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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE 01 COMMONS. April 14.
CATHOLIC RELIEF RITJ,
Sir R. H. INGLIS (in continuation of our After-
noon Edition of yesterday) said—He might quote
instances where the Roman Catholics interfered with
the civil Government of this and other countries; but
it was sufficient for him to state that tEe Pope, who had
dismissed one hundred bishops front their sees, who were
faithful to their-vows and to the church, declared that
the Church of Rome, in his person, had a right to ex-
communicate Princes and to interfere as he did with the
then ruler of France. These things were ably set
forth in a book latelypublished by Dr. Wordsworth which
was well worthy the attention of every one interested it
this discussion. He was so much attached to the Bible—
not the improved editions—(Hear, hear)—as to con-
scientiously consider that public form of Protestantism
as the strong bulwark of the glory of England.—(Hear,
hear.) Such a measure as that proposed could not be.
passed into a +kW consistently with the existence tie
the Church of England, which was not secure so long
as the Church of Rome continued. He implored
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government not to
forget the dying words of his immortal ancestor,
which, coming from such a man, deserved to_
Popery."
off
consi-
dered prophetic—" not to assist the progress
The resistance of Popery was one of the greatest opere.'
objects
of his life; and he called upon the Noble
Lord to act in the spirit of his illustrious
h,. and
which had for ther objects
to resist any further measures
the degradation of the Church of Enland, the hua-
tion of peedestaneism, and the final ascendancy of the
Roman Catholic religion.—(Hear.) Entertaining these
views, he felt he should but ill discharge his duty if he
did not move,
intoas an amendment, that the House should
resolve itself
a Committee on the Bill this day six
months.
Mr. LAW seconded the motion.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that the
Church of Rome had been accused of persecution ; h.
was not prepared to deny that persecution had been
many times exercised by members of that Church—
in fact he admitted that the Church of Rorie,
had persecuted, but those acts were to be estimated
by the spirit of the times in which they occurred :
and he might point to the Old Testament as furnishing
some authority for persecution. Hon. Gentlemen were
aware that he alluded to the wars waged by the Israelites
against those nations who held possession of the pro-
mised land. Previous to the 16th century the whole of
Western Europe was of one faith—heresies had arisen
from the commencement of the Church of Christ, but at
that period the whole relations of society were
overset by the Reformation, and a number of heresies
sprung up. And here he would observe that there was
a: great difference between a heretic and a member of
a heresy. A heretic was one eho once belonged to the
faith of Christ, and who seceded ; but a member
of a heresy was looked upon with a much
more lenient eye by the Church ; he was conri
dared by no means guilty in the same degree. He
wished to argue the futility of throwing any rest ictions
in the way of\ * sincere believer by other than
legitimate means. His Honourable Friend had said
that the Church of Rome was antagonistic
to Protestantism.—(Hear, hear.) So it was, and so it
ever would be, until Protestantism was extinct.—(lroni-
cal cheers.) The struggle would continue, and would
last, and other churches would arise long after the
Church of England had passed away and was forgotten.
Mr. PLUM THE said that the Noble Lord had stated
very plainly that the contest was going on of Poem.;
against Protestantism, and that it would and should go
on until the latter Church bad become extinguished
he stated such to be his intention, and such
to be that of his Church. Now he (t[r. Plumptre) ob-
jected to the present Bill, because he believed it. had for
its object the same intention. He thanked the Noble
Lord for speaking so plainly; it was what they lamented,
that they did not know where to find their
enemies, for they assumed the attitude of war exactly at
the moment that they felt their own power, or as it
suited their convenience. He told them that the pur-
pose of his Church was to continue and maintain the
struggle until Protestantism was for eveT'extinguished.
He would tell him that the Protestants of this country
were prepared to meet those words with others of a
directly opposite character.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed
with his lion. Friend the Member for the University
of Oxford, that nothing could be more paint
to him than to say anything which might wound the
feelings of any Member; but they must not refrain
from speaking the truth from any such fear, and it
became them not to remain silent when they heard
the declaration which had been just uttered.—(Hear.'
