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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN r.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8.
The &tannins took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
SECOND READING.—Itiver Dun Navigation (extension to Sher-
fick
PUBLIC BICsINES.9.
SECOND READINGS. --Game Certificates for Killing Hares; Bo-
rough Polies Superannuation Fund ;
COMM i t-rEL. -Homan Catholic Relief BM
LORD PALMERSTON AND MR. ANSTEY.
Mr. DItUMMOND (Surrey) wished to know from the
hon. and 1, caned member for Yoaghal when he intended to
resume the discussion respecting the conduct of his noble
friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs? He asked the
question on pubic grounds, and he thought it only fair and
just th.tt the house should speedily come to a decision on
the subject. (Hear, hear.) Although the characters both
of the prosecutors and of his noble friend were pretty well
understood and appreciated by that house, and probably by
the country, yet such might not be the case in other coun-
tries; mid therefore, the character of the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs being public property, he thought it of
immeure iuiportance that that character should he upheld by
the house coming at once to a decision on the hon. and
learned member's motion. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. ANSTEY said he could only give to the boa. member
for Surrey the reply he had one former occasion a
given to
noble lord opposite—namely, that the only day at his dis-
posal was Wednesday, and on Wednesdays he had done his
best from time to time to bring the question on. If the
Roman Catholic Bill, which was the first order, went speedily
through committee, and Lie other orders should be disposed
of early, he should be meet happy to resume the discussion
that day. It that were not prusticable, he thought the next
eourse would be to adjourn the discussion rk die in diem,
taking chance of an early disposal of the orders of the day.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
The house went into committee on the above bill
Sir R. INGLIS wished the consideration of the bill to be
postponed until a member of the government should be pre-
sent. He apprehended from former discussions that there
would he considerable differences of opinion between the
government and the hon. and learned member, and although
he (Sir R. Inglis) did not for a moment mean to say that his
individual opinion would he influenced by any course the
government might take he thought the presence of some
government member absolutely necessary during the dis-
cussion of a measure of so imperial a character as the
regent.
Sir G. GREY, who had entered the house while the hon.
art. was addressing the committee, apologised for his all-
ence on the plea of public business. (Hear, hear.) As the
bill proceeded through coma. ittee he should be prepared to
stag- the views of government relative to each clause. Ilia
opinion respecting the general character of the bill woo un-
changed. He thought a great portion of it unnecessary, and
that a most important question had been omitted—namely,
the state of law as respected Irelan t.
Mr. ANSTEY hid omitted Ireland at the !suggestions of
Irish lawyers and Irish members. He had not conceived
himself competent, not being familiar with Irish statute law,
to undertake its alteration.
Mr. s LANEY, while !taming to the general scope. and
principle of the bill, would oppose such portion of it as
tended to encourage the intrae.uction of monastic institutions
into this rountre. as also that portion which interbred with
the law of mortmain.
Mr. GOI'LBUItN deprecated this discussion as irrele-
vant, and recalled the attention of the committee to the real
question, which was a consideration of the clauses of the bill.
(Hear, hear.)
Clause 1.
Sir It. INGLIS objected to that portion of the clause
which went 'o repeal the let of Elizabeth enjoining the oath
of supremacy. At present Roman catholic members were
exempt from that oath, but the penalties were retained at
common law. It the act were repealed Roman catholics
would have at common law an immunity not enjoyed by
their puitestant fellow-countrymen. lie moved the oral-stun
of the words "shall be repealed."
Lord MAHON suggested the postponement of the words
until the end of clause.
Sir G. GREY said that the best course would be, as the
act went to repeal many acts, to first settle what acts were to
be repealed.
Mr. GOULLITMN supported the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY said that the real dittbmlty arose from the
manner in which the bill had been framed—that was to say,
in one monster clause. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
only course for the house to adept would be to =airport the
motion of the hon. member tor Oxford University.
Mr. ANSTEY said that the bill being a re prealuction of a
former bill, the draughtsman could not frame it otherwise
than he had done.
Mr. SHELL said, after the explanation given by the hon.
member for Oxford University of his real object an moving
this amendment, those only who desired that no act which
affected Roman catholics imould be repealed could vote
for it.
After some further conversation, the committee divided.
For the retention of the words
For the amendment 59-35
Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of the words
following the enactment repealing such acts " in so far as
the same relate to Roman c itholies," desiring that no dis-
tinction should be made between any class of her Majesty's

anMeets.
Mr. ANSTEY had no objection to the amendment.
Sir G. GREY also supported the amendment, but sub-
mitted that it should be proposed on the report. The acts
recited as those to be repealed made the assertion of certain
opinions, not by Roman c itholics only, but by any Taman,
an offence puni,hable by certain penalties. The airs of Vic-
toria repealed those penalties, but left the offences still on
the statute-book, and of course as offer ces they were punish-
able by tine and imprisonment under the common law as

