Sitting of 3 March 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a. Appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
Order of the Day for the Second Read-in of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill read.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I now have to inform the House of what has occurred since I last addressed it, and to state the course which I purpose to pursue. Since I last addressed the House the public has been put in possession of a statement made by Lord Stanley with respect to his attempts to form a Government, and the reasons why those attempts were not successful. It is not my intention to make any comment on those reasons; but I feel it right—especially after the rumours which

1075
have been spread on this subject—to say that it appears perfectly clear that Lord Stanley had full power and opportunity to form a Government, and that no request he thought it reasonable to make was denied him in the progress of his negotiations. Sir, I stated on Friday last, that Her Majesty had been pleased to send for the Duke of Wellington, in order to learn his opinion on the present state of affairs. The Queen saw the Duke of Wellington on Saturday, and late yesterday evening Her Majesty received a written communication from his Grace. I had the honour of an audience of the Queen this morning at 12 o'clock, and Her Majesty having received the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, that, in the present state of affairs, the best course Her Majesty could pursue was to invite her former Ministers to resume office, Her Majesty was pleased to desire that Her former Ministers should resume their offices accordingly. Sir, after what has occurred—after the failure of the repeated attempts which have been made to form a Government, as has been stated to the House—I and my Colleagues thought that we could not perform our duty to Her Majesty and the country otherwise than by accepting the offer which Her Majesty had been pleased to make. Having entered so fully the other day into the subjects which have recently formed matter of debate, I will only say now that I trust the House will allow us till Friday next before proceeding with matters of public debate, by which means we shall have an opportunity of considering the various measures we purpose introducing, and the state of public business generally. I purpose proceeding with the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill on Friday, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on moving the second reading of that Bill, will state what amendments and alterations it is intended to make in it when it shall go into Committe. I therefore propose that the second reading of the Bill shall be fixed for Friday, with the intention of taking it as the first Order of the Day. Before, however, proceeding with the Orders of the Day on Friday, I will state the course which the Government mean to pursue with respect to other business before the House—as far, at least, as fixing the time at which it shall be brought under consideration. On that occasion I will answer the question put to me the other day, which I was not then in a position to answer, as to the time at which we
1076
shall proceed with the Budget. On Friday I shall be prepared to state the day on which the Budget will come on, and the course which we are prepared to pursue on that subject. I now move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill be postponed to Friday next.
MR. B. OSBORNE: Does the noble Lord intend to persist in the Budget which has already been open to the House?
LORD J. RUSSELL: I have said I will state on Friday next on what day the Budget will be proceeded with. It would be exceedingly wrong in me, in the present state of public business, to enter into further explanations.
MR. KEOGHwould ask the noble Lord if it would not be reasonable, after all that had taken place, not to proceed farther on Friday night than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? The noble Lord had stated that the second, third, and fourth clauses, if they were not altogether withdrawn, were at least to be materially modified. Now, it was but reasonable that the people of Ireland should have time to consider those modifications, for the effect of those modifications might be to make it an entirely new measure. He would suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord—and he was sure the noble Lord would be willing to concede whatever was reasonable under the circumstances—that he should postpone the measure for a week or ten days, to allow time for consideration of the alterations.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I should be quite willing to make any reasonable concession on this subject, but I do not think that the statement of my right hon. Friend need affect the second reading of the Bill. Indeed, it is rather unusual that the Amendments, which can only be proposed in Committee, should be stated before the second reading; but I am anxious that these Amendments should be made known as early as possible to the people of Ireland; and it will be for hon. Members, having heard the statement on Friday, to say whether they will agree to the second reading or not.
