The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 11.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from the
Rural Dean of Swansea against the union of these sees.
SELLING SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS ON THE
SABBATH.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petiton
from the town of Canterbury, against the sale of spirituous
liquors on the Lord's-day, and praying that the law which
regulated the sale of those liquors in London on that day might
be extended to the provinces.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The Most REV. PRELATE a'so presented a petition from the
Corporation of Deal against this Bill. He had heard that there
w a too corporation in the kingdom which acted more consci-
entiously in the application of the funds entrusted to their care,
Charitable purposes. than the Corporation of Deal.
SUNDAY TRADING.
The Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition against
the sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday.
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition, signed by
all the clergy of a rural deanery in Wiltshire, against the union
of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Lord FAVERSHAM presented petitions from York, against
the Charitable Trusts Bill.
Lord Eldon, the Bishop of Winchester, and Lord Campbell,
presented similar petitions.
Lord CAMPBELL postponed his Registration Bill, which
stood to-night for the first reading.
CLE;IKS OF THE CROWN (IRELAND).
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that he
would, on Friday next, call the attention of the House to the
late appointment of Clerks of the Crown in Ireland.
The Earl of ORKNEY presented a petition in favour of
free trade.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Rev.
Dr. Magee, of Harold's Cross, Dublin, praying the House not
to pass into a law a measure which had been introduced by the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and which would
sanction the introduction of Papal bulls into this country, by
which he would be much alarmed.
GRAND JURY ASSESS RATES (IRELAND).
Earl GREY presented a petition from Basingsloe against
the rates levied under this Bill.

CONDITION OF RAILWAY LABOURERS.
The Noese EARL also presented a petition from Glasgow,
praying their Lordships to adopt some measures to improve the
condition of the labourers employed on the numerous railways
throughout the country.
HIGH CONSTABLES' BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
THE RELIGIOUS OPINIONS' RELIEF BILL.
The Bishop of EXETER then rose to propose that the ques-
tions of which he had given notice with respect to this Bill
should be put to the Judges. He said their Lordships would
readily believe that it was with the deepest reluctance that he
rose to move their adoption, and that he hesi'ated much before
he prevailed on himself to give the Learned Judges the additional
trouble, which, in the event of their Lordships acceding to
them, would be imposed upon them. He felt this the more be-
cause at the present moment they were much oppressed by the
additional amount of business which they had to discharge.
He did not think their Lordships need go further for an
opinion as to what the law actually was than their own walls.
He hoped that the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
would feel himself bound peculiarly to look upon the
matter in a judicial point of view. The Bill be-
fore their Lordships was brought in by the Noble and Learned
Lord himself. By this Bill it was proposed to strike out of
the statute-book those important statutes or parts thereof
which have been ever considered as the main bulwarks of the
constitution of England—England, as an independent mo-
narchy. In the Bill before their Lordships, which had been
read a second time, and which it is hereafter proposed to
go into Committee upon, their; Lordships would be
invited to repeal so much of an Act passed in the first year of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth to restore to the Crown its
ancient jurisdiction over the state of England. Their Lordships
would see that the tendency of that Act was to make it no longer
punishable to assert the supremacy of the Pope. He needed not
to remind their Lordships that this supremacy had been claimed
by the Pepe prior to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He had
claimed and exercised that power in deposing King John. The
same Pope (Innocent. 111 ) claimed jurisdiction and power over
a succeeding King in the year 1215, in these words—" Is not
the King of England our vassal, or, rather, our slave?"
This was the power to be restored by this Bill,
should their Lordships think fit to pass the same.
