trlintrn nub lArurrrhiugn iu Ihritamtut,
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.
Horse or Loans. Monday, March 24. Sale of Arsenic Regulation Bill, read a third time and passed—Corn Importations ; Motion by the Earl of Desart, and Re- turns ordered.
Tuesday, March 25. Church of England in the Colonies; Question by the Bishop of Oxford, Answer by Bari Grey-Assessment of Tithes and Rent-charges; Petitions presented by the Earl of Malmesbury. Thursday, March 27. Conspiracies of Foreign Refugees, denounced by Lord Lyndhurst.
Friday, March 28. No business of interest.
HousE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 24. Crystal Palace—Easter Recess; pro- bable commencement—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill ; adjourned debate continued, and again adjourned—Designs Act Extension Bill, read a second time. Tuesday, March 25. Sundry Notices of Motion given—A Government Bill on Charity Trusts promised in the other House in a short time—Office of Master of the Rolls to be preserved—Adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill finished ; second reading carried by 438 to 95.
Wednesday, March 26. The House did not hold its usual mid-day sitting; having been detained till three in the morning, by the debate and division on the Ecclesi- astical Titles Bill.
Thursday, March 27. Aylesbury and St. Alban's Election Petitions—Rajah Brooke—Savines Bank Bill—Neu Budget; when?—Steam Communication with the
East-The 8palish Tariff—Chancery Bill by Lord John Russell—Appoint- ment of Vice-Chancellor Bill, considered as amended ; "r1. Willoughbp's Amend- Jai-cot to reduce the Retiring Pension rejected by 49 to 32; report brougb4.-Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Bill; second reading postponed.
Thiday, March 28. Foreigners in London ; Notice by Mr. Stuart Wortley—Public Business; Statement by Lord. John Russell—Established Church; Notice of Motion by Mr. liorsman--Supply: Army Estimates; Statement by Mr. Fox Maule.
• TIME-TABLE.
The Lords.
Hour of ROUT of
Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday 511 5h 45m Monday
Tuesday 5h 7h m Tuesday Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Thursday ..., 6h 45m Thursday
Friday 5h 5h 45m Friday Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 5h 15m Sittings this Week, 4 ; Time,90h 45m
this Session. 31 ; — 5211 30w this Session, 32 ; - 202h 44m PAPAL AGGRESSION : EeenESIALSTICAL TITLES BILL.
The flow of debate on the Titles Bill, when the adjourned discussion was resumed on Monday, was almost entirely against the measure. The sPeechea of Mr. MONCKTON MILNES and Mr. F. H. BP.R9r6.1 EY were the only ones in its favour; while four speeches of quite unnational modera- tion came with persuasive force from four Irish Members-Mr. W. FA- dA_N, Mr. SADLEIR, Sir JOHN Yonne, and Lord CASTERPAGH ; and Mr. Ssrrrue and Mr. A. B. HOPE swelled the current of English objection.
Mr. FAGAN reiterated the argument, that under the reestablished hie- rarchy the Bishops will be released from their slavery to the Pope, and the clergy be secured from arbitrary injury by the Bishops.
He declared that no Roman Catholic priest or layman holds himself bound by any canon law that is opposed to the municipal law of the land, otherwise than as it relates to faith and doctrine : all that is inflexible and unchangeable about Roman Catholicism is its faith-the truth it derives from God; its discipline is ever varying with the variation of times and' circumstances. The abominable canons of-the olden times have nothing what- ever to do with the Roman Catholic religion of the present day. Without ques- tion, there have been periods when the Roman Pontiffs exercised a temporal authority over sovereigns of this country wholly unwarranted by their office;; but those things have passed away, never to return. The Cardinal Arch- bishop of Westminster has been anxious not to give offence to the Govern- ment and people of England by calling together the clergy in synod for the- purpose of framing rules and regulations establishing the rights and im- munities of the clergy; but Mr. Fagan hoped that the day is-not far distant when a canon law suitable to the laws and institutions of this country will be established here. As to synodical action, neither this bill nor any other can prevent its being carried out : it worked through all the period ofpersecu- lion and penal laws, and it will continue to work. Lord:John. Russell cannot be aware of the ferment the measure has produced in Ireland. Even Mr- Fagan's own constituents in Cork, who are as calm. as a summer sea when com- pared with the excited inhabitants of other parts, have passed a resolution calling on him- to vote against the Government on every occasion, no matter what the principle that is involved. Of course, a regard for his own charac- ter has not allowed him to adopt such a resolution; but the resolution is evidence of the great excitement that prevails in the least excited places. But Ireland has formed the right hand of Lord- John Russell's political power, and how can he get on without her ? The Irish Members have sup- ported him as the strenuous advocate of civil and religious liberty,.and he knows that without them he cannot be sustained ; why then has he adopted
The Commcns.
Rom. of Hone of Meeting. Adjournment.
41. ..(m) 2h m 9h ..(m) 3h m No silting. 4h • (In) as
9h (us) 11. 45m
this course ? Mr. Fagan opposes the minarets-a retrograde movement ; as an infringement of the Act of Emancipation- and the principle of religious liberty ; as an abrogation of the Charitable Bequests Act; and as an instal- ment-au stronger measure, a Precursor of another and more severe measure, against-Ireland,
Mr. SMYTHE would vote against a sham bill of sham pains and sham penalties against' a sham aggression.
For what, after all, are our relations with the Catholic Church of Ireland ? It could not be denied, that within the last ten years, the State, weary, perhaps, of a sterile and expensive helpmate, had contracted a left-handed and morganatic affiance through the Charitable Bequests Act and the May- nooth Act with the. Catholic Church of Ireland. Yet now, upon the first occasion, they sought to repudiate the bride of their noeffiegitimate and certainly not impolitic bigamy. If the Pope's brief or bull were, as Lord JohnRussell described it in his first most eloquent speech, a " blunder on the sudden," the measure by which he combats it is certainly a " blunder on the slow." Though in some sense the Papal measure has not been in the interest of the Pope, it is in one sense an example and warning to ourselves. What was it that rendered her so powerful-more powerful than at any time he had read of in the annals of the Church-so powerful that ten thousand bayonets had been sent to her support by the universal suffrage of France ; that, day by day, voluntary restitutions of church property were taking place in Spain ; that in one second, by one stroke of Prince Schwarzenberg's pen, the Rationalistic bigotry and the Josephist spoliations of a hundred years had been annulled ? One sole fact-that., bit by bit, and year after year, she had learned to withdraw herself from State connexion and Erastian domination. Thus she has been enabled to present to the world the unique spectacle of a pauper hierarchy by the side of a largely salaried episcopate ; that pauper hierarchy recognized and prayed for by universal Christendom -that salaried episcopate not recognized, and not prayed for, and not sympa- thized in, out of the British empire. At the head of that hierarchy she bad sent a Prince of the Church- one who, Lord Powis stated in one of his ad- mirable speeches, would take precedence even of the Prince Consort in every court of the Continent of Europe : but she had sent him with the wallet of the mendicant beneath the robes of the cardinal, dependent on the alms of those who chose to believe. Rome had in this, at least, gone far beyond the Government of England in the spirit of that principle which decreed that none should pay for a- faith other than his own. She had flung far down a warning truth into a posterity which would not be ungrateful for the boon. She had gone further ; she had read in England the first bans of those free nuptials between liberty and faith-between modern liberty and ancient faith, which in his conscience he believed in no remote- age would yet regenerate mankind.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES supported the bill with pain: after the closest investigation, he found himself unable to deny the proposition patent upon the bill, that there has been an assumption of ecclesiastical titles,, which it is right and just that Parliament should prohibit.
