Sitting of 30 May 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Survey of Great Britain, &c.; Charitable Purchase Deeds.
2° Colonial Property Qualification; Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act Amendment Fee Farm Rents (Ireland).
3° Bridges (Ireland).

NATIONAL LAND COMPANY.
MR. ROEBUCKwould take that opportunity of putting a question to the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) with respect to what he termed his land scheme, the more so as the hon. Member had appealed to that House for assistance in reference to the losses which he alleged he had sustained through the bank
260
established in connection with that scheme. He (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand a paper in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor) gave notice to persons who might feel disposed to deposit their money in that bank, that it was a legal bank, that he was its sole proprietor, and responsible for the moneys that might be deposited in it. He (Mr. Roebuck) also held in his hand a sort of circular which the hon. Gentleman issued for the establishment of a "bank for savings," at the end of which were set forth the advantages to he derived from a National Savings Bank and a National Land and Labour Bank; and that was addressed to the poor, provident population, whose earnings were hardly acquired, and whose savings were in small sums. The hon. Member having thus taken on himself the responsibility of the bank, a largo number of deposits were made in it. He (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand a letter sent to a person who lived at Manchester, hut was connected with the town of Sheffield, named James Pollard, a labouring man, sixty years of age, whose whole life had been spent as a worker in iron—a machine-maker. That poor man had been enabled by his industry to save the sum of 67 l., which he transferred into the hands of the hon. Member for Nottingham. Afterwards, with the view to get back from the hon. Gentleman the sum which he had thus deposited, Pollard made a demand of it in the form prescribed by the regulations of the bank; and on the 14th May, 1851, he received the following answer:—
"Sir—I am desired by the manager to return your certificate for 67 l. balance, as, pending the decision of Parliament, Mr. O'Connor is unavoidably compelled, under the circumstances explained in the enclosed circular, to submit to a temporary suspension of payment to the depositors."
This reply was signed by "G. J. Toucher" on behalf of the manager. Annexed to that letter was the following circular, dated 483, Oxford-street, 10th May, 1851:—
"Sir—I am directed by Mr. Feargus O'Connor to inform you that, pending the decision of Parliament on the subject of the liability of the National Land Company to repay the advances made by him, and to assist which Company this bank was established, he is reluctantly but unavoidably compelled, in compliance with the unanimous vote of the Land Company's directors, to submit to a temporary suspension of payment to the depositors."
Now, in 1848, the hon. Gentleman had taken on himself all the responsibility of the bank; and, in 1851, he told the poor

261
unfortunate depositors that he was compelled by a unanimous resolution of the Land Company's directors to suspend payment to the depositors. By last night's proceedings in that House, hon. Members learnt that the Committee appointed to take into consideration the Bill for the settlement of the Land Company's affairs, had distinctly and most properly divided the question of the bank from that of the National Land Company. The question of the bank was, therefore, altogether withdrawn from the consideration of Parliament, who had wholly refused to deal with it; and the question he (Mr. Roebuck) wished to put to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor) was, whether or not, as Parliament had determined to lend him no aid in withholding from the depositors in that bank their hard-earned savings, he now intended to continue that mode of putting off the demands of his just creditors.
MR. O'CONNORsaid, in reply to the question put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he had to state, that, when the Land Company's affairs were wound up, which was now being done, the demands of those small depositors in the bank would all be discharged. He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the bank was established in consequence of the resolution of a conference held at Manchester, and contrary to his (Mr. O'Connor's) wishes and consent. He also begged to state that the bank was separated from the Land Company in consequence of decisions of the Judges, given in the different courts, to the effect that it was illegal; and the late Attorney General told him, if it was kept on foot in connection with the Land Company, he (Mr. O'Connor) would be prosecuted. He had paid into that bank out of his own pocket 3,605 l., in order to keep it open; and the Land Company now owed him nearly 7,500 l. [Mr. ROEBUCK intimated dissent.] The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) shook his head. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been the greatest opponent of the Land Company, and the greatest opponent he (Mr. O'Connor) had had in that House. The censure of slaves was adulation; and he had given the hon. and learned Gentleman the only answer he intended to give him.

LIEUTENANT WYBURD.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he took that op-
262
portunity of addressing an inquiry respecting a petition which he had had the honour of presenting on Monday, and which, on his Motion, had since been printed and circulated among hon. Members. He now begged the permission of the House to make a short statement before he put a question which, in his opinion, nearly concerned the national honour, and appealed to the best feelings of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. In the year 1835 an English gentleman, in the military service of the Honourable East India Company (Lieutenant Wyburd) was sent by the British Envoy at the Court of Persia on a highly important and perilous diplomatic mission to Khiva. No information had ever been received that Lieutenant Wyburd had reached Khiva; and ten years elapsed, after he left Persia to proceed to Khiva, before any information respecting that gentleman transpired. In 1845 it was reported that Lieutenant Wyburd had never reached Khiva, but on his way thither had been seized and put to death by the Ameer of Bokhara. Under these circumstances, the ladies, his sisters, whose petition he (Mr. Disraeli) had presented the other day, addressed the Government, and entreated them to make inquiries as to the fate of their brother. Her Majesty's Government instituted such inquiries, and the information they obtained was, that Lieutenant Wyburd, their brother, had been seized and placed in captivity by the Ameer of Bokhara, but that it was believed he was dead. Some time after that the petitioners learnt that, although it was a fact that Lieutenant Wyburd had been placed in captivity by the Ameer of Bokhara, he was not dead; and they called on Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Potentate in whose power they believed their brother was, and to claim him as a British subject in the employment of the Crown; but their representations were met by the assumption—and the probable assumption he (Mr. Disraeli) was bound to admit—that Lieutenant Wyburd was no more. Now, three years after that, namely, in 1848, thirteen years after the period when Lieutenant Wyburd had been sent by the British Envoy at the Court of Persia on that perilous mission, it was discovered that he was not only alive, but that he had escaped from the power of the Ameer of Bokhara, and, in seeking refuge, had been seized by the Khan of Khokan, and was at that moment in a state of slavery. The Khan of Khokan had despatched a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Law-

263
rence, the British Agent at Peshawur, in which he said:—
"I have seized a Sahib at the Fort of Huzrut Sooltan, who came by the road of Tajkund and Dusht-i-Kazak; his name is Wypart, an Englishman, he says, and not a Russian, and that he has been travelling many years. He has two Persians with him, named Mohammed and Hussein, who say they were formerly in Stoddart's service, and were sold at Bokhara, and were purchased by Wypart. These men say their master is English. Now I have sent Allahdad to ascertain from you whether he is really English or not; that, should he be so, I may treat him with honour, but if Russian, that I may punish him."
Let the House observe that was thirteen years after Lieutenant Wyburd was sent upon the mission. Three years ago, when the discovery was made that Lieutenant Wyburd was still alive, and notwithstanding that letter of the Khan of Khokan, the petitioners stated that, with the exception of one letter received from the Secretary of the Honourable East India Company, two years after that, and now more than one year ago, they had never been able to receive any information of their brother, or to hear of any measure having been adopted to obtain his release. A letter to these ladies from the Secretary of the Honourable East India Company stated that he had communicated with the Khan of Khokan, through the native Resident at i Pcshawur, in order to obtain his release; hut they complained that they had been kept in perfect ignorance of the nature of that communication, and they stated that they had no confidence in the interposition exercised by native agents, and they prayed Her Majesty's Government to obtain the freedom and vindicate the rights of their enterprising and distinguished brother. The petitioners further stated their readiness to pay the expenses of an English officer who had undertaken the task of endeavouring to reach Khokan, provided the Government would give their sanction and approval to such a course, and invest him with proper authority. This request had been declined, and they now appealed to the House of Commons as their last resource. His object in again pressing the question on the notice of the House was to invite the Government, and others who might be officially acquainted with the facts of the case, to give some explanation of their views; and he trusted that he might hear from the Government that steps were taken from this moment, which might bring about a result which the people of England could not fail to view without satisfaction.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, it was impossible to
264
allude to the subject which the hon. Gentleman had brought under the notice of the House without sympathising deeply with the ladies who were the petitioners; and he need scarcely add that the sympathy which had been excited in that House was shared in by the Government and the Court of Directors. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had stated that after the petitioners had been for ten years in uncertainty as to the fate of their brother, a rumour reached them that he had been put to death, and the foundation for that rumour was a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Shiel to Viscount Palmerston, dated 10th of August, 1845, which he would read:—
"I am also inclined to believe, from the circumstances stated to Ameer Bey, by the people of Khiva, that the person who was known to have been murdered by a Yamoot, Toorkoman chief, a few years before Ameer Bey's capture, and whose dress, hair, &c, were minutely described, and who had found his way to the camp of the Toorkoman chief, from Asterabad, could be no other than Lieutenant Wyburd, of the Indian Navy, who, in the summer of 1835, left Téhéran (when Sir John Campbell was Envoy in Persia) with the view of penetrating to Khiva, and of whom no information has been received by us since he left Asterabad."
This was the foundation for the report that Lieutenant Wyburd was dead. A long time elapsed after this before anything further was heard of Lieutenant Wyburd, but on the 20th of March, 1848, a messenger arrived from the Khan of Khokan, with a letter for Colonel Lawrence, in which he said, "I have seized a Sahib at the fort of Huzrut Sooltan, who says his name is Wypart, and that he is an Englishman;" and that he had sent to know whether he was English, in order to treat him with honour, or, if a Russian, to punish him. Colonel Lawrence interrogated the messenger, and from his answer was led to believe that the person detained by the Khan was Lieutenant Wyburd; and from the friendly feeling entertained by the Khan towards the British Government, he flattered himself that there would be no great difficulty in obtaining Lieutenant Wyhurd's release. The House would, he thought, infer that Colonel Lawrence could do no other than assume from this that there would be very little difficulty in effecting the release of Lieutenant Wyburd. Colonel Lawrence showed every attention to the messenger of the Khan, and wrote a letter to the Khan, and also a letter to Lieutenant Wyburd, which the messenger took with him, promising to return with an

265
answer in four months, but he did not; and Colonel Lawrence having waited eighteen months without receiving any answer, wrote another letter to the Khan, which he sent in duplicate by two separate messengers, to one of whom he paid 200 rupees to defray expenses, and to the other, who was a person in a superior station, 400 rupees, undertaking that they should receive such further reward, on the liberation of Lieutenant Wyburd, as Government might determine; but neither of these messengers ever returned. The Government had appealed to the Court of Directors to make further inquiry, and, on the 15th of May, 1850, the Court sent out instructions to the Governor General to take steps with a view to procure this gentleman's release, should he be still alive. Again, on the 29th of January, 1851, the Court wrote to the Governor General, directing him to take every practical means to obtain Lieutenant Wyburd's release from the captivity in which he was held by the Khan of Khokan. This was the latest communication that had been made on the subject. It was natural that these ladies should, under the circumstances, think that the Government had not done all they could in reference to one so dear to them. But there was great difficulty in the matter. If the Khan of Khokan would not give Lieutenant Wyburd up, there would be the greatest difficulty in compelling him to do so. Politically and geographically Khokan was almost inaccessible. It was situated in Central Asia, some five hundred miles to the north-east of Peshawur, and separated from it by ranges of almost impassable mountains, and the only means of coercion would be the sending of an army, which, looking at the nature of the country, the House would hardly, he thought, be disposed to recommend. The only hope, therefore, was in negotiation. These ladies, however, said they had no faith in native agents, and had offered to send a person out themselves to effect their brother's release, if the Government would give him the necessary authority. They stated that they had found a gentleman who was ready to undertake the duty. But the Government had had bitter experience of the result of such interference, in the case of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly: even the letter of the Queen, with Her own signature, to the Khan of Bokhara failed to save their lives. All he could say was that the Government and the
266
East India Company had taken every means in their hands to procure the release of this gentleman. He was sorry to be obliged to give so unsatisfactory an answer; but he did not see how the Government could do more than interfere by means of their agents in India to endeavour by amicable means to restore Lieutenant Wyburd to his country and his friends.
SIR JAMES W. HOGGsaid, the statement of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was substantially correct, and that it was impossible for any one to have listened to it without having had his sympathies excited on behalf of this unfortunate gentleman, Lieutenant Wyburd. His hon. Friend had not, however, adverted to the report which reached this country in 1845, through Dr. Woolff, the distinguished Eastern traveller, and which also confirmed the belief that Lieutenant Wyburd had perished. But a subsequent communication from the Khan of Khokan to Colonel Lawrence in 1848, led to the hope that he was still alive. What had been done since that year was that which required explanation, and that explanation he (Sir J. Hogg) would now endeavour to supply. At all times it was most difficult to communicate with Khokan, as any one must know who was at all conversant with the position of that place. The geographical and political difficulties were almost insuperable. It was between 500 and 600 miles to the north-east of Peshawur. The intervening country presented a continuity of mountains which were nearly inaccessible, and inhabited by barbarous and savage tribes. It was scarcely possible for any one to travel in that country, unless his personal safety was secured by the sanctity of his character. Unless he travelled as a fakir or dervish, there was scarcely a possibility of his escape from death. Being at all times difficult to communicate with Khokan, that difficulty must have been greatly increased by the unhappy outbreak in the north-west of India in 1848, the very time when the letter from the Khan of Khokan reached Colonel Lawrence, who was himself taken prisoner in that year by these lawless tribes, and remained in captivity until late in 1849. Upon his release, Colonel Lawrence despatched a native messenger to the Khan of Khokan, selecting for that purpose one who was most likely to accomplish the object he had in view, and shortly afterwards he despatched a second; but he (Sir J. Hogg) grieved to say, that up to this date no ac-

267
count had been received of cither of them. In January last a despatch was sent from the Court of Directors to the local government of India, desiring that every possible means should be used for the purpose of ascertaining the safety and ensuring the liberation, if possible, of this unfortunate gentleman; and an assurance to that effect was given to the petitioners. When they urged the propriety of sending out a European officer, they were told in reply, that the Court of Directors could not pledge themselves to that particular mode of proceeding, but that the local government should adopt the best means, whatever those means might be. He was sure it would be almost unnecessary for him to say, on behalf of the local authorities and the Court of Directors, that they would do everything in their power to effect the release of Lieutenant Wyburd. Independent of the communication referred to by the hon. Secretary of the Board of Control, a letter dated the 26th October, 1848, had been written to the petitioners, giving them every detail of which the Court of Directors was in possession. Other letters had been addressed to them also on the 6th December, 1849, on the 5th January, 1850, on the 9th May, 1850; and the last letter to which he had adverted was dated the 29th January, 1851. He trusted he had now shown his hon. Friend that there had been some cause, at all events, for the apparent delay which had occurred.
MR. DISRAELIwas sure that both the Government and the Honourable East India Company were animated by the same feelings as those which influenced himself in bringing forward this subject; and he could not but think that the comparative tranquillity which now reigned on the frontier, combined with other favourable circumstances, would facilitate the efforts of the Government and the hon. East India Company to procure the liberation of Lieutenant Wyburd; for he must express his belief that, as far as evidence went, that English officer was still alive and in captivity. He would not press upon the Government his feeling that their answer to the appeal of the petitioners when they offered to send out an envoy on their own behalf, was not exactly satisfactory; because even if the envoy on the part of the ladies failed in his mission, we should not be in the false position with regard to the Khan of Khokan that we were in at this moment, for the gentleman who was now in captivity was the envoy of the Government itself. He could not say
268
more at present on the subject, as the attention of Government had been directed to it.
Subject dropped.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clause 1.
MR. KEOGHsaid, that previously to the Chairman reporting progress on Monday night, be moved that a proviso be added to the clause to the following effect:—"That no criminal proceedings be commenced or indictment preferred against any person under or by virtue of this clause." He now proposed to add to this proviso the words, "except with the consent of the Attorney General for the time being, previously had and obtained."
MR. MOOREhoped he might be allowed to say a few words with reference to the criticisms which had been made upon the conduct of hon. Members who had felt it their duty to oppose this Bill. At the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on Monday night, the noble Lord at the head of the Government lectured the opponents of the Bill in a tone and manner which—considering the whole conduct of the noble Lord in connexion with this unfortunate measure—he was by no means entitled to employ. The noble Lord told the opponents of the Bill, that he would give them time to reflect on their conduct; and certainly, if any Member of that House was warranted in warning others of the danger of acting without taking time to reflect, it was the author of the celebrated Durham letter; and he had no doubt that the noble Lord, revolving in his own mind the embarrassments created, the difficulties incurred, the inconsistencies brought out, and the dangers encountered by that one act of haste and rashness, was actuated by a feeling of sympathy in wishing to give others that time for reflection which, unfortunately for himself, he did not take. The noble Lord also told his opponents they might not be inclined to repeat the conduct they had pursued if they found it was condemned by public opinion. Now, he must remind the noble Lord of a circumstance which he appeared to have forgotten, namely, that there was a public opinion in Ireland as well as in England. The noble Lord once bowed to the "public clamour" of Ireland abjectly, as he now

