The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-07 00:00:00

PAPAL BULLS.

The Bishop of ST. ASAPH presented a petition
from the Masters and Wardens of Sherborne Col-
lege, Durham, praying their Lordships to prohibit
the circulation in Ireland of the Papal bull, " In
cone' Domini," the circulation of which was prohi-
bited in other Roman Catholic countries.
Lord BEAUMONT believed that bull was still in
existence, and was annually delivered out by the
Propaganda of Rome. The Court believed the
Sovereign and inhabitants of this country were
in error, and they merely denounced these
errors, and called upon all Catholics to pray for
their conversion. But in Rome all that was under-
stood by it was, that this country was in error in
faith. The form was absurd and ridiculous, but no-
thing more. He believed the whole of this proceeded
from not having diplomatic relations with Rome,
while they were kept up with overy other country ;
but the bigotry of this country had refused to put
itself in communication with a power, the existence
of which it was forced to acknowledge. He be-
lieved that if relations were opened with Rome, and
representations made to the Pope, the spirit of
reform would do away with these absurd forms,
which shook the feelings of some and misled others.
THE IRISH PRIESTHOOD.
Lord FARNHAM, in putting certain questions
to the Government, disclaimed all intention of wish-
ing to embarrass them, or to cast any imputa-
tions on the character of the Roman Catholic
priests. Indeed, he had great satisfaction in re-
minding their Lordships of the exemplary manner
in which many of the Catholic priests had done
their duty, and had denounced the lawless murderer
from the altar. Having related some instances in
exemplification of his argument, the Noble Lord
proceeded to say that it was his painful duty to submit
to their Lordships some instances of a contrary con-
duct on the part of the Catholic clergy. The first
speech, to which he should direct their attention, was
that of Archdeacon Laffan, who, on the 14th of Nov.,
at a time when murders were of frequent occurrence,
and terror reigned throughout Tipperary, ventured
to denounce the Saxon, and to say that if the Saxon
suffered what the Tipperary peasant suffered, be
would, if he had the courage of a man, sally forth and
shoot the first man he saw with a decent coat up m
his back. (The Noble Lord then proceeded to read
at length Mr. Laftan's celebrated denunciation of the
landlords of Ireland to the vengeance of the peasantry.)
With regard to the defence that had been made of
that speech by the gentleman who presided at that
meeting, and who stated that Mr. Laffan had con-
cluded his speech by desiring his auditors to hand
over evil-doers to the law, he would remind their
Lordships that such was the general conclusion of
these inflammatory speeches, and he would ask, on
whom the guilt of these outrages rest ? He would next
draw their attention to the speech of the Rev. Mr.
Hughes, at the Castlebar meeting, held on Nov.l4th.
(The Noble Lord here read an extract from the Rev.
Gentleman's speech, denouncing the landlords, and
telling the poor that wild justice alone remained to
them.) The Irish peasant knew well what the wild
justice of revenge meant, and he asked what must be
the state of the country when the peasants were told
that they were to look for redress not to the laws,
but to the wild justice of revenge. The resident
landlords of Ireland endeavoured to do their duty, but
all efforts to improve the s:cial condition of Ireland
would be useless so long as the people were told by these
agitators that they could only trust to the wild
justice of revenge. He would now refer to denun-
ciations of persons from the altar. In Tipperary a
man named Kavanagh had been murdered. The
priest was asked, had he denounced him from the
altar The answer was, I (lid. When ?—At mass
on Sunday last. When was he murdered ?—At fiv,
o'clock in the afternoon.—(Hear, hear.) He would
next elude to the case of Major Mahon, who was one
of the best landlords that ever lived. On the last day
of October the priest denounced Major Mahon from
the altar. The words used were—" Major Mahon la
worse than Cromwell, and yet he lives." Within 48
hours of that time Major Mahon was shot. In the
month of August the priest had also denounced Major
Mahon from the altar. He asked if such language
and such conduct was, or was not, sufficient to bring
those guilty of it within reach of the law. No one could
be more opposed to the adoption of stringent measures
without necessity than himself, but he believed that
necessity did exist. He said the whole of Ireland
was in a state of disorganization ; that there was a
widely ramified conspiracy, the members of which,
unless stringent measures were adopted, would ravage
and desolate the country. The crimes of Ireland
would disgrace New Zealand. There was no coun-
try in which the ingredients of crime were more
actively at work than in Ireland, and no
period at which crime existed with greater
atrocity. None hut measures vigorous, prompt,
and coercive, could restore peaee to Ireland, and he
called upon the Government to adopt such measures.
The Noble Lord concluded by asking whether these
speeches of the priests had been submitted to the law
officers of the Crown, whether in their opinion they
would be warranted in undertaking a criminal pro-
secution against the utterers of those speeches, whe-
ther in the present state of Ireland it would be
deemed expedient to undertake such a prosecution,
and whether the Government intended to adopt (-more
stringent measures than those already proposed ?
' The Marquis of LANSDOWNE admitted that in
many chapels devoted to the worship of God the
priests had uttered language most outrageous,
most inflammatory, and most contrary to Chris-
tian morality. They had attracted the most
serious attention of the Lord-Lieutenant, who
had been in communication with his law
advisers, but he could not state what steps had
been or might be adopted in consequence.
He had caused inquiries to be made, but as yet not
one information had been sworn. The matter was a most
difficult one, but the Noble Earl was exercising his
best discretion to bring the perpetrators of such out-
rages (for outrages they were) (Hear, hear)—
to justice. 'The law already provided a remedy—
years
outrage a g
and m apunishing remedy—
to excite persons to violate the law was a misde-
o
meanour at common law, but in Ireland an Act
with death
making t a felonyit
ta exciteoss e P ai
iseceridst inciting solve
ntoe
others to the commission of murder,
Ind enforced in Ireland, these acts would be the
means of procuring the conviction of offenders.
An apprehension had gone forth that the Acts in ques-
tion (9_and 10 Geo. IV.) did not apply to Ireland, but
they specifically did, and he would take upon himself
to say, that they would be enforced in Ireland
wherever possible. The Lord-Lieutenant would use
every exertion to procure the requisite information,
and would enforce the penalties of the law in every
case in which prosecution should lead to conviction.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had asked whe-
ther it was intended to seek for more powers than
were contained in the Bill then before the other
House of Parliament ? He (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) was not prepared at that moment to say
that any extra powers would be asked for ; but

