The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-01 00:00:00

GOLCON INCLOSURE BILL.

Mr. 6REENE moved .‘ That the order referring the pe-
tition of 11.1ajer-lieneral Sir James Fullerton Dundas. Baronet,
against the Gollon inclosure Bill, to the Committe on the
Bill, and counsel ordered, be read. That the said petition being
against the whole 8111, and not against the preamble or clauses,
and not praying for the petitioner to be heard, by himself,
counsel, or agents, calinoi, according to the practice of this
house, be referred to the Commiltee f—that, therefore, the
said order be discharged."
The motion was aereed to.
LOUGH S'il ILLY AND LOUGH FOYLE DRAINING
AND EMBANKING.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

REPORTS.
The following Reports were brought up, the amendments
and alterations agreed to, and the Hills ordered to be en-
grossed :—Helensburgh Extension and Pollee, Helensbuigh
Harbour—Glasgow Union Arcade—Bostun, Stamford, and
Birmingham Railway (Stamford to Wisbeeh)—Stowmarket
Navigation. _

GLASGOW WATERWORKS BILL.
The Lords' Amendments on this Bill were read and
agreed to. _

1
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir JOHN TYRELL presented petitions from the parish of
Kennington and other places, praying for a revision of the law
of settlement, more especially with respect to pauper lunatics.
The petition was ordered to lie nu the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from
the Roman Ca'holics of Rochdale in favour of the Roman Ca-
tholic Relief Bill.
The petition was ordered to be laid on the table.
PAssENUER DUiY PAID nY RAILWAY
COMPANIES.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved for a return of the amount of
moneys levied and paid sunnily by ear h railway company in
England and Wales, under the head of duty on passengers,
made up to the sth day of January in each year from 1841 to
1846. Also, a t•imilar return for Scotland. Also, a similar
return for Ireland.—Agreed to.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. WARD presented a petition from a public meeting
recently held in Exeter Hall,--ogainst the punishment of death.
Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition in favour of the
Lancaster and North Yorkshire Railway.
THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the poor of
Briilport Union against certain amendments in the law or
settlement.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the Hou,e at its rising sh: uld adjourn to Monday next.—
Agi eed to.

WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN.
M. B. ROCHE P.aid that it oppeated that his Honourable
Friend the Member for Limerick considered that he had been
misrepresented in what he (Mr. Roche) stated to the Home
las'. night. He therefore hoped that the Howe would per-
mit him to read a letter from the Hon. Member without.,.an)
comment

" House of Commons Prison,
..May 1,1646.

"My dear Roche,—l •ball feel much obliged if you will
explain to the House, this evening-, that you were under a
misconception when you stated yesterday that I complained
that no opportunity had been afforded to me of speaking in my
own defence.

" On the contrary, I cheerfully acknowledge that such an
opportunity was offered, and that I declined to avail myself
of it.

I was very anxious to have spoken yesterday, because I do
not think my case was fairly stated to the House by the Chair-
man of the Committee of Selection. I referred to my let-
ters to the Committee, as stating the grounds upon which
I had refused to serve upon Committees on Scotch and English
railway Bills. If those letters had been read irs extenso I
should have been contented to abide the opinion of the House
upon them, but the Chairman of the Committee of Selection
read only such portions of them as tended to produce an im-
pression on the House unfavourable to my conduct.

" I wish it also to be known, that until the closing sentence
of Air. E.itcourt's speech reached me, I did not knew what
was the nature of the motion which he intended to submit ;
so that I was unprepared to form an opinion ai to the course
which it would be most advisable for me to adopt. I did not
know whether I was to be imprisoned or reprimanded, or
whether a Committee might not be appointed to take the case

into consideration before any final motion should be proposed
to the House. As mine is a new case arising out et resolu-
tions adopted without notice, without discus,'on, not
founded on long-established practice, not supported
by any author'ty derived from statute or from prescrip-
tion, it seemed to me that the appointment
of a Committee to deliberate upon the subject, was not only
the wisest and most natural mode of dealing with the case,
but also that which would have been most -conformable
to former precedents. I need not say that my de-
cision with respect to the propriety of addressing the House
on my own behalf; or of remaining silent, might have
been affected by a knowledge of the motion which was to be
proposed to the ouse. Undoubtedly, if I had foreseen that
my views would have been so much misrepresented in debate as
they have been, I ►hould not have declined to state them fully
to the House.

