The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-15 00:00:00

entertained towards it by the people of England. H,
should like to know the windier of the peti-
tions, and the si jridtdre:, 'l`:-. 1 ienourable Metal), r
for Knaresborough presented one, to which only
six names were at acued. lie did trot think the p:op:e
of England ente,-ta, tied tee belief ili.it their securityl .-s
lendangered by the removal Of those penal laws,
.. • that
t
the safety of the ii•otestant Church was to la: prrni:liend
theur
' by Catholic degr.etation. Tia, re was one onass
oshould
hitnlvewbheeiehn he
tr%dgurectetded.enalbileingthulught aa clausec
h lie to
laohmancilellort of Ire-
be eligible to the office of Licie
land. There had bteheen
EfomuareeipoamtaienhCßatilillo.lic
sAirttomr-.
eney-General-since
andeh wPeirgeo t
ht ,0
ta n
edl
ihgei
hcl oe n stied e considered
it too bade
t. f Loughlin,
office of the Chancellorship. suchifheanßceilllim:rship. A Roman Catholic
might be a judge ; and when such responsibility
was entrusted to him, he saw no reason why he should
be disqualified for the situation of Chancellor. He
hoped the House would no longer countenance these dis-
abilities, but would show to the world that the days of
pains and penalties fur religious opinions were gone
for ever.
Mr. FINCH thought it was quite becoming in the
last spatker, who was a Roman Catholic, to speak as he
had done, andl also the Noble Lord (Arundel and Surrey),
but still he did not consider that either ot them had ad-
duced any adequate reason why the Bill should be pass. d.
He doubted much whether the Government could extend
with safety any further concessions to the Roman Ca-
tholic Church. In his opinion, that religion was opp,sed
to the revealed religion, and was besides into!erant. We
knew well that tie Romish Church was strongly op-
post d to religious liberty, and was abhorrent to the moral
and legal laws on which the security of this country
was based. He should therefore oppose the Bill, and
support the modon of the Right Hon. Bar onet the Member
for the University 1:). Oxford.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said the real question be-
fore the House was, whether certain pains and penalties
on toe statute-book, bat which all admitted could not be
entorced—(Hear, bear)—should or should not be re-
pealed, as enactments without value. Those who
opposed the Bill contended that the best way to promote
tut. prosperity of the Church of England was
the retention ot obnoxious penalties with regard to those
aho followed another form of the same Christianity.
But, when it was admitted ou all hands that they never
could be enforced, he was quite at a loss to know why
they siteuld not he at once abrogated. In the whole
course of the di! cussions on the Bill, he had heard
t.othing to induce him to believe that the safety
of the Church of England weuld be endangered
by the remission of those obnoxious penalties. The
Itteht Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of
Oxterd, directed their attention to what was going on
iti France, but particularly in Switzerland, owing to the
violent conduct, of the Jesuits. But when he quoted
Switzerlidid, to slow what the toleration of the Jesuits
had done .here, he made a mest unhappy allusion. What
was the condition of the Jesuits in Switzerland? In some
cantons the Jesuits were tolerated and fostered, while
neighbouring cantons, opposed to the Jesuits, endea-
veured by force to put them down ; and when attacked
they naturally resented such aggressions upon their
liberty ; awl then the Right Hon. Baronet came for-
is and and said, " See what the violence of the Jesuits has
brought about in Switzerland." He said, there-
for-, that he could not have made a more
unh.,ppy allusion ; in his opinion a more un-
happy allusion was never brought forward in that
House on that occasion. He also said that the legis-
lators of France. had been c 'mpelled to put a stop to the
violence and inroads of the Jesuits, which was far more
straightforward and Christiun!ike than the theoretical
plan which had been adopted in this country. Then the
Right lion. Baron,d appealed to the Protestant Dissenters
to join bun in opposing the Bill; but the Protestant Dis-
senters must have short memories, indeed, if they forgot
that the Right Hon. Baronet had, during his lung and
consistent career, opposed them as strongly as he now
opposed the concessions now asked for on b- half of the
Roman Catholics. The gravamen of the matter was
simply this—that the one Church opposed the other on

certain points. The Right Hon. 13;:onet the Member
for Tam•worth, whose absence they must all regret,
stated that he had felt it necessary in 1829 to vindicate the
entabli4hed doctrines ; but he (Lord John Manners)
was at a loss, after the lapse of twenty years,
to point out one single instance in which
those so-called safeguards had been trespassed upon.
