The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-16 00:00:00

mind, intention, or views of the Pope who passed
them.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Bishop of St. David's)
perfectly concurred that the efficacy consisted in the
the mind or intention of those to whom they were addressed.—
( Hear, hear;—and therefore it was, that he said so long as the
Roman Catholic population of this country preservede hat cha-
racter which had maintained now for centuries, in spite of the
hardest trials to which any class of men had ever been sub-
jected, he, for one, should feel no alarm (though the severest
penalties were enacted against the importation of "bulls") if
one of those formidable documents should, by any sleight of
hand, be smuggled into this country, and be found, some un-
lucky morning, affixed to the gates of Lambeth or Buckipghain
Palace ; for he thought that, in any such case, no greater
danger need be apprehended, than if it had been allowed to
moulder away in the Vatican in which it was framed.
It was quite clear that their safety could never rest in the mind
of the Pope, but in the intelligence and loyalty of the Roman
Catholic people—(Hear, hear)—and the more confidence they
reposed in them the better grounds they would have to expect
it in return from them ; and the more evidence they showed
them of suspicion and distrust the less right they could have to
hope from that loyalty. He said it imported very much to
their dignity that persons should not be subjected to such trials.
But there was another point in which he had to differ from the
Right Rev. Prelate, who, though he considered it was a flagrant
injustice that it ought tot to be repealed, he himself could see
no ground of public security which would require such reseric-
tiens to be imposed, and he also believed it to he entirely use-
less. Was it possible, if these opinions were held and main-
tained in foreign countries, that they would not find their way
into this country and be held in argument. He observed an ex-
tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something
that had fallen from his Right lion. Friend, who hatl com-
plained of the impertinence of the French in praying for the
conversion of the English. The extract was to the effect, that
this was an unreasonable ground ofcomplaint, for as the French
prayed for us, we could offer up prayers for them, and
so there would be an equality. —( Laughter.) What
could be the security of the country, if it would
be supposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a
miserable statute, and that if the Pope'. bulls should come into
the country, there was an end to her power? But if the
Pope's supremacy should assume a treasonable form then it
die expose its author to extreme punishment ; and, therefore,
with regard to this point, upon which his Right Hon. Friend
had laid so much stress, he was entirely mistaken. There was
just one remark which he would wish to he permitted to meke,
he most heartily approved of every clause of that Bill, but he
cou'd not say that he believed it to be a perfect one. He did
not think it went far enough; it was his belief that more might
be done on the principle of this Bill to give relief to classes of
persons who where now labouring under severe penalties. He
was not called upon to enter at present on that subject, but the
time would come he felt persuaded, and that before long, when
this subject would be brought under their Lordships con-
sideration, and he only now expressed.the hope that their
Lordships' decision would be grounded on a calm
consideration of the whole, and that they would not be
influenced either by personal feelings or rhetorical declama-
tion. And they should see then if in passing an Act to les.,itie
mise these bulls there would be any danger to the safety of
this country. Those who were opposed to this measure were
in general opposed to no legitimate authority—persons who hod
proved themselves guilty of the basest conduct—literary dema-
gogues, who had pandered to the worst passions of tl:e multi-
tude, and sacrificed their station as teachers to the vilest ends,
and, having degraded the most sacred names, they then put
themselves forward in the foremost ranks in opposition to the
princieles of liberty and freedom.
The Bishop of °Xi. ORD would not trespass lone upon the
attention of the House, nor would he have risen except for the
latter observatioes of his Right Rev. Friend. There was one
thing of which he had to complain, and that was, that the prin-
ciple of this Bill had been received coldly and unworthily by his
Right Rev. Brethren. He must beg, on his own behalf and en
theirs—he must beg entirely to reject that imputation. He could
not suffer such and attack ; fir his part he received heartily,
and gladly, all that part of the measure which tended to do
away with injustice, and his Right Rev. Brethren claimed for
themselves just as much liberality as the Right Rev. Prelate.
But let him be permitted to say that there might be other
parts of that measure which his arguments had not reached,
and he was prepared to argue those points. He confessed he