" In all proceedings in Parliament it is customary to give
due notice to the parties affected by such proceedings—such
notice, therefore, may be considered as a "right " rather than
as a " courtesy," With reference to the preliminary motion
made on Monday night, I was left in such entire ignorance
of the terms of that motion, that I absolutely mistouk the
question when put from the chair, and imagined that it was an
order to attend the House on Tuesday; whereas I afterwards
learned that it was an order to attend the Committee.

" On last Friday I stated to Mr. Estcourt, in private, that I
should feel much obliged to him if he would intimate to me the
terms of the motion which he intended to make in reference to
my case, as soon as his own determination was formed. I sub-
sequently received no communication from him.
" I do not wish you to reveal to the House what an Irish.
man thinks of such a mode of proceeding. Suffering from the
injustice of the British House of Commons, I expect nothing
from its generosity.

I 01.11 make no further appeal to the House. Yesterday
I was extremely anxious to have been allowed Ito speak on my
own behalf before my committal to prison as a culprit. I shall
not again condescend to solicit even this trifling favour.
"In concluding, I beg most anxiously and earnestly to re-
quest you to inform the House that I am no party to any
motion for my discharge.

" I remain, my dear Roche, very sincerely yours,

" WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN,

" E. B. Roche, Esq., M.P."
SOUTH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTION.
Mr. GISBORNE wished to ask the Hon. Member for
South Nottinghamshire, whether a correapendence which had
appeared in the local and London newspapers between T. B.
Hildvard, Esq., M.P., and T. Herbert, Esq, mayor of Not-
tingham, relating to the late election in South Nottingham-
shire. was authentic? and, in case the answer should
be in the affirmative, whetherthe Honourable Mem-
ber • was now prepared to prove that the free
trade committee at. Nottingham, for promoting Lord Lincoln's
election, afered 23/. to two voters, who had promised thoir
votes to the Honourable Member, in case they would vote for
Lord Lincoln.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN rose to a point of order, He
wished to know whether it was incumbent upon his honour-
able Fri,nd to answer such questions?—( Hear.)
The SPEAKER replied that the Hon. Member for Not-
tinghamshire must exercise his own discretion, but according
to tne practice of the 1-louse it was customary for Hon. Mem-
bers to answer questions that were continually put to them,
whether those questions related to the bu.dness of the House
or not.
Mr. GISBORNE made some observations which were
scarcely audible in the gallery. He was understood how-
ever, to say that it was a fir subject for that House to in-
quire into, and as the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hilyard) had
made the statement in question, he thought that the House
should give him at, opportunity of offirming or denying it. It
the Hen. Member would affirm it, he would move for a Select
Committee to give him an opportunity of proving the state-
ment. He thought that the Hon. Member had reason to
complain about his being asked such a question, as lie had given
two days' notice of his intention to ask it.
The subject then dropped.
MR. 8311TH O'BRIEN.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would postpone his
motion relative to the discharge of Mr. Smith O'Brien from
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms till Monday next.
CONSUMPTION OF SMOKE.
Sir. J. GRAHAM, in reply to a question front Mr. Peter
