The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-25 00:00:00

fY! E TA L Ea,.
HOGSR OF MONS, June 24.
(contented from our edeereeres Ed:tion of yesterday.)
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
The Howe then resolved ireelf into Committee on this Bill.
Sir R. 11. INCeLIS said this Bill had been so mach mangled
and mutilated, that those who read it originally could
scarcely recognise it now. Still, changed as it was, sUfficient
was left behind to !Testify hint in movmg that the Chairman
do leave the chair, and sit again that day six months. At
the present time the Church of Rome, throughout the world,
and especially in this country. was not such as to claim their
special indulgence. At the present moment it was well known
that the supporters of that Church were introducing the
question of mixed marriages into this country, which had
caused so much discussion on the Continent. They had all
heard of the commotions at Cologne over mixed marriages.
In France, also, there had been much ill feeling engendered
through the same cause; and in this country a Roman Ca-
tholic bishop had laid down the doctrine, that in "the case of
a mixed marriage it should be enjoined on the male parent
that he should bring up all the children in the Reman Catholic
-anti. Asa member of the English Protestant Church, he
:mid not consent to extending further privileges to parties
lo were acting in this manner. The Right Hon. Baronet
oncluded by moving as an amendment that Mr. Greene
do leave the chair, and that the Committee sit again on that
day six months.
Mr. WATSON thought no one would dissent from the
principle of the Bill, which was intended to remove from
the statute book those obsolete penal enactments to the
operation of which persons professing the Roman Catholic
faith were still liable. He did not see any serious objection
to Roman Catholic bishops assuming the titles of English
bishops, but he did not think the clause was material
to the Bill, and if the House wished, he should not object
to remove it. He should certainly persevere with the Bill.
Persons taking monastic yeas were, by the law of 1829, in
England still liable to banishment. It was foolish to suppose
that these persons could prove detrimental to the Protestant
Church in a tree country like England.
Sir J. GRAIIAM said it appeared to him that, in dealing
with so important a matter as the present, the Hon. Gentle-
man had not treated the clause with becoming gravity. He
did not think that the titles of reverence which belonged to the
Protestant Cnurch should be awarded to the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. It was not necessary even to point out distinct
localities, that the same names of places should be selected
by the Roman Catholic bishops for their distinctive titles.
To allow such a proceeding would throw a slur upon the
bishops and hierarchy of the Protestant faith which would
not be compatible with the respect which their exalted posi-
tion entitled them to. In the second place, with regard to
the clause for regulating Roman Catholic processions, the
elee. Gentleman did not consider that the clause as it stood
- was sufficient. He was decidedly of opinion that the law
as it at present stood was right both as regarded the second and
third clauses of the Bill. With respect to the fourth clause,
he would confess that he did not entertain any jealousy of
the loyalty or morality of the regular orders of the Roman
Catholic Church. He thought that in a country where there
were upwards of 8,000,000 Roman Catholics, it would be
neither wise nor just policy to say that the regular orders
shall not be maintained. It would not, however, be pru-
dent to deal with these matters in the way that was at pre-
sent proposed. The monastic orders required revision, and to
be dealt with in a very delicate and most cautious manner.
The House was not at thepsesent time in &position niFoTisidelr
the subject in the "necessary dispassionate manner, and it
would be proper to postpone the further consideration of the
- measure to a future day.
Mr. WYSE thought unit the minds of the public were
made up for the reception of the principle of the Bill. The
Hon. Gentleman entered into an explanation of the title
and discipline of the Roman Catholic hierarchy,' and insti-
tuted a comparison between the nominal titles of .the digni-
taries of the two churches. As regarded the clause ,for, re-
gulating the processions and dresses of the Roman-Catholic
clergy, he saw no difference between it and the lair
that already existed.—(Hear, hear.) There was a society
in Ireland called the Christian Brothers, which taught a
vast number of children, and educated them to hold offices
of a superior description in the mercantile community. The
operations of that society were exceedingly circumscribed in
consequ nee of existing statutes, which the present proposed
Bill sought to repeal. The objections against the Jesuits
arose enarely out of political hostility, and not Hum any re-
ligious belief. It was absurd to keep un the statute-:booli the
imposition of penalties which it was never intended to en-
force. He cheerfully gave his support to the clauses, of his
Hon. Friend, and trusted that the Bill would pass unmu-
tilated.
After a few words from Lord CLIVE.
Mr. B. ESCOTT considered that they ought to do away
with the enactments which were a disgrace to the statute-
book, and he was of opinion that the changes which had
been made in the bill to meet the views of those who
were opposed to it, ought now, considering the
spirit which had been evinced, to be removed, and that
they, should steed on the original principles of toleration.
The time was ripe for a decision on the question, and he
hoped the House would not consent that such arbitrary
and intolerant enactments should longer disgrace the
- country. The principles on which the Bill was founded
were not those of the present day, and if they were then
defeated they would prevail, and that at no distant day.
Mr. ALBERT FIVZGERALD adverted to the conduct of
a curate of the Established Church, at Yucghal, who had
preached a sermon to the effect that no Protestant could be
saved unless be insisted on the conversion of his Catholic
servants, and that no Protestant should hold any communi-
cation whatsoever with Catholics. A relative of his, a colonel
in the army, was so disgusted that he walked out of the
church and several other military men did the same. The
Rev. Gentleman by means of his bigotry was noticed by his
bishop and made rector of Macroom.—(Cries of "Name.")
Mr. Swanston.--( Hear, hear.) Quakers and nuns were al-
lowed to wear their dresses and habits in the streets, and he
did not see why friars should not be allowed to do the same.