was astonished when the details of that measure were presented
to him. There were two or three spacial points of difficulty,
which he hoped the great legal knowledge and skill of the
Noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) might be enabled to explain
to him, and the second part of the observatio• s of the Right
Rev. Prelate would lead him at once to the explanation. He
said there was a special duty which was incumbent on them to
do away with these enactments from the statute-book. He
said they were the work of the Church of England, hut he
denied it to be true, and he would go back to historical feces to
prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, an 4 so it appeared
from the preamble of the Bill which had been enacted in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth. It arose from the circumstance of
a Papal bull being imprudently attached to the gates of the
palace deposing th Queen ; and there was not energy enough
iu the common law to punish these offenders, for their ancestors
were not such persons to enact laws, if laws were not required,
for they would thus expose the weakness of the law. These
cruses were not religious, but civil and national announcements
of the opinion of the people, and they (the Bishops) had no
more to do with the matter than any of their Lordships present.
—( Hear, hear.) It was a national protest against the principle
that any ecclesiastical potentate had any right or authority
within the realm and if they withdrew that national and civil
protest, they would be weakening the barriers of their power,
and they would be acknowledging that tie Pope had power
spiritual and ecclesiastical within the realm; and let them re-
member how that would concord with the cab which they
were bound to take when they deep ,red in their Maker's name
that the Pope had not, nor ought to have, any civil or ecclesias-
tical power within tnis realm. If they passed this measure, it
was a positive injustice to relax one-half of the.law without re-
laxing the other, for otherwise they would be requiring them
to declare a manifest untruth. Fur, alter all, in what sense was
that oath taken ? It meant merely that by the law and the
constitution of the realm this power ought not to be possessed,
and in such a sense was taken by conscientious men. But
what would be the case if they repealed this measure? How
could such an oath be taken whin the individual taking it felt
that the law did authorise such power, and that it did not
exist covertly, but openly and hgally ; and when they would
repeal the oath, then, and not till then, would they look the
question fairly in the face. He did hope the talents of the
Noble Lnrd would avoid the dificulty, and preserve the good,
and that they would not sacrifice the national protest —a sacrifice
to which he was sure their Lordships would never agree.
Lord BROUGHAM said, his Noble Friend had explained
the matter so fully, that he felt there was little for him to Fay,
and that it would be useless waste of time should he enter
into the question. There had been a most material
change in the law since the last fifty years. The oath of
supremacy had been repealed or altered in 1828, to the manner
Theadts.least it
didoath n et- h
applyi which htaodßboeme
Roman
Catholics, mentioned
but was made for those who were not Roman Catholics, and
winaswnhioethinitadneoftovr,stoarn
for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi-
culty in the case, as stated by the Right Rev. Prelate, who
last addressed their Lordships, was not so great as he ima-
gined; but be (Lord Brougham) felt that they were dealing
with a difficulty of another character, when they were allowing
an Act of Parliament to apply to those for whom such an Act
had never been intended, and upon whom it could have no
possible effect. They were now, however, only dealing with
tie repeal of a statute. The last two Rev. Prelates who ad-
dressed their Lordships had stated that, by the repeal of this
statute, they were about to repeal a protest against the supre-
macy of the Pope. Now, if this Act was repealed to-morrow,
or even if it had never existed, would they not have on record
a protest of the Queen, Lords, and Commons? It was not
an enactment to be sure, but it was quite as gcod—quite as
binding and effectual.
A REv. PRELATE—The words were restored and established.
Lord BROUGHANI—Yes, that was a restoration, but it
was not established—being restored was to re-establish. The
words had been restored and re-established, because it had been
established by the law of the land long before. So the House
would see that that did not stand on record upon the sta'ute so
as to affect the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as it applied to
Roman Catholics. He preferred the protest of the King,
Lords, and Commons that the Pope's supremacy was a fallacy,
a fraud, if they would, and that it was to have its penalties,
although the Right Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of
their being put in foree, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well
that they could be brought into full force at the will of evil dis-
