Sitting of 30 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Debtors and Creditors; Transfer of Property.
Reported. — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Woods and Forests Accounts; Grand Canal (Ireland); Clerks to Attorneys; Spirits (Ireland); Piccadilly Improvement; Merchant Seamen.
3o. and passed:—Protection to Purchasers, etc. (Ireland); Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Courts of Common Law Process; Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland); Militia Pay; Privy Council.
Private.—1o. Hough's Divorce; Morton's Estate.
2o. Gervis's Estate; Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate.
Reported.—Lady Le Despencer's Estate; Harris's Estate; Passingham's Estate; Wilson's Estate; Ladbroke's Estate; Bishop of London's Estate; Bowyer's Estate; Werrington, etc. Curacies; Devayne's Estate.
3o. and passed:—Chcape's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. W. B. Baring, from Calcutta, for Inquiry respecting China.—By Mr. Brotherton, from J. Hindle, and by Mr. M. Philips, from Wm. Carr, for Alteration of Law of Blasphemy.—By Mr. Wyse, from Society of Ancient Art, and Institute of Fine Arts, Dublin, for Encouragement of the Fine Arts.—By Mr. C. Russell, from D. Tupper, complaining of Power of Royal Court, Guernsey. — By Mr. Clive, from Montgomery, and Pool, against Repeal of Local Acts (Poor Law).—By Colonel Damer, from Portarlington, for Extending Small Debts Bill to Ireland.

TIDAL HARBOURS—MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN.
Colonel D. Damerappeared at the Bar with a Message from Her Most Gracious Majesty, which was brought up and read as follows:—
"I have received your Address relating to the several Tidal Harbours, Ports, and Creeks of the United Kingdom.
"My Consideration shall be given to the subject to which your Address refers."

COOPERS' TRADE.
Mr. Humein calling the attention of the House to the present distressed state of the Coopers' Trade throughout Great Britain, begged to be permitted to say a few words respecting the causes in which that depression of so useful and important a branch of artisanship had originated. Before the alteration of the Tariff, the trade was comparatively prosperous; but the changes introduced into the imports of West-India produce by that measure, had thrown the trade in casks and cooperage into the United States, where no duties were laid upon staves, and where, in consequence, the coopers worked at an advantage of 33 per cent. above those who

1561
had formerly supplied the planters with casks. The fisheries were affected in like manner, for the South Sea whalers, which formerly took their supplies of casks from coopers in this country, now had recourse to the cheapest markets, and the difference was so enormous as to render it a matter of no wonder to any person conversant with the fact, that this branch of trade was altogether declining, and that the fisheries themselves were slipping out of the hands of the English seamen. All that the British coopers sought for was, to be placed upon the same footing with respect to the price of the raw material with their foreign competitors, and to be suffered to procure oak staves, the staple of their occupation, at the same relative duties. The hon. Member moved that this House will early in the next Session of Parliament, "take the Petitions of the coopers into consideration, with a view of relieving them from their present distress."
Mr. Gladstonethought the class of persons whose case the hon. Gentleman advocated charged their distress upon causes to which it was not fairly attributable. They appeared to entertain the impression that their misfortunes were to be traced to the alterations in the Tariff effected in 1842. He (Mr. Gladstone) was prepared to contend, on the contrary, that that change in the law had materially improved their condition. He certainly inferred, at the time that change was proposed, that the parties interested in this branch of trade were perfectly satisfied with the contemplated alteration, for they made no remonstrance against it. The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to suppose that a prohibitive duty had been imposed on the importation of American staves into the West Indies previously to 1842; but, so far from that being the case, the duty imposed on the importation of American staves into those colonies before 1842 was very moderate—not more than 10 or 12 per cent. on the value of the staves. He believed that the depression which had taken place in this branch of trade was attributable, in a great degree, to the falling-off in the exports from this country to the West Indies. There had also, he might observe, been a material reduction in the exports from the United States to our West-India Colonies. This trade, he might remind the House, so far as those colonies were concerned, depended in a great measure upon the whale fishery,
1562
which within the last ten or twelve years had been much less successful than formerly. Another cause of the depression in this trade might be that, during the years 1842 and 1843, a very high price had ruled for Baltic staves, in consequence of an extremely restricted supply. But there had also been changes in branches of trade in this country which had had considerable effect upon the coopers' trade. In London that trade was dependent in a great measure upon the demand of brewers; and he understood that the brewers had lately adopted a new system of gathering in their casks from the public-houses. The consequence was, that the quantity of empty casks in the vaults of public-houses was considerably reduced, and a temporary slackness was imparted to the trade. This circumstance, he believed, had had a material effect upon the coopers' trade in London. But another circumstance which had undoubtedly affected the London trade was this:—that much of the brewing trade had been transferred from London to Burton-upon-Trent, and there had consequently been a reduced demand for casks in London. He believed, however, that the condition of the trade at the present moment was not so bad as the hon. Member for Montrose supposed, for he found that, during the first six months of the present year, there had been a considerable increase as compared with the first six months of the last year. He believed, therefore, that the distress under which the coopers were now labouring could not be ascribed to the changes of 1842; that distress had been considerably alleviated, and he had reason to hope that the trade was gradually improving.
Mr. Huttbelieved that the coopers, one of the most industrious classes in this country, were in a state of great distress; but he did not consider this a proper time to enter into a discussion of this subject, and he was, therefore, content to leave the matter for the present in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. But unless this [question was fairly taken up in the next Session of Parliament, he would co-operate with any one, either in that House or out of it, to force upon the Government the importance of placing this matter on a more satisfactory footing.
Motion negatived.

EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.
The Earl or Lincolnrose, to move for leave