269
ducked to public opinion in England. He (Mr. Moore) appealed to the House whether, in reference to the Bill under consideration, public opinion had not censured the noble Lord quite as severely as his opponents, and whether the delay which had attended the progress of the measure was not chiefly attributable to the noble Lord himself? He entreated hon. Members to mark the course that had been followed with regard to the Bill. On the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, on the 7th of February, there were four nights' debate. Twenty-one speeches were made in favour of the Motion, and twenty against it; and, on referring to Hansard, it appeared that as nearly as possible the same number of pages were occupied by the supporters as by the opponents of the measure. It was evident, then, the opponents of the Bill, on that occasion, only did their duty in replying to its advocates. The Motion for the first reading was made on the 14th of March. The delay between the 7th of February and the 14th of March was caused, not by the opponents of the Bill, but by the feebleness and incapacity of the Government. The question of the first reading was debated for seven nights—a long period, no doubt; but he found that there were twenty-four speakers for the Bill, and only twenty-eight against it, while the former occupied rather more time in addressing the House than the latter. The subsequent delay caused by the postponement of the Bill till after Easter was the act of the noble Lord himself; and even after Easter the measure was again postponed for another week, in order to meet the convenience of the Administration. On the question that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, one evening was occupied with the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart), with which the Irish Members had nothing to do; and he (Mr. Moore) subsequently felt it his duty to address the House on a point of order which no Member of the House—from Mr. Speaker downwards—would say was not deserving of serious consideration. The House having gone into Committee, what occurred then? Although the Bill had been postponed for a month, to allow the Government to reconsider and amend it, yet, at the eleventh hour, on going into Committee, the Government adopted a new clause of the greatest importance, the depth and obscurity of which they had never yet been able to fathom. The opponents of the
270
Bill very naturally suggested that the clause should be printed in the Bill before the Committee was called on to discuss it, and, scarcely credible as it would appear, that reasonable proposition was resisted by the noble Lord. A considerable debate ensued, and at last the noble Lord assented, most ungraciously, to what he had pertinaciously opposed. At length the House went into Committee on the reprinted Bill, which was delivered only at the eleventh hour, wet from the press. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) and others, declared that sufficient time had not been allowed to enable them to understand the provisions of the Bill, and consequently the measure, after some debate, was postponed for another week. When the House went into Committee on the appointed day, the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) moved that the preamble should be postponed; but the Motion was rejected, although it was now universally admitted that its adoption would have greatly facilitated the discussion of the measure. When the first clause was proposed, it came out for the first time that while the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had proposed it in a limited and restricted sense, the Government had adopted it in a sweeping and mischievous one, and extended it to a part of the empire to which the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst did not mean it to apply. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the opponents of the Bill should endeavour to effect alterations with a view of reconciling the contradictory opinions of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, and to rescue the clause from the doubt and obscurity in which it was designedly left by the Government. The noble Lord complained of his opponents for moving provisoes identical, he said, in spirit, if not in words. All he could say in reply was, that the provisoes were as different from each other as the present Bill was from the one originally introduced. [Here the hon. Member recapitulated the provisoes which had been moved, with the view of showing their variance from each other.] The hon. Members who moved the provisoes had no other object than to make the first clause do that which the Government declared it was intended to do. Public opinion, it was true, called for legislation on this subject; but it called for legislation clear and defi-

271
nite, not legislation that was purposely obscure and ambiguous. Public opinion called for a statute which should resist the recent act of the Pope, without interfering with or insulting the religious feeling of any part of the Queen's subjects; but this Bill did interfere with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, while it did not resist the alleged aggression. On these grounds he appealed to that House, and to the public opinion which the noble Lord himself invoked, against the proceedings of the Government.
MR. KEOGHwished to take the opinion of the House upon the proviso of which he had given notice, and which, if adopted, would have the effect of preventing any indictment being made without the consent of the Attorney General. He hoped the Government would agree to this; and, if so, he would offer no further opposition to this clause.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had stated very fully his views on the proviso a few nights ago. He (Lord John Russell) could not agree to it.
The CHAIRMAN: Am I to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman withdraws his proviso?
MR. KEOGH: Yes, I withdraw it.
The CHAIRMAN: Then the question for the Committee to decide is, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Mr. Bernal, I am at all times most anxious to attend to the wishes of this House, and I am persuaded they will view with jealousy any approaches to delay in proceeding with the details of this measure. Having been indulged by this House with a full opportunity of stating my opinion on the principles of this Bill on the occasion of the second reading, I have carefully abstained during the progress of the Bill in Committee, up to the present time, from taking part in the discussion. But having now arrived at the conclusion of the first clause, which was not part of the Bill when last I had the honour of addressing the House on this subject, and feeling great doubts with respect to the real import of that clause, I hope the Committee will pardon me if I intrude upon their attention for a short time, taking care not to restate my opinions on the principles of the Bill, which, however, are still unchanged, but confining myself entirely to the clause in question. It might, indeed, have been the policy of the opponents of the principle of
272
the Bill, who constitute a small minority in this House, to have left the arrangement of the details of the Bill to the large majority who support it, and to have waited for the opportunity, when it came out of Committee, to consider the shape in which that majority, after full discussion and careful deliberation, had chosen to carry out the principle which they support. Still, I think this clause is of such grave importance, and especially it is so very ambiguous, that it is expedient to ask for some discussion upon it, in the hope that we may possibly obtain some explanation as to its real import. I must first ask what is the intention of the clause, and then, if I can divine what its intention is, I will apply myself to the object which is sought to be effected by it. Usually, when there is any doubt as to the object of a declaratory clause, we look to the preamble of the measure. Now, the clause is one of a peculiar character. It is a clause which Her Majesty's Government have adopted at the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and in seeking to discern the intention of that clause through the medium of the preamble, we must first look to the preamble as originally proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and next to the preamble as it is sought to be amended by my hon. and learned Friend. The preamble proposed by Her Majesty's Government is somewhat peculiarly worded, but I shall only deal with that part of it which applies to the first clause. It recites—
"Whereas divers of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects have assumed to themselves the titles of archbishop and bishops of a pretended province and of pretended sees and dioceses within the United Kingdom, under colour of an alleged authority given to them for that purpose by a certain Brief, Rescript, or Letter Apostolical from the See of Rome, purporting to have been given at Rome on the 29th of September, 1850."
Now, this is rather peculiar phraseology, because you will see that these words apply only to one Rescript of a particular date, which is strictly applicable to England only, and does not extend to the United Kingdom; and the words "United Kingdom" are therefore only adopted in this sense, that England is a part of the United Kingdom. In no other sense can the words be used, for the Rescript does not extend to Ireland, but is expressly limited to England. Now, therefore, if the intention of the Government, with regard to this declaratory clause, is

273
to be sought from the preamble, the inference is that this clause is intended by Her Majesty's Government to be strictly limited to England, as it is strictly limited to the one particular Rescript which applies to England only. Now, let me call the attention of the Committee to an intended alteration of this preamble, as it is proposed to be amended by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Walpole), who is the real author of this clause. Does he seek to limit the clause—judging by his amendment of the preamble—to England, or to the one Rescript? Nothing of the kind. Look at the words of which he has given notice. After the word "pounds" he proposed to omit all the following words down to the word "United Kingdom," and to insert the words, "And whereas the said Brief, Rescript, or Letters Apostolical" (alluding to the Rescript of September 29, 1850); he then proposed the following important and significant words: "and all such or the like acts or matters touching the Queen, her Crown, her Regality, or the Realm." It is here clearly indicated that all Bulls, all Rescripts, or any such acts and matters which touch the Crown or the Realm—that is to say, in his opinion—as indicated in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, that the Rescript of the 29th of September touched them—all such matters, whether future or antecedent, shall come under the operation of this declaratory clause. We have here an intimation conveyed, as clearly as words can convey a meaning, that the intention of my hon. and learned Friend differs from the intention of Her Majesty's Government; that he does not mean to apply the Act to one Rescript, or to England only, but that it is to be applicable to the United Kingdom, and to all Rescripts or Bulls from Rome, whether future or antecedent. But now again let us observe what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as indicated by their conduct respecting the first Bill which was laid on the table of this House. That Bill contained a second and a third clause, following that which is now the second clause of the present Bill, but which Her Majesty's Government, on deliberation, withdrew, and for reasons fully stated by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Upon full consideration, and after argument in this House, they were satisfied that the second and the third clauses would interfere with certain spiritual functions of
274
the Roman Catholic episcopate, which they did not think it expedient to touch, whether in England or in Ireland, such as ordination, collation to benefices, and other episcopal functions which they were anxious not to disturb. Now, I ask, is it the intention of the Government, who have since adopted this first clause, to adhere to the purpose which they deliberately announced to the House when they withdrew the second and third clauses of the former Bill? It would be very desirable to come to some distinct understanding on that point; and it appears to be the more difficult to arrive at a clear understanding on account of a change in the law officers since the measure was introduced. I am very sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Master of the Rolls is not now present; but I am sure the House will remember that he, then holding the office of Attorney General, gave an opinion, to which, on reflection, he distinctly adhered, that, as the law now stands, there is no impediment whatever to the Pope dividing any portion of this country into sees, dioceses, or provinces—call them by whatever name you please—for ecclesiastical and episcopal purposes. I am sorry to be obliged to discuss this question in the absence of the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls; but I took a note of it at the time, and I believe if lie were present he would not deny that he gave that opinion, and that he still adheres to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is no longer an officer of the Crown; he fills a high judicial position; but there is present one of the law officers of the Crown, a Gentleman of great ability, to whose opinions I attach much importance, both on account of his talents, and especially on account of the frank and manly manner in which he always states his opinions—I mean the hon. and learned Solicitor General. I have a strong recollection of what he said; but all events he is present, and will contradict me if I misrepresent him. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that by law, at this moment, such a Rescript is, in his opinion, illegal; that the clause is a declaratory one, and does not alter the law, but simply affirms the law as it now is; and he went on to say that the effect of this declaratory enactment on all the courts of law will ho, that where a case in pari materiâ with this present Rescript is brought before them, they will decide the law as it is declared by this Bill. If that be so, is it not clear that this

275
clause extends far beyond the limits of England, far beyond the narrow grounds of the Rescript of the 29th September—that it lays down general principles of law which are applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, to be peremptorily observed by every court of judicature throughout the realm? The opinion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General thereby differs from that of the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls in this—that every Rescript of the Pope appointing bishops to a see within his realm is illegal, and must be held to be illegal by every court of law. Now, I have shown what I think is the intention of the Government, at least if we are to follow the opinions of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. I have shown what is the intention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst, declaring them not by inference, but speaking in express terms in the preamble which he has proposed; and having thus shown what is the intention on both sides, then I beg the Committee to consider what will be done by the adoption of this clause; and I say that its operation in Ireland will be, in my apprehension, fatal to the peace of that country. Recollect what the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, when he notified to the House his intention to withdraw the second and third clauses. He used this remarkable expression—such is the subtlety of the spiritual Power with which we have to contend, that language fails us—and after all his applications to the distinguished law officers of the Crown, he said that in endeavouring to prohibit what he sought to prohibit, he found that unintentionally he destroyed what he sought not to disturb. See, then, what the noble Lord has done. In despair, abandoning the language which failed him—abandoning the advice which he received from his law advisers—in despair he comes to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Walpole), and adopts both phraseology and a declaratory clause, probably intending to limit it in the same way as he announced it to be his wish to do, when he withdrew the former clauses; and he adopts a general declaration to which its author purposes to give the largest possible extension. If this clause is intended to touch ordinary Rescripts, and if it effect its purpose, what is it you will do? The Roman Catholic religion is an episcopal religion. All its bishops in the United Kingdom are appointed by the Pope by Rescript. If
276
you declare that such Rescripts are illegal, then everything that flows from the nomination of the Pope is illegal also. You cannot have ordination without a legally constituted episcopacy. If you vitiate the episcopacy, then ordination by law is impossible; the titles of parish priests will be vitiated also. All their acts will be illegal—marriages solemnised by them will be invalid; every reason which prevailed upon the Government to withdraw the second and third clauses which were formerly in the Bill, applies a fortiori to this declaratory enactment. But does the case stop here? I am afraid to embark upon a question of nice legal import that may be pregnant with the gravest consequences; but I have always understood it to be a principle of law, that if you declare a particular act to be illegal, and prohibit it, then, even though you assign no penalty to the infraction of your prohibition, yet the act, and everything done in pursuance of it, becomes a misdemeanour, and is indictable. There has been some desire, and a very praiseworthy desire, on the part of the Government, to restrict the power of prosecuting under this Bill to the responsible advisers of the Crown. That, however, only applies to the civil penalty. But if the principle of law to which I have alluded is correct—if it be an indictable offence—you lose all control over the prosecutions. You may have a question raised in Ulster as to the conduct of that Italian monk, as the hon. and learned Attorney General calls him, because any act done by him in virtue of that Rescript of the Pope, which designates him as Primate of all Ireland—such a Rescript being itself an illegal act—anything done by Archbishop Cullen under that Rescript would be an illegal act, and he would be exposed to an indictment which might be raised by any one who was actuated by angry feelings against him—it would be open to a grand jury to find the Bill, and the question would go before the petty jury. In such a state of affairs, I repeat, there would be great danger in Ireland; the peaceful government of that country would become utterly impossible. But, above all things, if you legislate, legislate plainly, distinctly, and intelligibly, instead of leaving men to find out by conjecture your doubtful inuendo, to be sought for through the labyrinth of a long preamble. But let us apply the dictum of the hon. and learned Solicitor General