When the Roman Catholics of this country say they wish for nothing more than is given to the Wesleyans and Independents, there is a certain- falsehood and hypocrisy in that representation : as a body they desire and claim more. We cannot separate the action of the Papacy from political' influences ; and, making every possible allowance whatsoever, it is impossi- ble not to see that the Pope in his brief reclaims his old historical territorial power, as when the country was under Catholic sovereigns, and as if there- had never been a Reformation or Revolution. But as the clause of 1829 had been sufficient for Ireland, Mr. Milnes could not see why this bill was not limited to Great Britain. A severe law would create sympathy; but with titles ostentatiously brought forward-especially in this country, where we- regard titles very much as things, and where our public servants are not entitled to bear foreign honours-with these temporal assumptions we can '-^1. But it is not by legislation that you can exclude or stop Roman Ca- tholicism ; that-!'awe must be won by moral means : it will last long ; but about the ultimate result -there cau be no doubt.
The moment Mr. Monckton Milnes sat down, " the other Members," almost without exception, rose simultaneously. Mr. SADLEIR dispensed his sarcastic approbation on the advancing liberality of the discussion-from the bitter invective of a most humili- ating discussion upwards to mere • charges that there is hypocrisy in the- declaration of allegiance made by the Roman Catholic Members.
Disclaiming the personal infallibility of the Popes, he quoted the declara- tion of the late Dr. Doyle, a most distinguished theologian, that if the Pope- were to intermeddle with the rights of the King or the allegiance of Catho- lics, the hierarchy would oppose him by every means in their power-even by the exercise of their spiritual authority, and would teach the people to oppose the Pope : this was the view of every distinguished ecclesiastic in Ire- land. However, while Mr. Sadleir defended, on the ground of the increasing- numhers.and!spiritual.needs of the Roman Catholic population in England„ the relistablishnumt of the English hierarchy, he did not think the appoint- ment of a. cardinal at all called for : he admitted that the language used in the Papal documents displayed gross ignorance of the religions feelings and pre- judices of the English people; and said he thought that every man. is bound SO to shape his language and conduct as to defer as much as possible to the religious- prejudices of his fellow men. The Ministerial measure will fail to allay irritation and alarm in England;. and will either be a dead letter in Ireland, or be ranked•as one of what, Burke calls the ferocious acts of fac- tion,, and only drive into the arms of America and other foreign states the most valuable portion• of the Irish popuktion still left in that country. Mr. F. H. Bnitimmar was of opinion that the measure, "though slight,- is-judicious." The Pope waited for ten years with open mouth- hoping that the Church- of England would- fallinto. it ; but waxing im- patient, he shook the tree, and had only brought down unripe fruit.. Mr. Berkeley denounced the "Puseyite fungi" ; and thanked Lord John. Russell for appointing to-the deanery of Bristol so excellent a man as the present Dean-a man who has proelaiined, " Let the clergy of all de- nominations understand-that they are not the lords of. God's heritage."
Sir JOHN YOUNG spoke as an Irish Protestant Member to the Irish Protestants, in grave warning against raising a new religious warfare in. their country by this bill.
Let them weigh well-the consequences of such legislation; for upon them, and upon the Protestant Church in their country, the heat and burden of the contest would fall. Recall the experience of the past, and count well the cost. A long struggle had been waged against the Roman. Catholics. in' Ireland,: which had lasted-for a century and a= half. A-few great families, and their sycophants and adherents, had divided the plunder of- the land; and what had become of the Protestant middle-and lower-classes? Their in- dustry had been neglected; their manufttetures annihilated. How fared it with the Protestant Church.? While bishops were occupied in amassing large fortunes-while wealthy rectorswere passing their time at English wa- tering-places, and glebe‘housea were untenanted, the sound of the gospel was unheard. Then came a period during which the Protestant Church passed through a season of great tribulation. The Church of Ireland 'would have had now a very different story to tell if she haft ohms-been-as. spiritually-. minded as•she is- at•present. The issue of this•kng struggle was, that the,
Protestants of Ireland were fewer in number than when it commenced ; and the Church was obliged to submit to the spoliation of half its property, the abrogation of the church-cess, and the demolition of ten bishoprics. He warned the Protestants of Ireland who support this measure, that its results would be disastrous to Protestantism and to the Protestant Church in Ire- land. The justice of this measure seemed to him extremely dubious ; the struggle would lead to bitter and protracted animosity ; and it would, he feared, long retard the recovery of that unhappy country. Instead of adding
strength to the cause of Protestantism, it only brought weakness. It was an infringement upon that complete toleration which, if scrupulously. acted upon, would do more for the cause of real religion and the spread of spiritual truth than all the defences that alarm could suggest, and all the safeguards that a sincere but mistaken enthusiasm could surround itself with.
Mr. GitarraN uttered some vehement declamation against the bill. Lord CASTLEREAGH declared, that while between him and his Roman Catholic
countrymen there is a religious gulf that cannot be bridged, he respects their conscientious feelings: the measure has been brought forward in a manner peculiarly objectionable to them, and is now pushed on by a Go- vernment kept in office solely and entirely to carry it. The bill taken in connexion with the position of the Ministry is what the French call the reactionary policy of a transition Ministty. It is vapid, ill-considered,
should never have been proposed, and shall not have the, support of his humble name. Mr. A. B. HOPE, amidst signs that the majority were at list desirous of coming to a division, denounced the measure as petty and disgraceful to the magnanimity of this country, and discreditable to the civilization of the Anglo-Saxon race.
Mr. HOBHOUSE moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord TORN Rusinim. thought that six days' more debate could scarcely bring an ad- ditional argument, and trusted that any further speakers might be heard now. Mr. MOORE remonstrated, on behalf of the Irish Members ; who
had only consumed about five or six hours against the measure, while the
speakers for it have consumed fourteen. Mr. SCULLY added, that only seven out of some thirty-five or forty Catholic Members had been able to speak. Sir GEORGE GREY suggesting that " other opportunities " might be taken by those gentlemen, Mr. OSWALD, Mr. O'Cozneem., Mr. Llano- HART, the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY, and Mr. JOHN REYNOLDS,
further pressed the reasons of courtesy to the Irish Catholic Members which should weigh in favour of adjournment. The last speaker ran off the names of gentlemen whom the House would be anxious to hear at this stage—Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Keogh, the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright and his colleague Mr. Milner Gibson, and the eloquent and influential Member for Bucking- hamshire, who might wish to speak, and whom Mr. Reynolds would be glad to draw out upon this subject.
The motion for adjournment was negatived by 414 to 64. Mr. O'Cos- YELL again moved the adjournment, but withdrew his motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL consented to the adjournment; but a. new struggle im-
mediately arose on the question whether the adjournment should be to twelve o'clock or to five o'clock next day. After much time spent in ar-
gument, the House decided, by 306 to 43, in favour of a motion by Lord Joni; RUSSELL to adjourn to twelve : but shortly after the division, fresh signs of "factious" perseverance being manifested, Lord JOHN RUSSELL consented that the debate should be adjourned till five, with the under- standing that it should then "go on.'