In these remote times Paul 111. deposed Henry VIII., and
released his subjects from their allegiance. Just before the
Act in question passed Paul IV. had acted with equal vio-
lence towards Queen Elisabeth. He declared it was the
height of presumption for Queen Elizabeth to claim the
crown of England without his permission. It was under
those provocations that the first statute of Elizabeth
was passed, and unless there was some inherent vigour in the
constitutional laws of England, which would make it, in spite
of the statue which the Noble and Learned:Lord proposed to re-
peal, penal for any one to put forth the power of the Pope to
any such extent, we will no longer protect it from
the recurrences of such attempts at power. The
object of his motion was that their Lordships would
satisfy themselves of that inherent power in the constitution
to prevent such offences as those. He had thought it right to
propose these questions, because it was not directly in the Bill
before their Lordships, nor in the Act which they proposed, to
repeal any clause which made it punishable to write, print, teach
by express words, deed, or act, or maliciously deny the
Queen's supremacy. The express denial of the Queen's
supremacy was not made punishable by the Ist
of Elizabeth. It asserted the Queen's supremacy, hut
it said nothing on the subject of denial, nor did the Bill
which he held in his hand. Of course the Queen's supremacy
was as clear, undeniable, and unquestionable as any part o•
the constitution of this land, over things spiritual as well as
temporal, and to deny that supremacy must be a grave offence
against the constitution, and ought to be punishable at
common law. But it was absolutely necessary for
this House to know whether that was the case or
or not before they proceeded to legislate with respect to the
penal enactments of the Ist statute of Elizabeth. On the sub.
jest of Royal supremacy, he need not tell their Lordships that
they had the highest legal authority for stating that it was a
part—a special part—of the monarchy a this land.—
( Hear, hear.) He need not say that Lord Coke and
Sir Matthew Hale had expressed their opinions on that snbjeet,
on the strongest terms. He, therefore, hoped that the
Menial of that supremacy must be an offence against
the common law. lie should be quite content if the
Noble Lord on the Woolsack would answer that question
decisively and say that it was punishable by the common law.
When on a former occasion he addressed their Lordships on
the second reading of this Bill, when his Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack proposed the insertion of a declaration
of the Queen's supremacy, he deela-ed that he should
have no hesitation in expressing himself satisfied with
that, if his Noble and Learned Friend would go one
step further—if he would consent to a punishment
being annexed for the crime of denying the Sovereign's supre-
macy. But his Noble and Learned Friend refused to advance
this step ; he said that this was what he could not do ; that it
was contrary to the policy which had actuated them in
bringing forward the Bill ; and this was the reason why
he wished to extort from his Noble and Learned
Friend the inquiry whether the denying of the Queen's
supremacy would be .
punishable at common law
The Pope claimed a spiritual jurisdiction in fro exteriorum,
but if the claims advanced by him were allowed, it would give
a power to him which their ancestors viewed with great jealousy,
because they thought that it gave to a foreign power an essen-
tial authority over the Crown of this country. But he (the
Bishop of Exeter) must be permitted to say, that
the jurisdiction of the Pope in fdro exteriorum
was of that extended character that the subjects
of this country could not allow. The Pope's claim
in Toro interim i, affected the' conscience, and was,
therefore, of a most formidable character. The Pope
had the power of deposing kings and governments,
by absolving men from their oaths of allegiance. It was,
therefore, he thought, necessary to protect this country against
such influence if they could do so consistently, and through the
medium of an Act of Parliament. The House would find that
the Pope not only still had that power, but that it was
justified by some of the most modern and liberal
Roman Catholic writers of this country. Dr. Milner and
Dr. O'Connell, than whom there was not a more liberal man,
for instance, justified, nay, advocated the power of the
Pope to absolve parties from their allegiance. The
extract from the work of the Rev. Gentleman went to
show the great danger of the power of absolution from oath
by the ministers of the Roman Catholic religion. An officer
of the army, for instance, professing that faith, might
be absolved from the oath which he had taken
and disavow his allegiance to his Sovereign.—( Heir.)
The individual was not allowed to judge for himself, but was
entirely in the power of those who were the heads of the reli-
gion which he professed, as they led him to believe that they
could absolve him from any indignity. Need he say that in
this consisted the whole danger to which he referred? He said
this power of absolving from oath, which was admitted by the
highest Roman Catholic authorities, must not be set forth
in this Protestant land—that such a power could not
exist without great danger to the country. —( Hear. )
Their Lordships would see that there was a wide difference
between entertaining an opinion, and extolling, putting forth,
and maintaining it to the world. Let those persons in com-
munion with the Pope believe, if they pleased, his supremacy,
and let them in their conscience act as they thought the doctrine
taught them; but let them not feel at liberty to set forth to the
world those opinions. They are immoral, and being immoral,
they are consequently indecent. Would the opinion of the
Anabaptists be tolerated in this country, who maintain that
everything should be held in common? The remarks
he was making did not of course refer to those
Noble Lords present who were in communion with the Pope.
