26 JULY 1851, Page 2

Vehatr3 auh rumhtugu iu Varliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOttsg op Lotto& Monday, July 21. Inhabited Houses Bill, passed through Counnittee—Ectlesiastical Titles Assumption Bill; second reading moved by the Marquis of Lansdowne; debate adjourned.

Thesday. July 22. Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill; debate continued, and second reading carried by 265 to 38.

Thursday, July 2L Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill, read a second time. Friday, July 25. Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, passed through Com- mittee.

House. or Coarvoss. Saturday, July 19. Supply : Fees for the Interment of Queen Adelaide'. the Church in the Colonies; Sir De Lacy Evans and Admiral Dundas—Mercant.le Marine Amendment Bill, and other Bills, passed through Com- mittee.

Monday, July 21. Mr. Alderman Salomons ; the Jew Member for Greenwich en- ters the Honer, votes, and speaks; but is removed by the Sergeant at Arms ; De- bates and divisions on the subject—Several Bills advanced a stage. Tuesday, July 22. At Morning Sitting—Committee on Ways and Means : Case of Ernest Jones. At Evening Sitting—Cape of Good Hope; Questions by Mr. Adder- ley, and Answers by Lord John Russell—Mr. Alderman Salmons; Motion by Lord John Russell, that Mr. Salomons is not entitled to sit or vote; Amendment by Mr. Bethell, rejected by 118 to 71; after two divisions, Lord John Russell consents to ad- journ the debate- Metropolitan Interment ; Vote of Money-advance postponed. Wednesday, July 23. New Writ for Limerick ; Mr. John O'Connell resigned—At- tornies' Certificate Bill, thrown out on the second reading—Administration of Cri- minal Justice Improvement Bill, and Valuation (Ireland) Bill, considered in Com- mittee.

'Thursday, July 24. At Morning Sitting—Medical Charities (Ireland) Bill, consi- dered in Committee. At Evening Sitting—Episcopal Incomes: Questions by Sir Benjamin Ilall ; Letter from the Archbishop of York read by Lord John Russell— Registration of Assurances Bill, postponed by Lord John Russell to next Session- Co..tmlis ; Mr. Herries's Motion on the Navigation-laws, debated, and with- drawn: Customs Bill read a third time and passed—General Board of Health (No. 2) Bill, read a second time, and Bill No. 3 read a third time.

Friday, July 2Z. At Morning Sitting—Steam Navigation Bill, and other Bills, passed through Committee. At Evening Sitting—Mr. Alderman Salomons ; Peti- tions from Greenwich Electors to be heard by counsel—Baron Lionel de Roth- schild; Petition from Electors of the City of London-!Legislation for Ireland; Com- plaint by Mr. Reynolds—Bishop of Rochester; Explanations by Sir John Pakington —Patent-laws Amendment Bill, read a second time—Distress in the Highlands— Metropolitan Interment; Money-advance Vote carried by 50 to 26.

TIME- TABLE.

The Commons.

llour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment,

Saturday Noon .... 5h lim Monday 4h .(m) lh 45in Tuesday Noon ....3h loin

64 .(,n) 111 45m

Wodnoiday Noon .... 6h em Thursday Num..... 3h Om

5h . (ns) 21i 40m

Friday Noon .... in dim

Ili 30in

Sittingsthis Weiss, 9; Timc,56h Oro — this Session. 118; — 808h 23in

The Lords.

Hour of Hearst

Meeting. Adjournment,

Monday Oh .... 12h 30in Tuesday Oh .pti.) 3h 50m.

Wednesday No sitting. Thursday Oh . 7h 40m Friday 5h . 1211 45m

Sittings this e, it, 4; Tune,28h 45m — this Session, 84; — ISIS Olin ADMISSION OF ALUMINIUM L.OMONS.

Mr. Salomona renewed. contestafor hisasst on Monday night.

. Belbre Our regplar dimusiton begun,. tie. SPEAKER read a letter which he Ind receivadifrom Ifelomonsf, Taxan g out that all notice of his deemed to sulasaibe tlat toollaief abjestatiosaairdtsleclare to his property qualification had been °milled: from-theminutee, and requesting that the minutes might be amendeta The Speaker explained, that as the demand was made after he had requested Mr. Salomons to withdraw, the state- ment referred to in the letter was not before the House.

The debate forthwith commenced. Sir BENJAMIN Hatt asked whether Lord John Russell would authorize the Attorney-General to prosecute

Mr. Salomons for the course he had pursued ? Lord Jorev.Russett re- plied, that Ministers were " not at present disposed to think that they ought to prosecute." On the suggestion of Sir Benjamin, Mr. Salomons now entered, amidst vehement cries of " Order !" and " Chair !" interspersed with cheering ; and took his seat below the gangway on the Ministerial side. The

SPEAKER called upon bim to withdraw ; which not being complied with, the cries of " Withdraw !" became loud and angry. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose amid the storm, and Mr. OSBORNE ran up to the Speaker and placed a paper in his hand. Mr. Salomons was again requested to withdraw. He did not move; and the SPEAKER said, that since his order was not obeyed, it remained with the House to enforce it. On this appeal, Lord Jona Russ= moved that Mr. Alderman Salo- mons be ordered to withdraw from this House. To this Mr. OSBORNE

moved an amendment, to the effect that, Mr. Salomons having taken the

oaths in the manner most binding on his conscience, he is entitled to take his seat. Loud cries instantly demanded a division ; but Mr. ANSTEY

rose, and, amidst much interruption, referred to the omission in the

minutes ; and then, annoyed at the molestation of the voices, he moved the adjournment of the debate. This motion was negatived by 257 to 65. Mr. MILNER Gnome here got up an episode by asking the Speaker whether he could refer to any past minute of their proceedings in which

the sense of the act prescribing the form of the oath would appear: he

did not know that in the present session the sense of the House had been taken. The SPMAKER said, he had referred on Friday to the direct vote

of last session, which formally decided that Baron Rothschild was not entitled to sit in the House because he had not taken the oath in the form prescribed. Mr. Gmsoar was proceeding with his interpellations, but

Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected—it was not convenient" for honourable Members to "enter into debate with the Speaker." He believed the Speaker had acted with perfect propriety.

Mr. ANSTEY now made a speech of tremendous length, importing that Jews might take the oath without the concluding words ; that the impo- sition of the oath was illegal ; and that even if legal, it had in-the present case been properly taken. At the close a this speech, the gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place. Mr. Ossemez attempted to speak, but was stopped, because he had forfeited his right to speak on the original motion by giving in an amendment. All thoughts of division for the present seemed given up, and the dis- cussion continued. Mr. HOBHOUSE suggested that Mr. Salomons should sit and vote if he liked to incur the penalties.

The Arronsmv-Gesrmisr. could not consent to that course. The House had a duty to perform ; they were- called upon to obey as well as to en- force the law. He had come to the conclusion, partly from the statutes and partly from the decision last session, that the oath had not been taken, and therefore that Mr. Salomons could not be admitted. Mr. Mitnen.

Gases/ contended that the oath had been taken. He would like to know why, if honourable Members opposite were convinced that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were of the essence and substance of the oath, they had allowed the honourable Member for Greenwich to be sworn on the Old Testament. The Somerroe-Gesenet gave a decided opinion,

that unless the decision of last session were reversed, Mr. Salomons ought not to be permitted to take his seat. Lord Jinni RUSSELL concurred with the Solicitor-General. It would be monstrous to admit Mr. Salomons while the resolution excluding Baron Lionel de Rothschild remained urn- reversed. Lord John entered into the law state of the case to show that there was great distinction between the case of the Quakers and that of the Jews : there were distinct statutes which permitted the form of the oath to be altered generally in the ease of Quakers, but only specially in the case of the Jews. Mr. Barr:aux was ready to contend that the oath had been well and legally taken by Mr. Salomons. Mr. Salomons has a right to demand to take the oath, and he has a concurrent right to de- mand that it should be administered in the way most binding on his con-

science. Such are the principles of the common law. Mr. Salomons' then, had a clear right to take his seat. The statute law also is in his

favour. When the House conceded the point that a man might be

sworn on the Old Testament, that concession ought to be consistently followed out. Sir FREDERICK Timm-Gen disputed every point in Mr.

