thereby acquire a right to demand a decision, which the passing of the Bill would certainly be in their favour. If their Lordships were sitting only judicially, the case would be very different; but if the parties had the law with them, it did not follow that their Lordships, as a legislative assembly, would decide in favour of the expediency of the measure. He had a strong opinion as to what was likely to be the result of the opinions of the Judges. He thought that, on the whole, this would be the most satisfactory mode. It would give their Lordships no trouble. One counsel could state what were the Acts, and then the Judges could deliver their opinions on the Act.

The Duke of Wellington attached great importance to the statement of the noble Lord, that if the opinion of the Judges was, that legally there would be no infraction, that would not decide the question. He came down to the House to support his Majesty's Government in the bargain it had made with the Bank. An officer of the Government having stated, in another place, that it had made that bargain with the Bank, in his opinion it ought to be confirmed. He did not like any part of this transaction. He did not like, that the Bank of England should be placed in the hands of Government or Parliament, in order to have it determined whether its rights should be granted or not. He believed, the noble and learned Lord stated quite truly when he said, that, if the application now made to them were approved, it would not be the only application of the kind they would have. The difficulty they were now in was one of the consequences of the declaratory clause introduced in the Bill of last Session, and foreseen and foretold when that Bill was under discussion. He was sorry to see the Bank of England exposed to this description of discussion; because, on some future occasion, their Lordships might be influenced by it. He agreed, that the only way was, to refer the question to the Judges; but, after their opinion was given, if it was unfavourable to the Bank of England, he should be ready to come down to support his Majesty's Government in carrying into effect that bargain, to the full execution of which the Government was pledged.

The Lord Chancellor, in order that there might be no doubt on the subject,

would express his full concurrence in the view taken by the noble Duke as to what ought to be their course, if it should be found that the law was not with the Bank of England. If, from any communication, or any correspondence between the Bank of England and the Government, it should appear to him that, to concede to the present applicants the legal right would be to involve a breach of confidence on the part of the Government, he would not call on them to act on the strict right, but would put the question to them on the higher ground of legislative expediency, and ask them to give that view of it the preference.

The Marquess of Bute said, that the parties interested in the London and Westminster bank were anxious and ready to have the question decided. He had no private interest in this matter, but, if he had, he trusted, that none of their Lordships, nor, indeed, any individual in the country, would believe he would, on that account, endeavour to influence their Lordships in favour of the Bill. Unless, however, the Government should be able to show a specific contract with the Bank of England, or such a contract as would render it dishonest to pass the Bill, he hoped, that those who were interested would not be debarred from a commonlaw right.

The Earl of Eldon said, he did not believe, that there was a more honest man in the kingdom than the noble Lord who had just sat down, but he, nevertheless, must dissent from the noble Lord's opinion on the present question. It would be impossible for him to give his consent to this measure, if it should turn out that there existed an understanding between the Bank and the Government that no such company as the one proposed should be established.

Earl Grey was quite sure, that the noble Marquess was quite incapable of being influenced by any private interest he might have in the present question. For his own part, he had a strong opinion, that to grant the privileges sought by the London and Westminster Bank would be inconsistent with those exclusive privileges which the Bank of England by law possessed. Though he could not say, that any specific contract, such as that alluded to by the noble Marquess had been made, yet, no doubt, there was an understanding between Government and the Bank of

England, that those privileges which it had before possessed, should be preserved to it. In the first instance, he thought, it would be better to have the opinion of the Judges; nor could he conceive there could be any doubt of the Judges giving their opinion. The question was, whether the granting of certain privileges to this Joint Stock Company would be inconsistent with those privileges which were enjoyed under the existing laws by the Bank of England. He believed, that similar questions had been put to the Judges before; and he did not know any instance in which they had declined answering. If their Lordships would, in the first place, then, depend on the construction of the law, and next, on that general consideration of good faith arising out of the contract between the Government and the Bank, he had no difficulty in saying, that, in introducing the declaratory clause they had no idea whatever that any privileges, secured to the Bank under the existing laws, would be in any degree affected.