MR. M. GIBSONwas afraid the second reading of the Bill would take up a very considerable portion of time, and have the effect of postponing to a very remote period the financial business of the country. He would make an appeal to the noble Lord—not, he could assure the House, in any spirit of levity—whether it was right to

1077
give a measure of this sort an undue precedence over the general public business of the country? He had ventured to say, on the very first day the noble Lord proposed an adjournment of the question, that it would be unwise to proceed precipitately, and he thought the noble Lord would admit now that what he again suggested was not unreasonable, seeing what might subsequently happen, and seeing also that the Bill as it now stood was positively objected to by all parties in the country. He understood that Lord Stanley had stated elsewhere that he was not prepared to legislate at all on the subject at present—that he thought the country precipitate—and that legislation ought to be preceded by cautious and deliberate inquiry. If ever there was a question more likely than any other to inflame the passions of the people, and to lead to inconsiderate legislation, it was a question of this nature; and therefore he, for one, protested against any undue precipitation of the measure. It appeared that all the people of the country, Lord Stanley himself included, condemned the Bill as it now stood. This was a proof that the House had proceeded with this legislation in haste, and without due deliberation. He hoped now that ample time would be given for full consideration of the subject; and, above all, that the measure should not take precedence of the important financial business of the country; that that business would not be postponed to a late period of the Session; but that it might be afforded a fair chance of being deliberately considered at an early day.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, that, looking to the peculiar circumstances under which the reconstruction of the Cabinet had taken place, he was sure he gave expression to the universal feeling of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, in assuring the noble Lord that from them would proceed no factious or unnecessary opposition to his policy. But, while expressing what was the general feeling of the Members on that side of the House in that respect, he felt it necessary to say that, should their assent be asked to any measures in antagonism to their general principles—whether with respect to finance, or the great social and industrial questions which had already occupied the attention of the House for several days—it would be their unpleasant duty to withhold it. Nay, more, he thought he might say, tha should Ministers unfortunately take no
1078
notice of the agricultural distress, which had been acknowledged by Her Majesty's advisers, he had but little doubt that at a fitting opportunity, so as not to interfere with the conduct of public business, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would ask the opinion of the House on some measure which would have for its object the relief of that admitted distress.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that with every possible anxiety to respond to the wishes of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to avoid discussion, he felt that if he did not make a few remarks on the present occasion, he should be abandoning his imperative duty. He confessed that, after all which had occurred during the last fourteen days, he had heard the declaration of the noble Lord with reference to his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill with very considerable disappointment. He had hoped that the upset of the State coach, if he might use the expression, would have involved the necessity of getting some new passengers. He had entertained a hope that there would not have been so much determination expressed to proceed with this bad Bill. He fully joined in the remark made by the right hon. Member for Manchester that there ought not to be so much precipitancy about this Bill, and that it ought not to be introduced to the prejudice of other and more important questions. The speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon on Friday night, had afforded him and the Catholic Members of that House much pleasure and satisfaction; and for that speech he (Mr. Reynolds) availed himself of that opportunity to offer to the right hon. Baronet his sincere and heartfelt thanks. He felt that as a Catholic he was bound to offer him his thanks, and he did so. What had the right hon. Baronet told them? Why, that he was opposed to all legislation on this angry subject. The same sentiment had been quoted by Lord Aberdeen. He (Mr. Reynolds) presumed that the illustrious Duke, whose name had been mentioned that night by the noble Lord as having advised Her Majesty to restore her former Ministers, was of the same opinion; and yet, in the teeth of all this, the noble Lord had just stated that he would move the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill on Friday next. He (Mr. Reynolds) objected to be left in the dark on this subject. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Athlone that the House

1079
ought to know now whether the second reading of the identical Bill, or of an entirely new Bill, was to be proceeded with on Friday. He observed that the noble Lord bowed assent, and he understood by that movement that the second reading of the same Bill was to be moved on Friday. He was glad to hear it, for such an intimation would be a public notice, at all events, to the Irish Members who felt as he felt that they ought to be present to offer opposition. He had deemed it his duty to offer it all the opposition in his power up to this date. He had not altered his determination; and now he wished to declare this publicly that he would offer opposition to it in all its stages. He might be told that his opposition was of no avail. He feared it would be of little avail unless the Irish and English Members stood together; and if the Irish liberal Members stood together—without using any remark that could be construed into a threat—he defied the noble Lord to pass the Bill. And he told the noble Lord now—and he had some experience on the subject—that even if he passed the Bill, a Bill of pains and penalties, a Bill that contained a declaration of war against the Catholics of the united kingdom, there was one part of that kingdom, at all events, in which it would be a dead letter, and that part was Ireland. He was not now speaking for England. The Catholics in England were only a small fraction of the people in numbers; but what they wanted in numbers they made up in respectability. He believed they, also, were determined to offer opposition to the Bill; at all events, the Catholics of Ireland were determined to make common cause with the Catholics of England, and they were not prepared to take any part that would have the effect of inflicting pains and penalties on the latter. He had been told that the people of England had demanded the Bill. He did not believe it. He believed the millions of England did not care about it—that they were more anxious for enlightened legislation, for a repeal of the window tax, for a popular Parliamentary franchise, for a lightening of the pressure of taxation, and not for what was proposed in that House—a lightening of the pressure of taxation on the rich, and an increase of it on the poor. He had looked over the list of petitions, and found that the aggregate number of petitions presented to the 24th of February, in favour of the noble Lord's
1080
