Austria Proper was concerned. Like any other temporal power, the Court of Rome occasionally tried to usurp temporal dominion; but when the right rev. Prelate said that no alteration, no abandonment of a power once claimed by Rome could take place, he should beg to tell the right rev. Prelate that the whole discipline of Rome was matter of policy for the time being, and that it might be changed for the moment at any time. It was true that they never recalled a bull, as they repealed Acts of Parliament here; but they issued others in opposition to it, so much so as to contradict every word of the former bull, but at the same time without announcing its repeal. The error into which his noble and learned Friend had fallen was, in confounding dogmas and matters of faith, which were purely questions of religious belief, with the discipline of the Church of Rome, which was mere matter of policy; which a person might be a Catholic without conforming to, and which he was even al

time of Mr. Pitt. He referred to the answers from Louvain, one of the most celebrated of those colleges. The first question was, whether the Pope or cardinals, or any body of individuals in the Church of Rome, had any civil authority, or jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatever, within the realm of England? The second, could the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of individuals in the Church of Rome, depose the Sovereign of England, or absolve subjects of His Majesty from their oath of allegiance? The third, was there any tenet in the Catholic faith by which Catholics were justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinion in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature? The faculty of divinity at Louvain assembled, and it was unanimously agreed to answer the first and second queries in the negative. To the third query the answer was, that the sovereign power of the State was in civil matters subordinate to God alone, and was no-lowed to contravene in some cases, as they wise subject to or dependent upon any other power, even though it be a spiritual power. He called the attention of his noble and learned Friend to this answer, inasmuch as it met directly his statement. It also stated that no power could deprive the Throne of these realms of its temporal rights, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence; and that no power, not even the Catholic Church assembled in a general council, could free the subject from his oath of allegiance, or deprive the sovereign of his rights, or restrain or weaken the bond of union between the sovereign and his people. "These things," they added, "have been done; for the justice of them let the doers answer. The answer continued in the same strain, saying, that there was no doubt whatever that the authority and power of the Church of Rome of interfering with the government of any other country did not in any way exist. And he would here beg to remind his noble and learned Friend, that it was by no concordat that this power was obtained, The Government of Austria allowed no communication whatever to take place between Rome and the clergy of the kingdom of Aus-ments ought to have been repealed; and he tria, save through the bishops; and these latter could not make a charge without submitting it to the approval of the Government. They could not publish a rescript without the consent of the State. A concordat had been agreed to with regard to Lombardy, but never as far as

would find in the history of Europe to have been the case again and again, without the parties being supposed to have abandoned the Catholic faith in so doing. In justice to his noble and learned Friend, he felt bound to state, that when he (Lord. Beaumont) had introduced the original Bill to which the right rev. Prelate had alluded, his noble and learned Friend suggested that he should abandon the Bill, promising to bring forward in the next Session a complete measure, which would repeal all the objectionable statutes. He declined acceding to his noble and learned Friend's suggestion, but urged him to adopt, at least, the parts of the Bill on which, he believed, there would no discussion arise. His (Lord Beaumont's) Bill was finally carried, although in a mutilated form; but by persisting in forcing the subject on the notice of the House, he had obtained a pledge from the Government that the recommendation of the Criminal Law Commissioners should be finally adopted. His noble and learned Friend said that the Bill in that shape was very imperfect, and that a great deal more of the enact

then said, he would bring in the Bill which was now before the House as soon as he could obtain sufficient information to prepare it. He would with these remarks conclude, after again begging the right rev. Prelate to recollect, when next he referred to matters like the present, not to

