said, he observed that the second reading of the Smoke Prohibition Bill stood for to-day, but he hoped the hon. Member who had charge of it would not proceed with it this Session. If the hon. Member felt disposed to give way for the present Session, although he (Lord Morpeth) would give no pledge that he would introduce a measure next Session, yet he would promise to give the subject his best attention, to see whether it would be practicable to carry out the suggestions of scientific and practical men, with a view to legislation on this subject.

should feel gratification in acceding to the wish of the noble Lord, but he felt some difficulty in so doing. From every part of the country, especially from Leeds and Manchester, he was receiving the most pressing letters to carry forward his Bill. He felt himself in a difficult position; for if he gave up the Bill, he should make himself liable to the censures to which he had been exposed in some of the leading journals of the day. It was only this week he had been held up to reproach for having given up his Cemetery Bill. Still, after the application made to him by the noble Lord—after, he might almost say, the pledge he had given him that the matter should be taken into consideration—he had no alternative but to accede to the noble Lord's wishes. Indeed, he should injure his own cause by any other course; for if he went to a division he should be beaten. He trusted that the able daily papers he had adverted to (particularly The Times), who might be disposed to think he had not done his duty in not pressing forward this Bill, would take into their consideration that an individual not connected with Her Majesty's Government had no chance of carrying a Bill like the present this Session. He trusted that when his conduct was next noticed by that journal—and it was an honour to be noticed by it, except in a disgraceful manner—the gentlemen by whom it was conducted would remember, that a Member unsupported by the Government, had it not in his power to carry the Bill through the House. The best way, perhaps, of carrying the subject, was by mooting it continually, so that the pressure might come from without upon any Government that might be in office. Unless year by year he had pushed forward the Cemetery Bill and the Smoke Prohibition Bill, there would not have been the most distant chance of carrying these legislative measures. But having done so for several years, the public feeling would now, he trusted, carry them into effect. He now, with great satisfaction, placed in the hands of the noble Lord a pet child of his own, which he trusted would be comforted and nourished by him.

had to propose certain additions to the Bill, because it did not contain provisions which would give perfect relief to the individuals sought to be affected by it. He did not believe that this measure would in any degree endanger the Established Church; and that notion had been abandoned by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis). Indeed all persons connected with the Establishment repudiated the principle of maintaining penalties for the security of that church.

would at once state the course he proposed to take when this Bill went into Committee. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott) had said that the object of some of his amendments was to carry into full effect the intentions of the framers of the Bill. There could be no doubt, he thought, that some of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Winchester were not consistent with the intentions of those by whom this Bill was introduced. Some of those amendments were similar to clauses contained in a Bill introduced during the present Session by the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Watson), to remove certain penalties and disabilities which attached under the Act 10 George IV. When the House went into Committee on that Bill, on the question that the preamble be postponed, an Amendment was moved, "that the Chairman do now leave the chair;" the Committee divided, and there were—ayes, 120; noes, 80; so that in a House of 200 Members the Bill was rejected by a majority of 40. He need hardly say that it was not to be expected, at this period of the Session, that they could have the attendance of 200 Members, or that the Members who might attend would be the same who had taken part in the previous discussion on this subject. He believed that the Bill now before the House would carry into effect generally the intentions of the House of Lords, by whom it had been sanctioned; and it was not likely, if they were to send the Bill back to the other House with a number of amendments which altered the substance of the measure, that it could receive the consideration of many of those Peers by whom it had formerly been discussed. He thought, therefore, that the fairest course in this state of the Session would be to abstain from discussing the amendments of the hon. Member for Winchester, and to endeavour to render any amendments they might adopt consonant with the intentions of the House of Lords, by whom the Bill had been sent down. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Winchester that he should withdraw the amendments of which he had given notice, and bring forward the subject next Session.

considered it most unfair that at the end of the Session a small minority of the House should rescind a decision adopted by a large number of Members at an early period of the Session.

had divided the House on the second reading of the Bill; and as the House had then expressed an opinion on the subject, he thought at this late period of the Session it would be unbecoming in him to throw any further obstacle in the way of the Bill, provided it was allowed to retain its present form. If, however, the hon. Member for Winchester persisted in his amendments, he (Mr. Estcourt) should feel justified in opposing the Bill.

concurred in the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt.) He (Mr. Shaw) had voted the other day against the second reading of the Bill, not from an opinion that there were not some harsh and obsolete laws on the Statute-book, which it was desirable to repeal, and in so far he did not object to the present Bill; but because there were other provisions contained in the Bill affecting the Established Church, and certain salutary restraints upon the Church of Rome, which he thought had not been sufficiently considered. However, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Estcourt) did not mean to divide the House upon the question of the Speaker leaving the chair, neither would he, provided that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would firmly oppose any extension of the present measure—such as was involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott).