Bill, was about 600, and that the number of signatures attached to them was about 120,000; and this out of a population of 16,000,000. And what had he further found? Why, that up to the same date the number of petitions presented against the Bill was about 500, and that to these were annexed 150,000 signatures. Therefore 120,000 were in favour of coercing the creed of the people, while 150,000 were against it. He would suggest to the noble Lord that before bringing forward this Bill to coerce the creed of ten millions of people, he would act upon the suggestion of Lord Stanley, that there ought first to be inquiry by a Committee, but that they should not proceed in a railway hop-step-and-jump sort of legislation on a question of this kind, on a pretence that the people of England required it. He had a right to offer his opinions on this subject, because the twenty Irish liberal Members had received the thanks of their constituents for having taken the linchpin out of the stage coach. He now gave notice that on every future stage of this Bill of pains and penalties—this insulting Bill, which was a violation of the Emancipation Act—there was not an Irish liberal represesentative who would not attend and record his vote against it, no matter how it might be modified. An hon. Gentleman had said the other night, that Scotland had nothing to do with it. He (Mr. Reynolds) observed that the right hon. Secretary at War intimated as much as to say that Scotland had had something to do with it; but there had scarcely been any petition from Scotland calling for coercion. He had been informed by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale that the great majority of Protestants and Presbyterians of Ulster were totally regardless of the Bill. The movement had, therefore, been of an artificial description; but it succeeded in diverting attention from other more substantial pursuits; for here they had been sitting a month, and what had been done for the nation during that time? Nothing but scolding the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman. He hoped the noble Lord would give him some assurance whether he really intended to proceed with the second reading of the Bill on Friday. At all events the Catholic Church derived its power from authority to which every temporal authority must bow; and could, therefore, laugh at their puny efforts to enslave it through the means of a petty, ill-advised, and bigoted Act of Parliament.
MR. OSWALDwished to put one question to Her Majesty's Government, whether in the Bill, as it was to be modified, the noble Lord still intended to prohibit, as the Bill now before the House did, the bishops and deans of the Episcopal Church of Scotland taking the titles of their dioceses, as they now did?
LORD J. RUSSELL: I am not going now to enter upon that question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will state on Friday what alterations are to be made in the Bill; and I may state, in reply to I the hon. Member for Dublin, that he does not seem to recollect that it is necessary for the Bill to be read a second time before any amendments can be made, as those amendments can only be made in Committee.
MR. WAKLEYhoped the noble Lord would consider this matter deeply before Friday next. He hoped that the noble Lord would review the whole course of his proceeding with regard to this Bill—that he would not press its second reading at the present moment, but either shelve it for the Session, or refer it to a Committee, which would have the same effect. After the speech of the light hon. Member for Ripon, it was perfectly impossible to pass the Bill during the present Session. He (Mr. Wakley) was firmly satisfied that this Bill could never be passed under its present title, and that a great alteration must be made, not only in its title, but I also in its character, before it could receive the assent of the House of Commons, As it now stood, it never could possibly become the law of the land. Did the noble Lord see what would be the effect of opposing this proposition? It would only, be to give force to an adverse party. The House had been sitting for a month, and yet nothing had been done for the good of the people. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who was at the head of the party in another place, had, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, in the most manly, frank, and noble manner, stated the course which he intended to pursue. He thought that the noble Lord had acted in a way that entitled him to the warmest thanks of the House and of the country. He (Mr. Wakley) perfectly agreed in the propriety of the; course which the noble Lord had intended to pursue. He trusted that the same course would be pursued in this House, The noble Lord the Member for Colchester had told the noble Lord at the head of the Government that no factious opposition to
1082
that Government would be given by his party. Why, he (Mr. Wakley) considered that party a decapitated party, and any opposition from it would be factious. When he called it a decapitated party he only applied to it the description given of it by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in another place. The noble Lord had said, that of his 270 followers in the Commons there was only one of them that had any official experience; that he could not take him, and, as to the others, he would not have them at any price. That was the statement of their acknowledged leader in another place. That noble Lord had, with a frankness for which he gave him great credit, given a full exposition of the policy he intended to pursue. That noble Lord had stated that he meant when he came into office to impose a duty upon the food of the people. The noble Lord, in the most frank and undisguised manner, stated what were his intentions; whilst the course pursued in that House—the Commons—was of an opposite character. The hon. Gentleman opposite made out a case for the owners and occupiers of land. What the owners had to complain of he could not discover, whilst as to the distress of the occupiers he deeply deplored it. The remedy the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) proposed was the imposition of a higher price upon food brought into this country. This, then, it was for which they were to fight—this was to be the battle at the hustings, a high price, or a low price, on the food of the people [Cries of "No, no !" from Protectionist Members]. He was but telling them that which their leader had said in another place. Under these circumstances, lie trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would bear in mind what had been the declarations made elsewhere. The noble Lord should consider the unreserved mode in which that declaration had been made, and lie now told the noble Lord that the country had a right to expect great candour on the part of the Administration. He trusted that the noble Lord would alter the decision to which he appeared to have come with respect to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; and that he would tell them at an early period on Friday what was to be the budget in its newly-constructed form. They saw that they were threatened with import duties on food. To that the people were opposed. What they wanted was a reduction of the expenditure, and thus leasening the burdens of taxation. To the noble Lord credit was given for

1083
sincerity and ability; but great regret was felt that he had not more efficient Colleagues; and the wish was that he would look about and see if he could not be aided by men with a greater capacity for government. The people were careless whether they were governed by Whig or Tory. All they wanted was cheap, honest, and good government.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid a well-deserved compliment to Lord Stanley, for the statesmanlike and moderate speech he made in another place; but the hon. Gentleman went on to say, that the noble Lord had confessed he was unable to form a Government, because he could find only one person of official experience in that House, and that that person was one in whose sentiments he did not agree.
