The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-14 00:00:00

rbirb Übitton

r---=

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock,

IMPERIA L PARLIAMENT
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COALVIONS.
CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Sir R. H. INGLIS (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition) said—He might quote instances of inter-
ference on the part of Roman Catholics with the civil
Government of this and other countries; but it was
sufficient for him to state that the Pope, who had dis-
missed one hundred bishops from their sees, who were
faithful to their vows and to the church, declared that
the Church of Rome, in his person, bad a right to ex-
communicate Princes and to interfere as he didr
withably
set
then ruler of France. These things w
forth in a book lately published by Dr. Wordsworth
worth which
was well worthy the attention of every one interested in
this discussion. He was so much attached to the Bible—
not the improved editions—(gear, hear)—as to con-
scientiously consider that public form of Protestantism
as.the strong bulwark of the gloryproofpoEsnegdlacnodui—d
England.—(Hear,
not able
hear.) Such a measure as that
passed into a law consistently with the existence of
the Church of England, which was not secure so long
as the Church of Rome continued. lie 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 be consi-
dered'pr.ophetac,—" not to assist the progress of Popery."
The resistance of Popery was one of the greatest object
f, his life; and he called upon the Noble
Lord to act in the spirit o' his illustrious ancestor, and
to resist any further measures which had for their objects
the degradation of the Church of England, the humilia-
tion of Protestantism, 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, as an amendment, that the House should
resolve itself into 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 •, he
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 Rome
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 who 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 consi-
dered by no means guilty in the same degree. He
wished to argue the futility of throwing any restrictions
in the way of a sincere believer by other than
legitimate means. His floneurahle Friend had said
that the Church of Rene 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. PLUMP f RE said that the Noble Lord had stated
very plainly that the contest was going on of Popery
against Protestantism, and that it would and should go
on until the latter Church had become extinguished ;
he stated such to be his intention, and such
to be that of his Churce. Now he (Mr. Plumptre) ob-
jected to the present Bill, because he believed it had for
its object the same intention. Ile thanked the Neble
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-
pese of his Church was to continue and maintain the
struggle until Protestantism was for ever extinguished.
Ile 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 Hon. Friend the Member for the University
of Oxford, that nothing could be more painful
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 Church of
Rome would triumph over it. He felt so far 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 spoke
warmly on the question, he at least epoko honestly,
and while he differed with Honourable Members on
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 II )n. Member who had
last addressed the House seemed to have wandered widely
from the subject. If any one were to read the Bill, with the
amendments now proposed by the lion. Member for
Kinsale, he could not see how it was possib:o 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 at the same time observe that the
sentiments which that Noble 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 body of the people of this
country. Still, he thought the Honourable Member
(Mr. Plumptre) had misunderstood the argument
employed by his Noble Friend. The Hon. Member had
alleged that the Noble Lord supported persecution
because he hal referred to certain passages 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) c.,n-idered this not to
be the opinion of the Noble Lord, but that he meant to
say, thst in bygone days persecution generally prevailed
and pervaded the conduct of all religious sects and
opinions. Toleration, in fact, had not been understood
or practised till within the last century and a hale.
But his Noble Friend adjured persecution now, and only
expected that by the prevalence of opinion his
Church would become triumphant. He (Lord 11. Vane),
however, was of a totally different opinion. The Bill,
said the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), would
change the whole character of the population. 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 Hun. Member had also re-
ferred to the danger of permitting the Jesuits to come
into the country, calling the attention of the
House to the Proceedings of that body abroad
during the last fifty years. He deduces
from that great danger to the Protestant faith. Now
he (Lord H. Vane) would observe, that at present
Jesuits did come into the country, though the Catholic
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 the
registration of all those belonging to monastic orders,
would be quite sufficient for all useful purposes. If
they were to go on the policy recommended by the Hon.
Member, they ought to rescind and repeal all the laws
to advance religious liberty passed in the last 30 years.
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 repeal of the 30th Charles 11. on the
gnound 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 induced 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
they
real—question had to consider was the removal
oThf Bill had been
civil ties which the Bill proposed.
Hon. Members, anamodified to meet the views of several
Baronet the Member 4...2llsecially of the Right Hon.
to confess, that •Leanworth. He was quite free
cessions, through the Public exhibition of pro-
ing town especially, ?marts of a mantsfactur-
:a stumbling-block, and that""telT_Peraons prove
therefore,
avhich authorised these processionset:.'"l.Bu
vth:iefftrgetufereaornl
pe.rts of England were tent web the different
character of the Bill itself. Believing:isce
sincerely rejoiced to hear a declaration tetha*ut
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and rej
Ho u. Member had so decidedly expressed his o
he was
wthaaat
this subject. But, as his Honourable Friend hat that
sen*Rd to remove this objection, he could not at all
see that any danger whatever could arise to the Protes.
tan tism of this country from the passing of the Bill. The
object of the Bill, as it appeared to him, was simply to
obtain an equality of private position for the professors
of the two religions, and by the expunging of the objec-
tionable clauses, the only danger that could have been
apprehended had been averted.
Mr. SPOONER rose to say only a few, a very few
words, with a view to set the Hon. Member for Ken-
dal right, as to what had fallen &ern the Noble Lord
.opposite
(the Earl of Arundel and Surrey). At the com-
mencement of his observations that Noble Lord had
-expressly stated that lie deprecated persecution in any
.shape, and had, in the course of the earlier
portion of his remarks, expressly stated that
,ter. his opinion, nothing whatever could justify
• persecution. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the
c onacslsuatgi ion ns
io hf his
the
speech,ld reshtaad.
Noble Lord, towards the
-,acid that there were certain p
; ment which give reason to suppose that under peculiar
circumstances it would be countenanced by the Al-
Lanighty.—(Cries of .‘ No, n 0.,,)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to
Ghil: ea the Ron. Member. He had never attempted in