277
to another case. There is the wardenship of Galway, which was abolished by a Rescript of the Pope in 1831, and converted into a bishopric. For twenty years that appointment, and the acts of the Bishop of Galway have remained unchallenged by various Governments, and no resistance had ever been offered to an appointment so made. But let this declaratory clause become law, every Rescript of the Pope, according to the hon. and learned Solicitor General, will then become illegal, and the Bishop of Galway, who acts under a Rescript from the Pope in his spiritual capacity, appointing him to the see of Galway, will, if there be any force in what I have addressed to the Committee, be open to an indictment as guilty of a misdemeanour. But what is to become of the acts of the Bishop of Galway for the last twenty years, the ordination of his priests, and the acts of the priests so ordained? If these acts were in themselves null and void, of course their consequences would be null and void also. You will embark on a sea of angry legislation, of conflict, of confusion of social rights, which it is melancholy to contemplate, and which I believe would be fatal to the peace of the district. But is the recognition of the Papal authority in spiritual matters entirely new in this country? On the contrary, it has been frequently recognised, and in most marked cases. The recognition of the Pope's authority is made in the 6th clause of the Charitable Bequests Act; and I may say a word or two in passing on that measure. There is no question that it was carefully framed with a view to avoid any collision with the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829—it was studiously limited to the precise extent of that Act—but, at the same time, it directly recognised by their titles the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church; and, more than that, the 6th clause recognised their spiritual authority, and almost their jurisdiction; for it was provided that in certain cases of doubt the Roman Catholic members of the Board, who were bishops, should declare who were the persons who were designated to bequests by spiritual titles, and that there should be no appeal from their decision. There was a distinct recognition of their authority, and indirectly there was a recognition of the canon law, since there could be no doubt that the decisions of these prelates would be guided by the principles of that law. Is there no other case? There was
278
a case some time ago, which very nearly touched the succession to the Crown of these realms itself, it was the claim of Sir Augustus Frederick D'Este to the dukedom of Sussex. The question with regard to the legality of the marriage of the late Duke was argued at the bar of the House of Lords, as to the legal effect of marriages in foreign countries, and, by an odd coincidence, Sir Thomas Wilde, now Lord Truro, the Lord Chancellor of England, and the Keeper of Her Majesty's conscience, conducted the cause of the claimant, and went at large into evidence on this question, and the first witness he called was Dr. Wiseman. I shall read to the Committee a few of the questions which were put by Sir Thomas Wilde to Dr. Wiseman at the bar of the House of Lords, and which will show to what extent in his supreme court of judicature we recognise the Pope's authority. Dr. Wiseman was asked—
"Are you a Catholic bishop?—I am.
"Do you hold any ecclesiastical office in England?—I am coadjutor to the bishop, who is vicar-apostolic of the central district of England at present?
"In the event of any questions arising in England relating to the validity of Catholic marriages, have you any jurisdiction or judicial authority upon those questions from the See of Rome?—The vicars-apostolic in England have the same jurisdiction in respect of matrimonial cases which any bishop would have upon the Continent.
"Are you appointed an ecclesiastical judge by the Court of Rome in this country?—In matters relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
"Is there any ecclesiastical authority in this country to decide upon the subject of marriages except the Catholic bishops?—No.
"The persons holding that office are the authorities which have jurisdiction throughout Catholic countries to decide upon questions of marriage?—Generally; generally, that is, matrimonial cases, as far as the canon law and ecclesiastical law affects them, belong to the jurisdiction of the bishops.
"And are you one of those bishops?—I am in that capacity.
"What are the authorities in this country from the See of Rome that have power to decide upon questions arising between Catholics respecting marriage?—Tho vicars-apostolic of England.
"Does their authority extend to all questions relating to marriage, as well its validity as its regularity, or is it limited?—It is limited with respect to the power of dispensing in certain cases in which they are obliged to have recourse to the supreme authority at Rome. With the exception of those cases, the powers are the same as would be exercised in Rome itself. I ought to observe that I stated myself to be the coadjutor to the vicar-apostolic. It might be necessary to explain in what relation I am. I am appointed by the Holy See with the character of bishop to assist the bishop in the administration of his diocese,

279
receiving participation in all his faculties and powers from him, that participation being sanctioned, of course to the full extent to which he gives it, by the Holy See. With respect, therefore, to matrimonial cases, I am in possession of the same administrative faculties which he exercises.
"Have you, during your residence in this country, exercised that jurisdiction?—Frequently.
"In the course of that do you administer your functions with reference to the ecclesiastical law of Rome? Is that your guide and rule?—I am guided by the ecclesiastical law of the Church as applicable to this country. For instance, as to the case of the clandestinity, or any matter involved in that decree of the Council of Trent, I should have to administer for England as for a country in which that is not promulgated; but if cases came before me from other countries in which it is promulgated, I should have to decide according to the practical judgment I should form of the force of that canon in those countries."
Then Dr. Wiseman was cross-examined by the Attorney General, and these questions were put to him:—
"You say that you have the power of deciding whether a marriage is valid or invalid. Suppose you decide it to be invalid, what is the consequence of that decision?—That the parties would be obliged to separate, unless I granted a dispensation, or, if it was not within my faculty, procured it for them; but, until such dispensation was granted they would have to separate.
"You say they would be obliged to separate; but suppose they did not separate, what then?— Then of course they would not be admitted to participation in the rites of the Church—to the sacraments of the Church.
"Therefore your jurisdiction is entirely confined to spiritual censures, and to consequences of an ecclesiastical kind?—Certainly; entirely.
"You would have no power to effect the property or the civil rights of the parties?—Not in this country, except in foro contcientiœ."
Observe the closeness of the connexion between the civil and spiritual powers that run into each other. True, that in foro conscientiœ the bishop can only deprive them of the rites of the Church; yet hon. Members will observe that it has been distinctly recognised at the bar of the House of Lords that the authority which their bishops exercised, in their jurisdiction over the sacraments of the Romish Church, affecting the consciences of 8,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, is derived directly from Rome; and it is this authority and jurisdiction, so derived, that the House is now asked to declare illegal, and null and void. Well, I refer again to the provisions of the Charitable Bequests Act. It was passed at a time when there was a statute on the books declaring that the receipt of all Bulls, Rescripts, &c. from Rome was illegal. I was a party to the introduction of the Charitable Bequests Act in 1845,
280
and one of the last acts of Sir Robert Peel's Government in 1846 was the introduction, through Lord Lyndhurst, of a Bill (the Religious Opinions Relief Act) which, as it originally stood, went the whole length of repealing the 13th of Elizabeth, which decreed the receipt of Bulls and Rescripts from Rome to be illegal. I may be permitted to read a short passage from Lord Lyndhurst's speech on introducing the Bill. His Lordship said—
"They tolerated the Catholic prelates, and they knew that these prelates could not carry on their Church establishment, or conduct its discipline, without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. No Roman Catholic bishop could be created without the authority of a Bull from the Pope of Rome; and many of the observances of their Church required the same sanction. The moment, therefore, that they sanctioned the observance of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, they, by implication, allowed the communication (with the Pope) prohibited by this statute, and for which it imposed the penalties of high treason. If the law allowed the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be permitted to be carried on perfectly and properly; and that could not be without such communication. On these grounds he proposed to repeal that Act."—[3 Hansard, lxxxv. 1261.]
The proposition made by Lord Lyndhurst was the entire repeal of the 13th Elizabeth; it assumed another form during its progress through the House; it repealed the whole of the penalties, and not the Act itself; but the intention of Sir Robert Peel's Government was that the Act itself should be repealed. Lord Lyndhurst goes on further. He says:—
"But he proposed the repeal of this statute for other and still stronger reasons. No such statute existed in Scotland, and, what was still more remarkable, such a statute had never been passed by the Irish Parliament, though in that country three-fourths of the inhabitants professed the Roman Catholic religion. He knew that many of his noble friends had been, on the first impression, much staggered at this proposition; but the more they had examined into the question, the more convinced were they of the expediency of the course which he proposed. If their Lordships thought that when the Bill got into Committee the measure might be in some degree modified, provided it could be satisfactorily made out that Roman Catholics would he enabled to do what the law authorised them to do, and to do it effectually, he should have no difficulty in acceding to such a modification."—[Ibid,]
There is one observation in what I have just read to you, that does not appear to me in exact accordance with the great acuteness of my noble and learned Friend. He appears somewhat surprised that no such statute as the 13th of Elisabeth was ever passed in Ireland. I am not at all

281
surprised at it. He states the reason, namely, that three-fourths of the inhabitants of that country are Roman Catholics. In England it is quite possible to treat the Roman Catholics as a sect, but in Ireland the Roman Catholics are a nation, and must be treated as such. And if this declaratory clause and its effect be what I anticipate—if its legal effect be what I believe it to be on the authority of the hon. and learned Solicitor General—I do apprehend, under the colour of this clause, that we go a great deal further than Her Majesty's Government intended when they framed this Bill. The second clause, about the assumption of titles and the 100 l. penalty, I consider to be as nothing compared with this clause. In fact, I think this clause goes further than the second and third clauses in the original Bill, which were withdrawn as going too far. I may be in error in this opinion. But I confess I am more alarmed by the doubt and ambiguity of the clause, and I should like very much to have that doubt and the apprehension which I entertain removed. I know not whether the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland is in his place. ["Hear, hear!"] I should be sorry if there was anything like a sneer when I alluded to that right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has risen to eminence in his profession amidst many rivals. He certainly labours under the great disadvantage of coming into this House late in life, a disadvantage which I feel for his sake acutely. But still he occupies an eminent position. Since I have been in this House, I have seen it occupied by O'Loghlin, Woulfe, and the present Master of the Rolls (Sir T. B. Smith), who is inferior to none in legal attainment. The Attorney General for Ireland is the law adviser of Her Majesty with respect to Ireland; and here is a question of legal doubt affecting the peace and future government of that country, and I should like to hear his opinion on the effect of this clause. [The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland here, entered the House.] I rejoice to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his place, and I am sure the Committee will say that I have said nothing unkind of him. I should be sorry to see him placed in any position which was the least painful; but in a question of great doubt affecting the religion, the feelings, and the interests of so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects as the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I
282
do think, before we pass this clause, it is important that we should know what that right hon. and learned Gemtleman says will be the effect of this declaratory clause as relates to the episcopal authority of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. If I am in error in my apprehension of what the effect of this clause is to be, no man will be more ready to have that misapprehension removed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland). I know that in a matter of this kind it is not usual to pass a declaratory clause. I like a direct and unambiguous Act of Parliament. If the law be imperfect, remedy it at once—if the law be plain, why then I cannot sec any occasion for a declaratory clause. But I fear that Her Majesty's Government, not satisfied with the Bill now before us, have indicated a purpose of proceeding further in this direction; and I am still more alarmed when I hear of old statutes, and that this is a declaration of an intention to revive dormant laws. I am not only afraid of what this clause does, but I am still more alarmed at the animus which it shows, and the danger of reviving those old Acts of Parliament. We have heard something of the statute of Richard II. I doubt whether, according to the letter of the law, the statute of Richard II. does not do all that your declaratory clause enacts. It was happily said by a great Irish statesman (Mr. Curran) that these old Acts hang up like rusty armour—they are only endured because they are not executed; and it is only their inactivity which renders them tolerable in a free country. The ambiguity of this clause, and the threats which accompany it, that future enactments will be proposed fill me with dismay; but, more than all, I am alarmed by the distinct intimation, that if this declaration be not attended to—that if rescripts from Rome appointing archbishops and bishops in Ireland be not discontinued, notwithstanding the usage of the last hundred years—an attempt will be made to revive those old statutes and bring them into operation. I am ashamed of such a threat. I declare to you that nothing ever gratified me more than the conduct of Government in withdrawing the second and third clauses of this Bill. I thought it was an indication of that spirit which actuated their counsels upon religious questions generally, in which I most entirely agreed. I think the after-thought of adopting this clause which we are now debating, at the instance of my hon. and learned Friend

283
the Member for Midhurst, is most unfortunate. I cannot satisfy myself as to the precise extent to which it may be carried, if we adopt it. Blindfold I cannot consent to pass it; at all events I enter my protest against that clause, and I am prepared certainly to divide against it. I hope I have kept my word and confined myself to the clause itself, and that I have not gone into the general principle of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he exceedingly regretted the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, whose name had been called in question by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He had stated, with respect to the Master of the Rolls, that upon the first discussion on this Bill that right hon. Gentleman stated to the House that he had given an opinion that the Pope had a power by law to appoint ecclesiastics in this country, with dioceses and sees, for ecclesiastical purposes. Now, he took the liberty of saying that the right hon. Baronet was under a complete misapprehension.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Will you allow me to read my note of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said? It was—
"He now said, and lie believed he was correct in saying, and he had since given an opinion, that there was nothing in the law to prevent the Pope from parcelling out the country into archbishoprics and bishoprics."
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there must be some inaccuracy in the note of the right hon. Baronet. His right hon. and learned Friend had given no opinion on the subject which had not been signed by him (the Attorney General), and he had never signed any such opinion.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he did not know that the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls alluded to any written opinion; what he asserted was, that those words were read in that House.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to speak of an opinion given by his right hon. and learned Friend in his professional capacity. But the best proof that there must be some mistake upon this point was the original Bill introduced by the Government, which Bill was drawn by his right hon. and learned Friend; and in the preamble to that Bill he recites—
"Whereas the attempt to establish, under colour of authority from the See of Rome or otherwise, such pretended sees, provinces, or
284
dioceses, is illegal and void, and the assumption of ecclesiastical titles in respect thereof is inconsistent with the rights intended to be protected by the said enactment; and whereas it is expedient to prohibit the assumption of such titles in respect of any places within the United Kingdom," &c.
The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) would thus see that his (the Attorney General's) right hon. and learned Friend (the Master of the Rolls) could not have used the language which it appeared he was supposed to have done. But to pass from that to the general argument of the right hon. Baronet, almost all the points that had been urged by him had been previously raised in the course of this discussion; and, as far as they were capable of being answered, they had been answered to the general satisfaction of the House—["Oh, oh!"]—although, perhaps, not to the satisfaction of all the hon. Gentlemen opposite. With respect to the second part of the clause, the right hon. Baronet contended that it enacted a new law. Now, he denied that altogether. As he had before stated, it did nothing more than declare the law which was contained in the recitals of the preamble and the enactment of the first clause. he had before explained the reason why the Government thought it right to yield to the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr Walpole), and consent to the insertion of this clause, because they conceived it carried the matter no further than the preamble, and the second clause did; but that it did amount to a more solemn and emphatic declaration on the part of this House that the attempt on the part of the Pope was contrary to the law and constitution of this kingdom. Looking at the Bill with a dispassionate eye, could anybody doubt that, if the recitals in the preamble were correct, this clause must be correct also? The preamble recites that—
"Whereas divers of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects have assumed to themselves the titles of archbishop and bishops of a pretended province, and of pretended sees or dioceses within the United Kingdom, under colour of an alleged authority given to them for that purpose by a certain Brief, Rescript, or Letters Apostolical from the See of Rome, purporting to have been given at Rome on the 29th of September, 1850; and whereas it may be doubted whether the recited enactment extends to the assumption of the title of archbishop or bishop of a pretended province or diocese, or archbishop or bishop of a city, place, or territory, or dean of any pretended deanery in England or Ireland, not being the see, province, or diocese of any archbishop or bishop, or deanery of any dean recognised by law; but the attempt to establish, under colour of autho-

285
rity from the See of Rome or otherwise, such pretended sees, provinces, or dioceses, or deaneries, is illegal and void."
The clause was simply declaratory, and, if issue were joined with him on that point, he was prepared to maintain that no foreign Power, whoever he might be, has the right to confer territorial titles in this kingdom without the consent of the Crown. Now, during this debate the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), and other hon. and learned Members, had put a number of questions to him (Sir J. Graham) which he trusted he had always answered with perfect good humour; and, however prolonged this warfare might be, he hoped it would be continued in a friendly and amicable spirit. But he wished to ask them this question. Did they deny, in point of law, the recitals of that Bill? Having said in the recital that it was illegal to establish archbishoprics and bishoprics, and having said that a Rescript had been carried into effect by the Pope, under which titles which were illegal had been assumed by Her Majesty's Catholic subjects; surely, the deduction to be drawn from both premises was this, that if it is illegal for the Pope to exercise this authority within the realm of England, surely it follows that the Rescript is void; and if so, that any power or authority derived from that Rescript must of necessity be void also. That first clause, therefore, simply declared the law. But the right hon. Baronet argued that the enactment of that clause would be attended with considerable inconvenience and mischievous consequences to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland in the exercise of their religious functions. But at the present time no one could say that Rescripts from the Pope appointing to archbishoprics and bishoprics in Ireland, with territorial titles derived from provinces and dioceses, were legal. Whatever might have been the intention of Sir Robert Peel's Government in 1844, it did not repeal the Act of Elizabeth. It was repealed with respect to the penalties, but the offence was, in the most express terms, continued. And the Act of 10th George IV. in express terms declared that such titles assumed by ecclesiastical dignitaries in Ireland should be void. Yet the archbishops and bishops in Ireland did appropriate to themselves the same titles as those which were assumed by the Established Church of this kingdom. The law was in that respect as much infringed now as it would be after the passing of this
286
Bill; and if it was true that those evil consequences would flow from the assumption of such titles under this Bill, it must be equally true that they would arise upon the 10th George IV. But had those mischiefs to which reference had been made, arisen? No. What marriage, he asked, had been annulled, what offspring, otherwise legitimate, had been bastardised in consequence of any one asserting that the ordination of priests by Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland was an illegal ordination? The thing had never been heard of; because, with respect to marriage, and the consequence of marriage, it was enough that there was a de facto priest exercising his functions in a chapel; and the ordination of the priest on the validity of the marriage never came into question. Although the 10th George IV. made the assumption of titles illegal, those consequences, on which so much stress had been laid, had never resulted from the assumption of titles. There could not be a better proof that this Bill would not work the mischiefs anticipated. It did no more than place the assumption of titles not appropriated by' the Protestant Church on the same footing as the 10th George IV. Its object was not to interfere with the full and perfect exercise of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church, but simply and solely to prevent a foreign Power from interfering and granting territorial titles within this realm. When the right hon. Baronet referred to what passed at the bar of the House of Lords, he did not draw a correct inference from what had taken place. Dr. Wiseman was called as a witness to speak as to the usages of the Roman Catholics with reference to marriage; and, to show that he had a competent knowledge on the subject, the questions put to him, to which reference had been made, did not involve a recognition of his jurisdiction; and he thought it was too much to say that, because the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords did not interfere when these questions were put, they did recognise his jurisdiction. Dr. Wiseman was at that time vicar-apostolic, and he declared that he enjoyed, as vicar-apostolic, all the jurisdiction, ecclesiastical and spiritual, to which the right hon. Baronot referred. If that were so, could there be a more conclusive or satisfactory proof that this Rescript—this division of the territory of England into provinces and dioceses—this creation of a hierarchy with territorial titles was utterly