He could not agree with the Noble Lord, that Protes-
tantism would become extinct; or that the Chirsch of
Rome would triumph over it. He felt solar from that.
that Protestantism was founded on a rock; but he
regretted that the present Bill would revive the
struggle, as it would no doubt tend to promote the inte-
rests of the Church of Rome. He would oppose the
Bill, -and every other measure of the same character
which went to destroy or endanger the Protestant
truth or the Protestant Church. If he spelt -
warmly on the question, he at least spoke honestly
and while he differed with Honourable Members 6!:
the matter, he did so with the kindest feelings. It was
not on personal grounds that he opposed the measure,
but because he considered it based on a bad principle.
Lord H. VANE said the Hon. Member who had
last addressed the !louse seemed to have wandered widelN
from the subject. If any one were to read the Bill, with the
amendments now proposed by the Hon. Member Ica-
Kinsale, he could not see how it was possible to take
such a course in the debate. He considered the Hon.
Member who had just sat down had misrepresented, or
at least misunderstood. the observations which had fallen
from the Noble Lord (Arundel), though he (Lord
11. Vane) must st the same time observe that the
sentiments which that Nshl Lord had uttered were not
his. He did not think that the Church of Rome would
succeed over the Protestant Church. and that they both
would become one. This, he was persuaded, was also
the opinion of the great bedy of the people of the
country. Still, he thought the .!lonourable Member
(Mr. Plumptre) had misunderstood the argument
employed by his Noble Friend. The lien. Member had
alleged that the Noble Lord supported persecution
because he ha I referred to certain paseages in the Old
Testament, and applied to a different order of things,
which justified it ; and that therefore the Roman
Catholic Church was justified in doing the same
thing. Now, he (Lord H. Vane) enisidered this not to
be the opinion of the Noble Lord, but that he meant to
say, that in bygone days persecution generally prevailed
and pervaded the conduct of all religious sects and
opinions. 'rob-ration, in fact, had not been urn lerstooe
or practised till within the last century and a half.
But his •Noble Friend adjured persecution now, and only
expected that by the prevalence of opinion hi:
rehurch would become triumphant., He (Lord H. Venc),
ewever, was of a totally different opinion. The Bill.
said the Hon. Member for Kent ( Mr. Plumptre), would
change the whole character of the p .putation. He
objected to it because it would unprotestantise
the country. In support of that opinion, he had given
no reasons, had advanced no arguments, but he con-
sidered it would do so. The Hen. Member had also re-
ferred to the danger of permitting the Jesuits to c stn
into the country, calling the attention of the
House to the proceedings of that body abroad
during the lest fifty years. He deduce;
from that great danger to the Protestant faith. Noe
he (Lord H. Vane) would observe, that at present
Jesuits did come into the country, though the Catholis
Emancipation Act expressly forbad them. Practically
the law was of no effect, the spirit of the age was
against penal enactments, on account of religious be-
lief. The Bill as amended, by its provisions for th-
registration of all those belonging to monastic crders
would be quite sufficient fir all useful purposes. It
they were to go on the policy recommended by the Ho.I.
Member, they ought to rescind and repeal all the laws
to advance religious liberty passed in the last 30 year..
He (Lord H. Vane) could not see what object was
gained by having laws on the statute-book which
could not be enforced, and which still contained a stigma
on a particular religious faith. But the Hon. Member
had objected to the repeat of the 30th Charles If. on the
guound that it would affect the Bill of Rights. If
that really were so, nothing could be more easy than
to introduce a clause into the present Bill,
declaring that the Bill of Rights should not
be affected by it. This would obviate at once
the difficulty. He had been inducted to rise and take
part in the debate because of the unfortunate turn which
it had assumed. That House was a place, least of all
places, for theological discussions, and they should avoid
all such allusions in their discussions. The whole--the
real—question they had to consider was the removal
of certain civil disabilities which the Bill proposed.
This Bill had been modified to meet the views of several
Hon. Members, and especially of the Right lion.
Baronet the Member for fautworth. He was quite free
to confess, that the public - exhibition of pro-
cessions, through the streets of a manufacture ,
ing town especially, might to many persons prove
a stumbling-block. and that the clauses, therefore,
which-authorieed these processions through the different
parts of England were
inconsistent with the general
character of the Bill itself.i
sincerely rejoiced to h Believing this, he was
the Hon. MP mber foreth declaration to that effect from
Bon. Member hadretikenny, and rejoiced that that
so decidedly
this subject. Bat, as his expressed his opinion on
objection, Friend had eon- 'Dented to remove this
see that any danger whatever coud.he could not at ell
Asa cis to the Protes-
as
it
appeared Lze
him,
of the Bill. The
tantiem of this country from the
object of the Bill,
obtain an equality of private Position fo'rtvtltat: sill)! to
of -the two rel;gions, and by the expunging edPreer,°r4
tionable clauses, the only danger that could ht _aye been
.apprekended had been averted.