1563
to introduce a Bill to empower Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods to form a terrace and embankment, with convenient landing-places for the public, on the Middlesex shore of the River Thames, between Westminster and Blackfriars bridges. It was not his intention to press this Bill during the present Session of Parliament. He merely moved for leave to bring in the Bill, in order that parties whose interests it affected, and hon. Members of that House, especially the metropolitan Members, might have ample time to consider its details, and to form an opinion as to its merits, before the commencement of an-other Session of Parliament. It was therefore, unnecessary for him to waste the time of the House by urging the necessity of such a measure, to meet the evils complained of in connexion with the navigation of that important river on which the metropolis was situated. He would only remind the House, that the year before last a Commission was appointed by Her Majesty to take into consideration any improvements that might be suggested; and the Members of that Commission were deeply impressed with the importance of effecting an improvement in the navigation of the river Thames. That Commission drew up a Report, which he (Lord Lincoln) laid on the Table some three or four months ago; but, as that Report was extremely voluminous, and accompanied by numerous plans, he thought it would not be right to call upon the House to consider this subject during the present Session of Parliament. He conceived the better course would be, to consider that Report in connexion with the present Bill. It had been suggested that the expense of the proposed improvements should be defrayed by a tax upon coals imported into the City of London; but (as we understood the noble Lord) he had not introduced any Clause into the present Bill to enable the imposition of such a tax, though he thought, if an impost of this nature could be justified, it would be with the view of effecting the improvements contemplated by this measure. He would not now, however, enter into any discussion as to the propriety or impropriety of such a tax; but he hoped, under the circumstances, the House would permit the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Huttthought it right to say that, if any tax upon coals were proposed, he, and those hon. Members whose duty it
1564
was to protect the interests of the inhabitants of the northern districts of this kingdom, would feel it their duty to give their strenuous opposition to the Bill; and he hoped they would be supported by all those who believed there was either wisdom or common sense in the principles of political economy.
Mr. Hume: If the noble Lord had 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. to spare, he would oppose his plan. The increase of the tax upon coals would be attended by most mischievous consequences. The embankment, instead of being an improvement, would be the greatest possible impediment to the navigation, but he would say no more on the subject, as the Bill was to be postponed until next Session—"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
Sir F. Trenchadvocated the erection of a new bridge on the other side of the House of Parliament, and proposed that old Westminster-bridge should be continued until the new Houses of Parliament were completed. Instead of putting a tax on coals, he would suggest, that the Government should erect a railroad on the site of the embankment. This railroad would not only pay its own expense, but the expense of the embankment, and would at the same time greatly add to the embellishment of the river.
Leave given.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. Mackinnonrose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Improvement in the Health of Towns in 1842, which states:
"That the practice of interment within the precincts of large towns, is injurious to the health of the Inhabitants thereof, and frequently offensive to public decency."
Also, to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, as follows:
"The practice of burial in the Church or Chapel, appears to us in many respects injurious, in some instances by weakening or deteriorating the fabric of the Church, and in others by its tendency to affect the lives or health of the inhabitants; we are of opinion that this practice should in future be discontinued."
The hon. Member said, it is not my desire to make any lengthened statement or to expatiate on a nuisance that is felt by every member of the community. It is a singular fact that the practice of mixing

1565
the dead with the living, has been for centuries exploded by all parts of the world where the slightest symptom of a civilized state of society was to be found, that two thousand years ago it was not tolerated any where, and yet, that in the nineteenth century such an abomination should not only be practised, but be general in all populous districts in Great Britain and Ireland; in this Island comprising a population the most civilized, the most wealthy, and the most enlightened of any portion of the globe. In this instance, the proverb that "extremes meet," is verified, we witness the greatest possible degree of luxury and refinement, and wealth in this metropolis, mixed up with the grossest barbarism, brutality, and indecency in those places, and in the manner in which the remains of the departed are deposited. Let any ordinary person, high or low, rich or pool, be asked, in the streets of this town, his sentiments as to the various burial places, and as to the manner in which the remains of the dead are desecrated? and he will answer you, that it is quite an abomination and a disgrace, both to the Legislature and to the nation, that it should so continue; let any one who is sceptical on the subject, go, at this moment, to the several grave-yards within the precincts of this metropolis, I will not name a single one—I will take any that first comes to mind: let any one, I say, go to such places, the noisome smell, the pernicious and deadly miasma that emanates from them will be quite disgusting, and, if the party values his health, his enjoyment, or his life, he will escape as soon as he possibly can from such pestilence. Sir, I have heard it asserted by medical men of the highest reputation—by men well known and justly estimated in this town, for their moral worth and their high medical information; I have, I say, heard it affirmed by them, that if the abomination, now so prevalent in London, of placing the remains of the dead in the midst of the habitations of the living, was not done away at some period or another, either at some short distance, or at any rate within a certain period, some dreadful epidemic would break out in this immense population that might be most destructive in its effects. Either this system of interment is good, or it is the reverse; if the latter, of which no reasonable person in this House, this town, or
1566
this country, entertains the least doubt, why not take steps to abolish the nuisance. Look at the Report of your Committee on the health of towns, of which I had the honour of being Chairman,—look at the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission—look at the Report of the last Commission on the subject; here you have one Committee of this House, and two Commissions, all unanimous on the question, that all interments under churches or in large towns ought to be abolished. All these parties who have made the report are totally unconnected; each have examined witnesses and elicited facts from various quarters, and all agree as to the result. Of what use can it be to put the country to the expence of a Committee of this House, and two Commissions, if you do not act on their report and their recommendation. Whence can it arise that an acknowledged evil—one of great magnitude—one that ought to be suppressed—is still allowed to exist. Every one thinks it ought to be remedied, and yet no one attempts the remedy. There can be no doubt that the difficulty of legislation on the subject is great, there are a variety of conflicting interests to be taken into consideration, but great as the difficulty may be, sure it may be overcome. Now, Sir, I will, and I trust I may be allowed to do so, address a few words to the right hon. Gentleman, at the Home Department, his labours are soon to cease, he will shortly be at ease, enjoying all the dignity, all the emolument, all the glory of the Home Office, he will be released from being in his place from noon to midnight, he will gain twelve hours in the twenty-four, he will no longer be worried by questions from the hon. Members for Finsbury, or Montrose, no more Poor Law from the hon. Members for Lincoln, Evesham, and Biidport—in one word, he will pass from a bed of thorns to one of roses. In the fulness of his enjoyment, why should he not direct his energies and his time to the present subject—why not, early next Session, produce an elegant little Bill, prohibiting the shocking and disgusting practice of interments under churches, or in large towns. Sir, I am unwilling to detain the House on this subject, but really I cannot but repeat the opinion I have before given in this place, that a law to this effect ought to emanate from the Government. Such an alteration is desirable, not only for the health of the community,

1567
but even for the sake of religion. When the church is entered—when that sacred edifice is consecrated for the purposes of worship, no sentiments ought to be entertained by the individual entering it but those of awe and devotion and thoughts of a future state; no impure, or noisome smell, no shudder of horror or disgust, or of apprehension for health arising from putrid carcases underneath, ought to mix with the goodly sentiments before mentioned. The same may be said of the sentiments that ought to arise in the human breast, in entering a field of tombs consecrated to the deceased; no disgusting sights such as are to be seen in every grave-yard in this town—no desecration of coffins, or of mortal remains. Let any one enter into the cemetery of Pére la Chaise, at Paris, or in any other receptacle of the same description, and compare his feelings with those created in his breast, by Portugal-street grave-yard, or by various others, not necessary to enumerate, surrounding various churches in this great metropolis. I need not dwell on the great difference in feelings, both of mental abstraction and of religious feeling, in one case and in the other. Let us hope that these abominations will no longer be permitted to exist, and that the good feeling and good sense of the community will sooner or later force the Legislature to check this lamentable and increasing evil, which can only be done by sound and just, and at the same time, strong Legislative enactments. I beg, therefore, to suggest that the Government will take this subject under their consideration.
Sir J. Grahamwould readily answer the question which the hon. Member had put to him. He must, however, in the first place complain, that the hon. Member had brought forward this question without giving proper notice of his Motion. He (Sir J. Graham) did not consider it expedient to discuss such a subject, without having before them something like a substantive Motion. He, therefore, should confine himself to simply replying to the question which the hon. Member had put to him. The subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. A more difficult and important question could not be brought under the notice of the Legislature. It was not his intention to bring forth any measure on the subject, unless his own judgment convinced
1568
him that it would lead to satisfactory results.

