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

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Lord KENYON presented a petition from the Marylebone
vestry against the Charitable Trusts Bill ; also a petition to
the same effect from the Methodists of Bradford.
Lord COTTENHAM presented similar petitions from St.
Olave's, Canterbury, and several other places.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
nessengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Earl BROWNLOW presented a petition from the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Town Council of Boston in Lincolnshire, against
the Charitable Trusts Bill.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S presented similar petitions
from Carmarthen.
THE FREE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from members of
the Free Church in Edinburgh, complaining of the refusal to
grant sites for the erection of places of worship connected with
the Free Church of Scotland.
THE CORN-LAWS.
Lord BEAUMONT, on the part of the Earl of Yarborough,
presented a great number of petitions from Lincolnshire against
- any remission in the protection duties on the importation of
torn.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he wished to pre-
sent a petition which had just been put into his hands. It was
from the congregations of nearly all the Methodist chapels in
Kingstenenpon-Hull against the Charitable Trusts Bill, stating
that they viewed that measure with considerable alarm. The
Noble Lord also gave notice that on Monday next he should
move for a return of all the murders and attempts at murder
which had taken place in Ireland since the Ist of January, and
whether they were committed by day or night, together with
other circumstances that might distinguish them.
THE CLERKS OF THE CROWN.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—In pursuance of the
notice he had already given, he should move for a return
of the Clerks of the Crown. He should not have made such a
motion without a more distinct notice had he anticipated any
opposition.
He had many opportunities of observing the
character of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and
Le believed that
he was calculated to be of consider-
able benefit to the country. The Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland was chosen in consequence of his ignorance and
want of connexion with the country, as was also his secre-
tary, and they were unacquainted with the people of Dublin
Castle, and the duties that devolved on them. There was a
gentleman named Pollock, by whose death no less than fifteen
appointments as clerks to the Crown fell vacant. It had for a
long time been under discussion, whether the office of clerk
of the peace could be united with the office of clerk
to the Crown. In consequence of the appointment
of some gentlemen to serve in those offices by
the custos rotulorum of the Queen's County, in opposition
to the Crown, legal proceedings were commenced, and the
question was tried at Dublin before all the Judges, only two
of whom were against the Crown. The question was after-
wards
tried by their Lordships, and the decision given by them
was against the power of the Crown over those officers.
It was contemplated that these officers should be united. What
was recommended by the last commission of Lord Devon, and
on which so much stress has been laid en different occasions by
the Government ? He recollected that when that Com-
mission was issued, whenever Noble Lords urged the
Government to take some steps in the ameliora-
tion of the law of Ireland, they were repeatedly refused
until the labours of the Commission were finished, and their re-
port had been made. Well, new that it was so, it deserved
the attention of that Government who had so highly valued it
before. The Commission that was issued in 18311 recommended
that the office of the Clerk of the Peace should be united
with that of Clerk of the Crown. But he would go
back to another Commission, which was formed of men
intimately acquainted with the country—he meant the com-
mission appointed in 1536, to review the grand jury laws in
Ireland—and the:r report ought surely to be attended to.
They reported, that the duties of the clerk of the peace
and the clerk of the Crown should be performed by one
officer, and that the duty ought not to be divided among
two—the office of Clerk of the Peace ought to be re-
tained, the office of Clerk of the Crown should be abolished.
When this subject was fully placed before the pub-
lic, the public expected the same arrangement would
he made for the abolition of the office of clerk of
the crown. He did not mean to say that, without
any inquiry whatever, all persons who were clerks of the
peace should be appointed indiscriminately to the office of
Clerk of the Crown ; but what he would contend for was,
that when these Clerks of the Peace were found to be fit and
proper persons for the offices, a due regard should be
had to the economy of the country, and the Nee
offices should be merged in one. Bet that
had not been done ; but the state of the fact was this, that
in three weeks after the death of the person he had mentioned,
a mass of applications had been sent in to the amount of several
hundreds, and the gentleman had not been dead a week
when it was well known who was to be his successor
to at least ten of the situations he held as clerk
of the Cro'sn. It was a well-known fact that Mr.
Kemusis had been deputy clerk of the Crown for four counties
in Ireland and for the city of Kilkenny. This gentleman had
acted in that capacity for a long time before, but in the year
1818 he positively received his appointment as deputy clerk of
the Crown. On the death of Mr. Pollock he was, towever,
turned loose on the world without any compensation. Now, he
would ask if that was right or just towards the Iri'h people ?
He did not know what were the abilities of this gentleman for
the situation he had filled, but he was well aware that he had
had three recommendations for similar situations from Kile
kenny, three recommendations from Wexfsrd, three from other
counties, and two from the city of Kilkenny. But he dared to
say that they wou!rf be informed that arrangements would
made by which the late appointments would riot stand in the way
of future appointments. They might be told so, but he begged
their Lordships to remember that these were patent offices,_ and
only held during good behaviour. He Loped that the Noble
Earl would clearly inform them on what understanding
these arrangements were to be made, and if they were to be
enforced. Now the public in Ireland had a right to be in-
formed in %vitat these arrang,raents were to consist, and what
the Government intended to do in respect to these officers.
He wanted to know what were the arrangements under which
the appointments to those offices were made. He apologised
for having sa long occupied the attention of their Lordship.
He hoped that his Noble Friend would toll their Lordship.