any way to justify persecution, or to say that under any
circumstances it was to be resorted to. What he had
endeavoured to represent when alluding to the passages
of the Old Testament was, that the contest which had
been going on, and which must continue to go on be-
tween the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches,
was one entirely of a theological character, and
was not in any way to be forwarded by persecution.
Mr. SPOONER was quite satisfied 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 ho 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. Their commission was to extermi-
nate idolatry, and he thought that the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Oxford had 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 that in
these respects they were outdone by nobody of Christians, I
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
he 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 ono ; 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-
bate, and he had rightly said that the tendency of this
Bill was to put down the Protestant faith in England.
If they passed this Bill they had no other alternative—
they must repeal the Act of Charles, and destroy the
Bill of Rights. He had nut 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
to the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, but it
would be bringing in another and a new power to over-
awe 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
spiritual jurisdiction, and was thus opening a way for
all sorts of immoral and unscriptural proceedings. A
few days ago a young gentleman, the son of
a friend of his, had been induced to leave the Pro-
testant Church, and give in his adhesion to the Church
of Rome, and shortly afterwards his father found 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 cf society, whether
it was not setting at liberty every means for imposing
upon the hearts and consciences of a people, whether it
WAS not giving a range to all the chicane of priestcraft,
and 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 free 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
fear 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 exist where all free inquiry
was reprobated, and everything left entirely in
the hands of the priests ? Such were some of
his reasons for opposing the motion for the llouse 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
hailed everything that removed the obstacles to the con -
summation of that result which they had so much at heart.
He believed that the House had gone too far already by
the Act of 1829—(" Hear, hear; ' from Colonel Sibthorp.)
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
by that which had been used on the subject of
the exclusive nature of the oath required to be
taken by Members of the Legislature. Ho 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 Members 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. SHEIL said that the Hon. Member for Birming-
ham had stated that he was acquainted with several
Catholic gentlemen for whom he entertained a high
character, but he thought that if he were to communi-
cate 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 lion. Friend had dealt somewhat disingenuously
with his Noble Friend, for, notwithstanding the distinct
explanation of his Noble Friend of the statements im-
puted to him by his neighbour of Kent, notwithstanding
his Noble Friend got up and said that he was in favour
of unrestricted freedom of conscience, the Honourable

Member who had just sat down had endeavoured
to fasten upon him charges which his Noble Friend had
moat distinctly denied. He (Mr. Sheil) was convinced
that there was not a single Roman Catholic in that
House who would not disclaim the doctrines imputed to
him by the Hon. Member for Birmingham. No such

