result of the debate—if such it might be called—which took place upon the Bill in another place, did not, in his opinion, necessarily prove that they were right, and their Lordships were wrong. He must now say one word on the examination of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee. He confessed that he was alarmed when he heard that the House of Commons had sent his digest of the criminal law to a Select Committee for examination. He immediately said to himself—"What will now become of my digest of the criminal law, on which the first lawyers of the day have been engaged for many years, at great public cost? There are in it 1,200 articles, but in the Bankruptcy code there are not 400. If the House of Commons can't give faith and credit to the labours of select commissioners, and of learned professional men—if they will weigh every article word by word, and sentence by sentence, the sooner the Criminal Law Commission is brought to an end the better, for no digest can be passed though either House of Parliament."
1020
The fact was, that matters of such a nature must be disposed of in confidence; and such was the doctrine laid down by the manly mind of Lord Lyndhurst, when he was Lord Chancellor, and such was the doctrine upon which he acted with regard to some legal reforms which he (Lord Brougham) had proposed. Well, the Select Committee examined witnesses, and among others, a learned Judge of the Court of Chancery. They asked him—" Have you considered the Bill before the Committee as to the administration and consolidation of the law of bankruptcy? "And again—" Have you anything further to propose? "What was the answer which the learned Judge gave? It was this—" That is a very large subject. I will answer you any question you may choose to ask, but I cannot enter at once into a treatise on bankruptcy. Whilst the Bill was before the House of Lords, not thinking it likely that I should be examined, I examined it very little; and it was not till it left the Lords"—or, in other words, till it became a Bill under the unanimous sanction of the House—" that I gave more attention to it; but it is a pamphlet of more than a hundred pages." He had a profound respect for the judicial bench, and more especially so whilst those who wear the ermine learn and practise the first lesson of practical wisdom for a judicial officer, namely, that just in proportion as a Judge, by his rank and dignity, is well adapted for defensive operations, he is ill adapted by his rank and dignity for offensive operations. He should respect a Judge in proportion as he respected himself, by showing that he did not mistake obscure and mysterious sentences for profound judgment, smart decisions for easy judicial sagacity, and pert flippancy for party wit. So long as the Judge allowed him (Lord Brougham) to respect him, the Judge would command his respect as his undoubted due. He (Lord Brougham) had no occasion to defend the House of Lords, or this Bill, the production of its wisdom, which had been decorously called "a pamphlet of more than a hundred pages." Some persons found it easier to jibe than to read and comprehend, and of those persons he would not say that this witness was not one. Those who hated innovation in the form of an enactment, would, in this Bill, not find that ground of complaint; at least, they would only discover it to a limited extent, for they would find that the whole of the repealing part of the Bill was

1021
comprised in a single sentence—he alluded to that which repealed all the former Acts. With respect, however, to the schedules, he had a very different remark to make, for he found that the Commons had made numerous exceptions which were likely to create very great confusion. There was also a slight omission respecting all the salaries of all the Judges. There was, moreover, another slight omission, the omission of the word "not" in a most important place. Then, the power of making-rules and regulations, with the consent of the Great Seal, had been placed in the hands of eight commissioners, including the senior commissioner. But, according to the plan now proposed, any eight commissioners might in the country, without consulting any of the metropolitan commissioners, make any rules and regulations they thought proper; and those rules and regulations would be of sufficient authority to govern the proceedings of all the commissioners, not only throughout the country, but in the metropolis likewise. He had now only to add, that he proposed to make two or three alterations in the Amendments sent up to them from the House of Commons. Those alterations would relate to executions, and to fraudulent and secret transfers of property. This, however, should not prevent his proposing to the House any other measure on the subject in the course of the next Session of Parliament. It only remained for him to move, that their Lordships do agree to all the Amendments made by the House of Commons, with the exception of the omission of the first Clause, and in the schedule with the insertion of the word printed in italics.
LORD CAMPBELLhad no objection to this Motion; but he hoped that when his noble and learned Friend came more minutely to examine the Bill, he would find that it was not open to so many objections as it seemed liable to when he first addressed the House on the subject. He assured their Lordships that the Attorney General, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst, had given the measure their most careful attention; the Committee comprehended many men of great eminence in the profession of the law, and it was evident that they had taken the greatest possible pains in revising and perfecting the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMdeclared that he did not mean to cast the least slight upon his hon. and learned friend, Mr. Walpole,
1022
for whom he entertained the highest possible respect.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEhoped that some Bill would be introduced next Session for the purpose of completing the measure; but for the present, his Lordship was understood to say that the Bill now before their Lordships had better be passed as it was.
LORD REDESDALEwished to take that opportunity of presenting a petition from a gentleman of the name of Church, who held the office of Clerk of the Enrolments in the Court of Bankruptcy. The House of Commons had not abolished the office; for if they had, he might, perhaps, in the regular way, have claimed compensation; but they had abolished the practice of enrolment, by which means he had been deprived of all his fees. It was on these grounds that he hoped his claims would not be overlooked.
LORD BROUGHAMadmitted that it was a case of great hardship; but the office was unnecessary, and the House of Lords had no power of giving compensation. With respect to the Bill before them, they must send a message to the Commons, intimating that they had agreed to the Amendments with Amendments.
Commons' Amendments considered and agreed to with Amendments, and Bill sent to the Commons.

