The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17. 1818.

••••
enameller (Lyndhurst),and pared into a law, had rendered
the present measure unnecessary, inasmuch se that act had
relieved the Jesuits and regulars from the penalties specially
imposed upon them under the Roman Catholic Relief Bill ;
but he must take upon himself to point out, that although
Lord Lyndhurst's act did repeal the special penalties ;im-
posed on Jesuits and regulars they were still liable to the
penalties imposed upon them by the common law, and it was
therefore for that reason the present measure was
in order to complete and to carry into full effect Lereger:l2-
hunt's bill. The act known by the title of the " Religious
Opinions Act," only relieved those who gave publicity to
bulls and reciita issued by the Pope from the
penalty imposed by the act 13 of Elizabeth—
namely, of irk tress= ; ell the other penalties imposed
upon the publication of papal bulls or reseripm within the
realm were continued in lull force, so that the Archbishop of
Armagh, who lately received from Rome and published to
his clergy the papal rescript respecting denunciations from
the altar, was liable to the penalties imposed by the common
law ; and it was to relieve that ecclesiastical dignitary, and
others similarly placed, from such penalties that the measure
which he had brought forward was necessary. The hon.
member concluded by urging the house not to retrograde in
the pith of justice and liberality towards the Roman catho-
lic', but to agree to the measure which he proposed.
Mr. NEWDEGATE urged that if the measure before the
house was of the importance ascribed to it by the hon. mem-
ber who had just eat down, no private member ought to be
entrusted with its conduct. The government was the
proper authority for bringing forward such en act. But the
recent conduct of the Roman catholic clergy in Ireland and
elsewhere hardly rendered the measure opportune. The
Archbishop of Team bad justified the denunciations of his
clergy by Inserting their independence of temporal power.
Was not the conduct of the regular clergy also throughout
Europe to be taken into account in consieering this mea-
sure ? Had it nut been proved, and generally admitted, that
the Jesuits bad been the sole cause of the recent troubles in
Switzerland? (Hear, hear.) Besides, the present conduct
of the government was calculated to create uneasiness.
They had been repeatedly questioned as to what Lord Mime
was doing at the court of )tome. (Heir, hear.) The first
question was put by the bon. baronet the member for Oxtord
Unieersity, and the anew.' of the noble lord the member
for Tiverton was, that Lord Minter had no diplomatic mis-
sion, and that nothing would be done in contravention of
tho law. Now the answer was given on the 10th December,
but what had been hie (Mr. le ewdegaten) surprise to see
from the published despatches that Lord Minto had been
*acre:sing diplomatic functions at Rome two months previous
to that dote? (Hear, hear.) The hon. member was pro-
coeding to allude to the affairs of Sardinia, when
Sir O. GREY, interrupting him, said that what hie noble
friend had disclaimed for Lord Minto was—accredited rela-
tiers with Rome. His lordship was accredited to other
Italian powers, but not to Rome. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE proceeded (amid much noise and
bee of conversation) to quote the despatches interchanged
between the Foreign offiee and Lord Miuto, and called the
particular attention of the house to that portion in which
Lord Minto was instructed d when in Rome" to use his
influence with the supreme pontiff to recall the Jesuits from
Switzerland. He said he quoted these passages to show that
at the time the noble lord the Secretary for For ign Affairs
was disclaiming diplomatic IMS4IOILS to ltome, Lord Pirate was
actually receiving his instructions as to negotiations to be
carried on with the papal court. (Hear.) Ile thought that
such double dealing was anything but fair dealing with the
house Cr the roun'ry. (Opposition cheers.) Theo nble lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had on the 22nd of October
instructed Lord Minter to proceed to Rome and negotiate,
and on the 10th of December following he had denied all
action or intention of the kind. Ohl he was roused to see
such proceedings carried on. (Laughter.) First, to see a
private member introducing a bill which was to crnoe a vast
constitutional change, and next to see a government tam-
pering with constitutional principles. (Hear, hear.) lie
objected te the bill before the house's giving further aggres-
sive powers Os a church which was in its constitution and
essence IlliiaTC,SiTC. A church which regarded the Eighth
church and constitution as founded in error—which regarded
the title by which the crown was held an error—was not a
power to have its hands so strengthened. Ile (Mr. Newde-
gate) would stand by his queen and stand by tho error.