It was proposed to strike out these statutes from the statute-
book without any practical evil having been brought forward
as resulting from their continuance on the statute-book. No;
it was not said that there was any grievance of that kind, but
they were toad that they were put into an invidious
position. If they were a people of that sort he had,
for his own part, not the slightest objection to
extend to them any privileges which were consistent
with the full security and enjoyment of the Protestant
Constitution of this country. He would now proceed to say
something with resesect to the other question that he should
move their Lordships to propose to the Learned Judges—he
meant that which asked, whether independently of so much of
the said Act of the first year of the reign of Elizabeth
before recited, and also before the said Act passed in the fifth
year of the same reign, and also of the Act passed in the thir-
teenth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth as is above recited,
intinaled " An Act against the bringing in and putting in exe-
cution of bulls, writings, or instruments, and other superstitious
things, from the See of Rome," it is an offence against the law
of England, and punishable as such, to bring in or put in execu-
tion any such bull, writings,or instruments from the see of Rome.
He was not sure whether this question would receive from the
Learned Judges such an answer as would fully satisfy him in
this case. He was afraid that those learned persons
would hesitate before they spoke of bulls generally
in such a manner. lie wished they might. He hoped
that they might. Bulls were matters known to the laws of
England. They were mentioned in the Statutes and laws
of England. Therefore the Learned Judges would be
prepared to put a construction upon the word " bull,"
Their Lordships would permit him to say that bulls
were instruments that had passed as it were under
the Great Seal of the Pope of Rime. They
were in fact such instruments as passed under the Great
Seal of our own Gracious Sovereign. " Briefs " were,
on the contrary, under the Privy Seal of Rome.
Bulls were so called (if their Lordships would
forgive him whilst he made the explanation from
a barbarous Greek word, " boula, " which igni-
fied a leaden instrument. There were " bulls of grace" and
" balls of justice," the seals of the former being attached to
the written documents by twine, whilst those of
the latter consisted of some less dignified material.
In respect of these bulls, he would remind their Lordships
that it was not until a late year that it was absolutely compul-
sory on Queen Elizabeth to
propose to Parliament and on Par •
liament to enact this statute which was now about to
be expunged. That statute not only made it
high treason to introduce a bull such as
that which Pius the Fifth issued against Queen Elizabeth,
deposing that Sovereign; declaring her throne vacant, and call.

ing on her subjects tedisebey her authority. It was not for that
reason that this statute was enacted, but because it was found
impossible to define the bulls in suet' a way as to make it
safe to permit the introduction of any bulls at all ;
and therefore it was that this statute very wisely, as
he thought, prohibited all bulls whatever. He should
be very glad if they could possibly discover any
mode in which the introduction of these bulls
could be punished in a lisshter manner; but the act
of introducing hulls into this land interfered with the
Sovereign power of the land, and was therefore
in itself an act of high treason ; and therefore
it was that those two great men, Sir Mathew Hale and Coke,
defended this particular Act as necessary for the best interests
of the country ; that very Act it was now proposed to rescind,
He should be glad if the Noble and Learned Lord, when he
proposed to strike out this statute, would propose to intro-
duce a something which would protect them generally from
the introduction of Papal bulls into this country, and if they
found that the common law did not affect this object, then he
trusted that the Noble and Learned Lord would insert a
clause which would answer that object. Before he sat down
he felt it necessary to make one or two remarks, because it
was only that feeling the want of there laws he had
been compelled to ask the Noble Lord these questions.
They were called upon to acknowledge this Papal power which
had for ages been the bane of nations without the slightest rea-
ssn being urged in the Bill itself for their doing so.
