The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE concurred in the view taken by his noble Friend of the ill usage to which Colonel Bristowe had been most improperly and un prisonment in, and expulsion from, Spain. | matic relations should not be renewed, for This gentleman was an officer in Her Ma- enforcing the rights of British subjects to jesty's Army, and he complained that in redress. Commercial grievances would rehis person the liberty of a British subject quire prompt attention; and he warned the had been violated, and the courtesy of in- Government of Spain not to urge forbearternational customs disregarded. Colonel ance too far, since it might have an end. Bristowe had for a few years resided in a Upon these public grounds it was that he private character at Madrid, and during had proposed to draw their Lordships' atthat time he had entered into no political tention to this case; and he hoped that connexions whatever, and had not even measures would be taken by Her Majesty's frequented any place where political sub- Government in order that, if it were not jects were discussed. On the 24th of May likely that diplomatic relations with Spain last, without any notice, his apartment should return to their former state, the was entered by twenty men, agents of the interests and the liberties of Englishmen Spanish police. His person was seized, in Spain should not be left unprotected. his papers were taken, and he was carried The petitioner prayed that some steps through the streets to the office of the might be taken to indemnify him for the chief of the police. On arriving there the injury he had suffered, and the losses to chief refused to make any statement to which he had been exposed. Colonel Bristowe with regard to the motives which had led to his arrest. He was lodged in prison with fifty or sixty other persons confined for various offences. The following day some of his papers were re-justifiably exposed, and respecting which, turned, and the others kept, being letters he was sorry to say, no explanation had to ordinary acquaintances, and to near re- been received. At the same time, he could lations on domestic affairs. He was then assure his noble Friend and the House placed in a kind of carriage, along with that there had been no remissness whattwo agents of the police, who conveyed ever on the part of his noble Friend the him to Bilboa, and there he was put into Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. the mail and sent to the frontier. Colonel As soon as his noble Friend was made Bristowe had endeavoured at various times acquainted with the occurrence, he adto obtain information respecting the cause dressed a remonstrance to M. Isturitz of this treatment, but he could get no upon the subject, who expressed his conanswer. Having heard before of these cern at it, and said he would obtain inforpranks on the part of the Spanish Govern- mation, and forward an explanation to his ment, this proceeding had not surprised noble Friend. But neither before the dehim; this was not the only instance, nor parture of M. Isturitz, nor since his deone of the greatest instances of its viola-parture, had any such explanation been tion of the usual customs and courtesies of afforded. Mr. Otway, who still remained nations. There was, however, this difference between the present and another instance, that here nothing like an excuse or a reason had been set up. The case of Colonel Bristowe not being a single isolated case, great alarm was felt from the possibility that not only the liberty of other British subjects might be endangered, but that our merchants might incur risk, and that the interests of British commerce might suffer. Persons engaged in trade resided in foreign countries upon the faith that they would enjoy their personal liberty; and, as there was no war between the two countries, British subjects in Spain had a right to expect that their persons and dealings would be respected there. Although diplomatic relations had ceased between the two countries, there were means and opportunities, if diplo in Spain, had addressed a remonstrance upon the subject to the Spanish Government, with the same result which had attended Colonel Bristowe's applications. Unless some explanation should be afforded hereafter, such a proceeding was not consistent with the customs and courtesies of civilised countries; and, under any other Government than the present, he should have thought that the Spanish nation would be the last that would be guilty of such an act. He was quite certain that his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department had done his duty in the matter; but if his representations were unattended to, it was not his fault. LORD BEAUMONT was obliged to the noble Marquess for the observations he had made. He would merely add that, in matters of trade, our consular agents in 517 Diplomatic Relations {AUG. 25} with the Court of Rome. 518 Spain were authorised to communicate | made the subject and the victim of a legislative with the Spanish Government. House adjourned. Protest against the Third Reading of the 1. Because a Bill of this nature, dealing with various and conflicting rights, ought not to have been forced forward for the adoption of Parliament in the absence of nearly every Peer connected with Ireland, and at a period when it is impossible to give the subject due consideration. 