DEFECTS IN LEASES SUSPENSION BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD CAMPBELLobjected to the second reading of the Bill, the effect of which would be to suspend, until the end of the next Session of Parliament, one of the most useful Bills that had passed the Legislature this Session. He had the honour of proposing the second reading of the Defects in Leases Bill, the operation of which it was proposed to suspend by the Bill now before the House. That Bill was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who drew up a sketch of it, the measure having been perfected by his learned friend, Mr. Coulson, whose assistance to the Government in such cases was of the highest value. The object of the Bill was to remove a scandal which existed in the law of England, and also the prejudice which existed on the subject of entails and family settlements. Under the law as it stood previous to the passing of that Act, repeated instances had occurred of leases having been declared

1023
void in consequence of some defect in their execution; and one of the provisions of the Bill was to the effect, that, in cases where it should be found that any inaccuracy existed in the execution of the powers for granting leases, they should not be declared void, as they were then liable to be, but that they should be held to be good, so far, at least, as the granting of the lease was concerned. The remaining enactments of the Bill, he considered, were of so beneficial a nature, that he could not consent to the suspension of the Act as proposed in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. Had the Bill been one proposing merely to remedy any defects in the Bill, he would not, perhaps, have had any objection to offer to it; but as the case at present stood, he felt it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the observations made by his noble and learned Friend might be fair enough, but if their Lordships would only give the Bill a second reading, it might be amended in Committee.
On Question, resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a.

RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The EARL of GRANVILLE, in moving the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Railways Abandonment Bill, stated that he had received no additional information since yesterday, calculated to induce them to view the measure more favourably than they had previously done; but he still was of opinion that it would be advantageous to pass the Bill. As the law at present stood, the shareholders in railway companies could not be proceeded against by landowners otherwise than in the Court of Chancery. A suit of that nature, he understood, would occupy about two years; and after it was over, the landlord might find, and probably would find, that the only property which the company possessed was a certain ditch that they had cut through his lawn. Besides that, the wealthy shareholders found it very hard upon them to pay for injuries inflicted through a pertinacious prosecution of the project by men who had no property. The measure which he recommended to the acceptance of their Lordships would have the effect of relieving landlords from the necessity of proceeding in the Court of Chancery for a specific performance of contract; and it
1024
would protect one class of shareholders against another. Doubtless there was a highly respectable and intelligent class of men, the Parliamentary agents, who would lose rather than gain by the provisions of the Bill. The money, however, that would cease to go into their pockets would be all for the benefit of the shareholders in companies.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it would tend to abrogate the authority of their Lordships, and would devolve upon the Railway Commissioners greater powers than were ever exercised by their Lordships, or any Committee of either House of Parliament. He would not occupy their time by going into the clauses of the Bill; but merely state this, that one of the principal reasons for passing this Bill had been to avoid the great expense individual companies had to undergo by coming before Parliament; but he wanted to see how that expense was to be avoided. If the Railway Commissioners were to sit and listen to evidence, and hear the speeches of counsel, then no doubt they would arrive at as proper a decision as a Committee of their Lordships' House; but he did not see how the expense would be avoided. And if the Railway Commissioners were to allow a company to be dissolved on the mere statement of the parties without inquiry, that would be an objectionable mode of proceeding.
LORD REDESDALEthought that they could not effectually legislate on the subject without having more time to consider it.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas in favour of the principle of the Bill, but did not think they could do justice to that principle by carrying it through this Session.
The EARL of GRANVILLEsaid, that after the statements which had been made by his noble Friends opposite, he would not press the Bill.
On Question, that the word "now" stand part of the original Motion,
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a

PILOTAGE BILL.
House in Committee.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwished to know whether there had been any communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Trinity Board as to the principles upon which they were to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the Pilotage Bill. By the Bill as it now stood, the Trinity Board could give, at their discretion,