his he could moss undoubtedly say, that the mo-
m.nt it should appear that the milder mea-
sures were insufficient, that moment her Majesty's
advisers would come again to the House and ask
Parliament for more effectual measures, and he
thought that their application would not have less
force from the fact of their having in the first in-
stance tried the mildest expedient which was pos-
sible under the circumstances. He could not con-
clude without expressing► his pleasure, that while the
Noble Lord had found it necessary to condemn the
language of certain Members of the Roman Catholic
priesthood, he had at the same time borne testimony
to the general Christian demeanour and exemplary
conduct of that body. As far as his experience went
he could fully corroborate the Noble Lord. He had
during a period of unexampled suffering seen the
Roman catholic clergy perform their duty in the
most noble, pious, and disinterested manner ; and
if it were necessary to ♦isit some of the order with
punishment, it became the more necessary to honour
the untiring, zealous, and Christian exertion of the
great majority.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MAL NIESBURY said, that from one
end of England to the other there was but one
sentiment of indignation at the crimes which were
every day being committed in the sister country.
But even this indignation was superseded by the
horror evinced at seeing such crimes encouraged by
ministers of God.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted that
the Noble Marquis had not given them any hope of
more stringent measures. With respect to the
language alleged to have been used in chapels, he
thought it might be possible to get at proof of its
utterance, seeing that it must have been spoken in the
hearing of hundreds of persons.
Lord STANLEY said, that although there were
portions of the statement of the Noble Marquis to
which he had listened with some satisfaction, as indi-
cating on his part, and, no doubt, on the part of the
Lord• Lieutenant of Ireland, a determination, as far
as possible, to grapple with the great evil so forcibly
brought under their Lordships' notice by his Noble
Friend ; yet he had, at the same time, to regret the
indefinite and indistinct character of the answer given
by the Noble Marquis. The questions pat to the
Noble Marquis were plain, distinct, definite questions.
They brought before their Lordships in the strongest
colours, yet colours not stronger than the occasion
warranted and rendered necessary, cases in which it

