conduct of that body proved that, both upon | speak from recollections of many years religious and political grounds, they en- past. That hon. Member had spoken of dangered the peace and welfare of any transactions of the year 1827, of which he State in which they were admitted. He had exhibited a want of recollection. The contended that the Jesuits were equally as books used in the schools of the Christian dangerous in a free State as they were un- Brothers were models of propriety. They der a despotic Government; and that, if were the same as those used in Protestant tolerated in this country, they would use and other Roman Catholic schools in Ireland. their power to envenom the feelings of all The Christian Brothers instilled into the those over whom they possessed any in- minds of the youth under their care a love fluence against our Constitution and our for religion and morality. The lessons they Protestant Church. He agreed with the uniformly inculcated were those of Chrishon. Member for Hertford, that this was tian charity and peace-lessons which he not a question of pains and penalties. He would be glad if the hon. Member for considered they ought not to persecute Newcastle-under-Lyme would learn and men, or subject them to pains and penal-imitate. ties, on account of their religion. But was MR. LABOUCHERE said, that the quesit a pain and penalty to maintain the Established Church of this country? According to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott), if they granted an endowment to an Established Church, they inflicted pains and penalties upon all those religious bodies whom they did not endow. That was the opinion of many hon. Members of that House, and of the hon. Member for Winchester-[Mr. B. EscoTT: No, no!]-but it was not yet the opinion of Parliament. If the maintenance of the Established Church, enabling it to hold a position of superiority, and to perform its ceremonies with decency, were to be called a pain and penalty, the argument went to the entire extinction of the Establishment; and he had no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Winchester would go that length. He appealed to the House with confidence not to consent to such a step, even though it might be sanctioned by the learned and most authoritative opinion of the hon. Member for Winchester. He trusted that, without inflicting any pains or penalties on account of religion, they were still prepared to maintain the Established Church of this kingdom.

MR. B. ESCOTT begged to explain. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had entirely misrepresented his words. What he had said, he maintained that penalties of 1007. and upwards against persons professing a particular form of religion were penalties imposed for the purpose of upholding the Established Church.

MR. WYSE begged also to be permitted to explain. What he had stated respecting the Christian Brothers he had stated from immediate and accurate personal knowledge and experience. He did not, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme,

tion, in the form which it had assumed, was
tantamount to whether or not they should
proceed with the Bill at all; and whether
or not the matter was one which deserved
consideration at the present time. He
thought that all parties seomed to admit
the affirmative of the latter question. Gen-
tlemen at his side of the House affirmed it
boldly; and hon. Members at the other
appeared to admit it likewise. The hon.
Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme admit-
ted that the present state of the law as re-
garded the religious orders of Roman Ca-
tholics was most unsatisfactory-that there
was a law upon the Statute-book which was
daily violated, and the provisions of which
no Government would dare to put in execu-
tion. On the other hand, it was urged that
those laws were framed in a spirit quite
inconsistent with the tolerant principle of
the present time. He felt sure that such
was the extent of that tolerant principle,
that if, for example, a distinguished foreign
Jesuit or other distinguished person, a
member of a religious order, were to come
over to England in ignorance of the law,
and that law being put in force, were ba-
nished from the country, the hon. Baronet
the Member for the University of Oxford
would be the very first person to call for
its repeal. The whole question undoubt-
edly deserved mature consideration. It
should be considered carefully and calmly.
He denied that odious and persecuting
enactments had any thing to do with the
support of the Church of England: one
hon. Member would not persecute any man
for his religious opinions; but he had one
little exception-he only begged to be al-
lowed to persecute the Jesuits. Let him
only persecute the Jesuits, and he would
tolerate everybody else.
That outcry
against the Jesuits was all a delusion.

They had heard of their aiming at the acquirement of political power when power was wielded by those who regulated the consciences of princes and potentates. But those times had passed away. The powers which in these days regulated the public mind and directed it were the free exercise of opinion, a free press, and freedom of debate. Such were the engines by which the public mind was now to be wielded. The Jesuits had shown themselves eminently successful as educators of youth, and no ground existed any longer for the ancient prejudices against them. There was but one good and consistent principle to be observed, and that was to give the fullest and freest toleration to all men, so long as they obeyed the law, without inquiring what religion they professed, or observing what sort of dress they were.