posed persons. Now, as to the oath of supremacy, to which
the Reverend Prelate adverted, he was of opinion that
if the oath regarding the King was not sufficiently
binding, " a-lack-a-day," he (Lord Brougham) did see much
virtue in an oath. Did it not strike the Rev. Prelate, that in
the oath of supremacy taken by the Roman Catholics there
was an omission as to the Pope ? They omitted altogether the
spiritual supremacy of the Pope. That body were allowed to
leave out the words in reference to spiritual supremacy, but it
was retained for the benefit of those who did not believe one
word of the Pope's supremacy—for himself, and his Noble and
Learned Friend behind him (Lord Campbell)—who was, per-
haps, a very good Presbyterian—(Laughter)—and who did
not believe one word—one tittle—of this supremacy of the
Pope—they, and others who believed as they did, were obliged
to take that oath. He could not help thinking that there was
great inconsistency—indeed very great absurdity—in calling
upon them to say they shall not believe in the spiritual supre-
macy of the Pope. But to ask those who believed in their
consciences that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope was va:id,
and who, in taking an oath of the supremacy of their
Sovereign, were allowed to believe and hold good the
spiritual power of the Pope—to ask them to take
an oath by a law which in reality affected them not, but
which still had its penalties, would be the greatest injustice,
for the reason that we recognised the supremacy of the Pope
in spiritual matters, as regarded all Roman Catholics. There
were over 100,000 subjects of the Queen, in England, who
believed in this spiritual supremacy ; but there were over
7,000,000 of people in Ireland who believed in the same way;
and was it that they only believed in it ? They not only be-
lieved it, but they also acted upon his authority in spiritual
matters. Let the Pope narrow his supremacy, and only ex-
tend it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom, and
he would still have his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it
still further, and this seven millions of people whom
they allowed to believe in it —whom they allowed to affirm
such belief, would still in their obedience acknowledge and act
under this spiritual authority. They were all bound to be-
lieve in it as they hoped for their salvation—as they hoped for
absolution from sin ; and absolution of some sins they might hope
to obtain, butt for an act denying the truth of the Pope, the head
of the Church of Rome, they could never hope to obtain. He
should like to see this oath struck off the statute towards all
others, as they had done towards their Roman Catholic sub-
jects. As to allowing the Pope to send his bulls into this
Country, he would refer to the manner in which
they were allowed to enter other countries.
Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal, did not
allow the admission of the bulls of the Pope, without
the special sanction of the civil powers. This sanction was ne-
cessary to be obtained, before they were allowed to enter. The
Pope applied for leave, and it was granted, and!no injurious re-
sult followed. Yet this sanction was required, although they
were Catholic countries, acknowledging the spiritual authority
of the head of the Church of Rome. lie could not go so far
with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, in saying
that there was nomore harm in these bulls, or that they were
of no more importance than if they were lefteo rot on a shelf in
the palace at Rome, for he considered there might—it was
possible that they could contain much harm, and have
an important hearing. He could not go with
his Noble and Learned Friend so fer as that.
His Rev. Friend had stated that they prayed once a year for
the conversion of the Roman Catholics. They did so, but
then the prayers of the church were for the conversion of all
heretics. It could not be said that they prayed so much for
the conversion of the Roman Catholics as that body were in the
habit of praying for the conversion of the Protestants. There
was this difference between the prayers of both parties, that the
Catholics prayed for the conversion thirteen times a year ; they
were better at their prayers than those they prayed for, if ap-
plication made them so.—(Laughter.) He had framed an
amendment for the Bill,which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls
to enter this country without taking the opinion of the
civil authorities, the penalties remaining the same.
Lord CAMPBELL—The Right Rev. Prelate, who first
addressed the House, had claimed his vote; but he could
assure his Right Rev. Friend that whatever vote he might give,
it would be influenced by the purest motives. The Bill had
been prepared by his Learned Friend Sir Edward Ryan, the
late Chief Justice of Calcutta, than whom a more enlightened
lawyer, or a more liberal and impartial gentleman did not exist.
In December last these Commissioners framed an Act of Par-
liament, which they handed to his Noble and Learned Friend,
and he received it as their report. It embraced both parts of