MR. WAKLEYexplained that what he said was, that Lord Stanley had declared he could find only one person of official experience in that House; and in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion that person was of the wrong kind.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYwas anxious not to be led into a corn-law debate on that occasion, but he must be allowed to state that what Lord Stanley did say in the House of Lords—[Cries of "Order!"]—well, in another place, was not that he wished to raise the price of the food of the people, but that he thought a revenue might be obtained by means of a moderate duty on foreign corn, without materially raising the price of food.
MR. MOOREsaid, he was not going to discuss the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, but he did think it necessary to urge upon a bewildered House, and upon a ruffled Administration, the necessity of taking time—the one to recover its senses, and the other again to try its wings, before they entered upon a course of legislation which more than any other required a serenity of mind and a well-formed judgment, which the events of the last few days were very much calculated to destroy. If they were determined to legislate upon this question, they should not at all events depart without chart or pilot upon that troubled and unknown sea on which the Administration had once already foundered, and on which some of our most experienced and ancient mariners had declined to spread their sails. He thought it would be generally admitted that a species of legislation like this, however necessary, was so caculated
1084
to excite angry animosities, so calculated to stir up bad passions and sectarian hatred amongst the people, that whatever legislation they might be compelled to adopt, should at all events be conclusive. He was afraid that the noble Lord's Bill would lead to a species of experimental legislation, to persecution by instalment, and a succession of blisters calculated to keep alive every old sore, and awaken every dormant susceptibility amongst the people upon the question of religion. Besides, the operation of this Bill would apply chiefly to that part of the empire with regard to which they had too often been in the habit of making mistakes in legislation, and with regard to which it was of the utmost importance that such mistakes should be made no more. The noble Lord had had three months in which to mature his measure, and now that it had been brought forward, the noble Lord confessed that it would not produce the effects which he intended it should produce. The noble Lord had consequently stated, that it was his intention in a few days to introduce such a Bill as he thought would better answer his purpose. Under such circumstances, then, ought not the noble Lord at least to give some notice of the provisions of his new Bill before he pressed it to a second reading?
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to be informed whether there was any objection to lay before the House copies of the Addresses which had been presented to Her Majesty from different parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, with regard to the present Papal aggression?
SIR G. GREYsaid, they had been already ordered to be printed.
MR. SADLEIRhad not been able to gather from the statement of the noble Lord, whether it was his intention to expunge some of the clauses of the Bill now before the House on Papal aggression. If such was his intention, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to state which of the clauses it was intended to expunge, and also the precise nature of the clauses which it was intended to introduce. As it might be the noble Lord's intention to introduce an entirely new Bill, he appealed to him whether it was unreasonable to demand that at least ten days should be allowed to the Roman Catholics of the united kingdom to consider its nature? He had no desire to meet the noble Lord on this subject in any factious spirit;

1085
but the noble Lord knew perfectly well, that if he attempted to coerce the Irish Members, they would take such a step as would compel the Government to afford them ample time to consider the probable consequences of the Bill.
Second Reading deferred till Friday,

NEW PLACES AND APPOINTMENTS.
