Sitting of 24 August 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Royal Military Asylum.
2° Batersea Park, &c.; Taxing Masters, Court of Chancery (Ireland).
Reported.—Transfer of Landed Property (Ireland); Local Acts; Fever (Ireland).
3° and passed:—City of London Sewers; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Bankrupts' Release; Nuisances and Contagious Diseases.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord George Bentinck, from Agents, and Others, connected with the Carne Brea Copper Mine, and from several other Places in Cornwall, against the Copper and Lead Duties Bill.—By Mr. Elliott, from several Freeholders of the County of Roxburgh, for Inquiry into the Working of the Excise Laws.—By Mr. Wakley, from William Bridle, late Governor of the Somerset County Gaol, for Inquiry respecting his Dismissal from that Office.—From John Evans, Medical Practitioner to the Cardigan Union, for an Inquiry relative to the Conduct of the Officers of that Union.—By Mr. Muntz, from Members of the Birmingham Reform League, praying for Remedial Measures for the Distressed State of the Country.—By Mr. Wakley, from Thomas Ford, a Prisoner in the Queen's Bench Prison, praying for an Inquiry into his Case; also from. William Cobbett, likewise a Prisoner in the same Place, praying for an Amendment of the Imprisonment for Debt Act.—From several Members of the Royal College of Surgeons, in favour of Medical Reform.—By Mr. P. Scrope, from the Operatives of Nottingham, for the In-closure of Waste Lands.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE COURT OF ROME BILL.
On the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
MR. ANSTEYrose to oppose its further progress. The true object of the Bill had not been laid before the House. He had, on a former occasion, urged the serious objections which were entertained by the vast majority of the Roman Catholics to this measure, but to none of which had the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, in the course of his speech on this question, made any reply; nor was any reply made by any Member who had spoken in defence of the Bill. This measure professed to have a double object—to declare the law, which it was said was in a doubtful state; and also to take away existing disabilities. It was, therefore, at once a declaratory and an enabling Act, which he need not tell any legal Gentleman in that House was an inconsistency. Was it right for the Government, after the many measures of universally admitted excellence which they had recently withdrawn in consequence of the advanced period of the Session, to persist in bringing forward this Bill, which was objected to by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and that too at a time when several hon. Gentlemen who entertained the strongest objections to it had left town under the impression that it would certainly be withdrawn for the present? Ought such a measure, under such circumstances, to be thus precipitately and indecently hastened forward? In the debate on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had expressed a doubt as to a statement which he had made on that occasion, to the effect that there had been open and avowed diplomatic relations between the Court of Rome and the Court of St. James's since the time of Queen Mary. He would support the statement by two quotations from the Annual Register. The first was to be found in vol. 1., p. 65, of the Chronicle, under the date of June 27th, 1808. [Mr. ANSTEY read the passage, giving an account of the Nuncio's audience of leave]. The second quotation was from vol. lvii. p. 120, of the General History. [The hon. and learned Member read the passage, containing an extract from the Papal Allocution of the 4th September, 1815, which gave an account of Cardinal Consalvis's reception at the Court of the Prince Regent as
488
a Cardinal Legate, wearing the decorations of that office, and in which the Prince Regent was thanked for "the marks of kindness and attachment to our person," with which he had received that Legate.] Surely, then, these merely diplomatic relations could still be continued without the necessity of a new law. There was nothing, he reiterated, in the statute law, and certainly nothing in the common law of these realms, which interdicted political relations with the Sovereign of the Roman States. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), indeed, had himself stated, that he thought there was nothing in the laws of this country to prohibit such relations. It was, therefore, evidently the intention of the noble Lord, in pressing forward this obnoxious measure, after four months of an interval, to induce the Pope, by promises of temporal succour in his present difficulties, to accept the measure for purposes which it was well known he objected to when it was passing through the other House of Parliament; and having obtained the Pope's assent to it, the Government would then carry out the intention with which they had been charged, and which they had by no means disavowed, of "governing Ireland through Rome. "It was to British diplomacy that the Government were teaching the Pope to look for the restoration of his temporal influence. The Government intended to negotiate in the affairs of Italy, not as the noble Lord had said, in the character of arbitrator, but that of mediator. He (Mr. Anstey) accepted the distinction; but that was the very reason why he would not entrust the mediator with such power when the party most interested in the success of the mediation was to be called upon to decide whether he would approve or condemn a favourite policy of that mediator in another quarter. The Government would address the Pope in such terms as these:—"Unless you accept this measure, you shall not have any benefit from our diplomacy at the approaching Italian Congress." He honoured the present Pontiff—he knew him to be a man of transcendent vigour, wisdom, and disinterestedness; but he (Mr. Anstey) would not be a party to leading even him into such temptation. There was something more dependent on this measure than the pacification of Italy; the peace of these realms was involved in the settlement of this question. If they adopted this measure under the pretext of pacifying Italy, they would fail in that; but they would go far to produce

489
and perpetuate civil war in these islands. This measure, if it became a law, would raise against the governing powers the jealousy, distrust, and hostility of the majority of the Protestants and Roman Catholics in these realms. The Protestants would say, that the Government had not attempted to deny that the' object of this measure was to bribe the Pope—to make a large concession to him at their expense; and the Roman Catholics would say that the Government had not denied that their design was to bribe the Pope at their expense. The bribe was to be the maintenance of the Pope in the possession of his temporal dominions. Whilst the Ministers, by this Bill, would have the privilege of using openly the influence of the Pope for their political purposes, the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen in England and Ireland would be deprived of the power which they had hitherto exercised of communicating with the Pope, at least in secret. So that if this Bill passed, the Roman Catholics would be delivered up, bound hand and foot, to any British Minister of State who was willing to bribe or threaten; and the statesmen of this country were capable of doing both. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had said, that his vote on the third reading would be guided by the manner in which the House should receive his Amendment on that part of the Bill which was insulting to the Pope, by refusing to style him "Sovereign Pontiff," a title by which he was known throughout the whole of Christendom. But how could the noble Lord expect to succeed in his Amendment when he had the Government and their supporters arrayed against him? He therefore claimed the noble Lord's support against this Bill in every one of the stages through which it would have to pass. He would oppose it in Committee; and if the Bill did pass through Committee, he should move that the third reading be postponed for six months. If he failed in that, almost his only hope would be in the effect to be produced at Rome by the insolent phraseology employed. If an ambassador went from this country to Rome, he would not be received by the Pope unless he addressed him in the usual style. And, if so, what was the use of inserting in the Bill the insulting title of "Sovereign of the Roman States?" Why not, at all events, call him what every sane man must admit him to be, "Sovereign Pontiff of the Church of Rome?" He
490
felt inclined even to hope, that at the moment this Bill received the Royal Assent, the Pope would have ceased to be "Sovereign of the Roman States," in order that the object of this Bill might be defeated. He was sorry to be obliged to detain the House so long on this question, and the rather, because it would be again and again his duty to do the same. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government had it in his power at once to render his opposition unnecessary, and bring the Session to a close, by consenting to withdraw the Bill. If the noble Lord did not do so, he deserved no pity if he should be "sitting in his place" in that House long after the 31st of September. He would oppose the Bill in every stage, and divide the House on every point which in any way touched the great principles to which he had adverted. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
SIR J. TYRELLwas unwilling to prolong or interrupt the proceedings of the House; but he held in his hand a letter to which—as this might perhaps be the only opportunity afforded him of doing so—he begged to call their attention. He was of opinion, and he believed it was a popular notion, that the continued protraction of the Session was attributable to the lengthened speeches of the hon. Member for Youghal, who, from his entering the House, had appeared to consider that he was called upon to take a very conspicuous part in its proceedings, and who had brought forward some measures which had not been received by the House in a manner that could be very satisfactory to him. There was also a popular opinion very prevalent with regard to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was not considered to feel any strong objections to the length of the Session. The fact was, that the noble Lord now resided in an agreeable villa at Richmond, and he found it much more convenient to go down there than to his constituents in the City. He (Sir J. Tyrell) wished Her Majesty would find the noble Lord a villa at some greater distance from town, for then there might be some better chance of the Session being shortened. He had not the advantage of being present during the former discussion on this Bill; but he believed there was some little difference between the noble Lords opposite (Lord J. Russell and Viscount Palmerston) with respect to

491
the grounds on which they supported the measure. He understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government supported it with a view of governing Ireland through the instrumentality of the Bishop of Rome; while the noble Foreign Secretary gave it a sugar-plum character, and degraded it to a commercial question. He always listened to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) with great satisfaction; and he was amused at the case with which he fobbed off Gentlemen who put inconvenient questions; but still he thought the Government would do well to consider and propose some remedial measures for Ireland. The letter to which he wished to call the attention of the House was dated "Kenmare River, West Coast of Ireland, August 6," and was written by a friend of his. on board his yacht. The hon. Baronet proceeded to read the letter, the writer of which, referring to the system of terrorism which prevailed in the country, and stating that he had been protecting a gentleman's family, said—
"The vagabond priests ought to be exterminated, as there is not a doubt but that in many cases they urge the people on, and, now they are frightened, pretend to try to quiet them. From what I saw last Sunday, I am quite convinced they are an awful set. Two policemen came over from Kenmare, to post up the proclamation on the chapel gate. The priest met them, and, with a volley of abuse, told them if they put it up, it would be immediately torn down. No sooner were the backs of the policemen turned, than the proclamation was torn to bits, and thrown into the road. The policemen put up another, and it as soon shared the same fate. These are the scoundrels Lord Lansdowne praises in the House of Lords, and the very fellow who thus defied the Queen's proclamation is constantly with Lord Lansdowne when he comes here to see his property, so his information cannot be very good respecting them; but it seems to be his main object, when here, to have no one but priests about him."
The writer added, that the name of the priest was Hampston, in the parish of Templemore, in Kenmare. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose to order. He did not see what a letter written by some anonymous slanderer in a drunken moment had to do with diplomatic relations with Rome.] This was not the letter of an anonymous slanderer; it was written by a gentleman whom he would be ready to produce at the bar, if necessary. The letter was not anonymous; the writer's name was Major Peton. He had also with him a letter of the 12th of August, published in the Tipperary Vindicator,
492
and which would throw some light upon the subject. [The hon. Baronet here read a letter of the Rev. J. Molony, which had appeared in the Times of August the 23rd.] Let hon. Members consider these things, and say, whether the legislation required was not some vigorous measure with regard to such priests.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Difficult as it is to understand the motives of the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), who, after a discussion on the second reading, thought it necessary, in a speech of an hour long, to repeat the arguments he before used, the motives of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are still more unintelligible. The hon. Gentleman, it appears, not having a villa at Richmond, has not found it convenient to attend the second reading of this Bill; but, having read in the newspapers some report of the speeches, which were either very inaccurately reported, or which he has not understood, he comes down and asks what the object of the Bill is, and, not choosing to have the benefit of listening to the discussion, expects that we shall again go through the arguments upon which the Bill is supported. And then, with a view of explaining something of his own opinion, he reads what is evidently a private letter; and which is only excusable on the ground of its being entirely a private letter, written with the familiarity and the carelessness with which people write private letters—a letter in which the writer, being provoked with the priests, calls them vagabonds, and very coolly says that they ought to be exterminated. Why, probably, if he was asked to justify his letter, he would say, "I mean nothing but kindness; I wrote this in a hurry, and in the freedom of familiar intercourse; and I never could imagine that anybody would he so imprudent or so blundering as to take it otherwise, or have the indiscretion to produce it in the face of the whole House of Common." I dare say, he is a very respectable gentleman. I observe, however, he gives a very bad account of his friend, of his having deserted his wife and daughters, and run away—an account which I should think he would be sorry to have brought before the House. Every one knows that in Ireland there has been actual outbreak in one or two places, and a great part of the country has been on the eve of insurrection, and there are persons, favourers of that insurrection, whose conduct has been most reprehensible; if the gentleman of whom we