SPAIN—DON CARLOS.
Mr. Borthwickrose to move
"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, Copies of all Correspondence which has passed between Don Carlos (or on behalf of his Royal Highness) and Her Majesty's Government, relating to certain propositions which have been made by that Prince, having for their object the tranquillization of Spain: as also, Copies of all Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Spain respectively relative to the same propositions."
He should occupy the time of the House very briefly. At an early period of the Session a noble Lord directed the attention of the House to the state of Spain with reference to the position of Don Carlos. Shortly after that discussion, he (Mr. Borthwick) had put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on the subject of certain propositions which had been submitted to the Government on the part of Don Carlos, with respect to the pacification of Spain. In reply, it was stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that certain propositions had been submitted to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; that those propositions had not been distinctly comprehended; but notwithstanding this, they had been laid before the Courts of Madrid and France. Subsequently to this a noble Lord in another place had thought proper to make the interests of a mighty people, and the captivity of Don Carlos the subject of merriment.
The Speaker: The hon. Member must make no allusion to the other House of Parliament.
Mr. Borthwickdid not allude to the other House of Parliament, but to some "other place," to which the forms of the House would not allow him more particularly to refer. He maintained that he was perfectly in order. In another place, in a speech made by Lord Clarendon,—
The Speaker: The hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. Borthwick: Well, he saw by the public journals that a noble Lord had asserted that this question was only taken up by a party in the House of Commons—by a party which had very strange notions of regenerating society at home, and

1569
whose foreign policy was confined to the promotion of the cause of Don Carlos in Spain. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say, that the propositions which had been submitted to the Government on the part of Don Carlos were non-official and informal; and, although the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government did not clearly understand the nature of those propositions, he had nevertheless submitted them to the Courts of France and Madrid, for their opinion. The right hon. Baronet had not pressed upon the Court of Madrid for a specific answer to the proposition, but had left that court to decide as to what they thought best for the interest of Spain. An objection had been taken on the ground of the informality of the propositions. Now, the meaning of this he apprehended to be that they were submitted to Her Majesty's Government by a subject of this country, and not by a Spanish ambassador; but he could not think that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was the man to take advantage of a technical difficulty, when that, difficulty arose from the circumstances. Don Carlos could not send an ambassador to this court, inasmuch as since the recognition of Isabella, the Foreign Secretary could not have received him. Don Carlos being a prisoner—unjustly a prisoner, as he thought—propositions sent for the pacification of his country by the only means which he had at his disposal, and he could not think that the right hon. Baronet would so far forget himself or the high station he occupied as to refuse to consider a message from a person so situated with any less attention than if that message came from a monarch on his throne. So much for the manner in which the proposition had been conveyed. The right hon. Baronet said on a former occasion that the propositions were not distinctly made out, but that as far as he understood them he took it that Don Carlos did not waive his personal claims, but simply insisted on the marriage of his son with Isabella. He contended that that was not the proposition of Don Carlos, but directly the reverse of that proposition; and he did ask, first on grounds of general policy, and next on grounds of individual justice, for the production of the propositions mentioned in his notice of Motion, that the House might see and the people might know what were the propositions
1570
submitted by Don Carlos to Her Majesty's Government, and what were the grounds on which those propositions had been treated so cavalierly. The right hon. Baronet now said that. Isabella was the representative of constitutional liberty, and Don Carlos the representative of despotic rule. As matters stood in Spain, constitutional liberty seemed to him (Mr. Borthwick) to mean that one-fourth of that country should always be in a state of siege. From the 1st of February to the 1st of June in this year, 127 persons, many of them of high distinction, had been mercilessly butchered, without a trial, under the name of constitutional liberty, of which the Foreign Secretary of this country said the people of Spain were so fond, that they cared not whether Isabella or Don Carlos were on the throne, but liberty they must have. Where did Don Carlos refuse constitutional liberty to Spain, either by word or act? let them show him (Mr. Borthwick; this, and he would be satisfied. It was said the people of Spain loved constitutional liberty. Was there ever a better representative of constitutional liberty than Espartero? Could a more straightforward man be found? yet the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) admitted to the House that never did public man sink from his place as Espartero had done with so little sympathy from the people. He (Mr. Borthwick) asked the right hon. Baronet, as a Minister of the British Crown, that he should not do the injustice to a captive prince of making his propositions appear to be what they were not, and that he would not shelter himself under a mere matter of form from producing on the Table those papers which would have the effect of presenting Don Carlos before Europe in the true light, when international law and the precepts of justice alike called for their production.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered the Motion rather calculated to express his hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick's) own opinions than made with any view of obtaining the papers. After the allusions which had been made to what fell from his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on a former night, and from the noble Earl in another place, in reference to this subject, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could explain nothing to his hon. Friend but what had been already slated as to the course the Government meant to take. His right hon. Friend

1571
had stated, on the former occasion, that the representation which had been received from Don Carlos was indistinct in character, but that nevertheless he had thought it right to submit it to the Spanish Government, not expressing any opinion himself, but leaving the matter to their unbiassed consideration; that he had submitted the papers to the Government of France also; and that he objected to the production of the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had deprecated taking a technical advantage, but no technical advantage was taken with respect to that part of the papers that was sent to the Spanish and French Governments. In the House of Commons, however, it was the practice in some degree to adhere to official forms, and he thought that there could not be a worse precedent than that unofficial authorized documents of this kind should be laid on the Table. He believed that the correspondence referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick) was in part the correspondence of a noble Lord, who, having spent some time in Spain as an adherent of Don Carlos, addressed some letters to the Foreign Office; but it would be impossible for the House to order the production of all such letters as every gentleman who travelled in foreign countries might think fit to address to the Foreign Office. The House were in possession already of all the facts of the case; they had been stated by his right hon. Friend on the former occasion. No information had been received since. Under these circumstances, he thought it was not necessary for him to say more, or give further reasons for disagreeing from the Motion.
The Marquess of Granby, having been in Spain, felt an interest in the question, and wished to say that, in his opinion, the proposition of a marriage between the two parties who had been named seemed to afford the best chance of settling the disputes in that country; and he should regret that any papers which might conduce to that desirable object should be refused by the Government.
Mr. Borthwickbriefly replied.
The House divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 33: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

TELLERS.

Bernal, Capt.

Borthwick, P.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Manners, Lord J.

1572

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gibson, T. M.

Archbold, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Boldero, H. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bowring, Dr.

Greene, T.

Bright, J.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Humphery, Ald.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jones, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Masterman, J.

Darby, G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Eliot, Lord

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.

Escott, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M. C.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Trotter, J.

Forman, T. S.

Wyse, T.

Forster, M.

TELLERS.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Young, J.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Pringle, A.

