The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

to be considered one who would support his religious prin-
t ciples by penal enactments. He objected to any intolerance,
as it was subversive of all religious principles, of all Pro-
testant feeling. Intolerance was not the doctrine of the
Church of England. The Church of England recognised
the right of the exercise of private enescience and judgment.
—( dear, hear.) flut he found that it was admitted
on all side-, by every body in point ,of tact
who looked at the present aspects of the days that we
were advancing to a very important period in the
history of Europe—( Hear, hear)—a period-in which we were
engaged in a great struggle between the ecclesiesiical autho-
rities and the civil power.—(dear, hear.) Ills Honourable -
and Learned Friend the Measlier for Rutlandshire had alluded
to the movement within the Church of England.
(Mr. Colquhoun) did not mean to say it was not
one'aff'Pellirike 1,•:;.111.
fOreboded great and serious danger to the Church ; bend U 4&
did not mean to say that if it increased he should not shrink
from asking the Legislature to interpose for the purpoee of
arresting the progress of that dangerous movement. He,
for one, would not shrink when the proper time arrived
from grapy ng with the difficulty. The Honourable and
Le ,rned Member had said: that there was a Mr. Wharton,
and an Archbishop of Rhodes, and another gentleman, Mr.
Green, who had objected to take the oath required by the
Act, and had consequently suffered great annoyance, but the
Hon. and Learned Member had said that it was not the oath
of 1526 that they objected to, and he had also refused to read
the osth. But what did the, oath require ? Merely
that Roman Catholics should deny the civil authority
of the Church of Rome, and yet the Honourable
and Learned Member had called upon the Reuse
to approve of his Bill because a certain layman and an Arch-
bishop had experienced sonic incouveffience because they
did not choose to take the oath in question. Ile (Mr. Col-
quhoun) contended that if this Bill were passed it would en-
gender most urgent and serious dangers which, in his opi-
nion, it was not wise to increase in times like the present.
If the Legislature passed this Bill witithut any modification,
and just as it was proposed ley his lion. and Learned Friend,
they would give the strongest support to those men
whose conduct would be calculated to injue in the most
fatal -mintier the liberties and constitution of this country.
Come from his Ilon. and Learned Friend, or from the Lord
Chancellorconte, in fact, Irene what quarter it might—he
should give his most decided opposition to a Bill like
the present, whether it was supported or opposed by
the Government," or whether it was backed or con-
demned by the highest authority in either House of
Parliament. lie should, in feet, oppose to the
unmet every attempt to break down the constitution of
Great Britain.—(llear, hear.) He would not give his sup-
port to rneesurce like the present, which he believed to be
fatal to the conetitu theta anti liberties of Euglishmen—libertiee
obtuined at a period which his lion. and Learned Friend
looked back to with csnteuir, but which he ( Mr. Colqu-
holm) regarded %deli the greatest of veneration and respect.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Free Church of Scotland had repu-
diated the principle of ecclesiastical supremacy in temporal
matters. His opinion was that in ecclesiastical matters ecclesias-
tical government should be supreme, and in civil wee temporal
matters the civil power should be supreme. With reference
to the speech of the Right lion. Member for the
University of Oxford, he had stated many things which
would have been better if considered in Committee. He
could assure the house, that as regarded any processions of
the kind being exhibited in the streets of London or other
large towns, he had too much veneration for that solemnity
to expose it to the ribaldry, and perhaps to the insult of those
who differed from him in their opinions upon that subject.
He would, however, state to the House, that at Malta an
officer of the British army conscientiously refused to tire the
accustomed salute at the time the procession of the Host was
passing by. He was punished by the Government of this coun-
try for not doing so, by being dept iced of his commision. He
(Mr. O'Connell ) however brought the circumstances under the
consideration of the House, and undertook his defence on
the ground of his conscientious Scruples. lie did not think
he could allow himself to be silent upon the monastic order.