Further consideration of the question adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, June 16, 1834.

plete the Tunnel-By Mr. LEE LEE, from Ilminsteṛ, against the General Register Bill.-By the LORD ADVOCATE, from the Presbytery of Edinburgh, for an increased Duty on Spirits; from the Schoolmasters of Aberdeen, and other Places; and by Colonel L. HAY, from those of several Places, for an Increased Stipend.-By Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, from St. Andrew's, against the exclusive Privileges of Corporations.-By the same, and Captain WEMYSs, from several Places, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By Mr. AxDREW JOHNSTONE, from Cupar, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.-By Mr. CALLANDAR, from Fordsay, for the Support of the Church of Scotland.-By Mr. J. H. VIVIAN, from Swansea; and Mr. LEE LEE, from Wells, -for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from the Society of Friends, collectively, for the Abolition of Tithes, Church Rates, and all other Ecclesiastical Imposts.-By Mr. FREDERICK SHAW, Mr. CALLANDER, Colonel LEITH HAY, and Mr. LEE LEE, from four Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, from a Scottish Congregation in London, in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.— By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from Peckham, against Beer-houses; and from two Places, against the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. HALL DARE, from St. Alban's, against the Admission of Freemen Bill.-By Messrs. ROBERT PALMER, FAZAKERLEY, Ross, HALL DARE, Duncombe, and Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from several Places,-for Protection to the Established Church.-By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from Drumachose, against the Mal-appropriation of the Money levied under the Cholera Prevention Act; from Newtownlimavady, and by Mr. A. SANFORD, from three Places, against Drunkenness.-By Mr. FITZSIMON, from Balbriggan, for Inquiry and Relief to the Irish Fisheries; from two Places, against the Road (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill.-By Mr. HALFORD, and Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from several Places, against the Universities Admission Bill.

said, that he must beg the particular attention of the House to a petition which

CHARLES WOOD, for Chatham, in the room of W. L. MABERLEY, Esq., Commissioner of Customs; for Elgin Burghs, in the room of A. L. HAY, Esq., Clerk of the

Ordnance.

Bill. Read a third time:-County Coroners.

Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool; and by Mr. WILKS, from a Congregation in Southwark,

against the Proposed Measure of Church Rates.-By Mr. STANLEY, from St. Mary, Newington, for Protection to the Established Church.-By Sir JAMES SCARLETT, from Epsom, against the Universities' Admission Bill.-By Mr. J. MAXWELL, from Rosemarkie, in Support of the

Debtors Confined in the Gaols of London and Middlesex, for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.-By Mr. DUNCOMBE, Lord OSSULSTON, and others, from several Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.-By Mr.

FAZAKERLEY, from Stoodley, against the Separation of General Assembly of Scotland, for Endowing Schools in

Church and State. By the LORD ADVOCATE, from the

all Highland Districts.-By Mr. FREDERICK SHAW, from the Clergy of Ireland, against Incumbents paying further Instalments on Loans for Glebe-Houses.-By Colonel ARBUTHNOT, Mr. ROBERT PALMER, and Mr. Wood, from four Places,-against the Poor Law Amendment Bill-By Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, from Londonderry,

for an Inquiry into the Constitution of the Irish Society;

By Sir RICHARD NAGLE, from Multifarnham, for applying Tithes and Church Property towards the Support of the

By Colonel L. HAY, from Arbroath, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties Act.-By Colonel SEALE, from Torbay and Brixham, against the Importation of Foreign Fish in Foreign Vessels into the London Markets. By

Major BEAUCLERK, from the Thames Tunnel Company, for a Loan of Exchequer Bills to enable them to com

have been glad to have referred to the members of the King's County, had they been in their places. It was signed by about 600 persons, including the names

of a deputy lieutenant-a near relative of the noble Lord (Lord Oxmantown) who represented the county-of several Magistrates, and all the respectable residents of the neighbourhood, without distinction of political opinion. The facts he had taken pains to ascertain. They had been furnished to him by a Mr. Atkinson, a Magistrate of the county, and a resident gentleman of the highest character and station, and they were as follows:-There was on the estate of that gentleman, a poor family of the name of M'Guinness : the eldest daughter was on her death-bed in the last stage of consumption, and the priest of the parish came to visit her; he observed on a shelf, in her sick room, some books, from which he took the Bible in question; he inveighed against its mischievous and dangerous tendency; and much and sincerely as he (Mr. Shaw) differed from him in that respect, it was not of those opinions, or the expression of them to the poor family, that he (Mr. Shaw) complained-but of the act which immediately followed. The priest required that the Bible should be forthwith burned; the mother and daughter strongly protested against any such desecration of a book from which they had derived so much gratification and comfort; for it seemed, that the daughter had been in the habit of reading this Bible to her father when he returned from his daily labour; however, the priest persisted, carried out the Bible to the public road, where he called for fire; after some hesitation, a lighted coal was brought by an old woman from the adjoining hamlet, which was applied by the priest to the Bible, and he then carried it back into the cottage and threw it into the fire. In the mean time (and this proves the value the owner set upon that book) the poor sick girl had concealed a Testament which had stood by the Bible in her bed, and the younger daughter was despatched to the field to call her father; he hastened to the cottage, and Mr. Atkinson's letter quotes the very words of that poor man: he said he saw the Bible spread out upon a large fire, and the priest standing over it-that he (M'Guinness) took up a spade, upon which he lifted it out of the fire, but it had been quite consumed." Mr. Atkinson's letter continues. "This short statement of the facts is all that has transpired; and the only surprise is, that upon such a subject even so much inform

