HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, February 8, 1848.

say that, as regarded its general principles, | mented that the noble Earl, for whom he he saw no objection to it. He agreed with entertained the highest respect, should his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) who said have committed himself by the expression a few words last night on the subject, that of an opinion in the way he had to-night. it was not only right, but advisable and He was glad to hear from the noble Marproper that diplomatic relations should be quess that the Bill would be fraught with established between the Court of Rome no injury to the Protestant religion, but and this country. Not only did he feel that, on the contrary, it would tend to this because he thought it was always ad- strengthen it. He heard that declaration visable that the interests of this country with gratitude and pleasure. should be represented in a foreign country House adjourned. by an authorised agent of the Crown, but because he thought the fact of our having an authorised Ambassador from the Court of Rome in this country would be an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen in Her own dominions-an acknowledgment which never yet had been made by the Court of Rome. He saw no clause in this Bill, he should remark, which prevented the Pope from sending to this country an ecclesiastic as an Ambassador. Whilst he admitted it would be proper and expedient and advisable for us to have diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; yet he did conceive that it would be a gross dereliction of our Protestant feelings if we allowed an ecclesiastic to come to this country in the capacity of an Ambassador from the Court of Rome. The embassy in London might be made a nucleus for Jesuits. When the proper time arrived, he now gave notice, he should move the insertion of a clause, prohibiting the reception of any ecclesiastic in the capacity of Ambassador from the Court of Rome.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, that he would not complain of the statement which had just been made by the noble Earl. He did not mean to enter into any argument, or to offer any explanation of the provisions of this Bill at the present moment; but he could not listen to what the noble Earl had stated without assuring him that he should not ask their Lordships to assent to this Bill unless he was convinced that he should be able to prove to their satisfaction that it was one not only not likely to injure the Protestant religion, but that when it would come into operation it would be attended with benefit to and calculated to strengthen the Protestant religion.

The BISHOP of EXETER said, that in a measure so entirely new as this, it would have been better if all their Lordships had reserved to themselves the right of deciding when the discussion was regularly before the House whether they would favour this measure or not. He, therefore, la

MINUTES.] PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. V. Smith, from Northampton, for the Abolition of the Privilege now granted to Members of Parliament of Freedom from Arrest.-By Mr. Horsman, from several places, for Amendment of the Church Endowment Act.-By several hon. Members, from a great number of places, for and against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.-By Mr. Christopher, from Lincoln, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day. By Mr. Fagan, from Cork, for the Abolition of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By Lord Ashley, and other hon. Members, from several places, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland), and against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. Bouverie, from North Berwick, for Alteration of the Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland).-By Mr. George Thompson, from Camberwell, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.- By Lord G. Bentinck, from Persons interested in the Cultivation of Sugar, for Consideration of the West India Colonies.-By Mr. Buck, from Devon, Sir A. Hood, from Somerset, and Mr. Sheridan, from Aylesbury, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.-By Mr. Cowan, and Mr. M'Gregor, from Edinburgh, for Inquiry respecting the Excise Laws.-By Mr. G. Thompson, from W. Cole, Journeyman Carpenter, of Bromley, Middlesex, for Alteration of Property Tax.-By Mr. H. Currie, from Guildford, for Reduction of Duty on Tea; and from Northampton, for Repeal of Window Duty.-By Mr. Duncan, from Forfar, for Repeal or Alteration of the Bank of England Charter Act, and Banking (Scotland) Act.—By Lord E. Bruce, and Sir P. Egerton, from several Odd Fellows' Societies, for Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.-By Mr. C. Cavendish, from Buckingham, for Repeal of the Game Laws.— By Lord John Russell, from Kilrush Board of Guardians, for Alteration of Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland). - From Northampton, for Amendment of the Municipal Corporations Act.- By Mr. Simeon, from the Isle of Wight, and Mr. G. Thompson, from Greenwich, for Retrenchment of the Naval and Military Expenditure.-By Mr. Buck, from Bideford, against Repeal of the Navigation Laws.-By Mr. V. Smith, from Trustees of the General Municipal Charities of Northampton, for Alteration of the Law affecting those Institutions.-By several hon. Members, from Poor Law Officers of various places, for a Superannuation Fund.-By Mr. Brand, from Hitchin, for Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

SALE OF SPIRITS IN CANTEENS. COLONEL LINDSAY asked the Secretary at War if it was in contemplation to restrict the sale of spirits in barrack canteens, and to propose any alteration in the existing system of letting them; or any plan which may be calculated to place those establishments on a footing more beneficial to the service ?

