The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

HOUSE OF cwiLdolVS, Feb. 24.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Mr. WATSON (in continuation from our AfternoonresEpdeiotitoend
of yesterday) said— He now came to the clause which
were these
the safeguards of the regular clergy. But h
safe-
guards, or how this Act provided such,he couldnoftorcothne-
ceive. The Act of Parliament of the 10th w
George
IV.,
gradual suppression of Jesuits and
ethos
religious orders,
that those persons,
bound by monastery vows,
provided
whether British-born subjects or not,ana shifouldcobnevipareod-
ceeded against by commonlaw,
transported for life. He knew,attihag of Birmingham,
it wheßnirmthiewaomrd,
" Jesuit " was mentioned on the hn
it frightened all the old ladies of
on
persons
ttoa onwcnioneteotea with m
convulsimoe:
but they had had many of th
nestle orders most learned and intelligent, abounding in
works of love and charity, diligent searchers into history
and philosophy ; and if it was said that the Jesuits had done
some evil, it must also be admitted that they had done much
good. The Legislature had already, in the Acts which had
passed the House, removed many of those bigoted and penal
enactments, and he now asked the House to finish the good
work by repealing all that remained of them. It was
argued that those Acts were now obsolete; but that was no
argument, or, if one at all, it was in favour of the abrogation
of them. He asked their repeal, not as a concession to the
Catholics, but as justice to the Protestants, who boasted
themselves the friends of toleration and of liberal measures.
To them he would appeal on this question, and he hoped,
that in support of their principles, they would give their
consent to the second reading of this Bill.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS admitted that the Hon. and Learned
Member had claims upon the attention of the House as a
sound lawyer, but he thought he could lay no claims to
the character of an accurate historian. He asserted that
penal laws arose with the Reformation, but he forgot that it
was not till long after that many of these laws passed. But
the lion. Member was also inconsistent with himself, for, by
the terms of the Act of Elizabeth, if the supremacy of the
Crown over matters ecclesiastical were based on the common
law of the country, the Protestant as well as Catholic subjects
of the Crown would be equally liable to punishment. The
Hon. and Learned Member was obliged to go back to the
early part of the reign of Elizabeth for an instance in which the
rigour of this law was pressed against a Catholic subject, and
he was very certain that if the Hon. and Learned Member
had had a later illustration he would have given it. The Hon.
and Learned Member had 4reatly depreciated the securities
which were given to the Established Church in the Act of
Emancipation, but, however slightly even he (Sir R. H.
Inglis) might view them, they were tendered and accepted as
securities, and therefore the Hon. and Learned Member
should not have alluded to them in terms so unfitting. He
contended that there was no country in Christian Europe
into which the Jesuits were admitted without a direct law
being passed subjugating them in numbers, resi,
dences, and objects, to the powers at the time
being. The Jesuits had greatly increased in this
country since the first foundation of their establish-
ment at Stoneyhurst, and in Ireland ; and, therefore, he
thought that, instead of removing these securities, they should
rather strengthen the hands of Goverment, to enable them
to suppress any further extension of their dangerous opinions.
The present Bill prohibited any Catholic subject from assum-
ing the title of Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of Lon-
don, which made it less objectionable than former Bills
brought in by the Hon. and Learned Member • but still so
much remained in the measure as to render it Objectionable.
He objected to it on principle—the Church of England
was the Established Church of the 'realm. In Ireland
the members of the Protestant Church were prohibited from
processions, and it would be most unfair to allow to a hostile
church that which was denied to their own Protestant.
Church. Was the Hon. Member prepared to see the pro-
cessien of the Host through the streets of London ? If such
scenes were to be introduced into this country it would be
great cause of regret to the passers of such a measure.
The lion. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) said
that he would not allow the procession of the
Host to be paraded through the streets of London, it was a
subject of too much veneration. It was then for thei House
to prevent the public exhibition of this ceremony, and not to
leave it to the will of the Catholic priesthood to adopt it if
they thought proper. If the present measure were to pass,
it would make this country the only one in the world where
Jesuits were allowed to carry on their profession without some
restraint. He regretted to see that a law prohibiting the in
troduction of bulls and rescripts had been already repealed. In
no country in the world was any bull of a foreign potentate, as
was the Pope, allowed to be introduced without the previous
consent of the Government of such country. It was his in-
tention to support the great cause of Protestantism in the
country; and he begged to move that the Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the amendment.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not ground his op
position to the Bill in the last session upon the necessity of
these so-called securities. What was then the real cause of
the opposition, and the great cause which the Right Hon.
Member was determined to maintain 1 What
was the use of these pains and penalties ?