ation should be obtained. I owe my knowledge of it to the accident of the affair having taken place upon my own property; where, perhaps, my trifling influence procured me information which another might not have obtained. Although there were many witnesses, all of whom strongly, and many I believe sincerely, reprobate the act, yet they are unwilling and afraid to speak of it; the fact is, however, so notorious, that no attempt has been made to deny it." He would, on the present occasion, abstain from any comment on the transaction as regarded its religious character; he only had then to impeach it as a gross violation of the rights of conscience and of private property, and as a great offence against public decency and decorum. He disclaimed all political motive in presenting the petition, and in that he could be borne out by the worthy Alderman (Alderman Copeland), the member for Coleraine, in whose hands he (Mr. Shaw) had hoped, and was most anxious, that the petition should have been placed, and from whom he believed it would receive every support. That circumstance, and also an application to the authorities in Ireland having been made for redress, but without any good effect, had caused some delay in the matter being brought before the House.

Mr. Alderman Copeland did not rise to prolong the discussion; but, having taken pains to ascertain the facts of the case, he felt bound to say, that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin had stated them most correctly. The conduct of the priest, on that occasion, was such as all men must deprecate. He regretted, that Government had not noticed the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, which he (Alderman Copeland) considered to be very improper. He concurred entirely in the prayer of the petition, and he felt great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. O'Dwyer said, that the Archbishop of Dublin had already paid every attention to this affair, and he thought the whole matter was to be attributed to the attempts of certain fanatical gentlemen of the Establishment, one of whom had improperly interfered with the priest, and the latter seemed to have retaliated in a very improper manner certainly; but he begged the House to suspend their judgment on the case.

Mr. Finch said, it was a matter of great importance, that the Protestants of England should know the true spirit and character of the Church of Rome-particularly at the present moment, when it was not at all improbable, that a Motion would be submitted to the House for the purpose of diverting a portion of the revenues from the uses of the Established Church and appropriating them to the Church of Rome. Every one who was at all acquainted with Ireland must know the influence the Roman Catholic priests possessed, and how that influence was used to prevent the people from reading the Bible. If any person was found with a Bible in his possession without permission from the priest, remission of his sins was refused him. ["No."] He knew the doctrines of the Church of Rome better than those of her members who cried "no," and in proof of his assertion would read an extract from the fourth rule de libris prohibitis, set forth by the select fathers, to whom the Synod of Trent committed this charge, and approved and confirmed by Pius 4th." Since it is manifest by experience, that if the holy Bibles in the vulgar language are permitted to be read every where without discrimination, more harm than good arises, let the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this particular. So that, after consulting with the parish minister or the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of the scriptures made by Catholic authors, to those whom they shall have understood to be able to receive no harm, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading, which faculty let them have in writing. But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have them in possession without such faculty, shall not be capable of receiving absolution of their sins, unless they have first given up their Bibles to the ordinary." The hon. Member said it was notorious that the priests in Ireland acted in strict accordance with the principle laid down by the Council of Trent, and in proof of this he would read an extract from a work of Dr. Doyle's, signed J. K. L. "I heard," said Dr. Doyle, "of a poor man in the county of Kildare, who when I gave him a Bible, venerated

master with one of the society's Bibles without note or comment, accepted it with all the reverence which the fear of losing his situation inspired. But behold! when the night closed, and all danger of detection was removed, he, lest he should be infected with heresy, exhaled from the Protestant bible during his sleep, took it with a tongs, for he would not defile his touch with it, and buried it in a grave which he had prepared for it in his garden! I do admire the orthodoxy of this Kildare peasant, nay, I admire it greatly, and should I happen to meet him, I shall reward him for his zeal." With respect to the fanatical attempts of the Protestant clergy to propagate truth, he contended that they were pledged at their ordination to do so; and all he claimed for them was the same degree of liberty that was enjoyed by the Roman Catholic priests. It was notorious that in the north of England the Roman Catholic priests were in the habit of preaching by the road side, and that the missionaries of the Church of Rome were most indefatigable in their exertions to make converts to their creed. He did not blame them for this; but he thought he was not requiring too much, in this Protestant country, when he claimed the same privilege for the Protestant clergy.

