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

THE -gljNt, LONDON, TfISDAt MORNING. M.A.k-Cil 12, 1846,

RAILWAY COMMITITES.

(YES I' ERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 2.

This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock : present, Sir J. Y.
Buller (Chairman), Messrs. Bell, E. Yorke, Bremston and Walker.
This being the day appointed for the hearing of unopposed petl•
tines, the Committee proceeded with the following Bills :

CALEMCNIAN, PCIALOC, AND GOVAN, AND
CLYDESZALE JUNCTION AMALGAMA-
TION.
The usual formal evidence having been heard, the Committee
found that the standing orders had been complied with.

POLLOC AND GOVAN AND CLYDESDALE
JUNCTION AMALGAMATION.

This 11111 was proceeded with, but some of the witnesses not being
in attendance, it was postponed.

FIFTH REPORT from the SELECT
COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY BILLS CLASSI-
FICATION.

The Select Committee appointed for the Classification of Railway
Bills, according to the Resolutions adopted by the House, and who
are empowered to report from time to time, have further con-
sidered the several matters referred to them, and agreed to report
as follows :

Your Committee have had it represented to them by the solicitor
for the London, Bristol, and South Wales Direct Bill, that the Com-
pa•ty promoting that Bill have abandoned so much of their line as
connected Chippenham with the Aust Passage over the River Severn,
and that it no longer forms a line of communication with South
Wales. Under these circumstances, your Committee recommend
that the Bill be removed from Group No. 31, and placed in Group
No. 18, in connexion with the London, Newbury, and Bath line, and
the Berko and Hants line, with which, as now curtailed, it com-
petes.

Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be referred to
a distinct Committee :

GROUP, No. 34.
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole, and Port, &c.
Goole and Doncaster.
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway (Meth) ey, Ask ern, and

•
Oakenshaw Branches).
Bull and Barnsley Junction.
York and North Midland (East Riding Branches, Nos. 1 and 2).
ill:dton and Dritheld Junction.
Newcastle and Darlington Junction (Thirsk and
.31alton Branches).

Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be refer red
to a distinct Committee :

GROUP, No. 37.
Horbury Bridge and Calder.
Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Leeds, and Bradford.
Sl.effield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield, and Goole.
South Yorkshire,
Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction (Barfield Branch).
Midland Railway (Barfield, Elsccar, and other Branches).
Sheffield, Ashton, and Manchester (Darusley Branch).
1! titchester, Huddersfield, and Great Grimsby Dif yet.
Your Committee further recommend that the Worsborough Branch
of the Sheffield, Ashton, and Manchester Railway (Dukenfield and
Worsborough, and Glossop Branches, and Sheffield Station), he pro-
vided for In a separate Bill, and referred to this group (No. 37)..
-

Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be referred to
a distinct Committee:—

amour, No. 18

Leeds Central Station.
Leads, Dewsbury, and :Manchester (Deviations andßranehes).
Leeds and Bradford (Alteration of Levels).
Leeds and Bradiiird (Junction at Bradford).
West Riding Union.
Leeds, Dewsbury-, and Manchester (Wakefield Extension).
BrAford, Wakefield, and MhZland.
Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland Junction.
Liverpool and Leeds Direct.
linddenfield and Manchester (Bradford Branch).
Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be referred to
a distinct Committee :

GROUP, No. 39.
3ninchester and Leeds (Railway Extenzion, &C.)
addenfiqd and Manchester (Oldham Branch).
Oldham District.
Oldham, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birkenhead Junction.
North and South Junction (Halifax to Keighley).
Huddersfield and Manchester (Cooper Bridge Breach).
Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be referred to
a distinct Committee :

GROUP, No. 40.
Leeds and Bradford (Guiseley Branch).
Lancashire and Yorkshire (North-Eastern).
York and Lancaster.
Leeds and York.
Leeds, York, and Midland Junction. •
York and North Midland (Leeds Extension).
North Western.
Your Committee recommend that the following Bills be referred to
a distinct Committee :