They brought no money into the Exchequer,
or into the Church. He believed the only reason they were
desired to be kept on the statute-book was to gratify the
pride of some persons who were never happy except when
they were teazing or aggravating their fellow-creatures. He
did notbelieve that one man in a hundred, out of doors, could be
found to standup for a continuance of these pains and penalties.
But it had been said that these enactments were securities
to the Established Church ; but the Right Hon. Baronet had
not shown it to the House how it was that these penalties
acted as securities. It had been further said that these were
preserved in the great Act of 1829, and ought to be now
preserved. He (Mr. B. Escott) thought that the Emancipa-
tion Act of 1829 was a great measure of justice, and he looked
with pleasure to the good that Act had done, rather than
to that which it had left undone. Let the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet look to the Sovereign who now tilled the chair of St.
Peter's, who was setting an example to all the other Sove-
reigns of Europe by his liberal and enlightened principles.
He hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
the members of the late Government, and also the 'Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn, who he believed was considerably
ahead of his party, and whom he had no doubt would be a
Peel of 1847, would all give their support to the Bill, and be
resolved to give no quarter to these penal enactments.
Mr. SHAW said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
stated that these statutes had done no good, and that they
had brought no money into the Exchequer. Now he (Mr.
Shaw) could not agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man in the conclusions he had come to, and be would
shortly state the reasons for so thinking. The Bill
under consideration had his decided objection, because
it unsettled the arrangement come to in 1829. lie
'would not go into the policy or impolicy of the settlement
then made, but be would certainly oppose any attempt to '
disturb it in the manner which the Bill before the House
would do. He thought the reservations of the Catholic
Emancipation Act should be maintained as the safe-guards
of the Established Church.—(Hear.) lie would, therefore,
support the amendment for the rejection of the Bill.—( Hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY could not allow the discussion to pass
over without expressing his opinion on the merits of the
Bill before the House. He confessed he had not heard suffi-
cient to reject the second reading of the Bill.—( Hear. )
The first portion of the Bill provided fur the repeal
of enactments which at present gave the power of im-
prlsoning and fining every person who owned the
least allegiance to the Pope. Now he asked the House
would they sanction the principle that any Roman Catholic
might be fined or imprisoned for his religious opinions? for
that was the real question. He maintained that there was
no Roman Catholic who admitted the spiritual authority
of the hierarchy of his Church but who was liable
to punishment. There was not a priest nor bishop but who,
in the essential teaching of his religion, might be proceeded
against, and fined and imprisoned. The spiritual authority
of the bishops of the Roman Catholic religion was a leading
element of the Catholic religion ; so all who acted on that
view of the faith were liable to the oppression of these penal
statutes.--(Hear, hear.) Now, he put it to the House
whether they would consent to the carrying out of such
laws. Would they agree to the justice of' the principle,
and were they prepared to give it effect? If they would not,
and he believed not one of them would, why then retain
them on the statute-book? By the Emancipation Bi:1 the
oath of supremacy, as it regarded Roman Catholics, had been
altered to another, and yet they retained this penal enact •
ment about the recognition Of the supremacy of the Crown. Was
not this proceeding most absurd and contradictory ? He en-
tertained similar objections to the existing statute against the
importation of bulls. It was admitted that these were perfectly
innocent; for whatever their instructions might be, they
could not be carried into effect. The law against them
should not therefore be retained. With regard to the other
laws referred to, he considered they should also be repealed ;
but with respect to prote. sions, however, he could not
consent to their celebration. He did not think that
decency or public order could allow of these public
processions ; nay, he was sure that if such a pro-
cession as was often seen on the Continent was to pass
up Fleet-street or the Strand, there would be every proba-
bility c.f some disturbance taking place. He would, there-
fore, give his consent to a stringent law in regard to such
processions. But, regarding Jesuits, he could not support the
restrictions that were imposed on them. He could not see
any reason why the Franciscan should not be allowed to
practice his system of worship the same as any other party.
