should be an extension of the time of credit. His own opinion was that there should be; and if the Bill went into Committee, it would be a fair question for argument whether nine months or six months should be given. He should therefore support the second reading. ten-pounder. He contended that borough electors were quite as respectable as the county 501. freeholders: they were certainly much more independent, and had quite as good a right to vote. This Bill was good as far as it went, and he should vote for it; but it was only bolstering up MR. BERNAL supported the Bill. The a bad system. He contended that the extension of the period of credit would be borough electors should be put upon the very beneficial in this way: the tax collec- same footing as the 501. freeholders. When tors had very arduous duties to perform, the Whigs were in office, he succeeded in and it often happened that persons whose introducing a Bill for the repeal of certain solvency could not be doubted were not injurious clauses of the Reform Bill; but it called upon within the three months. It was unfortunately defeated in a subsequent was a very hard case that the only alter- stage. The present Bill did not go nearly native which such persons had, was either so far as that one, yet it was likely to be to run about the town after the collector thrown out upon the second reading. It and pay him, or to have their names omitted only showed that that House was becoming from the register. too aristocratic, and that they were retrograding instead of advancing in the principles of reform. MR. HENLEY opposed the Bill. He thought that no benefit at all would result to the poorer classes by extending the period of credit. On the contrary, it would only tend to embarrass them, and to get them into difficulties. MR. WALPOLE was understood to say that the tendency of the Bill would be to change the principles of borough voting. MR. P. HOWARD thought that the proposed Bill would tend materially to complicate the present law. It was the duty of householders to assist their poorer brethren by the prompt payment of the poor rates, and he considered that they might fairly hold out the Parliamentary franchise as a reward for their punctual payment. COLONEL SIBTHORP said, this was a very late period of the Session for entering into any discussion as to alterations in the Reform Bill. He could not consent to any such alteration just now, and he should therefore be compelled once more to go into the same lobby with Her Majesty's Ministers. He didn't think the Bill at all The House divided on the Question, necessary. It tended to increase the that the word "now" stand part of the borough voters. He considered that a 107. Question:-Ayes 53; Noes 94: Majority Lincoln voter was as good as a 201. voter | 41. in St. Giles's any day. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, as he had the honour to represent the parish of St. Giles, he must say a word with respect to the last observation of the gallant Colonel opposite. Perhaps the gallant Colonel did did not know what the parish of St. Giles was. He would tell the gallant Colonel, then, that it included part of Lincoln's-inn Fields, the principal inns of court, and the chambers of many eminent lawyers. Did that make the gallant Colonel think higher of it? Perhaps, then, the gallant any Colonel had been so unfortunate as to be acquainted only with the lowest purlieus of St. Giles's. He had never had the honour of seeing a Lincoln ten-pounder; but if he might judge of them by their representative, he must say that from one end of Finsbury to the other, from St. Giles's to St. Luke's, he had never seen anything, whether as regarded mental accomplishments, elegance of diction, or personal adornment, the least like a Lincoln Bernal, R. List of the AYES. Baine, W. Cowper, hon. W. F. Langston, J. H. Pigot, rt. hon. D. D'Eyncourt, rt.hn. C. T. Protheroe, E. Duncan, Viset. Duncombe, T. Roebuck, J. A. Russell, Lord J Scrope, G. P. Thornely, T. TELLERS. Evans, Sir D. L. Hume, J. Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Howard, P. H. Inglis, Sir R. H. Johnstone, Sir J. Johnstone, H. Jones, Capt. Kemble, H. Lawson, A. Relief Bill gave security to the Established Church. The general tendency of the Bill was to forward the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which was at the present time seeking its own aggrandizement throughout the whole civilized world, and to remove that security which they had provided in this country for upholding their Protestant Constitution. He had no doubt the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was fully aware of the attempts which were now making to introduce into this country the question of mixed marriages. That question, which had disturbed the peace of a large portion of the Continent of Europe, was now sought to be introduced into this kingdom. He Lennox, Lord G. H. G. Lygon, hon. Gen. Peel, rt. hon, Sir R. Vivian, J. E. TELLERS. Young, J. Cripps, W. Main Question as amended agreed to. Second reading put off for six months. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. House in Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. On the question that the Preamble be postponed, SIR R. H. INGLIS said it was very true that the Bill was so altered from what it was when he had first urged his objections against it, that its parent could hardly recognise his own child. Bad, however, as it originally was, and mutilated as it now was, it still retained sufficient substance to justify him in continuing his opposition to it. The very first clause of it recited the expediency of repealing almost all those provisions which in the Roman Catholic wished to call the attention of the Government, as well as that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to this subject. By the documents which he held in his hand, it appeared it was peremptorily enjoined, that no Roman Catholic priest should solemnize a mixed marriage, unless he obtained a written engagement that all the children of such marriage shall be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. He did not blame the Roman Catholics for this-that was not his point-but he felt that this fact was sufficient to fortify him in his determination not to yield to the demands made for the withdrawal of those securities which the Protestant faith at present enjoyed. In France it appeared that this system was now in full vigour, and where marriage was contracted, as a religious ceremony, the Roman Catholic priest was required to obtain a written contract, by which the parents were bound to bring up their children according to the doctrines of the Church of Rome. This fact was verified by the correspondence which he held in his hand, and was particularly dwelt upon in the letter of Cardinal Bishop of Arras. Whilst the Roman Catholics were seeking to remove disabilities from themselves they were imposing civil disabilities on others. He thought the Bill retained sufficient evil as it now stood to warrant its rejection absolutely and entirely. He therefore moved that the Chairman do now leave the chair. MR. WATSON said, he had no objection to test the Bill by another division. It had already been tested three times, and he was rather desirous to see its principle again tested. He maintained that the Bill was called for, inasmuch as the provisions which it was intended to repeal, were provisions which ought not to be allowed to remain on the Statute-book. He was desirous that the Bill should pass, and therefore he was ready to agree to any alteration in the clauses which could be made consistently with the present form of the Bill, for he was only desirous to see it rendered effectual. The first clause, relating to the assumption by dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church of titles now enjoyed by the dignitaries of the Protestant Church, had been objected to; but it did not involve as important considerations as those which followed, He introduced a clause to the effect that nothing in the Act should be construed to enable any person or persons to exercise the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church in any public street or road; and he did so because it might not be agreeable to many persons to witness the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church in the public streets. The last clause which he proposed to introduce was, however, the most important, affecting as it did the regular clergy of the Catholic Church. When it was recollected that there were in England and Ireland considerable bodies of persons of the Roman Catholic religion, who devoted themselves to the education of youth, and reflected that those persons where they belonged to the regular religious orders of that church, coming into the country after 1829, were subject to banishment, he was sure the House would agree with him that the law which subjected those religious orders to punishment ought not to be allowed to remain on the Statute-book. All the regular clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, who came into the country after the passing of the Act of 1829, were subject to banishment; and that was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue. It had been asserted by those who were in favour of the provisions which he was desirous to see repealed, that some of them were safeguards of the Church; but he could not conceive that any such means were requisite as a safeguard to the Church. But in order to remove objections to the clause permitting the residence of the regular religious orders, he had provided for a registration. SIR J. GRAHAM: Sir, I, in common with the hon. and learned Gentleman, have laboured under a misapprehension as to the course which would be taken by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. I had understood that before the Speaker left the Chair, the hon. Member would have made a Motion that this Bill should be committed this day six months; and if the hon. Member had made that Motion it was my intention to have given him my support. The House, however, is now in Committee, and a Motion having been made, which is equivalent to the rejection of the Bill, if that Motion be pressed to a division it will be my duty to divide with the hon. Member for Oxford University. Sir, the present Bill consists of four enactments; and the hon. and learned Gentleman has noticed only three, leaving out one, not the least important. The first clause enables the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to assume the titles of the sees of the Protestant Church; and, dealing with a subject of great gravity, the hon. and learned Member attaches so little importance to his own Bill that he says, if there be any great objection to this clause, he will withdraw it. There is, Sir, I confess, something which appears to me like levity in dealing with a matter of such importance, and then in declaring it to be of little importance whether the clause as it stands shall become the law of the realm or not. Sir, I do not regard this as a matter so trivial and so unimportant. I concede frankly and freely to the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church the orders and the titles