287
unnecessary, as much as it was an innovation of the sovereignty of the Queen? Everything which a Roman Catholic could claim for the exercise of his spiritual and ecclesiastical functions was contained in the jurisdiction and authority which Dr. Wiseman arrogated to himself in the answers given by him on that occasion. As to the statement that prosecutions might be instituted under the clause, that had been answered over and over again. The clause expressly referred to a particular Rescript, and to titles created under that Rescript, or any other for the same purpose. The Rescript was not a rescript for the establishment of episcopal authority within this realm. The clause related to Rescripts the purport of which was to create episcopal authority and episcopal dignitaries with territorial titles. Inasmuch as the clause related only to the jurisdiction and authority assumed under such Rescript, or derived from it, and contented itself with declaring the authority so assumed to be illegal and void, without any prohibitory enactment or declaration—relating only to acts done under it, and creating no offence—he was perfectly convinced that upon that clause no possibility would arise of instituting any prosecution. He would only further say, that inasmuch as the recitals in the preamble followed by the clause itself only declared the law, and did not create it, if any prosecutions for misdemeanour for assuming titles could be instituted with the clause, they could be equally instituted without it.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMwished to set himself right on one point with respect to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General entertained some doubt, namely, as to what fell from the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls. In the debate on the 21st of March, reference was made to what had fallen from the Master of the Rolls on a former occasion, and a passage was quoted from that speech, in which he expressed an opinion that there was nothing in the law of England to prevent the Pope from parcelling out any portion of the United Kingdom into districts for Roman Catholic episcopal purposes. He said—
"On the debate on the Bill for establishing Diplomatic Relations with Home, he resisted an Amendment, which was proposed by the then hon. Member for Lambeth, and said that, as the law stood, the Pope could parcel out the country into bishopries and archbishoprics; that it the House introduced the Amendment which prohibited dealing with spiritual matters, the Pope would still
288
be able so to divide the country, and there would be nothing to prevent him; and that the only mode of preventing him was by establishing diplomatic relations with him."
The right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls then went on to say—
"That was to say, he deprecated such a measure, and was desirous that the House should pass a Bill which would enable the Government to take such stops as would prevent it."
Namely, intercourse with Rome. He then went on to say—
"That was entirely in accordance with what he now said, and he believed he was correct in saying it, and had since given an opinion that there was nothing in the law to prevent the Pope from parcelling out the country into archbishoprics and bishopries; that there was a law to prevent the introduction of bulls, but there was no law to prevent him from parcelling out the country."—[3 Hansard, cxv. 417.]
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said, that Dr. Wiseman, at the bar of the House of Lords, avowed that he was vicar-apostolic, and that he enjoyed all the functions and powers of bishop with reference to ordination and marriage. Now, he begged the Committee to recollect that the only difference between vicars-apostolic with districts assigned them, and bishops with dioceses assigned to them, was this—that vicars-apostolic, held directly from the Pope, without any intervention of any secondary authority, and were the mere creatures of his will and caprice; that the bishops enjoyed the same power, neither more nor less, but with this distinction, that they were one degree further removed from the power of that foreign potentate, the Pope of Rome. They were subject to the canon law, and were not so dependent on a foreign potentate as the vicars-apostolic.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLfeared that when courts of justice came to interpret such a measure as the present they would have no regard to the speeches and the explanations of hon. Members regarding it, but would proceed to interpret according to their own views of its provisions. The legal opinions expressed on the measure in that House had been very conflicting and very unsatisfactory. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that the present measure if passed into law would do nothing more than confirm the law as it already stood. He begged, however, the Committee to recollect that when the prohibitory clauses of the Act of 1829 had been passed, it was solely to meet the views of the then King George IV., and there had been no intention on the part of

289
the Government that they should ever be enforced. The Charitable Bequests Act had been received with gratitude by the Irish people; and he believed that it was more the misfortune than the fault of Government that it had not been made more fully satisfactory. The hon. and learned Attorney General had argued that because the clauses in the Act of 1829 had been inoperative, that this Bill would be inoperative also. That was a matter which rested entirely with the Government; and he would ask the Roman Catholic Members for Ireland not to be dependent on the will of any Government in a question of this sort. It had been stated in that House that the Irish Members were under the screw of the bishops, and voted as they pleased. Now, he utterly and entirely denied such an imputation. If those who made that imputation believed it to be true, why did they admit men to that House who were acting under the influence of those over whom prosecutions might be hanging? This Bill conferred the worst of all power—the power of interfering with conscience and feeling. After being associated for nearly twenty years with the Members of the Government, he never believed the moment would arrive when upon any question he could refuse them his confidence. He admitted they might have been placed in a situation of some difficulty. But he did not complain so much of legislation as the manner in which it had been introduced. The proper way of performing such a duty was not by taking up a pen and writing a hasty letter, but by deep and mature reflection. Statements had been made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not only in his celebrated letter to the Bishop of Durham, but also in the course of this debate, which must be painfully felt by every Roman Catholic, and particularly by those who had bad the honour to serve Her Majesty. He did not know what had induced the noble Lord to change his opinion as to the persons professing that religion. The noble Lord in 1845 held opinions which he did not now entertain. It was always a painful thing to change an opinion, and he felt it deeply painful to withdraw that confidence which personally and politically he had always entertained for the noble Lord.
MR. HATCHELL, having been requested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) to express his opinion as to the clause now under discussion, willingly accepted the invitation, and would state what
290
he conceived to be the existing law of Ireland upon this subject, and then call the attention of the Committee to the provisions of the clause with the view of ascertaining whether it did anything more or less, than re-enact (if he might use the term) the law as it had hitherto existed. The proceedings of the Court of Rome were dealt with by the statute of Richard II., of which they had already heard so much, that he would not take up the time of the House by more than alluding to it. In the 13th of Elizabeth an Act was passed regarding rescripts from the Court of Rome, which, it was admitted, did not extend to Ireland. But, previous to that, in the second year of the reign of Elizabeth, an Act of Parliament was passed for Ireland in every respect as coercive, and having the same operation. Therefore, with respect to appointments made from the Court of Rome as to bishops and archbishops in Ireland, they wore manifestly affected by the two statutes. It was admitted that the Act of Richard II. was still the law of the land; but from its obsoleteness, and the penal character of its enactments, it was considered that, in the present day, it could not be called into operation. It had been said that the Act of Elizabeth, with respect to Ireland, had ceased to exist. That was quite a mistake. The law was still in existence and in operation, the penalties only having been remitted. Had anything occurred in Ireland previous to the Act of 1829 to alter or change that law? Nothing; and although the public feeling in Ireland showed that, with respect to the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, little jealousy was entertained as to the assumption of those titles, there could be no doubt that Roman Catholic bishops or archbishops having territorial titles were not recognised by law in Ireland. Although they might be addressed by such titles as that of Archbishop of Dublin, or Bishop of Meath, by their own community, and tolerated in Ireland as a matter of courtesy, yet such titles had no foundation in law. In the year 1809, this point was expressly decided by Lord Chancellor Manners, in the case of the will of a Miss Power, in which the Roman Catholic Bishops of Cashel and Waterford were named, not only by their ecclesiastical titles, but by their baptismal names. The Lord Chancellor said, "With respect to the bequest, the law of Ireland does not recognise any such character as Roman Catholic Archbishop of

291
Cashel, or Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford. The bequest to them and their successors in that character cannot be supported." In 1829 the Act was passed which had been the subject of so much discussion. Up to that hour the law of the non-recognition of Roman Catholic bishops having territorial titles was well known, and by that Act it was fully established. And why did he call the attention of the Committee to this fact? To meet the question which had been raised, that now when the same law was re-enacted, the only addition was respecting the creation of new dioceses; but the restraint was the same, namely, that territorial titles should not be assumed. It was said, the effect of such restriction would be to disqualify the Roman Catholic bishops from exercising spiritual jurisdiction in Ireland; to prevent them ordaining priests, because such ordination would be void, and all marriages celebrated by them would also be void. But if that would be the effect of the clause now, what was the case at that time? Had it had any such effect or operation for the last twenty years? The Act then passed was under the consideration of some of the most eminent men of the day; and was any declaration made that the introduction of such a clause would suspend or annihilate the power of the Roman Catholic clergy? Nothing of the kind. The Act of Parliament was accepted, with that condition attached to it; the Roman Catholic bishops succeeded each other, and the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion had continued free and uninterrupted. He now came to the Act of 1844 (the Charitable Bequests Act), in which it was contended there was something which set up a right in the bishops in Ireland to assume territorial titles. Now, on looking at the provisions of the statute, he believed the contrary to be the fact. If it had been the intention of the framers of the Act or of the Legislature to enable the Roman Catholic bishops to assume territorial titles for the purpose of exercising their religion in Ireland, why avoid an express declaration? He regarded the machinery of that Act was framed to avoid that very recognition. The 15th clause provided that any person might will or grant, not to the bishops, but to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests—these persons being interposed between the donor and the objects of the trust, from the very apprehension that, if the clause had been worded differently, the claim to ter-
292
ritorial titles might have been set up. Now, the law being as he had stated, what did the preamble of the present Bill recite? It referred to the Rescript which deals with new dioceses and the assertion of new territorial titles, and then recited the law of 1829, and then it proposed to enact that anything done under such Rescript should be void. Now, the effect of that would be to declare that what had been the law, still continued to be the law, and that such acts as were forbidden under the old law, remained illegal under the new law. Then it was said that an indictment would lie upon this clause. He (Mr. Hatchell) did not believe that to be the case, because the clause merely declared certain things to be illegal and void, but did not prohibit anything expressly, and therefore an indictment would have to be brought under the statute of Richard II., or the statute of Elizabeth, which were prohibitory, and not under this Act, which only declared certain things done under the law as it existed at present to be illegal and void. Such he believed to be the state of the law on this subject as it applied to Ireland at the present time.
MR. MOOREsaid, there were two objections brought against this clause by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, neither of which had yet received any answer. The first objection related to the ambiguity of the clause, and to the discrepancies in the interpretations of it which had been given by the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). The second objection was, that the clause, by re-declaring the law, gave it a new and additional force. These were two distinct and very serious objections, and demanded a clear explanation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland, had declared that the present Bill was a re-enacting of the law; and that, though it did exist at present, yet that it was not put in force because the law was obsolete. But this re-enactment would give efficiency to the law which did not exist before, and therefore the Roman Catholics would find themselves, if this Bill passed, in a worse position than they were in at present.
MR. WALPOLEwished to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, who had introduced a discussion which had come upon them by surprise. If the right hon. Baronet had addressed

293
himself to the consideration of the clause, either in connexion with the Government preamble, or with the preamble which he intended to propose, he thought that there would be none of that ambiguity or discrepancy to which allusion had been made. It was with some reluctance that he offered any remarks on this clause after the discussion that had taken place; but he did so because advantage had been taken of certain words he had used, and a meaning assigned to them which he did not intend they should convey. If hon. Members well considered the clause, they would probably arrive at this conclusion, that it did not alter the law itself, but it declared an antecedent law which was now existing. The right hon. Baronet had taken two objections to the clause: first, he intimated that the introduction of a Bull or Rescript of the Pope into this country was not illegal, as the law at present stands; but, if it were so, then he asked what was the use of making the declaration, and why take the trouble of enacting a law to that effect? With regard to the first objection, he did not think any one could look to the terms of the statute of Richard II., and say that the Brief was not illegal. He had always contended, and he believed correctly, that the Brief in question was contrary to the law of nations, and contrary to the law of England. By the law of nations, according to Van Espen, the Pope had no power to introduce any Brief for the erection of a bishopric, or for any such purpose, into any country without the consent of the supreme authority of that country; and according to Schramm, who was only second to Van Espen as an authority, that principle was so sacred that even an independent Prince could not give it up or abandon it to the prejudice of his successor or of the State. If, then, the Brief was contrary to the law of nations, he wished to know why England, a Protestant country, was to be debarred declaring the illegality of such a Brief, interfering, as it did, with the authority of the civil power. It was not, however, only illegal by the law of nations, but it was also illegal by the law of this land. The right hon. Baronet had adverted to the statute of Richard II., and to the preamble which he had suggested, and asserted that the clause extended the law beyond the bounds within which it was limited at the present moment. But he wished to remind the right hon. Baronet what the statute
294
of Richard II. had expressly declared—a statute, be it remembered, as applicable to Ireland as it was to England. The statute declared that "if any purchase, or procure, or cause to be purchased, or procured, in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, any such translations, processes, and sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments, or any other things whatsoever that touch the King, against him, his Crown and Regality, or his Realm, as aforesaid," they should be liable to a præmunire. Now, a legal interpretation had been given to that statute, to the effect that any Brief sent to this country conferring jurisdiction, even the jurisdiction of a vicar-apostolic, was contrary to it. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone the other night had adverted to this point, and had contended that the statute of Richard II. had reference to a period when the Roman Catholic religion was the religion established in this country, and that any declaration of the law making the Brief illegal could only have reference to the ministers of the Church as then established. But when the case of Lalor was decided, the Protestant faith was the established religion of the country. What was the form of the indictment in that case? The first count was—
"That he had received a Bull, or Brief, purchased or procured in the Court of Rome, which Bull, or Brief, did touch or concern the King's Crown and dignity Royal, containing a commission of authority from the Pope of Rome unto Richard Brady and David Magrah, to constitute a vicar-general for the See of Rome, by the name of the See Apostolic, in the several dioceses of Dublin, Kildare, and Ferns, within the kingdom of Ireland."
The second count was—
"That by the pretext or colour of that Bull, or Brief, he was constituted vicar-general of the See of Rome, and took upon him the style and title of vicar-general in the said several dioceses."
The third count was—
"That he did exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction as vicar-general of the See of Rome, by instituting divers persons to benefices with cure of souls, by granting dispensations in causes matrimonial, by pronouncing sentences of divorce between divers married persons, and by doing all other acts and things pertaining to episcopal jurisdiction within the said several dioceses against our Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown, and dignity Royal, and in contempt of his Majesty and disherison of his Crown, and contrary to the form and effect of the statute."
Lalor's case, therefore, completely established the principle that any Bull conferring jurisdiction within any one of the