what t arrangements to which he had alluded were, and give
distinct answers to the questions which he had put.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said, lie at once agreed
will, the Noble Marquis opposite, that the Government was
hound to py respect to, and seriously consider all the re-
commendations contained in the report from which
the Noble Marquis bad quoted; het he could net
say that he admitted that the Government was tionnit
to act its accordance with them. Now what were the recom-
mendations to which the Neble Marquis had called the atten-
tion of the House?—That the clerkship of the Crown shoal
merge into the uffi,te of the clerkship of tite peace. The com-
mission of ishich the Noble Lord (Devon) was the head, re-
corameeded, that in addition to the duties of the clerk
of the pace, the same inri.vidual should perform
the duties of clef k of the Crown, and become public
prosecutor. Now, he (the Earl of St. Germans) appealed
to any Noble Lord. conversant with the operatioes of the law,
whether that would be a convenient or even a constitutional
course. The Notate Lord seemed to be well aware that the
duties of the Clerk of the Crown and Assize were to prepare
indictments, to keep record of challenges, and various other
functions peculiar to such officers of the Court. And now he
would ask their Lordships whether it would be prudent the
same individual should perform the duties of Crown
prosecutor ? Unquestionably her Majesty's Govern-
ment were of opinion it was not. But then
came the recommendation of the Committee of 1549
to inquire into the gram) jury laws of Ireland, which re-
commended that the clerkship of the crown and the
clerkship of the peace should he consolidated, on the
ground of economy. They recommended that the clerk
of the peace should, hi addition to his present remuneration,
receive a third more than his present salary for performing his
duties of Clerk of the Crown. But then that would only
realise a salary of 6,0(.01. for the whole of Ireland. Th
Clerk of the Crown would then be obliged to have a deputy
equally skilled with himself, to assist in the performance of his
duties. The Goverucnent had considered what was the best
mode of eff,cting the consolidation of these two Graces, and it
has appeared to her Majesty's Government that it would be
much more beneficial for the dispatch of public business, and
consistent with their interests, that the patronage of these two
offices should be vested in the Crown • and that it should not
be held by the custos totulorum. By the present exercise of
this patronage, co less than fourteen persons held the office of
clerk of the Crown, who had not been bred to the profession of
the law, and even the very last appointment made was that of
a gentleman who had been an officer in the army, and, of
course, wholly incompetent to discharge the duties imposed
upon him. He would again state, that he held it far more
consistent with the interests of the public service, that the
Crown, acting by its responsible Ministers, responsible to
Parliament for their acts, should have vested in them this
patronage, and that it should not be rested in
the hands of persons wholly irresponsible. Bat at the
same time it had been thought expedient that the gentleman
who held these offices should have their rights respected, ard
every gentleman who had been appointed since the present
Government came into office had bound himself not to demand
compensation for any change which Parliament might deem it
fit to propose respecting these offices. A Bill was before the
Parliament at the present moment in respect to the subject.
He did not think that the Noble Marquis, with regard to
the particular case which he had put forward, had made out
a very strong case. The gentleman had not been. appointed
by the present Government. It would not be
the public service that men should perform the dettounlaTetednuttiwesitohf
clerk of the peace and clerk of the Crown.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that after what
had fallen from the Noble Earl who had just sat down, it was
right that he should understand what was the intention of Go-
vernment, and whether the appointments to these situations
were to be in the gift of the Crown or of the custos ro-
tulorum.
Earl ST. GERMANS said it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to respect existing rights when the two offices were
held by two persons, but in all future appointments the two
offices should be merged in one. 111th regard to the case of
the Noble Marquis ( Londonderry), be believed that that was
a peculiar one, and that the Noble Marquis's father had
granted a patent to a party for the. appointment, by which the
right was taken out of the nands of the Noble Marquis. The
Noble Marquis appealed to the law, and it decided that the
patent could not be interfered with.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained.
The Duke of LEINSTER would confidently assert that an
arrangement conjoining the offices of clerks of the peace with
clerks of the Crown would be a most beneficial Act for Ire-
land. He regretted extremely that Government had slot taken
the opportunity, when so many vacancies ha.) fallen into their
heads, of making this arrangement. He nimeelf would wil-
lingly resign into the hands of her Majesty's Ministers the
power which had been given him of appointing clerks of the
peace. He was well aware that the gentleman that held that
office in the county of Kildare was in every way fitted for it,
but still he would make every sacrifice, in order to
ensure this arrangement.
Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the Noble Earl opposite
would take the suggestion of his Noble Friend behind him into
consideration. He could seee no reason why they should
transfer into the hands of the Minister of the Crown a patron- 1
age which was so all-important to the interests of Ireland. He
did not say that that patronage had been abused, but still he I
thought that it would he better placed in the hands of her
Majesty's responsible Minister. He objected to the judges
having the appointments of clerks of assize on the same prin-
eiple that he thought those who appointed the judges should
have the appointment of inferior officers.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he. was bound to say that.
the answer of the Noble Earl on that side of the House had I
given him perfect satisfaction. It appeared that these gentle-
men had got their appointments subject to any arrangements
which might afterwards he come to by the Government.
As soon as the recommendation of the Commissieners had bean ,
attended to by the Government, and he thought that it was
their intention to do so, fit parties would be appointed to the
office. His Noble Friend bad said that that was the intention
of the Government. If they had acted in accordancewitithe
recemmendation of the Noble Marquis opposite, incompetent
parties would have been appointed ; but as it was, proper par-
ties, in his opinion, had been appointed.—(Hear, hear.)
Those that had been appointed by the Government would be
Perfectly prepared to enter upon the duties of their office when '

f 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 office and all its
1 privileges into the hands of the Government, who, in his opi-
nion, were the proper parties to have the management of such
I offices.—( Hear. )
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS moved that this Bill be re-
' ferred to a Select Committee.—Agreed to.
Lord TYNEH AM presented a petition from Breeon 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 woulde
ven-
tured their opinion with respect to the Act of Supremacy.
dco H
e.passendei thewi offenceth within
ques-
tion
wupon
he
he ewsouobijde cpt
ewt i twh a ts 1 m
: e
whetherut o utmost dtihf fie
Acenct
punishable sphoabwleer
t o reignaffi romf
tQh
au
te e na e
yE 1
pi zraibeeeteh ,
the realm. As he understood the opinion of the Noble
poreandteateit head
Lords, it was this—That it was not an offenee to affirm
it unless there was a inalus 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 Lis 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 wham 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 PER then rose, and said that it was his
painful duty to state the reasons which compelled him to resist
1 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
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
simplieiter 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 lull 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
wrong; but he would maintain that he was right, notwithstand-
jets; 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 pnenzunire 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 o„
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 and 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 Commissi, ners ;
i and with the permission of the House he would afterwards
I read them a quotation from a letter on the subject. Her Ma-
I jesty had been pleased to direct a Commission to be issued to
l 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 wou'd 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•
lion 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 out of every thing
like an assertion of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical
matters. Ile should scarcely have believed this unle=s he had
looked wiih great accuracy to this statement of the Com-
missioners, and he would now read to their Lord-
Iships the words of the oa'h which they pro-
posed to substitute in place of the existing one.
