The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 16.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday).
Mr. C. ANSTEY trusted that the House would
go into Committee on the Bill. He said he was quite
correct when he stated that members of the order of
Jesus and Regulars were liable to transportation if
they were found in this country within three months
after they had received notice to quit the kingdom.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said they were not liable if
they were registered.
Mr. C. ANSTEY said, whether they were re-
gistered or not they were liable to this serious penalty.
He denied that the measure was aggressive. The
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) said, in sup-
port of this view, that of late years the Pope had taken
aggressive steps against the Protestantism of this
country. The Hon. Baronet instanced, in support of
his argument, the rumour that it was the intention of the
Roman Catholics of this country, with the connivance
of the Pope, to appoint an Archbishop of West-
minster, but there appeared no ground for such a
statement. This was the only statement which he
had been able to bring against the measure, and in
support of his view, that it was but the commence-
ment of a series of aggressive measures against the
Church. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
went on to deal with the objections urged against the
Bill in the course of the debate that had taken place.
The 38th of Edward 111. recited that grievances had
arisen from citations being served upon British sub-
jects to appear in courts beyond their own country,
and it enacted that some alteration should be made
in the mode of procedure in such cases. But in no
case was the authority of Rome in matters spiritual
doubted or denied. In the opinion of some lawyers,
Roman Catholics were still liable to punishment for
using any other form of service than that en-
joined in the Common Prayer-book by the Act of the
13th and 14th Charles 11. He proposed to repeal
altogether that enactment. The 7th and Bth
Will. 111., c. 24, he also proposed to repeal altogether.
The Hon. Member for Midhurst had said that if there
were any Acts still remaining in force against the
Catholics, such parties could protect themselves from
the effects of those Acts by taking the oaths pre-
scribed by an Act passed in the reign of George IV.
for that purpose ; but it so happened that the time
for taking those oaths had already expired. He
called upon the House to go into Committee on the
Bill. The Roman Catholic laity had been admitted
into the Legislature, and it was now the duty of the
House to take the Catholic priests under their pro-
tection. He asked no more for the Jesuits and
Catholic clergy than had been granted to persons
professing the Jewish religion by the last clause of
the Religious Opinions Bill, passed in the last session
of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that if this Bill
were really what it professed to be, it ought not to
be allowed to be in the hands of any private
Member, however able or zealous he might be.
If these declaratory Acts were really so nuga-
tory, as they had been stated to be, why
was so much anxiety shown about their repeal ?
Were the Roman Catholic clergy guided by the Pope,
or the Roman Catholics of their own country ? It ap
peared to him that they were guided by neither ; but
he could not help taking that opportunity of express-
ing his admiration of the letter which the Earl of
Shrewsbury had addressed to the Archbishop of
Tuam. The Noble Earl truly stated that the Roman
Catholic clergy had nothing to do with the conduct
of the Catholic hierarchy of that House, and he hoped
the letter would have the effect of restraining the
aspersions of some of the Roman Catholic clergy of
this country. Was the conduct of the Roman Catho-
lic clergy throughout Europe in times past to be
forgotten while considering this Bill ? For himself,
he said certainly not ; and befor.2 they adopted the
Bill they ought to bear in mind what had been the
conduct of the Jesuits in various parts of the Conti •
nent during the last few months. It was well known
that the presence of Lord Minto at Rome had roused
in this country feelings of great suspicion. Frequent
questions had been put to her Majesty's Government
on the subject, and he was glad that the Noble
Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had stated that Lord
Minto was not at Rome in any official capacity.
But how, let him ask, did the intimation of the
Noble Lord correspond with the dispatches which
had been received from Rome ? If he was not mis-
taken, these dispatches disclosed the fact that Lord
Minto had efficial authority to enter into negotia-
tions with the Court of Rome upon various subjects
connected with the aftiirs of Italy and Switzerland.
Sir G. GREY begged pardon for interrupting the
Hon. Member, but he distinctly recollected what his
Noble Friend did say in reference to this matter.
His Noble Friend stated, in answer to a question that
had been put to him, that Lord Minto had received
instructions to negotiate at neighbouring Courts, but
that he was not an accredited agent to the Court of
Rome.