MR. W. WILLIAMS MR. W. WILLIAMS moved for a return of all new places created, and appointments made, since the 6th day of April, 1848, whether under any Act of Parliament, or by any other authority, and of the names of the persons appointed to them; stating, separately, the salaries of each, and the estimated annual expenses of the establishments in connexion with such appointments, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 633, of Session 1848. A similar return in reference to the creation of new places had twice previously been granted. Information of this description was exceedingly valuable, and he trusted that it would not be refused on this occasion. From the former returns he had elicited these facts, that, from the 1st of September, 1841, to March 1845, during Sir Robert Peel's Government, there had been 600 new places created, with salaries attached amounting to 225,000 l.; and that, during the Administration of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, the return being from March 1845 to April 1848, there had been 1,414 new places created, with salaries attached amounting to 297,276 l. Thus, in a period of seven years only, they had 2,014 new places, with salaries attached amounting to 522,276 l. It was very desirable that this return should be continued, and that the House should further possess the knowledge of the new places created under the Government of the noble Lord from 1848 up to the date of his recent resignation.
The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if he had been aware of the hon. Gentleman's intention to make this statement, he would, of course, have come down prepared with papers to show that, during the time the present Government had been in power they had reduced far more places than they had created. He would not, however, object to the return being granted.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the return for which the hon. Member had just moved would only show the number of places created, but not the number of
1086
places made void. For instance, supposing that 2,000 places had been abolished, and 1,000 had been created, the return would only show the number of creations, but would give no idea whatever of the savings that had been effected.
Return ordered.
The House adjourned, at Six o'clock, till Friday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Passengers Act Amendment; Mills and Factories (Ireland).

THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE,having laid on the table the third report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, said—My Lords, I may as well, in laying this report on the table, and before I move the adjournment of the House, discharge my duty, by acquainting your Lordships that in the circumstances of the present moment, and after the failure of three successive schemes for the construction of a new Administration, Her Majesty, after duly reflecting upon the situation in which She was placed by that failure, has been pleased to call upon those of Her Ministers who had been recently in office to resume those offices, and to endeavour, at least, to carry on the Government of the country. My Lords, that step upon the part of Her Majesty was not taken without full and

1065
due deliberation; and I have the authority of Her Majesty to state, that having during the time She was so pausing had recourse to the advice and opinion of a noble and illustrious Duke—the most distinguished Member of this House—and who is now sitting at your Lordships' table—his advice and his opinion were in conformity with that step. Under these circumstances I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty's late Ministers have thought that they had no alternative but to undertake the task thus, of necessity almost, devolving upon them. Having made that statement, I may be permitted to add, what I am sure your Lordships will readily believe, that no person laments more deeply than I do the existence of those differences of opinion, which, it is obvious to your Lordships, and is well known to the public and the world, have prevented the construction of a new, a stronger, and a more effective Administration. If there were one wish that I could entertain as an individual more strongly than another, or if there were one thing which it would give me more satisfaction than any other, either in or out of office, if possible by any effort of mine to contribute to effect, it would be to put an end to any of those difficulties which have proved obstacles to the construction of that which I believe most desirable for the interests of the country—a strong and an effective Administration. The noble Marquess concluded by moving, that the House at its rising adjourn till Tomorrow.

PAPAL AGGRESSION—THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
Several petitions on this subject having been presented,
The EARL of RODEN,in presenting a vast number of petitions from various places in England, Ireland, and Scotland, praying for a legislative enactment to restrain Papal Aggression, took occasion to express his disapproval of the observations which had fallen from the Earl of Aberdeen a few evenings since on this subject, in which the noble Earl had characterised the measure brought forward as one of a penal and persecuting character. The noble Earl, no doubt, was faithfully representing the state of his own feelings on the subject, when he disparaged the importance of the recent extraordinary proceedings of the Court of Rome; but he greatly deceived himself if he supposed that the loyal and well-dis-
1066
posed amongst Her Majesty's subjects regarded the aggression with other feelings than those of alarm and indignation. For his own part he (the Earl of Roden) did not hesitate to express his entire dissent from the opinion of the noble Earl. He looked upon the act of the Papal Court as an insolent and insidious attempt on the independence of this country and the prerogative of Her Majesty's Crown, and he trusted that it would be resented as such by the Legislature. He altogether approved of the conduct of the late Ministry in introducing a Bill upon the subject. It evidenced the sincerity of their intentions, and satisfactorily attested their anxiety to redeem the pledge which the noble Lord, lately at the head of the Government, had given, in his letter to the Bishop of Durham—a document which, although it had been severely censured in some quarters, had nevertheless won for the noble Lord the admiration and approval of the great majority of the respectable and intelligent amongst the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
The DUKE of ARGYLL: I do not rise for the purpose of making any remarks upon this last of those Ministerial explanations which have been occupying, during the last few days, so much of the attention of the House and of the country. Neither do I rise for the purpose of making any strictures, like the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) who has spoken to-night, upon the speech of the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Aberdeen), although it is upon the subject to which that speech referred that I am anxious to address a few observations to the House. The intention with which I rise is one very easily fulfilled, and which, I trust, the House will see it is neither out of time nor out of place that I should entertain.