MR. F. MAULE said, that since the discussion of last year the subject had been carefully considered, and although the Government could not adopt the plan of the gallant Officer of doing away altogether with canteens in barracks, yet they had determined that on the expiration of the present licenses for the sale of spirits in canteens, no spirituous liquors should afterwards be sold in canteens in barracks.

IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

MR. W. S. O'BRIEN inquired whether the Government intended at an early period to bring forward the long promised Registration Bill for Ireland?

SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject.

PRIVILEGES OF QUEEN'S COUNSEL

BURON v. DENMAN.

MR. URQUHART begged to inquire of the Attorney General what decision had been come to relative to the employment of Queen's Counsel ?

ter; but I shall be glad to receive any communication you may have to make upon this subject, and have only to add, that I am willing, upon the part of the Crown, to release you from your engagement to the Crown, should you think that under the circumstances you ought to hold a brief for the plaintiff, or to decline to act for either party."

Sir F. Kelly replied as follows:

Temple, Jan. 21, 1848. "My dear Attorney General-I am favoured with your letter on the subject of the actions by Buron and others against Captain Denman. vices of the Queen's counsel at all times is not "The power of the Crown to require the serdisputed; and as in this country every Queen's counsel is known to be under an oath to plead for the Crown at its pleasure, I conceive that he accepts every retainer from a subject under as plainly implied a reservation that he may be withdrawn by the Crown, as that he may be incapacitated by sickness or death. This power may indeed be exercised so as to do injustice to individual suitors; and the question now is, whether it has been so exercised in this particular case.

"In the first place, I must exonerate you from any responsibility. Mr. Hay's petition seems to imply that I had acted as counsel for the plaintiffs except during a short interval, until the month of May last, and that you then required my services. The fact is, that I have not so acted in The ATTORNEY GENERAL believed any way since the month of June, 1845; and that the hon. Member alluded to the petition in the following month of July (1845), having been which had been presented in the case of appointed Soliciter General, I was almost imme"Buron v. Denman," and he was glad diately called upon to advise and assist the Ministers of the Crown upon certain measures (which the hon. Member had given him an oppor- became law under the Act of 8th and 9th of Victunity of correcting a misapprehension toria, cap. 92) involving the consideration of the which existed somewhat to the prejudice whole system of the slave trade on the coast of of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Africa, of the conduct of our naval commanders Kelly), and did some injustice to himself. there, and of our relations with the Court of Brazil. It was obvious that I could not, after The action was commenced long before the communications of this nature, and upon these period at which he (the Attorney General) subjects, with the Ministers of the Crown, assist had the honour of holding his present the plaintiffs in these causes as their leading counoffice; and on the 5th June, 1844, Sir F. sel, after the defence was taken up by the Government. It was, probably, this consideration that Kelly argued a demurrer on behalf of the induced the then Attorney General to require my present plaintiff. No step was taken from services, and at least restrain me from appearing that period until November, 1846, when a against the Crown upon the trial. You, as Attormotion was made in the Court of Exche-ney General, when the causes seemed about to be quer by Mr. Matthew D. Hill, Sir F. Kelly's senior. When the case was about to be tried a short time back, he was informed by the counsel for the Admiralty that Sir F. Kelly was in the case, and that directions had been given that a brief should be handed to him; and upon an application being made to him, he advised the Admiralty not to release Sir F. Kelly from the advocacy of the case on the part of the Crown. That course had led to the presentation of a petition, and certain remarks in the newspapers, on seeing which he had felt it to be his duty to write to Sir F. Kelly on the subject:

"From what I know of the circumstances, I believe that you are free from blame in this mat

tried a few months ago, merely abstained from interfering with the decision of your predecessor. And as far as regards the mere loss of my assistance, there could be no hardship or injustice, for the whole bar was open to the plaintiffs for the selection of a leading counsel to supply my place.

