Lord Tenterden said, his opinion was, that this clause afforded no security at all, although the noble duke had some time ago declared, that the securities which the bill would comprise must satisfy everybody. He thought it was of paramount importance, especially in Ireland, that Roman Catholic ecclesiastics should not be called by the name and title which belonged to Protestant bishops; because it kept up in the minds of all an opinion, that the titles thus assumed were lawful titles, and led them perhaps to think, that those who possessed such titles ought also to possess the temporalities that belonged to them. That could not be prevented by this clause; and it would be better if, instead of the clause now under consideration, another were introduced, declaring it to be unlawful for any person to accept of any such nomination to the title of archbishop or bishop hereafter. He spoke of a prospective measure. The Duke of Wellington said, he felt, if he could be a party to the introduction of such a clause as that proposed by the noble and learned lord, that he should be guilty of a recognition of that which he conceived to be highly illegal,—that he should be acknowledging an assumption of authority by a foreign power, which was utterly inconsistent with the constitution of this country. He did not mean to say, that it was not true that those persons were nominated as bishops, and even placed in the care of diocesses, by that usurped authority. He certainly would not say that. But he did not, and would not, recognise in any manner appointments of such a nature; because it was evident that those appointments were made by the power of usurpation. They knew nothing of that usurpation, nor of the assumption of those titles. He repeated, that of the assumption of such titles, the framer or author of the bill knew nothing. It was true, as had been stated by the noble mover of the amendment, that the clause would have been more perfect, if persons could have been prevented by it from using those assumed titles of archbishops and bishops in writing. But he begged their lordships to advert to the difficulty of carrying such a principle into effect. Let their lordships look to their own proceedings, let them examine their ownJournals, and they would find places, over and over again, where those titles were given in print to those individuals. It was im possible to deal with writings under such circumstances. All their lordships could do was, to declare that those titles should not be assumed by those persons in future. He could not conceive that they would suffer any inconvenience in carrying on their spiritual concerns, because they were prohibited from assuming those titles. And he would say, that, though he meant not to urge the clause as a powerful security in Ireland, it would give great satisfaction to many persons in that part of the united kingdom. The noble and learned lord on the cross bench had attributed to him a certain expression; but before the noble and learned lord attempted to fix it on him, he should have made himself master of the fact. He never had said one word of the description which had been ascribed to him. What he had said was this-that the measure which he should have the honour to propose to that House, would, in his opinion, give satisfaction to the House and to the country; and that, in its effects, it would be found to be a measure more calculated to prevent the growth of popery than to increase it. These were the words, as nearly as he could recollect, of which he had made use in speaking to his noble relative. It was scarcely necessary to mention, that this took place within two days of the period when his right hon. friend brought this bill into the House of Commons; and certainly it would be admitted, that he could not have intended to deceive their lordships with respect to a point, on which he knew their lordships would be set right in two days. What he had said was, that the measures which would be proposed were calculated, in his view of the subject, to give satisfaction. He was still of the same opinion. He thought that they were likely to produce tranquillity, and to prevent bloodshed. Lord Tenterden said, if he had mistaken the noble duke, he was bound to apologize; but so much had been said about securities, that he might possibly have confounded different observations. The clause was agreed to. On the clause being read, providing for the "suppression of Jesuits and other religious orders," The Earl of Malmesbury observed, that he could not himself form an abstract idea of a Jesuit, and should be glad to know by what sign a Jesuit was to be discovered. Perhaps the noble and learned lord (Plunkett) would be good enough to inform appear to him quite satisfactory; but not having any amendment to propose he would leave it as it stood. The Bishop of Oxford said, that in old acts of parliament the words "papist, or suspected to be a papist," had been used: perhaps, similar words might meet the views of the noble lord. The clause was agreed to. him. He had been in various countries, continent. To prevent the improper acand he was not aware of any distinctive cumulation of property by these orders the mark by which a Jesuit might be known. statute of Mortmain, or a similar act, Lord Bexley said, he considered this to should be provided for Ireland. He conbe a very important clause. When their sidered the existence of the Jesuits in this lordships considered the nature of the in-country dangerous. The clause did not