2. Because the Bill is founded on a principle not only unprecedented, but indefensible; oppressive and discretionary powers of taxation being vested, not in the owners of property, but in conservators, chosen by persons who may for the most part possess no property whatsoever, and whose only qualification is the payment of a license duty for the use of a fishing rod or net. 3. Because a system of annual election by a constituency not required to possess a property qualification cannot fail to lead to confusion, mismanagement, and strife, when applied to the government of a district which, like that of the Shannon, may extend for several hundred miles. 4. Because the imposition of an annual license duty, leviable from the poorer class of fishermen, and exceeding the total value of the cats and nets employed by them, is grievous and oppressive; calculated to deprive many honest and industrious persons of their means of livelihood at a time of unexampled distress, and which cannot fail to produce just discontent, leading to acts of violence and resistance to the law. 5. Because the imposition of an invariable tax on all Scotch weirs, without any reference to their relative value, is unjust and unequal, and will in many instances act as a prohibition against a mode of fishery, which in Ireland as well as in Great Britain has been found profitable and productive, and is a violation of all the rights of property. 6. Because the power of levying a tax of 10 per cent on the rated value of any description of fishery is iniquitous and unjust, and is the less defensible at a period when Parliament has withheld its as sent from an additional property tax of 2 per cent, though stated by responsible Ministers to be required by the exigencies of the State. experiment which could never have been proposed, much less carried, in relation to the analogous interests of Great Britain. MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, August 25, 1848. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-10 Post Horse Licences, Reported.-Slave Trade (Equator); Renewable Leasehold 3o and passed:-Transfer of Landed Property (Ireland); DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE MR. SPOONER said, he should oppose the Motion, for he objected to the passing of any such measure, especially at a period of the Session when so many Members were out of town that not above one hundred remained. He objected to the Bill also as a direct and injurious interference with the Bill of Rights and with the Act 7. Because the appointment by Act of Parlia- of Settlement; and he further objected to ment of the Inspectors of Fisheries to hold the ad-it because it was a matter within his own ditional office of Commissioners, is inconsistent with all sound principles of administration, the same individuals being called on to discharge conflicting duties, to issue orders as Commissioners, to execute those orders as inspectors, and finally, to decide and to report on the manner in which they have themselves executed their ministerial duties. knowledge that amongst the most enlightened portion of the people of this country, an opinion was gaining ground that there was some mystery behind this Bill, and he was bound to assure the House that it was a measure looked upon with great suspi8. Because it is not shown, or even suggested, cion. It was apprehended that secret nethat this extraordinary Bill has been sanctioned or gotiations were to be carried on with the recommended by the Commissioners of Irish Fisheries, the official functionaries appointed under a Pope, for the purpose of inducing that perrecent statute to report annually to the Legisla-sonage to consent to those clauses which ture and to Parliament on this subject. at present were opposed by every Roman 9. Because on these grounds the Bill is unwise Catholic Member of that House. It was and unjust, oppressive to the poor, partial in its also apprehended that an intention was enbearing on the more wealthy, destructive to in-tertained of forming an alliance between dustry, and inconsistent with the rights of property, and is therefore likely to create just feelings this country and the Pope, for his better of discontent in Ireland, when that country is security, both as a secular and an ecclesi were at present in force, and this change might possibly be effected without seriously injuring any constitutional right whatever. As to what the hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the Members now out of town, he should only observe that when, upon former occasions, divisions took place respecting this Bill, the numbers were three to one in its favour; and if the House were now full, he had no doubt that the numbers on either side would continue to be in that proportion. He conceived that the Members now present did fairly represent the opinion of the House, and he must add that if every Bill were to be thus treated, no progress in public business could be made. If towards the close of every Session they were to be told that any Bill which had taken a long time must be abandoned, and that if Ministers refused to give up the measures they had introduced, that then the forms of the House were to be employed against them-if such were to be the practice of Parliament, he did not see how legislation could be proceeded with. There was nothing extraordinary in a proposition to establish diplomatic relations with the only Sovereign in Europe between whom and this country no such relations at present subsisted. If he were now to waste the time of the House in ex astical prince; and to such an alliance he should be strongly opposed, the