" I, A. 8., swear that. I wit; faithfully and duly perform al.
I,gianee to her Majesty Queen Victoria. and that I will main-
fain the succession of:the Crown, as established by Act of Par-
liemeet, and that I do not believe that the Pope or any other
foreign prince or potentate, bath 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 token it; but were those to he the
words of the new oath ? No such tiling; although their Lord- I
ships well knew that the constitution of this lan 1, 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, er juris-
dictionin this realm ? No sin b thin.. ; the oath proposed was
" That the Pope bath nor ought to heave 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 riot, 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 ar 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,
1 in the slightest degree, the oath as it at present stood in the
statute-book. He thought that his Noble and Learned Friend
would give them relief on this subject—a relief which he (the
Bishop 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 knew that his attachment to it was great.
It was proposed by a Noble Lord that there should be a
rimrorrlat 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 he supreme in spiritual
matters. The passing of this Bill would be attended with the i
utmost danger to the peace of the country. Why was that
danger to be incur red? 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
respect to the Church in Spain were altogether unjustifiable in
the eves of the Pope, and he declared them to be null and
\with respect to this count
void.. Now, if their Lordships should pass this Bill,
a similar poser might be
things would be moat hr.' .
been claimed by certain laymen in the
certain property had
e
that it would never take plat,. yclaimed by the Pope
Such a state of
Oribe, and he trusted
~iirzslis, and the
Bishop of that see was thrown into prison.
de-
nounced the persons engaged in that matter, and a:Zede
proceedings to be null and void. Now these steps werei
no
taken in Catholic Italy, hut 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.
The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that all persons
were bound to take the oath of supremacy upon that oath
being tendered to them. An Act of Parliament. in 1791, was
passed, by which it was enacted that no person should be com-
pelled to take the oath of supremacy upon its being tendered
to him. But the Right Rev. Prelate had appeared to forget
all the legislation that hal taken place since the statute of
lElizabeth, to which he had referred. The Right Rev. Prelate
must take into consideration all the Acts of Parliament which
bad passed the Legislature since
that period. It was quite im-
possible
for him to contend that various Acts had
not passed
had been given for the
performance.
since that period for the relief of those who professed the Roman
Catholic religion. Great
....
performance o
in the oath of supremacy
material alteration had been made .
of the rights of their religion, and a very
• that
up and maintaina
1 the Right Rev. Prelate now to stand
in fayour of Roman Catholics; and it was quite impossible. for
Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately
maintaining the
supremacy in ecclesiastical and spirituahe laws of this
Pope could be considered as offending against spiritual.matters of the
ex- 1
country.—( Hear, hear.) So much, then, Stith respect to that
part of the case. He had already on a former occasiond.
the ,
pressed his opinion clearly and distinctly, notwithstaning_ev. I
charge that had been made against him by the Right Rev.
Prelate, and he really must say that he could not see h
Right Rev. Prelate could renew this subject, after the discus-
sion which had taken place on it on a former night—(Hear,
attendance of the judges,
hear)—without having insisted on the
had before said, that he
by appealing to them with respect to the correctness of
his
opinion ; and he must repeat what he
thought the Rig
to controvert the
• ht Rev. Prelate had not acted very fairly by
him in not giving him notice of his intention
opinions which he had expressed. Had that notice been given,
they might have had the attendance on this occasion 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 Rey. Prelate, ad-
verting to the Commission, said it was the most extraordinary
C"UniniCOA that was ever issued, nagaucit 35 it called upon the

r Commissioners to prepare a Bill to be hid on the table of Par-
liament. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that the Right
Rev. Prelate entirely misapprehended the principle of that
laarideesdt y
,thhiNe
nr
sptaerrast. on(
no fe
ler lela
rf.o)r
uponwa thats
laid
r report
, as
the present Bill had beers drawn up and submitted to their
apt nntf eaashors:
eaherbe ryr elprepared‘g
their
dai r
er
ee
tpi oo ro t which
tCtlfheemei remCoLinos:omri consideration
Commissioners
Lordships. Her Majesty's Ministers had exercised their judg-
ment and consideration upon it, and they had thought it right
to adopt it in extenso, and to lay it on the table of their Lord-
ships' House. He (the Lord Chancellor) was responsible for
the advice he had given on this subject—he did unhappily say
that as far as related to the particular clauses of this Bill it
was a wise measure, and he thought that it would be sanc-
tioned and adopted by Parliament. That was the course he
had thought proper to pursue with respect to this Bill. But
then his Right Rev. Friend said there was something behind,
and that he had wrapped himself in dignified obscurity. His
Right Rev. Friend had said he had been about to take away
some other of the defences of the British Constitution. Now
he (the Lord Chancellor) had over and over again said that until
this Bill passed he would never touch the subjeet of oaths.—
(Hear, hear.) He had not wrapped himself in any obscurity
on that subject—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—he had
thought it far better, in the first instance, if pos-
sible, that their Lordships should consider this Bill
upon its merits, in order that it might be passed by the Le-
gislature ; and he could not consider how any alteration in
the Bill with regard to the oaths would at all affect the pass-
ing of this measure, or render it the less advisable that it
should pass their Lordships' House. Bnt what would their
Lordships think of the charge of obscurity made by the Right
Hon. Prelate, when he (the Lord Chancellor himself) had
told him, he believed, no longer back than the last time
they assembled there, that he had no intention to propose any
alteration with regard to oaths? He had told him that he
did not intend to alter the oath of supremacy. nor the oath of
allegiance ; and the only point on which any doubt would re-
main would be the oath of abjuration. That oath would be
perfectly harmless, because of itself it would he altogether
superfluous. Was there any obscurity in that ? ( Hear.)