Beaten's speech except the last ; for he admitted that the concession was a mistake. In the course of some further debate, Mr. Cnownen ob- served, that "lawyers on each side had said there was not a, shadow of a doubt upon the matter" : he had no doubt himself; but he declared at the same time against the admission of Mr. Salomons under the circum- stances. Ultimately the House divided on Mr. Osborne's amendment; which was negatived by 229 by 81. Mr. Salomons, who had voted in the division on the adjournment earlier in the evening, and who did not vote on Mr. Osborne's amend- ment, as it was personal, now entered the House from behind the Speak- er's chair, amid shouts of " Withdraw !" Regardless of the noise, he again took his seat below the Ministerial gangway.

After more resultless debating, Mr. HOBHOUSE said that Mr. Salomons would weaken his position if he did not rise and briefly state to the House the course he intended to pursue : he had claimed his right to sit, but not to speak. On this Mr. SALOMONS rose : the loud cries of "Withdraw !" were quickly stifled in the cheers which followed. He said-

" I should not have presumed to address you, Sir, and this House, in the peculiar position in which I am placed; had it not been. that I have been so forcibly appealed to by the honourable gentlemen who has just sat down. I

hope some allowance will be made for the novelty of my position, and for the responsibility that I feel in the unusual course which I have judged it right to adopt ; but I beg to assure you, Sir, and this House, that it is far from my desire to do anything-that may appear contumacious or presumptuous. Re- turned, as I have been, by a large constituency, and under no disability, and believing that I have fulfilled all the requirements of the law, I thought I thould not be doing justice to my own position as an Englishman or a gen- tleman, did I not adopt that course which I believed to be right and proper, and appear on this floor, not meaning any disrespect to you, Sir, or to this House, but in defence of my own rights and privileges, and of the rights and privileges of the constituents who have sent me here. Having said this, I begto state to you, Sir, that whatever be the decision of this House, I shall abide by it, provided there be just sufficient force used to make me feel that lam acting under coercion. I shall not now further intrude myself upon the House, ex- cept to say that I trust and hope, that, in the doubtful state of the law, such as it has been described to be by the eminent lawyers who have addressed you, no severe measure will be adopted towards me and my constituents, without giving me the fairest opportunity of addressing the House, and stating before the House and before the country what I believe to be my rights and the rights of my constituents. I believe the House never will refuse what no court ever refuses to the meanest subject in the realm, but will hear me be- fore its final decision is pronounced." (Much cheering.)

After this there was little debate. Mr. OSBORNE suggested to Mr. Salomons that he would do well not to leave his seat until taken into cus- tody. The House divided again on the adjournment of the debate ; which was negatived by 237 to 75 ; and at once proceeded to divide on the original motion, "That Mr. David Salomons be ordered to with- draw " : the numbers were—for the motion, 231; against it, 81; ma- jority, 150. The SPEAKER now directed Mr. Salomons to withdraw ; but as he did not comply, the Sergeant at Arms touched him lightly on the shoulder. Mr. Salomons stood up and said he yielded; and the Sergeant at Arms conducted him beyond the bar.

Mr. OSBORNE asked whether, Mr. Salonions having taken his seat, voted three times, and spoken, Ministers 'would now prosecute him ? Lord Joula RUSSELL thought that if the Member for Greenwich wished to be prosecuted, he would be able to find some person who would prose- cute him. (Laughter and cheers.) On Tuesday, the subject was resumed ; Lord JOHN RUSSELL bringing on the motion of which he had given notice-

" That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abjura- tion in the form appointed by law." The House now assumed the gravity of a court of justice. After the speech of Lord John Russell, the debate fell almost entirely into the hands of the lawyers.

Lord Josue RUSSELL grounded his opinion upon the fact that there was a power in all persons who had to administer oaths, whenever oaths had to be taken, to administer an affirmation to Quakers. There was no such general law with regard to the Jews. He admitted the hardship, but there was a clear difference between the state of the law when Mr. Pease came to take his seat, and that when Baron Lionel de Rothschild came to take his seat.

Mr. ANSTEY proposed that the Attorney-General be directed, to pro- secute Mr. Salomons, awl so try the question. But he gave way for Mr. Barnett, who moved,

"That Baron de Rothschild and Mr. Alderman Salomons having taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and also the oath of abjuration, in the manner in which this House is bound by law to administer the said oaths, are entitled to take their seats as Members of this House."

Mr. Bethell's argument was a development of the opinion lie maintained on Monday night, supported by reference to the acts of Parliament on the subject. kis main positions were, that the 1st of George I. made the taking of the oath of abjuration obligatory upon all Members of Parliament; that the 9th George 1. made that obligation universal, affecting all the members of the community ; and that the 10th George I. declared that "the rule already existing in courts of justice with regard to the administration of the oath to Jews, should be adopted in other courts and places." Therefore, the Legislature took the common law principle, that an oath should be ad- ministered in the way most binding on the conscience of the taker, and made it applicable to the oath of abjuration; which was a political oath—a mere creature of the Legislature, and not recognized at common law. He further contended, that in the case of Mr. Pease, the House had no other authority for altering the oath than the general authority so to apply the formula that the oath might be administered in the manner most bind- ing on the conscience of the taker. The House was bound to administer the oath to the Jew ; the Jew was bound to take it. But, if the House held it- self bound to administer it with the annexation of the particular formula in question, it would confess that the law had placed it in this position, that it was bound to act and yet unable to act. In short, the House had been reasoning from false premises, and had brought itself into a false position, iii which it recognized an obligation without having the power to perform it, admitted a right and yet was obliged to negative it. The principle it recog- nized was followed to a certain extent by the admission of the Jew's right to take the oath, and upon the Old Testament; but the position was not fol- lowed to its legitimate consequences. These views were accepted by Mr. EVANS, Mr. AGLIONEY, and Mr. ANSTEY; opposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. NAPIER.. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave a history of the oath, to show that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were to be considered essential, and that it was so intended by the successive Parliaments who altered the oaths. He agreed that it was not intended to apply to the Jew; but it did apply, and the only way to get rid of the hardship was by consent of Parliament Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND and Sir ROBERT Imams also spoke; the former taking up the position, that, though he would readily vote for a bill to ex- clude Jews directly, yet he did not like to exclude them by the indirect Operation of' statutes never intended to include them. He also thought that "they had sold the pass" by permitting the oaths to be sworn on the Old Testament. When the House divided, the numbers were—for Mr. Bothell's amendment, 71; against it, 118; majority against the amendment, 47. When the Speaker put Lord John Russell's resolution, Mr. %war suggested that it should be postponed, as, on a question of such extreme legal doubt, the Member for Greenwich had a right to be heard, either by himself or by counsel, at the bar of the House. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL altogether objected to delay or inquiry, as unnecessary. The only way, he thought, was for Mr. Salomons himself to be heard at the bar. Ultimately the amendment was negatived by 190 to 69. In the course of the foregoing discussion, Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON accused Lord John Russell of not believing in the soundness of his own arguments, because he had neither caused a new writ to be issued, nor Prosecuted the "sitting Member," nor given him into the custody of the

Sergeant at Arms. Mr. Thompson subsequently moved that the follow- ing words be added to Lord John Russell's resolution-

" And that this House, having regard to the religious scruples of the ho- nourable Member for Greenwich, will exercise its undoubted privilege in that behalf, and proceed forthwith to cause such alterations to be made in the form and mode of administering the said oath as will enable the honour- able Member to take and subscribe the same."

The debate, hitherto comparatively quiet, 'became henceforth noisy and personal.

