March

10.

a first time.

(LORDS.) On the motion of Earl Grey the Passengers' Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. The Earl of Carlisle brought in a Bill to regulate the sale of Arsenic, which was read

(COMMONS.) A short conversation took place respecting the war in Caffraria, after which, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. Williams moved as an amendment "that no supplies should be granted previous to the amended Budget being laid before the House." This motion was negatived without division, and the House having gone into Committee of Supply, Sir F. Baring proceeded to open the general question of the Navy Estimates; stating that the expense of the Navy, which in 1848-9 had been 7,955,000l., was only 6,362,500l. for the year 1850-51, showing a saving of a million and a half during the two years of his administration. The estimates for the present year were 171,0007., less in amount than those of 1850-51. The first vote fixing the number of men at 39,000 having been proposed, Mr. Hume objected to the wasteful expenditure of two millions a year, great part of which was spent building ships merely to rot in the slips; seventy-four men-of-war were now in our dockyards which had never been to sea. The honourable member having severely censured the keeping up a fleet on the African coast concluded by moving that the vote be reduced to 30,000 men. After considerable discussion, in which Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Cobden, Mr. M. Gibson, and Col. Thompson, supported the amendment; Lord J. Russell, Mr. Cardwell, and Capt. Berkeley, the original motion-the Committee divided and rejected the amendment by 108 to 61. The vote then passed as did several others, Col. Sibthorp's amendment to reduce the salaries of the Lords of the Admiralty by 4,6007. having been rejected by 193 to 34.

March 11.

(LORDS.) Earl Fitzwilliam on presenting a petition inquired if the alterations made in the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill would tend to render it inoperative; the Marquess of Lansdowne replied that the alterations would leave the principle of the Bill untouched. (COMMONS.) Viscount Duncan moved a resolution authorising the payment of the revenues of the Woods and Forests into the Exchequer, in order to be accounted for among the ordinary receipts of the national treasury; basing his proposal on the fact that, out of the gross revenue of 2,446,7857. received within the last seven years, only 774,000l. had reached the public exchequer. Lord Seymour concluded his defence of the Woods and Forests office, by proposing as an amendment a motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the management of the land revenues of the crown. After a short discussion and a reply from Lord Duncan, the resolution was carried against Ministers by 120 to 119. Mr. Lacy brought in a Bill to prevent the forcible detention of females in Religious Houses, which was read a first time.

March

(COMMONS.) Mr. M. Gibson moved the second reading of the County Rates Expenditure Bill, the object of which he stated to be 12. to enable the rate-payers to take a share in the control of the public expenditure arising out of the county rates. The Bill had been read a second time last session and referred to a Select Committee, which had rejected the whole of the Bill except the first clause; in agreeing to this clause however the Committee had assented to the principle of the measure. Several improvements had been made in the Bill. Sir J. Pakington denounced the Bill as interfering with the functions of the justices of the peace, and moved the second reading this day six months. Sir G. Grey supported the second reading, but alluded to several points that required to be modified. Mr. W. Mills having spoken against, and Mr. Hume in favour of, the measure,

the

66

second reading was agreed to on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The expenses of Prosecutions Bill and the Apprentices and Servants Bill were read a second time.

(LORDS.) The Sale of Arsenic Bill was read a second time, on March the motion of the Earl of Carlisle. Lord Brougham called at13. tention to the protests he had laid on the table against the Income Tax, to which the Marquess of Lansdowne offered a brief explanation. The Passengers' Act Amendment Bill then passed through Committee.

14.

(LORDS.) The Sale of Arsenic Bill and the Designs Act ExMarch tension Bill severally passed Committee; the Prevention of Offences Bill was read a second time; and the Passengers Act Amendment Bill was reported.