"But it is urged that after having been consulted and trusted with the case by the plaintiffs, I at least ought not to appear as counsel against them; and certainly if I possessed a knowledge of might in a moment of inadvertence disclose, or the any facts imparted to me by the plaintiffs, which I consciousness of which could in any way affect my conduct in the cause, I should feel it my duty to request your authority, not indeed to act as counsel for the plaintiffs, for my communications with

the Crown while I was Solicitor General render that impossible, but to retire from the case altogether. And as you allude to imputations in the newspapers, or elsewhere, of undue motives, I

must be permitted to observe that if any counsel, I had been received giving any general accircumstanced as I am, could be influenced by per- count of the state of Jamaica; but that as sonal considerations at all, he would do his best soon as such a document should be receivto obtain the license of the Crown to act as coun

sel for the plaintiffs. If actuated by the love of fame, he would seek to be the leading counsel for the subject (generally the popular party) rather than third or fourth counsel for the Crown. If by the love of money, his interest would equally point the same way; for, as you and I well know, the fees paid by the Crown are always on a far lower scale than those of individual suitors. In almost the last case in which I was opposed to the Crown, my fees were more than nine times the amount of the then Solicitor General's; and in these very cases,

they would have been four or five times the amount of even your's as leading counsel for the Crown.

"But whatever may be my own inclinations, or my interest, I have no grounds upon which I can claim indulgence, for having only held some consultations upon the pleadings many years ago, and argued a demurrer, I think early in 1845, I have not the slightest recollection of a single fact communicated to me on the part of the plaintiffs upon which I can found a claim to be excused from ap

pearing as counsel for the Crown.

"Whether from the plaintiffs being foreigners, and the importance of all that belongs to our legal institutions being placed beyond suspicion among foreign nations, you may think it right to release me from appearing upon the trial for the Crown, is a question entirely for your own consideration, upon which I do not offer an opinion.-I remain, my dear Attorney General, very truly yours,

"FITZROY KELLY."

On receipt of the letter he had signified the intention of the Crown to the Admiralty, and a communication had been made to the noble Lord at the head of that Board, that the Crown would not insist on the services of Sir F. Kelly in the case of " Buron v. Denman."

JAMAICA.

MR. GOULBURN wished to know why Jamaica had been omitted in the statement of the affairs of the several West Indian colonies laid before the House; and also if there would be any objection on the part of Government to lay the last intelligence from Jamaica on the table.

ed, it was the intention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to communicate it without delay to the House.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

MR. OSBORNE said, he understood the estimate for the New Houses of Parliament was 1,400,000l., and he wished to ask the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the House a detailed account of the estimate, and also whether the Woods and Forests considered they were responsible for the amount?

VISCOUNT MORPETH replied, he had been assured by the architect that not more than 1,400,000l. would be required. He hoped the architect would be able to bear

out his assurance.

MR. OSBORNE thought that after the answer given by the noble Lord, considering that they had a deficient and sinking revenue, he was entitled to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury. He begged to ask if the noble Lord was prepared to check this enormous expenditure, and if he would give that House an assurance that no more than 1,400,0007., as specified in the estimate, should be spent upon the building?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL replied, that he was not able to say more than had been said by his noble Friend. He hoped the estimate would be adhered to; but as to being responsible for any architect, it was quite out of the question.

FOREIGN POLICY.

MR. HUME: Sir, I have to ask the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, whether he intends to bring on his Motion, consisting of forty articles, every one of which MR. LABOUCHERE said, that as the would occupy an ordinary night's debate. right hon. Gentleman had had the kind- I merely speak with a view to his having ness to give him notice of his intention to his whole statement to lay before the ask the question, he had applied to the Co- House. He must allow me to say-and I lonial Office on the subject, and was enabled do it with all deference I am sure, now to state that the reason that no blue book that the House is all together, and the had been laid on the table respecting Ja- public are so anxious upon the question maica was, that it had not been received. I am quite confident that I may appeal Owing to the ample information which had been forwarded by Lord Elgin, Earl Grey had stated he could add nothing to the sources of intelligence already opened by the noble Lord. With respect to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he had to say that no despatch VOL. XCVI. SThird