I hold in my hands a petition from a corporate body in the city of Glasgow on the subject of the Papal Aggression. It is not in itself very remarkable either as regards the form in which it is expressed, the prayer with which it concludes, or the importance and influence of the body from which it proceeds. It is but one of many others which have been presented to the House in silence; and I certainly should have pursued the same course with this one had it not been that I have observed a very wide and very great misunderstanding as to the public feeling in Scotland respecting this question. There

1067
are undoubtedly one or two very obvious differences of circumstance between Scotland and this country. In the first place, by law this aggression does not specifically apply to Scotland. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church there are still in the condition of vicars-apostolic; and the rev. gentleman, who, it is said, would, in the event of a Papal bull being extended to Scotland similar to that issued for England, be dubbed with the title of Archbishop of Edinburgh, rejoices at present in some such name as Bishop of Limyra. In the second place, the Church established by law in that country is not an episcopal Church; but I need hardly explain to the House that neither this nor any other difference in such circumstances makes any alteration in the questions raised by the Papal Aggression. The non-episcopal character of our Church does indeed preclude us from taking some of the grounds of resistance which have been taken in England. In Scotland, for instance, we should never dream of saying that because our presbyteries and synods are established by law over certain districts, therefore no other Christian minister or bishop had any title to intrude upon it. No Scotchman would dream of taking such ground as this. I confess I wish it had not been so often taken in England; at all events, we willingly leave it to be occupied by those who think they can best resist a Romish aggression by adopting a Romish principle.
Nevertheless I can assure the House that the feeling which exists in Scotland in respect to the aggression recently made against the Established Church and laws of England, is strong, deep, pervading. It has not indeed been expressed as in England in county meetings; but the great cities have spoken out in un-mistakeable terms. [The Earl of ABERDEEN here intimated dissent.] My noble Friend seems to doubt the truth of this statement. I can only assure him that one of the largest and most unanimous meetings ever held in the city of Glasgow was upon this question; and I can further say, from my own observation at large public meetings not held specially on the subject, that the slightest allusion to it incidentally called forth the most decided and enthusiastic expressions of feeling. My conviction is, that if there had been a popular agitation upon it—if a dissolution of Parliament had taken place on this
1068
question—the difficulty in Scotland would have been, not to rouse the feeling, but to restrain it within due and moderate bounds.
Hitherto, I rejoice to say, the petitions from Scotland have taken just and moderate ground. I have not seen one, my Lords, either to this or the other House of Parliament which expressed a wish to interfere with the civil rights or the political privileges of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. Nay, more, my Lords, I have not seen one which prayed Parliament to interfere with anything which by the widest latitude of language could be considered to belong to the religious liberties of the Roman Catholics. I cannot now detain the House by explaining fully what I mean by this; but one point I am anxious to notice now. I have seen no petition from Scotland which has asked Parliament to prevent entirely what is called the synodical action of the Roman Catholic Church. My Lords, most of those petitioners are members of a Church—I am myself member of a Church—which has maintained through years of oppression, resistance, and persecution, that it is a natural right of every Christian society to meet together for the regulation of its own affairs. And although there is undoubtedly a wide difference between the priestly conclaves of the Romish Church, whose decrees may bind the conscience of a minority, and the popular assemblies to which the government of a Presbyterian—or, as it might be, of any other Protestant—Church belongs, still I am not prepared to say that it is such as to entitle us to endeavour to prevent in toto all synodical meetings. For my own part, therefore, I rejoice that the petitions from Scotland have not asked Parliament to enter upon this point into a contest in which I believe no Parliament can enter with any hopes of success, and from which no Parliament can retreat without loss of credit, and a tenfold aggravation of the danger.
But, my Lords, having now said so much on what the Scotch petitions do not ask, I must say a few words more in explanation of what they do say, and what they do ask.
In the first place, they uniformly proceed upon the principle that the assumption so commonly made by Roman Catholics, and I regret to say so commonly made by some Protestants also, that because we tolerate the Roman Catholic re-

1069
ligion we are therefore bound to tolerate everything which the Roman Catholics may assert to be necessary for the full development of their Church, is an assumption neither sound in logic, nor true in fact. They remind the House that in all countries and in all times it has been found needful by every Government pretending to independence, to impose certain restrictions upon the full development of the Romish ecclesiastical system. They further remind the House that it is a principle of our own law and constitution that such restrictions should exist, and that those restrictions date—not as my noble Friend said the other day—from "barbarous times;" but from the very best times of our history—from those in which the best parts of our political system were arranged; and, farther, that the principle of such restrictions is implied, and directly provided for, in the very last Act which admitted the Roman Catholic to the Houses of Parliament.