confound the dogmas of faith with what | well-being of the community. The only were mere events of history; and that he way, he verily believed, was to forbid them by no means palliated the charge by ex- absolutely. Sir Nicholas Bacon forbad empting from it those members of the them absolutely; and all the great statesRoman Catholic persuasion whom chanced men of Queen Elizabeth's day held the to be in that House, because he (Lord same opinion, and had put that opinion Beaumont) could declare positively that upon record. On this account he should what the right rev. Prelate had stated to feel himself called upon, when they went be dogmas, were by no means the doctrines into Committee, to oppose that part of the of the Roman Catholic church. Bill. He acknowledged thankfully the kindness of the noble and learned Lords in giving to him, or rather to the House, their judicial opinion. He was now spared the necessity of applying to the Judges. He would not press that. But how did the case stand? It was declared by the noble and learned Lords that the law of England, if this Act were removed from the Statutebook, did not afford them any security against Papal bulls in general: they had security in that law against sedition and treason, but not against bulls generally. Why, then, he would say, it gave them no security at all; inasmuch as it was altogether impossible to frame any indictment, excepting that now in force-the absolute prohibition-to meet the case of seditious doctrines, not directly applied to England, covertly sought to be introduced. They could not meet those doctrines with any indictment whatever; and it was for this reason that countries of continental Europe, even those in community with the Pope, found it necessary to put restrictions upon the dissemination of doctrines so dangerous. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had declared, that what they tolerated they ought to sanction. To that principle he (the Bishop of Exeter) most distinctly objected. They permitted, and so long as they could do so without imminent and manifest danger to their own Constitution, he trusted they would continue to permit, in a spirit of tolerance, the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. But they were not to sanction that religion; they were to look upon it with dread and jealousy in all those particulars in which they knew it to be dangerous. Let those individuals who believed in the Pope's supremacy practise their religion; but let not the extolling and setting forth of that power be sanctioned and approved of. It was not necessary to the free exercise of their religion; it was no disability to the free exercise of their religion; and therefore let the setting forth of those opinions be prevented. He would remind their Lordships that the unanimous opinion of the noble and learned Lords was, that the supremacy

The BISHOP of EXETER, in reply, said the noble Baron had thought fit to call their Lordships' attention to the answers given by certain Universities, denying that the doctrines he had referred to were the doctrines of the Church of Rome. When he (the Bishop of Exeter) last addressed their Lordships, he had brought a case subsequent to the date of these declarations, in which the Pope had actually exercised the deposing power; and he was sorry to say this was not the latest instance, for the Pope had, within the last five years, addressed an allocution to the Irish, complaining of the conduct of the Spanish Government towards the Catholic clergy of that country, in confiscating their property, and declaring of his own authority, mero motu-it was the present Pope-that all the acts of that Government were absolutely null. Then, was he to be told that this was not a point which they were to regard with some suspicion? A noble and learned Lord who had left the House (Lord Campbell) had told their Lordships that if this Bill passed the Pope would become more powerful here than in any State in Europe, and that it was necessary that something ulterior should be done. This was a strange state of things. This was a reason why the Bill should not pass till those other measures were introduced. The noble and learned Lord said, "Let us pass the Bill; and when we have passed it, it will be absolutely necessary to do what has not yet been done-enter into a concordat with the Pope.' A more dangerous and a more unconstitutional policy had never been proposed. It was very true that, if this Bill did pass, this country would become more subject to the Pope than any other country in Europe. Was not this a very strong reason why they were bound to keep the security they at present had on the Statute-book. He had no hesitation in saying that he did not believe it possible to devise any law that should make the introduction of bulls, generally, free from penal consequences, without an effect injurious to the safety and

of the Crown was an essential and integral part of the Constitution of this country, and that that supremacy cannot be gainsaid with impunity. He had anticipated that answer.

His argument was founded

Week, and Eight on the Saturday. By Mr. Bankes, from William Rochett, of the Borough of Bridport, Cordwainer, complaining of Transfer of Votes at the Bridport Election.-By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Inhabitants of Kingston upon Hull, for Release of William Smith O'Brien, Esq.-By several hon. Members, from various places, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for Churches to the Free Church (Scotland).- By Mr. Francis Scott, from Inhabitants of the District of Raymond Terrace, in the Colony of New South Wales, for the Admission of Australian Corn on the same Terms as Canadian.-By Mr. Eliot Yorke, from Governor, Bailiffs, and Commonalty of the Company of Conservators of the Great Level of the Fens, called Bedford Level, against the Repeal of the Corn Laws.-By Sir Edmund Hayes and Mr. Eliot Yorke, from several places, against the proposed Government Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation. By several hon. Members, from various places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.-By Mr. Eliot Yorke, from Inhabitants of the Parishes of Whittlesey Saint Mary and Whittlesey Saint Andrew, for Alteration of the Poor Removal Bill.-By Mr. O'Connell, from Leeds, against the Protection for Life (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. Maitland, from Kirkcudbright, for ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