493
have heard, proposed and incited others to tear down the Queen's proclamation, that was very reprehensible conduct; and I think that that letter which the hon. Member read, and which I saw, was a letter favouring treason and rebellion. Those are specimens of the conduct of individuals; if we are to enter into the conduct of individuals we know that many priests of the Roman Catholic communion have exerted all their efforts and risked their influence with their flocks in order to prevent them from being led into the dangerous course to which they were incited by the rebels who were endeavouring to seduce them from their allegiance. What Lord Lansdowne may have done, and whom he lives with when he goes to Ireland, is hardly to the purpose; but Lord Lansdowne is a man who, when he finds good conduct, whether it be in Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic, has that sense of justice and toleration that he would not allow a peculiar faith to separate him from such a person. The hon. Member who has made this Motion, has put forward two reasons for inviting us to discuss again the second reading of this Bill. The one is, that my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) made a speech which was remarkable for its brevity. Why, I think, in these times, a Member who makes a speech which is remarkable for its brevity ought to be held up as a model. Members who have entered the House in this Parliament for the first time, should be told—"Look at that gentleman; endeavour to do something of the same kind." At all events, such a speech should not be made an occasion for debating over again measures already discussed. I think that was a remarkably bad reason for reviving the discussion of the second reading. His other reason I think was equally unfounded; he said—"I spoke at great length on the second reading," which he certainly did: "but not many persons chose to be present to attend to my arguments; nobody seemed to mind them—nobody answered them, and therefore I think it necessary to repeat them over again. "It is true we have heard,
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed sæpe cadendo;"
and the hon. Member, having made a speech which was not listened to and not answered, thinks, perhaps, that it may have some effect if he repeats his speech, and takes the chance of an audience somewhat more numerous, and the still further chance that some one may answer him.
494
But I think that is a course very inconvenient to the House, and I will not assist in it; every Gentleman who imagines his arguments have not been sufficiently attended to or answered, may think he has only to repeat them on some other day in order to get a discussion again upon the subject, and thus the House would have constant repetitions of former discussions. With regard to my not having answered his statements, I believe it really was from the want of that brevity with which he reproaches my noble Friend. When the hon. Gentleman made a speech the other day, I listened to it for some time; but though undoubtedly there were arguments, yet I was not in possession of the chymical test which would detect the solid matter in such a quantity of fluid. I was not able to find exactly where the solid argument was; and, therefore, although I heard a considerable part of his speech, and although I took part in the discussion afterwards, and replied to the arguments of the hon. Member for Oxford and others, I felt myself incapable of replying to the argument of the hon. Gentleman. And I do not propose to reply to it now, because I find myself in the same situation. The hon. Member has vaunted himself very much upon his own legal opinions. I have gone upon those of Lord Campbell and Lord Cottenham; they are sufficient for me, according to my understanding, and possibly the House may be more disposed to attend to them. [Mr. ANSTEY: What are they?] With regard to the several questions which are proper for Committee, they will be raised there, and I hope we shall now go into Committee accordingly.
MR. SPOONERwould shortly state the reasons why he should give a vote in opposition to this question. It might be unusual to discuss a measure again on going into Committee; but if unusual circumstances attended a particular measure, it was not a factious opposition to oppose it in every stage, and by every legitimate means. The Bill, in the first instance, would have conferred a power on the Crown in contravention of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights; but when this was ascertained, the promoters of the Bill in its original form did not dare to go that length, but attempted to turn the whole matter into one of a mere Bill to resolve certain doubts. The Bill had now changed its original character; and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) told the House that the Act was only intended to establish com-

495
mercial relations with Rome, and to assist in making railroads in the Roman States. Why, then, if this Bill was not intended to establish unconstitutional relations with the Court of Rome, where was the necessity for this indecent haste in pressing it forward? He was certain some purpose was to be effected. There was a packed majority in that House. He knew the opponents of the measure were in a minority, because the Government had chosen to take them by surprise; and as he was satisfied that the attempt was made to force this measure on the country in an unconstitutional manner, he would raise all the opposition in his power to it. He put the noble Lord to the test of his political integrity on this question, namely, to make a call of the House. If the noble Lord would do that, and if he (Mr. Spooner) were still in a minority, he would offer no further opposition. He called on all hon. Members who valued the Protestant constitution, and who respected their pledges at the hustings, to join him in opposing a measure which it was understood was not to he carried this Session. He asked the noble Lord either to withdraw the measure, or to consent to a call of the House.
MR. J. O'CONNELL, after condemning the attack made by the hon. Member for Essex on the Catholic clergymen of Kenmare, whose conduct during the season of distress had been exemplary, proceeded to say, that there was no reason to think that the opposition opposed to this Bill was of a factious character; on the contrary, the manner in which the measure was pushed forward by the Government was a factious proceeding. The opposition to the Bill was based on principle; and he, and Catholics generally, objected to it on principle. The policy of the Government, in connexion with this measure, was paltry, unworthy, and unwise. The main object of the Bill was to give the Government an illegitimate influence over the Catholic clergy in Ireland. The empire owed a debt of gratitude to the Catholic clergy for their exertions to preserve the peace of Ireland, more particularly on a recent occasion. The Government and Parliament might obtain a legitimate influence over the Catholic clergy by doing justice to the people of that country. The Government, however, preferred attempting to bribe the ruling power at Rome, in the hope that by his means they might corrupt the Irish clergy; but the Sovereign Pontiff would throw back their Bill with contempt.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmoved that the debate he adjourned to Six o'clock the same evening.
SIR R. H. INGLISmoved asan amendment that it be adjourned to Wednesday next.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned to the evening:—Ayes 73: Noes 28; Majority 45.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Lacy, H. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mandeville, Vise.

Broadley, H.

Napier, J.

Bruen, Col.

Newdegate, C. N.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

O'Connell, J.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Pearson, C.

Dick, Q.

Reid, Col.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Renton, J. C.

Fagan, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Forbes, W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Frewen, C. H.

Urquhart, D.

Grogan, E.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Knox, Col.

Spooner, R.

SIR J. TYRELLcalled upon the Government to make inquiry into the case which he had brought under the notice of the House, and on the accuracy of which he would stand. If the noble Lord did not give a satisfactory assurance upon the subject, he would move that the House should adjourn.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied, that if the hon. Baronet would furnish the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with information which would show that, an offence at law had been committed, the Lord Lieutenant would take the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government on the subject. If, however, it should appear that there was not evidence on which a conviction could be calculated on, he would not advise the Lord Lieutenant to direct a prosecution.
SIR J. TYRELLwas satisfied with the noble Lord's statement.
Debate adjourned.

THE MAURITIUS.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to put the following questions to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies:—"1. The expenditure of the island of Mauritius for each of the years 1846 and 1847, and the disbursement made in each of those for emigration? 2. The amount of reduction of taxes in the island, distinguishing the taxes levied for general purposes from those levied for

497
special purposes, such as immigration taxes, quay and tonnage dues? 3. In what consist the reduction of 65,000 l. a-year, stated by Her Majesty's Government to have been effected in 1847, and whether those reductions do not partake of the nature of commutations of taxation rather than of reductions? 4. The balance in the Island Treasury on the 31st day of December, 1846 and 1847, respectively? 5. The amount of funds now in the hands of the colonial agents in London belonging to the island, separating the amount invested in the public funds from those which are not? 6. Whether any instructions have been sent out to the Governor with a view to the reduction of expenditure, as suggested at various times by the Mauritius Association? 7. Whether the Government bank has been established, of which it was intended Mr. Macaulay should be the manager; and whether any salaries have been paid, or are appointed to be paid to Mr. Macaulay, or to any other directors, and the amount of those salaries, if any? 8. The grounds upon which the late Auditor General of Accounts has been permitted to retire upon a pension, the amount of that pension, the name of his successor, and, if that successor be Mr. Ker, whether he be or be not Sir W. Gomm's brother-in-law?"
MR. HAWES said, he would endeavour to give a distinct answer to each question of the noble Lord, in the same order in which they were put. As to the first, he found from a despatch of the Governor of Mauritius, which had been recently laid on the table of the other House of Parliament, that the revenue of 1846 was 278,070 l., and of 1847, 289,193 l., and that the disbursement for emigration was, in 1846, 41,098 l., and in 1847, 50,207 l. With respect to the questions Nos. 2 and 3, the noble Lord would find in the papers laid before the House on the 9th of March, 1848, a very minute and elaborate account of the taxes which had been retained, and of the new ones which had been imposed. From those papers it appeared that the total decrease of taxation was 35,700 l.; and in a despatch from the Governor, dated the 4th of February, 1848, he stated that an ordinance would be issued for the total suspension of the stamp duties, by which there would be a further reduction of taxation to the amount of 30,000 l., making in all 65,000 l. In answer to No. 4, he believed that on the 31st of December, 1846, there was an available balance of assets of
498
131,439 l.; and on the 1st of January, 1847, of 139,491 l.; though he doubted whether that was an available balance, because considerable sums of money were sometimes placed in the colonial chest as trust moneys on bond, and they had amounted to as much as 50,000 l. The amount of those moneys, therefore, whatever it might be, mnst be deducted from the sum he had mentioned. As to No. 5, he believed the funds in the hands of the colonial agent consisted of 1,671 l. cash, and 42,000 l. in Exchequer bills. With reference to No. 6, he could say that his noble Friend had, on more than one occasion, made very strong recommendations to the Governor to reduce the expenditure of the island. As to question No. 7, the only person receiving a salary was Mr. Macaulay, whose salary was fixed at 1,000 l. a year. The only other directors were the Colonial Treasurer and the Auditor General, and they would not receive any salary. No issue of Government paper had taken place, because the conditions proposed by the Government had not been accepted, and the bank was consequently not in practical operation. With regard to the last question put to him by the noble Lord, the late Auditor General had served since 1815, and had been superannuated on the ground of ill health; and taking into consideration his long services and high character, the Treasury had awarded him the full amount of his salary as a pension. The noble Lord was aware that the question of what amount a pension should be was entirely decided by the Treasury. His successor was Mr. Ker, and he (Mr. Hawes) had every reason to believe that Mr. Ker was the brother-in-law of Sir W. Gomm. The pension awarded to the late Auditor General was 800 l. a year.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE COURT OF ROME BILL.
Debate resumed.
MR. MOOREdenied that the Irish priesthood had ever been aught else than the friends of loyalty and order, or that the illustrious Pontiff would ever exert his influence for any purpose which would not tend to the honour and credit of religion. The hon. Member for North Essex had been guilty of a gross libel on the Irish priesthood.
MR. URQUHARTcomplained that many Members had been obliged to return from the north at great personal inconvenience, in consequence of this Bill, con-