Those who had introduced this Bill had not
taken upon themselves the peril to say that it
was expedient to repeal this power. There was scarcely a
single statute which did not give some reason, in the shape of
preamble, for its being passed ; and were they in this instance
to depart from the constitutional rules of the country, and
piss an Act, without sas sss why or wherefore, which
affected the supremacy of :he Crown of England? It was
remarkable that it was only two years ago since the Noble and
Learned Lord struck out of the Bill the very clauses he now in-
troduced. The Noble and Learned Lord opposite had, upon
the occasion to which he alluded introduced a Bill for
repealing these Acts, and he applied to his Noble
and Learned Friend to know how such an Act
was to be met, and to express an earnest hope
that it would not be permitted to pass, and he had the satis-
faction of finding afterwards that it did not pass. It was for
these reasons that he thought it necessary to appeal, to the
Noble and Learned Lord who represented the Government
in that House, and to the other Noble and Learned Lords on
the opposite Benches to apply their judicial minds to the ques-
tions which he should take the liberty of propounding to them.
The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by proposing that the fol-
lowing questions be submitted to the judges :—Whether,
independently of so much of the Act passed hi the first
year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, intituled, " An
Act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction
over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolish-
ing all foreign powers repugnant to the same," an makes
it punishable to affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain,
or defend, as therein is mentioned. the authority, pre-
eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical,
of any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate,
theretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or to
put in use or execute anything for the extolling, advancement,
setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended
or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority,
or any part thereof, and of an Act passed in the fifth year
of the said Queen, intitled "An Act for the Assurance of
the Queen's Royal Power over all Estates and Subjects
within her Dominions," it is an offence against the law of
England, and punishable by the same, by writing, printing.
teaching, preaching, express words, deed, or act, advisedly
and maliciously to deny the Queen's supremacy, or to affirm,
maintain, and defend any such pretended or usurped power,
jurisdiction, or authority of the Pope, or any foreign prince,
prelate, person, state, or potentate within this realm?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he wished to offer a few
observations with retpect to that portion of the Right Reverend
Prelate's address, which referred to some supposed ineonsis•
tency on his part with respect to the Bill to which the ques ion
he had just proposed ref rred. He was sure chat when he re-
ferred to what took place on the occasion alluded to by the
Right Reverend Prelate, that their Lordships would at once
acquit him of the charge which had been brought agi inst him.
The Noble Lord to whom allusion had been made, introduced
the measure referred to. That Bill had not been p. eviously
communicated to him (the Lord Chancellor), neither had he
any communication with reference tc it, but on referring to
the particular Acts of Parliament to which it had reference, he
saw at once that it was perfectly clear that every man of liberal
p inciple anti feeling must assent to a great portion of it.—
(t. beers. ) But with respect to the other portions of it, clauses
might have been introduced on which inquiry was necessary,
and therefore the course he pursued was this—to that part of
the Bill to which he felt no reasonable objection could be made,
he at once asiented. But he informed that Noble
Lord, that it he would entrust the Bill to him
he would refer it to the Committee then sitting
on criminal law , anti that he would request them to consider
the subject, and make report upon it. It was for this reason,
and for this reason alone, that those parts of the Bill were
struck out, that he had thought or expressed any opinon
upon it. But as the sulject was one of such great import-
ance, and involved questions of such great magnitude, the
Noble :Lord ought not to call upon him to express his opi-
nion upon it. He referred those Bills to that Committee;
they had made their report upon the subject. and it was in
pursuance of that report he had brought in the present Bill and
laid it upon their Lordships' table.—( Hear, hear.) Having
made these statements, lie was sure that their Lordships would
acquit him of inconsistency as to the course of conduct he had
pursued. He felt most anxious that the Bill should pass with
the full concurrence of the Right Reverend Bench, and, if pos-
sible, with the concurrence of the Right Reverend
Prelate himself. He had been most anxious to
exe!ude from the Bill anything which could give
rise to any difference of opinion among their Lordships.
Since he had laid the Bill upon the table of the House a long
time had elapsed before he brought the Bill before their Lord-
ship! for a second reading. He did this for the purpose of
receiving such suggestions from Noble Lords, Right Reverend
Ps elates, and from other quarters. He had received a suggestion
from a Right Reverend Friend, for whom he entertained the
utmost respect for his learning .mud ability. He had adopted
this sugges.ion, and the amendment which he should in conse-
quence propose, he should introduce when their Lordships went
into Committee on the Bill. There was one satisfaction which
he had received from the speech of the Right Reverend Prelate,
he had directed their Lordship's attention only to two points
of the Bill, all the rest of the Bill he might, therefore, consider
as having met with his assent. There were two points only
namely, that which related to the statutes of the Ist. and 13th
of Elisabeth.

