The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-19 00:00:00

TILE StlN,

The Earl of SHREWSBURY opposed the amend-
ment, which would, in his opinion, render the whole
measure nugatory. He wished to see a diplomatic rela-
tion established between this country and Rome upon
principles of perfect reciprocity. A Protestant migh.t
be appointed from this country, and why should there be
any restriction as to the class or description of the per-
son to be appointed as the representative of Rome ? In
fact there were no persons in Rome except ecclesiastics
who were adapted to the discharge of diplomatic duties
or had received such an education as would suit them for
such an office. The cases of Russia and this country
were not parallel cases. But even so, if the Emperor
refused to receive a nuncio, the Pope had equally re-
fused to send a minister either to Russia or Prussia.
He would oppose this amendment, because he thought
that if the clause proposed was adopted it would not
only take away the grace of the measure, but would
render it altogether useless.
Lord STANLEY said that he spoke for himself and
for the people of this country when he expressed his
opinion that this amendment was of the greatest im-
portance, and he considered it of such importance that
he should be mainly influenced in his ultimate course
by its adoption or rejection by this House. The Noble
Earl who had just sat down said that it would not only
take away the grace of the measure, but render it en-
tirely useless. So far ae there was any ground of
offence on the part of the Popish Court, the Prussian
Government were equally open to the charge. In the
year 1845, the Russian Government was asked to
receive a nuncio from Rome, and what was the an-
swer? That Russia was ready to stand on the same
footing of entire reciprocity, The answer was, " Send
us a lay envoy, and we will send one to Rome." The
argument of the Noble Earl would apply, if the
British Government proposed to ask Rome to dispatch
a Protestant envoy to this country, for then there
would be no reciprocity. It was said that the
question ought to be left to the discretion of the
Crown, which discretion would change from day to day;
but he wished to impress upon their Lordships that novr
was the time, when euch a Bill was proposed to them,
for their Lordships to interfere and lay down the condi-
tions on which they were to enter into diplomatic rela-
tion with the Court of R' The case of Prussia was
compared with that of this country; but their Lordships
should recollect that the Sovereign of this country hell
the Crown under settlement, and under a so!emn com-
pact to support the Protestant religion, and that there
was a law in this country which was stronger than the
power of the Crown, to the effect that no person in the
character of a Roman Catholic Ambassador from Rome
should reside in this country. , He opposed the rejection
of the amendment as inurious to the peace and welfare
of the Protestant community of this country, believing
that it would be a step towards transferring the Vatican
from Rome to London, and introducing new elements of
confusion and difficulty in the administration of affairs

in this country.
Lord CL i RICARDE complained of the amendment,
because it fettered the Crown without fettering any other
party.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that the Crown was
already very much fettered es regarded the Roman Ca-
tholics, and if this fetter were taken off it would be in
future taken as a precedent for removing the others; and
thereby they would be going one step turther in giving
the Roman Catholics a chance of beating down the
Protestant religion in this country.
The Earl of HARROWBY said a few words in sup-
port of the amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the real question was,
whether they were to prevent the Crown from using its
usual prerogative and to encroach on the law of nations,
which he thought they would do by carrying the amend-
ment, which, on that ground, he opposed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON proposed the intro-
duction of the words " diplomatic relations," which
would remove the necessity for carrying the amend-
ment.

After a few words from the Earl of SHREWSBURY and
Earl FITZWILLIAM, who, though he felt considerable
objection to see an ecclesiastical official from the Church
of Rome in this country, yet opposed the amendment,
because he thought it would limit to too great a degree
the power of the Crown,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he, on the
part of the Government, adopted the suggestion of the
Noble Duke. lie had already stated that he was 'pre-
pared to adopt the suggestion of the Noble Duke, and
he would have done so formally the night before, only
he wished to know what was the meaning, the precise
legal meaning. of the words" diplomatic relations."
_ .

'The Earl (4*ELLENBOIiOUII wished, befere their

Lordships proceeded to a division, to ask the Noble
Marquis (Lansdowne) how the proposed alteration of the
terms of the Bill, by introducing the words " diplomatie
relations," was to have the effect of the clause proposed
as an amendment by his Noble Friend (Lord Eglinton).
That clause was to have the effect of preventing her Ma-
jesty from receivinlz in this country any ecclesiastic as

ambassador from Rome. It was right that the Sove-
reign of these realms, who for 200 years could not ap-
point an ambassador at Rome, should now be relieved
from any difficulty of diplomatic relations between this
country and Rome where deemed expedient ; but then
they were not prepared to go so far as to forget the
whole interest and spirit of the Protestant legislation of
this country ; they would, under no circumstances, re-
lieve the prerogative of the Crown, so ns to enable any
Minister to injure the Protestant Established Church.
If an ecclestastic was sent from Rome to this country,
it would not only be injurious to the interests of Pro-
testantism, but a direct offence to every Protestant in the
country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE assured the Noble
Earl that be had never said, or meant to say, that the
introduction of the terms suggested by the Noble Duke
would have the effect of the clause proposed by the
Noble Earl (Eglinton). What he stated was, that he
was prepared to adopt the suggestion of the Noble
Duke, and that he would have previously stated his de-
termination to do so, but he ;wished first to ascertain
the legal meaning of the terms proposed to be intro-
duced into the Bill.—(" Hear, hear," and " Divide.")
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—

Contents - 67
Non• contents
Majority fbr the amendment —3

Lord REbESOALE proposed another amendment,
which was in the following terms: " That it shall not be
lawful for her Majesty to receive any ambassador, en-
voy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary, or other
diplomatic agent, until the Court of Rome shall have
declared that it doth not claim, but distinctly disavows,
any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or
pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within these realms,
or any part thereof."
The Marquis. of LANSDOWNE opposed the amend-
ment.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY said it would be much

wiser to leave the Bill as it was, and rely upon the good
sense and good feeling of the people of this country.
Whenever there was any intrigue or encroachment by
foreign powers, the people of England would be, as
they ever had been, able and willing to resist them suc-

cessfully.
Tho Bishop of SALISBURY said, as he had agreed
to the principle of the Bill, their Lordships should not
defeat it by a proposition such as that made. He should
therefore resist the amendment.

After a few words from Lord STANLEY, who re,
commended the withdrawal of the amendment,
Lord REDESDALE accordingly withdrew it.

The Duke of RICHMOND proposed a clause pro-
viding that no ambassador from the Court of Rome
should be permitted to do anything which a subject of
this country could not do.
Lord CAMPBELL said that from the constitution of
the Bill such a clause would be quite unnecessary.
The Duke of RICHMOND then withdrew his clause.
Their Lordships then resumed, and the report was
ordered to be received on Monday next.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at twenty minutes
past Ten o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
The Dundee and Perth Railway Bill was read a
first time.

George 111. prevented them from investing their
funds, amounting to 600,0001. a year, which relieved
upwards of 1,000,000 males
.and females, under the
Friendly Societies Act, and praying for a remedy.
LONDON WORKHOUSES.

llr. WAKLEY presented a petition, complaining
of the way in which the casual poor were treated in
the London workhouses.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Mr. G. BERKELEY presented a petition frost
West Gloucestershire in favour of the removal of the
Jewish disabilities.

POPISH BULLS.

Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from Oxford
against the admission of Popish bulls into this country.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition against the
admission of persons professing the Jewish religion
into the Legislature.
Mr. FRENCH presented a petition in favour of
their admission.