The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-28 00:00:00

THE BISHOP OF MALTA.

The Bishop of EXETER, before proceeding to address
the House on the subject of which he had given notice, should
first beg leave to present a petition. It was very short, and
sig,ned by between 3,000 aid 4,000 persons of great respecta-
bility, all of whom gave their address. It was " the humble
petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the town of Liver-
pool," who, seeing that the condition on which the Act of
1829 had been granted
,had not been observed so as to give
security to the Protestant Establishment, prayed that that Act
might be repealed, and that the Legislature might be made
essentially Protestant, as it was before. In addressing their
Lordships on this occasion he trusted he might have their per-
mission, first, to express his thanks to the Noble Lord at the
head of the Colonial Department for the entire candour, cour-
tesy, and even kindness with which he had assisted him (the
Bishop of Exeter) in his inquiry. It seemed that in 1835 his
late Majesty's Ministers thought it desirable to establish a
Council of Government for the island of Malta, and amongst

the individuals selected to compose that Council was the
Roman Catholic Bishop of the Island. When the intimation
was made to that Prelate of his appointment he received
at the same time the copy of the oath be would be required
to take. The Bishop at once expressed his inability to com-
ply with the conditions, for he said he must transmit the oath
to the Cardinal Secretary of State at Rome, to know the
sentiments of his Holiness upon the subject. This took
place early in May, 1836. (The Right Rev. Prelate, who
had been speaking at the table, now retired to the Bishops'
bench, to get a book ; on his return he continued.) He be-
lieved he was perfectly regular in addressing their Lordships
from the table.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that, as the Right Rev.
Prelate could only vote from the Bishops' benches, he could
not address their Lordships from any other place. Of course
he offered no objection to the Right Rev. Prelate's speaking
from the table, but he would ask his Noble Friend (Lord
Holland) if he (the Duke of Richmond) had not laid down
the rule of the House?
Lord HOLLAND said no doubt the rule was that every
Noble Lord should speak from his place. That was, that he
(Lord Holland) or any other Baron, could only address the
House from the Barons' Bench ; but he really thought the
inconvenience of strictly adhering to the rule would more than
counterbalance any advantage to be derived from it.
The Bishop of EXETER resumed. He thought he was
saying that the Bishop of Malta transmitted the oath to
Rome. Well, he made repeated applications before he got
an answer, and at length, when it did come, it was that the
oath was not approvable, and that it had never been approved
of. His oath was the same as that required by the Act
of 1829 to qualify Roman Catholics for scats in Parliament
and for office. When this fact came to his (the Bishop of
Exeter's) knowledge, in consequence of the discussion which
took place two or three weeks ago, he applied to the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State, and the Noble Lord was so
obliging as to furnish him with all the papers, and he re-
joiced to think that the Noble Lord did not mean to oppose
the present motion. He must say that the fact did appear
to him to be of very great importance. He would not re-
peat what had been so often stated by the Roman _Catho-
lics themselves, that the greatest security they could offer
the only security they could offer—was their oaths. Why,
when he found that the:highest authority in that Church—that
authority which was regarded by all as supreme in matters re-
lating to religion and morals, and therefore certainly including
oaths—when he found all this, it certainly did seem to him
that it was plain that the security on which they had so long
relied was absolutely baseless. It was not his intention on the
present occasion to go over the ground which he had troubled
them by traversing three weeks ago, so far as regarded the
laity of the Roman Catholic communion. He intended to
confine his observations strictly to the consideration of the
conduct and doctrines held and maintained by the Roman Ca-
tholic Bishops and Clergy in Ireland upon this subject. (The
Rev. Prelate then read a variety of documents illustrating his
view of the question ) He would tell their Lordships the
difference between the authority of the Priesthood of the
Church of Rome and that of the Church of England. The
laity of the Church of England might, if they pleased, in cases
of doubt and difficulty, in which conflicting duties and diffi-
culties arose, and upon which they could not satisfy their own
consciences—they might if they chose have recourse to any
of the Clergy; and probably many persons, in such a situa-
tion, would be glad to take the advice of their spiritual
guide ; but still they would be taught by that pastor, and
they would know themselves, for they could never have
heard anything of a contrary tendency from that Church
—they would then know themselves, and be taught by that
pastor that the responsibility was still their own ; the pastor
was ever ready to give all the advice that he could, and to in-
struct any one as far as he was able in the course which he
ought to pursue ; but, at the same time, the applicant knew
that it was his own conscience—his own soul—that was in
peril. Not so with the Church of Rome. The Priesthood of
that Church told its adherents that it was their duty in all
cases of doubt to consult their spiritual superiors and to act on
their directions; and that, if they did so act, they freed themselves
from all responsibility. That responsibility then rested on
the Priesthood, and the' responsibility they were ready to
bear. That was the great difference in the authority of the
Priesthood of the two Churches. He thought that what he
had now said made it apparent that at present the Church of
England was left absolutely without any security, so far as the
Roman Catholics were concerned ; that there was nothing
to prevent the employment of powers which a too con-
fiding Legislature had granted, to the utter destruction of
all the institutions which they had sworn to maintain. It
was plain that at present not only was the Roman
Catholic hierarchy and Priesthood released from the ob-
ligations of oaths, but they were bound in conscience to
attack and destroy, if they could, those very institutions. All
that, he said, was plain, from the evidence produced, and
from the words of the individuals themselves ; and then
came the awful question—for an awful question it was—
what was to be done ? The petitioners, from whom he had
hat the honour to present a petition that night called on
their Lordships to repeal the Act of 1829. Was that the
course which wisdom required them to pursue ? He re-
