Sitting of 30 April 1846

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Ripon, Hon. Edwin Lascelles.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from various places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Waterford, for the Abolition of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By several hon. Members, from various places, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Pole Carew, from Rural Dean and Clergy of the Deanery of East, against the Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester. — By Mr. William Feilden, from Merchants, Manufacturers, and other Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Blackburn, in favour of the proposed Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation.—By Mr. James Morrison, from Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Forres, for Repeal of Duty on Fire Insurances.—By Mr. Deedes, from Guardians of the Poor of the Milton Union, and by Mr. Sheridan, from Shaftesbury, for Rating Owners in lieu of Occupiers of Tenements.—By Mr. Barry Baldwin, Sir John Hanmer, and Mr. Hudson, from various Shipowners, for Liquidation of Danish Claims.—By Mr. Mark Philips, from Retail Beersellers of Manchester and its Vicinity.—By Mr. Redhead Yorke, from President, Stewards, and Members of the New Union Society, in the City of York, against the Friendly Societies Bill.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Noblemen, Gentlemen, Clergymen, Owners, and Occupiers of Land, and other Parties, Inhabitants of the County and City of Cork, for Encouraging Enterprise in Ireland.—By several hon. Members, from various places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Inhabitants of the City of Westminster, against the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill. — By Mr. Milner Gibson, from Clergy, Bankers, Merchants, Manufacturers, and other Inhabitants of Manchester, and by Mr. James Oswald, from Glasgow and its Vicinity, respecting the Safety of Navigators employed on Railways.—By Viscount Clive, from Noblemen, Gentlemen, and others, of the Town of Shrewsbury and its Neighbourhood, in favour of the Salmon Fisheries Bill.—By Colonel Conolly, from Proprietors and Lessees of Irish Salmon Fisheries, for Repeal or Alteration of the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts.—By Colonel Thomas Wood, from Guardians of the Poor of the Edmonton Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

POST-OFFICE IRREGULARITIES.
CAPTAIN J. C. VIVIANbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary

1289
to the Treasury whether he were aware of the greatly increasing irregularities in the General Post Office, more especially in the despatch of the morning mails? From all parts of the country great complaints were received of the constant and numerous mistakes that occurred, owing, in a great measure to the irregularities in the General Post Office. A friend of his, who lived about five hours' distance from London, complained of the frequent mistakes in the despatch of his newspapers, which sometimes did not arrive until forty-eight hours after they were sent, having meanwhile made a little journey on their own account over the half of England. His friend had written to Mr. Smith, the largest news-agent in England, complaining of the delay, and had received the assurance that his newspers had been regularly posted in time for the morning mails. He would read Mr. Smith's letter:—
"192, Strand, London, April 20, 1846.
"Sir—I am sorry to say that very great neglect exists in the General Post Office, and that it is not at all unusual for one or two of the sacks (holding about 800 papers each), which I post for the morning mails, to be detained unsorted until the evening despatch, because (they say) they have not a sufficient number of sorters to perform the duties required. Bundles of newspapers, addressed in bulk to news-rooms and newspaper agents in the country are sorted and forwarded, as they are easily picked out, and neglect would occasion general complaint; but gentlemen who only take a single paper are frequently disappointed, and, generally the newsman who supplies them is blamed for the inconvenience, for which he is not at all answerable, and which he cannot prevent. My arrangements are such that I never fail to post my papers in time for the morning mails, as I send large quantities by rail two hours before the Post Office closes, and, having the largest business in the trade, I am also served first by the different newspaper offices. I trust you will think it worth your while to make a complaint to the Postmaster General or the Lords of the Treasury, as I have had frequent communications with Colonel Maberly on the subject without obtaining even a promise of greater regularity and attention.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
"W. H. SMITH."
Though he had never been in direct communication with Colonel Maberly, he understood that any complaint received his immediate attention. But the mistakes continued, and it was evident there was a bad system somewhere; either there was not a sufficient number of sorters, or there was some other cause at work. He believed the irregularities in the delivery of letters and newspapers were in a great measure owing to the Directory; and he begged to ask whether the attention of Government had been directed to the subject,
1290
with a view to render the inconvenience to the public less frequent?
MR. CARDWELLwas prepared to hear there were irregularities in the despatch of newspapers by the morning mails, but not in respect of letters. He was prepared to answer the complaint of the hon. Member as to newspapers. He was aware that complaints were made of the irregularities now taking place in the morning mails; but he was by no means prepared to believe that in the majority of instances those irregularities were the fault of the Post Office. They were, however, at present the subject of careful inquiry at the Post Office. The reason, he believed, was the great increase in the circulation of the London daily papers during the last few months. From a return that had been prepared, it appeared that the number of newspapers sent by the morning mails (as we understood) was now 729,000 per week. A great increase had also taken place in the bulk of the newspapers. He held in his hand a copy of one of the daily journals as it was sent through the post. Let the House think of 729,000 such packets travelling through the General Post Office. Still, he repeated, he did not believe that in the majority of instances the irregularities were connected with the Post Office. Many newspapers were posted without covers; some were misdirected; others imperfectly directed; and numbers were sent at the last minute. The increase in the number sent by the morning mails was the leading cause of the inconvenience for which the Post Office was responsible, and the following measures were being resorted to: an enlargement of the building; some new machinery was about being brought into operation, and an additional number of persons were appointed for the discharge of the increasing duties. So far as Ministers or the Post Office were concerned, the House might rely that everything would be done to remedy, in future, the inconveniences complained of. He (Mr. Cardwell) was in constant communication with the Post Office authorities, and every circumstance that impeded the efficiency of the General Post Office was brought under his notice by them. That department of the public service, he knew, desired and endeavoured to discharge their duties properly.

MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN SERVING ON COMMITTEES.
MR. ESTCOURTsaid, that before he proceeded to move the Order of the Day

1291
for resuming the adjourned debate respecting the refusal of the hon. Member for Limerick to serve on a Railway Committee, he might be allowed to express his earnest hope that that hon. Gentleman had authorized some Friend to make a communication to the House on his behalf.
The Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate was then read, and the Question again put—
"That W. S. O'Brien, esquire, having been guilty of a contempt of this House, be, for his said offence, committed to the Custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, during the pleasure of the House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."
MR. E. B. ROCHE: It will be in the recollection of the House, that towards the conclusion of the debate on Tuesday, it was my duty to come down from my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien), and on his behalf to convey a certain intimation to the House. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), acting, I must admit, in a most fair and amicable spirit, thought well not to receive that intimation, but to give my hon. Friend forty-eight hours for consideration, during which he might determine what course he would pursue. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend complains—and, as far as I am concerned, I think his complaint is just—that he has not had an opportunity of explaining fairly and distinctly to the House the position in which he is placed, and the reasons which have induced him to adopt a certain line of conduet. I do not state what course my hon. Friend will pursue to-night. I have only to ask the House, either by Motion, or in any other manner consistent with its forms, that my hon. Friend may be allowed to attend in his place or at the bar, to explain to the House the reasons which have led him to take the course he has hitherto pursued, and which influence him in adopting the course of action he intends to follow. It is true I may be asking the House to take a course not in consonance with its ordinary rules and regulations; but I am sure, when I appeal to the House on behalf of an hon. Gentleman who stands in the painful position of being sustained by scarcely any individual in this assembly, and of adopting a course of action which is not supported even by those who usually act with him on all public questions, that the House will be disposed to give a favourable consideration to the request I now have to make. Although that request may not be
1292
in strict consonance with the customs and regulations of the House, yet, I trust that the House, in a spirit of justice and fairness, and influenced by a desire to afford fair play to all parties, will indulgently and kindly grant my hon. Friend permission to appear before them. I have simply to move, "That Mr. W. S. O'Brien be heard in his place."
MR. HUMEsaid: I apprehend, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. E. B. Roche) is not contrary to the rules and customs of the House, there can be no objection to acceding to it. I, for one, should be most happy to assent to it, though I am anxious to maintain the rules and orders of the House. I think, when a request is made in the manner in which this has been preferred by the hon. Member for Cork, we ought to comply with it, provided we can do so without any material infringement of our rules.
MR. R. YORKE: I apprehend that if you intend to proceed in conformity with the rules of the House, it will be utterly and entirely impossible to grant the request of the hon. Member for Cork.
MR. O'CONNELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Limerick was dissatisfied with the manner in which I put his case to the House. He does not think I argued the merits as I ought to have argued them, and he conceives that at the present moment he is really unheard.
Sir R. PEEL: I think I have proved my desire to relax the strict rules of the House in this case, so far as any relaxation can be properly and consistently al lowed. As far as my private feelings are concerned, I am desirous that those rules should be relaxed. But, in the position I occupy, I owe a duty to the House; and I think it is of the utmost importance that we should consider how far it is consistent with the established precedents and customs of this House, and the principles upon which those precedents are founded—which are much more important than a mere pedantic observance of precedents—to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. I must remind that hon. Gentleman that an opportunity was afforded to the hon. Member for Limerick of stating why he had declined to obey the Orders of the House; for I distinctly recollect that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) rose and said, that although such an opportunity was afforded him, he did not desire to avail himself of it, because his reasons were already upon record in the printed

1293
Correspondence on the Table of the House; and to the reasons alleged in that correspondence, he must refer for an explanation of the grounds on which he had acted. But this does not rest upon my own recollection. I find this entry in the Votes and Proceedings of the House:—
"Mr. Smith O'Brien, being in his place, and having been called upon by Mr. Speaker, stated that he had no further explanation to offer to the House, and that he held to his determination as expressed in his Correspondence with the chairman of the Committee of Selection, and then he withdrew."
I apprehend that the hon. Member having declined to obey the Order of the House, is in that position which is technically termed "contempt." I should wish to appeal, Sir, to your authority, whether or not there are any precedents for acceding to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork? By assenting to that Motion we may establish an important precedent for governing the proceedings of this branch of the Legislature; and it is therefore of the utmost importance that we should be careful how we depart from our established rules. If, Sir, you will have the goodness to state what is your impression as to the rules of the House, and if there be any precedents for the course proposed by the hon. Member for Cork, I should, for my own part, be happy to permit the extension of those precedents to this case. If, however, there should be no such precedents, the painful duty will be imposed upon me of supporting the established usages of the House, in opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork.
MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the appeal of the right hon. Baronet, I must state—and I do so with very great regret—that I cannot call to my memory any precedent that would justify the House, under present circumstances, in allowing the hon. Member for Limerick to be heard in his place. The hon. Member for Limerick had an opportunity of being heard after the Report of the Committee was presented to the House, and the Order for his attendance had been read. The hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of that opportunity, and the House then resolved that he had been guilty of contempt. The House having come to that conclusion, I cannot call to my memory any case which would justify them in permitting the hon. Member for Limerick to appear in his place before they determine his punishment.
MR. E. B. ROCHE: Of course, Sir, I
1294
bow with deference to your decision. It appears that my hon. Friend cannot be heard in his place in this House; but is there any reason or precedent why my hon. Friend should not be heard at the bar of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: There is no precedent for any Member of the House being called to the bar, unless he appears there almost, I may say, as a criminal. I am not aware of any precedent for such a proceeding.
MR. H. GRATTAN: I have been requested to make a statement to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick. That statement has been handed to me in writing, and is in these words:—
"I was in ignorance of the nature of the Resolution which the Chairman of the Committee of Selection intended to propose to the House when I declined to avail myself of the permission allowed me to address the House."
My hon. Friend was ignorant, at the time, of the nature of the Resolution which the Chairman of the Committee intended to submit to the House, and, therefore, he did not address them. The House will consider that circumstance, and they will, I am sure, be ready to extend their indulgence to my hon. Friend. I can assure them that he is not now acting on new opinions, but on opinions which he has held for several years. Whether he is right or wrong, he says he is supported by legal authorities; and he wishes it to be distinctly understood that he intimated his desire to serve on Committee on an Irish Bill. It would, I think, have been an easy matter for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to have arranged for placing my hon. Friend on an Irish Committee; but this was not done.
MR. SPEAKERasked if the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. E. B. Roche) withdrew his Amendment.
MR. ROCHE: Of course, as it is contrary to the rules of the House.
Amendment withdrawn, and MR. SPEAKER again read the original Motion.
MR. M. MILNESsaid, he wished to suggest a course by which the House might avoid the extremity to which they were about to proceed. It was clear, that if the hon. Member for Limerick remained in a state of contempt, he would be precluded from taking any part in the debates in that House. Now, he (Mr. M. Milnes) apprehended that the effect of adjourning this debate to this day six months would be to enable

1295
the hon. Member for Limerick to take part in the deliberations and proceedings of that House. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, that the debate be adjourned to this day six months.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman must, in the first instance, move that the debate be adjourned before he could propose the adjournment to any particular time.
MR. M. MILNESsaid, that if the House did not think his suggestion deserved consideration he would not press it. He merely wished to throw out the suggestion as a means by which the House might relieve themselves from their present painful position. He would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. SPEAKERput the Question on the original Motion, which was carried.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.
MR. HAWES: Sir, once more I venture to make an appeal to the House, and once more make the Motion which I have placed on the Paper of to-day, to consider of those Danish claims which arose out of transactions which occurred in Denmark in the year 1807. Sir, after the arguments which have been adduced against this question, and the many discussions which have taken place upon it, I should hardly feel myself justified in occupying the time of the House, unless I entertained the strongest conviction of the equity and justice of these claims. I will endeavour, Sir, to compress what I have to say into a narrow compass. Now, Sir, the arguments which have been raised against these claims have merely, so far as I have been enabled to consider them, resolved themselves into two in number. One objection was of a financial character, which has been urged upon the House from time to time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, rather looked to the difficulty of meeting the claims, than to the justice of the case. The other objection was of a far more important character, and one that I own I feel much difficulty in contending with. I own that the legal objections which have been raised, especially by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has exhibited considerable knowledge of law—especially international law—are difficult to meet. I know, also, that there are many difficulties surrounding this question. Nevertheless, those difficulties have not deterred the House, on many occasions, from affirming,
1296
by considerable majorities, the justice of the claims that were urged on the attention of the House. The circumstances out of which these claims arose I may state in a very few words. In the year 1807, the British Government having been informed that the Danish fleet was to be placed at the disposal of Napoleon, adverse to the interests of this country, determined, upon the information which they had received, to take measures for seizing that fleet. The expedition was one that was got up with the greatest secrecy and the greatest promptitude; and I need only refer to the duties relating to the fitting out and arrival of the expedition on the coast of Denmark, in order to show to the House that the expedition was so prompt and secret that the British merchants could not by possibility have had any intimation of it. That expedition sailed from this country on the 27th of July, and arrived with the British Minister, at Copenhagen, on the 1st of August; the troops were disembarked, and on the 18th Copenhagen was invested. This expedition went not for the purpose, as it has since transpired, of making a hostile aggression on Denmark, but for the purpose of enforcing a negotiation. A negotiation was entered into on the arrival of the fleet off the coast of Denmark, before any act of hostility commenced. It continued even for a considerable time after. The Danish fleet was seized, and Denmark, of course, placed an embargo on British property and British vessels; and Danish property and vessels were in turn seized by the British. Our Government took property to the amount of 300,000 l., and the Danish Government seized property to half that amount. Negotiations were commenced before a single shot was fired, as I have before said, and continued long after the surrender of the fleet, and the seizure and confiscation of property. This negotiation came to no satisfactory conclusion, and Denmark declared war against this country on the 4th of November following; but it was not until the 24th of November Great Britain declared war against Denmark. It had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that this declaration of war had a retroactive effect which he could not admit, particularly as to the confiscation of property. The fleet of Denmark was seized, and Copenhagen attacked by British arms, while a convention was pending; and this convention declared that all hostilities were

1297
to cease, and that all public and private property was to be respected. I allude to this convention for the purpose of showing that it must have been in force up to and at the period of the declaration of war. The declaration of war did not set aside the provisions of the convention to which I have alluded, and therefore the parties for whom I seek the protection of the House were entitled to the benefits of its provisions. The debts arose out of the confiscations incident to war. Some time after these transactions took place, Mr. Canning made a remarkable declaration on this subject. It was in answer to Mr. Perceval, who brought the question of these claims under the consideration of the House. Mr. Canning had said—
"As the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a communication made by him to M. Rist, the Danish Chargé d'Affaires, he would briefly state the fact to the House. He had been commanded by His Majesty, after the Danish fleet had surrendered, to make an official communication to that gentleman, desiring that he might procure powers from the Crown Prince to negotiate an accommodation, or to procure passports for a Minister to go to Kiel for that purpose. When he communicated this fact to the House, he thought it necessary to state why he did not produce the Papers. As all negotiations were resumed on the terms upon which they had last been broken off, and though he and his Colleagues had thought it right to make such offers in the first instance, it would not follow that they were bound to grant the same conditions at a future time. In the hope of some such accommodation, His Majesty had even been induced to delay directing the condemnation of the Danish shipping, as well as his declaration of war. But now that war had taken place, it could not be contended that the capture of the Danish navy did not, pro tanto, diminish the means of the enemy, whilst it added to our own security."
Whatever opinion might have been entertained of the transaction at the time which it happened, it was certain since that time Parliament had on several occasions admitted that the applicants who had suffered during that war, and under the convention to which he had referred, were entitled to consideration. The claims put forward were of three kinds. The first claim was that of those who had debts owing to them by Danish subjects. The second kind of claim were those preferred by merchants who had goods seized on the occasion; and the third claims were those of parties who had an interest in ships and cargoes that suffered in the war. When this subject was first brought before the House, in consequence of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Treasury minute was brought up, and the Treasury minute of 1834 said distinctly it was referred to
1298
Parliament to decide whether one or all of these claims were to be admitted to compensation. By the words of that minute, the claims of those three classes were all of them admitted in principle to be worthy of the consideration of Parliament, and the progress of subsequent events had confirmed that principle. In 1835 and 1836 the first and second classes had their demands settled. In 1838 the claims of the third class had been brought under the notice of the House, on the ground that Government had funds out of which to pay the debt. Government had received the sum of 1,300,000 l., and had never paid any part of it to those claimants; therefore there were funds somewhere out of which to satisfy this claim. In the year 1839, the subject was again brought before the House; and who brought it forward? It was brought forward, not by an humble individual like myself, whose opinions, whatever they may be, would be scarcely worthy of recollection, but it was brought under the notice of the House by a most accomplished lawyer, who would not have committed his reputation to the support of claims which he had regarded as illegal. He submitted these claims to the House, and the House again sanctioned their justice; but the then Chancellor of the Exchequer still delayed the settlement of them. With the view, however, to ascertain the legality of these claims, a Commission was appointed, met, and reported upon the claims of those parties. To that report I shall shortly call the attention of the House. It was laid on the Table on May 12, 1840, was signed by the three Commissioners, and addressed to the Lords of the Treasury. It stated that the Commissioners had proceeded to consider the merits of the several claims submitted to their consideration, and that they came to the following result:—The claims amounted to half a million, which was reduced to two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds: of the reduction in the amount I make no complaint. This sum of money was obtained from the sale of several cargoes which had been seized and sold, and which consisted of goods imported from the Baltic. In 1841, Mr. Justice Cresswell moved and carried an Address to the Crown that the question would be speedily settled; and had not Mr. Justice Cresswell been convinced of the legality of these claims, he would not have ventured to have risked his professional reputation by insisting on them. I must say that this