the subject—the oaths and the opinions, for they were insepa- ;
' rabies; and they could not be prepared to judge of the penalties
unless they knew how these oaths would affect the laws they
widied to be preserved. This measure. when it was passed,
would be a most emphatic peranission for the laws with respect
to the oaths of supremacy to remain as they then stood, and it
as Mild be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very
great objections to many of those who wore of this opinion.
Although 'hat was his opinion, his Learned Friend would have
' done well if he had given way to the recommondation of the
' Commissioners, cs he understood him several times to say that
he approved of it, and that with regard to parts of the Bill, lie
thought it expedient to divide the Bill, and to briers' it in at
separate times. He alto understood him to say, that he would
bring in the second part of the Bill before any length of time
had elapsed—he did not say that he would postpone any part.
These laws were a reproach to the laws of this country ; our
ancestors might be excused for passing these laws, but we had
no excuse for allowing them to remain on our statute-bo ks.
Lord STANLEY said that lie owed the House
some apology for ridng to make any observations on this sub-
ject. He was not about to enter noon any dismission on the
merits of this measure, which, as far as he understood, would,
in all its details, have his cordial support.. He was anxious not
to pass over in silence u hat he conesivesi had fh en a mi.appre-
hension of the state of the ease by the Right Rev. Prelate who
had spoke last, because that misapprehension appeared to him
to have been sanctioned by the high authority of the Noble
Lord who last addreased the House from the second bench. In
speaking of his Right Rev. Fsiend and his Learned and Noble
Friend on the Woolsack, be had said, that although at the
present time the oath of supremacy might be fairly and without
hesitation taken-- it h,td been taken by all their Lordshias, and
had been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of
the Protestant ; ceple c f this country—after the passing, of
this Act, it et ou'd be impossible for any man with a wt.fe con-
science to take the oath that the Pope neither had nor ought
to have any spiritual or temporal jurisdiction in these realms,
and stated, with great deference to his Learned Friend, that
with regard to the authority of the Pope, this Bill, if it should
ever became an Act of Parliament, would not have the slight-
est effect under the existing circumstances.
Lord BROUGII AM— I do not say that.
Lord STANLEY—The Right Rev. Prelate said that he
conceived that by the feet they were now able to recognise.
they were about to close the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope.
With every deference to the Right Rev. Prelate, he (Lord
Stanley) conceived they were able to do no such thing ; for,
after this Act shall have passed, the spiritual authority and
jarisdic ion of the Pope over any portion of the subjects of her
Majesty would remain precisely in the same condition—neither
greater nor less—neither snore nor less recognised, nor more
legalises' than at the present moment At that time they
knew that there were a large body of their fellow-subjects, who
in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical were bound in con-
science to the see of Rome. And if the interpretation put on
the oath was to deny that they were so bound, or ought to be
bound, every one of their Lordships was gnilty of perjury in
taking that oath, precisely to the extent to which they would be
gutlty of the same offenee after the Act had passed. He
cenceive that the Act dad not legalise the jurisdiction of the
Pope. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the
specific penalties from communications otherwise innocent be-
e:tine they came from horse. If this communication, or in-
struction, or order, contained anything seditious, anything
injurious, or anything calculated to affect the civil rights of a
subject of these realms, it did not aesume the character of au-
thority, and weuld not be recognised as valid any mere after
the passing of that Act than at the present moment. They
were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in
any sen-e which the present authorities in England rejected.
If the spiritual juriwliction of Rome was not anything less (and
it would not be auything less), they had all committed perjury;