of archbishops and bishops according to their sacred ordination; that is frankly conceded by the people of this country, the law allows it, and custom has sanctioned it; we have conceded them that rank and station; but the question is, whether we allow them to assume the titles of the provinces and sees of the Protestant Church? And if we are to have an Established Church in the full possession of its rights, titles, and privileges, I do not think that titles coterminous with the rights and privileges of the prelates of the Established Church, and that the same designations, can or ought to be conferred on any prelates who are not of that Established Church. Nor do I see any advantage, so far as the Roman Catholics themselves are concerned, in the use of those titles. In this country the Roman Catholic Church is in possession of its power and privileges, and is in the full performance of its duties; yet I am not aware that any bishop of that church has preferred any such claim. In Ireland the districts are not coterminous, and the particular designation of the locality is not, therefore, necessary to be precisely the same for the Roman Catholic archbishops and bi Relief Bill. 922 shops as for the Protestants. [Mr. Ross: | then come to the third clause of the Bill, Except that it is so in practice.] The which the hon. and learned Member has hon. Member says it is so in practice; but passed over in his speech. I do not know, this is not done by the prelates themselves, therefore, whether he means to adhere to and they would act in contravention of the it, or to abandon it, as he is willing to do law of the land if they assumed those ti- with the first clause, as being wholly untles. It is true that there is no punish- important. [Mr. WATSON: I intend to ment inflicted upon other parties so address- adhere to the clause.] The hon. and ing them, and that the penalty attaches learned Gentleman says that he intends to only to the archbishops and bishops them- adhere to this clause, which directly inselves if they assume the titles; but I say fringes the principle which was settled by that it will not be consistent with the main- the Relief Act; and again I say that if tenance of the Established Church in its we are to have an Established Church rights and privileges, if the law shall sanc- amongst the constituted authorities of this tion the same rank being taken by ecclesi- realm, we ought not so to make an excepastics of a different persuasion, and the tion in favour of another religion, whatever same titles being assumed. Sir, in my it may be. Whether we are to allow a judgment, by such a sanction we should be judge, or mayor, or sheriff to go to a place causing dangerous confusion, and should of worship in his scarlet robes or not, is a be injuring the prelates of the hierarchy in question which I find regulated by the law, communion with the State. I think that and regulated in a manner which I think the provisions of the Roman Catholic Re- right. We are inflicting no great hardship if lief Bill are salutary provisions; and I am we require that any mayor or judge going decidedly attached to the maintenance of to any place of worship, whether Roman Cathose provisions which the State sanc- tholic or a meeting-house, shall lay aside his tioned when the Roman Catholic Relief robes of office; indeed, I am not aware Bill was passed. So much for that part of that there would be much harm done if the Bill. With respect to the second they were not to attend the services of the clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman Established Church itself in the trappings has already felt that the appearance of the of office. But again I say, that if we are to Roman Catholic prelates and priests in have any regulations in this matter, I will pontificalibus in public places in this coun- adhere to the regulations as I find them in try cannot be proper; he sees that some the Statute-book, and I am not prepared alteration is necessary, and he does not to sanction the attendance of those high adhere to the clause as it stands; he feels officers upon public service in a Roman that public feeling would have revolted at Catholic place of worship with the insignia the appearance of Roman Catholic pro- of their office. So much for those clauses. cessions in the public streets of this coun-I am decidedly of opinion that the law as it try, and he therefore says that this clause stands is right; and I repeat, as I think of his Bill as it at present stands can- the hon. and learned Gentleman wrong, I not be reconciled with that public opinion. feel no hesitation in voting against him. Upon the whole, Sir, I think the line I have already referred to three of the drawn at the passing of the Roman Catho-clauses of this Bill: I now come to a matlic Relief Bill was wisely and well drawn. ter of infinitely greater importance, relatIt imposes no difficulties in the perform-ing to the regular orders in this country. ance of divine service by the prelates and priests of the Roman Catholic religion. In places of public worship, and in private houses for the celebration of mass, they may appear in their pontifical robes; and I do not think the particular qualification now suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that they may appear in their pontifical attire in any place except the public streets, is sufficiently limited. There is, under the existing law, full power for the performance of solemn and religious rites in public places of worship and in private houses; and I do not think it wise or expedient to pass beyond that limit. I And, Sir, I