1299
case ought not to rest on strictly technical grounds. At the time those seizures were made, the Government were exposed to considerable danger; it thought it necessary to fit out several secret expeditions; and those who were losers by them were, of course, those chiefly connected with the mercantile interest. And the House should never forget that Government had received money to the extent of 1,300,000 l., and that they never distributed more than one-half of that sum. The remaining sum must be still in existence, and could be applied to the purpose for which it was originally appropriated. I am unwilling to enter into the legal argument, but I think if any one will take the trouble—if any one has taken the trouble to refer to all that has transpired on this subject, he must be convinced that these claims are founded in justice, inasmuch as the public policy which induced the Government to take the part which they did, involved the people concerned in these losses. It is not necessary for me to say whether that policy were just or unjust. But, supposing that policy to be just, it was perfectly impossible for the Government to pretend that it did justice to the merchants, when they gave no public notification to them that they were about to enter upon the course which they took. The Admiral on the station received no intimation of that policy, and the merchants took no other precautions for their safety than they would under ordinary circumstances against sea risks. The trade in the Baltic was considered safe, and they therefore entered into nothing more than the ordinary insurance against sea risks. Sir, under these circumstances, when the British merchants were not forewarned by any public act, or warned by any official notice, they have, I contend, a perfect right now to ask this House and the Government of this country to give their sanction to a Committee of this House for investigating those claims. Sir, I have endeavoured to go as little over the whole ground as possible in submitting the case of the claimants. You will not, I will venture to say, refuse the Committee for which I ask. I hopc that those hon Members who have attended to this subject from year to year will again give the vote which they formerly gave in favour of a Committee of investigation. I am perfectly aware that the Government was placed in great difficulty by the opinions delivered by the law officers of the Crown. But I submit that this question is not a
1300
mere matter of law. It is a mixed case of law, equity, and justice. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to the Claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British Ships and Cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, the amount of their respective losses, as ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for the investigation of Danish Claims, and reported upon the 12th day of May 1840, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
[Sir W. GOSSETT, the Serjeant-at-Arms, soon afterwards appeared at the bar and said—"Sir, I have to acquaint the House, that, in obedience to the Order of the House, and in conformity with your warrant, I have taken Mr. WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN into custody."]
SIR J. HANMER: I hold in my hand a petition from the town I have the honour to represent; and I take the opportunity of expressing in a few words the reason why I consider this question should be speedily decided. I do not think that it is altogether quite a proper question for the consideration of Parliament. I cannot say that I look with any considerable favour upon this continued renewal of the question, and I feel earnestly that justice should be done, and that a final decision upon the question shall be arrived at—and that a complete, clear, and strong expression of Parliament should be come to on the subject. As to the merits of the question it appears to me that they lie in a very narrow compass. In the case of these claims, all compensation for them was formerly denied. At that time it was stated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, that the large and respectable body of individuals who had suffered upon the occasion, and who now claimed compensation for their losses, had no right to come to Parliament, or be compensated by the Government. I think that Government chose properly to compensate two classes of the Danish claimants. They were those claimants who could not be supposed to withdraw easily, and at a short notice, from the port of Denmark during the war: people who owned good debts in the town of Copenhagen, or possessed cargoes and valuable goods in the warehouses of Denmark, were possibly prevented from setting sail with their ships, and getting out of the reach of those who wished to obtain possession of them. Such was the argument

1301
used by the then Solicitor General. However, I do not think that we can sustain that opinion; but I think if an embargo was laid upon these ships before any official public notice was given to merchants in this country—if no intimation was given that the state of the relations of Denmark with this country were about to be disturbed—I do think—and I do not advance this opinion because I am Member for Hull—that such claimants have a fair reason to be compensated for the losses which they sustained from the proceeding. If a fair notice was given to them, I would not insist on their right to receive compensation; but if no official notice was afforded, those persons have a right to be considered as not having started upon a vague expedition, against which there was no impediment, and the unfortunate termination of which was beyond their conception; then, I think, they are entitled to that compensation. Now, Lord Sidmouth, on the 17th of May, 1808, on which occasion a similar Motion to that now before the House was discussed in the House of Lords, showed that no such notice had been given by the Court of Denmark; and he said that on the 2nd of September, a similar order to one previously issued by the Admiralty was afterwards issued by His Majesty's Government in Council, accompanied by orders that no ships belonging to His Majesty's subjects should clear out for any of the ports of Denmark, and that a general embargo should be laid on all ships and vessels belonging to the subjects of that country. Now, if that notice was issued in this country on the 2nd of September, and ships sailed afterwards, then, I think, they are not entitled to the compensation sought; but those which had sailed before, and were neither named by our own nor the Danish Government, are entitled to compensation. The opinion of Lord Sidmouth, in which I agree, is very favourable to the compensation of those who incurred losses. The noble Lord said, on the subject of compensation, there could not be the smallest difference of opinion; and Lord Sidmouth had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Prime Minister, and was competent to give an opinion on the matter. Now, Sir, I have stated the only arguments on which I intend to rest. I say that I find on the 2nd of September an order was issued by His Majesty's Government; after which no person had a right to compensation. Now, I think the issuing of that order was a sufficient
1302
proof that the merchants had no right to clear out of the Danish ports before that time. I beg leave, Sir, to second the Motion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said: I can assure the House, Sir, that it is very painful to me to have again to repeat those opinions and those sentiments which I have so often had occasion to address to the House on this particular subject; sometimes when sitting on this side of the House, and sometimes when sitting on the other. But, Sir, I have had from these repeated discussions full opportunities of hearing all that can be urged on this particular subject, having had various opportunities of consideration and reflection; and I adhere to the opinion which I have always expressed upon the subject, that it is one in which it is not consistent with public policy for the House to interfere, and that it is one in which it is not consistent with the duty of him to whom Her Majesty has entrusted the finances of this country to acquiesce. Sir, I believe also, very strongly, that it is a matter of great delicacy on the part of the House of Commons to deal with a question of this kind in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with it. A rule is most wisely laid down by the Constitution, that the House of Commons should not take upon itself, independently of the Crown, to originate any grant of money; and this rule is expressly laid down to guard against the possibility of parties being urged, rather by persons who had a direct interest, to come to a vote of public money which a consideration of the general interests of the country did not authorize, and the House, therefore, imposed the check in that respect. But it will place the Crown in that most inconvenient position of having, instead of as usual to originate such a grant, to refuse it when recommended by a Committee of this House. I think that it is a most inconvenient position in which to place the Crown, on an occasion where grave legal doubts as to the claims exist, and where the question of how far the right of the House to interfere is involved, to call upon it to make any grant upon such a matter. The hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by stating that these claims were refused on two special grounds: one of these grounds being financial, and the other being founded on international law. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, when he states that the objections to these claims are of a financial character. They

1303
never, let me observe, rested on that principle, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth had observed, for whether these claims be for 500,000 l. or 200,000 l., it is not the amount that we should regard in our decision, but the principle involved in it. The danger involved is not only the expense we should incur, but the expense we should expose ourselves to in respect to past wars, and our successors in respect of wars to come. The question rests in a great measure on international law not laid down in this House, by Gentlemen of the highest legal authority; and it also rests on the opinions of men who combated the former judgment on this important question. The Solicitor General expressed his opinion against it in this House, when the question was legally discussed, and I have never yet heard any answer to his opinion. The question does not rest only on the opinion of those hon. and learned Gentlemen who have lately given their opinions, but it rests on the authority of all those legal Gentlemen who have taken part in previous debates in this House, when former claims were urged. Those Gentlemen all said that the claims that were urged were only to be mantained where there was some conviction or proof of any violation of the law of nations; and they reserved to themselves the point that the circumstances on which this claim was founded, were of a totally different character from those laid down in the category of those who made the claims. This was the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, when he said that these claims should be decided by an exposition of international law. These claims have been supported by an hon. Gentleman formerly a Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cresswell); and in his constituency were large bodies of individuals personally interested in the question now before the House. Mr. Cresswell brought forward the question, as he considered he had a duty to perform to his constituency, and that he should present to the House the circumstances under which this case arose, in order that it might have the benefit of a discussion in the House of Commons. Great importance is attached to the opinion of Mr. Justice Cresswell, from his eminent legal abilities; but it ought to be borne in mind that he represented a large mercantile body, many of whom had an interest in the question. Whatever value is attached to the opinion of that eminent lawyer, the House should weigh against it the fact that he acted in that
1304
matter as it became his duty as a Representative in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this question lays great stress on the ground that this was a secret expedition, and the injury to which the merchants had been exposed in consequence of not having information so as to escape the danger. On this point the House should consider the extreme hazard which would grow out of giving information in such cases. I have not heard any sound reason given why compensation should be given in cases of this kind, and arising out of such circumstances. I have heard nothing advanced to convince me of the opinion that the captures for which compensation is sought took place after the declaration of war. The declaration of war against Denmark took place on the 16th of August, 1807, and no capture was proved to have taken place subsequent to that date. I have already referred to this declaration, and given its terms; and I now assert that it was issued on the 16th of August, and the captures were antecedent to that period. But it is said it was a secret expedition, and, therefore, compensation should be given. If you carry out that principle, what will be the effect? If you give compensation in the present instance, you are bound to give it in every other case. Grant the present claims, and whenever an enemy is attacked under similar circumstances, whenever a secret expedition is fitted out, you will be bound by such a precedent for every capture which is made at sea during the progress of the war. Let us see how the principle applies to other wars. See how it would apply to the last war with the United States. No notice was given them that our merchant shipping was in danger, yet, according to this principle, we should be bound to grant compensation for every capture, Such a ground of compensation now sought would establish a principle applicable not only to the Danish war, but to all other wars; and in all captures of merchant ships arising out of secret expeditions they would have Motions made and claims advanced for compensation. In every particular case the House would be called upon to make advances of money in order to satisfy the parties. It would be impossible for the country to go into war and defend its just rights without being subject to claims for damage done to private individuals in the prosecution of such expeditions as that out of which had arisen the present claims. But there seems to

1305
be great doubt among hon. Gentlemen who support this Motion. The hon. Member for Lambeth supported the claims of one class, while the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull supported the claims of another class. The hon. Member for Hull says, that no indemnity ought to be given in certain cases, because he has found out that an Order in Council was issued on the 2nd of September, 1807, that no British ships should clear out for Denmark, because they would be liable to be seized upon and confiscated by that Government; and therefore, argues the hon. Baronet, they have no claim for indemnity. What is the effect of this disagreement? Why, out of the eighty-five persons who, according to the statement of my right hon. Friend opposite, have claims, if the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull is taken, only ten can have any claim at all. Thus we see that these learned Gentlemen—learned in the doctrine of international law—are divided to the extent, that while the one would admit the rights of eighty-five claimants, the other would only give compensation to ten. Can a stronger proof than this be required that the subject is not of that very clear character that it was represented by the hon. Member for Lambeth to be? The hon. Member for Lambeth has, I think, not very fairly stated the opinions of Lord Althorp, as given in 1834. The Report of 1834 states—
"We are all aware that these claims are made for the losses sustained on this occasion by the act of the Danish Government; but we do not conceive that Parliament would be disposed to admit the principle that such claims could be entertained."
As I have stated before, I am very little competent to argue the legal points as to what coustitutes the lawful seizure of property. It may appear that there is no valid reason why property on shore may not be captured as well as property at sea, and why the former should be safe, while ships and cargoes should be exposed to seizure; but I believe no one will deny that such is the principle of international law. They have respected property on shore, but never that on the sea. This property, like a great deal of other property, had undergone the chances of war. It is said that these were only reprisals; and that they, therefore, stand from other ships. Now, what is the question of reprisals? It is something of this kind. You lay your hands on whatever property you can legally take, in order to compel
1306
your enemy to accede to reasonable terms. Well, then, this property happens to consist of ships and merchandise. If the differences are settled, they are returned; if the war goes on, why, they are sold. But really, after the war has commenced, there is no distinction as to property captured after the declaration of war, and after the commencement of actual hostilities. All I wish to inculcate on the House is the danger to which the country will be exposed if they set a precedent that, if they went to war with a foreign nation, some six and thirty years after they could be induced to compensate all who had suffered any detriment. Standing in every respect upon the footing on which these cargoes and ships were taken, I contend that you are not entitled to ask the House of Commons for a Committee to inquire into these claims. Sir, I can assure the House that it is only from a sincere desire to avoid all the dangers which I see incident to an acquiescence in things of this kind, that I have on so many occasions expressed my opinion on this subject. I have abstained, as the hon. Gentleman has done, as much as possible, from repeating the arguments which I have used before with respect to this question. I do not rest, as the hon. Gentleman does, upon any technical grounds. It is upon a great national principle—it is upon the broad principle which I have already stated, that if you once lay down this principle, that you will protect all ships and cargoes during war, no limit can be placed to such claims hereafter. It is on these grounds that I must resist the Motion of the hon. Member opposite, for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Danish claims.
MR. WATSON: I trust I shall be able to show the House, on principles of public justice and national law, the justice of these claims. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who represent large commercial constituencies have a peculiar mode of looking at the question of international law in this House. Will he allow me to make a retort, that the right hon. Gentlemen who have visited the purlieus of the Treasury seem also to have a very extraordinary view of the public policy and the public justice of international law? Now, Sir, let us see first of all what the facts are in this case, and the grounds on which this claim must succeed. These cargoes and ships were taken before any declaration of war whatsoever. This country having ascertained that a party was

1307
about to seize the Danish fleet, sent out a fleet under sealed orders and perfect secrecy, so that not a single merchant of this country could know where that fleet was. The relations between Denmark and England continued; the merchants continued in their intercourse with the Baltic. They continued in their intercourse with Denmark all the time. The fleet went to the Baltic, and on the Admiral being asked whether or not they might safely trade in the Baltic, he distinctly communicated to the merchants that they might do so. Well, Sir, that being so, I ask on what ground of publicity it is that these claims are attempted to be resisted? Should it not be our public policy to encourage the merchants in carrying on their trade? I say that by our national law they are clearly entitled to those claims. But what was the declaration that was made to the Admiral when they entered the Baltic? They said, "We come to your shores inhabitants of Zetland, not as enemies—(this, I believe, was dated August, and I have not the exact date)—not as enemies, but in self-defence, and to prevent those who are willing to destroy Europe from using your forces for that purpose." "We come not as enemies;" and yet the right hon. Gentleman has said they are not entitled by international law to make these claims. War was declared on the 4th of November. The Danish ambassador demanded his passports on the 16th November. It has been attempted to say that the declaration of war took place on the 14th August, in the declaration of Gluckstadt. In the case of a declaration of war between two countries, the inhabitants of each country would have warning not to trade with each other; if they were to do so, they would then be guilty of a breach of the law of their country, and vessels going to Denmark might be justly captured by English vessels, on the ground that they were attempting to trade with an enemy. On the 7th of August, it was declared by the British Envoy that war was upon the point of commencing between the two countries, and at the same time demanded his passport, on the ground that war between the two countries might be considered as having already broken out. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that this was a declaration of war between the two countries. I will prove, by the decision of Lord Stowell, that this was a declaration of reprisals, and not a declaration of war;
1308
and in the declaration issued by the Danish Government, the following words occurred:—
"We merely call upon our faithful subjects to take up arms to defend themselves and their property, and to ward off this violent attack;"
and this document further states that an embargo would be laid upon foreign vessels. Now, that point has been decided by Lord Stowell, in the Admiralty, in the case of the "Orion." The case was, whether the capture was the right of the Crown or the Admiralty. He said, that if the capture was made before the declaration of war, it was the right of the Admiralty; but it reverted to the Crown if taken after the declaration. The capture was, therefore, the right of the Crown, inasmuch as there was no declaration of war until the 4th November. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House, and says we must resist these claims, because the hon. Members for Lambeth and Hull may entertain some little difference of opinion upon the subject. The real question is, when was war declared? It has been stated by some hon. Members, that there is great danger if we compensate these Danish claimants we shall also have to compensate the French and other claimants for losses which they may have sustained in a war with England. A little reflection will tell those hon. Gentlemen that such could not be the case, because after a declaration of war is made, the prizes are the prizes of war. Such prizes are not entitled to compensation when the war has broken out, for everybody knows the situation in which they were placed—every ship captured by the Danish and French are not entitled to compensation. Now, let me look at the justice of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown some impediment in the way of this matter. He says it is not respectful to the Crown—that it is a question that reflects on the Ministers. In 1834, the hon. Member for Sheffield brought the matter forward; and again in 1837 and in 1838. In 1841, the Commons voted that in justice the compensation sought for should be given to the parties; but, however, it was not acceded to; and now the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make out a vast distinction with respect to the rights of the claimants, and says it is not respectful for us to address the Crown. Now, I say, it is altogether respectful for us to address the Crown upon the subject, when justice can be obtained by so doing; for, up to this time, no justice