(Hear, and laughter.) Having reed extracts from various
docurnecui, illustrative of the misconduct of the Jesuits and
ultramontane party in Switzerland, the hon. member called
&Mot on to the important tact that the partiva who had
expelled the Jesuits from Switzerland were not pro-
testants o dy. In various cantons the Roman catholic/
bad j inel actively in their expulsion. Leek again at
Italy. In Genoa the young men had bound themselves by
an oath never to marry a woman who had a Jesuit for a con-
fessor, or whose parents heel conmunicatiene with mem-
bers ef th it body. But it was the same ever) where. From
15:35 to 1770 they had been expelled from different states of
Europe 37 times. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member here
alluded to the recent correspondence between Lord Arundel
and Archbishop Wllale, commenting in strong terms on the
tone adopted by the letter, and concluded by expressing his
intention to oppose the further progress of the bill.
St C. GREY said that having addressed tee house at
tem: th on this quistien dureas a former fitting, he should
not have risen on the present occasion had it nut been for
some ob. rvations of the hon. member who had just sat
down. Tee main argument which the hon. member had
urged against the settlement of the question was, that be.
cause Arclibisbcp M'Hale had used intemperate Mneusge in
addressiim a noble lord, therefore the House of Commons
should refuse to pass this bill. (Hear, hear.) If that argu-
ment were good on one side, why not urge the language of
Lords Shrewsbury and Arundel. which hod been so universally
approved of, on the other? (Hear.) But he (Sir 0. Grey) did
not think either document legitimate ground of argument in
this case. The mere ephemeral productions of the day
should not iiilluence parliament in deciding questions of this
kind. (Hear, hear.) But the bon. member had also'.
alluded to other matters which appeared to have equally
little to do with the matter under discussion ; namely, the
despatches which his noble friend the Secretary for Fureiga
Afters had laid before the house relative to the affairs of
Switz ilind. He (Sir G. Grey) hail not clearly understood
•he hon. member's argument, but it seemed to ray that this
till shculd nut be introduced because the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs had made a statement to the house inconsistent with
papers he had laid on the table. The lion. mentor complained
that his noble friend had withhold from the house the nature
of Lord Minto's inatructions ; and, to prove his assertion,
what had he done ? He had read the letters of instruction
to Lord Minto, as also that nehletnan's statement of his
communications with the Swiss Diet and the Italian powers,
all of which lie got from the papers which the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs had laid on the table. (Hear. hear.) Did
the hon. member mean to contend that the fact of a member
of the government, or other British subject. having held
coraunedeations with the Cardinal Secretary of State was
pr'osf that he had been regularly accredited to Rome ?
e Hest, hear.) Lard Minto emcee from Turin that an am-
bersador from Rome having arrived there, he had lad much
conversation with him, expressing Ifs hope that the court
of Reene would use its good offices in the affairs of Switzer-
land; and the government at home cordially approved of his
Calla net. He did not uudertarid the bon. member to object
to the principle on which these cemmunicetions had been
based, namely, the promotion of peace and reel understand-
ing among mankind. (Hear, hear.) Lord Mitt() alsospoke
of conversations which he had had with the Cardinal Seers-
tory of State, and the hon. member alleged them to have
been in contravention of the law forbidding diplomatic com-
munications with Rome. Did the hon. member mean to
contend that Lord Minto was not to hold conversation with
the Cardinal Secretary, or other Roman functionary, if he
thought such conversation wculd promote the peace of Eu-
rep- ? (Hear, hear ) The bon. member alm complained
that his rola, friend the Secretary for Foreign Ateurs hsd
deceived the house by keeping this matter 'erect • and to
prove his assertion, he read the despatches of his noble friend,
minuniv detailieg ell that had occurred. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that his assertion was, that the
noble See:curry for Foreign Affairs had in December stated
that ro instructions had been given to Lord Minto to act in
m'ane's whereas the despatches proved such instructions to
have been sent in the previous °etcher. (Hear, hear.)
S!r G. GREY did not remember the precise words which
his toles friend lad need in reply to the hon. gentlemen the
raetabt r fur Oxford University, but he hal understood his
nob:: friend to say that Lard Minto was net " accredited"
to Rouse. It war no use quibbling about the word " inetrue.
titers ;" his noble friend's meaning was, that Lord Minto
was net furnished with diplomatic credentials te the court
of It one. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that the evidence on
when' the hon. member founded his charge of deceiving the
house contradicted itself ; for if his notes friend had had any
intention of the kind, he had deprived himself of all power
by :eying on the table despatches which detailed the whole
circumstances. (Hear.) He did not think the house was likely
to center in censuring the government for having used
all tensilee endeavours to prevent war and to promote good
understanding between the different stees of the continent.
lie -would only say, that if the hon. member bad been in
°fere (luring the last twenty years, he enfold not have been
so se esitive on this print. Ile would have found that friendly
communications of teis kind were abeolute:y necovary.