Mr. NEWDEGATE sail, it did not matter what
the Noble Lord had stated while there could be no
doubt that Lord Minto had already acted in an
official capacity at Rome, be his authority what it
might. The letter' of the Noble Lord proved
thus far, if he was not mistaken ; one passage
in it stated that the Noble Lord had intimated
to the Pope that it was the wish of her
Majesty that the Jesuits should be withdrawn from
Switzerland ; while another passage put them in pos •
session of the fact, that the Noble Lord had sought
' and obtained interviews with the Lord Cardinal
Secretary of the Pope upon the subject of the move-
ments in Italy. How, then, could Government ven-
ture to assert in that House that the Noble Lord was
not their accredited agent at Rome? He would
now take a Ounce at the measure before the House.
He for one had objections to relieving the Roman
Catholics of this country from all the disabilities under
which they laboured; but, looking at the spirit of
aggression which animated the policy of the Church
of Rome, he thought it unwise to add further to the
power which she already possessed. He certainly
did not deny that among the Jesuits there were
many excellent men, but they had been made the
instruments of introducing the most grievous and
galling tyranny. Could the House adopt the tone
and spirit of the letter of the Catholic Archbishop
of Tuam to the Earl of Shrewsbury, in answer to
the excellent letter that had been written by that
Noble Lord ? Was the highest and noblest in the
land to be treated in such a manner by the haughty
Prelate of the Catholic Church ?—(Hear, hear.) If
such language was to be adopted, it highly behoved
the Catholic Peers to look to themselves. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by supporting the amendment
against going into Committee on the Bill.
Sir G. GREY deprecated the notion that the
House ought not to go into Committee on the Bill in
consequence of the tone taken by Archbishop
M'Hale, in his letter to Lord Shrewsbury—(Hear.)
The Right Honourable Baronet, after defending the
course pursued by the Earl of Minto in his
mission to the Court of Rome, and stating that
the construction put upon his acts by the Hon.
Member were most extravagant, trusted that
the House would by its act relieve him from the
charges that had been brought against him. As for
the statements against his Noble Friend the Secretary
for the Foreign Department, he thought the House
would agree with him when he stated that the course
he had pursued was calculated to conciliate rather
than irritate.
Colonel CONOLLY would go as far as any man
to remove the provisions of Acts of Parliament that
operated heavily upon the Roman Catholics, but he
could not allow old and obsolete Acts to be raked
up for
were
epurpose of sweeping away those Acts
which necessary for
the security of the
Protestant population of Ireland. He should
be sorry to deny the Roman *Catholics any
just rights to which they were entitled, but as he
sew that no advantage
dfr oterngtihvee repealhis
vote,of
those obsolete statutes, he
afgelatinbso.tusen
though without hostility, ill.—(Hear.)
.Mr. GLADSTONE said he should give his vote
for going into Committee, without enteringthc into a
consideration of the question whetherannote
because
_u.rch.
he
aggressive church or
Rome was an
believed he should be thereby doing act of justice.
.(Hear.) The Attorney-General, whom
he was
glad now to see in his place, would confer a great
favour upon the House by stating his Opinion
whether the enactments sought to be abolished
could be enforced or not.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst
said that the penalties sought to be abrogated had
been repealed, and that they could not be enforced
in a court of law; but if the Act of Lord Lyndhurst re-
pealed some specific penalties, leaving others untouched,
he was at a loss to uaderatand on what ground it was
contended that the others should not be also repealed.
—(Hear.) He was also at a loss to understand why
penal enactments should remain on the statute-
book respecting the admission of bulls into this
country on matters of discipline relating to the
„ Roman Catholic religion, and which that body con-
sidered perfectly innocent in their nature, as they
simply had reference to matters of internal polity.
;Tchi
jegibounara,osnrdie)frs proof that the exclusion of certain
had led to good lay on those who
op\losed the measure. He would not stop to in-
qu when: sr the *Act of 1829 was a compact
or nut, but as the danger of the repeal of these ob-
solete enactmen to had not been made manifest to his
mind he could n,
gointo the lobby with those who
objected to that measure on this ound. Th ; must, to maintain their argument,
)ominicans, and
show that the
admission of the Franciscans,
Benedictines, wouk I be dangerous, because
one or the
se they could
not well draw the c listinction betweeno prima t
other. They had fa filed to do so ;no
had been shown in the course of the debate'a against
anease
the admission of an y of these religious orders, exceptis-
t
the Jesuits, who held a peculiar and distinct
position in the Court of Rome. The ob-
jectionable provis ions in the statute-book ac-