stitution of the Jesuits, and how prone they were to extend their authority, every effort ought to be made to prevent the increase of that order. He could not but think that some effectual provision ought to be resorted to, for putting down and suppressing that body. The present bill provided for the extinction of monastic orders in the united kingdom; but it did not extend to our foreign dominions, where they might seek refuge. He found, that prosecutions against those who were guilty of an infringement of this clause were to .be instituted by the Attorney-general. Now, it occurred to him, that it would be better to leave the prosecutions open to the common informer. If it were said, that this might lead to malicious and vexatious proceedings, then he would say, to obviate that difficulty, let the whole penalty go to the Crown. The influence which the Jesuits acquired over the minds of their pupils, in early life, was extremely dangerous; and the principles which they inculcated were not in unison with the free constitution of this country. The only remedy he could look to the only remedy which could check such principles, especially in Ireland-was by enlightening the rising generation. They ought to look with a jealous eye on the Jesuits, whose establishments were hourly increasing. Lord Farnham recommended that, instead of making the penalties of a personal nature, they should be directed against property; confiscating that of the individuals who disobeyed the law. It would, however, be a matter of great difficulty to exclude the Jesuits. In an arbitrary State it might be done with ease, but not in a free one. They could be known to be Jesuits only by their own confession; and such a confession it was not likely they would make. He thought, therefore, that it was very injudicious on the part of the ·legislature to attempt what they could not accomplish. He should be extremely glad if the Jesuits could be excluded; but he . did not think the clause would effect that desirable object. Lord Redesdale was for the abolition of all monastic orders, which were considered mischievous in many places on the On the clause, that a Jesuit, or other member of a religious order, coming into the realm, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and being lawfully convicted there, shall be banished the kingdom for the term of his natural life, being read, Lord Tenterden rose, to propose an amendment. The noble lord said, that banishment was unknown to the law of England; and, besides, he would ask, what punishment it would be to a person coming into this country to be ordered to go out of it? He therefore proposed, as an amendment, that all the words after the word "misdemeanour," should be left out of the clause. The Lord Chancellor said, that the proposition of the noble lord would not effect the purpose which he had in view; for if all the words after the word "misdemeanour" should be omitted, a Jesuit, on being convicted of the offence of coming to this country, could only be imprisoned, and after the time of imprisonment had expired he would have a right to remain here; but the clause as it stood would enable the government to remove him out of the country. He was astonished to hear the noble and learned lord say, that banishment was unknown to the law of England. In the reign of queen Elizabeth an act of parliament was passed, inflicting the punishment of banishment on certain offences; and it was no doubt in the recollection of the noble and learned lord opposite (Eldon), that so late as seven years ago an act was passed imposing that punishment on the offence of publishing a seditious libel a second time. There were therefore precedents to justify the infliction of such a punishment. In reply to the question of a noble earl, as to what evidence they would possess to Lord Holland was gratified by hearing the highest authority on criminal law in the country state, that banishment was unknown to the law of England. When the act to which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had alluded was before their lordships, he (lord Holland) had made a similar assertion, and on that occasion he was overborne by the opinions of all the noble and learned lords then in the House; who produced a deal of learned arguments, which he could not understand, and which therefore did not convince him, to disprove that position. Lord Tenterden expressed his doubts whether the act to which the noble and learned lord alluded, had ever been put in force against any individual. The noble lord still maintained, that the punishment of banishment was contrary to the principles of the common law of England. . Lord Holland believed there was a law in Scotland for banishing the people to England [a laugh]. The Earl of Malmesbury would be sorry to make the Catholic bishops informers against the Jesuits. The amendment was negatived, and the original clause agreed to. On the clause being put relative to the suppression of societies "bound by monastic vows," The Earl of Mountcashel said, that if it was the intention of the bill to suppress monastic institutions, he saw no necessity for tolerating females, if males were discouraged. He knew of nunneries in the country in which ladies were placed against their will. A French lady had been placed against her inclinations in a convent in Lancashire. Being a foreigner, she had no redress, and was confined there at that moment. He knew of a similar case of a Protestant captain in the army who, not feeling much attachment to