499
trary to all expectation, having been again brought forward. The Government had not acceded to the proposition either to make a call of the House, or to postpone the Bill till next Session; and he should therefore oppose it by every means in his power. One ground of his opposition to this Bill was, that it would bring another country within the range of our diplomatic influence, and thus augment the irresponsible authority of the Foreign Office. The Bill had not been pushed so long as the Pope was in a condition not to accept it; but now that he was humbled, broken, ruined, it was pressed forward in the hope that he would be unable to resist the influences brought to bear upon him. The object of the Bill, indeed, was to obtain what Austria had so long held—influence over the councils of the Pope.
MR. PHILIP HOWARDbelieved that the Bill was brought forward, not to obtain any undue influence over the Pope, but on general principles. As a proof of the feelings entertained by the Pope towards this measure previous to the events to which the hon. Gentleman had just referred, he would read part of a letter from a small publication written by Bishop Wiseman, entitled, Words of Peace and Justice. Bishop Wiseman said—
"As soon as the Diplomatic Bill was proposed, I not only diligently studied its bearings, but forwarded a copy of it to the Cardinal Secretary of State, from whom I received an answer, dated Rome, February 22, 1848."
That answer was as follows:—
"In accordance with the desire expressed by your Lordship to the Under Secretary of this department, I immediately placed before Ms Holiness the Bill enclosed in the letter, and how agreeable an impression it has produced on the mind of his Holiness you may easily imagine."
This was written before the French revolution, and before the occurrence of other important events on the Continent; and it showed with what feelings the Pope then regarded this measure. He would give the Bill his cordial support, though he regretted the introduction of the second clause, and would vote against it when the proper time came.
MR. M. POWERwould, in Committee, vote with the noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) against the second clause; but, as a whole, he gave the Bill his cordial support. He supported it on the ground that it was better to have open and undisguised rather than indirect and clandestine intercourse with the See of Rome.
500
He represented a population of 800,000, of whom 700,000 were Roman Catholics; and he had not received a single communication adverse to the Bill; so that he came to the conclusion that it was approved of by the Roman Catholic people of this country. He deprecated the notion that the influence of the Pope could be used politically in Ireland. From what he knew of the people of Ireland, he was sure that if the Pope were to attempt to interfere so as to make them subservient to any Government, his interference would be rejected. He was himself a Roman Catholic; and he would not hesitate to tell the Pope, that though he owed him obedience in spiritual matters, he would exercise independently the rights of conscience on all civil questions.
MR. DRUMMONDcomplained that the House was now compelled to re-enact what it had already finished, to re-discuss on going into Committee a question which they had reason to think had been settled long ago. The hon. Member for Limerick had told them, that they were indebted solely to the priesthood for the tranquillity of Ireland; and so raised a question as to what were the real causes of disturbance there, and what effect this Bill was likely to have upon it. He (Mr. Drummond) did not believe that this Bill would enable Her Majesty's Government to do more than they could without the Bill. He had already stated that it would be most mischievous in its operation, and most insulting both to the Crown and to the Roman Catholics in Ireland, if it were to be used for the purpose of bringing any influence to bear on the Government of that country; nor would he believe that Her Majesty's Government had any such intention. But there might be some fancy that it was possible, directly or indirectly, to rule the Pope, and chain the spirit of the priesthood. Those who thought so could not have read history aright if they did not know that from the days of Constantine to this hour there had been one uniform constant endeavour on the part of the priests, in every country in Europe, to cajole the laity, and take all temporal power into their hands. He spoke not of one bishop or another, but of a class; and, lest it should be said he was calumniating persons behind their backs, he should take the liberty of showing how it was that the poor people in Ireland were shamefully treated. A Roman Catholic bishop wrote a letter to an hon. Gentleman, which letter that hon.

501
Gentleman read at that place which he called, it must be supposed in mockery, Conciliation Hall, putting it to those who were described as having to encounter famine, pestilence, and division in Ireland, whether there was not evidence of a deep-laid and widespread conspiracy in England, and of efforts being made to exterminate the priests and annihilate the people. The hon. Membur for Cork might say that was all Tallagh-hill. But this was the letter of a Roman Catholic bishop, who taught his people that his voice was to them the voice of God. The was the language of a man to a people who, he knew, believed they were to have no private judgment in the matter. Rightly instructed Roman Catholics might tell the priests they exercised a judgment in politics; but the great majority of Roman Catholics neither did, nor dared to do, any such thing. The Young Irelandors, who were accused by those bishops of being infidels, vindicated themselves in a protest, declaring that they did not deny the ecclesiastical authority of the priesthood, but only their political authority. On that ground alone was the Young Ireland party excommunicated. In a letter to Lord Shrewsbury from Dr. M'Hale, on a subject entirely political, the Roman Catholic peers of England were accused of lending themselves to a foul conspiracy against the Catholic people and priesthood. It was to a population steeped in poverty that such language was addressed. A gentleman, who was under a cloud, and whose name, therefore, he would not mention, asked the men of Tipperary whether they would he content to lie down another year and see the produce of their fields transported to other lands; adding, that if they allowed it to leave their shores without a struggle they deserved to continue slaves for ever. But in that House an hon. Gentleman said to them tauntingly, "Yes, you are going to bring to this country the crops we have raised to feed yourselves, and then bring from America damaged meal for Ireland." Could a country where such language was used be content? The priests would say, "Monster meetings if you like, but no pikes." What was the meaning of a monster meeting but to intimidate the Government? It was the duty of Parliament to act as fairly towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland as towards the priesthood of Canada or Scotland; before Ireland could be tranquillised justice must be dealt out, and the Roman Catholic
502
priests receive their due. If they were bad in one respect, that was no reason for punishing them in another; but while they were to be punished as instigators of rebellion, they ought also to receive the assurance that the same paternal protection and the same liberality would be extended to them as towards others of Her Majesty's subjects.
SIR R. H. INGLIScould not accept the compliment which had been offered to him in the course of the discussion, at the expense of those who concurred with him in opinion; for he had no right to suppose that his vote was influenced by purer or higher motives than theirs. There might be incidental questions with respect to railways and commerce, on which negotiation might be requisite; but what he objected to was, the formal recognition and practical reconciliation which this measure involved with the See of Rome. Even in Roman Catholic times, an ambassador from the Pope was required to take an oath that he meditated nothing against the interests of the Crown of England. Then, who was at this moment the real practical Sovereign of the Roman States? Considering the opposition of Protestants and Roman Catholics alike to the measure, and the probability that it would produce neither permanent nor temporary good, he could not think the hon. Member for Warwickshire had pursued an unwarrantable course in opposing the Bill in all its stages.
LORD H. VANEcordially supported the Bill; it was for the public convenience that diplomatic relations should be established with the See of Rome.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that throughout the discussion on this Bill, there had been frequent allusion to "the higher purposes" it was calculated to serve. Now, he thought that the Church of England and the Protestants of this country had a right to be told what those "higher purposes" were. No explanation, however, had yet been given on that point by any Member of the Government; and he was inclined to conclude that the reason of that was, that the Members of the Government were at cross purposes on their own Bill. In his opinion, the immediate though un-avowed purpose of the Bill was to seek to gain, through the Pope's authority, power over Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. He believed, however, that in this the Government would prove unsuccessful, and that both the Papal

503
authorities and the Roman Catholics would, as in previous instances, have recourse to the plea that the Pope was acting under restraint, if anything inconsistent with the ulterior purposes of the Roman Church with respect to this country resulted from the contemplated negotiations. The hon. Member then referred to the universal supremacy, temporal as well as spiritual, claimed by the Pope, and warned the House of the danger of recognising that claim by the adoption of the present Bill. The plea upon which this Bill had been introduced was too futile to blind any one to its real purpose; the flimsy pretext of commercial purposes had been dissipated by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. The intention of its framers, the Government, was the same as before the Bill was altered by the House of Lords; and as they were to have the administration of the powers it conferred, its operation would he perverted to the objects against which the Lords' Amendments were intended to guard, namely, the introduction of the spiritual authority of the Pope, and its legalisation in the united kingdom; and under the wide interpretation of the term "spiritual power," which Rome enforced, would the Pope's temporal authority likewise be active, in contravention of that supremacy, both spiritual and temporal, which the constitution vested in Her Majesty. In deference to the opinions of those who had framed the Lords' Amendments, he had doubted whether he should not abstain from voting against this stage of the Bill; but the discussion had removed his doubts, and he should most cordially vote against it.
SIR H. W. BARRONdenied that the Pope either claimed or exercised any temporal authority in this country. At the present time the temporal power of the Pope was a mere nullity; and, although a Roman Catholic, he rejoiced that it was so, because he held that the mixing up of religion with politics always injured religion. He admitted the Pope's authority over him in religious matters, but he abjured as strongly as words would allow him any right on the part of the Pope to sway his political feelings, or to interfere with his allegiance to his Sovereign; and such was the opinion of all enlightened Catholics. The question before the House was not a question of religion at all, but of pure politics. Because the Pope differed from them in religion, would they hold no diplo-
504
matic relations with him as a temporal prince? If that was sufficient to justify them in declining to enter into diplomatic relations with the Pope, it would equally justify them in sending back the Minister of the Sultan, and almost every other ambassador at present in England. Some Irish Members who set themselves up as the representatives of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, had opposed this Bill. He was as intimately acquainted with the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland as those hon. Members could be, and he declared that they were not unfavourable to the Bill; that on the contrary they hoped it would pass; not because they expected much benefit from it to themselves, but because they thought it was a disgrace to the British empire that diplomatic relations with Rome should have been so long suspended, and because they looked upon this Bill as the removal of a slur upon them and their religion.
MR. ROBINSONhad not heard throughout the whole of this discussion a single argument brought forward to show the pressing necessity for a measure of this description. The hon. Baronet who had just spoken had referred to the case of the Sultan; but there was no analogy between the cases of the Sultan and the Pope, because the former did not, like the latter, seek to exercise any spiritual authority. He admitted that it was an unusual course, after the second reading of a Bill had been carried by a majority, to interpose obstacles to it at this stage; but considering the character of this measure, he agreed with the hon. Member for Warwick and others in the propriety of offering every opposition to it in his power.
MR. NAPIERsupported the Amendment, and begged to submit whether it were fair, after so many useful Bills had been already postponed on the ground that it was too late to discuss them, that the House should be called upon to give a preference to a Bill relating to railroads in Italy? and whether the hands of Parliament were not full enough with regard to the affairs of this country to justify them at this moment avoiding idle discussions on controversial topics? Many very useful and important Bills in reference to Ireland had been postponed until next year in consequence of the lateness of the Session; but how could he excuse himself to his constituents, if they should be able to say, that while those Bills were postponed, the

