The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-16 00:00:00

the proper time arrived. For his own part, he was perfectly
satisfied with the statement of the Noble Earl (St. Germans).
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that notice
ought to have been given to the public of these appointments.
He had been misunderstood by the Noble Earl that had re-
plied to him, for he agreed with the Noble Earl that the two
offices should be amalgamated. He himself was a custos, and
he should be perfectly ready to give up that offi .e and all its
privileges into the hands of the Government, wiz), in his opi-
nion, were the proper parties to have the manag ment of such
offices.—( Hear.)
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. _ _

The Earl of ST. GERMANS moved that this Bill be re-
ferred to a Select Committee.—Agreed to.
Lord TYNEHAM presented a petition from Brecon against
the Charitable Trusts Bill.
The Bishop of DURHAM also presented several petitions
against the Charitable Trusts Bill.
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL.
The Bishop of EXETER wished, before the orders of the
day were proceeded with, that the Noble Lords would give
their opinion with respect to the Act of Supremacy. He ven-
tured upon the subject with the utmost diffidence. One ques-
tion which he would put was, whether the Act passed in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, made it a punishable offence
to affirm that any prince potentate had any power within
the realm. As he understood the opinion of the Noble
Lords, it was this—That it was not an offence to affirm
it unless there was a malus animus accompany any such an
expression. He supposed that he might take the silence of the
Noble Lords as an affirmative that he had stated their opinion
correctly.—(Laughter.) That was the point on which he
rested his doubt, his strong doubt of the accuracy of
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to call his Right Rev.
Friend to order. If he had intended to call in question the
correctness of the opinion given already by the Noble Lords,
he ought to have persevered in his motion. If he had intended
to raise this question again, he ought to have given notice of
his intention, in order that he (the Lord Chancellor) might
have asked the Lord Chief Justice to be in the House, and
also the Noble Lord whom his Right Rev Friend supposed to
be in his place, but whom he did not see there.
The Bishop of EXETER said that he was anxious to place
himself right, in the estimation of their Lordships, by stating
the fact that before he put the question, he told the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack what he was going do, and he
had also informed his Noble and Learned Friend on the
benches opposite, and had the satisfaction of hearing no objec-
tion. He was surprised at what had been now said, but still
he would not persevere in his question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his Right Rev.
Friend had stated that he intended to renew the question, but
he never said that he intended to argue it over again, and
adduce additional reasons.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he understood his Right Rev.
Friend to say, that he only intended asking the question with
a view of obtaining an explanation of what had been already
said. Had he confined himself to that course, his question
would have been answered at once.
The Bishop of EXE FER then rose, and said that it was his
painful duty to state the reasons which compelled him to resist
the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord, and, perhaps it
would be well at the outset to state the reasons in law which
made him doubt the accuracy of the opinion given by his Noble
Lord. He was more disposed to take that course, because he
I thought it an additional reason for not going into Committee.
For if, as the Noble Lord had told them, they were in such a state
that to affirm, maintain, or assist any foreign supremacy within
these realms, was an offence, they were destitute of all protec-
tion against such offences ; and if a clause which was in this
Bill were not struck out of it, it would be a strong reason why
they should consider the nature of this important point.
The Noble Lord had said that it was not an offence per se, or
simpliciter to affirm any foreign jurisdiction, and he ( the Bishop
of Exeter) would state to their Lordships what he thought of
such an opinion. He hoped the House would permit him to
read the clause of the Act of the Ist Elizabeth, it was the 16th
clause. The Right Rev. Prelate then read the clause at full length,
which was to the effect, that from and after the passing of that
Act, for ever after no foreign prince, power, or potentate should
have any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country,
therefore, if there should be any infringement of the act, it
would be contrary to law, and would, therefore, be a misde-
meanour. But then there was another reason apart from this
measure. If any subject of this realm were called upon to take
the oath of supremacy, the words of it were the same as those
in the clause he had read ; and if he were wrong, he hoped the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite would state how he was
wrone; but he woald maintain that he was right, notwithstand-
ing the taunts and the ridicule to which he might expose himself.