said, that if the hon. Member for Winchester persevered in bringing forward his amendments, he would vote for them; but he recommended the hon. Gentleman not to revive the discussion which had previously taken place on the same subject.

proposed the introduction of the words in part of it "or consequent thereon," which would have the effect of doing away with penalties.

objected to the Amendment. He saw nothing absurd or inconsistent in the provision as it then stood—the effect of which would be to repeal the extreme penalties to which the offence was liable, under the 2nd of Elizabeth; but in the words of the clause that "in all other respects the law should continue the same as if that enactment had not been made," it had been obviously the intention of the framers of the Bill that while the excessive punishments under the old Act should be abolished, the offence should still continue prohibited by Statute, and punishable at common law.

said, that his object was to carry this Bill in the form in which it had come down from the House of Lords. It had been prepared by Lords Lyndhurst, Campbell, and Brougham, and the whole of the matter had been fully and duly considered. They did not propose to make that lawful which was previously illegal by common law, but only to abrogate the penalties imposed for that which was now allowed to be no fault. His desire was to carry the Bill as it came from the Lords.

contended that the clause as it now stood was perfectly correct, and better without the proposed words than with them. The Bill took away the severe penalties, but left any breach of the common law just as it stood before.

believed that the noble Lord was of his own opinion, and he thought the opinion of that House ought not to be made to succumb to that of the House of Lords.

objected to the discussion being taken on the point at that late period of the Session, when but a small number of Members interested in the subject was present.

appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott) to consider whether, having regard to the late period of the Session and to the paucity of Members present, it would not be the wiser course to withdraw for the present the other amendments of which he had given notice.

consented to acquiesce in the suggestion, observing that he was principally influenced thereto by the advice of the noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey), by whose opinion in a matter of that kind he was most desirous to be guided. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it was perhaps the best course to withdraw the other amendments; but in doing so he wished to state, that he did not feel at all contented with what the Committee had done in negativing his Amendment, nor did he think it probable that on a future occasion the House would express its satisfaction at the conduct of the Committee in this respect.

objected to the next clause, on the ground that it would violate the oath of supremacy and the oath taken by Members of that House, which set forth that no foreign pontiff should be allowed to interfere in any way with the religious opinions of the subjects of this realm; whereas the Pope would have the power of issuing bulls affecting the opinions of the people of this country by this Bill. He pressed the noble Lord to postpone the clause until next Session, in order that it might be more fully discussed. He moved the omission of the objectionable words, and expressed his intention of dividing the House on the subject if the explanation of the Government was not satisfactory.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) would not divide the House on his Amendment. His hon. Friend did not seem to understand the distinction between an offence existing by the common law, and punishable at common law. If a statute created an offence, or prohibited any act from being done, the common law could punish the offence, if committed, as a misdemeanor. The punishments under the old Act were admittedly too severe. His hon. Friend himself did not desire to retain them; and if he would look to the concluding words of the paragraph he sought to omit, he would find they were—"That in all respects, save as to the said penalties or punishments, the law shall continue the same as if this enactment had not been made."