505
House nevertheless found abundance of time to discuss a Bill for establishing diplomatic relations with Rome, and for promoting railways in Italy, which many persons, too, thought affected the Act of Settlement and the foundation of the monarchy? He preferred the interests of Ireland to the interests of Italy. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the present measure, a large proportion of the Protestants of this country did feel that it was of most vital importance, and required full and fair consideration; and a large proportion of the Roman Catholics also felt that it was insulting to their religion. This was always the effect of half-and-half measures; and he should be failing in his duty if he did not protest against the measure being hurried forward at the present time. He should therefore, to the utmost of his power, resist it at each stage, and on every legitimate occasion. In consequence of this Bill being allowed to lie dormant for so long a time, many hon. Members had left London, supposing that it would he dropped; and he complained of the stealthy way in which it was now proposed to carry it through the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONclaimed the vote of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Napier) in favour of the Bill, for the very reasons which he had given for opposing it. The hon. and learned Member had referred to a number of Bills connected with Ireland, intimating that they ought to be passed, if not in the present, at least in the next Session; and yet in the same breath, with respect to the present Bill, which the hon. Member contended was one of great importance, and required full discussion, the hon. and learned Member, instead of allowing the House to enter into the discussion of it during the existing Session, proposed that its discussion should be put off until next Session, in order that it might then stand in the way of the consideration of those other measures which he had intimated he would support. The hon. and learned Member said that the Bill was being stealthily proceeded with at the end of the Session; but his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had already explained that no deception had been practised on the House with respect to the intention of the Government to go on with the Bill. The present debate appeared to him to he the most singular in character that he had ever heard in that House; he-cause almost every Member who had opposed the Bill had done so not only on dif-
506
ferent but on perfectly conflicting grounds; and the arguments of the opponents of the measure, if let alone, would be found to destroy one another, and leave a perfect blank; and he also thought that a greater proof that nothing could be said against the Bill, could not be afforded than the fact that everything but the Bill had been discussed. They had had musty theology, feudal history, Irish distress, and the relations between landlord and tenant—in fact, everything but the Bill itself. One hon. Member (the hon. Member for Youghal) said that this was a most outrageous Bill, because it tended to destroy the independence of the Pope; and another hon. Member argued that it was a most dangerous measure, because its effect was to destroy the independence of the Crown. How it could have both of these effects was not explained. He should, therefore, leave these parties to fight the matter out among themselves; but it gave him great and sincere pleasure to see so many hon. Gentlemen who had outlived the fatigues of this laborious Session in the enjoyment of such animal spirits and health, that they were determined to show that, whatever time they had spent in that House, they were still vigorous, active, and alive; and he only hoped that during the recess and the ensuing Session they would continue to possess the same faculty to devote their energies to the public service. He had been told that he had made a speech of great brevity; and this reproach was cast on him by the hon. Members for Youghal and Stafford. All he could say was, that short as his speeches might be in general, yet, adding them to the speeches made in the course of the Session by those two hon. Members, they would be found—if the average were taken, and of course he only meant the average—to have occupied more time than those of any other hon. Member. The Bill before the House was a plain measure for remedying what he considered to be a gross absurdity—for removing a practical, political, and commercial inconvenience; and as to those deep schemes and that mysterious mischief which the Government were supposed to contemplate, they had existence only in the imagination of those who accused the Government, but not in the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. Some merriment had been occasioned by the mention of railways in Italy; but all he had said on that subject, by way of illustration, was, not that the British Government

507
wanted to make railways in that country, but that if railway communications were created there, the arrangements connected with which might be of importance to the intercourse of England with her possessions in other portions of the globe, and to her commercial interests in other respects, England required the authority of an Act of Parliament, in order to enter into those diplomatic relations with Rome which she maintained with every other State in the world. Some hon. Gentlemen, who had a horror of any connexion with the head of the Catholic Church, had asked whom the British Government proposed to treat with; and they urged it as a reason for postponing the Bill that, perhaps, the Pope was no longer the sovereign of Rome. Thus they took both sides of the question, just as it suited them. At one time they objected to entering into diplomatic relations with Rome because the Pope was the Sovereign Pontiff, and at another because somebody else might be the sovereign. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) represented that this measure was not necessary, and that diplomatic communications were lawful already; then surely he need not object to the Bill, if others thought it necessary, and considered the law doubtful. The Bill, in his view, would be but surplusage. Either he or the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Anstey or Mr. Urquhart) had quoted cases in which there had been, as he said, diplomatic intercourse. Why, that was the case for this Bill—that from the very necessity of things it was totally impossible that a State like England could separate itself fully, and disconnect itself entirely, from any other State in Europe; that if the law prevented formal intercourse, communication must take place through unacknowledged channels; and that a great country should do openly what it did at ally Then it was urged that the measure would be degrading to the Pope; that it would tend to put him under constraint; that what he did after these relations should be established would be done under duress, and be protested against, like the acts he did under the constraint imposed upon him by Napoleon. Why, not only the present Pope, but also the late, had frequently expressed a great desire that there should be diplomatic relations between this country and Rome: the late Pope never allowed an opportunity to pass which was offered by the visit of any distinguished Englishman at Rome,
508
without expressing his wish that diplomatic relations should be established. Really some hon. Members would be "more Popish than the Pope." It was only the other day that the Italian States entered into a commercial league; if we were to have commercial relations with this league, we must have them with the members of it, and the Pope was one.
MR. GORINGbelieved it was important that the House should now proceed to the Spirits Bill and the Copper Duties Bill; he bogged to move that the debate be adjourned.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the Opposition were pursuing a course which would make it impossible for any Government to carry on the business of the country; they would neither let the Government measures pass, nor take the reins of Government themselves. As for the present Bill, there might not be much good in it, but there could not be much harm. "The British lion" seemed to be frightened at a mere ghost.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, if the Bill was strictly confined to carrying into effect the principle of allowing diplomatic intercourse with a temporal prince, he (Captain Harris) was not disposed to vote against it.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:—Ayes 32; Noes 103: Majority 71.
Question again put, that the Speaker do now leave the chair.
CAPTAIN VYSEmoved that the House should adjourn.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he perceived that the hon. Member for the University of Dublin had just left the House, at which he was not surprised; for, being a Gentleman of the highest respectability, he doubtless had too much regard for his own character to vote for the Motion now made.
MR. FORBESprotested against the inferential imputation conveyed by the noble Lord's language. The hon. Member for Manchester, too, had ventured to charge the Members on the opposition side of the House with having obstructed the course of the Government during the Session; but he (Mr. Forbes) appealed to the noble Lord himself whether any Opposition had over acted towards a Government with greater forbearance. The country would not fail to contrast the conduct of the Opposition towards the Government, with that of a section of the House of which the Member for Manchester was one of the leaders, when Ministers de-

509
manded additional powers to enable them to preserve the public peace.
MR. SPOONERassured the noble Lord and the House that he was not going to repeat what he had said upon the subject in the morning. All he wished to say was, that he thought the remarks of the noble Lord upon a Gentleman of the high character of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin—
LORD J. RUSSELL: All he had said was, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman was strenuously opposed to the Bill, and would give it his opposition in every stage, still he would not lend himself to any plan of obstruction to the Bill by repeated Motions for adjournment; and he did not wonder that, acting upon that declaration and in accordance with his high character, when we saw that plan adopted, he had left the House.
MR. SPOONER: That explanation then very certainly threw a slur upon all those Gentlemen who had joined in the late division. If that was to be the way in which the conscientious conduct of hon. Gentlemen was to he attacked in that House, they might be sure there would be no flinching on his side. If faction could fairly be attributed to any one, it was to the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government. Did the noble Lord mean to pass the Bill with, or without, the concurrence of the House of Commons? Did he mean to say that one hundred Members supporting him was really and unequivocally an expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons? He had never been in the habit of setting himself up against the opinion of the House; but he must repudiate the unjustifiable charge of the noble Lord, both for himself and those hon. Gentlemen who had joined with him in the late division. He felt bound to resent that charge, and he was not to he bullied out of the. line of conduct which he had laid down for himself, namely, that of an hon. and independent Member of that House. He would still oppose the Bill in every way which the constitutional Parliamentary privileges would allow.
The House subsequently divided upon the question, that the House will now resolve itself into a Committee:—Ayes 111; Noes 34: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Adair, H. E.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bagshaw, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

510

Barron, Sir H. W.

M'Gregor, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Mangles, R. D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Martin, J.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Matheson, Col.

Bernal, R.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Moffatt, G.

Bowring, Dr.

Monsell, W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Moore, G. H.

Bright, J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Brown, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Buller, C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Paget, Lord C.

Callaghan, D.

Palmerston, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Parker, J.

Childers, J. W.

Pearson, C.

Clay, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Perfect, R.

Cocks, T. S.

Pinney, W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Power, Dr.

Craig, W. G.

Reynolds, J.

Denison, W. J.

Rich, H.

Divett, E.

Romilly, Sir J.

Dodd, G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Drummond, H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Dundas, Adm.

Shelburne, Earl of

Dunne, F. P.

Smith, J. A.

Ebrington, Visct.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Spearman, H. J.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Talfourd, Serj.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Forster, M.

Tenison, E. K.

Greene, J.

Thompson, Col.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thornely, T.

Grey, R. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Turner, E.

Grosvenor, Earl

Vane, Lord H.

Hawes, B.

Verney, Sir H.

Hay, Lord J.

Wakley, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Ward, H. G.

Herbert, H. A.

Watkins, Col.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Willcox, B. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Williams, J.

Howard, P. H.

Wilson, J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wilson, M.

Keogh, W.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Lemon, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Tufnell, H.

Locke, J.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hood, Sir A.

Bruen, C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Knox, Col.

Cabbell, B. B.

Lacy, H C.

Chaplin, W. J.

Mandeville, Visct.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Masterman, J.

Coles, H. B.

Napier, J.

Dick, Q.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duncan, G.

O'Connell, J.

Forbes, W.

Pigott, F.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Frewen, C. H.

Reid, Col.

Goring, C.

Renton, J. C.

Grogan, E.

Robinson, G. R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Spooner, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

511

Vesy, K H. R. H.

Wyld, J.

TELLERS.

Anstey, T. C.

Urquhart, D.