Lord Jona' RUSSELL attacked Mr. Bright and others, and ultinndely Mr. George Thompson— There had been declamation against his conduct on the part of the honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets ; who, forsooth, when Lord John was endea- vouring to persuade the House to agree to a law which should admit the Jews into Parliament, was lecturing or travelling in America, and totally ne- glecting the interests of a numerous body of constituents of the Hebrew per- suasion ; and he now came forward, as the House had heard, having refrained from giving his vote when that vote might have had great influence and might have contributed to change the result. (Much cheering.)

Taking up and continuing his defence against the charge of maintaining disgraceful legislation, he said, he thought it would be his duty to bring in some measure which should relieve the Jews from their disabilities, and that it was a matter fairly to be considered, whether the bill to be brought in should be exactly in the shape in which the bill was brought in this year ; whether it should or not be a bill which should alter oaths, which he con- curred with Mr. Reynolds in thinking in an unsatisfactory state.

Mr. BETHELL said a few words, characterizing Lord John's proposition as a " miserable truism," quite unworthy, indeed ridiculous, to go forth as the result of these deliberations.

The House divided ; and the motion for adjournment was yet again ne- gatived, by 207 to 59. But the Opposition gained their point, and the debate was adjourned till Friday.

On Thursday, however, Sir BENJAMIN Ham., having informed Lord John Russell that he had a petition to present from the borough of Green- wich, praying to be heard at the bar, it was agreed that the debate should be resumed and the petition presented on Monday.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

The second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was moved in the House of NUS 011 Monday, by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in a speech which seemed to aim at brevity and the introduction of few topics for debate.

At the outset, he confessed that it was peculiarly painful to take any part which might by misrepresentation, by misconstruction, or by misapprehen- sion, be deemed inconsistent with the course which he had previously pur- sued, or injurious to the feelings of a body whom he so faithfully respected for their many virtues and for their loyal qualities. It was' however, some consolation to him that it was not with that body which we had to deal, but with the conduct of foreign powers. ("Hear, hear !" frost Lord Lynd- hurst.) He assumed that he had to show the necessity for new legislution to repel an aggression on the rights and liberties of this Protestant country— (Cries of "Rear, hear !" from alt sides of the house) —and to show that the proposed enactment would not place any new impediment in the way of the exercise or administration of the Roman Catholic religion. (" /fear t" from Lord Lyndhuest.) With these two aims, he sketched the history of the aggression, which had been "committed and avowed without any expla- nation subsequently to relieve the indecorum or insolence of it." To show its grave importance, he quoted the opinion of one of the most learned sad distinguished men this country ever produced, the great John Soblesi, that titles do greatly affect the imaginations and the actions of men ; and the homely but pregnant declaration of one of the wisest sovereigns of this coun- try—Queen Elizabeth—that "she had never allowed nor ever would allow her sheep to be tarred by another shepherd." So establishing the import- ance of the aggression, he held that the very way to encourage the Pope to new aggressions would be to pass over the last with silent acquiescence. Cow.- in to the bill itself, he dismissed it with these words—" he need not re-

! cite its'terms, for it was a short act, already well known to their Lordshipe " ; i and "he trusted it would be passed by a large majority." As to the ember-

! rassments which it was alleged that the bill would cause, the onus seated on ; those who made thee allegations to prove them. According to Lakes case, ! and the acts still in force, the Crown retains the power of appointing bishops to particular bishoprics; and vet, this being so, the functions of the R01131111 Catholic eligion have not in anywise been hindered in their exercise. In fine, though , he did not believe that the Protestant religion rests on acts of Parliament, or contrivances of any kind, but on the sincerity, virtue, and conduct of its professors, yet he deemed it not less incumbent on the country to mark its adherence to Protestant opinions, and its determination to support the Crown in its privileges, connected as they are both with religion and the state. If he were thus addressed—"Because you have given us much, give us more; because you have given us that which is essential to us as citazcea and inhabitants of a free country, allow us to encroach on the prerogative of the Crown " ; if so urged, his answer would be this—" We are disposed to with- draw no privilege we have granted you. We have given you those privi- leges under laws most favourable to you, passed in the last hundred years. Come to London, if you will, and build up a St. Peter's here, although you will not allow us to build up a St. Paul's in Rome. We will graid to. you that which you will not concede to us. We wish you to have those privi- leges undisturbed ; but, while you have tb,exu undisturbed, do not make it part of your system to attack our prerogative, and to usurp that function which beyond all others Parliament has held mast sacred, and which is vested in the Crown and the Crown alone."

The Earl of ABERDEEN prefaced his speech against the bill by keon- fession that he did not imagine he could hope to make much in;ipreasion on their Lordships' minds, or obtain for himself much sympathy or con- currence from any large portion of the House. Arguing that the creation of bishops is a spirituel act, he appealeitto the Prelates of the House who regarded with such care the Apostolienl suc- cession, " how they would feel if the due exercise of that character anl power were to be interfered with, and thwarted, so as to impede the regu- lar function of that principle." Then sketching the "somewhat singu- lar" history of the " three editions of this bill,"—a history "not very creditable,"—and quoting from the speeches of Levi John Russell, he sar- castically contrasted the varying version* of the bill, and the opposing senti- ments of his political opponent. He then went over the legal arguments; aiming to show that Lalor's case applied to jurisdiction and not to the as- sumption of titles; and asking, in reference to prerogative and supre- macy, "what is it ? he knew what it used to be, but what is it at present?" The Prelates of the Established Church, in the first draft of their recent address to the Crown said— " An unparalleled in- sult has been offered to your Majesty's prerogative, and to the Church of which your Majesty is the earthly head in this kingdom." But it was objected that the Queen was not the head of the Church la any such sense as was here set forth. So the next attempt said—" An unwor. rentable insult has been offered to the Church in this kingdom, over which your Majesty's authority is supreme." But even that was not quite the thing.; so' after a little further reflection, they fell back on the words of the 37th Article, which they had all signed, and which must mean something, though it was not easy to say what—" An unwarrantable insult has been offered to the Church, and to your Majesty, to whom appertains the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil." Of course nobody could be displeased with that; but was that the supremacy the attack on which so filled the noble mover of the bill with alarm ? Following out an argument used by the Marquis of Lansdowne, that the Crown still reserves the right to appoint to all sees, Lord Aberdeen ironically suggested, that it might be a very e exercise of the "preroga- tive" to fill up the new Catholic sees with Protestant bishops. Then re- minding the House that the spiritual supremacy of the Queen is utterly re- jected by the Church of Scotland; and passing over the "insult" argument, with the remark that the offensive expressions in the rescript are stereo- typed terms used on all similar occasions, unworthy of notice,—he proceeded to state what would, in his opinion, have been the suitable mode of reply.

If the offence was such as had been described, it was an offence amenable to public law, and ought to be proceeded against by the state diplomatically or otherwise ; and, instead of enacting some wretched penalties against those whose religion compelled them to obedience in this matter, they ought to have addressed themselves to the fountain-head. He knew it may be said, as it had been said, though not by the noble Marquis opposite, that her Ma- jesty's Government to a certain degree had been precluded from taking that course by what happened in that House in 1848, when a bill was brought in to establish diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, and when a clause was proposed and adopted prohibiting the reception here of any Nuncio from the Pope. That might be a very good reason by the way of pretext, but it was no reason that had any force and validity ; for there was nothing in that circumstance to prevent the necessary communications with the Pope on this subject. Look to the great Protestant power on the Continent—Prussia ; that power had always a Minister at Rome, but refused to receive a Nuncio. Look at Russia, a great schismatic power ; she also had a Minister at Rome, and never received a Nuncio. Hanover had a Minister at Rome, and he be- lieved, though he would not be positive, that power never received a Nuncio.

