Lords Sitting of 7 August 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—3a General Board of Health (No. 3); Coal Duties (London and Westminster and adjacent Counties); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
ROYAL ASSENT.—Medical Charities (Ireland); Grand Jury Cess (Ireland); Representative Peers for Scotland; Gunpowder Stores (Liverpool) Exemption Repeal; Churches and Chapels (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland); United Church of England and Ireland; Ecclesiastical Property Valuation (Ireland); Inverness Bridge (No. 2); Sheep, &c. Contagious Disorders Prevention; Customs; Commissioners of Railways Act Repeal; Steam Navigation; Canada and New Brunswick Boundary; Metropolitan Sewers; Church Building Acts Amendment; General Board of Health (No. 2); New Forest Deer Removal, &c.; Court of Chancery and Judicial Committee; Duchy of Lancaster (High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts); Attornies and Solicitors Regulation Act Amendment; Canterbury Association; Coalwhippers (Port of London); Metropolitan Interment; Emigration Advances (Distressed Districts, Scotland); New Zealand Settlements; Constabulary Force (Ireland); Mercantile Marine Act Amendment; General Board of Health (No. 2A); Battersea Park Amendment and Extension; Crown Estate Paving; Lunatics (India); Appointment to Offices, &c.; Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland); Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Petty Sessions (Ireland); Lands Clauses Consolidation (Ireland); Law of Evidence Amendment; Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement.

PROTESTANT WORSHIP IN ROME.
The EARL of HARROWBY: Having seen recently in the public papers a strong desire expressed on the part of many of Her Majesty's Protestant subjects in this country, and more particularly on the part of the Protestant British inhabitants resident within the walls of the city of Rome, for the erection of a place of public worship within the walls of that capital, I am induced to address a question on that subject to the members of Her Majesty's Government. Hitherto the Church of Rome has
1930
refused to grant to the Protestant subjects of Her Majesty permission to erect such a building; but, under existing circumstances, when the Church of Rome is making large claims on the tolerance of this country, and indeed of all other Protestant countries, perhaps the opportunity is not ill chosen to apply again to the Court of Rome for that permission which has hitherto been systematically and pertinaciously refused. Your Lordships are, perhaps, aware of the encouragement which has hitherto been held out by Her Majesty's Government to all our chaplaincies in foreign countries, within which Protestant churches have been established. Without asking the Government for that assistance which has never been refused elsewhere, the parties to whom I have just alluded are anxious to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers will use their best offices with the Court of Rome to obtain from it permission to erect a suitable Protestant Church within the walls of the city of Rome for the worship of the Protestant Church of England?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to say, that, in consequence of the notice which he had received privately from his noble Friend on this subject, he had made some inquiries regarding it at the Foreign Office. He found that no application had yet been made to the Court of Rome for the erection of a Protestant place of worship within the walls of Rome. It was true that a Protestant place of worship had been erected for British subjects outside the walls of the city of Rome, and that it was adequate for the number of persons who attended Divine service within it. He was confident that when any just complaint should be made on the subject by the British inhabitants of Rome to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, his noble Friend would not be slow in making application for its redress. Any application at present for the erection of a permanent building for the celebration of the Protestant service of the Established Church, would not, he was afraid, be attended with success. Indeed, it was an established maxim of the Court of Rome to have one degree of toleration at Rome, and another for itself in all other countries.
The EARL of HARROWBY: The question, my Lords, is not, whether there is any want of accommodation for the worship of our Protestant countrymen at Rome, but whether we, as Protestants, are to