did not think that the clause in question was at all at varience with the oath of supremacy. If he understood the clause aright, its object was to revoke certain severe punishments which were inflicted by statute on the introduction of bulls and writings of the See of Rome. The statute imposing these penalties took its rise in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and was attributable to the circumstance that the Pope was supposed to have assumed an authority to depose the Queen of those realms, and that a bull to that effect had been posted on the churches of London. The Act was supposed to be necessary, because it was thought there were many in the country who believed that the Pope really did possess that power. By the clause in the Bill now under consideration, it was sought to do away with the penalties which, in the opinion of our ancestors, were rendered necessary by the exigencies of the case, but which must now appear to every enlightened mind totally superfluous and unnecessary. There were now no such dangers as were formerly apprehended; and there need be no such punishments. Again, he asserted, he did not see anything in the clause at variance with the oath of supremacy. He had his doubts as to the propriety of the oath; but he was certain that there was nothing in it inconsistent with the fact as it was now, and as it would be after this Bill should have passed. The Bill proposed to take away the whole of the penalties which were heretofore inflicted, but in no other respect did it alter the pre-existing state of the law. It would not render legal for the future that which was heretofore illegal according to common law; nor, on the other hand, would it render that unlawful which until now was legal. He confessed he could not bring himself to put the same construction on the oath of supremacy as the hon. Member for Birmingham. He (Lord J. Russell) did not think that he or any one else meant to convey by that oath their opinion that the Pope was not to have any influence over the minds of persons in this country who conscientiously regarded him as possessing spiritual supremacy, and who recognised him as the head of their church, and the persons, as such, who should regulate the affairs of that church. So far as that assertion went, it was utterly impossible to deny that there were in these countries persons who did hold that belief; and to punish them for holding that belief would be the grossest absurdity, as well as the grossest tyranny. Why, it was not very long ago that a rescript from the Pope arrived in this country, in which he declared his opinion, that, it being the peculiar duty of the Roman Catholic bishops to attend to spiritual matters, it was not desirable that they should interfere in political matters in Ireland. [Mr. SHEIL: That they should interfere so much.] Be that as it might—and he was willing to take his hon. and learned Friend's version—it did not affect his position. It was for the bishops to decide whether the Pope possessed that jurisdiction over them that it would render it imperative on them, in deference to his rescript, to refrain from taking part in political discussions. It was not for him (Lord J. Russell) to inquire whether the Pope ought or ought not to have this power. One Roman Catholic might perhaps say that it was beyond the Pope's legitimate jurisdiction, while another might maintain that it was very proper, and quite consistent with the constitution of the Catholic church that it should be so, and that the bishops were accordingly bound to obey. These were considerations into which he would not enter. But there was one point of view in which he wished to present the case to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who protested so energetically against the introduction of bulls and rescripts. If the Catholic bishops had withdrawn from Conciliation Hall, and refrained from taking part in the discussion of secular affairs, would the hon. Member have advised that they should be prosecuted for obeying the Pope's rescript?

thought that the construction of the oath contended for by the noble Lord, and his explanation of this measure, not only would justify him in supporting the Bill, but even rendered it imperative on him to give it his advocacy. The noble Lord had stated most distinctly that the Bill would leave the law in these matters just as it was, with the exception of doing away with the penalties.

observed, that from the very text of the Bill, it was clear that the state of the law was not to be changed in any respect but in the abolition of penalties. That which was not heretofore lawful according to the common law, would not be legalized under the present law. The old punishments, however, were irrational and severe; and he was glad they were abolished.

dissented altogether from the construction put upon the oath of supremacy by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. However, seeing the feeling of the House, he would not divide on the Motion, but would content himself with merely protesting against the Bill. The noble Lord had asked whether he (Mr. Spooner) would have advocated the prosecution of the Roman Catholic bishops in the event of their yielding obedience to the Pope's rescript by withdrawing from Conciliation Hall? But he would put the converse of the proposition; and ask whether, in case the rescript commanded their attendance there, and that they were prosecuted by the Government for high treason, the noble Lord would be satisfied if they were to reply by saying, "We meet there in obedience to the bull of the Pope, whose jurisdiction and authority you yourselves acknowledge?"

, by way of applying an anodyne to the conscience of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and of showing that the construction of the supremacy oath contended for by the noble Lord was the correct one, begged leave to refer to the Bequest Act of last Session. By that Act it was specially provided that Roman Catholic bishops who were appointed by the Pope, in the exercise of his spiritual jurisdiction, should have seats at the board; and thus collectively, but most emphatically, had the spiritual capacity and jurisdiction of his Holiness been acknowledged. At first the phrase in the Bequest Act was, "Ministers of the Roman Catholic church exercising episcopal authority;" but it was subsequently altered to "bishops" and "archbishops," for the express and specific purpose of recognising the Catholic church in Ireland.

confessed that this explanation was very far indeed from satisfying him. It only proved that they were going from worse to worst. If the present Bill were passed, bulls at first of an innocent character would be introduced; but they would gradually change their complexion, and there was no knowing where the mischief might end.

found it impossible to reconcile the remarks which had just been made by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon with the vote that Gentleman had just given against his Amendment. The right hon. Member's vote was virtually a vote in favour of retaining the old penalties for the conscientious exercise of religion. The day was close at hand, however, when this whole system should be changed. All this rubbish of laws persecuting men for conscience sake must be done away with, and the injustice of punishing men for their religious belief must soon and for ever be abolished.

moved the insertion of an additional clause. He stated that during the last Session of Parliament a line of railway was granted from Oxford to Worcester on the broad gauge, and that another line was granted from Oxford to Rugby. During the present Session a branch from Oxford and Rugby to Birmingham was granted, as was also a line from Birmingham to Wolverhampton; but no gauge was specified for these two lines. Now, the Bill before the House specified those lines which were excepted from the general principle; but those lines to which he had referred were not mentioned in it, and it was with the view of including them that he now submitted an additional clause to the House. The object of that clause was to provide for the entire line from Oxford to Birmingham having the broad gauge, so that there should not be exhibited the anomaly of two gauges being laid down on this line of railway. The hon. Gentleman then proposed the following clause—