What Lord Minter had done had been done twenty tittles
lefore by persons visiting Rome. Sash cor.duct was no in-
hinge ment of the law, and he believed that the cenduct of
his LAI.. friend would be found to have been equally free
from reproach. (Hear, hear.)
Cc,!. CONOLLY was as anxious as any man to remove
legal disalelities from his Roman catholic fellow-suejects, hut
he we all not willingly remove those securities which had
formed part of the measure of emancipation. He did not
object to tee repeal of obsolete statutes, but as the securities
to which he had alluded must go along with them, he should
feel bound to mooed his vote against the present bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE was of opinion that, without Teter-
enee to sal.:it had been advance,. as to the *preemie° merit
of the R- ,'nn catholic church, it it were shown that there
were p urities still upon the statute-beok es pressing upon
our cetenlic fellow. subjects on account et their religion, the
house nns bound to go into committee on the bill. (Ilia,
hear_) The house was in this difficulty as to the legal ele-
ments of Handed stion. Two distinet and opposite views had
been prop as to the first pert of the bill—both by
legal euthority—and he hoped the hon. and learned Atter-
ney-Generel would, before the close of the debate, give the
hews the benefit or his opinion on tee point. The hon. an
learned member for Midhuret and the hon. and learnedl
member for Cambridge University had contended that
the atrittite of Elizabeth, and other aecient statutes
by which penalties were implied, bad been repealed,
but tee mover of the bill, who was also a lewyer, demurred
to that view, and hel, that tl.nl. the spicificenalties
imposed by the art of Elizabeth ags applicable to any in-
fringement of the doctrine of the Toed sopremacy were re-
pealed, ;be prohibitions of that net still remained intact, and
were punishable under the common law by fine and impri-
sownene, -as-violations of the letter of an act of parliament.
If Lord Lredhurstes act whi:e it repealed certain penalties
left others remaining, they were lemild. ea the absence of
any reason to the control, to neolish those also. Then,

with regard to the admission of bulls au matters of discipline
relating to the Roman catholic retie",
owthieh at pergentat
toit
of
arptehare elLwasibonatrrealmottan. offence hee aid *
Th intervention thinkoath
Pope
had been on various occasions encouraged, if not solicited,
by the British government, in reference to 'reload. He did
not know whether these interventions is Irish affairs were
termed bulls or not, but it did not appear to him right,
when we called in the aid of the Pope to the assistance of
our internal government, that these penalties should remain.
With regard to the exclusion of religious orders, th
wie onto
th those of
proving that such exclusion was necessary was
who would exclude them. Whether the act of 1829 was a
comtgact or not ie which thou exclusions were taken, as one
of e s deities of the protestant church, they were bound
to show, while insisting on the maintenance of a security
which inflicted a burden and a grievance on shy portion of
' our fellow subjects, that it was of real value. lie heard not
cne word an showing Cott any danger would result from the '
admiulou of any of the various Roman catholic religious
bodies except the Jesuits ; and supposing all was true that
had been advanced against them, was it anLrouon why we
should inflict a religious stigma on the Franciscans, the
Dominicans, and the Benedictines, because one order held
opinions not consistent with the civil and religions policy of
this country ? The hon. and learned member for Cambridge
had charged hint with drawing an invidious distinction be-
tween the Jesuits and other religious orders in communion
with the Roman catholic church. That distinction was not
drawn by him (Mr. Gladstone), but by the history of the
order during the last three centuries. But whether
they might think fit to make any distinction as between
the Jesuits and the other orders or not, it was sail: ient
for him to stand, in his support of this bill, on the proposition
that the burden of proof lay with those who contended (or
retaining on the statute book provisions for deluding all
there religious orders, and that nu prima facie case hod
been shown, either in the present or the former debate, ex-
cept as against the Jesuits ; neither had any connexion been
shown to exist between the infliction of the stigma on those
other religious orders and the security of the established
church, or any other of the national establishments of this
country. There was another point to which reference had
been made, and one which excited much interest—viz.,. the
reported intention of the Pope to erect an archbishopric in
Engiend, for the first time since the reformation. The hon.
uiciatier fur Voughal had stated that the reports circulated
on that subject were premature : that the question
had been uudcr consideration, but that it was en-
compassed by so many difficulties that up to this time
no decision bad been come to by Romo in reference to it.