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 petitions had been presented against the Bill. He
did not believe that there was any feeling of hostility
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 satety 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, Ball, 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. He
hoped the House would no longer countenance these dis-
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 miich 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 intolerent. 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
supporkthe 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 contended that the best way to promote
the prosperity of the Church of England was
the retention of obnoxious penalties with regard to those
ho 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 done 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 resented 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 Hon. 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 lion. 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 force.—(Hear, hear.) They could
not be put in force; and if they were to call upon the
advisers of her Majesty to put these laws into force, they
would refuse to do so. ; He, therefore, was at a loss to
know how they could be called safeguards. If their
abrogation were really dangerous to the State and to the
Church, he must say that it was not becoming in them
to take their stand on those pettifogging penalties which
they might suffer, and which no one thought to put in
force.—(Hear, hear.) Those who opposed the Bill were
actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could
not sympathise. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged
the officers of the Crown to say that the Bill of Rights
could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles IL 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 unvanquished. If that was then
the case, why did he refuse 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 Christopher 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 enablre'd them to take the stale 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

purpose was entertained by them as they were charged affections of her own people, in the increasing zeal and
with. His Honourable Friend was so much ex- sanctity of her ministers, in the power which she
cited by his argument as to call all his possesses in the purity of her doctrine, in the
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects " idolaters." He integrity of the lives of her ministers and professors,
(Mr. Sheil) could assure the Hon. Member that he and they will not believe that the constitution of the
had too much Christian philosophy to allow himself in country is in jeopardy by the extension of the principles
the slightest degree to be influenced by idolaters.— of toleration.—(Cheers.)
(Hear, hear.) But really, after all, the real question for Mr. NEWDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just
the House to decide was whether they would go into sat down had told them that they had not pur-
Committee on this Bill—a Bill which has already sued a consistent course in their opposition to the
passed the second reading. There was ono present measure. There was one consistent per-
portion of the Bill to which he attached son at the least, and that was the Member
considerable value, he referred to that portion of it with for the University of Oxford. He had told them that
reference to the religious orders of the Catholic Church. they had excited deep feelings on the part of the
As the law now stood, no Jesuit or any member of Catholics ; but he would ask, who had awakened
other religious orders, could come into this country with- them ? who but the promoters of this Bill,
out being subject to transportation. Any native of Ire- who were not content to allow these dead letters
land who should enter into any religious order was liable to remain upon the statute-book?—(Hear, hear.) It was
to banishment in the first instance, and transportation because he was in favour of religious toleration that
after; and any person who initiated any individual into a he refused his assent to the present Bill—it was because
religious order was liable to the same punishment. Now, the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant, and
he thought that it must strike the common sense and because she claimed unto herself to be superior in all
the common justice of that House that these laws were, things, in matters of discipline as well as doctrine.—
if not potent in their application, at least essen- (Hear.) The Noble Member for Arundel spoke in heat,
tially inefficacious. But these laws were also bat he spoke out nobly—he was not ashamed to say
wholly inoperative; they were utterly inefficaci- that he sought for the supremacy of his Church,
ous for the purposes contemplated by those who and that he was a subject of the Pope.
introduced those laws, and he would show the House I-fe asked the House to consider well the authority of the
that these laws were also totally inoperative. He Pope, which the Bill proposed to admit, and see whe-
thought it quite sufficient for his argument to open a ther they could reconcile its admission with the alle-
book which he held in his hand, entitled " The Irish giance which they owed to the Queen of these realms.
Catholic Directory." The book to which he would refer He believed that they could not. The decrees and
contained the entire statistics of the Catholic Church, and councils of the Roman Catholic Cnurch gave the
it specified all the archbishops, the bishops, the arch- Pope temporal and spiritual dominion over all the
deacons, the deacons, and all the parish priests kingdoms of the world—over all people, princes, and po-
in connexion with that Church, and concluded tentates. How then could they reconcile powers of such
by the following heading—" Society of Jesus." Then a character with the prerogatives of the British Crown ?
followed the name of the Rev. Richard St. Ledger, He was not to be told that on the ground of religious
Clongowes College, Clare. The Hon. and Learned tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra-
Member also read a list of other names in connexion ordinary powers as these. He was as much a friend of