on that belief; and he was astonished at
hearing the noble and learned Lord the
Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench say that he (the Bishop of Exeter)
had, in any expression, impeached the in-
dependence of the British Crown. He had
stated that it was a free and independent
Crown, free from all the interference of
the Pope; and saying that, he had insisted
that they were not to be brought into an
acknowledgment of any supremacy but that
of the Crown. The noble and learned
Lords informed them that it was an offence
at common law to extol the
of the
power
Pope in a seditious manner, but that it was
no offence at common law to extol the power
of the Pope generally. If that were the case,
then he thought it necessary to take some
measure to meet the danger to which such
a consideration exposed them. A similar
observation had been made relative to
Papal bulls nothing in common law was
opposed to them, per se; but it was for
that very reason that the wise statesmen of
Queen Elizabeth forbad them generally.
Such had been the policy hitherto pursued;
and if the noble and learned Lord pressed
this measure upon the House, and by the
weight of his high authority should induce
their Lordships to pass it, he, as well as
their Lordships-but he more especially-place-
would be responsible to the present genera-
tion, to posterity, and to a higher tribunal
than that of man, if the consequences
proved to be of that disastrous nature
which from his heart he (the Bishop of
Exeter) believed they would be.

Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMON S,

Friday, May 11, 1846.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. 3°. Explosive Substances.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from

various places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. --From Secular Clergymen and Laymen of the Parish of

Thirsk, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. -By Mr. Eliot Yorke, from Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely, and by Mr. East, from Clergy, Churchwardens, of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.-By Mr. Maitland, from Presbytery of Kirk

and Parishioners of Weyhill, for preventing the Union

cudbright, against the Abolition of Religious Tests in the

Universities of Scotland.-By several hon. Members, from
Guardians of several Unions, for rating Owners of Small
Tenements to the Poor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.-By

Mr. Walker, from Bury, for Limiting the Hours of Labour

THE BRIDPORT ELECTION. MR. BANKES said, he had a petition to present of rather an unusual nature, and as it contained a question of privilege, he hoped he might he excused if he departed from the rule which ordinarily governed the presentation of petitions. The petition relation to a voter of Bridport, named Rockett, who complained that the decision of the Committee turned solely on the question of one vote, and one vote only— that the Committee had come to the determination to transfer this one vote from one candidate to another, whereby one Member was unseated, and the other put in his

MR. SPEAKER said, if the hon. Mem

ber was stating the substance of the petition he was in order, but if he was reading the petition and addressing the House on a question of privilege, he was not in order; for his purpose was to object to the decision of an Election Committee, which the House had decided should be conclusive.

MR. BANKES said, the course he adopted might possibly be irregular, but he thought the importance of the subject justified the proceeding. In deference to the rules of the House, he would only read the substance of the petition. The petitioner Rockett, stated that he had been an elector, of Bridport for the last thirty years; that during the whole of that period he had voted for Tory candidates; that he had attended every contested election; that at the last election for Bridport he tendered his vote, and voted for Mr. Cochrane; that his vote had been transferred by the Committee to Mr. Romilly-a course repugnant

in Factories to Ten in the Day for Five Days in the to his feelings, and, in his opinion, inju

rious to his character; he prayed, there- | several days before it could be answered. fore, to be heard in support of his com- It was proper that he should have time to plaint at the bar of the House of Com- look into the case, and to ascertain if the mons. He wished to support the views of charges had any foundation; but while he the petitioner; but he found a difficulty was doing this an ex parte statement in promoting the petitioner's wishes, other-would have been sent abroad affecting the wise than by bringing the case under the character of a Gentleman whom he had the notice of the House as a question of privi- honour of knowing personally, who was lege, and on that ground moving that the a Member of that House, and whose honour petitioner be heard at the bar. and character had hitherto remained unstained.