He justified his own vote for the clause which forbade the reception of a Nuncio at this court. By the treaty of Vienna, the Papal Ambassador has precedence of all others, and he did not think it would have been a desirable conjuncture, that at the opening of the Crystal Palace, for instance, [when, according to the original programme, it was proposed that the Diplomatic body should present an address to the Queen,' the Pope's Nuncio should have immediately followed or preceded the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The including of Ireland in the bill he regarded as a logical necessity, for he could not admit that the Queen stood in a different relation to the Esta- blished Church in the two countries; but that should have made the Go- vernment pause the more before bringing forward a measure so pregnant with mischief to Ireland. If the penalties of the bill be strictly en- forced in Ireland—and he devoutly trusts they will not, but that the bill will become a dead letter on the statute-book—but if the bill be strictly enforced, then farewell to peace in that unhappy country. "By a clause, perhaps the most odious in the bill, it is provided that any commu- nication with the See of Rome for the purpose of appointing bishops shall be visited with a penalty, to be recoverable by an informer with the consent of the Attorney-General. Though that is somewhat different from leaving the matter entirely to a common informer, yet it would place the Attorney- General in a position which certainly any Law-officer of the Crown must feel to be most painful, and against which, as he was informed, the present Law- officers of the Crown had strenuously protested. But the clause, if carried into effect, would be attend( d with endless difficulties. A refractory priest censured by his bishop, might go and give information of the bishop having received a bull of the kind referred to, and in a hundred other ways the douse opened the doors to vexatious proceedings. Ile would fain believe that the Government wished to see that clause executed as little as he did ; but others might not share in their wishes, and then there would be a re- newal of those scenes of discord, animosity, and rancour, which for the last twenty years had been gradually subsiding."

In conclusion, he could not help expressing his deep regret at the absence of two noble and learned Peers, two long-tried and able advocates of civil and religious liberty. They were prevented from being present in their Lordships House; but he was in possession of their sentiments, and he knew that, had they been present, they would have expressed the most un- mitigated aversion at the step the Government were about to take. Instead of listening to his feeble advocacy of the cause of religious freedom he wished their Lordships could but have heard and been persuaded by the mild wisdom of Denman and electrified by the fervid eloquence of Brougham. Lord Aberdeen moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

Lord BEAUMONT was aware that he appeared almost isolated in the

• midst of those with whom he is connected by religion ; but he knew from private sources and communications that many of the Roman Catholic body sympathize with him : as they had not dared to come forward and assert their opinion, he had taken upon himself the responsibility of stand- ing alone and abiding the result. His Church had more than the power of communicating freely with the Court of Rome ; it had the perfect power and privilege of having a regular hierarchy if it chose. The Pope might have created a hundred bishops if he had likea, and have given them spiritual jurisdiction in this country. No objection would have been taken had the Pope communicated to the Bishops here, that he not only wished their jurisdiction to be limited in each indi- vidual case, but that, in order to their conveniency, he wished each to be called the Bishop for the Roman Catholics within the district—say of Bir-

mingham or of Beverley—or the Roman Catholic Bishop residing at Bo- I mingham or Beverley. None of these privileges would he take away. But ' the liberty of one church must not be allowed to destroy the liberty of other churches; and it is above all things necessary to be careful that no external power shall coerce parties in this country to destroy anything which savours of national independence. He had asked again and again without effect, what was the difference in a spiritual point of view which would be made by the letters-apostolical. The same curiosity had been raised in the minds of other Roman Catholics by the iuflated and bombastic language of Cardinal Wiseman, Dr. Wiseman had assured the clergy, that this coun- try should go round the sun of Rome in a regular orbit like other planets, and so he had raised their expectations ; but afterwards he stated that the new bishop "is not and will not be one atom more a bishop than he was before." The laity also, although the Roman Catholic laity are entirely ex- cluded from the business of their church, had felt great interest' but they had been answered that there is "no change whatever." Yet the instrument is not, as Lord Aberdeen thinks, a mere matter of form. It annihilates the ancient archbishoprics of Canterbury and York, sweeps away every bishopric existing before the Reformation, makes twelve new bishoprics instead, and then declares any attempt of any person by any authority to set aside that act to be null and void. Anything which the Parliament or the Queen in Council may do contrary to the spirit of the apostolical letter is declared to be null and void;and to be not binding on the consciences of Catholics. Is that the act of a friendly sovereign ? Is it not an ',actual attempt to raise rebellion in the realm? Yes ; the unhappy Catholics have been reduced to this dilemma, that they must either violate the principle of loyalty to the Queen and the constitution of their country, or oppose the authority of the head of their church. The step taken was but the first of a series on the part of the Court of Rome directed against the liberal Catholicism which had grown up in this country. It was intended to bring over to the views of the fanatical converts, whose extravagance and absurd prejudices had brought disgrace on their adopted religion, those honest, liberal, straight- forward Catholics who were satisfied with their position, and endeavoured to conform to the spirit of the free and liberal institutions of their country. Above all, the recent aggression was intended to open the way for the inter- ference of the Court of Rome with the educational establishments of the em- pire—to enable it to destroy the Queen's Colleges and the liberal system of edu- cation prevailing in Ireland—to build, as it were, a wall around Roman Catho- lics, within which their minds should be trained in a system imbued with the spirit of absolutism that existed in the Government of Rome, and to establish something of the nature of an index expurgatorius for science and literature. It is well known that it has recently been announced at Rome that science is deism and geology materialism. It is evident that the design was enter- tained of crushing everything like freedom of conscience and the spirit of in- dependence. That was the object of the movement, and absolutism was used as an instrument by the Ultramontane party to enable them to ef- fect their purposes. In this way Austria had been prevailed upon to aban- don the wise laws of Joseph the Second, and Tuscany those of Leopold. He protested against this act of the Court of Rome, because it was an invasion of civil and religious liberty, and an attempt to stop the progress of science and to throw us back to the darkness of the medieeval ages' and it was be- cause he regarded the bill in the light of a protest, rather than an enact- ment directed against the assumption of titles, that he supported it. As to the precise form of the protest, indicated by the details of the mea- sure, they were by no means to his taste. Perhaps it would have been the wisest course to have done as a noble Earl opposite, with whom be did not often agree, suggested in a letter, and instead of passing such a bill as this— which, of course, was intended to be a dead letter—(Clieers from the (Appeal.- tion)—to have sent a right trusty servant of the Queen to Rome to demand reparation for the insult offered to the Crown of England. Nevertheless, as the bill now before their Lordships is the only measure offered in the way of a national pretest, it should receive his support. The Duke of WELLINGTON recalled to the mind of the House that many years ago it was his fortune to prevail on them to accept the Roman Catholic Relief Act ; and he stated, that as all the provisions of that were maturely considered, he had always objected to any subsequent altera- tions in it.

But he had viewed with alarm the bull and other papers which appeared last year appointing a hierarchy : however, he had never seen the drift of the rescript till he read the attack, entirely undeserved, on the Dean and Chapter of Westminster by Cardinal Wiseman. Then he saw that the object aimed at was "the old antag:onism." But circumstances have occurred which have rendered it impossible to return to the position in which they stood before the Pope's rescript ; for in 1846 the statutes were repealed which related to the introduction of bulls into this country. If those laws had not been repealed the act of the Pope could not have taken effect. Cardinal Wisenian would not have dared to come to England and publish the Pope's bull or rescript establishing the new hierarchy. The thing was impossible ; it could not have happened. But they could not return to that position. He therefore saw that something like this bill must be brought under the consideration of their Lordships, or else he must give his consent to certain alterations of the terms of the Emancipation Act. He confessed he viewed without apprehension the effect which the measure may have on Ireland. He advised their Lordships to do what is just and necessary to maintain the power and prerogatives of the Crown, and to protect the subjects of this country, and no more; and they might rely on the support and good wishes of the loyal people of Ireland as well as of this country. He supported the bill.

The Earl of MALMESEITRT supported the bill. Referring to the views expressed by the Earl of Derby, whose absence on this occasion he sincerely regretted, he expressed his own opinion that their Lordships could not stand still with that bill, which dealt with only one part of the aggression.

The speech of Lord Beaumont must have convinced them of the import- ance of the immense additional powers which have been insinuated into the Roman Catholic hierarchy ; and not only were those points to be investi- gated as closely as possible, but also the synodical powers of the clergy, which, bearing on the consciences of Roman Catholics, might force them to overstep the laws of the land and the monastic establishments. There was still another point which would require to be explained, and that was the mission of a Cardinal to England—a Privy Councillor of the Pope.