Ho (Mr. Gladeoone) had heard that intimation with great
satisfaction, and he hoped the matter would undergo much
muse consideration before the adoption of such a course. It
was not enough to say that the Pope appointed an Arch-
bishop of Westminster in the same way as the Wesleyan
body appointed superintendents of circuits, it being well
understood that it was not assrted by that act that an obli-
gation rested upon all persons residing within the circuit to
conform to Wesleyan principles. But with regard to the
appointment of an archbishop by the papal authority,
he held it to be an assertion on the part of Rome
of an obligation on all persons within the diocese
Ito pay spiritual obedience to the person appointed, and con-
sequently to pay spiritual obedience to the see and the church
of genie. 1 his would ba to establieh an improper and Lin.
natural relation between the Pops as a temporal sovereign
and the British government, and throw difficulties in the
way of any attempt to establish diplomatic relations between
Rome and this country. It had been urged that the change
of the character of the pennies appointed vicars apostolic to
diocesans would be useful, as iuveeung them with a more
permanent position. There was, however, no necessity on
that account for establishing a popish urchhishomic—for it
would be easy for the P 44 to establish bishoprics which
should be permanent in theta character, and which should not
advance, or armeer to advance, any claims to territorialjuris-
diction. The 24th chew of the act of 1829 had reference to
the assumption of the title of bishop of English sees by Roman
catholic prelates ; end not only of existing sees, but it was
provided that the assumption of the title of bishop of any
filet. Oa then constituted into a see, but whiedi might here-
after be formed, should coirstitute • penal offence. Suppose
a Roman catholic arahhishap of Westminster appointed the
party appointed might he brought into a painful collision
with the law, should her Majesty hereafter constitute West-
minster a see, as his retention of the title would then be a
penal offence under the act of George IV. He was aware
that in Ireland certain Roman catholie prelates bad
assumed and borne the title of bishop of sees
which were also protestant bishoprics, without any
legal notice being taken. But the row of Ireland was
not • pantile, one to that of England. In Iceland the Roman
catholic religion eves that of the majority of the population,
and divers Raman catholic bishops had been appointed since
the reign of Etc ibet'a who had claimed the accession to the
titles of the ancient bete of that country. But that was a
very didi rent thing to the setting up of a new claim in Rug-
land, where Roman cathoTicisin was the religion of but a
fractional part of the population, and where consequently
it had been declared that the title of bishop should belong
only to the prelates of the rational church. Ile had thought
it right to point out no far the connexion between this ques-
tion and that before the house. With regard to the measure
under cousideration, he hoped hon. gentle men would seri-
ously ask themselves cot whether or net the church of
Rome was an agerciiiive church, or whether on general
grounds there were reasons for vigilance in respect to her
position and her claim,: hut whether in the law as it stood,
the re was a cam which in equity might be made a case of
grievance, and which, in the minds of our Rnman catholic
tallow subjects, might appear to inflict something like dis-
grace upon them, and if so that they would not allow
themselves to be diverted by considerations .hich, however
important in themselves, were irrelevant to that question,
from doing that justice to their fellow citizens, which it was
as much their interest as their duty to concede. (Hear.)
The Marquis of GRAN BY considered that unless some
great practical grievance could be shown it would be meet
unwise to re-open the settlement of 1820. It had been
mid that there was one case of practical grievance at least—
viz., that there was a convent in Leicestershire, the persons
residing in which were liable to be transported under the
existing laws. Such wxs not the case, bemuse if the partite
registered themselves under the provisions of the law they
would be protected, and so long as they remained peaceful
and loyal subjects of the sovereign they would not be die-
turbed. (Cheers.) He was surprised that it should be pro.
posed to permit a body like the Jesuits to establish them-
selves in thin country without registration. Moat of the
catholic countries of Europe had been compelled to expel the
Jesuits, and in hie opinion it would be most unwise for a
protestant country like this to admit that body to settle
among us or to remove those safegusrds which had been
considered necessary for the protection of our protestant in-
stitutions. He did not wish t, say one word which might
lie considered offensive to h:s Roman catholic fellow country-
men, but he felt it to be the duty of the house, while ad-
mitting the fullest principles of toleration, to prevent the
spread of a religion which Le believed to be hostile to the
liberties and institutions of the country.