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 11.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.
_ _ _

The following Bills were read- a second time, and
orderel to be printed, viz.: Coventry, Nuneaton, Bir•
mingham, anti Leicester Railvvay ; Ambergate, Not-
tingham, and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway ;
Leicester and Bedford Railway ; Shropshire Union Rail-
way and Canal (Shrewsbury and Stafford Railway) ;
Stamford and Spatding Thalway.
Col. ROLLED ION presented a petition, signed by
nine-tenths of the lace-manufacturers of Nottingham,
deprecating the practice of working twenty-four con-
secutive hours. and praying that the time of labour
might be restricted to siNteen hours. The petition al.°
prayed the House to prohibit altogether the employment
of little children, under eight years of age, in the
factories.

statutes. The effect of the laws regarding Roman Catholics
was, that wealthy members of that faith sent their children
out of the country to be edueseted, and much evil and incon-
venience arose out of this circumstance. He would refer to
a few other cases to show low members of the Roman
Catholic persuasion were at present affected. who
from conscientious motives sand, he might observe,
those who acted from such were not a few),
declined to take the oaths that were prescribed.
With regard to the oath of supremacy there were many
persons who had a conscientious objection to take it. An
eminent individual, who was an Archbishop of Rome, could
not sit it the council at Malta, in consequence of the
scruples lie felt to take the oath. Mr. Waterton
could not qualify as a magestrate in the county in
which he lived; and there were many other persons
similarly situated, who could not conscientiously submit to
take it. It was too bad, therefore, that these worthy indivi-
duals should still be subject to these malignant and cruel
statutes. He would also mention another person, who was
subject to their oppression, the Rev. Mr. Greene, chaplain to
Sir Clifford Constable. Now these were real practical griev-
ances, arising from religious scruple* of conscience. He
thought, therefore, that the House should interfere and put
an end to what must be considered a disgraceful state of
t hihge. Let not the House imagine that it was a small or
trivial grievance which wes at present under discussion.
Thousands of families, from the highest to the lowest in
the land, were waiting for their decision to be
restored to those rights of the constitution of which
they had been unjustly deprived. They were waiting for that
decision also in other countries, and he could not help think-
ing that some consideration was due to their feelings. It was
also due to the faith of the great majority of Christendom,
tbr they could not shut their eyes to the fact that those who
would be relieved by the removal of those disabilities be--
lunged to a religious creed which comprised the greater part
of the civilized world. It was also due to the interests of
their own Established Church, for it was the
greatest injury to it to say that their faith
could not be maintained without perpetuating
what was the greatest injustice to others. In conclusion lie
considered it most disgraceful to keep up this odious-system
of civil penalties against a faith so celebrated—it was re•
pulsive to the feelings of all just men, repulsive to the
spirit of the age in which they lived, and cruel to those
against whom these laws were first enacted.—(llear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that the experience which he
had in that House enabled hint to say that it was a
very general feeling that to make concessions was much
pleasanter than to resist them.—(Hear.) Concession, however,
he had not made, and was not prepared to make, on the pre-.
sent question. Whether to liberate the captive, to aid their
feilew-eubjecte by a grant of public money—or, as in the
present case, to remove the obstruction of certain civil dis-
abilites—it was fer elter enter to give than to refuse. While
he admitted, however, the pleasurable ematione which con-
cession would giee, he regretted that he could not accede to
the motion on the present occasion. His Hon. Friend had
said that those penal enactments were the rubbish of the
dark ages. He would ask, however, whether this was
the case ? The first stage to which he would
refer when they commenced, was what was called the golden,
or Augustan age of this country—a time when this country
possessed more eminent men than the Hon. Member himself,
or any of the gentlemen who formed the " Young England "
party. He would not, however, throw discredit or disparage-
ment on the men who formed the glory of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth. The next period was the great era of civil liberty.
The next was that of William 111. The next was George 111.
But he (Sir R. Inglis) presumed that the dark age
to which the Hon. Gentleman referred was the year 1829.
( Laughter.) That was the darkest age in his estimation.
His Hon. and Learned Friend had told the House that great