The debate on Tuesday was opened by Mr. HOE/LOuSE; who declared himself fortified by every argument he had heard, in his original convic-
tions against all legislation on this subject ; and he supported this conclu-
sion by a speech of argumentative force and clear general illustration. Mr. PORTAL could not endure the evil of this bill on account of any good Mit ; it is impotent for good, and powerful for evil. Mr. Josue O'CON- NELL lauded the admirable refutation by Sir James Graham of the as- sertion that the supremacy of the Crown in religious matters is consonant
with the common law ; and trusted that Sir James. would "go on in the
course he has commenced "-" the people of Ireland will appreciate his sentiments and his desire to protect them." Mr. LAWLESS considered
himself bound, as an Irish Member representing a Catholic constituency,
to raise his voice against the bill • and the more bound as a Protestant himself. Mr. Mown thought that the Pope is to be feared because he is surrounded by French bayonets. Mr.-See-mac referred to the thousands
of Roman Catholic foreigners who will visit us soon : what opinion will they form of our notion of religious liberty? Mr. Huron deeply regretted that the Government should again convert Ireland into a source of weak- ness instead of strength; and lamented to see the Dissenters assisting with their freed bands to put trammels on the Roman'Catholics, who helped them to gain their freedom.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER felt that he was about to speak on an ex- hausted subject to a wearied audience; but craved the privilege of expla- nation, to prevent his views being mistaken.
Sir Frederick retraversed a good deal of the field of argument ; and came to the legal opinions on the effect of the bill on synodal action, and in pre- venting the validity of ordination, &c. The Attorney-General and Solicitor= General had both stated that the bill would prevent synodal action ; and of course they would not have brought in a bill to do so if they had not that intention ; but Sir Frederick had some doubt whether. the first clause of the
bill would do that ; and he would bring the Government to this test—would. they introduce a clause specifically preventing synodal action ? On the other.
point, he dedared himself of opinion that themument lawyers whose opinion had been quoted by Mr. M‘Cullagh were perfectly right with regard to the second clause. The first clause makes the assumption of titles subject to a penalty ; a penalty implies prohibition, and a prohibited act is void in law :
therefore any act done under the titles would be utterly void. So far as that section is concerned, it is completely involved in the first; but a dis-
tinction may be drawn, which will preserve gifts seemingly obnoxious to the third clause. He supported the second reading of the bill, because he thought legislation absolutely necessary ; because, bad as it is, lie will take this minimum of legislation rather than none; but particularly because in Com- mittee a clause may be introduced to meet the oecasion—one, for instanee, such as Mr. Walpole has slightly sketched his notion of, which shall put. under penalty all persons acting under the Papal brief or any similar docu- ment.
Mr. GLanwroxe admitted that the debate was-already exhausted, and that the best arguments against the bill had already been heard ; but in his own case—that of theonLy Member representing an English University, and a large and important body of the English clergy deeply interested in the question, who was about to take a course in opposition to that of all his. colleagues—some explanation would be expected. He referred to this difference with deep regret, but without shame. He felt that every Member should give his vote with a regard to principles of
imperial policy, and to the welfare of the entire community. He avowed agreement with, the opinion expressed by Sir John Young the night before, that the true interests of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland are not to be promoted, at this time of day, by pretending to place them be- tween the body of our fellow subjects and the full enjoyment of religious equality. Allusions had been made in the course of the debate to intestine divisions in the Church of England : he admitted that this was a subject of the deepest importance, but he felt that nothing was more likely to complicate these difficulties still more than incidental allusions to them. He did not at all share the apprehensions of his friend Mr. Walpole with respect to the freedom of the Queen ; for he confessed he had faith enough in the principle of free representa- tive institutions, and in the principle of free discussion, to believe that the con- stitution of England was strong enough to withstand any aggression that might be perpetrated against it by any power in the world, whether spiritual. or temporal. But, as respected the Church of England, it would be idle. to die- guise his opinion that her situatiou is one of serious difficulty ; and he re- ferred to it now only for the purpose of protesting against any attenipt. to meet the spiritual dangers of the Church by temporal legislation: of a. panel character. He believed that those dangers might be met by a spirit of tem- poral wisdom ; but he did not believe that they could be cured.by remedies which had been tried before, under circumstances a thousaud. times.inere fa- vourable than the present, and had utterly and entirely failed.. There. were many other collateral subjects, having to do with the functions of the House, which he would not then enter upon—such as legislation with. regard. te be- quests, the extension of the law of mortmain, the supervision of religious houses—all of them of a practically important nature, and which, upotiesuse shown, might fitly engage the attention of the House ; but they wermall in relation to temporal security, and did not involve in themselves the. prin- ciple of religious liberty. These, then, he would pass by, for consideration when they might be considered more advantageously. Ho would also. pass by certain matters which had been assumed by the noble Laid at the head. el the Government, who, labouring apparently under a great and lamentable lack of argument—though plentifully supplied with dechanation—of argu- ment applicable to the specific purpose of supporting this particuhir bill—had resorted to the shadowing forth of all sorts of possible contingent aggressions to occur, pos,ibly, from all sorts of possible quarters, and to be me% if pos- sibly they should occur, by all sorts of possible expedients. Mr. Gladstone had always been under the impression that the actual duties of a Prime Minister were sufficiently supplied with objects to engage any one mind. He would pass by all these possible circumstances, reserving to himself the power to deal with them when they should arise. The principle on wlUoh.ho.should then deal with them would be simply this. If the Roman Catholics, by any of their authorities, Pope or Bishop, or whoever it might be, should exercise interference with our temporal affairs, such as would not be permitted.to any other body of religionists, then Parliament would not only be entitled but would be bound to interpose. On the other hand, until they did.exersise such interference—until they did overstep that line which we. had thought fit to draw, not only for them but for all the other classes. of Clisistians among us, between spiritual and temporal things — l'iudiameut lied no right to interpose—no right to deny them anything which it gave, to any other body or denomination of Christians among us. (Cheers.) He begged to give his assent to what had fallen from Sir James Graluun in reference to the language which had been used both in the brief of the l'ope and in the pastoral of tie Archbishop in relation to the appointment of the hierarchy ; language which, preposterously inflated, vain, Wastful,. and im- proper—he would not dwell upon the question whether it was intended to wound the feelings of England and to insult the Queen—distinctly merited complaint and reprobation, and this in the strongest terms. But he wanted. to know how they could be justified in proscribing an act connected. with the religious arrangements of a large body of their fellow subjects, that act had been done by a Pope or a Cardinal, for whose words the, was not directly responsible. It was not sufficient to prove that the language employed by particular persons was censurable ; they must look to the sub.. stance of the thing done, and by that let it stand or fall. He did net.care, on this occasion, to inquire whether what the Pope had done wasthe.most prudent thing be could have done. The question was, whether the lam of nations had been violated ? Had it been broken or not ? If it had been broken, nothing, in his opinion, could be more disparaging to.this country than for its Government, instead of proceeding directly against the offending party, to seek to meet the case by an act of Parliament imposing certain penalties upon certain of our fellow subjects. But the letter to the Bilden) of Durham the noble Lord would not have demeaned himself by, writing,— (Loud cries of " Oh !")—he did not mean to suggest that the nobleLord. had done himself any dishonour in writing that letter ; all he meant was, that the noble Lord would have disgraced himself by writing it had he,con- 'Adored at the time that the law of nations had been broken by the Pope; for in that case it would have been derogatory to England to proceed iu any other way for the reparation of the wrong than by a direct demand for such reparation to the offending party through the recognized medium. of a diplo- matic agent. Admitting, in the abstract, that a wrong had been done-- though as yet there had been no very clear understanding adopted as tooduit the wrong was—but suppose that the Crown had been insulted, the national independence infringed, and the law of nations violated, then, he insisted, re- paration should have been demanded by the medium of a direct diplomatic agent. The legal excuses are quite insufficient : the introduction of a clause in the Diplomatic Relations Bill, prohibiting us from receiving an ecclesiastical representative of the Pope, is no remon why in case of a breach of the law of nations we should not send an envoy to demand reparation ; and.no man can believe that the Pope could venture to turn his batik on such an envoy. Prussia and Russia, like ourselves, have no communion with the.Pope, and. receive no Nuncio ; but would that restrain them from seckingredresa against a breach of the law of nations.?
