The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 30.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE said he had to present a peti-
tion from the trustees of the Foundling Hospital, against the
Charitable Trusts Bill. His Royal Highness read the peti-
tion at length, which was then laid on the table.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from the
trustees of the Lying-in Hospital against the same measure.
Lord CAMPBELL said he had also to present to their
Lordship? House several petitions against the Charitable
Trusts Bill. —( Hear hear, and laughter from Lord
Brougham.) His Noble and Learned Friend might
laugh, but the petitions were from the Cordwainers'
Company
.and several bodies against that Bill. There
were several petitions now lying on their Lordships'
table, in which the petitioners request that the Commissioners
of the Court of Chancery will prosecute certain persons for ap-
plying money which had been given for charitable purposes, to
their own individual use.
Lord COTTEN HAM presented petitions from St. Mary,
Whitechapel, Dundee, and several other places, against the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had also a petition to pre-
sent from a respectable individual. praying that this Bill
might pass ; and it was not only the opinion of this gentleman,
but of several other individuals, that the funds given for
charitable uses should not be applied to purposes of jobbery,
guzzling, corruption, and all those other vices which his
Noble Friends were desirous to pat ronise.—( Great
laughter, and cries of " Name, name.") Oh, he would not
conceal the name—the petition was from Mr. Henry Walker,
surgeon, St. John's-street, Clerkenwell, and when his Noble
Friend was talking about the number of petitions, and the
number of petitioners by which they had been signed, he must
say that he thought the number which he had presented was
greater than theirs. But the real question was, not the num-
ber of petitions, but whether they were right or wrong. Now,
Mr. Walker happened to petition for that which was right,
whilst those presented by his Noble Friend happened to be
wrong. He would say nothing further upon the subject, but
reserve his suggestions until the Bill came under the discus-
sion of their Lordships.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Major-
General Wyndham against a railway proposed to be con-
structed in the north of England, near his property at Cocker-
mouth, by which his castle, which had continued in the pos-
session of his family since 1068—the days of William the Con-
queror—would be very much injured. The line would pass
within a third of a mile of the castle. This was an interference
which he was sure their Lordships would not sanction, the
more especially as the castle had been in the possession f the
family for 800 years, and had latterly been very much im-
proved. The promoters of that railway, however, did not care
if they had possessed it for 8,000 years, or before the flood.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented several petitions against
the Charitable Trusts Bill.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' AMENDMENT ACT.
Lord BROUGHAM moved the first reading of an Act for
amending the law of insolvent debtors.
Earl GREY presented a timber of petitions against the
Charitable Trust' Act ; and another petition in favour of a
Ten Hours' Bill. The Noble Lord also presented a petition
from Manchester, complaining of the careless manner in which
railways are managed, and praying the House to pass an Act
compelling railway companies to compensate the relatives of
persons killed upon their lines.