his daughter, had immured her in a convent contrary to her wish. Such proceedings, he thought, should not be tolerated in a free country. If the government were disposed to prevent the increase of Jesuits, they should also take measures against female Jesuits. He was aware that such existed. The Sisters of Mercy constituted a dangerous order. They were not shut up in convents, but made it their occupation to go to the houses of the poor, and particularly of indigent Protestants, and, under the pretence of assisting them, endeavoured to make proselytes. They had estbalished themselves at Dublin, Cork, and other places, and he thought they ought to be abolished. The clause was carried. The remaining clauses in the bill were then put and agreed to without any amendments. Lord Kenyon said, that as he had the two amendments which he had already suggested to the committee to propose when the report should be brought up, he wished to know from the noble duke what day he would fix for the receiving of the report, and for the third reading. The Chairman said, he had never known an instance of a report, where no amendments had been made, not being received at once by the House. The Duke of Wellington said, that as no amendments had been made in the bill, the report, in accordance with the usual practice of the House, might be now brought up and received. Its further consideration he should propose for tomorrow, and it was his intention to fix Friday for the third reading of the bill. Lord Kenyon wished the noble duke would postpone the third reading to Monday [cries of "no, no "]. The House then resumed. The report was brought up by the earl of Shaftesbury, and on the question being put, that it be received, Lord Kenyon proposed the two amendments which he had suggested in the committee; the first prohibiting Roman Catholic peers, being priests or bishops, from sitting in that House; and the second excluding Roman Catholics, in addition to the offices already excepted, from the offices of lord high treasurer, or first lord commissioner of the Treasury, lord. privy seal, commander-in-chief, or general-in-chief commanding his majesty's forces--principal secretaries of state, and lord high admiral. The noble lord said, he had no expectation that those amendments would be adopted, and only proposed them for the purpose of having them recorded on their lordships' Journals. The amendments were then severally put and negatived. The report was received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration to-morrow; and, on the motion of the duke of Wellington, the third reading of the bill was fixed for Friday, for which day their lordships were ordered to be summoned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, April 8. COAL DUTIES.] Sir T. Fremantle presented a petition from certain Owners of Collieries on the Tyne and Wear, complaining of the Duties of 6d. and 4d. per chaldron on the importation of Coals into the London market. These duties were to be appropriated to defray the expense of making the approaches to the new London-bridge. The petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel before the committee on the bill in defence of their interests. The hon. member moved, that the petition be referred to the committee. Sir R. Wilson opposed the motion. The petition prayed, that certain duties should not be solely applied to the object in question, but that other duties might be appropriated to that purpose. The committee had already heard counsel on the subject, and decided, that the 4d. and 6d. duties should be solely applied to defray the expense of the New Londonbridge approaches. The petitioners ought to come forward with their opposition on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading of the bill. It was in conformity with a recent decision of the Speaker, that, under such circumstances, the petition should not be sent back to the committee. Sir T. Fremantle denied, that the commmittee had come to the decision stated by the hon. and gallant member. They had determined, that the 6d. and 4d. duties should be granted for the purpose stated, but they had not decided that other funds should not also be appropriated to the 'same object. One of the prayers of the petition was, that the sole management of the funds in question should not be left in the hands of the city. Sir R. Wilson repeated his assertion, that the committee had decided as he had before stated. The expense to be defrayed was a million sterling, and the committee determined that the 6d. and 4d. duties should be appropriated, for a cer Mr. Tennyson also denied, that the committee had come to the decision stated by the gallant member for the borough of Southwark; and was of opinion, that the petition should be referred to the committee. The Speaker, in reference to the decision alluded to as having been made by him, observed, that he had decided, that an individual, who merely professed to be an agent of the public, and who had no interest in a private bill, could not have his petition referred to a committee-such a person had no locus standi before a private committee. The case was different where the petitioner possessed an interest likely to be affected by a bill. Then it was said in the case referred to, "here is an objection to the principle of the bill," and he had decided, that the party had no right to go before a committee upon the principle of the measure. The present petitioners professed to possess interests which would be prejudiced by certain