(COMMONS.) In alluding to the order of the public business, Lord J. Russell stated that should the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill be adjourned, he should not go on with the Estimates, but with the adjourned debate, at the next sitting of the House. The noble lord also stated that as Mr. Baillie had given notice of a vote of censure upon the Government, respecting the affairs of Ceylon, for this day se'nnight, he did not think it right that the present Ministers with such a vote hanging over their heads, should propose any Financial arrangements; the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore would not on the day mentioned explain the proposed alterations in the Budget. The noble lord having moved the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey concluded a speech against the measure, which he characterised as unstatesmanlike, persecuting, and behind the example of other countries, by moving as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. Mr. Reynolds in seconding the motion read a series of Billingsgate" phrases, which he said he had culled form the addresses of the English bishops, in reference to the Church of Rome; and justified his determination to oppose Ministers on all questions, without reference to their merits, to show his indignation at such legislation as this. Sir B. Hall would support the Bill, which he described as a struggle against religious domination; and suggested that every person should have the power to prosecute under this measure. Mr. R. Palmer argued that the real principle of religious liberty left the organization of each sect to be guided by its own religious conviction; that the Pope's act, though seeming to him arrogant and presumptuous, could not be held to be a violation of public law, nor insulting to the Queen; and opposed the Bill as letting in a principle of persecution, as feeble, inefficient, uncalled-for, and obstructive of profitable legislation on other subjects. Sir. R. H. Inglis thought the Bill very inadequate to the occasion and unworthy of the Durham letter; but would support it in default of something better. Sir R. Peel, in his maiden speech, said he would resist all interference with the merely spiritual doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and supported this Bill, though he regretted the alterations made in it, upon the ground that he was a friend to civil and religious liberty. Mr. M'Cullagh opposed the Bill, altered as it had been, and characterised it as a violation of the principle of private judgment, and as still containing the poison of intolerance; he further contended that the omission of the second, third, and fourth clauses would leave the Bill as it was at first in respect to gifts and endowments, which would still be void. Mr. P. Wood supported the Bill, and laboured to show, in reply to Mr. R. Palmer, that the synodical introduction of the canon law would bring with it a vast accession of temporal power to the Pope; seeing in the Bill, however mutilated, an assertion that the assumption of titles by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy was illegal, he would support it, trembling as he did for the religious liberties of the country. The debate was adjourned.

March

(LORDS.) The Passengers' Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord Campbell moved the second reading 17. of the registration of Assurances Bill, the object of which was to provide for a regular registry of all titles to estates and real property, with a view to secure and facilitate sales and transfers of the same. Lords Beaumont, Brougham, and Cranworth, having addressed the House, the Bill was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.

(COMMONS.) After a conversation on the Ceylon motion, which the mover, Mr. Baillie, said he would not proceed with on the 25th inst., as he did not wish to stand in the way of other business; the adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed by Mr. Moore, who argued that the circumstances were not such as to justify or necessitate this Bill, which, if passed, would inflict a severe wound on the principles of religious liberty. Mr. Wigram contended that Catholic countries had fallen into the rear in the race of civilization in consequence of the ecclesiastical system of the Catholic religion, and that every attempt to extend that system to this country ought to be resisted. Mr. E. B. Roche and Mr. H. D. Seymour having spoken against the measure, Mr. Goulburn said, the Bill before the House was no infringement of the Emancipation Act; the act of the Pope however he looked upon as an infringement of that compact, and an aggression upon the laws of England and the authority of the crown. Although the Bill was inadequate to meet the whole case, he would nevertheless support it as constituting a protest against the papal aggression. Sir H. W. Barron looked upon the measure, if passed, as the commencement of another century of disturbance in Ireland; Mr. Calvert advocated the Bill as necessary for self-defence. Mr. Charteris considered that the step taken by the Pope was rather a subject for the interposition of the Foreign Secretary, than for a legislative act; if we had diplomatic relations with Rome the present difficulty could never have arisen; and in place of legislation, recommended the passing of declaratory resolutions. The Solicitor-General referring to the examples of Catholic countries, to show that in none of them was it competent to the Pope to establish a hierarchy or carve out dioceses without the sanction of the state itself, argued a fortiori that the proceeding was illegal in the United Kingdom; he then contended that the suggestors of Papal rescripts wanted to introduce the Roman canon law and synodical action, both of which he asserted were highly dangerous, illustrating his assertion by the abnormal appointment of Dr. Cullen to the arch-bishopric of Armagh, and by the proceedings of the Synod of Thurles over which that prelate had presided. He then defended the extension of the measure to Ireland, and concluded by advocating the Bill as the mildest possible means of resisting papal and episcopal encroachment. Mr. Cardwell asked what the executive were about while international laws were infringed and territorial aggression accomplished as alleged by the Solicitor-General; if synods and the canon law were so objectionable, how came it that the Bill contained no word to prohibit either? This measure was large enough to irritate, and not large enough to satisfy; it would affront the Protestant spirit of the country and render the government of Ireland more difficult; he would therefore vote against it. The debate was again adjourned.