spected those individuals highly—he entertained the highest
respect for their opinions—and if it were merely a question of
what the Roman Catholics of Ireland merited he should say
they were right in demanding the repeal of that measure ; but
that, he was bound to say, was not the only consideration.
Would the Church in Ireland be really protected by such an
Act ? He said ‘. Ireland," because, thank God, in England
they had nothing- to apprehend from the Roman Catholics
who had obtained seats in either House of Parliament ; and
it would be, in his mind, therefore, a violation of the compact
with those Noble Lcrds and Hon. Gentlemen in this country
who had faithfully adhered to their obligations—it would bo
a breach of faith towards them to deprive them of the benefit
of a contract which they had faithfully observed. But it was
not so in Ireland. There they saw that the Peiesthood had
effectually laboured to remove every sense of the sacredness of
an oath, and, therefore, as far as they were concerned, justice
would sanctiou, if not demand, the repeal of the statute, or the
imposition of some more availing restraint. However, though
justice might sanction the measure, would true wisdom de-
mand it? He would frankly state that, as at present advised,
he thought it would not ; in the first place, because it was ap-
parent diet if Roman Catholics could no longer be elected as
representatives of the Irish constituencies, and the same power
was left in the hends of the priesthood and the hierarchy, the
only result would be to transfer the scandal of perjury from the
Church of Rome to that of England; for the Priesthood would
be found worthless men calling themselves Protestants, who
would be ready in Parliament to do the bidding of the Priests
who sent them there, and these men would sit in the places
vacated by the Roman Catholic Members. Thus nothing could
be gained by the repeal of that law but the transference of the
scandal of perjury from one Church to the other. In dealing
with a Church which was disposed to set at naught all the obli-
gations of an oath it was necessary that some new test should
be created ; it had teen proved by experience two centuries ago
that no test could bind that Church which did not include the
denial of some essential article of their faith ; such a test had
proved effectual until 1829 ; and such a test must be re-
adopted, if they intended to repeal the Act of that year.
Again, it would be absolutely necessary to exclude all the
Roman Catholic constituencies from the power of voting, for
if they did not do that, the step could only be productive of
mischief, If they were not prepared to go all that length,
they must look for some other means of checking the evil.
What must that be If they were again to impose some reli-
gious test, the feelings of religious men of all denominations
would be enlisted against them, because they would consider it
harsh that men should be kept out of the enjoyment of civil
rights in consequence of their conscientious belief in any doc-
trine. That was the principal cause why at length the measure
of 1829 was forced on Parliament; because a very large por-
tion of really religious men thought it cruel for the sake of con-
scientious scruples to exclude a large class of persons fi om civi
privileges.
He apprehended, too, that it would be found diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to obtain a statute to that extent ; and
even if it could be obtained, he was very doubtful whether it
would be desirable. Under those circumstances, and with that
view of the case, ho was not one of those who thought an at-
tempt should be made to exclude the Catholics by religious
tests. But there was one obvious mode by which much
good might be done to protect the Church of England in Ire-
land ; and in what he was about to say he could assure the
House that ho intended to convey no taunt, nor to speak in re-
ference to things which had lately passed, or even in reference
to what might be his own opinion upon the conduct of the
present Government, but be was convinced that the only
mode by which they could retard the mischiefs arising from
that perjury, sanctified by the behests of the Roman Catholic
hierarchy, was this, that the Government of this country
should conscientiously, uniformly, manfully do its duty, in
protecting the Church of England in Ireland. That the Go-
vernment had incalculable opportunities and means could not
be denied, and he need scarcely say that especial care should
be taken with regard to all the appointments that were made,
not merely in the Church but in every department of the State,
that, even if they were not made on distinctly religious con-
siderations, still no one at least should be appointed who could
for a moment be expected to use his power to the injury of the
true religion of that country. That would be an effectual and
powerful protection to the Church, and would it be denied
that that was the duty of the Government? He was sure that
the Noble Lord ( Glenelg) who then alone sat on that bench
would be of opinion that it was the duty of the Government
to protect the Church by the most energetic and decisive
means consistent withjustice to all her Majesty's subjects.
But it was the duty of the Government on higher considera-
tions. Ile need not remind their Lordships that the oath of
the Roman Catholics was not the only security for the Pro-
testant Church in that country. They had another oath,
which was binding in a quarter in which they were perfectly
sure that the sanctity of an oath would be felt, acknowledged,
and obeyed most scrupulously and conscientiously. They had
the coronation oath ; and that oath would soon be taken by
the illustrious Lady who was now placed by Providence at
the head of this kingdom ; and that she should ever be in-
duced to do anything in contravention of that oath was abso-
lutely impossible—it was not even to be thought of for an in-
stant. They also had another oath, which ought to be a great
security, and which he was confident, in the instance of the
Noble Lord who sat near him, would be a great security ; ho
meant the oath taken by Privy Councillors, who were to
advise her Majesty faithfully on all matters. Ile was sure it
was not necessary to remind the Noble Baron of it, but he
would say that the necessity of attending strictly to the obli-
gations of that oath of the 'Privy Councillors was incalculably
augmented by the state of circumstances in Ireland. The
Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving that " an humble
address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to direct that there be laid on the table of
1 the House a copy of any despatch from the Governor or acting
Lieutenant-Governor of the island of Malta to his late Ma-
' esty's Secretary of State for the Colonial Department,
respecting the appointment of the Bishop of Malta to be a
Member of the Council of Government of that island ; and