He should be satisfied if, in this part of the Bill, a simple pun-
ishment were substituted for misdemeanour. He should re-
joice if the punishment of prmmunire should be struck out of
the statute-book ; but he should not wish the statute itself to
be extinguished, thus leaving no punishment for those who
denied the royal supremacy. Holding those opinions. he
should be glad if he had no other objections at once to give his
assent to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. But
he had reasons of a grave objection of another kind to urge
against it. The objections which he had he would wish to
hear stated with the same force and ability as in the speech se.
the Noble Lord opposite the other day, and which was fol .
lowed by a vote which seemed demanded by this
expression of opinion. He referred to the powerful speech made
by the Noble Lord opposite, who asked the Noble ansl Learned
Lord on the Woolsack why he introduced a Bill of this kind
without fully informing them of all its objects ? What did the
Noble and Learned Lord say to this ? Nothing. He wrapped
himself up in dignified obscurity, and he refused to give any
explanation whatever. Their Lordships knew that there had
been public reports made by the Criminal Law Commissioners ;
and with the permission of the House he would afterwards
read them a quotation from a letter on the subject. Her Ma-
jesty had been pleased to direct a Commission to be issued to
prepare a Bill to be laid before Parliament on this subject. If
this was a common occurrence he was not aware of it, and
the House would pardon his ignorance ; but if it was not a
common occurrence, perhaps the Noble and Learned Lord
would tell him why the course had been adopted in the present
instance. The Commission recommended the absolute aboli.
tion of the existing oath of supremacy, that oath which their
Lordships had taken, and which every subject of that realm,
who was not a Roman Catholic, was bound to take. The
Commissioners recommended the striking nut of every thing
like an assertion of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical
matters. Ile should scarcely have believed this unless he had
looked wi;h great accuracy to this statement of the Com-
missioners, and he would now read to their Lord-
ships the words of the oath which they pro-
posed to substitute in place of the existing one.
" I, A. 8., swear that I wilt faithfully and duly perform al-
legiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I- will main-
tain the succession ()tithe Crown, as established by Act of Par-
liament, and that I do not believe that the Pope or any other
foreign prince or potentate, hath or ought to have"—What ?
" any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction." Those were the
words of the existing oath, as it was well known, because their
Lordships had already taken it; but were those to be the
words of the new oath ? No such thing ; although their Lord-
ships well knew that the constitution of this land, and the
security of its Protestant Sovereign was in an especial manner
preserved by the oath. Were Roman Catholics hereafter to
swear that the Pope bath no authority, or supremacy, or juris-
diction in this realm ? No such thing ; the oath proposed was
" That the Pope hath nor ought to have any temporal or civil
jurisdiction or authority in this realm." Now, would not that
be an enormous and monstrous innovation? He did not be-
lieve that his Noble and Learned Friend would adopt it. He
did not believe that he dare adopt it. Though the Noble and
Learned Lords had hitherto been most silent with regard to this
subject, they would have from him a positive declaration as to
the course which he intended to pursue with regard to the re-
commendations made by the learned persons who drew
up this report. This oath was of a most stringent character.
It was an oath,'too, in which was concerned the very constitu-
tion of this land, which constitution was the entire, sole, and
independent monarchy of the King of England. By that
oath the supremacy of the British Monarch was affirmed, and
if they abandoned that oath, they abandoned the constitution.
But how had their Lordships' forefathers and predecessors
acted on this question ? By absolutely making it a condition,
which required any man, who was a Roman Catholic, before
he took any part in the Legislature of this country, to swear
that the Pope bath not, nor ought to have, any jurisdiction in
this realm. They took that security before they allowed any
man to enter within the walls of either that or any other
House of Parliament ; they made him call God to witness the
sincerity of his conviction, that the Pope ought not to have
any private jurisdiction within the kingdom. Why, then, he
would say, that it was impossible for their Lordships to alter,
in the slightest degree, the oath as it at present stood in the
atatute-book. He thought that his Noble and Learned Friend
vrould give them relief on this subject—a relief which he (the
Bishrtp of Exeter) should consider the more necessary to his
own feelings, because he had confidence in the Noble Lord,
and knew that he would not injure the constitution of Eng-
land. He Anew that his attachment to it was great.