Thus dismissing preliminary points, Mr. Gladstone came to deal with rer presentations of the bill itself made by high authorities. The Attorney,- General says that the introduction of bulls is illegal, but the assumption of titles and parcelling out of the country is not illegal : the bill leaves the il- legal act unscathed, while the innocent and lawful act j to be made penal by an ex post facto law. The measure is recommended asmaking a system otequal dealing in England and Ireland : yet it is said that this clause of the Emancipation Act has not been called into operation ; and the excuse is made that to do so would be a prohibition of what is old. in Ireland, while the bill will only prohibit in England what is new : if the law *to be en- forced in England and to be a dead letter in Ireland, what becomes of the flourishes about the supremacy of the Queen, the union of the countries, aud the impartial application of the same law to both ? The House was about to divide on a false issue. " We are deviating greatly from the rules of this House—we arc going. to divide on the second reading of the bill in the shape in which it has been introduced, and yet with an intention announced on the part of the Government to make an essential alteration in it.in the Com- mittee ; and many gentlemen will therefore probably vote for it who would not otherwise have done so, because the clauses which. the Government mean to strike out are yet in the bill; while, on the other hand, some who would otherwise have voted against the bill will not do so, because these clauses are, itis said, to be struck oat. Such is tho effect of disregarding. the we rules of the House.'But can anybody say what the legal effect of the bill will be ? The At-
torney-General says the bill will not in its proposed form—that is, in its pro- posed synodal action. [Lord Rung Itirssnm,—" Hear, hear !"] ut the Solicitor-General says it will prevent synodal action. [The Soma- ron-GrarnitaL explained, that he had said the Roman Catholics themselves had put it on that ground.] Mr. Gladstone continued—" I remember the
learned gentleman referring to that assertion of the Roman Catholics; but I also recollect him adopting that assertion, and making it the basis of the
climax of his speech, as showing how stringent and effective the bill will be. However, as the learned gentleman denies, I will not insist upon it, butpass on to another subject. What then is to be the effect of the exclusion of the second and the third clauses ? Sir, we have the advantage of the presence of
many lawyers ; but the great bulk of us are unfortunately, not lawyers—or rather, I should say, fortunately ; for what assistance has the House derived
from the lawyers on the vital question as the effect of the expulsion of the three clauses ?" The Attorney-General distinctly stated, that when the se- cond and third clauses were expunged, the first clause would not carry with it the effect of those two clauses : the contrary was asserted in the opinion of some moat distinguished counsel, produced by Mr. M'Cullagh. That was pretty well in the way of contradiction. But again, Sir Frederick Thesiger,
whose authority is second to none, distinctly declared that neither the one opinion nor the other was right, for that the second clause is involved in the first, but the third is not. (Laughter and cheers.) Such is the posi- tion in which the House stands as to legal illumination on the vital vote to which it is about to come.
Again, the public assumes that the bill is intended to "maintain the rights of the Crown and the independence of the nation" : it maintains the rights of the Queen and the independence of the nation against a "foreign power," by not naming it, and by simply imposing penalties against the Queen's own subjects. It is not confined to the prohibition of foreign titles or of Papal titles, but attacks and suppresses the titles of British Dissenters not connected with foreign powers. The Scotch Bishops are now to be ex- cepted : the Scotch Bishops are territorial ; in Scotland the title of bishop is accompanied with many territorial and temporal incidents—such as the ju- risdiction in courts, and civil matters : but these territorial rights of the Crown are not defended by the bill. It is objected that these titles are de- rived from a foreign authority : but if the titles are spiritual only, the fact that the Roman Catholics own is foreign authority for their spiritual head, does not justify you in withholding from them one jot or tittle of that free- dom and privilege which is religious. It may impose on you certain duties —that their relations with that foreign authority do not involve matters of a temporal character ; but you cannot take your stand upon an abstract principle, and say "you derive these offices from a foreign authority, there- fore you shall be deprived of them." Gentlemen object that they are "not satisfied of the necessity, for Roman Catholic purposes, of a hierarchy" : what necessity is there that they should be satisfied ? "It is no part of the duty of the Roman Catholics to satisfy
me that the act is reasonable or unreasonable ; all I have to do is to see that it is not of a temporal nature—if my doctrine of religious liberty be anything beyond fume and vapour." Proofs that the act is of a temporal character have been entirely wanting ; though there have been many quotations to show that it may assume that character. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had been the boldest on this matter ; for he stated to the House that the appointment of these Bishops was not a spiritual but a temporal act—
Lord JohN RrrssELL—" I quoted that as the opinion of Dr. Twiss."
Mr. GLADSTONE--" Dr. Twiss is, no doubt, a very great authority ; but I should like to know whether the noble Lord adopts what he quoted ?" (A pause. Lord John Russell remained silent.) "The noble Lord does not ap- pear to be disposed to throw any light upon that point. What I say is this,
the fact of the episcopal office for a long period of years having annexed to it civil incidents, does not justify you in treating that office as civil when those incidents are removed from it. If the appointment of bishops is not a tem- poral but a spiritual act, why do you interfere? If it is not a spiritual but a temporal act, why do you exempt the Scotch Bishops ? "
Touching on the references to the Synod of Thurles, Mr. Gladstone argued, "If the spiritual influence of the Bishops in temporal matters extends be- yond the bounds to which they are entitled by the rights of citizenship, limit them by law ; but do not abolish their spiritual office." Excommunica- tion and suspension—matters also alluded to by Lord John Russell—are per- fectly common in the Dissenting denominations in England, and in the Free 'Church of Scotland ; they are not more temporal in the Roman Catholic Church than in them. The suspension of bishops is the same as the suspension of pastors. In some cases it may incidentally affect temporal interests ; but there is no religious body in the world where religious offices do not in a certain degree conjoin with temporal incidents. So you must show that the Roman Catholic body does something of a temporal character peculiar to it- self ; " without such proofs made good, you have not a shadow of ground for passing this bill." He dismissed the references to the canon law by the argument, that taking At at its worst—from Boniface the Eighth and Honorius the Ninth—the pre- ,sent bill makes no attempt to shut it out : the Solicitor-General, only a quarter -of an hour since, dispelled any hope from that illusion. But Mr. Gladstone -went further, and laid down the principle, that whatever be the nature of the canon law, or its oppressiveness to Roman Catholics, "that is their affair, not yours" ; and that "there will be no religious freedom in this country if Parliament is invited to interfere for the professed purpose of redressing the
supposed grievances of parties who willingly adopt and submit to them. If the operation of that system is unjust to any portion of its members, it is a free system ; they do not ask our assistance ; they do not seek the protection you offer them. Not like otherprotected interests, they repudiate it, and beg of you to let them alone." (Cheers.)