1025
a license for any ship to any port. Under an Act of George IV. a pilot could not obtain a license unless he had been mate for three years in a vessel of 80 tons; or a master for one year with a vessel of the same size. If he had not either qualification, it was necessary that he should have been seven years a servant of the Board, in the appointment of pilot, or five years a pilot's apprentice. He wished to know what restrictions the Trinity House intended to place itself under in the exercise of its discretion. It was not safe to give arbitrary discretionary powers to bodies of men or to individuals, unless there was an absolute necessity. By the 25th section of George IV., the owners of vessels were not liable for loss if the pilot was a certified one. Now, he wished to know whether under this Act the owner would be liable if the vessel was lost by the incompetence of the master. This was very important to know; and if the Bill had been sent up in time, their Lordships could have attended to it and to other important points. He held in his hand a letter, dated the 24th of July, and written by the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships, directing that seven or ten pilots should be in readiness at Cove, to take charge of the Royal squadron on the 5th of August. He alluded to this letter in order to show the necessity that existed for having a supply of pilots. If this Act were to come into extensive operation, there would not, in the present case, be ten pilots found to take charge of Her Majesty's fleet. He had stated last night, that he saw no objection to give certificates to the captains of steam vessels plying between the ports of the united kingdom and the opposite ports of the Continent, because, from the circumstance of their coming into port so often—perhaps two or three times a week—they must know the difficulties of the harbour. In these cases he did not sec any objection to make the masters of vessels the pilots; but if they were to allow the captains of vessels which had made long voyages to be their own pilots, they would run great danger; because the shifting of the sands, the changes of buoys, lights, and the appearance of the coast, required the experience of a man who lived upon the spot, and watched the movements of the tides and currents. He believed that the masters of Her Majesty's ships were not allowed the expense of pilotage in English ports, and it might be the same in Irish
1026
ports; but the letter he had read showed the distrust of the Admiralty in the knowledge of the masters—and they were right; for he himself would not trust their knowledge, except where they had been accustomed to a particular locality for a certain time.
LORD BYRONthought this Bill ought to have been called the "Steam Pilotage Bill." Had its provisions been in accordance with that title, it would have been most beneficial and quite unobjectionable.
EARL TALBOTobserved, that any person who had brought his ship home in heavy weather, must know the advantage of having a pilot acquainted with the coast. He hoped the Government would alter the Bill, so as to apply it only to steamers.
The EARL of GRANVILLEwished to state, in reply to the question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), that the result of the communications held with the Trinity Board, was a condition, on the part of the Government, that the powers conferred should be exercised with great caution and prudence. Under the new law, the owner would be responsible for the conduct of the person who acted for him as pilot, instead of being exonerated, as he was at present. He could not admit that the peculiar circumstances of Her Majesty's voyage to Ireland at all affected the commercial question at issue; and, as regarded the question of general safety, he thought sufficient credit was not given to the owners of vessels for a desire to preserve their own vessels from shipwreck, at whatever cost.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that nothing could be more necessary and proper than to take every possible precaution for Her Majesty, but it was likewise absolutely necessary that every possible precaution should be taken of Her Majesty's ships. The noble Earl should remember also that only one Royal person could go in one ship; and that one pilot only, therefore, would be required for Her Majesty's safety, whereas the others were required for the rest of the squadron.
Bill reported without Amendment.

TITLES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN THE COLONIES.
LORD REDESDALE, in moving for correspondence relating to the precedence of Roman Catholic Bishops in the colonies, would remind the House, that last year he drew their attention to a circular addressed by the noble Earl opposite to the Governors