ART UNIONS.
Mr. Wyserose to present petitions from artists and friends to art, in London and Dublin, praying the establishment of galleries for the reception of casts, or the best works in sculpture, from the earliest period to the present, and to draw the attention of the House to the same. He was induced to espouse their cause from a strong conviction that a compliance with the prayer of the petitioners would be highly serviceable to the arts and to artists, as well as conduce to the improvement of society in general. It was proposed that exhibitions of art should be opened to the public in the different great towns by day, and confined to the use of students alone in the evening, the expense of the casts to be furnished by or through the means of the Government School of Design. He was happy to say that a most laudable desire to secure to the Irish people the benefits of these highly intellectual associations prevailed in all the well-informed circles of society there. Whatever might be their disputes upon subjects connected with religion and politics, the Government might depend upon it the germ of social improvement was comprised within this anxiety to promote the progress of the arts, and it would become the right hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government to lend these parties his powerful assistance to carry out their praiseworthy object.
Petitions to lie on the Table.
The hon. Member then moved—
"That a dutiful Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to take into Her favourable consideration the prayer of the Petitions of Members of the Institute of the Fine

1573
Arts, and the President and Secretary of the Society of Ancient Art in Dublin, praying for the establishment of Galleries for the reception of Casts of Sculpture and Architecture, Ancient and Christian."
Colonel Rawdonwarmly supported the Motion, and observed that the exhibition of works of fine art tended much to humanise and improve the minds of the people.
Dr. Bowringbore testimony to the unwearied efforts of his right hon. Friend in promoting the cause of the fine Arts, and observed that there was no man in the country to whom the artists could more properly entrust their cause.
Mr. Escottwished to know whether the decision of the Commission which had been appointed by the Crown to consider the best means of promoting the interest of the Fine Arts, in decorating the New Palace at Westminster, was a decision which must be considered final as regarded the merits of the competing artists whose works were at this time before the public in the exhibition at Westminster Hall.
Mr. Wysereplied, that, the Commission had not bound themselves respecting the works of any artist whatever. They were now as free as they had ever been, and they had not committed themselves or the Government respecting any artist.
Sir T. Freemantleobserved, that the Motion was one of great public interest, but it was one which he could not expect the House to pronounce an opinion on at that period of the Session or in the present state of the Benches. He thought that the House had some right to com plain, that when they expected nothing but the presentation of a petition, the hon. Gentleman should take them by surprise and make a Motion for an Address of which he had not given notice.
Motion withdrawn. House counted out, and adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. public. — 1a. Militia Pay; Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland).
2a. Railways.
Reported.—Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions; Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; Transfer of Licenses (Post Horses); Law Courts (Ireland).
3a. and passed:—New South Wales, etc. Government; Land Tax Commissioners Names; Three and-a Half per Cents. Dsssentients.
Private. — Reported—Lord Cranstoun's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Lord Cranstoun's Estate; Hough's Divorce (India); Morton's Estate; North Wales Mineral Railway; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Carvers, Gilders, and others of London, for Legalizing the Proceedings of Art Unions.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL.
On the Order of the Day being read for receiving the Report of the Amendments,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, My Lords, I rise to move that the Report on this Bill be now received, with the further view of its being recommitted, when any Amendments may be made which may be considered advantageous. He did this on the part of his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont), and he would take the opportunity of stating what was the position of the matter, and what the part he had taken in it The Bill was introduced by a noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) early in the month of May last, when he recommended his noble Friend to abstain from pressing the measure, because Government had it in view to reconsider the subject of penal enactments as a whole, including, of course, the enactments against the Roman Catholics. To this the noble Lord objected, and when my attention was subsequently called by the noble Lord to the subject, I told the noble Lord that I would look over the Bill, and that I would strike out every Act recited in it, the propriety of the repeal of which there was reason to doubt, and to which repeal strong opposition might of course be expected. The subject is, my Lords, one of a very complicated and intricate nature, as it embraces a great many measures enacted at various times. I, however, turned my earnest attention to it, and I also consulted the Criminal Law Commissioners, and other parties, who were perfectly competent to consider and advise upon the subject. Having so done, I struck out several Clauses of the Bill; and I think I may justly say with respect to what I have done, that no Clause has been left in the Bill as to the propriety of which any reasonable doubt can be entertained. The question before the House is, that the Report be now received; but there is another question to follow, of which the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) his given notice—namely, that the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House. When it is so recommitted it will be in the power of any noble Lord or right rev. Prelate to object to the repeal of any Act or part of any Act which is intended in be repealed by this Bill; and I pledged myself to this — that if any reasonable ground shall be advanced for striking out

1543
any part of the Bill as it now stands, I will immediately agree to its being removed. It will be for the House in Committee to consider whether the Bill in its present form answers the character that I have given of it, with respect to any one: Clause of an objectionable nature having been suffered to remain it. Now, my Lords, I am desirous that this matter should be perfectly understood—because it is of great importance that we should know distinctly the situation in which we are placed. It is said, that at so late a period of the Session we ought not to entertain a measure of such importance. This, my Lords, certainly appears to me, under all the circumstances, to be a most extraordinary ground of opposition. Upwards of ten weeks ago, your Lordships' attention was directed to the object of this Bill. During that long time every noble Lord and every right rev. Prelate in this House has had his attention directed to it, and has had an opportunity to examine and to consider it in all its details. And now, upwards of two months after its introduction—after all this opportunity for consideration and inquiry—are we, my Lords, to be told that it is too late in the Session to proceed with this measure? The question is, my Lords, not whether this Bill shall be adopted, but whether we shall go into Committee, to make it as perfect as possible, and I am quite sure that the most substantial justice will be done to all parties by taking this course. The position of myself with reference to this Bill, and the situation of the Bill itself, being understood, I shall now draw your Lordships' attention a little in detail to the contents of this measure, and I will ask whether you can put a finger on any enactment which it proposes to repeal, and say that it ought to be preserved on the Statute Book? The first enactment which it proposes to repeal is the first Act of Uniformity—the Act of the 1st of Edward VI. That Act declares, that a certain form of Common Prayer shall be used in all churches, and that any person who shall attend in any place where any form of prayer is used different from that authorised by the Act of Parliament, shall, for the first offence, be punished by a heavy fine; for the second offence with imprisonment for a year; and for the third offence with imprisonment for life. But you tolerate the Roman Catholic religion! You allow Catholics to attend their own places of worship. If you forbid them to follow that
1544
form of worship will you not be practically preventing them from going to any place of worship whatever? The Bill which I now submit to your Lordships' consideration will enact that the attendance upon their own form of worship, shall not subject Roman Catholics to a penalty. My Lords, can any one doubt the propriety of such a decision? [Loud cries of "Hear, hear."] Will any of your Lordships—will any Prelate upon the rev. Bench, say that it is not most desirable to repeal such a Statute? If you think otherwise, why, my Lords, you had better repeal the 10th George IV.—the Roman Catholic Relief Act. But, without saying a word more, I am sure nothing can be urged against the repeal of such a Statute. I proceed, therefore, to the next Act with which we deal—the 1st of Elizabeth, chap. 1. By that Act, if any one within this realm denies the supremacy of the King or Queen in spiritual or ecclesiastical matters—if any one should assert that any other person's authority or power has any ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction within the kingdom, he is subject to penalties of the severest kind:—for the first offence, to the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels, and, if those goods and chattels, do not amount to a given sum, to imprisonment for a year; for the second offence, to the penalties of prœmunire—that is to say, not only the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels, but to imprisonment for life and to be incapacitated from taking any proceeding in any court of law or justice; for the third offence, my Lords, he is subjected to the penalties for high treason; and what makes this the more extravagant is, that the 31st of George III. and the Roman Catholic Relief Act admit, under the form of an oath, the right to hold the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, because the oath there prescribed only goes to deny the Pope's temporal authority. Thus, your Lordships will see, whilst you allow the propriety of swearing one thing, you keep on your Statute Book this Act of Pains and Penalties against those by whom that very thing is admitted. Why, is not this most extravagant? What is the course I have taken? You will blame me, my Lords, I am sure, for not going far enough. Instead of repealing the Act altogether we have limited the penalty to that prescribed for the first offence. Surely, that is a sufficient punishment. Surely, it is not too much that we have done away in such cases with such penalties as the prœmunire and the punishment