Mr. C. Fitzsimon denied, that it was necessary for a Roman Catholic to have the written permission, or indeed any permission from his priest, to have a Bible in his possession. He stood there as an avowed Roman Catholic, and he defied contradiction to his statement.

Mr. Plumptre supported the prayer of the petition, and said, that there could be no doubt but that the members of the Church of Rome in Ireland were tyrannically deprived of the use of the Bible. The conduct of the priest on the occasion alluded to was of a disgraceful and afflicting nature, and he could scarcely conceive any crime of a higher character, than depriving persons who were willing to consult it, of the holy volume.

Colonel Perceval considered it one of the greatest outrages that could be committed, to take away the Word of God, without the consent of the poor creatures, as stated by his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw,) and confirmed by the hon. member for

bounden duty of Parliament to protect the peasantry of Ireland in the free exercise of opinion, and allow no man to prevent his reading the Word of Life. No person should be permitted with impunity to invade the privacy of their dwellings, and lay his sarcrilegious hands upon the Word of God. He hoped the time was not far distant when the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland would be brought within the law, and not permitted with impunity to oppress those who were committed to their care. Until such an event occurred, he (Colonel Perceval) despaired of seeing Ireland restored to tranquillity.

Coleraine, and, not content with this, sa- | crilegiously to burn it. Where, he would ask, were the persons aggrieved to seek for redress when religion merged into a political despotism?-when the Roman Catholic priests exercised a right above the law? Where, he would ask, were the Representatives of the people at large to apply for redress upon such oppressive and unchristian proceedings, except to Parliament? He thought it one of the greatest curses to Ireland that the priests were above the law, and were permitted to do what they liked with impunity. No man who knew anything of Ireland could doubt, that the Roman Catholics were prevented, as far as the priests could prevent them, from reading the Bible. His authority might be doubted, but if the House would permit him, he would read a short extract, which, coming from the authority it did, would satisfy those who appeared to have a doubt upon the subject. The hon. Member read the following extract from the encyclical letter of Pope Leo 16th, dated May 3, 1824, and published with "Pastoral Instructions to all the faithful," by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland-" We, also, venerable brethren, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort you to turn away your flock by all means from these poisonous pastures (the Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue). Reprove, beseech, be constant, in season and out of season, in all patience and doctrine, that the faithful intrusted to you (adhering strictly to the rules of our congregation of the Index) be persuaded, that if the sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise thence, on account of the rashness of men"-page 16. Dr. Doyle, it was notorious, interdicted the use of the Scriptures in his diocese, and, in the sentiments contained in the passage which he had just read, the Irish Prelates concurred. Dr. Doyle, in his "Pastoral Instructions," refers, in the following terms, to the passage:-" Our holy Father recommends to the observance of the faithful a rule of the Congregation of the Index, which prohibits the perusal of the Sacred Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the sanction of the competent authorities. His Holiness wisely remarks, 'that more evil than good is found to result from the indiscriminate persual of them,' and in this sentiment of our head and chief we fully concur." It was the

Sir Robert Bateson could not remain silent when he heard it stated that the Roman Catholic priests did not interfere to prevent the peasantry in Ireland from reading the Bible. Residing as he did in the north of Ireland, where the majority of the people were Protestants, he knew, that even there the priests did interfere to prevent the free circulation of the Scriptures. They denied the rights of their Church to whole families where even the children were discovered to be possessed of a Bible. He (Sir Robert Bateson) could not conceive anything more calculated to shock the feelings of a Christian than a person forcibly taking away the Word of God from a sick peasant and then forcibly burning it. He should be glad to be convinced that this was the only instance of such disgraceful conduct, but he knew the fact to be otherwise. The priesthood of Ireland possessed a power above the law, and they exercised that power so tyrannically that they had reduced the peasantry of Ireland to the most abject slavery. Circumstances of the nature referred to in the petition were of frequent occurrence in Ireland, and he hoped some means would be devised to place the Roman Catholic priesthood under the control of the law.

The Petition to lie on the Table.