for spiritually, er otherwise, they cool t not recognise, by
any means, the authority of the Pope, or any prince, power,
or potentate in these reale, S. He did not question what
influence er authority the Pope toieht exercise over the con-
science of any individual in this country, or how far he might
be influenced by any command or declaration, or by any oath
which should declare, neither more nor less, than that after
this Bill should pass there was no law in this country to sub-
ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con-
trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters. He apprehended it
was too clear to admit of a doubt that there were many Catho-
lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pepe, or of
any clergyman fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he
should attempt to enforce by virtue of that authority. The
law would step in for the protection of the subject, and the
priest who should attempt to go beyond that authority and in-
fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the
conduct of individuals would be subject to a penalty, and the
person so coerced would have damages and a .remedy by
law against the priest who should attempt to do so. There
was in the last month, in the county of Cavan, a case in which
a priest excommunicated a Roman Catholic Commis--inner who
refused to admit the authority of the priest, and instead of
applying to the Pope he applied to the civil tribunal of this
country, which tribunal repudiated the power of the priest to
excommunicate, and awarded the petitioner damages. This he
apprehended to be die state of the law now—to deny that the
Pope had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country, and
that taw was not in the least affected by Bills now proposed.
He denied that his Noble and Learned Friend was chargeable
for heving postponed the consideration of the propriety of alter-
ing the law. If the present measure did alter the law in that
respect, and if his Noble and Learned Friend had kept back a
portion of it, it would be a difficult question to say that he would
take them by surprise, by saying that now they had passed an
Act which had made so total a change as to render it necessary
to change the oath of supremacy. He (Lord Stanley) would
himself shrink from an imputation of such a nature, and their
Lordships would, no doubt, have condemned him for such a
course. But he did not thiuk there was any gronnd for the
slightest suspicion to be entertained. The word was merely a
passing one, and he would defend his Friend from tite charge
of hav:ng kept hack any portion of the measure which should
be brought forward. He had already trespassed for some time
upon the House—( Hear, hear)—and, in conclusion, would say,
that the law requited an alteration, and he hoped that it would
be altered in conformity with the present oath cf supremacy.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had listened with some atten-
tion to the speech of his Noble Friend ; lie did not complain
of him, but of himself, for having made himself so little under-
stood as to state that the object of this Act was to sanction the
supremacy of the Pope. Ile had stated that the oath has
nothing to cio with the present Act, persons taking the oath of
supremacy were placed in a difficulty by the terms of the oath.
As he had said before, his Noble Friend had given his opinion
as to what was the right construction of the oath, and his
opinion was that it was a most de-ricate matter, and
that they were to consider that they rested the
oath on the conscience of the men. They made a
solemn asseveration, which they did not see or knov, although
the Nobie Lord and his Honourable Friend supposed that
they saw and knave it. It had nothing to do with the
legal construction of the oath, nor the Act before their
Lordships for taking away the spiritual jurisdiction of this
country. The view he took of this case was that many people
might take these oaths, and taught safely deny the power of the
Pope to have any legal jurisdiction ; but they could not deny
that he had a spiritual power, though he had none by law.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he would suggest, as he had
been in the House since ten o'clock that morning, and many of
their Lordships had only remained since a much later period,
that they should go into Committee, anti take those clauses of
the Bill to whicti no opposition was offered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to
propose that course.