But if they were safeguards to the Throne and to the
Church, he wished to know why they had not in any
instance been put in force.—(Hear, hear.) They could
not be put in fin ce; and if they were to call upon the
advisers of her Majesty to pat these laws into force, thry
would refuse to do so. He, therefore, was at a less to
know how they could be called safeguards. If their
abr,ga.tion were really dangerous to the State and to the
Church, he must say that it was not becoming in them
to take their stand on those pettifogging penalties which
they m;ght suffer. and which no one thought to put in
force.—(Hear, hear.) Those who opposed the Bill were
actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could
not sympat'Ase. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged
the officers of the Crown to say that the Bill of Rights
could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles 11. were

repealed. It was not for him to offer legal opinions, but
he considered that the Right Hon. Baronet was
totally mistaken in his view of the law. He
had heard the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Btrmingham observe that he did not believe that the
contest would be successful, and that the Protestant
Church would remain unvanquished. It that was then
the case, why did he refuse to do away with these
petty laws, which had been declared inoperative? If
the Honourable Member believed in the eternal truth
of the principles which he professed he ought
to throw from him these miserable crotchets,
which were useless. Sir Christopher Wurdswurth, de-
scribing the Ceristien Brothers, observes that not
one of the pupils educated by them took a part
in the late revolution in the French capit if. This
was a fact worthy of observation. The people
had le- en induced to petition against this
Bill, having been told that it contained clauses
which enabled them to take the std le and title of the
Protestant bishops ; they were misled, and every means
had been used to excite them. He, however, had great
confidence that when the Bill came to be properly
understood the p;=ople of England would be of opinion
with him, that the Church was more secure in the
affections of her own people, in the increasing zeal and
sanctity of her ministers, in the power which she
eessesses in the purity of her doctrine, in the
integrity of the lives of her ministers and professors,
and they will not believe that the constitution of the
country is in jeopardy by the extension of the principles
of toleration.—(Cheers.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just
sat down had toll them that they had not pur-
sued a consistent course in their opposition to the
present measure. There was one - consistent per-
son at the least, and that was the Member
for the University of Oxford. He had told them that
they had excited deep feelings on the part of the
Catholics ; but he would ask, who had awakened
them ? who but the promoters of this Bill,
who were not content to allow these dead letters
to remain upon the statute- boek ?—(Hear, hear.) It was
because he was in favour of religious toleration that
he refused his assent to the present Bill—it was because
the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant, and
because she claimed unto herself to be superior in all
things, in matters of discipline as well as doctrine.—
(Hear.) The Noble Member for Arundel spoke in heat,
bat- he spoke out nobly—he was not ashamed to say
that he sought for the supremacy of his Church,
and that he was a subject of the Pope.
lie asked the House to consider well the authority of the
Pope, which the Bill proposed to admit, and see whe-
ther they could reconcile its admission with the alle-
giance which they owed to the Queen of these realms.
Ile believed that they could not. The decrees and
couecils of the Roman Catholic Cnurch gave the
Pope temporal and spiritual dominion over all the
kingdoms of the world—over all people, princes, and po-
tentates. How then could they reconcile powers of such
a character with the prerogatives of the British Crown ?
Efe was not to be told that on the ground of religious
tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra-
ordinary powers as these. He was as much a friend of
toleration as any Member in that House, but did
he admit the powers of the Pope as recognised
by the Bill, he would be intolerant indeed. Though a
Brest number of petitions had not been presented, he
could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre-
vailed throughout the country against the measure.
fhe people had not petitioned because of the
way in which their petitions had been treated
in the Mae nooth question, acid they had little further
confid,-nue in approaching ttie House. But let them
pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear
a it agsin. when they presented themselves to the
people tor re- election. The Noble Lord the Member for
Newark had come to the rescue, and had attacked the op.