A striking and original portion of Mr. Gladstone's speech embraced an historical demonstration that the measure under discussion, so far from being directed to check Ultramontane principles, is a direct blow at the po- licy pursued by the secular and moderate party of the Roman Catholic clergy in this country, ever since the extinction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, at the death of Dr. Watson, last Bishop of Lincoln, in 1584. Quoting from Butler—whose fate it was to spend his life in religious controversy, but who never lost sight of that spirit of the peacemaker to which a blessing is at- tached here and hereafter—from Dod, and from Barrington, a Roman Ca- tholic authority, he established by a series of chronological data, separated from each other only by an interval of a few years, and continuing down to the time of the Revolution, that the secular clergy and the laity were un-
ceasing in efforts to obtain the reestablishment of a hierarchy of bishops in ordinary, and to reject or to avert the imposition of-the then unknown vicars-
apostolic ; while the regulars, especially the Jesuits, were unceasing and successful in their exertions to prevent that reestablishment, "as tending to interfere with their special exemptions and privileges." At one time, in- deed, the secular clergy nearly succeeded, by obtaining the consent of the Archbishop of Rouen to consecrate diocesan bishops; but the Pope inter- fered, and prevented the plan, by promises. Long communications on the subject were had with James the Second. That Monarch rejected vicars- apostolic, as "unknown to Christendom," &e. ; and he said, " I will admit of no bishops from Rome but with ordinary powers; nor shall Mr. Leyburn be received m the character of vicar-apostolic." However, James did afterwards
traitorously admit vicars-apostolic. For a hundred years after the Revolu- tion there is no evidence ; but as soon as the Roman Catholics got their heads above water, then again appeared this question of diocesan episcopacy. There is no doubt that the great mind of Mr. Pitt had a distinct opinion upon the subject. There is no doubt, though we have no information from direct sources—his biographies being so imperfect—" that Mr. Pitt's opinion was opposite to that of the noble Lord, and opposite to that which I am afraid the majority will affirm here. I look back upon the prophetic sagacity of that great man, and learn a lesson to be wise in time, from considering the mul- titude of questions which, with his enlightened views, he would have solved for England, if his power had been equal to his intellect or his will." That the same thing continued in later times, is well known without special re- search. Mr. CHadstone therefore asked—"Have I not given an historical demonstration that the extreme party amongst the Roman Catholics was the party which arrested the principle of diocesan episcopacy, and that the moderate party, by appeals to the Government of this country, and missions to the Court of Rome, had always affirmed that principle." If this measure were passed, the moderate party would be worsted for an in- definite period, and the Ultramontane system extended and consolidated. "Already," said Mr. Gladstone, referring to the effect of the measure in uniting the National and Ultramontane parties in Ireland and here, " you have contrived to band together the Roman Catholic laity and clergy of Ire- land against you, and have contrived to unite together against you the whole Roman Catholic body of England and Ireland, in a manner that is not upon record." The question is, "Shall we go forwards or backwards in the mat- ter of religious liberty ? It is useless to say that this is a trifling retro- gression : of course it is ; all such retrogressions begin by small measures. It is said that the character of the noble Lord is a security that we shall have no such retrogression. I once thought that his pledge was such a security : never was more impressive passage delivered by a speaker than by the noble Lord on the second reading of the bill for enlarging the endowment of the College of Maynooth, when he referred to these lines from Virgil- ', ' Scilicet et tempos veniet, cum finibus illis
Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro, Exesa inventet scabrt rubig,ine pila : Aut gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit Manes, Grandiaque effosis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.' "
"The noble Lord said, that upon the scenes where battles had been fought the hand of nature effaced the ruin which the hand of man had wrought and the cultivator of the soil in aftertimes found the rusted arms, and looked upon them with joy as the memorials of forgotten strife, and as enhancing the blessings of his peaceful occupation : but he added, in reference to the powerful opposition to that measure, that it seemed that our strifes upon the question of religious freedom never were at an end, and our arms never were to rust. Would any man who heard the noble Lord deliver those impressive sentences have believed, not only that strife in regard to the great question of religious liberty was to be revived—revived, it was to be feared, with a great deal of acerbity—in this year 1851, but that he himself was to be a main agent in the revival? that his was to be the head which was to wear the helmet, and his the hand which was to grasp the spear ? . . . My conviction is, that the question of religious freedom is not to be dealt with as one of the ordinary matters that you may do today and undo tomorrow. This great principle which we have the honour to represent moves slowly in matters of politics and legislation ; but, although it moves slowly, it moves steadily. The principle of religious freedom, its adaptation to our modern state, and its compatibility with ancient institutions, was a principle which you did not adopt in haste. It was a principle well tried in struggle and conflict. It was a principle which gained the assent of one public man after another. It was a principle which ultimately triumphed after you had spent upon it half a century of agonizing struggle. And now what are you going to do ? You have arrived at the division of the century : are you going to repeat Penelope's process, but without Penelope's purpose ? are you going to spend the latter half of the nineteenth century in un- doing the great work which with so much pain and difficulty your greatest men have been achieving during the former ?—Surely not. Re- collect the functions you have to perform in the face of the world. Recollect that Europe and the whole of the civilized world look to Eng- land at this moment more than ever they looked before, as the mistress and guide of nations in regard to the great work of civil legislation. And what is it they chiefly admire in England ? It is not the rapidity with which you form constitutions and broach abstract theories. On the contrary, they know that nothing is so distasteful to you as abstract theories, and that you are proverbial for resisting what is new until you are assured of its safety and beneficial tendency. But they know that when you make a step for- wards you keep it: They know that there is reality and honesty about your proceedings. They know that you are not a monarchy today, a republic to- morrow, and a military despotism the third day. They know that you are free from the vicissitudes that have marked the career of neighbouring na- tions. Your fathers and yourselves have earned this brilliant character for England. Do not forget it. Do not allow it to be tarnished. Show, if you will, the Pope of Rome and his Cardinals, and his Church, that England as well as Rome has her 'Serapes Eadem' ; and that when she has once adopted the great principle of legislation which is destined to influence her national character and mark her policy for ages to come, and affect the whole nature of her influence among the nations of the world—show that when she has done this slowly, but still deliberately, but once for all, she can no more re- trace her steps than the river that bathes this great city can flow back on its course. The character of England is in our hands. Let us feel the re- sponsibility that belongs to us ; and let us rely on it, if we make this step backwards, it is one we shall have to retrace with pain. We cannot turn back the tendencies of the age towards religious liberty. It is our business to forward them. To endeavour to turn them back is childish, and every effort you may make in that direction will recoil upon you with disaster and disgrace."