with the religious order of the Jesuits and went on to toleration as any Member in that House, but did
say that such a statement was in his opinion amply he admit the powers of the Pope as recognised
sufficient to convince the House that the law as by the Bill, he would be intolerant indeed. Though a
it then stood had . been and was utterly ineffica- great number of petitions had not been presented, he
ciousi; the laws were offensive, and answered , could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre-
the purposes of contumely, but none other. vailed throughout the country against the measure.
Father Mathew was a regular, Dr. Doyle was a The people had not petitioned because of the
regular —an Augustinian friar ; and if the one way in which their petitions had been treated
might be called the Apostle of Temperance, the on the Maynooth question, and they had little further
other might—for the extraordinary exertions he made confidence in approaching the House. But let them
in support of the poor of Ireland, and to place pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear
the poverty of that country on the same footing 1 of it again, when they presented themselves to the
as the poverty of England—be called the Apostle of the I people for re-election. The Noble Lord the Member for
Poor, as be was the first great champion the poor of Ire- Newark had come to the rescue, and had attacked the op-
land ever had. Now, by the law as it at present stood, position to theeJesuitsinFranceandSwitzerland,whichhe
the former might be at the present moment propagating asserted had originated in democratic violence. Now
the principles of temperance in Van Diemen's Land and with regard to this he would tell the Noble Lord that
Australia, and such great and good men be subjected to the real cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the
the most iniquitous oppression. The question then Jesuits arose from the fact of the latter seeking to take
arose, was that law to stand ? and if so, for what pur- the whole education of certain countries into their
pose ? He knew that, with regard to the Jesuits, a feel- hands. And in France they bad been declared illegal,
mg of strong opposition had been excited, and that because of the intrigues for power in which they had
tichearthgedou
since what was called the Popish Plot they had been been continually engaged. The Hon. and Learned
retarded with fear; but he thought those who entertained Member for the University of Oxford had asked the
neh feelings ought to be afraid of their. own. fears. Attorney -General an important question, which ought
and thee the be Ih b d•f if the measure was subversive
ewltittitxl,eat whatever faults the Jesuits might to ave . een atiswere ,or
be pointed the°uJeded-
‘ their virtues greatly outweighed them, of the Bill of Rights, howcould the Members of the House
mons and
nruk of those charges were wholly calum- lof Commons support it ? If they agreed to such
were the faults of
Ganganelli at the
Irish Jesuits were entirely
gowes, several eh:eh!:
their conduct in Ireland?
To the theology of E3cuba might i' a Bill, they must relieve the Sovereign from ter obliga-
ritres example of Xavier. But whatever i lion to uphold the Protestant faith, and fully and undis-
charitable nature. Were the vari°"
Tlel from blame. What was
institutions of a i
whoeyslvere suppressed by ' guisedly admit the temporal and spiritual authority of
Ira French philosophy, the the Pope of Rome.
years, daring
a college at CI • 'r discussion this, and if he had enter-
on •1 ct ssity for ‘uch a as
Si J. EASTHOPE regretted that there was any ne.
committed? For the last BettAhe
rt crimes they had
hear the evidence the different agitations and -Y• • inutility of it from the speech of the Hon. Member
tainecl that opinion before be was doubly satisfied of the
in Ireland, he defied them who had just sat down. One advantage might, indeed,
parison of the PothotleiLlinmovements result from h.people of England would
single speech, tract, or pamphlet, ever cnit
-ea
members of the
of
or published by a Jesuit. He bad
urch.
these laws were operative seen a Jesuit at any of the meetings of the never was IW"DO Pl laif this benefit he believed that this
:rele \ notwithstanding
on both sidesstill the question.. Yet,
Association ; and he did not believe that any member i respectivertheological controversy, or fora cotnsho-
of that society was or ever had been a member of the 1 _ advantages enjoyed by
__ _
Roman Catholic or of the English
Repeal Association. These were facts, and they surely I whether The real question in his • •
inion was as to
ought to outweigh the unsupported assertions of the Hon. 'op
t. For his own
Member for Birmingham. Why then, he would ask, partl, he believed them to be totally
°runs el e s, and only a
should these men be persecuted, against whom there •. grace to the statute-book,and he firmlybelieved that
was no just cause of blame? Would Mr. Spooner, Mr. . iinstrumental in the support of reli-
Plumptre, or Sir R. Inglis persecute Father Mat- ; g ous persecution, the Hon. Gentleman himselfshould
be
. among the very first to put them down ; and if they s,

were not so instrumental, what security was there
in their retention ? No man wished more than he did
heartily for the welfare of the religion of the country.
The Noble Lord the Member for Arundel bad stated his
firm conviction that the result of these disputes would be
to annihilate Protestantism. He respeeted the Noble
Lord for the strength of his convictions, but he him-
self believed that the result would be totally different,
and that if they were to be conducted without any
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 ho 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 cons quence of 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 most 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 for
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 bonnd 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 in 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 was on the
faith of that representation that the Bill had been
allowed to pass, and he should therefore be quite un-
warranted in breaking the contract into which he had