also of any despatch announcing the refusal of the said Bishop
to take the oath required by law to be taken by him on the
acceptance of such appointment, and his resignation of the
same; together with any documents received from the said
Bishop on occasion of such his refusal and resignation."
Lord GL ENE LG rose to confirm the Right Rev. Pre-
late's anticipations, that no opposition would be offered to his
motion. He hoped he would pardon him for saying that he
did not entirely concur with him in some points, although that
was not the occasion to enter on the subject.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY concurred in the opinion
that such discussions as the present were inexpedient; but be
begged leave to say one word. With regard to the Bishop. of
Malta, it was the first time that he had heard of any decision
of the Court of Rome in that case; but he supposed the Right
Rev. Prelate stated it on good authority. He was not cer-
tainly surprised at the difficulty entertained by the Bishop of
Malta, because that Bishop was not in circumstances to under-
stand it—to know the animus and intention with which it had
been imposed. For his own part, he was free to acknowledge
that he disliked that oath ; he disliked it, because he was sure
it was altogether unnecessary, because it served to perpetuate
distinctions—because it constantly exposed persons to the most
revolting aspersons in and out of Parliament.
After a few words from the Bishop of EXETER, the mo-
tion was agreed to.
QUAKERS, MORAVIANS, AND SEPARATISTS'

RELIEF BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of this Rill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from
,he Members of the Central Society of Friends against the
declarations required by the Bill.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and the Bill
was then read a third time.
SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT AMENDMENT BILL•
Lord GLENELG moved that this Bill be read a third tune•
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to ask his Noble Frie.ld
whether the papers which he had placed in his hands had satis—
fied him of the existence of practices at the Cape of Good
Hope to which he had called his attention on a former occa-
sion, and he wished to ask his Noble Friend whether he
had made up his mind as to the course which he ought to
pursue with respect to those facts to which he• had called his
attention ?
Lord GLENELG had received no official intimation on the
subject, and until he had the papers kindly placed in his
hands by his Noble Friend he was not aware of the existence
of those evils. However, he would willingly concur in any
means that might be devised to check the practice referred to
and punish its perpetrators.
The Duke of RICHMOND suggested that a clause might
be added to the present Bill, authorising the Governor in
Council to call on the planters to find bail that they would
account for the apprentices, and for what might hare become
of them at the period of the termination of their appren-

ticeship.
Lord G L E NE L G would consider the proposition and com-
municate with his Noble Friend respecting it. Ho had no
present objection to the course sugzested.
The Bill was then read a third time.
Adjourned to Half-past Three to-morrow (this day).