not to be looked upon as concessions, but as very insufficient instalments of much larger claims, and that they would be content with nothing but the dissolution of the connection between the State and the Established Church. He was not speaking as apprehending any danger to the Church -on the contrary, he thought the Liberation Society and the speeches and writings of its adherents had rendered the same kind of service to the Established Church which Mr. Bright's speeches had done to the party of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). Whether those opinions had any chance of success it was for the gentlemen to whom he had referred to judge; he was merely dealing with the question of expediency, in the interest of such measures as this which he wished to see pass. They had a perfect right to their own opinions and to the expression of them; but measures like the present, and other modifications of the law such as he (Lord Lyttelton) desired to see, never would pass unless those gentlemen, whatever their private views might be, would be content to withhold the attempt to give effect to those opinions, and to acquiesce in the existence in its full privileges of that institution which very many believed to be the most important in this country. EARL RUSSELL: Before your Lordships divide, I desire to trouble the House with a few remarks. My observations will certainly be brief, for the grievance contemplated by this Bill is very small, and the objections urged on the other side are very diminutive. I thought that my noble Friend who introduced the Motion found it a matter of very great difficulty to make out any existing grievance ; and when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) attempted to show that the declaration gave any security to the Established Church, he found it a matter of utter impossibility. No real security whatever is given by this declaration. But then it is said that there is a compact or engagement which was entered into at the time of the repeal of the Corpora tion and Test Act, by which I, and others who were associated with me in that act, are bound. Now, I cannot recollect that there was any such compact or engagement; I think, on the contrary, that after this declaration has existed for a considerable time, and has been found to give no security to the Established Church and to be perfectly worthless, I cannot conceive why Parliament should be bound to maintain it. The Act by which the Dissenters were called upon to take the Sacrament in accordance with the service of the Church of England was certainly a substantial grievance. It was objectionable on two grounds. In the first place, it was a profanation of the sacred rite; and in the second, it was a hardship upon the Dissenters, with regard to whom it was thought that many were debarred from accepting office lest they should be called upon to take the Sacrament. But when a declaration was substituted for this sacramental test, it was simply to the effect that the person making the declaration would not use the influence of his office to injure the Established Church. I confess I am quite at a loss to understand in what manner that declaration can really be a security to the Church. In the first place, the terms are exceedingly difficult to define. A man is not debarred from being an enemy, if he so chooses, to the Church, or using his personal influence against it; what he is debarred from is using the influence of his office in a sense hostile to the Church. That is all the declaration requires. It then becomes a question in what way that restriction can be defined. A Dissenter may be elected Lord Mayor of London, and everybody knows that he would exercise great influence, by virtue of his office, on the election of the Members for the City. He may declare his wish to come into Parliament to abolish the church rates, and if he uses the influence of his office to get into Parliament, is he or is he not using the influence of his office to the injury of the Established Church? difficulty might occur to him, and he might be reproached for so doing. I know that some persons are very fond of these Acts, and think there is some virtue in imposing a disagreeable declaration--something which is unpleasant to those who have to make it; and they proceed to argue that persons holding such exceedingly wrong opinions ought to be obliged to pay some penalty in the shape of the annoyance consequent upon being called on to make a declaration to which they object. But that is not the spirit in which Parliament should regard the subject. The point we have to consider is what is really important for the security of the Church of England. The rights and property of that Church are secured by various Acts of Parliament, and further by the general attachment of the people of this country. These are securities on which the Church may rest; these are safeguards in which it may trust This for its permanence. It gains nothing at all by having such useless and vague declarations as these. It is quite true that I had no objection to the declaration when it was substituted for the sacramental test; but I think the time has now come when the declaration may also be dispensed with. longer fitting; but is it no longer just? It was by means of that substitution that the Bill was carried, and therefore it is impossible for me at least, who was a party to the carrying of that measure with that addition, to agree to the alteration of what was then established; and I confess, that recollecting that the noble Earl, by his conduct in the House of Commons, so materially contributed to the passing of the Bill through this House, I do feel some surprise at the course which he has adopted to-night. I recollect well that the Duke of Wellington referred to what was done at that time as calculated to give religious peace to the country. Religious peace was always most dear to him. For that he changed the opinion which he originally entertained with regard to the sacramental test. In the hope of establishing that, he changed his course of conduct with respect to what was called Catholic Emancipation. But I regret to say, that notwithstanding all the conces sions which the Church has made, peace it has not, and, apparently, never is to be allowed to have. Every concession, be it what it may, seems but to stimulate its opponents to further attacks upon it; and although I believe that the Church, if it be true to itself-if it be not exposed to greater dangers from within than from THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, having some recollection of the circumstances connected with the repeal of the Test Act, I have heard with considerable surprise the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Russell). The noble Earl moved the Bill for the abolition of the sacramental test, and in many speeches which the noble Earl has since made he has referred with affectionate interest to that the first triumph of his political life. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel thought that it would be expedient to substitute a declaration for the sacramental test, and that declaration was subsequently agreed to almost without the opposition of a single person. The noble Earl himself entirely acquiesced in it, under the impression that it would soothe the feelings of those who were opposed to the measure. Above all, there can be no doubt that the course which he took in adopting the declaration did most materially contribute to diminish the apprehension entertained by noble Lords in this House that that was only the com-without-will successfully resist all these mencement of a series of demands upon the Church of England, and so led them to suppose that with it might be established religious peace. In that manner the Bill was carried through this House, and I much doubt whether it could have been carried but for what had taken place upon this point in the House of Commons. The observations which have been made to-night have referred to the declaration alone; but what precedes this declaration? A most solemn assertion on the part of Parliament, taken from what had been proposed by Mr. Grattan and adopted by Mr. Plunkett as the preamble of the Bill for what was called Catholic emancipation, that the Episcopal Church of England and its doctrine, discipline, and government, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, disclipine, and government thereof, were permanently and inviolably to be maintained as part of the law of this country; and because it was so asserted, then this declaration was accepted as a fitting substitute for the sacramental test which was abolished. The noble Earl may argue that it is no attacks, I do think that the time has come when we must adhere to that which was considered sound policy thirty-five years ago. Whether this declaration gives a real security or not, its continuance is, at least, an indication of the opinion of Parliament with respect to the permanence and inviolable maintenance of the Church of England, and, as such, I shall endeavour to secure its continuance. EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I shall not recapitulate the arguments in favour of this Bill which were so clearly and so concisely stated by the noble Lord who moved its second reading, and by the noble Earl whom we had the pleasure of hearing for the first time to-night (Earl Cowper) nor shall I repeat the explanation which has been given by the noble Earl near me. Surely, any discussion about a compact is most unnecessary when the noble Earl who moved the Amendment himself said that he attached no importance whatever to the compact as one which necessarily prevented Parliament from coming to any decision it thought desirable. The noble Earl says, that although the declaration itself gives land.) more.) Monson, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Meldrum, L. (M. Hunt- Vaux of Harrowden, L. Vivian, L. Wodehouse, L. [Teller.] NOT-CONTENTS. no actual security to the Church, yet that | Hunsdon, L. (V. Falk- be the result of this debate-whether we On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided : -Contents 52; Not Contents 69: Majority 17. Canterbury, Archbp. Normanby, M. Bandon, E. Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to Wilton, E. be read 2a on this Day Six Months. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEGISLATION. Exmouth, V. Sondes, L. CONTENTS. Westbury, L. (L. Chan- Grey, E. Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Wynford, L. cellor.) Russell, E. Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second Time after Thursday the 2nd Day of July next. That no Bill confirming any Provisional Order of the Board of Health, or authorizing any Inclosure of Lands under Special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or for confirming any Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a Second Time after Thursday the 2nd Day of July next. That when a Bill shall have passed this Ilouse present measure was proposed in order to with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons get rid of the reference to the Court. which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the Ilouse is substantially the same as the Bill so amended. OFFENCES (SOUTH AFRICA) BILL [H, L.]. (NO. 74.) SECOND READING. THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, according to Order, explained that by the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 57, certain powers were given to the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope to deal with certain offences committed by Her Majesty's subjects with in certain territories adjacent to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. Since that time, however, new Colonies had been founded in South Africa, and it had become necessary to vary the powers given by the former Act. By this Bill the laws in force at the Cape of Good Hope for the punishment of crimes were extended to British subjects in parts of South Africa not being within jurisdiction of any civilized Government. Such crimes were made cognizable in the Courts of the Colony of Natal, or any other Court south of the 25th degree of south latitude. The Governor of the Cape was moreover authorized to address commissions to persons to act as magistrates in such territory. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. TRUSTEES (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL-(No. 53.) SECOND READING. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, according to Order, said, that a very useful measure was passed last year, entitled, “An Act to amend the Law relating to the Powers and Liabilities of Gratuitous Trustees;" but a difficulty had arisen in determining whether certain persons who would be called gratuitous trustees in England would come within that class in Scotland. The present Bill was to get rid of this difficulty. LORD KINGSDOWN said, he had a Petition to present upon this subject. The petitioners did not object to the Bill, and, indeed, they desired its operation to be extended to certain other cases. Under these circumstances, he would ask that a sufficient interval might be allowed to elaspe between the second and third reading, so that there might be an opportunity to make any suggestion for Amendment. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. House adjourned at a quarter before LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L] (NO. 42.) SECOND READING. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Bill be now read a second time, according to Order, said, that this Bill was rendered necessary by the construction which the Court of Chancery had put upon the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act. That statute enabled trustees to grant building leases, but the Court of Chancery had held that every such lease must be subject to the approval of that Court. In the neighbourhood of large manufacturing towns they frequently wanted to grant leases under circumstances that did not admit of a reference to the Court. Great expense would be incurred by such a reference, and there was clearly no necessity for it. The HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, April 24, 1863. MINUTES.-NEW WRIT ISSUED-For Antrim County, v. Major Gen. the IIon. George Frederick Upton, now Viscount Templeton, a Peer of Ireland. SELECT COMMITTEE On Navy (Promotion and Retirement), Mr. Charles Berkeley added. Report-Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 215]. SUPPLY-considered in Committee: Resolutions (April 23) reported. WAYS AND MEANS-Resolutions (April 23) reported. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Customs and Inland Revenue [Bill 91]. Considered as amended-Telegraphs [Bill 78]. DEFENCE OF MERCHANT SHIPS. QUESTION. LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL said, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether Merchant Ships, in the prosecution of a voyage between neutral ports, would be legally justified in defending themselves, by the use of arms, from capture by the cruisers of the Federal States of America? THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Sir, in answer to the noble Lord, I have no hesitation in saying that Merchant Ships, under the circumstances supposed by his question, would certainly not be justified in defending themselves from capture by the use of arms. That question was de cided in this country in the celebrated case of the Swedish convoy, in which it was held, according to previous authorities, not only that they would not be justified in doing so, but that the very attempt to do it, even with the assistance of the ships of war of the convoy, would expose them not only to capture, but to just condemnation. SMALLPOX AND VACCINATION. QUESTION. LORD NAAS said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the increase of Smallpox in the Metropolis; and whether it is his intention to propose, during the present Session, any measure for the promotion of Vaccination? MR. LOWE, in reply, said, the misfortune of the question of Vaccination was that in quiet times no trouble was taken about it, and it was only when disease appeared in all its horrors that applications were made to the Government for legisla tion, which, if ever so good in itself, must then be tardy and inefficient to meet the evil. This subject had engrossed the attention of the Government. The House was aware that there was already in exist ence a measure for compulsory vaccination. That measure was not, in all respects, satisfactory; but the fault connected with the present spread of smallpox was not so much attributable to the state of the law as to the neglect of the local authorities on whom devolved the working of it. Unfortunately, there was no law on the subject in Scotland. The question of providing a law for Scotland and amending that of England was under careful consideration. VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] CARRIERS' LICENCES.-QUESTION. In reply to a Question from Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the question relating to Carriers had been considerably altered since he had first mentioned it to the House. Ilis intention had simply been to remedy what, according to the statement of the proprietors of taxed carriages, appeared to be an injustice under which they laboured. That proposal, however, did not now seem to content them; for the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had given notice of his intention to make it the occasion of an assault upon the revenue. In the present state of affairs he felt that it would be his duty to uphold and defend the revenue against any such assault. It was not his intention to lay this tax on any person who did not now pay it. Consequently, he would not propose any preliminary Resolution; but in Committee on his Bill he would seek to introduce some provisions which he trusted would tend to increase the facilities for locomotion, especially in rural districts, where they now were most defective. The Resolution which now stood to Carriers would not on the Votes as therefore be proceeded with. OUTBREAK IN A ROMAN CATHOLIC REFORMATORY.-QUESTION. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he wished to put a couple of Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The first, with reference to a serious outbreak which had taken place in a Roman Catholic Reformatory, which was called St. Bernard, in Leicestershire, on the borders of Warwickshire. There were, he believed, 180 inmates in that reformatory, which was under the care of some Cistercian monks. The second Question related to the removal of the Roman Catholic Chaplain at Dartmoor. The Questions he had to put were:-First, Whether the Government has received any information with respect to an outbreak at the Roman Catholic Reformatory at St. Bernard, near Whitock, in Leicestershire; whether any investigation on the part of the Government has taken place as to the causes and circumstances of the outbreak; and what steps have been taken, or are intended to be taken, with respect to it? Secondly, Whether the Roman Catholic visiting Priest at the Convict Prison at Dartmoor has been |