He was against any secret proceedings on the part of the
Jesuit., which the present state of the law encouraged, but be
would, under proper regulations, as it regarded registration
and publicity, give them the same civil and religious privi-
leges as any other party of Chrietiaee. On these grounds be
would support the second reading of the Bill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FINCH said that it was in consequence of the great
veneration in which the Reformers held the Nicene Church,
who originated persecution, that a system of persecution
was continued in the Protestant Church. He was quite in
favour of a fair system of toleration for all classes. They
came then to what was called the rights and cere-
monies of the Roman Catholic Church, and here
he perfectly agreed with what had been said by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought
that when an Hon. and Learnod Gentleman introduced a Bill
f this kind he should do it in a more complete shape than
the present Bill presented. It was not consistent that the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman sh. uld consult only the wishes
and prejudices of the Roman Catholics. They formed only a
minority of her Majesty's subjects, while the Protes-
tants constituted an inunense majority. It was well
known that the Jesuits had proselytised great num-
bers of the Protestants around Stoneyhurst ; and
with respect to the tendency of Jesuitical principles,
he need only refer the House to an able criticism in Ranke's
history by one of the ablest writers of that country—he
meant the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh. He was
quite convinced that if these monastic orders were allowed
to exist without any restrictions ha need not inform them
that it would lead to the greatest inconvenience. He could
tolerate 83Y for himself that he should be willing to
every church in existence with the single exception
of the Church of Rome.---(Laughter.) But, if the principle
of the Hon. and Learned Member were to be conceded, they
would have a something like free trade in religion. 'The
bad. at present, no religious
n Portugal, or in liberty in Spain, in Austria,' ,
home, and he thought that they, in I
England, could not fairlytle charged with intolerance, until
of religious liberty.
Rome set them the exampleßßlE.N, lnns:iiervingthe Bill said, although
Mr. SMITH 0'
the penal statutes were co
obsolete, they produced
en impression of the roost unfavourable kind on the minds of
those who were liable to be affected by
and
lie trusted
golabjnetionablee tanwdawwoueld
Roman Catholics otfhesEen
that the
never rest satisfied until
re
repilr S
efa.ledi'OONEß said it had not been his intention to trouble
the liouce, butta tier the personal remark which the Right
Paymaster of the
Honourable the
he considered that
he was justified in claiming
the Right nt'
the attention of the House. Gentlemanon.
bad completely misrepresented the words which he had mach
use of in the opinions which he held, and the arguments he
bad adduced, and be would take the
tlihbeecrtoymomf
irteteaeditnogwfhroiemh
the reports which had taken place on
the. Right H o
Hon. the Paymaster of the Forces had referred.
He challenged the Right Hon. Gentlemeenatropriovitehtish,ehiaschsehre-
tion he had made, or substantiate the charge
had bee stigmatised. He the res vent
would ben another inroad uponbelieved the constitutionp of the sou try.
The Hon. Member for Limerick said that he would not rest .

till the Chancellor of Ireland and the Lord-Lieutenant
of that country were eligible to be chosen from
among the Roman Catholics. Onlygive up those points, and
nothing would remain to prevent the annihilation of the
monarchy and the Protestant succession to the Throne. He
believed that it was the fearful spread of the Roman Catholic
religion which had produced the present disastrous condition
of, and called the judgment of Heaven down, upon this coun-
try.—(Cries of "Oh, oh.")
Mr. MACAULAY said that if he had done'the smallest in-
justice to the Hon Member by anything h had said, he
begged most fully to withdraw it, and to apoligise for the
same, but his statement seemed to be fully borne out by the
authority to which the Hon. Member had himself referred.
The Hon. Member for Birmingham said, upon the occasion
alluded to, that he would not divide the House upon the
question, but contented himself with protesting against it.
After a few words from Mr. SPOONICR, and Mr. MACAU LAY
again in reply,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that he would not enter into the
controversial discussion set up by the Hon. Member for
Birmingham. It might be possible that a strong argument
might be brought forward for the Catholics. He thought it
better to proceed at once to the removal of pains and penal-
ties, which were admitted by all to be utterly powerless, and
which tended only to aggravate the feelings of their Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects. It was a stigma to the character
of the House to debate for four or five hours the question
whether those laws, which were admitted to be inoperative,
and which were universally disregarded, should or should
not be repealed and struck out of the statute book.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that those persons who pro-
fessed the Roman Catholic religion were not at present suffer-
ing from the operation of any penal statutes or disabi.ities.
