sent to the Pope, on which occasion the ceremony of kissing his toe was dispensed with. "Sovereign of the Roman States," he should not be called "Pope." He had been called the "Pope" over and over again. In The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'S wished the Treaty of Vienna, which was ratified to state, that the vote which he gave the by George III., he was called the "Pope;" other night on this Bill was not in conse- and there was no reason why the same title quence of any change of opinion on his should not be again used. Although it was part on the subject of the clause in ques- possible that the Bill before their Lordships tion. He wished it to be distinctly under-might be productive of some advantages, stood. that he differed wholly from the he could not help thinking it would be atnoble Lord on the cross benches, and his tended with much inconvenience. If the Friends, who seemed to think it desirable Bill was not intended to facilitate the dealthat an ambassador from Rome should ing of this country with Her Majesty's Rounite in himself the character of a diplo- man Catholic subjects, it would be positivematic agent and that of a member of a ly useless and objectionable. But the noble religious order of the Church of Rome. Marquess professed that the measure had His own opinion was entirely different, for nothing to do with Ireland, but that it he thought grave consequences might arise was introduced entirely in consequence of from such an occurrence. Although his the state of Italy. Now, he (the Earl of opinion remained unchanged on that point, Aberdeen) thought that could scarcely be what passed during the debate convinced correct, because a similar project was enhim that the Amendment did place an ano-tertained many years ago; and if it was, he malous and unpleasant limitation on the Royal prerogative, and that was his only reason for giving the vote which he did on that occasion. The EARL of ABERDEEN, although not intending to offer any opposition to the third reading of the Bill, wished to take the present opportunity of making one or two observations. In this Bill, the Sovereign with whom it was proposed to enter into communication was styled the " Sovereign of the Roman States." Now, he confessed he entertained a strong objection to that description. He thought it sophistical altogether to attempt to separate the temporal character of that Sovereign from his spiritual character; and he felt quite certain that it could not be carried into effect. He thought it would be better, if in the first clause the object of the Bill was described to be so to enable Her Majesty to establish diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome," meaning thereby the "Sovereign." The description "Sovereign of the Roman States, was an unusual and needless circumlocution, and it was less respectful to the Sovereign, if it was meant to evade giving him his proper title. When a Sovereign accredited a Minister to another Sovereign, whom he wished to treat with respect, he addressed him with his usual and proper title, and the Pope ought to be styled "Most Holy Father;" whereas if he was to be considered only a temporal Sovereign, Her Majesty would have to address him "Sir, my Brother." He saw no reason why, in the last clause, instead of calling him would most strongly protest against its adoption, for in his opinion it would be far better to abstain from any interference in the affairs of Italy; and it was evident from the instructions which had been laid on the table, addressed to the Lord Privy Seal, that it was not absolutely necessary to have an accredited Minister at the Court of Rome to enable the Government of this country to communicate with the Pope. It was true, it might give this country the means of promoting the progress of revolution in Italy; but at the same time our interference in Italy had already been the means of creating great distrust and alarm in the minds of those whom it professed not to wish to injure or disturb. He saw nothing in the present state of Italy to justify this measure. With respect to the state of Ireland, the Bill might give this country facilities which it did not at present possess. But difficulties existed even with respect to that country. Let their Lordships recollect what took place with respect to the Irish colleges. What would this country have done, supposing a British Minister had been at Rome at that time? The Court of Rome would have protested against the measure, and the Government of this country must either have abandoned its intention or still exercised its power. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) could only say that if a beneficial measure had been proposed for the welfare and peace of Ireland, and the Court of Rome had thought fit to counteract the good intentions of the Legislature, he should have been very much disposed to advise Her Majesty to recall Her Minister from that Court. It should be borne in mind that the predecessor of the present liberal Pope gave no opposition to the establishment of these colleges, and that no difficulty was found in their establishment; but that the opposition had arisen since the accession of this European reformer. In conclusion, the noble Earl said he thought that it would be more rational and consistent to use the words "Court of Rome," in the first part of the Bill, and that instead of calling him the "Sovereign of the Roman States," in the latter part, he should be called "Pope." The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE did not think it necessary to enter into any discussion on the subject of this measure, es pecially as the noble Earl had stated that it was not his intention to oppose the Bill. He thought, however, that the remarks of the noble Earl were founded on a misunderstanding of some observations which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had made on a previous occasion; when he had stated that her Majesty was incapacitated by law from entering into spiritual communication with the Court of Rome. The noble Earl had observed that the communion of the Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Minto) with the Court of Rome had excited the distrust of Foreign Powers. He begged most emphatically to deny that such expressions of distrust had reached Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl stated that he knew such distrust had been expressed. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not take upon himself to assert that such distrust had not been expressed, because he had not penetrated into the counsels of the States to which the noble Earl referred, as the noble Earl himself had done; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would undertake to assert that, if such distrust had been entertained, it must have been kept a profound secret, for it had never been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. He might observe, with reference to the expression, "Sovereign of the Roman States," which had been objected to by the noble Earl, that that expression had not been originally used in the Bill; but it was introduced at the suggestion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), who had given much consideration to the subject. It was stated by a noble Earl, who had ample opportunities of ascertaining the views of the Court of Rome, that this expression would be acceptable to that Court; and as, on such authority, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had not hesitated to accept the term, so, notwithstanding the objection of the noble Earl, he did not hesitate to retain it. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) understood that the Pope was known in Italy as the Sovereign of the Roman States, and that that title was recognised by the Italian States; and, having adopted that term, he conceived that Her Majesty would conduct any intercourse which might be held with the Court of Rome in such manner and terms as might seem befitting between the Sovereign of this country and the Sovereign of the Roman States. Bill read 3a and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, February 28, 1848. MINUTES.] NEW MEMBERS SWORN.-For Devizes, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, Esq.-For Dublin Univer sity, Joseph Napier, Esq. PUBLIC BILLS-20 Joint Stock Companies. 5o and passed, Consolidated Fund (8,000,000). hon. Members, from several Places, against, and by Mr. Mowatt, from Cornwall, in Favour of, the Jewish Disabilities Bill.-By Mr. Goulburn, from Lambeth, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.- From Clonmel, for the Abolition of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By Mr. H. E. Adair, from Ipswich, and by Mr. Colvile, from Derby, against the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill.-By Sir Henry Halford, from Derby, and by Mr. Walker Heneage, from Devizes, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).-By Mr. Colvile, from Derby, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. G. S. Duff, from Elgin, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland).-By Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, against the Present Scheme of Emigration (Africa).-By Mr. Goulburn, from Jamaica, to take into Consideration the State of the West India Colonies.-By Mr. Roundell Palmer, from Plymouth, and by Mr. Campbell Renton, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for a Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.-By Mr. Hume, from Forfarshire, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.-By Mr. Keppel Coke, from Norfolk, and Mr. Pinney, from Wells, for Inquiry respecting Malt.-By Mr. Bright, from John Templer, of Lymington, Hants, for an Alteration of the Probate and Legacy Duties.-By Mr. Beckett, and other hon. Members, from a great number of Places, against a Continuation of the Property Tax.-By Sir Joshua Walmsley, from Leicester, and from Clonmel, for a Reduction of Duty on Tea. By Mr. Robert Palmer, from Newbury, for a Repeal of the Duty on Windows.-By Mr. Hume, from Montrose, for a Repeal or Alteration of the Bank of England Charter Act, and Banking (Scotland) Act.-From several Lodges of Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.-By Captain Villiers, from Dorset, and by Mr. Colvile, from Derby, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.-By Mr. Dunne, from Queen's County, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).-By Mr. Elliott, from Hawick, for an Alteration of the Law of Entailed Estates (Scotland). By Mr. Wakley, from the Gloucestershire Medical Association, for Reform in the Medical Profession.-By Mr. Scully, from Clonmel, for an Alteration of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Hugh Edward Adair, and other hon. Members, from several Places, for Retrenchment of the Naval and Military Expenditure.--By Mr. Cardwell, and other hon. Members, from several Places, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws. By Mr. | tation against his right hon. Friend the Moore, from Mayo, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Captain Archdall, from Tyrone, respecting the Dismissal of the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland).-By Mr. Philip Bennet, from Suffolk, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.-By Mr. Beckett, from Leeds, against the Public Health Bill.- By Mr. William Evans, from several Places, for an Alteration of the Public Health Bill. By Mr. Alexander Oswald, from Ayr, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).-By Mr. Bright, and other hon. Members, from several Places, for Referring War Disputes to Arbitration.-From John Snare, of Reading, for Exemption from Distraint, as it affects the Works of Art. THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. MR. HUME wished to ask a question of Her Majesty's Ministers, with reference to the recent transactions in France, where the Government that had heretofore ruled no longer existed, and a new Government was established. The question he desired to have a reply to was, whether it were the intention of the Ministers that this country should abstain altogether from any interference with the people of France, and that the people should be left to choose for themselves, and settle what Government they pleased, so as to afford no ground for the complaint that we had meddled officiously with their affairs, or had constituted ourselves a party to any of their disputes? This was a question to which, if no objection could be urged, he was most anxious to have a reply. LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have no objection whatever to answer the question of the hon. Member. We have of course received the intelligence generally so well known to the public, of the changes which have taken place in France; and I can assure the House (indeed I should hardly have thought it necessary to make the declaration), that we have no intention whatever to interfere with the form of government which the French nation may choose to adopt, or in any way to meddle with the internal affairs of that country. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL was most unwilling to divert the attention of the House from the important question that was about to be submitted to its consideration; but he hoped for pardon if he ventured to trepass on their attention for a few moments to complain of a breach of privilege, and an invasion on the freedom of the Election Committees. The breach of privilege in question was to be found in a leading article published in the Northern Star newspaper of Saturday, the 26th instant. That article conveyed an impu Secretary at War, and the Members generally of the Committee of Selection, and mentioned himself (Mr. O'Connell) by name as the deadly enemy of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). The House could well afford to treat the attack with contempt; but he considered that an attempt had been made to overawe in his person the Members of that House, and that attempt, if permitted to pass unnoticed, might lead to results fatal to the freedom of their deliberations. He therefore felt it to be his duty to lay the newspaper on the table, and to move that the article of which he complained be read by the Clerk. Motion carried. Mr. Ley (the Clerk), read from the Northern Star of last Saturday the following: his own Judge-It is a farce with which the peoParliamentary Committees - The Accused ple should be acquainted, that Feargus O'Connor is the accuser of Whig delinquents, while Fox Maule, the Whig Secretary at War, is the person who has the nomination of the Election Committee which is to decide upon Mr. O'Connor's right to sit in Parliament; while Mr. Morgan John O'Connell, the deadly enemy of Mr. O'Connor, may be, and probably will be, selected as chairman or judge upon the Committee. Formerly, the practice was, that thirty-three Members were balloted from among those present; the petitioners, as in the case of a special jury, struck out eleven names; the Member petitioned against also struck out eleven; and the remaining eleven constituted tered: the House is divided into panels; Mr. the Committee. Now, however, the case is alFox Maule, as chairman of the Committee of Selection, refers the petition to what panel he pleases, and selects his chairman of the Committee. Now this is the tribunal to which Mr. O'Connor's right to sit in Parliament is to be submitted; while, as far as the subscriptions have gone, it would appear as if those for whom he had struggled were determined to allow him to struggle for himself in this instance. We believe that the amount collected in one night for the defence of