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that upon the second
reading of this Bill he felt bound to call their Lordship? at-
tention to it. His Noble Friend had framed a Bill
last year for the purpose of repealing several penal Acts
against her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He at that
time asked the Noble Lord to entrust the Bill to him. His
Noble Friend complied with that request, and he (the Lord
Chancellor) laid the matter before her Majesty's criminal law ad-
visers, after which a Bill was introduced to their Lordships' House
which met with very little opposition, and was passed by a very
great majority in the other House of Parliament. He had
pledged himself to look inte the merits of the subject, and with
that pledge he had complied, and accordingly he had referred
the matter to her Majesty's first criminal law adviser
( Sir Edward Ryan) and other eminent lawyers. It
was possible that considerable difficulty had been felt by some
parties at some portions of the Bill. To the former part of it
considerable objeetion might be entertained, but in the other
he conceived there would be no objection whatever. He had,
therefore, determined to divide the Bill into two parts. The
first part related to oaths, which it was necessary for minis-
ters of the Church of England, as well as Dissenters
to make on certain occasions. The other related to cer-
tain disabilities under which some portion of her Majesty's sub-
jects at present laboured. To the first part no objection what-
ever could be taken, and the other proposed to repeal no less
than thirty Acts of Parliament which imposed disabilities on
persons of the Jewish persuasions. The two first of these Acts
were those of Henry 111. aod Edward 1., by which it was de-
creed that persons of that persuasion could not possess land or
houses for their own dwelling. That Act imposed various re-
strictions and indignities—one of them was that badges should
be worn both by males and females, and it described the form
which these should be. He thought, therefore, that he had
shown satisfactorily that it was necessary to afford relief, and
that the Bill should be read a second time. The next point
to which he would allude was the penalties imposed by the Act
of the sth and 6th of Edward VI., and he could not refer to
this without alluding to the Aets passed in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth and Charles. A form of prayer was established in
the reign of Edward VI., which was to be used in different
chapels of the kingdom. Certain penalties were imposed upon
those who did not conform and join in that prayer. That prayer
was altered' in the several reigns which succeeded. These
penalties were afterwards confirmed and others were added.
One of these was, imprisonment of six months for
the first offence, for the second offence one year,
and for the third offence imprisonment for life.
These penalties were still existing, for they had been continued
by different Acts of Parliament down to the present time. In
the session before the last, their Lordships repealed them so far
as they related to Roman Catholics, but they were still con-
tinued so far as Presbyterian Dissenters were concerned. A
Dissenter, however, escaped from these penalties by taking a
particular oath; but was not this an inconsistency? But their
Lordships must remember that people of the Jewish persuasion
were always subject to those penalties, for they could not take
the oath to which he had already referred. He hoped their
Lordships would think, then, that the 3d of Edward the Sixth
ought to be repealed. Now, then, the second penalty to which
he had referred required every person to attend the service of
the Church in his parish every Sunday, and if he did not, he
was liable to be admonished or subjected to a penalty. Now
he proposed also to remove these penalties ; but a
Right Rev. Prelate, for whose opinions and character he
entertained the highest respect, was desirous that the first
penalty should be still applied to parties connected with the
Established Church. It was for their Lordships to consider if
any, and what, proceedings had been taken under the powers
of these Acts. It appeared then that for the last one hundred
and fifty years no proceedings under such statutes had been
taken, and it was now for their Lordships to consider whether
it was necessary to have such a law at all.—( !Lear, hear.) He
alluded to the first of Elizabeth ; there was a clause which
enacted that any one acknowledging the supremacy of the see
of Rome, was subject to a penalty of forfeiture of his goods
and property; for the second offence they were to be further
punished, and for the third offence they were to be deemed
guilty of high treason. These were monstrous acts,
and ought to be repealed. It was true, that
the Act relating to high treason had been repealed,
but the others still remained on the statute-book in alt their
original force. He proposed that these Acts should be re-
pealsd. They applied alone to Roman Catholics, and did not
apply to sectarians generally. They all knew the Roman Ca-
tholics of this country, and it could not be denied, that the
fundamental principles of their religion was to acknowledge
the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in religious matters. It
was preposterous, then, to suppose, that any penalties could be
retained against Roman Catholics for holding the ecclesiastical
and spiritual headship of the Pope. But he had heard it in-
timated, not asserted, that opposition would be offered, from a