295
established dioceses in England or Ireland was an offence within and against the statute of Richard II. (See Howell's State Trials, vol. ii. p. 534.) Such was the state of the law; and all they were now called on to declare was that any Brief brought into this country contrary to the statute of Richard II. was illegal and void—that was all which they were called on to declare by the first clause. It was said, however, that the Brief was one which related only to the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church. Hon. Members who made that assertion must have forgotten the terms of the Brief. Not one word was said in the Brief relative solely to the spiritual wants of Roman Catholics. On the contrary, the Pope began by saying—
"Of the plentitude of our apostolic power we decree and ordain that in the kingdom of England, according to the common rules of the Church, there be restored the hierarchy of ordinary bishops, who shall take their titles from sees which we constitute in these our letters in the districts of the several vicars-apostolic."
It then went on to reserve to the Pope and his successors the power of again dividing the said provinces, and of increasing or diminishing the number of dioceses. It then referred to the persons appointed or to be appointed to these sees as archbishops and bishops "of England," as if there were no archbishops and bishops in the country. It ignored the existence of our own Church—did not refer even to our own Queen—still less did it seek Her Majesty's consent or sanction to that which it attempted to do under the plea of religion, and of an alteration of the organisation of the Romish Church for purely spiritual purposes. It next went on to state—
"It will for the future be solely competent for the archbishops and bishops of England to distinguish what things belong to the executive of the common ecclesiastical law, and what, according to the common discipline of the Church, are entrusted to the authority of the bishops."
It then proceeded to declare that it should have full force and effect, and be inviolably observed, notwithstanding anything that was done to the contrary; notwithstanding all special enactments, whether issued in synodical, provincial, or universal councils; notwithstanding, also, all rights and privileges of the ancient sees of England. And, lastly, it decreed—
"That if in any other manner any other attempt shall be made by any person, or by any authority, knowingly or ignorantly, to set aside
296
these enactments, such attempt shall be null and void."
Could such a Brief as that be allowed to come here without the House saying that it was an interference with the authority of the Crown, and, as such, that it ought to be prohibited? He had some reason to find fault with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, for not adverting to that part of the preamble which he had suggested, and which showed distinctly the effect of the clause in connection with the preamble. Why had not the right hon. Baronet taken the exact paragraph in his preamble which was the foundation of the clause in the Bill? The right hon. Baronet said that the clause had a larger application than to England. But the right hon. Baronet had not dealt fairly with the clause, and had misled the House as to its construction. The words of the preamble, upon which the clause rested, were these:—
"Whereas the Bishop of Rome, by a Brief purporting to be given at Rome, hath recently constituted within the Kingdom of England a hierarchy of bishops, named from sees, and with titles decreed from places belonging to the Crown of England—"
These words referred specifically to England, and, as far as the clause went, it was unjust to say that it had a larger latitude. The right hon. Baronet had adverted to another part of the preamble, and stated that it was more extensive than the Government preamble, and that it would apply to Ireland as well as to England. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that that part of the preamble would extend to Ireland; but then it would be with reference to Briefs not merely similar, but identical with the Briefs prohibited by the statute of Richard II. With regard to the second objection, the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that if this Brief were already illegal, there could be no good in making the declaration, and that now by doing so, we should only revive an old obsolete and dormant statute. But when the right hon. Baronet talked of a statute being old and obsolete, it was not to be inferred, that it was therefore useless. He should draw a different conclusion. When statutes were found on the Statute-book, without having for a long period been put in force, the fair inference was that they had been practically operative; that those who might have been affected by them had thought it right to obey them; that, instead of being dormant, they had hitherto been obeyed; and therefore, in

297
his opinion, they ought to be revived the moment they found that persons had forgotten, or were attempting to evade, them. He believed if the law had not been left in so uncertain a state by their recent legislation—if the statute of Elizabeth, for instance, had not been repealed, they would never have heard a word of this Papal Brief. The statute, however, had been repealed, and in so clumsy a manner as to lead those who had imported the Brief to believe that in doing so there was no law which could touch them. For that reason it was necessary to declare it, and to show them that there was a law. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the announcement of the noble Lord as to the necessity of ulterior measures. Now, instead of complaining of that announcement, he regarded it in the spirit in which it was made—as one which all true and loyal subjects of the country would sincerely rejoice at for more reasons than one. He had said, "in the spirit in which it was made," for hon. Members were always forgetting that the noble Lord had disclaimed all intention of interfering with the spiritual and religious functions of the Roman Catholics and their ministers. It was always assumed that spiritual functions were touched by the Bill; but that was not the case except so far as they flowed from, or were inherent in, the illegal titles which were sought to be assumed. He supported the clauses for four reasons: First, because after such a Brief it was right the Commons of England should uphold the lawful authority of the Crown against the unlawful usurpation of authority which had been set up by the Pope. Secondly, because the declaration of illegality of this Papal Brief was a national protest in the face of the world that we would not allow any such usurpation or encroachment in this kingdom. Thirdly, because it was an assurance to the Protestants of this country that they intended to adhere to the great principle of the Reformation; or, as the Nonconformists expressed it in 1688, to stand by those who stood by the Protestant faith. Fourthly, because it was needed to protect Roman Catholics themselves, such Roman Catholics as Lord Beaumont, Lord Camoys, and the Duke of Norfolk, who found themselves placed in the dilemma that they must cither break with Rome, or forfeit their allegiance to their own Queen. That was their opinion, and therefore if this Brief remained uncondemned, it would show in us a want of foresight, a want of wisdom, or
298
a want of courage: a want of foresight, in not appreciating the evils that would result from it; a want of wisdom, if, seeing these evils, we did not meet them by timely legislation; or a want of courage, if, seeing these evils and not preventing' them, we allowed this Brief to obtain the silent sanction of time, and thereby gave encouragement to a repetition of the offence.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that however unwilling he might he again to trespass on the attention of the Committee, he felt that he could not remain silent under those strictures of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst, by which, if it had not been charged, it had been at least insinuated, that he (Sir J. Graham) had attempted to mislead the Committee. He confessed that he was not familiar with the precise expressions in which Lord Beaumont, Lord Camoys, and the Duke of Norfolk were reported to have declared their disapprobation of the recent Rescript of the Pope, nor was he compelled to say how far those expressions might be reasonably susceptible of the interpretation sought to be put upon them by his hon. and learned Friend; but when his hon. and learned Friend undertook the delicate and difficult task of legislating for millions who were of the same religious persuasion as those noble personages, he would take leave to remind him of a well-known saying of Mr. Burke's that the members of one sect were the worst possible judges of what was necessary for the free and conscientious exercise of the religion of those who were attached to another sect. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed a hope that the Committee would not be deterred by any want of courage from giving its assent to this measure. Want of courage was the very last charge to which the promoters of this measure could be said to be liable, for he regarded it as little short of a declaration of war against 8,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. He did not profess to be learned in the law, hut he had endeavoured to make himself master of this Bill, and though he had read the preamble again and again with the deepest attention, he still found it impossible to reconcile it with the subsequent provisions, or, indeed, to make it consistent with itself. The preamble, as originally framed by the Government, seemed to indicate an intention that the Bill should be limited to England; but subsequent words introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst greatly extended the scope of the original

299
words, and went very far beyond the primary intention of the preamble. The words "all such Rescripts" did not limit the operation of the Bill to the particular Papal instrument whereby a hierarchy had been created in England, but expressly provided that similar Rescripts, in whatever districts of the United Kingdom—and, of course, therefore in Ireland—should also be included. That Ireland could not by possibility escape from the operation of the measure, was obvious, and the fact had been virtually admitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland who had addressed the Committee so perspicuously, and in a manner so worthy of the office he filled. He feared that the discussions on this ill-fated measure would be interminable, for the further they proceeded, the more inextricably did they appear to be involved in embarrassment and perplexity. The hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had said that the opponents of the Bill begged the whole question when they assumed that it would interfere with the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic bishops; but he, on the other hand, must observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman begged the question quite as much on the other side in assuming that the new hierarchy would interfere with the regality of the Crown. It was idle to pretend that the Bill would do nothing more than declare the law as the law had been settled by the Act of Richard II. It would do no such thing. It would create a new law. The statute of Richard II. was passed in Catholic times, when the Catholic religion was the established religion of this country, and the reason why it was passed was simply this, that the Pope of Rome, in the exercise of the powers which were allowed by the constitutional authorities of England at that time, had made an invasion on the regality of the Crown, by interfering with the temporalities of the bishoprics. He had exceeded his jurisdiction. He had travelled from the forum, conscienti— into the forum judicii, and therefore the statute of premunire was passed; but that statute did not attempt to interfere with the right of the Pope to arrange the spiritualities of the bishoprics, after whatever fashion might appear most expedient to him. Now, what the Catholics at present maintained was, that the recent act of the Pope being an act which merely touched spiritualities, the statute of Richard II. had no application to it; and that the Bill before the House could
300
be regarded in no other light than that of a new and unheard-of aggression on their liberty of conscience. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would have it that the appointment of bishops by the Pope was against the civil law of Europe; but this was a mistake. The civil law of Europe acknowledged that the Pope was the supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church, throughout the whole Continent of Europe, and that episcopal appointments, so far as spiritualities were concerned, were, for the purposes of the Catholic Church, vested in him. It was only when the Roman Catholic religion was the religion of the country, that the assent of the Crown was required to sanction the appointment of an archbishop or a bishop; and as the Crown, neither by the statute law nor the common law, had any right to interfere with the spiritual jurisdiction of the authority of the Pope with regard to a religion unendowed, he contended that it was begging the question to refer to the statute of Richard II., and say that by this proceeding of the Pope the regality of the Crown was affected. The Roman Catholic religion being unendowed, he contended there was no excess whatever of the spiritual limit of the Pope's jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) said he wished the whole matter to be set forth in good old Saxon simplicity. If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman's preamble ought to be framed thus:—"Whereas it is expedient, on account of public clamour, to prevent the spread of Popery throughout this realm, and to check the full and free exercise of the Pope's spiritual authority in the same, be it enacted," and so on. One observation more, which he thought it necessary to make, with respect to the clause under their consideration, and that was with respect to the power given by the Bill to indict an offender under the clause in question. On that point he did not think the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had made up his mind that the clause would enable him to proceed with an indictment if a Rescript similar to that which had been introduced into England were sent to Ireland.
MR. HATCHELL: I said that they would be indictable at common law—but not under this clause.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: With all possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman, he would, nevertheless, express his deliberate conviction that all parties acting under

301
an instrument declared by this clause to be illegal, would be indictable under the clause. As to the power of indictment under the Bill, it was clear to him that its range would be very extensive. The first section expressly declared that not only the Brief, Rescript, or Letters Apostolical, but all and every the jurisdiction, authority, preeminence, or title conferred, or pretended to be conferred thereby, are and shall be, and be deemed, unlawful and void." It followed, therefore, that every attempt to exercise such jurisdiction or authority, every act intended to promote or assist it, must be also unlawful, for when a statute positively declared a thing unlawful, it rendered everything which was done for its support or encouragement unlawful also. Quando aliquid prohibitur, prohibitur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud, said Lord Coke in his 3rd Inst., 158. Every such act or attempt must be a contempt of the statute; and it was laid down by Hawkins, in his Pleas of the Crown, vol. i., chap. 22, that "every con-tempt of a statute in indictable, if no other punishment is limited." So again, Lord Chief Baron Comyn, in his Digest (tit. "Indictment"), said, "So for anything generally prohibited by statute, if it be done, an indictment lies for it;" that as "an attempt to commit a misdemeanour (and undoubtedly the violation of a statute which is prohibitory, as it is if it declares a thing unlawful, is a misdemeanour) had been decided in many cases to be itself a misdoameanour." That the Bill in this case was prohibitory, and intended by the Legislature so to be, there could be no doubt, the preamble, among other things, expressly said, "It is expedient to prohibit the assumption of such titles in respect of any places within the United Kingdom," &c.; "be it therefore enacted," &c, and then came the first clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General just now had suggested that in the opinion he (Sir J. Graham) had put forward in his previous speech he had been instructed by some one; but such was not the case as to that speech; but in what he now cited he certainly had been advised by a gentleman most competent to give advice on the subject. He would only add that the more he considered this clause, the more he was convinced it was full of danger.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman commenced his first speech, he said this clause was full of danger, and was calculated to excite alarm;
302
and at the close of his second speech he said, that the more he considered the clause, the more he was convinced that it was so calculated to create alarm. I also must confess that the language which has been used in the course of this debate is full of danger and alarm. That language is calculated to excite fear and apprehension amongst the Roman Catholics of this country, for which no ground whatever exists. Such language has been used by many persons during the debate, who did not occupy the position of the right hon. Baronet, and from them it fell comparatively harmless; but when such language as that the present Bill is a declaration of war against 8,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects is used by one in the high station of the right hon. Baronet, it receives greater strength and importance, and on that account it must be considered dangerous. Then there is another cause of alarm which has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. In his speech the right hon. Baronet, quoting from Mr. Burke, said that persons of one sect of religion are the worst judges of the religion of another sect from which they differed. According, therefore, to the dictum of the right hon. Gentleman, this then is a question on which there exists a great difference of opinion; and where such a difference exists men are not to exercise an independent judgment, lest it might be supposed that we are interfering with the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. Now, upon that subject there has been a general concurrence on all sides of the House. We who maintain the dignity of the Crown and the national independence by introducing this Bill, and those who oppose it, are equally agreed that there should be no interference with the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. On that point at least there is unanimity amongst us. On the other side, it is fair to admit that those who oppose the Bill have said, "We claim only the full exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, and the organisation necessary to that exercise; we do not claim any power or jurisdiction to overbear that which properly belongs to the rights and prerogatives of the Crown of this realm." Now then, Sir, the question arises, whether the Rescript of the Pope does in any way interfere with the sovereignty of this country, or whether it is entirely confined to the spiritualities of the Roman Catholic Church. With respect to this question, the right hon. Gentleman tells me that we are incompetent to judge—that it belongs

303
to the Roman Catholics themselves to decide—and that because we differ from the Roman Catholics in religious matters, we are not to determine with respect to matters affecting a different sect—that, in short, the whole question must be settled by the Roman Catholics. Now, Sir, within the last six months we have had pretty full evidence of the manner in which they will decide the question if left entirely to them; for they have said that the Rescript is only applicable to spiritualities, and that they have adopted the Rescript. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, then, before I sit down, I shall put it in another way. I am not at all satisfied with the declaration of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentlemen who have contradicted me mean, I presume to say, that it is not a question for the Pope to decide, but one for the Roman Catholics of this country themselves. Now, if this be so, we, the protestants of this great empire, have not the least power to interfere in the matter, although we may think that the Rescript encroaches on the temporal power of the Crown, and we are to be debarred from defending what our Roman Catholic ancestors said were the inherent rights of the English Crown. I am not sure, Sir, that the document which has issued from Rome, and which is the ground of debate, may not be, as the organs of the Court of Rome assert, in conformity with the principle that whatever is done by Rome is "unchanging and unchangeable." Now, can we submit to the assertion of such a principle as that? Are we to give up the right of questioning for ourselves the nature of this document, and whether the rights of the Crown or the national liberty may not be invaded by it? Are we to allow that all decrees from Rome, however humiliating, are to be submitted to, and the humiliation is to be borne, if the Roman Catholics say that there is no infringement on the temporalities and jurisdiction belonging to the Crown. I think and hope that the House of Commons will not submit to this humiliation. The question is not a mere question of argument, although I am quite willing to listen to any arguments that may be adduced. I shall listen to all arguments, even from those who wish to see the office of Archbishop of Canterbury blotted out; but I do think we cannot divest ourselves of the duty which we owe to ourselves and the country to decide for ourselves what are the rights of the Crown and the independence of the nation. I
304
cannot, for myself at least, consent to forego this privilege. Well, then, what is the alternative which is left to us? We are told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Graham) that whatever is urged by the Roman Catholics as necessary to their religion—whatever may be called spiritual by them—whatever may have been called spiritual in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries, and whatever is to issue from Rome, should not be judged of by us; and if we do not do this, he says, that we declare war against 8,000,000 of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. That I maintain, is a most alarming declaration. There are two dangers which threaten us if this declaration is to have effect; and I, for my part, shall endeavour to steer as steadily as possible between those dangers. I say that there has been an interference on the part of a foreign Power—an encroachment and an aggression on the rights of the Crown and the privileges of the people of this country, which we cannot submit to; but while we repel the aggression, we need not and do not wish to interfere with the Roman Catholic religion. I believe that can be done, and I believe that the Bill before the Committee is calculated to do so. The Bill has been much misrepresented. In one part of the kingdom it has been thought not sufficiently stringent, while in Ireland it has been thought too much so, and is considered to go far beyond the legitimate exercise of the powers of legislation; but I do not think there is ground for complaint on the one part or the other. At all events we are free to exercise our own judgment in the matter, and we ought not to surrender our right to do so, as has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. We are not to surrender our privileges at the discretion or according to the opinion of any Roman Catholic doctor or lawyer; and I trust this House will have that respect for its own dignity, not to abandon our own privileges or the rights of the Crown. I cannot conclude without alluding to what fell from my right hon. Friend who has lately filled the office of Governor of Malta (Mr. M. O'Ferrall), and I take this opportunity of expressing my high respect for him. During the time he was Governor of Malta, he justified the selection which was made by the Crown to fill that important office; and the labours of the right hon. Gentleman in that island have been beneficial to the Crown, and most