- Mr. SPOONER rose to say only
a fp..a very I'
words, with a view to set the Hon. Member for kt7w
n-
jai right, as to what had fallen from the Noble Lord
opposite (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey). At the com-
mencement of his observations that Noble Lord had
expressly stated that he deprecated persecution in any
shape, and had, in the course of the earlier
sortion of his remarks, expressly stated that,
a his opinion, nothing whatever could justify
wrsecution. Yet, notwithttanding all this, the
Noble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, had
said that there were certain passages in the Old Testa-
ment which give reason to suppose that under peculiar
circumstances it wall,' be countenanced by the Al-
extighty.—(Cries of " No. no.")
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to
correct the Hon. Member. He had never attempted in
any way to justify persecution, or t) say that under any
circumstances it was to be resorted to. What he had
emdeavoured to represent when allu ling to the pesseees
of the Old Testament was, that the contest which had
been going on, and which must continue eo oe be.
tween the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches,
,was one entirely of a theological character, and
tair PerP#l4o4l.
2aotja say way to tO:Wgrded - - -

TEE

Mr. SPOONER was quite satisfiel that the Noble
Lord had not expressed exactly what he meant to say,
and that his meaning would not bear the interpretation
put upon it by his Hon. Friend. But the Noble Lord
had referred to the Old Testament, and had alluded to
certain passages which he considered to be in sup-
port, of his argument.—(Hear, hear.) But it should
be recollected, that, in the earlier days of the
Jewish Commonwealth, that people were devoted
to a peculiar office. Thar commission was to extermi-
nate idolatry, and he thought that the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Oxford bad hardly stated this case with
sufficient force. Far be it from him to underrate the
social excellence of the professors of the Roman Catholic
religion ; far be it from him to understate their charity,
or their often-exhibited benevolence. He believed thatin
these respects they were outdone by nobody of Christians,
but just as the Jews had their commission to extirpate
idolatry,
Mr. B. ESCOTT—No, no. Nothing of the kind.

Mr. SPOONER—The Hon. Member for Winchester

might have his opinion, but he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that
be might be permitted to express his also, and although
what he might say might have a tendency to offend many
present, although it was uttered without the slightest
desire to give offence to any one ; yet though it might
offend, still he should never be deterred from saying
what he felt it to be his duty in that place from any
.consideration whatever. The Hon. Baronet the Member
for Oxford University had given the character to this de- I
bate, and he had rightly said that the tendency of this
'lll was to put down the Protestant faith in England.
It they passed this Bill they had no other alternative—
they must repeal the Act of Charles, and destroy the
Bill of Rights. He had not the slightest desire to pre-
vent any people from enjoying an equality of religious
freedom, but he did object to that part of the Bill which
legalised the sale of bulls in this country. It
would, according to his notions, not be of the
slightest advantage in giving any religious facility
'as the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, but it
would be bringing in another and a new power to over-
swe the consciences and depress the powers of many
individuals, and would in many instances compel them
to avow and act on principles in religious matters which
they in their inner heart denied. It would be sanction-
ing a custom and a principle which the House of
Commons had no right whatever to sanction, and would
in truth be rendering that lawful which was in itself
treasonable and seditious. This Bill did not confine the
authority for introducing bulls—that simply referred to
sniritual jurisdiction, and was thus opening a way for
all sorts of immoral and unscriptural proceedings. A
t'-w days ago a young gentleman, the son of
so, friend of his, had been induced to leave the Pro-
testant Church, and give iu his adhesion to the Chuich
of Rome, and shortly afterwards his father fount a book
entitled, " Consolation and Encouragement for Souls."