quarter where he would have least expected it; but if it were
to be so, he conceived that no opposition could be more in-
famous, or less maintainable, more utterly hopeless than that
was. This Act was not to prove that ecclesiastical supremacy
which had been over and over again declared by the ancient
Acts of Parliament. The words which specified it in the sth
of Elizabeth were precisely the words used in the first. It had
been stated before, in the same terms, in the sth and 26th of
Henry VIII., and was, he held, an inherent and an inalienable
right in the Crown of these realms. A Right Rev. Prelate,
an ancient friend of his, proposed that the penalties, as far as
related to the ministers of the Established Church, should not
be repealed, with regard to the supremacy. To meet that, he
would propose that these Ministers should still be subject to
the censures of the Church; and would introduce a proviso
that the clause should in no way affect the other clauses of the
Bill. He would now come to the statute passed against Popish
~,recusants, and with regard to that statute he should say that no
one could doubt the propriety of abolishing the penalties which
that statute imposed. The next Act of Parliament to which he
referred was the statute of James, which required parties to
attend their parish church on the anniversary of what was
called the gunpowder plot, and any person who disobeyed this
injunction was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. So
-far as the Roman Catnolics were concerned, they had already
passed an Act of Parliament, relieving them from the provisions
of this Act, but they were still applicable to the members of the
Church of England, Dissenters, persons of the Jewish persuasion;
but he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that this
Act aught to be repealed in respect to them also. The next
Act of Parliament to which he wished to refer, prohibited the
introduction into this country of books, and papers, and writ-
ings, from the see of Rome. Any person infringing this Act
of Parliament was guilty of high treason, and was liable to be
tried and executed for that offence. Every body knew the his-
tory of this Bill. Pope Pius the Seventh excommunicated
Queen Elizabeth, and the Bull for this purpose was fixed up to
the palace of the Bishop of London, and upon some place in the
metropolis of France, which excited the indignation of the
monarch of that country. It was under these feelings that the
Act was passed ; and he would tell their Lordships why it
ought to be repealed. Their Lordships had already passed a
law tolerating the performance of the Roman Catholic wor-
ship ; but this could not be done without the clergy and 'pre-
lates of the Church communicating with the Pope of Rome ;
and it was for this reason, as well as from a know-
ledge that neither Scotland nor Ireland passed a similar
Act that he proposed their Lordships should repeal it.
He now came to the 1 Ith and 12th William 111, which were
two of the severest Acts that ever were passed. By these Acts
any person seizing a priest after having performed mass, was to
receive 100/. ; and every young person, on attaining the age
of 18 years, was called upon to take a number of oaths'; and
he thought their Lordships would have no objection to repeal
an Act of that sort. By the 2d of Anne, any person becoming
reconciled to the Church of Rome, or causing another person
to be reconciled to that Church, subjected himself to the
penalties of prwmunire. Their Lordships were aware that
the effect of a prwmunire, was to place a person out of the pro -
tection of the law; and it had even been debatede had no whethersuch
a person might not be slain with impunity. H
hesita-
tion in saying that that Act ought to be repealed. By another
Act of Parliament, no person could keep a school, or become
a tutor in a private family, without a licence from
the Bishop or Archbishop of the diocese. By another
Act of Parliament any person not going to church was subject
to a pecuniary penalty; and when he was told that these Acts
were obsolete, he could not help recollecting that within four
or five years fourteen poor labourers had been convicted under
it, and sent to prison, and were only released after an applica-
tion to their Lordships. By the Ist of Elizabeth, any person
net going to church, or refusing to go, was subject to a fine
of 20/. a month during the time of his abstaining from going.
An option was given afterwards to the Crown to seize upon
the lands of the recusant ' • and in one year the fines amounted
to 30,0001. These penalties also affected a married woman,
and if her husband chose to pay the penalties to liberate her,
she was only then freed from the consequences of
her recusancy. He had now made his statement,
and Ire was prepared to give every explanation in his power,
to 'any Noble Lord that might require it. If any mischief
enuld result from the repeal of these stringent enactments, he
would be sorry to propose their abolition. lie had now to con-
clude, by proposing that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord BROUGHAM quite concurred with his Noble and
Learned Friend, that no man could rise in that House and pro-
pose the continuance of these penalties on the statute book. He
entirely concurred with his Hon. and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack on this subject. His Noble and Learned Friend had
alluded to the fact of this disgraceful law having been brought
into operation in the year 1841, and he defied the art of man
to point out anything that could more enliven the dormant