Mr. SHELL, who was most indistinctly heard, was under-
stood to say that he was ready to admit to those who, like
the hon. member for Oxford, had, with bland intolerance,
resisted the bill of 1829, and looked upon the measure as a
compact in which concession to the esthetics was accompa-
nied by certain securities to protestantism, that the 'deft_
and the concessions must go together. (Hear, hear.) If
they could show him that any clause of that bill contained
a real, a banes fide, a valuable safeguard, he would concede
the point ; hut if it should appear that, in the bill of 1829,
there were clauses galling to the catholics and of no use to
the protestants, then i.e called upon the house to re-
move that grievance. (Hear, hear.) That there were
such clauses he would show. The clause against
religious orders wss galling to the catholic' and usel ss
as a safeguard to protestantism. Those orders were part
and parcel of the church of Rome—they were a portion of
the great edifice of catholicism. The prohibition of these
orders was galling to catholics. And of what use was it to
protestantism to be enabled by act cf parliament to transport
Father Mathew to New South Wales? (Cheers, and laugh-
ter.) When catholic emancipation was carried, every mem-
ber of a religious order. which then existed, who registered
his name was protected against all penalties, but every pee-
l/011Mb° since 1829 had become a Jesuit was subject to trans-
portation. (Hear.) Wee th it law of any use to the protes-
tants ? (Cheers.) In fact, the laws on this subject were so
severe and intolerant. that they contained within
themselves the principles of sell-prostration, and had
not been carried into effect. (Hear, hear.) The coun-
try at this time was full of Jesuits. (Cheers from
the protestant party). Ile could defend the Jesuits. He
could show them that as respected this body they were acting
upon prejudice rather than reason—he could show them the
Jesuits, in various instances, as standing forth the benefac •
tors of the human race ; and he might ask whether the Je-
suit father in the wilderness, lifting up his cross—his only
'earthly passeinsion—to the eyes of the red *men cf South
America, did not present at latest as worthy a spectacle as
the New Zealand mai nary of protestantism, who, with his
duties of conversion, combined the appropriation of large
territorial posse ssiuns (Cheer.) But that was not hie case.
He wished to show that these petrel enactments were useless
to protestants, while they were galling to caileelies. There
was a vast Jesuit college :it the north of England—at Stony-
hunt—there was another et Cunzreves, the members of
which were liable to tniaepertation for not registering their
names. Who would institute a prosecution against them ?
There was in this town a superior of Jesuits—Father
Lythgoe—he was also amenable to the penalties of transport-
ahem. Suppose his hon. friend the member for Ooeord
University were to institute o prosecution against him, what
would be the result ? Ile (Mr. Sheil) would go down to the
Queen's Bench to observe the smile of derision which would
Do playing over the features of the Jesuit during the
speech of his hon. friend. (lle ar, hear.) The hon. member
for the county of Lirneriak had given notice of a
motion in the committee fur the repeal of the clause
excluding catholic' from the chaecellochip of Ireland.
He should be able to dc;honetrate that there were good
grounds far the success of that motion. When catholic
emancipation was carried, the hon. member for Tatnwoith
(Sir R. Peel), was under the impression that there was some
ecclesiastical patronage connected with the office and on
that ground he inserted the clause excluding catholics from
holding it. Such was not, however, the cue, and, conse-
quently, the exclusion of catholic' from that office was a
geievons wrong, and shut out mane of the most eminent'.
men of the Irish bar. Sir Michael O'Leghlen, a man of un-
)ilosibted learning and high standing, was excluded solely o
this ground. And the evil wes now becoming aggravatedn ;
for 'the Roman catholic members of the Irish bar were now
augmenting in number, to as enormous degree. In the last'
term, out of 12 men called, nine were Roman catholic. By
maintaining these penalties, as against Roman catholic], we
gained no advantage, but were merely insisting that though
the iron was removed the mark of the chain should remain.
(Hear, bear.)