was quite clear that either at public meetings, or in

the awful form of denunciations from the altar of
God, there had been put forth on the part of some of
the Roman Catholic clergy, of some individual mem- :
bers of that clergy—far be it from him to attribute
such atrocities to the body in general—incentives to
murder, which, in general, had been immediately
followed up by the execution of the sentence. Under
these circumstances, it was not too much for his
Noble Friend to ask the Government whether the
facts stated had been communicated to the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland; if so, whether the Lord-
Lieutenant had referred them to the law officers
of the Crown ; if so, whether it was the opinion of
those officers that the law, as it stood, was strong
enough to meet these cases; and if such was not the
opinion of those officers, whether it was the intention
of the Government to seek to amend and strengthen
the law ?—(Hear, hear.) He must say, that though
no notice of these questions hal been taken by his
Noble Friend, he was surprised to find that the
Noble Marquis was not able to state whether or no
these facts had been reported to the Lord Lieutenant.
-- (" Hear, hear," from Lord Lansdowne.) Oh !
then he was to understand that they had been com-
municated to Lard Clarendon. This, however, af-
forded no answer to the main question, which was,
whether the cases had been submitted to the law
officers of the Crown in Ireland, and whether, in their
judgment, the facts warranted the prosecution of the
offending parties ?—(flear, hear.) To this question,
as he understood, the Noble Marquis was not able,
without communication with the Lord-Lieutenant,
to answer. Such being the fact, he hoped that his
Noble Friend would not allow the case to rest as it
stood, but would, after the lapse of another week, re-
new his questions distinctly with reference to these
particular cases, as thus :—Was it or was it not true,
that in the year 1836 a Roman Catholic priest wrote
to a landed proprietor in Ireland, in the most lauda-
tory terms of his charity, his benevolence, his warm
heart, his labours of love for the surrounding popula-
tion ? Was it or was it not true that, in August,
1847, that same priest from the altar of God denounced
that same landed proprietor as an absentee, a tyrant,
and an oppressor ? Was it or was it not true, that
this same priest denounced this same landlord as
worse than Cromwell, and askel " Does this man yet
live ?" (Hear, hear.) Was it or was it not true
that in coming out of chapel, after that denunciation,
respectable person who had heard it pronounced
said, "This man must be immortal if, after this
anethema he survives" ?—(flear, hear.) Was it or
was it not true that within forty-eight hours after
this denunciation, that landlord, a most humane,
praiseworthy man in every respect—a man beloved
by. all his neighbours, was cut off by the hand of an
assassin ?—(Hear, hear.) If these things were true,
then his Noble Friend had a right to ask whether
they had been referred to the law officers of the crown
in Ireland--whether, in the opinion of those officers,
that priest was legally, as, if the facts were as stated,
he was morally, in the sight of God and man, guilty of
the blood of the murdered Major Mahon—whether, if
such was their opinion, it was intended by the Go-
vernment to prosecute the man who had desecrated
the altar of God by fulminating from it an incentive
to murder—or whether, if such was wit their opLion,
it was intended so to amend and strengthen the law
as to enable it to reach these atrocious cases ?
—(Bear, hear.) The Noble Marquis had, so far,
gratified him by reciting various laws already on the
statute-book, which applied to such offences; but then
came the further questions, how far was it in the
power of Government to enforce these laws, and how
far was it considered expedient to do so? He had
himself had the honour, or perhaps rather the mis-
fortune, to act for a considerable time as Secretary for
Ireland, and was quite aware of the difficulty of ob-
taining effectual evidence in such cases, of the diffi-
culty of prosecuting with any hope of success a
Roman Catholic priest, before a jury composed in
many instances of the lower class of Roman Catholics,
whose prejudices would range them on the side of
their own minister—(Hear)—but he still thought
they had a full right to know whether it was the
design of Government to attempt, at least, to effect a
prosecution of such offenders, because, however
lamentable, on the one hand, the failure of a prosecu-
tion, yet, on the other hand, its failure inconsequence
of the misconduct of a jury would go far to enlighten
the Parliament and people of this country as to the
real nature of the difficulties and the extent of the
remedy to be applied.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever the
obstacles in the way, he regarded it as the clear
duty of Government to run the risk of au un-
just acquittal, rather than have it to he supposed
that in these and similar cases the Government
were powerless, or that, whatever the provisions
pf the statute-book, they were a dead letter, and that
there was practical impunity for offences of this de-
scription.—(Hear, hear.) He must reiterate the
hope that his Noble Friend would repeat his questions
after the lapse of an interval sufficient to enable the
Noble Marquis to communicate with the Government
in Ilreland.—(Liear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL said that his experience as a
law officer of the Crown told him, what the Noble
Lord's experience as a late Minister of the Crown
might also have told him, that to answer such ques-
tions as those now proposed, under such circumstances,
would be in the highest degree indiscreet, and pre-
judicial to the course of justice.—(Hear.) The law
officers of the Crown must have sufficient time
allowed them for fulfilling to the best of their judg-
ment the onerous duties imposed upon them, and
must not, because they did not act with the rapidity
desired by irresponsible parties, be branded as accom-
plices in the crimes it was their task to punish,—
(Hear.) To the question, whether the existing laws
were sufficient to meet such cases as these, he would
distinctly reply, abundantly sufficient. There
could be no doubt that any incitement to commit
a felony rendered the party putting forth the incite-
ment an accessory before the fact, and liable as such,
in Ireland as in England, to the same punishment
with the actual perpetrator of the offence; and, in
the case of murder, to undergo with the actual mur-
derer the punishment of death.—(Hear, hear.)
Whether the incitement emanated from the platform
of a public meeting, or from the pulpit, the legal
liability was, of course, the same. Could it be
shown that from the pulpit or the altar a priest had
said, " A or R is as bad as Cromwell—does he yet
live ?" or words to that effect, this would be mani-
festly strong evidence before a jury that the de-
nunciation was an incentive to the dagger of the
assassin.--(Hear, hear.) The existing law, he would
repeat, was quite strong enough to reach such cases,
and he had every confidence that the Lord-Lieutenan
of Ireland would not hesitate or delay to carry tha
law into execution.