Mr. Manama promised to express his views with extreme brevity at so late an hour.
He dissented from the views of contempt at the small power of the Pope expressed by some speakers. The Pope is a prince of great power, if not of the greatest. Between regular and secular clergy, he at this moment pos- sesses the command of an army of a million priests, governed by a thousand bishops and archbishops—the generals and lieutenant-generals of this disci- plined host. Is such a power to be treated in the same manner as the Wes- leyan Conference, or to be associated with the last invention of Scotch Se- ceders ? Bestowing sarcastic comments on the countless changes of the Ministerial bill, he observed that he would vote for the second reading, only for the reasons expressed by Sir Frederick Thesiger—not in any way pledging himself to the ultimate support of the bill before the House. The most carefully worked section of Mr. Disraeli's speech con- sisted of an elaborate depreciation of Sir James Graham. Referring to a phrase used by Sir James, that the bill is a "reversal of a policy," he recalled with political irony the instances in which he had "heard that phrase before." Sir James "was one of our foremost men ; and according to the not over-delicate intimation of his friends, soon to occupy a still more responsible position. He wore the white robe—he stood in the forum a candidate for the Consulship ; and it would be well if the people of this country would pause over a few of the observations that he had made 'strange and singular,' in the course of this session. Mr. Disraeli proposed one day a remission of taxation to suffering farmers : the right.honour- able gentleman threatened him with a mutiny in the Army. (Laughter.) Some elections took place not favourable to the views of the limited but ac- complished school of the right honourable gentleman : he threatened them with Parliamentary reform. A measure was brought forward which, accord- ing to the description of the Ministers, was to resist a foreign aggression, hostile to the honour of the nation and the supremacy of the Sovereign : the right honourable gentleman said, 'You will have a rebellion in Ireland.' (" Hear! " and laughter.) Now in the course of eight weeks these were three very remarkable assertions to be made, and should have been well con- sidered indeed. Were they calculated to support those who at that moment might be a little uncertain in their mind—to encourage those that were timid, and protect those that were peaceably inclined ? Was the right honourable gentleman, after all, with this programme of his policy, the pilot to weather the storm.' " (Cheers and laughter.) Sir GEORGE GREY closed the debate with a rapid reply. He noticed the remarkable absence of any one fixed or definite principle on which the objections to legislation and to the particular measure had been founded, except in the speech of Mr. Gladstone ; and with his principle, that they must deal with the question on grounds of imperial policy, Sir George entirely agreed. He concluded with an appeal to the national spirit of independence, and a reference to the jealousy, worthy to be imitated, of our forefathers, against these encroachments of the Court of Rome. The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY rose to reply on behalf of his amend- ment that the bill be read a second time that day six months ; but he was not allowed by the SPEAKER. The House divided—
For the second reading 438 Against it 95 Anti-Papal majority 343 The bill was read a second time.
CHANCERY REFORM.
An instalment of those measures for improving "the administration of justice in the several departments of Law and Equity," which were promised in the Queen's Speech, was introduced to the notice of the House of Commons by Lord J-01D1 RUSSELL, on Thursday night, with a speech " stating the whole views of the Government" in reference to the office of Lord Chancellor and all that is connected with his high functions.
Lord John opened with some statistics, to establish what is hardly doubted —that the present judicial force of the Courts of Chancery is inadequate to the work of those courts. In Michaelmas 1850, the number of appeals and motions before the Lord Chancellor was 117; of cases before the Master of the Rolls, 90; of cases before the Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce, 392 ; and of cases before Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth, 173 ; total, 772. In Hilary term 1851, these numbers were respectively, 106, 135, 435, and 340 ; in all, 1016 ; an aggregate increase of 244. The Lord Chancellor is at the head of the Court of Chancery—hearing some original motions, and rehearing the cases from the other judges ; he is presidingjudge in the House of Lords sitting as a court of appeal ; he has various administrative functions as custodian of the Great Seal ; he is a member of the Cabinet, and as such their adviser on all political questions, and especially on all those which relate to the constitution, the amendment of the law, and the administration of the law in cases of difficulty ; he is the adviser of the Royal Family in all cases of doubt and difficulty concern- ing their interests: and in consequence of all these functions he is placed in various high situations. There are advantages and disadvantages accruing from this position. It is of great advantage that the Government should have the aid and authority of a person who has risen by his talents at the bar to the highest eminence ; and of equal advantage to the House of Lords that its judgments should be delivered by a man whose talent, labour, and toil !may have raised him from the humblest station, above all other competitors : this is one of the many links of the constitution con- necting the most aristocratic body in the country with humble merit and ability unaided by birth or fortune. But a chief disadvantage of the po- sition is, that its functions are so weighty that it seems hardly possible that any one man can be found adequate to perform the whole. As the Chancellor must be a man whose general political sentiments agree with the Executive Government, it is "also a manifest disadvantage " that when a change in the Government happens, the country loses all the benefit of his accumulated experience, and of his judgment in the court over which he has pre- sided. This last consideration has been often before the country ; it has weighed with men of various minds and dispositions ; and various remedial plans have been proposed. In 1836, Lord Langdale proposed that there should be a permanent judge in the Court of Chancery, and a permanent Lord President in the House of Lords; and that a separate officer, a Keeper of the Great Seal, or Minister of Justice, should belong to the Ministry, and have the sole care of framing, correcting, and advising, on such changes of the law as Government and Ministers should propose. Though agreeing with first ideas of theoretical separation between political and judicial function, that plan would hardly in practice be found beneficial. In fact, the objection to mixed political and judicial functions is not in the particular case well founded or important. It might hold good, notwith- standing the examples of Lord Mansfield and Lord Ellenborough, in the cases of judges in criminal cases ; but the opinion seems sound that in vivid courts political bias never sways the judge. The political impartiality of Judge Jeffreys could not much be vaunted, but Lord Abinger has stated that his decisions on mere matters of property were highly equitable, and have ever been regarded with respect as precedents. There could scarcely be cited a man of stronger political feelings than Lord Hardwicke, nor one who had decided the cases of property before him with less reference to the political opinions of the suitors. That considera- tion is therefore of practically no effect. But considerations on the other side are very weighty. The House of Commons would speedily raise complaints against giving one mere political member of the Cabinet a salary and retiring pension disproportioned to the salaries and pensions of the rest ; and would call for assimilation : but the consequence of that would be, that the permanent offices of the Judge in the House of Lords and the Judge in Chgcery, and even of the Judges in the Common Law Courts, would be more sought after, and would become the prize of men of higher standing; and then the result might be, that the Cabinet would be liable to have their decisions, founded on the authority of the Minister of Justice, overthrown by the higher authority of the more competent Judges of the land. He did not see that the functions proposed to be given to the Keeper of the Seals, or Minister of Justice, could not be better performed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in that House or the House of Lords. It did not require so high an officer to superintend bills, and see that their language is concise and correct: moreover, he must say that he never perceived the great lawyers in Parliament, with all their acuteness in the prosecution of reform in the law, so clever when they came to put their views into shape as the practical men whose official business it was to prepare and revise the measures that were brought
before Parliament,—as, for example, Mr. Gregson, who assisted in the prepa- ration of the Reform Bill, or as the present most able Parliamentary assistant of the Government, Mr. Coulson. The Executive would sink in weight under Lord Langdale's plan, and the judicial machinery would have no corresponding gain. Another plan proposed to withdraw from the Chancellor the judicial functions of the Court of Chancery, but leave to him the judicial title and duties of Lord Chancellor as judge appellate in the House of Lords. But Lord Lyndhurst and other great authorities in the other House think that the Lord Chancellor would lose weight and authority if he did not act as a judge in the daily practice of the law : and that view was so strong in the House of Lords that the plan was rejected by 94 to 29. A third plan, pro- posed by Sir Edward Sugdcn, and entitled to all the respect due to his great learning, acuteness, and observation, proposed to form an intermediate court of appeal formed of several Judges, these Judges to be chiefly the Vice-Chan- cellors : but an objection exists to that plan which seems of fatal effect— namely, that it would deprive the several Courts of Chancery of their Judges, and paralyze the action of all those courts. However? there is a growing opinion in all quarters, that " it is desirable the decisions of the Court of Chancery should not be the decision of a single judge, but the decisions of more than one judge." The wear and tear of single responsibility is im- mense, and the authority of single opinion is not equal to that of combined opinion.
