The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-08 00:00:00

Vbirb 12bition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS (in continuation from our
Afternoon Edition) said—Already there were three
thousand Catholic priests within the jurisdiction of
this country; but he did not propose that the autho-
rities of these priests should be curtailed. He did,
however, demand that their authorities and powers
. should not be extended, because it would only assist
the Church of Rome in its anxiety to extend its
influence in this country. To show the anxiety of
its adherents for extending its powers, lie might
mention that even within the city of Westminster,
an association had been established for securing the
election of Members to seats in that House who were
favour ible to the demands of the Church of Rome.
Such an association in 1838 would have been consi-
dered illegal, and treated by the law accordingly,
but now the Church of Rome was allowed to
proceed in its aggressive policy without hinder-
ance or molestation from any party. He could
adduce proofs without end of the aggressive
character of the Church of Rome, but the
present Bill, he thought, was sufficient evidence of it,
and he would not trouble the House with relating
instances where the Church of Rome had shown a
disposition to interfere with thte- internal affairs of
foreign countries. He considered the evidences
he had already adduced were sufficient to
induce the House to pause before it passed the
Bill, and in order that it might have an opportunity
of doing so he would beg leave to move that the Bill
• be read a second time this day three months.
Mr. DRUMMOND believed there was strong in-
clination, not only in that House but in the country,
to extend the privileges enjoyed by Protestants to
their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects ; but he entreated
the House not to establish the supremacy of any
Church in any sect under the plea of toleration. The
principles of the Church of Rome were highly dan-
gerous, whilst the head of that Church claimed to be
considered not only the head of his own dominions,
but the Roman Catholics of this country look upon
him as the spiritual head of the United King-
dom.—(No, no.) Honourable Gentlemen opposits
cried " No, no," but he held in his hand a newspaper
cotaining the report of a meeting held in Ireland,
where a resolution was passed acknowledging the
Pope of Rome as the supremo head of the country,
and he warned the House not further to sap the
foundation of the existing Constitution by passing
this Bill. Ireland was already under tbe baneful
control of the Church of Rome; the daTiinable doc-
trines of the Jesuits had taken root there, and it
behoved that House to be watchful that the Church
of Rome did not extend the influence of that dan-
gerous body to this country.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY had
heard some portions of the Hon. Gentleman's address
with great pleasure, but he regretted he could not
extend the same remark to the opinions he had given
and the extracts he had read with respect to the
obedience of some religious orders; it was absurd to
say that the submission of the Jesuists and
ether religious bodies to their supreme autho-
rities also extended to the Roman Catholics ;
many Roman Catholics did not bow to the dic-
tum of the Pope in the way the Hon. Gentleman
had pointed out. Look at the oath taken by Roman
Catholic members. It was to the effect that they
did not 'recognise the power of the Pope in respect
to the Crown or Government of this country. Ra-
ther than see the Roman Catholic bishops inter-
fered with, and deprived of their spiritual power
and independence, he would behold the Ro-
man Catholics driven out of the realm, as
the Jews were driven out of the Roman
empire by Titus. He would rather behold the
ploughshare driven across the altar of St. Peter's than
that independence tampered with. He justified the
bull known as Ccena Domini; it had not been pub-
lished since 1774, in the time of Clement XIV., and
it was not binding now on Roman Catholics. All
churches were progressing—(bear)—and the Roman
Catholic was but one amongst the number. As the
disabilities sought to be abrogated by this Bill had
long fallen into abeyance—as they were foreign to the
civilization of the age, he saw no reason why they
should be continued another hour.—(Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE would support that portion of
the Bill which recommended that the pains and
penalties in existence against Roman Catholics
st.ould be removed, but he saw no reason why
they should go into Cominittee on the matters, and
he believed he should satisfy Roman Catholics
that he was correct in his view of
the matter. He, for one, wished, for the sake of
peace, that religious differences should be got rid of.
The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the six statutes
-of which the Roman Catholics complained, enacted
from the time of Elizabeth, and contended, by
reference to various modern Acts, that some of them
had been repealed, and that none of the " pains and
penalties " which remained on the statute-book
could be now enforced at common law.
He appealed to the law officers of the
Crown to say whether any of the penalties enacted
from the time of Elizabeth up to the time of William
111., were now in force ; they were not, and there-
fore it was misleading the House to say that there
was any necessity for dealing with them. But he came
to the Acts of George 111., and with which this Bill
principally dealt. The first principle of that Act was
with respect to the celebration of Roman Catholic cere-
monies in public. He believed no Romani' Catholic
would wish to see them used, because collisions of a
dangerous kind might be the result. The second was
the wearing of ornaments by those in the civil ser-
vice in places of public worship. He was one of
those who thought that a place of public worship
was not the place for such displays, although he had
no objection to their use in other places.—(Hear.)
The third was with respect to the penalties imposed
on the recognition of monastic establishments.
He feared, if the Catholic Relief Act were meddled
with, that a spirit of rivalry would spring up which
would prove injurious to the public weal, and, there-
fore, whilst he believed thatlAct was not injurious, he
could not consent to its abrogation. The Society of
Jesus owned the Pope as its heal, f,,r its general
could not move without his auth irity ; and he asked
if the members of such a society, Who recognised the
Pope as its head, as higher than the British
Crown, should be permitted to spread their
noxious principles in this kingdoin ? The mem-
bers of that society had been driven out of France,
out of Spain, out of Sicily, and even out of Italy,
for Clement XIV., in hie celebrated bull, which
drove them out of Italy, said, in it, that the
Church of Christ could not fl)urish whilst they were
allowed to spread their insidious doctrines —(lm-,
hear.) Such men might derange the state
of society in this country; and if this Bill
were carried, this society would obtain re-
newed power. He approved of one part of the
Bill, but the other portion he decidedly objected to.
He called upon them to abide by the statement of the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that they
should adhere to the settlement made with the Roman
Catholics of 1829. Toleration might, if carried too
far, lead to destruction.— (Cheers.)
`Sir GEORGE GREY did not consider that the
laws sought to be repealed imposed any practical
grievances upon the Roman Catholics. The Bill I