I),,sUott to the Jesuits in France and Switzerland, which he
asserted had originated in democratic violence. Now
with re,erd to this he would tell the Noble Lord that
,ee real -cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the
Jesuits arose from the fect of the latter seeking to take
ti.e whole education of certain countries into their
bands. And in France they had been declared illegal,
oecsuie of the intrigues for power in which they had
been continually engaged. The Hen. and Learned
ir for the University of Oxford had asked the
,etiorney General an important question, which ought.
t t uve been answered; for if the measure was subversive
uf the Bill of R:ghts, how could the Members of the House
f Counnons support it ? If th.y agreed to such
:t Bill, t:ey must relieve the Sovereign from her obliga-
-7i,l to uphold t -e Protestant faith, and fully and undis-
e ,iseilly tNe t=niporal and spiritual authority of
:,,P Pope of Rome.
Sir EASTHOPE regretted that there was any ne •
s:ty -,uctt a discussion as this, and if he hid enter-
zeinsd that opinion before he was doubly satisfied of the
it•utiaty of it from the speech of the Hen. Member
Lear he ie
'4", had just sat down. One advantage might, indeed,
Was no place fogr theological rez•utt tr.vrn
parison of her
evi on
ie—the people of England would
both ides of the question. Yet,
notwlttt:ta.adin •
eisteipusoelotgivicealadvantages benefit,C
ohnetrostvielirs3b,ee,lnioje,rvveefdkdirthabayteotthmhie!
Church. The real man
reiestion in his opinion was as to
members of
Catholic or of the English
whether these laws were pion
or not. For his own
part he believed them tbooo
k,
aihltdata useless, and only a
instrumental in tValy believed that
self should be
pport of reli-
idfisgtbreayc.ewteorethteostbeatute
and ifh he did
gious persecution, the Hon. GentlemadnotwinSalu
among the very first to put them
were not so instrumental, what security
in their retention ? No man wished more Ythr
heartily for the welfare of the religion of the country.did
The Noble Lord the Member for Arundel had stated his
firm conviction that the result of these disputes would be
to annihilate Protestantism. He respected the Noble
Lord for the strength of his convictions, but he him-
self believed that the result would be totally different,
and that if they were to be conducted without any

of these persecuting agencies, that the consequence
would be the extinction of Reman Catholisism. That
these laws were useless was tvident, for even the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Oxford University had allowed
• that t that Leal been in a Jeyanee ; are what wes the utility,
teen, of at all reteining Wrist he muss, term such paltry
lefences to the religion of the country ? He
had himself been educated in the faith of the
• Established Church of these realms, and no one sub-
scribed rre‘re c irdially to her ccceil and tier articles. and
• if the consequence of this Bill was to weaken her p sai gin,
or to destroy her influence, he woule be one of the last
individuals in the world to be a party to it. But,
believing as he conscientiously did.. that a very
different effect would ensue, he should give most cordially
his vote in his lion, and Learned Foecd.
Mr. GOULBURN had on a former cession stated
his opinion on the merits of this Bill, but yet felt im-
pelled to say a few words to express his reasons for
voting, as lie should do, against it. On that occa-
sion teen he was one ot a very large majority
who mimed the rejection of the Bill, he had
stated that he felt bound by the terms of the
compact into which he had entered in 1829; and he saw
no new reasons now for changtng his opinion. Alt who
heard him would recollect when the Rsman Catho-
lic Relict Bill ot 1829 was introduci.d by the Govern-
ment, the difficulties they had to encounter on ac-
count of the liberality ot its provisions, and what tar •
ne •t efforts they het to make to recencile the House to
its passing. Of all the Bills that had ever been intro-
duced to the House for the relief or Boman Catholic
that was the most extensive, and far sur:
passed the expectations of Mr. Grattan, Lord Painkret,
and others, who had eudeavoured to limit the re-
s under which the members of that feth la
bourse/. But in bringing in that Bill the Guy( rn-
went had expressly stated they were only justified
in Its introduction by the fact that they were laying the
teundation for the basis on which the Roman Catholic
religion should stand in this country. It was on the
aith of that representation that the Bill had been
-Allowed to pass, and he should therefore be quite un-
warranted in breaking the contract into which tie had
then entered, and this he would do it be were to con-
sent to the passing of this Bill. He was the less in-
clined to do so, because there was no reason assigned
that to him carried the slightest weight. There were
no lamentable grievances to complain of, no pains and
penalties which bore with remarkable hardship, no re-
strictions which pressed with peculiar severity, and
even the laws which it was sought by this Bill to
repeal were acknowledged to be totally imperative.