1309
has been meted to the parties. The Treasury at this moment has many thousands of pounds which were paid by the Danish Government on account of those claimants; and, therefore, it was simply a debt due from the Treasury to the persons so claiming. But perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish to part with the money from the coffers of the Treasury. Now, Sir, with respect to the other point—the question of international law. I do not boast myself of a very perfect knowledge of the law; but I have looked at the opinions of those lawyers who have considered the question, and they have come to the conclusion that the parties are entitled to the compensation which they seek, as the capture of their ships was not a capture in war. There is not a better lawyer than Mr. Justice Cresswell; and it is not at all likely that he would compromise his legal character on this subject because he was the Member for Liverpool. But there are two great parties whom I have not the honour to see in their places at this moment—I mean the Attorney and Solicitor General; because, if I have stated anything erroneous in point of law, they would no doubt have corrected me. [An hon. MEMBER: Why are they not here?] I will tell you why they are not here. Both the Attorney and the Solicitor Generals voted for this Motion on a previous occasion; but have I not the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresswell, one of the most acute and just lawyers in England? I say it is not likely that he would warp his legal judgment on the matter; and if the Attorney General or Solicitor General were here, I am sure they would not dispute the law, because they have voted for the Motion. The hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde, who voted against the Motion) challenged Mr. Justice Cresswell to produce any authorities in favour of his view; and on the next night, the 10th of June, he did produce two authorities, and said, in the course of his address, "I have been challenged that there is no authority on the subject;" and he then read an extract from Vattell, which stated—
"Those who have by reprisals lost their property, are bound to get compensation for their losses."
Grotius too stated—
"It is the duty of the State to give compensation to those on whom reprisals have fallen."
Vattel further said, speaking of the mode of settling national disputes—
"But before a State declares war"—[I beg the
1310
attention of the House to this]—"before she declares war, of which we shall treat in the following book, as there are various methods practised among nations of obtaining justice, she seizes on some property if she has an opportunity, and declares it seized until she has had sufficient satisfaction."
Then he says—
"She takes possession of what belongs to another, and keeps it until payment; or he detains it as a pledge."
Then he says—
"The effects seized upon are preserved while there is any hope of obtaining satisfaction or justice; but so soon as that hope disappears, they are confiscated, and the reprisals are then complete."
Now can anything be more clear than that? For the purpose of satisfaction they seize, and when all hope of satisfaction disappears, the reprisals are complete, and the goods are disposed of.
"This is the last remaining effort previous to the commencement of open hostilities."
Then, indeed—
"Is the Sovereign to compensate his subject on whom reprisals shall have fallen?"
I say that Parliament and the Monarch of Great Britain ought to compensate those on whom reprisals fell by the Danish transactions of 1807.
"It is the duty of the State or the nation to make this good, because on this principle each citizen ought to pay his quota."
The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury is well versed in law, and perhaps he will point out how, seeing that war was not declared until the 4th of November, the seizures were captures of war, and not merely reprisals. There was a most extraordinary argument used here on a former occasion upon the decision of Lord Stowell upon the seizure of property in Demerara, and the claim that was made by persons calling themselves British subjects, for restitution of their property. These individuals were first British subjects, then Dutch subjects, and afterwards British subjects again; and Lord Stowell decided that, as the parties were Dutch subjects at the time of the seizure, they had no locus standi in the courts of law of this country, to obtain restitution. Lord Stowell said, that the question mainly depended on whether the property was taken before or after the declaration of war. Now, Sir, I say that this question originated on the ground of public policy, public justice, and international law; and whether this was merely a reprisal, where the persons injured were entitled to compensation, on the part of those who had caused the inquiry. I am sorry I have troubled the House so long on

1311
the subject; but it appears to me that justice requires that the law should be justly and fairly put in practice on this occasion.
MR. CARDWELL: On no occasion should I have presumed uninvited to enter the lists with my hon. Friend opposite, for the purpose of attempting to sustain an argument of a legal character; but on the present occasion as my hon. Friend has called on me I shall not shrink from the task, and I will endeavour to give a legal argument, which for the first time since the commencement of this discussion, has ever been submitted to the House. It will appear remarkable to those not familiar professionally with legal subjects, that with all the acumen of Sir James Mackintosh, and all the crown lawyers that then held office under Her Majesty, it has been reserved for to-night to bring forward a legal argument against the subject on which I feel it my duty now to speak. For the sake of the parties who sustained injury arising from the expedition to Copenhagen in 1807, this case was raised by Sir James Mackintosh; and he stated that if any portion of those goods were taken by Denmark in contravention of the established law of nations, it became our imperial duty to vindicate that law on the part of the subjects who were injured; and if for any reason whatever we failed in discharging that duty, it became our duty to compensate the subjects who suffered by our refusing to discharge that duty. This was when the Danish claims were first raised; and Sir James Mackintosh and those who were engaged with him in their former attempts, took care to have nothing to do with the part of the claims now the subject of discussion. They felt that it was necessary, resting on that ground, carefully to distinguish between those claims which demanded compensation for property on shore, and book-debts, and those claims on behalf of ships and cargoes, because they felt that in such a position there was one reply which could be made, if ships and cargoes were acknowledged to stand on the same footing as the property on shore. Why did the hon. Gentleman opposite seek to bring this case within the law of nations, when the real ground on which it rested was whether the reprisals were made before or after the declaration of war? What follows has relation to the subject of reprisals. The hon. Gentleman has grounded his position on a point of law, on which it is necessary that the legal argument should be clearly understood
1312
by each of us. The words reprisals and captures are not to be used in the ordinary and popular sense, but in a strict and legal sense. Now, the hon. Member has taken the ordinary and popular meaning of reprisals, and continued it strictly and legally as the foundation of his argument. He has laid down this distinction in the course of his address, and on that construction contends, that if captures took place before the declaration of war, they are to be considered reprisals, and compensated. With great deference to the hon. Gentleman, I must say, I do not agree with him in his legal definition; and on that ground consider they are not entitled to compensation. Reprisals between nation and nation are allowed in order to enable them to do justice to each other, in matters where they consider themselves aggrieved, and when they have no other means of redressing themselves. If a nation refuses to do justice to another, then the latter, according to the law of nations, might seize the ships of the former, and keep them in pledge till justice is done them; or if they fail to do so, then the capturing party may keep the ships and property seized, and declare them to be confiscated. If an open rupture in consequence takes place, and war ensues, then are they justified at once in confiscating all that has been previously seized. This is the distinction between reprisals and captures. Thus, if a capture takes place, and no warfare arises between the countries in consequence, then is the Government bound to take the claim of the injured parties into consideration, and to grant compensation. But when a declaration of war takes place, the retroactive effect is, that captures fall under the ordinary rules of war, and are not entitled to compensation. The hon. Gentleman says there was no declaration of war; but it has been referred to this evening, and is distinct enough. It declares on the part of the Danish Government that war is actually broken out, and calls upon all faithful subjects to come forward and take such steps as are best calculated to repel hostile attacks. This declaration of war is distinct enough, whatever may have been the acts of Denmark before the period of its being issued; and this declaration was issued on the 16th of August, 1807. Well, but the hon. Member says that the first declaration of war on the part of England was made on the 4th of November, 1807; and here, I think, my hon. and learned Friend has confounded two circumstances. A declaration

1313
of war, according to the practice of this country, is an act of hostility; and I believe that no declaration of war, according to the sense of my hon. and learned Friend, had been issued at the very time when he was on his way to take part in the battle of Waterloo. What was the object contemplated by the proclamation of the 4th of November, to which the hon. Member has made reference? That was not a proclamation of war, but a proclamation for the distribution of prizes; and before such proclamation had been issued, such prizes became droits to the Admiralty, and were carried to account of the Consolidated Fund. As between England, therefore, and Denmark, the bombardment of Copenhagen was the declaration of war; as between the Government of England and the captors of prizes, I believe that to them only had the proclamation of the 4th of November reference; and I am astonished that my hon. and learned Friend should have read a judgment of Lord Stowell in support of his position. This is a simple question between the Government of Great Britain and its subjects; not between the Governments of England and Denmark, and, therefore, not bearing on these Danish claimants. I do not know whether I have succeeded in fixing the attention of the House to the conclusion I would seek to establish. I consider that my hon. and learned Friend has, in some degree, confused the question as between the Imperial Government of Great Britain and the subjects of Great Britain making captures, and the Governments of Great Britain and of Denmark. This, I think, is the complete answer to the legal arguments which my hon. and learned Friend has for the first time submitted to the House; an argument which has escaped the attention of Sir James Mackintosh, which has not come under the notice of Mr. Justice Cresswell, and which has not been observed by any of the hon. Members who have introduced this matter before the House. Having taken up so much time in rebutting this argument, I will proceed very shortly to notice the other arguments of my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend says, that Gentlemen connected with the Government take a peculiar view of this question. I would remind the hon. and learned Member, that Lord Althorp had the subject under his consideration. These claims were brought forward for the first time in 1838. Those who had other claims to
1314
advance were too prudent to embarrass themselves with these. Therefore, this was the first time this subject was introduced. Lord Campbell and the hon. Member for Worcester did advise the Government what course to take; and the Government had not been influenced in the determination which they came to by any other considerations than those of public policy. Now, Sir, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that, if his point of law cannot be sustained, he has no ground to rely upon in regard to the principles of general public policy. I think my hon. Friend must see the vicious precedent which he is about to set. Sir, the law of nations is established for useful purposes, and on principles which should not, and ought not, to be departed from. Observe the precedent you are about to set with regard to future wars. But is it only in regard to future wars? Why, these claims are more than thirty years old. Thirty years after the Danish expedition are these claims brought forward. Those persons who had substantial claims upon the Government, never thought of embarrassing the case by bringing in the present one; and it was not until thirty years after the war that this case was brought under the notice of Parliament. And, Sir, if after that length of time the law has been against these claims, you are prepared to grant the justice of the claim in any individual cases of the kind, the precedent that you set does not apply only to future wars; but I know of no ground of justice, of policy, or of national practice, on which you can refuse to deny compensation in the case of any war that has occurred in the history of this country, upon which anybody can bring evidence of loss that has the semblance of truth in support of a similar claim. Sir, having therefore, as I humbly trust, satisfactorily answered the novel argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is placed entirely upon an erroneous distinction, and having cursorily gone over the more general arguments of the hon. Gentleman who moved for this Committee and brought the matter before the House, I do hope that the House will see the necessity of resisting the hon. Member's Motion.
MR. HUME: Sir, it is not necessary on this occasion to enter, after the debate that has now taken place, into details on this subject. I only wish, Sir, to say, that there is no fear of any precedent of this case ever occurring again. I trust that England will never be guilty of such harsh

1315
conduct towards any country, as she was guilty of towards Denmark. I do not believe there is any chance whatever of that. It is one of those measures which were most pernicious and disgraceful to the English nation; and I think that those who were the parties to this transaction should have acquitted themselves as soon as possible of the claims against them. The learned Gentleman says, that this is the first time that this class of claims was admitted. Why, Sir, we know that all these claims were put on the same footing. I believe I have stated them twenty times, or at least as many times as this subject has been brought forward; and does the hon. Gentleman make any distinction when he knows that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him did not make any distinction between these claims? That right hon. Gentleman rejected them all in the first instance as unjust; and the distinction now made is ridiculous. It is true, Sir, that those who advocated these claims did, in consequence of some intimation, make a division between these three classes; but I cannot see any distinction between them whatever. I think the learned Gentleman on this side, who has stated the case, has drawn a line; but I have always objected to the Government insisting that a declaration of war was then made. I have only to say, that an argument more inconclusive could not be brought forward on any question. I consider that we should by no means reject these claims, from any fear of a precedent being made out for future or past cases. I state that there is no fear of any claims of this sort being hereafter made. I consider that the parties who make these claims are asking for nothing but justice, and that the Government would be acting most unfairly in refusing a Committee to inquire into these claims. Government has been in possession of funds to the amount of upwards of 1,200,000 l., and this they have had in their possession ever since the year 1807. I consider that ample funds are still remaining in the hands of the Ministers to pay all these claims; and I think Ministers should be compelled to pay them. I think this should be the rule, that on whatever ground Government may think themselves warranted in commencing hostilities, they should not allow some portion of the people to suffer by such proceedings, and that if any expenses should be incurred they should be divided equally amongst all classes of the community. One or two individuals
1316
should not bear the loss. I think this clear from documents of this House, that the merchants, before they left the river Thames, asked the Admiralty if there was any danger in sending their vessels to Denmark. After arriving in the Baltic, they also inquired of the English Admiral on the station; and the answer they received from him was, "No danger." The merchants were deceived by the Government. Government concealed their plans by giving answers which they knew were erroneous. Some time since it was alleged, and strong arguments held in this House, that the merchants were not entitled to compensation, as they might have been insured. I have not heard those arguments to-night, nor have I heard a single valid argument brought forward to-night in opposition to these claims. The Chancellor of the Exchequer need not be alarmed that in any future war this can be taken as any precedent. No war can take place upon such principles, and attended with such circumstances. I think we may throw that on one side. I ground my vote, as I always have done, upon these two plain facts, that English merchants trading to Denmark considered that they were trading under the protection of the English Government, when the Government had commenced hostilities. They had no advice, and received no information on the subject, till after their property had been seized. Upon these grounds, I think that these individuals have a right to demand of the Government payment of their claims; and I only wish that I could add, and interest. The amount of interest alone would more than twice pay the whole amount of their claims. It would be only justice to add the interest to the principal claimed by these sufferers. If any of the claimants are gone to the grave, their relations may now come forward and justly ask of you compensation for their claims. All you are asked to do is to liquidate those claims. My opinion is, that they are entitled to the whole, principal and interest, as fairly and as justly as any individual having any claim against any other individual. I trust the House will support the Motion of the hon. Member, as it did formerly, and that the Ministers will not act as they have heretofore done, but will agree to the Motion and cheerfully carry it into effect.
MR. F. T. BARING: I am anxious to say a few words on this subject, because I invariably offered the Motion my determined opposition; and I must, in the first place,

1317
say, that whether you have money in the Treasury or not, if this claim is a just claim, we are bound to accede to it. I have never taken it as a mere financial question, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but whether the claim was founded on justice or not. Certainly, if it had been founded on justice, no feelings of economy would have prevented the Government of which I was a Member doing justice to the parties. My hon. Friend says that these cases—I am sure his memory fails him—he says that the cases before the House must be held to be included in the other cases decided by the House on a previous occasion; and my hon. Friend is good enough to say that the House ought not to have a divided opinion on these cases, because there was no division of opinion on the others. But to the present claims, which present themselves in a new form, and are different from those specified by Sir James Mackintosh, I shall feel it my duty to offer every opposition in my power. I think that no want of respect on my part; for I feel myself bound, looking at the great consideration which was given to the subject when I was in office, to come to that conclusion. It may be said that we have all a Treasury feeling on the subject; but my noble Friend Earl Spencer closely examined the question for himself—and no one was better able to give an opinion, on account of his fair and upright mind, of what was an equitable claim—and I know he came to a decided opinion that these claims ought not to be allowed; and, as in duty bound, I felt it my duty to consult the law officers of the Crown—Lord Denman and Lord Cottenham; and with every respect to the hon. Gentleman who sits behind me, I must say that I think we should not have been justified in acceding to the claims, when we were advised to the contrary by such high authorities. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, the Queen's Advocate, was amongst the number. Besides that, the hon. Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) considered the matter with the greatest care, and was occupied for several days in comparing the duplicates of the original documents on which the claims were founded, in order to test their accuracy, and to be enabled to give a decided opinion on the matter. Then Sir William Follett, whose name can never be mentioned in this House without respect, voted, I believe, in favour of these claims; and I recollect that, when he was appointed Solicitor General,
1318
he was taunted with changing his opinions, and he stated distinctly that he gave his opinion on the case that was submitted to him, but that when he heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Worcester, he said he could not vote for the Motion of Mr. Cresswell, as he had ceased to have a shadow of a doubt upon the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Watson) has stated what is no doubt the main point of his case, that these were reprisals, and not captures. Now, in the first place, allow me to suggest to him, that I believe the doctrine of declaration of war has been of late much changed. If the hon. Gentleman were called upon to give a legal opinion out of doors, he would say that the old authorities could not now be adopted with respect to a declaration of war. There is no declaration wanted now to constitute war. That is a crotchet that is gone by. Open hostilities constitute war, and no declaration is necessary. But the hon. Gentleman says that if the declaration of the 16th August be considered as a declaration of war, then the case falls to the ground. He says, the declaration of the 16th August was not a declaration of war—I mean the declaration of Gluckstadt. Now, in the first place, what does he give as a definition of a declaration of war? Just look to that declaration of the 16th August. In the first place, let the House read that passage which states that war had actually commenced. If the House would read the declaration of war, they would find that the property of English subjects was confiscated, and that all trade was prohibited between the two countries. There is no necessity for a particular form of words in the declaration of war; but this paper solemnly declares war between the two countries. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the construction which he said had been put upon the proclamation of 16th August, 1807, by Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier; and he quoted several words from that proclamation, with the view of showing that, although this declaration had been issued, it was not with a view of carrying on the war. There can be no doubt, however, that it was the intention of the English Government at that period to obtain their demands, if possible, by fair means; and if not, that forcible ones would be resorted to. What was the language of the two officers commanding on that occasion? They stated that the country was not then the theatre

1319
of a negotiation, but of a war. Yet the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale stated that this was only a case of reprisal, and not of war. There is another document, and a very important one, to which I must briefly refer. It is the one bearing date the 4th Nov., 1807, the declaration of war by the Government of this country. How did this document commence? What was the construction put upon the declaration of 16th August? It said, "That whereas the King of Denmark has issued a declaration of war against this country;"—and then, to return to the declaration of the authorities of Denmark of 16th August, we found it stated that war had actually commenced. I cannot see how any other conclusion could have been come to by men of common sense, after reading the papers, than that there had been a positive declaration of war. I am at a loss, in fact, to conceive how any human being, looking through the whole of these papers, can have any doubt that the opinion expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Lord Chancellor, by Lord Campbell, by Sir W. Follett, and the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, is right—that a declaration of war had been made—and that these had been fair and legal captures. Whenever questions of this character come on for discussion in the House, generally it is only those hon. Members whose constituents are directly interested in the result who are to be found in their places; whilst upon the present there is, as well as on previous occasions there has been, but a very scanty attendance of independent Members, arising, I presume, from the circumstance that it is considered by them to be of a very tiresome nature. I must conclude by expressing my intention of voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid: Sir, I have been, amongst others, requested to support these claims, and in giving them my support, I assure you that I do not do so without having given the subject some consideration. I will not trespass long on the attention of the House, but confine my remarks to the meaning of the hon. Gentleman who in his speech argued there was a declaration of war. The main point, it seems to me, to be considered is, whether or not there was a declaration of war. It appears to me, the fact of two of the classes of claims having been declared to be good, is an admission that there was no declaration of war. I understood it to be so
1320
stated; and such appears to have been the opinion of Sir W. Follett, as far as the other two cases were concerned. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman and the Government can admit these claims as they have done, without giving up the position of the declaration of war. I can see no reason why the present claim should be rejected, having conceded the other claims, on the ground of the declaration of war; and you must, therefore, argue the case upon totally different grounds. With regard to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, I must say that great care should be exercised in taking their opinion. I have uniformly observed that legal Gentlemen give different opinions when in office to what they give when they are independent Members. When the Government asks them for an opinion, they are more disposed to give a favourable opinion to the Government, than when they are out of office; for, occupying the position they occupy, they are pledged to support the Government. When they are out of office, when they give an opinion, their legal character is at stake; but when they are in office it is well known that they are expected to support the Government, and their opinion is expected to be accordingly. In as far as I learn, legal Gentlemen when out of office, have given an opinion in favour of these claims. But on this occasion it appears that the Attorney General and Solicitor General shrink from coming forward to support the Government. This proves they must think the case of the claimants one of uncommon strength. If the Government had a leg to stand upon, the law officers would no doubt have been here to support them. But instead, we find the case so strong and convincing, that the law officers are unwilling to appear in their places in the House, in order to support the Government. I must further observe, that the legal character of both these Gentlemen, when they were independent Members, was distinctly pledged to support these claims, on the ground of international law. On the grounds of justice, therefore, I am compelled, on the present occasion, to give my support and vote to the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the present Motion.
MR. WAKLEYsaid: I wish to ask a single question of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government. Will the Government pay the money if the House decides in favour of the Motion? The question has been decided several