It was proposed by a Noble Lord that there should' be a
conrorditt with the Pope, and that the Pope should exercise
his authority in this country by the sanction of the Secretary
of State. Now, it was his (the Bishop of Exeter's) opinion
that the oaths which he and all their Lordships had taken pre-
vented this. • Every country in Europe, except Rome, pro-
tected itself against the power of the Pope. It was not essen-
tial to the free exercise of the Catholic religion in this country
that the authority of the Pope should be supreme in spiritual
matters. The passing of this Bill would be attended with the
utmost danger to the peace of the country. Why was that
danger to be incurred? Was there a complaint from the
Catholics that they could not exercise their religion freely ?
No such thing. The only reason urged for the passing of this
Bill was that the existing statute was an ugly one, and ought
not to remain on the statute book. Now, he hoped that the
rugged laws of their ancestors would be still adhered to. In
the year 1841 the Pope issued an allocution—which was a kind
of address—te Spain in which he made use of threats, and de-
clared that the proceedings of the Spanish Government with
rttatre4. to the Church in Spain were altogether unjustifiable in
void. "14,,,t1:.1.‘PTA and he declared them to be null and
by the Pope
a similar power ri.,',wkt"rdships should pass this Bill,
with respect to this e‘,lltrels'ir"d
things would be most horrible, and • state of
that it would never take place. Again, eertainhpern trusted
been claimed by certain laymen in the metropelisnhtYdti
Bishop of that see was thrown into prison. The Pope de-
nouncede the persons engaged in that matter, and declared the
proceedings to be null and void. Now these steps were not
taken in Catholic Italy, but actually within the dominions of
the Queen of England. The case, therefore, assumed a most
frightful appearance. This Bill would admit the Pope into
this country to claim his spiritual supremacy, and it was for
that reason that he (the Bishop of Exeter) should oppose the
Bill going into Committee ; and move that they go into Com-
mittee on that day three months.
er
vrTehe LORD CHANCELLOR denied that all persons
bound to rake the oath of supremacy upon that oath
being tendered `a them. i
paved, by which if w'
.take the oath of supremacy
pelted to
An Act of Parliament, in 1701 w
as enacted that nouppoenrsoitias sbheothugldtbeend,ceorrnead-s
to him. hat' taken place since the statute of
But the Right Rev. Prelate had appeared to forget
referred. The Right Rev. Prelate
all the
Elizabeth, to which he had
',l the Acts of Parliament which
legislation that
must take into consideratico at
various Acts had not passed
that period. It was quite im-
possi }wets who professed the Roman
had
.bpaslesefodrthheimLegtoislcaotnutreensdintchea't
ya
since that period for the relief of t
Catholic religion. Great facilities
their
performance of the rights of . and a very
religion,
. had been given for the
material alteration had been made in
t impossible for
in favour of Roman Catholics; and it was, qty e .
maintain that a
the Right Rev. Prelate now te stand up Cad
the oath of supremacy
the
Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately
f g the
supremacy in ecclesiastical and spiritual ma:tfes's
6of this
Pope could be considered as offending against the faM
nimsaiinn
ta
in
in
to that
country.—( Hear, hear.) So much, then, with respe.lt,
tof the case. He had already on a former occas.ll2
par
the
ex-
pressed his opinion clearly and distinctly, notwithstanding'
charge that had been made against hint by the Right Re'
Prelate, and he really must say that be could not see how the
Right Rev. Prelate could renew this subject, after the discus-
sion which had taken place on it on a former night—( Hear,
hear)— without having insisted on the attendance of the judges,
by appealing to them with respect to the correctness of his
opini on ; and he must repeat what he had before said, that he
thought the Right Rev. Prelate had not acted very fairly by
him i n not giving him notice of his intention to controvert the
opinbsns which he had expressed. Had that notice been given,
they might have had the attendance on this occa,ion of the
Chief Justice of England, who had expressed himself with so
much force and precision, in answer to the question put to him
by the Right Rev. Prelate. Now the Right Rev. Prelate, ad-
verting te the Commission, said it was the most extraordinary
Commisision that was ever issued, nasmuch as it called upon the