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

of these persecuting agencies, that the consequence
would be the extinction of Roman Catholicism. That
these laws were useless was evident, for even the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Oxford University had allowed
that they had been in abeyance; and what was the utility,
then, of at all retaining what he must term such paltry
defences 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 more cordially to her creed and her articles, and
if the consequence 01 this Bill was to weaken her position,
or to destroy her influence, he would 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 must cordially
his vote to his Hon. and Learned Friend.
Mr. GOULBURN had on a former occasion stated
his opinion on the merits of this Bill, but yet felt im-
pelled to say a few words to express his reasons fur
voting, as he should do, against it. On that occa-
sion then he was one of a very large majority
who caused the rejection of the Bill, he had
stated that he felt b quid by the terms of the
compact into which he had entered in 1829; and he saw
no new reasons now for changing his opinion. All who
heard him would recollect when the Roman Catho-
lic Relief Bill of 1829 was introduced by the Govern-
ment, the difficulties they had to encounter on ac-
count of the liberality of its provisions, and what ear-
nest efforts they had to make to reconcile the House to
its passing. Of all the Bills that had ever been intro-
duced to the House for the relief of Roman Catholic
disabilities, that was the most extensive. and far sur-
passed the expectations of Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunkett,
and others, who had endeavoured to limit the re-
strictions under which the members of that faith la
boured. But is bringing in that Bill the Govern-
ment had expressly stated they were only justified
in its introduction by the fact that they were laying the
foundation for the basis on which the Roman Catholic
religion should stand in this country. It waa on the
faith of that representation that the Bill had been
allowed to pass, and he should therefore he quite un-
warranted in breaking the contract into which tie had
then entered, and this he would do if he were to con-
sent to the passing of this Bill. Ile 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.
By the Act of 1829 the power of prosecuting for those
penalties had been it laced in the hands of the Attorney-
General, by whose discretion alone any suit could be
carried on or any penalty could be enforced.
He 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 it' 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,
he heard nothing from the advocates of this Bill to
justify the removal of the restrictions of 1829. He
deprecated, therefore, these discussions, which had the
effect of exciting feelings which had better be
allowed to lie dormant. The late Government took 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
auy further legislation on the subject. ,should
be avoideed, 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 to say that the ob-
jects sought to be attained by the present measure
were obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe.
nail contained in any of the former Acts could, by
any possibility, attach to any person at the present
time. Tne present measure also sought, by ore
clause, to put an end to questiens of law, • which
required, to say the least of them, a most careful con-
sideration. If he was at any e•rieer period opp sed to
this measure, he was more particularly so after what
had fallen from the only m mber of the Government
who had spoken upon the sui j• c', to the effect that still
greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessare.
He would ask that Right Honourable Member it
he would secure him against :Ley attempt to infriege
upon the liberties already held by the Protestants
when &l these coliceesiene had been made by the Home ?
lie should most certainly support ethe amendment and
vote against the further progress of the measure.
Mr. COLLF:TT would support the motion of the
Hoe. and Learned Member for Kinsale, for going into
Committee on this 13il, on the veileds of non-inter-
ference, and none toleration. It was his opinion that
he who acted properly and uprightly was in the right
road to heaven, whether hit was Protestant, Catholic,
Dissenter, Jew, or Mahomedan.—(Divide, divide.) He
was himself a humble member of the Protestant Church,
but that church had introduced a number of new-fangled
doctrines, and ho thought that it would be a much better
employment of the time of the bishops to endeavour to
obtain unity among their own members than to oppose
the measure introduced by the lion, "and Learned
Member for Kinsale.— (Cries of " Divide, divide.")
He did not like to see the bishops act like
the Bishop of Exeter, who had spoken against a bell
at Exeter, the procsees of which were to be devoted
to the re lief of the distressed Irish and Scotch, nor did he
like to see tie bishop:, in their robes in the House of
Lords, while all the other Members of that House were
obliged to go in plain clothes.—(The Hon. Member sat
down amid great confusion, and cries for the division.)
Sir G. GREY sail that the question now was she
same as that which had been discussed on a former
occasion, when the Reuse decided by a majority in
favour of the second reading of the measure. It was in
accordance with the recommendations of the Criminal
Law Commissioners that the present measure was
brought forward by his Hon. arid Learn 'd Friend the
Member for Kinsale. He did riot consider that 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 nut be prepared
to give 'his assent to the measure in its present shape.
He knew that is might be said by those persons who
held the same views upon the subject as the Hon. Mem-
ber for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner), that the present
measure was one brought in for 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 attached to the Protestant institutions of
the country, and vote nurtured in thebosom*of the Estab-
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 he considered that their Roman Catholic fehow-
subject should be allowed, and they were cctitled to
teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without
the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When
their illegality was admitted, ha saw a() 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 promuleating their doctrines.
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford said this
measure was: but one of a series of concessions of an inju•
rious nature which had been made to the Roman Catholics
during the last 50 years, evidently admitting that is he
had began to legislate 50 years ago, that he should have
oppeeedeell the: measures of concession and amendment
which had been passed with respect to the Catholics
during that period. Tht first part of the Bill scat. d that
these " pins and penalties" had the e ffect of keeping
down their Rumen Catholic tellew-subjects.—(Hear,
hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee,
and to go through the claueee seriatim, with the report
of the Cominissieners in his hand, in order that he
might have the assistance of the opinions of persons of
high authority. The Hon, Gentleman the Nit-alba for
the University of CambricLe (Mr. Gbulburn) materially
objected to that portion of the Bill which related to pro
cessions. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to incur the
risk of supporting i hat part of the Bill which would legalise
public processions through the street*, but he believed
that pail of the Bill was not to he insisted upon; how-
ever, the proper time to consider these things was in
Comreitiee. Ile should, therefore, vote for the Bill going
into Committee.—(Divide.)
Mr. LAW regretted that the Right lion. Baronet had
Sitaf
h
not alluded to the difference between the repealing the
statute and the penalties attached ea she crimes which it
mentioned. The lion. and Learred Gentleman referred
to an Act pissed in the reign of Richard the Second,
and the 16th of George the Second, to show that the
supremacy
wouldbe
endangered
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,
State
ee and
Bill the
were Protestant
passedinto religionalaw.
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. He would record his vote in favour of
his' Right Hon. Friend's amendment.
Lord SANDON said he had to express his most
unfeigned regret tha4this question has beeniraised at all.
It was admitted on all sides that no
great practical evil
was endured by the 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 any 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. W
hen in Committee
be time enough to discuss the details of the Bill. _ Stillouie
e would
he must observe, that he was not satisfied.with the
amended clause of the Hon. Mover of the Billintro-
duced by him to quiet the'scruples of the oppouents.
Mr. WATSON replied. Be said he trusted the
House would bear with him if he refrained
Honourable
thel
confessed
f';tefroiambeartsiswwehroingopptohseed spite,ecbehecsauosef
he
he
the Bill. He would briefly content himself with
stating. its principle, which was, that
. no person
had not heard a single valid reason ngathst
penal•
the reakquestion they had before them, and the Bill II
ti e 8 whatever
on accountshld
ofbehis liraebligaiout4s bPerienf4. Thatnd was H
Rao
s94m atektoi of all stomata tlies oPoglited Wu. •