Mr. HENLEY °pleased the bill, the avowed object 'of
which was to introduce and legalise the several religious
orders of Roman cattle:lei= in this protestant country.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY held that Jesuits,

and Genre other order essetioeed. In the shoran of Home.'
had a right to In In this country. It we. said that their
existence was dangerous to protestantinn, and, eseording to
the right hon. gentleman the member for the university of
Oxford, to civil obedience. Upon the subject of their civil
obedience be Gould refer that right hon. gentleman to the
=of Catharine of numbs, Frederick of Prussia, and
Of Navarre ; and as to what they had dons for litera-
ture be could refer him to the opinion of Dr. Southey, as ex-
pemetel in a letter to Wm. Taylor, of Norwich, in which he
" Hating popery aa I do, ex intiono cords, I am yet •
post admirer of the Jesuit's; there Is no body of men to
whom literature has been No much beholden; in fact, all the
monastic orders have in this respect done their duty. The
Meet hue and beggarly of them have done more as • body
ibis any or all of our universities." (Laughter.) Infidelity
was "reading through the nation; the church of England
and all the dissent that existed were insufficient to check it,
and why refuse the aid of a body of man so distioguished for
piety and kerning as the Jesuit' ? Amongst the ath' iatical
publications announced for sale in the Northern Slur, he
found " The Infidel's Text-Book," " Discussions on the
Authenticity of the Bible," " Discussions on the Existence
of God," Vulney's works, Tom Paine's works, " The New
Ben Home, or Christianity proved to be Idolatrous," " So-
, cialism made Easy "—(laughter)--" The Life of Robes-
pierre," and a book called' The Three Impostors, or Moses,
Mahomed, and Christ" If they did not let the church
have its freedom, religion, jostle., and honour, wool I By
from the country.
Sir J. PAKINGTON was perfectly willing to repeal
those obsolete penal enactments which were galling to the
Roman catholic' without serving the protestant.; but he
would not support a measure which repealed the secu-
rities given by the Relief Bill of 1829 ; and seeing that
this was the same bill as that brought in by Mr. Watson,
he was driven to the conclusion that the object was not
to get rid of the obsolete statutes, but of the securities of
'29. He mint, therefore, vote for the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hsving been appealed to
on the subject, begged to say, without going through the
various statutes named in the bill, for which there was not
now time (it being past live o'clock), that the hon. member
for Midhurst, in saying that those statutes bad already been
repealed, was in error. The 13th Elizabeth, chap. 2,
contained provisions now existing as law, which, if fit to be
repealed, could only be repealed by an act of parliament. To
those who objected to all concessions, that WA of
thee.corse no '
answer (a laugh) ; but to those who only opposed eond
part of the bill, on the ground of the settlement of 1829 be-
ing final, it did in his opinion form a good reason for going
into committee on the bill.
The house divided—For the motion
For the amendment
The bill was then committed pro forma, and ordered to be
recommitted that day three weeks.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
Mr. GRANGER brought up the report of the committee
appointed to try the merits of this election. The committee
reported that Mr. G. Berkeley had been duly elected.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SHIPWRECKS.
On the motion of Mr. Hume, the select committee on
shipwrecks was nominated as follows: Mr. Ilume, Capt.
Berkeley, Mr. Gibson, Admiral Bowles, Sir T. Birch, Viset.
Ing. are, Mr. M'Grcgor, Mr. R. l'a'mer, Mr. Fester, Mr.
Fitzroy, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Fruit, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rubin-
son, and Mr. Sheridan.
The house adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE.—Mr. Serjt. Kinglake
summed up the petitioners cas,., recapitulating the evidence
which had been given r.spectingMr. Berkeley's qualification,
and contended that as that gentleman had been proved to he
in possession of only 202/. annual income ho was not pro-
vided with the necessary qualification for a knight of the
shire.—After hearing Mr. Crowder for the sitting menther
the committee ordered the room to be cleared, aid after a
short deliberation decided that the petitioners case had not
been sustained, and that Mr. Grandes, Berkeley had been duly

elected.
GREAT MAntow.—Further evidence was heard in
support of the ch..rge of bribery.
KINSALE.—This committee sat for the first time
yesterday. Mr. IlLiurerie in the chair.—Mr. Serjt. Wr Ing-
ham opened the case of the petitioner. Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
whicL rested on two grounds—first, that the majority of
the sitting member, Mr. Ouinnen, had been obtainial by
corrupt pructie. a ; and second, that it was only a colourable
one. The learned e tunnel alleged that 4,0001. had been
spent by the sitting member in the liquidation of rates and
dehu. Tr. sting on a large scale was also alleged. Formal
proofs were put in, and the committee adjourned to thin day.