The bill he should propose goes on the foundation that it is desirable to- have more than one judge in the Court of Chancery ; that "the wear ani tear on the unassisted office being so great, and political functions and atten- tion to political matters, and to reforms of the law, being desirable in the Lord Chancellor, it is expedient to this end that the Lord Chancellor should have a greater portion of his time than he now has for the -consideration of these things.', It proposes that a court should be established, to be called the Supreme Court in Chancery, or the Lord Chancellor's Court ; and in that court should sit the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of the Judges of the Courts of Law, to be summoned from time to time for that purpose. The present state of business in the Common Law Courts is such that it will not be difficult for those Courts to lend the assistance of one Judge for the performance of the duty in question. Any of the two Judges of the Supreme Court shall have all the power and authority of the Court of Chancery which the Lord Chancellor now possesses. Thus the Lord Chan- cellor "will not be so entirely absorbed " in the discharge of his duties " as not to have time for the discharge of the other important functions which he will be called upon to exercise." The Government has considered the question of salary with reference to the proposition of the Committee on Salaries, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor be reduced to 8000/. - they propose that the salary shall be 10,000/., and the retiring pension 50001.
Another point Lord John referred to with feelings of personal delicacy, i because, as First Lord of the Treasury, be has an interest in the proposal he makes. The Government has considered the proposal of the Commission last year, which reported in favour of selling all the ecclesiastical patronage of
the Lord Chancellor, and has conic to a decision totally adverse to it,—first, because they thought it unadvisable to deal with a great public trust by sell- ing the property attached to it to whomsoever might offer the best price ; and secondly, because they were of opinion that such a separation of a great part of the Church from connexion with the State was in itself not at all de- sirable. The Cabinet proposes that this patronage shall be vested in the Crown ; and that the Ministers of the Crown should take the pleasure of the Sovereign with regard to the dispensing of it, in the same way as they do with respect to the ecclesiastical patronage at present vested in the Crown.
In conclusion, Lord John assured the House, that he should be misleadingit if he allowed it to suppose that, by introducing this measure, he would be carrying into effect all the propositions which the Government and the Lord Chancellor would have to offer for improving the administration of justice. Glancing at the Commissions of inquiry on the practice and procedure of the Common Law and Equity Courts, he intimated that the result of their deli- berations would be to prevent delays—" to prevent the transfer of causes from one court to another," and to dismiss all mere technicalities which in- terfere with the real substance and merits of the case.
He moved for leave to bring in his bill.
The Ministerial measure was received with adverse criticisms by those legal Members who were able to understand its provisions well enough to speak upon them at once. Mr. JOHN STUART especially objected to the arrangement on the ground that the Master of the Rolls has already been unable to sit a sufficient number of days to transact the current business of his court. Suitors are already placed in a position alike grievous to them and dis- graceful to the Government. Mr. Stuart himself, as counsel, has found it impossible to obtain for his clients justice urgently required. Under the new arrangement, are the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Com- mon Law Judge, to work in succession to different hours of the night ? or is it proposed that the business of Chancery is to be transacted without a Chan- cellor ?
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER felt that serious difficulties would attend the measure.
It is hard to understand how the Master of the Rolls can give his attention to appeals without a total suppression of the Rolls Court as a court of ordi- nary jurisdiction : its business must at least be frequently interfered with, at a time when, as Lord John has shown, thejudicial force of the Court of Chancery requires an increase. He could not help thinking that the diffi- culty of the case lay not in the mind or disposition of the noble Lord, but in an apprehension, which he thought unworthy, that the country would not pay the necessary expense of administering justice. ff there were no such difficulty, the Government would say at once, " The Lord Chancellor wants assistance—give him that assistance." They had five Judges in each of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer • but in Chancery they had only five Judges sitting in dif- ferent courts. Then why not appoint two new Judges, with proper salaries, as assessors to the Lord Chancellor ? But if the country would not find the money, he thought that by consolidating the Court of Bankruptcy with the Court of Chancery, of which it was originally a branch, they would probably be able to throw all the accountants' business of the Courts of Chancery and Bankruptcy together, and withdraw from those courts either Masters or Commissioners to the necessary extent to provide a fund out of which they might pay one or more additional Judges in Chancery.
Mr. STUART WourLEv also feared that Government is cramped by some unfortunate influence, for which the House itself is responsible—the in- fluence of that spirit of false economy which is the real and only impedi- ment to efficient reform in this branch of legislation. Mr. HEADLAM de- clared, that the evils incident to the delay in the Court of Chancery are almost incredible. The costs of delay, in one case within his knowledge, are a thousand pounds a year, independently of the fees of the court. Lord Jonx RUSSELL expressed obligations for the suggestions made, in what he was sure was a friendly spirit : they should be considered.
He had omitted to state, that with respect to the offices under the Lord Chancellor, he believed considerable reforms might be made by consolidat- ing some of them, at the same time preserving efficient officers to aid the Lord Chancellor in the performance of some of his most important duties. 4:10 had purposely avoided allusion to the appellatejurisdiction, as attention can be better sailed to that subject in the House of lords.
'Leave given to bring in the bill.
SALE OF ARSENIC.
A1the third reading of the Sale of Arsenic Regulation Bill, the Earl of 'CARLISLE moved the introduction of clauses suggested by various corre- spondents.
He now proposed to make it imperative that the purchaser as well as the seller Should isi,en his name, with the view of giving an additional clue to his identity. No person shall sell less than ten pounds of arsenic except in the presence of a witness known to the seller. Some colouring matter shall be mixed with arsenic, so as to prevent its being mistaken for flour, meal, carbonate of soda, and the like; and no person shall sell less than ten pounds weight of uncoloured arsenic, unless on the statement by the purchaser, be- fore the witness known to the seller, that the introduction of the adventi- tious eolouring matter would be injurious. The colouring matter which will be 'cheapest, and at the same time of no injurious effect, will be soot. Lord Carlikle is confirmed by his further inquiries in the belief that it will be un- wise to clog the measure with restrictions on the sale of any other poisons than arsenic.