Ity the Act of 1829 the pow: r of prosecuting for those
penalties had been elacee in the hands of the Attorney-
Gencral, by whose discretion alone any suit could be
carried on or any penalty could be enforced.
tie thought that Catholic processions should not be per-
mitted ; and he believed the restriction of the law of
1829, as far as those processions were concerned, was
dictated by a sound policy. For he would ask what
would be the case if a procession of banners, crucifixes.
and crosses were permitted in any of the towns of
this country ? He believed the result would prove the
injudiciousness of such an indulgence. With regard to
the prohibitions on the members of the religious orders,
ne heard nothing from the advocates ot this Bill to.
justify the removal of the restrictions of 1829. He
deprecated, therefore, these discussions, which had the
ffect of exciting feelings which had better be
allowed to lie dormant. The late Government toek the
course which he thought should have been taken on the
subject of these penalties, not only as regards Roman
Catholics, but other Dissenters, and Bills were brought
in and passed the Legislature for the removal of those
unenforced disabilities. He thought, therefore.
any further legislation on the subject should
be avoided, and he considered it extremely in-
judicious to bring such questions before the
House every succeeding session of Parliament.
Those were his reasons, therefore, for opposing the
further progress of the Bill. He would not, at that
late hour of the day, go through the remaining clauses
of the Bill. He was prepared te say that the ob-
jects s •tight to be . attained by the present measure
sere obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe-
nalty contained in any of the former Acts could, by
any possibility, attach to any person at the present
time. The prese:.t measure also sought, by one
clause, to put an end to questions of law, which
required, to say the least of them, a most careful con-
sideration. If he was at any former period oppesed to
this measure, he was more particularly so after what
hail fillen from the only msmber of the Government
who had spoken upon the suti-ct, to the effect that still
greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessary.
He would ask that Right Honourable Member if
he would secure him against any attempt to infringe
upon the liberties already, held by the Protestants
when ad these concessions had been made by the House ?
Ile should most certainly support the amendment and
vote against the further progress of the measure.
Mr. COLLETT would aupp rt the motion of the
floe. and Learned Member for Kinsale, for going into
Cerninittee on this Bid, on the grounds of non-Inter-
ference, and non-toleration. It was his opinion that
he who acted properly Eted uprightly was in the right
road to heaven, whether he was Protestant, Catholic,
Dissenter, Jew, or Mahoinetlan.—(Divide, divide.) He
was himself a humble member of the Protestant Church,
bat that church had introduced a number of new-tangled
doctrines, and he thought that it would be a much 'setter
employment of the time of the biehops to endeavour to
outsell unity amecg their own members than to oppose
the measure introduced by the Hon. and Learned
NTembar for Kinsale.-- (Cries of " Dlvide, divide.")
He did not like to see the bishops act
like-
the Bi,,hop of Exeter, who hal spoken against a b.ll
at Exeter, the proc •els of which were to be devoted
to the relief of the distressed Iri,h and Scotch, nor did he
like to see tee bishops in their robes in the House ef
Lords. while a:i the other Membses of that House were
obliged to go in plain clothes.—(The Hon. Member sat
doe n amid ereet confusion, and tries for the divi.ion.)
Sir G. GREY sai 1 that the question now was the
same as that which had been discussed on a former

occasion, when the House deeded by a majority in
favour of the second reathre.; of the measure. It wits in
accordance with the recommendations of the Criminal
Law Cointnissicriers that the present measure was
brought forward by his Hon. and Learn -d Friend the
Member fur Kinsale. He did not consider th it by voting
for going into Committee on the Bill any Hon. Member
would bind himself to the details of the measure, and
if the question was at present raised on the third
reading of the Bill, he should certainly not be prepared
to give his assent to the measure in its present shape.