The Bishop of EXETER here made some remarks, which
were inaudible in the gallery.
The Lord CHANCELLOR.—The Right Reverend Prelate
had confined his attention to the two heads to which he had
referred. He knew that upon former occasions the same
Right Reverend Prelate had stated that upon those points,
affscted by the Bill before their Lordships, no difference
of opinion could be entertained. He concluded, therefore,
that the Right Rev. Prelate had no very decided objection to
the other portion of the Bill. Now the Ist of Elizabeth—the
Act of Supremacy it was called—expressed in the ful est and
most comprehensive terms the authority of the Sovereign of
this country in all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical.
Nothing could be more comprehensive, distinct, or decisive,
than the terms of the Act. It is expressed in terms that no
persons on reading could entertain the slightest doubt upon
the subject. It afterwards proceeded to impose an oath, calling
upon persons filling certain offices to declare their adherence
to the doctrines therein set forth. It afterwards proceeded to
impose severe penalties upon persons, not who should deny the
supremacy, but who should maintain and defend the spiritual
and ecclesiastical authority of any foreign power, prince, or
potentate. Now it was perfectly clear that the abridgement
of those penalties in effect rested with this Act of Parliament.
But what was the state of the Roman Catholic Church now,
not in England alone, but over the world ? The Act
of Parliament inflicted the severest penalties, as for
high treason and mis-prison of treason it inflicted
the forfeiture of all property on those who admitted
the spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy of any foreign prince,
prelate, or potentate. Was it not a matter of public notoriety
—did any person for a moment doubt it—that any Roman
Catholic, in this empire, or in any other, did not look up to
the Pope as his spiritual and ecclesiastical head ? If there was
any doubt upon the subject, he would refer their Lordships to
the speeches of the Right Rev. Prelates who had spoken when
this Act of Elizabeth was in progress through Parliament. It
was by them admitted, in the most distinct, the most precise,
and the plainest terms. Their Lordships would find this prin-
ciple admitted in the speeches of the Archbishop of York end
the Bishop of Chester. But more than this, if they looked to
the canons o. the Roman Catholic Church, they would find
this doctrine stated in the mo.t distinct, the most direct , and
the strongest terms. There can be no doubt of the t. The Roman
Catholic clergy took their oaths to conform to these tenets. They
must therefore take it as part of the doctrines of the s Rom' h
Church that they regarded the Pope as their superior—as ;Ile
person whom they were to look up to as their spiritual and ec-
clesiastical head. They had admitted this in their leghlative
enactments. He would refer them to the oath contained in a
statute of Elizabeth, which was imposed on persons holding
particular offices. By that oath the parties declared that no
foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, should have any spi-
ritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within' these realms. That
form was used—that oath was universally administered, until
within late years, when they themselves had altered it. They
had altered it in deference to the opinions of persons professing
the Roman Catholic religion. They found it impossible to
impose such oaths on their fellow-countrymen, and they had,
therefore, struck out the words spiritual and ecclesiastical, and
inserted the words civil and temporal. After having done so, was
it not clear that they admitted that persons professing the Roman
Catholic religion looked up to the Pope as their religious and
ecclesiastical suserior ? Then, when they allowed in this
country the free exercise of the Catholic religion, and when
they knew that this was a fundamental principle of that reli-
gion—when they knew that professors of that religion
discharged their duties by maintaining the principle, how
could they consistently witY themselves visit them with the
penalties due to high treason and prenctsnire? How could
they confiscate and take from them all their personal property ?
This was an inconsistency which he was anxious to remove by
the introduction of this law.—( Hear, hear.) He would say
that it was perfectly improper to retain the old laws. They
had gone too far. They should not have taken the steps that
they had already taken, if they were not prepared to follow up
the subject by this final step, to be consistent with
themselves. But then it was said this law would lead
to a great deal of mischief, because they did not
know exactly what was meant by the term "spiritual. "
And then it was said that it night lead to the
absolving of subjects from their allegiance to the monarch
of this country, but in reply to the statement of the Right Rev.