1931
enjoy the same liberty at Rome as the Roman Catholics, natives and foreigners, enjoy here? The accommodation which we have at Rome for Divine worship is that of a common granary without the walls; and that is not a fit and decent place for Divine worship. As to anything of ecclesiastical splendour, that has hitherto been entirely wanting; and the question really is, whether the Church of Rome will, or will not, permit British Protestants to have some building erected at their own cost, appropriated to their own worship, within the walls of Rome, just as the Roman Catholics of every country have their own places of worship in almost every town in this country. He hoped that the noble Secretary for the Foreign Department would soon be called on to exercise his authority, and to make application to the Court of Rome for this permission, in order that the sincerity of its professions respecting toleration might be put to the test without any disguise.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to say, that if the noble Earl asked him, whether he thought that the Church of Rome would admit English Protestants to the same degree of religious liberty in Rome as English and foreign Roman Catholics enjoyed in England, his answer must be, "I am afraid not."
The BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, I entirely concur in the concluding observation of the noble Marquess, that little success can be hoped for in case any application is made by us for permission to erect a Protestant chapel either in the city or in any part of the dominions of the Bishop of Rome. The noble Marquess has well remarked, that, whether we look at the past history of the Court of Rome, or to the events which are still occurring there, it is evident that there are two points of view in which toleration is viewed by the Court and Church of Rome, namely, the toleration which is to be withholden from others, and the toleration which is to be claimed and enjoyed by themselves. It is true that there is a granary at Rome used as a Protestant chapel by our countrymen; and that it is large enough for those who usually attend it; but our countrymen are accustomed to pay their devotions in buildings where the external and internal decorations are proportional to the important sacred objects to which they are applied. They are, therefore, not content to worship except in a building which has something like the appearance of a temple. In this country
1932
Roman Catholics can already obtain with ease room and space to worship God in the form which is most agreeable to their own consciences; but they are not content with that; on the contrary, although they know that they have already far more than sufficient room in their places of worship, they have put forth, under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome himself, a proposal for building a magnificent cathedral to St. Peter in this city, where the metropolitan cathedral is dedicated to St. Paul. They are anxious, too, to have it erected in great splendour. Surely, then, they cannot blame us if we are seeking to accomplish a similar object in Rome. As to the difficulties thrown in the way of Englishmen desirous of worshipping God at Rome in that splendour which suits at once their ritual and their habits, I have only to say, that a large sum of money has been obtained within the last few weeks, not by indulgences—for we must not shut our eyes to the fact, that the Church of Rome has again had recourse to the practice which originally caused the Reformation, I mean the granting of indulgences to those who shall subscribe their money to the building of this new cathedral, or, in other words, the sale of indulgences—for the erection of a Protestant church or chapel in Rome, without an appeal to any other argument than the attachment and love of British Protestants to the Church of England, its ordinances, and its ritual. Having seen the extraordinary document which has recently been promulgated by the Bishop of Rome calling upon all the faithful to subscribe to the erection of a Popish cathedral in London, to be governed by the Ordinary of London, his Eminence Cardinal Wiseman, I should have deemed myself guilty of an unpardonable dereliction of duty if I had remained entirely silent during this discussion.
The EARL of HARROWBY: I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government has any objections to lay on the table the correspondence which took place in the years 1839 and 1840 between our Minister and the authorities, lay and ecclesiastical, at Naples respecting the application of certain British subjects to build a chapel there for Protestant worship? If I recollect the circumstances aright, application was made by the British consul, on behalf of the British residents at Naples, to have a Protestant chapel erected in that city. If I recollect rightly, the British Minister was unwilling to interfere. Land, how-

1933
ever, was purchased, and the works were begun. The Archbishop of Naples was informed of it, and immediately interposed his prohibition. Ultimately the contract was obliged to be cancelled, the ground was abandoned, and the English Protestants were driven back to worship in the drawing-room of the consul, where, I believe, they still continue to worship. We ought not to shut our eyes to the tendency of acts like these, especially when the Church of Rome is omnipotent in its own temporal dominions, and is aiming to extend its spiritual domination over every region of the Continent. We have been told that a great reaction has taken place, and that the Pope is omnipotent in Continental Europe. If we deemed it necessary to complain of his proceedings in 1839 and in 1840, have we not increased cause to complain of them now? The noble Earl concluded by repeating his question.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that inquiry should be made into the subject.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
The Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill considered.
The EARL of MTNTOmoved, that their Lordships do agree to the Amendments. He allowed that many alterations had been made in the Bill, and there were large omissions from it, which he, for one, very much regretted. At this period of the Session it did seem almost too much to ask their Lordships to assent to these alterations; but as the Bill was of much importance, and affected the interests of a large and industrious body of men, he hoped their Lordships might be induced to overlook the difficulty which had been occasioned by the lateness of the period at which it was remitted to them.
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved, that their Lordships had no means of judging whether the Amendments were right or wrong, for they were not even printed; and if their Lordships agreed to consider them now, they would establish a principle which was capable of unbounded application. This Bill, after having been maturely considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House which sat for sixteen days, and examined no less than thirty witnesses, was sent to the House of Commons a month ago. This day the Bill had been reported and read a third time in the House of Commons; so that the House of Commons itself could hardly know what it had done, and their Lordships must be nearly
1934
in the same state of ignorance. He was aware, however, that certain alterations had been made, which were very material; for instance, the alteration with respect to the colonies, and the alteration with respect to the law of user, were very material. Under these circumstances, a postponement was a matter of course; and if the alterations made by the Commons had the effect of restoring the existing law, the inconvenience of the postponement would be less felt. The Bill made an alteration in the very office of the Lord Chancellor' himself; and he doubted whether the noble Lord had been consulted on the subject. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not.] That disposed of the whole question. Here was a Bill which made an alteration in the office of the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor himself was good enough to tell their Lordships—what he (Lord Monteagle) had fully anticipated—that he knew nothing about it. It must be recollected that they had passed a Bill during this Session to extend a certain degree of protection to persons who had exhibited their inventions in the Crystal Palace; and less inconvenience would consequently follow the postponement of the present measure. But whatever inconvenience might be felt, their Lordships were not responsible for it, and the responsibility must rest with those who had passed the Bill through two stages in one day, and had sent it up to their Lordships on the day before the conclusion of the Session.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought that the alterations which had been made by the Commons were, on the whole, expedient; but he allowed that some time must be given for their consideration.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, that, seeing the sense of the House was against the Motion, he would not press it.
LORD MONTEAGLEthen moved that the Amendments of the Commons be considered that day month.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn; the said Amendments to be considered on this day month.

ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
LORD BEAUMONTmoved, that the House do agree to the Amendments made by the Commons in this Bill.
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the extraordinary and unconstitutional powers conferred by it; but he would only insist upon an objection which was sufficient to defeat the measure, namely, that no notice

1935
had been given on the paper of the intention to move the discussion.
EARL GREYobserved, that there was a difference between this Bill and the last, inasmuch as there was not time in the latter case to consider the Amendments made by the Commons. This, however, related to a subject which had already been discussed by their Lordships, and the House of Commons had not introduced any new matter. He trusted that his noble Friend would persevere in his Motion.
LORD BEAUMONTdid not see any reason why the Amendments should be objected to, except on a question of form, and that was not sufficient to justify their rejection.
The Amendments wore then agreed to without a division.

THE KINGSTON ESTATES AND THE ENCUMBERED ESTATES COMMISSIONERS.
The EARL of KINGSTONmoved for copies of all the affidavits made in the Encumbered Estates Court in Dublin, in the matter of the sale of the estates of the Earl of Kingston, in the counties of Cork, Limerick, and Tipperary, with reference to the value of the said estates, and the qualification of Mr. Collins as a land surveyor and valuator.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that there was no necessity for acceding to the Motion of the noble Earl, as all the affidavits to which he referred could be purchased for the small sum of 2d. or 3d.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kingston) had entrusted him with a petition on the same subject to which his Motion referred. It stated that the landed property of the petitioner amounted in value to the sum of 280,000 l., and that it had been brought into the Encumbered Estates Court at the suit of a single creditor, to whom a sum of 200 l. only was owing. Several lots were put up for sale, but as no bidders appeared, the Chief Commissioner publicly adjourned the proceedings and left the court, followed by a large number of persons, who were in attendance on the occasion. The agent for the petitioner also quitted the court, under the impression that the sale had been adjourned; but Mr. Commissioner Longfield, at the request of some persons who said that they had come for the purpose of bidding, offered to put up any lots that might be called for, and accordingly lot 47, and other lots, were put up, and some of these were sold. The petitioner was advised that under these circumstances
1936
the sale was not good; but the property had been already conveyed away, and the purchaser had obtained a Parliamentary title. This was the principal ground of complaint contained in the petition; and he (Lord Beaumont) would say, that if the facts stated in the petition were correct, he thought the noble Earl was perfectly entitled to approach the House and complain of what had taken place. He trusted that an inquiry would be made into the circumstances, and that Mr. Commissioner Longfield, who was well known for his great ability, would be afforded an opportunity of giving some explanation of his share in the transaction.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought it was of the greatest importance to the working of the Encumbered Estates Act, that the Commissioners should have a full opportunity of explaining and answering the matter in that petition.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLsaid, he knew a case of a sale having been adjourned in the same court, and fixed upon to take place on a certain future day; yet a private sale had taken place before the appointed time.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, it was not regular to have such charges made against the Commissioners, at a time when no noble Lord was in a condition to answer them.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLsaid, that was the last opportunity he should have of calling attention to the subject for some time. He had also to observe upon the publication of the under valuation of the property, to make it look as if it had sold well; and there was also another plan pursued, namely, that of leaving out the reversionary value of property.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEalso deprecated the practice of making any such charges as could not then be fairly met.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLsaid, his general charges were notorious in Ireland.
The Motion was understood to be agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.