But, farther, my Lords, these petitions almost uniformly proceed upon the assertion that whatever restrictions of the kind were needful at any former period, are not less needful at the present time. They point to the tone and manner in which this aggression has been made, as a proof of the spirit and temper in which any force acquired by the Romish priests is likely to be exercised. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) said the other day that he was more disposed to view that aggression with contempt than with any other feeling. I indeed agree with the noble Earl that in one point of view it is deserving of our contempt; but I agree with these petitioners in thinking that in another point of view this feeling is not quite appropriate; that the power of the Romish priesthood is still a living power, still capable of exercising the most baneful influence on the welfare of nations.
My Lords, I shall not detain the House at present by any argument on this question. This much, however, I must be allowed to say, that however much under other circumstances I should have deplored some of the events of the last few days, although they have shown in the light of day and in the face of Europe, the high character and the incorruptible good faith of our English public men; however much I should have been inclined to regret the failure of an attempt to form a Government on a broader basis—embracing under one
1070
head or another the members of the late Government of Sir Robert Peel—yet under the circumstances which actually exist, and after the opinions which have been expressed by the noble Earl near me—opinions which he said were shared in by; most of his former Colleagues—I rejoice in that failure. I rejoice, my Lords, that no Government has been formed in England on the basis of passing over in total silence an act which has been proved to be an aggression on the public law of Europe—on the spirit if not the letter of: the municipal law of England—above all, my Lords, an aggression on which, if so passed over, future aggressions will infallibly be founded, and Parliament will ultimately be urged into the inevitable contest, only pampered by fatal admissions, and a fainthearted acquiescence.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented several petitions from places in the county of Cork, praying their Lordships to reject the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. The petitioners lavished upon that Bill all the expressions of reprobation which it was possible to employ; but, though he felt bound to state their prayer to the House, he could not be expected to go along with them in the language they used when they described the measure as a violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty, as a tyrant plan, as an insult to their clergy, and a plunder of their property. On this question he would not at present express any opinion whatever; but he was anxious to state that nothing which had fallen from his noble Friend opposite, from the noble Earl, or the noble Duke who had just spoken, had shaken the view with which that night he had entered the House. Just on account of the statement made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) with reference to the impossibility of establishing a strong Government, and just on account of what they had been told of the feelings of the people of Ireland and Scotland, he implored Her Majesty's Government to pause before they rejected the advice not to proceed to legislate, at least at present, on this subject, but to be satisfied with a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That course would be attended with two inestimable advantages. It would postpone for the present that religious agitation, the worst of all agitations, which was tearing society to

1071
pieces on both sides of the Channel, though in opposite directions—it would postpone, at least, if it did not altogether allay it. It would avoid the constant renewal of that agitation and exasperation of feeling that at present too much, he might say too fatally, prevailed on both sides of the Channel; and it would give time for what he had always thought called for, and what events the events of the last few days added infinite force to—further inquiry; to obtain fuller and more accurate information respecting all the matters involved in the question. When Napoleon established a concordat with the Pope, the first step he took was to call to his councils one or two of the best informed and most trustworthy priests he could find; and he had reason to believe that he took the precaution of conversing and consulting with them separately, so that one did not know what the other said, or even who the other was, so that no concerted story should be told him. All who were acquainted with the history of that important period would tell them that the course then taken had at least this effect, that there was no appearance of haste in the transaction, and that it was not gone into with an imperfect knowledge of the subject. He repeated that he trusted Her Majesty's Government would sec the importance of delay, and of inquiry before they proceeded to legislate on this most important question, if legislate they must.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEpresented several petitions against the Papal Aggression, and said he could assure their Lordships that the people of Scotland would have tolerated no such aggression. The noble Lord did not know the feeling of the people of Scotland, if he believed that they were not opposed to the Papal Aggression; on the contrary, he the (Marquess of Breadalbane) could state that, although there had been few public meetings in, and few public petitions from, that country, the feeling was remarkably strong all over the kingdom. Considering, however, the state of our information, he thought they could hardly come to a fair and sound decision without further inquiry. They did not know, for instance, what were exactly the powers claimed by this Cardinal, who was a foreign temporal prince. Altogether the subject was so complicated, as, in his opinion, to suggest the propriety of extended inquiry before they proceeded any further in legislation. There were in-
1072
stitutions in this country connected with the Roman Catholic Church which he thought were totally inconsistent with our free institutions. He alluded to the nunneries—where they heard of young persons immured in dungeons, and of some of them attempting to escape. On this and other subjects, he thought that the law of this country should be made paramount to the canon or any other law, and that every care should be taken to preserve the Protestant institutions of this country.