LYME REGIS.—This committee also sat for the
first time yesterday. Lord Ashley in the chair. The case
was opened by Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, the chirps being
bribery and other corrupt practices against the sitting mem-
ber, Mr. Abdy. Seven distinct cues of bribery were alleged,
as well as several other cases in which employment and other
inducements wt re held out to voters. The votes at the
election stood—for Mr. Abdy, 146; Sir V. Kelly, 143, so that
if the seven cases of brib.ry should he prov.it the latter
gentleman must be declared the sitting member. The
kayoed gentleman wiihed to commence with a scrutiny, but
as the committee decided that the bribery should be first pro-
cceded with, the case was adjourned to this day.
ELECTION PETITION NOTICE.— The ameml Com-
mittee of Elections have appointed Thurs :ay, the 23rd
March, for choosing the c immittee for trying the merits of
the petition against the return for the harough of nye.

moreover, we cannot &it that he would repudiate
as strongly as any of big opponents the pretensions
of any cathedral body to independent action. If he
had been at SYDNEY Ofllitra celebrated synod of
Dort, he would have been one of the first to appease
the hungry crowd, by throwing out of the window
the dinners of the deans and chapters.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, as became his office, rose
in defence of the prerogative, which /teemed to be
assailed; but we cannot help thinking. that in an
irritation, perhaps natural under the circumstances,
he went somewhat beyond the reason of the ease,
and if we may say so of a great and learned judge,
somewhat beyond the law. He declared that by
abolishing the penalty of premunire the right of
nomination by the crown would be reduced to a mere
form. We ventiue to suggest that it would be
as substantial and efficient as at present. The
enacting clause would be easily enforced by a man-
damus ; and in case of delay the crown could supersede
the election by letters patent. Recusant functionaries
might, in addition to the civil remedies, be indicted
at common law for misdemeanor; and wo incline to
think that the punishment by fine and imprisonment,
which would follow,or that by committal for contempt,
which would ensue on disobedience to peremptory
mandamut , would be more reasonable, better suited
to the offence, and more effectual than a forfeiture of
all property, an imprisonment during the QUEEN'S
pleasure, and a banishment beyond the protection of
the law. It seems to us that if HENRY VIII. had
provided that recusant deans should be burnt alive
with their wives and children, such a penal clause
might have been defended as reasonably as a

promo:ire.
Lord DENMAN and Lord CAMPBELL entirely dif-
fered from the CILANCELLOIt on this point. The
Chief Justice said that he should be glad to see the
penalty of premanire expunged from the statute
book ; and Lord CAMPBELL observed, as we have
endeavoured to prove, that the abolition of
that penalty would leave the law substantially
as it stands at present. The promoters of the late ap-
plication to the Court of Queen's Bench must, how-
ever, have been satisfied by the debate that they were
fortunate in not being allowed an opportunity of
bringing their claims before the Supreme Court of
Error. The three law lords all concurred, in sub-
stance, in the judgment given by the Queen's Bench ;
and unless the object of the prosecutors of the man-
damus was to promote an agitation for dissolving the
connexion between church and state, they have every
reason to rejoice that their defeat was not prolonged
and repeated.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S called the attention of
the house to the fact that the choice of the crown can
only fall upon members of the order of presbyters,
who arc all supposed, in the eye of the law, to be
equally qualified for the higher ecclesiastical grade.
There is no doubt that a very improper choice
may he made among the body of clergy ; but it
is difficult to say that any of them can be
legally disqualified from holding the episcopal
office. It is, indeed, by no means certain that a re-
fusal to elect or confirm a layman, would not full,
according to the letter of the law under the pro-
visions of the statute of Henry VIII.; but the case is
not likely to occur; and an effective resistance to
such an attempt might be made at the consecration.
The archbishop may be compelled to consecrate any
priest; but there is no law which requires him to
confer the preliminary orders which would convert
a layman into a presbyter. 11r. Tiitatwast hinted
that a grievance whielt had been patiently home for
three centuries could not be altogether intolerable;
and he expressed the conviction of every rational I
man, in saying that he would rather trust to the
discretion of the crown than to that either of an
ecclesiastical synod or of a popular assembly. lie
thought. however, without pledging himself, like the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL, to advocate the abolition of all
fictions, that the forms which have lately given rice
to so much controversy, were mischievous, and ought
to be abolished.