1545
for high treason. I ask your Lordships, is that too much to do? is there anything in such a course inconsistent with the principles of the Protestant Establishment and the Protestant religion—to both of which I am as firmly attached as any man in the kingdom? My Lords, I believe we shall be best doing our duty by our Church and by our faith if we get rid of these barbarous enactments directed against our fellow Christians. But what is the next Act we propose to deal with? It relates to the attendance of the people at the parish church. By this Act, the 1st of Elizabeth, chap. 2,—it is the Act immediately following that I have just spoken of—by this Act every person is obliged to go to a Protestant place of worship once, at least, on every Sunday. My Lords, can a Roman Catholic do this? Can you subject him to a penalty for not attending as long as they tolerated the Roman Catholic religion? I am sure no one can contend for any such thing; and, therefore, there is a Clause introduced into this Act exempting Catholics from the penalty consequent upon their neglect. But, my Lords, there is another Act—the 5th of Elizabeth. It runs in the same direction as the 1st of Elizabeth, which I have already quoted, and, therefore, I will only advert to it in order to remark that it makes the penalty still more severe, inasmuch as it subjects the first offence to the punishment of the prœmunire. Of course, we get rid of that. But, besides, there are in this Act provisions for administering certain oaths. Commissioners are to be appointed to make every suspected person take certain oaths therein prescribed. What are the penalties in the case of refusal? For the first offence, prœmunire, for the second offence, the penalty of high treason. Have I done wrong, my Lords, in consenting to repeal such a Statute as this? But there is still another Statute—a Statute which renders every party who is reconciled to the See of Rome guilty of high treason and liable to its penalties. Any one who is conscientiously convinced of the justice and the divine origin of the Roman Catholic faith, and becomes reconciled to the See of Rome is to be deemed guilty of high treason. I say nothing about the error of such a person; but am I wrong in getting rid of such a penalty? Why, by the same Act, any priest who administers mass, privately or publicly, within these realms, is subjected to a penalty of 200 marks, and any one who attends such mass is liable to a penalty
1546
of 100 marks. This at a time when you profess to tolerate the Roman Catholic religion! Why, my Lords, such a thing, in these days, is an extravagant absurdity, and I hesitate not to strike such an Act from the Statute Book. My Lords, I have already stated that any one who does not I attend church once a week is subject to a penalty. There is another Act which subjects to a penalty of still greater amount all who do not attend church once within a month. I have struck that Act out of the Statute Book also; and I hope such a step will meet with your approbation. But, my Lords, I go still further,—and I enter into these points, let me say, parenthetically, because I am liable to be attacked for this conduct—because, in truth, I have been attacked about this matter, and learn it is necessary that I should explain my position. I say I go still further. The next Ant which I deal with is the 27th of Elizabeth, the Act relating to Jesuits. Under that Act any party being a Jesuit, and continuing within these realms for a longer period than so many days, is subject to the penalties of high treason. I believe, my Lords, that under any circumstances I should have struck the greater part of this Act from the Statute Book, but when I find that the 10th Geo. IV., the Roman Catholic Relief Act, embodied every necessary arrangement upon this point, I felt it more imperatively necessary to take that step. But there is still more. Under this Act any one who goes abroad to be educated in what is called a "seminary institution," and does not return within the realm within six months after the proclamation is made for his return, is deemed and taken to be guilty of high treason. Any one who goes to any college abroad—any one who is sent to St. Omers, for example—is guilty of high treason, if he does not return within six months after proclamation is made. That Statute, my Lords, I have also thought it desirable to repeal. A law such as this was no doubt passed at a time of great political excitement—at a period when great alarm was felt respecting the influence of the Pope and of Roman Catholics within these realms, and therefore to a certain extent the Act is excusable. But what, my Lords, is there to warrant the retention of such laws upon the Statute Book of the present day? What excuse have we for such barbarous enactments now? My Lords, there is another Act by which it is laid down that any one within these realms who relieves

1547
by money a Jesuit or a party in a foreign seminary, shall be subject to prœmunire that was guilty of an offence that led to the forfeiture of all his goods—to imprisonment for life, and the deprivation of all power to vindicate any wrong or injury the party may sustain. Your Lordships, I am sure, will be of opinion that I do right to repeal that law. But there is still more. The 35th of Elizabeth requires all persons to conform to the established religion, and provided that all parties who did not attend their parish church should be called upon to conform; and that if they refused or neglected to do so, they should abjure the realm, or be held guilty of felony if they remained in this country; and, further, if they abjured the realm and went abroad, aud afterwards returned to this country, they should still be held guilty of felony. Under the same Act, any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, must not be found at any place beyond three miles from his usual place of abode, under the severest penalties; and whatever might have been the grounds for passing that Act originally, in this travelling age it would be considered a most barbarous law. Then, had he done right in repealing this rigorous Statute. Well, then, I pass to the next law—an Act passed in the first year of King James I. By that Act, no one can send his son to be educated abroad, in the Roman Catholic religion without incurring the heaviest penalties. Any gentleman who thinks his son can be better educated abroad than at home, and who, in consequence, sends him to receive the advantages of instruction at a Roman Catholic college, is liable to penalties of the heaviest description. I have repealed that Statute. Then there is the 3rd of James I., chap. 4 and 5. They prescribe punishments for recusancy—for which crimes they inflict the most severe penalties. If a man does not go to church, he is a recusant; if he is a Catholic he is a Popish recusant, and, on complaint, he becomes a Popish convict recusant, and is subjected to penalties of the severest character. Surely, my Lords, the whole of this ought to be repealed. Then there is the 7th of James I. That Act prescribes a certain oath, and those who omit to take it are subjected to the penalty of prœmunire. Next I go to the Statutes of Charles I. Under one of these, if you send your children to any place of education on the Continent, you cannot, such is the singular state of the
1548
law, maintain any suit in any court of law at home, and it further provides that any party having been so educated abroad by direction of his parents shall, in like manner, be prevented from instituting or pursuing any suit in a court of law. Then, there is the 25th of Charles II. Your Lordships will bear with me whilst I glance at all these Acts, for the importance of the subject and my own position really require it, there is the 25th of Charles II., under which it is enacted that any one who becomes a convert to the Popish religion shall not be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit whatsoever within these realms; and if he educates his children in that faith they are also incapacitated from holding any such place of trust or profit. That, my Lord, is another Act which I strike from the Statute Book. Again, in the reign of William and Mary a Statute was passed which enacts that no Catholic shall come within ten miles of this great metropolis, under certain heavy penalties. I propose to strike out that. By an Act in the same reign no Catholic is permitted to bear arms, and, which will strike your Lordships as peculiar, if he has a horse of above the value of 5l. it is to be seized and disposed of as any Justice of the Peace may think proper. And now, my Lords, I believe, I have pretty well run through the catalogue. Is there any one amongst yonr Lordships who can object to the repeal of any of these laws? I appeal to that right rev. Bench, and to the right rev. Prelate who is seated on it (the Bishop of London). Let him tell me if he is not satisfied in his own conscience that every one of these Acts ought to be repealed. If he is not satisfied—if he can point out a single law which in his conscience he thinks ought not to be repealed, I ask him to show me a valid reason for retaining it on the Statute Book, and I promise him to except it from the operation of the present measure. Well, then, my Lords I want to know what is the real objection to this Bill? I presume, after what I have stated to you, that the objection about "the late period of the Session," will not be persisted in. It is said, I understand, that the operation of the 31st George III., and the 43rd George III. will be affected by this Bill. What is the 43rd George III? It points out, my Lords, an oath to be taken, in order to entitle Roman Catholics to inherit or to possess land. I understood from what the right rev. Prelate said the other night, that, the effect