ausaemesnors.
The CHAIRMAN decided that there was an olieetion in
point of form to puttinn the amendment at that stage, and
Mr. HENLEY withdrew it, intimating his intention to

propose it on the report.
Mr. LAW contended that it was competent f,.r the com-
mittee to entertain the amendment. One object of the hill
was to abrogate the securities contained in the act of Eliza-
beth, cap. 1, as far as Roman catholic' were concerned. If
Roman catholics were to be thus qualified to do mischief be
saw no reason why the qualification should not extend to all
other chasers of the subjects of this realm. (Hear, hear.)
He would move that the words referring to Roman catho-

lice be omitted.
A long discussion on the question of form ensued, the re-
sult being this the amendment could not be put.
Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of so much of
the clause as referred to the act of Elizabeth.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted that this
amendment should be deferred until they came to the con-
sideration of the specific acts it was proposed to repeal. He
concurred that it would b.) advisable to remove all doubt as
to whether the acts made penal by the statute of Elizabeth
remained after the repeal of the penalties punishable ss mis-
demeanor at common law.
Mr. LAW supported the amendment, contending that the
act of Elizabeth ought not to be repo iled without some de-
claratory words to keep alive the offence to which the peual-
ties were attached.
Mr. GOC LBURN thought it perfectly immaterial whe-
ther the act was repealed or not, as the offences against
which it was directed would still remain punishable at com-
mon law. That being the case, he would vote for re-
pealing the act.
Mr. NkIWDEGATE would retain the act, in order to
facilitate prosecutions by the crown, if necessary. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERA L (in reply to a question from
Mr. Hilrlyard) said that the offence at common law might
assume the character of treason.
After much conversation as to whether the offence referred
to in the clause of Elizabeth, new proposed to be repealed,
was or was not an offence at common law,
Mr. ANSTEY said that there was not a man in the coun-
try who would deny the supremacy of the anverei4n to a
certain extent. The question was, as to its nature and
amount at common law : the supremacy of the seven ign was
temporal, and also ecchsiastical sub mono, and to deny it to
that extent would be an offence at common law. But,
if the supremacy of the crown did not extend to
all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, it would be
no offence at common law to deny it as far. Most
certainly, if a Roman catholic bishop or priest
should rout to any other means of a t-mponil nature than
those recognised by the laws of the country for the purpose
of enforcing his epiritual rights, he would be guilty at com-
mon law of a very high offence—it might be, according to
the circumstances, of high treason, and repealing the act of
Elizabeth would not alter the law in that respect. (fleet )
Sir R. INGLIS reiterated his objection to the clause of
the bill under discussion, and opposed it altogether.
Mr. SHEIL observed that, whether they repealed the
statute of Elizabeth or not, the common law would net be
affected. The sting had already been taken from it by the
9th and 10th Victoria. which removed its pains and penal-
ties, and it was of nn further use, unless to stare a falsehood
—namely, that the Pope had no spiritual supremacy in this
country. Mr. Justice Coleridge said, cn a late occasion, that
he thought the Pope was rightly the ad of the Christian
world—(cries of " Oh ")—at least before the reformation.
(Renewed cries of " Oh, " and laughter.) Those la t words
were his (Mr. Shell's) own. They were not used by Mr.
Justice Coleridge; and he (Mr. Sheil) had used them be-
cause be did not suppose that Mr. Justice Coleridge meant
to say that the Pope was now the rightful head of the
Christian world, however much he might desire to revert to
that rystem under which peace and tranquillity were pro-
duced in the Christian world. (A. laugh ) Before the re-
formation he was so, most undoubtedly, and it woe untrue to
say that facto he no c exercised no spiritual authority in
these realms. He appointed bishops and archbishops, whose
technical titles, intimating that spiritual authority, were re-
cognised by the Bequest. Act of the right hon. baronet oppo-
site (Sir J. Graham.) The statute now sought to be re-
pealed stated, therefore, what was not true.
Sir J. GRAHAM, having been alluded to, did not wish
to give a silent vote. The whole question of abolishing ob
eolete sets affecting religious belief had been referred to t
criminal commissioner, who reported in favour of the abso-
lute repeal of the clause of Elizabeth, now the subject of dis-
cussion. The ministers advised it, and Lord Lyndhurst,
seeing no danger whatever from such a step, introduced a
provision to that effect in his bill ; but out of deference to
the scruples and suggestions of some noble lords con-
sented to limit it to the titres and penalties, leaving the act
still on the statute book, the sting (as observed by the hon.
member for Dungarvan) having been withdrawn; and
though the repeal of the act might be said to be superfluous,
yet, as it would not change the law, he considered himself
bound in good faith and honour, as a patty to the original
peoposition,to see that it was not repealed. (Hear, hear.) But
'be would the whole length of saying that if the common
law were iacpsr 're against the denial of the spiritual au-
progwey et her Malady, in the sense in which it
Wal irked by hie Boman Catholic subjects, h. shooll