Prelate he would again quote the case to which he had referred,
as it gave a distinct answer, which was this—that if any person
is the country circulated and inculcated immoral principles, he
was amenable to the law, and liable to be punished by the com-
mon law of the country. It was not necessary to have any en-
actment for that purpose. The common law was sufficient to
reach cases of that description, and if any such case were car-
ried into a court of justice, it would be properly animadverted
upon by the person who might preside on it. It had been
urged, bath in the House and out of doors, that if they repealed
the penalties of those old laws, they would in fact abrogate and
abolish the supremacy of the Sovereign of England.—( No, no.)
He was glad to find that that argument had not been repeated
that night, although on a former evening they had heard much
of that sort of argument. But supremacy rested upon a founda-
tion too solid to be so shaken—( Hear, hear)—and did not de-
pend upon the Act of Parliament to which he had referred.
It was part of the common law of the land.—( Hear, hear.)
The Right Rev. Prelate had admitted that it was so. The
law upon that subject, he was prepared to show, if
it were necessary to do so—he was prepared
to show that it had been recognised by repeated
Acts of the Legislature, and that it had been laid down
by the judges of this country in all ages and at all times.—
( Hear, hear. ) Lord Cuke, in that masterly case to which ho
(the Lord Chancellor) had referred, commented in an able
manner upon the law and the facts, and summed up the whole
by showing that, by ancient and continued decisions—by Acts
of Parliament, by long practice and usage, and continual ac-
knowledgment, and established beyond the possibility of a
doubt—the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical mat-
ters was a part of the common-law of this country. There could
be no danger, therefore, in repealing those penalties, severe as !
they were—there could be no danger to the supremacy of the
monarch. He felt that it was the duty of their Lordships, if
not to repeal, at all events to modify to a considerable extent,
( Hear, hear.) The Irish Act to which the 13111 had reference
was still in force. By that Act, if a party maintainesi the spiri- ;
tual supremacy of the Pope, for his first offence he was liable

to the forfeiture of his personal estate; for his second offence
he was liable to be punished by premunire, and their Lordships
were well aware what an inflit•tion that ens; it deprived the
party of all his property, and at the same time deprived him o'
all the benefit of the laws—so much so that, as he stated upon
a former occasion, it was once doubted whether a party
who had subjected himself to a premunire might
not be killed with impunity.—( Hear, hear. ) For the third
offence (and this was a part of the law of the land) he was
guilty of high treason. So that they tolerated the free exer-
cise of the Catholic religion, and they knew that it was always,
a fundamental part of that religion that a party should main-
tain and defend the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. And it
was, therefore, incumbent upon them to do so ; and if they did
their duty the laws of England still declared that they should
be punished in the severe manner to which he had referred.
—( Hear, hear ) It was impossible to maintain such laws.
All these penalties were not in force in Ireland, and he only
now asked their Lordships to repeal them with respect
to England.--( Hear, hear.) But, said the Right Reverend
Prelate, how monstrous it was to introduce this Bill without a
preamble, Why, the Bill spoke for itself ; but he did not wish
their Lordships to repeal these Bills, unless they were satisfied
that they ought not to remain any longer upon the statute
book. Why was it necessary to point out that which must be
obvious to everybody ? Was it necessary to point
out the expediency t f repealing unjust, cruel, and
vexatious laws ? Was it necessary to have a pre-
amble to explain a purpose like this?—( Hear, hear.) He
thought not, and therefore it was why he had introduced
none. The thing spoke for itself. _( Hear, hear.) But for
tear any one should imagine that they were striking any blow
at the supremacy of the Crown, he was prepared to introduce
a proviso, with the view of restricting the repealing power of
the Bill to those provisions which imposed the penalties.—
( Hear.) This, however, did not coincide with the wishes of
the Right Rev. Prelate. He wanted, it would seem from his
question, still to have some punishment for offenders against
these Acts.---( Hear.) Well, then, he would tell the Right
Rev. Prelate, that if any parties wilfully and maliciously in-
fringed the provisions of these Acts, they still would be liable
to punishment under the common law of the land. If any
person called in question the supremacy of the Crown of Eng-
land, that person was liable to prosecution by the common
law of the country. He now came to the 13th of Elizabeth,
by which the importation of hulls from the see of Rome was
declared to be high treason. That was a simple statute en-
actment, and therefore he proposed to remove it. Whether or
not it should be entirely repealed, or whether it should be varied
and altered, it was not for him at present to say. That would
be a subject for consideration. It :was perfectly well known
that bulls were constantly imported from the see of Rome, and
they were obliged to wink and connive at it. They declared a
particular act high treason, and yet whets it took place they
did not attempt to prosecute. What a state for the law to be
in ; and how degrading was such a state of thibigs. But it was
said that if they repealed that, statute they would sanction the
introduction of bulls for political purposes, directed against the
Crown, against the authority of the Government, and against
the temporal interest of a private individual. He felt equally
indignant with the Right Reverend Prelate, at the insolent
assumption of power which had been exhibited by Pope Gre
gory, in the time of Henry IV. of France, and of the Pope in
the time of Napoleon, but did that apply to the present case ?