"Nothing in the Act contained shall prevent the construction of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway, the Birmingham Extension Railway, and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway, including the Line between Wednesbury and Dudley, on the same Gauge or Gauges according to which the Oxford and Rugby, and the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railways may be constructed."

said, the proposition which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham now made had undergone very full consideration, and he could assure him that the course which the Government thought fit to take with respect to this subject had not been influenced in the least by any sympathy with the London and Birmingham Railway Company, or any other company, but simply with reference to public and general considerations. He must call his hon. Friend's attention to the state of the case. The fact was that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the Gauge question, and a report was made, upon which certain Resolutions were founded and unanimously passed. The Bill now before the House, and which had reached its third reading (having already passed through the House of Lords), was a Bill to carry those Resolutions which Parliament had deliberately passed into law, and nothing more. But the hon. Member for Birmingham asked them to pause at the third reading of this Bill, and to introduce a clause which would be in complete violation of its principles, and which would, in fact, amount to very little short of making all their previous resolutions and proceedings null and void. However, be that as it may, be would remind his hon. Friend that at the time that the Birmingham and Oxford Railway Bill was before a Committee of that House, the promoters of that Bill were perfectly aware those Resolutions to which he had alluded were passing through the Houses of Parliament; and they were aware that, with the exception of those Bills with reference to which a special clause was inserted, every Bill would come under the control of the general enactment which Parliament was about to adopt. Now, why did they neglect to ask, until the third reading of this general enactment, to have an exception made in their favour? Why did they not take the opportunity of inviting the Committee who sat on this particular Bill, and before whom evidence could be taken, to make a special Report to the House that they had a case which would render them entitled to be excepted from the general operation of this enactment? If they had asked to make such a Report to the House, why had not the Committee made it? It appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) that Parliament would be proceeding in direct opposition to its Resolution, and to the Report of the Gauge Commission, if they were to allow the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham to be now introduced into this Bill.

supported the clause, which he contended could have no other object than to benefit the public. The only reason, indeed, which the right hon. Gentleman had given for opposing it was, that the promoters did not take the proper opportunity for having an exception made in their favour; but in his opinion there was no weight whatever in this objection.

said, if the Oxford and Birmingham line would be rendered useless without the insertion of this clause, as seemed to be supposed, why was that important fact overlooked by the promoters when the Bill was before the Committee? It was then proposed that the broad gauge should be granted on the whole line from Birmingham to London; but that recommendation was thrown out by the Committee. He would be no party to promoting a gauge which he was sure must be withdrawn sooner or later; nor did he wish to see any parties injured by the change. He desired, as did the Commissioners, that means might be found of making an uniform gauge throughout the country by some equitable mode. But the Resolutions had encroached on the principles laid down by the Commissioners, and the present Bill advanced beyond them, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) went still further in extending the broad gauge. Throughout the continent of Europe there was an uniform gauge with one exception; and an engineer from Heidelberg was this moment here consulting with the most eminent engineers how to get rid of the evil. He implored the House to be more consistent in legislating on this subject than they had been: what they had done must be undone sooner or later, and an uniform gauge established. At any rate he would be no party to extending the broad gauge, as was proposed by the clause of the hon. Member; and on commercial as well as national grounds, he asked the House to adhere to the principles which had already been laid down.

said, that in the present Bill there were two exceptions admitted which had not been mentioned in the Gauge Commissioners' Report: they had not been brought before the Committee, and had not had a special report made in their favour; and why then should the lines mentioned in the clause be refused a similar advantage? With respect to what had been said about the time when the present proposition ought to have been made, all that could be said on that matter was, that if the Government had not inserted the two lines in the Bill, the present was the only occasion when the parties could bring their proposition forward. Then it was said that the adoption of the clause would be inconsistent with the Report of the Gauge Commissioners, in which it was stated that the break of gauge was a most serious evil. But the House should know that unless the clause was introduced, there would be a much greater break of gauge than if the Bill passed without it. They asked for no exclusive privileges with respect to the adoption of the broad gauge, as they wished to lay down a narrow-gauge rail by the side of it. All they asked for was what was given to the other lines to which he had referred.

observed, that this might be looked upon as a question between two great railways, the Great Western and the London and Birmingham; and he hoped that hon. Members, in deciding the question, would dismiss from their minds all considerations with reference to the peculiar interests that might be involved in promoting those separate lines, and that they would look only to the public interest. He would remind the House of the charges that were made on the London and Birmingham line, until a competition was established; and he urged them to afford the public that accommodation which they ought to have by the competition of this railway, to which their attention was now directed. He called upon the Vice President of the Board of Trade to point out to him any inconvenience the public could sustain by laying down the broad gauge on this line; and let him show how any individual could be injured by doing so, except perhaps the London and Birmingham Railway.