Mr. COWPER said that if this was merely a question
of toleration he should be quite ready to support the
Bill, but he did not think that it was, and it proposed to
recognise a body—the Jesuits—instituted for political pur-
poses, having dAngerous objects and using dangerous
means to effect. them. He believed them also to be a
body ineulcatiog a bad system of morality—that had been
officially denounced by every country in Europe; they had
been banished from no less than thirty-nine countries, they
had been put down by a bull from the Pope himselt, and he
was sure that such a jest Pontiff would never have
consented to such an act if the Jesuits were not
a bad and dangerous body.
Mr. ESTCOURT st.,utly supported the amendment.
The restrictions had endured without having ever been en-
forced, and they would have a wholesome effect in prevent-
ing any improper aggreesien,on the part of the ROM41:1 CO
tholic clergy.
Lord SEYMOUR considered that it was most unchristian
to maintain these statutes; if the Church had no other secu-
rity than these enactments it stood upon a very insecure
foundation indeed, but he hoped it was quite secure enough
without any of these paltry enactments. He would support
the BilL
Mr. REDINGTQN considered that a very unfair attack
bad been made upon the Jesuits. The Jesuits had been sup-
pressed in Italy from purely political reasons, and riot from
any impper principles which they advocated.
taro
r. COI.QUROUN said he perfectly agreed with the Hon.
Baronet, that the law was at present not in a satisfactory
state. He had received a letter from a friend of his
residing in the city of Dublin, which informed him that
there akine there were twenty convents and ten mo-
nasteries. The law was inefficient, and he should not be
averse to see an efficient registry of all these orders; and a
friend of his had suggested to him a mode by which it could
be done, namely, by causing the inspectors Of police to
make returns of those which existed in those districts.
Mr. WYSE explained that what he stated about the
Christian Brothers was from actual observation and not
he irsay.
Mr. LABOLTC HERE said the question was whether the law
should remain as it was, or be amended, and from its present
state he should be surprised if the Committee would
not proceed to consider the provisions of the Bill.
It had been admitted by those opposed to the Bill that the
law regarding monastic institutions was in a most unsatis
factory state. If so. then, why not at once proceed to a re-
medy ? The provisions of the present law could not be car-
ried out—why, then, retain them in the statute-book ? Those
provisions were opposed to the liberal spirit of the
age; and be, for one, should the Government attempt to
carry them out, which he must sty they had never shown a
disposition to do, would certainly give them every
opposition in his power. The whole question required
to be considered, and he hoped it would be done dispas •
sionately and calmly, so as to effect a remedy.
As a Member of the Church of England, be should
be ashamed of it, if he thought it could not
maintain itself without persecuting the Roman Catholics,
and inflicting on them disabilities. There was a time when
thegAesuits exercised a dangerous control over despotic
states. But times— had changes 4., they tad a- free
press, the benefits of public discussion, and a popular
eepresentation now, before which it was impossible the Jesuits
could display the power and command men's consciences as
they did in -former times. To reject the Bill from such fears at
the present day was most absurd. He would give his vote in
support of the Bill, in order that the subject might be con-
sidered in Committee.
Lord JOHN MANNERS entirely differed with the Hon.
Meteber tor Newcastle-( Mr. Colquhoun). He did not think
the eyeing of the Bill could endanger the Englisti Church in
the man he had stated. With regard to the present law,
the clauses in it against Roman Catholics were inopera-
itiievree;c4 they eusuhtldee not
the be carried_ into effect. He be-
reeent Government came into
Omen, an application nut been made to put the
Clauses into effect against a -ler. ispHale, but they- 'wisely
refused.-oear, hear.) Th.
wan.. the rerne•yant2 point of the Bill
tin the di-abilities a ins
before the noilee
the Jesuits. The Bill proposed
!le this, „,, hence gt had
---,natl. in Fe 1
his support. He for one apprehended e_
of an lie
from that order interfering with political g and
never recollected a single instance y Ault in this coun-
try interfering in such a '
ner • but on the (Abet-Wand
they had always been
their religious duties.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not agree, with the Noble Lord
orb° had just sat down. The constitution of the Je-uits now
wag the mane that it had ever been, and as inimical to civil and
religions liberty. He hoped the Government would not,
without mature inquiry, proceed to interfere withthe
pro-
visions of the Act of 1529. It had been admitted religious
orders were increasing in this country, and therefere they
ought not from a feeiing of mistaken philanthrophy to re-
moeed the protection against their encroachment, which the
law as it now stood afforded.
Mr. WATSON briefly 'replied, when the gallery was
cleared for a division.
On our re-admission there appeared—
For the motion that the Chairman do now
leave the chair...
.
Agao st it
Majority against the Bill -40
The Bill is e.k:.
nsequently lost.
The House then zegumed•
BANKRUPTCTi AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
- This Bill was read a secotni time, and ordered to be com-
mitted to-morrow.
DEATH BY ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL:

The second reading of this Bill was postponed.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM could not say, in the present state of
public business, when they could go int) Committee on this
Bill, but he would fix Monday next.
CORONERS' (IRELAND) BILL.
The House resolved itieif into Committee on this Bill.
71is several clauses of this Bill were agreed to, and the
rOPtit ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
'I I,* House then resumed.
NE W ZEALAND BILL.
The arkiNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in
this Bill, whlch was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on Monday next.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned At Six o'clock.

MORTALITY OF TEE METROPOLIS.—The total num-
tier of deaths, from all caws. registered in the metropolis
far the week ending Saturday, June 20, was 808. The
• deaths from disease during the week amounted to 779, show-
e decrease of three, as compared with the week preced-
In& tit the number of Oaths from disease.