House in Committee.
On the 1st Clause,
MR. ANSTEYproposed in the 1st Clause the striking out of the words "notwithstanding anything to the contrary now in force, is to be," in line nine, and the insertion of the words "it is" in line ten. The effect of this Amendment would he, to leave the law as it at present is according to the authority of Lord Campbell. [The hon. and learned Member here quoted from Hansard of 1847, a part of Lord Campbell's speech.] It was no doubt in consequence of these opinions of Lord Campbell that this Bill had been introduced; and the Roman Catholics of this country learned to their consternation that their favourite Ministers of State had determined that the Pope should have less authority henceforward in England and Scotland than was granted to him by the Act of Toleration in 1791. It was therefore because he would rescue the religious freedom at once of the Roman Catholics and Protestants, that he proposed this Amendment.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, both Lord Campbell and Lord Cottenham had no doubts as to the law; but they said there might be doubts, though they had none; and whilst the matter was not entirely clear it would not be safe to act, and it was to remove those doubts that the words were introduced which the hon. and learned Member proposed to omit.
Amendment negatived.
MR. C. PEARSONmoved the addition of which he had given notice, to the effect, that the diplomatic intercourse with Rome should be "touching and concerning international, civil, commercial, and political relations." If it was really the intention of the Government to confine the powers of its representative to such diplomatic business as would be conducted with any other State, there could be no objection to his Amendment; but if the exposition of the hon. Member for Oxford was right, and it was intended to qualify the British representative to communicate with the See of Rome regarding our domestic affairs in Ireland, through the instrumentality of the Catholic priesthood, it would be necessary so to qualify the Bill. In either case an Amendment was necessary to remove doubts. The noble Lord would find it more expedient to limit the powers of the
512
ambassador within distinct boundaries as to the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Sovereign of the Roman States, than to leave them open to a misconstruction on his part. Obscure hints had been heard of an intention on the part of the Pope to portion out this country into bishoprics; and if this Bill was to be used for the purpose described by the hon. Baronet, of tranquillising Ireland by exercising an influence over the Roman Catholic clergy, he had serious apprehensions that this state of things would be hereafter made an excuse for adding another link to the chain which bound our Church and State together. He should take the sense of the Committee upon this proposal.
The SOLICITOR GENERALhoped the House would not accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, for if it produced any effect at all, it would be an injurious effect. It was proposed to establish diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, in the same manner as with the Court of Russia, Prussia, or any other Court; but if these words were inserted in the Bill, in cases where there was the least ingredient of a spiritual character, it would be injurious. Questions of a mixed character might arise, though in the result they were of a temporal nature, and in such no interference could take place. Suppose the Pope introduced any regulation as to the Roman Catholics of Canada, this qualification would prevent any interference. At present the Pope might divide this country into bishoprics and archbishoprics; and if the Amendment were agreed to, he might do so still; but if we had free diplomatic relations with him, the British Government might interfere to prevent such a division.
MR. ANSTEYthought, that the real object and tendency of the Bill had now been indicated. For "Canada" read "Ireland," and a good key to the Ministerial intentions was supplied. He could see no reason why the Government should refuse compliance with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government really meant to deal fairly with the House and the country, and not conceal anything, he would rise and express his willingness to agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He would move that the Chairman report progress, in order that the subject might be more fully discussed
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to ask the

513
noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) whether, if the Bill provided for diplomatic intercourse with the head of any other State than Rome, the Amendment now under consideration would be objected to? The Pope had two distinct characters, his temporal authority as a prince, and his spiritual authority as a Pontiff, and the Bill was intended to authorise the Government to enter into engagements with him in his double capacity. That was the reason why they opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Pearson). The real object of the Bill was clearly to enable the Government to ask the Pope to use certain influence with respect to his Catholic subjects in Ireland, which the Government did not feel themselves at liberty at present to do.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbegged, in reply, to ask a question of his hon. Friend who had often applied to him to make representations to the Government of Sardinia in favour of the Protestants of the Vaudois, and who had also urged him to use his influence with the Government of Switzerland on the subject of certain religions which interfered with some religious persons in the cantons of Switzerland. Now, would his hon. Friend call that an interference either in "political, commercial, civil, or international" affairs? Such questions would give rise to very disagreeable refinements, and it was not desirable to preclude the Government of this country from making similar representations, if it were thought desirable, to the Court of Rome.
COLONEL THOMPSONwished to be informed what the effect of the exclusion of the words "Court of Rome" would be on the operation of the Bill, if the week after it passed, it was found that the Emperor of Austria had declared himself Sovereign of the Roman States, or the people of Rome had established a republic, one and indivisible, the Pope contenting himself with the title of Bishop of Rome?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if the Pope ceased to be a sovereign, there was no law to prevent this country from entering into diplomatic or other relations with the Government which might succeed him. It was only so long as he was Pope that the present Bill applied.
COLONEL THOMPSONdid not want to know whether it would be lawful to communicate with the Emperor of Austria; but whether it would be lawful under this Bill to communicate with the Pope. Sup-
514
pose the Pope were sent to Avignon, as had happened before, would it he lawful or not under this Bill to communicate with him there? If the Bill had any meaning, it was to settle this question; and it ought not to be evaded under an obscurity of terms.
The Committee divided on the question that the words be added:—Ayes 30; Noes 93: Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Blackstone, W. S.

Napier, J.

Bruen, Col.

Newdegate, C. N.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

O'Connell, J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Pigott, F.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Forbes, W.

Reid, Col.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Renton, J. C.

Frewen, C. H.

Robinson, G. R.

Grogan, E.

Talfourd, Serj.

Hamilton, J. H.

Thompson, G.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Urquhart, D.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hood, Sir A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Knox, Col.

Pearson, C.

Mandeville, Visct.

Spooner, R.

MR. J. O'CONNELLmoved, that at the end of the clause, after the words "Sovereign of the Roman States," the words "and Sovereign Pontiff" be added.
The Committee again divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 104: Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Fagan, J.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Urquhart, D.

Moore, G. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

TELLERS.

Power, Dr.

O'Connell, J.

Reynolds, J.

Anstey, T. C.

Clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill. House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a City of London Sewers; Sheep and Cattle Contagious Disorders Prevention; Millbank Prison; Commons Inclosure Act Amendment.
2a Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers; Wolverhampton Curacy (No. 2); Petty Bag, &c. Office (Court of Chancery); Corrupt Practices at Elections.
Reported.—Commons Inclosure (No. 2); London (City) Small Debts; Fisheries (Ireland); Parochial Debt and Audit.
3a and passed:—Stock in Trade Exemption; Boroughs' Incorporation; Out Pensioners.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Trustees of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, in the County of Galway, against the Reproductive Loan Fund Institution (Ireland) Bill.—From Agriculturists, Merchants, and Others, complaining of the Depressed State of Agriculture and Commerce in the Island of Jamaica.—From the Town of Liverpool, against the present Ecclesiastical Law From the Willeton Board of Guardians, against so much of the Parochial Debt and Audit Bill as deprives them of Administering Relief.—From Merchants, and Others, in the Province of New Brunswick, against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws.—From the Guardians of the Poor of the Lancaster Union, against the Poor Law Union Charges (No. 2) Bill.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.
LORD MONTEAGLE, pursuant to notice, rose to move for certain papers respecting the grant of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company. The question was one which involved important public interests, both present and reversionary. Those of their Lordships who had taken an interest in the negotiations carried on between this country and the United States of America previous to the completion of what was called the Oregon Treaty, must be familiar with the political and commercial importance attached to the possession of Vancouver's Island, situated as it was between the territories of Russia on the north, and those of the United States on the south. This portion of Her Majesty's dominions was at the present moment a possession of great value, and it might become of almost incalculable importance hereafter. The climate of the island was fine, the soil fertile, its harbours were excellent, and the place was in all respects most favourable for settlement and colonisation; it contained, moreover, extensive mines of coal, invaluable in its future applicability to the steam navigation of the Pacific. He was not aware that from the possessions of Russia to the Isthmus of Panama, there existed any other place near the coast capable of furnishing this important article. When-over a communication should be made, either by railroad or by a canal, across the Isthmus—and that time could not be very distant—the Pacific must become the highway of maritime nations to China and other parts of the Eastern world; and in that event Vancouver's Island would become a position essential to our commercial superiority. The opinions of politicians on subjects of this kind were often exagger-
466
ated; they were liable to be warped by transitory and personal interests—an object which was in contest, whether in war or negotiation, was likewise too often over-appreciated by contending Powers. Scientific authorities on this account were more to be relied on; and he therefore appealed with confidence to the testimony of the eminent geographer, Malte Brun, who seemed to have discovered, almost by intuition, the future destinies of Vancouver's Island. His observations on the subject were as follows:—
"The vegetable earth in some places forms a bed of ten feet in thickness. A traveller is agreeably surprised to find a milder climate here than on the eastern coast of America in the same latitude. In the month of April, Fahrenheit's thermometer was never below 40° during the night, and in the day it rose to 60°. The grass was already a foot in height. The climate is as favourable to the growth of trees as that of the Continent. What negligence on the part of the Spaniards not to have taken possession of this agreeable and fertile country!—a country which being situated in the roar of their country might, in the hands of intelligent masters, become a military and commercial post of the highest importance."
Mr. Pitt and his Government, in 1790, acted on the admission of the same fact. The port of Nootka Sound, situated on the western coast of Vancouver's Island, was considered at that time to be so important as to be worth the risk of a European war. In the debate on the 6th of May, 1790, Mr. Pitt observed—
"If the claims of Spain were given way to, it must deprive the country of the means of extending its navigation and fishery in the southern ocean: it would go far towards excluding His Majesty's subjects from an infant trade, the future extension of which could not but be essentially beneficial to the commercial interests of Great Britain."
Yet the importance of Nootka Sound was nothing as compared with the possession of the entire island, more especially in reference to its coal field. In the Oregon negotiations, the possession of Vancouver's Island was regarded, both by England and by the United States, as a primary object. The Columbia was a barred river, and the passage to Puget's Sound, surrendered to the United States, was held almost at the sufferance of the Power to whom the possession of Vancouver's Island was secured. The most unquestionable evidence that he could refer to in proof of the resources of this possession, was to be found in the correspondence of the Hudson's Bay Company itself:—
"In the neighbourhood of Port Vancouver," writes Captain Pelly, "the Company have large pasture and grain-farms affording most abun-