It was translated from St. Alphonsius, and contained a
passage to the effect that as soon as ever any man had
given up the control of his mind and heart to his spi-
ritual director he was no longer responsible for his con-
duct to his Maker. He would ask whether this
was not at once loosing all the bonds of society, whether
it was not setting at liberty every means for imposing
upon the hearts and consciences of a people, whether it
was notrgiving a range to all the chicane of priestcraft,
sad allowing opportunity for evils of a most
mischievous character ? Was it not monstrous
that there should be such a declaration of all loss
of responsibility such as this ? With such a latitude
there was a tree commission to a young man any day to
commit murder or treason, for by this assertion the
Bible was nothing, law was nothing, morality was
nothing, nor was there any rule whatever to bind the
spirit, the principles, or- the conscience of any
man who had once given himself up to the direction
of his priest. His conscience would not be his own, and
there would be neither responsibility for the present or
f,sar for the future—not an aid to assist in the pathway
through life, but throughout the whole of his course
he would be tied hand and foot by the dic-
tates of the priest, and would in every
way be divested of all species of responsibility.
There was also -another view to which the Noble Lord
had alluded, namely, that the discussion between
the two Churches was only a theological one ' • but
could such a state of things as a system of free
inquiry on the subjects exit where all free inquiry
was reprobated, and everything left entirely in
the hands of the priests ? Such were some of
"is reasons for opposing the motion for the House going
into Committee on the Bill. He would conclude by
saying that his firm opinion was that this Bill was looked
upon with intense anxiety by the Roman Catholics, who
sailed everything that removed the obstacles to the con •
summation of t'itit result which they had so much at heart.
lie believed that the House had gone too far already by
the Act of 1829—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthurp.)
He had a vivid recollection of some of the arguments
used upon that occasion, both by Mr. Canning and other
supporters of the measure, and was particularly struck
'oy that which had been used ou the subject of
the exclusive nature of the oath required to be
taken by Members of the Legislature. lie believed
that Mr. Canning was, however, too sanguine
in believing that the oath, as then amended,
would be as efficient in controlling the interference of the
Catholic Meknbers with the temporalities, of the Church
as it had been before effectual in keeping them out of
the House. The Hon. Member concluded by calling
upon the House to support the Protestantism of the
country, and refuse to go into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. SHE'LL said that the Hon. Member for Birming-
ham had stated that he was acepainted with several
Catholic gentlemen for whom he entertained a high
character, but he thought that if he were to communi-
.;ate his opinions to any one of those respectable gentle.
men he would be assured by them that neither by force
nor by fraud was it to be attempted to destroy the Pro-
testant religion.—(Hear.) lie could not help thinking that
his Hon. Friend had dealt somewhat disingenuously
with his .Nobly Friend, for, notwithstanding the distinct
axplsnation cf his Noble Friend of the statements
rated to him by his neighbour of Kent, notwithstanding
is Noble Friend got up and said that he was in favour
unrestricted freedom of conscience, the Hunourabl::
Moreher who had just sat down had endeavoured
to fasten upon him charges which his Noble Friend had
mo..t distinctly d-nied. He (tlr. Sheil) was convinced
chat there was not a sin2le Roman Catholic in that

ilouse who world not disclaim the doctrines imputed to
him by the Wm. NLmber for Birmingham. No such
purpose was entertained by them as they were charged
with. His Honourable Friend was so much ex-
cited by his argument as to call all his
Boman Catholic fello-.v-subjects " idolaters." lie
Mr. Sheit) could assure the lien. Member that ho
had too much Christian philosophy to allow himself iii
the slightest degree to be influenced by idolaters.-
1", Hear, hear.) But really, after all, the real question for
Lhe louse to decide was whether they would go into
Committee on this Bill—a Bill which has already
passed the second reading. There was one
portion if the Bill to which" he attached
considerable value, he referred to that portion of it with
reference to the religious orders of the Catholic Church.