the seat of Mr. Reynolds, the Member for Dublin, was over 2,000l., while the amount subscribed for the defence of Mr. O'Connor's scat scarcely amounts to 4001. This forms a strong contrast between English and Irish patriotism. The amount altogether subscribed does not exceed five farthings a man of the members of the Land Company. The directors consider this but a poor inducement for any gentleman to struggle for the rights of the poor."" MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL believed, that, at least as a matter of form, it would be his duty to follow up the reading of that extract by a Motion; but before doing so he would take occasion to observe that he had brought the matter forward, not through any persuasion that the Mem bers of the Election Committees need care | said with truth, in general terms, that the for such an attack, but because he thought parties litigant had under the present sysit desirable that the public should be unde- tem a right of challenge for cause. They ceived, and that they should understand had only a right of challenge for such that his right hon. Friend the Secretary cause as was expressly laid down in the at War, so far from being the person who Act of Parliament. When a man was on had the nomination of the Election Com- trial for his life, he could, after exhausting mittee in his own hands, had of himself no his peremptory challenges, challenge for more power or authority than any hon. cause. Had such a privilege been perMember who was now present. It was mitted to him he should most unquestionnecessary that he should have a majority ably have challenged the right hon. Genof four out of six with him, otherwise no tleman the Secretary at War, and also the resolution of his could stand. It was also hon. Member for Kerry. The latter he right that the public, whom it was here would have challenged because of a persought to misinform, should know that if sonal quarrel he had had with him, and he any valid objection could be urged against would have done so in justice to himself any hon. Gentleman acting either as and to the hon. Member. With respect Chairman or Member of the Committee, to the expenses of his election, he had all it was quite competent for either party- along stated that he did not expect to gain the petitioned against or the petitioner-to anything by entering that House, and that urge that objection at the proper time. he did not think it was right he should be They had no power to cause the name to called on to defray the charges out of his be peremptorily struck off, as in the case own pocket. With regard to the Land of a special jury; but each party had the Company, he had expended on that prosame right of challenge for cause, which ject at least 1,000l. He had often debelonged to every subject of the realm. fended others at his own charge, who It was right that these facts should be were unable to defend themselves; but one properly understood by the public. As farthing of the money of the people he had business of a much more important char- never received. He had sat in that House acter was about to engage the attention of for three Parliaments, and never offended the House, it was not worth while to carry any one, either inside or outside of it. the matter farther. He trusted that the But if he had said anything to hurt the feelmere allusion to it in that House would ings of the hon. Member for Kerry, he reserve the purpose he had in view. In quested that Gentleman would accept his order, however, to keep himself within the apology. He might be allowed, in conclurules of the House, he would conclude by sion, to observe, that he had suffered semaking a formal Motion that the Printer verely from the decisions of Election Comand Publisher of the Newspaper in ques-mittees, for, on one occasion, he was thrown tion be summoned to the bar of the House. MR. O'CONNOR, as proprietor of the newspaper alluded to, had always suffered in his own person anything that was to be undergone. This was the first time that the printer had ever been called on. He admitted that he had written with warmth, but denied that in speaking of the new regulations which governed the constitution of Election Committees he had gone as far as many hon. Members in that House. He had not gone as far as the hon Member for Kerry himself, who had characterised the present mode of selecting Committees by the precise phrase which he (Mr. O'Connor) had used, namely, as a farce. He spoke from experience; for, on one occasion, when he served on one of those Committees, and gave his vote for the Tory candidate, he was denounced for acting according to the dictates of his conscience. It could not be 66 out for want of qualification, though it was proved that he had 5,000l. a year. MR. M. J. O'CONNEL, disclaimed being actuated by personal feelings. Motion withdrawn. WAYS AND MEANS-THE FINANCES The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said: I rise, Sir, to move the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Ways and Means; and I think it is desirable that in doing so I should avail myself of this opportunity of stating more fully than it was practicable for my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to