467
dantly every species of agricultural produce, and maintaining large herds of stock; and it is the intention of the Company, not only to increase them, but to encourage the settlement of their retired servants, and other emigrants under their protection. The soil, climate, and circumstances of the country are as much, if not more, adapted to agricultural pursuits than any other spot in America; and with care and protection the British dominion may not only he preserved in this country, which it has been so much the wish of Russia and America to occupy to the exclusion of British subjects, but British influence may be maintained as paramount in this interesting part of the coast of the Pacific."
The Peers who had listened to the noble Earl (Earl Grey's) argument on colonisation a few nights back, could not but remember the point on which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had mainly relied, as characteristic of a sound policy in colonisation—namely, the abolition of land grants, and the substitution of a system of sale. After this declaration, it would hardly be believed that the noble Earl had been himself the party to propose, by a charter to the Hudson's Bay Company, not a lease of Vancouver's Island, but a grant, the most lavish, the most inconsiderate, and, he must add, the most reprehensible ever before made by any Colonial Minister. The much-condemned grants of Prince Edward's Island were infinitely less liable to censure. The noble Earl seemed originally to have proposed making this grant without condition, safeguard, or reserve; he proposed to make it gratuitously to the Hudson's Bay Company. The noble Lord would say, that the grant was "made to the intent that the Company should establish upon the island a settlement or settlements of emigrants from Great Britain;" and that the express meaning of the condition was, that if the Company should not, within five] years, have established "a settlement," the grant might be revoked. This condition was, however, without value from its indistinctness. Who was to define "a settlement?" It was not said, of how many families the settlement should consist; any "settlement" would satisfy the provisions of the charter, however insignificant the settlement might be Then, in regard to the reserved power of resumption by purchase, it was not a power of purchase at the improved value of the property; but on repaying the amount expended by the Company. What court of equity was to determine this amount? In fact, the proposed charter might be held to transfer the island with-
468
out rent or other consideration to a trading company for ever. And this grant was made of an island, the very key of our position in North Western America, the very island for which we had run the risk of two wars. But he had a further complaint to make. He asked the noble Lord how it could enter his mind to grant this charter, and to part with this territory, without providing in the very charter itself some stipulation for the future government of the island? After the charter had been approved of, indeed, there was a letter from the Under Secretary of State, containing some vague propositions for the government of the island. This was evidently an afterthought. The question of the future government of the island had been till then altogether overlooked. This reminded him of the blunder of a countryman of his own, who, after completing the building of his house, discovered, when about to enter into possession, that he had forgotten the staircase. A right thing was sometimes marred by being done in a wrong manner; but in the case of the grant of Vancouver's Island the engagement entered into was most unwise, and the mode of executing it had rendered it still worse. If such a grant were expedient, he contended that at a time when Parliament was sitting it should not have been made by the mere prerogative of the Crown, and without a previous legislative sanction. He (Lord Monteagle) had acted on this principle; and in 1834, before founding the now flourishing colony of South Australia, he had introduced a Bill which led to discussion and examination, particularly on the part of his late noble Friend Lord Ashburton. It was still more necessary to have applied the same principle in the present instance. This island, so valuable both on commercial and political grounds, ought never to have been parted with, and never parted with by the mere fiat of a Secretary of State, without any communication to Parliament. But there were other causes of complaint, when the grant was viewed in relation to the character of the grantee. He maintained, that no trading company was a fitting depository for the functions of emigration or colonisation: he knew of no example to the contrary. Even the East India Company, the greatest corporation of the kind in the world, had not exhibited any great aptitude for colonisation. But the East India Company was not a company of hunters. If any trading company were to be en-

469
trusted with, uncontrolled dominion, and were selected as the guides and governors of future bands of emigrants—a body like the Hudson's Bay Company, founded, not for the purpose of occupying land for agriculture or settlement, but for the sake of procuring the fur of wild animals, was the least likely, of all others, to exercise such functions properly. Another matter was deserving of special note. He alluded to the free gift of the coal mines without any reserve, either of rent or royalty, or any stipulated obligation assumed by the Hudson's Bay Company even to work the mines. This was the more surprising from reference to the official correspondence. It would appear that the Colonial Office had at first neglected the subject altogether, or perhaps were not aware of the existence of this valuable property. It was only on the 25th of February, 1848, the negotiations having been in progress from 7th September, 1846, that Mr. Hawes refers for the first time to the "value of the coal" as "necessarily forming a material consideration," and transmits a copy of the agreement made with Mr. Wyse at Labuan as "a guide for any proposal the Company may make for working the coal at Vancouver's Island." But no sooner was this hint given, than on the 4th of March, Captain Felly, in the frankest and most explicit manner, states, "that if the grant is to be clogged with any payment to the mother country, the Company will be under the necessity of declining it." In this declaration the Colonial Office seems to have very graciously acquiesced, although at the time the proposed establishment of American steamers in the Pacific gave to the coal a peculiar value. If the question of the constitution of the island had been forgotten from September 1846 to July 1848, and if the question of the coal was noticed only to be abandoned, the principle under which the Company should be required to alienate their lands to colonists and emigrants, seems to have been neglected to the present hour. It should have been known to the Secretary of State, that if the same slavish conditions were to be attached to the future land contracts in Vancouver's Island which were enforced on the main land, it would be impossible that any independent settlement could ever take place. A monopoly of trade, an exclusive command of freight at their own prices capriciously, or perhaps partially, granted or conceded, would wholly defeat the ostensible object sought for by his noble Friend.
470
The whole history of the Company, and its conduct from its origin, 180 years back, was condemnatory of the grant. The original charter of 1670 partook of the lofty claims of prerogative of the Stuarts. It gave exclusive rights of trading to Prince Rupert and the newly-constituted corporation in all the lands in North America, which could be approached by land or by water from Hudson's Bay, and which lands were not in the possession of any other Christian Power. This grant extended over more than 2,500 square miles. It was not wonderful that the validity of this charter should have been doubted. Accordingly, in 1690, a Bill was introduced into Parliament confirming the charter. The history of these proceedings was curious. The Act as originally applied for was perpetual; but on the third reading, a clause was introduced limiting its duration to ten years. The House of Commons, which evidently appears to have felt itself aggrieved, passed a Standing Order contemporaneously, prohibiting, in future, the reception of any Bill confirming a charter, unless the charter itself were specifically recited in the Bill, But the House of Lords was even more scrupulous than the Commons. The duration of the Bill was still farther limited; it was reduced from ten years to seven, and in that form was passed. A subsequent application was made to Parliament for a renewal of this Act, but without success, and the Act had never since been renewed. Was it not evident from these facts that the Company themselves acknowledged the invalidity of their charter without the confirmatory Act, and that after the expiry of that Act the charter must be considered invalid? Subsequently in the year 1749, the complaints addressed to Parliament against the Company were almost universal. Petitions were presented from Chester, Newcastle, Hull, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Lancaster, Kendal, Whitehaven, Bristol, Carlisle, Wakefield, and other commercial towns. They prayed for freedom of trade within the jurisdiction of the Company. They impugned the charter. They complained that—
"An important trade was locked up in the hands of a few to the detriment of the many; that the Company only employed a few ships, to the detriment of the nation; and that the Company had made but few settlements, and those mainly of their own hired servants, every public benefit being neglected."
A Select Committee was appointed, and

471
reported facts fully confirming these complaints, which were all couched in language applicable to the present state of things. But the matter was dropped. Financial embarrassments were not peculiar to the present times. It was felt that a supercession of the charter would have cast on the public the duty and the expense of governing the country. England was not rich enough to do what was right and just, and the matter was allowed to drop. He must also remind the House of the violence, lawlessness, and bloodshed which were proved before Parliament in 1819 to have taken place in the case of the Red River settlement. These facts were proved in official documents laid before Parliament, on which occasion Mr. Edward Ellice, though stating himself to be a large shareholder in the Company, gave evidence to their unfitness to undertake colonisation. His words were remarkable, and were applicable and conclusive at the present time:—
"Though Lord Selkirk's primary and principal object was colonisation, yet he must he pardoned for saying that it had afterwards become connected with purposes of trade. The noble Lord was a considerable proprietor in the Hudson's Bay Company; and he could not help thinking that if his Lordship's only object was colonisation, he should not have embarked in trade. He (Mr. Ellice) was a considerable proprietor in the Hudson's Bay Company; and when the plan of colonisation was first proposed, ho, at a meeting of the shareholders, entered his protest against it. The opinion of the late Attorney General, now Chief Baron of Scotland, was, that the Crown had no right to grant the land to the Hudson's Bay Company."
At that time an opinion was given by lawyers of the very highest eminence, who agreed in questioning the validity of the charter. That opinion was signed by Sir Arthur Pigot, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Spankie, and it contains the following passage:—
"By the temporary Act of 2nd William and Mary, for confirming to the Governor and Company their privilege and trade, the duration of that confirmation is expressly limited to seven years, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament, and no longer. Part of the preamble to the Act is, in fact, a legislative declaration of the insufficiency of the charter for the purposes professed in it, without the authority of the Legislature, and which authority ceased entirely soon after the expiration of the seven years after that passed.
"There are various clauses in the charter—particularly those empowering the Company to impose fines and penalties, to seize and confiscate goods and ships, and seize by arrest the persons of interlopers, and compel them to give security in 1,000 l.—which are altogether illegal, and were always so admitted."
472
On these grounds he contended that the Company was altogether unfit to be trusted with the duties of government, and contended that the Parliamentary inquiries of 1749 and 1819 had proved that, whatever might be the professions of this Company, they had exhibited a total forgetfulness of those moral obligations which were connected with the functions of a Government. Nor did he believe them to have advanced the progress of religion or civilisation within their territories; what had been done was, he believed, mainly attributable to the religious societies of this country; and the conduct of the Company towards the Indians was alleged to have been oppressive. Memorials setting forth these facts were now lying in the Colonial Office. Such were the circumstances which had induced him to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"For Copies of the Correspondence between the Government and the Hudson's Bay Company, and for other Papers relating to the Grant of Vancouver's Island to that Association."
EARL GREY: I am very much indebted to my noble Friend for bringing this question before the House, because I find, from my noble Friend's speech, that he is entirely ignorant of the nature of the arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company, and the grounds on which that arrangement was contemplated. I presume that my noble Friend, with all his acute-ness and with all his research, has failed in acquiring a correct knowledge of the question. I am very glad to have this opportunity of explaining what really is intended to be done, and what are the intentions of the Government. In the outset of his speech, my noble Friend entered into the natural adantages of Vancouver's Island. I have no reason to controvert anything which he said upon that part of the case. On the contrary, it is because I believe that it is a most valuable possession, and that it is an island which it is of the utmost importance for the interests of this country to secure, that I venture to ask this House to approve what we have done. It is true, by right of treaty this country has been settled upon us; it is equally true that if this right were not acted upon, the practical right of the territory would become lost to us. It is abundantly evident from the symptoms which exist, that the land would become occupied with squatters, whom neither the Americans nor ourselves would be able to restrain, and in the course