more especially if it had any tendency to entangle us in an European war. To any result of that kind he felt strongly persuaded that the people of England were strenuously opposed. He objected also strongly to this Bill as being a further abandonment of Protestant principle. He was well aware that what he was about to say would subject him to the charge of bigotry, and bring down upon him the animadversions of many within or without those walls; but that should not deter him from doing what he conceived to be an imperative duty. He felt himself obliged to declare that he believed the blessing of the Almighty had been most mercifully vouchsafed to this nation so long as she adhered to the true Christian faith, and steadily opposed what he believed to be the delusions of Rome. For many years past we had been by degrees departing from those pure principles, and giving our countenance to Popish errors. He attributed much of our present distress and perplexity to this fatal conduct. He wished now, once for all, to protest against Parliament being thus coerced by a tyrant majority to accept a Bill which he did not hesitate to describe as forming a further and most dangerous step in dereliction of the Pro-plaining the two or three mysteries which testant religion. Entertaining, then, these strong opinions with reference to the present Bill, and with respect also to the time at which it was brought forward, he claimed a full right to use those forms which would enable him to delay the passing of the measure; and he conceived that if he did so use them, such a proceeding could not be considered factious. were supposed to lurk behind this measure, he doubted not that before to-morrow two or three other mysteries would spring up equally entitled to explanation. MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that the small amount of the opponents to the measure now in the House represented only a small number of opponents out of doors; and vindicated his friends about him from any imputations of factiousness. On the proposition of the 2nd Clause (not lawful for the Queen to receive as Ambassador, &c., from the Court of Rome any person in holy orders), MR. ANSTEY moved the omission of the word "not," contending that the enactment of such a disqualifying clause as the one proposed would render the Bill inope LORD J. RUSSELL replied, that though it might be consistent with the forms of the House to take the course which the hon. Member intimated his intention of pursuing, yet certainly such a mode of meeting the present question would not be consistent with the ancient usage of Parliament. It was by no means the practice of that House to have one, two, or three discussions upon the principle of a Bill after that Bill had been read a second time. Gene-rative. rally speaking, the rules and forms of that House had a tendency to promote freedom of debate, and to prevent also the extreme use of Ministerial majorities. If, however, those forms came to be abused, the House must of necessity reconsider them, and would probably substitute new rules and forms of proceeding in lieu of those which The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREY said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Essex, having yesterday charged him with being in the habit of reading a disgusting book, he desired to explain, in order to prevent all misconception out of doors, that the book alluded to, called the Garden of the Soul, was a book of religious exercise, intended to aid individuals in the private examination of the conscience; and, he might observe, in reference to most books, even the Holy Scriptures, that if isolated passages were taken without regard to their context or purpose, specious but unwarrantable objections might be urged against them. With respect to the clause under consideration, he thought they must have diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome fully and entirely, or not at all. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON thought the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was almost bound to vote against his own Amendment. The hon. and learned Member had opposed the Bill, apprehending great danger from it; and now he said, that if the present clause were retained in its existing shape, it would entirely defeat the operation of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member would, therefore, accomplish all he had sought to effect in opposing the Bill, if he allowed the clause to stand unaltered. He was opposed to the removal of the disqualification inserted in the Bill in another place, because he thought its retention only a proper deference to the feelings of a large class of the population. It must be recollected, too, that the Government of Rome was now constitutional and secu larised. He believed an ecclesiastic had now been appointed to the office of Foreign Affairs, who was, however, the only ecclesiastic in the Administration. The Government of Rome was now lay, responsible, and constitutional; and the probability was, that the lay advisers of the Pope would be desirous that some opportunity should be afforded of employing in diplomatic relations the nobles of the Roman States. This clause would only make that the law of this country which was now the practice of other non-Catholic Governments-Russia and Prussia for instance. Both those countries had diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; but they refused to receive an ecclesiastic as the representative of