1321
times before, by a vote in its favour, yet the Government have not given effect to it. In doing that have they not been guilty of contempt of the House; and are they not liable to solitary confinement as much as the hon. Gentleman whose case has lately excited the attention of the House? The House, on former occasions, has repeatedly decided in favour of these claims; yet the Government has treated them with contempt. A legal argument has arisen, and out of that wilderness it appears we shall not get; for the hon. and learned Member behind me, when he commenced his speech, said that, on every principle of international law, this money ought to be paid, and he quoted as his authorities Grotius and Vattel; but up rises an hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side, and he says that, on every principle of international law, the money ought not to be paid, and he also quotes as his authorities Grotius and Vattel. It was perfectly ridiculous to pursue a course like this. These claims ought to be examined on a strict principle of justice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth stated this evening that he would confine his case to those in which adjudication had already taken place. He said that he would not carry his case further; and as the House had already four times decided that these claims were just, he wished the House to vindicate that opinion, and thus prevent any necessity for their being further troubled on the matter.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad always voted in favour of these claims, because he conceived them to be founded in justice. He should pursue the same course upon the present occasion, and hoped all hon. Members on his side the House, whether they sat in the vicinity of the Treasury benches or not, who had ever supported them, would not shrink from doing so on this occasion.
MR. HAWESsaid: I shall occupy the time of the House but for a very short period, in reply to one or two of the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. A great deal has been said about this declaration of war; and my hon. and learned Friend has relied upon this as a main point in this case. Now, will the House hear one circumstance in reference to that declaration? The expedition left this country in July, and no declaration, expressing any hostile intention was then issued. The convention was signed on the 7th September with Denmark, and it, therefore, had
1322
put an end to any previous declaration of war, if such existed. Hostilities, might, therefore, be considered as ceased, and each country was supposed to be on a good understanding with the other. Now, under those circumstances, what becomes of the declaration of war on the 16th August? That was put an end to. The declaration of the Council on the 4th November was headed in the Annual Register "A Declaration of War;" but that was merely an Order in Council, authorizing the issue of letters of marque for the purposes of reprisal. I do say, then, that the declaration of war on the 16th August was superseded by the convention which was afterwards signed by the two countries. I did not say one word about it; and I purposely left it out, because it was put an end to by their subsequent conduct. But the present was not a techical question; it ought not to be decided on technical grounds. The Government had received the money, had applied the money to its own purposes, and ought to pay it. I am not in such a case to be met by the technicalities of law; and if you do resort to law, what was the opinion of Sir W. Follett and Dr. Lushington? I hold in my hand the opinion of Sir W. Follett, in which he states that these very claimants whom you have paid, have no real claim at all. Why did you pay them then? It was on the principles of equity you did so. The words of the opinion are these:—"This question is not a question of law, nor have either classes of the claimants any legal claim upon the British Government." You paid the debt—well, why did you pay it? You felt that there were higher claims upon you than those of law; you felt that there were claims of equity and of justice, which you could not dispute. The highest men in the realm have been the advocates of these claims. Mr. Wilberforce spoke for them; and I ask you was he a man to speak for anything that was unfair or unjust? Why, what have you done? You have granted a solemn investigation into the case, and after having cut down their claim from 500,000 l. to 224,000 l., are you prepared to turn round and say, we will not pay you? If you stand upon the high ground of law, you had no right to have put them to this expense. You had no right to have investigated the matter and made a mockery of justice. It is not on a mere question of law I argue; I argue here as a plain man of business connected with trade; and I do say, that the trade and

1323
interests of this country have been treated with injustice, and it is against that injustice that I move for this Committee of Inquiry.
The House then divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 41: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mangles, R. D.

Baine, W.

Masterman, J.

Bannerman, A.

Mitchell, T. A.

Barclay, D.

Morison, Gen.

Barnard, E. G.

Neeld, J.

Borthwick, P.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

O'Brien, T.

Broadley, H.

O'Connell, D.

Browne, R. D.

O'Connell, M.

Browne, hon. W.

O'Connell, J.

Buller, C.

O'Conor Don

Cayley, E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Chapman, A.

Ord, W.

Christie, W. D.

Palmer, G.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Pechell, Capt.

Duke, Sir J.

Powell, C.

Duncan, G.

Richards, R.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Ewart, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fielden, J.

Spooner, R.

Forster, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gibson, T. M.

Thompson, Ald.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hotham, Lord

Wakley, T.

Hudson, G.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Ward, H. G.

Humphery, Ald.

Wawn, J. T.

Hutt, W.

Worcester, Marquess of

James, Sir W. C.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Hawes, B.

Mackenzie, T.

Watson, J.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Barkly, H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Greene, T.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bowles, Adm.

Hope, G. W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Jermyn, Earl

Bruce, Lord E.

M'Neill, D.

Buckley, E.

Meynell, Capt.

Cardwell, E.

Neville, R.

Carew, W. H. P.

Patten, J. W.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Peel, J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Smythe, hon. G.

Compton, H. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Cripps, W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Tufnell, H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Escott, B.

TELLERS.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Young, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Baring, H.

RAILWAY LABOURERS.
MR. BOUVERIEmoved—
"For a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of the Labourers employed in the construction of Railways and other public works, and into the remedies which may be calculated to
1324
lessen the peculiar evils, if any, of that condition."
He called the attention of the House to a statement that had appeared in some of the morning papers relative to a system that was or had been in operation on an Irish railway—he alluded to the Dublin and Mullingar line. It was alleged that the labourers were on that line only paid once a month, and not in money, but in pieces of paper, something in the shape of promissory notes. The hon. Member read a copy of one of those documents, which was to the following effect:—"Mullingar—Pay the bearer one shilling, which we will pay on demand at our office here. (Signed)—." He would not mention the name attached to the document; it was sufficient to notice the existence of such a system, to show the necessity for inquiry into the condition of the railway labourers. He would not detain the House by making a speech, as he hoped there would be no objection offered to his Motion.
MR. EWART, in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend, said, that the immorality that was known to exist to so great an extent amongst that class of people was, in his opinion, a sufficient reason for requiring that some inquiry should be made.
SIR J. GRAHAMwould save the Speaker the trouble of putting the question, by at once stating that it was not his intention to oppose the inquiry. He was obliged to the hon. Member for bringing the matter under the consideration of the House, although he did not anticipate that anything very important would result from the inquiries of a Committee. He considered that railway companies did not sufficiently avail themselves of the powers with which they were vested, in keeping an efficient police force along their respective lines; and he thought that they should be compelled to do so. He must say, that in many districts it was absolutely necessary that the payments should be made to the labourers in kind, and not in money. He mentioned more particularly Westmoreland, in many parts of which, where railway labourers were employed, they were eight or ten miles from any town, and therefore in such cases it would be impossible, if they were not paid in that way, that the workmen could obtain even the common necessaries of life. He knew, however, that the system was open to great abuse; he altogether condemned the principle of paying the people in paper notes,

1325
and he hoped that something might be done to put an end to it. He also admitted that the subject was one of great importance, which it was worth inquiring into before a Committee; and whatever suggestions they should make on the subject, it would be his duty to attend to.
MR. HUMEcondemned the "truck system;" but, at the same time said, there were many advantages conferred upon labourers by large companies supplying them with the necessaries they required. He recollected visiting the very extensive works that were established at Lanark. There all the workpeople were supplied with every necessary at 15 per cent cheaper than they could have purchased them elsewhere. He had no objection to the proposed inquiry, because he thought that it would lead to the conviction that the less they interfered between the employers and the employed, it would be so much the better for both.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
MR. HUDSONrose, pursuant to the Notice he had given, for the purpose of moving that the following Clause should be inserted in all Railway Bills of the present Session, by which new companies are to be incorporated:—
"And be it enacted, that the directors shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, cause the names and additions of all the several corporations and persons entitled to shares in the company, to be entered in the 'Register of Shareholders,' directed to be kept by 'the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845;' and the said directors shall cause an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders in the company to be called within six months from the passing of this Act, for the purpose of considering and determining whether the company shall proceed in the execution of the powers of this Act, or whether such company shall be forthwith dissolved; and it shall be lawful for such meeting so called, at which three-fifths at least of such shareholders shall be present, either personally or by proxy, to determine either that the company shall proceed in the execution of the powers of this Act, or that the company shall be forthwith dissolved; provided that before such meeting be called, it shall not be lawful for the company or the directors to put in force any of the powers of this Act relative to the taking or using of land; and in case such meeting so called shall determine that the company be forthwith dissolved, the company shall be thereupon forthwith dissolved accordingly, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs thereof as hereinafter mentioned; and thenceforth all the powers of this Act with relation to the taking or using of land, or otherwise, shall absolutely cease and determine, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding (subject, and without prejudice to all existing debts, liabilities, or agreements contracted
1326
or entered into by the company, and subject to the provisions hereinafter contained); and the directors, after full payment and satisfaction, in the first instance, of all the debts, liabilities, and agreements contracted or entered into by the company, and of such compensation as hereby provided, shall divide the residue or surplus of the moneys and effects of or belonging to the said company, rateably among the shareholders in the said company in proportion to their respective interests therein: provided, nevertheless, that the company shall make full compensation to all owners, lessees, and occupiers of land and others, in the same manner as is herein provided in cases of compensation for land required for the purposes of this Act, for all loss, damage, costs, charges, and expenses which they may respectively have sustained or been put unto in consequence of the proceedings of the company in obtaining this Act, or under any of the powers thereof; the amount to be ascertained, in case of dispute, by the verdict of a jury, or by reference to arbitration, as herein provided in other cases of disputed compensation; and all corporations and persons to or with whom such debts, liabilities, or agreements shall have been contracted, or entered into, or who shall be entitled to any such compensation as aforesaid, shall, notwithstanding the determination of such meeting, have such and the same rights and remedies against the said company for the recovery and enforcement thereof respectively, as they would have had if no such meeting had taken place, and as if the company had continued to exist: And be it further enacted, that if the directors shall not within four months from the passing of this Act cause due notice of such extraordinary meeting to be given, it shall be lawful for any six or more of the persons entitled to shares in the said undertaking, holding in the whole shares or stock to the amount of at least 5,000 l. to call such meeting by notice, signed by such shareholders, and published in the manner required by this Act with regard to extraordinary meetings of the company; and the proceedings of the meeting so called by such shareholders, at which three-fifths at least of the shareholders shall be present either personally or by proxy, shall be as valid, and shall have the same force and effect, as if such meeting had been duly called by the directors; and for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the said company, in case such meeting shall determine on the dissolution thereof, it shall be lawful for such meeting to appoint a Committee, consisting of such number of persons as they shall think fit, being shareholders in the company; and the directors shall forthwith transfer to such Committee all documents, books, papers, and accounts of or belonging to the company, and shall also transfer to such Committee all moneys, securities for moneys, and other effects and property of, or belonging to the company; and such Committee, or the survivors or survivor thereof, shall forthwith proceed to wind up the affairs of the company, and shall, in the first place, convert into money such of the effects as shall not consist of money, and pay and discharge all the debts, contracts, and liabilities of the company, and subject thereto, and to the necessary expenses of such Committee in the execution of their powers, the surplus of the said moneys shall be forthwith divided by such Committee rateably amongst the shareholders in the company in proportion to their respective interests therein; and in the event of the directors refusing

1327
or neglecting to transfer to any such Committee the documents, books, papers, and accounts, moneys, and other property and effects of the company, within ten days after demand, in writing, signed by such Committee, or the survivors or survivor of them, and delivered to any one of such directors, or left at his last or usual place of abode, it shall be lawful for such Committee, or the survivors or survivor of them, to pass a resolution that such company is desirous to wind up its affairs; and upon a copy of such resolution, signed by any one or more of such Committee, being filed in the office of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary of Bankrupts, every such company shall be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy at the time of filing the copy of such resolution, and thereupon such proceedings shall be had and taken for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the said company as are directed in and by an Act passed in the eighth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled, 'An Act for facilitating the winding up the affairs of Joint Stock Companies unable to meet their pecuniary engagements,' in the case of any of the acts of bankruptcy therein mentioned, being committed by the companies therein referred to: provided that notice shall be given by the directors, or such committee as aforesaid, if appointed, of the determination of such meeting of shareholders, to be called as aforesaid, with reference to the proceeding in the execution of the powers of this Act, or the dissolution of the company, in the London Gazette, and in one or more newspapers of each county in which the lands proposed to be affected by this Act shall lie, within fourteen days from the holding of such meeting: and at any such meeting to be held as aforesaid, the voting shall take place in the manner prescribed in the 'Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' with reference to meetings of shareholders therein referred to."
In moving the adoption of that Clause, the hon. Gentleman said that at the time he had first given notice of it, he was not aware of the intentions of the Government with regard to the steps that had since been adopted by them in reference to the winding up of railway companies; but upon a careful consideration of the Resolutions adopted by the House, he was still of opinion that the clause he then proposed was wanting. He must observe that before the deed could have effect, it should be signed by shareholders for the full amount of the estimated capital, so that it was even still in the power of the directors of any company to avoid putting the Act in force after it should have been obtained, by not allowing it to be completed. But the effect of his clause would be to compel the completion of the registration of shareholders, and thereby give to those parties who had signed the deed an opportunity of getting rid, if they should so think fit, of the liabilities to which they had thereby subjected themselves. The Resolutions passed by the House already had not provided for the class to which he referred.
1328
They had merely provided power for the scripholders to meet and decide whether they would or would not proceed with the undertaking. But the House should recollect that the scripholders might pass resolutions empowering the directors to proceed, whilst, as the law stood, the purchasers of scrip were not compelled to register it; and the original subscribers to the deed, however unwilling they might have been to go on with the undertaking, would remain liable, and might be called on to raise the money to complete the work when it would have been found to be an utterly unprofitable speculation. Some such clause as that he then proposed was absolutely wanting, no remedy whatsoever having been otherwise provided for the signers of the deed; and his object was to give to the bonâ fide subscribers an opportunity of reconsidering their condition, and not only of reviewing their position, but of winding up the concern if they should think fit. A strong case in point, showing the necessity for such a power, occurred in the year 1836, when a great number of Bills for the formation of joint-stock companies were passed. The subscribers to the deeds sold their scrip; and after a lapse of two or three years, and long after they had thought themselves quite rid of their liabilities, they were called upon in the year 1839 to pay up demands of 30 l. and 40 l. a share, by which numbers were totally ruined.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONdiffered in opinion with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) as to what he said in reference to their being no necessity for inquiry—as he considered it absolutely necessary, if for no other reason, on account of the large numbers of labourers that had been recently killed and wounded at one of these public undertakings. From the immense number of these people who were congregated together, away from their friends and relations, and without possessing any tie to connect them with their superiors, except that of receiving their weekly payments, and being, as he might add, altogether devoid of control and discipline, they possessed all the evils without any of the benefits of a standing army.
MR. MANGLESsaid, that no one could see or hear of the manner in which the railway labourers lived and conducted themselves, as they were so different from all other description of labourers, without at once admitting that some inquiry should

1329
be made into their condition. The hon. Member referred to a gross outrage that had lately been committed on two respectable females, by some ruffians who were labourers on a line of railway in Westmorland, to show the state of demoralization in which that class of persons existed, and the necessity there was for some improvement. He thanked his hon. Friend for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.
MR. AGLIONBYrose to express his opinion that it was a dangerous thing to have such a large body of men assembled together, without having them under complete control. There had been several instances where riots had ensued between the Scotch and Irish labourers engaged on the several lines, and therefore he thought there was a necessity for some check being put upon them to prevent their recurrence.
MR. WAKLEYthought it was very creditable to the Government to have yielded so readily to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but he did not know what was to be gained by the inquiry. It was notorious that the labourers preferred amusing themselves to going to church on Sundays, and their inquiry could not alter that. The people themselves had not complained of their condition, and if they had, he would venture to say, their complaint would not have been attended to—as he knew that when the people petitioned the House for the redress of any grievance, their petitions were never taken notice of; but when there was no petition from the people themselves, immediately the greatest alacrity was displayed in granting any Motion made by an hon. Member; which appeared to him most extraordinary, and a circumstance that he could not account for. They had business enough before the House already, without superadding this discussion. If the people were ignorant, it was the fault of the State, which did not provide sufficient education for them. He saw no reason why the poor should be debarred from rational recreation upon Sunday, and thought that any infringement on their humble sports by the people's House would be a most impolitic as well as a most improper proceeding.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that it was evident the facts, though notorious, were not known to the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member could never have seen the report of Mr. Chadwick as to some lines. It was clear from that that there were evils to be checked which could not be designated
1330
as "innocent enjoyments." He was quite sure it was not the intention of the Mover to impose any undue restraints on the railway labourers: all he required was that a proper check should be placed upon them, so as to have a moral and religious effect. He must do the hon. Member for Sunderland the justice to say, that he had immediately adopted a plan for the benefit of the labourers. He did not hope much from legislation on this subject; but the inquiry would do great good if it called the attention of the railway directors to the wants of the labourers.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEthought great good would be effected by inquiry. He believed that under the present state of things the men were, in many cases, defrauded by the truck system.
MR. O'CONNELLwas convinced this inquiry would do nothing but good. Where mischief existed, it would point out the remedy for it; and where good management prevailed, it would stimulate others to imitate such an example. His chief object in rising was to say he had no such horror of the truck system as had seemed to prevail amongst some hon. Members. He believed the effect of it in many cases was to enable the employer to give employment to the labourers longer than they could otherwise continue it. The labourer under it was much better and more cheaply supplied than by the village shopkeeper or the huckster; and on the part of the labourers employed on Irish railways, he must say he had no such superstitious horror of the truck system as seemed to sway many in that House.
MR. BECKETT DENISONthought, from information which he received, that abuses often prevailed under that system. These poor men ought, when necessary, to be protected, as, though they received high wages, they worked harder and exhausted life faster than any other class. He was bound to say that in the West Riding of Yorkshire the navigators were a very orderly set of persons.
DR. BOWRINGconcurred in the necessity of inquiry. The truck system was often employed in a most intolerant and intolerable way.
Motion agreed to.