Series

with perfect safety to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment of last night, that they are as anxious for the debate to proceed without interruption as those on this side of the House. Under these circumstances, I trust the hon. and learned Member for Youghal will postpone his Mo

L

assuming for a moment that this were res integra, and that I was now for the first time called upon to say whether I would press upon this House or not the Motion of which I have given notice-assuming that I had not repeatedly postponed it: in the first instance, because I found that it was in the power of Government to shut me out, inasmuch as I had not complied with the forms of the House, and had given notice for a Monday, on which day debates take precedence of notices of Motion; and on another occasion, in order that a Bill, said to be for the preservation of life, might not be obstructed in its passage through the House-a Bill to which I was hostile, and in refusing to give way in favour of which, therefore, I was mak

tion, I have had as much experience of Motions in my time as any man, and I have learnt by experience that it is unwise to press such a Motion, except at the proper time; and I will advise the hon. and learned Gentleman really to allow the debate on this question to proceed. I will promise him a much better hearing at a future period than he can expect if he forces it upon the House on this occasion. I beg the hon. and learned Member to understand that I do not wish to prevent his bringing forward the Motion, or stating what he pleases, for I am most anxious to encourage every thing of the kind; but it is right that we should not be interrupted in the string of argument which has been commenced, which we ought to elucidate as much as possible, with a view of clear-ing myself liable to the charge of having ing with the public out of doors, as well as in doors, these things. I can only say, that it will be a great favour to myself if this debate proceed. I may appeal to every Member of the House that they will be most anxious also.

MR. STAFFORD: Before the hon. and learned Member rises to answer the appeal which has been put to him, I, as the Mover of the Amendment which was under discussion in the House last night, can say, that I believe it to be the universal wish on this side of the House that the debate should close this evening. I therefore ask him, whether it will be desirable for him to proceed with the Motion, against, I may say, the whole sense of the House?

MR. ANSTEY: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to answer the appeal which has been made to me by the hon. Member for Montrose, I beg to assure the hon. Member who has just sat down, that if it were possible for me to postpone the Motion in which I have an interest in favour of his Motion, I should be most happy to render to that hon. Member that poor service. But as to the other hon. Member (Mr. Hume), I do put it to this House that the appeal which has been made to me is not fair-that I am unfairly dealt with, when the appeal which has been addressed to me by that hon. Gentleman in private, is repeated thus with all the assistance and support that the presence of a number of inpatient Members-I mean impatient for the termination of this debate, and unwilling perhaps to permit the opening of the Motion in which I am interested-can give it. To that hon. Gentleman, in private, I made this answer, and I now again make it in presence of this House-that

obstructed it; assuming, again, that the day which was given me for the purpose of bringing on my Motion had not been lost by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government moving and carrying the adjournment of the House, and thereby postponed it to the day for which I had given this notice-taking all these assumptions to be true, even then I do put it to the House whether the statement which I made just now to the hon. Member, and which I am now going to repeat, is not a satisfactory answer. I told that hon. Gentleman, I tell him now, and I repeat it in presence of the House, that last night a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, intending to take a part in the Jewish Bill, and not intending to be present on the occasion of my Motion, came to me and asked me in a pressing manner, one after another, whether it was my intention to persevere, or whether, if the House showed its reluctance to hear me, I would give way unappealed to; and, in some of these instances, it was put to me as a man of honour, whether or no it was my intention to give way or to persevere; and I answered those hon. Gentlemen, one and all, upon my word of honour, that, let the consequences be what they might, however much my position in the House might be affected by my determination, to proceed; for I was in this position—that I could not go back, and that I must persevere; and upon the faith of that assurance, several hon. Gentlemen, as I told the hon. Member for Montrose, have left the House. After this I shall best consult my views of propriety when I tell the hon. Gentleman firmly and respectfully that it is not my intention to go back from my assurance;

that I find it impossible for me to accede | his embassy at the Court of Madrid. I to his application; and, however reluctant- quote from his speech of the 23rd July, ly, I must proceed with this Motion. 1839. These are his words: