Prussia and his Government. They decline to receive an ecclesiastic. It is open to Her Majesty's Government, be they whom they may, in the same manner, if they find inconvenience to arise from the appointment of any particular person as as ambassador, to decline receiving him; but it does appear to me perfectly unnecessary, when that power exists in the Government, that an Act of Parliament should contain clauses specifying who are and who are not fit persons to be received. It would be found somewhat difficult, with all the noble Lord's extreme verbal ingenuity, to frame a clause (not clauses) to define who is a safe ambassador from the Court of Rome. I think, therefore, it is much better that it should be left to the responsibility of the Government for the time being to decide who should be received. I must confess I was also surprised at the noble Lord's argument, that because this is a Protestant State there was peculiar danger in our receiving an ambassador from the Pope. It appears to me that the probability is exactly the reverse. A Protestant state, I think, has very little to fear from that; a Catholic State, on the other hand, might have a great deal to fear. In point of fact, the danger, if there be any, to which the noble Lord adverted, arises from the circumstance that we are not all Protestants; but I think his apprehensions entirely unfounded. The noble Lord has also adverted to the Amendment which the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) has signified his intention of moving in Committee. With regard to that Amendment, I can only say that I entirely approve of it. I believe, in point of legal effect, the Bill as it stands would be perfectly safe; but I freely admit that, in a matter of this kind, "assurance should be doubly sure," in order to tranquillise the mind of the country. Accordingly, my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has been in communication with the noble Duke, and his Amendment will be introduced either into the preamble, or in the enacting part of the Bill (and I should prefer the latter), in the manner that may be considered most convenient. But, after all, the noble Lord, and the right rev. Prelates who have spoken, admit the expediency of opening diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. One right rev. Prelate, however, (the Bishop of Exeter,) suggested that the proper course to effect that purpose would be, not to ask the House to assent to this Bill, but to proceed by asking the Judges

to give their opinions as to what the law actually is. I beg to inform the right rev. Prelate, that, according to the forms of this House, if the Bill were not before it, it would not have been competent for us to have consulted the Judges. The Judges are not consulted upon any abstract questions; they are only consulted upon any question which arises in the course of the legislative or judicial proceedings of the House. Of course, therefore, the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate could not be entertained. I must also observe, that the right rev. Prelate, having admitted the policy of allowing diplomatie intercourse with the Court of Rome and the Court of England, described this measure as something too shocking to contemplate. But it all turned out to be an imaginary terror. The right rev. Prelate tells us that the Bill compels us to receive and send an ambassador, whether the Crown may intend to do so or not. Such is neither the purport of the Bill nor the intention of its authors. All that it is intended to accomplish, and all that it will accomplish, is to place the law clearly and undoubtedly upon the footing upon which the right rev. Prelate says that it now rests, namely, to make it lawful for Her Majesty to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, if, upon the advice of Her Majesty's responsible Ministers, She thinks it expedient to do so.

The DUKE of RICHMOND was prepared to vote against the second reading of the Bill if his noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) should press a division, because there never was a time when the people of England ought to be less called upon to make concessions to the Roman Catholic faith. He put it to their Lordships, whether the concessions to the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been received in a proper spirit; whether, in point of fact, the more that was given the more was not demanded, and the more ungrateful they were found. He would request his noble Friend, however, not to divide the House, because in its present state the Government would have a majority which might go forth as representing the true feeling of their Lordships, and so prevent a liberal and constitutional Ministry from giving plenty of time for its consideration by the country. But they lashed the country to it. His noble Friends on the other side the House he had always thought to hold the doctrine that the people of England ought to be consulted upon measures

which affected their principles. He did not mean to say they had ever lashed the people to support and pass any measure which they considered improper. He felt, however, that this measure ought not to pass; but if their Lordships did go into Committee upon it, he would most willingly support the clause of which the noble and gallant Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had given notice. With his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), he thought it would be proper to prohibit ecclesiastics from being received as ambassadors to this country; and in Committee he would himself propose another clause for the purpose of preventing the ambassador from Rome, or any of his suite, under the privileges they would enjoy according to the law of nations, from distributing any bulls and recripts or other documents emanating from the See of Rome, which by law no subject of Her Majesty could distribute.

The EARL of ELDON denied that one single reason had been shown for the passing of this Bill. If noble Lords would take the trouble to analyse the arguments laid before them, he fully believed they would not find one reason why such a Bill should pass, and most especially no reason had been given why it should thus be hurried through the House without giving the country due time to consider its provisions. He hoped that if the voice of the country was not at that moment heard, it would not be supposed that the nation was insensible to the importance and probable consequences of the measure. A noble Lord opposite had spoken of a learned ancestor of his (Lord Eldon's) who had affixed the Great Seal to a document bearing some supposed analogy to the present measure. But he would undertake to say, that he would, in considering the present measure, have taken time to deliberate. It had been unanimously admitted by those who had supported the Bill, that all that could be done in the way of holding communication with Rome, was being done at this moment, and had been done for several years, without the sanction of the Legislature. He did not think the country had been treated, with respect to this Bill, in the manner it deserved. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had alluded to the empty state of the benches; but he hoped that the country would know that many on the Opposition benches had remained to the close of the debate, for the purpose of nobly discharging their duty, by voting against