Could anything be mere distinct than the statement which he
had made to the Right Rev. Prelate on that suhj-mt ? And
now having proceeded thus far, he must say that no person
more admired the eloquent and feeling manner in which his
Right Rev. Friend always addressed himself upon subjects of
this nature. He agreed mainly in the opinion which the
Right Rev. Prelate maintained in respect to Popish usurpa-
tion, and the insolent authority which the Pope had exer-
cised towards other countries.—( Hear. ) He had so expressed
himself in very strong terms upon a former night—so strongly
indeed as to call down upon himself the indignation of a Noble
Lord that sat on the opposition side of the House. He thought
that he had not expressed himself in stronger terms than the
occasion warranted, when he subscribed entirely to the opinion
laid down by his Right Rev. Friend. He could not hone or
expect to rival his eloquence, otherwise, had he thought of
doing so, he would have followed in the same train of observa-
tion used by the Right Rev Prelate. Rut he considered that
that eloquence had been entirely misapplied considering the
question before the House.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Lord
Chancellor) had acceded to the second reading of this Bill,
which proposed to repeal thirty Acts or parts of Acts ; and
when he took the liberty of proposing the Bill to their Lord-
ships, he stated cases of such a nature that it was impossible
for any man of common understanding, and common feeling,
for a moment to entertain the wish that those Bills, or at least
the greater part of them, should not be repealed. It was un-
necessary for him to call their Lordships' attention again to
those cases, but he would take the liberty of again mentioning
two. If any person professing the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland, maintained the spiritual or the ecclesiastical authority
of the Pope, be was liable to the forfeiture of his property,
and for the third offence was considered guilty of high treason.
Why, their Lordships had already altered the oath for the pur-
pose of giving the Roman Catholics relief on that head. The
Right Rev. Prelate had manifested great ignorance on this
subject, for despite his arguments the Irish Act was still in
force. This Bill on their Lordships table repealed the Irish
Act of Parliament, and it also repealed the refuse of the Eng-
lish laws.—(Hear, hear.) He would only give their Lord-
ships one instance to show how necessary it was, that after
they had consented to the second reading of this Bill they
should go into Committee, notwithstanding the opposition
made by the eloquent and Right Rev. Prelate. If any person
in Ireland maintained that the head of the see of Rome had
any jurisdiction in this country he was, by the Irish Act, sub-
jected to the pains of a prcemunire—as he before said, to im-
prisonment for life, forfeiture of his property, and
put out of the protection of the law.— (Hear, hear.)
He gave those as two samples of the thirty Acts which this
Bill sought to repeal. Having consentedto the second reading
of this Bill, whatever opinions their Lordships might hold as
to the clauses with respect to supremacy, or the clauses with
respect to the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, whatever their
opinions might be, and although they might agree in every
word spoken by the Right Rev. Prelate, was it possible to en-
force the laws at present on the statute-book ?—( Hear, hear.)
And he did not see what need there was for so much eloquence
on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate far the purpose of show-
ing the power of the Pope, or the innocent assumption of au-
thority on the part of the Pope, for the purpose of inducing
their Lordships to forget the question before them—that nar-
row, contracted, and limited question to which he had called
their attention. He thought he had said enough to induce
their Lordships—unanimously, he believed—( Hear, hear)—for
perhaps the Right Rev. Prelate himself would become a con-
vert—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—to consent to this Bill going
into Committee.—( Cheers. )
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S was anxious to take this op-
portunity of expressing his opinion to their Lordships, because
he did not believe that this measure had been met on the part
of the Right Reverend Prelates in their Lordalsipsl House in
the manner that he as one of them could have desired.—( Hear,
hear.) He mint say that he believed an impression had gore
forth to the c worry that this measure, taken as a whole, had
drawn forth indications of repugnance, aversion, distrust, and
alarm—that nothing, at all events, in the shap.s of symeathv
for the measure had been manife-ted. It iv s a measure of
suet a nature, that he thought it ought to b i received, more
particularly on the part of their Lordships' House. in a very
different manner. He thought that. it was one which ought to
have drawn forth expressions of satisfaction—f Hear, hear),—
and mutual eongratulations—( Hear, hear)—and thank •
fulness to the Government who had proi,o,ed it.—
( Hear, hear.) And his reason for saving so
was because, although this measure professed to be for the re-
lief of persons labouring under certain penaltias in consequence
of the religions opinions he held, it was net more a measure of
relief to them than to the Church of Eng!an,l—( Hear, hear)
—not of relief from unjust and vexatious disabilities, hut from
their having proposed those penalties, to their black discredit
and shame. He did in his heart believe that if the Right Rev.
Prelate, who was sitting at the table (the Bishop of Exeter)
had himself come forward to propose such a measure as this,
he (the Bishop of St. David's) was perfectly satisfied that he
would have acted in a manner not at all inconsistent with his
station as a Prelate of the English Church.—( Hear, hear. )
This, he said, looking at the enactments which this measure
was intended to repeal ; and although such express approba-
tion as he would have wished had not been called forth by the
proposal of this measure, yet he believed that no one
would venture to say that the repeal of those enactments
was not is some devree desirable. Now he (the Bishop of
St. David's) was quite willing to admit that there was a
very great differerence between the general mass of those
enactments which were proposed to be repealed by this Bill,
ar.d those two particular enactments in reference to which
the Right Rev. Prelate had proposed a question to the Judges.