Rome; and the consequence was, that while there had been Prussian and Russian Ministers at Rome, there had not been a Roman representative either at Berlin or St. Petersburgh. Supposing, then, that in the case of this country a similar result should follow the maintenance of this clause, our diplomatic relations with the Roman States would not be put upon a singular footing. He considered, therefore, that it would be inexpedient to disturb the clause. SIR J. TYRELL said, with reference to The the statement he had made on a former occasion, and which had been alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord Arundel), he begged to say that, although he made that statement under some warmth of feeling, he would not withdraw an iota of it. noble Lord had acknowledged that he was in the habit of reading a Roman Catholic book, which, from a regard to decency, he (Sir J. Tyrell) had said he would not further refer to unless he were challenged to do so. If it was the wish of the House, he was quite ready to read some passages from the work in question. ["No, no!"] LORD J. RUSSELL observed, that the hon. Baronet had, on a former occasion, referred to a book which he said contained very objectionable passages, and which he stated, if he was challenged to do so, he was ready to read to the House. The noble Lord (Lord Arundel) had not challenged the hon. Baronet to read those passages; and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Baronet was quite right in not having read them. This was not at all a question of politics; it was not a question with regard to diplomatic intercourse. It was in fact a question relating to the religious faith of churches to which various Members of that House belonged. Every one knew that certain objections were made by all Protestants to the Roman Catholic religion, and certain answers were given by Roman Catholics to those objections; but, whether those objections were good and sufficient objections, and whether the answers were good and sufficient answers, were questions of religious feeling, which he thought it most unfitting that that House should be called upon to decide. He (Lord J. Russell) would especially regret that any question of religious faith should be introduced in a manner which might be offensive to the feelings of any hon. Member of that House; and he therefore hoped, that not only the hon. Baronet, but every other hon. Member, would refrain from discussions which were irrelevant, and which might be offensive to many Gentlemen. MR. HENRY DRUMMOND said, they had had some little proof of the incompetency of those who attacked the Roman Catholic religion to form a very accurate judgment on the subject; for the most common and ordinary book of Roman Catholic practice was so new to these persons that it absolutely scared them from their propriety. As these objectors appeared to know nothing of the difference between and opiniones doctrinæ et disciplinæ, he did not wonder that they had shown themselves incapable of doing anything beyond expressing a rancorous and blind hostility on a subject they did not understand. When these hon. Gentlemen claimed credit to themselves for being the representatives of all the Protestant feeling of the country, they appeared to have left out of the question most unceremoniously two Gentlemen of their own party whose reputation stood as high as that of any Member of that House-the hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), who had expressed their approbation of this Bill, their intention to support it. He (Mr. Drummond) regarded this clause as an insult to the Roman Catholics and the Court of Rome; and, as he believed it would tend to embarrass the working of the measure, he would oppose it. The hon. Gentlemen near him must be in utter ignorance of Romish tricks, if they thought an Act of Parliament could prevent the Pope from being represented in this country by an ecclesiastic. Surely these simple Gentlemen-these canny Scots-did not think they were a match for Jesuits? The fact was, that this clause had been introduced into the Bill as a sop to bigotry. COLONEL THOMPSON believed that the clause contained much that was frivolous, unreasonable, and impolitic; but on reading the words in print on the back of the Bill, he would recommend those interested in its passing, to consider the propriety of accepting it as it stood. After a short discussion, chiefly on the Catholic religion, the Amendment was negatived. The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill:Ayes 79; Noes 22: Majority 57. with the Court of Rome. Romilly, Sir J. Jones, Capt. Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Sandars, J. Scrope, G. P. 524 Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wellesley, Lord C. Williams, J. Willoughby, Sir H. Wilson, M. TELLERS. Bellew, R. M. MR. PEARSON moved that after the words "That nothing herein contained," the following words be inserted, “shall authorise any intercourse or communion with the See or Church of Rome upon ecclesiastical and spiritual matters now forbidden by law." The Committee divided on the question that the words be inserted :-Ayes 30; Noes 65: Majority 35. Forester, hon. G. C. W. Urquhart, D. Chichester, Lord J. L. Clements, hon. C. S. Duncan, G. Dunne, F. P. Fagan, J. FitzGerald, W. R. S. Turner, E. Hamilton, G. A. Forbes, W. Hawes, B. Hay, Lord J. Hayter, W. G. Frewen, C. H. Vyse, R. H. R. H. Goring, C. Williams, J. Grogan, E. Willoughby, Sir H. Hood, Sir A. Knox, Col. Pearson, C. Mandeville, Visct. |