1549
of this law would be to repeal that Act of Parliament. I was, therefore, somewhat astonished to discover, on looking into the matter, that the Act was in reality repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. But it is said, the Act will, constructively, repeal the 31st of George III., of which the 43rd George III. was a Bill in furtherance. What is the 31st George III.? At the time that Act was passed, parties were not prepared, as I hope we are now prepared, to repeal these penal acts of the Parliament. A kind of compromise was consequently entered into. A form of oath, and a declaration was prescribed, and it was said, if you take that oath and subscribe to that declaration, you shall avoid the penalties consequent upon the infringement of these laws. Now, the fact is, that this Bill does not repeal that oath and declaration, though, of course it renders them inoperative. You cannot, my Lords, do away with the cause for such declaration without rendering useless the declaration itself. But, why should we not do away with the declaration? What an extraordinary mode of legislation it is to say, "we will impose severe penalties—most outrageous punishments—on an individual, for a certain offence; and yet if he goes and takes an oath, he shall be absolved from the consequences of oommitting such offences! "Why, what does it come to? To this, my Lords—that the penalty is imposed for not taking the oath. By one of these Acts—it is really almost laughable to reflect on the anomaly—if you do not take an oath, you are guilty of high treason; by the other Act, if you do not take the oath, but take some other oath, you are not guilty of high treason; but, then, if you should omit to take either oath, why then you are guilty of high treason. Such is the absurdity. The Act of George III. was passed with a good intent, no doubt: but the effect is to put the Roman Catholic in this position—that if from accident or negligence he omits to take some oath or another, he is liable to the penalty for high treason. Surely, if your Lordships consider these things, you will be satisfied that we might even go further than we have done in dealing with these laws. I have pressed my noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) to permit this Bill to stand over until we have an opportunity of further considering the subject, and dealing with the enactments en masse. I do not hesitate to say, that were we to do so, I should be strongly inclined to deal more stringently with all
1550
these laws; but upon that point I am in the hands of the noble Lord. He may follow or not follow my counsel. If he does not regard it, I can only say, that I feel myself pledged, and that I deem it an imperative duty to vote for this Bill in its present form—an imperfect form, I admit, but imperfect, at any rate, upon the right side. Having said thus much, I move, your Lordships that "the Report of the Amendments be now received."
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down had rendered it extremely difficult for him to oppose the Motion which was now before their Lordships, without appearing to entertain a desire to retain upon the Statute Book of the Realm the obnoxious acts to which the Lord Chancellor had referred. Against that supposition he (the right rev. Prelate) was most anxious to guard himself; indeed, in the few remarks which he had had the honour of addressing to their Lordships on a former occasion he had avoided giving any opinion as to how far it might be desirable to interfere for the purpose of repealing any of these laws, nor should he on the present occasion feel himself called upon to make any declaration as to how far he might or might not be prepared to go in the way of abrogating these different enactments. It might be proper—perhaps many of their Lordships would deem it proper—to make a change in the laws affecting the Roman Catholics; but what he (the Bishop of London) did maintain was this, that the points now brought under their attention only constituted a part of a more extensive subject—of a subject of the deepest interest—of a subject which ought to be considered as a whole, to be made a matter of most mature deliberation, and to be treated and decided on, not upon the recommendation of individual Peers, but upon that of the responsible Government of the nation. To him (the right rev. Prelate) it would be no satisfaction to defend these laws. He should be sorry to follow the noble and learned Lord with any view to extenuate many of their provisions; but, without doing that, he felt that conscientiously he could oppose the further proceeding upon this Bill, and that he was in a position to thank the noble and learned Lord for giving him, in the course of his statement, grounds upon which to base what he hoped would prove a successful opposition to it. From the short history which the noble, and learned Lord had