Borthwick said that it was not the intention of the Government
to introduce any measure this session with regard to the con-
sumption of smoke. He had entertained great apprehensions
last session as to the working of the plans which had been
adopted for that purpose, and far from these apprehensions
being now removed they were more and more confirmed.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion that the order of the day, the Protection to
Life (Ireland) Bill, be read,
Mr. P. SOMERS rose and proceeded to address the House,
but in consequence of the low tone in which he spoke,
and the contusion that prevailed at the bar of the
House, he was for some time utterly inaudible.
It must be evident to the Right Honourable Baronet
that it was not by such a Bill as the present, the
state of Ireland was to be altered. Let the Government
instead of persisting in this odious measure, introduce some
measure for the purpose of giving greater securily to the
tenant, the improvement of waste lands and such other remedial
measures, and they would produce more peace in Ireland than a
constabulary tet, times greater than that which at present could de
The distress in Ireland had been denied. The existence of the
potato failure had been considered an exaggeration. gentle-
men • ould, with an easy self-indulgence, pursue their specu-
lations, and theorize ; but nothing real or substantial was the
result. Ireland was still left to drag out a miserable existence.
through the misrule. Neither he nor the Irish Members could
approve of the spirit of the measure.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL did not intend to follow the example
which had just been set of introducing matter which was quite
irrelevant to the purpose. He thought sufficient had al-
ready been said on that tonic, and he believed that suffi-
cient matter already remained ese. ...the, debate nt
equal length with that which had already transpired. He had
certainly been very much struck at the moment by the state.
rent of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of Government
respecting the state of Ireland now arid what it had been in
fo, mer years. The Right Hon Baronet compared the stets
of Ireland in 1843 with its present condition, and had asks',
whether there wet e any, mea-ures taken at ail for the repressie,
of crime during that period. Now, any one would suppose
from still an inquiry as that, that during the last two year.
the Government had done absolutely nothing. But what ac-
tually been the case with regard to Ireland since 1843? Foi
his part, he might ask whether the Government had been by
any means idle dining that period ? Why, they had dismisse,,
as many as twen'y-two magistrates, and on application iron
the country, the replies from Dublin had confirm-I:
the replies of the authotitids. This was their first step
Vat had been the course of the Government during the las,
few years. first step was to pass that most ridiculous of
all measures, the Arms Act, while stilt existed a most cif-etivi:
Bill of the same kind. Their next step was to issue a procla-
mation against the Clontarf meeting, then to prosecuse the '
leaders of the Repeal Association; next to imprison then- '
most unjustly, and now they were going to pass this
most obnoxious and unnecessary measure.—(llear, hesr.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINES4.
(From the Vines and Proceedings of the House of commons.
THURSDAY, APRIL. 30.
SECOND READINGS OF RAILWAY BILLS.
310NDAY, 31AY 4.
Trent Valley Midland and Grand Junction.
Portbury Pier and Railway.
OxtOrd, Coventry-, and Burton-on-Trent.
Mancitestc,, Bolton, and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway.
Morayshire.
Thames Damn Dock and Railway.

