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

the subject-41) oaths and the opinions, for they were insepa-
rable; and they could not be prepared to judge of the penalties
unless they knew how these oaths would affect the laws they
wished to be preserved. This measure. when it was passed,
would be a most emphatic permission for the laws with respect
to the oaths of supremacy to remain as they then stood, and it
would be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very
great objections to many of those who were of this opinion.
Although that was his opinion, his Learned Friend would have
done well if he had given way to the recommondation of the
Commissioners, as he understood him several times to say that
he approved of it, and that with regard to parts of the Bill, he
thought it expedient to divide the Bill, and to bring it in at
separate times. He also 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 ho 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-books.
Lord STANLEY said that he owed the House
some apology for rising to make any observations on this sub-
ject. He was not about to enter upon any discussion 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 what he conceived had been a misappre—
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 addressed the House from the second bench. In
speaking of his Right Rev. Friend and his Learned and Noble
Friend on the Woolsack, he had said, that although at the
present time the oath of supremacy might be fairly and without
hesitation taken—it had beets taken by all their Lordships, and
had been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of
the Protestant people of this country—after the passing of
this Act, it would be impossible for any man with a safe 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 become an Act of Parliament, would nut have the slight-
est effect under the existing circumstances.
Lord BROUGHAM—I do not say that.
Lord STANLEY—The Right Rev. Prelate said that he
conceived that by the fact 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
jurisdiction of the Pope over any portion of the subjects of her
Majesty would remain precisely in the same condition—neither
greater nor less—neither more nor less recognised, nor more
legalised 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 guilty of perjury in
taking that oath, precisely to the eats .nt to which they would be
guilty of the same offence after the Act han passed. He
conceive that the Act did not legal ise the jurisdiction of the
Pope. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the
specific penalties from communicatio es otherwise innocent be-
cause they came from Rome. If titsis 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 assume the character of au-
thority, and would not be recognised as valid any more after
the passing of that Act than at thei present moment. They
were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in
any sense which the present authorities in England rejected.
If the spiritual jurisdiction of Rome was not anything less (and
it would not be anything less), they .had all committed perjury;
for spiritually, or otherwise, they could not recognise, by
any means, the authority of the P ope, or any prince, power,
or potentate in these realms, lice did not question what
influence or authority the Pope rale ht exercise over the con-
science of any individual in this con ntry, or how far he might
be iuluenced by any command or di .claration, or by any oath
which should declare, neither more , nor less, than that after
this Bill should pass there was no 11 tvir in this country to sub-
ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con-
trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical ma tters. He apprehended it
was too clear to admit of a doubt the it there were many Catho-
lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pope, or of
any clergyman fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he
should attempt to enforce by virta ie of that authority. The
law would step in for the protect ion of the subject, and the
priest who should attempt to go be! and that authority and in-
fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the
conduct of individuals would be es tbject to a penalty, and the
person so coerced would have (la mages 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 Commissioner who
refused to admit the authority if 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 Fie titioner damages. This he
apprehended to be the state of the law now—to deny that the
Pope had or ought to have any juries diction in this country, and
that law was not in the least afrec te d by Bills now proposed.
He denied that his Noble and Lear ned Friend was chargeable
for having postponed the considerate on of the propriety of alter-
ing the law. If the present meals': re did alter the law in that
respect, and if his Noble and Leers ed Friend had kept back a
portion of it, it would be a difficult ti uestion to say that he would
take them by surprise, by saying eis at now they had passed an
Act which had made so total a chain ge 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 think th Le re was any ground for the
slightest suspicion to be entertain( el. The word was merely a
passing one, and he would defend his Friend from the charge
of having kept back any portion el t the measure which should
be brought forward. He had alre ally trespassed for some time
upon the House—( Hear, hear)—: seal, in conclusion, would say,
that the law required an alteratioi a, and he hoped that it would
be altered in conformity with the t pr esent oath of supremacy.
Lord BROUGHAM said he h ad listened with some atten-
tion to the speech of his Noble i Friend ; he did not complair.
of him, but of himself, for having :made himself so little under-
stood as to state that the object o f this Act was to sanction the
supremacy of the Pope. He ha d stated that the oath had
nothing to do with the present A et, persons taking the oath of
supremacy were placed in a diffic silty by the terms of the oath.
As he had said before, his Noble .Friend had given his opinion
as to what was the right constr action of the oath, and his
opinion was that it was a most delicate matter, and
that they were to conside r that they rested thus
oath on the conscience of the men. They made a
solemn asseveration, which they Lid not see or know, although
the Noble Lord and his Honou treble Friend supposed that
they saw and knew 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 t' tis case was that many people
might take these oaths, and migh t safely deny the power of the
Pope to have any legal jurisdicti on ; but they could not deny
that he had a spiritual power, tho ugh he had none by law.
After a few words from the LC vR D CHANCELLOR,
Lord BROUGHAM said, that' he would suggest, as he had
been in the House since ten o'cloc k that morning, and many of
their Lordships had only remaine d since a much later period,
that they should go into Commits e e, and take those clauses of
the Bill to which no opposition we c s offered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to
propose that course.
The Bishop of EXETER was ri s ady to assent to that course,
but it would not be very easy to s e lect those parts to which no
opposition would be given.
After some further conversation,. the• House went into Com-
mittee on the Bill, pro forma.
The clauses were then read, and, -wit h the exception of seve-
ral that were reserved for re-consider at ion, were agreed to.
The House then resumed.