DR. FITZGERALD.
MR. O'CONNELLbegged to state to the House the following facts connected with the Motion he was about to make. Two persons of the name of Kyly had been

1331
tried at the last Waterford assizes, for the offence of endeavouring to hire two persons to commit a murder on a man named Maher. Those persons had been committed on the charge, and had lived in gaol for six or eight months before trial. An application had been made to the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench to let them out on bail; but the Crown resisted that application. The matter entirely originated in the misconduct of the stipendiary magistrate, Dr. Fitzgerald, who took the depositions of the witnesses against the Kylys, and gave them some general caution, but endeavoured to obtain a confession of guilt from them. The witnesses against them were in the hands of the police; and he could, with the greatest facility, have brought those witnesses forward, and read their evidence before the prisoners. But he did no such thing. He concealed the depositions; and up to the time of the assizes, the prisoners had no notice of the nature of the evidence against them. The following remarkable fact, showing the amount of misconduct of which the stipendiary magistrate had been guilty, stood out in the case before them. At the trial one of the principal witnesses for the defence proved that one of the prisoners had been at the quarter-sessions at Dungarvon on the very day that the offence was said to have been committed. If Dr. Fitzgerald had done his duty, and the depositions had been sworn before the prisoners, it would have been ascertained that it was utterly impossible the charge could be true. The hon. Gentleman moved for the following return:—
"That there be laid before this House Copies of the Correspondence between the Irish Government and Dr. Fitzgerald, stipendiary magistrate in the county of Waterford, on the subject of the trial of persons of the name of Kyly, who were tried at the last assizes of Waterford, before the Lord Chief Baron, and upon which occasion the Chief Baron pronounced severe censure on the conduct of the said Fitzgerald:—And of the Report of the said trial, furnished by the Lord Chief Baron to the Irish Government. Also, a copy of the Depositions taken by the said Dr. Fitzgerald against the prisoners, previous to their trial. Also, copies of the affidavits filed on the motion for admitting the said prisoners Kylys to bail previous to trial, with the decision of the court thereon."
SIR J. GRAHAMby no means denied the importance of the Motion of the hon. Member; and when he said so he was quite sure the House would be of the same opinion. As the hon. Gentleman informed the House that when those documents had been laid before them he intended to make
1332
a Motion for a Select Committee, he (Sir J. Graham) thought it would be more expedient for him not to enter at length into the merits of the question on the present occasion. He acceded at once to the Returns in the latter part of the Motion. As to the first part of the Motion, he did not think it was his duty to consent to the production of the Papers required by the hon. Member. It was quite clear that Dr. Fitzgerald, in omitting to acquaint the prisoners with the evidence of the witnesses against them, had been guilty of great irregularity. The hon. Gentleman alluded to certain expressions said to have been used by the Lord Chief Baron, at the trial, as to the conduct of Dr. Fitzgerald. It was reported that the Lord Chief Baron said that the conduct of the magistrate had been illegal, unconstitutional, and dishonest. The correspondence with the Lord Lieutenant, for which the hon. Member had moved, was of a confidential nature, though connected with public business; and he should not, therefore, be disposed to produce those communications; but he might say that the Lord Chief Baron highly disapproved of the conduct of the magistrate. The expressions which were reported to have been used by him had not, however, fallen from him on that occasion. The conduct of the magistrate had been considered worthy of censure—that censure had been conveyed to him in express and decided terms—he had been removed from the district in which he had been magistrate—and the censure pronounced on him was on record. He regretted to say that Dr. Fitzgerald's conduct did not appear to have been singular. Though the practice was quite irregular, he was sorry to say it had existed for a long time in Ireland. The magistrates, however, had been warned against adopting it by a letter sent to every stipendiary in that country. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the first part of his Motion. He had not the slightest objection to accede to the latter part of it. He should be very sorry if he were understood, as in the slightest degree, palliating or defending the practice of which the hon. Member so justly complained. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman in the remarks he had made, and in those which had fallen from the Lord Chief Baron, than whom there was no more able or disinterested Judge on the bench of any country, and whose observations were always entitled to the greatest respect.
MR. O'CONNELLhad an ulterior object in moving for the Returns. The right hon. Baronet seemed to have discovered the existence of the scandalous and most disgraceful practice of taking depositions against prisoners without apprising them of evidence against them but recently, or no doubt he would not have permitted it. Such a practice would not be tolerated in this country for instant. The conduct of the magistrate, who was a Government officer with large pay and emoluments, was infinitely worse on that account than if he had been a voluntary and unpaid servant of the Crown. He had been several years a magistrate, and had not the excuse that he was ignorant of his duty. Kyly might have been executed, if the man who proved his innocence happened not to come forward at the trial, but he would have been free from danger had he heard the evidence taken against him at his committal.
Original Motion negatived, and the following agreed to:—
"Copies ordered, of the Depositions taken by Dr. Fitzgerald, against the prisoners of the name of Kyly, previous to their trial of the last Assizes of Waterford:—Of the Affidavits filed on the motion for admitting the said prisoners to bail previous to trial, with the decision of the Court thereon:—And of a Circular Letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Stipendiary Magistracy of Ireland on the subject of taking Depositions in the absence of accused persons and examining accused persons without the production of the Depositions in the absence of the witnesses."

MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
SIR R. PEELhad to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which had recently come to his knowledge, and respecting which it appeared desirable the House should come to an immediate decision, though no notice had been given on the subject. The circumstance he referred to was this: There was a Committee of the House of Lords now sitting to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland, and some time since that Committee expressed a wish that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) should obtain leave from the House to attend and give evidence before them. The hon. Member had expressed his willingness to attend that Committee, and the House had given him liberty to do so. The Committee would sit to-morrow, and he had reason to believe that to-morrow would be the last day of their sittings. Under these circumstances, if no order was made by the House, the hon. Member for Limerick would have no opportunity of giving the
1334
evidence which the Committee of the House of Lords desired to receive, the hon. Member being, as the House was aware, now in the custody of their Serjeant-at-Arms. His right hon. Friend had found two precedents which appeared to him to have an immediate bearing on this point, and to afford the grounds on which the House might make an order in the matter. It appeared there were two cases in which parties being in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, when the House of Lords desired to have their evidence, the House had given an order to the Serjeant-at-Arms to permit those persons to attend the Committee of the House of Lords for that purpose. He did not see any reason for a distinction in this respect between a Member of that House and private persons; and if such should be the opinion of the House, he would move—first, that the entry of the 16th March, 1846, giving leave to the hon. Member for Limerick to attend a Committee of the House of Lords should be read; and, secondly, that the Serjeant-at-Arms should permit Mr. Smith O'Brien, in his custody, to attend and give evidence before that Committee. He had reason to believe that it was the wish of Mr. Smith O'Brien to do so. He would not have made the Motion without notice, were it not that if the order were not made that evening, the hon. Gentleman would not have an opportunity of giving his evidence.
The entry was then read, and the Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1a. Exchequer Bills; Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment; Western Australia.
2a. Religious Opinions Relief.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From a great number of Charitable Institutions, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—From Whitechapel, Colchester, and Folkestone, for the Better Observance of, and against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on, the Sabbath.—From Henry Walker, of Clerkenwell, in favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill.—From Nenagh, for the Advancement of Public Money for the carrying on of Public Works in Ireland.—From Wigan, for the Adoption of an Efficient Ten Hours Bill, and for the Better Regulation of Factories.—From Clergymen and others of Manchester, complaining of the conduct of Contractors employed in the Construction of Railways, and stating that they do not take proper care for the Prevention of Accidents, and for Inquiry.—From Glasgow, against the Burghs (Scotland) Bill.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS' BILL.
The DUKE of CAMBRIDGEpresented a petition against the Bill from the Trustees of the Foundling Hospital.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONpresented a similar petition from the Trustees of the Lying-in-Hospital in Brownlow Street.
LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I have a similar petition to present from the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers; and also four petitions, with a like prayer, from different Trustees of Charities in Coventry, administered both by members of the Church and Dissenters. I do trust, my Lords, that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), whose opinion has so much weight with the Lord Chancellor, will exert his powerful influence to induce the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to relieve the country from the anxiety which this Bill occasions. There have been a vast number, I may say an absolute showever, of petitions presented to your Lordships against this Bill; but although my noble and learned Friends have exerted all their great influence with the country to induce petitions in its favour, I can only hear of one which either has been, or is likely to be, presented; and that one is signed by a solitary individual. I do not believe that that solitary petition will weigh for one moment with your Lordships against the general expression of public opinion, and therefore I trust the Bill will be withdrawn, and the country thereby be relieved from its anxiety.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not believe that the withdrawal of this Bill would be a relief to the public mind in any way whatever, though it might, indeed, be a relief to the minds of some of these petitioners, who, as I shall soon have an opportunity of showing you, have been proceeded against, in consequence of the reports of the Commissioners of Charities for the recoveries of moneys which have been entrusted to them for charitable purposes, but which they have applied to their own private and particular purposes.
LORD COTTENHAMthen presented petitions from the Trustees of a Charity in Coventry, and from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, both deprecating the passing of this measure into law.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I also have a petition to present on the subject of this Bill. It is from a private but a very respectable individual, who prays your Lordships that the Bill may pass into a law. He says, my Lords, that it is not only his opinion, but the opinion of many others, that the funds consecrated by the pious munificence of individuals to charitable purposes, are too often perverted to purposes of jobbing and of corruption, to guzzling and to gluttony, which my noble and learned Friends near me (Lords Campbell and Cottenham) appear to patronize—not in their own persons, of course. Oh no! not in their own persons, but in endeavouring, as they are endeavouring, to excuse these persons, and to exempt them from the operation of an efficient remedy and consequent punishment for their abuse of the property committed to them. [A cry of "Name."] Oh! I do not wish to conceal the name; the petition proceeds from Mr. Henry Walker, a chemist, I believe, in St. John Street, Clerkenwell; and when my noble Friend talks of this being the only petition in favour of the Bill, and of its proceeding from a private individual, I beg to remind him that the question is not as to the number of persons who may sign a petition, but whether they are right or wrong. Now, Mr. Walker happens to petition for what is right, whilst those who confide their petitions to my noble Friends petition for what is wrong; and therefore, of the two, I think Mr. Walker's petition, though it is only the petition of an individual, is entitled to the greater weight. But I will say nothing further on the subject at present, excepting only this, that I
1252
trust the measure will be brought forward as soon as possible, that we may be able to give it due consideration, and pass it into a law during the present Session.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of the Religious Opinions Relief Bill, said, he wished briefly to state to their Lordships the circumstances under which the measure originated. A noble Lord (Lord Beaumont), in the Session of 1844, introduced a Bill for the purpose of repealing several Acts of Parliament imposing penalties and other disabilities upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. The Acts of Parliament, and the clauses of Acts of Parliament, which it was proposed by that noble Lord to repeal were so numerous, and the subject itself was so complicated, that he (the Lord Chancellor), on the part of Her Majesty's Government, proposed to the noble Lord to transfer the Bill into his hands, he (the Lord Chancellor) undertaking to make inquiry into the subject, and to bring forward such a measure as he thought might properly and safely be passed into law. The noble Lord acceded to his request; and he (the Lord Chancellor) accordingly referred the Bill to the Criminal Law Commissioners, requesting them, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to report upon the subject. When the Commissioners had made their Report, the Session being considerably advanced, he (the Lord Chancellor) was pressed by the noble Lord to bring in a Bill upon the subject; and, as he found it impossible at that time thoroughly to investigate the whole subject, he selected those Acts or parts of Acts which were most objectionable, and to the repeal of which he thought no sound objection could be made. Accordingly, he introduced a Bill which met with very slight opposition in that House, and which was passed unanimously by the other House of Parliament. That, however, was considered by himself, and he had so stated it at the time, to be an imperfect measure. He then pledged himself to their Lordships that he would refer the whole question, not only as it related to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, but to other persons dissenting from the doctrines of the Church of England, to the Criminal Law Commissioners, and that he would bring in a Bill founded upon their Report. In pursuance of that pledge he referred the whole subject to the Criminal Law Commissioners,

1253
at the head of whom was the late Chief Justice of India, Sir Edward Ryan. They investigated the subject, and produced a very learned, elaborate, and able Report, which had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, and which he had no doubt many of their Lordships had attentively considered. He requested the Criminal Law Commissioners also to frame and prepare a Bill founded upon their Report; they complied with his request, and produced a Bill, a copy of which was also laid upon their Lordships' Table. The second Bill formed a part of the Bill to which he now referred. He had thought it prudent to divide the Bill into two, for reasons which he would shortly state. One part of it related to oaths to be taken by persons dissenting from the doctrines of the Church of England, and the other part to those disabilities under which such persons rested; and it was that which formed the subject of the present Bill. He considered there might be more difficulty and more doubt with regard to the former part of that Bill, so framed by the Commissioners, than with regard to the latter part; and as he was very desirous that the present Bill relating to disabilities should pass into a law, he thought it much better to bring it forward by itself. It was with this view that he had reduced the Bill into its present shape and compass. This then was its history. It related, he believed, to more than thirty Acts of Parliament, and parts of Acts of Parliament, imposing penalties upon different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. As far as related to a great proportion of the Acts of Parliament referred to in this Bill, there could be no sound objection to their repeal. He laid down that as a position which in the result would not be controverted. It was possible, however, there might be some doubts and difficulties with regard to repealing some of those measures. It might be considered proper that some of them should not be repealed. What was the course which their Lordships, under such circumstances, would think ought to be pursued? Their Lordships would, of course, allow the Bill to be read the second time, and when it went into Committee the particular measures wouid properly come under consideration. He was anxious to state this, in order that their Lordships might be in full possession of the case. If they concurred with him there would be no difficulty at this stage; and with the utmost candour
1254
and with the utmost desire to give satisfaction, he would consider any objection that might be made in Committee to particular parts of the Bill. It would be his duty now, which he should perform as plainly as possible, to run through the Acts of Parliament, or parts of Acts of Parliament, which it was proposed to repeal. Their Lordships would find, upon looking at the Bill, that those different Acts of Parliament were arranged in the order of their dates. He should consider them in the same way as far as was possible, consistent with the nature of the subjects to which they applied. The first Act mentioned in the Bill related to persons of the Jewish persuasion. On this subject there were two Acts—one the 53rd Henry III., and the other the 18th Edward I. As to the first of these Acts doubts had been entertained whether it was an Act or an Ordinance—whether it was a mere Ordinance by the King in Council, or whether it was an Act passed under the authority of the Legislature. It was not his intention to enter into that discussion; he would only state, as the result of the inquiries he had made, that he was satisfied it was an Act of Parliament, and he founded his opinions on this consideration, that at a very early period after it had been passed, it appeared to have been treated as an Act of Parliament in two instances in our courts, the records of which still remained. By the provisions of this Act of Parliament, persons of the Jewish persuasion were prohibited from holding lands. They were allowed to occupy houses and to possess houses for their own habitations, but they were not permitted to hold lands. He did not mean to enter into the controversy, whether that was or was not law at the present day. About the middle of the last century that question was the subject of investigation after the repeal of the Jews' Bill; and Lord Temple, in their Lordships' House, requested that the Judges might be summoned for the purpose of giving their opinion upon the subject. Noble Lords of that day, however, were of opinion that the House could not call upon the Judges to give their opinion, because no Bill was before the House, and no proceedings pending to justify them in calling for it. No opinion, therefore, was given at that time; but in consequence of the doubts then entertained, the opinions of very eminent lawyers were taken upon the subject, and they generally concurred that there was no prohibition against persons of the Jewish

1255
persuasion, only as to land. It was proper he should remind their Lordships that this particular statute was not then alluded to; in fact, it was not known, and it was not then printed in the Statutes: it was only in the present century that its authenticity had been established beyond a doubt. Doubts consequently had been previously entertained, but there could be no question of it now; and their Lordships would agree with him that it was an Act of Parliament which ought to be repealed. The next Act of Parliament to which he should refer was the Act of Edward. That Act was still in force. It was one that was degrading to persons of the Jewish persuasion; it subjected them to many indignities. Among others, they were required to wear badges denoting their religious persuasion. It defined the size and form and all particulars of those badges, which badges were to be worn by persons both of the male and female sex. Could their Lordships have any doubt whatever that this Act ought to be repealed, that it ought no longer to disgrace the Statute-book? Could any person entertain the smallest particle of a doubt upon such a question? He had thus, as far as related to these two Acts, shown their Lordships that they ought to allow the Bill to be read the second time. The next Act to which he would call attention was the Statute of the 5th and 6th Edward VI.; but he could not properly treat the subject of that Statute without also referring to the Statute of Elizabeth and the Statute of Charles II. upon the same subject. A Form of Prayer was settled in the early part of the reign of Edward VI. In the 5th and 6th years of that Sovereign that Form of Common Prayer was amended and altered; and an Act of Parliament was passed establishing that amended Form as the Form of Prayer which was to be used in all churches and chapels in the kingdom; and certain penalties for a departure from it, to which he should advert, were introduced into that Act. That Form of Prayer was afterwards altered, in the 1st year of Elizabeth. The penalties were then continued, and further penalties were added. Everybody knew that in the 13th and 14th years of Charles II. the Form of Prayer was again altered—not materially, but in some circumstances; and the Act of Parliament, which required the new Form of Common Prayer to be used in all churches and chapels, revived or continued all the previous penalties applicable to the former Forms of Common Prayer. To a
1256
few of those penalties he should shortly advert. The Act prohibited any person from frequenting any place of worship where any Form of Prayer was used different from the Form of Common Prayer mentioned in the Statute; and the penalties were, for the first offence, six months' imprisonment; for the second offence, a year's imprisonment; for the third offence, imprisonment for life, he believed, or, at all events, for a much longer period than for the second offence. These penalties were still in existence. In the Session before last their Lordships relieved the Roman Catholics from these penalties, wisely, in his opinion; but the same reason which led their Lordships to repeal them, as far as related to Roman Catholics, would equally apply to all Dissenters. How was it possible they could still continue these penalties? They tolerated religious dissent—they tolerated the Presbyterian form of worship, for instance, in this country—they allowed that form of worship; and yet they said, that the person professing that form of worship, and adhering to the Form of Prayer incident to it, should, for the first offence suffer a penalty of six months' imprisonment; for the second offence, one year's imprisonment; and for the third offence, imprisonment for life, or for some long period. The same argument applied, until the Session before last, to persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, when it was repealed as far as the professors of that religion were concerned. But, what a system of legislation was it—what a correct system of law was it, to continue the penalty to one form of religious worship, while it was repealed as to another? It was also applicable to persons of the Jewish persuasion; and they, it should be recollected, could not get rid of the penalties by taking any form of oath whatever, as it might be said Protestant Dissenters could do; for they did not come within the provisions of the Act of Toleration. But that was not all. Any member of the Established Church who went into a dissenting meeting-house, or that was present at any ceremony of the Roman Catholic Church, infringed this Act of Parliament, and incurred all these penalties; therefore, he trusted that their Lordships would be of opinion that this part of the Statute of Edward VI. ought to be repealed. The second part of that Act, to which he would refer, was that which required every person to attend the service of the Church in his parish every