then entered, and this-he would do if he were to con-
sent to the passing of this Bill. He 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 placed 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 if 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
any further legislation on the subject should
be avoided, 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 attainedi by the present measure
were obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe-
nalty contained in any of the former Acts could, by
any possibility, attach to any person at the present
time. The present measure also sought, by one
clause, to put an end to questions of law, which
required, to say the least of them, a most careful con-
sideration. If he was at any former period opposed to
this measure, he was more particularly so efter what
had fallen from the only member of the Government
who had spoken upon the subject, to the effect that still
greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessary.
He would ask that Right Honourable Member if
he would secure him against any attempt to infringe
upon the liberties already held by the Protestants
when all these concessions had been made by the House ?
Ile should most certainly support the amendment and
vote against the further progress of the measure.
Mr. COLLETT would support the motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale. for going into
Committee on this Bill, on the grounds of non-inter-
ference, and non-toleration. It was his opinion that
he who acted properly and uprightly was in the right
road to heaven, whether he 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 Hon. 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 ball
at Exeter, the proceeds of which were to be devoted
to the relief of the distressed Irish and Scotch, nor did he
like to see the bishops 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 said that the question now was the
same as that which had been discussed on a former
occasion,_ when the House 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. and Learned Friend the
Member for Kinsale. He did not 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 not be prepared
to give his assent to the measure in its present shape.
He knew that it 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 was nurtured in the bosom of the Estab-
lished Church, and attached as he was to its principles,
and hoped shoulde ever remain so, he believed
that the Protestant Reformation was a most in-
valuble 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 if he
voted for the retention of those " pains and penalties,
because he considered that their Roman Catholic fellow-
subject should be allowed, and they were entitled to
teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without
the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When
their illegality was admitted, he saw no 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 promulgating 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 if he
had began to legislate 5o years ago, that he should have
opposed all the; measures, of concession, and amendment
which had been passed with respect to the Catholics
during that period. The first part of the Bill stated that
these " pains and penalties" had the effect of keeping
down their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.—(Hear,
hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee,
and to go through the clauses seriatim, with the report
of the Commissioners in his hand, in order that he
might have the assistance of the opinions of
high authority.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) 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 th at part of the Bill which would legalise
public processions through the streets, but he believed
that part of the Bill was not to be insisted upon; how-
ever, the proper time to consider these things was in
Committee. He should, therefore, vote for the Bill going
into Committee.—(Divide.)
Mr. LAW regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had
not alluded to the difference between the repealing the
statute and the penalties attached to the crimes which it
mentioned. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred
to an Act passed in the reign of Richard the Second,
and the 16th, of George the Second, to show that the
supremacy of the State and the Protestant religion
would be endangered if the Bill were passed into a law.
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, 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 thatithis question has beenVaised 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 tor going
into Committee.
Mr. ESTCOLTRT said he was anxious to go into
Committee upon the Bill. When in Committee
be time enough to discuss the de
tails of th
i Bill. would Still
• h
he must observe, that ho was not satisfied e
with the
It
amended clause of the lion. Mover of the Bill, intro- .
duced by him to quiet the scruples of the opponents.
Mr. WATSON replied. He said he trusted the