The sooner that the government and parliament
practically adopt this conclosiou the better it will be
for the public interest. 'Hie prenan•ire clause is, as
we have said, a fiction in practice, though not, like the
proceedings at confirmation, a nullity in the eye of
the law. It would be right at once to abolish the
penalty in all cases, whether it applies to recusant
deans and chapters, or to catholics who may publish
the Pope's bulls in the United Kingdom, or to any
other class of misdemeanants against the policy of
the 16th century. Where any part of the objects
secured by preniunire clauses still requires legal
means of enforcement, a mandatory clause is suffi-
cient to render any one who disobeys its provisions
indictable at common law. It must be remembered
that the penalties of premanire were not only
established with reference to a higher scale of
punishment for all offences than that which
now prevaild; but that they were necessary as
a set-off to the great penal authority of Rome.
It was agranst Roman interference only. that the
premunire laws were provided ; and at a time when
excommunications and interdicts by the holy see
might ruin individuals, and reduce whole provinces
to distress, it was necesmry for the secular power to
secure obedience to its own decrees, by threatening
those who yielded to the encroachments of a foreign
power with punishments not less formidable. 'lnc
laws bad lasted fur many generations; but now that
they have come under discussion, they should no
longer be allowed to remain as the instruments of
conceivable, though improbable, oppression, and the
means of giving the credit of daring to those who
brave their impotent menaces.
It would be desirable at the same time to get rid of
election and of confirmation, with all their obsolete
ceremonial. The policy. of he law is indicated, and
a precedent for legislation provided, by the existing
arrangements regarding the donative bishoprics arid
all the sees in Ireland.
It is not pretended that the rights of conscience
are violated by the independent action of the crown
in cases where there is no r,m9,7 d'aire. It is only
when the law requires individual functionaries to
express a formal approbation of its choice, that they
can have any right to complain of an interference
with their moral freedom. Their assent is a perfectly I
useless form, and it is unnecessary to compel them,
even in wurds, to express a conviction which they
may not feel. We are not disposed to think that
strong and rightly-judging minds would be troubled
by feelings of responsibility in acts which the law
gives Men no discretion to decline. The dean and
chapter who certify that they have freely chosen
A. 8., whom perhaps they personally disapprove of,
are to a calm casuist as innocent and as neutral as the
footman who says that his master, whom he knows to
be up stairs, is nut a. home. But if the body
of footmen were suddenly seized with a horror
of the conventional fiction, which tends so
much to secure the comfort of society, we
should recommend prudent masters to devise some
less equivocal phrase; and now that the consciences
of the clergy are here and there awakened, it would
be as well for the crown to put an end to the visits of
those who object to its nomination, as to compel the
vicar.general to say that his principal, though
willing to see them, is not at home if they want to
be heard. It would be easy for the government to
carry a bill for putting English bishoprics on the
same footing with those of Ireland. A great majority
of the public, and of both houses of parliament, is
anxious to put a stop to the scandals which have
lately occurred at St. James's and at Bow Church,
and willing It the same time to recognise, and if ne-
emery confirm, the absolute power of the crown in
episcopal nominations. The only security which the
church requires, and certainly all that it possesses,
consists in the impossibility of procuring consecration
for any bishop by secular power. Twenty acts of
parliament would not make a bishop, whom the great
body of churchmen would acknowledge as such. At
present the archbishop is subject to a premanire, if
he refuses to consecrate ; nor would the resignation of
his office, which Lord DENsiaa suggests as an alter-
native, relieve him from the liability, unless it took
place before the mandate of the crown was received.
13ut there is and can be no law by which, in default
of obedience, the crown can, as in the case of election,
substitute its own act for that which the ecclesiastical
functionary refuses to perform. If other prelates also
refuse, the see is for all spiritual purposes vacant, until
consecration is given to some bishop elect. If the absurd
penalties of pr,munire were repeale ', we should agree '
with Lord DENMAN'S view, that the archbishop should
be driven to resign, if lie found it impossible conscien-
tiously to consecrate the nominee of the crown. Such
an act would both prove his sincerity, and give the
opportunity, if his opposition arose from perversity,
of finding a more reasonable successor. If no bishop
could be feat(' to consecrate, it would be evident that
a time had arrived when the church must either ob-