LORD BROUGHAMdenied having represented the people of Scotland as indifferent on the subject of the Papal Aggression. On the contrary, he had instanced the excitement prevailing in that country as a ground for proceeding by resolution instead of legislation.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I wish to offer some explanation, in consequence of remarks which have been made, not altogether quite regularly, upon what I said the other night, since noble Lords were present in the House, and might have noticed, if they had done me the honour to do so, what I said at the time. I wish to explain, in consequence of a misconception and misapprehension on the part of my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in which he gave your Lordships to understand that I had recommended that this aggression should be passed over without any notice, and, as it were, in silence. Now, that is not the case; for I particularly mentioned, in the few words that I addressed to your Lordships on Friday last, that I thought it might properly engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and even of Parliament; and in saying so, I referred to an opinion that I expressed to the noble Baron below me (Lord Stanley), before the meeting of Parliament, that the proper mode of proceeding was that which has been pointed out to-night by the noble and learned Lord, namely, by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament carried to the foot of the Throne. I said, then, and I am much mistaken now, if the experience of both Houses of Parliament will not convince them very shortly of the difficulty of legislating on this subject. I understand that the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government has already proposed to alter very materially the Bill which he has introduced, and he will find, as he further advances in the prosecution

1073
of a measure of this description, that the greatest difficulties will surround his progress.
The noble Earl below mo (the Earl of Roden) thought fit to allude to my remark as to the measure being one of a penal character, and savouring of persecution. Now, penal it certainly is. Whether you impose a fine of 100 l. upon a man, or imprison him, your act inflicts a penalty, though whether that penalty be severe or not is another question. But I must be permitted to remind the noble Earl, that persecution is a very different thing at different periods. People entertain very different notions of what persecution is according to the age in which it is exercised, and according to the society in which they live. I doubt not that when Archbishop Cranmer had a poor wretch put to death for denying the King's supremacy, he had not the slightest idea that he was persecuting. Calvin, when he burned Servetus, never thought that he was a persecutor. No doubt that even Philip II., and the Duke of Alva, considered that all they did was redeemed by their tender regard for the salvation of souls. But those days are past, I have formerly heard in this House eloquent speeches, especially from the woolsack, proving that the Roman Catholics of this country had every privilege which they could in reason expect to enjoy; and the greatest opposition was made in quarters of eminence to those privileges which I" believe now all your Lordships are agreed, or the majority at least of your Lordships did agree, were properly bestowed on the Roman Catholic subjects of this country by the Relief Bill. But the speech of my noble Friend near me (the Duke of Argyll), if it was good for anything, was a very good reason for repealing the Catholic Relief Act, for its whole spirit would completely justify such a course of proceeding. The proposed measure will probably be ineffectual, and will therefore inflict no penalty; but if it should be effectual, I maintain that it is the lawful right of the Roman Catholic Church in this country to constitute regularly and in the ordinary manner their episcopal government; and I maintain that any impediment to that action on their part is persecution. The measure attacks that which is an acknowledged right in every Church. Times are changed. If the Roman Catholic Church were not tolerated by law, the case would be altered; but having admitted the Roman Catholics to an equality of civil rights, I
1074
say they have a right to constitute their Church in a legal and regular manner. Although, for reasons which may have satisfied them, they have for a long period acted under vicars-apostolic, there is nothing in justice or in common sense to prevent their appointment of bishops in a regular and proper manner.
I really must deprecate the recurrence of these daily debates on this subject, that take place on the presentation of petitions. I desire most ardently—although, as your Lordships must be aware, I have obtruded myself but very charily on your attention—but I desire, I say, most ardently, to have an opportunity of expressing fully my views on this subject, and the conviction which I entertain that the course we are pursuing is most fatal to the tranquillity of the country.
The DUKE of ARGYLLcertainly had understood the noble Earl to say that he was unwilling to take any action as a Member of the Government he was invited to join.
LORD STANLEYalso explained that lie remembered, before the commencement of the Session, that the noble Earl had said to him that it was, in his opinion, inexpedient to legislate on the subject; but since Parliament met, and during the recent negotiations which had taken place, he did not remember that the question had been once raised or discussed between them.
House adjourned till To-morrow.