Lord BERNER8 spoke against the bill. If a taint had been put on the honour of England, the proposal to send out a fleet to Ancona, little as was the favour it met with from the public, would have been the pro- per one to adopt.

The Duke of ARGYLL, as he rose at a late hour, would go without one word to the main arguments on the case—those of the Earl of Aberdeen. Those arguments were of three kinds; and of the three two were arguments ad hominem—addressed to the bench of Bishops, or to Lord John Russell and his colleagues on points to which the Duke of Argyll need not refer, and to which the Ministers themselves seemed unable to put forward any sort of reply. Turning back the personal mode of argument against Lord Aberdeen himself, the Duke of Argyll recalled a protestation lately made in the House by Lord Aberdeen, that he would not any more than any other person have endeavoured to form a Ministry on the basis of passing over in entire silence the act of the Pope. Lord Aberdeen had not stated how he would hare expressed his opinion, but he must have done it either in respect of the Pope's rescript or of the Cardinal's letter. Than the latter document a more pompous and more absurd document proceeding from a proud and foolish priest had never been brought under the notice of the English people ; so if Lrcd Aberdeen had answered that in Parliament, he would have answered that which was not only beneath his notice in the distinguished position he occupies, but *Inch was beneath the notice of any individual in the country. The only act he would object to in the other document is the act of giving titles; for lie has expressly said that the language is the ordinary language of the Pope. But the right to bishops is conceded ; so the only thing objectionable must be the giving of territorial titles. Now on what grounds is it denied that-the assumption of these titles may not be prohibited by Parliamentary legis- lation, although it may be prevented by seine other means ? It is assumed that the right which the civil authorities in all foreign countries have to re- strict the full development of the Roman Catholic polity has been founded on agreement or endowment; and that in this country, as there is no agreement or endowment, we have no right to cheek development to the full extent. But that is not the fact speaking juridically ; that was not the historical origin of the power. The restrictions Put upon the ROM111 Catholic religion arose from an instinctive feeling on the part of all civil Governments in-Eu- rope, that the full development of the Catholic Church exposed them to dan. ger, which, independently of all agreements and concordats, entitled those states to take all the precautions necessary for their own safety. Such was the ease in this country. Mr. Canning said, that in every stage of the proceed- ings with regard to the Catholics in the history of this eountry, it was not the rerigious feelings of the Catholics, but their political disaffection, which created a jealousy against them; and that the penal code was not intended to exclude the believers in transubstantiation as a sect, but to repress and pun- ish them as traitors. The Episcopalians of Scotland, and the Weslevans, had been mentioned : he would apply the same legislative prohibition to the Episco- palians of Scotland. But while making that admission, he protested against [read/1g the Dissenting sects in the same manner as they would treat the vast hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The claims and the doc- trines of each religious body must first be justly compared and regarded. For instance, excommunication among the Presbyterians or Wesleyans is a totally different thing from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Five years ago, an Irish miller was cursed by a priest from the altar ; and the priest cursed all who should work in the same field or sit at the same table with him. The miller brought an action; and at the trial the counsel of the priest used all the arguments which have for weeks past been dinned into the ears of the supporters of the bill. "Since you have guaranteed the Ro- man Catholic religion, you must tolerate everything that is necessary to the development of that religion." Happily the Judge and the Jury took a dif- ferent view. They said, "No; we do not tolerate everything that the Roman Catholic priests might think necessary to the exercise of their religion, and we will fine this priest in 70/." and he was fined accordingly. (Cheers.) The Duke had no doubt all their Lordships rejoiced in this result; but he contended that they should be more cautious in the stating of their abstract principles. If they pursued logically to its legitimate result the argument, that, because they tolerated thAtoman Catholic faith, therefore they must tolerate every- thing that was enforced by the Roman Catholic Church, then they gave up the whole moral ground upon which their opposition to that faith was made to rest. Under no circumstances, and at no time, can the advances of the Ultramontane body in the Church of Rome be met by the arm of power. He trusted that the advances, the purely spiritual advances, which the Romish religion is now making in our land, were but the current of an eddy, and not the main current of the stream. But if the Roman Catholic Church were to advance, they were bound to see that that advance should not be aided by footsteps proudly trampling on the ancient principles of their public law and the sacred prerogatives of this kingdom's Crown. The Earl of AIRLLE supported the bill.

The Bishop of Sr. Moan's would not have ventured forward if the question had alone or chiefly concerned the interests of the Church.

Whatever interest he felt individually in this question, it was not as a member of the Church, and least of all as a Bishop of it ; for he conceived it was very doubtful whether the interests of the Church had been affected by the recent measure of the See of Rome ; and he was not sure that the moral excitement it had produced in the country was not far more favourable to those interests than could be produced by any proceedings of the Legislature. If this had been simply an ecclesiastical and not a political question, then he would have concurred in the noble sentiments expressed by the Duke of Argyll in his admirable speech, in which he had very nearly exhausted the subject; and would have said that it was not to the Legislature he should look for a remedy. But, regarding it as a political questiou, he might express his unfeigned desire, in which he believed all the members of our Church would concur, that no provocation might be offered to induce them to with- draw one jot or tittle of those privileges which had been already conceded to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. But if he had conceded Emancipation freely, he would not allow the same thing, or anything of less importance, to be taken away by a foreign power. It was for the safety of the country to make a stand, and resist this violation of the Queen's prerogative.

He should vote for the second reading of the bill; but he would not pre- tend that he was completely satisfied with it. It was one, and only one, of several modes which might have been adopted for bringing about a particu- lar end. A diplomatic representation to the Pope to withdraw his rescript might have been tried. He was not very sanguine as to its success; but he regretted that some proceeding of that kind had not been adopted. He did not, look to the other side of the Channel for a favourable result as arising from this measure. He saw so much danger to that part of the em- pire, that he could hardly suppress his regret that a rigid exactness of theory, so far as Ireland was concerned, had not given way to practical expediency. The measure before their Lordships might answer the purpose of a strong remonstrance, and it might dispose the minds of the parties to come to some reasorable compromise on the subject. Meanwhile, it secured the inesti- mable advantage of keeping inviolate and unimpaired that deposit of the law, the rights and privileges of the Crown and the empire, which had been bequeathed to us by our ancestors and committed to our charge.

On the motion of the Earl of WINCHLISEA the debate was adjourned.

The debate on Tuesday opened with a speech by the Earl of WIN- CHILSEA, giving expression to his well-known high Protestant views. He regarded the bill as a paltry bill—below contempt—which endeavoured to vindicate in pounds, shillings, and pence, the wounded honour of our illus- trious Queen. He would not vote either for it or against it.

The Earl of WICKLOW and Lord LYNDHURST rose together; but the venerable lawyer being loudly called for, the lay Lord gave way. Lord Lyndhurst observed that the House had not given much attention to the details of the bill. He therefore reviewed it at considerable length with the view of showing that the earlier or declaratory part of it is grounded on the notorious law of this realm, and that the after or enacting part is expe- dient and just. Recapitulating in a condensed form the events of the aggres- sion, he concluded, on all the grounds of principle and precedent, of public and national law and policy, that the act of the Pope was a violation of the independence of this country and our sovereign, and therefore illegal and void. He did not found that opinion on Lalor's case, for that ease he did netlike: under it, indeed, vicars apostolic would be equally ille- gal with territorial bishops. He briefly stated his approval of those por- tions of the bill which had not been introduced by the Government, but had been forced upon it, especially the informer's clause, which will stimulate a slumbering Attorney-General. Having completed his legal re- view, he went on to a justification of himself, a member of the Administra- tion which passed the Relief Act, for his support of this bill. His object in passing the Relief Act WEIS the extension of toleration. Did he say toleration? He meant a full participation of all the rights and privileges of the rest of her Majesty's subjects. But such toleration would never satisfy the Roman Catholic Church. The late Pope, in a letter to the Bishops of Belgium, declared "liberty of conscience" to be an "absurd and erroneous maxim—a wild no- tion"; he "rejected it with disdain." Their principles are immutable. Now, as it was three hundred years ago., their aim is domination "—hesitating when it is politic, blinking when it is necessary, advancing when they can with safety. The provisions of the Emancipation Act have been totally disre- garded in Ireland; titles have been assumed, the Jesuits recalled, and twenty monasteries of men established. The national election of a Roman Catholic Primate has been overruled by the Pope ; a Synod established; and the Queen's Colleges, when they could not be sapped and perverted, have been con- demned. Such are the evidences of the unchanging designs of that Church.