partook of ts-vo plrtg—tbe one to repeal obsolete
statutes, and the other statutes of later date—the

Act of 1829. He agreed with the Lion. and Learned
Gentleman opposite that the Acts to which he had
referred were inoperative. It was useless to seek the
repeal of measures which had sunk into abeyance,
such as the punishment of persons who taught Roman
Catholic priests. He could not assent to that
portion of the Act which, at this early pe-
rled, sought the repeal of some of the
Important provisions of the Act of 1829,
though at
tekesatiTe time he would not say that they
should not e provisions of that Act into con-
tisioduersati
theinookwithile view of making some modifica-
tions
that that they should
notreli
religions
t with
orders
not security against the spread of
reserved to himself therten? nised by that Act. lie
ht of opposing any part of
the Bill in Committee
Mr. PLUMPTRE roe whicht he might object.
slightest degree, from
was disposed to depart, ingr e
the 4 that the Government
Church of Rome
the concessions made in 1829.0
o.e
northe Church of
was making great inroads
England, and it was the duty
Pro-
testants to resist such aggessions. They should
atlolics
bowed
down re-
collect that the Noble Lord opposite cirdpundei
and Surrey) had said that the Roman Lo
would not be satisfied until Protestantism
a
down to the dust. The bull Ccena Domini was
he was confidently informed, in full force. He should
-w• his decided opposition to the measure..
Leord ARUNDEL and SURREY explained. Ile
1 that the bull
repeat, had nut been in operation since
1774, and that it did not denounce the Queen as a
heretic; it was directed against heretics, but nut
against the sovereign. If,
lio,.i.evtr, he were wrong,
he would state so OR a future occasion.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL had thought that it would
not have been necessary for any Catholic Members
to address the House in favour of the Bill, and
that they might safely have left the question
to be dealt with by those enlightened and tole-
rant Protestant Members who had advocated
the measure upon the last occasion when it was
brought before the House. He believed that the
maintenance of all provisions for the purpose of pre-
venting the spread of religious orders were perfectly
useless, and he was surprised to see some lion.