do in his speech a few evenings since, the state of the finances of this country, and the course which it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pursue. Some hon. Members have complained that they did not fully understand some portions of my noble Friend's address, having reference to the Chinese ransom, amounting to 450,000l financial position of the country. Further However, it so happened, that during the explanation, therefore, would appear to be year ending the 5th of January last, no desirable; and as I find by a reference to sum whatever has been received on acthe Votes that two notices have been given count of the Chinese ransom. I stated on of Motions intended to be proposed as a previous evening that the sum which had amendments on the question that the entered into our calculation as a source of Speaker do leave the chair, it occurs to me revenue was still in the commissariat chest. that I shall best consult the convenience A vote, however, was agreed to a few nights of the House by now making the state- since by this House, which will enable me ment which I am anxious to submit to it, to draw the money. The 450,000l. in part instead of waiting until the debate shall payment of the Chinese ransom, on which have been raised on one or other of those we had reckoned as being available for Motions, or until the House shall have gone the purposes of the financial year, will be into Committee. The present state of the received during the present quarter, and finances of the country appeared on the will be carried to the account of the income face of the balance-sheet which has already of the present year. If, therefore, the been laid before the public. The first por- ordinary income shall equal the ordinary tion of that document consists of a com- expenditure during the present quarter, I parison between the income and the ex- shall be at liberty to deduct this 450,0007. penditure of the country, for the year to from the excess of expenditure, as it apwhich the balance-sheet refers; but in the peared in the balance-sheet of January, case of the present year it has been ne- and thus the excess of expenditure over incessary, owing to the form of making up come will be diminished at the end of the the accounts, to include in the expenditure financial year to 1,000,000l. or thereabouts. side, an item of expense, which ought not And this will be consistent with the calcufairly to be charged on the ordinary income lations already stated to the House, for it of the year. On the one hand, we find in the will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlebalance-sheet with which we have now to men that my noble Friend stated that the deal, a statement that there is an excess of excess would be probably about 900,0007. expenditure over income for the year end- or 1,000,000l. What the precise amount ing the 5th of January last, of a sum of may be, is not very easy to estimate; for I 2,956,000l.; but on the other hand it will am sorry to say that those symptoms of revibe seen that, out of the expenditure, a sum ving trade which the House has heretofore of no less than 1,525,000l. has been in- watched with feelings of such deep interest, curred on account of the distress in Ire- are not quite so rapid in their progress as land. The House will bear in mind that many hon. Members had anticipated. The it was the declared intention of the Go-year 1847 was a year of extraordinary revernment and of Parliament that this ex-ceipt in the first quarter; but I cannot penditure should be defrayed out of the expect that we shall be equally fortunate loan of eight millions which was raised this year: on the contrary, our receipts, last year expressly for the purposes of the so far as we have gone, have fallen short of Irish people; and this being so, it is of the receipts during the corresponding quarcourse clear that the item is one which can- ter of last year by about 400,000l. We not be put against the ordinary income of anticipate some improvement in the Excise the country. It is only fair that this sum department before the 5th of April next; should be deducted from what would other- but still we are not sanguine in the exwise be the difference between the income pectation that even by this receipt the and expenditure of the year. Deduct there- deficiency which I have stated can be fore that item of 1,525,000l. for Irish pur- considerably reduced. On the whole we poses from the gross total of 2,956,000l., calculate that the excess of expenditure and it will be seen that the actual exover income for the year ending the 5th cess of expenditure over income is about of April, 1848, will be somewhat un1,400,000l. My noble Friend at the head der one million. And, Sir, I will not of the Government stated, in the course of hesitate to say, that, taking into conhis address a few evenings since, that the sideration the disastrous circumstances sources of income on which at this time through which we have passed, and the last year we calculated that we might extent of the calamity with which, during rely, included a sum from an extraordi- a year of unprecedented distress, it has nary source, a payment on account of the pleased Providence to visit us, and having |