as the provisions of this Bill might be considered by sonic,
yet the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, which might be soon
expected from the other House, was still more comprehen-
sive. He contended that no practical grievance had operated
front the existence of the statutes which this Bill was
intended to repeal. The Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man had said that it was at present impos
sible for any person in this country to bequeath
anything to a Roman Catholic college abroad, but why did
he not introduce a measure to remove that grievance, if it
were a grievance? He had also complained that the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Malta was precluded by the present penal
statutes from taking a seat in the Legislative Council, be-
cause he could not take the oath. He (Sir R. Inglis) would
not at present enter upon that question further than by
saying that his Mope was, that wherever the Sovereign
carried her flag she should also there carry her church.
—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") Many better than himself had
held that hope for centuries, and that till the last few years
• was the theory, if not the practice, of the beit men in Eng-
land. He apprehended that that statement would not be
contradicted by any Member of the House. Instead of carry-
ing our language and reineien to Malta, when we conquered
it, we accommodated ourselves as much as possible
to the language and religion of the people
whom we had conquered. That, however, was not the policy
adopted by the Romans, the French, or any other nation, or
even by England until the last forty or fifty years of
Liberalism. Canada was not an exception, because it was
surrendered by treaty. He would now come to the general
clauses of the Bill. What was the practical effect of the Bill ?
He would take up the clause with reference to schoolmasters,
and he would ask whether any Roman Catholic had been
prevented from exercising the functions or avocations of a
schoolmaster because he had omitted to obtain a license from
the Protestant bishop of the diocese in which he proposed to
establish his school? In point of fact, they all knew that the
slightest impediment did not exist against any Roman Catho-
lic schoolmaster pursuing his avocations on such a ground.
Some member of the Church would probably rise in the
course of the present debate, and he (Sir R. Inglis) would
feel obliged to him if he would state that he knew any
instance in which any Roman Catholic teacher had
been prevented from exercising his avocations because he had
omitted to procure a license from the. Protestant bishop of
his diocese to do so. He (Sir R. Inglis) would oppose this
Bill, because it would in effect repeal the Act of Supremacy,
as well as the law for the expulsion of the Jesuits,
which prohibits Roman Catholic bishops from assuming the
titles of Protestant sees. It authorises, so far as the Roman
Catholic, shall not prohibit any Roman Catholic prelate to
assume the title of any see in England. He may assume,
if he pleases, the title of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
With reference to processions, the House had thoughthfit to
abolish Protestant processions, and would the House
now consent to have through the streets of Lon-
don the procession of t7orims Christi, or the processsion
of the Host. The present Bill also seeks to repeal a provi-
sion of the Act of 1829, which prohibits any functionary
from going in his sacerdotal robes to a place of worship.
When he told the House that there were no provisions or
grievances which the present Bill sought to repeal bitt those
which had been introduced by the Hon. Member himself,
who had brought forward the measure of Catholic Emanci-
pation in 1829, he thought lie had stated sufficient reasons
for inducing him to move that the present Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
The SPEAKER having put the original motion and
amendments,
Lord MORPETH rose and said, that he hoped his leight
Honourable Friend the Member for the University of
Oxford would allow him, a Protestant Member of the
House, to express his regret that any attempt ehould
have been made to resist those laudalle endea-
yours to get rid of the last remnant of the institutions
of the dark aees. His Right Hon. Friend would object to
their being styled the relics of the dark ages. They were,
at all events, the relics of an age which had witnessed
the passing of the penal codes. All really liberal minds
must, however, admit that if they were not re-
lics of the dark ages, they were remnants of a spirit
which reigned dominant and contemporary with the dark
ages.—( Hear, hear.) It might be said that these measures
which the House sought to repeal were a series of measures
enacted since the Reformation. He supposed his Right Hon.
Friend would confine the term "dark ages" to tue years
which preceded the Reformation, when the King's Govern-
ments and countries were all Roman Catholics. He had
no wish to cast any slur upon the opinions or
conduct of any men or body of men with refer-
ence to the course they might adopt upon
the present occasion. He considered that the enactments
which :the present Bill sought to repeal originated in the
absence of sound views. He was not, however, as he said
before. inclined to cast any slur upon the motives of the
opposers of the present measure. But on looking back to
the history of past ages he could not resist the con-
viction that of all the principles which have caused
evil or multiplied the sorrows of the human race,
the principle of bigotry has been the most fruitful—(hear,
hear)—and the mcst pernicious. If he was guilty of a bad
taste or impropriety towards the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for the University of Oxford, and applied the term
bigoted to him, he was sure that the term would be received
by his Right Hon. Friend with a gentle and reprov-
ing smile—a gentle smile on account of the natural gen-
tleness of his temper, and with a reproving smile,
because he would consider that such imputations
should not be cast by any person.—(Loud laughter.)
He could say that hardly a day passed in which lie did not
detect some sort of bigotry in those even who thought them-
selves most free from it. The Hon. Member had said that
wherever the flag of the Queen of England was reared, there
should her church be planted. He would not venture to say
how far that principal had been carried out in our colonies,
but it would seem more to the purpose if wherever the
English flag might be planted, we were to inquire what was
the church of the Queen's subjects. He could hardly conceive
that the speech of the Hon. Member would have been made
on the second reading of the Bill, for when the House was in
Committee, if there was awy particular exception to be made,
it might be excepted in the operation of the Bill, and the
House would no doubt consent to such a course. These
statutes, as they now stood, were useless, unless for the pur-
pose of keeping up an offensive superiority, and throwing out
an unmerited stigma. He found by the first clause in this
Bill that preaching was to be punished by forfeiture of
goods and one year's imprisonment. Yet it was known
that this creed was promulgated every day from 1,000
pulpits, making the statute a mere connivance at a
falsehood. Why did not the Hon. Member for Pontefract
bring forward a case which occurred some two years ago in
which parties were proceeded against for not going to church?
These statutes while they were on the statute-book might
be enforced for some malicious purpose. There were alto
denunciations against bell steeples and even against articles
of wearing apparel. The procession of Corpus Christi and
the procession of the Host had been looked upon with son
alarm as likely to be renewed if these statutes were
repealed, but the House might safely rely on the
customs of the country being attended to. In America,
where these things were tolerated, such a procession was
never heard of. The Bill also proposed to relax the prohi-
bition against the order of the Jesuits, and this relaxation
had '-een viewed with some alarm even by persons of en-
lightened principles. He did not think much of the sugge!•
tions which had been made respecting the Jesuits, nor did
he believe that any danger could be shown as likely to arise
from the proceedings of that body. He would say, let each
party in the State enjoy an equality of toleration, and in this
matter he was very much inclined to follow the course pursued
in the United States, and to interfere with no one who
was not guilty of legal infracti at. For his part he was quite
anxious to give the same indulgence to religious refugees as
they did to political refugees. Let them shut their ports to
nothing but crime, and let our island be an asylum inviolate
for every species of misfortune. This was his opinion, and
this was the reason why he should support the Bill. If pro-
tection was given to one party, it ought to be given to an-
other, and lie hoped that the House would never give its
sanction to any measure which expressed a sympathy with
anything, the only purport of which was to irritate and
alarm.
Mr. FINCH was.not opposed to the whole of the principles
of this Bill, because he thought that some of its provisions
might with very great safety be adopted ; as for instance that
which went to repeal the law by which schoolmasters were
regulated, and which he thought might be very judiciously
abolished. But there were other points to which he en-
tertained strong and insuperable objections. He was
aware that there were parties belonging to the religi-
ous
ous community of the Roman Catholic Church who held'
in all its force the doctrine of the political supremacy of
the Pope.—(Cries of " Where, where ?") The authority
to which lie would refer was, the late Charles Butler, the
barrister, who it was well known was himself -a Catholic,
and who hal-stated that this,ductrioe, was held in the Vati-
can and its precincts.—(A laugh.) He might add that the
same principle was supported by the celebrated &Hemline.
And further,- he might cite -the oath as administered under
the provisions of the 31st Geo. 111.

