said, he wished, pursuant to notice, to put the following questions to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control: "What is the amount available of the debt and prize money since the last distribution in the year 1832 of the Deccan prize money? Have the Nagpore jewels, in the custody of the East India Company at Benares, been adjudicated, as set forth in the printed paper of the House of Commons as printed in the year 1838? When will the distribution of the debt and prize money take place; and has the dispute which prevented the distribution of the said prize money been settled; if not, what is the nature of the dispute?"

said, with respect to the first and third questions, he could only say, that the last distribution of the Deccan prize money was in August, 1834, instead of 1832; and if his hon. Friend wished for any further information, the best course he could take would be to move for a continuation of the return which on a former occasion had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. With respect to the second question, he begged to inform his hon. Friend, that the subject had been submitted to the Queen's Advocate, and also to the standing counsel of the East India Company, and they were both of opinion that the jewels referred to were not prize, and therefore they had been returned.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether Sir W. Pym, Superintendent General of Quarantine, had within the last two years been employed by Government to proceed to the Continent for the purpose of obtaining information on the subject of quarantines from the authorities of different places, or for some other purpose; and to know if he made a report on his return, and, if he made a report, whether there were any objection to its being printed, and laid on the Table of the House? And also to move that Government may institute an inquiry by competent persons as to the nature of the fever which prevailed last year on board Her Majesty's ship Eclair; and if shown to have been the true yellow or black vomit fever, that the inquiry should then extend to the question as to whether it had been proved that such a disease was transmissible from persons labouring under it to others in health.

, in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, had to state that Sir W. Pym was employed by the Government to make inquiry into the subject of quarantine, and that he had made a report to the Board of Trade, which report had been already laid before Parliament, together with all the correspondence connected with it. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that there had been an inquiry into the fever referred to by two gentlemen (Sir W. Pym and Sir W. Burnett), but they differed in the conclusions to which they came. Sir W. Pym was of opinion that the fever on board of the Eclair was of a highly infectious nature. Sir W. Burnett, on the contrary, was of opinion that it was not infectious, but merely an intermittent fever produced by exposure to air at night, and irregularities on the part of the men who suffered from it, and that it could only be infectious from an accumulation of sick people in a confined space. With regard to what the Government might think fit to do upon a future occasion, it was not for him to say.