The difference he took to be this ; as to the great mass of
those enactments, he was prepared to say that' they were
positively unjust and iniquitous in their own nature—( Hear,
bear) —and that they never ought to have been a part of the
law of the land—( Hear, bear)—that there never cc uld have
been any circumstances that could justify such enactments—
( Hear, hear)—that they were cruel and wanton violations of
the liberty of the subject and the rights of conscience.—( Hear,
hear.) He did not say that there might not have been un-
happy circumstances in the times in which those enactments
were passed that might have afforded some legitimate grounds
of excuse; but he contended that they ought never to have
been tolerated in any days, however disturbed they might have
been ; but with regard to those two particular enactments that
had been referred to, he contended that they stood
on a very different ground. He admitted that there might
have been reasons to justify severe measures against
the introduction of Papal bulls. He believed that if the
Government of that day, when this Act was passed, felt that
such measures were necessary for its security and safety, it
had a right to pass such measures—( Hear, hear)—and he was
prepared to make a much larger concession, and to say that
there would be nothing inconsistent with the principles of the
constitution, if the Government of this day thought proper to
exercise a similar control over the importation of those Papal
bulls, they might pass a similar measure against them.—( Hear,
hear.) But when he had made that concession he had gone
as far as he could ; he could not sympathise or agree in the
slightest measure with the views that had been taken by his
Right Rev. Friend at the table (the Bishop of Exeter) on
this important subject. He (the Bishop of Exeter) looked
at those penal clauses as the bulwarks of the constitution. He
(the Bishop of St. David's) looked upon them in no such
light. Ile very much questioned whether, at the time that
they were enacted, they were as necessary, as useful, and as
expedient as his Right Rev. Friend supposed them to have
been. He believed tnat if they had never been enacted, we
should still at this hour have been enjoying all our liberties ex-
actly to the .ame extent as we did at the present moment ; but
however that might be, those circumstances had pass ad away,
and the necessity for those enactments existed no longer—
(Hear, hear)—and he said so on these grounds. Might
he be permitted to a k of what effect or force a Papal bull
was in this country ?—( Hear, hear.) It was merely a piece
of lead attached to the do •ument on which it was wri ten ;
and of what import was it to them whether the le scl was at-
tached to the document by a silken or a hempen string? Or,
to drop all those idle suppositions, what diffeence did it make
to their Lordships, or to the people of this country, as to what
even the mind or the intention of the Pope was, who published:
those documents. Now, then, he was coming to t. point ore
which he supposed he had the misfortune of disagreeing with.
his Right Rev. Friend, for he (the Bishop of Exeter) seemedl
bto y tbhi n b and
but
b y indeed
ma.
many
t ohtand been e
rs,
ao
and
m tu
was e in a d
a very rg upmr
,e.vnat
I,enot
iodne
al
that we were to estimate the injury to be sustained atom theses
Papal bulls by the opinions that the Pepe entertained of his owl,
power and authority. Now he (the 13,3h0p of St. David's 1)
contentied that there could not be a snore unfounded assertion
than that—( Hear, hear)—acrd it appeared • o him that all tho,
examples which the [tight Rev. Prelate had brought forward
tociffeigheeeisxahaoanmdf opseicteeciseluennbs
ecclesiastical
rti:mneradioi:elctd,
slbttheir Lerdships to believes
that the Pope possessed as much power as he did in some c 4
the
thnh ea St
)aailk:ter.
those
yes—on.tai teb appeared
el
fallenet ahreerdesfbteoorertnhni
references
twhich the Right Rev. Prelate had made as to some transace.
tions of modern history, with a view to prove his proposition.
He believed that he had referred to such cases more than
once. He recollected one, and he believed that that reference,
was to some transactions that took place at the commencement •
of the reign of Napoleon, and the authority which Pope Pius.
VII. exercised to change the whole constitution of the Galilean
Church, and to transfer the allegiance of the French people
from the legitimate dynasty. He was quite astonished that
such a fact as that should be recalled to their Lordships'
memory for any such purpose, for he declared to their Lord-
ships, that if there was any modern historical fact to prove mare
strictlyshould
particular o w statetimoefs
w a
was there
to wehaic)h—
any-
thingt he t
Papal
inpohwhietrn had,history
t Tin rfallene palipnablpalpable
o r moderntn ntriemnens --t
notorious
r
;i
thanh the ehe t
-
treme reluctance, the terror, he might say the h
which that poor old man, of whom he would spearrwori,thwtiltshe I
greatest veneration, Pope Pius VII., consented to the impe-
rious demands of Napoleon, to go to France to perform the •
ceremony desired ?—or was there any Roman Catholic who did
not conceive that the authority of the Pope had never been 1
more degraded than when he was forced to quit his own capital i
and go to Paris, to attend at that ceremony, and place the crown '
upon the modern Charlemagne? And with regard to the in-
stance that the Right Rev. Prelate had adduced that night, as to
1 the allocation of the Pope with reference to Spanish affairs. He
(the Bishop of St. David's) should like to know what effect
*at allocation had produced upon Spain ; or, to take another
instance that could be stated to show the effect of the most ex-
traordinaryhe Papal authority. He wished
know in what case those assertions had produced any effect in
assertions of t to
He would ask their Lord-
ohtotuld pdi,rpess a little from the point for the
the country to which thehye hadeo rleel.ated, or where they had turned
aside the purposes
ships pardon if he _
purpose of
t consistin the parchment, or lead,
bulls consisted? It did not
S opinion, at all consist in the '
hI
or silk, or hemp, nor did it, in
asking in what the force or efficacy of these Papal

mind, intention, or views of the Pope who passed
them.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Bishop of St. David's),
perfectly concurred that the efficacy consisted in the
the mind or intention of those to whom they were addressed.—
( Hear, hear;—and therefore it was, that he said so long as the
Roman Catholic population of this country preserved that cha-
racter which had maintained now for centuries, in spite of the
hardest trials to which any class of men bad ever been sub-
alarriportation of "bulls") if
(though the severest
penaltiessub-
jected, ed, he,
werefiir nn e,enacted
shouldagainst I
thoe
importation
one of those formidable documents should, by any sleight of
hand, be smuggled into this country, and be found, some un-
lucky morning, affixed to the gates of Lambeth or Buckingham
Palace ; for he thought that, in any such case, no greater
danger need be apprehended, than if it had been allowed to
moulder away in the Vatican in which it was framed.
It was quite clear that their safety could never rest in the mind
of the Pope, but in the intelligence and loyalty of the Roman
Catholic people—( Hear, hear)--and the more con6deace they
reposed in them the better grounds they would have to expect
it in return from them ; and the more evidence they showed
them of suspicion and distrust the less right they could have to
hope from that loyalty. He said it imported very thwth to
their dignity that persons should not be subjected to such trials.