1257
Sunday. If he did not do so, he became subject to ecclesiastical censure by the Statute of Edward, and by the Statute of Elizabeth to a pecuniary penalty. These were the foundations of the Statutes of Recusancy—those harsh and abominable statutes to which he would have occasion hereafter to refer. This part of the Statute did not apply to Roman Catholics, but it did apply to other denominations; and, without repeating his former arguments, he trusted their Lordships would agree with him that this part of the Statute ought also to be repealed. Whether they would repeal it as far as related to the members of their own Church (the Church of England) was another question. A right rev. Prelate, for whose opinion and character he entertained the highest respect, was disposed to relax this Act as far as the pecuniary penalties were concerned; but he thought that the censure of the Church ought to be continued as far as persons of their own communion were concerned. But, during the investigations before the Commission on this subject, it had been ascertained that no proceedings had taken place under this Act for 150 years; and if such were the case, and if the Act for that period had been allowed to remain a dead letter, he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that the Acts of Parliament which authorized such penalties ought to be repealed. That, however, would be a question for consideration in Committee. He next came to another Act of Parliament, respecting which he believed a greater difference of opinion was likely to result. He alluded to the Statute of Elizabeth, known as the Act of Supremacy. He begged, on this subject to be clearly and distinctly understood; for it was a subject of very great importance. The Act of Parliament declared and enacted the supremacy of the Queen in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual in the strongest, the most ample, and the most effectual terms, and in that declaration he most entirely concurred; but it afterwards provided that any person who maintained the ecclesiastical and spiritual authority of the See of Rome should be subject to certain penalties. Now, he proposed to repeal that latter clause; but, in the first place, he would call their Lordships' attention to the penalties decreed under it. Any person maintaining the authority of the See of Rome in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, for the first offence forfeited all his personal property, for the second offence
1258
he was declared guilty of premunire, and for the third offence he was considered as guilty of the crime of high treason, and subject to the punishments awarded for that offence. Now, these were monstrous penalties. The two latter, as far as related to their Roman Catholic brethren in this country, had been repealed; but the former, referring to the forfeiture of all personal property, was still unrepealed. Nay, more, as far as related to Ireland—for the Irish Bill corresponded with the English Bill—they also still remained. He would propose that these penalties should be repealed. They applied only to Roman Catholics, for no other dissenting body cared about the subject. Now they tolerated the Roman Catholic religion. They knew what the opinions of Roman Catholics were, and they knew that it was an essential part of their religious creed to maintain the ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy of the Pope. This was one of the fundamental principles of their religion; and how inconsistent was it to say that these persons, who were allowed to perform the duties of their religion, should, in the conscientious discharge of that duty, incur heavy penalties! Could anybody attempt to maintain the justice of such a system as that? They had already recognized this principle in striking out the words "ecclesiastical and spiritual" in the act referring to Roman Catholics; and were they at the same time to continue the penalty? Could any person say, that by repealing those penalties they repealed the supremacy? For the supremacy of the Sovereign in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual he entertained the highest possible and the most sincere respect; but he at the same time thought it to be the most extravagant and untenable opinion that could by possibility be maintained, to allege that these penalties were any part of that supremacy. He would state a case in point. An Act of Parliament might grant a right of tithe to the Church of England. They might impose a penalty for questioning that right; and yet, though they afterwards repealed the penalty, the right would remain. In the same manner they had repealed the penalties imposed by the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, and yet they did not destroy the right maintained by that Statute. He should protest against the supremacy of the Crown being confined to this view. There was no man who ever turned his attention to the subject who placed it on so narrow a foundation.

1259
It was a part of the Constitution of this country, because the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law of the realm. It had been declared to be so over and over again, and the sagest professors of the law were of this opinion. It had been set forth in ancient Acts of Parliament; and in the reign of Henry VIII. this ancient doctrine had been confirmed. He would now come to the Statute of Elizabeth. In order to show the nature of the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, he might refer their Lordships to many authorities; but above all, he would wish to refer them to the case of Cawdrey, reported by Lord Coke, where the matter was most elaborately and ably referred to, considered, and decided. There was nothing technical in it; and if any noble Lord or right rev. Prelate referred to that case he would see the entire subject fully explained. It was said, that as far as related to the ministers of the Established Church, they ought not to entirely repeal these penalties. In that opinion he acquiesced. He did not mean that those precise penalties should apply to every person in holy orders; but he would have no objection that any such person denying or questioning the supremacy of the Sovereign in spiritual or ecclesiastical matters should be subject to the censure of the Church, or even be deprived if it were thought necessary. In order to remove all doubts on this point, he might state that he would have no objection to insert in Committee a proviso that they should, in repealing these penalties, in no way affect other clauses of the Bill, or in any way impair or affect the supremacy of the Sovereign of this country in matters ecclesiastical and religious. Passing by this subject, he would come to the Statute of Charles II., by which any popish recusant convict who should be convicted as such, was subject to the most grievous penalties—to large pecuniary costs, and to disabilities of a most extraordinary kind. Nobody could, he thought, for a moment doubt the propriety of repealing this Statute. A popish recusant convict was a person of the popish religion, who did not regularly repair to his parish church, and who was convicted under the Statute of Elizabeth, which he had before referred to. That was the offence for which these enormous penalties were imposed; and he would defy any person to get up in that House, and to deny the propriety of repealing them.
1260
The next Act of Parliament to which he would beg leave to refer was the Statute of James, by which persons were required to go and attend their parish church on the anniversary of what was called the Gunpowder Plot. There were no penalties in that Act of Parliament; but it was well known that every person who disobeyed the injunction of an Act of Parliament was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour, and therefore every person who refrained from going to his parish church on that day was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. Now, as far as Roman Catholics were concerned, it was impossible to require them to attend the parish church on such occasions; and accordingly, in the Act of 1844 this Statute was repealed, as far as it related to them. It was, however, hardly decent to allow it to remain on the Statute-book. Besides, it still remained applicable to Dissenters, as it had not been abrogated by the Toleration Act, or by the taking of any oaths allowed under that Act; and that Act did not release them from the consequences of a misdemeanour. It was perfectly impossible to enforce it as far as the Dissenters were concerned, and it was also applicable to persons of the Jewish persuasion; but even as regarded members of the Established Church, did any one, he would ask, who attended divine service on that day do so in consequence of the Act of Parliament, or did they ever think of the Act of Parliament or its injunctions at all? How few attended divine service on this day; and was it, he would ask, possible to institute any proceedings against persons of the Church of England, under this Statute, for not attending divine service on this day? Was it not, in fact, as far as it related to persons of the Church of England, an absolute nullity? When, therefore, he asked their Lordships to repeal this Act as far as it related to Dissenters, he would advise them to repeal it altogether, and leave it to the conscience of the public to attend divine service on that day as on other occasions. There was also another Statute to which he wished to refer, and respecting which he thought some doubts would also be entertained. He meant the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth, with respect to importing bulls and writings from the See of Rome. If any person should import any bull, or any document or writing of any description or for any purpose from the Pope of Rome, he was by that Act of Parliament guilty of the offence of high treason,

1261
and liable to execution, and to all the other consequences following from a sentence for that crime. This Statute was passed in consequence of Pope Pius V. having excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and released her subjects from their allegiance; and of the bull containing that excommunication having been affixed to the gate of the palace of the Bishop of London by a person named Felton, who was executed for the offence. The bull was also posted up in Paris, and excited the indignation of the people in both countries. There was, however, no chance of any such pranks, if he might venture so to call them, being attempted in these days; and therefore the cause of such an enactment could not be said to continue. They tolerated the Catholic prelates, and they knew that these prelates could not carry on their church establishment, or conduct its discipline without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. No Roman Catholic bishop could be created without the authority of a bull from the Pope of Rome; and many of the observances of their church required the same sanction. The moment, therefore, that they sanctioned the observance of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, they by implication allowed the communication prohibited by this Statute, and for which it imposed the penalties of high treason. If the law allowed the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be permitted to be carried on perfectly and properly; and that could not be without such communication. On these grounds he proposed to repeal that Act. But he proposed the repeal of this Statute for other and still stronger reasons. No such statute existed in Scotland, and what was still more remarkable, such a statute had never been passed by the Irish Parliament, though in that country three-fourths of the inhabitants professed the Roman Catholic religion. He knew that many of his noble Friends had been, on the first impression, much staggered at this proposition; but the more they had examined into the question, the more convinced were they of the expediency of the course which he proposed. If their Lordships thought that when the Bill got into Committee the measure might be in some degree modified, provided it could be satisfactorily made out that Roman Catholics would be enabled to do what the law authorized them to do, and to do it effectually, he should have no difficulty in acceding to such a modification. He next
1262
came to the Statute of the 11th and 12th William III., one of the most stringent that had ever been passed against the Roman Catholic religion. By that Act any priest saying mass was subject to imprisonment for life, and any person who seized a priest saying mass was to receive a reward of 100 l. Every person of eighteen years of age was required, under that Act, to take certain oaths; and if he did not do so, all his estates were forfeited, and went to his next of kin during his life. There were certain other penalties under that Act, all of which he would, without hesitation, advise their Lordships should be repealed. There was another, an Irish Act, the Act of 2nd Anne, by which any person persuading another to be reconciled to the See of Rome, and any person so reconciled were declared guilty of premunire. Their Lordships knew what the effect of such a sentence was. A person guilty of premunire was placed out of the protection of the law; and before now a question even arose, whether it was lawful to slay a man guilty of premunire, so that in one Act of Parliament a clause had to be inserted, declaring that a person guilty of premunire could not be lawfully slain. He thought their Lordships would bc of opinion that the Act of Anne should be repealed. He was happy to tell the House that he was now coming to the close of his statement. He had endeavoured to state the facts which it was his duty to lay before their Lordships as shortly but as perspicuously as he possibly could. As to schools, he would briefly state that no person was allowed to keep a school without the license of the archbishop or bishop; and no person was even allowed to be a tutor in a private family without the license of the archbishop or bishop of his diocese. This Act was in full force, and was applicable to Roman Catholics and Dissenters. By the Act of the 11th and 12th of William III., no person of the Roman Catholic persuasion was allowed to instruct youth under penalty of imprisonment for life. All these enactments he proposed to repeal. This brought him to the various Statutes of Recusancy which still remained in force. Under these Statutes a person was liable to punishment for abstaining from going to his parish church. It might be said, why take the trouble of repealing Acts of Parliament that were obsolete? But he reminded their Lordships that not more than four or five years ago fourteen or fifteen convictions had taken place under these Statutes of

1263
Recusancy. [Lord BROUGHAM: In 1841.] They were convictions of poor men, and at the time every body said that the Act ought to be repealed. Application had been made at the time to their Lordships on the subject; and the Secretary of State, Sir James Graham, was obliged to interpose, in order to put a stop to such prosecutions. It was, therefore, idle to say that these statutes were virtually repealed, because they might at any time be called into operation by ill-disposed persons, anxious to effect some object of their own. This penalty was applicable to Roman Catholics and Dissenters, as well as to members of the Established Church. But the 29th of Elizabeth went further. According to it, if any person were convicted of not going to church, he should be considered a recusant, and should pay 20 l. a month for every month mentioned in the indictment, and not only for the past time, but for the future until he should take the sacrament. If he had any lands, these lands were to be seized for the use of the Sovereign, if the penalties were not paid; and by the Act of the 1st of James I., the Crown had the option to seize the lands in the first instance. To so great an extent was this power exercised in former days, that in one year alone of that reign the revenue received by the Crown, under this Statute, amounted to upwards of 30,000 l. Their Lordships might not, therefore, be surprised to find that these Acts had been allowed to remain so long on the Statute-book. The Act applied not only to men, but also to such unhappy married women as were declared guilty of recusancy. A woman so charged and convicted was to be imprisoned, and she could not get out unless she took the sacrament; and if her husband desired to have her liberated, he should pay for it. She was to be imprisoned until her husband consented to pay 10 l. a month for the period of her offence, or gave one-third of his lands to the Crown. There never was a more harsh or more absurd system of law than this, and yet these enactments were still on the Statute-book. He proposed that they should be altogether abolished. He had now gone through the principal enactments referred to in the Bill; and any further explanation that any noble Lord might wish to receive on the subject, he would take an opportunity hereafter of giving in Committee. The objection to which the right rev. Prelate, to whom he had before alluded, and some other objections also which were then in his own mind,
1264
would come more properly before their Lordships when they got into Committee on the Bill. All he asked their Lordships to do at present was, to consider the subject calmly and dispassionately; and if they were satisfied that no mischief was likely to result from this measure, then that they should concur with him in the propriety of the repeal of the Statutes to which he had alluded. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he should entirely agree with his noble and learned Friend that no man could get up in that House, and deny that the great bulk of these statutes ought to be entirely swept away, as deforming the constitution, as defacing the Statute-book, and as being virtually obsolete, though not altogether without pernicious vitality, which might at any one moment call them into existence for sinister purposes. He had no doubt whatever that their Lordships would accede to his noble and learned Friend's proposal, and give the Bill a second reading, while the objections to it might be stated and considered in Committee. Nevertheless, as his noble and learned Friend had entered at large into the subject, he thought it would be attended with some convenience if so much of the discussion which should take place in Committee were anticipated now as would prepare noble Lords and his noble and learned Friend for what might hereafter be the main subject for consideration. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in what he had stated respecting the penalties for recusancy. His noble and learned Friend referred to what had taken place in 1841, and he would defy the wit of man to imagine a stronger case to show the great injury that might result from retaining enactments on the Statute-book of a penal nature, after they had become obsolete from a change of circumstances, than those proceedings; because what passed in that year was sufficient to show that spite, or corrupt views, or other malicious or inexcusable motives, as it were, quickened that dormant snake into a mischievous vitality. The Queen Elizabeth shilling was the object of these prosecutions ostensibly, but not really. Three or four men had been prosecuted for poaching; but in consequence of a clumsy laying of the information the worthy magistrates who presided could not prosecute to a conviction. They, being guardians of the law and of the game, having failed to convict, the accused men would have departed.

1265
"Oh, but," said one of the magistrates, "were you at church last Sunday?" "No." "Or the Sunday before that?" "No." "Or the Sunday before that again?" "No." "Oh, you must pay Queen Elizabeth's shilling then." Thus, as the men could not be convicted of poaching, the magistrates contrived to convict them of recusancy, and they were each sentenced to a penalty which, with costs, amounted to 28 s. or 29 s. They were poor men, common day labourers, and could not pay the money—they were sent to prison for three or four months, and the families of some of them came upon the parish. He was therefore of opinion that his noble and learned Friend was quite right in seeking for a repeal of these statutes. As their Lordships were aware, nothing could be more abused than the provisions of that Act in the present state of society. It should be recollected that it was not enough for a person to go every Sunday to church, or twice or three times on every Sunday, if worship were offered so often. It must be in his own parish church, or else he remained liable to the penalty. Therefore, nothing more absurd, or less adapted to the present state of society, than this Act of the 29th of Elizabeth and the other recusancy Acts could be conceived. He agreed with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend with regard to the supremacy as dealt with in the Statute of Elizabeth. No lawyer who considered the subject could say that the repeal of the Acts, as proposed by his noble and learned Friend, would imply anything against the Queen's supremacy. His noble and learned Friend, while he proposed this repeal, intended to make an enactment specially to remove all doubts as to saving her supremacy. He differed, however, with his noble and learned Friend as to one or two points connected with the 13th of Elizabeth. Nothing could be more correct than his description of the circumstances which led to that enactment, and that it arose from a bull from the Pope Pius V. having been sent over here to dethrone the Sovereign, and to absolve her subjects from their allegiance, and which was fixed to the palace of the Bishop of London, to the abhorrence of the English people, and to the residence of the King of France, to the disgust and indignation of that Sovereign. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that, looking at the case now, the penalties enacted for bringing over bulls or rescripts from the Pope were absurdly severe; but
1266
he was not prepared to go the length of the enactment, which swept away all the penalties, and allowed the throwing open the ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland to all the edicts, all the rescripts, and all general communications in matters ecclesiastical, which at any time might be issued from the Vatican, and which might be addressed—to whom? Why to a very large and important class of Her Majesty's subjects, namely, the Roman Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic laity of these realms. He would take one distinction, however, on this point. Any penalties against any persons for holding any particular religious opinions, or for any act which was done in setting forth or professing such religious opinions, or for anything which could hamper the faith in which they believed—for the law always assumed that it was impossible for the lawmaker to dive into men's motives for belief—and he held that any penalties for holding such opinions were most unjustifiable, and were unfit to be continued; and, therefore, it was fit and proper that they should be at once swept away. He repeated, however, that they should pause on one point. The object was directed not against a person in this realm for openly holding or expressly uttering certain opinions; but the penalty was directed to prevent a foreign potentate, who assumed to himself supreme jurisdiction in all ecclesiastical matters in all countries, from exercising any authority here. This, be it recollected, was the only potentate that ever put forward such a monstrous pretence; for the Bishop of Rome did not confine his alleged jurisdiction to his own territory, but claimed it over all the world. And this supremacy was not confined to ecclesiastical matters; for one of the predecessors of the present Pope gave half the world to Spain, and the other half to Portugal, while he held not more territory himself than a small portion of Italy; but this potentate—this Bishop of Rome, as he was properly called—still claimed supreme authority in ecclesiastical matters all over the world. He claimed and exercised this not only over his own Italian subjects, but over those priests who were the Queen's subjects, who adopted his religious opinions. This did not alter their allegiance to the Queen, for they were still the Queen's subjects, although they were the Pope's priests. Their flocks also were still Her Majesty's subjects, although they might worship through these priests of the Pope. According to the law the Queen was supreme