this Bill. Was there any reason why the noble Marquess should not postpone this Bill until the next Session, when notice of its intended introduction could be fairly given in Her Majesty's Speech? As they all knew that Rome had claimed supreme authority in this country, in matters temporal as well as spiritual-now, before the Government asked the Legislature to pass this Bill, let the Pope withdraw that claim; let official documents be produced from Rome, showing that Rome had resigned her unjust demands. When Rome had done so, he would listen as heartily as any one to such representations as might hereafter be made in support of such a Bill as this. If the House went to a division, he begged to say, that he, for one, would be found voting with the noble Duke who had proposed that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; but he left it to the noble Duke to say, whether, in the then state of the House, he would press for a division.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS said, he gave his cordial assent to the Bill, not so much because upon a former occasion the Pope had afforded facilities for our military operations, but because he was the spiritual head of a religion to which many of Her Majesty's subjects in all parts of the world belonged. With regard to what had been said respecting certain Catholic priests in Ireland, he apprehended that if the attention of the Pope had been called at an earlier period to their writings and speeches, they would not have remained so long unnoticed. The assumption of the title "Supreme Pontiff," was of little importance; he regarded it simply as a matter of form, and he did not at all participate in the apprehensions of the right rev. Prelate who objected to the appointment of an ecclesiastic as ambassador from Rome to this country. He believed, indeed, the best representative that could be employed would be an ecclesiastic, because it was principally upon matters connected with ecclesiastical polity that the Government of this country would mainly have to deal with the See of Rome. In fact, he regarded the apprehensions to which he referred as idle and chimerical, especially as it was perfectly competent for this Government to receive any person as an ambassador or otherwise. It was competent for the Pope to send any number of missionaries here of the different orders; in fact, they were in actual existence at this moment, notwithstanding what the law said against them.

you urged, as shown by the way in which the noble Lord quoted Lord Minto's despatches. Lord Minto was not received in Rome as a Minister. He carried no instructions as Minister to Rome; and it was in the power of the Pope or of the Cardinal Secretary of State to say to him at any time, "We do not acknowledge you as representing the Government of Great Britain; we will not attend to what you say; we will not attend to your advice because you have nothing to show us that you speak with authority." Would it make no distinction in this respect to have the present measure passed? Would their relations with Rome be the same after this Bill was passed as it was before? Did the noble Lord want them to accomplish by secret means what should be fairly and openly done? Her Majesty's Government asked Parliament to enable them to carry on the business of the country by open and avowed means, and not by indirect means to effect what they could not openly avow. He would say again, with respect to the mission of the Earl of Minto, that the noble Lord was accredited to Sardinia, to Florence, and also, at present, to Naples; and that, on his way from Florence to Naples, he passed some time in Rome, where his efforts, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would say, without hesitation, were most beneficial to the country.

And

he would add, that the necessity of the Earl of Minto proceeding without any distinct mission, or any direct authority from the Government of this country, to Rome, was in itself the best illustration that he could have of the necessity of adopting this measure. He had again to say, that he trusted their Lordships would agree to the second reading of the Bill without farther delay. In that case, he proposed fixing the Committee for to-morrow; and, in doing so, he hoped that he would not be accused of adopting too early a day for proceeding with the Bill.

bers, from a great number of places, in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.-By Mr. Law, and Mr. Rufford, against, and by Mr. Blewitt, and other hon. Members, in favour of, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Sir J. M'Taggart, from Wigtown, for Alteration of the Law of Sites for Churches (Scotland).- By Mr. Hume, from Shoreditch, against the Sunday Trading Bill (1846).— By Mr. Headlam, from a great number of places, for the Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.-From Paisley, against the Resumption of the Corn Laws. —By Mr. Hume, from Montrose, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws. -By Mr. Robinson, from Poole, for Rating Owners instead of Occupiers of Tenements.-By Mr. Beckett, and other hon. Members, from several places, for Reduction of Duty on Tea.-By Mr. W. Heneage, and other hon. Members, from various places, for Repeal of Duty on Windows.- By Mr. M'Gregor, from Glasgow, for Repeal of Duty on Class Room Windows.-By Mr. Herries, from Liverpool, for Repeal or Alteration of the Bank of England Charter Act.-By Mr. Forbes, from Stirling, for Repeal or Alteration of the Bank of England Charter Act, and Banking (Scotland) Act.-By Mr. Pilkington, from Members of the Royal Prince Albert Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.-By Lord Dudley Stuart, from the Literary and Scientific Institution, John Street, Tottenham Court Road, respecting Mr. Robert Owen.-By Mr. Cobden, from Singapore, for Alteration of Law respecting Constables and Peace Officers (India).-By Mr. Cardwell, from Liverpool, respecting Fees in the Court of Chancery. By Mr. Repton, from Hertford, for the Suppression of Dog Carts.-From R. E. Johnson, 20, Austin Friars, London, for Production of Papers respecting the Dover and Deal Railway Bill (1846).-By Mr. W. Miles, from Bath and Wells, for Alteration of Law of Education. By Mr. Maxwell, from Cavan, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).-By Mr. Busfeild, from Bradford, and Viscount Ingestre, from the Smethwick Temperance Society, for Sanitary Regulations.-By Viscount Ingestre, from J. R. Burton, Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, respecting the State of our National Defences.By Mr. Beckett, and other hon. Members, from several places, for Retrenchment in the Naval and Military Expenditure.-- By Mr. Dodd, from Relieving Officers, &c., for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.-By Sir J. M'Taggart, from Wigtown, for Alteration of Law of Prisons (Scotland).-By Lord Nugent, from Shropshire, for Abolition of Punishment of Death.-By the Earl of Lincoln, from Lanark, for Inquiry respecting Turnpike Roads, &c. (Scotland).-By Mr. Brotherton, and other hon. Members from various places, for referring War Disputes to Arbitration.

NOVA SCOTIA.

A

Bill read 2a.

House adjourned.

mmmmni

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, February 17, 1848. MINUTES.] PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Captain Pechell, from Sussex, for the Abolition of Church Rates.-By

Mr. Bell, and other hon. Members, against the Jewish

sell's letter.

VOL. XCVI.

Third

1 Series

2 D