473
of a few years the practical possession of the island would become lost to the English nation. I have lately been informed that there are a certain sect called Mormonites, who, having been forced to quit the United States, are thinking of moving in a body, and setting themselves up in Vancouver's Island. It is obvious, when an eligible territory is left to lie waste, unsubdued to the use of man, it is impossible to prevent persons from taking irregular possession of the land. We have found it impossible in all our dominions to restrain such persons. The Government of the United States will equally be unable to prevent such an occurrence, and unless the island is regularly settled and regularly colonised, it is quite certain that it will be irregularly colonised by squatters. This being the state of the case, how is Vancouver's Island to be settled? If this country had a very largo surplus revenue free to be engaged in expensive undertakings, it might have been very advantageous to have asked Parliament for a grant of 50,000 l., to be followed up by succeeding grants of 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. for several years to come; and without such a demand being assented to by Parliament, it would have been utterly impossible to have colonised the island. I believe no fact is better established than that a large expenditure is necessary to colonise a territory with any advantage. It is quite obvious under present circumstances it would be utterly unjustifiable to propose any such expenditure; therefore, cither Vancouver's Island must have been left a barren waste, without any measures being taken to colonise it, or else some means must be found independent of Parliamentary assistance to make a settlement upon the island. How was this to be accomplished? I believe the only possible way was by entering into an arrangement with the Hudson's Pay Company. They undertake, in consideration of a grant of the land, to settle and colonise the island. I have no hesitation in saying I think that this is a very advantageous arrangement. My noble Friend says that it is a very reckless one, and he alluded to a speech of mine made some two years ago, where I expressed myself in favour of the principle of disposing of the land by sale and not by grant. There is no inconsistency between that statement and the present policy of the Government. If the Government was going to meet the expense, and had disposed of the land to settlers, undoubtedly
474
the sale of the land would have been the proper course. But if we do not choose to undertake that expense, the only course that remains open to us is, to place some other authority over the territory, to make them the trustees of the duties of the Government, and to make them a grant of the land. I am persuaded that if this enterprise be well managed by the Hudson's Bay Company, it will only give them a fair return for the outlay of their capital. That it can do more is hardly possible. The land at present is entirely valueless. No matter how fine the soil, or however great the natural advantages, when it lies unused or unoccupied by man, land is perfectly valueless. It is only by being settled that land becomes of value; and I am perfectly persuaded that if this territory is ever so well managed by the Hudson's Bay Company, that they cannot realise more than a moderate remuneration upon their outlay. The principle upon which they will proceed will be this, they will sell the land in retail—in small portions to settlers, and the money thus obtained must be devoted to the purposes of colonisation. This was the course pursued towards the New Zealand Company. They obtained a grant of 1,000,000 of acres which they disposed of to the settlers, applying the money so received to the expenses of colonisation. This is precisely the arrangement which is made with the Hudson's Bay Company. They have received a grant of land which is at present utterly valueless. The noble Lord drew a distinction between the manner in which the grant of Labuan had been made to the Eastern Archipelago Company, and the manner in which this grant had been made of Vancouver's Island. In Labuan the Company had been made a present of a large tract of coal. The cases were different. Labuan was a settlement surrounded by fully colonised districts, where labour could be obtained in any quantity. I had only two days ago an account from Sir James Brooke that the contract for building the Government house only amounted to 650 l. Everybody will agree that it is the cheapest Government house that ever was built; and it is a very excellent house into the bargain. Labuan possesses the advantages of being surrounded by colonised districts—it has the advantage of being in the vicinity of Singapore. Parliamentary arrangements were made, and Her Majesty's Government had asked Parliament for pecuniary assistance. When the colo-

475
nists got their coals, the royalties would be paid, and cheap coals would thus be obtained for the service of Her Majesty's mails. In Vancouver's Island they intended to let the mines be worked by other parties, who would pay the Hudson's Bay Company for the privilege. This being the general design of the grant, I think that it is a very reasonable design, when the Government would not take the expense of a settlement upon its own responsibility. The Government, therefore, provided that the settlement should be placed in the hands of a Company, who were to act as trustees. But then my noble Friend says, in making this arrangement the government of this future colony has been quite forgotten. I thought that my noble Friend had too much acquaintance with the manner in which business is transacted, to have fallen into this error. It is perfectly true that in these documents only final results have been stated. This is the course which has been always adopted in transactions of this nature; but from the very earliest communication which has taken place between myself and my right hon. Friend Sir G. Grey, this subject has not been lost sight of. As long as these subjects are matters of discussion, investigation, and of private conversation between the parties concerned, it is far better that they should not be adverted to, until they can be placed before Parliament in a proper shape. The government of the colony must be provided for in the only way in which it can be done without appealing to Parliament. It will be done in the way which has heretofore been pursued: the issue of the authority of the Crown to a governor to act as such, the legislative power being entrusted to an assembly elected by the settlers, and a council to assist the governor being nominated by the Crown. This is the constitution of almost all our colonies. With regard to conquered colonies, the Crown has power to legislate by an Order in Council; but Lord Mansfield has laid down the doctrine that the Crown has not that right in unconquered colonies, but that they are entitled to a representative assembly to legislate according to their own views. So late as 1832, when I held a different situation in the department which I now occupy, Lord Ripon issued a commission to the Governor of Newfoundland, by which an elective assembly was created. So much with regard to the form of government which is to be adopted in this colony; and this at once
476
disposes of all those visions of my noble Friend which he has had upon exclusive trade. But although these colonists may not have the right of trading with any of those districts where the Hudson's Bay Company possess an exclusive privilege, yet they will have the unlimited right of trading with all the rest of the world, subject only to those laws already enforced by previous Acts of Parliament. The land is only given to the Company as trustees to act for the public for the purpose of colonisation. My noble Friend says that we have taken a very inadequate security from the Company. I think that we have taken ample security. At the end of five years the grant is resumable, if settlements are not formed. But the real security is the power of resumption altogether at the end of eleven years, when also the exclusive privilege of trade will cease. At that time it is proposed that the Crown shall have the power of resuming the land, merely paying the Hudson's Bay Company the value of their buildings and settlements. I do not know what more can be desired. If the Company form private settlements in the colony, at a very moderate outlay, we shall regain possession of the land. My noble Friend says, that the appointment of the Governor by the Company is not consistent with the rights of the Crown.
LORD MONTEAGLE: Is not consistent with the claims of the Crown.
EARL GREY: There is no dispute upon this point. The Company are willing to vest the appointment of the Governor in the hands of the Crown. There are two reasons which both appear to me conclusive for making this arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company. No parties came forward with anything like the capital necessary for the undertaking. My noble Friend said, that other parties offered themselves. It is perfectly true that such is the case. But it is equally true that I was quite ready to receive any offers from anybody who proposed. Two or three proposals were made, but they fell to the ground because the parties did not possess a tithe of the means necessary. On the other hand, the Hudson's Bay Company can undertake the task at a very much less expense than any other persons. The Hudson's Bay Company have also settlements in Vancouver's Island. I hold in my hand extracts from despatches of the Board of Management, dated the 15th of March, 1847, and the 6th of November,

477
1847, pointing out that the Hudson's Bay Company possess very considerable establishments, and have 350 acres of land under cultivation in the island. The Hudson's Bay Company, therefore, possess facilities for carrying on this plan which no other parties possess. The exclusive rights of trade which they possess for eleven years longer, would have been the greatest possible difficulty in the way of any other company undertaking the colonisation of Vancouver's Island. It is true that Government have the power of giving an exclusive right over property in the colonies; but it is clear, in common justice, that these exclusive rights could not be resumed by the Crown without giving rise to a claim for compensation to a very large amount. In common justice the Company would have a right to have paid to them the value of their rights. I must further observe, that if there did exist persons anxious to undertake some great scheme of cultivation, possessing any capital, there is no particular reason for choosing Vancouver's Island. The dominions of the British Crown are quite largo enough, and there is every disposition on the part of Government to render these dominions available. The dominions are quite large enough to afford ample scope for colonisation for the people of the united kingdom. In New Zealand, the Cape, and Australia, there is almost an unlimited field for colonisation; and if there are parties having the means of embarking in such undertaking, so long as I hold my present office, if they will come to the Colonial Office they shall have every possible support and assistance in my power. My noble Friend has said, that the Hudson's Bay Company are utterly unfit to be entrusted with this duty because they proceed on a system opposed to colonisation—that they have established great fur preserves—and that persons whose object was the procuring of fur ought least of all to be entrusted with colonisation. It is quite true that the Hudson's Bay Company carry on the fur trade to a large extent on the continent of America; but I am not aware that there are any fur animals of consequence to be found on Vancouver's Island; and I believe that the fur establishments of the Company on the continent would be found of great advantage to the settlers on Vancouver's Island, inasmuch as it would give them the advantage of supplying provisions and stores to those settlements. To say that because they carry on the fur trade, they are un-
478
fit to colonise Vancouver's Island, is the same as saying that because a noble Peer possesses a deer forest in a part of Scotland, he is totally unfit to be a good landlord, and improve the value of his estate. I believe that the establishments for the fur trade will give additional value to the establishments for the purpose of colonisation in Vancouver's Island. I must defend the Hudson's Bay Company against the charge which has been brought against them of maladministration of the territory which they possess in North America. It is difficult to pass a competent opinion on matters on which information is extremely defective, namely, as to the state of the enormous territory over which the Indians run who procure furs for the Hudson's Bay Company; but, so far as my information extends, I believe the Hudson's Bay Company exercise their powers with great benefit to the Indians, and great advantage to the cause of civilisation and humanity. They have exerted themselves to prevent the introduction of spirits into those vast regions over which they possess exclusive rights. The Hudson's Bay Company assure me that they are doing all that lies in them to promote civilisation and improvement. If we contrast the condition of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company over which they possess exclusive rights, with the condition of that territory in which the traders of the United States are allowed, without check or control, to compete with each other, there is no question of the superiority. They have established a strict and severe police, and I do not suppose that if the power of the Hudson's Bay Company were withdrawn, it would be possible for Government to supply their places. The expense of attempting to maintain a police force over those regions would be utterly impracticable; and I believe that unless the Hudson's Bay Company were acting under the spur of self-interest, and managing their great concerns in an able and efficient manner, they would not be able to maintain the system. Under that system the Indians are improving—many agricultural settlements have been established, particularly on the Red River. I hold in my hand extracts from letters from Lord Elgin and Mr. Croft, an officer of the Hudson's Bay Company, and against this testimony I cannot set up the petition of the noble Lord, which comes only with the single testimony of the individual who presents it. I justify the grant to the Hudson's Bay Company as