If such were the case, he would be one of the first to repeal them,
for he hated persecution, and considered that a fair tolerance
Was due to all classes. He would, however, oppose a mea-
sure which proposed to remove all the bulwarks of the con-
stitution, and to re-erect nothing in their place. He opposed
the present Bill mainly because it would go to set up alle-
giance to a foreign potentate in place of that which was due
to the Sovereign of these realms. There was another por-
tion of the Bill for which he could see no reason. He meant
that which did away with the oaths at present
taken by banisters of the Roman Catholic faith. This
was a prevision which did not exist in the Bill of last year,
and one for which the lion. and Learned Gentleman who in-
troduced the Bill had net given any reason. With regard to
the outcry about the hardship of the oath of supremacy, he
could not see it. The oath at present merely declared that
the Pope had no civil or temporal authority in this country, a
declaration which he was sure there could be no objection
whatever to. If, then, the declaration only maintained a
constitutional truth, there was no necessity for the provision
of the Bill before the House. With regard to processions,
it had been admitted that they ought not to be allowed in
the way in which they took place on the Continent, and
that they would, if permitted, be the cause of much
disturbance. He confessed he would much rather have the
law as it at present stood in this country against such pre-
cessions, than trust to the Lynch law which the repre-
sentatives of the people resorted to on the other side of the
Atlantic. Further, he thought the toleration of the Jesuits in the
.country would be most dangerous. They were the enemies of
liberty everywhere, and so inimical had they proved themselves
to the interests of nations, that in nearly every country in
Europe they had, as a religious order, been suppressed.
For these reasons he must oppose the second reading of the
Bill.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK supported the second read-
ing of the Bill, because he had always opposed the disabili-
ties imposed on the Roman Catholics. If the laws that ex-
isted were obsolete, and of no practical application, then that
was a sufficient reason for their repeal. But he did not
think they were so, but that in their operation they
exercised still a serious injury over the professors of
the Roman Catholic faith. Even so late as 1837
a law suit had been decided before Lord Langdale, which
practically took away a large amount of property left to the
professors of the Roman Catholic faith. So hard, indeed,
was the case, that the Right Hon. Baronet, the
late Prime Minister, interfered and had the griev-
ance in this particular case remedied. But there
were many other hardships to which he could call the atten-
tion of the House. Was it not a hardship that Roman
Catholics could not perform the rite of burial with their own
clergymen, and according to their own formula ? He would
also call their attention to the fact that when the

Hon. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) was
Lord Mayor of Dublin he had to put off his robes of office
on entering the Roman Catholic church, because the law
would not allow him, in his corporate capacity, to wear them
within their precincts. Such was the state of the law, that
Father Mathew, notwithstanding all the good he had done,
might be banished, and if he returned he could be trans-
ported for life. These were a few of the hardships which
were now proposed to be removed.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Bill which stood for the second
reading that night, contemplated the rescinding of several
clauses in the Act of 1829, and it further proposed to abrogate
laws which were now considered obsolete, and so far as this
latter part of the measure went, it had his fullest approba-
tion. The first part of the Bill professed to supply certain
omissions in former Acts. The Hon. and Learned Member
asserted that there was at present an Act in force,
notwithstanding the statistics of 1844 and 1846, enacting
that if the Roman Catholic subject wilfully upheld the autho-
rity of a foreign Prince, hewould be subject to fine and impri-
sonment. The Hon. Member for Warwickshire said that
malice would require to be proved; but be (Sir R. Peel)
imagined that, in the eye of the law, advisedly upholding the
ecclesiastical authority of the Pope would be considered
malicious upholding of his authority. Now he (Sir Robert
Peel) did not consider the principle a proper one which
would subject the Roman Catholic in this case to tine and
imprisonment.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the other
portion of the Bill, he must express his decided dissent.
He must contend for the preservation of the conditions of
the Act of 1829. The Hon. Gentleman said he was not
prepared to repeal that portion of the Act which refused to
the Catholic prelate the name of any particular see. He
said, also, that he was quite content that the Roman Catholic
should not appear in public in the distinguishing dress of his
particular order. Ile said that he conceded so ranch in
accordance with the prejudices of the English Protestant
nub:lei:l. But auroly this enrulit ;nu wan haßed on the same
compact, and should not be divided from the other condi-
tions. With regard to the religious orders, he thought that
some relaxation might be made in this particular—he thought
that the extreme punishment of banishment might be
avoided ; but he was not prepared to repeal the enactment
altogether. He was bound to say that while he was willing
to rectify some clauses in the Bills of 1844 and 1846, he was
not prepared to accede to that portion of the measure which
had reference to the Act of 1820. He would support the
second reading, reserving to himself the right of dissenting
from certain portions of the Bill in a future stage.
After a few words from Mr. LAW, in which he stated that
he would oppose the second reading.
Lord ARUNDEL thanked the Hon. and Learned Member
for the introduction of this measure, and the Right Hon.
the Member for Edinburgh for his able support of it.
Mr. GOULBURN would vote against the second reading.
He would have no hesitation in assenting to a portion of the
Bill, but he could not concede the propriety of passing the
measure in its present shape.