Mr. O'CONNELL—That is not the oath now administered
to Members of the House.

Mr. FINCH had just iad the book put into his hands, and
he was therefore not responsible for the error, but he still
must contend tlat there were many individuals who hekithe
doctrine of Papal supremacy. There might be no imme-
diate danger, t tr. he could see in future years, and that at a o
distsnt period, ample cause for apprehension if this Bill were
carried. There might be cases of conscience in which the
imposition of an oath would be felt as a hard-
ship, but he believed they were very few, and
there was, on the other hand, an evil to be guarded
against. Many young persons were led, at an age when they
were incapable of judging of their future. course, to take re-
ligious vows from which, at some after peliod, they would be
very glad to be released, and he conceived that a very advan-
tageous change might be made in the regulation of r. ligious
communities. Each of these establishments might be visited
by a Commissioner, appointed by Government, who might
see each of these young persons separately, and take measures
to etlect their liberation whenever it was desired. (A laugh.)
With regard to the observation of the Noble Lord respecting
the Jesuits, he did not conceive that any security could be
taken against them, or at least any that wasworthy of the name.
This was in 1829.—( Hear, beer.) Ile understood that ex-
pression. It was that the Right Hon. Baronet had left be-
hind him ell his former opinione, and that Hansard should
be laid aside. Still he (Mr. Finch) would say this was a
constitutional principle. Spain, though a Catholic country,
had seen it necessary to suppress many of its religious criers,
as inconsident with-the Government of the country, and
other nations had done the same. There was, therefore, no
thing inconsistent in this country exercising some control
over such orders. At present Sisters of Mercy -and other
religious bodies were springing tip, distributing tracts, and
using every exertion to make proselytes, and they were not
inter fared with ; yet it might come that in a few years it
would be lac _!ssary for a Protestaut Government
to interfere with the proceedings of monastic
orders. If the IZoman Catholics, however, con-
ered the subject well, lie was sure they would not
venture on processions, in which the host, they so much vene-
rated, might be liable to insult. There was one other point
to which he would refer. The clause which gave the power
for Roman Catholic prelates to assume the legal title of
bishop and archbishop could not but be offensive to the
digaitaiies of the Protestant Church. Nothing could be
more offensive than for a Roman Catholic bishop to take
the title of Archbishop of Canterbury. He thought that
the Catholic clergy would, if this Bill passed, assume
the titles of the Protestant clergy. Ile deprecated the spirit
which was at present so prevalent among all sections of the
Protestant clergy to look favourably on Roman Catholies,
and to make unjust concession to them. Having these
opinions, be would oppose the second re-ding of the Bill.
s'.ir JIM LS GRAHAM wished to detain the House for a
short time while he stated his reasons for giving his support
to the second reading of the Bill. He supported it. because
he was favourable to its spirit and because he conceived that
That was the spirit of toleration.—(Hear, bear.) If there be
such penalties in the statute-book, he for cite was satisfied
that they should be inquired into, with a view to ascertain
if, without danger to the community, they could not be re-
moved.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member
for the University of Oxford had endeavoured to show that
the Act of 1829 was one which should be swept from the
statute-book. He (Sir James Graham), so far from con-
curring in that opinion, thought it one of the brightest pages
in the statute-book, and was a consummation which he,
from the part he took in it, should always look back upon
with delight. He did not see why they should Kaye any ob-
jecti,ea to this Bill, or why they should think that it swept
away any of those safeguards which it would be desirable to
have. for it did not go so far as the Bill in the other House.
The Bill in the other House provided relief for all Dissenters,
while this one proposed to remove those only which affected
Roman Catholics. In some other respects also the Bill in the
other House went further. He had the greatest veneration
and respect for the religion which the Hon. Member
for the University of Oxford professed, but he was sorry
to say that, in his opinion, the policy of that Church
towards Roman Catholics, in former times, was most
unhappy and unwise.—(Hear.) He believed that in conse-
quence of that policy the British Crown had been deprived of
the assistance of the ablest men in England. The Hon.
Member for the University of Oxford had admitted that