1s the law now stood, no Jesuit or any member of
other religious orders, could come into this country with-
out being subject to transportation. Any native of Ire-
land who should enter into any religious order was liabh:-
to banishment in the first instance, and transportatiot,
after; and any per-on who initiated any individual into a
religious order liable to the same puni%hinent. Now,
he thought that it must strike the common sense and
the common justic=, of that House that these laws were,
if not impotent in their application, at least esssn-
ti Illy inefficacious. But these laws were also
,vh -illy in 'perative; - they were utterly iuefficsci-
,,iii fur the purposes contemplated by those who
• otro !need these laws, and he would show the House
chat these laws were also totally inoperative. He
'hought it q rite sufficient for his argument to open a
welt:4 he held in his hand, entitled "The Irish
Jnth ,lie Directory." The book to which he would retei
.contained the ontire statistics of the Catholic Church, and

;t specified all the archbishops, the bishops, the arch-
leacons, the deacon;, and all the parish priest
in connexion with that Church, and concluded
by the todowieg heading—" Society of Jesus." Thee
f)llowed the name of tne Rev. Richard St. Ledge),
Clongowes ge, Clare. Tne flue. and Learnee
Member also read a list of other names in coenexiee
with the religious order of the Je,mits, and went, on to
say that such a statement wss in his opinion amply
sufficient to convince the House that the law e
it then stood had been and was utterly inetfica
ciousl; the laws were offensive, and answered
the purposes of contumely, but none other.
Father Mathew was a regular, Dr. Doyle was a
regular an Augustinian friar ; and if the one
might be called the Apostle of Temperance, the
other might—for the extraordinary exertions he made
in support of the poor of Ireland, and to place
the poverty of that country on the same footing
as the poverty of England—be called the Apostle of the
Poor, as he was the first great champion the poor of Ire-
land ever had. Now, by thelaw-as -iteat present stood,
the former might be at the present moment propagating
the principles of temperance in Van Diemen's Laud and
Australia, and such great and good men be subjected to
the most inivitous oppression. The question then
arose, was that law to stand ? and if so, for what pur-
pose ? He knew that, with regard to the Jesuits, a feel-
ing of strong opposition had been excited, and that
.since what was called the Popish Plot they had been
regarded with fear; but he thou;ht those who entertained
reach feelings ought to be afraid of their own fears.
Ho thought that whetever faults the -Jesuits might be
charged with, their virtues greatly outweighed them,
and that the bulk of those charges were wholly calum-
nious and unfounded. To the theology of Eseuha might
be pointed the glorious example of Xavier. Bai, whatever
were the faults of the Jesuits, who were suppressed by
theirconduct
hu r
Ganganelli at the instance of French philosophy, the
Irish Jesuits were entirely free from blame. What was
h
Ireland?c h e a , Theyn had a college., at Glen.•
goewi re
a
, several
n
I various inetitutiGes of a
charitable n
committed? attire.
Were these the crimes they had
the different For the last thirty years, during
in Ireland, haegitations and political movements
single speech, trd:at ed
them to point out a
or publishes' by ' pamphlet, ever made
seen a Jesuit at any Je Ile had never
Association ; and he didthen ht believe of the Catholic
of that society was or ever
adbelieve that any member
Repeal Association. These werb:r a member of the
ought to outweigh the unsupported pacts and they surely
Member for Birmingham. Why thal'en,t: it sof the Hon.
should these man be persecuted, against° wwhaald there
was no just cause of blame? Would Mr. 400%7
.t
Plumptre, or Sir R. Inglis persecute Fatherr-
thew, or any other of the learned or virtuous men
who were members of these societies ?—(Hear, hear.)
No, they would not.—(hear, hear.) Why, then,
should this intolerance show its teeth when the
teeth were too loose to bite?—(Loud cheers.)
The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that a number
of p:attions had been presented against the Bill. He
did >~otbelievethat here woe lug fetiwg of 040

entertained towards it by the people of England. He
should like to know the number of the peti-
tions, and the signatures. The Honourable Member
for Knaresborough presented one, to which only
six names were attached. He did not think the people
of England entertained the belief that their security was
endangered by the removal of those penal laws, or that
the safety of the Protestant Church was to be provided for
by Catholic degradation. There was one omission in the
Bill which he regretted. He thought a clause should
have been introduced enabling a Roman Catholic to
be eligible to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ire.
land. There had been four Roman Catholic Attor-
ney-Generals since the Emancipation Bill. Sir M.
O'Loughlin, Wolfe, B ill, and Pigott, and he considered
it too bad that such men were not eligible to the
office of the Chancellorship. A Roman Catholic
might be a judge ; and when such responsibility
was entrusted to him, he saw no reason why he should
be disqualified for the situation of Chancellor. lie
hoped the flues would no longer countenance these die-
abilities, but would show to the world that the days of
pains and penalties for religious opinions were gone
for ever.

