The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-09 00:00:00

not regret. it; for he should be sorry to see the common law
constituting that to be an off.nce which would affect
ulation
the
' liberty of conscience of at least one.third of the pop
of the kingdom. (Cheers, principally from the ministerial
side of the house.) He was, therefore, not at all alarmed at
any effect that could arise, either from repealing the parti-
cular chum in the act of Elisabeth, or from the common
law proving to be inoperative. He saw no occasion for
either in these days, and attempting to enforce them would
not, in his opinion, 'be consistent with the peace
toldppss of the country. (Cheers.) They bad been by the
Attorney-General that the offence might amount to treason,
and of nothing had he a greater horror than common-law
treason. lie considered, too, that constructive treason war a
meet dangereus doctrine, sad could not conceive how the
assertion of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope of Home
would amount to such a crime. He should, therefore, most
cordially support the clause. (Hear.)
Sir ft. INGLIS defended Mr. Justice Coleridge from the
imputation which he conceived had been cast upon him by
the remarks of the bon. member for Mingo:van, ohm rving,
parenthetically, amidst much laughtcher, tha
ch lief
liefore e denied tha
rat
the Pope was the head of Lag t
er, the

formatiOo.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. N EWDBOATF,
Mr. DRUMMOND, and Mr. SPOONER, taunted Sir JAMES
GRAHAM for his indifference oa the subject,
The house divided—For the clause
For the amendment ll9-32
The clause was then agreed to; and upon clause 2 being
propod,
These ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested the introduc
tion of certain words which would legalise the introduction
into this country of bulls and instruments of an innocent
character. As the law stood such bulls were pro-
hibited, and it was also illegal to aid in any manner in carry •
ing them into effect.
Mr. ANSTEY had no objection to adopt the words sug-
gested by the learned Attorney-General, and recommended
a still further extension of the Pope's privileges in these
realms.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the suggeations of both the
hon. and learned members who had last addressed the
house. The interests of the protestant church had been of
late greatly infringed upon, and he felt it his duty to
resist to the utmost any further attempt to increase the
influence or the authority of the Pope of Rome here. lie
apprehended their recognition of the Pope would have the
effect of greatly imperilling freedom of conscience amongst
her Majesty's subjects, and no doubt could exist that the
ultimate object of those who proposed to extend the influ-
ence of Rome here was to establish her see upon the ruins
of the church of England. The hon. gentleman then moved,
in conformity with the views he had expressed, the emission
of certain words in the clause.:
Col. SIBTHORP seconded the amendment.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. DRUMMOND,
Lord MAHON, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Mr. LAW said the hon. and learned member for Youghal
bad proposed neither n.ore nor less than the entire repeal
of the 13 Elizabeth, cap. 2, whereby Roman catholics might
have been absolved from their allegiance, had they sought to
be so. The introduction of all bulls would novo bean dis-
tinctly legalised—amongst them, that which absolved the
subjects from their allegiance. It was desirable that the com-
mittee should know what they were about. ((fear.) As
the house would in a few days be called on to consider a bill
for opening diplomatic relations with "the sovereign
pontiff, as he had been called, and as it seemed we were
now to interfere with the affairs of Italy, as well as other
halerevolutionary state', it would be well for the house to
pause before sanctioning any further recognition of the Papal
power. It was true the learned Attorney-General, put upon
his loyalty, had proposed to limit the permission in a subse-
quent stage; but this limitation wool 1 still allow the intro-
duction of bulls. He should support the amendment of the
hon. member far Warwickshire. Ile hoped there was
enough of loyalty and protestantism in the country not to
submit to this attempt to undermine religious freedom.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
that the sense of the committee should be taken on that
point only on which they differed. All agreed that one class
of bulls ought not to be admitted ; in reference to the others,
let the amendment be so flamed as to take the sense of the
committee on their admission. They might avoid repealing
the whole of the act 13 Elizabeth by substituting for the
words " the whole," "so much of an act," &c., meaning so
much of the act as did not relate to the bulls mentioned in
the preamble.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he objected to the introduction
of bulls altogether ; it was a power which he would not
daily with. By admitting " innocent bulls" the construc-
tion of their language would be a matter of private opinion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQU ER said he had
understood such to be the object of the hon. men), r, and
had suggested a means by which a division might be taken
on that question.
Mr. LAW said the question was much too grave a one to
be dealt with in this way. If the amendment of the hon.
member for Warwickshire was rejected, he should propose
that so much of tha act of Elizabeth as was not repealed
should be distinctly recited and re-enacted.
Mr. ANSTEY said that would be a very inconvenient and
unusual course. By the course suggested by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, which he was perfectly willing to adopt,
the whole of the act of Elizabeth not repealed would remain
in full force.
Mr. J. STEWART thought the best c aurae would be to
leave the statute of Elizabeth as it stood, and introduce a
clause legalising those bulls which were considered as inno-
cent or politically unimportant.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said he had had no hand
in preparing the bill ; but, in reading i', it had occurred to
him that of the two classes of bulls, one ought not to be Ic•
scanted ;he had therefore suggested only so much of the
act of Elizabeth should be repealed as related to the class of
bulls not described in the preamble to that act—namely, the
treasonable bulls.
Mr. SHEIL said the hon. member for the University of
Oxford had contradicted him on a matter of fact, and in
language nut characterised by his usual good breeding
(heir, hear) ; he had accused him of misquoting the words
of Mr. Justice Coleridge. He had since consulted the report.
The words, as he quoted them were—" The l'ope was the
rightful head of the Christian church, at all events before
the reformation." The actual words were these —" If the
Pope had been content with his power of patriarch, he
might have retained his appellate jeniuliction, which rightly
belonged to him as universal head of the whole christian
church." (Cheers.) After this, he thought the hon. mem-
ber fur the university of Oxford woe not justified in using
the language he had done, which was tantamount to a
charge of direct falsehood, and fur which from any other
hon. member he might have been inclined to ask for a dif-
ferent explanation. (Cheers.)
Sir It. INGLIS said it would have been inconsistent with
his principles to give the satisfaction which the right hon.
gentleman had alluded to. (Hear.) He must protest
against the right hon. gentleman taking his authority
from a newspaper report. No judge would do that, not
even a coroner. He did not mean to accuse the right
hon. gi ntleman of talsehoo but even, with the terrors to
which he had alluded, he (Sir R. Inglis) should not have
been more prompt to state what were his real views. Was
the right hon. gentleman now satisfied ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SIIEIL said he was sure the house would feel that
he had had reason to complain. lie had done nothing more
than accept the words of the hon. gentleman in the sense in
which they had been used. (Hear.)
After some conversation u to the effect of the amendment,
Sir J. GRAHAM asked what was the precise question be-
fore the committee ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
hon. member for Warwickshire would not persist in an in-
convenient course, but would withdriw hie amendment
until the addition of the Attorney-General was agreed to.
Otherwise, the sense of the committee would not be taken
on the real question.
Mr. NEW DEGATE persisted in pressing his amendment
to a division. He stood on the principle whether bulls
should be put into legal effect by the authority of the
I'ope. (" Hear," and cries of " Divide.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would not divide on the words proposed to be left out by
the hon. member fir Warwickshire. He would allow them
to be struck out, and would then move the addition of the
words which had been suggested by the Attorney-General.
Mr. ANSTEY objected to this course.
The amendment of Mr. Ncwdegate was put and agreed
to, without a division.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved
the addition of the following words: " Also so much of an
act passed in the 13th year of Queen Elizabeth. as does not
relate to such bulls, writings, and other things as are men-
tioned in the preamble of the said act."
Mr. LAW moved as an amendment that the chairman
should report progress. (" No, no," and " Divide.")
The committee then divided :
Against the motion for reporting progress 175
For the motion 124-51
On the motion for aoreeing to the amendment proposed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Col. SIBTHORP moved that the chairman report pro-