there were penal Acts on the statute-book which ought to
be repealed; yet he was opposed to the second reading of
this Bill, which proposed to repeal the greater portion of
those Acts. For his (Sir J. Graham's) own part, he confessed
that if there were such penal statutes as had
been alluded to, it was the bounden duty of the
Legislature to repeal them. And what had been the
defence set up with reference to the clause respecting Roman
Catholic schoolmasters? The Hon. Member for Oxford ad-
mitted that there was another clause, but that it never
came into operation. He also admitted in the course of his
speech that that statute ought to be repealed, and yet he
said that he would oppose the second reading of this Bill
which proposed to repeal it. He (Sir J. Graham) was most
anxious that this Bill should be passed into a law as quickly
as possible. He was not, however, prepared on the part of her
Majesty's Government to sanction the second reading of the
Bill. lie also reserved to himself the power of proposing, in
Committee, some alterations with regard to the concluding
clauses of the Bill. The Hon. Member had said that this
Bill proposed to repeal the Act of Supremacy, but it pro-
posed no such thing. He (Sir J. Graham) would, in fact
oppose the repeal of that Act ; nor did the Bill
which was now in progress in the other House
of Parliament propose the repeal of the Act of
Supremacy. He did think that, considering the immense,
number of the Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty, penal-
ties should no longer be enforced against them in either a
temporal or spiritual point of view.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
would again say that he really thought that the great settle-
ment of the year 1829 should, so far from being regarded as
unhappy, be considered as a most politic and wise settle-
ment.—( Hear hear.) To that settlement he was determined
to adhere. With the reservation to which he had already
referred, he was prepared to give his most cordial support to
the second reading of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYSE would gladly have left the introduction of a
measure of Roman Catholic relief to the good feeling and in-
tentions of Protestant Members of that House, rather than
a measure of that nature should have originated in conse-
quence of any complaints made by the Roman Catholic por-
tion of the House. He did not think it wise to keep on the
statute-book the remnant of a law condemned by the general
feeling of the people of the country. His Right Hon. Friend
seemed to have misunderstood the subject before the House.
The House was not at present in Committee, where objections
might. be taken to this or that chance of the Bill. They were
discussing the general principles of the measure. If these
enactments were useless, as the Right Hon. Baronet had
stated, lie would ask why were they kept on the statu,e-
book ? He thought, therefor ~ that his Right Hon. Friend
was bound, in consequence of his own showing that the laws
were ineffective, and were continually evaded, to support the
second reading of the Bill • while, at the same time, Hon.
Members on his side of the House were not bound to re-
pudiate the measure in consequence of any observations
which fell from the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Wyse)
considered it perfectly impossible to attempt, by any legis-
lative enactments, to bind the opinions or consciences of
any class of her Majesty's subjects.—(Cries of" Hear, hear.")
If the House would look through the Act, they would find
enactments compelling the citizens of a free country, differ-
ing from the established religion, to attend the public read •
ing of common prayer. He could not be blind to the-benefits
conferred on the country by the wise government of Queen
Elizabeth and the politic measures of her statesmen ; but
lie could not help attributing to her the bad policy which had
been observable on the subject throughout the succeeding
reigns. With regard to the observations of the Hon. Member
for Rotlandshire he gave him due credit for good feeling ; but
he wished that he had been more accurately informed of the
opinions of Catholic writers, and of the nature of Catholic
prayers. There was no such thing as a recognition of the tens-
poral supremacy of the Pope in any place beyond the Papal
dominions. Such a belief was well suited to the dark ages, but
not to the present time ; and he would join all Europe in
deprecating the extent of the power of the Pope beyond the
Papal dominions. With regard to whathad been said about
an enactment for the suppression of the Jesuits, and the forcing
open of conventual institutions, or that there should be at
least. an inquiry instituted into their practice a sort
of inquiry of lunacy, perhaps—did the Hon. Member
not know that those institutions were perfectly open,
and that females entering them were allowed a
