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

leges as any other party of Christians. On these grounds he
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 bad been said by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought
thatwhen an Hon. and Learnod Gentleman introduced a Bill
tf 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 shy 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 immense 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 Rauke's
history by one of the ablest writers of that. country--he
meant the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh. Ile was
quite convinced that if these monastic orders were allowed
to exist without any restrictions he need not inform them
that it would lead to the greatest inconvenience. He could
only say for himself that he should be willing to
tolerate 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. They
had, at present, no religious liberty in Spain, in Austria,
n Portugal, or in Rome, and he thought that they, iu
England, could not fairly be charged with intolerance, until
Borne set them the example of religicus liberty.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, in supporting the Bill said, although
the penal statutes were considered obsolete, they produced
an impression of the most unfavourable kind on the minds of
those who were liable to be affected by them. He trusted
that the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland would
never rest satisfied until these objectionable laws were
repealed.
Mr. SPOONER said it had not been his intention to trouble
the House, but after the personal remark which the Right
Ifonourable the Paymaster of the Forces had made,
L_' considered that he was justified in claiming
the attention of the House. That Right Hon. Gentleman
had completely misrepresented the words which he had made
use of in the opinions which he held, and the arguments he
had adduced, and he would take the liberty of reading from
the reports which had taken place on the Committee to which
the Right Hon. the Paymaster of the Forces had referred.
He challenged the Right Hon. Gentlemen to prove the asser-
tion he had made, or substantiate the charge with which he
had been stigmatised. He believed the present measure
would be another inroad upon the constitution of the country.
The Hon. Member for Limerick said that he would not rest
till the Chancellor of Ireland and the Lord-Lieutenant
of that ccuntry were eligible to be chosen from
among the Roman Catholics. Only give 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 Cathelia
religion which hau 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 he 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. SPOONER, and Mr. Macaursav
again in reply.
Mr. J. 0 CONNELL said that he would not enter into the
controversial discussion set up by the Hon. ~:ember 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 thou,;ht that those persons who pro-
fessed the Roman Catholic religion were not at present suffer.
leg from the operation of any penal statutes or disabilities.
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. lie meant
that which did away with the oaths at present
taken by banisters of the Roman Catholic faith. This
was a provision which did not exist in the Bill of last year,
and one for which the Ham and Learned Gentleman who in-
troduced the Bill had not 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 pro-
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-
iered were obsolete, and of no practical application, then that
w.s a sufficient reason for their repeal. But he did not
think they were so, but that in their cperation 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
limn. 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 co, sidered 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 he (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. He said that he conceded so much in
accordance with the prejudices of the English Protestant
subject. But surely this condition was based 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 1829. lie 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 therm ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the original motion
For the amendment
99
Majority in favour of the second reading,,, —3
TENANT RIGHT BILL.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD postponed till to-morrow (this day)
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.