IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (From the "Home News," May 21.) HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Friday May 9. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 571, 4 October 1851, Page 2

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (From the " Home News," May 2 1.) HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Friday May 9. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

On the order for going into committee upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, Mr. Uiiquhart moved a icsnlution, that the recent net of the Pope, in dividing England into dioceses, and appointing bishops thereto, had been encouraged by the conduct and declarations of her Majesty's Government, lie observed that this was a question, not of opinion, but of fact; and he referred, in support of his argument, to acts and avowals of opinion by members of the Government, which have been repeatedly animadverted upon in preceding debates upon this bill, whence he inferred that there was no honest intention to enforce its provisions. He contended that the act of the Pope was no violation of the law of nations, nor of their practice in relation to Papal instruments ; and, in conclusion, in adverting to the letter of Lord J. Russell, he condemned the promulgation of such an inflammatory document at a time when the Government might have negociated with the Court of Rome, winch alone called for a vote 01 censure upon the Government. Mr. FnEsnriELD opposed the amendment, which led to no result, but was an impediment iv the way of legislation. Lord J. Manners supported the amendment, because, although it asserted a truism, considerable practical good would result ftom the formal record of a plain declaration of a truth in the journals of that House, the whole course of Lord J. Russell's policy having been one long series of concessions to the Church of Rome and of insults to the Church of England. Sir R. Inoi.lB denied that the amendment would have no result; if carried, the practical result would be to destroy the bill, for the question was whether the House should go into committee to consider, and, if necessary, amend, a measure, the principle of which had been affirmed by large majorities. lie would not be withdrawn fiom practical legislation to discuss an abstract proposition, the affnmation of which, whether accurate or not, would frustrate the object of the bill, and he should oppose the amendment. Mr. Si'Oonku said, if he thought with Sir R, Tpglis, that in voting for the amendment he should destroy the bill, he would abstain from doing so ; but so far from this, he believed that by affirming a proposition which he believed to be true much might be done to strengthen the measure. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. Lord J. Russctx denied thnt the conduct of the preisent and former Governments, whose conciliatory policy he believed had been wise, had at all led to the Papal Aggression. He believed it was part and parcel of a great scheme against the civil and religious liberty of every country in Europe; that whether the Government of this country had been favourable to Roman Catholics or not, the attempt would have been made ; and he felt the gi eater confidence in resisting this aggression because there had been nothing in the conduct of the Government of this country which had a tendency to provoke it. The people of England, he observed in conclusion, expected that, whatever n ere the party differences m that House, tins was not the proper occasion to exhibit them, but that they should rather tuin their attention, after the second reading of the bill, to devise securities for the Ciown and the nation.

1 Mr. Dish ai 11 thought it would he wise and salutary to recotd an accurate and dispassionate opinion as to the cause oi ibe-o oeeunences, and m acceding lo the amendment lie belie\ed lie was peiforming a public dut^. Mi. Roi ih'Ck, believing that the nets of the Government, in which lie bad fully coincided as extremely wis« acts, bad eiicoui,i»<»d the Pope, must agree witb tb© amendment .is a matter of tact, and he waa glad of an opportunity to get rid of tins bill. Air. Di i dls and Sir T. Acland opposed the amendment, as. destructive of the bill. The House having divided, the amendment was negatived by 280 against Wl.

TnurtsDAY, May 15. In the House of Commons, the adjourned debate on going into committee upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Hill was resumed.—Mr Scully opposed the bill, because it was not founded upon facts, and because if it passed, it would endanger the morals, and disturb tbe social condition of heland.—Mr. Wegg-Prosser reproached the supporters of the bill with the unfauness of their arguments,—as in that drawn from the temporal power of the Pope, which all Roman Catholics repudiated.—Mr. Campbell supported the bill, which Mr. Tielawny opposed, considering that Her Majesty's Ministeis, whom he generally supported, had in this instance got inio a wrong groove.—Mr. P. Howard justified by precedents the clmm of the Holy See to the appointment to bishoprics. That See made no claim to temporal authority; when such a pretension was asserted it had always been resisted.—The Lord Advocate said, the Papal rescript oltered the footing upon which the Roman Catholic Church had stood In tlua-' country for centuiies, and that was a sufficient caus'tP^ some measure. There had been a public assertion of" ah' absolute right on the part of the Pope to exercise spiritual jurisdiction in this land—a tentative step which could not be overlooked without giving encouragement in a quarter where a little encouragement was dangerous. This bill would not interfere with the properexercise of the episcopal functions of the Roman Catholic prelates.—Mr. Reynolds, at considerable length, inveighed against the measure, and against the conduct of the Government in relation to it, reminding them that they were on the brink of a dangerous precipice, and that if they passed the bill, they would embroil the country in endless discords.—Mr. Whiteside, in a muiden speech, defended the bill. He accused the Pope of doing an unexampled act in the appointment of Archbishop Cullen, in order to acquire a domination over the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and to govern them accoidmg to his will, and tnat of the Propaganda He then adverted to the next step, tbe assembling of the Synod of Thuries—an extraoidinary transaction, he said, and illegal throughout, for it was convened under the edict of the Pope, with the view of putting in circulation the Papal rescripts. In connection with these proceedings, be charged Lord Clarendon with not upholding and enforcing the law, thereby offering encouragement to Papal encroachment; and be concluded with an animated reply to the speeches of Mr. Bright and Mr. Keogh.—Mr. Lawless moved the adjournment of the debate, which was negatived, upon a division, bv 359 against 46.—Mr. R. M. Fox then moved the adjournment of the House; whereupon Lord J. Russell consented to the debate being adjourned until Friday. Adjourned.