But there was another point in which he had to differ from the
Right Rev. Prelate, who, though he considered it was a flagrant
injustice that it ought not to be repealed, he himself could see
no ground of public security which would require such restric-
tions to be imposed, and he also believed it to be entirely use-
less. Was it possible. if these opinions were held and main-
tained in foreign countries, that they would not find their way
into this country and be held in argument. He observed an ex-
tract from a French paper, which was in allusion to something
that bad fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, who had corn-
plaieed of the imp• rtinence of the French in praying fur the
conversion of the English. The extract was 'o the effect, that
this was an unreasonable ground of complaint, for as the French
prayed fur us, we could t ff-r up pryers for them. arid
so there would be an equality.—( Laughter.) What
could be the security of she country, if it would
be supposed for a moment that its existence depended upon a
miserable statute, and that if the Pope', bulls should come into
the couetry, there was an end to her power? But if the
Pope's supremacy should assume a treasonable form then it
die expose its author to extreme punishment ; and, therefore,
with reeard to this pout, upon which his Right Hon. Friend
had laid so much stress, he was entirely mistaken. There was
just one remark which he would wish to be tiermitted to make,
he most heartily approved of every elms.e of that Bill, but he
cou d not say that Le believed it to be a perfect one. He did
not think it went far enough; it was his belief that more might
be dine on the principle of this Bill to give relief to classes of
persons who where now labouring under severe penalties. He
was not called upon to enter at present on that subject, but the
time would come he felt persuaded, and that before long, when
this subject would be brought under their Lordship,' con-
sideration, and he only now expressed the hope that their
Lordships' decision would be grounded on a calm
consideration of the whole, and that they would not be
influenced either by personal feelings or rhetorical declama-
tion. And they should see then if in passing an Act to legitie
miss these bulls there would be any danger to the safety of
this country. Those who were opposed to this measure were
in general opposed to no legitimate authority—persons who had
proved themselves guilty of the basest conduct—literary dema-
gogues, who had pandered to the worst passions of the multi-
tude, and sacrificed their station as teachers to the vilest ends,
and, having degraded the most sacred names, they then put
themselves forward in the foremost ranks in opposition to the
principles of liberty and freedom.
The Bishop of OXFORD would not trespass long upon the
attention of the House, nor would he have risen except for the
latter observations of his Right Rev. Friend. There was one
thing of which he had to complain, and that was, that the prin-
ciple of this Bill had been received coldly and unworthily by his
Right Rev. Brethren. He must beg, on his own behalf and on
theirs--he must beg entirely to reject that imputation. He could
not suffer such and attack ; for his part he received heartily,
and gladly, all that part of the measure which tended to do
away with injustice, and his Right Rev. Brethren claimed for
themselves just as much liberality as the Right Rev. Prelate.
But let him be permitted to say that there might be other
parts of that measure which his arguments had not reached,
and he was prepared to argue those points. He confessed he
was astonished when the details of that measure were presented
to him. There were two or three special points of difficulty,
which he hoped the great legal knowledge and skill of the
Noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) might be enabled to explain
to him, and the second part of the observatio. s of the Right
Rev. Prelate would lead him at once to the explanation. He
said there was a special duty which was incumbent on them to
do away with these enactments from the statute-book. He
said they were the work of the Church of England, hut he
deeied it to he true, and he would go back to historical facts to
prove his assertion. It was a civil measure, an so it appeared
from the preamble of the Bill which had been enacted in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth. It arose from the circumstance of
a Papal bull being imprudently attached to the gates of the
palace deposing the Queen ; and there was not energy enough
in the common law to punish these offenders, for their ancestors
were not such persons to enact laws, if laws were not required,
for they would thus expose the weakness of the law. These
clauses were not religious, but civil and national announcements
of the opinion of the people, and they (the Bishops) had no
more to do with the matter than any of their Lordships present.
—( Hear, hear.) It was a national protest against the princip'e
that any ecclesiastical potentate had any right or authority
within the realm and if they withdrew that national and civil
protest, they would be weakening the barriers of their power.
and they would be acknowledging that the Pope had power
spiritual and ecclesiastical within the realm; and let them re-
member how that would concord with the oa h which they
were bound to take as hen they deel .red in their Maker's name
that the Pope had not. nor o .ght to have, any civil or ecelesias-
heal p iwer within this realm. If they passed this measure, it
was a positive injustice to relax one-half of the law without re-
laxing the other, for otherwise 'hey would be requiring them
to declare a meni test untruth. For, a.ter all, in what sense was
that oath taken? It mean, rn -rely that by the law and the
constitution of the realm this power ought not to he pthsessed,
arid in such a sense was taken by conscientious men. But
what would be the case if they repealed this meesute? H'.w
could such an oath he taken wh n the individual taking it felt
that the law did anihorise such poser. and that it did net
exist covertly, but openly and Isgally ; and when they would
repeal the oath, then, and not till then, wou'd they look the
question fairly in the face. did hope the talents of the
Noble Lord would avoid the difficulty, and preserve the good,
and that they would not sacrifice the national protest —a sacrifiee
to which he was sure their Lord•hips would never agree.
Lord BROUGHAM said, his Noble Friend had explained
the matter so fully, that he felt there was little for him to say,
wad that it would be useless waste of time should he enter
into the question. There had been a most material
change in the law since the last fifty years. The oath of
supremacy had been repealed or altered in 1828, to the manner
in which it now stands. The oath which had been mentioned
was not made for, or at least it did not apply to Roman Catholics,
but was made for those who were not Roman Catholics, mid
for whom there could be no such necessity. The great diffi-
culty in the ease, as stated by the Right Rev. Prelate, who
1 ast addressed their Lordship., wasfenlottthsoat gtrheeayt
waesrehedeailminag-
gwiintehda; but
difficulTty(olioarndoßthre°rueghhaTac)ter, when they were allowing
ten Act of Parliament to apply to those for whom such an Act
had never been intended, and upon whom it could have no
possible effect. They were now, however, only dealing with
tee repeal of a statute. The last two Rev. Prelates who ad-
dressed their Lordship had stated that, by the repeal of this
statute, they were about to repeal a protest against the supre-
macy of the Pope. Now, if this Act was repealed to-morrow,
or even if it had never existed, would they not have on record
a protest of the Queen, Lords, and Commons? It was not
an enactment to be sure, but it was quite as good—quite as
binding and effectual.