Mr. W. MILES said that it was most difficult to under- '
stand the clause as it stood. Ife, therefore, hoped that the
hon. and learned member for Youghal would consent to the
motion for reporting progress. He should like to understand
from the Attorney-General what was the meaning of the
clause'
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had not the charge
of the bill; but he had no difficulty in answering the question
of the hon. gentleman. The statute of Elizabeth prohibited
the introduction tit' seditious and treasonable bulls, and all
other bulls or documents from the see of Rome. By the
clause proposed it was intended to keep in force the law re
specting seditious or treasonable bulls, and to repeal it with
regard to others.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think it fair to defeat
the bill by a side wind, and in an unworthy manner, as this
motion would have the effect of doing. (" Oh, oh.") It
might not be unworthy of the learned Recorder of London,
who always opposed the freedom of conscience, but it would
he unworthy of this great country, which, with all its faults,
would not wish to ace anything carried in an unworthy and
underhand manner. ("Oh, oh.")
Mr. LAW.—I tell the hon. gentleman that lam not op-
posed to freedom of conscience, and that I am only oppose.'
to superstitious mummeries. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) I
cannot understand why the hon. member should select me
for his remarks, as m observations were not open to the
language has thoughy t proper to indulge in. (Hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY did not much
care what any one might say respecting his religion, but
would observe that this was the first time in the present
parliament that any member had used language which must
be unpleasant to others. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it was better to allow the chairman to report progress. It
was now too late to make any progress in tie bill, and be
WY afraid that hon. gentlemen were booming excited.
(Lsoilita.)