Mr. WATSON trusted that in Committee he should fully
satisfy both the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and the
Right Hon. the Paymaster of the Forces.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the original motion
For the amendment
Majority in favour of the second reading —3
TENANT RIGHT BILL. _

Mr. S. CRAWFORD postponed till to-morrow (thisday)
the introduction of his measure on the subject.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Six o'clock.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 20.
Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week.
Males ... ... ... 655 Males ... ... ... 703
Females ... ... 51J Females ... ... 686

Total ... 1,253

Tot al • 1,389

SUDDEN AND AFFECTING DEATIL—The sudden
and affecting death of Mr. Charles Thornton Cunningham,
Lieutenant-Governor of St. Christopher's and of the Lee-
ward Islands, is announced in the West Indian papers which
have just arrived. It appears that this gentleman had
driven in from the country to Basseterre, the seat of Govern-
ment, in apparently vigorous health and cheerful spirits, to
open the newly-elected Houses of Legislature. After trans-
acting, some business with his private secretary, and
dispatching a note to invite some officers in a French ship
of war just come into port to luncheon at Government-
house, he rode down to the mail-office, to meet his let-
ters, and a box containing a picture of a much-beloved
sister, recently deceased in England. He had stated to
more than one person, that his earnest desire to possess
the picture was not unmixed with fear as to the effect
the sight of it might produce upon him. So strongly
had this apprehension fastened itself on his mind, that,
on the arrival of the box at the Government-house,
he sent a servant in quest of a friend who might be with
him when the box was opened. Having failed in find-
ing him, he praceosled to open the,box His butler, who was
present, reports that he looked at the countenance earnestly,
turned pale, whispered a few words to himself, walked
hastily up to his own room, was heard almost instantly to
pffia,lll
found
iria,,
sis
htGlie,,liez
ens
ttttreee:
tecadhs
ew(i
it
:In a
tnandse
floorn
,h iasn syae rcvooatr
other
ets s
re .
public,r hefollowingst.
and upstairscphrri
vi
sat ot private
communications, bear the strongest testimony to the ability,
vigour, and high moral character of this gentleman, and to
the tenderness and munificence with which at all times, and
(specially under a recent heavy visitation of Island fever, he
Ihad ministered to the wants and sorrows of the negro popula-
lion. The Houses of Assembly met immediately atter his
death, and passed an unanimous vote for a funeral at the
public expense, to testify, as they expressed it, at once their
respect for hiS official rank and the high esteem in which he
was held by all classes of the community. On the next day
he was followed to the grave by all the public authorities,
the members of the two llouses, the moat distinguished per-
sons in the colony, and by thousands of grateful and mourn-
ing negroes, to whose welfare he had largely contributed.
Mr. Cunningham assumed the Government of St. Kitts in
May, 1839, and fell a victim, as his physician states, partly
"to the exhausting influence of tropical climates on the
nervous powers," and partly to the intensity of brotherly
affection, in the 36th year of his age.
MONEY MARKET.—'The premium on gold at Paris is
10 per mille, which, at the English Mint price of 31. 173.
1014 d. per ounce fur standard gold, gives an exchange of
25.40; and the exchange at Paris on London at short being
25.27 k, it follows that gold is 0.49 per cent. dearer in Paris
than iu London. By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold
is 431 per mark, which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s.
101,4 d. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of
13.8; and the exchange at Hamburgh on London at short '
being 13.6, it follows that gold is 0.93 per cent. dearer in
Hamburgh than in London. The course of exchange at New
York on London is 1061 per cent., and the par of exchange
between England and America being 109 23-40 per cent.,
it follows that the exchange is 3.33 per cent. against Eng-
land. But the quoted exchange at New York being for
bills at 60 days' sight, tie interest must be deducted from
the above difference.

GREECE.—We find the following in a letter from
Ancona, of the Bth, published by the Auggurgh Gazette :
" The last courier from Greece brought letters which state
that a misunderstanding had occurred between M. Mussurus,
Ambassador of the Ottoman Porte, and M. Coletti, President
of the Council. It is thought that M. Mussurus will be re-
placed by another ambassador. It appears that the King
had himself undertaken to be the guarantee of his Aide-de-
' took place shortly Camp, Colonel Karatassos, whose passport for Constantinople
IM. Musaurus had refused to sign. At a Court ball, which
a afterwards, the King approached M. Alus-
surusl),
Mus-
surus time to answer.tne'diately
king?" and said :—' Is it thus you treat the guarantee of a
upon M. Coletti for an withdrew, without giving M. Mus-
explanation of the King's words, but
i dressed a note to the Greek) Ambassador Coletti, however, ad-
or at Constantinople,
directing him to inform the Ottoraasan"-di'orte of what had oc-
curred.