In proposing to this House that the Religious Opinions Bill should be read a Second Time, I will make some statements to the House of the nature of that Bill: It is a Bill to repeal certain penalties which are inflicted upon persons, either on account of professing certain religious opinions, or on account of certain practices with respect to their religious faith, which are supposed to be dangerous to the country. The greater part of those punishments will, I believe, be considered by the House as unworthy of remaining upon the Statute-book; and I will, therefore, only mention them generally, and will proceed to those two parts of the Bill upon which there may be some difference of opinion. In the first place, it is a Bill to repeal two Acts concerning the Jews. The first is an ordinance regarding the Jews which is supposed to prevent their holding land. That has been a question of considerable doubt, an therefore we thought it better to repeal that ordinance, and thus dispose of any doubt there might be upon the subject. The other Statute provides that the Jews shall wear a certain badge, a mark of degradation and inferiority which certainly the House will not wish to continue. The next class of Acts to which the Bill refers, are Acts which require the attendance of persons at public worship according to the usage of the Established Church, and inflict penalties upon those persons who attend public worship in other places than those of the Established Church. The first is the Act of the 5th and 6th Edward VI., which inflicts penalties upon persons who attend public worship in other places than those of the Established Church; for the first offence, imprisonment for six months; for the second, a year; and for the third, imprisonment for life. The next is the Act of the 29th of Elizabeth for the same object, imposing a penalty of 20l. a month upon those who do not attend public worship in the churches of the Established Church. There are other Acts which impose penalties upon persons who do not attend church on the 5th of November, and various other Acts, several altogether, one of which was, I believe, put in force only a few years ago, imposing penalties upon persons who do not attend church on Sunday. It is proposed, as it is now according to the law of the land allowable to all persons to attend public worship in places conformable to their religious opinions, to abolish entirely the whole of those measures. The other class of Acts to which I shall refer are Acts providing against the dangers which this country incurred in former times on account of the pretences made by the Pope of Rome to supremacy over this country. Now, those Acts are of a very severe nature, and many of them impose penalties which, whatever may be thought of the danger to which they refer, it is impossible to maintain in the present day. There are penalties against Popish recusants—penalties of a very severe nature against any person who may maintain the authority of the Pope. There is the Act of Elizabeth upon this subject, which imposes for the first offence the condemnation of the whole of the offender's personal property; for the second offence the penalty of præmunire; and for the third offence, it declares the offender guilty of high treason. I do not say that I propose now to do away with the whole of those penalties; at the same time I must admit that a question has been raised whether in so doing we do in any way affect the title of the Crown of these realms to supremacy in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual. But it has been laid down by the greatest authorities of former times, by Lord Hale and Lord Coke, that the supremacy of the Crown of these realms, in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, is part of the common law of the land. The same opinion has been given within the last few weeks by Lord Denman, Lord Campbell, and Lord Lyndhurst, and therefore we may assume that there is no danger whatever that in taking away those penalties we do in any way touch upon the doctrine of the supremacy of the Crown. We take away penalties against those persons who maintain the supremacy of any foreign power or potentate over these realms. It cannot be seriously said that there is any advantage in keeping up penalties of this kind, for the mere assertion of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope in these realms. If it is only an opinion held by persons of the Roman Catholic religion, it ought not to be punished so far as it is an opinion, and nothing is done in consequence of that opinion by which the course of law is disturbed. If, in any way, a person were to question the Queen's supremacy, so as to bring the question before a court of law, no doubt the doctrine which I have mentioned would be maintained, and the law would make provision accordingly for the settlement of that doctrine. There is another offence which this Bill deals with, and that is the offence of introducing a bull of the Pope into this country. According to the Act of the 13th Elizabeth, when there was an assertion of the authority of the Pope, and an attempt was made to relieve all persons from their allegiance by the authority of the Pope, it was declared that all persons who introduced those bulls should be guilty of high treason. The question is, whether it is desirable to keep up that or any other penalty for such an offence. It does not appear to me that we can possibly attempt to prevent the introduction of the Pope's bulls into this country. There are certain bulls of the Pope which are absolutely necessary for the appointment of bishops and pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite impossible to prevent the introduction of such bulls. Every one knows that now they are not prevented, but are, in fact, introduced into this country. But let us suppose that there is some bull introduced into this country similar to those we heard of in former days; let us suppose—though it is almost extravagant to suppose it—that there was any attempt by the Pope to assert any sovereign authority in these realms, or to interfere with the Queen's authority—my belief is, that no such bull would be observed by any Roman Catholic, but that it would be a dead letter; and thus much I am sure of, that if any person acted contrary to his allegiance in consequence of such a bull, he would be punishable according to the law of this country. Again, the security with respect to this and all other Acts is, that if anything seditious or treasonable is contained in those bulls, they would be punishable in this country the same as any other writing of a seditious or treasonable nature. If they contained anything seditious or treasonable, there is no difference to be made between circulating them and any other seditious or treasonable writing. I think, therefore, that the objections made to this part of the Bill are completely unsound. It appears to me that it is only common justice to repeal all those penalties by passing this Bill, which has been sent down to us by the other House of Parliament. I should say, after this Bill has passed, there certainly will remain some confusion in the law (though I do not think contradiction), as no Bill is introduced to alter the oaths now taken. We shall still continue to take the oath that the Pope has not, nor ought to have, any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms, though, at the same time, in point of fact, there is no doubt that he exercises a spiritual authority in these realms. That is the case at present, and that will remain after his Bill is passed. I have always interpreted that oath to be, that in the opinion of the person taking it the Pope has not any jurisdiction which can be enforced by law, and ought not to have any; but at the same time, I think the subject of oaths is one that ought to be taken into consideration, and therefore I shall not contend that the passing of this Bill will relieve us from the necessity of considering that subject in another Session. The question, whether it were desirable to introduce this Bill alone, or to connect it with another Bill as to oaths, was maturely considered by the late Government; and the late Government came to the conclusion that it was more advisable to introduce this Bill with respect to which there was likely to be little difference of opinion, than to meet the difficulties which might arise upon the other subject. I think that by passing this Bill you will get rid of many absurd penalties and much absurd legislation now on the Statute-book, and I therefore now move the second reading of it.

felt bound to oppose this Bill, by his veneration for the acts and laws of his ancestors, and his attachment to the National Church, which the Bill went to undermine. At all events, he would enter his protest against it.

hoped the hon. and gallant Member would remember that his ancestors established the Roman Catholic religion here, and that he would therefore have some veneration for it. The professors of that religion handed down to us every principle in the British Constitution worth contending for. He could not understand how any man could take the oath that no foreign prelate "hath or ought to have" any power or jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, in England. Why, it was notorious that the Pope conferred the authority of the Catholic bishops here, and no man ought to be compelled to deny the fact.

complained of the introduction of this Bill into the House at so late a period, when a great proportion of Members were naturally absent. It was only that day that the Bill had been in their hands. It certainly did not contain the objectionable clauses which had been proposed in another Bill (Mr. Watson's), interfering with the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act; but still it proposed to abolish the law against the publication of bulls here—which had been prohibited by statute ever since the 13th Elizabeth; and upon that point the House was to decide at seven or eight hours' notice. He was no advocate for the existence of penalties which were not necessary for the protection of Protestants and the Protestant religion; but since legislation on part of the subject was to be postponed by the noble Lord, the whole subject might best be taken up together. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

felt grateful to the noble Lord for completing the good work commenced by the late Lord Chancellor, and abolishing penalties the retention of which was a disgrace to the law of the land.