There was no law to prevent those institutions. There was
no law to prevent the superiors of convents keeping nuns
in their house. The doors of the convents are al-
ways open, so that the nuns might leave at any time
they thought proper.—(Hear, hear.) They had not
however done so. The Right Hon. Baronet seems to be
impressed with unfavourable notions regarding the JeLuite.
lie bad had opportunities of looking over the history of that
illuetrions. order. Ile was convinced there never were greater
friends to the advancement of literature than they had been.
He believed that their virtues were their crime. lie defied any
man to state, .with name and fact, anything derogatory
to that illustrious order which he was not able to refute.
Their lives were spent in the performance of the most antic
virtues. They are compelled to spend a number of years in
a course of training at their colleges, to enable them
to teach others, and at the expiration of that period they
may or may notbe admitted into the order. They have
produced many great men in all branches of literature and
science, which no person can but admit. The authority of
Pascal, although a great and fascinating writer, yet he does
not attempt to look into the facts of the case ; and he (Mr.
O'Connell) believed that there was not a statement put
forward in that book that he was not able to refute.
Michelet was not either any authority to be quoted
upon the subject of the Jesuits, nothing could be more atro-
cious than his book. As to Eugene Sue, the writer of
romances of the most atrocious nature, he states no fact
whatever of the Jesuits. He succeeded by drawing largely
upon his imagination to turn his work into a most gross and
unnatural romance. There is not a single fact recorded in it.
They had been persecuted by many countries by reason
of their superior moral lives. Spain and Portugal had ba-
nished them from their countries, and no person could say
that those countries were et all in an enlightened state. He
thanked God that the order was now reviving again, that in
the last year 40 missionaries had been sent to a great portion
of the most uncivilised parts of the globe. They would
probably double their number in the next year. He begged
pardon of the House for introducing to their notice the sub-
ject of the Jesuists ; it'was the first time he had troubled
the House with such a subject; and concluded by stating, as
'his firm and settled conviction, that they were the greatest
benefactors to the literature and science of this country.
Mr. PAKINGTON, thought a member of the Protestant
Church, would gladly support the principle of the Bill, which
he believed was to remove those enactments against Rout ;It
Catholics Which had now become obsolete. But, .at •
the same time, thought perfectly willing to make
any concession to his Catholic brethren, he could not
go so far- as the principle contemplated in the Bill.
He could not support a measure calculated to remove
those safeguards of the British conetituttorif which were
framed at the time of the rassing of the Catholic Emanci-
pation Act in 1829.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL could say that he had been
educated at a Jesuit c,:llege, and from what he had seen there,
he believed that they were good Christians, enlightened
gentlemen, and loyal subjects.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that it would be found that
the order of the Jesuits would be difficult to be traced; he
would not deny that there might be among them some cha-
racters remarkable for their attainments. Several countries,
however, which the Hon. Member for Cork must be aware
of, had found it necessary for the preservation of internal
peace to banish them.

Mr. O'CONNELL stated, in reply to the Hon. Member,
that the forty missionaries he had alluded to had not been
labouring in England or France, but their labours had com-
menced at the Mores, and ended at Cochin China.
Lord JOHN MLNNERS could not see what possible good
it could do to the. Honourable Member for Oxford, or
any other Protestant, to witness the continuance of these
laws upon the statute-book. The Honourable Ba-
ronet said he would remove them when some prac-
tical grievance resulted from their enforcement, but
what was that but carrying out the old adage of not
shutting the'stable till the eteed was stolen ? He could not
agree with the fears expressed by Hon. Members in refer-
ence to the Jesuits. About 100 years ago a similar feeling
prevailed in this country against the Tempi:Ars. There
was no atrocity of which they were considered capable.
The Spectator, a few years ago, stated that the feelings pre-
valent about Jesuits were " more suited to circulating
libraries and romances than grave political discussions."
These opinions were absolutely ridiculous. The Jesuits
were a body of learned and intelligent men, and had
of late carried the Gospel to China, and conferred' a
great amount of good on benighted lands. He thought
they should rather imitate their example, as well. as
that of the Christian Brothers and the Cistercians of Mount
Melleray, than sully the dignity of the British House of
Commons by heaping aspersions upon them which wire
utterly devoid of truth and unworthy of their chafacter.