IMPERIAL PARL A M T
1 O (LSE OF LO1a) 8, April 30,
The Loan CIIANCELLOK took his seat upon the Woolsairk
at Five o'clock.
RELIGIOUS On\ ON RELIEF BILL.
The LORD CHANCEL OR aid, that upon the second
reading of this Bill he telt b00.0.t to call their Lordships' at-
tention to it. His Noble Friend had framed a Bili
last year for the purpose of repealing several penal Acts
against her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He at that
time asked the Noble Lord to entrust the Bill to him. His
Noble Friend complied with that request, and he (the Lord
Chancellor) laid the matter before her Nlajesty's criminal law ad-
visers, after which a Bill was introduced to their Lordships' House
which met with very little opposition, and was passed by a very
great majority in the other House of Parliament. He hat'
pledged himself to look inte the merits of the subject, and with
that pledge he had complied, and accordingly he had referrer'
the mater to her Majesty's fist criminal law adviser
(Sir Edward Ryan) and other eminent lawyers. Ir
was possible that considerable difficulty had been felt by some
parties at some portions of the Bill. To the former part of i.
considerable objeetion might be entertained, but in the other
he conceived there would be no objection what ,rver. He had,
therefore, determined to divide the Bill into two parts. The
first part related to oaths, which it was necessary for minis-
ters of the Church of England, as well,; as Dissenters
to make on certain occasions. The ottieritelated to cer-
tain disabilities under which some portion ofle'rAlajesty 's sub-
jects at preterit laboured. To the first part no objection what-
ever could be taken, and the other proposed to repeal no less
than thirty Acts of Parliament which imposed disabilities on
persons of the Jewish persuasions. The two first of these Acts
were those of Henry IH. and Edward 1., by which it was de-
creed that persons of that. persuasion could not possess land or
houses for their own dwelling. That Act imposed various re-
strictions and inshgnities—one of them was that badges should
be worn both by males and femal. a, and it described the form
that he had which these should be. He thought, therefaur
athha°t": hfsea t
Bill
taohriluyidt hbaet irteawdaas
second necessary
tintioien.,
pffoei:hdde
brnyeel next point
to which he would allude was the penalties
.h
tchoeulrdeignnotoireQfru.reetkoi
this without alluding to the
form passed
of prayer was established in
of the sth and 6th of Edward VI.,
Elizabeth and Vl.,Chatalre,si.A
which was to be used in different
end
in the
the reign of E
those who did not con
chapels of the kidnwgdomfo.rmCaeordta
jioniopeinnatlhtaietspwraeyreeri.miphoasetipt
prayer
was altered in the several reigns which succeeded. These
/ nalties were afterwards confirmed and others were added.
One of these was, imprisonment of six months for
the first offence, for the second offence one year,
and for the third offence imprisonment for hie.
Tliese penalties were still existing, for they had been continued
by different Acts of Parliament down to the present time. In
the session before the last, their Lot dships repealed them so far
as they related to Roman Cathodes, hut they were still con-
tinued so far as Presbyterian Dissenters were concerned. A
Dissenter, however, escaped from these penalties by taking a
particuLir oath ; but was not this an inconsistency ? Hut their
Lordships must. remember that people of the Jewish persuasion
were always subject to those penalties, for they could not take
the oath to which he had already referred. He hoped their
Lord:4l4ls w °Ilk! think, then, that the 3d of Edward the Sixth
ought to be repealed. Now, then, the second penalty to which
he had referred required every person to attend the service of
the Church in his parish every Sunday, and if he (Id not. he
was liable to be admonisherdwemho(resveeh
otiin
subjectedit.isoensto a penalty. Now
IRuighPt -4Praell'aote, tfoor
Paenada t ehsa;r a ebt eart hea
epnehtearittayir,!hedouitthi ehehsigt
ilia
at
prpe
el:pdeett,e
partieswasdesirous
connected t ir "
at thetth first
Established Church. It was for their Lordships to consider if
any, and what, proceedings had been taken under the powers
of these Arts. It appeared then that fur the last one hundred
and fifty years no proceedings under such statutes had been
taken, and it was now for their Lordships to consider whether
it was necessary to have such a law at all.—(llear, hear.) He
alluded to the first, of Elizabeth ; there was a clause which
enacted that any one acknowledging the supremacy et the see
of Rome, was r.ubject to a penalty of forfeiture of his good,
and property;
for the second offence they were to be further
pi shed, and for the third offence they were to be deemed
godguilty of high treason. . These were monstrous ac 4,
a of
to be repeated. It was true, that
the Act relating to [treason had been repea:ed,
but the others still remained ea the itatute-buok in all their