Here then Lord Lyndhurst made his stand : in adhering to this bill he ad- hered to the old principle of " principiis abate" ; for while retracting no- thing which he had conceded to toleration, not one step would he yield to ascendancy or domination. (Much cheering.)

Lord Vats charged the Government with departing from an under- standing held out to a Catholic deputation, that the bill should not be rendered snore stringent than it was drawn. The Earl of Wiextow pressed the point ; and fixed on Ministers the responsibility of accept- ing amendments which they professed to disapprove. The bill esta- blishes a principle very unsafe to hold out to Ireland—that Parliament is in the habit of passing laws which are to he violated by the people. The people there are determined to disregard the bill : they will quit the country, or laugh at the law.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed regret at the concluding passages of Lord Lyndhurst's speech.

With the deep attachment and reverence he felt for him, it was with the sincerest regret that he heard a member of the Administration which passed tho Emancipation Act now ground a support of this bill on the point that the Church of Rome, unsatisfied with toleration, has always sought for domination. To a certain extent that is the essence of the Romish Church : but that was rather a reason for having maintained restrictive laws in the past than for reenacting them now. The Duke of Newcastle added force to many of the arguments used by Lord Aberdeen. " Two years ago the Pope was an exile : if he had sent his rescript then, would it have been tolerated ? If not, the foreign prince ' argument is disposed of." Episcopal titles are not like those which their Lordships derive from the Queen, but are de- signations of office, of course derivable from no one but him who has the power of appointing to the office : the Queen cannot appoint Roman Catholic Bishops, and how can her prerogative be infringed by the as- sumption of them when they arc not recognized by law ? The clause exempting the Scotch bishops shows that the office is spiritual. The old laws did not relate to titles, but to something much snore important and substantial—to all jurisdiction whatever. It is impossible without enor- mous circumlocution to allude specifically to these offices in any other way than the one now made illegal. In using the expression "the Bishop of Jerusalem," Lord Lansdowne himself inadvertently showed this. That Bishop signs his Christian name followed by the word "Hierosolyma." We have seen a Roman Catholic Archbishop assuming the title of Dublin, and acting in amicable cooperation with the prelate to whom the title legally belongs. [The Marquis of CLANRICARDE questioned this, but the Duke of Newcastle was afterwards shown by Lord MONTEAGLE to be correct ; Dr. Murray Dr. Doyle, and Dr. M'Hale, having called themselves by the titles of Archbishop of Dublin, Bishop of Kildare, and Archbishop of Tuam, in their evidence before the House of Lords, when it was "exclusively Pro- tesMut."] Dr. Cullen has been condemned for denouncing the Queen's Colleges; but before him, one of the Members for the University of Oxford had denounced them as "godless."

Much has been said about protecting Roman Catholics from the Pope : it is not the function of Parliament to interfere on behalf of parties who volun- tarily submit themselves to a spiritual power. If Parliament so interfere, there is an end to all religious freedom. The spread of Ultrumontane opi- nions is indisputable, not merely here, where they are comparatively harm- less, but abroad, where they are more dangerous. But against which party is this bill directed ? Practically it will militate against the English party. Of course he offered no apology for the want of common civility which characterized the proceeding of the Pope ; but under all the circumstances of the case—remembering especially that the Court of Rome might very na- turally have reckoned on the consent of our Government—he did not think that the omission to communicate to our Government their intentions should be visited with such legislation as this. It is convenient to call it a protest, but who ever heard of a protest which inflicted heavy penalties ? An eminent lawyer and an attached member of the Church assured him that the mea- sure, if carried out, will render invalid the appointment of the Irish bishops and the ordinations of priests, and will unloose the marriages which the priests have performed. Nor will the preamble deal with Roman Catholics alone; if it revive the old laws under which Lalor was prosecuted, the Dis- senters of this country, and that most respectable body the Wesleyans, may tremble at the force and effect of this provision. Referring to the demonstrative argument by the Earl of Aberdeen that there was nothing in the act of 1848 to prevent our sending aniinis- ter to Rome though we received no Nuncio thence, he regretted that the language of the original rescript had not been subsequently modi- fied. But the language of Dr. Wiseman was wholly without excuse. He thought it would have been sufficient, as the case stood, if the two Houses had agreed to a joint address to the Queen. In that way the sanction of the three branches of the Legislature would have been given to the determined protest previously made by the country at large.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed that the Government was not responsible tbr the amendments. In past times, the honour of the Crown has been vindicated by the Roman Catholics of this country, when their privileges were less ; now when liberty has increased, and in spite of efforts to prevent it education has spread, the Pope will not be able to enforce rescripts giving unlawful titles in derogation of the rights of the Crown of England. Lord MONTEAGLE characterized the bill as a complication of blunders and injustice. The Pope's conduct was unjustifiable ; but what can be more arrant quackery than to offer this bill as a vindication? or what more unjust than to answer the act of the Pope with a penal measure upon our own fellow-subjects ? The Lonn CHANCELLOR admitted that the Government is responsible for this bill, and said further that it has no desire to escape from that re- sponsibility. He held that Lord John Russell's spirited letter to the Bishop of Dur- ham had "disabused the public mind" : "but for that letter, her Majesty's i throne would have been shaken." He argued legally, that the Queen s supreme over all courts in this country that relate to ecclesiastical matters. One of the counts in the indictment of O'Connell arraigned him for esta- blishing courts of arbitration : but this rescript establishes a regular hier- archy in explicit terms, "with all the jurisdiction incident to such a hier- archy." With reference to laws still in force but not put in action he said he hoped never to sec the day when the law is invariably enforced. The country could not live under such a state of things. A man may be a tres- passer on a common every time he crosses it, but would you punish him for every such act ? Penal laws are to be executed only when the benefit of the state calls for such serious consequences. Referring to the arguments of the Duke of Argyll, that religious liberty does not imply the right of every church to develop itself at its own discretion, he clenched them by saying, if that were so, the Inquisition might be revived in this country. It is said that the bill will be disregarded : if the Catholic clergy attempt to raise an agi- tation, a rebellion, or any course of violence against the law, Parliament will pass measures to cause it to be respected. The F.arl of ST. GERMANS still waited in vain to hear that explanation of the effect of the hill which had been asked of the legal authorities who 6iOypy, they had received from the Chancellor a No-Popery speech, bet- ter fitted for the meridian of the Mansionhouse than for the House of Lords. If Lord John Russell's letter was a soothing letter, it might be said that the proposition to trample under foot the Cardinal's hat would be calculated to south irritation. Still stronger measures are hinted at if the law be resisted : what is that but a returning to penal legislation ? Lord St. Germans eon- eluded with a most earnest reference to Ireland. "I know something of Ire- land. I am sure I take a great interest in all that relates to the people of that country, and I can unfeignedly declare that I never felt so strongly and deeply on any political question affecting them as I do upon this. I cannot contemplate the adoption of this bill without dismay. You may put down rebellion with the sword, but, my Lords, how will you contend with

The unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield ?'"

'The Earl of Muero gave the latest revelations respecting his mission to Rome.