certain time to consider before they assumed the title of
nuns ? With regard to the title of bishop, it should be re-
collected, that though it was different in Ireland, in England
no Catholic bishop took his title from any English see, and
there was no Roman Catholic bishop who took his title from
an existing see, except when the Protestant title had
ceased, as in the case of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Tuam, and in that case there was no Protestant title.
Therefore he hoped that that House would not longer con-
tinue this relic of an age of bigotry, of which he, if he were
a Protestant, would be utterly ashamed. On these grounds.
then, he trusted that in this House he should hear no more
of non -right of dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church to
the titles which they now bore.—(Hear.)
' Mr. COL _Agfreoniunbders
upon which he should support his
found in the statute-
QUIMeN
was
anxious to
tthhee
Acts bearing upon this subject to be
for the University of Oxford. He admitted that there were
perfectly prepared to get rid of; and
matters, he agreed with
sboo ofka,r
t ons which had fallen from the Hon. Member
washitchheyhte-elawtaeds to educational
the observe
who had just sat down. There were parts of this Bill to
which he took exception, but if those'parts were expunged in
Committee he did not know whether he might not be in-
clined to assent to the measure.—(Hear.) He, however,
certainly did not agree with the Right Hon. Baronet the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, that because a
Bill contained enactments which were wise and just in
le
them-
selves,
he was justified in voting for it second reading,
the Bill
at the same time there was a paramount part
of
and contrary to
which was considered highly objectionable,
without going
back spirit of the constitution.—(Hean And,)
back to defend the reign of Queen
of religion, Elizabeth, distin-
guished advancement
as that reign was for the
and the promotion of literature, because any one who looked
into the works of Spencev or Shakspere, or studied the
works of Lord Bacon. must be convinced that it required
no defence. He would contend that the paramount part of
the Bill to which he objected was decidedly opposed to that
wise and equitable spirit which ought to actuate them in
the present day.—(Hear.) The constitution of the country
was based upon one recognised and constituted authority ;
they must take care not to allow an authority to exist that
was above the authority of the Crown and the Parliament
of the country. He found that it was the opinion of many
parties connected with the Church of Rome, that that
Church had power over all ecclesiastical matters ; that in
this respect it had supreme control. This was asserted by-
many writers who concur in this view of the power of the
Church. If so, let them take the case of an election. A
vote given in an election would be considered an ecclesiasti-
cal matter, though an elector was considered alone respon-
sible in a political point of view to the country. That a
vote at au election was an ecclesiastical matter, was stated
by the Church of Rome, and in proof of that they had the
evidence of the Committee appointed in 1835. It was
shown before that Committee that the Church of Rome held
this opinion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was not so.

Mr. COLQUIIOUN said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
could not dispute the fact, as the evidence taken before the
Committee fully bore that out. It was held to be an eccle-
siastical matter, because an oath was taken at an election.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The Church of Rome does not say so.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN said the best course was to look to
the practical proceedings of the Church, and not the mere
words. It was their duty not to ask what the Church
taught, but what she practised. He (Mr. Colquhoun) did
not seek the mere words on the authority of books, but
what was practised and continually acted on, and that it
was as he had represented it to be could not be denied.
As long as he had a seat in that House he would oppose
every attempt at ecclesiasticA domination, he would always
be the advocate of the right of free judgment and the right
of conscience. The Jesuits had ever aiwed at this domina-
tion, and he called upon them to take all legal steps with
a view to undermine their power. He did not wish to re-,
move them from the soil in fact. That was not a policy
which he would recommend, but he thought that every
means should be taken to prevent ecclesiastical power from
the - ,N ow, as the Act of Supre-
novy, the Ist of Elizabeth, went to put an end
to that power, lie considered that it should not
be repealed. He must, therefore, offer his decided objection
to repeal these laws? though he did not wish At the same