March

(COMMONS.) Mr. Sadlier's resolution proposing to assimilate the Irish Tithe Rent Charge system to the English system based on 18. corn averages, was negatived by consent; Sir G. Grey having recommended the mover to bring in a Bill on the subject, which could then be discussed with more advantage. Mr. Anstey's motion on the claims of the Rajah of Sattara having fallen to the ground for want of a seconder, the adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. Blewitt, who regretted that Lord J.

Russell had falsified the promise of his by-gone career; and contended that danger from the establishment of a Catholic Hierarchy was problematical, and the bill inefficient. Sir R. Lopes and Mr. Walter having spoken in support of the Bill and Mr. Anstey against it, Lord Ashley combatted the Pope's right to establish any organization for spiritual development; appealed to history to prove the almost miraculous elasticity of the Catholic Church in recovering from depression and reconquering any country it might have lost; it was this ambitious power the English people had now to repel, and their deep abhorrence of this aggression he asserted would support them in resisting it to the death. Mr. Sidney Herbert said the reasons alleged for the abandonment of the second and third clauses were equally valid against the first; by declaring titles illegal, they would invalidate the ordination of priests, and render illegitimate the issue from such marriages as those priests might officiate at; the only proper limit to toleration was the period when the party tolerated might become dangerous, but the many bulwarks and safeguards of Protestantism kept all danger from Catholics at a distance. He further argued that the Bill was ostensibly directed against the Pope, but was really operative against English Catholics; it was proposed in order to satisfy popular feeling, which if passed it would deceive. Lord Palmerston argued that all churches had natural tendencies to encroachments, but in the Catholic Church these tendencies were more fully developed and rendered more dangerous because they acted from a foreign centre. Recent occurrences abroad abundantly testified to this danger. A legal remedy, not cannon balls, was the proper way to retort the papal bull. The present Bill was not a penal measure; it was merely the complement of the Emancipation Act; and when it was passed he believed from experience that it would be obeyed both in England and Ireland. The debate was further adjourned. March

19.

(COMMONS.) The second reading of Mr. Frewen's Hops Bill was strenuously opposed by the members for Kent and Surrey, and on a division was lost by 131 against 9. The second reading of Mr. W. Williams's Sunday Trading Prevention Bill was agreed to, Mr. B. Wall having withdrawn his amendment for postponing the second reading for six months on the understanding that the measure be referred to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence. The Expenses of Prosecutions Bill, the Apprentices and Servants Bill, and the Vice-Chancellor Bill, severally passed through Committee.

(COMMONS.) Lord Mahon moved an address to the Crown for

March the improvement of the system of granting passports to British

20.