Mr. FINCH thought it was quite becoming in the
last speaker, wbo was a Roman Catholic, to speak as he
had done, and also the Noble Lord (Arundel and Surrey),
but still he did not consider that either of them had ad-
duced any adequate reason why the Bill should be passed.
He doubted much whether the Government could extend
with safety any further concessions to the Roman Ca-
tholic Church. In his opinion, that religion was opposed
to the revealed religion, and was besides intolerant. We
knew well that the omish Church was strongly op-
posed to religious liberty, and was abhorrent to the moral
and legal laws on which the security of this country
was based, He should therefore oppose the Bill, and
support,the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for the University of Oxford.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said the real question be-
fore the House was, whether certain pains and penalties
on the statute-book, but which all admitted could not be
enforced—(Hear, hear)—should or should not be re-
pealed, as enactments without value. Those who
opposed the Bill cuntemled that the best way to promote
the prosperity of the Church of England was
the retention of obnoxious penalties with regard to those
who followed another form of the same Christianity.
But, when it was admitted on all hands that they never
could be enforced, he was quite at a loss to know why
they should not be at once abrogated. In the whole
course of the discussions on the Bill, he had heard
nothing to induce him to believe that the safety
of the Church of England would be endangered
by the remission of those obnoxious penalties. The
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of
Oxford, directed their attention to what was going on
in France, but particularly in Switzerland, owing to the
violent, conduct of the Jesuits. But when he quoted
Switzerland, to show what the toleration of the Jesuits
had
.dpne there, he made a most unhappy allusion. What.
was the condition of the Jesuits in Switzerland? In some
cantons the Jesuits were tolerated and fostered, while
neighbouring contons, opposed to the Jesuits, endea-
voured by force to put them down ; and when attacked
they naturally resetited such aggressions upon their
liberty ; and then the Right Hon. Baronet came for-
ward and said, " See what the violence of the Jesuits has
brought about in Switzerland." He said, there.
fore, that he could not have made a more
unhappy allusion ; in his opinion a more un-
happy allusion was never brought forward in that
House on that occasion. He also said that the legis-
lators of France had been compelled to put a stop to the
violence and inroads of the Jesuits, which was far more
straightforward and Christianlike than the theoretical
plan which had been adopted in this country. Then the
Right Hou.Baronet appealed to the Protestant Dissenters
to join him in opposing the Bill; but the Protestant Dis-
senters must have short memories, indeed, if they forgot
that the Right Hon. Baronet had, during his long and
consistent career, opposed them as strongly as he now
opposed the concessions. now asked for on behalf of the
Roman Catholics. The gravamen of the matter was
simply this—that the one Church opposed the other on
certain points. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth, whose absence they must all regret,
stated that he had felt it necessary in 1829 to vindicate the
established doctrines ; but he (Lord John Manners)
was at a loss, after the lapse of twenty years,
to point out one single instance in which.
those so-called safeguards had been trespassed upon.
But if they were safeguards to the Throne and to the
Church, he wished to know why they had not in any
instance been put in foree.—(Hear, hear.) They could
not be put in foice; and if they were to call upon the
advisers of her Majesty to put these laws into force, they
would refuce to do so. Ile, therefore, was at a less to
know how they could be called sateguerdi, If their
abrogation were really dangerous to the Slve and to the
Church, he must say that it was not becoming iu thein
to take their stand on those pettireggcng eenalties which
they might suffer, and which no one to'ught to put in
force.—( [leer, hear.) Those who oppos d the Bill were
actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could
not sympatnise. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged
the officers of the Crown to say that the B 11 of Rights
could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles were
repealed. It was not for him to offer legal opinions, but
he considered that the Right Hon. Baronet was
totally mistaken in his view of the law. He
had heard the; Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Birmingham observe that he did not believe that the
contest would be successful, and that the Protestant
Church would. remain uuvanquished. If that was then
the case, why did he refits() to do away with these
petty laws, which had been declared inoperative? If
the Honourable Member believed in the eternal truth
of the principles which he professed he ought
to throw from him these miserable crotchets,
which were useless. Sir Chrigopher Wordsworth, de-
scribing the Christian Brothers, observes, that not
one of the pupils educated by them took a part
in the late revolution in the French capital. This
was a fact worthy of observation. The people
had been induced to petition against this
Bill, having been told that it contained clauses
which enabled them to take the style and title of the
Protestant bishops ; they were misled, and every means
had been used to.excite them. He, however, had great
confidence that when the Bill came to be properly
understood the people of England would be of opinion
with him, that the Church was more secure in the
affections of her own people, in the increasing; zeal and
sanctity of her ministers, in the power which she
possesses in the purity of her doctrine, in the
integrity of the lives of her ministers and professors,
and they will not believe that the constitution of the
country is in jeopardy by the extension of the principles
of toleration.—(Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just
sat down had told them that they had nut pur-
sued a consistent course in their opposition to the
present measure. There was one consistent per-
son at the least, and that was the Member
for the University of Oxford: "He. had told them that
they had excited deep feelings on the part of the
Catholics ; but he would ask, who had awakened
them ? who but the promoters of this Bill,
who were not content to allow these dead letters
to remstin upon the statute-boek?—(Hear, hear.) It was
because he was in favour of religious toleration that
he refused his assent to the present Bill—it was becau-e
the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant, and
because she claimed unto herself to be superior in all
things, in matters of discipline as well as doctrine.—
(Hear.) The Noble Member for Arundel spoke in heat,
bat he spoke out nobly—he was not ashamed to say
that he sought for the supremacy of his Church,
and that he was a subject of the Pope.