479
trustees to the public for the colonisation of the island, upon the ground that unless they had undertaken the task, it would not have been undertaken at all; and that Vancouver's Island would, in the course of a few years, have passed from the dominion of the British Crown. The grant to the Hudson's Bay Company is not finally passed; but in the course of a few weeks, I trust it will pass. I have no intention of suspending it; but it is intended that, before any grant shall finally issue, this subject shall be further considered by the Committee of the Privy Council of Trade and Plantations; and if any further conditions appear to be expedient to be introduced, to insure the due performance by the Hudson's Bay Company of the duty which they distinctly consider imposed on them by this grant, they will be introduced. On referring to the correspondence, they say that they look to no pecuniary profit beyond fair interest on their capital; and if conditions are introduced to secure more completely the due performance of the intentions of this agreement, those conditions will be cheerfully and readily assented to by the Hudson's Bay Company.
LORD MONTEAGLE, in reply, said, he had heard with much satisfaction some part of his noble Friend's explanation, though he could not flatter him by saying that he had justified his proposed grant to the Hudson's Bay Company. It appeared that the whole question of the grant and its conditions would be subject to reexamination before the Privy Council. He trusted that the grant of the coal mines, and the principles on which the land was to be hereafter alienated by the Company, whether by sale or lease, would be carefully attended to. His noble Friend bad stated that he had not contemplated charging either rent or royalty for these mines, and that Mr. Hawes's reference to the contract at Labuan only related to possible contracts between the Company and their future lessees. It was evident that such was not the interpretation put upon the proposal, at the time, either by Mr. Hawes or Captain Pelly. If it had been so understood, why should the latter have rejected it "as clogging the grant with a payment to the mother country?" Why should Mr. Hawes have referred to the conditions imposed at Labuan as "a guide to the proposals of the Hudson's Bay Company?" Two statements of the noble Lord were deserving of special no-
480
tice. The one, his admission that the grant was made to the Company as trustees for the people of England. He (Lord Monteagle) wished that the terms of this trust should be clearly laid down and defined, and some mode of enforcing them provided. The other explanation was the important admission that no monopoly, or exclusive right of trade possessed or claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company on the continent, should be, directly or indirectly, exercised within the island. The settlers were to be free from all monopoly and restraints, beyond those of trading with the natives in the territories on the continent within which the privileges of the Company were stated to exist. These explanations so given by the Colonial Minister, were a justification and a reward to him, for having brought the matter forward, and would be some small return to their Lordships for the encroachment on their time and attention, of which he had been guilty.
Motion was agreed to.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, called their Lordships' attention to what were the objects of the Bill, and what were the remedies it proposed. In the first place, it was merely a provision for inquiry; it affected no interest; it interfered with no rights; it proposed only a machinery by which investigation might take place in matters which their Lordships would not hesitate for one moment to say required investigation, namely, corrupt practices at the election of Members of the House of Commons. If such corruption existed, it was most important to ascertain to what extent it existed, in order that Parliament might apply a remedy to so great a grievance. If there was an interference with the rights of voters, their Lordships would not let it rest without exhausting all the means in their power to prevent the grievances arising from such an evil. He would call their attention to the evidence as it stood—as it had been ascertained in the course of the present Session. After the last general election many matters came under the consideration of the House of Commons in the shape of petitions, questioning the return of certain Members. In the course of the investigation many-seats were questioned on the ground of corrupt practices having taken place at the election; but as soon as the Committee had

481
ascertained the fact one way or the other, that there had been corrupt practices, then the functions of the Committee were at an end; they had no jurisdiction vested in them to pursue the inquiry, to ascertain to what extent these practices might have been adopted; but their jurisdiction terminated with the inquiry as to the validity of the return, and the title of the Member to retain his seat. Again, this constantly occurred. When it became evident that there was every probability of the disclosure of corrupt practices, it became the interest of both parties to keep this abuse out of sight, and, by some arrangement amongst themselves, to prevent the Committee further investigating a matter which was thought to be inconsistent with the interests of either party. In either of these cases, the functions of the Committee were paralysed. There had been evidence sufficient, although obtained incidentally only, to show that, to a great extent, and in a great variety of boroughs, corrupt practices had existed. In all the boroughs contained in the schedule, there was a report verifying the fact of corrupt practices; and as to many the Committee made special reports that such corrupt practices had been carried into effect to a very considerable extent. What, then, became the duty of Parliament? Was it to do nothing, and to allow such acts to be repeated on some other occasion? Was Parliament so indifferent as to the means of correcting such abuses, that it would not entertain the question, and endeavour to put an end to a system which every man would reprobate as productive of much evil, as demoralising especially the places in which such practices prevailed? The House of Commons had, therefore, sent to their Lordships a Bill merely arranging the machinery for the purpose of investigating these practices; not for the purpose of interfering with the existing rights and privileges of any person, but merely for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain to what extent the practice had prevailed, for the purpose that, when the inquiry was concluded, and Parliament was in possession of the facts, some provision might be made with the view of checking the evil. That was the principle of the proposed measure—it was suggested from the beginning of the Bill to the end; and to show that that was the object, and that it had no other object but to ascertain future legislation, he would call their Lordships' attention to a particular clause which
482
they might be surprised to find, but which was perfectly consistent with the other provisions of the Bill. It provided that a witness who might have been examined, and might have given evidence before either the Committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of investigation, or before Commissioners appointed under the provisions of this Act, should not be a witness in any action or prosecution which might be instituted relative to the transaction to which the witness might have deposed. It was provided that the witness himself should be protected against any consequences personal to himself; but then it was suggested, and he thought rightly suggested, consistently with the principle on which the Bill proceeded, that, although a particular witness might be protected, his evidence might give rise to proceedings against others; and, as the object was that no man should suffer, but that the investigation should be solely for the purpose of informing Parliament, the Act protected not only the witness himself, but others, from the consequences of his evidence. With the facts that had been disclosed, with the knowledge which every individual possessed in a greater or less degree of the practices to which he had alluded, would this House refuse to co-operate with the House of Commons in passing a Bill the object of which was, if possible, to enable Parliament hereafter, by some legislative measure, to prevent a repetition of the offences? He could not believe that any of their Lordships would refuse co-operation with the House of Commons. That being the object of the Bill, he would state what was the plan of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord having described the mode in which the Commissioners were to be appointed, and the manner of conducting their inquiries, proceeded to say, that upon the principle of this measure there could be no difference of opinion. He asked their Lordships, then, to sanction the principle, seeing that it had received the assent of the House of Commons, and there would be other opportunities of considering the details. The object was neither more nor less than to investigate, not alleged but proved malpractices in the several boroughs named in the schedule, and into those of other boroughs should any hereafter occur. Surely their Lordships would not refuse their assent to an inquiry which the House of Commons deemed essential to the purity

483
of the representation. But it was objected that it was too late in the Session to proceed with the measure. He could understand the force of such an objection if the measure proposed to interfere with the rights and interests of Parliament; but that was not its intention; and the only question for their Lordships was, whether they would consent to the machinery for investigation. If they acquiesced in the necessity for a remedy, why should they hesitate to approve of inquiry, in order to ascertain what remedy should he applied hereafter? He repeated, that this Bill had been much discussed in the House of Commons; and if their Lordships now refused to sanction it, and corrupt practices should be repeated, no very long time would elapse before another measure would be brought in. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read the second time.
LORD REDESDALEwished to observe the greatest possible courtesy towards the other House of Parliament; but in agreeing to the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, he must guard himself against sanctioning the principles it involved, more than the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack seemed to think necessary. He desired it to be distinctly understood, then, that the sole principle in the Bill to which he consented was this, that it was expedient to inquire into corrupt practices at elections. As to the details of the measure, he was not competent to form a judgment upon them, as the print of it had only been delivered that morning. He might, however, say that he considered the proposal of sending a Commissioner to make inquiries upon the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, most objectionable. Never, since the days of the Star Chamber, had such arbitrary powers been possessed by any individual. The Commissioner, it appeared, was to report, not to the House of Commons, but to Her Majesty, and then his report was to be presented to both Houses. The inquiry was then to be accepted by both Houses—a proposal of which he did not approve. As he had stated, he should offer no opposition to the second reading, but he hoped it would not be further pressed; and he would then move a resolution to the effect that the Bill contained principles of too great importance to be adopted by that House without ample time for discussion; that it was not expedient to deliberate upon those principles at this late
484
period of the Session; but that the House acknowledged the great importance of the subject, and would be prepared to give its attention to any Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices that might be brought in during the next or any subsequent Session. Under these circumstances, he trusted it would not be said that any want of respect was shown to the wishes of the other House with regard to the practices of which they had a just right to complain.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that whilst he gave the noble Lord credit for correct views as to the propriety of not proceeding with the Bill at this period of the Session, he felt a considerable degree of embarrassment as to the course to be pursued. After all, that House had as great an interest in the purity of election, and in all the circumstances which tended to the purity of election being correctly provided for by law, as the other House. Nevertheless, considering the importance attached by the other House to the question which had resulted in this measure, the number of investigations that had taken place, from which it appeared that corruption to a large extent prevailed, so as to make it necessary to suspend the writs, or in other words to suspend the constitution so far as concerned those particular boroughs, there appeared to be no prospect of amending such a state of things but by a measure of this description. He, therefore, felt very great difficulty, even at this late period of the Session, in abandoning the hope that an effectual remedy might be adopted, because it was most material it should not go forth that there existed, upon the part of cither that House or the other, any sort of disinclination or hesitation to prevent corrupt practices at elections. At the same time, he was willing to attend to any suggestions that might have the effect of convincing the public and the House of Commons that that House was not indifferent to the matter. But in order that they might provide the remedy which was most desirable, particularly where differences of opinion existed, as he knew they did exist, among persons of the highest authority, with regard to the principle of the Bill, he was most desirous, if it could be done consistently with the respect due to the opinions to which he alluded, that more ample time should be afforded for consideration. He therefore readily acceded to the suggestion of the noble Lord; and he was convinced that if his noble and learned Friend now pressed

485
the second reading, it would be only with the view of affirming the principle in the limited sense, that it was expedient to provide more effectual remedies than now existed to prevent corrupt practices at elections.
LORD DENMANhad felt it his duty to come down to the House for the sole purpose of opposing this measure. In his opinion, it was liable to objections of every description, both as to the powers it gave, and as to the lateness of the period for entering upon a discussion of them. He entirely approved, however, of the principle of the Bill, if that principle was understood to be the correction and punishment of corrupt practices at elections.
The DUKE of ARGYLL, after a most careful examination of the provisions of the Bill, was opposed to its further progress during the present Session. The noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack said, that although the Bill was introduced at a late period of the Session, it was not too late to pass a measure of the utility of which there could be no doubt; but if the noble and learned Lord would refer to the history of the Bill, he would see there was considerable doubt respecting its utility. Under all the circumstances, he rejoiced that the noble Marquess had consented to postpone the further progress of the measure.
Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved to resolve—
"That this Bill, creating a new Jurisdiction for the Investigation of corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament, contains Principles and Provisions of too great Importance to be adopted and passed by this House without ample Time being allowed for their being fully discussed and deliberately considered; and it is therefore inexpedient that the same should be proceeded with at this late period of the Session:
"That this House acknowledges the great Importance of the subject, and will be prepared to give its most earnest Attention to any Bill for the effectual Investigation and Correction of the said corrupt Practices which may be brought to them, cither early in the ensuing Session, or at any subsequent Period, when due Time can be allowed for the proper Consideration of the same."
On question, agreed to.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, the House went into Committee.
LORD MONTEAGLEearnestly trusted that the Bill would be postponed, and that it would not be pressed forward at that late period of the Session. Many other
486
measures of greater importance had been postponed; and by bringing this Bill forward next Session, it could, if thought advisable, come into operation in July, 1849. He believed that the Bill would be unpopular among all parties in Ireland, and that it was opposed to the opinions of the Commissioners of Fisheries in that country.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEdefended the Bill. He knew that his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, who took a deep interest in the subject of the Irish fisheries, was most anxious to see such a measure promptly carried into effect. There had been only one petition presented against the Bill, and that was signed by only two proprietors, Lord Stuart do Decies, and Sir Richard Musgrave, to whom a portion of the Blackwater fishery belonged; but since the Bill had been last before the House, he had received several communications from parties interested in the subject, all approving of the measure. The noble Marquess read some extracts from letters expressing approbation of the Bill, and concluded by stating that the object of the measure was to promote the interests of the poorer classes in Ireland.
After a few words from the Earl of GLENGALL in support of the measure,
Bill reported.
House adjourned.