When there, he bad come into conversation with the Pope on the question of wesuming diplomatic relations between the two countries. He told the Pope openly, that we would not be willing to receive in this country an ec- elesiastic as his representative. The Pope said, he could not undertake to send a Min- ister who was not an ecclesiastic; but added, that need not occa- sion any difficulty in the transaction of business between the two Courts, be- cause we might adopt the course suggested by the noble Earl who had moved the amendment—the course taken by the Governments of Prussia and Rus- sia, and.acaredit a Minister to him. On that understanding matters stood at that time; but when a clause, supported by the noble Earl, was intro- duced into the Diplomatic Relations Bill in their Lordships' House, the Pope said that that circumstance had entirely altered the state of the ease' and that after that Parliamentary refusal to entertain such a Minister from him as c ,uld alone represent him, nothing on earth should induce him to re- ceive a Minister accredited from this country to Rome. Lord Aberdeen had said, that while Lord Alinto was at Rome a paragraph appeared in the Roman Gazette announcing that a subscription was opened to build a church in London, and that among the persons appointed to re- ceive subscriptions was Cardinal Wiseman, "Archbishop of Westminster." Lord Minto never saw that paragraph until he entered the House this evening, when a copy of the paper was placed in his hands. [It appears to have been published at Rome only the day before one of Lord Minto's interviews with the Pope.] On a former occasion he had acknowledged he was .aware that an intention existed of creating Cardinal Wisetuan Archbishop of Westminster. Every one knew it. (Laughter.) It was spoken of on all hands. At the time that appeared, he understood that something had occurred, and that the elevation of Cardinal Wiseman would not take place. He thought lie could perceive in the paragraph evidence that Cardinal Wiseman was not the person referred to. The Cardinal was not named in the paragraph, and he believed that it referred to Dr. Gre- gory. Lord ARER.DEEN—" What difference does that make ? The paragraph speaks of an Archbishop of Westminster."

Lord Alitcro—" It certainly showed.an intention to create somebody Arch- bishop of Westminster." Of course, he was aware of the intention, as he stated before, long before he visited Rome. ("Hear ! " and laughter.)

Earl FiTzwfmaam did not quite understand the effect of the bill ; he thought that more distinct explanations of it should have been given. He would have preferred a declaration denouncing the assumption of titles : and he would not have interfered with the peculiar circumstances of Ire- land.

The Earl of Ilannwnata observed, that the bill is not supported thoroughly by any party : he should vote for it reluctantly, to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown. Further steps would be necessary to meet the.state of Ireland.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied briefly.

The good that he anticipated from the bill, if passed by the large majority which he expected, would be that it would disabuse the mind of the Pope of that unfortunate error that there is a party in this country, becoming daily more numerous and daily more powerful, who would be induced to receive any measure extending his power and fortifying his authority, not with op- position, but with readiness and joy. Undoubtedly, if the Irish people, suf- ficiently prone to misapprehend the spirit of British legislation, should take the meaning of this act from two or three speeches which they had heard, it could not fail to create great discontent : but he was convinced that when by practice they should find that they were still guaranteed in every privi- lege, political and religious, which we all wish them to enjoy, he believed that those feelings, however tumultuous they might be, would subside, and that harmony would follow which it was the duty of the Government by every means in their power to secure. The division gave the following numbers— Contents, for second reading :

Present 146 Proxies 119-265 Not-contents, for amendment : Present 26 Proxies 12— 38 Majority in favour of the second reading 227 NATIOATION-LAWS.

The resolution moved as an amendment on the third reading of the Customs Bill, by Mr. Hee alas, on Thursday, was in the following terms- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct the proper steps to be taken for riving effect to those provisions of the act 12th and 13th Vic., c. 29 (for the repeal of the Navigation- lawv), whereby her Majesty is empowered to adopt towards v foreign country in

h whic a preference is given, directly or indirectly, to nationalvessels over Bri-

tish vessels, such measures as may appear to her Majesty justly to countervail the disadvantages to which British trade and navigation is [are] so subjected." In supporting this motion, he mentioned the petitions which he had pre- sented from the port of London' with 260 signatures, comprising all the prin- cipal shipowners except two; from Liverpool, Glas4ow, and other shipping towns. He adduced- a mass of statistics to show that freight has di- minished at the rate of 20, or even more than 50 per cent, since 1846, that the amount of British shipping employed in the foreign trade has diminished since 1849, by 43,000 tons outwards and 97,000 in- wards, while foreign shipping has more than proportionately increased; also showing, that in the general trade, imports and exports, which were increas- ina. under protection, have latterly increased at a greatly diminished rate- atthe ratio of only 6.75 per cent instead of 30.25 per cent. He contended that before concessions, made to foreign states, reciprocal concessions should have been exacted ; whereas to Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and other coun- tries, almost everything has been yielded, nothing substantial obtained in return. France, Spain, and Portupd, hold back, and America has deluded us, in obtaining our intercolonial trade while she withholds her equivalent, her immense ." coasting" trade. Mr. LABOUCHERE met these arguments-by the direct opposite. He began by reminding Mr. Herries, that he himself had been assailed by exactly similar representations when he was associated with Mr. Huakissoifs reciprocity measures. He also quoted recent speeches by Mr. George Frederick Young, evincing that gentleman's hostility to reciprocity, and therefore his antagonism to Mr. /ferries. Mr. Labouchere showed that there had been a corresponding decrease for 1850 in the exports and imports of the United States : but it is idle to take single years. The lowering of freights is explained by the fact, that the removal of restrictions on trading with third countries enables vessels which made voyages in ballast to diminish the cost by carrying cargoes in that part of their voyage. The British Consul at Philadelphia, in a despatch of the 12th of May 1851, stated that out of Ill British ships entering the port in 1850, 18 came from a third country, which they could not have done before the repeal of the Navigation-laws. In the first four mouths of 1851, out of '59 British vessels entering Philadelphia, 15'brought cargoes from foreign ports— from Cuba, Porto Rico, Pernambuco, Cadiz, and Palermo. He added— "Vessels from British America, which, after disposing.of their cargoes of fish in the West Indies, generally came to this country in ballast, now bring sugar and molasses, and then return homewards with cargoes of bread- stuffs:" Mr. Labouchere thought the House would at once see how important the new trade was which had been given to the British shipping, by doing away with the absurd restrictions upon our trading with the United States. He could multiply cases, but it was unnecessary. But for the relaxing of those restrictions, we should have lost the trade with California—a great and increasing trade. He saw that in one month no fewer than 18 ships had arrived from Australia with cargoes for San Francisco. More statistics established the fact, that the progress of ship- building continues : although there is some diminution in numbers, the average tonnage is larger. Already considerable progress has been made with neg,otiations for reciprocal treaties : we have obtained reciprocity with the Baltic powers, Holland, Sardinia, the United States, &c.; negotiations are proceeding with France, Spain, and Belgium. Mr. G. F. YOUNG followed up Mr. Hernes's arguments, but extending them in favour of absolute protection. Perhaps the most telling point in his speech was the statement, that in 1850, 1100 ships left the United States for California, many of them intended to take away our Eastern trade.

Mr. Jamas Wilson. backed Mr. Labouchere.

Mr. DISRAELI, after ridiculing the annmmeement that negotiations are proceeding with so small a number as three foreign states, accepted that announcement as a difficulty in the way of the motion. Ministers have announced, that under the clause in question they are en- gaged in active negotiations with three powers. Under these circumstances, he did not see how his right houourable friend the Member for Stamford could press to a division a motion which might interfere with those nego- tiations. Under these circumstances, he thought his right honourable friend, having obtained a full discussion of the question—(Cries of." Oh, oh !") He had no doubt that gentlemen on the back benches of the Ministerial side of the House, who are not in office, and therefore not responsible, are prepared for anything, even for interference with negotiations now in progress; but the Opposition have some responsibility. (" Oh, oh ! ") Therefore, when the Government virtually state that the proposed amendment would in- terfere with negotiations with three powers, he could not see how, after that, the amendment could be proceeded with, and he hoped his right honourable friend would not press his amendment to a division. (" Oh, oh !") Lord JOHN RUSSELL sarcastically noticed this sudden discovery of a difficulty. After a few remarks from Colonel Tnowesox against the DID- tion, and from Mr. Wiwx and Mr. Mutirx for it, the motion was by leave withdrawn.