1267
in all matters, whether civil or ecclesiastical. This being the case, how could this or any other well-governed country allow that foreign potentate, without let or hindrance, to send over bulls or rescripts? He agreed that the Pope might send over a bull which would be a libel on the Church of England as by law established, or on the Parliament, or the Sovereign of England, and which might be dealt with accordingly. It might be said it was not necessary to have a prohibition for the introduction of such instruments, as the persons publishing them would, if they were libels by law, be liable to criminal prosecution. But the Vatican would not be checked in this way, for they could frame a rescript which might operate most injuriously over the minds of the priests and of their followers, and which was not a libel technically speaking, and the publication of which, therefore, could not be punished—a publication working mischievously throughout the country, and producing the worst results; and yet, unless such publication could be proved to be a libel—either a treasonable, or seditious, or defamatory libel—it could not be successfully prosecuted. He would not state a very decided opinion as to what should be done, as he saw difficulties on both sides; but he wished to state that he entertained grave doubts whether he could consent to remove all punishment for receiving rescripts from the Bishop of Rome, who claimed supremacy as well in temporal as in spiritual matters. The punishments of premunire and treason were cruelly severe, and ought never to be applied in such cases as this. Having given expression to his doubts, he would only further say that he trusted his noble and learned Friend, with the resources of professional skill, than whom no man was more gifted, would be enabled to adopt some middle course—some course which would neither offend the just scruples of one class of Her Majesty's subjects, or alarm the great anxiety of another class. He had stated the opinion, or rather he had hinted the objection which pressed on his mind at that moment, and having done so he was content to leave the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend and the bench of Bishops, whose assistance his noble and learned Friend most anxiously desired in the very important task he had undertaken. He did not think that they should altogether dispense with the prohibition of religious processions in the streets. He had no
1268
alarm himself, nor, perhaps, had any noble Lord on this matter; but he knew how feelingly alive the people of this country were on the subject, and how much they would be shocked and offended by it; and he did not believe that the public peace would be secure in Birmingham or Manchester, or even London itself, if popish processions were attempted to be got up in any of those places; he, therefore, thought that it would be proper to continue the prohibition against them. Then with respect to bells—he had suffered too much from from them in Catholic countries, from their continual clanging to fear—[The LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing in the Bill regarding either processions or bells.] Then he had fallen into a mistake as to the provisions, and he closed his observations. The question of oaths required to be well considered—perhaps, as in 1829, the securities might be put in a separate Bill, and the two go pari passu through Parliament. Only one word with respect to the interference in religious matters. He had heard with great concern that a very extraordinary proceeding had taken place in another country with which he was connected by the ties of friendship and residence; and for the preservation of the strictest ties of friendship between that country and this no one on either side of the Channel was more anxious. He had heard that the Government of France had permitted prayers to be offered up by the Archbishop of Paris, for the conversion of the Sovereign and the people of this country from their heresies to the true—that was the Roman Catholic—faith. He thought that a little strange. His excellent and gifted Friend the Minister of that country, M. Guizot, was not a Catholic, but a stanch Protestant—it must have been an oversight, because he thought nothing could be more unbecoming, nothing more reprobated, than that in one country the religious authorities should so interfere with the concerns of another country. The Archbishop of Paris must have totally forgotten that he was ordering the people of France to pray that Her Majesty should forfeit her Crown. The people of France must have been in ignorance of that fact, because they had an attachment to the Queen of a strong nature; their loyalty to Her Majesty amounted nearly to that of Her own subjects—at that moment they were looking for Her Majesty's presence in their country with anxiety. With so much attachment and

1269
loyalty, they would never dream, even for a moment, of excluding Her Majesty from the benefit of their prayers; yet they were actually praying that she might forfeit the Crown. A more unfitting injunction he had never heard of than that issued by the Archbishop of Paris. It must have been an entire oversight on the part of the Government of France; and the moment the fact was brought to their attention, he had not the slightest doubt but steps would be taken to prevent a repetition of so obnoxious a proceeding. He was not a Catholic; he had a very great respect for those who believed in that faith; he only wondered they could—the prayers in his behalf were utterly thrown away; but still he thought such a proceeding indecent, if not worse. His noble and learned Friend had opened the Bill in a manner so lucid and admirable, that in any other person it would have been extraordinary; but they had heard so many luminous statements from his noble and learned Friend which set imitation at defiance, that they became accustomed to it, and were compelled to admire at a distance; he had not only opened the Bill with perfert distinctness, but with perfect candour and fairness: all he hoped was that his noble and learned Friend would, before the Bill went into Committee, give his attention to the doubts he had stated as having arisen in his mind, and he felt certain that they would be either removed or cleared up.
The BISHOP of LONDONdid not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but to state some objections which had arisen to it in his mind during the luminous speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. No man would more readily or with more alacrity go along with the noble and learned Lord in abolishing penalties on religious opinions, where it could be done with safety, than he would; but he thought the objections taken by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) with respect to the publication of papal bulls and rescripts, were justly taken, and deserved the best consideration, not only of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but of their Lordships generally. The noble and learned Lord must not be surprised that some of the provisions of the Bill were looked upon with some apprehension and alarm by those who had been accustomed to regard the question of the supremacy of the Crown as a question of the very first importance, and as deeply involving a great question of public policy.
1270
He confessed that he had not had time, and perhaps had he had time, he might not have had the capacity, so far to make himself master of the subject, as to see the bearing of some of the provisions of the Bill upon that question. He believed it required rather a legal head than a theological one to understand the effect of the Bill in that respect. That his noble and learned Friend had any intention to affect the great question of the supremacy in a dangerous manner, any man who knew him would not for a moment believe; and he was certain that before the Bill went into Committee the objections of his noble and learned Friend opposite would receive consideration, and that proper securities would be taken for the safety of the great principle of supremacy. When his noble and learned Friend recollected what the papal supremacy implied, he would not be surprised that some alarm had been felt on the bench occupied by the right rev. Prelates on the introduction of this Bill. The jurisdiction claimed by the Pope, as denounced in our oath of supremacy, involved the right of depriving princes of their thrones, and absolving subjects from their allegiance. Nay, it was notorious that that right was at the present moment not only held, but taught by the ultramontane divines in countries not far distant from our own. No doubt it was not taught openly, because the parties so teaching it would be liable to a prosecution for sedition; but the Pope's supremacy was taught in a manner which to a person well acquainted with church history was, in effect, teaching the right of the Pope to absolve Her Majesty's subjects from their allegiance to her Crown. He could not but think that some of the provisions of the Bill went further than was intended by his noble and learned Friend. It was proposed altogether to repeal the 5th Elizabeth, cap. 1. That Act had been considered by the Criminal Law Commissioners, to whom the Bill introduced by a noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) had been referred; and they reported that although it might be very proper to modify many of its provisions, they doubted whether it would be advisable to repeal it altogether. With respect to the issuing of bulls, that was a question which appeared to him to be an exceedingly difficult one. It was not possible, he thought, to prevent the Roman Catholics in this country from receiving directions from the only recognized head of their church. If their

1271
religion was tolerated, they must be allowed free communication with those to whom they looked for instruction. But then as to bulls being issued and published without some restrictions, as his noble and learned Friend opposite had said, they might be so framed as to sow the seeds of disaffection, and at the same time so that no one would be able to prosecute them as libellous. He entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham), that a system of inspection would be desirable before publication, if indeed publication could be at all permitted; and he was glad that the objection on this point had come from such a quarter, as being less liable to the suspicion of what was termed bigotry, than if it had originated with a person who occupied a position like himself. He looked, with his noble and learned Friend, on this question, as regarded the Queen's supremacy, chiefly as a political matter. He would put aside the effect that might be produced on the religious opinions of Her Majesty's subjects, but would regard it merely as affecting them as tied by their allegiance. He hoped that before they went into Committee that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would also direct his attention to this part of the subject. With these remarks he should take leave of the subject for the present. He was at one time inclined to entertain the opinion that they should have the assistance of the Judges as to the effect that this Bill might have on Her Majesty's supremacy; but after what had been said by his noble and learned Friend on this subject, he would not say anything more on that point. He trusted that this Bill, while it would remove all harsh restrictions on the profession of religious or conscientious opinions, would be framed in such a way as to be productive of no dangerous consequences.
LORD CAMOYShoped he would be pardoned if he trespassed for a short time on the attention of their Lordships. First of all, he begged leave to express his thanks to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on his own part, as well as on behalf of 8,000,000 of Roman Catholics in England, Ireland, and Scotland, for having brought forward this measure; and their obligations were considerably added to by the talented and conclusive speech in which the noble and learned Lord had introduced the question before the House. The noble and learned Lord proposed to repeal a number of Acts of
1272
Parliament and portions of Acts of Parliament, because they were obsolete and contrary to the spirit of the present age, and because also they were a stain on the Statute-book of this country, and were no longer necessary for the purposes of security. But, his noble and learned Friend had omitted to propose the repeal of those parts of the 3rd of James I., cap. 5; 1 William I., cap. 26; the 12th of Anne, st. 2, c. 14; and the 11th Geo. II., cap. 17, which prevented Catholics presenting to livings. There were some Catholics he knew to whom presentations to livings belonged; but he was not one so situated. They were forbidden by these laws from making presentations to such livings; the course therefore they pursued was to sell the next right of presentation. Surely there was no danger to be apprehended from the exercise of this right, for the person presented to a living must be examined and approved of by the bishop before he could take possession of it. There was also an injustice in these Acts. If the law said that none should be entitled to present to livings but Members of the Church of England, he could understand it; but the law merely said that Catholics alone should not make presentations; so that while they were excluded, Quakers, Jews, or Infidels might exercise that power. He held in his hand Butler's edition of Coke on Littleton, in the 4th note of which, page 391 B, it was distinctly pointed out that before persons were presented to livings, they must subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. The conclusion of this writer was similar to that which he had drawn on the subject; and there could not, therefore, be any danger in allowing Catholics to present to livings. He thought that he had said sufficient on this point to induce his noble and learned Friend to take this matter into consideration. His noble and learned Friend, while he proposed to repeal certain Acts of Parliament affecting Roman Catholics, did not touch the Act 9th of Geo. IV., which was called the settlement of the great question of the removal of Catholic disabilities; and he should not quarrel with this description, for no one had more ground to be satisfied at it than himself. But if there were provisions in that Act of the same character as those which the noble and learned Lord proposed to repeal as being obsolete, contrary to the spirit of the age, and no longer necessary for the purposes of security, he saw no reason why they should not be dealt with

1273
in the same manner as any other Act of Parliament. He did not see why an Act of Parliament should be sacred because it was recent; he, therefore, would suggest to his noble and learned Friend the propriety of making some alterations in it. He would first refer for this purpose to the 16th Clause, which provided that nothing contained in it should extend or be construed to extend to enable any person professing the Roman Catholic religion to exercise any right of presentation to any ecclesiastical benefice. The next clause the repeal of which he would suggest was the 24th, which enacted that any person assuming or using the name, style, or title of archbishop, or bishop, or dean of any place in England and Ireland which was held by a dignitary of the Church of England, should for every such offence forfeit 100 l. What was the use of retaining such a clause, for it was only applicable to the individual himself using the title? For instance, everybody called Dr. Murray the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; but if he called himself so, he would be liable to a penalty of 100 l. Was there any sensible reason for retaining such a penal clause? The next clause also imposed a penalty of 100 l. on any person holding a corporate office attending a place of public worship other than that of the Church of England in his insignia of office. The next clause imposed a penalty of 50 l. on any member of a Roman Catholic religious order wearing the habit of his order, except within his usual place of religious worship. Now, both these clauses should be repealed; and they never should have been introduced into the Bill for the settlement of this great question. It was much better to leave such matters to the operation of public opinion than to legislative enactments. If public opinion was against a practice, it would not take place; but if public opinion sanctioned it, he questioned whether such a law would be sufficient to put it down. He should now refer to some other clauses—from Clause 28 to Clause 36 inclusive:—
"And whereas Jesuits and members of other religious orders, communities, or societies of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for the gradual suppression and final prohibition of the same therein"—
He (Lord Camoys) might here ask whether, from the passing of that Bill, any attempt had been made, or even thought of, to carry this provision into execution—
"Be it therefore enacted, that every Jesuit, and
1274
every member of any other religious order, community or society of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, who at the time of the commencement of this Act shall be within the United Kingdom, shall, within six calendar months after the commencement of this Act, deliver to the clerk of the peace of the county or place where such person shall reside, or his deputy, a notice or statement in the form and containing the particulars set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed, which notice or statement such clerk of the peace, or his deputy, is required to preserve and register amongst the records of such county or place, for which no fee shall be payable; and a copy of which said notice or statement shall be by such clerk, or his deputy, forthwith transmitted to the chief secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, &c.; and in case any person shall offend in the premises, he shall forfeit and pay to His Majesty for every calendar month during which he shall remain in the United Kingdom without having delivered such notice or statement as hereinbefore required the sum of fifty pounds."
He (Lord Camoys) believed that when the Act was first passed, there were some few members of those religious bodies who took notice of these clauses; but it was soon found to be a dead measure, and no person now thought of complying with them. Every one of those persons, therefore, was liable to a penalty of 50 l. for every month that had passed over since the passing of the Emancipation Act. They did not keep the Act upon the Statute-book for any useful purpose—no State necessity had arisen to induce them to prosecute for the purpose of obtaining those penalties; but still, it was open to any person through private feeling—it was open to any malevolent person to sue for those penalties. The next clause enacted—
"That if any Jesuit or member of any such religious order, community, or society as aforesaid, shall, after the commencement of this Act, come into the realm, such person shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be sentenced and ordered to be banished from the United Kingdom for the term of his natural life."
The next clause directed—
"That in case any natural-born subject of this realm, being at the time of the commencement of this Act a Jesuit, or other member of any such religious order, community, or society, as aforesaid, shall, at the time of the commencement of this Act be out of the realm, it shall be lawful for such person to return, or to come into this realm, and upon such his return or coming into this realm he is hereby required, within the space of six months after his first returning or coming into the United Kingdom, to deliver such notice or statement to the clerk of the peace, &c., for the purpose of being so registered and transmitted as hereinbefore directed; and in case any person shall neglect or refuse so to do, he shall for such offence forfeit and pay to His Majesty, for every calendar month during which he shall remain in

1275
the United Kingdom without having delivered such notice or statement, the sum of 50 l."
It was also enacted that the Secretary of State might grant licenses to such persons coming into the country; but if the person to whom such license was granted did not leave the kingdom within a certain time after the termination of such license, he was to be banished for the term of his natural life. The 33rd Clause declared that, in case any Jesuit or member of any religious society should after the commencement of the Act admit any person to become a member of such order, or be aiding or consenting thereto, he should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and in Scotland punished with fine and imprisonment. By the 34th Clause it was enacted, that in case any offender under the Act, who should be sentenced and ordered to be banished, should, after the end of three calendar months from the time such sentence had been pronounced, be at large within any part of the United Kingdom without some lawful cause, every such offender should be transported to such place as should be appointed by His Majesty, for the term of his natural life. He (Lord Camoys) might, he thought, well ask if he were reading a Relief Act? If any noble Lord had come into the House when he was reading those clauses, and had not known that they were contained in the 10th George IV., would he not rather have supposed that they belonged to some Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Elizabeth or James, than to an Act of Parliament passed in the more tolerant days of the nineteenth century? If those clauses had been to be found in an Act of Parliament passed two hundred years ago, they would have been in all probability proposed to be repealed by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend. He thought it was right to state, when those harsh laws were made against the regular clergy, that although they had often in that House heard accusations made against the secular clergy, especially in Ireland, for attending public meetings and becoming agitators, he never recollected to have heard any accusation of the same nature made against the regular clergy in England or Ireland; and he could say with truth they were most liked wherever they were most known. If the Catholics alone were seeking to have these clauses repealed, it would only be common sense and justice on their part. But there was a very large party not Catholics
1276
who were consenting to the repeal of these clauses. They knew from the Votes of the other House, that a Bill had passed a second reading in that House by a large majority, which contained the repeal of these very clauses. That Bill was brought in by three Protestant Gentlemen—it was passed by a majority—Members of the Government voted for it; but he was quite aware of this, that they were distinctly not pledged to carry in Committee that which they supported on the second reading. That, he thought, was sufficient to justify him, undertaking, as he did, to represent the Catholic public—that was sufficient to justify him in suggesting to his noble and learned Friend the considerations he had mentioned. He was quite aware of the humble position which he (Lord Camoys) occupied in their Lordships' House. He knew that they were now dealing with a great question, involving great constitutional principles; and therefore he thought it more becoming in him to offer those suggestions to his noble and learned Friend, rather than originate, either now or at any future stage of the Bill, any substantive proposition. He did so under the conviction that if his suggestions were well founded, and if his conclusions were correct, and derived from correct premises, he might safely leave this matter to the justice of their Lordships, convinced that if they could be complied with, they would be complied with without hesitation. He thanked their Lordships for the attention they had been kind enough to afford him, and he begged to recommend his suggestions to his noble and learned Friend.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had given his reasons for introducing some very important additions to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Now, in the first place, he (the Bishop of Exeter) begged leave to say, that he much doubted if there could be any such additions made as had been suggested. What was this Bill? This Bill was confined to certain particulars, and did not profess any general policy. They had heard a general principle announced from the Woolsack that night; but the Bill contained no such principle. It was a remarkable circumstance attending this Bill—it was, in one respect, absolutely singular: the Bill did not venture to say what was its principle—it had no preamble, or anything that would guide their Lordships, or enable them to ascertain what was its principle. Notwithstanding