lie asked the House to consider well the authority of the
Pope, which the Bill proposed to admit, and see whe-
ther they could reconcile its admission with the able-
e ncTeohufer
ctdhh
decrees
whythe
Roman
gave an
the
Pope temporal and spiritual dominion over all the
kingdoms of the world—over all people, princes, and po-
tentates. How then could they reconcile powers of such
character eith the prerogativ, s of the Kai ish Crown ?
de was nut to be cold that en the ground of religious
tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra-
ordinary powers as these. He was as much a fiend of
toleration as any Member in that House, but did
he admit the powers of the Pepe as recognised
by the Bill, lie would be intob rant indeed. Though
great number of petitions had not been presented, he
could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre-
vailed throughout the country again.t the measure.
The people had not petitioned because of the
way in ehich their petitions had been treated
on the Maynooth question, and they had little further
confidence in approaching the House. But let them
pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear
of it again, when they presented themselves to the
people tor re- election. The Noble Lord the Member for
Newark had come to the rescue, and had attacked the op-
position to the Jesuits in France and Switzerland, which he
asserted had originated in democratin violence. Now
with retard to this he would tell the Noble Lord that
the real cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the
Jesuits arose from the feet of the latter seeking to take;
the whole education of certain countries into their
hands. And in France they had been declared illegal, '
because of the intrigues for power in which they had
been continually engaged. The Hon. and Learned
Member for the University of Oxford had asked the
Attorney-General an important question, which ought
to have been answered; for if the measure was subversive
of the Bill of Rights, how could the Members of the House
of Commons support it ? If they agreed to such
a Bill, they must relieve the Sovereign from her obliga-
tion to uphold the Protestant faith, and fully and uiidis-
guisedly admit the temporal and spiritual authority of
the Pope of Rome.

Sir J. EASTiIOPE regretted that there was any ne-
cessity for such a discussion as this, and if he had enter-
tained that opinion before he was doubly satisfied of the
inutility of it from the speech of the Hon. Member
who had just sat down. Ono advantage might, indeed,
result from it,—the people of England would
hear the evidencs on both sides of the question. Yet,
notwithstanding this benefit, he still believed that this
was no place for theological controversy, or for a com-
parison of the respective advantages enjoyed by the
members of the Roman Catholic or of the English
Church. The real question in his opinion was as to
whether these laws were operative or not. For his own
part he believed them to be totally useless, and only a
disgrace to the statute-book, and he firmly believed that
if they were t) be instrumental in the support of reli- '
were
giouspersecution. the Hon. Gentleman himself should be
among the very first to put them down ; and if they
orteteilioinns?trumNental,n wwhisahtedsemcourreitythawna shethderi.(i
firm conviction thate
heartily furLtterciivelfareoofmathe religion of the country.
to annihilate Pro sthe:
The Noble
Lord for the strength Member for Arundel had stated his
tant. He respeetA the Noble
theth of his convictions, self believed thatresult of these disputes would be
but he him result would be totally different,
Aid
.0114 4f goy wen lo be acediagte4 -*Ukes4 or