ESTCOURT apprehended that the enactments, of
1829 were not inoperative and useless, for the speech of the
\oble Lord proved distinctly the reverse. The Noble Lord
dwelt at some length on them, and considered them of little
consequence;importance bu t he
uw,aass oald
ttecnhoeudgthn ttohermemem whenbert thathey con-
siderablewere
eunder discussion. He. should atost willingly support the
amendment of the Hon. Baronet.
Mr. P. BORTWICK supported the second reading of the
Bill, because it was founded upon the broad principle of cha-
rity—the child of Christianity and the mother of the Church
of England. He considered the works of Eugene Sue ex-
ercised a more pernicious influence on society than any act
the Jesuits had ever committed.

Mr. M. MI LNES would have preferred that this discussion
had taken place upon the Government Bill. He passed a
great portion of his time in Catholic countries, and had
even heard the service of the Church of England
under the walls of the Vatican. He considered that the re-
moval of these disabilities would have a good effect on the
Roman Catholic religion abroad. Ile hoped that they would
eschew these absurd delusions about Jesuits, and remove for
ever from the statute-book these odious penalties and dis-
abilities.

Colonel SIBTHORP said he would adopt in reference to
this measure but one course, and that was the consistent
course, and the same that he had pursued in reference to the
grant to the College of Maynooth. He did hope that the
Hon. Member for Oxford would take a division on his
amendment; and here, let him say, that he did think
that the Protestant religion was much indebted
to that Honourable Member for the manner in
which he had defended it. With regard to this measure he
would sit down by saying, that he would support the sug-
gestion of the Hon. Member for Oxford, becauss he feared
that to leave the measure of the Right Honourable Baron et
unsupported: would have the effect of undermining the Pro-
testant religion in this country.
Captain HARRIS said he quite agreed with many Hon.
Members that many of these penal Acts should be repealed ;
but at the same time he should oppose the present measure,
because he conceived it to be too general a measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to put a question to the
mover of the Bill. He would wish to know whether certain
penalties which had been alluded to would be repealed?
Mr. ESCOTT said he would be very glad to introduce a
clause to the effect of abolishing those penalties, though he
believed that in the existing state of the law these penalties
could not be enforced.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. P. HOWARD said the Hon. Member opposite was
mistaken as to the existing law in reference to Jesuits.
Mr. B. ESCOTT replied. He said the Bill
ow
would
contain
a clause to prevent processions of Roman Ch
country, which should have a malicious or offensive
etenindentehvis.
hadHe
heard
Holi.
iinjuriously
Membersious contend
ought
thatt
b
be other
repealed. Acts
He
affect-
ing
otliepersuasions
Billthen
proposed and in either case
Ibfe t
abbe
oyl ws
abolished;
ed
reason
and
for
d-
tftuholelyyt haNevgerreee Actsd
either with
i whichtibesmo
obsolete
thisei(us
It or
lete, then they were no use, a
they should be repealed.— ienadr,olluegahrt to .
of "Divide, divide.")
were pein,osubdtchreinesthat was a stronger
withdraw, and
i
ded_to
f t
theirh they
(
66
divided,S tStrangers
rhst when there etrsheocetroheneadnprpooreadaderierog
Against it ... 23
Majority for the second reading —4B
MANCHESTER, HUDDERSFIELD, AND GREAT
GRIMSBY DIRECT RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time.
OUT-PENSIONERS' PAYMENT (GREENWICIA AND
CHELSEA) BILL.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Captain PECHELL briefly expressed his dissent from
the principles of' this Bill, as its operation was by no
means calculated to benefit the interests of, or
to give satisfaction to, these yete:eans.
It r. SIDNEY HERBERT defended the Bill as a MUNN
that would inflict no haAlship on the pensioners, but rather
be a means of protecting them. The Secretary-at-War had