The Earl of lIARDWICKE referred to a petition,
presented in the earlier part of the evening, com-
plaining of the bulls denouncing the Queen and her
Protestant subjects as malignant heretics, and urged
that they involved denunciations most fatal to the
peace of the country.
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that as the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland professed himself satisied
with the law as it stood, their Lordships, until the
inadequacy of the law could be proved, could hardly
desire to force a more stringent law upon the Go-
vernment.

Earl GREY said, that according to all the reports
received, juries in Ireland did not shrink from the
performance of their duties. As long as that conti-
nued to be the case, her Majesty's Government would
be indefensible, if they asked for extraordinary powers
to set aside the administration of the existing law.
Her Majesty's Government shrunk f-om no responsi-
bility; but nothing would be more rash or unadvissble
than that they should pass opinions as to what were
or what were not speeches inciting to crime. In cases
where the intention was most mischievous, it had
often happened, even in this country, that legal
grounds tor conviction were wanting.
Their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Dea. 6.
The SPRAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petitio❑ signed by
the rector and inhabitants of the parish of Newport-
upon-Stroud, in the county of Worcester, and one
from the town of Alcester, in the county of Warwick,
against the admission of nonbelievers in Christianity
into the Legislature.
Mr. PLUMPTRE also presented a petition from a
parish in the county of Surrey to the same effect.
Mr. LAW also presented a petition from the
students and graduates of the University of Catn-
bridge to the same effect. The petitioners stated that
they felt assured that the greatness and prosperity of
this country entirely depended upon the maintenance
of the establishment of Christianity, and they ear-
nestly petitioned the House that they would not press
any measure for the admission of persons professing
the Jewish religion into the Legislature, as they
were confident that such change would be attended
with a great shock to the religious feelings of the
country.
COERCION FOR IRELAND.

Mr, F. O'CONNOR presented a number of peti-
tions from members of the Chartist Land Association
and others, praying that remedial measures instead
of coercion might be adopted for Ireland ; and also
praying the House to adopt some measure by which
the working classes might receive an equivalent rate
of wages.