The debate, on into committee upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, which itood adjourned until this day, was not resumed, but upon the qusetion that the Speaker leave the chair, a division immediately took place, when the question was carried by 116 against 35 and the House went into committee upon the bill. The first proposition put by the Chairman, that the preamble be postponed, was met by a motion from Mr. Keogh, that it be taken first, which led to a discussion of some length, embracing the object of the measure, its provisions, and the proposed amendments of the bill.—Mr. Disraeli, who declared that under no circumstances would he consent to apply legislation upon this subject to England which was not applied to Ireland, added that he objected to the bill as it stood, which did not assert n principle, but contained a clause of petty penal legislation, and that he should support any amendment which would attempt to cope with the difficulties requiring this legislation, and the leasons for it, making the bill areta'utory act, to vindicate the national honour, baffle conspiracy, and assert the cause of civil and religious liberty.—Lord J. Russell concuired in the remarks of Mr. Disraeli, and .signifying the views of the Government with respect to the proposed amendments, he iu#gested that the bill should be now committed proformd. to be recommitted on Monday, in order that the bill might be in the meantime reprinted in the form to winch the Government intended to adhere.. This suggestion was ultimately adopted, and the House adjourned.

Monday, May 19. The House of Commons having resolved itself into a committee upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, Mr. Reynolds moved that the chairman report progress, observing that this wai not the first or second hill which had been laid upon the table ; that notices hid been given of amendments which did not apply to the bill in its present shape j and that time should be iriven for considering its new provision*. — Sir G. Grey left the committee to deoide whether this proposition was in the spuit of the understanding of Friday. The Edd of Arundel and Surrey seconded the moiion, which he thought was not at variance with the understanding. —Mr. tloebuck and Mr. Gladstone suggested that one of the law officers of the Crown, or some member of the Government, should explain the legal effect of the bill as it now stood, which appeared to Mr. Gladstone full of perplexities —Lord J. Russell did not think this an unreasonable lequest when they came to the first clause ; but Mr. Reynold's motion mutt be first disposed of. — A good deal of discussion followed respecting the undei standing of Friday, and an alleged B-rangement between the Government and Mr. Walpole ; ultimately, the motion for reporting progress was negatived on a division by 262 against 46.— The Attorney- Ganeral then explained the legal effect of the bill as it stood, which he denied to be a new bill. After an exposition of the preamble, he observed with respect to the first clause, iiow added to the bill— 11 that the said brief, &c , and all jurisdiction, authority, or title conlerred thereby, was unlawful and void" — that it was declaratory, embodying the recital in the preamble, and he had at first thought it to be superfluous. The second clause, which forbade the assumption of titles to pretended sees or dioceses, &c, in the United Kingdom, under a penalty of £i OO, merely extended the act of 1829 (10 Geo. IV., c. 7) • and the simple answer to the objection that it would interfere with charitable bequests and trusts of Roman Catholics, was that the act of 1829 had not had that effect in Ireland.— This explanation was much canvassed and led to further elucidations of the icope and operation of the bill. The question that the preamble be postponed underwent a long debate, or rather conversation, in the course of which Mr. Reynolds moved that the chairman report progress, which was iiega'ived upon a division. The preamble was read twice on a division. — Lord ArundcA and Surrey then renewed the motion that the chairmaiM report progress, which was suppoited by Mi. Reynolds,^ who declared that, no matter how many divisions took place, the first clause should not pass th-it night. — Mr. Roebuck and S r F. Thesiger recommended the Government to concede this delay, the latter observing that after the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General, it would be pioper to amend the first clause, applying it not only to the particular brief, but to all similar briefs and rescripts in the United Kingdom.— Sir G. Grey, on the part of the Government, assented to the chairman leuving the chair, to sit again on Friday,