305
honourable to himself. Under circumstances of great difficulty he justified the confidence placed in him, and dealt even-handed justice to all Her Majesty's subjects in that island. I cannot, therefore, but regret to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that I have lost his confidence by the line of conduct which I have pursued. But after fully considering the line which I have adopted, I cannot see that I have adopted a course which, as a Minister of the Crown and as a Member of Parliament, I was not bound to pursue; and I feel confident that a similar course would have been pursued by Ministers of the Crown and by Members of this House when the whole of the community was Roman Catholic. I considered that what would not be submitted to in Prussia, a Protestant country, and in Saxony, also a Protestant: country, should not be submitted to in this country; and I believe that in no other country would such an aggression have been attempted. In the course of these discussions, reference has been repeatedly made to what had been done in England before the Reformation was proposed. But there is a very remarkable Act that was; passed after the Reformation, when the Sovereign of this country induced the Parliament to attempt to reconcile this nation with Rome, and again to admit the jurisdiction and authority of Rome. That was at a period when, after the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., one might have supposed that any concession would have I been made to the powers of Rome—that men heated by their contest with Protestants would have been ready to submit anything to them in conformity with the course that had been taken in restoring the ancient religion of the country; but in the very Act of Parliament which restored the authority of Rome, and which goes at I great length and with great detail into all the provisions of the Acts that had been I previously passed—in the Act which passed in the 1st and 2nd Philip and Mary, in the 8th cap,—our Roman Catholic ancestors, even at this time, when they were endeavouring to reconcile their nation to Rome, and repealing everything that had been done in Protestant reigns by Protestant Parliaments, still enacted, in admitting bulls into the country, that all bulls, dispensations, and documents obtained before the said twenty years, or at any time since, or that shall hereafter be obtained from the See of Rome, containing matter contrary or prejudicial to the authority,
306
dignity, or pre-eminence of the Crown, or contrary or prejudicial to the laws of this realm, should be annulled. In the 53rd section of that Act, it is likewise declared that nothing in the making or enforcing of the present statute, nor any thing or things, word or words, in the preamble or body of the Acts aforesaid, shall be considered to derogate, infringe, or take away any liberties, privileges, or prerogatives, authorities or jurisdictions, or any part or parcel of them, which have been enjoyed by the people of this realm. Now, I contend that this Rescript does contain matters contrary and prejudicial to the authority and dignity of this realm. Such was the spirit in which our ancestors, even at a time when the Roman Catholic religion was being restored, framed their Act of Parliament—such was the way in which they provided for the freedom of the English people, protected the liberty of the country, and maintained the pre-eminence of the Crown. And I desire no other and no greater spirit to be shown by the House of Commons of the present time, when by this Rescript of the Pope the rights, liberties, and privileges of the country are menaced, and the authority, dignity, and pre-eminence of the Crown, regal and imperial, invaded. And now, Sir, I come to the last alternative—Either that this Rescript is an unlawful one, which every lawyer who has spoken on the subject admits, or else you are to say that you are not to act upon the law with respect to this Rescript, and that you are to admit any Bulls or other documents from Rome, however debasing to the nation, insulting to the Crown, and in contempt of the Queen's authority. I consider the Re-script an interference with our feelings and independence; and the object of this I Bill is to chock that interference. It is not enough to tell me that it concerns I matters purely spiritual: you must ascertain how far the definition of spiritual affairs extends—you must look at what Papal decrees are—you must remember also that their object is to extend the Roman Catholic authority, so that it may exceed the authority of Parliament itself.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated that that House ought not to be ruled by the opinions of Roman Catholic doctors and lawyers upon the point at issue. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) hoped there was no Member of that House more sincerely and warmly Protestant than himself. He was

307
not guided by the opinions either of Roman Catholic doctors or of Roman Catholic lawyers. He had expressed his own dispassionate judgment on the question. The question they had to consider was whether the Rescript did or did not come within the Act of Richard II. The noble Lord had also unintentionally misrepresented him upon one point. The noble Lord said, that, in quoting the doctrine of Mr. Burke, that one sect was a very indifferent judge of what was necessary for the free exercise of the religion of another sect, he (Sir J. Graham) had applied the remark generally to the question before the Committee. He had done nothing of the kind. The point to which he applied the doctrine was this: an hon. and learned Friend of his (Mr. Walpole) had said that it was necessary to legislate, in order to relieve the hardships under which the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Camoys, Lord Beaumont, and other members of the Roman Catholic faith, who were deemed recusants by their Church, might suffer; and he (Sir J. Graham) observed, that he considered it unnecessary for them, as Protestants, to legislate with a view to relieve the religious scruples of a certain number of persons.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLsaid, that he had not wished to say anything offensive to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, for it would be most unpardonable in him to do so; but what he referred to was, that the noble Lord had written his letter, and gave no opportunity and no means for explanation, but had at once assumed that there was a determination on the part of the Pope to insult this country; and the noble Lord had also assumed that the Pope, having acted with that intention, what he had done was favourably received by the Roman Catholics of this country. He (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) spoke for himself and for his co-religionists when he said that any such act on the part of the Pope or any other Sovereign would be as strongly resisted by them as by any other persons in the empire. It was because he believed—he might say he knew—that the intention of his Holiness was not to do any such thing, that he regretted the course pursued by the noble Lord. He (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) admitted that the form of the Rescript and the Brief did contain expressions which, perused by Protestants who were not well read in these things, might have given offence. But he wished that hon. Gentlemen would
308
make themselves better acquainted with the form of these Rescripts, and then they would find that that which gave them so much offence was the form universally used on such occasions. He did not say either that the Pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman was that which he would have desired; but then, to attach blame to the Roman Catholics, and to make the whole of the Roman Catholics responsible for an official form, or for the manner in which Cardinal Wiseman expressed himself—matters with which they had nothing to do—was a very great injustice. How was the peace of Europe preserved but by friendly communications, and the ascertainment of the intentions of different Powers? When a document had been issued which was supposed to convey offence, nothing could be more natural than to ascertain whether that intention would he avowed, or if done in inadvertence, to have it disavowed. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government had pursued such a course in this case, instead of writing his letter to the Bishop of Durham, he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) would answer for it that he never would have found it necessary to bring in such a Bill. England had expressed its dissent from the Church of Rome, and its great attachment to Protestantism. That was the strongest and most powerful declaration that could be made by a nation. They might as well try to put the ocean into a bottle as to confine the protest of a nation within the narrow limits of a miserable Act of Parliament. Why, he asked the noble Lord, did he assume that an offence was intended, when, in point of fact, no offence was meant? He would remind the noble Lord that he had acted differently in the case of Spain, when their ambassador was ignominiously expelled from that country. They then made no declaration of war; and by temperance and time a satisfactory explanation was at length afforded. As Ireland was circumstanced, he thought the noble Lord should have taken a different course to what he bad done. As regarded that country, the labours of the noble Lord for the last thirty years had been entirely destroyed; the generosity of the people of this country had been thrown away, and for years there would be nothing but contention between the two sects of religion. If the noble Lord had approached the question with different feelings, and brought before that House a declaration that neither Catholic

309
nor Protestant would allow any Power, spiritual or temporal, to interfere with the liberties of the country, that declaration would have been assented to by every Roman Catholic. He trusted it was not too late even now to consider the question in this spirit. If any hon. Gentleman had the ability to embody such a feeling as he was then expressing, in an Act of Parliament, he felt assured that little delay would take place in passing it through that House. To such a Bill the Roman Catholics would offer no objection; but their objection to the present Bill was its uncertainty. With it they would not have religious liberty, for the interpretation of the law would be with whomsoever might be the Minister of the Crown.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that all those who, like himself, supported the view of the case taken by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), were not disposed to say that whatever the Pope or the Roman Catholic authorities declared to be a spiritual matter was a spiritual matter, but that they were, on the contrary, prepared to judge of each particular case on its own merits. All that he contended for was that this act of the Pope was not an interference with the temporal jurisdiction of the Crown. If the Roman Catholic authorities should ever press on the sovereign authority of the Crown of England, he trusted he should be the first man to resist any such encroachment; but he was not prepared to treat every thing as an encroachment on the Royal prerogative which public clamour declared to be so. He ventured to predict that this question would be looked at in a very different manner by a great part of the country before many years had elapsed; and he should like then to hear the speeches that would be delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and those who had endeavoured to arouse the animosities of the sects against the Roman Catholic religion. He ventured to say, with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, that the real question at issue was materially affected by the times in which we lived, and that the arguments which would have been applicable in the time of Richard II. were not so now. When the only spiritual jurisdiction in this country was that of the Pope, it might be very well for the authority of the Crown to entertain some jealousy of the authority of the Pope; but the Roman Catholic religion was not now the religion of the State; that religion was
310
not now endowed, and was altogether different from what it was in the time of Richard II. When there was but one faith and one spiritual jurisdiction, it might be very well worth while to entertain a jealous feeling with regard to the jurisdiction of the Pope; but when the Roman Catholics stood exactly on the same footing as Dissenters, all power over them was, in right and in reason, taken out of the hands of the Crown. ["Hear, hear!" "Divide, divide."] That was a doctrine which he would maintain in spite of any interruption that he might meet with when he rose to address the Committee. He considered that he should be perfectly justified in speaking for an hour if he chose, for the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had delivered what was, to all intents and purposes, a speech on the second reading of the Bill; and his example had been followed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and another right hon. Gentleman near him. When he (Mr. Hobhouse) was gravely told that the Bill created no new offence, he would beg to ask whether it did not embrace Scotland, whereas the Roman Catholic Relief Act was expressly confined to England and Ireland? Now, why should Scotland be inserted, seeing that the Presbyterian authorities (or at least the old ones) looked upon a bishop, whether Romish or not, as something like Antichrist? He begged, therefore, to recommend the omission of the words "United Kingdom" to the consideration of the noble Lord. He considered that the Pope had a perfect right to pursue the course he had done; and to deny it was in reality to say that a gentleman should not regulate his conscience as he pleased—a thing that he was certainly not prepared to hear in the latter part of the nineteenth century. He could not help thinking that many of those foreigners who had come here to admire the wealth, civilisation, and luxury of this great metropolis and of this country, must be astounded to find that House legislating, at this time of day, upon matters of religion. He implored those hon. Gentlemen who seemed to be so much afraid of the Pope, to lay aside their fears. He believed that those fears were not altogether genuine. He was sadly afraid the constituencies of this country had a good deal to do with these fears. If they really did entertain such strong fears on this matter, how was it that for the last eight or nine months a Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster had been exercising his ecclesiastical powers in

311
this kingdom without the slightest danger having been inflicted upon the Established Church, as far as he (Mr. Hobhouse) could perceive? Instead of injuring, he believed that the establishment of the Papal hierarchy had benefited the Established Church, for he found that subscriptions to the amount of 100,000 l. had recently poured in for the purpose of defending the Church of England against the assaults of the Church of Rome. Being an advocate for free trade in commerce, he thought that we ought also to have free trade in religion. He believed that religious rivalry tended to increase our love of religion, and make us more zealous in the diffusion of our religious opinions. The Dissenters, as well as the Church of England, ought to feel much indebted to the recent proceedings on the part of the Pope. They would all do well to take a loaf out of the book of the Roman Catholics, and become more earnest in the diffusion of that religion which they believed to be true. This clause appeared to him to rest upon a false ground; he did not think that it was just or proper to declare that any spiritual authority conferred by the Pope should be interfered with by our legislation. If Gentlemen chose to receive their religion from Rome, what right had that House to interfere with their choice? People had a right to take their religion, their astronomy, or geology from whatever teacher they pleased. Whilst the Pope confined himself to spiritual matters, he (Mr. Hobhouse) could; not help looking upon the creation of an Archbishop of Westminster by the Pope as a harmless act, which should have given offence to no party. He would not be induced by public clamour, nor by fears either real or feigned, to offer the slightest opposition to the Pope's authority over the Roman Catholic people of this kingdom.
MR. GRATTANhoped, even at that the eleventh hour, it was not too late to say a word or two of advice to Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. He trusted that the very able, argumentative, and, he should call it, irresistible speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) had produced some effect upon Her Majesty's Government. He also hoped that the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Longford, and late Governor of Malta, had produced still greater effect upon Her Majesty's Ministers. The style, tone, temper, and forbearing remarks of that right hon. Gentleman ought to make a sensible im-
312
pression upon them. Were Her Majesty's Ministers prepared to risk the peace and tranquillity of Ireland by passing this measure? Were they prepared to undertake the responsibility of enforcing a measure through that House which would subject Ireland to a repetition of the dreadful calamities which she had endured from time to time during the last century, by religious feuds? He would beg to tell that House that Ireland would not submit to this measure. The Irish people were determined that the peace and tranquillity of their country should not be disturbed by these factious proceedings, and by this absurd Bill. If this Bill were attempted to be put in force in Ireland the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would be the greatest recruiting serjeant for repeal that had yet appeared. If the Government attempted to pass this Bill, they would rue the day of its adoption to the last day of their political existence
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the old adage about doctors disagreeing, had been fully borne out by the lawyers during the discussion on this Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General and Solicitor General had declared that the first clause extended to Ireland; but the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had just said the contrary. An experienced statesman—one to whose judgment and wisdom the public of all classes appealed with confidence—he meant the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had made the matter so perfectly clear as to have ended the religious controversy; and he thanked him for doing so. Notwithstanding this, the lawyers on the opposite side stood up and attempted to answer him; but they failed to convince any one, even of the humblest understanding. The Queen's Attorney General and Solicitor General appeared to him (Mr. Reynolds) to come up to the character of the Village Schoolmaster drawn by Goldsmith:—
"In arguing, too, the parson own'd his skill,
For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still."
So could the Queen's Attorney and Solicitor General. Even the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), though affecting to reply to the right hon. Baronet, had said nothing new, but had taken care to steer clear of all arguments, falling back upon his memorable speech when he asked leave to introduce this Bill, and quoted from the legislation of what he termed his Catholic ancestors; but he had himself relapsed

313
into the errors, both political and religious, of the reign of Henry VIII., and he found no better precedent for his legislation than the corrupt principles and practice of that reign. The noble Lord said this Bill was only meant to declare the law. Why did he introduce it at all? The noble Lord's answer, because the Pope had issued a certain Bull or Rescript. The inference was, that but for that the Bill would not have been introduced. Why, then, should the Catholics of Scotland and England have their religious liberties abridged in consequence? Why did the noble Lord reject the provisoes that had been suggested, and why not use language that could not be misunderstood, instead of leaving doubtful expressions to the interpretation of Irish Judges and Irish juries? He would remind the Committee of what had occurred on the State Trials of Daniel O'Connell and others some years ago, before a full Court of the Queen's Bench and a Special Jury. They were found guilty of violating the law on counts which the Court declared to be good. They were sentenced and imprisoned. They appealed to the House of Lords; and all the law Lords of England declared the counts bad, reversed the judgment, and liberated the defendants after some six months' imprisonment. With this specimen of legal learning, would the noble Lord dare to pass a Bill authorising any common informer to indict a Roman Catholic bishop, the language of which Bill was even ambiguous to Members of that House, and was differently interpreted by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, and by the right hon. and learned Attorney General and Solicitor General? The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had at length favoured the Committee with his views on the Bill; and it was not at all impossible that that right hon. and learned Gentleman might be elevated to the Bench, and might have to try some Roman Catholic bishop under this clause, should it ever pass, which he sincerely hoped would not be the case. He should like to have the opinion of the right hon. and learned Attorney General on this point: Suppose the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin to die, as he must some time or other, and that three names were chosen by the priests, and sent to Rome for the Pope to select one, would the Papal Bull or Rescript appointing one of those three not be a Bull or Rescript within the meaning of this Bill, and consequently illegal? He should repeat this question till
314
it was fully answered. What had the Roman Catholics of Ireland done to merit the insult offered them by this Bill? The noble Lord must answer—nothing. The Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops had preserved the peace: they had reconciled the people to starvation on one side, and misgovernment on the other; and they had: the preserved the peace at the sacrifice of their incomes. It had been stated by the ton. and learned Member for Ennis-killen (Mr. Whiteside) that the Protestants of Ireland amounted to 2,500,000. Referring to the census of 1841, and the speech of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), in 1835, on the Church Temporalities Bill, he found their number was then estimated at 700,000. But, said the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside), because the Roman Catholic population had diminished by evictions, emigration, and starvation, by a large number, the Protestant population must therefore have increased. This he denied; he believed the Protestant population had also decreased from the same causes. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had stated that night that he would proceed with the Jews' Bill as soon as the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill got through Committee. The inference from this was, that as soon as the Catholics were enslaved, the Jews were to be emancipated. If the noble Lord was in earnest in the latter object, he ought to proceed with it first for this reason. Of the thirty-five Roman Catholic Members in that House, thirty-four were in favour of emancipation of the Jews; but if this Bill of pains and penalties were passed, the Roman Catholic Members would not be likely to trouble the House much with their presence during the remainder of the Session. The noble Lord declared by his Bill, that in a country with 7,000,000 of Roman Catholic inhabitants, the bishops and archbishops of that body should be deprived of their religious liberty and prescriptive rights. The first clause of the Bill was in effect the whole Bill. What cared the Roman Catholics about the paltry pains and penalties imposed by the other clauses? They were indifferent whether the penalty was 100 l. or 100,000 l. As to the clause which related to the Scotch bishops, though an emancipating clause, he should certainly not vote for it. He would now give the noble Lord a little advice in the spirit of the advice which the noble Lord himself had offered to the Roman Catholic Members