1027
of all the colonies, in which, referring to a communication he had received from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the effect that by the Bequests Act the Legislature had given to Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops corresponding rank with the Prelates of the Church, he desired that the same should be conceded to them in the colonies. The noble Earl refused to produce this letter of Lord Clarendon, as being a private document, but admitted that his interpretation of the law was incorrect, and that no precedence whatever was accorded to those Prelates by the Act in question. As, however, much mischief has arisen from this mistake, he thought it desirable again to call the attention of the House to the subject, the more so as Her Majesty is about to proceed to Ireland to be received there by the same Lord Lieutenant. He much regretted that this question should have arisen. The subject ought not to have been officially noticed, for it was not one for official interference. He was confident that all right-minded persons would always be disposed to concede proper rank to the Prelates of any branch of the Catholic Church, even though they might consider that branch to be corrupt in its doctrines, in the same way as rank by courtesy is granted to foreign nobility. But as it would be improper, unconstitutional, and derogatory to the supremacy and dignity of the Crown for a Secretary of State to direct officially that rank should be conceded to foreign nobles, and determine what rank, making it in some cases above that of our own nobles, so is it equally objectionable that he should determine the rank of Prelates appointed by a foreign authority, and not deriving their titles to office from the Sovereign of these realms. The only way in which the noble Earl can release himself from the unfortunate difficulty into which he has plunged, is by withdrawing all his public and official orders on the subject, as founded originally on a mistake, and leaving the matter to the good feelings and courtesy of the people, at home and in the colonies. When he wrote the circular, I believe that he had no idea that any difficulty would arise from it. The policy of the Romish Church being to set itself as much as possible above our own, advantage was taken of their Bishop in Australia being an Archbishop, to claim precedence for him over the Bishop of Sydney. A correspondence has taken place on the subject, and he had understood that
1028
the noble Earl has laid it down that the Bishop of Sydney, having metropolitan jurisdiction, should have precedence of the Romish archbishop, though himself only a bishop. This is a lame attempt to escape from the difficulty of having proposed to give to Romish archbishops a corresponding rank to our archbishops. Strictly speaking, an archbishop has no rank as such, except precedence over the bishops of his Church. There is no archbishops' bench in this House, but the archbishops sit at the head of the bishops' bench. The Archbishop of Canterbury takes precedence of the Lord Chancellor, who takes precedence of the Archbishop of York, showing that there is no rank belonging especially to archbishops, but that the Primate of all England has one rank granted to him in right of his office, and the Primate of England another, and not a corresponding rank, in right of his office—both, too, settled by Act of Parliament, and affording no guide for the placing of archbishops of foreign appointment. The rank proposed to be given by Lord Clarendon, would be derogatory to the Queen's supremacy. According to his mistaken interpretation of the Bequests Act, the Roman Catholic archbishop in the Ulster district, was to take precedence after the Archbishop of Armagh, but before the Archbishop of Dublin, which would be conceding to the Pope not only the right to make an archbishop with rank here, but to make an Archbishop of Armagh and a primate of all Ireland. Nor would the difficulty end here. Supposing rank to be granted to Irish and colonial prelates as indicated in Lord Clarendon's letter and the colonial circular, what rank would be conceded to one if made a Cardinal? He wished also to be informed what rank was to be given to Roman Catholic prelates in England, as well as what has been decided upon in the colonies.
EARL GREYsaid, the papers moved for by the noble Lord were produced last night in the House of Commons, and of course they would also be laid before their Lordships. With regard to the question that had been raised, the real state of the case was this: No bishops, either of the English Established Church or of any other, had any right to rank, properly speaking, except as Lords of Parliament; and the bishops of the Irish Church only had rank, because by the Act of Union they were entitled to the rank which they previously possessed. Therefore no bishop had a

1029
right to rank as such, except by virtue of that statute, or as Lords of Parliament; but for many years it had been the practice—unfortunately, as he thought—to extend to bishops of the English Established Church in the Colonies the style and title given to bishops in this country. That, however, had been done, as he believed, entirely in error; but as in certain colonies the Protestant bishops received precedence by courtesy, it came to be considered that the Roman Catholic rather than the Protestant bishops were entitled to it in those colonies where the majority of the population consisted of Catholics. And in colonies like New South Wales, where the majority was Protestant, although there was yet a large proportion of Catholics, the Catholic bishops had the same right, and were paid their salaries precisely in the same way, as the bishops of the Protestant Church; and the Protestant Church there not being more established than the Roman Catholic, it was considered a great social inequality that the bishop of the one Church should have a title that was denied to that of the other. Upon that principle it was that he (Earl Grey) issued his order that the title—the mere courtesy title—should be conceded to Catholic bishops as well as to those of our own Church. Following out that principle, he had instructed the Governor of New South Wales not to allow the Roman Catholic archbishop to take the precedence of the bishops of our Church; and the Catholic bishop at Melbourne having claimed to be called Bishop of Melbourne, he had instructed the Governor that the only Bishop of Melbourne was the Rev. Dr. Bennett, who was appointed by Her Majesty. He had also instructed him not to admit the pretensions of the Roman Catholics to have their Church recognised as if it were the only "Catholic" Church, but always to use the term "Roman" before the word Catholic when mentioning that communion officially. As to the case put of a Cardinal visiting this country, that had never occurred in his official experience, and he declined to enter into that part of the question.
LORD REDESDALEexpressed himself gratified by much of what had fallen from the noble Earl; but he had not answered his questions. For instance, if he still adhered to anything like his former proposition, what rank would be give to any of the Roman Catholic prelates in this kingdom or in the colonies if advanced to the rank of Cardinal?
EARL GREYsaid, that till the case arose, he declined to answer the question.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, that he was sure if any Cardinal came over to this country, every person would call him his Excellency.
LORD REDESDALE: That is no answer to my question.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.