In answer to a question from a Noble Lord,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said I ie could not then fix the
day for the re-committal of the Bill. ' rhe Noble and Learned
Lord then said that the Bill had passed' through Committee,
with the exception of three clauses r t lating to supremacy,
bulls, and on incidental points arising or i t of the Act of George
111. Excepting these, the rest of the I Jilt was disposed of.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF C0A131021,',!;, May 15.
The SPICAKER, took the Chair at Fou r o'clock.
MANCHESTER AND SALFORI ) WATERWORKS
BILL.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved t k iat the evidence taken
before the Committee on the Mulches' An- and Salford Water-
works Bill, in the last Session, be ref erred to the Committee
on the Lancashire Waterworks Bill.— Agreed to.
BOSTON, NEWARK, AND SW IFFIELD AND NOT-
TINGHAM AND GRANTH Jbl JUNCTION
RAILWAY.

Mr. GREENE moved that the or der which, on the sth of
February last, was made referring the petition for the Boston,
Newark, and Sheffield, and Nottingham i 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-
tioa be withdrawn; that the order m ado on the 25th day of
March last, referring the Great Grin isby, Louth, Horncastle,
Lincoln, and Midland Junction Rails' ray Bill to the Committee
of Selection, be read; that the said c xcler be discharged ; that
the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to.
WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YARMOUTH
RAILW.A
Mr. MACKINNON moved tha t the petition of Mr. Richard
Mosse, against the Waveney Va.lle g and Great Yarmouth Rail-
way Bill, be referred to the Sole :t Committee to which the
said Bill is referred, notwithstxxoting the three days' notice
having expired; and that the GM imittee be directed to enter
particularly into the merits of said petition, by calling for such
returns as they may require, r to report specially to this
House on the result of such inv esi ligation.
After-a few words from Lord G SOMERSET, the motion
was withdrawn.

BRISTOL AND BIRMING TIAM RAILWAY (BATH
LIN E).
Mr. HUDSON moved the sec and reading of this Bill, which
was read and ordered to be comr &Med.

NEWCASTLE AND DA Y.ILINGTON JUNCTION
RAILWAY (THIRSK AN ID MALTON BRANCH).
This Bill was read a third tinv‘e and passed.
WESTON-SUPEL t-MARE PIER.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered, and
agreed to.
BIRKENHEAD IMPROVER SENT COMMISSIONERS.
This Bill was read a third time s and passed.
REPO FITS.
The following reports were brought up, the amendments
agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed:—
Cambridge and Oxford Railway,„
Kendal Union Gas and Water.

Carnwath and West Linton Rail way.
Dunblane, Doune, and Callande r Railway.
Perth and Inverness Railway.

Great North of Scotland
Warrington Waterworks (to be considered).
Bury Waterworks (to be considered).
Lincoln Waterworks (to be consi.LtereEl).
CHELSEA BRIDGE AND T HAMES EMBANKMENT.
Mr. YOUNG moved to refer the Chelsea Bridge and
Thames Embankment Bill and the Battersea Park Bill to a
select committee. Mr. Young, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir R.
H. Inglis, Mr. ['awe:, Sir William Clay Alderman Hum-
phery, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Thomas Wood, Mr. An-
trode3, Lord R. Grosvenor, Viscount Chelsea, Mr. Trotter,
and five to be added 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
Lace/I.e (the Speaker), the announcement of which caused
considerable laughter.
A number of petitions were then presented against the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, also against the
erection of county lunatic asylums.
WIN KFI [MD UNION.

Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the a
rate-
p yers of the parish of Winkfield, in the county of Berks, in
- vestry assembled, complaining of the conduct of the Poor-
law Commissioners, 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 Ptior-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 sum of
money had been expended upon its erection, there was neither