The Bishop of EXETER was ready to assent to that course,
but it would not be very easy to select those parts to which no
opposition would be given.
After some further conversation, the House went into Corn.
mittee on the Bill, pro forma.
The clauses were then read, and, with the exception of seve-
ral that were reserved fur re-consideration, were agreed to.
The House then resumed.
In answer to a question from a Noble Lord,

The LORD CI-lAN CELLOR said he could not then fix the
day for the re-cotnrmittal of the Bill. The Noble and Learned
Lord then said that the Bill had passed through Committee,
with the exception of three clauses relating to supremacy,
bulls, and on incidental points arising out of the Act of George
111. Excepting these, the rest of the Bill was di,posed of.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, ,Ilay 15.
The SPFA KEIL tOCk the Chair at Four o'clock.
MANCHESTER AND SALFORD WATERWORKS

BILL.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the evidence taken
before the Committee OR the Manchester and Salford Water-
works Bill, in the last Session, be referred to the Committee
on the Lancashire Waterworks Bill.L-A,treed to.
BOSTON, NEWARK, AND SHEFFIELD AND NOT-
TINGHAM AND GRANTHAM JUNCTION
RAILWAY.
Mr. GREENE moved that, the order which, on the sth of
February last, was made referring the petition for the Boston,
Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham and Grantham Junction
Railway, to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills
be read ; that the said order be discharged ; that the said peti-
tion bt... withdrawn; that the order made on the 25th day of
March last, referring the Great Grimsby, Louth, Borneastle,
Lincoln, and Midland Junction Railway Bill to the Committee
of Selection, be read ; that the said order be discharged ; that
the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to.
WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YARMOUTH
RAILWAY.
Mr. MACKINNON moved that the petition of Mr. Richard
Morse against the Waveney Valley and Great Yarmouth Rail-
way Bill, be referred to the Select Committee to which the
said Bill is referred, notwithstanding the three days' notice
having expired ; and that the Committee be directed to enter
particularly into the merits of said petition, by calling for such
returns as they may require, and to report specially to this
House on the result of such investigation.
After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, the motion
was withdrawn.

BRISTOL AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY (BATH
LINE).
Mr. HUDSON moved the second reading of this Bill, which
was read and ordered to ha committed.

NEWCA STLE AND DARLINGTON JUNCTION
RAILWAY (THIRSK AND MALTON BRANCH).
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE PIER.
The Lords' amendmsnts to this Bill were eonsidereJ, and
agreed to.
BIRKENHEAD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
REPORTS.
_ .

The following reports were brought up, the amendments
agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be ongro3sed :
Cambridge and Oxford

Kendal Union Gas and Water:

Carnwath and West Linton Railway.
Dunblane, Doune, and Caliander Railway.
Perth and Inverness Railway.
Great North of Scotland Railway.
Warrington Waterworks (to be considered).
Bury Waterworks (to be considered).
Lincoln Waterworks (to be considered).
CHELSEA BRIDGE AND THAMES EMBANKMENT.
Mr. YOUNG moved to refer the Chelsea Bridge and
Thames Embankment Bill and the Battersea Park Biil to a
select committee. Mr. Young, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir R.
H. Inglis, Mr. Hawes. Sic William Clay Alderman Hutu-
phery, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Thomas Wood, Mr. An-
trodus, Lord R. Grosvenor, Viscouut Chelsea, Mr. Trotter,
and five to be addPci to the committee of selection.—The mo-
tion was agreed to.
Several petitions for and against different railway Bills were
presented, among which was one from the Right Hon. Shaw
Lefevre (the Speaker), the announcement of which caused
considerable laughter.
A number of petitions were then presented a:ainst the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, also against the
erection of county lunatic as}lums.
WJNKFJELD UNION.

Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the rate-
parish of Wink&ld, in the county of Berk,, in
rate-
pagers of the
veatry assembled, complaining of the conduct of the Poor-
law Commis Toners, and the proceedings of the board of
guardians of the East Hampstead Union. The peti-
tion was adopted at a public meeting assembled in
the vestry, and was signed by the clergyman of the
parish. The petitioners stated that they had been unfairly dealt
with by the Poor-law Commissioners, and that in consequence
of their not being fairly represented at the Board of Guardians
the interest of the rate-payers had been completely swamped.
The workhouse had been built at an extravagant expense, and
away from the population, and although the whole sam of
money had !nen expended upon its erection, there was neither