House would bear with him if he refrained
from answering the speeches of the Honourable
Members who oppused it, because he confessed he
had not heard a single valid reason against
the Bi.l. He would briefly content himself with
stating its principle, which was, that no person
whatever should be responsible to pains and
p n,l les on account of his religious belief. That
was the real question they had before them, and the Bill
was to effect a repeal of all statutes that operated inju-
riously in this manner. The measure was divided into
two parts. The one part was to repeal old laws
inflicting penalties on Roman Catholics, and was no-
thing more than giving full effect to the Act
of Emancipation passed in 1829. Ile denied, therefore,
that his bringing it forward was a violation of any
compact entered into in 1829, as alleged by the
Honourable Member for the University of Oxford.
The Commissioners, who had made inquiry
into the operation of these statutes, bud shown in
their report the inutility of such penal statutes.
It was to c irry out the recommenclaien of the Commis
siuners that he had introduced this Bill. But the
penalty being taken away the misdemeanour still re
metined. In the Bill of Rights the Ist of William 111.
expressly stated that the Sovereign, on coining to the
throne should declare his adherence to the Protestant
religion, and if they repealed the Act of Charles 11. they
would in no way touch the Bill of Rights. The latter
touched only the sovereign, while the former affected
the subject. He had shown, on previous occasions, that
the supremacy was a part of the common law of
England, and the Act of the Ist of Elizabeth was
not passed to declare that supremacy, but to
provide for the punishment of individuals who in any
way assisted in supporting the authority of the Pope
in this country ; but the Act did not, for it could not
create the supremacy of the Sovereign. That bad
already been established. This was the first part of the
Bill, and he regretted the necessity of going so fully
into the matter at this period of the debate.—
(Hear, hear.) Then he came to the loth
Geo. IV, which had been called the safeguard of the
country. Now, he did not propose to interfere with
that Bill except in one respect. No person could have
greater dislike to those public processions in the streets
which were likely to affect the minds of weak per-
sons. He objected to all these processions, whether
they were made by Protestants, Catholics, or
Dissenters ; but he thought that there was no objection
repeal that portion of the 10th George IV., which pre-
vented the Catholic priest from performing the rites of
his Church in a private chamber at the burial of the
dead, lie thought that the Hon. Baronet the Member
for the University of Oxford had misstated the circum •
stances, when he said that it was customary to elevate
the host at the burial of the members of the Roman Ca-
tholic communion.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS expressed his dissent.
Mr. WATSON had credibly been informed that
such an occurrence never took place, and at ary
rate there was no power to enforce these laws.
There were at present between five and six hundred
parochial priests in Ireland, against whom the laws could
not be enforced, and it was a maxim in criminal law
that when a law was not in unison with the feelings tf
the people, the better way was at once to abrogate
it. The Right Hon. Member for the University
of Oxford had said, that this measure was
both harmless :and dangerous. He could not
conceive how this measure can be liable to both of these
charges. The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that
the Roman Catholics were anxious about the success of
this measure—that was surely no matter of surprise to
the [louse. The Hon. and Learned Member then went
on to argue that the present measure was abso-
lutely necessary, and he asked the House in the
name of elerything that was just and liberal, to allow
the measure to go into Committee, when the House
would have an opportunity of altering or modifying any
of the clauses.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l5B
Against it - 119
Majority — 39
The 13111 is eons= quently lost.
EXCHEQUER, BILLS.

The report from the Committee on the Exchequer.
bills (18,310,7000 Bill was brought up and received.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP No. 1.

The Select Committee, appointed to consider the merits cf
the Bills comprised in this group, re-a-sembled in Room 30,
at the usual hour this morning. Lord Granville Somerset in
the chair.