Bill read a third time, and clauses added passed.
STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH THE EAST.
The subject of steam communication with India was brought under the attention of the House of Commons by Viscount JOCELYN, in a motion for a Select Committee, seemingly with the object of keeping the atten- tion of the public on the delay which accrues from the differences between the Government, the East India Company, and the great Steam Com- pany interests which wish to secure the contracts. Viscount NAAS moved MI the resolution proposed by Viscount Jocelyn an amendment, with the object of securing primary attention to the neglected claims of the Aus- tralian -Colonies. Within a short period they have actually sent an appeal •to the. United States to undertake a service from Panama which ,they despair of their own country's performing. Mr. An- DEELBY -joined the discussion with censure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having acted on the full information already acquired in relation to the packet-service of Australia. Three years ago, Lord Grey had so entirely made up his mind on the subject, that he called on the Legislative Council of Australia to vote 60001. a year towards carry- ing on .a steam communication. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended himself from the collateral attacks made on him ; but intimated that he had already approved of the motion for a Committee, as a means that would be very likely to enable the Government to do what they are anxious as early as possible to accomplish. Ultimately, the following re- solution was agreed to by the House—
".That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existing steam communication with India and China, and into the practicability of effecting any improvement therein ; and also into the best mode of establishing steam communication between England, India, China, Australia, and New Zealand, or any of them, as well as any points upon the several routes between them."
THE SPANISH TARIFF.
Mr. _ANDERSON called attention to the Spanish differential duties on im- ports by British ships—the very illiberal conduct of Spain to all the ship- ping of all the world, and her especial and unjust illiberality to British shipping. He moved a resolution affirming the expediency of levying countervailing duties on Spanish shipping ; but explained that he voted for abolition of the Navigation-laws, still approves of that vote, and does not in the least propose any reversal of the policy he then supported. Mr. MOFFAT seconded the motion, on the ground that Spain is guilty of a com- plete infraction of our treaty giving us the right of the most favoured na - Lion she admits France to her coasting trade, but excludes us. Mr. Lazioueatsits avowed that the conduct of Spain is really most un- friendly : she refuses any convention with us. If she persist, Go- vernment must ask the House for certain powers to deal with Spanish vessels without any convention at all. But the matter now forms the subject of active correspondence, and would be better left in the hands of Government.. The subject called forth expressions of opinion by Mr. HUME, Mr. Mrissreit Gummy, and other Mem- bers, and a statement by Lord PALMERSTON in a tone of mingled jocu- larity at the backwardness of Spain and gentle coercion ; ending with a request that the motion be withdrawn. Mr. BARNES, however, protests ed against the withdrawal : if the Government were sincere in taking powers to retaliate under their new Navigation Act, surely this was a case to exercise those powers. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had to oppose some weight df persuasion against the opposition of Mr. Bankes. The matter went at last to a division ; and the motion was negatived, by 98 to 53.
FOREIGN REFUGEES.
The attention of the House of Lords was engaged on Thursday by a voice not often heard there now—that of Lord LYNDHURST ; who warned the Government respecting the tranquillity of the country as it may be affected by the European plottings of the foreign refugees to whom we grant an asylum. i There is in this city an association of persons who style themselves "The Central National Italian Committee "; whose avowed object is to keep up a spirit of insurrection in Italy, with the view of ultimately establishing a central republic in that country. They have opened a loan, composed of shares—of which Lord Lyndhurst has some, of small amount, in his pos- session—with the object of purchasing arms and munitions of war to further their insurrectionary designs ; and on these shares have raised considerable sums of -money in Paris and in Italy—the shares being openly sold in the Stock Market of Genoa. The fact that this loan is publicly advertised in this country, under the eyes of her Majesty's Government, must create a belief among the revolutionists of Italy that her Majesty's Government are favourable to their designs. There is another society, called " The Central Democratic European Committee," which has issued a pro- clamation for the avowed object of accomplishing a simultaneous insurrection in every- part of Europe. Mazzini, one of the ex-Triumvirs of Rome, repro- -seats-Italy ; a member of the Constituent Assembly of Frankfort represents Germany ; a well-known Pole, Poland ; and France is represented by Ledru Rollin—" a person who was driven from France, and took refuge in this country, and who, to show his gratitude for the protection we afforded to him, published an atrocious libel against the people and government of this coun- try, accompanied by observations of a character so malignant as only to be defeated by their extravagance and absurdity." Another association styles itself "The Central Committee of Hungarian Exiles" ; of which General Slapka, the commander of the fortress of Comorn, is a leading member. A large body of the -Hungarians were driven from Austria into Lombardy, and were incorporated into the Austrian army in Lombardy. General Klapka has signed a proclamation to those Hungarians, couched in language of a most inflammatory character, and containing tokies also of a most inflam- matory and exciting description ; calling upon t em to desert their ranks ; pointing out to them how they could do this most effectually and most de- structively to Austria; instructing them how to act in the event of a war, what signals would be made, and what cooperation they would receive. The Government must be anxious to put an end to such unwarrantable pro- ceedings. It might be difficult to conduct a public prosecution ; at all events, that would be slow in its progress and uncertain in its result : Lord Lynd- hurst therefore suggested, in the strongest manner, the propriety of re- enacting, with some slight modification, the act which was allowed to expire during last session. It is not his wish to expel these persons; the bare pos- session of the power would cheek the evil. A large proportion of these men are of desperate character and desperate fortunes, hostile to all regular go- vernment, accustomed to arms, and ready to embark in any adventure of a bold and daring kind. It is circulated on the Continent, that one of the Committees mentioned has repeated its agents on the Continent to send to this country as many " men of action" as they can possibly furnish. ("Hear, hear ! ") Ought we not therefore to adopt measures of precaution ? Earl GREY said, he had not been made aware that this very important subject would be introduced that evening, or he would have placed him- self in communication with Lord Palmerston and Sir George Grey. He did not think it expedient at present to say more than that Sir George Grey has his attention moat closely directed to the alleged proceedings of certain parties in this country ; and has under his consideration what steps it may be necessary to adopt on the subject. As to the suggestion made, he thought nothing but a case of the greatest urgency and flagrant necessity would justify Parliament in asking for unusual or arbitrary powers. The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that Lord Grey had not stated his disapprobation of the proceedings in question. Earl GREY confessed him- self humiliated by the implication : of course, no refugee has a right to abuse the protection he enjoys for purposes so mischievous ; the Govern- ment disapproves of such courses as strongly as Lord Aberdeen.
RAJAH BROOKE AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN.
In reply to Mr. HUME—who put his questions to the Foreign Secretary and Under-Secretary for the Colonies, with formal alternation from one to the other—Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. HAWES stated, that Sir James Brooke still holds the appointments of her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul-General to -the Sultan and Chiefs of Borneo ; that Sir James still remains Governor of Labuan ; and that our Government has received in- formation that a treaty of commerce between the United States and Sara- wak has been proposed—Sarawak is not British territory. The question of Mr. Hume implied that the United States have recognized Rajah. Brooke as the independent Sovereign of Sarawak ; but Lord Palmerston did not deal directly with that implication.
Previous page