315
on the last night of the debate—that they would use the interval for reflection, and retrace their course. He hoped the noble Lord would also reflect on his course, and on the advice offered him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham); and for that purpose he would suggest, as the House had sat till three o'clock that morning, that they should have an early adjournment. He would remind the noble Lord that though the opponents of the Bill were in a minority in that House, they were not in a minority out of doors. The Roman Catholic Members reflected the voice and opinions of the aggregate population of Ireland—of the liberal Protestants, and the liberal Presbyterians of Ireland, who abominated tyrannical and penal legislation. Let it not be supposed that the Government had the Protestants of Ireland with them. Thinking and educated Protestants and Presbyterians were against them. The whole Roman Catholic population of Ireland was against them; and if the Irish people were to speak with one voice, they would declare that they withdrew their confidence from the noble Lord, and looked upon him as the enemy of their religion, their rights, and their privileges. It was painful to him to make the declaration, on his own behalf, and that of those in Ireland whose confidence he had the honour of enjoying, that the attempt of the noble Lord to pass this Bill, coupled with his letter to the Bishop of Durham, and his subsequent speeches, had sunk so deeply into the minds of the Irish Members and people that they were prepared to adopt any legitimate course that might be afforded them to weaken the hands of the noble Lord, and deprive him of the power of inflicting mischief on their country. He conjured the noble Lord to adjourn the question for only one week, to consider the advice that had been given him. The Session was still young. The Bill was made up of shreds and patches—part of it belonged to Youghal—part of it to Midhurst —and some of it to the Master of the Rolls. He would advise the noble Lord to take his Bill to the Crystal Palace, and exhibit it in a glass case as a genuine specimen of Whig legislation in 1851, enacted for the purpose of insulting and coercing Her Majesty's loyal Roman Catholic subjects.
MR. OSWALDthought it would be as well if the Committee should understand what was the state of the law of Scotland with regard to this clause. On a previous
316
evening he had drawn the attention of the House to an old statute which he did not believe had been repealed. He might be mistaken; but as they had the law declared for England and Ireland, it might be as well that it should be declared for Scotland also.
THE LORD ADVOCATEhad no objection to state what he conceived the state of the law to be. Whatever might be supposed to be the force of the old statute referred to, it could not in the slightest degree interfere with this clause. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Oswald), on a former night stated, that an old Act dated so far back as 1567, entitled an Act for Abolishing the Pope, had not been repealed, and therefore might have some operation in connexion with this Bill. Now, in 1700 an Act was passed ratifying and re-enacting, not that statute directly, but certain other Acts against the Pope, and entailing in the formula certain penalties. However, the 33rd George III. abolished all the penalties contained in those Acts against the Roman Catholics; and the 9th and 10th Victoria, better known as the Act of 1846, absolutely repealed the Act of 1700.
MR. OSWALDsaid, that the Act of 1567 was still upon the Statute-book. The 33rd George III., cap. 44, only repealed the penalties of certain Acts recited in the Act of 1700. The 9th and 10th Victoria only repealed the Acts recited in the Act of 1700, the penalties of which had been already repealed by the 33rd George III. The answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, did not show whether the Act of 1567 was repealed or not; he must, therefore, insist upon an answer, and if he did not obtain one, he should move that the Chairman report progress.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLcould not understand on what ground the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to report progress. They were now engaged upon a clause which had reference only to the Papal Bull, or Rescript of 1850, and which had no reference whatever to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman on a previous night had stated his views upon this very subject, and asked the right hon. Lord Advocate what the law was. Now, as he said before, this clause had nothing to do with the law of Scotland; and his right hon. and learned Friend might therefore have declined giving an answer; but out of courtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had given a

317
very clear and distinct one. His right hon. and learned Friend could do no more; and he could not conceive that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the smallest right to complain.
MR. OSWALDmaintained that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had not answered his question. He (Mr. Oswald) had stated that there was a certain Act upon the Statute-book; and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate quoted to him two Acts, which did not apply to that Act. They had been told that they were only declaring or re-enacting the law. Well, then, why not tell them what the law was? The English representatives had been told what the law was by the law officers of the Crown. The Irish representatives had been told what the law was by their own Attorney General; and was the same privilege to be refused to Scotch representatives? It was perfectly open for the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to refuse answering a question; but he would propound the question and put upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the responsibility of declining to answer it. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!"]
MR. STUART WORTLEYwould undertake to say that the clause did not affect the law of Scotland at all. He advised the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Oswald) to withdraw his Amendment. That hon. Gentleman had been the first to say that Bull or Rescript for the purpose he had there was no strong feeling in Scotland on behalf of this measure. He (Mr. S. Wortley) told him now, that in combating this Bill, he was stirring against the universal feeling of the Scottish people.
MR. REYNOLDSobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was willing to consider the question, if the noble Lord would have permitted him. Now, he would repeat a question which he had put at an earlier period of the evening, and which he could not got an answer; and unless he got some kind of answer —he did not expect a favourable one —he should object to the withdrawal of the Motion. The question he would put was this: If this clause pass in its present shape, and if an Irish archbishop—say Dr. Murray—were to depart this life, in the event of his successor being elected by the clergy of the diocese in the usual manner, tow or there names being transmitted to the pope for his selection, will the Bull or Rescript issued by the pope in virtue of that elec-
318
tion be illegal within the meaning of the first clause of this Rill?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he got up for the innocent purpose of preventing two divisions. He understood the chance of the present division arose from the noble Lord at the head of the Government preventing the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate from answering the question put to him. It was a pity that he did so, for he apprehended no Minister would rise without having something to say. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate favoured the Committee with his opinion, there might be no division.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend was quite ready to give his opinion if the Committee desired it. But there had been a general cry for a division, upon which his right hon. Friend resumed his seat.
THE LORD ADVOCATEthought he had already answered the question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. whether the Act of force? He thought force, and that it had been repealed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: As to the question of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, I have only to say, that under the 10th of George IV., no person can assume a territorial title.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, the question which he had put was, whether the usual Bull or Rescript for the purpose he had named would be legal under the operation of this clause?
MR. OSWALD: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin now wishes to move to report progress, he can do so, but as I have got an answer to my question, of course I shall not do so.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin, I have to say that a Rescript appointing any Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop with a territorial title, will be, in my judgment, illegal, both under the statute of 10 George IV. and the general law of the land, as declared by this clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman persist in his Motion?
MR. REYNOLDS: Though the answer docs not satisfy me, I feel I should be guilty of an unpardonable offence, if, after the declaration I have made, I persevere in my Motion.
Motion for reporting progress withdrawn.
Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 62: Majority 182.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.

Dundas, Adm.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Anson, hon. Col.

Dunne, Col.

Anstey, T. C.

Du Pre, C. G.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

East, Sir J. B.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Arkwright, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Ashley, Lord

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Bagshaw, J.

Evans, W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Ewart, W.

Baird, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Baldock, E. H.

Farrer, J.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F.T.

Ferguson, Col.

Barrington, Visct.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Barrow, W. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bass, M. T.

Floyer, J.

Benbow, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Bennet, P.

Forbes, W.

Beresford, W.

Fordyce, A. D.

Berkeley, Adm.

Forster, M.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Fox, S. W. L.

Blackstone, W. S.

Freestun, Col.

Blair, S.

Frewen, C. H.

Blakemore, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Blandford, Marq. of

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Booker, T. W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bowles, Adm.

Gilpin, Col.

Boyd, J.

Glyn, G. C.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Gooch, E. S.

Brisco, M.

Gordon, Adm.

Broadley, H.

Granger, T. C.

Brockman, E. D.

Greenall, G.

Brotherton, J.

Greene, T.

Brown, H.

Grenfell, C. W.

Brown, W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bruen, Col.

Grey, R.W.

Bulkelcy, Sir R. B. W.

Grogan, E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Guernsey, Lord

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Guest, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hale, R. B.

Chandos, Marq. of

Halsey, T. P.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Child, S.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Childers, J. W.

Hardcastle, J.A.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Christy, S.

Harris, R.

Clay, J.

Hastie, A.

Clive, H. B.

Hastie, A.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Hawes, B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hayes, Sir E.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Heald, J.

Crowder, R. B.

Heathcoat, J.

Dalrymple, J.

Heneage, E.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Henley, J. W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Hildyard, R. C.

Deedes, W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Denison, E.

Hill, Lord E.

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

Hodges, T. L.

Disraeli, B.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Dod, J. W.

Hollond, R,

Duncan, G.

Hornby, J.

Duncuft, J.

Hotham, Lord

320

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Rich, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Richards, R.

Humphery, Ald.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Hutt, W.

Rufford, F.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Jones, Capt.

Russell, F. C. H.

Ker, R.

Sandars, G.

Kershaw, J.

Seymour, Lord

Knightley, Sir C.

Sheridan, R. B.

Knox, Col.

Sibthorp, Col.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Slaney, R. A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Smith, M. T.

Langston, J. H.

Smollett, A.

Langton, W. H. P. G.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Spearman, H. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Spooner, R.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Stafford, A.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Stanford, J. F.

Lewis, G. C.

Stanley, E.

Lewisham, Visct.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Lockhart, A. E.

Stanton, W. H.

Lockhart, W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Long, W.

Stuart, H.

Lopes, Sir R.

Sturt, H. G.

Loveden, P.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Mackie, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Thompson, Col.

Marshall, W.

Thornely, T.

Martin, C. W.

Thornhill, G.

Miles, W.

Townshend, Capt.

Milner, W. M. E.

Tyler, Sir G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Verner, Sir W.

Moffatt, G.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Moncrieff, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Moody, C. A.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Morgan, O.

Waddington, H. S.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Walpole, S. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Mundy, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Napier, J.

West, F. R.

Newdegate, C. N.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Whiteside, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Wigram, L. T.

Paget, Lord C.

Willyams, H.

Pakington, Sir J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Palmer, R.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Parker, J.

Wilson, M.

Patten, J. W.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Peel, Sir R.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Perfect, R.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Pigott, F.

Wrightson, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wyvill, M.

Price, Sir R.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Reid, Col.

Repton, G. W. J.

TELLERS.

Ricardo, O.

Hayter, W. G.

Rice, E. R.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, R. B.

Crawford, W. S.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Currie, H.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Deyereux, J. T.

Blake, M. J.

Fagan, J.

Bright, J.

Fox, W. J.

Burke, Sir T. J.

French, F.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Geach, C.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Corbally, M. E.

Goold, W.

321

Grace. O. D. J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Osborne, R.

Grattan, H.

Oswald, A.

Greene, J.

Peel, F.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Power, Dr.

Keating, R.

Pusey, P.

Lawless, hon. C.

Roche, E. B.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Sadleir, J.

Magan, W. H.

Scholefield, W.

Maher, N. V.

Scully, F.

Meagher, T.

Seymour, H. D.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Monsell, W.

Smythe, hon. G.

Moore, G. H.

Somers, J. P.

Murphy, F. S.

Sullivan, M.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Talbot, J. H.

Nugent, Sir P.

Tenison, E. K.

O'Brien, J.

Tennent, R. J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

O'Connell, J.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Reynolds, J.

O'Ferrall, rt. hon. R. M.

keogh, W.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL: We have now got through the first clause; and, with respect to the second clause, I think it is likely that we shall have considerable delay, in consequence of the number of Amendments that are to be moved, and which will occupy some time in discussion; I propose, therefore, now, that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In making this Motion I have merely to say to hon. Gentlemen who are opponents of the Bill, and who have Amendments to move, that on this first clause the question has been very fully debated; but with regard to another class of Members of this House who are supporters of the Bill, and who mean to make Amendments, I would really wish them to consider whether there is any thing of importance in those Amendments. Considering that there are some of them that do not carry much further the enactments of the Bill than they are now carried; and also considering that there are others of so objectionable a character in the view of many hon. Members of this House that it is impossible to adopt them, I wish them to consider, before Monday next, whether there are any of these Amendments which they think of sufficient importance to press upon the attention of the House. It appears to me that the Bill, in its present shape, is sufficient. The first clause has stamped with illegality the Rescript of September, 1850; and by the second clause, rendering liable to penalty the assumption of ecclesiastical titles of sees that are not sees of existing bishops, as also of sees that are the sees of existing bishops, there will be found a declaration by Parliament sufficiently strong and authoritative to vindicate the authority both
322
of the Crown and the Parliament, and the independence of the nation. However hon. Gentlemen may think that the Bill would be improved by the adoption of those Amendments, I really wish them to consider whether the delay that must occur, and the divisions that must take place amongst those that support the Bill, will not cause more embarrassment than any advantage that can be derived from their propositions. I do not wish to raise any discussion in moving that the Chairman report progress; but I think it right to ask hon. Members to take this into their consideration.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, in answer to the observations of the noble Lord, it may be convenient to the Committee to state shortly what view I take of the Amendments I mean to propose. The noble Lord does not, I know, expect an immediate answer from me as to the points I intend to press; but, entertaining a very strong opinion that some portions of those Amendments should be passed, perhaps it would be convenient to acquaint the Government at this moment that the Amendments on the second clause which I shall put relate to three things: first, "if any person shall do or assume to do any act, deed, matter, or thing, under, or by virtue of, the aforesaid brief, rescript, or letters apostolical" (which we have just declared void); secondly, "if any person shall hereafter obtain, or cause to be procured, from the said Bishop or See of Rome, or shall publish or put in use within any part of the United Kingdom any brief, rescript, letters apostolical, or any other instrument or writing for the purposes aforesaid," that is, for constituting a hierarchy in this country; and, thirdly, I propose to insert these words, "if any person shall, under colour of any authority from the said Bishop or See of Rome, assume, or claim to have or exercise any authority or jurisdiction over any province or diocese, or any pretended province or diocese, within the United Kingdom." With regard to the first of these Amendments, I think it is the necessary consequence of declaring the Brief unlawful, and I wish to take the opinion of the Committee upon it. With regard to the second, I think it advisable that the opinion of the Committee should be taken upon it in order that you may avoid the necessity of recurring again to fresh legislation on the subject that now occupies the attention of the House, and which has occasioned throughout the country so much excitement. With regard to the third, I