said, the question appeared to him to be, whether this was the proper time to insert this clause, contrary to what had been contemplated by the Committee on the Bill, or by the Committees on the Bills for those railways themselves? He must express his hostility to the idea of the broad gauge being brought into connexion with the narrow gauge north of Oxford. He had no interest in either line; all he was anxious for was, that the public should have as much accommodation as possible, and he should oppose the insertion of the clause.

expressed his regret that the question of the gauges should have been raised on the present occasion. The subject was fully discussed in the House upon the Resolutions introduced by the late Vice President of the Board of Trade, on the part of the Government some months ago, which Resolutions were adopted as a sort of compromise between the different interests concerned in the gauge question. The House accepted that compromise. After those Resolutions were adopted, he had asked the late Vice President of the Board of Trade whether it were the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill in order to give effect to them? He replied that it was. That intention, however, was not carried into effect while the last Government were in office; but the noble Lord, the present President of the Board of Trade, acting upon the assurance given by the previous Government, introduced a Bill into the other House of Parliament founded upon the Resolutions. That Bill had passed through its various stages in the other House, and had arrived at its third reading in this, when the inconvenient course had been adopted of moving a clause which had not even been printed, and the terms of which he knew nothing about till he saw them in manuscript a few minutes ago, making another exception in addition to those originally introduced by the Board of Trade—an exception which was now proposed for the first time, and which had not been mentioned in the previous discussion on the subject. Without entering into the merits of the case, he would merely say that the safest way would be for the House to adhere to the Bill as it now stood, and which had been framed in strict conformity to the Resolutions of the House.

did not think that it was the province of the Committee to which this subject was referred to state the exceptions which should be made. He considered that this clause came within the spirit of the exceptions allowed by the Bill.

observed, that the parties had had ample opportunities of being heard before the Gauge Commissioners, but they either did not appear, or if they did, they made no impression upon those officers, who were looking only to the interest of the public. The Board of Trade again decided on this question, after due consideration; and he denied that it was competent for the House, at that stage of the Bill, to adopt such a claim. He could not conceive on what ground they brought forward the subject again at that period of the Session.

objected to the introduction of taxes, rates, and assessments. The sum of 2s. for each distress for taxes and rates was too high; and it was not desirable that any questions respecting distresses for taxes should be introduced into this Bill. The clause did not sufficiently define, whether, supposing a number of persons were to be employed, each person would have a right to 2s. a day—neither did it specify the 2s. as a maximum.

was of opinion, that it was equally desirable to limit the charge of distress for rates and taxes, as for rent. If his hon. Friend thought the 2s. too high, he would consider the schedule with a view to its alteration.

said, the recommendation of the Land Commission with regard to the limitation of the charges of distress, applied only to distress for rent. He understood from his hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Ferguson), that the charges for distress in the case of rates and taxes were already limited by law. If that was not so, it might be desirable to limit them also; but in that case he thought the 2s. should be fixed on as a maximum. In the case of distress for rent, the magistrates had no power of awarding a smaller sum. He would take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pigott), why it was that a clause which was contained in the Bill, as originally introduced, founded upon the recommendation of the Land Commission, was omitted in the present Bill; he alluded to the clause by which the jurisdiction of the assistant barrister was extended to cases of permissive occupation. The Land Commission had given that subject much consideration. It was usual in Ireland, from charity or other causes, to put persons into occupation of a house, as caretakers, or from mere bounty. The law in reference to such cases was in an unsatisfactory state; and frequently such occupation had led to collisions and unpleasantness between the proprietor and occupier. Under these circumstances, the Commissioners had thought that the fifteen days' notice, and the disposition by legal process, would be advisable; and a clause for that purpose had been introduced in the original Bill. He begged to ask why it was now omitted?

said, with regard to the first point, he certainly thought it desirable that the fees for distress for rates should be regulated; but, probably, it might be advisable to introduce those fees in a second schedule. With regard to the second point adverted to by his hon. Friend, it had formed the subject of much consideration with the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and, on the whole, it was not deemed expedient, in the present Bill, to extend the jurisdiction of the assistant barrister. The clause, as originally framed, would have given barristers jurisdiction in cases of title to land, which was contrary to the intention of the Legislature—their jurisdiction was intended to be confined to cases of contract. It would have operated upon the Statutes of Limitation and other important Acts: for those reasons it was deemed expedient to omit that clause.