SUPPLY: Miaort QUESTIONS.

When the report from the Committee of Supply was brought up on Saturday, some debate arose on the question of the amount of the fee taken by the Dean and Chapter of Windsor as fees for the funeral of Queen Adelaide. It had been stated at 10001.; but, in reply to a question from Sir BENJAMIN HALL, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was the "customary" fee of 2201. Whatever the amount, Sir BENJAMIN HALL called the taking of the fee a "disgraceful proceeding."

Mr. Granstorta devoted a few words to the defence of the Dean and Chapter, and then dilated on the embarrassed position of the Colonial Church. He described it as being, in so far as the law was concerned, "a community almost entirely separate from the Church of England." No one could say to what extent Ecclesiastical law went in the Colonies; and, owing to this, the greatest uncertainty prevailed. He described it as a state of "forced legal anarchy." The remedy was simple. No legislation was required. All that was necessary was for the Howe in plain terms to say, "We leave you free to exercise your powers as members of a religious community, like the members of other religious denomina- tions." If the Government were not disposed to take the matter in hand, he should propose to Parliament, at the outset of the next session, the enact- ment of some enabling bill, which should give to the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in our Colonial possessions, that freedom (sub- ject to reservations, if they thought fit) for the practical purposes of secur- ing discipline among themselves, which every other religious communion enjoyed, and to which they were fairly entitled after having been deprived of all the advantages of the establishment ; advantages, however, Which he had no wish now to confer upon them, and which they had no disposition to claim for themselves.

Sir DE LACY EVANS objected to establishing bishops upon every rock and island where the British flag was raised; to calling them "lords" and disseminating them throughout the world. The debate which had thus strayed from the Dean and Chapter of Windsor was brought back to the point by Colonel SIETHORP j who thought the custom of receiving fees for the interment of members of the Royal Family one "more ho- noured in the breach than the observance." But it had no practical is- sue beyond eliciting from Mr. HAWES, in reply to Mr. GLADSTONE, a statement that there was "no present intention on the part of the -Go- vernment to introduce any measure for regulating the affairs of the Church of England in the Colonies."

There was a " personal " incident—a squabble between Sir Da Lear Evaiss and Admiral Donnas concerning Sir George Westphal. Admiral DUNDAS stated that Sir George ViestEdial bad not applied for "general service at the Admiralty," but that in 1836 or 1837 he believed hedid apply for a command as there was a prospect of war with America, as he knew the coast.

Sir.D. L. EVANS—"I4listinetly deny that statement." Adaairal Dintrias—"I don't knew whether language of that sort is -per- mitted. Out of doers it would not be, I it:110W that." (cries ef "Order ."') Sir D. L Evaers—"Eh? what ? 'Very well, I am quite prepared:" , (Loud cries of 4` Order !" in the midst of which lit. .E. 11. _Denison I rose) The SPEAYER called to order, and intimated that he was "sure" the honourable andgallant Member for Westminster would see the necessity of retracting the offensive expression. Sir I). L EVANS—"If I said anything contrary to the forms of the House, I I will retract; but I will repeat, that Sir George Westphal applied to Lord Auckland for active employment." Admiral DUNDAS—" I speak by documents in the Admiralty. I don't know anything of applications made to Lord Auckland. I don't understand these sort of observations." (" Order, order!")

The SPEAXER—" The honourable and gallant Member for Westminster must retract his expression."

Sir D. L. EVANS—" I stated that Sir George Westphal had applied for employment-to Lord Auckland. I have it from himself that he did so, and I refuse—I don't see why I-shouldretract it. I don't thinkthat the language of the honourable and gallant Admiral was called for. I mu in the service as well as himself." (" Order, order !")

The SPEAKER—" The 'honourable and gallant officer does not appear to understand my observation. He has allowed an expression to escape him which is personally offensive to the gallant Admiral. I am sure he did not mean to say anything personally offensive to the gallant Admiral, and that he will withdraw the expression."

Sir D. L. EVANS—"I am quite ready to obey your order, Sir, on all sub- jects of form ; and I am ready to withdraw any expression that was offen- sive to the gallant officer."

Admiral DUADAS—" Of course I am perfectly satisfied. I rose only to defend Sir George Westphal, whom I have known a good ninny years more than the gallant General. I spoke only of the Admiralty records." Subsequently, Mr. Williams's amendment to reduce the vote of 50,000/. for "Civil Contingencies" by 2201., the fee paid to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, was negatived by 37 to 29. This was the only division.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK'S INCOME.

Lord Jerre Russma read to the Commons, on Thursday, a letter from the Archbishop of York, explaining his financial relations with the Eccle- siastical Commissioners. If it it were intended that he should, under all circumstances, pay 25001. a year, he said, unquestionably he had not paid what was due ; but if his clear income was to be, as the order in Council declared, 10,000/. a year, then he had paid snore than was due. In the three years ending 1850, he had paid only 37501., instead of 75001.; by paying which, his income would only have been 23,5511., instead of 30,000!.; but in point of fact, he had received only 27,3011., instead of 30,000/.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

In reply to questions put by Mr. ADDERLEV, on Tuesday, Lord fans Russet' stated, that the draft constitution would be sent out to the Cape complete in its details ; that it would not be drawn up from any scheme now before the House; and that most likely it wouldnot be ready before the session closed. Ile also said that it would contain no provision for a separation of the two provinces; and that it would be left to the Legis- lature to consider the separation. The draft constitution might be altered by the Legislative Council, and must be referred home for final sanction. It would depend on the circumstances and probable duration of the Calfre war whether the constitution would be Bent out before the termination of that war.

MR. ERNEST CHARLES JONES.

Lord DUDLEY STUART, in moving for copies of all rules and regulations which at any time since 1840 have been in force with respect to political prisoners, called the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Jones.

-While in prison for making an illegal speech, he had been most harshly treated. The allegations of Mr. Jones in his petition, presented on the 261h of May, were, among other things, that he had been placed in separate con- finement; that he was placed under the silent system ; that he was subjected to the degrading employment of picking oakum ; that he was not allowed a fork for taking his food; that his clothing underwent no change in summer and winter; also that he was refused to be allowed to see his friends ; and that he was only permitted to write to his wife once a quarter. All these charges were admitted by the prison authorities ; and in addition to these allegations, there were others that the petitioner had been illegally placed in solitary confinement fin refusing to pick oakum, and had been kept for seve- ral days on bread and water.

The speakers on the motion, men of all parties, were mainly impressed with the fact that Mr. Jones had been very harshly used. Mr. BOUVERIE alone defended the Justices treating the subject with jocoseness. The motion was ultimately withdrawn, on the distinct understanding that a return should be made of the rules and regulations of certain prisons to be named by Lord Dudley Stuart.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS.

The Metropolitan Sewers Bill was read a second time, two hours past midnight on Friday morning, after a brief but not tame debate. Mr. \VARLET objected to continuing a nuisance for another year. It was un- derstood that a discussion should be taken on Tuesday, on going into Committee.

ROYAL ASSENT.

The Royal Assent was given by Commission, on Thursday, to the In- habited House Duty Bill, and more than seventy others, mostly minor or continuance bills, and local or private bills.

NEW WHIT.

A new writ was ordered on Wednesday, for Limerick, in the room of Mr. John O'Connell, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

NEw HOUSE or Commores.

The Commons met in their new chamber on Thursday, for the first time this session. The accommodation has been considerably enlarged, by-adding seats'to the Members' galleries, widening the division-lobbies, /it. The House, it is computed, will now hold 712 persons. The ceil- ing has been somewhat lowered, and made hexagonal instead of hori- zontal. The hearing seemed to be good. The windows of stained glass display the arms of forty-eight cities and boroughs; and arms are gra- dually to be added in vacant spots. The prevailing hues are dark brovtn oak and dark-green leather.