original force. Flt proposed that. these Acts should be re-
pealed. They applied alone to Roman Catholics and did not
apply to sectarians generally. They all knew the Roman Ca-
tholics of this country, zed it could not be denied, that the
furetamental principles of their religion was to e..eknoeledge
the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in religious matters. It
was preposterous. then, to suppose, that any penalties could be
retained against I:ornan Catholics for holding the ecclesiastical
and spiritual headship of the Pope. But he had heard it in-
timated, not asserted, that opposition world be offered, from a
quarter where he would have least expected it; but it it were
to be so, he conceived that 110 opposition could be more in-
famous, or less maintainable, more utterly hopeless than that
was. This Act was not to prove that ecclesiastical supremacy
which had been over and over again declared by the ancient
Acts of Parliament. Tue words which specified it in the sth
ot Elizabeth were precisely the words used in the first. It had
been stated before, in the same terms, in the sth and 26th of
Henry VIII., and was, he held, an inherent and an inalienable
right in the Crown of these realms. A Right Rev. Prelate,
an ancient friend of his, proposed that the penalties, as far as
related to the ministers of the Established Church, should not
be repealed, with regard to the supremacy. To meet that, he
would propose that these Ministers should still be subject to
the censures of the Church; and would introduce a proviso
that the clause should in ne way atfect the other clauses of the
Bill. He would now come to the statute passed against Popish
recusants, and with regard to that statute he should say that no
one could doubt the propriety of abolishing the penalties whirls
that statute imposed. The next Act of Parliament to which he
referred was the statute of James, which required par Lies to
attend their parish church on the anniversary of what was
called the gunpowder plot, and any person who di-obeyed this
injunction was liable to be indicted for a m'sdemeanour. So
tar as the Roman Catholics were concerned, they had already
passed an Art ef Parliament, relieving them from the provisions
of thi- Act, but they were still applicable to the members of the
Church of England, Dissenters, persons of the Jewish persuasion;
hut he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that this
Act ought to be repealed in respect to them also. The next
Act of Parliament to which he wished to refers prohibited the
introduction into this country of books, and papers, and writ-
nts, from the see of Rome. Any person infringing this Act
of Parliament was guilty of h'gh treason, and was liable to be
tried and executed for that offence. Every body knew the his-
tory of this Bill. Pope Pius the Seventh excommunicated
Queen Elizabeth, and the Bull for this purpose was fixed up to
the palace of the Bishop of London, and upon some place in the
metropolis of France, which excited the indienation of the
monarch of that country. It was under these feelings that the
Act was passed ; and he would tell their Lordships why it
ought to be repealed. Their Lordships had already passed a
law tolerating the performance of the Roman Catholic wor-
ship ; but this could not be done without the clergy and pre-
lates of the Church communicating with the Pope of Rome ;
and it was for this reason, as well as from a know-
ledge that neither Scotland nor Ireland passed a similar
Act that he proposed their Lordships should repeal it.
He now came to the llth and 12th William 111, which were
two of the severest Acts that ever were passed. By these Act,
any person seizing a priest after having pet formed mass, was to
I receive 1001. ; and every young person, on attaining the age
of 15 years, was called upon to take a number of oaths ; and
lie thought their Lordships would have no objection to repeal
an Act of that sort. By the 2,1 of Anne, any person becoming
reconciled to the Church of Rome, or causing another person
to be reconciled to that Church, subjected himself to the
penalties of prccmunire. Their Lordships were aware that
the effect of a pr,munire, was to place a person out of the pro-
tection of the law ; and it had even been debated whether such
a person might not be slain with impunity. He had no heeita-
lion in saying that that Act ought to be repealed. By enother
Act of Parliament, no person could keep a school, ter become
a tutor in a private family, without a licence from
the Bishop or Archbishop of the diocese. By another
Act of Pat liament any person not going to church was subject
to a pecuniary penalty ; and when he was told that these Acts
were obsolete, he could not help rec ;fleeting that within four
or five years fourteen poor labourers hail been convicted under
it, and sent to prison, and were only released after an applica-
tion to their Lordships. By the Ist of Elizabeth,. any person
not going to shut ch, or retusny, to go, was subject to a fine
of 20/. a month during the time of his abstaining from going.
An option was given afterwards to the Crown to seize upon
tlse lands of the recusant ; and in one year the fines amounted
to 39,C001, These penalties also affected a married woman,
and if her husband chose to pay the penalties to liberate her,
she was only then freed from the consequences of
her recusancy. He had now made his statement,
and lie was prepared to give every explanation in his power,
to any Noble Lord that might require it. If any mischief
enuld result from the repeal of these stringent enactments, he
would be sorry to propose their abolition. He had now to con-