1551
given of the Bill, it appeared that such was his estimate of its importance, that he had warned the noble Lord who originated the measure against dealing with it, and he had called upon him to afford the Government an opportunity of considering the whole subject at their leisure during the recess, when they would have time to prepare a more comprehensive enactment embracing the entire subject. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord that such would have been a proper and a becoming course of procedure. He knew and had known for some time how strongly the noble and learned Lord felt upon the point, and therefore it was that he had always regarded it as utterly impossible that this Bill could have been persisted in. The bench of Bishops generally supposed that no attempt would be made to persevere with it at present, and they had consequently treated it as a subject which, certainly, could not be long deferred, but which would, without doubt, be postponed until those who ought to deal with it had maturely weighed the facts; and until they, the appointed Guardians of the Church of England had, in some way or other been consulted as to its different provisions. Feeling thus with regard to it, he must admit that he had heard with the greatest astonishment and pain the attempt now made to press the matter forward at a time when the occupants of the Bench on which he sat were almost all absent—absent on duties of even graver importance than the duty of attending, when it was possible to do so, the deliberations in their Lordships' House. In expressing this surprise, however, he begged to say that his remark applied exclusively to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and in no way whatsoever to the noble Mover of the Bill (Lord Beaumont.) That noble Lord was, no doubt, quite right, and perfectly justified in bringing in the Bill and pressing it forward on every opportunity; but what he did complain of respecting the matter was, that the Bill should be taken up by the Government at the eleventh hour, without any consultation with the Prelates of the Established Church, and without any possibility of their being present to discuss it. At what a late period of the Session the measure was submitted to them! No doubt, as the noble and learned Lord had said, it had been introduced some time since by its noble author; but they must remember that at that time the organ of the Government,
1552
the noble Lord who was at the head of the law in this country told them plainly that the measure would not be carried, and that it must be left to the Government to consider it. For his part, he (the Bishop of London) felt peculiar surprise at the course which had been taken respecting it; for when first the measure was introduced, it had been referred to him by the noble and learned Lord, in order that he might obtain upon it the opinions of some of the leading members of the legal and clerical professions, and having accordingly referred it to them, he had been distinctly told, that there was no possibility of considering it before the close of the present parliamentary Session. Without any impeachment of his charity, therefore, he might fairly take this ground of opposition to the Bill, and call upon their Lordships not to pass it into a law under such circumstances. With regard to the principle of the measure itself he had only a few remarks to make by way rather of caution than reprobation. Let him remind their Lordships, that from the Reformation down to the present time the Constitution of the Church of England had not been only a Protestant Constitution, but that it had been an Anti-Popish Constitution. The legislature was not alone content to declare against the errors of the Church of Rome, but—whether wisely or not, he would not now say—they had in a most energetic manner acted upon that principle of legislation and especially at the time of the Revolution. This was the first time, except of course in the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, that the Parliament had ever attempted to break down the Acts which had been passed to protect the Reformed Church in her supremacy. He readily admitted that many of these penal laws were passed in periods of panic and unnecessary alarm, perhaps, as to the power and influence and intrigue of Rome;—he readily admitted that with regard to some of these laws it might be desirable to revise or even to repeal them; but what he warned their Lordships of was this—that all these enactments were links of one great chain, and that though some of them might be rusty and scarcely trustworthy, yet that the Legislature ought to proceed very warily and cautiously in removing what they could not replace—in breaking away parts so as to render the whole useless. It was impossible to see to what extent they might not go hereafter if they once made this breach. Already the noble and

1553
learned Lord on the Woolsack talked of "going further;" let their Lordships then wait and see how far he was prepared to go, and let the noble and learned Lord, if he had considered the whole subject, bring in a Bill which treated of the whole subject. He believed that, in saying thus much, he spoke the opinion of most of his brother prelates—of at least 19–20ths of the clergy of the Establishment—and of a large proportion of the worshippers in the Church of England. All he asked, then, was, not to set aside the subject altogether, but to pause a Session ere they finally disposed of a matter of such grave importance, the end and termination of which it was quite impossible for any one to foresee. No inconvenience to any party would follow such a delay, and, as one of the rulers of the Protestant Church of England—as one deeply interested in the prosperity and integrity of that Church—a prosperity and integrity which, for ought he knew at present, this Bill might even promote—he did claim of the Government that they should give him time to consider it, and should not press on so hastily towards a conclusion a matter of such grave and serious importance. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Report be received this day three months.
The Lord Chancellorhaving put the question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion,
Lord Broughamrecommended his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) to adopt the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to leave the Government to consider the question during the recess for the purpose of legislating upon it next Session, as being the most effectual means of accomplishing the object he had at heart. He protested, however, against the assertion that the Bill would be injurious to the interests of the Protestant Church; he, on the contrary, believed that it would give I additional security to that Church. The Statutes which it was now proposed to repeal could only be justified by the panic which had seized men's minds at the time they were passed, and were only tolerated for a single hour from the conviction that they would never be enforced. The only real objection that had been urged against the Bill was, that it did not go far enough. That objection he hoped would be obviated next Session, by the introduction of a more comprehensive measure, based upon broader principles, by the Government, which should, have his most hearty
1554
concurrence. There was one point connected with this subject which he wished to impress upon the attention of his noble Friends opposite, especially upon that of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary (Lord Aberdeen), He had seen a tract written by a talented Friend of his (which had been admired by a noble Earl opposite, as well as by the late Mr. Canning, and with the opinions expressed in which he perfectly agreed), and it was therein stated that it was beginning at the wrong end to repeal those Penal Statutes which affected Roman Catholics, until they repealed those premunire Acts which prevented communication with the See of Rome. We, however, paid the penalty of our blind folly and narrow policy. Other Protestant nations, as Prussia for instance, held communication with the court of Rome, the consequence of which was an increasing good understanding between the two courts.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, his first impression was, that the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) would do wisely to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but when he heard the speech of his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) he altered his opinion, for it appeared to him that his right rev. Friend, having no ground of opposition to the present Bill, wished to see another and more extensive measure introduced, in order that he might find some ground of objection. He thought that the Government might give more attention if they allowed the Bill to pass, than if the Bill were postponed until the next Session. The right rev. Prelate could not deny that those Acts were a disgrace to the Statute Book, and they ought not, therefore, to be allowed to remain there a single day. If he stood in the situation of his noble Friend he would take as much as was granted to him, and seek for the further and complete remission of the penalties that had been referred to at a future opportunity.
Lord Campbellwould also advise the noble Lord to persist with his Bill, and attain now every possible good that could be achieved. No one, he thought, could hesitate in the course that ought to be pursued who had heard the most lucid and learned disquisition that had been given on these Statutes by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; for he had pointed out with invincible force all

1555
those obnoxious Statutes that ought to be removed. The right rev. Prelate was not able to controvert the statements of his noble and learned Friend, neither was he able to answer one iota of his reasoning. He could not avoid remarking that this Bill cautiously avoided going one step further than it was safe to do, and therefore it was thst he recommended the noble Lord not to follow the advice of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), though he always had been, and he believed his noble and learned Friend still was a warm friend to all that is liberal. Why, he asked, ought these Bills to remain on the Statute Book? Why should they be allowed still to disgrace (as it had been truly said) the Statute Book? He believed that in 1791 these Bills would have been repealed, but that persons were unaware that such disgraceful Statutes remained. The right rev. Prelate had said that no inconvenience could arise, because, by the 31st George III., an oath might be taken. [The Bishop of London: The 10th George IV.] The one was a very long oath, the other something shorter. But the right rev. Prelate said, that by taking that oath the penalties might be avoided. What would their Lordships, who were Catholics, think of their wives and daughters dropping down to the Quarter Sessions, Chancery, or Queen's Bench, and, between the hours of ten and one o'clock, taking their oaths to entitle them to go to mass? Or would they, as the right rev. Prelate charitably suggested, send their young men to these places to take such an oath, in order that with impunity they might ride a horse worth something more than 5l.? He believed that all those Catholics who did not take their oaths were liable to penalties, very heavy penalties, at the suit of informers. Were they to permit these Statutes, now that they were known, to remain in force? Or if they did, could they say that they would stop the actions as they had done with their Gaming Bill. If they refused to pass this Bill they could not, he said, deprive the informer of his vested rights in a qui tarn action.
Lord Beaumontrose to reply and said, that he need hardly inform their Lordships that little was left for him to do in respect to the merits or details of the Bill, since the one had been so eloquently set forth, and the other so minutely described by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
1556
To add one word to that powerful and eloquent display of memory and argument, would not only be supererogatory but in bad taste. But, leaving the merits of the Bill unnoticed, and confining himself to points on which his noble Friend had not touched, he (Lord Beaumont) would briefly reply to some of the remarks which the Rev. Prelate had made on his (Lord Beaumont's) conduct, in bringing in and forcing forward this measure. The history of the Bill was this: some period ago the Criminal Law Commissioners published their Sixth Report, and in that Sixth Report they recommended a revision of the Penal Statutes respecting religion; no notice was taken of that Report; the Criminal Law Commissioners, after the lapse of a short period, published their Seventh Report, and in that Seventh Report codefied the Penal Statutes and repealed their opinion in favour of an immediate revision of them. Both Reports obtained wide circulation, and a knowledge of these Acts being in force was generally spread. Early in this Session a Bill was presented by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) to arrange in one code the Criminal Law, and every one of these Acts were inserted therein, as though it had been the intention of the framer of the Bill to re-enact them. That he (Lord Beaumont) knew was not the case, but public attention was drawn by means of that Bill to the subject, and the knowledge of the existence of these laws spread amongst public informers. Still no step was taken by the Government, no notice given of their intentions on this question. The subject was not mentioned, no promise held out. Observing this tardiness on the part of Government, and feeling the necessity of an immediate modification of these laws, lest the same inconvenient course might be pursued with regard to these Penal Acts as had been witnessed with respect to other equally obsolete Statutes, he (Lord Beaumont) ventured to present to their Lordships a Bill on the subject, not with the expectation that his unaided efforts would carry it through Parliament, but in the full confidence that the measure, though introduced by so humble a Member of that House as himself, would attract the attention of more influential Members, and either be adopted or supported by Her Majesty's Government. He (Lord Beaumont) felt convinced that he had only to moot the question, to