now came to what he might be said to be the main object of the Bill-the removal of penalties on the Jesuits and other religious orders. The hon. Member for Hertford had stated that he would be happy to support the repeal of these penalties on all orders excepting the order of Jesuits; and the hon. Gentleman used very strong language against the Jesuits. But he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that in England any fears arising from the power of the Jesuits were totally groundless. It was notorious that they confined themselves to their religious duties without interfering at all with politics. All the Gentlemen who opposed the Bill admitted that the laws were extremely defective. The hon. Member for Newcastle had proposed some peculiar remedy of his own; but he must say it appeared to him a most extraLORD J. MANNERS trusted the House ordinary mode of arguing the case, to adwould allow him to make a few observations mit that, on the principle and the provithe present subject. He would first di- sions of the Bill, some legislation was nerect their attention to the concluding por- cessary, and then for the hon. Gentleman tion of the speech of the hon. Member for to say that he should vote against all legisNewcastle-under-Lyme. That hon. Gentle-lation. He knew, if they were to yield to

upon

man, in his anxiety to defend every interest of the Anglican Church, told the House that this Bill was in violation of its rights, and likely to deprive that Church of its proper authority. Now, he must be permitted to differ from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member (Mr. Colquhoun) seemed to think that unless they prevented Roman Catholic ecclesiastics appearing in their dresses, they would endanger the safety of the Anglican Church. But he would refer to one who was a great maintainer of the English Church, Archbishop Laud. There were Jesuits in the kingdom in that day; but instead of pains and penalties, Archbishop Laud did not hesitate to meet them in argument, even in the presence of the King; and the result of those arguments had come down to us with as entire a vindication of the English Church as our English literature possessed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), in arguing his case, had said that the penalty it was proposed to repeal, was of immense importance to the English Church. Now, he would put this argument to a practical test. Unless he was much mistaken, during the existence of the present Government, an application was made from certain people in Dublin, or some other part of Ireland, calling upon the Ministry to put this clause in the Roman Catholic Bill in force against Archbishop M'Hale. They distinctly refused, however, to put it in operation. He

such an argument, every year the stale argument would be adduced with equal justice and truth. He really saw nothing in the circumstances of the House, or in the circumstances of the country, to prevent their going now into the consideration of the provisions of this Bill. If its principle were sound and just, then let them go into Committee, and discuss the various clauses.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the opponents of this Bill were most unjustly accused of intolerance towards the Roman Catholics generally, because they opposed the farther legalization of the order of the Jesuits. He did not oppose the removal of such antiquated statutes as were no longer applicable; but he did oppose the removal of those clauses of the Bill of 1829, restricting the institution of the Jesuits in this country; for all history, aye, that of the present day, proved them a most dangerous society. But the advocates of the Jesuits urged, that the order had divested itself of its quondam dangerous character. If that was true, why did they refuse that inquiry, which must vindicate the order, before asking for legislation in their behalf? But they well knew the Jesuits would not submit to inquiry; and then they, the advocates of the Jesuits, having refused inquiry-the only means of procuring specific information-dilate forsooth upon the ignorance of their opponents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for

Fuller, A. E.
Gordon, hon. Capt.
Goring, C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Grogan, E.
Halsey, T. P.
Hamilton, G. A.
Hamilton, W. J.
Harris, hon. Capt.
Henley, J. W.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Hodgson, R.
Hervey, Lord A.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Hornby, J.
Hotham, Lord
Hudson, G.
Hughes, W. B.
Jermyn, Earl
Johnstone, H.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Jones, Capt.
Kemble, H.

Taunton had admitted that there were | Frewen, C. H.
strong proofs of the dangerous interfe-
rence of the Jesuits in former times with
politics and religion, and he did not satisfy
him that the interference had ceased. The
promoters of this Bill had, indeed, a great
advantage, as they were the advocates of
a secret society; but, he had heard no
argument to prove that the Jesuits, in
their constitution, possessed not the same
characteristics now as those which had
ever marked them. Was it at all probable
their machinations would be less danger-
ous in this country than they were abroad,
when it was considered that here they
were not under the eye of a detective
.police, nor the authority of a despotic Go-
vernment? He thought the connexion be-
tween the Roman Catholic Church and the
Jesuits to be a great misfortune in every
country.
Liberty had never prospered
where the Jesuits had risen to power.
It was, therefore, because he felt sincerely
anxious that full tolerance should be ex-
tended to all Roman Catholics in this
country, that he would, if possible, disunite
them from that order-which was the
very type and impersonation of that in-
triguing spirit in domestic and political
matters, that had been for years the bane
and the stumbling-block of the Roman
Catholic Church. He was opposed to the
Bill, on account of the countenance it gave
to the Order of the Jesuits, and he should
support the Motion of the hon. Member
for Oxford.