insisted that the Bill ought not to be pressed at so late a period, when many Members had left town, like the hon. Baronet the other Member for Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), who found his health unequal to a longer attendance this Session. If the noble Lord persevered, he (Mr. Spooner) should feel it his duty to take all the steps that Parliamentary usages allowed, to oppose what he must call a most indecent act at that period of the Session. It was easy to say that bulls would remain as much illegal at common law as ever; but let the Attorney General state in what way a bull, quâ bull, could be touched, if it did not contain any seditious matter, but was merely an exercise by the Pope of authority over the subjects of this realm. The House and the country ought not to be taken by surprise on so important a subject.

could not forget that, though the Bill had only just been printed, this was not entirely new matter; the whole subject had been introduced in the former Bill (Mr. Watson's), which was cut into two parts expressly because a Minister of the Crown stated that this measure was coming down to the House. As to the Bill itself, he could not see what harm it would do the Church of England; and if there was no harm in it, something ought to be conceded even to the prejudices of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. The Acts of Parliament proposed to be repealed were entirely obsolete, and did no good to anybody. The Bill would not interfere with the oath of supremacy; everybody who took it now would take it still; and he believed the noble Lord's interpretation of it to be the true one—it merely stated that which was the belief of the party, his belief what ought to be the case; it could not alter the fact.

inquired whether any alteration had been made in Mr. Gladstone's arrangement for the appointment of an Assistant Under Secretary to the Colonial Department? Mr. Gladstone had appointed Mr. Rogers to the situation of Assistant Under Secretary to the Colonial Department, and proposed to pay his salary by a reduction in the number of the clerks, thereby doing injustice to those gentlemen, and injury to the business of the office. If the appointment were to be maintained, a better mode of providing the salary would have been to have come down and to have asked Parliament for the money. He wished to know whether the present Government intended to continue such an arrangement?

was not prepared to go into the general merits of the question; but, in the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, the appointment of Mr. Rogers was an efficient and necessary one. With respect to the general efficiency of the clerks in the Colonial Department, he could cheerfully bear his testimony. More efficient or able gentlemen were not to be found in any department.

said, that having been for some time at the head of the department in question, he could agree only partially in the view which appeared to be taken of the matter by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith). It might be all very true that Mr. Stephen, as Under Secretary, had, until lately, required no assistance to enable him to perform the duties of the office, and Mr. Stephen had been for five years in the department; but the question was, in what manner the duties of the office could be best performed in years to come. Mr. Stephen's position was a peculiar one. Besides its general and miscellaneous duties, he was charged with the examination of all the colonial enactments passed in our various settlements. Now, he took it, that the mere statement of such onerous duties was quite sufficient to make anybody understand that it was necessary, in their performance, to look over and examine a vast multitude of enactments—a task which could not be satisfactorily performed without previous knowledge of the Colonies, as well as some acquaintance with the principles and practice of law. Under these circumstances the appointment had taken place, Mr. Rogers being a gentleman of high legal character and standing. With respect to the manner of the appointment, however, he agreed with his right hon. Friend in deprecating it; and he shared his feelings with respect to the senior and junior clerks, who were not too many, and who numbered among them many men of distinguished talent. Considering the length of Mr. Stephen's services, he was inclined to approve of the assistance to be given to him, and he certainly did not think that the department would be benefited by any reduction of the number of clerks employed.

said, that the appointment in question required a gentleman of the legal profession, and for that reason alone a strangor had been introduced into the office. The noble Lord had concurred in condemning the mode in which the arrangement was made; but his right hon. Friend, Mr. Gladstone, would have been glad to have adopted any other mode. He had had no wish to act harshly towards the clerks in the department, but had been anxious to carry out an efficient arrangement for the public service, without incurring any public additional public charge. As some severe comments had been made on his right hon. Friend out of the House in reference to this matter, he felt bound to say that his right hon. Friend introduced Mr. Rogers into the office, not because he was a friend of his own, but because it was absolutely necessary to have a lawyer in the situation, and the whole arrangement was made without additional charge to the public.

begged to state, that the chymists and druggists were by no means satisfied with this Bill, which, if passed, would place no fewer than 3,000 chymists and druggists under the Excise laws, and compel them to take out spirit licenses. Now, this was a very objectionable measure, and as it had been before the House only since the 27th of July, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered it fair that a Bill, affecting so extensively such a large class of persons, should be pushed so hastily through the House? What the parties complaining of the measure required was more time to consider the question. The druggists throughout the country knew nothing whatever of the measure; those resident in London had not had time to consider it; and if it passed, the Members of that House would be sure to hear from their constituents complaints, loud and long, as to its provisions. Nothing but the strongest necessity could justify such a measure; but all he now asked from the right hon. Gentleman was, that he would allow the Bill to be postponed to Monday week, in order to give full time for its consideration.