FniDAT May 23. In the House of Commons the consideration of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed by Mr. T. Duncombe, who examined the point raised in a previous debate, namely, whether the act could have any legal effect unless the papal rescript referred to in the first clause was set forth and reoited in the bill. He con« tended that the omission would be fata), and, after lamenting the retrograde tendencies of the policy indicaied by the measure, moved that the discussion of the clause should be postponed until the rescript were laid befoie the House.— The Solicitor-General sustained the legal vitality of the clause, arguing that it enacted penalties Bgainst certain titles as assumed under a letter or rescript of the Pope, which penalties could be enforced if the fact of assumption were but proved, without involving the necessity of proving the existence or tenor of the rescript itself.— Mr. Roebuck maintained that under either view of the case the clause imputed too much or too little. It would under one interpretation leave the alleged aggression unpunished, or under the other forbid any Roman Catholic bishop existing in the country under any style or title whatever.—The Attorney General reiterated the legal argument, and asserted the fitness of the clause, which would have full effect, though the rescript were not forthcoming.— Mr. Walpolo showed that in former instances of papal aggression the legislature had not insisted on a technical proof of the fact, resting satisfied Kith the testimony of common rumour on

matter respecting which there was no doubt.— Mr. Keogh recapitulated the legal reasons lor affuming the of producing mu\ proving the papal br ef. — Mr. Reynolds having spoken, the committee divided For postponing the rlausr, 49; a<ja nst it 221; -majority, 172. The clause having been put, Sir F Tliesiger moved as amendments in the phraseology, the conversation of the singular into pluial when referring to the papal biief or resciipt He wish-d to extend the piohibiiory force of ihe bill over all letters missive or other documents from Rome by which the liberty s of British subjects could be invaded.— The Solicitorgeneral opposed the amendment, maintaining that the clause as it stood fulfilled every purpose requited, and >would be rather weakened by the suggested alterations. The discussion then turned upon the legal interpretation to be assigned to the claube, and was purs-led by Mr. Roebuck, the Attorney General, Mr. Monsell, Mr Whiteside, Mr. M'Cullagli, Sir G. Grey, Lord J. Russell, Mr. C. Anstey, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Sadliei, Mr. Henley, and other members. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn. The Earl of Arundel und Surrey moved a second amendment, intended to exclude from the purview of the penal clause all acts of the Catholic b shops appertaining to their strictly spiritual functions. — The Attorney General opposed the amendment upon technical grounds. After some discussion the committee divided", and the amendment was rejected by a majority of 216 to 61— 155 Mr. Sadlier proposed an amendment of a similar import, for inserting the words, " lor all tempoial purposes," in the clause. On a division this amendment was also 'lost, the numbers being— Ayes, 67, noes, 217 — 150 A discussion arose as to the best method of proceed ing with the debate.— Sir B. Hull recommended its prosecution thiough a continuous series of morning sittings.— Lord J. Russell de< lined to avail himself of this expedient for the present. — After some remarks by Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Disraeli, the chairman reported progress, with leave to sit again on Monday. —The House then resumed.— -Adjourned.

CONVENTS' BILL. Mr. Lacy moved the second reading of the Bill to Prevent the Forcible Detention of Females in Religious Houses, the object of which, he s^id, was that all religious houses (Protestant included) m which ladies resided, bound by monastic or religious vows, should be reg stered, and that in all counties in which houses of the kind should be registered, six magistrates should be appointed at Quarter Sessions to visit such houses •without notice, with power, if they found any lady -there who wished to come out, to take her out. He had ascertained that there were 53 such houses in England and Wales, and that they were vastly on the increase, 19 having been added within the last four years. Sir G. Grey said he had no hesitntion instating the ground upon which he should withhold his assent from this bill. Mi. Lacy had failed to show the existence, or probable existence, of foicible detention of females in these houses, and, although he was not prepared to deny that a dangerous control was exercised there, it was of a moral spiritual character, and one which the hill would cot in the slightest degree reach. After recent cases, lie was not prepared to say that some steps might not be necessary to deprive paitiea possessing such influence over persons who might be induced to go into these houses, of obtaining the power of obtaining their property. . But the bill was open to very great objections, and would not accomplish the object in view. Mr. Newdegate would divide in favour of the bill, knowing tint a strong feeling existed in the country that an alteration of the law regarding these establishments was absolutely necessary. Mr. Plumptke would likewise vote for the second •reading. Lord Ashley wished the bill to be withdrawn. Though he was fully of opinion that a very strong case might be made out, he did not think Mr. Lacy had established such a case, and if he had, the details and machinery of his bill were objectionable. The Government ought to be aware of the very deep feeling of the •country that some legislative measure upon this subject -was required, which would be better left in their bands. The Earl of Arundel and Surrey said he had been prepared to go at length into this question ; but the «ase had so broken down that he deprecated further discussion, and moved that the second reading be deferred for six months. Mr. S. Herbert agreed with the Solicitor-General that it would be most dangerous to pass a measure, not only without any case being made out, but with nothing beyond the probability of the event. There might be some, possibly many, who repented of their conventual tows; but something more than probability was required, or the precedent would be a dangerous one. He should vote against the bill, but he held that the State h.id the fullest right to interfere with and control the management of religious houses. Monastic institutions bound by perpetual vows were not only unnecessary, but hostile to our existing institutions ; on public grounds, therefore, the State had a right to regulate these establishments, to which no encouragement should be afforded. Lord Bernard gave some explanations respecting the case of " Fullmm v. M'Carthy." The House having divided, the bill was rejected by 123 against 91. — Adjourned.