1277
what his noble and learned Friend had said of the principle of the Bill, when he introduced the second reading of it on that night, the Bill itself justified no such statement; it was a mere series of Acts of Parliament, or parts of Acts of Parliament, stuck together for the purpose of their being repealed, but without its being said why they were to be repealed: the Bill itself did not so much as say that it was expedient to repeal them. Therefore, to introduce more of those Acts into a measure of that sort did seem to him (the Bishop of Exeter) to be doing what was not in accordance with the strict formalities of their Lordships' proceedings. With regard to the additions themselves, which the noble Baron, whether regularly or irregularly, wished to introduce into the Bill, he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought it was a matter of very little importance: it was not as to any want of regularity that he had to complain. But he had heard, he must confess, with astonishment and pain, that they were again to have these matters discussed. He regretted that they were returning to the discussion of a question which he had hoped, as he believed most of their Lordships had also hoped, had been settled for ever. He was in hopes that the very liberal relief given by that Act which had been so harshly dealt with that night by the noble Baron (Lord Camoys), which had given to him the honours of his family, and to their Lordships the benefit of the assistance of that noble Lord, would have proved satisfactory; and he was surprised to find that the very small restraints imposed by that Statute should be objected to. The noble Baron had ventured to speak of the extreme severity of that legislation: he said, if any person had come into their Lordships' House while he was speaking, and heard him give a detail of this petty legislation—for that was the term by which the noble Lord had characterized what he, nevertheless, called extreme severity—such stranger would not think that they were in the nineteenth century, but would rather suppose they were in the sixteenth century, and legislating in the spirit of the times of Queen Elizabeth and King James. He (the Bishop of Exeter) must say, that when the noble Baron made those observations, he must have forgotten all those promises of gratitude and thankfulness which they were accustomed to hear before the passing of that Act, and which they continued to hear for some time afterwards. It should be
1278
recollected that, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, instead of a penalty of 50 l., the punishment would be forfeiture of goods and chattels; instead of the trifling inconvenience that was given to those persons by the Act of 1829, they would have to endure the penalty of high treason. The extravagant and monstrous crimes attempted in Elizabeth and James's time, drew down this tremendous vengeance on the guilty heads that threatened so much mischief to the country; and if similar enormities were no longer to be apprehended, these enactments might justly be mitigated. But was this a reason why they should give up the protection altogether against those acts which they still deemed to be dangerous? Was nothing, he asked, to be done because they were not still to inflict the penalties of high treason and the punishment of forfeiture? But that was not all the noble Lord had said. He had told them of a Bill now in the other House containing all those provisions, which had been read a second time, with the full concurrence of the First Minister of the Crown. He threatened them with the passing of that Bill, and, therefore, had forsooth endeavoured to persuade their Lordships and his noble Friend, that they ought to introduce those provisions into the Bill now before them. But he would tell him that if there was one argument stronger than another why his noble and learned Friend should not introduce those provisions into his Bill, it was that which the noble Baron himself had given. It appeared that a Bill was passing through the other House which contained almost all those provisions. He believed that all of them were included in that Bill, which had now received a second reading in the other House. But could they doubt that if it should come at all, it would come to their Lordships' House, shorn of those particular provisions which the noble Baron hoped they would introduce into this Bill? He (the Bishop of Exeter) should not hold it possible that those clauses would appear in any Bill that the other House should send to that House for their approbation. He would not believe, he would say, so shamefully of his kind as to suppose that the Prime Minister of this country, who, when he passed the measure of 1829, had declared that if there were any attempts made to interfere with the few miserable securities that were given, such attempts should receive his sternest resistance, would now be a consenting party to any measure that

1279
would contain such clauses as those which the noble Baron proposed to introduce. He did not believe it possible—he believed, on the contrary, he would indignantly disclaim any such propositions if they were pressed upon him. He had, it seemed, consented to the second reading of the Bill in the other House. There was nothing in the Bill that would preclude it from being read a second time; but there was much in it which would render it utterly impossible for their Lordships to pass that Bill, if it reached them in its original shape, and with all the provisions which it originally contained; and which would, in truth, repeal the few securities provided by the Statute of 1829. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had been compelled thus to allude to parts of a Bill now in the other House, by what had been stated by the noble Baron. He would now refer to one clause in the Statute of 1829, which had excited the special wrath of that noble Baron; namely, that which inflicted a penalty of 100 l. on any person who laid claim to the title of archbishop of a province, or bishop of a diocese, except those persons who were by law entitled to do so. He (the Bishop of Exeter) should be very frank with the noble Baron on this subject. He thought, instead of that being an act of petty legislation, that it was one of the most important character. He thought, however, with the noble Baron, that in one particular it was petty legislation. He thought it was beneath the importance of the matter with which Parliament had then been dealing, to inflict merely a penalty of 100 l. on those who laid claim for themselves to those titles. He thought they should have extended the penalty to all persons who gave those titles to them in any way that would bear the character of asserting the right of any person to the position of archbishop of any province, or bishop of any diocese, except those whom the law of the land recognized as such archbishops and bishops. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would not wish, for one, that any enlarged punishment should be inflicted on the party so doing; but he thought such pecuniary penalty should be inflicted as Parliament should have thought fit to adopt. He thought they had acted most unprovidently and incautiously in not doing so; for when they forbore to inflict upon others a penalty for giving to the Romanists in England or in Ireland the style or title of archbishop or bishop, they did, in fact, render it impossible to convict the individuals themselves
1280
who assumed those titles, because it was manifest that in the case of a publication in a newspaper they could not establish the fact against the party, except it could be actually proved that the manuscript was put into the printer's hands by the individual who professed to have written it. The mere printing of a letter, signed "John Tuam," in the Times newspaper, would not do; and if the law officers proceeded against the newspaper in which it appeared, they might say that they had incurred no penalty for putting in that letter, and refuse to give up the author. It was true they might be forced to give evidence upon trial by a subpœna; but be that so or not, he must say, that it was owing to the extreme laxity of permitting such an important restriction to pass with so slight a guard, that they had been told that night by the noble Baron that the provision was obsolete. But, with respect to this provision, he had said that it was important, and he would tell their Lordships why: those who introduced it into the Statute were actuated by a very wise motive—they knew very well, and the noble Lord knew very well—no person in that House knew it better—that there could not be two bishops of a diocese. [A noble LORD: Hear, hear!] He (the Bishop of Exeter) rejoiced, but was not surprised, that the noble Lord testified by his cheers his assent to that principle. [Lord CAMOYS: It was not I that cheered.] Then, if the noble Lord disclaimed that cheer, he knew that the noble Lord was prevented from so indicating his assent by feeling how extremely awkward the admission would be. He defied him, however, to deny the position itself. The noble Baron knew, and their Lordships knew, that there could not be two bishops of a see—they knew that one individual only was entitled to be called bishop, and that he was the bishop of that see to the exclusion of all other persons. Therefore, they must consider the Church in which he was bishop as the Catholic Church in the land; and those who claimed the title of bishop for any individual belonging to any other body of Christians in the land were thereby pronounced by the Legislature to be in a state of schism. The importance of that clause could not be too largely estimated; for by that clause in that Statute the Legislature declared the Church of England and Ireland to be the Catholic Church in England and Ireland, and the Romanists in both countries to be in a state of schism. The noble Baron

1281
had complained that the Roman Catholic noblemen and gentlemen in this country should be excluded from the right of presentation to livings. He said there were other bodies differing from the Established Church who were not prevented from exercising that right. He agreed with the noble Lord, that this was an anomaly—an anomaly, however, which, if removed at all, ought to be removed, not by giving to Romanists the right of presenting to benefices in the Church, but by taking that trust from all others who were not members of the Church. For he (the Bishop of Exeter) begged to be permitted to say, that all patrons of Church benefices were, in fact, trustees of those benefices for the Church of England; and he would say that the law could not regard the members of the Roman Catholic communion as fit persons to be trustees of benefices for the Church of England. He felt really surprised the noble Lord should be anxious to exercise such a privilege; and he felt astonished that he should consider it a degradation to be precluded from exercising it. He (the Bishop of Exeter) thought it a gross anomaly in the law of the land to permit any who were not members of the Church to be intrusted with the sacred duty of appointing its pastors. He would now make some reference to the Bill before their Lordships, and he should advert to the two parts which alone seemed to him to call for observation—that which relates to the supremacy of the Crown, and that which deals with Papal Bulls. So far as regarded the supremacy of the Crown, their Lordships would forgive him if he reminded them that that was not the first or the hundredth time at which, within the walls of that House, the question of supremacy had been discussed: it had been there discussed from the very earliest times. This Statute went to remove all penalties for extolling the supremacy of the Pope—as exercised when? In the nineteenth century? No; but in all times preceding the times of Queen Elizabeth. They were gravely told that they should no longer make it penal to set forth and extol the papal supremacy to the utmost extent to which Hildebrand and Innocent, or any other of the most despotic and usurping Popes, had ever presumed to carry it. But even at this day the supremacy of the Pope was spoken of, and went to the most frightful extent; and if they permitted themselves to make it no longer penal in any degree to extol that supremacy,
1282
they must prepare themselves for another religious war. He believed that nothing short of that could happen if their Lordships should be prevailed upon to make it no longer in any measure penal to extol the supremacy of the Pope. Their Lordships were aware that, two years ago, they had been asked to repeal this Statute, so far as would affect the penalties of high treason and premunire, and he would be be very glad to concur in any mitigation of the penalties; but two years ago their Lordships deliberately re-enacted — inasmuch as they saved that part that enacted—the forfeiture of goods and chattels for extolling the supremacy of the Pope. Therefore he (the Bishop of Exeter) hoped that his noble and learned Friend would reconsider this part of his Bill, and be contented with mitigating that penalty. But in order that they might the better know the matter on which they were invited to legislate, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would quote from a Roman Catholic authority to show what the supremacy of the Pope really was. He was now speaking of Queen Elizabeth's time; but the authority to which he referred—Bellarmine—flourished chiefly in the reign of James I. He stated the several doctrines that were held with respect to the supremacy of the Pope. It was his own opinion, which he declared to be also the common opinion, that the Pope had not directly any temporal power; but then the Pope had indirectly all power whatever in temporal matters. He said, that if the management of temporal affairs appeared to be prejudicial to spiritual ends, the spiritual power could and ought to coerce the temporal. The Pope, he said, had the supreme authority of disposing of the temporal things of all Christians, of deposing kings, and restoring kingdoms, not as an ordinary judge, but as the supreme spiritual power; he could not ordinarily establish temporal laws, but he could do these things if the kings themselves would not. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would remind their Lordships that even in their own times—he meant in the times of those who, like himself, were old enough to remember these things—they had seen this power of deposing kings indirectly brought into action. They would recollect that, at the time when Napoleon possessed the crown of France, the Pope entered into a concordatum with him, by which he bound himself to maintain the new ecclesiastical code in that country, and by which he called upon the bishops

1283
in that country, who had sworn allegiance to Louis XVIII., to obey that code; and by one stroke of his pen, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would not say extinguished eighty or one hundred bishops, but professed to dispose of their sees, because they refused to transfer their allegiance from Louis XVIII. to Napoleon, at his (the Pope's) command. But the thing did not even rest there; for one of the most liberal of all the advocates for the relief of the Romanists in this country, Mr. Charles Butler, absolutely, and in print, affirmed that to be right. He addressed those of the French bishops who, in this country, were exclaiming against the act of the Pope as an unheard-of tyranny, and told them that they were bound by the principle of their own Church to acknowledge that authority of the Pope, that dominicum altum (such were Mr. Butler's own words) which in extreme cases did enable him to do what Pius VII. did, namely, to transfer the allegiance of a whole kingdom from Louis XVIII. to Napoleon. This he (the Bishop of Exeter) conceived furnished a sufficient ground for caution on their part, and should induce them not to permit any person, by writing or speaking, to affirm, extol, or set forth the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope. He (the Bishop of Exeter) apprehended—and he put this proposition with the utmost deference and respect to their Lordships—that if this Statute were passed, removing the only statutable penalty for extolling the power of the Pope, it would be difficult to maintain an indictment against any person for doing so. He would put this question to their Lordships: was it fit that such an important class of doctrines as were included in the extolling of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope were at once to be cleared away from their Statute-book; and were they to do that with a slur on the Statute containing them? He (the Bishop of Exeter) ventured to state to his noble and learned Friend that he would find, he believed, all his right rev. Friends as ready as he (the Bishop of Exeter) should be to support him in introducing any measure of relief to Romanists, which would be consistent with such an efficient mode of affirming the supremacy of the Crown in this country as should secure an adequate penalty against any person for asserting the contrary. However generous and liberal the intentions of this Bill might be, if it were permitted to pass their Lordships' House in its present form, their Lordships
1284
must be contented to bear what he could not but regard as a well-deserved reproach; and they would have no right to murmur if the country considered them to have acted most erroneously and most reprehensibly in removing penalties, the existence of which had been, by men as wise, as patriotic, as good friends to religious liberty, and the peace and welfare of the people, as the ablest and most liberal of the noble Lords whom he saw around him, judged necessary for the dignity of the Crown, the safety of the Church, and the well-being of the people.
LORD BEAUMONTconcurred with his noble Friend (Lord Camoys) in thinking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack deserved the thanks of the Catholics of this country for having introduced the Bill now under discussion. That Bill he did not believe to be fraught with any such dangerous consequences as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) appeared to anticipate so painfully, and he would accordingly give it his hearty support. When he (Lord Beaumont) introduced in a former Session a Bill somewhat similar in its object to the present, he consulted many persons of learning and authority as to the effect which it was likely to have upon the doctrine of the supremacy of the Crown in this country, and it was proved to his clear satisfaction that no danger on this score was at all to be apprehended from the measure, inasmuch as that the supremacy of the Crown being a fact, the abolition of punishment for denying that fact could not in any way affect the fact itself. It was on this understanding that he introduced his Bill, it being clearly evident that the question of the supremacy of the Crown was not touched, and never could be touched by the repeal of the Statutes which it was in contemplation to rescind. He was not surprised that the right rev. Prelate should have experienced some difficulty in reconciling his desire for toleration with his apprehensions respecting the perfect security of our institutions; inasmuch as the Roman Catholic church in this country was placed in a totally different position from that which it held in other European States; and the wholesome control which the State in Catholic countries exercised in respect to the conduct of the clergy, and their communication with Rome, was neither claimed or allowed in this country. The absence of this power in the Government might induce the rev. Prelate to think that Statute laws of a penal natures

1285
were necessary as substitutes for the direct interference of the Executive; but a little reflection would show him that these apprehensions were wholly unfounded. The difficulty that presented itself in this case resulted altogether from the anomalous position in which England was placed with respect to her foreign diplomacy, by refusing to do what all other countries in Europe, even Turkey included, had done—namely, to put herself in relation with Rome. Much misconception and much unfounded apprehension had arisen from the exaggerated statements which had been made in various quarters respecting the supremacy of the Pope. This question was, in truth, to be judged of, not by reference to past dogmas, but to present policy; for every one who had ever been at Rome knew that the Pope never revoked nor rescinded any bygone bull or proclamation, no matter how much it might be disapproved of subsequently to its publication. New bulls of a different character might be put forward; but it was well known that no bull once issued was ever rescinded, and it was, therefore, quite visionary to base an objection to the measure now under consideration on any grounds having reference to any ancient manifestoes of the See of Rome. The question was one which in itself appertained not to the dogmas or religion of the Church of Rome, but to its policy. It was no portion of the religious belief of a Roman Catholic that the Pope possessed any power to depose princes; and he (Lord Beaumont), as a Roman Catholic, emphatically denied that out of the Papal dominions the Pope possessed any authority to depose or displace any potentate whatsoever, or any person in authority. This being the true state of the case, what possible necessity could there be for retaining on the Statute-book enactments, having for their object the infliction of penalties on those who attempted to set up, affirm, or extol the supremacy of the Pope? If it was a doctrinal point in the faith of Catholics that the Pope possessed the power of deposing princes, nobody could fulfil the religion of a Catholic who did not hold the doctrine; yet where was the Catholic who held any such belief? There was a wide difference between matters of faith and matters of discipline or policy. The former were immutable, and unchanged must ever remain; while the latter varied with the times or disposition of the monarchs of the day. The anathemas, bulls, and usurpations of temporal
1286
power were part of a temporary policy, with regard to which any Catholic might use or form an independent judgment. No sensible man could now-a-days defend the past history of Rome, or the use the Popes made of their power. He protested against the extent to which the right rev. Prelate sought to carry the meaning of the phrase "supremacy of the Pope;" and he again denied that the repeal of an Act of Parliament to punish a person for denying the fact of the supremacy of the Crown, could affect in any way the fact itself. He could not see what good or valid reason there could be for retaining on the Statute-book the Act of the 13th of Elizabeth. At the period of its enactment it might have been necessary — nay more, there could be no doubt but that it was then called for, by the audacious act of Pius V. in not only excommunicating Queen Elizabeth, but "thundering damnation" against her; but in the present state of society, and in the present condition of Europe the law was totally unnecessary, and the sooner it was rescinded the better. Let them look at the state of society on the Continent, the progress of learning, the spirit of independence afoot, and the liberal views of leading statesmen, and then ask themselves if there was any chance of seeing revived the ancient thraldom in which the Vatican held men's minds, or any danger proceeding from so prostrate, so ridiculous, or so despised a Government as that of Rome? She depended for existence on the breath of Austria, and was hated by her own people. The time had fully arrived when not only all penal statutes of this nature should be finally blotted from the Statute-book, but when England ought to place herself on a footing with the other enlightened Governments of Europe, by adopting some measure with a view of doing away with the anomaly which she now presented, of being the only country in Europe not in regular communication with Rome. Treat Rome as you treat Florence, Lucea, or Parma; put the Pope on the same footing as any other petty prince in Italy; and do not continue a system of hostility which was only suited to the day of his greatness, now that he has fallen, from his own weakness, into general neglect.—The noble Lord having again expressed his gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the introduction of the measure, declared that he would with the utmost confidence leave in the hands of that noble personage the task of bringing

1287
in another Bill for the repeal of such other penal statutes as still remained unrescinded, not being touched by the present measure; and concluded by stating that it would afford him great pleasure to support the Bill now under their Lordships' consideration.
LORD COLCHESTERcould not agree with the opinion expressed by his noble Friend, of the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy in temporal matters having been given up. He feared very much that the theory still remained dormant, and that it was a matter of discretion with the Pope as to the expediency of reducing it to practice. The Pope had not interfered of late days in the temporal affairs of Spain, Italy, Portugal, or Germany; but the reason was, that he feared that by so doing he might not be promoting the interests of the Church. Considering the changes which were now going on, and the desire which the clergy manifested of retaining power in their hands—and he need not go to the Church of Rome for that manifestation—he thought that great caution ought to be exercised in a question of this kind.
LORD CAMPBELLregretted that this measure had not been compressed into one Bill, as the Commissioners had recommended; or that at all events the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had not introduced the law with regard to oaths, which was much more important than the supremacy of the Pope, or the publication of bulls, and was even more disgraceful to the Statute-book. The Bill as it stood should receive his most cordial support. He was by no means disposed to wish that greater facilities should be given for the establishment of regular orders and nunneries here than in France and other Roman Catholic countries, of which there might be danger, unless that were done which he strongly urged upon the Government, a concordat entered into with the Pope. It was very doubtful to him whether diplomatic intercourse was prohibited by the Act of Settlement; but, at all events, he thought steps ought to be taken to establish that connexion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that as to the supremacy of the Pope, one of the right rev. Prelates had thought it advisable that the opinion of the Judges should be taken on the subject; but he thought the question too clear to render that necessary. He had arranged, however, with the right rev. Prelate, that the opinion of one of those learned persons, of
1288
very high authority, should be taken. That had been done; he had handed that opinion to the right rev. Prelate early in the evening, and it was decisive on the subject. As to the importation of bulls, there was no such Act of Parliament in Scotland or Ireland, and no evil consequence had ever been felt. Did not that show that all this terror was imaginary—the result of ingenious scruples? He would take into consideration the suggestions which had been made in the course of the discussion, and would exert himself to meet them, as far as was possible, consistently with the efficacy of the measure.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.