The common law was sufficient to protect them from bulls
being introduced for improper purposes , was it necessary then
to keep this Act of Parliament in the statute book? A question
had been raised as to whether they should qualify the repeal of
this Act, or whether they should leave the common law to take
its course. His answer was, that if they attempted to draw
nice distinctions they might do that which they did not intend
to do. It was a dangerous course to adopt. Nothing could be
more important it, a Bill of this description than its being car-
ried without haste through the [louse, and therefore if their
Lordships should be of opinion that the question of the Right
Reverend Prelate should be submitted to t he Learned Judges, he
for one should not offer any opposition to that course.
Lord BROUGHAM was glad to find that the Right Rev.
Prelate had said that he woul' be satisfied with the opinion of
the law Lords. There could be no doubt that it was com-
pc' cut for them to submit a question upon legislative matters
to the consideration of the Judges, but he world fain submit to
' their Lordships wheth, r it would not be better to confine such
appeals to the Judges to cases of eminent difficulty Now, if
this was a doubtful question, they would not be able to get an
answer this session, and if it was not a doubtful question, it
need not be referred to the judges at all. He entirely con •
curr,sd with his Noble and Learned Friend in the answer which
he had given to his Right Rev. Friend. He had no doubt
upon the subject. Nothing could be more offensive than the
interference of a foreign prince, and this opinion was held in
France, for there no bull was allowed to go into the country
without being first examinee. Yet the Pope called the King
oT France the eldest son of the Church. There was no penalty
in this country, according to the common law, for the intro-
duction of bulls, rescripts, or other writings from Rome, pro-
vided they contained nothing that was blasphemous, seditious,
or immoral. If they contained such doctrines, they
were liable to prosecution, like all other papers with
similar contents, come from where they we uld. There could
be no doubt that that which gave rise to this statute of Eliza-
beth was an infamous overt 'aet of treason; but such an act
could be punished by the common law of the land. He had
further observations to snake on this subject, but he should re-
serve them for the Committee.
After a few words in explanation from the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR,

Lord DENMAN said he had heard with great satisfaction
the Right Rev. Prelate state that he was willing to accept the
opinion of the law Lords in that House. An appeal to the
judges would draw them from those important duties which now
pressed upon them. He would, however, take the liberty of
saying, that he was quite sure that if any doubt could possibly
be entertained upon the question now submitted, they would
sacrifice their own convenience, and even a portion of the pub
lie convenience, rather than allow that doubt to exist for a sin-
gle hour. He had been surprised to hear the Right Rev. Pre-
late doubt whether the Crown of this country was imperial and
independent. Even during the time when the Pope had most
power in this country, it was acknowledged that he had no in-
fluence over the Crown of England— that he had no power
above the supremacy of the Crown, and any per-
son who attempted to impugn or to endanger that
supremacy, was liable to the punishment of loss
of life, of banishment, and of confiscation of property.
He had no hesitation in answering the Right Reverend Prelate,
that m thing in the shape of a bull, or edict, or anything of the
sort, could be introduced into this country which could in any
way injure the supremacy of the Crown ; for the supremacy
of the Crown depended not upon the statute, but the common
law of the land.—( ear, hear. )
Lord CA SIPBELL said he wished to add a few words to
wh .t had fallen from his Noble Friend who had just sat down.