He knew that it might be said by those persons who
held the same views upon the subject as the Hon. Mem-
ber for Birmingha'm (Mr. Spooner), that the present
measure was one brought in b,r the purpose of subvert-
ing the Protestant constitution of this country. He for
one, however, entirely denied any such intention in the
support which he was prepared to give to the measure.
He was himself attach( d to the Protestant institutions of
the country, and was nurtured in &e bosom of the Eve).

lished Church, and attached as he was to its principles,
and hoped should ever remain so, he believed
that the Protestant Reformation was a most in-
valuable blessing to the country, and he would
regret if by any act of his he should in the
least affect injuriously the interests of Protestantism.
He considered that he should ill discharge his duty it he
voted for the retention of those " pains and penalties,"
because be considered that their Roman Catholic fellow-
subject should be allowed, and they were entitled to
teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without
the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When
their illegality was admitted, he saw no reason why they
should be retained, with respect to a portion of their
fellow-subjects who conceived that they were simply
discharging their duty in promulgating their doctrines.
The Right lion. Baronet the Member fur Oxford said this
measure was: but one of a series of concessions of au inju-
rious nature which had been made to the Roman Catholics
during the last 50 years, evidently admitting that it he
had began to legislate 5o years ago, that he should have
opposed all the; measures of concession and amendment
which had been passed with respect to the Catholics
during that period. The first part of the Bill stated that
these " pains and penalties" had the effct of keeping
down their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.—(Hear,
hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee,
and to go through the clauses seriatim, with the report
of the Commissioners in his hand, in order that he
might have the assistance of the opinions of persons of
high authority. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) materially
objected to that portion of the Bill which related to pro-
cessiong. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to incur the
risk of supporting that part of the Bill which would legalise
public processions through the streets, but he believed
that part of the Bill was not to be insisted upon; how-
ever, the proper time to consider these things was in
Committee. He should, therefore, vote for the Bill going
into Committee.—(Divide.)
Mr. LAW regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had
not alluded to the difrvrence between the repealing the
statute and the penalties attached to the crimes which it
mentioned_ The lion. and Learned Gentleman referred
to an Act passed in the reign of Richard the Second,
and the 16th of George the Second, to show that the
supremacy of the State and the Protestant religion
would be endangered if the Bill were passed into a law.
It was perfectly clear, by the provisions of the Bill, the
declaration required to be taken by the Sovereign on
accession to the throne is repealed, for it is part
and parcel of the Act, which was considered
to be the severest test which could be put
that the Sovereign was of the communion of the
Established Church. There was nothing in the framing
of the Bill which could invite them to go into Committee;
it was most loosely worded, and involved great interests,
for it touched upon the very conditions by which the
Crown was held. lie would record his vote in favour of
his Right Hon. Friend's amendment.
Lord SAN DON said he had to express his most
unfeigned regret thatithis question has beeniraised at all.
It was admitted on all sides that no great practical evil
was endured by tho existence of these clauses, while
great harm was done by the religious animosity which was
excited in these discussions, Looking to his whole
career in that House, he could not find arty more con-
sistent course to pursue than to give his vote for going
into Committee.

Mr. ESTCOURT said he was anxious to go into
Committee upon the Bill. When in Committee it would
be time enough to discuss the details of the Bill. Still
he must observe, that he was not satisfied with the
amanded clause of the non. Mover of the Bill, intro-
duced by him to quiet the scruples of the opponents.
Mr. WATSON replied. He said he trusted the
Rouse would bear with him if he refrained
from answering the speeches of the Honourable
Members who opposed it, because he confessed he
tire ~!i?t heard a single valid reason against
Dm.• He would briefly content himself with
stating its principle, which was, that no person
whatever should be liable to pains and penal- /
ties on account of his religious belief. That was I
the real question they had before them, and the Bill
was to effect a repeal of ail statutes that operated juju-