THE SOITTE-EASTERN SCHEMES.
Mr. GREGORY was heard on behalf of Lady Spencer, who
complained that the Mid Kent line would seriously injure
her property at Mereworth.
In the cases of Mr. Cotton, Sir Percy Dyke, and Captain
Ryder Burton, the company had made terms with the
opposing parties.
Mr. TALBOT called upon his friend who appeared for the
South-Eastern Company to disclose the terms which bad
been come to with Sir Percy Dyke.
Mr. Autrrix had no difficulty whatever in acceding to the
request, although to do so was irregular. The agreement
was that they should not make the Parliamentary liue with-
out the consent of Sir Percy D.% ke ; but he must tell the
Committee at the same time, that they would have power
to make the deviated line laid down on their plans. He
intended to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject,
and when that time arrived he should be prepared to prove
the assents of the landholders to the deviatedline.
This closed the South-Eastern case.
THE HRIGHTON SCHEMES.
Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to open the case for the
Brighton Company. He commenced his address by declaring,
that if this contest were to be decided, not by the re-
sults to be drawn from the map, but upon the principle
of " vested rights," it would be necessary for him to go
largely into retrospective matters bearing upon the case.
Now, in the very onset he must pronounce the views of his
opponents with regard to their pre-occupancy of the district
in question to be altogether fallacious, and when the proper
time arrived he should be prepared with evidence to sub-
stantiate this statement. Having touched upon this pre-
liminary point, he would now ;go into the prima facia case
of his clients. The Committee were aware that
he had the honour to represent a company which consisted
of two partners—first, the London and Brighton, and,
secondly, the London and Croydon. Now the line of the
latter company was laid out and constructed at an enormous
expense, no less indeed than 100,0001. per mile, not
so much with the view of accommodating London
and Croydon traffic, but the preamble of the original
Croydon Act would show that the Legislature intended that
the line should be made the leading avenue of all railways
coming from the Kentish districts to the metropolis. But it
was urged by the Sout! -Eastern Company that the
Croydon line stood in the position of an expensive
toll-gate, through which they were compelled to
pass. No doubt it was a toll-gate; but it was one
over which they had the power of regulating the toll to be
cothnev ctcynythdeenpa n pas-
senger
more ; so that in -
paid, and if they carried a passenger from London to Dover
at 3d. per mile, all they would have to pay to the Croydon,
toll, would be 3d. per mile for each passenger, minus the
ofsceonstger f
wnorikiding ten .
amile,
point of fact the South-Eastern had absolute
control over the toll to be paid to the Croydon Company.
Hsixe disposed of the allegation that the miles of the South-
Eastern line from Reigate to Croydon would be rendered
mtilleiesy ; or
would i
uf ltdhhe they
have toos chose
pay o
useless by the passing of a Mid Kent line, by directing the
attention of the Committee to the fact that those six miles
might be made available for the Reading, Guildford,
and Reigate line, and then proceeded to state that
the South-Eastern had never come forward to supply
the wants of the public till they were forced to do so
by the Brighton Company. For instance, they did not
propose a line for Hastings until the Brighton G,m-
pany had brought forward a coast line from Brighton
through Lewes to Hastings. He then came to the
consideration of the merits of the two schemes
before the Committee. The Learned Gentleman having oc-
cupied a considerable time in discussing the merits of compe-
tition as applied to railways, and impressing upon the minds
of the Committee the importance and magnitude of the ques-
tion they had to decide, which could not be viewed in the
light of a local, but as an European question, and, according
to same, as an Asiatic question ; for it was said by one of his
Learned Friends, Mr. Hildyard, he believed, that these lines
had "the metropolis at one end, and the world at the
other"---went on to implore the Committee not to
hand over the county of Kent to the tender mercies of one
company, but to grant the Brighton lines, and infuse new
blood into the district. He based his claim to make this
demand upon the Committee on the ground that, in
so far as the Brighton Mid Kent line, as between
Maidstone and London, and London and Tunbridge,
were somewhat shorter in distance than the ,com-
peting scheme of the South-Eastern Company, . it
would better accommodate the populationof the districts
through which it passed; indeed the Brighton Mid Kent
line accommodated a considerably larger population than the
South Eastern. It would pass through all the large towns
on the route, while the South Eastern linealtogether avoided
them, in the same way that their existing line did. It was true
the works on the Brighton line wereheavy, but not so heavy as
to be insurmountable, while the cost of the Brighton line from
London to Tunbridge would fall far short of that of the
South-Eastern, as between Lewisham and Oxford the ex-
cess of cost on the South-Eastern line, he represented, would
be 130,0001. The earth works on the South-Eastern line
would be 2,550,000 yards; on the Brighton it would be
1,500,000 yards. The tunnelling on the South-Eastern
would be 963 yards; on the Brighton 2,600 yards. There
would be many viaducts on the South-Eastern, but none on
the Brighton line.
The Comrcittoe at this point of the Learned Counsel's ad-
dress determined to adjourn till to• morrow.

GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY OF
BENGAL.—(THIS DAY).
A special general meeting of the shareholders in
this company was held at the London Tavern, Bishops-
gate-street, fcr the purpose of receiving the report, and
confirming the arrangements made by the directors for
an amalgamation with the East Indian Railway Company.
General M'Leod occupied the chair.

The, SECRETARY read the directors' report, which
stated that the railway had been originally projected to
connect Calcutta with the deep waters of the Ganges, at
Rajmaltal, to be known as the Calcutta and Ganges
Grand Junction Railway Company, a name that was
changed for the present on the 23d April, 1845. It was
arranged, through the late Dwarkanauth Tagore, that
Carr Tagore and Co. should be agents for the company
in India, with powers to allot 20,000 shares in
Bengal, 10,000 in Bombay, and 10,000 in Madras. By
ativices from India, it appeared that 10,222 shares in all
had been allotted, and 4,708 paid upon. The railway
was favourably noticed by the East Indian Company.'s
Government in Bengal, in June, 1840, and early this
year conditions were submitted by ►he East India Com-
pany, under which they would extend their support to
Indian railways, a modification of which, however, had
been sought by the directors. But, in the meantime, the
directors succeeded in effecting an arrangement with the
East Indian Railway for amalgamation with that com-
pany on the following terms, accepted on both sides:-
Ist. The subscribed shares in the Great Western Ben-