scarcity must arise occasionally-when it | tion to excite them to economy and indid arise, and after using our own stock as dustry. If protection was the bane of far as it would go, then to open our ports agriculture, it was not less the bane of maand to admit foreign corn. One reason nufactures. Was there any reason why for not altering the present laws was, that it should be the bane of one interest, and the price of corn under them was gradually not of the other? If so, what a great indiminishing. There was one important justice was the right hon. Baronet about point which he believed had not been men- to inflict upon those manufactures, on tioned in the debate-it had been touched which he was going to keep a duty of ten upon in Mr. Alison's work on Population, per cent. The right hon. Baronet said it and he would read the extract. Mr. Alison was for the sake of revenue, and he could wrote:not help it; but he would recommend a plan which would clear away all the right hon. Baronet's difficulties. Mr. M'Culloch, in his first chapter on Taxation, said, "Moderate taxation stimulates industry, makes the people more economical, and is an advantage. That was the very thing that was wanted. And he (the Marquess of Granby) contended, that protection was a great benefit. On that point he would refer to an opinion expressed by Lord Francis Roos, in the year 1610, at which

"Speculators purchase up grain largely on the Continent during years of plenty, and store them in the British bonded warehouses, in anticipation of the rise of prices on the first unfavourable season. There the ample store lies innocuous to

the British farmer during seasons of prosperity, when its aid is not required by the British consumer; but no sooner does the expected period of adversity arrive, than it issues forth in vast quantities to avert the calamity, and diffuse the stream of plenty through every village and hamlet in the realm."

He then alludes to 1838, and continues

time there were no Corn Laws:

"I had some conference with Sir R. Buller (to whom, I pray, and Sir T. Wise remember my service), concerning a Bill that no corn should be imported until it came to some extraordinary price. Of this, having since consideration, there seems to me many reasons very strong for the converting of this Bill into a statute.

"A first is, because the importation of corn is an exportation of money, and that, even in case of necessity, is a hurt to the commonwealth, though then tolerable for the avoiding of a greater hurt, but in unnecessary cases altogether inex

"And it is particularly worthy of observation, that this fortunate effect in 1838 could not possibly "Sir-I doubt not but by this time you are have taken place if an unrestricted trade in corn very deep in the faculty of law-making. I desire had existed, and that it is the creation of the corn much that if any laws be passed, we may have the law, and the corn law alone. If a free importa-heads of the heads of them (the titles of the tion of grain were permitted between Great Bri-chiefest). tain and the Continent, these great bonded reservoirs of grain in the British harbours would not exist. Food would be provided for a large part of our population by the foreign, instead of the British, cultivators. The temptation of sale, at a present profit, would prove irresistible to the foreign importer; and the British warehouses (of Dantzic wheat) would be emptied as rapidly upon the first rise of prices, as the stackyards of the British cultivators. The home supply being greatly diminished, and the foreign proportionably augmented, the average supply would just be about equal to the average demand, and no reserve store would be accumulated in any quarter to supply "Secondly, if importation be unlimitedly althe wants of the people in seasons of scarcity.lowed, the cheapness of corn will take away the But while a free importation of grain could not benefit of husbandry; and the benefit being taken provide such a reserve store, for the same reason away, husbandry itself (which is usually underthat it cannot be provided by the domestic taken for benefit) will decay. And if husbandry growers in the British islands, it is effectually decay, there are likely to grow two main inconve secured by the present Corn Law; which, proniences. The one, that the poor must starve for hibiting importation in ordinary seasons, yet perwant of work, the effect whereof hath too much mits any quantity of foreign grain to be stored appeared in the conversion of tillage into sheep up in our bonded warehouses, and thus permits pasture. A second, that in a short time, this the surplus produce of the Continent, in years of kingdom to be set to a rent, will be less worth per plenty, to be set apart as a reserve for the British annum many thousand pounds; for I think, within population in periods of scarcity." this twenty years, husbandry hath, in many places, doubled the yearly value of land, which, if tillage decay, is likely to return to the ancient means.

They had been told by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that those laws which he once considered impolitic, he now considered unjust. The right hon. Baronet's argument would be sound and perfect, if money rained from the skies; but, in the existing state of things, it was erroneous and mischievous. But it was said that protection was the bane of agriculture, and that agriculturists required competi

cusable.

"And whereas there is a seeming objection that importation makes cheapness, and cheapness seems will especially hurt the poor, and for their sakes to favour the poor, I affirm that this importation especially it is to be forbidden. For if corn be cheap, and the poor man have no money, what avails it to him that corn is cheap when he cannot buy it? If money be carried out of the country, and

the

poor man be not set on work by reason of the

decay of tillage, I wonder how he shall buy this cheap corn without money? I think it were better that