Members advocate so strongly the keeping
such measures upon the statute-book. He trusted
that the House would at once, in this early period of
the session, show its desire to conciliate their Catholic
fellow-subjects, by allowing this Bill at least to go
into Committee.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that if the Act of
Elizabeth, which was the first proposed to be re-
pealed, were obsolete and inoperative, it was idle to
go into Committee for the purpose of repealing it;
but if that law were operative, he called upon
the House to consider the importance of the
step they were about to take. (Hear, hear.)
The Act of Elizabeth recited that it was unlawful
for any person to print, publish, or express that the
Pope had any authority in this country ; by repealing
this Act the House would, in effect, be making that
legal which was before declared contrary to law.
He begged the House most deeply to consider the
serious nature of such a step, before they proceeded
into Committee.
Mr. E. GLADSTONE said that it was in some
measure his misfortune that he was not able to give
the same vote upon this Bill as his lion. Colleague
(Sir R. H. Inglis), but he did not think that it would
be respectful to the great constituency which he
represented if he gave his first vote in the House
upon so important a question as the present without
stating his reasons for so doing. There were several
arguments of a general nature which he could not
but think ought to be set aside in arriving at a decision
on the subject. Frequent allusion had been made to
the aggressive activity of the Church of Rome in this
country. He was one of those who deplored those
effects which that activity had produced. The House
ought, however, only to look at this measure upon its
merits, remembering that it was useless to en-
deavour to stop religious activity by political
enactments.—(Cheers.) He thought that the
defence and dissemination of Protestant prin-
ciples might safely be left to :the zeal, fidelity,
energy, and-activity of those whose province it was—
he thought that was the only legitimate means for
counteracting the activity of the-„Church of Rome.—
(Hear, bear.) It was quite true that the large
bodies of our fellow-subjects who were interested in
the question before the House, did not allege a prac-
tical grievance, but they did allege wounded feeling,
and he thought that formed a strong argument for
repealing the obnoxious provisions.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been said by the Hon. Member for dhurst
behind him (Mr. Walpole), that there was danger of
re-awakening clamour upon this subject, but he
thought that if these provisions sought to be repealed
were unjust, it would be the dutyof the House at once
to repeal them, and trust to the good sense and
feeling of the people of this country for the result.
With respect to the first portion of the Bill. purport-
ing to repeal Acts passed prior to 1829, he should
have been happy to have heard from the law officers
of the Crown something:which might tend to throw
light upon the real state of the law on the subject.
With respect to the Ist of Elizabeth, it had been con-
tended that the penalty was abolished, but that the Act
still remained in force. If such were . so, there
would be half a sentence in the statute-book, without
any meaning whatever. He did not, therefore, think
that any reason was to be found upon that ground
for going into Committee on the Bill, more having
been done already than was proposed to be
done by this Bill. The question of by far
the greater importance was whether the House was
or was not prepared in any manner to interfere with
the recent settlement of the Act of 1829.
He thought that it would not be wise,
with a due regard to the feelings of their
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, to adhere
strictly to the provisions of the settlement then effected.
He thought that the Hon. Gentlemen had shown
ground enough for the House going into Committee
on the Bill, in order to consider the provisions
of the Bill of 1829. He thought, also, they
might give greater liberty •to the peformance
of religious rites by the Catholics without
injury to the Protestant Church.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the establishment of religious orders,
he was not one of those who would strictly
adhere to the provisions of the Bill of
1829. He thought it was rather too severe
to say that parties belonging to religious orders
should not reside in this kingdom. He thought
after the expiration of eighteen years they might
well be called to show cause why these exclt:sions
should continue.—(Hear.) He did not know
any reason why those orders should have
such a ban placed upon them. With respect
to the Jesuits he would reserve his opinion till the
Bill went in Committee.] ,Considering all the circum-
stances of the case, he would support the second
reading of the Bill.
Mr. SHELL denied that the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland had any ecclesiastical appointments in his
gift, and he asked, therefore, why some of the first
men in Ireland should be debarred from being ap-
pointed to that high office ? Sir Michael O'Loghlin
was Master of the Rolls, and it had been
asked, and truly, why he could not be Lord
Chancellor of Ireland. He appealed to the
Hon. Member for Midhurst, who was an eminent
lawyer, and would ask him if he was a member of
the Irish Bar, and a Roman Catholic, whether he
would not consider it a great grievance that in
consequence of his religion he was debarred from
becoming Lord Chancellor of Ireland ?—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the second reading Of
the Bill, believing that it had been introduced more
as a handle for altering the Bill of 1829 than for
any other purpose.—(Hear, hear.) He should cer-
tainly vote against the secor.d reading of the Bill.
Mr. HUME was surpF.sed at the course pursued
by the Right Honouralite Gentleman who had just
sat down. He thought it most objectionable that
Honourable Members. should refuse to give their
assent to the going into Committee upon a Bill,
the object of which was to remove ob-
stacles which it was admitted on all hands ought
not to have been imposed, because some Members
could not agree to it.—(Hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL gave his cordial assent to the
second reading of the Bill. He believed that op-
posing the second reading of the Bill would lead to
mischief.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Govern-
ment and the House would consider the grievances
of their Roman Catholic fellow-brethren.—(Hear.)
Mr. FARRER said he was unwilling to give a
silent vote upon this important subject. It would be
his first vote in Parliament, and he could assure the
House that it would he thunded on the convictions
which a long study of this question had led him to
adopt. Until this Bill had been brought forward he
was under the impression that concession to the
Roman Catholics had reached its utmost limits.
however, as it might, he must
13we xeopurledsthsba:hls dangerous
opiniotuo
tthheatcoannsyt
constitution
concessionsand en te r
.
taining that belief, he should certainly vote against
the second readinc, of the Bill.
Mr. STUARfdid not rise to. protract the debate,
but simply to explain the nes sons that induced
him to vote against the Bill. On a former
occasion he had given a silent vote on a similar
question to the present, and le therefore hoped
the House would pardon him if he stated at length
his particular objections to this Bill. There could
be no doubt that the first part of the Bill related to
the supremacy of the Crown, and he was sure no
man, consistently with the oat/ m he had taken upon
entering that House, could sup port this portion of
the measure. Almost the first clause repealed the
existing Act of Elizabeth, pt ohibiting any party
preaching against the supremase y of the Crown spiri-
tual and ecclesiastical, and, in his opinion, if they
passed that• clause, they coullet do nothing that was
more calculated to undermi) se the principles upon
which the constitution was he ,sed. If this Bill were
passed, it would go far to establish the suprema:v
of the Pope of Rome in this country. Now,
long before the Reformat ion, any interference
on the pant of the Pope of Rome in matters
ecclesiastical in this country• was prohibited, and
therefore no plea of toleratio rt could justify such an
interference in the present tin ie. The policy of the
see of Rome was aggressive.. It always had, been,
and it always must be, and. that was an additional
reason, in his opinion, why tt ey should-pause before
they adopted this dangerous ri ieasure.
Strangers were then ord( Ire 3 to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there at 2peared_
For the second reading •
Against it ......... ......
Majority —32
The Bill was then read a. second time. It is not
to be committed until after € he recess.