said, the Bill arose from a case of absolute necessity; it was prepared by the late Government in consequence of great frauds having been discovered by the sale of spirituous admixtures on the premises of chemists and druggists. He had already stated to the House that certain amendments were proposed to be made in the Bill, which he understood to be satisfactory to a deputation which had waited on him. He would, therefore, propose that the Bill be now read a third time; that it be reprinted with those amendments, and the further progress of the Bill postponed until that day week, when ample time would be given for considering the measure, as amended, before it could finally pass the House.

complained that while it recognised the principle laid down by the Commissioners appointed to investigate the subject, namely — deprecating the broad gauge as highly injurious, and recommending the narrow gauge as being best adapted for the country, it yet went on to enact that the existing broad gauge should be doubled in extent; that 500 miles more should be added to that which was already laid down. He saw the Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company (Mr. Russell) present, and he gave him great credit for the spirit in which that company carried out their arrangements, and did not mean to be a party to saddling that company with the loss connected with any alteration of the gauge; but still he thought that this measure did not settle the question in a manner becoming its great importance. There could be no doubt that sooner or later they would feel the dangers, and difficulties, and hindrances attending a diversity of gauge throughout the country, and must come to some resolution in favour of a uniformity of gauge; but this Bill, so far from remedying, multiplied the inconveniences and increased the difficulties of the present system, for while we had 3,000 miles of railway, 2,700 of which were constructed on the narrow gauge, and only 300 on the broad gauge, this Bill, which professed to denounce the broad gauge, and uphold the necessity of the narrow gauge, actually enacted that the broad gauge should be extended 500 miles further. Was that a proper way of dealing with the question, or carrying out the suggestions of the Commissioners? By adopting such a course, the House was but creating difficulties it would have hereafter to encounter; and he therefore asked on what principle it was that this compromise between the broad and narrow gauge was brought forward? He wished to know, too, who was the author of a measure which compromised the question in this way.

said, that the hon. Member had asked for the authorship of this Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) thought he might say with propriety that Parliament itself was responsible for the Bill, seeing that its object was to carry into effect a resolution adopted unanimously by both Houses of Parliament. He could not quite agree with the hon. Member in thinking that this measure would increase the evil of a break of gauge. The fact was simply this—there were a number of Bills which had been passed this Session, in which there was no special clause providing for a particular gauge; they were left to a choice of gauge, and this Bill defined the gauge upon which the companies were to construct their works, in order that the broad gauge should be limited throughout the country. It did not interfere with those companies that had a clause in their Bill providing for the particular gauge on which they should be constructed; it only provided that the railways for which Bills had been obtained without providing for a particular gauge, should be constructed in a way most suited to effect the object which his hon. Friend had in view, namely, to have the least amount of broad gauge consistent with convenience and the greatest amount of uniformity. He agreed with his hon. Friend that uniformity was exceedingly desirable as a national object; but where was the money to come from to effect it?

would be sorry to see the broad gauge proscribed altogether. He did not speak as a scientific man; but he asked any Gentleman who had travelled by the Great Western line, if he had ever been conveyed with equal comfort, or on a railway where the carriages were larger, more commodious, or better ventilated? He (Mr. Protheroe) knew of none.

then moved, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for removing the charge of the constabulary force in Ireland from the counties, and for enlarging the reserve force; and to make further provision for the regulation and disposition of the said constabulary force. They would all recollect that the late Government had pledged itself to the counties of Ireland to introduce such a Bill. The Government had thought it necessary, after consulting competent authorities, to ask for the discretionary power of adding about two hundred men to the reserve body of the present constabulary force in Ireland. But these and all the other details of the subject, into which he did not then think it necessary to enter, would be better and more fully explained in the Bill itself than by any statement which he could make.

thought the principle of this Bill was objectionable. It was wrong, he thought, to ask such a town, for instance, as Manchester, which paid 30,000l. a year towards the expenses of its own police force, or other towns similarly circumstanced, to contribute to the support of the metropolitan police, or the police of Ireland.

said, the hon. Member ought to have made his objection to this measure during the discussions on the repeal of the Corn Laws, when Sir R. Peel had introduced it expressly as a proposition affording some compensation to a country upon which the intended Corn Bill was likely to press so severely.

said that, in his opinion, the promised compensation to Ireland for the passing of the new Corn Bill, savoured very much of bribery. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford, that Ireland ought to pay the cost of maintaining her own police.