1557
raise a discussion on the subject, and force the case on the attention of his noble and learned Friends, and that they would by expressing their opinions give to the Bill the importance it deserved, and that though he (Lord Beaumont) was the humble instrument by which it was first introduced, they would be the means by which it would be borne to a final and successful issue. In this hope he had not been deceived. With a firmness of purpose and au independence of spirit which must ever do him credit, his noble and learned Friend had braved the opposition of the rev. Bench, and, heedless of the abuse directed against him by a party out of doors, boldly and successfully brought his great talents to bear on the question. He had certainly tried to reconcile the opponents of the Bill, by inducing him (Lord Beaumont) to modify its character, and omit some of the Clauses, but when he found the rev. Bench still obstinate in their opposition, he boldly encountered them on their own ground, and after what had to-day taken place, there was no need of stating the result of the conflict. The rev. Prelate however complains that neither he nor his Colleagues were consulted, but that the Bill was pushed forward without due respect being paid to those who consider themselves the natural defenders of the Church. This I deny, I not only allowed the Bill to lay sufficient time on your Lordships' Table, to enable every Member of the House to make himself master of the provisions, but I particularly desired the attentive consideration of the rev. Bench; for I entertained the hope—the vain hope I am sorry now to add—that the rev. Prelate himself would be foremost in supporting my Bill, and that I should have his authority for saying that the Established Church was so deeply rooted in the hearts of the English people, founded on so solid a base, and so firmly seated in this land of boasted liberty, that it no longer required the scaffolding which had been perhaps necessary in its construction, but which now was only so much hideous and useless lumber round the building. I thought that the rev. Prelate himself would say, "sweep away these cobwebs of a past age—these mouldy Acts, which, instead of being buttresses to support the walls, are unsightly encumbrances that disfigure the building; clear away all obstructions to the view, that the Church may appear what it is supposed to
1558
be, a chaste and well-proportioned temple of solid and unspotted marble." This I concluded would have been the course adopted by the rev. Bench, and deeply do I lament having been disappointed in the expectation, for foreign nations and hostile creeds will now say, these rigorous laws are the trappings that hold up the Protestant religion, these are the props that keep the tottering fabric from falling. The rev. Prelate, however, does not fully comprehend the nature of this measure, and gives to it an importance in one respect that it does not deserve. It removes the power of inflicting penalties for deeds daily and hourly done in face of the whole world; but does not confer any new power or influence, or take off any disability in respect to Roman Catholics holding place or office in the State. Certain disabilities were retained in the Toleration and Emancipation Acts, and the Parliament when it retained them, I suppose, considered them necessary for the safeguard of the Church. These safeguards are not touched by this Bill. The same Acts, namely the 18th and 31st of George III., and the 10th of George IV., did not repeal any portion of this Penal Code, but afforded a means to avoid the severity of some of its enactments. By taking a certain oath, Roman Catholics could do with impunity all that these rigid laws intended to prohibit, but few took this oath, although great stress is laid upon this oath by the rev. Prelate as an argument against the present Bill, Do not repeal the Penal Acts, says the rev. Prelate, but let the Roman Catholics comply with the conditions of the Toleration Acts? What would be the spectacle exhibited if the Roman Catholics were to comply with the suggestion of the rev Prelate, and your Lordships were to adopt his advice in respect to my Bill?—Why, to-morrow every Roman Catholic in this kingdom, high and low, man, woman and child, must flock to Westminster Hall, or to the General Quarter Sessions in their respective counties, and there with certain forms take the prescribed oath for the mere purpose of staving off from their heads the monstrous and bloody penalties these Acts suspend over them. Is this desirable? Would such a scene reflect any credit on the civilization of this country? Would it not be an insult to the whole of the Protestant people? Would it not imply insecurity and intolerance on the part of the Church, hostility and treachery

1559
to the State on the part of the Catholics? Yet degrading as such a proceeding would be to one religion and offensive to the other, it must soon become necessary if you delay passing this Bill. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) has stated his opinion on the probable activity of the qui-tam informer and my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) has instanced a case where one of these Acts has actually been very recently put in force. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated to your Lordships the crimes these Acts create, and the penalties they enforce, but he has not pointed out the inducements they hold out to the informer or the obligations they impose on the Sheriffs and the Churchwardens,—I will fill up the blank by stating a few examples (the noble Lord read several Clauses from different Acts, showing the rewards to informers, &c.) Who can wish to see such specimens of legislation as this continued? After pointing out the inconvenience of further delay in passing the Bill, the noble Lord concluded by saying, that while he again expressed his sincere thanks to his noble and learned Friend for the support he had given him, he must still decline to comply with the recommendation contained in the concluding part of the noble Lord's speech, and under all the circumstances proceed forthwith with the Bill.
The Bishop of Londonexplained. He said the Prelates did not complain as to the ime at which the noble Lord brought in his Bill; but, that considering the late period at which it had been brought forward, they complained of the Government having adopted it. He had not expressed himself, as saying that the repeal of these Statutes could affect the Established Church.
The question was then put, that the Report be now received.
The Bishop of Londonsaid "Not Content" to the Motion.
The Lord Chancellordeclared the Contents had it.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he did not mean to divide the House. As the Bill had been taken up by the Government it would be fruitless to do so; but he was fortified in his opposition when he considered that so many of his right rev. Brethren were absent.
The Lord Chancellor: Do you move any amendment.
The Bishop of London: No; I do not mean to interfere in this Bill in any way.
Amendment reported accordingly.
House adjourned.