certainly do not participate in the expression of that jealousy which has been stated by others with reference to the regular orders. I should be the last man to cast any sweeping censure upon them; I will not ascribe to them any disloyal or treasonable intention, endangering the safety of the State; I entertain no such opinions of them; and even with respect to one of those orders in particular-I allude to the Jesuits-I cannot forget that literature and that the Christian religion are under immense obligations to that order. I believe that they are among the most learned and the best educated members of the Christian faith; but on the other hand, I am bound to state, with respect to that order, and to the regular orders generally, that the members of the Protestant religion have just cause of jealousy-not on account of the political opinions of those orders, but on religious grounds; because it must be admitted that the regular orders are the aggressive force, and that they supply the missionary body most active in the conversion of those who are heretics in their eyes. I therefore say, that the Protestant Establishment has just cause, upon religious grounds, to entertain a jealousy of the regular orders. Still, upholding as we do a spirit of just toleration, and having an immense body of Roman Catholics in this country, we cannot give its full and its proper effect to that tolerant spirit if we exclude the regular orders. The hon. Gentlemen opposite entertain conscientious feelings upon this subject, and I should be sorry to speak one word irreconcileable with my respect for those feelings. But I have reason to believe that in the great sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church -the Confession-the regular orders, so far as the laity are concerned, do administer that sacrament in a manner which is most consistent with the feelings and the sentiments of the laity. I, therefore, feel we are in this position with respect to the regular orders in this country-that we have 8,000,000 of Roman Catholics, and that we can hardly, by any sound argument, maintain any exclusion against them. The question, therefore, resolves itself into a question of regulation. And while I say that although the law as it stands, under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, imposes very stringent regulations upon the regular orders in this country, I must say also that, practically, no real grievance is felt by them. I cannot doubt -the hon. Member opposite cannot doubt —that the monastic vow is still taken constantly in this country. The hon. Member cannot doubt, in the first place, that there are large numbers of the monastic orders not only in Ireland, but in England; and, in the next place, that there is a large number who take the monastic vow, notwithstanding the Roman Catholic Relief Act. In the situation I hold, as presiding over the Home Office, I can say that there is no record of these orders or vows. I do not state this in commendation of the existing law of the land; but I state it as a practical fact, to show that there is no practical grievance existing under the operation of the law as it now stands. I cannot say, however, that the state of the law is satisfactory, when it is admitted by a Member of the Executive Government that it is only by sufferance, and not under the law, that these exist. I come now to what ought to be done. I cannot think it right to deal with a question of this importance lightly, or without ample consideration. And I do not think that, at the present moment and under present circumstances, we ought to deal with this particular subject in the manner which is now proposed. I do not say that the whole state of the law with respect to the monastic orders does not require revision; but, with the feeling which is known to exist in this country, and with a due regard to the interests of the Established Church, I repeat that we ought to deal with this subject with peculiar caution and with the greatest deliberation. Let me remind you that in countries not despotic-in countries in which there is not any feeling of strong religious bigotry-there is yet peculiar jealousy entertained of these particular orders. I need not remind you of what the French Government and the French Legislature have recently felt upon this subject. Whilst, then, upon the one hand, I cannot deny the existence or the merits of the regular orders; on the other hand, I cannot dissent from the statement that these monastic bodies are the aggressive force of the Roman Catholic Church, and certainly are, to a great extent, the means by which that church seeks to convert parties from what they consider the error of their ways, Under such circumstances, it cannot fail to be the opinion of the House that the utmost caution is necessary in dealing with this matter. Nor can I think that, at the present time, the House is in a position to bestow upon it all that dispassionate attention which it requires; at the same time, I cannot say I am satisfied with the law as it stands; but, on the other hand, I am not satisfied with the provisions sought to be introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman for the amendment of the law. With respect, then, to the first three clauses, I am decidedly opposed to the alteration which they propose to make; and as to the fourth, I have endeavoured to show to the House that there is no pressing necessity to deal with the subject, because there is no practical difficulty sustained by those for whose relief this Bill is intended. It is also such delicate ground upon which we are entitled to |