clude, by proposing that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord BROUGHAM quite concurred with his Noble and
Learned Friend, that no man could rise in that House and pro-
pose the continuance of these penalties on the statute bk. He
entirely concurred with his Hon and Learned Friendoo on the
Woolsack on this subject. His Noble and Learned Friend had
alluded to the fact of this di-graceful law having been brought
into operation in the year 1541, and he defied the art of man
to point out anything that could more enliven the dormant
snake into a vicious vitality. In that case the worthy magi-. grates could nut forget the unfortunate men for poaching.
But, determined as they were not to allow them to escape,
one of the worthy magistrates cried out, " Oh, but you were
not at church last Sunday.t' " No," said his victims. " Oh,
then," said he, " it's Queen Elizabeth's shilling." They
were therefore fined Queen Elizabeth's shilling, which in value
amounted to one pound eight shelings, and they being labour-
mg men and unable to pay that sum, were committed to
prison for one month. The Act said that we must attend our
own parish church—so that it would not do if we were to attend
any other church—for the words of the Act fixed the place of
worship. Penalties, restricting a man from the exercise of his
religion according to his own faith. penalties, not against the
individual for an act committed against the country, but for
he exercise of a particular faith, for opinions expressed
or for
worship exercised, ought not to be allowed to retrain on the
statute book. But when they proposed to remove penalties
indicted- upon pet sons for introducing into this country the
edicts, the bulls, and decrees of a foreign potentate, who as-
sumed super for jurisdiction in matters eccles astical,
dot alone in his own country, but • over the whole
world, and over the subjects of her Majesty the Queen of
England, lie for one could not agree to such
Roapyrprptlshirotoneppl(whsanhargLo_ If theern Cenh Popeturo(ih senttho! a
se,
:,guitenaulnt
rintoatst
be
yt
Sovereign,
w country,
established,
the
hi
en
sa any way
h. we,
y
fixed that bull up or published it was amenable to the law as
it now stands. But the ingenuity of the Vatican did not
-top there; the Vatica- was too ingenious to make any
such mistake as that. it well knew how to issue its de-
crees through the priest to the congregation, and obt dried
ucli an influence as would very mischievously effect the minds
of the people. He, therefore, saw great difficulties which in-
•iured him to pause before he assented to the repeal of all
these penalties ; for there was not a body of men on the face of
:he earth more slavishly semis ive to the will of a tyrannical
diaster than were the priests of the Roman Catholic Church
,o the Pope's commands. They might laugh at the temporal
power of the Pope, but through the submission of the
Catholfc priests to their Sovereign, the Bishop of
Rome, there was no potentate in the whole world
,nore powerful in spiritual matters than the Pope.
The penalties of pleasnunire and recusancy were absurd
penalties, and they ought not to be allowed to remain on the
stat ute.book. He had only to add, that they could not altogether
dispense with the prohihititins as to precessions. He knew
how offensive these Popish processions weuld prove to the
people ot England, and he considered that they would excite
strong feelings among the inhabitsets of Birmingham and other
'owes. I‘ith regard to bells lie would say nothing, as he did
not think their orthodoxy could be affected by them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated that there was
profeosleridgtihoieunsßtolsimeupal:nristclitihoi2thl:_csrht;gehaerodrhatayod bells. Nothing
rwi hat
respectthe r") nothing, o
tl hhoralsa:
they believed in them.—( Laughter.) The Noble and, Learned
Lord had stated the case for a repeal of this Act in the
clearest
manner-- as he did on every other matter—and he trusted their
Lordships would see the necessity of repeelipte the Act.
The Bishop of LONDON slid 'he hags to address a few
words to their Lordships on the Bill before the House.
He had not gone fully into a comparison of all these statutes,
eccause it required rather a legal than a theological mind to
look properly into them ; hut, after such consideration as he
could give! hem, he had come to the determination not to resist
;he second reading of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The last ques-
rion was, whether those penalties could nst he modified, for it
should be recollected that this cla m of the Pope to supremacy
had never been formally and openly laid aside or renounced.
By that supremacy the Pope claimed the right to exonerate her
Alajesty's subjects from their allegiance. He did not expect
this doctrine would be openly promulgated, because he appre-
hended that thej person proclaiming would subject himself to
the punishments of a seditious Act. He named this, because
he conceived that it would in some degree account for the
apprehension which it had been intimated was entertained by
himself and the friends near him, and because he thought that
this Bill might be going further than his Noble and Learned
Friend apprehended and intended it should do. It should be,
recollected what the circumstances were under which the sth
of Elizabeth was passed. and the fears which were then ascer-
tained. The Commissioners who prepared the Toleration Act,
had expressed their opinion that the clause imposiug penalties
might be modified, but that it should not be altogether abrogated
If the Roman Cat .