subjects, but subsequently withdrew his motion, Lord Palmerston saying that he might possibly adopt most of the suggestions thrown out. Mr. Newdegate then resumed the adjourned debate and directed attention to what he considered the arrogant invasion of the temporal and civil rights and institutions of the country in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Hierarcy; argued that it was contrary to the constitution for Cardinal Wiseman to be permitted to reside in this country; noticed the increase of convents and monasteries, an inspection of which, he said, was imperatively called for; and intimated that if the people should be disappointed in their expectation of legal protection they would take the law into their own hands. Mr. S. Knox, in contradiction of the assertion of Mr. Reynolds, said that the people of Ulster were indignant at the short-comings of this Bill. Dr. Power denounced the Bill as a persecuting measure. Mr. H. Drummond, in speaking strongly against the circumstances in which the Bill originated, caused great commotion in the House by addressing the Roman Catholic members and saying, "Your nunneries are either prisons or brothels, and you may take your choice;" and subsequently by making allusion to the " Virgin Mary's Milk" among importations from Rome. On both occasions the Speaker

was appealed to, and declared the honourable member in order. Mr. Drummond then concluded his speech in support of the Bill, which however he considered unjust and uncalled-for towards Ireland, by recommending that a law should be passed to prohibit the residence of Cardinals in that country, and to extend the Mortmain Act to the protection of dying men. Sir J. Graham having rebuked Mr. Drummond for treating this as a religious and not as a political question, proceeded to admit that the language used by the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman was offensive to the Protestant feeling of the country, but questioned whether legislation was the right mode of meeting the aggression; and even granting this, whether this Bill was the proper scheme of legislation. The principal objections however were, first, that this Bill was the introduction of a penal enactment, and, secondly, a reversal of the policy adopted in 1829. With reference to the territorial titles of the Roman Catholic prelates, the right honourable baronet quoted Lord Clarendon's letter, in which those titles had been distinctly recognised, and also a speech of Sir J. Romilly's, in which it was said in terms that "the Pope might divide the country into bishoprics and archbishoprics." Step by step, he feared, this measure would lead to the destruction not only of religious but of civil liberty. The Government by their Bill placed the legislature in this dilemma, that if the measure were cut down it would be contemptible; if made effectual it would conduct to a penal code with all its horrors; impotence would be disgraceful and vigour pregnant with danger-a danger, as regarded Ireland, of civil war. Lord J. Russell defended the general principle of the Bill, which he said fully came up to the sentiments expressed in his letter to the Bishop of Durham. The measure should be of the mildest character and err on the side of deficiency rather than of excess. He did not deny that other measures might be necessary if attempts were made to deprive the Irish of the benefits of the Government scheme of education. The debate was again adjourned.

21.

(LORDS.) Lord Brougham in moving the second reading of March the County Courts Extension Bill gave an explanation of the details of the measure. The Lord Chancellor, Lords Cranworth and Abinger having expressed doubts as to the soundness of the policy of making these courts into courts of conciliation, as proposed by certain clauses of the Bill, the second reading was agreed to.

(COMMONS.) The adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed by Mr. B. Osborne, who opposed the measure, as did also Mr. C. Fortescue, Mr. Goold, Mr. W. J. Fox, and Mr. Roebuck. The Bill was supported by Mr. B. Cochrane, Mr. Child, Mr. Walpole, and the AttorneyGeneral. The debate was further adjourned.

(LORDS.) The Sale of Arsenic Regulation Bill having been March read a third time and passed, the Earl of Desart moved for certain 24. returns showing the importation of wheat and flour into the United Kingdom, and in doing so called attention to the injury inflicted by free trade in corn upon the millers. The motion, after some remarks from Earl Grey, Lord Stanley, Lords Fitzwilliam and Malmesbury, was agreed to.

(COMMONS.) The adjourned debate having been resumed, Mr. W. Fagan opposed the Bill as an infringement of the Act of 1829 and as a violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty. Mr. Smythe opposed the Bill as an absurd measure against a sham aggression. Mr. M. Milnes supported the measure, which he characterised as a wise one, justified by facts, and called for by public opinion. Mr. Sadleir concluded an argumentative speech against the measure by declaring that he should resist the Bill as charged with mischief to unhappy Ireland. The other speakers in favour of the Bill were Mr. H. Berkeley and Mr. G. Berkeley. Sir J. Young, Mr. H. Grattan, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. A. B. Hope opposed it. The debate was again adjourned.