323
have some doubts about it; for, I think, in the first place, there is more ambiguity contained in that clause than in the other two; and there might be some difficulty in enforcing that prohibition. Then, as to the prosecutor's clause, I will state my views more fully on Monday. But it may be convenient now to state that I intend to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon. In answer to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone, with reference to a proviso that no prosecution should be had under the first clause without the consent of the Attorney General, that is the principle of the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, and I think the proviso of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone might be incorporated in the proviso of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. As to the first and second paragraphs in the preamble, I wish very strongly to press them upon the attention of the House. The result then is, that I intend to press the first two paragraphs in the Amendments to clause No. 2. I intend to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, and I intend to take the sense of the House on the two paragraphs of the preamble to which I have now called the attention of the Committee. I do not think that I could well be expected to give them up.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his intentions. As he has stated them, I may say, that I cannot consent, on my part, to any of the Amendments he has stated. There is one Amendment, however, to which I take, perhaps, a stronger objection than to any which he has now stated, and which, I think, still stands on the printed paper. It is the accumulative penalty for a second offence; and finally inflicting the punishment of transportation of the persons assuming those titles— [An Hon. MEMBER: The deportation]—but if the person returns, I think that there is notice given that the clause applicable to the Jesuits in the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act shall be applied, which is not deportation, but transportation. I must say I think the penalty in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 100 l. is sufficient. It is a matter that is punishable by no very heavy penalty, but it gives notice to all men that they cannot infringe the law with impunity.
324
That is quite sufficient, and I shall oppose any accumulative penalties whatever.
MR. WALPOLE: Instead of announcing what I shall do with the clause relating to the accumulative penalty, I would rather reserve my opinion until Monday. I would rather reserve my opinions on all the Amendments until we again go into Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

CUSTOMS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that at the time when a change of policy took place on the part of the Government, he intimated that in consequence of that great change it was necessary to reconsider the financial arrangements, and that the measures brought forward would not be allowed to proceed without considerable discussion. He therefore hoped the second reading of the Customs Bill would not be pressed at that late hour.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad not understood that there was any intention to offer opposition on these subjects, though some discussion was anticipated. Intimation had been made as regarded the repeal of the window tax, that it was not intended to interfere with the measure.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he certainly had said it was not intended to interfere in any way as regarded the window tax; but that was before the Resolution had been adopted to vote the income tax for one year only. It was in consequence of that Resolution having been adopted, that he said he thought after that Vote that they were perfectly free on his side of the House to consider the effect of the propositions of the Government with reference to that important vote. Considering the effect of that Vote in his estimation on the finance of the country, and also on public credit, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed then.
MR. MITCHELLtrusted those interested in the timber trade, and others, would not be left much longer in a state of uncertainty.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, under present circumstances, and considering the period of the night (half-past Eleven o'clock), he would not press the Motion. He would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that the Reso-

325
lutions had been passed without opposition; and it would be for the convenience of parties interested that a decision should be come to as speedily as possible.
MR. DISRAELIfelt that an explanation was demanded by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to intimate that after the Resolutions which had been adopted, the House was bound to a certain line. But they had arrived at a different state of affairs. The Budget of the Government was formed on the idea that the income tax would be renewed for three years; therefore he protested against the conclusion suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's observation.
Order for Second Reading was deferred till Monday next, as was also the Second Reading of the Inhabited House Duty Bill.

COLONIAL PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a Second Time."
MR. STANFORD: Sir, I shall very briefly state the reasons why I feel it right to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I do not think it possible to provide any adequate means of testing the correctness of the qualification which it is here proposed to create; for instance, a gentleman gives in to the clerk of this House a declaration that he possesses 600 l. a year in Ceylon or in the Punjab. How is the accuracy of this declaration to be tested? Would the House be satisfied with the certificate of some Government official in the colony? I apprehend not. The alternative is to send out a Commission to inquire and report. This is clearly out of the question from the delay and expense. If this Bill passed, the result would be that the House must he satisfied to take entirely upon trust the allegation of the party that he possesses the qualification required by law. Now, Sir, this appears to me inexpedient, So long as the Legislature think it right to require the possession of a certain annual income as a condition of a person sitting in this assembly, so long, I think, it ought to be such as there are means of ascertaining its existence. If the hon. Member had proposed to abolish a property qualification altogether as a condition of sitting and voting in this House, I admit that there is a great deal to be urged in behalf of that course,
326
though I beg to guard myself against the supposition that I am favourable to the proposition; but I don't see a single argument in favour of the present Bill, which confirms the propriety of insisting on a qualification; but extends it in such a manner as to render it nearly impracticable to ascertain its reality or existence. I think, Sir, likewise, that these alterations in the law would be better considered whenever the question of Parliamentary Reform is raised, as we have learned it is to be in the next Session. We have several Bills now before the House affecting the franchise indirectly, such as the "Inhabited House Duty," which is to exempt persons from the house tax whose rent is under 20 l. a year, while they are still to enjoy the privilege of the franchise, which is based upon the principle of the payment of rates and taxes. This is frittering away important general principles, and tampering with legislation in a way I cannot help thinking highly inexpedient; and for these reasons, Sir, I beg leave to move that the Bill be read this day six months.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
MR. HUTTsaid, that he intended to introduce some clauses which would, he thought, remove the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, that he was opposed to all property qualification, and, therefore, he should give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading.
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 21: Majority 51.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

SEQUESTRATION OF BENEFICES BILL.
Order for Second Reading, read.
MR. FREWEN, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to increase the annual sum which the bishop was by the present law authorised to grant out of the incomes of livings under sequestration for the payment of curates. He knew one living which had been under sequestration for several years, to which five hamlets were attached, and in which there were seven full services each Sunday; and yet the bishop, according to the exist-

327
ing law, could only grant 200 l. out of the income for the payment of curates. He knew many cases in which livings of from 1,000 l. to 2,000 l. per annum were under sequestration, and yet no larger sum than he had mentioned could he granted for this purpose.
SIR GEORGE GREYhoped that the hon. Member would not press the second reading at that hour of the evening. The whole principle of sequestrations required consideration, and he thought it was doubtful whether it would be advisable to agree to the present measure, which seriously interfered with the rights of creditors, while it did not deal at all with the principle of sequestration.
DR. NICHOLLsaid, that he thought it was well worthy the consideration of the House whether it would not be of the greatest advantage to the Church and the parishioners that sequestration for debt should be entirely abolished; and that, at the same time, some arrangement should be made for spreading the payment of first fruits and fifths by clergymen over several years. The present mode of payment often involved them in a load of debt, which was a continued source of embarrassment.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

LAND CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
MR. LABOUCHEREmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend certain provisions of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 in Ireland. He said, that there were great and peculiar difficulties in Ireland, not existing in England and Wales, with regard to the valuation of land for compensation taken by railway companies. These chiefly arose from the complicated tenure existing in Ireland, and consequently railway companies were put to great and unnecessary expense, and the extension of the railway system in Ireland, which he held to be of the greatest consequence for the development of the resources of that country, was thereby materially impeded. Hence there had been an attempt made to substitute arbitration for jury system; special clauses had been introduced with that view into some Irish Railway Bills last year, and there were similar clauses in Bills of this year. But it had been thought that if this was to be done at all, it should be by some general Bill for Ireland; and, quite agreeing with that view, and finding the Irish Members
328
almost unanimous upon the matter, and having received a deputation of Irish solicitors urging him to deal with the subject, he had prepared a Bill which he now begged the House to allow him to bring in.
COLONEL DUNNEwas in favour of allowing arbitration where the proprietors of the district wished for it, but could not think it was advisable that there should be a general Act empowering a company to take land at a price fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the Government.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Labouchere, Sir William Somerville, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Standing Duties (Ireland) Continuance; Apprentices to Sea Service (Ireland).
2a Duchy of Lancaster (High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts).
3a Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement; Prevention of Offences.

THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.
The Earl of POWISpresented a petition from the Earl of Bradford, and the Viscount Clancarty, stating—
"That by a conscientious Objection to taking the Oath called the Oath of Supremacy, as at present administered, they arc excluded from the exercise of the Privileges of sitting and voting in this House, to which by hereditary Right they are entitled, and praying that the Oaths as at present required to be administered to Members of Parliament may be considered with a View to the Relief of such Objection.
The Clerk having read the petition,
The EARL of WICKLOWrequested their Lordships' serious attention to this petition, with a view to do an act of justice, in accordance with its prayer. Was it, he asked, decent or becoming in the present century to call upon Members either of their Lordships' House or of the other House of Parliament, or even of any municipal corporation, or upon any persons in this country, to take what was called the Oath of Abjuration? All oaths that were unnecessary were improper, if not criminal. It was criminal to force a person to take any oath that was not absolutely necessary. This oath was entirely unnecessary. By the first part of the oath it was declared that, as regards the ecclesiastical and spiritual concerns of the Church of England, the Pope has no spiritual authority, and no Roman Catholic ever denied that; but with regard to the second part of the oath, to which the Petitioners requested attention, was it true, as stated in it, that the Pope had no ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within this realm? When King George IV. visited Ireland, he received the Roman Catholic bishops appointed by the Pope; and Her Majesty, during Her recent visit to that country, carried the principle still further, for She not only

255
acknowledged the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops appointed by the authority of the Pope, but She gave them precedence after prelates of the same rank belonging to the Established Church. It might be questionable whether their authority was sanctioned by the Charitable Bequests Act; but in the Cemeteries Act, passed the Session before last, "his Grace Archbishop Murray of Dublin" was spefically named, and powers were given to him as archbishop, and to his successors. Could any one, therefore, say that by law the authority of the Pope was not sanctioned in this country? It was as much sanctioned as if a law had been passed declaring that the Pope had power to appoint bishops. He thought the Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in the other House had for its object the alteration of the law respecting the oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and was not solely introduced for the purpose of admitting Jews into Parliament. Therefore, it would appear that the prayer of the petitioners was sanctioned by Government, and by a majority of the other House, and was only objected to by their Lordships, because, in one of the clauses of the Bill, there were four or five lines introduced giving relief to the Jews. A Commission appointed to inquire into this subject had strongly recommended an alteration of the law as prayed for in this petition; and he found, from a statement in the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, by the Lord Chief Justice, that Lord Eldon had strongly urged the alteration of those oaths. He had himself brought in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners, but had withdrawn it, in consequence of the expressed wish of some of his noble Friends. He hoped that their Lordships would take the question into consideration, for he was sure that no man who did consider it, and who looked at the Acts of Parliament to which he had referred, and at the recommendation of the Commissioners, could avoid coming to the conclusion that it was highly expedient some such measure should be adopted as he had indicated.
Petition to lie on the table.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
LORD CAMPBELLhaving moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee upon this Bill,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it was highly desirable that a subject of
256
so much importance should be most deliberately and carefully considered, before they proceeded to legislate upon it, and he thought that would be better done by a Select Committee, than in Committee of the whole House. In order that the Bill might be made as perfect as possible, he had drawn up some observations upon its clauses, and he would suggest that the further progress of the Bill should be delayed for a few days, to give his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) and the Members of the Select Committee time to consider them.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he was exceedingly desirous that the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack should be carefully considered, in order, if possible, to obtain his support to the Bill. He would, therefore, willingly agree to any postponement which he might think necessary, in order that his suggestions might be considered.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that he was not satisfied with respect to the expediency of this Bill. Its result would be to compel every deed in the kingdom to be deposited in a registry office in the metropolis, where its contents might be examined into by every person who chose. Now it was impossible for any man who read the newspapers not to feel that a very improper use was often made of the right which the public possessed to inspect wills; and he therefore could not regard without apprehension a measure which proposed to extend this power of inspection to deeds. This Bill was different in principle from that which was in force in the county of York; for there the deeds themselves were not deposited in the registry office, but simply a memorandum, by means of which a person who had any right to inspect a deed could discover where it was, and thus obtain the means of doing so. The question at issue was not, as had been represented, whether there should be local registry offices, or one general office; but whether the present or the proposed system of registration should be adopted. This measure would impose a great hardship upon borrowers of small sums upon the security of landed property; for if their title-deeds were taken out of their custody, they would no longer be able to go to a banker, and, by depositing them with him, at once obtain a. loan. If this Bill passed, no sale or mortgage of land could be safely effected without the expense and delay of a journey to

257
London, and a search in the general registry office there.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that it was highly expedient that all the delay necessary to the perfecting of this measure should take place; but he could not concur with the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) in wishing that that delay should prejudice the eventual passing of the Bill during the present Session. Several of the noble Earl's objections seemed to be founded upon a misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill would not compel the deposit of existing deeds in a general registry office, though its principle did undoubtedly require that every deed to be hereafter executed should he deposited there. But he could not see how that would prejudice any one; for the owner of any property might have a duplicate deed, which would have the same effect as the original, in case that were lost, and the owner would, therefore, have exactly the same advantages which he enjoyed at present. Another objection taken by the noble Earl was, that the Bill required the deposit of the deed, and not merely of a memorial; so that all persons might come and see the whole of its contents. But that was now the law as regarded the North Riding of Yorkshire, where, if not the deed, at least a full copy of it, was deposited. This certainly was the case in Ireland (for the present Bill on this point was but a copy of one which passed with respect to Ireland last year); and he believed that the same was the case in Scotland. The reason why the same provision was not in force in the other ridings of Yorkshire and in Middlesex was that the memorial gave all the information necessary; if so, why not have the document itself, which could not deceive? He did not think that there was much danger that persons would inspect the deeds deposited without good and sufficient cause. That a person should he able to go and see whether a man had encumbered his estate or not, was the great object of registration, for if it was penal for a man to obtain money under false pretences, it was something like it to obtain credit under false pretences. If a party had encumbered his estate, why should not there be the means of discovering it? He doubted much whether the loan of money upon the deposit of title-deeds was a common transaction at present, while this Bill would provide a more honest, and not less ready, mode of effecting such loans; for, instead of obtaining the deposit
258
of the deeds, the lender would then have the security of lodging a caveat against the sale of the estate. In the present days of swift and ready railway communication, he could not regard the fact of a journey to London being required for some purposes as a very serious objection. He believed that there would be greater facility of obtaining money by sale, or upon the security of land after the passing of this Act, than before. In his opinion, indeed, it was not necessarily part of a good system of real property, that it should be as transferable as a bank note. It was a peculiar description of property, with its own advantages and disadvantages; the main things were to secure facility and security in the ordinary modes of transferring it; and if, in order to accomplish that, it was necessary to sacrifice the interest of those who wished to transfer it like a bank note, he thought that that was a disadvantage which must be incurred in order to obtain a greater advantage.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEsaid, it was desirable that the facts should be clearly ascertained on which the arguments were founded. He rather thought the noble and learned Lord had fallen into one or two mistakes in the statement he had made. From a gentleman in charge of the registration in the county of York, he understood that the three registries in that county were erected by three separate Acts of Parliament; that the West and East Riding registries had been the first established, and in them merely a memorial was required of the deed—that the North Riding registry had been the last established, and it gave the option of depositing either a memorial or the whole deed; but the practice was not to register the full deed, but merely a memorial of it. If that fact was of any value, to the present discussion, it rather tended to show that the registration of the memorial only was a more advantageous system than the registration of the full deed. In Ireland the practice, until it was altered by the Bill of last year, had been to register a memorial. He agreed with the noble Earl near him in saying that he was not satisfied with this Bill.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, that in Ireland the registration was the registration of a memorial.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that by the first Registration Act, passed with respect to Ireland, the deposit of the memorial was sufficient. But that was found to be so

259
inconvenient, that, by an Act passed last Session, it was enacted that in future the deed itself, at full length, must be registered. It had been considered deliberately for nearly twenty years, whether a memorial or the deed should he registered; and the almost unanimous opinion of those who had been consulted upon it—solicitors, barristers, and bankers—was, that it was preferable that the deed should be registered. Without such a registration we could not guard against the loss, suppression, forgery, or alteration of deeds, while it was much more economical than the deposit of a memorial; for the memorial must be prepared by a professional man, while a copy of a deed might be made by a law-stationer. He believed that no Bill had ever been prepared with greater care than the present one; but it proposed to deal with a most important subject, and he should not object to any alterations that could be suggested which might have the effect of improving its details. He would propose that the Committee should be adjourned to Tuesday next in order to allow time for considering the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHexpressed his strong objection to the deposit of the original deed in any public office. He had ascertained that he was perfectly right in the statement he had made as to registration at present in Ireland being by memorial. An Act passed last year to alter the law at a future period, but at this moment the law was as he had stated.
Committee put off to Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.