clauses in the bill; and, so far as that consideration went, the petition ought to be referred to the committee, who were to hear the petitioners upon such parts of the measure as concerned their interests. But it was stated, that the committee had gone beyond that point of the case to which the petition related. If so, it was useless for the petitioners to go before the committee: unnecessary loss and expense would be the only consequences; and the House, knowing the fact through one of its members, that the committee had already gone too far to entertain the question, would not remit the petition to it; as by so doing they would only occasion delay, loss, and delusion. The only remedy was to move upon the report, that the bill be recommitted, when the petitioners might be heard. Mr. Tennyson said, the hon. and gallant member for Southwark stated, that the committee had gone (beyond the point to which the petition referred. Against this assertion the House had the opinions expressed by the hon. baronet and himself, to the effect, that the committee had not proceeded so far as to preclude it from entertaining the petition. He trusted that in this difficulty the House would refer the petition to the committee, leaving it to itself to decide whether or not it had gone too far to hear the petitioners upon the matter in question. Sir R. Wilson had no objection to the petition being referred to the committee; upon the understanding, that the committee should report as to the fact, whether it had or had not passed the point to which the petition related; and that if it had, the petitioners should not be heard. The Speaker enjoined the committee as there appeared to be a doubt on the subject to ascertain, whether they had gone beyond the point in question, before any attempt was made to hear the petitioners. SILK TRADE.] Mr. Courtenay requested the hon. member for Coventry to postpone the motion respecting the Silk Trade, which stood for to-morrow, to any other day, as it would be a matter of great convenience to his majesty's government. Mr. Fyler said, he had every wish to accede to any request made by his majesty's government. He had no objection, therefore, to agree to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman; but as the Silk Trade was in a state of the greatest possible distress, he hoped no long delay would be expected. He would prefer Friday, as he was otherwise apprehensive that the discussion would be too long deferred by the Easter holidays. He trusted, that government would be inclined to grant a Committee of Inquiry, and that an intimation of their intentions would be stated, in order that the silk manufacturers might no longer be kept in suspense and uncertainty. Mr. Courtenay agreed, that the motion should stand for Friday, or any day after it. His right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) was prepared to state what it was the intention of his majesty's government to propose, ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Sir J. Mackintosh said, he was charged with two petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. One of them he should then present, reserving the presentation of the other for a future opportunity. The petition he was now about to present was from certain students of the university of Glasgow; and it would have been more numerously signed than it was, but that the signatures were confined to those of students of three years standing in the university. This petition, and a circumstance that had lately occurred in Edinburgh, gave him great satisfaction as they afforded a confirmation of the statement he had made, when he presented the Edinburgh petition, that the rank, talent, and intelligence, of Scotland were in favour of civil and religious liberty. A proposition lately made in the Edinburgh Presbytery to forward a petition to parliament against the Roman Catholic claims had been rejected by a majority of thirteen to four. This distinctly showed the feelings of the clergy of the metropolis of Scotland upon this subject. He rejoiced at this circumstance, for the sake of the character of his native country, and of the clergy of the capital, and as affording a corroboration of the statement he had made with respect to the sentiments of enlightened persons in Scotland, including the clergy, which were decidedly favourable to the great measure of relief now passed by the Commons, and received in the upper House of Parliament by so triumphant a majority. HOUSE OF LORDS, CONDUCT OF THE IRISH GOVERNMENT RELEASE OF MR. ENEAS MACDONNELL.] The Earl of Clancarty rose to give notice, that he would tomorrow move for papers connected with the Release of Mr. Eneas Macdonnell, from Kilmainham gaol, Dublin, before the expiration of his sentence of imprison ment. The Earl of Harrowby.-I would really suggest to my noble friend, if he has no particular reason for taking a contrary course, to postpone his notice for another day, and not couple it, if it be merely thecase of an individual, with the time fixed for the final consideration of the most important measure that has been before parliament since the Revolution. I appeal to my noble friend's candour, whether it is not fairer to separate the individual from the public case, and to fix his motion for. some other day, which would better suit the general convenience of the House. The Earl of Clancarty.I can have no desire to connect this subject with the other to which my noble friend alludes, or in the least degree to inconvenience the |