CRIME AND OUT RAE IRELAND BILL.

CONSTAJSULIt RY FORCE.
This Bill passed. 0-trough 'Committee.
ELECTION C
The Members. to serve o n the Election Committees
were nominated. The Mb sisters were exempted.
EDINB URGII.
On the motion of Mr. 2 IACGREGOR, seconded
byDr. BOWRING, •a ne w writ was ordered to be
issued for the election of a Member to represent
Edinburgh in the room of kir. Cowan.
The SPEAKERWsEtaYteMd tphtratT'hlleliad received a letter
t om Mr. W. D. Christie .„testing
cepted the Chiltern Ilundr ed, 3
that he had ac-
The Howe adjourned at, Sim' o'clock.
Tu, E.

:Indiana,
by
_LE -JLECTRIC Tllrma ------
.Itend in
DEAD BEAT.—In a ierter ItA
I'll versus TIME.—TimE
magnetic
Manchester from a f- a gentleman of
h wonderf a nv n Fun: zte graph
the following Pa3vigaet relative- IF:eillii:ioni,terithtlet States,le is
in that state
telegraph, Pv,ses through our country
cities, coramunicating inte lligenee I almost inesastatnetrna-
neously, News has been tr sni Anitt.ed from Philadelphia
to Cincinnati, a distancc of 750
.mites, on one unbroken
chain of wires. Of course, as Cuicinnnti is ten degrees
west of Philadelphia, or 40 minutes of time later, the
news is that much ahead of...the time.,,