A REV. PRELATE—The words were restored and established.
that was a restoration, but it
was rsestored was to re-establish. The
:woLo not.rdsrd B
aittb
haedsb°eelljGhe be reYe
ni'retisdto—ArNedi
and
n'
re-established, because it had been
-established by the law of the land long before. So the House
-would see that that did not stand on record upon the statute so
as to affect the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as it applied to
Roman Catholics. He preferred the protest of the King,
Lords, and Commons that the Pope's supremacy was a fallacy,
a fraud, if they would, and that it was to have its penalties,
although the Right Rev. Prelate said that there was no fear of
their being put in three, but he (Lord Brougham) knew well
that they could be brought into full force at the will of evil dis-
posed persons. Now, as to the oath of supremacy. to which
the Reverend Prelate adverted, he was of opinion that
if the oath regarding the King was not sufficiently
binding, " a-lack-a-day," he (Lord Brougham) did see much
virtue in an oath. Did it not strike the Rev. Prelate, that in
the oath of supremacy taken by the Roman Catholics there
was an omission as to the Pope ? They omitted altogether the
spiritual supremacy of the Pope. That body were allowed to
leave out the weds in reference to spiritual supremacy, but it
was retained for the benefit of those who did not believe one
-word of the Pope's supremacy—for himself, and his Noble and
Learned Friend behind him (Lord Caraphell)—who was, per-
haps, a very good Presbyterian—(Laugher)—and who did
not believe one word—one tittle—of this supremacy of the
Pope—they, and others whe believed as they did, were obliged
'to take that oath. He could not help thinking that there was
great inconsistency—indeed very great absurdity—in calling
-upon them to say they shall not believe in the spiritual supre-
-macy of the Pope. But to ask those who believed in their
consciences that the spiritual eupremacy nf the Pope was va:id,
and who, in taking an oath of the supremacy of their
Sovereign, were allowed to believe and hold good the
spiritual power of the Pope—to ask them to take
an oath by a law which in reality affected them nit, hut
which still had its penalties, would be the greatest injestic.e,
for the reason that we recognised the supremacy of the Pope
in spiritual mattes s, se regarded all Reman Cathelics. There
'sere over 100,000 subjects of the Queen, in England, wh
hel•eved in this .piritual supremacy; but there were over
7,000 000 of people in Ireland who believed in the same way;
and was it that they only believed he it ? They not only be-
lieved it, but they also acted upon his authority in spiritual
matters. Let the Pope narrow his supremacy. and only ex-
tend it to a very limited portion of the United Kingdom, and
he would still have his spiritual authority. Let him narrow it
still further, arid this seven millions of people whom
they allowed to believe in it —whim they allowed so affirm
such belief, would still in their obedience acknowledge and act
under this spiritual authority. They were all bound to be-
lieve in it as they hoped for their salvation—as they hoped for
absolution from sin ; and absolution of some sins they might hope
to obtain, bat for an act denying the truth of the Pope, the head
of the Church of Rome, they could never hope to obtain. He
should like to see this oath struck off the statute towards all
others, as they had done towards their Roman Catholic sub-
jects. As to allowing the Pope to send his bulls into this
country, he would refer to the manner in which
they were allowed to enter other countries.
Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal, did not
allow the admission of the bulls of the Pope, without
the special sanction of the civil powers. This sanction was ne-
cessary to be obtained, before they were allowed to enter. The
Pope applied for leave, and it was granted, and!no injurious re-
sult followed. Yet this sanction was required, although they
were Catholic countries, acknowledging the spiritual authority
of the head of the Church of Rome. He could not go so far
with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, in saying
that there was no more harm in these bulls, or that they were
of no more importance than if they were left to rot on a shelf in
the palace at Rome, for he considered there might—it was
possible that they could contain much harm, and have
an important hearing. He could not go with
his Noble and Learned Friend so far as that.
His Rev. Friend had stated that they prayed once a year for
the conversion of the Roman Catholics. They did so, but
then the prayers of the church were for the conversion of all
heretics. It could not be said that they prayed so much for
the conversion of the Roman Catholics as that body were in the
habit of praying for the conversion of the Protestants. There
was this difference between the prayers of both parties, that the
-Catholics prayed for the conversion thirteen times a year ; they
'were better at their prayers than those they swayed for, if ap-
plication made them so.—( Laughter.) He had framed an
;amendment for the Bill,which was, not to allow the Pope's bulls
'to enter this country without taking the opinion of the
.civil authorities, the penalties remaining the same.
Lord CAMPBELL—The Right Rev. Prelate, who first
:addressed the House, had claimed his vote; but he could
:assure his Right Rev. Friend that whatever vote he might give,
it would be influenced by the purest motives. The Bill had
been prepared by his Learned Friend Sir Edward Ryan, the
!Sate Chief Justice of Calcutta, than whom a more enlightened
lawyer, or amore liberal and impartial gentleman did not exist.
sin December last these Commissioners framed an Act of Par-
liament, which they handed to hie Noble and Learned Friend, ,
wad he re(xived it as their report. It embraced both parts of

the subject—the oaths and the opinions, for they were insepa-
rable; and they could not be prepared to judge of the penalties
unless they knew how these oaths would affect the laws they
wished to be preserved. This measure. when it was passed,
would be a most emphatic permission for the laws with respect
to the oaths of supremacy to remain as they then stood, and it
w.Juld be sure to deter conscientious persons, and cause very
great objections to many of those who were of this opinion
Although ,hat was his opinion, his Learned Friend would have
done well if he had given way to the recommondation of the
Commissioners, as he understood him several times to say that
he approved of it, and that with regard to parts of the Bill, he
thought it expedient to divide the Bill, and to bring it in at
separate times. He also understood him to say, that he would
bring in the second part of the Bill before any length of time
had elapsed—he did not say that he would postpone any part.
These laws were a reproach to the laws of this country ; our
ancestors might be excused for passing these laws, but we had
no excuse for allowing them to remain on our statute-bo ks.

Lord STANLEY said that he owed the House
some apology for rising to make any observations on this sub-
ject. He was not about to enter upon any discussion on the
merits of this measure, which, an far as he understnod, would,
in all its details, have his curdial support. He was anxious not
to pass over in silence what he conceived had been a mi-appr, -
hension of the state of the ease by the Right Rev. Prelate who
had spoke last, because that miaapprehension appeared to him
to have been sanctioned by the high authority of the Noble
Lord who last addressed the House from the second bench. In
speaking of his Right Rev. Friend and his Lcarne.l and Noble
Friend on the Woolsack, he had said, that although at the
present time the oath of supremacy might be fairly and without
hesitation taken—it had been taken by a'l their Lordships, and
bad been taken without hesitation by the greatest portion of
the Pro estant j eople of this country - atter the pacing of
this Act, it e ou,il be impesehe tor any man with a safe con-
scieece to take the oath that the Pope neither had no- ought
to have any spiritual or temporal juri-diction in ih. se rea ma.
and stated, with great deference to his Learned Friend, that
with regard to the authority of the Pope, this Bill. if it shnuei
ever tiro me an Act of Parliament, would net have the slight
est effect under the existites circumatatices.