It was a mistake to suppose that the Charch was higher than
the Crown, for the Crown had power over all authorities, whe-
ther civil or religious ; that it was this power which was under-
stood to be the supremacy of the Sovereign. That supremacy
was established by the common, and not by the statute law, and
any person who attempted to injure it—no matter howsoever he
did so—was liabla, under the common law, to the severest
punishment. With regard to the first question of the Right
Reverend Prelate, he could state that the Bill applied to all
bulls, no matter at what time they wet e issued,
and nothing could be introduced tr. published in this
country which could in any way endanger or
stigmatise the dignity or supremacy of the Crown. He re-
joiced exceedingly that the time had arrived when they could
repeal these obnoxious Acts, but he thought it was the duty
of Government to follow it up by taking steps to restrict the
influence of the Pope in this country. In no part of the
world could Popery prove more powerful than in this, and he
for one thought that some diplomatic intercourse should be
established with the Pope; fur in consequence of the non-
existence of that intercourse the Pope possessed more influ-
ence over the people of this country than he otherwise
would ( Hear, hear. )
Lord BEAUMONT did not think it would have been ne-
cessary for him to trespass on their Lordships' time, but the
Right Rev. Prelate, inste,id of confining himself to the ques-
tions of which he had given notice, had entered into other sub-
jects, and had attributed to the Catholic faith powers and in-
fluences which he totally denied. On a former occa,ion he
attempted to explain to their Lordships the great difference
which existed between dogmas of faith and matters of disci-
pline, and declared that the Pope had no power over the su-
premacy of the sovereignty of this country. Their Lord,hip,,
however, did not feel satisfied with his humble authority for
this, and he would therefore quote to them Roman Catholic
documents in favour of his declaration. The Noble Lord
then quoted several answers to queries put by Mr. Pitt to the
faculty of divinity of Louvain, in which it was stated that the
Pope had absolutely no power or authority over the suaremae.y
of the Sovereign of any country out of his own domains. He
thought this was a sufficient answer to what had fallen from the
Right Rev. Prelate, but as a proof of these answers made by
the faculty of the divinity of Louvain he could state that there
was no connexion whatever between the Pope and the Roman
Catholic clergy of that empire, excepting through the Bishops,
who were answerable to the State for every thing they did.
and whose edicts and orders were submitted to the State before
they were issued. With regard to the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack, having struck out of the Bill, which he
had the honour of introducing, a clause repealing some of the
very Acts annulled by the present Bill, he begged to remind
their Lordships that the Noble and Learned Lord did so, be-
cause he thought that the Bill in its then form was imperfect,
but at the same time the Noble and Learned Lord promised to
introduce in a future session a Bill to repeal these obnoxious
Acts.—( Hear, hear.)

The Bishop of EXETER, in replying, remarked, that since
the answers of the faculty of Louvian were promulgated, and
even within the last five years, the Pope had exercsed his
authority over the supreme power of the sovereign of Spain.
He had confiscated the property of several ecclesiastical divines
and declared some of the Acts of the sovereign of that country
to be absolute nullities.—( Hear, hear. )--It was very true that
Popery would be more powerful in this country than in any
other if this Bill should pass. There was no country in
Europe where they would suffer the Itemish bull to be intro-
duced without the consent of the Secretary of State. He con-
sider ed it absolutely necessary that these bulls should not be
introduced free of penal enactments. If the bill were passed
they would have no security against papal bulls. It had been
found necessary in every country to restrain the bulls of Rome.
He had always opposed the spread of Popery, and he honed
they would continue to do so. He considered that to allow
the extolling of Popery, and to sanction the introduction of
bulls would be little short of treason. The Right Reverend
Prelate concluded his speech by impressing their Lordships
with the necessity of determining in Committee on some
measure which would ensure the tree exercise of the opinions
of the Catholic people without, however, extolling the authority
of the Pope, and which would support the independence
ofnto
the Crown, and prevent the introduction of papal u
the country.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
The Friendly Societies' Bill was advanced a stage.
CHARITABLE TitusTs BILL.
The consideration of this Bill was further postponed from
Thursday to Monday next.
Their Lordships thek at half-past Seven o'clock.