ltholie religion was tolerated at all he did not

see how they could continue these penalties He was extremely
glad that some objection had been made by a Noble Lord to
part of the Bill, but he quite concurred that as far at least as
supremacy, it was a political question. He confessed tha!:nel
at tine time wished the assistance of her Majesty's judge;,,, with
regard to these provisions, but after what transpired I%e thought
they would generally concur in removing those dishabilities
from the freedom o! opinion. -
Lord CA AIOYS returned his thanks to the Noble Lord for
Naming introduced such a Bill; and he quite concurred wi'h
him that these °tines penalties should be repealed. He
thought, however, that the laws which Ica-bade Roman Catholics
to present to livings should air, be repealt'd. No evil
could result from Rman Catholics having that
ower, for the clergyman would require to be pre-
viously examined before his presentation to any living.
( The Noble Lord then quitted from Buth•r's edition
of Coke upan Littleton, to
himself
fi wouldltlhs eel
fb Ateoe foundt shet detathihreett, 1
the Roman
(hi:milt
h4r,,,GeorgeC,Prove tht no danger
could result from Roman Catholics having that power.)
awt ha
so ih
liable a.dbi divine,
were examined,
whoe
penaltyall allowed
eoid;
one hundred ponnds. How would this apply to the Right
Rev. Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.
NA,roiiihiebiLstdi,thhuent nreo;idsurt•hhefiAncetshardefeerv,eerdliteae.n inHfleicteeoda.
That Ifight Rev. Prelate was always acknowledged as the
perceive u hat possible purpose such Acts would serve, and he
thought the sooner they were removed from the statute book
the better. It was not the Cathelics alone who sought to
hare these clauses repealed, hut there was a large party.
struggling for the sake of common sense and toleration, who
wialied to see these penalties blotted out of the statute hook.
Id The
Representing, as he did, the Roman Catholics of th, United
Kingdom, he thought be had stated sufficient to induce the
Noble and Learned Lord who sat upon the woolsack, to take
the subject into his serious consideration, and he would leave
it for the good feeling anti tderant spirit of thy Noble Lord to
hereafter adopt the suggestions he had ventured to throw'
out.—( Hear, hear. )
I he Bishop of EXETER wished, after what had falbn from
the Noble Lord who had just sat down, to say a few -words, but
he mould promise not to tietain their Lordships for more than a
few nii,ute-. He did not intend to oppose the Bill which isos
before their Lordships, but notwithstanding what had fallen.
from the Noble Lord u Ins last addressed the House, he c0r..11
not help thinking that these penalties were as justly in;:octe°
upon certain tarties at the time they were enacts-1 as the):
were now justly blotted out of the statute hook. Until that
evening, he thought the day had gone by 'Alen a Noble
Lord would get up and sp ak against an Act of Parliament
which gave himself the right of a seat in, that House, and their
Lordships the benefit of his attend knee d, in speaking of the sare:', Art, said a stranger corning lows._
the moment, and he;,ng what he said, would think I,n,
his,!
nee and advice. The Noble
_t
quoting an Act
-sisarY
leBNlhobli
de'
it ...a.l foolish fur
~erve to be treated as acts of high treason, yet it was nvecenee
_ce
Noble Lord
toaftallBk46ia,
thisiltt
oal
tt r
ai_
beca::.se al hough there wer, some offences which did n
for their Lordships to put up with the incona :_fis.,
of prohibiting these off..nces, by sanctioning ',.'611,..
es "
lative measure which inflicted upon paileiar, hest-)
At them penalties of a trifling character. '..A
t hrilig.' -
At the present moment there was a Bill passing
,_,.... to
the ether House of Parliament, which appeared to a'"'