Lord BROUG H A3I Ido not say that.
Lord STANLEY—The Right Ifev. Prelate said that he
conceived that by the fact they were now she to recognise.
they were about to close the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope.
With every deference to the Right Rev. Prelate, he ( Lord
Stanley) conceived they were able to do no such thing ; for,
after this Act shall have passed, the spiritual authority and
juriselic ion of the Pope over any portion of the subjects of her
Majesty would remain precisely in the same condition—neither
greater nor less—neither more nor less recognised, nor more
legalised than at the present moment At that time they
knew that there were a large hody of their fellow-subjects, who
in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical were bound in con-
science to the see of Rome. And if the interpretation pot on
the oath was to deny that they were so bound, or ought to be
bound, every one of their Lordships was guilty of perjury in
taking that oath, precisely to the extent to which they would be
guilty of the same offence after the Act had passed. He
c,,nceive that the Act did not legalise the jurisdiction of the
Pone. What the Act professed to do, was to take away the
specific penalties from communications otherwise innocent be-
cause they came from Rome. If this communication, or in-
struction, or order, contained anything seditious, anything
injurious, or anything calculated to affect the civil rights of a
subject of these realms, it did not assume the character of au-
thority, and would not be recognised as valid any mere after
the passing of that Act than at the present moment. They
were not to recognise the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in
arty sense which the present authorities in England rejected.
If the spiritual jurisdiction of Rome was not anything less (and
it would not be anything less), they had all committed perjury;
for spiritually, or otherwise, they could not recognise, by
any means, the authority of the Pope, or any prince, power,
or potentate in these realms. He did not question what
influence or authority the Pope might exercise over the con-
science of any individual in this country, or how far he might
be influenced by any command or declaration, or by any oath
which should declare, neither more nor less, than that after
this Bill should pass there was no law in this country to sub-
ject the subjects of this country to any legal authority or con-
trol of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters. He apprehended it
was too clear to admit of a doubt that there were many Catho-
lics in this country to resist the authority of the Pepe, or of
any clergymen fortified with a bull from the Pope, which he
should attempt to enforce by virtue of that authority. The
law would step in for the protection of the subject, and the
priest who should attempt to go beyond that authority and in-
fluence, and by the power of his Church exercise it over the
conduct of individuals would be subject to a penalty, and the
person so coerced would have damages and a remedy by
law against the priest who should attempt to do so. There
was in tLe last month, in the county of Cavan, a case in which
a priest excommunicated a Roman Catholic Commissioner who
refused to admit the authority of the priest, and instead of
applying to the Pope he applied to the civil tribunal of this
country, which tribunal repudiated the power of the priest to
excommunicate, and awarded the petitioner ?amages. This he
apprehended to be the state of the law now—tn deny that the
Pope had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country, and
that law was not in the least affected by Bills now proposed.
He denied that his Noble and Learned Friend was chargeable
for having postponed the consideration of the propriety ot alter-
ing the law. If the present measure did alter the law in that
respect, and if his Noble and Learned Friend bad kept back a
portion of it, it would be a difficult question to say that he woutd
take them by surprise, by saying that now they had passed an
Act which had made so total a change as to render it neces,ary
to change the oath of supremacy. He ( Lord Stanley amild
himselt shrink from an imputation of such a nature, and their
Lordships would, no doubt, have condemned him for such a
course. But he did not. thick there was any grennd for the
slightest suspicion to be entertained. The word ea: mot elv
passing one, and he would defend his Friend from t e charge
of hav;ne kept bark any portion of the measure which shell'
be brought forward. He had already trespassed for some tont-
up-ri the H•tu,e— ( Hear, hear) and, in conclusion, would sar,
that the law requit ed an aaeration, anti he hoped that it would
be actered in conformity with the present oath ct supernal.
Lord BROUr;I:ANI said he had listened with some nen-
tion to the speech of his Noble Friend ; he did not compleit:
of him, but of himself, for having made himself so little under-
s'„ood as to state that the obj,tet of this Act was to sanction the
supremacy of the Pope. He had stated that the oath had
nothing to do with the present Act, persons taking the oath of
supremacy were placed in a difficulty by the terms of the oath.
As he had said before, his Noble Friend had given his opinion
as to what was the right construction of the oath, and his
opinion was that it was a most delicate matter, and
that they were to consider that they rested the
oath on the conscience of the men. They made a
solemn asseveration, which they did not see or know, although
the Noble Lord and his Honourable Friend supposed that
they saw and knew it.. It had nothing to do with the
legal construction of the oath, nor the Act before their
Lordships for taking away the spiritual jurisdiction of this
country. The view he took of this case saws that many people
might take these oaths, and might safely deny the power of the
Pope to have any legal jurisdiction ; but they could not deny
that he had a spiritual power, though he had none by law.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he would suggest, as he had
been in the House since ten o'clock that morning, and many of
their Lordships had only remained since a much later period,
that they should go into Committee, and take those clauses of
the Bill to whice no opposition was offered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was about to
propose that course.
The Bishop of EXETER was ready to assent to that course,
but it would not be very easy to select those parts to which no
opposition would be given.
After some further conversation, the House went into Corn.
raittee on the Bill, pro.for;na.
The clauses were then read, and, with the exception of seve-
ral that were reserved for re-consideration, were agreed to.
The House then resumed.

I n answer to a question from a Noble Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not then fix the
day for the re-comniittal of the Bill. The Noble and Learned
Lord then said that the Bill had passed through Committee,
with the exception of three clauses relating to supremacy,
bulls, and on incidental points arising out of the Act of George
111. Excepting these, the rest of the Bill was disposed of.
Their Lordships then adjourned.