MR. WATSON briefly replied.
The Committee divided on the Question
that the Chairman do now leave the

Kirk, P.
Lawson, A.
Lefroy, A.
Legh, G. C.
Lennox, Lord G. H. G.
Lincoln, Earl of
Lindsay, hon. Capt.
Lockhart, W.
Long, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.
Lygon, hon. Gen.
Mackenzie, T.
M'Neill, D.
Meynell, Capt.

Young, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.
Anson, hon. Col.
Armstrong, Sir A.
Arundel and Surrey,
Earl of

Baine, W.
Bellew, R. M.

Chair-Ayes 120; Noes 80: Majority 40. Bentinck, Lord G.

Blake, M. J.
Borthwick, P.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.
Bowring, Dr.
Bridgeman, H.
Brotherton, J,
Browne, hon. W.
Callaghan, D.
Carew, hon. R. S.
Christie, W. D.
Clive, Visct.

Courtenay, Lord

Beckett, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Collett, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Bernard, Visct.

Douglas, Sir H.

Crawford, W. S.

Blackburne, J. I.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

The House resumed, and adjourned at do, had proved exceedingly inconvenient Six o'clock.

VISCOUNT CANNING was understood to PETITION FOR BETTER DRAINAGE AND say, in reply to the question first put to

ed by the Government of small importance at the time of the measure being introduced, for Ministers then represented that the equivalent to be proposed would in some degree compensate the landed interest for the loss which they would sustain. How was it, then, that they had now come to this period of the Session, and that no notice had been taken of the subject in either House of Parliament? Was it the intention of Ministers that the Session should close without any proposal of compensation being brought forward? One such compensation had been promised to the country which which he was connected, which, though not equivalent to the landed gentry or tenantry for the in

issued for the purpose, two years ago, called the Health of Towns Bill, which had been laid on the Table of the House. It was considered, however, advisable that this Bill should circulate through the country during the recess; and it had been since consolidated and amended, and was now ready for the consideration of Parliament. With respect to the better supply of water, the Government had suggested some clauses for that purpose, which had been introduced, he believed, into all the private Bills of pipe water companies, to secure a larger and cheaper supply of good water to the poorer classes, which had been lately passed. He admitted, in reply to the noble Lord who had last spoken, that the Metropolitan Buildings Act re-jury to their interests which would be inquired amendment. But, with respect to certain complaints stated against the new Act, he could say that the public had been prepared fully for the notices required by the new Act, by the provisions of the old Act. Within the last few days, the fees had been very much reduced, especially the larger fees, which had been reduced to the extent of seventy-five per cent. The Government meant to bring into the other House four Bills for the separate regulation of the objects of the present Act, and he could say that two of those Bills were in a state of great forwardness.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.

The EARL of RIPON moved that this Bill be read a Third Time.

The EARL of WICKLOW said, as they were now at the last stage of these proceedings, and were about finally to conclude this great change in the commercial policy of this country, he begged to direct the attention of Government and their Lordships generally to two points on which, it appeared to him, that no information had been afforded to their Lordships in the course of these proceedings, and on which he thought that both to the country and their Lordships information was due from the Government. The first of these respected the promises made by the First Minister of the Crown when he introduced his resolutions to confer certain equivalents or compensations, which, it was stated, should accompany this measure. They had now reached the last stage of it, and yet up to the present time he had not been able to ascertain that in either House of Parliament anything like a proposal as to any of these matters had been made. It appeared that this point was not consider

He

flicted by the Corn Bill, was in itself of some little importance; and it ought to have been brought forward by the Govern ment independently altogether of this measure, for it was one of the Bills strongly recommended to the Government by the Commission of which Lord Devon was at the head. He referred to the proposition by which the whole expense of the constabulary force of that country was to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and the various counties relieved from any portion of the expense. Such a step was proposed by Lord Devon's Commission, not with reference to such a measure as the present, but as a matter of simple justice. Upon that subject, however, they had heard no proposition of Her Majesty's Government made to either House of Parliament. therefore thought, before they agreed to the third reading of this Bill, it was incumbent on some Member of the Government to explain to their Lordships what was their intention with reference to any measure to be brought forward. He now came to the second point, which appeared to him infinitely more important. Allusion had been occasionally made to the subject in that House, especially by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle), but no explanation had been afforded by Her Majesty's Government. When the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government brought forward in the House of Commons his proposition for an income tax, he obtained the consent of the House to the tax for three years, on the especial ground that he was then effecting great financial changes and extensive reductions in the customs, which would inevitably lessen the amount of the customs duties, so as to require for a certain short period a means of taxation in